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

Transcript (~13 min @ 3:07:30)

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

▶ 3:07:27 Peter D. Mortimer: evening but also under the same uh thinking of uh efficiency i'd like to make a motion to remove order 2019-82 regarding the vacant property from committee that's been discussed extensively at previous committee meetings and here tonight and by the same token if the maker doesn't want it removed if there was a second to my order then i would draw my motion

▶ 3:07:52 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: as well is there a second to remove that order from committee second second made by alderman Bewtra to Alderman Mortimer order on discussion I don't have a again

▶ 3:08:04 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: having not served on the board too long I defer to my veteran colleagues and whether it makes sense to remove this now or wait till the next full board meeting I assume well I threw the to the chair if we needed an additional further discussion after tonight's can we still we hold it at the full board level or

▶ 3:08:27 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: will we do it have to be a motion in the in to that effect if we were to take a vote this evening up or down that would stand right I don't object but I also

▶ 3:08:38 Speaker 11: don't advocate for this it's I'd leave it to the good the thoughts of the my

▶ 3:08:50 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: colleagues on discussion Alderman Mortimer do you have any more no if

▶ 3:08:53 Peter D. Mortimer: Well, if that's, I think, if I understand this correctly, Alderman Lipper-Garabedian, who I thank very much for bringing this order forward, wouldn't mind bringing it up to the full board as we discussed, that it can be before all the members of the board. But then, it seems the preference would be to have, not to have a motion to pass tonight, which we could do, but rather to have a motion to hold it in committee. as the maker of this great order I would support that 100% on discussion Alderman

▶ 3:09:31 Scott M. Forbes: Forbes just a point of clarification so if all of these if all of these orders are coming out of committee and they're voted to be recommended before the full board and the full board is here tonight I don't understand why we would not want to act on all of these orders if they were being voted to be held in committee they would have been held in committee and then during the next roundtable discussion we'd make the decision to send it to the full board but as a board we are here and it's commonplace that anything that is done in committee goes before the full board that very evening and it's decided upon that is common practice of this board in this room so unless we don't think that you know we need more time to discuss or to vote I voted on all my orders I know where I stand on them so I don't have any problem doing a roll call vote on any one of these items if the maker of the orders here tonight have something to say in in you know support of their decision I'll gladly understand and listen but I feel like that we have the job of doing business here and if if that is the case then we can vote on these orders tonight Thank You Alderman

▶ 3:10:38 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Forbes any further discussion I would say you know these these were discussed this evening I think it's it's situational of whether things when they're come up that quickly as they are non binding recommendations whether we keep them for some further consideration or further input and I think that generally is something that is deferred to either the maker of the order or the chair of the committee the motion has been made and so what we will do is we will leave it up to the will of the full board and call for a vote on the motion remove this from committee Alderman Wright thank you to Alderman

▶ 3:11:13 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Forbes point which I understand it's not unusual for members of this board to have items returned to committee and I think that's effectively what we're doing this evening now it may not be as eloquent as that but I think that's effectively what is being discussed here that certainly was the intent of the last item which was the the order that I put in so and that has been returned to committee and I believe that's what the intent is if I'm wrong that I'm wrong but I don't believe there's any any prohibition on items being returned to

▶ 3:11:58 Francis X. Wright Jr.: committee any more than they are thick be kept in committee thank you for the

▶ 3:12:04 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: discussion on the motion to remove this order from committee all in favor aye

▶ 3:12:13 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: any opposed oh I might need to see some hands on that one all in favor could you raise your hand please okay eyes have it this will be removed from committee is now before you this was just to recap this was the bacon properties order 2019 dash I'm sorry could you repeat the number I don't have

▶ 3:12:35 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: it in front of yes 2019 dash 8 2 8 2 which was discussed this evening in the legal and legislative committee it was recommended for passage this is a change in ordinance it will require two-thirds vote and it is a roll call vote

▶ 3:12:49 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: Alderman Lipper-Garabedian thank you and thank you to the members of the committee for referring this out favorably I appreciate your support I did hear from one colleague who was interested in the just at the previous hearing alderman Forbes raised the question about a fee which I I've called a fee for a reason I don't consider it a fine it's a fee to recognize that when you have a vacant property it incurs costs on the city and that has certainly happened with some of our long-term properties here and our long-term vacant properties here in town of the 40 or more municipalities in Melrose that have passed this ordinance I do have sort of a summary that I put together of how they've approached a fee of some kind so three do not impose a fee at all it looks like three had a fee of less than $100 a year eight had a fee of $100 one had a fee of $200 for had a fee of $250 one had a fee of $300 one which is Arlington which again is the model that I was basing this one on was $400 to municipalities have a fee of $500 and 13 do a graduated fee schedule so that it increases year-over-year most of them for those 13 are $500 to start and go all the way up to $3,000 annually and there are a few that are starting at $250 and go up to $2,000 annually so I think that suggests that this one is somewhere in the middle just for a point of information for folks thinking about this particular part of the ordinance since we hadn't discussed it really at length yet and I think otherwise I've said what I've had to say about this ordinance and most people have had a chance to speak on it as well thank you

