City Council - Zoning Committee

City of Chicopee City Council Zoning Committee Approved 5-28-2025 Members George Balakier, Chair Gary Labrie, Vice-Chair Samuel Shumsky Timothy Wagner MINUTES April 30, 2025 The following are the minutes of a public hearing held Wednesday, April 30, 2025 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium, 3rd floor, City Hall Annex, 274 Front Street, Chicopee, MA 01013 and via Zoom. Members Present: Balakier, Shumsky, Wagner Absent: Labrie Also Present: Timothy Reilly (Associate City Solicitor), Lisa Sanders (Health Director) The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM Item #1 Special Permit application under Chapter 275-52 (B) (13) for the purpose of kennel license located at 17 Jeanette Drive. Applicant Lori Jerusik 17 Jeanette Drive Chicopee, MA 01013 Lori Jerusik was present. She stated my purpose is to have a kennel license at my home for six service dogs and two pets. It's not what people are thinking that it's to do a business of a kennel at the house or in the yard, where people will come over with their dogs to spend the nights, that's not it at all. It's for my personal dogs. I have six service dogs and two pets. I have everyone else here who has service dogs plus the neighbors. I would just like to go forward with that. Reports Read: Planning Department Property is zoned Residential A; the keeping of and caring for dogs in excess of three (3) individual animals requires a Kennel License by Special Permit under 275-52(B)(13); Applicant is looking to care for six(6) service-working dogs in addition to two (2_) pet dog for a total of eight (8) dogs on the premises. Applicant has a history of compliance and responsibility in such matters as the owner of a well-known dog rescue center in the city: Tracy Rondinello Animal Control Officer 1 Per Massachusetts General Law (MGL c.140 ©) and City of Chicopee 144-20€, License fees are not required for service animals (as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act); and Planning recommends approval of Special Permit provided compliance with ordinances related to the keeping of dogs as service animals in addition to positive inspection reports from the Health Department and T.H. O’Connor Animal Control & Adoption Center. On 2/14/2025 our Animal Control Officer responded out with Board of Health Animal Inspector Lisa Sanders to 17 Jeanette Dr in Chicopee after Animal Control received a letter complaint signed by the “Neighbors on Jeanette Drive” stating there was 10 dogs at the residence and are concerned with the excessive barking. There were other complaints in the letter reporting illegal apartments where reported tenants each have their own dogs in their so-called apartments. There was no answer at the door at the time, so a notice was left by our Officer, but it was noted there were 3 dogs seen and heard barking through the glass window that did not match the description the City Clerk provided for the 3 dogs that are currently licensed to that address. Later on, Jerusik called back after receiving the notice and reported she currently had 8 dogs in the home, claiming 3 of those dogs were from her Mutt Rescue facility at 102 Grove St. in Chicopee. She is aware of kennel licensing as her Mutt Rescue facility has a kennel license, and our Officer educated her that she is currently operating an illegal kennel out of her private home now. Per Jerusik, some dogs are owned by her roommates in the home who are also her staff workers at Mutt Rescue. She was warned she will be cited for non-compliance with Chicopee City Ordinance 144-2 if she does not reduce her numbers of dogs in the home to 3 or less. On 2/26/2025, our Officer and Sanders responded back out to 17 Jeanette Dr. at Sanders request to inspect the property as Jerusik reported she is now trying to obtain a kennel license for her residence. Our Officer was investigating this property at the time, there was no formal inspection being carried out. Animal Control was not notified Jerusik requested a kennel license and when our Officers reached out to the City Clerk and the Director of the Planning Department Lee Pouliot, there was no straight answer on their process of “approving” kennel licenses claiming a recent ordinance change, nor were they able to provide proof of such application they claimed to have from Jerusik in order to obtain this “special permit” Chicopee said is required. During the time of the visit there were 8 dogs in the home. These dogs were different dogs than what Jerusik previously reported were in the home on 2/14/2025. Jerusik reported some of these dogs were “Service Dogs” and provided print out certificates from “us service dogs.org” where anyone can “register” a dog online as a “Service Dog” for the fee of $89.98. Jerusik failed to provide a current rabies vaccine for all the dogs in the home at the time and therefore those are assumed to be unvaccinated. There was reported “Service Dogs” present that had no human handler with them and Jerusik claimed the owner did not need the dog for service during the day. On 3/9/2025, our Officers responded out to 17 Jeanette Dr. with Chicopee Police to serve a $100 citation for Jerusik harboring an owned stray dog for 11 days and failing to report it to Animal Control which is required per MGL 272-85A. While present, more barking dogs were seen and heard in the residence and the illegal kennel was discussed again with Chicopee Police present. Jerusik admitted to still being over the limit but reportedly was attempting to obtain the kennel license but was unable to provide us with any proof of the application she reportedly filed with the city, so therefore we must assume there was no request made. This day, Jerusik was also cited $300 for Interfering with Animal Control and a $500 citation for operating an illegal kennel. Per MGL 140-137A, “…a licensing authority shall not issue a kennel license until a kennel has passed inspection by an animal control officer”. 2 Our Animal Control Officers have yet to do a formal inspection of the residence of 17 Jeanette Dr. in Chicopee and therefore no “special permit” or kennel license shall be granted to Jerusik. It is our concern that if these issues have happened under Jerusiks watch at her “rescue” facility, there is a high chance these issues would now carry over into her personal home if granted a kennel license. On 3/21/2025, Jerusik imported 22 dogs from Arkansas into her Mutt Rescue shelter, bringing her total dogs in the facility to 43 which is over the limit of her kennel license. The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources Inspector Chris Hadis was present, inspected the property and animal import, and had to issue yet another bite quarantine for a dog that reportedly bit a volunteer just this morning. TJO Animal Control inspected the property including the “shelter dogs” and the imported dogs more thoroughly. Another emaciated shelter dog was discovered and has not seen a veterinarian since its import in December 2024. An emaciated dog was also imported in today. Jerusik no longer has a veterinarian since per Jerusik, she quit recently as we began investigating the emaciated dogs. There have been multiple incidents at the Mutt Rescue facility in regard to investigating negligence, inadequate care of the dogs, inhumane housing, excessive barking, and even investigating malicious cruelty. All reports are able to be requested by the public. TJO Animal Control brought today’s findings to the City Clerk and requested the Mutt Rescue kennel license to be revoked from the City of Chicopee quoting MGL 137A and Chicopee City Ordinance 144-3. More citations are to be issued to Jerusik for being over the limit again today and animal care standard violations for the negligent treatment of dogs in