8.14.2024 Planning Board

all right we're ready like to welcome everybody to the August 14th planning board meeting we will do the uh open meeting law 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 media attendees are therefore advised that such such recordings or Transmissions are be made whether perceived or unperceived by

those present and are deem acknowledged and per IAL the city Charter section 9 to 18 mandates that all Municipal bodies develop a and adopt rules or policy for public comment we have adopted such a policy which is in short provides for citizen input on planning board specific matters at the end of the meeting there's a signup sheet that is located in the back of the room do we've got Nina Krueger the

administrative clerk Craig Salvador with for of government TV Dan agar is not present Gloria Pico present Beth Andre present Mario luciola here Mike farias present and I John Ferrera I'm present as well right under new business the first item on the agenda it's a form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and an our plan of land file number 24158 owner ICC Investments

LLC applicant Innovative Investments LLC property location 146 18th Street assessors map k-01 lot 42 I believe that Dan had also uh made comments on these you can read them okay so um the planning department had a couple comments on this so the parcel is located in a z z a g zoning District um the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel into two conforming Lots both Parcels meet requirements for

Frontage area and building setback in the G District therefore we recommend endorsement okay did you say they met the setbacks yes uh on the top left hand inside I don't think it does like this set back well there's nothing on the top okay lot one lot two if you look here yeah required and then right but there's no building on the top right it says the yard here is 7.1 versus 12 the

minimum front yard set back 4.5 versus 10 1.6 versus 15

mhm and again this was already this was already by some oh I don't there's no there's a reference to the zba there's zba recorded here I'm sorry there's a all all of them have been no no no not this one didn't have to go for because all the setb that's what told glor could you explain exactly what you were talking about we've got a required Frontage of 50 we've got a minimum size

5,000 we've got front yard uh setback of 12 we've got um sides as 10 and then we have a rear of 15 and so there's no the top lot there is no identified um plan on here a lot two lot two is an exist listing so they don't need to meet that they just need to meet the setback that 16.4 repeat that they don't what is it it's already a pre-existing building so

it's already got the setbacks that are that are there it's it's this one here yeah so if it has only 1.6 in the back I thought that would be an issue no because it's got 16 1.6 I know but I'm looking over here 16.4 set back to the line there and here it's 1.6 and here it's 4.5 yeah 1.6 right now that's that's also is that a drawn in easement that's there it looks like po2 the

1.6 a no cuz that's 18 Street that's a lot to the fence the 1.6 is the is I believe it's the dimension from the lot line to the fence that's what the designation of the Cross lines are um the only thing that I would say on that is this is an existing condition and because of lot one meets the requirement of the size of the lot itself and there's no building proposed right now

um you know on any proposed building moving forward it would have to require yeah moving forward that that lot would have to don't forget most of these lot one's not an issue but I've gone before the zba with this exact issue and they denied it because there were stairs that were were like too close to the front yard and in here the engineer did put 7.1 4.5 1.6 so the engineer is not

deceiving us no 7.1 is the frontage 18th Street then the 164 is the front the side left side Frontage uh side setback that 1.4 I think is is to this so it just needs to be 12 there that's the only Dimension that we're looking at which is the 16.4 yeah the 16.4 is your is your side set cor back because I forget they're all facing 18th Street not arched so they're both going this

way and that lot one will have to conform with the setbacks once they propose to put something on there do we have any other comments on it do I have a motion to approve or not approved oh is there anybody here for uh for this particular uh form a no do I have a motion to approve or what's the board's yeah I am I I motion to approve it motion by Michael second I'll second

second by Gloria all in favor be who's Beth I mean Beth I'm sorry I voted against yeah was M okay so Gloria I mean uh Beth yes Mike's Mike made the motion be second uh roll call uh Mario yes Gloria no l is a no Michael Yes Beth yes and I vote Yes as well next number two on the agenda another form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to

require approval and our plan of land file number 27-1 1587 owner applicant Rodman Omen LLC property location 117 and 125 call street cessors map e-9 Lots seven and 8 so this parcel did go before zoning board of appeals okay um so the parcel is located an R8 zoning District the applicant proposes to sub provide the existing parcel leaving an existing structure on each in accordance with the

relief that was granted by the zoning board of appeals that relief is in your packets um the granted relief is request is referenced on the plan and there was a condition of no further subdivision in the decision from the CBA therefore we recommend endorsement of this plan any any comments by the board no on this one I believe this is the one there the huge Transformer at the corner there am I correct 8

