[0:01] Good evening and welcome to the

[0:03] September 22nd, 2026 meeting of the

[0:06] Glouester City Council.

[0:11] This public meeting of the city council

[0:13] is recorded on Zoom with a link that is

[0:15] posted on the agenda. If you are calling

[0:17] in on a phone, you can press star 9 to

[0:20] request to speak. If you are watching on

[0:22] a computer or device, there is a raised

[0:25] hand button that you can tap or press to

[0:28] request to speak. Please use either of

[0:31] these options during oral communications

[0:34] and public hearings to be recognized to

[0:36] speak. If technical difficulties arise

[0:39] and the Zoom link is interrupted during

[0:41] an in-person hybrid meeting of the city

[0:43] council and a quorum is present, the

[0:46] meeting may continue after efforts have

[0:48] been made to reestablish the link. The

[0:50] minutes shall note the interruption.

[0:54] It is the finding of the city of

[0:55] Gloucester that no individual should be

[0:57] denied equal treatment or opportunity

[1:00] because of their age, ancestry, color,

[1:03] disability, including intellectual and

[1:05] developmental mental disability,

[1:07] family status, immigration status,

[1:10] gender identity or expression, military

[1:12] status, marital status, national origin,

[1:15] race, religion, sex or sexual

[1:17] orientation.

[1:19] This evening with us we have ward one

[1:21] counselor Scott Memar,

[1:24] counselor at large Patty A Page,

[1:26] counselor at large Anna Kimberly, W 2

[1:30] counselor Dylan Benson, W three

[1:32] counselor Marjorie Grace, and Ward four

[1:35] counselor um Franchesco Majora.

[1:39] We also um have with us in the audience

[1:42] we have our interim police chief Michael

[1:46] Williams and we have the chairman of the

[1:48] traffic commission

[1:50] Bob Ryan. We also have the school CFO

[1:54] Cody Marshall on Zoom. We have also

[1:58] remotely we have our city legal Suzanne

[2:00] Egan. We have here with us our city

[2:03] clerk Grace Porer.

[2:06] The also on Zoom is um we're online is

[2:10] our CEO Kelly Dolan and our city auditor

[2:14] Kenny Costa.

[2:19] Okay, now we're up for the flag salute.

[2:27] » I pledge algiance to the flag

[2:30] >> of the United States of America

[2:32] >> and to the republic which stands One

[2:36] nation under God, indivisible, with

[2:39] liberty and justice for all.

[2:51] » Next order. Business. Madam clerk.

[2:53] >> Oral communications.

[2:56] The public shall have the opportunity at

[2:58] every regularly scheduled meeting of to

[3:00] be heard under oral communications on

[3:03] matters not appearing on the agenda.

[3:05] Oral communication shall allow any

[3:07] resident and/or property owner and/or

[3:10] business owner who has a request or

[3:12] complaint of any nature relative to city

[3:14] business to appear before the council,

[3:17] make their statement without debate, and

[3:18] the city council will refer matters to

[3:21] the office of the mayor. Person speaking

[3:23] under oral communication shall be

[3:24] limited to three minutes each. We have

[3:26] anyone in the audience who would like to

[3:28] speak.

[3:49] Okay.

[3:53] Good evening.

[3:56] >> Name and address. Name and address.

[3:58] >> Yep.

[3:58] >> Maryanne Elbert Buchcher, 93 Mont

[4:01] Pleasant Avenue. To the members of the

[4:03] Gloucester City Council and to Mayor

[4:05] Paul Lundberg. I am writing regarding

[4:08] the new deed signed on April 1st, 2024

[4:11] for the site of the former East

[4:13] Glouester Elementary School land that

[4:15] now joins together with the Lieutenant

[4:18] Arthur Maxwell Parson's playground on

[4:20] Davis Street Extension.

[4:23] The final paragraph of this deed states

[4:25] that the property is, and I quote,

[4:28] subject to the protections afforded

[4:30] under article 97 of the amendment of

[4:33] Massachusetts Constitution of the

[4:35] Commonwealth in perpetuity. To clarify,

[4:38] this legal language mandates the land

[4:40] must comply with article 97

[4:42] indefinitely. While article 97 protects

[4:46] vital recreation recreational and

[4:49] conservation land from being converted

[4:51] to alternative uses, it does not mean

[4:53] that the land can never be changed. It

[4:56] simply establishes strict constitutional

[4:58] requirements that must be met before any

[5:01] modification can occur. To provide some

[5:04] historical context for newer council

[5:06] members, a portion of the deed

[5:08] restricted Parson's playground was

[5:10] previously utilized to have fulfilled

[5:12] the land exchange requirements necessary

[5:15] to displace Mato's field. Shockingly,

[5:18] the state house and senate approved the

[5:20] taking of Mosfield through article 97

[5:23] process a mere 18 months after extensive

[5:27] renovations to the field had been

[5:29] completed. The history of this land,

[5:31] Maxwell Parson's playground, runs deep.

[5:33] In 1937, the Parson's family of Mount

[5:37] Pleasant Avenue donated a piece of land

[5:39] to the children of Gloucester in honor

[5:41] of their son who was killed in World War

[5:43] I. Coincidentally, around the same time

[5:46] as Private Joseph Smos Jr., Now the

[5:49] former school site has been seamlessly

[5:52] integrated with the already deed Maxwell

[5:54] Parson's land into a beautiful open

[5:57] space complete with a shared walking

[5:59] path

[6:01] and memorial stone placed at its center.

[6:04] We must ensure history does not repeat

[6:07] itself. This is the last little

[6:09] paragraph. I respectfully request that

[6:12] the city place this entire unified

[6:16] property under a permanent deed

[6:18] restriction in perpetuity. Doing so will

[6:22] prevent any portion of the Lieutenant

[6:24] Arthur Maxwell person's playground from

[6:27] facing the same fate as Maids Field and

[6:30] ensuring that our recent investments

[6:33] this beautiful space for Gloucester's

[6:35] children, families, and visitors are

[6:38] protected for generations to come. Thank

[6:40] you, Mary and Elbert Buché. I would also

[6:43] suggest that every one of you take a

[6:45] ride up there and go up into the field.

[6:49] They just hydro seated it this past

[6:51] Monday. The walking path is in. They

[6:55] will be doing new play structures in the

[6:56] spring.

[6:58] We've maintained or retained all the

[7:00] trees, the flag pole. They're going to

[7:03] be doing the whole circle over. Um it's

[7:07] going to be a beautiful, beautiful site

[7:09] for the children and families and people

[7:11] and visitors of our city. And I hope

[7:14] that it remains that forever. Thank you.

[7:17] >> Thank you.

[7:25] Anyone else in the audience?

[7:32] Don't see any line

[7:41] next door to business. Madam clerk,

[7:43] >> confirmation of new appointments.

[7:55] Um, we're going to call up Philip

[7:57] Schwarz for Open Space and Recreation

[7:59] Advisory Committee.

[8:03] Do you want to come up here and speak?

[8:04] Um, just tell everyone about yourself.

[8:08] I know you love to talk, so we're gonna

[8:10] try [laughter]

[8:12] snapshot.

[8:14] I remember from Monday

[8:15] >> Frank was at the the OA meeting where

[8:18] >> yes remember your wife is giving you a

[8:19] nudge

[8:21] >> just briefly I I I have uh been

[8:25] co-leading the Sunday morning hike

[8:28] series in actually all of the trail

[8:31] systems of the city and the four four

[8:34] municipalities

[8:35] um for several years uh after about 40

[8:40] years of Ted Tar reading and 10 years

[8:44] before that um of Dorothy Lewis uh and

[8:48] uh my co-conspirator in doing that um is

[8:51] Monica Lton currently the chair of the

[8:54] rights play committee in in Rockport uh

[8:57] I'm delighted to uh serve on the the

[9:01] open space and recreation committee um I

[9:04] already know several people on it uh and

[9:08] I'm looking forward to uh becoming his

[9:11] expert on uh matters before the

[9:14] committee other than uh the the uh the

[9:19] trail system and the and the and the

[9:21] open spaces um as business comes before

[9:25] the committee.

[9:27] >> Okay. Does anyone in the council have

[9:29] any questions?

[9:32] >> It was um great talking to you mind.

[9:33] You're very knowledgeable and it's going

[9:35] to be um great to have you on the

[9:36] committee.

[9:37] >> Thank you.

[9:37] >> So I'll move forward with the

[9:38] recommendation. Um committee

[9:40] recommendation on a motion by myself

[9:44] seconded by council grace. The ordinance

[9:46] and administration committee voted three

[9:47] in favor zero opposed to recommend the

[9:49] city council appoint Peter Schwarz to

[9:51] the open space recreation advisory

[9:52] committee terminating 215 2027 and I so

[9:55] move

[9:56] >> second motion made by council Motto

[9:59] seconded by councelor Grace

[10:01] discussion.

[10:05] Seeing none. All those in favor? I

[10:07] opposed. Eyes have it. 70 to zero. Two

[10:10] absent. Thank you very much. Bill.

[10:12] >> Thank you.

[10:12] >> Congratulations.

[10:16] » Next order. Business. Madam clerk.

[10:18] >> The consent agenda.

[10:22] » Anyone wish to remove anything from the

[10:25] consent agenda? Councelor Paige.

[10:29] >> Just briefly. Number nine.

[10:41] under um

[10:44] the mayor's report.

[10:46] >> Yes.

[10:46] >> Memorandum from the city fairing signs.

[10:49] >> Yep. Okay. Anyone else wish to pull

[10:51] anything off?

[10:56] I'd like to have a motion to accept the

[10:58] consent agenda as amended.

[11:00] >> So move.

[11:01] >> Second. Motion made by councelor Grace,

[11:03] seconded by councelor memark. Discussion

[11:05] on the consent agenda.

[11:09] » All those in favor?

[11:10] >> I post

[11:13] eyes have it seven to zero. Two absent.

[11:16] Councelor Page.

[11:18] >> Thank you.

[11:20] >> I I did um email Kelly Dolan and she

[11:23] sent me a pretty comprehensive um

[11:26] response to the cost and things of these

[11:30] signs. Um it somewhere I picked up that

[11:34] the first 17,000 we voted in our

[11:37] previous meeting was phase one. Now

[11:40] we're asked for another 12,000

[11:44] to install a portion of wfairing

[11:47] signing. So I have a couple questions.

[11:49] >> This will be this is going to be an F.

[11:51] So that's probably

[11:52] >> you want me to do it there?

[11:53] >> Probably appropriate time. Yeah,

[11:54] >> that's fine. I accept that. Okay.

[11:56] >> Thank you.

[11:58] >> Okay. Um, shall we vote on item number

[12:01] nine?

[12:03] Make a motion

[12:05] to refer to BNF.

[12:08] >> Okay. You want to make?

[12:10] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll move to accept nine as

[12:12] written.

[12:14] >> Refer to refer to BNF

[12:16] >> to to go forward to BNF.

[12:18] >> Second.

[12:19] >> Motion made by councelor Page, second by

[12:20] council memar. Discussion.

[12:23] >> All those in favor? Opposed?

[12:26] >> Eyes have it. Seven to zero. are too abs

[12:29] next door to business madam clerk

[12:32] >> September 17th budget and finance

[12:34] standing committee report

[12:36] >> council memard

[12:37] >> thank you we have a few items for your

[12:39] consideration from our Thursday night

[12:41] meeting last week at budget and finance

[12:44] uh the first was a memorandum from the

[12:46] glouester public schools CFO requesting

[12:49] a payment of a prior year invoice with

[12:52] fiscal year 2027 funds and this is in

[12:54] the amount of $51,317

[12:57] $1723

[12:59] and I'll read the motion which was by

[13:02] myself, seconded by councelor Page. We

[13:04] voted three in favor, zero opposed. To

[13:06] recommend the city council approve in

[13:08] accordance with Mass General Law,

[13:09] chapter 4464,

[13:11] payment of prior year invoices and

[13:13] obligations is presented in a memo from

[13:15] the school CFO, that's Cody Marshall,

[13:17] dated August 31st, 2026 in the amount of

[13:20] 51,31723

[13:23] and this is to be paid with current year

[13:25] fiscal year 2027 general fund school

[13:28] department budgeted funds. And I so

[13:30] move.

[13:31] >> Second. Motion made by councelor memar

[13:33] and seconded by councelor page.

[13:36] Discussion.

[13:39] Councelor Page.

[13:41] >> We did go over this on budget and

[13:43] finance on Thursday.

[13:48] Was this some kind of lawsuit by these

[13:53] employees that was

[13:55] mediated and settled?

[13:58] And if so, are we looking at this? Was

[14:01] over a strike.

[14:02] >> It was a union grievance.

[14:03] >> A union grievance. Okay. Are we

[14:05] expecting more of those union grievances

[14:07] or is this one and done?

[14:10] >> Oh, Mr. Marshall's with us asking that

[14:13] question.

[14:17] » Hi there. Uh, no, I do not expect any

[14:20] more to come from this. This was a

[14:22] unique scenario given the strike was

[14:24] almost two years ago, but it was a

[14:27] grievance filed later than expected and

[14:29] uh yeah, this was a result of the

[14:31] settlement and arbitration, but no, I

[14:33] don't expect more to come of it.

[14:37] >> Thank you.

[14:42] » Any other questions? Council Benson,

[14:44] >> thank you. So, and this grievance

[14:45] happened several months or longer after

[14:50] the end of the strike. Correct.

[14:52] >> Yeah. I don't have an exact date of when

[14:54] it was when it was formally filed, but

[14:57] yes, it was several months after.

[15:00] >> Okay. Okay. So, it's in relation to the

[15:03] contract that they that they negotiated

[15:05] with the city, the school committee.

[15:07] Correct.

[15:08] >> Yeah. I was saying it was um it's 10

[15:10] days at the all the units members for

[15:13] their daily rate uh during the strike.

[15:17] >> Be clear, I don't think this had this

[15:20] was not any striking members. This was

[15:22] the nurses.

[15:22] >> No,

[15:23] >> this was not any striking members.

[15:25] >> No. Yeah, this is separate from the

[15:26] strike itself. It was as a result of the

[15:29] work done during the strike.

[15:31] >> Okay. Yep. Thank you for that.

[15:33] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[15:35] Okay.

[15:36] >> Any more questions?

[15:38] All those in favor I opposed. Eyes have

[15:42] it. Seven to zero. Two absent. Thank

[15:45] you, Cody.

[15:46] >> Thank you,

[15:48] >> Next up was the memorandum from our

[15:50] acting police chief requesting to pay a

[15:52] fiscal year 2027 invoice without a

[15:55] purchase order in place in the amount of

[15:57] $440.94.

[16:00] And on a motion by myself, seconded by

[16:02] councelor Page, budget and finance

[16:03] committee voted three in favor, zero

[16:04] opposed to recommend that the city

[16:06] approve, city council approve in

[16:08] accordance with Mass General Law chapter

[16:10] 4464

[16:12] payment of prior year invoices in the

[16:14] amount of $440.94

[16:16] for the West Marine Pro at East Broward Boulevard in Fort

[16:25] Lauderdale for marine equipment received

[16:27] in fiscal year 2026. 6 with an invoice

[16:30] noted number is noted dated July 1st

[16:34] 2026 in the amount of $39745

[16:37] and a second invoice

[16:38] >> 36745 thank you Grace and a second

[16:43] invoice as noted dated July 1st 2026 in

[16:47] the amount of $7349

[16:50] to be paid with fiscal year 2027 general

[16:53] fund police department ordinary

[16:55] maintenance budgeted funds and I so move

[16:58] Second

[16:59] >> motion made by councel melhart and

[17:00] seconded by councelor page. Discussion.

[17:06] Seeing none. All those in favor? I

[17:09] opposed. Eyes have it. 7 to zero.

[17:14] Uh and finally the memorandum from the

[17:16] acting police chief requesting our

[17:18] acceptance of a fiscal year 2027 state

[17:20] 911 EMD grant. This is in the amount of

[17:24] $42,628.96.

[17:28] Budget and Finance on a motion by

[17:29] myself, seconded by councelor Paige,

[17:31] voted in three in favor, zero opposed to

[17:34] recommend the city council accept under

[17:36] master general law chapter 4453A,

[17:39] a state grant from the Massachusetts

[17:41] Executive Office of Public Safety and

[17:43] Security, a fiscal year 2027 state 911

[17:47] Department Emergency Medical Dispatch

[17:50] Grant Program for $42,528.96.

[17:55] The grant period is from September 1st,

[17:58] 2026 through June 30th, 2027. And there

[18:01] is no local match for this grant. And I

[18:03] so move.

[18:04] >> Second.

[18:06] >> Motion made by council meard and second

[18:07] by councelor Paige. Discussion.

[18:12] Seeing none. All those in favor?

[18:15] >> I opposed. Eyes have it. Seven to zero.

[18:18] Two abs. Thank you.

[18:21] >> Next order. Business. Madam clerk.

[18:23] >> September 14th. Ordinances and

[18:25] administration standing committee

[18:27] report.

[18:28] >> There are no items under this heading.

[18:31] >> Thank you. Next order of business.

[18:35] >> The September 16th planning and

[18:37] development standing committee report.

[18:39] >> Council Benson.

[18:40] >> Okay. I wasn't prepared but uh but I was

[18:43] just reading. So all right. So we have

[18:45] um a few things. The first item is a

[18:48] petition by National Grid to install

[18:51] um one um JO pole on Belleview A

[18:55] beginning at a point of approximately 37

[18:57] ft east of the center line of the

[19:00] intersection of Belleview A to Condan

[19:07] Conent Avenue. National Grid is

[19:09] petitioning to install one new JO pole

[19:13] 30006

[19:14] with a sidewalk anchor on public way at

[19:17] Condent 17 Condent Road, Gloucester,

[19:20] Mass. Um

[19:23] discuss and I

[19:25] >> Oh, the committee recommendation is much

[19:26] longer and it's below that.

[19:28] >> Okay. Oh, I got to read that

[19:29] recommendation. Yep. Okay. Um committee

[19:32] recommendation on a motion by councelor

[19:34] Gro, seconded by myself, councelor

[19:37] Benson, the planning and development

[19:38] committee voted three in favor, zero

[19:40] opposed to recommend that the city

[19:42] council permit Massachusetts electric

[19:45] company um also known as national grid

[19:48] to locate poles, wires, and fixtures,

[19:52] including the necessary sustaining and

[19:54] protecting fixtures along and across the

[19:57] public way. National Grid to install one

[20:00] JO pole on Belleview A beginning at a

[20:04] point of approximately 37 feet east of

[20:06] the center line of the intersection

[20:09] between Belleview A and Condent Road A.

