AI-generated transcript of Community Development Board 06-23-26

[Doug Carr]: Hi, good evening everyone. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the Medford Community Development Board. It's Tuesday, June 23rd, approximately 6.38pm. My name is Doug Carr. I'll call the meeting to order. Let's begin some obligatory procedural matters. Please know that the project materials for all products before the board can be viewed on the city's website, MedforMass.org, under boards commissions and community development board. And by clicking on current city board filings. For those on Zoom, you can also find the link in the chat. I'll call the roll call attendance. John Anderson.

[John Anderson]: Present.

[Doug Carr]: John Began. Present. Page Buldini.

[Unidentified]: Present.

[Doug Carr]: Dina Calagaro.

[Unidentified]: Present.

[Doug Carr]: Ari Goffman-Fishman.

[Dina Caloggero]: Ari's here.

[Doug Carr]: I see you. You're there. I know she's here.

[Sean Beagan]: Yep, she's raised her hand.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry. They were not a co-host. They were announcing themselves. And I just changed the permissions.

[Ari Fishman]: Also, a gentle reminder that I use they, them pronouns, not she, her. And thank you for making me a co-host.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you. And myself Doug Carb, present. Okay, we have a quorum. Danielle, can you please introduce any staff at the meeting or on the call?

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, myself, Danielle Evans, Senior Planner and Director Alicia Hunt, the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability. And we have one of our graduate student interns, Natalie Rotman. Hey, everybody.

[Doug Carr]: So I'll just briefly summarize what we're going to do tonight. We're going to start with A&R approval not required plan for 52 Magoon Ave. Then we're going to have a public working session for the board about Boston Ave zoning. And just for the record, this is not going to be a continuation of the public hearing. This is just going to be an internal discussion, obviously open to the public. We're having the continuation of the public hearing tomorrow night, Wednesday, June 23rd with the City Council and City Council Chambers. So if you want to make public comments tomorrow, you can obviously submit online, but you can want to do that in person tomorrow or on Zoom tomorrow night is the time to do it. So, Danielle, I'll turn it over to you, give a brief explanation of 32 Magoon Avenue. Maybe you can share your screen as well.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, so the applicant could not attend tonight, but I'm familiar with this as I spoke with them a while back. They were inquiring about subdividing and building a or selling it off to be able to develop the second lot. How do I share share settings share? Let's see here. Can you all see this?

[Doug Carr]: Yes, we can.

[Danielle Evans]: Let's see, let me try to zoom in a little bit. So this is, was it? Yeah, 52 Magoon. So this is over in, I think this is technically Glenwood. So it's, this is currently the lot line here and it fronts on Washington Street, which is a public way, as well as Magoon Ave. And then there's Pembroke Street, which is also a public way, but it's not, you can't go all the way through there with a car. There's bollards, so there's pedestrian access, but not cars. So there would be, so it has frontage on Washington Street and frontage on Pembroke Street, this second parcel. So they're looking to, revise the lot line from here to here. So there's, let's see. How many?

[Doug Carr]: Danielle, the intent is to make a larger lot in the back that's more buildable. Is that the intent?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, it doesn't meet the minimum lot. The minimum lot size in the SF-2 is 5,000. And they don't have 5,000. It's short of that. The neighbor has already went through the A&R process and developed their lot. So this property owner contacted me and was like, I want to build a house on here. And I'm like, sorry, it's not big enough. They're like, well, how'd my neighbor do it? And then that's when I found out that our GIS wasn't updated. And so there had been an A&R, but I don't know how come that our GIS didn't get the records weren't updated, but they should be now. So he's looking to follow suit and also do the lot line adjustment so that the second lot could be sold or developed on its own, because with the merger doctrine, the undersized lot is in the same ownership as the lot with the main house and therefore can't be subdivided.

[Doug Carr]: Does anyone on the board have any questions about this? No. Go ahead, John Anderson. Do you want to unmute yourself?

[John Anderson]: Go ahead, John.

[Doug Carr]: You're unmuted.

[John Anderson]: Oh, you couldn't hear my question?

[Doug Carr]: No, we couldn't.

[John Anderson]: Let's put the chain link fence in the middle of the Pembroke Street extension.

[Danielle Evans]: Well, that is an encroachment onto city land. And first he's like, can I buy this? I said, no, you can't. And there's no adverse possession claims against the municipality. And so we could compel him to remove that fence at any time. But yeah, he's like, I have enough room. Like, no, you don't have enough room.

[Doug Carr]: That's a pretty big taking. That looks like it's what?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, it's huge.

[Doug Carr]: 10 feet, maybe? 8 or 9 feet?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah. You'll find that stuff all over the city. Oh, god. Pools on city land. You know, it's just. Can we use it?

[Doug Carr]: So Danielle, if we, I know we're not, approval not required for this at the A&R, do we, what, can we make a condition of this that they remove that fence as part of this or not?

[Danielle Evans]: I don't know. I mean, if you're endorsing the plan, basically you're, you're finding that, that it has the minimum frontage, which is 35 and that it fronts on a right of way, in which case it's, a public way and that there's adequate access and they do, it's flat. There's no topography issues. I don't know about compelling someone to remove an encroachment. I think when, if that was to be redeveloped or sold, I feel like they'd probably have to I mean, if there was anything to be built there, and there was like a certificate of occupancy that needed to be issued. That could be that would be the time to checkpoint to say. remove this and get a billing permit.

[Alicia Hunt]: So it's actually something we should raise to the DPW commissioner because all the public ways are in his care and control and his policy is if he becomes aware of encroachments then he'll send a letter and let them know they should move their encroachment. And there are many of them in the city, and there's just no way to know about all of them. But once we become aware, then we'll notify them. But it's something that falls under the authority of the DPW commissioner, and it isn't under the authority of the planning office or the planning board.

[Doug Carr]: So, and I think because they filed this now, I mean, it sounds like this can happen at any time and we can just make a note. You can obviously talk to the folks downstairs and they could send them that letter. I think that's probably the more appropriate thing to do if you want.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. So, we had a few others pop up, which is why I know sorry, Daniel probably wasn't involved in those.

[Doug Carr]: Uh, Danielle, what are you looking forward for us in terms of, uh, it's not required just to, what, what, what kind of motion you don't need a motion, um, to endorse the ANR plan.

[Danielle Evans]: Okay. Um, you know, as you know, dated June 8th, 2026, and then, um, You could, for good measure, authorize, uh, Alicia to sign it on the board's behalf.

[Unidentified]: Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: So you don't have to come in and sign a Mylar. If you guys have burning desire to do that.

[Doug Carr]: I can't believe we're using Mylar in 2026, but that's okay. I haven't touched a Mylar in 20 years.

[Danielle Evans]: That's the registry, they require that. It's not us, talk to the state.

[Doug Carr]: I'll pass, thank you for that. So I'll entertain a motion then that we endorse this plan as described by Danielle. So moved.

[Sean Beagan]: Second. Can we just amend that to also authorize director Hunt to sign the plan on behalf of the community development board? Yes.

[Doug Carr]: Okay. I will call the roll. John Anderson? Yes. John Began? Yes. Page Buldini?

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: Nina Calagaro?

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: Artie Goffman-Fishman?

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: And myself, Doug Carr, yes, the motion passes six to zero. Thank you, Danielle. Appreciate it. Let's get that one out of the way. All right, so now we're going to move into the meat of this meeting obviously, which is basically our first internal discussion with the City Board only regarding the Boston Avenue neighborhood corridor district. So we're going to discuss hopefully everything tonight. We're going to discuss the heights, the language, we're going to put the documents at least the written document on screen, I think. Just a reminder, this is a working session. It's not part of the public hearing, which is continued from 6-11, and it's continued until tomorrow night. So no public comments will be accepted during this working session. So everyone should please continue submitting public comments. We've seen many dozen, actually, in the file already to date. So I've asked Sean to be the point person tonight on this to kind of keep track of the various issues. And we're going to go through, I think, Emily Ennis's document page by page and issue by issue. So, Sean, how do you want to structure this tonight?

[Sean Beagan]: Well, what I was going to suggest is maybe each of us or any of us who have any topics that they definitely want to hit tonight, maybe just everyone have two minutes. We can go person by person, identify any topics they definitely want to hit. I'll write them down to make sure we hit them all. And then I would suggest that we go through the most recent draft prepared by Emily, and then we can She has numerous footnotes throughout that draft that some bear discussion, some can probably be left to another day for zoning at some point in the future.

[Doug Carr]: Sounds good. All right. So let's do that. Let's start with John Anderson. You're unmuted.

[John Anderson]: I'll pass.

[Doug Carr]: You'll pass. OK. John, why don't you go next?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, so the biggest issue that I saw was the purpose built student housing. I think the definition, I think we should need to really take a look at that definition and the standards that were proposed by Emily. I took a shot at drafting are making some edits. And that was, I posted that earlier today. So everyone should be able to see my edits, but we can pull them up as we're going through. So that would be the issue that I want to spend some time on when we get there.

[Doug Carr]: Very good. Okay, Paige, what do you've got?

[Page Buldini]: Thank you so much. So I apologize for not being there last week, but I did watch it. So thank you for everyone attending. I just had a couple broader questions just to kind of get a sense of where the board stands. I do want to talk about the setbacks in the building heights proposed for VA1 for short or zero setbacks. The sidewalk minimums is another question I have for the new potential building and zoning. Um, Winchester Street be to that height for sure. Um, and then general questions are. I know I had actually seen director hunt. A couple of years ago at a. Broadway corridor meeting and about the split parcels. But I find it kind of interesting when we're talking about BA2 and the future of what the Broadway corridor split parcels would be and what that might look like. I know it's a proposal, well, it's a discussion that's been happening for many years, but it does potentially affect the way we think about BA2. And then when it comes to the purpose filled student housing with a Tufts institutional zoning coming in the future, also how the board feels about having privately owned dorms and or Tufts dorms as Tufts had recommended for BA1 but also on the Boston F corridor. So those are kind of broader questions but unfortunately I wasn't there for the in-person discussion when it probably would have been really appropriate but that's what I was worried about and thinking about so those would be mine.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you Paige. Dina you're next. What do you got?

[Dina Caloggero]: OK, I would like to discuss some of the proposals I put out last week, which was under residential uses, the dormitory fraternity or sorority house would be a no under the BA3. And the number seven under residential uses are dormitory fraternity or sorority houses associated with the institution, which in this case would be Tufts University. So I want to do that public purpose built student housing. I would only expect it at the BA three level, it would not be, it would be a big no under the BA one or the BA two because it They would just redo the houses like make it purpose-built student housing. That wouldn't make any sense. I would like to soften some of the other requirements that I suggested. I am okay with a setback under the BA3 at about 85% lot coverage. I also think that we should do a step back. I'm okay with five stories at the BA3 level. I'm OK with that. I still would like the 12-foot sidewalks. I did walk down the street, and I thought it was pretty nice with the 12-foot sidewalk. But after walking the area again, I can see where that might be more difficult. So where appropriate, it would be great to do. I would also like to discuss the letter from Tufts University that came through that I read from uh, Goulston and stores discussing five foot at big quarters and whether to include the interfaith as part of residential are a BA BA one. That's all I have in my list for now. And of course, I do want to discuss Winchester place and go over the diagram and how close those buildings are to the residents on Winchester street and Winchester place at the Titan gas station area.

[John Anderson]: Okay, thank you, Dina. Go ahead, John, you had a question? No, I'll wait till everyone else is done. I do have an item I'd like to discuss a little bit.

[Doug Carr]: Okay, I'll do Ari next, and then I'll come back to you, John. Go ahead, Ari.

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you, and apologies if my video is off. I've been battling my internet for the last two weeks, and we're still trying to figure out why it's operating like molasses. I, we've actually already hit most of the things on my list. Actually, I think all of them on my list. I'm now going through it. I don't agree with the conclusions on all of it, but definitely the topics that we want to talk about. And yeah, I think that covers all of it for now, and I will speak up if I find another one.

[Doug Carr]: Absolutely. This is not meant to be an exclusive list.

[Ari Fishman]: Oh, wait. One more that is at the bottom of my list. Were we able to include no data centers? Dina, I believe, had brought that up, and I had seconded it.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, that was Paige. Yes, I thought that was good.

[Ari Fishman]: Oh, Paige. Yes, I agree.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's an excellent point.

[Ari Fishman]: And I would like that one citywide.

[Dina Caloggero]: I agree. No data centers. Yep.

[Ari Fishman]: Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Certainly not going to fit on Boston Ave from what I can tell. All right, John Henderson, why don't you jump back in?

[John Anderson]: The fellows could accommodate a data center. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the incentives for residential parking requirements.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh yeah, that's a good one.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Thank you, John. I had just a couple of items on mine. One was the parking requirements. I think for the first six residential units is one through six for a detached one unit, two unit, three unit, multiplex and greater than six. It looks to me like they're all at one, most of them are at 1.5 and I thought they should all be at 1.0. That's just, we can talk about that obviously. The 2nd thing was I agree with what Dina said earlier about the. About the 85% I was, I was, I thought about that more. I think that would be a good compromise. I think there's also I think it's in the. one of them has 100%…it could be increased to 100% with the green score for…I forget exactly which cell we're talking about, but I think it was the BA3. And I didn't think it was a good idea to have 100% of anything, just because I think of like You know, you can't have windows on a property line, you know, it doesn't work. You need to have some relief from that. So we can get into that. And the last one is the language that we used before for the historic buildings. The eligibility determination, I'd mentioned this in a few meetings. One of the items on their item E directly contradicts according to the Medford Historical Commission. It says that it basically takes them out of the game if they don't find it eligible. That language contradicts how the Historical Commission currently reviews buildings. I think we need to look at that language and eliminate item E of that group of requirements that we said in Medford Square. When we get to that, we can go through it. That's all I have for now.

[Sean Beagan]: Pull up, you want to, should we share screen Emily's most recent draft?

[Unidentified]: Yes, that's a good idea.

[Sean Beagan]: And then we can all see it and kind of go through it. And I think if we can open up, like Emily's got a lot of comments, which I think at least give us some insight as to where she's coming from with the proposed, some of the proposed edits or changes she had. It makes it easier to understand, I think, a little bit if we open up the comments too. Doug, can you share that?

[Doug Carr]: I haven't been able to get hold of an editable version myself. So I don't think I can, but maybe.

[Alicia Hunt]: I've been using Adobe Reader to put my comments on it. And the version that's in the folder is actually not the clean. We have Sean's comments and Doug's. We can open it with your comments, Sean, or I can quickly find in my email the one. Actually, do I still even have it open?

[Sean Beagan]: We can look at Sean's comments. I think we should work off Emily's, just so we have her, even if we can't necessarily edit it directly.

[Danielle Evans]: It's a Word document. Why can't you guys edit it?

[Sean Beagan]: Let's see. I can, I mean I can edit it on my computer but I don't know if I share the screen if I can still edit it at the same time.

[Alicia Hunt]: You, you can but it is like you can you can share your screen you can treat it just like you're using it. You just use it like normal people can watch you. If you're comfortable doing that, if not, I was just going to see if the version.

[Danielle Evans]: We should rename it to something else.

[Dina Caloggero]: So we don't get confused with the date of the meeting.

[Alicia Hunt]: The version that is the clean version that is hers. Isn't in the folder.

[Danielle Evans]: I never saw a clean version. I just saw the memo with the turquoise saying everything.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. No, no, no. I mean, the version that has Emily's comments in the turquoise, not Sean's comments. That's in the folder, B5. It's called dash SMP, SMB, that stands for Sean Began.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, but there's another one in the folder that's Emily's.

[Danielle Evans]: And it's the one where you, I think you're, look, you must be just looking at PDFs as a Word document.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, there's a Word document that says Boston Ave version five.

