City Council

HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Hearing opened at 7:09 P.M. with Councillor Marchand, Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee presiding. All members were present except for Councillor Nickel The following PETITION was the subject of the hearing. 82-04 Alton Day Stone, P.E., Alton Engineering for Walter Fiore: Grant a Special Permit for restoration of 250 linear feet of bank on Pierce Pond and 140 linear feet of intermittent stream; replication and restoration of 8,700 square feet of bordering vegetated wetland, replication of 4,000 square feet of bordering vegetated wetland and compensatory storage of 27,000 cubic feet of bordering land subject to flooding at 729 West Street, as shown on Assessors Map 262 as lots 43 & 44, located in the Flood Zone. Councillor Marchand noted that the hearing notice had been duly published and the abutters notified. Introduced and made part of the record were the following: A. Petition 82-04 submitted by Alton Engineering for Walter Fiore, 729 West Street Leominster with accompanying plan dated December 2003 entitled “Replication Plan Existing Conditions Proposed Replication Revision 4” ” prepared by Alton Engineering, 10 Rugg Road, Sterling MA. B. Notice of Public Hearing published in the Sentinel & Enterprise on January 26, 2004 and February 2, 2004. C. Positive recommendations were received from the Health Department, the Building Department and the Department of Public Works who deferred to the decision of the Conservation Commission; the Planning Board recommended that the property be restored to its original condition, and the Conservation Commission approved the plans submitted to them under the consent order from DEP and to make approval conditional on the certification of the rear boundary of the Fiore property. The Conservation Commission also stated that the plan submitted does indeed meet the requirements of the deed restriction. Introduced and made part of the records was the following prepared statement by Councillor Marchand: This petition first came before the City Council on January 12, 2004. Said petition was given Regular Course with referrals to the Conservation Commission, Planning Board, Health Department, Department of Public Works and the Building Department. A hearing date of February 9, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. was established A certified list of abutters was generated through the Board of Assessors, which included: Walter A. Fiore, 729 West Street (the petitioner), Charlotte Hathaway LE c/o Kenneth and Gayle Goss, 525 Lindell Avenue, Leonard Rampello et ux, 755 West Street, Nancy A. Bell et ux, 746 West Street, Peter G. Rigopoulous, 8 Old Tavern Road, Phyllis Celona, 698 West Street, Joanne M. Awadallah, 690 West Street and The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, the alleged owners of control of Pierce Pond. After a discussion with Mr. Poirier of the City of Leominster’s Assessors Office, it was confirmed that the Leominster Land Trust is the owner of 30.14 acres located in the vicinity and in fact known as Pierce Pond. The Leominster Land Trust was invited by the City of Leominster and is recognized as an abutter to the petitioner, and was invited and encouraged to attend this hearing before the City Council this evening. At the regular scheduled meeting of the City Council on January 26, 2004, the petition was “Tabled for Study” with anticipation of recommendations from referrals along with a public hearing scheduled for February 9, 2004. Recommendations from referrals convey the following responses: In a communication dated January 21, 2004, the Board of Health deferred to the Leominster Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for the plans to restore the disturbed resource areas on Pierce Pond. The recommendation also requests “All fill material to be used in this remedial action should be free of metal or other construction debris. In a communication dated January 21, 2004, Mary Albertson, the Director of the Office of the Planning Board conveyed, “Please be advised that at its regularly scheduled meeting conducted on January 20, 2004, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend that the property be restored to its original condition.” This recommendation raised question with members of the Legal Affairs Committee during our subcommittee meeting whether or not this recommendation was meant literally or figuratively. After a discussion with the Director of the Planning Board, and after reviewing the January 20, 2004 tape recording of the above-mentioned meeting on their deliberations on this petition, it was clear that with sentiments of frustration expressed by the Planning Board the recommendation is literally intended. In a communication dated January 26, 2004, Edward M. Cataldo, the Direction of Inspections stated “I would defer to the Leominster Conservation Commission, as well as the Health Department on this matter.” In a communication dated February 6, 2004, the Leominster Conservation Commission’s Environmental Inspector Matt Marro requests that the Conservation Commission be awarded the opportunity to review the petition one last time on February 10, 2004 at its regular scheduled meeting. A recommendation will be made with a vote conveyed on said matter to the Legal Affairs Committee after final