Mayor & Council Special Hybrid Meeting

MINUTES Mayor and Council Special Meeting Monday, February 5, 2024 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – A Special Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the Borough of River Edge was held in person at the River Edge Public Library located at 685 Elm Avenue, River Edge, NJ 07661 and virtually via Zoom. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Thomas Papaleo. SILENT PRAYER – FLAG SALUTE Mayor Papaleo asked for a moment of silence for those who we care about and love. He then led those present in a salute to the flag. STATEMENT – Mayor Papaleo read the Statement of Compliance into the record as follows: Statement of Compliance with Open Public Meeting Act: This meeting complies with the Open Public Meeting Act via the January 11, 2024 Sunshine Notice containing date, time, and access information to the Town News and the Record and by posting of same on the municipal bulletin board and Borough Web Site and filing a notice of the same with the Municipal Clerk. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilwoman Kaufman, Council President Montisano-Koen, Councilwoman Kinsella, Councilwoman Malellari, Councilman Benson, Councilman Glass and Mayor Papaleo. ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Borough Administrator Lissette Aportela Borough Attorney John L. Shahdanian, Esq. Borough Attorney Bill Rupp, Esq. Borough Planner Tom Behrens Chief Michael Walker Land Use & Redevelopment Attorney Dan Lagana, Esq. FOR DISCUSSION Cannabis Overlay Zone Mayor Papaleo noted that there was a Constitutional Amendment adopted which legalized the sale of cannabis in New Jersey and 66% of River Edge residents voted yes on this amendment. He explained that, once adopted, municipalities had to adopt an ordinance to make all classes of cannabis licenses illegal or else all classes of cannabis licenses would be deemed legal. As regulations were unknown at that time, he advised that the Borough decided not to permit any of these licenses. He advised that, due to cannabis retailers expressing an interest in opening a dispensary within River Edge, it was decided to hold this meeting to garner public sentiment on whether residents wish for the governing body to consider this opportunity as a revenue source, and if so, where it should be permitted. Should the public be in favor, he provided an overview of the process going forward and described the location of the overlay zone. Councilwoman Kaufman, Chair of the Cannabis Subcommittee, advised that Councilman Benson and Councilwoman Malellari are also members of this subcommittee. She noted that, when cannabis became legal in 2021, the Borough opted out. As many facilities have opened without incident, she advised that there will be discussion this evening on a reasonable approach to best protect River Edge while also taking advantage of the financial benefits. She commented that there are a few locations near Route 4 which may make sense and only one cannabis retailer will be permitted in one specific zone. She expressed her opinion that, as there is not a large commercial or industrial tax base within the Borough, the opportunity to collect 2% of recreational cannabis sales would be a significant benefit as it could be a significant source of revenue to help offset future tax increases. She noted that Daniel Lagana is a foremost expert in this area, advising that he has both drafted ordinances for various towns and represented private clients who were seeking Land Use approval for cannabis operations. Mr. Lagana advised that he is with Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, the firm which serves as Redevelopment Counsel for the Borough. He commented that the question now is whether the Borough wants to permit cannabis, how it will be permitted, and what it will look like for the Borough. He noted that, when licenses were first issued in 2022, there were 12 establishments that opened day one and expressed his belief that there are now 75 establishments statewide. He advised that this industry is highly regulated, advising that there is full authority given to municipalities to regulate cannabis at the local level. He reviewed the various types of licenses that are available and stated that only one retail establishment is being proposed meaning that there will only be one license available. With respect to taxes, he commented that cannabis is an emerging industry and towns that allow licenses now will reap the benefits for a few years until a cooling effect takes place as more and more establishments open. He reviewed the parameters pertaining to the collection of taxes. He remarked that this revenue can be very helpful in paying off existing costs or offsetting future budget increases. He noted that there will be a licensing requirement and only one retail license will be permitted. Unless the license, once issued, has been revoked by the governing body for some improper activity, he explained that the license is considered occupied. He advised that there will be an annual licensing fee which ranges from $7,000 to $30,000, noting that the amount will need to be determined by the