AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 08-16-23

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of metric community development board. I'll be calling the meeting to order. Let's begin with some of the procedural matters. The hearing of the metric community development board is being conducted via remote means no in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted. but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in chapter 2 of the acts of 2023. A reminder that anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by assessing link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the CF Medford website. If, despite our best efforts, we are not able to provide real-time access, we will post a recording of this meeting on the city's website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the remote nature of this meeting, tonight all votes from the board will be made by roll call. Please know that the project materials for all projects before the board can be viewed on the city's website at medfordma.org and by clicking on current city board filings. Amanda will provide the link in the chat. Roll call attendance.

[Unidentified]: Vice Chair Emily Hedeman? Present. Peter Kaus? Present.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Present. Pam Mariansky? Present. Sally Akiki? Present. Sherrod Bajbachara?

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Present.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. And we wanted to welcome my newest member to the board.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you very much.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We're excited to have you Amanda. Can you please introduce any staff on the phone?

[Amanda Centrella]: Absolutely so just quickly and myself, Amanda central staff planner for the office of planning, development and sustainability. Um, with us, we also have a director of our office, Alicia hunt. As well as senior planner, Danielle Evans, and our graduate intern. Clem do set to set. And that's everybody.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Amanda. The 1st item on our list tonight is a site plan review for 285 to 295, middle 6. known as H. mark is being continued from 8 to 23. As a reminder, this project is a retenting of an existing structure, which was previously a gym at Townline Plaza, and it was a grocery store. While all the board members can discuss the project, only myself, Ari, Emily, and Peter are eligible to vote on this item. I now invite the applicant to present their revised site plan and outline any changes that you'd like to highlight.

[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, great. I remember last time I talked with Amanda and Danielle, my headphones did not work. Let me know if it stops working.

[Unidentified]: I'm going to share my other screen. Can you see HMR.TownlinePlaza? Yes. Yes.

[SPEAKER_02]: So, thank you for having us back before we. As you mentioned, we're back in June to talk about each mark coming to town line Plaza. So we've made some changes. We've done a lot of work with city staff. We heard what the board said. We heard what city staff said, and we're really excited about these changes. Given that it has been a little bit of time, I figured I'd just reorient everybody to the study. This is timeline Plaza outlined in green. with the Medford-Malden City line through. So my favorite joke is it should be called City Line Plaza and not Town Hall. This white line here shows where that is. And then H-Mart is in the southernmost part of the site where Crunch Fitness used to occupy. Crunch relocated in March of 2022 to Broadway Plaza, one of our sister properties. This is zooming in on that area so you can see the MBTA lines, Middlesex Avenue, and again H-Mart outlined in red. As was mentioned, this is a reoccupancy of an existing structure. There is one site change that was previously proposed. Skinning up this island right here to accommodate truck movements. We have since now come back and made more improvements that I will walk through. Site pictures from before, so this is the building, this is approaching from the south. This is approaching the property, you know, if you continue at middle sex tab, or you're approaching from the mall inside Highland. This is where John Burr is was just closed. Once you're within the property, this is the. Building that contains the future age mark down here at the end. Stores with a covered walkway along and a sea of parking. That we are going to improve. And this is looking from the other side of the property, crunch fitness shown here is where H Mart is going. Behind the building, there's some significant parking. This is where the MBTA was staging for some work they previously did.

[Unidentified]: And now I'm going to do our updates.

[SPEAKER_02]: So this is the site plan. Hearing at the last meeting, a lot of comments about the pedestrian connectivity to the property and throughout the property. That's really where we focused our efforts. And then throughout conversations with staff, we've talked through traffic, we talked through making some additional landscape improvements as well. So the landscape is what I will show first. This shows some of the existing landscaping on site in green, the light green here. And then this is showing where we've added some landscaping in the front of the property.

[Unidentified]: I'll zoom in on this.

[SPEAKER_02]: So this is the existing landscaped island that runs through the center of the property. Right here is where H-Mart is going to be going. So we're proposing to add some landscaped islands really along the internal driveway. And then a couple throughout the center of the parking lot as well. And adding pedestrian connection, which I will show on a technical drawing in a minute. This is a previous drawing that we presented in June. That had showed the change to the parking lot here to accommodate truck turns. And then the loading in the rear where we were striping. So it was very minimal changes at the time. And we heard the comments loud and clear about improving pedestrian connectivity, improving landscaping. So this is the updated drawing, which I was in on in a minute, but overview. From the large parking fields behind the building, we have added a pedestrian path that's striped with bollards to protect it. to encourage people to park back here and allow a route from the rear parking to the front entrance of the building. This is the technical drawing showing the landscape improvements that I'll zoom in on in a minute. We have also shown striping added to all the crosswalks at the front of the property. Places where there are not handicap ramps today, we are proposing those. All of the work along the front of the property is not on our land, it's Matthew T's land. So it's subject to their review and approval, but we're going to work with them online. We've shown increased striping throughout. In adding some landscaping through here and adding a new sidewalk, we had to relocate some handicapped spaces, so we've added them proximate to the front entrance of the building. And then these are showing the landscape violence.

[Unidentified]: So I will now zoom. We've also added the bike racks.

[SPEAKER_02]: That was one of the other comments previously. And we will add wayfinding signage to direct both customers and employees that there is more parking behind the building. And we already require employees to park in the rear. We're a little lax on that admittedly right now as part of the property is vacant, but it's something that we will encourage and enforce going forward. As you can see here, we're adding in concrete to get from the existing sidewalk up into our land, then we're striping pedestrian access across. And then we're adding in a brand new sidewalk that goes all the way through the heart of the property. This caused us to lose some parking along here. We had originally shown some one-way spaces, but after reviewing with Director Blake, he had the great suggestion to just keep it entirely parallel parking along here so it's not confusing for the customer. With doing that, we were actually able to widen the landscaping through here a little bit. So we picked up some additional landscaping here. We've added trees, and we've added trees where we could throughout. So there's trees added here. Places where the landscaping was not quite wide enough, we're going to add shrubs and bushes. And then throughout, we're going to improve the ground covering here, so it won't just be mulch. We'll add some more taller grasses and things like that that are hardy, but add visual relief. You can see some added striping. This is showing more detail on the crosswalks And then the bike racks on the sidewalk.

[Unidentified]: This is the landscape island that has always been proposed to be shifted. This is just showing the landscaping in more detail. And you can see here the bollards that are along the pedestrian walkway.

[SPEAKER_02]: And because I'm extremely visible, my colleague, Vanessa Gonzalez, helped put together these images. So if you're at the property, you can kind of see where the greenscape is going. So we're adding a landscaped island in the middle, out front of Omni Dentist, California. This shows one of the areas that's striped today that we're gonna convert to landscaping. This is my favorite. This is showing where the concrete walk is being added. So this will be a sidewalk that runs all the way Basically along this landscape island, it jogs slightly because in order to keep the parallel parking, which is going to be throughout here, there's parallel existing today, and then it's perpendicular. This is going to be entirely parallel. We've added landscaping between where we had to make some jogs, but then we kept it as tight to the left as we could so that we could really add any additional landscaping here. Obviously, the larger the landscaping, the better the planting material will do. So we're almost doubling the width towards the top. And then today there's not landscaping at the top of the island, and we're going to add that at the top and the bottom as well. This is that view of we've walked through and you're looking back. So, showing the increased landscaping with along here. Dark gray is where the pedestrian sidewalk will be. And then the landscaping at the ends fixing this kind of funky design right here. These spaces were shown as handicapped, so these are the ones that were relocating to the side of the building as well.

[Unidentified]: And this shows the other islands being converted from striped to landscaping.

[SPEAKER_02]: The technical drawings, if anybody has questions later. And then the truck route that the truck will navigate through the property that showed You know, once we've relocated this island and mentioned up a little bit with the loss of 1 space, the truck will be able to maneuver on the site. So, that shows all of our improvements. We're really excited about this and we hope that the board as well and would love to talk to her any questions or comments.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you so much for your presentation. I can definitely appreciate. You discussing and bring in some of the board and staff's concerns. We got a pedestrian and vehicle. Connected pedestrian connectivity and vehicle circulation, so thank you for that. But before we deliberate with the board, I'm going to actually open it up to. The public. I'm going to well, actually, I will ask the city staff if there's any questions there, if there's any comments from the staff.

[Amanda Centrella]: I don't think I have anything. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Danielle.

[Danielle Evans]: Madam chair in our staff memo, we incorporated some conditions that don't appear on the plans. It seems the engineering department, a city engineer is requiring that all heaved and cracked. Sidewalk panels be replaced. Um, that's not reflected on the plans here and I want to make sure that the applicant is aware of that condition.

[SPEAKER_02]: So, thank you, Danielle. So both the heat and crack sidewalks, which I believe we're on middle sex staff. Um. And the crosswalks here, when we reviewed with staff previously, we had shown striping, we didn't pick up that they wanted to add the concrete. We are willing to do that on the 2 Medford entrances. And then, in terms of the heaved and cross sidewalks, the ones that we saw were actually where the ramps will be added for the parking spaces. So those will be updated as part of this project. We're happy with those conditions. The only thing we just request being changed is that it says subject to math approval. Because it's not our land, so we can't guarantee that we can do it. We're willing to do what we want to do. We just have to work with them on it.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And as far as. You had mentioned that you were going to add. Native plants, such as shrubs, can you go into detail a little bit more outside of the new shade trees that. that you planned on adding? I didn't I didn't catch anything outside of shrubs.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I want to provide detail. We are going to work with city staff on making sure they're native plants. We've had some struggles here on property with the plants surviving. We've been told that the plants that have been installed at Wegmans actually have done a really good job. So it's something that we had talked with Amanda and Danielle about getting a list of plants from staff. incorporating those. They're not shown on the plans right now, because it's something we're doing throughout the property, but they will be native plants, and they will be coordinated with the staff, which I think was also one of the conditions.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, prior to the final selection, you would need to coordinate it with the city staff. I'm sorry, Danielle, did you want to highlight anything else?