▶ 3:14:44 Shawn M. MacMaster: I'll remember master Thank You madam president I'd like to thank all the Lipa Garabedian for filing this order I support the spirit of it but as I've communicated to Alderman Lipa Garabedian I tend to be Larry when it comes to regulating small businesses and the problem that that I have with the order as it is currently written is the $400 fee or fine however we want to characterize that I would prefer to see an incentive based approach so something for instance in the form of let's say a $400 tax credit for businesses to try to achieve voluntary compliance I'm not putting that in the form of a motion because I don't think that that would that would pass but I do convey that at least to the maker of the order if it's something that she wanted to consider but as it stands now I cannot support the order as written thank you madam

▶ 3:15:47 Speaker 11: president thank you is there a motion motion to pass you have a motion for

▶ 3:15:49 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: passage made by alderman Letter garabedian second seconded by alderman forbes any further discussion

▶ 3:15:55 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: on discussion in response to alderman masters um opinion you know opinion which i appreciate him sharing i would point out this is really not regulating small businesses it's regulating the owners of commercial property that have tenants who are small businesses and what we've heard from the small business community who has on the record are that they you know the people who wrote us we heard from a small business owner who supports this because her feeling is that commercial property owners need to be more active in tinniting their spaces because when they're vacant they're impacting her ability to remain successful as a vibrant small business right downtown thank you any further

▶ 3:16:38 Michael P. Zwirko: discussion is the motion to for passage as amended the motion is for passage as

▶ 3:16:41 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Okay.

▶ 3:16:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Mortimer. Thank you very much, President Lemmerman, and thank you very much. I would have been totally in line with Alderman Lipper-Garabedian motion if she wanted to lay this on the table as well, but I'm glad that she made a motion for passage. I think this is a very important ordinance. I'm very happy that she brought it forward. It's some excellent, excellent work to improve the quality of life and the quality of the aesthetics of our downtown area, which have suffered somewhat recently. So I'm very congratulatory and appreciative of the effort she's made on this, they're really excellent. It's something that we need to do. I was also happy to hear tonight at the meeting when we had the public hearing on the electrical box that will be put behind shards on Saratoni Way. That from now on, the DPW will be asking developers to make sure they have their utility ducks in a line before they begin. We're in a period of development where property in the northeast, in New England and in Massachusetts, eastern Massachusetts especially, is just going out of sight. Commercial property and residential property. developers get big eyes and they want to tear down everything and build everything there's another ordinance which will probably another orders will be coming up soon about a demolition delay I think we're going to revisit that at some point because sometimes I think developers looking at profit just say tear it down let's get going we'll we'll fill in the we'll fill in the blanks later let's let's go let's move and sometimes that works but a lot of times we've seen recently that it doesn't so I'm happy that this is a stopgap measure to keep Melrose aesthetically pleasing and I again thank all the Malibu Caribbean if that but maybe later with what was said that we'll start maybe to get our ducks in line before the bulldozer and the the bucket loader come in and start clearing down spaces that will straighten this out. But this is certainly a step in the right direction. Melrose has improved immensely over the last 20 years, the beauty of it. 20 years ago when I started as an alderman, probably a quarter of the storefronts downtown were open and vacant and unattractive. And that has changed, but now with this explosion in growth in eastern Massachusetts, have hit a little bit of a speed bump here and this this was a great fix by Alderman Lippa Garabedian to look around and see what we could do about it so I'm glad she made the motion for passage she's the maker of the order I would have respected and voted for a motion to lay it on the table as well but I'm certainly gonna vote for her motion for passage thank you any further discussion

▶ 3:19:51 Speaker 4: man park if you could call the roll alderman Bewtra yes alderman poizel yes

▶ 3:20:01 Speaker 5: alderman forbes yes alderman Letter garabedian yes alderman mcmaster no alderman medeiros no alderman mortimer yes alderman wright yes alderman

▶ 3:20:21 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: work Oh yes president Lemmerman yes yes yes the most the order passes any