Good evening. Welcome to the April 13th Ways and Means Subcommittee. Please rise to salute the flag to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic for it stands one
indivisible. Roll call of the members. Councelor Jenzio >> here. >> Here. Council McKenna >> here. >> Here. Council McCario >> here. >> Here. Council Noveski absent and chairman Kagglandro >> here. >> Here. Quorum is present.
>> We have uh two items on tonight's agenda. First being motion presented by councilors McKenna and Gino Souaya that the mayor request the River Police Department to sign an officer to be present during city council meetings. Given the increasingly hostile climate and heightened concerns regarding public
safety, having an officer in attendance would provide reassurance to counselors, staff, and members of the public. The presence of law enforcement would help ensure that meetings are conducted in a safe, orderly, and secure environment. >> Council McKenna.
>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, um, I just wanted to I want to address a safety concern regarding our city council meetings. Uh, and I repeated this the last when we uh, presented this motion, but some of it's different. On March 2nd, the meeting had to go into recess
because a man who currently has a trespassing order against him entered city hall, came into the chambers, and sat in the front row. Police were called and removed him about 10 minutes later. Thankfully, the situation ended peacefully, but it raises an important
question about safety for everyone in this room. Since that night, that man has entered Revier City Hall three more times, and the police were called to remove him. What if this man was disgruntled and angry? It would take seconds for him to pull out a gun and
shoot up the room and with without a police presence during the meeting. There is little protection if a situation escalates quickly like this. It only takes a few seconds for something serious to happen. Council members, staff, and members of the
public should feel safe when attending these meetings. I strongly believe having a police officer present during city council meetings provide reassurance and helps assure that any situation can be handled immediately if necessary. I would re rather be safe
than sorry. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other counselors wishing to speak? >> Councelor Argenzio. >> Thank you. Uh I know this is ways and means. Did did we get any estimates from uh Chief Levit as to if this is going to
cost any money or >> Yes, I have the the um email from Chief Levit. I was just giving everyone an opportunity before >> once I hear that information, maybe I'll have another question. Thank you. >> Understood. Thank you, councelor. Counselor Mccurio. >> Uh thank you. Uh yeah, I I mean this
motion's been presented uh several times to this to this board and and also to the council and and it's uh it's an important issue uh in today's environment and I I think it's important to have uh the security uh up up here for for all the counselors and not only
for the counselors but for uh the public that comes up into this chamber. So uh I'm on board with this and hopefully we can find the uh money for this and uh make this work. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Any other counselors? Councel Garino SA.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I was really happy to put this motion in again with Councelor McKenna. This is, I think, our second or third time putting it in. Um, and I'm happy to see that it's finally we're we're getting a little bit of feedback and trying to get
this going as soon as possible. Um, having the police presence here will ensure the safety and respect the environment that we're in. And as councelor McKenna said, we've had issue after issue, week after week of a person
completely disrupting the council meetings and this has been going on for years. So this is very important that we have a police detail to maintain the order and ensure that if anything arises, it can be handled quickly and
appropriately. We do not have to cancel um suspend the meeting for a few minutes, a half an hour, 10 minutes. It's just it's too disruptive. So, for the safety of the council, the residents, and everyone involved, um I
would really appreciate whatever we can do to make this come into fruition. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Uh if there's no one else permission to speak from the chair. >> Thank you. Uh so, uh I spoke to Chief
Levita through email. There was a question about the community hours from councelor McKenna. Uh basically what they do now with those is they save them for events like the sand castles, um the fall festival, things like that. Um we
are looking at $70 an hour for a detail with a minimum of four hours. That's $280 and times 22 meetings is $6,160 total for the year. Um,
I agree that safety is a a huge concern, uh, especially given the way things are right now. Um, so we can uh we can safely vote on this. We don't it's not over $15,000. So there's no further discussion. We can
uh >> Council I just want to say one thing. Uh I know um adding points up the sand castles is really important to have the police presence down there, but it's very important to have a police officer here too. So I mean if they could have
some of their hours shifted to uh the meet the meetings on Mondays here, I would really appreciate that. Thank you. All in favor? All opposed? I >> No, I wish recorded is voting. No.
