Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2023-03-06
Attendance
Christopher Cinella ; Jack Eccles ; Mark Garipay ; Jen Grigoraitis ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Shawn M. MacMaster ; Leila Migliorelli ; John Obremski ; Robb Stewart ; Ryan Williams
Agenda
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CALENDAR● MARCH 6, 2023 Council Chamber, First Floor, Melrose City Hall Public Hearing 7:30 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Leila Migliorelli Chair Present Maya Jamaleddine Vice Chair Present Shawn M. MacMaster Present Christopher Cinella Present Jack Eccles Absent Mark Garipay Present Robb Stewart Present Manjula Karamcheti Present John Obremski Absent Ryan Williams Present Jen Grigoraitis President, Ex Oficio Present
ORDER-2023-59 Amending Revised Zoning Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Various Provisions Hold City of Melrose Page 1 3/9/2023 4:06 PM
Transcript
▶ 6:37 Leila Migliorelli: mmtv. At this time, I will motion by unanimous consent to open the public hearing concerning zoning amendments. That's ordered 2023-59 Seeing no objection the public hearing is now open. Do we have anyone here or online interested in speaking on the public hearing? We do have someone online if you're interested in speaking for public kindly raise your digital hand. I don't see any digital hands raised at this time. If there is no objection, I'm motion by unanimous consent to close the public hearing on zoning amendments. Seeing none the public hearing is now closed. Now again, we get to open up next on our agenda's public comments for the one and only item on our agenda tonight. So while motion by unanimous consent
▶ 7:38 Leila Migliorelli: to oblique open public comments. Seeing no objection. We are open for public comments. Seeing as there's no one here for that and I'm assuming the person that's not raised their hand. I know reasons at this moment. If you're here for public commonly, raise your digital hand. So, you know additional or any commenters I'll motion by unanimous consent to close public comment public comment is now closed since we have members of the administration here tonight to speak on the items before on the item before us on motion by unanimous consent to suspend the rules before we proceed. Seeing no objection. The rules are now suspended. So the one and only item on our agenda tonight is order 2023-59 amending
▶ 8:26 Denise Gaffey: Melrose revised ordinance chapter 235 various provisions. And tonight. We have the planning director Denise Gaffey along with the chair of the board planning board and chair of the zoning committee to speak on this order so welcome. Good evening. My name is Denise Gaffey. I'm the director of planning and Community Development and here on my right is Lori Massa. She is the senior planner in the planning office directly on my left is Greg Sampson who's the chairman of the planning board and to my far left is Aunt isuzu's award. She is the chairperson of the zoning subcommittee. So we are all here tonight to speak about the package of zoning amendments that were recently sent down and initiated by
▶ 9:22 Denise Gaffey: the planning board. Um this package of zoning amendments has been work been worked on by these zoning subcommittee primarily for I think it was about a year ago when we started working on this package. So it entails quite a bit of work many meetings lots of research on the part of planning staff. And in order to pull this this package together. This is a little different than some of the zoning we've done recently which were really focused on one particular issue. This is a package of items that we're we're attempting to Folds quite a few Provisions in we're kind of categorizing it almost like a housekeeping or a cleanup zoning Amendment where there are a number of different Provisions where over the years as staff
▶ 10:11 Denise Gaffey: to those only board of appeals. We see certain cases or certain Provisions that are come to the zoning board repeatedly that it makes sense to modify the zoning to kind of comport with what what we'd like to see or what we typically see with through the granting of variances. So so that's one of the one of the objectives with this zoning is deterrative clean up some of those those items we are all so trying to bring our zoning into compliance with Mass General law through some of the general laws changes over the recent years. So that's a couple of the provisions are related to that and basically in make it a little bit easier to understand so that was the other goal with this particular zon.
▶ 10:57 Denise Gaffey: So I'm going to Jump Right In. See if I can do this. Great, okay. So as you can see from from this slide there this basically summarizes the the 10 proposed zoning amendments and I'm going to walk through each one of these with a series series of slides and some illustrations to make it a little bit easier to understand the actual zoning. The actual proposed language was sent down with the zoning and you should all have that in front of you and I know that was attached to this order so so we're gonna start with The first one here, which is a zoning amendment to address corner lot setbacks. And so here we're proposing to make some changes to the the definition of corner lot and the section 235-25
▶ 11:59 Denise Gaffey: paragraph C which are some dimensional and density Provisions related to corner lot. And essentially the issue here is the way we defined zoning Corner Lot in our zoning Amendment a corner lot a home that's on a corner lot has two front yards and two rear yards. It doesn't have any side yards. So what happens frequently and as you can see from this table, there were about 38 cases over the last five or six years that came in front of the zoning board of appeals seeking variances because of that strict definition of a corner lot having having two front yard set backs in some years, you know, there have been a dozen cases and that's almost a third of the case load in front of the zba. So this
▶ 12:50 Denise Gaffey: is this is very onerous for a property owner who wants to make a simple addition or Improvement to their home to have to go to the zoning board of appeals and seek a variants because of the way that corner lot is defined. It's very expensive to file with the zba and it's time it's it takes a lot of time and there's always there's of course always the chance you don't get the variance too. So there's a lot of risk involved generally speaking in most cases. There's only board has granted these variances. So here is this is a perfect example where it makes sense to if the zpa is routinely granting variances for chronolog properties that we would consider changing the way we Define them. This is identified in
▶ 13:34 Denise Gaffey: our master plan also as a As a best practice and something we should attempt to do. So that was one of the one of the reasons this also came to our attention. We've been thinking about it for quite a few years. Let's see. So basically we by making this change the corner lot property is would have have one front yard two side side yards and a rear yard just like any other property that isn't a corner yard corner lot property the planning board spent a lot of time and we spent a lot of time looking pretty much at all of those 38 cases that were in front of the zba over the last several years and agreed that with the granting of the variance is for the for those properties that there was no that there was no it was not detrimental at all to the streets to
