Planning Board - Regular Meeting

A couple of administrative things to do first. For those in attendance, under the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, attendees are being informed that this meeting is being recorded by Urban Media Arts. and will be live streamed on Malden Access MATV YouTube site. I have not been notified that there are any other video or audio recording of this meeting that will occur. The second thing. At the advice of the city solicitor, I am making this general statement for the record at this time due to the urgent nature of a fraudulent situation involving a petitioner that came to my attention today. I have never requested money from a petitioner or applicant, and no member of the planning board will ever contact a petitioner or applicant for money for any reason. If a petitioner or applicant receives an email, text, phone call, or letter requesting money or wire transfer, do not respond to the sender and please notify the Inspectional Service Department at City Hall directly and in person. Thank you. Next thing we will do is We will do our roll call, starting with Maria. Give me a second, Maria.

Maria Schroeder, Planning Board. Diane Chuhow, Planning Board.

Ken Antonucci, Planning Board. Chuck Ayova, Planning Board.

Pat Hayes, Planning Board.

Eric Henry, Planning Board.

Michelle Ferguson, Planning Board.

Thank you very much. The first item that we'll take up this evening is 245 Bryant Street. Is the petitioner present? I'd ask everyone, when you come up, please speak into the microphone, give your name and residential address for the record, and then sign the clipboard so we get the correct spelling and address for our records. Thank you. Diane, would you read the notice, please?

Yes. The Malden Planning Board will 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, September 9, 2026, on the petition of ACDC 245 Bryant, LLC, in Permit Application Number CMID-069419-2024. seeking to amend the special permit granted in case number 25-06 under Title 12, Code of the City of Malden, sections 12.12.010.C, 12.12.300, and 12.28.010.D, which special permit allow use of pre-existing non-conforming property in the Residence A Zoning District to construct a three-story multi-family dwelling with 35 affordable units at the site of a preferably preserved building, namely to revise the proposal to add one additional dwelling unit and construct a three-story multifamily dwelling with 36 affordable housing units and to change the affordable housing units from home ownership units to rental units at the property known as and numbered 245 Bryant Street, Malden, Mass., and by City's Assessor's Parcel Identification Number 097424414.

Thank you, Diane. And I see the petitioner at the podium. If you could introduce yourself, please.

Hi, my name is Mugia Undemir. I'm the Director of Real Estate at Asian Community Development Corporation, who is the developer of this parcel. I mean, we're basically, just like as it's been said, we are coming back to seek an amendment to our special permit, specifically to add an additional unit, and also to switch from home ownership to rental. Mainly, that switch is dictated by the funding environment that we're working in right now. We are unable to access affordable homeownership funds through the Commonwealth Builders Program, which is the sole funding program of affordable homeownership in the state of Massachusetts. We had applied for funding through that source last year, and we're notified that they are actually currently over-prescribed, so they don't have enough subsidy to support all of the affordable home ownership that developers are seeking to develop in the state of Massachusetts. And so we are requesting to make the switch to rental, which is also a very, we need to have more affordable rental housing as well. So we're happy to make that pivot and are willing to do so and hope that we can discuss that here.

Okay. Could you go into a little bit more specifics of the changes? I noticed the plans are significantly different in the mix of the units and you're adding a unit?

Correct. So we originally we came in with 35 units right now and the unit composition was a little bit different. So I believe there were 65% two and three bedroom units. Now there's 61% two and three bedroom units. We had to, in order to add a new unit, basically to help make this project financially feasible, we added a unit and so we had to change a couple three bedroom, or one three bedroom unit to two one bedroom units. So there was a little bit of shuffling that went on with the unit composition in the project as well.

Okay, so the reason for the additional unit is because of the funding?

Have you secured funding for the- No, so we can't apply for state funding without planning board approval. The state does not think that your project is competitive for financial assistance until you are funded, or until you're approved by the planning board. We do, however, have, I believe we have funding from the city of Malden for this project.

How much is Malden going to subsidize?

I don't remember now, but I believe it's 1.1 million.

And what's the total estimated cost of the property?

So, well, the total estimated cost for the entire construction is around, I believe it's 12 million at the moment.

Okay, so about 8% Malden's going to fund?

Yeah.

How long will, assuming this gets approved tonight, how long will it be before you know whether you're going to get approved for the other funding?

So we will apply for the pre-app, which is just like an introduction to the project to the state. We will submit that later this month in about two weeks. And if they invite us to the round, the winter round, then we would apply for the full funding from the state in that round. So we would submit all of our materials and application materials. And if we get awarded the funding, then that would be likely announced in February, 2027.

And if you don't, do you have to wait another year?

If we don't, it depends. So sometimes the state issues a mini round, which is just basically for projects that they couldn't fund in the winter round, they'll invite them to participate in a summer round. So we could potentially get funded in the summer as well. But if not in the summer, then yes, next winter.

Okay, and how long do you think it will take to build the new structure?

The general contractor is estimating 16 months right now.

Okay. Can you take us through some of the plans and what some of the significant changes are? So I noticed there seemed to be more amenities Yes, so when we previously correct.

Yeah, so when you switch from homeownership So homeownership only has you don't really have necessarily a large slew of requirements But when you do rental you have to provide community based, you know assets basically within the building so there will be a community room and There will be laundry on every floor as opposed to within each unit, which is a requirement of the state. There will be, what else? There's gonna be quiet rooms throughout. There's just some spaces where we wanna give people the opportunity to work if they'd like. There'll be a property management office. And those are the main amenities that are part of the project. We did relocate the bike room from the interior to now a closed, Exterior bike room that will sit adjacent or within the adjacent to the parking structure or the parking lot rather And that is mainly because we had to make space for the community room in the building, which You know we have providing a one-to-one bike to unit Parking for bikes is just a it's a large space. So they're for 36 bikes basically Yeah

How are you going to handle the dumpster?

So we are relocating. I know that in the existing plans, the dumpster is located in an area that it's not to be located. So we're going to work with our landscape architect to make sure that we locate it in a different location. So right now, what is on the plans, in the planning board memo from the previous special permit, it was under advisement to move that, and so we will be moving that.

So it was recommended in the previous one, but the new plans didn't accommodate that.

We just haven't. Basically, what we've spent the last year doing is applying for homeownership and then having to quickly pivot to rental and then reconfigure the whole building. So right now, we're still in conceptual design. So as we progress, we start to narrow those things. So for example, the fence. is still listed as a chain link fence in the plans, but that will not be a chain link fence for the final design process.

Have you seen the recommendations? Correct, yes. The first one is that all development shall be as per plans. So are you saying that the plans that we reviewed and that we have with us aren't the final plans?

No, it's just the specifications. So because the chain link fence is a specification, that's going to, a fence will be there, for example, but it will be a different type of fence as recommended in the, I believe it's in the, no, it's in the planning recommendations. Yeah, number six, for example. Is the fence.

Okay, so things like the location of the dumpster and the fence aren't finalized, but the fact that you're looking for 36 units in the mix that it's identified. Correct. Won't change.

That will not change, no.

Do you have any internal estimates of the probability of you getting financing in this winter round?

For the winter round, honestly, it just depends on the state and the number of applications they get and how competitive we are in the process. We can't really dictate exactly whether or not we will get funded in that round. It's kind of one of the, like we have, for example, we have another development in Malden that has been funded and we're closing on construction on that in a couple months. And so that is off of our docket and now this will be on our docket for the state. So they see that we're closing deals, we're starting construction, so that helps with our competitiveness in the funding rounds. But we don't, we can't, we can't like speak to whether or not they will fund us.

Okay. With regard to some of the utilities and things of that nature associated with the building, is the change in the mix of units significantly impacted by that?

No. We also spoke to our traffic engineer, for example, to ask if the addition of one unit, even though we had 36 parking spaces, if the addition of one unit and that parking spaces would have an impact, and they said no. Same with utilities. We would just have, right now, I believe it is a, no, yeah, it's a decentralized system, so each unit has their own meter, so that would be the only thing. It would be an addition of one more system as opposed to 35 of them, but those will all be screened on the roof, and also, so that shouldn't,

play a big role in that. But the main drivers are remaining the same as far as the unit, the HVAC and the...

Correct. Everything else will remain the same, the design. We are pursuing passive house design for this project, which is new, but that has nothing to do with...

I'm sorry, what's that?

So passive house design is basically just a way to keep the building... It's like another review, like enterprise green communities or LEED or anything like that. It just helps with the... With the building, just basically how the heating and cooling works, entering into and out of the building, it just creates a better envelope. It's a better sustainability metric, basically.

Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for the petitioner? I don't know why. Oh, because you're already on.

Yeah, I didn't notice that. How are the affordable units marketed? Are you going to market them to the general public? Is it a lottery system? How does that work?

Yeah, so it's always a lottery system, but there is a preference that we add basically to the marketing plan. There's a tenant selection plan and an affordable fair housing marketing plan that we have to submit to the state and also to our lenders. you know, also to the city of Malden. And basically what it outlines is how that marketing works. But the first, one of the things that is incorporated in that is a 70% preference to Malden residents. And that we're allowed to do as long as the state approves that, then we should be good to go. We're doing that on our other development as well. But it is a lottery process. So marketing usually starts about six months before construction is complete. Normally we will reach out on different, you know, Different forums so we could do you know, we'd share the posting with the city We share it, you know on different, you know different newspapers different social media Platforms and all these different things and basically our property management team handles all of that But it's it's typically, you know, it's advertised in newspapers. It's advertised Throughout the city etc. So and we work with local organizations to do that as well

Okay, so the previous one that you are doing, that's on Main Street, is it? Correct. Okay, have you started doing the lottery on that one?

No, because we're about to start construction on that. So when we're six months away from construction completion, that's when we will start the marketing.

All right, thank you.

And to Diane's point, will you do it in-house, the marketing and the lottery management? Previous petitioners, have secured an outside firm to manage that lottery.

Yes, that's true. So we hire a property manager that we would hire. They're a third party. They would do all the marketing and the lottery system. Okay, so it's a third party project. Yes, we don't run the lottery ourselves.

Okay, I see Eric Henry. Give me one second, Eric. There you go.

Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for getting your project to this point, to this stage. I was a couple curious about your previous project, and I'd like to kind of start there. When do you anticipate you being in a process where you're, due what? when you want to be able to offer this lottery and have people move in in this project? When will it be complete so the state can say, yes, this is a complete project and this does look better for you now?

Oh, you mean the other project we're working on? So once we close, which should be in November, November 2nd, it's scheduled to close, that is when that project is, we don't do the, they don't need to have the marketing happening. It doesn't, the project does not have to be complete. It just means that we have now started construction. It's their way of saying, oh, we've given you money and you've now started construction. Because sometimes they will award a project and it'll sit in limbo for years. And then they're saying, well, you can't, why aren't you using the money that we're giving you? So that happens sometimes. But once they see that your project is moving forward, they know, and we work with them closely, they know basically that, okay, well, you're good. You can move to the next.

So how long were you handling their money? How long were you handling their monies? You said they want to see that you're using their money effectively and not over a long period. How long did it take you from start to finish to get to Q4-27 when this project will be complete?

So this isn't funded from the state yet?

I'm talking about we're still on the previous project.

So you're talking about another development we're working on?

I'm really, ma'am, forgive me.

I'm just trying to confirm what you're saying.

I apologize for my tongue-tiedness. I apologize. I was really just trying to understand. You mentioned that it looks better for you to have completed projects and see that the state has completed their projects.

It's not about completing the projects. It's about starting construction on the project.

Okay. So, and you've started construction on that, and you plan to complete that in Q4 2026. This year?

No, we're starting construction on November 2nd, 2026.

Thank you. From what I understand, it's going to be practically impossible if you wanted to pivot back to home ownership?

There's no funding source that would allow us to do so, which is unfortunate. And it's because there's this one source for the entire state.

So I imagine that this, others are having to pivot to this pool too.

Correct, it's happening all over the state.

So this could linger as far as potential of Q4 of 2028 if the funding cycle falls badly.

If we don't get, so if we do not get funded in this winter round, then we would have to go into the 2027, or the summer round if they have it, or the winter round if they don't. it would either be Q3 2027 or Q4 2027 that we would be applying and learn about the funding, basically.

Thank you. I'm done. Appreciate that. I apologize for my confusion.

Oh, no, no. I just want to make sure I was answering your questions. Thank you, Eric.

Michelle Ferguson.

Thank you. So going off of that in a way, let's say you get the funding, everything goes well this winter. When do you think realistically you'll be able to start construction?

