2026-05-27 - Urban Affairs Committee

0:03Good evening. I'm going to call the

0:05Urban Affairs and Housing Committee

0:06meeting to order. It is May 27th. We

0:09have two items on our agenda. The first

0:12one is order number 26 109683,

0:15a proposed zoning amendment to chapter

0:17650 zoning section 33 Results Way Mixed

0:21Use Overlay District. And the second one

0:24is order number 26 109754,

0:27the communication from attorney Aldo

0:29Cipriano on behalf of Mark Evangelista

0:31regarding the request release of a

0:34low-income deed restriction on the unit

0:36at 64 Village Drive unit four. So, we're

0:39going to begin with the Results Way

0:40Mixed Use Overlay District. It's my

0:43understanding that they're going to run

0:44through a brief presentation. So, if you

0:47would like to take the well, reintroduce

0:50yourselves again, please.

0:57And I think everybody's got a copy of

0:59their presentation.

1:13Can you guys hear me now? No? Yes.

1:19Uh Terry McKecrin with Grayland. Um

1:23Kevin Sheen, also

1:25also with Grayland.

1:27Um and we're in front of you this

1:29evening to discuss the zoning amendment

1:31to the Results Way Mixed Use Overlay

1:33District. Uh I believe everyone in this

1:35room has seen this presentation. We've

1:37made zero changes to it. Um so, I'm

1:40going to fly through it, but to the

1:42extent there are questions or you want

1:43to go back to any slides and talk about

1:44them,

1:45happy to do so. I'm just going to zip

1:47right through it. We submitted it, so we

1:49should talk about it. That's the

1:51existing campus as it looks today.

1:56Um just a refresher on our

1:59uh involvement with the campus. We

2:01bought it the end of 2020. Um, executed

2:04a 200,000 square foot lease with BJ's

2:06Wholesale to relocate their corporate

2:08headquarters from Westborough to

2:10Marlborough.

2:11Um, and 2 years later we did a 10-year

2:14extension with Hologic, the women's

2:15health company, um, who has been a

2:17long-time resident of Marlborough and of

2:19this campus.

2:20Um, and then most recently we uh were

2:23successful partnering with Marlborough

2:25and winning the Massachusetts um it was

2:28a DCAM RFP to build the new

2:30Massachusetts State Crime Lab. So, we

2:32have now broken ground on that um and

2:34are well under construction if anyone

2:35has driven up there recently. It's a

2:38it's a different site.

2:39>> Yeah, and the the actually the official

2:41groundbreaking is scheduled for June

2:449th, the ceremony.

2:46Um,

2:46we unofficially broke ground but we yes,

2:49we're well underway with construction.

2:50So, we're hoping you all can join us

2:53there that day.

2:55>> Yeah, hopefully we get good weather.

2:57Uh

2:59And then this is just a summary of the

3:01zoning that we've done to date. I won't

3:02go through it. I think everyone knows

3:04where we are. The the headline here is

3:06we are looking to raise the residential

3:08cap from 100 units to 400 units

3:10in subdistrict two of the Results Way.

3:15Um

3:16overlay district. Um, this is the most

3:18important slide. We are at step one

3:20here. So, the next step being that we

3:22would come back in front of these same

3:24three committees. Unfortunately, you

3:26will have to listen to the same

3:27different presentation but three times

3:29on the master plan and the development

3:31agreement um

3:32and then finally

3:34as the different phases would get built,

3:37we'd be back for the site plan approval

3:39of each of those individual phases.

3:44Um

3:45a plan view of the existing campus. Um,

3:48this incorporates the crime lab into the

3:50master plan. Um, the crime lab was zoned

3:53under the underlying zoning of the

3:55campus, not the overlay district. So,

3:57now we're updating the master plan to or

3:59we will, I should say, update the master

4:01plan to include that.

4:03Um, this

4:05Again, this is representative of the the

4:08full build-out. Um, but assuming this

4:10would be the next phase, this is 300

4:12garden style apartments, all surface

4:13parked.

4:15Then we're showing 100 town homes. I

4:17know I've said it in the past, but

4:19between the 100 and 300 still sort of a

4:21fungible number of what's town homes and

4:23what's garden style.

4:26And then the final phase being an

4:28additional commercial building in the

4:30middle of the campus there. We don't

4:32have to build any structured parking

4:33until that final phase.

4:36And that's your full build-out. Um, and

4:38the I just want to pause and the only

4:40thing I'll say that sort of that's new

4:42in the presentation is we've now done

4:43this a few times and we've heard from a

4:45bunch of members of the committees.

4:47Um, and the feedback that's sort of been

4:49consistent is that there was a lot of

4:51interest in seeing people like the

4:53diversity of housing stock

4:55um, and are interested in seeing

4:57what the phasing will be when we get to

4:59the development agreement. So, that's

5:00been consistent. Um, interest in

5:03amenities for the broader community at

5:05the campus. So, things like walking

5:06trails, potential better access into

5:09Craft Food Hall, anything we can do to

5:11explore bringing the outside in. And

5:14then finally, just on the sustainability

5:15front, both the planning board and um, I

5:18think the city council touched on maybe

5:20alternative energy sources, preserving

5:22mature trees, just kind of looking

5:24broadly at what we can do from a

5:25sustainability standpoint as part of the

5:27development. Um,

5:28so those are kind of just key themes we

5:30continue to hear and I'm assuming we

5:31will hear as we move into the next phase

5:33of this,

5:34which is the development agreement.

