Planning Board — 2019-01-14
Minutes
MELROSE BOARD OF ALDERMEN - APPROPIATIONS COMMITTEE MELROSE PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 14, 2019 7:30 & 8:30 PM Aldermanic Chamber, 1st Floor, City Hall, 562 Main Street PRESENT: Board of Aldermen: Manisha G. Bewtra, Robert A. Boisselle, Scott M. Forbes, Jennifer L. Lemmerman, Kate Lipper-Garabedian, Shawn MacMaster, Monica C. Medeiros, Peter D. Mortimer, John N. Tramontozzi, Michael P. Zwirko Planning Board: Anne DeSouza-Ward, Robert Mercado, Carla Morelli, John Sadowski, Greg Sampson, Sharon Petrillo & Jack Welch ABSENT: Board of Aldermen: Francis X. Wright, Jr. Planning Board: Mike Cassavoy and Paul King STAFF PRESENT: OPCD: Denise Gaffey, Director, Emma Schnur, Senior Planner and Lori Massa, Planning Coordinator The public hearing was called to order at 7:30 PM by Alderman Lipper-Garabedian. ORDER 2019-30: Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Article XI, Section 235- 73.1 Affordable Housing Incentive Program Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to open the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Forbes SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. The following people spoke in support of the amendment: James Oosterman of 54 Ellis Farm Lane and the Melrose Affordable Housing Corporation, Corey Allen of 179 E. Foster Street, Dana LeWinter of 21 Briggs Street speaking as a resident but works as a Municipal Engagement Director at Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, Ellen Connolly of 7 Union Street speaking as a resident but is on the Melrose Housing Authority and Affordable Housing Corporation. Their comments included the following - if a comment was mentioned more than once the number of times it was mentioned is in parenthesis: The Melrose Affordable Housing Corporation owns 15 affordable rental units and was happy with the 2004 affordable housing regulations but it is failing to get to the goal of having 10% of the housing stock as affordable. The Corporation would like to see a higher percentage for the number of affordable units (2) and a higher percentage for the increase of the payout from 2 to 3%. The Corporation is supportive of the elimination of the payment in lieu for larger projects, the administrative changes, and the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust. There is a history of racism in Melrose and this policy is one of the few to fight racism. Units should be generated over fees (2). Building a unit is hard work and it is more effective for it to be built as part of a development. There are other benefits to having the affordable unit be part of an otherwise market rate project. A 2 to a 3% increase will not generate much money or be sufficient (2). Applaud efforts to address dire need for affordable housing. Many other communities have a 15% affordability requirement or higher. Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 2 of 10 If the requirement was 15% for the recent projects listed in the Master Plan, Melrose Forward, the number of affordable units would have gone from 26 to 43 units, which would have provided 17 more families with a place to live. The amendment will provide predictability for developers. The City should consider deeper affordability such as providing units at 50-60% of Area Median Income with this amendment or in the future. The City should work on other tools that are included in Melrose Forward (2). There are 2,281 families on the Housing Authority’s waitlist of which 63% are Melrose residents or have veterans’ preference. 31 families are homeless due to natural disasters. 788 are elderly of which 92% are Melrose residents or have veterans’ preference. There was a comment that when considering all of the new units developed, the percentage of those that are affordable is less than 10% because the requirement does not apply to smaller projects and the bonus unit. There was a reference to the numbers in Melrose Forward - 398 units were under development since 2005 and only 26 or 6.5% of the total units built were affordable. Melrose Forward also lists the number of residents that are cost burdened or severely cost burden and we are not serving these citizens adequately. The median rent is high at $2500 per month. It will be difficult to reach the 10% goal even with a 15% requirement. Melrose Forward says we are 250 units short of the 10% goal. The percentage of affordable units required could be higher until we meet the 10% affordability. The following people spoke to voice comments and concerns regarding the amendment. Jeff Ugino of 41 Howie and Jim Keane of 182 Woodcrest Drive of the Melrose Veterans Advisory Board would like to see affordable housing set aside for veterans. Bob Bell of 173 Ashland Street said that the improvements are decent and workable but that he questions whether the payment in lieu requirement would be considered a taking for public purpose for the 5 to 7 unit projects because no incentives would be available. As a practical matter an additional unit cannot fit in projects of this range but there should be equal treatment. The goal should be to create more units and it is not in the best long term interest to limit the bonus unit. There should be a different evaluation for the value of rental versus for-sale units considering income stream versus comparable sales. The department making the determination on value should be specified. He also questioned if the amendment would be applicable to projects that have already applied for a building permit. Mary Sparks of 8 South Cedar Park is the Vice Chair of the Melrose Special Education Advisory Council and is also working on the Override campaign. She wanted the discussion to include how increasing the number of housing units will increase school enrollment and increase the number of students with special needs in social and emotional learning at a time when the City is facing budgetary challenges. