[Emily Hedeman]: All right, good evening, everyone. My name is Emily Hedeman, and I am the chair for the Medford Community Development Board. And I'm going to call the meeting to order. Let's begin with some obligatory procedural matters. This hearing of the Medford Community Development Board is being conducted via remote means. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings. Anyone who would like to listen to or view this meeting while in progress may do so by accessing the link that was included on the meeting agenda posted on the City of Medford website. A recording of this meeting will be posted on Medford Community Media website as soon as possible. A reminder that given the remote nature of this meeting, tonight all votes from the board will be made by roll call. Please note that all project materials for all projects before the board can be viewed on the city's website, medfordma.org, Um, we will drop a link in the chat. If you navigate to the link, click on current city board filings. Um, you'll be able to find project materials for all projects. Danielle or Christian, would you be able to drop that into the chat? Um, we're going to start with roll call attendance. Uh, vice chair, Peter Calves.
[Peter Calves]: Present.
[Emily Hedeman]: Uh, Sabrina Alpino. John Anderson.
[John Anderson]: Present.
[Emily Hedeman]: Adam Behrens. Present. Ben LaVallee.
[Ben Lavallee]: Present.
[Emily Hedeman]: Uh, we have a new member, um, who I'd like to, uh, welcome, uh, Dina Collegero. Um, welcome Dina. This is your first roll call attendance. Are you here? I'm here. I'm here. Great. Good to have you. and myself, Chair Emily Hedeman. Before I pass it off to Danielle to introduce any staff, I'm going to pass it off to Vice Chair Peter Kalves. This is Peter's last meeting. His term expired and he is elected not to seek reappointment. On behalf of the board, I want to just thank him so much for his contribution. It's been a pleasure to work beside him on the board. We have benefited greatly from his knowledge as a professional engineer, as a transportation engineer. And I really appreciate his strong approach to ethical involvement, as well as balanced involvement in topics. And with that, I'll hand it off to Peter, to whatever he wants to say.
[Peter Calves]: Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Yeah. I don't know. It's been an honor. And a privilege to serve on this board for the past couple of years, and I've had some personal and professional circumstances that have made it kind of unsustainable to keep going right now. But I will always be glad for the involvement I was able to have. And I'm sure you'll see me back in these meetings, whether making a comment as a member of the public or showing up on the other side of the table with a proponent in my day job. So I'd just like to thank everyone for all the work they put in and all the vision people have for the city and to keep making the city better. Yeah, thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thanks, Peter. I'll see you on the orange line. And I'd also like to remind you that you're eligible for two two, three-year terms. Those don't have to be concurrent. So if at any time you're interested in rejoining the Community Development Board, submit an application, and as vacancies arise, you may be considered. So this is not goodbye, this is see you later. Yeah, thanks. And I believe you're jumping off the call now, is that correct?
[Peter Calves]: Yes, I do have to jump, sorry.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Peter. Have a nice evening.
[Peter Calves]: Yeah, you too.
[Emily Hedeman]: Danielle, can you introduce any staff at the meeting or on the call?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Myself, Danielle Evans, Senior Planner in the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, and our graduate student intern, Christian Cepeda-Lepofsky. I think that is everyone we have tonight. Everyone else is on well-deserved vacations.
[Emily Hedeman]: That's very common time for time off. Um, so before we begin, I want to run down the agenda for tonight's meeting. Um, we are going to take the agenda items slightly out of order. Um, I want to talk about item number four, which is zoning updates. As members of the board and members of the public on this call may be aware, um, there's been a lot of, of changes. Um, a lot of kind of announcements made by city council, the mayor, that have a significant impact on our community development board's kind of timeline and potentially involvement in the process. So was hoping to get an update on that. So after discussing a new path forward, we're going to reopen the public hearings for residential districts, the accessory dwelling units, and squares. For squares, I'd like us largely to focus on Medford Square as there's some things in motion in West Medford Square that we'll talk about later. This will be for board deliberation only. We're not planning to take public comment. We've taken public comment up until July 23rd. And the reason for that is because the board needed time to process public comment so that we can provide um, input to the consultant who is not here tonight, uh, due to some of those city council and mayoral challenges. Um, but there will be opportunities to make comments in the future. So if you joined as a member of the public, you're welcome to, to stay on, um, and listen to our deliberations, um, you know, and submit feedback about that, but comments won't be reflected into the next iteration. We're also going to conclude our meeting with a discussion in the executive session regarding a pending legal case against the board. So that's the rundown for tonight. I also want to add that this is likely my last meeting as a member of the Community Development Board. I'm not getting emotional. You are. It's been so great serving. But my term has expired. And I think it's time for new involvement and new leadership on the board. I hope that I've brought a inclusive and fair approach to the proceedings that we've had before us. I would encourage future members to take that same approach. Remember that your perspective is not the only perspective, and you are serving the citizens of Medford. You are not serving the mayor. You are not serving the city council. You're not even serving yourself. You are serving your fellow citizens, and I want you all to take that very seriously. Whether you're a new member, Dina, who I have no doubt will do very well on the board, or somebody sitting on this call who is considering applying for one of the spots. I'd encourage the city, whether it's the council or the mayor, to take a collaborative and professional approach to moving forward. We can only do this if we all move forward together at a reasonable pace that brings everyone along. It's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money to do that. And that's what Medfar deserves. And if we can't do that, then we shouldn't do it at all. And I know those are strong words, but we should get this right for the time. So I'd encourage more funding, more collaboration, more direct communication between all parties. And with that, I'll step down from my soapbox and move into zoning updates. Danielle, do you have any updates for us? Thank you, Joc.
[Danielle Evans]: Thank you madam chair. So, I attended the city council last night that went until almost 2 am the. President Bears resolution for the shared path forward was heard around. 1230 a.m. and what I was able to absorb at that hour. So they, they table the, um, the quarter. So they did not refer that out. Um, so that, um, gives us some more breathing room to handle the public hearings that are before you right now, like, as you were this, this currently 3 open public hearings, the neighborhood residential urban residential zoning, which is 1. Then there's the accessory dwelling units amendment was the 2nd, 1 and then the 3rd, 1, which is combined West Medford square in Medford square. I know that it had been talked about to in the. In President there's resolution to move the residential zoning towards the end of the process. I think he wanted a spring 2026 timeline. I'm very happy that this approach will be taken. I've been saying that all along that the residential should come after we've done the squares in the quarters. And I'm glad that finally, everyone is getting on the same page. So. The in his contract currently it is, it is not technically expired, but it has does not have any funding for it. So. So, I am not sure that the cadence or the pace of their involvement once it does, if, and once it gets extended. So, that's pretty much what's going on now. I wish I had more to offer, but the city council did not refer anything back to committee for further study. They didn't withdraw anything or sever anything, but. So, status quo for now.
[Emily Hedeman]: and what a status quo it is. So what I'm hearing is that tonight, for the board deliberations, when we reopen the public hearing, we can still synthesize public comment. We can still provide insight to Innocent Associates, regardless of the path moving forward. Because I think the board, if you agree with me, shake your head. If you don't, raise your hand. But I think the amount of work that Innocent associates as well as the public have put in to this point forward deserves to be recognized so that we can still kind of discuss, put together some firm recommendations and then go from there. Cool. We'll make the best decision for ourselves with everything we know right now. Okay, thank you for that update, Danielle. I really appreciate it. And I also appreciate the time and effort that you and the rest of the staff members have been putting in. It's a lot of late nights and long hours and it has not gone unrecognized. So thank you for that. Thank you. So we're gonna move into our next item, continued public hearings for neighborhood and urban residential accessory dwelling units and Medford Square and West Medford Square districts. As a reminder, this is the sixth meeting for the continued public hearing that was opened on April 2nd regarding the proposed zoning amendment for the creation of neighborhood and urban residential zoning districts. This is our third meeting for the continued public hearings that was opened on June 18th regarding the accessory dwelling units. And this is the fourth meeting for the continued public hearings that was opened on June 4th regarding the proposed zoning amendment for the creation of Medford Square and West Medford Square districts. I do see in my notes that Sabrina missed the neighborhood residential urban residential and ADUs. Peter missed squares as Peter has left the meeting and his spots being replaced and Sabrina is not here tonight. We don't need to discuss the Mullen rule right now. So with that, I'm going to open this up to the board for our deliberations. As I laid out in my logistical email yesterday, what I'm planning is for people who are interested, board members who are interested to have like five or 10 minutes to share their insight. Everybody will share their insight kind of sequentially, and then we'll engage in discussion as a larger group. So if anybody wants to go first, no pressure. And Dina, you're welcome to participate in this discussion as well, or share some reflection, especially coming from the other side. John, you wanna kick us off?