[Alicia Hunt]: B5, the Word document?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. I have a lot of things open on my computer at this moment. Here we go. Do you want me to share this?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, sure.

[Alicia Hunt]: All right. Share. Just making sure that I am. That one. Caroline Miller, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen

[Sean Beagan]: and start, I think that's where, that's Emily's first comment. So this was something that Doug had mentioned. And Emily has highlighted the two per dwelling unit parking requirement. And she's indicated that public input would prefer perhaps to have a one, spot per unit parking requirement, parking minimum.

[Danielle Evans]: We don't even allow the use, so I don't know why.

[Sean Beagan]: No, I think what she's saying is for not just that, I know, not just that use, but the first six uses.

[Doug Carr]: That's what I was saying. I think you're right, Sean.

[Sean Beagan]: I think she's intending for all of them. I think she just put the comment there, but I think she's asking, she's saying maybe it should be one.

[Ari Fishman]: 1 through 6, I both agree with the conclusion and agree that that's what we've heard a lot of public comment on. I think that would be good.

[Alicia Hunt]: I agree the ability to track changes here. You tell me if you want me to edit the document, right? For example, it could do this and then you would see that.

[Page Buldini]: I also agree with that, if we need to take a vote.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I think we're seeing consensus that it's all 1.0, which is kind of what we did on Salem Street, right? And it seems to be what this is comparable to.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, so let me just make one comment on that. So on Medford Square, the parking requirements I believe are as they're seeing here. It's one and a half. I don't think we went below one and a half on Medford Square.

[Alicia Hunt]: What you did with, if people did things, you could go up.

[Sean Beagan]: Right. And that's in this as well. I believe those same incentives to get down to 0.8 are also in this Boston Ave zoning. Yes, so if we go down, and by the way, I was in favor of going on lesser parking on Medford Square and would be in favor of going on lesser parking here, but I just want to point out that if we do that, if one of the goals was to try to get developers to do a little bit more and give us something to get reduced parking, We've kind of taken that somewhat off the table because now they're only going to go from a 1 to a 0.8, which might not matter much to them.

[Ari Fishman]: I think both that it adds up with these larger units and that in some ways having less parking required is a public interest in and of itself. We don't actually want parking lots and parking in these crowded areas that aren't being used. So where the incentives are trying to get them to do things for us and giving them something here, this is in some ways saying we have a mutual interest. You don't want to build unnecessary things and we don't want unnecessary things. The incentive is just You can build it if you want it, but you don't have to, and we're all happy. Everyone's happy.

[Doug Carr]: Paige, you had a comment?

[Page Buldini]: I agree, Ari. Thank you. You pretty much said exactly what I said. One question is, I know we had talked about, I'm just reading the footnote in B about the The TMA, so is that something that we figured out? Because I know when we talked about the development that's going on over by the KIS-108 building. Yep. Did we get clarification about what that would mean? Because I know we were uncertain before, but does that mean that that's an official incentive or not even an incentive necessity that they have that base membership? Is that doable or enforceable?

[Dina Caloggero]: Right. Are you going to confirm why you're here?

[Doug Carr]: Danielle, could you or Alicia answer that question about the TMA?

[Alicia Hunt]: So what part about it are you asking if it's enforceable?

[Page Buldini]: Well, I guess, but I guess it kind of goes with what we're discussing street trees in the future and like that they could drop their their their participation later.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's what you mean, that they could join now, but we'd have no way of making them stay joined.

[Danielle Evans]: There could be some kind of monitoring. So we monitor our affordable housing to make sure that they're still following their regulatory agreements and all of that. We could start tracking TMA required developments and build that into our annual monitoring. Because if it's large enough to need affordable units and be monitored, then it would be large enough to be having required a TMA. So we could do it at the same time, kind of like bundle the monitoring.

[Page Buldini]: Not to give you guys more work, but I feel like that's a really cool thing. And I think it's a good incentive. But it's also, I agree that it should be down to one. Obviously, incentivize to 0.8. But I feel like if the residents know that this is something that's important, I think accessibility, I think that's a good thing.

[Doug Carr]: Sure. Tina, you have your hand raised.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yes, I agree with Ari's logic on the dropping the parking requirement. That makes total sense to me. And I think the assessment of the TMA would be a good idea as part of the review along with the affordable housing. Is there an ordinance for that or just like written in?

[Danielle Evans]: Well, I think there was supposed to be a TMA ordinance at some point.

[Dina Caloggero]: Right. So there's another ordinance that's needed. Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: One of the things that I've questioned is I'd like to better understand what would be in a TMA ordinance that would be different from saying you need to join it, which is what But, and I just, I will point out, I changed base membership fee to partner level. Cause this is something I feel very strongly about that the lower mystic TMA their base membership is actually, I think not enough. It's very, very mild. And I think that we want to know that, right. I didn't realize that I did not know that earlier language, but we definitely want the partner level.

[Danielle Evans]: So those terms change ever like, well, this become outdated language and we could put in a little bit more that says, like.

[Ari Fishman]: or equivalent level membership that includes X benefit.

[Alicia Hunt]: Do you mind if I just share something else for a second to inform you about this?

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I did not know this. This is new to me.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, this is the kind of thing. It's hard to get into this in the regular meeting. So this is the lower Mystic TMA. This is the only TMA that operates in our area right now. They're very active in our area and Everett requires new buildings to join this. We have had buildings start to join this. So as you can see, BASE and Partner are pretty, at this point seem like, okay, there's consulting, there's marketing, But this is the part where the rubber hits the road. The emergency ride home is huge. Carpool subsidy program, MBTA subsidy, blue bike subsidy, vanpool, car ship. Those are the things that are really, really important. And the reason this is good for a developer is because they actually do marketing materials. They will come and do onsite events at their buildings. Right? So it's not just a passive membership. The TMA does this stuff. And then people think of TMAs as shuttles, but actually there are very few shuttles. There is just one that is running, operated by Lower Mystic TMA. They've said they'd be happy to do more if the demand made sense, but there isn't the right congregation of buildings and public transportation and stuff for it to make sense for them to run. You could imagine the River's Edge runs shuttles from River's Edge to Wellington T. You could imagine that a TMA could take those over and stop at Cabot Road and that other building in between, and now that makes sense. But at the moment, River's Edge is doing that. Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-K

[Doug Carr]: Is in partnership level dating this document enough to buy what we're talking about without listing anything?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. The question is, what if they change their terminology? What if Lower Mystic TMA, unbeknownst to us, changes their terminology? Do we literally have to go change our zoning?

[Dina Caloggero]: Is there a link you can put it to?

[Ari Fishman]: Or equivalent?

[Sean Beagan]: Exactly.

[Ari Fishman]: I think it's Partner level or higher or equivalent, because it looks like there is a level of partner and if, and I do like to give the option to be more involved if they want to be.

[Doug Carr]: Agreed. Okay. Are we all set with that, Alicia? I wanted to go to John Anderson. John, did you have any questions, any comments about the parking being set at 1.0? Do you agree with that?

[Alicia Hunt]: So wait, so this is actually the point here, is that if you just say 1.0 in the table, then you're not requiring them to do join the TMA, do one bicycle spot per unit, et cetera. If you leave it at the 1.5 default that the city has, you're actually avoiding a fight over that. And you are then saying you can have point eight. If you do these things, which are. I don't think this is a heavy lift.

[Doug Carr]: I, I guess my concern is I worry about killing projects that cannot get to 1.5. if they can't achieve these things that I worry about the opposite thing because I, I kind of agree with Aria. I think having 1 being the base and just being able to go down to 0.8. If Anna's is right, and we're talking about 70, 80, $90,000 per space, that's going to add up a lot very quickly for a budget of a project, I would think. But I just don't see 1.5 feels so 20th century. You know, like, we should be less, as I agree with Ari 100% on this one, just because this is a better transit corridor than Salem Street is. It's got a green line at the end of it, you know. It's better than Medford Square in some ways.

[Danielle Evans]: And it's more walkable too, honestly.

[Doug Carr]: Yes.

[Danielle Evans]: I think it's just that we want to make sure that developments are designed with appropriate curb management so we don't have the Uber stopping in the middle of the street.

[Ari Fishman]: I think that we do appropriate curb management, but I don't think we should mandate something that neither we, nor the developers want as the strategy for that.

[Alicia Hunt]: So, the difference is on a big building, a 200 unit building, the difference between 1.0 and 0.8 is meaningful. And they'll do this. on a six-unit building or a four-unit building. Somebody has pointed out that Hillside Hardware has had two units above it. This might actually be tough, although we still want them to make bike parking. The fee is actually based on a per unit, so bigger buildings pay more. Is there no minimum bike parking? Are we not waiting? I don't think so.

[Danielle Evans]: I thought in this new section, I've seen reference to providing the minimum number of bike parking spaces, but then I've never been able to find what were the bike parking spaces.

[Dina Caloggero]: I think it's under the shared parking incentives.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, I feel like that should just be required if there's more than one unit. It's not expensive, it's not space consuming.

[Danielle Evans]: Which is we want to make it, you know, how can we compel developers to be thoughtful and intentional of how they design to make it really easy not to need a car.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, so this is under development standards connections. but this is bicycle storage. Sidewalks provide direct connections.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm still with Ari and Doug.

[Alicia Hunt]: I agree. We could ask for a development standard that says bicycle parking, that each building must provide at least one spot per unit outside of the unit.

[Ari Fishman]: I think that sounds really reasonable. and like a much better way of achieving that end.

[Doug Carr]: I agree.

[Alicia Hunt]: Do you put it in the parking section or not like this surface parking integrated EV charging? Yeah. Personally, I like it when the bike parking is with the regular parking, because if you have a bike that's an electric bike or a cargo bike and it needs to be plugged in, it's better to not have it in your unit. It's better to have it in the part that's designed for vehicles. Right.

[Doug Carr]: All right. I think we're getting a little bit of a stray here. We've got two or three issues up in the air at one time. We've started a parking and then we went to a bunch of other things. Can we Maybe just take one at a time and look at the, make a, make a decision on the parking, which I think there's consensus on, and then go back. I think the bikes one per unit, I agree with Ari again on this one. I think that's a great standard. And I, so we should, we should.

[Sean Beagan]: It seems to be unanimous consensus on changing the, parking to one spot per unit for uses, what, one through six?

[Doug Carr]: One through six, I believe, yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: And then also consensus to add in the mandate for bicycle parking that Alicia was just talking about.

[John Anderson]: Well, right now we have an incentive for bicycle parking.

[Sean Beagan]: Right now you have an incentive and if we made the change Alicia was just talking about, it would be a mandate. It wouldn't be an incentive. It would be a design standard.

[Ari Fishman]: And I think that is not just an individual amenity, but part of developing this corridor into having the infrastructure that we've heard a lot of expressed interest in, which is making it easier, safer, and smoother to commute without a car. Bikes are a large part of that last mile problem. This is close to a lot of transit. I think it is very legally defensible. It's a very reasonable zoning tool.

[Doug Carr]: I agree. Yeah, it's what we want as a city. I think we should try to make that our standard. I think that's what Ari is saying for both the parking and the bikes, and I agree with her.

[Dina Caloggero]: I agree with Ari, and I also am very cognizant of the fact that what we will do is try to do as much as we can regarding traffic, but unfortunately, Medford is a cutthroat. It is.

[Sean Beagan]: Just keep in mind on parking that anything that's coming before our board we have the ability to basically do as we see fit with parking in terms of.

[Page Buldini]: Do we still check in with the building commissioner too? Doesn't the building commissioner need to weigh in on parking for site plan review?

[Sean Beagan]: Or is that different? That was specific to the definition of high transit.

[Page Buldini]: So generally it won't be though?

[Sean Beagan]: Generally, an application is supposed to come to us before it ever goes to get a building permit. I mean, the building commissioner can always be consulted.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: Is this what I'm hearing?

[Sean Beagan]: I think so, Alicia.

[Alicia Hunt]: That looks good. Should we put some guidelines in here like for multiple unit buildings, including power for electric bike charging is suggested, required. I mean, to some extent, these can be guidelines.

[Danielle Evans]: Is this bicycle parking, is this covered? Is this enclosed? Is this secure? Is this just ring and post outside? I think we need to be specific of what we mean by the bicycle parking. Is it enclosed and covered?

[Doug Carr]: What did we do on Salem Street? Most of it was covered in the garage, in a room, right?

[Alicia Hunt]: For that, do you mean that particular building?

[Dina Caloggero]: I think it was underneath. He did it underneath.

[Alicia Hunt]: They ended up putting a thing out the back out the back. And so it was covered, but it wasn't necessarily a room.

[Doug Carr]: I think because they couldn't fit it in the garage, they would have put it in a bigger building. They're going to have corners of garages that can fit anywhere. And most of them, if they're smart, will have rooms that look like lounges as bike storage so that they make a feature of it. That's been a pattern. You'll see that on those two Wellington products that we approved a few months ago. They're not going to be dead rooms. A lot of them are going to be nice.

[Alicia Hunt]: And I think that we need to think both what is gonna happen in a 200 plus unit building and what's gonna happen in a mixed use commercial with four apartments above it, right? It's gonna be a different situation.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. In a large complex, like some of the ones we just approved over in Wellington, is it reasonable to ask them to have 300 bicycle spaces?

[Doug Carr]: Could we waive that? I would waive that before the parking too, right?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I mean, yeah, I suppose you could.

[Ari Fishman]: I don't think we need a one bike per unit. I think it could be one per X with a minimum of one or something. Or a minimum of two. But or We'll have to workshop that. I do think that bike parking is an important part of this, though. Actually, the math I just said, that logic stream does not work. I totally take it back having thought through a few examples. Strike that. Right.

[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, I look at my household. If I lived in an apartment with my husband and my son, there's three bicycles, and sometimes we have four. because there's, you know, I know people who have individuals on a lot of bikes, but I think we're looking at the what are more average.

[Ari Fishman]: My neighbors have five bikes in their household. We have two, but they're in our basement.

[Danielle Evans]: We have like six or seven for a family of four. My husband's a bike commuter and a mountain biker, so he needs He has like three different bikes for like whichever activity.

[Doug Carr]: We need to kind of press on here.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think we're going to have to do the text I typed in here. I just want to make sure people are okay with that. That's my suggestion, but I'm not on this board.

[Dina Caloggero]: I would ask Emily and us what others have done. I would, I would. Let's go to the consultant. Let's give her an ask.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, I think this is a reasonable starting point. I agree.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, let her work if we're through it. I certainly don't have the expertise in how many per unit.

[John Anderson]: Is bicycle a well-defined term? I mean, you know, there are electric bikes, there are mopeds, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, there's scooters.

[Alicia Hunt]: I believe it is for our purposes, because I don't think we want to get into the whole, because if you had a scooter or an electric scooter, you could lock it up the same way. The main thing that's different is that a traditional bicycle, you could wall mount, you could put on an upper level or hang, um, and a, an electric bike, a hybrid bike. You probably can't, they tend to be too heavy.

[John Anderson]: Right. I mean, do we want to be equally accommodating to, you know, like a moped which can have a gasoline engine in it? It seems to me like you're sort of opening the door a little far with that. I guess I'm just to start by asking, is bicycle a well-defined term? I guess not.

[Alicia Hunt]: It's getting better defined. The state has actually been working through some things that list out what is a bicycle versus an electric assist versus an electric bike versus what people are seeing on the streets. The motor scooters that are mount, they're called mountain bikes, but they're not mountain bikes. Dirt bikes. Dirt bikes, that's the term. The dirt bikes is not a mountain bike. Some of us used to use that term interchangeably, not knowing the difference. dirt bike is apparently all electric with no pedals.

[Danielle Evans]: Well, it's motorized.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah. This doesn't cover scooters. This doesn't cover unicycles. This doesn't cover a lot of things, right? I mean, there's some consensus, I think.

