ORDER-2019-82 : AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE REGISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF MELROSE

Transcript (~34 min @ 1:43:58)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:44:01 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Item two, tonight's agenda is order 2019-82, an ordinance regulating the registration and maintenance of vacant commercial properties in the city of Melrose.

▶ 1:44:15 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: thank you chair Wright and my colleagues for continuing to have a conversation about this proposed ordinance I spoke at length about it when we talked about it in May I believe on May 13th and just to review I brought this to the board for your consideration after significant research and outreach not only looking at municipalities around Massachusetts and the country that have vacant commercial property registration ordinances in Massachusetts there are more than 40 but also doing significant outreach with stakeholders in the community including with the Chamber of Commerce numerous business owners several large commercial property owners several brokers who represent commercial property owners so certainly those perspectives were taken into account and certainly informed the work that I did as we've discussed the primary goal of this ordinance is to maximize our commercial sector we don't have a large commercial sector here in town but we have a great one and it's very important to our quality of life to our revenue stream and so I want to make sure that we are doing everything in our power and have the tools in our arsenal to maximize it so again there are a few basic initiatives that are captured by this proposed regulation one is that it would require it would trigger a requirement to register with the city if you're a property owner and you have property that sits vacant for a hundred days and at that point in time the city would provide an online centralized inventory for anyone looking for commercial space to go to to see what is available second it would also provide an opportunity to spotlight our vibrant arts community and improve the streetscape for the neighborhood for the neighboring business owners some of whom we've heard from on the public record for shopping etc I thought last time when we met the public comment that we received from one of the residents here and in town was particularly impactful you may recall he is a former zoning board member he's a land use attorney he's lived in Melrose for 15 years and he currently oversees Lowell's ordinance for commercial property he mentioned that we don't have a lot of commercial property probably a couple hundred in Melrose so that for him that actually meant that there's a greater impact when we do have a storefront sitting vacant it's more noticeable he also shared that he expects the administration of this ordinance for City Hall to be largely minimal not a daily weekly demand on time maybe monthly and his feeling was based on his own personal experience of overseeing an ordinance in a very large city and being a resident and a neighbor of hours that this would have a low burden low burden for a positive impact you'll see that since we last met I have suggested for your consideration one change to the proposal taking into account the feedback that was so helpful and that you will provide him so I would suggest that we narrow our target on commercial property to those that have visible storefronts on the ground level because those are the ones that are most noticeable to our constituents that we hear about the most they're also the ones that most impact the neighboring business owners and the streetscape itself the other thing that I would draw to your attention is that we did receive a few additional letters and one that has been added to the public record came from Melrose Arts we heard from Melrose Arts at our our meeting in in May but this letter puts more meat on the bones by being very explicit that that nonprofit organization would actually stand ready to assist City Hall in the components of the public art and so far as things like helping connect property owners to artists who are interested in that space so that the property owner can select from among some several options assisting the artists with installing the art there and Miller's Arts is a great nonprofit to handle this because as we all know they do the window walk and by the way that provides a great template for things like indemnification they have a waiver form that they ask artists to use before artists put art in windows and artists take on that responsibility and recognize that there is always a little bit of risk perhaps so I think we've got some good templates for this type of arrangement so I think I'll rest there and I'm happy to answer any questions it's point of information is that a

▶ 1:49:19 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: motion to amend I don't know if I can make a motion I'm not a member of this

▶ 1:49:22 Speaker 1: committee oh that's correct all right yeah so thank you all the middle

▶ 1:49:25 Francis X. Wright Jr.: break our obedience any other alderman on discussion I would just move to amend

▶ 1:49:33 Michael P. Zwirko: so we can include the letter from those arts second action your men moves to

▶ 1:49:38 Francis X. Wright Jr.: amend the item to include just discussed seconded by Alderman Forbes what point

▶ 1:49:48 Manisha Bewtra: of order I believe it's attached already um the email is yeah this is the one

▶ 1:49:56 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: from Deb Corbett yes it is it's part of the problem through the chair it is part of the public record I think we received another letter in support today from a constituent who lives on the corner of Vinton and Emerson that it's not part of the record yet but that could be added if it is the will of the committee

▶ 1:50:14 Peter D. Mortimer: point of information I'm not asking about the letters of support those I'm asking about the change that it would only be storefront or storefront properties that's a substantial change the support then that's not really and I'm not a member of this committee either otherwise I would have made the motion that alderman's work oh just did but I'm talking about that it's going to

▶ 1:50:39 Francis X. Wright Jr.: apply to storefronts only so I meant to include the correspondence but all the

