City Council

EXECUTIVE SESSION, MARCH 27, 2006 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. 9 “yeas.” Councillor Salvatelli said the regular meeting would begin at 8:00 P.M. or at the conclusion of the Executive Session. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006 Hearing opened at 7:45P.M. with Councillor Nickel, Chair of the Public Service Committee, presiding. All members were present. The following PETITION was the subject of the hearing. 53-06 National Grid: Morton Street: Install one solely owned pole on Morton Street beginning at a point approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of Grand Street. Ken Dobe, representing National Grid, spoke in support. Mr. Dobe said they are doing this at the request of the city. They need to remove a tree guide from an old tree stump and they need to put a pole up to support the line to replace the tree guide. No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition. HEARING ADJOURNED: 7:47 P.M. Lynn A. Bouchard, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006 Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. Richard Marchand, Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, presiding. All members were present. The following PETITION was the subject of the hearing. 44-06 Gregg P. Lisciotti, Lisciotti Development Corp.: Rezone two parcels of land located on Orchard Hill Park Drive from Industrial to Commercial. The petition was co-signed by Councillor Denis Rosa, Councillor James Lanciani, Councillor Virginia Tocci, Councillor Wayne Nickel, Councillor Claire Freda, Councillor Robert Salvatelli, Councillor Richard Marchand, Gregg Lisciotti, Elisha Erb, and Henry Lisciotti, Jr. Gregg Lisciotti; Lisciotti Development Corporation was present along with Bill Sculley; MS Transportation, Richard Lavers, an Attorney with Erb & Erb and John Scriptner; Lisciotti Development Corporation. Mr. Lisciotti said that he is the land owner of Orchard Hill Park, LLC, Kohls, LLC and Derby Farm, LLC, the properties affected by the proposed zoning change. Mr. Lisciotti explained that on the Target side they are proposing to rezone 30.571 acres of property which encompasses Target, Dicks, Kohls, Bed Bath & Beyond and Chili’s as well as the two small retail store buildings on either side of Chili’s. Mr. Lisciotti said that this encompasses the entire shopping center that is presently constructed. Mr. Lisciotti said that the other parcel they are proposing to rezone is across the street where there is 15.290 acres of land which about half is not usable because of slopes and a detention pond as shown on the plan. The proposed Olive Garden and TGI Fridays Restaurant is located in this area. Mr. Lisciotti said that both of these projects have received Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and construction will be starting in two or three weeks. He said on the far end of the property is the Lisciotti Development Corporate headquarters, which is just about complete. Mr. Lisciotti said that those are the two areas affected by the proposed zoning change. Mr. Lisciotti distributed to the City Council a copy of an approved Master Plan, an approved Site Plan and also the proposed plan for the Olive Garden and TGI Fridays. Mr. Lisciotti said that all the property that is proposed to be rezoned has already been approved by the Planning Board on the Master Plan for either retail or restaurant uses as depicted on the plan. Mr. Lisciotti said that there is nothing new being added to the plan this evening. Mr. Lisciotti said that on the Target side of the approved Site Plan, there is 1472 parking spaces provided and Leominster regulations only require 1320 parking spaces, so there is a surplus of 150 spaces. He said on the opposite side of the street there is 255 parking spaces provided on the site plan and only 177 are required. Mr. Lisciotti said that the only developable portion that has not been before the Planning Board is the parcel between TGI Fridays and the Corporate Office Building which is three or four acres of land. Mr. Lisciotti said that they have not found a tenant for that site yet. He said he will have to go before the Planning Board for that last parcel of land. Mr. Lisciotti said that the total land area under the Master Plan is 119+ acres. He said currently he has 28.90 acres approved for retail use. Mr. Lisciotti said what would be allowed by right is 39.71 acres, leaving approximately 11 acres available for retail designation which does not include restaurant or bank uses that are allowed. A Special Permit would be allowed for more than one-third to be used as retail. Bill Sculley, MS Transportation Systems, Framingham, MA was retained by Lisciotti Development for traffic studies, analysis and traffic design. Mr. Sculley was present to speak about the traffic studies his company performed. He said initial traffic studies were completed in late 2001 conducted primarily for state transportation. He said this was followed by city related studies and reviewed as part of this projects Master