I don't know. I should be evening. I call the city council's public services committee meeting to order. The date is Monday, August 4th, 2025, and the time is 7:30 p.m. We have one item on this evening's agenda. That
is order number 25-1009510. an application for a secondhand junk dealer license by Jenny Hunt of GE Gold Jewelry Ter uh 221 Boston Post Road East Suite 270. Um Miss Hunt, I believe
you're here. If you can join us in the well. Do also want to read a communication, an email that came in from Police Chief David Georgie, uh which reads, "I did receive the Corey for Jenny Hunt and I spoke with her on the phone because I located. I do not have any issues with
her application for a dealer application and please do not hesitate to contact me with questions. Sincerely, uh, Chief Georgie and that was dated back on July 17th. So, with that, welcome, Miss Hunt, and I will open it up to questions from the public
services committee. Council Ducet, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Nice to see you. Um, Karen, just a general question. Um, what is your business specifically? What? Uh, I'm a private jeweler. You're a private jeweler. So you you have an office effectively in the
building. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cuz it's it's not a true retail location. So that's what I was Yeah. Do like a I used to do like a private going to my customer's house. So I decided to open an office and then like since they come to me, it used to be like by appointment. Mhm.
Now I've been there like for almost 3 years. So I I've been doing this business for 25 years here in Malber. I used to run a business downtown Malber, family business. Yeah. And then they closed. So I Okay. And since then like I was getting so busy I decided to open the office which is that one on on post road.
So so this is actually good expansion for you. So congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for the clarification about your business. I have no other questions. Thank you councelor Ducet. Councelor Irish. Thank you Mr. Chair. Good evening. Um that was a similar question as well is
uh in the facility will you be also designing and making the jewelry as well? I'm not a designer because I didn't go to school to be a designer. But sometimes I help my customers like trying to decide what they want. So, but I cannot sign as a designer cuz I I saw
some of the reviews. The reviews said all the jewelry was very high quality, very good customer support and I think that's always a plus obviously for the residents of uh Malro. Um and obviously there you have plenty of parking so I have no issue with it, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Thank you, Council Irish. and I will echo um those sentiments. I'm excited to see you here in Malbor. I appreciate the years of business that you've done here and um you know I have no objection to this. So with that, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Motion has been made and seconded to
approve. Seeing none, all those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes three to zero. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to adjurnn. And seconded to adjurnn. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Opposed? The meeting is adjourned
and the time is 7:33 p.m. Thank you. evening. I will call to order the finance committee meeting on August 4th, 2025 at 7:45 p.m. Uh we have two items on the agenda this evening. Uh we have a transfer request in the amount of
$20,000 to fund the educational incentive portion of the MMEA contract. Uh we also have a transfer request in the amount of $240,7022 to fund the collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Firefighters. Uh with
that, I'll begin with order number 25-1009505. uh transfer in the amount of $20,750 from reserve for salaries to various accounts as outlined in the fund uh the educational incentive portion of the recently ratified MMEA contract. I'll
begin with reading the uh letters submitted by the mayor. Honorable President Austin and councilors, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval a transfer of funds to support the educational incentive as part of the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Marble Municipal
Employees Association, MMEA. Uh this incentive established as part of the memorandum agreement with the MMEA meant to recognizing and rewarding the educational achievements uh among our employees. We believe that investing in our employees foster a higher standard
of service, promote and supports professional growth. All of which ultimately benefit the city. Uh we waited to fund the educational incentive for MMEA because as outlined in section 18 of the MOI under educational incentive. Uh the process requires
employees to first submit certified documentation of their degree attainment along with a brief a brief narrative uh no longer than the preceding June 1st before the fiscal year in which the educational incentive is to be paid. Uh this documentation must then be reviewed
to determine eligibility and receive uh formal approval. uh funding could only proceed once these steps were completed and a uh if you have any questions please feel free to contact my office sincerely Jay Christian Dumism mayor um
I it's something that certainly I think is a great part it's a great tool for the city to have um it I think it rewards the employees it also a good team uh work atmosphere uh so I personally have no issue with this I don't know if any finance committee
members have questions Councelor Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to um state in addition to that, I also support it, but um the piece about how the um how the employees would provide the documentation for um for that
incentive and it just seemed like the timetable as far as when they would provide the documentation and planning for um future budgets, it all made sense. I also support it and I would um move to approve that item. Good, good point. Council Moskin that to
approve order number 25-1009505 uh the transfer in the amount of $20,750 from reserve for salaries to various accounts as outlined to fund the educational incentive portion of the recently ratified MMEA contract. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in
favor? 1 2 3 4 carries. 420. Thank you, councelor Brown. Next up is order number 5-1009506, a transfer in the amount of $240,73322 uh from reserve for salaries to various accounts to fund the uh recently ratified collective bargaining agreement
with the International Association of Firefighters, AFL, AFL CIO, CLC, Local 1714. Uh I'll begin by reading the letter submitted uh by the mayor. Honorable President Oing and councils, I'm pleased
to submit for your review and approval a transfer from reserve for salaries to fund the collective bargaining agreement for fiscal year 2025 uh between the city and the local 1714 International Association Firefighters AFL CIO CLC fire uh in the amount of
$240,7332. Uh I would like to express my gratitude to Chief Breen, assistant chief uh Goen, uh Emanuelson, our human resource director, Christine, and the union for their dedication, collaboration in reaching a fair and equitable agreement. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact my office. Sincerely, Jay Christian Dumis, mayor. Um I'd like to say congratulations to the mayor for getting this this completed, get that off your list. So, thank you very much. Um, I'll open that up to the finance committee if we for any questions.