[20:13] National Grid is petitioning to install

[20:15] one new JO pole 30006

[20:19] with a sidewalk anchor on public way at

[20:22] 17 Condent A Glouster Mass as shown on

[20:26] plan including in the application dated

[20:29] June 9th 2026 with the following

[20:32] conditions. One, notification to the

[20:35] Department of Public Works 72 hours in

[20:37] advance of the proposed work. A

[20:40] construction schedule will be prepared

[20:42] by the applicant for review and

[20:43] acceptance by the Department of Public

[20:45] Works. Two, in the absence of a detailed

[20:50] construction plan, the Department of

[20:51] Public Works request all proposed

[20:54] conduits and a permanences shall be

[20:57] placed so as to cause minimum conflict

[21:00] with existing underground utility

[21:03] services. Three, all excavations must be

[21:07] secured at all times. Four, all

[21:10] excavated trenches

[21:13] shall be patched

[21:15] flush with the surrounding asphalt using

[21:18] hot mix asphalt binder at the end of

[21:21] each workday to minimize pedestrian

[21:23] hazards. Asphalt shall be applied in two

[21:26] lifts of 2 in totaling 4 in. Five,

[21:30] sidewalks must be restored with like

[21:33] material immediately after pole set. and

[21:36] six paving conditions must be approved

[21:39] by public works prior to issuance of

[21:42] road opening permit and I so move

[21:45] >> second

[21:46] >> motion made by councelor Ben and

[21:48] seconded by councelor Kimbley discussion

[21:50] >> um if I may there was some discussion um

[21:53] it was actually a lengthy discussion

[21:55] from residents in the area having

[21:59] concerns I don't know if they're here

[22:01] tonight um or anyone's online um there

[22:04] was going to be some discussion with um

[22:06] the neighbor who is looking for this

[22:09] pole petition to see if it could be

[22:11] moved, but I'm not sure if anyone is

[22:13] online to speak to that. And I know if

[22:15] my recollections correctly,

[22:18] councelor Kimberly, so

[22:19] >> there's no hands, right?

[22:20] >> Okay. Okay.

[22:24] >> We're gonna have another meeting with

[22:26] Ishma

[22:27] if I remember correctly. So, but if no

[22:30] one is here to speak, so no issues.

[22:34] Any more discussion?

[22:37] Seeing none, all those in favor?

[22:40] >> I opposed.

[22:41] >> Eyes have it. Seven to zero. Two absent.

[22:45] >> Second, we have a memorandum from

[22:46] general counsel um regarding a request

[22:49] from Historic New England for

[22:51] preservation restrictions for the

[22:52] Haskell House, 11 Lincoln Street, and

[22:56] the Temple Haden College, Eastern Point

[22:59] Boulevard. Um, and should I read the

[23:02] before they speak, should I read the

[23:03] committee recommendations or

[23:06] >> I know that we have someone.

[23:07] >> Yeah. No, by

[23:08] >> just we're trying to remember

[23:09] >> by Robert's rules. You're supposed to do

[23:11] that.

[23:11] >> Yeah, I know that. I just, you know, I

[23:12] don't do often. So, um, committee

[23:15] recommendation on a motion by councelor

[23:18] Gro, seconded by councelor Kimberly. The

[23:21] planning and development committee voted

[23:22] three in favor, zero opposed to

[23:24] recommend that the city council approve

[23:27] the preservation restriction agreement

[23:29] as defined in Mass General Law chapter

[23:32] 184 sections 3132

[23:35] and 33 between the Society of the

[23:37] Preservation for New England Antiques,

[23:41] also known as the Historic New England

[23:45] and Richard Samson Samson and Natalie

[23:50] Tisha Samson preserving a portion of the

[23:53] property located at 11 Lincoln Street,

[23:56] Gloucester Mash, Gloucester, Mass. Um,

[23:59] map 3 236 lot 37, specifically a portion

[24:04] of the site and the building known as

[24:07] William William and Mary Haskell House.

[24:10] the Haskell House as described in

[24:11] exhibit A of the agreement

[24:15] as is in the public's interest the pres

[24:18] to preserve this historic resource and I so move

[24:23] >> second

[24:24] >> motion made by councelor Benson um

[24:26] seconded by councelor Kimberly and I see

[24:29] we have Elizabeth

[24:31] Lia

[24:33] um who would you like to make uh any any

[24:36] comments on this before

[24:39] Um, I'm here to answer any questions

[24:41] that you counselors may have. These are

[24:42] two restrictions. Historic New England

[24:44] currently holds two in Gloucester, one

[24:46] of which you voted on a few months ago.

[24:48] Um, and one that we have held since

[24:50] 2007. Um, one of these properties is

[24:53] privately owned by a private citizen and

[24:55] it is currently on the market. Um, and

[24:57] so this is a little bit um, hastier than previously anticipated because we

[25:02] need to get this recorded before closing

[25:04] happens. Um and so hence why we are

[25:07] before before you tonight. And the other

[25:09] restriction um that I don't know if it

[25:11] has the motion has now been read. So I

[25:13] can hold off on the Temple Hayden

[25:15] Cottage uh comments, but that is a

[25:17] property currently held in or by

[25:19] Historic New England, owned by Historic

[25:21] New England, which will likewise be

[25:23] listed for sale here very shortly and

[25:25] sold back into private ownership with

[25:27] preservation restrictions on it.

[25:30] >> Right now, we're just taking up the

[25:32] Haskell House.

[25:33] >> Okay.

[25:37] questions. Council Paige

[25:40] >> on the Haskell House. Uh once it changes

[25:43] hands, it will still be in private

[25:45] ownership. So, does it remain on the

[25:48] real estate tax role?

[25:51] >> It does. It will remain on the tax role

[25:53] and in the tax base. Correct.

[25:59] I would just like to say that these are

[26:01] this first and the second one are are

[26:04] two just wonderful historical properties

[26:07] which will reflect the fabric of the

[26:09] community here. I know councelor Grace

[26:12] and I met at a open house for the

[26:14] Haskell House. It was first listed on a

[26:17] beautiful day there in the marsh. The

[26:18] greenheads were just coming out and they

[26:21] came out. But these are beautiful

[26:23] properties and it's wonderful that the

[26:25] city is taking this step with our

[26:26] partners at Historic New England to

[26:28] preserve the f this fabric, this

[26:30] historic fabric within our community. I

[26:32] think it's just really important and

[26:34] wonderful for our our current generation

[26:36] and for the future. Thank you.

[26:39] >> You

[26:41] grace.

[26:42] >> Thank you. Um yeah, it was it the

[26:44] Haskell House is an extraordinary

[26:47] um example of architecture from you know

[26:50] the the 17th century and it if anything

[26:53] were to happen to that that it was torn

[26:55] down or you know irrevocably altered I

[26:58] think it would be an absolute travesty.

[27:00] Um it's a tangible part of history that

[27:02] I think it is so very important to um to

[27:04] preserve that for posterity and just um

[27:07] it's when you walk into the into that

[27:10] house it's like walking back in time.

[27:14] Thank you. Anyone else?

[27:17] Okay. All those in favor?

[27:19] >> I opposed. Eyes have it. 7 to zero. Two

[27:23] absent. Next up

[27:25] >> now regarding the Temple Hayden Cottage

[27:28] on Eastern Point Boulevard. Committee

[27:30] recommendation on a motion by councelor

[27:33] Grow, seconded by myself, councelor

[27:35] Benson. from the planning and

[27:36] development committee voted three in

[27:38] favor, zero opposed to recommend that

[27:40] the city council approve the

[27:42] preservation restriction agreement as

[27:44] defined in Mass General Law chapter 184

[27:48] sections 3132 and 33 between the

[27:52] societies of preservation for the New

[27:54] England Antrices um also known as

[27:57] Historic New England and a private

[28:00] purchaser to be identified at the time

[28:03] of the execution preserving The property

[28:05] is located at 62,62R

[28:09] 64 and 66 Eastern Point Boulevard,

[28:13] Gloucester. Map 135, lots 20, 21, 22,

[28:18] and 23. Specifically, a portion of the

[28:22] site and the buildings known as the

[28:24] Temple Hading Cottage and the Barn as

[28:26] described in exhibit A of the agreement

[28:30] as it is in the public's interest to

[28:32] preserve this historic resource. And I

[28:34] so move.

[28:35] >> Second.

[28:36] >> Motion made by councelor Benson,

[28:38] seconded by councelor Kimberly.

[28:42] Elizabeth, do you have anything you want

[28:43] to add on this one or

[28:45] >> I I certainly can. This one is a little

[28:47] bit different from the Haskell House or

[28:48] quite frankly a lot of them in within

[28:50] our portfolio and we currently protect

[28:52] 132 properties in this way across the

[28:54] region. Um, which is quite the breadth.

[28:56] But this cottage specifically was

[28:58] actually erected in 1924 uh when Samuel

[29:00] and Ruth Anderson temple moved the circa

[29:03] 1750. So it is very old. Stobridge house

[29:06] from Canton, Massachusetts to a plot of

[29:08] farmland on Eastern Point where it now

[29:10] sits. It's significant for its origins

[29:13] both the as a half house from the 18th

[29:15] century as well as its association with

[29:18] the early 20th century development of

[29:20] Eastern Point. Ruth Anderson was an

[29:22] acclaimed painter who actually studied

[29:24] under another eastern eastern point

[29:26] resident Cecilia Bow and Samuel Temple

[29:29] her husband was a Stobridge descendant

[29:31] and a well-known lighting designer. So

[29:32] the couple couple were very active in

[29:35] the local arts community and their

[29:37] history links the cottage to the wider

[29:38] artist colonies that flourished on Cape

[29:41] Anne at that time. The Haydens purchased

[29:43] the property in 1944, hence the Temple

[29:46] Hayden Cottage name, and owned it until

[29:49] 2020 when they sold it to historic New

[29:51] England, concerned that intensive

[29:53] development by a future owner would

[29:55] negatively impact both the cottage

[29:57] itself and its neighbor, the Bowort or

[30:00] Bowport, the Sleeper McCann House, which

[30:01] Historic New England owned and operates

[30:04] as a house museum. So, we've spent the

[30:06] last 6 years really carefully evaluating

[30:08] possibilities for the future of the

[30:09] cottage and the west best way to

[30:12] preserve it. As a result, we are

[30:14] preparing to sell this property back

[30:15] into private ownership, thus back into

[30:18] that tax base, subject to permanent

[30:20] preservation restrictions that will

[30:22] ensure the future of the cottage, but

[30:23] also protect the scenic and historic

[30:26] context of Bowortport. These

[30:28] restrictions specifically protect the

[30:31] exterior of the Temple Hayden cottage,

[30:33] understanding the need for alteration,

[30:35] upgrades, um, and development within the

[30:37] cottage itself to allow for modern

[30:39] living and such. Um, which is why it's

[30:41] maybe slightly a bit different. Well, it

[30:43] is a bit different than the Haskell

[30:44] House um, preservation restriction that

[30:46] you just approved.

[30:50] >> Yep. Any questions?

[30:54] Discussion

[30:57] seeing none. All those in favor? I

[31:00] opposed. Eyes have it. Seven to zero.

[31:03] Two absent.

[31:05] Next order of business. Madame clerk.

[31:08] >> Public hearing 2026 number 24 SCP 2026

[31:13] number 8. The application of 187

[31:15] Atlantic AB Holdings LLC. Map 255 lot

[31:19] one GZO section 5.2 2 earth fill and

[31:22] removal regulations 5.2.2 permit from

[31:26] the city council to permit the movement

[31:28] of more than 3 acres of 1,00 cy of soil

[31:31] at 185 Atlantic Street in the R20

[31:34] district.

[31:41] » This item is to be withdrawn

[31:48] or do you want?

[31:48] >> Yeah.

[31:49] >> Okay. So um this is to be withdrawn. Um

[31:53] they are deciding to not move forward um

[31:56] and they may come back later. But on

[31:58] committee recommendation

[32:00] um on a motion by councelor Gro seconded

[32:03] by myself councelor Benson the planning

[32:05] and development committee voted three in

[32:08] favor zero opposed to recommend that the

[32:10] city council accept the withdrawal of a

[32:14] of the special council permit

[32:16] application of 187 Atlantic A holdings

[32:21] without prejudice and I so move

[32:23] >> second

[32:24] >> motion made by councelor Benson seconded

[32:27] by councel

[32:28] Kimberly

[32:29] discussion on the withdrawal of this

[32:31] motion

[32:33] this action. All those in favor of the

[32:35] withdrawal I closed eyes have it seven

[32:38] to zero two absent.

[32:41] Next order business madam clerk.

[32:44] >> Public hearing 2026 number 25 memorandum

[32:48] from the general council regarding

[32:49] proposed amendments to chapter 9 article

[32:52] one trash.

[32:58] Oh, I got to open the public hearing.

[33:00] Sorry.

[33:03] Um, open the public hearing. And, um,

[33:07] speaking in favor,

[33:10] uh, we have general counsel, you put

[33:12] this forward, Suzanne Egan.

[33:14] >> Yes. Thank you, councilors. Um, this

[33:17] proposed amendment to the code of

[33:19] ordinances reflects the changes to the

[33:21] city's uh, trash collection services.

[33:25] So, our uh existing code of ordinances

[33:27] regarding trash collection speaks to the

[33:30] pay as you throw program and the changes

[33:33] that are before you tonight incorporate

[33:36] the operational changes that will come

[33:38] about with the new trash service.

[33:43] And so, it's it's mainly a um

[33:46] administrative change to the code of

[33:48] ordinances versus anything that's uh too

[33:51] pro programmatic. So, I'm happy to

[33:54] answer any questions if you have them,

[33:55] and I'm also happy to run through those

[33:57] changes if that would be helpful.

[33:59] >> Thank you.

[34:01] Anyone else like to speak in favor?

[34:12] » Anyone like to speak in opposition?

[34:20] » Do we have any communications? We do not

[34:23] >> questions from the counselors.

[34:27] » Councelor Paige,

[34:28] >> I do see 9.2 trash collection C.

[34:34] I'm always confused with this wording.

[34:36] Owner of a building with four or more

[34:39] units. Isn't it supposed to be more than

[34:41] four units?

[34:45] It says four

[34:47] 92 C. It should be an owner of a

[34:51] building with my copy has five or more

[34:55] residential units.

[34:57] >> It reads four or more.

[35:00] >> So I should more more than four or five

[35:03] or right.

[35:04] >> It's five. It should be five or more

[35:07] residential units. That's what's in the

[35:08] um the packet the OA packet that I that

[35:12] I looked at today.

[35:14] >> So we just need that corrected. Right. N

[35:17] >> Exactly.

[35:17] >> 9-2C. Good job.

[35:20] >> Thank you. I read this.

[35:30] Wonder what it said at AA.

[35:38] » Oh,

[35:39] all right. So, then we need to amend it.

[35:45] You like to offer an amendment? I'll

[35:47] make a motion to amend section

[35:49] >> Oh, wait a minute. Not yet. Not yet.

[35:51] >> Not yet.

[35:51] >> No, sorry.

[35:53] >> More questions.

[36:02] » Page. I'm not even sure it's in the the

[36:04] um change here, but I just want to make

[36:07] note that I I still have a pretty

[36:11] difficult time um charging

[36:15] users that aren't going to participate

[36:18] in the program based upon the fact that

[36:20] they own a unit. I don't I believe there

[36:23] just needs to be accommodations or

[36:26] exemptions. It's very difficult for me

[36:28] to see people that don't use the service

[36:30] pay for it while people that use the

[36:33] service certainly agree to pay for it

[36:35] and do pay for it. But there we're

[36:39] hearing more and more um

[36:43] reports of

[36:45] people either home owning having

[36:48] ownership in family homes they're

[36:51] holding on to but don't really use them

[36:53] or people that have two homes and one is

[36:56] just being held vacant for a reason or

[37:00] you know used sparsely and and one unit

[37:03] can handle the second unit rubbish.

[37:06] It it's just it seems that this is needs

[37:09] to this program needs a little more

[37:11] flexibility and I don't believe that the the exemptions or the

[37:16] flexibility will cause an increase in

[37:19] fees.

[37:20] >> That's not in this ordinance. So that's

[37:21] under the you look at section 9-3D

[37:26] is where it talks about fees

[37:30] » which we already voted

[37:31] >> right. It says eligible households.

[37:34] >> No. Promate regulations

[37:37] >> shall be assessed to all eligible

[37:39] households on the basis of the fee

[37:40] structure. So you know eligible

[37:42] households is a subjective term.

[37:46] It doesn't say units. It says

[37:47] >> they are eligible because they could be

[37:49] inhabited and need the trash picked up.

[37:50] So they're all

[37:51] >> and if they're not inhabited or

[37:54] >> but they're but they're still eligible

[37:55] to be inhabited.

[37:59] » They're not using the service.

[38:00] >> But that doesn't have anything to do

[38:01] with their

[38:02] >> I'm just putting on the record. I have a

[38:03] hard time with that. Thank you.

[38:04] >> Okay. That that's a discussion that we

[38:06] should have had at the last meeting with

[38:07] the fees.

[38:08] >> Uh we did.

[38:09] >> Okay. Thank you.

[38:11] >> Extensively.

[38:13] >> All right. Very good. Any more

[38:16] discussion? Any more questions?

[38:22] » No questions.

[38:23] >> Actually, I just have a quick question

[38:24] just to remind because looking at this

[38:27] um so this is just housekeeping. Um

[38:30] solicitor correct?

[38:33] >> Yes. Essentially, it is.

[38:35] >> Yeah. And can you remind us like in this

[38:37] ordinance um does this require like so

[38:39] because I've had some people uh reach

[38:41] out to me um if this is related if you

[38:44] if I may, Council President, that people

[38:46] will need to bring those bins off the

[38:48] street and into an enclo like off the

[38:51] into their property right after pickup.

[38:54] That's still required obviously now like

[38:56] people have to bring the recycling in.

[38:57] just to remind folks because I think

[38:59] people are having questions about that

[39:02] if that makes sense that question.

[39:03] >> Right. Um the provision in the in the

[39:06] code of ordinances with regard to

[39:08] placing your trash on the curb and

[39:10] removing that uh receptacle has not

[39:13] changed. So the only changes in this

[39:15] ordinance are um to the new trash

[39:19] collected collection process.

[39:22] >> So as of now people will have to bring

[39:24] those once pick up they have to bring

[39:26] the bins in. Correct.

[39:28] >> Exactly.

[39:29] >> Thank you. I know cuz people have been

[39:30] asking, so I appreciate that.

[39:34] » And and that's in section um

[39:39] I don't have Oh, that is in section 911

[39:45] and that's subsection A. It talks about

[39:47] when the rubbish shall be placed at the

[39:50] curbside and then when it shall be um

[39:52] also picked up.

[39:54] >> Thank you.

[40:34] Okay. Any more questions?

[40:39] Going to close public hearing.

[40:43] » Now you can um How do we want to do

[40:45] this?

[40:47] >> I'm gonna read the recommendation and

[40:48] then um madame clerk has put everything

[40:51] on the screen for everyone to see.

[40:54] That's everything is the recommendation.

[40:59] read the recommendation that too and

[41:00] then move to accept

[41:20] committee recommendation on a motion by

[41:21] council gray second by council Nolan the

[41:23] ordinance and administration committee

[41:24] voted two in favor zero opposed one

[41:27] absent to recommend that city council

[41:29] amend the Glouester Court ordinance

[41:30] chapter 9 trash recycling and litter as

[41:33] follow. Chapter 9 trash recycling in

[41:35] litter article one in general as

[41:38] presented. I so move

[41:42] >> second.

[41:45] » Should I make that amendment to the

[41:46] motion?

[41:50] » Motion made by council majora seconded

[41:52] by councelor Grace. Is everyone okay

[41:54] with the way the motion was presented?

[41:58] I know. I know. I'm just asking if if

[42:01] everyone's okay with how that was done

[42:02] first.

[42:03] >> Yep, that's fine.

[42:04] >> Okay. All right. You can make your

[42:05] amendment.

[42:07] >> All right. I move to amend uh section

[42:09] 9-2 trash collection C. Any owner of a

[42:14] building with five or more residential

[42:16] units to replace four with five.

[42:21] » And I so move.

[42:22] >> Second. Motion made by councelor Page,

[42:24] seconded by councelor Benson. Discussion

[42:26] on the amendment.

[42:30] >> All those in favor?

