Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I've been told so by length.

Okay, good evening, everyone. My name is Ken Antonucci, and I will be your moderator and chair for this evening's planning board meeting, Wednesday, August 12, 2026, at 7 p.m. in the Malden City Hall, 215 Pleasant Street, Malden, Mass. For those of you 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 may be live-streamed on the MATV City YouTube site. I have not been notified that any other video or audio recording of this meeting will occur. As a reminder, anyone speaking, please speak into the microphone. And if you're speaking from the podium, please provide your name and residential address for the record. Speak clearly into the microphone and print your name and address on the sign-in sheet. At tonight's meeting, we will hold a joint public hearing with the City Council on several zoning amendments proposals. First order of business will be a roll call for the planning board, starting with Tawadich. I have to turn these on, right?

Ken Itinuchi, planning board.

Ken Itinuchi, planning board.

Ken Itinuchi, planning board.

Yeah, it's not working. How do I have to shut these off?

Eric Henry, Planning Board.

Risa Gray, Planning Board.

I'll now hand it over to Councillor Winslow, Chair of the City Council Ordinance Committee, for their roll call.

Councillor Crowe?

Here.

Councillor Linehan?

Here.

I am here as Chair, and Councillor O'Malley had a death in the family, so he may attend late, but right now he's not here and he may not make it. But we do have four or five members, so we do have a quorum.

Okay, thank you, Councillor. We will open the public hearing as a whole, then take up each zoning amendment proposal individually. After presentation by the sponsor and any questions from board members or committee members for each proposal, we will receive public comment and the Planning Board will discuss and decide whether ready to make a recommendation to the City Council. Diane, can you please read the entire notice of public hearing? Oops, that's right. Operator error, sorry.

The Malden Planning Board and Malden City Council Rules and Ordinance Committee will jointly hold a public hearing in the Herbert L. Jackson Council Chamber, Malden City Hall, 215 Pleasant Street, Malden, Mass., at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, in accordance with Section 12.32.050, of Title 12 of the Code of the City of Malden, MCC, regarding petitions for zoning amendments as proposed in City Council Papers No. 263-2026, 325-2026, 326-2026, 327-2026, and 335-2026, to amend the following sections of Title 12, MCC, as follows. One. Section 12.28.030 MCC General Regulations Home Occupations and Section 12.32.060.B MCC Definitions Zoning CCP 263-2026 to amend use regulations to allow retail kitchen slash cottage food operation as a permitted occupation and to establish definitions for retail residential kitchen slash cottage food operation in cottage food products. Number two, section 12.28.010.E, MCC, general regulations, non-conforming uses, lots, buildings, and structures, CCP 325-2026. To amend, use regulations for non-conforming uses, lots, buildings, and structures, and residential office, all business industrial zoning districts. 3. Section 12.32.060.B, MCC Definitions Zoning, CCP 326-2026, to amend definitions for medical center and licensed massage therapy salon. 4. Section 12.12.030, MCC Use Regulations Table, CCP 327 slash 2026 to amend use regulations for the following uses and the following zoning districts. club slash lodge and neighborhood business zoning district. B, hospital and restaurant fast food services and industrial one and two zoning districts. C, business school, restaurant, all other, convenience store, supermarket and adult day health center and highway business, industrial one and two zoning districts. D, motel, hotel, medical center and kennel and central business, highway business, industrial one and two zoning districts. E, recreation for gainful business, secondary to principal clubs slash lodge, and body art and neighborhood business, central business, highway business, industrial one and two zoning districts. F, licensed massage therapy salon and residential office, neighborhood business, central business, highway business, industrial one and two zoning districts. G, research and development and central business and highway business zoning districts. H, towing and industrial one and two zoning districts. Section 12.12.300 MCC Use Regulations Inclusionary Zoning CCP 335-2026 to amend use regulations regarding affordable housing by deleting this section in its entirety in adding a new inclusionary zoning ordinance.

Thank you, Diane. We will begin with City Council Paper 335. Is a sponsor present?

Sponsor, Councilor at large, Luong is not in the country at this time, so Councilor Taylor and Councilor Linehan agreed to as co-sponsors to step up and speak on paper. Yeah, thank you.

You're taking up a different paper.

Yeah, we're actually going out of order. I'm sorry, Councilor. We're starting off with the paper 335, the inclusionary zoning.

Oh, inclusionary. All right, so I am the lead sponsor on that. So, okay. All right, sorry about that. I didn't realize we were going out of order. There. So, yeah, I am listed as the lead sponsor of this just as the head of the Rules and Ordinance Committee. I was very involved in the first version of developing our inclusionary zoning regulations and participated in a task force that came up with the recommendations and the structure of the current regulations. And part of that was to have a five-year review. And so our Office of Strategic and Planning Community Development made the effort to undertake that review. And Zach LaMelle, our economic development planner, is here to really talk about, you know, we did have a new task force formed and review the current regulations. One of the key things is to make sure that our ordinance reflects the realities of the current market. So that's really what Mr. LaMelle is here to talk about tonight, and he's just handing around what results of our analysis is and recommendations for modifications that allow us to go forward with inclusionary zoning, but given the market reality has changed in the past five years in the fact that construction costs are up, of course, and as are interest rates, which complicates the ability to build affordable housing. So I will turn it over to Zach LaMelle from the Community Development Office. Thank you.

Hi, everybody. Well, first I just want to introduce myself. Thank you, Councilman. I'm Zachary LaMelle. I started with the planning department in February. I'm the deputy director for planning and economic development. I'm actually going to hand it over to my colleague, Elena Eimer, and I just was hoping to get a second. We just passed out some summary information that we're going to present, and I was hoping I could put it up on the screen for those in attendance. I have it up on my computer, but I'm not sure how I bring the screen down.

Actually, Michelle's going to bring the screen down.

Look at that.

You just mentioned that that's what was handed out.

Good evening, all. As Zach Lemel mentioned, my name is Elena Eimert. In the handouts that we did provide, I just want to note that all of the zoning ordinance amendments that are before you tonight are in that package. And I do believe inclusionary zoning is actually the back. So if you just want to flip to that page, you will find the slide deck, which we will be presenting on the screen. Thank you, Councillor Winslow, as sponsor for that introduction. As this is my first time before this body, we prepared a brief presentation. Please feel free to tell me to speed along if it is not brief enough. But that is just to go over some of the changes that we're proposing to the existing inclusionary zoning ordinance. So this slide just details the legislative details. So it has the paper number, the current zoning ordinance number for the existing inclusionary zoning ordinance, and notes the sponsor, Councillor Winslow. So just a brief background on inclusionary zoning in the city of Malden. The existing ordinance was adopted in 2021 and further amended in 2023. Its purpose then and its continuing purpose with this amendment is to promote the creation of affordable housing and to maintain an economically integrated community here in Malden. The existing inclusionary zoning ordinance does have language to ensure that the policy is periodically evaluated for its effectiveness. So that gets us to the point that Councilor Winslow made insofar as is the inclusionary zoning ordinance well calibrated to market conditions. The language that was included in the existing ordinance recommended a review at about a five year horizon. And we reached that 2025 into early 2026, which is why we're back before you now. To ensure that ongoing compliance, we did undertake an economic feasibility analysis that was done by RKG Associates, Inc., and the findings of that economic feasibility analysis inform the amendments that are before you now. Those amendments are somewhat twofold. So the intent is to revise the ordinance to increase the feasibility of housing development in Malden because we know inclusionary zoning policies create affordable housing through market rate housing, that that market rate housing is used to contemporaneously, concurrently provide affordable housing units. And additionally, in furtherance of the city's goal of adequately meeting the housing needs of the Malden community, we want to use this amendment to encourage housing development that exceeds the minimum requirements of the inclusionary zoning ordinance. And to do that, there are some additional incentives to support that additional affordability. So this slide here details some of the findings of that economic feasibility analysis and the resulting recommended changes. So the current inclusionary zoning ordinance is structured with a separate special permit. We would propose to change that to an administrative approval, and so through that process, A demonstration of compliance for those projects would be provided to the special permit granting authority if there is a special permit attached to the use or to inspectional services if it is a buy-write proposal. To the second point, that economic feasibility analysis found that the 15% of units required to be affordable in the current ordinance exceeds what the market conveyor currently. We know that economic conditions have changed, the cost of construction, labor shortages due to immigration policies, tariffs, the costs of borrowing, all of these are up, and that impedes housing production. And that economic feasibility analysis further found that the specific elements of our inclusionary zoning ordinance add a further impediment to housing production here. So we need to adjust those so that they don't stand in our way in achieving our goal of creating affordable housing. So the recommendation of that economic feasibility analysis was that we reduce that proportion of affordability from 15% to 10%. Similarly, the level of affordability provided for rental projects in the existing ordinance is 50% AMI, and that was also found to exceed what the market can currently bear. So we would propose changing that to 60% AMI for rentals, and there would be no change for ownership units. Those would remain at 80% AMI. And I just want to note here that this is... a minimum amount of affordability. There's nothing to say that a mission-oriented developer, an affordable housing developer, couldn't provide a deeper level of affordability. Another finding of the economic feasibility analysis that's resulted in an amendment before you, the application, the inclusionary zoning ordinance currently applies to nursing, convalescent homes, assisted living homes. through consultation with developers and operators in that space that was conducted as part of that economic feasibility analysis and also in the department's consultation with other communities, it was noted that those type of residential units carries significant additional costs related to care, related to healthcare costs. And so the application of the inclusionary zoning requirements, which are really tied to a more traditional form of residential units, create an unmanageable burden for that type of use. So we would propose excluding that type of residential use from applicability of ISEE. And then lastly, the economic feasibility analysis also found that the incentives offered in the current inclusionary policy are not enough to offset the cost of affordability requested. So again, we looked at this as a means to meet that baseline level of need. So how do we ensure our inclusionary projects, which provide the minimum affordability required, which proposed would be 10% of units at 60% can pencil. And those recommendations were to increase the density bonus, to two additional units allowed for every affordable housing unit, where currently it is one, and a parking adjustment of one space per unit. For mixed income projects, which we define as projects which provide above the minimum but below 100% of units are affordable, we would include that same density bonus and a further parking minimum reduction to 0.75 spaces per unit. And for wholly affordable projects, which are again providing an extra service to the community in their provision of truly attainable housing, we would propose that same density bonus, so two additional units for every affordable housing unit, and in that case, those resulting units would be affordable units. There is also an allowance for an additional story not to exceed 11 feet. And that was something that we heard in interviews that allowed them, that basically the density bonuses effectiveness was somewhat reduced by the inability to utilize additional height. And we think that's particularly relevant in constrained sites. So if we're offering this density bonus, we do want them to be able to make use of it. And in a use case where we would get additional resulting affordable units, we think that that is a positive outcome. The same parking reduction would apply. And there is an additional location allowance so that a three-story wholly affordable building could be located in any district, excluding industrials, via special permit. The three-story multifamily use is currently allowed in all districts in the city of Malden, excluding Residential A and industrial units. So really what this would do would allow that three-story multifamily use in Res A. And so we have two clarifications that we would put to this body to consider, which would be amendments to the language before you tonight. We received guidance that we should add a clarification to specifically address that assisted living and memory care facilities are included under what we consider nursing and convalescent homes and so would not need to apply with the inclusionary zoning ordinance for that same reason that they have attendant healthcare costs that exceed the ability to offset through the incentives. And then further, a clarification to these incentives, we received some feedback that the density bonus and location bonuses were read as being able to be stacked so that you could utilize both, and that was not the intent of our department, and so we proposed the language in red, red and bold, to clarify that they are independent, and that particularly the height allowance is explicitly excluded for use in Res A. And that is our set of slides for inclusionary zoning. I'm happy to take questions at this time or follow the instructions of the chair.

Thank you very much. I did have a question on the affordable project, the location allowance, multifamily. How many units would that be expected? I mean, is that from a single to two family, three?

Could you repeat the question?

How many? Eight units or more.

Eight units or more? It only applies to eight units or more.

In Residence A.

So we are... This would be an apartment building instead of a single family.

The city planner is correct that we are keeping the applicability threshold of the existing inclusionary zoning policy in place so that it would apply to projects of eight units or more. And then over that, there are several different types of residential uses in the city of Malden code.

I just wanted to make sure of the number of units so it's still... falls into that eight unit category.

Yes, so it's eight units and above and definitively a multifamily use.

Okay, thank you.

No, what I was just, I'm not on. There you go. What I was just saying, Chairman, for the board is that that provision would allow conversion of a single family to a multifamily. if they were proposing 100% affordable. So a single family could be proposed to be a three-story apartment building anywhere in residence A. That's what that provision is. There's no set number of units you could propose. A 30-unit apartment building, you know, clear. A couple single families or two families and propose a large multifamily under this ordinance.

Okay, but say in... Residents a you wouldn't be able to go more than three stories because the density bonus says you can add an additional story Would that apply here as well?

No, so it would not apply in res a okay But you still would have the parking reduction to point seven five spaces per unit For those mixed income and a wholly affordable projects.

Yeah, I'm just thinking just the affordable project Okay. Thank you very much. Does anybody else have any questions on the board for the presenter? One second. Eric Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for the casualness of my business casual tonight to the public there. I did have a question, if I could. You said this is a periodic measure of the effectiveness of the ordinances and things that we've set in place thus far, and this happens every five years or so. So how would you measure the effectiveness of what we've done thus far?

Thank you for the question. So we do have a record of housing production over the past five years. Obviously, that is complicated, again, because Malden's economy is not divorced from the larger economy. We have seen incredible amounts of tumultuousness through the pandemic and then the resulting shocks due to tariffs. And we've really not seen prices come down. So I would say it is challenging. you know, to measure the effectiveness through housing production alone, and that's where we would rely on this economic feasibility analysis. And what that tries to do is through the use of Performa test cases, so it basically builds spec housing developments of different sizes, locations, and tries to see if In those proposals, there is an adequate what's called internal rate of return, which basically shows is there enough there there for a developer to pursue a project? Is it economically viable in this context? And so we worked with RKG to get local information as to rents, home ownership prices, and then they built out those performas using information that they had as to the cost of construction, as to that needed return, and they basically looked at that in four different quadrants in Malden and found that the price of the affordability that was required through the existing ordinance was an additional dampening, which brought down that internal rate of return and made it less likely that those projects would move forward. So I think that's how we would periodically assess the viability of the inclusionary zoning requirements. Because again, its intent is to create housing and we don't want to stand in the way of that goal.

Of those four quadrants, what were your star performers?

I think West Malden had the sort of most robust market, what we were calling West Malden.

And on the other end of that spectrum?

I would want to consult the report, which I do have a copy of, and I can get that information for you.

I'll be here. Thank you. So you also did mention AMI, and I'm I just want to be clear about that, this AMI, and when we talk about AMI, we are, that is in relation to Boston and not Malden.

Yes, and so that is a requirement. We are in the Boston-Cambridge Metropolitan Statistical Area, and so then we do use that AMI number to set our affordability rates, and we're compelled to do that through how we how we're required to regulate affordable housing. And that's not something that we have control over locally. But in our thinking here is that with those three affordability sort of buckets, which would be established by this inclusionary zoning update, we could get at different proportions of affordability and perhaps different levels. So even though we are increasing that minimum, increasing that expectation that The minimum inclusionary developments could provide 10% of units at 60% area median income. A mixed income development or a wholly affordable development, which has access to public subsidy, might be able to provide deeper levels of affordability. So getting back to that 50%, maybe getting lower to 30%. because those projects have access to public subsidy that the inclusionary developments being largely market financed would not. So that is our thinking in providing those additional incentives as affordability increases in the projects.

Yes, ma'am. So thank you for that. I was just curious. So for a general, if we know the AMI was 50% and we're going to increase it to 60% based upon the market of Boston, it would be if we have the knowledge of what The AMI for Malden is just a simple process of cross-multiplication and dividing and see what numerically and financially, what would that mean for Maldonians at 60%.

Can you speak to that, Alex?