▶ 1:50:45 Michael P. Zwirko: men water is excuse me alderman Mortimer is correct there is an item that is attached to the order it's an amended provision of the ordinance itself written by the drafter the maker of the order alderman Letter Garabedian so at this time i move that the order be amended as proposed in that the item attached which is at least from what i'm seeing is the uh it's the draft um 814 19 klg revised vc pro ordinance draft

▶ 1:51:20 Francis X. Wright Jr.: just as a procedural matter and i appreciate your motion um can we go back and can we have the original motion since it was to add something that we don't need them added we have that second

▶ 1:51:36 Francis X. Wright Jr.: um somebody take back the second and then we'll also i'll take back the second second okay

▶ 1:51:45 Francis X. Wright Jr.: okay and now we'll take your new motion and we have a second on that from alderman forbes that satisfies alderman mortimer and do we have any discussion on that Alderman Medeiros. Thank you.

▶ 1:51:57 Monica C. Medeiros: Some of this, and this was some of my concerns at the last meeting, is that we, and I appreciate that we're only talking about businesses that have storefronts,

▶ 1:52:05 Monica C. Medeiros: but it seems like an undue burden on some businesses and not other businesses, and this way we're not treating all the businesses the same. same what is a business to do if they don't have it if they don't have a storefront you're saying that they don't need to comply with this fee and

▶ 1:52:30 Monica C. Medeiros: registry I said is that my understanding of what making this amendment does it

▶ 1:52:36 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: only through the chair I don't know am I okay to answer that question or there

▶ 1:52:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: was will you yield to the maker of the motion a maker of the order sure yes so

▶ 1:52:46 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: that is the intent the idea is that there are many reasons why a property might become vacant but in all cases when there is a storefront the negative impact on the community is clear we can potentially lose revenue tax revenue as a commercial property sits vacant if it's a restaurant for example neighboring business owners can feel impacted because the shopping experience becomes less enjoyable and people will comment and maybe be less likely to patronize businesses that are open it can pose health risks in terms of a you know vermin or spills or things that can happen when a building is left unattended or perhaps public safety concerns as well but to the to your point actually the last time we met you had mentioned you thought it was unfair that a property owner who could not display art because he or she does not have windows or other exterior space that would be appropriate for public art would be forced to pay the vacancy fee I took that into consideration as you may recall this is based largely on Arlington's ordinance that was put into place about four years ago they they apply it the public art component to all excuse me they apply the fee requirement to all commercial property so even if in the case of a business it doesn't have windows they would just that business owner would have to pay a vacancy fee but I heard your concern about the fact that an owner wouldn't have an option without windows and so I made this proposal in a way to be responsive and also to recognize that commercial space that has exterior facing windows plays a different role in the panoply of commercial properties that we have here it is it's highlighted in a different way and it when it sits vacant and unattended the blight that it can create is different from an interior office space that no one sees when they're

▶ 1:55:01 Monica C. Medeiros: walking by thank you so on this motion to amend the order I appreciate making the change but I'm still concerned that we're treating some business owners differently than other business owners and in light of not having the city solicitor here or someone to sort of weigh in on that in terms of making the amendment for as a committee voting member I guess I'm going to vote no it at this time although it's I'm not necessarily voting now thank you thank

▶ 1:55:28 Francis X. Wright Jr.: you all there was all the Forbes on the motion to amend the item thank you I had

▶ 1:55:35 Scott M. Forbes: some back and forth you know before I came into the meeting of how I was gonna either support this or or be against it but as we sat here in discussion and I think I think attorney bills points that he made here were valid however the one thing that I can't get out of my mind is the Caruso's property that property has been there for so long and it's been vacant and it is in squalor and no one is allowed to go in there because you don't know even know what the condition of the building is it's probably a teardown but no one's been able to go in it and it's been unsaleable however if this ordinance were in effect there would have been at least some minimal standard that would apply to it in the terms of the requirement to display such items like that so in an essence and and I understand that this may not be something my colleagues would agree with me but if you're able to go in there and display the art it would be a motivational factor for that person who owns that property to kind of take the right steps and do the right thing now this is a community been waiting for that property in particular to come online for decades so I think if this is something that could jumpstart it now you know the $400 annual fee I'm not sure about that maybe that's something I'm not sure if that's what you found in your in in your research through other municipalities and if that's a common number or not but to me it just makes sense where we can push property owners in the right direction and at the same time try to be more mindful now storefront properties are the most desirable properties they have window displays this is your walk-in traffic so I can understand how that would be more appropriate than say a second or third floor you know unit that doesn't have any windows of display cases so that's really the angle that I'm looking at it I would be in mind to support this order just based upon that example that I just mentioned here tonight so thank you Thank You Alderman Forbes Alderman

▶ 1:57:30 Peter D. Mortimer: Mortimer thank you very much Chairman Wright I'd like to further Alderman Lipper-Garabedian point in response to the comment that these this This law may discriminate against some business owners, all laws discriminate.