Next item is communication from the chief of planning and community development relative to a low-income solar power agreement between the city of River and Parallel Product Solar Energy LLC. Chief Skaroski. >> Evening councilors. Tom Skroski, 281 Broadway, Chief of Planning, Community
Development. Um, I presented and discussed this at length at the the last council meeting. Happy to answer any specific questions you have about this agreement. um which again would qualify all those that qualify as lowinccome under our municipal aggregation plan
rever power choice for a discount through this program that is authorized by mass doe the the smart 3.0 program so happy to take any questions you might have >> thank you sir councel mccurio >> thank you Mr. Mr. Chairman, um just a couple of short questions. Uh Tom, and
thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Um the company Parallel Product Solar, um how long have they they've been in business? I could get you if if you want an exact number in time for the full council meeting. Um but but I know they've had a
number of projects throughout the um Southshore in and around New Bedford. >> Okay. And do you know the number of uh cities and m municipalities that they service right now? Um I would gather between looking at my research in advance of the last meeting
it was four or five. >> Okay. Thank you. And um this is going to be a 20-year agreement. >> That's correct. >> Is that normal for these type uh contracts? >> Yeah. So this is actually a brand new
incentive offered by the smart 3.0 program. Um, but it does it does sound like it's consistent with DOER's guidelines for this. So, basically, they offer a credit to the solar developer, and in order to receive that credit, um,
one of the things they have to do is find these long-term um, agreements to offer energy bill offsets for low-income consumers. And so they they the easiest way to do that is through the municipal
aggregation programs throughout the Commonwealth. >> Okay. And in your propo in your uh letter to us, uh the agreement says that we could see a cost savings of $800,000 for approximately $2,300 meters of low-income houses. >> That's correct.
>> And that is that yearly? >> That is annually. Yes. >> I'm going to say that's probably about 300, if my math's right, about $350. >> Exactly. >> Per customer. >> Correct. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. And is this an escalating clause meaning uh maintenance
over the the life of the agreement will that be charged more to the city? Um there won't be any charge to the city over time. Um the main obligation will be that we continue to through our municipal aggregation program offer a a
lowinccome supply discount which is standard uh for all municipal aggregation programs. And then in so offering um the company that administers our municipal aggregation in this case it's called Paragrin Energy
>> um also known as Mass Power Choice they then administer the program. So essentially, they make sure that everybody that the 2,300 households that say they're low income are actually low-inccome eligible. And then they set aside the the credit, the annual
$800,000 credit, um, which I think does escalate over time, and they attach that credit to the however many eligible bills there are. So today, because there's about 2,300, that's roughly $350
a year to those um to those clients, but let's say next year it might only be 2,000 clients. Um maybe some people unenroll or maybe it'll be 2500. They would adjust the credit that goes on to the bills according to the number of people that are enrolled as eligible uh
low-income clients under this program. So, do we have to maintain that level of 2,300 or 2,000 above? >> We do not. No, we we just need to maintain the the client list of folks that are eligible, continuously monitor that they're eligible and provide
credits to them. There is a limit for any in one individual that's a a calculated limit. It's in the contract. It's quite high. It's like $50,000. So, you know, if it came down to it and there were only five households that were eligible, there would be a cap per household. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> And do you anticipate signing up more houses uh more uh residents in the city of Rivia for this program? >> Um so we always want to continue to get membership into River Power Choice. Rever Power Choice to date. We're not
through um with a full year, but we've already saved rateayers in the city over a million dollars on their utility bills. So we're always looking to increase that number. and anyone who's eligible under the low-inccome program, the team at River Cho Power Choice can help them enroll in the program and make
sure they're eligible. And it's certainly a benefit to the right pair and a benefit to residents. We'd like to make sure they're taken advantage of. >> Okay. And how many enrolled residents do we have right now? >> Um total for uh the the whole River
Power Choice program. Um >> buy me about two minutes and I'll find that as we're talking here. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I think you've answered all my questions, Som. I've I've read over the contract several times. Uh, it's it's pretty indepth. Um,
and it it so we we can opt out of this at any time, correct? Without a penalty. >> That's correct. >> Okay. I think that's all the questions I have. Jim, Mr. Chairman, thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Arenzio. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr.
Skowski. So, at no point is the city exposed to any uh financial obligation to this program at all. It's >> no I mean if the the main obligation is um for for recourse I guess would you
would say is if the city were actively um you know basically we made a a commitment with parallel products to to enter into this agreement and then we actively were not trying to get the
credit to the low-income consumer. we were actively not sharing the information with them so they could actually get that discount. That's where it would be a problem because basically they would be paying us and we wouldn't be doing the thing we said we were going to do which they're contractually obligated to use that credit to provide
a benefit. We are the gobetween that makes sure they actually get that benefit to the consumer. So that would be the one recourse is if we are actively trying not to do so. There's um language in there that limits our liability. um subject to mass general
law. And then the the main recourse really is if we are no longer a municipal aggregation community, they have the ability to work with another community and and exit this agreement themselves to make sure that they can continue to um fulfill their obligations under the contract.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other counselors wishing to speak? All right. On the motion, all in favor? All opposed? I so ordered >> 16,513. >> Excuse me.