5:35Anything on that?

5:36>> I actually have one more note on this

5:38slide just to clarify. I feel like in

5:40some of the news reports we've seen it's

5:42reported like an additional 30, 3,200

5:47parking spaces and that it is somewhat

5:51inaccurately because it shows the

5:52existing the existing parking is

5:55um

5:561,700. So, that's included, you know,

5:58that's sort of the total parking at the

6:00end of the day.

6:02Um so, the net new would be

6:04approximately the difference, you know,

6:06half of that.

6:08Essentially, including all the phases.

6:09>> about 1,500 new spots.

6:11>> Yeah.

6:12>> All right. So, back to the zoning

6:15request that is on the table before us

6:18is to amend section 650-33E,

6:21which is

6:22eligible uses number one, which is the

6:25uses permitted by right.

6:29E, which is multi-family dwellings and

6:31then number two, where it currently says

6:35subdistrict two up to 100 dwelling units

6:38including without limitation

6:39age-restricted dwelling units, they want

6:42that 100 to be 400.

6:45So, I'm going to quickly go through the

6:47letter from the planning board that um

6:51we received because their input is part

6:54of this whole process.

6:56Um May 6th,

6:58Honorable President Osting and

7:00Counselors, at a regularly scheduled

7:01meeting on May 4th, the planning board

7:03took the following action. On a motion

7:05by Dr. Finby, seconded by Mr. Ross, the

7:08board voted to send a favorable

7:10recommendation to the city council on

7:12the above-referenced proposed zoning

7:14amendment for the following reasons.

7:16The board's consensus was that the

7:18proposed zoning amendment is in keeping

7:20with the character of the neighborhood

7:22specifically due to the diversity of

7:24homes that are being proposed. The

7:26board's consensus was that the proposed

7:28zoning amendment would not negatively

7:31impact the neighbors. The board's

7:33consensus was that the redevelopment of

7:35the site does provide an economic

7:38benefit to the city. However, the board

7:40is unable to determine if there is a

7:42market need for more garden style

7:45apartments, but did agree that the city

7:47is in need of town homes.

7:50And the board agreed the proposed zoning

7:51amendment is in keeping with the intent

7:54and purposes of the city's zoning

7:56ordinances. The board has the following

7:58additional comments. Among the proposed

8:00development options, the board prefers

8:02the inclusion of townhouse units and

8:05recommends that these be incorporated in

8:07an early phase of the project.

8:10The board also recommends that any

8:11mixed-use amenities and retail

8:13components be included in the early

8:15phases of development. If walking trails

8:18or bike paths are developed, they should

8:20be open to the public and where feasible

8:22connected to existing trail and path

8:24networks.

8:26An effort should be made to preserve

8:28mature trees on site where feasible and

8:30to maintain the existing natural

8:32vegetation buffer.

8:34Yay, Faith NBU's, Laventure, and Russ,

8:38and there were no nays. The motion

8:39carried 5 to 0. Sincerely, Shawn Faith,

8:42Chairperson.

8:44So, based on some on this and some on

8:47just my own personal opinion, I'm in

8:50favor of increasing the number of units.

8:52I'm just not so in favor of letting them

8:55be by right. So, I had talked to the

8:59solicitor. I had sent him a draft we

9:02played around with. Everybody has a copy

9:05of what I I can't

9:08move to amend the amendment,

9:12but I want to throw it out as

9:14conversation

9:15to see if anybody else thinks that

9:18switching up from all by right to having

9:22some be special permit. And I saw

9:24Councilwoman Dussets hand.

9:26>> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um

9:28I I think your approach is basically 300

9:31by right and up to 400 by special

9:34permit. Is Is the intent of

9:36>> No, 100 by right and then 300 by special

9:39permit to make a total of 400.

9:41>> Oh, so you want additional dwelling

9:43units?

9:45No more than cuz it says no more than

9:47300 dwelling units with the

9:48>> No more than 300 dwelling units within

9:50the sub-district provided that but it's

9:53if you look at two, two is special

9:56permit.

9:58So what one is by right.

10:01>> Okay.

10:02And then 300 by special permit.

10:05>> Yep.

10:06>> Okay.

10:07Um

10:11>> And then not

10:13to exceed 400 is in that.

10:16>> So 100 + 300 = 400 is your point. But

10:19the 300

10:20the only

10:22I think for wording if you could put 300

10:24additional dwelling units that might

10:25make it more readable. Um

10:28but uh the other the other thing um I

10:31also wanted to talk about is item C, the

10:35biosafety

10:36uh lab. That was I talked to these guys

10:38beforehand. Uh that was originally

10:40proposed when they were going to be

10:41putting biomanufacturing up there. But

10:43it is not relevant to the state crime

10:46lab and I would put that under item

10:48three as not allowed.