governing body. He stated that this license is renewable and this fee, in addition to the 2% tax base, will be paid yearly. He explained that there is an enforcement mechanism for the governing body which allows for oversight of the business itself. Should the governing body adopt the ordinance to allow a cannabis retailer, he explained the process for selecting an applicant and described the Cannabis Overlay Zone. He noted that this zone is the only area where retail cannabis will be permitted and any other area would require a Use Variance which entails the highest burden of proof. He explained that this use within the proposed overlay zone would be considered a Conditional Use which means that an applicant would need to meet certain conditions before it would be considered a Permitted Use. He reviewed what those conditions would be, noting that Site Plan Review before the Land Use Board would be required to ensure that the site operates appropriately. He spoke to the various elements of this review by the Land Use Board which included a security plan, parking requirements, hours of operation, deliveries, distance to school requirements, odor mitigation, refuse collection, and signage. He detailed the various Borough professionals and departments within the Borough that would be involved, noting that there is a superstructure of review. Should the governing body decide to move forward, he described the procedure that will need to be followed and advised that it would be one to two years before the facility will open. PUBLIC COMMENT Motion by Councilwoman Kaufman, second Councilman Benson, and all members present voting in favor, to open the floor to the public. Please see attached for emails from the following residents which were read into the record by the Borough Clerk in the order that they were received: 1. Michael Desanctis, 741 Elm Avenue 2. James Hunt, 216 Dorchester Road 3. Linda Mei, Manning Avenue 4. Samantha Cioffi, 835 Bogert Road 5. Patty Almberg, 659 Fifth Avenue 6. Nick Maou, 246 Madison Avenue 7. Robert Almberg, 659 Fifth Avenue 8. Ken Schuffenhauer, 780 Millbrook Road 9. Meryl Dimarsico, Park Avenue 10. Robert Dimarsico, Park Avenue 11. Mark-Kay McHugh, 494 The Fenway Ray Stitz, 210 Mohawk Drive, advised that he spoke with the Borough Administrator in Rochelle Park regarding Ascend and reported on the revenue that they receive. He expressed that he is in favor of allowing a cannabis retailer. Anthony Arturi, 171 Manning Avenue, commented that he is in favor of having a dispensary, especially in the proposed location, and spoke to the reasons that he is in favor. John Perrino, 244 Valley Road, questioned whether products can be limited to those that do not appeal to children. He stated that he is not necessarily against the store or revenue aspect but would like to know how the Borough will protect against these items being sold. Mr. Lagana advised that he is not aware of a way for a municipality to differentiate between the different forms of cannabis. He noted that the signage element on the outside and retail element on the inside can be controlled to prevent items not considered cannabis paraphernalia from being sold. Mayor Papaleo noted that two members of Council sit on the Land Use Board and questioned whether these restrictions can be placed into the ordinance or be made an expectation of Land Use Board approval. Mr. Lagana confirmed that the greatest element of control will be through the Site Plan Application, and as two members of the governing body sit on the board, they will have a really good understanding of what the governing body is looking to achieve when it comes to what the site should look like and how it should function. Audrey Ruhlman, 285 Concord Drive, stated that, while she is in favor of medicinal cannabis, she is not in favor of recreational. She detailed her concerns with recreational cannabis. Mr. Lagana explained the differences between the various classes of licenses that relate to cannabis. As Ms. Ruhlman expressed concern regarding the need for armed personnel, he noted that, although it has been his experience that operators choose to have armed guards to secure their location, it is not necessarily how they will choose to operate. Stephanie Hartman, 144 Monroe Avenue, noted that the Borough has a social responsibility with regard to cannabis and noted that, when coming into town, Total Wine would be located on one side and a cannabis retailer on the other. She expressed that she is opposed to allowing a cannabis retailer. Lynn Goldberg, 118 Voorhis Avenue, expressed that she is strongly against allowing a cannabis retailer and explained her reasons for this position. Carl Hagelin, 290 Midland Avenue, commented that he is strongly in favor of allowing a cannabis retailer and detailed the reasons for his position. Kenny Lehmann, 190 Tenney Avenue, commented that he does not know enough about this issue to have an opinion and came tonight to learn about the risks associated with this industry. He inquired whether there are statistics from other towns with retail cannabis as to risk-reward. He noted that having these statistics would help him to make an informed