▶ 14:30 Denise Gaffey: the streetscape by doing that. So we we had we analyzed we probably analyzed dozens of examples in the zoning subcommittee meetings. I provided two here in this slide presentation. But this this example here on Sycamore Road and Bow Street, I believe it is is a great example here the the property with the two front yard requirement is the addition that they were proposing was required to have a 20 foot setback on on both Street in addition to Sycamore. And and if they were only required to have a side yard set back then it would be 12 feet instead of the 20 feet on the Bow Street side. They were granted that variance because it seemed like a reasonable a very reasonable thing to do and so that's
▶ 15:21 Denise Gaffey: kind of a sort of a typical example. So just a just to be clear. They would still have to comply with the side yard setbacks in the particular zone of District that they're in just we wouldn't have to have that more oner. Requirement of having two front yard setbacks and in our zoning ordinance front yard setbacks tend to be greater than side yard setbacks. And here's an another example on First Street, very similar where in addition was proposed to the to the back of the house. But if you view the the side set back. The front set back on the side yard, then you they wouldn't be able to to build that addition without a variance. So next we have a proposal to amend the definition of structure. This is
▶ 16:18 Denise Gaffey: section 235-5 the structure definition. And here the zoning ordinance currently defines retaining walls in fences as structures. And so what happens here is that triggers the accessory building and accessory structure setback requirements which govern accessory structures. So this actually this came up through a case in Melrose where a resident was Concerned about a neighbor's wall and read the language very literally in our the definition very literally in our zoning and and was questioning why the Building Commissioner didn't require a forfeit four foot or whether it was a four foot or a 10 foot setback for the for their wall. And essentially we don't think it was ever in the building commission didn't really think was ever intended that walls
▶ 17:18 Denise Gaffey: and fences would have to comply or be be required to comply with the that accessory setback, you know fences and walls are typically on Approximately on the property line so but in a very literal definition of the of structure that's you know, it is because it's in the definition. It has to be treated that way so the proposal here which we reviewed very closely with the Building Commissioner was to to take the fence retaining walls and fences out of that definition. Which essentially resolves that concern? Okay and moving on. this is a this third provision is a proposal to make a very slight map change that section 235-8 And here is the the property in question this property on Franklin Street.
▶ 18:21 Denise Gaffey: It's 521 529 Franklin Street. It's split into two different zoning districts. It's part of our our communal rail zoning District the ba2 zoning, but there's a significant portion of the property. That's also in the urban residential district so that when that was brought to our attention, there was a request by the property owner to consider Changing this or just putting this entire property into the into the ba2 zoning District. He was having trouble with refinancing and ensuring the property and it made a lot of sense to us for that property to be in one zoning district and not to straddle the two different zoning districts. So that's this very simple map change that's being proposed. And next we have the definition of retail food
▶ 19:20 Denise Gaffey: establishments. This is also in a section 235-5 which is the definitions section. And this is a very simple Amendment where we're basically modifying the definition of the retail food establishment to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages off premise for off-premises consumption and we're just changing the language from Simply beer and our beer Malt Beverages and wine, which is how it's currently written. And that's because the city a couple of years ago actually expanded the the definition to allow for alcoholic beverages. So this is really just catching up with the ordinance change that's already occurred. Okay, and next we have a modification amendment to our existing in-law apartment
▶ 20:18 Denise Gaffey: Provisions. Again, this is section 235-5 the provisions around in-law apartments are in the definition section. And here we have a case where again the zoning board of appeals has frequently seen applicants come and ask for variances because there are some language in our in law Department definition. That's that's very restrictive. It basically requires that basically states that the an in-law apartment can't be part of a single family dwelling that has been added to or altered after 1990 and I think that's because 1990 was the year that the Law Department was Provisions were created. So I think that's why that year is in there. But that's basically very restrictive and doesn't not very logical. I will say there's no other
▶ 21:22 Denise Gaffey: changes whatsoever to this provision. It's still requires an enlar apartment is still can only be can only be done in a single-family home. It is still requires a special permit. There are really all the other Provisions will still will still apply. This is simply addressing an issue with that restriction around the the building being built at you know, no changes after 1990. And this one again as I mentioned the board appeals has approved many variances from this provision to permit in law Apartments where all the other Provisions are met this in this amendment is all so identified as an action item in the Melrose forward master plan. So here this next amendment is related to section 235-62
▶ 22:29 Denise Gaffey: the special permit precedures in our zoning ordinance and here. Is a case where we are simply updating the Zone. We're probably proposing to update the zoning in order to be consistent with recent changes to Mass General Law chapter 40 a Mass General law this change that occurred several years ago. Reduces the number of votes that are required for a zoning approval if one is proposing to zone for multifamily housing mixed use development or reduce parking. So the reduction is from 2/3 super majority to a simple majority. And it's still done by special permit, but instead of that super majority, which is a requirement for all other special permits. Anything that is related to multifamily housing
▶ 23:24 Denise Gaffey: mix use development or reduced parking that's granted by either the zoning board of appeals or the planning board depending on who the special permit granny Authority is for that particular instance is only requires a simple majority. So this is state law we have to do that we have to abide by it anyway, but this is just making the language consistent with the state law. And then the other item here is a little bit different. This is allowing for the term of a special permit to extend from instead of two years to three years. So it's granting an allowance to extend the time by which a special permit is granted by that additional year. This is something we can opt into the zoning the chapter 48
▶ 24:12 Denise Gaffey: allows a community to opt into this additional year. We think it there's a lot of logic and it makes a lot of sense to do that. So we're proposing to allow for for an applicant who has granted approval to have that additional year to actually act on the special permit. Okay. So next we got a several slides on this particular item and here we are looking at sight lines and fence Heights in front yard and corner on corner and on corner corner Lots. We specifically looking to amend section 235-25 paragraph K and paragraph l And this actually came to our attention from councilmember who raised a concern about sight lines around some vegetation and it's come up with other members of the public as well. We frequently get
