[Richard Caraviello]: the 19th regular meeting of the Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Present. Councilor Falco? Present. Councilor Knight? Present. Councilor Lungo-Koehnan? Present. Vice President Marks? Present. Councilor Scarpelli? Present.
[Richard Caraviello]: President Caraviello? Present. Please rise and salute the flag. 17-419 offered by Vice President Michael Mox, accommodation for Mae Marbrek, 25 years of recognition as founder and member of the Friends of Chevalier and Jean Mack Gym. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you very much. It's an honor and a pleasure to represent this council accommodation to what I refer to as a dear friend of mine for a number of years. Um, I met may probably back some, and I don't want to date you may, uh, back some 25 years ago, um, through different city organizations. And, um, I think it's only appropriate after all these years and all the different organizations that may as belong to, that she received the recognition, not that she'd want, because May, if you know May, May never looks for recognition. May's always behind the scenes, she's the engine driving what goes on in this community, and never once looked for any type of praise or accolades. And even tonight, I wanna thank Council President Caraviello for making the phone call to say, hey May, can you come down to Tuesday's meeting? Multiple phone calls. Multiple phone calls. Can you come down to Tuesday's meeting? And I think May may have had an idea or not, I'm not quite sure. But needless to say, I would at this point, I'd like to recognize, I served the last few years on the board of directors of the Friends of Chevalier and GMAC Gymnasium, alongside May and a number of other real activists in the community. And at this point, I would just like to recognize the board in which we sat on Cindy Watson, Co-President. Mike Cerullo, Co-President. Keith Barry, Member of the Board. Representative Paul Donato, Member of the Board. Susan Fairchild, Member of the Board. Ken Kraus, Member of the Board. May Makibrek, Member of the Board. And Russ Rossetti, Member of the Friends of Chevalier Board of Directors. You know, May, little known fact, was a Mustang Hall of Famer. Back some years ago. Right, May? Where is May? May, where are you? You're up over here. Mustang Hall of Famer. May was the founding member of the Friends of Chevalier and Gene Mack Gymnasium. Caché. It was the brainchild of May, meeting with a few people in the community regarding the arts, that put together Caché, the Coalition for Art, Culture, and Healthy Economy. And, you know, May won't say it, but Those were May's ideas originally back many, many years ago to put organizations together, to link the community up, and pull in all different backgrounds in order to move this community forward. While promoting the arts is a main goal of CACHE, it also aims to bolster the local economy at the same time. Looking ahead, we are hoping to create a more vibrant arts and cultural scene in Method, which in turn will promote economic development, May Makibrek said. That part of it cannot be overlooked, and it is what we feel sets the group apart. We all work together as equals, with one big exception, John Anderson said. May Makibrek is really the driving force, and she has been so enthusiastic and youthful and full of ideas. You need a person like that if a coalition such as this has any chance of surviving, which it is. a good sign for us. May served as the president of Springstep. She also served on the board of directors for Brooks Estates Land Trust. May was recognized by the Chamber of Commerce as Citizen of the Year. Who can forget May's article, which appeared in the March 14, 2014 edition of the Method transcript, honoring Method Olympic champion Mary Carew Armstrong for National Women's History Month, or the countless letters to the editor in which May offered support to local organizations. As we all know, May was part of a lot of different civic groups, but she was also very vocal on the issues. And May, she wasn't a wallflower. She let it be known. She let it be known where she stood in an issue. And if there was an issue that was confronting the residents of this community, you better believe May was at that podium. I remember the night the Medford Public Library was experiencing roof leaks. And guess who was at the podium? We have very, very dedicated people who are here tonight, members of the staff of the library, just hoping that the ceiling tiles in the building that they're working wouldn't fall in on their head, said May Makibrek, president of the Method Coalition for the Arts, at the council meeting. This is disgraceful. We often remember the debate with art funding in the budget. The city never funded arts in the budget, and a few years ago, this council offered a resolution to put arts in the budget, and May was at the podium once again. I think it's fair to say we're in an arts revolution, said May Makibrek. Medford has changed. We are no longer a streetcar suburb. We're a vibrant community. We have a great deal to offer, and there is an arts movement going on at the present time. Several years back, we had the Brooks Estates bond proposal that was before us. Quite a contentious issue for some. May, again, was at the podium. The Brooks Estates has been treated by the city like an orphan, said Medford resident, May Marky-Brick. In 2010, community leaders were pushing to build up the Chevalier Theater. May stated, now that the problem is not so much the condition of the theater, which like any property requires ongoing maintenance, but the underutilization of the Chevalier Theater, she said, how much longer are we going to talk, continue to see a valuable asset in our community be underutilized, and waste the opportunity to have Chevalier Theater become an engine of economic development in Medford Square? These are just a few of the things that I recall May working on over the years as a community activist, as someone who wholeheartedly cared about the children of this community. You couldn't find anyone more responsive to the needs of the Boys and Girls Club, which is on Forest Street, than May. The arts movement, I think, May was the art movement for a number of years. And it's only appropriate tonight that we take the time to, and I see this audience is filled, it's not many times that this audience gets filled, and it's my distinct honor and pleasure to thank my friend, May Makibrek, for her many years of dedicated service, and I know some members of the council wanna speak. I'd just like to read the citation, and May, we have a few more speeches, if you don't mind. There's a nice comfy seat next to you if you want to sit down. It says the Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to May Makibrek in recognition of her 25 years of distinguished service as founder and member of the Friends of Chevalier Auditorium and GMAC Gymnasium, signed May 16th by Council President Richard Caraviello and Vice President Michael J. Mox.
[0HXibsUvumY_SPEAKER_12]: Thank you, uh, Councilor Marks. Uh, I'm just gonna, uh, do a little, uh, word checking and make sure that I did say all those things. Uh, well, this is a very, uh, special moment, and I appreciate all of you have come here this evening. When, uh, President Caraviello called me about coming here tonight, I thought he was gonna ask me to be on a subcommittee. And I was going to have to say, I'm sorry. At any rate, in accepting this very, very wonderful tribute, I also have to give a lot of credit to all of the people who have been working on the Friends of Chevalier for the past 25 years. those past and those present, some of which are here in the chamber tonight. And, uh, and thinking back about that early time, uh, I would just like to remember a few of our dear friends who are probably looking down on us this evening. And that would be a Teresa Cerullo, wife of Michael Cerullo, and John Nostry, and there may be others that I hope I haven't overlooked, Dick Oba, who were very, very much a part of the early days when we established the Friends of Chevalier. And over the years, the group has worked very diligently and very quietly, but has accomplished a great deal. In fact, in addition to being advocates for the theater and the Boys and Girls Club for these many years, they also raised a considerable amount of money. And believe it or not, that would be more than $350,000. One of the major grants that was given to the friends was from the Cummings Foundation, which is a local philanthropic organization by Bill Cummings and his wife. As you know, the property here are joining us. is owned by the Cummings people. So they gave $100,000 to add staff to the Boys and Girls Club. And I have to say that I'm very, very proud that the friends were a big part of the Boys and Girls Club coming here to Medford. Uh, they have been extremely successful. The, uh, they still have a waiting list in spite of the additional money that they receive from the Cummings people to add instructional staff. So we have been quietly working away over the years and I just hope that those of you at some time may consider giving a small contribution because it's always very, very welcome. And I want to, uh, recognize, as Council Marks did, the current members on the board, and to wish you good luck going forward. Thank you all very much.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, Vice President Marks. I don't want to put you on the spot any longer, Mae, but I think a few of us just want to say a few words. We've been in and Council Marks did a great job announcing you and taking quotes. That was great. But just from my standpoint, you've been a true leader in this community. You've done such wonderful things that have So many people have benefited from, families and every resident in this community has benefited from your work with the Chevalier and Cachet and everything else you were involved in and the fact that you did it because you love this city and you wanted to make it better means a lot and I look up to you May and I wish you the best and good luck in your retirement. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also congratulate you, May. I want to thank you for your energy, your selfless devotion to the city, your generosity to give of your spirit and your energy and yourself to so many commitments is tough and we thank you. And I hope you keep going and going until you get it right. So keep at it. practice makes perfect.
[0HXibsUvumY_SPEAKER_12]: Good.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, uh, uh, may just want to say thank you and congratulations. You have been a true role model when it comes to civic engagement and people getting involved. And, uh, you know, you're someone that people can look up to. I mean, you've been involved with so much throughout us throughout our city. And I just want to say thank you for your years of involvement and for your contributions to the community and good luck. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Council President Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. May, you and I have been friends for many years in this community. You and I have worked on a lot of projects together, and I don't know what to say. You know, you've always been ahead of the curve on a lot of issues when people, when they weren't popular, you were there to push them. I was there when you received your Citizen of the Year Award. I was very proud to be in the room that night. And again, I don't think you'll ever retire. I know, though you say you're going to retire, I know we'll be seeing you around the city, and your voices will be heard long after your retirement again. May I thank you for your years of service to this city, and please continue doing the things you do. Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. As a fellow Mustang Hall of Fame member, I look at my fellow leader and thank you for everything you do. I think that, I think my council of, um, colleagues have said so much and there's not much more that I can add, but just thank you. And, and really to reach out to the rest of the community and say, this is who we should emulate because methods are great city to live in. And it's people like yourself who give so much and ask for so little. And, um, um, I hope someone, really sees that torch and runs with it, as you're such a great role model. So thank you so much.
[Michael Marks]: And Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Marks, thank you very much, and Mae, congratulations. I could say the same thing that my councilors have all said. I echo their sentiment. I am wondering, however, what you get for 25 years of service. Is it a watch? Do they give you a watch from the Cheville Air Commission?
[0HXibsUvumY_SPEAKER_12]: Nice.
[Adam Knight]: That's pretty good. That's an incentive right there. May congratulations. I wish you the best of luck. Thank you very much for all you've done for the city and for his service.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. And if I can just read this letter, uh, tonight we received a letter from the Medford Brooks estates land trust, uh, dated May 12th, 2017. Um, it says, uh, dear president Caraviello, we are delighted. The Medford city council was honoring may Maki brick. The Medford Brooks Estates Land Trust M-Belt is deeply appreciative of all Mae Mockenbrick has done on behalf of our beloved Brooks Estates. She has been with us for almost two decades. The time we have spent so far to bring back this unique community asset to full public benefit. Her insights, energy, wise counsel, and steadfastness have been invaluable to us over the years. Mae has brought a unique blend of both traditional and new Medford to the table, and her enthusiasm and passion embody all that is good about our community. We will miss her. Happy birthday, May. We wish May all the best on her retirement from most of, and that's in parentheses, public life here in Medford. Although we are sure we'll see her around town, we intend to honor her in our own way at one of our events this summer. So we hope she is ready to be embarrassed once again. Thank you for your continued support of the Brooks Estates. With best wishes, Tom Lincoln, President of the Brooks Estates Land Trust. Thank you very much. Thank you again.
[Clerk]: Mr. President. Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: We do have one other paper up here. That's May related. May, don't go too far. Okay, motions, orders, and resolutions. Paper 17-449, offered by President Caraviello. Be resolved the Medford City Council and the city of Medford celebrate and wish, may mock your breath, a happy birthday. Happy birthday.
[Unidentified]: And many, many more. Mr. President, I move for a brief recess.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to reconvene and go back to regular. Motion for suspension of the rules by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I take paper 17-371 off the table. Off of unfinished business, I mean. 17-371.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17 at 371, change in chapter 48 ordinance on demolition delay on historic properties. This paper is taking its third reading this evening. Mr. Clerk, please. Motion for approval by Councilor Langlois-Kern. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Dello Russo, excuse me. Councilor Dela Russa.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I just want to point out that this has gone through extensive review and committees and was subject to considerable debate some weeks ago with significant negotiation, second approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Motion by Councilor Locario, seconded by Councilor Dela Russa. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dela Russa. Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Long and Kern?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative and none in the negative. The ordinance has passed.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, we're going to suspension. Can we take paper one, seven, four, five, three, a petition for common victuals license.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17453. 17453, petition for a common fixture license by Leonardo Soros, 25 Acorn Street, Malden, Mass., for Forno, Fogo, HO, Inc., Doing Business As, Forno, Fogo, Healthy Options, 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway in Medford. And Councilor Scarpelli has relinquished the chair to Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Um, this petition for a common victuals license is actually for a juice buyer inside gold's gym. It's my understanding that historically gold's gym has operated juice bars in the past at other locations. Um, I've reviewed the paperwork and all the paperwork appears to be in order. Mr. President, um, this doesn't seem like anything that's too controversial in my opinion and I would move for approval on the motion by council.
[Richard Caraviello]: The ninth council Scott belly.
[George Scarpelli]: Um, I'd have to abstain from a vote for conflict of interest.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Scarpelli is sustained.
[Adam Knight]: As such, Mr. President, I move for a roll call vote.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Clerk]: Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Kerr? Yes. Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Aye. President Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one present, motion passes, congratulations. Thank you. We'll hopefully stop by and get some healthy juice, we could use it. Thank you. Thank you. Motion by Councilor Knight to revert back to regular business. Public hearing, City of Medford, 17444. On the motion by Councilor Nath, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo to have a brief synopsis. I'll try to be brief.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: It's a challenge, but I'll try to be brief. Thank you very much. Tonight's actually an interesting night. It's the 43rd program year of the Community Development Block Grant, and I'm actually before you. With an estimated allocation, we are estimating that we will receive the money that we have received last year. But this year, for the first time, after 43 years of the CDBG program, we don't have our allocation from the federal government. As you all know, the debates that have been going on in it, which I won't go into detail. So we've been instructed by the area HUD office to prepare our budgets and move ahead. And then have a phrase in our application, which we have in the notice that we gave to the city clerk. that basically says we will proportionately increase or decrease this budget based on what the actual allocation amounts are. We expect that we should get them by the end of the June and then they'll move very quickly. They have to be submitted to HUD so that they can meet their statutory requirements for review. So, uh, sorry, there we go. Uh, housing activities, physical improvements to public systems and city systems, economic development, public services, planning and administration, and program income. And those budgets will also include public services. We have funded here in this program about 14 public service agencies for a total of $210,586. And if they're listening tonight, they should remember that caveat I just said. It's contingent on receipt of the federal funds. from the Community Development Block Grant Program. Everybody's support to their Congress people and to the President about continuing this program is appreciated, and we've appreciated all of the support of the City Council to accomplish many great activities. If you'd like, I can respond to specific questions if you would like to keep this portion of the hearing short. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Dello Russo. Mr. President, year after year, we have meetings with representatives and delegations from various public service organizations and non-profits who do business in our city. and who benefit from these grants. The Office of Community Development goes through great lengths to accommodate and to disperse these funds in a kind manner. And a great sense of concern is put into this. So in that light, and I must lament the possibility of diminishment of these fundings, but I move approval to the plan that's been presented to us.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor Knight. Mr. President, I too support the plan that's been presented to us. The office of community development doesn't, has done an excellent job since my election to the council and explaining where these funds go. All the applicants come before the council at a committee of the whole meeting and pitch their case to, um, request this funding as to why it would be good for the city of Medford. Um, provided that, um, there's nobody here in opposition, Mr. President, I'd move that we close the public hearing.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks, vice president marks. Thank you, Mr. President. Lauren, are the human service groups made aware of what is happening?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: Do we send a letter? How are they made aware?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: We've actually had a meeting with them before. We met with a committee, the whole of the city council had a meeting that we do with the senior center every year. They're all invited. They're told in that meeting notice. Most of them come. They're really supposed to all come. A couple don't come, but they've all been told. about what the status of it is. And a lot of them actually have this similar problem where there are other funding sources. So, yes, they all know that. When we will be waiting for the allocation, we won't make any announcements and there won't be any contracts executed. We can't do that until HUD actually gives us the allocation. We submit our plan. It's approved. And, you know, it's probably likely that money, if they move things along the way they're talking, would probably be available, I'm going to guess, sometime in August or late September. they'll know we keep them informed and I think they all pretty much know they're suffering the similar problems with other funding sources as I said.
