Medford Mayor: No Zoning Vote In 'Dead Of Night'

MEDFORD, MA — Mayor Stephanie M. Burke on Friday responded to criticism over a late zoning vote at Tuesday's city council meeting, calling it a "thinly veiled 'cry wolf' attempt to foster distrust." The vote fell under scrutiny from some residents, including City Council Vice President and mayoral candidate Breanna Lungo-Koehn, when it was reconsidered after residents left the meeting.

In a letter, Lungo-Koehn blasted the vote and outlined the steps she believed should have been taken before the measure went to the Community Development Board.

"The City needs development, but it needs to be thoughtfully designed and located and we haven’t adequately vetted what these changes mean," Lungo-Koehn wrote in part. "Furthermore, these steps shouldn't be initiated in the dead of night when most people are sleeping."

Burke submitted the following statement in response to Lungo-Koehn's letter:

I am writing in response to the letter submitted by the City Council Vice President regarding the City Council's action on June 25th on the proposed zoning amendments in Mystic Avenue.

• For some months the MAPC has been meeting with the Director of the Office of Community Development and the Building Commissioner to discuss possibilities to reshape and amend the City's zoning ordinance as it applies to the Mystic Avenue corridor. The City Solicitor was also involved to give advice on the proper form.

• The final draft was not ready until the last week before the end of the fiscal year.

• Amendments to the zoning ordinance must proceed in compliance with G.L. c 40A section 5. This is not a requirement in Medford alone but rather apply to every city or town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

• That law requires the referral of the proposed amendment by the Council to the Planning Board within 14 days of its receipt.

• Also so long as the Medford City Council refers the proposed amendment to the Planning Board within 14 days of receipt it could hold its own meetings to discuss its contents. It chose to make the referral immediately. Even so, the Council is not prohibited from holding its own meeting before the 14 day period ends.

• Whether it is at a City Council meeting, the Planning Board hearing or when the proposal comes back to the Council after being before the Planning Board, it has been and remains my intention to have the consultant and appropriate department heads in attendance to answer the questions and concerns of the residents in attendance and the Council.

• The notion that the vote of the Council to send the matter to the Planning Board was done to "subvert the normal process" is factually incorrect and defies the clear requirements of G.L. c 40A section 5.

• The proposed zoning amendment was placed on the City Council’s agenda posted by the City Clerk on Friday, June 21, 2019. The contents of the agenda were certainly known by those in attendance on June 25, 2019 and most assuredly were known to the Council Vice President. Hardly the “dead of night."

• Her statement that a decision was made “without public involvement” indicates an inability or refusal to grasp the simple truth that G.L.c 40A section 5 is all about public involvement through multiple hearings both at the Planning Board and the City Council following advertisement and notice.

• Frankly, in my opinion, the Council Vice President's letter is a thinly veiled "cry wolf" attempt to foster distrust.

• It is a predictable and lamentable tactic employed by some politicians that does a great disservice to the residents of our City who deserve a much higher level of discourse from its elected officials.

• Passing off slanted conclusions and innuendo as fact may be the empty method embraced by some. I will not follow suit.

• Real leadership seeks prudent solutions based on true facts. Only then can real problems be addressed and real progress be made.

Thank you.

City Council President John Falco Jr., who voted in favor, agreed that zoning changes would have significant ramifications in Medford but argued the move to the Community Development Board will give residents more opportunities to learn about their potential impact. He said the council was legally bound to have a meeting within 14 days, which many felt would be "poorly attended."

"I, personally, felt it was a disservice to the public to hold this important meeting knowing that many people are on vacation or travel during this time," Falco wrote in an email to Patch. "Having a meeting of such importance rushed in this time frame would not benefit the community."