Street the Transformer on what feet like uh it's actually at the end of my understanding let me make sure I get this the star and baits Oh no you're looking at the wrong oh I'm sorry I'm looking star and B okay is sorry that's all right oh okay you don't have a large copy of that there is in that in that pile in this pile here yes uh which number the one we're doing

right now yeah 87 877 oh you know what I think here 87 turn out too

small and they're not there they not proposing any future subdivisions or development on yeah for that possible land there on the left 49 point so there's no further subdivision that's one of the conditions that's a weird configuration yeah it was so that um they could have some sort of backyard that was a complaint by the neighbors um that they didn't want this property to be left with no land that's that's

that's a first yeah we just talking about that Michael I mean like again the the minimum requirement would be the 50t of Frontage and on a street and they're keeping at 4915 I'm just saying that because if they come back and say we want a variance we want to build on that they can't there's no further subdivision okay anyone else anyone here for uh for call Street no all right do I have a motion to

approve making motion we approve laia a second Mario second roll call Mario yes Gloria yes Beth yes Michael yes and I John Ferrer vote Yes as well number three on the agenda form a application excuse me for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 24 yep Dash 1588 owner applicant Rodman Omen LLC property location 15 star Street assessor map C-4 Lots 37 36 37 and

38 so this parcel is located in R8 zoning District the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel leaving an existing dwelling and garage on one lot and creating two additional building Lots in accordance with the Rel relief that was granted by the zoning board of appeals the granted relief is referenced on the plan it's also should be in your packet um therefore St 50t that's so the minimum is 50t

so so we're leaving the existing single family and the garage in the rear this is this was the one I was uh mentioning just down the road is the uh Transformer I didn't know if there was any easements or anything of that um to the west of that uh lot 64 51 5 six five it's got It's got the frontage it's got the the uh square footage any uh questions by the

board anyone here for uh for this foret the star stre star Street 15 star Street no no okay do I have a motion by the board motion to approve motion by Michael I second that Beth second rot call Mario yes Gloria yes Beth yes Mike yes and I John for vote Yes as well all right number four form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 24-5

89 owner Leonard and Catherine Freeman owner applicant Toby e LaVine revocable trust property location 300 Hemlock Street and 603 Ray Street s's map R-13 Lots 32 34 and 36 this parcel is located in sing District the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel leaving an exist dwelling on one lot and creating two additional building Lots all Parcels meet the requirements for Frontage area

and building setback in the szone district therefore we recommend endorsement so quick question on this the uh there's actually two existing buildings the one on the corner of Ray and Hemlock and then the one down on Hemlock those two the parcel in between that they're looking to subdivide that are they uh looking to it's is one building they're looking for and that would be in Lo Parcels here right that

they're looking to to build on um sorry that's thought you had just read it was yeah hold on sorry that's okay says creating two additional building Lots so so which bu which building lots are we speaking of because there's the one all the way to the left which is uh I think they're creating parcel number two yes parcel yeah so they created parcel number two but is that for two buildings

is that what you're saying no you got there's a building existing building here existing single family here then they taking this and creating another buildable lot here just one buildable lot yeah okay I I don't see any that's probably it's probably a typo it says leaving an existing dwelling on one lot and creating two additional building Lots but this is already an existing dwelling and it's an existing dwelling

probably meant two existing dwellings correct and one buildable yeah that's what I yeah that's the correction that I was trying to get to um unless they're looking to r one of these buildings existing buildings I don't know I think so now yeah I don't think so I mean this a the I've seen this house on parcel 3 is relatively new so I don't think that's the I don't think that's the case