Council Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you, Mr. Mayor, and everyone else who was involved in um, bringing this to fruition. Um, I support this and really appreciate again the work done on it.
And um also wanted to note in addition to the previous order number um I also appreciate that it's coming from reserve for salaries the transfer itself. It just seems like a really appropriate use of funds. Thank you. Good question. So I move to approve.
Good question. Motion has been made and I will second that to approve order number 25009506 a transfer in the amount of 240,73322 uh from reserve for salaries to various accounts to fund the recently ratified collective bargain agreement uh with the
international associations of firefighters AFL CIO CLC local 1714 and also for the finance committee it would be okay to on both orders to have a suspension for the next meeting Um any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor? Carries 4 to zero. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. Motion to adjurnn. Motion was made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor. We are adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Thank you.
Urban Affairs and Housing Committee meeting to order. It is Monday, August 4th, and it is 8:00. We have two items on our agenda. From the agenda itself, I'm going to take them in opposite order. So, we will begin with order
number 25100 9458, a communication from attorney Brian Faulk on behalf of the Goodier Company and the Malbor North Realy Trust regarding the proposed zoning amendment to chapter 650 zoning to create the Ames Village overlay. With
us, we have attorney Faulk and Mr. Weiss from the Goodyears company. So I don't know Brian if you want to if you have any opening comments or I'll just get into the planning board letter and we can go but sure just real brief um again for the
record Brian Faulk from Merrick on behalf of the petitioner Malbor North Land Realy Trust which is an affiliate of Gutierrez Company and mentioned Scott Weiss from Gutierrez Company with me. Um so this is a refresh everyone's memory a petition for a zoning amendment to add a new overlay district called Ames Village
overlay district. This is on the 11 acres um at the corner of Ames and Forest Streets. Uh it's currently a vacant um lot um in the A3 residential zoning district. That district primarily only allows single family uh homes. There are a few other uses, but it's
predominantly a single family district. Um this overlay would allow just use of this property, which is multifamily capped at 90 units in total. Um, so it's a reszoning uh zoning amendment. So we had two public hearings. The first
before the council um which was on uh June 9th and then a second one before the planning board which was on July 21st. We didn't have any members of the public come um and speak at all on the on the project. Um and so you uh may
recall hearings get a newspaper notice but they don't get a butter notifications. um Scott who had done two neighborhood meetings earlier this year with neighbors addresses and he emailed the group for each hearing so people knew there's going to be public hearings please come out um if if you're if
you're interested and um we had no one come out sole hearing u we had one person come out for the planning board hearing on July 21st and spoke uh in favor and a butter who was in favor of the of the overlay district um planning
board gave us a favorable recommendation um six to nothing, which was a significant turnaround from our last planning board recommendation for this project or for this property um four or five years ago. Um and you should have in your materials the um letter from the
planning board which had a couple of things that it recommended the council look at. Um we're happy to to talk about those items. From our perspective, they're more special permit site plan review items rather than zoning items, but still still important um to talk
about um which we're happy to do that tonight. Um and there were a few items that I talked to um Chair Roby about earlier, some questions she had regarding um our landscaping requirements in the overlay district
versus what's allowed elsewhere in the zoning ordinance, which I'm happy to talk about. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, as was discussed, this is an overlay zoning discussion. It is not a discussion about
proposed housing. Um, I'd rather not go there except for a couple of questions specific into the landscaping. I'm just going to begin with reading the letter from the planning board, council president Michael Asing, regarding council number 258, the proposed zoning
amendment to chapter 650 zoning to add a new section to create Ames Village Overlay District. Honorable President OAN counselors, at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 21st, 2025, the planning board took the following action. On a motion by Dr.
