Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is 7 p.m.

on Monday, August 25th.

I am Chairman Ryan Pereira calling together this committee on ordinances meeting.

Um live here in the city council chambers.

I am joined by my colleagues Councillor at Large Ian Abreu, Councilor Ward 2, Maria Giesta, Councilor of Ward 1, Leo Schocat, Councillor of Ward 5, Joseph Lopes, Councillor at Large, Brian Gomes, Counselor at Large, Linda Morad, Councillor at Large, Naomi Carney, Councillor of Ward 3, Sean Oliver, Counselor of Ward 4, Derek Baptiste.

I would like to know that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under quick links and then meetings.

I will ask the clerk if there are any letters to be read into the record at this time.

No records, no letters to be read into the records.

Seeing no letters to be read into the record without a yes, counselor.

Without objection, can we take item three out of order?

Without objection, I will ask the clerk to read item number three.

Item number three without objection is a written motion, Councilor President Burgo and Council's Gomes, Morad and Pereira requesting that the committee on ordinance meet to discuss removing the city council as the granting authority for special permits as they pertain to automotive sales and/or rentals, body repair, general repair, and light service by amending chapter 9, appendix A, Section H commercial motor vehicle uses.

It was referred here on February 13th, 2025, and is now before you.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

So colleagues, um, the chair would at this time uh like to invite up the clerk of the city, Dennis Farias to the podium, give a brief overview about uh uh the thoughts behind um this item here as it's uh a good starting point for us to engage in debate and conversation on this.

Uh Clerk Farrias, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh good evening, counselors.

So this this kind of started I don't know when it started exactly, but if several months ago um when Sue and I and Stephanie and I talk about things in the office, different procedures and things, we often talk about and discuss, you know, what can we make better?

How can we streamline things?

How can we make things better for the council, for the office, for the public?

And one thing that kind of just kind of kept coming up was special permits.

And so we started looking at the process and we realized that it's it's quite cumbersome.

It's quite cumbersome for really uh it's very cumbersome for uh applicants, it's cumbersome for the council, for your schedule, for the office.

So we started looking at it and we said, well, gee, you know, then we started talking to the licensing office, and there seems to be a lot of duplication.

Um course, you know, you folks might feel differently, but so we kind of just said, you know, let's let's talk to a few counselors about it and see what they think.

And we talked to a few of you, and you submitted this really, I think, for discussion purposes.

So I think it's good to talk about it.

Um, you know, I'm not here to advocate one way or the other, whether we revoke this thing completely or modify it somewhat, but I think it's worth looking at um to see how we can improve this.

Um I'm a big believer in always trying to make things a little bit better.

And uh and Sue Sue is uh on on that same page as well.

So I'm here with any questions you have from me, if you'd like to go over anything specific, we can certainly discuss it.

Do you mind just quickly um the current process?

Just a quick um uh four hour before we begin conversation.

Um Dennis, if you could just kind of go over uh the cost for the special permit and uh on average and the timeline, please.

Sure.

So on our end, so just to kind of backtrack a little bit, and I know Commissioner Manowitz is here, so we can he has his hit their procedures in his office as well.

So from my understanding is when when the building commissioner the denies the permit initially, that's when the special permit process kicks in.

So they have to come to our office, they they have the application.

That application begins with anywhere from a seven hundred dollar to nine hundred dollar fee right off the bat, just to apply whether they get granted or not, okay.

So they apply for that, as you know, it comes to the council, it gets referred to appointments and briefings, which is a very busy committee.

Then it gets a vote in appointments and briefings, as you know it comes back to the council, then it goes to the mayor's office, where he has 10 days to sign it.

Then it comes back down to the city council office, then it comes down to the city clerk's office where we hold it for a 20-day appeals period.

So now, and then after that, now it goes back to the city council office for for final approval.

But I mean, if you're the business owner, that that's a long time to wait to open your business.

You know, that's that's kind of what initially what made us start thinking about this.

So that's the cost there.

And at the same time, the licensing board is going through their own process with things.

They are the ones who really do the heavy lifting as far as the investigative work behind this.

They do the quarry, they do all that stuff.

They do the background check on the individual, the owners, the property.

And they are they have their own fees of $300 annually.

Our fee is a one-time fee for the application process, their fee is annual.

So that's really the process, Mr.

Chairman, in a nutshell.

Thank you.

The Chair would like to recognize that we have been joined by Council President Burgle moments ago.

Chair recognizes Councillor Abro.

Thanks a bunch, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, uh, Mr.

Clerk.

Good to see you.

Good to see you, Council.

Thank you.

Um, and again, I know you're not here to speak for or against, you're just laying out some facts, but as someone who's been in this seat that's been elected by constituents, I just wanted to get maybe your thoughts on this because licensing board appointees of the mayor ratified and voted for by us, they're appointed.

They're not answerable to constituencies every two years.

Um, if God forbid, heaven forbid there is any havoc being wreaked on the neighborhood by an automotive facility.

I know there are um obviously um you know measures in place through Danny's office or the Board of Health, different things that we can do to try to rein it in and pull it back, but regardless of that, I mean we would still be the ones getting the phone calls and things of that nature.

I just think I don't know, do you think we're limiting our scope of authority and power a little bit if we give this up as someone who's done this job, and so I understand you you get both sides of it.

I certainly see your point, Councilor Meffet.

I I believe I was on the council when we when we changed this ordinance to give the council the authority in this in this perspective.

So here's what I would say to that, Council.

I you're absolutely right.

You would lose that immediate direct authority over that.

I would say this.

Probably 99 out of a hundred of these things are fine, you don't have problems, they get renewed no problem.

Um and I would even say that even when you have I'm not gonna say the name, but when you recently denied a special permit, in all reality, as we all know that particular establishment is still operating because of the enforcement issues.

I mean, who who who enforces that?

I you know, I don't know.

But um, yeah, I I see your point, but maybe there's a way you could rewrite the ordinance, revise the ordinance to give the council some final oversight or something.

You know, if if there's if there's a pro something kicks in, I'm not trying to make attorney Garatowski's job harder or think it sound easier than it is, I'm sure it's difficult.

But maybe there's something we could do, you know, think creatively out of the box to accomplish both.

I think that is something I would be palatable for me.

I think and we could talk to Attorney Garatowski if that's even there's a way to chart that forward if that's even feasible.

I just I'm concerned about maybe precedence setting.

You know, we're getting rid of this today if we were to vote this up.

What's next?

I uh uh as we know, unfortunately, the way the charter is written for the city.

We have a strong mayor, weak council set up and a charter.

So authority is so limited as it is, and to continue to give up more of our authority, I think it's a bitter pill in my opinion.

And I'm all for slashing bureaucracy as a small businessman myself, you know that.

I just I'm trying to wrestle with it in my head, slash bureaucracy, but also not give up our authority.

So I'm kind of wrestling with this one, and I'll see where this debate goes.

Maybe one of my colleagues or attorney Garatowski, the chairman can make uh uh a point that will kick me more in one way or the other and tilt it over for me.

But I'm kind of on the fence about this one to be truthful with you.

Sure.

No, I I I again I understand, Council, and I think you know the council has authority, like as you mentioned, you have authority whether or not to confirm or reconfirm reappointments.

You know, if you think for if a commissioner of any board comes in before you and just ignores your calls, ignores the council's concerns, you can certainly hope hold that member accountable when he comes or when he or she comes before you for reconfirmation.

Well, I thank you for your time, Mr.

Clerk, and uh we'll see where this goes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll yield.

Thank you, Councillor Abreu.

The Chair recognizes Councillor Oliver.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Dennis, thank you for being here.

Um you had stated that uh they the special permit, right?

It's special, they're coming for to us for a reason.

Correct.

Can you reiterate again why they're coming to us?

My understanding is that that kicks in, and Commissioner Romanowns can correct me if I'm wrong.

But when the building commission, when the inspection of services denies their initial permit, that's when that special permit process kicks in.

All right.

So it's been denied already for one reason or another.

Correct.

So to me, it's been denied by one of our departments already.

Yes, sir.

Me personally, I can't speak for my colleagues.

I think that that's a perfect example as to why there probably should be some City Council oversight.

It's already been, it's already gone through one of our departments for one reason or another.

The other thing that you spoke of is the 700 to 900 fee.

Um because there's a range, what makes that range up?

The size of the parcel of their property.

So it is just exactly for you, Councillor.

Up to 10,000 square feet of the property is 700.

From 10,01 to 20,000 square feet, it's $800.

And then up to 30,000 square feet is $900.

Most are $700.

Okay.

And when folks are coming uh before you, um, I assume that the that cost um comes up that the uh the comments made about the the cost.

Yeah, we actually have a handout that we provide to the applicants and it takes them through the entire process.

Okay, yep.

And uh do you think that it would maybe not um change the process, but would you think uh uh change to the to that scale, would that be beneficial?

I I'd be happy to that, Counselor.

That that most of that fee comes in advertising to advertise the hearing.

And then of course that it also helps with the labor and everything because it is it's it's labor-intensive for the office.

So is that in scale?

Is our scale aligned with what the advertising in the Standard Times as you know is very expensive.

Yes, unfortunately.

And so again, to reiterate, it's been denied by one of our other departments.

Correct.

And Commissioner Romanowitz could probably speak to more in detail about why that is and what that really means.

Okay.

I um that'll be it for now.

I just want to see what my colleagues say of this again.

I I I feel the same way um as the the counselor who spoke before me that you know we're giving away a little bit of our uh oversight here.

I think that this body, we all know our wards and our our our areas within the city um pretty well, and a lot of these are quality of life issues that uh some of these businesses um are are putting on those neighborhoods.

So I'll yield for now, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

I just would like to point out uh and we'll have the Attorney Garatowski and Commissioner Romanowitz come up, but it is my understanding, Counselor, that any special permit uh gets a denial from the building department.

So the zoning is what denies it, everything.

So it doesn't matter if they are acceptable or not.

Um Chairing this, Councillor Morit.

So Dennis, thanks for being here.

The truth of the matter is the office really doesn't do any investigative work, correct?

They accept the paperwork and they call for the hearing and they do whatever paperwork they you need to do in the office.

Correct, counselor.

And then it comes in front of the city council and in the appointments and briefings meeting, and the person comes up and we ask them a few questions, and we make a decision one way or the other.

And that's the last time the council sees that permit.

It doesn't come back to us on renewal.

Nothing again happens in the council, correct?