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Boisselle SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to suspend the rules. President Lemmerman SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. The Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development, Denise Gaffey, gave a presentation on the zoning amendment that would change the affordable housing regulations in the city. The presentation provided information on the current regulations and the resulting affordable units and Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 3 of 10 payments that have been realized. It also included information on the proposed changes including increasing the percentage of affordable units from 10 to 15%. Alderman Lipper-Garabedian asked if there was anyone else from the public that would like to speak on the proposal. Eileen Kelley of 16 Willow Street voiced concerns about her condominium fees going up. She is planning to retire in two years and may not be able to keep her unit. President Lemmerman MADE a MOTION to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Mortimer SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. President Lemmerman MADE a MOTION to attach the presentation to the Board Order in IQM2. Alderman Mortimer SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. President Lemmerman asked if there would be legal challenges with taking away the bonus unit for smaller projects. Ms. Gaffey felt that the structure of the amendment was fair, other municipalities do not allow incentives for providing affordable units and we have not received any challenges to the requirements. Mr. Sampson said the regulation would not be a taking. There is almost always discretionary relief needed with payment in lieu projects. President Lemmerman also asked about the effective date of the amendment and if condominium fees are included in the cost of affordable units. Ms. Gaffey said that the cost should include fees and utilities. She also said that the Building Commissioner would not apply new regulations to applications that have applied for a building permit prior to the advertisement date of the amendment. Alderman Bewtra asked Ms. Gaffey to explain the City’s recent findings on the link between school enrollment and increasing residential density. Ms. Gaffey said that the school department enrollment data shows that the number of school children that live in multi-family apartment buildings is below 10 percent. Most of the school enrollment pressure comes from the turnover of the existing housing stock. Alderman Bewtra also asked about how the 15 percent was determined and if a higher percentage or other ways of requiring affordability were considered. Ms. Gaffey said that higher percentages were considered. Fifteen percent is a reasonable increase that is in line with regulations of neighboring communities. The current program works well and she wants the regulations to remain straightforward. Alderman Bewtra stated that she hoped that the percentage was higher. She likes the requirement for a payout for a fractional unit. We are at a critical juncture with affordability and we should preserve the income diversity in the City. Creating the Affordable Trust Fund will be effective and even more effective if the City passes the Community Preservation Act. Finally, she showed the amendment to her affordable housing colleges and they said that the amendment was straightforward. Alderman Boisselle asked what the area median income is today and where the payment in lieu funds that have been collected are stored. Ms. Gaffey said that $81,100 is the income for a family of four at 80 percent of Area Median Income. The money is in a Community Development account and the next efforts will be to create a trust for the funds. Alderman Boisselle asked about the goal in terms of the number of affordable units needed to meet the 10% requirement and asked about existing units. Ms. Gaffey said that Melrose Forward says that we Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 4 of 10 would need approximately 250 units to meet the requirement. The recent Washington Street residential developments include just shy of 400 units. There was no payment in lieu in these developments. Oak Grove Village was constructed prior to the affordable housing regulations. The City was able to negotiate some affordable units in the development but they are not included in the 55 units gained through inclusionary zoning. Alderman Boisselle made the point that most of the affordable units were from these larger developments. He also asked about the parking space edit and where do the vehicles go with a reduced requirement. The traffic on Main Street is bad and we do not want to have to build a parking garage. Ms. Gaffey said that the developments need to show that the parking would be adequate. They would need to be in transit rich locations where two spaces per unit are not needed. Alderman Medeiros asked if the family composition of those in the 55 affordable units is similar to the citywide family composition of those in multi-unit buildings for school enrollment considerations. Ms. Gaffey said that it is. Alderman Medeiros also asked about how condominium fees are handled with the affordable units and if the units have less value for the property tax calculation. Ms. Gaffey said that she will clarify the condominium fee question and that the properties do have a reduced value for property taxes. She asked if the units are affordable in perpetuity and they are. Finally, Alderman Medeiros gave comments on the amendment including that we are at a crisis