ORDER-2023-81 : Previously under Order 2023-59 until a vote by Council divided order into eleven different orders reflecting each Zoning Amendment: Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, BA-2 Zoning District Line Change at 521-529 Franklin St.

Transcript (~12 min @ 39:13)

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

▶ 39:13 Leila Migliorelli: Seeing no objection, the rules are now suspended. The first item on our agenda tonight is order 2023 dash 81 previously under order 2023 dash 59 until a vote by the council divided the order into 11 different orders reflecting each zoning amendment amending revised zoning ordinance chapter 2 35 BA dash two zoning, district line change at 5 21 dash 5 29 Franklin Street. Tonight we have, um, Denise Gaffey, director of Planning, and Anne DeSouza Ward here, chair of the, um, zoning board of appeals to speak on this order. And Lori Masa also from the planning department.

▶ 40:01 Speaker 5: I should clear. Good evening. Good evening. I should clarify, um, the chair of the zoning subcommittee of the planning Board. Ah, zoning sub appeals. Thank you. They Would probably not be happy about that.

▶ 40:13 Denise Gaffey: Um, so we are very pleased to be here this evening and, um, want to, um, thank the council for being willing to, um, send this order back to committee so we could talk about it further. Um, I know that was the will of the council when we last were, um, before you, um, to separate this particular, um, um, zoning amendment out from the others so we could have a sort of a dedicated, um, opportunity to speak about it, um, in more depth. So, um, that is our purpose in being here this evening, and we're happy to do that. Um, we are still, we're still advocating for this as a, um, as a logical, um, amendment to support. Um, again, as a reminder, we're this is, uh, this would affect a parcel, um, in, um, 5 21, 5 29 Franklin Street, which straddles two different zoning districts. And so when we see a parcel like that, we do, um, try to, to remedy that by, um, moving in the district line to one district or the other in this case. Um, the, um, a portion of the, where the building is located is actually in the BA two district, which is one of our, um, transit, um, transit oriented mis mixed use districts, right adjacent to the communal. And then the back portion of the parcel is in the u a district, which is a, um, strictly a residential district, which primarily the primary uses in that, in that district are residential. So we think, um, that the best, um, designation for this parcel is the BA two mixed use district. The building that's there now is, um, is a hundred percent commercial. Um, the buildings that surround it, um, in on, in that portion of Franklin Street are either commercial or mixed use. Um, we think it makes sense to, to continue with that designation for this particular parcel. Um, should, should there be some re redevelopment, um, proposal in the future, it would, um, open up more opportunities if it were entirely in the mixed use district as opposed to being in the two different districts, which would complicate any kind of permitting. So, um, so that, uh, that's essentially, um, the proposal. Um, we did, um, we took the benefit of the additional time to notify all of the abutters that we had previously notified. There were about three dozen abutters in that, um, vicinity. And we notified them about, um, tonight's tonight's hearing so that they could, um, weigh in and, um, one way or the other. Um, and we're still kind of operating under the original public hearing notification as well. So, um, uh, yeah, so we are, it's pretty much, um, a summary. Uh, dunno if anybody wants to add anything or we can just open it up to questions and discussion.

▶ 43:09 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you counselor Carm Shady. Um, thank you everyone for being here. Um, I'm grateful that we have the opportunity to discuss this order separately from the others and appreciate the additional efforts to communicate with Ward one residents and Abutters in particular about this zoning change. Um, just one of the pieces of why this was an issue and that really needed to be looked at and addressed was my understanding the owner of the property was actually potentially being taxed differently on one on the two separate properties, even because it's one property, but the, the, it's in two different zones and it contributed to a lot of sort of complicated, um, policies and structures for, for that is,

▶ 43:57 Speaker 5: that's my understanding, correct? That

▶ 43:59 Denise Gaffey: Is correct. Yes. We, um, we had, we had heard that from the property owner that they were, that the entire parcel is being, was being taxed at the higher rate, the commercial rate. So they thought there was an element of fairness there too, in terms of, you know, correcting the, or changing the, the zoning district line.

▶ 44:18 Manjula Karamcheti: Great. And then just again, in my understanding, in terms of how many, there's been a few opportunities for public hearings, there's been a few messages sent out to the neighbors abutters. Um, could you just review that one more time for the record?

▶ 44:36 Denise Gaffey: Certainly. Yeah. So we, um, originally scheduled the, um, there was a public hearing with the council, I think in early March, and then a public hearing with, uh, I might get the dates wrong. There was a public hearing with the council first, and then there was a public hearing, a separate public hearing with the planning board. So each one of those, um, had separate notification processes. We've sent notices to, um, all of the, um, the abutting communities, which is a statutory requirement. And then we also sent notices to, um, about us within 300 feet, which was just, uh, something for this particular amendment, something we thought was important to do, not a statutory requirement, but we did want to make sure that people, that property owners in that vicinity were aware. So, um, we did that for both public hearings, so the initial public hearing with the council, and then the one with the planning board. Um, there were also several other opportunities. The planning board, um, met at a regular meeting to issue the report and discussed about, discuss the public hearing, sort of debriefed the public hearings at that opportunity. And then we came back, um, uh, several weeks ago and, and, um, presented the report to the, um, appropriations committee. So I considered that another opportunity for the public to, to weigh in. And then separately, as I mentioned earlier, we did send postcards around with these particulars about tonight's meeting to the abutters.