her care that are lacking veterinary attention and medical documents. Health Department Lisa Sanders stated that These are two separate entities. My concern is that right now there's eight dogs at 17 Jeanette, but it might end up being more. That's what we were seeing at mutt rescue, so that's my major concern. I've received phone calls regarding excessive barking from people that live streets over. So that's a concern for us. Public Input Officer Rondinello with TJ OConnor Animal Control, 627 Cottage Street, Springfield. She stated that we have been investigating the property at 17 Jeanette Drive after multiple complaints. I do just kind of want to reiterate some ordinances that not everyone might be aware of in regarding to Chicopee City Ordinance Chapter 144. In regards to the definition of kennel, it's any premises where in any person, partnership or corporation engages in the business of boarding, breeding, buying, letting for hire, training for a fee, or selling dogs, or engages in training dogs for guard or sentry purposes, or every pack or collection of more than three dogs, three months old or over owned or kept on a single premises, irrespective of the purpose for the purpose, for which they are maintained. Then there is the definition of service animals. Dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. The only part in Chicopee City ordinance that refers to service animals is 144-20RE. License fees shall not be required for service animals or governmental police dogs. Applications shall be made, however, to the licensing authority and tags issued by the authority must be warned. referring back to the definition of kennel, it is irrespective of the purpose for which they are maintained. Then we want to refer to the Chicopee GIS map, which refers to 17 Jeanette Drive, having it listed as a single-family residence. Therefore for Chicopee City ordinance 144 and mass general law, chapter 140, section 137, there can only be fewer than four dogs in this residence. We do also want to reiterate that there were citations issued after our visit on March 9th, 2025 at the home. Jerusuk admitted to having more than four dogs at the property. So she was cited for an illegal kennel per Mass General Law, chapter 140, section 137A. Jeanette Pelcher, 17 Jeanette Drive stated, and I live at 17 Jeanette Drive. I have a service dog. I've been living there for 12 years and never had any issues. Now all of a sudden, it's a big issue. I'm keeping my service dog. I will tell you that. Officer Lawson with Thomas J. O'Connor Animal Control and Springfield Mass stated that she doesn’t want to be redundant and repeat some of the information that was already said, but I do want to point out some discrepancies. 3 Laurie Jerusik stood up here a few moments ago stating that she had six service dogs. Based on our conversation on February 26, 2025, she only had five service dogs, so we have already added another service dog to this home. I would also like to indicate that all of these dogs were made service dogs after our investigation began. So these dogs were not service dogs prior to this investigation. So I just wanted to add that to the record. Thank you. Lynn Gaffney, and I live at 29 Jeanette Drive. I have a very large border with Lori. I own three pets of my own, their dogs are constantly outside all day. My land borders three other neighbors that do not border Lori's. Those neighbors also have three dogs, two dogs, one dog. I would say the abundance of our neighborhood has a lot of animals. To say that only her dogs are barking, or disturbance is kind of hard with so many dogs. We are a pass through; we have all the neighborhood dogs come and walk down our street all day long. If I don't see 20 different dogs come down my street every day, then our dogs are excited to see their dogs and it's ongoing. So I would say that you can't just say that it's her and I haven't seen any Issues with her having the animals that she does have in her home currently. Thank you. Tracy Deck and I live at five Jeanette drive, which is directly next door to 17 Jeanette drive. I oppose a kennel license being granted for that property. I have lived on that street for 18 years. It's a very quiet residential street away from the busy roads. A kennel located on our street is going to negatively impact the neighborhood’s quality of life and decrease our property values. I would like to say that there's going to be an increased amount of traffic where many small children ride their bikes on our street and families take walks. I've already had to deal with a great deal of barking from the excessive number of dogs that have continued to reside on that property for many years, also an exotic bird that is brought outside in the warm months, which squawks very loudly and streets away can hear it. I work from home and my working from home is already impacted. In the warm months I have to close my windows to do my zoom meetings because of the dog barking and the smell of animal waste that comes from their backyard. 17 Jeanette Drive is on a small parcel of land with a very small backyard and homes on both sides of the property are very close to hers. The backyard is already too small for the excessive number of dogs that continue to reside there, and the kennel license will only increase the amount of noise and smell. The property is a single-family home that is being used as a boarding house as several rooms are rented out to tenants who move in and out regularly. We have gone around the neighborhood to speak to residents, and the majority of residents have signed a petition saying they oppose a kennel license being granted. I can also provide you with that petition today, as well as a letter from another resident on Jeannette Drive who can't be here today, but she wanted to express her concerns about a kennel license being granted. I ask you to deny the kennel licensed for that property as history shows and what everyone has heard is that there is a lack of compliance with existing laws and ordinances regarding owning a kennel. Thank you very much. Donna Tupin and I live at 17 Jeannette Drive. I've not lived there for a long time, but I've known Lori for a long time. She is a friend of mine. This is not a boarding house. I'm a roommate. She thankfully has given me a place to live. My spouse has passed away. I was living alone. So I now have a place to live with friends. It's not a board house. The kennel license has come about because of the complaint made about the dogs living at the house. My dog is a service animal. My dog is 15 years old. So he's at the end of his, really his life. I have never had to register him as a service animal. There was no law, there was no statute. There was nothing that says this is a national service registry dog for your dogs. So I've never, ever gotten him registered until this happened. Somebody asked me, well, how can you prove that he is one. That doesn't really prove that it is one. He's been my working dog all of his life since he was two, since he trained. So to say that every dog just became service animals didn't just become, we provided documentation to show what they already are. So I just wanted to clear that up. I also want to say that in this neighborhood, as one of our neighbors had mentioned, there are many dogs and many dogs’ barks. Now I know that it's not good for any neighborhood to have dogs constantly barking. I've noticed all of our neighbors do the same thing. If there's barking after a few minutes, they calm it down. I've lived in this neighborhood now for a short time. So I can understand if a neighbor's been there for 18 years and they've heard incessant and barking. I would have imagined that a long time ago, there would have been many, many complaints about this. I didn't hear on record that there were all of these complaints from the past. So I don’t know what's going on, but I want to also clarify the request for a kennel license is not a request to open a business. It is an effort to meet the legal requirements in the city of Massachusetts for the number of dogs that are currently in residence. There is no intent on any of us to add any other dogs to this household. 