Planning Board - Regular Meeting

good evening my name is Chuck ioven I'll be presiding over this evening's planning board meeting January 27th 2025 we have a few items on the agenda the first being a joint hearing with the city council rules and ordinance committee which Ronnie Verma will be voting on in Henry Seuss's absence and then we have two public meetings 76 Granville Avenue and zero State Highway which Stephanie Stone will be voting on um first thing we have some administrative stuff to do for those in attendance under the provisions of the open meeting law attendees are being informed that this meeting is being recorded by Urban media arts and will be live streamed on the Malden access matv YouTube site I have not been notified that any other video or audio recording of this meeting will occur the next thing we will do is start with Ronnie Verma and we will take a roll call of the planning board Ronnie Ronnie Raj Verma planning board Rea gray planning board to planning board Diane Chua planning board Ki planning board Jain planning board Eric mcos planning board Pat Hayes planning board Eric Henry planning board Stephanie Stone planning board thank you and we will um I will turn it over to councilor Winslow who is the chairman of the ordinance committee and they can do a roll call of the ordinance committee all right so councelor Winslow here I'm chairman of the rules and ordinance committee so um take the roll call here

so first off we have H councelor Lenahan Vice chair here councelor Crow here councelor Ali here councelor Taylor here and councel chair so we have all five members of the rules and ordinance committee here so terrific thank you very much uh first item on the agenda under public hearings is a zoning Amendment uh Council paper 13-20 25 Dian would you mind reading the notice please the Malden planning board and Malden city council rules and ordinance committee will hold jointly will jointly hold a public Hearing in the herbit L Jackson Council chamber Malden City Malden City Hall 2:15 Pleasant Street malen mass at 7:00 p.m. on Monday January 27th 2025 in accordance with section 12. 32.50 of title 12 of the code of the city of Malden MCC regarding a petition for zoning amendments as proposed in city council paper number 13225 to amend title 12 MCC the zoning ordinances as follows one section 12.2.3 MCC use regulations table of use regulations to amend to establish a residential use category for our accessory dwelling unit in second subsequent accessory dwelling unit and to establish regulations to allow accessory dwelling units in the residence a residence B resident C residential office and neighborhood business zoning districts and to prohibit accessory dwelling units in all other zoning districts two section 12.6.1 010 MCC table of intensity regulations to amend to establish dimensional controls for

accessory dwelling units three section 12.2.1 MCC table of off street parking and loading regulations to amend to established requirements for accessory dwelling units for Section 12. 32.3 MCC Administration certificates and permits to amend to add new subsection D to establish requirements and regulations for site plan review for accessory dwelling units section 12. 32.3 MCC Administration certificates and permits to amend to add new subsection e to establish requirements and regulations for special permits for second SL subsequent accessory dwelling units six 12. 32.0 60 definitions to amend to establish a definition for accessory dwelling Unit Seven section 12. 28.1 General regulations non-conforming uses Lots buildings and structures to amend regarding applicability of existing regulations to accessory dwelling units thank you very much Diane I'll turn it over to council linahan who was the sponsor of the paper if you have any comments thank you are you able to hear me okay y okay great um so thank you Mr chair good evening to members of the planning board and fellow members of the city council ordinance committee um I'm here before you tonight to introduce this paper as the sponsor um this is a role that I had undertook last year when I was chair of ordinance and as Vice chair now I am seeing through and shepherding this through the council's legislative process um important to note that I'm doing that on behalf of the mayor's working group which actually crafted the Zing um and I want to make sure to give

them proper credit for that it's been a lot of work over the last few months um so after I provide a brief overview and before we move into the public hearing um to listen to feedback from the community I'm going to turn it over to city planner Michelle Romero as well as Alex Pratt the director of oscd um to go into greater detail about the proposed zoning itself and also the approach that the city's working group took to developing The Proposal um but just to back up a little bit and for the benefit of the public and any body watching so that we can fully understand exactly what we're doing here I want to just give a little bit of context on the paper itself um so in August of this past year as I'm sure most of us in the chamber know the governor signed into law the affordable homes act which included a provision that updated State zoning um to allow accessory dwelling units AKA adus in any area of single family zoning in the Commonwealth now it doesn't matter what size the community is what the population is what the housing mix is they are now allowed by right which of course means no special permit required um adus are sometimes called granny flats or in-law apartments and uh they can be built inside an existing home as an addition or an attic or basement conversion or as a detached unit um such as a freestanding structure or in a converted garage or Carriage House so by definition of course they're accessory to the main dwelling on the parcel um one thing that the community a lot of members of the community have asked me is if this is the same thing as tiny homes and it's a little bit different because they do have to be associated with that primary dwelling uh and as well in state law they can't exceed 900 square feet so there is a cap on the size now even though this law passed in August which was of course less than six months ago the time frame for municipalities like Malden to update their local zoning to allow this new use actually has a deadline of February 2nd which of course is next week and oddly enough a Sunday as well um so after our

hearing tonight the council is is going to vote on the zoning at our regular meeting tomorrow night and we actually have two special meetings booked to finalize the vote later this week um it takes an act to enroll and then ordain that two-step process to become final and at that point it would be fully adopted um so that would put us into compliance with this change to 4A of Mass General law and I do think that um based on talking to City staff I do think we are going to have folks coming in pretty much right away that are ready to go are you know planning to have their permits filed and get the process started so we are write up against that deadline but again I want to reiterate that thanks to the hard work of so many of our city hall staff I think we're in good shape to get this passed by the date that it goes into effects into effect and folks can apply for those permits um just a couple more quick things I want to make sure to point out that if we don't take any action the state zoning does essentially override our local zoning so in my view um and in the committee's view it Hooves us to implement some locally appropriate standards for how this development does roll out in Malden otherwise it defaults to the the state zoning essentially um and there are some things that we can do and some things that we can't which again M Romero will go over much more in depth um but just to give a couple examples we can't restrict adus to um the Adu or the primary dwelling to being owner occupied or only rented to relatives we also can't require parking of any kind within a half mile of Transit and the state defines Transit as not just the train stations but also the entirety of a bus route so in effect that's the whole city as it's written right now um luckily for us though the state is allowing cities and towns to keep existing Provisions related to short-term rentals which as I know you all know we do have in place um and they are critically allowing site plan review processes to be used with adus um so this gives us the ability to actually

sit down with folks who are proposing an Adu for their property talk about a butter impacts Aesthetics and other site specific issues with how the structure might interact with its surroundings so our committee did feel in our deliberations that this was important to include in some way given how dense we are as a city and how close together a lot of properties are um we really feel that this can help preserve the privacy and livability on some of these smaller most closely packed Parcels um and of course there are a lot of benefits to adus that we discussed including less expensive living options for Aging in place multigenerational living um students young adults trying to enter the housing market and so on so in terms of process our committee has met twice to talk about the zoning um we had a marathon 4our session last week that some of you were at and I'm sure some of you have watched thanks to Uma since then some of my colleagues have proposed additional amendments that they are planning to share with you for your consideration tonight and then this past Friday the state's executive office of Housing and livable communities eohc actually um issued updated guidelines which is sort of frustratingly last minute but not not something that we have any control over um and that the guidelines that they issued are actually going to impact some of the decisions that our ordinance committee made um in terms of amendments and recommendations that we had planned to make to you all that again miss Romero is going to go over in Greater detail um but it will affect the zoning that we ultimately have to adopt and the zoning proposal that was advertised in the newspaper so for any members of the public watching there are just some late breaking changes here that we're going to have to incorporate um but with that I'll give the floor to M Romero and Mr Pratt and thank you very much thank you counselor do you want to put me on you're not on it says you're on I'm

not um do you um do you want to speak first Mr Pratt it's up to you sure thank you good evening everyone my name is Alex Pratt I'm the director of the office of strategic planning and commun development thank you counselor um for the introduction um and for hitting many of the points that I was going to talk about so you'll hear less of me uh right now so as the councelor mentioned um this law was passed August 6 202024 shortly thereafter the mayor convened a group of City staff um including Chief of Staff Maria Louise Chief strategy officer and parking director Ron Hogan uh Building Commissioner Nelson Miller city planner Michelle Romero solicitor Alicia mcneel um my predecessor as director of PCD Debbie Burke and then more recently myself and another member of our staff our housing program coordinator Ben gatley to look at the Adu issue and how um how this will impact Malin and what we can do to prepare and to help guide us as we um presented and and prepared for a presentation to you all which is in front of you tonight so as the counselor mentioned the um timeline here from eohc is was well first the timing from the law was tight less than six months and then the guidance from hlc um was I'm going to call it a moving Target um we did not get solid um information from eohc until the beginning of December and then of course that changed last week on Thursday um so you can imagine how difficult it is to to prepare something on that timeline um that said this team um did our very best and approached this issue with a couple goals in mind number one is complying with the law uh as a priority and addressing concerns um that are related to the law including potential um health concerns uh nuisance concerns safety parking Etc um I think what is what is known is that we don't know exactly how this will affect Massachusetts exactly how it will affect Malden there are a number of unknowns

there are a number of moving targets here um and so the president the um proposal that we had sent down to the council and to you all um is consistent with that um trying to make sure that as this law and as the the guidelines change and the regulations change that we're doing our best both to remain comp um and to make sure that we're addressing any of those negative impacts that we want to avoid um a key piece of this are the limitations that some of the counselors spoke to uh and some of which have changed um just in the last few days um what we can and cannot do in terms of our zoning ordinance on on adus um so for example we cannot require any affordability requirement we can't require that it be a unit be sold or rented to or occupied by a low-income household and we cannot determine um a maximum rent or sale price for those unit so no affordability requirements um an owner could decide to do that on their own but it's nothing that we can require through zoning we can also not require U any owner occupancy either of the unit itself or of the primary dwelling um of the principal dwelling rather um so we don't have any owner occupancy requirement um ability um we have no ability under the state law or state regs um for any age restrictions familial relationships um institutional relationships in terms of of schools um we don't have any um regulatory power over those issues and then with parking um as the counselor mentioned there um we cannot require any parking within a half mile of an NBTA station um which as of the first set of rules in uh December early December was any point along any bus route operated by the NBTA as well um and as of Thursday appears to be um any bus stop so any point along the bus route you can get on or off that's a um that may not have a significant difference for a community like Malden but a community that's maybe further out of Boston that has one or two bus stops but does not have the plethora of bus

routs that we have in malen um might see more of a change and we expect that the parking requirements um and regulations may change at the state level over time as well so the presentation that we um The Proposal that we put in front of you considers um considers that possibility and so even though under the last set of rules um there was not a a single residential parcel in Malden that where parking could be required we know that NBTA bus routes can change bus stops can change definitions of what a bus station is can change um and so that's why that language was in there um and then lastly I want to talk about just quickly site plan review um this is um and I believe you all have received um a memorandum from the mayor on this today um this is our lowest threshold review process that still involves Community involvement Community engagement uh we've had success um with speaking briefly about affordable housing projects over the last few years we've had success in bringing affordable housing to Mal that the community wants and needs uh in large part because we've had and allowed for a community engagement process that allows for folks to talk about um what's happening in their neighborhood along the way and we felt especially where this is new especially where there are a lot of moving targets especially where um the full impact of this is not yet known by anyone um that site plan review was an appropriate way to have that um Community involvement process and to be transparent with everyone about what is happening and when uh and to make sure that the people most impacted have a voice so that's just a little bit about our proposal and how we ended up uh with a proposal that was sent in front of you as um Amanda mentioned as I'm sure um Michelle included in her report the regulations change so there will need to be amendments to that proposal based on those regulations we received uh last week but I want to provide a brief overview of how we got uh tonight thank you thank you Mr Pres Michelle thank you I will try not to

repeat anything that's already been well covered by my colleague and by councelor linan um so the proposal that's before you in city council paper 13 2025 the original proposal I should refer to it as that was a proposal that as we heard the mayor's team worked on drafting that was I will note again for the record based on state guidelines that were released in early December um since we recently received updated draft guidelines and they are still draft they're not official yet but they are another version of the draft guidelines just put out last week um there are some additional recommendations for additional revisions there are recommendations for additional revisions I will make so that um we can align the original Proposal with the most recent State guidelines um first and foremost I will draw your attention to the definition of accessory dwelling unit a lot of the information and I'm not going to go through the entire report and recommendation but I just want to focus on a couple highlights U before we start this public hearing one is the definition of accessory dwelling unit this definition that's provided here is taken right from state law not the guidelines this is actually from the state law so it specifically States what it is a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping cooking in sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling subject to otherwise applicable dimensional and parking requirements that one maintains a separate entrance um specifically either directly from the outside or through an entry hall a corridor share with the principal dwelling sufficient to meet the requirements of the State Building Code for safe access two is not larger in Gross floor area than half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square ft whichever is smaller and then finally is subject to additional