Finnb second venture. The board voted to send a favorable recommendation to the city council on the above reference proposed zoning amendment for the following reasons. The law falls within a corner of Malboro with multiple zoning districts and the board concluded that
it isn't so much part of the residential neighborhood and were content that there wasn't a sense of opposition from the neighborhood. The board's consensus was that the proponent has mitigated any sense of negative impact on the neighbors by
maintaining the open space and leaving a large buffer between its direct debuters. Additionally, the board suggested the following. That the site plan review committee review the parking requirements of one and a half spaces per unit and consider increasing it.
Number two, that the site plan review committee consider implement the following conditions on their potential approval. Solar speed signs near the site. Bless you. Crosswalk enhancements near the site. Vegetated roadways.
Screening along the project frontage improvements related to curb appeal. The votes were yay finbe and Russ 5 to nothing. Uh member Fay was not present. So I don't know how he would have voted. I will
respond. God bless you again. Um quickly and then we can have further discussion if we want to. The additional board suggestions regarding the parking. I do not believe it is site plans per purview. Um the overlay talks about
minimum parking. I believe the code uh suggests that it is one per bedroom, but we can have that discussion when we get to it. And then all the others, the solar speed sign, the crosswalk, the roadway screening, and improvements to
curb appeal, I do not believe our site plan is perview either. And if the overlay is approved, a special permit would come to us and that's when we can have the discussion on all of those. So, unless somebody has questions on any of
that, I'm just going to go and start going through the overlay language. Um, Ames Village overlay district. The purpose allowed the application of supplemental land use controls within the boundaries of a certain overlay district as an alternative to land use
controls that exist in the underlying district. The establishment of the AODD is to enhance land use development, promote housing by allowing the construction of market rate and affordable rate multif family condominiums and to maximize open space
and vegetated buffers for existing residential neighborhoods. The location underlying zoning. For the purpose of this section, the AOD is located at the northeast corner of Aim Street and Forest Street containing approximately
11 acres as indicated on the city zoning map and depicted in exhibit A attached. Except as specifically provided, the provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to the underlying zoning districts impacted by this section shall continue to remain in full force
and effect in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section 650 with its new number and any other provisions of the zoning ordinance provision of this section shall govern and control.
C is the authority of the permit granting authority. The city council shall be the special permit granting authority in the AODD. Site plan review in the AODD shall be conducted administratively in accordance with section 272 of the Marbor city code. The
city council may elect to vary the dimensional parking design and landscaping requirements applicable to a use or structure by special permit upon finding that such change shall result in an improved design or substantially deraggate from the intent of purpose of
this section. D is use regulations. The following uses are permitted. Uses allowed by right in the underlying zoning district as set forth in the table of uses 65017 are permitted by right. Uses allowed by special permit in the underlying zoning
district may be permitted by special permit and the by special permit multifamily dwellings as defined in 655B including multiple buildings on a single lot provided that the total number of multifamily dwelling units in the AOD
shall not exceed 90 and that's our magic number. E is affordable housing. Notwithstanding any provisions in the zoning ordinance to the contrary, multif family dwellings in the AODD shall be subject to the affordable housing standards of 65026.
Madam Chair, Council Ducet, thank you very much. Excuse me. Um, affordable housing, that's just going to be with the whatever the standards are we have within the city itself, which is 15% I thought
percent 80% AMI. Okay. And these are going to be condominiums, right? Correct. Okay. Um, is this which can be modified within the special permit or do we locked in on this? I believe we're locked in by code which
says 650 is the affordable housing and that's what the standard is for anybody doing multifamily housing. I thought with other cases we made it even higher like for the we tried to give some options but when
we changed the downtown mobile village and affordable housing we moved to 12 right I was thinking I was thinking the green district I thought think any other district
since we made that change okay I believe it was actually lower before that. So, green district would have been at 10. Yeah, it was 10 cuz the problem is if it's 10 and it starts dripping down, we're really screwed. But if we set it at 12 and a stud, we got some gap. So,
that's that's the method of the M. We made it higher. We just didn't get to discussion of having it be 15. Yeah. No, I was just wondering my the reason why I bring this up is is this something that we want to can be addressed within the special permit when
you guys come with the special permit or is that something that has to be done within? I don't think we can increase it. I don't think we can lower it. I think that's what the code says. Okay. I didn't expect it to lower at all. So, okay, that was the only questions. Thank you for that.