10:51You know.

10:52>> Um

10:54we could probably do that but this was

10:56in the original. They could still if

10:58they want to do by special permit do a

11:00biosafety level three laboratory and we

11:02agreed back when this was originally

11:04done that they could do that by special

11:06permit. I don't know that we want to

11:08take away that right at this point. We

11:10could deny the special permit if we

11:12don't want to have the lab but

11:15>> Yeah.

11:16It's a

11:17I was figuring that if it was a way to

11:19get rid of that one if it's not needed

11:20I'd keep it like that.

11:22Um

11:23but uh

11:25so I I I still don't I think the current

11:27wording item D is not clear. So I would

11:29just put no more than 300 additional

11:31dwelling units within the sub contract

11:34within the sub district.

11:35>> All right. I as I stated in the email,

11:37this has been looked at by the

11:39solicitor. I I hesitate to add that word

11:43additional because it's very clear that

11:45it's one and then it's another. So

11:47>> It's not to me. That's what I'm saying.

11:48>> 100 and then there's 300. No more than

11:51300 units by special permit.

11:53>> Yeah, but

11:54>> They're not additional. They're

11:56something like

11:56>> Right, but then right afterwards it says

11:58the entire subject is two shall not

11:59exceed 400. So you see 300 and then 400.

12:02Makes it a little confusing.

12:05>> Councilor Nevin.

12:07>> So I think that I just if coming from it

12:10um a different way counselor Doucette um

12:12because there's already 100 allowed by

12:14right by saying there's no more than

12:15300, you've got the delta there. So that

12:18the no more than 400 just leaves the 100

12:20in there. So it's not the 300 plus 400,

12:23it would be 300 plus the 100 unsaid 100

12:26is the 400. So it's I mean I think it is

12:27clear. I mean I I hear what you're

12:29saying as far as the you know, if a

12:31quick read of it, but I think since the

12:33solicitor's blessed it, I'm comfortable

12:35that it gets to the point that counselor

12:38the the chair Ruby is trying to make.

12:40>> Okay.

12:42I

12:43>> But you know, I I also struggle with

12:44some of the ordinance language that we

12:46see on a daily basis anyway, so I do

12:48rely on the solicitor and it keeps us

12:49out of the

12:49>> Yeah, hot water.

12:50>> Yeah, I think he's going to be the

12:51>> If I if I were the one to do it, we'd

12:52all be in trouble, so.

12:53>> Yeah, I'm assuming he's going to be

12:54watching this one anyway, so

12:56um

12:57the other highlight that you had

12:59uh

13:00the uh multi subject two shall be

13:03uh class main condition as I said. Yeah,

13:05the the other change, I mean, motion to

13:09approve effectively

13:11these changes as they are presented in

13:13red.

13:14Uh I got no problems with that.

13:16>> And how about with the deletion? And and

13:19um

13:20counselor Orm is not here, but I think

13:22the other item in our agenda tonight

13:24makes it clear that we know

13:26>> Two age restriction.

13:27>> Yeah, um

13:28>> Yeah, so I agree with that, too.

13:30>> We don't want

13:31>> Yeah.

13:31>> We don't want any more age restricted

13:34and we know that age restricted means

13:36that they can't up

13:38they can't be affordable and so they

13:40don't help with our affordable count.

13:42Don't Counselor Asing.

13:44>> So so so help me understand why we need

13:46a special permit. The the master concept

13:49plan requires a 2/3 vote.

13:52The development agreement requires a 2/3

13:54vote. What does the special permit

13:57buying me other than

13:59having the applicant come

14:01before us three times, I guess.

14:05>> Um I guess it just gives us another

14:08layer of looking at things. The original

14:11development agreement, which you

14:14probably have, but I don't know that

14:16anybody else did, had some

14:19I will call it mitigation, but I think

14:21mitigation to me is

14:24where we can deal with mitigation when

14:26we have special permits. We can't in a

14:29by right. Um so unless we want to add a

14:32ton of mitigation in the development

14:34agreement, it's easier for me to say

14:37let's look at all of this

14:39special permit. And I'm also going back

14:42to what we did to the original Results

14:45Way, where Avalon 1 was by right, Avalon

14:482 was by special permit.

14:51We we let them have more, but we did it

14:53by special permit.

14:57>> Right, but

14:58I would argue that the mitigation is

15:00outlined in the master concept plan and

15:03development agreement. And again, I'm

15:05trying to see what the value is of a

15:07special permit coming before us.

15:11You know, in the master concept plan we

15:14set up we want how many townhouses, how

15:16many apartments, the sequence of

15:18construction, you know, as part of the

15:20the agreement, we we outline all that.

15:22I'm I'm

15:23I'm trying to

15:25Again, I just don't understand what a

15:26special permit

15:28gets us.

15:30>> Uh nothing more than what a typical

15:32special permit gets us. I To me, I just

15:34don't want them to say that they can

15:36have

15:37400

15:38units of housing by right with no

15:43ability for us to have any say on what

15:46they look like.