>> 16,513 people enrolled or households enrolled in the program. >> Yeah. >> There is no further business. This meeting is adjourned. Sure. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the April 13, 2026 zoning
subcommittee. Please join me in to salute the flag 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. >> Madame clerk, >> roll club the members. Councelor Aenzio >> here. >> Here. Councelor Cogleandro >> here. >> Here. Councelor Go Slayo >> here. >> Here. Councelor Kelly >> here. >> Here. And chairman Sylvestri >> here. >> Here. Quorum is present. We have two special permits before the
city council this evening. The first is a uh modification of a non-conforming structure on Elmwood Street. >> Petitioner, name and address, please. >> Good evening, uh, chairman, uh, and members of the committee. Uh, my name is
Nancy O'Neal and I am at an attorney located at 14 Proctor Avenue. I represent the applicant in this matter, Mr. Kraa of Mil Street, and I'm joined here tonight uh by Mr. Kraa. Uh and the project architect I believe is on his way. So, as this honorable body may
recall, this proposal is for the replacement of the current Bareric structure on the Elwood Street property uh with a new and useful residential structure. So, as you can see here, uh the site is currently housing a derelict commercial
garage, uh which is a bite on the neighborhood. Our original proposal to replace that garage uh was for a two family residence that would feature two and a half stories with a building height of approximately 35 ft. After discussing uh the original plans with neighbors and receiving the feedback of
the city councilors at meetings in January and February, we went back to the drawing board uh and reworked the plans. We are now proposing a smaller single family home that is about 20% smaller than the original proposal. Uh setbacks to neighbors have been
increased. Uh the setback to 47 Elmwood Street as well as the rear yard setback have been increased. So there are greater setbacks uh to the neighbors and an overall increase in open space of around 40%. Additionally, the building height uh has been reduced by nearly
30%. Uh so this is overall smaller structure uh that fits with the neighborhood. >> Here we go. Right way around this time. So overall, this is a smaller structure, smaller smaller in height, uh, building footprint, and it favors improved setbacks and more green space. Is it
important to remember that this new attractive single family home is a major improvement over the dilapitated commercial structure currently at the property? Uh, the commercial building is an eyesore and a blight on the neighborhood, which otherwise consists of residential buildings. What we are
proposing is to remove that derelct structure so that it cannot be returned to a commercial use in the middle of this residential neighborhood and replace that structure with an appropriately sized home that will improve the character and appearance of Elwood Street. As per the recommendations of the city planner, the
applicant is providing a new sidewalk along this stretch of Elmwood Street, new street trees and landscaping. The project also has sufficient parking with two spaces to be provided at the adjacent lot on the other side of 55 Elwood Street. Both this property and 55 Elmwood have sufficient parking at that
lot and there's a two-space surplus. So no off- streetet uh parking impacts are anticipated. So overall, the proposed single family residents will form a great improvement over the neighborhood compared to what's there now. As the council heard previously, neighbors support this proposal as they are tired
of looking at the dilapitated garage and would rather have a new residential structure in its place. So, in conclusion, this proposal would prevent a commercial use from coming back into this neighborhood, would get rid of a bladed building the neighbors want to see gone, and we would replace that
structure with an attractive single family residence with sufficient parking. Uh, for these reasons, we respectfully request uh the city council look favorably upon the project and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Anyone else here
in favor? Anyone speak against city councilors? Councelor Gino Suire. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has not been an easy process and I appreciate everyone who taken the time to speak up
whether it's be whether it was in favor, in support of it, or in opposition. Um that said, the proposal before us today is not the same project that was originally presented. The applicant has made subst sub substantial changes
making it much more consistent with the surrounding properties. These changes directly address the concerns that were raised here in this council chambers. And at this point, I think it's important to recognize that the applicant is not asking for excessive relief. Now,
what's being requested is reasonable, especially given the existing conditions of that property and the fact that replaces a long-standing commercial structure that is an eyesore. Um, we always want to protect the neighborhood character, but we also have
to be fair when an applicant comes forward and listens to what the counselors have to say and then makes good faith adjustments. And that's what I see happen that has happened here. Um, as I see it, this res revised proposal strikes a balance. It improves the
property, respects the neighborhood more than the original plan, and does so without asking for anything out of the ordinary, and the surrounding neighbors are in approval. So, to me, I am in favor of this project now. Thank you.
>> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Kelly, >> I have a question. Thank you. Um, will they be putting in an ADU? >> Uh, there are no plans for an ADU at this time, >> but an ADU could be installed at some point in the future. It's not it's not
prohibited or anything. >> ADUs are by use under state law, >> right? So, they could functional as a two family somewhere down the line. >> I believe under state law, uh, residential single family home districts are allowed an ADU, uh, by right. >> Yep. Okay. Just wanted to make that
clear. And I'm sorry, did you say how much the setbacks have increased by? >> Uh, so the setback has been increased by I believe three two and a half 3 feet to 47 Elmwood Street. So there's about a 7 and 1/2t separation between those
properties and I believe the rear setback has been increased by about 6 to 10 ft. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you counselor. Any other counselors permission to speak from the chair?
Um I I actually um I want to thank the uh petitioner um for for hearing the council out for um making changes, working with your neighbors, working with the council. Um
it goes a long way to um show some real teamwork and on getting projects done that fit some neighborhoods. So I want to commend you and thank you for that. Um other than that I think we can madame clerk if we can call with the um
conditions from uh Frank Stringy. >> The conditions that Frank Stringy had submitted were as follows. One, an easement agreement must be recorded for the encroachment of the existing developed structure located at 55 Elmwood which encroaches on lot A. The parking area proposed on lot B shall be
screened on all sides where abudding adjacent residential properties. Three, a sore connection and water connection permit must be obtained from the DPW. The city engineer and DPW super must review and approve the proposed sore service and water service as well as storm water management plan and
erosion control plan. At least 40% of the front yard shall be landscaped, including the planting of uh two trees and concrete sidewalks with granite curbing and granite curb butts at all driveway shall be installed along the full frontage of the property comprising of lot A, 55 Elwood Street and lot B.
All existing drains, water lines and sewer lines within the site shall be abandoned and shall be capped at the main and removed and the grading of the lot shall be such that no runoff is diverted to abuing properties. Shall the zoning subcommittee offer a favorable recommendation to the city council to
grant the relief requested subject to those conditions? Councelor Aenzio, >> yes. >> Yes. Councelor Cogleandro, >> yes. >> Yes. Councelor Go SA. >> Yes. >> Yes. Councelor Kelly, >> no. >> No. And councelor, I'm sorry. Chairman Sylvestri, >> yes. >> Yes. The special permit has received a
favorable recommendation with conditions. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Thank you, councelor. Next application is that of Mario Zapage, 791 Broadway, requesting a special permit from the River City Council to enable the appellant to construct two townhouse dwellings at 661
Washington. A town houses may be allowed in the RB district by special permit. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, James Cipleta 5 Fremont Street in Winthrop on behalf of Mario Zapage. Uh when we were last before the uh city council, we made our initial
presentation for um two twounit town houses on a lot that um previously or actually still has a burnt out um two family house on it. That
house will be raised and will be replaced by the uh two two family um twounit uh town houses. Um we were required to go to the board of appeals to seek three variances and uh one was
because we were uh a number of square feet short of the 10,000 square feet. We have 9410 uh that variance was granted. A variance for the minimum rear setback of 20 ft. We're a few feet short of that. That
variance was granted. The third and one was was um mentioned as an item of concern to some of the councilors here was for uh a variance with respect to a driveway within 20 ft of the point of a curvature
of an intersection. That driveway curvature is 17 1/2 ft. So we're about 2 and 1/2 ft short of the 20. Um when we did go to the um board of appeals, we said that we would make have
consultations with the the engineer and and the safety expert. Uh Mario has committed to putting up the the warning signs and whatever else is going to mitigate or minimize any danger uh in that in that area. So, the special
permit that we're we're asking for is a is for the use and the use of a of a townhouse is allowed as uh correctly stated uh by special permit. We're not here to talk about setbacks. We're not here to talk about traffic or anything else. What we're here to talk about is
the use of a special by special permit. What is the standard uh for the issuance of of a special permit? As the subcommittee well knows, is whether or not the proposed use is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood
than the current use. And the current use is a true family house. The na the nature of the neighborhood does um contain um town houses, two families, three families. It is in a mixture. And
it seems that um the way that these town houses are designed, they're in harmony with the the neighborhood. They uh they do not create any hardship. They're not substantially more detrimental. In fact, they're not their use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than
anything else that you could put there as a matter of right. Um so therefore um in accordance with the plans that we have submitted the application and the arguments made both um here initially to the city council and this evening I
suggest that we have met our burden of proving that the townhouse use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and request on respectfully that this be voted favorably to the city council and we'll be requesting that the city council vote favorably on the
issuance of the special permit. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. >> Thank you, councelor. Anyone else here in favor? Anyone here to speak in favor? >> Name and address for the record, please. Paris Park 283 Kushman Fier.