[42:31] >> I I post eyes have it. 7 to zero two

[42:35] absent. Thank you very much um councelor

[42:37] Paige for pointing that out. Now on the

[42:41] main motion.

[42:44] Any any discussion on the main motion?

[42:48] Okay. All those in favor? I

[42:50] >> I

[42:51] >> opposed. Eyes have it. Seven to zero.

[42:55] Two absent.

[42:58] Next order. Business. Madam clerk.

[43:05] Public hearing 2026 number 21. Council

[43:08] order 26 number six. Grace and Nolan.

[43:11] Amend GCO chapter 22 traffic and motor

[43:14] vehicles section 22-285

[43:17] parking of trucks, trailer trucks, and

[43:19] other commercial vehicles. subsection B

[43:21] by adding Washington Square for its

[43:23] entirety from 10 p.m. through 6 a.m.

[43:27] >> I'll open the public hearing.

[43:30] And who would like to speak in favor?

[43:33] >> Council Grace.

[43:35] >> I thank you. Um, first of all, just a

[43:37] quick apology to the people who on whose

[43:39] doors and mailboxes I left notices that

[43:42] I neglected to specify Washington

[43:44] Square, which caused a little confusion.

[43:46] Um, sorry about that. Um this was

[43:49] brought forth by a couple of residents

[43:51] on the the on Washington Square who

[43:53] reside there um [clears throat] who have

[43:56] brought it to my attention. It's

[43:57] basically for for more than two years

[44:00] now about the issues of uh the large

[44:02] commercial vehicles parking on the

[44:04] street making it difficult for um

[44:07] emergency vehicles to get through and

[44:09] also um causing issues with parking

[44:12] because the large you know 12ton vehicle

[44:14] takes up um much more than one parking

[44:16] place. Um and but mostly it's about the

[44:21] safety issues of of emergency vehicles

[44:23] getting through. Um during the day, you

[44:25] know, it's a little bit easier. People

[44:27] are not home, but at night when um the

[44:29] road is is inundated with parked cars

[44:31] and you have a 12 um,000 pound vehicle

[44:36] blocking the way for a firet truck or an

[44:38] ambulance to get through. Um you know,

[44:40] seconds save lives. And it and it's a

[44:44] very um it's extraordinarily dangerous

[44:46] if if a vehicle is trying an emergency

[44:49] vehicle is trying to get through and

[44:50] they have to go knocking on doors to

[44:52] find out who owns a vehicle to move it

[44:53] so that they can get through to wherever

[44:55] it is that they're going. Um you know,

[44:57] be it for a fire or for a medical

[44:59] emergency, whatever the case may be. um

[45:01] you know a small road like that cannot

[45:04] incorporate large you know um vehicles

[45:07] commercial vehicles and trailers and

[45:09] tractor trailer trucks blocking the

[45:11] roads on a on a nightly basis. So that's

[45:13] basically it's a safety issue. Um you

[45:16] know it's only overnight during the day

[45:17] as I said it's it's you know people

[45:19] aren't there so the vehicles can still

[45:21] get through for the most part. Um, but

[45:23] the road is extremely narrow and when

[45:25] you've got a large vehicle that's, you

[45:27] know, chooses to even park on the

[45:30] sidewalk to make space for people to get

[45:32] by, which is a um against the law in and

[45:35] of itself, a $100 fine every time you do

[45:37] it. Um, supposedly uh it's, you know, it

[45:41] could somebody could [clears throat] be

[45:44] harmed, somebody could lose their home,

[45:46] somebody could lose their life if an

[45:47] emergency vehicle can't get through in

[45:49] time and seconds save lives. And if you

[45:52] know, if um a fireman or an EMT has to

[45:55] get out and go knocking on doors to get

[45:57] a car moved, um I would I would think

[46:00] that we would want to make sure that our

[46:02] neighbors are safe. Thank you.

[46:07] >> Anyone else like to speak in favor?

[46:20] Anyone

[46:22] like to speak in opposition?

[46:30] » And uh do we have any communications?

[46:35] Council is in receipt of one um

[46:38] communication received by the deadline

[46:40] to submit from Sarah Doherty who um is

[46:44] in support of this ordinance amendment.

[46:46] You did also receive another

[46:48] communication received after the

[46:49] deadline that was forwarded to everyone

[46:51] but cannot be read into the record due

[46:53] to timing.

[46:57] » Thank you.

[47:00] >> Questions from the counselors? Councelor

[47:03] Paige,

[47:04] >> I do have a question maybe for Bob Ryan.

[47:07] What is the rule for um parking

[47:11] commercial vehicles on any city street?

[47:18] That's somewhat of a vague question. Uh

[47:20] there are several rulings, there are

[47:22] several ordinances on different streets.

[47:24] Uh be it private roads, be it uh public

[47:27] roads, tractor trailers, and so forth.

[47:30] They're all restricted and outlined in

[47:32] the city ordinances.

[47:34] Does that answer anything?

[47:39] » Yeah, that that's fine. It wasn't.

[47:41] >> Yeah,

[47:42] >> I can I can reference the ordinance like

[47:44] I'm I'm aware on Harbor Loop it it's

[47:47] dedicated commercial Roger Street

[47:50] >> trailer truck not commercial

[47:51] >> right

[47:51] >> sorry

[47:52] >> trailer truck not commercial

[47:54] >> oh trailer truck

[47:55] >> trailer truck 18 wheelers they're

[47:56] defined on Roger Street Aberloop uh

[47:59] different areas of the city Flanigan

[48:01] Square uh there are several but they're

[48:04] all spelled out in the city ordinances

[48:06] >> thank you

[48:06] >> okay and just to follow up with

[48:08] councelor Grace if I may concur. Uh

[48:11] safety issue on Washington Street

[48:13] traveling from Granite Street looping

[48:16] around to Washington Street uh just for

[48:19] a regular passenger car. It's difficult,

[48:21] let alone tractors, trailers, or bigger

[48:24] trucks. Okay. And I'll introduce myself

[48:28] when I come back up.

[48:30] >> Thank you.

[48:32] were invited up.

[48:36] » All right. Any more questions?

[48:41] Close public hearing.

[48:44] I'll take the committee recommendation.

[48:47] on a motion by

[48:48] council grace. Seconded by myself. The

[48:50] ordinance and administration committee

[48:52] voted three in favor, zero opposed to

[48:53] recommend that the city council amend

[48:55] the Boston court of ordinance chap 22

[48:58] traffic and motor vehicle section 22

[48:59] through 285 parking of trucks, trailer

[49:01] trucks and other commercial vehicles

[49:04] subsection B by adding Washington Square

[49:06] for its entirety from 10 p.m. through 6

[49:08] a.m. and I so move.

[49:11] >> Second.

[49:12] >> Motion made by councelor Maja, seconded

[49:14] by councelor Grace. For the record, the

[49:17] myself is council MUA.

[49:21] Um, discussion

[49:27] seeing none. All those in favor?

[49:29] >> I opposed.

[49:31] >> Eyes have it. Seven to zero. Um, two

[49:34] absent. Next order. Business. Madam

[49:36] clerk.

[49:38] >> Book hearing 2026 number 26. Council

[49:40] order 2026 number 14. Memhard. Amend GCO

[49:44] chapter 22 traffic and motor vehicles

[49:47] section 22-292

[49:49] fire lanes by deleting Rackcliffe Street

[49:52] westerly side from its intersection with

[49:54] Fremont Street in a southerntherly

[49:56] direction for its entire length to dead

[49:58] end and adding Rackliff Street both

[50:00] sides from its intersection with Fremont

[50:02] Street in a southerntherly direction for

[50:04] its entire length to dead end.

[50:07] >> Thank you. I'll open the public hearing.

[50:11] Speaking in favor,

[50:16] you have 15 minutes.

[50:27] Hello, son. Okay. So, my name is James

[50:31] Maslo. I live at 11 Racer Street and I'm

[50:36] speaking in favor of this proposition.

[50:41] I also have collected uh statements of

[50:48] totaling mine and seven other

[50:53] butters to this lower portion of Wrath

[50:56] Street. All of whom are in favor of

[50:59] having this

[51:02] changed to have

[51:06] fire lane declaration on both sides of

[51:08] the street.

[51:10] In in addition to this, uh it happened

[51:14] that there was um an emergency call down

[51:18] at the end of Rackip Street. Um which

[51:23] and I had my camera and so uh I took a

[51:27] picture of the uh engine number one

[51:32] twice. Once as it was it had already

[51:36] turned around and was at the head of the

[51:39] And then it was starting to back down.

[51:42] So I took that picture and another

[51:44] picture. And point of the pictures is

[51:47] that when the fire engine came up to the

[51:50] top of Fremont Street, it could not make

[51:54] the turn. So uh some of the fire people

[52:00] were let off. They carried their

[52:02] equipment down to the very end of Racker

[52:05] Street while the driver turned away from

[52:09] the fire and went up the street so that

[52:11] he could be straightened out and back

[52:13] down. And so while he was spending that

[52:16] extra time, these other firemen were

[52:19] down there starting to work the fire. Um

[52:25] that was an unfortunate but um

[52:31] important demonstration of why

[52:34] Rapler Street should be uh

[52:39] fire lanes on both sides that there are

[52:42] no vehicles interfering with the fire

[52:46] vehicles that travel down street. And in

[52:49] addition to which um

[52:53] under 22-152

[52:56] the fire lanes on private ways are to

[52:59] ensure at least a 10-ft unobstructed

[53:03] path which um it would be pretty

[53:08] difficult if you have vehicles parked

[53:11] alongside the street. So um

[53:15] again for that reason uh we support that the fire lane be declared on both

[53:24] sides of the street. There are also some

[53:28] others here who would like to speak in

[53:30] favor of this motion.

[53:35] So

[53:35] >> they they come up individually. They get

[53:37] three minutes.

[53:38] >> Okay. And

[53:40] >> you can go. You you you

[53:44] thank you. Thank you for your time.

[53:56] My name is, excuse [clears throat] me,

[53:57] my name is George Bodker. I live at 12

[54:00] Rackliff Street, which is the first

[54:03] house on the left after you turn the

[54:06] corner off Fremont Street. All of the

[54:08] parking spaces we're talking about lie

[54:11] between the corner at Rackcliffe and

[54:14] Fremont and my house. There were only

[54:16] three parking places there. I witnessed

[54:19] the event he's talking about when it

[54:22] was, you know, the fire truck did not

[54:25] feel comfortable, not able to get down

[54:26] the street. It's very difficult at best

[54:29] turning onto that street. Um, if cars

[54:33] are parked there, there is very little

[54:36] visibility when you come up to that

[54:38] intersection because of the a slightly

[54:40] ra rised yard and the vegetation there.

[54:44] So when you you have to get in past the

[54:46] intersection into the intersection

[54:48] before you can see it's and if there are

[54:51] cars or trucks parked there particularly

[54:53] if they're larger vehicles such as panel

[54:56] trucks that are construction mark of you

[54:58] there you know it's difficult for to get

[55:01] around the corner

[55:03] if if there are cars parked there and

[55:06] someone parks across the street from

[55:09] like a a delivery truck or a

[55:11] landscaper's truck is parked in the

[55:14] house directly across the street from

[55:15] me, which means there are cars parked

[55:19] all along the street on my side where

[55:21] they're allowed to park. And if

[55:23] somebody's temporarily there, it's

[55:25] impossible for anybody to go down the

[55:27] street of an emergency vehicle until

[55:30] they locate the driver of the truck. The

[55:33] other thing that happens is if you're

[55:35] driving up the street and cars are

[55:37] parked there and someone comes around

[55:39] the corner, it's a one-way street. So,

[55:43] people have to back up around into the

[55:46] intersection. It's not a good situation.

[55:49] I recommend that we eliminate the

[55:52] parking on the street. Thank you.

[55:54] >> Thank you.

[56:06] Hi, my name's Elizabeth Lewis. I own 15

[56:09] Rackless Street. I sent a letter when I

[56:12] heard that this was going to come before

[56:14] you. I sent an email to all of you.

[56:18] just outlining a situation that happened

[56:21] in the last few years to me where

[56:24] fortunately it wasn't a fire but um our

[56:28] smoke alarms went off and would not stop

[56:31] and so I just called the fire department

[56:34] to get information on what to do but

[56:36] they kindly said they would come down

[56:39] and they came but they also um I'm not

[56:43] sure it's possible to actually turn a

[56:45] fire truck to the leftum

[56:47] lift, but they couldn't back down

[56:50] because there were cars weren't there.

[56:53] So, it just took a while for them to get

[56:55] there. And I was glad that it wasn't a

[56:57] real fire because that would could have,

[57:00] as Council Grace said, you know, seconds

[57:04] or minutes might mean lives and

[57:06] certainly a property. So, I I do request

[57:10] that this proposal be accepted and I

[57:15] think it would be for better good

[57:18] everybody on Rackless Street.

[57:20] Um, and also just a little aside, I've

[57:23] always asked my guests and family to

[57:27] park elsewhere um when they would come

[57:30] if there wasn't room in my driveway.

[57:32] that I I'd say there's other places on

[57:35] Rocky Neck and there's the parking lot.

[57:38] So So be it.

[57:43] » Thank you.

[57:56] » Hi, I'm Karen Maslo at 11 Street. Thank

[58:00] you for your time.

[58:02] Um, we sent you pictures and we sent you

[58:04] copies of the letters of the butters on

[58:07] Racko Street who are in support of

[58:10] having the roads stay open and wide,

[58:13] which means no parking on either side.

[58:15] And the pictures that I sent you, I hope

[58:17] you did get a chance to look at them.

[58:19] And this was from the August 11 911 call

[58:24] by a neighbor at the end of the street.

[58:27] And as you can see in the pictures,

[58:29] there's there's no room bicycle to be

[58:31] parked when the truck is back is going

[58:34] down the road. And then in addition,

[58:37] which we didn't even show you, but

[58:38] there's a picture of when the once the

[58:40] truck gets down there, the firemen have

[58:42] to get into the truck to get out of the

[58:44] truck what they need. So both doors go

[58:47] flying open and they're coming and

[58:49] going. So there's absolutely no room on

[58:52] the road. And as the fire chief the fire

[58:54] chief had said he didn't want parking on

[58:57] the street, it became crystal clear to

[58:59] us that is absolutely right when it when

[59:02] it's needed and that's the real concern

[59:05] and we know that the police chief also

[59:08] understands the support that we it can't

[59:10] support the parking. So, I'm just saying

[59:13] once again, please please remember that

[59:16] we all deserve to be safe and we need

[59:18] the the street to be open. Thank you.

[59:32] Good evening, uh, Council President

[59:35] Rose, councilors, city clerk, uh, Grace.

[59:39] Uh, my name is Bob Bryan, three blade

[59:41] court here in Glasser. I'm here this

[59:44] evening to support the rapid street uh

[59:47] order providing for the fire lines on

[59:49] both sides of Rack Street from its

[59:50] intersection with Fremont Street its

[59:53] entire length to the dead end for both

[59:56] safety reasons and quality of life for

[59:58] the residents of Racko Street.

[1:00:01] looking up at the balcony up there. Just

[1:00:03] to go off a little bit, I was appointed

[1:00:06] April 30th, 1980. I served under Leo

[1:00:10] Welper, Richard Silver, William Squilis,

[1:00:14] Bruce Toby, William Rafter, Bruce Toby,

[1:00:18] John Bell, Caroline Kirk, Paul McGary,

[1:00:22] Safathia Romeo Taken, Safathia Romeo

[1:00:25] Taken, Greg Berger, and now Paul

[1:00:27] Lunberg. This is probably the tightest

[1:00:30] street I've ever seen in all these

[1:00:32] years. Uh

[1:00:35] the recommended width of travel lanes to

[1:00:38] accommodate two lanes of traffic range

[1:00:40] anywhere from 20 to 24 ft. However,

[1:00:43] after visiting Ratco Street, I learned

[1:00:46] that Ratco Street is no wider than 14 to

[1:00:48] 15 ft, thus creating an unsafe condition

[1:00:52] for its residents should an emergency

[1:00:54] arise. When brought to uh Eric Smith's

[1:00:57] attention, Chief Smith, he then

[1:00:59] suggested that the city's Department of

[1:01:01] Public Works engineering department

[1:01:03] conduct the sweep paths analysis to

[1:01:06] determine if in fact fire apparatus

[1:01:09] could enter and exit Raco Street safely

[1:01:12] and it was determined that it the

[1:01:14] vehicles could not. Chief Smith, based

[1:01:17] on the study, determined that it was

[1:01:19] paramount that fire lanes be established

[1:01:21] on both sides of Rockwood Street in

[1:01:24] order for the fire apparatus to enter

[1:01:25] and provide the safety of its residents.

[1:01:29] As requested by council, F. Smith on May

[1:01:31] 20th, 2026

[1:01:33] made a formal recommendation to

[1:01:35] establish fire lanes on both sides of

[1:01:38] Rack Street for public safety and was

[1:01:40] approved by Paul uh Mayor Paul Lundberg.

[1:01:44] In summary, the city of Alosters Police

[1:01:46] Chief, the City of Alester's Fire Chief,

[1:01:49] the Glouester traffic commission all

[1:01:51] unanimously support this order for the

[1:01:54] residents of Rack Street safety. And I

[1:01:56] ask that each and every one of you

[1:01:58] support this order as well. And just to

[1:02:01] cite uh and concur section 22152

[1:02:06] of the city's uh code of ordinances

[1:02:09] leaving vehicles unattended on private

[1:02:11] ways so as to block access for firearms.

[1:02:14] It shall be un unlawful for any person

[1:02:17] to leave a vehicle unattended within the

[1:02:19] limits of a private way furnishing means

[1:02:22] of access for fire rice for any

[1:02:24] building. The city council shall have

[1:02:26] the authority to designate private ways

[1:02:29] and parts thereof listed in section

[1:02:31] 22192

[1:02:33] as fire lanes with restrictions thereon

[1:02:36] as necessary to ensure at least a

[1:02:39] 10-foot clear and unobstructed way is

[1:02:42] available at all times. And I ask that

[1:02:44] you

[1:02:46] vote on this favorably tonight. Thank

[1:02:48] you.

[1:02:49] >> Thank you.

[1:02:52] Anyone

[1:02:57] else to speak in favor?

[1:03:00] >> All right. Speaking in opposition,

[1:03:05] » you have 15 minutes.

[1:03:08] >> They say and uh to be want to be a

[1:03:11] millionaire.

[1:03:13] >> Clock starts now.

[1:03:14] >> Name an end.

[1:03:14] >> My name is Michael D. Labbertie. I live

[1:03:17] on five Wy Street. I've lived in at five

[1:03:20] WY Street for 30 years. 30 years. So

[1:03:26] doing a little research and in and uh

[1:03:29] about the parking in this back in 90

[1:03:32] 1982

[1:03:34] the councils there including

[1:03:38] uh Renee Nut Brown Kadi Carolina Connor all knew

[1:03:47] that in the transition of the Rockaway

[1:03:50] condominiums from the hotel it was going

[1:03:53] to create some issues.

[1:03:56] Brad Cliff Street actually lost two

[1:03:59] spots on on this transition.

[1:04:02] All right.

[1:04:03] So

[1:04:06] then they did a study and in that study

[1:04:10] their concern was safety and parking and

[1:04:14] as as uh Renee Gross Nutberg Nut Brown

[1:04:18] once said the biggest of the immediate

[1:04:21] problems is parking. It's perennial in

[1:04:25] Rocky Neck.