review. A sub- committee meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee was conducted on Thursday February 5, 2004 at 6:00 P.M. During that meeting, an update on communications was shared along with a communication that was faxed to the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting from Judith Cutler, of Kopelman and Paige (the City of Leominster’s City Solicitor). It was requested that the City Solicitor help direct the Council on potential action steps of said petition with reference to a communication by an abutter to the petition in question. The Legal Affairs Committee values and appreciates any input and concern expressed by citizens on any matter before this council, and does not streamline concerns raised by abutters. At this time I would like to read the abutters communication to the members of the City Council dated January 26, 2004. At the completion of this letter, I will read the communication from the City’s Legal Council – Ms. Cutler dated February 5, 2004. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued January 26, 2004 RE: Fiore Petition or Special Permit Under Article V, Section 22-37 Of the Leominster Zoning Ordinance Dear Members of the City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments with regard to the above referenced petition. After careful review of the replication plan submitted by Alton Engineering (Revision 4, dated December 8, 2003) for property located at 729 West St., please allow me to make the following observations and recommendations. 1. Lack of current accurate rear boundary delineation: Alton Engineering’s plan indicates that both topographic and boundary surveys were performed by Whitman & Bingham Associates, Inc. Site note #2 (located on the lower left of said plan) states a Topographic survey was performed on or about September 2002. This survey dealt with elevations on the property. Site note #1 however is critical to the Leominster Land Trust as the owners of Pierce Pond. A special permit application filed with the City Clerks Office on December 16, 2003 by Alton Engineering, proposes among other things, restoration of 250 linear feet of Bank on Pierce Pond. Due to the extent of alterations and filing that have occurred on this property, it begs the question, where exactly is the rear boundary now located with respect to the pond? We find it a bit curious this has been omitted. The Leominster Land Trust respectfully request that an up to date on the ground survey of the rear boundary, stamped by a registered land surveyor be provided by the applicant. 2. Plan drawing described as Bank Restoration Detail: This diagram shows a staked silt fence that appears to be located within Pierce Pond. Again it must be noted that without an accurate rear boundary survey the Leominster Land Trust must object to any encroachment of our property. The Land Trust would, in the interest of expediting corrective measures, entertain granting a temporary construction easement if certain conditions were met. 3. Construction sequence and timeline for compliance: The Leominster Land Trust would request the applicant provide the City Council, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Building Inspector, and direct abutters with a detailed plan depicting the sequence of construction. The document should include a timeline for complete compliance. 4. Pre disturbance site conditions: An opinion rendered by Atty. Judith Cutler of Kopelman and Paige, in a letter to the Leominster City Council dated September 29, 2003 reads as follows: (page 3, paragraph 3) further, in addition to the current (post filing) site conditions on the Fiore Site, the petitioner should also be required to provide a plan showing the original, pre-disturbance conditions of the site so that the Council may have a fuller understanding of the net effect of the proposed site conditions. To our knowledge no such plan has been submitted to the Council. On a positive note, the Land Trust appreciates and recognizes this plan appears to conform to a recorded deed restriction imposed by the Leominster Conservation Commission. As described on a plan entitled Proposed Replication Plan, Lot 3 West St. Leominster, MA prepared for Walter Fiore dated November 22, 1999. We are hopeful that substantive remedial action will begin in the very near future. The issues raised by Leominster Land Trust can be addressed with little effort in a short amount of time. When our concerns are satisfied we will support the granting of this special permit. Thank you for your past interest and anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, /s/ Peter A. Angelini, Executive Director February 5, 2004 Re: Fiore Special Permit Petition Dear Members of the City Council: You have requested an opinion as to whether or not the City Council has authority to address several issues raised by the Leominster Land Trust (“the land Trust”) in its January 26, 2004 letter to the Council, when considering the December 16, 2003 petition by Walter Fiore for a special permit under the Leominster Zoning Ordinance Article V, Section 22-37 to do work within the flood plain. In my opinion, the concerns raised by the Land Trust are sufficiently related to the City Council’s responsibilities as special permit granting authority under Article V, Section 22-37, that the Council may properly consider the Land