[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[15:34] I'm good. Okay, everyone. It's 545. That's interesting. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of the
[16:04] in the chairwoman of the Legal Affairs Committee.
[16:09] The clerk of the Legal Affairs Committee is Councilor Romero,
[16:13] and the third member of Legal Affairs is the Councilor
[16:16] to my right, Councilor David Kormier.
[16:19] So I'm going to start this right up by asking if there is anybody
[16:24] here, and I know that there are.
[16:27] Anyone here that would like to speak on C-06.
[16:31] If you could please just come to the podium and say your name and your address and either in
[16:39] favor of or against.
[16:40] Thank you.
[16:48] Good evening.
[16:50] My name is John Roskary.
[16:51] I'm with the DPW and I'm here to talk about the taking for the what related project that
[16:59] to a wait pleasant street.
[17:02] This is a DOT project funded by DOT,
[17:07] that's a 5.4 million dollar project.
[17:10] It's been combined with the project
[17:13] that Council voted on back in December.
[17:17] Landcaster Street in the Union Street.
[17:19] The DOT, they could get a better pricing for it.
[17:24] This is comprised of two fee parses,
[17:28] three permanent easements and nine temporary easements.
[17:32] And there's basically two projects here on this piece.
[17:37] There's a replacement of the culvert in pleasant street.
[17:41] And then there's the clean up downstream alongside the wasmeadow condos.
[17:48] The project is basically going to put the screen bed back where it was.
[18:06] I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. If you want to try, just try having a seat at the desk, try that microphone and maybe that'll.
[18:26] So the project is basically two projects, it's a replace the emergency pipe that we put in almost
[18:39] three years ago with a box cover and downstream alongside wasmitto condos, we're going
[18:48] to put the streambed back, where it was installed a bit of a
[18:54] berm alongside on the easterly side of the streambed to help protect
[19:00] the condos a little bit more.
[19:04] That's the gist of this project, like I said, two fee
[19:10] Brussels, three permanents, and nine temporary easements.
[19:16] And they hope to go out to bid in September.
[19:21] They hope to get good pricing.
[19:25] And probably start, I imagine, with the clean up in the wetland area.
[19:34] So we have any?
[19:36] John, can you explain what the temporary easements amount to?
[19:41] The temporary easements are the area that gets disturbed will be returned back to
[19:49] somewhat what it was where there's some where trees had been removed, the plants and trees,
[19:59] the power line, a long pleasure street needs to be relocated while because there's a
[20:05] hole, right near the culvert. So they have to push it off the road through people's yards.
[20:13] And when that's all done, the poles come out and the new pole goes back in on pleasant
[20:18] street. The other temperaries are down towards the by the condos. That's just to move
[20:28] some breath around and they restore the wetlands and the streambed and then they get out.
[20:32] Okay.
[20:33] And that's all that is.
[20:35] Do we have an estimated length of time on this project?
[20:39] The, like I said, they want to start this fall.
[20:44] But the road closure on Pleasant Street will be next summer.
[20:48] Okay.
[20:48] Because they're going to have to open up the whole road in order, because this is, right now
[20:53] there's a 36 diameter pipe in the ground, which isn't nearly big enough to handle a storm.
[21:00] So they want to put in a four foot tall, 10 foot wide box cover.
[21:05] So in order to achieve that, they have to open up the whole road.
[21:10] And it would project would start after school is done for the season.
[21:15] Shut it down for the summer.
[21:17] Get it back open as quick as they can.
[21:20] So we should be just the summer of 27.
[21:23] Should be it.
[21:25] Okay.
[21:27] I'm going to open this up and just a second by John, I'm going to ask if you wouldn't mind staying there if there's any specific questions and then we can ask those.
[21:35] First, I'm going to go to members of my committee if you have any questions.
[21:39] Councillor Merrill.
[21:41] Councillor Cormier.
[21:43] I do not at this time.
[21:45] Okay.
[21:46] Councillor Badanza, I saw your hand up first.
[21:49] Thank you.
[21:54] And I'm going to assume that E is for permanent easement and TE is for temporary easement.
[22:00] So, and then there's designated square footages for those all the easements.
[22:05] So, it looks like almost all of them are, all of them are under 3,000 square feet, but most of them are under 1,000 square feet.
[22:15] And in terms of state-of-the-art construction,
[22:18] These type of drainage areas, they don't box culver, it is the city of the art, and one uses pipes anymore, right?
[22:27] For something to lots a lot of times now.
[22:30] Our days, it's whenever you touch a culvert, you have to adhere by a DEP's stream crossing standard, which is to allow animals to pass through.
[22:44] If the opening is too small, the animals are less inclined to crawl through the smaller pipe than they are, the larger box culvert.
[22:53] Okay, so thank you. I'm all set.
[22:57] Thank you very much.
[22:58] Thank you, John, for coming down and explaining this because, you know, people in the area
[23:02] have a lot of questions.
[23:04] So in terms of the wasmeadow, in terms of the cleanup, there are, you know, lots of debris,
[23:09] you know, there's been sticks, but then being boulders and then some of the trees were heard
[23:13] and now they're dead.
[23:14] So we'll clearing out that kind of debris, be part of the project.
[23:19] I believe so.
[23:20] Okay.
[23:20] I believe that's part of the, because a lot of material that washed out
[23:25] Right.
[23:25] Is what's killing the trees?
[23:27] Exactly.
[23:27] So when they're in there and around pulling the gravel back out, they're going to have to
[23:33] get to the gravel.
[23:35] So they'll be cutting some trees.
[23:36] The trees will come out.
[23:37] And they'll restore the wetlands the way they want to look exactly like it did before.
[23:43] It'll look better.
[23:45] And it'll be fire enough away from the condominiums to really prevent flooding.
[23:50] We hope in the future.
[23:51] It's best.
[23:51] That's the idea.
[23:53] All righty, thank you.
[23:55] How's the nose, where are they?
[23:57] Thank you.
[23:58] So I guess also thinking about projects,
[24:03] what you're doing this project.
[24:05] If you do come across additional issues,
[24:09] or concerns that are sort of eminent,
[24:12] just for people watching,
[24:14] is there like, you know,
[24:15] when we all watch HCTV,
[24:17] there are contingency funds?
[24:19] So are there, is there something like that built in?
[24:22] if you do come across something that's really important
[24:25] and you didn't find before or has that period already
[24:29] sort of passed?
[24:31] That would probably, that would be under the whole project
[24:34] under DOT.
[24:35] Oh, OK.
[24:36] It sits there funding.
[24:37] So if you look on the project website, they call it.
[24:42] It's a 5.4 million dollar project.
[24:45] But they have, I think they have available, 600, 6 million.
[24:49] Perfect.
[24:50] Great thing.
[24:50] Thank you so much.
[24:50] If there's something out there.
[24:51] And hopefully there isn't just in case they come across something.
[24:55] Okay, thank you.
[24:57] Awesome.
[24:58] Yes, thank you.
[24:58] Any other members of the Council have any questions?
[25:00] Comments?
[25:02] Okay, seeing none, I'm going to open it up to the public if there's anyone here who would like to speak on C-06.
[25:08] Again, John, I'm going to ask you to stay in case anybody has any specific questions.
[25:12] If you have any comments or concerns, please step up to the podium.
[25:16] State your name and your address and any of your concerns or questions.
[25:33] I don't know that that's the D.P.W.E. said it's the state.
[25:39] I lived at Washington, so I've been living with this for three years now.
[25:44] And I happen to be the lucky person that owns the condo that's an inch from the work now, not an inch, but maybe we are concerned about when all the water came down from the poor house.
[25:58] out on the corner. Every boulder and rock and whatever came into our yard. And we just kind
[26:07] of want to make sure that you're going to take all those back. That's the idea. Okay.
[26:13] Also, I have pictures on my phone, but I can't pass them out. I'm sorry. The trees all behind
[26:19] my condo were beautiful, lovely trees until three years ago, and now they're all dead.
[26:27] And we really want to make sure that they don't get a chance to fall on our houses while we're waiting.
[26:34] Can somebody from the DPW come down and take a look at these dentaries and make sure that they're not going to fall on our house?
[26:43] Well, if they're part of the flood damage, I'll see the DOT can take care of those.
[26:49] But if you said there, are they going to start this fall with that kind of stuff or are we waiting until after next slide?
[26:57] I don't know. I know that.
[26:59] I'm not going to wait until next slide.
[27:01] They're not going to open up.
[27:04] Right away.
[27:06] But they get a contractor on board and they can start doing things.
[27:10] That's a perfect winter project for some work contract.
[27:12] We just go.
[27:13] To get out there and stack the project.
[27:17] If I could add to this discussion, there was a meeting, I think it was about a year ago in the auditorium about this project.
[27:26] In the original scope of work, really did not include the cleanup and the restoration of the condominium property.
[27:34] And city officials were good enough to get involved in that and convince the department of transportation to broaden the scope of the project so that those items will be addressed.
[27:43] So I'm very comfortable that that has been as part of the plan as Mr.
[27:49] As John is indicating and that we'll get that square away for you folks.
[27:54] All right.
[27:55] Thank you.
[27:55] We really appreciate it.
[27:57] Well, we appreciate your patience.
[28:00] Oh, you've been very patient.
[28:01] But I
[28:05] don't blame you for that.
[28:06] Thank you.
[28:09] Okay.
[28:10] Is there anyone else?
[28:14] Ma'am.
[28:15] Ma'am.
[28:16] Could you just pick up and give your full name in the address.
[28:18] So we can clarify the record.
[28:21] Okay.
[28:21] Oops, sorry.
[28:22] Yeah, my name is Christine McEwen.
[28:24] I live at 192 Pleasant Street, unit 22.
[28:31] Ms. McEwen, thank you very much.
[28:35] Is there anyone else here who would like to address C-06?
[28:42] I'm Bonnie Curry.
[28:43] I'm fortunate.
[28:44] I'm at 180 Pleasant Street.
[28:46] So the condo took pretty much the front of everything.
[28:50] That wasn't too bad.
[28:51] But.
[28:52] First, am I missing the schedule B, this refers to the schedule B that I don't have
[28:58] a record.
[28:59] That's the page six and it lists the damages that are being awarded to the various
[29:05] savings.
[29:05] Yes, I think that is as a possible ticket, and I was also wondering,
[29:13] my properties, like as
[29:15] the property on in the circle. So I didn't know it. Maybe it's just the power line that's
[29:24] going to affect me. Is there any, which has what accuracy?
[29:30] Yeah, that one.
[29:36] I'm sure National Grid is going to do it to minimize the any power outages.
[29:41] It's all controlled. It says to what they're doing.
[29:47] Not your property.
[29:53] Over here.
[29:55] This here.
[29:57] That's it.
[29:57] Right there.
[30:00] Yeah, there's no easements on your property. I think you, you would notify it because you're, you're in the area.
[30:08] Not easement was, they'll be the road to get closed. So you'll, you know, the road can be closed.
[30:14] And what do we do as residents? Are we going to be able to?
[30:18] It'll be closed. You'll have to use pawn street, cut back to Franklin and Union to get to the other side of Pleasant.
[30:30] It'll only be closed between pawn street and
[30:36] two 19 plus and street straight away
[30:40] They only closed. They only
[30:44] It's going to be opened up. There will not be any way to drive through it
[30:54] No, you'll be able to get around. It's just that
[31:02] The road closure won't be at your house.
[31:05] Thank you.
[31:06] Thank you.
[31:10] Okay.
[31:10] Is there anybody else here who would like to address C-06?
[31:16] For a second time anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of her against
[31:22] C-06?
[31:25] And for a third and final time is there anybody in the audience that would like to address C-06?
[31:32] Well, we have John here, and we're going to open it up to any members of the council as well.
[31:37] If anybody has any questions, concerns, for John, John, thank you so much for coming down.
[31:45] Madam President, I am going to close this public hearing.
[32:06] Okay, we're going right into public hearing at scheduled for 6 p.m.
[32:11] 64-26, Donna Mollett of 58 Skylane Lemister, respectfully request to modify Section 22-4 definitions of the Lemister zoning ordinance by adding the following definition of data center.
[32:48] I'm
[32:52] just a second here, folks.
[33:05] First the definition.
[33:19] I believe I have it here.
[33:21] Modify Section 22-4 definitions of the limister zoning ordinance by adding the following definition of data center.
[33:28] A facility or portion thereof primarily designed or used to house computer services and related information technology infrastructure
[33:35] for the storage processing management or transmission of electronic data.
[33:40] A data center may include but is not limited to server racks, data storage systems, cooling systems,
[33:45] Power-conditioning equipment, substations, uninterruptible, power supplies, backup generators,
[33:52] telecommunications, equipment security systems, and associated mechanical and electrical
[33:56] infrastructure.
[33:57] A.U. shall be classified as a data center where either A, more than 25 percent of the
[34:03] gross floor area is devoted to server-rat stationary computing equipment or associated
[34:08] mechanical or electrical infrastructure, or B, the primary purpose of the facility as determined
[34:13] by the Planning Board is the housing and operation of computer servers in related infrastructure.
[34:19] Regardless of floor area allocation for purposes of this bylaw, a data center shall not be considered an office use.
[34:26] Modify the table of uses by adding the following entry, which would be no across the board except for special permit by the city council in the industrial zoning area.
[34:42] I do see members of the public here.
[34:46] I believe the petitioner is here this evening.
[34:49] If Miss Mollett, if you would like to step up,
[34:53] I'm going to ask you to actually have a seat at the table
[34:55] because I think the microphone is a little bit better there.
[34:59] It's a public here, so you're welcome.
[35:01] You're welcome to it.
[35:02] Thank you.
[35:03] So I'm going to ask the petitioner at first to give us your
[35:08] reasoning behind us what you would like to see happen
[35:11] And why you would like to see it happen and just fill us in on your information.
[35:15] I think there is a little bit of confusion around what you read.
[35:18] I think the first one, which is the one that is on the 6pm hearing, is a NOAA across
[35:24] the board and the other one's 67, 26 is the sister petition to this, which is special permit
[35:33] of the city council.
[35:35] So it may make sense to open both because there are sister petitions that it's either one
[35:40] the other. Or that's to confusing. This is strictly the petition on no across the board in all
[35:47] in zones. I think just for clarity purposes and how it's written on the agenda, we're on 64-26,
[35:55] so that's where we're going to start this evening, just a by-by-air agenda. Sure, but the information
[36:03] that you read was for 66, was for 67, 26, but I believe that the definition was the
[36:11] definition is exactly the same, the directory that table uses is only different between,
[36:18] and industrial. So it's an across all districts versus the other petition which is a special
[36:25] permit of the city council in industrial. Okay, so we'll just go by the definition that was written
[36:31] the definition doesn't change. Correct. So the definition is the concern that I had primarily
[36:40] as a citizen is that a lot of cities and towns across the Commonwealth are running towards
[36:46] a moratorium of data centers. And what the group of individuals found is that Lemister does
[36:54] not have a definition. So I don't know what the moratorium would be on. And I think that these
[37:00] can co-exist what we're asking for is until such moratorium is exercised that we have a definition.
[37:11] I don't know how much clear that it could be is that we don't have one.
[37:15] So if someone were to come in and apply for what they really want is a data center, they
[37:20] could disguise it or just put it into the category that it would fall into is a business
[37:25] center and that cannot be halted, but at this point we have no definition.
[37:30] In the city of Lemonstra, for a data center, and we're asking for this council to adopt one.
[37:36] And that is technically the language that's in both of the petitions.
[37:43] The first petition, 6426, is also saying to make a decision on them that it is an across the board.
[37:50] And I'm not sure that that has to exist. We wanted to give you an option, which was 6726, is to say,
[37:59] only by special permit in industrial areas, but at the very least, I'm not sure if there would be a
[38:05] defensible reason to not have a definition of data centers in this day and age.
[38:18] You'll call it a bad job.
[38:20] Ms. Mollett, are you okay to
[38:23] for right now? Okay, sure. Councilor Bedanza, you have the floor.
[38:29] Our ordinance is very clear if it's not the permitted use, in other words, if it's not
[38:36] denominated in our ordinance already, it's prohibited, and the state statute permits us to do that.
[38:44] There was confusion a few years ago where that provision was in the table of uses, but not in the body of the ordinance.
[38:53] In the building aspect that took the position in the case of Airbnb's that they weren't permitted because of that language in the table of uses,
[39:01] because they weren't denominated or defined as a permitted use in the city.
[39:07] So what we did is we took the step to be sure that that language was also repeated in the body of the ordinance,
[39:14] so that if you come to the building in respect of an application for a use that is not specifically permitted in our city, it is a no.
[39:24] And that's the issue here, in my way of thinking it might be dangerous to put the, at this
[39:32] juncture, at least to put that definition in there, because you might be opening a door
[39:36] to something that isn't permitted here at this juncture, it's not.
[39:40] So that's, that's one of the issues I think that's before us.
[39:44] So if I may,
[39:48] let's say, let's say they come in and says it's a, it's an office building
[39:52] with a computer lab.
[39:54] These are the deepest pockets in the world.
[39:57] My daughter lives in Laudon County, Virginia.
[39:59] You can look at us.
[40:00] It's the data center capital of the world.
[40:02] Believe me, the stories that I've had over the years with her about the power and the
[40:06] pockets of these guys, these are the deepest in the world.
[40:10] They're going to come in and say, it's not a data center, it's an office building.
[40:15] That's in the table of use.
[40:16] It's just got a computer lab.
[40:17] Yeah, it's a big computer lab, but it's a computer lab.
[40:20] And it's in the table of uses, and it's allowed by right in commercial and industrial.
[40:25] Okay, you want to go to court with those guys?
[40:27] I don't think so.
[40:28] This is an explicit definition.
[40:31] We've talked about it came from Mansfield, who's passed it.
[40:34] It's pretty clear.
[40:35] It's pretty powerful.
[40:37] And you avoid that risk of being challenged as to whether it's a office building or whether it's a data center.
[40:49] I mean, what is the difference other than the size and scope of the computer lab room?
[40:54] What's the real difference?
[40:57] It's an office building, and that is in the table of uses.
[41:00] And I think you just, and I'm of the belief.
[41:02] I know, I don't want to get in, I'm of the belief that a moratorium and the other
[41:09] protection, 67-26, or whatever the number is, aren't at odds.
[41:16] In fact, I think the evulsion paths, and I'll explain, and I'll explain why, banning
[41:23] something which this one does, we know has a potential to be challenged.
[41:27] We've discussed that with the planning board, adult entertainment as the prime example, and
[41:33] they relied on First Amendment.
[41:35] The data center says First Amendment, I don't know.
[41:37] But they're already as challenged as in Virginia to say data centers are required for a social media
[41:43] And if you deny those you're denying my my first amendment. I think that's a stretch
[41:49] But somewhere along the line in this national debate about moratoriums in banning data centers
[41:55] They're going to be a big challenge and so I think the moratorium serves a purpose to say let's ban it until you know, whatever
[42:03] But if that would get challenged and we were to lose at some national level saying, you
[42:08] can't ban something, it's illegal to ban them.
[42:11] Just like it's illegal.
[42:12] That's why you can't do adult entertainment.
[42:14] That's why this petition, the argument is, you can't ban something completely.
[42:19] Well, whether you ban it for a year or ban it for a day or ban it for ever, I don't know
[42:23] that it matters.
[42:24] The other petition, which is what we recommend, 6726, is to say, hey, pass them both.
[42:32] Now you're protected. You have a moratorium. You can do further work in further research,
[42:37] but you also have a backup plan that says, hey, if somebody comes in and challenges that
[42:42] moratorium or calls it something other than a data center, you have a definition and you have the
[42:47] ability now to challenge to say, hey, okay, it's not banned, but you got to go by the most restrictive
[42:55] allowance and the books,
[42:57] special permit of the city council.
[42:59] I get your point.
[43:00] And to me, if we were going to go down that road,
[43:03] I would prefer to see refining of the definition of an office building,
[43:10] or of anything that's a business use to exclude something that could be labeled as a data center.
[43:18] We have another problem to go on on,
[43:20] which is called the Frontier Act,
[43:21] which congressman is for hand introduced with bipartisan support to essentially preempt all of this
[43:28] regulation on a local level and leave it all with the federal government.
[43:32] It's another problem.
[43:33] But I think that's why 6726 is the most powerful and so let the moratorium be challenged.
[43:40] Past the moratorium let it be challenged.
[43:42] But there's no I mean the way that adult entertainment was done over 25 years ago has worked.
[43:49] You say here, here it is.
[43:51] You can have, under special permit of the City Council,
[43:54] you can have a data center.
[43:55] And if you want to get into an argument
[43:57] of what a data center is, I, this one is pretty clean
[44:01] and pretty good.
[44:02] When you say you want to say expand the definition
[44:05] of an office building, you're going to say,
[44:07] this is an office building, it's not a data center.
[44:10] Well, what is a data center?
[44:13] You're going to have to do something to explain
[44:15] what a data center is, whether you expand that definition
[44:19] of an office building or explicitly define it.
[44:21] This one's pretty solid in terms of a definition.
[44:25] And what it allows you to do is say, hey, what's work for adult entertainment works
[44:30] here.
[44:31] And I say, the chances, and I know there was a, when we presented this to the planning board,
[44:36] there was a research done tearing this, because that's what Mansfield did.
[44:41] And you can do that.
[44:42] I think at this stage, there's not a data center size that you're not going to want to have
[44:48] special permit of the city council. So I don't know that tearing just makes it more complicated.
[44:53] But what's worked for adult entertainment, which is special permit of the city council, is a great backup plan.
[45:00] And if moratoriums go by and I agree, I think moratoriums are going to get challenged. I think you're going to get challenged across this country because there's a huge push to compete with China, right? And they're leading AI. I mean, I spent 40 years in a computer business, just retired. AI was the biggest change I've seen in 40 years. And I started on punch cards. It's coming in its huge. So I think you got to be prepared. And I think the backup, if the moratorium is challenged somewhere in this country,
[45:29] I think the backup is just straight zoning.
[45:33] You came in.
[45:34] The definition is it's a data center by our definition and guess what?
[45:40] It's allowed by special permit of the city council and it has no shot of passing.
[45:46] Okay.
[45:47] Actually I saw a counselor Romero who is the second member of the legal affairs.
[45:52] So I'm going to go to her first.
[45:54] Thank you.
[45:55] I just want to get clarification.
[45:57] and consular, but the answer just indicated that in the table of uses, if something is not
[46:04] defined, it is not permitted. Is that correct? Correct. So I just want to then allude to
[46:10] the fact that I think that kind of goes to the heart of the explanation or the reason why
[46:19] we have this petition before us. I understand battery storage is also not
[46:25] defined yet we have one that was already being erected because the building inspector
[46:35] issued a permit so and classified it at under light manufacturing. So given that we
[46:43] currently do not have a definition for a data center I think again we can't just
[46:53] defer to the powers that be to make to not classify it as something else if it's not
[47:03] defined. So I just, you know, that's a concern. But I think also in line with Councillor
[47:12] Badanas comment a clear definition I think would be helpful and only because I have yet
[47:25] to see if anything that we currently have in the city is already could be could already
[47:31] be defined as a data center so for instance if a bank has a room with servers we've heard
[47:38] companies like Digital, you know, and they're like, that was a data center, you know, and that was operating
[47:45] you know, for years. So I just, I want to be sure, I believe it's important to define a data
[47:52] center, but also I think we need to do for the research to ensure that we don't currently have anything
[48:00] in our city that could be defined as a data center based on this definition, that would then
[48:09] You know, we'd have to then figure out how to allow them to either continue operating,
[48:13] grandfather the man.
[48:14] I think it gets a little complicated.
[48:18] So that's just a concern that I have, and I don't know if we have information on whether
[48:25] or not the building inspector or the planning board, or I don't know the powers that
[48:30] have a list of potential companies that could fall into this description.
[48:38] Okay. So it would be grandfathered and the definition says 25% of their floor space
[48:45] to be actual computing space.
[48:50] So I think that that would be 25% of the gross floor area dedicated server racks.
[48:56] So, they would be grandfathered.
[48:59] I agree that further action is indicated,
[49:03] but I think as, you know, Councilman Bananasa said,
[49:08] it's coming if we don't act on it,
[49:10] it will be acted on for us.
[49:13] So let me just get clarification.
[49:14] So let's just say that, you know,
[49:18] and this is me just really trying to better understand
[49:21] this and make sure that all bases are covered.
[49:22] But so, if a current business is grandfathered in, and they sell it to another company that is operating as a data center, that then stays at that particular date and continue to operate as a data center, and without a special permit because it's grandfathered in, correct?
[49:49] I think you're making the case for not passing the moratorium and allowing for a window for a special permit of the city council, because if you want to go to those exceptions, you would have the ability to say, okay, this is a great exception, I'm going to do it. If you ban it, you don't have those exceptions, so I think you're making justifying the case. Having said that, I don't know. My question to all of you, do you feel comfortable going with somebody presenting a project to the building inspector?
[50:18] and having the building inspector determine whether this is an office building or data center.
[50:24] I mean, if you feel comfortable leaving that up to him,
[50:27] because he's going to say, oh, no, this is not defined.
[50:30] Therefore, it's not allowed.
[50:31] Okay, that's one choice.
[50:33] But he could simply call it a use that he thinks qualifies.
[50:37] Maybe they have, you know, 50% to start of their lab space to be computers.
[50:43] And you say, it's not that big of a lab, so let's let it go.
[50:46] and I'll call it an office part.
[50:48] That's allowed by writing commercial, right?
[50:51] They could put that anywhere.
[50:53] And then what happens when they grow it?