[John Anderson]: Okay, thank you. I'll try to be brief. For one thing, I've only attended a few meetings, but I would make a couple of general comments. One, I'm sort of, it seems like it's sort of a contradiction to have a public meeting for public, particularly when it's for public input, and to do it only over Zoom. Now, the two public comment meetings I've been involved in were both hybrid, but I understand that's a bit unusual. But I think something is lost when public input is received only via Zoom. I mean, there's a feeling at a true public meeting, there's the vibe of the meeting. The board has to look at the people. The people could look at the board. They could see who they're talking to. If you're just talking to some little pictures up on the screen, it's not really the same thing, particularly if they're blacked out. So that's one comment. Another comment, one of the things I've struggled with as we deal with these proposals is some kind of overview or synopsis. There's a lot of detail. but to get a better idea of the thinking that's gone behind the proposal would be a big help for me. Uh, I would like to, I think it would be advantageous to see other city agencies involved in some of the discussions. For example, we had the commission, the DPW commissioner, uh, at a recent meeting and I think that was very helpful. I'd also like to see a commission like the historical commission involved in at least an informal way. The comprehensive plan talks about respect for historic context, excuse me, and I don't see any of that in any of the zoning proposals except for the historic, what's it called? The historic rehabilitation? Historic conversion. Historic conversion, right. And I don't know how that would conflict with the commission's work, which regulates what can be done to historic houses. Just as a simple example, an ADU is, there has to be separate entrances for the ADU. Well, in many houses, you would have to make some exterior changes to the ADU, to the building to support an ADU. Of course, the simplest thing would be steps and balconies. But the historical commission might want to weigh in on that. Also, I don't know what authority the historical commission would have if the ADUs are by right. That's just an example. I guess that's all I'll say for now. I've been really happy to participate in this process. It's been quite a learning experience. But I think some of the things I've suggested could make the process move more smoothly and expeditiously in the future.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Um, that's, I think that's really helpful feedback for the general process. Um, as somebody who's participated in the hybrid meetings, um, who works full time and has other personal obligations, it was a, it was a significant challenge. Um, and I think, you know, we need to be very measured in terms of the obligations that we're asking of our board members. So we can retain a diverse membership, um, that includes people with young families, people with full-time jobs, people with other commitments. I agree, it was great to see everybody in person, but that's just kind of some feedback from the other side. I do also want to remind the board that the goal for this meeting is to try to give direction to the consultant in terms of where to improve these proposals based on all the public comment. So things that are around like meeting location, You know, that's not really within the kind of purview of innocent or whoever. So just providing some parameters for what we talk about. Adam, I see that you came off mute.
[Adam Behrens]: I'm just going to need her to go next if we're each going around.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, that would be awesome. Thank you.
[Adam Behrens]: Okay. Awesome. Yeah, I guess we're regarding the corridors. I think 1 of the things that stood out from. A previous meeting was hold on have quarters been referred to us.
[Emily Hedeman]: No.
[Adam Behrens]: Oh, sorry, the squares, sorry.
[Emily Hedeman]: The squares, okay.
[Adam Behrens]: Yeah, sorry. But it was the discussion around sort of the boundaries of those squares. And I thought that that was probably like one of the most helpful inputs that we got from community members, which was local knowledge at like specific buildings along the edges where maybe it made sense or maybe it didn't make sense. And so I think that is something that I would find really valuable to feel confident that the way that these are budding to the residential neighborhoods are doing so in the spirit of what the community wants. So that is one of the main things that maybe stood out. I think the other thing that has stood out, and I'm not sure the best solution for it, but... It does feel like the comments are bifurcated from the public, where on one hand, there's a desire to move more slowly, do the zoning more in line with what currently exists. Then on the other hand, there's maybe a contingent that is much more pro-development or they do want higher density. And so I've struggled with just how to reconcile the left brain and the right brain there. in terms of what's best for Medford. I think you said it well, Emily, where I don't want to advocate for my own beliefs. I want to advocate for what is best for Medford and what the community wants. And so I think there was some back and forth on just different heights, especially in the squares. And maybe I'm just expressing kind of questions I still have, which is just how do I get confidence that, OK, a four-story limit versus a six-story limit is really what's in the best interest of what people want, and just whether there's a silent contingent as well that hasn't been involved that might have an opinion. And I think the last piece that had stood out that I think that they've done a good job with, it's less maybe a guidance for NS or anybody, but just bringing things up to code for what's currently there, that the current buildings just don't actually match what's even in the zoning anyways. And I want to make sure that The zoning that we proposed just doesn't get stale immediately, and we end up in that same spot where it's like, oh man, within five years, it's not even reflective. I work in tech, and so there's just a lot of change going on, and I think it's hard to account for that. And so I would love to be able to pull in as much flexibility as we could to the zoning. From a personal perspective, I think that defaults to just trying to err towards letting property owners do more of what they want with the property that they have and being a little bit less dogmatic about what needs to go in different places, maybe mixed use being a little bit more prevalent. But I think there's a lot of changes that are just happening generally that the city is going to have to account for. I think I saw the first autonomous vehicle driving around for training with Google, the Waymo. And so all the concerns around traffic patterns, all the concerns around parking. I just want to really make sure we're being forward-looking with maybe other things that are going on. So I'll stop there, but that's my high-level thoughts right now.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Adam. Ben, I see your hand.
[Ben Lavallee]: Yep, I'll take my turn. Thanks, Emily. I want to echo a couple of things. I agree with Emily's feedback about hybrid meetings being a nice option, but I do think in-person is great. I'm in California right now on a work trip, so it's helpful to me to have hybrid as an option. I don't want to belabor the process stuff, but if you'll allow me a minute, I would encourage City Council and the other sort of powers that be, like, to the points that were already made, it'd be nice to sort of get the big picture, you know, why some of these proposals are good for the citizens of Medford. I think that was a frustrating thing over the last several months was to have to listen to a bunch of residents who didn't feel like they understood why any of this was being proposed or what benefit there would be for the residents and people that are already here. So, as part of whatever plays out over the next six months or so, I hope that there's a campaign for lack of a better term to sort of advocate or state the benefits. Um, I do think that, you know, I read the comments from our elected officials, uh, and and sort of civic employees, um, that are in the public folder, uh, you know, hearing from the fire chief and the police chief and the. At the last in-person meeting, we had the representative of the people that work for the fire department. And it's just very clear that there's a lot of really critical stakeholder groups that were not involved. And so I think that some more robust stakeholder engagement, not just with the public, but also with sort of critical public servants, you know, just making sure that we're setting the city up in a thoughtful way that takes input from the people who spend, you know, spend their working days working on behalf of the citizens of Medford. That also includes traffic and, you know, potential MBTA collaboration. I agree with Adam that we should try to be forward looking with how much, you know, technology is evolving around power generation and transportation. Um, but if I had, um, and I do have some specific feedback about the, the, the proposals, Emily, so I'll get there in just a second, but, um, the, the number one bit of feedback, you know, I've been on this board for about a year. Um, the zoning stuff sort of took over the agenda in 2025, I would say. Um, And the biggest thing that I would like to get guidance on from city council or the city is clarity on who's accountable for actually doing the work associated to, you know, a comprehensive zoning update. Right. We've had innocent associates and I do want to sort of applaud them. They were, you know, kind of thrown into a tough situation and I think that they were very professional and did the best that they could. And I appreciated that. But, you know, for example, right now their work is done for the time being. And so if we give specific feedback today, like who's actually accountable for incorporating that into an updated plan? Who synthesizes that and gives it back to the city council? Is that city staff that's already sort of short-staffed and pulling sort of really long hours? That doesn't seem appropriate. So that's my biggest sort of thing is like, who's actually accountable from here on in for the details of the work. And I would encourage the city not to just sort of roll from one sort of short-term consulting contract into the next one without some real clarity on like who's accountable for what. And if it's the CDB, I mean, several times at several points over the last meetings, you know, over the last couple of months, it's been like, well, if the CDB sort of, if the community development board thinks that certain things should happen in certain places, then you can propose that. And that's very hard to do in a public meeting, right? It's very hard to have like a working session. It's also not very respectful of the public's time. So if it's the Community Development Board that's responsible for sort of the details of the work to get it to a point that it represents sort of the public's feedback, that's a pretty big ask. this board especially with so much turnover like that doesn't actually seem appropriate to me but if if that is the request then maybe we need to think about how to have more working sessions or more executive sessions or something where you know we can sit and talk about specific addresses on specific streets and you know, sort of do that in a way that's more of a working group versus a public meeting. So I, you know, I just, I, I've been a little frustrated by the sort of lack of clarity on who's accountable. I'll get off my soapbox. I do have some feedback on the Medford square, um, proposal. I think there's some parcels on garden street, Ashland street and governors have that I think are worth, um, worth a conversation as to whether sort of mixed use residential, there's some specifically some historic homes on Governor's Ave, Ashland Street, which is where I live. So I'm very familiar with the specific parcels and a couple on Garden Street that are currently slated to be up zoned to either you know, and our three or, um, I think, sorry, um, uh, mixed use or urban residential. And, um, I provided some feedback, um, in an email. I don't think that was incorporated into an updated plan. So I'm happy to get into that. I don't know if it makes sense to go through specific addresses. That's probably not the best use of time right now, but, um,
[Emily Hedeman]: i do have a couple of a couple of specific addresses like that is helpful information um maybe it's not something because i don't see us like i don't see us voting on anything in front of us um this evening um but and i i want to give a shout out to john anderson too because he did some really really thoughtful groundwork on West Medford Square, highlighting specific addresses. And I think that sort of work is like step one, depending on the true accountability of the work in front of us, as you alluded to, Ben. But if you have specific addresses and you want to flash them on screen, that's great, because then we can incorporate those to the feedback that we share with the consultant. And part of the reason we're doing it as part of this meeting is because, you know, we as a board cannot deliberate absent the public, we have to have proper notices. And it's a violation of open meeting law if we were to kind of collaborate offline so. you know, for better or for worse. I agree with you, might not be the most efficient way to do it, but it's the legal way to do it. I know.
