City Council — 2021-04-20
Attendance
Christopher Cinella ; Jack Eccles ; Mark Garipay ; Jen Grigoraitis ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Shawn M. MacMaster ; Jeff McNaught ; Leila Migliorelli ; Robb Stewart ; Cory Thomas ; John N. Tramontozzi
Agenda
- Call to Order
- Remote Meeting Information
- Minutes Approval
- Public Comment
- Public Hearing -- 8:00 pm
- ORDER-2021-100 : A request from National Grid to install 2-4" primary duct from existing pole P889 on sidewalk approximately 8ft northeast towards 99 Washington St.
- Communications from His Honor, The Mayor And Other City Officials
- New Business
- Orders Out of Order
- Orders from Committee
- REPORTS - RULE 53
- Calendar
- ORDER-2021-104 : Amending Chapter 173 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose
- ORDER-2021-103 : Re-appointment of Aaron Beitman, 35 Leonard Road, to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024.
- ORDER-2021-105 : Re-appointment of Bonnie Clapp, 177 First Street, to the Human Rights Commission; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024.
- ORDER-2021-106 : Re-Appointment of Elizabeth Ticcioni, 14 Irving Street, to the Human Rights Commission; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024.
- ORDER-2021-107 : Appointment of Debra Vance, 131 Florence St, Melrose MA., to the Human Rights Commission for her first full term, said term to expire on the last day of February 2024
- ORDER-2021-108 : Re-appointment of Karen Burke to the Commission on Disability for a three-year term, to serve as the elected/appointed official member; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024.
- ORDER-2021-109 : An Appropriation from Free Cash, account number (01-324001), in the amount of $604,833 (Six Hundred four thousand, eight hundred thirty-three dollars) to various accounts as set forth herein.
- ORDER-2021-111 : An Order Relative to Construction Site Noise during the COVID-19 Pandemic
- ORDER-2021-113 : Reappointment of Anthony Melito as a Constable in the City of Melrose
- ORDER-2021-112 : Application of Santa Fe Burrito Grill Melrose, 411-417 Main Street, Melrose for a Common Victualler License
- Adjournment
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE CITY COUNCIL BULLETIN● APRIL 20, 2021 Web-based remote meeting Regular Meeting 7:45 PM , Melrose, MA 02176 Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Christopher Cinella President Present Jack Eccles At-Large Present Maya Jamaleddine At-Large Present Leila Migliorelli At-Large Present John N. Tramontozzi Ward 1 Present Jeff McNaught Ward 2 Present Robb Stewart Ward 3 Present Mark Garipay Ward 4 Present Shawn M. MacMaster Ward 5 Excused Jen Grigoraitis Ward 6 Present Cory Thomas Ward 7 Present
ORDER-2021-100 Utility Petition A request from National Grid to install 2-4" primary duct from existing pole P889 on sidewalk approximately 8ft northeast towards 99 Washington St. Placed on File
ORDER-2021-104 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Chapter 173 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose Assigned to Committee
ORDER-2021-103 Appointment Re-appointment of Aaron Beitman, 35 Leonard Road, to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Passed
ORDER-2021-105 Appointment Re-appointment of Bonnie Clapp, 177 First Street, to the Human Rights Commission; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Passed
ORDER-2021-106 Appointment City of Melrose Page 1 4/26/2021 9:58 AM Minutes City Council April 20, 2021 Re-Appointment of Elizabeth Ticcioni, 14 Irving Street, to the Human Rights Commission; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Passed
ORDER-2021-107 Appointment Appointment of Debra Vance, 131 Florence St, Melrose MA., to the Human Rights Commission for her first full term, said term to expire on the last day of February 2024 Placed on File
ORDER-2021-108 Appointment Re-appointment of Karen Burke to the Commission on Disability for a three-year term, to serve as the elected/appointed official member; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Passed
ORDER-2021-109 Appropriation An Appropriation from Free Cash, account number (01-324001), in the amount of $604,833 (Six Hundred four thousand, eight hundred thirty-three dollars) to various accounts as set forth herein. Adopted
ORDER-2021-111 General An Order Relative to Construction Site Noise during the COVID-19 Pandemic Adopted
ORDER-2021-113 Appointment Reappointment of Anthony Melito as a Constable in the City of Melrose Passed
ORDER-2021-112 License - Common Victualler Application of Santa Fe Burrito Grill Melrose, 411-417 Main Street, Melrose for a Common Victualler License Passed City of Melrose Page 2 4/26/2021 9:58 AM
Transcript
▶ 0:00 Christopher Cinella: Recording. Second, so everyone's video feeds pop in. Good evening. Welcome to the Melrose City Council's April 20th meeting. Time is 745. I am Council President Chris Cinella. And pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12th order, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law and the Governor's March 15th order, imposing strict limitation on the number of people that may gather in one place this meeting of the city council will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Melrose website and on mmtv3.org. Madam Clerk could you please call the
▶ 0:50 Christopher Cinella: Councilor Eccles? Here. Councilor Garipay? Here. Councilor Grigoraitis? Here. Councilor Jamaleddine? Here. Councilor McMaster? I don't see him in the room yet. Councilor McNaught? Here. Councilor Migliorelli? Here. Councilor Stewart? Here. Yeah, counselor, Thomas. Here comes the tram and Josie here. Presidents and Ella. Yeah. Yeah. 10 here the forum and just let the record reflect that council and McMaster couldn't be with us this evening. He's a traveling state on business. So, if there is no objection, I would like to motion for. This put to be our interim clerk this evening, our assistant city clerk. Had a family obligation to meet this evening. So, procedurally, I have to. Split the clerk seeing no objection.