[50:55] Oh, we're going to make it 50% larger,
[50:57] and 50% larger, and 50% larger.
[51:00] Then what do you do?
[51:01] I think relying on no definition is a risky business.
[51:13] Thank you.
[51:15] First of all, I want to clarify that there was a definition that is attached to the
[51:20] moratorium.
[51:22] I did not put a suggestion in from moratorium without a definition.
[51:27] And the definition is a facility composed of network computer storage systems and
[51:33] computing resources that is used to process store and disseminate large amounts of data.
[51:38] and in such a facility as the other principal use or use and stand along capacity.
[51:46] I strongly believe that a moratorium is the way to go. I think a new jerk reaction
[51:51] which goes to exactly what the counselor from ward 1 is talking about grandfathering or whatever.
[51:59] A moratorium gives us the opportunity to look and it does the same thing as a band. It stops everything.
[52:05] Nobody can apply. Nobody would be able to come into the community and apply for a permit.
[52:13] That stops. We know that happens with a moratorium.
[52:19] Moratorium gives us the opportunity to look at what we need.
[52:24] Do we know we want to ban every data center in the city?
[52:27] We don't know if we have any as the woodwind comes.
[52:30] We might have a data center, Fitchburg has one, was there has four, there is 61 data centers in Massachusetts right now. How many of us have heard of any of them that have been a problem?
[52:43] So, there are some scale, is there one that has one megawatt or two megawatt, and I'm not a professional on wattage, but do we know that some of our companies aren't using them?
[52:56] or some of our companies may need them, you've been it and then that says no.
[53:02] I mean we don't know what we're banning with a moratorium, we have the opportunity to bring
[53:07] professionals in. We've been at the end of six months if we find out this is something we really
[53:13] don't want here. Then we bring it back and you've been it. But to ban it with a new jerk reaction
[53:20] And because that's what everybody wants to do and keep it out of our city, we may not want
[53:26] to do that.
[53:27] We may be jeopardizing businesses, we may be jeopardizing hospitals, there's a big discussion
[53:32] about hospitals and AI in the use of, what does it tell them not it and tell them in?
[53:39] Do we want to take that chance and ban all that and say, you can't do that?
[53:44] I don't want to do that.
[53:45] I want to look at it and have an intelligent discussion.
[53:48] And then, if we find out that it's not good for our community, then we say, okay, we've done our research, we have the basis to ban it.
[53:58] Now we know why we want to ban it.
[54:00] I don't want to ban something that I don't know anything about.
[54:03] And how many people in our community use it or if they need it?
[54:07] That's my point on moratorium.
[54:09] As far as the adult zoning, that was I put it in in 1999.
[54:13] I researched that I went everywhere. I took it from an example in the city of Trickapy that was the first one in the in the state to do it
[54:23] And I was working with a council who said we don't want that in our community that they said no and that went to court
[54:30] And the court came back and said you can't say no, you don't have you just can't do that. It's federally protected
[54:37] So I took that wood and it's brought back here and it has worked for 25 years and
[54:42] We did the same thing with salt hours,
[54:44] where we were at least able to create a fall zone,
[54:47] and we were able to do it safely,
[54:53] because salt hours now are, they collapse rather than,
[54:57] then fall on somebody's property.
[55:00] They're, and that's, those are protected federally
[55:02] in the freedom of speech.
[55:04] So there are a lot of reasons.
[55:07] There are, how many more historians now do we know?
[55:09] How many more historians are in the city?
[55:11] for, sorry, Amy Questle, city solicitor.
[55:15] I'm sorry if I'm introduced.
[55:16] That's okay.
[55:17] For moratorium for data centers,
[55:20] there's one that has been approved by the attorney general.
[55:23] As you know, towns have to have by laws approved by the attorney general.
[55:27] So there's one moratorium for data centers that has been approved by the attorney general.
[55:33] And cities do not have to have authority,
[55:37] authorization from the attorney general.
[55:39] to us down to. And if I may, I'm sorry, ma'am president. We are coming up on the fall town meeting
[55:45] schedule first for towns and there are quite a few more tournaments on it. And I think I think
[55:51] all these towns and all these cities are looking at, looking at logically and looking at it
[55:58] professionally and saying, we're going to look at this and we're going to find out what the city needs
[56:04] do we need it? Do our hospitals need it? Do our doctors need it? And it's we're protecting
[56:11] our community by having a moratorium. I don't think we need to ban it.
[56:19] There's a lot of commonality. I think the purpose here I think we're not too far away from
[56:24] each other. So, but here's my thought. I agree with the council, President, that the moratorium
[56:31] is absolutely essential, because it's going to protect us in a way that a band will not protect
[56:38] us. A band certainly will do a certain amount of the job, but there's no guarantee
[56:44] that that band isn't going to be challenged in the court. With the moratorium, we get the extra
[56:49] protection, at least for a brief period of time, that's really not a saleable. However,
[56:55] But I see a point, David, if we take the definitional section that we have now, and we agree
[57:06] on a particular language that thus typifies what a data center is, and say, by the way,
[57:13] an office building isn't this, okay?
[57:17] And we don't have to ban it then.
[57:18] We don't have to ban it.
[57:19] We don't have to get challenged on a ban.
[57:21] And then that gives guidance to the building department in terms of processing and the application for a permit.
[57:27] It's crystal clear that this cannot sneak under some other definition that exists in the ordinance while we have the moratorium in place, which I think makes sense.
[57:39] I would just respond to that, President.
[57:42] And I agree with that.
[57:43] And I would, if we did come to that agreement, I would have no issue with the possibility
[57:50] instead of denying something, give something we need to withdraw with our prejudice.
[57:54] And then if we find out six months from now that we don't want it in our community,
[57:59] I would have no issue going back to you and say, Don, you want to re-submit it
[58:04] because I think that's what we need to do now that we found out all this information.
[58:08] We know that the way to go and I do believe speaking with the people I spoke to about
[58:14] moratoriums, they're not doing it because of potential lawsuits.
[58:18] I mean, somebody can say, how can you ban something when you don't know what there is or we
[58:23] need to do it? So I think that's my position.
[58:29] Okay.
[58:30] Hang on.
[58:31] Hang on.
[58:32] Councillor Schell for Zepher.
[58:33] I saw your hand up a couple of times, so I'm going to go to you next.
[58:36] It was.
[58:36] Thank you very much.
[58:37] I haven't heard anybody talk against a moratorium, so I think no one has said anything
[58:43] negative about a moratorium.
[58:45] And I think, you know, this is about putting no across, you know, every single zoning category.
[58:52] However, the other petition that's been referred to, you know, includes the detailed definition,
[58:57] But also has the opportunity for a company that wanted to build one of these things to come
[59:04] for the City Council for a special permit in the industrial zone.
[59:07] So that's not a ban.
[59:08] It's an opportunity.
[59:09] You talk about wanting to learn about what these things are, how they would impact the community,
[59:14] where they want to be located.
[59:16] Well, let's give people that opportunity.
[59:18] Come down to the City Council, find a piece of industrial property.
[59:20] If they want to build a community council for a special permit.
[59:24] So a more mature, I think a more mature means a good idea.
[59:26] I also think that having a detailed definition of thing, I like about this, is because we don't know if there are any businesses operating like a data center and lemon star.
[59:38] However, if they've got 10 or 15 percent of their floor space, now, you know, designated to this kind of operation.
[59:46] If they want to expand that, according to this definition, they'd have to come and before the planning board, once this was in place,
[59:53] and ask for some kind of permission to expand it because they would no longer be in.
[1:00:01] In compliance with the zoning ordinance. So I think this does a couple of things. It does a few things. I think it's a very good detailed definition already, you know, passed in Mansfield. And it also includes some quantitative information that we could utilize that some, the planning board could utilize to say, hey, you're operating like that now. Nobody know because if we didn't have anything on the books, it was operating as an office building. They want to expand, you know, their footprint, they want to expand, their capacity.
[1:00:30] That's okay, but you have to come before a board like the planning board in order to do that if they want to go beyond twenty-five percent
[1:00:37] And then if somebody wants to come in and build a brand new one
[1:00:40] We're not saying that they can't we're saying come down to the city council and let's have a conversation about it
[1:00:46] Let's see what you're proposing and then we can is a city council
[1:00:49] You know approve or not a special permit depending on what they're authorizing this makes perfect sense to me and
[1:00:56] And having the moratorium, I agree, is a very good thing.
[1:01:00] But I think the next petition, not necessarily this one, was no across the board.
[1:01:04] But the other one that was raised, I think, makes a lot of sense.
[1:01:07] It protects us in a bunch of ways, but also provides the capacity and the flexibility to
[1:01:16] have that kind of conversation with the business coming into town.
[1:01:19] So I think both are really good.
[1:01:21] Thank you.
[1:01:22] Okay, just a second. Mr. Rowland, I'm sorry. I cut you off a couple of times.
[1:01:25] No, I'm just, I'm a little bit confused. This group put forth two
[1:01:31] petitions and explain it all in detail to the planning board. And the thing is, here's two
[1:01:37] choices. One, you ban it and one, you don't. One, just the highest, most restrictive and one,
[1:01:42] you don't. And they said, which one do you think Ford? Let the city council ask
[1:01:47] to help them in a page, whether banning it is a good option.
[1:01:51] And it sounds like it's not.
[1:01:53] So the general feeling is that one give leave to withdrawal.
[1:01:57] The other one does not ban it.
[1:02:00] It gives you a say as we go through.
[1:02:03] And I'm sure, in the next 10 years, there's
[1:02:06] going to be massive amounts of legislation
[1:02:08] around data centers in AI centers.
[1:02:12] There's going to be a massive amount.
[1:02:13] It's going to change.
[1:02:14] It gives you the option.
[1:02:15] So the recommendation based on this conversation
[1:02:18] from this group is give this one leave to withdraw,
[1:02:22] but support the one that doesn't ban it,
[1:02:25] but has the most highly restrictive clause
[1:02:28] of special permit of the city council.
[1:02:31] And I would argue the point raised by the word,
[1:02:35] one consular based on the definition that exists
[1:02:38] for the moratorium, that there's more places in limister,
[1:02:41] that may qualify under that definition as being data centers,
[1:02:47] then the one that's provided under this petition.
[1:02:51] That wording, I mean, wasn't on the agenda,
[1:02:53] so I didn't get to see it in detail.
[1:02:55] So I heard it here for the first time,
[1:02:58] is, in my view, less well defined in terms of size
[1:03:02] and percentage of scope.
[1:03:04] And I think there's going to be more businesses
[1:03:06] that are going to be affected by the moratorium.
[1:03:09] And the moratorium is a ban.
[1:03:10] And yes, it's a time ban for a year, but I think, and I'm fine with that, they're not
[1:03:18] at odds.
[1:03:19] But I do think leaving a window open on the most restrictive special permit of the City Council
[1:03:25] along with the definition that I think is a little clearer and puts more guidelines in,
[1:03:33] gives you the better opportunity to say, hey, there may be a good cause to come through that
[1:03:38] that we want to allow, that's just my feeling.
[1:03:42] Okay, Council of the Dances.
[1:03:43] The flying the white man is what is your special criteria,
[1:03:47] which is special permit criteria?
[1:03:49] So that's the whole purpose in the moratorium,
[1:03:51] is the development, special permit criteria.
[1:03:55] This thing, if we pass this thing with a special permit,
[1:03:58] name your body, city council, planning board,
[1:04:02] what are they going to rely on for criteria?
[1:04:04] I mean, and that is a nightmare in a courthouse
[1:04:06] because if this thing somebody comes in and applies for a special permit and we turn them down
[1:04:12] for whatever reason and this thing ends up in court, that's the first thing the judge is going to want to know is what's the criteria?
[1:04:19] And there is no criteria, that's the problem. And we're not qualified at this juncture to set the criteria.
[1:04:25] That's the whole reason for the moratorium. So I think the way to proceed with this is use your language to make sure that
[1:04:34] what speaks in here, under some other kind of definition, pass the moratorium, get experts
[1:04:41] involved that can give us an idea of what we can live with for criteria, what we can't.
[1:04:47] And then model an ordinance after those particular items that those criteria that we haven't
[1:04:54] yet developed.
[1:04:55] to be clear, leave to withdraw on 64-26.
[1:05:03] If you can use me for a second, just for a second.
[1:05:10] Madam President, I just want to clarify with you, and we've already done it.
[1:05:14] So we've basically opened 64-26 and 67-27-26.
[1:05:21] So just officially I want to put it on the record.
[1:05:22] We're discussing both, just so that we've now opened a bit, we can speak freely on both, please.
[1:05:30] So thank you for that.
[1:05:32] The idea was behind, so we are in agreement.
[1:05:36] These can coexist.
[1:05:39] They were also filed essentially concurrently, meaning the moratorium and the definition they're of,
[1:05:46] And 67-26 were filed concurrent.
[1:05:51] They both came in at the same time.
[1:05:53] The citizens want a definition, at least on the books.
[1:05:56] We at least wanted a definition on the books.
[1:05:58] I hear you with your definition.
[1:06:01] I do agree that the moratorium is indicated.
[1:06:05] But I do also think that in the language of the definition that is within the moratorium,
[1:06:09] it says things like large data.
[1:06:11] And I am concerned that it doesn't define that.
[1:06:14] And I don't think that that is as defensible.
[1:06:16] I agree with you that the language of 6726 should it be passed simply says this is Lemonster's
[1:06:23] definition of this and also, by the way, then there's room for the moratorium.
[1:06:29] Madam Chair, the attorney has something that she wants to offer.
[1:06:33] Thank you.
[1:06:34] Thank you.
[1:06:34] Again, Amy Quetzal City, so is it her?
[1:06:37] So 64.
[1:06:38] Am I on?
[1:06:40] Yep.
[1:06:40] So, 64, 26 was advertised as, it says, respectfully request to modify Section 22-4, definitions
[1:06:51] of the Lemmester Zoning, ordinance by adding the following definition of data center.
[1:06:56] And then there's no definition and there's no indication that there's all ends across.
[1:07:02] Yes.
[1:07:02] That's confusing and that's not how the petition was filed.
[1:07:05] They were, I filed, identically, they were discussed in the planning board and I believe
[1:07:09] planning board record was different. I could be wrong on that, but there was a long meeting,
[1:07:14] I'm sure most of you seen it. There was a long meeting with a planning board, where it was
[1:07:18] discussed, and I believe they had both in full form. This is confusing to us, and there are
[1:07:24] know there was to say that, but the way they were filed and the way they were.
[1:07:30] We're presented was two separate, 64, 67, same definition, different table of entry uses.
[1:07:37] The advertising doesn't show that way or this agenda doesn't show that way.
[1:07:42] But I thought it was part of shortness because the long agenda.
[1:07:46] Just like you don't see the definition for the moratorium.
[1:07:49] There's no definition in that either.
[1:07:52] So, I, if, I guess, the way to cure this, that we, if they are going to withdraw,
[1:08:01] 64, 26, that we cure this.
[1:08:05] Because, you know, there's no, there wouldn't be a doubt.
[1:08:07] We should also, if I may, certainly, Madam Chair,
[1:08:11] And in 67-26, I understand that this was taken from Mansfield's bylaw.
[1:08:20] It's not exactly Mansfield's bylaw because it's only the beginning of Mansfield's bylaw.
[1:08:25] Mansfield's bylaw goes on to define tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 data centers, but also the last sentence of this purposes of this bylaw.
[1:08:35] It has to change to ordinance, which, again, not.
[1:08:45] The decision in presenting this on the tearing was to leave the tearing out for simplicity.
[1:08:54] So, it's what we were in the beginning.
[1:08:57] Okay.
[1:08:58] No, this is different than this.
[1:09:00] Through one with the special element of the city council.
[1:09:03] Yeah.
[1:09:03] 67, 26.
[1:09:08] Yep.
[1:09:08] That's 67, 26.
[1:09:10] Okay.
[1:09:10] 64.
[1:09:11] And that has the council across all of it.
[1:09:14] Yes.
[1:09:15] Okay.
[1:09:17] I don't know.
[1:09:18] I don't know.
[1:09:18] And where were you from?
[1:09:19] Is that just in your package?
[1:09:20] This was just in the package.
[1:09:22] That was given to all of all.
[1:09:26] So the question is, the general feeling is that 64-26 should be given with withdraw and the
[1:09:35] discussion that this group would go would be 67-26 be the one that supported, right, based
[1:09:43] on the discussion here and what not.
[1:09:46] The question is, the group can't, I mean, they can ask for leave the withdrawal, but you
[1:09:50] on that, right? You all know the right to give it leave to withdraw.
[1:09:57] And I don't know if the fact that the advertising of this is not accurate of the representation
[1:10:04] of the original petition, if that cause a problem for you to give it leave to withdraw
[1:10:10] at this point. But I think in general, the group feels that 6726 is the one that they would
[1:10:17] support. The idea in the beginning was to give you both and let the city council get legal advice and choose the one that you want.
[1:10:23] That was the original idea.
[1:10:25] And do you think the planning board had that same day didn't really put a lot of emphasis on either.
[1:10:32] They knew that there were more historians and they were sending it to the city council.
[1:10:37] Right.
[1:10:37] But discussion to take place here.
[1:10:39] And we presented that to them because they asked us which one we said.
[1:10:42] It's a suggestion, but give both support and let the city council ask questions of whether
[1:10:48] an across the board makes any sense.
[1:10:51] That was the discussion they said, yeah, okay, we'll do that and let you guys decide whether
[1:10:55] an is there and it sounds like an across the board for several reasons doesn't have the support.
[1:11:01] We still feel that 67-27 has validity, right, in terms of which we talked about.
[1:11:12] So we're not asking for that one to be given live to withdraw.
[1:11:15] My only question now is can you give 60 the first one leave to withdraw be based on the problem with the advertising?
[1:11:23] Well, in my opinion, yes.
[1:11:25] Okay.
[1:11:26] Okay.
[1:11:26] We can. Oh, we could deny it.
[1:11:28] I'm trying to avoid that suggestion.
[1:11:30] Yeah, I would think that's the worst case because then you get into this two year ban.
[1:11:34] Uh, not yes or no.
[1:11:37] You may start to ban.
[1:11:39] It's a lot of steps.
[1:11:39] I know.
[1:11:40] I know.
[1:11:41] All right, just because it sounds like we're coming to some one of the compromise here,
[1:11:45] I just want to clarify.
[1:11:47] So Attorney Questle, just to clarify, Madam President, I'm sorry, we could give 64-26
[1:11:58] leave to withdraw this evening, despite the, that there may be an issue in public case.
[1:12:03] So that could be given leave to withdraw, that would leave us on 67-26.
[1:12:09] And it sounds like we're coming around to some sort of a, well, we're going to get to that a little bit more.
[1:12:16] But let's, I just want to, so we're all on the same page here, trying to keep track myself.
[1:12:21] I turned up a dance I saw that you had.
[1:12:23] No, my point was, you know, I just think, what my concern or reiterated was,
[1:12:30] we don't have criteria in place to deal with a special permit at this point.
[1:12:35] And that's the whole point in the moratorium as developed as special criteria.
[1:12:40] I think the point of I missed a Rollins about, you know, processing building permit applications
[1:12:46] for things that could in fact be a data center is something that does worry me.
[1:12:51] I'm concerned about that.
[1:12:52] So I think maybe taking the language that it isn't 67 and saying, by the way, we're not saying
[1:12:58] that it's prohibited, but we're saying this isn't a office building.
[1:13:03] This is not included in what an office building is.
[1:13:06] Which would give us the safety net with the building department.
[1:13:09] While we discover, through the moratorium, what we should adopt for special permit criteria
[1:13:17] if we do in fact pass a comprehensive ordinance on this subject.
[1:13:22] So assuming the federal government doesn't all tell us that you know what to do with it.
[1:13:26] Before that.
[1:13:27] Councillor, can I have any Councillor or Mayor?
[1:13:31] So, I just want to clarify here, so the petitions that we have before us, clearly obviously
[1:13:41] we have the public hearing schedules, we don't, we have not had a public hearing on the
[1:13:46] moratorium, we have not done anything related to the public excuse me to the moratorium
[1:13:52] at this point.
[1:13:52] I think even the planning board has to come back and they haven't even made a decision on
[1:13:56] it.
[1:13:57] So to continue to utilize that and say we'll just pass a moratorium we haven't even had public input
[1:14:07] We haven't even had a conversation. We don't even know if we have the support yet, but we do have a petition before us
[1:14:13] So my question is if we pass 6726 and
[1:14:20] With a more defined definition for instance as you said with man's field
[1:14:24] they actually have tier 1, 2, 3, 2, and 3 are banned.
[1:14:28] Those are the larger data centers that most people are concerned with.
[1:14:31] One of the smaller data centers, but it requires special permit by the City Council if we
[1:14:35] would have taken that route and passed this, can we then, you know, when we take up the
[1:14:43] moratorium, if the moratorium is passed, that still kind of applies to this petition and
[1:14:48] perhaps the City solicitor can clarify that.
[1:14:51] I also just want to clarify with you as well, as well, is you've indicated.
[1:15:00] That the attorney general has to approve a by-law. I just want to confirm, would she, if we were to pass the moratorium. Does she also have to do that for a city, because we're a city, I don't know, I don't know.
[1:15:12] We have the power here.
[1:15:14] No, I'm just saying that.
[1:15:15] I was using it as an example that it's already then determined by an agency, not a court, an agency that it's allowed.
[1:15:23] That was just it was just a okay you an example that yes a moratorium has passed that is a lot the attorney general has determined
[1:15:31] It's allowed again attorney general is not the courts. Yeah, and then just again just getting back to the question
[1:15:36] We would have passed 6726 special permit
[1:15:40] Maybe some additional defining language and then
[1:15:44] You know, we're proceeding. I don't know when we have the public hearing whatever the case at September at some point the 14's the planning board
[1:15:51] So has to hear it as well.
[1:15:54] Depending on the outcome of that, let's say it is favorable.
[1:15:58] We pass a moratorium.
[1:16:00] Does it then just apply to this?
[1:16:04] Can we have both?
[1:16:05] Can we have put this on the record
[1:16:07] until the moratorium comes before us?
[1:16:10] And we make a decision.
[1:16:12] I'm just, I'm sorry, I'm trying to just get clarification.
[1:16:15] So that is a bit of a procedural conundrum.
[1:16:20] So if you're going to enact an ordinance tonight, that has to do with data centers, and then in two weeks you're going to enact a moratorium on data centers, then what you did tonight has no effect because there's there's going to be a moratorium in effect, and then the purpose of the moratorium is to come up with a really good definition.
[1:16:45] And I agree with all of you, you're concerned about definitions.
[1:16:50] So the purpose of a moratorium would be to come up with a really good moratorium.
[1:16:53] To come up with exactly what type of data center you want to ban and which ones you want to allow.
[1:16:59] So for example, like Tier 1, maybe, but associated with hospitals, something like that.
[1:17:06] So after the six month moratorium, you're going to have to, you're going to come up with a new ordinance with regard to data centers.
[1:17:15] So there's no use in the one that you're contemplated.
[1:17:21] You're contemplating because for six months it's not going to be an effect because the
[1:17:25] moratorium will supersede it.
[1:17:27] And then after six months you're most likely going to have a more comprehensive, so there's
[1:17:32] no, there's no.
[1:17:33] But you're making and I just want to get back to what the assumption is that the moratorium
[1:17:39] will pass.
[1:17:40] I think there is.
[1:17:41] That's a nice point.
[1:17:42] But we don't.
[1:17:43] That's easy, you just for the time, 67,
[1:17:46] the petition, 67-26 until it comes up and it's
[1:17:51] with the word alignment the more to our end.
[1:17:54] OK, so a couple of points here, first of all,
[1:17:59] the more torrents temporary.
[1:18:00] So you need zoning, so no, no, no, no, no.
[1:18:03] And whether the order is somewhere before that more
[1:18:06] torrenting expiring, you're going to have to have a definition.
[1:18:09] So whether you put one in not thin, by the way,
[1:18:11] We know that zoning is dynamic.
[1:18:14] We watched MU2 go from where it is to a gigantic project
[1:18:19] where the zoning was changed.
[1:18:21] So there's nothing to prevent you from saying,
[1:18:23] here is the definition now.
[1:18:25] Yes, the moratorium pass, it takes precedent.
[1:18:28] We can modify it.
[1:18:29] But what happens if a moratorium gets challenged and loses?
[1:18:33] Then where are you?
[1:18:34] You have no definition you're playing.
[1:18:36] So I don't know that the order matters
[1:18:38] that you pass a petition now
[1:18:40] that puts an ordinance on the books, and you oversee it temporarily with a moratorium. So what?
[1:18:47] So what? So it is important to just remember that your zoning ordinance is a permissive,
[1:18:53] it's called a permissive zoning ordinance, which means that it has to be explicitly stated on the
[1:19:11] I'm just going to ask that we just not speak over each other.
[1:19:16] Councillor Noseworthy, thank you for your patience.
[1:19:18] You have the floor.
[1:19:19] Thank you.
[1:19:20] I am a bit frustrated because I put up my hand about six times.
[1:19:23] I'm trying to be calling you.
[1:19:25] I'm trying to, I apologize.
[1:19:27] I don't always see you.
[1:19:29] So you have the floor, please use it.
[1:19:33] I guess one of the things I want to say is that I believe that AI data
[1:19:39] centers. Yes, there are other kinds of data centers. AI data centers are very different
[1:19:43] animal, as was said by one of the petitioners that anything we've ever seen before. They
[1:19:49] don't play nice and they have more money than we could possibly imagine. So I want to proceed
[1:19:56] with an a very conservative manner because I don't think I'm not talking about smaller business
[1:20:02] centers who might have some computers and have or hospitals who have like an AI component.
