Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2024-08-19
Attendance
Cal Finocchiaro ; Mark Garipay ; Ward Hamilton ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Leila Migliorelli ; John Obremski ; Devin Romanul ; Robb Stewart ; Kimberly Vandiver ; Ryan Williams
Agenda
- Call to Order
- Public Comment
- Public Hearing 7:30 PM - Zoning Ordinance Recodification
- Ordinances
- ORDNC-2025-1 : Amending Melrose Zoning Ordinance Chapter 235, Articles I-XVI to recodify, or restructure and clarify, the contents of the Melrose Zoning Ordinance.
- Grants
- GRANT-2025-1 : Requesting acceptance of a Massachusetts Gaming Commission Community Mitigation Fund Grant in the amount of $65,500 to address the impacts of gambling related harms in our community.
- Adjournment
- AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT NOTICE
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CALENDAR● AUGUST 19, 2024 Council Chamber, First Floor, Melrose City HallJoint Meeting with the Planning Board 7:25 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Maya Jamaleddine Chair Present Ryan Williams Vice Chair Present Mark Garipay Present Robb Stewart Present Manjula Karamcheti Present John Obremski Present Ward Hamilton Present Kimberly Vandiver Present Devin Romanul Present Cal Finocchiaro Absent Leila Migliorelli President, Ex Oficio Present
ORDNC-2025-1 Amending Revised Zoning Ordinances Amending Melrose Zoning Ordinance Chapter 235, Articles I-XVI to recodify, or restructure and clarify, the contents of the Melrose Zoning Ordinance. Held in Committee
GRANT-2025-1 Grant Requesting acceptance of a Massachusetts Gaming Commission Community Mitigation Fund Grant in the amount of $65,500 to address the impacts of gambling related harms in our community. Ought to Pass City Council City of Melrose Page 1 9/3/2024 7:53 PM
Transcript
▶ 7:15 Maya Jamaleddine: Uh, with no objection. The meeting is adjourned. Right, counsel, Good evening. The time is 7 25 on Monday, August 19th, 2024. This is a meeting of the Appropriation and Oversight Committee. I am Maya Jamal, Dean pronouns. She and her the chair. And joining me are Vice Chair Williams, counselor gpe, Karen Shadi, Stewart Van DeVera, Hamilton Romano, and President Ley. Um, I'm sorry. And, and Counselor Abramsky. This serves as notice of a quorum for the record in accordance with the open, uh, meeting law. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live on MMTV. Um, now for the public, um, uh, common portion. Um, uh, we, uh, next up. So for the public comment, um, I would, uh, motion by unanimous consent to open, uh,
▶ 8:16 Maya Jamaleddine: the floor for public comment. Seeing no objection, public comment is now open. This is the portion of the meeting where anyone, uh, from the public can come forward and speak on any item of the agenda. Or tonight seeing none in person. Do we have anyone online? There Are no Participants online. Okay. Um, Seeing no participation from, uh, the public, I would like to motion by unanimous consent to, uh, close public comment. Seeing no objection, public comment is now closed. Um, at this time I will motion by unanimous consent to open the public, uh, hearing concerning zoning ordinance. We just Need to wait till seven 30 time. Seven 30. We have three. Okay. Um, um, okay. So, uh, we will need to, um,
▶ 9:18 Maya Jamaleddine: We can move on. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Um, I would, um, if there is no objection, I would like to, um, make a motion for recess for two minutes and we'll be back at seven 30 for the public hearing. Seeing no objection, we are now in research You don't want. And we are back for the public hearing portion. Now it's seven 30. And I would like to introduce, um, chair, um, Mr. Hanson. Yeah, this is Gregory Sampson, chair of the City, Melrose Planning Board. Uh, with us tonight, our planning board members and Deus Ward. Jack Welch, Beth Deja, um, Paul King, Tim Bailey, and Brian Gregory. Thank you. At this time I will motion by Unanim unanimous consent to open the, uh, public hearing, uh, concerning zoning.
▶ 10:42 Maya Jamaleddine: Ordinance three qualification. Seeing no objection, the public hearing is now open. Do we have anyone, uh, in person or online interested in participating in public hearing? Public comment. Uh, there are three people attending. If you could raise your hand if you'd like to speak. No one has raised their hand. Virtual hand. Anyone in person wishing to speak to participate in public comment for the public hearing portion, It's okay. Yep. Please come forward. Please say your name and address for the record. David McLaughlin, five Indian Hill Lane, Melrose, Massachusetts. I have a few questions. Could I start? Go ahead. Um, I didn't get enough time to go through. There's a hundred and something pages
▶ 11:39 here, so it's a little difficult. Uh, my son and I own multiple houses here in mass, in Melrose, in multiple lots. And we were curious what effects this would have on this and for us to really comment on this. Again, we're layman here. We're not really zoning people, but would help us immensely would be the current zoning map with the proposed change, the current zoning laws, and the then the proposed change. The way it's set right now, it shows the changes, but it doesn't tell you what the actual laws are now. So it's difficult for a layman to follow the changes. So we're just concerned as to what's actually changing because we can't understand it from the information that was available online.
▶ 12:20 So for us to give you good feedback and the rest of the people in the community, I'm sure if they could decipher it a little better, it we'd be much more easier for someone to get, you know, come up and give you public comments. That's what I'd like to bring to the board's attention. Thank you. Any questions? Any other question or comment that you wish to add? No, that's just it again, it's just very ease of understanding. Uh, the laws are very articulate in many cases and it's tough to follow. And you know, if you, if you go through the whole a hundred and I think it's 127 pages, it's very difficult for people to understand. So that's why I'm sure you don't have a lot of people coming in here with comments
▶ 13:03 Maya Jamaleddine: 'cause they really don't understand what the proposed changes are. Right. Thank you. Okay. Thank You. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to participate in public comment? Seeing none. Um, I would like to, uh, motion by Unanim ISS consent to close, um, public comment for the public hearing, uh, on zoning ordinance requalification, seeing no objection, public comment for the public hearing is now closed. Uh, since we have members of the administration here tonight to speak on the items before us, I will motion by unanimous consent to suspend the rules before we proceed. Seeing no objection, the rules are now suspended. We have Ms. Kathy Probably Thank you. And for, um, the record, I would like to read the ordinance that we are discussing.
▶ 14:19 Denise Gaffey: Ordinance 2025 dash one, amending marrow's zoning ordinance chapter, um, 2 35 articles. Um, I ex, uh, uh, five, uh, ex, uh, four or 14, uh, to reify or restructure and clarify the contents of the Melrose Zoning ordinance. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Um, good evening. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. Um, by way of introductions, I just want for the public to introduce myself and a group up here. I'm Denise Gaffey, the Director of Planning and Community Development. And on my right is Lori Masa. She's the senior planner in the office. And on my left is Jonathan Silverstein. He is a partner with Blattman Brosky, Harvard and Silverstein. And they are, um, a, a law firm that specializes in municipal law
▶ 15:18 Denise Gaffey: and land use real estate law. Jonathan is one of a three member team of consultants that we've worked with. Through this process, we did a obtain a grant, a housing choice grant, um, to, in order to, um, to hire this consulting team. And, um, and Jonathan's here to represent the, the team tonight and answer any, any questions along, along with the staff here. Um, very excited to be here. The, we are, um, we are proposing to reify our zoning. And, um, and that's, um, I know it's an unusual term, but it's a, it's, it's basically means we're, we're attempting to restructure and clarify the zoning provisions and make it, and make it easier to understand. Um, it is a long time coming. Our, the zoning was last reified in 1972, so
▶ 16:07 Denise Gaffey: that's 52 years ago. And, um, by any measure, that is much too long to wait to, to, um, do a process like this. Um, it is a, um, a goal, something we spoke about in our, um, uh, Melrose Ford Master plan in 2017 as a, as a goal. And also, um, we contemplated it as well. In 2004, when we first updated our master plan, um, after many decades, um, in the interim years, we were hard at work doing, um, making many zoning, many adjustments to our zoning ordinance. Um, we have been, um, trying to, um, create zoning regulations that promote smart growth and target, um, target our transit oriented areas in order to, um, promote the kind of growth and development that is consistent with the character of Melrose.