um but the other question I have if this is an easement that's through here the sewer um easement it's 22 ft uh in uh width and that's between parcel two and parcel 3 I don't see a dimension from that easement to uh parcel one and so um are we are they indicating that this parcel once it's uh transferred over will meet the requirements of the frontage you the sewer e is I believe

only going to be for this one and uh for parcel two and parcel three on the plan okay that's what I'm seeing SE because it's part of this parcel and it's sewer easement for 300 Hemlock so my question would be is I don't see a dimension from the 22t easement uh going Due West to um along paral to from here to here so if they had a dimension on there and it

said 50 ft we would know it be it be conforming to but that's 22 feet I think that's that's but they're readjusting the lot lines I think that's what that is that's the the the existing lot line that's going to get abandoned and then there's one over to the left also that's going to get abandoned and they kicked them kicked them over in order to get

yeah I I I would I mean I if this was my plan and I was going to put this down I would put that dimension on there should uh showing what you know that it it conforms to what's needed right because it looks like they're shifting a lot lines yeah that's like they're shifting this way right they move this one over and they move this one here over yeah so

that they can get uh so it can conform a little better with some setbacks 16 15 so just like the first plan I like that that they're going to make use of this land and I'm I'm I would like to see this subdivision but have they gone before the zba for variance no because lot one does not conform it exceeds 25% coverage but it's preexisting if anything they're actually adding more added more land to thew so

do we have the information remember when this house was built the single family home um the single family conforms is this one you're talking parcel one parcel so when was that home built there's no evidence on this plan that it conforms by Statute MH I make a motion the table yeah I agree with glor on that in in the particular case while they are actually extending that easement line to

the east from parcel one to parcel two making the overall coverage larger larger right but the reality of it is it might not have been conforming originally did they get a variant back then I don't know I have no no clue about when this was built if it was a variance given to them and while they're bettering the situation um you still don't know and then the other thing too again I would

if you're going to I'm assuming and and this is just an assumption parcel 2 is going to be developed upon and not having at least the shown Dimensions from the proposed um parcel number two the front edge I I think those you would want to have those dimensions in there um because right now you're just if we were just to pass this and approve it they could come back and and build whatever

they want on there and then it would have to go through site on approval so I think there's just stuff that's missing on here that needs but this so this already went to this didn't go to zoning no it doesn't need to go to zoning it was found by the zoning code enforcement officer that it doesn't zone no no no which is the building is um Glen haway so the way that the process works is

that if they want to subdivide they first have to go talk to the building department see if they need zoning relief if they don't they come to us for a foret if they do they go to zoning board first and then they do a form me after zoning board my only my point is going to be if we table this till next month still get approved it's still going to get approved a two week two

week appeal period and it's still get to approved it'll never make it to that to our next meeting in two weeks it'll get approved and they LA because it's already been approved but I mean again maybe you're right it's pre-existing and it it conforms by Statute but there's nothing that you sent us in the emails which showed that this this um like I looked up the first one the first one

was built in 1970 so that would not have qualified for that this one I did not look up this home I don't know when this house was built but CH star is not before 1950 or maybe it was I don't know so but we have no information so I I can I can look that up right now if that makes a difference um to everyone I can but you like when I when these are

submitted usually this language here that you know says what year was built the the statue mgl Etc like everything is stipulated so that we know that we can stamp and we can approve these plants and there's nothing here same thing with the first

one oh she's looking it up now but like I said it's an an anr so we've been through this before with someone aples that you want to put that to the end and take care and and can you come back to this one can we back to this plane so that we don't take up anyone else has time she's just looking her a minute just

loing Dan's already given out a favor favorable recommendations the assessors have it have 603 R Street built in around 1955 so I'm just going to read on this plan it says zoning requirements the minimum area is 12,000 Square ft minimum lot Frontage and width is 100 ft the uh Frontage yard is 25 the rear yard is uh 25 25 and then the minimum side is 15 what I don't have on here is I've got