[1:20:08] I'm talking about, I'm sorry, a data center component have the same as AI data centers.
[1:20:16] It's a very different animal, and I don't think it's something that we've ever seen before,
[1:20:20] even with all the cumulative experience.
[1:20:24] I have a letter, you let me know when is appropriate, madam chair, that two of my constituents
[1:20:31] asked if I would read into the record, so I can wait to do that whenever it's appropriate,
[1:20:36] but I keep putting my hand up and I don't want to have that get lost in the conversation. Thank you.
[1:20:41] We are. We have a number of letters. We have a number of letters.
[1:20:47] That's going to take part little as they come up right now.
[1:20:51] We have an active public hearing and we're going to continue to do that with the people that are here.
[1:20:59] Okay. Any other members of the council have any comments concerns at this point?
[1:21:03] I just wanted to run by, because the way I understood it, I just want to make sure I'm correct.
[1:21:11] The fact that there are agenda items for a moratorium or banning or whatever it is,
[1:21:21] the fact that it's on here essentially stops anybody from applying for anything.
[1:21:27] correct on that? No, not not. Not pursuant to the new changes to 48
[1:21:32] section 6. Okay, but used to be just like correct. It used to be that way. Okay.
[1:21:38] Councillor Bidianza? I just picking up off what the city's listed on the
[1:21:42] key about where a premise of use. I think it's a win-win. We're protected, you know,
[1:21:47] and I like I said, I take your point. We can fix that. We can put some belts
[1:21:51] and suspend us on what's existing now in the table of uses. And I don't
[1:21:56] that offends anything if we do that, right?
[1:21:59] And so we have what's the win-win?
[1:22:00] We have protected there, and we have the time to study
[1:22:03] under the moratorium to get a real tight definition
[1:22:06] that everybody can live with.
[1:22:09] And like I said, this just helped the federal government
[1:22:11] with the Frontier Act, doesn't make it all irrelevant.
[1:22:15] Any other members of the council?
[1:22:18] Any other members of the public that would like to address
[1:22:21] 64-26, and I'm going to say 67-26, since we've
[1:22:27] for a second time is there any other
[1:22:30] I'm sorry, council shall falls off or? Right, through the chair, both through the chair. The constituent that the word five council was referencing also emailed me. And they couldn't be here this evening. They would have been here for the public forum. I mean for the public hearing to speak. So I think it's very important to get there.
[1:22:46] I have those emails and I'll be reading them in. Thank you.
[1:22:49] Good. Thank you.
[1:22:51] Okay.
[1:22:53] Hey, I'll calibrate 800 average straight.
[1:22:55] I would just say, what's the Voltaire quote?
[1:22:58] Perfections, the enemy of good.
[1:23:01] We can sit here and debate things over and over and try to get it.
[1:23:04] Perfect imperfect. They move quick.
[1:23:07] You got deep pockets. They're going to be moving quick.
[1:23:09] Put it on the books. The beautiful thing about zoning.
[1:23:12] It's transparent.
[1:23:13] It's public.
[1:23:15] If some business needs it amended, they can come put a petition through.
[1:23:19] make their case and we can we can change it and the public hears every second of that.
[1:23:26] I love the moratorium. I do both, do it all. Like who knows what they're going to throw at you,
[1:23:32] what court, you know, legally is they're going to try to skirt away with, but at least when it's
[1:23:38] zoning, it's on the books, it's public. No one can say, well you did this, you didn't do this,
[1:23:45] It's all out in the open, and I think that's really, really important.
[1:23:51] Thank you, Ms. Brady.
[1:23:53] Counselor.
[1:23:54] Arden Jerk.
[1:23:55] I'm sorry, but it's a long time.
[1:23:59] As we saw it with a battery source system, which is mentioned earlier,
[1:24:03] that's stuck in through the building inspector, the building department.
[1:24:06] And I have consurgents as Mr. Wallace, you know, mentioned that maybe that could come again, something like that, you know, that I think I was called a solar system and doing a battery storage system.
[1:24:22] That was 2020 when that happened.
[1:24:25] Okay.
[1:24:26] I want to lose fact of time.
[1:24:28] Anyway, y'all, I think my Council of Badeans' suggestion is correct.
[1:24:33] Isn't it, if we, what do we do with 64 or 67, 26, that we have to look at and
[1:24:39] redefine the office in our bylaws by zoning ordinances at the same time, because we still
[1:24:45] need about a door over here.
[1:24:47] It's a way of getting in through the back door, you know, that's it, just my concerns are
[1:24:56] I'm going to ask you, I've been saying mallet, that's okay, it's mallet, it's mallet,
[1:25:00] mallet.
[1:25:01] Okay, mallet, I'm sorry.
[1:25:02] I'll answer to most, I'll answer to them.
[1:25:04] No, and I meant to ask you the way in the beginning, it's just, okay, so to be Crystal Clear
[1:25:11] Councilman Arnger, the last sentence of this definition specifically says, if you were to pass
[1:25:17] 67-26 for purposes of this ordinance, a data center shall not be considered an office use.
[1:25:26] So it does achieve the objectives that we're all speaking of.
[1:25:29] It protects the city now.
[1:25:32] In the event that a moratorium isn't enacted, it doesn't pass for some reason.
[1:25:38] You have this.
[1:25:40] You have this.
[1:25:41] It's not ever going to be perfect.
[1:25:43] I don't agree with putting all of the different layers, but for right now, it does.
[1:25:47] give you the clear definition to empower this council, to be able to define and pause.
[1:25:56] And then that could be instituted as well as part of the moratorium.
[1:26:00] So I do believe that both were designed to, they came in at the same time.
[1:26:04] I think that the council, not a president and our citizens cared and both want the same objective.
[1:26:12] We're asking for both.
[1:26:13] I agree, and I use office building as an example, but as I said, the battery storage system
[1:26:21] was passed as a solar system.
[1:26:24] Right.
[1:26:24] That's why we use that language in here.
[1:26:27] Yeah, but can there, is there a possibility that if we don't specifically outline some of
[1:26:34] this stuff, that the building inspector may come up with another unique definition of battery
[1:26:41] It's a matter of, I pray, data center, it's part of part of me.
[1:26:49] So I think that this, what this defines is instead of just saying,
[1:26:53] large data processing, it says 25%.
[1:26:58] It was designed to be specific.
[1:27:00] I think there's a lot of room for discussion, and I think the more
[1:27:04] the joy of this is the way to go into my personal opinion for both of them.
[1:27:08] And I think we really and truly need to get a lot of history and to study these questions.
[1:27:14] Oh, yeah.
[1:27:15] Every one that has a cell phone is depending upon a data center.
[1:27:19] And there's a, well, cats 22 with a data centers.
[1:27:22] We need them, but where is the location appropriate?
[1:27:26] And for my perspective, I don't see any place in the limister that could be an appropriate location for a data center.
[1:27:32] That's just my humble opinion.
[1:27:38] We're coming up on having to open the full meeting here shortly, but I do want to, before we turn it back, I'll see the public into the council as well as I do have an email from Clariss and Clariss and Dan Yomel.
[1:27:56] You, ma'am, you, ma'am of Linda Lav and Lemister, it's dated 21 August of 26,
[1:28:01] Derek Council members.
[1:28:02] This letter is in support of petition to band data centers and Lemister submitted by
[1:28:06] Donna, which is scheduled.
[1:28:08] Donna Molliday.
[1:28:09] I was going to say, now you're skipping it all together.
[1:28:12] It was not intentional.
[1:28:13] I caught myself.
[1:28:14] We're just scheduled on the City Council agenda on Monday, the 24th of August,
[1:28:18] it's 625.
[1:28:19] Unfortunately, due to a prior work commitments, they are unable to attend.
[1:28:22] But we request that this is red and put into the public record at the meeting.
[1:28:26] We are in support of the ban on data centers in limister mass.
[1:28:30] Our key concerns are the following.
[1:28:32] In compatible land use, while limister is a mixed use community.
[1:28:36] These sorts of industrial mega structures are not in keeping with the tenor and city and risk
[1:28:40] permanent negative changes to its character.
[1:28:43] High energy and water use data centers use massive amounts of power and water.
[1:28:47] The strain can drive up local utility bills for residents and stretch our public resources
[1:28:52] during peak demand and drought, we are still in the long-term drought, and already experienced
[1:28:56] city mandated watering bands every summer, these facilities will only exacerbate the
[1:29:01] strain on the precious natural resources limister is blessed to have. Noise and environmental
[1:29:05] impact, this continuous cooling fan and diesel generator noise is extraordinary. This will
[1:29:11] lower property values for butters and surrounding neighborhoods alike. Heavy construction
[1:29:15] traffic will disrupt our already strained infrastructure. We seek to protect the people in our
[1:29:19] community as well as wildlife who would both bear the brunt of the negative impacts.
[1:29:24] Few local jobs, these facilities create very few permanent jobs after construction is completed.
[1:29:29] Our community would bear the long-term negative effects without the benefit of significant economic return.
[1:29:35] We respectfully ask the City Council to take the following steps.
[1:29:38] One, an act of ban on any and all data centers within the borders of Lemister 2,
[1:29:42] deny all current and future permits and zoning approvals requested for any data center project.
[1:29:48] three require full independent environmental and infrastructure impact studies before considering any similar projects in the future.
[1:29:56] While we respect the thought behind the petition for a moratorium on data centers and limps.
[1:30:00] The Minister is proposed by Councillor Frida, but our preference is to encourage the council to pass a ban on the data centers in limister outright. Thank you for your time.
[1:30:08] Your public service and your dedication to protecting the residents and resources of our beloved city, sincerely, Clarice and Dan.
[1:30:17] Madam Chair, I am really impressed. That's exactly 7 o'clock.
[1:30:21] Planned the whole thing.
[1:30:24] The meeting of the Alumni Society Council for August 24th, 2026 is now in
[1:30:30] session.
[1:30:31] Please join me in a salute to our flag.
[1:30:35] We're going to introduce to you the flag of the United States of America and
[1:30:38] do a Republic for which stands.
[1:30:41] We're going to need an individual liberty and justice for all.
[1:30:53] We're now going to do a wrong call of counsel and an attendant.
[1:30:56] Council of Cornere.
[1:30:58] President.
[1:30:59] Council of Pauline Cornere.
[1:31:01] Council of Ireland.
[1:31:02] President.
[1:31:03] Council of Noseworth.
[1:31:03] President.
[1:31:04] Council of Romero.
[1:31:06] Council of Chalice.
[1:31:07] President.
[1:31:08] Council of Robins.
[1:31:08] President.
[1:31:09] Council of Bedanza.
[1:31:12] President as well.
[1:31:13] And we also have with us a journey.
[1:31:16] Amy Questle from my KPW.
[1:31:20] Now I don't know.
[1:31:21] Vice President.
[1:31:22] Do we have any minutes?
[1:31:24] Madam President, I do have, we have two sets of minutes that are pending.
[1:31:28] I'm going to ask for further time on those with everything that was on.
[1:31:32] And other councillors have reached out and said,
[1:31:34] I need a little more time to review them as well.
[1:31:36] Okay, we can go to those on the next agenda.
[1:31:38] Thank you.
[1:31:40] So do I have a motion to recess?
[1:31:42] Make that motion.
[1:31:43] Council of Columbia and Council of Robins.
[1:31:50] on those in favor of recess,
[1:31:54] and then the recess comes
[1:31:55] to come here.
[1:31:57] You're all in.
[1:31:58] Thank you, Madam President.
[1:32:01] So this is going to be a continuation of our public hearing
[1:32:04] on a combined 64-26 and 67-26 that we've opened up both at the same time.
[1:32:13] I'm going to go to, do I have any members of the council that would like
[1:32:18] to address this once again, council burdensome?
[1:32:23] I believe in the point that I, we looked at the definition of an office, and I'm
[1:32:28] just there in the current zone of law.
[1:32:31] And quite frankly, it's pretty weak.
[1:32:34] So it's kind of a double duty.
[1:32:36] So that ought to be addressed anyway.
[1:32:39] And it would be a good time to do sort of some exclusionary language, as I suggested,
[1:32:45] regarding data centers.
[1:32:51] Mr. Rollins.
[1:32:53] So I agree with you.
[1:32:54] I mean, we all worked on the zoning, right?
[1:32:57] We know how much effort we're there.
[1:32:59] And the lesson, and it was a year-long process.
[1:33:03] And the emphasis was to provide definitions and not leave it up to the interpretation upstairs
[1:33:13] and put the pressure on a building inspector, but to be more explicit.
[1:33:18] And the other lesson is that this document cannot be static.
[1:33:23] The world change, there was no such things as data centers when we did this thing.
[1:33:26] So you've got to be dynamic.
[1:33:29] In terms of the criteria for a special permit, special permits are pretty powerful.
[1:33:35] I've never seen one overdum, but these are the deepest pockets.
[1:33:38] You're going to take it according to say, what are the criteria?
[1:33:40] I think there's plenty, water, noise, I mean, we don't have the water supply in
[1:33:46] minister to truly do a data center of any scale, but anyways, I think you can come up with
[1:33:52] many criteria and it was pretty flexible in terms of the power of the city council with
[1:33:57] a special permit, especially if it's very well defined. But don't you have the same criteria
[1:34:03] with Mortorium? Aren't they going to ask you what's your criteria for Mortorium? I mean, they're
[1:34:08] going to say yes, I need more time to figure it out, but either way, I think there's potential
[1:34:14] for challenging this stuff. It's coming. They're not going to shut down and say we're not
[1:34:18] building any more data centers because everybody, I mean Texas as a state is talking about
[1:34:23] a moratorium now. Somewhere along line, this is going to break and be challenged. And I think
[1:34:28] both provide you with the best safety for the citizens. So my point is, if we, the moratorium
[1:34:37] does not need criteria. However, if we do this our job right, we will have, I can envision
[1:34:46] an application from one of these places. That application would have, in other words, as
[1:34:50] part of the special permit application, they would have to provide us with the amount of power
[1:34:56] that this thing was going to create, then the water requirements, they would have to give us a study
[1:35:02] of our local water capacities and indicate how they
[1:35:07] are going to coexist with that as it currently exists,
[1:35:11] same with power, all the way down the line.
[1:35:13] That's a lot of work.
[1:35:15] If we do it right, we can certainly put a damper
[1:35:19] on anything that we can't handle here.
[1:35:22] And as a matter of fact, we all know,
[1:35:24] half the city is protected, conservation land almost.
[1:35:29] So they're on a whole lot of places,
[1:35:31] a big data center can go on Lomester to begin with, but I think we have a lot of homework
[1:35:36] to do.
[1:35:37] And I think we got to put the onus on an applicant of any scale to say, what is this going
[1:35:42] to create?
[1:35:43] What do you say is going to do it or less?
[1:35:44] And what are you going to get the capacity to do it?
[1:35:47] We don't know the answers to those questions.
[1:35:49] It's going to take time to put this together.
[1:35:52] I think we can work at common purpose and we can get this done and protect our citizens.
[1:35:57] We're all trying to put the same thing.
[1:35:59] that we get to protect our citizens and our environment and our power, our water all the way down the line.
[1:36:05] And I think we can do it and we can do it in a way that everybody wins.
[1:36:10] Okay, I'm going to open it up to the public.
[1:36:13] Is there anyone else in the public that would like to step up and discuss 64-26 or 67-26?
[1:36:22] For a second time, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address 64-26 or 67-26?
[1:36:29] And for a third and final time, is there anyone in the public who would like to address 64-26?
[1:36:36] 67-26.
[1:36:38] My name is Dorothy Rillo, I'm 54 low street, I've been before, you know, and I think you all
[1:36:45] know how I feel about data centers, I think you really have to be careful.
[1:36:49] What is going to be happening in the Mr. It's you talk about power, you talk about water, you talk about air pollution.
[1:36:59] The things that are going to destroy the civilization civilization is weaponry and pollution.
[1:37:05] It's going to destroy our country. It's going to destroy the world and keep it up.
[1:37:10] And what this is, we're asked to do is not only that but to use fossil fuels.
[1:37:17] fossil fuel has been noted to be very damaging to our environment.
[1:37:23] And I think we have to be very careful.
[1:37:25] And you people here, I mean, we have the federal level, we have the state level.
[1:37:30] But you at the local level is one that is respected and has the power. It's really, you just wonderful and trying to keep our city compatible to what we as people live here, quiet and wonderful and clean.
[1:37:51] And there's something that was said, it says that in justice anywhere, there's a threat to justice everywhere.
[1:38:04] Thank you.
[1:38:05] Thank you, Ms. Rural.
[1:38:07] Mrs. Rural, are you always good the right thing to say at the right time? Thank you for that.
[1:38:15] Okay, anyone for the third and final time, anyone in the audience like to address 64-26 or 67-26?
[1:38:23] Okay, seeing none, I'm going to turn this back to the Council, Madam President, to clarify
[1:38:29] my options here as to these two public hearings that we've addressed now.
[1:38:39] As to 64-26,
[1:38:43] are we discussing a leave to withdraw at this point or just simply closing
[1:38:47] the public hearing, does that, I'm not sure, I'm not sure procedurally, does that get addressed
[1:38:54] now or does that get addressed during the regular session of the council?
[1:39:06] Okay, so then my position on 64-26 would give, leave to withdraw on 64-26.
[1:39:12] Please close the public hearing and grant a leave to withdraw.
[1:39:19] Without prejudice.
[1:39:20] Without prejudice.
[1:39:22] That would be my position.
[1:39:24] I'd ask you to check with members of my committee.
[1:39:27] I do agree.
[1:39:35] I agree.
[1:39:37] So we're closing the public hearing and that will be our recommendation during the full hearing.
[1:39:50] Okay, we also have open right now is 67-26, which we open officially, I am going to close the public hearing on 67-26.
[1:40:25] All right.
[1:40:26] Then I think we are going to turn it back over to you.
[1:40:29] I'm sorry, the recommendation.
[1:40:33] The recommendation,
[1:40:37] it would be, all right, so it's my recommendation to close the public hearing on 67-26,
[1:40:48] requesting further time on 67-26,
[1:40:54] and ask you to check with members of my committee.
[1:40:58] I also agree.
[1:41:01] I agree.
[1:41:10] Yes, Madam President, just ask one procedural question because we've been backed into this corner before.
[1:41:16] If we're going to give this further time, should we close the public hearing?
[1:41:21] Well, because then we can't take any new testimony.
[1:41:23] And we've been backed into this corner before.
[1:41:29] Right.
[1:41:30] committee member is, I think I get, I get what they're trying to say with this petition.
[1:41:38] And I personally, all I want to, I've heard all I need to hear, but I want to weigh it
[1:41:44] with the moratorium once we get a decision back from the planning board.
[1:41:50] So I mean for me, I'm okay with this public hearing, I think I get it, I've heard what I need
[1:41:55] here and now I'm just going to weigh the two once we hear from the planning board with the
[1:42:01] with the moratorium and make a decision. We can still pay it. We can debate it.
[1:42:08] I understand that. That's what I was, if the public wants to weigh in any more.
[1:42:14] Can I, are we in committee now, is this a committee decision? Because I just want to be clear
[1:42:20] because I'm the third member of that committee. So I just want to,
[1:42:25] we just voted to close the public
[1:42:27] hearing and to grant that our recommendation when we're back in session would be to grant
[1:42:33] 67-26 further time. So with closing the public hearing is, right, but I take no more
[1:42:41] testimony, we can still, we can still debate. Right. Right. But I think as Councillor Robbins
[1:42:48] has pointed out, I think we have been in a situation before where we have closed the public
[1:42:53] hearing given it further time. So what I'd like to know is is it possible to amend this rather than closing the public hearing just to further time?
[1:43:04] We can do that. I wouldn't change my recommendation to close the public hearing and the recommendation to be for further time.
[1:43:11] Should also be noted that if anybody in the public wants to comment on it,
[1:43:16] when it's on the agenda next, it can certainly do that in the public forum as well.
[1:43:23] Okay.
[1:43:24] They can also comment when the moratorium public hearing contract as well.
[1:43:31] So, same type of information.
[1:43:33] I think you should, you would need to read and survey my committee as to our recommendation.
[1:43:40] That council going there?
[1:43:41] I'm okay with closing the public hearing and granting further time.
[1:43:47] Give in the fact that you've indicated that people will have another opportunity to present
[1:43:53] a perspective opinion down the line, then I am okay with that recommendation of what
[1:43:58] to close the public hearing and provide further time.
[1:44:01] So you're still unanimous.
[1:44:02] Yes.
[1:44:03] All right.
[1:44:05] Thank you for the committee on that.
[1:44:08] And now we're going to move on to five, five, five, five, five, five,
[1:44:18] Thank you Madam President, my name is Carrie Noseworthy, I am the chair of Public Service.
[1:44:25] I am joined by at Large Counselor Shalifu Zaffer and at Large Counselor Robins.
[1:44:31] We are here tonight to look at Petition 05-27 Massachusetts Electrical Company doing business
[1:44:40] as National Grid, request permission to locate polls, wires, and fixtures, including the necessary
[1:44:45] sustaining and protecting fixtures, along and across the following public way.
[1:44:50] West Street, National Grid, to install one jointly owned poll on West Street, beginning at
[1:44:55] a point approximately 170 feet east of the center line of the intersection.
[1:45:00] Of Westery and Butal Street, installing new poll 19-2 on Westery. We're for it praise that after do notice in hearing as provided by law, it be granted a location for and permission to erect and maintain polls and wires, together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary, said polls to be erected substantially in accordance with the plan filed here with Mark Westery.
[1:45:26] Let Mr. Massachusetts, number 3, 1, 3, 08, 2, 8, 1, June 25, 20, 26, also for permission
[1:45:35] to lay and maintain underground ladders, cables and wires in the above or intersecting
[1:45:43] public ways for the purpose of making connections with such poles and building as each of
[1:45:49] said petitioners may desire for distributing purposes.
[1:45:51] Your petitioner agrees to reserve slaves for one cross arm at a suitable point on each of
[1:45:57] said polls for the fire, police telephone and telegraph, signal wires belonging to the municipality,
[1:46:05] and used by it exclusively for municipal purposes.
[1:46:10] I believe we are joined tonight by a very patient Lenny from National Grid, so if you could
[1:46:15] just come up and not take the podium in case of the people come in, but just have to
[1:46:22] see that the table introduce yourself and just give us a general description of the
[1:46:27] project.
[1:46:28] Thank you so much.
[1:46:29] Of course, good evening, everybody.
[1:46:31] My name is Leiden Martinez, I'm here for National Grid talking about the said petition.
[1:46:37] And we are looking to locate a poll in I believe this is flying street, yes, that will
[1:46:47] execute this paper.
[1:46:48] It's flying street.
[1:46:49] It's on west street, but like right in front of flying street.
[1:46:52] So flying that runs down.
[1:46:54] Yes, it is near there.
[1:46:56] Yes.
[1:46:56] It wasn't like that condo area.
[1:46:58] So in that condo area, there is a three-phase bank in the like a field.
[1:47:03] And we would like to relocate that to the street to make it easier for us to maintain.
[1:47:07] safer for everybody. There are three phase banks further down that line, but we can access
[1:47:12] them to the parking lot. So that's not so issue. Okay, thanks so much, Lee. And our DPW were
[1:47:20] didn't have any questions on the LEMISTR police department. We're in opposition, but one of the
[1:47:26] things they brought up was the fact that says just to note that the West Street right away is
[1:47:33] feedback behind the existing sidewalk in that location. So I didn't know if that was something
[1:47:39] you were familiar with or I just wanted to make sure it was brought to your attention just
[1:47:43] because they had mentioned it. I appreciate it. I went out there today and I was looking for
[1:47:48] state I put one in but it's good. When I spoke to the designer it's supposed to be like the sidewalk
[1:47:54] ends and the pulse will be essentially right there like so it's still within the town right
[1:47:58] would. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Because when I went down there, I just, it is sort of, I don't
[1:48:03] want to say congested area, but there is, there are lots of housing and the intersection
[1:48:08] is right there. So I just wanted to make sure it didn't, you know, impede anybody's access
[1:48:14] to, like, the sidewalk or anything like that. Oh, no, no, it should not be anybody's access
[1:48:19] to sidewalk. Okay. The whole supposed to be going in the dirt and that we have no anchors
[1:48:23] or anything going into the sidewalk or anything that would impede anybody's access for it.
[1:48:28] And do either of my other committee members have any questions, comments or concerns?
[1:48:35] Does anybody else on the council have any questions, comments or concerns regarding this petition?
[1:48:42] No.
[1:48:43] So with that, I'll go to the public and ask if anybody would like to speak for or against petition 0 5-27.
[1:48:51] For a second time, I'll ask if anybody would like to speak for or against petition 0.5-27.
[1:49:02] And for a third and final time, would anyone like to speak for or against petition 0.5-27?
[1:49:12] Seeing none, Madam President would be my recommendation to close the public hearing.
[1:49:20] Thank
[1:49:23] you so much, like appreciate it.
[1:49:26] I appreciate it, thank you.
[1:49:30] Just a quick note while we're talking about public service and telephone polls.
[1:49:38] We can always learn something every day, but all the years I've been here.
[1:49:42] I've got a number of phone calls a couple of days ago.
