Committee on Appointments & Briefings Meeting - 2026-01-28
Committee on Appointments & Briefings Meeting - 2026-01-28
The Committee on Appointments and Briefings convened on January 28, 2026, to host a public forum for residents of Illinois, Ohio, Jerry, Maryland, and Appleton Streets to voice concerns regarding a proposed citywide ordinance amendment affecting parking requirements. The meeting clarified that the session was strictly for public discourse and did not involve the approval or rejection of a specific "China Buffet" development proposal, which remains subject to future Planning Board review.
Consent Calendar
- No routine consent calendar items were discussed during this session.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Caroline Cecchini (Ward 1 constituent): Expressed strong opposition to the perceived hypocrisy of the city promoting quality of life and green spaces while allowing for a "monster-sized apartment house" with no landscaping or parking. She argued the project would create a safety hazard by blocking visibility at her driveway on Ashley Boulevard and deprive neighbors of future solar installation opportunities due to shading.
- John Chabanau (142 Illinois Street): Expressed concern that adding twenty-two complexes to the neighborhood would result in a parking nightmare, particularly during snowstorms, leaving residents unable to exit their driveways.
- John Preston (250 Jerry Street): Expressed support for the need for more housing but voiced strong opposition to lowering parking requirements to one spot per unit. He argued this would create traffic and infrastructure strain and negatively impact homeowner equity and property values in single-family neighborhoods.
- Michelle Pacino (136 Jerry Street): Expressed concern over the lack of a city-wide vision regarding parking, arguing that the current ordinance change lacks thought regarding existing congestion on narrow streets. She raised a procedural objection, questioning if the Planning Board retains authority to mandate additional parking for a development that becomes "by right" under the proposed one-space-per-unit ordinance.
- Beth Kalanowich (220 Appleton Street): Expressed opposition, highlighting the absence of sidewalks on her street as a critical vulnerability for pedestrians, dogs, and children, which would be compromised by increased vehicular traffic from the proposed development.
- Unnamed Resident: Expressed opposition to the ordinance, characterizing the parking change as a mechanism to "fast-track" a development that would create a nightmare for the neighborhood during snow events.
- Unidentified Resident (Shane Burgu): Expressed willingness to be recorded in opposition to the ordinance change.
Discussion Items
Counselor Oliver (Ward 3)
- Position: Advocated for a public forum to allow residents to voice concerns regarding the ordinance and the potential impact of a nearby development.
- Clarification: Stated that the purpose of the meeting was not to kill the ordinance or the development proposal but to gather feedback for the Planning Board's upcoming site plan review, where restrictions on parking, lighting, and signage can be litigated.
- Action: Moved for a referral to the full City Council requesting no further action on the ordinance at this time to allow the record to reflect community concerns.
Counselor Abreu (Ward 5)
- Position: Supported the forum as transparent and emphasized that the ordinance is a citywide, one-size-fits-all approach that does not stop the specific development proposal.
- Clarification: Noted that the Planning Board currently has the authority to mandate off-site parking for developments and that this same authority could be utilized for the subject property.
- Action: Seconded the motion to take no further action.
Counselor Chulquet (Ward 1)
- Position: Emphasized the importance of the democratic process and hearing constituent voices well in advance of any surprises. Stated that the issue was in a "prototype stage" with no application submitted yet.
Counselor Burgo (Ward 2)
- Position: Proposed an inclusive method for recording opinions for residents uncomfortable speaking at the podium, allowing them to stand and state their name and position for the record.
- Action: Seconded the motion to adjourn.
Counselor Avery (Ward 4)
- Position: Expressed support for the democratic process and the opportunity for dialogue regarding inappropriate developments for the neighborhood.
Procedural Clarification (Counselor Oliver)
- Clarification: Explained that the "no further action" motion serves to discharge the item from the committee for the public record but does not prevent the City Council from making amendments or changes to the ordinance prior to the final vote on February 12, 2026.