▶ 16:55 Denise Gaffey: Um, but we recently, upon the completion of our housing production plan, we were, um, at a point we, we had a competitive edge toward getting this housing choice choice grant funding. And the first thing we wanted to accomplish was to, to clarify and reify our zoning. Um, so we had been working, um, for several months on this effort, um, with, very closely with members of the planning board, the zoning subcommittee along with our consulting team, and also some stakeholders that we've reached out to. We're really excited to embark on this, this part of this phase of the process where we can engage with the council and with the public and, um, and, and ideally adopt a rectified zoning that, um,
▶ 17:39 Denise Gaffey: the community, you know, can embrace. Um, I'm going to, um, without much further ado, I'm gonna turn this over to Lori Maa. Lori is, um, has prepared slides, a slide presentation that she's gonna walk through. And, um, in addition to being the senior planner, a lot of people don't realize that when Lori started eight years ago, she came on board and worked exclusively with, um, our zoning board of appeals. And prior to that we had a, um, um, we basically, we had a stipend position that, that, um, supported that board and Lori really professionalized that role. And also, um, she's, I would say, uniquely qualified having been on the front lines of dealing with a lot of the, um, residents who come
▶ 18:22 Denise Gaffey: for zoning relief in front of the zoning board appeals, understanding the kinds of concerns that they have and how they can be better served through a reification of our zoning. Um, so without further ado, I'm gonna turn it over to Lori and we're, we'll be happy to entertain, you know, questions, um, when the presentation is complete. Okay. Thank you Denise. And thank you all for, um, looking over this, um, important proposal that we've put together. Um, so I'm gonna start with the goals of this project. The goals fall into four categories. Um, the first is to make the code easier to navigate and understand. As Denise mentioned, um, the zoning was last reified in 1972 and it needs a lot of spring cleaning.
▶ 19:07 Um, and to do this, we reorganized the text and put it into different system of sections, um, that have a more logical order. We rewrote sections that were difficult to understand or could have multiple interpretations. We remove some sections that are no longer relevant or impossible to use. Um, we modernized the language that, um, you know, was written in 1972. We added diagrams to help it easier to understand the dimensional regulations. And we'll go through examples of these specific, um, goals as we go through the presentation. The second goal was to codify current practices, um, that the board impose on projects through zoning permits, like special permits, um, site plan approval and, um, variances.
▶ 19:56 Um, and so we can codify those practices into the zoning ordinance. Three, we're making changes that to have our local, um, regulations comply with state law and case law. Um, that's always kind of changing, um, how zoning can, can regulate uses and dimensions and, and all the other things that, um, zoning is meant for. Um, and four, we wanna have an organized code so that we can have future zoning amendments that are easily incorporated into this document and understanding, you know, what is in there right now. Um, 'cause a lot of regulations are buried and attaching new things onto it can be conflicting. Um, so we wanna make sure we note that we're not proposing to change any of the zoning boundaries with this proposal.
▶ 20:48 So all the zoning districts will remain the same. All the lines remain the same, we're not changing the map. Um, and there aren't any major policy changes related to dimensional requirements or uses allowed in each of the districts. So here's the, uh, guide to the current code to understand some of the challenges. Um, if you wanna do specific things, um, to your property. So first example, if you wanna build a house on a vacant, um, on vacant parcel in the city, to find the lot with requirements alone, you have to go to the frontage definition a lot with definition, the dimensional table, and then additional density and, uh, dimensional and density regulations. So it's a lot to look for and they're not cross-referenced.
▶ 21:33 Um, if you wanna expand your driveway, you have to go to these four kind of unique sections of the code, um, which you know, aren't, again, cross-referenced. Um, you want to add an addition to your house and you need a variance to extend an existing nonconforming side yard. You have to go to the variance section, which is actually under the special permit section as the title, um, which is a totally different kind of zoning permit. Um, you have to look to the zoning board of appeal section and the special permit granting authority section. Um, if you wanna install a pool and you wanna know the regulations around that, you have to dig and go to the footnote two of the accessory building and other structures table, um, which is,
▶ 22:18 you know, I would never kind of connect those two things. Um, and next is, if you wanna find all the allowed uses of that are allowed for your property, you go to the use table and then a whole host of sections. Um, some of the uses have their own article to say what those regulations are. Some of those use, um, standards are in the use section and some of them are in the definitions, so they're kind of all over the place. Um, if you wanna install a fence on your property to find the height, you have to go to the use table. So the ordinance kind of n is uses and dimensions in multiple sections. Um, so it's very hidden. And then there's also a component, um, of fence height and the density and, um, dimensional regulations.
▶ 23:11 Um, so here's an overview of the process that we've gone through for this effort. Um, Denise mentioned the housing choice grant that we applied for and received, um, from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. Um, we were eligible for this grant because we're a designated housing choice community for the planning work and housing production that the city has done. We hired, uh, community scale, um, LLC, which was comprised of two planners. And we have the privilege of having, um, Jonathan Silverstein with us tonight who's a leader in, um, zoning and, and land use law. We worked with our zoning subcommittee of the planning board, um, and we're lucky to have a very qualified group
▶ 23:55 of professionals on, um, our boards who are really dedicated to the city and it's a pleasure working with them. Um, so we had, uh, NES Nelson from community scale conduct one-on-one interviews with stakeholders, uh, to generate some feedback on the existing issues with the code. Those stakeholders are very familiar with the zoning ordinance, and so it was a good group to, um, to ask for feedback. And we'll get into that a little bit more in the next slide. Um, we met with the building commissioner and the building inspector to review and incorporate their comments and go through the, the code with them. Um, and they'll be glad to have a cleaned up version of the zoning ordinance. Um, we posted the materials on the website
▶ 24:38 and communicated through the, um, Melrose Weekly and the the week ahead email. Um, and now we're starting, this is the start of the public hearing process to get feedback about the code. Um, next steps is the planning board will meet and they'll discuss what, um, the comments were as part of this meeting tonight, and then make a recommendation to, with a final recommendation back to the city council. Um, and then under the law from the close of the public hearing, the council has 90 days to vote, um, on the proposal. So, um, here's the slide to give you an idea of what the feedback that we heard from stakeholders. Um, we invited architects, developers, land use attorneys, planners, board members, um,
▶ 25:29 to get their take on issues with the code because they are users of the code and it's, uh, pretty nuanced thing. So some, um, topics that we heard from them, um, were to switch the way that definitions are listed. So take out the comma so that it's, there's a more intuitive search when you're looking for a certain thing. Um, and also with the online version, you, you know, wouldn't think necessarily think to write building accessory, but you write accessory building. Um, we're clarifying the difference between basement and cellar, which work closely is like splitting hairs and the zoning, looking at those two definitions. So make that easier to, um, interpret for. They impact the gross gross floor area of buildings
▶ 26:14 and the height in terms of number of stories. Improve the definition of pool to be clear about pools versus hot tubs. Streamline the process so cases are not shared between the zoning board and planning board. Clarify that residential units are not allowed on the ground floor of mixed use buildings. Include visual diagrams to explain complicated issues such as how corner lot illustration is helpful. Um, include zoning map with the ordinance on E code 360, which is the site that we use to host the, the city regulations. Um, put the tables in the right spot, the link to the tables in e code 360. And then the stakeholders also gave us ideas about what they'd like to see for future zoning amendments.