▶ 2:01 Christopher Cinella: You can proceed and if there is no objection, I'd like to approve. Without reading our minutes from March 1st, March 15th. 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. 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. Do we have any hands up we do we have Mr. he's going to unmute him now. Can you hear us Mr. he's unmuted. Mr. the floor is yours. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Okay. Dear city councilors. My name is I reside at 93 ultimate Melrose.
▶ 3:23 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
▶ 4:09 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
▶ 4:55 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
▶ 5:40 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
▶ 6:29 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
▶ 7:16 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 thank you sir anybody else uh comment we have two letters from the public one from janine
▶ 8:08 benudi of altamont ave dear city counselors the golf management company at mount hood is again requesting to be able to have beverage carts on the course to sell alcoholic beverages they say 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 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 cedar glen and saugus reedy meadow and linfield bear hill and stoneham bellevue and melrose
▶ 8:47 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 rail reserve golf course in linfield only sagamore spring golf club in reading i'm sorry linfield allows beverage carts on the fairways selling alcohol in general if cities do not allow alcohol in any of their parks it's easy for them to legally enforce that policy it's much easier 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 also has the potential of having many litigation lawsuits against them since it would only take
▶ 9:28 one person to challenge and the city to open drinking in all parks by all groups in general 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
▶ 10:10 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.
▶ 10:49 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
▶ 11:26 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
▶ 12:05 you for your time and attention jenny and benuti i have another letter from received by email uh 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
▶ 12:57 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
▶ 13:36 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
▶ 14:18 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 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.
▶ 15:04 Christopher Cinella: 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? I do not see anyone raising hands or in the room. Motion to close public comment. If there's no objection, I'll close public comment. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Public comment is closed on public hearing. We'll circle back to public comment and our full council. Continuing on Dave Lucas's letter. Finally, I have concerns that the council has not investigated or research the cost of this proposal to Melrose taxpayers who undergo construction projects. Just in his example, specific to the project at 99 Washington street, I can confirm with the council that this order requiring detailed weekly reports will increase the acoustic monitoring costs. Literally 10 fold.
▶ 16:11 Currently, the developer pays a monthly fee to an acoustical engineering firm to monitor construction noises on site, in line with the requirements of the Melrose Noise Ordinance. OGM was told by its acoustic consultant that the cost of a detailed report for a weekly distribution would be $2,000 per week. This means that for any Melrose construction projects that are expected to run 12 to 18 months, this order causes an unanticipated increase in construction costs of over $100,000, Even after a landowner has been vetted by the city boards and has obtained its building permits. This is patently unfair, not to mention cost prohibitive for most projects in our city. If the city council feels that the Melrose planning board and health department are not appropriately handling the tasks that they are already authorized to handle, then the very least.
▶ 16:57 I strongly encourage the city council to send this order back to committee or otherwise amend it so that it applies only to lead removal and not to virtually every construction project. The minerals here, after the policy behind this order is completely understandable, but the proposed language has not received the proper feedback from those who are affected by it. I asked you to take all the above into consideration sincerely yours, David R. Lucas. Yeah, is there anybody else in public comments? We do have 1 person that just arrived. Not sure if you'd like to speak. Like, to speak, you can raise your virtual hand no objection. We'll close public comments. No objection public comment for. Council is close, so do we have representatives from.