[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah. And I, if I could respond to that for 30 seconds, Emily, I, that's totally fine. Um, and, and just to be clear, like, I don't think that me or this board is the right board to sort of go parcel by parcel through the city, but I think there was some clear, clear areas that needed more work. And, you know, the feedback that we got over the last couple of months was like, well, if you have feedback, like you can, you can write it down you can do the work you know so being asked to do the work without really sort of having a form to do it um just a little frustrating um i sent the i sent the specific um parcel information to danielle a little while back it was going to be passed over to the consultants i'm sure it was and it's you know it's probably sort of pending um whatever the next steps are with them so um if we want to i can go back through them but i'm not sure that's the best use of time yes
[Emily Hedeman]: Legally, what do we have to do here, Danielle? Do you want me to read them out?
[Ben Lavallee]: I mean, I can read them out for the record.
[Emily Hedeman]: No, I did forward those. Just to be clear, reading them out does not mean that the modification to the plan is confirmed. It just means we're asking the consultant to revisit. So if your address is mentioned, that does not mean something's a done deal. It just means we're going to try this approach. And if we get it wrong, we'll have another opportunity for feedback. Does that sound fair? Yeah.
[Danielle Evans]: Sorry, Danielle. Through the chair to Ben. Yeah. If I didn't respond to you, I apologize. I did forward that to the consultants and to other staff. You did no, you responded.
[Ben Lavallee]: I just don't think it's been incorporated into any update.
[Danielle Evans]: So, yeah, nothing's yeah, nothing's been incorporated. We don't have any updates. This is all consolidating to when. With the squares, I don't know when those are coming, since we don't have a contract, and the consultants were directed to stop working.
[Ben Lavallee]: So, why don't I just read them off and share my feedback, given that this is open to the public, if that's okay, it will only take a minute. And this is sort of specific to specific parcels. And as Emily said, if you live in one of these, by all means, you should share a comment at the appropriate time. So this is just me sort of with my own judgment. But 7 Hillside Avenue is listed as mixed use in the proposal. That's a historic multifamily home on the corner of Hillside and Grandview. It doesn't pass the sort of just like I would say sort of like a gut check of whether that should be a mixed use.
[Emily Hedeman]: That was 7 Hillside.
[Ben Lavallee]: 7 Hillside. So I would encourage another look, you know, maybe if there was like, you know, a dentist office or CPA or something that wasn't, you know, but it is a historic, beautiful home. 17 Garden Street. Similar historic single family home. This is sort of right behind, you know, pure hockey. So it is very close to the square. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be up zoned, but a historic home. Same with 11 Garden Street and 10 Porter Road, 14 to 16 Porter Road and 19 Governors Ave. Those are the ones that I think are worthy of an extra look, just to confirm.
[Emily Hedeman]: 7 Hillside, 17 Garden, 11 Garden, 10 Porter, 14 through 16 Porter, 19 Governors.
[Ben Lavallee]: You got it.
[Emily Hedeman]: OK.
[Ben Lavallee]: Yes.
[Emily Hedeman]: I like it.
[Ben Lavallee]: That's it for me. Thanks for the time, Emily.
[Emily Hedeman]: Of course. Sorry. Did you call on me? Yeah, if you want to. I mean, just going through.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I'm muted too.
[Ari Fishman]: Okay, I'm not sure kind of what my status is currently. Just comment. Okay. And I have been part of this process, kind of since the beginning. And I do want to comment on the actual like, big picture process and agree with some of the comments about. It's hard to know what we're doing and what we're able to do. We are legally not allowed to work among ourselves without the public. We are not allowed to have any meetings other than the ones that. Are publicly noticed and. We are getting very conflict. We got very clear guidance from city council. The mayor provided some guidance from when she was on city council and some emails throughout the process, and then said she was not aware of anything and gave us very different guidance. And now we do not have any professional support to actually go through. building by building and do public research and do public outreach, both of which are the things that I would describe as the two things I've heard most clearly from the public, that we want to be detailed, we want to be specific, we want to honor not just the theory of the city we all live in and love, but the actual reality of it. We want to put in the effort to make sure that those of us who have full-time jobs and families and need to participate by Zoom can, and people who participate better in other formats can, and people who get digital news versus mail versus seeing flyers, that's something we need to invest in. That funding is not currently being approved. I want to do this right. I think we've put in a lot of effort. I think we still have a long way to go, but we actually have gotten a lot of broad strokes and details that should be modified and amended and edited. I don't know what starting from scratch would look like, especially without any professional support. And yeah, I think that's kind of my main thoughts of, I do have many detailed thoughts, but it almost doesn't feel useful to go into those details in this particular moment.
[Emily Hedeman]: So imagine this is like, I get what you're saying in terms of now, if we don't know where it's going, or what's going to be done with this information, why would we share it? I would argue that that's the exact reason why we want to kind of capture it right now. Because if if we don't capture it, I feel like a lot of the work that we've done has kind of been for naught. And this might just be me selfish, you know, last meeting as chair, last meeting as a member. But I think if we can have some really specific feedback, plus this general guidance, then that's doing this board, the staff, the public, a service. So if you do have specific feedback, I'd love to hear it. I'm taking notes. I pulled in those addresses. John, I pulled in the addresses you sent. And then I can share screen to kind of pull everything together.
[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, in that case, I'll probably email my kind of some more. But the broad picture or the main points that I do want to share into the next draft are I Around kind of the borders of the corridors, I actually agree with a lot of the addresses that Ben has shared with Medford, the corridors. Well, so I'm more familiar with Medford square, but I was talking with someone yesterday and it is true that in some of the corridors, we're kind of going out. more or kind of a larger number of buildings and I and we've have gotten a decent amount of kind of feedback on those specific ones and I'd love for us to go through them kind of a second time or fifth time or I'm sure we've gone through it multiple times. I do agree with the kind of details of the Medford square one and think that we should do that amount of diligence on the exact boundaries of the other squares and corridors. The other thing is I also kind of in many ways agreeing with some earlier comments there. The big risk with not moving right now is that there is development happening that follows the current zoning and the current zoning is in some ways very restrictive in residential areas and in some of these other commercial areas extremely permissive and allows for things that As far as I can tell, no single person in the city actually wants, I shouldn't actually say that, but for example, more banks, a third car wash in a two block radius. Maybe there's an individual, I apologize, but I do think that there is an urgency to at least stop the things that there is a consensus that that is not the future. Create flexibility as we figure out what of a range of remaining options we want and doing a kind of staged approach. I know that it is difficult if not to get consensus, but I do think there are some changes that we have consensus on. We want a more walkable and person-centric city. We want commercial corridors to be able to grow in reasonable ways. And I think that staging it In kind of closing off some options and then doing a second round of. Detail could work, and I think that actually is compatible with the summaries I've read of yesterday's meeting. I could not stay up till 2 am so I've nor have I had time with work to watch it. But from the summaries, this seems compatible with some of the proposed timelines.