level with affordable housing. This is a fair proposal and is the right type, size, and scope for what we want to see here. The amendment provides less discretion which is considered better for regulations. She shares the concern with parking but stated that we cannot have an ordinance that is internally inconsistent. Finally, Alderman Medeiros asked what the Affordable Housing Trust is. Ms. Gaffey said that it is made up of five people including the Mayor and the entity will need to be approved by the Board of Aldermen. Alderman Tramontozzi asked about the Affordable Housing Trust, the location of the existing money and how it will be used. Ms. Gaffey explained that for many years there were no payments and therefore creation of the Trust was not a priority. The funds are in a Community Development account and not in the operating budget. The money will be used for affordable housing efforts only, which could include purchasing or renovating housing or starting a service such as a first time homebuyers program. Alderman Mortimer was concerned about parking. Residents rent spots in remote locations and it gets old. The majority of people in Melrose do not want overnight street parking. We want affordable housing with a suburban feel. The payment in lieu money should be put into a revolving account. Alderman Zwirko asked if the Subsidized Housing Inventory figures are calculated every year. Ms. Gaffey said that they are and that the current numbers are from October or November. With the larger developments done he asked what sized project will likely be developed. Ms. Gaffey said that there will likely be 16 to 25 unit and smaller projects. Alderman Zwirko said that the Trust should be created and there should be some controls on it. He asked if there is a detriment to increasing the 3 percent payment. Ms. Gaffey said that it could be perverse incentive that would result in a developer building a smaller project. There are also standards that developments need to meet and they need to be financially viable. Finally Alderman Zwirko asked why it is important to meet the 10% affordability requirement. Ms. Gaffey said that it is important to retain income diversity and shield the city from a 40B development. This type of development would likely be on the remaining developable land in the city which is in locations that are difficult to develop. Alderman Forbes MADE a MOTION to recess the meeting. President Lemmerman SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 5 of 10
ORDER-2019-31: Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Article XI to create a new Section 235-73.4 and amend Section 235-5 (Definitions), Section 235-16.1 (Site Plan Review), Section 235-17 (Table of Use and Parking Regulations) and Section 235-61 (Special Permit Granting Authorities) to regulate Marijuana Establishments Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to open the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Boisselle SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. The following people spoke with general comments or questions: Jane Allen of 179 E. Foster Street who is a racial justice public health researcher, Lee Schlenger of 97 Orris Street, Shaleen Title of 33 Bowes Avenue in Malden speaking as a Malden resident but is on the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), Jim Oloughlin of 39 Lincoln Street, and Janice Bissex of 40 Allen Street who is a holistic cannabis practitioner. Their comments included the following – if a comment was mentioned more than once the number of times it was mentioned is in parenthesis: Marijuana establishments should be allowed in all business districts and treated as any other business (2). It should not be limited to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. All races use marijuana proportionally but minorities are disproportionally harmed by enforcement and location. The Cannabis Control Commission included an equity provision and the City should consider including it in some way. Somerville is only accepting applications from priority applicants for two years. This is an economic issue – taxes are supported by residences and we should be recruiting businesses. The marijuana establishments have an additional 3% sales tax (2). All businesses generate traffic. This is a 1.8 billion dollar industry that is starting out small and growing. If the City does not allow for the use to gain this additional revenue, he will change his decision on voting for the override. Route 99 and near Oak Grove with T access are good locations for the use. Businesses bring businesses. This is a mixed use area and marijuana is a legal product. It should be approved in any mixed use area in the city but especially in these locations. Illegal activity should be dealt with by the police. The debate over the legality should have ended with the vote that made it legal. Traffic will die down as more shops open. Other municipalities are allowing for the use which will take away the opportunity for Melrose (2). People are opposed to a lot of uses but they exist and we should get the benefit of them. The Colorado driving under the influence stats were given to make the point that they are not experiencing increased DUI cases. The differentiation between retailers and non-retailers was thoughtful. The CCC is concerned that they have not seen any minority applicants in the 99 licenses that they have issued. The goal was to make this a diverse industry. Zoning may be limiting applicants. If only a few locations are possible, rent will be high and only those with large financial backing can get into the industry. The CCC has issued guidance on the equity provisions and she hopes that Melrose considers the equity program. It is wise to have retail in locations that are easily accessible. Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 6 of 10 The marijuana discussion should be broader around public safety and welfare. The Board of Alderman started the discussion but did not continue the conversation. There is not a quantitative way to test for cannabis intoxication. All of the tax money should be dedicated to public safety. Garden Remedies has not had any negative impacts. The following people spoke to voice concerns regarding the lower Washington Street neighborhood. Rick Greski of 23 Brazil Street, Joe Guarino of 22 Clinton Road, Maryellen Londe of 3303 Stone Place, and Lloyd Graves of 72 Washington Street. Their comments included the following – if a comment was mentioned more than once the number of times it was mentioned is in parenthesis: Medical and recreational marijuana is not desired on lower Washington Street (5). This neighborhood has seen a lot of change and not all are good. It may be good for the City but not for this neighborhood. No one wants it in their neighborhood. It should be located on Main Street instead of Washington Street. People are putting money into their houses to renovate them and their property values will go down (2). Families are moving to the neighborhood and they should not have to be exposed to these establishments. Traffic/congestion is horrendous (6) with cars, pedestrians and bikes. Washington Street is not an industrial area (2). It is 80% residential and 20% commercial with Marty’s, Greenwood and the daycare, and should be zoned residential. There should be a cap at 1. Melrose only passed the ballot question by 3%. Parking is an issue – Marty’s Furniture parking lot is filled with residents’ cars overnight. There shouldn’t be parking on Pleasant Street. A traffic study should be done of the area. Concerned about public safety. Police officers’ jobs will be harder. The daycare should be considered like a K-12 school and have a 500 foot buffer around it (3). Children should not be put at risk of being exposed to marijuana and sexual predators since they are our future. Marty’s Furniture is the only possible location. President Lemmerman MADE a MOTION to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Mortimer SECONDED the MOTION and then MADE a MOTION to reconsider closing the public comment. President Lemmerman SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Allen Brown of 38 Pleasant Street, Maria Hall of 56 Hillcrest Avenue and Brian Cummings of 322 Pleasant Street spoke and their comments are included in the bullets regarding the lower Washington Street area above. Ms. Kristin Foote read written testimony from Little Sprouts Daycare at 40 Washington Street and the Towne Estates at 209 Pleasant Street. The daycare director has concerns about traffic and odor of marijuana. The Towne Estates manager has concerns about parking and impaired driving. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Zwirko SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Alderman Zwirko MADE a MOTION to suspend the rules. Alderman Mortimer SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. The Director of the Office of Planning and Community Development, Denise Gaffey, gave a presentation on the zoning amendment that explained the proposed regulations for marijuana establishments. Alderman Lipper-Garabedian opened the public comment period. The following people spoke regarding the amendment: Michael Fera of 56 Converse Lane, Paula Emelock of 32 Harrison Street, Lee Schlenger of 97 Orris Street and Chris Micalaud of 1 Longfellow Place, who is a potential business owner. Their comments included the following – if a comment was mentioned more than once the number of times it was mentioned is in parenthesis: There are other areas outside of the 500 foot buffers in business districts where retail could go. Washington Street should not be targeted (2). The uses should be allowed everywhere and not have a neighborhood singled out. The business will choose the location that makes the most sense. Main Street is accessible via the bus and has just as much traffic as Washington Street (2). See what others say if the location is moved to another neighborhood. This is a legal substance like alcohol. We had a similar discussion with Beacon Hill Wine going in with the daycare nearby in the church. The hours of operation could be limited to 9am to 9pm to avoid morning traffic. Restricting the hours from 8am to 8pm does not make sense for some businesses since people need to work multiple shifts. President Lemmerman MADE a MOTION to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Alderman Boisselle SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Alderman MacMaster is opposed to the amendment. He asked how the Planning Board determined what districts to propose allowing this use. Ms. Gaffey stated that the commercial districts along with the buffers from schools, transit access and accessibility for a viable business were considered. Alderman MacMaster asked if parking is important in locating a use and the answer was yes. He asked if safety is a concern and the answer was that if they felt that there was a concern then yes. The Alderman asked about outreach to property owners and different departments and commissions such as the Traffic Commission, MBTA, City of Malden. Ms. Gaffey did reach out to the City of Malden but not the others. It is not customary for a zoning change of this type to do a lot of outreach prior to the public hearing. Alderman MacMaster explained the work that he has been doing with Chief Lyle around traffic and parking issues on Washington Street. He asked why the City is not considering higher standards for buffers around other uses besides schools. Ms. Gaffey said that it is our understanding that we cannot be more restrictive than the 500 foot buffer around K-12 schools. Alderman MacMaster said that there are limited properties where the use could go and limited parking in this area. Ms. Gaffey said that it is impossible to know which building would be sought after for a retail use within the district. The use is allowed in Malden just over the City line and if it locates there we would not have an opportunity to apply regulations to it. He asked if the odor regulations apply to retail uses and how odors are controlled. Ms. Gaffey said that the odor regulations would apply to retail and during her site visits to marijuana dispensaries the odors were controlled. Mr. Welch said that HEPA filters can remove odors. Finally, Alderman MacMaster asked if zoning can control people’s behaviors such as smoking and the answer was no. Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 8 of 10 President Lemmerman acknowledged the equity program in Somerville and said that this is done in other industries as well. She recommended mitigating impacts with hours of operation or other means. President Lemmerman asked if the hours of operation would limit cultivation. Ms. Gaffey said that as written, they would but the hours should only apply to retail. She asked Chief Lyle if the Police Department has done an analysis of if additional staff would be needed and it has not been done. He said that Garden Remedies has a great operation and has not generated any calls. President Lemmerman said that it is the law to allow for this use and we are required to set regulations around it. She would defer to the Ward Alderman on the location and the Planning Board should take this into consideration. President Lemmerman MADE a MOTION to attach the presentation to the Board Order in IQM2. Alderman Mortimer SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Alderman Bewtra asked Ms. Gaffey to speak to the process of establishing the Registered Marijuana Dispensary, the business and how the medical use in terms of the security of the facility would differ for recreational marijuana. Ms. Gaffey said that there was a lot of control and oversight in the industry. She felt more comfortable with the use after taking it through the Special Permit process. Garden Remedies is a good revenue generator and a good partner. Chief Lyle said that he toured nine facilities and he was impressed with the security at all of them. They both said that they expect that the level of security would be the same at a recreational facility. Chief Lyle said that Salem did an excellent job opening a facility with timed tickets. Alderman Bewtra asked why the BD district was not included. Ms. Gaffey said that it is close to the middle and high school campuses. Alderman Bewtra wanted to voice that the buffers could be reduced and that the CCC’s equity guidance cautions against adding additional buffers. She understands the neighborhood concerns. There is a disparate impact of impacts and enforcement. She would like to think about other areas for the use to be more equitable. Alderman Forbes said that the selling point for Garden Remedies was that it would not be in a residential area. In the lower Washington Street area it would affect neighborhoods so he asked why this district was chosen. Ms. Gaffey said that the buffers for RMDs were more expansive and that allowing retail where retail is allowed with proximity to transit made sense. She said that she has heard a lot from the Washington Street neighborhood tonight that is compelling. Mr. Sampson said that the Planning Board had the benefit of permitting Garden Remedies and seeing the result. It looks like a medical facility. The Board was looking for more opportunity zones and to provide for competition. The use is not a given and will require a special permit from the Planning Board. Alderman Forbes said that Melrose is a bedroom community and he understands that it is legal but no one wants it in their neighborhood. Alderman Zwirko said that he is a child of Oak Grove Village and he sees the benefits of development. He also said that no other section of the City has seen change like this Ward and residents feel concerned about traffic. He sees the flip side that this location is near transit and Malden could have a facility where we feel all of the burden and none of the benefit. He asked if there are other locations were retail is feasible. Ms. Gaffey said that we could create an overlay district but there are not large areas of other districts that are available outside of the buffers. Alderman Zwirko said that he doesn’t want for there to be a monopoly that would limit economic competition and revenue. Ms. Gaffey said that it is easier to advertise the hearing for more possibilities and limit the proposal if needed. Mr. Sampson said that the Planning Board would not be required to permit two facilities but the option would be there. Alderman Zwirko discussed changing the buffer to be from property line to property line instead of to the facility. He asked about the industrial zone designation for lower Washington Street. Ms. Gaffey said that the underlying zoning district is industrial and in 2008 a Smart Growth Overlay district was established. The underlying district remained in place to be mindful of the existing industrial uses, which is a common zoning practice. The Smart Growth District’s goal is for a mixed use neighborhood. Alderman Zwirko Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 9 of 10 asked about the timeline for seeing the financial benefit from a marijuana establishment. Ms. Gaffey said that if Garden Remedies was allowed to have retail sales they would just need to go through the special permit process and not need to do many structural changes. The revenue from this business would be