▶ 1:57:50 Peter D. Mortimer: You tell a 17 year old kid he can't vote, he can't buy alcohol, he can't buy marijuana, he's discriminated against in comparison to the kid who's 22. Tell somebody who's 23 they can't run for US Senator, you have to be 25 to run for US Senator, all laws discriminate. Tell somebody they have to be 35 to run for President, can't run for President if you're 32 years old. All laws discriminate, some businesses are different than others. In some places in Melrose, you have to have 50 feet of frontage to build a house. Other places you have to have 75 or 100, that's zoning. All laws discriminate, of course we're going to discriminate and treat some business owners differently than other business owners. Some businesses can only be in certain zones and not other zones. It used to be that you had to have 100 seats to serve hard liquor in Melrose if you were a restaurant. Now we change that to 50, and if you wanted to sell beer, you had to have 50 seats, and we changed that to 25. All laws discriminate, and they discriminate. Discrimination is a word that's gotten a bad name through the last three, four decades. But discrimination and discernment is what makes a better community. Good management is what we want to do. so sometimes discrimination has a bad connotation but sometimes it's better to discriminate for the benefit of the public welfare and to have the best possible city we can have thank you very much Thank You Alderman Mortimer

▶ 1:59:25 Manisha Bewtra: Alderman Bewtra thank you um I appreciate the amendments to the the original order I think they were really responsive to some of the conversation we had back in May and just recalling that you know I know I had spoken with folks who work in economic development as well as planning for arts and culture as well as a former Main Streets director and I think we had a really great conversation at that time should anyone want to review that meeting not to belabor all of that I think the fact that Melrose Arts is eager to partner with City Hall makes me more inclined to support the order I think it's been sort of I've I've been kind of waffling back and forth in the sense that I I hear the concerns around administrative burden why certain types of businesses versus others but I think my major concern is really that based on I guess my worry

▶ 2:00:30 Manisha Bewtra: that folks in the community think it's going to do something that based on the specifications of the ordinance as it stands it wouldn't do that some of our buildings that are currently vacant appear vacant in downtown or elsewhere throughout the city are under agreement and thus wouldn't qualify for placement of art under this proposal and that really it would only apply to maybe one to maybe a couple more buildings around the city so in a moment I'd ask to if through the chair I could ask the maker of the order to address that but I think you know on that note if Melrose Arts is also open to potentially on a more voluntary basis work with some of the and partner with City Hall and these other vacancies that exist on Main Street between Essex and Grove Street which is I think the vacancies that other than Caruso's that look bring most people think of as sort of relating to the vibrancy of our downtown that could be really interesting for us so I guess through the chair I'd like to ask the maker of the order if she can address kind of this issue of perception of what the order would do versus what it really is which businesses that would actually

▶ 2:01:57 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: impact today through the chair Thank You alderman Bewtra I think that's a really good point to raise because we I want to I think that that's just a fair point so as you know the vacant a vacant property as it would be defined with this amendment would be a commercial property with a visible floor storefront on the ground level that is not legally occupied as abandoned or is not used for a period of at least 90 consecutive days and is not under active construction or ongoing active rehabilitation renovation or repair subject to an active building permit and so you're right that a couple of the higher profile quote-unquote vacancies that we've seen downtown might certainly wouldn't fall under that definition currently because there were acting active building permits that existed for them I believe of course it's possible that they sat vacant for a while before there was a an active building permit in which case perhaps this would have been triggered so that before the permit was actually pulled you know I recall at last year's summer stroll the business owner who helped sponsor that was frustrated that at that point in time the Moynihan Plaza had been vacant for quite a while and it's still not reopened so it is possible that that property could have had art in the windows during that summer stroll as the owner of the property was working through whatever permits permitting process he was going to pursue so yes it won't solve every every issue that we see it won't maximize every perhaps commercial plot but it would certainly start a conversation it would impact some of the properties that we've noted including my colleague alderman Forbes it would open up a dialogue with the city that doesn't currently exist among property owners and to your point as well I mean I think my spirit the spirit of this proposal is to enhance that partnership in that communication so you'll see the last paragraph of section mentions that any property owner of commercial property anyone could submit information about a vacancy at any time to the city and the city would include it in our inventory so you don't have to wait a hundred days before you submit it to the city if you'd like the city to start letting people know right away you could if your property owner that doesn't have commercial storefront property but you'd like to still be included in the inventory you could do that too if you have some office space that no one can see from this from the street but that you nonetheless would like included on our one-stop shop web page that can be added as well thank you thank you president lemon thank you