[Emily Hedeman]: So what you're saying is like, let's prioritize some of the. let's prioritize the quarters, the squares, maybe some of the smaller bits. And I'm using smaller, just like geographically, not saying their impact on Medford or, you know, the citizens that live there is less than others.
[Ari Fishman]: Yes, certainly in terms of the geography, focusing on those. And then I think also in terms of what elements of the zoning, I think there is value in considering intentionally zoning things twice. And I'm so open to feedback that that is a nightmare. But I do think that same kind of... Can you tell me more about that concept? I think it's not dissimilar to what we tried to do where there was that initial round of fixing definitions and typos and things, and getting things into alignment with very basic definitions. I think there is a next level of minimally controversial changes that prevent, for example, a 15-story car. I'm trying to think of an example. 15-story bank. I'm trying to find an example that I think would be universally or broadly unexciting. And kind of things that there is a consensus around in the city. And then I think there is a broad range of options of what our ideal future could be like. And I think the answer to that is there are people who have different visions of different futures that are within the realm of reasonable people can disagree, and I think we should have the space to be able to find compromise while making sure that while we argue about the best path forward, we don't end up with the thing that actually none of us want. And so a staggered approach, which is, again, what we have started doing, but maybe adding a few more stages. I think that also has the benefit of providing more opportunity to get detailed and more opportunity for the public to provide feedback and not feel rushed and all or nothing because all public policy, I'm a big iterative person for public policy. Yeah. And that also lets us when we We are human. Every group of humans is human. Something will get messed up. That makes it possible, and not just possible, but likely to be able to fix it in a reasonable time scope. So that's my advocacy at this moment.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, we're all humans at this point, I think. As far as I can tell. As far as I can tell. OK. Thank you, Ari. I took some notes. Dina.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah. New to the group. So I will give some comments just coming, looking into the process. And one of the things I'm just struck by, it seems to me it's everything all at once. And I heard the word iterative mentioned. And I think that's really important here. I think that The parcel should be broken out. I don't understand why West Method is bunched in with Method Square. I think they should be separate. I think Method Square should be the focus right now. And looking at the zoning of the changes that are needed in that area that are completely overdue, I remember as a child and early in my teens, a very vibrant Method Square prior to the ring road. And I think those things should be looked at. And again, addressing the boundaries of the height of the buildings towards the residential areas of what those will look like in relationship to the houses behind those different areas. I think it's important to iterate because when you do a good job in one area and that good job needs to include DPW, fire, police, schools, and it also needs to include traffic studies, right? Parking as well. Those are things that all go into each particular project in part of the zoning, and they cannot be separated. They're one. And I think it's also very important as we look at each one of these different zoning pieces that are in front of us, that the message to the public is clear, what the zoning looks like now and what it will be. And I think one of the most important concepts and what I started to do since being appointed to the board is walking around, looking at the maps, looking where the boundaries are, looking at what those changes would be and allowing our residents to also have that same opportunity to look and gather information and provide constructive public comment so we can collaborate as a group with the public and we can come up with good recommendations. And hopefully we're able to do that in a very thoughtful way, rather than everything all at once, because it is way too much right now. The information is complicated at times to digest, and at times isn't clear. And we want to make sure the information is clear, so that we are able to make the best decision going forward. That's what I got for now.
[Emily Hedeman]: Do you have any specific feedback that we should incorporate?
[Dina Caloggero]: I would definitely incorporate West Mefford out from Mefford Square. Mefford Square has been overdue for years and years and years and needs to be done with the ring road, whatever. But we need to certainly take a good look at that and do that. I mean, Mefford Square has fallen behind in comparison to some of the other surrounding cities that we have. And I remember at one of the sessions that I attended, Ben gave a very good comment that I would like to echo again, which is, what's in it for the residents of Medford? And I think by doing and revitalizing Method Square and looking at the zoning that's needed there and doing it in a thoughtful way that incorporates all the pieces as part of that zoning, we can certainly assure the citizens of Medford what is in it for them.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, that's really helpful. I'm trying to make sure I'm capturing everything. Okay, so let me summarize what I've heard from the board as well as add some of my own input. So I'm going to start with ADUs because We, I haven't heard a lot of feedback from the board on those, but I did have some specific feedback that I wanted to pass on to the consultant. And again, all of this is in reflection that, you know, I'm not gonna be a member of the board moving forward. So, you know, I'm kind of leaving it to the board, to the public to do what they want with this information. So for ADUs, I'd say that this is an issue that, we should, as a city, should prioritize. I think going with the state guidance for the state requirement of one ADU by right is, no pun intended, the right thing to do. And I think that any additional ADUs, whether it's one or two, depending on the zone, would all be by special permit. Because I believe we have some zones where you can have 2 by right. And then 1 additional, I would say it's 1 by right and then the 2 would be by special permit. I don't know if anybody has any. Thoughts on that Ben.
[Ben Lavallee]: I'll just chime in to say I completely agree with that.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay.
[Ben Lavallee]: It's not, it's not crazy to think that we can handle additional ADUs by special permit.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah.
[Ben Lavallee]: And it just keeps things so much simpler.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. And, you know, as, as Ari alluded to, if we get this wrong, we can go back and modify it, but it's, it's incremental. It's iterative change. Um, for, And after this, I'd encourage discussion for all of us. John, I saw you just came off a mute.
[John Anderson]: Yeah, would it be appropriate for me to mention a couple of things we could use professional guidance on? Yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'll add it to my, I've categorized things, ADUs, Medford Square, West Medford Square, general residential, corridors, and then general requests, which is a lot of process stuff.
[John Anderson]: This sort of connects with ADUs, but other aspects as well. How we can use site plan review and design review potentially to influence the kind of outcomes we would like to see. Also specifically with ADUs, I looked at the state law and it only requires that single family neighborhoods get one ADU by right, which I found very interesting because people have talked about, well, maybe there could be a three family building and each of the three family units has an ADU. I guess the state's thinking was, that if you're a single family house in an area that's zoned two or three family, you have other ways of increasing the density in your building without an ADU. So that's something to think about. And also the general issue of what happens during this period when we're in limbo. The state has passed this law, but we haven't done anything in Medford about it, correct?
[Emily Hedeman]: We want to chime in. Yeah, do you mind Daniel? So, you might be able to offer some clarity.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so the, the state law supersedes. Our local zoning, which basically says that our zoning is not enforceable. So, the fact that we have not updated our ordinance to comply. It's irrelevant that people can build 80s now, and it's the way the law was written. It was that these they're called protected use. So, any zoning district that allows single family homes, either by right or by special permit, any of those any residential structure, regardless of how many units it has is entitled to 1 protected use. So you could have a 9 unit building. and have a 10th unit as an ADU by right if it's no larger than 900 square feet or in half the size of the actual structure. So I have a lot of issues with how the state law was written. I think it's very clunky and they clearly didn't have any planners that were chiming in on how they wrote that. So that is why some of the zoning districts didn't allow single families when we were doing like the, you are zoning because the 9, The 9 unit building loophole to get the 10th unit and it wouldn't have to be affordable. So this is how do you basically the state law is really butts up against and makes us. Makes our zoning updates difficult. It is a headache. And so the only, right now for the setbacks, we can't regulate the setbacks that are any more strict than for accessory structures. So if garages are allowed to be five feet from the lot line, then a detached ADU can also be five feet from the lot line. And we also can't regulate height to be more restrictive than the primary dwelling. So if the maximum height for the principal dwelling unit Is 60 feet just throwing out something ridiculous. Then the 80, you can also be 60 feet. It's, it's, it's not a really great law. So, we're here are basically the only things that we can really regulate are. The choice of whether we want to allow a 2nd, 80, you and oddly enough, the legislature was very prescriptive and requires a special permit for a 2nd, 80, you very, very bizarre. So, so we can actually do 2 ideas by right. The 2nd, 1 has to be by special permit for protected use. So. That's why the residential zoning district, it's really hard to do 80 use without looking at the separate from. The residential zones, because they're so intertwined. Basically, if you look at the zoning map and. And you just have to add plus 1 for that number of units that are allowed. So, it's, it's been, it's challenging. Yeah. So, our hands are really tied with what we can do with those, but I think design guidelines or design standards, which would be have more teeth would be really, really important. Especially around, like, historic conversions. We, we really need to have those really ironed out before. You know, we allow historic convergence. We don't have the standards that are really solid. Which, thankfully, things are slowing down that we can actually take the time to work in these chunks. And we don't have a large planning staff, so we would normally be able to, because I do have the expertise to do the work that the consultants are doing, but I just have so many other tasks. So that's why you farm out these standalone projects. But if things are spread out more, we can spend more time to do it right. I'm rambling a little bit because I'm still I'm still very sleep deprived from last night. So I probably should not talk too much.