All right. Um F is dimensional standards. Notwithstanding any provisions in the zoning ordinance to the contrary, multif family dwellings in the AOD shall be subject to the following dimensional standards. The minimum lot area is 100,000 square ft.
Minimum lot frontage is 100 ft. Minimum front yard or setback from a public way is 20 ft. Minimum side and rear yard is 50 ft. Maximum building height is four stories exclusive of the parking level. Maximum lot coverage is 50% over the
entire AODD. Number two, in dimensional standards, notwithstanding anything contained here. And to the contrary, there shall be a vegetated buffer with the minimum width of 50 ft and a total minimum area of 4 acres located along the exterior
boundary of the AOD excluding boundaries along public ways for multif family dwellings. The vegetated buffer shall remain in its natural state free from structures and imperous surfaces but may be used for storm water management and
underground installation to the maximum extent practical. Existing mature vegetation within the vegetated buffer shall be maintained. Special permits and site plan approvals for multif family dwellings within the AODD may require additional screening
within the vegetated buffer deemed necessary to minimize the visual impacts of such development on neighboring properties. Number three, notwithstanding anything contained herein, to the contrary, there shall be no yard or setback
requirements, planting strips or vegetated buffers required as to any internal lot lines for multif family dwellings within the AOD. So, this is I don't know if this is actually one of my questions, but it is one that I have. Notwithstanding anything contained to
the contrary, it says that there will be a minimum lot frontage of 100 ft and a minimum front yard or setback of 20 ft. But this says there shall be no yard or setback requirements. Sure. So which one?
This is this only pertains to internal lot lines. So, um, what sometimes happen if you're going to have more than one building in their condominium, you might do them in phases and you might the overall parcel into two different lots for ease of condominium. So, if there was an internal lot line, it would just
be a line between the the lots within the overall district within the 11 acres. There wouldn't be setbacks along that line, but the external boundaries um to other parcels and to along the street, those setbacks would would still apply. This is just to internal lot
lines. So for example in the green district there are actually four um parcels within that. Um the setbacks all pertain to the perimeter of the green district but not within the green district. Um they don't have to apply comply with setbacks within the district
itself. And this may never come to we may just leave it as one large parcel. This is just there in case there's an advantage to dividing the lot at some point. um we wouldn't be subject to internal um setbacks along that just that line. All right. So, at the moment, is it not
one lot? Well, other than the fact that you bought the piece of property in the front, which um yeah, today that is in addition to what councelor Fox, excuse me, attorney Fox said, it is currently subdivided uh
and recorded as such from the prior subdivision. So there are a number of internal lot lines that would technically otherwise nest uh as well and uh as you pointed out councelor Roi there is um there was the addition of a single parcel 343 forest street which
also has lot lines internal to the layout. Okay. So because this was I guess deed and it's in the Middle Sex registry those all of those lots that you can see on your map exist and those are the
internal lot lines you're talking about those if I may those are internal lot lines now um but this provision only applies to a multif family use which has a minimum lot size of 100,000 square ft. This wouldn't this
would not allow for um any change to lot lines if you were doing any use other than multif family. So essentially if you're just going with the A3 zoning, A3 zoning setbacks apply. This only applies in the event they're doing there's multif family dwellings
and there's going to be an internal lot line and those lots would have to be at least 100,000 square ft. It's just the line between those two lots um that would have this um this benefit. So we would we wouldn't really see that detail until
if this gets approved and then you put brought the special permit with the site plan. Correct. Okay. And it it may never happen. It's just I have found in other projects it was helpful down the road when folks realize, oh, you know what, we actually
want to do more than one here. Do we have to deal with these setbacks that don't affect anyone else? And and the answer was no. But without this provision, you would have had to have done that. Okay. E is environmental soil regulations. All
disturbed development areas in the AODD shall follow soil management protocols established by historic orchard operations. And H landscaping regulations notwithstanding any provisions in the zoning ordinance. To the contrary, development in the AODD shall be subject
to the landscaping regulations of 65047 provided, however, that 65040F8 and 65018A9 shall not apply to multif family dwellings in the AODD. So, everybody
received a copy of um a print out that I had Miss Bully give everybody that gives you the language of what those two are because I was curious why we're not
keeping them. And again, this language is also in the most recent overlay that we did on Lazot. And that's when we were looking at Lazot's special permit was when I realized that we put this in here and I wondered. So I'll let attorney
Faulk explain why it's there and see everybody's opinion. Sure. So the the the best summary of what these provisions uh 40 F8 65018 A9 the best overall I can give of what
those mean are essentially having apartment buildings having lawns roughly level lawns equivalent to their largest um floor area, landscaped area, recreational area equivalent to their largest floor area or the footprint of the building.