Correct.

Right.

And all that other work is done in the licensing board, where the licensing board actually quarries the people, actually, you know, does the investigative work and then make sure on an annual basis that the business is operating properly, et cetera?

Correct.

Yeah.

Yes, counselor.

I believe they run the quarry every year, they do a site visit every year.

So do you I I maybe it's for attorney Garitowski, but other than the fact that the code, the table code says special permit C C.

Um do you know of any reason why it comes to the City Council for initial approval for our two-minute conversation with the project?

I know how it started, I think, if my memory serves me.

Um but yeah, it was I think back in the at the time the council didn't agree with a denial, actually, of a permit from the licensing board.

And the council stepped in, changed the ordinance so they could approve a lot of the.

So the council wanted the business to have the permit and a licensing board denied.

And I can see both ways.

You know, it depends, you know.

And you have constituents to represent, you have neighborhoods to protect.

So I think it is probably a good idea.

The honest truth, though, is that when the person is coming for in front of us for the first time, unless the person is known to us to be a problem, um there really isn't a lot uh of input that the council provides as it relates to the special permit.

Not an issue.

No, there isn't, Council.

Yeah.

In fact, you had one recently that came before us and before the body, and it was approved.

And the licensing permit denied, the license department denied it because they they they do that extra work.

And now you're in a quandy.

Well, who's taking precedent here?

You know?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, uh Clerk Ferries.

Mr.

Chair, when Commissioner Manowitz and Attorney Garatowski come to the podium, I'd like the floor then as well.

Thank you.

Councilor Lopes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Dennis, for being here.

I will say I'm not inclined to support this.

Um as somebody that's dealt with a lot of the use car lot, you're right.

99 of them are run really well.

Right.

That one percent causes the bulk of the issues in a neighborhood.

You know, we had one last year in Ward 5.

It took almost six months to get it permitted.

He wanted 38 cars.

We brought it down to 18 cars.

And even then, he is a nuisance to the neighborhood.

So my concern is not so much the authority granting going back or not.

It's the constituents isn't calling a member of any board and commission.

Correct.

They're calling us.

And then if we're basically gonna say, well, we have no hands, we have no control, we have no power, it weakens our ability to do the job that we're elected for.

Now I understand all of the parameters here, but I would rather have somebody here, even if it's only for one appointment or briefings meeting, and even if it's only 20 minutes to ask questions, it might be the first time you get to put a face to that business owner, have a discussion with him or her and build that rapport.

To take that away for to speed it up, and I've always been pro-business, but to speed it up in a manner that it takes away our ability to have a discussion with somebody and what they're gonna do with their business.

And how many times has you know the commissioner been at that podium and saying, well, they want to put 30 cars there, and that's a tight law.

Can we reduce it to make it more palatable for the neighborhood?

Because everybody says only want 20 cars, then they have 23 cars in the law, their parking cars on the street, it becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood.

So I'm inclined, I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm inclined to not support something that's gonna take away our ability to have a thorough review over the process before we grant the license.

And again, counselor, I I I completely understand and agree about everything you just said.

I would just say again, I don't necessarily know that it needs to be an either-or thing.

I think maybe we can figure something out.

You know, maybe not, but maybe we could look into it and dig into it a little bit and revise the process and make it make sense all around.

I'm all for trying to revise it and making it better.

100%.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor Lopes.

Counselor Giesta?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Dennis.

Um I have to agree with my colleagues.

I think at this time I'm not comfortable in making this change.

Um, as my colleague from Ward 5 just said, we're the ones that get the phone calls from the constituents when they're a little nervous about a business coming in.

Um so at this time, yeah, I'm I'm not comfortable in making that change.

But I also look forward to hearing from Danny and Attorney Garatowski and seeing what else um can possibly be done.

So but thank you very much for being here tonight.

Truly appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Colleagues, anything else for Clerk Farius at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you, Clerk Farrell.

Thank you.

Uh the chair would like to hear from Commissioner Manowitz.

I think the body does too.

Colleagues, any questions for Commissioner Manowitz or the chair from the chair?

Councillor Morat.

So, Danny, can you just describe for the general public why you reject the special permit application when it comes to the building department and how that starts the process, please?

Um an application comes in, we look at the the use table.

The use table tells us whether it needs a special permit.

Um with the setbacks, it might need a variance.

Now, when it comes to um anything with motor vehicles, um it's city council that gives a special permit.

Back in 2003, when we changed the zoning, um, they wanted to give it out to either the planning department or uh zoning board of appeals.

And um councillor David Alves called me up and said that city council always gave these uh special permits out because they represent the the constituents and the businesses of the um automobile um that are licensed sometimes uh a nuisance to the neighborhood.

And if anybody's gonna uh have a say on it, it's gonna be city council.

So he brought it to City Council and it was changed from uh the special permit going to either the ZBA or to um planning department.

So that that happened in uh 2020.

Okay.

So when you get the special when you get the application, that triggers a denial on your part, gets forwarded to the city council, also gets forwarded to the licensing board at that time as well.

No, the first thing we do, the licensing board would be on open gov, so they would answer.

Um we do the research to see if it's been if it got a prior special permit, a special permit goes with the owner.

A variance goes with the land.

So if it if it's been there forever, like um take for instance, like Leach Auto Body.

If they came and they want to add something, they're already grandfathered in, so they don't have to come in front of this board.

It's only somebody that had a uh uh prior special permit, or they close the business and it's been closed for two years, then it loses its right, and then you have to come in front of you.

Okay.

And how do you get, do you get it to the licensing board?

Or does that happen through the council process?

I call licensing board and I ask for their record, their file.

And um we'll have it on record if we had if they had a prior special permit.

There's quite a few on Belleville Avenue that it it continually flips, so we know that it has to come back to you.

But if we don't um have a record of them getting a special permit, that's when we inquire with licensing board.

Okay.

And they're grant just to be clear, they grandfathered if they had a variance.

Correct.

Because the variance goes with the property.

Well, the the grandfathered, I don't know how far back the special permit was required, but according to David Alves, it always went through City Council.

Um that's why he brought it to City Council to get it back to them, because I I brought the book in of um 2003 and inside here it says doesn't have the C C for City Council.

It has SP, and when you go for the definitions, the this SP would be um ZBA or planning.

Because of the special.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor May.

Uh Commissioner, I said I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.

And you are remembering conversations from 2003.

So good for your memory.

Colleagues, any other questions from for Commissioner Romanowitz?

Okay.

So uh from the chair if the body would allow.

So basically, Danny, I think you you get this applications, uh, you get this application, you see that the zoning requires a special permit and the the granting authority is the city council.

So that you reject it, they then have to, the council then has to take up the matter.

During that time you provide the council with information relative to the number of cars you as the zoning commissioner believe can fit on that property, as well as certain environmental uh uh issues that they have to address, like oil traps, etc.

Correct?

That's correct.

Sometimes they'll put in, like say uh 2530 cars, or I'll I'll get a call from Council Lopes and say, hey, uh make sure uh they can fit the cars in there because we're having complaints from the neighborhood.

Uh so we'll go down and look to see their plan, and then if it does not fit, I'll change it and I'll put it down there that these are the amount of cars that can fit in there, or we'll look to see what the prior um license stated.

Sometimes they figure that they could sneak in another 10 cars, right?

But the only way they could fit them in is with a helicopter.

And just uh double deck.

Getting a little expensive, it sounds like.

And then I'll I'll ask attorney Garatowski to come up in a minute, but it is my understanding that, and maybe I'm wrong, the special permit is the right to you that person's right to use the land for the sale of vehicles or or uh um the repair of vehicles, while the licenses their ability to actually sell them and or repair them.

I believe that's right.

Well, also a special permit is that you don't want it more detrimental to the neighborhood than what it was.

So if there are complaints to uh counselor, any counselor in here, they're gonna bring it to that person and tell them, hey, listen, there's there's a history of um neglect there.

How are you gonna run this?

Okay.

And then he's he states it to the to you that he's gonna have 15 cars, and don't worry, I'll have plenty of people there, and um he's under oath for that.

Okay.

Or on the record.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Chair recognizes Councillor Oliver.

Thank thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Danny.

Um can you just that that thought that line of thought that you just had there?

Can you can you reiterate that again?

Was that they come to the special permit because of because of what?

Because of the they'll come for a special permit if there was a prior special permit.

But if they were already in business, they're already grandfathered in, so they wouldn't have to come in front of you.

Right, but you were talking about like the uh uh quality almost like quality of life issues of that neighborhood just that's part of what what a special permit is.

There's there are steps inside special permit.

Yeah.

If you want, I could I could read them what they are.

That's fine.

I just wanted to that's a that's a huge part of our um day-to-day um you know constituent service that we do is the the quality of life of our neighborhoods.

Um Commissioner, did recently uh I think the last couple that have come before us, this council has either denied and or altered um uh we've denied one, I believe, and we've altered car capacity in two recently within okay.

Right.

So um not just uh ceremonial uh process that we have to to go through.

I would I would say would how about yourself?

Right.

You you could put your own um decision in there that you require this and sometimes um shut the lights off for your sign because you got neighbors next door.

Correct.

So that gives you the right to um um help the neighbors out.

Absolutely.

Good.

And um lastly, um I lost my train of thought now with that one.

Um I'm gonna yield for right now, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Counselor's were you asking for the phone?

Danny.

Okay, thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, Councillor Oliver.

Colleagues, any counselor Virgo.

Uh Commissioner Romanowitz, so just to reiterate, once the special permit is approved, they do not come back before us for renewal on those special permits.

No.

Okay.

So if this is a new person, because some of my colleagues have stated stuff like, oh, if they become a nuisance and they're a problem business, we need to have the authority to take it away from them.

But essentially, once it's granted to them, the it they don't come back before the council for us to take it away from them.

They could.

If if um somebody on city council has a lot of complaints and I investigate it, I can request them to come back in front of this board.

And if you you have the right to take it away from them.

But the licensing board could also do that, correct?

Licensing board also, yes.

Through our and we could request that as without having to do that.

It could be the licensing board or city council.

Correct.

Okay.

I just want to clarify that.

Okay.

And then uh the other question I had was oh goodness.

Yeah.

It's happening again.

Look at that.

Oh, there was it had to do with a question you just asked.

Um, Lord have mercy.

Uh it will come back to me.

Okay, I just wanted to to clear, just because I feel as though this is a redundant step.