[John Anderson]: But thank you so much. That's been very helpful. Thank you, Daniel. Oh, one other thing, if I may. Yeah. In my attempts to educate myself, I've run across various articles and online which I think members of the board would be very interested in reading. But I'm not sure if there's any legal way to do that in the context of the open meeting law. Is it possible to have perhaps? I'm sorry, go ahead.
[Emily Hedeman]: I would say you can drop the links to those in the chat for this meeting. You could also send them to Danielle, Alicia, Christian, Um, you know, other members of city staff and they could disseminate them to the board, but I would say, you know, if there's articles that are informative on zoning on planning development and so on, drop them in the chat. Um, and then even the public that's part of these meetings can check out those, those articles as well.
[John Anderson]: Okay. Thank you.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, but I think that's great. And I would encourage other members of the board to do the same.
[John Anderson]: It might be useful if there were a particular place the public could go. If this idea caught on and there were 10 or 20 articles of general interest, it might be useful for the public if they had a place they could go to, not to see specific comments from folks in Medford, but just what the rest of the world is saying.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. I hesitate to add more to City Staff's plate, but maybe there's an easy way to add some sort of tracker for that. But yeah, that's interesting. Thank you. Yeah. OK. So in terms of ADUs, I think we can keep going on that one. Prioritize one by right per the state. No movement there. And then no additional ADU by right. And any additional, whether it's one or two, depending on the zone, would all be by special permit. Cool. And again, just a recommendation, you know, well, you guys can kind of rip it up when I'm on the other side. And then I'll take my two minutes to let you know what I really think. Medford Square. Actually, let me do West Medford Square first. So for West Medford Square, what I'm hearing is continue to prioritize it. And these three things might sound conflicting. Continue to prioritize, sever from Medford Square, and I know that's a city council thing, that's not a consultant thing. And then also kind of keep it on hold until the completion of this economic development plan that's in the works. So some of those things our consultant can do, some of them they can't, but they're all there. I also, I added the addresses that john had sent over, I'm just going to read those out kind of for the record. And john your comment on these, and feel free to jump in. But your comment, I'm just going to read the email. Last time we discussed the squares, we talked about trimming residential housing from the proposed mixed use zones. The consensus seemed to be that putting them with residential zones would simplify our discussion of the squares. It was pointed out. And I believe the commenter is on the call this evening. that there was a very nice two-family house built in 1880, almost certainly the single family, at 51 Harvard Ave. that would become mixed-use. Other board members suggested that there were most probably similar homes in the proposed mixed-use districts. John valiantly volunteered to research West Bedford Square and said that the addresses below all appear to be one or two family houses within the trimmed UR districts. Similar to what Ben said about the Medford Square properties, these might not fit the exclusion qualities that we're looking at, but they should just be revisited. On Canal Street, it's 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, and 34. Prescott Street, 5, 9, 10, and 27. Irving Street, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17. On High Street, 414, 417, 418, 437, 511. On Johnson Avenue, 3, Harvard Avenue, 43, 47, 51, Boston Avenue, 24, 28, 30, on Warren Street, 7, 9, 10. With an additional note that there's also apartment buildings and buildings used by St. Raphael's Church that are not in the list above. John, do you have anything to add? I want to thank you for doing that work, that on-the-ground work is just invaluable. I'll get to that in a second. I also want to pass on the guidance to the consultant that we want, I mean, ideally we'd have on the ground, you know, people pounding the pavement every block, every parcel, every inch of this city. But I think maybe a reasonable ask, given that we don't even know if we have any resources moving forward, is that we would like on the ground footwork for at least two blocks of district edges. I don't know, I threw out two blocks because one felt not big enough and I feel like these districts are small enough that three might transect the whole district.
[Ari Fishman]: That sounds reasonable to me.
[Emily Hedeman]: But just some guidance.
[Ari Fishman]: Agreed.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, great.
[Dina Caloggero]: Dina? No, I said that sounds like a good plan, walking around. What does it look like?
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes, and to kind of Go back to what Ari said, this doesn't say who's going to do it, but just as it means to be done. So we're kind of getting to, you know, fun territory there. Okay, so Medford Square, prioritize, sever from West Medford Square, and again, that's a city council action, that would not be Innocent Associates, that would not be us, that would not be the mayor. And then, also on the ground footwork for at least two blocks of district edges, and then per Ben, the addresses that he highlighted, 7 Hillside, 17 Garden Street, 11 Garden Street, 10 Porter Road, 14 to 16 Porter, 19 Governors Road. And then for general residential, which I feel like is the biggest monster in front of us here. I would almost suggest like a wholesale relaunch of that entire initiative. I completely agree. Yeah, which feels like a really big ask of the city of any consultant that would come before us. But I would say public engagement is going to be number one there. And whatever consultant we engage with, and I'm I really enjoy the work that we've done with Emily and Paula. So this is by no means saying that we're not going to work with them. But I would say whatever, whatever contract we engage with, should include, you know, workshops to educate and engage the public. Two specific examples, you know, maybe we royally set up a table at Wellington, or the West for Medford Square Commuter Rail, or you know, all all stops in Medford. just to help educate people of the process that's going on. drawing some of the kind of silent participants that Adam kind of alluded to. I'm thinking of myself as a working renter. I didn't hear from a lot of renters in the public outreach. And I'm very curious kind of what that population thinks of these proposals, especially if they're like me, and they would love to make their full time permanent home in Medford. So I think that's a potential way of getting some outreach, as well as maybe there's a meetup at one of the projects we saw before us, the Great American Beer Hall. I was there last Thursday. I had a great time. It's such an electric venue. There's a lot of local people there. And I think that that would be a really great spot to partner with the local business and then also, you know, do some more outreach outside of kind of public meetings and so on. Ben, I see your hand.
[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, I just want to, um, uh, plus one, the, the, we didn't hear from a lot of renters as part of the public comment period. And I think that that's a critical constituent group, critical group of residents. Um, I would also add non-native English speakers. And I realized that there's time and resources for translation services and deliberate outreach, but we have. a very vibrant non-native English speaker community in this city. And I don't think that they've had much of a chance to participate. And I would welcome efforts to increase that participation.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I'm grabbing my copy of the comprehensive plan. And there's a great list of the project team, the steering committee, City staff boards and commissions, and it has a lot of different groups that could be called on to help reach those populations. Yeah, so I like that, and that's a good shout. We have not heard a lot of non-Native, I don't think we've heard a single non-English comment, or I haven't read one now that I think about it, which is really a shame.
[Ari Fishman]: from people whose English is clearly accented with another language they know. So I would say there are many multilingual people in the city.
[Emily Hedeman]: Sure, sure. But somebody that might not speak English.
[Ari Fishman]: Absolutely. And I very strongly agree with intentional outreach to both those populations and to renters.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. So I think we should prepare our consultant to do that sort of work.
[Unidentified]: And then.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, if that process is going to be wholesale restarted. I, I honestly don't have a ton of specific comments, but the amount of. What's it called the amount of I'm just going to say feedback because it's a more neutral word, but the amount of feedback that we got from residents. that they didn't want what was being proposed to happen to their neighborhood. I don't even want to talk about what was being proposed to happen to their neighborhood. I think there does need to be an increase in density in Medford, but I think the way it was done was almost like a patriarchal a way of saying this will happen to your neighborhood. I think we just need to flip that script. We need to bring people along, whether it's education or workshops. Dina, I see your hand.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yes. I would certainly delay residential zoning. And I think you go back to the whole point about being iterative again. You show success. You work on the projects in front of you. You show success, you show collaboration with the citizens, and you show what can be done with Medford to benefit the citizens in collaboration with all the different pieces of infrastructure that need to support it. And then once you develop that, the final piece would be the residential piece. If needed, right? If needed. I think it'll be needed. I think you'll need it. Yeah, I think you'll need it. But at that point, you've already developed a process that works and something that can be implemented and certainly show success because we learn as we do. When we do something, we go back and figure out what went wrong. And then we try to fix those pieces going forward. And I think that will be certainly a recipe for success. with the changes for zoning. And I think it's also important. I read the comprehensive plan, and I think it's important that going forward, we link a lot of the elements, yeah, a lot of the elements that we do back to the comprehensive plan, which was a great document that was developed by so many people and residents in Medford. So kudos to that group.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, we had a lot of work put into the comprehensive plan. So much so that, you know, when members of the public made comments about, oh, you know, we weren't engaged for this. I found some people whose names were mentioned in the comprehensive plan who said that they were involved in it. So I'd encourage everyone to maybe do a little refresh of that on their own. You know, the board can't, can't kind of, can't do everything. So, you know, maybe a quick refresh of that would be helpful for members of the public that are engaged in this process.