um it doesn't accommodate natural vegetated space. It essentially is recreational area or a landscaped area. Under this overlay district, we have to set aside at a minimum 4 acres in its natural vegetated um state uh along the
the perimeter of of the property with a minimum width of 50 ft. So if we if we also had to include landscaped area equal to our floor seem to to be unnecessary uh maintenance of a landscape area when we're already
providing 4 acres of vegetated natural um space. The floor area of our buildings combined is likely going to be a little over an acre. Um so with with the minimum four acres that we have to provide in natural vegetated state, we're already well above what that
minimum requirement would be that we're asking for um not apply here. Um so that's 48. 189 is an additional requirement um for um landscaped and recreational area for multifamily um
properties. Again, um we're prov we have to provide a 25- foot landscape strip all along the frontage of Ames Forest Street and then a 50ft natural vegetated strip all along the side and rear lot lines um and 4 acres in total. So our
view was green space um and a lot of green space that's left in its natural vegetated state. And so to have these additional requirements for landscaped areas and recreational areas um we we didn't think seemed necessary. All right. Does anybody have questions,
concerns? Councelor Det. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uh Solic, I understand the concerns you're raising as far as um you know the great it's a trade-off as far as you know conservation land versus recreation land. I mean that's really what it boils
down to. Um, I don't want to get too much caught in the weeds, no pun intended, because the um, special permit we're going to get in much deeper. Um, but I I think that there still should be some recreational
space involved. And I understand um, you know, that if we have if there's going to be two buildings, each building is an acre and that's 11 acres total and 4 acres is, you know, conservation land. Yeah. that doesn't need much space. Plus, there's parking and stuff, too.
Um, so I I I don't I understand I still think there would have to be some sort of amenities for the people living there if not, you know, outdoors than indoors. Um, you know, it just make sure that uh
they're they're getting a you know, there's an opportunity there to have some great backyard, but they still need to somehow get out fresh air and have places to go either outside the building.
So, and councelor Ducet, I think you're talking amenities, recreational versus landscape, which to me is a totally different issue. And I so it depends upon how the landscape is done because if the landscape is a
public is is a public space for that development then play on it if you want to but it's not a playground which I don't think they're planning on having because they're not marketing to families with children but there may be a gym inside. We haven't seen that
detail yet. Right. So yeah. No, I just I understand what you're doing. I'm still I'm raising concerns cuz I understand what you're doing. I just want to make sure you're not cutting corners on the other side. That's through through the chair. I know we don't have the um the slide deck up on
the screen tonight. I don't know if you guys if you still have this, but this gives you a sense what we're doing. Essentially, the dark green is the existing vegetated space that will be left alone. The light green will be effectively landscaped areas that are available for residents, you know,
should they choose to do it. We're doing we're doing both. Um, and we also still have a a maximum lot coverage of 50%. So 50% of the of the of the site is going to be and a minimum of 4 acres are going to be
left in their natural vegetated state. But everybody's good. Okay. It just it as we went through the bazot I'm going there's not a whole lot of landscape area and I wanted to make sure that we were all okay with continuing that uh
regulations notwithstanding any provisions in the zoning ordinance to the contrary excuse me the minimum parking requirement for multif family dwellings shall be one and a half spaces per unit madam chair councelor ducet thank you very much um most of the other
conversations we've had with developers It's usually parking spaces per bedroom, not for units. So, I'd rather see that changed per bedroom versus per unit, if that's acceptable. And I know uh Attorney Falcon and I had
a brief conversation before. I think he said there were at least six uh sightings in the code for parking. Um I actually did send my questions to the solicitor. Um, unfortunately both of them are out of
on vacation and un neither one of them responded. Uh, because that was one of my questions that I had. Um, whether in fact we leave this because it's a minimum and then when we get the special permit we can increase it if we want to or if we
change it to be as the code says. Lazot has this exact language. Um, is it per unit or per bedroom in No, it's one and a half minimum one and a half. But is that per bedroom or per in Lazad? Was it per bedroom?
