TLDR: Matt Leming has posted a blog accusing the residents of spreading lies and misinformation about the zoning that he apparently doesn’t understand. This blog post is long and still doesn’t hit all of the misinformation he and others are spreading. There are only two possibilities for why: 1. He doesn’t understand the zoning. Or 2. He is deliberately trying to confuse residents about what is in the zoning and the impacts it will have on the neighborhood.
Attend the City Q&A on the Salem St Zoning on Monday Feb. 10th at 6:30PM at the Roberts Elementary School. And follow this blog so you will know all about the zoning when you attend!
On Thursday Jan. 30th, Councilor Leming and Councilor Lazarro went to the senior center during lunch time. I was surprised when I walked in that rather than them walking around and introducing themselves, they were sitting at a table far away from the seniors. I said hello to my mother and her friends and chatted with some of the seniors while they ate their lunch. Then we migrated over to listen to the Q&A with the city councilors. I found the seniors to be very prepared and have their concerns ready for the Councilors who came. They were happy for the opportunity to air their grievances. I just wanted to take some time to touch on the blog Matt wrote after his time at the senior center. He seems to have a very low opinion of the seniors and to believe that they can’t think on their own. He also waited to respond rather than listening to what they were telling him.
Parking was a huge issue. One that I am not sure Councilor Leming grasped, but I have spoken to some seniors about this issue before, so perhaps I can help him out here. The seniors who attend the senior center are aged 60 and over. Some have physical disabilities and can’t walk very far. Having the parking lot right across the street from the center allows them to participate in the many activities there. This is a great way to make new friends, exercise, socialize, take classes and have lunch as well. Many of the seniors also do volunteer work at the center. This is a huge quality of life situation here and they are not going to give it up without a fight (and frankly, they shouldn’t have to).
Fact check: In posting an RFP the city is not constrained by what it can require or request and therefore the city could've absolutely included the requirement for senior parking for the Senior center. Considering the quantity of land and the continuousness of the parcels being offered 40 parking spots was a negligible request.
Fact check: It is misinformation to say definitively that the seniors will not lose parking. Also, the parking now is proximate to the senior center, so a garage on a lot closer to city hall would (for many seniors) not be a workable accommodation as the walk would be too far. Since Matt said senior parking isn’t in the RFP, it is unlikely to be included in either of the two bids that were received.
We are all waiting for the responses to the RFP to be revealed. Two companies have put in bids, and they are still under seal.
Yes, the lots around the senior center are full when the center is open. Some of the classes that are run there have 50 or more people. This is a jewel for these seniors, and they don’t want to lose it. They aren’t asking for nothing to happen on any of the lots, they are asking for the lot that Matt admits is well used be left as is. This is something that I learned from speaking with the seniors. I didn’t give them any information about this, I just listened to their concerns. I am sorry that Matt can’t fully understand the issue, but I or a senior would be happy to explain it to him. If the parking is moved too far away, it won’t be accessible, and many seniors will lose access to that fabulous facility.
Around when the Chevalier first came under management, the owner of that lot next to the post office (not the Chevalier) wanted to build a boutique hotel. He was denied.
Fact Check: The senior tax work-off program has 20 slots per year. Seniors represent approximately 15.8% of the population, so there are approximately 9,756 seniors in Medford. With 20 slots, this means .2% of the senior population can participate in the senior tax work-off program. The seniors have been asking for years for that program to be expanded. So there is more that can be done in that area. The seniors found that Matt was only interested in TELLING them what was available rather than listening to their experience with the program.
There are lots of changes in the Salem St Corridor Zoning, but I would think the biggest change is allowing 6 story apartment buildings to be built on 3k sq foot lots instead of the former 3 story building allowed on a 10k sq foot lot. The incentives also include adding items like a fountain or a bench to gain additional floors (see pages 14-15 of the zoning Matt has voted on twice so far. He called the senior who mentioned the fountain misinformed and was appalled when I pulled out the zoning and showed him.) There are so many outrageous things in this zoning that it is entirely unnecessary to exaggerate and wouldn’t be helpful for us to do at all.
The public outcry from the neighborhood was a lot more than a “few locals.” The connection to the city council (which was explained to them more than once) was that we had and continue to have no ordinance for a business that will dispense opiods to 100+ people per day. The Planning Department allowed them to file for a permit under the “medical office” designation. When we saw the new Salem St. zoning allowed “medical offices” by right, it was a door held open for a methadone dispensary to open in this already dense and slated to become many times more dense by the city council, this is not a good location for a methadone dispensary.
I fail to understand why Matt thinks community organization and building is a bad thing. Given that Matt Leming is a member of the Our Revolution group, it makes it seem as if he only believes that people who think like him are allowed to organize. Matt, this is our neighborhood, and we want a say in what you all are trying to do TO us and NOT WITH US!
Calling a group (who is informing the neighborhood of major zoning changes that the city failed to notify or study or collect feedback from the neighborhood) “ringleaders” is so derogatory and slanderous. This outreach costs us time and money and is only necessary because of the actions of this city council and the Planning Department. This zoning is poorly written and, in their rush, they have failed to complete the necessary steps of conducting studies or even soliciting community feedback.