Plan. As a result of all of these studies was a set of actions to improve access, enhance traffic safety in the area and midigate the projects impacts. Mr. Sculley said a number of actions were outlined and agreed upon including traffic signal at the Harvard Street intersection with Orchard Hill Park, building a connection between Pioneer Park Drive and Orchard Hill Park Drive, providing turn lanes on Orchard Hill Park Drive at the retail center, preparing a full set of design plans for Mass Highway so that they could improve the Route 2 interchange with Harvard Street HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006, continued. and Old Turnpike Rd., conducting traffic calming and pedestrian safety studies and identifying actions and implementing those actions along Prospect Street and Harvard Street. Mr. Sculley said all of the actions that were identified and agreed upon were completed prior to the opening of the shopping center. These included pedestrian crossing with some high visibility beacons on Prospect Street, speed monitoring devices on Prospect Street, change in geometry at intersections including Stagecoach Road at Prospect Street, and signals and ramps. Mr. Sculley said that one of the conditions on approval from the Planning Board was requiring a traffic count and traffic monitoring study prior to December 2005. He said they did another study after opening in December 2005 and some of the major findings were that the traffic was flowing in and out of the shopping center pretty efficiently without any major conflicts, trips generated by the project were at a lower rate of flow then was predicted originally, and that the amount of trips going to and from the shopping center were going to and from Route 2. He said no operational problems were noted at the site drives or at the traffic signal. Mr. Sculley said that in conclusion the mitigation that was implemented as part of the project was working and no adjustments were needed at this time. Councillor Marchand asked Mr. Sculley to go over page 5 of the December 2005 study that was conducted. Mr. Sculley reviewed the following table: TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF OBSERVED TRAFFICE COUNTS December 2005 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ WEEKDAY AM PM SATURDAY MIDDAY LOCATION 24-HOUR PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR 24-HOUR PEAK _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Orchard Hill Park Drive 12,000 300 1,100 13,075 1,320 Harvard Street west of Orchard Hill Park Drive 3,750 211 406 3,700 350 Prospect Street east of Lawrence Street 6,250 429 650 9,050 875 Pioneer Drive east of Orchard Hill Park Drive 2,450 150 270 1,750 190 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 1) Based on automatic traffic recorder counts conducted December 2005, volumes are rounded. Mr. Lisciotti said that the reason he is trying to rezone this is that the mixed use development is not a perfect ordinance. Mr. Lisciotti said he is just trying to do some housekeeping. He said the other issue he is facing is that he would have to go back before the Planning Board if they change the use of any of the buildings. He said by rezoning this commercial, the retail and restaurant uses are already allowed. Attorney Richard Lavers, Erb & Erb spoke as prospective council for commercial landlords and said that commercial tenants are fixated on the zoning classification and what they can or cannot do on a particular site before they are going to commit to housing one of their stores on a particular development. He said that they are trying to rezone this piece of property in order to attract and retain the type of reputable and successful commercial tenants that they want to see in this development. Mr. Lavers said that as council for commercial landlords, he must present them with a zoning opinion letter telling them what they can and cannot do under the current state of zoning. He said the prospective commercial tenants need a certain level of comfort that they are going to be able to operate their particular establishment as they want to at this site under the current zoning. He said that every perspective tenant understands what commercial zoning is but the mixed use designation is confusing and they don’t have the same type of understanding with that and that is why they are trying to rezone this piece of property. Mr. Lisciotti said that in FY2005 this project wasn’t even on the maps yet. He said that Walter Poirier, the Chief Assessor for the City of Leominster, told him that in FY2007 this project, just the first phase, will be the second largest tax payer in the city. Mr. Lisciotti said that this development will be responsible for about 1 ¼% of the total tax levy in the city. Raymond Harper, 318 Harvard Street, spoke in opposition to the petition. He said this is one of the best pieces of industrial property in the city. He said twenty-five acres are already gone with about eighty acres left. He said this is a very visible piece of land from Route 