Remarks of City Councilor Shawn MacMaster

Melrose Planning Board Public Hearing

January 27, 2020

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this matter.
I suspect that many of the residents who are here tonight have come in opposition
to the proposed project at 99 Washington Street. I am here to neither support or
oppose the proposal, but rather to highlight a number of concerns that I have, as
both a City Councilor and a neighbor, about the plan that has been presented to
you.
At its best, the renovation plan for the Marty’s Furniture Building would make for
an aesthetically pleasing addition to the neighborhood. At its worst, the plan
would result in a property that is discordant with the theory of “Smart Growth,” not
to mention incongruous with the spirit of the amended zoning regulations for the
Lower Washington Street Neighborhood. From a planning sense, the proposal
lacks a common sense approach to transit-oriented development, economic
stimulus, community cohesion, and sustainability. Absent from this proposal is
even the slightest consideration of three key principles of the “Smart Growth”
doctrine, which I’ll return to momentarily.
As a City, this is our final opportunity to get it right on the Lower Washington
Street corridor. This is our last at bat. We are 0 and 2 in this neighborhood, and
down to our last strike. We have a chance, here and now, to work in concert with
the developer to create something that benefits Melrose for years to come.
I believe strongly that we can shape our destiny, and take advantage of this
opportunity, by flexing our muscle as a community and sending a clear and loud
message that we, and we alone, control the fate of our neighborhoods.
The pathosis known as “our hands are tied” is straight out of the playbook of
defeatism. This is a syndrome that too many communities fall victim to when
confronted with proposals that -- even if not ideal -- offer a quick, low-risk
opportunity to garner additional tax revenue. Let’s not be one of those
communities. Let’s set our sights higher. We should be driven by one overarching
goal: incentivizing the developer to do better for us, and better by us.
This starts with having a clear and conspicuous vision for the Lower Washington
Street corridor. Do any of us really think that the intention of the Smart Growth
Overlay Regulations was to warehouse hundreds of people in multiple residential
units on Lower Washington Street? No, the intention was to create a vibrant,
multi-use district to enhance the livability of Melrose. But somewhere along the
line, private developers began to hijack our vision. This proposal is another
Page 1 of 4
attempt at doing so, and shame on us as a City if we’re complicit in allowing it to
move forward as currently proposed.
When considering the 10 principles of Smart Growth, the Oak Grove proposal is
not in accordance with three of them: Mix Land Use, Open Space, and
Community Collaboration. With respect to the latter, the community meeting
hosted by the developer on October 3rd did not result in any modifications to the
plan -- not one concession to the neighborhood. The plan before you completely
discounts the concerns vocalized by neighbors at that meeting:
➢ An excessive amount of housing
➢ A sea of residential parking
➢ Front-side visitor parking
➢ Zero retail
➢ No outdoor or indoor space for neighborhood use
➢ A one-way driveway configuration ripe for accidents
➢ And an overtaxed sewer system.
True Community Collaboration would have elicited stakeholder input prior to
architectural design; and at the very least, a willingness to collaborate should have
resulted in a modified proposal. As a residential property, the Mix Land Use
principle of Smart Growth is ignored in this proposal. The argument that there is
not enough pedestrian traffic to support a coffee shop or other type of retail
establishment is an aberration. Anyone who commutes to Oak Grove Station or
who lives in the neighborhood can attest to this. More than anything, there is a
need and a strong desire for some type of retail at this location. With respect to the
Open Space principle of Smart Growth, a 172-vehicle parking lot is a missed
opportunity. By accommodating such a high volume of cars, this proposal
encourages car ownership, which leads to car use -- an outcome contrary to a
transit-oriented community. This proposal makes an assumption that most
residents will use public transportation; if that’s the case, then why are 1.22
parking spaces per unit necessary? Large parking lots reduce open space that
could be used for other purposes that align more closely with Smart Growth.