This is where Matt should have done his own “Fact Check” if he thought there was something incorrect about the info provided here. But he has not. So allow us to again help him out…
The map on the left shows that the proposal does involve the side streets.
Building heights will go from 3 stories(35 feet) to 6 stories(78 feet) in the RED zones
New by right uses include: dormitories, shelters (ed purposes), dog daycares, hotels, research and testing labs and more…
The zoning also allows for a special permit for pot uses. This was pointed out at two meetings in December and at both, Matt still voted to push it through and did not seek to have that removed. They are in the current zoning filed and being reviewed by the Community Development Board.
The former process of going to the Community Development Board and then having to meet a legal threshold to get a variance from ZBA after that step is being replaced with many things by right and some changes only needing a simple waiver.
There has been NO community meetings or notice of these changes to the community being impacted. Homeowners whose homes are being zoned for 6 stories were never notified. Most of these meetings took place in rooms with no members of the public present as the agendas often said “Update with Innes Associates.” There were no attempts to reach the community impacted by this zoning until the day that residents were holding their own meeting. And that outreach was a post on a few Facebook pages as well as being the 5th item on a reverse 911 call. We look forward to them making real attempts at notifying the public. We have been doing our part to notify as many residents as we can through Facebook and flyers.
There have been ZERO studies conducted in this area to evaluate impacts of this zoning.
We have requested studies and not received one. The Comprehensive Plan calls for studies, it does not replace them.
Having watched all of the Planning and Permitting Committee meetings, it seems that much of the work of writing the zoning language happened behind closed doors or over email. The meetings consist of Innes showing a PowerPoint presentation and little to no actual zoning language.
We are not responsible for any secondhand gossip. We are only responsible for what we have put out publicly for all to see. I also stayed after the senior Q&A and spoke to Matt personally. I would still be happy to answer any questions that he has about the zoning.
We do not in fact have limitless time. We have taken to doing the work of notifying as many people as we can because the city was not going to. Matt was at the senior center at the same time that I was. He should have been more than capable of explaining the zoning, but alas he wasn’t even aware that a fountain is an incentive to get an additional half story. The incentives table doesn’t provide real community benefits in exchange for additional floors.
Let’s talk about .8 parking spaces. Here is where research and knowledge of the city come in handy:
Here is the language from the Salem St Corridor Zoning. Note it says “Located within a ½ mile of high-frequency transit.
Excerpt from proposed zoning as of 2/3/25 Here is an email from the Traffic Engineer and notice what he calls the bus that will be going down Salem St. A “high frequency bus route.” This phrase matches the language in the zoning.
Email communication to me Here is the section of the letter that the chair of the Planning and Permitting Committee Kit Collins where she mentions the bus. She calls Salem St a “transit-proximate corridor.” Transit-proximate development is a term used by some planning officials to describe (potentially dense) development that is physically near a public transport node (e.g. a bus station, train station or metro station). This type of development includes transit-oriented development. So Kit is certainly creating the bridge to allow .8 parking spaces per unit. (link to Kit’s letter in Community Development Board public comments: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1APZBOHJzuaL1yaG1VTJOrdRCmzavXtVk/view?usp=drivesdk)
Letter from Councilor Collins to Community Development Board
As you can see, it took time and research to make these connections to show the overt efforts of the city to classify the bus that will be introduced through the MBTA Bus Network Design. I have not received any clarification from the Planning and Permitting Committee that they do not plan to use the High frequency transit parking minimum mentioned here. I and others have brought this up at multiple meetings now. The only misinformation here is that Matt Leming claims to not know where this originated from or when the public is speaking he fails to listen or comprehend what they are saying.
The many items brought up at the listening session are a byproduct of the city council, Planning department head and Innes (the zoning consultant) failing to go out into the community and not only explain their zoning, but also to gather community feedback and conduct studies to inform the zoning.
Had the city engaged in this work, the residents of this neighborhood would not have been forced to engage and educate the community or just watch the zoning pass without the neighborhood knowing what happened until after new builds broke ground.
If they are proud of this zoning, then they should happily share this with the community.
Perhaps Matt is not familiar with the years long MBTA Bus Network Design. The bus that currently takes residents to Assembly Row will now go up by Tufts into Union Square. So the 101 bus will be going away, but we never told anyone that was the fault of the city council.
It is abundantly clear that a “City Community Meeting” is only taking place because residents held their own. The meeting was announced on the literal day of the Neighborhood meeting. A meeting that the mayor and the entire city council was invited to attend. There was no attempt to hold secret meetings, and we wanted EVERYONE to come. The fact that Matt who was personally invited by me at the Senior Center on the day of the meeting as well as receiving a personal email invite and apparently following my posts on Facebook shows clearly that this was out in the open for anyone to attend. Perhaps he could have had his confusion about the zoning cleared up had he attended. We broke the zoning down into small easy to understand bites. But it isn’t too late for Matt. He can still learn about the zoning he voted through twice by following this blog.
Well, that was a great exercise in battling misinformation. Please share the blogs and follow along. Next on the agenda is what does this zoning identify as “desirable uses” by right? And what is allowed by special permit.
Комментарии