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, I just wanted to add that I did reach out to our, to Aggie Tootin, who is the tree warden in the, I think that's her title, or the director of forestry. She had been out on an extended leave, so wasn't able to respond to my request to weigh in on native plantings, but once they're at the stage of selecting plants, I'll be sure to have some recommendations. So we weren't able to have any at this time.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you. And then there was parking demand to reduce the cruising for parking. Are you able to mandate that the employees park in the rear as suggested previously?

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes, it's included in all of our tenant leases that they need to park where we tell them. We have the opportunity to change that as the property sees fit. So we will be mandating that they park in the rear.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And so they're popular, you'll still leave it open of like. Wayfinding signs for the actual customers to realize that there's parking back there too.

[Libby Brown]: Exactly. Yes. Okay. So.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm still sharing the screen, right? So this parking back here will be encouraged for employees, but it won't. Customers will also be allowed to park in the back as well. So the signage will. Be added along the front saying additional parking behind the space.

[Unidentified]: We still need to design that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Also, thank you very much for answering that. There was a question whether or not that there was an existing connection to the state's MWRA connection. Do you anticipate there being any problem with that process if it's not?

[SPEAKER_02]: We don't anticipate that, but we do understand that if there's a change in what's shown, we'll need to re-review with either staff or the board at that time.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Are there any other questions from city staff or from the board at this point? I'll open it up to the board if none from the city.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: I've got a question. Have you done a turning movement study for the crux on this in this location? My worry is since you have been adding some landscaping there, especially the one On the bar, like, the new 1 that you just added landscaping added to be redesigned. I feel like the truck's going to run over that and create a big patch. Like, is there a turning moving study of some sort?

[SPEAKER_02]: So, we did trucks entering and leaving the property and that was actually the 1 item island that we had shown originally moved because. The truck was clipping the island. And so that's why we are previously proposing to just shift that 1 portion of the island up. All the improvements that we're making are not in areas that were impacted by the truck movement. So we felt really great about that. We were initially concerned about spaces with the additional islands. So we had to relocate some of them. To see down here in order to add, but they're not in areas that were impacted by the truck.

[Unidentified]: Also, this is something that.

[Emily Hedeman]: I have a few questions unless you had more charade.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: No, please go for sure.

[Emily Hedeman]: Catherine, I really appreciate the approach that your team has taken with the crosswalks, the landscaping, the additional islands. I think that's just what we were looking for with some of the suggestions. So, I really appreciate that. I see that you guys relocated the accessible spaces to the side of the building. What sort of lighting is at that corner? Because I can just see, like, you know, thinking of myself as an employee running late for work, you know, speeding around that corner, or, you know, a truck driver trying to make delivery times, or, you know, a customer trying to get, you know, that one last dinner ingredient, and moving fairly quickly, you know, over that crosswalk. I don't know if there's a way to add additional lighting or potentially raise the crosswalk, or if that's even in our scope of stuff we're allowed to ask for, but just want to throw some attention on that shift with the crosswalk and the space movement.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, happy to talk through a couple of things. There's no special lighting thing over here, but this is the entrance way, which is a glass vestibule, so that actually provides a little bit more ambient light in the area. This is a covered walkway. If we are noticing that there's an issue, we can add a building light in this side, but we'd of course want to make sure it's not casting too much light onto the neighbors or things like that. The front parking lot has lighting as does the back parking lot have overhead lights. This will also be fully striped, and so the entire area will be the white striping that stands out a little bit more, as well this area along here. I wouldn't want to do a raised crosswalk in this area because Of the trucks, um, you know, deliveries will be usually off hours and, you know, there'll be a lot of activity. And so it can just cause a little bit of wear and tear on that. And we are also keeping some parking ADA parking in the front of the space. So it was just the two that were actually further away from the store. Um, that were previously right here. Um, we have existing ones here, here and down here. So they're kind of evenly spread out. There's now a higher concentration towards the store. Okay, but I do want to just also ensure everything that's shown is grayed out will be striped to the same level. This is just showing existing versions proposed. So, you know, making sure that all these crosswalks are striped and like a really visible white paint to provide pedestrian safety.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's really helpful. Thanks for pointing out the spots that are staying. I must have overlooked those. So I appreciate your responses.

[SPEAKER_02]: They're not as in your face.

[Emily Hedeman]: That's why we ask the questions.

[SPEAKER_02]: Did I answer everything? Sorry. I know you had a couple of questions.

[Emily Hedeman]: That was it. Yeah.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Any other questions from board members?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I actually have a final question. I wasn't sure if there was going to be a food court of some sort that was proposed inside of the store.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes, I'm sorry, my previous presentation had store pictures from inside the store, and I can send that over after. But yes, I believe they have a food court inside the store, like their other locations.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So can you just reiterate your trash and litter mitigation for the site, especially for this having a food court?

[SPEAKER_02]: Sure, so they've added additional dumpsters in the rear. And as a food operator, both this grocery store and then somebody that, you know, quasi restaurant, There's additional state requirements in terms of food waste. So that's why there's a lot more dumpsters in this area. Previously, there was only one dumpster that serviced this entire building. Other tenants have their own individual dumpsters as well. So these ones that are shown are entirely for HMR. And they'll work. I know there were a bunch of comments from the Board of Health. Those will all be coordinated through the building permit process because their permit drawings show a lot more detail.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you for answering.

[Unidentified]: If I thank you.

[Ari Fishman]: If I may follow up on that, I appreciate the answer about the dumpster. Can you also speak a little bit about humor and food court? Patrons who might be coming and kind of as they're walking out to their cars are kind of eating outside. Can you talk about. Trash mitigation in the parking area and sidewalks.

[SPEAKER_02]: So, we have a couple existing what I call pedestrian trash cans. So, obviously, like, for people walking by. Scattered throughout the sidewalk, there is a fair amount of trash on site today. So we do anticipate adding. one to two more trash cans as needed. I think it's going to be very popular so it wouldn't surprise me if it's two. It's one of the things there is some existing and so we kind of see we have day porters that are there every single day emptying the trash and they're on top of it both throughout the parking lot and along the sidewalk. And so we have some there today and we anticipate adding more as needed and something we want to stay on top of it as well too because we know customers don't want to come to a dirty property either.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: If there are no other comments from the board, I will now open it up to the public. I skipped ahead a little bit earlier. And I'll open up the public comment period. by stating that 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. A reminder to all meeting participants to please refrain from using the chat function to provide Comments is, it is not part of the public record. However, if a participant is having audio or other technical difficulties, this may be entered into the chat to alert myself and staff. Amanda, can you please manage the public comment queue and read any previously sent emails or letters?

[Amanda Centrella]: Absolutely, so we didn't have any previously received comments or letters. I am refreshing our inbox now. And just a reminder folks can use the raise hand feature, or if you're having trouble finding that you can use the chat function just to identify yourself. So I'll give folks maybe a minute or 2 just to respond to that while I check the email.

[Unidentified]: Okay, so no new emails.

[Amanda Centrella]: And I'm not seeing any hands or messages in the chat. I'm just going to scan skim through and see if anybody sort of waving their hands on the screen or anything like that. But I think we're good.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Thank you, Amanda. Okay, so I'm going to close the public comment period and we're going to go back to board deliberation. So there has been This is where we decide whether or not we are going to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. I want to test the board and just see where you wanted to start off with any conditions. I can name a few that I know that we will need to go over, but does anyone have anything to add or any questions that they want to cover at this time? So any clarifying questions that they want from Ms.

[Unidentified]: Weatherby?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Right, let's let's discuss some conditions and see if we can actually get this going so that we can possibly get to an approval. If that's okay with the board to see if we can. pretty much deliberate on that for one. Um, there was some new, uh, in addition to the shade trees that the proponent has showed us, there was a discussion of some native plantings to make sure that, um, the parking lot would be, um, that the heat island effect would be reduced off the parking lot, um, within previous materials. And the proponent has already said that they will be working with, um, city staff, uh, to determine final selection of that. That would be a condition I would impose.

[Emily Hedeman]: A quick question, Jackie. Yes, we got too many conditions. Okay, I mean, it just answered me. I just want to confirm who was drafting the conditions.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Oh, yes. I so I apologize. Usually Amanda acting in the realm of clerk. As of right now, Amanda, I just want to clarify that you are going along with our are you recording our conditions?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, yes, so I took some notes from previous meeting the previous meeting and also in in this case as well, although I feel like most of them are actually captured by PDS staff had drafted a couple of conditions that were put in the most recent revised memo, which, of course, not obligated to take up, but as a point of reference for you all.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes and so to clarify on my end, I'm reading what the PDS staff has provided us with and I want to see how the board feels about these conditions and if you want to adopt them to go forward for approval. And the first one would be in addition to the new shade trees, we're talking about native planning such as the flowering shrubs that Ms. Weatherby has already discussed. If the board is OK with that approval. Yeah, but with that conditions.

[Danielle Evans]: You need me to send those to Emily to have in front of you or I think they're in the folder, right? Yeah, it's in the yeah, yeah.