▶ 25:12 Denise Gaffey: calls as you can imagine from members of the public around various zoning issues. And this is one we get a lot because our existing zoning is written is written in a really confusing way. So when we get when we got that inquiry and we took a look at it ourselves, we realized yeah it actually this language could be really cleaned up and a lot more clear than it is today. and so the the purpose of these regulations is to ensure Public Safety and visibility by regulating the height offenses and other structures on Corner lots and in front yards in order to maintain also a sort of a pedestrian friendly streetscape. So there's two two issues at play here. It's about it's about public safety first and foremost, but also about, you know
▶ 26:05 Denise Gaffey: streetscapes. So just getting into the the detail here, we spend an awful lot of time looking at this one and looking at provisions and other communities. We also took a close look at our own Provisions, which aren't which aren't that different from what we're proposing. They're just again a lot clearer and easier to understand. So we are here proposing. That within this triangular area and on a corner property. that the fence or a wall cannot exceed three feet in height in that dashed area. So it's 20 feet back from the corner of the property on either side and in that triangular area. And another way to view that here is through this illustration. You can see around the corner there and in the blue that that's
▶ 27:03 Denise Gaffey: where we were saying that offense or a wall could not be greater than three feet in three feet tall and I'll show in a minute some pictures of some some cases where you see where this is done or where you see some of these walls our fences that are higher than three feet and some of the barriers that that creates to visibility which is why we're proposing this you can also see here that in the front yard. so in the side yard structures or walls and fences could be set back. They can be set back three feet and then seven feet tall from there if there's if they're set back. Just move forward to see some of these photos and the three feet provision is already is in our existing zoning. You can tell by some of these some these
▶ 27:55 Denise Gaffey: are all pictures and from Melrose and some of these properties are already doing they're figured it out. They read the zoning in it and they understood it. And so they're that top picture on the left. For example, there's a picture of a side set back where this there's a taller fence but it's three feet back. So there's a little bit of a buffer if you're walking along the sidewalk you can see in the one next to that as well how right on the property line. There's a fence that's lower than three feet and that works really nicely. It doesn't seem imposing because it's lower than three feet. But then as you progress down the street, the taller fence is actually stepped back the three feet and that also that also works because it's
▶ 28:38 Denise Gaffey: not right on the right on the property line. And you can see a great example on the bottom left corner of this similar what they with vegetation how the vegetation is lower than the three feet right at the corner. And so that it doesn't obstruct visibility when a car is approaching that intersection. And then the two bottom two pictures on the bottom right are pictures where these this would not be allowed. And because the fence Heights it is exceeds three feet and it goes all the way to the property line and it makes it very difficult for for visibility when you approach that corner in a if you're a pedestrian walking on that sidewalk, and there's a car coming down the street from the other direction the car might not see
▶ 29:28 Denise Gaffey: you and it also just provides like a barrier. So not very pedestrian friendly. So the language were proposing will clean that up and make it very clear. what is allowed and here again on properties that are not Corner Lots the language the zoning will Let's see. So for no one corner Lots the amendment proposes that within the front yard setback. or from the line of the existing primary structure Whichever is less a fence wall or similar structure will not be cannot be taller than three feet and then beyond the setback of the primary structure or the front yard set back that fencer wall may be up to seven feet tall. So in the first case well in the case to the right you can assume the front yard setback is is roughly 20 feet, but
▶ 30:26 Denise Gaffey: the house is much further back from that. So the the three foot high tall fence would have to fencer wall would have to be within that three foot Dimension all the way to the to that setback line. And in the case on the left the house is actually moved. It's a pre-existing non-conforming house where in this example where the house is less than 20 feet set back or whatever the front yard set back is but there you would the fence or wall could be above the three feet as long as it's at the line of the house or back. If that makes sense. And I we have some examples that illustrate that here as well. You can see that first example on the left of the top of the screen shows where the fence pretty much is right in line with the the home.
▶ 31:19 Denise Gaffey: and then and then on the bottom image, you can see a fence that is actually in the front yard setback, but it is lower than three feet. So that that works fine. That's that would be completely allowed and then on the To the right the fence in this case. Also the bushes exceed the three feet high so that at the right at the property line and within the front yard setback, so that would not be allowed same with the picture to the bottom, right? so so related to that we also just wanted to make sure. That when we're dealing with that. We apply the same. Same level of attention to safety to all new developments. So we just make we just recommend some language in one of the site plan review criteria that reinforces
▶ 32:21 Denise Gaffey: for the planning board when they're performing site plan review that they should be looking at fences and walls and other types of structures like that in their review of cases in the they do that already. But this just kind of makes it makes a very clear so and then next Vegetation height for Corner lots and in yards and along streets. So here so currently vegetation and fences and walls are actually all lumped together in our zoning under Section 235 -25 paragraphs K and L but in the in the process of doing this work we met with the Building Commissioner and and he actually indicated to us that it made a lot more sense to for the public works department to be enforcing anything around vegetation because that's what they
▶ 33:22 Denise Gaffey: do now. So we also looped in the public works department and talk with them about these zoning provisions. And so the suggestion was that we we take out the provisions around vegetation and move those into the general code, which is where similar types of Provisions exist and it gives the public works department more of an enforcement role over vegetation, but we would still apply similar dimensional criteria to again with the goal being to promote safety. So that is the proposal here. And again, so the the goal here would be to promote driver and pedestrian safety by ensuring that there are no obstructions in the public way and also to maintain an interesting and pedestrian friendly streetscape.