Trust’s concerns and request additional information from the applicant to resolve them. The Land Trust raises several concerns about the Fiore petition. First, the Land Trust questions the accuracy of the property boundary survey information provided by the applicant, and requests that the applicant be required to provide and updated survey of the rear property boundary, stamped by a registered land surveyor. Second, the Land Trust questions the location of the proposed silt fence, suggesting that, as shown on the Bank Restoration Detail diagram, the proposed fence may actually encroach upon the Land Trust’s property. While the Land Trust indicates that it would consider granting the applicant a temporary easement for the fencing, this issue relates to the Trust’s concerns about the accuracy of the survey information concerning the rear property boundary line. In my opinion, the City Council has authority to require a proper and updated survey to be provided by the applicant, in order to establish whether or not the proposed work will be located entirely within the bounds of property either owned by the applicant or over which the applicant has sufficient legal rights to perform the work. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued The third item raised by the Trust is a request that the Council require the applicant to provide a detailed plan depicting the sequence of construction and a timeline for complete compliance. In my opinion, the Council is entitled to require such information, particularly given that the special permit application concerns work previously undertaken by the applicant in contravention of the City’s floodplain ordinance. In my further opinion, the Council may, if satisfied with the applicant’s construction sequence plan and timeline, require compliance with the plan and timeline as a condition of any special permit issued to Fiore for the proposed work. The fourth issued raised in the Land Trust’s letter relates to the applicant’s failure to provide a plan showing the pre-disturbance conditions of the site so as to enable the Council to consider the net effect of the proposed work on the floodplain. As discussed in my September 29, 2003 letter to the Council concerning Mr. Fiore’s previous special permit application, it is not only within the Council’s authority to require such information, but it is necessary information if the Council is to be able to make the findings required under Sections 37.3.2 and 37.3.3 for the granting of a special permit in this instance. That is, since the filling on the Fiore property was done without benefit of a special permit, the pre-disturbance information is the true baseline upon which the Council must evaluate the end result of the proposed work and its effect on the flood levels and the floodway during the 100-year flood discharge. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have further questions concerning this matter. /s/ Judith C. Cutler At the closure of the sub committee meeting on February 5, 2004, out of professional respect and courtesy to the petitioner’s Engineer, Mr. Stone, the communication was faxed to Mr. Stone from the Clerk’s Office late afternoon on February 6, 2004. Before we begin the formal presentation and listen to support or opposition on this issue, I would like to define some rules that will aid in the orderly discussion of this issue. First. It should be understood that this issue raises strong concern by the abutters, the City Council, the respective boards and commissions involved in the resolution of this matter, and it is our hope tonight to work in a professional and cooperative manner with the petitioner in an effort to reach a resolution in a timely fashion. Second. I ask that the Honorable Members of the City Council as well as the petitioner and his Engineer focus on the present petition before us throughout this discussion. To refer to a past petition that the petitioner was allowed to withdraw is irrelevant, and I hope to avoid wasting time on such discussions. Third, I ask that the presentation by the petitioner not exceed fifteen minutes, and that Councilors narrowly focus specific questions that can be answered this evening. In the event that the petitioner is not prepared to respond to a question, I am allowing him the opportunity to submit a written response at his earliest convenience but no later than 5:30 P.M. on December 13, 2004 to the City Clerk’s Office. That evening, the Legal Affairs Committee will be scheduling a subcommittee meeting on this matter along with other official business to prepare for the February 23, 2004 scheduled City Council meeting. Fourth, I respectfully ask any abutter wishing to speak at the conclusion of the presentation be specific and concise with your statement either for or against the petition. I will determine if an immediate response be solicited from the Council or the petitioner this evening, and will reserve the right to allow either to respond to a question in writing at a later date. Fifth, I respectfully request that any citizen or member of the public that wishes to speak in favor or against this petition focus on the engineering aspects before us this evening. It is my intent that we focus on the environmental issues tonight and not become sidetracked by the emotional component of the issue. Sixth. finally, as the