[Libby Brown]: My screen would be helpful for you to put them on screen or actually have them if you want me to put them on screen.

[Unidentified]: Sure, that would be helpful to have visual enough. Oh, I don't have the permission, sorry.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I'll just go through. And as discussed, in order to meet customer parking demand and reduce cruising for the parking behavior, which creates congestion and reduces pedestrian safety, employees and staff will be required to park in the rear parking lot, as well as wayfinding signs be provided to make customers aware of the availability of the rear parking.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, that one makes sense to me.

[Emily Hedeman]: It sounds like the applicant is already willing to do that.

[Unidentified]: Yeah, agreed. And.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And, of course, the proposal will comply with the requirements of the fire chief's memo dated 6 to. During the original 6 to 2023 from the department. Yes, and we also confirmed that the drive aisles all meet the requirements too. And in accordance with the city engineering comments and their memo dated 6-2-2023, the heaved and cracked panels of the sidewalk along Meadow Avenue must be replaced in conformance with city standards.

[SPEAKER_02]: So that one and the next one were just, were requested adding, um, subject to mass DOT review and approval as it's their land. Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: And that should be Middlesex. I think I cut and paste his comments.

[Unidentified]: Middlesex, yes.

[Danielle Evans]: That doesn't get caught in spellcheck.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And this is for public purposes. I'll read out. In accordance with the city engineering comments in their memo dated 6-2-2023, driveway apron must be reconstructed to ensure conformance with MAAB regulations, particularly in regard to cross slopes, widths, and accessible paths. The accessible walkway, which is a sidewalk, should cross the apron via Portland cement concrete panels. And then the final one that we had was just to ensure that trash and litigation for the site. Especially with there being a full court, and you said you would work with the board of health on that.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so just to clarify that there's 2 items with that kind of works with the board of health on all their internal and their personal use. We provide locations on site where they can do it, and then they have to dispose of their own waste. They generate inside and anything with loading and service. And then we, as the landlord, will handle the pedestrian trash, all the on-site cleanup. Just wanted to make that clear.

[Unidentified]: Both parties are willing to do it, but administered in two different ways.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, you'll just work with the board of health on appropriate trash and mitigation for those items. Does the support have any other. For 1, do we accept all these conditions as is, or does the board have anything to add. Or subtract if none.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'll make a motion to approve the conditions as stated.

[Unidentified]: Is there a second?

[Ari Fishman]: I'll second it with the kind of addition of the in collaboration with MassDOT. Yep.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, and that would be part of one of the conditions. Or actually two, so that's all encompassing. So the site I am So, a roll call for acceptance of the site plan site plan approval with conditions as stated. I'll do a roll call vice chair Emily. Hi. Peter cows.

[Unidentified]: Peter, you're on mute.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Hi. Fishman.

[Ari Fishman]: eye with a lot of excitement for future shopping.

[Amanda Centrella]: And Marijansky?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Amanda Centrella]: Oh, sorry to interrupt. Um, apologies, Chair. I think the only eligible members to vote are Ari, yourself, Emily and Peter.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, that's right. And I actually said that at the beginning, and I'm so used to doing roll call. I apologize. We're going to go back. New board members are not eligible because you were not part of the board at the time that the public hearing was opened. So we are going to go back and start over.

[Alicia Hunt]: Just for clarity, vice chair, you need to you just everybody voted yes, right? I so Jackie did not. So yeah, I was only the ones that are eligible. You just count those votes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: You count those votes?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And then we'll call because it's remote. So just for clarity, I will go back vice chair Emily Hederman. I Peter cows.

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman?

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson, say aye. Your site plan has been approved with the conditions as stated. Ms. Wetherby, thank you so much for your presentation and for your time here. Thank you very much.

[SPEAKER_02]: We appreciate it. We're excited to bring H-Mart as well.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: We're excited to have you. Well, to have H-Mart. Thank you. Have a great night, everyone. You too, bye-bye. Okay, so the next item on the list tonight is special permit for 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, which is Bank of America. It was continued from 7-19-23. The applicant is in the processes of revising the plan documents for the board's review and has requested a continuance. I'd like to entertain a motion to continue this item to the next board meeting, which is a date certain on 9-6-23. A 2nd 2nd. Roll call vice chair and we had a man. I Peter cows. I. Are you fishermen. I. Pam Mary asking I. Sally, a key key. I sure I watched her. And myself, Jackie mcpherson's I. So it's been moved to 9623. And our next item on the list is petition referred from city council for zoning ordinance amendments, which has continued from 8 to 23. I'm going to invite Danielle Evans, which is senior planner for the city to present any changes to the amendment to the board.

[Unidentified]: Thank you. Let me find.

[Danielle Evans]: Sorry, Teresa's headphones were talking. corner of the room.

[Unidentified]: Did you all have a chance to look at the revised staff report?

[Emily Hedeman]: I did, but I unfortunately did not have a chance to watch the video, so I don't believe I'm eligible to decide on this. Is that correct?

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, have you been keeping track of what we saw was the last meeting was when the public hearing was opened. So everyone who was at that meeting. Unless. Someone listened and attested to having read them or watch the meeting, so I think Peter. Peter, were you able to?

[Peter Calves]: The only thing I knew I needed to watch and attest to was the H1 OK.

[Amanda Centrella]: Okay, so then in that case, Peter and Emily, it sounds like you can be part of discourse, but not eligible to vote on this item. And Sherrod as well, you weren't part of the board quite yet when this was opened, so able to be part of discourse, but not eligible to vote on this item.

[Emily Hedeman]: Thanks for clarifying Amanda.

[Unidentified]: Sorry, why me?

[Alicia Hunt]: So while you're getting the document open, the background here for everybody and for any members of the public who are watching tonight is that the city council had some changes they wanted to make to the table of use and parking regulations around particularly motor vehicle uses. in a particular district, and they asked, they were aware that from the zoning recodification, there were a number of other changes that we were recommending that are generally minor in nature, some of which are actually One is an unintended consequence. A few are some clarifications. One is a correction that does not fall in the realm of Scrivener's error, although you could argue it. And so they asked us to put together a list and a packet of changes that are not wholesale, let's change up all of Medford zoning. That is the plan moving forward. We're looking to hire a consultant to do that, but rather, I would sort of say administrative changes that are straightforward and easy for people to understand overall. And so we did, we, as staff, and we provided those to the Councilors who reviewed them, agreed that, yes, they would like to be the proponent on those. So these were officially put on the city council agenda by Councilor Bears and Councilor Caraviello. And then they are legally referred to the CD board So they must refer them to this board for public hearing and comment. You make recommendations to the city council, and then they have a public hearing on it and they vote on the changes. So over the course of that, we have also, this was a public hearing that opened at the last meeting. And we have also since then sent these to legal counsel for the city. They had some language changes on some of them. Mostly they work with us on the form of things to make sure they're presented correctly. And so we've incorporated all of that. And then, so Danielle, did you get the document open? Did you want to present the changes tonight from what? Yeah, I can be clear that the board can make any recommendations on these they want. When we give a memo to the council, what we're going to say is, this one that you sent us, we agree with. This one that you sent us, we recommend these changes. And then they may or may not take the changes that come out of this board.

[Danielle Evans]: So I'm sharing my screen so it's easier to follow along. And again, this is in the packet. Um, under the. Immediate zoning changes, I think is what we've been calling it also pre phase 2 changes. So. These are the motor vehicle related uses that originated in city council. Basically, let's see, let's just changing some of these wise, you know, by right to. Special permit and city council elected to make themselves the special permit granting authority. Alicia, did you mention if we should be.

[Alicia Hunt]: On on that 1, I would say that I've discussed with some of the Councilors who should be the special permit granting authority. And it's actually unusual that a city council's a special permit granting authority that's sort of historic, how it has always been here in Medford. But it's a better practice to have the planning board, be the special permit granting authority because you would be looking at the comprehensive plan and planning considerations, and you all are not elected, so you don't have to do things based on whether or not you're going to get voted or voted out of office for making those decisions. So if you were amenable, our recommendation from the office is actually to change these from being, and we would stick to the one column that they're already addressing, which is the C2 zone. and to recommend that instead of making, because they're changing the yeses to special permit and special permit city council, if you all wanted to make that special permit CD board as a recommendation, they would be open to hearing that, so.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is this the one related to keeping certain uses off of places like Mystic Avenue, correct?

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so this particularly, these changes they put forward are the C2 district, which is Mystic Ave. That is, everybody knows Mystic Ave, or do I need to be more clear about that? Sorry.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So to me, just quickly, it does make sense that the planning board, as Daniel has already outlined, and yourself has already outlined, Lucia, that we see things more holistically with the city's vision. I guess it comes to one of those things where I feel like it should be an elected board that is special from a granting agency, but I mean, authority, but If you're saying that you want, I can definitely see what you mean. I guess I had some hesitations before because it almost looked like we were trying to keep certain uses out on purpose. But if it's because you want it to be looked at more holistically, I just wanted to clarify that with the board that it just, as you said, it makes sense that we're actually looking at it at the city's vision.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right well, for example, they're not planners, they could be any experience and on the board we tend to have planners engineers transportation experts, you know, land use people architects people who understand. how different uses interact with each other, what are the impacts of traffic and stuff. And elected officials could have any background at all. And what they know is who's yelling loudest at them. And when you're making a decision about what is an appropriate use, is it really the people who are living next door to it who should decide or a bigger view of the community? And for example, there are people who are objecting to a multifamily building that is a block from the new train station because they're used to their neighborhood, they like it the way it is and they don't want a denser neighborhood. But it's a block from a new train station, right? And that's a really appropriate use and we need to be increasing density around train stations. So if you were to leave a decision like that to an elected board, they might bow to like, Oh, the people who've lived there don't like it, right? That's where, and I will say in this case, yes, last night, actually, they voted to approve that, but that's the sort of the risk, and that's why looking at it, and you never wanna look at who are the actual individuals on a city council or a zoning board or a planning board at this moment. When we make changes to zoning, even though we know that we're planning to rezone in the next year or two, you need to think about if this is the way it's going to be for the next 20 or 30 years, we're not thinking about who is on the board now, but who's going to be on the board in 8, 10, 15 years from now.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And who's obligated to get the city's highest and best use for a site, right?

