5 12 2025 City Council Ordinances and Legislation

Over my over my hey. Hey. Hey.

on ordinances and legislation. Come to order. The clerk can call the role.

Council here.

here. Council tit here.

Here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.

Therefore, attendees of such recordings and transmissions whether perceived or unpersceived by those present are deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Uh we have one person who did sign up for citizen input time uh David Aloea and he is speaking about Pine and Roberson Street, Mr.

Alivera. All right. I'm a little confused coming to you guys right now about this. Um so I'm here in opposition of the um the Pine and Roberson oneway. Um, I feel that that street right now is just too congested right now to be able to have a two-sided parking. Um, now I'm hearing different things about the traffic if it's coming in from Seabberry into Pine. Now it's going into Roberson

into uh Pine. So now I'm hearing it changed again. So I'm not sure where it stands right now. Listen, I'm all to try to help anybody possible on that street, but we have to make some kind of smart judgment on what we do with this street.

It's not meant to have an area where there's so many different cars on that street.

So I was in favor of having it to Roberson into Pine because coming out of Roberson right now is just bad because there's been plenty of accidents over there and I don't want to see any more accidents happen like that. So I feel that that's the best route to go but it becomes the parking issue where I still have really really concerns on that.

We're worrying about people walking to the veteran center regardless people are going to have to park I mean walk. I'm gonna have to walk when I get out of a car and I'm gonna have to walk to my house. So walking should not be a reason why we should be putting this a one way.

I don't think the street is is fit to put a oneway knowing that the the time frame is from the veteran center they're usually there till about 5:30 and then that now that street becomes like oneway street for no reason now afterwards. So I feel like it's a detrimental part for the for the residents on on on how we park.

So I'm just now confused on where it's going to go now. Where what's what's the legal way that they want to go by now?

If they want to go from Robison to Pine or is it Seabberry in the pine? My information that I've received because I do call before meetings to gather information is that the fire department has made a determination that if if this committee decides it should be a oneway that it should be a oneway in a specific direction and that helps the fire trucks from central station. it does not

increase the time for them to get to specific locations of the city that that firehouse um services. Um and that's what I heard and I know that uh Miss MacArthur is here today to speak about that. So I would wait and let's hear what she has to say about it. But I do take and the counselors take into consideration what your concerns are.

And there's one more thing. Um, and it's just the um, now if we we're not going to be now if it does if it it's goes back to your original plan with what the traffic approved. If you can't go into Robus and now that becomes more of a problem where you got the gas station on the corner where now they're only be now they're only going to have one entrance

I mean one exit I mean one entrance in and that's going into Roberson. They're not going to be able to go into Pine anymore to go into the into that parking lot. So if they're two, three cars deep at the gas pump, nobody's getting in in by Roberson and then there's a a mill on the side of them where they have a bunch of trucks, they need that side street to

turn those trucks around. If there is a bunch of cars on that street on that end, those trucks are not getting out of there. So that's another thing that that I'm concerned about as well. So what mill are you talking about? the mill right on the side. Um where there it's open there's like an open spot space over there have like bowling news back there. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So yeah, but that you don't get to that entrance if you go right. But there's an entrance there's where they park their trucks is is on Pine. Oh, I see. There's a there's a there's a gate fence there. Oh, so between where the gas station is and the No, no, no, no.

After the veterans, it's gas station veterans and then it's there's the open space over there. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. I didn't see that. That that was where like Globe Manu parts of Globe Manu.

Right. Right across from the church.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. The back of Glo the property that was part of Rugles Park that we gave away. I voted no on that, by the way. Just to put that out there. So, like I said, I'm just a little concerned on on all that stuff.

Um like I said, I I want to try to figure out a solution to this, but from what we're gathering, I'm sorry, but we're we're just not they're when they're busy, they're busy, but when they're not, they're not. And today for instance, and I'm sending you guys some pictures of what it looked like from when it was dead and when it was busy and how there is when there's two-sided

cars and then there's one car in the middle. You ain't getting you ain't getting cars, you know, two cars on that lot. I mean, on that street or one car on that street without a struggle.

We do have the photos. I'll pass them around. Mr. Alva, thank you so much.

Thank you. I appreciate it. You always give good input to the city. Thank you.

