Welcome to the January 20 26 uh board of city of river board of health meeting. Can everyone please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance? Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. So, my name is Dr. Drew Bunker. I'm the chairperson of the board of health. Uh, as I said before, this is the January 2026 meeting, first of the year. Um to
my left is Kathleen Savage, board member, and to my right is Viviana Cananano, also board member. Um invited municipal staff is Lauren Buck, who's director of public health, Michael Wells, who's health agent, director of inspectional services, and Paula
Subvida, who's the board of health clerk. Um first order of business is reviewing and approving the minutes from September 2025. So, I'm just going to ask the other board of health members to if they
approve of those m those minutes. >> I approve the minutes as written. >> I approve of the minutes as well. >> Excellent. Thank you. All right. Next is going to be the public health communicable report, monthly report with Lauren Buck. >> Thanks, Dr. Bunker. Um, so our
communicable disease report, it represents about four months worth of data. We didn't have a meeting for the last four months and I just wanted to highlight our influenza numbers which are extremely high. This is um uh this is representative of the entire United States and Massachusetts. Over the last
four months, we had 452 cases of the flu. Our age ranges from two months to 100 year old 100 years old. So, we know that influenza affects the entire um age spectrum. Um it's a very high number. We've had a very high flu season, which I'll talk a little bit more about, but I
wanted to specifically highlight that. Um we've had a significant number of COVID cases over the last four months as well. 146 confirmed, 27 probable. Um, again, we are still in um upper respiratory illness season. Uh, and so I
just wanted to make sure that we talked a little bit about that, which I will now do. So, for state and national public health updates, these uh come from EP epidemiologist Dr. Caitlyn Jedalina. Um, so specifically talking about influenza- like illness. This is the term that's used um to describe a
bunch of different um upper respiratory uh diseases that have symptoms like cough, fever, sore throat. That could be flu, it could be uh COVID, it could be just a a cold. Um but the influenza like illness levels are very high in the United States right now and exponentially increasing. It's actually
the highest rate we've seen in six years. Um the Northeast region, which is what we're in, is classified at a very high level. Some reasons why um there was some mutation in some of the flu strains over the summer, very common, but this year's change was more substantial than usual. Another reason
uh for for influenza- like illness to have a very high hospitalization rate, which is what we're seeing, is that our vaccination rates continue to decline substantially, especially among children, which contributes to deadly outcomes. Last year, nine children died of the flu um in in the US. This year,
just in Massachusetts alone, we've already had four pediatric deaths from the flu. Important note, vaccination still matters. Even a mismatch flu vaccine still provides protection against severe illness because vaccines train the immune system to recognize viral components. Prelim preliminary
data shows that a flu vaccine reduces hospitalization by 70 to 75% in kids and 30 to 40% in older adults. Um secondly, I uh since we haven't had a meeting in in the last several months, I just wanted to give an update about um the vaccine uh US childhood immunization
schedule, the vaccine schedule. Um I'm sure many of you have heard about it in the news. In early January, Secretary Secretary Kennedy directed the acting CDC director to formally update the US childhood immunization schedule effective immediately. What that means is the CDC now only routinely recommends
vaccines for 11 disease instead of previously 17 diseases. Several vaccines were previously re recommended for all children. Sorry. Several vaccines that were previously recommended for all children are now limited to high-risisk groups or left to clinical decision-making. It's a shift away from
population level prevention and towards towards individualized risk assessment. The American Academy of Pediatrics still recommends the old immunization schedule and currently the state of Massachusetts is following the American Academy of Pediatrics schedule. If you have any other questions about what this means,
please contact your pediatrician or visit mass.gov. gov and search DPH recommended guidance for vaccines. Finally, updates from the city itself from Health and Human Services. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware. We have an upcoming blood drive on Wednesday, February 11th at the American Legisia Building right across the way
here. The address is 249 um Broadway. You can sign up to donate blood at redcross do.org and you can search the date and location I just mentioned to find um appointment slots for our blood drive. And that's it. >> Great. Thanks, Lauren. Next is the uh
inspectional services monthly report with Michael Wells. >> Thanks, Dr. Bunker. Um, inspectional statistics for uh, inspectional services for the month of January on the interior housing division. Certificates of fitness, 84, certificate of fitness
reinspections, 26 interior complaints, eight interior complaint reinspections, one interior complaint reinspections. Uh, we had two on the food inspection division. We performed 15 routine inspections, one reinspection, one complaint inspection, three pre-opening
inspections, two temporary food inspections, and we had one establishment closure. On the exterior sanitation division, um we issued 270 violation trash violations. We issued uh 27 violations for overflowing dumpsters,
four violations for uh junk heaps and automobile graveyards, six violations for multiple unregistered vehicles, and ton violations for snow, ice, and some pump violations. Um while we're on that subject of uh snow and ice, um as you know, we are expecting a uh major storm
this coming weekend. We do ask residents during any storm, please ensure that uh your property is um cleared of snow, your sidewalks in front. You know, it is a property owner and business owner's responsibility um to clear sidewalks within 24 hours of the storm. Uh so we
kindly ask that that is completed. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks, Michael. And just just to go back to um what Lauren was saying about the flu shot, I it's you know, it's not too late to still get the flu vaccination. Um, I just vaccinated
someone in clinic today. Um, we're still doing it. Uh, so go to your local pharmacy. Um, and uh, should be able to do it or contact your physician to get that done. Um, but I still we're still recommending it. Um, at least I am as a primary care
doctor. >> Uh, so next is the um appeal uh for a >> Dr. Buck. Can we do the vacant properties first? We can do the first. Yep. Sure. >> All right. So, let's um switch gears
then and do the uh vacant property appeal. We're going to start with the 42 Bait Street. I'm going to let Michael take care of that. Start that. Thank you again. Uh we have uh two appeals tonight for vacant property registrations. Uh one for 42 Bait Street and one for 321
Reier Street. 42 Bait Street is a residential property. 321 Reair Street is a commercial property. Um I'm just going to review real quick the um under health and safety of our ordinance uh city re ordinances um which is the regulation of vacant buildings 8.05.010
10 um is the purpose. The city has found that vacant buildings create potentially unsafe conditions for unhoused individuals, encourage congregation of those engaged in criminal activity, cause surrounding areas to suffer from stagnant or declining property values, and create significant costs to the city
by virtue of the need for constant monitoring and occasional cleanups and um first responders. Accordingly, the purpose of this chapter uh requiring the registration of all vacant properties, both residential and commercial, is to assist the city's government in protecting the public health, safety,
and welfare of its residents by encouraging the prompt rehabilitation and permanent occupancy of such aband um potentially abandoned structures. Definition of a um vacant property. For the purpose of this chapter, a vacant building means any commercial building in which no person or entity actually
conducts a lawfully licensed business in such building or any residential building in which no person lawfully resides in any part of the building or a mixeduse building in which neither a licensed business nor a lawful residence exists. Further, any building in which
more than one half of the total exterior windows and doors are broken, boarded or with open without functioning lock shall be deemed vacant regardless of occupancy. Um each October, inspectional services reviews vacant property registrations uh
with the help of um DPW water and soar. One way we determine um a vacant property is through water usage. um there's either extremely low usage or no usage at all um on these properties. Um at that point, we send letters out to property owners to register their
properties with the city of River per our ordinance that I explained. Um there is a yearly registration fee for residential and commercial properties. When the property owners receive the letters, we do get an influx of calls um for them responding to to their letters. Um it's important that the city is aware
of vacant properties. Our inspectors monitor them um quite often to ensure that the properties are maintained. Oftent times there may be trash issues, overgrowth, not clearing of snow and ice, vandalism, etc. Um it's also important for our first responders to be aware that these properties so we don't
put them in any harm's way either. Um there are reasons why a property, you know, may have low water usage. Um you know when you get that influx of calls um on vacant properties uh there you know everybody everybody has a story as
to why their um property may be may be vacant. You know somebody may be in rehab somebody uh may be a snowbird so one building cycle there's very little water usage for the for the winter as they may be in Florida or you know in a different place. Um again somebody might
be in the hospital uh you know being cared for. Um so there are there are reasons and you know we we work with property owners um with those situations. Um on these particular two properties they they we sent um we we did send
vacant letter um notices to them um and they asked for an appeal on their um on their uh you know asked for a hearing before the board held um to appeal the the vacant building registration.