[Ari Fishman]: I would be inclined to support the motion to switch it to be the planning board. I can imagine in 10 years it being this one exception where all permits are with the planning department except for motor vehicles and that's like an unnecessary bit of absurdity. even if we understand where it's coming from now, that feels like it should be compatible with other decisions.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes. Same.

[Peter Calves]: Yes. Also, as a traffic engineer who's worked in private development, it was kind of a surprise for me to come to this board and see exactly how much approval the city council needs to have when in most municipalities where I've worked, it already is the planning board that makes most decisions.

[Danielle Evans]: that was also one of the things that surprised me the most when I came to Medford was, well, what does the licensing commission do? And what does a planning board do? Because all the powers seem to, for those decisions seem to rest in city council. And I know there's, you know, all this talk about charter review and who has power, who doesn't. But I think if folks haven't seen how it works elsewhere, what is normal, then they don't realize that For it's an outlier in this respect.

[Emily Hedeman]: So, yeah, I'm building off that point, Danielle, I think, regardless of who is doing the deciding, you know, the, the city council, you know, is. Influential to our. to our codes, as you can see here with these changes. So as long as we, the Community Development Board, are implementing the codes and reviewing per our jurisdiction, then we're just kind of following their direction. So yeah, I think it makes sense, but I'm not able to vote, but I agree with what you guys are saying.

[Danielle Evans]: So in addition to these, so this came from city council and our office, while we're at it, it's not just car sales lots that are banging down the door. I also get lots of calls from warehouses and self-storage and other undesirable uses that are getting kicked out of, some of our neighboring communities, like they're coming from Cambridge and Somerville or Arlington, they're looking for new homes and they're coming to Medford because we allow them by right. And so until we're able to redraw our boundaries and decide where some of these issues could go by right, I think that an extra layer, you know, it's this discretionary review is warranted. So for So parking area or garage, you're not accessory to a permitted principal use. So basically like the parking lots along Mystic Ave that are rented out for school bus storage, that kind of stuff's by right right now. I don't think we want more parking lots to store school buses. So I think that should be at least a special permit to say, is this spot an appropriate location? So we switch those from yeses, which are by right to the CD board across the board for that. And then. Also added to the wholesale transportation, industrial uses added a few more to be special permits in those cases, I think most of these. We flipped to board of appeals to be consistent with what Board is already providing that relief. Let's see, the fuel and ice sales switch from by right to needing a special permit in the C2, then warehouse, wholesale, establishment, and mini or self-storage warehouse. We have a lot of self-storage, a lot in Medford. I was joking around that at some point I want to do a study of how many self-storage facilities we have per capita in Medford compared to our budding communities, because I guarantee we have more. So I think that those should not be something that can just come in by right, but a special permit, if it's an appropriate use for the location. And so those would be going to board of appeals, unless anyone has any. Opinion on whether it shouldn't be them. And I was just trying to be consistent with. Who was the for this use category in general. And then for accessory uses the only 1 in here that we that I switched. Was open storage. Change that to not being by right to being the community development board because right now it's. A lot by right and we see 2 and I don't think we need. Open storage being able to go wherever they want. So, those were the changes that. Does anybody have any questions about the additional uses that we added? Basically, we were going by, you know, the comprehensive plan was our guiding document for which uses are what we're trying to see in Medford, in certain areas of the city, and what those areas of the city are currently zoned, and then making the changes based on that. So it wasn't like an arbitrary, we're just gonna flip this slide to a CD special permit. It was, there was a process that we went through to come up with that.

[Unidentified]: Should I move on? Yes.

[Danielle Evans]: And so the second one is multiple principal structures on a lot in the most recent recodification. It was changed to not allow multiple principal dwellings structures anywhere except the mixed use zone, and that caused a lot of unintended consequences. Some of the shopping centers are now non-conforming, and the housing authority properties are non-conforming. They're in the middle of trying to rehabilitate their projects and all of a sudden, what they wanted to do wasn't allowed anymore to have multiple principal structures. We want to rectify that. make that something that is allowed everywhere in the city, in any zone, except in the two single-family zones, the SF1 and SF2, along with the general residential zoning district, except by special permit. Because depending on the circumstances of the lot, it might be completely appropriate to have two principal structures rather than one massive structure. It'll be very context, specific, so by special permit will allow that to be evaluated. And that special permit would rest with the community board.

[Emily Hedeman]: By definition, an accessory dwelling unit, an ADU, is not considered a principal structure, correct? Okay, great.

[Danielle Evans]: And then the third was the second associate member for the Board of Appeals and to clarify the length of the term. We modified this slightly from what you saw at the last public hearing to update the form to make it more clear per legal counsel. The point of this is to stagger the terms so one member shall expire each year and to allow the two associate members. and the correcting the unintended additional referrals to the CDB. During the recodification, the findings, so the section six findings under chapter 48, they hadn't been classified as special permits in the last ordinance, so they were just going to the zoning board for non-conforming structures and uses to modify them. But in the most in the recent recodification, they were called special permits and we have requirements in the ordinance that say that all special permits have to be referred to the city board. And I don't think that was the intention. These are very minor. Minor things that. Shouldn't require referral, but it wouldn't preclude them. So, if the. City council feels really wanted. the city board to weigh in than they could. There's nothing that stops them from doing it, but they wouldn't be required, which would be what the process was before the recodification. It was one of the situations of an unintended consequence. We specify special permits as required by the table of use and parking regulations. And then number five, I think I'm going to skip over this because this is more complicated and will require some more discussion. So I'll get to that at the end. For number six is updating the inclusionary housing provisions. Right now, there's provisions that requires a special permit to provide the inclusionary housing, which doesn't make sense. Some cities and towns have this, but many that I worked in have not. It's something that you need to comply with. So I think it's unnecessary because of all projects that trigger inclusionary zoning are subject to site plan review. So they are reviewed and there can be conditions and there's oversight. And also for 3A zoning, we cannot have special permits in there. And currently our inclusionary housing ordinance is being studied, having an economic feasibility analysis done on it to make sure that we can use it. And if there's anything in there saying special permits are required, then that will complicate the rezoning for 3A. So basically this just goes through, you know, deleting mentions of needing special permits. Switching DHCD to executive office of housing, livable communities to reflect the new name change. Adding site plan review authority. One thing that I did add was that regarding the provisions is that the number of bedrooms of the affordable unit shall be proportionate to that of the market rate units. That wasn't expressly called out. So I would strongly suggest and pseudo require developers do that, but there's nothing in the ordinance that actually said that. So I wanted to make it quite obvious because when it was getting time to get the affordable units approved and submitted to the state, I would get floor plans to look at, and it'd be like the one bedrooms, and it's like none of the two bedrooms or three bedrooms, like, well, you can't do that. It had the percentage of units, but they weren't, with the bedroom counts, that they weren't proportionate in that way. I think that's a great change to now expressly call that out.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Daniel, I don't want to cut you off, but if you had referred to 3 a, and I don't know if you wanted to just just for public purposes at this point. Sort of explain that 3 is related to the multi house and actor. There's only that.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, and I'll also have, I believe you put an agenda item on this. of an update of the city's process. But yes, for the public listening, chapter 40A has a new section 3A that was passed by the state legislature and regulations or guidelines were put out by DHCD, now EOHLC, of how to implement those. And that was that multifamily housing must be allowed by right within a half a mile of transit stations or MBTA communities. And we are an MBTA community, specifically a rapid transit community. So we have the quickest timeline to get this done. So we wanna make sure that we're not passing zoning that wouldn't comply. And it seemed like an opportune time to fix that.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Having inclusionary housing previously by special meant, which is didn't pretty much make sense. This is meant should be mandatory for the that's just that would be in conflict with the rule, correct? Yeah.

[Danielle Evans]: And then, yeah, so basically, that just, you know, just cleans it up. It's all the strikeout is about. a special permit. And then just kind of wordsmithing it. And this is, as I said before, everywhere in the document, switching DHCD to EOHLC, as we have been directed to. And then the definitions that were in the individual sections were, the intention was for them to have been moved to a Complete definition section, but they got dropped and they were never added. And we want to restore them back to their individual sections. Because it's actually when they're. When they're read outside of the individual section for which they're. Applied to, I think it introduces confusion and. a lot of the definition sections actually are pretty important and aren't necessarily like specific as like a condition, but telling you like who's the SPGA for this for this section. And so until we can do a comprehensive audit of all our definitions, I think it's best not to move them and to put them back. And so that was like the affordability All of the inclusionary housing definitions got dropped, which are all of these, which are really important when understanding what the requirements are of that section, rather than having to flip all the way to the end of the ordinance to read them. Reinserting the language for linkage, so all of the linkage definitions, putting those back in, So the parks and recreation, police and fire, roads and traffic, and water and sewer facilities linkage definitions were dropped. And then, so those are all, pardon my scrolling. The adult use marijuana establishment definitions, those were dropped. So we'll put those, I don't have them listed here because I don't think I actually had them handy. And then the solar energy definitions also got dropped. And I believe signage, which I don't think I even have a copy of, but it would be the old signage definitions putting them back.