I appreciate it. You're welcome. Excuse me, ma'am. A lady just came in and I don't know if you wanted to sign up for citizen input. Did you want to talk? Yes. Okay. I noticed you came in saying you just missed it, but we'll accommodate.

You're welcome.

Maybe it was a middle ground solution.

No talking until a certain time on one side. Yeah, we come up with something. I was there. You were there and I and it happened. It was a truck going back and just like what he said what he told us.

Audrey Press is also wanting to speak on Pine Street. Hi, Mrs. Press.

Good evening. My name is Audrey Poris from 568 Pine Street, apartment 2A. I'm here to support David with regard to the intersection of Robersonson Street and Pine Street. While stop signs have been installed both east and west on Pine Street, it does not appear to be working as well as expected. The yellow signs on Roberson Street, north and south, work only as well as the traffic signals

north and south at Bedford Street and those at Locust Street. Maybe four-way or as calledway stop sign should be tried.

I'm working on an alternative plan for having the alternating streets from Bedford Street through President Avenue be one ways because those streets are too narrow for more than three cars of rest. I have witnessed many things. I've lived opposite O Grady Street for almost six years and have witnessed too many near misses and smashed tide mirrors. I've also seen the the fire department. I don't know how they got

the how they get the uh ladder truck down uh Pine Street with cars parked on both sides. I'm not saying not let the people park on both sides because where are they going to park?

Those h those houses were built many years ago before there were requirements that you had to have off- streetet parking. I would have off- streetet park. I will have off- streetet parking.

I have it as best I can right now and I'm going to I'm increasing that. But um this that position is for another board and another day. So, thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Press. Thanks, Miss Press.

Item number one on the agenda is the minutes of the April 7th, 2025 motion to approve. Do I have a second? There's been a motion and a second. All in favor? I I. Item minutes B, April 14th, 2025. Motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? I I. Item number three is the proposed ordinance um traffic handicap parking and it was referred on April 8th. Motion for emergency preamble. Second. There's a

second roll call on emergency preamble.

Councel councelor Hart. Yes. Councelor Reposa. Yes. Councelor Tiff. Yes. Chair Per. Yes. Motion to pass through all readings. Seconded. Motion to pass through all readings.

First and a second. All in favor? I.

Thank you. Could I ask that we take item five because I think item four is going to take a little bit longer. If we could get item five. Second. Second.

Okay. Um, taking item five out of the off the agenda. Uh, there's been a motion and a second. All in favor? I.

Uh Mr.

Agia and attorney.

I was going to say attorney Matt and Burke went out of my mind. It's attorney Matt Burke.

Just so that people at home know who you are, if you'd state your name for the record. Junior, assistant with the city of Florida.

Good evening, Dan Aguia, the director of engineering and planning for the city of Florida. Mr. Aguia um and attorney Burke, the council has looked at this on a at a council meeting and sent it to this committee for approval, but or sent it to this committee for discussion. Um but there's a few amendments that came in. One of them was to strike out 6,000 and insert 600 in its place and that is

sorry go ahead right on um section 86-1 84 no 148a and that is that the three room dwelling shall contain at least 600 square feet versus 6,000 And then on 8635 uh zone to strike out six or less units 20 or greater units. And what are we putting in that? Was it the 15? So I think it' be easier if I just explain.

Go ahead cuz you got me confused. So the letter that you have that has two amendments. Okay. All all that is dealing with is typographical errors that came from the clerk's office. Okay.

Okay. Um, so the fact that it said 6,000 instead of 600, yeah, doesn't really matter because we're going to strike that entire section be kind of a back room. It did say 6,000. So that that's just to correct that number. So we're asking to we're going to ultimately hopefully wave that entire section A and then also 86351. When we get to the proposed that section of the six or less units, you'll see when they when you

have the proposed table of what we're asking which in the packet they Andrew has it that little narrative section at the bottom of what we're replacing it with. You'll see we get rid of that six or less or the 20 or greater. What happened was when they actually wrote the bylaw and typed confusion beyond belief with that description and what areas went along with it, right? Because you don't know,

okay, well, it's six or less. Well, what area goes with six or less? What happens with six to 20? They don't deal with it.

And then what happens with 20 or more?

