← City Council · 2021-04-20 · City Council Regular Meeting
Public Comment
Agenda original PDF
Minutes original PDF
Transcript
▶ 2:17 Christopher Cinella: And April 5th record seeing no objection those minutes. Proved if there is no objection, I would like to open the floor for public comments.
▶ 2:29 Christopher Cinella: Seeing no objection, we are now open for public comments. Public can speak on behalf of any items on our agenda. We will have a public hearing at 8 o'clock and there'll be a separate public hearing for that.
▶ 2:45 Speaker 2: Do we have any hands up we do we have Mr. he's going to unmute him now.
▶ 2:58 Speaker 1: Can you hear us Mr. he's unmuted.
▶ 3:01 Christopher Cinella: Mr. the floor is yours.
▶ 3:16 Speaker 3: Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Okay. Dear city councilors. My name is I reside at 93 ultimate Melrose. speaking on behalf of the Mount Hood Park Association, of which I am president, and we're an environmental group in Melrose dedicated to protection, preservation, and the promotion of Mount Hood Memorial Park and golf course. I'm speaking against order 2021-104. I've already spoken to you in previous meetings how our association is against deleting ordinance section 173-2, which does not allow the sale and consumption of alcohol in any parkland in the city. and the reasons against deleting section 73-2 of the ordinance are obvious it would set a bad precedent and signal to the public that the city condones alcohol sales and consumption of parkland even though such a change would add significant safety risks to all residents and families who live near and around parkland such as mount hood melrose common bowdoin park knox memorial park conan playground and so forth um let's see excuse me since there are over 20 parks located in melrose each of your councils have parks and playgrounds or fields in your wards do you really think your constituents constituents would want you to open the possibility of organizations able to have a one-day liquor license so that they could sell and consume alcohol beverages at special events while other young children are enjoying the park or worse because of these events having to exclude them from the park because of these events how about such an event occurring at melrose common or l pond areas none of this makes any sense clearly no thought has been put into what kinds of additional infrastructure changes or mitigation procedures would be needed to protect the safety of the public if these changes are enacted i have not heard of any such plans developed or committed from the administration Have you? As noted previously, excessive drinking remains a big problem in the city with both adults and youth. Looking at our crime statistics confirms that alcohol-related crimes such as drunkenness and DUI stops are increasing. An example of how bad it can get is at Mount Hood where there are weekly youth drinking parties which disrupt the neighborhoods creating damage to property and safety risk to residents and nothing much is done by gmc who is responsible for security to mitigate these issues we believe that any changes which allows alcohol sales and consumption in and around parkland whether it be at mount hood bowdoin park melrose common or any other park is the wrong strategy and message sent to the public and the youth of our city. In fact, this is antithetical to what we want our city to represent for those families living here. That is a family-oriented city with over 20 parks throughout the city for the enjoyment of our children and families, free from the worry of drunkenness. Allowing the sale and consumption of alcohol on our parks is just not right. Are alcohol and beverages for sale and consumption during the victorian fair downtown allowed each september of course not then why should we allow it in our city parks that families and children frequent where will this end it should end this evening with your vote to reject this order finally uh changing the ordinance is not of any economic it is not for any economic development since the golf course revenues are increasing rapidly as we recover from COVID which brings in millions of dollars each year. Please don't be swayed by such spacious arguments. We know the city will be getting $8 million for infrastructure improvements from the federal government under American Rescue Plan. Therefore, this change in the ordinance has nothing to do with economic development but everything to do with changing the fabric and the nature of our city and going against what we all want for our city a peaceful safety coexistence with our open green spaces for the enjoyment of our families and children i implore you do not change our city to the point that alcohol will be allowed in our parks playgrounds fields and open green spaces i can only hope that you will recognize your public safety responsibilities and not approve this order counselor Grigoraitis has sent you all a list of 27 residents who are butters or live near mount hood who are firmly against this order to delete section one three one seven three dash two of this ordinance i respectfully request you to vote against this order it is the right thing to do thank you for your time and attention
▶ 8:04 Speaker 1: thank you sir anybody else uh comment we have two letters from the public one from janine benudi of altamont ave dear city counselors the golf management company at mount hood is again
▶ 8:15 Speaker 2: requesting to be able to have beverage carts on the course to sell alcoholic beverages they say
▶ 8:17 Speaker 1: they have them in other courses they own in new hampshire however new hampshire is another state and very different from mass the new hampshire population is just over 1 million while mass is almost 7 million the courses in new hampshire are not woven into dense residential areas as
▶ 8:33 Speaker 2: are most golf courses in mass i called many local golf courses to find out if they have beverage carts none of the following golf courses allow the sale or consumption of alcohol on the fairways
▶ 8:41 Speaker 1: cedar glen and saugus reedy meadow and linfield bear hill and stoneham bellevue and melrose
▶ 8:51 Speaker 2: winchester country club meadow brook and reading hillview golf club in north reading unicorn golf club in stoneham greens at thomas country club in north reading stoneham oaks golf club and king
▶ 8:59 Speaker 1: rail reserve golf course in linfield only sagamore spring golf club in reading i'm sorry linfield
▶ 9:04 Speaker 2: allows beverage carts on the fairways selling alcohol in general if cities do not allow alcohol
▶ 9:07 Speaker 1: in any of their parks it's easy for them to legally enforce that policy it's much easier