[Danielle Evans]: If you want to lock up a unicycle to it, go ahead. All right.

[Doug Carr]: Let's leave that for now and come send that to Emily. She'll have a full 24 hours to think about it.

[Sean Beagan]: Why don't we go back up to the table of uses and then just we can take Emily's next point of reference. Agreed.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I got a text.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Apparently, the city council voted. Can we talk about that or no? Is that not public? No, no, no. The community, the whole. The clerk. The clerk. Can we talk about that or no? No.

[Alicia Hunt]: All right. Where did you tell me this? HAB-Masyn Moyer): To go to sorry.

[Doug Carr]: HAB-Masyn Moyer): The next comment from Emily and is after the parking.

[Alicia Hunt]: HAB-Masyn Moyer): I very much a pop after parking okay. HAB-Masyn Moyer): apologize for those of you who don't know my one of my staff was being interviewed in public by the city council this evening for a job. HAB-Masyn Moyer): boy.

[Doug Carr]: HAB-Masyn Moyer): purpose built student housing, this is an easy one right.

[Sean Beagan]: Go back. Did you miss, was there another comment up before this one? Dormitory fraternity or sorority house.

[John Anderson]: Did I?

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, I thought the consensus was no on the frats and sororities.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, it should be a no.

[Sean Beagan]: So yeah, so this comment that Emily made is based on the letter, the memo that Tufts submitted. Yeah. And they essentially were saying that they own property within the BA1 that they may want to use as an educational use, which would include a dormitory or fraternity, I think is what they're saying. I still say it's no. They believe that it could be a violation of the Dover Amendment if they weren't allowed to have an opportunity to put it in there.

[Dina Caloggero]: No.

[Alicia Hunt]: Why are dormitories in the same row as fraternity and sorority houses?

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, good question. Because that was the public comment. There was many on the whole issue of fraternities and sororities, and I completely agree.

[Page Buldini]: Should dormitories be separate in fraternity and sorority?

[Ari Fishman]: I would support that distinction, because dormitories, we can't stop if they're Dover. But frats and sororities, we have the legal right to stop and significant public demand to stop. So that sounds like a distinction begging to be made.

[Page Buldini]: We make that number eight, nine, or even whatever.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm with Ari. That sounds dandy.

[Doug Carr]: I concur. Those are very different things. Sounds like it makes sense.

[Dina Caloggero]: Separate.

[Doug Carr]: That will clarify it to a lot of people.

[Dina Caloggero]: And they'll have to adjust the definition, too.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah.

[Dina Caloggero]: Because there should be a definition for each one of the uses.

[Doug Carr]: Right. And later on, we'll see that the purpose-built dorm has a threshold number, right? That's quite high. That's far beyond what a fraternity or sorority house would be. Right. Apples and oranges.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, I missed, you said allow dormitory in all three or just the first one?

[Dina Caloggero]: Dormitory? Yeah. No, CB, CBB. CBB.

[Ari Fishman]: We at least get to talk about the massing and the five criteria. Exactly.

[Sean Beagan]: I think it was, I think what Tufts, what Tufts wanted or was suggesting was, BA1 zone, so I would limit it to that with a CDB approval, because that's what they were suggesting they may need for dormitory use.

[Dina Caloggero]: I still say no all the way across. They can build it up at the tennis courts if they like. No, I will say no on that.

[Page Buldini]: I'm struggling, honestly, too, when I read that letter and I just looked back at the meeting about specifically what their proposal was. So I do have trouble with that as well.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I'm going to say you won't get my vote on that.

[Page Buldini]: So would it be OK to have a discussion about that? Is that OK or no?

[Dina Caloggero]: I think we should separate the both of them. And then we can have a disc. I think we all agree in fraternity and sorority band then this and this disagreement on dormitory on where it should fall Separate them. And I think the definition on both of those the separation needs to clearly state that those entities are in association with the educational institution, which in this case is Tufts. Because if you don't do that, you're going to run into trouble with possibly private student housing in some of the other districts, some of the other areas in VA1.

[Alicia Hunt]: So the definition already clearly, I'm going to see if the definition is in this document, but it.

[Dina Caloggero]: I hope so.

[Alicia Hunt]: Clearly, clearly. Okay, good dormitory any dwelling owned or controlled by an educational institution. So, currently, it says. This is own controlled or otherwise under the supervision. Okay, this is how it's currently and. Tufts has asked for this to say, owned, controlled, or otherwise under the supervision of an educational institution.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, no, no, no.

[Alicia Hunt]: Currently, we have owned or controlled by an educational institution.

[Dina Caloggero]: I like the definition as is. I don't like supervision, no.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, sorry. Nope, nope, nope. I didn't save the comment up above. And so I was gonna reply to her comment down here. Apologies.

[John Anderson]: So now, are people proposing no for dormitories? But I mean, will that stand up in court?

[Ari Fishman]: No, I don't think anyone is proposing a no for dormitories. For dormitories, it's a CDB where we can exercise the legal limits of our rights.

[John Anderson]: Hopefully, hopefully.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah.

[John Anderson]: Yeah, I agree with that. CDB on dormitories. Fraternities and sororities. Now, are they owned by the university, or are they really a private club? It could be either. Yeah.

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, I know for Tufts, Tufts owns most of them, and they rent them out to them. Well, actually, they don't even rent them out. It's just those are the folks that get housed in those houses. And if they can't fill it, then non-members go in there and there's no say about that. So if they don't fill the house, then other students are in there, which is most of the case. So they pay with their bursar bill. And yeah, so let's go to very much like dorms.

[Page Buldini]: Yeah, go ahead, ask for clarification on those houses. Do we know because I know Danielle, I know you and I think even Alicia have a little bit of expertise on this, but the houses that are the quote unquote sorority or the frats, what are they considered by Tufts? Are they considered student housing? Are they considered private buildings? And I think that would be helpful too. Do we even know?

[Danielle Evans]: Most are owned by Walnut Hill and they pay for, it's just the same rates as the dorms. It's just a different, like there's themed housing. So if you want to live with like the rock climbing club or the French language club, like it's all considered themed housing. And so, They're just different, different clubs and groups. And it just happens to be like, you know, membership in this sorority or membership in this fraternity.

[Ari Fishman]: Which is not a universal model.

[Danielle Evans]: It's like Tufts is not. It's not like your typical Greek life kind of it's it's different.

[Page Buldini]: No, that might not be the right term or condition that it I don't know if we can legally do that, that if it is a dormitory, if we do CDB approval or whatever, we decide that it cannot be a sorority or a dorm or whatever, this is themed housing. I don't even know if that would legally stand.

[Danielle Evans]: I think there are some constitutional issues about like allowing folks to live together into, I forget what it is.

[Doug Carr]: I feel like we're going down a rabbit hole here.

[Danielle Evans]: I'm just saying, if you're banning a group of individuals to associate and live together, like, and they're students and it functions as a dorm, but like, you let the French language club all live together. But then, like, whatever sorority can't live together. I think there are some issues there.

[Doug Carr]: OK.

[Danielle Evans]: If it's privately owned, then I feel it's different.

[Doug Carr]: Right. Go ahead, Dina.

[Dina Caloggero]: What I want to say, if Tufts would like dormitories, or they would like fraternities and sororities, they can put it within the institutional zoning, right? This is Boston Avenue corridor.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's actually not a bad point, that they could, in fact, if they're looking at that, there are places on the campus that would allow. So I put up what Tufts says about this. Because I used to be the house corporation president for a sorority at MIT. It has never owned its own house. It lives in a house that is a building that is owned by MIT. But there are other sororities at MIT where the alumni organization owns the house. My daughter lived in one. at UVM, where it is not owned by UVM, it is owned by the sorority nationally, and it's managed by them nationally. What I do think is that it has to be recognized by the university.

[Dina Caloggero]: And that's what that definition said when someone just put it up on the screen.

[Alicia Hunt]: And what I'm stating is that- Actually said that it had to be owned.

[Sean Beagan]: Well, it says on number two, it says it has to be zoned appropriately by the city of Somerville. So let's just leave it at that. And we can do no, since we're not inside, since that property is not BA1s and Meds in Somerville.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, they're all in Somerville.

[Sean Beagan]: There seems to be a clear intent to do their fraternities and sororities in Somerville.

[Ari Fishman]: I mean, so I'm thinking about the history of Harvard, which is where they were Once they were legally required to integrate and to allow women, the university didn't want to piss off the alumni and sold off these mansions for a dollar so that they could continue to this very day. So I tend to not be the biggest fan of allowing them to do whatever they want.

[Sean Beagan]: Is there consensus to do a no across the board on fraternity sorority?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Sean Beagan]: Then we can put it to Emily if she has a different thought or comment on it. She can let us know tomorrow.

[John Anderson]: I guess my question would be, if we just say no across the board and they want to do it and go to court, are we better off if it's CDB where we can at least exercise some influence over?

[Unidentified]: They're going to do it anyways. They're going to do it anyways.

[Ari Fishman]: I don't think there's a clear legal right to it. Or I think that's a question for the consultants.

[John Anderson]: Yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: But I don't know.

[John Anderson]: Because I mean, the gym was clearly an educational use. But we still exercise some influence over the design.

[Doug Carr]: You mean the pool we just approved?

[John Anderson]: Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry, the pool.

[Doug Carr]: True.

[Dina Caloggero]: But we also gave them waivers too to do that. It was kind of like a give and take a little bit on that.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah. It wasn't 100 foot tall. Yeah. Yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: You weren't, yeah, it's not the 10 story where we had zoning that was overly permissive and had no bargaining.

[Dina Caloggero]: Exactly. Exactly.

[John Anderson]: Okay, well, we could take a hard line, but I don't know how effective it will be.

[Doug Carr]: I think Dina's point is really well taken, that the institutional zone actually is being expanded and it's the perfect place to do this.

[Dina Caloggero]: Okay. Put your dormitories there, put your fraternities and sororities there.

[Doug Carr]: They have so much freedom to put it anywhere. Why string it along Boston Avenue when it's just not needed?

[Dina Caloggero]: And you really need to go to Hillside Hardware, really? You have all that space. Come on.

[Doug Carr]: All right, I feel like we're, it's general consensus here. I don't know how we're gonna get through tomorrow night in under 24 hour meeting yet. Let's keep going.

[Page Buldini]: So we're gonna separate dormitories from fraternities and sororities?

[Sean Beagan]: Yes. And that'll be fraternities and sororities will be a no across all zones.

[Page Buldini]: Excellent, thank you.

[Sean Beagan]: That's the recommendation anyway. Yes.

[Alicia Hunt]: Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-K So they didn't actually, they were confused when they were mentioning there being a change, there's not.

[Dina Caloggero]: I thought it was fine.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, yes.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, there should be no confusion there.

[Alicia Hunt]: The next one is the definition of purpose-built student housing.

[Dina Caloggero]: Here we go.

[Alicia Hunt]: Do we want to jump to the definition?

[Sean Beagan]: Well, is everyone okay with the use of it's only would be allowed in a, in the BA three with community development board approval.

[Unidentified]: Yep.

[Sean Beagan]: The parking is the same as the parking for dormitory.

[Alicia Hunt]: So correct. Not arguing. I just want to make sure you're aware that the other low, we have also received a proposal very tentatively, just like they were putting it out there. Um, to do purpose-built student housing on Winchester Street in the BA-2. So I just want you to be aware of that when you say yes, just the BA-3, because the BA-3 applicant has been very vocal. But I'm not arguing for it. I just want you to be conscious.

[Dina Caloggero]: I would be very careful with the BA and stepping it down to a BA-2.

[Doug Carr]: So Alicia, could I ask your opinion and Danielle as well? Do you agree with the one per four beds as a parking ratio for a student housing purpose built or otherwise as a working ratio? Is that consistent?

[Alicia Hunt]: It's really interesting because I think if you're doing purpose built student housing, you might be looking at three and four bedroom units. And so you may be saying one per unit, but you also are saying, but you're saying like, look, if you treat each of these like an adult, 25% of the, of the people living in the building would have a car, which feels rational. I don't, I don't know that I've seen the studies on this.

[Sean Beagan]: Okay. I don't think it's a bad starting point. You know, parking is always something that's subject to labor. So I think it's, I don't see it as a bad starting point for people.

[Doug Carr]: Like your earlier comments, Sean, I think having the ability for the city board to waive this based on what we see in front of us. 400 beds would equal 100 cars. That's a lot of cars. I just like the flexibility for that. I think that would be helpful. Go ahead, Dina.

[Dina Caloggero]: I think we should maybe ask, that's a good starting point, I think, but I think maybe perhaps we'll ask Emily if she can give us some guidance on that as well.

[Alicia Hunt]: This is her recommendation.

[Sean Beagan]: That's her recommendation. I don't want to speak for her, but she took it from the dormitory requirements. I think she wanted them to figuring this is akin to a dormitory, so let's make the parking requirements match. She can tell us whether she has any particular point of view on this is one per four beds.

[Dina Caloggero]: I do agree that the students do not have as many cars, I do.

[Doug Carr]: And I think it's consistent with what Ari said earlier, like, if we're in this philosophy of encouraging bikes, encouraging walking, it's a half mile from campus. We want to try to, we don't want to over park any building. We've seen several developers come back to us and reduce parking just within the last six months. I would think we'd want to have the same flexibility here. This is a starting point, but I want to, I feel like we want to be able to waive it if we think a project makes sense to waive it.

[Ari Fishman]: Absolutely, I think this is one, and I don't know how to legally word this, but in some ways it feels to me like 1 per 4 beds is the maximum amount of parking that we're recommending. So does it make sense for us to set it lower? Because right now, legally, this is the minimum. If we think that actually it would be reasonable to go lower, do we want to do a lower number? or have none required? I'm inclined to say yes. And I know I'm the kind of, I think, usually the least excited about parking, but I'm hearing a lot of kind of consensus that let's encourage what we want to see here. A purpose-built student housing, it's going to be requiring a site plan review. This is going to be tailor-made. Let's start the conversation where we want it instead of at the furthest away from where we want it. What if we do one per six or one for eight?

[Dina Caloggero]: I like the 1.4. I'm going to go with Emily, and this is a recommendation. And make it consistent with DORM.

[Doug Carr]: Paige, what do you think?

[Page Buldini]: I agree. One per four?

[Doug Carr]: John Anderson, do you have a thought on that?

[John Anderson]: Yes, one per four.

[Doug Carr]: OK.

[John Anderson]: The developer would be happy to go to 1.1 per 6 or 1 per 8 if the CD board lets them, right?

[Dina Caloggero]: They would have to ask us. They would do a waiver. Yeah, they would do a waiver.

[Alicia Hunt]: At one point, they floated no parking. I would be fine with that.

[Dina Caloggero]: No, I would be skeptical.

[Alicia Hunt]: Most students will bring cars. They do.

[Dina Caloggero]: I have tough people that live in my street. They have cars.

[Doug Carr]: Honestly, I would be at a 1 for 6, but the consensus here appears to be 1 for 4, but I'm quite confident that we won't actually build 1 for 4.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, there seems to be a majority who are in support for it right now is of leaving it at 1.1 per four beds. So why don't we leave it at that for now? And I think everyone has good points on this. And I think if a developer comes forward and has a rational basis for why it should be less, it's probably gonna be compelling to a majority of us here.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I agree. All right, do we want to tackle the definition next to since we're talking.

[Sean Beagan]: Why don't we go just so we don't miss anything. I would suggest we just keep going through the document. Eventually, we're going to get to the definition.

[Doug Carr]: And then we'll lose an hour.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, keep going.

[Sean Beagan]: Hopefully.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, yeah, we know that was changed last time yellow. Yep.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, CBA last time.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, my only comment again on the adult use marijuana is that it's just inconsistent.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, it's inconsistent. We have a knowing inconsistency in our zoning.

