total time: 13.71 minutes
total words: 1020
total time: 17.46 minutes
total words: 3028
total time: 0.85 minutes
total words: 112
total time: 7.4 minutes
total words: 403
total time: 1.25 minutes
total words: 140
[Matt Leming]: Okay, I think we're good to start. Everybody ready? All right. Welcome everybody here for a meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee of Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. President Bears? Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Present. Vice President Collins? Present. Councilor Scarpelli? I don't see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Matt Leming]: Vice Chair Lemel? Present. Four present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Today, We're going to be talking about the Tufts institutional zoning. We're going to have a presentation from Inez Associates. We are not going to be talking about parking today. I understand that there were some folks who were thinking that that would be a topic today, but it is just going to be the Tufts institutional zone that we'll be getting to today. But first, we're going to start the meeting out by having a few words from the from Council President Bears. This was originally supposed to be broadcast at 5 30, but we had some technical difficulties, so we decided to just put it at the start of this current meeting. Councilor Council President Bears, whenever you're ready. Make sure the cameras on. Your neighbors. I'm speaking with you today. Talk about sure. Can you Wait, put his microphone on. The light isn't on.
[Zac Bears]: There we go.
[Matt Leming]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Gotta love a false start. Dear neighbors, I'm speaking with you today to talk about a shared path forward for Medford's, the project to update Medford zoning ordinance. From my first day as a candidate to this moment tonight as your City Council President, my firmly held belief in democracy has been the foundation of my service to this community. That belief is grounded in some fundamental principles. First, that representatives we elect should be transparent and have follow through. That they say what they'll do and then do what they said they'd do. that they are truthful about their values and positions and work hard to implement them and deliver results for residents. I believe that's what I've brought to this chamber at every meeting and what has been behind every decision I've made and every vote I've taken. Second, it's the essential duty of our elected leaders to grapple with complicated truths, to hold contrasting values and policies and opinions in balance, and make the best decisions possible for all of us and for our city's future. On many nights here in this room, nights both inspiring and difficult, we have done that together. When we serve in these offices, we sign up for the responsibility of making hard choices for the good of our shared community and our shared future. Third, we must recognize and respect that each of us is imperfect and each of us makes mistakes, and that leaders and communities can only make progress when they are transparent about their mistakes and learn from them. That's why tonight, I'm calling for a shared path forward on our rezoning effort that continues the updates to our commercial squares and quarter districts, while calling for an extended and even more robust public engagement process for the proposed residential districts and citywide off street parking requirements. I'm also calling on the city administration to provide more resources for outreach. to the community so that we can create a better opportunity to engage with residents, respond to good faith concerns and questions, and make it easier for more residents to understand and participate in this necessary process. As we approach Medford's 400th anniversary in 2030, I often find myself asking, what Medford do we want to build for future residents to celebrate on our 500th anniversary? while also preserving what has brought us to this point and acknowledging the history that has not been celebrated enough going back centuries before Medford's founding. Our community is at an inflection point. We are finally doing the long overdue work of implementing our first ever comprehensive plan for growth and development and addressing the decades of underfunding and revenue shortfalls that have left our city infrastructure and services in bad shape. We are facing a housing crisis where kids who grew up here can't afford to stay and working class people who wanna move here don't have many options. I believe in a future of Medford that says yes to addressing the housing affordability and cost of living crisis. A Medford that says yes to smart and significant new development that invites more vibrancy, walkability, new businesses, more open space, new places to gather and stronger community ties. A Medford that says yes, we can welcome more neighbors to live here alongside us and fight for environmental justice and open spaces and support our businesses and make our streets safer and better fund our public schools and city services. The rezoning process to implement our city's plans is one of the key tools to build the better future we want for our city. I'm so glad to see all the engagement from residents over the past 5 years to shape the city's planning documents and this rezoning process. I think the work product of the City Council and our Planning Department, in partnership with Innes Associates, is strong, aligned with the comprehensive plan that we crafted as a community, and sets the foundation for Medford to move in the right direction. In all of my discussions with and communications to residents, I've been clear that one of my top priorities is to transform our zoning ordinance to help build more housing, create more vibrant commercial squares, and focus on mixed-use development that activates corridors of our city with so much potential that have been ignored for too long. The mayor and previous City Councils have endorsed and signed off on this same vision and plan. Our current zoning is a flawed patchwork, and while we may disagree on some specifics, we know that it needs to be changed. Study after study and plan after plan has said this for decades, but the City has not acted until now because doing something is far more challenging than saying something. This city council has worked hard to make our city's vision and plans a reality over the past several years, starting with requests for funding for zoning updates before I was on this council. to the initiation of our first phase of this project from 2020 to 2022 by recodifying our zoning ordinance, to the planning processes between 2020 and 2024 to create the comprehensive plan, climate plan, and housing plan that incorporated input from thousands of residents and hundreds of public engagement events and approaches. Finally, to the past 18 months that the Council and Planning Department have been working with Innes Associates to create zoning proposals that concretely implement our city's plans. After more than five years, we are in the hardest phase of this project, and we must secure the progress we all know Medford needs by seeing this work through to completion. Since January 2024, the Council, Community Development Board and City staff have worked with the resources made available to us by the Mayor, and we have consistently and persistently advocated to the Mayor to engage more deeply in the process. provide more resources, and work to ensure that accurate information reaches as many residents as possible to get them involved in this rezoning project. Tonight, I'm calling for action in the loudest and most public way that I can. Over the past few weeks, I've been disappointed. Disappointed that so many residents feel that we haven't done enough to engage them in the process. Disappointed that we've created an opportunity to allow for an information vacuum that has led to the spread of misinformation and mistrust in this effort. Disappointed that we haven't received enough resources to try to make this complicated information more accessible, and more than anything, disappointed that good people coming to the table in good faith who support change overall feel alienated by the citywide conversation and process. Each of us deserves better. Medford's future demands better. As I said earlier, the job of elected leaders is to grapple with complicated truths and to deliver results that balance the many goals and needs of our community and our residents. And yes, a citywide rezoning effort contains many complicated truths. It is true that we need to build more housing and that we won't solve the housing crisis through new zoning and new private housing alone. It is true that we need more market rate housing to push down the pressure of limited supply that is skyrocketing rents and home prices. And it is true that we need to ensure that developers provide significant community benefits to improve our streets, sewers and city services. And that we ask the state for more local powers to protect residents from displacement. It is true that we need to better protect our open spaces and trees and still allow new projects to be built. It is true that our city's history has been built by vibrant, racially diverse communities, and that a part of our history includes exclusionary zoning and housing laws and other policies that cemented racial and class divisions in and between our neighborhoods. It is true that we must make an even greater effort to preserve our history and historic buildings, and that we must not completely defer to the decisions of the past in ways that prevent progress, change, and growth. It's true that we must make Medford more walkable, bikeable, and accessible to our elders and people with disabilities, and that we must encourage development and policies that make public transportation a more realistic choice for residents, and that we must do that in a way that reflects the reality that cars are going to continue to be the main way most people travel. It is true that we are just one city in a region facing a housing and transportation crisis that we can't solve alone. and that we can advance policies that make us a regional leader and a model that other communities can follow to join us and solve these bigger problems together. The zoning proposals advanced over the last 18 months are an honest, detailed, and bold effort to balance all of those complicated truths I just stated and many others that have been discussed extensively in the hundreds of public meetings the city has held and the thousands of public comments residents have shared. Finally, I wanna return to the principle that we can only accomplish big things when our leaders are transparent about their mistakes and learn from them. It was a mistake that I did not speak up earlier and more loudly to get the mayor to commit more funding and resources to this project. I should not have accepted that an 18 month contract was the best we could get and that we should try to keep our promises to the voters and accomplish this project in that timeframe. I regret that I did not share more publicly the efforts we have implemented to extend this process and hear from more residents. I wish that I had lifted up the work of my colleagues who have done so much to try to improve the communications effort for this project with limited resources available by asking for more time, more resources, and more funding sooner. That's why tonight I'm outlining this shared path forward so we can accomplish what we set out to do more than five years ago, to adopt a zoning ordinance that we believe will build the future of our city, that we want the future residents to celebrate on Medford's 500th anniversary in 2130. The rezoning process must be streamlined so residents can clearly understand what is being considered. First, I call on my fellow Councilors Community Development Board and our planning team to prioritize completing the proposed commercial framework and focus on our work on the remaining proposed districts for Medford Square, West Medford Square, the other corridors and the Tufts Institutional Zone this year. Second, I call on my fellow councilors and the Community Development Board and the planning team to extend the process for reviewing the proposed residential districts, ADUs, and updates to off-street parking requirements through spring of 2026. I ask the Community Development Board to continue its process to deliberate on a new set of recommendations regarding the residential districts in August and hold public hearings on their updated recommendations as well as any off-street parking proposals in September, October, and November before sending any final recommendations to the Council. In advance of the Council's receipt of the Community Development Board's recommendations, I propose that the Council adopt a schedule for additional public hearings in January and February of next year before scheduling any final votes no earlier than March 2026 and to allow for additional time through May 2026 if it is requested by the Community Development Board. 