Yeah, I can speak to that somewhat. Thank you, sir. Alex Pratt, director of OSBCD. So the AMI that is set for our area, it is called the Boston, Cambridge, Quincy metro area, but it actually extends as far north as parts of southern New Hampshire. It includes everything around us. It goes out pretty far west into central Massachusetts. So I wouldn't think of that as the area median income of the city of Boston. It is the area median income of the economy that we are living and working in. We also periodically get MEDIAN INCOME DATA FROM THE CENSUS FOR MALDIN. IT'S USUALLY A FEW YEARS DELAYED. IT'S NOT AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. WE COULD PULL THOSE NUMBERS. WHAT WE ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS THAT SOMETHING LIKE 59% OF THE POPULATION OF MALDIN IS AT OR BELOW 80% AMI. AGAIN, DEPENDING ON WHAT YEAR YOU'RE LOOKING AT, AND THAT'S I THINK TWO YEARS OLD, BUT 59% OF THE AREA MEETING, 59% OF OUR POPULATION IS AT OR BELOW 80% AMI. about a quarter of Malden residents are at or below 50% AMI. So there is still a significant amount of demand across those thresholds. One thing that we're trying to do by going from 50 to 60, one of the most important subsidies that these projects get, which is the federal low-income housing tax credit, has significant funding at the 60%, 60% AMI threshold. And so by going from 50 to 60, It's not a huge difference in terms of the rent change, but it does make a big difference in terms of the ability of some of these projects to get the funding they need. And typically what you would see is if you had a resident who was at 50% AMI, they would qualify for a 60% AMI unit. It's the other way around where you would have an issue. I hope that helps.

Thank you, sir. I'll yield with that. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Does anybody else have any other questions? Pat Hayes.

Thank you. Is there any data to suggest that the number of people in the community requiring affordable housing has gone down?

That's a good question. The way that we look at the demand for affordable housing tends to be What percentage of your population is at or below a certain area median income? So I'd say, broadly speaking, umbrella terms, what is your low-income population? And among that population, how many people can afford the rent that they're currently paying? And I don't remember this number off the top of my head, but if there's 59% of the population in Malden is at or below 80% AMI, and a significant portion of those are below 50% AMI, We know that there's a lot of people who fall into that category. And we see that, and I forget, I don't remember if it's 50 or 60 or 70%, but more than half of that population can't afford rent and can't afford to buy a home. And so if they do have, whether they have an apartment or a home, if they're in that income bracket, it is likely that they are paying more than 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. And that is how we consider what the, what the demand is. Right now we've got about just under 10% of our units in Malden are considered affordable. Just under 10%, I think it's nine and a half, somewhere in there, 9.6% of our units. I could tell you now off the top of my head, we'd need at least three times that to meet the demand. Whether that number has changed to two and a half times or four and a half times, I'm not sure, but we're not close to the goal. We've got a long way to go.

So the number of people hasn't really gone down. So what's really driving this are the cost to the developer who doesn't want to build the additional affordable units. Do I understand that correctly?

So I think it's a mixture. So inclusionary zoning is one tool by which we meet a community's housing needs. And with the traditional inclusionary model, which is sort of the minimum affordability that you saw on this slide here, these are market rate projects. And again, they do not have access to public subsidy. And so there is the possibility that if that inclusionary zoning requirement is set too high, those projects will not move forward. And that's a concern because with those market rate projects, we get economically integrated buildings. And the data shows that living in economically integrated environments is positive for social outcomes. So that is something that we want to consider. And again, what we want to do is make that possible while knowing we need to go further to address the depth and breadth of our housing needs. And so that's why we have the additional incentives for those developers who are able and willing to exceed that minimum affordability. So we see this as only one aspect of meeting our affordable housing needs. But Alex does love to say that 10% of zero is zero. And so we don't want to put our requirements in such a place that this ordinance is ineffective in accomplishing its goal.

Well, I guess from my standpoint, I don't think developers ever want to provide affordable housing. So you have to have something in there that's going to make them do it. It wasn't until 2021 that we had an ordinance that required it. So it just seems a little weird to me that in a community like Malden where we have such a need for providing affordable housing that we're loosening up sort of what we have for the sake of the developers to break even because their rate of return that they need is not quite, what was the term you used? the market can't bear it. So I just think it's, the wrong end is pushing the needle here. I think lessening the requirement seems like we're going in the wrong direction. Sure.

I'll just add something before turning it over to Alex. A point that I want to note is that the three bucket classification is new with this ordinance amendment. So yes, we are adjusting the expectations for those baseline inclusionary projects, but the current ordinance doesn't have the additional incentives that we would offer to those projects providing additional affordability. And we really do see that as a real benefit of this amendment and it helps us to achieve that goal.

And I would say that these are changes that we are proposing not for the sake of developers, but for the sake of people who need affordable housing built. If we are not, if our, the way that I think about inclusionary zoning and many of our policies is there's a carrot and there's a stick. And if we don't get that balance just right, no matter what we say in terms of we could require 15% at 50% AMI, if the developer, if a profit-driven developer who's trying to get his returns from Wall Street and otherwise can't build anything, can't build anything, we don't get any units. We don't get any market rate units. We don't get any affordable units. We get zero. The objective of this policy is to require as much affordable housing as we think we can without slowing development of those units. And what our economic feasibility analysis told us was that as the economy has shifted, that balance needs to be adjusted because we are no longer in a place where a developer can build units under the existing policy and not, you know, maybe not make as much, it's not about limiting profits. They can't get the financing to do it, period. And so this is the point that Elena was making around 15% is a higher, would require, you know, more units than 10%. But if a 15% threshold chokes development overall, you get 15% of zero units built, which doesn't help anybody. So the intention here is that by lowering it to 10%, the developers can actually build the units that our community needs.

If I could add just one more point. We also retain in this ordinance that suggestion to revisit the policy in another five years. So at that time, if we were to revisit the economic feasibility analysis and found that we had seen a significant recovery, we might be able to restore some of those elements, perhaps providing that deeper level of affordability. But this is just trying to make sure this policy works in this market climate.

Okay. You all said that? I just had kind of a follow-up to that, though. So basically, it's not necessarily to put more money in the developer's pocket, but I think what you're saying anyways is that it enables them to get the financing and grant monies or whatever to be able to build these units that, in the long way around, will end up incentivizing them to provide more inclusionary housing to meet. or at least close the gap with the demand. I just wanna make sure I'm restating it.

Well phrased.

That way, okay. All right, thank you. Eric, Henry, did you have something else?

Yeah. Okay. If no one else had a first round. Diane's flashing. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see Diane.

No worries. Diane, you go first. Sorry, yeah.

I'm looking at the graph here, and inclusionary project is what we have right now. Mixed income project is what you're proposing, and also the affordable project. So what I'm seeing between the first two is that you're decreasing the parking to .75. Why? Is that giving them more room? We don't have parking in the city as it is, and now you're taking away parking spaces? I mean, right now this is one parking space per unit. Normal zoning is one per bedroom. So I don't see why we have to reduce it to 0.75 spaces per unit. That troubles me because I know everybody takes the T and everybody has a bike, but I've seen it doesn't work. So I'm just asking why you brought that up. Like, why is that a main sticking point? Because I see it again under the affordable project.

So the proposal here is to change the required parking minimum. I just want to be clear about what that means. It does not preclude a developer from providing parking above that ratio. But what we heard through the economic feasibility analysis in consultation with housing operators and housing developers that are active in Malden and active in the region was that the rigidness of the parking requirement, even with the existing parking adjustment, isn't helpful to them in the breadth of environments in Malden. And so having a lower required minimum enables flexibility for projects that might be sited in different locations. So a project that's sited in Linden might need different parking than a project that's sited in the downtown. And then further, acknowledging that parking is deeply experiential, when we look at the data from the American Community Census, which is an offset, it's under the U.S. Census Bureau, the data suggests that the majority of Malden households have one or fewer vehicles. So it says that 45% of Malden households have one vehicle and that about 15% have no vehicles at all. So knowing that people... have a personal experience of parking, the data would suggest to us that a one-to-one is appropriate to existing conditions, and that .75 provides additional flexibility for units as they become more affordable, as the data also suggests that lower income households have lower rates of car ownership.

Yeah, I don't agree with that. I mean, I drive around Malden and trying to find a parking space in the West End anywhere. is difficult. So I just don't understand why we have to lower the parking space. Again, it's one space per unit. And I can understand if you have a tight place, I mean a tight area, Linden might have more room, so why give them the opportunity to say, okay, I only need .75 spaces? If they have the room for it, they should give it. I don't know. That's just my sticking point. I don't like the parking situation.

Yeah, if I just could share. Sure. Sure. I just want to clarify, what you're seeing is actually lower than what, that's not the inclusionary. The proposed new standard would be one per unit for market rate and affordable if you're providing the minimum. If you're providing more than the minimum, it goes to 0.75. And if you're providing 100% affordable, it goes to 0.75. So it's being further reduced from what is already on the books. That's not what we have on the books. On the books right now is one space per affordable housing unit. And market rate units in the same project still need the one per bedroom, the standard in the city. So that's actually lower than, it's reducing it across the board, just to be clear. That doesn't look like that, but that's not what the standard is in the current ordinance.

So the 0.75 applies to all units, not just the affordable unit?

No, there is no 0.75. Right now, an affordable unit is one space per unit, and other units in that project are one per bedroom, the regular multifamily units. The regular actually for all units, all dwelling units, it's one per bedroom citywide. That's what it is now. So if it's 100% affordable, like we've seen projects, they're all one space per unit. But if it's a mix, like we've seen some projects, part market rate, part affordable, only the affordable are one per unit. The market rate is still the regular rate in the city, one per bedroom. This is a different proposal. This is one per unit. For market rate and affordable.

Correct.

If you're only providing the bare minimum affordable. And then it's 0.75 for all other units in the other two types of projects. What's the bare minimum? 0.75. No, I meant for the units. Bare minimum of affordable units. 10%, 5%? This is, right now it's 15%.

It'll go down to 10%.

It'll go down to 10%, the required minimum. Yes, when I'm saying bare minimum, that's what I'm saying. But after you finish the questions, I want to add a couple other points of information to what was being asked by Mr. Henry and Mr. Hayes as well about some of the info.

So to try to summarize for the parking, it's going to be reduced across the board instead of the one per unit. I mean one per bedroom and the one per unit for affordable, it's now going to be one per unit across the board.

Or .75 across the board.

Across the board. So it's a big reduction of off-street parking. It seems like it's actually a larger reduction than it's being presented as.

It's 25% to 75% less. The parking requirement's being reduced. It depends how many bedrooms are in the unit. Do you want to take more questions? And then I can, like I said, there were some other. Is that it, Diane? Yeah, I'm fine.

All right. And then, Eric, did you have a follow-up? Because I know, I believe, Michelle has some. I can yield to Michelle. Okay. Yeah, because she had some answers to some of the things you brought up. So, Michelle.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes, sir. You do it.

So, I just wanted to note. So, I've given you this in the staff report, which we're going to get to. But you were asking how many units. You were saying how are we judging units. number of units. So this board's familiar with the number of projects that have been permitted. It's on the front page. So 99 affordable housing units have been permitted, one payment in lieu for an affordable housing. So that's 99 over the past, since the ordinance was put in the books, 2021. That doesn't mean 99 have been built, but I just want you to be clear that the ordinance is working in the sense of Units are being required, projects are coming forward, projects are being approved. They include affordable housing units, 99 to date.

And the majority of those are actually paying instead of putting the affordable unit as opposed to paying in lieu.

Only one, the first project you saw did one payment in lieu. That was at 9092 Salem Street. The next six projects provided the affordable housing. on-site. Out of those, you had a mix. Some were 100% affordable. Some were providing the bare minimum. So I just wanted to note that in response. I thought that's what you were asking. How many units have been produced? Excuse me. How many units have been permitted?

You said that was 99, right?

Yes, 99. Mr. Chair, I had a couple questions for the petitioner unless somebody else.

Anybody else have any questions from the board? Councilor. Do you want to go and then we'll go to?

Eric Henry and then.

Okay. Eric, one more.

Yeah, one more. Even if we, and there's some more of a comment to it. Even if we do get the 10% and the 99 out of 100 is quite impressive. As Mr. Pratt has said, We would still need more, three times, multiple times more than what we're achieving right now. And I'm actually trying to consider, when I ask for measures, what else are we looking at with regards to, I've suggested to this body before, one thing to look at is the lot size in Malden. It is currently 7,500 square feet to build. When I first joined the planning board, it was 6,000 square feet to build. I have no direct knowledge of the impact upon that, but those are significant measures that would mark time for me. So I hope we get the 10% that we're looking for. With that, I yield.

Thank you, Eric. Planner Romero.

Thank you. I just had a couple questions. I'm sorry.

Point of order. Would you like to have responded to that? Was there a question? I don't know, but I asked if she wanted to. It looked as though she wanted to respond. Do you have a comment of my statement, ma'am?

Oh, I took it as a question to the department, and I would just say we're not actively working on something, but we are following the small lot ballot initiative question that has come up that sets minimum lot size standards to I think it's 5,000 square feet. So that's something we're following, and we will see how that works out this fall. That is something we're tracking, but not something we're actively working on in the department as we see it being addressed at the state level. So we're waiting to see what happens there.

I am pleased that you paused to say that. Thank you. And, okay. Michelle?

Yes, I just had a couple questions. So I'm not following this idea of... You need the extra story or the height bonus. Because when I ran numbers, so a 30 unit project under the current ordinance would provide five required affordable housing. So they get the density bonus for 35. Under the new ordinance with 10%, only three would be required. They get the density bonus, so that goes up to 36. So it's either a 35-unit building or a 36-unit building. I don't understand how you'd need a story for one unit. Same thing with 50 units. A 50-unit proposal under the current ordinance, you could bill 58 with the existing density bonus. Under the new density bonus, you could bill 60. So you're getting two extra units. 100-unit building, 115 under the current ordinance with the density bonus as written. or 120, so that's five units. So where is the justification? And I've read the study several times. I don't see them recommending we allow in residence A apartment buildings or multi-family three story. I don't see anything specific to Malden residence A neighborhoods. And I don't see anything about adding the height in based on your statement. The numbers don't play out. Why would you need a whole extra story for one or two units? How does it make any, why is it, you're saying you need that, why? How does that?

I'll take the question in three parts, and I may ask Alex to speak to the location element, but specifically to why the, so the height piece came up in the policy recommendation section out of conversation, again, with operators and developers that are active in Malden. I believe the section speaks to what they see as a lack of flexibility in Malden zoning, and they note parking ratios and heights as some of those elements where a lack of flexibility impedes their ability to advance housing projects here. And specifically, the height piece is not speaking to the unit count, but it's really speaking to in constrained parcels where you might have fixed land area, how you could effectively utilize your density bonus is by going up. And so that height, that one story allowance, we think is a relatively effective way to allow them to utilize the density bonus where in certain situations they might be allowed to

Increase the units on the site but couldn't physically do it with the existing height limitation in the zoning and so that that would be Three stories could go to four four could go to five five go to six six could go to seven If they were a wholly affordable project. Yes. Yes, and then complete Moving up so it's there's no regard for the use regulations that say multifamily up to three multifamily three to six and Multifamily six to seven, and that's capped in the city. So this would override existing use regulations.

For the provisions of height and density only. So other elements of the dimensional controls for that use would continue to apply.

No, but for the use category, we have a use category that says multifamily can be no higher than seven. It's six to seven. That's the max, but this is going to override that.

So we are aware that there are a few use categories where there would be a friction with this allowance. So for example, a three-story building in neighborhood business, if it were wholly affordable, a project proposal could come in and say, we want to make use of the density bonus and the height allowance. And so then the special permit granting authority, the planning board, would review that project under the dimensional controls for a multifamily dwelling inclusive of three stories, but for the height and the density, which would be then a four-story building and have the additional density related to the allowed density bonus. but that would be exclusively for those wholly affordable projects where we see a little bit of latitude could help in achieving that broader community goal of providing additional affordable housing.

Okay, thank you.

So just so I can understand and boil things down a little more. So in Michelle's example, you're adding one additional unit that you wouldn't need an extra story for, but what you're Proposing or explaining is that you would have that extra story to spread that total number of units across All of the say four stories. So instead of having 15 15 units on three stories you could make 16 units over four stories so you could actually adjust the either adjustment enlarge the size of the units or if you had constraints on the footprint of the building on the property you could reduce the footprint go up higher increase the number of units and Are you understanding that right?

That's true. And I will say that this is proposed by a special permit process, so there still would be a review by the planning board. There still would be a public process associated with this, and so the project would be evaluated for its fitness against the neighborhood character in the area in which it was looking to site.

And we could still maintain that six-story max somewhere. I mean, this is all still in discussion, right? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

Michelle, do you have anything else? No, so just to be clear, so your example of neighborhood business, neighborhood business only allows up to three stories. But a proposal would come in and say we're four stories. So do you think that would be now classic? They would somehow be changing the use category to a prohibited use? So the board would be asked to allow a prohibited use because it's 100% affordable?