[Michael Marks]: So as any group mentioned that because of maybe staff hiring or other employee issues that there may be a concern if they don't get the funding from day one?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: They have not raised those issues to us.
[Michael Marks]: There's been no issues. Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Curran. Thank you, President Caraviello. Thank you for coming. with regards to the allocation portion of it, nobody's going to be cut out? Is it just going to be if we receive 10% less?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: How would it be broken down? So the maximum we can fund is 15% of the total allocation. And the table you see there, and I want to clarify a couple of things for you on that. The table you see there allocating $210,000 is if we get level funded. So the way I'm proposing is that we would increase these agencies up to a maximum of 15% if the allocation increases, and decrease them proportionally if the allocation is cut. There are two things, two changes. The Medford Housing Authority did not receive money last year. They applied for money, about $8,000 to hire, or actually pay a stipend to someone to provide language translation services at the walking court development for people who are Haitian. And honestly, in order for us to fund the number one, we don't know if we're going to get the money. Number two, we'd have to cut our other agency by that. So to give them a token amount we didn't think would really be beneficial, and we'd have to cut another agency. And a couple of these agencies are receiving under a couple of thousand dollars. Salvation Army is an agency that did apply. Last year, Salvation Army was the agency with all the resources that they have. you know, you know, under a couple of thousand dollars that they get from us, they returned back money last year. They're very stringent. How do I want to say, um, intentions about the person that we deal with intentions about how they want to distribute the money. And so again, we've already heard that they may not spend the money and this is very emergency assistance money. So we, uh, made a recommendation to the mayor, which she agreed was to allocate that to another agency. And you will see that we have, um, suggested that the community family which provides Alzheimer's assistance and subsidizes the tuition or the fees for a Medford resident or more than one resident if there's money available, they receive $1,745. We've recommended they go up to $2,907. And then we'll, you know, as we can, if we can, poke down to get some of these other agencies that are under a couple thousand dollars up in the future that we hope to try to do that. So that's what we did. Mayor for housing authority, which never has not received money into public services. And then salvation army was eliminated on the fact that they did not spend their money last year and are not on target to spend it again this year.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Gotcha. So that explains why the two aren't in here. And then if we did get 15% more, these one to 10, 15, um, agencies will get 15% more across the board.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: If it was 15, it would be 15. If it was 10, 10% cut, they'd be 10% cut. what I'm getting at is none will get changed dramatically depending. It depends. It depends on, we could get no funding and then they will get nothing and we will get nothing. So, but I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm trust. Well, we have to trust still in the system of government that we have and that that won't happen. Um, so yes. So that's why we do support everybody basically letting know their elected officials know the importance of this program and advocating for it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then my last question would just be just to give us a, a brief summary, I mean, people at home should know a little bit of where this money's going, how much we have as a total, and where it goes. So if you could give us a brief summary, that would be helpful.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: So the total amount of money that we're estimating, again, it's an estimate, is $1,403,210. We're allocating, we're proposing $20,000 for housing. We have some existing housing money, so that's not all the money that we have for housing resources. We're also eligible to access money with non-profit agencies through the city's relationship with the North Suburban Consortium. Economic development, $20,000. As you see, we talked about the storefront program and economic development strategy. We still have some money from this year. We have not implemented that storefront program. So we have money from this year, and we'd have money going forward if this is funded. Public services, you cannot carry money over from one year to the next on public services. So that $210,000 would be the max, and that's contingent on that allocation number that I told you. And those go to a variety of agencies. people working with after-school programs to English language classes. The senior center here in Medford receives a good portion of the money. SCM Community Transportation is an agency that also is well-funded. We have an agency that provides housing counseling services. Actually, I shouldn't use housing counseling services anymore because HUD has now defined that strictly, but housing referral agencies and advocacy and protection for people who are going through evictions and things like that, representation in court. So, and we also have funding that goes to EMARC and I think the, not I think, I know, the Boys and Girls Club. So those are generally the kind of services, they're a wide range of very important services that assist Medford's low and moderate income populations. And planning and admin, admin goes for any kind of study that's related to the CDBG program. It might be fair housing if that's what happens, so we help pay toward the city's single audit for the portion of our program. It also funds the majority of the staff costs in our office and a portion of the diversity of director's office.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. It's also my understanding, Mr. Lorenzo, that a draft of the plan can be updated in the office of community development on April 20th.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: It's currently available in our office. There is also a copy, a draft version of that plan. That's on the website. We're accepting comments until the 20th. So if there are public comments written or verbally that we will consider those in the final plan that we produce. And as I said, we can't submit that final plan now until HUD gives us the allocation. So, uh, if anybody has a comment that they would like to make, they're welcome to submit it to us and it'll be formally included in the plan. We receive it by the 20th.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. This is a public hearing and uh, Lauren De Lorenzo is in favor. Do we have anyone else here to speak in favor? of this hearing. Hearing and seeing none, this part of the hearing is closed. Do we have anyone in opposition to this hearing? Hearing and seeing none, that part of the hearing is closed. On the motion by Councilor Dello Russo, seconded by Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: I'd like to amend the paper, Mr. President. I'd like to amend the paper with a B paper requesting that our federal delegation um, be written and asked to prioritize level funding of the community development block grant. Mr. President. Um, I'd also like to request that our state delegation send letters of support to a federal delegation requesting that they do their best to ensure level funding of our community development block grant. And that's my colleagues to support the amendment.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by color Councilor Dela Rousseau, seconded by Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Clerk]: Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. Thank you very much.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_06]: I want to thank you again for your support. Thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Knight to revert back to regular business. Okay. What do you want us to do?
[Fred Dello Russo]: 17-4-5-0. 17-4.
[Richard Caraviello]: petitions, presentations, and similar matters. Petition for signed denial reversal by Raphael Batista, Raphographic for Global Healthcare Enterprises, 5 High Street, Medford Mass, OCD application 2017, 7B94306, exceeds allowable amounts. Name and address for the record, please.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_28]: My name is Rafael Batista. The address is 5 High Street in Medford.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The business is Global Health Care. Yes, please state your reasons for in the scope that you're asking for reversal of the sign denial.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_28]: The first reason is going to be that we request to be two signs because of the large size of the building and directions of the street. whoever's coming into one side of the building, we're not going to be able to see the other side of the building, which the client has the top, the whole top corner of the entire building as his business. And we required to be, we're being required by the inspector to be more darker. So we put the box itself to be Brown's. So we match with the building and the colors to be playing with the colors of our nation, which is red, white, and blue. Yes. And plain and simple. And we also had an issue that we unfortunately made a mistake putting the lettering on the windows that without the permit. And then we've been fined. We paid the fine. And now the client agreed to remove the logos from the windows because we are going to be putting the signs up in approval. but he also wanted to request, if it's possible, there is a possibility to keep the lettering over the surface that he presents on the glasses, which is already on the copy that you guys probably have it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Chair recognizes President Carfiello. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Chairman, I am objecting to the, is this illuminated sign? Yes, it is. First of all, I'm objecting to the sign being illuminated in the middle of the square. And I'm objecting to, it doesn't fit, I don't think, with the rest of the signs in the square. I know it's oversized, but if you could letter it on the building, I think it would look a lot better than an illuminated sign. I mean, this is a sign that you see in a strip mall, not in the middle of Medford Square. And here we are, we're trying to revive Medford Square and make it look a little more pleasurable. I don't feel that that type of sign represents what I'd like to see in Medford Square or many of the other people. it would be my request if you could, if you could let it, the building similar to like many of you, if you've seen your pictures here, uh, similar to like, like the other other buildings have. That's, that's my request and not have it illuminated. That would be my request to you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President to chair recognizes the council night.
[Adam Knight]: Um, Mr. President, thank you very much. Uh, as we go through our packet this evening, we'll see that there are two requests for sign reversals related to five high street. And I think if both petitions before the council this evening were approved, it would be, um, ugly is the best word that I can come up with. Mr. President, I don't think it really fits in with the character of the neighborhood based upon, um, the total number of signs that are being presented tonight and the location thereof, uh, all in the same building. Um, I certainly can agree with Councilor Caraviello's position that, uh, an illuminated sign wouldn't fit in with the quality, um, and criteria that's down in that area. Um, personally, Mr. President, I think the best course of action would be to have this matter referred to our subcommittee on science, uh, for further review and discussion. Uh, I don't think that this is something that, um, when partnered with the other matter that's before us is going to be beneficial to the revitalization of our downtown, uh, of Medford square. I think it's going to, uh, be an eyesore more or less. Right.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Councilor Knight to refer this matter to the sign committee, seconded by President Caraviello, chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think what we're seeing here tonight is based on the location of the building. So if you look at the picture that we have on the paper we received, the building is located partially on Forest Street, and partially on high street. So for all intents of purposes, it's like this building has two fronting facades. And I think that's what at least this petition is trying to accomplish. I don't agree with the illuminated signs. And I think this council has been, uh, on record not supporting illuminated signs. Uh, however, the, uh, the type of sign, and the number of signs I have no problem with, uh, based on what I believe, uh, is the hardship of having your main entrance on high street and, uh, the rest of your building, uh, on forestry. And that to me proposes a hardship. And I think the additional signage is warranted in this particular case. So I don't agree with my other colleagues. Uh, the only thing I do agree with is the fact that, I don't support the internally illuminated portion of it. If it's the druthers of the council to send this to the sign committee, I have no problem with that. I'm not quite sure what we're going to accomplish there that we couldn't accomplish right now with the party before us. If there's recommendations, you know, if the party agrees upon them now, I don't see why we have to have a subcommittee meeting on this issue. Those are my thoughts, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you very much. And, uh, as chairman of the business and economic development and science committee, uh, also, uh, with myself and councilor Scarpelli, uh, we'll, uh, once we, uh, finished with debate on this matter, we'll take the, the vote on the motion chair recognizes councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Um, if I can, if I know what the, the denial of the signs, I think that if you look at the rest of the square and keeping with the theme that we have right now, If you look across the street, I don't disagree with Council Marks and the petitioner looking for the number of signs, but if you look at the way that Andre Realty did what they did across the street, they have multiple signs, but the way they addressed it, it fits the look of the square where it's not illuminated, and they added decorative lights around it that would light the sign, but at the same time, keeps the same appeal and routine throughout our business community in Medford Square. So I'm not a fan of the lit sign. If you look across the other businesses in the square, I think you could see that it's tasteful. And with the different forms of lighting, I think you can accommodate what you're looking for to illuminate your sign with what the neighboring businesses have. So I too will not support the illuminated sign. I will entertain, you know, a few different signs location because it does wrap around so I can understand that need. But again, I can't, I will not support the big illuminated signs. Thank you, Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Lungo-Curran.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President...Councilor De La Ruzo, sorry. With regards to the science, were awnings discussed at all?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_28]: No. We thought about it, but we thought that would be more complicated to get approval on that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I mean, Nick, I am trying to hear out what my council colleagues are saying, and you did attach... Oh, actually, Wayside, which is the next petitioner, did attach signs from across the street, which are much more expensive signs and obviously very nice character for the neighborhood. But I understand that not everybody can afford that. And at the same token, where these two businesses are, you do have awnings at the restaurant. So maybe even that would help. Something like that would be a little in-between resolution. And I'm not sure if it will help all my colleagues. But I just was curious if that was discussed at all. That is a tough location to have a business. The parking is tough. So I do see the need for a sign on each street, forest and high. So I agree with that. So I think we're almost along the same lines, but whether or not you want to take it back and do a redesign to appease all the Councilors or get two signs with just with no illumination, I think it's kind of up to you. because I do like what's across the street better, but at the same token, I understand that's probably much more pricey and there are awnings and different wall stickers on the building you're on. So I mean, business has to do what they can afford, although it would be nice to have some conformity.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Madam Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm reviewing the documents here and I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the illuminated sign, And when I look at the signs in the square, the other thing that I like, and we're trying to, I think in many ways, the community is trying to rebrand Method Square because we're trying to bring business in. And when I look at these signs at other businesses, everything seems to be very uniform. It's all on the same level. If I take a look at the sign, your sign, and then I take a look at Wayside, you know, Wayside seems to be in line with the rest of the businesses, and you're popping up in the air a bit, which just seems out of whack, kind of. I mean, it doesn't seem that clean. It just seems like it would be nice if you could kind of get everything in one uniform way. But I will admit, I'm not a big fan of the illuminated signs. Is there any flexibility on that?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_28]: I believe so. I actually have a question right now. What about, I'm just counting here, looks like we have six sets of windows up in his office. Would it be allowed, do you guys, would it allow if we present to the client to be awnings instead?
[John Falco]: I'm sorry, you want to put awnings in the place of the site?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_28]: Awnings on top of each window. On top of the windows at the very top? At the very top, yes. Perhaps we could do like red, And then with the white, just white letters, global health care.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm wondering if that needs to be, uh, discussed it with your client and, uh, uh, perhaps the property owner, uh, to the point of information council night.
[Adam Knight]: Um, when I raised the issue of referring it to the subcommittee, my intention was to do so so that we could get both petitioners wayside and global health services together in the same room and they could make a joint presentation to the council. It looks like it would be something that would fit more. within the quality and character of the neighborhood was the way that I was thinking that it was going to work out.
[Fred Dello Russo]: That's how I took your motion to be attended. Councilor Falco, you still have the floor? I'm all set. Thank you. Thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Knight is seconded by Councilor Caraviello, President Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. Councilor Marks?
[Michael Marks]: Please record me in opposition to this, Mr. President. I do not support the illuminated sign. but I do support moving forward with the signage on both forest and high street because of the hardship the petitioner has.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good on that motion and recognizing, uh, Councilor Marks, uh, opposition, all those in favor, all those opposed. Yeah.