um 42 Bait Street. Um this is owned by uh Mr. William Baron. Um a letter was sent to them September 25th to 25. They did um send in a Bacon building registration form with an appeal. I spoke with Mr. Baron um on
10:24. Um I'm sorry. I spoke with Mr. Baron on 10:25. Um, I left him a message on 10:24. Um, he explained to me that he's been staying with his girlfriend in Arlington. Um, this particular property, we do have some exterior code
violations. Um, there's multiple unregistered vehicles on the property. One of them is impeding onto the sidewalk. Um, the vehicles are well over 20 plus years old. Um, the property is, you know, the exterior of the property is, um, kind of a blighted property. Um,
and does need, you know, some, uh, upkeep. So, um, at this point, I invite Mr. Bonipin, um, if he wants to, um, speak to the board. >> Oh, happy birthday, Mr. Baron. >> You can go right up to, uh,
Hello, >> Mr. Bonapan, if you could just say your name and address for the record, please. >> Yes. Um, William Bonapani, 42 Bake Street, River. And um okay um I
I have been um diagnosed with Parkinson disease since August 2019. And as part of that um condition, I have some uh
a reluctance to uh stay alone at night. also trying to stay out of any um hospital or whatever, assisted living or so on. Um
there are four vehicles in the driveway. A year or so ago, I applied in January to open one of my to take down one of my chain link fence um sections to get my
driveway legally widened so that I could move the 91 Mercury which is protruding into the sidewalk. Um only the rear deck of the car is um on blocking part of the sidewalk. The
wheels are in my um driveway. Um also the um condition of the property is um it has not been painted in quite a number of years and I now have uh well
since um last October. I have uh tried to um uh talk to a few uh different companies and I have one that uh we'll be meeting with tomorrow or on the phone
and I'm I think I have a price from him to um correct the uh what did you call it the uh rundown nature of the property and also um there was an earlier Um,
excuse me. There was an earlier um notice about the hedges uh intruding on the uh sidewalk and um that uh also I've already taken care of
that. Uh we cut the hedges and um cut cut the hedge back well evergreens I should say um back so that the sidewalk is no longer uh partially uh blocked. It was only about 2 feet out into the
sidewalk. Um as far as the multiple um uh unregistered vehicles, there's only one really. Um, I have uh two current um registered and insured and I
have a third one um the 95 I'm I'm sorry the 87 Pontiac uh for some reason I have the original registration 78 BX09 but they won't put
it back on. Oh, sorry. They won't put it the registry would not put it back on for some reason. and uh if I could um find out from them, I would gladly uh reinsure that. Now, the third I'm sorry,
the fourth one, the fourth car is um the 88 Sable. That one is um unfortunately a fire damaged vehicle and uh it's in my driveway for um kind of a personal reason. It's the only new car I ever bought in my life. And at one time I
wanted to uh try and uh get it back on the road. The final car is an 87 Ford and uh that well they all need uh somewhat um involved work like brakes on the 87
Ford. I tried to put a master cylinder on it and then I got a little bit too uh sick and um anyway, that's the situation with the uh unregistered vehicles. So, I do have two out of four and I have two that are
insured. Um is there anything else on the um um Oh, I know. Now, my um my property is uh um let's see now. It's been in the family for quite a number of years.
Um I'm the only one left. Uh so um I've registered myself uh every year as the sole uh occupant um for the city census
and um I am there several times a week usually to check on the property. I will go in and spend an hour or two or longer. Sometimes I will fall asleep there, but
I have not um been in sleeping overnight from several months. So, it's been quite a while since I've been there overnight. But I have been uh using the property as much as possible for uh um storage and
uh to gather my clothes and things like that. I also have a lot of other things in there like computers and tools and and in other words, the house is still fully furnished and um that's it, I think.
So, I would ask um that uh I would ask that I not be found um to be a vacant property if that's permitted by the uh rules. And also if I do um if it is found to be
currently vacant, I would like to know how many days I have to be there so that I don't have to um pay uh the uh registration. Um or if I could just keep the registration at $500 instead of having
it go up to a,000 this year and then 1,500 the year after that and so on. There any questions for me for Michael? What is the the laws in in in terms of how many days someone has to be in the property?
>> I I don't have that information, Dr. Bunker. Um according to you know I mean according to our ordinance this def you know it meets the definition um of a of a vacant property. >> Mhm. >> Um
you know based based on the purpose of our ordinance as well. Um you know the the the vacant building annual registration fees those are set by ordinance as well. Um you know we don't have any any control over those. Um residential has a certain a different
fee than commercial um buildings. Um but I I I don't have an answer for how long, you know, how many times it it's not it's not being used as as a complete residence. You know, going there an hour, you know, a couple times a week to get the mail and check on it doesn't
doesn't account for u it being occupied. And the and the purpose of these the the vacant um fees is more so because the city wants to
protect these areas and make sure people are living in them um supporting the the city. >> Correct. You know, we we don't want, you know, uh any activity happening at the properties um criminal activity. we are, you know, sometimes they they get broken into um you know, first responders, you
know, takes up resources from from my department to to um do inspections on these properties on a on a regular basis. Um there's often times, you know, we have properties that we have to um conduct a cleanup on uh because they're not being maintained by the property
owner. um all expenses, you know, to the city. They are we are they are leaned back to the property when we do have, you know, um emergency cleanups of properties. Um but it also affects the the neighborhood and the you know, the abutters um that have to deal with these
types of properties as well. >> Um a couple of other thoughts that I might have. Um I'm I'm there as I said for various uh times a week and sometimes there for several hours and as I also indicated I
have fallen asleep there but in the past year several or since um whenever the um the vacancy period legally occurred and uh it's more than um just uh checking the mail and I also uh pay uh
for landscaping and I had um plans to um do some of the uh exterior maintenance, but it just hasn't uh happened uh that I've been able to do that. I do intend to um make more use of the property if
my uh condition um were to uh allow it. So, if I could have to be there what, three or four times a week to sleep over, I'm going to try and do that just to avoid um being put on the uh um
sliding scale fee. So, um I mean, we we can't tell you that you have to stay there, you don't have to stay there. That's completely, you know, your call if you are able to stay there. if you you might not be able to stay there, you know, with with your based on
your health needs. You know, I don't I'm not sure. That's a totally up to you um and your caretakers. So, >> yeah. Um but you know um again I think we need to to um you know when we vote on this when
the board votes on this you know based on the ordinance >> um of of in the definition of the purpose you know um because we do have other properties that that registered >> um as well. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. I I will say I do worry
your ability to to to be there frequently given your health conditions. >> Um knowing what I know about Parkinson's um it makes you know getting around very challenging um
>> and so um you know you'll have appointments to go to and whatnot. So, I do worry about I know your thought is to be there more frequently, but I worry that that may not be feasible um >> given what you're dealing with.
>> Yeah. All right. Um so, I have my water bill here. Um and uh Mr. Wells uh and I did talk on the phone as he indicated and he said that uh one 3-month period I only used 41 gallons of water. And I
mentioned at that point that the water usage has always been very low for various reasons including my um desire not to uh use too much water because as my father said uh one time someday water
will be more valuable than gasoline and u certainly it's becoming that way in certain parts of the uh world but the usage in this bill is um between these are three-month periods.
April 2024, 4,317 gallons. January 2024, 2396 gallons. October 2023, 726 gallons. And
then uh looking back, Jan July 2023, 948 gallons, 946 gallons, sorry. April 2023, 823 gallons. Now moving uh up from um
July 2024, there was 119 118 gallons used. October 2024, which I think this was part of the uh problem with the water usage, the aforementioned 41 gallons. Then January 2025, 395 gallons.