3rd and most importantly, I call on the mayor to allocate the necessary resources from our city's reserve funds to provide the council community development board planning team and city staff with the support needed to conduct even more robust public outreach over the next year. Specifically, I call on the mayor to place an appropriation paper before the council by September that one provides at least $150,000 in total funds, including any funds currently appropriated in the fiscal 26 budget to extend our contract with the NES associates team through December of 2026 and to a paper that provides an additional $50,000 in funds to pay for communications to residents that are reviewed and approved by the consensus of all branches of the city leading this project. The mayor's office, city council and planning department that will help inform residents about the proposals and what opportunities they will have to make their voices heard and share their comments with the community development board and the city council. I will formalize this proposal in a resolution to be placed on the Council's August 5th regular meeting agenda. I want to end my remarks tonight with my thanks to the Medford community for their passion for our beloved city. I am heartened and inspired by the vast majority of our community that considers these solutions to Medford's big challenges with diligence, intelligence, and grace. We make much more progress when we listen to each other thoughtfully clearly state our values and goals, and work collaboratively to accomplish great things together. At the end of this process, we will not all agree on the outcome. The final zoning ordinance will be the product of a continued great debate, of clashing opinions, of complicated truths, and of balance and compromise. I am humbled to place my trust in the democratic process so many have fought to establish for us, and that we must fight to safeguard for future generations. I have great hope for Medford's future, and I remain deeply honored by the trust you've placed in me to help lead our community. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you very much for your words, Council President. Much appreciated. Anyway, we'll get on with the regularly scheduled meeting now. Jim, would you be able to adjust the work? Or yeah, somebody just adjust the camera so that it's facing back to the, it's facing in as again. Okay.
[SPEAKER_11]: OK.
[Matt Leming]: Whenever you're ready, feel free to tell us about the proposed Tufts Institutional Zone and any information you might have on it. Thank you.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you very much for the record, Emily Ennis of Innes Associates. I'm here with my colleague Grant Perry. Pelo Ramos Martinez could not be here today. Let's call it the mic settle. As the mic settles, I'm going to share my screen. Also, thank you very much. So I think that our agenda may have shifted a little bit in terms of the timeline I'm going to show you. But what we wanted to do primarily was talk about the Tufts institutional zoning. You may remember that we had a public listening session early on just to hear what people's concerns or thoughts or ideas were for institutional zoning. We then also have spoken to Tufts in general terms about the fact that we were going to collectively undertake this process. And since then, what we've done is we've delved into the Dover Amendment, which is what places some restrictions on what the city can do in terms of zoning for an educational institution. We're gonna talk a little bit about Tufts existing zoning. And then we've also done a deep dive into zoning for other communities that have colleges and universities in Massachusetts. And it's important to focus on Massachusetts because the Dover Amendment applies to the state. And then we have some general ideas just for discussion. We do not have recommendations today for this, but just based on our research, some of the things that we, that you, the city councilors might want to think about. So with that, we have been working based on the Medford Massachusetts Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in January, 2023, in addition to the Housing Production Plan and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. And you can see this pink here, we had this terminology of quarters, squares, neighborhoods. We also had civic and institutional anchors. And this pink bubble here is the Tufts Institutional Anchor. And then we do have upcoming meetings. I think the anticipated topics may shift a little bit, but we will be back to the Community Development Board on August 6, and then to yourselves on August 7. But we are working in the background on all of the topics that we have brought forward today. So the Dover Amendment is Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws, Section 3, and the language here, and I know it's a little difficult for the people in the room to read it, so with the indulgence of the people online, I will read it out. It says, no zoning ordinance or bylaw shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single-family residential building, nor shall any such ordinance or bylaw prohibit, regulate, or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions, or bodies politic, or by a religious sector denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation, provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage requirements. So if I were to translate this into the language that we've been using throughout, the use itself is an as of right use, but the city is allowed to place conditions on those uses. and how a city or a town places conditions on those uses. And note that they have to be reasonable conditions on the use. But how a city town or town does it is part of the research that we've been doing. There is case law relevant to this. And in fact, some of the case law is actually case law from the trustees of Tufts College versus the city of Medford in 1993 and I think 1999 as well. So the key thing here is to think about how the zoning, how any conditions strikes that balance between preventing discrimination against educational use, because the use must be allowed, but then honoring the legitimate municipal concerns of development and building in a community. So the Dover Amendment does not require that a community adopt local zoning laws that are specific to educational uses, but the court cases, the case law observes that regulation should be specifically adapted to educational uses. So you're not required to do it, but think of it as a best practice to do this. So a couple of things, I will say anytime you want to jump in, Grant, go right ahead. A couple of things that came from Regis College versus the town of Weston, that the Dover Amendment is protecting the uses of lands and the structures that have as their bona fide goals something that can be reasonably described as educationally significant. So that has to be the primary or dominant purpose. As we'll see from some of the other zoning later on, non-educational uses can be allowed in different ways. And this is one of the things that this case law says is that the protection isn't just the facilities analogous to traditional schools and colleges. So if it's going to be educationally related to that primary purpose, then the use will need to be allowed. And parsing through this is one of the reasons that we have Jonathan Silverstein of BBHS to help us as we move forward to actually drafting the language. Tufts versus City of Medford had, and this was in 93, there's some case law on how you to regulate the dimensional requirements, other requirements, and that has to be through a legitimate municipal concern. And the application of those requirements have to have a rational relationship to the perceived concern. So we have to show that the municipality has a specific concern and that the regulations are specific to that concern. Also from this is that the zoning requirement that results in something less than a nullification of the proposed educational use. In other words, even if you don't completely end up prohibiting it, it still may be unreasonable. So we're going to need to pay close attention as we all work together on this, that we are keeping those regulations reasonable. We can't substantially diminish or detract from the usefulness of a proposed structure or impair the character of the institution's campus without appreciably advancing the municipality's legitimate concerns. So this is going to be a line we're going to all walk together. However, that the Dover Amendment is intended to encourage this degree of accommodation between the protected use and the matters of critical municipal concern. The accommodation can't require, it can't be achieved by insisting that the educational institutions seek variance. And if the local zoning law improperly restricts an educational use by invalid means, such as a special permit process, that may be challenged as completely invalid. So if we were to put a special permit process in this, we could have the entire institutional bylaw be challenged as invalid. So again, a little bit of a tight line for us to walk. and talk a little bit about the existing zoning. So we are looking at the boundaries of this blue area, that's the institutional area. And we did some earlier maps that we presented, I think it was at the public meeting and maybe again here, where we were looking at the ownership of land in this area, what did Tufts own and what did they have a separate development arm, what they owned. Tufts, just to make it a little bit more complex, is split. Part of it is on the Somerville side and part of it is on the Medford side and obviously the zoning we do can only control the Medford side. We did look at and talk about Somerville zoning for that public meeting and the first time we reported here. We're not going to show it today. because we've already had that conversation. And then the existing zoning on the Medford side is the apartment two district and the general residential district. So the apartment two district is this brighter orange and the general residential is this peach. And then we've got the outline of the boundary we're considering around these two colors. Those of you who have been part of the process all along will recognize the current zoning table. Right now, your dimensional standards are based on use. So in the apartment two, which is the lower one here, if we start to think about other permitted principal structures, it requires a lot size of 10,000 square feet. It's got different dimensions for the frontage, the depth, the front and side yards. But the key thing is that it also allows a height of 15 stories. And so that's the existing apartment two district. The existing general residential district, primarily up top is here, the residential uses, but the other permitted principal structures is three stories, also a 10,000 square foot lot. So the lot sizes are the same between the two existing districts, but the heights vary significantly. So that's something, again, that we're looking at. And of course, in the recent discussions with the CD board about the application for the dorm last year, certainly the height played a part in those discussions. And obviously, we're keeping our eyes on that. