Home. Come on. I want you. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Oh,
hey. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N. Good evening. I'm going to call the Urban Affairs and Housing Committee meeting to order. It is May 27th. We have two items on our agenda. The first
one is order number 26,100 9683, a proposed zoning amendment to chapter 650 zoning sections 33, resultsway mixeduse overlay district. And the second one is order number 261009754, the communication from attorney Aldo
Cypriano on behalf of Mark Evangelus regarding the request release of a lowinccome deed restriction on the unit at 64 village drive unit 4. So we're going to begin with the results mixeduse overlay district. It's my understanding that they're going to run through a
brief presentation. So, if you would like to take the well, reintroduce yourselves again, please. And I think everybody's got a copy of their presentation. >> Can you guys hear me now? No. >> Yes.
Uh Terry Mckran with Graland. Um Kevin Sheen also >> also with Grayland. Um and we're in front of you this evening to discuss the zoning amendment to the results way mixeduse overlay district. Uh I believe everyone in this room has seen this
presentation. We've made zero changes to it. Um, so I'm going to fly through it, but to the extent there are questions or you want to go back to any slides and talk about them, happy to do so. I'm just gonna zip right through it. We submitted it, so we should talk about it. That's the existing campus as it
looks today. Um, just a refresher on our uh involvement with the campus, we bought it the end of 2020. um executed a 200,000 foot lease with BJ's Wholesale to relocate their corporate headquarters from Westboro to Marbor. Um and two
years later, we did a 10-year extension with Hologic, the women's health company, um who has been a longtime resident of Marboro and of this campus. Um and then most recently, we uh were successful partnering with Marorrow and winning the Massachusetts um it was a
DAM RFP to build the new Massachusetts State Crime Lab. So, we have now broken ground on that um and are well under construction. If anyone has driven up there recently, it's a it's a different site. >> Yeah. And the the actually the official groundbreaking is scheduled for June
9th. The ceremony >> um I mean unofficially program, but we Yes, we're well underway with construction. So, we're hoping you all can join us there that day. >> Yeah. Hopefully, we get good weather. Uh, and then this is just a summary of the
zoning that we've done to date. I won't go through it. I think everyone knows where we are. The the headline here is we are looking to raise the residential cap from 100 units to 400 units in subd district two of the results way
overlay district. Um, this is the most important slide. We are at step one here. So the next step being that we would come back in front of these same three committees. Unfortunately, you will have to listen to the same different presentation but three times on the master plan and the development
agreement. Um, and then finally, as the different phases would get built, we'd be back for the site plan approval of each of those individual phases. Um, a plan view of the existing campus. Um, this incorporates the crime lab into
the master plan. um the crime lab was zoned under the underlying zoning of the campus, not the overlay district. So now we're updating the master plan to include or we will I should say update the master plan to include that. Um this is again this is representative of the
the full buildout. Um but assuming this would be the next phase, this is 300 garden style apartments, all surface parked. Then we're showing 100 town homes. I know I've said it in the past, but between the 100 and 300 is still sort of a funible number of what's town
homes and what's garden style. And then the final phase being an additional commercial building in the middle of the campus there. We don't have to build any structured parking until that final phase. And that's your full buildout. Um and the I just want to pause and the only
thing I'll say that's sort of that's new in the presentation is we've now done this a few times and we've heard from a bunch of members of the committees. Um and the feedback that's sort of been consistent is that there is a lot of interest in seeing people like the diversity of housing stock um and are
interested in seeing what the phasing will be when we get to the development agreement. So that's been consistent. Um interest in amenities for the broader community at the campus. So things like walking trails, potential better access into craft food hall, anything we can do
to explore bringing the outside in. And then finally, just on the sustainability front, both the planning board and um I think the city council touched on maybe alternative energy sources, preserving mature trees, just kind of looking broadly at what we can do from a sustainability standpoint as part of the
development. Um, so those are kind of just key themes we continue to hear and I'm assuming we will hear as we move into the next phase of this, which is the development agreement. Anything on that? >> I actually have one more note on this slide just to clarify. Feel like in some of the news reports we've seen, it's
reported like >> an additional 30 3,200 parking spaces and that it is somewhat inaccurately because it shows the existing the existing parking is um 1,700. So that's included, you know, that's sort of the