Key Outcomes
- Motion Passed: The committee voted unanimously (Ayes: All; Opposed: None) to refer the item to the full City Council taking no further action on the ordinance at this time.
- Purpose of Vote: To discharge the committee from the item and officially record constituent concerns regarding parking requirements and neighborhood suitability for public debate on February 12, 2026.
- Meeting Adjourned: The meeting concluded at 7:33 p.m., with residents thanked for their participation.
- Recorded Opposition: Several residents explicitly raised their hands and provided names (Joseph Stephon, Christopher Susan, Wayne Kalanowich, etc.) to be recorded as opposed to the parking ordinance change.
Meeting Transcript
Hi. You ready, Gus? Okay. Tell me when you're ready. Do you want to leave it there for minutes like Dennis, leave it here for minutes? Dennis. Almost two months, no problem. Counselors, would you take your seats? We're going to be getting beginning in a moment. Anyone that wants to speak, there is a sign-up sheet at the podium at the door. If you'd like to go sign up. I know some people have signed up already and some haven't. So if anybody wants to, we'll leave it there for a couple more minutes. So anybody want to sign up? And the new people that just walked in the door, there's a sign-up sheet if you'd like to speak. You can sign up at the at the podium. Okay, counselors take your seats. Thank you very much. This is a committee on appointments and briefings. It is January twenty-eighth, twenty twenty-six and is seven oh three. No, this meeting is being live streamed and recorded. City Council and commit committee meetings can be viewed on the CW Bedford's homepage under quick links, then meetings. So today in the chamber we're joined by a counselor at large, Ian Abro. I saw him, I walked in with him. He's not in his seat. Counselor for Ward 2, Scott Pemberton. Council for Ward 1, Leo Choquette, Council Ward 5, Joseph Lopes, Council at Large, James Roy, Council for Ward 3, Sean Oliver, and Councillor at Large, Jane Burgo. Thank you all for coming. And I'm Naomi Carney, Chair of Appointments and Briefings. And thank you all for coming. Would you like anything to read in the record? Nothing. Okay. Item number one is a written motion, Councillors Oliver requesting that the Committee on Appointments and Briefings schedule a meeting prior to Thursday, February twelfth, twenty twenty-six City Council meeting for the purpose of allowing the residents of Illinois, Ohio, Jerry, Maryland, and Appleton Streets a forum in which they may voice any concerns regarding the proposed ordinance amending chapter nine comprehensive zoning specifically as it relates to parking requirements under appendix C. Table of Parking and Loading Requirements to be referred to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings. Um be it as it may, there may be some miscommunication or whatever um that the neighborhood might have uh felt uh slighted as far as representation when it came to the the drafting and um uh ultimately voting on this ordinance. Um most of that obviously had uh circled around a proposed development that's um floating around the idea uh is floating around in for this neighborhood, so they had some additional concerns as well. Um those two things, uh this ordinance and that development were are running in two different um tandems and in two different venues. Um I felt it necessary for folks to still come in and uh voice those concerns. So here we are uh with a additional forum in which that neighborhood can do so. Um but with that being said, although they have concerns with the development, um it's this is a citywide ordinance. Um it's not gonna be a uh uh it we have to almost take a one-size-fit-all approach, knowing fair well that it's not going to fit every neighborhood, and that's why we have other mechanisms in place, such as the planning board and zoning board and inspectional services that are going to oversee any developments that come to be anyways. Um but this is their opportunity to voice what their concerns are with this ordinance. Um I just hope that the the folks I see it looks like they're here to take advantage of that, so I'm happy that it ended up working out and uh appreciate the opportunity for them to come in and give us their feedback on it. So thank you for the opportunity to uh counsel Abrew. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um of the points I was going to made my make my esteemed colleague from War 3 already made, but just to kind of piggyback a little bit off of that, um, just to be clear and transparent. Um there's no killing of this ordinance tonight. There's no killing of the China buffet development proposal. I don't want to make sure anyone's being misled.
openpublica.com