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Grant to talk about his research into some of the other communities in Massachusetts that have these plans. And Grant, I'll give you control, too.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you so much. Let's see. So we looked at a lot of different cities and towns across the Commonwealth and these nine stood out as presenting a range of options ranging from almost greater to complete flexibility for an institutional use to where the base zoning does not apply any greater flexibility for an institutional use beyond what is allowed in the base zoning. Starting with Amherst, Amherst has, I would say, the most flexible zoning for institutional uses that we explored. It provides significant flexibility for universities through its educational districts, which is the, it's a base zoning district, and it allows all educational uses. And it also has a additional sentence in the ordinance that allows other uses that are deemed necessary for the university. The dimensional regulations there are pretty much no dimensional.
[Matt Leming]: Sorry, interrupt grant could you just for the record for the clerk, could you state what your could you state your last name. Oh yeah grant Perry.
[SPEAKER_15]: Thank you. So looking at the dimensional regulations, there are really no dimensional regulations for the zoning district outside of a 50 foot buffer around the boundary of the educational district and within that 50 foot buddy or buffer, the budding zoning district applies so if you are a budding a low. density residential district and you are within 50 feet of that abutting property, then that district's dimensional regulations apply. Additionally, for parking, zoning requires that the university provides enough off-street parking that there is no street parking and there is also no parking outside of the educational district that is associated with the university. And then for project review, again, kind of balancing that line that we discussed with Dover, is that there is no authority for the planning board to grant some sort of special permit for it for any development within the district. However, it is necessary that they submit their plans to the planning board. Looking at Wellesley, Wellesley also uses a base zoning educational district. They have three different ones that have a little bit of variation in their allowable uses, but pretty much all of them allow, well, not pretty much, all of them do allow educational institutions and educational purposes. And then some of the other districts such as A and B provide a little bit more flexibility as to what is allowed by rights for multifamily dwellings, for faculty and staff, as well as some additional parking options. There are some modest dimensional regulations for the educational district. So this looks very similar to any other district that you would see on a dimensional table in the zoning ordinance. It does provide some flexibility compared to the other districts but it does still have. Jonathan Kropkolson, City of Boulders, City of Boulders Applicant, Verify, Applicant2 For Worcester, also a base zoning district. They have a base zoning district for institutional uses, both for educational and for medical campuses. And we'll see this later on as well. But specifically, we're looking at the educational uses. There are, in addition to the educational uses, there are some other uses that are allowed by right and by special permit. So this is looking more at endeavors that are not taken on by the university, but might also be a different parcel of land that just falls within that district. And similarly, there is a 50-foot setback from the nearest property line. And within that buffer zone, you have different dimensional regulations. But once you get outside of that, there are no regulations for the height of buildings. Again, with parking, notwithstanding other provisions of the ordinance, they require that the parking requirements are calculated solely on the classroom and dormitory uses. And there were no specific provisions for educational uses for project review. Fitchburg also uses a university zoning district, and it allows a mix of non-educational uses by right and by special permit. And the district also has its own set of dimensional regulations, similar to other districts, except for the minimum law area requirements, which are significantly lower than the other districts, but all the other dimensional regulations are pretty in line with what you see in the rest of the municipality. For the parking, they provide a bit more flexibility for the parking. And here's where the planning board can grant some sort of additional dimensional flexibility. So here, it's not taking away a flexibility that an institution would have. If Fitchburg, if the FSC wants to go to the planning board, they can actually get more dimensional flexibility from them. Switching from base zoning districts, Northampton uses a zoning overlay district for Smith College. So this differs a little bit to where the base zoning still applies. However, you have this overlay district that encompasses the entirety of the university. And this way, they have a little bit more flexibility from the base zoning for some of the dimensional requirements. They do not have any specific allowable uses beyond the base zoning. And then for the dimensional regulations, the maximum height is increased, and some of the dimensional limitations near residential streets still apply. What sets Northampton's educational overlay, apart from some of the other examples that we saw is that their parking requirements are were determined kind of through a cooperative system with Smith College in North Hampton to create a parking master plan for the university and then that was able to find a mutually agreeable outcome for both the city and for Smith to make sure that each were meeting their parking requirements. And then again, no specific provisions for educational uses on project review. Next, we're going to be looking at Boston and Salem. I'll just introduce them together because they both use what is called an institutional master plan. An institutional master plan is very similar to a comprehensive plan that we would see for a city, a town, or an area. And it describes the existing conditions, long-range goals in the proposed projects. And it also has, it identifies the impacts on the surrounding community and the potential planning processes that can mitigate those impacts, as well as some of the community benefits that come from these projects. The project review process is a bit more intensive for Boston Institutional Master Plans compared to Salem that we'll see shortly. But this process is basically that the institution has to notify the city that they are going to be making a master plan. And it summarizes what they want to do in that plan, which is then open up for public comment, which has been reviewed by the city. And the city provides what is called a scoping determination. which helps the institution decide what should be included within their master plan and maybe what does not have to be included. And then after the institution submits their IMP, it's given an adequacy determination by the city, which basically is just saying that this meets what we're looking for in an institutional master plan. And then the zoning commission has to give approval and then the mayor issues final zoning approval. The plan has to be updated every two years to describe progress that has been made on campus projects and if there are any amendments or any new projects that are going to be taken on the campus, the IMP has to be amended. And then additionally, it has to be renewed periodically, usually every 10 years. Looking at Salem, a very similar purpose trying to encourage communication between institutions in the city, but the project review process is a little bit. is a little bit more flexible. It's similar to where instead of every 10 years, it has to be updated every five years. And then amendments also had to be submitted anytime that the plan would change. And then within the plan, it has to include description of the organization, any property that the institutional owns, really very similar to what was included in the Boston one. And I will also point out that Tufts University already has to submit an institutional master plan for its Boston campus. Going away from districts and overlays that are specific to educational uses, Waltham has all their colleges and universities zone as residence A2 and A3, which is a more low-density residential, and it allows all the same uses as any other parcel of land in A2 or A3. and then there's no specific parking provisions and no specific project review. However, for dimensional requirements, there is a bit more flexibility. So this is a lot of text, but basically what it comes down to is that there's more flexibility depending on your distance from the property line. So I'm just going to read through some of these for folks in the room. So if you are set back 75 feet from the property line, that is abutting a residential use or an open space. Your maximum height is two stories or 24 feet. If you have 125 foot setback, it's three stories or 36 feet. 350 foot setback, it's four stories or 48 feet. And then it caps out at 450 foot setback for five stories or 60 feet. They also have a provision here that any parcels of land that are less than two acres are still subject to the dimensional regulations of the district in which they are located. Dartmouth is home to UMass Dartmouth and this out of all the examples that we've shown you has the least amount of flexibility specifically for educational uses when you're looking at what you could provide either through the base zoning or through an overlay. It is zoned for single residence B, which the town categorizes as trying to keep the rural nature of the city, or I'm sorry, of the town. So it's pretty low density. It allows a mix of non-educational uses by right and by special permit. And like I said, there is no greater flexibility. So dimensional regulations, there's no specific provisions for educational uses, and same with parking and project review. Would you like to do this one? Okay. Thank you.