[Adam Knight]: Uh, Councilor Knight, um, 17 four five one. Um, it's going to, it's going to sound like the same exact conversation I think we just had.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion of Councilor Knight to take 17451 out of order. All those in favor? All those opposed? 17451, petition for signed denial reversal by Richard DiTullio, property manager for Wayside Youth and Family, 5 High Street, Medford, Mass. OCD application 2017-11A exceeds allowable size, secondary sign, and window signage. Is the petitioner present? If you are, please present yourself to the podium. State your name and address for the record.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: Good evening. My name's Richard Detulio, property manager with Wayside Youth. I'm here with the owner of the sign company, Rachel O'Donoghue.
[Fred Dello Russo]: How do you do?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: Okay. First, I just want to be clear that this gentleman's property is on the second floor. We're aware of that. Okay, so is he looking to put a sign adjacent to ours on the ground floor? He is.
[Clerk]: Isn't this space for the first floor tenant?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_19]: No wonder they said no, because we're asking to put the sign in that panel.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, you can see we have a kind of a collision there of signs.
[Fred Dello Russo]: It would seem, and I think the sentiments of the council with us, with the approval of that previous motion, that the wise thing to do would be to meet in committee to where The proceedings can be a little more conversational, that charts and designs can be exchanged, an assessment of what the ordinances are can also be substantiated by the OCD director or the building inspector, and I think we can come to some conclusions in that forum. But you have the floor, so if you would present your matter to us.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: Well, what we had hoped to do was on the ground floor, we had planned on putting two signs above the windows. One of the signs has been approved by the building department. That sign is in production. It's a non-illuminated sign. It's a white background, green lettering, with our company logo, if you will. What we had wanted to do in our application was add a second sign, again, because of the wrap onto Forest Street. In addition to that, we wanted to put three signs in the window itself. The addition of the sign that the tenant up on the second floor has is a surprise. And again, we can understand why it looks very busy with signs. So we're a not-for-profit. We've been around for a long time. We hope to do well in the Medford area.
[Fred Dello Russo]: And, and the council understands for both entities, the importance of, uh, having signs, uh, on a place of, uh, business. Uh, so, uh, we're aware of that and, uh, hope to expedite this. Uh, but, uh, the chair awaits motion committee on science, business and economic development on that motion. Uh, chair recognizes, uh, president Caraviello second. Yes. Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, record me in opposition based on the fact that this business, as well as the prior business owner, has the same hardship being located at a very busy intersection on two major roads in the square. And the additional signage, in my opinion, is warranted, Mr. President. And, you know, after discussing for many years how dark Method Square is, maybe we should start looking at internally illuminated signs to help out with the brightness in the square, Mr. President. Um, and you know, maybe that's something that's needed in this community, Mr. President. So record me in opposition based on those facts.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. Uh, and, uh, perhaps I might say from the chair that externally, uh, illuminated science might achieve the same. So on the motion of council night, seconded by a council Caraviello, uh, understanding that, uh, Councilor Marks wishes to be marked in opposition chair recognizes vice president, uh, Councilor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I also want to be recorded in opposition with regards to the two signs for the front of the building. I think that's, like I said in the last petition, I think that's necessary for this location. So I just want to be recorded in opposition for those two signs.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion.
[George Scarpelli]: Councilor Scarpelli. Right. I think the, the biggest confusion right now is the muddy water. Now with the other look, the other issue. So I don't, if you came to us with this being the only issue with two signs, I would support it. But with the other signs, one going above it now in my mind to, to prove that and then possibly have that as an option later, I can't support it. So I, I, I, I would go with the subcommittee so we can talk this out and listen to the, um, you know, the, what the landlord has to say and then, and find some other solutions. But when the time comes, I definitely support the two signs. I think that's gonna be needed.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: Typically though, wouldn't the second floor tenant be limited to his window space?
[George Scarpelli]: Again, we don't know for the fact that there's a landlord issue. That's not with us.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_19]: I mean, you're probably paying the prime rate because you're on the first floor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Obviously, there's a solution here and the councilors wanna get to it. I'll say Councilor, thank you. Chair recognizes Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with my colleague, Councilor Scarpelli. I actually have no problem with the signs. I actually like the signs and I think they're fine. There is some confusion, though, if you look at these two pictures. All these signs are in the same spot.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_19]: I wasn't aware of that because they're renting the first floor, so I assumed that the facade belonged to the first floor tenant. I didn't even know there was somebody else moving in there or that they were looking for signs.
[John Falco]: But like I said, I have no problem with the signs. I think the signs look fine. They're very professional. They're not illuminated. They're nice. I just think going to subcommittee, I think we'll hopefully resolve some issues, clear things up, and then come before us again.
[George Scarpelli]: Mr. Chair, we request a meeting relatively quick because I know the hardship here. So it wouldn't be something waiting weeks. I'd like to get this done as soon as possible if we can.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Uh, Councilor Knight. Move the question. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by President Carfiello. All those in favor?
[Clerk]: Aye.
[Fred Dello Russo]: All those opposed? The ayes have it, with Councilors Lungelkern and Marks in opposition. Councilor, President, uh, Carfiello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, um, before we go on to the next thing, um, seeing that the gentleman before this, uh, had to pay a fine, for a sign violation, I would hope that the code enforcement officer goes out into the square there, because I think there are many other sign violations in the square that he can take care of, and that gentleman shouldn't have been singled out previously when they say there are other violations, and I would hope the code enforcement officer would get out there and take care of the other violations that are in the other windows in the square.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Uh, the, uh, council goes in record as a recommending with this motion, uh, that the, uh, code enforcement officer, uh, be alerted to other violations for signage in the square. Thank you. Uh, there will be a public notice of the meeting of the subcommittee, uh, posted on the city's website, uh, or through the clerk's office. If you wish for them to be, um, uh, contact you, uh, to, to bring you in, uh, for that subcommittee meeting.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: When will that be posted?
[Fred Dello Russo]: As soon as the chairman arranges for the meeting.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: Okay. All right. Okay. So we can check that. Yes. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_07]: I appreciate it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Madam, we have one more sign. Do you want to finish that last sign? That's fine. Okay. 17, 452 petition for signed denial reversal by pastor Exend your favor for Evangelical Haitian Church of Somerville, 400 High Street, Medford. OCD number 201713. Size exceed maximum size. Name and address of the record, sir. Name and address of the record.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_24]: Good evening. Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to address the council. And I'm pastor of February, and I have I have with me my assistant, Flo, and she.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_14]: Okay, it's 400 High Street, Medford Mass, 02155. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: The sign that you have there is, looks like it's bigger than the allowable amount allowed by the city. If you see the picture here. Yes. I think there's a sign there on the property now, which is, I think that's the law of the size. Uh, Councilor Dello Russo. Uh, Mr. President, I have no objection to this request to move approval on the motion by Councilor Dello Russo seconded by councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, I, I, I just, With the recent concerns that we've had in that area with traffic issues, I think would this sign be too big for public safety in the sense that for the traffic and deterring of drivers? I think that that's one of the most dangerous areas we've heard in a long time on this council with that corner with and being such a encompassing sign, I question whether that might be a little too large and a little deterrent for the traffic. I know we want to bring light to your church, and I applaud it, but at the same time, I think public safety has to be addressed in the sense that It's really, I don't know if you've been familiar with that area, with the Brooks School, with the traffic, with the speed at 30 miles an hour. People being deterred to look at such a daunting sign. I don't know if I can support that.
[Marie Wolverson]: And that's what we were thinking about is having people actually reading the sign as they were driving because we figured if the sign is too small, they won't be able to read it at all. Because the current sign that we have right now is a six by seven sign. And for the past couple of years, we actually have had a summer festival. And people can't even read the sign that we had right there. The day of the festival, people will stop by because they see activity. And they come in, they're like, oh, I didn't even see the sign that you have right now, because it's too far back from the church. And the current sign that we have right now will be in the same position. So we figured people will still kind of maybe because it's back there with the light, they will probably see it back there. And we have a big tree, like a huge tree, two big trees. I don't know if you guys have ever seen that property. huge tree in the summer, in the fall, you can even see the current sign that we have back there. We figured maybe with a little light, they may even see a little bit of the sign. That's why we requested that size of five by eight or four by eight maybe will be like a, it's even a smaller size than the one that we have right now. We figured maybe with a little light, it might be a little bit better.
[George Scarpelli]: Now, if I recall, you also hang banners off that sign.
[Marie Wolverson]: Yeah. And they can't, they can't see it.
[George Scarpelli]: Right. Well, this is pretty big. Um, um, you're talking over 11 feet high from ground to the top. So I, you know, is it, were there any other sizes discussed something?
[Marie Wolverson]: Yeah. The four by eight, uh, the current, the current sign that you guys, uh, denied, uh, that's a five by eight.
[Unidentified]: No, the city.
[Marie Wolverson]: I'm sorry. I apologize. The city had denied was the five by eight and on the appeal letter I have mentioned the four by eight. Um, it's actually was cheaper for us anyway because yeah, it was the four by eight was a cheaper price for the pastor. So, um, uh, we had asked the, the, the, the sign company if he would do that for us. He says yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Vice President Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. The current sign is from the ground up five by eight, correct?
[Marie Wolverson]: Yes, the current sign is six by seven. Six by seven.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, you've mentioned five different sizes so far, just so you know.
[Marie Wolverson]: The current size is six by seven.
[Michael Marks]: Six by seven. Yes.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_24]: We've got the original that the church used to use.
[Michael Marks]: The one that's currently on the lawn now?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: It's six by seven?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_24]: Correct. Six by seven.
[Michael Marks]: And it's not elevated on a platform, it's on the ground, six by seven? Yes. Right. So is there any way that we can bring this sign, because if you look at your top signage, it's very close to conforming. When you add in the pedestal, that's what blows this sign way out of proportion. in my opinion. Is there any way we can bring that down a little further and shrink the signage similar to what is out there? I have no problem making it a little larger. I like the colors of the sign. I think it's a very nice sign. I think it's a nice looking sign. And I think it matches the area of what you're doing there. But I think the fact that your podium that it sits on, or base, is three feet six inches alone, Right. And then you have your sign sitting above that. It makes it look like a, a real giant sign in my opinion. And maybe if we're able to downsize that a little bit, um, and I have no problem making it larger than what the current ordinance calls for. Sure. I have no problem making it a little larger than that because your church is set back. And I think this sign does, represent, hey, we're here, you know, and I agree with that.
[Richard Caraviello]: So if, yes. If I can interrupt you for a second. The zoning board denied the sign. They didn't deny this sign. They denied another sign. So this, so I think the first one she mentioned was the five foot sign. Yes. That was the one denied, so.
[Marie Wolverson]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Now they're proposing a different sign than what was denied. So this is a whole different sign than what was denied.
[Michael Marks]: So this wasn't the sign that was denied?
[Richard Caraviello]: No.
[Michael Marks]: The 5-8.
[Richard Caraviello]: The 5-8 was denied, so this one here would have to go through the process all over again, am I correct?
[Michael Marks]: So which one's the 5-8, the one on the second page?
[Richard Caraviello]: It's not even here.
[Marie Wolverson]: It's not here?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. It's not even here. So again, this...
[Marie Wolverson]: The 5-8 was the one that was denied, so what we're saying is we can have a smaller size.
[Richard Caraviello]: But that's the one that you're appealing.
[Marie Wolverson]: That's the one we're appealing. Right. The 5-8.
[Richard Caraviello]: So this one here doesn't even come into play.
[Marie Wolverson]: The 5-8?
[Richard Caraviello]: No, this one here, this picture that you're showing. This is 8 by 11.
[Marie Wolverson]: Oh, no, no, no, no. That's the 5-8 I made copies of.
[George Scarpelli]: That wasn't a five day. No, that's why this, that's why the five day we would, this is 11 feet high.
[Richard Caraviello]: You're saying this is a six. There's a six foot tall man here.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_24]: Oh gosh, no, no, no. That's not it. That's five eight. You want to look in to put days up for four by five eliminated the pedestal. It's like half size.
[Marie Wolverson]: Uh, hang on one second. Oh my God. No. So where did this come from?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. Where did this come from? I, the city didn't make this up for you. Did it? No, it's a handsome six foot gentlemen though.
[Marie Wolverson]: No, no, no, no. But the one that I sent to them, do you have a picture you could pass around to the council? Yes. No, I think that's a, I think that's the one that I, that's the one that I, Yeah, I think that's the one that I sent.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, we might as well refer to this.
[Marie Wolverson]: Because you have the 5 by 8, right? Is that the one you have?
[Michael Marks]: Yeah, why don't you do that?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. We have 8 by 11.
[Marie Wolverson]: Oh, no. That's the one that I meant to send.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, that's the one we have.
[Richard Caraviello]: No, we don't have that one. We don't have that one. It's the same one, Rick. It's the same one. Yeah.
[George Scarpelli]: It's the same exact one. Mr. President, can we refer this to the subcommittee as well, so we can clarify this?
[Michael Marks]: We're going to meet very shortly, so we might as well refer this.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're going to meet very shortly. Seeing that we have some confusion here with the petitioner, I'm going to ask that we take the suggestion that this be referred to the subcommittee also. Seconded by Councilor Knight. We didn't deny anything. No, I give you guys the motion by councilor night.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_24]: Yes. We now decide to buy the side that fall by it, not even five by eight.
[Richard Caraviello]: But there seems to be some confusion in the size of the sign. I think in the subcommittee it would be a lot easier getting it done. If we can, we'll say the setting is a little bit more informal. And I think, I think you, everyone will know exactly what you want. So, uh, uh, although we're going to take council on nights, motion to refer this, uh, to subcommittees seconded by yes.
[George Scarpelli]: So what we're doing is we're going to re we're going to call for a meeting relatively quickly. Okay. Hopefully, hopefully by next Tuesday.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[George Scarpelli]: So we can, we could see that the five foot sign and the five foot by eight foot sign and we could, we can talk about that in subcommittee and then bring it back out to the floor if everything works out so we can have this done by next week.
[Marie Wolverson]: So put some paperwork back to John.
[George Scarpelli]: Just so we could see it. Right. Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: But please remember, bring a picture of the sign that you asked for originally.
[George Scarpelli]: Just bring that to us. When we, City clerk will contact you when we have that subcommittee meeting and you could bring those designs to us for what was denied and we can reverse that.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay.
[Richard Caraviello]: All right. On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Motion passes.
[Marie Wolverson]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: While we're under suspension, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: paper in the hand of the clerk, please.