190 and Route 2. Mr. Harper feels this is still a good piece of industrial land and could bring in a good industrial building. He said we have zoning for a reason and he feels it shouldn’t be changed unless it is definitely needed. Michael Sadlowski, 85 Harvard Street, said he would like to see this petition denied. Mr. Sadlowski submitted a letter to the City Council dated March 27, 2006. He said there is approximately 3700 vehicles per day going down Harvard Street. Mr. Sadlowski said that the roadway is being torn up with potholes. He said it is a very narrow road and it is endangering the public’s safety. Mr. Sadlowski said Harvard Street doesn’t even come close to the State Highway regulations for safety. He said the City Council needs to take a hard look at public safety. Councillor Marchand said he will initiate the action with the Department of Public Works in coperation with the Mayor’s office to do a complete survey of Harvard Street and make sure every pothole is identified and resolved within a timely fashion. Councillor Marchand said he will investigate with the Mass Highway regarding the safety standards and will push for those standards for the residents of Harvard Street. Arthur DiGeronimo, Jr., 294 Hill Street, spoke in opposition to the petition. He said nearly three years ago he started speaking in front of both the Planning Board and the City Council in regards to the potential abuse of the Mixed Use zoning. He said the developer was a huge beneficiary to the change of the zoning ordinance to Mixed Use. He said the developer should just live with what is there until the city can look at another comprehensive rezoning plan. He said it is not fair to every other owner of Industrial land in the city. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006, continued. Alan Bernstein, 68 Scenic Drive, spoke in opposition to this petition. He said it amazes him that someone is already coming before the City Council to change Mixed Use zoning. Mr. Bernstein said the redesign of the intersection of Scenic Drive and Prospect Street is absurd. He said he fears for his life at that intersection. Mr. Bernstein said he hopes the City Council will vote this petition down. Woody Cross, 212 Ridgewood Drive, spoke in opposition to this petition. He said there is an appeal pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court concerning the propriety of the current use of the land. He said if this petition is granted, it will render the litigation moot, saving the same individual tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses. Mr. Cross said the developer agreed in mediation to settle that dispute and later reneged. He said the developer stands to make millions of more dollars if this land is rezoned. Mr. Cross asked that the Council do the right thing and not approve this petition. John Gravelle, 51 Parkdale Avenue, spoke in opposition to this petition. Mr. Gravelle said that the city needs to take a look at the zoning city wide. He said the Zoning Ordinances are very unclear and subject to many different interpretations. He urged the City Council to address the zoning issues on a comprehensive basis along with other city officials. He asked that the city come up with a plan that serves the needs of all the residents in the city and stick with it. He feels that the city council cannot keep changing their minds on the zoning. He feels an individual should be able to choose where they are going to live and have some confidence that the zoning will stay that way. The zoning shouldn’t be changed according to individual needs and purposes. He feels it would be a huge financial gain for the developer. He said the number one tax payers in the city are the residents and they feel they are not getting anything that they ask for. He said their requests are getting denied, ignored or paid lip service and as residents and taxpayers, they have come before the City Council to ask that the council listen and to react to their requests. Mr. Gravelle asked if one developer is the majority. Gail Suyemoto, 25 Cloverleaf Road, spoke in opposition to the petition. Ms. Suyemoto said she has grave concerns as to how this petition has come before the city council. She said she feels the merits to this project only gives benefits to a private individual and has no reason that serves the public’s interest to rezone this land. She said Mixed Use zoning doesn’t change the zoning of the land, it only permits a use different than the zoning of the land. She said that if the city council changes the zoning to this land, it will be spot zoning. She said there may be some inconveniences to the developer with the Mixed Use Ordinances, but he has already received the benefits of using industrial land for retail. Ms. Suyemoto said that the residents have to live with the ordinance and Mr. Lisciotti should also have to live with the ordinance. Ms. Suyemoto asked if the councilors met with the residents to hear their opinions after they spoke with Mr. Lisciotti. Bernie McCaffrey, 100 Ridgewood