total time: 3.23 minutes
total words: 254
[Andre Leroux]: Good evening, everyone. Thanks for joining us tonight. My name is Andre LaRue. I'm the chair of the Medford Community Development Board. And welcome to the December 9th meeting of the Community Development Board. What we are doing today is tackling our continued public hearing on zoning. And let me just read. It's going. Public hearing notice. City of Medford Mass Community Development Board. Chapter 94 zoning. The original hearing notice was for November 18, 2021. Actually, before we read the hearing notice, let me just take a call the meeting to order here and take a roll call attendance. So pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this hearing of the Medford Community Development Board will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. And a reminder to participate during this meeting outside of the zoom platform you can direct your questions and comments via email to ocd at medford hyphen ma dot gov that's ocd at medford hyphen ma dot gov the meeting will be broadcast live at medford community media local channels 43 verizon and 22 comcast All votes will be roll call votes. And just a reminder for everybody to introduce yourself each time you speak. That goes for our board members as well as for members of the public during the hearing. Let me take a roll call attendance of the board members. And board member, when I call your name, just say present. Deanna Peabody.
[Deanna Peabody]: Present.
[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg. Present. Present. Jacqueline Furtado.
[Jenny Graham]: Present.
[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd.
[Jenny Graham]: Present.
[Andre Leroux]: So, I think I got everybody. All the board members who are here. We'll go back to the public hearing notice. So public hearing notice, City of Medford Mass Community Development Board, Chapter 94 zoning, November 18th, 2021 was when the hearing was opened. Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a public hearing on Thursday, November 18th, 2021 after 6 p.m. That was continued to tonight, December 9th, at 6 p.m. via Zoom remote video conferencing to take the following actions with regard to the zoning ordinance. Delete the existing ordinance in its entirety and replace with the proposed ordinance as referred to our board by the city council. The full text of the proposed ordinance can be viewed in the office of the city clerk in city hall 103 or on the city's website at the planning development sustainability department page and look for the tab current CD board filings. So at this time, I will call the continued hearing open. And what we'll do today because we only have limited time with Attorney Bobrowski is that we will do our best to get through the remainder of the proposal we got about halfway through in November. And if we can at least get through his presentation and explanation will take question will go section by section and take questions and comments from the Community Development Board members and then allow members of the public to weigh in as well. But if we can try to get this done in an hour and a half, if possible, that would be great. So maybe limit full discussion so that we can, after Attorney Bobrowski leaves, we could continue to to talk for some time and identify the areas that we want to dig into a little bit more. But our goal here will be to, I think, gather as much feedback as possible from board members and members of the public, and then compile it into a set of recommendations that we can come back after the holiday, the beginning of January, and finalize that feedback and send it on to the city council. All right, Attorney Bobrowski, let me turn it over to you.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Thank you. Amanda, if you would put on the current version, which I believe is draft nine to the section 6.3. While Amanda's queuing it up, let me say a few words about where we're headed tonight. The old ordinance really has no performance standards for anything but the MUZ district. there are very few performance standards that would talk about anything other than signs, which is section 6.2, the parking before that 6.1. And so in section 6.3 and 6.4, Amanda, you can scroll down through that sign section, it's pretty long. In section 6.3, we introduced landscaping and screening standards. And the idea here is that these standards would apply to anything that requires a special permit or site plan approval. I need to actually amend that applicability section to add that sentence. I've made a note to myself with regard to that. It would say applicability when the city council, zoning board of appeals or community development board is granting either a special permit or site plan approval, this consistency with this section would be required. It's not intended to be something applicable to residential homes, single family or two family homes. So much of what starts this section 631 to 634 is existing. And if you scroll down, you can see that this has just been renumbered and put in here. So you can go to 635, which is this beginning of the change. Beginning here at 635 I've added some new sections for your consideration large parking areas. So, spaces over 20 spaces have one shade tree pretend parking spaces this is your typical standard today for parking in lots that have more than 10 spaces retaining walls can be used. We want all unsightly areas, including refuse disposal facilities, HVAC equipment, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings to be screened from view from neighboring properties and streets. Maintenance is required here with regard to landscaping. So it's not, you know, you can't just plan it once and let it die and then figure you did your job. You've got to keep it up. Visibility requirements talks about corner visibility so you don't want anything blocking sight distance at an intersection. And like signs and special permits, the SPGA or the Community Development Board, if the use does not require a special permit, may, by special permit, waive the provisions of this section. So there's flexibility in mind here for the business community. If they've got something that works just as well and they can ask for a waiver by special permit and it goes on from there. So I'll stop there because we're about to head into one of the bigger changes, which is section 6.4, and ask if there are any questions.
[Andre Leroux]: Members of the board, do you have any questions or comments?
[David Blumberg]: Andre, this is David, I have a question.
[Andre Leroux]: Hi, David.
[David Blumberg]: Question is on 6.3.11, on the standard for the SPGA or Community Development Board to, I guess, well, to reduce or waive the requirements of the section. And we see the standard in connection with parking, we see signage, it's something that recurs throughout the draft. And I guess my question is, is that to, this question to myself, whether that's too broad. I definitely see the value in having some discretion, but I wonder if the discretion should be focused with some guide rails on it, such that like, okay, well, maybe you don't have as many shade trees, but you have more screening or less screening, but more shade trees. So I wonder if, to me, 6311 is a little bit too discretionary. I feel like that that would leave the board the discretion to not enforce any of the requirements. Whereas I feel like it would be more appropriate if there was some offset required or some sense that one shortcoming is made up by an improvement on another category.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I can certainly understand your position. know, boards change over time and one board's sense of propriety might not be the next memberships. So I can take a crack at putting some guardrails, as you called it. But the basic principle is that I'm really tired of going to ZBA meetings at which somebody needs a bigger sign and they have to walk through the variance criteria, which just should never apply. You can't have a bigger sign because of soil condition, shape, or topography. You can't have less parking spaces because of soil conditions, shape, or topography. And here landscaping would require a variance as well. So I can try to craft something that addresses your concern.
[David Blumberg]: Are there others who feel similarly? Maybe I'm alone.
[Andre Leroux]: I guess my question is how, to the attorney, how common is this language used in other communities?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, the most recent governor's legislation that passed in January last year says, for the first time, that you can do this. I've been doing this for 25 years. When I did New Bedford, Compass Bank came to the city and said they wanted to put their headquarters downtown. But if you ran the parking numbers, hundreds and hundreds of spaces. So the first time we did this was with the new Bedford ordinance where we said that you can reduce the number of required parking spaces provided that in effect, no substantial detriment shall result. Since I've done a lot of towns and cities, this has been a condition, this has been something I've added in virtually everything for 20 years. Not hearing any complaints back, I think, You know, I think it's a good way of helping the business community develop in a sensitive manner, but not a rigid manner. Just prescribing the number of parking spaces or landscaping requirements where there's natural vegetation, for example, and they have to now plant in the middle of that seems a bit rigid. So that's my intent here.
[Andre Leroux]: Questions or comments from other board members? Members of the public? And I can't see everybody right now since the screen's being shared, so you'd have to raise your hand with the function at the bottom of the Zoom screen. Okay, Attorney Barresca, why don't we move on to 6.4?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: All of 6.4 is new. So the origins of this come from a work I did in a fairly large suburb years ago. And as people began to build out, they realized that they had no standards for things like noise, lights. They had no standards for how to develop a site in an orderly fashion. They had no standards for traffic and utility connections. So those are the main ones here. But the idea like signs, parking, landscaping is that if the special permit granting authority or the CDB acting as site plan review authority is to make an intelligent decision, it ought to be somewhat objectified and not just left to minimize this or maximize that. So there's an attempt here to create some standards in those various areas. First, there's some exemptions. So the exemptions would include emergency response, municipal uses and structures and events. And then it gets right into the guts of it here, lighting standards. And the idea here is that there won't be any overspill or glare produced by a new development onto an adjacent property. And that's a common standard that many municipalities, Watertown, for example, uses the same standard. We're trying to keep light intensity down to a dull roar. Searchlights should not be used. Outdoor signs restricted with certain types of lighting, flickering and flashing signs shall not be permitted. Height of fixtures, hours of operation. I mean, too often the parking lot is lit the same at seven when the last employee leaves as it is at one o'clock in the morning when there's really no need for the lights to be that bright. I'm doing a project right now in Andover where we're going light by light and seeing what we can turn off in the middle of the evening. So those are just some, the way I put this together years ago was I did a really intensive internet search on progressive community standards, and I picked the best, and this is what it ended up as. It gets tweaked when I see something better, so it's pretty much up to speed. I can take these one at a time. There's about six subsections here. So this was lighting, noise. Again, the state standard for noise is in that paragraph one limitation, and it is 10 dBA above ambient. And that's the division of air quality standard that's in 310 CMR 7.10. And that's basically a doubling of the sound being produced by a facility. And this would apply not only to new construction, but it would be a standard that would apply going forward as well. So if there was an excess of noise above 10 dBA, then there would be enforcement possible. A lot of these things are just projected when you're going through the permitting process and hopefully they work out, but sometimes they don't. Hours of operation for certain equipment is the next subject, A, B, and C. So they're pretty basic rules. Loading, unloading, handling of boxes and crates, condition of noise pollution, pretty much banned between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. Operating tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, demo work, 6 p.m., 8 a.m., please don't do it. And operation of construction devices between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in a manner that causes noise pollution should be avoided by best available technology. Maybe I should stop with light and noise, and then I'll go on to site development standards.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Do board members have comments or questions about this section?
[David Blumberg]: Andre, David, I have a question.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, David, thank you.
[David Blumberg]: Go ahead. Andre, we've been, I think, sensitive to the idea of neighborhood character, and I've been challenging myself as we've been going through this process to try to really stick to more of the exact requirements of the exact topic at issue. So I had just a general suggestion there on 6.4.5 noise standards, and it's identifying three, I guess, goals of the noise standards. And I thought perhaps instead of preserved neighborhood character, it could be something like guarding against increasing noise levels than existing in the neighborhood or to avoid introducing new types of noise not then present in the neighborhood, just as an alternative way to frame it and something more specific to noise. Don't increase my noise and don't introduce new noise, rather than preserving the character.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, that's something that we've been trying to flag as we go along. Got it. Other board members have comments or questions? I actually had a question, although this is about the language before the noise and light. It's 6.4.2.1. Applicants may seek a credit for development linkage fees. Yep. And I'm wondering if this is something that's that's common, or something the city council talked about wanted to put this in here.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, don't forget, you're, as far as I know, you're the only municipality in Massachusetts that has special legislation outside of Boston for linkage fees. There are other towns, there are other towns to charge them, but they're Their legality is quite dubious in my opinion. Um, but people that if you don't complain, there's no problem with them. So what I did with the city council was there's provision in section 10.6.1 for credits. And it says, if you do, um, this kind of work that we're outlining in section 6.4, you ought to be able to get a credit for linkage fees. Um, because the linkage fees will take that into account and set the linkage fee. arguably at a lower rate.
[Andre Leroux]: And that process, how, I guess, how subjective is it?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, I'm flipping back to 10.6.1. Yeah, because I don't have that in front of me right now. Yeah. So 10.6.1, what was it? Yeah, a credit may be given for voluntary site-related improvements or dedications as approved or for work performed as required under section 6.4. And then credit will be due, not due, will be due on when the development construction is completed and accepted, security is posted, or all design standards are in strict compliance with current state and city requirements. Credits may be provided before completion of specified improvements if assurances are given By the applicant and security is posted, any claim for credit must be made no later than the time of the application for the building permit, not transferable from one project to another. Determinations by the CDB or OCD may be appealed to the city council. That's the credit language.
[Andre Leroux]: I just want to flag that as something possibly discuss a little bit more. I mean, my interpretation of some of the things that would be required just for site plan review for a good project. are not necessarily reasons to reduce the linkage fee. You know, the linkage fee is more for mitigation of the impact of the project, which oftentimes is not, you know, impacts beyond the site itself. So I just feel like maybe there could be some clarity around, you know, what kinds of credit could be given for what kind of work?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: That makes sense. When we get to the credit section, perhaps we can take a look, but it is not shall be given, it may be given for work under 6.4.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, I just don't want it to become one of these things where we're arguing about it all the time.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, understood. Shall I move on to site development standards? Yes.
[Alicia Hunt]: Let's go ahead, Alicia. I apologize. I probably should have or somebody, I should remember this from the meetings with the city council. The section on the hours of operation, I have some level of confidence and I'm searching right now that we have something in our ordinances about such things. Were those compared or checked? I would hate to accidentally put something in conflict with Metro's ordinances.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I believe that like most communities, Medford has an outdoor construction limitation, hours are set, but this is more, for example, the A is not construction, B is construction, so it would need to be consistent. And C would be outside the normal hours. Normally municipalities say that Exterior construction is allowed between, I'm picking a number, 7 a.m. or 7.30 a.m. on a weekday, and must conclude by 6 o'clock p.m. And on Saturdays, there are usually shorter hours, and on Sunday, it's usually prohibited. But it doesn't apply to interior construction. Usually, it's just exterior construction.