[1:04:27] So now you're gonna you're about to take

[1:04:29] away two parking spots right now for and

[1:04:35] this is from 82.

[1:04:38] That is 44 years of

[1:04:44] uh trucks going down trash trucks going

[1:04:46] down. Uh fire uh well even fire trucks

[1:04:51] for that matter and and city trucks.

[1:04:53] They've gone down for 44 years. What's

[1:04:58] changed?

[1:04:59] I ask you, what's changed? All of a

[1:05:01] sudden,

[1:05:03] Red, this end of Radcliffe Street is a

[1:05:05] danger and then you're using then you're

[1:05:08] using these ordinance, right? Well, let

[1:05:11] me tell you,

[1:05:13] if you use these ordinance, what's next?

[1:05:16] Fremont Street, WY Street, they're all

[1:05:19] tight quarters. Rocky Radcliffe Street

[1:05:22] is really not much w smaller than WY

[1:05:26] Street or Fremont Street. In fact, if

[1:05:28] you try to go up Fremont Street, chances

[1:05:31] are I'm always looking for the scratches

[1:05:33] on my car because it's so tight. And yet

[1:05:36] there's parking on Fremont Street and

[1:05:38] then there's three three spots on

[1:05:39] Fremont. You going to go after them? No,

[1:05:42] I know you're not. I know you're not.

[1:05:45] But the thing is, what's changed? What's

[1:05:49] causing all these problems? For 44

[1:05:53] years, nothing went wrong. Everybody

[1:05:55] knows that when you went down to Fremont

[1:05:58] Street, you had to back down for the

[1:06:00] fire. The fire people knew that. They

[1:06:03] knew it then.

[1:06:05] Carolyn Okconer, she was in the city

[1:06:07] council. She she voted for it. Combat.

[1:06:10] They all knew that parking was going to

[1:06:13] be an issue and safety. But they passed

[1:06:16] it. They passed it. And now you're

[1:06:18] asking to take away two spots. How many

[1:06:22] spots do you think there are in that

[1:06:24] area? Five, six.

[1:06:30] This is not the way to to answer this

[1:06:32] solution. There has to be a better way.

[1:06:35] Rocky Neck has always had problems. And

[1:06:38] yet, here we go. We're going to say, and

[1:06:41] then remember

[1:06:44] there's the fire lane when you turn

[1:06:46] left. Okay? when there's a fire lane and

[1:06:49] like I said, the fire trucks have to

[1:06:51] back down. If they're going to come

[1:06:53] straight in, they have to come in by the

[1:06:56] other side of Rackless Street by the

[1:06:58] condos. And it's a one-way street. And it's been a

[1:07:03] one-way street for almost a whole year,

[1:07:05] even though it's supposed to change. But

[1:07:06] it hasn't changed. It's still a one-way

[1:07:08] street.

[1:07:10] What has changed to cause this problem?

[1:07:14] I know what it is. is the dynamics of

[1:07:17] the neighborhood. But I'm not supposed

[1:07:19] to say that, but I'm saying it anyway.

[1:07:22] This This is wrong for the neighborhood.

[1:07:25] This is wrong. This is wrong because WY

[1:07:27] Street falls into the same category.

[1:07:29] Horton Street falls into the same

[1:07:31] category. Fremont Street falls into the

[1:07:34] same category. You can get them all shut

[1:07:36] down if you want.

[1:07:39] Please, please think of what you're

[1:07:42] doing. Rocking Neck has always had

[1:07:46] parking problems. And now, not to beat a

[1:07:50] dead horse, but for 44 years, nothing

[1:07:54] has been wrong with that. Nothing at

[1:07:56] all. Life went on as usual. Life went on

[1:08:01] as usual.

[1:08:03] But now, huh,

[1:08:06] I can't. The fire truck. They know they

[1:08:08] have to back down there. That's no

[1:08:10] surprise.

[1:08:12] And when the and when they did that

[1:08:14] traffic study and put that 10 or 15 feet

[1:08:17] there for the fire lane and put those

[1:08:20] two legal they are legal approved city

[1:08:24] parking laws and I'm going to call them

[1:08:26] now public enemy number one and public

[1:08:29] enemy number two because that's what

[1:08:30] it's all about.

[1:08:33] And the cars that are they say that they

[1:08:35] were blocking this, they're not supposed

[1:08:37] to be there, right? They're not supposed

[1:08:39] to be there. What am I going to say?

[1:08:41] It's an uninforcable ordinance. They

[1:08:43] know they're not supposed to be there.

[1:08:46] Where where are you going to park? At

[1:08:49] least you gave them two spots,

[1:08:52] but now you're going to take it away.

[1:08:55] This is wrong. Rocking neck is too tight

[1:08:58] to think that you going to take two

[1:09:01] spots away. That leaves us three.

[1:09:05] Do the right thing. Use good judgment.

[1:09:08] There has to be a better way to address

[1:09:11] this problem than to eliminate two spots

[1:09:14] that Carolina Carter voted for it. KMAD

[1:09:18] voted for that. They knew. They knew

[1:09:21] there was safety issues there and they

[1:09:23] knew the neighborhood needed parking.

[1:09:26] They knew it. It said in this paper in

[1:09:29] the Times, read the Times in September

[1:09:31] of uh September of 82, October 82. They

[1:09:35] addressed this. They even formed a

[1:09:37] committee to address it.

[1:09:40] Please

[1:09:42] passing this ordinance. What are you

[1:09:44] telling the rest of Rocky Neck? What are

[1:09:47] you telling them? You might as well shut

[1:09:49] down Wy Street and Fremont Street.

[1:09:51] is probably shorter than Radcliffe Street.

[1:09:56] Okay, think about it. What has caused

[1:09:59] all these problems? There has to be a

[1:10:02] better way. That's my story and I'm

[1:10:04] sticking with it.

[1:10:07] Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in

[1:10:09] opposition?

[1:10:16] Oh, this is an opposition. You You spoke

[1:10:19] already.

[1:10:21] Mike. Mike, sit down.

[1:10:29] Hi, my name is Gail Saraphene and all I

[1:10:32] want to say is

[1:10:33] >> two five WY street.

[1:10:37] Everybody in that area is very careful

[1:10:40] about what they do.

[1:10:44] And because it's so hard to park,

[1:10:48] people are careful. I often back out and

[1:10:52] then go backwards down the street, but

[1:10:55] it's too

[1:10:57] >> you have to

[1:10:57] >> to go forward.

[1:10:59] Um

[1:11:02] I don't I I everybody tries. It's all I

[1:11:05] can say. Everybody tries. So

[1:11:09] in general,

[1:11:12] people don't want to make waves. That's

[1:11:15] why they try. They don't want to be

[1:11:17] abused. They don't want to abuse anybody

[1:11:19] else and and that's all I have to say.

[1:11:23] Everybody goes out of their way.

[1:11:27] >> Thank you.

[1:11:30] Anyone else to speak in opposition?

[1:11:37] » Communications.

[1:11:39] >> We do. These communications are in

[1:11:41] favor. Um Karen, Jake, and James. I

[1:11:44] don't know if Jake and James are one and

[1:11:46] the same. Maslo at 11 Rackcliffe. Rose

[1:11:49] Botker at 12 Rackcliffe. Elizabeth Lewis

[1:11:52] at 15 Rackcliffe. Gabriella Chaptoning

[1:11:56] 17 Rackcliffe. Jennifer Taylor 18

[1:11:59] Rackcliffe. Josh Silverman 19

[1:12:02] Rackcliffe. Susan Dodd 10 Fremont

[1:12:04] Street. E. Elizabeth Lewis 15 Rackcliffe

[1:12:08] Street. And we also received a

[1:12:10] communication from the fire chief

[1:12:11] regarding the swept path analysis.

[1:12:15] Thank you.

[1:12:18] >> Okay. Questions from counselors.

[1:12:25] Just one question. Um and I believe the

[1:12:28] gentleman I don't know your name sorry

[1:12:30] the Kane said that that area has like

[1:12:33] landscapers that come to the

[1:12:35] neighborhood. If you put the U fire

[1:12:38] lanes on both sides where are these

[1:12:39] vehicles going to park in someone's

[1:12:41] driveway? Is there a parking spot for

[1:12:45] the businesses to do their work or will

[1:12:47] they be parked in the driveway?

[1:12:49] Because if this passes, they cannot park

[1:12:53] there to do anyone's work, yard work.

[1:12:59] That's I'm asking you, so I don't know

[1:13:01] if you want to go up to the mic. I just

[1:13:03] want to make sure that if we're doing no

[1:13:05] parking that no one parks there even

[1:13:08] >> come up to answer questions

[1:13:10] >> but just the questions

[1:13:11] >> actually it probably should be for Mr.

[1:13:12] Maslo.

[1:13:13] >> Oh anyone

[1:13:15] Maslo?

[1:13:16] >> Yeah.

[1:13:16] >> Okay.

[1:13:18] >> Well, he presented right. Sorry.

[1:13:21] >> I might be wrong. Hold on. Sorry. Hold

[1:13:23] on.

[1:13:24] >> Go ahead.

[1:13:25] >> If you can I don't want to argue with

[1:13:27] anybody. I just want to

[1:13:30] >> The question is the question is isapers

[1:13:33] park.

[1:13:34] >> I have a I I happen to live in a house

[1:13:37] which was constructed on what was

[1:13:39] formerly the the the

[1:13:43] what do you call it the parking place

[1:13:45] the carriage house for the Rockaway

[1:13:47] Hotel. All right. And and

[1:13:51] we actually own the lot beside us. Sir

[1:13:56] other people. Sir, excuse me. Sir, the

[1:13:58] question is is

[1:13:59] >> three parking places in

[1:14:00] >> sir. You can't rebuttle right now. This

[1:14:02] is not a rebuttal question. Sir,

[1:14:04] >> I we make we make the we only have one

[1:14:07] car.

[1:14:07] >> I asked you the parking places available

[1:14:09] to people. That's all I'm trying to say.

[1:14:11] Okay. Is we try to make the parking the

[1:14:14] parking places are available.

[1:14:16] >> We only use one and we make them

[1:14:18] available to anybody who needs them.

[1:14:19] That's all I'm trying to say.

[1:14:20] >> Okay. Okay. For your for your spot, the

[1:14:22] landscapers can park in your in your you

[1:14:24] can fit the dump truck and the trailer

[1:14:26] in your driveway.

[1:14:30] » If I recall, your question was

[1:14:33] >> is landscapers and contractors.

[1:14:36] >> Where are they going to park?

[1:14:38] Well, uh, across the street from where

[1:14:41] George is living is, uh,

[1:14:46] 13 Rack Street, which has a lot of

[1:14:49] landscapers, and they park on the grass

[1:14:52] if they can. If other times when it the

[1:14:56] street is open, they just park on the

[1:14:58] street. So, um, depending on what the

[1:15:03] conditions are, they if there's parking

[1:15:07] on the street, then they park on the

[1:15:08] grass, and if the street is open, then

[1:15:12] they park on street. So,

[1:15:14] >> a little difficult to mow the grass if

[1:15:16] you're parked on it.

[1:15:17] >> Well, you have to move your vehicles.

[1:15:19] It's tough, but

[1:15:20] >> Right. So, that that's the question is

[1:15:22] if you eliminate these parking spaces on

[1:15:24] this street, where are these trades

[1:15:25] people going to park? They're going to

[1:15:28] have to be moved into the other streets

[1:15:29] in the neighborhood. Is that correct?

[1:15:33] >> I think that they have a very large

[1:15:36] driveway that leads on.

[1:15:39] >> There are two driveways at 13 rackless.

[1:15:42] >> Right. That's 13. But there's several

[1:15:44] other um build houses on the street.

[1:15:48] >> Well, first off, are we talking public

[1:15:50] safety here?

[1:15:53] >> Well, we could talk about every street

[1:15:54] in Gloucester when it comes to

[1:15:55] landscapers. So, um, we're talking about

[1:15:58] where where do you anticipate

[1:16:02] these vehicles will park? Contractors

[1:16:06] and landscapers. Where will they park

[1:16:08] when there's no parking on the street?

[1:16:10] They're not going to be parking in

[1:16:12] everybody's yards. Where are they going

[1:16:13] to park?

[1:16:20] There's park there's there's extra

[1:16:23] parking spaces in the

[1:16:27] uh flat area to the downside of where

[1:16:32] George is living. There are some extra

[1:16:35] parking spaces where Elizabeth is living. There are two driveways

[1:16:42] at 13. There are many different places

[1:16:46] where vehicles can be placed but which

[1:16:48] would not obscure

[1:16:50] >> someone who's working at 11 Radcliffe

[1:16:54] Street is going their landscaper is

[1:16:56] going to park down at 15 Radcliffe

[1:16:58] Street. Are you telling me your neighbor

[1:17:00] is going to allow the landscaper to park

[1:17:03] um on their property? I mean, this is

[1:17:07] just we're trying to see what h what

[1:17:10] >> what what this what is your what is your

[1:17:12] answer? Where are these trades people

[1:17:14] going to park? Um driveways are other

[1:17:17] people's private property. So, that's

[1:17:19] not really a legitimate place. So, I'm

[1:17:22] asking you where you anticipate they're

[1:17:23] going to park.

[1:17:26] If the property owners

[1:17:30] give permission for someone to park on

[1:17:33] their driveway, then it's not a that's

[1:17:37] not an issue. And

[1:17:42] » and

[1:17:45] excuse me.

[1:17:47] So if the uh

[1:17:52] if the owners allow parking on their

[1:17:54] driveway and so they have to do some

[1:17:58] movement back and forth in order to get

[1:17:59] everything done, that's their business.

[1:18:04] In addition to which there is there are

[1:18:07] other homes along the way that have

[1:18:10] excess parking

[1:18:13] and the and the uh the large area to

[1:18:19] number 12 downside of the street is very

[1:18:24] large and open and he's given

[1:18:27] supervision of that. So there are plenty

[1:18:29] of areas where the um

[1:18:33] >> but would those areas also be available

[1:18:34] for public parking?

[1:18:36] >> Public parking? It's not up to me to

[1:18:38] say.

[1:18:40] >> Thank you.

[1:18:40] >> They're p well they're private

[1:18:42] driveways. So

[1:18:44] don't I don't know.

[1:18:48] >> Property on Rackcliff Street. We all

[1:18:50] live on postage stamps for property.

[1:18:53] Most of us don't even have landscapers.

[1:18:56] One or two of the houses do have

[1:18:57] landscapers and they park on their

[1:19:00] property to do it in the driveway. It's

[1:19:04] just not a big problem on Lo Street. The

[1:19:06] property is too small. I mean, I I I

[1:19:08] don't say it's not a problem, but yes,

[1:19:10] they would not be able to park on the

[1:19:11] street.

[1:19:15] » That's a Grace question.

[1:19:17] >> Yeah. Um, there were fire lane signs on

[1:19:21] Ragcliffe at one point in time and they

[1:19:22] were they were removed. What happened to

[1:19:24] those?

[1:19:26] We had we asked DBW to remove one sign

[1:19:30] just to move it

[1:19:31] >> when we had our driveway gone from a

[1:19:34] single car to a double car.

[1:19:36] >> So

[1:19:37] >> wait wait wait and excuse me. No, no, I

[1:19:40] haven't finished answer question.

[1:19:42] >> Mike Hale, I went and talked with him

[1:19:43] and asked him what we were going to do

[1:19:45] and he said he put the sign on the flat

[1:19:48] on the telephone pole at the corner of

[1:19:51] Fremont and Rackliff with two arrows

[1:19:53] fire lane in two directions and that was

[1:19:56] his solution for that sign. If there was

[1:19:58] another sign later further down the

[1:20:00] road, I know nothing about it.

[1:20:01] >> At what point in time did you enlarge

[1:20:03] your driveway?

[1:20:05] >> How many years ago?

[1:20:07] >> Probably

[1:20:09] 10 years ago.

[1:20:10] >> And prior to enlarging your driveway,

[1:20:12] was there an issue with people parking?

[1:20:15] >> No, people didn't. People never used to

[1:20:18] park across there. They didn't. We had

[1:20:21] to park our car and that's why we went

[1:20:23] to a double driveway because we didn't

[1:20:24] like having to park our second car over

[1:20:26] there when it was down because we had we

[1:20:29] didn't have we only had room for one

[1:20:31] car. So this whole we we arrived here

[1:20:34] tonight basically because when you

[1:20:36] enlarged your driveway, it escalated

[1:20:39] into a problem with parking on the

[1:20:41] street.

[1:20:41] >> No, no, no, no, no, no. That's not why

[1:20:43] we're here tonight. We're here tonight.

[1:20:45] As parking started to grow on Rack

[1:20:48] Street, it became clear that this was

[1:20:51] unsustainable. And as you see from the

[1:20:54] letters and the neighbors, nobody was

[1:20:56] happy on it. Can I just add I had my

[1:20:59] property for 35 years and for up until

[1:21:03] 10 years ago that carriage house had

[1:21:07] property had parking for three cars in

[1:21:09] front of it because there was that much

[1:21:11] space between the street and the

[1:21:12] building. So that's why Carolyn O'

[1:21:14] Connor and the others wouldn't have

[1:21:16] thought it was an issue back then. And I

[1:21:19] just put in a parking spot in front of

[1:21:22] my house this year for

[1:21:25] um service vehicles and whatever myself,

[1:21:29] extra guests, whatever. Um so I feel

[1:21:34] like I have parking. The people across

[1:21:36] the street from me have parking. Gabby

[1:21:39] parking. People at the end of the street

[1:21:40] have parking. There's really almost no

[1:21:43] one that doesn't have space for an

[1:21:45] emergency. I mean for um their

[1:21:48] landscapers except for the people with

[1:21:52] the grass but you know they could always

[1:21:55] move it they had to.

[1:21:59] So just to re you know kind of um build

[1:22:02] upon what council marot said about

[1:22:04] landscaping trucks. It's just do you

[1:22:06] understand that it's all vehicles. It's

[1:22:08] whether your grandkids come to visit or

[1:22:11] the landscaper comes or the pizza

[1:22:14] delivery guy decides to hang out. It

[1:22:16] doesn't whoever whatever the case may

[1:22:18] be, nobody can park on that street. Um

[1:22:21] and I'm assured that it will be

[1:22:23] patrolled

[1:22:25] extensively to make sure that you know

[1:22:28] if if this goes forward that you adhere

[1:22:31] to what you're requesting 100%. Not only

[1:22:35] do we agree, it's putting us back to

[1:22:37] where we were before the sign on the

[1:22:40] other side of the street was moved that

[1:22:43] created this opening to parking. The the

[1:22:47] lack of clarity on that sign which says

[1:22:51] so many feet to the to the corner, no

[1:22:54] parking, but it doesn't say what's

[1:22:56] happening behind it. So that's when

[1:22:59] parking started to happen. And before

[1:23:01] that, no one was parking.

[1:23:04] So yes, we will go back to that and

[1:23:07] we'll be happily living in that

[1:23:09] condition.