restrictions May which may be imposed by municipality including but not limited to additional size restrictions and restrictions or prohibitions on short-term rental um so that's important I put that on the front page so that we'll all keep that Forefront this is not changing this is again not part of the guidelines however the guidelines have been interpreting parts of these some of these terms and parts of this law um in terms of location so um we you have a couple maps in your package um the Adu may be located um on a property in maybe added to a property or located in a property that's in a zoning district with single family dwellings are allowed by rer by special permit in Malden there are five districts where single family dwellings are allowed residence a residence B residence C residential office and the neighborhood zoning District um you have two different Maps one I'll just quickly note the first one which is attachment one is the actual zoning map with all the zoning districts in their current uh color in configuration if you look closely you'll see some of them have a cross-hatch the cross-hatch ones are the districts where the accessory dwelling units are not allowed they're prohibited um or will be prohibited under this proposal um those are the Central Business Highway Business Industrial one and industrial 2 for ease of reference though you can see attachment two which also shows the zoning dist districts they're however outlined but not colored in that's a little easier to read in the sense of you can see the light gray is all the zoning districts where the Adu would be allowed under this proposal the darker gray is the districts where the adus would be prohibited under this proposal the gray light gray again where they're required to be allowed in terms of dimensional standards um we are allowed to regulate

the adus in terms of dimensional setbacks lot coverage open space bulk and height and number of stories um the caveat is that we are looking at what's required for the principal dwelling a single family dwelling or an accessory structure whichever is least permissive okay excuse me more permissive results in more permissive regulation we can get into the details of that um expressly the guidelines provide we cannot consider minimum lot size and in terms of pre-existing non-conforming structures or Lots adus may not be prohibited due to non-conformities uh we've heard about the other prohibited requirements for adus owner occupancy there's also the laundry list of occupancy in use restrictions that uh my colleague Mr Pratt discussed I won't repeat those they're here um parking requirements again we heard about the half mile radius of an MBTA station commuter rail or bus station which is defined as a point of embarcation for any bus um so those are the next two maps three and four showing the circles uh around circles are around the MBTA stations and all the bus routes attachment four again is more for ease of reference it's showing the same information but in a different format that's showing you that the entire city is within half a mile of an MBTA Transit station or bus stop excluding that small section of felway reservation um parking requirements so we did that so we cannot require any parking for these adus um again there are some specific allowed and required regulations one single Adu at a property

must be allowed by right we can choose to allow more than one by special permit um adus may be subject we heard about site plan review they may be subject to reasonable regulations in site plan review reasonable regulations again including but not limited to site plan review regulations concerning dimensional seex in the Balkan heighted structures that is taken directly from the state law site plan review is defined in the guidelines um we heard about the prohibition on shortterm rental of Adu which we can continue we currently prohibit them we're allowed to to continue that and then importantly what's required is compliance with building fire in sanitary codes for the adus a couple other brief highlights I'll mention um in this proposal site plan review is recommended to apply to all accessory dwelling units regardless of form so whether it's in a detached structure in a principal dwelling whether it's located in existing building or in an addition talked about the districts where they will be allowed by right uh parking requirements I will touch upon briefly the site plan review committee that's proposed there would be three members a city council or design the executive director or design of the office of strategic planning and economic development and then the Department of Public Health director a designate submission requirements in the original proposal which we will get to when we get into more detail um it's a long list of different requirements some might be applicable to some projects others may not be applicable I will note um again an Adu may be allowed in any building where there is a dwelling so it could be a commercial building with a dwelling could be a mixed use building um so some of the submission requirements you'll see don't appear to apply to Residential

Properties but keep in mind we could uh see petitions for adus on Commercial properties as well I do have some recommendations about the submission requirements we'll get you at the end and and then finally the ordinance as proposed will have site plan review as I mentioned there is a review schedule proposed uh also going to be recommending an expedited schedule for that um and finally I will just end with um and we'll probably talk about it again as you know the planning board is here to make an advisory recommendation to the city council the council already outlined the next steps where they're going to move to consider whether to enroll and ordain um before the state effective deadline so I will end there in the interest of time so we can move forward with the public hearing thank you very much Michelle um so what we moving forward before we move forward with the public hearing I believe we're going to hear from councelor Winslow who had an addendum to the council paper yes councelor Winslow rules and ordinance chair 83 Jacob Street um so the council got the mayor's um memo on this in like you know January 3rd and we had um we had our next in our first meeting on the year of January 8th so that uh and the concern there was a very tight time frame that we're trying to work to get this developed and so basically we had one meeting to maybe put in some comments so what I did was to make sure that the public was had transparency about what might be considered I put into sort of some

counterpoints to the the mayor's memo so that's really some of the key intent my my concern overall was that um you know I know I was recently before this uh uh board talking about the proposed site plan review for educational um religious and daycare uses and we definitely heard very clearly about having a site plan review process that's um overly Broad and um outside kind of uh the scope of what the do Amendment might allow so that was kind of some of what I was looking at and looking at the memo that came on from the mayor's office I was very concerned that um that it was the requirements may not be reasonable so just to kind of go over that um so there is um in your packet there is basically I took what the um the specific recommendations were from the staff and did some blue line striking of some other suggestions so I'll go through those so um so some of this is on my perspective a little bit of being a 30 plus year land owner um and homeowner in um in Malden um and seeing that you there have been many proposals for substantial additions in my neighborhood and what I saw that in terms of reasonableness was that ones that were um in conformance generally with the existing setbacks for instance if someone's just trying to add a room or at expand their kitchen directly back but in my neighborhood the the existing um setbacks were eight feet or less when the house was built but now we have 10 foot requirements that were passed sometime later that um generally neighbors did not really object if you were just extending your house back to add something um so that was my first

suggestion is that we rather than sticking to the um dimensional controls that really are for new principal dwellings that we allow some flexibility in terms of considering if you're doing an Adu attached to a um existing principle thing that you would look at um existing set backs and those were sort of more historic so the proposal did not do that so that's kind of my first set that you would um you would use those um type of setbacks first so that's one of the kind things so um the other thing was um lot size um now um this may be really irrelevant but the 7500 um square foot lot size that we require for new principal dwellings now is substantially higher than the typical Malden lot size I mean typically you know when Malden was being laid out they might be 50 feet in Frontage and 100 feet deep so a typical lot side maybe about 5,000 square feet and when you looked at it I mean I think um I think that at least 68% of our Lots were um 5,000 square feet or less and if you went up to 7500 it might severely limit the type of places where um for the Ed Adu and that would possibly put them in the threat so that was one of the things um so those are a couple things and then um you know looking at um Heights and that type of thing that um you know there's a lot of variances in how Heights can be done so some of us to really focus on you know if you weren't doing an Adu that was going to be higher than principal dwelling you should be able to do that so that's the type of thing of just really to look at the existing principal you uh dwelling that was built and looking how you kind of match that and I I've seen I guess success that those type of additions and some of these probably would have been adus um some of them worked for you know adult family members you know a dad living

with his daughter and that type of thing so um they could have been adus if people had that choice but because we didn't have that choice in our regs um they just ended up being big additions so so that that is some of what was there um you know I did um you there was this distinction and and I think councilor Ali can talk a little bit more about you should be should adus attach that are attached to um the principal unit be treated different than detached so that is the type of thing so um so so there's some distinctions on on you know how often site plan review and that was the type of thing of driving it should if you looked at the site plan review requirements of what you actually have to submit for site plan review that could be very burdensome we understand that any building has to have pretty detailed plans but is what's being asked for in the the staff recommendation over and above um what we might typically even look for for single family home so that was the type of thing should we make someone all always go through that site plan review and then there was other things in terms of um you know not allowing um any variances from the requirements related to dental calls or relief or whatever so that was the type of thing again to try to be more flexible and I think in this Spirit of the law in terms of trying to um limit um denials to things that have the most significant impact on Municipal things and I talk about you know peace inquired enjoyment that's something that when someone buys a piece of property they enjoy that so having some separation so that you can enjoy your property so I think even building inspector Nelson mentioned that one reason for setbacks is so that you someone can clean the property next door you know that's the type of thing that you see so there's some some reasonable things that way why we have dimensional controls um I saw during uh Co the fact that my my

granddaughter could run around the house um even though we don't have big setbacks that we have these type of things that one reason you know zoning happened in was to allow back in the day when you had Smokey or industrial uses to make sure people had you know fresh air and light for their housing so that's a legitimate reason why zoning was created these setbacks were created and um that was the pattern so I think it is the type of thing and um we do so that that's the type of suggestion now I did um in my paper I talked about not having um any parking requirements and that was mostly as as Michelle pointed out was the State draft regulations were saying that because every bus stop in the city was going to be considered a a a bus station that basically eliminated so I didn't know why we needed to have a regulation I mean I I'm not adverse just to keeping it in but it just to highlight just uh that you know the reality is that Pro you know probably def follow the state law so that that was really what I put this together as a way so that it was on the council docket it would be on the hearing tonight so that people could discuss that in a broader way and we did at uh last week's Council have a pretty extensive discussion in rules and ordinance and Council Aly will kind of present what the rules ordn committee um voted in terms of uh of what these would be more recommended and some of of them even have been bypassed now by the um by the state the updated State guidance in terms of dimensional controls and that type of things so that might be something we still have to further adjust that um even even just sticking to um typical setbacks of a principal unit or or like historic setbacks um existing non-conformities that may not be sufficient because the the new guidelines is saying that you have to perhaps allow accessible dwelling unit

down to the the setbacks of a um you know an accessory use Which is less than the principes so that's the type of thing that we're going to have to follow but I'll let Council out but that's really the the point of that second paper to make sure that the public knew that there might be some significant variances um from the staff proposal and now I think we're actually kind of force this the state updated guidelines even forces our hands a little bit more so thank you on that if anybody has any questions but that's really I think C okay so so you're all set counselor presentation of your piece of what your changes were yeah I'm done which it actually sounds like most of the suggestions you made were already incorporated into those revised most th I think one key distinction that was really looking trying to look at attached D accessible dwelling units in a different way than separated so requiring site plan review for for detached um units because the concern was that that's those are the ones that are going to be ones where people are trying to you know add to a shed or a garage stories and that type of thing to maximize out you know the thought was that additions to a principal unit would probably be trying to conform and and match that but it was really the concern that um you know you know making a shed into a dwelling or topping a garage is a lot different but it seems like you know it's you know the state RS make from that so okay thank you councelor appreciate it all right thank you great councelor Maly if you'd like to come up and share what you'd like to thank you very much may I approach to pass out the committee recommendation yep

thank you and and counselor while you're passing them out um have has this been updated for the revised um guidance from the state okay that okay so this this copy that I just handed out has not I do have one that has uh but I I didn't think that it would be um I can try to go into those changes tonight okay no no no because I I know I read the staff report and the um the city planner did take an attempt at updating the original proposal for um all the Chang is that the state made late at the 11th Hour on Thursday night so um I was just curious to understand what I'm looking at here if you could tell us what it is who voted on it where it came from that would be helpful I perfect perfect yeah so this this is from last Tuesday the 21st uh this was the ordinance committee which is before you tonight um we took these amendments up in order uh based on the red uh the the the bolded red uh under LED is is basically what is being added that those um words that have a strike through are being deleted um not all of the votes were unanimous particularly the earlier uh votes were not unanimous it was um um I think one to four potentially uh the votes kind of Chang depending on that U but basically um what to what councelor winow had stated um this proposal really looks to change uh to treat attached accessory dwelling units which are

physically inside the structure or attached to the structure maybe a um in-law apartment in the basement or Dormers in the Attic differently than a detached accessory dwelling unit which could be in a garage or a shed uh largely located in people's backyards um the committee felt that uh the detached accessory dwelling units had a bigger impact on the livability of of the neighborhood and would require site plan review whereas a um accessory dwelling unit that is attached is more like an addition that our building uh department is is pretty familiar with and would have less of an impact on the neighborhood if you think about it uh accessory uses such as garage garages and sheds have different dimensional control requirements um that are um basically can be as low as three feet uh whereas uh we are proposing you know a different one for the principal dwelling um that was really where it came from uh whether or not we go with that is kind of to be determined um but basically what you see here is that attached would be allowed by right in a residents ABC uh residential office and neighborhood business um but it would require some type of vetting by The Building Commissioner under the reasonable regulation standard uh which would include dimensional controls uh and parking um we then moved on to the uh the integ uh intensity regulations which are dimensional controls um and we were we're reducing the square footage of the parcel that's no longer applicable we cannot do that um additionally one of the things we wanted to do is we wanted people to be able to benefit from their their prior pre-existing nonconformity so if your home had say rather than a 10- foot side setback but had an 8ot side setback we wanted you to be able to take advantage of that rather than having to push your your your if you say you want to do an addition off the back