kind of selected areas where um dimensions are so our protocol is that that they only need to show the dimensions to the lot lines when everything else is pre-existing but we have no evidence it's pre-existing it's a submission a problem but the submissions should have all that stipulated yeah so so you're I I understand what you're saying so for instance you took the existing lot line

you pushed it over and you have a dimension and it says on on parcel 3 the upper right hand corner says 50 feet so you had a lot line you push it over 50 feet what I'm saying is that you have minimum requirements here with the zoning uh the zoning requirements in here I I don't know why you wouldn't at least put those dimensions on here to show that it meets those requirements like I shouldn't have

to guess I can I can scale preexisting properties yeah I can see the existing 50 feet and I can guess that that you know parcel and parcel 3 just to the left is probably another 50 ft meeting the requirement of the 100 foot you know what I mean so that's what I'm saying it's like I I just think it's missing stuff

um what's what is the board's uh opinion as far as how to move forward with this again it's an anr that's how it's submitted to us so it was it was revised it was originally it came in and then Dan asked for additional setback to be shown on it and they revised it to Dan specifications so but when we do this and we go per statute that they were like grandfather Ben we we show the

evidence that they were grandfather Ben why don't we why don't we make not a note to moving forward what we'd like to see well Dan's not here so I mean if that's if the board is if the board is looking for some extra information that's fine I mean obviously Dan Dan had already reviewed this and revised it so we don't know to what extent he revised it at setback square footage or whatever

and again I have I've argued some of these before and you know when it comes before as an an anr you know even if we all reject it it's still going to get approved in two weeks personally I like development and I like making use of the land and we're we have we're shorten housing so I like sub I'm more in favor of subdivisions than not but a little more info but as a planning board member

I cannot in good conscious approve this and there's nothing here to substantiate it whereas if they were to revise a plan give me the evidence I need 100% that's our job is to to stamp these and approve them so I do I have a motion by uh any of the board members either way I agree with with what glor is saying as well like it just seems like there are things that are missing here

so we can't I can't in good conscious figure this out for them you know I can make a a simple observation but that should be on the plan and and for us I agree I think this is I think this is going to work out but the reality at the end of the day it should be on the plan we should know what the dimensions are so why don't we make a note that uh you

know moving forward we need to uh we need to address some of the uh the additional information on there as like I said everybody on on this board can can uh turn it down it's still going to go still going to pass If you deny the plan it won't you'll have to resubmit it with the with the documentation evidence that every other person who submits these you know puts on the

TR that's I can't make a motion that's up to the tech it's not even if you deny it's not denying it's just not endorsing so it after 21 days they can choose to go to the city clerk and have it signed by the city clerk as it meets all the zoning requirements based on the zoning Code Enforcement Officers observations and a city engineer who revised it once so how can we've denied these in the past well

you've not endorsed them but there's I've I've signed documentation yes and people have decided to take that and then revise the plans so maybe you can tell us how we can do that the process to well that is up to the property owner whether they would like to just go forward or whether they would like to take your suggestions a couple months ago and I was chairing um John was not

here we had an issue with the um Jehovah's Witness church on Eastern Avenue and Dan is very specific about how we Reed the motion to deny the plan so that they wouldn't autom to go through and then I had to come in that week to sign documentation do you recall that yes I do yes so maybe you could fill us in on that process again we can apply the same process

here so we wrote a I wrote a decision for the board on your vote and then it was reported at the clerk's office and we don't know how they proceeded after that they didn't come back to us with the revised plan so I am not sure if they would have I I don't know what the next process is okay so I'll make a motion um that we um deny this or do not

endorse do not endorse the plan because um the the the document we need documentation that this is um by law allowed because it's you know it was before the zoning code went into regulation that's my motion and that's specifically for parcel one because you're looking at the carbridge and I think I think this is a good idea I like this idea but that's not fair to other people who don't get