[1:23:11] Besides, I'll add one other thing. In

[1:23:14] the years that have changed

[1:23:17] in the past years, u

[1:23:20] street or the condominiums,

[1:23:24] uh people have two parking lots each

[1:23:28] underneath and there are people there

[1:23:30] with three cars

[1:23:33] and at on street there are whatever's

[1:23:37] there. not involved street

[1:23:41] kind of they would come up and claim

[1:23:44] that they can park our street but

[1:23:48] >> well I think that what they were trying

[1:23:49] to point out is that there's narrow

[1:23:51] streets all over Rocky Neck there's

[1:23:53] narrow streets all over the entire city

[1:23:55] of Gloucester there's many streets

[1:23:57] downtown that shouldn't have parking on

[1:24:01] them because it creates a safety hazard

[1:24:03] you know that's that's I believe that's

[1:24:05] what his point was Okay, that made

[1:24:08] >> and and the the the lieutenant the fire

[1:24:11] lieutenant who was there on the site

[1:24:13] visit said you know the cluster fire

[1:24:16] department deals with this on a regular

[1:24:18] daily basis and all throughout

[1:24:20] Gloucester the narrow streets. So while

[1:24:22] it's a safety issue it's a safety issue

[1:24:25] throughout our city and if we tried to

[1:24:29] make no parking on every street that

[1:24:31] it's a safety issue we would be really

[1:24:33] in a huge bind. Um so council Benson.

[1:24:37] >> Yeah. Can someone just uh so a couple

[1:24:40] things. Um first question is remind me

[1:24:42] um council president um what is the

[1:24:45] position of the fire department on this?

[1:24:47] They're supportive of this or have they

[1:24:49] not made a official position just

[1:24:51] because there's been a lot going I just

[1:24:52] want to

[1:24:52] >> No, the chief wrote he said in favor of

[1:24:55] a fire.

[1:24:56] >> Okay. Um and then my other question is

[1:24:59] um if I may to those that spoke in

[1:25:02] opposition

[1:25:04] um if they may is do you think

[1:25:07] understanding your points are you also

[1:25:09] thinking that this could set a

[1:25:11] precedent?

[1:25:12] >> You need to make room at the podium.

[1:25:13] >> Yeah. If this could could this set from

[1:25:16] what I'm understanding from you could

[1:25:17] this set a precedent to lead to other

[1:25:19] streets. Is that your concern?

[1:25:21] >> Yeah. Yeah. you can do and just make

[1:25:24] sure that if you understand my question,

[1:25:25] I think I think I'm understanding what

[1:25:27] you're saying. You feel that this could

[1:25:29] set a precedent for other streets. Is

[1:25:31] that what I'm is that part of your

[1:25:32] concern?

[1:25:33] >> Well, what my concern is that if you're

[1:25:35] using what Bobby had Mr. Ryan or Bobby

[1:25:39] had had said that, you know, the street

[1:25:40] is too slow, too small on that end and

[1:25:44] then, you know, it violates the width of

[1:25:46] it.

[1:25:48] Fremont Street's the same width off

[1:25:50] smaller. WY Street fits in the same

[1:25:54] category. You c you can't cherrypick

[1:25:58] what you want to do with what street.

[1:26:01] You can't cherrypick it. Look at you. If

[1:26:04] you pass that on and tomorrow someone

[1:26:07] could turn around and say, "Look at

[1:26:09] there's no P." Do you ever go up Fremont

[1:26:12] Street? Every time I go up Fremont

[1:26:14] Street, I have to check my car for

[1:26:16] scratches. There's I'm surprised a fire

[1:26:18] truck even makes it up there. Tell you

[1:26:20] the truth to answering the question.

[1:26:22] >> Yeah. So, if I may, you get quite I get

[1:26:26] excited too when I feel passionate about

[1:26:27] stuff. So, just so you think that it

[1:26:29] it's a slippery slope. It could lead to

[1:26:32] someone on Fremont Street asking for

[1:26:34] this, too.

[1:26:35] >> I'm That's basically I appreciate. Thank

[1:26:38] you.

[1:26:38] >> Can I just say

[1:26:41] All right, forget it. I was gonna

[1:26:44] >> You know what? I was just going

[1:26:45] >> question for you that you may that you

[1:26:47] can answer maybe. Um are you concerned

[1:26:51] of spillover of trades people who now

[1:26:56] will no longer be able to park on

[1:26:58] Radcliffe Street? Is that a concern that

[1:27:00] they would then be pushed into Fremont

[1:27:02] into WY?

[1:27:06] Yes, true. But

[1:27:09] free Fremont Street, this there's three spots. I we fight with the the

[1:27:14] Rockaway Condominia people park there.

[1:27:16] It's not open. It's not easily to park

[1:27:20] there. Okay, there's three spots. It's

[1:27:23] not easy. And the remember the fire

[1:27:27] lane, the fire hydrants on the right

[1:27:29] hand side. The fire the the the fire

[1:27:32] department knows they have to go down to

[1:27:34] the right hand side. They can't go on

[1:27:36] the left hand side. They know that.

[1:27:40] >> Thank you.

[1:27:40] >> Go get them.

[1:27:47] » There's a question. Wait a minute.

[1:27:49] >> I have a question from the residents of

[1:27:53] WY of

[1:27:54] >> Radcliffe

[1:27:56] >> of Radcliff I'm sorry of Lower Radcliffe

[1:27:59] Street.

[1:28:01] If you all have driveways and they're

[1:28:03] utilized as you say, who is parking on

[1:28:07] the lower end of your street to cause

[1:28:09] these obstructions?

[1:28:15] He he has the the man in the middle that

[1:28:18] he needs to speak because he's he was

[1:28:20] the presenter, right?

[1:28:28] As I understand your question, if there

[1:28:32] are cars parked down at the end at the

[1:28:35] dead end of Rack Street.

[1:28:37] >> No. If you all have driveways and you

[1:28:40] all utilize them and some of you have

[1:28:42] made accommodations to widen them for

[1:28:44] your vehicles

[1:28:46] whose vehicles are parked on Radcliffe

[1:28:50] Street causing these obstructions.

[1:28:53] >> Um,

[1:28:55] it could be anyone. It could be anyone

[1:28:57] who's looking for a place to park. And

[1:28:59] because there are signs that are confusing, they

[1:29:06] are able to put their cars in a place

[1:29:09] that was was

[1:29:13] um no parking. Uh or I was led to

[1:29:18] believe it was no parking. And after

[1:29:21] that sign was put there

[1:29:25] so many feet to the corner you couldn't

[1:29:28] park it it left the rest of it well I

[1:29:31] guess I can park down below that that

[1:29:34] was on the east side the east side of

[1:29:39] the street.

[1:29:41] So um

[1:29:45] you're asking me who would else be

[1:29:49] parking wherever

[1:29:53] >> you know you you must have a sense of

[1:29:55] who uses you. Is it tourists that are

[1:29:57] going through Rocky Neck? Is it guests

[1:30:00] of other households?

[1:30:02] Is it a random selection? I'm not clear

[1:30:06] who's obstructing your street

[1:30:11] » at the time that the at the time that uh

[1:30:15] we were asked about construction people

[1:30:18] gardeners come when people have gone to

[1:30:23] work or whatever. So it's not

[1:30:28] >> I think she

[1:30:33] » he's saying landscapers come in in

[1:30:36] service. You say gardeners.

[1:30:38] >> Yes. But it's at a time when other cars

[1:30:41] aren't parking because they've gone

[1:30:44] wherever. Uh

[1:30:47] there's a there's a flow of cars that

[1:30:50] are parked on the street and uh

[1:30:55] sometimes it's for a day, sometimes it's

[1:30:57] just a short period of time, but during

[1:31:01] that period of time then uh the the gardeners or whoever will use some

[1:31:10] else to park

[1:31:13] >> the people that are parking on Rackler

[1:31:16] do not live from Fremont Street down to

[1:31:18] the dead end. We all leave that open.

[1:31:21] The people that park, there are people

[1:31:23] either on Wy Street on uh the other side

[1:31:27] of Ripo Street. Sometimes they park

[1:31:29] because they own two three cars but have

[1:31:31] two spaces. So, a car has to go on the

[1:31:34] street. Sometimes they have company,

[1:31:36] maybe they have company for the weekend.

[1:31:38] Their company needs to park or they want

[1:31:40] to park their car so their company can

[1:31:42] park at their house.

[1:31:44] It's a lot of it's longterm parking. It

[1:31:47] ends up being that somebody parks and

[1:31:49] keeps the car there for four or five

[1:31:50] days, a month maybe. We had a car this

[1:31:53] month summer for two months on

[1:31:55] >> Sorry, one at a time, please.

[1:32:04] » As far as I understand, I don't think

[1:32:06] there's parking on either side of WY

[1:32:08] Street. So, the people who are arguing

[1:32:11] about this

[1:32:14] Okay. Sorry.

[1:32:16] >> Anyway,

[1:32:16] >> um we're just asking questions to get

[1:32:18] answered.

[1:32:19] >> Thank you.

[1:32:25] » Can I have um Bob Ryan come up please? I

[1:32:28] have um just

[1:32:29] >> thank you

[1:32:31] >> um a follow-up question I guess with

[1:32:33] regarding the sizes of the streets and

[1:32:35] what and how they compare

[1:32:37] um based on what the gentleman said back

[1:32:40] there based on the sizes and then that's

[1:32:43] pretty much my first question.

[1:32:45] >> Okay. Like the width of the streets each

[1:32:48] lane should be at least 10 ft. We don't

[1:32:51] have that on on

[1:32:53] the lower end. To answer the question,

[1:32:56] who's parking there? The people on WY

[1:32:58] Street are parking there. I took a poll

[1:33:02] some time ago back the end of last

[1:33:04] summer. Uh we talked about who's parking

[1:33:06] there. I came up with the idea if

[1:33:08] someone has a cookout, where do they

[1:33:10] park? They said, well, within 300 yards,

[1:33:13] we have a 54

[1:33:15] vehicle parking lot right on the other

[1:33:17] end of Fremont. You walk over the hill,

[1:33:19] 300 yards, you got 54 spaces. Maybe not

[1:33:23] 54 available, but you're going to have

[1:33:25] 10, 15. So, if a landscap is coming to

[1:33:28] the house, I asked some of the uh

[1:33:30] residents, the landscaper comes, where

[1:33:32] do they park? We'll move our cars maybe

[1:33:34] down to the public lot, the landscaper

[1:33:37] pulls in the driveway, but not that many

[1:33:39] have landscapers. Does that help?

[1:33:44] >> Yes, it does. just because you know he

[1:33:47] mentioned it and that was a I felt like

[1:33:49] an opportunity to ask a good question.

[1:33:51] Um can you talk into the size of the

[1:33:53] streets? Um how they compare to the two

[1:33:56] streets that the gentleman has said that

[1:33:58] has parking just for reference.

[1:34:00] >> Frank I didn't go down and measure WY

[1:34:02] Street so I can't answer that. Or the

[1:34:04] other side of Rackcliff I was only

[1:34:06] concerned with from Fremont Street to

[1:34:08] the dead end that width on emergency

[1:34:11] vehicles getting down there. I did not

[1:34:13] measure the other ones. With all respect

[1:34:16] to Mr. Delberty, known him all my life,

[1:34:18] with all due respect, uh he said the

[1:34:21] city council uh issued no parking and so

[1:34:24] forth. The council does not have the

[1:34:26] authority to issue no parking on private

[1:34:28] ways other than fire lanes. And that's

[1:34:31] the that's our city ordinances. You

[1:34:34] can't regulate no parking in any private

[1:34:36] road in the city. That's a fact. Suzanne

[1:34:39] Egan, she can come aboard and answer

[1:34:41] that. We went through this. That's why

[1:34:44] it's fire lanes rather than no parking

[1:34:46] run. City council doesn't have the

[1:34:48] authority. If we impose fire lanes from

[1:34:52] the fire chief, then you can put

[1:34:55] fire lanes. That's the only authority

[1:34:57] the council page.

[1:35:01] >> Thank you.

[1:35:02] >> So we have no authority in this

[1:35:03] ordinance.

[1:35:04] >> You do for fire lanes only, but Mike had

[1:35:07] alluded to no parking. the city back in

[1:35:10] 1982 or 83, they couldn't regulate it.

[1:35:13] was a city ordinance. The council

[1:35:14] couldn't do it. But anyway, fire lanes.

[1:35:17] >> So, we're calling this a fire lane.

[1:35:19] >> Fire lanes. That's what you're voting on

[1:35:21] tonight based on the recommendation from

[1:35:23] the chief that President uh uh G had

[1:35:26] received. You can vote on fire lanes

[1:35:29] only on private ways.

[1:35:31] >> Does a fire lane have to be a certain

[1:35:32] width, a minimum width?

[1:35:35] >> Yeah, it has to accommodate

[1:35:36] >> I think it does. has to accommodate fire

[1:35:38] apparatus. That's correct. Yes.

[1:35:40] >> But I think there's a minimum width

[1:35:43] designation for that.

[1:35:45] >> That I'd have to defer to Chief Smith,

[1:35:49] but he couldn't get they did the sweep

[1:35:52] path analysis. I think uh uh Grace, we

[1:35:55] had passed that out. Uh when they did

[1:35:57] the study, the apparatus couldn't make

[1:35:59] the swing. And that's why he's

[1:36:01] recommending putting two fire lanes on

[1:36:04] both sides of Racko Street.

[1:36:06] And the council has the authority to

[1:36:08] vote that in.

[1:36:11] >> And I I appreciate your clarity, Bob.

[1:36:14] Repeat this for me again.

[1:36:17] >> Private way public access. That's how

[1:36:20] these roads are done.

[1:36:22] >> The city council has no authority to e

[1:36:26] to say no parking, residentonly parking,

[1:36:30] anything. The only authority we have is

[1:36:32] to designate a fire lane.

[1:36:34] >> That's correct. So, we need to review

[1:36:36] all these residentonly parking areas

[1:36:39] they've just put up, right? If they're a

[1:36:42] public way, private way, public access,

[1:36:45] we don't have that authority.

[1:36:47] >> Going back uh councelor Paige before

[1:36:49] your time, I think, and I brought this

[1:36:51] to councelor Mhad's attention, we set up

[1:36:55] a couple years ago, we have 44 uh

[1:36:58] resident sticker parking only streets in

[1:37:00] the city. on the private ones. There was

[1:37:04] like 18 private ones. We had no

[1:37:05] authority. So, anybody got a ticket,

[1:37:07] >> how would it challenge that? Anybody got

[1:37:10] a ticket, they could come back. A matter

[1:37:12] of fact, I asked for how many citations

[1:37:14] were issued? Over 3,000 citations. Now,

[1:37:18] think about it. 3,000 times, chief.

[1:37:20] $100. What? $100? Think about that.

[1:37:24] 3,000 times $100 the city took and

[1:37:28] really didn't have the authority to do

[1:37:30] that. Okay, that's

[1:37:31] >> you sound like you have a real handle on

[1:37:33] this, Bob. We need the traffic

[1:37:35] commission to look at all these

[1:37:37] >> private way public access roads and if

[1:37:40] we're in violation,

[1:37:42] we need that addressed,

[1:37:44] >> right? I have a list of all the streets,

[1:37:46] public streets, private streets in the

[1:37:48] city. In order to regulate no parking,

[1:37:51] take it a step further, to regulate and

[1:37:54] for all the counselor's benefits, to

[1:37:56] regulate no parking or private ways, we

[1:37:58] have to have 60% of the residents sign a

[1:38:01] petition to come before the city

[1:38:03] council. Okay, Scott, we've gone through

[1:38:06] this many times. 60% of the residents on

[1:38:10] a private way on a private way petitions

[1:38:13] to council, then you can vote for no

[1:38:15] parking. But we can't unilaterally like

[1:38:18] Mike said back then I guarantee they

[1:38:21] didn't have we can look at the records

[1:38:22] we didn't have 60% of the residents that

[1:38:25] said okay make it no parking they didn't

[1:38:28] >> no parking is one area above does it

[1:38:31] also apply to residentonly parking

[1:38:35] >> which

[1:38:36] >> yes can on a private way public access

[1:38:40] can the council regulate residentonly

[1:38:43] parking

[1:38:44] >> not on a not on a private

[1:38:46] No, but again, that would be something I

[1:38:48] would defer to Suzanne Egan on that.

[1:38:51] >> If it's a pri if it's a private road to

[1:38:54] Radcliffe Street.

[1:38:55] >> Yeah, tonight we're talking fire lane.

[1:38:57] >> Yeah, fire lanes also,

[1:38:58] >> which you have the authority to do,

[1:39:00] councelor Paige.

[1:39:01] >> Councelor Grace,

[1:39:02] >> um I have a question for councelor

[1:39:03] Mhmard. Sorry. Um this was it came into

[1:39:07] your wheelhouse, I want to say 2019. Am

[1:39:10] I correct with that? And the reason that

[1:39:13] this was all brought forward was

[1:39:14] originally um because of the Maslos

[1:39:17] having difficulty backing out of their

[1:39:19] driveway. That's what I read in all the

[1:39:21] documentation that we were sent. Um is

[1:39:24] that correct?

[1:39:25] >> Um so I I've been working with Jake and

[1:39:28] Karen Maslo for at least 11 years on

[1:39:32] these matters. um and their concerns

[1:39:34] about egress from their parking lot

[1:39:37] based on people parking behind the no

[1:39:39] parking here to the corner sign as Jake

[1:39:42] was describing. Um

[1:39:46] there is an a pre-existing fire lane on

[1:39:49] the Maslo's side of the street. There

[1:39:52] was some issue about the signage for

[1:39:54] that. People didn't want all the signage

[1:39:55] that was there. And so the Maslos took

[1:39:58] down one no parking sign, fire lane sign

[1:40:01] in order to enlarge their driveway,

[1:40:03] removing parking that they had

[1:40:04] pre-existing on the Fremont side of

[1:40:06] their property. Uh, as I said, it's been

[1:40:08] placed on a fire pole. Now, um, but yes,

[1:40:13] it goes back to a parking issue. Um the

[1:40:17] fire lane fire safety issue was not

[1:40:20] paramount 11 years ago in the

[1:40:21] conversations that I had with Jake and

[1:40:23] Karen. Uh again, we've had extensive

[1:40:26] conversations back and forth. Um this

[1:40:29] has been a concern of theirs. I've been

[1:40:31] in their kitchen and discussed it and

[1:40:32] gone over the various ordinances working

[1:40:35] with Bob. Um

[1:40:38] I Yes.

[1:40:40] So, I'm trying to get to the bottom of

[1:40:42] what happened to the original Firelane

[1:40:44] signs. Um, I've asked [clears throat]

[1:40:46] the question three times and I've gotten

[1:40:48] a different answer all three times. So,

[1:40:50] I want to know definitively what

[1:40:52] happened to the original fire lane

[1:40:55] signs. Who removed them? Who gave orth

[1:40:58] authorization for them to be removed?

[1:41:00] Are you do you know any of the history

[1:41:01] behind that?

[1:41:02] >> I do.

[1:41:03] >> Care to share? uh at the end of

[1:41:04] Rackcliffe Street is the home that

[1:41:06] Carolyn Okconor previously occupied with

[1:41:08] her husband Bill. Their son Bill O'Conor

[1:41:11] Jr. uh was concerned about enforcing the

[1:41:14] fire lane on the

[1:41:17] Maslo's side so that his mother had

[1:41:19] access to emergency vehicles. Uh he was

[1:41:21] quite upset when he witnessed and

[1:41:24] recorded on his

[1:41:27] Door Dash, whatever it's called, camera

[1:41:29] uh the Maslos and one of their neighbors

[1:41:31] removing and vandalizing an existing

[1:41:34] sign in their driveway to remove a no

[1:41:37] parking fire lane sign which was then

[1:41:39] put in their backyard.

[1:41:40] >> So it wasn't Director Hail that

[1:41:42] >> uh I Mike has some has had some

[1:41:45] frustrations with this issue and I can't

[1:41:47] speak for him.