▶ 34:18 Denise Gaffey: These two pictures I think illustrate pretty nicely the problem on the left with Hedges that have grown too high and too thick and might cause obstructions at an intersection and the proposal on the right which which allows for plenty of vegetation, but doesn't provide that same obstruction. So here again Hedges can be up to three feet tall and leafy vegetation cannot obstruct views within three feet of the front yard or the side yards. The Proposal also limits height following the same 20 foot measurement for Corner Lots as we just discussed with fences in walls. And again, these are some good examples here of what works and what does not work. It doesn't promote safety and what we will be addressing through
▶ 35:10 Denise Gaffey: these changes. Okay, I'm gonna jump I think we're almost done. We have two more Provisions these last two provisions. are we'll both actually attempt to Address the the recent state laws to promote multi-family housing for MBTA communities. I know you all have heard a lot about that and we've been spending a lot of time taking a look at these new regulations to try to to try to comply as best that we can we're actually in a really good situation. I think Mel is you know through all the work that we've done over the last two decades to promote housing around Transit. We we don't expect to have to make any changes to our dimensional Um or a density and dimensional regulations in any of our zoning districts. We think we're going to comply based
▶ 36:11 Denise Gaffey: on the model that they've produced. We haven't we haven't received approval yet. But the two items that we've discovered that we will need to modify are the definition of units the way unit sizes are regulated in our zoning and also the definition of family. So those are the two Provisions that we will have to be modified in order for Melrose to comply with the the new MBTA communities zoning. So this is section 235-25 paragraph I and currently in our zoning we do. Have we place limits our minimums on unit sizes drawing dwelling units? I'm talking about dwelling unit sizes. And that's some as I mentioned. That's something that we Were we cannot do in order to comply? So we're proposing that we remove those
▶ 37:10 Denise Gaffey: Amendment minimum unit sizes from our zoning. Um, and we provide this slide here because just to point out that there are still quite a few other mechanisms by which unit sizes are regulated. We still have all the other dimensional criteria in a zoning including floor area ratio, which also which regulates unit sizes this also the Board of Health and the State Building Code, which has regulations regarding minimum dwelling units or dwelling the sizes of dwelling units in bedroom counts and And also it's it's very much, you know driven by market demand. What unit size. You know is most people are looking for. Eliminating the unit size will allow us to comply with that with Section with chapter 48 section
▶ 38:13 Denise Gaffey: 3A will still regulating density through the other zoning Provisions that I just mentioned and it also allow for a variety of housing types in terms of size and costs which is a goal of the housing production plan and they have been a couple of projects where the zoning board of appeals has has granted variances to the minimum loss size and there have been successful that is a successful housing type in the in the marketplace. So we think this is a very logical Amendment. finally this last Amendment relates to the definition of family and dwelling units. And here again. In order to comply with the dhcd's new multifamily Zoning for MBTA communities. The definition of family needs to be amended so that
▶ 39:13 Denise Gaffey: the zoning it doesn't limit the number of occupants in a unit or otherwise respect restrict occupancy based on biological or legal relationships, which is which is also discriminating and not a purpose of zoning. And if you if you take a close look at the current definition of family, you can see it is it is pretty Antiquated. So we we actually propose to eliminate the definition altogether. We think that it is better captured by our existing definitions of dwelling unit and multifamily dwelling unit. So and by just defining the one family and two family dwelling units instead of defining Family itself. It organized the organizes the code in a more streamlined fashion. Also the Definition of dwelling unit establishes the
▶ 40:12 Denise Gaffey: primary intent of residential units being a space that with complete living facilities occupied by people who share the use of the space as a single housekeeping unit. So there's no real requirement. There's no need to Define. What a family is based on the These other definitions and also as part of this we just noticed that there is a use category and our Zoning for apartment house and garden apartment house, which is redundant to multifamily dwellings. So we propose striking that from the table. and the last the last one things you welcome. I think what we'll do now is we're gonna recess so we can gavel into the full council meeting and then we'll come back for questions and just do public.
▶ 54:14 Second we have a motion to adjourn made by counselor. Sonella seconded by counselor Stewart all in favor. Aye he opposed we are adjourned. back to Appropriations the right side back to Appropriations We all come back. It's completed the presentation portion. And so now we have time for questions from the council. Sorry, I couldn't make that more exciting and interesting. It's owning. questions anyone Vice chair Jamaleddine, thank you madam. Chair. Thank you for this very thoughtful presentation. We appreciate your presence and time to put this together. As you were mentioning about the fencing and gardening and all. I all what I can't think of that, you know, like just trying to remember if we if I ever seen those fences
▶ 56:11 Maya Jamaleddine: around marrows and the truth that we do have those. Yeah, all those pictures were for Bell Road. Yeah, so what are we gonna do that? Is it just now moving forward or is it whatever is there? We're gonna leave it there. Yeah, when it when it comes to the fences and the walls, there's no there's no interest in trying to like get people to take their fences down. It's more about being clear about the requirements going forward. And yeah, okay, so that's good to know and moving forward. Do we know if we have been like I know some Constituents would be putting their own fences. Are people you know pulling permit before or are we seeing some that artist doing that work without pulling any permit great question. So there's
▶ 57:09 Denise Gaffey: actually not a requirement to pull a permit for a fence unless it's greater than seven feet tall or for a wall unless it's greater than four feet tall. So I think I think hopefully this will get approved and I think would be really important to do some education around it or put a like a, you know, fact sheet together that we can make available to the community. So it's very clear what the requirements are if they are doing events. So they don't do they don't end up doing something that will get you know, yeah taken down. And are these resources and information would be updated online like for? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I was owning ordinances currently very accessible online and anytime an amendment is made