total parking at the end of the day. Um, so the net new would be approximately the difference, you know, half of that essentially, including all the B. >> Yeah, it's about 1500 new spots. >> Yeah. >> All right. So back to the zoning request
that is on the table before us is to amend section 65033 E which is eligible uses number one which is the uses permitted by right E which is multif family dwellings and
then number two where it's currently says subdistrict 2 up to 100 dwelling units including without limitation age restricted dwelling units. They want that 100 to be 400. So, I'm going to quickly go through the
letter from the planning board that um we received because their input is part of this whole process. Um May 6th, honorable President OAN counselors at a regularly scheduled meeting on May 4th, the planning board took the following
action. On a motion by Dr. Finnby, seconded by Mr. Russ. The board voted to send a favorable recommendation to the city council on the above referenced proposed zoning amendment for the following reasons. The board's consensus was that the proposed zoning amendment
is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood specifically due to the diversity of homes that are being proposed. The board's consensus was that the proposed zoning amendment would not negatively impact the neighbors. The board's consensus was that the redevelopment of the site does provide
an economic benefit to the city. However, the board is unable to determine if there's a market need for more gardener style apartments, but did agree that the city is in need of town homes. And the board agreed the proposed zoning amendment is in keeping with the
intent and purposes of the city's zoning ordinances. The board has the following additional comments. Among the proposed development options, the board prefers the inclusion of townhouse units and recommends that these be incorporated in an early phase of the project. The board
also recommends that any mixeduse amenities and retail components be included in the early phases of development. If walking trails or bike paths are developed, they should be open to the public and where feasible connected to existing trail and path networks. An effort should be made to
preserve mature trees on site where feasible and to maintain the existing natural vegetation buffer. Yay. Fay Finn be used Levincenture and Russ and there were no naysay. The motion carried five to zero. Sincerely Sean Fay chairperson.
So based on some on this and some on just my own personal opinion, I'm in favor of increasing the number of units. I'm just not so in favor of letting them be by right. So, I had talked to the solicitor. I had sent him a draft. we
played around with. Everybody has a copy of what I I can't move to amend the amendment, but I want to throw it out as conversation um to see if anybody else thinks that
switching up from all by right to having somebody be special permit and I saw council Ducet's hand. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um I I think your approach is basically 300 by right and up to 400 by special permit.
Is that the intent of >> No, 100 by right and then 300 by special permit to make a total of 400. >> So more additional dwelling units. No more than because it says no more than 300 dwelling units with >> no more than 300 dwelling units within
the subd district provided that. But it's if you look at two, two is special permit. So one one is by right. >> Okay. >> And then 300 by special permit. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Um >> and then not to exceed 400 is in that. >> So 100 plus 300 equals 400 is your correct with the 300. The only I think for wording if you could put 300 additional drilling units that might
make it more readable. Um but uh the other the other thing um I also wanted to talk about is item C the biosafety uh lab that was I talked to these guys beforehand u that was originally proposed when they're going to be
putting biio manufacturing up there but it is not relevant to the state crime lab and I would put that under item three as not allowed you know >> um we could probably do that but this was in the original they could still if
they want to do by special permit do a biosafety level three laboratory and we agreed back when this was originally done that they could do that by special permit. I don't know that we want to take away that right at this point. We could deny the special permit if you don't want to have the lab but
>> yeah it's a I was fingering if it was a way to get rid of that one if it's not needed I'd keep it like that. Um but uh so I I I still don't I think the current word in item D is not clear. So I would just put no more than 300
additional dwelling units within the sub contract within the subd district. >> All right. I as I stated in the email, this has been looked at by the solicitor. I I hesitate to add that word additional because it's very clear that it's one and then it's another. So
>> it's not to me. That's why >> 300 and then there's 300. No more than 300 units by special permit. >> Yeah, but >> they're not additional. They're something. >> Right. But then right afterward it says the entire subject is two shall not exceed 400. So you see 300 and then 400