[Dina Caloggero]: Right.

[Sean Beagan]: Everyone's okay with that. I'm not going to push. I'm not going to mention it again.

[Dina Caloggero]: No, we all know it's there.

[Sean Beagan]: I swear to God, I won't mention it again. Come on, Sean. Three times is enough. Just that it's knowing and inconsistent.

[Dina Caloggero]: I love it.

[Unidentified]: All right. Oh, yeah. Yep, yep.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yep. I think she changed the definition. It's purple. We go up to the key, the color keys on top.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right. This commendation was based on community input.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yep.

[Alicia Hunt]: So are you good with it? Should I?

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm fine with that.

[John Anderson]: I thought it was good. I'm sorry. What does this mean though? On my document, the whole thing is blocked out here. She's left plumbing or carpentry shop. Does this mean that other, I don't understand what they're recommending here.

[Alicia Hunt]: Or other similar service repair.

[Sean Beagan]: That's being added? I think her comment, yeah, Emily's comment was that this should be a Y, based on public input, that should be a Y instead of an N. Oh, okay. Nice thought.

[Danielle Evans]: she was the one that I thought cautioned about because of like the noise or no or maybe that was you uh Alicia because we had the the gutter yeah the the gutter company but they're super incredibly loud start really early next to a house is just sheet metal incompatible how do we feel about doing cdb because like a doggy daycare there is potential for high noise

[Ari Fishman]: That is likely remediable, but should be kind of treated with a kind of let's. Make this work for everyone. I think it's totally reasonable. If done properly, which sounds like to me. Right?

[Alicia Hunt]: So, if I agree with that, I can close kind of idea.

[John Anderson]: I agree.

[Alicia Hunt]: I agree with our.

[Dina Caloggero]: It's a noise issue.

[Danielle Evans]: They can be really like, just like the zoning board meeting where I was at with this. One of the neighbors is like an infant is just like showed videos of just the loading of the ladders in the morning. And so she's so loud and I was kid can never sleep. And I was just like, that sounds like a nightmare doing it at a house.

[Alicia Hunt]: But if say, this was purpose built and the trucks and it was all enclosed and the trucks drove into a garage. And they loaded inside that garage, that person next door would probably never hear that.

[Danielle Evans]: But these are just the use, meaning they can move into any storefront. That's why it's CDB.

[Doug Carr]: Well, now, Paige, you had a comment, so you raise your hand.

[Page Buldini]: No, I support that. I also support the CDB only because at the end of my road on Winter Street, I was going to bring this up tomorrow, but we, the company that took over for where Moulton's was, is they're like a GC. They're very respectful. They're very reasonable. But to incentivize businesses to stick around and come, I think CDB would be great. So thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Go ahead, Dina.

[Dina Caloggero]: I was just going to say what Paige said. We did have somebody down the street. They were plumbers. They used to come at like 5 o'clock in the morning and load their trucks. It was so annoying. We don't want that, I think. But we can't discourage all services. You could have respectful companies. And I think I'm with Ari, and putting CDB across is fine with me and a good solution.

[Doug Carr]: I think there's differences there. OK. All right.

[Dina Caloggero]: Onward.

[Doug Carr]: Onward, page 6. No, 10. 11. We're a third of the way.

[Dina Caloggero]: We're flying. Here we go.

[Sean Beagan]: Mixed use.

[Adam Hurtubise]: OK.

[Dina Caloggero]: It states there are no definitions. Both are defined in current section. Yeah. Really? Yes, she's right. Emily's correct.

[John Anderson]: What page?

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm showing it on the screen, if that helps. Right, this we've already discussed, correct?

[John Anderson]: Yes.

[Dina Caloggero]: It used to be half a mile, now it's a mile.

[John Anderson]: I take issue with equating a commuter rail station with a subway station. A commuter rail station, at least the one I know of, bears very little comparison in terms of usability to a subway station.

[Alicia Hunt]: It's a moot point on Boston Ave, though. Because all of Boston Ave on this side of the river is within one mile of the subway station. Correct.

[Doug Carr]: So why are we mentioning commuter rail?

[Alicia Hunt]: I don't know. Should we just take it off?

[Doug Carr]: It feels like it would be applicable to West Medford, but that's a different debate in a different time.

[John Anderson]: Good catch, John.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah. It's subway.

[John Anderson]: One other question. Outside of the BANCD, there's also a reduced parking requirement for affordable housing units. This is boot for this district, since it says accept the BANCD, but what's the thought behind fewer parking per for affordable housing?

[Alicia Hunt]: That's something that's been in our zoning for quite a long time. At least this was adopted since our zoning went up to 2.0. So our zoning, I did some research in the history room. the public library don't ever go in there, it's a sucking vortex. And the city changed, all our parking was one per unit until the mid 80s, I think 84, maybe even 80. And at that time it was adopted to 2.0 and the affordable housing at 0.5 per unit. And I believe that that was about making affordable housing more affordable. because building parking is expensive.

[Danielle Evans]: You're saying the 0.5 was in the 80s?

[Alicia Hunt]: Or else it was discriminatory saying that poor people don't have cars. I'd prefer to believe that it was to make it less expensive.

[John Anderson]: Okay. So it's an incentive for building affordable housing units.

[Alicia Hunt]: I will tell you that it today functions as an incentive. Sorry, I have, I actually got a copy of the old book and I have it in my office.

[Doug Carr]: Probably didn't start that way. Alicia was in the eighties.

[Danielle Evans]: I thought that this was from the recodification. That's that's when I thought it appeared. The 0.5. yeah, I think is what it was already there. Yeah. And if it's an aggregate where it's just, you know, you're how many units and then you add it all up, but when they say. Like, if it's like condos and it's a smaller development or like, well, this affordable unit, like, just, they don't get parked parking spots. I don't know. It just doesn't like, I don't, I don't like that.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, especially when it. You're right. The zoning I was thinking of was adopted. May 15th, 1984, and it does not mention the reduction for the affordable housing only. It changes from 1.0 to 2.0.

[Danielle Evans]: Like, I think it's fine when it's signed, deed and parking. But if it becomes like a management thing where they're like, okay, well, the affordable units aren't entitled to any spaces when we know that shift workers, folks that might be lower income are working hours that aren't your traditional nine to five. And as we know, the MBTA doesn't run past, was it midnight? I don't even know when it stops.

[Dina Caloggero]: It stops at like about.

[Danielle Evans]: You're working in a kitchen. You probably need a car.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, like my son works overnights. He cannot take the train.

[Danielle Evans]: I just want to make sure it's not a way to get out of providing or

[Ari Fishman]: allowing them to have parking, I don't know. Simultaneously having to spend money on parking, that isn't necessary, makes housing more expensive and makes people who tend to work shifts, who tend to be poorer, be less likely to be able to live in this town and have to drive further as well as not being able to live where they originally intended to. There is a cost in both directions.

[John Anderson]: Well, I'm sorry to take us down this rattle because it doesn't apply in these districts anyway. Right?

[Unidentified]: Right. Okay. All right. Moving on. Moving onward. Rolling, rolling, rolling.

[Sean Beagan]: The, there was a reference. If you go back, go back up for a second. There's a note here about the 5,000. Okay. And it references footnote seven. I couldn't, I think that was in regards to light manufacturing, if I remember from Medford, but I couldn't find the actual footnote in this zoning draft.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, so we come up with a policy that all the footnotes should be listed at the bottom of every table with the same numbers. So that there wasn't like at this table, table, uh, parking as a principal use is only permitted in VA three is foot. Well, not with standing above tables, not right. So that one footnote wasn't number five on one table and footnote number seven on another table. that we always use the same numbers for the footnotes for consistency.

[Sean Beagan]: Okay, but where does, so if I look at that footnote seven, what is it referring to?

[Alicia Hunt]: It might not be in this table, but it would be in other.

[Sean Beagan]: Oh, it would be in a different table under footnote seven.

[Alicia Hunt]: But it would always be footnote seven always. That was the intention. I was just scrolling to see if I could find it.

[Sean Beagan]: I thought, cause I thought that if I, I thought that was the footnote for Medford square for light manufacturing businesses, something like that. Maybe I was wrong. It's not in this tape. I couldn't find it in this table.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. I trust you that it's not in this table.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I couldn't find it. There were several of them I couldn't find.

[Alicia Hunt]: And that was the thing was that it was getting confusing having some show up in some not, and then the numbers being weird.

[Sean Beagan]: OK. I get it. Here you go. OK, so this is the purpose build housing definition. So this is brand new verbiage based on this is new to the draft. This was this is the only draft this language has been in, so everyone's kind of seeing it for the first.

[Dina Caloggero]: Is this from Emily or is this from you, Sean?

[Sean Beagan]: This is Emily's. Everything in this document is Emily's. It hasn't been edited by anyone.

[Dina Caloggero]: OK. OK. OK, I'm just going to check my notes on this.

[Doug Carr]: Showing item three, is it saying anything? Is that the next page or is that just a typo?

[Sean Beagan]: It's gotta be a typo. I don't believe there was anything on the three.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.

[Doug Carr]: And where was, there is a place in this document that lists the minimum number of beds we're talking about, right? That's separate from this definition. I think, I know I saw it.

[Sean Beagan]: I put it, I put it into my, I'm not sure if I put it into my definition edits or if I put it into the standards edits, I can't remember. Okay, we'll get to that in a minute.

[Alicia Hunt]: Would it be helpful to look at the standards at the same time? Yeah, we should jump down to that.

[Doug Carr]: I think that would help because they're two sides of the same coin. That's on page, should be page 22.

[Danielle Evans]: Yes, under 9.8.5 use standards. Yeah, they're on the screen.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, there's the 150 bedrooms. Item B, that's the number that makes it clear that this is a pretty big building. And that's not a big number actually for student housing.

[Dina Caloggero]: No, fewer than 150, right? Right, that was a whole math question. It's like it could be 600 beds, but it's like 150 units could have a couple of beds bedrooms.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, so this talks about the on-site professional managed 24 hour. This addresses a lot of the operational stuff that we discussed, you know, annual certificate of occupancy. The city gets basically to kick the tires on this once a year, I believe, Danielle, right? That's what we're talking about.

[Dina Caloggero]: We have to put an ordinance in, right? The ordinances need to be done.

[Doug Carr]: noise control plan, you know, this tries to put, I think, guardrails to address the neighbor's concern, the neighborhood's concern.

[Dina Caloggero]: The other thing that I've seen in some definitions too, it says, and I don't see it in Emily's, it says purpose-filled student housing is shall not be classified as multi-family housing, lodging, rooming housing, boarding house, dormitory, or student residential.

[Doug Carr]: Now, one of the comments that both Sean and I had, if you go on to item F at the bottom, it says conversion to non-student housing. Purpose-built student housing may rent to non-students provided that the non-student occupancy is no more than 39% of the total number of bedrooms. Should more than 50% of the bedrooms in a purpose-built student housing be rented to non-students over a period of two consecutive years, the building becomes classified as multifamily, and that triggers a whole bunch of other things. I thought that number was crazy high because it's bonkers, right? So, like, that number should be a hell of a lot less. I think 10 or 15%, frankly, max.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: We don't want this converted to multifamily because it's actually a completely different layout, right? It doesn't actually make sense for that. So, I think you had a comment.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, because the problem is that, I agree with you, I think the 50% is too high. And if the use of that property changes from a purpose-built student housing, then there is a change in the zoning requirements as well. And then it would need to meet, because the problem is the affordability, right, at this point. It's like, if it's, you know, I guess like I think what Zach Beers was saying is that they could, the developer could either donate to a trust fund or you could just put something in the definition that if it converts over to something, another type of use, then it would come under that use requirement and would need to meet the affordable housing requirements set under that zoning use.

[Doug Carr]: And that's what this says, right, Dina? Yeah, that's what it does.

[Dina Caloggero]: So you agree with that? I agree with you. I agree with you. I think the 50 is too high.

[Doug Carr]: What do you think the right number is?

[Dina Caloggero]: I think 39 is too high.

[Alicia Hunt]: I have a suggestion that no more than 10% of the total number of bedrooms, and the only reason I would go above zero besides staff, live-in staff, is that if you had a student who was taking a semester off, one of the things that sucks is they get kicked out of the dorms. And you could imagine that there might be a couple at 10% you're thinking a couple of students who might not be fully enrolled this semester or their thesis only are they a fully registered student are they partially some some very small number like if you had 150 rooms 150 beds 10% would be 15. It feels rational.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I agree. I'm back. I agree that 39% is problematic.

[Danielle Evans]: One thing I noticed is they're talking about bedrooms when they were talking about beds before. So that needs to be consistency.

[Unidentified]: Right.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's good. Good catch. Good catch up.

[Alicia Hunt]: The 150 bedrooms, I'm going to change to beds as well.

[Doug Carr]: Right.

[Alicia Hunt]: unless you felt strongly about bedrooms. And I'm not gonna argue with anybody about how do you count a bedroom that's bigger and has a full bed in it.

[Sean Beagan]: My son shared an apartment. The only problem with changing that from bedrooms to beds is that you just allowed a much smaller structure. I'm envisioning two beds per bedroom.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's gonna be rare in apartments because upper class people want single bedrooms.

[Sean Beagan]: Are these apartments though? I mean, aren't these private dorms essentially?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, but- I don't know. Typically these days an upper class dorm is an apartment.

[Sean Beagan]: Not where my kid just graduated from. That's all I can say. Let me look.

[Ari Fishman]: And I can say when I was like apartments in and like bedrooms in one apartment, one talk at a time shared kitchen space.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I'd be careful here because if you don't, if you don't scale it appropriate, it's not feasible.

[Doug Carr]: Okay.

[John Anderson]: Instead of talking about beds and bedrooms, how about talking about residents?

[Dina Caloggero]: It should be 150 size apartments. I would go by apartments.

[Doug Carr]: Student housing is always measured, in my experience, in beds. It's a 600 bed. The Tufts building being built now is 660 beds. They don't describe it as apartments or units or bedrooms, just beds. That's what makes it housing. That's how they measure it.

[Page Buldini]: Thank you, Doug, for answering my question. I was interested in how Packard Armed Police was. Thank you.

[Dina Caloggero]: Go ahead, please.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, I was also going to say that beds is a much more relevant metric than bedrooms and that while it is true that the upperclassmen at Tufts University want single family, single room housing, that is not universal for all student housing. And there are many universities and many places both here and elsewhere where doubles are totally fair game. And I think even for grad students, like especially international students, folks on the budget, let's count it in beds. I'm okay with bigger than 150. When we were talking kind of 150 bedrooms, that was a kind of, I would feel okay with like 200 beds. And I feel like I'm kind of pulling this number out of vibes. So I definitely would want some feedback on it. but I think 150 is a pretty small maximum.

[Alicia Hunt]: Wasn't that minimum?

[Ari Fishman]: Minimum. Oh, minimum. Less. In that case, I know fewer. Great. We're good. We're good.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, no fewer. Do we need that though? I mean.

[Doug Carr]: I think the intent there is that if you want all the professional support, the 24 hour thing, essentially concierge and all that, it has to be a certain scale building. I think that's what, I honestly think it's gonna be between four and 600 beds if I had to guess, given the size of BA3. I don't know about the one by Winchester Street. It's probably not as big because it can't be as tall, but it's probably at least 300 beds.

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, I just feel like, can't they just figure out what, how their numbers work or not, like either what they're charging. And if you're not, if they don't have to do provide all the parking, then maybe their overhead is less. I don't know. I just feel like having a minimum because we don't think that their math will work otherwise. I don't know.

[Ari Fishman]: That's it. Yeah, that actually might speak to why I didn't recognize it as a minimum because that is so unusual.