▶ 17:54 National brand that we wanted to bring in. I do not see them at the room at this time. Okay. So we'll skip ahead to communications from his honor. And other city officials none. Any new business there is none. Orders out of order then. Orders from committee none. Any reports under rule 53, anybody have anything they want to report. And our calendar. Order 2021-104, amending Chapter 173 of the revised ordinances of the City of Melrose. Councilor Grigoraitis? Thank you, President Snalla. This order comes from the Legal and Legislative Committee without a recommendation. Councilor McNaught? Thank you, Mr. President. In hearing some of the feedback that we've gotten over the last couple of weeks
▶ 19:11 Jeff McNaught: And in seeing how we ended last week's meeting, and I thank my fellow Councilor, Councilor Tramontozzi for recommending that this be sent to the full body without recommendation for passage or without recommendation not to pass, if that's the correct termination, or not to pass. It was just sent to us. I think that that was a very intelligent uh decision maneuver if you will i think counselor tram and tozy much like all of us realized that there's a lot of discussion to be had here um if you're like me and i'm sure you all are you've heard from a lot of people over the last couple of weeks especially since we discussed this last week and i've heard from people on both sides of the discussion i've heard from people who
▶ 20:00 Jeff McNaught: worked at mount hood who are for and against um a beverage cart but uh i i would also just caution us to remember again and and one of the uh residents mr ditmer said several times this isn't just about mount hood i know that another letter that was read was all about mount hood but But it's not, it's not all about Mount Hood. I think that we need to take our time and handle this right and not rush any decision tonight, that is. We need more feedback. And I don't say this in any insulting way to anyone, but we keep hearing from the same few people. I know myself that I've heard from other people they don't feel like they're being represented correctly by those people so that to me throws up a red flag and i think we have to say time out um we we need to hear from more people on this
▶ 21:04 Jeff McNaught: matter and i understand not everybody has to call in and speak at public comment um they may not want to they're not comfortable doing it um but i think that we've we've found ourselves um we've bumped into an issue where we realize this isn't a quick decision um i myself who was you know heavily in favor of uh of moving forward with this and i know i was in the minority on that um even have had some moments for pause but um i think overall we need to think about this more um and on top of i believe it was miss venuti a lot of people have mentioned gmc is it golf course management or mgc whatever the acronym is i think we have to talk with them too um i think what we have here is an incomplete solution to a lot of problems um you know as i said in our last meeting
▶ 22:08 Jeff McNaught: $7,000 isn't going to make it rain in the city of Melrose. I never looked at the additional 7,000 in revenue as a windfall for the city. I looked at it as more of an amenity to have a beverage cart at Mount Hood and to have venues around the city that could be, you know, parks rented, a police detail hired. um a lot of regulation to go into um renting that space so that it's safe and effective but when it comes to mount hood i think they do a really good job at the clubhouse i know they don't do a really good job on the course and i think that's something that needs to be addressed i also think that the seven thousand dollars is not enough um i think you know if we're going to move forward with this they're going to need to provide more money so that we can put more
▶ 23:02 Jeff McNaught: you know rangers and people out on the course that can actually watch what's going on and i agree with what chief lyle said last week it's like the wild west out there and it is and that's where i agree with a lot of what people have called in and said you know there's issues out there there are um my personal feeling is this is this is a way to help curb that but i guess the overall point that I'm trying to make is I don't feel like we have enough information yet and I would like to make a motion to remand this back to legal and legislative the committee so that we can do more fact finding and have more debate and move towards a more constructive solution than what we have right now I'll second that motion
▶ 23:53 Jen Grigoraitis: So, we have a motion made by Councilor McNaught to send Order 2021-104 back to Legal and Ledge Committee, seconded by Councilor Garipay. Any discussion around that motion? Councilor Rodriguez? Thank you, President Sinella. As the chair of Legal and Ledge, and as the Councilor who represents board 6 from Mount hood is located. I agree that I don't think the city did its job in what it brought before us. And I found the information and sufficiently telling for what they were asking. And I also know that several of the residents who have taken the time and energy to come before us and share their opinions, which I greatly appreciate because I do think it takes. A little something extra to go on record with with your stance on something I've asked questions of the city that have yet to be answered. And for that reason, I would very much like to see this have an opportunity for those questions, particularly around some of the.
▶ 24:50 Violations to be answered. Thank you. Anybody else on discussion? Seeing none, Madam clerk, if you could please call. Counselor Eccles yes. Yeah. Counselor. Yes. Counselor Grigoraitis. Yes, consulate, yes. Counselor, yes, yes. Council the yes, yes. Yes, yes, yes. President, yes. Next up. Thank you. I would like to motion to conjoin orders. 2021-103, 2021-105, and 2021-106, and 2021-108 for purposes of limiting roll call vote. Thank you. We have a motion to just conjoin the orders for purposes of roll call vote. I'll come with a recommendation of passage made by Councillor Jamaleddine, seconded by by Councilor Eccles. Madam Clerk, you want to read those off after we take the vote to conjoin? Sure.
▶ 26:22 Councilor Eccles. Yes, yes. Councilor Garipay. Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis. Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine. Yes, yes. Councilor McNaught. Yes, yes. Councilor Migliorelli. Yes. Councilor Stewart. Yes, yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. President Sinella? Yes. First up, 2021-103, reappointment of Aaron Bateman, 35 Leonard Road, to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term, said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Then 2021-105, reappointment of Bonnie Clapp, 177 First Street, to the Human Rights Commission, said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Order 2021-106, reappointment of Elizabeth Tiscione, 14 Irving Street, to the Human Rights Commission, said term to expire on the last day of February 2024.
▶ 27:23 And 2021-108, re-appointment of Karen Burke to the Commission on Disability for a three-year term to serve as the elected appointed official member, said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Councilor Zimbala again? These orders comes from the committee and with the recommendation of passage. The motion made to ask that you can join the orders. I didn't hear a 2nd. 2nd, 2nd, 2nd of my counselor. Any discussion seeing none. Counselor Eccles. Yes. Yeah. Council. Yes. President Greg writers. Oh, excuse me. Counselor Grigoraitis. Councilor Jamaleddine, sorry about that. Yeah. Councilor McNaught. Yes. Councilor Migliorelli. Yes. Councilor Stewart. Yes. Councilor Thomas. Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi.