▶ 26:59 So we were able to incorporate, um, this feedback into the proposal, um, that we have before you. Um, we do need to check with e code 360 on the location of the links, um, which we'll have to do when we, you know, if we submit this proposal for an update. So the next few slides are examples of how we clarified and modernize the language in the zoning ordinance. Um, so the top of this slide has the current regulations for permitted uses. And the text in the box, um, is referring to, there's a reference to a property with frontage issues and infrastructure availability, um, and requiring a zoning, uh, special permit for uses on that kind of a land. Um, so there's a case law that says that you can't require a special permit for those,
▶ 27:53 um, circumstances. So we removed that and then also broke down the paragraph, um, because there's a lot of long sentences in the zoning. So it broke down the paragraph into a list structure so you can actually, you know, more easily see what's what's hidden in, in that regulation. Um, next is the regulation that, um, only allows one principal structure per lot, um, which is, again, very hidden. Um, and we've pulled that piece of it to the front of the regulation and then removed, unrelated, you know, or shifted, um, other regulations into other numbers. So they're more of a listed or removed stuff that we've taken out. 'cause it's not no longer applicable. Um, I had a discussion with the building commissioner this morning on this one
▶ 28:48 'cause you know, it's like, I know it's in here, but I can't find it. And, you know, it's, it's, it's sometimes impossible to actually see it when it's buried in paragraphs like this. So we, um, also modernize language in the code. So the first example here is the definition of a garage. And, um, it's talking about a motor vehicle, which is contains flammable fluids, um, in its fuel storage tank. So it doesn't allow for electric vehicles, um, in the, in the definition. So it would change that. Um, the second one is talking about, um, permit time limits and having the zoning board of appeals be able to grant extensions for building permits, um, which exceeds the state law. And, um, so we wanna remove those kinds of,
▶ 29:41 of things from the code. Um, next on this slide is updating the state's housing office title that moved, uh, changed from DHCD to, uh, E-O-H-L-C. So making changes like that. Um, and then another similar one was the planning board was referred to as a site plan review committee when issuing site plan approval. Um, and the term just never kind of caught on in use and, and isn't needed. So that kind of thing was, um, changed. So the next several slides go through each article of the zoning and, um, you can see how the new code is structured. So the, um, on the left is the table of contents of the proposed code, and in the middle is the table of contents of the existing code and the arrows show of the how the sections moved from,
▶ 30:35 from the old into the new. Um, so this is article one, the introductory provisions and the accomplishments that we were, that we got from cleaning up this section were, um, reorganization that follows a more logical structure. We, um, updated modernized the, the purpose section of the zoning ordinance to reflect the city's current values and priorities. Any language that was duplicative in different sections, we consolidated. And so there's, it's a shorter, shorter document. Um, article two is DEF definitions. Um, in this section, as I mentioned with the stakeholder feedback, we removed the comma between terms and switched the, um, the order. So for example, um, principle building versus building comma principle, we
▶ 31:31 clarified the dimension, the definitions of basement cellar, story mezzanine. Um, the frontage definition was augmented to ensure that frontage is not illusory. We changed the definition of street to be consistent with the subdivision control law. There was a term building line in the, in the code, which was used in different ways and confusing. So we removed that and replaced it with something, you know, with terms that, um, made sense. We, um, clarified the lot line at setback definition added definitions for mixed use, green building and sustainable design practices, um, transportation demand management plan and tandem. And then there were a lot of, um, use and dimensional regulations in the definitions.
▶ 32:18 And so we relocated those to relevant sections. Article three, administration and enforcement. Um, this had a lot of moving around, shifting from different sections. Uh, in this reorganization, we, um, added a section for the planning board responsibilities in the same way that the zoning board, um, has those regulations in the, in the code, we removed the application requirements and put those into rules and regulations for the zoning board and planning board. Um, in, in that way the boards can, um, vote during their meetings to change. Um, for example, you know, number of copies of hard copies, um, or change things. As technology, um, changes in wanting different information for evaluating projects, we change the zoning.
▶ 33:15 Um, the daily zoning violation fee fined from 100 to $300 per day, which is in the, the state law clarified the site plan review section for when site plan review is required. Um, we decreased the size of, um, of additions to structures that require site plan approval. This is a request from the building commissioner. So there was more oversight over changes to structures. Um, we increased the site plan approval expert, uh, expiration timeframe from two to three years, which is consistent with the site plan, uh, approval timeline. And often projects have site, site plan approval and special permit, um, at the same time. So made those consistent. Um, we clarified how revisions to approve plans are handled,
▶ 34:07 and we made sure the variance findings were, um, consistent with state law. So article four is the zoning districts. Um, in this section we added descriptions of the city zoning districts, uh, to clarify their primary purpose. We get a lot of people asking, what does it mean? What does URA mean? And so now there's, um, some more, um, in the code that explains the, the differences between the different, um, zoning districts. A section was created to list all of the overlay districts together, and regulations were added for how to deal with parcels and two zoning districts or municipalities. Article five is the use regulations. So all the standards for the uses are now reloaded, relocated to this section.
▶ 35:00 Um, we clarified the language about the number of bedrooms and affordable, um, units being similar in ratio to the market rate units. It was in there as, um, the sizes of the units needs to be comparable, which we always interpreted to be the number of bedrooms, but we just, those are the kinds of changes we made. Made sure we're clear in the actual code. Um, and then when the monetary contributions for affordable housing, um, are submitted, Article five is also the link to the use table. Um, so for the table we added a key, so you know what those symbols mean in the, the in the table. Um, we added cross sections so that you know where to go and the, if there's more detail in the text of the code,
▶ 35:47 the footnotes were shifted into the table so that they're easier to find. Um, we included physical therapy under the personal and consumer service establishment, since this is a use, um, that's common and could be interpreted to be in another, uh, category. So we wanted to make sure to put that one in. Um, and we clarified how mixed uses are allowed in the city. Article six is the dimensional regulations. Um, in this section, all of the dimensional regulations for principal structures were, were pulled into the section. Um, the lot with regulation was clarified. The current wording has multiple interpretations, and an un unfortunate building form, um, can result from, it's like a triangular back to the, to a building, um,
▶ 36:37 to try to comply with that. The way that it was written before, um, the, we fixed a slope protection calculation symbol had changed on the online version of the code. Um, supposed to be a division and changed a plus minus, uh, and then diagrams were added to the dimensional section. Um, so these are the diagrams looking at half story lot width, slope protection, fence height and corner and non corner lots. And, um, dimens, uh, dormer lengths and, and setback requirements. And then the dimensional table, we added some cross references to the table and cleaned up the footnotes, moving them to locations that were more visible and making sure that the, the footnotes related to, um, the text in the code.
▶ 37:30 Article seven is the overlay district regulations. Um, so we pulled these all into one section so that they're easy to, to find and distinguish from the base district regulations and regulations that were in the overlays that are also in the general code, like affordable housing bike parking, parking reduction sections were, um, removed from those sections so they weren't duplicated and just, and cross-referenced. And the flood floodplain regulations were consolidated. Article eight, um, is special development regulations that, um, apply to some of the districts are now in one section. So again, they're distinguished from the base district regulations. Article Nine is development standards.
▶ 38:18 Um, these regulations were buried and multiple places, places in the ordinance. Um, so they were pulled out to one new section. Um, hot tub was included with pool. Um, there was, we also added an allowance for a setback of six to 10 feet by special permit as opposed to variance. Um, because the site conditions make a lot of difference with these structures, as we've seen over the years with, um, variances for pools and hot tubs. Um, and so the special permit findings kind of are better fit for that kind of situation. Um, and we added that, um, these things cannot be, cannot be put in front yards. Um, and then to maintain a pedestrian oriented street scape, the accessory structure regulations were revised to clarify
▶ 39:08 that they're not allowed to be located, um, in front of principal structures. Article 10 is signage. Um, we remove the gas station specific signage to, um, so that the regulations are content neutral, which is a requirement of a recent case case law. Um, the gas station sign changes, um, have required variances anyway, um, and it's unlikely that we'll get another gas station, um, opening in Melrose. So the board didn't see this as a material change by removing them, Uh, to Article 11 is, um, parking. So the, the parking requirements for, um, commercial uses and mixed use. So residential and commercial use buildings was removed to reflect that the planning board has always approved these types of developments without dedicated parking.