We uh oh, uh that's what it was.

Uh about uh adjusting.

That's what thank you.

I just remember now.

Uh my colleague from Ward 3 mentioned about in the past we've made adjustments to past applications.

We would be able to go to, for example, when they go before the licensing board or what have you.

We those are public uh meetings that we're able to speak at.

Is that correct?

Well, if if you voted that you wanted just the license board to look at it, you would have to go to the licensing board or write a letter to tell them what you would like them to do.

Okay, so as a a counselor at large or a ward counselor, I still have the power and authority to show up to those meetings.

They're not closed executive sessions that only the those licensing board members are privy to and the applicant.

They're not going to be able to do that.

And I'm able to submit change like I could submit requests to say I am the ward counselor, and I believe that there's they submitted that they want 20 vehicles, but it would be a detriment to the neighborhood.

And I believe but you know, I could go and testify before the board to suggest those changes.

They shouldn't be closed, but if a city counselor writes a letter to the licensing board, they're going to give you the freedom to speak.

Okay.

I just uh I'm only asking these questions under the under the framework of if if we remove this step.

Because I think the concern I'm hearing from some of my colleagues is if we take away this added step and this additional cost and this additional burden to our small businesses, but um that we would lose all power and authority to speak up and speak on behalf of our constituency.

But from what I'm hearing, we would still have the authority to just like we do often, a lot of my colleagues, including myself, go before the traffic commission.

We go before the licensing board to speak on behalf of our constituency all the time.

So I just want to clarify on the record that whether or not this step is here, we would still be able to do that.

But the only problem is licensing board cannot grant special permits.

The only people that can or the only boards would be the City Council, uh Planning Board, and ZBA.

So licensing cannot uh issue a special permit.

Yeah, sorry.

Uh but for I mean, in regards to this um granting authority, um, instead of uh coming for the council, they uh yes.

Yes, sorry.

I I was just using examples of different uh commissions that we go before all the time as counselors that we can speak for.

So I I again I'm just trying to dispel the concern that some of my colleagues have that our voices will be removed from the conversation if we don't have that additional step.

Well, I I think the the person that can speak uh better to the rules and regulations would be um your counselor or that's fine.

You you already did uh do that for me too as well, Commissioner Roman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Commissioner Romanowitz?

Counselor Oliver.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair Danny.

Um I had remembered um what I had forgotten before.

Um this process, though, also provides the general public another opportunity uh to voice the to voice their opinion on this as well, since it's being duly advertised in the Standard Times.

It's a public hearing here in the City Council chamber, correct?

Absolutely.

Okay, so it's another.

It's another fail-safe for that.

And I do understand um my my colleagues um thought process um when um who spoke before me when it comes to we can attend these different meetings, and a lot of us do when there's certain things that are coming up.

Um, you know, as uh as my colleague has said before, you know, we are part-time counselors, so sometimes it's not um you know conducive for some folks to go to that additional meeting, especially when we have they're going to be coming in front of us already for that same exact thing, correct?

I don't believe you people are part-time.

Thank you.

I don't I don't think so either.

Compared to you, we uh no, but it does afford them another opportunity to.

Okay, awesome.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Danny.

You're welcome.

That's all, Mr.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Counselor Giasta.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I was wondering who uh the good counselor from Ward 3 was talking about part-time.

Um So, Danny, how long is it typical for you to meet with somebody when they come in and ask about the permit process?

We talk to them right at the counter.

And how long?

So they they they'll know before they leave what the what they need.

How long does the meeting or the discussion last, more or less?

Oh, it depends on what they want to do at that uh particular area spot if it's the same thing that they want to go in.

Uh we give them an application and they're out of there within um 15 minutes.

Do they sometimes come back to you if there are other questions, or do you think that initial 15-minute discussion is enough?

Yeah, they can either call or come back uh as many times as they want.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Danny.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor Giesta.

Any other questions for Commissioner Romanowitz at this time?

Chair recognizes Councillor Baptiste.

Hi, Dawn.

Dan, how's everything today?

Thank you.

Um the question I want to ask is has there any been ever any been uh hiccups with how the process has been going now?

Is is it been smooth the way the process has been going?

Is it easier to go through planning and zoning than it is to go through City Council, or have you seen no real changes in the timeline where people would get a special permit?

Well, since two uh 2003, we've had a few that uh like on Belleville Avenue, they'll come in front of City Council and then they change their mind, they don't show up.

Other than that, um we've only had a few that we'd had to take to the licensing board uh if they were out of line and we got um uh complaints from uh um a fellow councilman.

Uh but other than that, it's straightforward.

All right, and and there's no difference within the timeline if there was to go to zoning or um or any other uh any other office before they uh or plan in before they come to us.

Well, if if you went through zoning, it's gonna be the same thing as as they got to wait 20 days for a right of appeal.

So it's gonna be the same amount of time.

Either either with the city council, planning department, or um zoning.

Uh thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Baptist.

Chair recognized counselor Abro.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Chairman.

Just a statement, I guess, not really a question, but the Ward 3 Counselor, in my opinion, kind of hit the nail on the head, and it was a point I wasn't even really thinking about when he had said, in my opinion, he's tap dead center on this.

Our meetings are covered by the media.

They're somewhat locally widely publicized and local radio, social media, the newspapers.

There's an extra chance for the constituency to come and weigh in on these issues.

The licensing board meetings, let's call it what it is.

No one knows about when they're happening, no one's going to them, okay?

I know they're on our website, but the level of just coverage between us and them is just not even night and day.

It's beyond that.

So I think he is absolutely correct.

It gives a chance for the constituency, if they have a concern, to come and weigh in on that and to come and talk to us if there are any concerns.

That was my statement on that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Counselor Abrew.

Any other questions for Commissioner Romanowitz?

Questions?

Okay.

The Chair has one question for Attorney Garatowski if the body doesn't mind.

Oh, okay.

Attorney Garatowski.

To better facilitate the rest of this meeting, I just would like you to clarify before I recognize my colleagues.

But can you clarify the what the current council's role is and what the current licensing board's role is?

Because they are not connected if I'm correct.

Well, so the the special permit is about use of the land.

So it says in the zoning code, it says for motor vehicles in all different ways.

Um sales, rentals, body repair.

Yeah, some the Board of Appeals needs to approve the special permit, like uh I think it's motor vehicle sales sales with a con repair with a convenience store or something like that.

There's several different things about, but basically the special permit is the zoning code saying, can you use this land for this purpose?

And the code requires that you get a special permit to do so.

Okay.

The licensing is they don't make any call about the use of the land.

They just say whether you can have a license to do that anywhere.

And so it's a separate license because it's just basically the license to do that kind of um activity, but it doesn't have anything to do with the use of the land.

So what the licensing board likely will do is before they give the person a license, they probably wait to see what types of restrictions the special permit, because they don't want to give them a license to do certain things, and then the the um city council or the board of appeals says, no, you can't do those things.

So they probably wait to see what restrictions are on the use of the land.

Um I don't think I think it was said that the that the building department denies the license, but denies the the permit.

But I don't think they deny really deny the application.

I think what Danny does is he looks and says, you can use that land for that purpose if you get a special permit.

He doesn't say I'm denying you, because it's really not a denial, just makes them apply for the special permit.

Um so it's really not technically a city denial.

It's just Danny looking at it and going, Oh, you want to use that land for that purpose, you've got to get a special permit.

I can't give you a I can't give you a building permit or an occupancy permit unless you get the special permit.

I think that's how it would work.

So it's not technically a denial.

Um just the quickly the difference between a variance, because I know the commissioner mentioned a variance, a variance is an exemption from the zoning code.

A special permit is compliance with the zoning code.

So the variance is a little bit different that um you're basically saying I can't conform to the zoning code.

I want a variance to because I can't do that.

So it's an exemption from the zoning law, where a special permit is basically saying, I'm complying with the zoning law.

I'm getting a permit based upon what the zoning law says.

Um there are several every it seems like everything having to do with motor vehicles requires some sort of special permit, whether it's for from the city council and others from the Board of Appeals.

So almost every motor vehicle type of use on land requires some sort of special permit.

And then my last question before I ask my colleagues, Attorney Garatowski.

If the council wants to cut the bu the bureaucratic red tape, it would be to allow these uses as of right, but that does not affect their abil that they still would need a license to operate with the licensing authority.

Those two things are independent of each other.

Correct.

So so for example, if you took away and you just said if you're going to do motor vehicle sales on a mixed-use business site, you would have a right to use your land for that, but then you'd still have to go get a license to do it.

Perfect.

You know, it's the same, for example, you know, if you the the sale of alcoholic beverages, for example, you have a right to operate.

I don't think you need a special permit for a for a liquor store, but you still need a license from the licensing board.

So you can use the land by right.

You don't need a special permit to have a liquor store if it's a business district, but you still need the license to be able to have a liquor store.

It's that that sort of thing.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

Councillor Burgo.

Okay.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions for Attorney Garatowski?

Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

Colleagues, is there any other discussion that we would like to have on this item?

Would we like any further information?

So this would be a change in chapter 9, which would require the calling of public hearings in both the planning board and this committee that have to get sent back to the council for that.

Does the body have any ideas on where they would like to proceed?

Motion refer to the full city council uh to take no further action.

Second.

Okay.

Motion to refer to the full city council for no further action was made.

Motion to table.

And a motion to table has been made.

Express it.

Thank you, Councillor.

Motion to table has been made.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Second.

All those in favor on tabling?

Say aye.

Roll.

Roll call vote has been requested?

Untabling.

Motion to table has been made by Councillor Burgos, seconded by Councillor Morat.

And a roll call vote requested.

The clerk will call the roll, please.

No.

No counselor, Council Baptist?

No.

No counselor tees, Councillor Burgo?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Burgo, Councillor Carney?

No.

No Council Carney, Councillor Troquette?

No.

No Council, Councilor Giesta?

No.

No Council Giesa, Councillor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Council Gomes, Councilor Hopes?

No.

No Council Lopes, Councilor Morrad?

Yes.

Yes, Council Morrad, Councillor Oliver.

No.

No Council Oliver, Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Fails.

Item fails.

Four to seven.

Four to seven.

Motion to refer to the full city council for no further action has been made by Councillor Oliver, seconded by Councillor Schocat.

Roll call vote.

On referring for no further action made by Council Oliver, seconded by Councillor Choquette.

Counselor Abrew?

Yes.