▶ 28:36 Yes. President Cinella. Yes. Tanyas. Good conjoining. Madam Clerk, next order. We have order 2021-107 appointment of Debra Vance, 131 Florence Street, Melrose, Mass to the Human Rights Commission for her 1st, full term said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Yes, this order comes from, I would like to place this order on file. It comes from the health, education and welfare committee. and as the candidate decided, chose to withdraw. Second. Okay, motion to place on file made by Councilor Jamaleddine, seconded by Councilor Garipay. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk. Councilor Eccles? Yes, yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes, yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes, yes.
▶ 29:44 Councilor McNaught? Yes, yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. President Sinella? Yes. And yes. Next, 2021-109, in appropriation from Free Cash, account number 01-324-001, in the amount of $604,833 to various accounts as set forth herein. Councilor McNaught. Mr. President, this comes from the Appropriations Committee with a recommendation for passage. At this time, I move for passage. Second. Motion for passage made by Councilor McNaught, seconded by Councilor Grigoraitis. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Eccles. Yes. Councilor Garipay. Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine?
▶ 30:52 Jeff McNaught: Yes. Councilor McNaught? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. President Cinella? Yes. And yes. Next is Order 2021-111, in order relative to construction site noise during the COVID-19 pandemic. Councilor McNaught. This, just one of what, this is the noise ordinance, is that correct? So, Mr. President, thank you. This comes from the Appropriations Committee with a recommendation for passage. At this time, I'll move for passage because that was the will of the committee. I have a feeling there's gonna be some discussion though. Check it so there was a motion to for passage. And by Councilor McNaught, seconded by Councilor Thomas.
▶ 32:00 Robb Stewart: On discussion. Councilor Stewart. Yes, thank you. Mr. President on. In light of the memo that was sent by attorney Lucas. On this, I think that there are. Certain considerations that we need to make and his suggestion. To move this back to committee for further discussion, based on his observations, I think is an appropriate 1. And I would suggest that we. Ask for withdrawal of the motion to pass. And that we reconsider a motion to send back to committee based on this feedback. I think there's. Similar to what we saw with the earlier order, there are, I think a number of unanswered questions. In light of this, in terms of the cost, in terms of the generality. And I think it's proven to explore those.
▶ 33:10 Cory Thomas: I wish to withdraw your motion in May and in 1 moment, I think councilor Thomas had his hand up. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. Thank you. Appropriations chair. Thank you. Counselor Stewart this. The order that the counselor McMaster brought forward on Thursday and received the unanimous vote from the appropriations committee. This is for projects that have been deemed. to have a need for acoustic monitoring through the construction management plan. And the construction management plan is set forward by the planning board. The larger projects have these acoustic monitoring requirements. They're already written into the construction management plan. We're only asking for enforcement of the construction management plan
▶ 34:06 Cory Thomas: on projects that have acoustic monitoring. If you're building a deck in your backyard, you're not going to need acoustic monitoring. it's not going to be written into the construction management plan it's not going to have a construction management plan this is not going to affect 99 of the projects it's going to represent it's going to reflect a need for the largest projects in this community mostly along the railroad corridor in ward 5 and areas that have land like in ward 7. you know there's a number of projects that are coming up in ward 1 along the railroad corridor the development of franklin street uh there's some on public transportation in main street um you know throughout the community
▶ 34:45 Maya Jamaleddine: i know and and respect uh attorney lucas but i think his letter was a little bit misleading and it does not reflect what the planning board writes into these construction management plans these are for the largest construction plans in the city these are not for for every day projects that you and I might be doing in our own homes. Thank you. Councilor Jamaleddine. Through the chair, I just wanna clarify with Councilor Thomas. So the attorney's concern were about the permits that were already issued about this project. Um, his concerns are, uh, where that he's gonna, it's gonna be costworthy for him to include these this new proposal. Um, well, you know, uh, doing his, uh, projects. So, he already received the permits and now we have new ordinance.
▶ 35:51 Cory Thomas: So, is that I think this is worth to take into consideration and revise it. Thomas. Through the chair, thank you. Um, this is not a new ordinance. I mean, it's a new order, but. These construction projects have already had acoustic monitoring written into the construction management plan. We're not asking to do something. We're not asking them to do something that they weren't required to do before. The planning board of Melrose is requiring acoustic monitoring. All we're asking for through this order is for the results to be shared through city hall. They're already they're already doing this. It was written written into the construction management plan by the planning board. We're not asking them to do anything more if it wasn't written into the, they don't have to do it.
▶ 36:43 Cory Thomas: We're not, we're not adding, we're not looking to add something to a construction project that has already received approval. From the Melrose planning board, we're just asking for enforcement of this. And I believe attorney Lucas in his letter said that. They're already required to do acoustic monitoring. All we're asking is if they share at the end of each week, share the results of their acoustic monitoring with the board of health. It's as simple as that, we just want to make sure that following the rules of the construction management plan set forth already by the planning board. And if your project hasn't. Receive this recommendation from the planning board, or it doesn't have a construction management plan.