4  Cindy Strozek, I live at 95 Champagne Avenue, which is kind of around the corner, I’ve known her for 50 years. The backyard is big enough for these animals. She's even put a fence in to keep her animals on one side and the others on the other. They're never all out at the same time, either. They're different owners. They live in the house, they are roommates. They're not all home at the same time, so the dogs aren't there. There is no excess street traffic because nobody else goes there other than the people who live there with their cars. Some people do cut through just because they're cutting through, but it's not due to a business or anything. She's not starting a business at home. It's just to keep the existing animals that she has. Mutt Rescue is totally separate from her home, never has combined it. It's totally separate. She just wants to keep the animals she has now. It's not putting in kennels in the backyard or anything. It’s just exactly the way it is, which has been for 62 years, she's lived on Jeanette Drive's. So that's what we're trying to do, is just to have her keep her own animals, no more animals. Separate the two, house and business. Mike von Farah. I live at 34 Lyman Road. I lived there for 70 years. I'm two houses away from Lori's house. This is a little difficult. I know Lori personally, I knew her family, but my experience has not been what these other people have said. I retired five years ago and most times I go out in the afternoon for my lunch my friend would visit. We hear dogs barking all the time. When Laurie's car is not there, there always seems to be a problem. When the car is there, I have to admit it's not as much as a concern. I also have a person on the right of my house who has a dog. I never have a problem with them barking. They'll do it once or twice and that's it. They keep it controlled. The person across the street has a dog. I think they've been there for probably five, seven years. Once or twice, I've heard a dog bark. I don't live adjacent to the property. So I always figured, well, if they can put up with it, I didn't want to be an old man in a neighborhood complaining about noise. I heard about some of the violations. I love dogs. I've had dogs in the past. It does seem to me a little excessive why somebody would have to have a kennel license for almost up to eight dogs in that neighborhood. It is small, if it was a dead end street or something, fine. I just don't think it's appropriate for that area. That's the way I feel. I just don't think it's the right decision. Gail Rosdowski and I live on Terrymore Street, which is a little bit further than those 300 feet expansion there for the land. My neighbor lives a little bit closer to where she is with the kennel. I don't feel that residential section is appropriate for a kennel. If it states in your ordinance and the city laws about three dogs per resident number single- family home, then that's the way it should be. If you give in to one, then more people are going to try to do this also. If they have multiple dogs, she's got three dogs and that's the way should be and everybody else in the city of Chicopee, if that's rule, three dogs and that's it. I just don't think the kennel is a good fit for that area. And like the other lady said too, with the barking, I probably don't hear it as much, but with the summer coming windows open at night, it's going to echo up the hill. In our section, I don’t think that's a good place for a kennel. I'm glad that she's trying to help the animals. That's a good thing she's doing, but maybe if she could find someplace else and start another business then that may suit her and everyone else. Thank you. My name is Beverly Bison and I live at 29 Jeanette Drive. I've lived there for 10 years. I have a dog which was bought for me after I fell down the stairs and broke my hip. So I wouldn't be alone in the house when my daughter and my granddaughter went to work. I'm sorry that he barks and he howls like a hound dog sometimes. If I want to go to bed or take a nap, I can't sleep unless he's at my side. So I feel that I am entitled to one dog at my, where I live, even though my daughter has a dog also. Thank you. My name is Michelle McCalsky. I live at 17 Jeanette Drive. I haven't been there that long, just since February. I also have a Support dog. It’s just kind of mind blowing that all of this is happening for someone who cares for her pets. I just don't get it. That's all I have to say. Councilor Wagner motion to close public input – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion. Roll Call: 5  Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Attorney Riley stated that as some of the residents stated, there is no official register for service dogs, so there's no official person or agency that you would register one. So it seems that if you have a service dog, you just declare it your service dog. The service dog law just requires you to accommodate someone with a service dog, it doesn't require the city to issue a kennel license or any kind of license to you for a service dog if you have too many. The city says you can only have three and one premises. That's the rule. There is no special dispensation for service dogs. So service dogs are counted as any other dog. Councilor Shumsky stated that nobody loves animals more than I do, but I have some concerns. There were numbers thrown around tonight, eight dogs at the address for Jeanette. We heard five dogs. We heard six dogs. I also will give a little backstory on this. My grandmother was very sick growing up and we spent a lot of time in rehab facilities, hospitals, So I got to learn about service dogs, how you can't approach them, you can’t touch them. I also know that 99% of the time, service dogs are usually with their owner for a special medical purpose. There is a strong difference between an emotional support dog and a service animal, to my knowledge. The other thing that I have noticed too about that is usually service dogs, they're trained as puppies. Designated service dogs at 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 years old. I don't know how the process works for that, how does that process work to make a dog a service dog. Don't they have to be for a specific reason. Attorney Riley stated Yes, but there's no licensing for it. There are no official federal, state or local criteria to make it a service dog. You can just Declare it's a service dog, but the law requires you to accommodate someone with a service dog who has a restaurant, or a bus or a business. You have to accommodate someone with a service dog. My understanding is that you could say, this is my service dog and that it becomes your service dog Councilor Shumsky stated I do believe there is a big difference between an emotional support animal and a service dog. I'm a little curious as to how, again, nothing against the animals or anyone here, but how did these animals become service dogs at 13, 14, 15 years old. To my knowledge and from my experience, service dogs are usually trained as puppies for someone. Councilor Wagner stated first of all, the vague process and procedures surrounding service animals, what they are perceived to be, what that means. It doesn't seem like there's a very clear legal definition. So I think that we sort of have to discount that for the purposes of this hearing. I can't speak to