their plans approved because it was built a year too late or Year too early or even those who were built earlier but their engineer or their surveyor has all the documentation with the deed references and the easements and everything on the side and the setback Dan is I mean he many times sends plans back because his missing a set back of which he did which he did but nonetheless it's lacking they revised it

yeah I mean the the minimum that he should have on here is the the the dimensions for the frontage I mean these are these are pretty simple things to have on the plan um and I'd have no problem approving it at that point the only other place that I would question is parcel one and you're absolutely right you know they there's um perious and impervious space I'm not sure uh how

they got around it but to me it doesn't look like um it meets the minimum requirement but I I you know again they might have gotten the variance for this I don't know I have no idea I think the argument is it's by Statute but nonetheless there's no verbage on the plan stipulating and referencing the statute and the year the properties were built Etc she said this was 1954 that again that should be

referenced on I'm saying no I don't I'm just say how can we sign this yeah they're just missing stuff okay so our subdivision control law says the plan um for this is a for an anr planning board approval is not required for the division of land provided that every lot within the tract so divided has Frontage on one or more of the following a public way or a way that the city clerk certifies it is

maintained and used as a public way a way shown on a plan therefore approved and endorsed in accordance with subdivision control law a street or way in existence prior to March 1st 1954 and in the opinion of the planning board of sufficient with grade Etc it just so that 1954 there's there's no that there's no evidence here of when that home was built on this plant that's if there were two houses on one lot

yeah what you just what you just State what you just stated is what's missing on the plan and if if they were to go and fix this plan I would just recommend to their engineer survey to put on the dimensions and show us how they uh comply to the actual Z zoning requirements and then two the other question would be the date of when this parcel uh one was developed and then

what what was the coverage at that point and then you know were there additions put onto this to to reduce the amount of permeable area and stuff like perious area I don't know I mean it's just missing a lot of information but the concept is perfect it's great take all that land divide into three buildable homes that's a great idea yeah I'm for it I just but like at the end of the day not

putting this information down and and and saying it doesn't need approval until they actually come with a a site plan if if we're going to be worryed about that we've got to look at say the next one on Forest Street which is the same thing that one that one has uh zba correct this is zba approved and does not have the setbacks written on it on the pre-existing property but zba proved it it's not our

responsibility yeah all of the ones that we we just went through that we approved number 87 number 88 and number 86 have all of the dimension requirements and the zoning requirements associated with it this just has a zoning requirements but doesn't have any of the dimensions you know this is what the plan contents need to have based on powervision control it's just missing you can see like all these

perfect you know you need 50 ft shows you exactly I'll just read this just so we have it on record this is section one section 1300 of plan contents the plan submitted shall be suitable for recording at BR bristell County registry of deeds and shall include at least the following name and address of the property owner date date scale Locust map and North Arrow the name Seal and signature of registered

professional land surveyor who prepared the plan boundaries and dimensions of the entire uh original tract if the Lots or Apostles to be recorded are divided from a larger track if it is not practical to show the boundaries of the original track this is very small let me Bo this okay original track on the plan the area and Frontage or all remaining land shall be stated on the plan uh the frontage and area in square

feet shall be shown for every land every lot or parcel the names widths and Status public or private of all ways AB budding the property shall be shown proposed Lots shall be designated nu nu numerically as parcel parcel one parcel two Etc names of owners and assessor plot and lot numbers for the property being divided and abiding property shall appear on on the plan planning board signature

block and so on uh I think that was it y yeah I mean it just misses the dimensions the dimensions are just not on the plan that's it's supposed to be the board's I I can't make a motion up to you f I made a motion not to Endor because there are no references to the statute that allows this to be subdivided do we have a second I second the motion second by Mike rad call Mario

approval or no approval yes you approve no no approval you wait you approve the motion approve the motion I'm sorry you approve the motion okay you have to speak a little bit Lou that's all right Beth you approve the motion yes Michael yes I approve and I'll vote Yes yes on no yes yes on no right very confusing on yes on no and I think that's because you simply resolve just some references all the

other all the other plans have the information it's just missing it just put it on there all right number five another form a application for endorsement of plan believ not to require approval and our plan of land file number 24-5 1590 owner Dak realy Investments LLC owner Road Runner LLC applicant Capello construction property location 1170 and 1194 New Hall street assesses map d-10 Lots 10 and 11