▶ 57:54 Robb Stewart: it is attached to the it's updated through the ordinance. And as I always ask any different languages available for those that do not speak English. I think I think you could it's a good question. I'm not sure. I think you can can use Google Translate to translate the the language. Okay. Thank you. counselor Stewart Thank you madam. Chair. Thank you. Miss. Kathy and numbers for being here tonight. I want to Echo Council jamaladian's comment that it's you put a lot of work into this and we appreciate that. I think overall there's a lot of good things in here. I get the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish. I did have some questions on a couple of these the first is on. the the in-law definition So
▶ 58:52 Denise Gaffey: currently there's a variance required for Having to set up an in-law apartment and what that means is. If you want to build or extend existing single-family home, and the concern was that you really can't do that if there wasn't something as of 1990, right? Right, you can't you can't you can't get any special permit for an in-law apartment in in part of the home that may have been you know built subsequent to 1990. Or in an addition or you can't say I'm going to I'm proposing to build an addition and have it otherwise meet all the other criteria and be subservient to the primary home and still require that it's an inlaw. It has to be a you know, biological in-law mother father or son or daughter that lives
▶ 59:45 Denise Gaffey: there all the other aspects all the other criteria have to be met but if it's if it wasn't you can't do it in a new addition clearly because then it wouldn't be prior to 1990. Right? Right that would require a variance and there have been some variances that have been granted. So we're just trying to you know eliminate that requirement because it's rather arbitrary. Sure in the the in-law requirement it does it have to be a family member. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we're not changing. We are not in this amendment changing that at all. This is a very modest change. How do you govern that? Pardon, how do you govern that? I mean how do you know that and it let me get to my concern is? In my word three, there's a lot of older houses
▶ 1:00:31 Robb Stewart: and there's a lot of rental properties of both single multi-families and my concern is that people are going to try to take advantage of this and I just want to understand how you get to prevent. from Over rentifying the war you know, so we're not really making much of a change. I mean this ordinance has been in place since 1989, so and we're not and I'm not at all aware of people abusing it. I don't we don't hear about those kind of complaints. So I don't see how this really minor tweak would would change that, okay. on the the non Corner Lots Where you have? three feet fence right up to the seems a little low. And I'm thinking about people that have pets and animals and there's you know every day we Sarah Fox our little
▶ 1:01:37 Denise Gaffey: neighborhood Fox just kind of wandering around which could clear three foot fence. No problem. I think there may be some pushback from the public in terms of offense that that's low. Have you heard anything about that? And what's the justification for three feet? So I think that the three foot Provisions actually currently in our zoning and it is we just it's just so just ignored that it's so hard to understand. It's really okay, you know after this meeting you can take a look and see what I'm saying. Yes kind of confusing but that requirement is there now when you can see by by all those photographs where a lot of residents are actually complying with that requirement and they're doing that based on the review of the zoning. So,
▶ 1:02:21 Robb Stewart: you know, and we're not saying you they can't have a taller fence as long as it's set back beyond that front yard set back or at the primary line of the home. So your backyard you can surround your property with the taller fence to keep your pets. Yeah. And then on the unit sizes, so you're saying we and I'm trying to understand this. You cannot restrict the size of the dwelling unit and the minimum for a single dwelling unit that is currently stated. I believe is 450 square feet. And so what does that mean? Does that mean it can be smaller than 450 square feet? Yes. There'll be no limits. There's so you could create it as Okay, I mean there's still limits based on building code in sanitary code. I mean this this still, you
▶ 1:03:10 know one still has to comply with those limits as soon as Harry quotes only slightly smaller than our limits. So there is a backstop this there is right. I think a Studios 350 and we have 450 don't quote me on that, but it's close to what we have. So that exists apart from zoning. Okay, it's pretty small space it is. Yeah, right, but with housing costs being what they are and I mean that is an affordable option for for some people. Okay, and then kind of correlated to that is the family and dwelling units when you talk about dwelling ruin it. That that starts to sound like Gonna Love renting rooms. Is would they? if the and where I have pause is if there's multiple room rentals within an apartment.
▶ 1:04:13 Robb Stewart: That are separate and distinct. So then you know, you have the situation where they're putting locks on the kitchen cabinets and they're having the bunts and burners in the bedrooms. And and to me that starts to become a new safety issue and I know other communities do struggle with this. So just like to hear your thoughts on how that's controlled within the whole dwelling unit or if I'm misinterpreting it. So there's a couple things one. There's a state. law for lodging houses at any four more people unrelated and qualifies a lodging house. And there's there's a separate licensing process for that. But I think more importantly our the zoning code. The dwelling unit definition still is remains in its
▶ 1:05:00 Robb Stewart: provides living in sleeping rooms complete living facilities for the use of one or more individuals constituting a single housekeeping unit permanent Provisions for living sleeping eating cooking and sanitation. So the idea is you're not having you know, it's still a group of people living together not independently, right? Okay. good because you know, we I want to be sure that it's bifurcated between a group of individuals that are renting together on one lease versus somebody that's renting out to individuals on separate leases that each get a room and and I hope the cases that that won't happen here. Yeah, because we're not making any changes to that. We are just proposing to eliminate the definition of family
▶ 1:05:50 Robb Stewart: the way it's defined right now. Great. And no changes to parking no changes to parking right? No. Okay. Okay good. The final question I have is on the vegetation. I want to commend you for that because there's you know, right where the mayor and I live on that corner. It's it's accident Central because a lot of times the bushes grow kind of high on that one corner. and you said that the Public Works folks are going to now govern that can you talk a little bit about how they're going to govern it? Well in in our meetings on this it made sense and they agreed that because they do kind of do vegetative maintenance routine routinely as part of their their, you know their work. That is that that is something