of your home we didn't want you to have to just bump it in two feet we wanted you to be able to use and benefit your existing nonconformity um the same thing applies for the rear side back uh the rear um setback um so as you'll see we basically said for side we said 10 feet or the same as the existing principal structure whichever is lesser uh for both sides we said 20 ft or the same as the existing principal structure whichever is lesser uh in the rear we switch from 20 ft to 15 or the same as existing principal structure or lesser now the thing is with these new regulations that just came out uh it's still not quite clear to me but it looks as though we have to accept uh the setbacks as low as the three or six feet required for accessory uses um I don't particularly think that's a good thing um I would prefer to to keep these ones but our our hands are kind of tied um it's still a bit of a gray area um um aside from that we we pretty much just wanted to keep it at two and a half stories one of the reasons being is um the way height is measured in Malden is that it's the mean of your roofs so it makes it difficult to um extend a a a ridge line um because if you have multiple roofs of different heights it can bring down the mean of the total height uh and require you to do some wonky things when a simple addition that extends the ridge line might be the least bive for the neighborhood um if we go to the second page of what I handed out um we pretty much were saying that site plan review again would only apply to detached um and that it would site plan review would not go through for attached one of the reasons being is um I attended the the various um uh webinars that um the eohc the housing and live livable communities U agency um

had related to this that's the entity that will kind of vet and look at whether or not our regulations are reasonable um and on the webinar they had said that you have to by at the bare minimum treat accessory dwelling units the same that you would treat a single family home now the regulations say or the existing use of the principal structure so if that's a two family a three family a four family or whatever they get to benefit or or a accessory structure like a garage or a shed you have to treat it with the most permissible dimensional controls out of all of those different uses um and I know it's super complicated um but that that is the the reason why we are really kind of trying to separate these two uses we're trying to encourage people to not do detached in the backyard we're trying to encourage people to do the attached in the existing principal dwelling because we think it's going to be the least impactful in the neighborhood um the fire code gets involved which is super complicated because when you add some additional units sometimes the fire code can get triggered um so I don't know if we're going to be able to incentiv incentivize people to do attached in the principal dwelling uh but I think we should do whatever we can to try to get these units in the existing structure and not in the garages and in the sheds um aside from that we were um we were and we didn't make these amendments but some of the discussion in in committee also uh revolved around whether or not um we should require um pre-existing non-conforming properties that want to do an Adu to get a variance for their existing non-conformities if they were to add an Adu um I don't know where the the committee is going to end up on that uh but the the planning board should know that we are looking at maybe not requiring variances for for the

principal structure and allowing people to benefit from their non-conformity uh and the the reason being is so many of our properties were built in in the 1800s before zoning existed sometimes over a hundred years before zoning existed uh and they were not required to have parking because cars did not exist uh and so what we're saying is if you live in those type of properties and you just happen to have parking but you're not required to have parking because of when your home was built uh you should not be penalized if you want to add an accessory dwelling unit especially because those are some of the properties that might be best suited for that um I do also want to say that you know uh the one of the challenges that we're facing and why this does impact such a large swath of our community uh is because we've inherited uh zoning uh that uh doesn't reflect the reality of what our community is our community is not um entirely or 90% single family homes it's two families it's three families it's four families it's more than that uh and so the the challenge is uh when you have so many so much of the city zoned for residents a single family homes um it just doesn't reflect the character of the neighborhood when you have dimensional controls that restrict single family homes uh that almost I would say almost no properties comply with our dimensional controls uh which is the reason why so many uh of you and our in our in our residents have to get variances um so that's really why the state put this as a protected use uh we have to be reasonable in the regulations um and those regulations can always be um waved a bit uh whether that's by the the um the site plan review committee or the Building Commissioner um if you have any questions I'm here to answer those and I appreciate your time and patience thank you thank you counselor uh Pat Hayes thank you councelor just one

question you were talking about the two um the two processes one for detached and one for um that's part of the building you made the comment that um the the or or the law from the state is uh leaning toward being the most permissive if we don't separate those two with a separate process would that put us in a position where a sidey setback that was 8 feet could now suddenly be 3 feet because of the accessory limitations that we have for like the garage or the shed so I I can't speak in definitives because this is changing so so rapidly um so I I can't tell you whether or not that would happen for for a fact um and I and I would defer to to the city planner and our legal staff to to give you a definitive answer on that um but the reason why I'm trying to we were trying to make the the attached by right and have the least amount of Hoops to jump through was because we wanted wanted it to be very not very easy but easier for people to do that than to put it in their garages whether or not that's going to actually happen I don't know and once you take the fire code into consideration it actually is incentivizing people to do detached in their garages because you're not going to have to comply with the same fire codes that you would if you had to do a three family um that is what we're kind of up against here is that uh the way our our our fire regulations are it's actually going to encourage people to put these in detached structures so whatever we can do to encourage it inside the house I think is going to be the least impactful and which which dimensional control like which setback applies I really can't tell you it's a little unclear about whether or not the

principal structure now gets the benefit from the lower accessory use setback which would likely be 6 feet unless it was less than 72 square feet and less than eight eight feet high then it's three feet I've learned the zoning very well recently thank you I didn't know if the seminars you participated didn't had any insight into that that's why no and the and the seminars happened before the updated regulations so they unfortunately don't 100% apply anymore thank you okay Diane Chua I don't understand why we're making it different between a detached and attached I kind of understand where you're coming from where you don't want everyone converting their garages or their sheds but that's the sole purpose I'm thinking of having these adus is so that you could have somebody on your same lot you know family member or whomever um especially I'm thinking if you own a single family home and you happen to have a twood garage with a loft above and you want to get your son out of the house wouldn't that be a great place to put him um that would be an attached just so that that would be an example of an that's an is it attached to the structure or you're saying it's a separate garage no it's a it's a gar in the backyard you long driveway then you know say he have the own way in and out um excuse me exactly with fony lived you know but I'm I'm thinking that's pretty much the I thought was the rule that they were I'm not the rule but that's what they were kind of going for if you have the ability to do that and some people I know do have finished rooms that they got permits for and all of that over their garages already so why make them go through a site plan review committee to say yeah yes they can live there when they already got a permit to you know maybe they have to add a kitchen or a bathroom or something like that but um I just know there are some that have gotten permission to already have those things um maybe not to the extent of like having a kitchen in it

but like a family room things like that so I was just kind of curious as to why it's such a bone contention I think that like part-time use as like a fun room or a place to hang out is different than you know people cooking people sleeping people going in the bathroom in it um and the the thought was that um because um the detached garages or or sheds um have such a smaller setback to your neighbors whereas you know the principal dwelling might be you know 10 8 six feet from the from the um from the property line um a garage could be like potentially 3 feet or less in Malden sometimes they're one or two feet um and if you're now building up say like a one-story garage you're adding Windows you're now looking into your neighbor's yard where they might have a pool or a Jacuzzi we were we were saying that you know we're not going to be able to prevent them from doing it in their garage but through the site plan review process we might be able to say hey don't put Windows on that side or add some type of privacy screening um through that site plan review process whereas if it was Dormers in the Attic it's it's already in the existing structure there's really not going to be the same impact on your neighbors in someone's backyard um but I I hear what you're saying yeah because with that respect if it was like I said they already have a room above there so not going to be adding any more windows they're just maybe going to be adding a kitchen so um or a bathroom I whatever but um I'm just curious how that would work you know I can understand if they have a shed and they want to make that shed a house yeah that should kind of have a little bit more but I'm thinking of a garage that already has a room above it why would that be different in that particular instance I think it would very easily get through the site plan review process uh whereas

like a shed um would likely not um but in the other Dynamic is we were thinking about the the the the cost it's going to be much more expensive to run utilities to a garage than it would be to benefit from the existing um Utilities in the principal structure whether that's sewer electrical water um but but again attach would also be like an addition off the back thank you thank you okay Diane Eric Henry thank you Mr chair uh councelor put yourself in and coun winzo as well but I've heard multiple times you guys have had more contact with this and and you know it's been a long month if you will but you've had more contact time with this than I have but I've heard many times tonight it's not clear I don't know I'm confused and I I'm I'm confused as well um counil Winslow gave us one paper that uh was just suggestion of 5,000 square feet you hand us another paper that's a suggestion of 3500 square feet the ordinance is currently written are at 7500 Square ft when I first joined the planning board they were at 6,000 I personally thought this was you know still think that that was exclusionary zoning to take it from 6,000 even to 7 750 but is there any thought given to with regards specifically to the square footage is there any thought from the ordinance committee to try to uh adjust the the or that portion of the of our our zon zoning to uh so for the parcel Square so just yeah to to the the staff report um indicates I think striking this entire row

correct yes the new guideline States we cannot consider lot size at all so I would you know you're welcome to ask about it but there's no real point to discuss it at this point yeah unfortunately Eric last Thursday the state changed the guidelines so what happened was the the working committee came up with something based on December guidelines councilor Winslow made some SU suggestions based on the December guidelines as did the ordinance committee last week then on Thursday afternoon the state released new ones that said you can't limit the um you can't limit it based on um any type of lot size so as of now the current guidance is you can't limit it on lot size at all so on all three of the proposals that were reviewed we can't we can't do that and Michelle has covered that in the staff report and she'll address it later on that um that yeah we originally thought we could do that but now the state has said no we can't and there's a few other things no dimensional C controls nothing on height nothing on prior uh non-conformities so if you've got a a lot that as the counselors were saying it's um got a non-conformity to side yard setback you have to go with the most permissible one of the of the main structure so if that's got like a a five yard setback then anything associated with the Adu would not be any worse than that nonconformity that already exists is that say correctly Michelle I I don't think that's 100% correct on the non-conforming part um but we can get into the the the details of those guidelines when when we get to that but you you you'd have to look at the state

has now said we'll look at the principal dwelling a single family standard and the accessory structure and pick the least permissive of the three the most permissive I'm sorry the most I keep saying least the least restrictive the most permissive that's not the same as what are we going to deal with existing non-conformities that's a different question that's a different question but you know we we has as the chair said I haven't tried to address it when we get to that point in the recommendations um but I just when everyone's finished I had one question for the coordinance committee okay we have two people Eric are you all set uh yes and no actually I'm understanding I guess I'm understanding about the you know the the square footage as far as this paper and adus are is is is not relevant but my I'm still kind of asking the question to the ordinance committee with with regards to 7500 square foot for Lots because I think it was said that that it how many Lots in Malon can actually build on we don't have that many kind of lots and you know so that is there any consideration to go back in a and review lot size and molded so I I hear I hear what Mr Henry's saying so what your so and that's one of the challenges that we we face as the ordinance committee because um adus are a protected use that are governed by the reasonable regulation standard which means our ordinances have to be reasonable and so at first we were taking our single family home standard and because that's what the regulations allowed and we basically just mirrored that that's the original proposal that you have before you today um and what what the ordinance committee you know I think the the consensus it wasn't unanimous um but one of the the consensus in the committee is that um it's hard to take the single family home standard in Malden with the