[Andre Leroux]: Attorney Bobrowski, why don't you go through all of the performance standards, and that way we don't have to stop after each section, because I know we don't have too much time.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: All right, site development standards go to questions like, should I be able to strip my property of all vegetation and then market it and hope that somebody buys it before the sediment clogs the nearest storm drain? So here you have a land disturbance requirements, replication, clearing for utility trenching limitations, site design. So this is just an attempt to give some rough standards for For example, look at B, building shall be directed away from the crest of the hills. Archaeological historical resources, preservation of existing vegetation, re-vegetation, limits of clearing, finished grade, topsoil for re-vegetation, irrigation. I don't know if onsite wells are appropriate in Medford, but you can tell me. the development may be phased. So these are just some things to think about in terms of setting up the very first steps, mostly before the issuance of the building permit. What we would call pre-construction activities, grubbing and clearing, removal of vegetation. The next one is a brazen attempt to set some pedestrian access vehicular standards, traffic management standards. So what we're thinking about here is access and the way that curb cuts should be faced for new construction, driveways, standards for driveways. You can see some linear measurements for curb cut suggested at 20 feet for residential, 30 feet for a commercial property. Just a basic statement that interior circulation shall be safe. Transportation plan approval. This in the instance where the development proposed is greater than 25,000 gross square feet, a full TIAS would be required. That's the traffic engineers currency. They do that in conjunction with mass DOT standards or ITE standards. They're both pretty much the same. And that's a full-blown traffic study. It goes all the way through trip generation, trip distribution, crash data, site distance, and then volume, existing volume, and then loading the new traffic in with a seven-year build-out provided, and then finally level of service at intersections that are deemed appropriate by the traffic engineer and the peer reviewer, if you're using a peer reviewer. And then, If it's a 25,000 square foot project, it also needs a TMC. This is going to use alternative measures to reduce the number of vehicles such as employee carpools, rail passes, monetary incentives, onsite shower facilities to allow biking to work for employees. Reduction in parking is something we've already covered in 6.1. and level of service maintenance or improvement. If you've got somebody coming in and they're going to take what is, you know, we're in Eastern Massachusetts. So let's be honest, everything is D or worse, but if you're going to take it down below D, then you've got to provide some sort of information about what the cost estimate would be to restore that level of service. And the same would apply in B. Dangerous intersections would be identified, site distance would be identified, maximum parking. This allows for maximum parking to be no more than 200% of the minimum number of spaces. Some communities say that the minimum and the maximum shall be the same. And then mitigation, which is the only way to fix this stuff. Obviously you don't have jurisdiction over a state numbered highway, but you do have jurisdiction over the city's roads. So such improvements could include widening the intersection, assuming it's available about extensive takings and or traffic signals if it meets the warrants. And then the last section is on pedestrian and bicycle safety and traffic calming features kind of winds that up. I'm doing a project right now in a town where for various reasons, it's not really possible to dictate how much traffic will head right or left up this road, but you can certainly make that happen. My traffic engineer tells me by putting in crosswalks, bike lanes, rumble strips, landscape islands, because trucks will, while not required to go in a specific direction, will choose the other direction if you put those kinds of things in the street. And he also tells me that there's a new kind of speed hump that allows a fire truck to pass without impairment, but a regular truck is pretty much stuck in the mud. So they typically don't like those roads. Aesthetic standards, I didn't go too deep here. We're just trying to suggest that you shouldn't build something completely ugly. So harmony and scale, consistency with goals of the master plan, if any. Same thing for utility security and emergency system standards. We just want the pipes to be able to carry the load, so sufficient water capacity, sufficient sewage capacity, site security, so that the police chief has an idea of what's going on in the building and how he should respond in the event of an emergency, underground to the extent it's permissible, and a fire alarm system, perhaps directly wired in if the fire chief thinks that that's appropriate. Fiscal analysis is mostly for informational purposes. Proposed developments have a positive or a negative net fiscal position for the municipality. I think it's valuable information for you to know. It may not be a determinant in how you make your special permit decision, but at the same time, it does assist you in the realm of planning. So in the end, it's oftentimes very interesting to see what the promises versus the reality of net net cost benefit. And then 6.411 is the old MUZ standards here. So I don't know that these are terribly valuable and they seem a generation old at this point, but they're not certainly nothing wrong with them. Don't vibrate, no radioactivity, odor should be limited, toxic noxious matter should be limited, dust and fly ash limited, smoke limited. You can actually, in some of these cases now, create a number. For example, years ago, I learned about the Ringelmann smoke chart in which smoke is graded from clear to black. And you can say, we don't want anything on the chart greater than number 12 or something to that effect. And there's your waiver of standards provision again. So that's a parallel to the parking signage landscaping provisions that we talked about. So when I do this in a municipality, first of all, I hope it's red because there's a lot in there. I urge my client city or town to treat it as a sushi menu and order what you think is appropriate. I would never propose those standards that you have just looked at in Berkeley, you know, population 4,000, too much. So we try to tailor it to fit the municipality's needs.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you, Attorney Hrabowski. Let me open the conversation to board members. Again, since I can't see you, you may have to just unmic yourself and jump in, but introduce yourself, please.
[David Blumberg]: Andre, this is David. Yes, David, go ahead. Thanks, Attorney Poprosky. I thought the waiver of standards here actually was a little bit more like what I had in mind, which is it seems like you would be waiving some standards if you found some extra benefit or if it's consistent with the goals of the section, that sort of stuff I think would be, maybe that's along the lines of what I had in mind with my earlier comment.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: So do you think that 6412 is adequate to just adapt for the parking ending and the signage ending and the landscaping ending.
[David Blumberg]: That would, that would be my suggestion, because at least it keeps the board focused and exercising that discretion on the benefits of this particular section. Um, and how they're that's might benefit the community overall.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah. The thinking here is that if it needs a special permit, since it's already at a city council or perhaps a ZBA hearing that that special permit granting authority should also control waivers, whether it's parking signs, landscaping or performance standards. And that's another benefit for the business community and that they don't have to rush back and forth between two boards to do it. The CDB would administer these special permits only where the use is allowed as of right, but subject to site plan approval. Of course the CDB could make recommendations to the special permit granting authority about the grant or denial of a waiver, but that would ultimately be the SPGA decision.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, and I just had one one other item and I can't recall exactly when we discussed this but I know as a board we discussed something similar to 6.4 point 10 the fiscal analysis. And at the time we felt that at least that was, this is my recall and the board members can correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the sense was, well that might be helpful information in some instances. It is an extra burden on the developer to come up with it number one and number two, there are probably a lot of proposed developments that won't lend themselves necessarily to more of a number crunching exercise, and the numbers alone may not reflect the true and full benefit to the community. So I think we just had we were skeptical as to whether this was something of value to the city, but maybe my fellow board members can remind me where we left off there.
[Andre Leroux]: That was the, are you talking about the fiscal analysis, David?
[David Blumberg]: I am exactly. I think we, I think we were inclined not to, to have that kind of a standard in at least our submissions to our board. Right.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah. One of the, one of the special permit granting criteria, if you look I'm gonna look for it right now, but I do it all the time. So I know that the final criterion in section 11.6, I believe, is potential fiscal impact, including impact on city services, tax base and employment, taking into account any proposed mitigation. So that would be the sixth of the six criteria for special permit. And I would never advise a municipality to deny it because you didn't make enough money. But I do think it's important. This all stems from work Judy Barrett and I have done over 25 years. You hear developers puff the contributions that will be made to the community and then you do the cost benefit analysis or more appropriately, Judy does it. And it turns out that $180,000 a year is really more like 70 because it's gonna need three extra policemen.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, can you talk a little bit more about how something like this would be implemented? Would this require a third party, you know, consultant to do the work? Yes. And the way that it's written, it looks like it's required of every project and we don't get, we get a lot of smaller projects before our board.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, there's a waiver for you then. So it wouldn't necessarily be done every time, have you worked with Judy Barrett?
[Andre Leroux]: I know her, I haven't worked on the project.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: She's the oldest practitioner of this art. John, oh God, I've forgotten his last name. They used to have Battle Royals, it was entertaining. She's now retired. He was more on the development side, Judy's more on the municipal side. But it generally would be engagement of a third party of financial analysts, RKG does this up in New Hampshire. There's another gentleman up in New Hampshire named Mark Fugere who does this. And then you would have your own peer reviewer to take a look at this to see whether or not it's panning out as you thought.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, well, there's nothing that prevents us from requiring a developer to pay for a consultant to do the studies that are needed, right? Even without this language.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, you know, the developer, if they're proud of their contribution, may offer to do this because it's a selling point for the permit process. When we did an analysis of a senior housing facility up on the North shore, I think it came back something like of every tax dollar collected 24, 25 cents would go to the costs of the municipality and the other 75 cents was free cash. So that's an important thing to know. It should not be the determinant. I wanna make that very clear. You should never deny something solely on the basis of the fact that it's revenue neutral or it's revenue negative.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, well, and I think that if we were to keep something in here, we seems like we would like to shift the language so because the way it's written right now it does sound proposed development shall maintain a positive net fiscal position for the long term does seem like it's something that could be a basis of a denial well i would also then be thinking about this in terms of that last special permit criterion and maybe
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: following suit there. So if this is going to go away or get modified somehow, I think we probably would need to modify that sixth criteria as well. Criterion. What do you think of the MUZ standards? Can they go or do you want them to stay? I mean, they certainly don't do any harm.
[Andre Leroux]: I don't have a strong opinion about it myself. I don't know if other board members do. I don't hear a strong, anything.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: You got a certain Smithsonian character to them, don't they?
[Deanna Peabody]: How are they different from the ones that we just went through?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, vibration, I mean, these, you know, you don't, there are no standards for odor. I mean, I guess that's why I left them in, but I, and I broadened them, note the strikeout, The old version said just in the MUZ, my draft says that all uses of land, regardless of whether it's in an MUZ that requires a special permit or a site plan approval shall comply with these standards. So it's going from MUZ to citywide for special permit projects.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. I mean, I think it doesn't hurt to keep them. Okay. All right, are there members of the public who would like to speak about the performance standards? Let me just stop the screen sharing. All right, Mr. Navarre. And again, name and address for the record.
[William Navarre]: William DeVar, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. I just wanted to sort of echo some of the concerns that member Lumberg had. I think that especially when I'm thinking about like, I think this applies to small apartment buildings, site plan review. And people sometimes pontificate on the fiscal impacts of an apartment going up. And while it might be interesting to have some data, David Ensign, PB – He, Him, His): Rather us not put an extra burden on every multi family housing project of hiring a consultant to know that because we are in a housing crisis. David Ensign, PB – He, Him, His.: : And maybe that maybe, maybe, maybe the city could do its own analysis on something like that. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard, but just the idea of having every housing project right But just having every developer do that, and you can avoid doing that by not building housing or building only a duplex, where maybe a triplex or something is appropriate given our housing crisis. I think that we should be concerned about that. Obviously, if somebody is building a massive paper mill or something, and it's going to make a mess, it's OK though, because it's good for the fiscal. I could see the point of this. But if somebody is doing a six-unit apartment building, I don't see that quite as much.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Other members of the public who would like to speak? And again, just, we're not, I think what we're trying to do here to get through the whole, all of Attorney Bobrowski's presentation is to mostly ask clarifying questions or raise flags for further conversation, but we want to take advantage of his time. Thank you, Attorney Baruski, why don't we move on?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, the next section talks about adult entertainment, adult uses, and I've made some changes, but they are necessary for constitutional reasons. So adult use, adult entertainment is protected speech under the First Amendment, and to target it directly by saying the adult use shall or the adult speech shall is it is going right after the First Amendment right. And you would need to show a compelling reason to do that. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in a parcel of cases that this is protected speech. So accordingly, the typical regulation says that the purpose of the regulation is to address secondary effects. Secondary effects, including increased crime, adverse impacts on health, business climate, property values, and quality of life in the city. Those secondary targets are subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions under the First Amendment's jurisprudence. So this is boilerplate. This is where the law begins and you have to be sure to do this or else it's a civil rights violation if you go too quickly after the speech itself rather than the secondary effects. And I know from my work in other communities that you've had some experience with adult entertainment facilities. So I've added this for your protection and that's it. Having said that, the other language in the section is what I could salvage from the existing small provisions that you had. So adult entertainment establishments have been grouped together. It's now a word that means bookstores, adult motion picture theaters, adult video stores, adult cabaret, they're all adult entertainment establishments in the definition section. And they're not closer than 750 feet from each other, a public or private nursery school. I modernize daycare centers to include family daycare homes, childcare centers, school-age childcare programs, public or private kindergarten, school, schools and schools, playgrounds, churches, residential properties. And then the actual enabling act requires that you eliminate from consideration anybody convicted of or violating these statutes, chapter 119, section 63, or chapter 272, section 28. And you don't want these things visible from a window onto the street. That's another typical condition. So it looks like it's a lot of rewrite, but it's pretty much what you had before with some constitutionality added. Section 7.2, section seven is special regulations that apply to just a particular kind of business or a kind of activity. It's not general in applicability because it's not parking that applies to multiple purposes or signs or landscaping or performance standards. These are just special regulations for section 7.2 retailer wholesale store factory manufacturing plant. My guess is that These were added a long time ago. They continue to be in your old ordinance. They're not doing any harm. So they're in here. Uh, limitations on genetic biomed and chemical research. Again, not a word change. This is, um, what you have now. It does prohibit, uh, bio level four, uh, in the city. Solar, um, is a very interesting solar bylaw. or ordinance. Normally I see solar energy systems regulated. A solar energy system is the term in the statute. So good to call it that because you then get the benefits of the statutory protection. Solar energy systems are in flux right now if you are to over-regulate. Many smaller communities, rural communities, suburban communities say you can only have large scale ground-mounted photovoltaic facilities in a certain district and then by special permit. That's now been litigated at the land court and now the appeals court. Judge Piper, chief judge of the land court, has ruled that the protection for solar energy systems is the same as the Dover protection for a church, school, or a child care facility. That's now working its way up. That's a massive change out where I live. Here, you're really Taking the opposite tack, you're saying we want solar energy systems if your building contains 10 or more units. We want if it's new construction of 10,000 square feet or more of floor area. So I congratulate you for this approach that encourages, if not requires, solar energy in certain situations. And I've taken what I believe was a general ordinance and moved it over here into zoning. vacant and foreclosing property section 7.5 is what you have now.