Chairman of Legal Affairs and the Ward 5 City Councilor where this issue has occurred, I assure the neighborhood and the citizens of Leominster that this Council will pursue resolution and not waiver on that resolution with the utmost consideration for the best interest of our city and our city’s environment. This evening will mark the beginning of the process in a resolve to set a precedent that we will never allow the compromise of the integrity of Pierce Pond or any other defined wetlands in the City of Leominster. The timeline for the Council action or disposition is as follows: Ninety days after the close of the hearing (February 9, 2004) appears to be a meeting date of May 9, 2004. The vote on final action is a traditional yea or nay vote with a two- thirds majority. There are no readings necessary but there is a twenty- day appeal period of opportunity for opposition. Alton Stone, said that in 1999 Mr. Fiore received an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission to construct his home. He said in order to construct a driveway, filling of bordering wetlands protection area was needed so the Conservation Commission required that Mr. Fiore preformed a wetlands replication on a two to one scale. Mr. Stone said that Mr. Fiore was required to build approximately 9,000 square feet of replication to make up for the 4,000 square feet he was filling in. He said that one replication area was constructed to the satisfaction of the Conservation Commission but there was a second replication area that was not constructed and is part of his submittal to DEP. Mr. Stone said that Mr. Fiore filled or otherwise altered areas without a permit. He said this area includes alterations of 250 linear feet of bank where he cleared vegetation and replaced it with sand for a beach. He said Mr. Fiore also filled in an additional 4900 square feet without permit and 27,000 cubic feet of floodplain, which is in violation of the City of Leominster Wetland Zoning Ordinance. He said that the Conservation Commission could not come to a resolution with Mr. Fiore over these issues so they referred it to the Department of Environmental Protection in October 2000. Mr. Stone said that the DEP met with Mr. Fiore, the Conservation Commission and himself in October 2002, which resulted in an administrative consent order requiring Mr. Fiore to do the wetlands restoration. Mr. Stone said after that he was hired by Mr. Fiore to do the replication plan. He said he prepared that plan and submitted it to the DEP who accepted the plan and they began work on it. Mr. Stone said that not far into the work it was discovered that they would need a City Council Special Permit so they stopped work and apply for that permit in July 2003. He said at that time they petitioned the City Council that ended with them withdrawing their petition at the Councils request and starting all over again. He said they were asked to do it again because some of the work they proposed was on a deed restricted portion of the property. Mr. Stone said they filed another Special Permit Application in December 2003 that is in front of the City Council tonight. He said that the first thing they are going to do is restore the bank area which would involve removing all the sand that Mr. Fiore placed there for a beach and replace it with organic top soil material and vegetation would be planted. They will also then place organic logs around the edge and these will be used to plant additional vegetation. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued Mr. Stone said the second thing they are going to do is provide wetland mitigation in the area shown in blue on the plan. He said they will be removing the fill and excavating down to a suitable grade that will be used to plant more bordering vegetation. Mr. Stone said that regarding the flood storage, which is the heart of the special permit application, and read the following comments that were made by the city’s attorney, Judith Cutler. “What the Council needs to consider is not what the DEP or the Army Corp of Engineers wants, but what your Zoning Ordinance calls for. Section 37.33 of the Zoning Ordinance says you have to make a finding that any excavation or transfer of fill will not result in any increase in the flood level during the occurrence of a 100 year flood discharge. You also have to make a finding, based on the evidence the applicant provides to you, that the applicant has demonstrated that the project will not encroach on the regulatory floodway and will meet the minimum standards set forth in the National Flood Insurance Rules and Regulations. You need to focus on floodplain issues and what the effect on the floodplain is going to be.” Mr. Stone said that on this plan they have moved 15,258 feet of flood storage has been moved to lot 2A to compensate for Mr. Fiore’s filling activity. He said on prior plans this was on lot 3 which the Council felt was in violation of the deed restriction so they moved a significant portion. Mr. Stone said that the total flood storage would now be 34,610 cubic feet. He said this exceeds the 24,000 feet that the DEP requires and the 27,000 feet the Conservation Commission asked for. Matt Marro said that Whitman and Bingham is the one who did the calculations quantified the number and it is a little over 27,000. This is what state standard is because it