▶ 40:07 Um, because of the benefits of, um, benefits and functionality of of shared parking for these specific types of developments. Um, bike parking requirements were added from multifamily and commercial commercial uses. Um, with help from the, um, Melrose Pet Bike Committee overlays, um, already required bike parking and the planning board always requires it during site plan approval. Um, we added regulations, um, that driveways in residential districts within one foot of a property line must be surfaced with a pervious material to reduce runoff to neighboring properties, which was a request of the building inspector or the building commissioner. Um, and last, um, is the non-conformance section.
▶ 40:55 So this, um, section was rewritten to conform with state law and to allow for minor changes to be by right while most changes to nonconforming structures will require a special permit as opposed to variances, um, to allow for changes to nonconforming dimensions and uses. So to give you an example, um, a BuyRight change with the this new section, um, would allow for installing a, a compliant dormer on your house. Um, so you're not changing, you know, the overall height or, or setback, um, or if you're adding a rear addition and extending a nonconforming, um, side yard by, by adding that addition. Um, but the addition has to be 75%, um, of that setback. So for a URA that would be, it has, it would have
▶ 41:46 to be seven and a half feet from the, the lot line, the requirement is 10. So this allows for, um, some change but not changes that are so close. You know, if you have an existing house that's three feet from a side yard setback, we didn't wanna, um, allow someone to extend that house backward back into the lot. Um, 'cause that's a, you know, a very, um, shallow setback. So there's some, um, there's review over, you know, if it was three feet, it would have to go to get a special permit from the zoning board of appeals. Um, but you know, the, the big change is that, um, alterations to nonconforming structures right now require variances, which actually isn't allowed under state law. So we're, we're making that, um, not change.
▶ 42:38 These are sections that were removed from the code. Um, and the reduction in the number of pages is a benefit because there's less to, to sort through. Um, the temporary moratorium is no longer applicable because the city has rules for marijuana establishments. So the moratorium isn't in use. Um, filling of water body regulations are under the Wetlands Protection Act and the regulated by the Conservation Commission. Uh, clustered development, planned unit developments and earth removal and fill sections aren't possible or relevant, um, considering building and development patterns in Melrose today. So the planning board is going to meet, um, on next Monday the 26th and discuss comments, um, raised during this public hearing.
▶ 43:30 And we'll submit a report, um, with the final recommendations to the city council. So some possible edits, um, that the, the planning board, um, that would like them to consider are, um, the following. So the sign section, um, counselor m um, brought up questions of, um, about the signage, regulations, and enforcement issues. So we took a closer look at this section and found, um, some ways that we could improve it. So we would like for the planning board to discuss consolidating unlit non-business signs or banners, which are signs, um, like community event signs, political signs, yard signs, garage sale, real estate signs, construction signs, those kinds of yard signs. Um, removing the setback from the front line
▶ 44:21 and time limit requirements to ensure we have the, um, we're not limiting freedom of speech we added. Um, we'll propose adding minimum size limit for the total amount of signage to 18 square feet to have some, um, limit if there's an issue of blight on somebody's property. Um, we wanna clarify that small up to one square foot. Identification signs do not need a permit. Uh, remove the requirement that civic organizations need a special permit from the zoning board to install signs at the city boundary line, which has never happened. Um, we wanna remove or allowance, allowance for 40 square foot, um, signs and residential districts, which is currently allowed for, um, schools and municipal buildings, houses of worship
▶ 45:11 and community facilities. Um, because making that content neutral will create an allowance for, um, other kinds of use uses to have really big signs in the residential districts. Um, and there is an allowance for 10 square foot signs, um, that's existing in the code so that that will be big enough. Um, and then, um, we found a few more spots where we can do some wordsmithing to further clarify, um, and we'll identify those in the final draft, um, submitted to the city council. Um, so to conclude the presentation, I'm gonna go through just those scenarios again of how people can use the zoning ordinance and the section that they would need to go to, um, with this reified code. So if you wanna build a house on a vacant lot, um,
▶ 46:01 to find the lot with requirements, you go to the dimensional table and that would point you to the right spot in the dimensional regulations specifications to find the lot width. Um, if you wanna expand your driveway, you go to the driveway section and then that section refers you to parking and loading specifications and impervious surface regulations. If you wanna add an addition to your house, um, you need a special permit, not a variance to extend an existing non-conforming side yard. You go to the special permit section and the public hearing review procedures. If you wanna install a pool at your house, you go to the swimming pool in hot tub section. If you wanna allow, see all the allowed uses on your property
▶ 46:40 Maya Jamaleddine: and regulations for those uses, you go to the use table and then that will refer you to standards for certain uses that have other regulations surrounding them. Do you wanna install a fence on your property? Um, you go to the fence and wall section. Um, so we we're fortunate to have a great team to work with on this effort. Um, we're available to answer your questions, um, tonight and look forward to more, uh, engagement, um, to hopefully get an approval for this much improved zoning ordinance. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Um, we will, uh, if there is no objection, I would like to make a motion, uh, by unanimous consent to, for recess to go for, uh, for, uh, consult. And then we'll be back to the, um, uh, committee meeting.
▶ 50:00 full council meeting and go back to appropriations. Thank you Every time. Oh, that's pretty good. It's a good one, right? That sticks in my head. That's a classic Ger. We are back, um, in the joint meeting and, um, uh, after we heard the presentation, um, I would like to see if anyone from, uh, my colleague have any question. First is, um, uh, Councillor Hamilton. Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you for all of your working, for being here tonight. And, uh, just one question, uh, through the chair towards the end of the presentation, um, we're talking about changes to signage. Mm-Hmm. And, um, removing time limits. And, and my questions are specifically about political signs, campaign signs.
▶ 51:13 Ward Hamilton: Um, I don't know if we, if it's part of our zoning, um, that we don't allow signs until 30 days before an election, if that was a, a real thing or a myth. Are we talking about removing that? That's the first part of the question. And the second part is with, uh, an 18 square foot aggregate total for signs, we could probably run into situations where people who want to support multiple candidates could get close to that. And I my own, it's not even a question, I guess it's more just, uh, an observation is that if part of what was driving those changes was concerned about, you know, possible, um, freedom of speech concerns, I think that would be an area that maybe for political signs we don't want to limit.