7500 and all all the other requirements um because no barely any properties if any properties actually comply with that and so if you take a what looks like an unreasonable standard and apply it to a protected use like accessory dwelling units then it likely could get struck down by the state so I hear what you're saying that the that maybe the single family home lot sizes and other dimensional controls need to be looked at because no properties comply with them but unfortunately that's not something we can do here because it's not something that was posted for this public hearing but if it's something that you are passionate about I would recommend maybe working with the the planning board um in recommending that change U because the planning board can can uh propose zoning amendments uh but you also have the entire um ordinance committee here as well as more uh uh more counselors that I'm sure here what you're saying we just need to understand what is the consensus of the community thank you I'm on a yield but I would I'd like to follow up with that with the planning board because I was totally unaware of uh that process we like to take that up but thank you okay thank you Eric uh Eric makush uh thank you Mr chair I'm not even sure if you're the correct one to address for this but um to me the state mandate seems like a massive overreach we just went through the whole MBTA overlay which is very similar uh forc multi multif family housing situation and we're going to put in a position to turn every single family house in malen into a two family was there any consideration to actually challenging this law rather than change all our ordinances to to fit within it so I can't speak for the entire Council or other branches of government um but you know the city of Malden is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth the Commonwealth gives us parameters in which we operate um state law whether that's public records or

zoning um and so they the state I believe did learn their lesson from the ba Community Zone where they um initiated and promulgated regulations uh through a expedited process that did not comply with I think it's the administrative procedures act um so my understanding is that when it came to this knowing that that was a controversy they dotted their eyes and crossed their tees um so we this is I don't believe this is something that is going to be able to be stopped uh may be delayed uh but the end is going to you're going to get to the end whether or not it's 6 months from now or or a year Eric you you all said ER I just wanted to add um respectfully Council to that another uh a key difference here is that with 3A we had zoning that the state had to actually approve sign off on and then certify that we were in compliance there's no regulatory process like that with this so regardless of what we do the way the state has written this it actually updates 40a the Dover Amendment which is the section of zoning that we basically don't have control over it's governs schools churches Etc so when it goes into effect on February 2nd it's not something that if we haven't submitted our zoning to be looked at it makes a difference it just the state overrides us automatically at midnight that day and whatever we have on the books as long as it complies can add to that but it can't be more restrictive so it is slightly different I think this is a question the community has been asking a lot too why do we not fight it or not comply but there actually isn't a compliant step it's just as long as we don't ban adus um then we don't have to fix anything and currently our zoning doesn't speak to adus at all so this is adding in a measure of protection within the constraints that's allowed but it just goes into the do Amendment and becomes a protected use

Statewide thank you counselor um Eric Moser you all set I am thank you Ken anucci yeah that recent question actually uh made me think of something else but I'll just go with my original question here now because that's that's a that's a lot to swallow um getting back to what I was actually going to ask at the first time was um does the latest uh updates of the state guidance make any changes or reference or recommendations for site plan review or is a requirement for it is that something we are still trying to decide whether we can even the site plan site plan review is specifically mentioned in the state law and it's allowed and it's specifically mentioned and defined in the guidelines even the newest guidelines even the most even the latest guidelines seems the latest guidelines are taking pretty much everything out they're they're clarifying and and updating and in changing and adding um so there are new Provisions in the new guidelines I would say there there I would characterize them as more has been added to the guidelines the latest guidelines but no the site plan review as I said is is actually stated in the law as an option so that is an option so they they have left that in there at least the site it's in the law and it's referenced in the guidelines yes okay thank you Ronnie Verma uh re hold on a second here oh okay um P I'm sorry Rec P Peg Crow Council Crow thank you Mr chairman I just um actually wanted to mention about what um

Mr Henry had mentioned about that we said about the 7500 the 5,000 the 3500 and from what I'm sorry I still have a cold um whatever the um so don't sound s great but that that anybody what the 7500 square feet and maybe that is something we look back at in over overriding Zoning for single family housing um but that was to be consistent and they the state guidelines kind of said be consistent so the 7500 is what we have right now anyone can come with an Adu with anything with 1,000 square ft 2,000 s Fe 3500 doesn't matter but I think the consistency to say it a single family house says 7500 right now maybe we change that but you still can come in if you have something lower and then the site plan review says okay you have a much smaller lot but it makes sense that you can have an Adu or you have a much smaller lot and it doesn't make any sense because you are like you know not conforming to anything as it is so I think to be consistent to have multiple numbers seems a little chaotic to me so that's why I am the one that voted no on a couple of these things in the ordinance committee because I do think we need some consistency what I honestly feel like is that we need to be the most rest restricted as we can because we can always lighten up but we can never tighten up so if we ever do something different and the law keeps

changing so just to that point I think some things have to be some consistency in what we have in other parts of the zoning so then we can and as everything changes we shift too but if we have 3500 500 , 7500 is very chaotic so we have 7500 right right now I think we should keep that as the the number people can still come in and I think somebody on the um ordinance committee had said can we do an aster and say like you know even if your lot is not 75500 Square fet you can still come in for an Adu and that's okay but to lower it so much just I I think makes it a little too not conforming to anything thank you counselor Rea gray thanks Mr chair um did you say that the setback requirements are more permissive for an Adu addition than a a standard ex addition to expand a house yeah so the updated regulations say um specifically um yes yes yes the answer is yes okay to put an addition on a house you would need to comply with the setbacks to build an Adu you would we would look at what is the least restrictive so what's the more permissive is it the principal dwelling single family dwelling or accessory

structure so somebody could put a larger addition on um for an entire unit right not just for a family room or expand a kitchen it could it's it would be for the Adu which is defined as a complete unit whether it's detached or ATT so sorry you could put an expansion on do you want to well Rea was well you jumped in so you might as well jump in I'm sure will yield to you um well at the moment we'll come back to you sorry about the lack of um I don't know what rules apply here are but so what you just said Michelle so you could actually add on to your existing structure but because the setbacks will last for an Adu if you have like say a detached garage you could actually build it to you think c m keeps using the like the three- foot setback versus the 10 foot setback so you could actually put an addition on your house with a closer with a reduced setback to meet for an Adu it seems to suggest that yes I'll leave it at that yes okay that's what that's what I thought you were and if I could just read the definition it's the requir it's existing it's the requirement so it's not exactly what you just said it's the requirement that's why the non-conforming thing is is different okay it's not that you're already in violation of the setb it's that you would be held to certain standards whichever of these three least you second yeah thank you councelor m did you have something you wanted to read just the definition because I mean if everyone if anyone here or at home is lost trust me there we kind of all are like but that's why I think it's really important to read the

definition so the of the the current standards say dimensional standards any requirement concerning dimensional standards such as dimensional setbacks lot coverage open space bulk and height and the number of stories that are more restrictive than is required for the principal dwelling whatever that is whether it's single family or three or more or a single family residential dwelling or an accessory structure such as a garage in the zoning District in which the protected use Adu is located whichever results in the more permissive regulation that's what you have to go with it doesn't really make sense grammatically but that's what you have to go with and the question is does the accessory structure setback only apply to the accessory structures that benefit already from that structure like garages or the sheds or could a attached addition benefit from that six foot largely setback um I don't know where that's going to end up uh but you could read this both you could kind of read it the other way that an addition would benefit from that you can go as close as six feet to your neighbor or if you have an existing um house that has a Le a lesser one some some houses have no setback they're directly up next to it there you would not have to comply potentially it's not CLE C okay thank you Council Rea gray we'll come back to you is there anything else you would like to add I said Thank you thank you if I could just clarify chair I thought you were asking about an addition versus an Adu you weren't asking about an addition of an Adu ask or could you clarify because I was answering maybe a different question I was asking about an addition that is an Adu versus expanding a house

with okay so you were asking the addition to the house that's not an Adu could be subject to different requirements than if it's being used for an Adu correct that's what I okay so that's what I was answering and and the reason it doesn't make sense is because that that section is listed into unreasonable regulations so those are prohibitions that Council was reading from so they're telling you what we can't do are you all set Michelle are you all set Rec yes thank you councelor Melly anything else you'd like to add no that's all thank you thank you very much at this point would uh we will proceed with anyone that would like to speak in favor of the council paper anyone who would like to speak in favor and what I'd like to ask you to do when if you do come up to the podium please make sure you sign the clipboard with your name and address so we have correct spelling um and announce your name and residential address for the record so anyone who would like to speak in favor yeah sir if you'd like to speak in favor come up name and address residential address for the record and please sign the clipboard thank you good evening everyone my name is Tong S I live in uh chy Force Denton Street in M um for under rout uh wout

six under mid W um I have a uh 6,800 Square ft of uh lot and my current structure is sitting on one side of the lot and basically I have a 3,000 F Square ft like it's like a square rectangular Square compl nice lot um so I talked to one of the structur engineering to uh purpose a two family housing um we drw up the plan I submit to the uh uh City City Hall and I got deny basically saying that uh the residents of jong a not allowed to family U to family housing so I'm here to request to change up the uh the zoning code okay um to allow I think that would be a different process you need to go through what what we're doing here is discussing this Adu paper so um if you would like to speak in favor of this Adu paper that's what we're actually entertaining at the moment if you're requesting that you want to do a specific project you would need to come into the building department and or or monitor how this evolves over the next week or so and then see how it impacts your specific situation okay so do you want to speak in favor of this paper um no I just want to put my uh what I need to do okay yeah and and it's a little premature for that at the moment we're still discussing how we're GNA how the planning board is going to recommend the council ACT tomorrow night right that's what we're doing tonight then tomorrow evening the city council will take up what the uh what the planning

board recommends and then they will um decide how they're going to proceed because as Council linahan mentioned the deadline is Sunday so so we're normally there's more time in between this type of joint hearing and then what happens and then what the city council does and what the ordinance committee does uh but because we're kind of under the gun here by the state with the um the effective date being um February 2nd um that's why it's a a little bit more compressed the time frame okay so what I'd recommend you do is keep an eye on uh tonight keep an eye on what the council does tomorrow and then see uh what actually gets adopted and then evaluate how your specific situation falls into that and at that point if you have any questions I'd go to the building department and ask them how does this apply to you Michelle would you agree no I was just going to say I thought he was speak speaking in favor of the paper because he couldn't he couldn't convert from a single to a two but he would be able to add a unit I thought I thought he was in favor do you want to just clarify whether he's in favor no I'll I'll ask him again because I thought he he was asking for his specific situation Oh I thought he was describing what happened and that's why he's in favor I thought he said that I'm also saying that of the residential Aid the law preventing any citizen not not only me to add another two family unit on the residential uh Zone a okay so we'll take it that you're in favor of this paper and adopting the adus yes sir okay anything

else hold on a second councelor she speaking on the microphone please no Sam had reached out to me me back um back in June as a veteran who was looking to you know he had explored this so I I it seems like the type of thing he was looking for in June may be something that could be considered so that's why I specifically made sure he was aware of this so I can send that and put that in the record if Sam would like but basically he's you know he's a homeowner and on Stanton Street and and and thinks he has a lot big enough to allow additional housing growing family so that's what why I reached out to him to make sure he had got to express that so thank you yeah he signed in thank you okay thank you very much yep anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this Council paper in favor okay Diane I understand you have some letters to read in favor yes I do this one is dated January 27th 2025 it's to the Malden city council and Malden planning board from Mayor Gary Christensen I write to follow up on our propose our proposal recently submitted to the city council regarding accessory dwelling dwelling units adus and the local zoning process that will apply our team spent a significant amount of time Inc coming up with the proposal that was submitted and I appreciate the effort and time that the city council has spent considering it as well at this point I believe it is worth mentioning that our Administration has been a strong advocate for more housing especially as it pertains to affordable housing from the Salvation Army project to the Brian Street proposal to providing hundreds of affordable housing units at Overlook Ridge we have been doing all that we can to address this pressing need and we've done this in a transparent Way by involving the community in these

projects that process Remains the Same in The Proposal before you tonight as we included a requirement that adus be subject to a site plan review process the process is intended to provide a transparent decision-making platform which that same open dialogue can can occur between neighbors site plan review is the lowest threshold group decision-making process we have at our disposal it represents a minimal burden on those proposing to add adus and will provide an absolutely critical opportunity for Neighbors to have input each neighborhood across the city has its own unique characteristics they vary in density housing type and challenges site plan review is the right place to have a balanced discussion around proposals in a way that promotes both housing production and respect for the neighborhood the recent revisions to the state regulations make a site plan review process with public engagement even more crucial the removal of a minimum lot size and the addition of the least restrictive dimensional controls creates the opportunity for large buildings and small Parcels the expansion of these uses in dense neighborhood neighborhoods warrant public engagement the inclusion of site plan review remains something I am committed to as a requirement for any zoning language to be signed off on I strongly encourage you to keep that in place for all the proposed accessory dwelling units I cannot support a paper absent that provision provision or where it is applied to only a certain type of proposed Adu thank you again for your hard work on this important matter this letter is dated January 27th to the m and planning board in city council ordinance committee dear mding planning board and ordinance committee unfortunately I am unable to I am unable to attend this evening's meeting due to a prior commitment however I would like to go on record as supporting mayor Christenson and his team's approach to access dwelling units adus once again the state has imposed an unfunded mandate on Malden similar to the NBTA zoning law which disproportionately affects poor communities in the