[Alicia Hunt]: Danielle, can I interrupt for one second? I just want to make a technical, not any disagreement with Danielle, I want to make a technical clarification to the board. So what's here in front of us is what the council had on their list to make changes. So all of this is deleted from the zoning. It's not like, oh, we're not moving them out of the end area. When the recodification happened, they forgot to put them into the end. So they're literally not anywhere in our zoning right now. and we're basically bringing them back out. The city council sent us this list. However, the adult use marijuana and the signs ones are also missing. So the recommendation from the CD board would be, yes, we agree, put those back in where they belong in the zoning and also put in the marijuana definitions and the sign definitions. And we're not making any recommendation of changing those definitions, just from the old ordinances to bring them back. And you can actually see if you were to go to our current zoning right now, the marijuana section and the sign section both say definitions, see definition section 12.0 at the end, but there are no marijuana definitions in there and there are no sign definitions in that section. So that would actually, the recommendation from the city board would be, in addition to the ones you, the city council, are saying you wanna put back, you should also put back these others.

[Danielle Evans]: Any questions on any of that before we talk about number five?

[Ari Fishman]: That was a very cool clarification, Alicia. That certainly makes a very strong case for it.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. Like, yeah, it was very funny. I had one of our developers was like, Alicia, we're trying to comply with your solar ordinance, but there are no solar definitions. And we went to the old version of the ordinance and there are definitions. Should we use those definitions? And I was like, oh my God.

[Danielle Evans]: And now the old ordinance isn't on Unicode anymore, which was my cheat to see was between the two. It's not there anymore. So you can't even refer people to that. I just have a really, really old paper-bound copy that's been photocopied a gazillion times.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah.

[Danielle Evans]: So it's not ideal. Yes, so regarding number five, which is clarifying and de-conflicting which authority is the SPGA when there are multiple forms of relief. We had the majority of this language, I think, was reviewed by legal counsel. There's some cans of worms that can be opened. So I'm just, I don't know if we can sever those three sections. I don't, did we ever get an opinion? Are we, are we permitted to do that? Or are we.

[Alicia Hunt]: What do you mean by sever? So like in, in approving the. Yeah. So what will frequently happen in the city councils, they'll have a motion. within this case, what is it like eight portion, eight parts, right? They're numbered one through eight. And so they'll move to sever and then they'll approve items one, three and six and they'll table two and four and they'll deny seven, right? So if, or they may say there are eight things in here, we love all eight of them and they approve the whole thing in one vote. So is that what you're asking about?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, because we don't have this specific

[Alicia Hunt]: So we could advise them that our recommendation is that they sever the items and that they do not approve item five because we do not have appropriate language for them to vote on, but we recommend approving the other seven items.

[Danielle Evans]: But I was wondering if we could even get more, drill down even more because it was, a lot of it was, let's see, If I see, do I have to switch screens? Like, which screen do you guys see now? Do you see an ordinance or do you see the file still?

[Alicia Hunt]: We still see the file.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. So part of it, so the way the language that they had on there, actually, I just want to open up the version that the council sent to us. City Council paper zoning changes. So one of the things that we're gonna ask Clem, hey surprise Clem, we're gonna ask you to do is to write up like the recommendations are gonna be looking at what the council sent us and then what is it that we're recommending, what's different. What they sent us is this proposed amendment, amend the language throughout the ordinance, reflect the site plan review authority, blah, blah, blah. We need to recommend back to them an actual language for them to adopt. The paragraph that's on their motion is not a legally accurate thing. They need to say, replace this language with that language. or replace this paragraph with that paragraph or these items?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so when we were basically that, you know, to de-conflict, you know, to implement that amendment to the whole ordinance required going through all of this and making some changes, so what I did was change, you know, instances where they specifically called out a board to rather switch it to SPGA, so Special Permit Granting Authority or Site Plan Review Authority. And pardon my scrolling, I'm just trying to go to where this track changes. I know I can make people dizzy.

[Unidentified]: So the three sections which

[Danielle Evans]: need some more consideration are these provisions for so 6.1.10, which is this special permit. So the way it was written now was the SPGA or Community Development Board. It says as the case may be made by special permit or site plan review, you know, reduce away the requirements. Well, that was confusing because the CD board could be the SPGA, so it wouldn't be SPGA or Community Development Board. It should be, you know, SPGA or the site planning authority. So just making that switch would reduce some confusion. And any time that you switch who the permit branding authority is in the table of use categories table, you wouldn't have to go through and try to find everywhere where a specific board was called out. You would just know, okay, the SPGA for this use, go to the table, figure out who it is. Okay, now we know who it is. And there was like a lot of that dropped throughout that wasn't updated when the recodification happened. And I think the city board was given some uses to become the SPGA and also became a site plan review authority for some uses because they used to be, for those of you who are on the board before the recodification, there were site plan review special permits, and the recodification corrected that and made them just site plan reviews. You approve a site plan, it's not a special permit. So now they're normal site plan review approvals. But still there's confusion because you don't want to put in language where we're giving authority to a planning board that the authority doesn't have, like you don't want to call something a waiver when it's really a variance. So it just requires a little bit more study. And talking this through with the legal counsel, because I think it needs to be explained a little bit better, what we're talking about in coming to of a time crunch and I don't want to rush anything through, that's going to be incorrect. So that was for, so there was for signs, for landscaping and for parking and loading requirements, there is the same provision allowing the SPJ or the site plan review authority to wave certain things so they're not waving it's not waving anything that's in the dimensional table so you're not waving you know percentage of landscaping or open space would be like how the landscaping is provided like so screening or whether you have that perimeter screening or a number of islands that kind of thing which i think makes sense in site plan review for a planning board to be able to waive some of those because it's very site-specific, some things don't make sense. Having to go to the zoning board for a variance where the standard are so high, I don't think makes sense. We need to really be careful with the language to enable your board to waive certain standards legally that you can. You don't want to get into a situation where approvals are overturned and things like that. And so 6.2.20, this is for signs. There is currently a provision, as I was saying, special permit for site plan review to approve larger signs or additional signs. We want to make sure that that power is still be there. Again, just switching out CD board to site plan review authority.

[Unidentified]: throughout. So it just kind of keeps going on and on. Anybody have any questions? I'm going to keep scrolling until I find something else substantive.

[Alicia Hunt]: Technically, if the city council was to vote on this, they would need to have each place that shows up and say like in 94 dash, the one on the screen, 6.4.12 waiver of standards change, you know, replace community development board with site plan review authority. In theory, you could list in these sections, all of the following sections, replace the phrase community development board with site plan review authority. but we would need to make that recommendation to them because the way it was written on this paper wasn't that legally clear. Right, if you were, the difference between that and the DHCD one is the DHCD one is a wholesale, literally every time DHCD shows up, you're replacing with EOHL, sorry, Jackie, I can't get it right.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I'm still getting into E-H-O-L-C.

[Alicia Hunt]: It's literally find and replace throughout the whole document, where in this case, you're replacing the phrase community development board with the phrase site plan review authority in some sections, but not literally every time it shows up in the document, which is why you would actually have to list out every location. I don't know if that's helpful or more confusing.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Mike a clarifying question for number 5 are so the board's not able to vote on that one side because you still have to parse it out with the legal counsel to make sure that it's being presented properly. Even if you take out some of the information that you have there, it needs to be reviewed by legal.

[Alicia Hunt]: 1st, correct do we Danielle? What do we feel? Does it do we think that it needs to be reviewed again? I mean, we've discussed it a few times with legal counsel. I'm not, I'm not sure whether at this point we feel we need to go back to them. Because there are, there's an option for the CD board to say You know, we support the planning office's recommendation. When you determine exactly what those sections are, we support that. The planning board could say, we don't want to like leave it so loose right now. And so the recommendation to the city council would be to not take up this item at this time and to consider that in another round. I, you could recommend that the city, that the city council table this item until there's a more concrete recommendation from the planning office, but I'm not really sure how that works with the public hearing. Like how does it, can you, I think you have to, I think you have to close your public hearing to make a recommendation to the city council on all the other items. It is our recommendation that we, do that tonight if we feel good with the other items, because some of them, like the one about the principal structures, is actually kind of really urgently important to, like, Walkling Court, for example, right now. And there have been other things that have come up that are as well, like other multi-building, things like that. And we're concerned about the auto uses and Mystic Ave. Right, like that's actually the reason that the city council took it up is because there are places trying and looking at and shopping for new places to locate car dealerships and parking lots. And so we don't want them to be able to do that as of right now. So it is our recommendation that the ones that you're comfortable with, you vote out tonight and have them and so they can vote on September 5th on them. and I think that's the open question, is what to do about this one. Unless, don't let me pressure you, if you are not comfortable with some of the others we've discussed, please say that. I'm just, because of the nods and the yeses, I'm just assuming that you are, so.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: My only question, and that's for the board for deliberation, is that we understand that this is an interim step to hold over to zone revisions, and you want to get these administrative changes done. And to me as one board member, I can definitely vote on the other ones, but number five, I thought that there was like a process legally that before we change anything, we just had to make sure we were okay with what we're changing. And I don't know that I've wrapped my full head around exactly what that is. And I don't know if the board has, but I would also be inclined to say that I could recommend approval once you figure it out, once the city staff figured it out.