▶ 37:23 Jack Eccles: You're not required to do the acoustic monitoring. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to let Councilor Eccles go before me. I saw his hand up. Thanks. I see you, Councilor Eccles. Yeah. Through the Chair to Councilor Thomas as the maker of the order, I guess I've not read a construction management plan before. Do you believe that this order requires additional acoustic monitoring? For example, is the frequency of acoustic monitoring such that there is always one weekly so so for example is it currently written that you know someone might not have to do it every week but now they have to um submit submit uh submit a plan or submit a report every week so i'm just kind of wondering just kind of picking apart the burden
▶ 38:18 Cory Thomas: that was it was discussed earlier if you could shed any light on that i'd appreciate it thomas Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor Eccles, it's a great question. Thank you. In Ward 7, there's a large project going on right now of Swains Pond Road at Patrick's Place. They are turning in weekly results. They're turning in daily results when they're blasting. They're turning them in through the city and through the fire department in the fire prevention office. I know that over in Ward 5 on Pleasant street or washington in in washington street um there are projects that are ongoing that are required to provide acoustic monitoring um the order talks about enforcement of the acoustic monitoring uh and i believe councilor mcmaster said last week um during the appropriations
▶ 39:08 Jeff McNaught: meeting that the requirement is not being enforced and has not been enforced so far during the pandemic since construction started so it has been required but it hasn't been being it hasn't been turned in to date so we're again we're just looking for them to follow up on their requirements through the construction management plan anybody else uh council mcnaught thank you mr president uh and through the chair uh councillor thomas so um what what i'm wondering i noticed a couple conflicts between last week and uh attorney lucas's letter tonight one is um That this would only and I know the order says is that it would only take effect through the end of the pandemic, which, as we know, is unknown.
▶ 40:00 Cory Thomas: Um, I don't think it had any plans to live on forever unless the council, um. Voted to continue it, uh, but the other thing, um, was that this would not cost any extra money so that we, we have a, um. a conflict between zero dollars and it's just being sent over to the clerk of committees under the order versus a hundred thousand dollar estimate can you help clarify that a little bit i i don't know where um attorney lucas got those numbers uh acoustic monitoring is written into the construction management plan by the planning board um they should already be taking these records down and this is this is for jackhammering this is for you know regular construction noise Last thing, anything that prevents quiet enjoyment for people, citizens of Melrose, we wrote it into the order that it lasts through December 31st, 2021, or during the pandemic, mostly because people are all working from home.
▶ 41:09 Cory Thomas: They're learning from home, they're studying from home, they're spending a lot of time at home, and they're surrounded by more construction noise because they are at home more. This is up for debate if it moves forward tonight, it'll be up for debate in early 2022. if the council wants to move it forward and extend it into 2022. we'll have this. We'll have this discussion then. But, you know, here we are in almost May, and we're looking for an order, you know, basically for this order to enforce the requirements of the planning board for the next 7 months. The cost of it, unfortunately, I do not know that. I don't, I don't know where attorney Lucas came up with those numbers. You know, I'd like to dig into this deeper.
▶ 41:53 Jeff McNaught: I had conversations of my own with general contractors that are working on the project and what 7 right now. And I told him the same thing. The consulate. Master mentioned last week, we're not looking to make them do anything out of the ordinary and we definitely don't want them to spend any more money than they are already spending on their projects. You know, that's not the intention. Thank you. Council Thomas. I'm just going to do a quick follow up as president. That's okay. Um. Not knowing that you, as you said, you want to dig into this a little bit more. Would you be amenable to. Holding this us removing our 1st and 2nd, and getting to the bottom of this. I only ask because you say that there's other projects going on in the city where it's working.
▶ 42:39 Cory Thomas: So, obviously, the health department is getting the acoustic numbers from those other projects. Just not this 1. Is that fair to say through the president? I don't I don't think that's accurate. I don't know of any acoustic monitoring turn into the board of health right now. There are other projects in the city, and there are other city projects in the city that are coming up, you know, and this is for the citizens, you know, for some quiet enjoyment, you know, and having the general contract is, um. Health health of the standard of the planning board written construction management plan. Right and if if it's written into the, uh, and it does cost them extra money, and that's what we find out, then.
▶ 43:28 John N. Tramontozzi: that's what it is um those are my thoughts on it but thank you counselor thomas anything i'll cede my time to others who have more questions absolutely thank you mr president i don't have any other additional questions uh counselor thomas answered my point of clarification which was that this isn't through the end of the pandemic it's through the end of the calendar year so that's it Anybody else on discussion? Councilor Tramontozzi? Yeah, through the Chair to Councilor Thomas. But I think what we have here is you have the contractors being required by the planning board to monitor. I think that the bigger question is, are they actually reporting what they're supposed to be reporting? All this order is doing is,
▶ 44:24 John N. Tramontozzi: Telling the contractors to report it to the planning board and then we, as the council will be able to have access to it. The paying for the monitoring anyways, are they not supposed to be reporting it to the planning board? What is the fear here? The monitoring it? And what I suspect is they're not accurately reporting it to the planning board. Like, they should be. Um, maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that that's what we're trying to get at here is just to get them to report it. So, when we have our constituents calling us saying, hey, there's a lot of awful lot of noise going on. But this construction project, we then could turn around, go to the planning board and say, hey, what is going on? And what is the readings? And if they report back to us that the readings are well, within the normal levels.