Drive, spoke in opposition to the petition. He said that if this petition goes through, it will end the appeal and law suit that the residents have against Mr. Lisciotti. The residents appealed Mr. Lisciotti’s project in June 2004. He said the residents registered their objections to this project at the very first opportunity allowed to them under the law. He said the residents filed an appeal because they have very strong concerns with the impact of this project on their homes, their families and their safety, and they still do. He said the appeal is still currently active in the court and are awaiting a hearing before the Massachusetts State Appeals Court on the issue as to whether or not this project exceeded the one-third threshold. He said they are also waiting trial in Superior Court on the issue of whether this project is legal if the Industrial portion never gets built. If this petition gets approved, that will nullify both of these legal arguments. Peter Latchis, 22 DiMassa Drive, said that this is a ten member petition. Mr. Latchis said Mr. Lisciotti could have put this petition in by himself because he is the owner of the land. He said that if an individual doesn’t own the land, then there has to be ten people to sign the petition. He said he finds it peculiar that seven of the nine city councilors would sign a petition that is to go before the City Council. Mr. Latchis said he has been involved in this area for a long time and that the residents in that area have been trying to reduce traffic, especially truck traffic. He said that even before the new school was built and before the shopping plaza was built, this area was very dangerous. He said there were four hundred people that signed a petition for a truck exclusion on Prospect Street. He said there are nineteen streets that come onto Prospect Street. Dorothy Rouleau, 54 Lowe Street, said that zoning change is a very serious topic to be discussed. Ms. Rouleau asked if the councilors think that Leominster really needs more commercial? She said she hopes the council will listen to the public tonight. No one in the audience spoke in support of this petition. Councillor Dombrowski asked about the appeal that is pending and what stage it is in. Mr. Lisciotti said that Judge Wexler wrote a twenty-six page decision in his favor. Mr. Lisciotti said that the appellants have filed a notice of appeal. He said no further action has been taken by the appellants. Councillor Dombrowski said that he knows from experience that a long period of time can go by before an appeal can be resolved. Councillor Dombrowski asked what the issues under appeal are. Mr. Lisciotti said that the judge specifically ruled on the one third issue and stated that Mr. Lisciotti did not exceed the one third threshold for a Special Permit and that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board acted properly in their decision. Councillor Dombrowski asked if Mr. Lisciotti agreed with some of the peoples suggestions that a rezoning will render the appeal a nullity. Mr. Lisciotti said he is not in the position to answer that question. Councillor Dombrowski asked how much remaining land there would be if this was rezoned. Mr. Lisciotti said he has one hundred and nineteen acres and is asking for the council to rezone forty-five acres which is the area which is already been built or has been approved for building with the exception of three acres of usable land between the office building and the proposed TGI Fridays. He said approximately seventy-five acres would be left. Councillor Salvatelli said that the Planning Board’s recommendation was to add thirteen more acres of land to the rezoning. Mr. Lisciotti said that he couldn’t agree to that recommendation because he is not the land owner of that land. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006, continued. Councillor Marchand read the recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Clerk dated March 23, 2006: At a regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting on March 21, 2006, the Board voted 3-2 to recommend the following to the City Council:  The zone change from Mixed Use/Industrial to Commercial be approved only if the 13.641 acre parcel is included in the zoning  And if the 13.641 acre parcel is not included in the rezoning the Planning Board recommends that the petition is denied and the property remains zoned mixed-use. The reasoning behind this recommendation is that:  This parcel was included in the density calculations that determined how many acres of the property could be used for retail/restaurant space under Mixed-Use Zoning.  If this property is ever sold the next owner has the right to ask for Mixed-Use Zoning and will have the ability to include the 13.641 acres again in the density calculations for determining acreage of retail space allowed.  