Lazad is the same exact language. Per unit. It is per unit. Yes. Through the chair just for just a little overview cuz I um looked through the ordinance say with this question. So we we have parking requirements that are sort of all over the place, different um
different districts as it's worked out. But so Donald Lynch Boulevard, it's one per unit. Wayside district, it's one per TA um multif family district, it's one per unit. Lozad Drive, as was mentioned, it's 1.5 per unit. Same with the
results, 1.5 per unit. Um Green District, the executive residential was based on bedrooms. It's one per bedroom. Um, if you recall tweaking some of its bedrooms when they were under construction, they had to come back and get a waiver from the council because it
what was approved didn't didn't apply cuz it wasn't per unit, it was per bedroom. Um, Marble Village District, it's um 3/4 of a space per unit for one bedrooms and one and a quarter space per unit for two bedrooms and higher. Um and
then the the baseline that was u mentioned in the email you circulated um for mo for apartment meetings is two per unit. So it's primarily per unit in the zoning ordinance. There are a few exceptions that went by bedroom one and a half
as um in the overlay and then dealing with with it when we get this. Um I know at Lazot parking was an issue. Uh even getting the the required at one and
a half in those three buildings was tight. Um note counciling. So I'm I'm comfortable with one and a half because you go back to section C. We can adjust it later if depending on what comes back. So I'm I'm good with one and a half. It lines up with all the
other ones that we have. I'm fine with that. Everybody else. Okay. All right. We'll keep it there and deal with it when and if we get a special permit. J is modifications. Number one, after approval, applicants may seek modification to any approved special
permits or site plan approvals. Number two, special permits. Major modifications to a special permit may be granted by a vote of the city council and minor modifications may be granted by the building commissioner. The building commissioner may have jurisdiction to determine whether a
requested modification to a special per in general. A minor modification shall not produce more than a material increase in the scale of a project, nor produce a material in services, the environment, or the neighborhood. Where the effect of a modification to a
special permit is quantifiable by way of example only modifications to building size or location, parking count, or location, or other such quantifiable modification. It shall be presumed minor if the quantifiable effect does not result in a 10% or greater variation
from the applicable approval provided however that said modification would not result in a violation provision of this section. If it is determined that a modification to a special permit is not minor per chapter 65059
of the zoning ordinance, an application for a revised special permit shall be filed and a public hearing shall be held in the same manner as required for a new application. And three is site plan approvals. Major modifications to a site plan approval
may be granted by a vote of the site plan committee and minor modifications to a site plan approval may be granted by the building commissioner. The building commissioner shall have jurisdiction to determine whether a requested modification is major or minor. In
general, a minor modification shall not produce more than a material increase in the scale of a project nor produce a material increase in impact versus the environment or the neighborhood where the effect of a modification is quantifiable.
That same example, modifications to a building size or location, parking count or location. It shall be presumed minor if the quantifiable effect does not result in 10% or greater variation from the applicable approval provided. However,
that said modification would not result in a violation of any provision of the section if it's determined that a modification to a site plan approval is not minor. An application for a revised site plan approval shall be filed in accordance with the city's rules for
site plan appro and that is the language. I will go back to see if anybody had questions that I didn't see a hand while I was reading through and had my head down. It's on this or motion.