▶ 45:15 John N. Tramontozzi: then we can report to our constituents that the noise level is well within the normal level, and that's the end of the conversation. That's why we're asking, because that's all the constituents of boards covered by Councilor Thomas and McMaster are looking for. They want to know that these contractors are complying with the planning board orders and the construction. We're going to have other projects, as Councillor Thomas has suggested. I know that there are projects on the line in Ward 1 that are in the works. So I think this is an appropriate order, and I'll certainly vote in favor of it. Thank you. Councillor Stewart? Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of good points raised in this discussion, Mr. President.
▶ 46:14 Robb Stewart: I'm still not clear based on the apparent conflict in the two documents how to go forward on this. So, at this point, I'm not comfortable supporting to go forward, only because I think it's fair to hear attorney Lucas's perspective and point of view that there may be something additional that we're not understanding. I'm not sure, but when I see a potential cost by the city of a certain amount that concerns me and actually maybe not by the city, I think more by the additional costs of the, of the contractor. So, but I'm not entirely clear. So, at this point, I will maintain my position. Thank you. Mr. Councilor Grigoraitis for the first time. Thank you, President Sinella and through the chair, just a point of clarification for Councillor Thomas.
▶ 47:29 Jen Grigoraitis: I just my understanding is that with regards to the concerns about the planning board, that this order was brought to the city solicitor, the director of planning for the city and the director of the board of health. And they did not weigh in in any formal way to the council, which I also believe would be the appropriate avenue for us to contact. The planning boards, those are that is a board appointed by whom people are appointed by the mayor. Is that correct? Council Thomas? That is correct. We met with the city inspector, the city solicitor in the order was sent to the head of the. Planning and the planning board community development planning and community development. Director had opportunity to weigh in, and we did not hear a response after our initial meeting in February with the city inspector and the.
▶ 48:25 Jeff McNaught: City solicitor Thank you both. That was my only question. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I think we know from the other night that we voted 11 to 0 on this. So I think we all know that we want to do the right thing. The order made sense that hasn't changed, but out of respect for Councilor Stewart, what I would like to do is withdraw my motion. I would encourage my Councilor, fellow Councilor, Councilor Thomas to do the same. At least allow the motion go through whatever motion councilor Stewart wants to make vote on that. And. Um, if that doesn't pass, I'm happy to remake my motion for passage. So, you know, you're withdrawing your motion. I am. Procedurally, we don't need to withdraw a 2nd.
▶ 49:21 Jack Eccles: What is the will is there. Councilor Eccles, I believe had his hand up. Yeah, it's kind of just something that I hadn't yet considered. I did pull up the construction management plan for 99 Washington Street. And I don't see anything in here about weekly monitoring. It's a little vague. So that was just kind of for some background. It does seem to be a new expectation that we're setting of at least You know, this 1, I don't know, I can't speak for the word 7 when I just, I just pulled it up. So I'd be fine. Taking a closer look at it now that we've heard from 1 of the developers. Councilor Thomas, you ready to hand up. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. So, I second the motion to approve. Is that still on the table?
▶ 50:23 Cory Thomas: We don't need to remove the 2nd, the main motions been removed. So, at this time, we have no motion. All right, well, if I could. I know a number of general contract as I worked with. Countless general contractors in my 9 to 5 job and I know and appreciate many attorneys, but I, as I said, last Thursday, I've literally received about 200 emails. Just for concerns in and around Maple Terrace, Hillside Park, Worth Street, Maple Grove Street, people saying that they think their houses are shaking to the ground because of demolition and blasting. It does very little, but it's comforting to be able to go and get readings from blasting and let them know that they're within the legal limit of the construction that they're doing.
▶ 51:15 Cory Thomas: It doesn't stop the homes from shaking. It doesn't stop emails from happening. But this is another layer of checks and balances that we're holding these contractors and these developers too. And I think it's an important order. And again, you know, it was voted on unanimously last week. I'd rather answer to the constituents of Melrose than the attorneys and the general contractors. Thank you. Anybody else on discussion or does anybody else? What is the will? Councilor Stewart? You're on mute. $5 fine. Thank you, Mr. President. At this point, I would like to make a motion to read the letter by attorney Lucas into the records. You actually did that earlier. That's already been done? Okay. That's already been written. Okay. Thank you.