So our position is that the use would remain the same. It would still be categorized as a multifamily three-story. And in fact, there are some residential four-story buildings in neighborhood business currently that we know are non-conforming, but we think that they still fit in well with that character.

Okay, but then you also said that you'd want them to use dimensional controls for the different use regs. You said yes, so it would still be actually be up to it wouldn't be a multifamily up to three stories. It would be a multifamily three to six now to get those dimensional controls. How would you how would we mix and match use regs dimensional controls? How would that like I'm just saying from the from the board's perspective to grant a special permit? How would that work?

So the current inclusionary zoning policy has a density bonus, as I understand it, that could transgress the density requirement in the zoning ordinance for certain uses. So we would expect that it would be treated similarly. I will also note that Nelson Miller, the zoning enforcement officer, is present if you would like him to speak to interpretation.

No, I'm curious because you're proposing this, so how you think it would work? Because there were different density requirements for three to six stories than there are for up to three stories. So they would use the dimensional controls for one use, but they'd still be classified as a different use? Is that... what you think would happen?

So our intent would be that the proposal would be evaluated under the use category, but that height and depth, so a three-story building would be evaluated with the dimensional controls, excluding height and density that are attached to a three-story multifamily dwelling. Okay.

So the dimensional controls would stay under the original category?

The use filing, yes.

The use, the use.

And then our thinking is in...

So that's what they're proposing. It wouldn't step up to the next use level and trigger those requirements. It would still... Right.

The issue is just that the use... Our use categories are called, for example, dwelling multifamily... Correct. ...up to three stories. That's the use category name. Right. It's not, you know, so... But anyway, did you have another... Could I share just quickly? Did you have a response to the other question about...

You had a question about the location allowance.

Yeah, because I don't see that anywhere in here, and I'm wondering how in-depth did they look at Malden and all the Residence A zoning districts and all the properties, again, the concern being converting a single or a two to a multifamily up to three stories, allowing a special permit for that.

Do you want to start?

The impact, was there any sense of the impact on all the Residence A neighborhoods if building property owners started to do this?

Right now in Malden, the Residence A district is the largest by far of our residential districts, of all of our districts, but especially when you look at where homes can be built, where any affordable housing could be built, Res A is the largest area. And we have seen that the few 100% affordable projects that we have developed or that we have in the pipeline number of them are located in residence A and the way that that has been able to happen is because there's a section of the zoning that says if you have an existing non-conforming use such as a Salvation Army office building or a temple on Main Street or Bryant Street that you can by special permit and we would keep that special permit requirement here for this location incentive the special permit to convert that into three up to three stories of residential that is currently what we have on the books and And what we have found is that those existing non-conforming, typically commercial office buildings or similar, those are the opportunities that we have to build affordable housing in this city. There are a couple other areas where there might be some activity. But when so much of the city is zoned Res A, the only opportunities right now we have to bring any affordable housing to those areas under inclusionary zoning are with an existing non-conforming use as currently there. What we are proposing is taking that same idea that by special permit in front of the planning board, an affordable housing developer can propose and the planning board has the option of accepting or not accepting the ability to allow them to go up to three stories in Res A. There are some neighborhoods where this might never make sense. There are some neighborhoods where there's a lot of multi-family housing in Residence A already. That is why it is important for us to keep that special permit requirement there, but also when there is such an, when so much of the available opportunities could be in Res A, we felt that from an equity perspective and from a desire of building more affordable housing that the way to go was to allow, again, by special permit only, through the planning board, up to three stories like we do for existing non-conforming use. And one other way to think about this, if the city, through the planning board, agreed that converting a single-story office building on 213 Main Street to a three-story, 20-unit affordable housing project by ACDC was a good idea, and you all did, that that underscores the belief that a three-story affordable housing building in Res A fits in well with that neighborhood, right? That's the same option here as would give an affordable housing developer the opportunity to come in front of you and make that case, that the next project also would be to the benefit of the city and the neighborhood, and you could agree or disagree. This just puts that on the table.

I think the only difference is, the board's aware, those are pre-existing non-conforming properties in districts where they're non-conforming uses. So the idea behind the zoning is to eliminate the non-conforming uses. That's why we allow the conversion to residential, whether it's affordable or not. This would be proposing existing conforming properties to now have an option to become something that's non-conforming. So we had that subdivision up on Woodland, Quarry Road area, a collection of lots. You could see a proposal for a three-story apartment building there. Because it's 100% affordable, that would be a petition that would come before you. wouldn't just be limited, and that's my question concern, is it's not just limited to the examples that were just given, which this board's familiar with, the pre-existing non-conforming. It would be any house, any lot, any building in residence A, any property could petition. So that's, I just wanted to clarify that.

Could I add one comment? Yes, go ahead.

Just

Quickly to this piece around the allowance of three stories, I think that's one view. The other view is around historical preservation, which I think is not also being thought about. There are stately homes within Malden that are very beautiful. Those could be preserved and converted into 100% affordable housing projects. So I think there are a variety of tools that can happen here, and I think historic preservation is one that this could very much lead to. Not everywhere, but I think upon different areas of the city it very much could.

Okay, thank you, Michelle. You're all set, right? Eric, do you have another question or a quick one? I want to get to the council as we haven't let them speak yet.

I would be, yes. One more question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would have not had this question if I had not heard this comment. To kind of paraphrase, there's a a point of friction between what you, what the city, or what, can you say a point of friction in your terminology?

That's correct.

Can you expound upon that a wee bit?

So I think it is a...

I'm sorry. Maybe Alex already did it. Let me see. If he did, that's fine. But if not, if it's something different, you can add to that. That's fine. Thank you.

When I used the phrase a point of friction, I was referencing City Planner Romero's comment that there are a few use cases like the multifamily dwelling inclusive of three stories where with the height allowance in certain districts, you would see a four-story building proposal come in under a special permit application under a three-story use. So that was just to say we know that because of the current means in which the Malden Zoning Code classifies different types of multifamily residential, there is some maybe friction there, but we think that that can be ameliorated through that special permit process where the dimensional aspects of the building, the height would be noted in a legal advertisement so that interested parties would have an understanding of the full breadth of the proposal. They could participate in the special permit process, the public comment process that is carried out as part of that and be able to weigh in as to their opinion on the fitness of that type of proposal in that specified location.

Thank you for that clarification. And now it's at you.

Okay, thank you very much. If nobody else on the planning board board has any questions, I'd like to open it up to the councillors. I believe it was Councillor Colon-Hayes first, if I can read this correctly.

Yeah, Colon-Hayes. I'm not sure which.

We've got different names and different mics.

Thank you for this tremendous amount of work here, and I like to hear that we're all in agreement, well, I'm in agreement anyway, with building more affordable housing. So I Don't have many questions about a lot of this, because I can see where it would increase the affordable housing, but the one sticking point I'm having a problem with is going from 15% to 10%. I did just ask Alex if we're going to get a copy of the study, because I would have loved to have it here, but he did remind me we did get it sent to us, so I will look that up at home. I do realize that this is going to come to the city council, so I'm not going to ask too many questions, but just to let it be known that I do we're adding a lot of incentives. I need to compare this, the incentives that we're having here with what we already have, and maybe think about moving forward with the rest of these incentives and keeping the 15%. This is just an idea because it does seem a little bit like we're giving something to the developers. They're not going to want to. Most of the developers don't want to build affordable housing, but I also understand that If they can't afford to build it, they're not going to build it. I understand this balancing act. But just for me, that's just something I would love to look at more. And the other question would be, well, that wasn't really a question. It was a statement. The question here, which cities, and it might be in the report, but what cities did we get compared to? Have they also lowered their inclusionary zoning percentages?

So that was not the... express intent of the economic feasibility analysis, they really were trying to look at market conditions in Malden. However, we are aware of other communities in the region that are similarly revisiting their inclusionary zoning policies, again, to ensure that they are effective in producing housing units. I know off the top of my head, I believe the city of Chelsea just recently revisited their inclusionary zoning policy, again, to better fit it to the market conditions in which we're currently living.

Okay, no, thank you. I'm actually taking a leadership course right now in housing, so we are discussing this. Yes, so this is something that I asked, and I did pose this question. I sent them information here that we're looking at. I'm like, can you give me an idea of what we're looking like regionally? I'd like to see what other cities are doing. I feel very hesitant, especially being in a gateway city. We all know what our demographics are about lowering something, especially since we're already adding the incentives, but that's... just something we'll be looking into. And I appreciate the work that you've done here today. Thank you.

Okay. Councilwoman Linehan.

Thank you so much. I also have kind of a question and a comment. So along similar lines, I'm sort of wondering where we fit in in the market. I've heard similar things that other communities are contemplating lowering their threshold. And I also know that, you know, there's been a lot in the media about, you know, as points others have made that developers are looking to, you know, they're having a harder time building a funding stack to do market rate and affordable developments. You know, all the things that you mentioned about the market being tighter and that being harder to find financing, tariffs, et cetera. My thinking is that, of course, we want to do, we want to get housing built. We're not looking to do favors for the private market more than we have to, but also, you know, to quote you back to yourself, zero percent of zero is zero, right? So we want to get something built. But what do we need to do to find that sweet spot? And given that I appreciate that we've had an external consultant help us, which I think is the right thing to do, do we need to be thinking about where we fit in in comparison to our neighbors? And do we need to be looking at this sooner than every five years? How do we figure out what the right time frame is to look back at this and know if we've done the right thing? Or is there a way of knowing?

So the ordinance spells out that we must look at it every five years. If there was a major shift two years from now, three years from now, and we felt that it made sense for us to do another economic feasibility assessment sooner and to get it in front of you all because of that. We could do that. If there was a global pandemic or something that just changed the way that we thought about the world and that the economy worked, then we would take a look at it and see what made sense. This policy came into place in 2018. the COVID economy before the inflation of every year since then. And so it really has been an odd period construction-wise for us.

I'll also just add that one of the obligations of our department is to continue conversations with and be informed by the development community. And that's not to say we're led by the development community, but we have the opportunity to interact with them to get information. And then we weigh that against outside data sources as well. But that's just to say that while this full-scale economic feasibility analysis might only happen on a periodic basis, there are many more touch points in between where we're hearing about as the market might change. how projects are finding and able to site and able to secure financing here and in neighboring communities.

I appreciate that. And I think there is a huge difference between being led by and listening to and being realistic. I think there's probably more misconception right now about how hard it is to actually not just make a profit, but even be feasible. I think that most people out there building are really at a close line on that edge right now. And if a project can't get built, I don't think we want to be We don't want to be in the group of communities that has an unrealistic ordinance on the books, that if developers are out there looking and saying what community has an ordinance that makes it completely infeasible for us to even walk in the door, I don't think we want to be in that group of communities. So I appreciate that we need to have real data that grounds what we're trying to do. I don't know if you have anything that you wanted to add, sorry.

Well, just to the Councillor's point, and also Councillor Cullen-Hayes, I would recommend everyone take a pass through that RKG study, because it very much does look at the current conditions in Malden, again, in that sort of quadrant approach. And its findings are that even in some environments with these incentives, there are areas of the city where, in current conditions, the current construction climate, we may not see housing development move forward. So this is really just trying to remove an impediment. It's not to say that this will right the ship. Because to your point, it is a very challenging climate to make housing pencil. Thank you.

And then I know we have a really long, sorry, did you want to add something to that?

Yes, just there have been studies, not just this study in Malden, but studies, I mean, inclusionary zoning policies across the country. And those studies find that if you don't strike the right balance, you actually raise rents and you raise the cost of homeownership as well because you make it so expensive to build. that the prices for everybody goes up. So a strong inclusionary zoning policy has to strike the right balance, or we end up shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to affordability.

Thank you. I was just going to say, I know we have a long agenda, so I don't want to belabor it, but what I was going to share is that in the context of serving on the Affordable Housing Trust Board, we've definitely seen some of the things that you all have shared about nonprofit developers saying that they need a little bit more flexibility. And they're not coming in and saying, gosh, we need to build six, seven stories. What they're saying is that the parcels that come up for development availability here are really infilled. They're small parcels in neighborhoods like the Salvation Army site or like the synagogue. They're very constrained by the geography and by the parcels around them. And when our board members are saying, could you do one more accessible unit for a disabled member of the community? Or could you do one more unit that has two or three bedrooms? Because what we really need is more... you know, units that are family sized or multi-generational, something that we could fit more people into. What they're saying back to us is, well, your height max and your parking rules are keeping us from flexing the site anymore. And so they might just need a half story or one more story or to shave one or two parking spaces and then they could reconfigure the whole site. So they're not saying to us, we want to cut all the parking or we want to go double the height. They're just looking for a little bit of flexibility to be able to make design choices that allow us to reflect a little bit more equity or a little bit more flexibility to give back to the community what we know the community needs, which is to house a lot of different types of people. So the last two years that I've been on that board, I've been a little bit frustrated just by how constrained our ordinances are. And I was really glad to see that piece of this, probably more so than anything else in it, as much as I hear the concerns about, gosh, why we want to be putting back inclusionary down a percentage at this point. I feel like that flexibility for the a hundred percent affordable is actually where we're going to see the impact just given that we're already a very built out community. And what we're going to be seeing come online is, you know, these historical large older homes that counselor Crow and I have in our neighborhoods or these smaller parcels where a long time business or religious institution is closing. That's going to be where we're going to be partnering with the nonprofit developers to do these things where they need a little flexibility. So I just wanted to share that because I think that context is a little important. It's grounded in real experiences that we've had over the last few years. So thank you for letting me have that opportunity.

Thank you. Anything else from the counselors? I did have one additional question, if you don't mind. Just wondering, if this does, obviously we're going to make a recommendation It goes for city council and would either be voted yes or no. If this does work and it does incentivize developers, for-profit or non-profit, increase the number of units, obviously that increases our density a little in the city, which hopefully is something we want to manage. But has there been a study or any consideration on that increase in density, how it's going to impact the needs for city services, schools? school system, et cetera, and how will those required really increases to meet the needs be funded?

So I think a lot of that will be done through the comprehensive plan. What I can say is that we have seen that Most of the housing we have built over the last decade has not led to an increase in school enrollment. That may be due to bedroom size. That may be due to the cost of the more expensive units coming on the market. A lot of the new housing we see in our community is occupied by young professionals. It might be too small for family units. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it is a lower incidence.

But hopefully with the... affordable housing units.

We are hoping to support low-income families, of which there are many in our community that can't afford their rent. The other thing I'll notice is that our school population is dropping precipitously right now. Over the last five years, we've had two market rate developments that have come in under inclusionary zoning, one of which made it fee and lose, who did not build any affordable units, and one of which built a handful of, or will be building a handful of affordable units. I can't remember the number, but it might be two or three or four.

It's not a significant number.

Not a significant number of affordable units, which I think to me says that what we have now is not working. If there were a big swing and we saw a bunch of units, we'd be surprised. And we would also be surprised if those had a deteriorating impact on the schools, especially considering if the schools were losing state aid because our population is dropping. So it's kind of a tricky place to be. Now, whether that trend continues five years from now, if immigration changes, or if birth rate changes, or if the economy changes, if there were universal pre-K or things like that, would people have more kids or put them through the schools? I don't know. are not expecting a major impact to the schools based on this policy change today.

Okay, all right, thank you. And I promise, this is the last one. You did mention how about the five years, every five years reviewing this, and I did notice it. Is it no less than five years, which is what I think is what it says in here, so you can't, do you have to wait at least five years, or can you do it in a shorter period of time to reevaluate? The way it's written, it sounds like you can't do it in less than five years. So if we needed a midstream adjustment, we should be able to.

So I'm just taking a second to look at the red line. not less than every five years. So we could also entertain a motion that would say not more than every five years if the concern is the need for flexibility to revisit at a sooner timeline. I think that language is carried over from the previous version and is likely related to expectations around funding availability because these studies do have a cost associated with them. But if this body is willing to entertain it, certainly we can think about that in the budget cycle.

Okay, thank you. I just want to make sure I was understanding how it was written because it's, yeah, you don't want to change it every year, but five years might be a little too long. So, all right, thank you very much. Where are we? Oh, just, Councillor Malley, just want to welcome you and you've joined us tonight. Just want to get in for the record that you're here and if you have any questions or anything.

Thank you. So I was following along the whole time online. I do have questions, but I'll wait for public for the testimony first. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So that, let me see. So from now, you know, we finished with the planning board and the city council. We're going to open the public hearing now. and calls for anyone that would like to speak in favor of the petition. So if anyone would like to speak in favor of the petition, please come up to the microphone and state your name, write your name and address on the pad at the podium. So again, if anyone would like to speak in favor of the petition, going once. Seeing and hearing none No, I'm not gonna hear I'm not gonna close it but seeing and hearing no one coming up to speak in favor that asked Diane Do you have anything to read in favor?