If we get funded this winter round, then we would say similarly Q4 of 2027. Yeah, 2027.

And how long again are you expecting it to take?

We're right now assuming 16 months barring any complications.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Michelle Romero.

Hi, thank you. Could you tell us, you mentioned this new structure for bikes outside. I didn't see that on the plan. Is it on the plan? Am I missing it or where is it going again, you said?

No, so we're currently working on designing it. It hasn't been designed yet because once we made the community room, we realized that it can't be within the structure. Malden doesn't have a one-to-one bike parking ratio, but the state prefers that we do provide that. And so we're looking at putting it exterior to the building itself.

Okay, so will it be a separate, you said it was a structure, you called it?

It's like a, it basically would include like, they sell, it's made from like a company. It's not like we're building it ourselves. It's basically like a roof and then there's like, bike racks underneath. So it just protects bikes from the elements. Okay. Yeah.

And do you have any sense? You said it's going to go in somewhere in the parking lot or where, so we're trying to figure out so that we could possibly add this in as a condition. I think it might, um, If it's considered a structure, then it needs to meet certain setbacks, which we don't know. So I would like, if possible, to try to work that in so that you don't have to come back. We can address it, but we need a few more specifics. How many bikes, approximate location?

So it'll be 36 bikes as per the requirement. We're trying to fit it in a smaller scale. I don't have the measurements on me right now, unfortunately. But it wouldn't be bigger than, I believe, a single parking spot. I mean, we're not taking up a parking spot. I'm saying the size of it wouldn't be bigger than a parking spot. And that would likely be located. We're looking at a location of being adjacent, like closer to the building, but adjacent to the parking. Not close to our butters, not on the property lines, but rather closer to the building for safety purposes. We just want to make sure that people feel confident leaving their bikes outside.

So adjacent to the parking area near the building? Yeah. And so this isn't going to, is this going to replace the nine bicycle rack parking out front on the path?

No, that's for visitor parking, bike parking, yeah.

Okay, so this is additional, okay. And about the dumpster too, you said you might be moving that. Are you definitely moving it or you might move it?

So based on the recommendations in here, we took it to obviously, to say that it shouldn't be located within, I believe it was two, to double check, but I believe it was... Yeah, you're within two feet of the property line.

But the board did allow it. They allowed that. So if you don't have to change it, but if you're going to change it, we should address it.

I see, I see. Well, I think what I mean to say is that it can be there, but if it poses, like if our abutters truly do not enjoy it being in its current location, can work with them to figure out a better location i i recognize that that would require us to request its movement from you all since it's not on the plans or the movement would be not on the plans but i think uh you know that's something i'd like to work with our butters on okay so if we if it was the board considered that it may be modified um but we would have to say um to comply with citing we wouldn't

It's in violation now, but they know where it's in violation. It would be different if you move it and it's in violation and it's abutting a neighbor. So we can look at that, hopefully, Chair, when we get to that point. And then my last question had to do with the affordability restriction. Last time when you were here for the home ownership, we were told it's a 15-year cap. So what's the length of home? What's the affordability restriction? How long can it go for a rental unit?

It's in perpetuity.

Okay. Is that what your intention is? Yes. Okay. Will that be written into the deeds?

It will.

Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Does anyone else have any other questions for the petitioner? Maria.

I just wanted to say that for the planning recommendations, number nine, screen rooftop equipment visually and acoustically. Since this is conceptual design and since the parapet's very low, maybe we add the words screen rooftop equipment and major ductwork just to have something in there for development of the mechanical system and visual screening.

What did you say? Major ductwork?

Yep.

Okay.

Is that it, Maria? Very good. Anyone else? Is there anything else you'd like to add, Miss?

No, just thank you for hearing our petition.

Okay, thank you very much. At this point, we'll entertain anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Anyone to speak in favor, come up, speak into the microphone, please. Give your name and address for the record, and please sign the report.

Okay, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. I had submitted comments before, but I will read them now if that's all right.

Okay.

Yes, if she reads them.

Yeah, you're welcome to read.

Okay, thank you. My name is Diana John. I live at 180 Summer Street in Malden, and I'm speaking in favor of this proposal. Malden is in a severe housing affordability crisis. In gateway cities, which includes Malden, approximately 20% of residents can't afford to live here. If people move, we lose their skill sets, we lose their camaraderie, their sense of community, we lose the assets that they bring to the community. And this in turn will tear the fabric of the city of Malden, which makes it a great city. Excuse me. One issue that is driving this crisis is under building of housing stock. ACDC's proposal is a solution for that. They have a proven track record of quality, affordable housing. In the cities of Boston and Quincy, they've created over 400 units of housing. As you know, they're currently working on 213 Main Street. While the original proposal was for home ownership, that funding is no longer available and they have pivoted to rental units. There's still a severe need for rental units. The residents in ACDC developed properties have favorable comments about living there. ACDC wants to be a good neighbor. They also have programs for tenants to sustain healthy communities, and they want to be a good neighbor, not just a good landlord, but a good neighbor to the community. So I strongly urge you, respectively, to approve this project. And I also want to thank you for your consideration and thank you for all the hard work that you do for this community. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor?

Yeah.

The speaker will be speaking in Cantonese, so I'll be translating.

大家好,我是Joanna. 我是前政會的職員,都是摩頓的居民。 住了差不多十年在摩頓的了。 我和我的家人就很喜歡住在摩頓的, 因為這裡的社區繁榮,有很多其他亞裔居民,

Good evening, Malden Planning Board and Board President. My name is Joanna Huang. I am a staff member at the Chinese Progressive Association. I'm also a Malden resident. I've lived here for almost a decade. My family and I really love living in this community because there's a sense of like belonging, everyone coming together. There's a lot of other Asian residents, shops, and services. And I'm a resident at 133 Franklin Street, Malden.

前年我的房租上升了100元去年。 In the past few years, I have some neighbors who have lived in London for 10 or 8 years. Because of the rising rent, their economic pressure is too high, so they are forced to move. Modern 因為這些流失了一些長期的居民和家庭,所以我們很需要有多些這些可出租的房屋。

So as a resident, as a tenant here, this is the reality that we're facing every year. I've been getting my rent increased every year. Two years ago, my landlord raised my rent for $100. Last year, for $200 per month. And that hugely adds to the burden for my family. And I've seen through living here, through my work in the community, that there are more and more Malden families facing the same situation. with rising housing costs, living costs. And in the past couple of years, I've unfortunately seen some of my neighbors having to move out. They've lived here for a long time, for decades, and having to move out because of the housing crisis here.

Housing is the basis of our residents' lives, and it is also the basis of the long-term development of the community. If the price of housing and goods continues to rise, we must maintain these precious and responsible housing plans, so that our working-class families can have the opportunity to buy and rent houses, and continue to live in this modern, and jointly build a better modern.

And that's why even though the proposal now is changing from a home ownership program to a rental program, it is still hugely needed in the community. Housing is a basic need. Um, and it's also the basis of a community's development, um, because it is the people, the families, um, that live here that make up the community. And if people can't stay, um, right, because of, um, uh, housing costs, then, you know, we have to find a way to, um, have more opportunities for people to have basic housing and, and affordable housing. And so this is a great opportunity that ACDC is proposing and, um, to, to our community.

I am very supportive of this development project.

Any opportunity to have more affordable housing in our city is a really wonderful thing. And so we are in support of this proposal.

So we hope that the board can listen to working class residents, the families, and our needs.

Help approve this proposal.

Thank you Thank you Miss two things miss What is your name and address for the record mine is you sin mock?

And then my address is 21 Adams Street in Malden And we have one more speaker in favor I Could you also sign in after? Oh, okay, sure. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, good evening everyone. My name is Da Rong Huang and I live at 195 Pleasant Street in Malden. I've lived here for 25 years. Hearing ACDC's plan to build affordable housing rental units here, we are in great support. We need to be responsible for the house. Because now, every house is being built in the river. We can't be responsible for the people who live in the river. It's a very bad house. Um.

What I've seen, having lived in Malden, what we keep hearing in the community is affordability. We need more affordable housing. Everything just keeps getting more and more expensive. Everyone is rent burdened. And over the years, we have seen how Malden has changed. And we've seen, even at the center, there are more condos, luxury buildings that are being built. And while it's a great thing to draw in more people and development into the community, but are the communities that have already been here, long-term residents, continue to be able to stay because of these developments? And while you see these luxury condos and buildings being built and developed, that they're also driving up housing prices, and so a lot of small landlords, to try to keep up with everything and to keep up with taxes, they also have to raise rent. That create a situation where tenants are always losing.

He wouldn't hold We see that

With housing prices going up, lots of working-class families are forced to have to move out and can't stay. There's lots of displacement going on and homelessness.

And now ACDC wants to build affordable housing. It's not just for these...

for working-class families, but it's also just to keep the community, to create more of a sense of belonging for the people that are already here, have more opportunities for working-class families to be able to have, you know, stability in this community, which is something that we're really excited about.

The modern city is relatively safe. Everything is good, the air is good. So when I came here, The reason for this is that if there were no houses like this, there would be no way for us to leave, and we would have to leave Maldon. I hope that the American Association will find a way to build more affordable houses in Maldon. We all support the U.S. House of Representatives to build more welfare centers in Washington.

So many people want to live in Malden because of its proximity to so many shops and services. And if they can't stay here, moving out to the suburbs is so inconvenient for people. Not many of us will drive or can afford cars. That's going to be such an issue. Malden has been a place that we've called home for so long that right now with ACDC building affordable housing, that's a great thing. We hope to get the support of the planning board and that in the future you consider inviting more opportunities for other developers to build more affordable housing in Malden. And so we genuinely hope that you will approve this proposal.

Okay. Thank you everyone.

Yeah, we all want the community to do well, for all of our communities, families, neighbors to have a great future. And affordable housing is the way to go. It's one part of what we can do to keep our families here and to be together with all of us here. And that's what we can wish for. And all of us here sitting at the back are all in support of this. So thank you for your time and for listening to us today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Miss? Yeah.

Mr. Henry would like to ask a question.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You translated from Cantonese to English both times?

The second time was from Toi Sinise to English.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes.

Yes. Hello, everybody. Good evening. My name is Annabelle, and I'm also a Malden resident. I live at 20 Summer Street. And I'm also an organizer with GMAC, which is the Greater Malden Asian American Community Coalition. I speak now specifically in support of ACDC's affordable housing project. As part of the GMAC youth, we really work every year, we work on different issues, and we try to examine from a big picture perspective how different issues impact our lives, how we can build our community, and how We can build everyone's quality of life for us and our neighbors. Affordable housing is so, so important to that goal. Malden has always been a place that has been built on working class people and immigrant households. It's these families and these people that make Malden strong. However, I also want to speak specifically to the impacts that youth and young people face with regards to home ownership and affordable housing. Young people face soaring rents, especially in Boston, and low rates of development. And Boston has some of the highest rent burdens in the entire United States. I myself have plenty of friends who have been pushed out of Malden and also Boston to other cheaper cities. The youths I work with can't imagine owning their own homes, and for my friends and I, rent is almost always a concern. A gap has always existed between older and younger people, of course, in home ownership, but that gap has only increased and worsened since the 20th century. And this leaves young people in particular in a really precarious situation where our access to housing can just be revoked, we can be evicted, can be removed if we are unable to pay the rent. As opposed to maybe being able to sell a house if we can't pay a mortgage, we don't have that equity. And that makes us even more dependent on employment and also implicates other aspects of affordability as all of our costs are rising, of course, utilities, groceries, everything. And these conditions place youth at far higher risk of housing instability and homelessness as well, and can also even cause long-term physical harm depending on how well-maintained different units are. And I know ACDC as an organization. I know the work that they've done in other places, and I know that they would do a great job with this affordable housing project. So on behalf of myself and also on behalf of the Chumak youth, I would like to stand in full support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss. Two things. Yes, if you could sign the clipboard. And you said your name was Annabelle. Did you say your last name?

Shu, S-H-U.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this petition? Diane, do you have anything to read in favor? Very good.