▶ 1:06:42 Denise Gaffey: that that could fall comfortably within their purview. Um it you know it. I can say I'll say I don't think they're gonna go around and become like the vegetation Sheriff's like I think but if they if they do see examples that that are clearly like safety concerns, they they will have that ability now with this language to enforce them. Yeah, and I think maybe it's a little outside of what you're trying to accomplish here. But I think that would be something that we want to get the notice of that people should feel comfortable. If they feel stuff they can't see around a certain Corner that you know, who do they contact and how does that get results? Yeah. And again, I think like the other the issue with the fence and walls. I think it would be really I think
▶ 1:07:28 Denise Gaffey: it's something we could do is put together like a fact sheet with some pictures and and just make that available to the community. I think that we really helpful. One thing. I do want to point out is the so the vegetation piece what through this proposal we're actually taking it out of zoning. So this Council should you repeat approve that this console will then need to take the action of approving a general code the language that we propose and the general code around the vegetation just to make that clear that what happened subsequent. Great, great, no more questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, I have counselor Karm chady counselor garapay and counselor McMaster. To president gray Grace counselor karmchatie first thank
▶ 1:08:12 Manjula Karamcheti: you again for all of your work on this in the examples and the visuals it's all just really helpful to understand sort of what is happening with the changes are and whatnot. The one question I have I don't even know if it's a question. Honestly. I'm having just a hard time processing what it means. So I thought I would just ask under the vote section. It says that a concurring vote for all of One member of the board of appeals is required to a grant or special permit or a variance by set by the board of appeals and then a two-thirds concurring vote of the planning board is required to Grant a special permit by The planning board and then it goes into the new addition except when only a simple majority is required
▶ 1:09:00 Denise Gaffey: and is it saying that a simple majority is required when it comes to multifamily Housing mixed-use Development and centers for commercial activity. I've just not totally understanding what the addition means. Okay respective to what it used to be. Sure. Yes. So if a case is before the zoning board of appeals right now for a special permit in order for to get approval. They need to have four out of the five members. Yeah to support so they need a super majority. Yeah. There's a that's a five member board. So if the particular case relates to multifamily housing or mixed-use development or parking reduction if they're requests for the special permit is around any one of those three things then instead of
▶ 1:09:52 Denise Gaffey: needing for affirmative votes. They only 3 from the zba so it changes the threshold. It reduces the threshold. It makes it easier. This is around the housing Choice legislation that the governor Baker and the state enacted several years ago in order to try to promote the production of housing. So and then the similar similarly with the planning board instead of a two-third majority. It's a simple majority five notes. So of course I'm thinking about many of the so I think the key language is all pursuant to the specifications and section 9 of the zoning Act. So the zoning act controls here, it has very clear a list of types of approvals that can be granted by this. Simple majority it we're really
▶ 1:10:40 Denise Gaffey: deferring to that the zoniac is the is the state enabling legislation? Of course, I'm thinking about this in relation to the four different building projects in Ward one and what the impact might be because there are special permits variances and smoke protection and all of those pieces that are associated with those right projects. So just trying to get a better sense of if it's The concurrent vote versus the Civil majority. How does that impact those building projects or does it at all? Well, it depends. Again, depending on what particular case is but if it was say to permit the product the development on the corner of Franklin and Marvin, I think it is the Franklin Market building that would only require a simple
▶ 1:11:32 majority by the planning board. Right, but yeah, so it again it's very specific so slow protection and variances wouldn't count. Okay, so but a reduction in parking would be eligible for the simple majority. So if they come to us with a special permit request that has the reduction in parking that's now a majority this certain special permits and also requires inclusionary 10% affordable. So there's certain requirements in there that have to be met the vote to count and we Analyze That for every this every application that comes before us. Thank you. councilor pay thank you. Thank you all for being here. Just a couple questions on the corner setback example you gave him Sycamore Road just really understand
▶ 1:12:25 Denise Gaffey: this. I think you have a little graph there that says it's required 20 feet on the front. And existing 22 when we're proposing 12 is that I read that correctly or am I miss so the 12 is the side yard is the side yard set that requirement. But in that case that product that property in order to build the addition the garage they were required to meet the 20 setback on this on the on on the side street. Okay, and but enabled they were granted a variance and allowed to build up to 12 feet, which is what the side setback is. Okay. Yeah, just it proposed 12. I just it's a little confusing. I totally make sure I had to read a couple times. And then regarding the zoning District change, I'm not. Saying I'm against this. My only question
▶ 1:13:17 Mark Garipay: is where we get. We have a we're doing ordinance changes to the zoning which is mostly language and cleaning up with all the construction we have going on on that part of town. I kind of would like to see this as a separate zoning change on a separate water instead of Lumpkin with all with all this just we have a lot of projects going down there. We have a lot of concerns from the from the neighborhood and the neighbors with everything going. So I think this is a little bit a little bit different than the actual language but I'm not saying I'm against it. That's just that's just my opinion on that. um and bear with me if we have a look at right now on in Laurel Apartments. Are they deed restricted?
▶ 1:14:10 Denise Gaffey: Are they deed restricted? For example, if it if the house turns over someone purchase it doesn't have in law and they use it as a Rental process. So technically built into the requirement is there's a requirement for every three years for the certificate of occupancy to be renewed. So that is that that is the opportunity for the Building Commissioner to inspect the in-law apartment to ensure that it's still meets all the criteria. What will it's also done by special permit which then gets recorded at the registry deeds and it stays with the land. And we're in the well, so it's not your department. But one would assume we're out there every three years expecting in lower Apartments. I have no idea.
