Public Comment

Transcript (~22 min @ 2:50)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 2:47 Jeff McNaught: I'll also note that we have council of it's also now present. So, all all members are present for the folks at home is the portion of the meeting where we turn to public comment where any member. The public may come and speak to any items on our agenda this evening and only to items on the agenda. Um, and at this time, if there's no objection, I'll move for unanimous consent to open public comment. Seeing no objection hearing no objection. We are open for public comment. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone in the public who wishes to speak? If you are on with us and you'd like to speak, please raise your digital hand. And the clerk will bring you into the room, so to speak.

▶ 3:39 Speaker 1: We have Madam Inferno. Can you hear us?

▶ 3:46 Gail Infurna: Yes, yeah, can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you. Good evening. And, uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening in regards to order 2021-96, the incentive zoning proposed amendment. As a member of the affordable housing task force many years ago, and now a member of the Melrose affordable housing corporation, I am in support of this proposed amendment. I was also actively involved as a committee member for our city's master plans in both 2004 and 2017. these proposed changes in zoning will confirm the city's commitment to affordable housing as stated in the master plan. This incentive zoning amendment will allow an increase in density in the business zones B-A-1 and B-A-2. As noted in the language of this amendment with increased housing production comes an opportunity for an increase in affordable units. This is an important amendment as BA 1 and BA 2 are in the smart growth districts. Making any affordable units desirable for our community. I applaud and thank the planning board in the office of planning and development for the work on this zoning change. It is the right thing to do as it will benefit our community in many ways as stated in the order. I also want to thank the city council members for their concerns regarding affordable housing. This proposed amendment will help address some of your concerns. I believe that this proposed amendment is for the greater good of our community and I ask that you support order 2 0, 2, 1 dash 96. Thank you.

▶ 5:32 Speaker 2: Thank you, uh, former man, Mr. Bennett.

▶ 5:43 Speaker 3: Mr. right. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Yes. Can you hear me? Excellent. Uh, good evening counselors and chairman. I've already written to you twice on the subject of order 2021 dash 96. so I will keep my remarks brief now focusing not on the content of this zoning change, but on the public process or lack thereof that has brought us to this point. This order results from the deliberations of the planning board in consultation with the office of planning and community development. It is a very complex document, which I have read many times over and each reading provokes new questions about its implications and motivations. I am not alone in my confusion, the historical commission, the energy commission, and the zero waste commission have all publicly sought inclusion in this process and have been rebuffed. If 1 commission had complained, you might have been able to dismiss it as a case of sour grapes. But when at least 3 city commissions acting independently, and without coordination, all have claimed exclusion from the public process, then there was something wrong with the process itself. Moreover, the proposed boundary changes of this order directly challenged the authority of the Historic District Commission, yet another City Commission that was at no point consulted in this process. Councillors, I would contend that no matter your opinion of the substantive content of this order, that the process that has brought us to this point was not conducted with the spirit of democratic openness and inclusion. This is not what transparent governance looks like. I know that some may respond that anyone on these boards could have attended the planning board meetings and offered comments on this order over the past few months. But frankly. It is altogether too much of a burden to ask members of boards and commissions to attend to the business of every other board and commission. The staff of the, who are paid to do this work full time should have planned for inclusion and consultation from the beginning and sought out the input of directly affected commissions. I will close with this. Over the next few months, the OPCD will present to this council the results of their housing production plan study and ask for you to vote first to approve the plan and then in turn to vote to implement each of its provisions. That plan will result from the workings of an ad hoc committee that is not subject to the open meetings law and whose deliberations have been opaque up to this point. In other words, the process will be even less democratic and less open than the one we are seeing tonight. please take this opportunity to correct course and send this order back to the planning board where it can be reassessed through a truly inclusive and public process that can be modeled as we move forward together to adopt the housing production plan and make other major decisions about the future of our beloved city thank you thank you mr bennett do we have any

▶ 8:37 Jeff McNaught: other digital hands raised madam clerk and i do not say any additional at this time let's see

▶ 8:51 Jeff McNaught: i'm looking at the attendees in the room most look as though they're probably here for other

▶ 9:06 Speaker 4: we have one mr hamilton can you hear us yes can you hear me yes yes okay great um i don't know can you can you see me on video or is that not important uh we just we just need to be able to