[Emily Innes]: I'll need the mouse. Sorry, just changing over the technical things there. So we wanted to call out just some early considerations to kick off our discussion today. First is thinking about whether or not there should be non-educational uses that are allowed in the district by right, and whether there are non-educational uses that should be allowed by special permit. Ownership can change over time. And that may be dependent on how we draw the district boundaries for some of these other communities that have the zoning districts, there are non university or non college owned land within that so that's something to think about. Abutting residential districts, if we think about the current proposal that's out there, the abutting residential districts to Tufts under those proposals would be up to three stories. The commercial mixed-use districts would be between three and seven stories. Does that make a difference as we're thinking about the buffer on the Tufts side? Should we think about a density gradient along abutting residential properties and I think we've talked about this in the public meeting a little bit Somerville has these height differentials depending on how far away you are from the buffer so something to think about there. Should we have dimensional controls on the lots? Or do we move more to thinking about, okay, it's a campus. All of these relate to each other. The individual lots matter less on a campus. So thinking about how we would do those dimensional controls. And then also taking to account in terms of both height and dimensional controls, there's significant topographical changes on the campus and where would it make a difference to have different requirements. There's also a difference in where things are in terms of distance from transit. And there's the existing campus development pattern. So we want to take all of those into account. We also want to think about the review process. There is the example of, okay, you just have to submit your plan to us. That's one side. There is the full institutional master plan on the other side. There could also be a way of using the site plan review process, but making it either an, you know, it could be an advisory site plan review or an administrative site plan review. So thinking of the gradations of how the city would want Tufts to come before them and talk about what they're doing, but also at what point they want public comment and how to make that public comment available as part of the process. So I would want to think about that. Do you need to think about parking regulations, we also need to think about the relationship to the quarter zoning which is mixed use zoning, and whether or not we can do development standards and if so what those should be and that's where we're parsing into the case law some more. And then finally, we took an initial look at, okay, if we were to start dividing this up in terms of campus characteristics, how would we break the campus down into different components. So there's a sort of a more residential neighborhood up in the pink at the top of the page. I know the people in the room can't read the words. The blue is kind of the modern university, the teal or light turquoise is the central campus area. There's an orange area right along the track, which is more of the transit-oriented development, more high-density residential, a middle density coming down here, middle density of the yellow, and then an existing recreational area in the green. One of our questions for ourselves is how we would come back with recommendations for each of these. We'd be interested in hearing comments tonight if we think these are the right ones. Obviously, we also need to talk with Tufts as well. Didn't want to put the team through doing this on a daylight today, but I think at some point we'll be visiting the campus and taking pictures as well. I think many of us have been to the campus before on the team, but not putting it through the lens of what would you do in terms of the zoning change. So that is part of our next step. And with that, I'm going to stop sharing the screen. I think tonight was really about giving you the framework of what we need to think about, what other communities have been doing. and then start to think about how that would apply to Tufts. And we're just looking for some initial comments, thoughts, reaction to some of this. Is there a pathway that you think is more attractive? Or if there's some more work that you'd like us to do in terms of research before we come back with recommendations.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. Thank you very much. So just to be clear on the process, what's going to happen, we're going to take comment and discussion from individual Councilors, have a discussion there. And then after that's concluded, we will then have the opportunity for public comment. People get three minutes to speak the first time they their first time and then one minute after for repeat comments. First, we're going to go to Councilors. Right now, I see Councilor Callaghan and then Council Vice President Collins, and then Council President Bears. After that, Councilor Callaghan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. My question is about the institutional master plan. Is that something that we can simply require from them? Do we need any approval from the state in order to require that from them? Tell us a little bit more about the process for asking for an institutional master plan and for them to go through a process with our zoning.
[Matt Leming]: Oh, moment.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you, I'm teaching Grant the mysteries of the communication system. I don't know that they need to, in terms of the zoning, that they need to request from the state to do the institutional master plan. We'll check with legal counsel on that. I have not heard that being a condition before, but it's worth just double-checking. You would certainly want to have a conversation with the tax court instituting that, just because it hasn't been. Obviously, if there's a Boston campus subject to it, they're familiar with it. But I think that would be a conversation with them. But we'll look into the state requirements if there are any.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. And then my kind of follow-up question is, I didn't see Somerville on that list. And because Somerville shares the Tufts campus with us, do we know what they are currently doing? I mean, I assume they're not doing a student national master plan because then obviously it would be the same plan because it's Tufts.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, we deliberately took them off tonight's presentation because we had presented it before and we wanted to show the others. So no worries. You may not have been at that meeting, but we can certainly provide you with the research that we did for that. And we will continue to look at Somerville. We just wanted to make sure, in limited time, that we also focused on the others. But we have not forgotten about them.
[Anna Callahan]: but they don't have an institutional master plan model. They don't.
[SPEAKER_15]: I would also say, just looking at this right now, that there is a bill in the state legislature authorizing Somerville to institute institutional master plans. So I will just put that out there. That looks like that's their current. And the last action was in April.
[Zac Bears]: I have some more context on this. Council President Bears, thank you. I just want to avoid the echo as best as I can. Yeah, so we can't institute an institutional master plan right now. We've been filing a home rule petition with Somerville for several years to try to get an institutional master plan for Tufts. We don't have the ability to do that right now. We want one. Tufts opposes it and opposes the bill. It has died every session. And the mayor and the council have been working. I think we filed a new home rule petition. We may have filed one earlier this year, I'd have to go back and look at the records, but we've done it at least three times since I've been on the Council, and they are resistant to that. So that's why Somerville doesn't have one either. The Somerville zoning and for Tufts, their institutional district, I think that was helpful. I think it could be a model that we want to use. We definitely, I think I want an institutional master plan for Tufts University, but they have opposed it at every turn. And when we've brought it up, Tufts has sent their representatives to explain why they don't want it. But given how many other communities have it and the Boston plan system, I really think it's an important tool for us to continue to advocate for. And I think it speaks also to the larger element of this process where there are the things we can do in zoning, and then there are the things we want the state to allow us to do from a home rule perspective that they don't allow us to do. And, you know, that's one of the complicated truths that I was talking about earlier tonight, right? What do we do now with the power we have now, and what do we need to get more power to do that the state doesn't let us do so. Yeah, it's, it's something that I know all of the legislators in our district file for both cities every year and I think we actually file essentially the same petition.