▶ 1:14:58 Mark Garipay: Have you thought about putting a deed restriction in in Laurel apartments at all, or In the changing of the any ordinance here. We're adding it adding it into the zoning. Well, it is recorded at the registry of deeds. So anyone searching the title would see I'm sorry to hear it is recorded at the registry of deeds. So anyone searching the title would see that there's a special permit for an in-law apartment and has limitations on it. So it does get put in the title in the chain of title just not they don't have to do a new deed to their house, but it's there it's recorded. Okay. and On the special permit, we're extending the times from two to three years not opposed to this. I'm just trying to get a little understanding, you
▶ 1:15:49 Denise Gaffey: know, we have projects that are approved and they tend to lag a little bit and you know, we're always trying to get development moving in Melrose and just another year. I know we've had issues with raw materials. But what the what's a give me the thought process on on extending that so what is it's a change that the state legislature made to the general to the neighboring legislation because I do I think they recognize that economic conditions can throw projects out of whack pretty pretty easily the pandemic other other types of factors. So it just means it we just think it kind of makes sense to to mirror that requirement or that allowance and is not a lot of downside to it right now if developer is
▶ 1:16:34 Denise Gaffey: up against the two years and they have to come back and they have to repeat the whole process all over again. And that is that's cumbersome. It's expens. It's not necessarily serving the community very well either to have to require that so it seemed like a reasonable. Adjustment. Okay, I think our feeling is the zoning subcommittee too was that three years isn't out of line, you know, if so, if it was 10 years the zoning might have changed then we might have different expectations about the planning as planners how we want the city to go but in within three years the zoning, Is unlikely to have changed it makes sense for those conditions would still hold up and it gives the the Builder the little bit more time gone and
▶ 1:17:18 Mark Garipay: my thought on just my thought processes carusis is in my ward and we'd like to get that as soon as possible up and right agreed. with regards to Finches existing fences in shrubs did I he quickly? They were not going to go back? It's just stuff going forward, correct. So someone can't say oh I want to take that, you know put a put a request in a neighbor take it take offense down on a corner. That's correct. I think because we're changing this this language. It that would then become something that would be enforced. You know subsequently to the change. One of the other things I'd like to see is communication with if it's a public safety issue. I think the police department or someone from Public Safety should be involved in that that decision. It shouldn't
▶ 1:18:12 Mark Garipay: just be up to the public works. So if you could think about maybe including including that I also like to see with the A policy or guidelines in which they're going to follow but it sounds like that's going to come in front of the city council anyways. Here you correctly. That's something peace would yes, so we can address that with the DPW on what the policy and guidelines will be so miscommunication, okay. That's about it. If I have any more questions, I will. Council Stewart had asked some of my other questions, so I think I'm all set right now. Thank you. Thank you. Counselor McMaster, thank you madam. Chair good evening first. Thank you for your work on the vegetation. You know, that's something that we've been.
▶ 1:19:12 Shawn M. MacMaster: Talking about for a few years now Mr. Sampson, we met over a cup of coffee and it's an issue on both sides of Ward five both precincts. So I appreciate your work on that one question on that to console logariths point is if I am from reading this correctly, there is the discretion though for vegetation for DPW to actually go out and enforce that that's not bushes Hedges vegetation is not grandfather and correct. Correct. It's not grandfather. With respect to Corner Lot setbacks, you mentioned that 38 cases have been brought before the board of appeals over. What time period how? from 2017 on Do we have similar data with respect to the number of in-law apartments that have come before the board we can pull that information. I
▶ 1:20:04 Shawn M. MacMaster: think that would be helpful just to give us a sense of how sure what that looks like how often that is coming before. the board of appeals As it relates to the structure definition. I think you're right there. I don't think the intent. I think there was an unintended consequence there and you have here in your memo, since it is a typical condition for retaining. I'm sorry, since it is a typical condition for retaining wall or fence to be on or close to a property line. It was likely not the intent of the regulation for accessory structure set back to apply to them. I think that's clear. So I think that cleans it up. With respect though to the corner lot setbacks. I'm trying to understand what the
▶ 1:20:53 Denise Gaffey: intent of that zoning law was or that component of the zoning law at the time any thought on why why it is what it is right now on the books. It's a good question. I think the because front setbacks just tend to be more more restrictive. There might have been a desire to maintain that more restrictive setback on the because you know it if you appear to have two fronts when you are on a corner. But it then does become quite restrictive to a homeowner in order to make practical use of their property. And just so it's glared to the council and to the public when you say two fronts meaning the front yard, of course is the front and the side yard adjacent to the other street is considered a front right now under the zoning law, correct. If you're on
▶ 1:21:54 Denise Gaffey: a corner, you do not have any side yards. You have two fronts and two rears. So this would allow Property Owners to be able to build out on What would what would turn into a side yard which is the second front yard, correct? The one wouldn't be 20. Yes 20 yards. It wouldn't be 20 feet 20 feet and I'm just using that number. It depends on what zone you're in as to what you're set back is so it would be the less restrictive but you'd still have a setback. I mean, I don't want to I want to make that clear you're still gonna have to apply or comply with whatever the side set back is. So for that one, I would be interested in the police departments view on that and I'm thinking about if you know if the intent originally was to
▶ 1:22:42 Shawn M. MacMaster: look at this similar in a similar way to intersections, is it maybe the concern about you know, a busy side street with high traffic volume and speeding vehicles that may then put the vehicle in close approximity to the structure by being by virtue of being closer to the street. So that is one thing I'd be interested in seeing if the police department has any views on that. And my last question relates to the votes for special permit approval in term and if I understood you correctly Miss Gaffney, it doesn't. Is there discretion here? Are we just looking to mirror our zoning language with State language? So it comports or Is there some discretion here? Is this something that that the council would have the
▶ 1:23:39 Shawn M. MacMaster: the opportunity to adopt Shouldn't want to adopt it just based on it. Now becoming something that municipalities are empowered, you know to do to get around what otherwise might be an onerous state law. So I guess in short is there discretion there or is this just we're just cleaning it up. There's discretion around going from two to three years. For the the allowance of the special permit before it expires. What about going from Super majority to to a simple majority? I don't believe there's any discretion on that one. I defer to the attorneys here, but I think that's yeah and does that also apply to zoning matters that then come before the council or just before the planning board and Zoning Board same for zoning amendments. So it
▶ 1:24:32 Shawn M. MacMaster: marries that it's no it's no different it would In order for us to pass what's being proposed it would not for some it would be a simple majority exactly. As long as they meet that test in the enabling legislation around, you know production of multifamily housing or Or anything reduction. Okay, and if you know, what is I mean, what's the impetus for that? I guess sort of on a surface level. I'm thinking maybe it should be a higher standard when it gets to the console. Do we do are we familiar with what the discussions were around? Why why we would go from a higher standard to a lower standard when you're looking so I think I think the the baker Administration and other administrations, you know in dhcd and
▶ 1:25:16 Denise Gaffey: others at the state level have been trying to Promote housing production, right? We have a severe shortage of housing in this area in the region and it's driving costs up and there are communities that have been trying to enact zoning to address that and have been unable to do that because of the more onerous supermajority requirement. Okay, I think it's all I have for now. Thank you. President Grigoraitis. Thank you madam chair. Thank you all for being here tonight, and I just wanted to particularly thank the planning board and the zoning subcommittee. I know that this has been in motion for in excess of a year, I think and I know you all do this as volunteers and lend your expertise to your community and just wanted to thank you for that. I don't
▶ 1:26:02 Jen Grigoraitis: have Significant questions. I am also really excited to see the fence and vegetation changes as somebody who lives on Lebanon Street. I can certainly talk about what the impact of you know poor sight lines can be like on pedestrian and car safety. So I think I'm excited to see that and look forward to a separate conversation in the council about when we make the change consider the change to the general code how we kind of beef that up because I'm a little I think just leaving discretion to DPW gives me some pause, but I mostly just wanted to Circle back to counselor Jamal Dean's comment about translation and just I think this is all incredibly nuanced incredibly complicated to understand and so while it is not a significant portion
▶ 1:26:44 Jen Grigoraitis: of Melrose that is English is not their first language. They're definitely is that portion and I think relying on Google translate feels for something this complex less than ideal. So just to the extent we can consider like UMass translation services. There are all sorts of places on under OSD on Statewide contract that could help us to have some dedicated language resources. I would love to see that do we do that right now for the city code? I'm just asking online no idea. Okay. Yeah because I was referring only to the zoning not necessarily to any kind of like Handout, we might distribute around that particular piece, which I think could be done in different certainly in different languages. Yeah.