[1:49:46] my street. There were five, three or four, five trucks, police, and
[1:49:54] polls were being installed. And everybody calling me said, we didn't
[1:49:59] say anything on the city council agenda. We didn't hear anything about
[1:50:03] you know, Debbie Drive being new telephone polls. I talked to the
[1:50:10] gentleman putting it in, talked to the police, called the supervisor,
[1:50:14] called Council of Columbia who I thought would know something about it, found out that there's
[1:50:21] so the public knows if you ever see it, that there is no need to have a permit through
[1:50:28] the City Council to replace the poll. It's only for new installation. So we found out quickly
[1:50:35] that you know, and I worked and I had my answer. So thank you to the left lecture company for that.
[1:50:44] appreciate and horizon.
[1:50:47] All right.
[1:50:47] Thank you, Councilor.
[1:50:48] For moving that along quickly.
[1:50:51] Now back to you, Chair.
[1:50:52] Have enough of a break?
[1:50:53] I did.
[1:50:54] I did.
[1:50:55] I did.
[1:50:59] I did.
[1:50:59] I did.
[1:51:00] I did.
[1:51:01] I did.
[1:51:01] I did.
[1:51:07] I did.
[1:51:09] on behalf of the 10 registered voters as follows.
[1:51:12] Modify the existing entry in the table of uses,
[1:51:15] apartments, multi-family dwelling, from being yes in the M-U-2.
[1:51:21] Again, there's a chart attached,
[1:51:23] and this is requesting it going from being yes in M-U-2 to N,
[1:51:29] in M-U-2, which would be a null in the M-U-2 zoning.
[1:51:33] Again, we have the petitioner who is here,
[1:51:36] we're going to welcome her up to the hot seat if you will for a moment. Before I open this
[1:51:47] up, I know there's a number of people here. I did receive a number of emails and request
[1:51:53] for people who were unable to attend. I just want to make sure if there's anybody who's here
[1:52:03] who's already sent in an email and ended up showing up anyway if you just put your name on a
[1:52:08] list or something and let me know. Otherwise we will deal with the emails after we open
[1:52:13] up to the people that are present today. So, Ms. Mallett, welcome again. Thank you.
[1:52:18] Thank you.
[1:52:19] Thank you.
[1:52:20] I'll get it. By the end of the night, I will get it. You're doing well. Thank you.
[1:52:27] Um, for, um,
[1:52:30] Allowing us to continue to appear before you. So MU2, basically what the constituents are asking is, as you know, the approval
[1:52:40] went forth for the Orchard Hill MU2 high-density apartment complex. So that was approved at the city level. It's been approved at the state level.
[1:52:50] So, award-one will be absorbing the impact of roughly just shy of 300 apartments, without
[1:52:58] any increase in school emergency medical services fire, and we are asking that the council
[1:53:07] respectfully evaluate the zoning for additional apartments and multi-family dwelling to be
[1:53:15] addressed in that when the zoning was changed, the density was not simply just for a small
[1:53:22] subdivision or subsection within MU2. All of MU2's density is now approved for high
[1:53:32] density apartments and multifamily use such that if it were to be built out, it could potentially
[1:53:39] be another thousand units by right in that zone. And Ward 1 feels that we have absorbed
[1:53:46] as much as we can practically within reason. And we are asking you to evaluate the apartments
[1:53:56] and multifamily dwelling further into that MU2 zone. So the spirit of this is that we recognize
[1:54:04] yes, there's a need for housing.
[1:54:06] We're not asking for no more housing.
[1:54:09] We're absorbing 300 units without any increase in fire,
[1:54:13] without any increase in traffic, without any increase in schools.
[1:54:16] We are asking that that be evaluated to the point that the
[1:54:20] table of uses is changed to no when it comes to multifamily
[1:54:25] or high density apartment buildings.
[1:54:28] Thank you.
[1:54:29] Okay, any members of the Council have any questions, concerns, would like to make any statements
[1:54:36] asking any questions of the petitioner?
[1:54:40] All right, seeing none, I'm going to open this.
[1:54:42] Oh, just another point of clarity.
[1:54:45] The original M-U-2 had a limit of 30 acres, or 30% of the total land value had to be
[1:54:52] was a maximum that you could do for residential.
[1:54:54] When the change went through to MU2 via the housing committee process, it opened up all 88 acres to be residential.
[1:55:07] Before it was limited to 30, now it's 80.
[1:55:12] And the density,
[1:55:15] the density was 14 units per acre by right in the old.
[1:55:21] 17 with a special permit, the new density is 22 acres, a 22-units per acre by right.
[1:55:29] So, if you do the simple math, 80 times 22 or 21.74, I think the number actually is,
[1:55:36] but 80 times on paper, he can have 1,600 units by right.
[1:55:43] And the buffers used to be a minimum of $50, now there's a maximum with no minimum.
[1:55:48] So, we went through the battle with the changing the reasoning back, we lost that battle,
[1:55:59] the 300 units are going in.
[1:56:02] This is saying stop there.
[1:56:06] You get phase one, which is massive, 300 units, but you have the capacity to go as much as
[1:56:16] the rest of those 80 acres can hold, which it's not going to be 1,600 total, but it could
[1:56:23] be well over 1,000. And we're talking now, we know the density in the existing one is less
[1:56:30] than 21.74 because they built the clubhouse in whatnot than the pools and they set up the
[1:56:36] infrastructure for the remaining. That's still 9-4-story buildings going in. And there's going
[1:56:43] a lot of noise when that construction starts. And I've had this conversation dozens of time in
[1:56:49] Ward 1. If you're talking 35 type 30 plus buildings over there and that construction starts,
[1:56:59] a lot of people that aren't paying attention now are going to be stuck in traffic in Ward 1 and
[1:57:03] they're going to make the connection. So what this is saying is, yes, you get the two 90, but
[1:57:11] Let's stop there. Zoning can be re-evaluated five, ten years from now. We've got all kinds of other
[1:57:17] development going on in the city that's going to be an impact. So that's what this
[1:57:21] petition is saying. Now, the argument that you're going to hear from the developers, it creates a pre-existing
[1:57:27] non-conforming for the existing project. And I would argue that that's not going to change his first phase
[1:57:35] One bit, he's going to get everything he wants in that first phase.
[1:57:41] There's a lot of projects built in the city under pre-existing non-conforming.
[1:57:46] I think he just changed his zoning for the huge project that was already developed down
[1:57:51] off of, you know, whatever it is.
[1:57:54] The point is, the argument that pre-existing non-conforming is somehow going to affect
[1:58:00] these 290 units, I would make the argument that that's a non-issue.
[1:58:04] He's going to get everything he wants in that he's he that's a done deal
[1:58:08] He gets a massive project in Ward 1. This is about
[1:58:13] What's left and this is the last this is the last
[1:58:17] Yeah, if this you have the power here
[1:58:21] January 13th was a big meeting I tell when I have this conversation I go watch January 13th you'll see where the zoning was changed and you can you know
[1:58:29] Look at that meeting
[1:58:30] This is the next but this is it
[1:58:33] If this doesn't pass, then it's wide open by right thousand units plus, and I feel very, very, very passionate that it will have a dramatic negative effect on word one.
[1:58:52] I really do, so what I'm asking, what is being asked for with this petition is to say no.
[1:59:00] Let's build phase one.
[1:59:02] Let's see what the 200 plus units and the gateway project, see how that works out.
[1:59:07] See what the impact is on the schools.
[1:59:09] We hear from experts, no impact on schools, right?
[1:59:13] Minimal impact, 50% of these units are multi-bedroom.
[1:59:17] People aren't renting extra bedroom luxury apartments for thousands of dollars to have spare bedrooms.
[1:59:25] There's going to be kids.
[1:59:27] Traffic.
[1:59:28] We hear don't worry.
[1:59:29] They're all just going to jump on route two and go to work and come back.
[1:59:32] There's going to be minimal traffic.
[1:59:34] I mean, I've lived there for 35 years.
[1:59:36] I talked a lot of people.
[1:59:37] I have yet to find anybody who says,
[1:59:41] By leaving the books to be by right to build a thousand units.
[1:59:45] In North Lomester is a good idea. Nobody agrees with that. Nobody. It will dramatically affect
[1:59:53] the neighborhoods and the integrity of those neighborhoods in Ward 1. This is it.
[2:00:00] We have the power. You have the authority. This is the last gasp in my opinion.
[2:00:12] Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if anybody on council would have this answer, but it is making me wonder, obviously.
[2:00:21] It wouldn't help with the school piece or the traffic piece or the quality of life piece.
[2:00:25] But where we are so strapped with police and fire and paramedics, and I understand it's probably a corner office decision,
[2:00:32] do we have something on the books or how does it work when we are looking at housing, because we do need housing,
[2:00:40] that we have increased tax revenue or however the formula works, that we are increasing our first responders.
[2:00:48] And if we don't have an answer, I think it would be an important question to be asking as things are moving forward.
[2:00:53] Thank you.
[2:00:55] Is there any members of the public there here that would like to address, I'm sorry,
[2:01:03] Councillor Schell if was over?
[2:01:04] That's okay.
[2:01:04] Thank you very much.
[2:01:07] You know, I think the way that the petitioners described, you know, where we're at with this
[2:01:12] project, I think, is the apt.
[2:01:14] And, you know, 300 units, 290 units, whatever that is, that is going to create mayhem.
[2:01:21] I would argue in North Lomester.
[2:01:23] The traffic, the increased public safety calls, whether it's police or fire, whether it's EMTs.
[2:01:32] The school system in Lymnster, in North Lymnster, both at the lower, at the grammar school and also at the middle school, they are at capacity.
[2:01:44] They're at capacity.
[2:01:45] They may have one or two spots, you know, for kids to school choice in, that's it, they're at capacity.
[2:01:50] So, if we start adding 300 units in the next year or the year after, whatever, we add another 400 or 300 or whatever,
[2:02:00] up to the maximum that can be built on that land, we are going to be in a very serious situation here in terms of our budget going forward.
[2:02:13] school buildings cost a lot of money, you know, in the middle of the fall
[2:02:17] broke school, having to rebuild that. Just think about that. Think about the
[2:02:23] long term. Think about the traffic. I shop at Target. I'm up in North
[2:02:28] Lomens, Darlatime. I avoid Ruth 13. I remember when one of our counselors, the
[2:02:33] Wardwin counselor, council faculty, who was a very good friend when she passed
[2:02:38] And we had, we all attended her funeral mass at our lady, the lake in North Lemmonster.
[2:02:45] The people at the church, we had a police detail because all the traffic was from the bridge,
[2:02:54] you know, down at Hamilton and Ruth 13, all the way up to our lady, the lake.
[2:03:00] Church goes, we were going to go to the cemetery, down by Sears Town,
[2:03:03] And we had to have the Congress, had to have a police escort to bypass all of that root
[2:03:10] 13 traffic so that we could get to the cemetery to bury our friend.
[2:03:15] That's not unusual on root 13 in women's stuff.
[2:03:18] For people who live there and for people who happen to visit there.
[2:03:24] So this is, you know, it's very, very serious, and one thing I've read in, I don't know
[2:03:31] which attorneys, most recent letter it was, but, you know, talked about or mentioned that
[2:03:37] the state has a housing crisis and affordable housing crisis.
[2:03:41] State absolutely has an affordable housing crisis.
[2:03:44] This is not going to address that.
[2:03:47] This area, lemon stirs a gateway city.
[2:03:50] City of Fitchburg, our neighbor to the north is also a gateway city.
[2:03:53] We are not surrounded by affluent communities.
[2:03:57] We are surrounded by working class people so to if that's such a stretch
[2:04:04] It was an insult honestly, you know that this is going to help address affordable housing that that's not what this is going to do
[2:04:09] It's not gonna house anybody in Lomester
[2:04:11] So again, the citizens of Lomester the residents of Lomester the people who live here and love it here and have been here for a long time to pay taxes
[2:04:21] They're gonna bear the brunt of this building for sure for sure
[2:04:27] 300 units that have all been approved, those can be built, but let's step up, let's step up and represent the people who support us and put us here.
[2:04:39] Thank you.
[2:04:42] I just want to add something because after I believe it was the planning board meeting,
[2:04:52] when the
[2:04:52] former councilor Rowans mentioned that wood did not win any while housing.
[2:04:59] I wanted to tolerate any while housing.
[2:05:01] And I had somebody in wood to recall me.
[2:05:05] And at first I was going to just refer them to the wood to reconcil,
[2:05:08] but it was somebody that I knew for a long time.
[2:05:10] And they said, we have had a lot of building.
[2:05:15] I'm concerned that we're hitting areas against areas
[2:05:19] by making a statement that we're not going to build
[2:05:22] in Ward 1.
[2:05:23] So I did some research.
[2:05:28] And it's kind of an interesting research,
[2:05:31] Dr. Balpholberg School, we talk about, we have Samusette.
[2:05:34] We have Central Street, we have Traffic.
[2:05:37] And I started thinking of which real terrorists, 740 Central Street, Brooks pond, metal pond, metal brookdakers, the two trailer parks that we have.
[2:05:53] So I checked with the assessor's office today and once 3 has 890 units, just on Central Street, in just a short area.
[2:06:05] Brooks Pond has 22 buildings with 506 units.
[2:06:10] In addition to 890 apartments, we have 935 condominiums, and all the projects that we have
[2:06:21] between Fawbbrook, Melbourne, Terrorist, Chapman Place, and going down the line.
[2:06:26] So, the distribution and the schools, and maybe completely different, you know, with
[2:06:36] wood one, if you want to show and prove that wood one is a complete difference.
[2:06:42] We have the schools that aren't overcrowded in Fallbrook and Samusette.
[2:06:48] I mean, they're certainly probably to come out to you, but they're not nobody's yelling
[2:06:54] that they're overcrowded.
[2:06:55] But I don't want to see this city be separated with what one says this, what three says this, and there's the problems in Ward 1 have not been from the building.
[2:07:09] The problems in Ward 1 was I went 90, there was an interstate highway that was supposed to go to the hamster and never got there.
[2:07:15] That's when most of you traffic and most of you just stop on the side of the road and in the morning and in the afternoon
[2:07:23] It looked at the nehamsia guys that are going by that traffic and that route. That's what you're gonna find the majority
[2:07:30] It was an interesting, and I got concerned after this person asked me when they heard that at the planning board that one is refusing to have any more, can't tolerate any more housing.
[2:07:44] And that was a pretty strong statement, and I said, you know, you're not wrong, but let me look.
[2:07:51] So, I think I know the projects are there, but I got to be perfectly honest, I was surprised at the number that we had that came back after I started looking at that.
[2:08:01] So, I just wanted to point that out that, you know, there are other air, and I didn't look at four, I didn't look at five.
[2:08:07] I don't think there's a high number of complex in the majority of have been in Woiz3.
[2:08:15] I mean, everybody would have liked to probably see a farm, stay a farm, you know, a Brooks
[2:08:21] pond.
[2:08:22] There were some issues that were developed then, and there were a lot of things that happened.
[2:08:29] But you know, that's just kind of the information I wanted to put on the table for that.
[2:08:35] Councillor Merrill?
[2:08:36] Sorry, sir.
[2:08:37] Her hand first.
[2:08:38] We'll go from there.
[2:08:42] Thank you for that information, but I also just want to respectfully point out that all of
[2:08:50] those developments that you mentioned in board three are affordable or market rate, the
[2:08:59] majority.
[2:09:00] Let me not say all of them, I apologize.
[2:09:02] Because many of them, the majority of them, are market rate affordable housing for
[2:09:09] lemon stir residents for the working class folks.
[2:09:16] And I think the project, again, that Mr. Rollins and Ms. Millett, Mrs. Millett, who's referring
[2:09:26] to is an above market rate apartment complex of about 300 apartments. So I just want to
[2:09:35] make sure that we're clear, but I also have that on record, but I want to get clarification
[2:09:41] on the language around multi-family dwelling. So changing the M2 and excluding apartments and
[2:09:52] family dwelling. Does that also exclude or prevent, like townhouse style, condos, or
[2:10:03] duplexes, things of that sort?
[2:10:07] And this would distill allow for single family homes.
[2:10:13] And if so, you know, what would the acreage or or the required land use be there for that?
[2:10:24] So, I just again, because this is very specific, whereas as apartments multi-family dwelling.
[2:10:29] So, are we talking about just apartment complexes and that type of project, or are we including single-family homes in this as well?
[2:10:41] Like, no housing.
[2:10:43] No, it's specific to apartments and multifamily dwellings, period.
[2:10:47] And it has to do with addressing the fact that when the density was changed, when the
[2:10:52] density was changed back in January,
[2:10:56] the repercussions for the entire, if you extrapolate
[2:10:59] out the map and use the map to what the current density utilization is approved for in
[2:11:03] this, MU2 zone, it's of concern. It's of concern. And I do not believe that this is
[2:11:15] pitting one ward against another. I disagree that it's pitting one ward against another.
[2:11:21] I agree that it's addressing the volume of density by right to build out a maximum build
[2:11:32] and put such stress on infrastructure.
[2:11:36] That's what we're asking to address.
[2:11:38] Not that it needs to go somewhere else.
[2:11:40] I do think that there's a lot of other options
[2:11:42] that are being taken advantage of in the city,
[2:11:45] of buildings that are being,
[2:11:46] can be refurbished.
[2:11:47] I think that it's great to see that happening.
[2:11:51] What this is to say, single family is not on the table.
[2:11:56] It's multifamily, high-density apartments.
[2:12:01] Thank you very much.
[2:12:02] I want to address the council president's comments,
[2:12:04] because when you were talking about war three and
[2:12:06] barred's firm.
[2:12:07] Barred's firm is like the perfect example of
[2:12:11] housing that limits the residents,
[2:12:13] downsize and go to.
[2:12:15] It's affordable.
[2:12:17] It's the way it's built.
[2:12:18] I mean, it's got all kinds of amenities for
[2:12:20] people that are looking to downsize and that
[2:12:22] can afford the rents that they are charging.
[2:12:25] So I just wanted to say that.
[2:12:26] I also wanted to also,
[2:12:28] I'm a counselor, a large survivor,
[2:12:29] present people across the city.
[2:12:32] And I never think of this project
[2:12:35] as being against another award.
[2:12:38] I haven't heard word one people
[2:12:40] over the last year and a half saying,
[2:12:42] we don't want any housing.
[2:12:43] We don't want housing.
[2:12:44] We don't want more parts.
[2:12:45] That's not what I've heard.
[2:12:49] That's what I've brought back.
[2:12:50] That's what I got the phone call.
[2:12:51] I was at the planning board,
[2:12:53] and I don't remember hearing that.
[2:12:54] I could go look at the tape and maybe it was said that way.
[2:12:57] I didn't hear that.
[2:12:59] It's about the change and the increase in what I consider
[2:13:04] to be a ridiculous density.
[2:13:07] There are no buffers anymore.
[2:13:10] Anything can be negotiated and had people
[2:13:12] been willing to come back and say, we know that the changes
[2:13:16] that were made were maybe too aggressive.
[2:13:21] There are no buffers.
[2:13:23] There are no wildlife quarters.
[2:13:25] there were, you know, there were wetlands that weren't delineated.
[2:13:27] I mean, there were so many different problems with those changes.
[2:13:32] But nobody ever came back and said, you know what?
[2:13:34] We're going to be real sports because we know that we're getting, you know,
[2:13:38] we got the density that we want about.
[2:13:39] We're going to scale it back a little bit.
[2:13:40] We're going to put in some decent buffers.
[2:13:42] We're going to give, you know, some, you know, relief to the, the,
[2:13:46] the of butters and the people in the neighborhood.
[2:13:48] So it's not about hitting one neighborhood against another in the city.
[2:13:52] I never, never have thought about it this way.
[2:13:54] It's the scale and the scope and the density and the impact in that particular area.
[2:14:01] It's Harvard Street.
[2:14:02] It is the Orchard Hills Mall.
[2:14:04] It is trying to get on and off of Route 2.
[2:14:08] It's that particular location with that particular density and those specific changes.
[2:14:16] That's what is it issue here.
[2:14:18] It's got nothing to do with other places in the city.
[2:14:21] I mean, I grew up in Ward 5 over by Riverside Village.
[2:14:25] That's, you know, high density, lower income housing, you know, for people that's been very
[2:14:29] successful and has been great over the years, every location in the city, you know, every ward
[2:14:35] in the city, you know, has got some kind of, you know, multifamily housing or, you know, development.
[2:14:43] So, we evaluate things where they make sense.
[2:14:46] This is not, this doesn't make any sense.
[2:14:48] We have an opportunity, the council is an opportunity to say, okay, you know, those first
[2:14:52] 300 units, you know, they're going to be, they've been approved, they're going to get built.
[2:14:59] You know, but the rest of-
[2:15:01] We don't need any more market rate apartments to pull more people from the east out here. We need housing for our local folks.
[2:15:11] And if that was part of the plan, I'd certainly be more supportive of it. Thank you.
[2:15:15] Councillor Noesworth. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I have a similar question about when it says multifamily dwelling.
[2:15:23] And I think about 80 use and that language that's gone out there I guess it's confusing to me and I'm sure maybe some people at home
[2:15:32] So multi-family dwelling, but with the 80 use you can have one allowed by so that this wouldn't impact that language
[2:15:41] So what I see when I see this language and I'm assuming people at home it may also be confusing and I think I don't know if that's what the word one council was getting to
[2:15:49] But we're not, you can't have an ADU, and I believe you can also, can you also build
[2:15:55] up, I don't want to say any incorrect things.
[2:15:59] But how does that differ from, I guess I'm trying to understand what a multi-family dwelling
[2:16:04] is versus having one home, you don't even mean an ADU, which is multi-family.
[2:16:12] Do you know what I mean?
[2:16:13] Do you know what I mean?
[2:16:13] Three and more units.
[2:16:14] It is defined in the zone.
[2:16:17] Perfect.
[2:16:17] No, that answers my question and I bet some people at home were probably wondering the same thing because you can have an ADU. So it's pretty or more
[2:16:24] I was just going to add into the award one Councillor's point. I was looking at the table of use. This townhouse is an allowable use as a current.
[2:16:36] I just wanted to also speak about
[2:16:40] If we emphasize the rest of the zoning or the use of the table of use, to be built out as housing, which we all know we need, it also will come at the cost of any sort of industry that is up there.
[2:16:56] There's supposed to be, right? We got the state grant for that road for an industrial building.
[2:17:05] And when we turn now and place instead, all of these high density residences there, where are the jobs that that land could actually support for our city?
[2:17:17] So yes, we need housing. Yes, we do. We know we do. We all know we need housing. We need jobs.
[2:17:23] That's why that road was put there. That road was put there on a grant for industrial warehouse.
[2:17:31] still waiting and hoping that that will be the case, but in the absence of that to put
[2:17:38] an opportunity cost to the economic impact of some jobs in that area will be to pull from
[2:17:47] our resources by putting high-density apartments.
[2:17:50] That's all we're asking.
[2:17:53] Mr. Rollins?
[2:17:54] Yeah, I just want to address the issue.
[2:17:55] There's the common comments that I've heard from the developers, lawyers that were against
[2:18:02] all housing.
[2:18:04] And I don't know who interpreted that in the planning board meeting.
[2:18:07] But there's two facts that dispute that completely.
[2:18:12] I was on the planning board when we redid M-U-2, where we allowed residential in there.
[2:18:19] And we had a density of 14 units per acre.
[2:18:22] At 17 units with a special permit.
[2:18:24] We limited the land to 30 uses.
[2:18:28] We had limits that said 60% of the non-residential has been done.
[2:18:33] That's still a substantial project.
[2:18:36] And I was one of the, there was a unanimous vote
[2:18:39] to approve the zoning.
[2:18:40] I was one of those.
[2:18:41] I'm just going to go.
[2:18:42] I'm just going to correct your, you mentioned planning
[2:18:43] where you talked in City Council.
[2:18:44] City Council, I'm sorry.
[2:18:46] Yes, I was on the City Council, led the Legal Affairs Committee
[2:18:50] and agreed to and voted for M-U-2, allowing residential.
[2:18:56] So the myth that is out there that says that I didn't support or don't support residential
[2:19:04] and development in word one is completely false and the record of that is in my actions.
[2:19:10] I don't have to speak the words, the actions of there.
[2:19:13] The petitioners also have, as a group, also have a very strong case, because the previous petition that was denied, reset the zoning back to what it was.
[2:19:27] It didn't set it back to zero. It didn't set residential to no. It set it back to what was allowed under the Old M-U-2, which was still a substantial housing development.
[2:19:38] So the myth that the petitioners or myself in some way don't want didn't want residential development in M.U.2 is completely false and those actions show that.
[2:19:54] It's about reasonable growth, right?
[2:19:59] We wanted to set the zoning back to reasonable growth, special permit on high density.
[2:20:04] We talk about Brooks Pond. What is allowed on the books now will make Brooks Pond look like nothing?
[2:20:11] This place will be twice the size of Brooks Pond. This is the highest density
[2:20:17] that I think of any project in the city and it expanded from 30 acres, which was the original control to keep it under control, to 80 acres.
[2:20:29] 80 acres at 21.74. That's a big, big number. And we know, I don't want to get into the
[2:20:38] whole housing committee, but it was said down here by the person that led the housing
[2:20:43] committee and the zoning changes that were submitted by the developer to the housing
[2:20:48] committee, a public document for the zoning changes he want, and the consultant came down
[2:20:53] here in a meeting and said, Mr. Rollins, we're not going to re-lit a gate any of that.
[2:20:59] I appreciate it, and I appreciate that the main point is the fallacy that these petitioners
[2:21:09] or myself as a word one consular were against housing, and I just want to make the other
[2:21:14] point.
[2:21:15] I agree.
[2:21:15] If we had infrastructure in North Lemister, maybe we could do with more, that that's the exact
[2:21:22] point, there is no infrastructure.