[Danielle Evans]: because it's really, it's, it's language where one part of the ordinance will say this body approves this. And then another part of the ordinance will say, no, it's another body that approves this. So, and some of it is holdover language that wasn't updated, but you can't just like presume that. Right. Well, there's like the CD board can't do this. What's like, well, the CD board is an SPGA for something. So why. Why would you be saying city council or board of appeals?

[Alicia Hunt]: So I see this as sort of like sometimes when we vote out a site plan review, there's a whole list of conditions. And then there's one that is, and you'll work this out with the city engineer. You'll work this out with the planning office, but that's a condition, whatever you agree to with them is part of the condition of the site plan review. Right. it's sort of delegating that piece of the authority. And so I guess there is the art, you can consider this, if you're comfortable with this conceptually, that you're delegating it to the planning staff to come up with the exact legal language to reflect what we've discussed here. And that that is what should go in the memo to the city council. But if you're not comfortable, I don't know that it has to. In theory, this board could say, we don't have comment on any of these. We have no recommendation and that could go to the city council and they can make zoning change. If this board failed to take action for 45 days, then the city council has the right to move forward without any recommendation from the zoning board. where I'm saying, you know, we could also say to them, we recommend that you don't, you know, the board could say, we recommend that you don't change the language. And the council could say, oh, we want to change it anyhow. Like, right, you're just making a recommendation to them. They probably wouldn't though, but they legally could.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So I'll open it up to the board now for clarifying questions and just to see exactly the temperature of where we're going with this and to see if there's any other questions that the board may have of Daniel. Daniel, if you're finished with your presentation, that is.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I mean, it's real like technical nerdy zoning stuff that we're just trying to like clean up, make our lives easier.

[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I think all of it makes sense. So everything you said, Danielle, and replacing definitions, none of it seems like, yeah, it all just seems logical based on everything you guys have said.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I think I appreciated your analogy with leaving a condition in a site plan review, because that really did clarify that kind of, we're not really leaving anything unaddressed. It's just that we need to recommend that this process be carried out the way it's going to be carried out, but we need to say we recommend it.

[Ari Fishman]: Agreed, I think this makes sense to me and I was a little hesitant about the things we didn't know yet. But again, that analogy of. I think makes me feel okay about passing it and I agree that. Many of the important elements are quite time sensitive, so I would like to err on the side of action rather than saying nothing.

[Evangelista]: Danielle, on section five, is there like a rule of thumb on who should do what when you're making these changes? Like whether it is the planning board or it is the CBD, like the way that you've explained the changes on the spreadsheets when it comes to the amendments previously, they're so clear. But the only question would be on section 5, like, how, what's, what's your mindset and what are your ideas when changing who's doing what? Like, whether it's a planning board, whether it is a CBD. How are you making these changes?

[Danielle Evans]: So, it wouldn't be actually, like, changing anything. Basically.

[Unidentified]: It's clarifying, reducing the confusion. So.

[Danielle Evans]: Basically, the new ordinance doesn't understand that not all uses need special permits now. Basically, they all did before, and that was one of the things that had to get fixed is you have to allow things by right. And there was this quirky language in the ordinance that said, this is by right, and it's subject to a special permit. or subject to site plan review, oh, and by the way, if it's subject to site plan review, now it needs a special permit. It literally said something like that. Like, by like, regardless, it will now need a special permit. I'm like, wait a minute, I'm reading, I'm like, this is kind of nuts. But that, I mean, that was fixed and I was glad to see that that was fixed. So basically these sections don't contemplate that a site plan review authority would be like reviewing, so now it's not, it's not an SPGA because when you're a site plan review authority, there's no special permit that you're granting. So it just, it starts to get kind of confusing. And so it's just, if the CD board is a site plan review authority that you would be the ones waiving certain things, but the question is, you know, how do we do that in a way that's more aligning, aligning roles, basically.

[Evangelista]: Aligning, yeah, okay, that makes sense.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: If there's no more questions from the board, because this is still a public hearing, I'm going to open it up for public comment. I'm not sure that there's public on, but I will read. Those who wish to provide comments can use the raise hands 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]: Everything so there were no previously received comments. I'm just refreshing our inbox. But no new comments have come in and. Give folks a moment, but I think I don't actually think there are other members of the public on the call. So, I'm not seeing any hands.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, I'm going to close the public comment period. and go back to board deliberation. And I will just start by just, I will leave the floor open for the board members to add. But at this point, I appreciate the city's, all of the work that Daniel and other city staff has done in trying to identify these potential misaligned uses slash rules and rectify for ease for the city and ourselves. And Before I ask for a motion, I will ask if there is anything that the board wants to add.

[Unidentified]: If there's any language or anything that you want to change or.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, I'm going to ask for potential motion to recommend approval of the proposed proposed ordinance amendments to the city council with the condition of Amanda. Can you help me capture that language for a number 5? Yes.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah. So there were 3 things that I took notes on and there's little scratchy sloppy so we can refine them. But. Um, just in concept, so, um, the, and again, disregard if this is not accurate, but, uh, for the item where it talks about adding definitions, um. So, in addition to the definitions included in the paper, um, to also include definitions for the marijuana uses and signs, uh, in section 12.0. As 1 of the recommendations. 2nd, was that the. S. P. G. A. for the adjusted. C2 uses be the CD board as opposed to city council. And 3rd item, and I'm not entirely sure how to capture this, but 1 way forward would be. To delegate to PDF staff that they, they update the language. Of item never number 5 to kind of reflect what was discussed. And to include that in the recommendation to city council.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Are there any objections? I do have one clarifying question on the marijuana and signed definitions. Maybe I didn't capture that one in my conditions. What was that one that we discussed for that?

[Alicia Hunt]: The city council in there, let's reinsert these definitions. They listed all those ones that are on your document. I actually went and found the sign ones in my paper copy and there are like, four pages of definitions here that are no longer found in our zoning. What's a roof sign? What's an outdoor advertising board? So to also include the sign definitions from the former version of the zoning and to also include. So you were recommending to them that in addition to the ones that they're suggesting we put back in, they also include these. Clem, I hope we have some way to scan. We must have an electronic, I'm sure I have an electronic version of this, but if you can help us with that.

[Danielle Evans]: All I have is this thing.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's what's in front of me, but we may, at worst, we'll scan it in and do an OCR. You can help us with that.

[Unidentified]: I hope so.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's the recommendation. And I mean, honestly, there was so there was also the one about changing the so like with the use table to also change the uses that Danielle recommended in addition to the ones that the city council. special permit granting authority rather than the city council. So we may list out like these things and then they'll have to say, yes, we agree. We agree. We agree. No, we don't agree on that one. Maybe they'll agree on everything. You never know until you ask.

[Danielle Evans]: It would be like making a motion to delete The existing table and replace with the proposed table is that we would recommend that they.

[Alicia Hunt]: Delete the recommend the existing table and replace it with the recommended table from the CD board that would be the easiest.

[Unidentified]: All right, I'm going to.

[Danielle Evans]: I'm going to get more vehicle related uses table. Is what we saw. And. The recommendation would be all to add also to replace the miscellaneous commercial uses table. Wholesale transportation and industrial uses table.

[Unidentified]: And accessory uses table. As presented in this staff memo. Dated in the wee hours of this morning. Your hard work and planning staff. We have the motions.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, I'm going to try this again potential motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendments to City Council.

[Unidentified]: I so move.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: I was going to read the motions just for public record. In addition to the definitions with the following conditions, in addition to the definitions included in the paper, to also include the marijuana and signed definitions from the former zoning ordinances in section 12.0, recommend that SBGA for the adjusted C2 uses be the CDB, For item number five, delegate to the PDS to update the language reflecting what was discussed, included in the recommendation to the city council. Recommend that city council delete the existing tables and replace with the recommended table from the CDB as presented in the PDS staff meeting.

[Unidentified]: Motion. For real this time. Second motion.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Second second. Alright roll call vice chair Emily had a minute.

[Emily Hedeman]: I need to abstain from this unfortunately.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And. Peter, were you at Peter? Did you read this or I?

[Peter Calves]: I also need to abstain from this one, OK?

[Unidentified]: Sorry, Fishman. Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Pam Marianski. Yes, Sally Kiki. Yes, and myself, Jackie person. Yes, that is. Unanimously accepted for recommendations for the city council.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Daniel and Alicia and Amanda. Thank you.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Next item, board elections. So this is continued from 8 to 23, where we have re-established a chair, myself, as well as Emily Hederman is now the vice chair. And we still have a clerk position open and a community preservation committee representative open. And we were going to wait until we had full members to entertain those as of right now. Ari Fishman is in is sort of in the. CPA role, are you currently in that and you're. Looking to probably, you're just holding it over until someone else is able to take it. And so those 2 positions are open. Amanda, can you give a little bit of background on both positions for the new board members?

[Amanda Centrella]: Sure, so clerk position, I think we talked about this. With a couple of members previously, so for those that are new. The clerk would be responsible for reading and reviewing the minutes prior to the meeting. They would not be responsible for generating the minutes that falls to us and in particular Clem are wonderful. Right hand person. generating so many of these. So reading and reviewing the minutes just to make sure, you know, for clarity and accuracy. And then a kind of new role, which we had sort of started talking about with the board would be, as you saw tonight, I was doing a little bit of note taking on, you know, as as board members were delivering over potential conditions and things for items. And we think it could be a best practice to Aside from staff, city staff doing some of that to have a clerk. Be keeping notes on potential conditions for projects or approvals as well. As sort of a check, you know, it's better to have 2 people on it than 1, I think, and to make sure that everything is covered. And also, you know, that the framing may be for certain condition language. Is accurate reflects where the board was coming from. So, that's the clerk position in a nutshell. In addition to that, the community preservation committee representative would be responsible for. Attending CPA community preservation act meetings, which happen roughly once a month. I believe it's the 1st, Tuesday of every month with some exceptions in the summer. I think they meet a little less frequently at this time of year.