Commonwealth this sweeping proposal will harm Alden residents students and businesses with some while some call these units by endearing names like GL granny Flats Nanny flats and backyard Cottages or mother-in-law suets I see them as Hobbit sheds and basement dungeons ultimately they are simply additional housing units with only size as a limitation one major concern is the lack of an owner occupancy requirement in the state law these units are allowed by right leaving Malden with minimal control Beyond a site plan review Additionally the law requires no parking spaces for these un for these units anywhere in the city while some claim adus will make housing more affordable I believe they will actually drive up housing cost homeowners and companies could buy proper properties add an Adu and rent both units and Market rates further reducing affordability over the past year residents have repeatedly expressed a desire for more green space less density reduced traffic and increased affordability this law achieves none of these goals instead it exacerbates the issues by potentially turning adus into condos malen already ranks 50th in the Commonwealth for density adding new units without parking infrastructure upgrades or adjustments to the school funding formula will have a profound negative effect on our community this law is superficial and provides no real benefits to Malden while the mayor's proposal cannot stop this manate mandate his recommendation for requiring the site plan review for all applications is the least the city can do for its residents transparency environmental justice and Community engagement have been emphasized by many of my colleagues denying residents the opportunity for a public hearing to ask questions and voice concerns is unreasonable public hearings are required for matters as small as a cutting a tree curb cutting or adding a deck stripping residents of their voice on an issue of this magnitude is unacceptable sincerely Greg spora Craigs Bora City councilor at lodge 75 Elm Street

molden this is dated January 27th um addressed to Michelle Romero I write in support of building adus in Malden as in other Boston area cities they could begin they could begin help alleviate the the high cost of housing in Malden especially for the firsttime home buyers and adus would help families with aging adults and children who need more living space and more importantly every unit built is ideally a person housed moreover building adus could be a relatively efficient way to build more rental units that meet modern building codes and while I am not in favor of unrestricted development I believe that the city of Malden should not require a variances or Rec or restruct Adu construction on the basis of a minimum lot size preserving Green Space and emergency access to specific locations are important of course adus are only one step in the solving the housing crisis but it is a step in the right direction we should be trying to help people and this is a reasonable and relatively easy way to help working people who need it I live in Malden with my wife and two young children we bought a house in Malden in the summer of 2020 it was our first and only house my wife and I both work as teachers we could not afford our house now if we had to purchase it today I think it is sad that people like us who love Malden cannot move here I want to make it possible for people to stay in Malden or move to Malden the city is a wonderful diverse Place different people have different needs and I believe that we should be making it easier for people to build adus to meet those diverse needs thank you for attention to this important matter sincerely Daniel defa 25 North Milton Street Mullen letter dated email dated Monday January 27th addressed to Michelle Romero says good afternoon my name is Katie Dylan I am a Malden resident living at 198 Mount Vernon Street thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on this very important issue I have direct connection and experience with the Commonwealth's

housing crisis with multiple angles as a person working on the front lines of the crisis and as a person hoping to be able to purchase a home in Malden in the near future I'm currently the assisting director of the malding warming Center and I see how burdensome the housing CR burdensome the housing crisis is we have been reaching capacity every single night last night s Sunday January 27th we turned four people away at the door and received at least one phone call from someone seeking shelter which is about our average this season days before Christmas I turned away a record number of 21 people needing a warm and stay place to stay as a reminder the molding warming Center's capacity is 25 people are in desperate need of shelter and should be looking at how we can create more expansive opportunities for housing not creating more restrictions following a flexible and non-restrictive zoning policy for adus is a significant step in the right direction as it allows families to provide extra housing for adult children or elderly parents and as I understand it the existence of adus create opportunities for first first-time home buyers like me to have more affordable excuse me more affordable options for purchasing homes or condos it will also provide opportunities for folks who already own homes to afford to stay in their homes the plans submitted by the mayor's office in January respectfully are quite restrictive particularly the various required approvals required lot size and variances it seems needlessly burdensome some of the restrictions like preserving Green Space or access between existing buildings for emergency services are reasonable and and necessary but I worry that providing too many barriers will restrict creating more housing units thank you for hearing my comments and for creating this opportunity for discussion it is my sincere hope that Malden can continue to becomeing welcoming and inclusive place for all people and create opportunities for folks to live here an email dated Monday January 27th addressed to says Dear public hearing clerk please read my public

comment into the record at January 27th 2025 public hearing reference below thank you did joint public hearing of the planning board with city council rules and ordinance committee please post all documents plans research rationale parcel analysis and proposals introduced at your public hearing on zoning amendments as related to the accessory dwell units prior to the city council meeting scheduled for January 28th as you know the city council will be further considering this topic on January 28th and there is a clear public interest in having a comprehensive collection of all relevant documents available to the public prior to that meeting please include all revisions to any documents which were brought into the January 27th 2025 planning board meeting and discussed in relation to accessory dwelling units the city council is scheduled to meet on January 28th to discuss to further discuss and possibly ordain a amendments to Chapters and subsections of the malen city code under title 12 zoning related to this matter as a result timely re release of this information is critical thank you sincerely Brian dey1 Earl Street malom is that all you have uh in favor that's all I have yes councelor Winslow did you have something to say in favor I just want to make sure um Mr thongs comments or I actually have a written comment I received from Mr thong I just want to read a paragraph of that and I to Michelle just I think there was a little misunderstanding between you and him in the dialogue so I just want to make sure it's clear why what what are you talking about so this is directly from Mr thongs email back in June after I was honorably discharged from the Navy I bought my three-bedroom house on 24 Stanton Street in Malden after about 12 years ago my two little children ages six and four years old and my parent my first room was for my two children second room for my parent my third room for myself and um the wife as time went by the number of people in my family is

growing I have another 2-year-old child and my parent-in-law were also moved in with us with today's housing crisis and the struggle of being high rent we can't um afford to rent or purchase another house for them to live in basically I'm stuck on having two families living in a small single house so that's kind of the Crux of his comment so Sam would you is that you okay so I just want to make sure that's on the record that that's really the intent of his comment so thank you counselor for reading that in and cying that thank you oh yeah Michelle could you just tell me did you said you sent that to me could I never received it could you tell me the date oh Oh I thought you meant previously I had never received it otherwise I would have what's the date on it June you said I got it in June I got it in June so I asked Mr to come speak okay so it's a you sent it to me though okay thank you okay thank you thank you counselor is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this Council paper anyone else in favor see and hearing none declare that part of the hearing closed is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to this Council paper anyone in opposition Diane do you have anything to read in opposition I do not see no one that would like to speak in opposition declare that part of the hearing closed Michelle can you take us through your staff report yes and I will just note I did hand um Diane that last email I it went in in favor although it really was neither in favor nor in opposition

the one from Mr Dey it was asking for records so just wanted to know that um thank you yeah I did have before I start Mr chair if I could I had one question I was in the I was in attendance at the ordinance committee meeting on the 21st and I know the counselor referenced some votes having been taken and I'm wondering if the chair could just it was my in my notes it indicates that the motion regarding site plan review was did not pass did it pass or what was the what was the vote I might have written it down wrong it was there was a lot going on and I was trying to listen I just curious if somebody could clarify I know some of the votes were so did they all pass the proposed amendments in that paper that we saw I I think It ultimately did I think the reason it was a little confusing is because we initially had made a motion to put the lot size down to zero and keep site plan review unchanged and then when we were advised again of course before the guidelines that came out Friday when we were advised that putting it down to zero was not an advisable approach we then retook the vote and it did passed to separate detached and attached into site plan but it wasn't unanimous but it was a it was a you did take the vote that pass right yes I think councelor Crow voted against but it did pass is my recollection for the site plan review cuz I had something written down 3 to2 or 2 to three and I wasn't sure what that was I think Council Ali has the most clear I have the draft minutes that have yet to be approved you you're asking about the the site plan review uh making it by right for for for attached well it's byri for everything but which would you were the requiring site plan review only for detached correct so the ones that would

make it all yes hold on one second uh well I mean the councils are here tonight but it's fine I don't want to delay on that one second yeah I apologize because the the motion was actually made by councelor lenan in the end yeah so was it 3 to two it was it it was three to2 yeah okay so that passed but okay I I see okay I couldn't uh all right thank you so um I'm reading from the report and recommendation dated January 27th 2025 won't read it verbatim into the record but it's referenced and Incorporated by Heron it's referenced and Incorporated here in by reference to the record so we heard about the petition um there is also an addition to the follow-up memorandum that was read in favor there was a memorandum dated January 2nd 2025 for mayor Christensen um that introduced the paper um as part of uh along with the sponsor um so you do have a copy of that you won't read that into the record I'm going to try not to repeat um again the proposal is intended to update the zoning ordinance to comply with the new state law there are additional recommendations that we will discuss um that I would suggest are necessary to further update this proposal to align with these recent draft guidelines um so we've already talked about the definitions the locations um a lot of this we've been thread I'm not going to read it again

um the original paper does I will note um and you all have a copy of the paper you have a copy of the original paper that was proposed 13-22 you have a copy of council Winslow's addendum um you also received a copy of amendments that were discussed at the ordinance committee that weren't part of the original paper um I want to note that the original proposal um at the time as I said was based on state guidelines that we had at the time and it was understood that special permit we we were going to have to require we were going to have to allow more more than one Adu so subsequent or second adus but we could require those would be requiring a special permit the new guidelines now suggests it's up to our the city or town to decide whether to allow more than one Adu so that is one of the recommendations I'm going to make um regarding subsequent or second adus we've gone through the summary um the highlights I don't know um people have specific questions or you just want to get right into applications and exemptions so these amendments would apply to new construction new use and occupancy of existing buildings unless exempt by city ordinance he Express the language of the Amendment state law which exempts the subject of building permit issued before the first publication of notice of the public hearing which was January 10th 2025 or the state permit extension act um effective date the effective date is the date of the city council's vote to ordain the Amendments Council must act on the Amendments within 90 days after the public hearing closes otherwise a new le a new duly advertised public hearing must be held so if the public hearing closes tonight the final date for Action is April 27 2025 as we've heard the state law goes into effect

February 2nd so the council is going to be moving to act before that so these laws would be on the books before the state law goes into effect um standard of review the planning board's review and recommendations of the proposed zoning changes should be directed by substantive planning objectives Community need and general welfare um I did want to comment um if I could um we did have some information prepared this had been requested previously by some of the counselors um and again this is just based on basic assessors records so these have not been vetted by um building and occupancy records um so this is again just basically looking at the Assessor's Records in terms of um properties that are used as a single family um so in the city there are approximately and again these are very approximate numbers but it's just used as a reference point there are approximately 6,000 Parcels that are assessed for use as a single family they're approximately 4,000 for two families um approximately 700 for three families four to eight um another couple hundred and then more than eight approximately 2 150 to 200 again these are very rough estimates I will note they do not include condos condos are assessed differently so if it's a two family that's taxed as two condos that's not included in that number that I gave um same thing for the multi-units um and then I want to talk about mixed use because this will apply again to commercial properties so properties that are primarily residential with some commercial and properties that are commercial primarily with some

residential and that brings into another couple hundred um these numbers um again very rough approximates um in terms of potential we've been asked I was asked at previous Council meetings as well as about potential um again these are potential properties you know it it's it um may seem um more likely to some that a single family might petition to do an accessory dwelling unit but I'm noting the numbers and providing the info because any lot that has a dwelling on it can petition for the Adu if it's in one of those five districts so that's what we just want to be clear on it's not just limited to single families it's not limited to dwellings with accessory structures an accessory structure can be added or an existing structure could already be there same thing we've talked about additions um and then finally again this is very um very rough number again strictly based on assessors I did want to know since there's some confusion as to whether we have any lots that a 7500 and there are approximately a thousand single family lots that are greater than 7500 square feet and then the 5,000 to 7500 range or another couple thousand so again those are making up the 6,000 that I referred to approximately a th000 greater than 7500 Square ft single families assessed as single families the 5,000 to 7500 was approximately