[Andre Leroux]: Excuse me, we have Director Schrader from the city who raised his hand.
[Victor Schrader]: Thank you, Chair. Mark in section 7.3 limitations on genetic biomedical and chemical research we added biosafety level three to that our current ordinance restricts level four. And we discussed adding three with city council. I just want to make note of that.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I'm looking at a color coded version that predates the one that you have on your screen. So I'm just going to take a second to look to see in the draft nine, whether that's changed. Change has been made. Take me a second.
[Victor Schrader]: I believe it has.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: It was just wanted to make sure it has been made. Yeah, I see it. Okay. Thank you. So vacant foreclosing properties is unique. I've never seen this before in anybody's anybody else's ordinances, but I, you know, it's, it's in there. It seems to have a valuable purpose. And so I've just renumbered it and placed it here. And at the end of this section, adult use marijuana establishments, this would be your contribution to recreational marijuana. And I believe I just renumbered what you have.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, and that's was recently addressed by the city council so this is all something that we're not revisiting here, really just. It's a very long section but we can we can just go through that scroll through it. I mean, yeah.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: And then finally, it never ends. Wireless telecommunications. So this is new. I saw nothing in the existing ordinance that talked about wireless. So I worked with Paul Moki and City Council to come up with something that we thought would manage effectively what the rules should be for wireless antenna and monopoles if needed. There was some question about whether or not the next generation of wireless, which I believe is mounted more on telephone poles, should be covered by these regulations. Telephone poles are generally in the public way and they are not subject to zoning regulation. So this looks more at the regulations for the ability of the provision of cell service from five years ago rather than the provision five years from now. But you didn't have anything before, so.
[Andre Leroux]: And is there anything that we need to know about that? And Amanda, can you just scroll through a little bit?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, so what I tried to do was create a system here by which any construction of new wireless telecommunication facilities would be avoided where there's no proof in advance that it's actually needed. As you may know, the facilities have coverage areas that can be determined by a technician and gaps in coverage are prohibited. So the Wireless Telecommunications Act says that you cannot discriminate between carriers. You cannot prohibit facilities. And by that, the law has been interpreted to mean that a gap in coverage is a prohibition, which is not allowed. So you have to kind of space the area in which these things can go so that you kill the gaps. And if you have a gap even then, and someone wants to locate outside an area that's been approved, there's a Massachusetts appeals court case that says it's eligible for a variance. And instead of applying the usual variance standards, you adapt the variance standards to the wireless standards. Wireless denials have to be based on substantial evidence. So that ratchets up the usual.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm sorry, Amanda, can you just stop on the criteria there so that people can read that on the screen? Thank you.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Let me come back and see where she stopped. Okay, so yeah. So the applicant's not already providing adequate coverage, not able to use an existing facility, minimize adverse impacts, agreed to implement reasonable measures to mitigate possible adverse impacts, FCC regs, and they've agreed to rent without discrimination to other. That parallels the words of the statute there. So you would have as a first option here that this could go in a church steeple or it could go on a roof. But if it's talking about putting up a new monopole, you really have to go through the grind here in order to show that that should be your last choice.
[Andre Leroux]: And as you just mentioned, Attorney Bobrowsky, so this doesn't cover things like, you know, on a commercial building or a steeple.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: No, it, it, it does allow for concealed antennas and, um, building mounted as well. So you can see the preference here, location seven, seven, four, their priorities established. Applicants shall demonstrate they've investigated the higher priority rankings than the one in which they're applying and why they can't do that. First priority within an existing structure concealed. Second priority on industrial or commercially zoned land. Third within an existing structure, camouflage not concealed. Then it goes, it ranks these further down to number seven. So the only time you get to building a new facility, and it can only be a monopole a hundred feet high, would be we can't do one through six. And I borrowed a little from Lexington. I borrowed a little from Quincy, I think, and we came up with a hybrid.
[Andre Leroux]: Is that the end of section seven? Yes. Okay. Any board members have comments or questions about section seven? Again, feel free to speak up since we're sharing the screen. I think it seems pretty straightforward. Okay. Any members of the public want to speak on section seven before moving on? All right, I don't see anybody, so let's move on to section eight.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, again, now we're in an area of the bylaw, the ordinance rather, that has just been moved over and renumbered. So inclusionary zoning has just been renumbered. In fact, I gave your inclusionary zoning provision to the city of Haverhill, which has established a task force for downtown affordable housing. I'm the legal advisor to it. I gave them yours, Quincy's, Brookline's, and Newton's. So this is just remembered and scrolling through accessory dwelling units we did spend a considerable amount of time on this at the council at us were a target of governor. And what the governor said in the legislation, and now law is that an ad you. has a certain definition to it. I think that's worth reviewing the definition. So I'll just jump down to the definition in my version here. So an ADU is a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as the principal dwelling as defined in chapter 40A, section 1A. I believe that the size limitation of an ADU is not more than, I don't remember that. I've got to look at that definition, but it's not more than half the size of the principal structure or I believe 800 square feet, whichever is smaller. So that might not be the exact number, but there is a definition. So this section- 900. Is it 900? I think so. Yeah. I have to check. So this is incorporating the governor's standard. And the governor says you can allow them by right in the principal dwelling. And you can also allow them in an accessory structure on the same lot as the principal dwelling. And the city council made the choice back in section eight point. I'm just scrolling back up in my on screen here. So the city council made the choice to allow them by right in the principal unit and by special permit in an accessory unit. And this has repercussions for your voting because under the governor's act, some of this now only requires a 50% vote of the council instead of the two thirds. And some of it only requires the same change for the actual special permit. So ADU is allowed as of right in the principal dwelling or by special permit in an existing detached structure. Both of those are consistent with the governor's language. And then the requirements are pretty much a hybrid of new and old. This is what you had before in large measure. No, 900 square feet, I see it there. That's the definition in the statute.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, so just again to clarify for folks, If there's an accessory dwelling unit, which is kind of an accessory apartment, oftentimes they're called in-law units. They can be used for a caretaker or a family member. So you can have multi-generational family living together or nearby. That, as long as it's inside the existing single family home, and it doesn't change the outside of the home that people are allowed to do that as of right. You don't need a special permit, but if you're going to propose putting one of these accessory apartments in your backyard, for example, then you need to get a special permit.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, and I believe the key language there would be in a detached structure in an existing detached structure. So it's got, it's targeting things like a garage with a second floor or a carriage house or something to that effect. It doesn't, this is not something that is specifically, I'm sure there may be a question on this, so I'm addressing it in advance. This is not something that would be, that was designed to accommodate a tiny house as a second dwelling unit on a lot.
[Alicia Hunt]: Mr. Chair, if I might ask specifically on that point, Attorney Brabowski, this is Alicia. Would that, does that absence of that imply that they are not permitted? There is no route to create a new accessory detached structure to then add a accessory dwelling unit?
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: And I've been reading about what they're doing in California to promote affordable housing in a state that doesn't have any. And it seems like their idea would be to allow for a tiny home as a second dwelling unit on a lot, I'm sure that meets certain characteristics. But the only place I know in Massachusetts that does that as a cultural thing is Nantucket.
[Andre Leroux]: There have been a number of communities that have moved in this direction. So that's something that I'm certainly interested in looking into a little bit more. I know the city of Newton, I believe they also, they allow detached ones by special permit now. I can look into that more.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: But is that new construction or existing structures?
[Andre Leroux]: I believe it's new.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, well, it wouldn't surprise me.
[Andre Leroux]: I know Arlington passed ADU ordinance recently, but I haven't checked to see whether the new detached units are allowed or not. I thought they were. I'm sorry, what's that? That was Arlington. I think Arlington and Newton might be worth looking at.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I've been asked this question quite often recently.
[Andre Leroux]: So just, yeah, just want to flag that. I think this is great that the city council wants to move in this direction. And I think maybe we just want to, we could consider making a recommendation about expanding it a little bit. Obviously they're going to make the choice whether to do that or not, but. Okay.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Senior housing is new. This section only has a couple of sections left. So, yeah. So this would be a, blanket provision that allows senior housing facilities. They would be defined in 832 when you look back at the definitions as independent living, assisted living, including memory unit, long-term care facility or congregate care facility. Congregate care would be one or more of the other three components together in a single facility. So the idea here is that your baby boomers are all going to find themselves needing some sort of an end place. And these, you know, very typically are a choice that benefits people. All allowed by special permit from the CDB just in 833. So there's a flexible approach here in that we are not recommending any kind of density ratio by per square foot of lot size, for example. It's more or less bring me something to look at and we'll see if we like it. And if we don't, and if it's five pounds of sugar in a two pound bag, we'll say no. But the height limitations, 35 feet, unless a building is being renovated, 20 foot setbacks. You want it to be a little bit further away from existing residential dwellings because it's a different character. I just litigated one of these up in Andover. 100 beds, it's probably about, oh, it's probably, it's certainly well over 50,000 square feet in size. And it's in a residential district. So you'd wanna be sure where you're going with it. But again, the idea here is that the housing is needed for people aging in place. And this is of particular benefit to a city because it is revenue positive by a huge measure. And then the city council also explored whether or not to add short-term rentals. Paul Moki was particularly involved in this provision. And we took a look at trying to remember where the example came from. We looked at Cambridge and we looked at one other one and Paul and I kind of selected what we thought were the best features. And this is the product of that. So short-term rental would address things like VRBO or Airbnb housing and put some regulations in place so that a neighborhood isn't disrupted by people constantly just renting the structure and parties bothering people. Consistent with what's happened in other destination cities like New Orleans in the past two or three years. And those are the special residential regulations that the ordinance contemplated. If I can go through one more, there are special district regulations. There's only two. The old mixed use zoning district has got a lot of rules that don't lend themselves to placement in the dimensional section. So we just kept the language intact here and moved it over to a new home under special district regs. And then an innovative idea that the city council liked was section 9.2, and that is planned development district. This comes from my experience in a few places, Quincy, Burlington, and Lexington to name three. Planned development district is an invitation, if you will, not a regulation, it's to ask the development community if they have a specific proposal for a piece of land that would be rezoned to a PDD. PDD can be either residential or commercial or mixed use. And this is essentially a rezoning of the parcel and then the city could always put it on special permit after that. But it has to be a partnership. So if someone were to come to see the planning office and say, a widget factory on this parcel of land, in order for this to go anywhere, the planning department would have to say, good idea, let's take it up a notch. And then together they would draft the proposal. My experience is that cities are really bad at predicting what will work for developers. They're not in the business of trying to turn a dime into a profit. And so predicting things like a PUD does, generally don't attract any takers. PUD is typically some residential component, some commercial component, and some office component. But I mean, I know of a PUD that qualified in Salem that's a dentist office, a duplex, and a stop and shop. That's not what we had in mind. Quincy does these now in their larger commercial developments, and every one is a separate district. If you drive Hartwell Avenue, in Lexington on the west side of 128 from the 4-225 exit down to the next exit. Those are all PDDs. Every one of those is its own district because somebody had a different idea. And Burlington is doing the same thing with its old mall properties. The district, if you know where that is in Burlington, is a PDD. These rules have to be written in a way that predict the outcomes. So if you leave them too loosey-goosey, then the problem is that you probably won't get what you bargained for. So the idea would be that there's an ordinance worked out between the city and the developer. The text of the amendment is up for grabs. The map of the amendment is up for grabs. The uses are up for grabs. It goes through the process of a preliminary plan and then a city council vote at the end of the day. When I just recodified Haverhill last year, this is in there. We've now passed our first one. It's a project that reuses an old banquet facility site on the Bradford side. And we liked the idea, we voted it, and I believe they're under construction already. There's another one coming downtown that we may do as a PDD. So this is the most, for me, this is the most progressive way to develop land in a partnership with a city. Uh, where the city is getting as well as giving and the developer, uh, is putting something in there. That's going to be a real benefit to the community. If it goes to special permanent, it need not. These are the criteria in section 9.2 0.7, Amanda nine to seven, but it truly has to be a partnership. This is what smart growth is. If you take a look at chapter 40-R, then this is the same idea. There's no spot zoning in chapter 40-R. And I think spot zoning is pretty much dead as a doctrine in 40-A as well. So I'll stop there.