decision. Mr. Lagana encouraged all governing body members to reach out to local officials who have adopted an ordinance permitting cannabis to ask first hand about their experiences. He noted that there are a sufficient number of cannabis retailers now that are up and running and municipalities with these retailers can give a good idea of what will be faced as well as associated risks and rewards. Michael Walker, Police Chief, was requested to speak on this issue. He advised that he visited Ascend in Rochelle Park and met with management there. He noted that recreational marijuana is more expensive than what can be purchased on the street and the clientele that frequent these retailers are mostly upper middle class. He spoke to what he learned from the Police Chief in Rochelle Park regarding assignment of officers to this location, noting that the establishment absorbs this cost and it would be an overtime assignment for the officer. He described the security in this location. He stated that traffic is a concern with opening a retail cannabis dispensary in River Edge and expressed his belief that precautions will be put into place to mitigate traffic. He expressed his opinion that patrons leaving the dispensary have the same responsibilities as those who leave a liquor store to prevent minors from getting access to these substances. He remarked that resulting DWIs would be no more than people leaving a liquor store. He advised that a good job has been done in regulating this type of business and noted that cannabis is here to stay and the Police Department is prepared to handle it if a cannabis retailer is permitted in the Borough. With respect to concerns with substance abuse, he commented that this department strongly believes in the importance of DARE and LEAD to educate youth on the dangers of drugs. In response to questions and concerns that were raised by members of the public, Mr. Lagana explained that an ID is specific to those who are obtaining medical marijuana and noted that it is still too early in the process to know who the operators will be. Chief Walker advised that, although law enforcement is always anti-drug, it is legal and has to be accepted. He commented that, although there may be a need for more law enforcement presence in the facility initially, through time, this need will lessen. He expressed that he does not have any concerns with the cash that is picked up as security personnel will be present and know how to handle it. Natalia Bletel, 421 Windsor, stated that she is strongly against allowing retail cannabis, expressing concerns with neighborhood safety. Joe Manzelli, 789 Sixth Ave, noted that improvements that would be made to the facility would probably increase the property taxes for that location. He questioned how much is anticipated in revenue. Mr. Lagana responded that the amount of revenue is location driven. He advised that there will be an annual licensing fee in addition to the 2% tax. He commented that is anticipated that the first few years will have a ballooning effect, noting that Route 4 eastbound is a pretty good location as there is highway access. Mayor Papaleo explained that the governing body always tries to keep the tax rate at about 2% and expressed his opinion that, if a cannabis retailer is permitted, it would have a positive impact on the tax rate. Joan Hessing, 290 Midland Avenue, advised that she is totally in favor of this process and detailed the reasons that she is in support. She suggested teaching children to be responsible and regulating signage. Hernan Green, 199 Bogert Avenue, expressed that he is in support of passing an ordinance to allow a cannabis and presented his arguments against the various concerns that were raised this evening. Motion by Councilwoman Kinsella, second by Councilwoman Montisano-Koen, and all present voting in favor, to end this meeting no later than 9:30 p.m. Claudia O’Neill, 911 Bogert Road, stated that she is against allowing a cannabis retailer, explaining that she had been the Chair of the Municipal Alliance Against Drugs & Alcohol for the past 8 years. Should retail cannabis be permitted, she questioned whether the governing body is willing to put funds towards educating youth on this subject. She finished by stating that she works with those with mental illness and has had to pick up her patients in Rochelle Park after visiting Ascend. Although she commented that she chooses to work with them, she does not want them in her neighborhood. Mayor Papaleo expressed his belief that, although funding for drug education would be decided at budget time, the governing body would most likely be willing to allocate funding for this purpose. Al Ruhlman, 285 Concord Drive, noted that he came with an open mind but is not in favor of allowing a cannabis retailer. He questioned how the 2% tax is derived and expressed concern about competition which could impact whether the business will thrive. He expressed his opinion that the only good aspect of this opportunity is the proposed location. Mr. Lagana advised that it is 2% of gross sales revenue of all sale receipts that the municipality will receive. Colleen Hammel-Schwabik, 140 Wayne Avenue, expressed