▶ 9:17 Speaker 1: to not allow something than to control it once the box is open which is likely one of the reasons the policy was created the city believes it can control where alcohol is allowed but the city
▶ 9:25 Speaker 1: also has the potential of having many litigation lawsuits against them since it would only take one person to challenge and the city to open drinking in all parks by all groups in general
▶ 9:35 Speaker 1: courts tend to follow the all or nothing premises i'm certain the neighbors of the common colby and cedar park do not want to experience large loud events that generally follow alcohol in their quiet neighborhoods those of us live that live near the mount hood golf course are already dealing with the continuing negative issues from hood golf course it would go a long way with building trust and openness to changes in their operating procedure if they would address these continuing issues for too long i've heard that the golf course problems are a police issue which is just kicking responsibility to someone else especially in light of how understaffed the police are in melrose though i'm not in favor of allowing alcohol in any of our parks i would ask the city to ensure that the following items are tied to any potential liquor license by the golf course one speeding on the access road to the course could be addressed by removable speed bumps that that can be put out near the beginning of the golf season and removed at the end. Two, noise near homes, signs to address, I'm sorry, signs to remind golfers they are in residential neighborhood and to be courteous. Three, the issue with teens drinking and setting off fireworks on their property after hours. Hiring a security person on weekend nights from 6 p.m. to 12 p.m. during school season and throughout the summer to patrol the golf course. They are responsible for security at their own facility and this responsibility should not fall an understaffed police they will be benefiting financially they should directly make improvements to ensure they are operating in a safe and respectful manner towards their neighbors let us remember that the additional revenue from alcohol sales at the golf club would financially benefit the management company but not the neighbors the question i would like the city to ask is how will the neighbors of the golf course benefit from any changes to the management of this 100 year old course if the management company would like the neighbors to allow them to change how this course is managed the neighbor should directly benefit too if the city decides to push forward with alcohol in all our city parks please ensure that the neighbor's safety and concerns are addressed and tied to any liquor license and reviewed yearly for full neighborhood approval again as the golf management company will obviously gain financially from being allowed to sell alcohol in the course the residents should expect some improvements from them it would be ideal if the city required them to address them regardless but certainly they should be required to as part of any changes in operation i ask the city to ensure that gmc improve relations with their neighbors who are already with the negative deal with the negative issues of the golf course especially when gmc and golfers are going to benefit then their neighbors should too thank you for your time and attention jenny and benuti i have another letter from received by email uh
▶ 12:16 Speaker 1: from dave lucas dear president sanella i write to express my opposition to the above order 2021-111 in order relative to construction site noise during the coven 19 pandemic both as a resident of melrose and as an attorney for oak grove mill llc now ogm which owns the property at 99 washington street in ward 5. ogm was surprised to read the contents of this proposed order which was just conveyed to them today while they were previously informed by councilor mcmaster that he would be filing local legislation to address construction noise in the city their understanding was that the ordinance was specifically for ledge blasting in the ward 7 area further ogm was not aware that this would be retroactive for projects that had already received permits and had approved construction management plans in place it should be noted that the cost of the monitoring as suggested would be extreme and unwarranted for the vast majority of projects in our city and certainly for any projects that do not require removal of ledge my three major concerns about this proposed legislation are one that the city is already capable of monitoring and enforcing appropriate targeted noise levels in our neighborhoods two the language of the order is too general and applies to too many projects and three the costs of compliance would be exorbitant the melrose planning board is already fully capable of identifying which construction projects warrant weekly acoustic monitoring and their process is very comprehensive and not at all cheap that monitoring is then enforced by the health department this is not something that must be mandated by a duplicative ordinance in most cases the planning board requires acoustic monitoring of either construction noise or mechanical system example hvac noises on rooftops to be certain that they comply with maximum levels under our north noise ordinances if the city council wants to mandate the publication of the health department's enforcement orders that would be understandable and reasonable but infringing upon the authority of the planning board and health department seems excessive the language of the order is far too
▶ 14:19 Speaker 1: broad every construction project in melrose whether large or small produces noise from time to time in many cases that noise is not even as loud as weekend leaf blowers or garbage trucks moving in reverse if there is a category certain or cause of noise that the city is trying to monitor such as blasting then the proposed order should make this clear but as stated above the planning board regularly requires builders to monitor and self-police their own projects and in some instances instances to report noise levels to the city this requirement of a weekly report would apply to almost all new all construction in our city do you want me to stop while we open
▶ 14:54 Christopher Cinella: A public comment? Yes, so we'll pause there. If there's no objection, I'd like to open up the public hearing to begin at 8 o'clock. Seeing no objection, our hearing is now open and if there's no objection, I'd like to open the public comment for our public hearing. Is there anybody that wishes to speak in regards to order 2021-100, public hearing?