[Andre Leroux]: lot to, to absorb and we're going through it very, very quickly. Yeah. Do any board members have questions or concerns they'd like to raise.
[David Blumberg]: Interesting. I just wanted to clarify on the plan development districts that this, this is something that the developer would have to pitch to the city. It's not something the city could, for instance, use to for purposes of a taking or some urban development, urban revitalization sort of project.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: No big partnership.
[David Blumberg]: Yep. So we'd have to come.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: For example, in Haverhill, there's a parcel, and I've been working for the city for 25 years. There's a parcel on the river called the paperboard site. It was a factory, but it's got some solid waste, but it doesn't have anything dirty. Imagine what that could be. I mean, the owner is not coming forward, but imagine if he did. He could build, they're over 10%. He could build luxury housing there. It could be a mixed-use destination. It could have restaurants on the river. Sala Poli just built a 10 story building right on the river. We got some boardwalk out of it. There's a restaurant on the 10th floor with a sunset view across the Merrimack. He's now coming in and he's gonna revamp the gecky deck, which is over in that section of the downtown. And he's got big ideas for that area as well. This is a device to let him do that. If you agree, if you don't agree, you can't do it. Thank you. It's exciting. As you can tell, I really enjoy this kind of negotiation with somebody who wants to do the right thing, as you define it.
[Andre Leroux]: Are there other board members who want to weigh in on this or the other pieces we talked about right before that? Attorney Borowski, I did have a question about the senior housing facility piece. That was senior housing facility. We didn't have the definition right in front of us. Can you just remind us what that is? Is that just any housing that's age restricted or does it have to have services?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: No, it's a bit broader than or narrower than that. So I'm just gonna scoot to my definitions here. too far so it is an assisted living facility as defined by general laws chapter 19d and there's a cmr as well continuing care facility as regulated by chapter 93 section 76 independent living doesn't have that kind of statutory oversight but you know i've This is very common on the Cape. There's a gentleman down there by the name of Chris Wise. He runs facilities under the business name of Wise Living, and they're pretty much independent. So when you need assisted living, you're not in Chris's building anymore. You're moving on. You could have home care come into an independent living facility, but at some point you graduate to assisted living, which is an entirely different structure. Long-term care facility is 105 CMR 150. Senior housing is people 55 and older, and a senior housing facility is any one of those. And the laws that would govern here would be the Fair Housing Act and other federal legislation about discrimination. So senior facilities are an exception to the otherwise applicable rule that housing cannot discriminate as to family composition. The exception is if one unit If 80% of the units have at least one person 55 and older. So that's the structure of senior housing laws. And you can have all 55 and older. You just have to say that. The later amendment called HOPA, Housing for Older Persons Act, allows you to have 100% 55 and older.
[Andre Leroux]: And which the senior housing facility, which zoning districts are those, are they limited to any?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I think we picked the ones that allowed assisted living, long-term care, that kind of thing. Let me open up the use regulations here. So they are allowed by city council special permit in the following districts SF one SF two gr apartment one apartment two apartment three C one C two, and music.
[Andre Leroux]: And attorney rescue about the the museum district. do that's, that is existing language that we had on the books. And so in your opinion, the PDD is a better way to go or are they both useful?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, remember, I just darn it. I just killed the use table. It's easy to get back. So in MUZ, you're prescribing what I can do. It's, it's straight. forward prescription. So multiple dwelling class A, multiple dwelling class B. Other things that would be allowed are community centers. I'm going deeper into this. It would allow open space recreational uses, open public recreational uses, private entertainment, recreation facility, public entertainment, club or lodge, trade professional or other school, hotels, large and small, brewery or tap room. You know, this is fine, it's pretty open, business professional, business government, medical, no, not business government. Medical office would be allowed, banks, financial institutions. So there may be enough flexibility here for somebody to do what they wanna do in MUZ, but you don't, for example, allow an eating place without a drive-through, that's a prohibited use. And then all of the motor vehicle uses are prohibited. And it may be that this isn't exactly what I wanna do. So I could come in and I could add something to the MUZ by a council amendment, but I could propose exactly what I wanted to do under the plan development district.
[Andre Leroux]: And I believe the only section of the city that is the MUZ is the Wellington, the development along the river next to the Wellington station area. Yeah. Great, thank you. So we've kind of covered a lot right here. There's accessory dwelling units, we've got short-term rentals, we've got the MUZ district, the planned development district, the senior housing piece. Are there members of the public that would like to speak on these topics? Yes, Mr. Snyder.
[Paul Morgan]: Hi, it's William Snyder at 87 Warren Street. Um, I have a few comments on aid. I'm not sure attorney Bob Roski needs to weigh in. So you can tell me if I want to go through them. I have just a I can start and you can tell me, you know, we can wait till after but on the on the ad you one of the things I noticed was that it requires if you can at least one additional parking space. And it says at least one additional and I was wondering if that was still covered by the, I'm sensitive to maximum parking spaces at a single family or single SF2 property. And so currently that's four. And is this still limited at four or is the ADU let somebody put in five or even more than five? And I just recommend that be clarified.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Hang on, I'm trying to take notes and I'm going back to the ADU. Yep.
[Paul Morgan]: I'm not sure if it's actually in the ADU part, but there's a, there's a place where it says, I think maybe even earlier where it says you have to put in one additional space if you can, at least one. Yeah. I'll see if I can find that.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay. Just give me the section number so I can find it again. Hold on. I'm looking at the ADU is eight two.
[Paul Morgan]: Yes.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, sufficient for, yeah, it's section 8.2.3. looks like seven, six.
[Paul Morgan]: Yeah, so that kind of implies that if I put an ADU, I can break the maximum limit on a dwelling unit and just start putting as many as I want.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Oh, okay.
[Paul Morgan]: And I don't, personally, I don't like that. I don't recommend that. I think it would be, if somebody had two, maybe they could put in three but I think there is still the four space limit on a single family, an SF1 property. Yeah.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, good point.
[Paul Morgan]: And the other point for that 8.2 just real quick is I didn't get from reading it, it wasn't clear to me that the special permit requirements only applied to special permit. So that needs to be clarified. If I'm building the ADU in my house, I don't need to do any of those plot plans or anything like that. Right.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: You have to show it to the building inspector, but I see what you're saying. Yeah.
[Paul Morgan]: Okay. It's not clear which of those requirements apply to the by right case.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I think you're right. And I will put, I'll put building commissioner or SPGA as the case may be.
[Paul Morgan]: Yeah. And, um, uh, let's see. Um, and then. In the short term rentals, it wasn't clear, it wasn't clear in the city should specify whether if I have an ADU, but I live in the main house, can I use the ADU as a short term rental? I assume the intent is no, but.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: No, if you look, it says an affidavit number two, 8232, an affidavit, David shall be provided stating that one of the two dwelling units shall be occupied by the owner. So the owner can move into the ADU. and rent the larger home?
[Paul Morgan]: Oh, they can do either way.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yes.
[Paul Morgan]: And, and is that, is that, is that a 90 day limit or they can, or they can, I'm talking about the short term rental.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Oh, the short term rental. Okay.
[Paul Morgan]: Yeah. The question is if I have an ADU in my house, can I short term rent it or is it, or is it, or is it excluded because I don't ever live there? I think that's not clear.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay.
[Paul Morgan]: Just I'm sure the city. I'm sure the intent is not to have the ad use become short term rentals but if that is allowed it's one of those different one of those two options should be spelled out.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Looking at the definition to see if it does.
[Paul Morgan]: Yeah.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: A primary residence is a residential unit in which an operator resides for at least nine months out of a 12 month period. So the requirement to the short term rental is that the operator slash owner has to be there nine out of 12 months.
[Paul Morgan]: And so it seems the intent is that you couldn't you couldn't permanently live in the main house and 365 days a year rent out the ADU as a short term. Yeah, that might need some clarification in the language. Okay, no problem. Okay. And I think that's about it. I appreciate the board's help and your help. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks for your careful reading, Mr. Snyder, appreciate it. Are there other members of the public who would like to speak on these housing issues?
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay, let's continue. Okay, I'm gonna scroll back up to where we left off here. I believe we're on section 10 now, and that is your linkage. sections just rolled over. I did, there was a lot of redundancy, so I tried to consolidate some of the language up front in 10.1 is the basic rule, but it was repeated every time you had another linkage fee. So I didn't see the need for that again and again and again. So no, so I, this is what you have. I did not change any functional requirement here. So And you'll see that each of them has a section that parallels the next. So the credits is repeated, for example, in each of the subsections. So 10.1.6 is credit for, you know, park recreational land. Then the whole pattern repeats for fire and police facilities. And it makes me very jealous to see that you have this because everybody should have this.
[Andre Leroux]: Right.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I long ago was engaged by Franklin to do impact fees. We approached the legislature. Franklin was the fastest growing town in Massachusetts at the end of the eighties and the legislature passed it, but Weld had taken a no new tax promise. And he didn't want to stand on some platform somewhere, try to distinguish an impact fee from a tax. So he pocket vetoed it. We then tried it under home rule. We imitated what St. John, Florida had done the county on schools. We hired the same people. We wrote the same ordinance. It was defended successfully at the Florida Supreme Court. It was home ruled just like Massachusetts and we got kicked. So I'm still bitter as you can tell. All right, so administration and enforcement, this administration section up front here, was vetted by Paul, so he's had his fingerprints all over this. I love the posting of public notification panels. I think that's a great idea. It's very common elsewhere, but you rarely see it in Massachusetts. And I think it's great. One of the reasons I think it's great is because if you were to post building permits as well, then your neighbor would only have 30 days to appeal the building permit. It would be adequate notice for them to have to take advantage of it. And you might think about, adding to 11.2.1 or the recipient of a building permit for new construction shall add one of these notification panels. The only town I know that does that is Wellesley. So you're making them put up the panel for notice of the public hearing. Wellesley makes them put up the notice for the successful grant of a building permit. And the case law that's developed from that, I think is very, beneficial to the person who got the building permit because unless your neighbor takes you to the ZBA within 30 days, they lose their right to later seek zoning enforcement. That statute of limitation is six years. So you could go through the process of building the building and then face a challenge four years in. Think about that as a possible amendment. Again, we're still in Paul's department enforcement. I don't think you had the proper language for the, I'm going back to look at the color coded draft. I think you were a little, you were shorting yourself on the amount that you could collect as a penalty. And I also added here the possibility of taking, of doing this as a non-criminal disposition. Think of a zoning violation being treated like a parking, a traffic ticket. So the only way you can get money from a zoning violation is to take the person who you, the $300 a day fine. You have to go to a district court jury of six, show cause to the magistrate first, and then have a trial. And if you win the trial, you get the money. You don't normally get all of it, but you can get some of it. The non-criminal disposition provision allows you to just have Paul issue a traffic ticket and, you know, it kind of goes up in these are, you know, you could change these numbers easily. It's 11.3.3, Amanda. So 50 bucks, 20 bucks, 25 bucks for the first offense, 50 for the second, 100 for the third, 200 for the fourth. The next section's Board of Appeals. We basically shortened it up a little bit It had a lot of repetition of the statute. And, you know, it's these days, everybody knows how to Google mass general laws and you can see what statute says in 13 seconds. So just citations generally suffice here. Otherwise we didn't change anything. Planning of the CDB rather didn't have a section. So what's up with that? We added 11.5. And we also added some provisions with regard to an associate number. So all of 11.5 is new and their powers are listed there as well. Under special permits, this is a rewrite of your generic special permit language. So these are the criteria that I've used for a long time, 11.6.2. And I did legacy place using this. the Hebrew senior living facility on the top of the hill overlooking the Charles and Dedham. These really work because your board knows what they need to think about. The applicant knows what they need to prove and the abutters could pick their best shot at arguing that it should be conditioned or denied. And I can't think of anything that's left out here. So do we need it? What's it due to traffic? How do the utilities work? What's happening to the neighborhood, natural environment? and potential fiscal impact. This is where the rethinking needs to occur if you're gonna take that out of the performance standards. The referral provisions are what you have now. Conditions, I've just added some examples as conditions. And there you have it. Now I'm gonna show you, if I can share screen, Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: You should be able to.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: So I'm going to show you something that I crafted because I reread the site plan section and I wasn't happy with it. So I gotta find it first. Oh, there it is, okay. Okay, so there was a land court decision after the first draft of this was prepared by Judge Foster. I advocate in site plan review that the appeal go directly to court under chapter 48, section 17. Remember site plan review is not a special permit. It's not a variance. There's no language at all in the statute that talks about site plan review and there never has been. It's a creature of city government and the courts. So you can do pretty much any model you want. But judge Foster said, that if you're going to elect to take the appeal of the CDB decision, and it only applies to a CDB decision for a use as of right, that trips a certain threshold. If there's gonna be an appeal, it should go directly to court. And Judge Foster's contribution fairly recently was, well, if that's the case, it ought to have a public hearing too. And that's kind of what was missing, particularly under the Dover section, which comes next. So you can just see, I massaged this a little bit to, can you see this? Yeah.