[2:21:24] Room 13 is better than it was five years ago, because we painted stripes.
[2:21:30] But you know what the next level of fixture is?
[2:21:33] You're going to have to build a bridge, or widen a bridge, a widen route 13.
[2:21:36] It's not going to happen in my lifetime.
[2:21:38] We're at the best we're going to see.
[2:21:40] And so we don't have the infrastructure.
[2:21:43] So maybe other places in the city can have more density, more apartments.
[2:21:48] We have a fair amount.
[2:21:49] We don't want to get into business of counting because I don't think it serves anybody, but we don't have it
[2:21:55] And anybody who says that Ruth 13 is not a disaster during rush hour.
[2:21:59] I drive it every day for 35 years over 35 years.
[2:22:03] It's broken up there.
[2:22:04] We know it's broken.
[2:22:07] Everybody knows it's broken.
[2:22:08] Everybody you talked to anybody that talked about North Lemms or they talked about traffic being a disaster.
[2:22:14] And we may not have the most departments, but I would put Nationalistry and Ruth Thirteen or Prosthifixry in Ruth Thirteen or all the neighborhoods where everybody comes and cuts through to get off of Thirteen traffic against any intersection in the city.
[2:22:29] It may not be...
[2:22:30] So worse, but it's pretty bad, especially at rush hour. And it's not going to get better. If you build
[2:22:36] one highway, the king, then I'm off for it. Build more apartments. You widen the bridge over
[2:22:41] to Nashville, then build more housing. We don't have the infrastructure to feed it. And we are the
[2:22:47] bill. I worked in New Hampshire. Guys would say to me, Dave, I come from Hollis Brookline, who are growing.
[2:22:52] How do I get around the mess on 13? What roads, back roads do I have to follow to bypass it? It's going
[2:22:59] to be growth up North, we don't need another thousand plus units in North Lomester.
[2:23:05] We can't handle it.
[2:23:06] It's going to have a negative impact on the quality of life there.
[2:23:12] So we reset the zoning back to what it was, which allowed a substantial project.
[2:23:17] We lost that battle.
[2:23:19] Now you build 290 units, you got that battle.
[2:23:21] This is the last guess.
[2:23:22] There's not going to be any residential up there.
[2:23:24] There's not even going to be any factories.
[2:23:26] Nobody's going to build a factory when you can sell the land at 22 units per acre for residential.
[2:23:32] Nobody's going to pay
[2:23:34] Retreat residential rates of land where you can build 22 units.
[2:23:38] Nobody's going to put a factory to compete against that.
[2:23:41] It's just not going to happen.
[2:23:42] That land is premier big bucks money up there.
[2:23:45] It's going to be made when you build a thousand units.
[2:23:47] Nobody's building single family homes.
[2:23:50] Nobody's building townhouses.
[2:23:51] We had a chance to reset the zoning dead lost. This is the last gas. This is it
[2:23:57] If you guys feel that you don't want to do anything about it, it's gonna be a maximum build out. It's gonna happen
[2:24:04] He's fighting it tooth and nail
[2:24:07] Because he fought to get 22 units. He fought to get an extra 50 acres residential
[2:24:12] He's not gonna go back and say hey, I'm gonna do the right thing and put in a few houses and it's not gonna happen
[2:24:18] So we got to we got a face reality
[2:24:21] Okay, we're going to open it up, too, is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak to 66-26?
[2:24:33] Hey, Brady.
[2:24:34] When we were talking about the war.
[2:24:35] Sorry, Ms. Brady.
[2:24:37] Name full name and address, please.
[2:24:38] Hey, Brady, 200 Harvard Street.
[2:24:41] When we were talking about the war, I thought it was interesting,
[2:24:44] because I mean, two got changed right around about the same exact time as the MBTA.
[2:24:49] And it was addressed by this council, that you recognize the traffic, you know, the concerns, the schools
[2:24:57] Word one might not be able to handle it. So let's break up the MBTA and put it into different wards in the city.
[2:25:05] So that we don't burden one ward. What doesn't make sense to me is with the MU2 change, you could have called that MBTA. Why did you burden ward two ward three?
[2:25:16] You didn't have to, so in addition, you say we're one can't handle this, so let's break it up.
[2:25:23] But then you give them something ten times bigger, more open, less restrictive.
[2:25:28] It just, it didn't make sense to me.
[2:25:30] And then, everybody's going to vote the way they feel, however.
[2:25:36] But what, what's the process for the public to enact change?
[2:25:43] You're involved in that process, right now.
[2:25:46] Okay.
[2:25:47] Just to clarify.
[2:25:48] Yeah, absolutely.
[2:25:49] When we came before you in December,
[2:25:53] you agreed with some of the sentiments.
[2:25:55] You know, this wasn't the vehicle to get here.
[2:25:57] I believe it was the direct quote.
[2:25:59] You know, another quote was, if you come back with a petition next month with everything we discussed here today, we would support it.
[2:26:07] we did, but little did we know that mass general law puts a two year ban on that, and the
[2:26:16] petition was not given leave to withdraw. It was requested by one of the officials. It was
[2:26:24] not allowed. So you told us to come back with a petition, but prevented us the vehicle from doing so.
[2:26:30] We didn't prevent that. That was the mass general laws that prevented you.
[2:26:34] Actually, the planning board, it was allowed by the planning board approved it could have come back within a two year limit based on a decision by called minipage.
[2:26:42] The planning board voted not to send it back to you.
[2:26:45] This council did not allow it to be given leave to withdraw.
[2:26:51] That prevented it.
[2:26:52] It got forced to evoke.
[2:26:54] On top of that, I've reached out to multiple, you know, as legal affairs, I've shown up with the meetings asked for guidance.
[2:27:03] how can we get here? Because, one work with you guys. I don't, nobody wants to stop housing.
[2:27:11] So I have some buffer zones. Maybe a special permit so that if it is this crazy density project,
[2:27:17] you could say, hey, it's a dangerous street. Let's put some sidewalks in. The special permit,
[2:27:22] giving them buy right, complete openness. They don't have to give the city anything. You have no mechanism.
[2:27:29] The planning board has no mechanism. You've limited conservation's mechanisms and you've taken away any public input
[2:27:37] We don't even have to be notified
[2:27:39] They could put a thousand units up there tomorrow. They don't have to notify the above the fathers and there doesn't need to be any buffers
[2:27:46] It's just common sense things
[2:27:48] This isn't the petition. I would have particularly like to see because I don't care about building more housing. I'd prefer that
[2:27:56] but
[2:27:57] I prefer the city have some rules in place, some stops, some mechanisms, you're leaving everything up to the developer.
[2:28:06] And what they've done with the least sellable parcel, covered in wetlands, certified vernal pool.
[2:28:15] The fact that they were able to market and sell that, it's wide open on the rest of the acreage.
[2:28:21] This was the least desirable. I grew up here
[2:28:25] No one thought this could have been built out
[2:28:27] But you removed every stop gives them the highest density of course they can build it out now. Now. It's marketable
[2:28:35] in the
[2:28:36] role of all the residents while they do it
[2:28:39] Simple things just wanted maybe a sidewalk on one side of Harvard Street because I watched
[2:28:44] My disabled neighbor try to get the wheelchair down while it's this near you can't even ask that
[2:28:50] You don't have the right to ask that of the developer as a city.
[2:28:54] It's ass-in-I.
[2:28:56] You can't request that they throw money at the schools
[2:28:59] if they wanted to do a thousand units and make all this money.
[2:29:02] You've given up all of your tools as residents,
[2:29:07] just like to know how do we work with you?
[2:29:10] Because you've removed all those options as well.
[2:29:17] Thanks, Neil.
[2:29:18] Thank you, Ms. Brady.
[2:29:19] Is there any other members of the, in the audience here
[2:29:22] that would like to speak in favor of her against 66-26.
[2:29:29] My name is Lisa Contreras, I'm the Vette 68 Clone Wave Road.
[2:29:34] Every day I have to be in Westminster at 3.30,
[2:29:38] coming off a prospect tree and I take a left on to root 13.
[2:29:42] I can't begin to tell you the amount of times
[2:29:44] I've had to sit there through a green light.
[2:29:47] I can't take a right.
[2:29:49] Click, thread, then they're going to root 13.
[2:29:53] My green light in a lot of times I can't even go for a second granted. It's you know particular times
[2:30:00] During the day, it's awful. And to have to sit there in a green light, it's not able to take my left. They get to work when I need to. It's a little ridiculous. So that's my personal experience on the daily basis. Thank you.
[2:30:15] Thank you, Ms. Contreras.
[2:30:18] Okay, before I get to the final request from the audience, I do have a number of emails
[2:30:28] that were sent and it would be my pleasure to read them all.
[2:30:34] These are taken in no particular order, they're in the order that they were printed.
[2:30:40] So, this is a dress present for you to encounter slurs.
[2:30:48] This is
[2:30:52] actually this one is a dress to Elizabeth Thorin, our city clerk.
[2:30:56] I would like my letter Reddit City Council meeting on 824-26 since I am unable to attend.
[2:31:02] As a lifelong resident of the city, I'm asking the city council to vote.
[2:31:05] Yes, on petition, 66-26, the change, the table of M-U-2, zoning table of uses for residential
[2:31:12] use from, yes to no.
[2:31:15] This change will help the city manage and control the ability of developers to overlap.
[2:31:19] Overdevelop areas in the city by right without the necessary detailed impact analysis on
[2:31:24] all areas impacted.
[2:31:26] This change will help limit the ability of developers to avoid the necessary complete and
[2:31:30] thorough impact studies on an entire development plan by breaking it into phases.
[2:31:35] and sub-projects as is being done for the Orchard Hills Development Project phase approach.
[2:31:40] This vote is also a chance for the City Council to correct flawed and poured past actions
[2:31:45] and decisions that will have to continue to have significant negative impact on the city
[2:31:50] and its residents due to lack of the necessary understanding of the real impacts.
[2:31:55] The significant impact of the past MU2 zoning changes has become painfully obvious
[2:31:59] and Ward 1, resulting in the likely addition of 1,000 multi-family units in an area that already
[2:32:05] has major traffic and infrastructure challenges.
[2:32:09] Please do the right thing for the residents of Lemister and vote yes on petition 66-26.
[2:32:14] Thank you.
[2:32:15] Stephen White of 35 scenic drive Lemister.
[2:32:23] This email was received on August 23rd at 704 AM, Dear Council President Frieda, Council
[2:32:29] Vice President Coemier, Counselor Ardinger, Counselor Schallofo, Zephyr, Counselor Robbins,
[2:32:35] Counselor Ramero, Counselor David Coemier, Counselor Bedanza, and Counselor Norosworthy.
[2:32:40] I am writing to ask that this letter be entered into the public record and to respectfully
[2:32:45] but strongly urge you to vote yes on petition 66-26.
[2:32:50] I've lived in a limister for all 59 years of my life, including in Ward 1.
[2:32:54] I chose to make my home here because it is a mature, stable neighborhood, and the kind
[2:32:59] place where people want to put down roots and raise their families. I am not opposed to housing.
[2:33:04] I am not opposed to responsible development. Nearly 300 new residential units are already
[2:33:09] coming into this area. My concern is what happens next. There needs to be reasonable
[2:33:13] balance between housing, nature, infrastructure, public services, traffic, and most importantly,
[2:33:19] the safety and quality of life of the people who already live here. We are already struggling
[2:33:24] with that balance. Harvard Street, for example, traffic and safety conditions have reached
[2:33:29] the point where I do not consider portions of this road safely walkable. We have children
[2:33:34] standing along these roads waiting for school buses. Now we are preparing to add hundreds
[2:33:38] of new residents and their vehicles without first understanding the full impact of nearly
[2:33:43] 300 units that have already been approved. We would, we would, why would we leave the door
[2:33:49] open to potentially hundreds more before we understand the consequences.
[2:33:53] I am also deeply disappointed in how residents experience this entire process, a project
[2:33:58] to fundamentally alter word one should have involved extraordinary transparency, communication
[2:34:03] and collaboration with the people who live here.
[2:34:06] Instead, many residents were left trying to understand decisions after they were already moving
[2:34:10] forward.
[2:34:11] From the local process through the state level, it has felt like residents have to chase
[2:34:16] information rather than being meaningfully included in decisions that will permanently change
[2:34:21] our neighborhood.
[2:34:21] That is not how a decision of this magnitude should be in happen.
[2:34:25] I would like that officials are there to represent the people of Lemister, the interests
[2:34:28] of the residents who live here, race families here pay taxes here, and we'll live with
[2:34:32] these decisions for decades, must carry a more weight than the financial interests of
[2:34:36] national developers who stand to profit from them.
[2:34:39] The 295 units are coming, let us see the real impact on traffic schools, emergency services,
[2:34:44] infrastructure safety in our community before opening the door to hundreds more you have an opportunity now to restore some balance and give the city greater control over what happens next.
[2:34:54] As you cast your vote, I ask you to remember something very simple. You represent us vote for us. Please vote yes on petition to 66-26.
[2:35:02] 26.
[2:35:04] Respectfully, Keith Lippelank, Ward 1, Lemonster.
[2:35:07] He does not include his address, so I'm going to include his email.
[2:35:12] It's K-R-Lippelank13 at gmail.com.
[2:35:22] Okay.
[2:35:24] We have another one here.
[2:35:28] Address to a moment.
[2:35:32] President Frieda and Consolus, please see the email below regarding petition 66-26.
[2:35:38] This good morning, my name is Irene Butler, and I'm a resident on Brown Ave.
[2:35:44] I moved here 40 years ago to escape the city atmosphere.
[2:35:48] Personally, I think it's disgusting and sad that people with tremendous funds and resources
[2:35:53] can impact entire communities without caring about the impact.
[2:35:57] I understand that there will be apartment buildings going in, sadly, no one seems to
[2:36:02] care about wetlands and its prevention.
[2:36:04] But I am begging you to please vote yes on 66-26 to limit the amount of damage being done to our area.
[2:36:12] I had once heard the expression to whom great things are given, great things are expected.
[2:36:19] To Mr. Laskati and his associates, I am asking that they put themselves in our position and ask themselves if they would want this type of development done in their backyard.
[2:36:28] We do not have the schools infrastructure, EMS, or police support for this many new homes
[2:36:37] that are going in this area.
[2:36:39] Try to compare the limister of 30 years ago.
[2:36:43] We've lost species of salamanders, frogs, the light pollution, the lack of trees.
[2:36:48] When is enough enough?
[2:36:50] I pray that you all act in our best interest and support the limiting of this project.
[2:36:54] Thank you Irene Butler, and she did not provide her address.
[2:37:00] I'll brown-outs, sorry I did read that in the beginning.
[2:37:05] We have another one, good morning.
[2:37:08] I am unable to make the meeting this evening, but would like my comments right into the
[2:37:12] public record please.
[2:37:14] I have been a resident of Ward 1 for 32 years.
[2:37:18] In that time, I have seen the buildout of the Orchard Hill area.
[2:37:21] It has been absorbed with too much impact with the exception of being during the holiday season when the amount of traffic.
[2:37:30] traffic in that area can be downright nauseating. Can the word one residents, roads, EMS schools, etc. absorb 300 units without major impacts.
[2:37:41] The decision has already been made at another 700 units on top of that and I think you are boarding on insanity.
[2:37:50] I cycle in this area all the time and can only imagine what a thousand units of housing is going to do to my anxiety level as I attempt to negotiate my way toward
[2:37:59] surely devins in air.
[2:38:02] Let us also not forget what happens when an accident occurs in a route to copious amounts
[2:38:07] of traffic flood on to Nashville, Harvard, Prospect, Lawrence, etc.
[2:38:12] The accident that brought the pull down a route to one of Saturday during this past spring
[2:38:17] caused massive gridlock and wood one that lasted for hours.
[2:38:21] So 300 units, okay, 1000 units for wood one, absolutely absurd.
[2:38:27] Please use some common sense and limit the build-out to 300 units.
[2:38:33] Take some time to see how this will impact Ward 1 and then reassess over a period of time.
[2:38:39] Please vote yes on petition 66-26.
[2:38:43] Sincerely, Luke, Malard, Sacramento Drive.
[2:38:53] And this was sent to from Angela K Hill to our city clerk Elizabeth.
[2:38:58] we are unable to attend the City Council meeting on 824-2026. In our absence, can you please read
[2:39:05] our letter at the meeting. As a 40-year resident at the same address in the city,
[2:39:10] a semester, we are asking the City Council to vote yes on petition 66-26 to change the
[2:39:16] table of MU2 zoning table of uses for residential use from a yes to a null. This petition controls
[2:39:23] whether we have 290 apartments or potentially 1,000 plus apartments in Ward 1.
[2:39:29] It is the difference between 9 apartment buildings and potentially 30 apartment buildings.
[2:39:35] Please, no more high-density apartment complexes in Ward 1.
[2:39:40] Ward 1 is certainly going to bear enough with 290 residential units.
[2:39:44] Our schools, EMS, fire, and police are not being increased to compensate for this buildout.
[2:39:51] much less the additional potential build-outs being discussed, you need to be able to control
[2:39:56] the ability of developers to over-develop areas in the city by right without the necessary
[2:40:02] detailed impact analysis on all areas impacted.
[2:40:07] If this use table is left uncorrected, it will dramatically change the school's traffic emergency
[2:40:13] services and the quality of life in one one.
[2:40:16] Why doesn't it not make sense that we let these first 290 apartment units be built and see what happens before expanding the volumes 2 to 3 times?
[2:40:27] This would allow us to understand the real impact.
[2:40:31] This is the last chance for Lemmester to city council to take control of the gave up.
[2:40:36] Please do the right thing for the residents of Lemmester and vote yes on 66-26.
[2:40:41] Thanks. Thank you Angela and John K Hill, 22 peer street,
[2:40:45] Love and Stermas.
[2:40:48] Keep feeding me more.
[2:40:51] And this one here is addressed to President Freedett and
[2:40:56] Counselors. It's from Surge, Pan 49 Sky Lane,
[2:41:03] Lemonster. This is a regarding the public hearing for August 24,
[2:41:08] 26-15 PM, honorable council is I right in support of a yes vote on petition 66-26.
[2:41:18] What this vote is not, it is not a vote on the Orchard Hill Park project already approved
[2:41:23] for parcel E. Those approvals are vested in under General Law, Chapter 40, a section 6, a subsequent
[2:41:32] zoning amendment cannot reach them. No one is asking the council to unwind a permitted
[2:41:38] project and a yes vote creates no such exposure. The question before you is narrower
[2:41:46] and entirely perspective, what happens on the balance of the MU2 district. What this
[2:41:52] vote is under the current table of uses, apartment and multifamily dwelling is permitted
[2:41:58] as of right in mixed use to parcel e according parcel e accounts for roughly 18 of the districts
[2:42:06] approximately 80 acres on the remaining acreage, nearly all of it in Ward 1.
[2:42:12] The same use may also be by right at the same density without a special permit and without
[2:42:20] further vote of this council.
[2:42:23] The council's role in the largest land use decision in this Ward's history is under the
[2:42:29] businesses written already complete petition 66-26 read stores it. Infrastructure has not been
[2:42:37] sized for the entitlement. Ward 1's approval units, Ward 1's approved units will draw on
[2:42:44] schools and emergency services for which no corresponding capacity has been funded and will
[2:42:50] load a limit street network, Harvard streets, Sky Lane and what should Hill Park Drive
[2:42:56] feeding route to mechanic street.
[2:42:59] The city has approved the demand without appropriating the supply to leave by right entitlement
[2:43:07] in place for several multiples on that demand before a single unit of the first phase
[2:43:13] is occupied is not planning.
[2:43:15] It is deferral.
[2:43:17] LeMister has always grown by absorption.
[2:43:19] The city's character was built neighborhood by neighborhood.
[2:43:22] that each increment absorbed before the next began.
[2:43:26] That is the growth this council has historically stewarded,
[2:43:30] and it is the opposite of a single unreliable entitlement
[2:43:33] for a thousand plus units concentrated in one ward, in ward one.
[2:43:39] The reasonable course is to let the approved phase be built,
[2:43:43] measure it to fix on the schools, the roads, and the response times,
[2:43:46] and then legislate from evidence.
[2:43:48] The current titlement produces only product only, one product only, as written mixed use
[2:43:57] to permits by right a single residential form, large-scale rental multi-family, it creates
[2:44:03] no path at any density for townhouses, condominiums, or starrer homes that will let
[2:44:10] lemonster families move from renting to owning in the community where they already live,
[2:44:16] A city with real housing need is not well served by a zone that can supply only whichever product is most profitable to build.
[2:44:26] A yes vote returns to this council be authority to require a genuine mix of housing types and tenures on the remaining acreage.
[2:44:36] On the legal posture, the planning board held its hearing on this petition on July 20, 2026,
[2:44:43] and the requirements of General Lodge Act of 48A Section 5 have been satisfied.
[2:44:47] I would respectfully ask the Council to confirm on the record with the planning and development
[2:44:52] director of that MU2 is not the district relied upon to the city's compliance with General Lodge Act.
[2:45:00] 40A, section 3A. My understanding is that LEMONS and BTA communities zoning was adopted separately
[2:45:07] and have so nothing in petition 66-26, disturbs the city's compliance or its great eligibility
[2:45:15] or its grant eligibility. Finally, I want to be clear that a yes vote is not a pause, not a prohibition.
[2:45:24] I would support a calibrated M-U-2 residential standard, special permit review, phasing, and
[2:45:31] a required mix of ownership and rental housing brought back to this council on its own
[2:45:36] terms.
[2:45:36] What I cannot support is leaving an unlimited by-right entitlement in place while the work goes
[2:45:42] undone.
[2:45:43] I respectfully urge a yes vote on petition 66-26, respectfully submitted surge, pan, PhD.
[2:45:55] That's all I got.
[2:45:56] thank you. Again another email dated.
[2:46:01] How many more of these do you have?
[2:46:03] One, two, three, four,
[2:46:07] ten.
[2:46:10] Is this something we're going to start doing that in President?
[2:46:13] I mean obviously I think that attorney would agree that this is discretionary.
[2:46:17] We don't need, there's no requirement that we read these.
[2:46:19] Right, right.
[2:46:20] You all have them.
[2:46:23] Yeah, we have them.
[2:46:24] I think you can read the names if they all have, if you,
[2:46:32] you know there's a lot of the century that says, and we can put,
[2:46:37] read the name and address of those, and that there will be on file,
[2:46:41] and go, and yes, okay.
[2:46:45] We do have a Francis, excuse me,
[2:46:50] For a quarter, Madam President, I think if we are not going to read the rest of them
[2:46:54] into the record, I think we should have a vote on that.
[2:47:02] Constituents emailed with the understanding over the expectation that they could not attend
[2:47:07] the hearing, the public hearing, and they wanted their emails and their letters read into
[2:47:12] the public record.
[2:47:14] So if somebody wants to change that, I think everybody needs to go on the record about
[2:47:19] how they feel about that.
[2:47:20] So I would propose a vote if that's what we're going to do.
[2:47:24] Madam President, if I may, we have a vote in all fairness.
[2:47:28] There's a vote for more e-mails from constituents.
[2:47:32] Oh, for more of that.
[2:47:33] We have three letters from the attorneys.
[2:47:39] So in all fairness, the attorneys' letters should be read as well.
[2:47:43] So I would just as well finish these four e-mails.
[2:47:46] We'll move on to the attorney's letters just in fairness.
[2:47:49] the attorneys may be reading their own
[2:47:51] at when the go to the public.
[2:47:55] So.
[2:47:57] I just thank for the future for future reference.
[2:47:59] Maybe.
[2:48:00] We have the option.
[2:48:01] Who is my call to read them.
[2:48:03] Yeah.
[2:48:03] You know, I talked to the attorney earlier.
[2:48:05] All right.
[2:48:06] Thank you.
[2:48:07] Okay.
[2:48:07] This is.
[2:48:08] Good day to you, Mr.
[2:48:09] Dorian.
[2:48:10] I am writing to you about petition 66-26.
[2:48:14] Tonight's agenda.
[2:48:15] I would be there tonight, but I'm currently out of town.
[2:48:17] I would like to encourage the city council
[2:48:18] the vote, yes, on 66-26.
[2:48:21] We need to stop any additional residential development
[2:48:23] on the remaining land on that zone.
[2:48:26] I was born and raised on Jocelyn Street.
[2:48:28] There was our house, the Flynn's and the NAS FARM.
[2:48:30] Up on Jocelyn Hill was the Harris Farm
[2:48:32] and one older house on the corner
[2:48:33] for Cheryl Fruit Farm in their home.
[2:48:36] And so I went to House, that's it.
[2:48:37] We would see about 60 to 10 cars a week.
[2:48:39] Now at any given time of day,
[2:48:41] you see, 60 to 10 cars in less than seven minutes.
[2:48:44] It's most crazy during prime drive time.
[2:48:46] People use Jocelyn Street as their own personal race
[2:48:48] track a short cut to bypass a void in Main Street, root 13. Most of these people did not even
[2:48:53] live in our neighborhood. The race track enthusiast has seen not to realize that there
[2:48:57] is a new neighborhood here, a nice white court that loves to test out the gears. And then
[2:49:02] has to slam on the brakes as families are walking. We were kids, we played in the streets
[2:49:06] until the street lights come on. We walked through an ass as field to go to school in North
[2:49:10] Lomester Elementary, J.A. Then they make us take a school bus because we had no sidewalks.
[2:49:16] half hour later we made it to school and then we cut through the field it was about five minutes.
[2:49:20] We still didn't have adequate sidewalks on jocelyn and day streets, day street is another
[2:49:24] racetrack.