that it is a hard no for her on this issue and explained the reasons for her position. She commented that, although she commends the governing body for doing their homework, she wishes that this hard work was put into businesses that everyone can use in town such as a supermarket. Mayor Papaleo noted that the governing body does work hard to attract other businesses, stating that they have no control over which businesses come to River Edge. Mr. Lagana added that supermarkets are also tricky and some of the most difficult applications to deal with from a Land Use perspective involve supermarkets. Caleb Herbst, 167 Tenney Avenue, stated that he is in favor of allowing a cannabis retailer and noted that, although there was not a cannabis dispensary when he graduated from high school in 2016, drugs were in the school population then. He noted that it goes back to education and cautioning children about the risks. Janet Boyd, 167 Tenney Avenue, expressed that she is in favor of allowing a dispensary and detailed the reasons for her position. Councilwoman Kaufman read the following question from the chat box: “What oversight, if any, is proposed regarding all modes of advertising of the establishment?” Mr. Lagana advised that the Borough will focus on the signage and what the building looks like from the exterior. Councilwoman Kaufman reported that Ken Schuffenhauer wrote in the chat box that he would like to be counted as a yes. Rauniq Bhasin, Teaneck resident, suggested that control of the site not be a requirement for an applicant to allow for more competition. Ana Maskancevs, 42 Jordan Drive, commented that she is a 100% against allowing a cannabis retailer and provided the reasons for her position. She questioned whether there are restrictions on smoking close to a school. Mr. Lagana advised that the Smokefree Air Act was passed in 2004 which essentially prohibits smoking everywhere with the exception of Atlantic City casinos. He noted that cannabis is really relegated to home use as everything else is currently prohibited. Borough Clerk Dodd read comments from the chat box into the record: Ken Schuffenhauer: “While you are taking a straw poll, I would like to say that I am in favor of a dispensary. I submitted a question online and was counted as being neutral at the time.” Herb Fleishman: “What oversight if any is proposed regarding all modes of advertising for the establishment?” Amanda De Lucia, 265 Greenway Terrace: “I am in favor of this dispensary.” Eileen De Lucia, 265 Greenway Terrace: "I am here to support a cannabis company coming to Route 4. If this is a way for the town to get more taxable revenue, I fully support it.” Carmen Philbin, 219 Dorchester Road, expressed that she is against allowing a cannabis dispensary and explained the reasons for her position. She expressed that she would love to see other establishments come into town. Stephanie Hartman, 144 Monroe, noted that the amount of revenue is currently unknown and will not be known until it is already done. She commented that this number is necessary to really sell people. Mayor Papaleo agreed that, although the tax revenue may or may not be significant, the licensing fee would certainly be a benefit to the overall budget. Borough Clerk Dodd read an additional comment from the chat box into the record: Joe Gautier, 151 Concord Drive, “I am in favor of a dispensary in the proposed location. I would like to thank the Mayor and Council for taking the community’s opinions into account regardless of what you decide.” Audrey Ruhlman, 285 Concord Drive, questioned whether cannabis being a gateway drug has been investigated. Mr. Lagana expressed his belief that there is plenty of literature on cannabis and substance abuse available. Ray Stitz, 210 Mohawk Drive, stated that allowing a cannabis retailer is an opportunity for tax revenue and expressed his opinion that the Borough needs to do something to bring in more revenue. Suazanne Krzykowski, 92 Lakeview Street, advised that she lives very close to this location and is in support of allowing a cannabis retailer. She explained the reasons for her position, and although she stated that she understands the concern for children being exposed to gummies, it is up to parents to control these substances in their own households. She expressed agreement with needing more education to teach children about consequences of using drugs. Motin by Councilwoman Kinsella, second by Councilman Benson, and all members voting in favor, to close to the public. Mayor Papaleo advised that there appears to be a 3:2 ratio in favor of allowing a cannabis retailer which is consistent with the vote on the constitutional amendment. He further advised that no action will be taken this evening and that this matter will be considered at the next open meeting. Should they wish to proceed, he explained the process going forward. Councilwoman Kinsella thanked the public for coming out and expressing their views. Mayor Papaleo thanked Chief Walker and the Borough professionals who were in attendance as well as the public who took the time to attend this evening. ADJOURNMENT – There being no further business to come before the Mayor