[Matt Leming]: was one university that they actually managed to get exempted entirely from the Dover Amendment, and that was Harvard University in like the 70s or 80s, but the political context then was very different, and it's essentially impossible to get that done today. So just for folks at home wondering if that's an option, not really. Council Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice Chair Leming. And I also want to thank you for chairing this meeting for me today, since I am obviously attending remotely. I really appreciate it. Thank you for facilitating. Thank you to Innes Associates for the presentation. I know we shared this earlier, but this meeting follows on the heels of our community forum that we had on May 1st. We then had a quick update, kind of a report back from the community forum. just about a month ago in the Planning and Permitting Committee. So this is a really complicated topic. All of our topics in zoning are complicated, this one especially, because this is even more of a negotiation with our partners at Tufts University. So I'm glad that we're taking our time with this, and I really appreciate this thorough research and the comparison of the other communities that have various types of approaches to their institutional zoning. I appreciate the, the kind of the prompts, the reflection prompts, specifically the considerations that we want to be thinking through in this meeting to guide our future analysis on this topic. Just to start with one of those specifically, what are the non-educational uses that we want to be allowed in an institutional district by right? Obviously, we're balancing a lot of things here. One of the headlines for me, there's many headlines for the Tufts Institutional Zone. One of those is cohering the right way at the margins of that district with the surrounding mixed use and residential zones. The other is making sure that we're enabling Tufts to do what I think a lot of people in the community agree it does need to do the right way, which is provide enough housing on campus that it doesn't drive up housing scarcity off campus. So I think it's really important that we be thinking about what types of housing do we want to be allowable in the district by right, what types and exactly where. So I'm very interested in, I think it's the, I think the Worcester example among others that have kind of different uses allowable based on what kind of step back from abutting uses. I mostly want to defer to where we see this done well in other communities, but I'm curious if we could hear some recommendations in future around how we might kind of tailor that here in Medford. For example, if we have within the Tufts Institutional Zone a parcel abutting a residential parcel outside of the institutional zone, is there a way to say, okay, inside of the Tufts IZ, you can have a residence. It can be up to this many units. It can be, say, one story taller than the residential parcel that it abuts that is outside of the Tufts institutional zone. I just mean this as a jumping off point. I think that it's important that we're allowing Tufts to create dense housing for students on its campus. So that again, we're not, it's avoiding perpetuating the problem of driving many students into off-campus apartments that would otherwise be occupied by Medford families. But of course those aren't all appropriate everywhere. So I'd be interested in looking at that kind of step back model to see how we can create these waves of allowed uses throughout the zone so that the margins of the zone make sense with the surrounding zoning while still allowing denser uses kind of closer to, allowed by right, closer to that core of the campus. And I just want to echo what some of my other councillors have spoken to. I also agree in a perfect world, probably the institutional master plan would be the first thing out of my mouth, but I think it's really important that in this proposal, we're making sure that this new zoning holds Tufts University to account in ways that we can really rely on. And then hopefully in the future, political winds will change and we'll be able to get the institutional master plan as well. But I wouldn't want the work that we do this term to depend on something that may or may not happen because we know that, you know, this legislative term at the state level, Tufts will certainly continue to resist local calls for institutional master planning. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you, Council Vice President Collins. I did have one small question. So in all of the examples that you provided, and thank you once again for all the research that you've done on this topic, how many of the are those options for what an institutional district looks like sort of tried and tested legally? So there were a couple of cases that you presented. So what I want to know is are all of the examples from other areas sort of backed up by case law, or could it be the case that we end up sort of going with the most restrictive option available to us, and it ends up getting challenged by Tufts in court, and then the whole thing is thrown out? even though it was already done in another city.
[Emily Innes]: Yeah, that's a very good question. And that's one of the reasons that Jonathan Silverstein remains on the team is this is something that as we start working with the drafts and coming up with something that we think is addressing what we've heard is we would be checking with him just to double check on the legal side. We're giving you the overview based on being planners. We would check with him on the legal side to make sure that what we're proposing could stand the challenge of those tasks. because that's, um, you know, it's more important at that point to hear from the lawyer. We can bring forward the case law that we can see, but he's going to be the one that has the ability to make a judgment as to whether or not this is applicable. So some of that law.
[Matt Leming]: Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. That's for them. Uh, Council President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, I appreciate the research on the Somerville proposal, all these other districts. I know the institutional master plan is a tough thing that can't be our main way of doing this, but I think hopefully it can be something we add to the table over time if the legislature will let us do it. I'm wondering, given all of your research, what thoughts you had on at least a framework for what this zone could look like and kind of the direction that your analysis suggests would allow us to meet the requirements of the law and try to hold Tufts accountable in a more robust way.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, I'd be happy to talk about that I'm actually going to share my screen again if I can get zoom back to let me do it, because I have the Tufts, the Somerville boundaries up and I think that might be a good way of talking about this as you can see, Somerville has these bands. And so the bands allow for the differing heights. So the blue band is two and a half, the red band is four, the yellow band is six, and the green band is eight. Those are the story that allowed. I think as we're looking at it, let me just go back to the map. I think the idea, I've got to stop sharing one and share the other, sorry. I think the idea of having these sub-districts is probably going to be more tailored to what Medford has is the campus area on the Somerville side is sort of very consistent. It's a nice block. You can do those bands around it. Here we've got some different characteristics. So number one is figuring out what the sub areas are and what differences, if any, there should be in the sub areas. So I think that's number one. We'd like to look at that. I think the second piece that is going to be really important is figuring out what the process is. I don't think it should just be an as a right apply for the building permit. I do feel that there should be some sort of site plan review process. And it may be that that site plan review process differs by what it is. If it's a very small project, it's internal to the site, maybe that's an administrative review, whereas if it's along the boundary of an existing residential district, maybe that's a site plan review that gets kicked up to the community development board. But I think those two pieces, the idea of sub areas and different characteristics with sub areas, and then the process, I think those are going to be big components of what we would recommend and then to Councilor Collins point, the uses, the setbacks, those will start to fall out based on the on the sub districts and how those would work. But I think that's how I see it going now.
[Matt Leming]: Any more questions or comments from my fellow Councilors? All right. Seeing none. Oh, Council Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming. I appreciate that. I just want to say I think that plan laid out by Unis Associates makes sense for our next considerations, and I just want to plus one that I think it's appropriate at this stage to be looking at processes, review processes for the forthcoming institutional zone that aren't just a simple submission, but do have some kind of site plan review process opportunity for structured community input. I think that's really important. I think we've seen that's really important over the past year. I would especially be curious to see, as we go forward in this, I'd be curious to see what, as I'm looking through these, as always, want to be deferential to the close research and expertise of the zoning consultant. But just from this kind of top line overview, the purchase used in Worcester strike me as maybe especially relevant to the community that we have here in Medford. So as we start to see some more granular updated proposals, I'd be curious to see what we can borrow from. that community, other communities, just to have this, to have our institutional zone here in Medford fit our community as well as possible. Thank you. I'm excited for next steps on this.
[Matt Leming]: I'm going to recognize Senior Planner Evans.