[Richard Caraviello]: Offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn be it resolved that the Medford City Council be updated with regards to what permits have been pulled for no parking on South Street and Walnut Street and be provided with an explanation on what transpired today. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I'm just looking for an update, maybe from the Medford Police Department, as well as the mayor's office, the administration, with regards to permits being pulled. I've received a few text messages, an email, two phone calls, and a Facebook message with regards to residents being upset. There were handwritten letters all around Walnut Street and South Street saying, do not park on Walnut and South, I believe it was sometime today until five o'clock tomorrow. It said violators will be towed. Now residents who live on South and Walnut and obviously have to park there through the night, tonight, were a little upset. Most people didn't even call me first. They called the mayor's office, the police department. Everybody's giving everybody just different information with regards to what's going on, why is there no parking, And then it became an issue with regards to, is this even being done legally? Were the permits pulled? I didn't talk to any of the police department yet, but I have heard through the grapevine that no permits were pulled to post those signs. From what I understand, there is modular homes that were planned on coming down south and looping around down the one way down to Walnut to place the two modular homes on two obviously foundations. So after collecting all of the information today and trying to piece together the puzzle, catch up on what I had missed after work, it was a little late and I'm bringing it up tonight, a little late to call people. I think I got the last of my information about 6.30 this evening. So if we could, as a council, get some updates because there are angry residents, people who are now upset because they feel like it was done incorrectly, to put it lightly. And from what I understand, there were no permits pulled. To bring modular homes, which are very large, pre-FAB homes, down two streets, down a one-way, you need detail. And from what I understand, our police department knew nothing of it. Details weren't hired, and permits were not pulled. I also, from what I understand, didn't get a chance to contact the mayor's office, but a lot of the residents did and the mayor's office may have been lied to. I'm not quite sure of the full story. So if we could get an update with regards to what permits were pulled, if they weren't pulled for today, were they pulled for a different day? When is this gonna happen? How long is this gonna take? How many detail will we have present? There's obviously a safety concern. There's a parking issue. People wanna be able to park in their own homes. Medcalf Street as well. So we really want to get an idea of, so we can be able to respond to our, you know, to all the residents on those two streets. South is a very long street as well, and people were really, really upset. It affected, I think it went, you know, public, so people all over the community were really upset with what went on and how somebody's allowed to get away with basically lying to the neighborhood if it was so a lie and there were no permits pulled. So I, as one, want to get it all taken care of. If this is gonna happen down the road, we wanna make sure permits are pulled, details in place, and the neighborhood is maybe given advance notice, two, three hour notice to not park or else you're gonna be towed in a handwritten note, really concern people. So if we could get an update from the police department, our chief of police or traffic division, as well as the mayor's office, I think that's necessary. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate, uh, council Longo current for bringing this up. But, uh, I think if we can add an, uh, add something, uh, an amendment to this, that we also look into how we distribute signs and who distribute signs for, uh, the city during traffic and pocket for other issues and concerns in the roads. I know that, uh, I did talk to a contractor today who said that they actually do this in other areas of the city. And there's really not a department that they can go to that has these signs when they legitimately close the street down. And they actually use City of Boston signs and cross off Boston, put it in Medford. So if we can get some information back from, I don't know if it's the engineering department, if it's the DPW, but if we can get some guidance there, really appreciate it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor Neill. Move approval of the question, Mr. President. On the motion by Councilor Neill, seconded by... Name and address of the record, please.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez. I live at 281 Park Street. I did see a couple of versions of the sign that was supposed to close the street down, and residents were going back and forth, and I received a message from a friend asking me if this was a real sign. Because people weren't sure if it was a real sign. And if they had to stop parking there at 5 p.m. today till 8 p.m. tomorrow, that was certainly a hardship for people that live in that area. And who wants to try to rearrange your life if it's not a real sign? So I did, in fact, go in person to the mayor's office, and I was helped by Ms. Lauren Felch, who was extremely helpful. She pulled up the flyer, she called the developer, and Who she believes was the developer was the number on the flyer was not a city number and was told that in fact they had gotten all the permissions that they needed and that the home would be being moved tomorrow. And it would be coming in at 7 AM. She asked him why. People weren't allowed to park there at 5 p.m., and he wasn't sure. And when she concluded the call, I asked her if it was possible if she could confirm that there were permissions granted, and if there were permissions, if the city could send out a reverse 911 call. Because it was really important that people knew that this really was happening, and this wasn't a sign, a fake sign that had been put up. And Ms. Felch had expressed that, you know, a year prior, someone had put up signs that said street cleaning was happening in some neighborhood that were handwritten. And people had moved and it turned out to not be true. So she understood that a lot of people probably wouldn't believe this was a real sign. The last information that I received when she called back after she had called various offices was that the project was halted for now. So anyone that lives in that area can park in that area. They'll be able to go to work in the morning because the house is not being moved now. It's my understanding that this is not the first home that he has moved in this way. So I'm curious to know if he's violating some sort of rule. Is there a department that's supposed to oversee when these homes are being moved, if streets are being closed off? Is safety being factored in? Had this home been moving through the neighborhood at 7 o'clock in the morning, school children would be out and about. People would be trying to go to work. People would be going into their cars to get out of their driveway and find out that they can't leave. And if this has happened before and we didn't know about it, shame on us. So I hope that you all can look into it and find out what the process is. This developer does own two to three more parcels in the city planning on doing similar things to those parcels. So it would be great if he could have a plan from the city on exactly what he is supposed to do step by step before he moves a modular home into our community so that we don't have someone get hurt or miss work or anything. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Name and address of the record, please.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Newsell, 35 Power Street. So I've been following this issue on social media, and I think that What we have here is a systematic issue. And this all stems back, in my opinion, to the fact that these individuals coming into our city to flip properties are not encouraged nor are they required to engage with the neighborhoods that they're working in. Because they know they'll go to our ZBA they'll get whatever their variances are regardless of what our residents have to say and This is just a complete lack of respect for the people in the neighborhood, you know working in the industry If you asked anybody who is truly involved in the industry and not someone who's just flipping properties, but large-scale developers commercial high-end residential large-scale residential They wouldn't dream of doing something like this without some type of community meeting to advise people of what's going on. They wouldn't come down these streets without the proper details in place and logistics in place. And I'm not speaking specifically about this developer. I'm speaking in general. If you walk around and you speak with people, this is happening everywhere. Folks are coming in, they're executing their construction projects, and they're not keeping the folks around involved and informed as to what's happening. It doesn't matter if it's a single unit, three units, or 490. When you're building and you're around people, you have a responsibility to advise them. And so I can appreciate that there are time constraints. Perhaps the developer didn't have as much lead time for this delivery, but I feel if we did a better job, at making sure that folks coming into our city to build, whatever it is, engaged with the people they would be working around and working in their neighborhoods where their homes are, things like this would not be happening and we wouldn't have folks as upset and concerned as they have been. So I would hope that we would look at this as a larger issue. I think it ties To you how we engage and how we communicate across the board With all of these various projects not this particular neighborhood not this particular developer, but overall there's really no mechanism that truly reaches Reaches everybody and I think that I would ask you guys as you discuss this further and look into it further that you think about This issue because as I said I think that if we had those vehicles in place and we had those opportunities for some of these community meetings I'm getting folks engaged in their neighborhoods to these people We we would do better and maybe feel a little bit more comfortable with what's going on Thanks.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you On the motion by Councilor Knight to move the question.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Locker? Thank you, President Caraviello. Briefly, if we could just amend this and ask, what is the procedure? What would someone have to do to move a modular home in Medford? If there is a procedure out there, if we could maybe get a copy of that, that'd be great. Thank you. I move approval, second the approval and move approval. Roll call vote, please. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Can the clerk please read back the resolution and amendments. Mr. Clerk, would you please read back the resolution?
[Clerk]: I can hear be resolved. The Medford city council be updated with regards to what permits have been pulled for no parking on South street and Walnut street and be provided with an explanation on what transpired today. And we have an amendment by a council Scarpelli on, um, how the distribution of signs, uh, works in the city for, uh, for other issues on the roadway. And of course, uh, council along current is a procedure on, uh, moving modular housing, modular homes.
[Adam Knight]: Second the approval. Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: We'll call up what's been requested. Mr. Clark.
[Clerk]: Councilor Dello Russo? Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Councilor Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Vice-President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Communications from the mayor. 17455. Dear Mr. President and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body approve the following resolution.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, a motion to waive the reading and a brief synopsis by the Director of the Board of Health.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Knight to waive the reading and if the Board of Health Director could give a brief synopsis, we'd appreciate it. Name and address for the record.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'm Marian O'Connor, Director of the Board of Health, Medford. Thank you for having us tonight. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 1, has completed its review of Medford's hazard mitigation plan and found it approvable pending adoption by this honorable body. It's my understanding that upon adoption, a formal letter will be sent from FEMA, which will be in effect for five years. This formal approval will confirm Medford's eligibility to apply for mitigation grants administered by FEMA. If not adopted, we would have to update the entire plan and submit again for FEMA review. And so, you know, this has been a very long process. And I have with me Martin Pillsbury, who is with the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, who has been involved in this process for several years. It took several years for this plan to get approved.
[Richard Caraviello]: If I could interrupt you for a minute. Excuse me. please. We have other people speaking here. Thank you.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: So Mr. Pillsbury could address any specific plans about the, uh, questions about the plan itself.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor nice. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. O'Connor, thank you for being here this evening. Uh, also to you, um, Mr. Pillsbury, um, question that I have would be, um, whereas you're coming from the metropolitan area planning council, um, I'm sure that you have, a vast exposure to a number of these type of plans in our surrounding communities. So the first question that I'd ask would be, how does this plan measure up to those plans that are established in surrounding communities, number one? And number two, is there a regional focus that's taken when these plans are put together so that if a disaster does strike or has a dust strike and there needs to be mitigation, is there a regional response or is it more of a local response?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: Thank you. Very good questions indeed. In fact, most of your neighboring, many of your neighboring cities and towns have recently been through the same process of developing a plan. I'm expecting this is going to be in front of the city of Malden sometime in the next few weeks as well. And in the last less than a year or so, it came up and was approved in Somerville, Cambridge, Everett, Chelsea. This was part of a regional group of eight cities and towns that originally came together to do an update of your plans. And I should say that this is an update to your original hazard mitigation plan, which was adopted back in 2008. That was the first of these kinds of plans. The program was new at the time. And the way FEMA has structured this, the plans need to be renewed on a periodic basis. So this is your first renewal of your original plan, and as was also the case for all of your neighboring communities. Basically, FEMA is very prescriptive about what goes in these plans. There are literally codes of federal regulations that say, here's what the chapters and sections of the plan need to be. So your plans are very equivalent to your neighbor's plans, because they pretty much all have to, in order to get FEMA approval, they will have to follow sort a similar consistent format.
[Adam Knight]: And one other question, Mr. President. Mr. Pillsbury, you are a professional in the field of environmental planning, and I don't know where you live, but with this plan in place, would you feel safe and comfortable living in the city of Medford?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: Absolutely. I think this plan will really help the city. You'll see that it outlines a number of steps you can take over the next five years to put in place improvements to your infrastructure and drainage that would mitigate the kinds of flooding that you have. And I should add that it was mentioned that when you have a plan like this approved, that makes the city eligible for FEMA grants. And in fact, under your previous plan, the city did get a FEMA grant for work at Wright's Pond Dam, which was over a half a million dollar grant from FEMA. So that's the kind of project, and there are a number of suggested projects in this plan that could be looked at in the next five years, some of which may be eligible for similar FEMA grants.
[Adam Knight]: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. President. Based upon the discussion here, I feel comfortable voting in favor of this matter this evening.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. You had mentioned a minute ago that there's a periodic renewal. Is it every so many years?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: Five years.
[John Falco]: Every five years? Yes. Does it usually take as long as this took? It seems like this was a bit lengthy.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: This took longer than average in a couple of your neighboring cities. Got into a situation here where FEMA at the national level right in the middle of this process, changed the rules, basically, and changed the guidelines. And basically, we were thinking, OK, they're not going to change horses in midstream. We started the plan under the old guidelines. But no, in fact, they insisted that the plan kind of be upgraded to the new. And actually, it makes a better plan, because the change of guidelines that FEMA put in place was based on national experience over the first decade or so of this program. So it actually made the plan better, but it also required more extensive review, and the review of the draft plan has to go through two levels of review. It goes through MEMA, the Mass Emergency Management Agency, and then also through FEMA. And in this case, because of the change in rules, it went through that process twice. So it took longer to get through to the end of the process, but you have now got the approval letter from FEMA, and it's all over except for shouting, as they say. OK.
[John Falco]: Thank you very much.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Thank you, President Caraviello. and thank you for coming to explain everything to us. Um, from what I understand after reading some of the report, this is meetings that took place in Medford from 2000 to around 2012, 2013 to the present and then was put together. And I, as you had just spoken about is mainly a flooding is the main, obviously storms, hurricanes, things like that we're concerned about. Um, my, my main question really would be to the, to the city with regards to making sure this, this was a hundred page document, I believe, and making sure it's like on the city website so people can access it. I think it's important to be able to get the answer questions answered. We can't talk about it all tonight, the hundred pages, but are there any specific points that you think are important for the public to know? Um, obviously live tonight, but then also we want to make sure it's on the website.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: We will absolutely make it available. I have a hard copy here, but it's available as a PDF that can be put on the website. In fact, when it was a draft and we had the public meetings, that draft was put on the website and was available for public comment during the production of the plan. But now that it's finalized, you want everyone to know what's in there. I guess I would say if anyone gets a chance to look at this a little bit later on, once it's up online, to look at the tables near the back of the plan, table 28 that actually lists the recommended measures, different drainage improvements and other steps. That's really the heart of the plan saying, here's the things you can actually do that would make the city more resilient and less vulnerable to some of these hazards. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Councilor box.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I too went through the report. Um, I can remember last time was presented. Uh, we actually had a committee, the whole meeting, That's right. And we discussed this with the entire council because it is such an in depth report. And, uh, there's many facets to this report. Um, my, my question is to you, uh, you just mentioned, uh, recommendations and you're right. There are recommendations that were in the last five year plan that are still carried over. into the next plan tomorrow. That's right. Some of them are. Um, I can remember the last several budgets that have come before this council. I don't recall anything the administration has brought before us to be quite frank with you, uh, in ways of allocations to, uh, address some of the recommendations that were made in the last report. Now that may have happened and I'm not aware of it, but I don't remember anything in the budgetary process. Uh, when I looked at, uh, I forget what section it was under. Uh, I believe it was recommendations. They scaled it high, moderate and low. That's right. Whether it was a high benefit to do this particular project or what the risk was, um, uh, you know, and based on high, low or moderate. Now the areas of concern that I have that have been of concern for many years in this community are Main Street and Mystic Ave, in between, the whole neighborhood in between Mystic Ave and Main Street. And that was considered, I believe, a very high priority due to poor drainage. The same also applies to some sections of North Method, which we refer to the Heights, which also have poor drainage. I just want to make sure that we're not just putting out a report for the sake of putting out a report and hopefully getting some funding and don't, we always welcome funding, especially from the federal government, but I just hope it's not a report that really has no tea to it. And I'd like to see, we have over $7 million in our water and sewer enterprise account for these exact projects for drainage issues, uh, for, um, issues that, I think could be addressed with some of that money. So, I don't know if you can address that or not, but my concern is, you know, the flooding. I know some of the recommendations were as simple as we're notifying businesses to clean their catch basins on private property. Now, that sounds like a no-brainer, but what percent of people adhere to that? I mean, is there any follow-up? I could tell you the catch basins on streets, even though they're supposedly cleaned once a year, they're in deplorable conditions throughout the community, to be quite frank with you. Many of them are clogged and in very poor condition, which leads to additional flooding. So I'm hoping that it's not just a report in name only, that these recommendations are taken seriously by this administration, and they put forth, if we don't get grants, funding in the budget to address some of these very serious drainage issues, because when your basement has a foot of water in it, that's a very major concern for a lot of residents. And when I'm at meetings in the Heights, and a woman's telling me up around Tamar Drive that her water pump runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, I'm concerned. You know, those are concerning issues.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: So I don't know if you can address that in particular. Right. Vice President Marx, let me say that that's music to my ears. As a planner, The thing we worry about most is trying our best to make a good plan and then having it proverbially gather dust on the shelf because no one implements it. So you're right on target to what, now you have a good plan here, it's been looked at by a lot of eyes and through FEMA and MEMA, and now it's really on the city to, over the next five years, implement parts of this plan. Now, on the positive side, this plan did go back and look at the recommendations made in your last plan and said, what happened to them? And there's a table right in here. Some of them were completed. And those that weren't completed, for whatever reason, there wasn't enough funding or whatever the reason may be, we re-looked at them and say, are these still relevant recommendations? They haven't been done. Should they be carried in? And they were. We also added some new recommendations. But over the course of the next five years, the idea is that you don't just sort of set this aside and wait for five years to come and renew the plan for the sake of just having a plan. There's actually a process in the back spelled out by which the city would continue occasionally convene this group that helped to put the plan together because it's a very interdisciplinary effort, has lots of different departments and commissions and boards involved, and it's a vision that you would over time take from these recommendations and move some of them ahead as you can, whether it's through a FEMA grant or through your own city funding. And the table in here actually spells out where some of these might have to just be city funding because they're important, but they may not all be eligible for FEMA money. And even those that are eligible for FEMA funding, FEMA requires a 25% local match for all of their grants. They'll pay you 75% of a cost, but you still have to be prepared to put up something as well for those grants. So it's very important what you say about keeping the implementation of this and making sure that it's not just a plan that gathers dust.