We have a letter dated September 3rd, 2026 dared chair. I open and members of the model planning board. I write to you today to express my full support. for Asian Community Development Corporation's request to amend its exclusionary zoning special permit to construct 36 affordable rental units at 245 Bryant Street. The project received its initial planning board approval on June 25th, 2025, for 35 units. Since that time, the project has undergone design changes, which will increase the number of units from 35 to 36, and will also shift its tenure from home ownership to rental. Sitting on the former site of the congregation, Agudas Akim Ezreth Israel, This 100% affordable housing project is yet another example of City's efforts to combat the ongoing housing crisis by creating affordable rental opportunities for our low-income residents. When the congregation first indicated to the City their intent to downsize to better accommodate their current membership, we explored all viable options for the congregation to make a sale that upholds the values of their mission. Following conversations with Councillor Simonelli and the City's Housing ARPA Subcommittee, We reviewed this as an opportunity to develop affordable housing units on the site. Thanks to the benevolence of the congregation, we were able to work with the Asian Community Development Corporation, also known as ACDC, by using housing ARPA funds towards acquisition of the property. As exhibited during the planning and permitting process, ACDC has proven to be an invaluable partner to the city. Through their work to develop 20 affordable rental units on the site of the former Salvation Army at 213 Main Street, and with their good faith efforts to ensure this project comes to fruition, ACDC has demonstrated the desire to expand their reach and further ingrain themselves as a staple within our community. Thank you for consideration of this application, and I urge you to grant the approval for ACDC's proposed amendment to this inclusionary zoning special permit to ensure ACDC can deliver on developing 36 affordable rental units for Malden residents. Sincerely, Gary Christensen, Mayor, City of Malden. Letter dated September 9th, 2026. Dear Chair Iovan and members of the Malden Planning Board, I am writing to express my support for the Asian Community Development Corporation's request to amend its exclusionary special permit to construct 36 units at 245 Bryan Street. The proposed project will create 36 units of affordable rental units, which are desperately needed in the Ward 7 community. Asian Community Development Corporation, ACDC, has an excellent track record of developing and managing affordable housing projects in the greater Boston area. The 245 Bryan Street project will address a critical need for affordable rental housing. According to recent census data, most of the households who occupy rental units in the census tract where the project is located make less than 75,000 annually. Approximately 25% of renters in this area make less than 35,000 annually. All the units will be restricted for households earning either 30% or 60% of the area median income, well above the average income for renters in the area. ACDC will be pursuing a 70% local preference for Malden residents for the project, the maximum allowed by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. Additionally, 20% of those units will be set aside for income eligible veterans. Thank you for consideration of this request and your commitment to bringing much needed affordable housing resources to Malden and specifically Ward 7. Respectfully, Christopher Simonelli, Ward 7 City Councilor. An email dated September 8th to the Malden Planning Board. I am a ward for resident writing in support of the petition related to permanent application number CMID-069419-2024. I urge the board to approve the changes put forth in the petition to change the affordable home ownership units to affordable rental units. As a resident and homeowner, I am deeply invested in Malden being a community in which the average person can afford to live. Of particular personal importance, this affordable housing project is by the Asian Community Development Corporation, which primarily serves the greater Massachusetts Asian community. With Malden's population being 25% Asian, I believe this project is important to maintaining both the Malden Asian community at large and the success of local Asian small businesses. It is my understanding that this petition was due to the ever-changing and continually worsening conditions of federal funding for projects like these. Without these changes, the project will not be feasible. I hope the board will approve this petition to keep our Malden Asian community housed. Charles Lang, 156 Tremont Street, Ward 4. Email dated September 9th. To the members of the Malden Planning Board, my name is Mai Du. I am the owner of Wai Lam Kung Fu and Tai Chi Academy, as well as the building it occupies at 124 Ferry Street, Malden, Mass. I am writing to express my support for the revised proposal of the Asian Community Development Corp, ACDC. to develop 36 affordable rental units at 245 Bryant Street, Malden, Mass. Malden is facing a severe housing affordability crisis. In gateway cities like Malden, about 20% of residents cannot afford to live in their own city. When residents move away to find more affordable housing, the city loses valuable skills and a sense of community. A key factor in this crisis is the lack of new housing construction. A viable solution is the proposal from ACDC. They have a solid track record of creating affordable housing since 1987. ACDC has built over 400 affordable housing units in Boston and Quincy. They are also developing 20 units at 213 Main Street in Malden with construction starting this year. 245 Bryan Street was formerly home to the congregation Agudas Hakim Ezra Israel as a Jewish temple. As the congregation's membership has slowly declined over the years, they decided to sell their property for redevelopment. which ACDC acquired with the support from the City of Malden. The goal for the project will be to produce 36 units of affordable rental units, all set at a price level targeted at households making 30% to 60% of area median income, AMI. This means that rents will not exceed $1,768 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,121 for a two-bedroom unit, and $2,451 for a three-bedroom unit. There will also be a veteran's preference for 20%, eight of the units, and a 70% preference for Malden residents. The existing building will be demolished and a new three-story building with 36 parking spaces, one-to-one parking ratio, will be built in its place, matching the existing three- to four-story character of the nearby neighborhood. The project had received approval from the Malden Historic Commission and has previous planning board approval. The planning board meeting is now to review changes to the building from home ownership to rentals. The original proposal for 245 Bryan Street was approved, but due to the changes in funding priorities, ACDC has revised it. The new proposal shifts the units from home ownership to rental and includes an additional unit. There is significant ongoing need for more affordable rental units. Residents of ACDC properties have shared positive experiences. Moreover, ACDC not only acts as a landlord, but also provides programs that contribute to sustaining healthy communities. They strive to be good neighbors. I respectfully request that you approve ACDC's revised proposal. Thank you for your dedication and hard work for the City of Malden. Warmly, my due, 131 Cedar Street, Braintree, Mass. Another email dated September 9th. Good morning, Michelle. I'm writing to ensure that these comments are read into the record for tonight's meeting or whatever the appropriate formula is for the planning board. Unfortunately, I am unable to be there in person, but I wanted to express my support for 245 Bryan Street project. And I hope the planning board agrees to move forward with the proposed change to make this an affordable rental project and to add an additional unit. Homelessness is increasing in this region and across the country, and we have the ability to do something about it by creating opportunities for people to have access to safe, affordable housing. Just last week, I ran into a 70-year-old that I know who has experienced chronic homelessness. This person has been housing insecure for many years but lost their last room because the person they were staying with needed to make space for a sick family member. In addition to being elderly, this person has chronic asthma and bronchitis and should not be preparing for the second winter in a row to sleep outside. This is just one of the many people who are facing similar burdens, and there are many people who are one life circumstance away from homelessness. We can and must do better for one another. We sorely need more affordable housing, and I ask the Planning Board to accept the proposed changes so we can make this a reality for more people. Sincerity, Katie Dillon, Mount Vernon Street. Another email dated September 9th. It says, hi there. I just wanted to say that despite the changes to the building being all rentals, I still support the construction of this project. We need more homes. Samantha Blank, Ward 730 Daniel Street. Another email dated September 9th. I am writing regarding the project at 245 Bryan Street, case number 25-06. 36 affordable units close to downtown via an existing partner is an ideal project, and we should be fully supporting these rare opportunities when they come up. The majority of Malden's population are renters, so affordable rental units are desperately needed as well. I urge the board to approve the requested amendment to the permit. Sean Bonneau, 47 Perkins Ave, Ward 1. Another email dated Wednesday, September 9th. Hello, Michelle. I am writing in support of the Affordable Housing Project on Bryan Street. They are trying to change the permit to allow for rental units, which would be great for Malden. We need affordable housing of all kinds in Malden. Bryn Garrity, 47 Perkins Ave, Malden. And that is it.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Seeing and hearing none, declare that part of the hearing closed. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this petition? Anyone to speak in opposition?

Hello, my name is Marsha Monong. I live at 296 Bryant Street. I remember when I first heard about this project and attended, I think, at least two community meetings that were held by ACDC. I was very much in support of this project. It was exciting. We were talking about affordable housing. We were talking about low and moderate income home ownership. And... That was something that was really good to hear. I'm a little disappointed in ACDC now, as much as I supported this project and supported the project they were doing on Main Street. The difficulty I have is that the transition from home ownership to rentals removes the ability for low and moderate-income families to build equity and generational wealth through home ownership. And I think that's an important aspect. That was a reason to support the project, that we were going to give first-time buyers an opportunity to own their own home. The issue of cost. I remember ACDC talking about, you know, they had submitted for funding from Commonwealth or whoever else, giving us assurances that it was just a formality, those things were going to happen. Yeah, we could not foresee, perhaps, the changes in federal funding and all of that. I appreciate that. But at the same time, I live on Ward 7. I live on the street. We're going to... ACD is proposing to put up these new rental units. We are all aware that there are housing crisis nationally in this country. So we're all looking for ways to create affordable housing, whether it's rental or home ownership. However, I feel somehow that there's something wrong. Ward one The ACDC project that's going up in Ward 1, it's going to be home ownership. But we get to Ward 7 where I live. People know this is an environmental justice community where there are low and moderate income folks. And suddenly we can't build so that it's home ownership. I'm saying ACDC, find the money. Yeah, I don't know what else to say. I think what happens when affordable homes are either built or bought to serve as rentals, the overall supply of homes available for first-time buyers goes out the window. It decreases dramatically. I think this is... You know, as much as we all very much know that we need affordability of some kind of home security in Malden, we know this. There have been numerous complaints about, you know, market building these high rises, building these market rate rentals. I hear that. I fought against it. We worked on inclusionary zoning for a long time, trying to find ways for people to be able to afford to live in Malden. I think we should not be overlooking this home ownership and how critical it really is as well for folks. And I think it's wrong to give up on this. I think ACDCs should work a bit harder and... find the funding necessary to do what they promised.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can you confirm that? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Diane, do you have anything to read in opposition?

I do have other. I mean, I'm sorry, in opposition?

Yes.

I do not have anything, I'm sorry.

Okay, very good. If there's no one else that would like to speak in opposition, declare that part of the hearing closed. Diane, do you have anything in general to read?

Yes, I do. I have in general. This is an email dated September 7th. It says, to the members of the Malden Planning Board, Malden City Hall, 215 Pleasant Street, Malden, Mass. Request for continuance on public hearing for 245 Bryan Street, Malden, Mass. Dear Chair and members of the Planning Board, I am writing to formally request a continuance for the hearing regarding 245 Bryan Street, which is currently scheduled for September 9, 2017. I am deeply interested, party. However, I am unable to testify at the scheduled hearing due to a conflicting procedure, lung biopsy, that must take place earlier on that exact day. Because this is a critical medical matter and because I wish to exercise my right to provide testimony to the board, I respectfully request that the board grant a continuance and postpone this hearing to the next available meeting date. Thank you for your time, understanding, and consideration of this urgent medical request. Sincerely, William Cook, 54 Newton Street, Malden, Mass.

Thank you, Diane. Anything else to read?

No, I do not.

Thank you very much. We'll declare that part of the hearing closed. Michelle, would you like to take us through your staff report? Actually, what we're trying to do is we're trying to confirm there's some confusion. We were under the impression that Main Street was rental, not home ownership. But if we could ask Ms. Undemer if she could confirm it.

Yes, 211 to 213 Main Street is 20 units of rental.

Okay, rental. Thank you. So Ms. Long, that's... The Main Street project is also rental. But just as a clarification while you're here, the city planner was trying to confirm that in the records. Okay, Michelle, if you could take us through your staff report, please.