▶ 52:14 Then I would like to make a motion to refer this back to committee. Sort of, and is there a 2nd. So, motion made by a counselor, Stuart to send the order back to committee. Seconded by counselor, Eccles, any discussion around that motion. Seeing none, Madam clerk, if you follow. Counselor Eccles yes, yes. No, no. Councilor Grigoraitis. No. Councilor Jamaleddine. No. Councilor, excuse me, Councilor McNaught. No, no. Councilor Migliorelli. No. Councilor Stewart. Yes, yes. Councilor Thomas. No. Councilor Tramontozzi. No. President 9, no motion failed counseling. If not. This time, Mr president, I'd like to make a motion for passage. Motion for passage may have a counselor like, not. For the 2nd time, 2nd, and by counselor Stuart.
▶ 53:34 Jeff McNaught: On discussion again, I do think sorry. I do think. You know, I'm voting in favor of this. I believe in it. I feel for the hundreds of phone calls and emails that both Councilor Thomas and Council McMaster have received and all the residents that are affected by it. I do think we need to keep a close eye on if contractors are all of a sudden being asked to put up an exorbitant amount of money that they weren't planning on doing. Um, as we discussed last week, that's not the intention of the order. Um, and I don't believe that that's changed. So, as long as we can agree upon that, I don't think that there's any language change that's required for that. But just something for us as a council to be cognizant of. Thank you. Mr. President.
▶ 54:26 Jack Eccles: Did you have something to add? Let's do it after. Let's do it, Thomas. No, that's miracles. Do you have something that I have? Yeah, I did just just, um. Kind of to to to work my way backward from just talking about that 99 Washington street. Plan specifically my, my main concern was, you know, since we had heard from from 1 of the attorneys is just that this is setting a new expectation. That was not there previously and that's just from from taking a look at the construction management plan on the city website. It says nothing about, um. Weekly, I do agree with the spirit of the order I did last week and so. I wish that we had taken some more time to to look into exactly what the change in expectations are, but that's okay.
▶ 55:23 I'm still trying to tell you thank you, but I'll pass. Okay, anybody else on discussion? All right. Madam clerk, you can follow the role. Councilor Eccles no. council of Garipay yes yes council Grigoraitis yes yeah council of Jamaleddine yes yes councillor mcnaught yes yes councillor Migliorelli yes yes councillor stewart no councillor thomas yes councillor Tramontozzi yes president sanella yes yes eight yes continue with the orders sure we have the people from national grid in shall we go back to that sure pause there at 113 back to our public hearing and i will if there's no objection suspend the rules so that we can hear from dpw as well as national grid seeing no objection the rules are now suspended yeah back in our public hearing
▶ 56:41 I'll bring them in. Ms. Reese and Mr. Okoro. Hi, this is Bonnie Reese. I don't know if you can see me or not, but I guess you can hear me. So, this is a hearing for 99 Washington Street. The issue is a grant of location for some electrical ducts for National Grid. And I'll let Moses speak to the technical aspects of this, but from an engineering standpoint, it all fits in with what was approved for the site plan. So we are in agreement with the location that they've proposed. And just as an aside, We actually have a site walk planned for this Thursday morning, this coming Thursday morning, with the site developer to just make sure that everything is being done according to the approved site plan and the conditions that have been set for this particular location.
▶ 57:59 Hi. Good evening, councillors. My name is Moses Okokoro from National Grid. My address is 170 Medford Street in Malden. Again, I'm sorry for coming in late. That appears a different meeting invite was sent over to me. Like Vonnie just said, we will be installing two four-inch conduit for my existing pole, just in front of 99 Washington Street, towards the property basically we'll just be cutting you know through the sidewalk can you hear me yep we can hear you yeah you'll see hands raised if they have i'll put them in queue for questions oh i see okay so just because through the sidewalk and heading towards the proxy you know i thought the condition installation the contractor like when he just said will
▶ 58:56 John N. Tramontozzi: restore the sidewalk back to, you know, as it is. Thank you. Councilor Tshamatase? Yes, I thank you, Mr. President. As the Council may be aware now that Council McMaster was unable to make this meeting. He's out of town on a work, pre-scheduled work assignment. So he had asked me to just bring up a couple questions, if I may, on his behalf. There's general agreement overall, but he has a couple of questions. One is directed to the clerk through the chair. He was just concerned if the clerk was notified because the clerk was using an old list and he wanted to make sure that abutters were notified, if you know. Councilor Tramontozzi, is that directed to me? Yes, if you as I was just placed interim this evening. I do not know. I believe that they used a butters list. I think it was April 6th, but I, I don't have that information in front of me.
▶ 1:00:09 John N. Tramontozzi: Right. I know I got you on the spot. I figured I did with that question, but I was going to ask it anyways. So, did you know, so, as best, you know, the butters that were, We're notified of this. The next question I have is more of a comment than a question. He wanted to make sure that the DPW National Grid coordinate with the developer to make sure that the work is coordinated. As sidewalk work at the construction site is supposed to occur this spring, and the plan is to have the new reconfiguration for the entrance and exit at the front of the building. And he felt, and I think it would be moved them to coordinate on the schedule. So not to play with 1 in those plans and the parents this evening, the, from the Department of public works that the, that you're meeting with the site developer.