[Andre Leroux]: It's small. I don't know if you could make it a little bigger, Amanda.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, I can, I can make it.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Sorry. This is you, Mark.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: This is me.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: So what I did was tweak it in a couple of places, just to clarify, those are the things that trip it. So I wanted to make sure that the planning, the community development board was, because I'm using this terminology now, site plan review authority. This is the first place where I introduce it. Didn't change much in the generic site plan review. A lot of stuff that are in the plans, this didn't change at all. So the decision, the board may approve proof of conditions or deny. when acting as the approval authority provided however that any denial shall be predicated only upon applicants failure to provide necessary information. That's the holding in the case of Prudential Insurance versus Board of Appeals of Westwood. The Community Development Board may recommend approval or approval with conditions when the Board of Appeals or the city council is acting as a special permit granting authority. Any conditions limitations may be whether imposed or recommended as the case may be, will be in a written decision within 90 days after the close of the public hearing, that should say, I gotta fix that. And failure to file the 90 days shall be approval. So what this does is set up the same structure for hearings that you would have for a special permit. But remember, a special permit is yes, No or yes with conditions. Site plan review by case law is yes or yes with conditions, but not no, except for that very limited no that can be had when the application was not complete. And then over here in the next section, which I've moved up to have one site plan section after the other, this is site plan review for Dover. I've added the public hearing requirement because you're going to have a direct appeal to court. So you have to have this according to judge Foster. And in the section on decision, any denial predicated upon lack of information and any appeal under this section, meaning Dover site plan review to a court of competent jurisdiction. So just some cosmetic tweaks to make it clear what we're up to. And then I've moved the reasonable accommodation provision, which was between these two sections before to 11.9. And right now, the reasonable accommodation provision continues to be an important thing. I'm doing some work in Merrimack Valley City that involves drug and alcohol rehabilitation, all covered by disability law. And all I'm trying to do to a community is send a message, call your lawyer, get your lawyer on board here right away. This is not something to fool around with. And the last section is definition. So you'll see those rewrites in the 11.7 and 11.8 when the next draft is prepared. So I've taken copious notes, especially in the first meeting. And what I would propose we do, are you going to go on with the public hearing and fidget a bit more with this?
[Andre Leroux]: I think we're gonna just talk a little bit about whether there are issues we wanna discuss further.
[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, I would be- I'm wondering if we should clarify a process because it's something that attorney Bobrowski was just saying, just so that we don't accidentally mess up his process with our process.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I don't think I'm gonna do anything until you decide to give me a more global list after discussing it some more, which certainly is a good idea, so that I only do this once.
[Alicia Hunt]: So I thought we were sending a list to the city council for what they changes they we recommend they make.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: That's fine.
[Alicia Hunt]: You mentioned doing another draft and I was confused if you were going to be sending that list to the city council.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Well, technically, it's your public hearing. So your corrections to the draft are yours to make. The process under chapter 48, section five delegates the public hearing to the planning board or the community development board. In your case, the purpose of a public hearing is to think about what you want to do and change it if you don't want to continue on the same path. So just as an example, striking utility, striking a fiscal analysis from the performance standards. Well within your wheelhouse, you can do that if you want to. And then you can send over a draft to the city, to the city council and then The city council is the original drafts person of this but the public hearing is not their responsibility it's yours by statute. So we should come up with a process where we collectively come up with your list and then we have a city council subcommittee, perhaps or the full council, and we run this list by them, and they pick and choose which ones they want to make and I get instructions and I only do it once.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. And I've, you know, Attorney Borowski, you've been taking some notes and at certain points you've said, oh, that's a good, I should fix that language. Are you tracking all of those little things? Because.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yep. Yep. I've got copious notes from first meeting and I've got more notes tonight, so I know exactly where to go with it. I'm doing, I'm right at about the same stage in Bridgewater right now on draft 14. We had the public hearing, the chairman of the planning board had a bunch of changes, but he had a bunch of changes before and we way overshot. And now I had to pull all that stuff back out and I don't want to do that again. So I want to meet with the planner. I'm meeting with her on Monday and we're going to go through the master list created. I'm going to make the changes if we go from there.
[Andre Leroux]: I think my expectation was that we're going to identify as many areas tonight as we can. I think the OCD staff planning staff is going to write it up and I will work to make sure that all of the concerns that we've conveyed are adequately represented in that draft. And then we will bring it back on January 5th so that the public can see what our recommendations are and we can have a final conversation about it before we give it to, well, to the city council.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Okay. And I talked with Amanda today about me joining you on the 5th. So I think we can compare and coordinate our lists. Perhaps if I have a minute, I'll send my list so that I, well, it's fresh in my mind, especially for tonight's stuff. And you can take into consideration what I've identified and add to it or subtract from it. Right. That would be great. But the whole point would be to take to the city council your best recommendation for the changes that should be made. And I mean, ultimately I leave to you deciding who controls that final decision because the statute does put it in your hands.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, well, there are points at which you mentioned, oh, I'll try to take a stab at that language. So I'm wondering whether given the notes that you've taken, you could provide to the planning staff your new red line version so that they can compile whatever kind of technical changes you've made and along with our recommendations.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Yeah, doing well, I mean, like doing a red line version of changes that will not get accepted in the next, in your list or in the city council's list to two lists more to go is a lot of work for, and then I'm gonna have to pull out the changes. So what I'd rather do is give you a list and then you prepare your list and then we'll take our list to the city council and then I'll hear from them and then I'll prepare the new draft and that'll be the last draft draft 10. Okay, so sorry, just to clarify. I'll give you a bulleted list of what I think I heard. You can do the same, Alicia leads the charge. We'll then have two lists. We'll coordinate those lists just by discussing them. If it calls for new language, I may give you that language in the list. For example, on the special permit for signs bigger, parking less. We found some good language in section 6.4 that we might just use there. And then we'll coordinate our lists, if you will, and then we'll take that to the city council.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. And that coordination, we'll do that at the next meeting. Sounds like a good idea. Yep. Okay.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: And I'm having an operation, so I have all the time in the world to do this.
[Alicia Hunt]: You need to recuperate from your operation.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: No, I'm looking at this as a real opportunity. You want me to come to a meeting? I'm getting a Lincoln Town car. So I can't drive. It's my right leg. My wife's hid the car keys somewhere. I don't know where they are.
[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry to hear that. And we may be in touch just about some of the logistics, because I think what we were anticipating was that there would be a list of very specific changes and or language substitutions that we would send to the council. So it'd be very simple for them to accept or decline. I just, I really wanted to make sure we weren't doing double duty by the, by you doing a draft and us doing the list without realizing.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: I'm happy to do the draft, but my experience in Bridgewater was that we went rushing past what the appetite was of the public. And then they said, pull it all back. And now I've got another list that I have to figure out because the chairman of the planning board has been there for a long time and he's a good guy and he's trying to do the right thing, but politically he sometimes overruns the appetite of the people in the room. So.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, thank you. And I know, uh, attorney Roski, you, uh, need to step out and I know, uh, director hunt you do as well. So. I'll let you both do that right now. And thank you for participating tonight.
[PQNVkYiOrIU_SPEAKER_12]: Great. I think I'll see you on January 5th. So everybody have a great holiday season. Yes. Thank you. You too. Thank you.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. And I'm leaving Amanda and Vic for anything, and I can watch the video if there's anything I need to see the details of.
[Andre Leroux]: Great. Thank you. So we really blew quickly through a lot of stuff tonight. And so I just want to take a moment to kind of slow down and let the members and members of the public kind of weigh in and see if there are things that even if you don't have recommended language that we should take a closer look at or that you may be concerned about or things that you want to process a little bit more. So let me open it up to the CD board members first. And I guess, why don't I, I'm gonna put people on the spot. I'm gonna take everybody's temperature. If I can just go around the board and hear what everybody thinks about what we've done over the last couple of meetings and what they've seen. David, I see you. I'll go first. I'll go, David, and then I'll take, go to Jackie after that.
[Unidentified]: Sorry.
[David Blumberg]: I just have to. Well, I feel like we've been through, we were part of our, these two meetings, I think was really to let Mark run his presentation and just sort of get some general feedback. I, I'm not sure. Like for instance, a special permit, in my opinion, one person's opinion for a medical office to 5000 square feet in the city of this size. To me that threshold needs to be changed. I wasn't going to bring that up tonight because it's such a small item it wasn't worth everyone's attention or discussion. I don't know are we abbreviating this so much that we're not going to get to the finer details if we're just taking the global discussion that we've had the last two meetings and and running right to a draft. That's my top concern.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, no, I definitely think that you should identify those items so that we can try to at least put them into a list of things that we can, you know, process over the next few weeks and that maybe the planning staff can try to put into a list with language. And then on January 5th, we can go through them and see if that's everything that we want. So I don't know, David, if you have a list of things, maybe it would be good for public record for you to go through them. So I don't know, what do you think?
[David Blumberg]: Yeah, I just, I don't know that I would have everything ready to go right now to go through. I'm happy to put together a list between now and January 5th, but I also want to be sensitive to the process and whatever public disclosures we need to have participation, so. Right.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, can I ask a question? Does it make sense if as a board, we sort of narrow down the list of what we feel as a board are the most critical components and then hone in on those because some are just whatever, but some are pretty material. And so which ones as a board do we feel are the most material that need to, that deeper dive and set a process for that within a reasonable timeframe and for public input. I just, I wasn't at the last meeting personally. I didn't, I don't have the benefit of those discussions just sort of reading the notes after, so I don't have a lot of context of the discussion, but, you know, a lot of things around housing and I'd like to take a closer look at, or the things that David has raised, I'd like to take a closer look at, but I think all of us probably have things that are more important to us, but if we maybe just sort of narrow it down. I don't know if that makes sense. I'm just trying to get to a place where we can decide like these are the most material things.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Well, I think that. you know, obviously the sooner we can get this back to the city council, the better so they can take action on it. That's one thing that we're hoping to do. I mean, this is a lot of material, so I don't wanna short change that effort. But I think, you know, to the extent that we can identify tonight a list of things for the planning staff to compile, and then if, individually, you know, board members want to send thoughts to the planning department, they can compile a list that in advance of the next meeting, we can share with the public and each other. and discuss at the next meeting. And then we can, you know, it's always easier to look at something once it's written down and go through it in a list format. So I think that's what I'd like to try to get to for the fifth. And then if it turns out we, some of these things require a lot, you know, more conversation, you know, we can continue it again.