Yes, this is the planning report and recommendation dated September 9, 2026. I won't read it verbatim into the record. It's incorporated here and by reference into the record. You've heard what the petition is to allow one additional unit to increase the total number units from 35 to 36 and to change the type of unit from home ownership to rental unit. The proposal requires seeking amendments of the following conditions of case 25-06. You have a copy of that special permit case 2506 in your package. That's the special permit you granted in June of 2025 to allow the project originally. as originally proposed. So the two conditions that will need amendments are condition one, all development shall be as per plans, except as modified by these conditions. Two, the maximum number of dwelling units is 35. The maximum number of bedrooms is 72. And as proposed, all units shall be home ownership units and all units shall remain affordable housing units for as long as legally permissible. Giving you the breakdown comparison of the approved proposal and the new proposal, as the chair noted, There is some differences in the unit composition in terms of number, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom units in terms of total unit number and total bedrooms. So the new proposal is for 36 units and total bedrooms of 64. There's also a slight decrease in the square footage, total square footage shown on the plans. And also as the chair noted and petitioner, Reviewed there were different amenities in the new proposal that were not in the approved proposal and also there are Amenities that are no longer in the new proposal that were in the approved proposal. You can see the breakdown there I've given you the plans that were filed a hair on record you have copies of all those plans in your package and The subject property is classified as part of the Residence A zoning district. The approved proposal and new proposal may be allowed by special permit as a residential conversion of a pre-existing non-conforming property. The direct abutters to the west are three family dwellings and a single family dwelling. To the north on the other side of Newton Street, single and two family dwellings. To the south on the other side of Grape Street, a multi-family dwelling of four stories and 39 units. And to the north and east on the other side of Bryant Street, multi-family dwellings for three stories and 117 units. Surrounding land uses are residential, mostly single and two-family dwellings, several three-family dwellings, and multi-family dwellings, including housing for seniors and disabled, operated by the Malden Housing Authority at Suffolk Manor, and supportive housing for families operated by Housing Families, and also surrounding land uses, Lincoln Commons Park. In terms of dimensional controls with respect to pre-existing non-conformities of the property, the approved proposal and new proposal reduce the front yard setback violation Eliminate the rear yard setback in building coverage violations both proposals comply with dimensional controls for multifamily dwellings up to three stories except front yard setback and density This is including the density bonus provisions of the inclusionary zoning ordinance So the new proposal increases the violation of density the approved proposal the approved proposal had a violation which was allowed by special permit in case 2506 and giving you the breakdown here what's required and For density for multifamily up to three stories on that size lot what would be allowed under the current ordinance? What the density bonus is under the current ordinance? How many density bonus units are allowed under both proposals five units? So 29 are allowed under the current ordinance. There were five density bonus units allowed and then what the density is for the approved proposal and what it would be for the new proposal. So new or increased nonconformities may be allowed by special permit, provided this board makes the required findings. And two of the proposed 36 units in the new proposal would require relief from this board. In terms of open space, the new proposal provides the same amount of conforming space. Open space is the approved proposal. It provides more than the required amount of open space. Both proposals do provide additional open space that do not comply with the dimensional requirements for usable open space. In terms of parking requirements, the approved proposal complies with parking requirements. The new proposal also complies. It maintains the same parking layout. It provides 36 spaces, complies with the requirements regarding number spaces, layout, access driveways, landscaping, snow storage. I've noted about this bicycle rack. Even if they didn't provide this proposed additional exterior bike parking, they would still comply. Only parking for four bicycles is required by the ordinance, and they're proposing to provide nine. In terms of screening, which the petitioner mentioned, the proposal approved and proposed new proposal do not comply with the siting of the dumpster because it's located within 20 feet of the property line. It does comply with screening requirements. And plans for both the approved proposal and the new proposal depict chain link fence along the southern line property lines abutting residences at 4143 Newton Street, 37 Newton Street, and 3032 Grape Street. This fencing does not comply with screening requirements to screen the abutting residential uses from the multi-family parking area. In terms of traffic to impact, a traffic impact study was peer reviewed by the city. Pursuant to case 2506, no new additional traffic information was submitted with this petition. In terms of inclusion of rezoning, the approved proposal complies with the requirements of the current ordinance and the new proposal complies with the requirements. You have a compliance memorandum dated September 3rd, 2026 from OSPCD. You also have a copy of the updated memorandum of understanding executed by the developer and city dated July 29, 2026. I've given you a note here. about the pending zoning ordinance, which this board is familiar with. You had the public hearing on it last month. This petition is being reviewed under the current ordinance, not the proposed new ordinance, which is still pending. The council did not take action on it last night. They did receive your recommendation. For your reference, it was referred. The paper was referred to committee for further discussion. As the board knows, you recommended disapproval of those amendments. You return the proposal to the city council for redrafting. Under the proposed amendments, certain affordable housing would be allowed by administrative approval. Additional units and building height would be allowed under the density bonus provisions. And multi-family dwellings up to three stories may be allowed by special permit in the residence zoning district, not just for non-conforming properties, for any property. And then parking requirements would be reduced for affordable housing units and market rate units to 0.75 spaces per unit. So for the proposal before you now, less parking would be required under the new ordinance. In terms of the site being a preferably preserved building site, the property is a site of a building which is the existing building determined to be preferably preserved on January 23rd, 2025 by the Malden Historical Commission pursuant to the city's demolition alteration delay ordinance. issued a decision notice dated January 30th, 2025. The commission approved the proposed demolition of the existing building prior to the expiration of the delay period subject to compliance with conditions described in this decision made on March 20th, 2025. The notice of decision is dated March 26th, 2025, and you have a copy of that. Both the approved proposal and the new proposal comply with the recommendations of the Malden Historical Commission as required by city ordinance. There are certain findings you would need to make to grant a special permit. One, you would need to find that any increase or creation of violations of dimensional controls or parking requirements will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. Two, that the residential use is in the interest of the common good. Three, that the proposal is in the interest of the common good. And four, compliance with the requirements of the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Do you want me to move forward, Chair? Please. The recommendation which was prepared prior to the public hearing and made provided the board makes those required findings. is to grant a special permit subject to the following conditions. One, all development shall be as per plans except as modified by these conditions. Two, the maximum number of dwelling units is 36, the maximum number of bedrooms is 64, and as proposed, all units shall be rental units and all units shall remain affordable housing units for as long as legally permissible. I would recommend you state in perpetuity since that's what they represented and that's my understanding that is legally permissible. Three, prior to issuance of any occupancy permit, developer or owner shall comply with all terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated July 29, 2026, regarding affordable housing units, which is incorporated here and by reference. You have a copy of that Memorandum of Understanding. Four, developer or owner shall implement the following traffic and safety mitigation. These were the recommendations of the peer reviewer last year for the original proposal. A, is obtained DPW Commission approval to install proposed curb cuts, install and maintain parking layout. and signage for proposed one-way circulation throughout the parking lot. B, implement transportation demand measures, which I'm not sure. Well, no, I guess we do still need this. Implement transportation demand measurement, including provide welcome packet to residents and employees with information regarding transportation services, post-public transportation schedules, and centralized location. Provide information regarding pedestrian and bicycle facilities in post and centralized location. C, improve sight lines near site driveway on Grape Street. Coordinate with city to determine feasibility of removing three car lanes and or limiting on-street parking on Grape Street. D, provide report with discussion of potential contributing factors to high prevalence of crashes at Eastern Avenue and Bryant Street, including vulnerable user crashes, pedestrians and cyclists. Include specific safety measures. And E, optimize existing traffic signal at Eastern Avenue and Bryan Street. Coordinate with the city engineer to modify the signal timing at this intersection. Five, install and maintain all open space and landscaping as depicted on conceptual landscape plan. Six, install and maintain privacy fencing along property lines to screen parking lot from abutting residences at 4143 Newton Street, 37 Newton Street, and 3032 Grape Street. Seven, compliance with the determination of the Malden Historical Commission dated March 26, 2025, which is incorporated here and by reference. Exterior facade plans may be modified to comply with the Historical Commission determination. Eight, the special permit shall expire on June 30, 2027, unless substantial construction has commenced. Briefly talk about that, Chair. So unless otherwise specified by the special permit, the rights authorized by special permit Lapse within one year data granting if substantial construction or substantial use is not sooner commenced. So if you grant a special permit tonight, September 9, 2026, it will expire September 9, 2027. Provided that condition eight is deleted and unless otherwise specified. So if you leave condition eight in, it's going to expire before it would per our ordinance. So I would recommend either you delete it. or if you want to propose a later expiration date, you specify that now. I'm not sure in terms of what they discussed with the funding, if that might be a reasonable option. In 2025, you specified a two-year expiration. So you extended it an additional year from the one year that ordinance required. So back in 2025, you made that decision. So I'm recommending you consider either making that again or at the very least deleting condition eight so that it will expire in September.

And we should, I think we should extend that to September 9th, 2028. Okay.

So September 9th, 2028. So instead of expiring next year, it'll expire in two years.

Right. That'll get them through the winter, this possible summer and worst case scenario, the next winter, and that still should give them enough time.

Right. For everyone's reference, as you know, substantial construction means any work done under a building permit, which includes a demolition permit. So even interior demolition will trigger activity under this permit. It doesn't have to be the project's completed or even out of the ground, as they say. It just has to have substantially started. Nine, screen rooftop equipment. and major ductwork visually and acoustically. That incorporates Maria's recommended change. I will also recommend condition 10, dumpster location may be modified to comply with siting requirements. So they can move it so that it complies with siting requirements. If they can find a location that's not within 20 feet of a property line, that's fine. I wouldn't recommend it just be modified at all because, again, the concern would be if it gets moved someplace else that might be in violation, that could be an issue. So that's that. And then 11, I would recommend a bicycle storage structure for 36 bikes shall be installed. I'm trying to read my writing in. Adjacent to the parking area near the building. I believe that's what they said now that they did say that as a state requirement, but if you want that to be a requirement. I would recommend that condition if it's fine with you that they comply with the city's requirement, which is the minimum, they exceed the city's requirement by providing the nine. If you don't want to put this in, that's fine, but if you want to give them the option, you could also, if you don't want it to be required, you could say may be installed. It's up to you, but I think you should definitely specify the location to the best possible since it's not shown on the plan. So if you wanted to, you could say bicycle storage Structure for 36 bikes may be installed Provided it is located adjacent to the parking area near the building. So you want to specify where it is?

Okay, thank you Anyone have any questions for Michelle Anyone have any questions based on Michelle's recommendation and proposed 11 conditions? Diane Chuhot.

I just have a question with regards to how many rental apartments, and I don't know if you know this off the top of your head, but I'm actually kind of disappointed, too, that it went from homeownership to rental. Unfortunately, it's the lack of funding that doesn't help, but I don't want Malden to become a transient where now we just have rentals and no homeownership. It doesn't do well for the city if there's too many rentals. So I'm a little upset about that, but I completely understand where they're coming from and we have to work with what we have. I think I just want to more or less point that out, that I'm a little disappointed in the fact that it had to go into rentals. And I don't know if there's any way we could make it to where the people that are living there need to stay for at least a year. I know, like, some circumstances they have to have a year's lease. I just don't want it to be a month-to-month thing and a changeover. I don't know if that's something that can be done legally or not, but we have 20 units that are going up. Now we have 36 units going up, and now we have developments going up all the time, and I just don't want all of those developments to come back to us and say, hey, we can't get the funding, and now they're all rentals. That scares me.

And you will be hearing another petition come back to you that was proposed as home ownership for the exact same reason. That will be next month. So there have only been, to my recollection, I believe there were only two that were proposed as home ownership. This one and then the Overlook Ridge, Rogue Quarry, one had a home ownership component. They will also be coming back. So those two home ownerships are now rentals.

And how many other rentals have come before us? Because they've all been rentals. Right. And that just scares me. And I don't know if it's something that I feel comfortable with saying yes to because maybe next year will bring different changes. You know, we're jumping on it now, but things can change. We've seen it. I'm just speaking my mind because I'm a little hesitant about accepting something that I approved because, just like the person that was against it said, home ownership builds equity. It gives people, you know, it just... stability, rentals to me, they come and go. And I don't know, that's just my feeling.

Thank you.

Thank you. Diane?

Yeah, and to that point you have approved, since this inclusionary zoning ordinance was put in, you have approved 331 units of those 110 affordable housing units. But of those, there was a very small percentage that was the homeownership.

What percentage was home ownership of those?

Of the 110?

About, yes.

Well, you had these 35 and then you had the ones up at Overlook. Well, the ones at Overlook, even though they were proposing a certain number, there was only a certain minimum number that were affordable in accordance with the ordinance. So I don't have the exact number, well actually maybe I do. If you could just give me a minute, I'll give you that. But one other thing I did want to mention, Chair and Board. They had mentioned a 70%, the council's letter mentioned 70% preference for Malden residents and 20% of units shall be set aside for veterans. I don't know if that's something you would want to make a binding condition or not. Right now it's a statement and what they're, proposing, but it's not binding either one of those. They're just stating that's their intention. So I'll mention that. So back to Eric Henry's question. So up at Overlook, which again, you're going to be hearing this petition next month, there was one of the projects you approved back in 2024 was 82 units, 13 were affordable housing units as defined by ordinance. Those were going to be home ownership units. So 13 and 35 is 48. So 48 of the 110 were going to be home ownership. 48 of the approved affordable housing units. But now you're going to be down to zero. Well, I shouldn't say that. You have a new petition coming up next month, but presuming there's no funding.

Eric, what are you doing? I'm actually looking into the audience. It looks like Mr. Alex wanted to correct a point. Is it? Okay, go ahead. Point of order. If he has something to weigh to the decision, I would like to hear it. Alex, if you want to come up.