and Council, on a motion by Councilwoman Montisano-Koen, second by Councilwoman Malellari, and unanimously carried, to adjourn this meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne Dodd, RMC Borough Clerk From: mikedesanc@aol.com To: Anne Dodd Subject: 2/5/24 Meeting Public Comment Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 5:09:28 PM Hi Ann, I would be in favor of this only if the Tax revenue relief would significantly reduce our RE Taxes each and every year. Please outline how much would be passed to each resident based on the current tax rate in % and $. Community: February 5th Mayor & Council Special Meeting Dear Michael DeSanctis, A Special Meeting of the Mayor and Council will be held on Monday, February 5, 2024 at 7 p.m. Said meeting will be held both in person at the River Edge Public Library located at 685 Elm Avenue, River Edge, NJ 07661 as well as virtually via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to join virtually may do so from a computer, tablet, or smartphone by visiting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88306774676 or dial in via phone by calling +1-646-558-8656 Webinar ID: 883 0677 4676. The purpose of this meeting is to hold a town hall with residents to discuss the potential of permitting one cannabis retailer on the far side of Route 4 at or near the Liberty Travel location. This location is surrounded by the City of Hackensack and does not border residential properties. The governing body wishes to explore this topic due to the tax revenue/relief that can be generated for River Edge residents and would like to garner public sentiment as to whether this location is acceptable before moving forward. Members of the public who wish to give public comment during the relevant portions of the meeting shall be able to do so either by attending in person or through the virtual platform. Members of the public may also submit public comment by electronic mail to adodd@riveredgenj.org or in written letter form addressed to Anne Dodd, RMC, Borough Clerk by 1 p.m. on the day of said meeting. When submitting your written comment, please reference that it is being submitted as public comment together with the meeting date. Meeting materials will be posted on the Borough website and can be found by clicking on the following link: https://www.riveredgenj.org/meetingdashboard. From: James Hunt To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public Comment on Marijuana Dispensary Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:54:57 PM I am in favor of a medicinal / recreational dispensary for the following reasons: 1. The location is ideal. No kids have to walk past it to go to school. Traffic/parking would not impact the residential portion of town. People walking from the bus or the train would not impact the residential portion of town. I would venture that many people do not even know that the proposed location is part of River Edge. 2. The most prominent store fronts in our town are the CVS and the Total Wine. Sale of legal drugs has been established as an acceptable revenue stream for River Edge. 3. I would prefer to support a River Edge business than the Maywood business that is currently the closest dispensary. Thanks, James Hunt 216 Dorchester Rd. River Edge, NJ 07661 From: Linda Mei To: Anne Dodd Subject: public comment for for Feb 5, 2024 meeting Date: Thursday, January 18, 2024 2:01:09 PM To Mayor and council, I am in favor of permitting a cannabis retailer in town. Please explore this topic. This would benefit the town in many ways, not only the extra tax revenue but it would also fill an empty storefront. I believe it would bring business to town and therefore people will also shop at the other stores and restaurants here, benefiting existing businesses as well. Maybe this will even encourage other businesses to open here, filling more empty storefronts! Getting the town more tax revenue! So I vote YES YES YES!! Thank you for looking for ways to benefit the town, Linda Mei From: Rosemary Murphy To: Anne Dodd Subject: Cannabis Date: Friday, January 26, 2024 5:47:41 AM I am totally against this. This is not as benign as once believed. There are people having psychotic episodes after smoking this. Why would the town want to encourage this so close to home. Sent from my iPhone From: Samantha Cioffi To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public Comment for 2/5 meeting Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:10:24 AM Hello Ms Dodd, I would like to submit the following comment for today’s special council meeting regarding the discussion on having a legal dispensary in town. Thank you for the opportunity to comment! I am very much in favor of our town taking on new business opportunities and welcome the tax benefits to our community. My primary concern is with traffic, and I hope the town has discussed lessons learned and best practices with other municipalities such as Rochelle Park and their current operations on major traffic areas. I also hope our town has the opportunity to consider limitations on signage and marketing, such as the use of neon signs or flyers, to avoid overt advertising to young folks. I think the