April 2025, 1,56 gallons. And finally July 2025 54 gallons. Um so some of the higher uh months were when the uh central heating system boil was leaking
but um there is more than the um 41 gallons in most periods. So that's when my use varied. So um I don't know if >> No, that Yeah, thank you for that. That that was that was helpful. I do want to
talk to the board of health just as and um >> All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Bonapign. Um so yeah, so um this is somewhat of a challenging um situation here because he is dealing with some medical issues and I do think
that that's kind of has caused him to live with his girlfriend currently and and not be at the the property as much as he would like to be. Um, I do worry about Michael, as you said, that the upkeep upkeep of the property, um, which
is important and which is part of the the reason why there's these regulations for these vacant buildings. And so, um, just saying this to the board because I I wonder what your perspective is. I think that,
um, if Mr. Bonapign can prove that he can have better upkeep of the building. Um and then also um prove that he can spend more time there. Um then I think
I think kind of giving him that opportunity to try to prove that he he can stay there more and and do better upkeep of the building. I think um his given his situation I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt or I I feel that way. Um but I don't know what
what that will be in terms of do we give a month or you know this is a the middle of the winter. Um there's no way that any sort of upkeep would happen in the next three months. Um and then I also don't expect him to be there that frequently given the winter and the
storms and his medical conditions. Um, but I I I do think affording him a little bit more time before we um put about the fine. And I also encourage what I think I want to encourage Mr. Bonapign is to think about having
someone else live there long term instead of him. Um because I think that's probably the best option um is finding another tenant to move in um to the property. And I know that's not easy because you said it's been in the family for
>> longer than I've been around certainly. Um, and so I think that's kind of what I encourage. I just want I'm curious what the other board members say and I know we don't have a lot of time to go, but Michael, go ahead. >> Dr. Bunker, I just want to be clear. These are not fines. It's it's a registration fee that we're referring
to. >> Sorry. Yeah. >> Um, but you know, the property has not been, >> you know, subject to fines. Okay. Um it it could be you know there could be a notice of violation you know for the multiple unregistered cars and the blight on the property and stuff but we have not gone down that road. um you
know and we we we prefer the you know that the property owner and again I just want to reiterate you know we have you know 70,000 properties in the city um and it is it a property owner has to take responsibility you
know for their property and I completely understand um you know as people age it becomes more difficult >> um with health issues and it's totally understandable >> um but again, you know, it it
we have to find a way to be able to still um as you mentioned, you know, maybe somebody moves in there and, you know, helps out and uh you know, takes care of the property. >> Yep. No, absolutely. No, I understand there's rules and regulations and I understand um that like you said, this
is not a fine per se. This is more just a a registration and a safety um concern. But uh yeah, curious what you guys think in the board health. >> Um Michael, I have a question. Can you
explain the regulations um around the cars? Um so it's on I thought I heard that maybe two of them are not registered. So what do the regulations say about that? Like can people keep unregistered cars, but do they have to be off the driveway? So if you could
explain that part to me, that would be really helpful. >> Yep. Uh per city ordinance, you can't have more than one unregistered vehicle on your property. Um, and that's, you know, when I when I, um, do our monthly report, you know, I talk about junk heaps and graveyards. Um, that's what it
falls under. Um, you know, and we get, you know, I get people calling on that. My I don't have a junkyard. Nope, we agree. It's just what the ordinance states. Um, you know, cuz as he mentioned, you know, these cars are well over 30 plus years old. Um, and one is definitely, you know, impeding onto the
sidewalk, which is a, you know, um, an issue as well for passerbys and, um, stuff. So, uh, you know, but you can't have more than one unregistered vehicle on the property. >> So, the these are my thoughts. Um, Drew,
like you obviously, uh, it sounds like Mr. um, Bonipan is making an effort. Sounds like he's getting quotes on painting. he's taking care of the hedge. Um, I would like to see maybe give him a period of time to make a decision and,
you know, move at least the extra unregistered card that he has on there. Um, I know it's going to sounds like it's going to be a tough decision, but, you know, to maybe get rid of one of those and then he he's allowed to keep one unregistered car. So my thought
would be if he if you know if we could give him a period of time to see the house get painted, the hedge get trimmed, the car that's on register be moved away. Um it sounds like he's making an effort. It sounds like he's going into the property. There are some
water use. So, I personally would like to give him at least 6 months to maybe another year and grant the waivers how I would vote tonight. >> We can certainly grant a waiver. We will continue to monitor the property on on a
monthly basis with the inspectors going by. Um, however, >> we this will come across our desk again in October when we start the vacant or September when we start the vacant property registrations, you know, procedures. Um, so I'm sure you know,
next year at this point, if there's still no water usage, um, we can grant one year, but I I can't I wouldn't want to see it go past one year. >> I agree. So, we could do from now until September, um, keep tabs on the property, make sure that the one of the
cars is disposed of, the house got painted, the bush is clean. Again, I'm not going to propose solutions to your life, but if you want to consider looking for a renter, you could also do that. I'm sure many people would love to rent. Um anyways, but I don't want to go
into my ideas. Um yes. >> Okay. I've had some of the same ideas because it sounds like you're trying to take care of a lot of these issues. >> I I do like the idea of wavering and giving him a bit giving you a bit of time to get all this accomplished.
Okay. >> Good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Just for the record, Mr. Bonapign just said he's working on getting a painting contractor. Sorry, you're not on a >> Just for the people at home. >> For the millions at home listening.
>> Yeah. Yeah, because it sounds like you are making an effort as much as you can. >> But thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, I think I agree with you, Vivian, and um I think you also feel the same way.
Yeah, >> definitely. I was going to bring up a lot of what she brought up that he's he is making an attempt. >> Yeah. So, I think um Michael, I think that the three of us agree that >> waiver for one year. Yeah. >> Waiver for one year. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. And then the other
property is the um 321 River Street. >> Yes. Second property on for an appeal tonight uh vacant building registration is 321 Rever Street, parcel number 18293-8. This is a commercial property located on Reier Street, corner of Shliff Street.
Um once known as Fleetwood Recording Studios. Um this is a uh vacant property, you know, meets the uh qualifications of our uh ordinance, the purpose and definition. Um this property is maintained. Um you know that we we
had a couple of issues. There was some graffiti on the building at one point. Um and Mr. Simon took care of that. You know, there was an issue with the sign at one point. So, you know, some something was hanging off the sign. Um you know, he did take care of that. Uh but again this does meet the definition
uh and the purpose of our um vacant building registration. Fleetwood Recording Studio was a um thriving business at one point where they were in the record making business um and you know was here for a long time in our city and um and you know at this point
the the building has been sitting there for uh quite a few years um not being operated um a business out of the commercial building. Mr. Simon, if you'd like to uh go up to the microphone and introduce yourself. Name and address for the record, please. >> Hi,
my name is Gerard Simon. Uh 11 Mackenzie Lane, Foxboro, Mass. That's where I live. I own Fleetwood Recording Studios. Uh they're no longer in business. It's a private studio now, my own
private studio. I have my equipment in there and that's what I use the building for. It's my private studio. And [sighs] um
the I guess I I got a vacant building uh [snorts] notice because of lack of water use. If uh you guys [clears throat] all have computers here, if you look up my water bills for the last 15 years, I
shut off the water every winter to not so in case if I have a power failure, my pipes don't freeze. So, this is why my water is off and it's off now. And I'm not using up any water at this time
until May, probably May. So that's why my uh I guess I got flagged from this not using the water. But if you look up my water bills last
15 years, you'll find that my water is very little used or shut off completely. So um >> sir, do you have a personal business or you just use this for your personal >> personal use? >> Personal use. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
>> It's not a business. >> It's not a business. Okay. >> It's private property. Y >> and no one's allowed in the building >> except you. >> It's not open to the public. >> Okay. >> And it's very secure. I got video cameras. >> I got people watching the building all
the time. The sidewalks are are done pretty much every time I I can, you know, get up there in case of there's a storm, big storm. Y >> I know we got a storm coming this weekend, >> but uh I do have a question. How much
time do I have to clean the sidewalk after the storm? >> 24 hours. >> 24 hours. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just wondering. >> Yeah. >> So that's my story.
>> Yeah. So, Michael, what is the And sorry, I know I may just asking questions that I should know the answer to and and things you may have already went over, but what is the for commercial buildings, does there have to be a a business or can it be
used for private use? >> Yeah. So, the definition for purpose of this chapter, a vacant building means any commercial building in which no person or entity actually conducts a lawfully licensed business in such building. So I'm not conducting any business.
It's private property. >> So that this is that unfortunately falls under so I think you have to conduct business in a commercial property is what is Michael is telling me >> I have to >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So the definition so
>> commercial [clears throat] property is private property. >> Yes it is. But under under the um vacant building um regulation um it means by any commercial building in which no person or entity
actually conducts a lawfully licensed business. So using it for personal use um periodically does not qualify for it um does not make it a non-vacant building. So a person cannot own
property in the city of River that as being private property >> I guess I guess for this this is a commercial property correct. This is not a >> res paying [clears throat] commercial
taxes on it. I pay a,200 a month. >> Yeah. I guess that a a commercial property cannot it has to have a business. It has to. >> Yes. In the city. >> I don't believe I don't believe so >> based on the laws.
>> According to our regulation of vacant buildings um under the definition that that's what it's defined as. >> Okay. Give me a second to get my notes. So, one cannot own commercial property as private property in the city of
River. >> It's it it is essentially private property. Yes. >> Yes. Of course, it is. But >> that's not what we're saying. >> So, you're saying I have to have a business there? >> Have to have a lawfully licensed business operating out of it to be non
to be a non-bacon property. So, how do I have how do I make it private property then? >> It's zoned commercial. >> Yeah, but how do I get it to be private property? >> It is private property. >> All right. So,
>> to be residential, you mean? Is there no private? Is it just commercial residential? That those are the two. >> Okay. >> There's only two choices, >> right? >> So, you can't own uh private property as a commercial property.
You own it as a private. That is private property. Yes. But it's it's zoned commercial, >> right? >> Correct. So under the under the definition, you have to operate a lawfully licensed business out of that commercial property for it to be considered not vacant.
>> Commercial means commerce. You're doing business there. I'm not doing business there. >> Right. You just said it. You have to be doing business there. Yeah, but I'm not. >> Right. So, it's considered basic. >> So, why am I paying commercial taxes then?
>> Michael, I have a question. So, I did notice in uh the gentleman's letter that he would like to have, if I understood correctly, that you would like to have this commercial property be considered residential property? What would, just out of my own curiosity, what would he
have to do if he wanted to make this change from commercial property to have this uh location be considered residential property? >> Uh he'd have to go to site plan review um with a plan of you know converting
the commercial into residential. Um as we know residential has kitchens and bedrooms and bathrooms. Um, so it would be a complete renovation of the property to make it to make it a resident residence. >> So why would I want to make it resident?