[1:41:49] Thank you,

[1:41:50] >> Council Grace. Can I just mention

[1:41:52] there's a fire lane sign there with

[1:41:54] arrows

[1:41:54] >> today, right? We did the site. We saw

[1:41:56] those signs.

[1:41:57] >> Interesting. Okay. But it's originally

[1:42:00] there were signs on Raglift that already

[1:42:02] had fire lanes established and those

[1:42:04] were moved.

[1:42:05] >> Okay. Again, without going back in

[1:42:08] history,

[1:42:09] >> concern with safety going forward. If

[1:42:11] something were to happen, fire trucks

[1:42:13] can't get down there, what do we do?

[1:42:15] It's going to have to be answered

[1:42:16] somehow. Uh, but you know, again, I

[1:42:19] should I think it should be filing.

[1:42:21] >> I absolutely respect that, but I think

[1:42:23] that we need to have 100% honesty about

[1:42:25] what happened to those original signs.

[1:42:27] >> Okay. Okay.

[1:42:28] >> No, no, no, no, no.

[1:42:32] >> I'm all set. Okay.

[1:42:34] >> She She asked the question of you

[1:42:36] already and then she Thank you, Bob.

[1:42:44] Battle.

[1:42:50] microphone. Rene,

[1:42:59] » I'm I'm Renee Sarapin. I live on WY

[1:43:01] Street. The interesting part when we

[1:43:02] were looking into this research was this

[1:43:05] group when the Rockaway was turning from

[1:43:07] a hotel into a condominium,

[1:43:10] uh, Mrs. Nut Brown, Tony's mother,

[1:43:13] organized the community

[1:43:15] Carolyn Okona brought the city council

[1:43:18] in to so that everybody in this

[1:43:20] community was satisfied that we were

[1:43:22] safe and they the words they use I want

[1:43:25] you to I should have got this to you

[1:43:26] sooner but the words they use is um

[1:43:31] well no not that one safety and safety is well safety and fire whatever

[1:43:36] the big word is. So on every street on on our neighborhood has we have the

[1:43:43] same sign that they talk about Miss

[1:43:45] Evan. We have a fire lane on one right

[1:43:47] side and fire lane on the left. They

[1:43:49] don't go all the way down the street.

[1:43:51] And no matter what you put on that

[1:43:53] street, the fire truck on Wy Street

[1:43:54] could never get down because we don't

[1:43:56] have that other street. We are just a

[1:43:58] street and then a wall. So this I mean

[1:44:00] they do tricks to get around and they do

[1:44:02] a great job. But everyone in my street

[1:44:04] because of these women and and this city

[1:44:07] council that came to to Rocky Neck and

[1:44:09] set it all up so that there everybody

[1:44:11] was safe in this area that there were

[1:44:13] fire lanes, people could get in and

[1:44:15] there was some parking because she

[1:44:16] states right here and this is says

[1:44:19] parking is premium

[1:44:23] headache in Rocky Neck forever since

[1:44:25] 1982. And Mr. Ryan mentions their

[1:44:27] parking lot down in Rocky Neck. If I

[1:44:30] come home from work, I could never get a

[1:44:32] parking spot in there. Everybody in the

[1:44:34] neighborhood uses that, not just Rocky

[1:44:36] Neck. It's a wonderful spot. We're all

[1:44:37] lucky to have it, but it's not just for

[1:44:40] the Rocky Neck people. You can find

[1:44:41] trucks there for months at a time. The

[1:44:44] strong the park the two parking spots

[1:44:46] they're talking about only used probably

[1:44:48] on big weekends. I don't see cars there.

[1:44:50] But when you brought up the situation of

[1:44:52] that construction truck the other day,

[1:44:54] right in the in the spot they're talking

[1:44:56] about, there was a construction truck

[1:44:57] right there. It wasn't a big one, but it

[1:44:59] wasn't a small one, but he had to park

[1:45:00] there to do work wherever he was doing

[1:45:02] work. So, um,

[1:45:04] >> to wrap it up because

[1:45:05] >> done, but I just wanted to know that

[1:45:07] this these people took the whole

[1:45:09] community and the city council and they

[1:45:11] all made it safe for all of us.

[1:45:14] >> Thank you.

[1:45:21] » Okay, more questions.

[1:45:26] Close public hearing.

[1:45:30] Okay. Committee recommendation.

[1:45:33] Any recommendation and a motion by

[1:45:35] council, seconded by council gra

[1:45:37] ordinance administration committee voted

[1:45:39] three in favor, zero opposed to

[1:45:41] recommend that city council amend the

[1:45:42] colostrum chapter 22 traffic and motor

[1:45:45] vehicle section 22 through 292 fire

[1:45:48] lanes by deleting rackliff street wing

[1:45:51] side from the intersection from Fremont

[1:45:52] Street in a southern direction for

[1:45:55] entirety length for it entire length to

[1:45:57] dead end by add street both sides from

[1:45:59] it intersection with Fremont Street in a

[1:46:01] southern direction for it entire length

[1:46:03] to dead end and I so move.

[1:46:06] >> Second.

[1:46:06] >> Motion made by council major, second by

[1:46:08] councelor Graves. Discussion,

[1:46:12] » council major

[1:46:14] and um I know in O and I I I did vote in

[1:46:17] favor and I'm not sure which way and I I

[1:46:20] ultimately respect Bob Ryan and the

[1:46:22] chief and the and the fire department

[1:46:25] based on their recommendation and that's

[1:46:28] what why I voted the way I did in ORNA.

[1:46:30] But it was great to see both sides. I

[1:46:32] know the gentleman O and was not able to

[1:46:34] speak um in the OA OA. So I'm glad you

[1:46:37] actually showed up here to speak and it

[1:46:39] was just good listening um to you. Thank

[1:46:43] you,

[1:46:45] >> Grace.

[1:46:45] >> Um I just want to state that I I always always believe that safety is

[1:46:51] paramount and safety is number one.

[1:46:54] However, that being said, I think it

[1:46:56] needs to be said out of respect for Mr.

[1:46:57] to delever and for Gail Saraphene and

[1:47:00] Ray Saraphene and anybody else that

[1:47:02] lives in that neighborhood that this did

[1:47:04] not start out as a safety issue. This

[1:47:07] started out as a neighborhood dispute

[1:47:09] and it morphed into a safety issue when

[1:47:11] people did not get the results that they

[1:47:13] wanted. I granted it is history but it

[1:47:17] is important and I think that the people

[1:47:19] that are in opposition to this need to

[1:47:21] have the validation that that they are

[1:47:23] not wrong in what they feel and I

[1:47:28] think that we need to be honest about

[1:47:30] things and this did not start out as a

[1:47:33] safety issue. It is a safety issue now

[1:47:35] and because the fire department did

[1:47:36] their safety report on this, I have the

[1:47:39] greatest respect for Chief Smith. Um,

[1:47:42] and and I understand why we are here

[1:47:44] tonight. However, I still think that it

[1:47:48] needs to be noted that this did not

[1:47:50] start out as a safety issue. It morphed

[1:47:52] into one when the results, desired

[1:47:54] result was not obtained six or seven

[1:47:56] years ago. Thank you,

[1:48:01] » Paige.

[1:48:08] There are so many streets in our

[1:48:10] community that are inadequate.

[1:48:14] in ways of size, inadequate

[1:48:18] in ways of dead ends where safety

[1:48:22] vehicles cannot turn around. Sometimes

[1:48:25] there's new developments that are built

[1:48:30] and literally the developers get away

[1:48:32] with the lack of turnarounds for these

[1:48:36] safety vehicles.

[1:48:38] Um I

[1:48:41] don't know that, you know, we should

[1:48:43] assess every road like this. It's difficult. Um

[1:48:55] Again, I do think these things become a

[1:48:58] slippery slope. I've seen all just just

[1:49:01] as an analogy, I've seen one

[1:49:04] neighborhood after another after another

[1:49:06] go for residentonly parking. And I even

[1:49:11] question whether the state of

[1:49:14] Massachusetts would agree with that once

[1:49:16] they, you know, they pave these streets.

[1:49:17] Sometimes they're public roads. They're

[1:49:20] supposed to be open to the public.

[1:49:24] I understand that the tightness of this

[1:49:26] area. I've I've visited there. I I I

[1:49:29] know the area fairly well.

[1:49:33] I think that there could be other

[1:49:35] workarounds on this particular street

[1:49:37] for parking.

[1:49:44] » Which would ensure safety.

[1:49:48] Just following up. Um, again, I've I've

[1:49:51] worked with this issue uh in the Maslos

[1:49:53] and the neighbors for a long time. I am

[1:49:55] very concerned about the precedent of

[1:49:56] other similar streets. I'm very happy to

[1:50:00] maintain a fire lane on the one side

[1:50:02] that exists, but I'm concerned that by

[1:50:05] adding a second fire lane on the

[1:50:06] opposite side of this particular street,

[1:50:09] we're creating a hardship uh for very

[1:50:12] valuable uh parking resources in this

[1:50:15] neighborhood. and pre from a pres from a

[1:50:18] point of view of precedence in other

[1:50:20] communities we're setting in other

[1:50:21] neighborhoods and similar smallcale

[1:50:24] streets. So I've made the motion and

[1:50:26] brought it to the uh the subcommittee on

[1:50:29] behalf of the Maslos. However, I would

[1:50:31] not myself personally behing

[1:50:34] it.

[1:50:36] >> Thank you.

[1:50:39] What else?

[1:50:41] >> There a way for it to be amended to have

[1:50:43] a fire lane on one side? there is

[1:50:49] » um

[1:50:52] yeah I mean I'm I'm looking at you know

[1:50:54] the map of the area right now and

[1:50:58] every street around it on Rocky Neck and

[1:51:01] I'm very familiar with Rocky Neck um

[1:51:04] and uh it's you know you should have

[1:51:09] seen it when the Rockway was going. Um,

[1:51:12] talk about parking. Uh,

[1:51:15] but the Rockaway when it was a hotel and

[1:51:20] bar.

[1:51:21] Uh,

[1:51:23] but this would have a couple of effects.

[1:51:28] they would have us um if we create that

[1:51:31] on this street for that particular

[1:51:34] reason then we would be negligent in our

[1:51:38] duties to not create it on every street

[1:51:40] that was similar

[1:51:42] and that's just not a possibility that

[1:51:43] we can do um

[1:51:46] so while I understand that everyone on

[1:51:49] this street has a driveway I can see it

[1:51:51] on the map um some goodiz driveways

[1:51:56] it uh And there is a I mean there's a

[1:51:59] really good turnaround down the end. I

[1:52:01] think that's probably a private

[1:52:02] driveway, but it's pretty sizable.

[1:52:05] Um

[1:52:07] it's a it's a pretty sizable driveway.

[1:52:11] Um

[1:52:14] but you're not going to get an engine.

[1:52:15] An engine's going to back down there no

[1:52:16] matter what. Um that's what the the

[1:52:19] lieutenant of the fire department told

[1:52:21] us when he was we were at the site

[1:52:22] visit. they would either come straight

[1:52:24] down the one way, the wrong way,

[1:52:27] um is how they would get down there. Um

[1:52:31] so we I mean if we did it here, we'd

[1:52:33] have to do a Wy Street, we'd have to do

[1:52:35] a Fremont Street, have to look up at

[1:52:36] Clarinon Street. Um you know, it's just

[1:52:40] the whole the whole area is is and then

[1:52:44] we have all of downtown which is just

[1:52:46] filled with these these streets where

[1:52:49] people have no choice but to parking the

[1:52:51] street.

[1:52:52] Um they're very fortunate in this

[1:52:54] neighborhood. Um majority of them on WY

[1:52:58] Street they have parking the hotel or

[1:53:01] the uh the condos now is parking

[1:53:03] underneath although I'm sure there's

[1:53:04] still over there. My also my concern is

[1:53:07] the trades people um you know because

[1:53:10] they are and we see them everywhere now.

[1:53:13] Um

[1:53:14] and for some reason we're still in a um

[1:53:18] a renovation boom um in these types of

[1:53:21] neighborhoods which are causing you know

[1:53:24] a lot of vehicles extra vehicles to be

[1:53:26] in a in a very tight neighborhood.

[1:53:31] So, while I I absolutely sympathize and

[1:53:33] understand the reason why, I still I

[1:53:36] have those concerns that any that this will be just pushed

[1:53:42] further out. And I know it's just two

[1:53:44] parking spaces, but I tell you, two

[1:53:47] parking spaces on on

[1:53:50] a Rocky Neck are very precious. So,

[1:53:53] anyway, those are my concerns.

[1:53:56] If it does go forward, I would like to

[1:53:59] have something

[1:54:00] added to it that if there is um a push

[1:54:05] out of parking that that does have a

[1:54:08] negative effect on the rest of the

[1:54:09] neighborhood that we should be uh

[1:54:11] notified about that different action if

[1:54:14] this does move forward.

[1:54:16] >> Thank you. Also, Grace,

[1:54:18] >> would we benefit from um postponing a

[1:54:22] vote on this to have more um discussion

[1:54:26] about the other roads around it and and

[1:54:28] do some comparison for the widths of the

[1:54:30] road is if we've only looked at

[1:54:32] Ratcliffe and um what we've been told by

[1:54:36] the residents of the other roads that

[1:54:37] they their roads are just as narrow and

[1:54:39] the problem exists there. So, I would

[1:54:42] entertain a motion to continue this um

[1:54:45] for further research.

[1:54:47] >> I think I think the only purpose that

[1:54:49] would serve as if we were going to make

[1:54:51] them no parking also.

[1:54:57] Is there a way to almost to

[1:55:00] temporary

[1:55:02] to postpone and to do a temporary fire

[1:55:05] lane to see what the results will be for

[1:55:07] like a month test period? I'm not sure

[1:55:09] if that's within our ordinance, but can

[1:55:10] that area be blocked

[1:55:14] um legally with the DPW or whoever or

[1:55:17] the chief police and then to see how

[1:55:19] then we can actually get more data from

[1:55:22] today until October 22nd or whatever.

[1:55:24] >> I think we have all the data. I don't

[1:55:27] think there's any more

[1:55:28] >> but the data this data will provide the no parking spots.

[1:55:32] >> Who's going to who's going to collect

[1:55:34] that? I'm just there's no there's no

[1:55:37] that I I can't see that that would

[1:55:40] >> solve anything other than, you know, um

[1:55:43] us not doing our job tonight.

[1:55:48] I would comment in response to councelor

[1:55:50] Maja's comment that the issue here is

[1:55:54] primarily during the summer season.

[1:55:55] We're talking about June, July, and

[1:55:57] August. Other than that, it's not really

[1:56:00] an issue like many parts of the city.

[1:56:09] I mean I we you know we all everybody

[1:56:12] got the letter from the chief didn't

[1:56:13] they I mean it's it was a while ago that came through six months eight

[1:56:18] months 10 months ago Bob was the letter

[1:56:21] came from Chief Smith Chief Smith's letter came

[1:56:26] quite a while ago

[1:56:39] post this morning. It just makes us not

[1:56:42] be doing what we're supposed to do.

[1:56:47] I make a motion to postpone and see if

[1:56:49] it passes. That's that's a

[1:56:52] >> I just I you know I just have I'm I have

[1:56:54] a hard time with this simply because as I've stated what what led us to this

[1:56:58] point that bothers me that we it morphed

[1:57:00] into something because the desired

[1:57:02] result was not not achieved. That being

[1:57:05] said there is a fire lane on one side.

[1:57:08] Lieutenant Sees was um at the site visit

[1:57:10] and he was like yeah we we will always

[1:57:13] get a fire truck down here because we

[1:57:15] will either go the wrong way down one

[1:57:16] street or it backs down. And I also said

[1:57:18] in OA that we set a precedent because

[1:57:21] there are dozens and dozens of streets

[1:57:23] within the city of Gloucester that this

[1:57:25] is a problem. You can walk in a half a

[1:57:27] mile radius around here and see it where

[1:57:30] the fire station is has this problem,

[1:57:33] you know, because the streets are so

[1:57:34] narrow, you know. So I think it does it creates a precedent. And if we do go

[1:57:39] forward with something like this, then

[1:57:41] we need to do the right thing, due

[1:57:43] diligence, and we need to look at every

[1:57:45] street in the city because it is unfair

[1:57:47] to say that it this this needs to be

[1:57:51] safe, but this one is okay because of

[1:57:54] whatever reason. I think we need to be

[1:57:56] fair across the board. And I don't and

[1:57:58] you know, I as I said, I'm on the fence

[1:58:00] about it. I I 100% respect the safety

[1:58:03] aspect of it. Um, but I also know I was

[1:58:06] there at the site visit and the

[1:58:07] questions that I asked and Lieutenant

[1:58:08] Seis who was there was was like, "Yeah,

[1:58:10] we get through these little streets all

[1:58:12] the time."

[1:58:16] » Paul question.

[1:58:25] I'm going to do a roll call.

[1:58:30] » Councelor Kimberly,

[1:58:31] >> no. Councelor Mota,

[1:58:36] >> no.

[1:58:37] >> Councelor Mehard,

[1:58:38] >> no.

[1:58:39] >> Councelor Paige,

[1:58:41] >> no.

[1:58:41] >> Councelor Benson,

[1:58:44] >> no.

[1:58:45] >> Councelor Grace,

[1:58:46] >> no.

[1:58:47] >> Councelor Gross,

[1:58:48] >> no.

[1:58:49] >> The vote is zero in favor, seven

[1:58:52] opposed, two absent. The motion um

[1:58:55] fails.

[1:58:59] » Next order to business. Madam cler

[1:59:15] um next is public hearing 2026 number 27

[1:59:19] council order 2026 number 10 majota

[1:59:22] amend GCO chapter 22 traffic and motor

[1:59:26] vehicles section 22-270

[1:59:28] parking prohibited at all times times in

[1:59:31] section 22-291

[1:59:32] towaway zones by adding Wheeler Street

[1:59:35] both sides from its intersection with

[1:59:37] Shore Hill Road to its intersection with

[1:59:39] Howard Road.

[1:59:42] >> We'll open the public hearing.

[1:59:45] >> Speaking of favor,

[1:59:47] >> um the I've been working certain people

[1:59:50] unfortunately they're not here. Um

[1:59:54] I would love to be able not saying that

[1:59:55] I'm not able to do my job. I will be

[1:59:57] able to postpone this for the next um

[2:00:00] meeting, Mr. President. Madame Clair,

[2:00:02] just so I can be able to have the

[2:00:04] resident here as well.

[2:00:06] >> Hey, um we take these up every quarter.

[2:00:09] That'll be postponed for three months.

[2:00:12] >> Fine with that.

[2:00:13] >> Okay.

[2:00:18] All right.

[2:00:20] So, we're continuing um till the

[2:00:24] December meeting, December 8th. Yes.

[2:00:27] Thank you. And I'll be able to get the

[2:00:28] people here as well.

[2:00:32] >> Next is public hearing 2026 number 28.

[2:00:35] Council order 2026 number 11. Benson

[2:00:38] amend GCO chapter 22 traffic and motor

[2:00:41] vehicles section 22-284

[2:00:44] service or loading zones by deleting

[2:00:46] Main Street Northerly side in front of

[2:00:48] number 134 one space 30 minutes limit

[2:00:52] and adding Main Street Northerly Side in

[2:00:54] front of number 124 one space commercial

[2:00:57] vehicles only 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 30

[2:01:00] minutes limit.

[2:01:02] >> Open the public hearing.

[2:01:05] Council Benson.