And as Alex is coming up, I share your concern about the homeownership. The only upside I see is instead of being affordable for 15 years, it's affordable in perpetuity for the rentals. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Go ahead, Alex Pratt, if you could just introduce yourself. Sure, Alex Pratt, Director of OSPCD, City of Malden, 26 Holden Street, Malden, Mass. Homeownership is a huge part of our affordable housing need, and we are 100% behind that goal. We, for both this project and for Overlook Ridge, we have been really putting unprecedented levels of pressure on our state partners to try to find funding for our affordable homeownership projects. It is still our intention with Overlook that that project remains homeownership. And even though, to Michelle's point, not all of those units are affordable under the ordinance's definition of affordable, many of them are deed restricted, maybe not 80% AMI, but 100 or 110, which is consistent with the state's programs for homeownership. The reason that they want higher levels of homeownership for these programs is because it's easier to sustain the condo fees and the maintenance on the building over time. Um, with, with Overlook, we are continuing to press. We actually, we've had meetings with the Lieutenant Governor and other high-ranking state officials to really press them on homeownership. We have also done so with this project. Um, they said that the Overlook Ridge Project Road is a larger project, is more, um, competitive for that, but that the funds that they have are very limited. So we are still waiting. We are crossing our fingers and toes that, um, They will unlock those funds. And we have had positive conversations so far on Overlook about those funds. But there was no path for homeownership to remain. These projects require a lot, a lot of subsidy. I believe the prior iteration with the homeownership at Bryant Street was looking at $250,000 per unit of state subsidy that was needed when that state said, no, we can't do that. We asked again. We asked again. They said, no, it's not going to happen. We needed to pivot. To your point, Mr. Chair, the upside is the affordability and perpetuity. And again, the reason why we would even limit that on the homeownership side is because that was tied to the state funding source that wanted to limit the funding affordability period. We thought that was worth it to get the affordable housing, excuse me, the affordable homeownership units built. But given that that is off the table based on our conversations with the state, we still think this would be a huge value to the neighborhood and to the city. And I will note as well, We did add five affordable condo units at 274 Croft Street that opened in January of this year. So that's five other affordable condos that we've opened right down the street from this location. And that was funded through the state program before their funds started to dry up. So I just want to reiterate, home ownership is a priority for us. It is a moving target in terms of the funding availability. And we're trying our best to get the funds from the state that we can. We just don't see that happening here. Okay, thank you. Eric, are you all set?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Alex. Okay. Does anyone have any other questions or comments? Is there a motion? Ken Antonucci. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to grant the special permits subject to the 11 conditions as read and modified during the public hearing Yes

I think that isn't that in there already.

I didn't see it in the memorandum of understanding, but it should have been It was in council Simonelli's letter and I think it was in Yeah, it was in one of the yeah, if you want to add that 12 as the 12, okay, so 70% of the units show be from Alden and

preference and 20% for preference.

70% preference shall be for Malden residents. 20% of the units shall be set aside for veterans.

Sorry. The letter with counselor Simonelli is that 20% of we're working to get 20% of the units as a veteran's preference. It's different from a set aside.

Okay.

Right. 20%. And also, we can't guarantee 70% is for Malden residents. That's just part of the marketing plan.

But that's the target. What's that? That's the target. Yes, correct. I just want to be clear, correct.

Okay, so are you not including it then? If it's not binding, if they can't necessarily do it, what are you doing?

Yeah, he helped it I don't think so either so why did the original 11? Okay, so I wouldn't leave it I wouldn't okay if they can't be held if it's not certain then I will revert back to my original motion for the 11 Okay Is there a second for Ken's motion

Michelle Ferguson.

I'll second.

Michelle Ferguson has seconded the motion. And give me a second here. Okay. Do we have Michelle?

Ken Ancinucci?

Yes.

Diane Chua? No. Michelle Ferguson? Yes. Patrick Hayes?

Yes.

Eric Henry?

I abstain.

Maria Schroeder?

Yes.

Chuck Aylvin?

Yes. Okay Do we need a reason for the abstention We've talked about that in the past well

We've talked about recusal.

Okay, recusal is what I think.

It's total non-participation due to conflict. I'm just reading my notes. Abstained is just not voting. And then there's just not voting. You're an alternate member or a ninth member. So I don't believe so. But I just want to look up one thing here. There is a... Okay. So you can... I just want to see if I can hold on to something. There are certain, there's a reduced voting threshold for certain types of special permits. I'm just double checking to make sure. It wasn't granted, so. Where it's a simple majority vote, but this is not. This doesn't meet this criteria or this criteria, so I'm just double checking. Okay. So that motion failed. Do you want to call for another motion? No.

Well, the first thing I'd just ask, is there anyone that would like to move reconsideration? Diane Chuhot.

I'll reconsiderate my vote. Okay. Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. Let Michelle look this up and then...

Okay. So you were on the prevailing side, so you're moving reconsideration. Yep.

Yep. We'll get you in a second, Eric.

Okay.

We'll just let Michelle look up and make sure we're... Okay. Looking at this correctly. Okay. You all set, Michelle? Yes. Eric? What was the vote? The vote was five in favor, one no, one abstain.

Okay, thank you.

Do you, okay, so that was a motion by Diane. You're going to, someone needs to second it, right?

Yes. Is there a second? I'll second. Pat Hayes seconds.

Okay, so now you're going to vote on that, right? If you're going to move reconsideration, then it brings you back to before you took the vote.

Right.

Right. Okay. Just talking out loud. We don't do this often.

So it's a staff recommendation with the 11 conditions.

No, you just have to take a vote on whether you're moving reconsideration.

Oh, okay.

And then you'll go back to start.

Okay. Does that have to be in person? Can we do all in favor? I don't know. Okay. Why don't we do it in person? Yeah. Yeah. Voice vote.

Can ingenuity can answer you this is to move reconsideration so we need a vote to approve reconsideration. Yes.

Yes Thank you So a yes vote is to move Regan's is to is to reconsider. Okay Kenny Genucci. Yes staying in Chua. Yes, Michelle Ferguson. Yes, Patrick. He's yes, Eric Henry Yes Maria shoulder Check I open?

Yes.

Okay. So that is seven to zero. So that, you're now in a position, you've reconsidered, so now you're back to?

A recommendation.

Right.

Right. The other one doesn't sustain, we have to make a new one. A new recommendation. A new motion. A new motion, I'm sorry. Right. okay ken antonucci oh wait no sorry um maria shroda did you have i think you have all the mics on no i can't put all the mics on i think i spoke into this one instead of this one but it was okay so okay so is there a motion ken antonucci okay mr chair i'd like to

Make a motion to grant a special permit subject to the 11 conditions as read or modified during the public hearing.

Okay, is there a second? Michelle Ferguson?

I second.

Okay. Okay, Michelle, whenever you're ready.

Okay. Kenny Antonucci? Yes. Diane Chua. Yes. Michelle Ferguson. Yes. Patrick Hayes.

Yes.

Eric Henry.

I abstain.

Okay. Maria Schroeder. Yes. Chuck . Yes. So that is six. That had six affirmative votes.

Okay, so the petition has passed with 11 conditions. Thank you very much.

Can I just ask one thing?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, the next item on the agenda is 150-160 Charles Street. Diane, would you read the notice, please?

The Malden Planning Board will hold a public hearing in the Herbert L. Jackson Council Chamber, Malden City Council, 215 Pleasant Street, Malden, Mass., at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, on the petition of AGM Auto Sales, Inc., on behalf of 150-160 Charles Street, LLC, in permit application number C00-077996-2026, seeking a special permit under Title 12, Code of the City of Malden, Sections 12.12.030 and 12.28.010.E, to extend a pre-existing non-conforming building and allow use of property in the Industrial II Zoning District for retail sales of 5,000 square feet or more, namely to construct additions to the existing building and use the property for vehicle sales with accessory offices and motor vehicle repair shop at the property known as and numbered 150-160 Charles Street, Malden, Mass., and by City's Assessor's Parcel Identification Number 056232207. Thank you. Diane, is the petitioner present?

I know it was a while ago, but I will remind everyone, if you could speak into the microphone and lead with your name and residential address for the record.

Thank you. You ready, Mr. Chairman? Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. For the record, Attorney Barry Crimmins of the firm Brooks & Durenzus with offices at 909 Washington Street in Stoughton. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, AGM Auto Sales, Inc., for the special permit. for the property located at 150-160 Charles Street in Malden. The applicants are represented here tonight, Mr. Chairman, by Mr. Marco Serino, who is the president, treasurer, secretary, and sole director of the corporation AGM Auto Sales Inc. Also with Mr. Serino is the general manager of the AGM Auto Sales business, Mr. Fernando Lins. Mr. Lins is prepared to address any questions that the board may have on any operational issues. I'll address the issues relative to the application for the special permit. The property, as I mentioned, is located at 150-160 Charles Street. The applicant is currently located, as the board is well aware, at 160 Eastern Avenue. And basically, they have outgrown that location. And they sought and were able to find the new location at 150-160 Charles Street. They have entered into a long-term lease with the owner of that property to operate their business at that location. And that lease is contingent upon not only the approval of this board for the special permit, but also the approval of the city council for the transfer of the class two automotive sales license from their existing location to the new location. The applicants have been in the automotive sales business for approximately 18 years. They have been in business at their current location for approximately six years. They employ between 15 to 20 folks in their business. It is a combination of automotive sales and automotive repair. The only repair operation will be relative to the automobiles that they sell. There will be no repair open for the public in general, but only for the vehicles that they sell. There are hours of operation, Mr. Chairman. will be the same as they currently have at their current location which are 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Sunday. The property is approximately a little over 34,000 square feet. The building The existing building is approximately 10,000 square feet. They're looking to add on to that building with a small addition on both the left side and the right side of the building from additional 645 square feet that will bring the total square footage of the proposed building to 10,725 square feet. It's an increase of approximately 6% from the existing footprint. The property, as shown on the plans that were submitted with the application, will have approximately 65 parking spaces outside with an additional eight parking spaces within the building for automobile display for the vehicles for sale. The property is a pre-existing non-conforming structure. That non-conformity relates to the rear yard setback of the building. So that has existed for a very long time, probably since the time that that building was constructed in the late 50s. I'm not sure when the Malden zoning code went into effect, but I would suspect that that building has been nonconforming buildings since that time. However, there's nothing about the proposed addition that will increase the nonconformities or add any new nonconformities. I'm happy, Mr. Chairman, if you would like I can go through the special permit criteria if you wish. They are outlined in the planner's report to the board. I would suggest to the board we did submit a traffic report. That traffic report indicates that there will be very little increase in vehicle trips from the most recent uses at the site. The most recent use till earlier this year was as a church, and prior to then, the property was used as a gymnasium for approximately 10 years. Our traffic statement indicates, again, very little increase in vehicle trips. The nature of the location is such that the proposed use, I would suggest, blends in well and complements the existing uses in this area. This will provide my client with a much better operational location, both in terms of the additional space that they will have in the building, much better circulation in terms of the vehicle traffic coming to and from the site and within the parking lot. There will be parking on both sides of the building as you face the building. So there are access points on both the left side of the building and the right side of the building. So it's just overall a better location for them. I think it's a location that better serves this type of a use. It is something that, again, I feel that we meet the criteria for the special permit contained in section 12.12.010B. Again, I'm happy to go through those if the chair wishes me to. But if not, I'm happy to move on. I think I have addressed, Mr. Chairman, everything that I wanted to in terms of my opening remarks. I'm happy to answer any questions that the members may have, again, relative to the special permit application. And again, Mr. Lins is here to answer any questions that the members may have about the operation of their business. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. A couple questions, if I could. Did you say they purchased the building?

No, they will be leasing. They've entered into a lease already, but that lease is contingent upon both the approval of this board and the approval of the council for the transfer of the Class II license. Okay. I believe a copy of the lease was submitted as part of the online application.

If this is approved this evening, how long will it take to square off the building?

That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman.

If I may, Fernando, do you want to address the board? And again, name and address for the record, and if you can make sure you sign the clipboard.

Fernando Lins, 26 Park Street in Haverhill. We anticipate about six months to have the operation up and running at that location. I'd just like to clarify, we're not looking into transferring the license because we still have the current store operating. We're looking into applying for a new license for that location and easily get the public used to the new location before we can have a decision on where we're currently operating.

Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. In the past, when Easton Ave was in front of us, one of the issues that had come up was the number of deliveries of vehicles at the location on any given day. I was wondering if you could just describe what you anticipate the deliveries of vehicles to be on a daily basis.

So that was mostly due to repossession of vehicles and the banks that we used to work that had that kind of repurchase. And we're no longer working with a significant amount of those lenders. So we don't expect to have that number continue to rise. As a matter of fact, it's much lower now. And the current state of the location, I believe, attests to that. We haven't had any issues regarding parking and the number of vehicles currently that I'm aware of. So, yeah.