15:47>> But we do. That That's what the master

15:49concept plan and development agreement

15:51are for. I mean,

15:52>> Well, maybe. We never got that far

15:54before. So, I would rather

16:00have this in the zoning, and then the

16:02other two pieces are

16:04extra steps or next steps, but

16:07um the zoning

16:09>> Councilor Drake.

16:10>> would take place. Councilor Niven.

16:13>> I hesitate to ask a legal question of

16:14the president, but I do want to ask it

16:16cuz I want to help get some

16:17clarification here just cuz this is

16:18obviously a different process than we go

16:20through on our other developments, um

16:22and it's a little tricky.

16:24If we are to change the zoning to allow

16:26the 400 units by right, and then we get

16:28into the

16:30next phase, which is the I'm going to

16:32say for people at home, but for myself

16:33as well. Then we get into the master

16:35agreement

16:36for the development, and we put in

16:38restrictions that say we want to see

16:41the 100 town homes built first. Right?

16:44And you shall not build

16:46the 300 garden style apartments until

16:48the 100 town homes are built.

16:51And the proponents who have been very

16:54cooperative and have been very great to

16:56work with and we had some different

16:59people in the past where it was a little

17:00bit challenging, but let's just say

17:01we're all working together. But then all

17:03of a sudden you guys feel like we pulled

17:04the rug out from you a little bit and

17:06say, "Well, you changed it. You said we

17:07can do this by right. We want to build

17:09because the market says we're going to

17:11get a better response for 300 garden

17:13style."

17:15Who gets the recourse in that scenario?

17:16So, are we going to land court? Are we

17:18going Are we here? Are we I'm just

17:20trying to understand.

17:22>> So,

17:23can I respond?

17:24>> Certainly.

17:24>> And I'll let ask Terry and Kevin to, you

17:26know, fill in any blanks, but the master

17:29concept plan basically go back to the

17:31cartoon for lack of a better word, you

17:34know, kind of outlines what what it's

17:36going to look like, right? Master

17:37concept plan. Development plan is now

17:39going to say, here's all the stuff we

17:42want in it. We want the parking garage

17:44first, the buildings cuz that remember

17:46we got hung up on that a couple years

17:48ago. We wanted office buildings before

17:50we saw

17:52residential units. And we couldn't get

17:54the commitment for the office buildings,

17:55so the thing kind of went "Goo."

17:57All right. Well, we actually

17:59>> Which we did because now we have a great

18:00crime lab where they were going to put

18:02those 100 units that they wanted to

18:03build first. So, look at how that worked

18:05out.

18:05>> so so so you can you can pat ourselves

18:08on the back for not uh

18:09>> It doesn't happen often, Mr. President.

18:10Let's take a lap.

18:12>> But but the development agreement And

18:16again, Kevin and Terry, tell me if I'm

18:18wrong. It's going to specify we want

18:20the

18:21garden style units first, the uh the

18:25apartments second. And And

18:27we can change the numbers I get I mean,

18:29it's just 400 units. So, if we want 400

18:31townhouses,

18:34I guess we can get it. I mean, they may

18:35I mean, again, it's going to come down

18:36in the concept plan. If we don't like

18:38the concept plan and say, "We want all

18:40the whole thing all townhouses."

18:43They may not want to do just like you

18:44know, we wanted the office building

18:46first and we don't like it, it doesn't

18:47go anywhere. But I'm still trying to

18:50determine what does my special permit

18:52get me that the development plan doesn't

18:55get me? I

18:56I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud.

18:57I just don't unders- I'm trying to

18:59understand why I would want to have a

19:00special permit in addition to the

19:03development plan.

19:04>> And I guess my thought was it could make

19:06the development agreement less

19:09wordy and less financially involved and

19:12let the financial pieces be in the

19:15special permit. But

19:17if everybody thinks the development

19:19agreement is the way to go,

19:22then

19:23I guess we can do that.

19:25Mr. Shean, did you have a comment or a

19:28question?

19:29>> Yes.

19:30Just to respond to a couple of things in

19:32Counselor Nevins' point, I think um

19:35is

19:36accurate that in as Terry outlined,

19:39there are multiple steps under the

19:41overlay. So, if for some reason,

19:45you know, we can't come to terms on what

19:48the concept plan um should look like or

19:52the um mitigation in the development

19:54agreement,

19:56we basically don't have a by right

19:58project um at that point. So, I do think

20:02it the council does and the city does

20:05retain control over it in the same way.

20:08It accomplishes much the same thing as a

20:11special permit. From our perspective,

20:15the development agreement is preferable,

20:18I would say, from um

20:20uh commercial perspective, from a

20:22financeability perspective, where

20:25we can look at it and say and we're

20:27willing to have this negotiation with

20:30you all up front. That's better for us

20:34than saying, "Okay, great. We have some

20:37ability to build a certain number of

20:39units, but we have to go back and

20:41negotiate

20:42uh mitigation agreement in the future.