[Danielle Evans]: Because 100 bed development is probably fine. If the math doesn't work, then they don't build it. I don't know.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I thought one of the motivations allowing this use was the possibility that it would have some meaningful impact on taking students out of the two and three family houses in the neighborhood.

[Unidentified]: Right.

[Sean Beagan]: And so that's, I think that's where the size was coming from or the talk of how, what size should this building be at a minimum to have some sort of an impact. But I agree with you, Danielle. I mean, I think the developer is going to build as much as he can probably build that makes sense money-wise.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm happy with the 150. I think it's fine.

[Ari Fishman]: Do we need it? Because like 100 beds clears out a whole lot of two and three family houses.

[Danielle Evans]: A lot, yeah, because it's mostly four or five to an apartment. 10 beds per two family.

[Alicia Hunt]: The reason I would say you want some minimum is because I literally had a developer who was trying to propose micro units, 500 square feet per unit, 10 per floor, four stories on what currently holds a four unit building. Right. And I will I think that we want to make this number big enough that we are discouraging. people, the speculative developers, developers who are just in it to make a buck. Got you. I'd be concerned that somebody like that is going to hire a Ms. Hannigan and give her one of those bedrooms and tell her she'd be on-site now.

[Doug Carr]: Alicia, could you stop sharing for a minute? I want to share the floor plan briefly of what's being built so you can see what the rooms look like. This is, hold on a second. Can you see this?

[Alicia Hunt]: It's just not showing yet.

[Doug Carr]: Here we go. This is the submitted plans for Tufts University for the dorm being built right now. It's the soccer dorm.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, the white elephant.

[Doug Carr]: I'm sorry, can you see the screen with the?

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, it's a little weird, but. You're like, that's a 4 bedroom apartment.

[Doug Carr]: All the yellow is a 4 bedroom, the light orange are the 2 bedrooms. You can see they've got a little living space in between a galley kitchen. 1 bathroom or 2, depending. On how many, but most of them are 4s and 2s. That's like their module. Yeah, so this would be probably what a purpose built student housing. And these are the plans submitted by Tufts last year.

[Ari Fishman]: So, I actually. Oh, sorry to interrupt. I would caution against assuming that private purpose-built student housing would necessarily be identical to university-built student housing. I think that they would be thinking about what their target market is in a way where the target market of the university is going to be different. I would anticipate some differences either going higher-end or lower-end. And I don't know what direction they would go. But yes, this is, I think, a really common dorm design, and it is certainly possible, but I do not think that it is the only way this could go.

[Doug Carr]: You're definitely correct, Ari. It's one model. I don't think there are 20 models, but I think there are a couple. So I don't disagree. But the thing is, I think they're just different than multifamily. A two-bedroom unit is going to just have a different, even the two bedrooms you saw in the diagram are going to be for much larger, more generous in the bathrooms. The kitchens are gonna be much bigger, obviously. There's no islands here. There's a lot more going on with it. So I'll just leave it at that. How big were those bedrooms? I'd say they're about 10 by 12, about as minimal, pretty minimal. Yeah, boy. They're not big. You're hanging out in the amenity spaces, you're hanging out on campus, you're working. The amenity spaces tend to be pretty generous. Go ahead.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm going to stick with the 150 again. I think it's a good number to use. I think it prevents the shady developer from coming in and trying to build a 10-bedroom, a 10-bedroom dorm room, a 40, even something crazy. I think we should stick with that. I think it's relatively a good number.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah.

[Dina Caloggero]: It's a good start.

[Doug Carr]: Alicia, can you put the document back so we can continue? Go ahead, Ari.

[Ari Fishman]: I am convinced that having a minimum has value. I think 150 is far too high as a minimum. I think something like 50 would make it plenty expensive enough that you're not going to do it for funsies. It's large enough to scale. And if we're assuming 5 per unit of a 2 family, so that's 10 per unit, that clears out 5 full 2 family Houses, that's 10 units for non-students. That's making a dent. I think 50 would be a very, would be a reasonable threshold. And I could be talked up to like 75, 80, even 100, but I think 150 is too high.

[Dina Caloggero]: How about 100, Ari?

[Ari Fishman]: We agree on 100? I'm not fully there. I want to hear other people. I'm not taking it yet.

[John Anderson]: I think we're just sort of guessing here.

[Sean Beagan]: I agree, John, we're guessing. My understanding is the individuals that in the BA3 zone that own property there were contemplating a much larger building and much larger number of beds Then 150.

[Alicia Hunt]: So, actually, this is a good point, as long as this is so the only here's my only concern that we create this as a use. And then somebody says, I want to use variants to be able to do this in the B, a 2 or the B, a 1 and I want to do it over here. And they don't come to the CD board because of use variants is the zoning board. Um, say plan review is the CD board and it's right now says six units or more larger.

[Sean Beagan]: That's a good point, Alicia. So that in that case, the larger number prevents. And most likely in a BA one or a BA two.

[Dina Caloggero]: Excellent point, Alicia, because we want to prevent that.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm still comfortable with the 150 myself.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I like 150.

[John Anderson]: And we're changing bedrooms to beds in this whole section, is that correct?

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, we're back to bed.

[John Anderson]: Okay. Do we need to say anything more about what we mean by an on-site professional manager?

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, did you land on 150 or 100? 150.

[Doug Carr]: Professional management, John, what's the concern?

[John Anderson]: Well, the question is, I mean, could I be a professional manager? I mean, are we talking like a superintendent? Are we talking about someone who has some authority to quell disturbances?

[Unidentified]: It's more than an RA.

[Sean Beagan]: I had made some proposed edits to this section and to the definition. I don't know if we want to take a look at I posted it at some point because I did add a lot of additional language and what I think are some additional. kind of stop gaps and things that might.

[Alicia Hunt]: I would love to see it. I would love to see it, Sean. Do you want me to share that version, Sean? Do you want to share it?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, why don't you just share it, Alicia?

[Alicia Hunt]: And can I also say I need to take a biological break? Is this an OK time, actually, for us to just take five minutes?

[Unidentified]: Yeah, makes sense.

[Dina Caloggero]: I really need to.

[Unidentified]: OK. Let's do it.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm going to leave.

[Page Buldini]: John, did you look out your window at all? Do you have a window in your office?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah.

[Page Buldini]: It's the most beautiful sunset right now.

[Sean Beagan]: Let me see.

[Page Buldini]: You should go see it quick.

[Sean Beagan]: The sky is beautiful. It's like a pink.

[Page Buldini]: Yeah, we just ran out quick. It's stunning.

[Sean Beagan]: Wow.

[Ari Fishman]: My in-laws just sent a picture of a beautiful rainbow in Providence. Oh, how cool.

[Page Buldini]: Right over the city. Yeah, did you get to see it, Ari? We ran outside quick. It's so beautiful.

[Ari Fishman]: I can, yeah, I can see it out the window.

[Page Buldini]: Are you guys talking about the sunset?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Page Buldini]: I told Sean to get out of his office quick.

[Danielle Evans]: It's gorgeous. I just looked at it. That's because I live across from them. Right spawn. So it's like setting over the pond. So Wow.

[Doug Carr]: All right.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, found the secret candy stash in the office.

[Doug Carr]: All right, let's put that document back on top here.

[Alicia Hunt]: I stopped sharing. I did. Oh, we were gonna show Sean's document.

[Doug Carr]: That's right. Sean's was next.

[Alicia Hunt]: Let me just make sure.

[Doug Carr]: You had some comments.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Gina, remind us tomorrow if you want to, we'll just do it one at a time.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm just going to slip out. I was actually going to go in that back room. I was trying to look for an escape route. I don't like to do it during the public comments because I want to, you know, I want to listen to people what they have to say. I like doing the public comments first too. I thought that was good.

[Alicia Hunt]: We've got both a home loan purpose built Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-K

[Dina Caloggero]: Here we go, here's Sean.

[Doug Carr]: Everything in red is Sean's edits, right?

[Dina Caloggero]: All right, here we go.

[Sean Beagan]: So yeah, I'll just say at the outset, these are suggestions. I'm not married to any of these suggestions. I was just kind of, because this is a new use and it's kind of a unique use, I was trying to anticipate things that might be an issue if we don't think about them.

[Dina Caloggero]: Well, I liked the bed thing because I remember my son at college, they tried to jam so many beds in one room. It was ridiculous.

[Doug Carr]: So how did you come up with the 180 and the 120 square feet, Sean?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, simply from a Google search, Doug, as to trying to find out what the size of average bedrooms are at universities in the area. But again, that's something that may be too specific for the zoning ordinance itself. Maybe that's something that gets tackled at the CDB level when they come to see us. Yeah.

[Dina Caloggero]: I would like some more input on that.

[Doug Carr]: I hesitate to design the bedrooms or set standards because I feel like knowing how developers think, they need to be competitive with what's being built down the street, right? So they have to provide probably more amenities, maybe better quality finishes, maybe a little bigger rooms to be competitive because they're not on campus. These guys are, right? So I hesitate to go there because I think the market will drive that, but I'm open to people's other thoughts on that. Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: I just want to guard against the developers who are really trying to make as much money as possible. And with student housing is that charging a higher rate, or is it having more people in the building. I mean, I went to a school where at some point they took lounges and converted them into five bed, five people to a room and they turned the doubles into triples and quads. Like it happened when they had overcrowding.

[Page Buldini]: Right.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah. We had the same thing in undergrad. We had rooms that had originally been one person or three people. And there's part of me that's like, we definitely don't want private developers doing that. On the other hand, we all survived.

[Dina Caloggero]: No, we don't want an orphanage.

[Alicia Hunt]: At UVM, they turned a lot of doubles into triples and put the kids in bunk beds with desks under the beds. Yeah, it was bad.

[Dina Caloggero]: It's ugly. Yeah, we don't want that. That's what I was thinking about.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking about, Alicia, is I don't want kids crammed into this building.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I agree. I agree with Sean. I like Sean's. I like Sean's.

[Sean Beagan]: But I think I'm probably overstepping by when I get into square footage. I don't think I don't think I should be. We should be putting that into this. I'm not going to have to present a plan to us anyway.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, no more than two beds per bedroom is reasonable though.

[Sean Beagan]: Yes, I think that's reasonable.

[Alicia Hunt]: Because that prevents them from money gouging later. Yep.

[Ari Fishman]: To be clear, no more than, not no less than. Right. Okay, just checking.

[John Anderson]: Well, it would seem to me that students have a little more power in this arrangement since they're customers. If you're at the university and the university says, well, you thought you were going to be in a double this semester, but we got some more people, it's a triple. So enjoy yourself.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, but it wouldn't hurt putting it in. It wouldn't hurt just putting no more than two beds in the bedroom. I agree with that. That's easy for me.

[John Anderson]: Well, I was just speaking more generally.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, yeah. I like some of the guardrails. I think it's a good idea.

[Doug Carr]: What do people think about the on-site professional management?

[Alicia Hunt]: I think that sounds fine. Is it? Well, right. This is actually saying it has to be a group of people and not just an individual.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, not Joe.

[John Anderson]: Well, it would be useful to know in these situations how we're Students, particularly younger undergraduates, can get a bit rowdy. How is that handled? I mean, Tufts has a way of handling that. They have ways of reporting bad behavior and disciplinary procedures and so forth and so on. How does that happen in these privately run places?

[Sean Beagan]: I think as we scroll down, John, we're gonna get to that. Okay. And they're gonna have to provide a plan for that.

[Danielle Evans]: OK, I do want to mention that TPD will respond to private houses that. How is Tufts undergrads really? Yeah, yeah, they say like if there's like noise complaints and stuff like called TPD versus SPD, you know.

[Alicia Hunt]: There are police officers, right? Like they? Yeah, they are police officers. They're straight up. police officers.

[Dina Caloggero]: Can I bring one point about item C there? If you read that, it sounds like all those people need to be there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, a professional management team shall be on site 24 hours a day.

[Dina Caloggero]: And then you define the change.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, I see. Be careful. Be careful. Right. That's pretty much it. And we don't need maintenance there 24 hours a day.

[Danielle Evans]: You need a manned desk, like a hotel. You should go in, and there should be a check-in who's making sure the right people are coming in and out, because it's security for the residents, too.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, security should be 24-7. You could have security and maintenance staff 24-7. Security is different than a front desk.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah. Again, I think as we get down further into operation and management plan, the applicant's going to have to tell us what they want and what they think is present to us what they're going to do and what they think is reasonable.

[Unidentified]: OK.

[Sean Beagan]: There's a lot.

[Dina Caloggero]: I would still, I would still the way it reads. It sounds like 24 seven for everybody.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah. I would just that.

[Sean Beagan]: So let's see.

[Dina Caloggero]: It reads weird.

[Sean Beagan]: So we could just take the sentence I added and make it the first sentence. That works. And then just say, professional management shall be on site.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's a good idea. That's simple.

[Sean Beagan]: Or the property shall be professionally managed 24 hours a day.

[Dina Caloggero]: Even easier. Sounds good.

[SPEAKER_04]: Works for me.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I can't edit this, though, right?

[Alicia Hunt]: We have to, we have to let Alicia cut that. But I'm going to edit the, I'm editing the other document and then I'll show it to you. Okay. Cause I can, that's a PDF, so I can't actually edit that. So we're going to say, um, the per, uh, the building shall be professionally managed. And that was that 24 by 24, 24, seven.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah. Including holidays. I think that's right. appropriate. Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: And it's 24 hours a day your pace and match for me. Oh, seven days, including holidays, period. A professional Lee, a professional management team shall include. Okay.

[Dina Caloggero]: We have to swap sentences.

[Alicia Hunt]: And it's missing a comma. Right. I will add.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's good. Nice and simple.

[Alicia Hunt]: I like it. The property manager and assistant manager, resident assistance, comma. Management staff and security and numbers sufficient to staff the property. OK. All right, so you can't see those changes because it's Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to zoom that. I didn't even realize I had done that.

[Dina Caloggero]: Zooming is fine with me. I probably would have missed it if it wasn't zoomed. There you go. Yay. Is that better? Yeah. Thank you, Alicia. Certificate of occupancy.

[Alicia Hunt]: Why January 1st and not say August, like actually let's think about it for a minute because it'll probably, their leases will want to run like September 1st to August 30th. We will want to ensure that the occupants are enrolled full time. Maybe there's a little leniency in the summertime, right? Like nobody's enrolled in the summer. You don't have to be enrolled in the summer.

[Sean Beagan]: I think enrolled is just, I'm a full-time student at Tufts, and everyone understands that they don't go to school 12 months a year.

[Dina Caloggero]: Right. We'd be from another university, too. Keep that in mind.

[Sean Beagan]: Well, that's what I wanted to talk about, too, is my changes limit this to a university, being a student at a university located in Medford or Somerville.

[Dina Caloggero]: I think you will attract others.

[Sean Beagan]: I know it will definitely attract others, but I don't know if that's the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish with this use. In other words, you want this building filled with kids who go to MIT or Harvard, or even partially filled with kids that go to MIT or Harvard, because then we're just helping Cambridge.

[Ari Fishman]: I mean, on the other hand, if they have like a partner and are dating someone from MIT or someone who's off the green line or have a just bestie who's at Northeastern or something or BU, I kind of think that's actually a nice option to have in the city, like in the greater Boston area. I'm like not, like really firmly opposed, but I'm not.

[Alicia Hunt]: The original proposal had no limits on where the school was, correct?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah. Emily's proposal did not have any language that talked about location of the university.

[Danielle Evans]: What about a percentage or something?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah. I think it's worth discussion.

[Danielle Evans]: Because otherwise you could have this all online stuff. I don't know. just enrolled in an online university. They don't even actually need to live there. I don't know. Yeah, I think a percentage is a lot of loopholes.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, a percentage is bad, right? Like I said, we had somebody in my neighbors that it's just too expensive to live in Boston and also in Cambridge. I mean, in Boston. So she parked her car here and she went on to Northeastern. It's right on E. It's the E line. You know, so simple, even Suffolk, Emerson, all of those. It's an attractive location with the green line.