[Deanna Peabody]: Yeah, it seems like there are a lot of like specific numbers that we need to review, like as far as square footage, when things are required that I'm not sure like how those numbers were developed and maybe some that don't exist, like the fiscal analysis, maybe there's some size that we add for when that would be required.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I know you've been trying to speak.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Yes, sorry, I'm having technical difficulties with my phone as well as my laptop. But I just pretty much there are there's one in particular that I am a little concerned about. And that's the use of the TDM, and it's or something like that for transportation. And I kind of thought that Deanna was gonna chime in on that one. And just but I don't have a specific question right now for it. It's more so just something I wanted to look at even further. And One of the suggestions you made was for us to give comments before the January 5th meeting, but perhaps we just go and take a look at it again tonight. I don't know how helpful that'll be for myself even, only because it's just a couple of things that I'm trying to digest. And I know for the sake of time, we want to get this before the city council. However, there are just some, again, as Christy and David has said, there are some I just don't know where to get to from this document right now. I'm trying to get it so it's digestible and that we're not just dealing with like little tiny details that are neither here nor there. But I want to make sure we get to the gut of it, but at the same time, not miss anything.
[Jenny Graham]: Before we had divided and conquered, we paired up and said, you two people look at these sections that you may be more interested in or align with our experience and, you know, take a look at those, develop your comments on that. So I don't know if that's a way to do it where, you know, we can just, everybody takes certain sections and says, and just focuses on those, gets their comments in before the 5th, and then planning can compile all that.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, we can do that. And so the idea that I had for this section of the meeting was to really hear from all of you, if there are pieces of it that you're particularly interested in that you need to be, you want to dig into more or that you want to flag for further conversation. So Jackie, you know, you just mentioned, I think the TDM was at the Transportation Demand Management. Yes.
[Deanna Peabody]: I can take out, take a closer look at it. It sounded all you know consistent with what I've done or seen in other towns working on development projects, but I can take a closer look.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, I think you know my sense is that. Attorney has worked in a number of communities. A lot of this language is stuff that has been used before by other communities. And I think the question that we need to ask about different sections is, is this appropriate for our community? And Jackie, are there other pieces that stand out to you you wanna dig into?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: There are, if we can, actually, I know Amanda stopped sharing her screen and I don't have access to my materials in front of me. There was a section that David had called out earlier, but I wasn't sure what my stance was on it at the time of, but if we can go back a couple, I don't know if Amanda can share her screen again.
[Amanda Centrella]: Sure, yes, I can. Do you recall what section it was roundabout?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: David if you can help me out here there was a section that you called out and you want to know if anyone else had any concerns about it and it was at the time of, I was not sure that I did.
[David Blumberg]: I talked about the discretion in the board is that.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: It wasn't so much a discretion of the board, it was about being sensitive to neighborhood character. And I just cannot recall what section that was.
[David Blumberg]: I raised that in connection with the noise standards.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: The noise standards.
[David Blumberg]: I did also run, I did sort of find throughout for the word character, thinking that it would lead me to some others. And there might be some, I just wasn't able to complete that project. You saw what I was trying to do was, instead of using that buzzword, actually try to focus on what's germane to the topic, which here would be, I thought, the introduction of new noises or the increase in noises, which are a couple of things we want to try to avoid.
[Andre Leroux]: I agree. I mean, I think that we as a board have expressed in the past consensus about wanting to replace that language with language that's, you know, maybe more neutral. Yeah. And I think you know, that some of these introductions, they don't, they're not the substance of it, but we don't wanna do anything that's gonna get us into trouble by saying this is what the purpose of it is, you know, as we're implementing it.
[David Blumberg]: Especially, Andre, as you pair that with discretion later on in the section too. Right. So suddenly. Exactly.
[Andre Leroux]: I definitely agree with that.
[David Blumberg]: I had a few items, Andre, if you just wanted kind of overall topics, like a short list. I was really struck by the discussion of how we define a family and what a single family dwelling is under the ordinance. how appropriate it is to talk about those who are related and then how many unrelated folks could be within the same dwelling. So I did some research on that and I think it's a problematic area. One of the first things I saw is that in New York state in 1989, the state's highest court found that to be violative of due process. under the state constitution. So obviously we don't have the same state constitution as New York, but the point of the matter was that it was found to some, to essentially be not tied directly enough to a zoning rationale and to be somewhat, well, to be discriminatory as to related people and unrelated people. You know, essentially you can't have as many unrelated people living in one home as you can related. How does this make sense? It seems that there's been an effort by some communities to avoid this type of a basis to determine what a single family, and you don't have the terminology in front of me, but what a single family house is, or a dwelling, or a home. And I noticed, so I tried to take a deeper look on this, and Somerville, which I always look to as an example, clearly I've put so many resources into their zoning ordinance, it's only a couple of years old, does follow the same paradigm that we have. But Newton, for instance, does not. So in Newton, instead of defining the dwelling by kind of the number of occupants or how many family and unrelated folks are within it, just focuses on defining the dwelling unit by the number the actual characteristics of it. So it's a habitable unit for one family with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, sanitation. So this would be a paradigm shift. You'd have to kind of redefine dwelling single family, dwelling two family, move away from know, the number of unrelated members, and, and really focus on the characteristics of the dwelling itself. I don't know where that leaves us, but I thought that I was really struck by the comments from the public on the topic. And I felt like I needed to get my head into it and I did. And I found that I think it is kind of a problem. And I think that if we're doing this, we probably should try to use the best practices.
[Andre Leroux]: And do you have that language from Newton? Is that something that we could maybe put on the list for consideration?
[David Blumberg]: Exactly. I could put that on the list. And so it would lead itself to a number of definitions needing to be updated. So you have to define a dwelling unit. You have to define a single family detached or two family detached dwelling. There would be a little bundle of updates to do.
[Andre Leroux]: Well, David, if the definition of family is just modified.
[Jenny Graham]: Well, so for instance, you don't necessarily have to do the definition of family is just wrong, because I could see this could personally that could personally impact me. To be honest, I have family that's not blood or married, and we live together as a family.
[David Blumberg]: Right, so Newton just doesn't even use the term family. That's not the point. It's not in the zoning ordinance at all. I mean, the word is used, but it's not defined and set as a standard.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, but we could, I mean, just as a possibility to consider too, we could just define a family by its functional characteristics, right, of people, kind of the housekeeping unit, basically.
[David Blumberg]: Yeah. And I think that's where they're trying to get by defining it as a dwelling unit. Like, okay, this is a place where living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation occurs. Well, okay, I would do that with my family.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Amanda, could you stop sharing your screen? Thanks. We can always go back to it at certain points. All right, well, let's- That's a big thing. Right, so David, I think if you could send that language to the planning staff, if you have a suggestion, and then if anybody else would also like to suggest an approach to that, then we could maybe compare them and make a decision over the next meeting.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Andre it's Jackie, I would like to work with David on that only because it's the landmark law cases in reference to planning is something that I have just delved into. And if he doesn't mind, I would love to work on him with the language.
[David Blumberg]: Yes. I had a couple of other, other items Andre on my list here. And that is I share the comments of Mr. Snyder tonight, talking about not encouraging folks to maximize parking spaces on their property and notice that Somerville, and I don't think Medford does is very clear about driveways, encouraging the surfaces that are used on driveways to be Porous ribbon driveways are encouraged. You have to get a permit to put it in the driveway, a discouragement of going to the maximum allowed in terms of the number of spaces. It's just become a pet peeve of mine I've seen a number of properties where it seems like front lawns are no longer front lawns they're turning into parking areas. Folks are paving over the hill strip. to accommodate more, more parking. So, I could throw some of this stuff in there but, you know, if I'm just chasing windmills and I can let it go to.
[Andre Leroux]: I think, I think that's something that we'd be interested in, in seeing David if you, if you have a specific proposal around it. And then I thought it was quick. No, I was just gonna say the, you know, we talked a lot at the last meeting in November about parking and making a recommendation about adjusting the parking minimum, at least until, you know, in a, in an intermediate way until the master plan is done and there can be a more nuanced kind of conversation about it. but I think it's worth not, right now, like everything needs a parking variance. And if we can eliminate some of that, that would be great. And, you know, the other piece of the conversation around parking with the ADUs, I think we should take a look at that to consider whether, you know, parking spaces is required in all cases. you know, I think as Mr. Snyder said, if there's already an ample driveway there, for example, is there, do you need to, is that adequate, right?
[Amanda Centrella]: If I could jump in for just a second, and maybe this isn't the right time for this, but I just wanted to, point out that we actually have a number of submitted written comments that were sent in to us and actually even a couple like as the meeting had just started. And so I put all of the new ones in the meeting material folder for folks to view as well. But I guess more to the point, a bunch of them happen to be around parking. And so I wasn't sure if Now is an appropriate time or if we're going to move to a public comment period after kind of board discussion to share some of those.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I wanted to get the board members to identify their areas of interest and concern right now and then we'd open it up to the public. Got it.
[David Blumberg]: I have one more item on my wish list Andre. Yeah, go ahead. Feel indulged. I just thought it was of interest. The development in Boston in the fall. For the encouragement of affordable housing that parking minimums, at least the city council approved a great large reduction elimination of parking minimums in connection with affordable housing developments. So to your point of finding rationale on occasion for a lower parking requirement, maybe that category could be encouraged as well.
[Andre Leroux]: And on that topic, the city just had a class of MIT graduate students working on some kind of theoretical development issues around zoning, looking at different types of development and how to increase in a sensitive and sensible manner housing, especially affordable housing in the city. And so they were looking at some specific some city owned parcels, in terms of what might be some of the you know the issues, or how might the city want to proceed and in doing their number crunching which was really impressive. requirements that were needed for a lot of these things were way under what we currently require for parking. So that study is going to be finalized pretty soon because the class is ending. And that's, I think, a great resource for us as well to take a look at, because they've done a lot of work on that.
[David Blumberg]: Absolutely. And with that, I'll hand the floor back. Thank you.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Deanna, did you wanna, any thoughts about?
[Deanna Peabody]: No, I share the same thoughts as David. The family definition from the last meeting was definitely important one we have to put more thought into. And then if I recall, there was also a lot of discussion on the daycare definitions and how many kids were allowed. I don't know if we should revisit that at some point as well. I don't know what people's thoughts on that. I think, are we going to go through Amanda's list that she had sent with the notes from last time?
[Andre Leroux]: I don't think we're going to have time to do that. I think that will be part of the written set of... Okay.
[Deanna Peabody]: I think we need to revisit a lot of those from the last meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, agreed.
[Deanna Peabody]: I don't think I have anything else to add right now.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. Christy, did you have any further thoughts?
[Jenny Graham]: No, I mean, I share the same interest in the sections that people have noted to date. And I think I'd really like to look at the special permit section again, and the residential section. in more detail.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah. What did people think about the the plan development districts? That's a pretty new thing. And I think essentially, what it is, is it creates floating zoning, and that you know, property owners working with the city could propose changes to the zoning that could be approved through the plan development district. Having increased flexibility is, I think, a very positive thing, but, you know, it's also something that's different, right? It's a little bit more, take development as it comes rather than putting the district guidelines in place beforehand?
[Jenny Graham]: Well, it should come with increased benefits to the community. I mean, I think that's what really needs to be looked at. If developers have the flexibility to get increased FAR or other uses, then that's gonna be like the trade-off. So I think it's really taking a look at that and making sure that it's balanced.
[Andre Leroux]: Right, I think that's a great point, Christy. I know that it does say the city can require as part of that up to 20% affordable housing, but we should kind of look at that a little bit more. And folks, the fiscal analysis, I know there's a lot of concerns about that, how it's written. Is your sense that we just should take it out or recommend taking it out, or should we try to fix the language? And just a reminder that all the recommendations that we send are recommendations. So if we send a recommendation saying, oh no, think we should have the fiscal analysis, but the city council likes that idea, and they could reject our recommendation if we don't necessarily send along language to improve it. So we just have to consider both approaches.
[Jenny Graham]: I hate the language the way that it's written now. But you're correct. I think it's better to have present an alternative language, then just say, take it out. Might get, might have a little more legs with a proposal for editing.
[David Blumberg]: Andre, this is David. I thought you were right on the money, equating it to the, at least it's where my mind was going, equating it to the consultant that the board can hire for more information would be at the expense basically of the, the proponent, the applicant for us. And so I think we could probably very easily recast that to something that could be, could be required of a development as opposed to having it mandatory, maybe soften it up while we're at it as well.
[Deanna Peabody]: Should we, should it be required of all developments or, or just over a certain threshold or like larger developments?
[David Blumberg]: I guess that's a good question.
[Andre Leroux]: It gets hard once you start trying to set that, because then there's always going to be projects under or over. So I wonder if there's a way. I think we have to think about it a little bit more and see whether, in the language itself, we can create criteria for when it may be considered or may be appropriate. That's just my thought, but I'm open to other ideas.
[Deanna Peabody]: I agree.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Well, since we do want to end by nine o'clock, I want to make sure there's time for the public to weigh in. So why don't we take Mr. Pompeo, who's had his hand up for a long time, and then Amanda, you can read the written comments that have come in.