This parcel also serves as a drainage area for the property that is up for rezoning and this feature ties it to the other property so that it makes sense to zone them together. Sincerely, Kate Griffin-Brooks Planning Director Mr. Lisciotti said that the 13 acres are owned by Derby Realty Trust. Councillor Nickel said that on the right hand side where TGI Fridays is going to be looks like wetlands and asked if there is any way you can build on the rest of that land? Councillor Nickel asked how many acres are left on that side. Mr. Lisciotti said about 15 acres and that it is not buildable. Councillor Marchand recommended scheduling a subcommittee meeting on April 6, 2006 at 7:15 p.m. HEARING ADJOURNED: 9:37 P.M. Lynn A. Bouchard, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006 Meeting called to order at 8:00 P.M. Attendance was taken by a roll call vote; all members present. A recess was called at 8:02 P.M. to continue the public hearing and hold a public forum. Meeting reconvened at 9:50 P.M. The following COMMUNICATIONS were received, referred to the FINANCE COMMITTEE and given REGULAR COURSE. C-99 Relative to the appropriation of $15,500.00 to the Sanitation/Drainage Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-100 Relative to the appropriation of $5,000.00 to the Doyle Field Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. C-101 Relative to the appropriation of $6,000.00 to the Parking Meter Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Building Inspector, the Planning Department, the Conservation Commission, the License Commission, the Health Department, Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. A hearing was scheduled for May 8, 2006 at 7:15 P.M. Vt. 9/0. 60-06 Susan M. Harding: Grant a Special Permit to use the existing building at 34 Mohawk Drive, to operate a wholesale auto sales facility in an Industrial zone and to allow for the storage of automobiles within a floodplain. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Mayor, the City Solicitor and the Business Manager at the Department of Public Works. 61-06 David Rowlands and John M. Dombrowski: Amend Chapter 21, Section 21-22.3 of the Revised Ordinances entitled “Sewer Rates Schedule” to reflect changes to the out of city sewer rates. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006, continued. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Mayor, the City Solicitor and the Business Manager at the Department of Public Works. 62-06 David Rowlands and John M. Dombrowski: Amend Chapter 21, Section 21-22.4, of the Revised Ordinances entitled “Sewer Connection Charges” to reflect changes in fees to individual units, condominium units, commercial and industrial construction within and outside the City of Leominster. The following PETITION was received, referred to the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Police Department. 63-06 Claire Freda: Install a stop sign at the intersection of Amideo Drive and Antonia Court. The following PETITION was received, referred to the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE, given REGULAR COURSE and referred to the Treasurer, the Police Department and the Fire Department. 64-06 Mark Gordon: Renew second hand dealer’s license for the premises located at Twin City Plaza. Upon recommendation of the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE the following APPOINTMENT was CONFIRMED. Vt. 9 “yeas”. Fire Department - Permanent Firefighter – Jeffrey Vaillette Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATIONS were GRANTED and ORDERED. Vt. 9 “yeas”. C-88 Relative to the appropriation of $15,000.00 to the Parking Meter Salary and Wages Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipts Reserved for Appropriation Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) be appropriated to the Parking Meter Salary and Wages Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipts Reserved for Appropriation Account. C-89 Relative to the appropriation of $12,000.00 to the Parking Meter Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipts Reserved for Appropriation Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00) be appropriated to the Parking Meter Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Parking Meter Receipts Reserved for Appropriation Account. C-90 Relative to the appropriation of $500.00 to the Cemetery Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Manson D. Hawes Cemetery Trust Fund Income Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) be appropriated to the Cemetery Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Manson D. Hawes Cemetery Trust Fund Income Account. RE: To cover the fuel costs for the remainder of the year. C-91 Relative to the appropriation of $50,000.00 to the Fire Department Capital Outlay Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) be appropriated to the Fire Department Capital Outlay Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. RE: These funds are to be utilized to purchase a command vehicle for the shift Deputy Chief. C-92 Relative to the appropriation of $271,000.00 to the Street Resurfacing Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Highway State Aid Reserved for Appropriation Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Two