fairly quick. Alderman Zwirko asked for Ms. Gaffey to explain the amendment process. She said that the Board of Aldermen has 90 days from today to take a vote and that they are obligated to wait twenty days for the Planning Board’s recommendation. Alderman Zwirko said that there will be other opportunities for the public to vet the process. He said that for most people they have to leave Melrose to reach the Route 99 location so the impact of the facility is not felt. He asked Chief Lyle if he had concerns about the lower Washington Street location. Chief Lyle said that there is no room for additional parking on the street. He has seen more calls for service in this neighborhood with the increase in the population. Alderman Zwirko would like to get the Chief’s feedback going forward. Alderman Medeiros thought that the amendment was well thought out. She is concerned about odors and asked how they will be addressed. Ms. Gaffey said that during the special permit process the Board will require a technological solution and if something fails, enforcement will be needed. Alderman Medeiros is concerned that marijuana is not legal federally. A lot of cash is involved in the business and she has concerns about burglary. Garden Remedies’ location is likely the reason why there have been no complaints. She would like to cap the number of retail establishments at one for now in the Route 99 districts. If the use becomes legal federally the concerns about cash will go away and the use will not be as novel. Also, she mentioned that the vote only passed by a small margin in Melrose. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to recess for six to eight minutes to allow MMTV to replace the video to be able to keep recording. Alderman Forbes SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Alderman Medeiros said that we should regulate marijuana like alcohol. The Board just reviewed a proposal to lower the number of seats needed to have a liquor license. The Board should allow for one and get public input in the future to possibly expand. The hours of operation should not go past 8-9pm since many districts are near residential districts. Alderman MacMaster explained the work that he has been doing with the Police Department to increase parking enforcement. He said that the Residents at the Estates started charging for parking in 2071 to 2018. Residents who don’t want to pay for parking are parking on Pleasant and Washington Streets. Chief Lyle said that parking enforcement has increased by 50%. Alderman MacMaster said that transit would not alleviate parking concerns and that true equity should not burden some. Transit may serve as a vehicle for the black market to sell cheaper near a facility. There is an opioid crisis and he doesn’t want to introduce more drugs. These are all cash businesses and there could be a robbery near the daycare and residents. He asked that the use is not allowed in the IA district. Alderman Lipper-Garabedian asked where there are other areas where medical marijuana uses could go. Ms. Gaffey said that there were not other whole zoning districts that were available with the medical marijuana buffers. Alderman Lipper-Garabedian wants to be mindful of the feedback from the Fire Department, Building Commissioner and other city departments that need to work together. She asked who coordinates the departments. Ms. Gaffey explained that the Planning Department coordinates a meeting to review all of the applications during the special permit process. Alderman Lipper-Garabedian asked if the emergency response plan should be reviewed and approved before a permit is issued and asked that approval of the other application materials are reviewed for consistency. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to place the order on hold. Alderman Lemmerman SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Joint Public Hearing Meeting Minutes January 14, 2019 Page 10 of 10 Alderman Lemmerman MADE a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Alderman Mortimer SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. The Board then opened the discussion on the affordable housing amendment. Alderman Zwirko finished his prior comments and questions by asking how long will it take to get to 10% affordable housing when it took 14 years to go from 6.9 to 8%. Ms. Gaffey said that it will be difficult to get to 10% and that we need to look at other tools like the Housing Trust, continue work with the North Suburban Consortium, the Affordable Housing Corporation and look at zoning tools like accessory dwelling units. Alderman Forbes asked why the chart in the presentation starts at 8 units. Ms. Gaffey explained that the developments with less than 8 will likely chose the payment in lieu option. He asked about including a provision for veterans in the local preference. Ms. Gaffey explained that she worked with DHCD in the past to do this and found that it is not allowed. She said that when there is an affordable unit available the Planning Department notifies the Veteran’s Department. Also, as a resident, a veteran would have local preference. Alderman Bewtra said that there are many small communities that have reached the 10% affordable housing target. She said that if we build more housing without affordable units the percentage will go down. Also, the new Census numbers will likely increase the denominator of the calculation, also causing the percentage to go down. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to hold the order in Committee. Alderman Boisselle SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. Alderman Mortimer MADE a MOTION to adjourn. Alderman Boisselle SECONDED the MOTION. All members present voted in favor. None were opposed. The meeting adjourned at 11:40pm.