[Michael Marks]: So just if I can ask you my last question. So FEMA requires the report. It requires cities and towns to present.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: If I could answer that, they actually don't require. This is not a mandate like an unfunded mandate. They require, what they do is they put the incentive in. If you want any FEMA grants under this program, you have to have an approved plan. So it's an incentive. If you didn't ever care about getting a FEMA grant, you wouldn't have to do one of these plans and there would be no penalty other than that.
[Michael Marks]: associated timeline that FEMA puts out saying, you know what, okay, these are your recommendations, Matthew. We appreciate you putting together this report. You're eligible for grant funding now. However, we would like to see a percentage of these particular recommendations implemented by X date or at least reviewed by... You're asking some very good questions.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: The table of recommendations actually puts some target dates on when over the five years. Would this one be in the first year or two? Would this one be in year three or this one be in year five? You actually have that in there based on the city's team's best estimate of when some of these would be. But I will say that in the interim five years, FEMA does not come back and look over your shoulder and say, now are you making progress? When you come and do your next five-year update, however, that's when you'll have to kind of the day of reckoning will come to say, what did you do with this over the last five years? And did you, what did you implement and what didn't you? So that's the time when it will come. You don't want to wait until the last minute and be caught up short.
[Michael Marks]: Have you ever seen FEMA deny a report?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: Oh, well, the plan.
[Michael Marks]: Have you ever seen FEMA deny one?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: They don't use the term deny. What they have done is returned draft plans with revisions required. And that's actually part of what happened here because of the change in regulations. The plan that was originally submitted met the old regulations but didn't meet the new ones. And so they will often return these plans basically with revisions. It's like turning in a paper to your professor and getting it marked up and say, go back and fix this. but that's in the interest of making a better plan, not to be punitive to the community, to making a better, more complete plan.
[Michael Marks]: And just Mr. President, my other question is to the board of health director. Um, now that you are acting, I guess, full time or part time as the emergency preparedness person in the community where we used to have someone that did it as their job. Um, although it may not have been a full time job, that was what they were dedicated to do. How are you finding that now, in your role, a very busy office at Border Health, a number of employees underneath you, a lot of issues. Are you finding yourself being able to spend ample time as the emergency preparedness person for this community?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I think you could spend a lot more time doing it. It certainly could be a full-time job. But as part of public health, we do emergency preparedness planning all the time, too. So it's been able to be part of my job, as well as working with MIMR. I'm part of the Emergency Management Director Group with MIMR. So I've been keeping up with them and trying to get a local committee together because it's not just a one-man job. Emergency preparedness is really a huge job that requires multidisciplinary teams, so that's what we're trying to develop. But I will be working to get a team together again to look at this plan. I already talked with the energy and environmental folks, and we're going to be getting a local committee back together again to really revisit this plan and see what we can get done.
[Michael Marks]: uh, committee for emergency preparedness. It's just yourself. Well, correct. Correct. Okay. And in the past there was a committee. I'm not aware of that. Is it?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I, I, I believe that they should have been if there wasn't, but yeah, usually it's your public safety folks, you know, um, public health building, uh, mostly community development people who would be involved in the city.
[Michael Marks]: Yeah. I just want to thank you both for your time and effort. This was a very lengthy and thorough, uh, report put together. Um, and, uh, I think it does benefit the community. Thank you. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Madam director. If I could ask a question as, as a reviewing the report, um, um, Mr. Mangoni is still listed as the person on the, if we, if we could take his name off. So if somebody wants to contact somebody and replace it with the proper person would be, would be appreciated.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: We'll have to update that whole committee.
[Richard Caraviello]: If you can do that before you publish it to the webpage, it'd be appreciated. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of quick additional questions. So you had mentioned about this being a full-time position. There's enough work to make it a full-time position?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: You could spend — emergency preparedness, you could really spend a lot of time getting that.
[John Falco]: So in your experience throughout the years, I mean, do you see other cities and towns that actually have a full-time person? I'm just curious.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: There are a few that have full-time. A lot of them have part-time, but certainly there are — There are communities with full-time emergency management directors.
[John Falco]: Do they more or less communities that maybe live closer to the coast or that are closer to the coast, I guess, or is it just in general?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: It just varies, not based on location. It's usually size.
[John Falco]: Size, okay. That makes sense. As far as you had mentioned about putting a committee together, that committee's not together yet?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Not yet. We're working on it.
[John Falco]: Do you know when that will be, when the goal is to actually have that committee get together and meet?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I'd like to try to get a meeting together in June and then set quality meetings.
[John Falco]: Okay, great. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Robert Cappucci]: Name and address of the record, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci, 71 Evans street. Uh, before they leave, if I could ask them some questions, uh, through the chair, having not, having not read, uh, this report yet, and I intend to. I'm a little bit in the dark. My question pertains to the funding grants that are possible. From what I'm hearing tonight, this sounds like it's expressly for some kind of natural disaster where health concerns are. But through the funding that we're now available for, what kind of grants could the City of Medford apply for? such as a few weeks ago Councilor Knight brought up the epi pens for first responders. Could we get funding for that? These have been for natural disasters. Specifically just for natural disasters? Yes. Well, then I guess that answers all my questions. I don't have to address them. But one last question to the city. I know Councilor Brianna Lungo‑Kern has brought up often uh, hiring a full-time grant writer. Has the city of Medford done that yet? Not to my knowledge. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Name and address for the record, please. Thank you. Council President Andrew cast and Eddie Cushion street method mass. Um, to the chair, I would like to ask the, uh, to the chair, to the chair, ask the director of the board of health. I'm sorry, the director of environmental planning. or the Metropolitan Area Council. I've been hearing some words about flooding and national disasters and things of that nature, and with the melt and ice caps, so they say. I have two simple questions. I would like two simple, concrete answers. Through the chair, for the director, How many feet above sea level is the Karatek Bridge? And the second question, how many feet above sea level is the Emilia Earhart Dam at the Tipiti Top? Two simple questions.
[Richard Caraviello]: Were you able to answer that question, sir? If the ASTAPs do come up?
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_29]: No, I don't know the details of the sea level rise. Elevation, I mean that's information we could access very quickly, but on the top of my head. I don't know the answer to that.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: I thank you sir Thank you on the motion by councillor nice that this paper be adopted Second and by councillor Falco, mr. Clerk, please call the roll
[Clerk]: Councilor Tavaruso? Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Lockern? Yes. Vice President Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The proposal is adopted. Motion by Councilor Lockern that we revert back to regular business. 17-445 offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the subdivision plan for Macklin Road. Oh, I'm sorry. 17-448 offered by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that the Office of Energy and Environment and the Conservation Commission update the City Council with any potential concerns regarding the proposed Macklin Road development. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. If you'd like to combine 448 and 445, Mr. Clerk. 17, 445 offered by Vice President Mox, be it resolved that the subdivision plan for Macklin Road in the site plan review for 252 Main Street be discussed. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I put this on last week after a few concerned residents had filled me in and what was going on down at Macklin Road. It looks like there's a potential subdivision that was put forth for the Office of Community Development site plan review last Wednesday and is before, I believe, the Conservation Commission within the next couple days, tomorrow. Tomorrow, in front of the Conservation Commission. Right, 6.30 tomorrow. My concern, obviously, we've been involved in a number of different developments. We've had a lot going on. A bunch of us have tried to go to a number of meetings, whether it be ZBA or OCD, Office of Community Development, private meetings. This one I wasn't able to attend last Wednesday, but I do know that the residents have extreme concerns with regards to this being close to a conservation buffer. as well as potential flooding in the area. I know this abuts McCormick Ave, and there are residents on McCormick Ave that are very concerned that they're gonna experience additional flooding on their road. So if we could just get an update from the Conservation Commission with any potential concerns they have. I know they're gonna meet tomorrow night, but hopefully not only get an update from them, but let them know that the Metro City Council, if we could amend the paper, is very concerned, is interested in the residents concerns with regards to the flooding and the conservation buffer zone. So if we could let them know we are concerned and get an update with regards to what needs to be done, if this is a project that can go forward, cannot go forward, why not? I believe it's three homes that are gonna create a potential cul-de-sac in the area. And I do have, I mean, I live up in the Heights. I am concerned for my neighbors with regards to, um, any, nobody wants any flooding in their home. And if this is going to create that, we want to make sure we either do it in the right way or prevent it from happening. So if we could get some answers, that would be beneficial to the area. Thank you. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Counsel Lungo-Koehn Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I had the opportunity to attend the meeting, last Wednesday before the Community Development Board. And on Macklin Road, there were a number of residents, as Councilor Lungo-Koehn mentioned, the proposal is to build three new homes on an area that abuts wetlands. And I guess the Conservation Commission tomorrow night will be addressing whether or not the particular wetlands up there are active wetlands. And that determination, I guess, will have a big impact whether or not this, uh, project moves forward. But the neighborhood, uh, Mr. President, as Councilor Lungo-Koehn mentioned, uh, the project itself, uh, is in an area that is nestled between, uh, protected wetlands and homes, uh, towards the back. Uh, the proposed homes are elevated higher than the homes behind them. So the, uh, residents were concerned that there would be, a fair amount of runoff water into their yard in an area that I mentioned earlier when we were talking about the hazard mitigation plan, that there are residents up there that have sump pumps that run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They never shut off. That's how much groundwater is in that particular area. And it's the fact that there's poor drainage, Mr. President, but there's also the Cranberry Brook up there. which is an open brook that's been up there for many, many years, and I guess takes runoff water from a lot of the surrounding area and possibly even some of the local rivers, Mr. President. A second concern was regarding water pressure. And I've been on this council a number of years, and I can tell you firsthand that when you hear water pressure, it's synonymous with North Medford and the Heights. Poor water pressure. You know, someone next door is washing their car. The gentleman can't take a shower. That's how poor the pressure is, Mr. President, in that particular area. So residents, although it's only three homes, have the right to request and say, what's going to happen with our water pressure? It's already low as is. What is going to be the case with new development in the area? Some several years back, we put a new pump to improve pressure at the bottom of Fulton Street, and that has done some help in providing additional water pressure, but towards the top of the heights, I don't think it's alleviated any concerns that residents have. Also, based on the plane of these homes, they're gonna have to have a pump that pumps their sewage from the house to the city of Medford sewer line. Because of the angle, it doesn't flow as it should flow, And they're going to create these storage containers under the ground, giant sewage storage containers for these three homes. They're made out of cement and they work like, you know, if sewage is going into them, there's a pump that sends it back out to the sewage pipe. However, because of power outages, they're equipped only to handle up to 24 hours. So if you happen to have a power outage, Mr. President, that's over 24 hours. And that happens. I mean, it happens quite frequently in areas of our community. These sewage container systems aren't equipped to accommodate the sewage that's going to be going into them. And that poses another concern that residents had. Well, how will it back up? Will it back up into the new homes, or will it end up going up the pipe and possibly backing into our homes? And that was another question that was asked regarding the sewage. The snow removal. This is a private road. Who's responsible ultimately for the snow removal? And where is the snow going to be put? Is it going to be put back on a city street? Is it going to be put towards wetlands? And as we all know, you can't put snow because of salt and other debris near any type of wetlands. That's a concern, Mr. President. And the ownership of the water pipes. Where this is a private road, I believe the developer is responsible for the ownership of the water pipes. But those pipes are going to lead 100, 150 feet, 200 feet. And if one breaks during the night, who's responsible? It's not the city's water pipes. It's leading to the city's water pipes. So there are a number of questions that need to be answered, Mr. President. And just so you know, these are three lots. There's also another, from what I understand, 14 other non-buildable lots as it stands right now. Some are undersized. and that will be the next step, I can almost guarantee ya, if these homes go in. The second point I wanted to bring up was 252 Main Street. It's currently a multi-family home. I believe it's a two or three family home. It's right on Main Street, right around the corner from, which street is it? Hancock Street. Yeah, Hancock Street, correct, thank you. And they're taking a two or three family home and they're trying to create nine units, like they did a couple doors down in that blue monstrosity that I refer to it as, that doesn't fit into the neighborhood. It just so happens they're gonna be looking for a variance, because they're three spots shy of the variance for parking, and as we know, that's already a congested area, it's already on Main Street where you can't park, and what will be happening, even though they're saying It's all you hear now at these meetings, the millennials are moving in there. It's like Paul Revere, the millennials are coming, the millennials are coming. And oh, they won't have cars, they'll never have families, they'll never have kids. I don't know how you can state that, Mr. President. It sounds good when you make a presentation, I guess, to get what you want, but it's not reality. And in my opinion, if you don't conform to current ordinances right now, in particular parking and height restrictions, which seem to be the major catching point, I don't think your project should move forward. And that's the way I feel about 252 High Street, Mr. President. And so I'm looking forward to see what happens with both of these projects. And I hope that the neighborhood on both Macklin and 252 Main Street in South Bedford are looped into this. So there's plenty of neighborhood, um, input and feedback, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: And what day is this meeting, Mr. Vice President?