[2:49:25] I see the cruiser out there catching the speeders.
[2:49:27] I wish they would do a traffic study on lower jocelyn.
[2:49:30] I have a spot in my driveway that the cruiser could park and write up a few dozen tickets.
[2:49:35] All in all we don't need what they've planned to build now, we don't need any future residential
[2:49:39] units to be built.
[2:49:40] We don't have the schools, the police, fire, EMS, services, water services will be
[2:49:45] I believe that there are some of the older buildings in the city that should be refurbished for the seniors at a rate that's affordable to them
[2:49:52] Not buildings $2,500 and up units
[2:49:54] to help the people from Boston to move here because it's cheaper. They're going to build units and make it affordable for our citizens. Thank you for your time
[2:50:03] For answers. I know I'm going to slaughter this name. It's a pair of blue suits. Papazuski
[2:50:10] vote yes on
[2:50:12] 66-26
[2:50:15] The C-Mail is dated August 24th, 2026,
[2:50:18] Dear City Council President Counselors,
[2:50:20] I am writing to express my support in favor of the M-U-2.
[2:50:23] Sowning Change Petition 66-26 to stop additional residential use.
[2:50:28] I am requesting that my letter be read into the public record
[2:50:30] requesting for a yes vote on Petition 66-26.
[2:50:34] The change the M-U-2 zoning table of uses from Y to N,
[2:50:38] Yes to know for residential use.
[2:50:40] The city cannot handle the increased rate of growth
[2:50:42] we are currently under a water ban, where is the additional necessary water going to come
[2:50:46] front to supply these new developments? Without building new schools, hiring more police
[2:50:50] officers emergency services and city maintenance workers, I see a very poor and result.
[2:50:55] The city that can't keep up and is eventually drained, resulting in poor quality of life
[2:50:59] for all involved. Residents of a ward 1 will be paying a huge price for the original zoning
[2:51:03] change in the areas of noise, traffic, over congestion, and perhaps lower property values
[2:51:08] this huge development, and our neighborhood is going to forever alter our way of life.
[2:51:13] And I speak also for the inhabitants of our neighborhood that do not have a voice, the
[2:51:17] wildlife that are being driven from their homes, left to roam the streets, dangerously
[2:51:21] close to a major highway and train tracks.
[2:51:23] This is why I'm requesting a yes vote of petition 66-26.
[2:51:27] The change the M.U.2 zoning table of uses from a yes to a no for residential use, respectively
[2:51:34] the Carolina Lane of 3, 2, 3, 8, Ridgewood Drive, Lemonster.
[2:51:42] President, Frida and Counselors,
[2:51:45] hello, I haven't sent a letter to the Council before, so please let me know if I'm
[2:51:48] missing information. Hello, I would like to comment my opposition to on petition 66-26,
[2:51:55] the effect of this petition could be far fewer homes built. The concerns raised about development
[2:51:59] in this area due to the proximity with wetlands can, it should be addressed directly by the
[2:52:04] Council changing rules about buffered distance and runoff without restricting new development.
[2:52:09] We have a major housing shortage in the city and need more homes built to keep
[2:52:13] a blemster affordable.
[2:52:15] Caleb Weld in 68 Jordan's way.
[2:52:20] Dear counselors, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight and respectfully request that my letter
[2:52:24] be read in my absence.
[2:52:25] I am writing a regard to petition 66-26 to urge a yes vote as a...
[2:52:30] President of Board 1 for 15 years with children attending Johnny Appleseed. Skyview and LHS, I am deeply concerned about the impact and additional 700 units will have in our schools currently. The average, great class size at J.A. is 25 students and the building has no physical space for additional classrooms.
[2:52:46] Class sizes that skyved you in LA just are similarly high and those buildings face the same
[2:52:53] spatial constraints.
[2:52:55] Previous Zoning changes to MU2 in January 2025 have already allowed for the approval of nearly
[2:52:59] 300 units with minimal oversight.
[2:53:02] We should pause further expansion until these 295 units are completed and occupied so we can
[2:53:07] accurately assess their impact on our community.
[2:53:10] The current Zoning would allow 700 more units and more one without a proportionate increase
[2:53:14] and public services, our schools are already at capacity.
[2:53:18] While state funding may increase per student,
[2:53:20] it will not cover the cost or logistics of building.
[2:53:22] The new facilities required to accommodate this growth,
[2:53:25] please consider the long-term impact on our community
[2:53:27] and vote yesterday prevent further unchecked construction
[2:53:30] in Ward 1, respectively, Rachel King, 55 Sky Lane,
[2:53:34] Lemister Mass.
[2:53:39] Before I get into, I have emails here from Mirick,
[2:53:45] Goldstone in stores and actually two from them.
[2:53:49] I see attorneys in the room.
[2:53:51] I don't know if these are any of yours that you care to address
[2:53:55] or I will read these into the record.
[2:54:01] Madam Chair, I'm happy to address
[2:54:03] Goldstone in stores comments.
[2:54:05] It's part of my response at that.
[2:54:07] Certainly, if you want to come up to the podium,
[2:54:09] you're welcome to come up to the podium.
[2:54:16] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[2:54:17] Madam President and members of the Council.
[2:54:19] My name is Patrick Gallifer. I'm here on behalf of Greg Muscadini and Muscadini development.
[2:54:24] I work at Gulston and Stores in Boston.
[2:54:29] I'd like first to respond to comments and concerns around the existing zoning.
[2:54:38] And the fact of the matter is that there is a real diamond-stated need for housing.
[2:54:42] That need was established as part of the comprehensive planning process over the course of more than a year
[2:54:47] the culminated in zoning that was approved in January of 2025.
[2:54:54] This particular area, the MU2 zone, had been specifically identified through many years
[2:55:00] of planning for high-density uses.
[2:55:03] Multi-family had previously been allowed in the MU2 district dating back to 2012.
[2:55:09] However, new construction wasn't unlocked until the enactment of the zoning amendment in
[2:55:16] 2025, which, as we all know, has permitted the housing development that has been much discussed
[2:55:22] tonight.
[2:55:23] This petition before the council, not only seeks to overturn this comprehensive planning
[2:55:28] effort, but to turn back the clock further by prohibiting multifamily housing, which constitutes
[2:55:33] three or more units.
[2:55:36] So any three or more unit project would be now prohibited in the MU2 district.
[2:55:44] The zoning amendment in 2025 was based on a recognition that more was needed, more than simply
[2:55:51] allowing multi-family housing as a bright.
[2:55:54] More was needed in order to incentivize the scale of development that the comprehensive
[2:55:59] planning efforts identified as they need.
[2:56:02] And I'd also like to respond to comments about there being no oversight to the contrary,
[2:56:06] there's significant oversight of these projects, even as they are by-write projects.
[2:56:11] They are subject to site plan review, during which things such as traffic, stormwater, lighting, landscaping, screening, parking, architectural design are all reviewed by the planning board, which again is the authority principally charged with analyzing planning and analyzing projects.
[2:56:32] There is additional oversight through state environmental processes such as MEPA, such as the Wetlands Protection Act, both of which the project that we've heard much about tonight was subject to and underwent, I would say, very thorough review as part of it.
[2:56:48] I'd also like to respond to comments and concerns regarding municipal services and how projects such as this one could impact municipal services.
[2:56:57] I would posit that today municipal services are under extreme pressure, not from projects such
[2:57:03] as this, but through increasing mandates and inflation in the cost of health insurance.
[2:57:09] Without new growth, there is not a new revenue to support those services.
[2:57:14] These types of projects are what provide for that new growth.
[2:57:18] So in summary, we would urge the council to follow the lead of the planning board,
[2:57:26] which
[2:57:26] and to enable the planning process.
[2:57:29] Yeah, very thoughtful, thorough planning process
[2:57:32] to continue to play out in a district
[2:57:34] that has been identified and specifically
[2:57:37] zoned for higher density.
[2:57:39] Thank you.
[2:57:40] Thank you, Attorney Gallauder.
[2:57:44] I do have one
[2:57:48] other email in from Brian Falk over at Mirick.
[2:57:54] This is addressed to me.
[2:57:56] He's here.
[2:57:57] Oh, hi.
[2:58:00] I'm sorry. I can't see over.
[2:58:05] And people often can't see me.
[2:58:07] I feel you're paid.
[2:58:11] I feel you're paid.
[2:58:13] I represent wood partners in WPE's
[2:58:16] DAC positions LLC, which is the developer that's been discussed tonight.
[2:58:21] As you mentioned, I submitted a letter.
[2:58:23] You all have it. I'm not going to recite it. I'll be brief.
[2:58:26] We are as the Council's rejected the zoning amendment.
[2:58:28] This amendment, as I mentioned previously, would prohibit multi families just less than two years after the council voted to allow multi families by a right in the Sony district.
[2:58:41] Those amendments were part of a comprehensive professional planning study that found that multi families weren't appropriate use in the zoning district.
[2:58:50] What we're doing here tonight is anything but professional comprehensive planning study.
[2:58:55] This petition was driven by opposition to my client's project.
[2:59:00] Reactionary zoning amendments rarely make good public policy.
[2:59:04] And many of the questions tonight about what constitutes a multi-family.
[2:59:09] It gives us a sense that this is not well thought out and shouldn't be acted upon tonight.
[2:59:14] This petition is designed to block multi-family communities.
[2:59:18] It's not here to support city planning or infrastructure and should be rejected by the council.
[2:59:22] Thank you.
[2:59:27] And while I'm at it, I'm going to actually, and we have for the record, the recommendation from the planning board on 720-26, the planning board voted 80-0 to give a negative recommendation for position 66-26 to the city council.
[2:59:47] And that is from the planning board.
[2:59:49] Okay, so I'm going to go back to the public, is there anyone from the public that would like to address 66-26?
[2:59:54] 6.
[3:00:01] evening, need a milliard, 145 second, myndrave and lemon stir. So for all, I'm not going to really brave.
[3:00:10] For all the reasons that were cited with the letters for a yes vote, petition 6626.
[3:00:18] I am also in favor of the MU2. Sooning change, petition 6626, to stop the additional, as is actually used.
[3:00:26] I'm asking the City Council to prohibit further residents and development and M.U. to zone
[3:00:32] land. You have the power to do this. Please vote yes on petition 666. Thank you.
[3:00:38] This is familiar. Can we just get your address, please? Just for the record.
[3:00:41] The Sacramento Drive, 145.
[3:00:45] Thank you.
[3:00:48] Okay, for a second time is there anyone for the audience that would like to address
[3:00:51] 66-26, and for a third and final time is there anybody from the audience would like to address 66-26.
[3:01:02] My name is Dorif, he grew up 54 low street. I'd like to give a little message to Mr. Laskali.
[3:01:09] He did a pretty good job and putting up all that orchid property.
[3:01:14] It was now all commercial and it was an apple orchard that was once there.
[3:01:25] When does it stop?
[3:01:27] When does he, was it didn't take it enough out of what he got out of the limister initially?
[3:01:33] Does he really need more?
[3:01:36] Thank you.
[3:01:37] Thank you.
[3:01:39] So for just going to the audience, that was for a third and final time.
[3:01:44] anyone else from the audience that would like to address us on the Council on 66-26.
[3:01:50] Mr. Rollins, and when you get the final word from the audience.
[3:01:53] Just a couple of comments to Enri Bottle. The need for housing is legitimate. Everybody knows about it.
[3:02:00] Just 290 units going up there. That's that's housing. That's serious amount of housing.
[3:02:06] You can come back five years, ten years later, and we said this.
[3:02:10] If we find out that we are all wrong, there is no way we can go back and change it.
[3:02:15] But those two 90 aren't the only ones going in limestone.
[3:02:19] There is a pretty substantial project going in other locations in limestone that I think will also
[3:02:25] have an impact.
[3:02:26] So they keep talking about the need for housing like we are not doing anything.
[3:02:30] This is an acknowledgement.
[3:02:32] in Ward 1, it's 290. Now, and 50% of those are multi-better. I don't know what we're talking about,
[3:02:41] new construction wasn't allowed until 2025. I have no idea. I worked on the zoning. I met with
[3:02:47] Mr. Liscotti back in 2012. We along with all the other members of the Legal Affairs Committee,
[3:02:53] I don't know what that means. Without special, I mean, the special permit is pretty much, you know,
[3:02:59] That's another discussion, but the idea that there's great oversight
[3:03:02] without a special permit, it's like that to be really, really.
[3:03:06] I mean, without neighbors ask for offense.
[3:03:11] And when they, that was a battle.
[3:03:14] I mean, without special permit, you have nothing really serious.
[3:03:19] You're nitpicking at that point.
[3:03:23] The question that, you know, because there was questions
[3:03:26] about what does multi-family mean,
[3:03:27] That wasn't questioned raised by the petitioner.
[3:03:30] I mean, that's just a simple play playing a game here.
[3:03:37] The truth is, and I had a word consular at large consular
[3:03:41] saying, Dave, why don't you just change the density in the back?
[3:03:45] Why don't you just change the density?
[3:03:46] You can't go to an area in M-U-2 in Circle
[3:03:49] and say, we're going to change the density.
[3:03:50] That's spot zoning that will never happen.
[3:03:52] But there's a recognition from the consular that asked me that
[3:03:57] that they were shocked at how big this thing could actually be.
[3:04:01] I know in the common friends that we have as an ex-concler,
[3:04:06] a counselor said to a friend of mine that was a former counselor.
[3:04:09] All right, Mr. Rollins, we're going to rain this in here.
[3:04:12] All the same thing, we're giving you a final word. Let's,
[3:04:15] all the same thing is, I think, all of you know,
[3:04:18] based on the January 13th meeting and side discussions
[3:04:20] and whatnot, the size and scope of this is just too big.
[3:04:24] And this is the last chance, you own the power, this is it, this is the last chance.
[3:04:31] Okay, any other members from the council would like to be here at the councilor Marra?
[3:04:37] Thank you.
[3:04:38] So I just, I want to clarify, when I'm asking the question about the definition on multi-use,
[3:04:45] It is because I've seen some language from constituents indicating that they're opposed
[3:04:53] to residential, for the residential construction.
[3:05:00] And then this petition is stating, it doesn't explicitly state a ban on all housing, residential
[3:05:10] housing.
[3:05:11] So, trying to get clarification on then exactly what type of housing would this still allow for.
[3:05:19] And in the event that it did eliminate the possibility to construct additional housing,
[3:05:27] then what would go what is permitted in that particular location.
[3:05:33] So,
[3:05:35] trying to get all of the information and the facts to better understand.
[3:05:41] Again, I, the vast majority of the letters that were submitted in the comments are from
[3:05:47] Ward 1, and I understand the frustration I understand, the concerns, so I need to ensure
[3:05:56] that I have all the information, which is why I'm asking.
[3:06:01] It's not for, you know, just like, you know, just to entertain anyone.
[3:06:06] It's really trying to get the facts here.
[3:06:08] I just want to make sure that would clear on that. Thank you.
[3:06:11] Councillor Noesworthy?
[3:06:12] I'll be very brief. I just want to echo what the word one counts there said.
[3:06:19] I have a newer Councillor. I asked a question honestly.
[3:06:22] Just because I had that question and I thought it would be helpful for others.
[3:06:27] So when I ask a question, it's definitely not for theater.
[3:06:31] It's because I have that question and that's all I want to say. Thank you.
[3:06:35] Councillor Scheldt was up for?
[3:06:36] Great, thank you.
[3:06:37] And I think, you know, when people ask questions
[3:06:39] it's for clarity, it's not because they're, you know,
[3:06:42] grants standing, or I can't remember exactly
[3:06:44] how the attorney characterized it,
[3:06:46] but I mean, that was really insulting.
[3:06:48] And one thing I just want to say as a final is the,
[3:06:53] I want to reiterate what Dr. Pan had said
[3:06:57] that a yes vote is not a pause,
[3:07:00] is a pause part of me, not a prohibition.
[3:07:02] A calibrated MU2 residential standard, special permit review, phasing, and a required mix of ownership and rental housing,
[3:07:10] brought back to this council on its own terms.
[3:07:13] What I cannot support is living in an unlimited by-right entitlement in place while that work goes on down.
[3:07:18] That is responsible review.
[3:07:21] That is responsible work supporting the people that have put us here.
[3:07:26] So again,
[3:07:29] think about, you know,
[3:07:29] .
[3:07:32] And maybe the two hundred and ninety units will be wonderful. Maybe they won't be any impact on the traffic, maybe they won't be any significant impact on the schools or public safety people, and then the developer could come back with another phase.
[3:07:45] And that might be great. Maybe we would love another, maybe it's a townhouse kind of development. Maybe it's something else not for story, you know, buildings with nine buildings.
[3:07:58] So, anyways, a pause, not a prohibition, I think is a really important way to think about this.
[3:08:03] That's all it is.
[3:08:05] Thank you.
[3:08:13] So, we've addressed everyone on the council.
[3:08:17] Just to the ward, one council is, I think, question about other types of residential uses
[3:08:23] and M-U-2, not multi-family uses, those aren't permitted in the table uses, just for clarity.
[3:08:32] Thank you.
[3:08:34] I think you were driving at, could you use this M-U-2 plan for residential uses that are not multi-family structures?
[3:08:44] I think that's it to that, it's
[3:08:49] no.
[3:08:49] Okay, now I'm thoroughly confused.
[3:08:52] All of that.
[3:08:53] How is that?
[3:08:53] How is that?
[3:08:53] But a residential detached single-family homes, it's a no.
[3:09:02] The question was, can you use M-U-2 land for housing that doesn't involve a multi-family
[3:09:08] structure as defined in the zoning ordinance?
[3:09:10] What was your question?
[3:09:12] Correct.
[3:09:12] So I think she was driving in.
[3:09:14] Could you build single-family homes there for me?
[3:09:15] Yes.
[3:09:16] You can't.
[3:09:17] You can't.
[3:09:18] No, you can't.
[3:09:22] But you could.
[3:09:23] I'm not saying.
[3:09:24] I'm not saying.
[3:09:25] That's what it was designed.
[3:09:26] Right.
[3:09:27] But you could, in the future, come back with a plan for family, single-family homes that would
[3:09:34] make sense and address the density problem in that area.
[3:09:40] So that would be something that could be considered in the future.
[3:09:44] Not under your existing zoning, but that might make sense in the future that is something
[3:09:52] that we could consider the city council.
[3:09:54] I'm not speculating on the future. I'm just answering the question. That's all I'm going.
[3:09:59] Okay, and can I apologize. One, just one last question. I also want to understand because both attorneys
[3:10:07] have indicated that by approving this petition, it would impact the previous project.
[3:10:14] And it is my understanding that it would not.
[3:10:18] So could the attorney please help explain
[3:10:23] would approving this, this change impact
[3:10:29] the project that was already approved?
[3:10:34] No, it
[3:10:45] would.
[3:10:46] Does it create a plan on conforming use in our zone?
[3:10:50] So it would be, it's a pre-existing,
[3:10:54] what they did get their permanency, it was allowed, it was yes.
[3:11:00] So, I mean, I'll just give you an example.
[3:11:03] The letter from attorney folk indicates, in part,
[3:11:06] aside from targeting and approve project.
[3:11:11] It is unclear why the council would want to prohibit multi-family communities
[3:11:14] in a large area of the city.
[3:11:16] So, I just, again, that comment keeps coming up that
[3:11:21] we would be targeting or this would impact the previous
[3:11:25] project, and I wanted to make sure that I was clear that that's not the case.
[3:11:29] The main way it would impact it would be, it's perfectly legal and grandfathered, it
[3:11:37] doesn't touch that project.
[3:11:39] However, when is a pre and non-conforming use and if you want to modify it, change it in
[3:11:45] some way, expand it, for example, then you have to demonstrate,
[3:11:53] you've got to get a special
[3:11:54] detrimental than what's there already. So it's, you know, I don't know if I'd use the word target.
[3:12:00] I mean, I guess you could, but could it have an impact? It could, but it's not going to stop it.
[3:12:06] It would have an impact if they were, for instance, like a phase two.
[3:12:11] Or, or, suppose they decided they, they wanted to add some more units, so they wanted to change
[3:12:17] something. Maybe they wanted to build a new center, you know, a new pool, a new center, something
[3:12:23] that you know with substantial they'd have to go and get a special permit for everything like that.
[3:12:28] Okay thank you. Okay anyone else on the council? Madam President, it would be my
[3:12:35] position to close the public hearing at this point. Okay, not a council going there.
[3:12:41] I agree.
[3:12:42] I'll see you tomorrow.
[3:12:44] I agree.
[3:12:45] Okay.
[3:12:46] I mean, unanimous decision.
[3:12:48] Min, unanimous decision.
[3:12:52] The close to public hearing.
[3:12:59] Three, five,
[3:13:03] one, six.
[3:13:08] Four, six.
[3:13:10] Okay.
[3:13:11] All right.
[3:13:12] 68, dash, 26.
[3:13:15] Don't I'm all it?
[3:13:16] 58.
[3:13:17] Sky Lane.
[3:13:18] Loamster.
[3:13:18] Respectfully request to amend the limesters zoning.
[3:13:22] in accordance with section 22-14 on behalf of the 10 registered voters as follows.
[3:13:28] Modified the limits to zoning ordinance with the Presidents established in Master General law.
[3:13:33] 48 section 5 as follows.
[3:13:36] From section 22-14 adoption and amendment, 14-0.14, no zoning ordinance may be adopted or changed.
[3:13:45] Except by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the city council, if there is filed with the city clerk.
[3:13:50] prior to final action by the City Council, a written protest against such change, stating
[3:13:56] the reasons a duly sign by owners of 20% or more of the area of the land proposed to be
[3:14:02] included in such change, or if the area of land immediately adjacent extending 300 feet
[3:14:07] there from no such change of any ordinance may be adopted except by a three-fourths vote of all
[3:14:13] the members. Two, 14-14, no zoning ordinance may be adopted or changed except by a two-thirds vote
[3:14:19] Of all the members of the city council, if there is filed with the city clerk, prior to final action by the city council, a written protest against such change, stating the reasons in duly sign by owners of 50 percent, or more of the area of land proposed to be included in such change, or if the area of land immediately adjacent extending 300 feet, there from no such change of any ordinance, may be adopted except by a two-thirds vote of all members.
[3:14:44] This is based on mass general, a lot, a 48-section 5.
[3:14:50] If in a city or town with a council of fewer than 25 members, there is filed with a
[3:14:54] clerk prior to final action, by the council of written protests against the zoning change,
[3:14:58] under this section stating the...
[3:15:00] Reasons duly signed by owners of 50% or more of the area of the land proposed to be included in such change, or of the area of the land immediately adjacent extending 300 feet there from no change of any such ordinance shall be adopted, except by a two-thirds vote of all members.
[3:15:18] Just to quickly address this, I can tell you on 720.
[3:15:40] I'm going to open this up first to the petitioner.
[3:15:46] Thank you.
[3:15:47] So this is hopefully much simpler.
[3:15:49] It's a simple question of which takes precedent.
[3:15:53] The state law was modified.
[3:15:54] and is the state take precedence, and if so, we should remove the confusion by updating our
[3:16:02] local law to follow the state. If the state does not take precedence, then to the council
[3:16:08] to, if you want to match the state. The bottom line is the two wording, both at the state level
[3:16:14] and our city ordinance, are almost identical. And I'm imagining at one point they were identical.
[3:16:19] the state was updated to say that if you have a protest you don't need three-quarter vote
[3:16:25] you only need a two-third vote. Our law says three-quarters. If it takes, if the state
[3:16:30] takes precedence and our law is confusing because it doesn't have precedence. If the city
[3:16:37] law is allowed and takes precedence then do what you want, whether you want to match the state
[3:16:43] or leave it as it is, that's the crux of the discussion.
[3:16:47] And fortunately for us, we have attorney Questle with us to give us a little guidance here.
[3:16:56] So, so you bring up an excellent point. There is home rule in Massachusetts, there's home rule.
[3:17:03] So, for now.
[3:17:04] They've used, not so much.
[3:17:06] Yeah, exactly.
[3:17:10] Again, you know, this is following 48 section five.
[3:17:14] It makes things cleaner, you know, in my opinion, however, your ordinance right now is valid until it's challenged.
[3:17:25] So if you want to stay with your ordinance now, you can, if it gets challenged, there is the risk that it won't be upheld because of 48 section five.
[3:17:36] And the reason it makes my question to you is, we don't know, right?
[3:17:42] That's why we put the thing in the air and ask the question.
[3:17:46] But there has been several votes that I know of in paying attention that have been deemed
[3:17:53] to need a seventh member to vote.
[3:17:58] And that's pretty substantial, you know, if you're one vote off and you say, okay, I need
[3:18:04] because it needs two-thirds, and you're fighting for the six-vote,
[3:18:08] that's a different debate in different discussion when you say,
[3:18:11] you need three-quarters, you need seven-votes, and we know we don't have it.
[3:18:15] So let's end the discussion and move on to the next topic.
[3:18:18] So that's what we're looking for, it's just clarity, as to which takes precedence,
[3:18:23] because there are votes happening on a regular basis, or semi-regular basis.
[3:18:28] I know if two I should say, where seven votes was,
[3:18:32] And it happens to be a district that we're all familiar with MUTO.
[3:18:39] So it's an important question.
[3:18:44] I mean, this is a double edged sword.
[3:18:47] It could go, it could help you, and it could hurt you.
[3:18:50] That kind of thing on what the situation is.
[3:18:52] I know it came up most notably with the racetrack.
[3:18:56] I don't think it was relevant in the end with the racetrack,
[3:18:58] But, you know, my personal opinion for it is worth, as I think we leave the home world.