▶ 52:01 Like if somebody wanted to support four different counselors at large and mayoral candidate, I don't think they should have to pick and choose. Right? Yeah, it's a tricky, um, section to regulate. And, um, so the, we're limited in needing to be content neutral, so we can't, um, give special exception for certain kinds of signs. So the, um, so the 18 square feet would be about six of the standard size political signs. Um, and that seems like from what most people put up to be an upper limit. Um, so this was a way of trying to balance removing a lot of regulation. The first part of your question, we did have a limit in there about the length of time that a political sign could be up. So that was taken out on the exist,
▶ 52:57 the code that was submitted. Um, but we've refined it more to remove the temporary nature, which isn't allowed, we're not allowed to regulate. Um, but then thinking about, um, some kind of limit on numbers so that if there was a situation where you had somebody that put up a whole bunch of signs that there would be something in the code to say, you know, you need to remove part, you know, some of the signage. Oh, I, I thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks. Next, um, vice Chair Williams. Hello. Thank you. Um, since we're talking about signs it, and this could be useless feedback, but it occurred to me that we might have, um, a content neutral, um, delineation between temporary signs
▶ 53:45 Ryan Williams: and permanent signs because campaign signs are temporary, they're just stakes in the ground. They can be pulled in and out without problem. And the same could be set of, you know, yard sale signs and graduation signs and all these other signs that like kind of cumulatively add up to this potential theoretical limit. Um, as opposed to, of course somebody installing like a large mounted permanent sign. So that was one, one thought I had because I agree that we wanna be careful around, um, around having, um, an upper limit of, of yard signs where you might have an election cycle where there's a mayor for at large candidates, a presidential race, you know, a house race and people wanna, they wanna do it all,
▶ 54:24 Ryan Williams: but they're only gonna do it for, you know, a week or two weeks or something like that. Um, I wanted to, I wanted to also thank you all for this work because it's really good and the presentation in particular is really clear and has goals, which is fantastic and people can see exactly what they're getting. It's my understanding that this is an effort to remove restrictions and ambiguity and lessen the burden of special permits and review on, um, on, on residents and the board for non-conforming structures is, am I, am I interpreting that right? That the primary goal is to eliminate this thing where we have people going before the ZBA over and over and over again for the same thing where they always get approved
▶ 55:06 Ryan Williams: Yes. Right. For the non-conforming, uh, section. Yes. And do you happen to know like what percentage of Melrose properties are non-conforming and I mean structures, I mean, if, you know lots that's interesting too. But Yeah, we're gonna dig and get you that ex, you know, if we, um, move on to other zoning, um, ordinances or amendments and, um, you know, looking in into, um, future housing dimensions and things like that. We'll, we'll dig into that exact number, but it's a large number. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, and the, the big question that I have is that right smack in the middle of this process, right? The governor signed the A DU by right law, and um, you all know that there are certain things
▶ 55:51 Ryan Williams: that the city is allowed to restrict on and there are certain things the city's not allowed to restrict on with that new law. And so I'm wondering, given that that landed like two weeks ago or something crazy, um, do we need to wrap that into this process? Do we feel that there are things within the, the code that are gonna conflict with that? Or do we need to add new things to the code? You know, are we, are we looking at that? So the zoning ordinance, as you know, 'cause you've, uh, many of you have seen a lot of amendments is a living document. So we're, you know, it's always gonna be evolving. We're always gonna be back here to amend things, um, over time. And so the, uh, accessory dwelling unit, um,
▶ 56:31 Denise Gaffey: requirement, we have 180 days to enact regulations around that. Um, we, you know, the timing is actually great if, if this is approved 'cause so then we'll have a code that we understand everything that's in there and, and where to kind of insert it. Um, you know, we weren't planning on, um, put putting that into this, um, draft, but um, you know, we are, you know, I think we view that as, as our next effort. Yeah. I mean we're getting a lot of questions about it. Yeah. 'cause everyone is aware that that is now, um, a use that communities have to allow. Sure. So, um, but they also know it's gonna take time, which is why they built in the 180 days. And we will also have to wait for the guidelines
▶ 57:15 Denise Gaffey: to be issued by the state agency, the housing agency. So, um, we can be working on it. I'm sure our zoning subcommittee is gonna be anxious to kind of get into it. Um, but it, it wouldn't make sense to hold up this process to try to work that in at this Point. Understood. Yeah. Um, I have, I have one more question. Can you go back to what an unfortunate building form is? Can you, so it's the, the rear of the property would have like a triangular shape to try to get around the way that the Okay. The lot width and the back of the, the, the zoning requires that the lot width, the, um, the, the minimum for the full length of the building. And so there was, the way that the code was written, it's talked about the building line.
▶ 57:58 Leila Migliorelli: And so if you made a triangular shaped building and had the building line be a longer line, you could get around that regulation. Wow. And so, um, we've spent many hours trying. That's very interesting. Okay. Sort that one out. So, Well thank you again for all your work. I appreciate to hear the thought you're putting into the next step with the A DU legislation. And that's all for me. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Next, uh, president Ali. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. Thank you. Um, primarily that's what I wanted to say is thank you. Um, this is a ton of work. I love when we edit and make documents easier to read and navigate. The presentation was super helpful. I hope that it answers some questions for, um, the gentleman
▶ 58:41 Leila Migliorelli: who appeared in public comments. Um, and just other questions that we might get. I feel like that was a super succinct way of explaining the, what we're doing here isn't chain making broad sweeping changes to zoning, but just clarifying it for ease of navigating the document. Um, just to kind of go, uh, back to the, since you referenced my comments about the, the signs, um, I, yeah, I agree that I think I've always had concerns that, um, signage, the, the time limit, uh, could be challenged, um, uh, on the basis of, um, violating free speech. So I'm glad to see that we will remove the, the time limit, um, as well as the front lot line setback given that, um, some of us don't live in neighborhoods that have sidewalks.
▶ 59:28 Leila Migliorelli: And so it's, it seems a little bit sort of ridiculous to, um, dictate where those signs can go. I'm just wanting to echo my other colleagues, um, in that the maximum sign limit. I, I'm still wondering if that's even necessary. I know that there's a desire, you know, people don't like to see the proliferation of signs on people's lawns, but I just think it might be, um, might be now that we're doing this, it could be something that could be challenged again. And I don't know if we'd wanna go down that route. So I, I might recommend for removing that, um, maximum sign limit, um, from this section. But other than that, it all looks great and thank you so much. Very, very helpful. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.
▶ 1:00:12 Denise Gaffey: Um, next, uh, I have Councilor gpe. Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. Just, um, I appreciate all your work in this. I just have a couple clarifying questions. Um, how'd we come up with the nine? Was it nine stakeholders we interviewed? How did we come up With that? Is that Yeah, we, we actually generated, we generated a list, um, which we provided to the consultant. I think it was more than nine people originally. We may have had like, uh, 12 or 15 people. Um, and they were people that we encounter frankly a lot, um, who have, um, some sort of deeper, um, familiarity with the zoning Mm-Hmm. 'cause they're either, um, attorneys who work with the zoning a lot or, um, in some cases, you know, we included, um,
▶ 1:01:00 Denise Gaffey: the former chair of the zoning board of appeals 'cause she's intimately knowledgeable with the zoning. And um, and, um, we, and we had a couple of developers who we know frequently work with the zoning. So we wanted, we wanted to tap into, um, some expertise for people who are very familiar and have encountered a lot of the, um, a lot of the challenges with the zoning. We on a daily basis speak to members of the public. They call us constantly. You know, we, we talk to residents who are, um, confused about the provisions or encounter an obstacle with something they reasonable that they wish to do. And we of course see case after case in front of the zoning board of appeals. So we have a, we have a strong understanding of some of the,
▶ 1:01:44 Mark Garipay: um, challenges that are encountered by the residents in the community and property owners. Um, and um, this was an attempt to get at those other, um, users who are, you know, frequently, um, working with their zoning. Okay. Um, thank you. Um, just on article three, uh, site plan approval expiration was increased from two to three years. That was approved LA didn't, we already approved that in the last zoning change. So that was for the special permit. Oh, okay. Um, so we wanted to increase it for site plan approval as well, since a lot of projects require both types Of zoning permits. Okay. Um, and then a lot of my questions were answered around, uh, signage, but, um, and I just, uh, article six on dormers.