any of those processes. The attorneys can't. Since animal control is not a city department, I don't think it would be probably right to call them up even though we contract with them. I'm going to separate the two entities. I think that sometimes the letter of the law and the spirit of them are oftentimes in conflict with each other. In a time where so many shelters and so many animals are struggling to find homes, in my view, it would be a disservice for these animals to at such late stages of their lives be taken from their home, potentially re-homed, potentially put down even because that's the extent to which this can go. Notwithstanding any potential legal troubles stemming from the service dog designation and what that can mean. I have several noisy dogs in my own neighborhood. Anyone on Stebbins Street will tell you those dogs are barking at all hours of the day, all day, every day. That is the reality of those animals, unfortunately. All of this taken into consideration, Mr. Chairman, I feel it's in the best interests of those animals for me to vote in favor of this permit for their owners who may until, it's quite proven otherwise that those are not service animals because there is no process for getting them licensed or registered. I understand the residents' concerns and I share many of them. Stebbins Street, talk to any of those neighbors, dogs barking all hours of every day. That apartment gets hot with steam radiators, which I can't control, so I 6  have to have the windows open. So I'm going to vote in favor begrudgingly. This was not necessarily as easy a decision as I thought. Councilor Balakier stated do you think we have enough information to make a proper decision with this. Or is there some additional information we might be looking for. Councilor Wagner stated I think that there are ways to get the information that we're looking for, particularly with T.J. O'Connor's concerns as to the vaccination and rabies status of these animals. I think it would be well within the council's right and would be in the city's best interest if the permit were to be approved at a certain time frame, updated records should be given to the City Council, the Health Department or to T. J. O’Connor, that might be a strict limit set on the number of the animals and the condition that no sale or breeding happens on the property, which the applicant stated was not their intention. I think that would cover most of the concerns that were expressed. Councilor Shumsky stated We don't have a definite count on how many animals are actually living in this house. Now we hear about a bird. I didn't expect that to be brought up tonight. So those are some concerns I have to. We need a definitive count and how many dogs there are on this property. Number two, the service dog process. I would like to learn more about that. I know Attorney Riley, he highlighted a lot of it, but I still have some questions about that. So I would be in favor of tabling this until we get all of our questions answered. I don't think it's a proper thing to just push this through when there's so many open-ended questions. Councilor Wagner stated do you think it would be proper for the members of this committee to compile a few questions, to have the attorney answer or to send off to the applicant to see if those concerns can be satisfied, and those questions can be answered Attorney Riley stated If you want to do research on service dogs you want to talk to the experts. I'm not an expert on that. I think it suggests you talk to Thomas G. O'Connor. If you're going to propose extending this, you have to extend it to a certain date. It's a special permit. So you’ll have to pick a date, and the petitioner will have to send an email to Carla tomorrow requesting an extension. Councilor Wagner motion to postpone to the next Zoning meeting on May 28, 2025 at 6:30 PM City Hall Auditorium, pending the request of the applicant as well. – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Item #2 BE IT ORDERED THAT the Church of God, 993 Chicopee Street, be called before the City of Chicopee Zoning Committee and City Council to discuss the Special Permit held by the Church of God including compliance with restrictions imposed upon any Special Permit held by the Church of God. The Council may modify, suspend, fine, or revoke any Special Permit held by the Church of God. Violations: Not following 8 second pause or delay Pastor Entric K. Fluitt stated we received the letter, and we turned the sign off when we were asked to turn it off. We’ve been working on it for the last three years trying to get the sign up and going. We had to go back and get more 7  permits. We had to do different things. We didn't have the manual at the time, so we were trying to work it through. We’re using YouTube to try to get the settings right. We just got the manual to figure out how to dim, how to keep it slowed down, because we slowed it down and then it speeded back up. So we are in contact with the manufacturer. We have to do a factory reset. All of the stuff that's on it; we will have to start from scratch to get it working right. I had my son, who's a computer tech, working with us to help us get some of the things, some of the glitches, taken care of. We, as a church do apologize for the speed being wrong in the light, and the brightness, because when we looked in the manual, at first, we couldn't find a demo button on it. So my secretary did find a portion there where we can work and dim the sign itself and work on that. We worked on putting the time, they asked us to change the time from eight to nine, we want to be good neighbors and be good Samaritans and citizens and we want to not put our neighbors in a bad situation. So we are willing to do whatever we can to get the sign running the right way and do what we have to do. My name is Joe Kropenese. I live at 60 Power Street in Chicopee, and I've been going to that church for 30 years. We’ve been trying to operate it correctly. It's just very difficult to do. It's very detailed and it could go sideways and upwards. It could split screen and you could do quarter screens and you get so confused. It's just very difficult. So it's just going to be a matter of real understanding how to use it. We're willing to do what we have to do to get it right to make the city happy with us. We're not trying to be against the city or do anything wrong. Michelle Kropenis, 60 Power Street, Chicopee, Mass. I'm Joes wife and I just wanted to say that the instructions are not very good. Brenda was over there; she tried all day to get the sign working and try to slow it down. We did get it to a point where it was almost slow, and it would speed back up. Pastor Fluitt stated we do have my son who has the technical understanding, but he doesn't have the time to do all of the research. So we have to do the research, and he'll help us set it up. We want to make sure it's right before we start it again. Councilor Balakier stated there wasn't the eight second pause. There was some brightness. I think there was a scrolled page that came down. That's all I heard from the ward Councilor. Pastor Fluitt stated this is the first time we had to a sign. The first we got it up and running. We're trying our best just to make sure that we can do it nice and decent in order Councilor Wagner motion to close public input – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Councilor Wagner stated he works for an IT company, and we contract several churches and municipalities that use signs like these. They’re extremely difficult to work with oftentimes requiring a vendor intervention. They don't have someone with technical expertise on site who's willing to do it. I've just made an offer to do it on my own time to help them get up and running. I've