[Danielle Evans]: Good evening. Thank you, Councilor Leming. I just wanted to say that we did meet with the planners in Somerville, and they haven't touched that section of their zoning in decades, besides eliminating parking requirements. So I would not use that as an example. They think it's problematic. So they actually wanted to talk to us about what we plan on doing. So I just wanted to put that out there that they actually just have not done anything with it. They haven't had a lot of development pressure from Tufts. So that might be part of why they haven't had to take any action over there. One thing that I'm concerned about is the steady encroachment of the university buying up properties, market rate, housing, and then converting them to student housing. If there's a way to discourage that, or at least be able to provide substantially more beds in those units than what existed before, that would be great. So I wouldn't want to limit it to the two and a half stories that you know, some rule has, um, I think that they allow the residential districts to be much denser. So and they recognize that that there's a mismatch there and needs to be updated.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you, Senior Planner Evans. Anyone else? All right, seeing no further comments from staff, consultants, or my fellow Councilors, we're gonna go ahead and move over to public comment. If you're here in person, feel free to line up at the podium. And if you're on Zoom, just raise your hand on Zoom and we'll alternate. Currently seeing, all right, I'm going to first recognize the in-person visitor we have here at the podium. Please state your name and address for the record.
[David Zabner]: OK, great. Hi, I'm David Zabner. I live at 107 Bowdoin Street. I've got a question and also a few comments. First for the question, can you bring up the map that you showed of the Tufts zoning? Because it looked like my house was zoned for athletic activities.
[Emily Innes]: The existing Tufts zone.
[David Zabner]: Yes, maybe. Whichever map you were just showing maybe five minutes ago.
[Emily Innes]: That's just, I'll bring it up and then I'll explain.
[David Zabner]: I'm doing lots of athletic activities, but I also live there.
[Emily Innes]: So everybody understands this is not a proposal in any way, shape, or form. This is just us getting our heads around what's existing by characteristic rights. Gotcha. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh.
[David Zabner]: Yeah, the recreation area, I think, is just the streets too far over.
[Emily Innes]: OK, great. Thank you. Yeah, just so everybody can hear, this is not a proposal. This is our first sort of internal diagram of the different characteristics in this area. So what we're hearing is that we're a street too far over. Thank you. We'll correct that.
[David Zabner]: Stop it at Wellesley Street. I mean, hey. Everything between Bowdoin and Wellesley there is housing, at least at the moment. For comments, I think mainly I just want to say that I really loved what I heard from Councilor Collins. It's super important to me and I think to the community as a whole that as many of Tufts students as possible, as reasonable, live on Tufts campus. And so I think the city should do everything it can to incentivize Tufts to build as much housing for students on their campuses as reasonable. Hopefully that will decrease the pressure on rents in the rest of the city. And I think it's also really great for the school to have more people living on its campus. Good for the campus community. Also keeps drunk college students out of everybody else's hair. So that's my two cents on that. Thanks.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. Going to go to, as soon as I get this, OK, yeah, as soon as I get this timer thing ready. Judith Weinstock on Zoom. I'm going to ask you to unmute here. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Judith Weinstock on Zoom. I'm going to ask you to unmute here. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Judith Weinstock]: Hi, my name is Judith Weinstock. I live at 144 Brigette Avenue in Medford, and I'm directly across the hill from Tufts, just on the north side of the tracks. A couple of quick questions, and one of them, Emily, you may be able to answer this after I am done. People are talking about non-educational uses, and I'm wondering if that can be better defined. I was not interpreting non-educational as dormitories, which I thought maybe Ms. Collins was mentioning. I was interpreting them as things like the retail space that might be on the ground floor of the dormitory that's currently being built. That's number one. Number two, so that's a question. The other things are non-contiguous Tufts properties are not included in this map, and I am hoping that you will give thought to that and include in your whatever standards get established, include those non-contiguous properties as well. So for example, the old school off George Street near Georgian College. Um, is a beautifully redone building, but it is a tough zone property. And I believe that there will be many other properties like that. That should be included in those maps. And the other thing is, I do hope that, um. You know, the Somerville program may not be, and their zoning may not be perfect, but it certainly is not a terrible thing to look at. And probably one of the reasons that Tufts hasn't had developmental pressure with Somerville government is because those standards are established so low. For them, they couldn't possibly have built their 10-story dormitory on Somerville property anywhere, because currently they're not allowed to build 10 stories. Lastly, to consider that whatever they build on the hill, whatever the height may be, that always shadow studies be required as part of that site review or whatever. Because even buildings of a lower stature than 10 stories may, in fact, throw shadows that impact the lower hillside, as will the 10-story building. So just some thoughts. I've been taking some copious notes. And as some of you know, I'm more than happy to articulate those at another meeting. But those are my thoughts. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you very much, Judith. Feel free to respond to those questions. One moment.
[Emily Innes]: First of all, very thoughtful thoughts. So appreciate those, Judith. Thank you very much. We do have a map. I was looking very quickly as you were talking to what we had done at the public meeting. I think our map is still internal, but we are mapping all of the Tufts properties. In some cases, this particular discussion is about an institutional zone that would just apply, oops, just apply to the campus area. In general, the other property my understanding is and I will confirm when we look at the map that other properties are not owned by their institutional arm it's owned by their development arm those don't necessarily count as educational uses. That's one of the things we've been wanting to confirm internally. If that is true, and that's what we have to confirm, but if that is true, then they would be subject to the zoning of the district that they're in. So that is, we're kind of building as we're doing this research, we're building questions for our legal counsel to say, hey, this is our understanding, are we correct? And if we're not correct, then we go back and redo that. But we are keeping an eye on the ownership and I wanted to let you know that. And yes, obviously, we are continuing to look at Somerville, even though Somerville's not happy with it, it is the existing condition. So it's important for us to understand what that means and what implications it has for Medford. Did I mention anything? Did I miss anything? No. Okay, great. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Gonna go next to the podium. Go ahead and turn it on. Is it already on? I can't quite see, because it's all sunny.
[Page Buldini]: Is it on?
[Matt Leming]: I think so. Yep. Yep. Okay. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes starting now.
[Page Buldini]: Page Buldini, 37 Winter Street, and I own a small business, 319 Boston Ave. First, I'd like to ask, have fire, police, and traffic been part of this process? These apartments will be directly affected by changes in density, traffic flow, and emergency access. And I think their input should be part of the conversation before decisions are made. And finally, I hope the city is thinking carefully about how special administrative zones would function, especially in places like the hillside. We already have seen tension around institutional growth. Will this process for development proposals come from what we saw from recent developments with the tough storm, or will they follow a similar pattern? That experience raised a lot of questions, and I think people deserve answers before zoning moves forward. And just one follow-up question about what the last person said. It would be really great to know because Tufts, yes, although they might have their development entity own, I think from that map, it's literally right next to it, if that's Winthrop. So that would literally be adjacent in a budding, and that's within the Boston Ave corridor, which I know we're not speaking about, but it would be really important specifically because that's where both the dorms and the businesses and residents are. So that would be great.
[Matt Leming]: Can you speak into the mic? I know it's a little bit- Sorry.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you. So just to answer that last bit and repeat it, the question is the ownership of Tufts along the Boston Avenue corridor. Yes, we had in our list of things to make sure that we consider is the relationship of Tufts to that Boston Avenue corridor. So we are taking that into consideration. Thank you. you can probably tell from the presentation that we made today, we haven't talked to fire and police yet because there's nothing to talk to them about. We're just starting the research, but I understand in working with city staff that there have been questions about zoning going out to the relevant department heads, and we would certainly expect to continue that process. So thank you.
[Matt Leming]: They're hand raised. Dina, could you please state your first and last name and address for the record? You have three minutes.