makes it a little confusing. >> Councelor Naven. So I think that just if coming from it um a different way councelor Ducet um because there's already 100 allowed by right by saying that there's no more than 300 you've got the delta there so that the no more than 400 just just
leaves the 100 in there. So it's not the 300 plus 400 it would be 300 plus the unsaid 100 is the 400. So I mean I think it is clear. I mean, I I hear what you're saying as far as that, you know, if a quick read of it, but I think since the solicitor has blessed it, I'm
comfortable that it gets to the point that councelor the that chair Roby is trying to make. >> Okay. >> But, you know, I I also struggle with some of the ordinance language that we see on a daily basis anyway. So, I do rely on the solicitor to keep us out of hot water. >> I think he's going to be
>> if I were the one to do it, we'd all be in trouble. So, >> yeah, I'm assuming he's going to be watching this one anyway. So um the other highlight that you had uh the uh multi subject to shall be uh closed condition. Yeah. The the other change I
mean motion to approve effectively these changes as they are presented in red. Uh I got no problems with that. And how about with the deletion? And and um councelor Orm is not here, but I think the other item on our agenda tonight
makes it clear that we know >> new age restriction. >> Yeah. Um >> yeah. So agreed with that too. >> We don't want >> Yeah. >> We don't want any more age restricted and we know that age restricted means that they can't >> they can't be affordable and so they
don't help with our affordable count. Councelor Asing. So, so, so help me understand why we need a special permit. The the master concept plan requires a twothirds vote. The development agreement requires a twothirds vote. What is a special permit buying me other
than having the applicant come before us three times? I guess >> um I guess it just gives us another layer of looking at things. the original development agreement which you probably
have but I don't know that anybody else did had some I will call it mitigation but I think mitigation to me is where we can deal with mitigation when we have special permits we can't in a by
right um so unless we want to add a ton of mitigation in the development agreement it's easier for me to say let's look at all of this special permit. And I'm also going back to what we did to the original results way where
Avalon one was by right, Avalon 2 was by special permit. We we let them have more, but we did it by special permit. >> Right. But I would argue that the mitigation is outlined in the master
concept plan and development agreement. Again, I'm trying to see what the value is of a special permit coming before us. Um, you know, in the master concept plan we set up, we want how many town houses, how many apartments, the sequence of
construction, you know, as part of the development agreement. We we can outline all that. I'm I'm trying to I'm again, I just don't understand what a special permit gets us. >> Nothing more than what a typical special permit gets us. I to me I just don't
want them to say that they can have 400 units of housing by right with no ability for us to have any say on what they look like or >> but we do that that's what the master concept plan and development agreement
are for. I mean >> well maybe we never got that far before. So, I would rather have this in the zoning and then the other two pieces are extra steps or next steps, but um the zoning
>> would take place. Councelor Naven, >> I hesitate to ask a legal question of the president, but I do want to ask it because I want to help get some clarification here just because this is obviously a different process than we go through on our other developments. Um, and it's a little tricky >> if we are to change the zoning to allow
the 400 units by right and then we get into the next phase which is the I'm going to say for people at home but for myself as well then we get into the master agreement >> for the development and we put in restrictions that say we want to see
>> the 100 town homes built first right and you shall not build the 300 garden style apartments until the 100 town homes are built and the proponents who have been very cooperative and have been very great to
work with and we had some different people in the past where it was a little bit challenging. But let's just say we're all working together. But then all of a sudden you guys feel like we pulled the rug out from you a little bit and say, "Well, you changed it. You said we can do this by right. We want to build because the market says we're going to get a better response for 300 garden
style." Who gets the recourse in that scenario? >> Are we going to land court? Are we going Are we here? Are we I'm just trying to understand. >> So, can I respond? >> Certainly. >> And I'd ask Terry and Kevin to, you know, fill in any blanks. But the master
concept plan basically go back to the cartoon for lack of a better word. You know, kind of outlines what what it's going to look like, right? Master concept plan. Development plan is now going to say, "Here's all the stuff we want in it. We want the parking garage first, the buildings, cuz that remember
we got hung up on that a couple years ago. We wanted office buildings before we saw residential units and we couldn't get the commitment for the office building. So the thing kind of went all right. Well, we actually >> Yes, we did because now we have a great crime lab where they were going to put