got experience with this. These signs are extremely finicky. So I'm willing to personally work with the applicant to get it up and working for them properly so that they're in compliance. Councilor Wagner motion made to postpone the August 27, 2025 zoning meeting at 6:30 pm at city hall auditorium, pending the applicant request of the postponement – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion 8 Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Item #3 Special Permit application under Chapter 275-67 for the purpose of approval under the Mill Conversion and Commercial Center Overlay Ordinance for approval of a residential development to include up to 600 new residential apartments at the former Cabotville Mill Building and (4) outbuildings on Front Street located at 165 Front Street and 0 Exchange Street (Parcel ID 0096-00035, 0096-00027, 0095-MAIN). The following waivers are requested: (1) 275-67 K1 (b) Landscape Requirements (2) 275-67 K3 (a) Parking (3) 275-67 K7 (a) Noise Level Applicant Bridgewater Capital Partners c/o Mark Yunger 3 E. Evergreen Road, Suite 10 #1045 New City, NY 10956 My name is John Furman. I am the office manager for VHB in Springfield, one federal street. I'm also the engineer of record for this project. We're here representing Bridgewater Capital Partners tonight on our special permit petitioned under the mill conversion and commercial center overlay district. Tonight, two people are with me. Mark Younger, who is principal partner with Bridgewater Capital Partners, and Sergio Caban, who is immediately to my left, who was the director of operations. We're here tonight to make a presentation and seek a favorable recommendation from this committee to the full City Council. Our submittal for this is quite large and I can see it sitting in your box right there. There is a very large roll of plans. Rather than walking through all of those plans, I kind of truncated it and made a PowerPoint presentation. A PowerPoint presentation was made. 9 10  Mart Yu.-.:er- is a seasoned entrepreneur whose lef"€thy resume is comprised of end-to-end construction and property management. His demonstrated acumen shows a track record of success spanning more than a decade. Within that une, Mr. Yunger has planned, developed and invested in over 4MM square feet of real estate. Prior to being the proverbial •Helmsman of Sterling Oeveloper-s", Marl(, a native New Yor-ker; was the president and co-founder-of Rosma Development, a Brooklyn based development company. By 2003, he had raised C11/er- $150MM in equity and managed approximately S lBN in acqlisitions. Since then, he has helped both start-ups and established companies develop business plans, financial projections, buy-out and succession strategies, and with development proj ea execution. Mr. Yunger has ritiated acquisitions and developed properties spanning from the Tri-State area to Eastern Europe, managed winning bids for properties such as the "The Verizon Building-, as well as the highly competitive RFP for CUNY's Student Housing project in long Island City. His passion and main area of focus have always been high rise residential and indlJ!strial developmern:s in noted emerging urban markets. Whether in principal developments, joint ventures or advisory roles. Mart's network of industry relationships, vision, market knowledge and potently effective in-house resotn:es have served to make him a true ~ n of industry". 11 12 13  CabotviHe Mill, C h icopee 3J26/2025 4 :42:05 PM Scale: 1 "=250' Scale is appn,,ximate nie t'lltllmalllan ~ on 1111'6 map l&- ror p1a1m1ng purpo,;e6- only_ II ls nat alJeql.Jilte 1l>r legal! bOundary regulalDJy lnterpfelalll>n. « paroeK e\let illla&yse6. 14  N 25-100 ..l E ~ Bridg~ Location Map SILVERBRICK Unit Matrix Drawing List MILLS Bulldln12A ■ ulldlne~ RENO~AllO~I Sllverbrlck Mllls I•--·- .r ·1tm: '1 Nt h>, f,,.... <:: , .. .. ,, IA.\ 1•: 111 Sq ... , 1ta11mcrr11 l!u1dlf1 u-., ~d.' I BtJrucm 2 fielkwm Tubt. luiWina:'1 I Ro ot ,w.:. . ,.. . ,, 1\ . . ..... .. . ···- ~ -·····-···-··· : ~ 9llldnJ7' Jp.¥1fflllffl :i:,·m: :<~;; II :, ·•> ...... ... \.•• h ••..., ◄ 'v•• • It. ld nJJI Jp.:r1nr.n"I ;.t.4,::t: 1;;:, 11 :, • - - - - - ,•"'••;1,1";',,.~.•s____-41 ,,... ''""' ...... a.; ldnil ,'jl,nmetr.l 1<,1); ez.r,:~ # , . . . . . ..... . . . . . lt.ldnJ• cm,mcrr.\ll !\;tl;I ·11_.=:41 ::,. -r-r. ·n1H· rr,l l · !:Vr. ■ nlltllnc6 a.;11dni5 l11no11-tOnot UJ~ ·1o<O: 3JElr&JO"'° t i ll; liln! ft.' .lcnr tn,:n.s 1,;,:); 20,::0 1~ ll:lldn!6! ,'jl,rtm,tr.1 1r. .. o: .:o~~c 18 ~ . . t ,_,, .-.. emld1ncze ___ ___ I T111il ;,:s.t::i __ ,, . . ... 15  Ont-■- .-.;10NN Splngiold.M,1,0110, 'll.1•7.711) Cabotvi lle Mill l6~F, om 51fff l Chkoptt, MAOIOU C-2.00 16  j • ~ ~thb • .. • = IIIIICII ~ Ont-■- .-.;,oNN Sp,ngiold.M,1,0110, I ~ :--("""')--._ Cabotvi ll e Mill l6~F, om 51fff l Chkoptt, MA OIOU SpecialP~mil ----------------- ~I£' -------- MATCH LINE: SEE SHEET C-4.03 FltONI'S77ililiT - - - C-4.01 17  - !!R!l ;;=:,.;::~~=--:c:.-i .....- I C-4.02 =-;---- 18 Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Motion to postpone until the May 28, 2025 zoning committee meeting at city hall, 6:30 PM, auditorium, Pending the applicant request as well. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X 19  f.., ----- E;?-~-- =-.-,:,:- _ , ,_,.,._ r ~~ira:-- 20 Councilor Wagner stated to the applicant, have you been informed legally that Chicopee City ordinances do not allow the council to grant a special permit until back taxes are paid. John Furman stated I believe the applicant is aware of that. They are not the current owners, but Silverbrick Design is. I believe they're in discussions with them to try and get that resolved. Councilor Wagner stated just prior to this meeting two of the partners in this project were sort of ushered in and introduced to us as a council and committee members, and the implication made by the mayor with all present, was that we can and we should grant this special permit and recommend to the full council that it be approved. So I'm just going to say this to be completely transparent. I'm not going to vote for it. It wouldn't be legal or permissible for us to do so. the mayor with all of his knowledge and expertise on the matter, having spent decades on this council or years and years on this Council before becoming mayor, should have known better and frankly, I just didn't appreciate it. Councilor Wagner stated Cabotville has been an ongoing discussion for years. My question is, you know, we've had a series of issues with the current owner of Silverbrick. What is your current relationship with the current owner of Silverbrick. Mark Younger, Bridgwater Capital stated that I'm from Bridgewater Capital and no relation with the current owner. We actually do not have a good relationship as far as seller and the buyer should have. He's sometimes cooperative and sometimes not. 21 Councilor Balakier stated that the Planning Director and I had a discussion the other day and we were looking concerning there's three entities that are involved with this project. So in other words, there appears to be Bridgewater Capital. Do you have separate companies or are you all under one company. Mark Younger stated we have many different companies. Every property usually you buy has a separate entity that owns that property. Ridgewater Capital Partners is the main company that we have. We have Sterling Developers; we have a bunch of different LLCs that own properties. When we go into contract, we don't go in on the actual LLC that's going to own it. We go on a holding place. Once we close. We put it into the actual LLC that's going to own the property. Councilor Balakier stated I know as we mentioned earlier and Councilor Wagner mentioned too that we have serious real estate taxes that are owed in the