I have a letter dated August 10th, 2026 to the Malden Planning Board. My name is Charles Gagnon and I serve as president and CEO of Volunteers of America of Massachusetts. On behalf of our organization, I'm writing to express our strong support for the city of Malden's proposed amendments to its exclusionary zoning ordinances and to commend the city for its continued commitment to expanding housing affordability for its residents. As the owner and developer of the affordable housing project located at 105 Salem Street, Volunteers of America of Massachusetts has firsthand experience with the positive impact that thoughtful zoning policies can have on the creation of affordable housing opportunities. In October of 2025, the Planning Board approved a special permit for our development, which will provide 12 affordable housing units dedicated to veterans. The existing inclusionary zoning density bonus provisions played an important role in making this project possible by allowing the development of two density bonus units, thereby increasing the overall number of affordable homes that could be delivered at the site. The proposed updates to this exclusionary zoning ordinance represent an important step forward in strengthening the city's affordable housing strategy. By refining and enhancing these regulations, Malden will further align the ordinance with its intended purpose. To encourage the production of meaningful affordable housing and ensure that new development contributes to the city's long term housing goals. As housing costs continue to present challenges for low and moderate income households throughout the region, policies that will increase the availability and depth of the affordability are more important than ever. The Volunteers of America of Massachusetts strongly encourages the planning board to adopt these proposed amendments. We believe the changes will increase the production of affordable housing, enhance the effectiveness of the inclusionary zoning program, and further the city's efforts to address the growing need for housing affordability. We appreciate the board's leadership on this issue and its continued dedication to advancing policies that benefit the Malden community. Thank you for consideration. Sincerely, Charles E. Gagnon, President and CEO of Volunteers of America Massachusetts. 441 Center Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass. 02130. We have an email dated August 11th, 2026. It says, good evening. Please see my public testimony in support of the revised revision to 12.12.300 of Malden's Municipal Code prior to Wednesday's Planning Board meeting. to members of the Malden Planning Board. I write today in full support of proposed revisions to MMC 12.12.300, Malden's Exclusionary Zoning Ordinance. For years, Malden has been a direct party to the adverse effects caused by the housing crisis. However, since the pandemic, these efforts have only been exacerbated by Malden families. Skyrocketing rents, increased housing costs, and the displacement of many long-term residents have become a regular occurrence for households citywide. Despite this, the city has failed to build enough housing in order to address this crisis with the urgency it requires. The proposed changes to the inclusionary zoning ordinances are a no-brainer for the city. With these changes, this language incentivizes new and affordable opportunities for working-class families while ensuring that housing is built and available for residents of all income levels. In tandem with the proposed Economic Development Bill, these changes will allow the City to continue its economic resurgence by increasing the number of housing units and jobs citywide. Malden is at a crossroads. The proposed changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinances are essential to ensuring the City maintains its competitive edge for years to come. With much of Malden's housing stock aging and its population growing year after year, It is paramount that the city continue to add its housing stock so Malden can remain an affordable, attractive place to live for all current and future residents. I urge you to adopt the proposed revisions to 12.12300, Malden's Exclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Best, Ben Gately, 69 Pierre Street, Unit 1.

Thank you, Diane. I declare that part of the hearing closed for anyone speaking in favor Would anyone who is opposed or in opposition to the petition? Petition like to speak Anyone in opposition to the petition like to speak Sure yes I haven't received anything

When was that sent?

I believe it was sent last week. I will look at my files, and I believe I was CC'd on it, so I will send it over again. I can, well, let's hold on.

If you want to hold on, we can look it up.

Do you know who it would be from?

There you go.

I believe Paul Goldstein in OSPCD is currently serving as staff to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board, and the letter would have come from him.

Paul Goldstein.

I stand corrected. I sent it on July 16th.

Okay.

Apologies.

Elena sent it. Let me look up Elena. July 16th. So last, not last week, last month. And who am I? Did you say July 16th?

Yes.

Time flies when you have any fun, right?

Okay, I see charter from you, notice from you. Master plan steering. No, the things I have from you on the 16th are a notice, an agenda notice, No, I don't have anything from you. Do you have the subject?

August 2026. July 16th. What is this? Let's just get out of here.

OK. Attachments.

Okay, I'm looking at the 16th. Master Plan Steering Committee Agenda. Charter.

I don't know. It says A-H-T-F letters.

That was sent. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It was in sent. I was wrong. Okay, let me go back.

You're allowed to send your letter after the date of the hearing, right?

I'm sorry?

The letter can be sent.

Yeah. I mean, we'll read it into the record if it's here. While we're here, let's get it on the record. Okay, sorry Okay, so let's read this into the record sorry about that Okay, I can't open it I Okay, so in order to read the third letter in support into the record, I'm going to reopen the portion of the hearing for anyone speaking in favor of the petition. So we'll reopen that portion of the hearing.

I have a letter dated July 9th, 2026 to the City of Malden Planning Board and the Committee on Rules and Ordinances regarding the Malden Affordable Housing Trust Fund support for proposed changes to the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Dear members of the Malden Planning Board and Committee on Rules and Ordinance, the Malden Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the trust, or A-H-T-F, Board of Trustees is authorizing this letter in support of the proposed changes to the City of Malden's Exclusionary Zoning, IZ, Ordinance Docket Number 335-26 for the August 12th Planning Board Meeting. The AHTF believes that the proposed changes will help unlock the development of new affordable housing in Malden and better equip the AHTF for its stated purpose to create and preserve affordable housing within the City of Malden for the benefit of low- to moderate-income households. Malden, like many municipalities in Massachusetts, is facing a housing crisis. and has a critical need for affordable rental and home ownership opportunities. The proposed IZ changes will incentivize and streamline the development of projects that will provide much needed deed restricted affordable units. In addition to incentivizing market rate projects, which will produce inclusionary units, all affordable housing projects will also be incentivized by providing greater flexibility with existing zoning requirements. The AHTF welcomes the opportunity to invest in wholly affordable projects, the feasibility of which will be expanded thanks to the changes to the IZ ordinance. The AHTF will also benefit greatly from updates to the in lieu fee process, as in lieu fees are one of the primary sources of funding for the AHTF. We urge you to support these changes to the Exclusionary Zoning Ordinance, as we believe they will have a tremendous impact on affordable housing creation in Malden and will enhance the ability of the AHTF and its mission. Please contact Interim Staff Liaison Paul Goldstein if you have any questions or follow up for the Malden AHTF. Sincerely, Gary Christensen, Mayor, City of Malden, Chair of the Malden Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Thank you, Diane. Does anyone else have anything else in favor of the petition? Anyone else like to speak in favor of the petition? Nothing else? Declare that portion of the hearing closed. And still have open the portion of anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the position? Anyone like to speak in opposition of the petition? Seeing and hearing none, we'll close that. portion of the public hearing that closes this part of the public hearing. And does the sponsor, anyone have anything else to add? No, thank you. Okay, the public hearing then is now closed. Michelle, do you have anything to read? Do you want to read the planning report and recommendation?

Thank you. So this is the planning report and recommendation dated August 12, 2026. I won't read it verbatim into the record. It's incorporated here and by reference into the record. Giving you some information about the petition that was, the zoning proposal that was made. You do have a copy of the memorandum. We didn't, the Sponsor didn't read that in but you do have a copy of that memorandum dated June 17 2026 from the director of OSP CD and You also had previously received this board received probably I think a month or two ago Actually, I think you've received it in April or May The copy of the inclusionary zoning feasibility analysis report that was being referenced here tonight That was a bound study that you received and GIVING YOU SOME INFORMATION WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT BRIEFLY DURING THE MEETING ABOUT THE CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO DATE WHICH PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. SO HERE YOU SEE THE BREAKDOWN WHERE I CAME UP WITH THE NUMBER OF THE 99 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. GIVING YOU THE ADDRESS, NUMBER OF TOTAL UNITS, STATUS, AND ALSO WHAT ZONING RELIEF WAS NEEDED In terms of the proposed amendments, you've heard a couple of the highlights. Briefly, I want to mention a few others. You heard about the three new types of affordable housing projects. There'll be three new definitions, whereas previously there was only one. Any project that had eight or more units being created was considered an inclusionary development. And then as the board's familiar with, you had some that were 100% affordable, some just provided the required minimum. Now there will be these three categories, the inclusionary project, which includes only the affordable housing units required by the provisions of the ordinance, to the mixed income project, which has fewer than 100% affordable housing units, but more than the minimum required of affordable housing units, and then you have the affordable projects, developments in which all units are affordable housing units. Applicability, the changes, one of the changes you heard about was to not include or to exclude assisted living units in nursing and convalescent homes. The other specific, which you have not seen any projects come in as assisted living or nursing or convalescent under this ordinance. You've seen them that predate the ordinance However, you haven't seen any under the current ordinance. The second provision of applicability that's being eliminated under the new ordinance is the requirement that there be mandatory compliance with all provisions. So currently, the ordinance contains a provision that expressly prohibits any variance of any provision. That is proposed to be eliminated. When we get to the recommendations, I will be recommending that that not be eliminated. With this provision no longer in place, an applicant could seek variances of any of the provisions. They could say, I'm not providing the 0.75 parking. I'm providing 0.65 parking. They could seek variances of the actual affordability, the 10%. They could say, I'm not providing 10%. I'm proposing to provide 9%. That would not be part of the special permit process. That would be going to the board of appeal for a variance. And state law was recently changed to make it more easy to grant variances. So the standard for granting variances changed significantly and substantively. So it is now easier to obtain a variance in the state in accordance with state law. So approval process, we heard it will now be an administrative review by the director of this department, Office of Strategic Planning Community Development. So it will know... if this board is a special public renting authority for the project, you will just receive the information that the project complies with the inclusionary zoning ordinance. That's what you do now. Anyway, you receive a statement from that department that everything is in compliance. Um, so it's a, uh, I guess it's a procedural difference. I think it's for this board. It will be the same. You probably won't notice a difference if you're still, hearing the petition for a special permit under other provisions of the zoning. You just won't be hearing it under those provisions. So you'll still get the same information. Mandatory provision of affordable housing units, we've talked about that. It's being proposed to be reduced from 15% to 10%. That's the total number of units in the project. That's the number you base that on. It excludes the units allowed under the incentives. and when I went through some of those scenarios with numbers, that reduction appears to be offset by the proposed density bonus incentive that's going to double it. So again, instead of having, for example, the 58 units, you'd have 60. So you're required to provide less in a 50-unit project, but then you're getting the density bonus, so it ends up being a 58-unit project under the current ordinance or a 60-unit project under the new. So it's very, very similar. The 10%, it's definitely changing the number, but with that density bonus, I think we're at almost the same number. Well, I know we are based on the numbers. So that's the first incentive being changed, the density bonus. The new requirement is also that all additional units must be affordable housing units. So the density bonus units, that is. The height bonus we spent some time on. So if it's an affordable project, so if it is 100% affordable, all affordable housing units, there is the option to seek a special permit for one additional story beyond the number of stories allowed for the given residential use by special permit. The location incentive is the other new incentive, which we've talked about, which again, speaks, provides the option of applying for special permit for 100% affordable project up to three stories in any district in the city, excluding industrial. Up to three stories is already allowed in any district in the city, except industrial and residence A. So this provision as written and as proposed will only apply to residence A. There is a proposal, I believe, It was in the, I think it was in the presentation to change that language. So we'll just read in residence A. But as written, it only applies to residence A anyway. So parking adjustments we talked about. So again, based on the type of project, if only required affordable housing units are provided, it's one space per unit. If for mixed income projects, I'm sorry, if only the minimum required, so that's one space per unit. Currently, as I said before, it's one space per affordable housing unit, city standard parking requirements for all the other units. This new mixed income project is 0.75 space per unit for all units, whether they're market rate or affordable, and then 100% affordable housing project 0.75. So that's a reduction right now and 100% affordable housing project would be one space per unit Development standards there are a couple technical differences here that are being proposed with the new ordinance. I Would call them it more administrative in terms of alternative methods of compliance currently the ordinance allows for off-site locations and The proposal is to eliminate that option, so an applicant would not be able to propose to provide affordable housing units off-site in another location in the same neighborhood. The in-lieu payment is also proposed to be changed. The amount is the same. However, now it only may be allowed contingent upon the sole discretion and approval of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. based on whether payment is likely to advance the city's housing goals than the creation of a new affordable unit. So right now the developer can choose to give us the in-lieu payment. They can say, I want to give you the in-lieu payment. I don't want to build the affordable housing unit. Under the new ordinance as proposed, the city affordable housing trust fund will determine whether or not we will accept an in-lieu payment. Nobody does it. The developer opts to do it. Now the developer will not have the option. If the developer says, I want to give you an in lieu payment, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is going to determine whether we will accept it. So right now, it's an option for the developer to give it to us. Now it will be, we'll let you know if you can give it to us. You'll be required to build the unit. Fractional units, the same provision is there. Conveyance of land, there was, in the current ordinance, there was also a provision that said the developer could convey land To the city, for us to build affordable housing in compliance with the ordinance, that option is also being eliminated. Household eligibility, we've talked about the petitioner, the sponsors mentioned that, that the threshold for rental units is being increased from 50% to 60. For home ownership units, the threshold range is being eliminated. Right now it's 51% to 80%. Now it will be up to 80%, so there'll be no lower thresholds. And then for both rental and home ownership, previously there was a high income threshold for additional affordable housing units. Those are being eliminated. Administration. There were also some administrative updates in terms of submission requirements. They're listed here. The memorandum of understanding regarding the lottery plan and marketing plan is something this board's seen before. That is just codifying the current protocol that we accept a memorandum. And then in terms of relationship to the subsidized housing inventory, there's another proposal in this package. So the applicant will be required to submit information to the city so that we submit it to the state for inclusion on the subsidized housing inventory. That's what's being used to determine whether we comply with state law. You heard the number mentioned, but we're below the 10%. That's the 40B standard. Previously, or in the current ordinance, it says if the unit provided does not meet eligibility for the subsidized housing inventory, we will not count it as an affordable housing unit. We will deem it not to be in compliance. That's being proposed to be eliminated. Compliance and monitoring, there are a couple supplemental provisions being added. In terms of application and exemptions, the amendments apply to new construction and new occupancy existing buildings unless exempt by city ordinance the express language of the amendment state law or the state permit extension act the effective date will be the City Council's vote to ordain the amendments unless otherwise specified no other date is being specified so the effective date of this amendment would be the date of the council's vote date for action the council must act on the amendments within 90 days after the public hearing closes Otherwise, a new hearing will need to be held. So if the hearing closes tonight, August 12th, the council will have until November 10th, 2026 to act. Standard of review. The board's review and recommendations of the proposed zoning changes should be directed by substantive planning objectives, community need, and general welfare. So I've listed a couple of what I guess I would call concerns or issues. And they... Being brought to your attention one has to do with the circumvention of in conflict with the zoning ordinance the proposed amendments include several new provisions that circumvent disregard and are in direct conflict with lawns Long-standing and established citywide multifamily use regulations building Heights and parking requirements provided by the current zoning ordinance one the proposed density bonus incentive regarding height whereby a special permit may allow an increased height beyond a The given residential use disregards current multifamily use categories and use regulations. The proposed location incentive, whereby a special permit may allow a multifamily dwelling up to three stories in any district in the city in any location, excluding industrial, circumvents current residential use regulations. And the proposed parking adjustment incentive proposed reduces the parking requirements for market rate units by 75% for a three-bedroom unit, 62% two bedroom unit 25 for one bedroom unit or studio unit it bypasses current city-wide parking requirements for new residential development next issue has to do with the comprehensive master plan that's underway and the inclusionary zoning needs assessment review that was done in 2025 we began the process of updating the comprehensive master plan pursuant to state law this board's familiar with that you've been receiving updates since then um Some of you are on the comprehensive master plan steering committee. The proposed amendments to multifamily use regulations, other residential use regulations, building heights, and parking requirements are significant, substantive, and citywide. They warrant public input through focused community engagement. That's an integral part of the master planning process. That did not occur with this 2026 feasibility study. As you've heard several times, they interviewed developers, stakeholders, affordable housing providers. This was not a outreach to the community for public input on weather changing heights and parking requirements citywide. Feedback was not provided on those. There was no community engagement on that part. The study is part of the needs assessment review required by the current ordinance. So the ordinance requires that the city undertakes this assessment, not less than every five years. Upon completing the assessment, the city recommends to council any amendments and improves the means of affordable housing units. The ordinance was enacted in 2021. The study was undertaken within the five-year timeframe in compliance with the ordinance. There is no timeframe for making recommendations or for acting on those recommendations. Do you want me to move ahead with the planning recommendation or do you?