Yes, Council Abel, Councilor Baptist.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptist, Councillor Burgo.

No.

No, Council Burgo, Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Carney, Councillor Choquett.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Truquette, Councillor Giesta?

Yes.

He has Council GS to Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Gomes, Councillor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Lopes, Councillor Morad?

No.

No, Council Morrat, Council Oliver.

Yes.

He has Council Oliver, Council Pereira.

No red tape, no from me.

That um passes eight to three.

Passes eight to three.

Thank you, Commissioner Romanowitz and Clerk Farias.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

And take item four out of order.

And Mr.

Chair, the only reason I'm doing that is because, you know, there's somebody on item four that could go home before we have the discussion on the table of uses.

Sure.

Absolutely.

Item number four, without objection, it was a written motion, Councillor Lopes requesting that the committee on ordinances review and consider revisions to this current body art ordinance, specifically Section 4,000, special regulations section 4200.

Body art with the goal of updating the current provisions of the ordinance to reflect the current industry concerns.

It was referred to the committee on ordinances and the planning board on June 6, 2025.

And is now before you.

Motion to receive and place on file.

In motion to receive and place on file, the written motion has been made by Councillor Lopes.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Oliver.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose the ayes have it.

Counselor Lopes.

Can we hear from uh Stephanie Sloan from the Board of Health, please?

Bless you.

God bless you.

Um while she's making away, if I could have a motion to make sure that's the same.

Motion to receive and place and file the communication from the uh Planning Board.

Planning Board.

All right.

Motion to receive in place on file the communication from the planning board is made by Councillor Lopes, seconded by Councillor Gomes.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

Stephanie, good evening.

Good evening.

Counselor Lopes.

So, Stephanie, I know we have the planning board meeting.

You're here from the Board of Health.

During that meeting, it was discussed that they were okay with removing the distance between tattoo shops and other businesses, but leaving the parameters in place for no two tat two powers operating within the perimeter.

Does the Board of Health have any questions if that was to be adopted?

We don't have any concerns.

So as long as it meets all of the health requirements, the Board of Health is okay with whatever potential changes the planning board and the city council could make.

Correct.

Thank you.

No problem.

I'll set counselor.

Yes.

Thank you, Councilor Loops.

Any other questions?

Uh Chairbank, Councillor Morat.

Thank you.

Stephanie, um, I noticed the agendas of the Board of Health, and I see these are on a regular basis.

Have there been issues or concerns that the Board of Health has had in permitting uh any of these establishments over the last couple of years?

Uh body art establishments, no.

Um we have a pretty intensive um process and requirements around training and what they need to have in place.

Um and all of the establishments have complied thus far.

Um we also have oftentimes um the items that are coming before the board are for apprenticeship, so the approval of apprenticeships at these different facilities.

Okay.

And excuse my ignorance.

How often do they appear before you for a license renewal?

Uh so um they we we renew their license yearly, they come before the board for uh apprenticeships, or if it's a new place.

Wait, I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Say it again, please.

Sure.

Um they renew with us on a yearly basis.

We permit them on a yearly basis.

And do they actually appear or is it like the licensing board where it says no representation needed?

Um so if they are not having if we're not approving an apprentice or they're not a new facility, they don't need to come before the board for their permitting process.

They would fill out their permit, and then we would do um an inspection with them.

And you do an annual review on the and um have you had complaints that you needed to address with the current establishments, or has it been basically we by and large, I mean we get a complaint here or there, but by and large we have not received a ton of complaints.

And how many licenses do you currently have, do you know?

Um I don't know off the top of my head, but I can get that number for you.

Estimate.

Um I would say I want to say 13.

Thirteen.

But it might be more I can't do.

When you have a chance through the uh clerk's office if you wouldn't mind.

Yep.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you for answering my questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Morat.

Any other questions for Chair recognized Counselor Gomes?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Stephanie.

Um when you say um complaints, what what are they based on?

Um so we had one complaint um about apprentices that are moving from shop to shop.

So just concerns around the um supervision.

Um I think that's the that's actually the most recent concern that we've seen come through in probably the last two years.

Just because they were going from shop to shop.

What was the reason?

Do you have to hear that?

So it seems like it was you know, differences in perhaps personalities.

Um maybe better off phone in your own place.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

No problem.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Any other questions?

Counselor Lopes?

Not what Stephanie for the um planning office.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

So at this time, I believe uh uh I know Jen Carloni is not able to be with us.

She's doing uh she's having fun at home, but we'll call up um Matt McCarthy, assistant city planner.

Michael McGart, nothing.

I thought it was Mike because I'm awful with names.

It's Michael.

So uh Mike, thank you very much for being here.

Uh before uh Council Lopes is recognized.

Can you just give us a quick synopsis of what occurred at the planning department?

Sure.

Yeah.

So um the planning board received uh Counselor Lopes' uh referral.

Um they reviewed the ordinance and the staff report that was prepared on that.

Um counselor lopes expanded on his thoughts behind the referral a little bit, and uh the board discussed some recent uh zoning board of appeals cases where uh applicants had been denied because they fell within the separation distance from a a church.

Um so they had come before the board of appeals for an administrative appeal and they were denied again because the board uh recognized that the separation distance was measured correctly, and they were in fact within the circumference away from a church.

Okay.

And that's uh the the board discussed a little bit more about their uh feelings about if the church separation distance had been removed.

They all seemed comfortable with it as far as the other separation distances, I think, in terms of schools or between establishments.

Um they felt like that's uh more the responsibility of uh the council and whether or not the public has a feeling about that.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mike.

Chair recognized counsel loops.

Thank you.

So Mike, I want to appreciate your time and the time of the planning board.

We you know we had a conversation, I had conversation with the planning board during that entire you know, Zoom meeting, everyone on the planning board was comfortable with the removing of the distance um allowing businesses to grow.

We haven't seen any of the what we what people perceived would be nuisances associated with tattoo pilots in the city.

Um that there has been minor issues.

Um there's always the checks and balance between the Board of Health on a yearly basis and inspecting them and anything else.

So the planning board meeting where everyone was very um equal in regards to allowing businesses to flourish, bringing dead properties back online, but allowing to to change the ordinance to remove it in its entirety, not just reduce it, but to remove it in tiety is is I think really good for the industry, and and I appreciate the support that the planning board gave and for the the notes that were accompanying us today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Chair recognition, counselor Oliver.

Thank you thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you for being here today for uh representing uh Chen.

You're doing a great job.

Um for those that didn't see the Zoom uh meeting uh online and and whatnot.

The uh could you speak to perhaps the um the thought process as to the or the original thought process when this these provisions were put in um as to why uh we were um worried about um footage between uh certain establishments.

Sure.

Um I don't have uh Commissioner Romanowitz's uh longevity or memory on I haven't been here um since this was adopted, but I did go back and review some news articles about this.

Um it seems like first tattoos were uh banned in Massachusetts for about 63 years up until uh 2000.

Um they were legalized then and the all municipalities were left with uh the state's mandate to come up with some regulations if they so choose.

Um Bedford at the time, um, according to the reports in the Standard Times, uh there was some concern about um the concentration of body art establishments, um, the type of clientele or characters that they might uh um attract.

Um I think that's what led to the separation distances.

Originally they were relegated just to uh industrial areas, and then uh that ordinance was again revised to allow them in mixed-use business areas.

The separation distance was maintained.

I believe that was about 2007 where that occurred.

Um it seemed like from reviewing the articles at that time, people had seen now it had been a certain amount of time that tattoos had been allowed in Massachusetts.

There hadn't been these sort of negative impacts that um were predicted or um guessed at at the at the original um inception, and then um it slowly has seemed to um erode at the original ordinance.

Uh you know, last year uh the microblading came before the the council and that was uh excluded from the separation distances.

Okay, yeah.

So this sounds like something that has gone through many changes in since its inception.

It's a good ever-changing document almost.

Yeah.

Um tattoos are more widely accepted now.

Um I I I think I know what it was what the ordinance was trying to do before, and I agree that you know you shouldn't have two tattoo pilots across the street from each other or next door to each other and whatnot.

But um and maybe this is a a question for Commissioner Romanowitz, but is there many um folks who come in front of the planning board?

Um actually no, it is a question for uh Commissioner Romano, so I'll yield this time.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Chair recognized Council Giesta.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Not necessarily a question, but it is I do have a statement in the sense of this is in my ward.

Um and the reason why we put the language in the ordinance regarding distances was to protect the neighborhoods from certain um businesses that they weren't happy about.

And this is a neighborhood that is very used to having businesses around, you know, be it a bar, um, a restaurant, um, a treatment center.

So um, you know, I'm I'm somebody that believes that a neighborhood has the right to say yes or no to a business.

And that's one of the reasons why we put such language in the ordinance to protect businesses.

Um I'm sorry to protect uh the neighborhood and and I don't mean protecting because it's a bad thing.

Um but uh I understand I'm not here to speak ill of the business.

Um I have no problem with tattoos.

Um but there's a reason why we have the distances in the ordinance and that is to protect um the neighborhood and that's my first job as um award counselor.

So but thank you very much for being here, and that's the end of my statement at this time.

So thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor Giesta.

Any other questions for Assistant Planner McCarthy?

Then if the body will allow from the chair.

Mike, not Matt.

Um do you receive does your office receive a lot of applicants to open tattoo shops?

No.

Um I believe maybe it's about w one a year.

One a year.

So it's not like an abundance of the yeah.

Yeah, I think there's I think there's uh um maybe about 14 that have come since the ordinance has been adopted.

No, it says it exactly in the staff report.

Okay.

And then the the other thing that I would it's it's m more of a question than then uh more of a question in general, but my only concern and maybe you can uh regarding the staff report it says some of the separation distances other communities have had.

Did an do you know if any of them had it before and they repealed those distances?

Like they were at distances and then they removed it, or have they always don't uh they've always never had distances?

That's unclear.

Uh they only had access to their action.

Fair enough.

The only reason I bring that up is because I have concerns for the existing businesses who had to comply with these dimensional requirements.

And if we're not creating an unfair advantage for them now because they had to maybe possibly get higher rent or buy a building just to comply.

And then if we change that around, are we are we not increasing just they're now at a disadvantage because they they did it right.

They complied with the rules, and now we're we're taking those rules away so that we could have more of them and increasing their competition and making it easier for their competition.

That's one point of view, I would say uh that they didn't.

D did have to comply with the ordinance.