[Danielle Evans]: And during during funding round deliberations and voting there. Might be an extra meeting or 2, depending on the volume of applications so that. Using for the presentations and split between 2 meetings, so that's not so long and. Can digest it better and then. A meeting to vote, it's very, it's very, um. important position, you have a lot of impact on what projects get funded with the CPA funds. The fund committee right now, they currently are still meeting remote. That could change. I think that would be a decision of the committee as well.

[Amanda Centrella]: And I want to say, I don't have the exact number, but I want to say the amount of funding that this committee. Um, is responsible for allocating or making recommendations to allocate is something close to 2Million dollars. And, um, it's, it's gone to some very important and incredible projects, um, both from the city, but also, um, other entities beyond the city and organizations can apply for funds. Um, so there's been some really cool restorative work for the Royal house and slave quarters, for example, um, a lot of funding going towards car park renovation, um, for the pickleball courts, which is a really, um. There's a really robust community that's very excited about that. Um, so just to kind of. Sprinkle a couple of projects for you all to get a sense of the kinds of things that are discussed by the committee.

[Danielle Evans]: Well, as housing, a lot of the funding goes towards affordable housing as well.

[Ari Fishman]: You're making me feel bad that I'm nervous about committing to it. I have some personal stuff that I'm expecting this year. That means that I'm concerned about committing to two committees and being able to give them the effort that they deserve. Um, if no one is in a better personal situation and no one can do it, then I can, but it, I did want to make sure that we have the opportunity to have someone with enough capacity to give it its due.

[Danielle Evans]: And I hope you don't think we're trying to guilt you.

[Ari Fishman]: It's partially your job. I'm in no way mad about it.

[Peter Calves]: I, unfortunately, don't think I can commit to another night a week, but I would like to throw my hat for.

[Unidentified]: Thank you Peter.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Is there anyone else that would want to throw their head in for Clark, or even CPA representative.

[Emily Hedeman]: I may have asked this last time, but is there any way the representative role could be rotating?

[Amanda Centrella]: It's a little challenging because there's a funding round. And so for 1 person to be at 1 meeting at the beginning of the funding round, and then for a new person to be evaluating those same projects later in the round, it might be tough. I think for continuity's sake, it makes sense to have 1 person, but something that could be The case, which wasn't hasn't been done previously is, you know, instead of having someone for, like, their full CD board term commit to the. To being the representative, you could rotate someone in every year.

[Unidentified]: Sorry, I think you're muted.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, what if we can maybe do that? I can keep it for now. And if I start reaching capacity and I'm not able to continue it, could there be some flexibility about passing it on? With kind of doing my best to make a commitment for a full funding cycle.

[Amanda Centrella]: I personally don't see why not.

[Danielle Evans]: I think it'd be great to make it through a funding cycle, because that's really where the votes are important. And a lot of it, there's a lot of dead time where it's, let's approve the application, let's go over what our goals are and update the CPA plan. But the one thing I hesitate about making it just one person or one year terms is that we're trying to make sure that The, the terms are staggered, so it's not like. So many people turning off, like, the situation that we got with this board where so many people turned off at once, because the staggering got messed up somehow. And it's good to have some continuity and. some experienced folks and new folks coming in. So there's the institutional knowledge still. There's a very strong chair right now. So it's very, it's not a lot of work for any of the members. It's very, there's a full-time staff person in the chair and it really can be just a show up and vote role. Really, it's not, it's not a lot of work.

[Unidentified]: Okay, I'll do it.

[Emily Hedeman]: And are even if continuity is the goal, like, you know, anything can happen to any of us at any point, whether it's this board or others. So, you know, the person always comes first.

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, absolutely. But I don't think there's room in our ordinance in the community preservation ordinance that we have that says three year terms or else. Yeah. So, yeah, it will will strive for that. Yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: Okay. I'll do it and you know, it's an important committee.

[Alicia Hunt]: They control so much money.

[Danielle Evans]: So much. If the CPC doesn't recommend approval, it doesn't make it to city council at all. They don't see what you don't recommend. So it's not like we're going to ignore, like they can vote. Not to fund something that you wanted funded. But they can't approve to fund something that you did not want to fund. So, there is some teeth there.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: So, I'm going to start with a motion to elect Peter cows as the clerk of the metric community development board. 2nd.

[Amanda Centrella]: Actually, I'm sorry, could someone make the motion besides Jackie?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, I'll make a motion. I'm sorry and that I apologize. I misspoke. I'm open. I'm looking for a motion.

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, and 1 thing that might help be helpful, like, in some of the clerk is the person who always makes the motions. Like, when I was on the zoning board, I was the clerk. I made the motions I made them all never like, who wants to make a motion? It was like. Like you there, you're prepared with your motion, you're prepared with the conditions. Okay. Goes very efficiently. So, if that wanted to be. With the clerk person, you're not the clerk.

[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, we, we, we, we, we haven't, um, we got a good idea. We got it. We don't want to scare.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, you should have waited till after he got all that part.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Okay, so Amanda, what you were saying is someone else to make a motion or okay.

[Emily Hedeman]: I'll make a motion to elect Peter Calvis as clerk of the Medford Community Development Board.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: A 2nd motion. Sally, I second. Roll call, Vice Chair Emily Hederman. I. It accounts for himself. I. Are you fishman. I. And marianne ski I. Sally key key. I. Sure but restaurant. And myself jackie mcpherson I. Is there a motion to make our fishman. The community preservation committee representative. Since they have only been sitting in it as a holdover, but now it's official. So moved 2nd. A roll call vice chair, Emily had a man. Yes, I. Peter cows I. Fishman for your for themselves. Yes. Pam Mariansky. Yes. Sally Akiki. Aye. Chirag Bharachara.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm an aye. Thank you both. Okay, so now our next item is approval of minutes from 7523 and 719 23. Before we make a motion, I want to note to Amanda. On 719 23, I believe it's item 7 for board elections. The very last item was not completed.

[Amanda Centrella]: Very sorry about that. I must have, let me see. For item seven, you said? Yes, for board elections. Board elections.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, shucks. Example where the clerk would have read it, made that edit, and then it would have gotten sent around.

[Amanda Centrella]: But I think it's so close to being finished because there were no votes. So, I think, um, if there were no other major concerns with those minutes, um, there could be a motion to, you know, for staff to complete the phrasing. Um, but then to, and then to accept with that edit.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: A motion to approve 7523, the minutes of 7523, and then 719.23 with the edits as the staff finishes them, I mean edits them.

[Unidentified]: So moved. A second motion? Second.

[Ari Fishman]: I cede the second to the other person who spoke.

[Emily Hedeman]: Vice chair, I sniped it for me Ari. Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Roll call vice chair Emily Hedeman? Yes. Peter Cowles?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Yes. Pam Mariansky? Yes. Sally Akiki? Yes. Shirag Barachara?

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Yes.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson, MNI. The final item on the board tonight is an update from the city staff on the status of the zoning. I'm inviting Daniel Evans again to provide an update to the board on status. Up the.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so a lot of this has been. Going on in the background, it was a lot of crunching numbers. We worked with as for Glenn, who was the. consultant provided by the state for free, thankfully, as they knew we all had our hands full with this. This is one of the handful of rapid transit communities. We have the tightest time frame to comply, just a year. It's funny how the more complicated communities get the shortest timeline. Some have three years. We get one. So basically it's, as I was saying before, that the state is mandating that we create the zoning districts that allow housing by right, or multifamily housing by right. So it's units, three units or more at a very prescribed density, which I don't know off the top of my head, but I wanted to say it was like 6,000 something, something like that, which 75% of that has to be within the half mile radius of a transit station. and there's a lot of parameters around that. You can't count on excluded land, which, so some of the stations that we're looking at, because we actually have a lot of stations that could be eligible, but when you look at the surrounding land, like the Medford Tufts station, Tufts University owns so much of that, that there really wasn't, there was not enough land within the half mile to actually put a district over there. So it's not gonna work. We looked at, and then the other ones are, basically mostly in Somerville, so it would be a very small sliver of land and it would have to be kind of parsed about. Basically, we landed on the Wellington Orange Line station is really the only feasible area that we could have create this district. So our approach is going to be an overlay. So it would be an overlay which would, it wouldn't replace the underlying zoning. You could still do the underlying zoning, but the overlay would create this multifamily by right. Some of the limitations are that we're not allowed to require ground floor retail or require deep affordability. Even our existing inclusionary housing provisions that we have now actually aren't allowed. we have to have an economic feasibility analysis to justify them. So that's currently being done right now, thankfully also for free by MAPC. And they are pretty certain that they will be fine, that we'll be able to allow our greater percentages than is allowed. Because the state, first they said, you can't have inclusionary zoning at all. And everyone threw a fit, including myself, like, what are you talking about? Because it's viewed as some of the suburbs will use that as a barrier to creating affordable housing or multifamily housing by creating these such strict requirements that makes building just not feasible at all. They wanted to make sure that communities weren't including these inclusionary zoning ordinances or bylaws, like in bad faith. So we have to prove that what we already have won't hurt development or slow it down. And while we're having them do this EFA, we wanted them to look at, well, we kind of wanted to make changes to it anyways. We wanted to have like, you know, different like tiers of affordability. What if some of them were 60% area median income, some at 80, some at 100, rather than all at 80. Could that be something that we could do that could get approved? So they're also going to look at one or two alternatives. And so we're hoping to have them finalize that. I think it was going to be early fall. So we're operating under the assumption that it'll be allowed. But we won't know for sure until maybe a month or two. But we're going to hold a public input hearing on the 13th of September. And be great. I believe we're going to do it on Zoom. And we're going to be getting a press release out shortly and spreading the word about that. And basically, the input that we're going to be seeking is what kind of density bonuses that we could put into our zoning to incentivize some of our other goals. The MBTA zoning, the way it was is basically just production, production, production, without paying attention to some of the other goals, like some of our climate resiliency goals, affordability goals, you know, walkable, mixed use, neighborhood kind of goals that we have outlined in our comp plan that we can't require. So we'll have our Our overlay, which will allow by right this required density. Which is actually not that dense. We already do allow quite a bit of density. So, in some areas. It'll actually be down zoning, which seems odd. So, basically, it's okay. You're allowed to put a 4 story building by right. But if you want 6, then you need to provide ground floor retail or. deeper affordability, things like that, or a parking reduction if you provide this other provision that we would want to further some of our other goals. So we have some staff looking at that. We have a climate planner who is doing some research on incorporating those sorts of things into zoning anyways to give them teeth. We're hoping to use some of that and bring them as incentives and density bonuses. We'll be looking for input from the public and from you all, what you think would be appropriate. If you do X, what is a proportionate, bonus from that. So we'll be doing a lot of research for that. And so then after the public input meeting, we'll actually then start the public hearings to men's zoning. So the first community development board meeting would be scheduled for October 18th. We left, we kept room in our timeline to allow for two CD board meetings if you need it. And to city council meetings if they need it.