▶ 2:04:49 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: mr. chairman I think a lot of my thoughts have already been summarized by my colleagues but I was one of the people when we discussed this before that expressed concerns about places that were not on the street and did not have a storefront being subject to a fine and so I wanted to thank the maker of the order for your responsiveness to that in this suggesting this amendment

▶ 2:05:19 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: and I think that you know there this is the kind of order or ordinance potential ordinance that I think it's it's not needed until it's needed and then when it's needed it's something you're gonna want to have and we you know as Alderman Forbes mentioned there is one property that is kind of always stands out as the example and so and to to have it and not need it there's there's no harm there so I I just want to sort of highlight that proactive thinking on the on the part of the maker of the order and think thank you for that and for addressing the concerns to try to amend this in a way that that is responsive so thank you for

▶ 2:05:57 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: that and I am I think I'm unlikely to have a vote on this tonight unless there were well there will not be a tie so I won't be able to vote on this tonight but I am happy to support it when it comes to the full board any other

▶ 2:06:15 Speaker 8: discussion this is on the amendment correct on the amendment yes seeing none

▶ 2:06:21 Francis X. Wright Jr.: we have a motion before us to amend the order to include the language discussed by Alderman and make a motion all in favor of the amendment of the item

▶ 2:06:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: aye aye opposed the amendment passes we're back to discussing the item as a whole any further discussion on the items all the means to work though thank you mr chair um

▶ 2:06:55 Michael P. Zwirko: there has been a lot of work that has gone into this it's been good work and i like to see us get together and kind of discuss this but this is now the second hearing at the legal and legislative committee where we've kind of batted this around and i think I think it would serve us better even that the there's been a lot of discussion by non-members non-voting members of this committee to place this in a committee of the whole before this goes before the full board it will allow for another hearing on this order as amended and it will also allow everybody to participate with a vote so with that I'd like to move to transfer this to the Appropriations Committee as amended second we have a motion before us by

▶ 2:07:43 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Alderman Zwirko to transfer this item from the legal and legislative committee to the Appropriations Committee do we have any discussion on

▶ 2:07:56 Scott M. Forbes: that motion Alderman Forbes thank you I wouldn't be inclined to to support that I feel like that there's been dialogue here everyone's gonna be able to talk again once it becomes before the full board it won't be able to vote accordingly i'm not sure if we need to have two more votes on it i think we could send this to the full board this evening and then there will be another roundtable discussion if if they need to at that point in time but i think by then i think all of us would be able to make a well informed decision so i would be inclined to oppose that thank you thank you alderman forbes alderman

▶ 2:08:32 Peter D. Mortimer: mortimer thank you very much chairman wright um i'm not sure that a motion is allowed under our rules because which committee an order gets sent to is under the purview of the president that's the president's one of the powers and responsibilities of the president so to send it to another committee within a committee it could set a type of precedent of course it could be a distinction without a difference because as we all know here the committee recommendations are non-binding so it wouldn't matter and I also appreciate the thoughts of Alderman Forbes that we have talked about this a lot we could send it up to the full board and then lay it on the table at the full board and then it wouldn't have to bounce to another committee we could just have it at the full board and then everybody could have a vote on it so perhaps that would be a more expeditious efficient way to handle this would be just to send it up to the full board without recommendation. Or to send it up to the full board with a recommendation when it will be before all of the aldermen at that point.

▶ 2:09:45 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you, Eleanor Mortimer. Any other discussion on the motion from the chair? I will say, and I haven't looked at this in a while, but I believe under our rules, there is an allowance for committees of the whole and it does not require

▶ 2:10:07 Francis X. Wright Jr.: the go to the appropriations committee that we could call a committee as a committee of the whole but it would require us to look at the rules certainly could take a

▶ 2:10:19 Francis X. Wright Jr.: recess if somebody would like to make that motion all the minutes to work well i wasn't going to

▶ 2:10:25 Michael P. Zwirko: make the motion i just wanted to make a statement on my motion okay um okay just for the discussion

▶ 2:10:34 Francis X. Wright Jr.: yeah any other anyone else for the first time seeing no one all the Missouri go

▶ 2:10:43 Michael P. Zwirko: for the second time the reason for my motion was really out of deference to the maker of the order I wanted the ability of the maker of the order to help lead and move further if she so felt given that it's a strange posture to not be a voting member of the committee given an ordinance always falls to legal and legislative so it was really a motion out of courtesy understanding then maybe the appearance that a dual vote on something made may seem superfluous it was really meant in in a friendly fashion so that's the only