Sure.

And that's why I was just concerned about other um uh municipalities if they removed them, because I was curious to see how that might have gone over in their towns, but I I I understand that's difficult to find out.

Um other questions for Mr.

McCarthy?

All right.

Seeing none.

I know Danny wasn't invited on this issue.

I'm sorry, Councillor Oliver.

But I will if I don't see any opposition from the body if if the commission doesn't mind to come up and speak on this.

Okay.

We'll we'll note that for the record, but the chair will ignore that objection.

Danny, thank you for being uh able to speak on this.

I I apologize for not inviting you to this.

Uh counselor Oliver.

Thank you thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Danny, thank you.

Uh do these um businesses come to you first before uh planning?

To see if a building uh conforms?

Yes, they do.

Okay.

How many of those do you would you say that we turn away?

Uh is there a substantial amount that you get that your office gets?

About a half a dozen.

So about a half a dozen yearly, you would say?

No.

No.

Half a dozen total have been since 2003 or whatever.

What are you saying?

Okay.

Uh how many years is that uh okay.

That's all I wanted to know to see if there was uh, you know, uh if we're turning a lot of businesses away because we weren't conform the the the properties that they were interested in were just not um you know con conforming.

Those are the ones that have at least sought interest, not the ones that obviously we'll never know the ones that just were thinking about it and read that it wasn't able to be had within X amount of distance.

So um but thank you for for being able to remember that.

Thanks.

That's all, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Oliver.

Any questions for Commissioner Romanowitz?

Okay.

Oh, Councillor Gomes, sorry.

Oh.

That's what he said.

Danny.

Since the inception of these tattoo powers and the granting of the neighborhoods that they are in.

Have you ever had a problem?

What's that?

I can't hear you.

I'm sorry.

Have you had any problems since 2003 with any of the tattoo powers that we have across the city?

We've had just a couple of complaints, minor complaints.

Tattooing people could see, but they we brought it back to council and and we we changed it.

Other than that, nothing.

Not much at all.

They're all professionals.

Yes, they are.

Yeah.

Something that back in 2003, many people didn't think that granting the first uh tattoo parlor in the city thought that we could um accomplish that in the city and that these people were not professional and they were going to draw some ugly people and bad people.

And that's not the case in scenario.

We're going on from 18 to 80.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Councillor Lopes.

Any other questions for Commissioner Romanowitz?

Okay.

Thank you, Danny.

You're welcome.

Mike, if you don't mind coming back up to the mic.

Chair recognizes Councillor Baptiste from Mike.

Sorry about that, Linda.

Sorry, Mike.

I know you had a good seat up over there.

I didn't need for you to give up again.

I just I just wanted to ask a question.

I should have asked it before because I had it on my mind.

Do you think the ordinance as it stands matches the time from when it was made to where it is right now?

Do you think that some of them, some of the rules are a little older, seeing how prevalent uh tattoo parlors are now, seeing how um artists uh are growing their businesses more often now?

Do you think that um do you think there's a difference in how like how the the rules were written in 2003 than how it actually is in 2005?

Like is there any changes that you would think that you would like to make to the ordinance that you think is a little outdated?

Sure.

So um I think the the planning board discussion sort of summarizes what the the um perception change has been.

The the board spoke about that pretty much exclusively about how things have changed and you know, pe people uh feel a little bit more comfortable getting tattoos.

There are people that you would never thought would have had a tattoo at that time or any type of body art, because it uh let's I I'll remind everyone that it does the ordinance actually includes piercing places and other other things other than just tattoo parlors.

Uh the um the the board felt that there had been a change, and that's why I they expressed to uh at the meeting that they would be supportive of a change to the ordinance.

Um terms of the planning department's perspective, uh the separation distances exist.

Uh they provide that sort of control about um where things can concentrate, what they have to be separated from, schools, churches, child care facilities.

Um there is still a special permit process through the zoning board, um, which I I don't believe that you all have uh discussed and wasn't discussed at the planning board uh removing that.

And I'll note in the staff report a lot of communities still maintain that.

So there is a a mechanism through that to address some neighborhood character concerns, but um as Councillor Giester expressed before, you know, there is that concern about concentration or locating um near these sort of sensitive facilities.

Um it's really um at I would leave it up to the opinion of this body on whether or not that their constituents feel that way.

Um from a land use perspective, um it's uh I don't think there's a uh another reason other than to keep up um them away from those facilities that they have to set have a separation distance from or from concentrating in one uh business strip or commercial corridor.

I I I see I see um like I I I agree with that, right?

Within the within the neighborhood aspect, but I think that when we're in like business districts, I think that it should be a little bit more open to have more tattoo parlors.

You know, instead of having one like we have one downtown.

Nothing against the one that we have downtown, but you know, that's a prime place that other people would want to have you know, tattoo parlors, not telling people to go downtown and just get tattoo parlors.

But you know, when you go to other cities, um you see them in neighborhoods like that.

You see one maybe a block or two down, half a block down, like so.

You know, th those are the things that I get concerned with with like more businesses in a business district than as far as businesses and a neighborhood where there is churches and schools and different things like that.

So that's that's why I think the ordinance should change a little bit.

That's just my opinion.

So thank you.

I'm sorry for having you up here, but thank you for your answer.

And I yield.

Thank you, Councillor Baptiste.

Oh, Mike, don't go too far.

Counselor Morat.

Yeah, Matt, Mike.

Um maybe I misunderstood you originally, but did you not indicate in your comments when you started that the planning board's recommendation was to remove the distances and to remove um the neighbor the types of facilities they could be located next to?

So did I misunderstand you?

I'm sorry.

Maybe I misspoke, but the the board's focus at in their discussion was primarily on the separation distances between tattoo parlors and churches.

So that that was kind of the there was a um a tattoo artist that came.

She had um she was one of the tattoo artists that uh got denied an administrative appeal because she was too close to a storefront church.

And the the board's discussion seemed to revolve a lot around the storefront church issue and um how they're in mixed-use business districts and contribute to that that buffer effect.

Um there were some specific comments about um making sure that if they were gonna the separation distance was gonna be removed from schools, um that that should be uh of a broader discussion held by the council um and when a new order is child care facility residences on that issue, no, no, specifically to churches.

No, no, no recommendation was really requested, so just their a summary of their review is what was in the memo.

Okay, thank you, Mike Matt Mike.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Mulrad.

Any questions for Mike right now?

Okay.

Councilor Lopes.

So I just want to get clarification from attorney Guratowski because I'd like to make a related motion today that we amend chapter 4200, section nine of body to remove the word church from the sentence.

I just want to make sure that we can start the process today.

Attorney Gartunski to the podium, please.

Chair recognized counselor lopes.

Thank you.

So attorney Guratowski, if I was to make a related motion that we amended that we amend um 4320, 4220 of chapter 9 on the body yard, and we just remove the circle where has a radius of 200 feet from any property being used as a church.

We would leave the schools, the child care, we're just removing the word church.

So you want to leave the schools in the child care for school.

Yep, just remove the word church.

You would just ask that the ordinance committee um send to the city council because it's gonna have to go to the council get get referred to planning board and ordinance committee for public hearings because it's zoning.

So you would basically all you want to do is in section 4220 of chapter 9, strike the words or church, wherever it may appear.

Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Groutowski.

Thank you.

I'll set counselor lopes?

Yes.

Okay, colleagues, any further discussion on this?

Council Lopes?

I'd like to make a related motion in section 4220 separation distance that we will remove the word or church from 4220 separation distance.

Second.

Or we strike the word church, whatever the the clerk wants the to write.

Strike the word church.

Or church, sorry.

Okay.

So related motion in whatever section, Councilor.

4220.

4220.

4220.

Strike the word or church.

Made by Councilor Lopes.

That was second by Councillor Gomes.

I mean discussion on the matter.

Okay.

President Burgo.

Yeah, I just I uh the only thing I would say on the matter is that as we heard from the the commissioner, and I think even from um Mr.

McCarthy, that this is not a a big issue.

I believe um it's not something that we need to change at this time.

And I think something that we overwhelmingly heard in the with the last motion that we really shouldn't be taking away the power of a granting authority.

And I think at this time I wouldn't want to see any changes uh to such an ordinance uh because we should be really concerned about our constituents and the safety in our neighborhoods.

And so at this time I think we should leave this ordinance alone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other debate on the item?

You're going to speak.

Okay.

All those in favor say roll call vote has been requested on the related motion.

Clerk will call the roll.

On the related motion made by Councilor Loebs, seconded by Councillor Gomes, Councillor Abreu?

No.

No counselor Abraham, Councilor Baptiste?

No.

No Council Baptiste, Council Burgo?

No.

No, Council Virgo, Councillor Carney.

No.

No, Council Carney, Councilor Triquette.

No.

No, Councilor Triquette, Councillor Giesta?

No.

No, Councilor Giosta, Councillor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes, Council Lobes.

Yes.

Yes, Council Hopes, Council Morrad?

No.

No Council Morrad, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes, Council Oliver, Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Item bills three to eight.

Yep.

Motion to take no further action and recommend to the full city council.

Second.

Motion referred item four, the full city council.

For no further action made by Councillor Morrad.

Second by Councillor Giesta.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

The ayes have it.

Okay.

Without objection, I will take items one, one A, and two together.

No objection.

All right.

Clerk will call.

We'll clerk read items one, one A, and two.

Number one is a public hearing on a related motion, Council Morat and Cardney requesting that the City Council order the committee on ordinances and the planning board.

Hold public hearings relative to the definition of section 1200 of the city code and appendix A table of principal use regulations.

It was referred from the committee on ordinances on May 28, 2025.

It was referred on June 12, 2025.

It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, August 11th, 2025, and Monday, August 18, 2025.

One A.

Here's a communication.

Jennifer Carlone, Director of City Planning to Councillor Ryan J.

Pereira.

Chairman Committee on Ordinances advising that the planning board held a public hearing on Wednesday, July 9th, 2025, to discuss a request made by the city council for the planning board to hold a public hearing relative to the definitions and appendix A.

Table of Principal Use Regulations Section 1200 of the Zoning Court Code Chapter 9.

Given the request was to hold a public hearing and not to specifically make a recommendation.

The communication also contains a presentation titled zoning overview use table dated June 16, 2025.

Addendum A, detailed summary of the zoning use table changes and addendum B, use tables as amended on May 28, 2025, and was referred on July 25th, 2025.