cannabis market is a great opportunity for business owners and consumers alike as long as it is done responsibly and tastefully. I also think that the more accessible stores like these become, the traffic burden will lessen as will the stigma the businesses owners encounter. Thank you for your time! Samantha Cioffi 835 Bogert Road From: Patty Almberg To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public comment for Feb. 5 special M&C meeting Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:47:54 AM I am writing in support of permitting one cannabis retailer in River Edge. I think the location is a good spot for this business. I believe it would help with tax revenue for the town. It would also help to stabilize our property taxes. Legal cannabis is here to stay and it would be beneficial to be able to capitalize on this as a municipality. Thank you, Patty Almberg 659 5th Ave River Edge From: Nick M To: Anne Dodd Subject: Cannabis Store Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:50:44 AM As a resident of River Edge, I have no issue with allowing the cannabis store to be opened on Route 4, especially if it's going to lower our taxes, which I think are extremely high. Thank you. Nick Maou From: bob almberg To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public Pro Comment: Special Mayor and Council meeting tonight, granting approval for the request of permitting one cannabis retailer Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:56:49 AM I am in favor of granting approval for the request of permitting one cannabis retailer on the far side of Route 4 at or near the Liberty Travel location. Since this location is surrounded by the City of Hackensack and does not border River Edge residential properties thus decreasing negative effects of having this business in River Edge; and the fact that this business can help drive much needed tax revenue for the town, this would be a positive change an I support the request. Best regards, Robert Almberg 659 Fifth Avenue River Edge, NJ 07661 From: Ken Schuff To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public Comment / Question for the February 5th Special Meeting Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:11:09 PM Ms. Dodd - I have a question related to the proposed dispensary on Route 4 in River Edge. Not sure if Mr. Sarlo will be present at the meeting or if the Mayor or Council can answer. Is the Borough able to create a zoning ordinance so only the particular property or area on Route 4 would be allowed to operate a dispensary or does it potentially open up the Kinderkamack corridor or Main St. in River Edge to similar businesses? Thank you. Ken Schuffenhauer 780 Millbrook Rd. RE, NJ From: Meryl Dimarsico To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public Comment for River Edge cannabis store meeting on February 5, 2024 Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:16:09 PM My husband Bob and I are River Edge residents for over 30 years and we strongly object to opening a cannabis store in River Edge. There are acceptable businesses that could utilize that property to generate money for the town. Money is not a good compensation for this terrible proposal. Personally I have smelled pot coming from open car windows while people are driving in town. We object to this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Please say “NO” To a cannabis store‼ Meryl DiMarsico Sent from my iPhone From: ROBERT DIMARSICO To: Anne Dodd Subject: Public Comment on February 5, 2024 Meeting Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:21:04 PM I am writing to express my view on the upcoming decision regarding the opening of a cannabis store in River Edge. My wife and I have lived in River Edge for more than 38 years. I realize the world is changing and cannabis use is now legal, however I don’t believe that there is any acceptable trade-off, e.g. an increase in ratables, for the potential negative impact on the community which may accompany the opening of such an establishment. R. DiMarsico Sent from my iPhone From: Mary-Kay McHugh To: Anne Dodd Subject: Cannabis Retailer Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 1:40:13 PM I am for the proposition to permit one cannabis retailer on the far side of Route 4. After researching the effects of dispensaries on neighborhoods I found that crime does not increase in neighborhoods with dispensaries. The fact that the location of this dispensary does not border any residential properties also allays my fears of increased neighborhood crime. Let's not forget that River Edge is home to Total Wine which doubled its size in 2014. Here's a description found in "Boozy Burbs": "Located less than 20 miles from New York City on Route 4 West, the new 29,000- square-foot store ... features 13 aisles stocked with more than 8,000 wine SKUs, 3,000 distilled spirits SKUs and 2,500 beer SKUs." The only complaints I heard in town when that happened was that there would be an increase in traffic. No one spoke of an increase in alcoholism or in crime. The increase in tax revenue from this dispensary would be most welcome and advantageous for our town. Mary-Kay McHugh, 494 The Fenway