Why why because it's already private property? I don't understand. >> No, I I was just referring to I believe I saw here >> Mr. Simon, every property is private except for city city buildings, right? like you know um my I my property is is
private property. I I own my property. You own your property. It's private property. It's just a matter if it's zone, you know, commercial use or residential use. >> So the city forces you to do business
>> according to the definition of our uh vacant building registration. If you have a commercial building that's not being utilized to operate a business, then it's considered a vacant property. >> So yes. Yes. Your the answer question is
yes. >> My answer my question is yes. >> I think that the reason why this this law or this ordinance is in place is because it it forces people to keep business in commercial buildings is continue to have businesses and if there
is no business then they will have to pay a this fee. >> Well, there's a lot of commercial properties that are not in business. >> And I think that's what we're going I think that's Yeah. I mean, I think that's an issue obviously. Um, but
>> So, so there's no category for private property then. >> No, based on what Michael is telling me here. >> So, there's only two categories, commercial and yes, residential, but not private. >> Yes,
I know. So that that's So how can anybody in Massachusetts own private property? >> I think you can. It's just the city of River. Unfortunately, it's it's either it's a commercial or
residential. >> So if I change it to residential, >> Yes. >> What difference would it make? you'd have the building codes would change and what >> just because it'll have a a bathroom and a bedroom and a kitchen,
>> right? You would have to convert it, you know, to to to a residence. Um, but in even converting it to a residence, if there's nobody living there, it's still a vacant property. So, converting it to a residential and
not doing, you know, still not doing anything with it isn't going to change anything. So, >> unless you plan on renting it out as as a pot, you know, as units, >> right? >> So, I'll just have to start up a business there then.
>> That that is an option I believe. >> Right. So, you'd have to go to site plan review to present your business plan. >> Okay. right to you know of what kind of business that you want to operate out of there to ensure that that type of business can be operated in that zone.
>> Okay. >> So I guess I'm forced to do that >> by the the laws in River. Yes. If I if I didn't have this water bill
that says zero zero amount of usage, I would have never had this um assessment of the um vacant building um form.
I think that that the water usage is what stimulates these this meeting >> that how can that be if you don't need to use the water. It's just a way to screen. I think it's just a way to screen buildings to figure
out are they being vacant or not. And then that kind of brings about these questions about oh what is there actually business and whatnot and we could go further into it and I understand your frustration with it. Believe me, it's it seems quite bureaucratic and a little bit.
>> Mr. Simon, every every residential and commercial property is required to have water. >> No, >> but it is. So if you have employees and they have to use the restroom, you have to provide water to flush the toilet and for them to wash their hands. >> But I don't have employees. >> Well, what about yourself? You you have
one. You still have one person. You're operating out of a business operating out of out of out of a a unit, a commercial unit. >> Yeah, but I use the restroom at home. >> It's a long ride to Fox Bar. Mr. Simon, [laughter]
>> I can always go to McDonald's down the street. I think it's safe to say the propertyy's vacant. >> I think we I think we have to unfortunately um unless you can go through the >> Well, could you give me some time to
establish a form of business there? >> How long does that process take Michael for the a business to be established? And >> I mean he can go on site plan, you know, he can go on rever.org tonight and sign up for site plan for next Tuesday.
>> Okay. And how how long will it take to be approved? >> Well, it depends on what your proposal is. >> We'll say it's the proposal is accepted. >> Um well, you'd have to depending on what you're going to do to to the property. >> Okay. >> Um first and foremost, you're going to
turn your water on. um >> and and then decide, you know, what type of business it is. If it if it's a restaurant, then obviously you got to, you know, we need plans of uh you know, architectural plans in the layout of the of the um of the facility. Yeah.
>> Um if it's a convenience store, we still need >> all that, you know, that that that type of stuff, you know. If it's a barber shop, then we, you know, you're going to get licensed through the Department of Cosmetology to the state. You know, it depends on what what the use of the building is going to be.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. I think we're going to vote here, the the board, if you don't mind. Um, so yeah, I I think that I'm I am worried about um there being a business in the
future. I'm not discrediting what he's telling me. He can certainly come up with any business. I think any of us could come up with a business. Um but um I don't see that some sort of business coming about and and water
usage increasing anytime soon. Unfortunately, if we're going to follow the protocol, I think um my vote would be to to go ahead with unfortunately is not accept the appeal and go ahead with the um the the him paying the the vacant
building um fee. Curious what you other the members of the board say. I think >> so. Given uh the regulations and the fact that this is a commercial property and there's no commercial operation at
this building, I would also have to agree with you, Drew, that today we cannot approve of the appeal. So, I would vote that this um uh registration fee stands. I also vote that it stands considering
what's been brought up for information about this. Okay. So, that's three votes. >> Well, I know >> I believe that it's unfair
this ruling because if a person can't own private property in Massachusetts of any kind is against my civil rights.
I agree. I I I I agree with you in in in a lot of ways, but unfortunately, we have to uphold this this mandate, this law that we have here. And I agree, though, it it does it doesn't seem right. And I'm I'm apologize, but we have this law that we
have to uphold. And um and I apologize. >> Is that the is that the code or the law? >> It's the river. >> It's the city ordinance. City ordinance. >> City Ordinance. So, it's not the law. >> Sorry. Sydney ordinance. And we have to uphold the city ordinance.
>> It's city ordinance. >> Yeah. >> It's not the law. >> Misspoke there. Sydney ordinance. >> Okay. All right. Um, so what's next? >> I think Michael, you'll be in contact with Michael.
>> Yep. We'll send a letter out to you um of tonight's decision and then um with the request for the registration fee. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Simon. >> Okay. All right. Next, um we will discuss the uh appeal order to correct
on 548 River Beach Boulevard, Michael. >> Yes. Um 548 Revier Beach Boulevard. This is Madiraa River. This is a new 357 unit complex um built right next to the beach house um closer to the point of pine
section of river uh on the beach. Um they are uh unit tower A is coming close to uh completion and the contractors have um applied for a temporary occupancy permit. uh before issuance of any occupancy permit, it goes through a
review um of inspectors and also um other departments before any type of occupancy is issued. Um part of the review uh for an apartment building is a certificate of fitness, also known as a habit habitability inspection, to ensure
that there aren't any violations of the state sanitary code and that the unit is safe to be occupied. This inspection is conducted by our health inspector um of interior housing inspection Ricky Lentra. Um this is a hearing of an appeal of a notice of violation issued by the interior housing inspector Ricky
Lentra. Notice of violation was issued on January 5th, 2026th. Um upon um conducting inspections of certificates of fitness for this property um he noticed that um on the exterior balconies um they were
installed in a horizontal manner on the ballusters. um of the exterior balconies. These horizontal ballasters act as an endangerment to the occupant, especially a child, as it creates a horizontal climbing risk. Um also like a ladder effect. Ballisters um are part of
the Mass State Sanitary Code. Code was updated in 2023 and it refers to 105 CMR410520 under protective railings and walls. Um this unfortunately does not fall under the state building code. um as that's why it
was not flagged during that time. It was flagged during almost completion um uh during the inspections of certificate of fitness. Um so before the contractors come up, if um Inspector Lentra and building
inspector Hazam um Hamen, you know, have anything to say in regards to this um you know, they're they're more than welcome to come up. Um, upon receiving the notice of violation, the contractors filed for an appeal to the board of health, uh, which is the hearing before
us tonight. Um, it is the recommendation of myself as the health agent, interior housing inspector Ricky Lentra, and building inspector Hazam Ham to uphold this notice of violation as poses significant danger to the occupants. Uh, we agree to issue occupancy to the units
that do not have a balcony. Um we also to agree to issue occupancy as each balcony unit is fixed and inspected. Um so the contractors uh have made arrangements uh for this to be remedied. They are also here tonight um and like
to speak. So um if uh any of the inspectors would like to speak prior uh to the contractors. You're more than welcome to um you know speak on speak on what you you you had there. I know Hazam had uh some issues uh with the testing of the um balconies
on um the railings on the balconies as well and there were some issues with that. >> Hi, good evening. Uh Ricky Lentra, I'm the housing inspector for the city. I issued this order to correct under the uh state sanitary code uh 105 CMR 410520
I believe um which specifically states horizontal ballasters are not you know a violation of the state sanitary code. Subsequently, I issued the order to correct to the owners and they're appealing the state code, the state
sanitary code. Um uh they they have come to me with um you know variances of you know what to do to fix it. I also believe that they're here to appeal the actual they want the board to overturn the state code. I believe um
that's what they're here for. But otherwise, I mean, that's pretty much uh you know what it is. Uh my name is Haz. I'm the building inspector. As of uh as of today, this
balcony they failed inspections. Uh that's all I can say. So they have they try they they promised to correct the where they failed they get in an outside third company to do the test. Uh the
test wasn't done correctly. They did test on six unit of or 10 unit from how many balcony we have? 140 balcony. So when we do inspection we do every balcony. And uh >> what what test are you talking about?