[Steven Pompeo]: Thank you, Steven Pompeo. I appreciate this. I just want to clarify, will the general public also have time to digest all this? We've had the attorney explain everything to us over the last two meetings, and now it seems like we need some time to digest it and then bring it up again at the January 5th meeting. But is there a deadline by which we should submit things to the planning department if we want to get those included in the January 5th meeting?
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, that is a very good point.
[Steven Pompeo]: You know, rather than bringing things up, you know, fresh at that next meeting, maybe we could, um, get them submitted and have them incorporated by the planning department and brought up all at once, uh, at the junior fifth meeting.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. The challenge you know with a public meeting laws is that we can't have conversation offline, that the conversation has to be a meeting. So, We may have to just ask everybody to, you know, submit their suggestions in writing and the board will compile ours and members of the public can submit theirs. And then that'll be part, all of that will be part of the materials before the January 5th meeting where we can actually discuss the specific written language and decide whether or not to include it in our recommendations. So I guess my suggestion would be if the meeting's on January 5th, we should ask members of the public to get their comments in by the end of this calendar year. Does that sound right, Amanda? Would that be enough time?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes. Yes, I'm just thinking about if there's anything that bars, like, I think, that anything that comes into us, that's a written comment from someone who identifies their name and address, needs to be filed and understood to be part of the record for a hearing. And so what I don't know is if it's possible to have kind of a deadline prior to the hearing ending where we need to hear things by.
[Andre Leroux]: Right. Well, I guess let me encourage the members of the public to get it in as early as possible because the longer, the more advanced that we have, that can be, the staff can circulate the materials as a prep materials to us and we can digest it more. That way on the fifth, we're not coming in cold. So that'd be my suggestion, but yes, Amanda's right. I mean, you can, There's no time limit. You can submit your comments anytime before January 5th or during the meeting of January 5th. It's just a question of, you know, it's always better with more time to consider it. Thank you. Mr. Lessenhop.
[Alex Lussenhop]: Hi, I just wanted to, and I apologize, I did miss some of the discussion about this topic, but just in case, on the accessory dwelling units provision, I think in general, I would just advocate in favor of not overly restricting those or not putting too many burdensome regulations on those. It's not clear to me from the language if they have to be included in an existing dwelling or if or structure, or if you can construct a new one. I've heard talk about residency, or sorry, not residency, but like family relation requirements. And I would just advocate against too many of those because I think that ADUs will be successful if we make it as easy as possible for sort of ordinary people to even build them on their property or convert something they already have. So with the caveat that I did miss some of that discussion, I would just put that general general comment in to the record. And sorry, Alex Wilson have 30 right Avenue.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you. Yeah, one thing that we did talk about just so you know is that the what we received from the city council would allow accessory dwelling units as of right within existing single family homes, and it would be special permit for detached dwellings but there's an important distinguish it's for existing detached dwelling so like a garage or a carriage house or something. And I think one thing that we identified during our conversation we might want to look at a little bit more is, do we want to allow a path for a new detached unit, like a tiny home? Right. Amanda, do you want to Mr. Navarre, and then we'll have Amanda talk, take the written comments.
[Maryanne Adduci]: I'm a member of the public. I don't know if you see me, I'm on the phone.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, great. Yeah, why don't we go to you first, because Mr. Navarre has spoken, so then we'll go to him after.
[Maryanne Adduci]: All right. My name is Mary Anna Ducey, and I live at 2 North Street. I did not attend the last meeting, but I read the article that was in the Medford transcript. I'm basing my comments tonight on what I read in the newspaper. They may not be totally accurate, but that's what I'm doing here. And I live on the Hillside. So my perspective is from the point of view of a resident from the Hillside. Um, to get back to this, this definition of family, I think most people in the public understand what a term family means. Although I know there's domestic partnerships, there's those building people with living with significant others. But I think the differentiation becomes important when you try to determine if it's over four people living in an apartment, because then it becomes a boarding house as opposed to a regular tenant. But that's my point of view. But I think it's widely understood out there in the public what a family unit is. If you open the door otherwise, you could allow social groups like fraternities or sororities to consider themselves a family unit, because you've got a number of people that live together. So that's a factor you might want to consider too. If a dwelling is considered, because of the number of residents there, a boarding house, I think a boarding house should be considered or treated as a business. For instance, most of these situations are probably where absent landlords are not present. So if they rent a property to like say, whatever the legal limit is for, And then the tenants invite other people to live in there. It's hard to regulate that. The landlord, I'm sure he's not going to go check on the number of tenants that are there all the time. So if you consider these, quote, boarding houses as rental property, then the owners of the buildings must have to get a license to operate. It's like any other kind of business. And then there would be some kind of formal regulations. And these properties then should be subject to periodic safety inspections and other potential violations of occupancy limits. So if you consider these, quote, boarding houses as businesses, then they fall under the rules that a normal business would have. And as far as the number of boarding houses you could have in your area, if a street has a certain number of residents there, they shouldn't allow the whole street to be taken over by, quote, boarding houses. So the residents should have some input on what kind of facilities are going into their neighborhoods. For instance, in my neighborhood, somebody told me that they lived in an apartment on Winthrop Street that had six residents until a few months ago. They knew that they were too over the limit, but they needed the extra people to pay the rent. It's more or less a problem of the owners of these buildings. They charge so much on the rents that these tenants have to invite other people to live with them so they can share the rent. Also, when there's an absent owner, they do very little to maintain the property. I've got one in my neighborhood that's got siding hanging from it for over a year. And I told the owner when he came in August, because the previous tenants had moved out, that it was hanging there, could fall down and hit somebody. He didn't he said yeah, I'll take care of it. Well here. It is December It still hasn't been taken care of and then another friend. I know up on the hillside has 12 students living next door The only common room that they have in her in that house is the kitchen because they've they've using all the other rooms in the house as Bedrooms the dining room the living room the bedrooms the attic and the basement so This woman doesn't want to report it because she feels as though these kids will retaliate because a couple years ago There was a group there that retaliated against her by stealing some of her property because she reported them so That's the perspective of somebody who lives there We think one of my neighbors think that tough should be doing more to provide more on-campus housing for the students rather than making them live in the neighborhoods here because the whole neighborhood is pretty much an extension of Tufts now. And the Tufts should not be allowed to buy any more houses and taking them off the tax rolls here and converting them to housing. They should be building property on their own property. They have room down off of Powder House Square there that they have a big empty field near the football field. They could certainly build housing there. These are just some of the thoughts that I have as a Hillside resident. And as I said, I did not participate in the last meeting. I haven't been following this all along until I saw this article in the Medford Transcript newspaper. So that's about all I need to want to say right now.
[Andre Leroux]: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. And we understand the certainly the the tensions around that and some of the pressures, particularly around the college. Mr. Navar.
[William Navarre]: William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, apartment 1B. On the draft of this recodification that I looked at quite some time back, under the ADU section, there's a requirement that every five years, the owner has to recertify that they live in one of the dwellings, I guess, in order to continue legally using the ADU. Is that still in the, do we know if that's still in, excuse me, in the most modern draft?
[Andre Leroux]: Amanda's gonna bring that up, I think.
[William Navarre]: All right, thanks. And maybe, if it is, I'll just continue as if that's true, because that's what it was, the one I looked at. But I know there are drafts floating around. Basically, I understand the impulse. I don't think it's a terrible thing to want the main house to be owner-occupied. So I'm not accusing anyone of that. But my concern is that in the real world where this has been tried, people have had a lot more trouble getting loans to build the ADUs when this is a requirement. Because obviously, if the bank is going to seize the property for non-payment of mortgage foreclosures, I guess that'd be called, They're not going to be able to rent that out. And I guess maybe they'll even have a harder time finding a buyer who is going to get value from that ADU. Because if they plan to be a landlord, you can imagine a lot of situations. And apparently, in the real world, people have found that this has been an impediment. So I just want the Community Development Board to take that into account. I found something from the AARP of Connecticut, and I think the one in California said something very similar. They said, owner occupancy covenants, I know this isn't the covenant, but I think it works similarly, or conditions give pause to homeowners and institutions financing home purchases because of the limits they place on successive owners who will not be able to rent out or lease their main house, which might be necessary as a result of a divorce, job transfer, or death. They can also make financial institutions reluctant to provide financing for construction of an accessory apartment because the covenants put a restriction on the mortgage lender's security of the property and lenders may withhold consent to any owner occupancy requirement that takes the form of a covenant. So basically, I just think that that's a real concern. And while it doesn't seem insane on its face to require owner occupancy, it sounds like the real world situation is that might basically prevent a lot of ADUs going up.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks. It's a good point. I think there may be another way of accomplishing the goal by doing it a little differently.
[William Navarre]: I know in California, they recently did some legislation. And one of the things there was basically when you built the thing, I don't think it's for ADUs, but basically they had something like you had to certify that you intend to live there for so many years and then that sort of falls away. Something like this. I think Arlington also grappled with similar issues. So it might be interesting to look at what they did.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. I think, I mean, just go ahead, Amanda.
[Amanda Centrella]: I was just going to say to answer your initial question about that five year expiration, it is the language still is in the draft, and I can show it if people want.
[Unidentified]: Sure, why don't you put it up real quick.
[Andre Leroux]: I do think it's a little problematic to try to be tracking all these special permits, like of individual apartments and have them, you know, these renewals come back to us. You know, especially, I mean, once there's, hopefully there'll be like a few hundred someday and that's, It seems like a strange way of doing that, whereas perhaps just when there's a new rental unit or there's a new tenant coming into a rental unit, there could be a way of having a building inspection perhaps where that gets taken care of and it's not actually having to renew the special permanent in front of a board. Thanks, Amanda. Why don't you read the written feedback that you've gotten?
[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, okay. So many tabs. Okay, so maybe I'll group some of them. There were a number that dealt with parking in particular. So, Okay. This is from Ellery Klein on Fells Avenue. Dear Community Development Board, I envision a future for Medford where families could use one or zero cars because of our robust network of bike lanes, safe walking infrastructure, healthy squares, and good public transit. The first step towards this is to lower parking minimums. I am in support of lowering parking minimums to one per unit. I would also urge secure bike parking to be mandated as this is one of the biggest obstacles to getting more cycling in a municipality, safe and parking bike parking. All right. Then from Heather Gain, 11 Hicks Ave. I'm a Medford homeowner, and I want to write to let you know that I strongly support reducing mandatory parking requirements for new housing, like our neighbors in Somerville. While I now have a car, I lived for years in Somerville without one, and I'm excited by the possibilities of Medford's new GLX station. Thank you for listening. Next, Jessica Farrell, 29 Martin Street, in Medford. Thank you for considering reducing parking minimums for multifamily housing to one space per dwelling unit as a component of the recodification plan. I'm looking forward to future conversations about zoning where we can reduce parking minimums even further, but for now I strongly advocate for reducing parking minimums for multifamily housing to one space per dwelling unit. which will remove a significant barrier to using our limited space in Medford for housing. While my family does own one car, I am somewhat of an outlier among my peers in Medford, many of them do not own cars at all, and I have no need to store a car, all of them do struggle to find affordable housing though and relieving Some of these laws that make it more difficult to build affordable housing would really help me and many people I know. I grew up in a place with very little infrastructure investment. I am so thankful to live in a city with all kinds of critical infrastructure, including a world-class public transportation system. People who grew up here don't often give the T the credit it deserves. We are so lucky to have this infrastructure. We should celebrate our access to it and we should build our city to incentivize using it. Roberta Cameron 12 North Street says. Hi, as you consider the zoning revision that is currently in front of you, I wanted to ask that wherever possible you eliminate or reduce barriers to housing and do not create new ones. Please reduce minimum parking standards for affordable housing and do not place new limitations on who can live in homes or how people have to be related to each other in order to be considered a family so that they may be allowed to rent a room or an accessory dwelling unit. These rules do not serve a public need and may have the effect of discriminating against protected classes. I would also ask that you do not place new limitations on home-based businesses which have been operating up until now without creating negative impacts in their neighborhoods. We shouldn't burden Medford residents with unnecessary regulations and hurdles that prevent them from making a living or living sustainably in housing that they can afford. Our zoning should allow for the diversity of residents' needs that realistically exists, not try to make Medford conform to a suburban ideal. and Stephanie and Hans Gunzmeier, 54 Whitney Road. Please recommend that parking requirements for multifamily housing be reduced to one parking spot per unit at most. Ultimately, we need to work for building and coding that provides a strong support and incentives for car-free living. Being without a car and using public transportation needs to become the default. I don't expect that most people at some distance from T stations will become like my husband and me. We have lived in Whitney Road since 2002 and have never owned a car. But with the right incentives, new housing developments within a 15-minute walk of Tufts, the new College Ave station, Wellington, or Assembly Square should absolutely be able to attract a majority of residents who are committed to be car-free. Please set us along that path by encouraging new development that does not invite more cars into the streets. William Navarre, 108 Medford Street, number 1B. And I see William has his hand raised. So maybe I can read this, but also would invite... That's raised from earlier, so why don't you go ahead and read. Okay, thank you.