those 100 units that they wanted to build first. So look at how that worked out. >> So So you can pat ourselves on the back for not uh >> It doesn't happen often, Mr. President. Let's take a lap. But but the development agreement and again Kevin and Terry tell me if I'm
wrong is going to specify we want the garden style units first the you know the apartments second and and we can change the numbers I mean it's just 400 units we want 400 town houses I guess we can get it I mean they may I
mean again it's got to come down in the concept plan if we don't like the concept plan and say we want all the whole thing all town houses. They may not want to do just like you. We wanted the office building first and we don't like it. It doesn't go anywhere. But I'm still trying to determine what does my special permit
get me that the development plan doesn't get me. I'm I'm not trying to be a stick in the I just don't I'm trying to understand why I would want to have a special permit in addition to the development plan. And I guess my thought was it could make the development
agreement less wordy and less financially involved and let the financial pieces be in the special permit. But if everybody thinks the development agreement is the way to go, then I guess we can do that.
Mr. Sheen, did you have a comment or a question? >> Yes, I just to respond to a couple things in councelor Maven's point. I think um is accurate that in as Terry outlined there are multiple steps under
the overlay. So if for some reason you know we can't come to terms on what the concept plan um should look like or the um mitigation in the development agreement. We basically don't have a byite project
um at that point. So I do think it the council does and the city does retain control over it in the same way. It accomplishes much the same thing as a special permit. From our perspective, the development agreement is preferable.
I would say from um a commercial perspective, from a financability perspective where we can look at it and say and we're willing to have this negotiation with you all up front. That's better for us than saying, "Okay,
great. We have some ability to build a certain number of units, but we have to go back and negotiate a mitigation agreement in the future. We're not sure exactly how much that will cost us. So, it's kind of it makes it a little bit harder from our perspective to actually
get the units built in the future. So, >> so we would prefer to do that up front if possible. >> So, so I appreciate that point. Um, and I think it it clears it up. Some of the part that I'm struggling with here as I rely, you know, on councelor Rosing and the chair to help here. One of the
things I get hung up on a lot as we go through this process, not specific to this process speak, not this parcel because obviously the overlay makes it a little bit more complicated than we deal with others. My argument here, which you have all heard too many times to count, is that our chance to make sure we know what's
going into a project happens when we change the zoning. We have seen time and again here again not this parcel when we approve the zoning overlays and then that only took the six votes and then we come and we need a special permit and we
don't go for it we often end up in court is that different here >> and that's that and I think to I think it gets to the point you're trying to make Mr. president and then also so I'd like >> so if I may madam chair so so it is so again so the development agreement
requires a twothirds vote okay and so look the key elements required mitigation number one two restrictions on the development areas three proposed phasing four obligations with respect to pedestrian and vehicle interconnectivity those are all things that have to be
addressed and and I'll just go back to they can build a 100 houses right now well technically yes but no they haven't come before us with a master plan or a development agreement. >> Right. >> So at So if I was going to throw a special permit on top of that, I'm not sure what I'm going to
benefit. I mean, I I guess you can say it's another layer of checks and balances, but everything I've just heard, mitigation, the development areas, the phasing of the project, they are written currently in the zoning as it's listed right now. And there's no
wiggle room for a six six vote. It's a twothird cuz this is a development plan. Uh same thing with the master concept plan. 2/3 votes for each one. >> And I would just throw out there that this is the exact same language
before the subdist was added to it. I don't think we changed anything else. So when we did subdistrict one, we had all of this. We had a master plan and then they decided they wanted to add more housing and we amended to do special
permit >> for the additional housing >> because the the way subdistrict one is listed it's more is it more than 350 the the wording is different for subdist one. Um,
>> it's more than 350 develop dwelling units within the subd district >> by special permit and by right it was going to go back to my pages. Um,
>> multi more than 350 dwelling units within the subdist. So you could you could have more, >> right? Up to 350 by right. And then we gave them the special permit to add more. >> Yep. >> So that's exactly what they're doing.