Sorry. H >> what test are you talking about that you >> uh well the balcony they supposed to pass the 200 lb test point test and 50 lb line test. So they get this company to do that. They only did on the on the
screws that connected to the floor the shear test. They call them shear test. >> Okay. >> And uh uh I noticed today I was I'm over there twice or three times a week. I noticed today on this on the B tower,
the last building they changed the post uh is more sturdy and uh it seems I hope they they will pass all the test and inspection. So I don't know what they're going to do with this one. may be promised they're going to all the return
to the building they have to be supported which will help but in the meantime the the the sanitary code has to be you know accepted to accepting the uh the test >> so I thought the issue was that the they
were horizontal >> horizontal I uh what I did over there what I what I was that's how I figure out that uh they have some sections like six feet aluminum very light gauge
>> uh railing and if you step on it you can see it's bending uh it bend down and then I think any any kid can climb on them >> and fall and I don't think they will support 200 lb
uh uh point uh uh test if somebody walking 300 lb you know catch running to it he might be flying off this one I'm not I hope this will not happen and we are there for the safety of the public and everybody else.
>> So what is the the the sanitation code? Sorry. What is it in in terms of the minimum standard that they have to have for those railings? >> The railing they supposed to carry 200 lb point. >> Uhhuh. >> On any point on any ballasters on any
handrail >> they have to carry the 200 lb >> force. Yes. They did that and I in the meantime I talked to the uh to the company who did the test and I asked him how did you do it? So he told me how he did it. I said
did you do the lateral test? He said no I didn't have the right tools. Uh so what kind of test he did? I said why don't you put this one in your report that you didn't do this test this kind of test and stuff like that. and how you want me to accept the uh that report if
you didn't do you didn't do all the tests and uh I asked him how about the lateral force he said uh oh I shake him by hand that's not a company who does complete tests that's all I can say
all set any question anybody >> um I have a question about the height Um, I see somebody put in here protective railings and walls. Um, is there issues? Obviously, this is a
really poor design. As somebody who has had kids, I mean, I could definitely see >> a kid climbing up this thing. And we also had a child fall off a balcony that was not designed like this, unsurely have, not too long ago. And it was with the slats going this way. And somehow
this child managed to, you know, fall off this balcony. So this is a sorry guys, but this is a really poor design. Like kids kind of going to climb that right up. But is there also issues with the height on this? >> The height is a standard building code is 42 in. So they have the height
as a raring as as a complete set. >> So the height is okay. >> The steps is the steps I'm sorry the steps is for sanitary code. as far as a building code is the force. Make sure they are sturdy, they don't move, and they stay in place if somebody hit them.
>> So the the issue then is that it cannot withstand the force that is meant to if somebody rams against it or leans against it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So essentially, they're here to appeal the horizontal, you know, that that that's what the order the notice of
violation was issued for was the horizontal ballasters. In addition to the horizontal ballasters, the building department found a issue with the safety of the um of the inspection that was conducted um where they feel it's not safe um to exactly what he described.
>> So, but but they're not here for that against the board. That's a build that's a building code issue >> um the building department will handle. Um they're here regarding the horizontal balance uh ballast. >> Yes. And the fact that it so just to clarify
so I understand so that it can now withstand the force that is meant to withstand >> correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I have a question also. On page four it shows some modifications to the guardrail. Will that bring it into
>> Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Thank you. Good evening, members of the board and members of city staff. Um I'm Tim Alexander with Mil Creek Residential.
We're the developer and and general contractor building uh what's called Madera Revier Beach. So I'm Tim. I'm joined by Dave Snell who's from PCA, the architect for the project, and Bob Raymond who's helping to lead the construction effort. Um so yeah, definitely want to help sort of clarify
and answer questions. Um we um we are here tonight specifically on the horizontal um railing which you know uh order to correct and and appeal. I want to make clear we're not here to appeal that ruling. We're here to come with a
solution that we believe we've worked collaboratively with the city on. Um you know as a bit of background right we're as as uh as was mentioned we're now two and a half years into construction. you know, probably six years now since we first started to conceive of the building and work with the city. We've
enjoyed a really collaborative um uh relationship with the city um over that time starting with the planning department, really all aspects of the city and city hall. So, we're here to, you know, again, continue to work collaboratively to present a solution
that we believe is appropriate, that solves the concern, solves the sanitary code, um, quote unquote violation, if you will. Um, and what we're here to do, and Dave will explain the details in this package, but what we're really here
to do is not to appeal the violation, um, but to extend the period with which we are able to rectify that. and we'll go through the details about why we feel that's appropriate and why we feel that there is not a a risk to public safety and certainly the residents of of our
project. Um and so that's really what we want to do and I hope that just just sets the stage. The second thing um which was discussed about the you know the force or the the what what the actual railings are able to withstand to your point Mr. Wells that's a that's a a
separate issue that I wasn't even aware of until just now. I know there was some um testing and inspection on site. That would be a building code and a building department item. We are confident that you know as designed the the balcony and
and not only the the balcony railing itself, but the way it's fastened to the balcony is you know meets building code is not you know this is a this is a standard detail engineered stamped. So this is not something that we kind of made up on the spot. Um but we'll take care of that separately. Um, we're
obviously here specifically to speak about the horizontal U railings. So, with that, I'll hand it over to Dave Snell. >> And just a quick uh maybe to start here, some background on on this horizontal railing issue. This this state's
sanitary code and the state's building code are actually in conflict and have been for almost 20 years. Um the back in around early early 2000s the international building code was updated removing this concept of a
ladder effect as being an issue because to your point earlier there's no scientific evidence that any one railing type is more or less climbable than another in that's in the commentary of the building code today. That's Massachusetts building code. So,
historically, this has not been enforced in many jurisdictions around Massachusetts. There's many examples. However, uh the sanitary code was updated 2 weeks before our permit set went in and we didn't catch it. Um to clarify that although they're in
conflict, it seems that this takes precedence. Um so, as Tim mentioned, we're not here to appeal the ruling. We want to fix it. We want to make it right. The solution that we've proposed is to uh which you can see on
um the maybe let's start with the you can see a picture on the on the third page sorry the fourth page which shows the addition of a perforated metal panel um which would get riveted into those horizontal members thus removing the issue. Uh, and
you know, we've been working back and forth, I believe, you know, with Ricky and his team to make sure that they see what we're doing, that it meets uh, meets the requirements in order to get rid of that issue. So, that is the solution. The immediate um, plan of
action is, you know, right now we don't have occupancy for any of these units. However, uh, these were going to take a little bit of time to fabricate and install. There are uh over 140 of these. And so during this process, the
balconies are not going to be accessible um to anyone. The door handles would be removed and capped and residents would be required if we were granted occupancy of the units to sign a lease amendment uh which we included the language here
so that they you know they're signing you know a clear document that they are not allowed use of the balcony. there's not a way to get out to there because the door is blanked. And that ultimately buys us the time to do the fix. So the fix I, you know, I pay on page five
shows the technical drawing. We've had um a company, you know, work with us to design it. We've done uh calculations to prove that it meets um the code required uh loading requirements. And then you
know on the page uh six um you know 30 days in order to make this you know with what we're talking about is 146 units uh it requires more time to uh buy the material fabricate it uh install
it and so you know to us that we put in an estimated schedule of you know assuming that there's agreement in this hearing we release it uh you know the you know next week and then you know work through the process with the construction team and our subcontractors to be complete by late May. Within that
time frame, uh we're requesting the ability to to do this and um have occupancy of the units with the lease provision in place and with the door blank off in place and no access to the uh to the balconies. And as Tim
mentioned the building code being a separate issue, we will make sure you know we're confident. We have calculated engineered shop drawings on all of these railings and you know we'll do whatever testing required to you know show they meet the building code. So if we take that as a separate issue and say that
that that must be solved before occupancy anyway. We what we're asking is can we do this fix? Can we do it in this extended time and during that time with these additional provisions can we occupy the units? >> Happy answer any questions?
>> No, thank I just would like the the building inspectors to come up and I'm curious on their thoughts on these provisions if this would be adequate to satisfy our current building codes.