Hundred Seventy One Thousand Dollars ($271,000.00) be appropriated to the Street Resurfacing Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Highway State Aid Reserved for Appropriation Account. C-93 Relative to the appropriation of $63,000.00 to the Highway Department Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Sixty Three Thousand Dollars ($63,000.00) be appropriated to the Highway Department Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATIONS were GRANTED and ORDERED. Vt. 8 “yeas”. Councillor Tocci abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. C-94 Relative to the appropriation of $65,000.00 to the Police Department Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Police Department Salary and Wages Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00) be appropriated to the Police Department Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Police Department Salary and Wages Account. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006, continued. C-95 Relative to the appropriation of $35,000.00 to the Police Department Overtime Account; same to be transferred from the Police Department Salary and Wages Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) be appropriated to the Police Department Overtime Account; same to be transferred from the Police Department Salary and Wages Account. Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was GRANTED and ORDERED. Vt. 9 “yeas”. C-96 Relative to the appropriation of $2,000.00 to the Gallagher Building Overtime Account; same to be transferred from the Gallagher Building Revolving Fund. ORDERED: that the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) be appropriated to the Gallagher Building Overtime Account; same to be transferred from the Gallagher Building Revolving Fund. Upon request of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 9/0. C-97 Dean J. Mazzarella, Mayor: Request the authority to borrow, if necessary, up to $600,000.00 for the purchase for open space and water supply protection purposes, 57+/- acres of land owned now or formerly by the Salvatore Realty Trust (Map 429, Lot 5) as shown on a plan of land to be recorded with the Worcester North Registry of Deeds; said property shall be dedicated in perpetuity to purposes stated in Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts including the protection of water resources and shall be fully protected by all provisions of Article 97. Furthermore, this property shall be open to the general public for appropriate outdoor/recreational use while consistent with 310 CMR 22.00; that to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the Mayor is authorized to borrow, if necessary, up to $600,000.00, the receipt of any state and charitable grants and donations associated with this project will be deposited into the appropriate account; and that the Mayor is authorized to take any other action necessary to carry out these projects. Upon request of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE, the following PETITION was given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 9/0. 41-06 Peter A. CampoBasso, Esquire, on behalf of James S. Whitney, President and Treasurer, J. Whitney Development, Inc.: Allow a sewer connection for land in Sterling, owned by J. Whitney Development, Inc., for a residential subdivision for homeownership, condominiums and apartment buildings. Upon recommendation of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMITTEE, the following PETITION was GRANTED. Vt. 9/0. 53-06 National Grid: Morton Street: Install one solely owned pole on Morton Street beginning at a point approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of Grand Street. Upon recommendation of the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was GRANTED. Vt. 8 “yeas” and 1 “nay”. Councillor Rosa opposed. C-98 Dean J. Mazzarella, Mayor: Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-34, of the Revised Ordinances to change the classification of the Personnel Director, from an S-7 to an S-8, effective July 1, 2006 for the FY2007 budget. Upon request of the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, the following PETITION was given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 9/0. 54-06 Scott Hyney: Grant a Special Permit to construct an addition to an existing dwelling at 39 Federal Circle as shown on Assessors Map 363, Lot 41, located in a rural residential zone in the water supply protection district. (A hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2006 at 7:15 P.M.) Upon recommendation of the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, the following PETITION was GRANTED. Vt. 9 “yeas”. 55-06 Maribel Fournier, Personnel Director: Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-34, of the Revised Ordinances to change the classification of the Building Inspector, from an S-7 to an S-8, effective July 1, 2006 for the FY2007 budget. Upon recommendation of the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE, the following PETITIONS were GRANTED. Vt. 9/0. 