Two is a related motion, Councillors Morrad Carney, Oliver Beptees, Giester, Pereira, Combs, and Lopes requesting that the Committee on Ordinances hold a meeting within the next 30 days where a formal presentation by City Planner Jennifer Carlone and City Solicitor Eric Jakes will detail all the changes to coding definitions and principal uses that were made to the table of principal use regulations previously adopted by the city council on November 26, 2024.

It was referred from the committee on May 28, 2025.

One, one A and two are now before you.

Motion to receive in place on file items 1, 1A, and 2 and open the public hearing has been made by Councillor Burgo.

Second.

Second by Council Oliver.

Any discussions?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Colleagues, the chair would also be in receipt of a motion to receive and place on file this document.

Made by Councillor Burgo.

Seconded by Councillor Abrau.

Any discussion on the presentation being received and placed on file.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Colleagues, I would just like to point out that while item number two requested a uh a meeting be held within 30 days.

The chair thought it to be more uh um cordial to our staff uh to hold the public hearing with the planning board first and then call everyone in at one point shot to talk about this and uh because these are all matters uh uh in public hearing, any I believe we can get clarifications from attorney garotowski recommendations that are made tonight could go to the council for final action.

Um at this time I would like uh to have uh Mike McCarthy come back up to the podium and begin a presentation that they the planning department has worked hard to put together for us.

Point of information, Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

Did I just understand you to say that should this body decide that it wanted to make changes to the principal use table at this meeting?

That could be done.

I believe so, councillor.

I will have attorney Garetowski clarify, but we are in a public hearing in chapter in this exact section.

So I believe we could do that.

Yes.

Is it possible that we can ask Attorney Garatowski to I don't know where he is at the moment, but we will get that clarified?

Okay, thank you.

Yes, but we'll let Mike's at the presentation and we'll get that clarified to you.

Yes, Counselor.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

So the presentation I'm gonna give is in the packet before you.

I'm gonna Anne's gonna help me.

The other one.

So this is uh the presentation that was sent on the 16th uh and that Jen um presented before the July planning board meeting.

Um it is organized into these uh sections.

It starts um for the public's information and for the planning board's information.

We discussed the uh zoning 101 um an overview of how zoning works.

It's based on zoning districts, which are fed into by principal uses and then supported by dimensional regulations and parking and loading requirements.

Next slide.

So the zoning rules help the city um organize itself by deciding what types of buildings and activities can be can happen in different areas.

Um in order to do so, cities divided into zones or districts, which are represented on our zoning map here.

Um typically these districts are organized around residential, commercial, mixed use or industrial zones, and then specific uses are assigned to them uh in the use table.

Um the specific meanings in the use table.

Um I think you're all familiar.

They were discussed at length tonight on the previous two items.

Uh a buy right use, it's a use that's allowed without having to get any additional permitting or or any there are no additional zoning recommendations regulations requiring permission.

Um those are denoted as a Y or a Yes in the table.

A special permit is granted by the special permanent granting authority.

Um that's either a city council, a planning board, or a zoning board of appeals.

Um those are designated by an SP or a BA or a PB or a C C in the table.

And then um a no is an N, and that it means the use is not allowed.

Uh in addition to the use table, um our specific zoning districts have their own dimensional requirements.

Um these tell uh people how far a building can be from the property line, um, how much green space is required, and even specific things about the um building, like how many uh dwelling units are allowed per square foot.

And then finally, um there is the parking uh table.

Uh this takes specific uses and assigns a required parking number and loading requirement to each use.

Um, and that is uh administered by the um the zoning commissioner when he reviews uh an application for a building permit.

Uh so I will uh we I think we've gone over the uh the timeline uh earlier, but uh just to refresh everyone's memory.

Uh here it is on the next slide.

Oh the next slide.

Uh so this is just the timeline of how this particular uh use table revision was adopted, began uh well began its story began a lot uh longer before uh 2024.

Um but it was presented to the council, referred to the planning board in September uh 24, uh appeared in the before the ordinance committee in October, uh was back to the council in October, uh, and then appeared for a second reading in November and was uh signed by the mayor on December 5th of last year.

Uh on May 28th, uh this ref referral was made while we're here before you tonight, and I believe you all uh passed a um uh or ordained uh an edit to the use table to uh revert RA back to single family only uh last Thursday.

So that would be the only addendum here.

Uh so now uh we have this uh summary of the changes to the table.

Um it's organized like this.

The in red there was an existing use term, green uh has a new or a revised use term, and then there is just some clarifying information in the blue panel on the right hand side.

Yeah.

Can I answer that?

You can I would ask the council at this time.

This is if you have the printed version in front of you.

Um it's it's pretty dense.

If you if you want us to go through every change line by line, we're happy to do so.

Unless you if there's counselors who have specific questions on specific items, we could answer those directly.

It's it's totally up to you being conscientious of your your time.

I think Mike Matt, I think you did a good job.

We're almost through.

Do you want to go through line by line?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh so here are the uh the the residential use changes.

Um this is just maybe uh clearing up some language uh this in adopting the uh MBTA community act um overlay for Kings Highway.

The state showed a preference to use the term household instead of family.

Those single and two family households were updated.

Um we separated townhouses from multifamily.

Um and then uh these last three multifamily categories in the old use table had what we determined uh were really dimensional requirements in their titles, um which was better reflected in the uh the dimensional table later on.

So those are combined, and then um by district we can break out um which how many stories are the height requirements that are allowed.

Um Mr.

Chick, can we ask questions as we go along or do we have to go back?

Uh I'm happy to take questions.

Yeah, I think that the chair would at this time allow questions while we have the slide up.

I think would probably make it more sense than having to flip back and forth eight thousand times.

So we'll let uh Mike present the slide and then we can ask questions on at that time.

Sounds good.

Mike, any other question, any other info for this slide?

No.

And I mean it's all on the screen.

I sure I don't ask the question, Mr.

Chair recognizes Council Morrow.

What's the difference between a townhouse and a row house?

Um so that's a specific debt definition there.

A townhouse would be um I I'd have to go to the actual definition, uh, which I believe I have.

It's just uh uh architectural terminology.

Uh a row house would be uh houses that are connected uh sort of in the traditional like brownstone on a horizontal way.

Townhouses uh would be vertical.

Would be what?

Vertical.

And that this doesn't speak to how many townhouses you can have in a row.

No, that would be uh regulated by the um the residential density in the use table.

I mean the dimensional table.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Colleagues, if you have questions while we see the slides, just wave and I'll recognize you.

Thanks, Mike.

All right.

Uh lodging uses.

Uh we previously had bed and breakfast, uh, hotel, motel, and inn were categorized all together.

Um we revised the bed and breakfast to include in.

Um it introduced the hostel um use, which is a special permit use, and then um broke out the hotel by size, so that allows uh a little bit more discretion and permitting by district.

I think you'll find throughout this table that is probably the largest um type of change that occurred here.

There were sort of these super categories that combined um a lot of uses, and they were divided up to give the uh use table more discretion and permitting.

Mr.

Chair?

Councilor Lopes.

Okay.

Counselor Morrad.

No, that's myferring to you as well.

Hostile.

My question.

Overnight.

Yeah.

It's an establishment offering shared sleeping accommodations for a fee with access to communal facilities like a bathroom, kitchen, or lounge for stays of 30 days or less.

So it's like an A or B and B.

Uh no, it would be uh um sort of um a smaller scale hotel, more with like a dormitory-style sleeping arrangement, um, where there are shared rooms and you essentially rent a bunk.

Um the ordinance definition does require these to be uh affiliated with a national or international hostel uh organization and had to have an employee on site at all times.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, counselor.

Okay.

Uh we have the general services commercial category.

Uh here, as we talked about earlier tonight, we had body art establishments.

Those were never in the use table before.

Now they're in the use table and they're um in the districts that they're regulated by in the ordinance.

Um we've also added moving services, uh maintenance and repair of consumer goods and property management and repair.

Um these are new uses that didn't really fit into old categories and now are allowed in certain areas not to encroach on residential neighborhoods.

We also broke out animal clinic and hospital into the three categories of veterinary and commercial kennel and animal clinic or hospital.

And those allow for a little bit more nuance and um the ones that could be a potential nuisance like a commercial kennel are now regulated by a special permit.

Uh the retail uses, um, this is a good example of the superuse category, uh, retail stores and services not elsewhere set forth.

Um was expanded, was not removed, but it uh these are an example of some of the categories that would have fit in had to be fit in there.

Uh we didn't have a liquor store category in the use table, weaponry store, drug paraphernalia store or pet shop building home supply.

And then grocery store was expanded to convenience store, grocery store, and supermarket, and those are based on the size of the establishment.

Eating and drinking establishments.

Before this was just uh a traditional sit-down restaurant or a fast food and takeout establishment.

We've now created categories for a bar or a tavern, a brew pub, a neighborhood cafe, a food hall or a public market, microbrewery with a tasting room, and created new categories for a brewery, distillery, sigatory or winery, and a caterer or wholesale food production.

Those are more uh industrial scale um uses.

Council Giesta.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Can you just expand on what a brew pub is and a neighborhood cafe?

What's the work?

Sure.

Uh so a brew pub is a uh a facility if I have the definition here, or if I can find it.

If I can't have a tattoo box, you can't have a brew pub is it's a new use.

I I don't have the definition right here in this packet, but it is a um essentially like uh the Moby Dick down on uh on Union Street.

They brew their own beer uh there and serve it.

Um and you can also purchase a s a limited amount to take home and consume.

Yeah, they don't and but uh the ordinance does not allow them to do uh wholesale production uh at the brew pub.

And a neighborhood cafe is a cafe, I believe under 2,000 square feet.

Um takeout.

It doesn't do takeout and has a limited um selection of food items for sale.

How about seating?

Is there any seating inside or outside?

Limited seating?

Limited seating, limiting limited seating and limited menu.

Destination sips.

Yes.

Yeah.

So no seating in the outside.

Well that that would have to go through the cafe seating license.

I'm the definition could be expanded to prohibit it.

I'm just concerned about ADA.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, that's because we we're seeing a lot of restaurants now having little tables and chairs outside on the sidewalk.

So I just wanted to make sure that you know we're within the ADA compliance here.

Yeah, and uh so I would uh I would uh uh I share that concern and uh through this the cafe seating permit, um, they have to provide a plan that demonstrates that they can s uh save three feet of sidewalk open on pre-88 access.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Council Giesta.