[Alicia Hunt]: Danielle, are you recommending that if board members are available for the public meeting that it would help? By viewing that, they could both get a preview of everything that they're going to hear at the CD board meeting in less technical terms, and then they could hear directly any resident questions and concerns. And that might help with only needing to have one CD board meeting, because it might be the first public hearing, but the board members would hear it at the public meeting. And if members did that, I would just recommend that board members reserve their comments for in private or at the public hearing in order to avoid open meeting law violation right if like four of you showed up at that meeting, and one of you made a comment that's technically an open meeting law violation. Because you're discussing a matter that is expected to be in front of you, right, without it being a publicly posted meeting that you would be doing that. Whereas if any of you went to that meeting and had concerns or questions, we would really want you to come talk to us about them. in advance of waiting for this public hearing. I'm actually going to say that if at any point, this is probably just a general good comment, there's something that's coming in front of you and you've looked at it or you have information and you're like, oh, I don't like this or I'm really concerned about this or I'm super confused about it. Reaching out to Amanda or myself or Danielle, more Danielle because Amanda is transitioning off this board, I'm going to keep saying that until it's true. And discussing it before the meeting, we absolutely welcome that. Because we'd love to address any real deep concerns, big concerns in advance. If it's like they need more trees, please just do a meeting, right? If you're like, why are they doing this project? at all, definitely reach out to us before the meeting. But that's with the zoning. When I'm saying, come to the public meeting, but don't comment, I'm not telling you you can't comment. I'm saying, please don't do it in the public meeting and violate open meeting law.

[Danielle Evans]: And I also want to give a shout out to Clem, who's been also very helpful in picking up where Ezra's contract ended and helping us to verify that we meet all the density targets parcel by parcel.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Danielle Evans]: And if you guys have any ideas or thoughts, please reach out to me at any time. Yeah, we haven't wanted this to be this this process that was like happening like behind closed doors, but they're just there hasn't been anything really to present yet. And a lot of communities have kind of been in the same boat. They're like, well, we want to have public input, but we need to present them with something because a lot of it is. Not up for negotiation, it's mandated and very prescriptive and we're taking the approach of you know, making it work for Medford because, you know, we have a lot of other goals in addition to housing with much more robust affordability goals than the 3A even allows. And I feel like we have been doing a really good job of producing housing. And we don't want that housing underwater if we don't encourage things like electrification buildings, So we're trying to kind of, I'm getting tired. My brain is stopping to work. It's just taking a very creative approach to do this.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, Danielle.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Are there any questions before we go to the next item? I sort of was premature and saying that the previous that that item Danielle's item was the final 1. Oh, sorry.

[Ari Fishman]: No, go right ahead. Wanted to thank Danielle planning staff for all their hard work on figuring out what's going on and how we can best do it and bringing that creativity. So thank you all. I'm sure it's frustrating, but it's really great.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yes, that would be interesting with the MBTA zoning. It's like, where I work, I work hand in hand with Chris Clutchman, who's behind the MBTA zoning law and how she sort of defines it and things like that. So when those questions come up for Grant Steer or somebody that's in my actual portfolio, I refer to Chris, like, Chris, you got this one? So it's now it's like, okay, now I'm in Medford. It's like. Now it's like, I have to look at it as, you know, we have all these cities and towns coming to us to try to explain, have them explain it in the context of their communities. And now I have to try to figure out in the context of my own community. So very interesting, but I'm looking forward to it.

[Peter Calves]: Yeah, I know on the private consulting side, we're trying to, still trying to figure out how we, how we have to work through those kinds of projects as well. So good job. Yeah.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Yeah, especially when you, especially with some of the communities as you said, it has to be community specific. And it's like, they come in and they say, well, you know, you're taking away our ability to do like, like you said, ground floor retail. And it's like, we need this commercial base. Like, why is it with this law? And you guys, you did this, you did this. I'm like, I'm sorry, I didn't do it. It's like, so now I'll be that same person screaming back at the state, like, why'd you do this? All right, so again, thank you Danielle. So, number 8 miscellaneous and other updates from the city.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yeah, I can jump in here. I just thought I'd give a quick precursor to our next meeting, which is scheduled for September 6th. Um, we are expecting to see a site plan review for a proposal at 421 high street with. Some, uh, residential units. And we will see the 1st. PDD public hearing for walk in court. So those are the two upcoming items that are for sure. And I think we will possibly also see the continued Bank of America special permit conversation that's for the project proposed in the Obeikman's Plaza. I think those are the main items. I'll keep it short.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you Amanda. I feel like I should mention something that's not on the agenda just as an FYI. Stop me if I. if you guys mentioned this while I was thinking about something else, Combined Properties, the hearing where they withdrew. They have actually submitted a draft life science park overlay proposal. They sent it to the City Council President and to the Mayor. They CC'd me. The City Council President and the Mayor have both said to me, What do we do, and so I have reached out to them to discuss it with them, but I just thought you all would want to know what they were thinking and. If I might, if you'll forgive me to do this at this moment, Clem, can you ask me about that too? Because a great exercise would be to compare this to the PDD they submitted, unless Danielle's already done it. I just haven't. It would be awesome to have you just tell me what's different between this and what they submitted before. Yes, for sure.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I didn't look at it too closely because I was like what is this.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, so they have told me I did reach out to them I said is this an official submission to the city council, and they said no it's a it's a draft for discussion. So I just wanted you all to know they're still interested in the project, they're still talking about it. If anybody, once we do know what's different from this and what the PDD that you saw, I would also welcome to hear like individually because this is not an agenda item for tonight, but if people have thoughts on that project that you had wished you had gotten to express at that meeting, Danielle and I would like to hear them. You can reach out to us privately so that we can incorporate any thoughts into a conversation with combined properties on this.

[Danielle Evans]: So yeah, the first thing that jumped out to me was the was a sentence in there that the landscaping requirements wouldn't apply. And I would just.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, they're not getting that.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, I was just like I just closed my laptop. What is this?

[Amanda Centrella]: And I'm sorry to put in guys, I just had to thought that so city council had a meeting last night and they heard 243 mystic as well as 100 Winchester. 243 got referred back to CD board as part of our process. So you guys will see that in the near future and 100 Winchester did get adopted the zoning. So. Yay, first phase of that project done. Very much thanks to you all and we will likely see a special permit application from them in the future. So, yeah, some fun news.

[Alicia Hunt]: Awesome. And just because you all will be interested, the 40, you know, the 40B was passed the sorry, the challenge date, the whatever that's called, passed a few days ago, the date by which somebody, the appeal date. The appeal date passed a few days ago with no appeals. And they were in front of Conservation Commission tonight, and they got their Conservation Commission approvals this evening. And they had some conservation, there were some old open orders of conditions that got cleared up as well for them. So all of the permitting for that project has now cleared. Now they can apply for their building permit, which now they can apply as of right because they went through the whole of all the variances and everything. So that'll be moving soon.

[Unidentified]: Anything else?

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Well, hearing nothing else from the city, thank you all. I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn.

[Peter Calves]: Seconded.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Roll call. Vice Chair Emily Hederman? Aye. Peter Kautz?

[Unidentified]: Aye.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Ari Fishman? Aye. Pam Mariansky? Aye. Sally Akiki? Aye. And I'm going to try one more time because I've been remiss in pronouncing your name correctly, Sharad. Sharad Bajracharya.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Can I get it right? Bajracharya.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Bajracharya.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Bajracharya.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: Bajracharya.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: All right. That's better.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: OK. Bajracharya.

[O1CMBj7JDes_SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Hi.

[Paulette Van der Kloot]: And myself, Jackie McPherson. I'm an I. And we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Paulette Van der Kloot total time: 23.33 minutes total words: 1962