[Dina Caloggero]: It shows the foundation for the need, and that's an important document. Ari?
[Ari Fishman]: I did want to make a kind of brief note about kind of the groups we just talked about that haven't provided a lot of feedback and about restarting. I do want to kind of re-emphasize that I think it is important to get some things done that are almost ready to be done quickly. I don't disagree about the kind of big residential. I think that should be last and I'm open to restarting it because it clearly didn't go well. There's been a substantial theme of rhetoric around like real Medford and whose voice counts and I do want to just explicitly call out that I have heard that and I am not entertained. If you live in Medford, you're real Medford. All of us with all our different backgrounds and experiences are real Medford and we have to engage that, and there is no one correct vision that we know.
[Emily Hedeman]: Well said, Ari. Yeah, I do have a lot of, I don't know what the right word is, but when people would come up before us and say, I've lived in Medford for X number of years, know that that's great. You got into a wonderful city at a wonderful time. It's still a wonderful city, and we want to make it a wonderful time to get in again. So you know, as a renter, you know, I'd love to be part of that. But I also recognize, you know, there's a lot of A lot of stuff at play. And I would hope, as a city, we move more towards inclusiveness and belonging and collaboration. This is not an us versus them problem. This is a all together problem. But yeah, that's a good reminder, Ari. Ben? You're on mute still.
[Ben Lavallee]: lowered my hand and thought that unmuted me, sorry. This is one more bit of specific feedback on Neighborhood Residential for if and when it gets rebooted. I would encourage the consultant or whoever's on the hook to revisit the NR1 zone, the very large zone in Fulton Heights that was sort of blanket. And our one, the justification was largely due to the, the number of private roads and small lots, but that's a very it's a, that's sort of a broad categorization of what is a very diverse part of the city. And so if there is a goal to increase density and. know up zone certain areas i think that a closer look is needed at the heights neighborhood um not to say that it should or shouldn't be nr1 but you know i think we just sort of it it felt kind of dismissed because of the private road issue and i think that there's more to it than that and it's worthy of another look that's great feedback
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, and I know that private roads present kind of a unique challenge. And we heard from some members of the public about issues that they're having with their own private roads. And I know that that's kind of outside the scope of the work we're doing here. But it's an important factor for how we look at this work. Um, okay. So, Dina, you said something that I want to kind of noodle on a little bit, um, you said, um, and I'm, I'm probably not quoting it, but like, we want to delay next steps. Um, so if we are going to delay next steps and you know, we, at some point we have to make a motion to when we're going to continue this public hearing for Each of these specific items, what feels like a reasonable timeline, you know, thinking about. President Bears announcement about, you know, spring 2026, we have uncertain funding.
[Dina Caloggero]: This is for residential. It should be at the end of the projects, once the projects are. Again, it goes back to my statement of everything all at once. It's not going to be successful with everything all at once. Do the most important first, method square.
[Emily Hedeman]: OK. So not delay to a specific time relative.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yes.
[Emily Hedeman]: No success. Yeah. What do other members of the board think about that? I know it makes it very kind of nebulous, which is a type A person I always hate, but we're onto something here. I think building on success. Yeah, John.
[John Anderson]: Yeah, I'm sorry. I can't find the raise hand icon on my particular Zoom, so.
[Emily Hedeman]: You're good.
[John Anderson]: I got you. That's an old fashioned way. Analog hand. Yeah, it is sort of nebulous, but we're sort of in a gray area here where everything is, well, we're going to get a new chair of the Community Development Board. We have openings in the Community Development Board. There's no appetite to do residential until 2026. I think it's okay to for us to slow down our work on the rezoning. And I understand we may have some site plan review coming up, which is brand new to me and perhaps some of the other board members as well. So that's another challenge that we have to deal with. Can I be so bold as to suggest that our next meeting is sometime in September?
[Emily Hedeman]: I think we have meetings in between then, not necessarily on this topic, but yeah, I think what we'd have to do if the general kind of direction of the board is like, let's delay any next steps until ADU squares, maybe even corridors are substantially complete, you know, we would have to continue the public hearing for general residential, you know, to, it has to be a date certain. So maybe I'm just throwing a date out there. Like maybe it's October, 12th, or I don't even know if that's a Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday. And then once October 12th comes around, if those, if the other items before us are not substantially complete, then we would vote to continue again. We have had some feedback from the public that not having like firm dates isn't helpful because people want to know when things are happening. But I think if the board consistently communicates, hey, we're not going to start this up until it's substantially complete. And as part of each subsequent meeting, we say, yeah, we think we're 50% there. We think we're 75. So people get a general idea of when it's coming. I think that would be a helpful approach. Now, I don't know if, I think city council maybe re-referring or the committee maybe re-referring things to us at some point. So there might be some timelines that start to become out of our control. But regardless, if things are withdrawn and then resubmitted, they have to go through the CDB process again. So we get the timeline back within our purview. Danielle?
[Danielle Evans]: Yes, I would recommend to keep your, you want to keep the public hearings open and continue them to a date. I honestly don't think. Continuing anything to the 20th will be productive. There won't be even August. There'll be nothing new. There'll be no work have been done. This is August 20th just August 20th meeting is on the books. Yeah, but if we don't have anything on it. then I would cancel the meeting and let you have a nice summer night. Um, I, things are going to start up in earnest in September. We have the cappies, um, liquor, which is being, um, there's a residential, um, complex that's they submitted and that's going to go through the site plan review process there. So there's about a six week lead time and then it'll get to you, you all, um, but I think just taking a rest and not, yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: So maybe September 24th. And again, this wouldn't be a confirmation that, you know, anything's going to happen, but it would be kind of like a pulse check. Where are we in the process or do we want to push it out further?
[Ari Fishman]: I think realistically, if we're talking specifically about the neighborhood residential, I am it can be much further because that sounds like that would be the next opportunity for us to actually even work on Medford square and the things that we all just agreed. We want to do 1st.
[Emily Hedeman]: So, I'm going to look at your hand.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so we only have the meeting scheduled out to the end of calendar year, but we, If we are maintaining the 1st and 3rd Wednesday schedule, which I know that there was some talk about whether we would depart from that. But so the latest that you could continue it, I think would be December 17th. What about the idea that you would have the 2026 calendar and you could continue it to. You know, a date certain, um, I would hate for us or for you all to continue to a date that you think there would be a meeting as I'm not sure what the, what procedure. Would have to happen if holiday, like, how, how do you continue or hearing if you can't have the meeting? So, I would say December 17th and then. It very possible that city council will refer it back to committee for further study, which. Closes the anyways and starts it over again with a clean slate of everyone's eligible.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, they might need that anyways for quorum.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, so I would say that the. Once you're done with this discussion that the. The residential and 80 years to December 17th. For the purposes of revisiting to. It might even be just be dead at that point and there'd be nothing no action to take, but that's the furthest that it can be. Yeah, continued so that's just really what's before you is when do you want to take up those squares again? Okay. And I'm thinking that August 20th is probably pointless. I don't have anything else on the agenda. If there was an, you'd have to meet, but otherwise.
[Emily Hedeman]: September 3rd. Yeah, and also 80 years.
[Danielle Evans]: I would do the 80s with the residential. Because they kind of go hand in hand.
[Emily Hedeman]: I see what you're saying. Yeah, okay. I feel like if we were able to. So right now with ADUs, there's one by right, but we don't have any guidance for anything for special permits. So if somebody wanted to build three ADUs on their property, would they just be SOL?
[Danielle Evans]: They can't do that. They can only build one.
[Emily Hedeman]: But if we were to pass local rule around ADUs that allowed but for the possibility of, you know, one or two additional ones through special permit.
[Danielle Evans]: It's only one additional one that you can for protected use. So we do have locally to use.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. I think that's what I'm referring to.
[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. So the state law says one by right. And then one by right. And if you want a second one, it's by special permit for protected use ADU and that's in, only the zoning districts that allow single family homes. Otherwise they would, could avail themselves to a local ADU, which we do have an ordinance for, which is only for single family homes in any district. So if there's a random single family and say the Medford square limits, then they could have a local ADU because we already allow those.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay. Gina, I see your hand up.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I was going to say thank you, Danielle. I was going to say the ADUs is already covered by the state. So the by right for the single family. And then it would be the second ADU, just as Danielle said, which would be required from the second permit. So I would put together with residential. It just makes sense. It's logical to me.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah. Ari, I see you're off mute. Any thoughts?