I don't see councelor Naban. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I don't have questions about the language. Um I have some comments. Um just uh I guess cut to the chase. Um I prefer the form um I was supportive of
this when it was single family housing. I think we have seen time and again the city of Marbor needs more single family housing. Um I don't think what we need is another 9 unit multi-family residential building. Uh especially one that is age targeted. Um we need more family housing. Um and we need to figure
out ways to do it. So, I am not in favor of this uh zoning change as it is. And we've learned time and again in this body that um even though we're not talking about a project, when a zoning change comes before us, we're talking about a project. We said at the beginning of this meeting, we're not going to talk about the project and then
we just spent 15 minutes talking about the grass that's behind the project that we're not going to talk about. We are talking about a project. Um this is our opportunity to do it. um we end up in court time and again because we change zoning or something's allowed by special permit and then we vote no on a special
permit and then we end up in court and then we get the project that we didn't want because we thought that was our bite at the apple. So um I am not in support of this um there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Further comments councelor Ducet. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Um,
with great respect for councelor Naven, I end his concerns, but my concern is, um, this is 90 units condominium, which makes them effectively ownership property. Um, and if they were 22 homes,
probably the average house price for the house would probably around $750,000. So, I think the 90 homes would make it much more. the um if we broken down into individual homes, I hate to say it that way, but that's kind of where the market's going right now. So, and I
don't think it's going to be small homes to do it being in a neighborhood that's full of small homes. So, I mean, the prices are skyrocketing. We need some we affordability is more important at this point. So, I am in support of this. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I'm sorry. Who? Councelor
Aling. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'll disagree with councelor Neighbor that the 23 houses, four bedrooms, the amount of uh impact to our schools is going to be significant. This does not impact our
schools, does increase our affording affordable housing uh opportunity, our uh inventory. So I I think this is a a significantly better use of that parcel. I'll just go back to the planning board
and we've struggled with this over the years have finally come around to say, "Okay, this is good." We've talked to the the developers, talked to the neighbors, the uh ward counselors are on board. Um I I would I would support the zoning change uh as written. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Anybody else? Councelor Fillo. Thank you, Madam Chair. I uh you know, kind of from the get-go, I obviously wasn't a counselor when the previous project came before us, so all I've really known is is is this version of the project. Um I have been in favor of
it since the public hearing. Um doing my due diligence, you know, I'm looking at this as the zoning amendment itself. I'm not going to pretend to know. Obviously, I have an idea of what this project's going to look like. You guys have kind of given us a glimpse of what you envision this parcel to be, but I'm strictly looking at the land use itself.
And I think that this type of change allows for you guys to do more with this parcel that benefits our community in greater ways. Um I agree with council Ducet. I think that you know single family you know homes that that kind of home ownership isn't attainable to a lot of people right now. And and you know I
in this direction will have a better use for the parcel itself. And um you know with that I I am in full support of the zoning change. So I move to approving change as presented. Thank you madam chair. All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve. I will continue with
discussion. I believe councelor Brown had her hand up. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I just wanted to share that um so I represent W 4 and that is where the um the project is being built and we kind of abut W three
as well. So, um, councelor Presiato and I had taken a a good look and asked a lot of questions about, um, the potential project that could follow the, um, the zoning change. But the most important thing to me with um the zoning
change that's in front of us and um some of the information we gathered is the outreach that was done to the neighborhood that up to and including things you know to an extent that didn't have to be done. And with that um I
haven't personally received any um from constituents saying that they would not want this. So, um I will continue to support the zoning overlay and um I haven't heard any any negative feedback from constituents, which for me is
impressive considering the amount of communication you've done. Anybody else? Councelor Presiato. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um you know, I I don't think I've ever really um let you know how I really feel
about that project is. I do agree with councelor Naven that, you know, I I would love to see single family homes there, but given the condition of the land there and given the the the um the neighborhood surrounding there and
and and the overall posited um reception that it's had, I it it's hard not to want to um support this. Um it, you know, the project seems pretty fair to me. Um I I I really like that
you respect what is going on behind that neighborhood, what is going on behind there. I I know that historically that land is not great for building on. Um it wouldn't be great to be disturbing that land for, you know, the neighbors around that vicinity. Um I think this has a
very minimal impact to that environment. Um and in that way I do agree with this project. Um so I would lean towards um approving this overlay. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. So I will add my two cents. I
I've kind of gone back and forth on this one. I really was disappointed when the site plan had approved the 22 house subdivision and then it sat there and was never built. um because I thought
that that was a finally an agreement on going to have housing that the city needed. Um I will maybe counter a comment from councelor Oing um being on the school building committee and
talking to the superintendent in the neighborhood surrounding the current Richard school all of those houses together. I believe she said there are only 11 students going to richer school. So
22 houses might not have elementary school kids that would be impacted. It may condominiums may also have students because as I said before they can't deny
someone with children from buying the these condominiums. So the the school children thing is an argument that I'm going to kind of shy away from. Um and instead I think it's the affordable
housing. I think it's the condominiums. It's the way they designed this which we haven't gotten to. Well, it is actually in here where they're saving the land between the existing property and what will be potential because I think that
that's a huge concern. um we can some of the other the way this will look and the concerns of planning board when we get to the next step. But I think I guess I'll I'll cross my fingers um and hope that if we
approve this overlay and then approve a special permit that it will actually get built. And I know that's going to be tough with the economy and price of building materials and all of that sort of stuff. So, we'll see where it goes, but at this point, I will also be in
favor of this. So, further discussion from anybody? If not, it's been moved and seconded to approve overlay district as read through. There were not any changes recommended by anybody.