20:44We're not sure exactly how much that

20:47will cost us." So, it's kind of it makes

20:49it a little bit harder from our

20:50perspective to actually get the units

20:54built in the future. So,

20:56>> So, I think

20:57>> prefer to do that up front if possible.

20:59>> So, I So, I I appreciate that point um

21:01and I think it it clears it up. Some of

21:03the part that I'm struggling with here

21:04and so I'll rely, you know, on Counselor

21:06Rossing and the chair to help here.

21:09One of the things I get hung up on a lot

21:10as we go through this process, not

21:11specific to this process, not this

21:13parcel cuz obviously the overlay makes

21:15it a little bit more complicated than we

21:16deal with others.

21:19My argument here, which you have all

21:21heard too many times to count, is that

21:23our chance to make sure we know what's

21:25going into a project happens when we

21:26change the zoning.

21:28We have seen time and again here, again

21:30not this parcel, when we approve the

21:32zoning overlays and then

21:35that only took the six votes and then we

21:37come and we need a special permit and we

21:39don't go for it, we often end up in

21:41court.

21:43Is that different here?

21:45And that's that and I think to I think

21:47it's gets to the point you're trying to

21:48make, Mr. President, and then also so

21:49I'd like to go

21:51>> So if I may mention to So so it is. So

21:53again, so the development agreement

21:54requires a 2/3 vote, okay? And so look

21:58the key elements, required mitigation,

22:00number one. Two, restrictions on the

22:02development areas.

22:04Three, proposed phasing. Four,

22:06obligations with respect to pedestrian

22:07and vehicle interconnectivity. Those are

22:09all things that have to be addressed.

22:11And and I'll just go back to they can

22:13build 100 houses right now.

22:14Well, technically yes, but no, they

22:16haven't come before us with a master

22:18plan or a development agreement.

22:20>> Right.

22:20>> So at if so if I was going to throw a

22:22special permit on top of that, I'm not

22:24sure what I'm going to

22:27benefit. I mean, I I guess you can say

22:30it's another layer of

22:32checks and balances, but everything I've

22:33just heard, mitigation, the development

22:36areas, the phasing of the project, they

22:38are written currently in the zoning as

22:41it's listed right now and there's no

22:44wiggle room for a six six vote. It's a

22:462/3 cuz this is a development plan.

22:49Uh and same thing with the master

22:51concept plan. 2/3 votes for each one.

22:54>> And I would just throw out there that

22:55this is the exact same language

22:58before the subdistrict two was added to

23:02it. I don't think we changed anything

23:04else. So, when we did subdistrict one,

23:07we had all of this. We had a master

23:09plan, and then they decided they wanted

23:11to add more housing, and we amended to

23:14do special permit

23:17for the additional housing.

23:19>> Because the the way subdistrict one is

23:22listed, it's more Is it more than 350?

23:26The the the wording is different for

23:28subdistrict one. Um

23:30>> It's more than 350

23:32developed dwelling units within the

23:34subdistrict

23:36by special permit and

23:40by right,

23:41it was

23:43I'm going to go back a few pages. Um

23:47>> More than 350 dwelling units within the

23:50subdistrict.

23:51So, you could you could have more.

23:54>> Right. Up to 350 by right, and then we

23:57gave them the special permit to add

23:59more.

24:00>> Yep.

24:01>> So, that's exactly what they're doing.

24:03The original says you get 100. They want

24:06to add another 300.

24:08I'm saying let them have it, but make it

24:10by special permit.

24:12>> So, I would disagree cuz we haven't got

24:14to that point. When we did that, we had

24:17approved the 350 across the street. I

24:19was saying 400 on the other side

24:22by a master plan and a development

24:24agreement, which is what we did on the

24:26other side of the street. The special

24:28permit came in if they said, "Hey, I I

24:29want to build 500 houses." Now, I'll

24:33Now, I would agree that maybe you want a

24:34special permit, but to go to to do that

24:37now, to go from 100 to 400,

24:41I just don't think it's of any value

24:44for the council.

24:46>> Can I

24:46>> Madam President,

24:49>> I'm sorry. Who?

24:50>> Ingram.

24:50>> Councilor Doucette.

24:51>> Thank you very much.

24:53I mean,

24:54I see this is the the reason why they're

24:57submitting this is because

24:59if they want to submit a master plan

25:01today, they can show 100 units of

25:03housing.

25:04After if we agree to this and we

25:07you know, we put you know, this passes

25:09through and gets approved by the

25:10council, when they come up with the

25:12master plan, they can show 400.

25:15But the master plan right now can only

25:16show 100. So, we're

25:19you know, we're giving them the

25:20opportunity and correct me if I'm wrong,

25:22but basically when you come up with the

25:23master plan

25:24in the current form, you're limited to

25:26100.

25:27When you goes to 400, your master plan

25:29will be updated

25:31to 400 units. So, that's what comes to

25:33the council as part of the master plan

25:34is 400 versus 100 units.

25:37>> Correct. The master Yeah, they they have

25:39to submit the master plan regardless of

25:41whether the extra three are by special

25:43permit or by right.