vicinity of, I believe I had $644,000 and there's also water and sewer in excess of 11,000 for a total of an excess of $655,000. So that is something that we would have to work out to have some type of payment plan. I think sit down and talk with the Collector and with the Treasurer. Mark Younger stated usually when we buy a property, there’s taxes or a mortgage or violations or fines and that all gets settled at the closing and title holds all that, takes all that money, pays the taxes, the water, sewer, etc... That's how we intended to do it here as well. We would not ask for a special permit today. Just want to have it at the closing. It should be in effect once it all gets paid to the city from the proceeds of the closing. Mark Younger stated I know the mayor came in and wasn't trying to do anything in a bad way. This is frustrating for everybody in the town. Across the street from the town hall. I guess for me, myself, I'm in this deal already for over a year and a half, almost two years. It's a long time. We're spending a lot of money. We don't have any certainty of anything, but we're here. We're still pushing it and trying to get it to the finish. We'll be leaving this project, and we want to get this thing developed. I understand there was a few other developers or owners that hadn't developed it. It can be of course in phases. It's not going to be a big project because of absorption and all that stuff. Councilor Balakier stated there's a number of outstanding questions and items even just something as important as a purchase and sale agreement. Just some of the other department issues that we would have to work out with you. The list is still quite extensive. John Furman stated we've done a number of projects throughout the city. The list that you're referring to is basically the overlay development review committee report, which is combined with the site plan review committee, SPRAC comments. We get those on every project that we go through. They always are quite extensive. There's one thing that can be said about the department heads in Chicopee is they are extremely thorough. So nothing on that list is a problem from a civil engineering perspective. Most of them we see as recurring comments and we address them. The ones that are very specific for Lee Pouliot, which is like a copy of the purchase and sales. I haven't seen the list yet, but when I was at the meeting, I have an understanding of what their content is. Nothing at the at the SPRAC meeting and the ODRC meeting was of concern, except some of the questions regarding the actual housing components of it, which I expressed and passed on to Mark and Sergio. So I think from the list perspective, I think the next logical step would be to address that. What I've seen on the other special permits is that the special permit was issued with those comments as a condition. Then prior to the special permits being finalized, we had to submit updated plans and in response to a comment letter to the Planning Department. Who then shepherded them around to the other departments to make sure their comments were addressed. then that's how the special permit got issued and finalized. So this is a very straightforward process for us. Nothing is a concern. I just want to put your mind at ease with that. Councilor Wagner stated is the condition of the sale of the property that a special permit has to be granted. Mark Younger stated It's complicated. it's not a condition, but it was represented so that it was approved for 600 units and that's why we went into this deal. I will not be interested in this deal if it wasn't approved. We actually have to address the fire safety issues. We had a meeting with all the full-time officials, the Building Department Commissioner, 22 Fire Department Chief, everybody, and we came to an agreement which took months and months of finalizing it. We gave them everything to make it work, because that was the main issue of this deal, not to be able to close because it was clouded title property. So nobody could close on this property. My title company didn't want to close because this was a big problem. Councilor Wagner stated that I advise that you inform them that ordinance simply does not permit us to grant a special permit until the back taxes are owed, or an agreement has been made with the collector's office, and it references specifically the collector's office. I saw the exact language in the ordinance, myself, the attorney presented it to me. In reviewing all the documents, it looks like a very promising project. I've been dealing with this going back to my time on the Historical Commission where we were writing letters of support for mass historic grants. I recommend going back to the developer with that and just saying, legally they can't do it. Mark Younger stated I wasn't trying to be too colorful on this seller. He's not very cooperative. Any type of inspection, he gave us a very hard time. Even by hiring a VHB, it was a whole process, because he doesn't want any conflicts. We're trying to get insurance on the property to be ready for closing. He told me I don't have insurance anymore. He stated we are having issues the property owner; he Is not cooperative. Council Balakier stated he's in arrears for 2024 taxes. He's in arrears for 2025 taxes. Mark Younger stated that I've spent a lot of money, a lot of time, energy and effort, and at some point, it is starting to get less exciting. When I was promised that the city wanted to see it happening. It seems like it's not happening. I'm not blaming anybody over here, but I understand the city has a tax issue, but all I'm saying is make it as a condition of closing. If a bank has a mortgage on the property, they have to get paid off on the closing. Same thing here. I'm not sure exactly how much the taxes are but whatever they are we could take care of it at closing. Councilor Shumsky stated So you obviously seem very excited about this project. You put a lot of energy into it. You did mention a part about phases of this project because you did express that you can't do it all at once. What is the timeline look for that and what are you looking to do first. Mark Younger stated he plans to start immediately. As soon as we can have permits, we want to take down between 150 to 200 units at a time first. We think that's the size that could absorb in phases and once that phase is stabilized, we go to the next phase, Councilor Shumsky stated are you looking to do market rate housing. Are you looking to make low income affordable. Mark Younger my understanding is that the city wants to do a market and the market will be affordable because we're going to be as compatible as other projects. We're going to have a lot of amenities and it's going to be very nice. So earlier in this presentation, it was mentioned how you've worked on a hundred-million-dollar projects. Councilor Shumsky stated can you say on the record that you think that your company can handle this particular project. Mark Younger stated yes, I just finished a 45-million-dollar project in New Jersey, 12-story building, concrete structure. We built it in one year. From the beginning, shoveling the ground until we finished. He stated we have 30% already occupied. John Furman stated Just a couple of things as we're kind of strategizing on how it is. What Mark had described about the closing, and I understand from the Councilman what the ordinance says. My first question or point is the action by this subcommittee tonight considered granting the permit. So if it isn't, can your approval be conditioned on a certain number of things. Then if it can or can't, I'm going to direct this to Mark and Sergio now. From the city's perspective, the transactions put them at risk for taxes. Can an agreement be put