▶ 1:02:31 Denise Gaffey: 'cause it seems like I get a lot of inquiries from, uh, constituents and they seem like dormers go to the board of appeals. Is it a state law that it's 50% on the dormer? Um, looks like, is it 50% is what the what's what it's allowable. Yes. Okay. That's the max length. That's what it seems. I'm Sorry. This is what this community created when we amended our zoning several years ago. Mm-Hmm. To try to, um, to, to, um, limit the overall height of residential buildings to try to prevent buildings that, um, appear to be three stories where the, um, maximum is two and a half stories. So that's where that 50%, you know, I'm not questioning Yeah. The 50%. It just seems like when I watch some of the board
▶ 1:03:14 Mark Garipay: of appeals meetings that a lot of people are going for maybe 60, 65% Asking. That's right. So I Wasn't sure. So they are, they're entitled to ask for a variance in, in front of the ZBA Yeah. To that provision. So is that something we've ever looked at increasing? A little bit. Um, we're in a community where we have tight houses and a lot of great people, we don't wanna see them move out. If they could get a little bit more space, you know, food for thought. Yeah, I know we spent a lot of time on this issue several years ago. I'm looking over at Anne. Who remembers this? Uh, Anne, feel free to to comment. I just Wanted to clarify that 50% is only when you, uh, it's only when a half story is allowed.
▶ 1:03:54 It, it defines what a half story is. 50% of the roof line. So if you're limited in your neighborhood to two and a half stories for a house, the third story is the place where you can do 50%. The second story, a lot of capes have a full she dormer in the back. That's fine if two stories are allowed. So it's only, it's only in certain situations. Okay. So it's not always 50% only when you're trying to go more than the, Does that help me? Yeah. Yeah. It just, um, watching some of the board of appeals, it seems like we have more and more, uh, requests for it. That's the only reason Why. And that is one of those cases where, um, um, the ZBA can use their discretion on a case by case basis and they're able to, to um, really see how the dormer kind
▶ 1:04:42 Mark Garipay: of fits within the character of the, um, abutting homes. And to get feedback, frankly from, you know, from the abut as to how they, how they feel about that, um, that height. Okay. Um, you already, someone had already asked regarding the accessory dwelling and then on the, um, article 11, uh, par parking requirements for commercial use in mixed residential commercial use buildings, um, was removed. I guess, um, I guess my question in certain areas, like if, if you go down on, if we have a mixed of use building down on a certain part of like Tremont Street, ES Essex Street, where, where, um, you know, I've had a lot of, um, in my water. It's had a lot of development. If it's a mixed use, um, where we're getting rid of that,
▶ 1:05:31 Mark Garipay: what's the thought process of getting rid, getting rid of the commercial requirements? 'cause there's no on street parking over on that side of, um, side of town. And if we're looking to get some, some businesses in the mixed use, um, like if you look at the building on Franklin Street, that that's mixed use that's going up. But they, they have a garage, so there's no, there wouldn't be she spaces I don't think in that garage. 'cause I think there's a garage door. So I'm just trying to understand the thought process on why we're eliminating, um, some commercial space requirements. Especially on certain streets where we don't have any on street parking. Are we limit, could we be limiting businesses, I guess is more or less?
▶ 1:06:09 Denise Gaffey: I think, um, when we, Just a thought. I mean, I just No, it's a great, it's a great point. I mean, I think when we've looked at where this would apply to, um, in the locations where mixed use is allowed, they generally are locations where there is, um, there is some street parking or, um, municipal parking in close proximity. And so from a landus standpoint, it, it, it makes sense. It doesn't make sense to over, um, you know, provide too much parking beyond what's required for the residential use. Um, because there's also, there's opportunities for shared parking. It just becomes very, it becomes cost prohibitive as we know. And it'll also, um, leads to, you know, more, more vehicles and more traffic.
▶ 1:06:51 Mark Garipay: And it's, it is frequently something that the planning board uses a discretion to, um, to, to wave. And I understand that building on Franklin Street, that is, um, there's public parking there, but if you actually took that building and put it on Truman Street, there's really no, there wouldn't be any parking for any mixed use. 'cause it's, it's a garage underneath that. Yeah, that's my only thought process Of it. One other thing to consider is that we don't have parking maximums. So if a developer feels that they would need parking for the use that they are building for, then they're gonna build the parking for it. So Let's hope, um, answered that. And then on the signs, um, is there anything currently in the ordinance with, um,
▶ 1:07:38 Mark Garipay: like yard sale signs, putting 'em on trees or poles? I mean, I see a lot of people will, will put yards, yard seal signs and staple 'em to a tree, a light pole. We ruin the Victorian lighting poles down with, uh, duct tape. Um, is there anything in the ordinance, um, or can we add something that Yeah, there is, Has to be a ground lawn sign. You know, I think it, I think it, um, hurts the look of the community when you, when you see a lot of yards seal signs Mm-hmm. Stapled, um, duct taped around light poles. So I dunno if You can add something there. There is a regulation, um, around that in the ordinance, um, for private property. And, um, you can take a closer look to, to show you the details on that.
▶ 1:08:24 Um, exactly what the wording is. Okay. And if I could just really briefly, um, zoning can only regulate land use on lots, so it doesn't regulate what happens within the layout of a public way. So it would be a general ordinance or regulation that would regulate, you know, trying to put up a sign on a light post within a public way or a public shade tree or anything along those lines. And then just one other question regarding the, uh, signs in the historic district, is it still go to the historic district? Oh yeah. That's commission handles all of the signs and, uh, Well, yeah. Any, any doesn't, this doesn't affect any, um, the regulations for the historic district. The commission whatsoever, any, any exterior modifications
▶ 1:09:14 Manjula Karamcheti: to any building in a district still has to require some review and certificate of appropriateness. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Next, um, councilor Ka, she Hi everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Um, I will say that any questions or confusions I, I had, looking over everything, I think between the presentation and the questions that counselors already answered, I'm feeling pretty good. Um, but I just wanted to just name and reiterate like, our gratitude for this like, level of work. It is long and it is tedious and it is so detail oriented and like your design principles of really trying to make it use more user friendly and make sense. And it'll sound a little tongue in cheek when I say it,
▶ 1:10:02 Manjula Karamcheti: but I actually like really appreciate, like, if you're looking to have a fence in your yard, you go to the fence section. If you wanna build a pool, you go to the pool section. Like that is how we should create resources for the members of our community and our constituents. So they're not like barriers to those kind of improvements. So I just wanna thank you for those efforts, um, and putting this forth. Thanks. Thanks. Um, Councillor Swar, Thank Madam Chair. Thank you MSSA and Ms. Kathy for being here this evening and for all the great information. Um, just, I do want to go back to, even though he's not here anymore, Ms. Uh, Mr. McLaughlin's comment, he was asking about the zoning map changing.
▶ 1:10:48 Robb Stewart: Is it going to change? And if not, just if you could address that for him. Yeah, I think Lori mentioned that in the presentation there was absolutely no change. I just want that, that to be out so it's confirmed. So if he hears this wherever you are. Okay, thank you. Um, so what one thought is, are there like a common code requirement requests that are like above and beyond? Like do you have like the top three, top five that you continually see time and time For variances? For variances? Yeah. Most of the variances are for altering non-conforming structures. Yeah. And does it make sense to have just kind of a, if, if we have, if the major prevalence of that to have kind of like a, a guideline
▶ 1:11:32 or cheat sheet for folks to do that Great Idea. I think that's included right, though. Yeah, so we, um, The one pager, Yeah, we have a development review, um, guide on, on our website that, um, explains the process for, you know, you need that you need to go through. And our application also, um, includes all the steps for, for what you need to do, um, to go through that process. Um, so we, um, you know, we'll be working and, and looking at those permits that the zoning board always, you know, approves and why kind of have some homeowner go through the process of, um, getting a variance if, if that's something that we always say is okay. Um, so that's kind of a, that would be like a second step
▶ 1:12:23 Robb Stewart: to, um, a zoning change that would, would allow for those things, um, to happen with, you know, allowed in the, in the regulations. Sure. So, Sure. Great. Um, I do want to talk a little bit about, um, zoning violations. Um, please see that you're making it a little bit more stringent in nature and complying to state by moving to $300. Uh, can you talk a little bit about enforcement of that? Uh, and the reason being is you go out and you walk your dog and you see someone the just taking it on their own and they haven't gotten the permit up and, and, you know, what's the deal and how, what, what is the, what is the process for enforcement and, um, how can we get this instituted into the, uh, the community?