[Doug Carr]: I agree, Dina. Go ahead, Paige. You raised your hand.

[Page Buldini]: Thank you. I totally agree. I like the percentage idea, because I think part of the goal is also remember that we're trying to pull some of the students out of the neighborhoods. So I do support a percentage. But also, sorry, real quick, I do love showcasing Medford, so I think it's great to incentivize some other people coming in.

[Doug Carr]: Okay, I think the only comment I have, and I think I like a lot of this text, but it says occupied solely by students enrolled full-time. Does that conflict with the previous 10% or whatever percentage?

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I mean, I think my My position on this was that it was gonna be occupied by students and not occupied by non-students, because I thought it was purpose-built student housing. So I had, in my edits, I took that entire last paragraph F out of this document because, I didn't think that certainly 39% was way, way too high. I think everyone agreed on that, but I thought this was for students. I didn't think it was for people who are not students. So like, as Danielle was saying, there's a lot of potential loopholes in this. The more we allow it to get away from full-time students, because if it says enrolled full-time or part-time, well, what if you take one class at Tufts, but otherwise you're working? So you're not really, is that really the target audience for this use? Shouldn't that person just be renting a regular apartment? Go ahead, Dina, you raised your hand.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I think what if you have a student that becomes unenrolled? Do they need to move out or do they stay to the extent of the lease? And the other thing is, how about university staff? What if they want to live there too? What do you think?

[Sean Beagan]: Employees of the university? Interesting. What does everyone else think of that?

[Alicia Hunt]: You might, your instinct might be no, but universities do hire a lot of young adults and researchers, like a researcher might be a postdoc, might be not a student. Right. They're not, they're not like making big bucks either. And they might want to live with other students.

[Dina Caloggero]: Right. And Medford, Medford is, there are a lot of people that live in Medford that work with Touch University.

[Doug Carr]: Paige.

[Page Buldini]: I love that idea. And the building behind me actually is for faculty and staff housing. So I say, yeah, here we go.

[Sean Beagan]: There seems to be a consensus for some allowance for non-students. So what does everyone think of a percentage below 39%?

[Alicia Hunt]: In that other part, we had said 10% for non-students. And so in this, we said like 80% of the residents must be enrolled in a Medford or Somerville school, right? Like sort of saying like you could have up to 10% of the residents could be enrolled at a school not in Medford. I like getting some allowance for something. And because I also like there's a point at which you're quibbling. I'm thinking of things like you have to prove enrollment. And I am actually married to somebody who had financial trouble in college. And he was never enrolled until the very last possible legal minute because he couldn't get his bill paid. And he had to pay that to be technically enrolled, but he was going to classes. He always lived off campus because he couldn't qualify for student housing. And I don't want that to be the rule. I want that to be the 10%, the 15%. I think that makes a lot of sense. The boyfriend who goes to Northeastern.

[Ari Fishman]: And I do want to make allowances for the students who have to unenroll halfway through, especially for things like mental health, for family emergencies, and may don't want to move out or can't move out. Like, let's just, all cooler jets. I agree with that.

[Sean Beagan]: No, I don't think that, I would never suggest that once someone is in there, that they wouldn't be able to stay through their lease. you know, if they had to leave school or had to unenroll.

[Ari Fishman]: So that's what the universities do in the dorms.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I mean, right. I wouldn't be that diabolical.

[Alicia Hunt]: Unenrolled, you got to move out in a couple of days.

[Doug Carr]: I'm hearing 10% and I'm hearing 15%. Does it matter?

[Alicia Hunt]: 10% felt like non-students. This is also the question located in Medford or Somerville. Do we just keep it at 10%? It's consistent. And their 10% could be students in other schools. could be students who are not currently enrolled. It could be, you know, and do we say anything about or staff employed at the university? I like that idea.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, there's toughs does not pay. Well, there are a lot of people. Yes, that was my first job out of grad school. And even with a master's degree, it was terrible.

[Doug Carr]: I think if you include staff, I would bump it to 15 because that's going to.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: I'm on board with that.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, that sounds fair. Agreed.

[Doug Carr]: Alicia, are you grabbing pieces of this?

[Alicia Hunt]: The building department. So what she had, what there was here was the application shall include the percentage of student residents to non-student residents. What if we said, OK, so the, all right, sworn statement by an authorized manager. That's one way of doing it. should that the residential portions of the property are occupied occupied i'm pasting that in um sorry i would say i would say after medford or somerville just put constituting 80 or 85 whatever the percentage is constituting 85 of the residents right okay you can get rid of slowly students enrolled full-time and in somerville Do you think that works, constituting 80%? I would be confused. Let me paste this in and see how it reads. The application shall include the percentage of student residents to non-student residents. The application for a certificate of occupancy shall include a sworn statement by the owner or authorized manager that the residential portions of the property are occupied solely by students enrolled full-time in an accredited college or university located, oh, I see, the application shall include the percentage of students to non-student residence, which ratio, which shall, wait, shall include the percent which shall not be more than, what did you say, 80%? I missed, 90%? 80%.

[Dina Caloggero]: 80. 80%. Right, because we included staff. Because I do think I agree with Ari's point. You really don't make a lot of money.

[Alicia Hunt]: Residents to non-student residents. What if we said of student residents to non-student residents, including where non-student residents include students of universities outside of Medford and Somerville? Yeah, I mean, you could refer it back to. Because then you get into the, well, they're students, but they're not students here. So our definition of students means they're students in Medford and Somerville. Right. I'm going to want to, uh, should we understand? Yeah. Yeah. I like what else Sean wrote there. I think it's good. And the names and how they don't seem to be able to feed for this. It should be. I'm okay with these fees too. Did they come from somewhere?

[Dina Caloggero]: I have no idea.

[Sean Beagan]: It came from my brain.

[Alicia Hunt]: I don't, I don't know what the, There is a cost for occupancy fees. I don't know what it is. I think it's based on a square footage of the building, but this feels like a reasonable one. Actually, let me just share this document for a second so that we can make sure that I got that.

[Dina Caloggero]: Did we refer back to one section?

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, boy. Can people read that? Yeah. Yep. Yep.

[Unidentified]: Okay. This is pretty good.

[Sean Beagan]: So, you know, so we got it. So in the 1st set of the application for a certificate of occupancy shall include a sworn statement by the owner or authorized manager that the residential portions of the property. Are occupied solely by students enrolled full time. Applications of the percentage of student resident non student. So you need to adjust that 1st sentence. It can't be solely. Yeah, get rid of solely.

[Ari Fishman]: By will be occupied solely by eligible occupants where eligible occupants include.

[Alicia Hunt]: What if you said the resident of the property are occupied. By at least. No, that doesn't work. I think it works when you remove the word solely, as long as you read the whole, all the words. Alright, are we good with this or we've?

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Sean Beagan]: I think you just have to do. I think you can get a sworn statement. I think you can do the application for a certificate of occupancy shall include a sworn statement that and then go. That the percentage of student residents go all the way down to the percent where the lead everything. Um? One statement by the owner manager that and then delete everything from after the word that. Down to. The yeah, no, go back to include just after the word include. Delete everything down to the word include into the next line. Yeah. Alright, get rid of that.

[Alicia Hunt]: OK.

[Sean Beagan]: Authorized manager that get rid of the word include. and then see how it reads that the percentage of student residents. And then change 80% change 80% to 20%.

[Alicia Hunt]: HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.:

[Sean Beagan]: : Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : Catch good catch. HAB-Juliette Boone, COB.: : yeah it's not being sneaky I was being.

[Sean Beagan]: HAB-Michael Leccesereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Alicia Hunt]: yeah it doesn't say it as clearly as like English that like you have to live in Medford or Somerville, but you get there when you read it. it's a little backwards. But you know what I mean schools in Somerville and.

[Doug Carr]: Are you saying, Alicia, that the university isn't guaranteed to be in Medford and Somerville by this language?

[Alicia Hunt]: No, I think that the number of student residents to non-student residents, where non-student residents include students of universities outside of Medford and Somerville. Somebody might argue, but students are students regardless of where they're, you know.

[Sean Beagan]: But we're saying- So you could put percent, yeah. manager that the percentage of student residents enrolled in a university within Medford or Somerville.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.

[Doug Carr]: Are you trying to put 80 and 20 to make it more positive?

[Sean Beagan]: Enrolled in a university within Medford or Somerville. We can fine tune that a little bit more, but I don't think we need to do it now.

[Alicia Hunt]: Hold on, I'm going to cut this so I can paste it back in.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: Except that you have to... Can I suggest that maybe the word smithing occur at another point since we are hitting late.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I think we can, I think we know where we want to go with it. We, I can, I can find, I can know someone else can fine tune it or Emily might want to have a suggestion as well. I think we know where we're trying to go with it.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, we have, we've agreed on the meeting we want to arrive at, which I think is the purpose of this meeting. Thank you.

[John Anderson]: What did we decide to do about location?

[Alicia Hunt]: We're still in BA three only. We never changed that.

[John Anderson]: No, no, no. But location, you know, the more than one mile.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I didn't know if that was even necessary. It says more than one mile from the university.

[Alicia Hunt]: Within one mile.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, within one mile. but I don't know if that's. It was up at the very A location.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, yeah. All of this zone is within one mile. I think by including that in there, you kind of future-proof against somebody saying, but I want to do this in West Medford.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, that's fine. If you think it's a belt and suspenders, I think it's fine.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, let's go with Alicia's recommendation there.

[John Anderson]: But a straight line from the purpose-built student housing to the closest spot at Tufts, a straight line, that means it's a big circle. It might cover a lot more ground than you want.

[Dina Caloggero]: But it's still NBAA-3.

[John Anderson]: OK.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's still NBAA-3. OK.

[Ari Fishman]: Necessary, but not sufficient. Right.

[Doug Carr]: All right, let's move on. We're at two thirds.

[Alicia Hunt]: We're doing OK. So should I post some more of Sean's edits in here?

[Doug Carr]: I think we need to move on.

[Alicia Hunt]: Some of these are a little, they're more like wordsmithing than. Yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, there isn't. The only thing that was substantive in my other edits was, like I said, I had deleted, one of my concerns here was what happens, we're issuing the certificate of occupancy to a certain, owner, what happens when that owner changes hands?

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, change of ownership, yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: Do they need to come back and renew, does the new owner, because we're requiring, I think they have to get a new certificate of occupancy.

[Dina Caloggero]: We require that at my job with the Department of Public Health. If someone changes a laboratory, we require them to renew after change of ownership.

[Sean Beagan]: Because we're requiring management plans and things of that nature.

[Dina Caloggero]: Right. We run quarries and we run like an extensive. If you do a change of ownership, we do a big back up.

[Sean Beagan]: The certificate of occupancy is almost acting like a license.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's correct. I agree with you, Sean.

[Sean Beagan]: In this sense, in this instance, without creating a whole nother set of regulations for a separate license for them.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's right. Right. Good point.

[Alicia Hunt]: It's similar to when like anybody who serves liquor has this change of manager, the actual manager has to come in front of the license commission.

[Sean Beagan]: Exactly.

[Alicia Hunt]: Same thing.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, and that, to my point, that's a license, right?

[Dina Caloggero]: It's like a license, yeah. Like when we, at the Department of Public Health, the laboratory licenses, we do that when you make a change of ownership.

[Sean Beagan]: So I put in some verbiage that kind of address that. It might be too in the weeds with our conversation right now at this time, but I had put in some additional language along those lines.

[Dina Caloggero]: Excellent point. I love the noise control. We should have did that for the baseball and the lacrosse field.

[Alicia Hunt]: So I'm pasting in here so you can see Sean's suggestions here. I think I need to fix that for a minute. That's good. And then there's a, they have this conversion to non student housing. Yep. We agree to that. 50% is, is that.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah. That's like, that would be, that's basically saying that they're.

[Alicia Hunt]: if they do it without our, what if, so I think the way Sean had it was actually they can't just convert, they could come to us and here, let me post this in here.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, go back, go back, yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, this would have them, have to go through a process with us to convert to non-student housing, as opposed to just, oh, geez, look, you don't have students anymore.

[Dina Caloggero]: We drop down. Yeah, exactly. Another safety net.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, because we had talked about to Alicia, you had mentioned, I think, in an email, do we want to put in here that this use is not subject to inclusionary housing? right because if they wanted to go to an apartment use it would be i would think it definitely is right excellent point excellent point so they do have i think there's some advantage there's some you know advantages that are built in to this type this specific use because it is specific but we don't want them to be able to just say, as Alicia said, now with this other use, because the students, this was a bad business plan and no students showed up. Well, then you got to come back and talk to us. Right. Exactly.

[Doug Carr]: That's common sense. I agree with that.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah. Absolutely.

[Dina Caloggero]: Very good. This looks better. Thank you for putting this all together.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thanks, Sean, for putting this on.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, Sean.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Sean.

[Dina Caloggero]: Kudos, Sean. Kudos. Well done.

[Alicia Hunt]: So this was the, OK, this is actually where.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, the 50%. OK.

[Alicia Hunt]: This is where we had it saying explicitly that you could. But I think this is. Redundant, right. We want the conversion. So what we basically set up above is that you could go up to 20% of non-students, non-Medford and Somerville students. And then there's a process to change.

[Sean Beagan]: I think that makes sense.

[Alicia Hunt]: OK. All right. Next, we're moving on. Oh, you know, we actually need to go back up to the original definition.

[Dina Caloggero]: Make sure it's all consistent.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, I cannot do that tonight. It's too late at night. But this is actually where we were in the document. And I have to move to my larger screen. And then we're back in the zoning. Where there's other stuff in the rest of the zoning.

[Sean Beagan]: I don't think there were two. I don't think she had too many more comments. Okay. I guess this is the building height discussion at this point.

[Alicia Hunt]: So can we actually table building height for a minute because we have all these images from Emily and I'm going to maybe let's think about whether we want those tonight or we want Emily to just walk us through and do this debate tomorrow. Is there anything else in the document? that was and see what else what's not because the building height could take four hours.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: So let's see if there's anything else in the document, we should be looking at. So this was the next non-height question.

[Doug Carr]: I think it was the 100% coverage I was questioning. Too much. Desirable.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, too much. And I think that was for, I think the way it's written, Doug, is for all zones. Yeah. You get 100% in all zones. I didn't like it either.

[Alicia Hunt]: I don't like it. I actually think 80% is pushing it.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I think that 100% is too much. That was even a public comment, I think, when I was reading it.

[Doug Carr]: So when we just delete that, Dina, didn't you say 85% on one of your zones?

[Dina Caloggero]: I went, yes. Well, I went with lot coverage at 85% on DA3. But I could even go back to 90, because the building is going to be big. You're just going to work around that 90% or 85%.

[Sean Beagan]: So just keeping in mind that for BA3, the lots in BA3, because they're so large, it's probably not going to be too much of an issue for the developers. That's my point. Once you get down to the BA1 size lots. Right. they're going to have a tough time meeting 80 or even 90%. I agree. Because those buildings take up the entire lot right now.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: So there's going to be, those, you can, we can leave it at how it is.

[Dina Caloggero]: I think 90 is fine. Yeah.

[Sean Beagan]: But I think they're still going to need some relief unless we keep in that contingency about the green score. If they can meet their green score, they can go more.

[Danielle Evans]: Can I just pipe up real quick? Sorry, I can't raise my hand. I'm incredibly rude. I'm driving. I'll be home in 10 minutes. I think meeting minimum green score to get 100% is crazy. Why isn't it like some ideal score? Why is meeting? I thought you had to meet it. Why are they getting more for

[Alicia Hunt]: from meeting a standard. And I think we're suggesting we take that out completely.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, we would take it out, Danielle. So drive safely.