▶ 1:27:20 Manjula Karamcheti: No, I don't know what we I mean, I don't think we I think that's a separate website that manages the code. I just mostly wanted to point out. Like I know we've all struggled with our I personally have struggled with comprehending some of this and recognizing that if it was doing it in a language. That wasn't my first one that that would be an added barrier and that we really want to see compliance. So that was my only common and thank you all for being here. Anyone else for the first time? Okay counselor crime JD. I just wanted to very quickly Circle back to a question comment Consular garapay made in relation to the specific 521 to 529 zoning. It's one of my favorite spots in Ford one, but I was surprised to see this
▶ 1:28:09 Manjula Karamcheti: with all of the other more like rules Rags language. And I know one of the concerns of the word one neighborhood in particular has sort of been the transparency and knowing what's going on related to zoning and property and building and whatnot in the area. So I just do wonder about like If things like this are embedded in other bigger Longer meetings and proposals that they can get lost and if somebody did have a concern or a question or an opinion might not have the opportunity or miss the opportunity. So just sort of thinking about that and like an individual case being bundled with sort of all of these other things. I'm just kind of wondering about that and sure. Yeah and I can I can tell you there's been no proposals. No,
▶ 1:29:00 Denise Gaffey: no one's approached me about any specific type of Redevelopment proposal for that property. I think when we went when it was brought to our attention it made it just seemed like in the spirit of what we were trying to do in terms of cleaning things up. It kind of made sense to sweep it in. We did want to advertise it. So someone that it was interested could contact us and get more information. But a lot of these kind of smaller, you know zoning Maps were drawn, you know one point it was just kind of like okay draw straight line, but in reality, sometimes it doesn't make sense. Yeah, just to be clear totally in support of doing it just in this meeting as opposed to maybe something else. I was wondering about
▶ 1:29:53 Denise Gaffey: Yeah, I'm glad Lori mentioned that too because some that is we don't we don't typically notify a butters for you know for his owning change when we do we have to do by Statute, right? We can't for him when it's zoning you would and you know, you'd have to notify everybody really but in this case because it was a map change. We did notify all the direct debutters just just to get to the issue of transparency. So thank you you're not concerned about that sense to us as a sub Community too. Because in the spirit of cleaning things up, it's really not good practice to have a lot where the zoning line runs through the middle of it. And since it was a commercial use made sense to keep the whole lot commercial
▶ 1:30:29 Robb Stewart: use not commercial with residential in the in the back. So it seems like just another clean up project. But it is very humble to understand the thinking behind it. So, thank you. counselor Stewart Thank you very much. Sure. Oh one. question that lots of garfrey said that cute and I thought If we have an existing fence, that's out of compliance, six feet tall on the edge of the sidewalk and starting going to disrepair. and they want to replace it so they would have to Then conform to the new code if they were replacing the fish they're going to replace it. And so if they if they were if they could maintain it, but if they were going to replace the fence altogether. Because I think what question here's my
▶ 1:31:27 Robb Stewart: concern is, you know, they don't want to lose the the big fence. So they're just going to leave the old rotting fence up and it's gonna you know distract take away from the neighborhood, you know, just it causes other issues. So what's the plan there? If it was a safety issue, right it was falling into disrepair onto the public way or something that I think. that could be it wasn't a safety issue, but it just you know, just We could we could check with the building inspector on this one, but generally speaking if it's pre-existing non-conforming you can repair and replace it not substantially in larger modify it so they can keep it. Okay, we can double check with that. Yeah, he's the entire sir. Yeah good
▶ 1:32:08 Leila Migliorelli: question, so they are currently, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. anyone else Motion to recommend for passage. No, sorry we I'll make a motion to hold this in committee. second motion to holding committee made by councilor Williams seconded by counselor Stewart anyone on discussion and just for the public the reason why this motion was made it's the only legal legally accepted motion that we can make at this time and just also before we vote just the schedule moving forward and please miss Kathy. Correct me if I'm wrong that the planning board has its hearing on next week, March 13th. And then the according to State Statute the planning board has to submit a report to the council by April 3rd, 21 days 21 days
▶ 1:33:11 Leila Migliorelli: after the public hearing. Yeah, and then the council has or yeah has 90 days after after the date of our hearing to take take action on it. So just wanted to make sure public everyone is aware of that, right? Motion on the table to holding committee all in favor. Aye and he opposed. Disorder will be held in committee. You'll entertain a motion to adjourn. I'm sure I'll make a motion to adjourn motion adjourned Me by counselor. Stewart seconded by councilor Williams all in favor. Aye any opposed we are now adjourned. Thanks.