If I can pivot for a moment to illuminate concerns relative to infrastructure.
The one-and-a-half-page utility plan submitted by the developer only estimates
new sanitary sewage flow; it does not cite the cumulative daily flow with the
addition of 141 residential units. The main sewer line on Lower Washington Street
was installed in 1905. Let’s think about that for moment. Teddy Roosevelt was
President of the United States at that time; it was nine years before the start of
World War I, seven years before the sinking of the Titanic, and seven years before
Fenway Park opened its doors. As a historically industrial neighborhood, the
Page 2 of 4
sewer line on Lower Washington Street was not installed to accommodate vast
amounts of residential sewage.
The developer’s plan to “slip line” an 8-inch clay pipe is completely inadequate.
We should demand that a new main sewer line be laid by the developer as a
condition for development. Besides being 115-years-old, the pipe is already
discharging sewage from the hundreds of housing units at 2, 37, and 47
Washington Street, 1000-4000 Stone Place, 15 homes on Lower Washington
Street, 4 homes on Goodyear Ave, and 30-plus homes on Brazil Street. The
estimated daily discharge of over 15 thousand gallons of additional raw sewage is a
clear and present danger to a neighborhood that has already experienced a sewer
disaster.
Particularly at risk are two single-level family homes built on slab directly across
the street from the location; also at risk are four homes at the bottom of Brazil
Street, three of which were destroyed by sewage last June. An additional 15
thousand gallons per day is the equivalent of filling the water tanks of 20 fire
engines with sewage; over a year’s time, this would be tantamount to filling almost
9 Olympic-size swimming pools with raw sewage. Rehabilitating the sewer main
with a slip line will reduce the diameter of the pipe at a time when an influx of new
sewage is being added; this will limit pipeline hydraulics and compromise the
integrity of the pipe. A new sewer main is the only answer here.
Finally, the plan before you provides no tangible benefit to the neighborhood.
It will essentially create an exclusive community with an invisible fence around it.
If you plan to live within the proposed property, I’m sure that it will be a lovely
place to call home: yoga and spin rooms; a gym; a club room; a lounge; a library;
a work area; a bike room; an outdoor lounge with grills and firepits; a roof deck;
storage units; and a dog park and dog wash. But what will it provide the larger
neighborhood? Almost 200 additional cars, more traffic, more noise, and more
pollution. What it won’t it provide is an establishment at which to get a cup of
coffee, a bite to eat, a gallon of milk; nor will it help to foster any sense of
community or neighborhood solidarity by providing communal space for current
residents to gather with new ones.
What could we have if we incentivize a true Smart Growth approach through tax
credits, for example? A coffee shop; a café; a market and deli; a community work
space; a green space; and a playground. One hundred and forty-one housing units
is not visionary; it’s not bold; and it’s not within the best interests of the City.
I’m not asking that you outright deny this proposal; what I’m asking is that we find
a way to work in partnership with this developer to achieve true Smart Growth.

Page 3 of 4
Now let me be clear: I don’t have any ill will toward the developer nor do the
neighbors. Mr. Kelly and Attorney Lucas have been perfect gentlemen throughout
this process; and the team at Insight Partners have been professional and
communicative. At the end of the day, they’re in the business of making a profit
and minimizing costs. I understand that. But we’re in the business, as community
leaders, of creating a better and brighter Melrose. The developers have called our
bluff with this proposal, and now it’s time for us to play a better hand. I know that
all of you (and our planning department staff) combine acumen and experience
with a genuine concern for this City. But there needs to be the political will from
our elected leadership to back the innovative solutions that you’re capable of
offering. I’m willing to expend what political capital I have to advocating for an
incentivization plan and to calling upon other elected leaders to do the same. If we
make it financially desirable for the developer to adjust the proposal to our liking,
we can then work collaboratively with them to right size the plan.
Thank you again for your time and consideration, and for your service to Melrose.

Page 4 of 4