[2:01:06] >> Thank you. Um over the past several

[2:01:08] months, downtown business owners,

[2:01:10] particularly businesses in and around

[2:01:12] this part of Main Street, have raised

[2:01:13] concerns regarding the loading zone.

[2:01:16] Businesses have reported that delivery

[2:01:18] vehicles, including UPS, FedEx, and

[2:01:20] freight carriers, are frequently unable

[2:01:22] to access the space because it's

[2:01:24] occupied by passenger vehicles. Um,

[2:01:28] other concerns have have been raised

[2:01:30] that the current signage creates

[2:01:31] confusion for residents and visitors

[2:01:34] alike and obviously delivery vehicles.

[2:01:38] Um, this ordinance um does not clearly

[2:01:42] distinguish currently does not um

[2:01:44] distinguish between commercial and

[2:01:46] passenger vehicles. Um, again the

[2:01:48] ordinance simply makes the signage clear

[2:01:51] by specifying that these spaces are for

[2:01:54] commercial vehicles only. It's really a

[2:01:57] matter of housekeeping. Um following

[2:01:59] discussions with the Gloucester Police

[2:02:02] Department, DPW and the traffic

[2:02:04] commission, specifically um the chair

[2:02:07] here, um additional enforcement was

[2:02:09] implemented. However, um it was

[2:02:12] determined with discussions from the

[2:02:14] traffic um chair that the change um the

[2:02:17] language on the sign itself would

[2:02:19] require an ordinance amendment. Um they

[2:02:22] also um said that the ordinance referred

[2:02:25] to 134 Main Street while the existing

[2:02:28] sign is located in front of 124 Main

[2:02:31] Street um because of the physical layout

[2:02:33] of the street. Um this proposed or um

[2:02:36] ordinance amendment seeks to provide

[2:02:39] greater clarity for drivers and parking

[2:02:41] enforcement while ensuring downtown

[2:02:42] businesses can continue to receive

[2:02:45] deliveries in a timely manner. Um this

[2:02:48] reflects feedback from again business

[2:02:51] owners, the traffic commission, the

[2:02:53] police department and the DPW. Um I look

[2:02:56] um if you have any questions um please

[2:02:59] ask um but the businesses in and around

[2:03:02] the area um asked for this change

[2:03:04] specifically and this is a result of

[2:03:06] that. Thank you.

[2:03:07] >> Anyone else wish to speak in favor?

[2:03:13] » Anyone who like to you want to speak in

[2:03:15] favor? Go ahead.

[2:03:16] >> Sorry. since you stayed here. I was

[2:03:18] like, and you helped me with this

[2:03:19] because this was a confusing one.

[2:03:21] >> I'll just concur with uh Council uh

[2:03:24] Benson. Uh basically, we're cleaning up

[2:03:27] the order. Uh as Grace knows, the order

[2:03:30] read 134 Main Street. That was put in

[2:03:35] place, loading zone put in place long

[2:03:38] before the Nubbins. And the Nubbins have

[2:03:40] been there for a long time. Once they

[2:03:42] put in the Nubbins, we you couldn't

[2:03:44] unload and load there anymore. So, it's

[2:03:46] a matter of just moving it down two

[2:03:47] spaces, making it 124 Main Street. Also

[2:03:51] restricting it to certain hours of the

[2:03:53] day, leaving parking at night so people

[2:03:56] can utilize it as well.

[2:03:59] >> Any questions? I mean, cleaning up the

[2:04:02] >> be clear.

[2:04:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:04:04] >> Very good.

[2:04:07] >> Anyone to speak in opposition?

[2:04:10] >> We have any communicate?

[2:04:12] >> We do not.

[2:04:17] questions.

[2:04:21] No close public hearing.

[2:04:25] » Would you like to read the motion there?

[2:04:27] Council me committee recommendation on a

[2:04:29] motion by council grace, second by

[2:04:30] councelor Nolan. The ordinance

[2:04:33] administration committee voted two in

[2:04:34] favor, zero opposed, one absent to

[2:04:36] recommend the city council amends code

[2:04:39] of ordinance chapter 22 traffic and

[2:04:42] motor vehicle section 22 through 284

[2:04:45] service or loading zones by deleting

[2:04:46] main street northern side in front of

[2:04:49] 134 one space 30 minute and adding Main

[2:04:53] Street northern side in front of number

[2:04:56] 124 one space commercial vehicles only 8

[2:04:58] a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 30 minute limit and I

[2:05:01] so

[2:05:02] >> second

[2:05:03] >> motion made by councel mato seconded by

[2:05:04] councelor grace discussion

[2:05:08] seeing none all those in favor

[2:05:10] >> I post eyes have it seven to zero one

[2:05:13] absent

[2:05:16] next order business madam clerk

[2:05:20] >> public hearing 2026 number 29 council

[2:05:22] order 2026 number 15 memard amend GCO

[2:05:26] chapter 22 traffic and motor vehicles

[2:05:28] section 22 2-279 30 minute parking by

[2:05:32] deleting Eastern Avenue in front of

[2:05:34] number 18 between the hours of 8 a.m.

[2:05:36] and 5:00 p.m. in the area beginning at

[2:05:39] pole number 2741 on the westerly side in

[2:05:42] a southerntherly direction for 36 ft two

[2:05:45] 30 minute parking spaces clearly

[2:05:47] delineated.

[2:05:50] >> Open the public hearing.

[2:05:52] >> Those speaking in favor?

[2:05:54] >> Again, this would be a matter of largely

[2:05:56] housekeeping. Uh there was a commercial

[2:05:59] business on the corner here, the

[2:06:00] Florists, which has been out of business

[2:06:02] for a number of years. So we would we're

[2:06:04] proposing to remove the uh uh reserved

[2:06:08] parking uh for the business and making

[2:06:11] it available to uh the residents in the

[2:06:14] neighborhood.

[2:06:17] » Thank you. Anyone else speak in favor?

[2:06:21] [laughter]

[2:06:22] >> You're here.

[2:06:24] >> I should have brought my roller skates.

[2:06:26] [laughter]

[2:06:27] Uh concur with uh council mead. I was

[2:06:30] getting phone calls. Why do we have 30

[2:06:32] minute parking on east? And uh I said

[2:06:37] can't guess why any of the florists went

[2:06:39] out. Russell's florist went out and I

[2:06:41] said why don't we uh remove the signs

[2:06:43] and I contacted Scott to have them taken

[2:06:45] out of there. Leave room for residents

[2:06:48] in the area. That's all.

[2:06:50] >> Very good. Thank you.

[2:06:53] » Anyone else in favor? Anyone like to

[2:06:56] speak in opposition?

[2:06:59] Seeing none.

[2:07:02] Um,

[2:07:03] communications.

[2:07:05] >> There are none

[2:07:07] >> questions.

[2:07:10] No close public hearing.

[2:07:13] Majo, would you please read the uh call

[2:07:15] me committee?

[2:07:16] >> Committee recommendation on a motion by

[2:07:18] council grace. Second by council no one

[2:07:20] is administration committee board. Two

[2:07:21] in favor, zero opposed, one absent. To

[2:07:23] recommend that city council amend the

[2:07:25] clause report chapter 22, traffic motor

[2:07:27] vehicle section 22 through 279 30-minute

[2:07:30] parking by deleting Eastern Avenue in

[2:07:32] front of number 18 between the hours of

[2:07:34] 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the area

[2:07:36] beginning at pole number

[2:07:39] 2741 on the western side in the southern

[2:07:42] direction for 36 ft. Two 30 minute

[2:07:44] parking spaces. Clearly,

[2:07:48] what is that?

[2:07:51] Can I

[2:07:52] >> second us?

[2:07:55] >> Motion made by council me, seconded by

[2:07:57] councelor Grace. Discussion.

[2:08:01] » Seeing none. All those in favor?

[2:08:03] >> I opposed. Let's have it. 7 to zero to

[2:08:06] absent. Next order. Business. Madam

[2:08:08] clerk.

[2:08:09] >> Public hearing 2026 number 30. Council

[2:08:11] order 2026 number 20. Gross. Amen. GCO

[2:08:15] chapter 22 traffic and motor vehicles

[2:08:17] section 22-270

[2:08:19] parking prohibited at all times and

[2:08:21] section 22-291 towaway zones by deleting

[2:08:25] no parking at 127 Roger Street for 25 ft

[2:08:28] in a southerntherly direction from the

[2:08:30] northern crosswalk. No parking at 128

[2:08:33] Roger Street or 25 ft in a

[2:08:35] southerntherly direction from the

[2:08:36] northern crosswalk and in a northerly

[2:08:38] direction from the same northern

[2:08:40] crosswalk to corner of Gorton's parking

[2:08:42] lot entrance at 128 Roger Street and

[2:08:45] adding no parking at 128 Roger Street

[2:08:48] for 100 ft in a northerly direction from

[2:08:50] the southern crosswalk to corner of

[2:08:52] Gorton's parking lot entrance at 128

[2:08:54] Roger Street and no parking at 127 Roger

[2:08:58] Street for 110 ft in a southern

[2:09:00] direction from the lot entrance to the

[2:09:02] trailer truck only parking zone.

[2:09:06] >> Hello the public hearing speaking in

[2:09:09] favor that'll be me. We uh we had a

[2:09:12] meeting at with at Gorton's about safety

[2:09:15] on uh Roger Street and it was a pretty

[2:09:20] uh robust discussion about the entire

[2:09:22] length of Roger Street going from you

[2:09:25] know Tally's Corner down to the lights

[2:09:27] and even beyond. And um but one of the

[2:09:31] things that came out of this was that

[2:09:34] right in front of Gorton's there still

[2:09:36] been some near misses even with the the

[2:09:39] um extended with the no parking areas

[2:09:41] that we made by the crosswalks before.

[2:09:44] So with the suggestion of uh Chairman

[2:09:47] Ryan, you know, we moved it out to 100

[2:09:49] feet on one side and 110 feet on the

[2:09:51] other side. And uh and so that's and the only people that this affects is

[2:09:56] Gortons themselves. and they are

[2:09:59] handling it will handle their parking

[2:10:01] issues internally. So it's not

[2:10:03] displacing anyone. No businesses, no

[2:10:06] there's nothing that gets affected by

[2:10:08] this other than themselves.

[2:10:11] Um so that's it. I don't know. Do you

[2:10:13] have anything you would like to say,

[2:10:14] Chairman Ryan or Chief Chief Williams

[2:10:17] was also in this meeting as well as the

[2:10:19] administration? Um Senator Tar,

[2:10:22] Representative Tar.

[2:10:24] >> Yes. Uh

[2:10:27] >> yeah. uh meeting took place at Gorton's

[2:10:29] uh headquarters, what it was called, the

[2:10:32] safety meeting. Uh we had uh the council

[2:10:34] president, uh the police chief, myself,

[2:10:38] councelor Grace, uh we had uh Bruce Tar,

[2:10:43] Drew Tar, uh Kelly from the mayor's

[2:10:46] office, uh quite a panel and uh round

[2:10:49] table throwing out ideas before we

[2:10:52] conduct. And uh Mr. President, you can

[2:10:56] just about a safety uh study that we're

[2:10:59] going to put in motion. We're going to

[2:11:00] put a safety study in motion. Uh they

[2:11:02] did one over in Raleigh recently. Uh but

[2:11:06] again, there's been a lot of near misses

[2:11:08] there. We had a fatality down by the

[2:11:09] senior center not too long ago. Uh and

[2:11:13] the whole idea talking to the Gorton

[2:11:15] people, I thought it was great. Uh they

[2:11:17] have four parking lots. They can

[2:11:19] accommodate over 400 cars per shift. I

[2:11:22] wrote it down. Per shift. They have uh 260 employees. So I mean there's

[2:11:27] adequate parking and the cars that were

[2:11:30] parked just before the crosswalks for

[2:11:32] line of vision or sight of vision. I

[2:11:35] passed out a few photos either

[2:11:37] Silverados, Taho, Suburbans, and they

[2:11:40] all work in the plant. So the idea was

[2:11:43] put the word out, make it no parking

[2:11:45] registry. Let them park in the parking

[2:11:47] lot more than enough space. So, we're

[2:11:50] not displacing the general public,

[2:11:52] tourists. Those are the people that are

[2:11:54] employed at Gorton's and Gorton

[2:11:56] accommodates them. So, uh this is a

[2:11:59] start to make it much safer there.

[2:12:01] They've tried all kinds of things, but I

[2:12:02] think, you know, with the 100 foot line

[2:12:05] of sight, I think it's going to help

[2:12:07] out. Okay.

[2:12:09] >> Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Um also, it it doesn't eliminate any of the

[2:12:14] tractor trailer parking on Roger Street

[2:12:15] either. It stops before that.

[2:12:19] Um, anyone

[2:12:20] >> remind Oh, sorry. You didn't say

[2:12:23] questions yet, so I apologize.

[2:12:24] >> No, we still have to see if anybody's in

[2:12:27] opposition of it.

[2:12:28] >> Sorry.

[2:12:29] >> Anybody speaking in opposition?

[2:12:32] No one online. Do what want who has

[2:12:34] their hand raised? Um, communications.

[2:12:38] >> There are none.

[2:12:40] >> Okay. Questions from councils.

[2:12:43] >> Yeah, thank you. Um, and thank you for

[2:12:44] bringing this forward as I was unable.

[2:12:46] Fortunately, you were out of town.

[2:12:48] >> I I was unfortunate and I did try to

[2:12:50] join this the the the team's meeting. Um

[2:12:54] and it didn't work. But anyway, um just

[2:12:57] can you just remind me how many spots

[2:13:00] we're going to that will be lost from

[2:13:01] this? Is it just

[2:13:03] >> It's just two, right?

[2:13:06] >> Like four.

[2:13:08] >> Four spots. Okay.

[2:13:10] >> Yeah, I have the photo. That's why I

[2:13:11] like it. So, four

[2:13:17] Yep. Yeah. And and it was worth that you

[2:13:21] reminding that these spots were like

[2:13:24] businesses like people were going to the

[2:13:26] cruise port. Those aren't the people

[2:13:27] parking here. So that's important to

[2:13:29] note as well and I appreciate you noting

[2:13:31] that. So um no, that's that's all I had

[2:13:33] and I will be supporting this and I

[2:13:34] appreciate you bringing this forward.

[2:13:37] >> Paige,

[2:13:38] >> I do have a question. Is Gorton's

[2:13:40] running 247 now or do they have hours? I

[2:13:43] think they're on a two shifts. I'm not

[2:13:45] sure.

[2:13:45] >> Two shifts.

[2:13:46] >> Yeah.

[2:13:47] >> Is it valuable to

[2:13:50] put an end time on this at the end of

[2:13:52] their shift so that at night people

[2:13:54] could use it?

[2:13:55] >> Morning shifts. I I don't think

[2:13:58] >> I think that could lead to still a

[2:14:00] public safety issue. I think eliminating

[2:14:02] them completely is public safety.

[2:14:04] >> They could they could at some point go

[2:14:05] to three shifts again.

[2:14:06] >> Yeah.

[2:14:07] >> That's fine. People start eating a lot

[2:14:09] of

[2:14:11] >> McDonald's fish.

[2:14:12] McFish sandwiches.

[2:14:15] >> We can hope.

[2:14:16] >> Donald.

[2:14:21] Any other questions from the counselors?

[2:14:26] » All those in favor?

[2:14:29] >> Oh, I got to close the public hearing.

[2:14:31] >> And you got to read the uh

[2:14:32] >> Council Grace has got to read this one.

[2:14:34] >> Oh, Council Grace,

[2:14:34] >> she can make the motion.

[2:14:35] >> Sorry,

[2:14:36] >> I got ahead of myself.

[2:14:38] >> Are we going to have a discussion or we

[2:14:39] going straight to the motion? Great. Oh,

[2:14:42] you go straight to the motion, then we

[2:14:43] have discussion.

[2:14:43] >> Okay. Um, committee recommendation on a

[2:14:46] motion by myself, councelor Grace,

[2:14:48] seconded by council me. The ordinance

[2:14:50] and administration committee voted three

[2:14:51] in favor, zero opposed to recommend that

[2:14:53] the city council amend the Glouster code

[2:14:55] of ordinances chapter 22 traffic and

[2:14:57] motor vehicles as follows. Amend section

[2:15:00] 22-270

[2:15:02] parking prohibited at all times and

[2:15:04] section 22-291

[2:15:06] towaway zones by deleting no parking at

[2:15:09] Roger Street for 25 ft in the

[2:15:11] southerntherly direction from the

[2:15:12] northern crosswalk. No parking at 128

[2:15:15] Roger Street for 25 ft in the

[2:15:17] southerntherly direction from the

[2:15:18] northern crosswalk and in the northerly

[2:15:20] direction from the same northern

[2:15:22] crosswalk to the corner to corner of

[2:15:24] Gordon's parking lot entrance at 128

[2:15:26] Roger Street. adding no parking at 128

[2:15:30] Roger Street for 100 ft in a northerly

[2:15:32] direction from the southern crosswalk to

[2:15:35] corner of Gordon's parking lot entrance

[2:15:38] at 128 Roger Street. No parking at 127

[2:15:41] Roger Street for 110 ft in the southern

[2:15:44] direction from the lot entrance to the

[2:15:45] trailer truck only parking zone. And I

[2:15:48] so move

[2:15:49] >> second motion made by councelor Grace,

[2:15:51] second by council meter. Discussion

[2:15:54] council Grace.

[2:15:55] >> Thanks. Um yeah, this this impacts

[2:15:58] nobody but Gorton's and Gordon is the

[2:16:00] one that brought this forward. They

[2:16:01] reached out to me um as did Chief

[2:16:03] Williams and um Mr. Ryan months and months, I want to say

[2:16:08] probably more than a year ago about

[2:16:10] getting to get to if we could do some

[2:16:12] sort of a meeting about this. Um and it

[2:16:14] finally happened, you know, a few weeks

[2:16:16] ago. Um you know, there's no residences

[2:16:19] there. there's no other businesses that

[2:16:20] are affected and Gordon's brought this

[2:16:23] forward and the only one that's affected

[2:16:25] by it is Gordon. So I think that in you

[2:16:27] know we've already lost one person um

[2:16:30] and we've had many many near misses

[2:16:32] there and I think that um to prevent

[2:16:35] another tragedy from happening it's the

[2:16:37] right move. That's it.

[2:16:41] >> Anyone else?

[2:16:44] >> All those in favor? I opposed.

[2:16:48] Passes seven to zero with two absent.

[2:16:51] Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman

[2:16:54] Ryan and Chief Williams

[2:16:58] and Barnaby for hanging around

[2:17:03] » and Mary

[2:17:06] um for next order business. Madam clerk,

[2:17:10] >> council vote memorandum from the city

[2:17:12] clerk requesting to reduce early voting

[2:17:14] hours for the first week of early voting

[2:17:16] for the November 3rd, 2026 state

[2:17:18] election.

[2:17:23] Okay.

[2:17:25] Did I make this motion?

[2:17:28] Somebody else should make the motion.

[2:17:32] U motion move to reduce the early voting

[2:17:35] hours for the first week of early voting

[2:17:38] for the November 3rd, 2026 state

[2:17:40] election. And I so move.

[2:17:43] >> Second.

[2:17:44] >> Motion made by Council Benson, seconded

[2:17:45] by Councelor Paige. Madame Clerk, would

[2:17:48] you like to um address your reasoning

[2:17:50] for with this request?