I'm the favor of this project because currently the property is an eyesore and I saw the plans for town houses will increase the value for the neighborhood and it fits with the neighborhood. So I think it's a
win-win for the whole neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Anyone else here to speak in favor? We'll close that side. Um, madame clerk, we do have a letter um that was sent in opposing uh the letter was sent in by
Robert Damia of 325 Rumy Road and he opposes the site due to safety uh with the with the driveway in one of the units. Um but we'll pass on the reading. Just wanted to put that on the record.
Uh, anyone here else speaking against any city councilors? >> Councelor Kelly. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm disappointed with this because I I wanted to support this proposal because
I like town houses um, and I like to support them, but I simply cannot support this from a public safety standpoint. Um, this is one of the busiest intersections in the city. Even though it's 17 and a half feet, it's still going to be cars are going to be
backing out of that driveway into a busy intersection. In addition to that, I've been informed that this is the school um b school bus drop off and pickup location right at this 661 Washington A location for the Garfield school. We've
got guardrails there already that show that this is a dangerous intersection. The city engineers on record saying that it's going to create a very unsafe condition. A warning sign is great, but it doesn't it doesn't alleviate the risk. It just warns people of the risk.
So, I don't see that that really solves anything. Um, so we can't do anything now really about the driveway other than maybe and put some conditions on it. the variance has been granted. It's a shame because I would have liked to have supported it,
but because of the documented safety risks here, um I just can't. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Any other city councilors? Councelor Greenwire. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
I don't share the same views as this, particularly around the concerns about safety. And respectfully, I don't understand this assessment. I'm in a I'm in a situation that I when I drive by there, I went by there yesterday.
There are two stop signs there. I always stop at those stop signs. The driveway has always been there. I just I I don't understand where where it's coming where all of this is coming from being a safety concern. I
wish most of the city of Rivier intersections would have the stop signs like this one particularly does and I don't know of any incidents that's actually happened there. Um it's controlled by the stop signs and in my experience the traffic moves there in an
orderly manner. So I I just I don't agree with it and it's not a high-rise. It's town houses. it fits perfectly within the character of the neighborhood and to get rid of that eyesore is is a plus for me. So, thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Any other
counselors? >> Yeah, councelor Arenzio. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've looked at the plans. I think it's a great project. I support town houses. Um, quite a few of my years on the DPW, I did driveway permits. Um, yes, you're
not supposed to have a driveway within 20 ft of the curvature of the road, but we're only talking 2 and 1/2 ft, which is this. So, this being safe and this being unsafe, I don't see that as being really realistic. So, I think that's a
minor uh roadblock here. I I don't think it's matters in the safety of it. two and a half feet, very small, and I'm I'm in favor of the project and um I'd be voting in favor. Thank you.
>> Thank you, councelor Councel Corvando. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with exactly what councelor Aenzio's assessment was. Um you know, this is four two bed, two bath, two parking spot uh condos. it's home ownership, you
know, and uh it's such a a minimal issue that we're having with this. If it was 20 feet away like it should be, would we be still complaining about that 2 and 1/2 ft and how close it was to the intersection? So, I am in favor of this. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Kelly.
>> Thank you. Um I just wanted to clarify the safety issue isn't really my opinion. This is the um opinion of our city engineer. So, if we're just going to disregard our city engineer saying that this is going to create a very unsafe condition, I'm not going to
disregard that. Um, but everybody's entitled. But, um, I'm not, this isn't my opinion. This is the opinion of the city engineer. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Kongo, >> thank you for the leeway. Did the city engineer submit any official statement
other than that email? Was there any any other >> the email that he gave me? He said that I could share with the ZBA and the city council. >> Yeah. Yes, councelor. I got it. I was just curious if there were any further notes from him on this issue. >> Didn't know they were required to be.
>> I'm not asking if they're required. I was asking if there were counselors. >> Councilors, let's enough with the back and forth, please. Council Zambo. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think what we have to realize here is we're
not voting on a driveway. We have no say in this driveway. We're voting on the use and that's it. So, you either approve the town homes or you don't. But we're not voting on a driveway. Thank you.
>> Thank you, councelor. Any other counselors? Madame Clerk, >> shall the zoning subcommittee offer favor recommendation to the full city council to grant the relief requested for townhouse use at 661 Washington A. Councelor Aenzio? >> Yes.
>> Yes. Councelor Cogandro. >> Yes. >> Yes. Councelor Gino SA. >> Yes. >> Yes. Councelor Kelly. >> No. >> No. And Chairman Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Yes. The special permit has received a favorable recommendation for this evening. >> Thank you. That will close this evening's business.
Meeting is a journal.