I didn't have was that part of the ones that you sent out that one wasn't revised oh that oh so that okay I I didn't print this outed I'm just going to look at it real quick H this wowing requirements

so the parel do we have on this one so the parcel is located in R8 zoning District the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel leaving an existing structure on a non-conforming parcel labeled 10A while also creating a non-conforming parcel designated 10B to be combined with the adjacent parcel in order to eliminate an existing encroachment notation on the plan designates parcel 10B as non-buildable

therefore staff recommends endorsement of the

plan I'm lost this one yeah so what's trying to see if oh no that's not oh New Hall oh you yeah sorry you are all right for the record my name is Peter selino I'm a lawyer at 550 Locust Street in Fall River I represent daac um realy okay uh the reason this plan sure the reason the plan's in front of you is to cure a boundary dispute effectively okay so my

client owns the structure at 1170 New Hall Mr Capel is the principal of the LLC he's sitting behind me uh through uh construction it's been discovered that 1194 encroaches on his property by about 3.9 ft so the fix from my perspective to avoid litigation adverse possession claims boundary disputes and that kind of thing is to create two lots and if you will uh humor the phrase tack on lot

10B to the 1194 uh property which cures the the encroachment while still keeping lot 10A as depicted on the plan as a conforming lot in the zoning District so to draw your attention to the um uh requirements on the R8 zoning table so the minimum lot area is 8,000 square ft The Proposal would leave 12,615 Square ft the uh Frontage required is 80 ft we'd still have 95 lot coverage is 25% we'd have

10.6 and then uh the setbacks are all depicted there I don't need to read everyone to the board but effectively parcel a would remain as what is currently constituted as 1170 New Hall Street Fall River parcel 10B would be conveyed to the owner uh known as Road Runner LLC that fixes the problem avoids the litigation and cleans up the boundary that's what I was going to say the only thing I could see is moving on

the U property line in order to conform correct any questions by any of the board members do I have a motion to approve make a motion to approve approve motion by Mario second by Beth all in favor Mario yes Beth yes Mike yes uh Gloria yes and I John Ferrera vote Yes as well thank you all appreciate it have a nice night you as well that's what I thought it was was a just moving the property

line okay number six on the agenda form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of plan file number 24-1 1591 owner applicant Richard A Mercurio property location 52-58 Forest Street cessors map g-6 lot 35 this is this one so here the variant has not been recorded I looked at 5:00 today about this is what okay so parcel is located in an A2 zoning District the

applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel leaving an existing structure on each in accordance with with relief granted by the zoning board of appeals the relief the granted relief is referenced on the plan therefore staff recommends endorsement of the plan so why isn't the variant recorded it's not referenced on the plan either

subject to a special permit granted by zoning board of

appeals can you checked at what time 505 stop recording at 4 so not on today sorry I did my job it's all right so Gloria you're just saying that it wasn't hasn't been recorded there's no there's no page and I checked but I thought maybe they recorded today or last night the plans in and know like big deal we'll just type we'll write it in I don't know I don't

know so again this has a variance or I'm sure they do it's just a matter of they always record it and reference it before we endorse the

plan other than that any other questions on this just subdividing two non-conforming law but you needed to have zoning in place for that they had it's not recorded here it's not recorded electronically for your as of today at 505 yeah cuz sometimes you know you want to make the deadline you like it'll it'll be there by the time you guys review it you know um so so we would just require that it it

be stated on on the plan that it's been recorded because otherwise it could have been appealed theoretically yeah yeah no I know we it may never get recorded right no I understand I I think with that caveat that we would have to uh not approve this and wait for that information to be placed on the plan and and or recorded where documented so what is the board's uh motion motion we have to ask the audience