So, that that's part of just cleaning up typo stuff as far as as the two amendments. The gist to the entire ordinance itself is to reduce the requirements of the A2 zoning district as we have it to keep it in line with our G, BL and multifamily housing districts which all allow for multif family homes and and the majority of it has to deal with in the A2 zoning district and it's the only section in

our ordinance we we define a specific square footage for the smallest unit allowed and the number of rooms. No other zoning district in the city deals with that. You could build a single family house that's smaller than what this requirement says an apartment needs to be. It just doesn't make sense. So, I think it was something that carried over and just wasn't well done when they when

they did it. So, we want to strike the entire section that deals with the minimum square footage for the unit itself and then the number of rooms that go per unit themselves. Because what's happening now is we're precluding developers from building studios, micro units, or even one bedrooms because you need you need to come up with three rooms exclusive of a bathroom. Difficult to do. So, if you want to build a 599

square foot studio apartment, which we have a need for that type of housing, correct? we're procluded from doing that. So, this would eliminate that and the Massachusetts building code would govern. Massachusetts building code says what you're building is habitable, then that's what we're going to allow just like every other zoning district in the city. So, it it kind of it creates this

unic gets rid of the unicorn in our zoning ordinance when it deals with the size of apartments. Secondly, what we looked at um and what the largest section of what we're proposing is that the minimum land area when we're calculating how many units can be built in the G district, the BL district, and the M multif family district, we start with a base of 5,000 square feet and incrementally go 1500 additional square

feet for each additional unit. That's where that's how it is everywhere else.

The A2 district, can I ask you to do something? You talked about different zones. you know, the B, the multif family. Could you explain exactly what those letters stand for? What those acronyms stand for? Sure. So that the public can hear. So, so right now we have a number of zoning districts that allow for multif family housing. We have the one that we're talking about tonight, which is A2, which is called

apartment. We have BL, which is local business, which allows up to three unit buildings. We have general residence which allows for multif family up to three units. And then we have an M multif family residence district that also allows for six units. We have others like the WOD zoning district that are even far more progressive. But then what this would do would keep them in line with other similar types of zoning

districts that have a substantial minimum requirement for area. Um because to jump from 10,000 square feet down to zero like the WTO or the arts overlay, that's too much. But what we're finding is the zoning board of appeals, 25% of the petitions that we deal with every month have to do with this A2 apartment zoning district because they're partials don't exist that can comply to the

requirements. So, we're trying to give that some relief as well and to allow developers to work in a similar type of guideline and framework as our other multif family zoning districts. What we did do, and this was important and it was very intentional. So, yes, we're reducing the amount of frontage building setbacks to match what those other districts allow for. We also reduce the

height because if we're going to say you can now be closer to the sideline instead of 30, you only need to now be 12. Well, we're not going to let you be 70 feet in height anymore. We're going to only allow you to be 45 like those other zoning districts were because nobody's building 70 foot tall buildings in these A2 zoning districts. So, it serves no purpose. And then another

thing, we did not wave or propose any waiver of lot coverage. So, we still have some teeth in our regulatory review and parking. So, they still need to comply with those. Parking is not being changed. So, if they need parking relief, then they still need to come to the zoning board of appeals through a special permit process. So, although we're not in the order that I presented them to you, um

that's what we are requesting to change.

And then in your paperwork, it's the same of what I had presented to the the council earlier. I did actually give you another larger map that shows you the areas that the A2 zoning district comprises, which are shaded in pink. Um, and that's where this these adopted zoning requirements would would be as a matter of right. And a lot of them, I mean, we're talking about Pine Street, Lynon Orady Bank Franklin uh those

June, French, Lincoln Avenue, Pierce, those are all going to be that lower Highlands kind of section is and a lot in the south end. So, there's always a lot in the south end. Yeah, there's a lot in the Flint. Lot in the Flint. So you can see right along Pleasant Street, that's a BL. That's a business zone district that is allowed, but maybe 150 ft off of Pleasant through that Florida

is this A2 zoning district that we should be able to or developers should have the ability to increase the number of units within them for different types of housing. I grew up in a tenement like most people did in the city, but they were tenementss that had three bedrooms, a double parlor, the kitchen, and a galley bathroom. And that's what we have people trying to rent today at $2,000 an

apartment. Well, there are people out there that don't need three bedrooms, a double parlor, and that size of a unit.