The original says you get 100. They want to add another 300. >> I'm saying let them have it, but make it by special permit. >> So I would disagree because we haven't got to that point. When we did that, we had approved the 350 across the street.
Now, it was saying 400 on the other side by a master plan and a development agreement, which is what we did on the other side of the street. The special permit came in. If they said, "Hey, I I want to build 500 houses now. I'll I'll now I would agree that maybe you want a
special permit." But to go to to do that now, to go from 100 to 400, I just don't think is of any value uh for the council. Can I >> Madam President? Go ahead, Dave. I'm sorry. Who? >> Councelor Ducet.
>> Thank you very much. I mean, I see this is the the reason why they're submitting this is because if they want to submit a master plan today, they can show 100 units of housing. After if we agree to this and we, you know, we put, you know,
this passes through and gets approved by the council, when they come up with the master plan, they can show 400. But the master plan right now can only show 100. So we're, you know, we're giving them the opportunity, and correct me if I'm wrong, but basically when you come up with the master plan in the current
form, you're limited to 100. When it goes to 400, your master plan will be updated to 400 units. So that's what comes to the council as part of the master plan is 400 versus 100 units. >> Correct. The master Yeah, they they have to submit the master plan regardless of
whether the extra three are by special permit or by right. >> Right. They can't show the 300 because they it's not allowed correct in the current form. If this gets passed, they can show those and say, "Oh, by the way, these have to be done by special." Well, this allows them to do it by passing
this as a special per as a zoning change. Um, my only concern is I would rather see owner occupied housing versus apartments because there there may be demand for
apartments but there's incredible demand for owner occupied housing specifically that you know something garden style something lower cost to get in entry you know entry level housing um versus the apartments that's because you know
there's there's a lot lots of expensive apartments out there that no one in the city can afford and we need to come up with alternatives that are more affordable and that has to start with new development. So that was my only other comment, but thank you.
>> And I'm guessing you're not doing single family homes. You want to be able to put as much housing as you can on that property, which is why you're doing town homes and then apartment buildings. Correct. Um, we are open to the idea of
ownership versus rental. I mean, we would love to keep as much flexibility as possible to meet the market, but town homes, you know, could be ownership as opposed to rental. And um, again, I would just kind of draw the contrast
with the Avalon situation where I believe they got a certain number approved and started and then came back later. And so I I think what we are hoping to achieve with this proposal is get the whole thing approved as you said
councelor Dette and sort of plan the whole thing out now again with all the appropriate mitigation and um >> you know phasing and and other uh aspects which we expect to you know be included in the development agreement. Madam Chair,
>> Council Naven, >> I really hesitate to go back to the conversation that we had before we got off of the different rabbit hole, but um here we go, Mr. President. Um it so in this particular situation, is
the development agreement analogous to the special permit? Because to me that the items that you outlined that would be develop would be discussed and approved in a development agreement by two-thirds of the council are the same things that you would >> negotiate and plan through in a special
permit. >> In my opinion, I mean councelor Roby may not agree with that, but I again it's and it's unlike a special permit where we kind of wing what's going to begin based on what the applicant submits to us. This tells you it has to include these items,
>> right? However, so my question comes and I want to be clear. I support I mean we've you know I have a disagree I would like to see a little bit of a smaller number but I am supportive of home of units in addition to the town home. So I'm not I'm not doing this to be a stick in the mud. I'm doing this more because
I've got to get my head wrapped around this. Um, if if that is true, again, if they are not happy with what we approve or don't approve or don't approve the development agreement, say we vote down the development agreement. If that were a
special permit, we would go to land court. >> Is that the same? >> I don't I don't think you go to you don't go to land court for a development agreement. That's just >> they just don't build they can't build it. >> They just can't build it. They got to come back and figure out a one that's going to pass muster through the council. May I make a suggestion that we