[3:19:04] I mean, I think it gives the resonance, I think more often than not, you'd find a
[3:19:09] protest with a resonance of trying to prevent something rather than, you know, then allow
[3:19:16] something.
[3:19:18] So, I mean, it does give some extra protection.
[3:19:21] I just don't, the question of the petitioners is, are we doing a valid, that was only
[3:19:26] question because if you require seven votes and the state
[3:19:29] expense presidents, then it's an invalid vote, really,
[3:19:34] one could make that argument, right?
[3:19:36] If so, and I don't think we have a position if you say
[3:19:44] definitively that the state law takes presidents, then
[3:19:47] do it with what you will.
[3:19:49] But if it's a gray area, I don't know what you do.
[3:19:53] So, the petition is to ask the Council which takes precedence.
[3:20:00] I'm sorry, the petition is to change it.
[3:20:03] The petition is to change it.
[3:20:05] The recommendation from the petitioners is to say, if the state takes precedence, we remove the confusion.
[3:20:14] Right.
[3:20:15] If the state doesn't take precedence, then I don't we don't have a position.
[3:20:22] So again, and I'm not trying to be intentionally vague, it is a gray area.
[3:20:29] Right now your ordinance is valid until it's challenged and a court says it is not valid.
[3:20:36] Do you have a legal opinion as to whether how it would stand up to that challenge?
[3:20:42] Yes, most likely the state, 48 section five would take precedence.
[3:20:47] Yikes, I think that's important to know, because you have the potential to leave open a potential
[3:20:56] challenge, right? You could, and I agree, there's two sides to the coin. I've seen it working
[3:21:01] both ways, though. I'm not lobbying one way or another, but I don't know that you want to
[3:21:07] push forth something that leaves open the possibility for it to be challenged.
[3:21:13] That seems a little bit, um, I don't know, I mean, I've had enough myself, but I think the point didn't mean.
[3:21:22] Did he have dropped himself out?
[3:21:25] I didn't do that.
[3:21:26] I did sign up for the open forum, so I got one more shot at that.
[3:21:31] We haven't done that yet.
[3:21:35] So it's not the first time I've been accused of extending meetings down here.
[3:21:42] You want someone who's worked with you for a long time and maybe you want some of our comments on that?
[3:21:49] I get it every day from Sabatelli in the grocery store that I see him and I took two months of his life away or whatever.
[3:21:56] You should go to different grocery stores.
[3:21:59] He should.
[3:22:01] Anyways.
[3:22:04] He's the same person.
[3:22:05] The same person.
[3:22:06] The tells the preacher can do a math on 45 minutes.
[3:22:13] Any members of the Council have any questions, concerns, comments, any members of the public
[3:22:20] that would like to address the Council on 68-26?
[3:22:30] Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam President and members of the Council, Patrick Gallagher from Coolsten and Stores, on behalf of Greg Muscati, and the Scotty Development of the very brief on this.
[3:22:40] I agree with the turning question. Our position is that, in this case, Chapter 48, since the floor, that municipalities are able to enact more stringent requirements, there are a number of areas under 48, where that's a case.
[3:22:55] For example, site plan review has been in existence
[3:22:58] for a very long time in Massachusetts,
[3:23:01] and is not part of 48.
[3:23:04] Municipalities are able to provide
[3:23:06] for more stringent special permit standards.
[3:23:10] There are a number of cases under other zoning
[3:23:12] and development laws where municipalities
[3:23:15] can provide for higher levels of review.
[3:23:18] We believe it's appropriate here
[3:23:20] and that would make it a policy decision for the council.
[3:23:23] And in this case, we're talking about instances
[3:23:25] is where a neighbor is seeking to reason your land, something that my client has encountered
[3:23:32] frequently, and we believe that it is a fair policy decision for the Council to make
[3:23:40] to say we're going to require a higher standard, a higher bar, in those cases when someone
[3:23:45] is trying to reason your land to enable you to protect yourself and have a voice in that
[3:23:50] process.
[3:23:51] Thank you.
[3:23:52] Thank you, Attorney Gallagher.
[3:23:53] Is there any other members from the audience would like to address 68-26?
[3:24:01] For a third and final time, are there any members of the audience that would like to address 68-26?
[3:24:06] Okay, seeing none, I will, oh, Council President.
[3:24:10] I'm just going to add, Mrs. Even in direct relationship to this, but I'm the real fan of
[3:24:17] home room petition. I think that's all Massachusetts government was
[3:24:22] nade. It's been taken away little by little by little. I know there's
[3:24:28] conference committee now. It's probably going to take more away from
[3:24:31] that. But I'm a fan of home room petition. So that's okay. Any other
[3:24:39] members of the council? Any questions? Anything else? Seeing Madam President,
[3:24:44] And I would ask that 68-26 the public hearing be closed.
[3:24:54] Agree.
[3:25:02] Thank you.
[3:25:12] We are now going to hold the public forum.
[3:25:14] Public forums are an opportunity for any member of the audience to speak.
[3:25:18] Any matter specifically listed on the council agenda.
[3:25:23] Speakers will be asked to come to the microphone, state formal name and address, along with identifying
[3:25:28] find the specific item they wish to address. Each speaker is respectfully asked to keep
[3:25:33] there some comments within a two minute time frame. Council, not be responding, however,
[3:25:39] if the little clarification needed, I have the ability to respond. We have Haley Brady.
[3:25:48] I think she spoke in the public hearing. I think she left. Okay. Carol, Elaine, 238,
[3:25:55] to a drive. She's gone too. David Rollins, you get your next shot. Let me go back to the two minutes,
[3:26:06] I mean. Really? No. Dave Rollins, 49, Braver and Circle in lemon stir. I know there's going to be
[3:26:14] hearing this is on petition 227, a moratorium on the battery storage system that's, that's by the way,
[3:26:21] I had to look at a better energy storage systems,
[3:26:24] and I'm just looking to say myself a trip
[3:26:26] so I don't have to come back when hearing is there on that one.
[3:26:30] I think, and I don't have, there was a definition
[3:26:33] associated with the other moratorium.
[3:26:35] I might be here.
[3:26:36] I don't have it, so I'm basing my opinions
[3:26:38] on what I read off of the agenda.
[3:26:41] But I'm worried about small battery use,
[3:26:45] which are still classified at either residential small business
[3:26:49] or even in nonprofits. There's battery storage systems. The idea is that if you have solar panels
[3:26:57] and you have to sell your electricity back to pennies on a dollar, you're selling it at wholesale,
[3:27:02] if you have a battery storage system, you can store that electricity and use it and get the biggest
[3:27:06] benefit from it. So there is a big advantage to having batteries for people that have invested in solar
[3:27:12] or even potentially wind. The battery packs are safe. There's codes that allow it to be done and
[3:27:19] put into house, Massachusetts has a incentive for people to buy battery packs, and most of the
[3:27:25] battery packs that I'm talking for small business or residential are smaller than the battery
[3:27:30] packs in electric car. So if you drive your electric car and put in the garage, we're talking
[3:27:35] about, you know, distributing your battery pack all over the streets. This is a safe, small
[3:27:41] battery pack, provide backup to your house, much safer than entering, you know, storing
[3:27:47] gallons of oil or propane, so that's one.
[3:27:51] Number two is there's these things, especially in areas
[3:27:54] we have high energy problems, disaster problems.
[3:27:59] They're called resiliency hubs, churches
[3:28:02] and whatnot are putting in battery backup
[3:28:04] on their solar system and providing resilience hubs,
[3:28:07] which allow people to recharge their batteries,
[3:28:11] refrigerate mothers milk, and other uses
[3:28:14] is that are valid and standby emergency situations.
[3:28:20] So the bottom line is, there are valuable,
[3:28:24] real, small, safe uses for battery, for battery use.
[3:28:29] And so I would just ask that you be cautious with the moratorium
[3:28:35] to make sure we don't hurt people that want to reduce their energy
[3:28:38] cost in a safe way or provide a solid backup for a resilience type hubs.
[3:28:47] And I would throw out another option or in additional to the previous discussion.
[3:28:52] You could define what a battery storage system is.
[3:28:56] You could have it in the table of uses.
[3:28:58] You could have it be special permit and most restrictive and be special permit for the city council.
[3:29:04] And therefore, leave a window for these valid uses.
[3:29:07] I think there's much more valid uses for battery packs than there are for data centers.
[3:29:14] So I think there's, so my thing is, and I don't know the details, I didn't read it, but
[3:29:18] my point is just keep that into the whole discussion, and I don't have to come back to the
[3:29:23] next meeting.
[3:29:24] Thank you.
[3:29:25] Don't thank you, Mr. Alonso.
[3:29:31] That's all that we have signed up.
[3:29:33] Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council?
[3:29:38] Again, is there anyone else who wishes to address the council?
[3:29:42] The third and final time is there anyone who wishes to address the council?
[3:29:47] If not, I'll declare the public forum closed.
[3:29:50] Moving on to our regular council meeting.
[3:29:56] Rachel, after it's not too bad, it's only 9.
[3:30:00] Thank you for saying more.
[3:30:04] Petitions, first time on the agenda, Madam Clerk.
[3:30:09] Greg Seach, Chapter 1, purchasing a request permission to enter a five-year contract.
[3:30:14] These are space for limits to sign for technical education innovation.
[3:30:20] 9.27 is referred to the chair of Finance.
[3:30:23] Thank you, Madam President. For the first time of the calendar, regular course, please.
[3:30:28] Okay, and I'm also going to add the committee on schools to look at that and maybe we'll
[3:30:35] work together on that.
[3:30:37] Sounds good.
[3:30:38] Same recommendation.
[3:30:39] We're going towards.
[3:30:46] Okay.
[3:30:47] 10-27.
[3:30:48] Message just select your company and do a business as national grid in Verizon and New England.
[3:30:54] Incorporate a request permission to locate polls.
[3:30:57] Why are those in fixtures including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along
[3:31:01] and across the following public way?
[3:31:03] Pleasant Street, National Grid to relocate one jointly on full on Pleasant Street,
[3:31:07] beginning at a point approximately 50 feet south of the center line of the intersection
[3:31:12] of Lisa Drive and continuing approximately 10 feet in a southern lead direction.
[3:31:17] National Grid is relocating called 71 approximately 30 feet north in order to remove an existing
[3:31:23] guide tree. Location approximately shown on the planet attached. Wherefore it prays that after
[3:31:30] to do notice and hearings as provided by law,
[3:31:32] it'd be granted the location for information to erect
[3:31:35] and maintain polls and wires together
[3:31:37] with such sustaining and protecting fixtures
[3:31:41] as it may find necessary, said polls,
[3:31:44] to be erected substantially in accordance with the plan,
[3:31:48] filed here within Mark's Pleasant Street,
[3:31:50] Lumbester Massachusetts, number three, one, one, nine, nine,
[3:31:53] five, two, eight, July 13th, 2026,
[3:31:56] Also, for permission to lay and maintain laterals, cables and wires in the above or
[3:32:02] intersecting in public ways for the purpose of making connections with such polls and
[3:32:06] buildings as such a set of petitioners may desire for distributing purposes.
[3:32:12] Okay, 1027 is referred to the chair of public service.
[3:32:17] Thank you, Madam President.
[3:32:18] First time on the agenda, regular course with referrals to the DPW, the Lennister Police Department
[3:32:26] and we need to schedule a public hearing.
[3:32:32] Madam President, I'll be abstaining from this.
[3:32:34] It doesn't bother my employer.
[3:32:47] Okay, we will do 914 at
[3:32:55] 555.
[3:33:12] We have regular courts given to 1027 with regards to.
[3:33:17] We have a post, right?
[3:33:18] Yes, I am.
[3:33:19] Okay.
[3:33:20] I'm just repeating.
[3:33:21] Oh, sorry.
[3:33:22] Till I get to that.
[3:33:23] Thank you.
[3:33:25] It's been a while now.
[3:33:26] I couldn't punch you.
[3:33:29] Please, a TBW with a hearing set for September 14th at 555, all those in favor of the hearing
[3:33:37] signifying usual manner?
[3:33:39] Those bowels?
[3:33:40] Thank you.
[3:33:48] Are we going to 1127?
[3:33:51] Look, Bola, code enforcement officer request to amend section 8.8.21 of the LMS City ordinance title fees
[3:33:59] for inspections and permits by editing fees for inspections
[3:34:02] and add new schedule of fees and add new language.
[3:34:09] Okay, 1127 is referred to as a chair of legal affairs.
[3:34:13] Thank you, Madam President.
[3:34:15] First time on the calendar, regular course, please.
[3:34:19] Okay, we need to set a hearing for that as well.
[3:34:26] So that will be, let's go to the 28th of September.
[3:34:32] Um, and we don't have anything to do yet, so let's go, um,
[3:34:38] six o'clock at work.
[3:34:43] I'm trying to put all of them at the same time.
[3:34:46] I think that would make them a sense.
[3:34:48] Sure.
[3:34:49] But although I'm not sure, I'm not sure we've been making lately,
[3:34:53] but okay, our 1127 has been given.
[3:34:56] Do you have any referrals with us?
[3:35:00] I was...
[3:35:01] Coat enforcement?
[3:35:02] I suppose...
[3:35:05] I would open its objections.
[3:35:09] I would just request we get the existing fees.
[3:35:11] Actually, if you look at the entire proposal.
[3:35:15] It's with the bottom key.
[3:35:17] He prepared the list, and all the changes he highlighted in red.
[3:35:22] I saw that.
[3:35:23] So are the existing fees at the end of the song?
[3:35:25] Yes.
[3:35:30] Okay.
[3:35:31] All right.
[3:35:32] 1127 has been given regular course with a hearing date scheduled for 928 at 6 o'clock.
[3:35:43] All those in favor of the hearing date signifying usual me on up.
[3:35:47] Those opposed.
[3:35:50] 1227.
[3:35:52] Luke Bowleg.
[3:35:54] Code enforcement officer requests to amend chapter four buildings of the limits.
[3:35:58] They're city ordinance to reflect the following.
[3:36:00] 4-2 edit and add wording 4-2.1 and it fees and add wording 4-2.2 eliminate mobile home permit fees add temporary tent fees 4-2.3 edit fees 4-2.5 edit fees 4-2.6 edit fees and add new language 4-2.7 edit fees 4-2.9 edit fees add new language and 4-15 edit.
[3:36:30] at Editt Feez.
[3:36:34] Okay, you're further 12-27.
[3:36:37] Mr. Referred to the chair of legal affairs.
[3:36:39] Thank you, Madam President.
[3:36:40] Regular course, please.
[3:36:41] And I'd ask that we set the public hearing date
[3:36:44] on that same date, 928, 2026, maybe at 601 p.m.
[3:36:49] 601?
[3:36:49] You think it's going to take one minute?
[3:36:51] One minute.
[3:36:51] Sorry, sorry.
[3:36:53] How about I was going five?
[3:36:55] 65.
[3:37:02] Do you think we should be referring these to the building
[3:37:04] Inspector, certainly any objection to doing 1127 to the building inspector as well?
[3:37:13] No, I would suggest the same.
[3:37:21] Okay, you've heard the recommendation on 1227,
[3:37:25] or reveal a course on 928 with a referral to the building inspector with...
[3:37:30] Hearing, set was 6.05 on 9.28. All those are favouring the hearing dates, signify, and usual manner. Those both. Thank you.
[3:37:39] 13-28-27. Luke Bowlack, code enforcement officer request to edit section 12-2 fees slash schedule of the
[3:38:00] 19-27 is referred to the Charlie Wife as.
[3:38:04] Regular course, please, with the referral to the building inspector, and I would request the public hearing on 928-2026 at 610pm.
[3:38:14] Okay, you've heard the recommendation of legal affairs chair.
[3:38:20] Any questions or comments on us?
[3:38:22] We're going to go as we're not taking any.
[3:38:25] for our 528 at 610 Brearing Date and Referral to the Building Inspector and
[3:38:30] any questions or comments.
[3:38:32] You've thought all of the favors that you're buying usual Vienna on the
[3:38:36] hearing day.
[3:38:37] Thank you.
[3:38:39] All right.
[3:38:39] Next we have our request for an emergency preamble from the mayor,
[3:38:46] I'm not going to read great chapterings, recommendations, and explanation.
[3:38:59] You all got a copy of it, and I'm sure you all read it, because it's been a real
[3:39:04] source spot with all of us.
[3:39:07] We've all heard how quickly the Gallagher elevator needs to be repaired.
[3:39:13] And I think this puts it on a faster track.
[3:39:18] There's been a lot of issues with it.
[3:39:20] This is with the company.
[3:39:21] As we've seen, an emergency preamble puts it in a position to act on it tonight, so that great
[3:39:33] can get us on the list of it's holes up for another three weeks, which would be the next meeting.
[3:39:40] The three weeks would bring it to adding another month to getting
[3:39:46] possibly getting that fixed.
[3:39:48] So that's this objective here, is to get it on the list as soon as possible.
[3:39:54] Because he had called me and I told him that I would put it on his
[3:39:57] an emergency, he was able to get a temporary spot on that list.
[3:40:04] So we need, if we all vote tonight, it comes off.
[3:40:06] So, I will just request right now to vote in the emergency preamble first.
[3:40:14] So if there are any questions, comments on the emergency preamble, consult or knows where
[3:40:19] they are.
[3:40:19] Thank you, Madam President.
[3:40:21] I will be brief.
[3:40:23] I don't know if this is the time to do it.
[3:40:25] If not, I just wanted to get it out there.
[3:40:26] Since we already had issues with the other elevator in here, can we have them take a look
[3:40:32] at the envelope?
[3:40:33] Completely different.
[3:40:34] Oh, no, I understand I'm just saying just putting it out there we did have issues with the other
[3:40:41] Elevator in here, so
[3:40:43] But that's where yeah, we need to stick to this one at this point. Yep. Okay. Thank you
[3:40:52] Consular mirror
[3:40:53] I was waiting
[3:40:55] Yeah, the Elevator
[3:40:58] I know I know I know so
[3:41:01] So, not proceeding with this preamble here, this emergency preamble.
[3:41:07] What are the options?
[3:41:09] I just want to better understand why.
[3:41:11] He would probably, if he's continued,
[3:41:15] it would go on the agenda on 9, 9, 4, 10, which is 3 weeks or no, right?
[3:41:23] That's 3 weeks.
[3:41:25] 9, 4, 10, and then there would be 2 weeks after that
[3:41:29] before we could actually vote on it, it would be given regular course, so you're talking
[3:41:35] five weeks before and then at that point it would depend on whether they put it on the
[3:41:42] list or not. Right now we're on the list and at that I think it's two to three months
[3:41:48] you say before they can even get to it. So I had hoped that Mr. Chaplin would be here to be able
[3:41:56] provide when it says that since we're on the list what the actual data is for
[3:42:02] booking because my office is actually in the Gallagher building and I will
[3:42:08] tell you this has been a nightmare since April and April I was told by the city
[3:42:13] before we appropriate the money that they were in contact with Odin to request
[3:42:19] that they ordered the parts so that they could begin work. We appropriate the
[3:42:24] money, they didn't even show up until July, and then they were there for like two days.
[3:42:30] And then they were gone because apparently a permit was needed.
[3:42:34] And then according to Greg's email, the permit was actually not needed for me, P.A.
[3:42:41] Although it was all paused.
[3:42:44] So this has been one thing after the other.
[3:42:48] And if you go into the Gallagher Building, I don't know if any of you have gone in there,
[3:42:52] The, the, the, everything that's needed to fix the elevator is just sitting in the hallways.
[3:42:59] It's been there for months.
[3:43:02] And so without an actual commitment from them, in terms of the day that they're going to be able to actually perform this, it has been this,
[3:43:11] just this prolonged process.
[3:43:14] So while I understand this, like he wants to get this done as soon as possible, we appropriated the money back
[3:43:22] in April, May. They didn't even start working on it until July and it was only for a couple
[3:43:28] days and then they paused for over a month. So I have a real problem with doing this with
[3:43:37] an actual commitment from them in terms of when we're actually on the calendar because I don't
[3:43:43] believe it's going to get done. Even if we vote yes on this and move this forward, I don't believe
[3:43:50] It's going to, so I'm like, we might as well just do regular course, regular course.
[3:43:54] Like regular.
[3:43:55] So we, we are not able to go anywhere else.
[3:43:58] We have a contract.
[3:43:59] We have a three year contract with them.
[3:44:01] So it's not like we are dealing with them and say, well, we're not happy with your performance.
[3:44:08] We'll call somebody else.
[3:44:09] We can't do that until the contract is done.
[3:44:13] Nobody's more frustrated about this as I've noticed,
[3:44:16] and then grid trapped away.
[3:44:18] I had a long conversation with him on Friday.
[3:44:20] I had another one with him today.
[3:44:22] He's very upset with Otis.
[3:44:25] I mean, I don't want to be forced to read this letter because it's long.
[3:44:29] But I want to make sure the public's not getting the wrong idea that somebody's dragging
[3:44:35] their feet.
[3:44:36] According to Greg, he was told that they needed a permit from EPA.
[3:44:40] He couldn't get answers from anybody from Otis.
[3:44:43] couldn't get an answer from any of them to tell him what they needed and how they needed
[3:44:48] to apply for it. They were told that the hydraulic fluid that had leaked from the piston.
[3:44:56] Now I'm trying to remember how this is written.
[3:45:01] Was an environmental issue and they couldn't get in touch with anybody in EPA and they finally found out through a long process and going through someone else that it wasn't as it is as it is with the state, I think, but not the federal government.
[3:45:20] So he was going in the wrong direction, and nobody from Otis would help him try to resolve the issue.
[3:45:29] Sir, there are both the only game in town.
[3:45:32] No, and I think that's right.
[3:45:34] No, there is another company.
[3:45:39] In fact, you know, my concern actually was trying to help with the EPA code.
[3:45:44] That works for another company.
[3:45:45] But regardless, what I'm trying to get at is
[3:45:49] this is on here as an emergency.
[3:45:52] We were told back in April.
[3:45:54] This was time sensitive.
[3:45:55] Like, we needed to get this done.
[3:45:56] You know, so on and so forth.
[3:45:58] And it's still not.
[3:45:59] So I just don't feet.
[3:46:01] Like, again, we're voting on whether or not this is an emergency.
[3:46:04] And I just don't.
[3:46:05] Based on notices performance and based on their history.
[3:46:08] I don't see them moving any faster.
[3:46:11] The emergencies not measured by autistic performance.
[3:46:14] emergency measures by the need of the public.
[3:46:17] So the public needs this, you all agree.
[3:46:20] So we can't, we're not going to talk about this.
[3:46:22] Let's see what we all turn it up.
[3:46:24] If they take us off that list and say, OK, you know,
[3:46:27] you told me that you, you know, the chances
[3:46:29] are likely that you put an emergency forward.
[3:46:33] And if we say, no, we vote to not have an emergency
[3:46:38] preamble to it and not fund it, then what are we
[3:46:43] and go this is going to do at this point.
[3:46:45] I don't think anybody's happy with, oh,
[3:46:46] this is good.
[3:46:47] Nothing to do with being satisfied.
[3:46:50] There is nobody else to deal with.
[3:46:54] It's all right.
[3:46:54] If I may.
[3:46:56] I'm sorry.
[3:46:56] No problem.
[3:46:59] You know, no one has been very vocal before about emergency
[3:47:03] preembles and I'm not a fan of them, but I'll tell you
[3:47:08] that if anything has ever come down as an emergency
[3:47:11] see that we need to get moving on, that affects the, as the charisess, the peace, health,
[3:47:17] safety of the city. This is it. And trust me, I completely understand the word one
[3:47:26] counselor's frustration and the whole idea that, yes, we could push this as forward as an
[3:47:33] emergency in a month, it's still not done. But we have no control over that. But I'm not going
[3:47:39] hold this up, it's not going to be on us, and to not accept it as an emergency isn't going
[3:47:47] to send any kind of a message, it's just going to delay it and the fingers will be pointed
[3:47:51] off.
[3:47:53] So, we're all aware of where we're all, we're all ready to accept it as an emergency.
[3:48:00] We're all aware of it and we all understand the frustration that we're feeling, I can't
[3:48:06] and imagine you're working in a building.
[3:48:09] I mean, it doesn't, and knowing your clients can't get to you.
[3:48:14] Exactly.
[3:48:15] To save the veterans and elders, I've been like months not being able
[3:48:21] to access the services that they need in our building,
[3:48:25] because even employees struggling, because of this.
[3:48:27] So the whole department is, exactly, very frustrated.
[3:48:31] People that are struggling and special needs children
[3:48:33] to get up there to register,
[3:48:34] I understand it. I don't know that we have an alternative. I guess that's that's the whole point here.
[3:48:42] So I did commit to putting it on as an emergency and I still believe that's the best we can do for our part at this point.
[3:48:53] Any other questions or comments?
[3:48:57] Okay. This will be a roll call beginning with a counselor.
[3:49:01] One, I do I need a motion in a second.
[3:49:07] Motion to move the question on the move preamble.
[3:49:11] All right.
[3:49:11] We have a motion in a second.
[3:49:16] Council of Columbia.
[3:49:18] Council of Coppalling, Columbia.
[3:49:20] Yeah.
[3:49:20] Council of Andrew.
[3:49:21] Council of Noseworthy.
[3:49:24] Council of Romero.
[3:49:26] Yeah.
[3:49:27] Council of Shelfers.
[3:49:28] Yeah.
[3:49:29] Council of Robin.
[3:49:31] Yes.
[3:49:32] Yes.
[3:49:33] Yes.
[3:49:33] And I will be recorded as you.