needs to be a 1: 1 ratio. Mr. Stone said that he has submitted this plan to Mr. Marro and the Conservation Commission back in December. He said that Mr. Marro has told him that although the Conservation Commission needs to take an official vote on it, they have approved it. Mr. Marro said that the Leominster Land Trust has brought issues to the attention of Conservation Commission so they have asked to take one last look at it. Councillor Marchand said that he has also extended that same courtesy to the Planning Board and he would like to assure Mr. Stone that this would not hold the permit up. Peter Angelini, Executive Director of the Leominster Land Trust said that overall it is a wonderful plan and he is in agreement with all the points Mr. Stone has brought forward. He then handed out a site plan to the City Council. He said that on site note # 2 of the plan states that any alterations to the topography after September 2002 are not reflected on this plan. Mr. Angelini said that he thinks the same thing would apply to boundary lines. He said that he hopes that the date of the survey would be included in the plan. Mr. Angelini said that the shoreline that is shown on a plan dated 1989 is correct and the Land Trust does not dispute that. He said their concern is that with the amount of alteration that went on the shoreline had to have changed. Mr. Angelini said is what they would like is a new survey, or to expedite this matter, the applicant could have their plan stamped by Whitman & Bingham, Registered Engineers. He said that he would like the City Council to take into consideration their recommendations as Attorney Cutler backed them up in her letter to the City Council. Councillor John Salvatelli asked if Mr. Angelini will be in favor of this plan if a new survey was done? Mr. Angelini said if they get the rear boundary surveyed and also a timeline he will be satisfied and will publicly support this plan. Mr. Stone said that regarding the timeline, he cannot give a definite time frame for work until he knows when he will get his special permit because this dictates when he can begin work. He said that the final time line is a subject of negotiation between DEP’s attorney and Mr. Fiore’s attorney. Mr. Stone said that he gave DEP a tentative schedule that said that if they got their permit in February 2004 they would have the job completed in June 2004. He said that they are trying to get the work completed within four months. Councillor Marchand asked when they are expecting to have the planting done. Mr. Stone said in his original time line they expected to have it done by the end of June. He said that the DEP requires that it be monitored for two years. Mr. Stone said that in the end of two years they would need to have at least 75% of the planting complete in order to have the job considered to be completed by DEP. Councillor Marchand said he spoke with Mr. Bellino this afternoon and they are very satisfied with the amount of planting which is being shown on the plan. Councillor Robert Salvatelli asked who is supervising the project. Mr. Stone said that as a Registered Engineer in the State of Massachusetts he would be overseeing the project. He said he would have to stamp an as-built plan. He said that they have written into the plan that the Conservation Commission will be monitoring the plan. Councillor Robert Salvatelli asked if the City Council would be notified if for some reason Mr. Stone’s company were no longer involved in the plan. Mr. Stone said that as a professional courtesy he would. He said the DEP would be have to be notified and he is not sure how that would fit into the consent order. Mr. Angelini said that he also would like to add that Attorney Cutler said that the precondition site plan is a necessity and that would also be one of the things that the Land Trust would like to see. Mr. Stone said that the precondition site plan was submitted, as requested by the City Council, as part of the last special permit application. Mr. Angelini said that if you look at the sketch plan note on that plan there is a note it says that this sketch plan is a composite of topographic data obtained by Whitman & Bingham solely as an estimate of the original topography as opposed to an actual on the ground survey. Mr. Stone said that this plan is compiled from an on the ground survey which predates that plan. He said that plan does not show the topography prior to the filling that Mr. Fiore. He said that plan shows that after he filled and for the original wetlands replication that was to be preformed by Whitman & Bingham in the summer of 2003. Mr. Stone said that he went back to earlier plans that go back to before Mr. Fiore started construction. Councillor Rowlands said that he is concerned that the rear boundary survey issue is resolved and the pre-disturbance condition plan is acceptable to the Conservation Commission. He said he feels that the timeline question has been answered. He said he has a concern that the Conservation Commission may not have voted on this. In response to Councillor Rowlands question, Councillor Marchand read the following communication: HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued January 22, 2004 The Conservation Commission has review the above petition and offers the following for the Council’s consideration: At the December and January