[2:17:53] >> Sure. The state um state law allows the

[2:17:57] early voting period to be reduced by 50%

[2:18:01] with a vote of the city council for the

[2:18:03] first week of early voting. We're

[2:18:04] required to have two weeks of early

[2:18:06] voting, including two weekend days

[2:18:08] leading up to a state um election. So,

[2:18:13] ever since this law has been in effect,

[2:18:16] um the city clerk's office has requested

[2:18:18] from the city council to reduce the

[2:18:21] hours for early voting on the first

[2:18:24] week. It does um honestly alleviate a

[2:18:28] burden on staff um to enable us to be

[2:18:32] able to focus on the high volume of vote

[2:18:34] by mail that we are processing. Um I was

[2:18:37] able to pull some numbers. I'm sorry I'm

[2:18:39] not more prepared for this, but um I I

[2:18:42] pulled the 2024 numbers.

[2:18:45] In September 2024, the September state

[2:18:49] primary um there were 77 inerson early

[2:18:53] voters. And in November, there were

[2:18:55] 2,238

[2:18:58] for vote by mail for those same

[2:19:00] elections. Um, in September we mailed

[2:19:05] out 4,605

[2:19:07] vote by mail ballots and received back

[2:19:09] 2,693.

[2:19:11] And for the state election in November,

[2:19:14] we mailed out 8,662

[2:19:17] ballots and received back 7,969.

[2:19:21] So you can see there is a high volume um

[2:19:24] of work that goes on in the office to

[2:19:28] process those. um we have to be very

[2:19:31] diligent with that. All applications

[2:19:33] have to be entered manually. Signatures

[2:19:35] have to be verified against the returned

[2:19:37] ballots to the applications. Um so

[2:19:40] there's just a lot of focus and

[2:19:41] attention on the from the clerk's office

[2:19:44] on that process. So having a week where

[2:19:47] we're really dealing with just for half

[2:19:50] of the time dealing with the the early

[2:19:52] voting, it does help us. I have not

[2:19:56] received any complaints from voters in

[2:19:58] the past that the first week had reduced

[2:20:01] hours. Um, you know, I think two weeks

[2:20:05] leading up to election day does provide

[2:20:07] people with ample opportunity to find a

[2:20:10] time that works for them. Um, as well as

[2:20:12] the vote by mail, which people

[2:20:14] definitely utilize.

[2:20:25] discussion.

[2:20:27] Council Kimberly,

[2:20:29] >> how many steps is it between the time

[2:20:32] that you get the the ballots and the

[2:20:34] time?

[2:20:36] >> 12 manual steps per ballot from receipt

[2:20:39] of the application to tabulation.

[2:20:47] Uh, is there any way that this could

[2:20:48] deter anyone from voting?

[2:20:54] » I think technically yes, if someone only

[2:20:58] had one opportunity to vote on one of

[2:21:00] those days, to be honest, it it could.

[2:21:03] However, we do have vote by mail

[2:21:05] applications are automatically mailed

[2:21:08] out by the state of Massachusetts to

[2:21:09] every voter in the Commonwealth. Um, so

[2:21:12] people can avail themselves to that.

[2:21:15] They can avail themselves to absentee

[2:21:17] voting as well as election day voting,

[2:21:20] full week of voting, the week leading up

[2:21:23] to the election and on the two Saturdays

[2:21:25] leading up to the election.

[2:21:29] » How important is it for you to have

[2:21:31] volunteers to help you at the poll?

[2:21:37] Um having a good uh pool of election

[2:21:41] workers is very important. Um election

[2:21:44] workers do have to go through training

[2:21:46] and we have to make sure that the people

[2:21:47] we're putting out there are ready for

[2:21:49] that task. But the more people we can

[2:21:52] have on standby who can come to election

[2:21:55] worker training, um I'm hoping in the

[2:21:58] future to be able to have pole worker

[2:22:01] information sessions just for

[2:22:02] prospective pole workers to give them a

[2:22:04] better idea of what the job is going to

[2:22:06] be. Um

[2:22:08] having people who are willing to step up

[2:22:10] and and be reserves on election day and

[2:22:12] work elections is is very valuable to

[2:22:14] the clerk's office.

[2:22:16] >> Thank you.

[2:22:19] mentioned Saturday. Um it's not on

[2:22:22] your your proposed hours.

[2:22:25] >> We're not allowed to reduce that.

[2:22:27] It'll be six hours on the two. Each

[2:22:29] Saturday will be six hours.

[2:22:31] >> Oh, got it. So So those are still

[2:22:33] available Saturdays. So it's not just

[2:22:35] these five, it's actually seven

[2:22:39] and the S and the absentee if they can't

[2:22:41] they're not going to be here on election

[2:22:43] day and they can't make it to any of

[2:22:45] these, they can still come in. They have

[2:22:46] legitimate reason to do an absentee

[2:22:48] ballot at any time.

[2:22:50] It really isn't

[2:22:53] super hardship.

[2:22:56] Elections have been elections have been

[2:22:58] killing the clerk's office. Um

[2:23:00] >> we like grace. [laughter]

[2:23:03] I I just have a question and just

[2:23:05] council grace

[2:23:06] >> for our listening public. You're not

[2:23:08] eliminating the first week of early

[2:23:10] voting. You're just lessening the number

[2:23:12] of hours that it's available. Correct.

[2:23:14] >> Correct. Thank you.

[2:23:16] >> So, we would still the plan would be to

[2:23:18] have 8:30 to 11:30 Monday through

[2:23:22] Wednesday and then 11:30 to 6:00 p.m. on

[2:23:27] Thursday to get the afternoon and

[2:23:29] evening crowd and then um 8:30 to 12 on

[2:23:33] Friday.

[2:23:40] » Benson,

[2:23:40] >> thank you. Um, and just remind me, so

[2:23:43] with the reduction, it's like how many

[2:23:44] hours are we losing if you if if

[2:23:47] reducing those if you if that makes

[2:23:48] sense.

[2:23:49] >> It would be a 50% reduction.

[2:23:51] >> Okay. So instead, it would be

[2:23:53] >> if we were So Monday through Wednesday

[2:23:55] would be till

[2:23:56] >> 11

[2:23:57] >> city hall till 11:30. But if it wasn't,

[2:23:59] it would be till city hall closes. Is

[2:24:01] that okay? And then Friday would be the

[2:24:03] same, right? So it doesn't matter with

[2:24:05] Friday it wouldn't you would you would

[2:24:06] do it till 4 if you didn't reduce the

[2:24:08] hours or it would be till

[2:24:10] >> on Friday it would be till 12:30.

[2:24:12] >> Okay. Yeah. So you're just losing that.

[2:24:14] Okay. Um thank you. Appreciate it.

[2:24:23] Right.

[2:24:24] If

[2:24:25] >> I may um I'm not a question, but um I

[2:24:29] understand the the concern the the

[2:24:32] struggle that your office has with

[2:24:34] staffing and all of that. I'm just not

[2:24:37] comfortable reducing any vote any hours

[2:24:39] for for the ability for people to vote.

[2:24:42] So, I won't be supporting this, but I I

[2:24:44] don't want you I don't want your office

[2:24:46] to take that as because I know and I and

[2:24:48] you know how I would feel. I would want

[2:24:49] to add more staff and I know the the

[2:24:52] work that goes into it and I've been to

[2:24:54] many I've been to the preliminary or the

[2:24:56] primary this one and saw the work that

[2:24:58] goes into it and I appreciate everyone's

[2:24:59] work. Um but just I'm just not

[2:25:02] comfortable reducing any hours for for

[2:25:05] voting. Thank you.

[2:25:09] » Council Paige,

[2:25:12] >> I'd like to say that I know um Grace has

[2:25:14] worked in that office for a long time. I

[2:25:16] think that voting has changed

[2:25:18] dramatically over the years and the

[2:25:21] burden of her office has increased

[2:25:24] beyond what they can even keep up with.

[2:25:27] And if if the city clerk is asking us

[2:25:32] for an accommodation,

[2:25:34] I will fully support that.

[2:25:38] >> Thank you. And I just would like to say

[2:25:40] that um there isn't anyone sitting at

[2:25:42] this dis that wants to restrict anyone's

[2:25:46] voting rights. Um this is this is a um

[2:25:52] well a majority at this table is people

[2:25:54] who would not at all tolerate limiting

[2:25:57] people's voting rights. This is a a

[2:26:00] common sense compromise. Still makes it

[2:26:02] available. Absentee voting is available

[2:26:05] for people who cannot make it. I think

[2:26:07] that this is a a a smart move knowing

[2:26:10] intimately how difficult it can be

[2:26:13] during um elections and we seem to be

[2:26:16] having numerous elections in Gloucester

[2:26:19] um you know two specials in the last two

[2:26:22] years or three years three specials

[2:26:25] right three specials

[2:26:27] >> great

[2:26:28] >> um plus primaries and it's just been an

[2:26:31] incredible burden and I think if they

[2:26:34] that office has so much other

[2:26:37] duties that they have to perform during

[2:26:39] the course of the day that have it to

[2:26:41] have it being eaten up by this and and

[2:26:43] these polls are not um banned by

[2:26:46] volunteers. They're paid personnel.

[2:26:49] Um so it uh

[2:26:52] >> I have volunteered at the polls for free

[2:26:53] before. So that's that's what I was

[2:26:56] getting at.

[2:26:58] >> Um so I think that this is a uh you know

[2:27:02] a common sense compromise. I don't think

[2:27:04] it's really inhibiting anyone on their right to vote. And I know that

[2:27:10] most people up here really feel

[2:27:11] passionately in that same direction that

[2:27:14] there's, you know, if this was in any

[2:27:16] way going to really restrict anyone's

[2:27:19] right to vote, I don't think this would

[2:27:22] have a prayer of passing.

[2:27:26] Council Paige,

[2:27:29] >> would it be valuable um for the city

[2:27:32] clerk's office when there is election uh

[2:27:36] work and things to be done to

[2:27:40] maybe divert or close the office for

[2:27:44] maybe other routine business so that

[2:27:46] they can focus on election work?

[2:27:50] Um, council has been gracious enough to

[2:27:53] or council president and vice president

[2:27:55] to allow us to um, close on some of the

[2:27:58] days leading up to an election and um, I

[2:28:02] might be coming to them again if we have

[2:28:04] a big batch of vote by mail ballots

[2:28:06] ready to go out. We have almost

[2:28:10] 4,000 already applications that we've

[2:28:12] entered. Um, so yes, when we really find

[2:28:16] ourselves in a bind, um, that is very

[2:28:20] helpful, but at the same time, we want

[2:28:21] to be mindful of all of the other

[2:28:23] services that we do offer to the public.

[2:28:26] Um, and and continue to provide those as

[2:28:29] well.

[2:28:31] >> I mean, you know, you

[2:28:34] people don't I mean, they sometimes they

[2:28:37] take time off from work to go to the

[2:28:38] clerk's office and they go and it's

[2:28:40] closed. What's it doing closed? I mean

[2:28:42] they, you know, it's a little hard to

[2:28:43] communicate that. So it's it's really

[2:28:45] kind of a hardship on the community. I

[2:28:47] mean, well, we it it worked, but there's

[2:28:52] then there's that work that doesn't get

[2:28:53] done, you know, and it sort of sort of

[2:28:56] creeps up. And I would like to say, you

[2:28:58] know, as the clerk said that on the mail

[2:29:00] and voting, it's they have to handle

[2:29:02] things 12 times. So I would really

[2:29:05] encourage people to vote in person um

[2:29:07] for the integrity of the elections. It's

[2:29:10] that's the best way to assure that your

[2:29:12] vote is counted. So, while it's

[2:29:15] convenient, you know, we all got the

[2:29:16] postcards, um it's it's it's not the

[2:29:21] most um sure way to make sure your vote

[2:29:25] gets counted and it's also it's doesn't

[2:29:28] make it makes the job for a very um

[2:29:32] staff that has a whole lot of other work

[2:29:34] to do. Um, so I would encourage everyone

[2:29:36] to please go go vote on election day.

[2:29:40] >> I would like to ensure people that their

[2:29:42] votes will be counted.

[2:29:46] » I lost in the mail.

[2:29:48] >> Do I remember correctly, Grace? I

[2:29:50] believe you have the longevity in the

[2:29:52] office that the prior city clerk had

[2:29:56] forwarded a request to eliminate mail in

[2:30:00] ballots.

[2:30:02] No. Am I I dreamed that I

[2:30:05] >> think so. I

[2:30:06] >> I think so. And I think the council

[2:30:08] denied that request

[2:30:11] >> to eliminate

[2:30:12] >> Yeah. mail and ballots

[2:30:14] >> not for state elections. Um there is an

[2:30:17] option for city council to choose to not

[2:30:20] offer vote by mail for local elections.

[2:30:22] >> Local. Okay.

[2:30:23] >> Um yeah, if if I could just follow up.

[2:30:27] Um,

[2:30:29] we in our office do everything in our

[2:30:33] power to make sure that any ballot that

[2:30:35] we receive goes through the proper

[2:30:37] process and gets to the polls. But even

[2:30:39] the postmaster um for this region has said to voters in general that the

[2:30:45] way ballots get rooted now, they don't

[2:30:47] get processed locally. They go to um

[2:30:50] whatever processing plant, which can

[2:30:52] seriously delay ballots. So, if you get

[2:30:54] a vote by mail ballot, please just

[2:30:56] return it as soon as possible rather

[2:30:58] than wait close to the election to

[2:30:59] return it because then you might run

[2:31:01] into an a sticky spot where it's not

[2:31:04] going to make it back in time.

[2:31:07] >> Box outside. Thank you.

[2:31:11] >> Say that again.

[2:31:13] >> Huh?

[2:31:13] >> Say that again into the microphone.

[2:31:15] >> Oh, sorry. So, and just to just I know

[2:31:17] people if with all those issues with

[2:31:20] like postage and everything, if people

[2:31:22] are able, they can put it on the put it

[2:31:25] in the box outside. Correct. Yep.

[2:31:29] >> Add one more thing while we're talking

[2:31:30] about by mail. Um if if counselors who

[2:31:35] you know talk about this with with your

[2:31:37] constituents, please just let your

[2:31:39] constituents know the importance of

[2:31:40] signing the affidavit envelope on the

[2:31:42] inside. we cannot process a ballot. Um,

[2:31:46] we have to reject a ballot if that

[2:31:48] affidavit envelope is not signed. We do

[2:31:50] mail out a second ballot, but that

[2:31:53] obviously slows things down for the the

[2:31:55] voter. So, just those little things,

[2:31:57] making sure it is signed and sealed um

[2:32:00] and sent back in a timely manner is

[2:32:02] going to really up your chances of us

[2:32:04] getting it and having a ballot that we

[2:32:06] can actually um check in and take to the

[2:32:09] polls on election day

[2:32:10] >> and then put it in the machine.

[2:32:12] So yeah, but just to clarify if I may.

[2:32:15] So if someone doesn't sign the affidavit

[2:32:16] though, they are notifi you they are not

[2:32:20] >> if it arrives on election day that

[2:32:23] notification is not very helpful.

[2:32:26] >> We do try to call people if they

[2:32:28] provided us with the phone number just

[2:32:30] to let them know that we received the

[2:32:31] ballot back. It wasn't signed. We have

[2:32:33] to reject it. So we need to get to the

[2:32:35] polls

[2:32:36] >> so they can go on they if you get get it

[2:32:38] like a day before election day and

[2:32:40] that's it. you try to call them and then

[2:32:42] they can go on election.

[2:32:43] >> There are some people that don't provide

[2:32:44] us with a phone number. So there's no

[2:32:46] way for us to reach

[2:32:47] >> very important to sign the affidav.

[2:32:50] >> Thank you.

[2:32:54] Else

[2:32:56] all those in favor?

[2:32:57] >> I opposed.

[2:32:58] >> No.

[2:33:00] >> Um motion passes six to one with two

[2:33:03] absent.

[2:33:09] Next door to business. Madam clerk,

[2:33:11] >> councelor's request to the mayor.

[2:33:14] >> Hey, councel Kimbley.

[2:33:17] >> I have not at this time.

[2:33:19] >> Hey, council me.

[2:33:22] I request have been mailed.

[2:33:25] >> Council meard,

[2:33:26] >> I would just like to join everyone in uh

[2:33:29] welcoming our new trash and recycling

[2:33:31] bins. Uh ward one my driveway. We

[2:33:35] received them this afternoon. They're

[2:33:37] beautiful. They're bigger than I

[2:33:39] thought. They're fairly rugged and uh

[2:33:41] the roll out by the DPW and Cassala has

[2:33:44] been really pretty good considering and

[2:33:46] we have a week or two to get things

[2:33:47] sorted out and then we're October 1st

[2:33:50] they're put into use. So I'm sure

[2:33:52] there'll be a lot of adjustments and

[2:33:54] details to see to but I think we're on the way. So welcome to the new

[2:33:59] age for all of Gloucester.

[2:34:02] >> Council Paige,

[2:34:04] >> no requests. Thank you. Council Densson,

[2:34:06] no requests at this. Councelor Grace,

[2:34:09] >> um just to add to what um council member

[2:34:12] Hard had to say, just a reminder that

[2:34:14] this goes live on October 1st. So that's

[2:34:17] a Thursday, next Thursday. So your

[2:34:19] regular your trash on Monday, Tuesday,

[2:34:21] and Wednesday will of next week will be

[2:34:23] the same. And also that gives um almost

[2:34:26] a whole extra week for these barrels to

[2:34:28] be delivered. So um there's been a lot

[2:34:30] of scuttlebutt out there about, you

[2:34:32] know, I haven't gotten my barrel yet.

[2:34:33] What's taking so long? we're going live.

[2:34:35] Remember that if your trash is collected

[2:34:38] um on Wednesdays, you have a whole

[2:34:40] another week to wait. So, there's still

[2:34:41] time. So, and to be patient. Um, and my

[2:34:44] request to the mayor is that I would I

[2:34:46] would like to have some sort of um

[2:34:48] whether it's a spreadsheet or email

[2:34:51] chain, whatever the case may be, that

[2:34:53] when there's a large project that's

[2:34:54] going to happen in a ward um that that

[2:34:58] would significantly impact a ward or a

[2:35:00] neighborhood within a ward, that the

[2:35:02] ward counselors be contacted about that

[2:35:04] project um from the get-go and kept in

[2:35:07] the loop about everything rather than

[2:35:09] having to play c us having to play

[2:35:11] catchup when things get to the public

[2:35:13] hearing. portion of something. Um I

[2:35:15] think it's important that um counselors

[2:35:17] are knowledgeable about what's going on

[2:35:19] and there's a gazillion in one boards

[2:35:22] and commissions in this city and

[2:35:23] sometimes it's really difficult to be on

[2:35:26] top of everything that's going on. Um

[2:35:28] councelor Paige is really good at it. Um

[2:35:31] you know, but it's it's I think it's

[2:35:33] important that the the counselors be

[2:35:35] notified of upcoming projects in their

[2:35:38] wards. um not when it's already, you

[2:35:41] know, nine miles down the road, but from

[2:35:44] the get-go. Thank you.

[2:35:47] >> Thank you.

[2:35:51] » Motion to adjurnn.

[2:35:52] >> So, make a motion to adjurnn.

[2:35:55] >> Second.

[2:35:58] >> All right. Councelor Paige made a motion

[2:36:00] to adjurnn. Councelor Benson um seconded

[2:36:03] it. Councelor Grace whispered it. Um and

[2:36:07] uh all those in favor

[2:36:09] >> I I opposed

[2:36:10] >> eyes have it seven to zero

[2:36:13] >> two absence.

Gloucester City Council Meeting - September 22, 2026

Transcript