▶ 9:21 Ward Hamilton: hear you mr hamilton that's great because i'm in the driveway uh i got home i'm i'm grilling someone someone wasn't as concerned about this as i was so uh um let me uh if you would be kind enough to allow me to uh make a statement which is uh it's it's it's it's a document that i sent to the appropriations committee about an hour hour and a half ago and it reads as follows chairman mcnaught the melrose historical commission was established by the then board of aldermen under massachusetts general law chapter 40 for the protection of the historical architectural in architect archaeological assets of the city of melrose the melrose historical commission serves as an advisory body on matters affecting those assets to officers departments boards commissions committees and other agencies of the city the purpose of order 2021-96 amending melrose revised zoning ordinance to create incentive zoning provisions and related zoning map and parking regulation amendments is to encourage development As the enclosed images illustrate, this zone overlaps a portion of the local historic district presently under the watch of the Historic District Commission. This order seeks to incentivize development within an MGL 40C local historic district. Because the affected parcels are already developed, that means there are buildings there, redevelopment will necessitate demolition nine contributing buildings that help divide define the streetscape of our downtown historic district will be threatened checking the agendas of the historic district commission for the past nine months this topic does not appear to have ever been discussed the historical commission which is charged with protecting the historical architectural and archaeological resources of the city has not been consulted the historical commission's duty does not end at the borders of the local historic district have the historical architectural and archaeological resources of the city been taken into consideration by those presenting order 2021-96 if so how if not why not how should the historical commission fulfill its mission and protect the historical architectural and archaeological assets of the city without a demolition review ordinance has the historic district commission been consulted

▶ 12:22 Ward Hamilton: about the introduction of incentivized zoning within the local historic district if so how if not why not why haven't the historical commission in the historic district commission been involved in the process are there any other committees or commissions that should be included in the process it is unfortunate that these concerns have been relocated to public comment As the rules prevent a dialogue from occurring during public comment, it is my earnest hope that you will ask those presenting Order 20-21-96 these questions. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Ward Hamilton, Chairman, Melrose Historical Commission.

▶ 13:16 Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Hamilton.

▶ 13:19 Jeff McNaught: I believe we have, we got an email from Mr. O'Loughlin. Jim O'Loughlin would like to speak.

▶ 13:31 Speaker 5: Mr. O'Loughlin, can you hear us? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Thank you. Hey, I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee tonight. I have a few specific comments on the proposed revisions to our zoning ordinances, but first I'd like to briefly discuss public participation. In the context of the related public hearing last week. Which was sparsely attended at best and in the context of the enhanced liquor sales advisory group. That was assembled to help develop public policy. Operated for about 4 to 6 months as I understand it. And even city counselors didn't know who was on that advisory group. In the year or so leading up to the pandemic. The following 2 zoning related issues came up before the city. There were many, but these 2 that I'd like to speak about 1 was a proposal to lift the ban on overnight parking. The alderman or chamber was standing room only. For that public meeting, people were out in the hallway. And if I recall correctly, this meeting was at 6 PM, so some people had to leave work early to attend, but they did. They attended in mass the other. or the other zoning issue I'd like to briefly discuss was the proposed marijuana zoning regulations. This was a little like the current zoning proposal in that it was initially not well publicized, but at the end of the day, there were several very well attended meetings where the regular citizen had opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions. Importantly, based on that citizen input in part, the final zoning ordinance was very, very different from that initially proposed by the planning board. And I'll say that again. Based in part on that citizen input, the final zoning ordinance was very, very different from that initially proposed by the planning board.

▶ 15:28 Speaker 6: How do we get back to that level

▶ 15:30 Speaker 5: of broad-based civic engagement and participation? I understand and support the reason for the current venue, but I think it's fair to say that it favors some demographics and can be intimidating or impossible for others. Moreover, sometimes one can get the impression that decisions with broad implications are being formed by relatively small groups of people, as opposed to meeting a statutory requirement and checking a box.

▶ 16:02 Jeff McNaught: Mr. Laughlin, I'm just gonna stop you for a second, but what we're supposed to be speaking to is the incentive zoning ordinance. I understand your concerns specifically about public participation, but that is not, and it may not ever be, there may never be a right time to present an argument for that within a committee meeting, but that's not something that's on the agenda tonight.

▶ 16:31 Speaker 5: All right, well, I do have specific comments on the zoning regulation and-

▶ 16:38 Speaker 5: Yeah, could you could you keep it tailored to that? But I'll tell you something. The previous speakers also spoke about this public participation components in the lack thereof.

▶ 16:45 Jeff McNaught: Right now, and that's why I let you go on a little bit, but I think we have to stick to what's on the agenda.