together, signed by you, executed, notarized, that says at the closing, it's not your money but from the closing proceeds you would ensure the city's taxes are paid I'm just 23 wondering if agreements like that have ever been in place and if they can be used to kind of get assurances on both sides so that this could move forward. It'd be a shame not to get the special permit issued for the building. Attorney Riley stated the ordinance says you can't issue a permit without the taxes being paid, even if Mr. Younger doesn't own the property, he's the applicant. Mr. Younger is the applicant, but not the owner. The taxes have to be paid. It doesn't matter whether he's the owner or not. Then there's another ordinance that says that he can enter into it if the owner of the property enters into a payment agreement with the City Collector. The City Council can issue a special permit. So that's how it works. Councilor Wagner stated it would be fully within the purview of the council to where an agreement has been entered into it, someone not owning the actual property itself. It would fully within the council’s right to, if this subcommittee wanted to, all the members could co-sponsor an order removing the section of ordinance, prohibiting granting of special permits, without the agreement to pay taxes back or we could modify it to say, whoever the person wanting to purchase it can enter into an agreement if there is supporting documents to show that they intend to purchase, which if they've filed for the application, they clearly intend to do. The problem is, if we were to approve it tonight or postpone it for a month. We would have to substantially expedite the process for approving such an ordinance, which even then wouldn't consider good public policy just to make an exception for one applicant. Attorney Riley read from the ordinance: The validity of said license or permit shall be conditioned upon satisfactory compliance with said agreement, meaning the payment agreement. So the failure to comply with said agreements shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of said license or permit, provided that the holder be given notice in a hearing required. Attorney Riley stated This body is a recommending body, as you know, this committee, full board would have to vote. You would need two thirds to grant the permit, which would be eight votes because you have 12 members, but a party can be given an opportunity into a payment agreement. So right now, no payment agreement exists. Mark Younger stated, I appreciate everybody's trying to brainstorm to make this work, and I understand you have an ordinance that you have to follow. From my side, to get Mr. Papowitz to do anything, I don't see anything happening, and for me to pay a million dollars or so in back taxes, it's also not going to happen before I close this property. Especially before I have any permits. So we could have a project over here that's going to be another eyesore for another 10 years. I've already invested over a couple of hundred thousand dollars and we're not going to put in more money if we don't know if we're going to get a permit. I don't have a problem with any type of language that protects the city as far as getting paid. I don’t see the loss over here from the city's point of view. If you grant a permit the only way you have a benefit is to grant a permit and let’s, see what happens versus not granting a permit, and see what happens. I just don't see the logic in this, but again, I understand there's an ordinance that we have to follow. Public Input Stephen Graham. I'm the Pastor of Pioneer Valley Baptist Chapel located at 56 Perkins Street. We purchased the building, which is a historic building, old Methodist meeting house. We refurbished it. We've been waiting for something like this to come along. I think it would immensely help the community. There's a need for affordable housing in the community, and you need taxes, they pay the taxes. Everything would go better with them having to redevelop the mill. We don't want to lose this building. We're losing a part of Chicopee’s history. We need to try and do what we can. Maybe you can make some compromises, I've waited 50 years. I came here in 1975. I've seen that mill just partially used. Most of it sat there vacant all these years, and you don't collect money on vacant property. You know that. If it had been redeveloped 40 years ago, think where you'd be monetary. So I'm for the redevelopment of the mill. I'm for them to make it a useful property. There's so much need for property in Chicopee. I think we need to really consider this and make it expedient that you do it. Don't keep putting it off and putting it up. It'll end up like the space-mate mill in Chicopee. 24  Michael Tarrant. I live at 140 Leona Avenue. I own multiple properties in Chicopee, mostly in Chicopee’s Center. I don't know these three gentlemen, but I wouldn't be chasing them away. My experience has been with properties that when you have a tenant that moves out that has done you wrong. You're not supposed to judge the new tenants coming in. New tenants show up, and even though you had a bad experience with one, you don't take it out on the new people coming in, and it's easy to do because I've had a lot of bad tenants in the past, but I had some good ones too. So let's try not to dwell on the past. You've had multiple people coming in, going out, and small commercial businesses that didn't work out. I guess they didn't have the sprinkler things, and there's going to be lots of issues. It's just the way it's gonna be. I've owned the property for 25 plus years. There's just issues you have to deal with. You know, the bottom line is, do you want to work with people or not. Councilor Wagner motion to close public input – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Councilor Wagner stated No suggestions except the general comment that legislatively, legally, and I understand our constituents' frustrations here, our hands are tied that we can't grant the permit until the taxes are paid. We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at John's request, the mayor's request. To secure this property, to protect it in the event of liability. We are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes and property taxes. I understand the frustration. We have not been the difficult entity in this process. We have had a mayor who has made grandiose promises with regards to what can happen here. We have a developer who has done nothing but act in bad faith with this city council and with the previous administration. So if you have any issues, take it up with the people that are promising it. Not the people who are following the law here. Our hands are tied. Councilor Shumsky stated I would love to have this property developed, but was it last year or a few months ago, we were in a similar, but not so similar predicament with a property owner on Chicopee Street for Dance Dynamics. something with a zone change, if I can recall correctly, but there were taxes owed on that property to my recollection, I believe that we couldn't move forward. Because she hadn't paid or the owner of the property hadn't paid the taxes. She tried everything. She was investing her own equity in that. I sympathize with you, because we all know that the Silverbrick entity is extremely difficult to work with. Mark Younger stated nobody's going to lose anything by granting the permit or it would be more of a gain than a loss. It’s a beautiful building and I want to bring it back to what it was. Councilor Wagner stated that I'll vote to approve it tonight, even though the law automatically kicking in would cause the permit to be revoked. I will sponsor for the next meeting an ordinance and you both are welcome to sign on if you