25:45>> Right, but they can't show the 300

25:48because they it's not allowed in the

25:50current form. If this gets passed, they

25:53can show those and say, "Oh, by the way,

25:54these have to be by special Well,

25:56this allows them to do it by passing

25:58this as a special permit as a zoning

26:00change. Um

26:02my only concern is

26:05I would rather see owner-occupied

26:07housing

26:08versus apartments.

26:10Because there's there there may be

26:12demand for apartments, but there's

26:14incredible demand for owner-occupied

26:16housing, specifically that, you know,

26:19something garden style, something lower

26:21lower cost to get in entry

26:24you know, entry-level housing

26:26um versus the apartments. That's

26:29cuz you know, there's there's a lot of

26:30lots of expensive apartments out there

26:33that no one in the city can afford.

26:35And we need to

26:37come up with alternatives that are more

26:39affordable.

26:40And that has to start with new

26:41development.

26:43So, that was my only other comment, but

26:44thank you.

26:46>> And I'm guessing you're not doing

26:48single-family homes. You want to be able

26:51to put as much housing as you can on

26:54that property,

26:55which is why you're doing town homes and

26:57then apartment buildings.

27:00>> Correct. Um we are open to the idea of

27:03ownership versus rental. I mean, we

27:06would love to keep as much flexibility

27:08as possible to meet the market, but town

27:11homes, you know, could be ownership as

27:15opposed to rental. And um

27:17again, I would just kind of draw the

27:19contrast with the Avalon situation where

27:22I believe they got a certain number

27:24approved

27:25and started and then came back later.

27:28And so I I think what we are hoping to

27:31achieve with this proposal is get the

27:34whole thing approved as you said,

27:35Counselor Desset, and sort of plan the

27:37whole thing out. Now, again, with all

27:40the appropriate mitigation and

27:42um

27:44you know, phasing and and other aspects

27:47which we expect to, you know, be

27:49included in the development agreement.

27:51Madam Chair.

27:52>> Counselor Nevin.

27:53>> I really hesitate to go back to the

27:55conversation that we had before we got

27:56off of it and did the different rabbit

27:57hole, but

27:59um

28:01here we go.

28:02Mr. President,

28:03um

28:04it So, in this particular situation, is

28:08the development agreement analogous to

28:11the special permit?

28:12Because to me, the the items that you

28:14outlined that would be develop would be

28:16discussed and approved in the

28:17development agreement by 2/3 of the

28:18council are the same things that you

28:21would

28:23negotiate and plan through in a special

28:25permit.

28:26>> In my opinion, I mean, Counselor Robey

28:29may not agree with that, but I I

28:30Again, and it's and it's unlike a

28:32special permit where we kind of wing

28:34what's going to begin based on what the

28:35applicant submits to us, this tells you

28:38it has to include these items.

28:40>> Right. However, so my question comes and

28:42I want to be clear, I support I mean,

28:44we've you know, I have a disagree I

28:46would like to see a little bit of a

28:48smaller number, but I am supportive of

28:50home of units in addition to the town

28:52home. So, I'm not I'm not doing this to

28:54be a stick in the mud. I'm doing this

28:55more cuz I've got to get my head wrapped

28:57around this.

28:58Um

29:00if if that is true,

29:02again,

29:04if they are not happy with what we

29:06approve or don't approve or don't

29:08approve the development agreement. Say

29:09we vote down the development agreement.

29:11If that were a special permit, we would

29:12go to land court.

29:14Is that the same

29:15>> I don't think you go to you don't go to

29:17land court for a development agreement.

29:19That's just

29:19>> They just don't build. They can't build

29:21anything.

29:21>> can't build it. They've got to come back

29:22and figure out a one that's going to

29:24pass muster through the council.

29:25>> Yeah. May I make a suggestion that we go

29:27this route as opposed to the special

29:29permit process that we go through on

29:31every single other development in the

29:33city and maybe we may have a little bit

29:34more of uh strength as a body when we

29:37decide what we would like to see. But, I

29:38guess I digress.

29:40Um

29:40>> I am perfectly okay having the

29:43conversation around what the development

29:46agreement

29:48can have in it and that will be the next

29:50step

29:51and go back to the

29:53uh language that they had. If they're

29:56amenable to adding the specific language

29:59about the affordables that was suggested

30:04by the solicitor.

30:06Um

30:07Compliance shall be made a con

30:09um

30:11Multifamily dwellings in subdistrict two

30:13shall be subject to 6 50 26 of the

30:16of the zoning ordinance. Compliance

30:18shall be made a condition of any site

30:20plan approval that's required. And that

30:22is the affordable housing piece.

30:25And I know you sort of alluded to you

30:28didn't have to have affordables when we

30:30had the public hearing, but in the

30:34information that you provided when you

30:36talked about

30:38what the the benefits of the city, there

30:41is the affordable piece in there, which

30:43is was picked up by the solicitor. So,

30:46he says they're talking about affordable

30:49there. Um and I think

30:52my concern with 650-26 is the language

30:55says multi-family housing and affordable

30:58is by special permit. It doesn't say

31:01anything about site plan only. So, by

31:03right is only site plan. The solicitor

31:06said by adding this language in, you

31:08have to comply with the affordable

31:10piece. And I want to make sure that that

31:13is

31:14there.