[Danielle Evans]: No, I've been listening the whole time. I don't want to miss anything. No, I love your comments. I have a lot to say.

[Dina Caloggero]: I haven't been able to unmute until now. I am recommending that that be removed. And I love your comments.

[Sean Beagan]: Someone should check if that same language is in the Medford Square.

[Dina Caloggero]: I think it might be. Well, it's an iterative process.

[Sean Beagan]: Like I said, the fact of the matter is if they want to develop some of those smaller lots, they're going to have to seek some sort of relief, I would imagine. I think that in the Tufts memo, the attorneys I think they said the same thing, essentially, that without getting relief, they wouldn't be able to build it in 80% lot coverage. If you think about the hardware store, that takes up at least 95% of that lot, I assume.

[Dina Caloggero]: It's right to the front of the lot. It's not even a 12-foot sidewalk. I don't know what they think they were going to build there when they bought it.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think somebody asked them to just, I don't know.

[Dina Caloggero]: What were you thinking?

[Alicia Hunt]: What were you thinking?

[Sean Beagan]: It's a low cost investment for them for the potential of doing something in the future with it.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Page Buldini]: The family fell on a bit of hard times as well during that.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, the family did? I didn't know that, Paige.

[Doug Carr]: Is there any comment here on the green text?

[Dina Caloggero]: No, I think these are fine. Yeah. Danielle, are you cool with all this?

[Alicia Hunt]: She's still driving. I don't know if you can see. So they're talking about the not having the same requirements, step back requirements, abutting the MBTR right of way. That was one of them, right? Oh, the green one was setback requirements for properties adjacent to residents with four or fewer units in residential districts. See this section for requirements for front setbacks and this one for setbacks for infill lots. So so those were footnotes to the table.

[Unidentified]: Hmm.

[Alicia Hunt]: OK, here it is, a goal student stores recommends not applying the landscape buffer. and height step back requirements to properties with rear yards abutting the MBT right of way.

[Danielle Evans]: I think that's OK as long as the shadowing is taken into account.

[Dina Caloggero]: True. Right. And I'm thinking about hillside hardwood there. Because it's higher. It's higher. It's on the hill.

[Alicia Hunt]: So why don't I just put here, the CDD is okay with.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yep, we're okay with this, as long as the shadowing.

[Danielle Evans]: I'm thinking more of properties on the other side of Boston Ave.

[Dina Caloggero]: Like where Dana's pastry is and all that, right?

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, those could have impacts.

[Dina Caloggero]: I agree. This is what we discussed on High Street and Method Square, same thing.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, so this would only be for properties that back up to the MBTA, you know, the tracks essentially.

[Page Buldini]: Right, so not Hillside Hardware.

[Sean Beagan]: No.

[Page Buldini]: Right.

[Dina Caloggero]: Exactly.

[Alicia Hunt]: Goulston and Storrs letter, this is about setback requirements may be reduced to allow for an eight foot sidewalk. They recommend exempting current buildings with zero lot lines from the requirement, even if redeveloped. Community comments have to date been in favor of requiring the 12 foot sidewalk. The area in debate, just so you know, has about a six foot sidewalk.

[Dina Caloggero]: It's so small. That is so small.

[Page Buldini]: I have trouble with this. I do get it. I totally get it. And Doug, we've talked about it. I've measured my sidewalk. I love that Tasty has outdoor seating. My aunt and I and my daughter were out doing my planter in the front. And this is just personal because I was literally there and she got like, we almost got run over by a bike. And it's just, I just have, but I also get it because that lot is so freaking tight. And like, there's no way you can actually put anything of substance, which needs to go above where my salon is. It's just such a tight road. And it's, if we are, we want to make it accessible, I'm just, it's a conundrum. I guess it's like, what is, what is the vision? Right. And I don't know. I really struggle with that one.

[Unidentified]: Six feet is too small. Too small.

[Page Buldini]: I didn't mean to kill the mood here.

[Alicia Hunt]: All right. So do we want to keep this? You want to leave? You want to allow eight? What if we just said 10 and split the difference?

[Dina Caloggero]: OK. That's fair. Thank you. That's fair. Six is so small. It is.

[Sean Beagan]: Alicia, just change the word eight to 10.

[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, thank you. Sorry, after I've been in the office for 12 hours, attention to detail goes downhill.

[Unidentified]: She's too tired.

[Alicia Hunt]: That's why we have a lawyer on the board. We love him. We love him.

[Sean Beagan]: The lawyers getting blurry.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, can we maybe make a goal of being intentional about not getting too caught up into wordsmithing and focusing on content with the goal of getting us to bed before we fall asleep? Amen.

[Dina Caloggero]: Amen. Sorry. Amen.

[Sean Beagan]: ARI is on point tonight, I have to say.

[Page Buldini]: Yeah, she is on point. They are doing a great job. Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: So this is a couple of stuff from Goldston and Storrs. The first is this, she changed height waiver to height exemption, because this is actually about exemptions. It doesn't apply to chimneys, ventilators, towers, spirals. That's kind of standard.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's right. Yeah, that's fine.

[Alicia Hunt]: And so she changed the word. That's a waiver for energy efficiency. There was some additional. They suggested being less prescriptive and instead of including like these naming solar voltaic, et cetera, say any building system. That's fine. Conserves, reduces or offsets the building energy use.

[Ari Fishman]: That's fine. I agree. Are there any known loopholes to that that you're aware of?

[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, really, it's giving me like, what kind of equipment are they putting on the roof? And the reality is from a sustainability, from a resiliency perspective, we prefer the equipment on the roof than in the basements, because if there's flooding. Great, sounds good to me then, just wanted to make sure.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, this next one was just the elimination of item E for the historical, you just passed it, to make that consistent with the Historical District Commission. And we could ask Emily about that, but it's, if you go down a little bit more, it's, oh, sorry. I thought you said E. E, but there's several E's. Sorry, you need to go back up.

[Alicia Hunt]: Are we in historic conversion use standards?

[Doug Carr]: No, right above it. Eligibility of. Effective eligibility determination that highlight that as to be eliminated to be consistent. With existing, um. Statute for the historical district commission that that contradicts it. That's something we. We, we, we accidentally made that mistake in method square. We need to go back and fix this, but I want Emily to read that and confirm that based on her understanding of that.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, let me see if I can put a comment in too.

[Doug Carr]: Everything else in the historic is fine.

[Alicia Hunt]: Item E deleted because it conflicts with ordinance on historic and mission. authority. Does that work? Is that clear? Yes, I think that's fine. I didn't need to delete it because it conflicts with ordinance on historic commission authority.

[Doug Carr]: Correct.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm trusting you on that. I didn't do any research. Then comes the purpose-built student housing, which we have been through ad nauseum.

[Dina Caloggero]: No, but I think we did a really good job. I do.

[Alicia Hunt]: And I think Sean is wonderful. And then we're getting to development incentives. Danielle, are you almost back to a computer? I'm turning on to my street right now. Well, we'll start with the development incentives. Thank God Danielle is not an Uber driver. We don't care that badly. it feasible for Hillside Hardware Development to achieve any of these incentives? Not everybody can get incentives, not a problem. Let's just skip affordability until Danielle gets back to her computer because I really want her to speak. Yeah, let her do that. So I'm just going to put a pin in that for a minute here. There are other things. Was there anything else in this that we wanted to edit?

[Page Buldini]: Can I ask just one clarifying question? I know it has not gone to the Senate yet, and I don't think it really matters for incentivizing, but the dark sky bill that got passed through the state, I think will be exciting because it will help with lighting at night specifically. But I'm interested, does that change any of the language here? I mean, I know obviously it's not passed through

[Alicia Hunt]: I thought that our zoning and elsewhere our other parts of our zoning required downlighting no light trespass you must keep your light to your property. I remember working on that language with honestly the original city council, five years ago. Wow.

[Page Buldini]: I think that's really exciting, especially up on the hillside, if the hope is to build up that we can then also.

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, yeah, that's excellent. That's excellent.

[Page Buldini]: So no comments. Thank you.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah, I usually walk around Tufts because it's so well lit.

[Alicia Hunt]: While we're waiting for Danielle for a minute, when you look out the window of my office, the parking lot below me looks like there's no lighting in it. It looks, at night, it looks completely dark. So much so that I, early on in working up here, called the lighting inspector and said, the lights are broken in the parking lot. I reported it. I managed the installation of those lights in there. I said to him, they're broke and they're not on. I'm up in my office. He's like, I'll look into it. A couple of weeks later, I say, Steve, the lights don't work. He said, Alicia, they work just fine. He lives like in Lawrence Estates. He's like, I'm here in the parking lot. The lights are on. I said, Steve, come up to my office and see what I see. From above, you cannot tell there are lights on. That's dark sky compatible. That's awesome.

[Ari Fishman]: That's great. Wow.

[Alicia Hunt]: But it was really funny because I reported the broken car.

[Page Buldini]: I'm like, come here. Well, it's also interesting on the hillside when I first moved up there and they were, oh my goodness, I'm blanking on the name of the what was it was. But when Park Medford came, every square got like a revitalization fund. And we talked about lighting up on the hillside. And all the lights are on the opposite side on Boston Ave. where I am, and it's because of lighting, specifically made. So it was just a fascinating thing to learn that.

[Dina Caloggero]: Back to daylight minimum here.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yes.

[Dina Caloggero]: The public comment was, I remember somebody saying, make sure you don't take this on February 21st.

[Alicia Hunt]: Well, that's the idea is, February 21st is when you would have the most shading possible.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: And so that on those days, if you have at least, or no, we shall receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight.

[Dina Caloggero]: This is what was in, this was in Method Square too. So this has already been done. And yeah. And it's backwards. I mean, this is like the opposite of the shadings of the shadow studies. Right. Plus you also need to meet the 45 degree angle for the abutting. But I think we also need to take into account properties across the street. But we'll see that as part of the shadow studies.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah. I think we're OK. I think we're OK.

[Alicia Hunt]: Parking before we're done.

[Dina Caloggero]: We did bicycles.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'm going to resolve that.

[Dina Caloggero]: We did that.

[Alicia Hunt]: Practice reduction in parking space requirements.

[Dina Caloggero]: We did this. We deal with the team.

[Alicia Hunt]: Honestly, I don't think we need to put in the goals and sources saying that parking for an education use may be provided on campus. I think they just need to ask for that in their waiver of their Dover stuff.

[Dina Caloggero]: Right. Just do it to do it on a site plan.

[Alicia Hunt]: Their point is that they want to have smaller projects that are as of right.

[Dina Caloggero]: Emily says, but it depends what the project is. It depends what it is. It depends who's going to be in the facility that they're building.

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, are you back on? Oh, yeah, I've been here for a little while. For the shared parking thing, I think that we need to make that change. So that doesn't require a special permit or a board review. And that kind of fixes that problem. You can park in another lot. Wait, which, I'm not following you. The Goulston stores comment about providing their parking, providing parking on campus instead. Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: We can already do that. where it says, do you mean like that other section?

[Sean Beagan]: I think in the current zoning, there's a limitation on how far away that other parking can be. I think it's like 500 feet or something from your lot. Right. Tufts wants that number to go away. So they want to say, just let us handle this. We'll find parking somewhere on our campus. It's not going to be, I think we just ran it. I think we just kind of dealt with that exact same situation when they were before us for the aquatic center. They did that way and they got away and they got, we gave them a waiver or we expand. I can't remember if we gave them, we made some change for them, allowance for them.

[Dina Caloggero]: So we allowed them to adjust the size of the parking spaces, the lining, but we also warned them that they can't keep using the doweling. You can't say, Oh, we're going to put in the doweling. We're going to put it in the doweling garage. So I like it by site plan.

[Alicia Hunt]: Danielle were you saying somehow though there's a technicality you're getting at that currently the the section six point whatever parking. requires a special permit, and you're saying it should just be approval of the CD board. Is that what you're saying?

[Danielle Evans]: Oh, well, I see this section supersedes the shared parking. I'm just saying if you can have shared uses, it should just be shared parking or parking on a separate lot. If it meets the requirements, then I don't think you need to be trotted out to the board if it's not subject to site plan review. I guess it would be for smaller projects. I'm thinking of like, what's going to happen with the George Street project.

[Alicia Hunt]: What language here would we be changing? Well, that was the incentives, right? Oh, you want us to go back to incentives? We just kept going and skipped the incentives waiting for you to be available.

[Danielle Evans]: So I guess I'm confused about the Goulston stores comment then.

[Sean Beagan]: Goulston stores wanted where you can do shared parking with another lot. They wanted to get rid of any type of 500 feet. I think it says right now it has to be within 500 feet. They wanna get rid of 500 feet. And they just wanna say, if it's an educational institution, I guess, or an educational use, just let us handle this and we'll find parking somewhere on our campus. It might be a quarter mile away, but it's gonna be on Tufts property and that's, we're gonna just handle it within ourselves. I mean, I don't find that argument too compelling. I thought with the way we dealt with it on the aquatic center to be perfectly fine and some sort of, you know, guardrails up so that we have some idea of what they're doing with parking.

[Dina Caloggero]: I completely agree with John. Because it'd be like we're putting him in the dolly garage.

[Sean Beagan]: I think we have to keep in mind that when we read the Tufts memo, they're doing what I would do if I had a client. They're trying to get fully by right uses, and that's what they're arguing for. They want to just be able to do it without having to come before us. So I think some of the stuff in their memo has to be taken with a grain of salt. Some of those- Oh yeah, yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: We're certainly not giving them everything they want.

[Sean Beagan]: Right, right.

[Alicia Hunt]: I've always said to them, I'm open to hearing it though. Some of these things might be good and some might apply to everything else, but we're not doing everything they want.

[Sean Beagan]: Right, right. No, I think they have, there's still as much as we can,

[Alicia Hunt]: HAB-Juliette Boone, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, let's do it after incentives and heights. Right?

[Doug Carr]: Right.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, let's talk about the, well, there's a few other dimensional stuff too. I had some.

[Ari Fishman]: Concerns about okay, but this is maybe set a frame kind of framing that we would love to get our substantive comments in the next half hour and hopefully be done by 10.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think it's reasonable that the board could get through incentive stuff tonight or now by 10 if we wanted to put aside all the dimensional stuff to have Emily and her team present the shadow studies, the height studies that she did. They're all ready. I have them. Yeah, because that's all massing related. So we could save that. We could ask her to start with, I think she should start with that tomorrow night when everybody is fresh. Yeah.

[Doug Carr]: So, I agree with the only question I have is, are we going to take what we have done tonight and email it to Emily? So she has it in the morning. Are we expecting, are we presenting this to the city council? This is our collective recommendation for all these things.

[Alicia Hunt]: PB, David Ensign — He's our, like, they haven't heard from you what what I'd like to do what I think would, in my opinion, what would be most productive is that tonight before I leave, I email this to Emily and Paola and to Zach and Matt, or I could email it to the whole city council saying. Please see both Emily's edits in the edits for me, are the, the result of the CD board consensus you'll see there are a few things that are not. And they're marked for discussion.

[Danielle Evans]: The CD boards official recommendations. No, there's still much more. I just don't want them to think, okay, you've closed your stuff.

[Dina Caloggero]: No, we would still want public comment on.

[Danielle Evans]: Well, there's still more to be hashed out. I mean, you guys are voting on this tomorrow.

[Alicia Hunt]: Are you good? No, no. Besides the heights and dimensions. What else.