Yes, please.

So this is made prior to the public hearing. Recommendations that the Planning Board recommends to the City Council approval of the amendments of section 12.12.300 as proposed subject to the following revisions. One, amend proposed section 12.300.C applicability by adding the following language. There shall be no variance of any of these provisions of this section 12.12.300. Two, delete in its entirety proposed section 12.300.F.1B incentives density bonus regarding additional height. Three, delete in its entirety proposed section 12.12.300.F. 0.2 a incentives location and for amend section twelve point three hundred F point three incentives parking adjustments by deleting in its entirety the table of off street parking loading regulations and Inserting in its place the following language for any affordable housing unit the minimum number of on-site parking spaces shall be one parking space per unit Okay anything else Michelle And just to remind the board this is a recommendation I'll be making to the City Council the City Council will receive it and they will decide whether to Follow it in whole in part or reject it in whole in part. They will decide whether to ordain the ordinances or amend the ordinances Thank you.

Do any members of the Planning Board have any questions or anything for Michelle or recommendations? Counselor O'Malley would like to ask a question Yes, hold on Just want to finish off with the board first would board no members. Oh wait Eric Henry has a question All right See counselor O'Malley, thank you So

So I was listening online, and Councillor Linehan said something that I found interesting. She had highlighted that it seems that some of the issues that we're facing are actually related to the height limit of buildings and parking. And so I am just wondering, and again, I'm not opposed, and I am in favour of some of the incentives that are being proposed, but I'm concerned about the reduction in the affordability. And I'm almost wondering if it maybe makes more sense to address the root causes of the challenges, which might be the height and parking rather than going straight for the affordability first. So that's just like a general thing. I wanted to make sure I gave Councillor Linehan the credit when it comes to that. Especially because, as you've indicated, the market right now is particularly crazy with inflation, tariffs. BABA, I think, Build America by America is a big part of it. So I'm just generally concerned about the affordability thing. You don't have to necessarily comment if you don't want to. Or you can. I guess I'll lay the rest of it out. The and then the the so yeah, if you could address that and then I have a couple of specific questions That I can get to after you generally respond Okay, you can respond to council or Malley's questions Thank You chair We

are concerned about all of it and how the way that it all fits together. Based on the analysis we got and the conversations we had with the consultant, changing just one element would not be enough. And even doing all of these things still makes it possible, but still makes it very narrow, a very narrow chance to build the affordable housing. Our team is, we love building affordable housing. We get a lot of calls every week from, we have the Office of Housing Stability, but even OSPCD we get calls from folks who need affordable housing every week if not every day so the proposal we're putting in front of you is our best thought on how we achieve the goal of building more affordable housing it may initially seem counterintuitive to take an affordability threshold requirement from 15 to 10 percent and say well okay you're building less affordable housing but based on on our expertise and the expertise of the consultants, we think that this will result in more affordable housing because the 15 percent is too high a threshold to bear. You mentioned the Buy America, the Build America, Buy America Act. We have not seen that that is affecting the market rate projects yet because they're generally not getting the subsidy. So, if someone is required to build that 10 percent of units and they're not an affordable housing developer, they're just a market rate developer, they will probably not have BABA issues. There's probably some examples of funds that do, but I'd say generally they're not getting federal funds that trigger a BABA requirement as part of their funding stack. For the affordable housing developers, it is a major concern. Probably a larger conversation than this meeting, but one of the things we're doing is we are trying to work with our partners to get HUD and to get Congress to make it easier for us to build affordable housing. And one of those things is by granting some relief to BABA. BABA, just so everyone knows, is a federal requirement that came in a couple of years ago that largely says that if you are building a federal infrastructure project, I know we're talking about housing, but a federal infrastructure project, you have to use materials that are certified built in the United States. The challenge there becomes when you consider affordable housing to be an infrastructure project and whether or not it is or isn't an infrastructure project. And that's the debate that is happening in D.C. that we're hoping swings our way so that we can keep building affordable housing. But I would say, having said that, that doesn't really apply to this conversation so much, except you could consider it as another pressure point on the affordable housing developers we're working with.

I appreciate it. And it was mentioned because I'm just wondering if it's, is the 15% the issue or is the 15%, you know, a smaller issue compared to the larger issues that are just, and so it's just for general conversation, but the specific questions I had, it seems like there's now a approval entity or person. Is it just that one person approves these projects, or is it one person approves the projects to then go forward for a special permit?

Yeah, that's a great question. So the, right now what happens is a project, whether or not it has to go through a special permit, but also pretty much everything that's eight or more units has to go through a special permit, with some exceptions. Right now what happens is just because it triggers inclusionary zoning compliance means there has to be a special permit for the inclusionary zoning compliance itself. So what this is changing, and to do that, the planning board gets a recommendation from our department that says, we've reviewed this, we've reviewed the proposal from the developer, we've reviewed their affordable fair housing marketing plan, we've reviewed all of their unit mix and all of these things, and for these reasons, we believe that they comply with the inclusionary zoning. And then it comes to the planning board, or in some cases it could come to the council, and be granted a special permit that includes that inclusionary zoning compliance, What we are proposing is that that happens at the administrative level. However, if a project still requires a special permit, which most of these projects would, that would still come before you, but you would not be discussing or debating whether or not they've met their inclusionary zoning requirements. You would be discussing all the other material parts of the project.

Great, and as an example, I had heard during the conversation that this would allow a home in a residential A to be increased to a multi-story, multi-family building. If you had a, is that capped at three stories? So say you're in residence A and you're looking to build a three-story building in residence A, multi-family. would that be approved just by one person or would that be required as a special permit?

No, that's a great question. The only thing that would be approved by our department at the staff level would be whether or not that complies with the affordability requirements of the inclusionary zoning policy and the other elements of the inclusionary zoning policy. The decision about whether or not that project can be built would be in front of the planning board. Or because it's in residence A, it would have to be approved by a special permit of the planning board.

And then, sorry, the last two questions. There was a question about rounding up or rounding down. You round down to the lesser unit or up, and you have to pay a fractional difference. Who decides whether or not you round up or round down? It just said it would.

So there's the rounding up and rounding down question, which I'm hoping Elena can speak to in a moment, but I will also mention that the the idea of doing a payment in lieu, which one of the two market rate projects that we have seen that has triggered inclusionary zoning so far has elected to do, the developer there, the market rate developer, chose to make a payment in lieu of building the affordable units and make that payment to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And the city did not get a chance to say whether they wanted the unit built or wanted the money. You can imagine in some cases we might want the money, which could then be used to support an affordable housing project, and in some cases we might want the unit because then we don't have to pay someone else to build it. It's just getting built by the market. What we are proposing there is that the Affordable Housing Trust Fund decides. So generally, they would be required to build that unit or those units. And if the developer says, oh, that's a hardship or I have some other reason why I think I would rather pay the payment in lieu, they essentially petition the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and say, here's why you should take the money and not the unit. And the trust can say, yeah, actually, we agree that the money will help further our affordable housing projects more than you building this unit here would. Or they can say, no, we'd rather you build the unit.

Yeah, and just to clarify, this is, I think, on the fractional units and not necessarily whether or not they completely decide to loop. But I think that maybe it's just that we need to tighten it up because there's no trigger of whether or not it goes up or down. And I'm just wondering where that discretion lies. But it might just, we need to... specify, which is what ordinance says. And then, sorry, the last question, I apologize for being long-winded. There's an income re-verification that happens on an annual basis prior to a new lease. What happens if someone goes into a unit, their income qualified, and then, great for them, they now have a new job, they're making more money, they're a little bit over that prior income limit. Are they forced to leave, or are they like pre-existing non-conforming in?

What will typically happen, and it might depend in terms of if there is subsidy in there and what other requirements are there, but generally what will happen is that the person will either, that unit will not be considered one of the inclusionary units, and a similar unit in that building would then become the new inclusionary unit, or if for whatever reason that was not possible, the person's rent could increase as their income increases up to, I think it's fair market rent. But no, we would not be, someone who goes into an affordable unit and then starts making more money is not going to be forced out.

Because that's a success story. We don't want to punish success stories necessarily. Absolutely.

We do want that unit to eventually go back to being available to a low-income person, but we're not going to evict someone in the path of doing that.

All right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, I just want, Counselor, thank you, and Alex, thank you. Michelle has some comments on that fractional unit.

Just the fractional unit rounding is the same provision as currently. The developer decides whether to round up and provide the unit or round down and do the payment in lieu. The question is, will then the Affordable Housing Trust be able to say, we don't want to accept the fractional payment in lieu? That would be where the discretion comes in. but right now it's a developer's option, and it's still proposed to be the developer's option.

For the fractional units.

For the fractional units.

That's correct. But not for the, yes.

Okay, thank you very much. All right, yeah, we still have four more papers to look at, so we need to try and wrap this up. Let me see, where are we here? All right, so if we've heard everything, public hearing is closed. We've heard from councilors, from planner. Does anybody on the planning board have a motion? Eric Henry?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to recommend that we approve this recommendation as amended.

Okay, so following the planner's recommendations, have we amended the recommendations at all?

I don't believe you had. So you're saying to recommend the approval that was presented?

Correct, that's written, yes.

So it's approval with the additional revisions?

Exactly, yes. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second?

So this would be a recommendation to the city council?

Yes, recommendation to the city council to, based on the planner's recommendations. Do we have a second to Eric's motion Last time we have a second for Eric's motion Seeing and hearing none that motion does not advance Does anybody else on the board have a motion I

The board has 21 days from the close of the hearing to make its recommendation. So I'm not sure if that is the direction you're moving in. I don't know. No one said anything. So if anybody, you know, if you don't make a recommendation, let me just get to this. Hold on. So you have 21 days to... Okay, so you have 21 days after the hearing to make the recommendation. If you don't make a recommendation, the council can move forward.

Thank you, Michelle. Pat?

Thank you. I just think there's somewhere in the middle. I don't necessarily disagree with everything that you're saying, but I think parking is an issue. I don't know that striking it entirely is sort of the way to approach it. I think there's got to be something in the middle. I do think that going to the 10% is a problem for me, so I would like to make a recommendation that they look a little bit closer at that, because I understand that... You know, there's a financial side to all of this, and that's the feedback, and that's what the market can bear. But I also think that there are other circumstances that are leading to some of the market problems, and it's not necessarily the fact that it's a 10% threshold or, you know, a 15% threshold. I think there's other issues. So, you know, I think there are other things that need to be addressed, and I think just, you know, sort of striking these and approving it that's why I'm not quite there yet.

Do you have any proposals to the recommendations that you'd like to see incorporated that might get this to advance?

Well, like I said, I think they need to look at the parking issue. I think there needs to be a little more thought as it relates to giving the incentive for reducing the parking for the affordable units, but maybe not all of the units, particularly if You know, the requirement now is a, you know, one parking per bedroom going to, like, you know, .75 per unit, if I understand it correctly.

Well, if I understand Michelle's recommendation here, that's... She's saying strikeable. No, it says amending what they had, so it requires the one parking space per unit just for the affordable unit. So maintain the rest of the parking requirements.

but I think there needs to be more thought to that. I think the council should look at it and give more thought to, or the proponent, whoever's writing it. I think there's more involved in just that.

Okay. Just a reminder, so this is a recommendation to the council, so they can certainly do whatever. I'm just reminding everyone, not just you, Pat, that everyone... know this is a recommendation we can make suggestions and those can be you know listened to by the City Council or not so I think if we have any specific wants so I'd like to I would like to make a motion that we send this back to the council and and we we I would like to recommend that they look closer at the residents a

you know, sort of a blanket, adding that, adding the additional sorting residents. I think that needs to be looked at. There may be some tightening up there. I also think they need to look at the parking across the board because I think there is a give and take that needs to be had there. And then I think the other recommendations that Michelle had made, I think we're okay. I don't think we want to, you know, allow the... the language that you were talking about, where they can, you know, sort of circumvent some other issues. I think we want to, you know, stick with that.

Okay, so I'm going to write this. I'm going to write some of these down, Chair. Yes, yes, you can come up with some language that we can actually incorporate. I guess I'm going to ask you this. Do you want to recommend approval with additional revision? So do you have a sense you want to approve it in general, but you want things... revised or do not want to recommend approval? I don't want to recommend approval.

I want to recommend sending it back and having them

look at these issues. Okay, and then it will come back to you for review. Yeah, it will come back to us.

Okay. So send it back to OSPCB.

So you do, and I'm not trying to put what you want. So you don't want to recommend approval, so you don't want this to be passed, though. Correct. So you want to recommend disapproval and then revisit these things. Correct. And then we'll itemize. I think we did that on another one. I don't remember what it was. Then you're going to itemize what you want to be put into a new proposal. Looked at. Right.

Or considered. Right.

Okay.

So is the motion to... not recommend to City Council and return it to OSPCD.

So the recommendation is to recommend disapproval and to, we'll call it redraft or revise to address, and then we'll list the items, okay?

Yes.

So as proposed, you don't want to approve it. Correct. And it's, I guess I'm sensing you don't, you can't itemize everything that needs to be fixed because we don't really know what the right parking ratio is. We don't know. Is that what you're doing? Yes. Okay, so disapproval, redraft, recommend to council redraft to address these issues. One was parking. Now parking for all units, just the affordable, all units, all units. Parking for all units. Two was, what did you say about residence A?

The residence A. The blanket approval in residence A. It should be more of a.

especially resident the residents a Incentive the incentives for us. Okay incentives for residents saying what was the third? I thought you said a third one put the percentage the height the height the height The height and said I'll call it the height incentive incentive. Yeah. Okay, so we're just approval redraft to address Address these issues.

What about the reduction from the 15 to the 10? Yes, and we really look at that and see if we can come up with a median and It can be somewhere in the middle.

I think the percent of five percent is a big choice so reduction So these are issues that you want addressed. We draft to address these issues reduction from 10% reduction from 15% to 10% Okay, okay.

I apologize for Not being able to articulate what's happening. I appreciate you helping me get through it.

There's a lot of information and a lot of things that we want. Unless you have something specific, we can...

If it was one item you just wanted to change. I think it was more than one.

Thank you. Is that considered a recommendation?

That's a motion to recommend disapproval and to return to the council to redraft to address these four issues.

Okay, can you just restate it from the beginning? So if you can restate the motion, how Pat made it and how we are memorializing it.

Recommend disapproval, return to the council, return proposal to the council to redraft to address these issues. One, parking requirements for all units. Two, Residence A incentives. Three, height incentive. for reduction from 15% to 10%. That's referring to the mandatory requirement. Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Does anybody have a second for...

I have a point of order. I'm sorry. I'm confused.

Okay.

Pat, you're done, right? Yeah. Okay. Eric?

Thank you. Pardon my confusion. I'm just trying to keep up. I made a recommendation and it went down. I would have liked to have probably withdrawn my recommendation if I had a chance to do that, but since my recommendation was made and it was disapproved, I thought maybe it was open for open discussion at some point because a point was brought up about we could just also Nothing for 21 days. And then I needed further point of clarification on what happens to that. Michelle, can you clarify that?

So if you make no recommendation, the council can proceed to ordain the ordinance.

After 21 days, they can.

They can't take action until 21 days have elapsed. And in that 21 days, either you submit a recommendation or you don't. If you don't, they move forward without your recommendation.

And doing it pathway, they have to come back to us.

Um, no. They can disregard your recommendation and move forward and ordain it anyway.

Yeah, they can disregard either way, whether we...

However, however, however, however, the weight of your recommending disapproval, if it fails at the council, they will not be able to bring this proposal back for two years. Okay. So...

I'm done.

So the motion on the T on the floor is is there a second for Pat's measure motion? Okay Okay Pat made the motion Diane has seconded So take a roll call vote Hold everybody up

So this is this is the motion This is a vote on the motion to recommend disapproval and redrafting to address the four issues.

So a yes vote is to recommend disapproval Diane Chua. Yes

Tawadich Gebre Selassie? Yes. Risa Gray?

Yes.

And I'll go Pat Hayes, Eric Henry. And Henry, okay.

Okay.

Pat Hayes? Yes. Eric Henry?

Yes.

And Kenny and Genucci? Yes. So that's six to zero. Okay.