So you're not working with the banks in that type of business model?

Exactly. That we are, as it's known, a recourse, meaning if the customer defaults, we have to repurchase the vehicle.

Now, given that change, what would you expect a delivery schedule to be? Would it be something daily? Would it be weekly? How many units would you be moving, do you think?

So, on average... Yeah, on average, we receive anywhere between, like, 10 and 15 cars per week. And those arrive in one truck or three at a time. It depends on what kind of transportation and where are they coming from.

So would it be a daily occurrence?

No, not really. We tend to get deliveries mostly between Tuesday, Thursdays.

Okay, thank you. I assume you've seen the staff report and that there seems to be limited amount of snow storage. Are you agreeable to entering into a service contract for snow removal?

If needed, yes.

What are you planning to do with the 160 East and Ave location?

So we intend to have the new location operating as the main operation. But we also want to easy our customer and accustom them to the new place before we can have a decision on 160 East and Ave. And also, we would like to still count all those spaces For storage so we don't have run into the same sort of issue that we are currently have having with this city and we want to make sure that we have enough space to Store the vehicles that we have so what I'm hearing is that this Charles Street location will be the main operations but Easton Ave will be retained as a off-site parking

Essentially, or inventory storage? Will you be doing sales out of Eastern Ave? Yes. So you'll continue to do sales out of Eastern Ave?

We intend to do so, yes.

Okay. Okay. And the council already addressed the fact that the repair shop is accessory to the sales and it won't be open to random people coming in from vehicle repair? No.

Just for our customers. We're turning customers at loyalty-based keeping. So if you bought a car from AGM and you need an oil change, if you will, that would be another opportunity for us to first help and maybe trade in that vehicle and sell you a new one.

So kind of like a car dealership. Exactly. But Michelle, would that remain accessory if people who purchase a vehicle continue to have that car service there? Because I guess what I was envisioning as accessory was you bring in five cars and you have to have your people go through them and tune them up or check them out or change whatever. I wasn't envisioning the subsequent deal of service.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, to you, I think the intent is as part of, as Mr. Lin's referred to as sort of a loyalty system, They want to be able to continue to service their customers, not just at the point of sale, but beyond. So if a customer purchases a vehicle from them, they can come back to, as you said, have that oil change or some other small engine repairs that may be needed. So it would include, Mr. Chairman, what you referred to as they take in new vehicles for sale that may need work done before they're ready to be sold. but they also want to be able to do repairs to those vehicles that they sell to their customers.

And I'm not opposed to that. It's just different than how I was thinking of the context of what the proposal was. Yes, if you could.

Yes, I had actually asked that, and I had asked the building commissioner, Nelson Miller, that question too. And he... He determined it would be, as long as it was accessory. So it's not, as long as they're customers, even if they're, as long as the vehicles were bought there is how he explained it. So the customer can't bring in another vehicle to be serviced there. But if the customer wants to get its repairs done there for the vehicle purchased, it could. So the motor vehicle repair shop wouldn't operate independently. It's in conjunction with the vehicle sales, and that's making it accessory. So that's one of the conditions I'm recommending. It has to be accessory, so it's dependent on it. It wouldn't be a stand-alone motor vehicle repair shop. Correct. If it were, it would require different parking and need its own special permit. That's not what's being proposed here, to my knowledge and what I base the review on. Okay. And recommendations.

Thank you for chasing that down.

Yes, I did. In the beginning, I asked that. When I saw the whole motor vehicle repair shop in it, I asked the same question.

Okay, so as long as they're an AGM customer, not that it was purchased at the Charles Street location, they're an AGM customer, whether it be Eastern Ave or Charles Street.

Yes, it's an AGM vehicle, right.

Yeah, okay. No, just wanted to clarify that. Okay, does anyone else have any questions? Sorry, Ken Antonucci. There's a line of people. Hold on. Ken.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you probably already answered the first question. So the two locations, it's the same company. I know you have to have a different license, but it's going to be the same entity, AGM. It's not going to be a separate entity. like separate LLC or something like that. Still be AGM. Just with two different permits for, to operate the locations. And then again, the Eastern Ave location also sales. So it's really pretty much going to stay the way it is. You're just not going to have the problem with the overload of the vehicles and things. And at the time, last time you were before us, you were pointing on doing some interior renovations and expanding and things. Is there plenty of plans for any renovations down on Eastern Ave anymore?

Not at the moment, no.

Okay. And then one last just operational question on the new location. I didn't see any garage doors or overhead doors to get vehicles into the building.

If you look at the front of the building towards the right side all the way to the end, that's where the garage door will be.

Yes, I saw that, but it doesn't look like there's a way inside the building to get onto the showroom.

That next wall, there should be like an opening that you can go through.

I'm sure you've thought it through, but it wasn't clear on the plans. I'm sure you weren't going to build the building around the cars. Okay, all right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ken. Michelle Ferguson.

Thank you. So my question goes back to the cars. You say it's only going to be for the customers. I guess, would you really turn somebody away that wasn't a customer? Like, if I were to go to your shop, I need an oil change or something, like, you know, you would just say, like, unfortunately, we only service customers. Like, would you really, you would just turn them away?

So, because we definitely, like, need those repair bays to take care of our own vehicles, our primary focus is not going to be on accommodating new customers through that source. We don't intend to advertise that as a primary at all. We like to really be courteous to our customers, but not outside.

And I have one more question. This one might be silly, but I was just looking at the parking spaces, and You have the two handicapped spaces on the side. I can't find it now, but so you have the parking in the front and then on the side you showed two handicapped spaces. Is there any way those handicapped spaces can be in the front, like closer to the door, closer to the entrance instead of further away? Does that matter as maybe the... I was looking at, I can show you which one it is.

Yeah, I think for you, Mr. Chair.

I think it was the very first page, actually. You had... You want to pass that?

Michelle, you have it? There's an extra one.

No, yeah, I have it here. So it's like the entry is in the front, and you have the 12 spots, and then you have the loading zone, and then two handicap spots. So I just thought it might be easier to have handicap closer to the entryway.

You just wanted to make sure that they were here. Unless I'm looking at it wrong. Yes, because you see how they do it.

So through you, Mr. Chairman, to the previous speaker. So the intent certainly would be that the handicapped spaces will be located near an entrance to the site. We're just not sure at this stage exactly what that layout's going to be.

It was just proof that there's going to be two spots.

We wanted to show that we can accommodate the handicapped spaces, but they will certainly be located in an area where there's an entrance to the building.

All right, thank you.

Yep.

Diane Chua.

Yeah, minor questions, but are you selling new cars or used cars or pre-owned?

Pre-owned, yes.

Okay. And are you having inspections? Are you doing the state inspections? Would you do that for your property?

No, not at the moment, no. All right.

All right, that's all I needed. Thank you. All set, Diane. Thank you. Eric Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. So we've If I purchased an AGM car in Haverhill, can I have it serviced in Malden?

Come again?

If I purchased an AGM car in Haverhill, can I have it serviced in Malden? What do you mean in Haverhill? If I understood you correctly, you only service cars that you sell. Maybe you have locations in Haverhill. Maybe you have locations in Tewksbury. If I bought a car somewhere other than Malden from AGM, can I take it to Malden to have it serviced?

No, not right now, no. I don't think so.

So you don't service all AGM customers in Malden?

No. Okay. You only have the Malden. Yeah, we only have the model location.

Yeah, I think that's for you, Mr. Chairman, to the previous speaker. I think part of the confusion, the hypothetical, if they were to have a location in Haverhill, if I'm following your question, perhaps I'm not.

You know, I think you're following it. So if I'm following your statement, you're saying that you currently have only one location that you sell cars out of in Malden.

In Malden, with a proposal for a second location in Charles Street. So the only... Sale of AGM vehicle unless I guess it could be a private sale A party sells to an AGM car to another party I mean, I guess you could extrapolate Various hypotheticals that could know actually it's more more concrete than hypothetical counselor because I think this this petitioner came before us before and represented that he had other properties elsewhere and

And he was moving vehicles between these properties, if I'm not mistaken. I just made the correction. Based upon that, I thought he had operational operations in other locations. And based upon the fact you're saying you will only service AGM cars, if I bought a vehicle somewhere else, could I take it to Malden and have it serviced?

To that extent, if I may, the other location that we referred to at the other meeting was a storage, an overflow facility. We don't have an office there. We don't have operations there. It's just a storage building. But if we were to ever have a store in Haverhill, for example, we would only do so if it made sense for us to have an even bigger service center where that store itself could have their customers help them over there.

Does that make sense? It does make sense. What doesn't make sense is how would we know as a municipality that this location in Malden is not just for storage? Because you can move cars between all your locations and store vehicles. I'll yield on that.

Okay, y'all all set, Eric? Yes, sir. Maria.

I guess my comments or questions are related to the Planning Board recommendation number four to eliminate the parking spaces in front of the building, as well as to what Michelle was saying about the accessible parking space. A lot of the adjacent properties have at least some green space. This property, it doesn't have a lot of it. And when you have, it looks like you have more parking spaces than you need. And there's a lot of the drive aisles that aren't the required, you know, widths. So I guess I would want to consider making that the accessible parking spaces be the only ones in the zone right next to the entry, and then not having this dangerous condition where parking spaces labeled one through 12 that back out onto the sidewalk where you know, pedestrians can be walking. Those should be, you know, eliminated, I think, if any must be there at all. I know, you know, by code, you're supposed to have your handicapped spaces as close to the entry as possible. So you could also take numbers 36 through 40 and turn that into a planting area, you know, potentially with trees, and then you would have the drive aisle widths that you need and you could also get another space right next to number 13. there's just a variety of things that could be done to increase the safety and you know the pedestrian experience i guess you might say and and you know just provide more greenery that would be more like some of the other properties adjacent to it and it would probably make it a nice entry too you know to sell cars

Well taken for you, Mr. Chairman. I see the spaces you're referring to. I don't think they would necessarily be needed, so I think we could add some greenery in that area. To the larger question of the items in the planner's recommendations, we don't have any issue with those recommendations. We are looking into the alternatives that were presented relative to the parking spaces in front, whether or not to eliminate those or to alter the curb cuts there. Just a final decision hasn't yet been made on that.

You all set, Marie?

I think so. Yeah, I'm all set.

Thank you. Kenneth DiNucci. Yes.

Excellent point there about parking spaces 1 through 12. I guess my assumption was those were display vehicles and not customer parking. Maybe I assumed incorrectly.

So those are what?

The spaces 1 through 12 were more for display vehicles for sale up front and not necessarily for customer parking.

So they were thought like for customers, yeah.

Okay, right. So that's a great point then. I just assumed those were good. Oh, no, no, definitely. I assumed those were going to be for just display vehicles that you had for sale. So that's an excellent point. And kind of going with that, and Mr. Chair, you had asked a question about deliveries. Will the deliveries all be offloaded during daytime hours, just the delivery vehicle being pulled up and parked on Charles Street and just offloaded there, or are they Is there any intention to offload them in the parking lot?

So usually the transportation companies that we do work with, they deliver to, like, right to our property. And during, like, day hours. Day hours, okay. Business hours, yeah.

Just because I've seen other ones, especially just on the other side of the city on Broadway where you'll have a car carrier parked in the middle of 99 at night offloading vehicles. It's like,

Disturbing safety oftentimes they they try to call ahead of time Asking if like they can drop it off during the night, and we never accept just because it's not safe Okay, all right, so delivers would be during yeah operating hours exactly okay.

Thank you Okay, thank you Michelle Ferguson I Have one more question about the parking Look, and I can see there's already parking spots in there. Do you know how many parking spots are already allowable in there? Do you know how many?

Currently?

Currently, yes.

When you say, through you, Mr. Chairman, when you say allowable, I'm not sure I understand.

Well, how many, maybe not allowable, how many parking spaces are in there painted right now, do you know? Because I can see there's the painted spaces. Do you know how many are there? Between both sides, yeah.

I believe it's about 40 something, but in the old dimensions.

So it's 40 right now in the old dimensions, and then you're going to increase the building and then add a lot more than 40 parking spots. It just seems like it'll be very crowded. And then when you put the drop-off in there as well, it just seems very crowded. Seeing what it looks like with the proposals, with that many parking spots, that's the best way I could put it. It just seems like it's going to be overcrowded.