This, we are hoping, will provide that lower cost, affordable number, and allow a single man or woman or one child to now live in a smaller unit. and these A2 zoning districts is where most of that happens where those rents we can get those rents down, but the zoning doesn't allow it. So, we're trying to reach that affordable number for people to be able to get an apartment of the size they

need. But to do that, we need to change this bylaw. And of course, this is entirely separate from ADUs, which will be an entirely different discussion that we're that we're dealing with now. We'll wait for that one one step at a time. Does anybody have any questions? Anyone have any questions on it? motions. Just one real quick council. I know Dan, I think we talked about this at the full council

meeting. This particular one right here off Ellsworth. That's the That's not Conley. We stated that before. It's that Brook Estate subdivision which is just north of the Conley entrance. Yeah.

Okay. I actually had worked on that in like '92. Yep. Um and I went back and found it. So at the time that develop and this is how the city used to do things, right? that developer wanted to build that type of a project in that location. So, the zoning was changed to accommodate that specific. It's spot zoning. Y it's against the law, but it was done right. Um and that's how that

one little pink spot shows up on your map and it's not consistent with with the other areas, right? Because when you're dealing with different types of condominium developments and that higher density stuff, the zoning district that which I think is S in that district wouldn't allow for that. So, it was somebody at some point in time thought it was a good idea. Yeah. But that's how

that came to be. Yeah. I just wanted to double check. Yeah. Thank you. I yield.

Is there a motion? Yeah. I'll make a motion to amend and I I'll read them. Um so section 86-148A strike out 6,000 and insert 600 in its place. And and then section 8635 attachment one in the zone category column to strike out quote six or less units.

slash20 or greater units in the form of a motion. Second, if I can clarify, that's just going to fix the paperwork that you were got and then you're going to act on the request for amendment. Correct. District. Okay.

So, there's a motion to uh amend support with the amendments. All in favor? I.

There was a first and a second on that.

Yep. Okay. And a motion to pass through first reading. Motion to make pass through first reading as amended.

Seconded. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. Thank you very much. Attorney B, you agree with all this? I concur with uh Mr. Aguia. I don't have much more to add than what Mr.

In case we had legal questions. I appreciate your attendance.

Thank you.

On my calendar, but I was going to ski it because there's only bring coffee.

Where does this fall on tomorrow's agenda?

It's item 58.

I think if you want to you sure item number four on the agenda. Um it's a one-way streets of Pine Street east from Seesbury Street to Roberson Street.

And uh Miss MacArthur is here from traffic. Welcome.

Hello, Stephanie MacArthur, director of traffic and parking. Welcome.

I know that we spoke uh earlier today and you have some input or education to give us on what you've researched. Yes.

So, initially this request came to the traffic board uh from the veteran center. They were requesting to make a portion of Pine a oneway uh Westerly from Robison to Seab Barry. Okay. The of course any one way has to go through police and fire. Um so it was sent over.

We do have Lieutenant Da who is on our traffic board through police um and it did go over to fire for review. I did receive some information um from fire chief Bacon um stating that if a oneway was to be considered, he would request it to be an easterly direction from Seabberry to Robeson um in order for his apparatus to access any emergencies easterly of Robeson. Um the traffic

board did go back and forth um with as far as what they were going to do if because of the accidents that occur at that intersection.

intersection of Okay. Yeah. So, that was mentioned and discussed at the traffic board. Um, but it was approved in traffic Pine Street East from Seabberry to Roberson. Currently, there is parking prohibited on the south side of Pine Street. Um, with that oneway change, it would be allowed with parking on both sides of Pine. Parking on both sides.

Correct. Okay. couple of suggestions and let's think about it. Yeah, of course.

One of the suggestions were made by Mrs.

Pus about having a four-way stop on Pine and Roberson for the number of traffic accidents that are there. Another suggestion was made by Mr. Aloe vera who's concerned that he understands Pine Street needs parking and many people are there um to pick up food and get other services, numerous services that they offer, but they're only open from a certain time to a certain time. So, could we do parking that is limited to

those specific hours and not have it a oneway and put a four-way stop and see how that works? There is also a bus stop there which we can't change. There's a bus stop somewhere there that we can't change because you got to go through all kinds of stuff with Serta to change the bus stop. And if maybe there was no parking um at the corner of Seabberry on Pine because if fire trucks come up that

way and have to make that turn, they can. And Mr. Alivera spoke of another business nearby that has big trucks that come up. Are those some things we could implement? because I'm not getting a sense that people want a oneway in the middle of all of Pine Street and then boom, a oneway. Uh like I told you, I'm getting complaints over near near the YMCA. There's one section that's a

oneway and now we're getting complaints.