[Danielle Evans]: Well, the, so. we had a, um, potential developer, um, submit a proposal and for Medford square. And that's when I realized that the development incentives for, um, both for adding more units and for deeper affordability is completely broken. Um, and talk to now, yes, has to be completely overhauled. And it's been basically, I remember, um, And I was looking at the 3A zoning because I know it came up there, but then it was decided when we were doing Mystic Ave that the language in the Wellington overlay was too confusing. And so it was condensed to a table. And they told us that they checked the numbers and that the math worked, but it doesn't because I think that they forgot about the rounding. or not, I don't know, but basically there was a 21-unit development proposal. And they said, okay, we get the extra story because we're providing 13% affordable instead of 10. And when you crunch the numbers, so 10% is what you're required to do, 2.1, rounds up to three. 13% is 2.76, rounds up to three. They're providing 13%, but we didn't actually get an extra unit. And that flows through many different unit sizes. So we can't be giving an extra floor if you're not getting another unit. And then it's just, it's the proportions are off. And then there's an example where, say you need to provide two affordable units, And if you make one of them, instead of 80% AMI, 65% AMI, you get two extra floors. I don't think that that is, that makes any sense. So yeah, so it's completely broken. It has to be overhauled.

[Page Buldini]: Do we talk about that tomorrow? Or do we know what the overhaul could look like?

[Sean Beagan]: Can we put some sort of- Or should we just remove it? So that there would be no incentive bonuses, but these same incentive bonuses are in Medford Square already, right?

[Danielle Evans]: And Salem Street and Mystic Ave, so they all have to be fixed. We had some ideas of ways to fix it. I think the second additional floor, the math just never works for the second additional floor, so I think that that just needs to be taken out. So it's always just one additional floor.

[Sean Beagan]: So what what's the goal? What was the goal of these incentives? I guess was the goal to get at least one more additional affordable unit per floor.

[Danielle Evans]: It was it was to get like a percentage. So if you looked at the 3A. I keep saying 3A for shorthand, but those that don't know that's the MBTA zoning. It's the Wellington station multifamily overlay district where. we conceived of putting in incentives because the state won't allow us to require things. We couldn't require deeper affordability or even ground floor retail or a variety of things. So we tried to create this incentive framework and then that we've carried that idea through the different other zoning districts.

[Doug Carr]: Danielle, is it reasonable to be able to fix this in 24 hours? No, I don't think so.

[Danielle Evans]: But I wanted to bring this up as a big kind of thing that needs to be fixed. And I had sent this to Emily and Paula probably a month ago and didn't get a response about how to fix it.

[Sean Beagan]: If we take this table out, then no one's getting incentive floors for more affordable housing. Right, they can get incentive floors for the other uses, the other reasons that still exist below. But if we take it out totally, then no one is getting it, building a second floor with these incentives. What if we- For the second floors? Or the incentive floors, right. So is there some way to put in some language, some verbiage that talks about, if the calculations don't result in at least one additional unit, there has to be one additional, you know, there has to be at least one additional affordable unit per floor, notwithstanding, you know, a different calculation that says otherwise. We could do it, we can make the language cleaner, but is that something that we could put in for now until you figure out?

[Danielle Evans]: I think we need to go back to the table that we have in the Wellington station multifamily overlay, which talked about, um, it was, we're doing a percentage of a percentage. So I have it out now. It says if he designated 20% of the total required affordable units at or below 65% AMI, then you got the additional story.

[Alicia Hunt]: Um, so it wasn't is all the math was done on buildings that were like 300 unit building.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Alicia Hunt]: It was never done on a 20 unit building.

[Danielle Evans]: But there's different points where Izzy and Natalie actually built out a whole table and it showed basically all the situations where, um, this problem arose. Is Natalie still on the call? I don't want to put her on the spot, but that was 1 of the things I recognized and I was like, can you guys see if this is a problem for. Every other conceivable size.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I'll quickly add that it's definitely not like a holistic and like full fix, but one thing that helped is, for example, that 21 unit, and there was that issue when it was 13%, you weren't getting that additional. But if you broke up the percentages, so for example, 10% of affordable units is required. So if you do 10%, and then you separately do 3%, you actually get another unit. So there can be some like, different approaches to how the math, but again, like Danielle was saying, there's some deeper issues than just like a quick math change.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, there's the math problem, and then there is what we're getting enough for the bonus that they're getting.

[Doug Carr]: Which obviously the answer is no from what you're seeing on the smaller projects. Paige, you have your hand raised.

[Page Buldini]: Super quick. I think this is a really important conversation because the comprehensive plan and what I think all of us want is affordability. So I think if we can have this conversation tomorrow for sure, but also Danielle and Natalie, thank you too for doing the research. I think the city councilors need to know all the thought and I mean, Emily Ennis too, because I think that's a huge goal for this, right?

[Dina Caloggero]: Yes. I think this is a problem. I think you need to stop the bleeding at this point and go back and do remediation to the zoning that's already been adopted. You have to stop the train a little bit on the tracks there. Fix it.

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, and that happens with zoning. You find things, unintentional things.

[Dina Caloggero]: You can change. You can change again. But it's important that you can't just keep going. You have to kind of fix things along the way, you know?

[Sean Beagan]: If Danielle comes up with a plan that the planning department likes better, we can always propose it as an amendment to the zoning to the city council.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, we're going to have changes to Salem and if it's square, probably by the fall, I imagine that there'll be a list being developed and this is a big one, but there are already other things on that list.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah, I'm just more concerned about the immediate future. You know, once this passes and the next day someone comes and applies, makes their application using numbers that, as Danielle said, don't work. You know, that that developer that had the 21 could could have can he can force that issue. I mean, he's if the math says what it says, he can force that issue.

[Danielle Evans]: Yeah, that's what I was concerned about if they want to be like. Yeah, I'm doing 13% I'm entitled to this extra floor and I don't have to do anything else for you.

[Doug Carr]: That's, that's the reality. We can go from the next three buildings.

[Dina Caloggero]: You have to, you have to stop a little bit.

[Sean Beagan]: Suggesting should we put in some language, if we're going to. If this Boston Ave zoning is going to be passed before we figure out this fix in total, do we put in some language that at least guarantees us something so that we don't have the 21 unit issue?

[Danielle Evans]: I think that's very reasonable. Pass the whole thing, honestly. We don't need to pass it yet.

[Sean Beagan]: No.

[Danielle Evans]: OK.

[Sean Beagan]: No, I mean.

[Dina Caloggero]: We can hold it. Yeah, we can hold it.

[Sean Beagan]: Yeah.

[Page Buldini]: Okay, so Danielle, do you think tomorrow you could?

[Alicia Hunt]: That's a big issue. The problem is that it's been several weeks, and we don't have a solution. So no, I don't think Danielle can have an answer tomorrow.

[Danielle Evans]: I mean, I had ideas, and I had emailed them to Emily and Paolo, but I never got feedback on what they thought of my language suggestions.

[Dina Caloggero]: You have to fix it. It has to be fixed. You can't just go, OK, we'll do another quarter.

[Danielle Evans]: So I was just really surprised when this version 5 came out and it wasn't fixed. No. So I was just shocked actually.

[Dina Caloggero]: And Emma Ennis should come back with the resolution before their contract expires by the end of the year.

[Sean Beagan]: Danielle, what was the issue with the Wellington? You had a different table for Wellington. It sounded like it made a lot of sense when you were the way you were talking about it based on percentages. Why didn't people like that? It was incredibly confusing. The way it was presented?

[Alicia Hunt]: It was like, no, I thought that in reading it like that 10% of the 20% of the housing needs to be affordable and 10% of the 20% If there's an additional, right, when you started talking like that, people like, well, now how do I do that math? That was sort of the problem. Do we know if any other communities did incentives in their 3A? That's the one thing that everybody's done a lot of recently.

[Dina Caloggero]: Well, that's where Emiliana should have came in and given some solutions in response to Danielle's email, right? That's what they're supposed to do.

[Sean Beagan]: Well, maybe when you send her this tonight, we'll note in the email that this is going to be an issue. So if she has something to discuss, bring it.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yeah. Cause it's going to come up big problem.

[Sean Beagan]: All right. So it doesn't seem like we can fix this other than we, but we know it's definitely something that needs to be fixed.

[Dina Caloggero]: Yep. 21 units to get an extra floor, no affordable unit.

[Sean Beagan]: You'll have my application for a 21-unit building.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm going to go find somebody quick.

[Doug Carr]: That's all we'll get for the next year. It's not a bad-looking building, actually, from what I see.

[Dina Caloggero]: Daniel, thank you for bringing that up.

[Alicia Hunt]: I mean, we did have, this is what Transom used for their building in Wellington. They used the more affordable units, right? But because their number of units was like so big units, it truly generated additional affordable units.

[Danielle Evans]: This isn't, they didn't use this table for Wellington though. They use the table in the Wellington multifamily overlay district, which is different. Is it? Yes. Oh, boy. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. This is not. I don't have I'm getting really tired. My head is hurting.

[Doug Carr]: I think we're coming to the end. We're not going to talk about heights and gassing until tomorrow.

[Danielle Evans]: But I just I just wanted to raise that this is a bigger issue that needs to be solved. And I definitely want there to be incentives for deeper affordability. I think deeper affordability is much more important then more 80% AMI units because 80% AMI units are very expensive and most folks actually need additional subsidy to even occupy them. Most people end up needing to have a Section A voucher to further subsidize these units. 80% is really high. If we could at least be incentivizing the deeper affordability,

[Dina Caloggero]: And if you could state it that way too for the public as well, because I think there's lots of confusion on what, you know, 80% AMI is versus, you know, truly subsidized housing. I think there's lots of confusion out there. That's a very eloquent way of saying it. Go ahead, please.

[Ari Fishman]: I haven't had time to verify this since I was searching live, but it does look like Brockton, Littleton, and Grafton have also included incentive zoning in their MBTA communities implementation, in case that's helpful for anyone.

[Danielle Evans]: I want to go to them. What? I wonder who voted for them. We were the first round. So, yeah.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, but I also am fading very significantly and I'm aware that we're collectively not able to do our best work if we continue for much longer. Yeah, and I think this is worth doing our good work.

[Alicia Hunt]: So I'll just give you this is what's in the multi in the. This is the. Wellington area, here we go, table of uses. And then here. Development incentives, this is it. And this is it, does it designate 20 percent of the total required for me at or below 65% AMI, or 30% of the required units that are below 65. The additional 20%, so it was 20% of 20%, and that's where when you have one unit, right, if you have a 12-unit building, what's 20% of one? Right. A closet.

[Sean Beagan]: It would have to be, it'd round up, right? So it would have to be one. Right.

[Alicia Hunt]: But then the 30% was also one more. So that's two additional stories, but right. If you're talking like a nine, like a 15 unit building. It doesn't work at the low numbers. Maybe, maybe this just needs to be for buildings of 80 units or more, a hundred units or more.

[Dina Caloggero]: That's the way that might work.

[Ari Fishman]: And have a different system for smaller ones, because we need some sort of system still.

[Danielle Evans]: I think the deeper affordability can work, but it can't be. I think it has to be like, half or all of them or something like 80% of the affordable units. At deeper affordability, I think then that could work.

[Unidentified]: Can we talk about this more tomorrow?

[Dina Caloggero]: Oh, it is almost 10 o'clock.

[Page Buldini]: Maybe a motion that we continue this?

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, because I want to be able to think coherently.

[Dina Caloggero]: I'm with Ari.

[Danielle Evans]: There's meeting minutes to approve, guys. We're actually in violation of open meeting law. They just need to be accepted.

[Page Buldini]: I make a motion to accept the minute the meeting minutes.

[John Anderson]: I second.

[Doug Carr]: I'll call the roll. John Anderson. Yes. Sean Began. Yes. Page Buldini.

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: Dina Colagaro.

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: Arne Goffman Fishman.

[Ari Fishman]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: And myself, Doug Carr. Yes. Motion passes six to zero.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Are we all set for the evening or is there anything else, Danielle?

[Alicia Hunt]: I just want to be clear. I am going to send the edited version to Emily and Zach and Matt so they can see the edits that the board has made to date.

[Danielle Evans]: And you're going to make a note that we didn't really even touch the dimensionals. The dimensionals or the incentives.

[Doug Carr]: This is a consensus, not a vote. We're not terminating the public comment, which we didn't have anyway tonight, but we're just saying this is where we are now.

[Unidentified]: Right, exactly.

[Doug Carr]: John Anderson, you have your hand raised.

[John Anderson]: Yes, I just wondered what your thoughts are, Chairman Doug, about what's going to happen at the meeting tomorrow night. I won't be there, so I'm not worried. Certain people at the meeting are going to be for passing something right away. Yeah.

[Doug Carr]: I don't know the answer, John. I can't speak to that. I feel like we have consensus here, but on the other side of the other city council, I have no idea if there's any consensus. And if they're wildly at variance to what we're proposing, I can't imagine we're going to close anything tomorrow night. We haven't finished what we're proposing. No, we haven't, which we are running out of time. And you just found a massive loophole that is really, we really should feel before we finish.

[Sean Beagan]: I think procedurally, we have to vote on a version to submit to the city council. Yes. So until that happens, there's nothing for the city council to vote on. That's my understanding anyway.

[Doug Carr]: I agree, but I also, we obviously didn't have any public comment tonight, but we have a moving target and the public has not actually seen anything close to the final version of this because we're still waiting at 10 o'clock on Tuesday.

[Danielle Evans]: Then it's going to be the fall and it's I don't understand why that is not something that people think isn't okay. It has to go into the false. If you're not allowed to work on it over the summer.

[Doug Carr]: Well, we'll see what we get tomorrow night. I can't imagine.

[Danielle Evans]: It's absurd to think that there's something that could be referred tomorrow. And it can't be the next week because everybody's on vacation. The optics would be awful.

[Doug Carr]: No, no, I agree.

[Dina Caloggero]: Can I ask a question? So can we take the version that we have, the current version, and continue to work on it? I mean, we have you. We have Alicia and we can come up with a proposal.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think we can extend we can extend in this associates into the fall. We what? What? Yeah, what was that? We can extend in this associates into the fall.

[Dina Caloggero]: Okay.

[Alicia Hunt]: I thought that we had been told we couldn't to contract amendment. The mayor asked Fiona and I to look into it. There's additional cost.

[Ari Fishman]: Yeah, that's fine. We've been asking for this for like months and we're given an answer every time. I could have went to my rotary meeting.

[Doug Carr]: Alicia, would we work, per the mayor's request, would we pause on any zoning, even internal analysis in July and August, or could we talk about it internally and not act on it?

[Alicia Hunt]: What do you, I think that she'd asked that we not have public meetings. Danielle and I work that's different from the board holding meetings on it.

[Doug Carr]: And because it's a summer, we don't, we don't.

[Danielle Evans]: And I mean, and I share the same, um, concern as, as the mayors, if people having to keep track of this over the summer and attending, is this too much.

[Dina Caloggero]: Okay.

[Danielle Evans]: All right, so we'll continue to work on it because we work year round awesome. And we appreciate you. Thank you. Have something fully baked and ready and something we feel good about that isn't going to have a bunch of errors. We find later. Just to make a deadline deadline. Yeah, it doesn't even matter.

[Doug Carr]: All right, I'll entertain a motion to.

[Dina Caloggero]: It's like when you write, like when you fix something like programmatically in code and you just throw something over the fence and the code works terrible. It's like, oh, we'll redo it. You wanted it by Tuesday.

[Doug Carr]: I move we adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

[Unidentified]: Second. Removed.

[Doug Carr]: All right, let's see, John Anderson. Yes. Sean Began. Yes. Paige Bodini.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Doug Carr]: Dina Calagaro.

[Unidentified]: Please.

[Doug Carr]: Ari Kaufman-Fishman.

[Unidentified]: Uh-huh.

[Doug Carr]: I figured you were a sure yes, Ari. Doug Carr, yes. Thank you all. I hope you take plenty of coffee tomorrow night, because it could be even longer. But thank you all. Bye, John. We'll see you, John. Bye. Bye. We made progress today. Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Recording still.