▶ 2:11:25 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: comment I wanted to make on discussion on the motion I really appreciate that Alderman's work oh I don't have a strong feeling either way I would note that I I don't know I chair the Appropriations Committee so I don't know if that becomes a little complicated since as a chair I typically try to allow you all to facilitate the conversation I certainly can handle that at the chair level but I really I guess as as the folks most of you on legal and legislative are veterans of the board I would defer to you on whether you think it which direction you think makes the most sense whether to go ahead and vote this out to the full board or to refer it to appropriations I will follow your lead and I appreciate the sentiment behind the motion very much any other

▶ 2:12:18 Francis X. Wright Jr.: discussion on the motion I'll make master for the first time thank you mr.

▶ 2:12:20 Shawn M. MacMaster: chairman I've been reticent to speak on this order and on the other matters that have come before this committee because I'm a non-voting member but I do agree with Alderman Forbes that we'll have an opportunity if this goes before the full board tonight at which time I will speak on the order and willing to engage in further discussion so I again even though I'm a non voting member I would like to see it go before the full board this evening and at that time I'd be prepared to speak on it Thank You mr. chairman the other discussion on the

▶ 2:12:55 Francis X. Wright Jr.: motion seeing none we have a motion before us to remove the item from the legal and legislative committee and place it in the appropriations committee members

▶ 2:13:07 Francis X. Wright Jr.: of the legal and legislative committee all in favor aye opposed opposed opposed

▶ 2:13:17 Francis X. Wright Jr.: the opposed have it so the i the motion fails so we are back to the item itself

▶ 2:13:28 Francis X. Wright Jr.: We have any other discussion on the item?

▶ 2:13:34 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 2:13:35 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. Now, further on the actual merits of the order, I do still have a lot of concerns about this. I appreciate Alderman Lipper-Garabedian attention to the matter and to trying to address some of these properties. As I think Alderman Forbes pointed out, there are a few that are, you know, really stand out that have been vacant for a long time.

▶ 2:14:02 Monica C. Medeiros: and at the same time I just I have a lot of hesitation with this I feel like this could be we could get the same desired results in a voluntary means without creating this registry I do think if if the city solicitor were to weigh in and say this is okay just for visible storefronts I think that is a little bit better I'm a little bit concerned about creating a registry of vacant property and letting the whole world know sometimes that there's spaces that are unattended and vacant I think sometimes that can invite people to know where to squat or where to have a rave or where to you know whatever they they might like to do that would not be legal I think that the you know I know there's some discussion at the last meeting of this being an economic development proposal but I think it's actually sort of the the opposite because I think sometimes in my experience in you know this kind of industry that if there's a property that is vacant it's normally not the desire of the property owner for it to be so and oftentimes there are financial reasons that are they've got actually put into financial hardship so I think creating a $400 you know registry fee is is a little bit hefty but I also think that this has a lot of burden on some of our already very busy departments you know we have the building inspector who would be the primary enforcer of this in the building department and they're already honestly overworked as I talked to them people are waiting very long times for permits to build they've gotten so far that they've closed the office on Friday to the public and I don't really think that you know respectfully I don't think that the building inspector has time to sort of be like the the art police in this and I think it's I think there's willingness from the art community I think that it's also something that behooves us to speak to some of these property owners and I think they would be very willing to in many cases to actually display art in some that I've been able to speak to through some of the real estate agents. There are already real estate listings on the MLS, the multiple listing services, where people can list their property for sale and I think we could do this in a voluntary capacity.

▶ 2:16:39 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Medeiros. Any other discussion?

▶ 2:16:48 Speaker 3: Hearing none,

▶ 2:16:51 Michael P. Zwirko: I would move to recommend for passage as amended all the Mizrako moves for passage of the item

▶ 2:17:02 Francis X. Wright Jr.: sorry what was that again all the men's workout moves for passage of the item as amended second

▶ 2:17:09 Francis X. Wright Jr.: we have a motion for passage as amended by all Mizrako seconded by alderman Bewtra any

▶ 2:17:19 Francis X. Wright Jr.: discussion on that hearing none all in favor aye opposed opposed the item will go to the full board recommended by this committee we have one more item from the

▶ 2:17:35 Francis X. Wright Jr.: on the legal and legislative committee it is for 2019-1 12 to amend Melrose revised ordinances by adding article 6 section 198-12 reduction in single-use plastic beverage straws and beverage stirrers in business establishments if i may from the chair as the maker of this order discuss it for a moment i would appreciate allowing me that