go this route as opposed to the special permit process that we go through on every single other development in the city and maybe we may have a little bit more of uh strength as a body when we decide what we would like to see. But I guess I digress. Um, >> I am perfectly okay having the
conversation around what the development agreement can have in it and that will be the next step and go back to the uh language that they had if they're amendable to adding the specific language about the
affordables that was suggested by the solicitor. Um compliance shall be made a con um multifamily dwellings in subdist 2 shall be subject to 65026 of the of the zoning
ordinance compliance shall be made a condition of any site plan approval that's required and that is the affordable housing piece and I know you sort of alluded to you didn't have to have affordables when we had the public hearing but in the
information that you provided did when you talked about what this the benefits of the city, there is the affordable piece in there which is was picked up by the solicitor. So he says they're talking about
affordable there. Um and I think my concern with 65026 is the language says multifamily housing and affordable is by special permit. It doesn't say anything about site plan only. So by right is
only site plan. The solicitor said by adding this language in you have to comply with the affordable piece and I want to make sure that that is there. >> I apologize I'm not I don't know the exact numbers. That's the 12% affordable. >> Yes,
>> that is our expectation is that we would comply with that. >> Okay. So, um, we can go back then to the simple language of changing 100 to 400, but adding in
um, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the zoning ordinance or the results, we mixuse overlay district, multif family dwellings in subdist 2 shall be subject to 65026 of the zoning ordinance. Compliance shall be made a condition of any site plan approval that is required.
And that's okay by you. Does that sound okay by >> Just a clarifying question. Does that mean that we're then agreeing to the special permit by accepting that? >> No, the special permit's gone. I I would go back to just your your Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. To your basic >> Okay, perfect. >> scratching 100, putting in 400, but add that additional I I would also strike without limitation age restricted dwelling units. So, it really would be sub subdist up to 400 dwelling units
period and then the notwithstanding anything language. >> That would be fine. >> So, we're getting rid of age restrict or age restricted. >> That's so I don't you didn't talk about building age restricted anyway and I >> not our intent at this point. No,
>> they're they don't count for affordable units and I don't think we really want to go down that rabbit hole. So madam chair >> work for councelor ducet. >> So the um the subjection so the the final wording would be subd subd
district 2 up to 400 dwelling units including with uh including any dwelling unit because it doesn't say >> no period >> stops at dwelling units. >> Period. >> Yes. >> And then add the notwithstanding sentence from page four.
>> Hold on. Looking at page page four of your notes. >> Page four of yes. Page four of >> notwithstanding anything to the contrary to the zone not ends multi-end subdist should be made conditioning. Okay. So
basically the red on page four is appended to what's shown on the handout for >> right except it says 100 dwelling units. It would be 400. I'm >> okay. I I I I
resend my original proposal and I propose for that change instead. >> All right. Is everybody clear what we're doing? >> Yep. >> All right. It's been moved and seconded to amend the zoning to read subdist 2 up
to 400 dwelling units. Period. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the zoning ordinance or the results mixeduse overlay district, multif family dwellings in subdist two shall be subject to 65026 of the zoning ordinance. Compliance shall be made a condition of any site plan approval that
is required. >> Further discussion councelor Ducet >> I just want to make one comment. I I'm not sure where you're going to put the additional 300 units, but I hope a lot of those office buildings don't disappear and become apartments. Isn't
that the the the horseshoe shape? >> So the top right the intent is the top is to be apartments or >> the top right the U and the N. >> Okay. Okay. So that's where I was going to go. Thank you for clarification. >> And it's hard to read, but if I believe
if you look at your copy that you got, you can probably read the top there and and understand the color coding. All right. No further discussion. All those in favor? One, two, three, four.