Just to toss that out there for your your knowledge and what you think. So, the four-way stop was discussed at Robison Street. Um, but because it's a main throwway, it got denied for the four-way. It's a main throwway, Roberson Street. And with that incline, that's why it was it was declined for a four-way stop at Robin. It can't stop. So, it was it was discussed because of that incline being

a stop on a hill like that, especially in the winter months. Um, it there was a few there was a few discussions about it, but that was a no-go for the four-way stop at Pine. Okay. But we supersede you guys. Right. Right. I mean, you can sure you can surely send it back to traffic board for discussion.

Absolutely. All right. Council hot had his hand up first. Then we go just real quick. Um Stephanie, um so yeah, so we're talking about that like what uh council vice president Pere was talking about the congestion and it's all over the city, but now we're talking about this area specifically. And I do like I wish Mr. Agad didn't leave because I had a question for him because I had talked

to him about the development at the Sacred Heart Church which is going to be condominiums or apartments. Um so and there's I think maybe 45 parking spots in that development and it's going to be there's going to be an outpouring of some it's going to be more than correct two one car for that particular apartment. Um so there's going to be more cars parked on in that area. So

just my concern is and it's not well I don't know if something that you can answer but just my concern is just the public safety part of it where I think you know it's good that the chief Bacon has signed off about the one way from Seabberry to Pine. Um I thought it would be a better idea from Pine to Seabberry but he's the chief. He knows a lot more

than I do. Um, but I think it's either way, um, it's going to be congested area and I think they're going to have a tough time. Um, especially when that new development comes in to to, uh, negotiate around there for for the fire department. So, I don't know. I I'm not I I think maybe if there's some kind of um compromise that can be that can be done, I'd be in favor of it. But I don't

think um and and also too that it's I I do drive by there during the day. It's very congested. Yeah. Um so I don't think the unless there's some kind of compromise, I I don't I don't know if I'd be in favor of changing it to the one way, but I'm willing to listen.

I yield. You yield. Yeah. Council proposal. Yeah. So I think this the problem is there's two issues here. You have the issue of the the safety of the intersection of Robeson and Pine which has been an issue for a number of years and a one-way from Robeson to Seabberry would alleviate a lot of that because the a lot of the accidents happen people coming out of Pine easterly into Robeson

you can't see around the corner they they kind of come out boom they get hit so that's one issue that would solve that the second issue obviously is the parking of the VAC and I I think I don't know where I think we're at a kind of a standstill as far as what is the best way going forward with You know, the third idea, which is kind of an outside of the box idea, is a

parking lot across the street. You got you got plenty of greenery there. You can make a parking lot if you needed to, a small parking lot that could accommodate the issue that we have. Now, that's obviously not a short-term fix.

It's more of a long-term fix, something that can be looked into. But I guess my question becomes, you know, if we're looking at both issues at the same time, we're kind of stuck because we're solving one, not solving the other, and causing another issue down the line. We don't know.

Um, I mean, my my position on it would be I would like to see more parking on the other side of the street, which is on the VAC side, so veterans can get to the facility. But again, you have that problem is now it's just like take the veteran center out of the equation. When you do the the events at the park during the summer, the school events, people park on both sides of the street

regardless and it literally becomes you it's now a forced oneway because you can't go up and down the street anyway.

So it I I'm not sure. I mean, my my opinion at this point is further traffic study on what the solutions are for this. Um, I still stand on the fact that that is a dangerous intersection and doing nothing is only going to make what continue worse. You know, there was an accident today already again. So, that that situation, regardless of the VABC's position and wanting additional parking,

which I'm I'm in support of, that intersection needs to be dealt with. But when we add the parking element to it now, we just added a whole other thing.

I don't know if you want to add anything to that, but that's kind of where I stand on that. I yield. You yield.