[Michael Marks]: I believe it's tomorrow. The conservation commission meeting at six 30, six 30, I believe tomorrow. Um, and they're going to talk about at least Macklin on the, um, the wetlands up there and whether they're active or slightly active. I don't, I don't know the exact terminology, but that's what they get to decide. Mr. President. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you Mr. President. I want to thank my council colleagues for bringing these resolutions forward tonight. I've been called a number of times with regard to the Macklin road development and um, I had the opportunity to, uh, to attend the, uh, the conservation commission meeting along with you actually on April 19th and uh, it was at the community development board meeting last week with council of marks. I had to leave a little bit early. My son had a band concert, but um, the residents in this neighborhood, uh, up in the Macklin road area have really rallied behind this to, uh, see what they can do, um, to, to, you know, hopefully prevent or at least make this small than it is. I mean, my colleagues mentioned tonight, there are a lot of concerns with regard to, uh, what putting in three new homes you're going to bring to this neighborhood. Uh, you go down McCormick gap, you drive down McCormick gap tonight, you will see hoses coming out of the basements of these homes and they are constantly pumping water out. The sub pumps are going nonstop, and no one should have to live like this. And I think by putting in three new homes, it's completely going to exasperate the situation. So I think that we really have to take the city or the Conservation Commission and the Community Development Board really have to take this under consideration when looking at a development like this. So major flooding is a concern. You know, I think disrupting the ground in that area, I mean, you know, you're near a brook. I mean, that's completely unknown what's going to happen. The water has to flow somewhere. So this is a concern as well. Um, you know, uh, Councilor Marks mentioned that water pressure in that area, a lot of friends that live up there in, you know, water pressure is tough, tough on that street in particular. Um, you know, someone called me and said, you know, I can't, you know, take a shower and have someone flush the toilet at the same time or else there's the water completely shuts down almost. So, I mean, that's a concern. You go to, to environmental issues, you take a look, this developer has already cut down one tree within the buffer zone and that's completely, completely a blatant disrespect to, to our ordinances. I mean, that's completely wrong. And so, you know, I, I mean, I think, you know, when, when they're cutting down trees in a buffer zone, you know, right away that should set up, uh, send up red flags, uh, you know, that, you know, like my colleagues mentioned, they're proposing three homes on this cul-de-sac. You know, in one of the homes is within the wetlands buffer zone. And I think we have to be really careful here as a city, because if you're going to allow something like this, you're setting precedent for future development. You're setting precedent for, you know, other homes in other wetland type areas. We need to watch out there. It's completely wrong. I think, you know, you know, kudos to the, to the citizens really for stepping up I think there was probably 60 to 70, 75 people at the Conservation Commission meeting. There were a lot of residents here last week. And I give them a lot of credit because both of those meetings have been continued. So it's meeting after meeting, week after week. So I really applaud your tenacity of going after this and staying on top of it. And I think that's important. But I really, there's a lot of concerns. I'm trying to think out of the box here a little bit. You mentioned Council Marks, how there's 14 other lots that are unbuildable. And everyone's trying to come here and build. But I mean, we take a look at the CPA and how we passed that, the community passed that last year. And this is something, I know the CPA here is in its infancy, but this is something that really, you talk about open space and stuff like that, this is something that probably could be considered, you know, that the city could maybe purchase at some point in time, and I'm not saying, you know, one of the first projects, but maybe down the line they could, you know, purchase this in a place of conservation, restriction on the property. So, you know, you can't build on it in the future. And I think that's, you know, these are things that we need to look at. But, you know, I did promise a resident tonight, it's really been on top of the situation since, you know, there's a resident up on McCormick Ave, Will Humphreys, a nice guy, and he's been on top of this This came about, this whole issue. And he said, you know, he couldn't make it to the meeting tonight. And like I said, I mean, these residents had been going to meetings nonstop. And he said, can you please read a letter for me? And I said, absolutely. I mean, you know, I mean, if he's going to be here tomorrow night, then he's going to be at a meeting next week, whenever the Conservation Commission meets. You know, I said, no problem. I'll read the letter for you. So I'll submit this into the public record. I'll make a copy for you, Mr. Finn. To whom it may concern. I'm ready to ask method elected representatives, uh, commissions and boards to listen to its citizens when considering this development. Thank you to the environment, uh, environment department and conservation commission in the community development office and board, uh, the city engineer, the city council, and the ongoing attention to the many problems with this subdivision proposal. The community surrounds this develop the community that surrounds this development is speaking out with a unified voice of concern and opposition. Many citizens attended meetings on the proposal. Concerns expressed include loss of storm and flood water retention capacity, increased throughput to sewer and water systems that are already strained, damage to existing homes and extensive blasting of ledge, loss of aesthetically pleasing natural green space, wildlife habitat destruction and damage to wetlands, increased traffic near Carr Park and the Tot Lot. Access issues and disturbance to Direct the Butter on Macklin Road were a non-profit organization that provides services to several long-time residents with developmental disabilities at the home. He also goes on to say that he included a petition of 115 Medford residents, representing much of the surrounding neighborhood, echoing these same concerns. in its current state is of great value to the community. This is the opposite of an abandoned building in need of improvement or environmental cleanup. The surrounding neighborhood is unified in opposition to the proposal. No public benefit is served through development of the subdivision. Medford's assessors has long considered 13 of the 14 lots as undevelopable when assessing their value. Therefore, the city should not grant any waivers or variances to existing regulations around roadways, setbacks, zoning, and building codes, or environmental protections. Those regulations exist to protect our city, its citizens, and its ecosystems. If the regulations can't be adhered to, then the land should not be developed upon. Sincerely, Will Humphreys. So I just wanted to read that on his behalf. Like I said, I will print out a copy of that letter. But I think, you know, one of the, things just to conclude on is that, you know, this is a unique piece of land in our community. Um, you know, it's, it's one of the few remaining areas within the city of Medford that has, you know, Woodland habitat in, you know, we really need to preserve this. So I just wanted to go on the record and saying that I thank my colleagues for bringing this up for tonight.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Falco. Name and address of the record, please.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, I'm Ann Caltrera and my address is 17 McCormick Gav. And I'm here to speak against the development. I directly abut the property being developed. And I've lived there for over 20 years. My husband has lived there and his family on that street since the 1950s. And we, as has been stated, have had lots of problems with water pressure, with flooding. And we are concerned that this is going to add to that. to those problems. So that's a big concern. We also feel that it's detrimental to the neighborhood. A lot of people have moved into the neighborhood because we have some green space. There isn't much in Medford. And we're also concerned about added traffic to the area because it's a very tight, where Winslow goes into Tamor, you know, it cuts off and there's a lot of kids coming that way. on bicycles going to car park and so forth, and the group home on the corner. So, you know, we feel that this is a dead end road. And, you know, people on Tamor have also expressed that the wetland, they're concerned that it's going to exasperate the problems they have with wetlands behind them as well. So, you know, the concern that one wetland sort of feeds into another, and as has been said, the water has to go somewhere. Uh, so we're, we're glad that you're, uh, reviewing this proposal. Um, the neighborhood has been very united, uh, against this development and we hope that it does not go forward. So thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Mr. Coltrane. Name and address of the record, please.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_01]: My name is Jen Young and I live at 72 McCormick Ave in Medford. And, um, My husband and I actually bought our home from the Coltreras 13 years ago. And we live just down the street from them now. And one of the reasons that we chose to move to Medford and to this area of Medford was because of that green space. We decided when we saw the house on a dead end street, and we could imagine our kids riding their bikes down the street, which they do now, and then that we can see trees and we can see green space. And I think one of the things that surprised us when we moved in was in the late winter seeing this sort of path going through our backyard across the street into this area that we're talking about, which has become a real kind of wildlife sort of pathway coming from the fells. And I think kind of building in that area, or even next to that area, really limits the wildlife area in Medford. And I think it's really important to keep the green space that we do have. Thanks.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Vice President Mox. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Through the Chair, thank you, President Caraviello, because I couldn't make the Wednesday night meeting. Do you know what the final, does anybody know what the final vote was for the site plan review?
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Falco, if you can.
[John Falco]: From what I've been told, they've been more questions than answers. I guess the developer has not been really able to answer much. So no vote was taken. No vote's been taken. They have to go in front of the conservation commission again tomorrow night. And then they're going again, uh, they're going in front of the community development board again. I don't know the date of that meeting, but they've been, uh, there were a ton of questions from both commissions. Um, and they need to, the developer needs to get back to both boards.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: With the answers to those questions, so thank you Thank you and with regards to tomorrow night's meeting, I mean it sounds like they're Update notice of intent regarding the creation of the subdivision on Macklin Road and Medford with one proposed lot, so does anybody know exactly what tomorrow night will be? Will it be question and answer? Will the public be able to speak? I just don't know if my colleagues know the answer to that either.
[Richard Caraviello]: I would assume everyone will be able to speak tomorrow evening. They didn't say that there would be any restrictions.
[John Falco]: I'm under the same pressure that everyone's going to be able to speak, and hopefully the developer will have answers to the questions that the commission ahead because they had, I think, a laundry list of questions that needed to be answered. And I believe that the Conservation Commission was actually going, they had done one site visit, and I think they were going to do, or at least there was one member that actually wanted to go out and look at the wetlands, I think, to actually physically see the space, so.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Good to know. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice President Mox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I believe also last Wednesday there were, uh, many issues as console Falco mentioned that, uh, we're not answered. Although the city engineer was in attendance and many of them were directed to her, uh, the committee, um, requested that the community development board requested that the city engineer sit down with the developer. So I think in between these other meetings that are taking place with the conservation committee, uh, commission, uh, that the city engineer is going to meet to discuss ownership of pipes and other issues that deal with engineering. So I think that's the first point. The second point, Mr. President is we heard tonight. That's why I mentioned to, uh, the, uh, board that came before us, um, for emergency preparedness is that, uh, you know, year after year, the city recommends, uh, that we attend to certain areas that are prone to flooding. And the Heights is listed all the time, Salt Method. There's a number of hotspots that this community is aware of for years. And there are steps that we can take for a very minimal amount of money to help alleviate some of the concerns that we're hearing. Back several years ago, I met with residents on McCormick Ave that were concerned that just a simple issue of how the street is sloped. You know, people were building up their driveway because the street was sloped so the water wouldn't pour into catch basins, but pour into people's driveways, which eventually ends up in their basement. And these were simple things that, you know, grinding of a street and repositioning and reangling a street so it pours into a catch basin and not into people's driveways. But there were people's driveways that were up literally five to six inches above the street because they were so sick of having water pour into their driveway. But these are the type of fixes, Mr. President, that with $7.5 million of money that's out there with the Water and Sewer Enterprise account, that we should be looking at, Mr. President, and, you know, not relying on residents to pump out their basement 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So I would also ask, Mr. President, that the city administration look into McCormick Ave regarding the slope and the pitch. This was back several years ago. I'm sure the city didn't go out there and grind the whole street. and properly angle the street. But I would ask that that be taken care of now by the city engineer.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: So what is it we're voting on, Mr. President? We're going to be asking the Office of Energy and the Environment in the Conservation Commission to report back to us with any potential concerns regarding the Macklin Road development. And we're asking for an engineering study on McCormick Avenue relative to slope and pitch. Is that what we're voting on?
[Richard Caraviello]: That is correct, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Move approval of the question, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the motion by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Lococoon. All those in favor? Motion passes. 17446 offered by Vice President Marks. Be it resolved that the City Council receive an updated list of tree stumps and sidewalk repairs. Vice President Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I hate to put this on the agenda again, but guess what? I'm going to put it on the agenda again. Uh, it was several weeks back. I offered a resolution asking for an update. I think it was amended by several Councilors to get an update of a sidewalk and, um, street repair, uh, and stumps. And to date, I don't recall receiving anything. I don't know if my fellow colleagues, sometimes it may skip a packet, but I didn't receive anything. Mr. President. And I could just tell you firsthand that the calls I'm receiving regarding stump removal, I must be the king of stump removal because I keep on receiving call after call from people in this community. And they tell me when they call city hall, they're being told they're on the list. And I hate to laugh at people, but that list, I tell them, could be three, four, five, 10 years before your stump gets taken out, assuming you are on the list. So once again, Mr. President, that I would ask, and I think Councilor Knights, the Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee, I would ask that, like I did several weeks back regarding street sweeping, I think we have to put together, because there is no clear, in my opinion, there is no clear, approach in this city. I'm not aware of any rules or regulations administratively that require stumps to be removed within a certain time frame after the tree is taken down. So once you have a public hearing to remove a tree, once the tree wardens out there determines the tree's unsafe or it's unhealthy, It needs to be removed. There's a lengthy process that's governed by state law. Then what happens on our end, Mr. President, there is no process. So the tree will come down eventually and the stump will remain for one, two, three, four, five years in front of someone's home that is paying taxes that have been increased the last 25 years, year after year, Mr. President. So I would ask that the public works subcommittee, I don't think they met on the other issue. Councilor Knight has his hands full with a lot of requests that a city ordinance be created. This would be my recommendation. The subcommittee could do whatever they want. But within 30 days, Mr. President, of a tree removal, that the stump should be taken down to the ground, Mr. President, and also the sidewalk repaired or a new tree planted, depending on the wish of the homeowner. But there has to be a timeframe. We can't continue to operate this way, Mr. President, where residents are not sure they're on the list, they may be on the list, and looking at a stump, an unsightly stump in front of their home for many, many years. Regarding the sidewalks, Mr. President, the mayor is looking at right now a beautification process where $250,000 the mayor is putting out for each of the five business districts, so they would get $50,000 each, and looking to put out a survey in the community for business owners and residents to ask for beautification within the different business districts. And the business owners that I've spoken to, John Pompeo and Wes Maffin and other business owners throughout the community, is that they're more concerned about the basic issues of cracked sidewalks, Mr. President, the lack of signage within different business districts. That's what they're concerned about, Mr. President. And it's great to have this $50,000, and it's great to put it out there and get input from everyone, but they just want the basics. And that's what they're explaining to me. So I just want to put in a plug, Mr. President, that I don't think we have to wait for a $250,000 offering from the mayor to have a survey go out. to do the basic amenities to fix a sidewalk in front of a business owner's establishment, Mr. President. I don't think we have to jump through six to eight months worth of hurdles to do basic, basic city improvements. So that would be my recommendation, Mr. President. This be sent to the subcommittee on public works and that an ordinance be created to put a timeframe on when a stump will be removed after tree removal so residents don't have to wonder what's going to happen, Mr. President, any longer.