meetings of the Leominster Conservation Commission that Commission reviewed the plans currently submitted by Alton Day Stone and under review. The Commission voted to unanimously approve said plan as they feel it will meet the object of the DEP restoration order and keep the integrity of the deed restriction placed on the property. The Commission asks the Council for approval of the petition so the remediation work can begin as soon as possible. Thank You, Matthew S. Marro, Environmental Inspector. Councillor Rowlands asked why we were waiting for another week if we have the unanimous approval of the Conservation Commission? Councillor Marchand said that he had a discussion with Matt Marro and Matt would like to go back to the Commission and have one more look at it. Matt Marro said that he wanted to clarify his language in regards to the original letter to the Council. He said that when he normally gets a draft plan he brings it to the Conservation Commission and they do not have a formal hearing on it. Matt said that they normally give him a yes or no answer and then he acts accordingly. He said they would not have a formal vote but as a body, the Commission thought it was a good plan. Matt said since then concerns about the rear boundary have been brought forward and now they would like to take another look at it at their next meeting, which is next week. Councillor Rowlands said that in almost every recommendation they have deferred to the opinion of the Conservation Commission so he would like to see it put to a formal vote. Matt Marro said that is another reason why the Conservation Commission wants to look at it again at their next meeting. Councillor Dombrowski asked how much of a delay would require a new survey create. Mr. Stone said that he thinks it may be anywhere from one to three months. Mr. Angelini said he spoke to Mr. Hannigan from Hannigan Engineering and he will send a surveying crew there tomorrow and it will be complete in a couple of days. He said that the Land Trust would pay for it. Mr. Stone and Councillor Marchand accepted the offer and Councillor Marchand asked Mr. Angelini to provide Mr. Stone with all the information that they get. Councillor Dombrowski asked for the Conservation Commission to let the Council know if the pre-disturbance plan is acceptable. Matt Marro said that there are plenty of alternatives. One option is for them to ask the applicant to do an overlay on the pre- disturbance plan and a post plan. Matt Marro said that as far as the timeline goes, if there is any deviation from the timeline DEP will fine Mr. Fiore on a per day basis. He said DEP will be doing some on site monitoring but the Conservation Commission will also be on site. Mr. Marro said that one of the members of the Conservation Commission, Peter Lanza, is very knowledgeable in greenway restoration and he will be involved in the oversight of this project. Councillor Marchand asked if there will be daily or weekly inspections. Mr. Marro said that in the beginning it will probably be daily and then as the vegetation takes hold it will probably be weekly. Councillor Marchand asked that the Council be kept up to date, through the City Clerk’s Office. Mr. Marro said they will generate weekly reports. Ken Goss said he is the abutter to the right of Mr. Fiore and he is in agreement with the plan presented. William Taylor, 104 Highland Avenue spoke in opposition. His concern is where the soil that is removed is going to be deposited. He said that these soils have come from off site and he feels that this may be contaminated soil. Councillor Dombrowski said that if the Conservation Commission can deem the historical data creditable he would like to see it used in the interest in moving this project forward. Mr. Stone said that the historical data he put on the plan is the best available. He said that all material brought out of the project will be brought off site. He said if we have to do some dewatering we will and that is addressed in his plan. Councillor Marchand asked what type of fill would replace the fill. Mr. Stone said there is limited fill being brought in and it is sand and gravel. He said for planting they will be bringing in a composted organic leaf material and wash pond fines. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued Mr. Angelini said that when they get their survey data back, if it doesn’t line up with the 1989 data, it might hold things up a bit. HEARING ADJOURNED: 8:40 P.M. Ann B. Mahan, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Hearing opened at 8:46 P.M. with Councillor Marchand, Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee presiding. All members were present except for Councillor Nickel. The following ORDINANCE was the subject of the hearing. Relative to amending Chapter 13 Section 13-7 of the Revised Ordinances entitled “Motor Vehicles and Traffic - One-Way Streets” by inserting Central Place, from Eden Glen to Central Street in a westerly direction only. No one spoke in favor No one spoke in opposition. HEARING ADJOURNED: 8:47 P.M. Ann B. Mahan, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004 Meeting called to order at 8:03 P.M. Attendance was taken by a roll call vote; all members present except for Councillor Nickel. The Committee on Records reported that the records were examined through January 26, 2004 and found to