If I may respond, Mr. Chairman? Yes. If you look, I believe it's on page two of the planner's report where it talks about parking and loading requirements. We're only required for this proposal to have 38 parking spaces, and we're proposing... not even counting the additional vehicle display inside the building, we're proposing 65 spaces on site. Now, of course, that included the spaces out front that we may need to change. I think the Vice Chair had a good point that it may very well be that it would make more sense that those be for vehicles for sale as opposed to customers pulling up there because that way you're not going to have the movement of those vehicles in and out. They would have to move when they're sold, but that can be under a controlled condition, so they're not backing out into the street. My point being of the 65, even with sort of modifying those spaces in front, even with modifying Ms. Schroeder's point about the spaces on the left side and the middle, if we modify those, we still have more than enough parking spaces for the operations. And certainly more parking spaces than the Eastern Ave location has.

So it doesn't need to be 65. It can definitely be less than the 65.

Correct. Correct. We're required, again, just to reiterate. You're required the 38, yes. We're required to have 38, yep.

Okay.

You all set?

Yes.

Ken Antonucci. Yeah, just to point out in the report, I think you asked how many spaces are there now. the planner's report, it says there's 40 existing spaces.

Oh, it did say it. Thank you.

So it's increasing, adding 25 more. Okay.

Any other questions for the petitioner? Michelle, did you have anything?

My one question was, well, you had answered that you are applying for a new license. You're not looking to transfer it. I had a question because I thought I had read or maybe someone had told me, are you seeking to eventually purchase this building? Purchase the property? Is there like a lease to sale agreement?

Currently, the lease does provide for an option to purchase, so I think if business goes well, certainly they would love the opportunity to be able to purchase the building, but At least for the foreseeable future, the proposal is for them to lease the property.

Okay, thank you. And so back to the deliveries, I did also have a question. So this loading dock, this loading zone, that's for like parts and equipment you're delivering. That's not where the cars are dropped off, is that right?

That's the access to the repair facility.

Okay, so when the cars are delivered, they pull into the lot, is that correct?

Probably into the bigger area towards the right side of the building.

Okay. Okay, that was everything I had, thanks.

Okay, does anyone else have any questions? Is there anything else you'd like to add?

If I may, just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I think it will probably be read into the record, but my clients did meet with the ward councillor, Ms. Crow, to discuss the proposal. She, as the board will know, had some concerns with their previous plans to expand at their current location, and she has submitted a letter of support for this current application for the new location.

Okay, thank you, sir. Yes, that'll be read in when we entertain those in favor.

Other than that, I don't have any other comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. At this point, we'll entertain anyone that would like to speak in favor of this petition. Anyone in favor? Diane, do you have anything to read in favor?

A letter dated September 9th, 2026. Dear members of the Malden Planning Board, I am writing as the Ward 1 City Councilor to express my support for the proposed improvements and special permit for AGM auto sales at 150-160 Charles Street. I believe this proposal represents a positive investment in an existing commercial property and will allow the site to be renovated and improved while continuing its established use as a vehicle sales business. The proposed renovations will improve the functionality of the building, provide updated customer and office areas, and expand the repair facilities to better serve the business and its customers. I also support the proposed parking and traffic circulation plan, including the Planning Board's recommended conditions regarding the elimination of specified parking spaces at the front of the building, approved curb cuts and the establishment of a one-way traffic circulation pattern in the eastern parking lot through appropriate signage and paving mark pavement markings these measures provide a more organized approach to vehicle movement and parking on the property and our important considerations for a business of this nature as a ward one counselor I support reasonable improvements to existing commercial properties that encourage local business activity while addressing traffic parking and neighborhood concerns I believe the proposed project with the recommended conditions is a reasonable and appropriate use of this property. I respectfully ask the Planning Board to give favorable consideration to AGM Auto Sales Special Permit Application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Peg Crowe, Ward 1, City Councilor, 9 Hancock Street, Malden.

Thank you, Diane. Anything else to read in?

I do not.

Anyone else would like to speak in favor? Seeing and hearing none, declare that part of the hearing closed. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the petition? Anyone in opposition? Diane, anything to read in opposition?

I do not.

Very good. Seeing no one else that would like to speak in opposition, declare that part of the hearing closed. Do you have anything in general to read in?

I do not.

Thank you. Michelle, can you take us through your staff report, please?

Yes, I'm reading from the planning report and recommendation dated September 9th, 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 subject property, what the proposal is to do in terms of the renovation. All the areas are labeled. I've also given you a list, excuse me, of the different areas proposed, excuse me. The additions and Also, just for the board's reference, both the additions are on the left side of the building. They're in the northeastern corner and southeastern corner. You can see them highlighted on the floor plan, or one of the plans. And giving you a list of the different plans that were submitted. There was a transportation statement that was submitted at the request of the city engineer. It was given to him for review. I didn't receive any comments from him in terms of zoning and occupancy. The property was originally classified as part of the Industrial Zoning District established in 1977. It was reclassified in 2002 as the new Industrial II Zoning District when that district was created. The proposed retail sales with more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area may be allowed by special permit in this district. Property is currently vacant. The most recent use was recreation for gainful business by a gym. That was allowed by special permit granted by this board in case 15-14. I do want to note, Petitioner did mention a church occupancy. I don't believe they ever had an occupancy permit. I think they were in the process of trying to obtain an occupancy permit, and they had started to move in. But I don't believe a church was legally, at least, in operation there. So I think the last occupant was this gym that the board heard back in 2015, were reviewed. Prior occupancy were manufacturing, warehouse, retail, wholesale sales, offices, and auto sales. Direct abutters are a vacant property, which is a form of manufacturing to the west, south, and east. And a public service corporation motor vehicle repair shop with salvage yard to the north on the other side of Charles Street. Surrounding land use is a business, restaurant, function hall, supermarket, retail, sales, industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale distribution, and the abandoned railroad right away that's used in part for the Northern Strand Community Trail by to the sea public multi-modal trail. In terms of dimensional controls, the building was constructed. in 1959. Most recent occupancy didn't comply with rear yard setback requirements. The property's pre-existing non-conforming. The proposal for the new use of the expanded building maintains the existing rear yard setback violation, creates no new non-conformities. In terms of number of parking spaces, as has been mentioned here, 38 spaces are required for the proposed expanded building. The parking requirements for the proposed accessory offices and motor vehicle repair shop uses are treated and counted as part of the principal use. I don't have the old site plan, but per your special permit, 38 spaces were required for the prior recreation for gainful business used by the gym, and 40 spaces were provided in a conforming layout, excuse me. Under the proposal, 65 parking spaces are proposed on site. All the parking spaces proposed are conforming dimensions to our designated handicap parking. They're larger. In terms of the parking layout, the parking layout is not conforming. There are three separate areas, one at the western side of the building or the right side of the building. 23 of the 24 spaces are in a conforming configuration. They provide the required direct access and aisle width for two-way circulation, space number 55. which is up in the right-hand corner on the plan, doesn't have the required direct access. And spaces 50 and 51 are located in areas designated for snow storage. The second parking area is the northern parking area at the front side of the building. All 12 spaces must back out onto the street. That's in violation of the ordinance, which prohibits backing out onto public ways. Seven of the 12 spaces must also traverse the sidewalk and curb for access. That's prohibited by a different city ordinance. And so even if the curb cuts are provided, all the spaces would still need to back out, so that's still in violation. So I just wanted to note that that option to seek the curb cuts was to eliminate one of the violations, but all the spaces will still be in violation in terms of having to back out in violation of that particular section of the ordinance, the zoning ordinance. Parking lot in the east or on the right side of the building, all 28 spaces do not have direct access to the parking aisle. The required width for one-way or two-way circulation, it should be 24 feet parking aisle width. Snow storage, the proposal requires 2,600 square feet of snow storage. It provides only 594 square feet. Again, two of the spaces are being used for that snow storage. So there's a gross deficiency of 77%. I did hear the petitioner state he'll provide the contract if necessary, but I guess my concern would be if it's not provided, where will the snow be pushed or piled or plowed to? I think if it's not going to be provided on site, that it does need to be removed from the site. The one loading space is proposed. That's of conforming dimensions. So I want to note that new parking non-conformities may be allowed by special permit, provided the board finds it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. So the parking non-conformities you're being asked to provide relief on have to do with snow storage, parking layout, parking in violation of certain prohibitions, specifically backing out onto public ways, and also in terms of providing direct access Which is another parking rail issue and again 65 spaces are proposed Exterior Eight are proposed inside those aren't counted towards the parking calculation Nor are the parking spaces labeled in the lift areas and Traffic, the proposal does not require traffic impact study per your rules and procedures. The city engineer did request the proponent verify the trip generation, and again, that transportation statement was submitted. These are the findings required to grant a special permit. You would need to find any creation or increase in violations of dimensional controls or parking requirements will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. You would also need to find that traffic and traffic patterns generated by the proposed use will not adversely impact any of the surrounding streets or create a traffic safety hazard. That the proposed use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood, that the proposed use is not in conflict with surrounding land uses, and that the proposed use is in the interest of the common good. Do you want me to move forward, Chair?

Please.

So provided that you make those findings, the recommendation which was made prior to the public hearing is that a special permit be granted subject to the following conditions. One, all development shall be as per plans except as modified by these conditions, minor modifications of floor plan are allowed. Two, motor vehicle repair shop shall only be allowed as accessory use to the principal vehicle sales use. Three, obtain and comply with class two used car dealer's license from city council. Four, eliminate parking spaces at front of building. I'm actually going to recommend a modification to this particular. I had recommended initially, but as we've been discussing it, I have a different recommendation. So I think that um, either all spaces should be eliminated because they require backing out or they shall be used only for the display of vehicles for sale. That would be, um, and even if they are going to be used for vehicles, I think they do need to obtain the curb cuts because again, otherwise they're in violation of the traversing the sidewalk and curb cut. So, um, I guess it would be, the condition would be parking spaces at the front of the building two, three, four, five, six and eight as shown on the plan may only be used if curb cuts are approved and installed. And then the second part would be all parking at the front of the building shall be only for display of vehicles. That would be my recommendation. So if they don't get the curb cuts, those spaces are out, period. Whatever is at the front that's allowed would be for display only.

Right. Ken? Can we add to that? You know, we usually have that typical language about to the satisfaction of the DPW director. Is he the one that's going to determine the curb cuts?

He has to apply for the curb cut and DPW approves it. Right. So if he has to obtain.

Right, we usually have that language.

Okay, so obtain approval of curb cuts.

Not to the satisfaction, like when we ask them to improve sidewalks or do curb cuts.

Yeah, I mean, DPW, obtain DPW, I think it's the commission approval of curb cuts. It's not to their satisfaction. I mean, it has to be done. They either approve it or they don't.

Okay, I guess I'm thinking when we ask people to improve the sidewalks and everything, because this is also... Well, that's different. That would be a different position. But this is also going to become basically a driveway apron, which is also the sidewalk.

Yeah. I think they're... I mean, I'm sure they're going to have to be... When they install them, It has to be to their criteria.

I just want them to be as clear as possible, that's all.

Okay, so I guess condition four is the same as written. Okay. And then the second part of it is parking spaces at the front of the building shall only be for display of vehicles. So four actually is correct as it's written. Those are eliminated unless they can obtain the curb cuts. Does that make sense? Okay. So I'm just adding to four. I don't think we have to say DPW approval because that's. Okay, five, install and maintain signage and pavement markings to establish one-way traffic circulation pattern for eastern parking lot. And six, provide for removal of plowed snow from site. Submit copy of service contract to city.

And that's it, no other conditions?

The idea of reconfiguring the parking layout in the western parking lot, I'm sorry, in the eastern parking lot. Okay, so this is actually not correct. So A is the western side of the building. That's the right side. The parking lot on the eastern side is the left side, so the staff report is wrong. The parking discussed in C is on the left. That's the parking that doesn't have the conforming layout. That is the parking area that Maria had proposed reconfiguration to meet the layout requirements, potentially relocate the handicapped parking to that area, and there was an idea about spaces 36 through 40 to have as open space, or I should say open space, landscape space. So that's up to this board. Business is not required to provide any open space or landscape space. Usually if they have it, you request that they maintain it. So it's up to you whether you would want to require them to install it. I would think if they don't get the curb cuts for these parking spaces at the front, that would be a good space for the landscaping beds to go. But I don't know. They may not get the curb cuts.

So if they don't get the curb cuts, that could become landscaped area. If they don't get the curb cuts, they can't park anything there anyways. I'm sure they're not going to just pave it. So you want to put something in there to modify for that if they don't give the curb cuts of that will become a landscape area So this area shall be landscaped and

if curb cuts are not obtained, curb cuts are not approved and installed. So that space is 2345689.

Okay, Michelle, did you have a question?