The motion carried six to zero We'll make that recommendation to the City Council I'm gonna take a two minute break between the papers here if anybody needs to take a break outside of this room I The next paper we're going to be reading is City Council Paper 327. So we're basically going to be going in reverse order on the agenda. Reverse order on the agenda. So we just did 335. We're going to do 327 next, then 326, 325, and 263.

Do you want to do that one next?

Yeah, we can do that. Out of respect for everyone in the audience, let's go home and get some sleep. All right, so one more minute, we'll start that up. Okay, thank you very much, folks. We're gonna get started on the next paper. We are going to proceed with City Council Paper 263. Is the sponsor of 263 present? Step up to the microphone, welcome. Wait a second.

Thank you. So the sponsor of this paper is Councilor Michelle LeWong, and she could not be here this evening, so she did write something for me to read into the record and to all of you.

Okay, and just for the record?

I am Councilor Taylor, 19 Walcott Street.

Thank you very much.

So I'm going to read it verbatim. Good evening. My name is Michelle LeWong. I apologize that I cannot be here this evening. but I appreciate the opportunity to submit this written statement in support of allowing residential cottage kitchens in the city of Malden. I am a sponsor of this proposed ordinance. In developing this proposal, I researched Massachusetts law and reviewed how other municipalities have successfully implemented similar regulations to support entrepreneurship while protecting residential neighborhoods. I believe this ordinance strikes the right balance. It gives residents an affordable opportunity to start a small business without the significant expense of leasing commercial kitchen space, while ensuring these businesses remain secondary to the residential use of the property through reasonable regulations on traffic, parking, and compliance with health and safety requirements. Residential cottage kitchens can create opportunities for working families retirees, immigrants, veterans, and aspiring entrepreneurs. They provide a pathway for residents to grow a business that may one day become a storefront here in Malden, contributing to our local economy and strengthening our small business community. I believe residential cottage kitchens are a low-impact home occupation that can coexist with residential neighborhoods when properly regulated. I respectfully ask for your favorable recommendation and your support Creating new opportunities for Malden residents while preserving the character of our neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and consideration Thank You councillor Yeah, would you want to want to submit that to Michelle so she has that for the record, thank you Okay, does any Just have a date on that when was this written I I can also email you Thank you, thank you there's any questions from the board and you planning board members have any questions Okay, would you like all right, so we usually go through the planning and then but you can you can speak I Go ahead.

Okay, yeah. So this paper, we actually did have pretty extensive discussions with Rules and Ordinance and our Economic Development Committee, and we actually formed a subcommittee to discuss this further. So this is a complex issue in terms that It requires sort of three levels of action. There are some changes to zoning that are being discussed tonight. We realize also the Board of Health is a critical element to allow this because one of the impediments to residential kitchens is our Board of Health regulations actually don't acknowledge this right now and that. And the third element is there are some elements of our solid waste regulations or ordinances It came up as a conversation. If we allow residential kitchens, how is that regulated under our solid waste ordinance, like our blue bag programs and stuff like that? So there's actually to go ahead and... There's a package of things that has to happen. So one part of it is zoning. So that's why it's coming for this public hearing. But there will need to be additional things. The Board of Health will have to move ahead before a residential kitchen can officially open up and be permitted. And that the Board of Health will have to, they were not meeting over the summer. So they would have to take some action before November 10th or whatever. And then the council has some tidying up to do related to if residential kitchens get enacted in zoning and approved by the Board of Health, we will do some things related to how the waste is handled. So I just get that broader context. So we had to sort through a lot of that, like how do we get this to happen? And sort of there's three, different actions, some which involve the Planning Board, some which involve the Board of Health, and some which just involve the Council. Just giving you that context. So that's all I just wanted to make that clear. What we're talking about now is just the zoning, but there's other elements to this to make this happen. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Councillor. Anybody on the Planning Board have any questions of the sponsor? Anybody have any questions on the presentation? Diane?

I'm so sorry, I must have dozed off. I apologize because I didn't get what you said. Could you just, I'm very sorry, could you just tell me what you're doing again? You want to have kitchens, you want people to make food in their own kitchen and then sell it to consumers. So just give me an overview, I'm so sorry.

Massachusetts has a retail residential kitchen which is also known as a cottage food operation. So what this is, it's a way to start up small businesses. There are restrictions on what you can cook. It can't be meat, it has to be non-perishable items. You can make jam, you can make cupcakes, anything that's non-perishable, and you can sell it at farmer's markets. It's a way to provide equity in starting up businesses and really get the business community going. It's small items. We're not looking at having a commercial kitchen, in residence, it's like a modified mini version of that.

But they don't have two separate kitchens, or will they have two?

No, they do have to be inspected. We did, in researching this, I did reach out to several communities that have this, and I spoke with, I know Melrose said they have more than 10 licenses, less than 20, and they've never received a complaint. So like counselor Winslow said there are some items that we're going to have to work out to streamline it anytime We do something that's new and introduce it There's always going to be bumps and things that we need to figure out but generally in communities that have these Residential cottage kit kitchens they go very well, and they just help build economic development and help create more of a small business community

So if I have a garden in my backyard, I can sell the food? No. Okay. If I make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I can sell it to my neighbors? I'm just trying to grasp what they're doing. I don't get it. I'm sorry. I don't know if it's just me.

So if you made jam and you wanted to sell it at the farmer's market. So I had a conversation with the folks who run the farmer's market today, and they said that they generally have people apply that make jam or jam. cupcakes or non-perishable items, cookies, things like that, that would wanna sell it at the farmer's market. But they have to deny them because they don't have the permit. So this is providing that permit so that they can do that baking in their house. But there are restrictions on it.

Okay, so that makes more sense. Because I missed the part about them giving it to a farmer's market.

Well, a farmer's market, you could call and they could deliver it to you. There's a lot of people who do exquisite cakes. I have a cousin who does that. She lives in New Hampshire. She has a cottage kitchen license, and she's able to do that and sell her cakes. So that's a business model that it could be. It has to go direct to consumer, so either a farmer's market or a delivery type of option.

Okay, so people, I mean, okay. So if your cousin is selling cakes, I can go and knock on her door and buy one?

No, you would order it online. Oh, okay. I mean, it's a business.

No, because I'm thinking traffic, well, excuse me, traffic coming through and things like that.

Yeah, you're not, people are not just.

Okay, so, yes.

So pickup is allowed.

And we did thoroughly discuss pickup in several of the meetings where we said that is something we were willing to forego for delivery only, you know. Although, if we're regulating pickups, I do think it's worth looking at regulating the Buy Nothing site, because people travel the city picking up for that, too. Just as, you know. Okay. But we could.

I appreciate the clarification, and I'm sorry that I wasn't paying attention at the beginning. Yeah, no, no, that's fine.

I didn't know how much I needed to explain, and I kind of went overboard, but yeah.

Anything else? She just read it. Oh, thank God.

She just read the letter.

Yeah, so now, and that's why you opened it up for questions, which is what you just had. So, Counselor, I did have a question, though, because you referenced farmer's markets mostly, but the way this is written, it doesn't require it to be a farmer's market. It does not require it, no. The way it's written, it allows pickup and delivery from the home, so people could come to your home, whether they order it online or If that's something that we allow in the ordinance. But so it isn't limited to provide cooking something at home, a limited amount, a limited spectrum of food products. There is a limit, but it could be people coming to pick up where they order online or delivery or DoorDash or something like that. So your question about the traffic was valid.

But it would also not be that you just show up and say, this person is making bread and they have a store out of their house and I can show up and buy bread or cupcakes whenever I want or a sandwich. It would be that it would have to be a pre-ordered item. And we could mitigate the pickup issue.

So it's not a storefront?

It's not a storefront, yes.

Anything else to add?

No, I think I...

Okay. Anybody else have any questions Eric sorry Eric and then Pat Thank Thank You mr.

Chair I was just too well one question two parts I suppose What communities do you have any idea what communities we're trying to emulate with this?

so I there are several communities and the sponsor has a full list, but I know that I personally spoke with Melrose and Everett and on theirs and they had no issues. Those were the closest cities to us, so I chose them to speak with.

And forgive my being so naive, but is there any positive tax benefit to the city for this?

I mean, it's like an incubator to be able to have bigger business and there is tax benefit because they do have to be registered, so they do have to charge tax, you know.

Okay. Thank you.

It would be small, but it would build up.

That 10%, yeah. Okay. Anything else, Eric? Great, thank you. All right, Pat?

Thank you. Just two quick ones. You said that the kitchens have to be inspected. Is that Board of Health? Board of Health inspections, yes. Board of Health inspections. And do they need a license?

They need a license, yes.

They will need a license. They will need a license. And there'll be a fee for that, right?

Thank you. Michelle?

Just to clarify, so there aren't any Board of Health regs on right now, and it would be a health inspector that would be responsible. And Nelson Miller's here, the building commissioner, the health inspectors are under his jurisdiction. So Board of Health is going to set up regs, but it's going to be the health inspector through inspectional services that would be required to do the inspections. And by licensing, are you asking about city council licensing or border health licensing? Both. Okay, because at this point, there's no proposal for a city council license. There would be required licenses by border health. We expect, again, they don't have any regulations proposed yet. So right now, they would be regulated under existing border health regs. So they would need licensing for food establishment, grease traps, grease removal. As if it were a regular food establishment. They don't have separate regs yet for this.

Thank you, Michelle. Risa?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would there be a published list of what food items would be allowed?

Yes. There actually is a great guideline. Massachusetts has a really extensive guideline for this online, which I would hope that we would follow. Thank you.

Thank you, Risa. Anybody else have any questions on the board? No? Councillor, is it Councillor Linehan? One second.

Thank you to the Chair. I just wanted to answer the question. I was able to pull up the list that Councillor LeWong had originally, the municipalities that she had originally met with and spoken to and compared that have cottage kitchens already in our area, just to answer that question. that was presented to Councilor Taylor. So these are the municipalities in our area that have cottage kitchens that meet the state standards and license through their local board of health. It's Revere, Medford, Melrose, Everett, Somerville, and Saugus. So those are the ones that we met with. This originally came through a constituent of mine to Councilor LeLong and myself, and then obviously grew quite a bit from there. So just wanted to answer that. that question. I don't have anything else.

Okay, thank you. Anything else from any members of the council? Council Winslow?

Yeah, just, you know, one of the things, yeah, I see we're trying to do three things at once. So, like I say, that is the Board of Health hasn't acted, but, you know, the council won't really act on any recommendation of yours until the Board of Health actually makes changes their rules. Essentially, there's a 105CMR, which is the state mass public health board rules related to food establishments, and that's what our food inspectors do. And they have specifically defined these residential kitchen cottage uses. So it's under their rules. So essentially, a board of health hasn't adopted that. And so they would have to make modifications to our health standards so they'll be conforming with that. And then there's very specific guidelines how, you know, what foods fall under this residential kitchen, as well as how they will handle sanitation and stuff like that. So there's very specific state guidance. There's a lot of thought. So we just as a city haven't implemented that. And that's only the city council doesn't have authority for that. the Board of Health does. So that's kind of the dilemma here. But what we have to do is this would be a home use, and so we have to change the zoning related to that. That's really what's here tonight, is to say this could be a paper to allow this as a reuse, a home occupation. So that's really what this is about. The recommendations is whether this would be allowed as a home occupation. The Board of Health, we would really wait as a council until the Board of Health actually adopts the state regulations and sets up a licensing procedure and that. So that's, you know, a couple things have to happen. So that's just trying to, you know, chicken and egg type of thing. But the Board of Health, you know, can't, nobody can really technically operate as a residential kitchen in Malden until the Board of Health takes its steps because that doesn't, following the authority of the city council. So just to be clear, this is really about allowing this as a home occupation and trying to manage that. So I know when I worked at the city of Gloucester, I had a lot of interaction with their farmers markets, their fishermen, and they had talked about doing commercial kitchens, which is trying to have a kitchen various people can use, and it's very difficult because basically if you have a kitchen that has 10 businesses that come in here, between every one of those 10 businesses, they have to clean it entirely. It's not very easy to do, and it's very expensive to do, so there's not a lot of those type of kitchens that, or setting one up in Malden is not easy to do. what the state board of health has done is to make these low-risk things like baked goods and other type of things, they've made these special rules. It's not like oysters or something like that or dairy or meats. So they really try to limit it to low-risk foods, kitchens, and there are some standards. So that's just, it is, you can hear a lot of communities are doing it, It is a way for someone to start a business, and maybe they'll end up being so successful they'll open up a bakery or something like that. But it is sort of an interim step. I mean, I know anybody, any of you who have a business, you know the hard thing is paying that rent every month. So the fact that you could use your kitchen at home and follow that to start your business is one way people are trying. So that's, I just say, we have, We know the Board of Health has to take an action in addition to making a residential kitchen a home occupation. So I just want to explain that. There's several things going on. And the council won't move ahead unless the Board of Health moves ahead. Thank you. It's a timing thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Winslow. If there's no other questions from council members or the board, I'd like to open up the public hearing. And if there's anyone out here that would like to speak in favor of the petition, please come up. And don't forget, please sign your name and address in the book. And please, you can bend that microphone down so it's closer to you as well. Thank you.

Hi, Marlene Gala, 40 Webster Street, Malden. I am a cottage baker. I have the pleasure of baking out of Melrose because we do not have cottage law in Malden. When I started this business back in May, it was small, but to me it's something personal. Baking has always been something that brings me joy. There is something special about taking the ingredients, putting them together, the time, the labor, the love, seeing people being happy. That's why I started this. But I also understand my home is also part of my neighborhood. I understand the planning board has to look at more than my dreams. You have to think about the people who live around me, traffic, parking, noise, delivery, safety, and maintaining the character of the neighborhood. And I want you to know that I care about those things as well. I'm not asking to open a commercial bakery in my home. I am asking for an opportunity to operate a small cottage bakery that makes muffins and cupcakes, by the way, that is carefully controlled and respectful of the community. I don't want customers coming and going. I don't want people at my house. I'm a delivery-only cottage baker. I don't want large trucks or excessive deliveries because my street is loud enough. I don't want loud activity or anything that would disturb my neighbors. I just want to bake. I want to do it at my house. I've committed to all the applicable food safety and health local requirements. I have all my certifications, and I want to do it the right way. I want to have the proper approvals, follow the rules, and be accountable for how my business operates. Because as a small business owner, as I'm learning, it's hard. For me, this isn't about trying to get around the rules. It's about asking for a chance, a chance to build something special. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak in favor? Anyone else speak in favor of the petition? Seeing and hearing none, I'll close that portion. Nothing to read in favor? Okay. So we'll open up. Is anybody in opposition to the petition anybody like to speak in opposition to the petition? Nobody in opposition to the petition. I'll close that portion of the hearing Nothing to read Okay, so the portion of the public hearing is closed as a sponsor have anything further to add counselor Councillor Taylor, anything additional to add? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so we'll close the public hearing. Michelle, would you like to read your planning report and recommendation? Yes, hold on, Michelle.

Councillor O'Malley. O'Malley. Yeah, I just thought I'd add something that maybe people in the public as well as the members might have heard of. So a while ago, there was a viral TikTok or Instagram thing of an empanada lady from Malden who was making empanadas out of her home. It went pretty viral. she had to get shut down because of the fact that it's not allowed. I believe she's now located at Town Line. And it's Jan's Kitchen. So I think that's kind of like an example of like, you know, what could you potentially build? I just wanted to put it out there. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Back to you, Michelle. Okay.