46-06 William Plant: Renew license for one pool table at J.C. Fenwicks Co., 37 Mechanic Street. 47-06 Aime Lemoine: Renew license for one pool table at Seven R’s, d/b/a/ A & R’S Double Inn, 166 Water Street. 48-06 Albert Mason: Renew license for seven pool tables and 24 bowling alleys at Mason’s Bowling Center, 640 North Main Street. 49-06 Rosairo Palermo: Renew license for one pool table at Foggia Hall, 153 Lancaster Street. Upon request of the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE, the following PETITIONS were given FURTHER TIME. Vt. 9/0. 50-06 Leroy J. DiMauro: Renew second hand dealer’s license for the premises located at 609 Main Street. 51-06 Fred R. Tousignant: Renew second hand dealer’s license for the premises located at 92 Pleasant Street. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 27, 2006, continued. Upon recommendation of the WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE the following PETITIONS were GRANTED. Vt. 9/0. 56-06 Phillip McBain: Renew the license for two pool tables at Captain’s Lounge, 1536 Main Street. 57-06 Kym Leblanc: Renew the license for one pool table at the Tankard, 13 Central Street. 58-06 Mark & Robyn Ellis: Renew the second hand dealers license to sell used power boats from the premises at Ellis Marine Supply Partnership, 646 Central Street. 59-06 Kathleen A. Violette: Grant a transient vendors license for April and May, 2006, for the sale of plants and flowers. The following ORDINANCE was read a second time, adopted as presented and passed to be ordained. Vt. 9 “yeas”. THE CITY OF LEOMINSTER In the year two thousand six AN ORDINANCE Amending Chapter 22 of the Revised Ordinances entitled “Zoning.” Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Leominster, as follows: Chapter 22 of the Revised Ordinances, Article II, Use Regulations, Section 22-16 Generally Permitted Uses is hereby amended by deleting Section 16.9 in its entirety and adding in its place the following new Section 16.9: 16.9 Use of Undeveloped (Vacant) Lots 16.9.1 If one undeveloped lot is in a zoning district in which a desired, but non-permitted residential use is sought, and the lot is bordered by other lots which are predominately non-conforming residential uses, by Special Permit of the City Council a similar nonconforming residential structures in the closest neighboring residential zoning district. 16.9.2 In the case of an Industrially-zoned, undeveloped lot of 1.5 acres or less which was in existence prior to July 1, 2005, the City Council, may, by Special Permit, allow use of that lot for any business use listed in the Section 22-26 Table of Uses as permitted by right or by Special Permit in the Business A or Business B Districts, if the City Council determines that there is no present, reasonable industrial use for the lot, and that the proposed use of the lot is not contrary to the general welfare, safety, health and morals of the City. The lot and structures thereon must comply with all dimensional requirements for the Business A District as set forth in Article III Dimensional Regulations. Any Special Permit granted hereunder is subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. _____________________________________________________________ Under Old Business Councillor Rosa said that he has had some contact with the local newspaper and asked the editor to give you any information regarding the rates. Councillor Rosa asked if Councillor Marchand if he has got any information from the newspaper. Councillor Marchand said he was very pleased with a phone call he received from the editor of the Sentinel and Enterprise letting him know that they were putting together a proposal for the City of Leominster for advertising for the entire city. Councillor Marchand said he is extremely satisfied with the progress. Under New Business Councillor Rowlands said he is getting a lot of calls regarding the water issue addressing the city. He said that he feels in the near future we need to call people down to get some answers. Councillor Salvatelli said that the Chairman of Public Service could have a subcommittee meeting regarding this issue. Councillor Marchand, Chair of the LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, moved that the following COMMUNICATION be removed from the table and placed on the calendar for action. It was so voted 9/0. Committee report as follows: C-84 Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella: Accept for conservation purposes a deed from Day Street Realty Corporation for a thirteen acre parcel of land located off Day Street and shown on Assessors Map 575 as parcel 7. FURTHER TIME. Vt. 9/0. 44-06 Gregg P. Lisciotti, Lisciotti Development Corp.: Rezone two parcels of land located on Orchard Hill Park Drive from Industrial to Commercial. TABLED FOR STUDY. Vt. 9/0. MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:30 P.M. ________________________________________________ Lynn A Bouchard, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council