>> Or is that building? Sorry. Well, well, building would be structurally and they would have to look at the, you know, one of them the mock up the drawings or whatever. That's up to building. Um, depending on if it does eliminate the latter effect of the horizontal
ballasters, it would be um because that's that's the subject. But as far as to allow people to move in by taking off the door handle, I was up
there with one of the workers and he just said to me, "I can't guarantee somebody wouldn't be able to open that. And if they don't, if they can go out in the balcony, get out. You know, where there's a will, there's a way." Um, they get out there, there's violating the
lease. So, okay, you go for eviction. It's got nothing to do with they're out in the balcony and then you start an eviction and you're in court for six months and people are you know it's we we have a couple of um other properties smaller than this that are
also have been horizontal ballisters and they're addressing it because we're holding up their temporary occupancy as well and they're addressing it. one today finished. It's not as big um as Madera, but um they finished it and now
they're going to get their temporary. I have no problem having people going into the nonbalcony units, but I I manage property. I managed 334 units for over 30 years. And a tenant will do what a tenant will want to do
whether you have it in the lease or not. And they can't guarantee me that. At least the gentleman that was with me, Assad, couldn't guarantee me that you can't you flip up the plastic and then there's the, you know, maybe an Allen wrench or something could fit in there
or a screwdriver. You go like this because all you have to do is flip the handle when the handle's in and it unlocks and opens up. So I I don't feel comfortable saying people can occupy knowing that
it's there's an opportunity to uh to do that. We've never we've never done that with another building except where a deck on the ground floor. Okay. Um and that had to have fire department approval, building uh approval, and
health approval. and it's, you know, it's on like the second floor of a deck because the entire decking isn't finished. So, they can't, you know, they can't get out there because it's being, you know, construction's going on. This is going to just be sitting there for a couple of
months. What I, you know, we discussed it with with Mike. um as they're doing the as they're doing the railings, they're the the fix, if you will, and as they're doing it, as long as the units is signed
off by, you know, by health and building, um we would just keep releasing those. So, if we have 10 a week, boom, they get 10. You know, we're not going to wait till they're completed and then say, "Okay, we're going to do that." Um we would do, you know, as they
do them. So if they get it in March, then they they start installing it. But as they, you know, as they say back up, the um the fix has to be approved pretty much by building, you know, what's there. Um I would look at it obviously
to see if it just takes away the the the latter effect, but um as far as structurally, there's a you know, wind on Rever Beach. Is that going to compromise the the railings that move like this? Now, so that would be mostly
building to say, you know, the building commissioner um to say, you know, that's that's okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Questions? >> No, no. Yeah. I'm just curious to see if you guys the the building has a
response to that. >> Sure. Thank you members of the board. I appreciate that perspective and um I just want to point out that you know we're trying to come up with a practical solution. Um I understand that there are you know there are circumstances that there or you know there's potential
right but we've done everything we can between the lease addendum and the blank and I I was in the building today and and looked at the blank on the door as well and it it is it would take it would take a unique tool. It would take a lot of effort for someone to try to do that.
Again, there would be in violation of their lease as well. And um I think you know the concern that that was raised originally and I think I echo your feeling um members of the board that um if it's a child who's out there um
accidentally and make and climbing, you know, that's probably what in our mind's eye we would assume would be the big risk here. Um, and it's not a risk of a, you know, intentional adult going out through a door that doesn't have a handle knowing that they've signed a
lease amendment that, um, prohibits them from using the balcony. So, just trying to appeal to the sort of practicality here. Uh, as I mentioned, right, this is a and obviously if we could rectify the solution, um, like a a building down the street that has eight balconies, we'd do
it um, in a week. Uh we have 100 plus >> 146 >> 146 um in this building. I want to note that if you've seen it, there are two separate buildings. The second building has horizontal uh railing. So that one's not an issue, but we're going to get this done as soon as we can. But a
building of this size, an investment in the city of this size, we want to make sure we can um occupy as soon as possible. And so that's why we're, you know, sort of making this effort to, um, you know, have that middle ground of occupancy without use of the balconies. So, and of course, um, I should mention
too with the, um, with the retrofit of the mesh panel, that's gone through engineering and load calculations as well, wind load calculations, um, to make sure that that they still meet, you know, the the requirements and that doesn't cause, you know, it doesn't sort of take one fix and create another
problem. So that's gone through um engineering and review as well to make sure that those are um not in violation and and are appropriate. >> Realistically, when would these this modification be done completely with all the units?
>> Yeah. So our estimate right now is that um the fabrication would begin or the ordering would begin as soon as next week. fabrication would occur through um the middle of or to the end of March and then installation would take likely through May or through April and May. So
we are talking about several months to get them through altogether. And to to Mr. Oendra's point, you know, we appreciate their willingness to sort of go unit by unit as the installations occur. Um but even that first installation isn't going to happen until
um probably late March or early April. And so that's the time period that, you know, we're talk, you know, we're talking about to make sure we're at a very key juncture in um receiving our TCO in uh December and actually have our first resident moving in to a
non-balcony unit um this Sunday, hopefully before the storm. And um you know that that and you know, so we're in a very key juncture right now in terms of getting the building um operating, up and running and residents in. So, uh, it's important to us to to, you know, a
to continue to work with the city, of course, as we have, but b to find a practical solution here that allows us to occupy these units. >> To that point, I I mean, I I I get both sides of of the coin here. Um, I understand the investment, you know, it's a big investment, but nothing um no
no investment is worth safety, right? So, um, again, you know, we are willing to to to work with the team as, um, Inspector Lentra, um, noted. Um, we have no problem, you know, if building issues a temporary occupancy for non-balcony
units. Um, however, the balcony units do do pose a significant safety issue. Um, as you can see, we know what a vertical ballister did on Shirley Avenue, and that was one ballister missing. um you know and luckily we came out good on the
other end um miraculously. Um however um you know this does pose a challenge um that that we that we have upon us. Um and again it's our recommendation that we we uphold um to ensure safety of all
occupants that are moving into that building. And as they noted, you know, if there's a will, there's a way. you know, an a tenant will do what a tenant wants to do and they will get out there somehow someway, whether it's in violation of their lease agreement or not. Um, so with with that being said,
you know, again, it's um the recommendation of ISD that we uphold and also uh we will issue occupancy permits and certificates of fitness um as these um units are um completed on a one by
one basis. Is there any way that they can send you a small amount of fabrication to to get the process started instead of sending it all at once or can they send it in different batches? Is that possible? >> Just trying to think outside the box of how how it can be, you know, sped up a
little bit. >> Yes, that is the attempt to go in batches, not do the entire 146 all at once. So, the first 20 may come and then another 30 come, >> but it's got to go through the fabrication. um they have to roll it, they have to cut it, they have to paint
it, and then get it installed. So, it's going to take a little bit um as far as the cap that's out there now. Yeah. I mean, anybody can do anything to it, but we're going to try to maybe get something even more secure than that if that's the the main crux of the issue.
>> Yeah, we could fill up the hole as well. Um that cap is designed though to take the handle off and have that there so nobody can mess with the handle. I mean that's comes from the door manufacturer. It's a specific piece for it.
>> It's just you can just flip open that little cap. It's like a not a locked or anything. You can flip it up. >> Yeah, you can just you can just flip up this little cap. I don't I should have had a picture of it. It's just >> flip it up and the package has the picture
>> and you can put something in there that will, as I said, the it's just a lever like this, the door handle. You do this and it's open. You do that and it's shut. So, if somebody can grab a larger maybe screwdriver, Allen wrench, something,
tire iron, um, and turn it, um, then they have access to it. then you know their lease violation as I said and then it's going to take a long time to to get somebody out because they violated that and went out in the
balcony and then what do you do from that? You lock them back up and you know lock the balcony and they figure out how to break it or what have you. I mean I'm I'm just you know hypothetically just from experience ex you know with with
apartments managing apartments. >> Sorry I apologize. I just want to make one more point. So to to that end we we can continue to investigate a different cap right for the door handle. Um I would I would the cap in place obviously
is uh more than a deterrent. Um it and I it is not a standard, you know, tool that could be placed in there to open. Um you're looking at it as I did today. Um it's a not something that somebody would have around the house to be a to figure out how to open that door. Um and
again, I just want to appeal to the practical side here, right? We're not talking about an accidental um you know climbing of the railing and and if if there's an intentional use of the balcony that is that does meet building code to be clear um but is obviously in
conflict with a sanitary code I think we would again appeal to the members of the board to think about this as a practical solution and and understanding there can always be a a worst case scenario u but I I don't in our estimation that's not what we're dealing with here and we
continue to work collaboratively of course and want to find the solution and we'll get these in place as soon as possible. But you know these are balconies that have been on the building now for you know several months and to have it come up now is obviously extremely uh detrimental to our to our
um occupancy of these units. >> So out of the 357 units is that both buildings or is that just the one building? >> Sorry the 357 total units among two buildings. >> Okay. This is the you know the building with these railings is obviously the
first to deliver >> right. So how many units are in this building? Um >> it's 200 total units >> in this building of which >> 46 >> 46 have this balcony. >> So ideally there's 55 of rentable units.