2,000 below 5,000 was approximately 3,000 and that's coming up again these are very very rough um that's coming you know totaling up to the 6,000 assessed as singles so again we're past the lot size but I I've been asked for it repeatedly and I did want to just finally provide it um so um for everyone's reference so planning recommendation um again you'll be making an advisory recommendation to the city council they can choose to follow it follow it in par disregard it disregard it in part um so these would be recommendations that you make to the city council they will take them into consideration or they will take they will review them at the very least they can take them into into consideration or not um and they will you know obviously move forward to take action on whether to adopt these amendments as they are the body authorized to do that okay can you read them sure so the recommendation which is prepared prior to the public hearings that the planning board recommends that the city council approval of the proposed amendments as submitted and with the following additional revisions one in section 12 12030 which is the table use regulations to revise as follows for accessory dwelling unit more than one subsequent second or subsequent so the revision is to add the language more than one because that's the term the state uses in addition to second or subsequent change SP to no so they would not be allowed by special permit they would be prohibited two section 12610 which is a table of intensity regulations uh also known as a table of

dimensional controls to delete all numbers and all columns and to add the following MCC section 12320 30. D5 um we will get I did these in order of the section so we will get to that unless you want me to jump ahead to talk about that chair no keep going okay three is is section 12. 32.0 30. D1 purpose and intent to revise the second sentence to read as follows the intent of this ordinance is to protect the health safety and general welfare of the city's present and future inhabitants and to address the potential impacts that the addition of an accessory dwelling unit to a property may have on the principal dwelling surrounding neighborhood and adjacent residences including but not limited to impacts related to density congestion nuisance and parking into comply with the Mass general laws chapter 48 Section 3 so-called affordable homes act some language has been added some has been re um relocated in this paragraph I didn't give you the strikeout showing what language was removed or added but you can look at the paper okay and see what the original provision said unless you want me to walk you through that I I had it written up with the strikeouts and was told by a colleague it was too confusing that that way so I didn't I left it this so this is how the provision would read you'll recommend the provision read this way so inherent in this is there's some language that's going to be moved around added things that are italicized and underlined or additional language that's new language okay but again I'm not showing you exactly what was struck out I'll go through it if you want me to don't go okay so set number four section 12.32 030 D2 applicability to revise the following Provisions to read read as follows a prior to the issuance of any building permit or certificate of

occupancy for any accessory dwelling unit a site plan review and site plan approval from the site plan review committee shall be required pursuant to the section in B The Building Commissioner zoning enforcement officer shall determine whether a unit is an accessory dwelling unit five section 12. 32.0 30. D3 scope of review to revise the provision the propo these should say proposed provision provise revised the proposed provision as follows through site plan review the city May review and impose terms and conditions on the appearance and layout of a proposed use or land or structures for an Adu prior to the issurance of a building permit and may consider what reasonable requirements concerning dimensional standards such as dimensional setbacks law coverage open space bulk he bulk height in number of Stories of the structure if any should be imposed on the use six section 12320 30 D4 General so the first part of the amendment is to subsection 4f to add the word required before open space and B to add the following provision subsection G only one Adu shall be allowed on a single lot s section 12.32 point0 30 D5 design standards there are four parts to this the first part is concerning subsection d5a citing and location to revise the proposed provision to read as follows an accessory dwelling unit may be allowed only on a property that contains a principal dwelling B under subsection d5c dimensional requirements to revise the provision as follows the requirements shall be those required for the principal dwelling or a single family residential dwelling or accessory structure in the zoning District in which the Adu is located whichever results in more permissive

regulation that is the sub section that is recommended replace to replace the numbers in The Columns of the table of intensity regulations that is what the current draft guidelines State those are the requirements we're supposed to use when we're evaluating the Adu what's required not what's existing what's required so we're going to look at the principal dwelling or you're going to look at the single F single family dwelling and or you're going to look at the accessory and choose the most permissive regulation section 12. 32.0 30 D5 subsection D is to revise the following provision to read as follows again these are proposed Provisions revised proposed Provisions any expansion of a building's footprint or in addition to an existing principle dwelling for an accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all dimensional controls and those of the dimensional controls that we just referenced D subsection d5e size to revise the following proposed provision as follows the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit is 900 square ft of gross floor area or half the size of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling whichever smaller section 12 number eight is section 12.3 2.03 d6d parking requirements to delete subsection D which is definition of bust station in its entirety um whether we have that definition or not the state definition will control the Hope was that if that state definition changes the entirety of the city will

will not be subject to that particular requirement that exempts all parking all adus from parking so if that if that changed um section where is if we have it on the books even if the state law changes it would apply so that was the thinking behind that section nine or recommendation 9 is section 9 section 12320 30 D7 submission requirements to delete the proposed section in its entirety and insert the following all applications for site plan review shall be in writing and shall provide the information identified in title for the code of City of Malden um right now the list of submission requirements is in the zoning um it's will be difficult to change that or vary from that um so the idea was to put it in another section of the ordinance such as title four which can be more easily Changed by the council um another alternative is that it will be just become a sort of form checklist that's held in the inspectional services Department um the only concern I have with that is that that that may change then depending on who is you know running that department so this way if it's codified in another location um that the council would would have uh jurisdiction over we would be able to regulate that of course inspectional services and I imagine will make recommendations on what should be in that list what should be required Etc um but at least that way it will be codified for every everyone's protection um applicants as well as the city um section recommendation 10 is section 12.32 030 d10 regarding the decision the recommendation is to delete 90 days and 90day and insert 14 days and 14 day

that's referencing the time frame the committee site plan review committee has to post a decision after the hearing closes so moving it up from 90 days to 14 days 11 Rec recommendation number 11 is to make the following typographical Corrections in the following sections under Section 12. 32030 D1 Mass General as chapter 48 there was a typo section 12323 d9a there was a typo in oscd and then finally in section 12.32 030 D12 insert Mass general laws 48 Section 3 after the word two and before the word regulations that provision only referred to the state regul guidelines it didn't refer to the state law so we want to make sure the reference to the state law is in there as well and then finally recommendation 12 is section 12.32 03e um which is the special permit special permit regulations for accessory dwelling units the recommendation is to delete in its entirety that of course goes along with the first recommendation if you're deleting the option for special permit um then you would delete that whole section if you don't one and either one and 12 go hand one and 12 go hand in hand is the point so if you choose not to move forward with Section recommendation one I would recommend that you keep section 12 I'm sorry you you disregard the recommendation to 12 either you're following both or you're not following both sorry I'm not being clear thank you thank you very good thank you does anyone have any questions from Michelle Eric

Henry thank you Mr chair uh Michelle i' like to start so what was the impetus for the recommendation for recommendation one if I'm understanding it correctly that is to not allow more than one Adu that's correct and currently the paper that the ordinance committee has sent to us is to allow a multiple second or or change even if we changing more than one Adu by special permit yes because the original guidelin said we had to require it so that's why it was put into the proposal now that we've learned it's not required that we require I would I recommend that it not be in I would as as a person on the working team working on it it's my understanding the only reason we made that recommendation was because it was required we understood it was required by the guidelines I'm just still not understanding why we want to be more restrictive and not have the opportunity to to to have the potential to have more housing um another question Michelle if you do put an Adu in a single family uh unit now that's one if one of those single family units does it now become a multif family unit now becomes a two family and a two family would become a three so adding the Adu is adding another unit an accessory dwelling unit is is another unit it just has a size restriction so for building code purposes okay one one last question so what about pre-existing non- condition in the in the in the fact that if you already have a Adu in your your your single family are you not allowed to build a detached

Adu because that would be considered a second Adu adus aren't allowed in the city so I don't know what there is no use called Adu either it's a one family or a two family there is no the accessory dwelling unit is no not defined in the zoning and it's not defined in the building code so I'm not sure what any unit if somebody thinks they have a unit they would need to come in and say I have an accessory dwelling unit and would like to be permitted as accessory dwelling unit there are none permitted in the city them not being permitted and them not existing is two different things that is correct okay people have definitely have illegal units in the city there's no doubt whatsoever I'll you for now thank you thank you Ken anucci so Michelle just following up on what you just said um so we have current zoning that you know and and requirements for a two family and if you have a single family and want to become a two family you could be disallowed because you don't meet those requirements however now with the addition the Adu you can actually make your single family into not a single family with an Adu but you just said it would actually be considered a two family for building code purposes for building code and I'm not sure about tax purposes but under zoning it will right a tax assessment under zoning it will now be called an Adu so a two two if a two family is not allowed a two family is still not allowed what is now allowed is a single family with an accessory dwelling unit right so when the homeowner gets their

tax bill what's it going to call that I don't know I don't have any information about taxes we I believe the council is going to be talking to the assessor to figure that out I don't know if it's going to be taxed as a separate unit if it's just going to be taxed for the living space or I I don't know if the state I actually have even asked the assessor one of the counselors asked about taxation as well councelor Taylor um I actually even asked will there be a new land use category will the state come up with a new category so they can tax them and the assessor told me he didn't know so I'm not sure okay thank you else that Ken uh councelor om Ali or councelor Taylor yes thank you um I just wanted to clarify something the city planner uh responding to Mr Henry said that um adus are not defined in the zoning and are there therefore prohibited I just wanted to clarify if that was true and the only reason why I ask is that um car washes were not defined by our our zoning ordinances but we're not prohibited no my my understanding is the absence from of a definition does not equal a Prohibition I just wanted to clarify that yeah maybe I misspoke it's not that it's not defined there's no use category they're not identified so anything that's not identified or cannot be classified thank you for making me clarify that cannot be classified into an existing use category is considered prohibited so Car Wash is considered retail service right now councilor are you all set Eric makush thank I I have a sort of a devil's adif kind of question so you're saying if someone added an Adu now they're considered two family but we want a strict adus to one per building but if now they're considered a two family what's their what's to stop them from going forward and saying I want to

add another Adu to make it a three family well okay and I'm sorry maybe I misspoke so building code purposes it's now a two family under zoning it's a single with an Adu if it's permitted you know it gets the proper permits it will have an occupancy permit that says accessory dwelling unit so the city will recognize that it's it's an accessory dwelling unit so if somebody comes in to do another one they will the city will see the records that show legal use and occupancy is for a single and an accessory dwelling unit or a two in an accessory dwelling unit okay thank you it's more when I say it's a two family or three family it's for building code purposes and it's more like for Logistics in the sense that there's another family living there potentially there's a whole another unit living there it's not a connected you know uh it's not part of the unit it's a standalone unit no that I understand yeah okay that's why I was calling that you all said there I am thank you Stephanie Stone thank you um in recommendation four the word detached is not there so was that intentional or are you recommending or not recommending um the detached proposal as delting the the detached I I'm not recommending I'm recommending the original proposal that all accessory dwelling units will be treated the same okay consistently going through the same review process Andor held to the same Criterion standards and I mean you familiar with the city the basis of that is every city street has different you can't even generalize on one Street house to house to house in one case a a garage unit may

not have impacts and then the property next door may have impact same thing with adding an addition or adding a whole another floor or it could have an impact so I I the I along with the working group the mayor did not think there was a way to properly distinguish at this stage what would have impacts that they all should be given that review process chance foru engagement um keep in mind it would also be the site plan review committee doing a review as opposed to an individual doing the review um so well the mayor I won't repeat the mayor's but he listed all the real strong reasons why s transparency and public engagement Etc group decision making is preferred again for all the adus again not knowing it's going to be Case by case what the impacts or what the proposal is was there was there anything in the state guidelines about treating detached differently the state guidelines say that we have to allow detached or attached so we can't choose and say we only want to do detached we want to only do attached that state guidelines also provide site plan review and it doesn't specify for one or the other I know there was a comment made about one of the webinars I also attended the webinar every webinar there was different information presented by different qualified People attorneys State people on the same subject so it was um you know the most everybody in the internal working team attended the webinar all the webinars and they're all recorded so there was conflicting information but again some of them were actually both the web uh two or three of them were before the guidelines came out originally I think we were told there

may not be guidelines so that's with that one and I just have another math question so we're seeing a lot of multif family units that are basically non-conforming are in the single family zoning um so if you have a multif family that's in a single family zoning District you want to add an I guess it really doesn't matter you want to add an Adu that's detached the Adu can only have one single family regardless of whether whatever your primary unit is that's right okay well um I shouldn't say sing can only have one single family it it can only be one dwelling unit I do want to make one note of that that was another addition to the guidelines um um Mr Pratt noted you know some of the other use and occupancy restrictions we can't have so we can't have um we can't require affordability we can't have restrictions based on age income familiar relations institu U um but the the final one that's in the guidelines I'm going to read just to make sure I get it correctly um actually States in terms of what use the guidelines have a lot of information on what we can't do and this was one of the use and occupancy restrictions that we cannot have so I just want to get that so that I'm reading this so it said um characteristics relations between the occupants income age familiar relationship enrollment in an educ educational institution or that limits the number of occupants beyond what is required by applicable state code so when you mentioned family