▶ 1:13:11 Denise Gaffey: So the, um, zoning enforcement is done by the, the, um, building commissioner in the inspection services department. So when we see zoning violations, we do the same thing when we're walking around. Um, we, we do make the building commissioner aware and so then I, I know he will usually as a first step send a letter to, um, the person or the, the property owner who's violating the zoning and ask them to fix the violation and make it clear that the fees will apply. And, and I understand there they can be, um, um, and they can be charged daily. This fee continues, you know, every day for until the violation is fixed. So I think he, that's frequently how he goes about, um, trying to address violations.
▶ 1:13:56 Robb Stewart: And is it clear in, uh, your documentation of the, the zoning, uh, violation of when that starts, the daily fee? Or is it on the discretion? It's on the discretion of the Billing, and is that clearly laid out within the document? I don't think it's laid out in the, in the zoning ordinance. It just seems, it just seems that there's a little bit nebulous there, so it cause problem, we just may want to be clear about that. Yeah, typically, you know, the commissioner wants to work with somebody to make them aware of it. And so it's, um, you know, with, because of the situation that's happening, there's a whole host of, you know, reasons why or if there's resistance or just, you know, ignorance to that.
▶ 1:14:43 And so it's, um, I would think it would be hard to, um, codify that. Um, Jonathan, do you have anything to add there? Yeah, I, I'll say that as a general rule, as in any law enforcement, there's a certain measure of prosecutorial discretion that goes along with deciding when, how, under what circumstances to take enforcement action, when to work with someone. Is it a, is it clearly a, a willful violation, someone who's trying to hide, or was it clearly just an unintentional violation? Is it a situation where maybe there's a question about whether there's a violation and some dialogue needs to happen? So I haven't worked with your building, uh, department specifically on this, but in general, working with municipal building officials,
▶ 1:15:39 as you know, as was indicated, it's usually begun with a conversation or an attempt at a conversation to try to work and with the property owner and address it and get voluntary compliance before you start issuing fines. Bear in mind that these fines have to be enforced by going to the local clerk magistrate, who frankly is less interested in zoning violations very frequently than a zoning lawyer might like to see. Um, they have DUIs and all sorts of other, you know, uh, criminal matters in front of them. And so it's not necessarily the first step you want to go to if you think you can get voluntary compliance. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Um, yeah, I think that's, that's all I have, Madam Chair. Thank you.
▶ 1:16:44 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from my colleagues? Um, Councillor Vandiver. Um, thank you Madam Chair, and thank you for, uh, all of this work and the detailed presentation. Um, I agree, it's, it's an incredible amount of work and it, and it's so organized and clearly presented, and I really appreciate that. Um, I had three questions. Um, one, you mentioned in the stakeholder feedback that, um, one of the bullet points streamline the process, so cases are not shared between the ZBA and the, the planning board. Um, if you could speak a little bit to, um, what, what was done in that regard? Yeah, so, um, that is, um, a process where the, the planning board, um, looks at all of the, the zoning board cases
▶ 1:17:31 and, um, makes recommendations, um, to the zoning board of appeals. Um, that process, um, can be confusing, um, for people. The, the planning board meeting isn't a public hearing. Um, it's a public meeting, and so oftentimes, um, the applicant and neighbors will see that the planning board has made this kind of official recommendation, but haven't had any input into it and, um, get upset or the applicant, you know, the planning board's okay with something, and then they go to the zoning board of appeals and they get denied. And, um, so, um, it's not required, um, that the boards look at each other's cases. Um, and so we still, um, will consult with the planning board for projects that we, you know,
▶ 1:18:21 Kimberly Vandiver: fail our difficult and, and want their, their take on things. Um, and so we've included that as, um, a in a way that, you know, we're making both boards aware of each other's cases so that if there is a case that a particular board member wants to discuss more or staff wanna, you know, run by the other board, um, we, you know, have the ability to, to do that. But, um, it wouldn't be, um, put into the code, um, as a requirement. Great, thank you. And, um, uh, you mentioned, uh, in this section on changes to article three, um, the accomplishment number five, uh, the size of additions that require site plan approval, um, for industrial commercial or multi-family structures was decreased. Um, to give a little bit more oversight, um, I guess is
▶ 1:19:19 can you talk a little bit more about why more oversight was needed there? Sure. So, um, changes to, um, you know, commercial or, or multifamily, um, buildings that, um, you know, we're a small city and you know, small parcels and so additions can, can be impactful. And, um, you know, the building commissioner appreciates the, the planning board's overview of that. And then there's also a public hearing involved. So, um, the neighborhood, you know, is notified of, of changes to, to building. So, um, because most of our buildings are fairly small in the city, um, he felt that a thousand square foot addition would be more appropriate to, um, you know, have that review, have that level of review.
▶ 1:20:09 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, do you have any sense of like how many, um, times per year that would come into play? Or like how, how frequent that, like that between 1020 500 square foot change is currently? Yeah, I don't think it's, I don't think gonna come up very much. Um, but it just was, you know, as you were kind of going through this, just one of those things, it was like, well, this, you know, just as kind of a, a check, um, for our future. But yeah, I don't think it, it happens, um, very much. Okay. And, um, the last question I had, um, we, I had a constituent interested specifically in, um, green roof, uh, as part of zoning, um, that they've seen happen in other cities. Um, so I guess what, and I understand that right now
▶ 1:20:53 Kimberly Vandiver: what you're working on is cleaning up and, and clarifying, um, I'm just curious on their behalf, what would be the process? Is it possible to put in a definition of a green roof or what would be the process to either put in definitions or requirements or authorization if somebody wanted to do something like that? Yeah, so, um, we've recently, um, allowed for density, um, increases and the, the BA districts if projects have green infrastructure and, um, um, you know, there's a whole list of things that, um, they need to kind of incorporate into the project, um, to, to make a, a green building in order for the planning board to grant a special permit for increased density, um, for that, uh, within that district.
▶ 1:21:41 Um, so that's something that we've already kind of, we have in the code right now. Um, it's, um, green roofs are, um, you know, it's a great thing. It's also can be tricky, you know, with depending on conditions and weight load of the roof. And, um, so, um, you know, giving it as a, uh, an option on, of a list of other, you know, things that people can do to build in a green way, um, I think is the, a better way to go. Um, so, um, and the building code is always changing too. And, um, so we have, you know, regulations around green building that are not, you know, outside of zoning. Um, so if, does that answer the question? I, I think so. Okay. Um, yeah. Thanks very much. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank
▶ 1:22:35 Denise Gaffey: You. Any other counselors? Just ask, um, councilor Carpe? Yeah, I just had, um, just, uh, feedback. I know some of the counselors like myself have received some emails today. And if we can just explain one more time what the process is gonna be over the next few weeks for the people at home. Sure. Yeah, I know we are, we've already said it today, but if you could just say it one more time. So this is the, um, the joint public hearing kind of kicks off the, the, um, the adoption process, if you will. And, um, the council is obligated to wait 21 days for a report from the planning board, so the planning board, um, or they can take action after 21 days if a, if a report does not, um, isn't forthcoming.
▶ 1:23:19 Denise Gaffey: But the planning board intends to meet, um, next week, a week from tonight, the regular meeting, and they'll talk about, um, some of the comments and questions that were raised tonight and whether any, um, further recommendation, uh, uh, modifications are recommended. And we'll put that into a report form, submit it back to the council. And generally, I believe the council keeps, um, zoning amendment, slide this in committee until the, uh, and then they accept the report in committee. Um, and then at that point, um, they may feel, you know, you may decide to make a recommendation to the full board. Um, there are 90, you have 90 days by state statute. All of these, all of this timeline is, is dictated
▶ 1:24:00 Maya Jamaleddine: by the state zoning act, by the way. And, um, you do have 90 days from the close of the public hearing to, to vote to, um, adopt the, the proposed amendment or, and make it modifications within it. And, um, otherwise you have to start the process over again. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no more questions. What is the will of the committee President Elli motion to hold? Second, We have motion to hold made by President Elli, seconded by counselor Gar pe. Um, is that roll call Madam Clerk? Is that roll call or Motion to hold? Roll call. I'm sorry. All of It. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Um, this, um, uh, ordinance will be, um, held in committee. Thank you all for being with us tonight. Thank you.