Councelor Posa. Yes. And like you had said earlier, councelor, as far as maybe adding it during certain hours for the veteran center, the only issue with that is like council repos just stated, if we do do any additional parking on that southside and it gets congested. It it it technically is a oneway. It's not wide enough. It's only 28 feet wide. I actually spoke Yeah, I actually spoke to

Dan this afternoon. And it's 20 that portion of Pine Street between Robeson and Seabberry is 28 ft. Easterly from Robeson it's about 34 ft. So it does it does thin out on that portion because that's the discussion that we had had earlier there. There possibly could be another solution behind the vet center is land that is owned I want to say and I'd have to talk to Mr. Gonzalves, but

the VFW owns land behind um the VFW on Bedford Street. Now, I think a strip of that land went to the mill to Merrow to the mill and I think they let him borrow or rent the front half so that his workers could park there and they swapped and took the back half. One of the solutions is and I think Mr. LC, if you go out the back of Pine Street, do you mind joining

us so I'm not Absolutely.

Yeah. Could you just state your name so your position so people know who you are? I do and that's why I'm calling you. Sure. uh Ken Lec uh the executive director at the uh veteran center because in the back if I was going to go in by the back of Pine Street um to have someone take a claim that back entrance there is a ramp there that leads to that parking lot in the back. Correct.

Correct. So that's off of Roberson, right? Uh Yep. So that's off of Roberson and I'm 99% sure that that's Mero that owns that lot. But then I think maybe we should reach out to Mr. Mero and reach out to Jamie Gonzalez and members of the VFW because I know that there was some swap of land there. Um or Mr. Mero, he doesn't use that back half as much. And if the city could purchase a piece of

that property, that would solve the problem because they could come in by Robersonson Street. There's a ramp there and it would be even better for you when trucks are being delivered and things like that because you'd have that ramp.

Yeah. I don't want to speak for um for uh Mr. Gonzalez at the BFW, but I believe he doesn't have that that land.

I believe that is Maro back then. But didn't he swap some land with that? He has I believe if I I believe he has the front um uh of the VFW there. Uh just that lot because if you come uh if you pull in from Bedford Street to the VFW on the right hand side, you can get to the side of the VFW, but you can't get all the way through to the back parking

lot. I think he had in the back he had so many feet too. Okay. I believe so.

And maybe that's where our VSO comes in to reach out with Mr. Gonzalez and see what in fact do they own um and perhaps we can have a conversation with Mr. Mero if he does own it and see what the city is willing to do to lease that or purchase that. even to lease it would be I think it would be much easier for the people that you're servicing there. Um

most of them are elderly. We don't walk as fast as we did when we were in our 30s. So crossing the street or walking far I'm in that category of senior. Um so with that that might be a solution too and then the street would stay the way it is. I would say with that um to be ADA compliant, uh you would have to put a some sort of ramp to get from the

VABC parking lot to the back parking lot because right now there's actually a gate um with a set of stairs that goes down into it.

But to get something like that, I know the VSO has money in their budget for things like that. And maybe it could be working with a number of people together to find a solution to the problem you're having and to other people because I think uh I think that council Ha is right with the new building that's going on there. There's going to be a lot more cars in that whole neighborhood.

Correct. So I my fear is that exactly what you were just saying was the events people are parking there anyway, right? So what do you do now?

They're not going to park in the back parking lot for Right. So that's why I say make it a one-way uh the proposed was from Robison to Seabberry just to keep the traffic away from that intersection. Um, and it essentially if you park on both sides, it's a oneway.

That's Yeah, absolutely. That's what it is. So, I I'm not really sure what the um what the hangup is on that, you know, because if it becomes a oneway, it doesn't really matter. It's a oneway and right and it's parking on both sides and it becomes safer, you know. people come quick down that street and I I knock on wood that that you know the kids aren't hurt at the park you know um because

they they soon as they turn right from Robersonson onto Pine it's a drag race straight down and I'm not sure if Rugles is an Mstead park I know Kennedy I think it is Kennedy Park and South Park are Mstead parks and I believe Ruggles is an Mstead park. So to take any land from that to do anything with would be a violation of the Homestead Act. We can't do that at

all. And uh to speak of the gentleman was saying that the trucks uh from um from the Globe manufacturer. Yeah. The old Globe. Um there's actually an entrance on Seabberry as well. So that's not his I I would say his main entrance.

Uh he's got the the entrance on Cabberry, but I think when they have a truck coming out of there, it's easier to take a right for now until the church becomes the apartments and then then it might be and then it doesn't matter because the church the the housing at the church, where are they going to park? They're going to park on Pine Street regardless, you know, uh the baseball game over last

weekend, I I was there and they were parked on that side down on on the end down you know, down uh by Seabberry on both sides down there.