[3:49:35] And again, it's a console over here, right?
[3:49:37] You're here, right?
[3:49:39] Okay.
[3:49:40] Sorry, it's unanimous.
[3:49:42] Now, now we will go to
[3:49:48] the chair of flat walls.
[3:49:50] Well, we had a medical court.
[3:49:53] Dean James, I was around the minute,
[3:49:54] respectfully request an appropriation of up to $210,000 to be made from the Gallagher Building Fund.
[3:50:01] Okay, as we've already delved into this evening, this money is necessary to repair the
[3:50:08] elevator pit and the damage to the piston.
[3:50:11] Obviously, it's an emergency.
[3:50:13] We just voted on that.
[3:50:14] It would be my position to grant C-7 and ask you to check with the members of my committee,
[3:50:20] Madam President.
[3:50:20] Okay.
[3:50:20] Constellers, you all know what's up?
[3:50:22] Okay.
[3:50:23] And Constellers, I agree.
[3:50:24] Okay.
[3:50:25] You have the unanimous recommendation from the Finance Committee, any other questions or comments?
[3:50:32] If not, let's do this by roll call again, just to be short, come for the Columbia.
[3:50:40] Also Columbia?
[3:50:41] Yeah.
[3:50:42] Yes.
[3:50:42] Yeah.
[3:50:43] Yeah.
[3:50:46] Yeah.
[3:50:46] Counselor Shao, go to South Carolina.
[3:50:47] Counselor Robin.
[3:50:49] Yeah.
[3:50:50] Yeah.
[3:50:50] And I'll be recorded as yeah.
[3:50:52] All right.
[3:50:55] Thank you, everyone.
[3:50:59] CO7 is granted.
[3:51:03] We need an order.
[3:51:06] That's okay.
[3:51:07] I do.
[3:51:08] Order that the sum of $110,000 be transferred to the
[3:51:14] Gallagher Elevator.
[3:51:16] Same to be appropriate from the Gallagher Building Fund.
[3:51:18] Move for the adoption of the order.
[3:51:20] Okay, you've heard the recommendation of the chair.
[3:51:23] Any questions or comments?
[3:51:25] If not, all those in favour?
[3:51:27] Was the signify in the usual manner?
[3:51:29] Those opposed?
[3:51:31] Yes.
[3:51:31] I have item 9-0.
[3:51:34] The order has been granted.
[3:51:36] Siga Ash-OH.
[3:51:38] Dianjame, as a Trailer Mayor, respectfully request an appropriation of $150 dollars and 35 cents.
[3:51:45] We made to the Health Department an expense line this time to be transferred to the Stabilization
[3:51:49] Fund.
[3:51:50] Okay, CO-A is referring to the jar of finance.
[3:51:53] Thank you, Madame President, first time on the agenda, regular course.
[3:51:57] They do believe the sets of rucked.
[3:51:59] For me, that's fine. It's cheer. The smallest appropriation ever.
[3:52:05] You don't feel like pain in my stomach.
[3:52:07] I'm not a complaint.
[3:52:13] Okay.
[3:52:14] So you're recommending regular course.
[3:52:16] Okay.
[3:52:18] No referrals on that.
[3:52:19] No.
[3:52:20] Big amount.
[3:52:22] You're free.
[3:52:24] See, the S.O.A. has been given regular course.
[3:52:26] 3-09, D&J Maserol
[3:52:30] Very crispy, respectfully request, excuse me, an appropriation of $3,500, we made to the four street overtime account, the same to be transferred to the stabilization account.
[3:52:42] Again, first time on the calendar, regular course, we again up the end of the number.
[3:52:48] see it has shown that I just been given a regular course.
[3:52:52] Before we go to some of these, let's go to this chair public service to do with the
[3:53:03] NASA elector.
[3:53:05] I mean, that poor gentleman's been sitting here all night.
[3:53:08] I'm not saying he probably hasn't been enjoying it, but just let him get out of here.
[3:53:13] So I thank you, Madam President, let me get to that here.
[3:53:21] So we had this is for petition 0.5-27.
[3:53:28] Can I wave the reading on a ceiling?
[3:53:30] Yes, yes.
[3:53:31] Okay, great.
[3:53:32] So we had a public hearing earlier this evening.
[3:53:38] That public hearing has been closed.
[3:53:39] It would be my recommendation to pass petition 0.5-27, and I ask you to check with the other members
[3:53:48] of my committee.
[3:53:50] Okay, thank you, Madam Chair, it's a recommendation by the Chair.
[3:53:54] Councillor Schell, it was off that.
[3:53:55] Okay.
[3:53:56] Councillor Robbins.
[3:53:57] Okay.
[3:53:57] You have a unanimous recommendation.
[3:54:00] Any other questions or comments?
[3:54:02] If not, all those in favor of granting 0.5-27, signifying usual manner, those opposed?
[3:54:13] Thank you, honey.
[3:54:17] Thank you.
[3:54:25] Okay.
[3:54:26] So we're going to write the state property.
[3:54:29] Mr. Chair, ready to report.
[3:54:31] I'm sorry.
[3:54:31] I'm fine.
[3:54:32] I'm sorry.
[3:54:34] I'm sorry.
[3:54:35] I'm sorry.
[3:54:36] I'm sorry.
[3:54:37] I'm sorry.
[3:54:37] I'm sorry.
[3:54:38] I'm sorry.
[3:54:42] I'm sorry.
[3:54:43] $153 actually over the other one. So $25,696,825,696,845 dollars. And you can
[3:54:54] have a fiscal year at an interest of $38,814. We have before us if passed $3,653 of
[3:55:03] appropriations, leaving a resultant balance of $25,732,732,000, $5,000.
[3:55:13] Fiscal Stabilization Fund began the fiscal year with a balance of $2,699,298, and that's
[3:55:24] what we stand right now.
[3:55:25] I hope you are a stabilization fund, begin the fiscal year with $512,000, $44,000.
[3:55:33] The only appropriation was for the clinician, $76,768, leaving a result in balance of $135,000, $276,000.
[3:55:44] And that is the financial report.
[3:55:47] I apologize to the award one castler, because once again I defalcated, I'm not getting
[3:55:53] you some information from the mayor's office about how we're going to spend the rest
[3:55:57] of that money, and I promise I will for the next time.
[3:56:00] I'm here.
[3:56:02] That was my question.
[3:56:03] I'm supposed to find it for me too.
[3:56:06] Okay.
[3:56:07] We're holding that.
[3:56:08] All right.
[3:56:10] Moving on to city property now.
[3:56:13] Is the chair ready to reflect?
[3:56:15] Madam President, I need to abstain from.
[3:56:16] for this.
[3:56:17] Thank you.
[3:56:19] C5.
[3:56:20] Dean J. Masarella Mayer requests authorization to accept the donation of the attached deed for
[3:56:25] parcels of land from the estate of Peter Angelini to be dedicated to maintain as permanent
[3:56:31] conservation and for the city of Lomensir.
[3:56:34] The acceptance is currently before the conservation commission as well.
[3:56:38] This land encompasses parcel one, lot five.
[3:56:41] parcel two lot six on Roche Ave in Llamister by accepting this deed the city will permanently protect
[3:56:48] additional natural resources preserve wildlife habitats excuse me and expand our open space inventory
[3:56:58] we I did not receive anything from the conservation commission I don't
[3:57:07] I believe I'm not sure if we received the document documentation from the Conservation Commission.
[3:57:14] I know it was referred to.
[3:57:16] I don't know if they've met you.
[3:57:17] That's what that's just my question.
[3:57:19] Oh, I see.
[3:57:20] I don't know.
[3:57:20] Some reason I'm excited when meeting tomorrow night.
[3:57:22] I don't know why.
[3:57:23] Oh, okay.
[3:57:24] I didn't have a date.
[3:57:25] Given that, I will ask for further time on this.
[3:57:28] And ask that you please check with members of my committee as well.
[3:57:35] Okay.
[3:57:40] I mean, if you're comfortable enough to do something with it, you can, that's all I'm
[3:57:46] pointing out.
[3:57:48] If you want to wait, you can also request further time.
[3:57:51] But if you want it's a granted, you don't have to wait for conservation.
[3:57:55] I have not had an opportunity to meet.
[3:57:57] We'll have a subcommittee meeting with my fellow members.
[3:58:02] And so I would like to, again, request the further time and then also just, hopefully the
[3:58:08] conservation commission will actually just have something additionally that they can provide.
[3:58:14] And just to confirm this was not referred to the planning board, right? Is that correct?
[3:58:18] We didn't need anything? No, it's just, yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, I just wanted to confirm.
[3:58:23] So again, I just asked for further time. We can have a conversation, a subcommittee meeting,
[3:58:31] with members of my committee. Again, I just asked that you check with them.
[3:58:35] My secretary, it's a my lady. I'm very quest. I just looked at
[3:58:38] up and it's on the agenda for tomorrow night. I'm kind of the
[3:58:41] commission. So great. So we should have that. Okay. Thank you very much through the
[3:58:47] chair to the city clerk. I had asked for maps for this particular
[3:58:51] petition and then the other one as well. Correct. I'll send them. Okay.
[3:59:00] I was looking
[3:59:00] for printed copy? I didn't. Did you get a printed copy, Dave?
[3:59:06] I did not. I did not. I did not.
[3:59:09] I just get an email on both of those cameras.
[3:59:11] I know I've seen them. I can't remember if it was just an email.
[3:59:15] Well, I think I could.
[3:59:18] Okay, so for the next meeting, would you be able to provide printed maps?
[3:59:22] Thank you. Thank you.
[3:59:25] Okay.
[3:59:26] I'm going to choose recommendation.
[3:59:33] Well, I'll just as with you.
[3:59:34] Me, Madam President.
[3:59:36] Do you want us to ease each other's counsel?
[3:59:39] I don't know what you think about them.
[3:59:40] Okay, I am.
[3:59:41] I'm not getting foggy.
[3:59:43] And Councillor Cormier.
[3:59:45] I agree.
[3:59:46] I agree.
[3:59:46] Okay, Madam.
[3:59:47] So, you know this is a social report at the time.
[3:59:50] Thank you.
[3:59:50] Any other questions or comments from anyone?
[3:59:53] If not, are those in favour of a sign of an usual manner?
[3:59:56] Those opposed?
[3:59:58] Correct.
[3:59:59] 8 to 0.
[4:00:00] General for further time. Thank you. Nothing for ways and means.
[4:00:07] Fortunately, daily. So we'll go right to Legal Affairs.
[4:00:13] C-06. King J. Maseroller, Mayor, request the city grant the order of taking for the flood relief project at the corner of Pleasant and Colvern Streets.
[4:00:24] see order of taking as attached, we spoke with John Rosbury, tonight from the DPW, they're anxious
[4:00:37] to get this moving and on its way. So it would be my recommendation to grant C-06 and I'd
[4:00:43] ask you to check with members of my committee.
[4:00:44] Can you cancel a call on me?
[4:00:46] I agree.
[4:00:47] Councilor Romero.
[4:00:48] Hi, Greg.
[4:00:49] Okay, have a unanimous recommendation from you, committee?
[4:00:53] Yes. Any questions in the comments?
[4:00:55] No. I think we're all happy to see this move.
[4:00:58] We'll see.
[4:01:00] Oh, all those in favour of signifying usual manner?
[4:01:04] Those opposed?
[4:01:06] Okay, by road 9 to 0.
[4:01:11] 1-27.
[4:01:14] 1-27, Captain John Fur,
[4:01:16] The Minister of Police Department requested Chapter 13 article 1 section 13-7 of the revised
[4:01:22] ordinances of the city of limister be amended to designate school street as a one-way
[4:01:27] street for northbound traffic only between west street and mariam have.
[4:01:31] We have the schedule for a public hearing on September 14th, 2026 at 545.
[4:01:39] So I'd be requesting further time to that public hearing date.
[4:01:43] Okay, you further the chair's recommendation.
[4:01:48] Councillor Coymeyer, you okay?
[4:01:50] I'm going to go to the House.
[4:01:52] Councillor Mero?
[4:01:52] Yep.
[4:01:53] Okay, you have any anonymous recommendation?
[4:01:55] Any other questions or comments?
[4:01:57] If not, although some favour for the time signifying usual manner,
[4:02:01] how's it supposed?
[4:02:04] 127 of the grantor for the time.
[4:02:07] 2 dash 27 clear free to Councillor Lairidge,
[4:02:10] the City Council adopt a temporary moratorium on battery storage systems, best BESS. The
[4:02:17] moratorium will be in effect starting upon adoption by the Lemister City Council and it will
[4:02:21] be in place until July 31st of 2027. Again, I'm going to request further time. We have a public hearing
[4:02:27] schedule for this on September 14th at 615 pm.
[4:02:41] Okay, further to the director of the
[4:02:43] Do we have a date of when it's going before the planning board or know they had to reschedule
[4:02:47] they didn't have a number?
[4:02:48] What do you have for the planning board?
[4:02:50] I think it's 21st, 21st.
[4:02:52] The 21st?
[4:02:53] Okay.
[4:02:54] Thank you.
[4:02:55] And I also agree with further time.
[4:02:58] Okay.
[4:02:59] You have unanimous recommendation for further time.
[4:03:01] Any other questions or comments?
[4:03:04] If not, all those are favorite for the time.
[4:03:05] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[4:03:07] Those opposed?
[4:03:14] Moving on to 327.
[4:03:17] 3-27.
[4:03:18] Clear free to Councilor Lodge.
[4:03:19] Quest at the City Council in act of temporary moratorium on the application to build new
[4:03:23] data centers.
[4:03:24] The moratorium will be in effect starting upon adoption by the Limits to City Council.
[4:03:28] The moratorium will be in effect and in place until July 31, 2027.
[4:03:33] Again, I'm going to request further time on this.
[4:03:35] We have a public hearing schedule for September 14th at 6.30 and I'd ask you to check with numbers of my committee.
[4:03:43] Okay, council requirements.
[4:03:45] I agree.
[4:03:46] Council or mayor?
[4:03:47] I agree.
[4:03:48] Sorry.
[4:03:49] I agree.
[4:03:49] I just want to also confirm this schedule for the same day before the planning board as well.
[4:03:53] Okay.
[4:03:54] Very good.
[4:03:54] Thank you.
[4:03:55] Okay.
[4:03:56] You've heard those recommendations.
[4:03:58] In the end of this decision.
[4:04:01] Any other questions to comment?
[4:04:02] If not, all those who favor signify you for mana, it was opposed.
[4:04:08] Okay, 3-27 has been given for the time.
[4:04:12] 64-26.
[4:04:13] 64-26.
[4:04:15] Donna, Donna Mollettos.
[4:04:17] The eight-sky lane limestone, respectively, request to modify.
[4:04:20] Section 22-4 definitions of limestone zoning ordinance by adding the following definition
[4:04:25] of data center.
[4:04:26] We had a very interesting and long meeting with that in public hearing on that today.
[4:04:34] It would be my position, Madam President, to allow this petition, leave to withdraw without
[4:04:41] prejudice and to ask you to check with members of my committee.
[4:04:45] Okay, you've heard the cheers recommendation for leave to withdraw without prejudice,
[4:04:49] Council of Columbia?
[4:04:50] I agree.
[4:04:51] Council of Romero?
[4:04:52] I agree.
[4:04:53] Okay, the unanimous decision of your committee is we have to withdraw without prejudice.
[4:05:00] Any other questions or comments?
[4:05:02] It's not all those in favour of signifying usual manner.
[4:05:06] Those opposed.
[4:05:08] 64 dash 26.
[4:05:09] Thank you, and we have to withdraw.
[4:05:11] Without prejudice.
[4:05:15] 66 dash 26.
[4:05:17] 66 dash 26.
[4:05:18] on a full out of 58 Sky Lane Lemister, respectively, request to amend the Lemister Zoning
[4:05:23] Lawrence.
[4:05:24] In accordance with Section 22-14 on behalf of 10 registered voters, this was to amend the
[4:05:35] multi-use two zoning from yes to a no, I'm not going to read the whole thing we did
[4:05:43] that once already this evening.
[4:05:46] Again, very interesting conversation this evening.
[4:05:48] We had a public hearing, which was closed, Madam President, it would be my position to deny
[4:05:57] 66-26 and I'd ask you to check with members of Mike Middee.
[4:06:01] Okay, for the recommendation of the chair.
[4:06:03] Councillor Guamell.
[4:06:04] Hi, great.
[4:06:06] Councillor Romero.
[4:06:07] I'd like to request further time to review the subdivision plan that was recently submitted.
[4:06:16] And to better understand and also to review all of the feedback and correspondence that was received, including today, from Ward 1, constituents.
[4:06:28] So that would be my request.
[4:06:30] Well, it has to be a yes or a no with the recommendation at this point.
[4:06:35] So you agree or you don't.
[4:06:39] Because right now you have a majority right now.
[4:06:48] So requesting from the chair for other time, you're saying is not a possibility.
[4:06:54] I'm not in the position to request for other time.
[4:06:59] Okay, so you're making them, okay.
[4:07:03] Well, as I said, I don't have enough information.
[4:07:07] So at this point, I'll have to vote, yes, on this, without additional information.
[4:07:17] So you're voting not? Well, yes, yes, yes, the motions to die, the motion is to die, to the one.
[4:07:30] All right. So we're at the recommendation. The majority of the legal affairs committee is to deny.
[4:07:40] We'll do this by roll call.
[4:07:44] We have any discussion.
[4:07:45] Any discussion? I'm sorry.
[4:07:48] More, you want more discussion?
[4:07:49] Well, we certainly believe it.
[4:07:53] Thank you for reminding me, thank you.
[4:07:57] Any discussion? Without hearing any?
[4:07:59] and I can't talk like I'm here.
[4:08:02] So, yes, yes, yes, yes means no.
[4:08:05] The A is to deny, right?
[4:08:07] Correct. Okay, yay.
[4:08:09] Yay.
[4:08:11] Yay.
[4:08:12] No.
[4:08:14] Can't talk Romero?
[4:08:20] No.
[4:08:21] Can't talk Romero.
[4:08:22] Can't talk Romero.
[4:08:24] No.
[4:08:25] Can't talk Romero?
[4:08:26] Can't talk Romero.
[4:08:27] Yay.
[4:08:28] Can I be recorded?
[4:08:29] Well, so five, four, five, five, five, five, five to four.
[4:08:40] So five to four?
[4:08:41] Yep, that feeling?
[4:08:43] Yes.
[4:08:44] Well, the motion to deny.
[4:08:47] One, two, one.
[4:08:53] Okay.
[4:08:55] Move the room to 67-26.
[4:08:59] 67-26.
[4:09:00] 67-26.
[4:09:01] We'll let out of 58 sky lane, respectively, request to amend the limits to zoning runs
[4:09:05] in accordance with section 22-14.
[4:09:07] On behalf of 10 registered voters, modify Section 22-4 definitions of
[4:09:13] LEMIST Resonation Audence, by adding the following definition of data center, we
[4:09:18] read that earlier today. We closed the public hearing on this, but at this
[4:09:22] point, I'm going to request further time. I'd ask you to check with members of my
[4:09:29] committee.
[4:09:29] Council of Guamier? I do agree.
[4:09:32] Council of Romero?
[4:09:34] Hi, Greg.
[4:09:35] Okay, you've heard the record.
[4:09:36] Peter, unanimous recommendation for further time.
[4:09:40] Any questions or comments?
[4:09:42] If not, all those of you who are signifying us on the other?
[4:09:46] Those. Oh, thank you.
[4:09:49] For other times, we're granted by home 9 to 0.
[4:09:58] Moving on to 8-27.
[4:10:00] up in 68. states. 68.
[4:10:04] 68.
[4:10:04] 68.
[4:10:05] 26.
[4:10:06] Donable set of eight.
[4:10:07] Skyline Limster, respectively, your request to amend the Lim Mst Resonance,
[4:10:11] in accordance with Section 22.
[4:10:12] 14, a half-tinned registered voters as follows.
[4:10:15] To modify the Lim Mst Resonance with the presidents established in Mess General Law 48.
[4:10:20] Section 5 as follows, and that was read into in the record earlier today.
[4:10:25] We did have a public hearing on this,
[4:10:29] that matter was close. We did, but during the quest all was very helpful with us to give
[4:10:35] us a little guidance on this. Madam President, it would be my position to deny 68-26 and I'd ask
[4:10:44] to check with members of my committee.
[4:10:46] Okay, Councilor Gwanya?
[4:10:50] I agree.
[4:10:52] Okay, Councilor Merrill?
[4:10:57] I'm just graciously sorry.
[4:11:01] I do not agree.
[4:11:03] I'm not voting in approval of this.
[4:11:08] So you have a unanimous recommendation from your committee?
[4:11:13] No, no, no, no, no.
[4:11:15] No, no, no, no.
[4:11:15] I'm sorry.
[4:11:18] I'm sorry.
[4:11:20] I'm sorry.
[4:11:20] I'm sorry.
[4:11:20] Majority recommendation is to deny petition 268-26.
[4:11:28] We'll do this by roll call again as well.
[4:11:30] Conflict on there.
[4:11:31] Yay.
[4:11:32] Well, first of all, I'm going to ask if there's any other questions upon that.
[4:11:37] All right.
[4:11:37] I just want to, if I thank you, Council President Friedup, but I would just like to clarify.
[4:11:43] And explaining my vote in this particular case, where I believe that, you know, if the state already has an ordinance, there's
[4:11:53] that really we should be aligning ourselves with their regulations and so that is why I'm in favor of it. I just don't
[4:12:02] the justification that lemon syrup goes kind of above and beyond for
[4:12:08] housing is just not enough for me to
[4:12:15] support keeping the current system.
[4:12:18] So, that's I just wanted to explain my vote.
[4:12:21] Council of the Young.
[4:12:22] Thank you, Madam President.
[4:12:23] I am a believer that whatever we can hold on to for a
[4:12:28] world control we should. And over the last few years has been such an erosion of locals
[4:12:35] owning control that it's frightening. So this is a particular situation where I think
[4:12:41] we can at least arguably for the foreseeable future hold on to this. It proved potentially
[4:12:48] valuable to neighborhood groups as well, not just developers, so my position as I think
[4:12:55] We should maintain our protest mechanism.
[4:13:01] I think Councilor Kormier will you take the two of them, for a moment?
[4:13:08] I'm sorry for that.
[4:13:10] No, I just, I, for years I've been a real subpoiter of all my role petition.
[4:13:16] I mean, we, I get one at a state level that,
[4:13:21] which good for Boston isn't necessarily good for a woman's turn.
[4:13:25] What's good for a small town is necessarily good for us.
[4:13:29] So I think that autonomy of having home rule petition and we are losing out little by little being mandated to do this and mandated to do that.
[4:13:40] So I'm strongly in support of home rule petition.
[4:13:46] All right, you have to do the rest of it.
[4:13:49] Okay, any other comments? Okay, seeing none.
[4:13:53] This is going to be so we have a two-to-one recommendation a majority recommendation to tonight
[4:14:00] Or in it 68-26 this will be done by roll call
[4:14:05] Councillor Arranger
[4:14:07] Yay, Councillor knows where they
[4:14:09] Nay, Councillor Mery
[4:14:11] Nay, Councillor Shelfo's effort. Yeah, Councillor Robbins. Yeah, Councillor Badanza. Yeah, Councillor Frida. Yeah, and Councillor Coymer. Yeah
[4:14:20] So by a vote of was that
[4:14:26] 72 68-26 has been denied, and
[4:14:33] I'm sending it back to you, Madam President, okay?
[4:14:42] No, I think we're going to 827?
[4:14:45] Yes, that's correct.
[4:14:47] Thank you.
[4:14:48] Thank you, Madam President.
[4:14:50] We did.
[4:14:50] We did that one.
[4:14:52] We did that one.
[4:14:52] We did that one.
[4:14:53] That's right.
[4:14:54] You're on the audience.
[4:14:55] It's just because you're going in the pool.
[4:14:57] It's just because you're going in the pool.
[4:14:58] It's basically gone.
[4:15:00] Thank you, Madam President, so petitions 08-27. We have a public hearing schedule for Monday, September 14th at 6 p.m. and for that reason, I would request further time and I ask that you check with members of my committee.
[4:15:30] here is standing any
[4:15:38] on the question to comment. If not, all those in favor is
[4:15:41] thinking about unusual manner. Those both,
[4:15:46] 827, if you give them for the time, but you
[4:15:50] vote eight in one of Stemgeon's.
[4:15:54] Is this the last page?
[4:15:55] Yeah, we've done a new business, old business, you're going to count them.
[4:16:00] Okay, and the new business has to come before us,
[4:16:08] and the old business to come before us.
[4:16:10] I'm just going to quickly congratulate, even though Stobberis was pretty much of a rainy evening
[4:16:20] congratulate, Erica Grinkis, and Peter Bevinzi is as Stobberis citizens of the year. Congratulations to them.
[4:16:30] Okay, and councilor, all this effort, do I have a motion from you?
[4:16:35] Okay.
[4:16:36] Why have a community calendar?
[4:16:38] I'm sorry.
[4:16:40] Do we have a community calendar?
[4:16:41] Anybody have any?
[4:16:42] I just wanted to mention very quickly.
[4:16:45] Tomorrow night is the, um,
[4:16:48] um, with taking over, let the city loomsters both to be taking over Polo Park.
[4:16:52] It's looms tonight, so hopefully,
[4:16:55] there will be a lot of loomsters residents in the stands
[4:16:58] and enjoy a nice night of baseball full of park in Worcester. Thank you for that.
[4:17:05] All right, and we voted to adjourn so long. Thank you everybody and with the long evening and tonight.