[Ari Fishman]: I think I was about to say the same thing about ADU. I'm trying to think of if there was anything else to add. But yeah, I do want to make sure that we don't lose all momentum out of hyper-focusing on the thing that's most difficult to schedule. It might be easier for us to maybe start by scheduling the things that are easy to schedule.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, so for Medford Square and West Medford Square, because they're still Together, I think we can continue those both to September 3rd. That's the 1st. And then that will give. The consultant time to incorporate the feedback. And maybe that also gives city council or maybe this is an unneeded action to sever the two items so that we can move Medford Square forward while West Medford is proceeding with an economic development study. Okay, cool. And then if corridors have not been referred, So we don't really need to do any action there. But I do have the recommendations for, or the request to the consultant for on the ground footwork for at least two blocks of district edges. And then Ari, I'd captured your note of they're potentially going out further from the core than necessary. Is that what you were saying? Or was it just the boundaries may not be consistent?
[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, and I think we've talked about it in a few different places of just those boundaries are very fact specific to those very specific areas. And let's make sure we're doing. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Okay, well.
[Emily Hedeman]: So general residential, which is the NRUR. Public engagement. Delay. I don't have to say delay. I'm going to say postpone any next steps until ADUs, whereas potentially corridors are substantially complete. Clearly outline the benefits. What sort of benefits do we want outlined? just to get as specific as possible. I mean, there's clearly financial. And I'm going to say, actually, I'm going to change to consequences, because that implies positive and negative.
[Ari Fishman]: And I think highlighting some of the things that are currently allowed that there is little enthusiasm for. You mean like uses, or what do you mean by that? Uses, sizes, dimensions. I think there is positive feedback about the Salem or no about the mystic corridor when people realize we did it. I don't think it got nearly as much publicity, but kind of some of the changes we made there. Once people learn about them, those are positive and I think talking about like, hey, right now, these things are allowed and. we're making sure that, you know, the next 20 years aren't built into them. I think that some of those things are also really worth highlighting that kind of risks of not acting.
[Emily Hedeman]: So one thing that I think we can put there is 15 story buildings, whether they're banks or not. Um, you had also mentioned lot size. Do you want to add some more to that?
[Ari Fishman]: Ari? Um, I don't have anything specific to say on lots size at this moment, but it looks like Dina has something to add.
[Dina Caloggero]: Okay, Dina. Yeah, what I would include is as benefits would include a lot of the benefits that are outlined in the comprehensive plan. So, what we're doing is we're following that. when we do the zoning changes. So we're making the changes in relationships plan, the plan that was developed by the people. And, you know, you could certainly see a lot of the benefits of Method Square, right, in the plan that we're doing. So it all kind of comes together. Another bank.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I might my dog was just doing weird stuff in the corner. Did you have something else to add?
[Dina Caloggero]: No, no, thank you. Okay. Okay.
[Emily Hedeman]: And then Ben, you have a specific feedback about Fulton Heights, and our one, look at private roads that get small loss. And then Is there anything, any other kind of specific feedback we want on ADUs, Medford Square, West Medford Square, general residential, corridors? Because I then want to get into like general request, which is more on like the process. John?
[John Anderson]: When we talk about following the comprehensive plan, I've sort of pounded on this drum before, But one of the elements that's supposed to be included is history and culture along with open space. And I don't see history and culture being addressed in most of these proposed zoning changes.
[Emily Hedeman]: What would be an example of how history could be incorporated. It doesn't have to be a specific property, but I'm just trying to build something for the consultant to go off of.
[John Anderson]: I know, for example, that the historic commission sent a list of historic properties along the Salem Street Corridor.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah.
[John Anderson]: I don't think any of that got incorporated into what the city council wound up passing.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, so that's, I mean, that's a, an aspect of the process that, you know, we don't, we can't really control, like, we can make every recommendation in the world and the city council could say, hey, great work, guys, we're gonna go with the original proposal. I don't think that they would, but
[John Anderson]: Right.
[Emily Hedeman]: You know, that's something that could and has happened.
[John Anderson]: I just, I don't know whether that feedback ever actually got through to them.
[Emily Hedeman]: Yeah, I don't know. I didn't attend that city council meeting. I guess we could watch it, but.
[John Anderson]: Well, it's water under the bridge now, but moving forward is what I'm talking about.
[Emily Hedeman]: So maybe there is a general request of Maybe there's some nuance in terms of like how our recommendations are presented to the city council. Cause I believe it just, our list of recommendations was passed on. I don't think we had any members of the board there to kind of share any like additional detail. Right. And I think that's, that's kind of like a potentially an overreach. of our work? I don't know.
[Ari Fishman]: I don't know. I don't think that's an overreach. I think it's not something that we are obligated to do, but I don't think there's anything about it that feels inappropriate. I think I would love to see this process be a bit more synchronized and collaborative. Um, and I think that would substantially affect many of the procedural, uh, issues as well as the outcomes. So, okay.
[Danielle Evans]: And I see Danielle's hand. Um, thank you, madam chair. One thing I was just thinking about is you could have a joint meeting with city council to just talk about zoning and be in the same room together. That is a thing that could that could be done and I've, I've worked in, I've worked in settings where we had that we've done that. Oh, God, I feel like I want to save this up. Because even though, you know, I write a report and I get the minutes and. Attend the meetings if there's questions, but, um. You know, I'm the intermediary, but that could be something that you all could request as you would like to have a joint meeting, a joint public hearing to discuss the zoning.
[John Anderson]: May I comment that I actually suggested this informally to a member of the permitting and planning committee, and he was horrified by the idea. Boo! He said it would be inappropriate for an elected body to meet with an appointed body.
[Emily Hedeman]: So maybe there needs to be, because my assumption was like, you know, we need to stay so separate, but maybe there's some education that is needed, you know, on the board side, as well as the city council side in terms of like, hey, this is something that could happen. There'd be some benefits to it. I mean, I just learned something tonight, so.
[Danielle Evans]: They can happen and they do happen. Yeah. Other places in Massachusetts, Watertown, when we were working on rezoning an area. Yeah. I think it was that the first meeting, first public hearing was joint. Yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: Dina, I see your hand. Oh, you're still on mute.
[Dina Caloggero]: I'm still on mute, sorry. Just to bring up a can of worms, probably with the joint meeting with the city council. I mean, is it even possible to bring up the Salem Street? the, you know, the annex MX one to the MX two.
[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, I think as far as that's concerned, it's, you know, it was already voted on by city council. I know the mayor mentioned something on my address, and I don't know what the path forward is on that. I think it's really up to city council and the mayor to kind of work through that. Um, as the community development board, I think we would receive whatever is referred back to us. But, yeah, I don't know that might be a good question for follow up. But, yeah, I, I love this idea for a joint meeting. I love the, um. And, yeah, just so we're all hearing the same information at the same time. So, you know, maybe we're not. Yeah, I know I'm using Royal. We in the extreme here, but, um. you know, maybe, you know, we don't discuss maybe, you know, nothing's decided, but, you know, we're at least all kind of in the same room. And especially if there's public comment, like hearing from constituents, because I think, I think city council would have really benefited from hearing a lot of the comments that were shared by the public. I know we're, you know, we're synthesizing them as a board. But I think that would have been a really beneficial activity for them. Okay, so I started highlighting items that are not necessarily for the consultant and more, um, you know, maybe not requests, but, um, would be nice to have, uh, with the city council and that's severing, uh, Medford square West Medford square joint meeting. Okay. Um, I think this is also a potentially city council, potentially mayoral request. Um, and over the past couple of months, um, I've taken it upon myself to do a little bit of, of personal and public outreach around previous zoning efforts. Um, you know, I've had great conversations with a couple of members of the public. Um, I think I saw one of them on the call earlier. Um, I think they've since jumped off, but, uh, Paul's not on anymore, but, um, as well as some of my former colleagues from the city of Somerville, which I know Medford is not Somerville or we're so different in terms of like city makeup. Um, so we're not them and I'm not trying to make that comparison, but there was, um, at least one 100% city staff resource dedicated to the zoning effort. And I would request that the same is done here in Medford. Danielle and Alicia and team are working literally at their limit. And that's not the way to get this work done. So I know that's not something for Edison associates, but I wanna kind of pass that request on. I also took notes on the involvement of other city departments. John, I know you mentioned specifically the historic commission. We've heard from DPW, we heard from fire department kind of unofficially, and I appreciate the representative's participation in public comment, but maybe we need to get something a little bit more official. Are there other departments that we'd wanna kind of call out Tina?