All those in one, two, three, four. All those opposed. And councelor Naven is opposed. So, this um we had this meeting tonight because we need to report this out at the September September August
18th meeting so we can actually vote on it in the September 8th meeting, which is the last day that this can be voted on before they have to start all over again. And we were trying to make sure that that did not happen.
So, um I will be suspending on the 18th to refer this to the solicitor and then we'll go from there. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Oh, I'm sorry. Did somebody council Fill did you
Oh, oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. We're not done yet, are we? Okay. you are finished, but we still very much appreciate it. Okay, we don't need to call anybody up really. I'll let you two leave the well
and then I can switch my material here. I was so excited to get to go home. Okay. The next item on our agenda is council order number 2519477,
a proposed amendment to chapter 650 zoning relative to the table of uses. So I will quickly read the letter from the plan board July 22nd regarding the council order.
Honorable President Asingan counselors at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 21st 2025 the planning board took the following action on a motion by Dr. Finnby seconded by Mr. Leventure. The board voted to send a favorable recommend on the above reference
proposed zoning amendment with a suggestion to consider changing the classification for coffee roastery under the neighborhood business district from N not allowed to SP special permit. And I went off without all my other
paperwork that I had. You all have the order uh which is section 16 entitled table of uses is hereby amended as follows new text as bold and underlined. So, we are
adding in to hotels under 100 rooms, multiple um listings and in narcotic detoxification, medical marijuana treatment center,
adult use, marijuana retail, marijuana accessories retail, wine brewery and or distillery with tasting room, a data storage, telecommunications facilities, self-service storage facility, and coffee roastery. And I know I had a
conversation with councelor Oing. I also had a conversation with the solicitor's office with some questions that I had other than the comment from the planning board to think about changing the N
which is shown on our document in neighborhood business NB from N to special permit. Uh that would be the only change that would be as far as I know be on the table. So comments councelor Ducet.
Madam Chair, thank you. Um as far as the coffee roaster goes, I I think including that as a special permit actually does make sense considering how coffee roasteries have becoming more and more common. I mean, uh, Sudbury Coffee Works has been in service for
about 20 years down in Sudbury and still on display in their front Yeah. You know, in their front window. So, I if you want to put it into a neighborhood business and they want to go through the process of a special permit, let them is my view. Uh, cuz it makes the
neighborhood smell good. I I would agree. I know the planning board brought this suggestion because of a comment that was made by um city engineer Deersia who although not a planning board member sits at their meetings and he had commented that there
was a new coffee retail place going into the Lincoln Mechanic Street and suggested that they may want to have a roaster. I don't think they can at this point. that building is done and it's not designed
for a roaster. But that doesn't mean that somewhere else in NB somebody might want to build a coffee roastery even if it was just a roaster and not a coffee
venue. Um, so I would certainly since it's a special permit in the business, Lii, Mobile Village, Wayside, and Donald Lynch Boulevard. Um, I think when it was first created, it
was um because of downtown where we had to add it into the code, which is why it sort of got missed and when we were doing all of this. So, is there a motion? Motion to approve the change to the
coffee roastery for the neighborhood business to special permit if it that is needed. And I did talk to the solicitor. He said this was perform and it came to us. Making this simple change still keeps it
in proper form. So it doesn't need to go back to the solicitor. It could actually get reported out with the simple change of the N and NB to BSP. And then
I don't see that there's a reason to rush on this. it could lay on the table. Does it have to be advertised because we're making a change? No, he said it does not because nothing. There was never anything in here. So, we're the body that's making the decision of where it goes.
Okay. Council Austin. So, I would still just send it to the solicitor to put in proper format because it makes it for easier for the city clerk when he gets the thing. I mean, there's no rush. We can just either suspend the rule. We got till October 21st. So there's no time limit. But I would send it back to the
solicitor, have them make that change and say per the you know urban affairs recommendation attached is the amended or the zoning table changes in proper format. Okay. Well then as you said there there is Carrian's happy he gets the clean sheet
of paper and we don't go down the path that we're in right now. So I will ask for two suspensions on the 18th to then refer both of these them back on September to deal with. All right. It's been moved
and seconded to approve the changes as presented with the amendment to neighborhood business coffee roastery to change from N to SP for special permit. Is there further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? One,
two, three, four, five. Any opposed? Be one. All right. Now, motion to adjurnn. It's been moved and seconded to adjurnn. All those in favor? 1 2 3 4 5. So, we are adjourned at 8:40.
I'm going to call