>> Correct. >> Without balconies. >> Correct. And >> and just just also to clarify, I mean, we we come across conflicts of sanitary code, building code, plumbing code, electrical code, you know, um they
all kind of contradict each other um on certain points, you know, so there's there's there there is contradictory stuff in in all of the codes. So, um this is in the sanitary code, it's not in the building code. There's something that's in the plumbing code that's not in the electrical code that affects the building code. So, you know, we we kind
of find those uh snafoos every they come up every once in a while of, you know, conflicts in each code. So, >> great. Thank you. I just want to talk with the board for a little bit here. Um, >> yeah. So, I I hear both perspectives as
Michael had said. Um the the provisions that the building has talked about in terms of taking the the access to the the balcony is a reasonable provision. Um obviously if you know people can it sounds like can
find a way if they wanted to get through but that would be in violation and seems like it'd be very difficult to do. And um ideally we would say can we wait to um to make sure that all these balconies
are fitted with the proper protection and then the building inspected and everything. But it sounds like there's deadlines. Um, and I understand that financially and plans for when the building would be ready, but at the same time, we have to make the safe decision
for the inhabitants and for the city of uh for the city of River. So, I'm curious to what what your opinion is in this situation. My opinion in this situation is can we wait to make sure
that they're all fitted? Um uh and and I know that's, you know, not what the the building is going to want to hear, but that that just feels like the safest decision. Um again, I understand we're trying to find a happy me middle point, and I see
that's why the building's perspective, but I'm curious what you guys think. >> Okay. I I just have a comment. Okay. I know you've got these little plastic pieces, whatever. Is there another way to secure that door? Even temporarily secure that door so it cannot be opened.
I mean, I can see someone fiddling with the piece and just climbing up. Oh, let me just climb up on it so I can see what's around the corner or oh, look, see at the fireworks or whatever. >> So, I could see it being >> an issue. Is there another way to secure
the door so that no one can besides the little catch on it? I c can't answer that uh definitively tonight, but we will look into another cap that doesn't have sort of the swivel on it >> cap or some other way to secure it so it cannot [music] be opened.
>> I mean, it would be, >> you know, we're working with what comes with this door system right now. However, what I think you know, you know, the idea of getting occupancy as these fixes are done, we understand that and that that is helpful, right?
However, it would be also helpful if this board is not going to vote to allow us to occupy today to allow us to work with, you know, Ricky and his team to come up with a door blocking, you know,
concept that is, you know, acceptable because every day matters. And if we can come up with a solution that we can put in place that is acceptable and gain access sooner, I think we would want to do that. We don't know what that solution is right now, but that would be the goal. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Um I do think that as a board our number one priority is safety and health. So I think you know I appreciate all the effort and you coming up with a
solution. Um, I do agree that maybe the city, you know, I like the proposal you're saying, Mike, that the city can grant occupancy, but once the balcony is done, so if the, you know, if you get 10 units done, okay, those are ready to go. But I I feel like I cannot approve this
until those balconies are fully secure. So, I guess they I guess it would be to uphold, right? Yeah. Do we need to be formally granted more time than the 30 days? Because we don't have
occupancy, it doesn't matter. >> I I don't know that. Sorry. >> By granting more time, you you can't produce these any faster than what you're going to get them. So, I'm I'm not sure. It's my understanding but with the the sanitary code which the just a
clarification I thought I heard the ballusters came into effect the horizontal in 23 they were on the old one and when they revised it in 23 the state they kept in the latter effect on
uh on the state sanitary code. Um now I just lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. >> Um >> talking about the extension. >> Oh, the 30-day extension. I'm sorry. So, what they did put in the new um state sanitary code. Thanks. Um was the most
time that you can give under the sanitary code for order to correct is 30 days. So, I would guess that the company would have to appeal and the board would have to allow them more than 30 days
because it is in the the sanitary code that I can only give them 30 days. So, anything beyond that would have to be agreed upon. I don't have that authority. It was never in the code before. You I could give them six months, but now
they've they've had it, you know, limited it to 30 days. >> So, sorry, say that again. So, you can give them 30 days, but a after 30 days, it becomes the board's decision. >> All right. The state sanitary code, the one that was rewritten in 23, 2023 of
April, now limits the amount of time to correct a violation. And the most I can give or anybody in Massachusetts for that matter can give is 30 days to correct it. Obviously, they can't correct this
within 30 days. So, in my opinion, it would be up to the board to extend that, not inspectional services. >> But at this time, they don't have occupancy, >> right? So the if the the occ the the
units aren't occupied. So the the fix in my opinion is going to take longer because they can't you know that they they're waiting on the supplies to in the materials to fabricate to be installed. Um with that being said, you know, we wouldn't be granting occupancy
anyway. Um >> but you still have the you still have the order to correct that's sitting there saying you must do this within 30 days. That's all. technical technical people I believe that the code was written in that way based on actual and
occupied situation. So if you flag a code violation in a building that's occupied they have to correct it in 30 days otherwise it cannot remain occupied. I believe that's how it is. So since we are not occupied this this you know in some ways I don't know if this
formal process was required and maybe you know we're just trying to do the right thing. We want to make sure that we're checking all the boxes. Well, >> it was it was my understanding that there you were going to appeal the order to correct and over want the uh the code violation overturn.
>> So, yeah, that was a miscommunication. That wasn't our intention. >> Yeah, that's why we're here. So, >> yeah. I mean if if you feel that um you know the uh because it's not >> they're not appealing the the horizontal
you know there is a fix in place or in in process I should say um to that um with that being said you know again it would be our recommendation that we you know we would still issue temporary
occupancy to the non-balcony units um approve you know if if the building commissioner If the building passes, you know, for a temporary occupancy, um, for those specific units, you know, there's about 55 units that can be rented at that time of um, temporary occupancy.
Once, you know, the the materials are here and the these um, in fabricated and installed and signed off on by building and health, um, they can continue, you know, with um, occupancy for for those units. And we'll again we will um issue certificate of fitness you know one by
one as as they are completed um so they can occupy those units right away. Um but with that being said you know the we originally thought the appeal was for them to for you guys to say okay yeah sure you can have horizontal ballasters right uh but that was not the case. They did come with a solution. Um but they
have a solution. So you know again not sure how valid the appeal is. you know, if they do have a fix. Um, but with with that being said, you know, um I I still stand with our with our uh recommendation um
to occupy non-balcony units prior to um that. >> So, so sorry, just to clarify, sorry, the we're not voting tonight on the appeal. We're voting on their
decision to take away access to the balconies and whether that's satisfies that's acceptable for someone to live in an apartment without with no access to a
balcony but a balcony being there. >> Yeah. I mean but a little tricky here. >> Yeah. I'm just having >> I think that's a great question because ultimately >> Sorry, I was just going to say I think that's a really um astute question. Um
you certainly know more about the ordinance and what your purview than than I do, but the order to correct is the item that would be appealed and and we are not appealing that. So, I'm not sure that this board actually has, you know, if given the conversation that we're having
now, I'm not sure the board has an action to take. Um, and that's why I wanted to say I think, you know, we we've been working or trying to work collaboratively with the building department, the inspectional services department. And to Miss Savage's
question, if there is a solution that can be found on the um on the blank for the door, right, to to ensure that the that and further ensure that um the balconies can't be accessed. I think that's something that we'd like to continue to explore and then put
potentially allow us to occupy those units until um the retrofit to the railings is in place. And I I say that for a couple reasons. One is everything we've already sort of talked about. The second is yes there may be 55 units um
currently I think it's 30 or so in what's what already granted a temporary certificate of occupancy we are working towards the second half of that first building in the next 30 or 60 days um which would then total the 55 units but
of course you know the residents in the market um they the the balcony units are desirable of course and um folks will want to lease those now knowing that by April or May at the latest they would have access to those balconies and so we want to make sure we can get folks into
those units as soon as possible because they are you know frankly more desirable than the b than the units without without the balconies. So, um, again, I let you deliberate that. I think it could be something that we continue to work offline. It doesn't have to come to
the board to come to a solution with the right um the right, you know, blank, if you will, for the door handle. >> Also, just for further clarification, a formal property inspection in order to correct was issued um to them. They did
file for an appeal. you know, in their letter um here there is a request for um a hearing which this is what the hearing is um for the order to correct. The order to correct um clearly states that the balcony railings at MadiRaa Tower A
550 Revier Beach Boulevard have horizontal ballasters. So that's what the the request of the hearing is, right? Um whether that's changed since they submitted this, you know, to us um on January 7th. Um obviously you know that
they they worked pretty quickly to to come up with um a solution to to fix it. I think um because we do have an order to correct here that a um you know a vote should be taken um on the formal order to correct that a hearing was
asked for um you know and based on the order to correct the order to correct is because it has horizontal ballasters. Um so I think the vote should be based on the order to correct of the horizontal ballasters. Um unfortunately I don't think it's obviously it's not going to
be fixed within 30 days but I think you know our subsequent um recommendation to not allow occupancy to those units um until that they are fixed is um is sufficient in my opinion.