[Dina Caloggero]: Traffic. Traffic. Parking. OK. Schools. OK. You need traffic studies to do, like, if you increase the density in an area, what is the impact on traffic?
[Emily Hedeman]: So traffic is evaluated on like a site by, on a project by project basis in front of the board. So we don't have a traffic study for like the whole rezoning, but I think what could be done is like engaging with a traffic and parking consultant for them to kind of extrapolate, like given a, I don't know, like, I mean, I know Peter's not on the line, like he'd probably have more insight than I do, but, You know, given 100% build out to these new zoning standards, you can expect X increase in traffic or cars given 80%, 50%. Like, I don't know what sort of like vacancy rate they build in, but I think that would be something that would probably be more productive than traffic and parking. Like, department comments, but there would definitely be a higher cost to that.
[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I just think that just where I live, if it ever creates the density, College Avenue is blocked up way past George Street to try to get on just in the morning. The traffic is terrible in the area. And keep in mind, this is the summer months. The college comes on back, I know. So those things are important.
[Emily Hedeman]: I mean, I'm right by Wellington Circle, and it's terrible. It's horrible. I'm very grateful that I have the opportunity to take the orange line into work, but in the couple of days where I do have to to move around in my car. God, it's an exercise in insanity. Okay, so maybe there's traffic impact study. Okay, there's also 2 studies that the city of Somerville did, which I think would be interesting for. maybe city staff to evaluate whether they would be productive. One is called an economic impact study. I've heard several members of the public also mention something like this. I'm going to go ahead and share screen quickly. So this is a site that was done Feb 2016 by RCL Co and it captures so much information. It includes parking, employment, underutilization. It analyzes the actual permitting process as it stands and presents a wealth of information in terms of current status quo as well as moving forward. So I think something like this could be beneficial for the city. I don't know the price point for it. And I realize that that is a restriction for kind of the work that we're doing forward. So I captured that. And then the other thing that, actually, I don't think this was relevant. There was also a, it's called the RARB study that was done. Am I still sharing my screen? Yes. Okay, great. So this was analysis and discussion of current residential zoning regulation. I know we've already done a lot of maps of current conditions for Somerville, so this might be duplicative work, but I think it would be helpful document for us to reference in terms of the work that was done. Again, I'm not sure of the cost of this, but it's a very in-depth study of residential in a neighboring neighborhood or neighboring city. So those are two items that I called out You know, maybe we're also requesting a traffic impact study. Yeah, that's kind of the, that's the feedback that I've captured to date. How are we feeling? We're just about at the, I think hour and a half, hour 15 mark of this discussion.
[Danielle Evans]: And we do have the executive session just to remind the board.
[Ben Lavallee]: Yeah, I would like to move forward to a different topic if we can, just to keep things moving.
[Emily Hedeman]: So I did receive some information from city staff that continuing to 9-3, September 3rd, may be a bit optimistic given the Given kind of getting the consultant back on board, we have a couple board vacancies that are coming up and being reappointed. So it might make more sense to delay it until September 17th, which I believe is the following meeting. Any reactions to that? The other option is delaying it to October 1st. which would give even more time. And to be honest, it's because of how the first and third Wednesdays fall. It's really just like two weeks later, as opposed to sometimes three.
[Ben Lavallee]: How about... I would prefer October 1st. Sorry, go ahead.
[Danielle Evans]: So October 1st is not going to be... is Yom Kippur. So we're not having... Oh, okay. Yeah, we can't do that. So it's the 15th and the 29th of the meetings.
[Emily Hedeman]: Of October. So October 15th. Any reactions to that? Just give me a thumbs up if that works. Okay. Tina, I don't see a thumb. Was it off screen? Sorry, you're on mute. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, so we'll say 1015. Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and share screen just so we can do a quick. Actually, no, I've read all this by word by. No, I will. Just real quick. OK. So this is the document that I'm going to share with Danielle. I think it contains most of the things that we've talked about. But doing a quick review, if you see something that is off, speak up. I'm going to stay on these two pages for about a minute. Can I go to the next page? These are just general requests. And I will spell check this.
[Dina Caloggero]: All right. Thank you. Nice job.
[Emily Hedeman]: Hi, you're welcome. If this is the type of work you want to do with your involvement in the board, there is a clerk role that has been vacant for the past. 8 months. Okay, so for. Let me go back to my dock. Okay, so what I'm looking for now is a motion to continue each hearing to a date. Certain what we've talked about is. Continuing Medford Square and West Medford Square districts to October 15th, and then continuing ADUs and general residential to December 17th. Looking for a motion. Yes.
[Ari Fishman]: Awesome. Thanks Ari. Wait, am I allowed to do it? I'm an alternate JK. Sorry. Stepping down. Yeah. Yeah.
[Emily Hedeman]: Seconded. So I don't think Ari was eligible to make a move, to make a motion. I move. Thank you. So now we're looking for a second. I'll second it. Thank you, Dina. Dina's first motion. Yay. So we're going to do a roll call vote. I'm going to call him as I see him. Ari, I am going to ask for your vote just out of abundance of caution. If your vote is not eligible, then we just don't include it. But one thing I will say is that Ari has been a fabulous member of the board Um, they take a balanced and fair and educated approach to all the work that they do. And I think that Ari would make a wonderful full member of the board. And I would encourage the mayor to pursue that path forward rather than associate member, um, partly in recognition of the work that Ari's done, um, and mostly in recognition of the work that they can continue to do for the city. So with that, I'm going to take a roll call vote. Dina? Yes. Ben?
[Ben Lavallee]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ari? Aye. John? Aye. Adam?
[Ari Fishman]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: And myself, Emily Hedeman is also an aye. to continue Medford Square and West Medford Square to October 15th, continue ADUs and general residential, which is the neighborhood residential, urban residential to December 17th, and just generally pass on all of this feedback to the consultant. Cool. So the next item we have in front of us is I'm going to go straight to executive session. Just skipping over a minute.
[John Anderson]: Did we vote on that?
[Emily Hedeman]: We have not voted on it. No. Okay. No. There's a little blurb that I need to read to pull us into it.
[John Anderson]: Did we vote on the continuance to December for general residential?
[Emily Hedeman]: Yes. I did everything combined. Okay. Yes. Yeah. But always good to check. Thank you, John. So the next agenda item we have is executive session pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A, Purpose 3, to discuss strategy with respect to pending litigation known as New York Capital Investment Group, LLC v. Medford Community Development Board et al., Massachusetts Land Court, Case No. 24, MISC 000683. If the chair declares that discussing the matter in an open meeting may have detrimental effect on litigating position of the board, Danielle, do you know if Attorney Stein is available at this time?
[Danielle Evans]: I just texted her. Okay. She told me to text her when we're ready for her.
[Emily Hedeman]: Okay, so I'm going to ask for a motion to enter into executive session. We're going to do a roll call vote. Thank you, John. Can I have a second?
[Adam Behrens]: I'll second.
[Emily Hedeman]: Thank you, Adam. I'm going to call you as I see you. Dina? Yes. Ben?
[Adam Behrens]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: Ari? Aye. John? Aye. Adam?
[Ben Lavallee]: Aye.
[Emily Hedeman]: And I, Emily Hadiman, am also an aye. So the board will now move into executive session and will not reconvene in open session. Oh, no, we will reconvene because we have to do the minutes. Actually, we didn't have any ready. OK, so no minutes.
[Danielle Evans]: Christian did prepare them, but I did not have a chance to review them.
[Emily Hedeman]: OK, so that kind of works out. Oh man fans, God laughs, laughing in my favor tonight. So the board will now move into executive session and we will not reconvene an open session at the conclusion of executive session. We're going to move into a breakout room for the duration of executive session and we'll adjourn within executive session. For members of the public that have joined us this evening, thank you so much. We appreciate your continued involvement and we look forward to sharing the next iteration of feedback, or next iteration of zoning proposals with you. And it's been an honor to chair the meetings that you've also enthusiastically participated in. So look forward to being on your side of the zoom call next time. Cheers, everyone. And board stay on the line. We're going to go into a meeting room. Daniel, are you all set with the breakout rooms? You need anything from me there?
[Danielle Evans]: I'm trying to see. I'm trying to see if I have everybody here. Okay. Adam, Ari, Ben, Dina, Emily.