So I'm reading from the planning report and recommendation dated August 12, 2026. I won't read it verbatim into the record. It's incorporated here and by reference into the record. You've heard about the proposed amendments. This is to permit, as a permitted home occupation, what will be called retail residential kitchen cottage food operation. I will note in the proposal, there will be no retail or wholesale transactions made on the premises as proposed. except prearranged pickups. So pickup is being proposed in this amendment. They're also proposing the two definitions. I'll let you read those. One for retail residential kitchen cottage food operation, another for cottage food products. In terms of current zoning, current regulations do not allow the proposed use as a permitted home occupation. Permitted home occupations are allowed in any dwelling unit in any zoning district. Subject to property owner's written authorization and subject to compliance with certain regulations. Have to do with accessory use, employment, appearance, traffic, parking, and nuisance. Won't read those, but they're here. These are quoted from the ordinance section 12-28-030. In terms of Board of Health regs, as we mentioned, they've not yet, Board of Health has not amended its regulations. So the proposed use would be subject to compliance with existing regs for food establishments. We have an email from Peter Fenn. health inspector, dated May 12, 2026, that documents this. In terms of application and exemptions, that's here. It's the same typical exemptions. The amendments apply to new construction, new occupancy, unless exempt by city ordinance, express language of the amendments, state law, or the State Permanent Extension Act. The effective date will be the date the city council votes to ordain the amendments, unless otherwise specified. The effective date would be the date of the council's vote. I do believe, and this was in the package, although they didn't make a presentation, I think there was a proposal to make it effective at a future date that was being proposed, and I don't know if the council will take that up as part of their review. It's in the handout that was given to you, so I just want to note that for the record. But that wasn't, we didn't go over that, but I believe it was to make it effective at a future date after the Board of Health regs. In terms of the standard date for final action, the final date for action is November 10, 2026, if the hearing closes tonight, August 12, 2026. That would be the final date for council action. Again, this is a recommendation we'll be making to the city council. They'll decide whether to follow it in whole or in part and whether to ordain the amendments. Standard of review, your review and recommendations of the proposed zoning changes should be directed by substantive planning, objectives, community need, and general welfare. I'm going to note a couple different concerns here. Use of any residential unit in Malden, whether it's a single-family dwelling or a unit in a multifamily apartment building, for the proposed retail residential kitchen cottage food operations is likely to have detrimental impact and exacerbate challenging conditions already present in Malden's neighborhoods. Given most residential units are located in neighborhoods that are already densely developed, most neighborhoods lack adequate off-street parking for the number of vehicles using them, Most streets in the city have parking restrictions and prohibitions, such as no parking on either side, parking on one side only, and or by permit only. Many properties lack yard areas for storage of required trash barrels for the residential use alone, and many neighborhoods experience serious road-in issues. Building Commissioner Nelson Miller, who's here if you have any questions, states following concerns with regard to cottage kitchens in the city of Malden in his email dated August 10, 2026. This is repeated from his email. One, first concern is neighborhood complaints regarding traffic and parking concerns created by pickup and or delivery of food items. Two, inconsistency with regulations which govern other home occupation uses. Three, the capacity of our health inspectors to perform the required inspections. Four, the ability to perform unannounced inspections on private property. Five, the burden that will be imposed on the health inspectors to educate non-professionals about sanitary code provisions regarding food preparation. HE FURTHER NOTES CURRENTLY WE HAVE ONE HEALTH INSPECTOR WHO HANDLES ALL FOOD INSPECTIONS. HE PERFORMS APPROXIMATELY 500 INSPECTIONS PER YEAR MANDATED BY THE TYPE OF FOOD THAT IS PREPARED AND SOLD. AND FINALLY TO ASSIST ANY INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN OPERATING GROWING THIS KIND OF SMALL BUSINESS, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT CITY RESOURCES BE USED TO FACILITATE THEIR USE OF THE NUMEROUS VACANT STORE FUNDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND TO PARTNER WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO OPEN SHARED USE COMMISSARY COMMERCIAL KITCHENS LIKE STOCKPOT MALDEN. And one thing I just want to note, with reference to Commissioner Miller's comment about inconsistency with regulations which govern other home occupation uses, again, specifically this proposed home occupation is proposed to provide, to allow prearranged pickups. And do you want the planning recommendation?

Yes, please.

So this is prepared prior to the public hearing, and the recommendation is that the planning board recommend to the City Council disapproval of the proposed amendments.

Thank You Michelle Does anybody have a knot on the planning and your board members have any questions for Michelle Risa Thanks, mr.

Chair, this might be a question more for Nelson So I can can the city not require the cottage kitchen participants to require food safety certifications Commissioner would you like to speak to that? There's a concern about so Commissioner Miller Yeah, so so the Board of Health

Response as was already explained the Board of Health makes the food regulations for the city and Unlike let's say the building code. They can actually make regulations outside of what the state regulations are so The short answer is yes the Board of Health could do that if they wanted to they can make any regulation that they really want When it comes to food service So you may not have to educate non-professionals about sanitary code.

They may be required to to be educated before applying to be a cottage kitchen industry?

Yeah, there's, like most trainings and certifications, there's a difference between getting a certification and real world experience. So right now our health inspector who does these, inspections is accustomed to walking into a restaurant unannounced, because that's how they're supposed to be performed, which makes a lot of sense if you want to eat at a restaurant. And they meet with someone who may have 20 years in the restaurant business. In these situations, they would have to be pre-arranging an inspection, because you can't walk into someone's house. And more likely than not, not dealing with someone who's been in the restaurant business for 20 years, because they don't own a restaurant. So we feel like there would be an education component that they would be providing as a part of these inspections as opposed to with commercial locations.

Anything else, Risa?

Actually, I did have one other question.

Yeah, is it for Commissioner Miller?

It is, yeah. Okay. Do you think that this would exacerbate the rat problem?

Trash is certainly a concern. I don't believe that you can possibly produce food that you're selling to other people without increasing the amount of trash that you're producing in your dwelling unit. Council of Winslow did mention that there would have to be some sort of solid waste regulations that went along with this. I can't imagine what those are, but there would be something that goes along with it, I would imagine. Just because foods aren't proteins and because they're not refrigerated doesn't mean they don't produce things like grease. You know, you could make donuts. So there are concerns about some of the items that are produced and what the waste looks like from those.

Anything else, Risa?

I do have another question, but not for Nelson Miller.

Okay. Actually, before you leave, does anybody else have a question for Commissioner Miller? Tawadich, please. Tawadich and then Diane. Okay.

Thank you. My question would be like the Board of Health. I'm sorry. Hold on one second.

I'm sorry. Whose microphone is that actually? We're all in different spots.

Yeah. Yeah. So thank you. So the Board of Health, does they inspect once in a year or how did they manage?

So most restaurants, like I'll use All Seasons as an example, a restaurant like that gets inspected twice a year. And then other places that sell food items that need to be inspected, let's say like a food mart, a place that might sell sandwiches or something like that, they would be inspected once a year. So believe it or not, we have about 165 restaurants that need two inspections a year. So that turns into 300 and something. And then we have another 100 and something so places that receive inspections once a year. So it's in the area. He couldn't give me a hard number, which I can imagine would be hard to do. But it's between the area of like 500 and 525. Does the city have something to control?

like the Board of Health or it's only like twice per year or once in a year, the Board of Health, how did you make sure like somebody who's doing the stuff in their kitchen, how did the city knows like they complied with the rule, with Board of Inspection?

How does the inspector know they're complying with the rules? Through those inspections. So the health inspector goes into a restaurant, let's say, as I previously said, unannounced, and they check everything from food storage to the cooking areas to the way they're storing their prepped foods that they're using during the day. There's regulations for all that stuff. Temperatures that foods are kept at. So they go in, they inspect all that, and if there's any kind of violation, you know, they write them a violation, and then they go back and make sure that they're doing it correctly. Or in some cases, if it's extreme, they tell everyone, get out, and they shut the place down. That doesn't happen a lot, so I don't want to scare anybody away.

All set.

All set. All right. Diane? No, I didn't have anything. Oh, okay. We were just trying to manage the microphones. Okay. Commissioner, thank you. I actually had one question because you did mention this, and I know it's in the report and everything, but this is any dwelling unit. This isn't just, this could happen in an apartment building. This is any dwelling unit. The way it's written right now, it's not just for like a single family home or two family. It could be someone in an apartment building doing this.

Yeah, and the only difference is no different than the rest of our home occupancies. If you have a single-family home and you want to do it, you're giving yourself permission. If someone who lives across the street from here wanted to do it, they'd have to get permission from Jefferson Apartment Group.

From the property owner.

Yeah, but it could take place in any unit anywhere in the city.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yep, no problem. Thank you. Risa? I have a question.

I'm not sure which councillor had said that they looked at different communities who have this program in place. Was it you, Councillor Taylor?

I believe it was Councillor Linehan had the list.

Do you know if any of those communities have an application system and limit the number of, is it a license that they get?

Some did. I don't know if you have more information on that. Some did and some, they all handled it a little bit differently. Okay.

Yeah, actually if you could come back up to the microphone We did discuss that in our discussions possibly doing a limit and I believe councilman said Like maybe ten that we would start off with to see how rapidly it it grew Okay, so Thank You councillor and Zach.

Yes. It's just so we know who's talking. Yes.

Hi everybody. I So in our research, I did not find other communities that had limits, but they all did have applications and all had pretty standard processes. Again, the state already has regulations. And so the Board of Health has an opportunity to essentially adopt the state regulations. And the application, different communities had different things. But again, there was an apartment. A unit in an apartment building was, OK, there's a checklist. If you're in an apartment building, you need to get permission from your landlord. Are you selling any wholesale products? Well, if you're selling wholesale products, it's automatic. You're not a cottage kitchen. So this doesn't apply. And these are the types of, these are the certifications you need to have. Do you have them shared, like upload them? So these are things that would have to obviously be set up through the inspectors, through inspectional services, but it would all come from the regulations. But all those examples were provided to our Department of Health and our Inspectional Services Department.

I'm asking in context of parking and traffic, so that's why.

Okay. Do you want to expand that question? I don't know if Zach can answer that.

No, I'm just explaining why I'm asking that because maybe there is some control over traffic and parking issues or concerns.

We did look at that as well. I don't know, Zach, if you want to speak to that part.

Well, I would say in the report and recommendation, it talks about the existing requirements for all home businesses. So there already is a traffic and parking requirement. in the ordinance that this type of home business would have to comply with, which is just states, you know, no home occupation shall generate traffic volumes greater than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. Any need for parking generated by the occupant shall be provided on the site. So there already are home businesses that are allowed that have people coming to their properties. A home business, a type of home business is like a music instructor. They're having people come to their business. Yeah, there's tailored services. So there are home businesses that are in the list right now that say no on-site sales, or visitors, but there are ones that don't. So this is comparable to those ones that don't.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Pat Hayes.

No, I'm good.

Good? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Let me see. Oh, did one of the councillors have a question on the left here?

Yes. Councillor O'Malley? Thank you. I have two questions. Is there, like, a definition for non-time slash temperature control? Like, the So it says, cottage food products are non-time slash temperature control. Is that like a Board of Health definition? Is it a state definition? Is it a ordinance definition?

It is a state definition.

And so I guess that's my second question. Would the empanada lady be allowed to make empanadas, or is that? Oh, no.

Oh, no. No.

No, it's... I'm disappointed. Me too.

Yeah. Not encouraged.

Okay, folks, I'm sorry, if anybody needs to speak or respond, you need to come up to the microphone so we can get recorded.

What I'm told is it has to be non-perishable.

Non-perishable, yes, so all of us that are hungry right now, we can't have an empanada.

And that's state law that says that?

Yes.

Yes. Okay, thanks.

All right, thank you very much. Okay, no more questions for anybody, so is there a motion? Anybody have a motion on the board? Let me see here. Risa?

I want to make a motion, but I'm not sure how to word it. I do not want to disapprove the proposed amendments. So, Michelle, can you help me with that wording?

So you want to, this is a recommendation you're going to make to the council, so you want to recommend to the council approval as proposed, or do you want to make any amendments to what's proposed?

I suppose I would like to make sure that maybe they do a trial with limited licenses or something along those lines. I assume we don't want to just grant anybody who wants a cottage kitchen the opportunity to without a test run.

Okay, so a test run for the person, or are you talking about a limited number of applicants? Yes. So, I'm sorry, like a pilot program?

Yes, something like a pilot program.

And assuming that the Board of Health is on board with the... Yeah, we don't have their regs, so I don't know if you want to add that, that Board of Health regs.

Yeah, I think you need to add that it's post-creation of a Board of Health regulation, because as of right now, there are no regulations whatsoever, so... I think that's what the big issue with getting our recommendation to approve to the city council is there's really no rules yet. So it's almost like the cart before the horse right now.

So approval, recommend approval with conditions. One, a pilot program be established.

Two, creation of Board of Health regulations.

Do you want to set, I mean, they already have Board of Health regs.

Creation of Board of Health regulations.

I mean, Board of Health regs must be in place, maybe. I mean, you wouldn't want this to move forward without them?

Board of Health Amendment of Regulations.

Okay, Board of Health regs for this use must be in place. Okay, I mean, there's only three parts, if you just want to take a quick look. There's only three parts to the paper. They're on page one. So one is this, a retail residential cottage kitchen permitted to produce. The only, no retail wholesale except prearranged pickups. And then the two definitions. Those are the only three parts of the paper that you have. So you could add any, these two conditions, a pilot program be established, and Board of Health regs for this use must be in place. Those are the two things, unless you wanted to make any amendments to any of that language that's there.

I don't know that I need to at this time.

Okay, so that's it, the recommend approval subject to two conditions. Is that it? Yes, please.

Okay. Is there a second for Reese's motion? Tawadich?

I'll second.

Okay.

So this is... Motion to recommend approval to the City Council subject to the two conditions Are you ready for the roll call vote chair? Yes, Diane shuha No No To our discover Selassie. Yes, we so great.

Oh wait one second. Let me get you up here.

Yes Pat Hayes is next Pat Hayes? Yes. Eric Henry?

No.

One, two, three, four, five. And then Ken Antonucci. Yes. I know who you are. Okay. So four to two, so that motion failed. Is there another motion? It needs to be a majority in a majority of the board to make... A recommendation.

Michelle, can you just explain that? It's not a simple majority. It's a majority of the board.

It's a majority of the board, not a majority of the board present. Thank you. You need five affirmative votes to pass any motion. Okay. Does that make sense?

I just want to make sure everyone's clear on that. So does anybody else have a motion or some type of change to Risa's motion that would enable a second motion to be made? Risa? You can make another motion.

I can't make a motion until I understand what the hesitation is and if there's anything that would make the Who knows?

Are there any recommendations by any of the other members that they could have some discussion here?

Yeah, I mean, I think the concept is great, but I can't wrap my head around it yet because, one, we're putting the cart before the horse where we don't know anything yet. That's what's bothering me. I'm like, we don't know if the Board of Health will allow it, first of all. How are they going to manage it? He has one health inspector that's got 500 inspections already, so how is he going to now go into all these kitchens? I don't, I don't, I'm just trying to grab my head around it. I think the concept is there. I like it, but I just, you know, to make a recommendation this quick, I just, I'm not ready to do that. I just, I want to know more. I want to, if they came back and said, you know, look at the applications, here's the, you know, Board of Health information. This is what they have to rule. Maybe hire another health inspector that can help. So would you like to... We could table it if that's something that people want to do.

What does tabling it do for us and for the council?

They can either accept it or reject it anyway. It doesn't matter.

If you were to table it, you would need to table the entire public hearing so it will not close tonight. If you want to wait to receive more information, but you need to be specific, what information do you want? Do you want to see the Board of Health regs? Is that what it is? So then you would say table until Board of Health regs are in place. Then you will reopen the hearing. Well, that's pretty much what Reesa was saying.

That was Reesa's motion already. So what else do we need?

Well, no, if you want to see the regs, I'm saying. Right now you're just saying we need to see the regs?

So in order to see the regs, yes.

If the board, if they agree with the program that they will approve it and if they do not.

So in order to see the regs, we would have to table it and request to see the regs and then reopen the public hearing.

Then you're going to reopen it so that everybody can, you'll take new testimony because there'll be new information, the new regs. Right. And then, you know, so the 90 day, the 21 days won't start. That 21 days starts once you close the hearing. The 90 days won't start either. That date applies only if you close it tonight.

As always, we're making a recommendation to them whether or not they accept it or reject it. It doesn't matter because they can do it.

Correct, but you could make a motion to table that at least keeps it open.

I don't want to keep it open. I want to make a decision tonight. Well, I mean, can I change my vote?

Do you want to hear from anybody else?

No, I just, I mean, again, I heard everybody. No, no, I'm saying on the board. Oh, no.

Because there were two voting members that voted no.

Yeah, Eric, what was your reason for voting no? I'm sorry?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, we're in deliberations about opening it up beyond the board right now. Oh, I'm so sorry. No, no, no, you're all set. Councilman Owens was looking to speak, so.

Oh, okay.

But you're still speaking.

No, but I had asked Eric if he wanted to.

Where are we? Me? Me?

Oh, yes. Okay. Yeah, Diane had asked a question of you if there's anything you would need to do to, I guess, propose to advance this.

My concerns with this, I think it's a fabulous idea, and I can see the potential in it and things of this nature. My concern with this is with many of the other things that come before us is enforcement. How does this get enforced? And I don't see a clear path to that. So that was my thing. But again, I would have no objections if... A very, very similar proposal was resubmitted, and I had an opportunity to vote for it again.

Okay, thank you. I will just say I think the feeling of the, I will assume, or not speaking for the board, but I know for me, I think the board is, the members are behind the idea, but we just need more detail on, to be able to actually understand all the facets of this and how it impacts on traffic and border health regs and disposal and licensing and permission and whatever. So I think that's where we are.