currently our definition of family is for un for persons unrelated by Blood marriage or adoption that will not apply to the adus because that's a restriction on number of occupants so the adus will not be subject to that restriction so any number of unrelated individuals can live there and related or unrelated I should say again it's you have to comply with sanitary code and building code Etc but it's not the same right but the actual structure itself for the Adu has to be basically one apartment or one living space it has to be self-contained selfcontained okay right the definition has to have it says it has to have sanitation cooking facilities um the separate access the separate entrance let me get to this um where am I maintains a separate entrance there's a size restriction the 900 fet gross floor area so inclusive of sleeping cooking sanitary facilities a self-contained housing unit okay so we can restrict an Adu from saying having two apartments in it two separate entrance two separate entrances in one building when they build a separate building we say no that's just you can only have one one entrance I'm not sure if if the location of the entrance might be something the cyan review could consider I think it's again it's going to be very case specific based on that property are they proposing an addition are they proposing to use existing space are they proposing an accessory structure they proposing to connect the accessory structure you know there's a lot of different variations we could see rebuild the accessory

structure add on to the accessory structure you know there's all you can think of probably a lot of different variations as well and as I mentioned before this includes commercial properties as well this board has seen some vacant storefronts that want to convert to a unit by special permit previously required now may be allowed by right if it's meets the requirements for the Adu so that will change some of some of the regs on the books which is why and I didn't even discuss this but the provision in the original paper that speaks to that section 12.28 just quickly get to that um and I had meant to write something on that so that provision that says section 12.28 will not apply to this so that's the provision that's the the part of the ordinance that regulates preexist and non-conforming uses this board Hears A lot of cases through that section of the ordinance preexist and non-conforming come in for special permit these are not going to be regulated under that these will be regulated under Adu WS so you won't see adus coming in through that pre-existed non-conforming special permit process that was the reason for including that thank you second thank you uh Diane Chua yeah I just wanted to comment on Eric Henry's um uh status there a lot of single family homes in the city of Malden have um units that are finished in the lower level and usually in the split entry Ranch they'll have a lower level they'll have a kitchen bathroom and the city back in the day would give them an affidavit saying as long as it wasn't used as a rental property so my question is now if an Adu is legal can they

change that to become now a rental unit um or is that something you know that's because they they were they there are some houses that have if you look up on the registry of D they have an affidavit says you can have an accessory unit in your well they didn't call an accessory unit they said you can have a an additional living space with a kitchen in a bathroom but you can't legally rent it you have to have it as a family member it was an in-law apartment um so I was just curious as how that would affect people um because that was that that's was probably on the books for gosh I want to say until like 2020 I think and then it changed where they wouldn't allow it so because we have a lot of houses in edworth and Lynden that always had those accessory units and the you know there especially a kitchen in the low level um but the city wasn't allowing it so you had to take out the stove things like that so I'm just curious how that would uh that might be something the city wants to think about how how you address that because you know those people are going to be coming back looking to say hey what about me well there were I think you're referring to these restrictive covenants there were at times restrictive covenants that were allowed to be put on a single family where it was said this would be used essentially referred to it sometimes as an in-law so there couldn't be a lock on the door it wasn't actually a separate unit it was supposed to be separate living space with a connection to the main house wasn't a separate unit it wasn't the they all had restrictions as you said they can't be rented as a separate unit they were not established or permited as separate units so that's something different any property can that is in the correct District can come in and petition to be at an Adu you could say I'm starting from scratch I have an empty floor I want to make an Adu or you could come in and say I have what I think is a unit I would like to petition to make that an Adu so that

would be the option for that that's not the same as illegal units oh no which there's no grandfathering and just because you added a unit and or using it as a unit doesn't make it automatically an Adu however you could come in and petition and say I have a space already set up the first thing they're going to ask you is where are the permits for the kitchen the plumbing the electrical Etc so you know work without permits isn't going to be given any type of this is my understanding and based on what the Building Commissioner told me in preparation for this meeting there will be no passes no grandfathering in for work without permits or illegal units a work a unit like that that might have received permits is different and I thought you were asking about something else apparently so I don't know if that clarifies that helps me the size limitation is still there so just because it was a 1500 square foot um area doesn't wouldn't that won't qualify for an Adu yeah they weren't that big okay so you're all set Diane Eric Henry did you want to respond to Diane's comments rather than wait for three other people to talk I'll yield okay Pat thanks um Michelle I I had a question related to um the Dober amendment I know I know this is a protected use and it sort of falls under the state's Dober Amendment and we've had some excitement with a couple of discussions on recent me meetings with um regulations and what we can and can't do as it relates to those protected uses so you know in I ating a site plan review what what sort of teeth on the enforcement side of that does the city

have you know knowing that it is a protected use and I I I don't know that you can enforce it because it's allowed by right you know under the state's statute right well it it is allowed by right under the state statute but the state statute specifically States and I'm reading from it this is what the new law says no zoning zoning ordinance shall prohibit unreasonably strict or require special permit or other discretionary zoning approval for the use of land or structures for a single accessory dwelling unit or rental thereof in a single family residential zoning District provided that the use of land or structures for such accessory dwelling unit under this paragraph may be subject to reasonable regulations including but not limited to CMR site if applicable site plan review regulations concerning dimensional setbacks and the bulk and height of structures and then restrictions and prohibitions on short-term rental right so it's specifically in there and it's also referenced in the guidelines so it's my understanding um and as well I've discussed this with the Building Commissioner and the city solicitor it's their understanding as well that we can require site plan review so so refresh my memory is there what other uses in the zone do we have a site plan review okay we have site plan review right now for uses that are not do protected uses we use it as as the mayor referenced it's a lower threshold of review so we have site plan review for the residential incentive overlay District which is the multif family zoning District overlays in the Central Business zoning we also have site plan review for the RO quy Redevelopment re Reclamation Redevelopment zoning District which is obviously the quy multif family and other uh commercial uses up there we also have site plan review for the

Malden River that's the most recent one um and what was proposed as Council winsel mentioned was a site plan review for uh educational religious and daycare uses which is still um this I believe the committee ordinance committee and council is still working on that that was you had the hearing on that so that that of those other committees is the only one that's a do quote So-Cal do protected use this will be a do protected use potentially regulated by site plan review so where where you have a situation where um somebody has a single family home and they want to uh create an Adu and they're not adding to the footprint they're not adding the building they're just renovating the interior what's the site plan review going to determine there or or um earlier um Diane's example where there's a garage it's a detached garage it's already built there's an apartment already above it it just doesn't have you know kitchen bathroom but the structure is already there what's the site plan review going to tell us about or what are they going to what type of oversight would they provide for that those particular uses well I can't say you know specifically without knowing the exact particular property um I'd say every C is going to be Case by case but I would say specifically things like open space um are definitely going to be a concern in question because now there is another unit that requires open space so are you creating any open space using any yard if it's already a small enough yard or limited what's there I would say also things like

typical site plan review features to do with the council mentioned entr or actually Stephanie mentioned entrances the council mentioned window placement location things like that I would say trash storage is another issue adding another unit so they could possibly regulate some site specific issues right does but does the open space and density sort of go beyond the dimensional controls that that that the State statue allows well I would say density does and I didn't say density open space yeah open space definitely is listed okay that's listed in there I'm I'm reading from now I agree dimensional setbacks may not change unless you need to add second means of ESS you might need to add a porch um if you're going up a story or using an attic I shouldn't say going up because you said self-contained maybe you're using an attic so you need now a staircase coming down maybe it will determine which side of the lot the staircase case goes on um it could determine things like screening somebody mentioned I think the counselor no clearly it could then that could get into effect with law coverage um it's going to be different based on each case we can't necess I can't necessarily say if it's a basement perhaps it's involving excavation of areas around it to create the light and ventilation that's going to be needed to have a dwelling unit in the basement that was actually another question you know it could be all these different things I think that's why the idea is let's start off site plan review we will review them this is a new law this is new to the city take a conservative approach so that every case is handled consistently and fairly because unfortunately it won't be some additions require it some self-contained require it others don't require it we can't pick

and choose which So within the different categories that's what the concern is without knowing got it you know two two other questions and then I'll I'll yoke sorry Chuck um we we typically right now the city does not allow basement living units would that be open game for the Adu if if a unit can comply with all the state building codes health codes code right typically they're not allowed because they don't meet the building code standards that's my limited understanding of it again based on information the building commission have provided height ceiling height light ventilation location of like utilities you know the furnace and heating system and things like that that's typically it's it's almost like self-restricting if they met all that stuff they'd have to bring the property or the the area into code regardless of where it was right okay and you have one more Pat I did now I lost it okay well that's okay there's a couple people here I thank you uh thank you re was it Risha or Ronnie me okay go ahead thanks Mr chair I wanted to go back to Stephanie's question because I wasn't sure if it was really answered I think you were asking if two separate units would be in one Standalone building if that was going to be considered one Adu if there were two units in it separated um with separate entrances and I don't know if the size the limitation on size would restrict that condition but I think that's what you were asking and I don't think it was answered oh okay so no it's one one a ex one ad unit

is allowed okay not to in one right it's not that it's one structure it's one unit one selfcontained a self-contained housing unit okay I didn't think it was I didn't know that if it was answered I sorry maybe I didn't understand that completely thank you if I wasn't clear thanks sure you all set I'm off set Ken you don't have anything I'm good okay Pat did you have a I I did recall did um was the committee defined who makes up the um site plan review committee yes that is in here um what was recommended was the city counselor the director of the office of strategic planning and economic development or design and the Department of Public Health director design um the thought process with the last if people aren't familiar with the Board of Health excuse me Department of Public Health they administer the rental unit inspections and a familiar with um that ordinance so I think it's the sense that that may come into play with with these especially if they're being added to the to the multi-units so the two and three and above maybe not for the single but they do rental unit inspections and just obviously they enforce the sanitary code so that was the other piece they'll be bringing that uh expertise to the process compliance with the sanitary code sorry I missed it thank you yeah no Eric Henry well thank you again Mr chair I think this would be the last time I just a question so I'm first foremost I'm I'm I'm that I'm definitely not in favor of of uh uh recommendation one but because of the fact I think that uh we are definitely capable via the special

permit permitting process to handle any uh multiple units that may come our way but if this were not if this were the case and this were not allowed would uh residents be allowed they do have the right to uh to seek variances and uh go would they have the right to seek a variance of this or is it just not going to happen if if it's not allowed they would not seek be able to seek a variance because that would be considered a use variance so you would be saying that's a use that's not allowed a second accessory dwelling unit or subsequent is not allowed they would not be able to see a variance of that thanks for the clarification yes okay does anyone else have any questions from Michelle anyone from ordinance have any questions from Michelle no okay um if there's no other questions from Michelle um people may want to start considering a uh a motion uh my only comments on this I I agree that I think the states forcing this down on us again just like they did with the MBTA I know Council linan um explained what some of the differences were between the two I still think this is going to be this is significantly going change the face of the city and and the support services uh you sit there and you look at stuff um the thing that I've heard most is that there's an elderly family member uh that's living in a house and can't afford it so they're going to

build an Adu and move into the Adu portion and then they're going to rent out their house so those people that say there were going to be no children or associated with the adus I don't think that's accurate because in that scenario the person moves into the Adu and then rent it out to a family that has two or three kids that will be in our school system plus all the um the other services that need to be provided be provided on Board of Health inspectional Service the reporting that needs to be done um on this uh to the state um you know it um I I really think that the impact is going to be more significant um than folks are folks are considering or acknowledging at the moment um those just my thoughts um last Thursday the state the state took it out of our hands for the most part most of the things that had been considered as a way to sort of help manage this were Tak taken away by the state they took away the dimensional controls they took away the parking they took away um uh some of the other items that um we're just being forced to take this and it's I I feel that it's being forced on us and um but it's going to be the law come Sunday and you know what whatever I think it's going to be the law come Sunday and they believe I I read in something uh from the state that they're expecting to get 10,000 units out of this over the next five years over the next five years statewise I think that's rubbish um I think in mden alone we

could end up with a couple thousand units just just conservatively looking at it the numbers Michelle gave earlier just looking at the singles and the twos that's 10,000 properties right uh 10,000 structures if 20% of them do it right that's going to be 2,000 units in Mal alone Ju Just from that now I don't know how many are going to do it take advantage of it there going to some people who don't have the the financial means to develop an Adu or don't have the experience or desire to do an Adu but what worries me is the fact that we have so many um landlords that live outside the city and and why wouldn't they if they can get another $2,000 a month for putting an Adu in why wouldn't they if it's an investment property on these absentee landlords so I I just think it's going to be more significant than folks are acknowledging um but as I said come Sunday it's it's a l to land so um there's not a lot we can we can do about it um those are those are my thoughts um hopefully that gave folks an opportunity to decide how they uh what type of motion they want to do Michelle did a nice job on the staff report and I know she rushed around in the last day or so um trying to incorporate the late changes that were made by the state um so that we had something fresh and relevant to review and refer to the city council hopefully it save them a little