Today, everybody's got a car. Years ago, I lived on Culver Street. We'd walk to Columbus Park. Absolutely. To play ball.

And to council hearth, uh right, it's not going to be one car per apartment.

We know that, right? So, um but thank you, Mr. Lec. Thank you for your input. Um I know that the VSO was waving, so I don't know if he had something to add. Uh, Mr. Tal, do you want to join us and add? No, you don't.

I thought you were waving. If you don't want to speak, that's okay.

Just say your name for the record so people Ferris, uh, director of veteran services for the city of Fall River. Um, you kind of cleared something up already. Uh, so you asked for suggestions, right? And you cleared it up because you can't really touch the land that involves the park. So, does that include the area from the curb to the sidewalk to the park or is it just from the sidewalk to the park? Well, you

can't put it on the sidewalk because people need a sidewalk to walk on. So, the city wouldn't allow you. But it goes from the grass at the end of the sidewalk over is Ruggles Park. the sidewalk is and then the sidewalk to the to the curb is the city. Okay. Um there's a a pathway, a walking path that goes around the back side of that park and comes around. Uh one of my

suggestions at the uh traffic board meeting uh to kind of alleviate some of the issue would be to take up that space and push the sidewalk further in. Take down the curb, push the sidewalk further in, and then you could widen the street.

That's a that's a suggestion. Um, but to touch on something completely different.

So, there was already some things in the works uh for Pine Street and we attempted to reach out to that property owner that you spoke of earlier that owns the mill parking lot uh behind the fence behind Pine Street. Uh, that's been no real luck in that. Um, so if there is someone that could possibly reach out to that person to get them to be uh able to come to the table and even

talk about that, that would be huge.

I can reach out to Mr. Merrow. Yeah, that that would be massive. He's very good with helping the city communicating and council poser and I as you know are liaison to veterans and I'm sure school's going to be letting out pretty soon. So I have him all day now anytime you want council day anytime.

But thank you so much appreciate it. Um perhaps a motion. Yeah, just just a clarification. I think in this whole conversation, are we confirmed that Rugles is at Oldstead Park? Yeah, not confirmed, but I I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. All right. We'll have we'll find out. Let's find out because obviously if it's not, then that could be a possibility, but we'll we have to cross every avenue. Um I'm pretty sure

it is. Okay. Yeah, because we wanted something else there and we weren't allowed to because it was Mstead as I recall. Remember that monument or something? You couldn't do it.

So my my personal opinion at this point because of the different issues that we have, I think it would be appropriate to send this back to traffic to review what could be the best possible options going forward. I mean, I don't I think as it's written right now, there's too much disagreement about where it's going to go. I mean, I don't I don't agree with the one way going the opposite way,

period. So that's just not where I'm going to stand on that. But I think it would be appropriate to send it back to traffic so they can further discuss and research it and then we can do our end to see if that back parking lot's an option if if Rugles is a homestead and then kind of, you know, work from there.

So, I mean, I don't have an opposition to send it back to traffic, but what are we hoping that traffic will do? Perhaps if we tabled it here and then it would give us an opportunity to meet and see um you know what I mean, I would meet with Mr. Gonzalez as well and meet with Mr. me and see if we can come up with some solution. Um, and then bring it

back and if there's something that we have, we can then send it to traffic for their approval. Fair. It's fair. Do you want to say something? No. So, we're going to table the oneway. Yeah, I'm going to make a motion. Okay. We're going to table this right here. Can we make a motion to separate section one?

Sure. From this motion made second. All in favor? I I motion to table section one, which is the oneway street at the pine.

All in favor? I I motion to pass through first reading sections two, three, and four. Okay.

Section two is parking prohibited at all times. County Street North, 85 ft west of Kovville Street. Section three, prohibited parking all times, County Street North, 150 uh 18 118 ft west of Kovville. And there is handicap removal section 4 on Dwelli Street, Hanover Street, Harrison Street, and Malbury Street. Motion to pass the first ring as amended. Second. All in favor? I.

We don't have anything else. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. I have a second. All in favor? I. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, M. Macather. Thank you everyone for coming and participating.

My over my

over. Hey Hey, hey hey.