31:15>> I apologize. I'm not

31:17I don't know the exact numbers. That's

31:18the 12% affordable.

31:20>> Yes.

31:20>> That is our expectation is that we would

31:22comply with that.

31:23>> Okay.

31:24So,

31:25um we can go back then to the

31:30simple language

31:31of changing 100 to 400, but adding in

31:36um

31:37notwithstanding anything to the contrary

31:40in the zoning ordinance or the results

31:41we mix use overlay district multi-family

31:43dwellings in subdistrict two shall be

31:46subject to 650-26 of the zoning

31:48ordinance. Compliance shall be made a

31:49condition of any site plan approval that

31:51is required.

31:53And that's okay by you. Does that sound

31:56okay by

31:59>> Just a clarifying question. Does that

32:01mean that we're then agreeing to the

32:02special permit by accepting that

32:04>> No, the special permit's gone. I I would

32:06go back to just your your basic

32:09>> A A A that says

32:10>> Yeah, to your basic

32:11>> Okay, perfect.

32:12>> scratching 100, putting in 400, but add

32:15that additional I I would also strike

32:17without limitation age restricted

32:19dwelling units. So, it really would be

32:21sub subdistrict two up to 400 dwelling

32:24units, period.

32:26And then the notwithstanding anything

32:29language.

32:32>> That would be fine.

32:33>> So, we're getting rid of age restric or

32:35age restricted

32:37>> Good sign.

32:38>> Uh so I don't you didn't talk about

32:39building age restricted anyway and I

32:41>> Not our intent at this point. No.

32:42>> They They They don't count for

32:44affordable units and I don't think we

32:46really want to go down that rabbit hole.

32:49>> So, Madam Chair, work for Council

32:51Doucette.

32:52>> So, the

32:54um

32:54the subject So, the the final wording

32:57would be subject subdistrict two up to

32:59400 dwelling units including with the

33:02including any dwelling units cuz it's a

33:05>> It doesn't say

33:06>> Period.

33:06>> Period. Stops at dwelling units.

33:08>> Period.

33:08>> Yes.

33:09>> And then add the notwithstanding

33:12sentence from page four.

33:15>> Hold on.

33:16Looking at page page four of your notes?

33:19>> Page four of Yes.

33:21Page four of

33:22>> Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

33:24to the zone known as multi-unit

33:26subdistrict two so da da da compliance

33:28should be made a condition of any site

33:29plan approval that is required.

33:31the red on page four is appended to

33:35what's shown on the handout for

33:38>> Right, except it says 100 dwelling units

33:40it would be 400. I'm

33:43Okay.

33:43>> I

33:44I

33:46we send my original proposal and I

33:48propose for that change instead.

33:51>> All right. Is everybody clear what we're

33:52doing?

33:53>> Yep.

33:54>> All right. It's been moved and

33:58seconded

33:59to amend the zoning to read subdistrict

34:04two up to 400 dwelling units period not

34:07withstanding anything to the contrary in

34:09the zoning ordinance or the results way

34:11mixed-use overlay district

34:13multi-family dwellings in subdistrict

34:15two shall be subject to 650.26 of the

34:18zoning ordinance compliance shall be

34:19made a condition of any site plan

34:20approval that is required.

34:24Further discussion?

34:26Councilor Doucette.

34:27>> I just want to make one comment. I I'm

34:30not sure where you're going to put the

34:31additional 300 units, but I hope a lot

34:34of those office buildings don't

34:35disappear and become apartments.

34:37>> Isn't that the the the horseshoe shape

34:40>> on the top right?

34:41>> The intent is the top is to be

34:42apartments or kind

34:43>> All the way to the top right. The two of

34:44the U and the N.

34:46>> Oh, okay. Okay, so that's where it was

34:48going to go. Thank you for

34:49clarification.

34:50>> And it's hard to read, but if I believe

34:52if you look at your

34:55copy that you got, you can probably read

34:56the top there and and understand the

34:59color coding.

35:01All right. No further discussion. All

35:04those in favor?

35:061 2 3 4. All right, so this will get

35:10reported out at the June 8th meeting.

35:15Um

35:17I can see if the solicitor can have it

35:19in proper form for the meeting. There's

35:22probably enough time. If it is

35:25as a letter from him, then we could

35:27suspend to actually approve it that

35:30night. Otherwise, it would be moved to

35:32refer to the solicitor put in proper

35:34form.

35:35So, we'll see how how that all plays

35:37out, but otherwise

35:40we'll take the next step at the June 8th

35:42meeting. Hopefully, we can get this

35:44done. And then it'll be the next step.

35:48>> Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I may have

35:49misheard the concept he said to me.

35:52Was he just motioning to amend or was

35:54motioning to approve the amendment?

35:55>> just dropping his amendment where he

35:57wanted to add a unit.