[Dina Caloggero]: Thank you. My name is Dina Caligero. I live on Stanley Avenue, which is, I am an abutter to Tufts University. I've been an abutter for over 60 years, and I've seen continued development by Tufts University. and the limited housing by students, freshmen and sophomores are only guaranteed housing there. And the students have become part of our neighborhood. The houses on our streets have been purchased by developers and then flipped and provide housing for students. So I welcome the opportunity to provide institutional zoning parameters to touch university. I am curious to see if there will be some type of proposal in addition to Boston Avenue for College Avenue as well. I lived right across the street from the Elliot Pearson School and Um, would love to hear what type of requirements would be implemented there. I also think it would be quite helpful if we would see the current method zoning proposal requirements for Tufts University in relationship to Somerville and Worcester. I agree with Councilor Collins that we would look very closely to the Worcester type of solution that they have in place. I think that would be a great piece to communicate to the abutters in those communities surrounding Tush University that have been impacted over the years. I also find it quite interesting by Tush University that they have not continued some of the residential development in their quad area. Currently, there is a softball field up there, which could have been converted to housing. And it amazes me how the housing has really inched closer to a lot of the residential property. I look forward to the proposals and the discussions put by Innis and hope that it is communicated clearly to the residents and the abutters of the community. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. I believe the other corridors proposal is still in the City Council agenda. We haven't referred it out to the Community Development Board following requests from the administration, but I'm going to recognize Council Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming. Just quickly, I really appreciate the question about kind of how this fits into the proposal for the other corridors, which, of course, in this case, very notably includes Boston Ave corridor. And just for any other constituents who were not present at our meetings when we were crafting that proposal, which, as Chair Leming mentioned, it's next up, it will be referred out of the City Council to the Community Development Board will there be a lot more opportunities for public comment there, but for folks who are hoping to. Oh, I like that music. Sorry about that. That's okay. For folks who are hoping to get up to speed in the shorter term, yes, it's attached to the City Council packet from last night, but as well, if you go to the zoning page on the City website and go to that section, that will just link you to our past video recordings of our past meetings where we've been discussing that for folks who want to take a bit of a deeper dive. So I just wanted to flag that that was available. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. Yes, medfordma.org slash zoning. It's a wonderful resource to read about all the different parts of this somewhat technically complicated process. But yes, the Boston Avenue proposal is currently under the other corridors proposal along with a couple of other streets within the city. I'm not seeing anybody new. Mr. Cassanetti, I can't, oh, oh yeah. to recognize no sorry I didn't know if you're coming up for public comment Mr. Mr. Castagnetti but I think you've been Okay.
[Elizabeth Bayle]: Yep. This will be quick. Yep. Name and Elizabeth Bale, 34 Emery Street. I'm hoping, first of all, that this presentation will be available from the zoning page in a couple of days, and I would just like to put in a plea if these presentations could possibly be available before the meeting. It's, at least in this chamber, it's really hard to hear and see any detail on the screen, so it makes it really hard to have to respond in the meeting without having been able to familiarize ourselves with what's being said. But I would like to just say a few things, which is the Hillside hardware building, I just found out, is owned by Tufts. It was sold to Walnut Hill, but then they sold it to trustees of Tufts. So that's part, I guess, part of the discussion on the Boston Ave corridor, but also may come into play on this district, institutional district, I'm not clear. on how that fits in, but I'm deeply interested since I live right behind there. And about the Somerville ordinance, it's certainly better than what we've got now, and I just don't want ours to be any worse than theirs in any dimension. they do have staging for a budding residential areas and height restrictions that we don't have and things like that. So just don't make it any worse than Somerville is now, please. And hopefully it can be better. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. Yes, I do have a sympathy for the the meeting material issue, which I do think we've been improving on over the past year. But it can always be a bit frustrating for residents. But just to be clear about a few things. So when things are being presented at a city council, meeting. They're in the City Council. They're typically going to be in the City Council agendas. We haven't always been perfect about that, but we do make an effort to release those presentations in as timely a way as we can, and that is on the the City Council web page and you could see the agenda section there. So I know that Council Vice President Collins just released a version of that on the Zoom chat just now. Additionally, all of these meetings are live streamed to YouTube. So if for some reason the PDF is inaccessible, then this recording is instantly available on the City of Medford YouTube page. Additionally, I've been uploading community development board meetings to that page, so those are now available on their own playlist. In addition to the zoning Q&A session, so if you go to the City of Medford Massachusetts YouTube page and you go to the playlist section, there's five of those, there's like five of the recorded Q&A sessions that we've previously, I should say my colleagues in the planning department and NS have previously done on different topics throughout the zoning process, including the Tufts institutional zoning. So all of that is on YouTube and again I do also when I do a bit to manage the YouTube channel so I try to like link the relevant agendas when I do that. Last there of course is the medfordma.org zoning webpage. We do try to keep that up to date as much as possible but that is under the control of the administration, the communications department, so there sometimes can be a bit of a delay in updating that and I do I apologize whenever that is the case. Is there anybody else who wanted to comment, who hasn't commented yet? Mr. Castanedi, name and address for the record. Andrew's fine.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Castanedi, on Andrew, on Anise Bedford, two blocks to your right. I got here on time. I apologize for missing the first part of Councilor Bears' talk. It took me about 12 minutes to find a decent cup of water. I need more. Maybe I can go in there, because I'm not doing well. I apologize for not hearing everything, but did I hear at the end the connotation was that everything's kaput, or it's on hold, or you're going to reorganize? in a nutshell?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I'm gonna be putting it all out as best I can online.
[SPEAKER_11]: It's a long story.
[Zac Bears]: It was a long story, long remarks, but no, what I said was that we need to streamline the process. So there should be, we've been talking about the commercial framework, so our squares and our corridors and this Tufts institutional zoning. And then we've had a lot of conversations about residential and accessory units and parking. And I think it needs to be really clear There's two things we're talking about left, the commercial framework, so squares, corridors and tufts, the residential and the ADUs and the parking. Every meeting should just be on one of those two things. We shouldn't have them mixed together. And we should continue on the commercial side of things this year. Matt, could you shut off the public mic for a second? just getting feedback. And that microphone is outside the speakers, which is why it creates feedback. So the commercial stuff we should work on this year, and the residential we should extend the discussions into next year, next spring, with no votes before March in the city council. So sure, it could be a different council, they may decide a different path. But that was kind of what I'm recommending to try to bring folks together, have more discussion. I also am asking for the mayor to provide more funding and resources to communicate more things out to residents and let them know when things are happening. So I think that if we do that, residents will better understand what we're doing, have more time to engage, and we can make sure that we can get information out to folks that they can understand.
[SPEAKER_11]: I really appreciate all the time that's spent. I mean, it's quite a chore. Even for your subcontractors, Hopefully they pay you accordingly.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're trying. One of the reasons that I asked for more funding is that if we're going to do more work, we need to provide more resources so that we can have the people to do that work. It's important.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: It feels like this is like the 19th meeting. 29th. Maybe I missed 10. So maybe I should proceed with this because not knowing what you were speaking about earlier, it might pertain, if I may. I've come to my conclusion that you city councilors are tired of seeing and hearing me here at our public meetings. Ditto. I'm also tired of fighting city hall. It ain't fun anymore. But however, you city councilors are out of control, especially because of your rezoning ideas. This is a horrendous assault on we the people of, in Medford, Mass. Are we nuts, in my opinion? I speak at last week, hold on for the music to clear too. I speak at last week at this podium, different reading, same subject, sort of. A speaker last week here made a great common sense point. He or she, I don't recollect, said, OK, do the ADU, I guess it's called Additional Dwelling Units, period, and only that. And I thought that was really good because my initial thought was, Monsec, whatever you want to do, cut it in half. But that's way too much overkill. So even then, the ADUs, if 10% of the houses did this, it still may not give you any affordable units, whatever the definition of affordable is. Anyways, and forget the rest of this zone, because we have enough concession in this city as is. So please, please, please stop the assault on our fair city. Stop the bleeding, save our city, or else we can never go back to old Meffa.