bit of time um and what they have to do um but that yeah so that's um that's what we have here and and unfortunately I know I didn't attend it but I heard that there was a four four and a half hour meeting last Tuesday night and I applaud everyone who attended it and worked through it Council w coming up with an alternative Council R Al coming up with an alternative um but it's just unfortunate that state stepped in and changed everything I would have saved folks a lot of lot of effort and angst but with that said um Kenan tanucci you have a question yeah Mr chairman I just I just just a clarification um I know and I believe it was Council lenan that went over it earlier the difference between the MBTA and the Adu um um man mandates call it I mean we had somewhat an illusion of a choice with the MBTA but now this we don't even have an illusion of choice but you mentioned that there is no vehicle to uh challenge this unlike you know there are different municipalities challenging you know even right now the NBTA one what is the actual difference uh that Why Can't This Be challenged well I mean I think that the challenge would be essentially passive it would be either to pass something more onerous than what the guidelines are have said that we can do which we you know would I think would be inadvisable and irresponsible because likely lead to litigation from homeowners um or we do nothing and the state law prevails and there's no um there's no check or like certification essentially as there was with 3A where

we had to adopt zoning as a council and then send it to the state for review and then they gave feedback and then it was either adopted or finalized or not there's no check back and forth and sign off from the state we just have the opportunity to add to what they've done in this state CH the lot the change to the state law so we can make these limited you know dimensional control changes or ad site plan review or restrict to more than one Adu you know not not let it go to special permit though we have limited tools that we can use to apply on top of what the state law says but I think the key difference is in in my view is that there isn't this checkpoint where you submit something and they certify it or and tell you either keep working do some more analysis refine it and then it becomes final it just it just happens there's no there's nothing to submit to them yeah I I think um if you remember the NBTA process I mean one of the things I mean I councelor spatap for and I sat in on that and from kind of day one we could really end up specifying the specific plots in the city where that applied and and we in some ways Malden had a great Advantage because our major part of complying with that was our already existing multifamilies so so we could really direct it so it wasn't as burdensome here you can see the it's the flip to flip side is that it's very expansive where it can apply I mean I think the only thing I mean putting my administrative law had on um the our only choice as a city here would be to challenge the regulations of say not in compliance with what the intent of the law is and that that can be very challenging it's it's a hard burden to meet um you know it's like the bus stop versus you know that seems a very maybe there's a challenge there that might be I I think it's sort of uh you know a

bust station to say a bus stop is a bus station I actually filed you know comments and the mayor filed comments about saying we don't think that that's really consistent um you know that um and but they did not accept that it seemed to you know I worked in Gloucester where they had the bus service where you flagged it down so they seem to listen to the clusters of the world where they didn't have bus stops but but in Malden they they treated us differently because we actually have a sign that says this is where you pick up the bus so um so I mean I think there might be some flaws in in the regulations we could object to but um you know to the extent that uh you know that's just a different challenge that's the only way we could we could go forward if if short of trying to you know apply something so we could object to the regulations so Bas that's all different process I I don't know if we could kind of burn it get get some regulations in place but also object to the state I mean we could do both things but we could talk about that with legal tomorrow but so the only choice we have here is really just we're trying to minimize the negative impacts of what's being essentially forced on offroads so but that like I say the only I think the only choice we have related to the state is to try to say that their interpretation put put forth in their regulations is not consistent with the intent of the law and you know I think there's some like the bus station thing is probably something that you know I think it could make some reasonable arguments about but other things it would be difficult I mean the intent here is to say communities have to try to you know make every effort to allow these I mean that's the the type of thing without unless we have good strong you reasonable regulations so so that's so I think that we have to do as reasonably what we can and we can decide to the city whether we something like on the parking that we would want to fight that so thank you thank you okay thank you councelor Ken did you did that

answer your question that answered that clarified my question I mean uh okay thank you oh hold on a second I think councelor R Ali or councelor Taylor did I see your light on yeah I was going to pass but uh to Mr Antonucci's question I think that probably what you would end up seeing is if we don't pass this um ordinance tonight or if you don't recommend it and we don't pass it by the second on Monday people who have already made these plans drawn up for adus based on the state regulations will file their building permits and request to have their adus approved knowing that we have no restrictions at all on adus um and so it would be a little bit to be honest you we're probably not going to be in much different situation if we pass it or didn't pass it because the state regulations are so sub substantial um but there is some of this vetting that is possible um so yeah it does behoove us to pass something otherwise people can do it anywhere thank thank you counselor can Anon oh um well we're GNA have to reopen the public hearing is that I know but okay counselor if you come up to the thing I've not heard of that

before thank you thank you councelor winzo I just keep this very brief I just wanted to name that the council is also very concerned about the impacts on the rental stock in Malden and especially negligent or out oftwn landlords who are not paying attention to their properties and I heard you mention that Mr chair I just wanted to let you know that we're in some active conversation I've had conversations with councelor Taylor councelor simonelli has been very concerned about this so I think we will be looking at other ways to also address that problem recognizing that um there are ways that it could be exacerbated by the Adu ordinance that were you know that is moving forward um but it's a separate conversation just want to let you know that that is part of our conversation no that's definitely encouraging because there's a potential with so many to be a problem but thank you counselor okay thank you that's encouraging thanks for sharing that counc council councel at lodge McDonald council winow do you have any other business you'd like to conduct for the council well well we we did you not want to wait till our Vote or hear what we're doing or okay Ken anonui okay uh Mr chair um uh prior to making a motion I would like to thank Michelle and the group and the counselors and everyone involved that has put a lot of work in and recognize the amount of work they' put into putting together the best um recommendation in a bad situation uh

I will motion to recommend um make the recommendation to council the uh items listed in the planning recommendation all 12 of the recommendations recomend approval recommend approval with those 12 additional to council okay so Ken made a motion to to to pass make a recommendation to city council that we um that they adopt city council paper 13-20 25 with the 12 proposed changes that are in the staff report is there a second for Ken's propos uh motion Diane Chua I'll second Diane has seconded okay let's see so kenon Diana seconded okay Michelle and as a reminder Michelle Ronnie is the one voting on this petition on this public hearing Ken anucci yes Diane cha yes Tad G salasi yes Risa gray yes Patrick Hayes yes Eric Henry abstain do do state does he you required to State the reason I don't fully agree with the motion okay okay Mark it down I mean if you didn't agree with it I would thought he

might have voted against it but okay that's my vot okay Eric makush no Ronnie Raj Rama yes check I open no six 6 to two yeah I'm sorry I I have this written down because we looked it up last time obstain not voting State reason it wasn't recusal right recusal was recusal is non-participation total nonparticipation due to conflict and it wasn't not voting which was Stephanie who just didn't vote right cuz she wasn't right okay so 6 to2 we will make the recommendation to the city council I will do that first thing they're aware of it but I will send that to the city clerk first thing in the morning because there was a meeting as they as the council said scheduled for tomorrow night ordinance committee and then full Council terrific I will go to answer any questions about your recommendation okay now I will turn it back to council Winslow okay all right on councelor Al's motion to adjourn seconded by councelor lenan um all those in favor say I post all right the rules and ordinance committee is here by a Juran thank you very much for thank you guys very much for hanging in there for almost three hours all thank you for going past the three hours thank you all of you for your service thank you so great I know take care we'll be back than you guys okay so um have a good evening and good luck tomorrow night that'll be interesting watching I'll be watching that on

television okay so next item and just for the record um just for the record Stephanie Stone will be voting on 76 Granville AV and zero State Highway okay hurry it's Pro not required yeah go okay sorry I'm sorry about that so the first item is 76 Grand VAV this is an approval not required sub division it's to merge two lots uh this board may recall that there was a combined development site for 76 Granville and no number Granville place merg together to reconstruct an existing four family so this is a subdivision merger plan so you I would recommend that you endorse it um or that you authorize it I would recommend that you approve it and that you authorize the chair to endorse it oh and apparently we have somebody here to talk about it

okay um yeah yeah okay yeah hold on a second um um this you typically wouldn't be making a presentation oh that's fine I don't need to if you don't want me to yeah yeah and I didn't um I didn't I don't think I asked you to make it it's just done in the course of a public meeting they have to act on it and review it publicly but while the petitioners representatives here if anybody had any questions there's the plan and there's the engineer so yeah um but yeah there's no presentation there's no hearing or anything yeah and I basically it's approval not required as long as you have the frontage and then we have to approve it okay you know as long as that want a presentation so yeah oh okay I know we communicated by email but I I I don't think I told you to come did I tell me I didn't tell you to come I don't think I did no I guess that was uh my bad assumption that you wanted someone here well thank you and hopefully this is billable okay thank you so thank you okay and thank you for hanging in there tonight okay what what we we yeah if you want to hang on a second we're going to vote in a second yeah but then we'll we I'll let you know when it's ready to be picked up which will be sometime tomorrow you'll let me know I will email you and say it's ready to be picked up we have to scan it in and get everything set okay awesome thank you thanks thank you sir um is there a motion on the approval not required uh Eric mcos Eric made a motion to approve Eric Henry like second that motion Eric Eric Henry has seconded it um all those in favor say I I opposed abstained

zero okay so all in favor thank you shots fire hopefully you got something Stephanie was Stephanie was Voting Ronnie was not voting now you get some expertise um I don't want to say it but that you may see one there okay yeah we didn't really get into that but you had granted a special that for family but not be a five could be a five at least a five see uh okay next item zero State Highway I'll let Michelle explain it you all have a copy of that plan um this is the plan that the board approved back in October um it was not ready for endorsement until recently there were certain conditions the board put on as you may recall in your decision if you don't recall them they're listed on the front of the plan I realize it's a very small copy but that's what's in that right hand cornerer all the conditions that you put on your approval to do that plan we were asked um uh a special request was made um in the interest of the permitting process um so that this would be in order for the site plan review meeting that was held last week if the chair would be able to endorse the plan in advance of this meeting um so he did do that he did that that is occasionally done he did was taking no other action than endorsing it you've already approved the plan you've set the conditions Nelson and I or at least I

made sure I should say um as well as you know check with city engineer and other people involved that all the conditions were in order before the endorsement they were the chair endorsed it so this is just before you to ratify and confirm confirm the endorsement okay is there motion to accept the endorsement or the approval of the endorsement J want this roll call just to ratify and confirm your action right okay KCI I'll make a motion to ratify and approve Eric mcos second motion okay and I didn't even it's on the agenda but this is the Overlook Ridge zero State Highway defended to plan a subdivision approved October 23rd 2024 so Ken who you who made the motion you seconded it Eric second you can do whatever you want to do for the V go ahead Ken yeah yes Diane yes toad yes rysa yes Patrick Hayes yes Eric Henry yes Eric makush yes Stephanie Stone yes very good thank you very much chuck chuck yes okay thank you um uh Ronnie Ronnie do you want to give a quick up update on um Community preservation committee yep I'll give us uh quick Cliff Notes it's been a long night um so uh main things that we covered during the last CPC meeting was um some money that was previously allocated for the Roosevelt Field project um where that project is no longer happening um in the immediate future um that those funds have been

reallocated to two different projects Mal and River Works and uh some funding went to div Park um so they split that money up between the two projects while that project is uh being re-evaluated it's not in uh the short term in terms of happening um some other projects that are being funded separately St Paul's Church uh requested some funding the Forestdale Cemetery some funding for the the rock wall out there um some money is being allocated over there um and that's about it for projects that are being funded right now so it was my first meeting so I'll have more details as I'm progressing through the CPC but if anyone has any questions no thank you very much Ry appreciate it thank you uh Michelle master plan activities and open space and Recreation plan MMO that should be attached to the agenda um somebody can find it is stated January 7th 2025 it do includes an update on the open space and Recreation plan and also an update on the comprehensive plan formerly known as master plan so you can read that take that home for your reference okay if there's nothing else uh the next meeting is going to be on February 12th Abraham Lincoln's birthday um so February 12th which is only a a few weeks away two weeks so two weeks away from Wednesday um if you can't make it uh please let Michelle know right away um otherwise is there a motion to adjourn I'd like to make a motion to adj

Diane chuha motion to adjourn and let's see who do I see do I see Eric Henry second good Eric Henry second and then 952 yes well thank you very much everyone it was a a confusing complicated night with uh the fact of the late changes and and the short runway on having to deal with all this stuff so I appreciate everyone asking great questions uh great discussion and uh thanks for hanging in there have a good evening