audience anybody here for forestry no do I have a motion I motion not to approve I second his motion roll call Mario do you uh approve the motion approve the motion Beth yes Michael yes laia yes and I vote Yes as well all right number seven form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number excuse me 24-1 1592 owner applicant Thomas

legals property location 745 Brion Avenue and 281 Jefferson Street assessors map f-7 07 assessor map f-07 Lot 19 I'm familiar with this one that's a that one's a no-brainer so the parcel is located in R4 zoning District the applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel leaving an existing structure on each in accordance with relief granted by zoning board of appeals the relief is referenced on the

plan therefore staff recommends endorsement of this TR this one here it's a mechanics uh legal Auto he's right there on the corner of Jefferson and Bron Avenue excuse me and then there's a multi three family dwelling right on the corner which I I I believe he lives in as well so I I think he just separating the two Apostles uh in case Donal Roy wanted to do something with the business

and the the variance is recorded on Section seven so I think we good page evidence recorded any questions from the board or a motion a motion Beth makes a motion to approve second second second by Mario all in favor Gloria yes Mario yes Beth yes Mike yes and I vote Yes as well number eight receipt of Correspondence uh review and discussion of the acceptance of the home for agent people

1168 Highland Avenue for the national register of historic places for Massachusetts historical commission that's the Adams House oh okay are we just going to approve put on file or yep so just a motion to place on file do I have a motion to place the correspondents on file motion yes Mario yes Michael second second okay all in favor Mario yes Gloria yes Beth yes Mike yes and I John vote Yes as

well discussion discuss a one-year progress update on naming of a memorial for Jean batist leage so the ownership of the roadways in the new bridge along the Route 79 Corridor is still under um Mass do SL State control um the dedicating slaming of these areas will be discussed when ownership of these locations is obtained by the city laia I know this is your well I think I would like the renaming in my

opinion to be on that quarter versus the Third Street which had been proposed last year over here that's so I would I would I would like to delay this decision until we can get a spot there but that's my personal opinion yeah I mean I'm I'm in favor of that as well I I agree I think just renaming Third Street it it doesn't give honor to this individual and two it does it is a long

and tedious process to get things conveyed from federal to State back to the city and um but if you're going to do something do it right and if it takes a little bit more time then uh we can reach out to the individuals and let them know as soon as that happen then proce will it be appropriate if we table if we table it this is just discussion this is just for discussion okay but we

can bring it up uh in a few months up like in three months four months six months what do you think it's probably going to take a while how long it it it it takes a long time maybe next summer or do you think of my pay pay scale but no won't be kidding guess well guess let's go six months I would I would go yeah I would go um let's go 6 months but

I will I will uh reiterate it within the next week it's going to be tedious and long at least 6 months we'll keep it on the back burner for us we're not going to forget it a year away six months at least we'll keep it keep it alive and discussion going so do I have a motion to um rediscussed uh the renaming of the uh Jee Baptist leage uh Memorial will be

in February February yeah I'll make that motion okay so Beth makes a motion second I'll second Gloria yes Mario yes Gloria yes Beth yes Michael yes and I myself yes okay we have the approval of the minutes of the meeting now let's see these are a little tricky here first one's going to be June I was not here Michael was not here so Gloria you'll have to uh yeah so so these were tabled last

month um due to the fact that uh Beth was absent so we didn't have a forum to vot on this one piece the June 12th so we can do that we be Gloria I make a motion to accept the June 12th minutes one second yes okay so it's so it's motion by uh by Gloria second by Mario favor uh Beth so that's one that one's approved okay now we're going to go to the July

10th J was not here you correct absent was um was Beth so do we have a motion uh from the rest of the members to accept the June 10th uh ju I'm sorry July 10th plenty V minutes of the meeting a motion to accept motion by mikee second I'll second my Gloria all in favor Mario yes Beth oh no Mario Gloria yes Michael yes and I vote Yes as well

okay uh citizens input we don't have any I don't believe do I have a motion to adjourn a motion to adjourn motion by Beth second I second by Michael all in favor hi I as well