[Richard Caraviello]: The Public Works Subcommittee is Councilor Knight, Vice President Marks, and Councilor Dello Russo. And that $250,000 has been sitting there for a couple of years now, waiting for something to happen with it. So that's not new money or found money that's been sitting there from the, I think, McGlynn's administration. No, no, Mr. President, no, if I could. If I'm not mistaken, that was money that Mayor McGlynn put aside
[Michael Marks]: Right.
[Richard Caraviello]: So the beautification or whatever they want to call it.
[Michael Marks]: He put aside $250,000. The mayor has changed it around now. We have a new mayor. OK. This mayor is going to request that the council vote $250,000 out of free cash. Additional. Out of free cash. Not additional. Not additional. It's $50,000 for each business district divided by $250,000. That's five business districts. So the mayor has changed it around. And that's her authority. So she didn't follow through with it.
[Richard Caraviello]: I was under the impression we were using that money that was in that fund for a couple of years. Not that I'm aware of. Councilor Falco.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Councilor Marksley for bringing this forward. This is a definite concern. You go through each neighborhood, there's stumps all over the place. So I would definitely be in favor of an ordinance to police this. I think that it's long overdue. You know, it's sad that when you have stumps out there year after year, They need to be addressed. And they should be addressed right away. To me, it's a safety issue. You have kids walking down the street. We're encouraging people to walk. We have a complete streets program. And you're encouraging people to get out there and walk, but you're forcing people into the street when there's stumps all over the place. And I think it needs to be addressed. I got a call from a resident the other day. He has a tree on his sidewalk. It's popping up the panel, the curbs falling away from the, separating from the sidewalk and that needs to be addressed. And you know, so we have issues like this all over our community. It doesn't matter what neighborhood you're in, they're out there. And so I'd be in full support of an ordinance to police this. I think it's a good idea. And if you wouldn't mind me amending your resolution, if we could have 49 Bradshaw Street added to the list of sidewalk repair, just as the DPW could go out there and take a look.
[Clerk]: Okay.
[Michael Marks]: We'll put it, we'll put on the next one that I, if vice president box, just if I could, Mr. President, this council over the years has asked a national grid regarding double poles, their poles in the city. Um, and we've required the state legislature. We've asked them on countless times to create a state law, that would put a timeframe on when National Grid can sit on these double poles, how long they can sit. And it was back, I think, two or three years ago, the state legislature finally put together a law, a state law, that requires National Grid to address their double poles. Here we are on the city side, Mr. President, where you may not have a double pole, but you may have a stump in front of your house for five years, and there's no requirement at all. So, there is no administrative policy that I'm aware of. And the fact that the administration hasn't picked up on this over the last 20 years, I think requires a city ordinance to step in and require the city. Mr. President to act on this. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: I have a double pole in front of my house. Council. Mr. President, I wasn't done yet. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[John Falco]: So if I can have a B paper to, uh, for the DPW to look at the sidewalk panel in front of, to actually the side, it's a corner lot, the corner of Honeywell and, uh,
[Richard Caraviello]: Bradshaw, it's 49 Bradshaw Street.
[John Falco]: And if I could also add, one second, one second. It's a B paper to 17446.
[Richard Caraviello]: He said the 17446. And if we could also have Bradshaw,
[John Falco]: in Honeywell, it's the corner. It's a raised sidewalk panel.
[Richard Caraviello]: And you have another one, sir?
[John Falco]: Yes, if we could have the DPW department or whatever utility is responsible for this. There is not a half pole, not a double pole. It's a mini pole at the corner of Fulton Spring and Fulton Street. It's gotta be about four feet off the ground. definite safety hazard. I mean, there's kids all over the place there. It's not a tree stump. It's a telephone pole. It used to be a double pole.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: And then they cut it down. It's like a mini pole.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Um, president Caraviello, I actually have more to say about potholes, but I want to thank the, my colleague for putting this forward and I move approval.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Councilor nice. Mr. President. Thank you very much. I think it's important to point out that, um, Here in the city, we have two stump lists. We have one stump list that the city is responsible for and one stump list that the public utility is responsible for. And I think that Councilor Marksley is on the right track as part of the permitting process for our public utilities to come into the community to dig up our streets. They should also be required to take down the stumps on the trees that they've taken down. So I think that's a nice place to start. It's certainly a good, a good intention. And I think it's going to lead us in the right direction, Mr. President. In terms of the $250,000 for our business district, I think that nothing can improve our business districts more than improving the flow of traffic and making them more pedestrian safe. With that being said, I'm pretty sure that a traffic engineer will cost less than $250,000, Mr. President. I'm sure we could probably get two years of a traffic engineer out of $250,000. So with that being said, that would be a recommendation that I would like to make as an amendment to Councilor Falco's B paper. Also, Mr. President,
[Richard Caraviello]: Did you get that at a trap?
[Adam Knight]: $250,000 be spent for a traffic as opposed to business district beautification because ultimately if we improve the flow of traffic and we make our community more pedestrian friendly, we are going to be improving our business districts and we're going to be improving the quality of life of our city as a whole, not just in these five areas. Mr. President. Um, so with that being said, I move for approval.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Counsel Scarpelli. I yell to the gentleman who approached the podium.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_02]: Name and address of the record, please. Paul Gucciati, 37 Duden Street. I just want to acknowledge the double poles. We've had a double pole for more than five years in Duden Street and I'll hit the potholes in a few minutes.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Councilor Scott. Again, I, I, and I'll hop on this. I think that one of my, my biggest issues coming onto the council is the lack of respect from our public utilities, um, and replacing panels and still, that's still an issue. So, um, I'd like an update if we can, if we could med that to, to still, um, ask the DPW, um, if they can, um, identify, um, panels that haven't been replaced yet. Um, what, what I'm seeing is still, there was supposed to be what I've been told. We've been told is that they were supposed to be, uh, put back to what was originally there. Correct. And what we're seeing is concrete sidewalks that are now being, um, hot top to over. And, and as we all know that over time that disintegrates and it leaves a huge safety issue. So if we can ask the DPW for that, that'd be, that'd be wonderful. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor knife. Um, I've been waiting for a similar response from the engineering department since April of 2016 relative to the streets that have been dug up by our public utilities and the trench work that's been performed. Mr. President. I've put forward more than five resolutions on this matter. It's been 18 months. Um, I'm going to make a friendly wager with councilor Scarpelli that if he gets his list before I get mine, I'll take him out for dinner.
[George Scarpelli]: You're not going to be that lucky.
[Richard Caraviello]: The motion by councilor marks seconded by councilor Lungo-Koehn as amended by The first one we're going to send the first one to subcommittee, am I correct? On the motion by Councilor Knight to send this to subcommittee, seconded by Councilor Lungo-Koehn. 30 day ordinance. And on the B paper, as amended by Councilor Falco, seconded by, I'm sorry, amended by Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Falco and Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Motion passes. 17447 offered by Vice President Mox being resolved that the city's potholes and crosswalks be discussed. Vice President Mox,
[Michael Marks]: Let me preface my remarks, Mr. President, if I could, because I don't want this to reflect upon DPW and the highway department. And in my discussions, the highway department, which is responsible for the maintenance of our roads, sidewalks, currently right now to operate efficiently and effectively to address the issues that are reported through C-Click Fix, through this council, through residents, they need an additional six workers just to meet the daily requirements. So they're down six workers, Mr. President. So I don't want this in any way to reflect upon a department, in my opinion, that is sorely, sorely understaffed. But I had to bring it up tonight because I don't like what I'm seeing. You know, I've been driving in this community for 35 years, and I can unequivocally say I've never seen our roads in worse condition, to be quite frank. I've never seen them in worse condition. And now I'm seeing, Mr. President, and I don't know if my council colleagues have noticed, people are starting to paint orange neon around potholes. So I inquired when I saw them, I said, Geez, why are people putting orange neon? It's actually nice because I know to avoid the pothole, but I was told it's being done by residents, Mr. President, that are so sick and tired of having the same pothole on their street for month after month, year after year, Mr. President, some of these potholes, that they're actually calling light to these particular potholes. And they look like mini crime scenes. It looks like almost a body was there, Mr. President, based on the size of the pothole. In addition to the potholes, Mr. President, that for whatever reason, and maybe it's because we're understaffed, we're unable to keep on top of them. And I'm not sure why, I'm not sure, maybe our streets are so old that this is what we're faced with now. Maybe we should have had a systematic approach to replacing our streets. which never happened over the years. But we're at a place right now where there's in such deplorable condition, just patching a hole really doesn't do it merit. And the manhole covers. How many streets do you have to go down and avoid the manhole cover because it's sloping down? How many streets do you have to go over that you have to say, well, I got to avoid this manhole cover? Or if I get too close to the curb, I get near a catch basin that's almost sunk into the ground and I have to avoid that. It's like you're playing a Nintendo game when you're driving on these streets. They're that deplorable, Mr. President. And, you know, I'm not sure what it's going to take. You know, we hear about complete streets, we hear about this is going on, that's going on. It's the very basics that we need to address. It's the very basics. And what do you tell a resident that their taxes have gone up steadily each year for 25 years, while the city services are going down, saying, well, you know what, we can't afford to do the basic maintenance. We can't afford to do the basic city maintenance, Mr. President, that we need to do in this community. And again, The number of emails and calls I get, it's getting overwhelming. And I asked people, I said, you may be better off reporting it to C-Click Fix. And I think the frustration with that is they get a quick answer saying, we'll take it under advisement, and nothing ever happens. So I hate to do it, Mr. President, but I have to put a few roads on there that were brought to my attention. And I know people are gonna say, well, it's every road, and I agree with them. But Tamar Drive has a hole that you can lose a small car in. That's how bad it is. Salem Street still has the railroad tracks from 1930 that ran down Salem Street that you can see through the road. How long have I been asking for that? How long? I mean, talk about your request. I mean, you're talking a year, two years that you can still see the tracks underneath, Mr. President. Riverside Ave? between the slopes and the catch basins and the manhole covers and Winthrop Street towards Boston Ave, another area that is in deplorable condition. The raised crosswalk should be painted every year so people know there's a raised crosswalk. You go by, you can barely tell the difference between the raised crosswalk and the street, Mr. President. Secondly, we talk about crosswalks. How often do we talk about getting our crosswalks painted? I'd venture to say that 70 percent of our crosswalks, still to date, are not painted. To date, Mr. President, are not painted. We had the Traffic Commission several weeks back. An amendment was offered before the Traffic Commission to allow Medford Police to now tag for jaywalking. Apparently, they didn't have the ability to tag for jaywalking. Jaywalking, from my understanding, is crossing a street that is not in a recommended cross area, like a crosswalk. Unfortunately, how do you tell residents to cross in a crosswalk that's not painted and not visual to those that are driving in the street? It doesn't make any sense, Mr. President. This council has voted, I know you brought it up several occasions, and I've mentioned it ad nauseum for 15 years. Thermoplastic crosswalks. Highly reflective, slip-resistant, their life expectancy is five years. Are they a little more expensive? Absolutely. The state uses it. They use it on state highways, state roads. Oh, no, the city of Medford knows better. We can't use thermoplastic in this city. Oh, no, it's too expensive, Mr. President. We'll just have to fight every year to get our crosswalks painted for six months. And by the time they get done, it's wintertime. Mr. President, I don't know what's going on, but, you know, I'm tired of hearing about all these little niches that are out there, safe roads and safe streets. And this is what's going on. And that's all it is, Mr. President. It's only a little niche, and it doesn't address the entire city's needs, which are basic needs, streets and sidewalks, Mr. President. So, again, I would ask that we have our pothole patrol team, which I guess it sounds good to say. I don't think we have one, but we get our pothole patrol team out there and start filling these potholes, Mr. President. and if they can't get the substance to fill them, we can get creative. Other communities, you know what they've done? They've done adopt a site. It may sound dangerous, but you have people that will go and adopt a pothole, they'll fill it with cement, they'll make pitches in there, they'll do mosaics, and it really, it's actually very catchy. But this is how their approach is to getting the city to act. And maybe our approach is to do neon around the potholes, and I think it's effective. I, you know, I thank the residents. I hope they don't get hurt doing it, but I thank the residents cause it calls the pothole to attention. And I think it puts people in the city on notice saying, Hey, look, how long is this going to last? And we're going to, we're going to call you out on it. We're going to, we're going to outline it in neon. I hate to be winded about it, Mr. President, but these are basic needs that aren't being addressed. Thank you, Mr. Vice presidents, council logo, current.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I was going to put this on under suspension, the pothole part of it, because I too, but I thank Councilor Marks for beating me to it. The pothole problem, I've never seen, I don't think I've ever seen it so bad in my 16 years. Everywhere you drive, you are dodging, you are dodging your tire from being blown out. Everywhere I walk in my neighborhood, I've been snapping pictures like crazy. I've been getting complaints like crazy. And in my neighborhood where I live, there's no circles in neon yellow, but my neighbors are putting sand in the potholes. Whether or not that's a good or safe thing, I don't know, but I've gone around and I'm looking at potholes I saw a couple weeks ago, and they're filled with sand. So I think it does probably help the car, but whether or not residents should be putting sand in it is obviously a question. But I think it just goes to show how frustrated people are. And I don't know what the problem is either. And every time I do contact the DPW, they do respond to my concerns and they go and fill the potholes. But some sections where it needs to be completely dug up and re-put in, whether that's a portion of the street or a larger section of the road, that's not being done. We just don't have the time or the manpower to do it. And that's unfortunate. We're putting quick fixes on some and not on others. So I think we need a systematic approach. And if we need to put more money in to doing it or hire a private contractor to go street by street, it needs to be done. If you look on Highland and Rita, there are huge potholes and a catch basin almost completely fallen in the road. You go to Doonan Street, there are patch after patch after patch that keeps coming up and you have crumbling road. If you look on Short Street, there are potholes filled with sand, and this is just my neighborhood. Then you go down and you go down Bell Ave. Some have been fixed, thankfully, but you go to the end of Bell Ave, and it's a mess. It is an absolute mess. That road's always considered a roller coaster in my family, Roller Coaster Road. But you go to every adjacent street, it's just pothole after pothole. And we need to figure out a way to address it. So I'm asking, through an amendment, that our subcommittee or even a committee of the whole meet with the DPW director and say, if we're only getting to some of these complaints on C-Click Fix, it's not enough, and what can we do? Because it's been talked about tonight. We have $250,000 for our streets that we may or may not approve. That survey, by the way, I believe already went out. to the business districts. I have seen it online, so people are, I believe, starting, they're requesting people to fill that out. We need basic city services. This happens every few years where it just gets so bad that this council's left saying, please, just fill potholes, paint the sidewalks, fix signage that needs to be, I mean, just the simple things that need to be done for the residents, for the safety of our community. I'd love to know how many, Pothole tire bus are in our law department right now with regards to you know people seeking reimbursement Because it's it's ridiculous, and I think we need to figure out a way well I think committee of the whole might be the way to go and just to ask questions What are we doing are we going street by street? Are we just going based on complaints because based on complaints isn't enough it really isn't enough, and I'm sure every week I'm getting new complaints about potholes alone crosswalks That's another story, but for me, the complaints are really, really coming in with regards to the potholes, and you see it as you're walking or driving around the city, and I really think something needs to be done. I think we need to get a grasp on it as a council. I know we will do that come June when we meet with the DPW director in person, but I think that's too far to wait. I think within the next couple weeks, we should sit down and say, what can we do to help, what do to ask this administration to make sure we have enough fill. Is that a problem? Do we have enough fill? Do we not have enough manpower? What are we, what are we doing wrong or what can we do right to make this right? Um, because it's, it's just extremely unsafe. It's unsightly and it's something we need to get a handle on.