▶ 16:52 Speaker 5: All right, thank you. I will, um, I'll find another way to get this information out. Uh, specific to the proposal. I read this zoning proposal and I thought it was thoughtful and had merit. And I appreciate all the work that went into it and a lot of volunteer work went into this too. I also recognize that there are many that there are many dimensions and many competing priorities when it comes to this topic. But I do have a few comments for consideration. I like some information on Pre pandemic commuter rail usage. The master plan indicated declining usage and anecdotally. Pre pandemic, I've typically only seen a dozen or so people get on rush hour trains at Cedar Park and at Wyoming. I can't speak to the Highlands, but I'm not seeing the commuter rail being a significant car and traffic avoidance mechanism. Is there data available? I agree with the comments from last week that green building technology be considered a prerequisite and not a community benefit. My phrasing when I read the proposal was green building technology and community benefits are not to be provided. I'd like to see tangible benefits that help offset the impacts of these large developments to butters into others. I'd like to see quality of life benefits, like repaired sidewalks, trees and traffic controls that are more imaginative than the posting of ugly traffic signs. I'd also like to see an enhanced requirement for incorporating affordable housing. That would be a meaningful benefit to me. Counselor McMaster last week raised the question, has there been stakeholder outreach? And I think he mentioned, for example, the zero waste committee. I'd like to expand on that. Has there been specific outreach to those who will be impacted? A butter is being exposed to construction, noise and congestion, lots of trees. Just the imposing presence of a neighboring 5 story building. cut through traffic not everyone in this city lives on a quiet side street how much specific outreach has there been to those who will be impacted one of the proposed actions is to shift zoning in a portion of the downtown near grove street from ba1 to ba2 this will allow for the construction of a five-story comp a five-story complex is right next to right across a street from st mary school and mary foley park that area is also is already very congested during pickup time is the distraction of that type of large construction appropriate so close to a school and should we be boxing in what little open space we have with a five-story building another of the proposed actions is to shift zoning in the vicinity of emerson lebanon in maine to be a one to allow for the construction of four-story buildings i get that a one-story commercial storefront is not going to carry the mortgage in today's economy but i'm not sure where you would put all the cars from just a three-story building at the former caruso location alone there are also single-family homes in that area are we going to be seeing more teardowns we need to take a hard look at each of these areas where incentive-based development is proposed and carefully consider the impacts to abutters and to those who will be affected. Let me be clear, my concerns are not about bringing more people to Melrose. I fully support the proposed construction across the street from City Hall with the 25% affordability components. We should have been at 15% minimum years ago. My concerns are around traffic, the loss of trees, the loss of open space, especially single lots in already developed areas that help break things up and provide a diversion in other quality of life impacts that have not been well acknowledged or well mitigated for too long like i said before zoning is an issue with many dimensions and many competing interests this is a thoughtful proposal with merit but i hope the council takes its time with this solicit solicits input from a broad spectrum of constituents and carefully considers that input And I will just 2nd, Mr Bennett's concerns about the, um. Metropolitan area planning councils, housing developments. Plan and the need for public input on that. And I would ask this committee, I sent my comments and to carefully consider all my comments on public participation and have the courage to bring that up as a topic. Thank you.

▶ 21:32 Jeff McNaught: thank you mr olaf and can i just get you to state your uh name your address for the record

▶ 21:37 Speaker 5: sure uh general larkland 39 lincoln street melrose and thank you thank you for taking the time to

▶ 21:41 Jeff McNaught: make your your comments tonight we'll certainly look at those um the comments that you sent us

▶ 21:52 Jeff McNaught: as well and uh madam clerk i don't see any other digital hands raised that's correct At this time, knowing that we've had some correspondence related to Order 2021-96, I'll entertain a motion to attach those emails to the record. So moved.

▶ 22:17 Speaker 7: Second.

▶ 22:18 Speaker 8: Second.

▶ 22:20 Jeff McNaught: Motion to attach all correspondence related to Order 2021-96 made by by Councilor McMaster, seconded by President Cinella. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 22:33 Speaker 1: Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice Chair Eccles? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councilor McMaster? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. President Cinella? Yes. Levin, yes. Motion passes. Council McMaster?

▶ 23:07 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would ask that the letter that I sent to your attention on May 3 in CC, the City Clerk and members of the City Council related to the public

▶ 23:23 Jeff McNaught: caring be attached to the order second uh motion by council mcmaster to have his letter sent to the city council related to order 2021-96 and seconded by council Garipay madam clerk will you please call the role that was to be attached

▶ 23:43 Speaker 1: to the record if i didn't say that thank you chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles yes council of Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor

▶ 23:54 Speaker 1: Gargaritas? Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. President Zanella? Yes. Levin, yes. Councillor McMaster? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, I

▶ 24:14 Shawn M. MacMaster: I would just ask that the city clerk notify the office of planning and community development that public comment began tonight at 7 o'clock and took us through 722 PM so that the 22 minutes of public comment will be considered in the 21 day report. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Madam clerk.

▶ 24:40 Jeff McNaught: Thank you. Council McMaster. Madam clerk no roll call. Just noting that so noted. thank you at this time seeing no more digital hands raised and if there's no objection I will move for unanimous consent to close public comment seeing