▶ 1:25:04 Maya Jamaleddine: Thanks very much. Good, Right, adjourn aur. Um, So Thank you for the members of the, um, uh, zoning board for being with, with us tonight. And now we have our, uh, the next item on our agenda is Grant, 2025 dash one, um, requesting acceptance of a Massachusetts, uh, gaming Commission Community Mitigation Fund grant in the amount of $65,000 to address the impacts of gambling related harms in our community. We have Director with us. Hi. Thank you everyone. Um, I'm excited to, uh, announce that we were awarded, uh, $65,500 from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, um, to address the impacts of gambling related harms in our community. Um, we are excited because this, this opportunity is for us to address some
▶ 1:26:36 of the impacts, um, even though Melrose is not an immediate but to the encore development. Um, we have that, they have seen that there is gonna be impacts from that development. And so we're hoping to address, uh, some gambling related harms. Um, some of the important notes is that the grant request was more than the amount that was approved. Um, a request was made for the Memorial Hall renovations in the amount of 101 hundred $4,694. Um, and the a ED purchase and installation budget was reduced from 30,000, uh, reduced by 30,000, from 44,000 to 14,000. Um, that can cover the cost of the seven portable AEDs that we included. Um, I wanna say thank you to Kara Showers our prevention and wellness coordinator in our office who led,
▶ 1:27:25 who led this effort, um, but be prior to being awarded this grant, uh, the city had an, uh, extensive application interview process with the project management team, um, from the committee mitigation fund. They asked a series of questions. This team included, uh, myself, Kara, uh, Lauren Gimmick from the mayor's office, chief failure, um, Maya and Lori Masa from the, um, planning, uh, planning division. And so we worked very closely. And after, um, review by the committee, um, they had awarded us 65,000. I'm happy to answer any questions related to this. Thank you. Thank you. Any question? Um, councilor Stewart? Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Mr. Chu, for your patience this evening. And I had to wait a little while for this.
▶ 1:28:11 Robb Stewart: Um, just a, a small comment. I think this is great to bring this into the community. I think it's a good opportunity to, uh, uh, for education. If, um, there's anything beyond what you've already said that you would like to elicit on terms of what this would impact and, and how this would help the community, that would be great. Absolutely. So, just to get a little more detailed, um, a large portion of this funding will go towards gambling, harm reduction. Uh, we're seeing more and more different forms of gambling, online, gambling, sports betting. Um, this is something that we've seen in our schools. Uh, we've heard anecdotally, at least from our parents, um, from our community that this is an area of concern.
▶ 1:28:51 Uh, we've also heard from some of our teachers, our coaches and athletic director as well. Um, so this is something that we're really, um, interested in learning more about. Uh, we have some preliminary data on gambling as a whole and how it can impact youth, but this is something that we want to extend further. Um, some of this work will also go towards our council on aging, um, moving towards a kind of an age spectrum, um, approach. And so, um, we also look, we're also gonna be doing research and look and doing surveys and trying to find data around, um, gambling on, uh, in from seniors. And so this is an important group because this is sometimes a fixed income group that we're, that we're aware of.
▶ 1:29:27 Manjula Karamcheti: And so, um, we want to dive deeply into, uh, financial management, uh, responsible spending as it pertains to gambling and how different forms, um, can affect different groups. Um, so this is a lot of that funding will be going towards that Commendable. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Thanks. Any other question? Councilor Chen? Um, Thank you so much. No, I wanna just, I think I, in some ways reiterate what you said. I have been talking to a lot of families whose high school age students are getting deeply involved physically in locations, but also online in terms of gambling. And it's becoming bigger and bigger because it's also becoming easier and easier to access. So is it the grant for more research based
▶ 1:30:18 and is it programming? Like, is there like a percentage of, Uh, yes. So there's, there's a share. So, um, some of it'll go towards, um, surveys. So we're gonna try and find out what the actual percentage, we had one, one or two questions in the YRBS. Um, this past year was our first time asking questions about gambling. They didn't get too far into it. You know, there was, there was a, um, percentage of stu there was a higher percentage of students than we anticipated that acknowledge that they use sports gambling apps, that they participate in betting as a whole. Um, but we're looking to get more details like how they're accessing these things. You know, how often they're, um, they're betting, you know,
▶ 1:30:56 Kimberly Vandiver: how much the amounts might be. So these are some of the questions that we wanna dig further into. Um, so part of the funding will go towards survey collection results, and then we'll also use some of different programming as well. Um, there's already some evidence-based, um, youth betting, um, programs out there that we're gonna be looking into to, to Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilor Van Devin. Um, thank you very much. Um, I, I just had a question about the, the document with the, um, breakdown of spending of the grant. Yes. Um, there's a consulting management fee in there along with the popup location that seems pretty significant. It looks like about half the, looks about as much as the rest of the line items related to the popup.
▶ 1:31:38 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, and you know, I'm sure there is a lot of management to do there, but I was just wondering if that's something that in the future, if we get very familiar with running these popups, maybe we could bring that in house and have more leftover to spend on some of these other programs. Absolutely. Yeah. Um, actually, uh, Lauren Grek, who was the former economic development director here, um, was spearheaded the pop-up program. Um, so we'll have more details on that. Um, I don't believe this budget is gonna be static. Uh, I believe we'll be evaluating this throughout the course of this grant, um, this year and seeing, you know, what, what we'll need to sustain this moving forward. So, um, I I could see that moving forward.
▶ 1:32:12 Ryan Williams: Great. Thank you. Uh, vice Chair Williams. Thank You. Um, Councillor Vandiver pointed out the $10,000 consulting management fee that is also listed as a two month commitment, right? So it's $5,000 a month for, for some lucky individual. Um, and I agree that that is a pretty high rate for what the Pop-Up program ultimately is. Um, but interested to see how it plays out. And that leads me to a broader point, which is that I really think that in particular with these programs, we really need to see the grant proposal itself in I QM two, the grant proposals for the Community Mitigation Fund are all public. They just take a little while for the Commission on gaming to put them online. Um, and so you can go
▶ 1:32:54 Ryan Williams: and look at what other communities are applying for, and it's very helpful to compare what the different communities. Um, some are abutters, of course, Everett gets a ton of money from them. Some are not quite abutters like Medford applies, Malden applies, um, saga applies for some Route One work, things like that. Um, but it, it's, it's, I would like to see the actual proposal so that we, as a council when we're looking at this, we can review some of the justifications and the data. The proposal itself is pretty, as you know, it's pretty detailed and it has the Yes, absolutely. You know, the, the statement on, um, on the impacts and things like that. And I think all that information is extremely
▶ 1:33:32 Maya Jamaleddine: helpful for us. Um, so if you could just please attach that to this, that would be great. Absolutely. I can do that. Thank you. Perfect. Any other question from my colleagues? Okay. Seeing none, what is the will of the committee Shall I'll make a motion to, uh, recommend to the full counsel. Second, We have a motion to recommend, uh, to the full council, made by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Karen Chen. Um, Madam Clerk Councilor Repe? Yes. Councilor Hamilton. Yes. Council ine. Yeah. Councilor Karen Shay. Yes. Councilor Ky. Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. President Melissa? Yes. That's 10 Yes. Passes. Um, thank you. Um, and this, uh, passes.