would like an ordinance to repeat that section of the law. Prohibiting us from doing this. I will make a motion to suspend rules that say it has to go to the ordinance committee, be reported out and then voted on by two thirds vote to approve. I'll make a motion to suspend both of those rules, but if those fail, there is nothing that we can do for you at all. I hope that that can be understood because I understand the frustration and you guys have put so much time and effort and money into it. I would love to see this property come to fruition more than anything. Councilor Shumsky stated let's call it defaults, but it's not on our side. We feel like he couldn't deliver a clean title because of the issue with the fire safety, which was a clouded title. So at this point, we're doing what we need to do, get to a closing, and we're working with a title. We had an agreement signed with the city a few months ago, which helped 25  with the title. This other issue with this encroachment of the railroad is another issue with the title, which we're going to have the license agreement, hopefully, that will help. So my second question is, are you buying the entity that owns the building or are you buying the real estate Excel. Mark Younger stated that even though technically we could just buy the property, we don't need the entity, we have an option in our agreement to also buy the entity. I don't want to have anything to do with this entity, because I'm sure this, I won't have the liability of it, but just for the purposes of the tax credits. John Furman stated we actually were able to connect with the current owner Aaron Popowitz, and we explained the dilemma that we're in would explain the ordinance and we explained where we think this is headed, we asked him if he would do a couple things. He would be willing to enter into the agreement for tax payment with the collector or the treasurer in order to kind of help us move past this roadblock. So I think that is a step forward. What we'd like to ask to do is to get a continuance until your next meeting. That would allow us two things. That would allow time to address the SPRAC comments and the ODRC comments that we received. We haven't seen them yet so tomorrow I'll call and get a copy of them then it would also give Aaron time to kind of come to the agreement. So presumably at the next meeting we would come up with answers to these two stumbling points. Councilor Shumsky motion to postpone to the 5-28-2025 at Zoning Committee Meeting at 6:30 PM – Councilor Balakier 2nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Item #4 Special Permit application under Chapter 275-62.B.25 for the purpose of constructing a self-storage facility with associated office space in an Industrial District located at Shawinigan Drive (Parcel ID 0187-0001B). Applicant Patriot Holdings, LLC Jeremiah Boucher 4007 Dean Martin Drive Las Vegas, NV 89103 Jeff Labeau, Civil Engineer, Sherman & Frederick, 3 Converse Street, Palmer, MA, was present on zoom he stated I'm representing Patriot Holdings, the applicant, and they are requesting a special permit for the use of a self- storage facility within an industrial zone. This has been before the city council, previously and was approved in the past, it was also May of 2021, it was also extended, I believe in November of 2022. The applicant has changed the orientation and the number of buildings and number of structures for the proposed storage use. So what we have in front of you guys, and I can do a share screen, is one large building and two other smaller outbuildings on the same facility. The property location is on Shawinigan Drive. It's adjacent to 645 Shawinigan Drive. It's an adjacent to that other building that's getting some work on currently. This is the existing conditions plan. It was labeled as lot two, it's 3.8 acres it's that parcel right here that's kind of uniquely shaped with a billboard signage that's owned by others, as well as the cell tower structure right here. So other clients at Patriot Holdings and associated owner. They are proposing again to modify this site for proposed storage use. This is the current site plan. We do have multiple permits that are in front of different agencies at the present time. We have a public hearing tomorrow night with the Planning Board for definitive site plan approval. In February, we did 26 receive approval of the preliminary site and that's why we're here in front of you guys as well, because we need a special permit for the use. We also need a permit from Eversource for work within the easement here shown in this hatched area. We have some proposed parking within that easement. It is a lot; we just have to go through the formalities again of submitting our plans and. The application to Eversource. So that's in the works. We need a couple of other permits. We need a permit for the curb cuts here being closer than allowed based on the regular zoning regulations. We'll need mass DOT to curb cut entrances because Shawinigan Drive is within MassDOT right away. Again, high level, we have a 38,000 proposed single-story structure here. There's traffic around the perimeter. We have loading zones. There's a number of exterior garage doors. There's also internal corridors and storage units on the inside. There are two smaller buildings. The larger one will be conditioned, and these two outer buildings will not be conditioned. So we are asking for a favorable vote for a special permit to allow this use within this zone, as was approved previously. I'm offered up open to any questions from yourselves or the public with any site-specific or development specific questions. Reports Read Engineering Department This project has been re-submitted to the Planning Department as a definitive submission. A SPRAC meeting and review will be held in April with the applicant going before the Planning Board on 5/1/2025. Full review of the site plans and comments from the Engineering Department will happen through process. Fire Department New construction shall require submission of Fire Department access plans with seal and stamp of registered professional engineer in accordance with 527 CMR 1.00 Chapter 18. New construction shall include plans for emergency responder radio coverage or compliance survey and plan if building does not comply (780 cmr & s27 cmr 1.00) Planning Department Property is zoned industrial construction of a self-storage facility with associated office space in an industrial district that requires a special permit under (275-62(B)(25)). Due to the fact it is allowed by special permit in business B districts; Preliminary site plan review has been approved. Project is still pending definitive site plan review with the Planning Board prior to being eligible for Building Permits; Planning recommends approval of special permit provided previous conditions and regulation are continually met. Building Department No Comment Councilor Shumsky motion to close public input – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Permits to run with the land. Motion to approve with conditions: 1 Approval fo SPRAC review 27 2 No fuel allowed on units 3 Subject to city inspection if problems arise (regarding repair of vehicles) 4 Fire Department inspection before special permit approval Councilor Shumsky motion to approve with conditions – Councilor Balakier 2 nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Item #5 Minutes – March 26, 2025 Councilor Shumsky motion to approve – Councilor Balakier 2nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Item #6 Adjournment Councilor Shumsky motion to approve – Councilor Balakier 2nd the motion. Roll Call: Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Labrie X Shumsky X Wagner X Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM 28