▶ 45:58 Speaker 1: Right, thank you. Um, I, we've discussed,

▶ 46:01 Manjula Karamcheti: um, that, you know, just with any of these kind of issues in the wards, how important it is to make sure we're doing outreach and communication, um, to make sure the citizens are aware of the different things happening. So appreciate that. Um, and hope that if anything happens with this property or others, that we continue to provide the, uh, residents with opportunities to voice their questions and concerns, um, before decisions are made. So thank you. Absolutely. I don't have any more questions. Councilor

▶ 46:35 Speaker 5: Stewart?

▶ 46:36 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, just one question about, um, any other properties that may also have this situ, are there other properties within Melrose that, uh, exhibit this unusual circumstance?

▶ 46:48 Denise Gaffey: I won't say that there are not, I'm not a hundred percent sure this one was actually brought to our attention, um, while we were meeting on zoning issues, um, last year. So it did kind of jump out at us that way. But I do think, um, it is, you know, uh, it is something we'll, we'll probably be taking a look at while we're doing the RECODIFICATION process, the bigger process that we're planning to do.

▶ 47:14 Robb Stewart: Yeah. And I, I think it would be fair to say that it does set precedent four situations that this does occur. And it's for good reason too. Right? Because if someone wants to refinance or have to sell the property, it's gonna be more difficult. If it's not,

▶ 47:26 Denise Gaffey: It's a logical thing to do, for sure.

▶ 47:28 Robb Stewart: Okay. That's Great to know. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair,

▶ 47:30 Speaker 5: Counselor Gepe,

▶ 47:32 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Um, I appreciate the additional outreach to the, to the, uh, residents on this order. Um, if I could just make one suggestion, if we're gonna be changing zone property from one zone to another, if we can have it on a separate order and not mixed in with, uh, housekeeping wording. Um, I think that it's, it's a little cleaner and it looks, you know, it doesn't look like we're trying to, this wasn't the case, but trying to push, push it in something and, and pass it along. So, um, I would just make that recommendation going forward. Uh, cuz I'll continue to vote no if it continues to, and I'm gonna support this, but I would vote no if it came again in front of us mixed in with some zoning wording. Understood changes. Thank you.

▶ 48:20 Speaker 5: Councilor Williams.

▶ 48:22 Ryan Williams: Um, has this ever happened before? Have you ever asked the council to rezone a parcel, one parcel,

▶ 48:27 Denise Gaffey: One parcel, um,

▶ 48:29 Ryan Williams: A small collection? Have you ever had the zoning shift where like you just pushed the boundary a little

▶ 48:33 Denise Gaffey: Bit? We have pushed boundaries. Mm-hmm. Yeah. In other, in other instances, yes, that has happened, but not, not, I can't recall doing one parcel, no.

▶ 48:40 Speaker 8: A single parcel? Yeah. No.

▶ 48:43 Ryan Williams: Okay. All right. Is it, is it fairly common or uncommon to make small adjustments like this in zoning to have outside of the like big I, you know, rail corridor overlay changes to make little tweaks like this?

▶ 48:55 Denise Gaffey: Yeah, it was done. The most recent time was when we were trying to, um, address, um, make some changes to our rail station or, or, you know, station area zoning. And so we did at, as part of that process, we did adjust, um, some properties in or, or out, I think it was moving them in to the BA two district. Um, yeah, I'm actually surprised we missed this one at that time, to be honest. Actually, it makes you, you know, it's a good point because we did fold in, um, there's a couple of commercial properties on Franklin Street where the dominoes is. Mm-hmm. This two, which we, that line actually the, um, commercial line was inside of those two properties, and so we didn't move it out. We just didn't, we just missed this one on the other side. Yeah. So, and if I could just add,

▶ 49:40 Speaker 5: it's, it's, it's a very unusual, um, kind of intersection between the district lines and the parcel lines because the par uh, if you look at the zoning map and you have the parcel line, uh, parcel lines on, it looks like the district covers just the parcel, um, because of the, kind of the shape of that parcel. Mm-hmm. I'm sorry, this is probably confusing, but it, you actually don't realize, just looking at having those two layers on that, that's one parcel that's split zoned. Mm-hmm. So, good point. Yeah. Yeah. So that's why, you know, it it, that's why it was,

▶ 50:19 Speaker 5: that's why I'm sure exist in the past because you wouldn't notice it unless somebody, you know, pointed it out. Yeah. All right. Thank you

▶ 50:30 Speaker 5: Counselor Carm Chay.

▶ 50:31 Speaker 1: Um, at this time I'd make a recommendation for passage. Second

▶ 50:35 Leila Migliorelli: Recommendation for passage made by Counselor Carm Chay, seconded by counselor Son.

▶ 50:43 Speaker 5: What Is the rule of the committee?

▶ 50:46 Speaker 5: Wait, wait. We just,

▶ 50:51 Speaker 4: you wanna go one at a time? Anyone on Discussion? Seeing none. Okay.

▶ 50:57 Speaker 5: All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

▶ 51:02 Leila Migliorelli: This order will be, um, brought to the next full council meeting. Yes.

▶ 51:06 Speaker 2: You wanna do a both vote? I think an ordinance change, I Think we might have to do a voice vote on that.

▶ 51:09 Speaker 4: Okay. No, let's do that.

▶ 51:14 Speaker 2: Sorry. Vice Chair Jamine?

▶ 51:15 Speaker 8: Yes.

▶ 51:17 Speaker 2: Counselor Ella? Yes. Counselor Les? Yes. Counselor Gepe? Yes. Counselor Stewart? Yes. Counselor Carcetti? Yes. Counselor Resk? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. President Greg? Yes. And Chair Elli? Yes. That's 10? Yes. Unanimous.

▶ 51:34 Leila Migliorelli: Great. So this passes and, uh, will be heard at our next full council meeting.