35:58>> amendment.

35:58>> But then proposed to amend this. Did you

36:01just do it all in one vote to amend it

36:03and to approve it?

36:06>> To approve the amendment.

36:08>> Yes, to approve the amendment

36:10as I s-

36:11stated multiple times. You're You're

36:13clear on what we voted on.

36:14>> I'm very clear on what we voted on. I

36:16just did it Does it need a further vote

36:17to send it to the committee?

36:20>> Um

36:22Well, that's I'm going to report it out.

36:24>> Yeah.

36:25>> And then if and I can ask the solicitor

36:28like we have in the past if he can get

36:30it on the agenda as an action item in

36:32proper form

36:34we could vote on it that night with the

36:37suspension. If it's not then I will move

36:41to suspend to refer it to the solicitor.

36:43It would be on the June 22nd

36:46agenda.

36:48>> And we have to vote on it then or hold a

36:50special meeting cuz the 90-day clock

36:52elapses July 6th.

36:54>> Yep.

36:55Thank you.

36:57So we'll try. I would it's simple

37:01change for him and a letter from him to

37:03say it's in proper form. I think it

37:05would be

37:06easy enough for him to get it on there.

37:10Okay?

37:12All right. So that finishes up with this

37:14one. We will take up the next item

37:17unless there's something else that you

37:20have for us.

37:22All right. No. Thank you very much.

37:23Thank you for working through this with

37:25me. Thank you

37:27President Osing for

37:41All right. The next item on our agenda

37:45which I just is as I had said before

37:48order number 26109754

37:51the communication from attorney Cipriano

37:54on behalf of Mark Evangelist requesting

37:56the release of a low income deed

37:58restriction on the unit at 64 Village

38:00Drive unit four. So I know there was a

38:03lot of paperwork within the

38:06communication sent by Mr. Cipriano. We

38:09can do this the hard way, we could do

38:11this the easy way. I went back and

38:13looked at the May 6th, 2024

38:16Urban Affairs report which was the chair

38:21stated she has spoken legal counsel and

38:23the suggestion was for the committee to

38:25endorse the concept of releasing the

38:27affordable housing restriction on unit

38:30three and refer it to legal department

38:32to draft proper language that would be

38:35on a future council agenda. I did take

38:38the time to actually write an order

38:40based on what the solicitor had

38:42presented, but I

38:44think we could

38:45move to endorse the release of the

38:47affordable housing restriction on unit

38:50four, building one

38:53and refer to the legal department to

38:55draft proper language to be on the June

38:588th agenda.

39:00This is We did this the first time when

39:04we found out that EOHLC does not count

39:09age-restricted housing as affordable.

39:12So, there's a deed restriction. They

39:14want to sell They wanted to sell the

39:16first unit. There were two units that

39:19were approved when this subdivision

39:23was built.

39:25Um this is the second unit. So,

39:27hopefully this is the last of the issue.

39:30I I I did try to look at in all the

39:32other age-restricted

39:34um

39:37special permits that we have approved

39:38and none of them had anything about

39:40affordable. So, I think this

39:43should clear up the um the issues and

39:47and let them sell it without the deed

39:49restriction that's there. Councilor

39:50Dusseault.

39:51>> Yeah, Madam Chair. Um I remember this

39:53went through the first time and um I'm a

39:55big advocate of affordable housing, but

39:57basically can't happen there.

40:00Um

40:00and the current owner is in a stuck

40:03between a rock and a hard place cuz, you

40:05know, they inherited the place and they

40:08can't sell it until we actually get this

40:10thing done. So,

40:12granted they're going to benefit, but I

40:14don't think there's anything we can

40:15really do about this. So,

40:16um

40:17if there's any other discussions, I do a

40:19motion to approve uh send it to the

40:22solicitor and release the uh deed

40:25restriction restriction.

40:26>> Madam Chair.

40:28>> Councilor Viteri.

40:29>> Thank you. Um I've talked with a number

40:31This whole division is within my ward

40:33and and I've developed some

40:34relationships with some of the folks

40:35that live there. And everyone that I

40:37talked to was in favor of us accepting

40:40it as well. So, I would ask for this

40:42committee to to to vote as we have in

40:44the past.

40:45>> All right. So, it should be pretty easy.

40:47The solicitor can again hopefully get

40:50this language on the June 8th agenda. If

40:52not, then it would be a another one of

40:54those reported out, ask it to be

40:56referred, and then he would have the

40:58proper language

41:00for the June 22nd. This doesn't have a

41:02timeline, but I think he's done it once.

41:05He can

41:07he has all of the details that he needs

41:09from Attorney Cipriano.

41:12So, it's been moved and seconded that we

41:14endorse the release of the affordable

41:15housing restriction.

41:19For the discussion?

41:21Nope. All those in favor? 1 2 3

41:254.

41:28And that is our agenda.

41:32So,

41:32>> Motion to adjourn.

41:34>> It's been moved and seconded that we

41:36adjourn. All those in favor?

41:392 3 4. We are adjourned at

41:438:13.