>> Is that something that we can say as well? Well, again, you know, there is a 30-day. It's not going to be fixed in 30 days, but again, the building is not occupied either. Um, so whether it takes 30 days, 60 days, 120 days, 365 days,
um, you know, I I understand time is money. I I get all the business side of it. Um, you know, I I get that completely. Um but again you know the the appeal is for or this hearing is for the horizontal ballusters um which is in
what the order to correct is um written for. >> Okay Drew um just very quickly. So again my thoughts it's that the order to correct if it's in the agenda should stand and I do agree with the recommendation that the unit should
not be occupied until those balconies are fixed. >> Okay. Yep. >> I just have another question. Okay. So, we've got the 30-day requirement. Can they apply for a second 30-day requirement or it's one 30-day requirement, and does that count now
without occupancy or with occupancy? >> Well, I think this 30 days is would would is with occupancy. Um, and you know, that's the way I would interpret it. Um, but again, there's no occupancy here at all right now. Um, so, you know,
there's nobody living in there. um if the building commissioner issued a temporary occupancy, you know, that he's putting his name on that that that the building is safe for occupants um in the non non balcony units. Um I I get the
desiraability, you know, it's a beautiful building. The the you know, uh it's >> um definitely eye appealing and you know, people are going to want a front-facing, you know, that that's the real estate there. I I completely completely agree um why they you know I
I wouldn't want a non-balcony unit you know personally but um you know I I I'm just going to um in the interest of time and just to get us keep this going here um Vivian I I think
from my perspective as well as as much as I the solution that they're coming up with is you know seems like a solution. I do have some concerns. Um and so in just in terms of what we're voting, I agree with you in terms of I think we should vote that or my vote is that we
um um kind of block the appeal or not allow the appeal that because of the horizontal and then not allow people to live in those units. Um, and that can obviously be in discussed in the future, but I will I will say that I'm I from my
perspective, I agree with you that uh the solution doesn't seem completely adequate in my mind and I know that's probably not what anyone wants to hear. Um, but uh from from my perspective, I I block the appeal. Um, and uh think that
we should hold off until those things that those um railings have been secured. Um so I think that's two votes. Um >> it's three. I I agree def definitely. >> So yeah, we are going to vote um in that direction. Um but obviously if there's
discussions with the the building inspectors or >> Yeah. could sorry I appreciate >> I just wanted to ask the question. I think >> I I think there's a chance that the item that the board is actually hearing and ruling on is just the appeal. Yeah.
>> Right. And and to Mr. Wells's point um I think when we were work trying to work collaboratively we the the first idea was okay we'll we'll order this order to or we'll submit this order to correct >> you we would then appeal it just sort of
to you know sort of >> bring discussion >> yeah bring discussion but obviously to your point since the 7th we've done a lot of work together to try to find the solution so what I would you know what I would respectfully request is that the specific ruling tonight from the board
is is to uphold the um or is to deny the appeal, right? And we all agree that we're not appealing that. >> That was just done as a, you know, sort of paper trail. Um but I would like to leave open the opportunity for us to work with the building department and the health department and everybody else
to find a solution that does um you know preclude any use of that balcony and get it them get you know the city comfortable with the fact that those balconies won't be accessible even if the units are uh so I just you know I want to make sure I just kind of want to be clear on what what's being ruled on.
>> Yeah. Absolutely. And I think yeah I I completely agree and I think that's what the point of this this meeting was. But I do think that the from the perspective that I've heard from the um inspectors is that right now what you guys are the the plan that you have to secure those
doors is not completely adequate. And I agree with that. Um and so for now based on what we know and that could change obviously with your discussion that from the board's perspective we um uphold the the the decision and then for now will
not give access to those units as from is what I am voting for >> and um Michael you can tell me if that's that's acceptable. Um but at the same time a discussion can be had and we'll we'll happy to bring this board meeting again next month and discuss if things
have been if things have changed. Um but I think I'm going to close it at on that perspective. I know >> I think ideally it would come to the board. Um but obviously we're we're making most of our decisions based on how how the inspectors are feeling and
at the end of the day that's kind of what we do. um is we we we go based on their expertise because none of us are building experts or know how to secure doors and whatnot. So um if that's okay, we can have another board meeting. I know it's a pain, but it would be great
to have a discussion if there is something that solution that the inspectors feel comfortable with. We should let them uh start renting if they secure the balcony door because the work is going to be done from outside. So all the workers they're going to be
using the lift to work from outside. So if they come up with any system to to block these doors, nobody can access the balcony. I'm fine with it. And then we'll do our inspections and then uh they pass. They pass. They don't pass.
they have to fix the problem. >> Okay. If if that's okay. I know that's another ask. I apologize, but um just be feel more comfortable from our perspective. >> What what if a tenant doesn't allow access to a unit? I mean, we all know how that goes. You know, um you knock on
the door and nobody answers. you know, they're in there and, you know, um, and they you gave them ample notice that, you know, they were coming to fix the railings on this day and you um I I >> Yeah, I mean, >> that might put you behind the eightball a little bit more. Um, not getting
granted access to to the units or the tenant not allowing you in at that point. So, >> I don't know. I'm just kind of >> thinking outside the box a little bit. >> You're asking that of us, Mr. Wells? Yeah. So, so, um, we have we'll have
language in the lease that allows us to enter the unit for, you know, maintenance, um, upkeep kind of things. So, I'm not I'm I don't sh I don't have that concern that we wouldn't be able to access the units. Um, something that happens all the time, quite frankly, right, for, you know,
changing filters and, um, plumbing and whatnot. So, uh, that part doesn't concern me. Um, we'll we'll be able to get in there and affect the change. And quite frankly, you know, in this instance, it's something that would really benefit the resident as well. So, it's in their best interest. >> I agree. But I
>> Thanks. >> But Drew, um, I would like to hear from Mr. Ledra because we have two conflicting opinions now. We have one inspector who's comfortable with us uh, letting them rent out the unit with the balcony not being fully repaired the way
that they're proposing. And we have another inspector who's saying no, the door can still be open. So, Mr. Lassa, what do you I mean, they would both have to be they will both have to meet with the builders and say we both feel comfortable with this resolution. So because again I still
stand with uh we should not approve of the appeal and those balcony those units should not be rented until that work is completely done with the provision that both inspectors agreed if there's a new proposal. Okay. We came up with this
different system that both inspectors say we both feel very comfortable and very confident that this door will not be open. >> Yes, I agree with that. Okay. Sure. just he's coming from the building department side. I'm coming from the
state sanitary code side. That's what did the whole entire thing. So he his may his might be a solution up the road but not right this second. Um I think Hazam thought everything
could be done by lift outside. Bob says no they got to go through the apartments. So that kind of, you know, puts a kibash on on Ham's idea. Um, but yeah, we'll we'll work with them obviously to try to get to a solution
and if we do with the locks, um, then we can come back here. We can agree upon it and come back here. But for tonight, as I say, you're you're you're deciding on the order to correct appeal for the horizontal ballast.
>> I I understand that. Yeah, I I regret that. I just Yeah, thank you. I >> You're welcome. >> All right. Thank you guys. I appreciate it. Um I think that's going to conclude this meeting tonight. >> Thank you. No, it's not going to conclude.
Too late. >> What? >> Next on the agenda. >> Last thing on the >> cut so cut off. >> Sorry. There's one more thing in the agenda. I apologize. is it's the renewal of body art licenses. Uh this is with Lauren Bucket. Thank you. >> So, we're going to go super quick. I'll
read them all off. Um it's t it's annual body art um inspection time. Um so, we have quite a few. I'll read them. I'm asking you to approve of all of them at the same time at the end. So, the first is Babe and Bose Spa, 430, sorry, 475
Broadway. Their inspection was on uh January 5th and they passed. Next is uh Fun Luong. She works for Babe and Bo Spa. Her inspection was on the 5th. She passed. An individual practitioner license for Shelley uh Vu. She also works at Bab and Bo Spa. Um inspection
was on the 5th and she passed. The uh establishment for Lakshmi Beauty is on 100th. Uh Shirley A, the inspection was on the 6th. That establishment passed. The individual practitioner for Blanca Soda Lennis. Um her inspection was on the 6th. She passed. She works at Lockme
um beauty. an establishment for Janet Aesthetics. Her inspection was on the ETH. The establishment inspection was on the ETH and it passed. The individual practitioner license for Janet um is Cuddiero and her inspection was on the 8th and she passed. She works for Janet Aesthetics as well. The establishment
for Katia Alisabo pigmentation that was on the 15th. The establishment passed on the 15th. The individual practitioner uh Katia Alisabo on the 15th. She passed uh individual practitioner for Ty Merlin. Uh her inspection was on the 15th. She
passed and uh Cat Beautyco was on the 20th. Passed. That's an establishment individual practitioner. Katherine Paguro um her inspection was on the 20th. She passed. Finally, Sarah Opspino studio, her inspection was today. She passed. That was the establishment. And
then the individual practitioner Sarah Opspino and that was on the 20 today as well. And that and that was a pass. I'm just hoping that you can approve all of them at the same time. >> Yes, I approve. Yes, I approve. >> I also approve.
>> Great. Thank you. That I think concludes this meeting. Thank you. >> Okay. Wow.