All right. So, this will get reported out at the June 8th meeting. Um, I can see if the solicitor can have it in proper form for the meeting. There's probably enough time. If it is as a
letter from him, then we could suspend to actually approve it that night. Otherwise, it would be moved to refer to the solicitor put in proper form. So, we'll see how how that all plays out, but otherwise we'll take the next step at the June 8th
meeting and hopefully we can get this done and then it'll be the next step. >> Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I may have misheard um council sets. Was he just motioning to amend or motion to >> No, I think he was dropping his amendment where he wanted I dropped my
original amendment but then proposed to amend this. Did you just do it all in one vote to amend it and to approve it? to approve the amendment. >> Yes, to approve the amendment. As I stated multiple times, you're you're
clear on what we voted on. >> I am very clear on what we voted on. I just did it. Does it need a further vote to send it from committee? >> Um, well, that's I'm going to report it out. >> Yeah. And then if and I can ask the solicitor like we have in the past if he
can get it on the agenda as an action item in proper form we could vote on it that night with a suspension. >> If it's not then I will move to suspend to refer it to the solicitor. It would be on the June 22nd
agenda >> and we have to vote on it then or hold a special meeting because the 90-day clock elapses July 6th. Yep. Thank you. So, we'll try I I would It's simple change for him and a letter from him to
say it's in proper form. I think it would be easy enough for him to get it on there. Okay. All right. So, that finishes up with this one. We will take up the next item unless there's something else that you
have for us. >> All right. All right. Nope. Thanks very much. >> Thank you for working through this with me. Thank you, >> President O for >> All right. The next item on our agenda, which I just is, as I had said before,
order number 26100 19754, the communication from attorney Criano on behalf of Mark Evangelist requesting the release of a lowincome deed restriction on the unit at 64 Village Drive, Unit 4. So, I know there was a lot of paperwork
within the communication sent by Mr. Cypriano. We can do this the hard way or we could do this the easy way. I went back and looked at the May 6, 2024 urban affairs report which was the chair
stated she has spoken to legal counsel and the suggestion was for the committee to endorse the concept of releasing the affordable housing restriction on unit 3 and referred to legal department to draft proper language that would be on a future council agenda. I did take the
time to actually write an order based on what the solicitor had presented, but I think we could move to endorse the release of the affordable housing restriction on unit 4 building one and refer to the legal department to
draft proper language to be on the June 8th agenda. This is we did this the first time when we found out that EOHLC does not count age restricted housing as affordable. So
there's a deed restriction. They want to sell they wanted to sell the first unit. There were two units that were approved when this subdivision uh was built. Um this is the second unit. So hopefully this is the last of
the issue. I I I did try to look at in all the other age restricted um special permits that we have approved and none of them had anything about affordable. So I think this
should clear up the um the issues and and let them sell it without the deed restriction that's there. Councelor Det. >> Yeah, Madam Chair. Um, I remember this went through the first time and I'm I'm a big advocate of affordable housing, but basically can't happen there. Um,
and the current owner is in a stuck between a rock and a hard place because, you know, they inherited the place and they can't sell it until we actually get this thing done. So, granted, they're going to benefit, but I don't think there's anything we can really do about this. So, um, if there's any other
discussions, I do a motion to approve. uh send it to the solicitor and release the uh deed restrict restriction. >> Madam chair, >> councelor >> vital. >> Thank you. Um I've talked with a number this whole division is within my ward and and I've developed some
relationships with some of the folks that live there and everyone that I talked to was in favor of us accepting it as well. So I would ask for this committee to to to uh vote as we have in the past. >> All right. So it should be pretty easy. the solicitor can again hopefully get
this language on the June 8th agenda. If not, then it would be another one of those reported out, ask it to be referred and then he would have the proper language for the June 22nd. This doesn't have a timeline, but I think he's done it once. He can he has all the
details that he needs from attorney Criano. So, it's been moved and seconded that we endorse the release of the affordable housing restriction. Further discussion? Nope. All those in favor? One, two,
three, four. And that is our agenda. So, >> motion to adjurnn. >> It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor? 2 3 4. We are adjourned at
8:13.