[William Navarre]: Sorry about that.
[Amanda Centrella]: I strongly encourage the Community Development Board to recommend that parking minimums for multifamily housing be reduced to one space per dwelling unit as part of the recodification. I strongly advocate that we ultimately go much further. However, in light of the housing crisis, the existing minimums are glaringly excessive and should be reduced to more reasonable levels without any delay at all. Okay, and I have several other comments. Those were all the kind of parking related ones. Should I continue?
[Andre Leroux]: Yes.
[Amanda Centrella]: Okay. So, Mary Izzo, or Marie Izzo, 23 Pilgrim Road. Please consider any proposal to restrict numbers of people in any home in any district as a violation of civil liberties. Do not restrict people's choices but consider including what is already happening as a baseline. Clearly affordable housing has not been a focus for our city and it needs to be. Innovative solutions to the housing crisis have taken shape out of necessity in all cities across the Commonwealth and in Medford specifically. with less than a shameful 10% affordable housing inventory. Please take into consideration all possibilities when looking to the proposed ordinances. An example would be co-housing. Maldon is about to complete a 30 unit co-housing community right on Pleasant Street, which is based on sustainability and minimal square footage and minimal parking per unit. It took the group over three years and exorbitant costs to get approval because of archaic and discriminatory zoning practices. Also consider and do not exclude models like Airbnb that offer solutions for short-term furnished housing needs as well as a means for homeowners to age in place or make extra money when other solutions are simply not available. Safety is key, but to restrict choices should never be an alternative to something as basic as a roof over one's head. And, okay, and David McKenna to Vine Street. The, this is slightly longer comment and he breaks it up by section. And I don't know if we're going into sections tonight, I could like interject to those as we do that, or I can just read through it now.
[Andre Leroux]: How long is it, would you be able to paraphrase?
[Amanda Centrella]: I can, I could try, yes. So section three, Dave had some comments about the home-based daycares, large and small, should be allowed by right, as they currently are, as opposed to having the larger ones be by permit, and not to ban lodgers in single-family one and two districts. They are currently allowed, and the recodification should not change that. For section four, The new O2 district allows front yard of zero to 15 feet in part two. Oh, I'm sorry. The dimensional requirements currently are a burden on attracting new businesses like Life Science. He would like to see the front yard requirement change to zero feet for all businesses. and residential could also use relief from large yard requirements. Section six recommends, so a board member suggested reducing the residential parking requirement to 1.25 for non-single family one residential. I recommend making it one space per dwelling for all residential for the zoning for codification recommendations. to me, the housing crisis and the climate crisis are more urgent and we need immediate relief from the financial and environmental burden of excess pavement. Hopefully we can reduce the parking minimum to below one per unit, but please take the time to start this conversation with the city council now and introduce the idea of one space per unit. And yeah, I think those are the main asks. And then we have comments from attorney Kathy Desmond, who is probably a familiar face to many of the members here.
[Andre Leroux]: She's actually here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can paraphrase if you like. take the floor. Amanda doesn't have to. Yeah, that'd be great. First, in terms of, there's three items essentially that I've found. The first is client-based, but it deals with veterinary services. And currently those services are permitted under the medical office use, which would be allowed in C1, C2, and the MUZ district. Under the new definitions, it's included within the hospital nonprofit definition for some reason. And medical services is only limited to personal persons, not animals, and that zone is now in an SF one district. And by special permit in other residential districts, but excluded from. C1, C2, and the MUC or any commercial districts. So it seems kind of counterintuitive and it may have been an oversight in terms of the definitions and perhaps it should have its own definition for veterinary services. There's a definition for kennel under agriculture but that you know there are certain certain veterinary services don't kennel or board overnight. And the building commissioner has always, or has generally construed those to be allowed in the medical offices section. So that's just one item in the definitions that appears to be maybe an oversight. The second item deals with nonconforming structures and uses. And currently under the zoning ordinance under 242, There is the right for finding to alter a structure under the proposed change in section. I think it's section five section 65.21 that changes in any increase in nonconformity in other than a one or two family now becomes a zoning variance requirement rather than what it is now, which will impact three families and some commercial structures where they're just, you know, going up on a sidewall that's already non conforming not creating any difference in the footprint. you would be looking at a request for variance. And I know there had been a whole discussion originally about third floors and dormers, and this would require, in instances other than single and two families, that you move for a variance on a dormer. So the board might wanna look at that. I'd suggest if they just took out the language and had left it as a new nonconformity that was being instituted that would require a variance, that would probably be more in line with what we currently have in our zoning code and wouldn't be more of a burden. And then the last item isn't really probably an item for for this discussion but you know I put it down for thought that the three families are kind of like the ugly stepsister in housing. They don't fit in the one and two, and they don't fit in the multi. And typically when I have clients come in if you're over 10,000 square feet, they don't want to consider anything below a four unit development. But you have lots that are seven, nine, eight, that could probably comfortably fit a three, but there isn't really a category for that. They fall in the multi, the four units and above. So that might be something going forward that the board would like to consider, is giving them their own category that maybe fits in a general residence or an apartment on a lot that's between the six and the 10. And that's all I have.
[Andre Leroux]: Great, thank you for those comments.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Thank you.
[Amanda Centrella]: And there are three more comments that were submitted. Two of them are, I will summarize, they, well, I should state their names, I guess, here. So Amalia Child, 159 Central Ave, and David Walker, 38 Brookings Street, both express encouragement for one parking spot per unit And with an eye to looking towards eliminating parking minimums in the future. And then, uh, William Snyder, who I know is also on the call, I believe still, um. And maybe I'll ask you, William. This is a very detailed, um, informative, uh, letter and account here of different And these are kind of in a format that would be easy for us, kind of in the vein of what we were talking about before with having folks submit comments to be kind of added to the list that we're putting together for recommendations.
[Paul Morgan]: You don't need to read all of them. There's a lot of typos and a lot of just points of clarification. But I do want to, since we were talking about parking, the two things I wanted to add to that conversation are, Um, based on my experience, I thought it would be a good idea, not only to, um, on the maximum side. Require, um, no more than four spaces, but also from an enforceability point of view, um, require that no more than the number of spaces, uh, have cars park. So, um, uh, in, in, in the, with the example that, you know, um, people can have, um, what they claimed before spaces, but then park seven cars and pack them in. And so I thought that might be an interesting addition and that is in the comments. And then finally, it's kind of amusing to read in the definitions, the actual definition of a parking area from the old ordinance that's still in there. It is very difficult to parse and it needs to be fixed. It's a five comma run on sentence that has rules built into it. And it talks about panel vans and it's just, it's impossible to enforce. So I just, put that in my comment, too, that when we talk about restricting or regulating parking areas, the definition should also be looked at. And I think that's all I really need to say. I think we've pretty much touched on everything else.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thank you. Is that it for the written comments, Amanda? Yes. All right, thank you. Yes, Stephen.
[Steven Pompeo]: Yeah, thank you. I just have two others that I'll bring up now. We were just totally off what the big topics were tonight. But the sign section of the ordinance, there's language in there about lighting, and it refers to prohibited lighting. But then the language about the prohibited lighting is probably a little old fashioned. And this came up maybe at the city council a year or so ago, where uh, businesses were trying to put up, um, video type signs. And, um, there wasn't anything in the ordinance, uh, prohibiting them other than if the way you read the, um, the illumination part of it. So maybe that section should be clarified a little bit. And I think at one point, uh, through the chamber of commerce, I'm a member of the, um, government affairs committee of the chamber, and we drafted some language at the time. to clarify it, it wasn't needed, I guess, because the issues were put to rest in other ways. But I'd like to submit that along the way for consideration to clarify the lighting section of the sign ordinance.
[Andre Leroux]: And was there much- And I'm sorry, just to be clear, are you saying to allow modern video signs or?
[Steven Pompeo]: Well, no, and maybe they're appropriate in certain areas, but we wanted to make sure that they were, restricted out of non-conforming commercial entities that are in residential neighborhoods, for instance, and maybe in C1 districts, which is the small, typically the small neighborhood business districts. And if they were to be considered that maybe they only be allowed in C2 districts with, you know, Mr. Gav or along the Fellsway where those shopping plazas are, but that they weren't, They wouldn't work well in the small districts because they're very distractive. It's very hard to keep them from, when you talk about lighting pollution, for instance, or casting light on other sections, it's very hard to do that. And particularly in the non-conforming sections where there were commercial businesses in residential neighborhoods. So I think we did draft some language for that that we can relook at and submit that.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, please, that would be great.
[Steven Pompeo]: And then one other item I won't, I'll be done for tonight. And I know reducing cars is a big thing. One of the issues with, so the setback requirement is 15 feet for a residential structure. And what happens is if a garage is built at that 15 foot mark, it leaves 15 feet for the driveway. And what I notice in a lot of places where there's only a 15 foot driveway is the vehicles end up hanging over the sidewalk, preventing people from being able to traverse the sidewalk. So the 15 foot setback might apply to parts of the house where you're not parking vehicles, but when it's a garage attached to a house and you're only allowing 15 feet, you end up with the sidewalk being blocked. So it might be some way to address, um, without increasing, having to increase the setback to 18 feet would be somehow to address that. Um, there at least be 18 feet, um, between a garage and the sidewalk.
[Andre Leroux]: So it's, uh, just about nine o'clock. And I said that we would, uh, finish at nine. So I. Just want to recap, I think, where things stand. We've gotten a lot of great comments, both at last meeting and at this meeting. And I think that the next step is for us to try to compile it all into a written list so that we can consider the language and take action on whether or not to include it in our recommendations going forward. So I think the task that we have in front of us is The planning staff and thank you, Amanda. I assume you'll be probably doing most of this work. It will be compiling all of these comments into a list. And so I encourage the board members as well as members of the public who want to submit further comments to do that as early as possible. And Amanda, where should folks send that?
[Amanda Centrella]: For members of the public, you should send them to our office email, which I'll type in the chat, but it is ocd at Medford-ma.gov. And board members, you can send it directly to me.
[Andre Leroux]: So I think the homework really for for you, Amanda, I'm happy to work with you on this, is to try to turn these comments into potentially actionable language for the fifth. Thank you. So that being said, is there a motion on the floor to continue the public hearing to January 5th at 6 p.m.
[David Blumberg]: Andrew, this is David. I'd like to make a motion to continue the public hearing on this matter until January 5th.
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Thank you. Is there a second? This is Jackie. I second the motion.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Jackie. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Jackie Furtado?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: Christy Dowd?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: Aye.
[Andre Leroux]: David Blumberg? Aye. and I'm an eye as well, so thank you. We will basically continue the public hearing until January 5th at 6 p.m. and thank you everybody, members of the public, for participating tonight and we encourage you to stay involved and send us your best suggestions. Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor to
[David Blumberg]: Andre, I'd like to make a motion. This is David to adjourn for the evening.
[Amanda Centrella]: Hold on. Sorry, guys. I was going to say, wait, so soon. Hold on. Just a quick thing that I wanted to plug. We did receive an application from RISE Development for 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway. application for site plan review. So keep your eyes peeled. I will be sending some more scheduling emails, which I know you will love for mid-January to hear that. And just a reminder that we did land on the 20th of this month to hear a brief presentation regarding the 24, sorry, 23 Sycamore Ave project that has to do with design.
[Andre Leroux]: Everybody remembers that's the facade issue. It wasn't ready at the time, but they've come back to us for our final approval. So it should be very short meeting.
[Amanda Centrella]: And that's all I've got for you.
[Andre Leroux]: All right, thanks, Amanda. Appreciate it. David, back over to you again.
[David Blumberg]: Okay, Andre, this is David. I'd like to offer a motion to adjourn for this evening.
[Andre Leroux]: Is there a second?
[Jacqueline McPherson]: It's Jackie. I'm second.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, Jackie. Roll call vote. Deanna Peabody. Jackie Furtado. Aye. Kristie Dowd. Aye. David Blumberg. Aye. I'm an eye as well. So thank you, everybody. I appreciate all your time again. I know it's been a busy time, but have a wonderful holiday season. I hope you all get a few days off before we meet again. Well, actually, probably not till we meet again, since it's going to be on the 20th, but maybe after that. All right, take care, everyone.
[Jenny Graham]: Thanks, everyone. Have a good night.
[Andre Leroux]: Have a good night.
|
total time: 3.23 minutes total words: 254 |
|||