Yes. So if the landscape and is, if the, sorry, if the curb cut is not approved and installed, is it only those parking spaces that needs to be eliminated? I'm just trying to understand. So if the curb cuts are there, they get to keep all 12 spaces in the front? Is that?

There's already curb cuts for several of those spots there, the ones that Michelle hasn't named.

Right.

Okay.

But you still have to back out, which is why I'm recommending it's display only.

Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. Regardless, could we just recommend to take all of them out?

I mean, you could. They are in violation of the zoning. You don't have to allow a new nonconforming. You allow the new nonconformity if you find that it's not more detrimental to the neighborhood. If you think that's detrimental, then... It's not more detrimental to have people backing out? It's already existing. But it's not parking. That's not parking.

Every time, every time, every time, what's going to stop a cop from, every time they move that car on that street from taking it? Nothing. Nothing. So they're in violation?

That wasn't in the parking lot.

I think it's dangerous, too. They don't need what they're violating already.

I think it's a little dangerous too for the back and out.

That's why it's prohibited to have a car back out onto the street. So you don't have to allow that. It's not being used as parking. You didn't approve that. The parking layout you approved for the gym had 40 spaces and the parking was on either side. It was paved in the front because it's all paved. I'm not saying it's not paved. But that wasn't designated parking.

They used it as parking, but it wasn't designated as parking.

But what if we said to have it landscaped, and then they keep some pavement, but have a landscape in the front, I think that would look very pretty, so that the two handicapped spaces now have a walkway to get to the front door. They'd have a way to use a wheelchair or whatever to clear from there, as opposed to now they have to go in front of cars. So regardless of the displays or not, just get I would agree with that.

I mean, it's up to you if you want to eliminate it and put landscaping.

Keep that in mind when we're making the recommendation.

Diane, you had something else, or was that what you wanted to talk about?

No, I was just, yeah, I just wanted to, so 10, 11, and 12, they already have a curb cut, correct? There is a curb cut. Okay, so 10, 11, and 12, so, and then if you had, I'm thinking just out loud here, 79 landscape, five, you know.

Just eliminate one.

Just eliminate. One through nine would become landscape. Yeah, one through nine would be landscape, so they save three.

And then that gets you the access. Correct.

And then the handicapped people still have the access. And then you don't have to do another curb cut for 9 and 8. If that makes sense.

So keep 10, 11, and 12 and eliminate 1 through 9.

Right. Keep 10, 11, and 12. We get rid of 9 and 8 and 7. Okay. 1 through 9. Is that what you said? 1 through 9. Eliminate 1 through 9 for landscaping.

Just to eliminate parking one through nine installed landscaping.

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

I'm so sorry.

Go ahead, Ken. So is the condition now we're not going to want them to even seek the curb cuts? Right. The new condition is no new curb cuts. Eliminate spots on the drawing one through nine and landscape that area. Landscape will provide you know want you know the handicapped access well the condition is what someone proposed makes the motion for right so I'm wondering I just try to clarify if This is an either or or if we want we're just gonna say Well, it sounds like you're saying eliminate parking spaces one through nine and install landscaping So there's not going to be any mention of seeking curb cuts or anything else I would say

Yeah. That's what sounds like what you're saying. You don't need a curb cut if there's no parking. You just keep the existing ones and number one can still back out. Well, no. I think you want to get rid of one.

Are 10, 11, and 12 still for display only? 10, 11, and 12 still for display only. Okay. 10, 11, and 12 for display only.

Okay. Maria had a question. Are you all set, Michelle?

I don't know if she's going to. The only other one I wanted to ask about was the 36 to 40, so I didn't know if Maria was going to. I'll let Maria take that one. Okay, so we'll do that.

Because when we, you know, on sheet A102, it clearly shows where they're adding on to the building and pushing the existing parking over, squeezing all those drive lanes. So I guess I don't know. If they have more parking than they need, I don't know why we have to allow those drive lanes to be constrained as well as, you know, it's an opportunity for more landscaping. There's a way to better reconfigure that. You'll lose a few more parking spaces, but you can, you know, you can get a better dry vial condition and some more planting in there as well.

I understand that portion, but they need the parking. That's why they're moving from one to the other place to here. And I was kind of thinking having, no one's going to see the side landscaping other than customers. I think the front of the property is probably more. I would agree with that. Yeah. I just, I mean, I don't want to get a take away all their parking. I just want to kind of make it look a little pretty from the outside, keep people from backing out onto the street. But I think if,

having the landscaping in the front i think that's like i said michelle said you don't need they don't have to have landscaping we're asking them to do that yeah as part of their condition and i i don't want to so are the it says 38 parking spaces are required there's 65 that are proposed and we're taking away nine of them so are the 38 required are those just for employee parking and not for like There's a big difference between 65 and 38 in terms of required parking.

Are you looking at the previous recreation for gainful business? Was 38 required?

That was only required for the gainful business. It doesn't matter how many parking spaces were there.

38 is required for this business as well. For vehicle sales or rental, the minimum is 18. That's by city count, that's by other ordinance, and that got transferred into zoning. 18 is the minimum. But for this size building, which is considered retail sales, it's four per thousand, and it comes out to 38. The reason this slightly smaller building was also 38 was the parking was a little different for recreation for the April business at the time. It was 4.4. It's coincidental. It's 38, right? It's 38 required.

So are we saying then that we're going to allow those dry valves to be like 19 and a half feet and be one way?

Well, I know the traffic pattern was already included in here, so I'm okay with that.

And actually, now that I just said that, I don't know where I came up with the 38 because 10,725 times 4 is 43 spaces are required. So let me just clarify that for the record. 43 spaces are required. So the report is wrong. My math is wrong.

Okay.

So just for the record, it's 43 that are required. So yes, if you want to allow the non-conforming configuration, you'll need to make that finding that it's not more detrimental.

Or we can ask them to reconfigure to a conforming diagram.

That's correct. That's correct. I think the only way they do that, if they put them head-on, like say two head-on spaces there.

Right, and that's up to them to come up with. It's not up to us to... That's correct.

That's correct.

And then this other side's... And develop that parking plan for them.

Right. The other side, the conformity was space 55, and then 50 and 51 are proposed for snow storage. So 55 doesn't have access to an aisle.

Okay. So, Diane, do you have any other questions?

No, but I do remember, too, maybe putting in as a... Recommendation deliveries during business hours only I don't know if that needs to be in there You don't want any nighttime deliveries.

I Don't know if that needs to be in there enough Okay Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure And that for some reason I'm remembering something about industrial zones having different Or maybe I'm thinking a central business different operating hours No, different deliveries. Let me just see this. I was of operation.

Ken, were you all set otherwise?

7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Yeah. And that includes used car sales deliveries at 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

While Michelle looks at it.

I was at 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. for used car sales. Deliveries are 6 a.m. To 11 p.m. So that's already there That's in the ordinance Well, it's not I was of operation but it's limited to date 6 to 11 So they couldn't do overnight deliveries anyway, okay Okay, so Diane's question about delivery of

limitations isn't applicable because of what they have I mean unless you want to restrict it further and then basically we've got six recommendations and then there's a question about what we do about the landscaping and the The landscaping and the other. Did you have something more tangible? I think Ken was looking for something more tangible. I thought we came up with language.

Eliminate parking spaces 1 through 9. Install landscaping there. And spaces 10, 11, and 12 shall be for display only.

Okay, so people are okay with that, and that's the new 4. Does anyone have any other questions?

Just to point out, even if they were trying to get current customers,

Okay Any other questions for Michelle if not, is there a motion Are you ready Michelle Are you ready for the motion, Michelle? Okay. Ken?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to grant the special permit with the six conditions as modified during the public hearing.

So grant it with the six conditions. Okay. Is there a second for Ken's motion? Maria. Maria seconded. Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Ken Antonucci?

Yes.

Diane Chua? Yes. Michelle Ferguson? Yes. Patrick Hayes? Yes. Eric Henry?

Yeah.

Marie Schroeder? Yep. Chuck Aylward? Yes. So that was seven to zero.

Okay, so the motion has been granted with conditions. Yeah, good luck with the new operation.

Okay, thanks.

Have a good night, guys. So that was, I get those all followed up. We're at 955. So that's 955. And that was 846. I wrote it on the wrong one, yeah. Sometimes.

703 to 845.

Diane, just look.

Well, we got a few more items Yeah No running away. Exciting. A.M. or P.M.?

Which means Eric's going right from here to the airport.

So let's try to move this along. Okay. So we can move on with next item on the agenda, 1 Salem Street. Michelle, can you give us a quick update?

Yes, 1 Salem Street is still in the traffic impact study peer review process is still underway. they're still addressing some of the questions and concerns, so that's not ready for your review and recommendation.

Okay. And was there something else about...

There was something else that Maria, I don't know if you want to talk about, Maria brought some concerns and recommendations.

Yeah, so just generally, the page that I sent you, Michelle, of just kind of looking over the... facade design. There are recommendations of how to maybe simplify some of it. The overall idea is that they're replicating the base of the building that used to be there right at 1 Salem and they're adding onto it. I believe it was a three-story base and the proportions get a little bit strange and different than the context. So there was just a couple of recommendations there for alignments to make and simplifications to the facade so that it's clear what is the historic replication and what is, you know, the more modern piece above it. You know, it's things like they have bay windows that are kind of on the, the expression on the top that are engaging the cornice of the replicated base. And it would be, it would allow the replication of the historical structure to be a stronger statement if they would keep them separate and let that cornice be a dividing line between the two. I guess I wrote some recommendations that I can send to you and they can consider them.

Yes. So Maria brought some concerns and recommendations. It's my recommendation because the Historical Commission is still going to review the facade because now they're going to incorporate parts of 15 Ferry. I recommended, whereas this board doesn't typically look at facade as part of its zoning review, that Maria can get her comments to the Historical Commission for their consideration. And if they include or incorporate any of them, they will be coming back to you anyway. So when you're ready for your recommendation, you'd be incorporating them in that way. as opposed to the board itself going out into that area. So that way, they were very well thought out recommendations, and I think the Historical Commission will be very interested.

Okay, so you'll pass down along to the Historical Commission?

Yes, I'm going to pass them, and I let Maria know when the meeting is, and I can let the Commission know.

And one of the other parts to the... what I was trying to relate to was that there's a party wall that's like, it's very tall, you know, right against the pizza place. So when you're coming, you know, yeah. So that, if you just imagine, they didn't provide a rendering or a 3D view of that, but if you can stand on that corner and imagine that there, it will be a very big change to that area. So we just want to go in eyes wide open.

Okay, and you're comfortable with Michelle passing on your information?

Yep.

Very good. Anyone have any other questions? Eric, you had a comment you wanted to make?

I just did. I don't know if you know anybody directly on that, but we do have direct contact with that.

Very good. Thank you. Next item, CPC.

No update. Very good.

Michelle master plan comprehensive master planning activities and open space work plan Comprehensive master planning activities the steering committee continues to meet meeting again next week We're there in the process of reviewing existing conditions Planning the citywide first citywide Planning event which is going to be early November and I believe they're looking at a Saturday. Once I get the date finalized, I will let you know. So you all can plan to attend, hopefully. So that project's moving along. In open space and recreation plan, we did get an update, which was that it was filed with the state and the state approved the plan. So that was just done actually right after your last meeting, right after our last meeting, I should say. The prior update to that was that they were trying to incorporate some of the comments in that you had made and some of the other city reviewers had made. I haven't seen the final version. I'll get the link and send it to everybody, so if anybody wants to take a look at it.

Okay, thank you. Next meeting is October 14th. If anyone can't make it, please let Michelle know as soon as possible.

Eric Henry is a no and Diane Chuhar is a no. So already two are absent. We don't do remote voting. We do not right now. I will see what is coming. I thought Overlook Ridge was coming. I'm not sure if it is. It isn't. And we'll have to talk at some point about November because our November meeting will fall on Veterans Day. So we're going to have to consider other dates.

Okay. Yes. We can't meet on Veterans Day. Right, right.

So maybe we'll talk about that next time. If we don't have a meeting, we'll have to do an email to poll people.

Okay. Any other questions anyone has? No? Eric, have a safe trip. Enjoy meeting your new grandchild.

Thank you for that point of purpose.

And everyone else, thank you very much. Ken, thank you. And everyone, Ken, Michelle, and everyone. I did watch the last planning board meeting for my house, and you guys all did fabulous. Thank you very much for supporting me and helping me get through that. Is there a motion to adjourn? Don't you have? Anyone else? Michelle Ferguson seconds. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Have a good evening.