Mr.

Chair?

Yep.

Can you define food hall or public market?

Sure.

Do you have the definition there?

Thank you, Ann?

All right.

A food hall or a public market is an indoor food court or space where food products are made by local artisans or a local kitchens and food vendors are marketed and sold.

So uh essentially a place where small scale establishments can uh can sell food and there would be uh you know, you you could walk through and buy uh different items from different uh different establishments.

And they are prepared in that place, Mike?

Yeah, yes.

That's what I'm asking.

Yeah.

So it's prepared somewhere else.

And then sold there.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Oppes.

Thank you, uh Chairman.

So a couple years ago there was a discussion in regards to the restaurants, the bars, the taverns, the brew pubs.

Several of them wanted to have the ability to open up their doors onto the street.

Like the old catwalk.

And the building department said the planning board said there was no health department.

Okay.

So that would have to go back to the health department then.

They're not enforcing the enforcing it.

Okay.

So if somebody went and pulled for a permit, they'd be able to start right now.

Okay.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for the time.

Thank you.

Mike, next one.

Uh so here is uh art, sports, and creative enterprise.

Uh there's new definitions for a broadcast or recording studio.

Um artists and production and creative studio, museum was never previously a definition, and shared creative workspace and arts education.

Um we also refine the definitions for conference center and um convention center and commercial recreation now has commercial indoor and commercial outdoor.

Um and then there are new uses for flat floor event space, arenas, and sports complexes.

Um then those would require uh special permit.

Okay.

Uh motor vehicle uses uh as it was discussed earlier tonight.

Um the only real change here was that these uh the all the previous uses stayed in and the motor vehicle sales and rental use um was broken out into rental and sales and service.

Um and now we added new definitions for a car share parking facility, structured parking facility like a parking garage, um, a commercial surface parking facility, uh dispatch service like for an ambulance or a taxi, and uh a moving vehicle shared parking facility, um sort of like a U-Haul where they they drop off and you can pick up.

Uh civic and institutional, um we can bind hospital and nursing home, recognizing that these are 24-7 medical facilities that require similar needs and have a potential for a similar neighborhood impact.

Um essential services was broken out into public uh utility facility and public utility service with a larger scale facility requiring planning board review, and we added a new um category for community center, which is uh sort of a recreational or cultural activity made available to the public.

Uh the industrial category.

Um here we broke out the warehouse and wholesale, self-storage mini-warehouse facility into the subcategories, uh self-storage facility, uh, warehouse wholesale trade and distribution and warehouse alone.

Um another element to the uh the the use table update was um particularly for industrial uses, there's these performance criteria.

So those allow during site plan review, um, the planning board to review those criteria and standards and make sure that they are uh presented in the site plan, particularly with site circulation and um uh impact on neighbors.

Uh water freight terminal was updated to freight terminal, and um there later we'll see the uh marine use category has one for uh marine freight.

And then we added recycling collection facility, biomass recycling, garbage incineration, and dry cleaning or laundry service.

Um a lot of these, especially like uh garbage incineration was added um so it could be prohibited in all districts.

Uh a use that Council Shook.

Hey, just quick question.

If uh I wanted to build a trash recycling facility that collected bottles and cans.

And what what use would that fall under up there?

Just curious.

I believe that would be recycling collection facility.

Is that the only thing that they could come in under?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay.

Um I that I will say Commissioner Romanowitz is the uh the final word on interpreting the uh the the use table and the use definitions, though.

Who do I'm sorry, who does?

Danny.

Oh, Danny, at the time of uh submission of a building as the zoning commissioner, that's his his uh his determination.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well said.

Thank you.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Okay.

Uh marine related uses.

Uh these were all spread out throughout the table and now they're collected into one uh subsection of the table.

Uh light manufacturing previously included seafood packaging and distribution, and now um that has been broken out into its own category.

Uh we've added a use for a shipyard, boat yard and shipbuilding and boat building.

Uh maritime trade, which uh represents sort of the the um the supportive services that happen on our waterfront, aquatic equipment equipment rental, like renting a kayak or a boat for the day, and uh waterfront storage and distribution facility, um which is just uh the water dependent version of the land to side one.

And fish processing was updated to seafood processing and handling, recognizing that we deal with more than just uh fish in the city.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Moritz So Mike, you might answer this question down the road, and if you're gonna just tell me you will, but light manufacturing on the table had um where it was allowed and who approved it, etc.

When you added all these categories in, not only on this slide but all the other slides, you kept those same um areas they could be in in the approving authorities.

To the best of my knowledge, yes, we did.

Uh this is actually the last slide.

So uh I'll I'll take questions uh generally if you all have them.

Or if there's a specific item you want to revisit.

Um Mr.

Chairman.

So I just want to I I just want to do that.

No, kidding.

Are you kidding?

I can hear you fine.

That's good.

I'm glad.

So I'm just I just want to I want to make sure that you said generally, but why would there be a case where you had a prior use and you changed either the zone where it could be in and or the approving authority?

Right.

I want to look at one example that I know of off the top of my head because I I caught it.

Um bigger.

No, this is good.

Uh assisted living facility.

Um previously was a uh in our use table.

Uh the old version was a board of appeals.

Um it's on the first page in the second grouping next.

Um that was listed as board of appeals.

The ordinance, the special regulation for assisted living actually designates that authority to the planning board.

Um and there were a few instances like this where the ordinance conflicted with the with what was listed in the use table.

So you were making corrections.

We made some corrections.

I'm okay with that.

I'm just looking to see if there were any changes that were made.

I don't believe we changed anything away.

Uh I know we assigned some more to the council um for particularly uh sensitive uses for the neighborhood, like drug paraphernalia store or uh a weaponry store are now a special permit for the council.

We couldn't we didn't want to bring those on without some sort of special.

Maybe not for tonight, but is it possible that you could detail those for us?

Sure.

I can follow up with the clerk on that.

Yep, and then you could just send it through the office.

So that would just show was it only the approving authority, or was it uh actually also the zones where things could be that you changed?

Sure.

Both in some instances, as you uh as you previously um discussed at the uh the May meeting, there were some uses that were expanded to other categories, but um other than that duplex use, uh I can't think of any off the top of my head.

So if you find any if you could detail those as well, I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Did you get that, Clerk Lawrence?

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor Moread.

Chair recognized Counselor Baptiste.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, the uh the issue I had coming up lately and my ward is um of mixed use with the four-story condominium going in on in the West End.

Um I know the ordinance and how it's always been the zoned um was from multiple, multiple years ago.

And in that time, a lot of things have changed, but the zoning hasn't and is now allowing multiple, like have this go in, right?

So now if we have a small condominium going that's four stories, right?

That and say the lot across the street gets sold.

There could be a small hotel going in there because of the the use of the because of the zoning.

So we're trying to um get rid of that zoning in that area so that it don't start building up, it don't get out of control, it's super congested right now.

Um, and and and that's a big concern for the people in that in that ward in that specific area.

And that's been you know, um brought to my attention as of late, how how different the zoning is going up through the neighborhood, which is uh predominantly houses and not used to having big buildings and you know, other than Temple Inn and which has always been there right since what 74, 75.

And um so now, you know, with with how the zoning is right now, we're concerned about the the wording on it because the way the zoning was before, what was it for?

Um and we spoke about the different things about tenements and storefronts and you know there's not a lot of them over there anymore.

Yeah.

You know, and now sort of those those vestiges of uh the neighborhood shop.

What?

That's sort of like the the the corner store zoning.

That that it was corner store zoning before.

Yeah.

Right.

So now when you're making it corner store zone zoning and it don't change after times changing, we only have one, maybe two cornerstones in that area, two corner stores in that area.

Umbody's looking for corner stores any anymore, and then nobody's building four corner stores anymore.

And um so when the zoning never got changed, now it's opened up for people to build bigger buildings in a congested area, which is normally um used as, you know, if you look at all the buildings around it besides Temple Land and everything is, you know, if it ain't a three-family house, it's small one, two-floor apartments, mostly affordable.

Some of them are you know multifamily, like I said, single family.

And that's gonna change the whole dynamic.

And so how do we look to changing that language from 1970 something to get storefronts and to now where we're trying to switch that up?

Ann and I were discussing this earlier.

She has a good answer for this one.

So thank you for that question.

Um for the audience, uh, the city council and the general public audience, um, councils Baptiste's uh concern is relative to some commercial corridors that we have throughout the city.

Um Kempton Street, Dartmouth Street, um major commercial corridors like the Avenue, they're zoned uh mixed-use business.

Um and that zoning does go back decades.

Um there is a mix of residential.

Residential is a use as of right allowed in mixed-use business, but it also allows for mixed-use business allows for a higher scale of residential.

So in your particular case of a project, a proposed project is four stories.

The table of uses that we're um we're presenting now, I want you to think as the uh the the footprint of the city zoning going forward.

It's very it's it's general, it has its zones which are again very general, residential, mixed-use business, uh commercial, industrial.

What we will be presenting to you very shortly um within the next month or two, is an initiative that I know a lot of you are very familiar with because it's kind of been ongoing for a decade, is form-based code.

Um that's a form-based zoning ordinance that's going to be coming before you.

And in that particular case, what form-based code does, it zones to the form of the architecture, the form of the building contextually to its neighborhood.

So even though the property may zone be zoned, mixed-use business, allowing as of right a four or five-story building, if it's within that farm-based co-district, which has smaller sub-districts within it, which allows the um planning to be more on a micro-neighborhood level so that it fits the character.

So even though the general zoning may allow for it, if it's within that form-based code district, it would then require it to be in context to its adjacent neighborhoods.

So in that particular case, a two and a half story building may have been more appropriate.

So I do want to warn you that we are rolling out form-based code.

We would rather have no building at all.

And had what?

I'd say we would rather have no building at all and make that space sort of like abolition roll.

Yeah, absolutely.

You know, and and uh in a in a good word, uh, you know, in a you know, as as far as the uh significance of the history of the civil rights movement.

But but but you know what I'm saying.

You know, you know what I'm getting at, you know what I'm saying?

But answering to what neighborhoods' concerns and what we hear from neighborhoods is uh is this appropriate scale to my neighborhood?

And that's what form-based code answers to because it's looking at the form of the buildings.

Um I do do want to caution that we're rolling it out in three areas the downtown, Akushina Avenue, um, county street count the south part of County Street and Rivett Street.