Do you want to see those regs before you make a decision, a recommendation?

No, could I make another recommendation kind of based on what we just spoke about?

Well, you can make another motion.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to elaborate on Reese's first one, where she talked about we want a pilot program, the Board of Health, and we want the City Council to take into serious consideration the pickup part of this aspect with the traffic and Uber Eats and Those types of programs, I want to make sure that if a neighbor starts seeing Uber Eats pulling up to their neighbor's house and constantly going in and out again, that's probably not what it's for, but that's what I want to make sure it's not. That's why I'm just confused.

Do you want to recommend disapproval of the part of the proposal that allows pickups?

Yeah, I mean, just to have the city council really look into maybe a portion of the pickup. Like, I don't have a problem if somebody went over there and she didn't want to drive and they went and picked up some muffins. But if it starts becoming a, you know, hey, go and order two cups, you know, two muffins, two dozen muffins or something to that effect.

Well, I mean, I don't know what it's going to be. So right now it's going to allow pickups. So if you have a concern. and you need more info, I would table it. If you are ready to do it, then I would make a recommendation. Be specific what you want them to look into. Then recommend that there's no pickups. That would make me feel better. And just to your point, if I could, Chair, your recommendation does matter because it carries weight. If you recommend disapproval of something and it fails at the council, it will not be brought forward for two years. Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay.

So... Would you like to, Michelle, would you like to restate the motion with the three conditions?

So I heard pilot program be established. Yep, the first, the same two. Water health regs must be in place. And so that's recommend approval of that. And then disapproval of the pickup. Or eliminate, we'll just say eliminate prearranged, eliminate pickups. Yes. Or no pickups allowed, eliminate pickups. So disapproval of that language, okay. Okay.

Okay, so that is Diane's motion. Anybody like to second Diane's motion? Risa.

I'll second that motion.

Okay, we're gonna call for a vote.

Diane Tawadig-Gray.

Yes Diane yes To watch yes Risa yes Pat yes Eric Yes In Ken Anjanucci chair

Okay, so that was five to one The motion carried.

Yeah five to one the motion carried. We'll make that recommendation to the City Council Thank you very much On to the next step Okay, the next paper we will be looking at is a City Council paper 327 is the sponsor or one of these sponsors like to present This is Okay If you could again step to the mic identify yourself, I know you've already written Written it down On sir Ward five. Thank you.

So I am Just wanted to say thank you for taking this up tonight and I am actually gonna pass this over to Zach LaMelle from OSP CD To do the presentation.

Okay. Thank you very much. I

327, correct? Yes, 327. Fantastic. The amendments to the use regulations. The slides that are up on the screen are part of the packet. It's slide 9. Thank you for allowing the opportunity here. These items are part of a broader economic development package within the city meant to incentivize business, increase the commercial tax base, which we know is obviously a need not just for Malden, but for cities across the Commonwealth. This is the item before you. And what the issue at hand is, is in my short time here, as I said, I started with the city in February. Previously, I worked for the city of Newton. This is a problem or an issue that came up there as well as it did here. There are many uses, commercial and industrial uses, businesses within the city's business, commercial, industrial zones that are not allowed by right. And the purveyance of vacant storefronts, of vacant buildings was mentioned during previous item. We know this is an issue. This zoning issue of requiring a special permit often will hinder a business's ability to open. Particularly if you're a small business, if you're looking to sign a lease, anything that adds time, money, effort will prevent you many, many times from moving forward. I've gotten to know commercial brokers and leasing agents in my time here, not extensively, but I know for a fact, and people have been reaching out to me, businesses that have been reaching out to me, about, hey, we're interested in Malden, where can we go? And we found a spot, and I say, yes, but the zoning requires a special permit. Usually you don't hear from them again. So the recommendation for you tonight is to take a lot of these uses, not or take a select number of uses that are commercial uses, industrial uses, allow them either by right or by site plan review in those appropriate zoning districts where they either A, might not be, mostly require a special permit, and some that might not be allowed. I'm just going to go through this really quickly. I know this was read into the record. So it's business and industrial zones that we're talking about within the neighborhood business. These are the uses we are recommending to allow by right. Club or lodge recreation gainful business body art so tattoo artists parlors and licensed massage therapy salon This is a map of where neighborhood business exists in the city. It's about 240. It's 240 parcels Just to give you a sense of where this would be allowed the central business district the uses that would be allowed by right are here and One that I just want to highlight quickly is medical center. I think since I've started here, I've had dental practices come to me, various other kind of health and wellness businesses that require licensing that are qualified as medical centers looking to open. And again, you could say there's a special permit. They usually go away. This picture here, 389 Main Street, just down the way, it's basically all dental practices. We have medical uses. We have these offices already in existence in all of our business zones. They're operating. And by site plan review, we are looking to open a hotel. A hotel is a business that would obviously provide significant commercial benefits, tax incentives, tax benefits for the city. This is where the Central Business District is, where we are right now. 124 parcels. Highway business, so as you're starting to move out into other areas of the city, these are uses that we would propose to be allowed by right. And by site plan review, you have the hotel and the supermarket. One thing I'd let you know, just, and again, it is an example here, highway business, Sun Kong Restaurant is one example. Restaurants right now in highway business require a special permit. highway business zones throughout the city, shown here. In our industrial zones, the use is to allow, by right, similar list, site plan review, again, hotel and supermarkets, and by special permit, hospitals were recommended as well. This is where industrial zones are within the city, and I will leave it at that. Thank you so much.

I just had a question. So you did mention that, you know, you've had businesses that inquire with you, you know, about relocating or opening up here. And when they're told that there's a special permit or a process they need, they generally, in your experience, pass and don't come back. My limited experience. Yeah, yeah. You know, acknowledged. Limited experience here. And I don't know if Alex or anyone else has any additional background on that. But do they mention to you why? I mean, is it the process, the time constraint? Is it financial? Do they give you any indication of why? Or just when the phone doesn't ring, it's them?

I think it's really all of the above. I think it's particularly burdensome for the smaller businesses, right? A smaller business that is going to sign a lease, start paying rent, and then... you know, potentially wait a few months to get approval, to then wait to start doing the renovations on their site. It just, every month, they're just on such tight margins that it's really difficult, versus a bank, for example, right? I mean, a bank, it's their marketing piece, right? So they're able to play the game and do the work.

Okay. And do you have any information on surrounding communities or whatever? I mean, it seems like this is a pretty standard process. I don't think we're outliers in requiring the special permits compared to, say, our neighboring towns. I mean, are there neighboring towns that are more welcome or an easier process or a speedier process than we currently have?

I think anecdotally Everett's been mentioned by some people that have come that I've spoken to. I can speak to my experience in Newton, where I worked for almost seven years before coming here. It doesn't have a business friendly reputation, per se, and I think there were There were similar updates and changes that were made to allow more businesses by right. I think that every community is different and I know Plano Romero has way more historical knowledge about this, of how these uses and things have changed over time. Typically, I think, when you look at the trends, things a lot of times become more restrictive. And then you always have to then look back and ask why. And I think an attempt here is to say, in these businesses that are meant to drum up and stir commerce, these are places where residents are getting services that are desired, that those businesses, you know, that should be streamlined and that should be allowed.

Okay. Thank you. I mean, you know, a little different than the cottage kitchen industry, which, you know, I don't call it an industry, but they call it cottage kitchen interest, which is really primarily small businesses and owners trying to start up and live their dreams. You know, most of these categories... Some may be small businesses, but some of these look like they really require a pretty heavy upfront investment. I don't mean to use the term it's the cost of doing business, but that's why I was interested if it's something in particular that's driving the people from not planting a stake in Malden. It's not like a someone that's just deciding to do their first business is going to open a motel or a hotel or a shopping center. Okay, no, thank you very much. I appreciate it. And anybody else have a question or any questions from the board for Zach? Okay, no one from the board. I see no one from the board. Anyone, any councillors have any questions? Councillor Malley? Okay.

Thank you. And for the record, I'm a co-sponsor, but I do have some questions. So for the site plan review, I see site plan review for hotel and supermarket. What would be the composition of those site plan reviews? Like how does that work? I know that there used to be site plan review was only for like residential incentive overlay. Councillor Winslow expanded it to other uses, and I'm just wondering, maybe because we now have more site plan reviews, is there a specific way all site plan review committees are composed? If there could just be more clarification.

Zach, if you have an answer, if not, Michelle has... I would defer that to... I would defer that. Defer to Michelle.

No, so yes, the residential incentive overlay was the first site plan review committee in that was only, that's specific only to the RAO and RAOB in downtown, in central business. Then I believe the next, bless you, site plan review committee that was formed was the Rokwari Redevelopment Reclamation site plan review committee. That's a different site plan review committee, specific only to that project. At one point, the planning board was the site plan review committee for retail uses. That was only for a year or two. When we transitioned from special permit to site plan review for retail, then to yes, allowed by right for certain retail uses. We also then came up with a category based on square footage. So the planning board has served as site plan review committee. Most recently, as you mentioned, we have the Malden River site plan review committee, also a different site plan review committee. We have the Site Plan Review Committee for Accessory Dwelling Units and the Site Plan Review Committee for Educational Childcare Facilities and Religious Facilities. So there are some different groups, different members compose, composition of these. There's no Site Plan Review Committee recommended for this, which was one of my recommendations, that that is gonna probably need to be further amended, although I did speak with Councilor Winslow And in an interim measure, you may be able to add a footnote. The only section that was advertised for amendment was the 12-12-030, which is the table, which has several footnotes. So you may be able to, again, I would recommend this only as interim. Site plan, it would be another footnote that says site plan review committee for these uses shall be, and you'll identify who that is, but I would definitely recommend you put Formally put a site plan review committee on the books or identify who it is and the regs that go with it because that's the other thing Even if you identify the committee you don't identify who? What the regs are what the standards are or any of that so it could be that you know the site plan review committee that's right now looking at ad use and and Educational religious is is no councils are on it those three city staff people are on it the director of Board of Health and building commissioner and OSPCD director. So that's just a three, but that, you know, they hold public hearings, public are notified, et cetera. So that's what I can tell you about site plan review committees.

Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Oh, Councilor Malley.

Thank you. Yeah, because I just, that's really important for like, you know, because I don't think there are any appeal rights with site plan review, like notice to abutters, you know, how do we get community benefits for some of these uses? Like, I can think that, you know, if you have a hotel located on the Malden River, you might want to have some community benefits. Just trying to figure out, special permit is usually how you do that. You put special permit conditions. There can be reasonable conditions in site plan review, but laying out those parameters, I think, for hotels and maybe to a lesser degree supermarkets are gonna be important. And then the other one was, and I had mentioned this in committee, licensed massage therapy salons. I see the value of having like a check through the site plan through special permit, but I'm guessing that they're licensed to the state. And I guess the only question would then be, if you have a, if you're not making any changes to like an office space and you're licensed and I guess you just maybe need a business license from the city of Malden, how do we know who's operating in a space if it's just a yes, right? If it's yes, then a licensed massage parlor can just open up anywhere. At least that's, I'm just trying to figure that out.

So any business that comes into the city, even if they're not going to do, to your point, a construction project where they need a building permit, they're going to need a business license. The clerk's office will not issue a business license to anybody without having an occupancy permit from my office. So we issue an occupancy permit, which is where the zoning... Verification takes place to you know make sure that they're allowed to perform that business in that location That's where we get all the contact information ownership and that kind of stuff any additional regulations that might go along with it for instance You know barbershops have to have licensing from the state And then when they get an occupancy from our department they can go down and see the clerk's office and get a business license So you so you would check that they have the license from the state to do?

For a license trades. Yes, okay Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for the record Commissioner Miller.

Thank you Yeah, and the reason why I'm just mentioning is I want there to be at some type of check in the process. Thank you understandable.

Thank you Okay, if there's any no other questions from the council members Would anyone like to speak anyone else like to speak in favor of the petition I Please step up to the microphone, sign in, and let us know your name and address. And that's your home address.

Hi, Councilman. My name is Chris Machado. I'm here to support this motion. Given the fact that special permits add delay to a project, adds budget issues, and as small business owners, in order for us to strive, we need the city to be supporting us and bringing us to a good standard. We're not bypassing state regulations, DPH, or Port of Health. So the special permit adds so much delay to the project that sometimes the small business owner would actually go elsewhere in order to open that business. And I think the city of Malden is a striving city, and we want to open new business, and we want to be part of this amazing city that we actually want to open business in. And I think removing the special permit would delete that delay of 90 to 120 days on the project itself, where if we do sign a lease, we are paying a lease on day one. And those 90 to 120 days for a small business can be severely damaged to our budgets.

Okay, thank you very much. What's your address, by the way? 75 Pleasant. Pleasant and Malden, right? Okay, thank you very much. Does anybody else like to speak in favor? Is that a business address or is that your resident? Yes. That's a business address? Okay, how about your, we need the residential address? As long as he works. Yeah, did you write it down in the? No, we need the residential address. Like, where do you live? Thank you, so again name and name and home address Please if you could write it down and also say it and state it into the microphone So, my name is Amanda star and I'm a physician I signed a lease in the 75 Pleasant Street back in March and

and we're, again, financially, we have to make a big investment, you know, as a medical spa, and unfortunately, right now, we have the whole business stopped because we need that special permit in order to build. Passing by through the DPH, we have to do the fire, we have to have a state license, we need to have very specific regulations in order to pass. But then the special permit is what's stopping us. So it's actually financially being very heavy on the business. Again, we're a small business, starting to start. And I'm actually having to have my business in a different city because I cannot come into Malden yet. The surrounding cities, they don't actually require the special permit everywhere. They require it in specific places. But unfortunately, Malden has been made that generally. So I'm asking you kindly that you guys oversee that. And again, I'm not saying that we have to override and not take a look at the medical spots because the Department of Health itself has very heavy requirements in order for us to be able to practice and open fire occupancy. Everything has to be licensed very, very well. So I'm just kindly asking for you guys to take a look and be able to actually remove the special permit so we can actually grow the community here and bring more business itself.

Okay, thank you. So you've, I'm just going to clarify, so you've already have a lease at 75 Pleasant?

Yep, so I signed a lease back in March and paying for it every month and unfortunately can't have it open.

And have you applied for a special permit?

So the building inspector just told us that we need that special permit because we're going through the Department of Health first, so. Okay.

So it's almost finding out later.

Exactly. So getting all those paperwork for the month of September wasn't possible because we found out the last day of July. So I cannot get it until October. So again, it goes another month. And before I can get all the construction done, because it takes a lot of months, they have special requirements for the plumbing, for the electricity, for the space itself, for sterilization. Takes a lot of time and right now. I'm just paying for rent and nothing can be done Thank you very much.

That's very helpful information. Thank you Would anyone else like to speak in favor of the petition Anyone else like to speak in favor Diane. Do you have anything in favor to read? Stop calling you Kenny

I have an email dated Wednesday, August 12th. It says, Hi, Michelle. I hope you are well. I am sorry to miss tonight's public hearing for the Planning Board. As someone who has worked on leasing and selling property for over 20 years in Malden, I am a strong supporter of the proposed changes. Allowing more uses by right allows more companies to move to Malden in a more seamless way. I cannot count the number of medical groups that have passed on downtown Malden because of the need to go through special permitting procedures. permitting in the time, money, and uncertainty that the process necessitates. That is just one example. Thank you for hearing my input. Steve Nordren, President, Burgess Properties LLC. Another email dated Wednesday, August 12th. Hi, Michelle. I won't be able to make the August 12th planning board hearing, but I wanted to voice support for the economic development zoning updates. Two that stand out to me. Use table updates. Opening up more buy right uses in the business slash industrial districts like medical centers. That cuts down on permitting hassles and makes it easier to fill space. Non-conforming expansion by special permit. Letting existing non-conforming uses expand or modify. Right now those properties are basically stuck, which keeps owners from reinvesting. As a commercial broker working in Malden, I see all the time how the current rules leave good space sitting underused. These changes would really help, and the city still keeps its oversight. Thanks for letting me weigh in. Thanks, Charlie Jacob, Burgess Properties, LLC.

Okay, thank you, Diane. Declare that part of the hearing closed. Does anyone like to speak in opposition to the petition? Anybody like to speak in opposition to the petition? Seeing and hearing none, Diane, do you have anything to write?

I do not.

To read against it. Okay. Okay, so I declare that part of the hearing closed. Does any sponsor have anything else to add after hearing some of these questions? Okay. Michelle, would you like to take us through your planning report and recommendations?