[Matt Leming]: Mr. Cass, I understand I stopped the timer for you because there's a bit of a back and forth.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I understand the word you're saying.
[Matt Leming]: I understand I stopped the timer for you because there is a bit of a back and forth there, but I'll give you an extra 30 seconds.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I still can't understand. I have one paragraph. May I finish?
[Matt Leming]: Sure.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. They're gonna send me to Yale or jail for talking like this, but someone's gotta do it. Also, I'm waiting for your mayor, Brianna, to step up and take control of this disaster before it's too late, before the next election. P.S., is she running unopposed? That's a question. Anybody know? City Clerk, no? You're not allowed to speak?
[Zac Bears]: She's currently the only candidate who's pulled papers.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you. I appreciate that, Councilor Spears. Very nice of you. So, how many signatures are needed to run for the office?
[Zac Bears]: City Council is 50.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, sir. And when is the deadline?
[Zac Bears]: End of July? I don't have the exact date in front of me.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I don't either. It's July something. OK. Thank you. Can I get some agua, please? Thank you, sir. I'm done.
[Matt Leming]: Caitlin, on Zoom, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please. Hi.
[Kaitlin Robinson]: Sorry. Hi, my name is Caitlin Robinson, 31 Everett Street. One of the things that I was noticing when looking at the comparisons with what other cities do was the issue of parking minimums and how that's decided. And I hope that as we are making decisions about what will happen with the Tufts institutional zoning, that we will not place parking minimums. I think it's in Tufts' interest to make sure that they have enough parking for their students. Universities have a lot of discretion about who gets permits, how much they get charged. I don't think that the city would have to provide street parking if they don't have enough. And so I think it should be left up to Tufts to decide how much parking to include and how to manage it instead of having the city mandate a certain amount. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. We, I believe we're going to be getting to a parking slash TDM proposal at a later point in the process. They did have, they have, we have had one informational session, which is again on the City of Medford's YouTube page. But I believe we haven't had any formal proposals put forth as of yet on parking. Is that correct?
[Emily Innes]: Yes, that is correct. We are doing some additional research. One of the things that's interesting about both your existing zoning, and the state's accessory dwelling unit requirements is that there is a geographic requirement for whether or not there is parking at certain sizes so one of the things we're doing is map trying to map what those are, which will give us all a better understanding of what applies where. So we're doing that and we're doing some other research on parking in terms of toss helpful to have that comment that's really why we're here today is to collect everybody's comments so we're taking that under consideration as we look at the other components of what could be part of the zoning.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you, going to go back to Judith Warren stock can ask you to unmute one minute. Thank you. I'm going to go back to Judith Weinstock. I'm going to ask you to unmute one minute.
[Judith Weinstock]: Thank you. Judith Weinstock, 144, Burgett. Just in follow-up, the other thing that I wanted to mention as you're looking at, if you decide to look at setback requirements, particularly along Boston Ave, is just a reminder to please take into consideration the downslope of the hill and the rail tracks, that whole area. So it's really quite a distance between what will now be the front of the curb in front of the new dorm and to the back of the people's homes across the street for me. So I just wanted to mention that. The other thing is I did ask the question about if somebody could help define what non-institutional uses would be under when it was cited in the discussions around Dover.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you, Emily.
[Emily Innes]: So, last question first. So yes, I knew we had forgotten something it was a non conforming, or the non educational uses. I think what we saw that varied community by community so there's not a list but you are correct certainly ground floor residential that is not um, university specific could potentially be that. Again, as we look at the ownership maps, one of the questions will be, are there non-Tufts properties within this boundary? We have to think about what those are, so we don't have a specific list, but we would be coming back if, if, if it makes sense to have such uses we would come back with that list, just because it does vary by community and situation in terms of topographical change. Yes, we are very aware, there's a variety of changes in topography the tracks are there as well that makes certain restrictions on how you might want to cite a building on a parcel and then also how that built the impact of that building on other buildings so we're definitely taking those into consideration. Thank you for bringing it up.
[SPEAKER_15]: I just wanted to also add that case law from Regis V Weston also adds that educational use is a pretty hard term to define, and that is something that's reason that can be reasonably defined as educationally significant, and that the educational use or the educational goal of the structure of the building. is what they call primary or dominant, but that that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be what we traditionally think of as educational. So, educationally significant doesn't necessarily mean just what we see as like classrooms or dorms or traditional buildings on campus so I wanted to add that as well that it is a little bit hard to define and that part of that is defined in the case law in Massachusetts.
[Emily Innes]: And I'll just add again that we as planners are very grateful that we will have legal counsel on this to make sure we get it right.
[Matt Leming]: I do see Councilor Callahan, but I did. Judith, did you just, did you want to do a follow up to that? Yeah. Let me see Councilor Caput. Did you just, did you want to do a follow up to that?
[Judith Weinstock]: Yeah, just a, yeah, just a very quick follow up. So, well, it may be difficult to define non-educational uses, certainly things like retail space. would probably qualify. And that's what I'm sort of talking about more, sort of what types of clearly non-educational uses, and to have that be a consideration as you begin to draft whatever rules will ultimately involve Tufts. That's all.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thanks. Just a tiny clarification. She had mentioned first floor retail, and you replied first floor residential. I assume you meant first floor retail. I just want to clarify. I think that's why she re-brought up retail, if you could clarify. Thanks.
[Emily Innes]: Yes, apologies for that. I meant the first floor retail she had referred to earlier. Interesting question though, if that retail is, and I don't know this because I wasn't part of those discussions, I don't know if that retail was intended to support these students living in the dormitory and in that case, and this is where we would pull the lawyers in, Does that count as ancillary to the educational use of having the dormitory? So that's the kind of fine-grained answer we don't have now, but we would continue to discuss. Judith, I see you shaking your head. That's why we'd be pulling the lawyers into the discussion. I completely understand your question. It's just up to sort of all of us to parse out what's reasonable, what's not reasonable, and then what the restrictions are under the law. One of the more complicated discussions we've had during this process, just because there's another state process on top of it. But I do absolutely appreciate you bringing these up for our consideration. Thank you.
[Matt Leming]: Thank you. Seeing no more hands raised, I'm just going to close off public comment. Thank you very much for coming out here once again and presenting your plans for the Tufts Institutional Zone. I look forward to further engagement in this process, engaging the residents living nearby as well as Tufts University itself and getting a solution that ends up working best for the rezoning process. And I don't believe that there's any decisions that will be made tonight. This was primarily an informational session. Do we have any motions on the floor? Or further comment from my colleagues? Council Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Leming. I just want to echo my thanks to everybody who spoke tonight, members of the community, fellow Councilors, and Danis associates. I'm really glad that we are beginning this topic with a really, really thorough bedrock of research in comparison from the communities that have encountered the same complexities of institutional zoning that we are revisiting here in Medford. Looking forward to continuing discussing the analysis. and in future meetings, looking at a draft framework for our Tufts Institutional Zone. I would offer a motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn unless there is any other further comment from my fellow Councilors.
[Matt Leming]: On the motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn, do we have a second? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: President Bears. Council Callahan, Vice President Collins.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Vice Chair, let me.
[Matt Leming]: Yes. Four yeses, one absent motion passes the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much everybody for coming out here today.
|
total time: 13.71 minutes total words: 1020 |
total time: 17.46 minutes total words: 3028 |
total time: 0.85 minutes total words: 112 |
total time: 7.4 minutes total words: 403 |
|
total time: 1.25 minutes total words: 140 |
|||