be in order. The records were accepted. A recess was called to continue the public hearings and hold a public forum. Meeting reconvened at 8:48 P.M. A motion was made and seconded to go into Executive Session under the provisions of Chapter 39, Section 23B of the Massachusetts General laws. Voted by roll call. Vt. 8 “yeas”. Council President Lanciani said the regular meeting will reconvene at the conclusion of the Executive Session. Meeting reconvened at 10:09 P.M. Communication C-42 was brought to the front of the calendar for action. A recess was called at 10:14 P.M. Meeting reconvened at 10:25 P.M. The following COMMUNICATIONS were received, referred to the FINANCE COMMITTEE and given REGULAR COURSE. C-46 Relative to the appropriation of $2,000.00 to the Cemetery Overtime Account; same to be transferred from the Cemetery Salary and Wages Account. C-47 Relative to the appropriation of $1,500.00 to the Emergency Management Agency Expense Account; same to be transferred from the General Fund Capital Outlay Investment Program Fund. C-48 Relative to the appropriation of $30,000.00 to the Parking Meter Salary & Wages Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipts Reserved for Appropriation Account. C-49 Relative to the appropriation of $6,000.00 to the Parking Meter Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipts Reserved for appropriation Account. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued C-50 Relative to the appropriation of $2,750.00 to the Mayor’s Office Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-51 Relative to the appropriation of $2,750.00 to the Zoning Board of Appeals Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-52 Relative to the appropriation of $4,000.00 to the Highway Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-53 Relative to the appropriation of $5,000.00 to the Police Anti-Drug Task Force Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-54 Relative to the appropriation of $21,350.00 to the Fire Department Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. The following COMMUNICATIONS were received, referred to the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE and given REGULAR COURSE. C-55 Relative to the appropriation of $11,288.60 to the C.D.B.G. Housing Rehabilitation Expense Account; same to be transferred from various C.D.B.G. Accounts. C-56 Dean J. Mazzarella, Mayor: Support a resolution declaring the month of May as Children’s Mental Health Month in the City of Leominster. The following COMMUNICATION was received, referred to the COMMITTEE ON SCHOOLS, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the School Committee. C-57 Dean J. Mazzarella, Mayor: Establish the Tobin Family Trust Fund, to use monies donated by the Tobin Family for the benefit of the students at the Leominster High School, Library/Media Center. The following PETITION was received, referred to the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Health Department, the Conservation Commission and the Water and Sewer Commission. 87-04 David L. Higgins Jr.: Correct the public health problem of sewage flowing from an outfall sewer in Fitchburg into the Notown Reservoir causing an immediate and present danger to the citizens of Leominster. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Planning Board and the Building Department. A hearing was scheduled for March 8 , 2004 at 7:00 P.M.Vt. 8/0 88-04 Dean VivoAmore and Gary Hier: Rezone from 301 Lancaster Street to Marguerite Avenue as shown on Assessors’ Map 484, lots 8 & 9 from Business B to Commercial. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Mayor and the Comptroller. 89-04 Gary J. Ranno and James Lanciani Jr.: Request that a Haws Memorial Chapel donation account be established for the maintenance of Haws Memorial Chapel and grounds. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Conservation Commission, the Department of Public Works, the Building Department, the Fire Department, the Health Department and the Planning Board. A hearing was scheduled for March 29, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. Vt. 8/0 90-04 James Normandin: Grant a Special Permit to convert an existing building located at 140 Adams Street into 55 apartments as shown on Assessors Map 6 as lot 3, located in an Industrial Zone within flood plain district. The following APPOINTMENT was received, referred to the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE and given REGULAR COURSE. Recreation Commission – Jodie L. Dube – term to expire April 15, 2005 (to fill the unexpired term of Robert Creed Jr.) Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was GRANTED and ORDERED.Vt. 8 “yeas” C-40 Relative to the appropriation of $54,650.00 to the Library Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Library State Aid Reserved for Appropriation Account. ORDERED:- that the sum of Fifty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Dollars ($54,650.00) be appropriated to the Library Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Library State Aid Reserved for Appropriation Account. RE: Books: $38,820.00 Audio/Visual: 15,830.00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was given LEAVE TO WITHDRAW. Vt. 7 “yeas” Councillor Marchand abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. C-41 Relative to the appropriation of $2,382.62 to the Parking Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipt Reserved for Appropriation Account. Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATIONS were GRANTED and ORDERED. Vt. 8 “yeas” C-42 Relative to the appropriation of $15,000.00 to the Wire Salary and Wages Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. ORDERED:- that the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) be appropriated to the Wire Salary and Wages Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-43 Relative to the appropriation of $1,748.00 to the Election & Registration Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess & Deficiency Account. ORDERED: that the sum of One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Eight Dollars ($1,748.00) be appropriated to the Election and Registration Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. RE: funds needed to cover the cost of March 2, 2004 Special Election for Ward Two School Committee. C-44 Relative to the appropriation of $804.00 to the Sewer Regular Labor Account; same to be transferred from the Sewer Capital Outlay Expense Account. ORDERED:- that the sum of Eight Hundred Four Dollars ($804.00) be appropriated to the Sewer Regular Labor Account; same to be transferred from the Sewer Capital Outlay Expense Account. C-45 Relative to the appropriation of $2,855.60 to the Water Regular Labor Account; same to be transferred from the Water Capital Outlay Expense Account. ORDERED:- that the sum of Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Five Dollars and Sixty Cents ($2,855.60) be appropriated to the Water Regular Labor Account; same to be transferred from the Water Capital Outlay Expense Account. Upon request of the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, the following PETITION was given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 8/0 82-04 Alton Day Stone, P.E., Alton Engineering for Walter Fiore: Grant a Special Permit for restoration of 250 linear feet of bank on Pierce Pond and 140 linear feet of intermittent stream; replication and restoration of 8,700 square feet of bordering vegetated wetland, replication of 4,000 square feet of bordering vegetated wetland and compensatory storage of 27,000 cubic feet of bordering land subject to flooding at 729 West Street, as shown on Assessors Map 262 as lots 43 & 44, located in the Flood Zone. Upon request of the PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, the following PETITION was given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 8/0 85-04 Sarah Ann Balthazar and Richard M. Marchand: Request a formal traffic flow assessment at the intersection of Nelson Street and North Main Street, Lindell Avenue and North Main Street, and North Main Street and the front entrance of the U Mass Medical Campus to be conducted by the Police, Fire, Public Works and Wire Department. Upon request of the COMMITTEE ON SCHOOLS, the following PETITION was given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 8/0 86-04 John R. Grossi: Accept a donation of $2,600.00 to be used as a $500 a year scholarship at Leominster High School in memory of Nancy L. (Wright) Grossi, RN to support and encourage students to pursue a career in nursing. Upon recommendation of the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE, the following APPOINTMENT was CONFIRMED. Vt. 8 “yeas” Election Officer – 2004 – Norma I. Surovich The following ORDINANCE was read a second time ADOPTED as presented and passed to be ordained. Vt. 8 “yeas” THE CITY OF LEOMINSTER In the year two thousand and four An ordinance amending Chapter 13 of the Revised Ordinances entitled “Motor Vehicles and Traffic.” Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Leominster as follows: Section 13-7 of the Revised Ordinances entitled “One-Way Streets” is hereby amended by inserting the following: Central Place, from Eden Glen to Central Street, in a westerly direction only. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 9, 2004, continued Under Old Business, Councillor Freda said that she got phone calls asking if the City Council is supporting funding school buses. She said that she would like to make it clear that it is something that the School Committee puts in their budget and sends to the Mayor and the Mayor to sends it down to us as a budget item. Councillor Rowlands said that the meeting they had was just an informational meeting and it was just to make the public aware that busing may be a budget buster. Councillor Freda said that at this point in the process, people should be calling the School Committee Members. Council President Lanciani said that at the Finance Committee meeting there was talk about what advertising is costing in relationship to what we are charging when we have to print legal notices. He said he has asked the City Clerk to send a letter to departments and boards asking them for that information. He said we should not be footing the bill for legal advertising and the expense should be put on the person whose request requires advertising. Council President Lanciani also asked for the City Council members to look over Mr. Healey’s proposal for purchasing 50-54 Central Street and give him feed back so he may present it to the Mayor. MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:59 P.M. Ann B. Mahan, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council