And that's a precursor, hopefully, to kind of get a feel for how it works.

Those are areas that are right for infill.

So form-based code does in address very effectively appropriate infill development, um, but then rolling it out citywide.

So I I'm just bringing up your particular project that you have concerns for that form-based code zoning would be responsive to that situation, not doing an overall zoning change, because A, you've got to be careful of spot zoning, and B, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You know, if you want to get rid of all mixed-use business, you know, zoning in a corridor, then it has ripple effects too.

So form-based code may be the answer to that kind of micro-neighborhood zoning.

We'll talk about that at another time.

I just wanted to uh express my concern with with stuff like that.

You know, and um and I know the the the the corridor is a busy corridor, but in certain areas it's it's busier than others.

So that's that's what we worry about and when it comes to a resident into more the residential part of Campton Street, not the you know, the storefront part of Kempton Street.

But we'll talk about that later.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Counselor Baptist.

Chair recognized Counselor Abro.

Thanks a bunch, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening.

I'm looking here at all this.

I'm just wondering where do short-term rentals or Airbnbs fit into any of this if at all.

So sh we uh had previously been advised by the solicitor's office that that is not an uh a topic to be handled by zoning because it's uh something that somebody does within their home.

Can you go a little bit closer to the microphone so we'd previously been uh advised by the solicitor's office that that is not a uh a particular use to be handled by zoning since it it allows someone it's it's not particularly a home business.

It's uh it wouldn't know it where it would fit in the use table wouldn't have been clear I mean there's there's also a licensing component about that um which is uh how we were previously advised on how to uh how to address the Airbnb issue.

I I guess I don't see the delineation between Airbnbs which are short-term rentals or hostels which are also short-term rentals.

I know it's a shared space but an Airbnb is also a shared space you're sharing a kitchen at the house.

You're sharing the bathroom at that house you know what I mean it's uh if I could clarify a hostel is is essentially a I think it's better to look at it as a a hotel where you rent a bed rather than a room.

But there's a sh but as you said and then I'm well aware what hostels are they all over Europe.

There's a shared kitchen, there's a shared dining room if you will or there's a shared toilet you know bathroom so that's what I was trying to make the comparison I know what you mean but I just we we have a problem with Airbnbs in the city.

I'm sure you are aware of that.

Council Pereira and I are dealing with that a lot in the South end.

People are renting them out on the peninsula so it's something we'll have to handle I guess um separate from this but I just wondering yeah the the advice that we had gotten through uh through one of the uh attorneys in um Solicitor Jake's office was that uh uh creating a licensing scheme for uh short term rentals would probably be the most effective way to handle it from an enforcement perspective um so we opted not to look into adding it here.

All right well we'll have to do some work on our own then to get that get that going.

Yeah that Mr.

Chairman you heard that right?

Yes.

So we'll have to get to work on that.

All right Mr.

Chairman I'll yield thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognized Council Giasta.

Uh thank you Mr.

Chairman on the light manufacturing it says here new uses to capture the variety of industrial and recreational activities on the waterfront with specific consideration for land use keeping recreational uses out of the working waterfront.

Are we definitely going to be doing that?

We're keeping that sort of item outside of the working waterfront because I don't want to see any more um of the waterfront being used for items other than fishing or what it should be used for.

That's on the I see it so uh in the actual table the the um the aquatic equipment rental I think is what's uh being addressed there.

So that would be uh it's a it is a yes in the waterfront industrial um given that it it can't really occur anywhere else and then we have uh bo oh it's a board of appeals use for a marine recreational facility which was the that's the the uh the the the point of that sentence in the that slide so you would need a special permit from a with the board of appeals to do a marine recreational facility out of the on the waterfront.

On the in a waterfront industrial zone yeah which is uh most of our waterfront and uh also the the uh and why would we even allow that yeah sort of sort of a bo a boat or a jet ski rental um there it really could only occur on the waterfront um and there was never a use category for it before I'm not uh I I don't think that's a very smart idea.

I I think that's a really bad idea.

But that's my personal opinion.

And I'm sure there are a few colleagues here that also agree.

In fill zoning could you explain exactly what that is?

Sure.

So an infill zoning ordinance or uh what Ann spoke about as a component of form-based code would allow for certain exceptions to the to the dimensional requirements within a district if you met the form or the dimensional uh setbacks and size of the lots on either side of you.

So you could um get relief through one perm one special permit, um, one review rather than requesting multiple variances.

So it would reduce the risk uh to a developer um to investing in uh developing those vacant lots that are uh non-conforming.

Right.

So we have like small lots that nothing can really be built on.

Yep.

And now we also talking about these pocket parks too.

Would that be considered?

The city owns them, they'd have to go out for RFP, but yeah, they would they would be able to do that.

That would be included in an infill zoning.

Yeah, as long as somebody came with a proposal to do something there, yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor Giesta.

Chair recognizes Council.

Oh.

Councillor Burgo.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify uh around the questions again around the hostel.

I believe uh my colleague from a cushion of Av had asked you about it, and I just wanted to, for the record again, to clarify the diff what sets it apart from an Airbnb is the requirement that you have to have an employee on site at all times and that it has to be affiliated with a national brand.

Did I hear you say that?

Yeah.

Okay.

I just wanted to I'm sorry?

Yeah, it's sorry.

The real distinction is that it's it would be set up as more of a commercial enterprise rather than an accessory use to a residential enterprise.

Okay.

I think uh my I think even the Ward 5 counselor jumped up because they were like, whoa, define hostel, because I think we were all thinking the same uh aspect of is this gonna be like an Airbnb?

And so then just our colleague uh from the South End was asking that question.

I just wanted to clarify again that that was what sets it apart, that it's not your typical like, oh yeah, we're sharing a kitchen and a bathroom, so this will be a hostel, and then this will per permit it.

I just wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Council President Burgo.

Colleagues, any other questions at this time?

So just for Councillor Baptiste.

Thank you.

Um my counsel from Woods who says we are keeping the working waterfront or working waterfront, right?

Because we do not want to turn that over and make that an entertainment destination and lose the waterfront.

Yeah, uh we are we are uh actively working to preserve the uses on the working waterfront through uh additionally our municipal harbor plan.

Um we are refining what what can be allowed in the the designated port area, which pretty much encompasses all of the waterfront industrially zoned uh section of the city.

Um so those are really limited to water dependent uses uh and water dependent industrial uses, and there's a um uh a long process to uh include supporting or non-water dependent uses uh uh permitting within the designated port area.

And and the only other thing that I want to add about that maritime recreational, it's not affiliated just with the port.

We have we have 11 miles along city of and we all have we have the associated watersheets.

So that's kayaking on West Beach, it's kayaking up in the upper harbor.

All right.

It it allows for that type of recreational activity, not just in the port.

No, that's so so that's good.

Like that's all fine, you know, because that it would be well, first of all, like why would you put uh a place to go jet ski in at the port?

Like you can't even get in the water up over there, it would take a long time, and nobody wants to have that traffic up over there, plus they have their own zone and regulations on the port anyway.

So we don't want to go against their zone or regulations.

But the main thing is to keep that a working waterfront and you know, to work wherever else it has to we can work it in.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Council Giesta.

Um Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

That's exactly that's the clarification I want.

Sorry I couldn't provide that earlier.

I no, that's okay.

No, no, no.

I I am very adamant about not destroying our waterfront with jet skis and it's a great thing, but it shouldn't be from the waterfront at all.

Um I support our colleague here from Ward 5 4 who encompasses the waterfront.

It's very important for our city to keep that history and that respect for the fishermen and the men and women that work down in that area.

We don't want jet skis and other water um entertainment um down there.

So I I could never vote for anything like that at all.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Giesta.

Any other questions, colleagues?

So um Council Mora, to uh to answer your first inquiry when we begin.

I did speak with attorney Garatowski.

Uh it's kind of murky, so we're gonna the chair is gonna air on the side of caution.

If any changes were to come, we'll re-advertise and redo a public hearing.

Um as you raise that question, that's fine.

It uh could go either way, it's just I was just trying to kill two birds with one stone here.

That's the one.

Yeah, no, I understand.

So move the process along.

Yeah, so was I, which is why you know, trying to just get it done with this public hearing, but uh it says we're just gonna hold it relative to this item and not amending this item.

So attorney Garetowski thinks we should probably uh uh just go ahead and any any changes reorder new hearings because the wording was relative and not amending to such section said section.

I appreciate his guidance.

Yeah, absolutely so do I, so we'll we'll make that change in the chair we'll order any.

But Mr.

Chair, through you to Matt Mike.

I know we've requested some information tonight.

It's not that we want this information overnight, but do you think that that information could come in the next 45 days?

I think we yeah.

Okay, good.

Just so we have a little bit of a timeline.

Okay, because I think that is important in case there were and that's why why I'm gonna ask you to leave this item open in case there were changes that were made that the body didn't concur with.

Yes.

Um I think that the information that would be provided by the planning team would help us to make that determination.

Absolutely, counselor.

So what I what the chair would suggest is uh as this is gonna continue to the uh it sounds like the council moret, you want to continue this to the next ordinance meeting.

Well, I I don't think that gives them enough time.

Ma maybe the October meeting instead, Mr.

September 29th, I think it's well that's up to that's up to you and them then.

Do you think by September 29th you can have some of those questions answered?

We can have those two this week.

Yeah.

Okay, then that's fine.

We can continue to that date, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah.

All right.

Perfect.

Okay.

All right, colleagues.

Any other questions at this time regarding this item in front of us?

So it sounds like we'll uh the chair would be in receipt of a motion to continue the hearing to our next ordinance meeting September, Monday, September 29th at 7 p.m.

in the council chamber.

So moved.

Made by Councillor Oliver.

Um excuse me, Abrew, seconded by Councillor Oliver.

Made by Council Morat.

Oh well, I didn't I didn't hear you, Councilor Morat.

Sorry.

I think it was my suggestion.

Made by Councillor Moore, second by Councillor Avrew.

Anyone on continuing the hearing?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Council President Roger.

And take no further report out to the full city council to take no further action.

And wave the reading.

I said that first yes, wave the reading.

Made by council president Virgo.

Second.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Giesta.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn made by Councillor Burgo.

Second by Council Oliver.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 8 58 p.m.

Have a good night, everybody.

Thank you.

Derek.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, I we just don't want I don't want to push you, that's all.

I mean I know we have a lot of stuff going on.