[Richard Caraviello]: June is in two weeks. Councilor Knights.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much. I moved to amend the paper. I have several amendments I'd like to add. Back in 2016, I filed a resolution requesting that the DPW, namely the engineering department, provide us with an estimate as to what it would cost to totally resurface the emergency arteries in our community. They came back with an estimate of $6.75 million at that time, Mr. President. I'd ask for an updated cost estimate as to what it would cost to resurface the emergency arteries in the city of Medford, Clerk Finn. And I'd also like to ask when each street that is designated as an emergency artery was last resurfaced. Second amendment. Mr. President, I'd like to make, uh, would be this, um, back about eight months ago, the Medford city council recommended that the DPW division, um, examine the feasibility of creating a standalone signage and striping department to address some of the concerns that we have relative to signage and striping. Makes sense, right? Um, so I'd ask for an update, Mr. President, as we prepare for the budget. Um, I'd like to reiterate the council's position that this is something that we'd like to see examined and potentially be placed in the DPW budget. And, um, third, Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper requesting that the engineering division provide written response to the Medford city council as to why paper one six four zero four has not been answered yet after a year and a half.
[John Falco]: Councilor Falco. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my council colleague, uh, Councilor Marksley bring this forward. Um, this is definitely a concern in every neighborhood, uh, throughout our city. And, um, I would definitely be in favor of having a committee, the whole meeting to discuss this. Um, it's, you know, we talk about emergency arteries, but this is just everywhere. I mean, you go to, you can go to pray every side street, you're going to find something. But I mean, there are some major issues, uh, throughout, um, throughout our community in every neighborhood. And I get calls about them just like my colleagues do. And, uh, If I could add the lower half of Fern Road to that list, there is a hole that's getting bigger by the day. So if we could add that on, I'd greatly appreciate it. It needs to be addressed because someone is seriously gonna do some serious damage to their car. So thank you very much.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. And it was a request that I made, I think two years ago, asking for a permanent sidewalk crew. There were just two sidewalks every day. Oh, we're still waiting an answer for that.
[John Falco]: Mr. President, Mr. President, if I may. Last weekend, a resolution with regard to see click fix. If we could just get an update as to when we're going to receive that list, because it would be beneficial to all of us that we receive that list before the budget hearing. Because, you know, you talk about, you know, staffing and we only we we all know that we need uh, more people on that department, but you get a true indication when you take a look at that secret quick fix, you can use it as a tool, uh, you know, to actually see what's not getting done. And I think, uh, it would, it would tell a good picture. So if we could get an updated to one, we will receive that. Greatly appreciate it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Buu0dDHgsRo_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. Mr. Director, please. Paul Gucciari, 37 Duden street. So I just want to thank everybody and acknowledge your Councilors for bringing this forward. But I got some ideas. Uh, one is, uh, I heard $7 million today you have in the waterfront, reappropriate some of that money to repair the roads. I know you're shaking your head, but you've got to look at it. You've got free cash. And another thing I would suggest, you said you're short staff. Contractors, bring them in during the spring, during the fall, get them to clear the roads. It gets done. You're not adding much overhead. You're not paying for health care or things like that. They're not permanent on the payroll. I would also suggest what you said, 30 days for the trees not being cut, the stumps. Establish a service level agreements with the different departments in the city. So 30 days to do some work, if they're not done, you fine them. I live with that every day in my job. If I don't do something for the customer within a certain amount of time, I owe them money. So you could work something out like that. Another idea is as a police are patrolling the streets, maybe they could take some notes, turn it in in their daily report and say, how many, I see a pothole there, I see a pothole there. I saw the orange signs last summer on the streets going by LaCoste is on the way to work every day. I said, oh, finally, the city is going to do something. Did it get done? No, the paint just wore out. So all I can say is, as you're talking to the departments, is there any pride in the city? If you have pride in the city, then something will be done. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Thank you. Mr. President, the gentleman makes a good point. And in other communities that surround the city, namely the city of Boston, which is very successful, um, in the delivery of public works projects based upon, especially based upon the size. One of the things that they've implemented in the city of Boston, I believe would be a residency requirement for department heads. And I think that that's something that might warrant a little bit of examination, Mr. President. I mean, ultimately if someone lives in the community and they have to go to the same supermarket that we have to go to and listen to the same complaints that we have to listen to, and the same concerns that we're here for and here to address. Um, I just think it makes them take a little bit more pride in their job because, um, I know as I think back to, um, former gentleman that was working in our school department and, um, he was called to the carpet for, for some actions and the quote in the newspaper was, well, it's very easy for this gentleman to get in his car and drive up to Bellingham at the end to Beverly at the end of the day. But those of us that live in this community and call it home, care about it and care what's going on. And we have a vested interest. And I think that that's something that we might want to examine as well, Mr. President. Move approval on the question.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. On the motion by Vice President Marks, seconded by Councilor Knight as amended by Councilor Falco. Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks. Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight. And that's it. And if we could request that we have a Council of the Whole meeting as soon as possible to discuss these matters. So this is just a separate amendment? Yes. We're going to do this paper and then we'll be recommended that we have a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss this matter. I will call a Committee of the Whole meeting. I will call a Committee of the Whole meeting. All those in favor? Motion passes.
[Adam Knight]: For just a moment. Councilor Knight. I'd just like to take an opportunity to thank the tree warden and the forestry division. Two weeks ago we put forward a request asking for a tree to be replaced in front of 112 Grant Ave. That work's been done. It was done like in two days. So I'm very thankful for the work that they do and I appreciate their prompt response to the inquiry. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17456 offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council extend its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Richard Bubba Matos on his recent passing. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President. After a brief illness, Mr. Matos passed away. Services were held yesterday. He was a great fellow, a gentleman that always opened the doors to his home and let us kids run wild in there. He kept letting us come back day after day and year after year, and he was really just a great individual. He had a great sense of community, a great sense of pride in his neighborhood, and he will be sadly missed down on Bradshaw Street, Mr. President, and beyond. I move for approval of the paper and ask my council colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the family. If we could raise for a moment of silence, please.
[Richard Caraviello]: 17454 petition by Jean M. Martin, 10 Cumming Street, Medford, to address the council on mother-in-law apartments being converted to condos or two families. Name and address for the record, please.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. Gene Martin, 10 Cummings Street. A couple of weeks ago, one of the houses on my street got flipped. And while everything was above board, I'm not complaining about the way it was handled. It was within the law. But I just want to make people aware of a couple of things. First of all is the human interest, the human side of it, which is that I would encourage mother-in-law apartments or father-in-law apartments or sons or whatever. Because it's better than warehousing them in a nursing home or whatever. If you can't afford $5,000 to $6,000, $7,000 a month, then you end up farming them out. into large facilities. So that's number one. Number two, developers come in here, they swoop in like vultures. This is a hot City right now, it's been hot for three or four or five years. And if I collected all of the postcards and letters that I get from real estate people and developers, I would look like Santa Claus. I would have a bag filled with them. They come in, and in this case, it happened to me on my street. Not that it's gonna make or break the city, the street, that one house was converted to two condos. There was originally a single family house. They had a mother-in-law apartment, and they got permission to turn it into a two-family. This is a single family. They took out all the green grass in the back so that they could have the parking that's required. So now you lost the green space. And I'll get to that, but I have a chip on my shoulder about developers. So I want to get that off my chest. Developers come in here from outside. They flip at the house, and they leave. that's great for them. And the other thing is, you guys were talking about water. Development doesn't mean it's good for me and my street. When they built across the way, they pitched the driveway, so now the water came into my basement. So I used to have a little flower bed, not much, a little mulch, little flowers, little few rocks with the bricks around it. I had to pave over that because I had to raise my pitch so that now it goes back down to the street and then down the street. So it was great for them. The other thing, the third point, and I'm trying to be quick, I know it's late, but I want to make you aware that the third point was conflicts, okay? Conflicts between neighbors. Fences make good neighbors. And when you have a single family house that had the second floor turned into a mother-in-law apartment, which at least they're family, so they're connected, they're relational, it's not so bad. But when you turn, the base of the house is gonna be bigger than the upstairs, then you have to put in new, totally new boilers, totally new infrastructure, and who's gonna be responsible to shovel the driveway in the winter? If you look at that property, They're going to the back of the house. They could have arguments over who's going to shovel. They could have arguments over paying the insurance bill, the insurance bill. Now, sure. Go ahead.
[Adam Knight]: One of the major counseling. I do believe the majority of the issues that, um, the speaker is discussing would be outlined in the condo documents or the HOA documents that would be established when a multifamily house becomes condominiums and that gets filed with the registry of deeds. Thank you. Councilor.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. And I do agree with that except for one thing. If you're dealing with just two people or two entities and one doesn't pay their side of the bill, that insurance policy gets canceled if the other person doesn't pay for it. So these are conflicts that you're bringing on for no good reason. You do not have to, and I thank you for your point, but you do not have to do this. This is optional. This is unlike my house where it changed from a family situation where I had my aunt downstairs, and everybody was relational. We didn't have a contract growing up. There was no contract. And then I had to rent it out. It's something that I had to do in order to survive, right? But this is an option to turn a single-family house with a mother-in-law or father-in-law apartment into a two-family or a two-condo. because now you're adding more stress to the family. That doesn't have to happen, but it's just because the developer wants to make more money. This is a money incentive for somebody living outside the city, and it's completely unnecessary to have to do it this way. It's great for the developer, they make money, but then the conflicts that can happen between these two condos when you do it with a two-family house too. It doesn't matter if it's a single family with a mother-in-law or a two-family house, when you do this, If one partner doesn't keep up their grass, you're on top of that person. It's bad enough when they're next door and there's 10 or 12 feet between the property lines. Now you're literally living up and down, and you're thumping. There's no hierarchy of authority. And it would bury you in legal costs if you're one person up against the other person, and they both have legal standing in the same way. I have a 22-page contract. with my tenant to protect me. And unlike when I was growing up, I didn't have to worry about putting everything in writing. Today you have to put everything in writing. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. And the feel of the house is different than when it was relatives. I used to go into my aunt's kitchen and right into the fridge and grab a popsicle. That feel is gone. And that is a loss to me, you know? So, but it's unnecessary growth or whatever you want to call it. Sell it as a single family house. There's no problem. You just don't make as much profit. That's the difference. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Motion by Councilor Knight to receive in place on file.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I feel as though the market controls what it is that developers are seeking to do. And as we see the baby boomer generation reach a certain age right now, they're looking to downsize. There is a demand for condominiums. in our city. That's why in the past I've brought forward requests to work with the city assessor to discuss condo conversion and whether or not we need a bylaw to address that. But I feel as though the market controls exactly what it is that would happen in development. And right now there is a push towards condominium living, and I believe it's attributable to the fact that the baby boomer generation is reaching an age where they're seeking downsize. Motion to receive and place on file.
[Richard Caraviello]: Seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favor? Motion passes. Reports of Committee 17382, Subcommittee on Environmental Affairs Committee report regarding municipal aggregation from May 9th, 2017 subcommittee meeting. The subcommittee met on May 9th with several residents in attendance along with Councilors to discuss municipal aggregation. The recommendation of the committee was to send the paper to the Committee of Whole for discussion with the whole body of councillors. Motion to accept that paper. Question, Mr. President.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. I do believe that this paper has been before the Committee of the Whole on two previous occasions.
[Richard Caraviello]: You are correct.
[Adam Knight]: Sent to subcommittee for recommendations on how to move forward. Are there any recommendations that are coming out of the subcommittee as to how they'd like to recommend the committee of the whole proceed. Is there a presentation of some sort that's going to be performed?
[Richard Caraviello]: There was no, uh, there was a presentation made that evening. Um, and there was some discussion. I think Councilor Marks, you can speak to that. You are the chairman of that subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, that meeting was set up at a request at the Committee of the Whole by Councilor Dello Russo to have further dialogue, and that's exactly what took place. We invited Alicia Hunt from the Energy and Environment Committee. We also invited Curtis Tooden, who is the committee chairman of Energy Environment Commission, and he gave a thorough explanation on green initiatives that uh, we as a council could do because it's based on city ordinance. And he also gave a presentation on the need for municipal aggregation in this community, which I think we all heard already. So I'm not sure if there's anything new to add to the dialogue and discussion. Uh, we did do our due diligence as a committee. We met, we listened to residents input and we decided that ultimately it'll be a vote of this council. And, uh, there was one caveat that was mentioned. City Solicitor Mark Rumley was present at the meeting. He was asked by myself to reach out to House Council, which is before the state legislature, and ask whether or not we as a city can file a home rule petition to actually craft the current state law a little differently. Right now, if we were to vote on this municipal aggregation, everyone by default would be opted into the program. So residents don't have a say, everyone's opted in by default. Now you have an opt out clause that you can do to get out of the program if you'd like. My request to the city solicitor was to see if we can reverse that and have it be an opt in clause where if people are interested in joining municipal aggregation, that the city move forward and we set up a pool of people that are interested in going into municipal aggregation. And according to the city solicitor, with home rule petitions, the state legislature doesn't like to alter a law in a way that takes from the original intent. And he felt that by doing the opt-in was not doing away with the original intent, and so did House Council. So he said that could be an option if we as a body, and that's one of the things that was presented that night, wanted to have the paper sent to the mayor saying Madam Mayor, because the paper has to originate, has been passed practice by the mayor to offer a home rule petition with an opt-in clause. And that's where it stands, Mr. President. I think we're all aware of the issue. I don't think there's any magic smoke and gun that's going to come out of any particular subcommittee meeting. It is what it is. And if people don't know what it is, then members of the council should ask questions to Alicia Hunt or through the Mass Municipal Association or even surrounding communities that are moving forward on it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you Mr. Vice President. The motion by Councilor Knight that we accept the paper, seconded by Councilor Falco. All those in favour? Aye. Motion passes. The records were passed to Councilor DelaRose who has gone home ill. So I ask that they be tabled until next week. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor?
|
total time: 18.26 minutes total words: 1472  |
total time: 44.96 minutes total words: 1577  |
total time: 15.92 minutes total words: 857  |
total time: 6.05 minutes total words: 486  |
|
total time: 14.72 minutes total words: 864  |
total time: 7.69 minutes total words: 624  |
total time: 10.61 minutes total words: 1225  |
total time: 1.32 minutes total words: 129  |