▶ 1:01:06 John N. Tramontozzi: So it does sound like you are coordinating. It's good. Yes, we are because this is a major project and we want to make sure that the things to coordinate. So there's not any confusion. and we do appreciate working and we appreciate National Grid working with the DPW in the developer and in your coordination work. Is that okay with you, Akokoro? Akokoro, okay. Akokoro Okuro- Yeah, that's okay. Yeah. Excellent. That's all I have. Thank you so much. You're very cooperative to take that. Akokoro Okuro- Thank you, sir. Okay. Akokoro Okuro- Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Akokoro Okuro- Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Just had a quick question looking at the diagram. How much of the sidewalk,
▶ 1:01:57 Mark Garipay: is it just eight feet of sidewalk that you're going to be gripping up and going underground? Yeah, roughly about eight feet plus minus. Now, when you replace that, is you going to replace the whole section or is it similar to when we trench something in the street, it's only the width of a pipe or whatever. Are we going to replace all eight feet for curb to, I don't know what's going to be on that, the berm of the grass that's currently right there on 99 Washington Street? Exactly. You know, eight feet and then how, depending on how far he goes, you know, in terms of widths, the contractor will take care of, you know, seal up, cover up all that section. And then my other question, which I've brought up a number of times,
▶ 1:02:44 Mark Garipay: is uh how long after this is complete will the sidewalk be completed because that uh that's um you know right now with the pandemic not as many people are walking okra but it's starting to pick up and there's going to be a lot of people walking down that way so how long until uh are you ready to commit to a time when the sidewalk will be completed and fixed well you know in all honesty this job this portion of work will be done by the contractor but From my experience, it shouldn't take, you know, it's less than a day's worth of work. So, it will be open that day. Condos should be installed. Everything should be sealed up. That's very big. Okay, so it's a little bit different than we put a poll in and have to. Oh, yeah. Okay.
▶ 1:03:29 Christopher Cinella: All right, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? I don't know if I missed any hands. Councilor Thomas? Motion to close public here 2nd. I should close public hearing may by council times. So 2nd, if I consult Eccles. Discussion seeing none. Counselor, yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Consulate really? Yeah. Yeah. Counselor Stewart. Yes, yes. Counselor Thomas. Yes. Consulate, yes, President. Yes, and Councilman job. 9 yes, thank you both for attending this evening. You have to dispose of the order itself. What is the will of the committee? On the order itself, order 2021 dash 100.
▶ 1:04:47 Make a motion to recommend passage. They said on file, I believe. 2nd, all right motion made by counselor gap made a place on file. 2nd, and by a council chair, Matozzi. Please call the counselor Eccles. Yes, yeah. Yes. Yeah. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Councilor McNaught? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. President Sinella? Yes. Nine yes. Left off at 1.13 Madam Clerk. Order 2021-113 reappointment of Anthony Melito as a constable in the City of Melrose. Thank you, Mr. President. This order comes from Protection and License Committee. With the recommendation for passage at this time, I would like to make the motion for passage.
▶ 1:06:00 The motion for passage is made by Councillor Garipay. I'll second. I'll second that. I'll second that by councillor. If not, any discussion? Seeing none, madam clerk please call the roll councillor eccles yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor Jamaleddine councillor mcnaught yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes yes councillor thomas yes councillor Tramontozzi yes president sanella yes nine yes next is order 2021-112 application of santa fe burrito grill 411 to 417 main street melrose for a common victual license counselor thank you mr president this order comes from protection and license committee with the recommendation to passage at this time i make a motion for passage
▶ 1:07:07 Robb Stewart: Second. Motion to pass is made by Councillor Gaffay, seconded by Councillor Gerardus. Any discussion? Councillor Stewart. Thank you, Mr. President. As you recall in committee, I voted against this, and my primary concern was the late hours that was requested by Mr. Um, but anyways, the point being is, um, my concern was that this restaurant, he was looking for the habitual license to be open in his words to 11 or midnight and that that gave me pause for concern on the. When I looked at the application for the visual license, he has it to be until 10 o'clock. For all nights, except for Friday and Saturday and Friday and Saturday night, he has it for 11. So, I plan on supporting this, but with the strong suggestion to the liquor license committee that they consider keeping to those boundaries.
▶ 1:08:23 I rather not see. A restaurant starting to extend the nightlife password, I think is reasonable for our downtown. So, with that, Mr, that's I plan on supporting this thing. Anybody else on discussion clerk. You call the role counselor Eccles. Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, yeah. Yeah, yeah, counselor not. Yes, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Counselor Stewart. Yes. Counselor Thomas. Yes. Yes. Yes. President, yes and yes. Miss anything did not. Motion to adjourn motion to adjourn. So, John made by a second of my constant regardless. Clerk Councilor Eccles. Yes, yeah. Councilor. Yeah, yeah. Councilor Grigoraitis. Yes. Yeah. Consulate. Yes. Yeah. Consular not yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Consular Stewart yes. Consular Thomas.
▶ 1:10:01 Yes, yes. Yes. Yes. 10 yes, good evening.