Malden City Council 06-23-2026

Tonight's news paper out is brought to you by Predators. Every day, for things that we want to assume. You can publish it. Publish it. Don't complain.

The council will come to order. All rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

It's a referral, yeah. So you have like a family practice. She's not even, there is a doctor. The woman, those women bought the practice.

Please remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our veterans, service members, and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. We honor and acknowledge the Massachusetts, Pentacook, and Pawtucket peoples whose ancestral lands we now call home and on which we gather today. We express gratitude to the indigenous peoples who have cared for this land for generations, predating European colonization, and continuing to the present. Moving forward, we are committed to ensuring that the histories, voices and contributions of indigenous peoples are recognized and respected in the life of our city. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Sica, Simonelli, Taylor, Winslow, Here. Council President Linehan. Here.

Thank you very much. Now, under the provisions of the open meeting law, for those of you in attendance, please be informed that UMA Urban Media Arts will be recording this evening's meeting, so just be aware there will be audio. and video recordings of tonight's meeting. We also have Brian DeLacy of Malden News Network recording. Is there anyone else present tonight who is recording in addition to Uma and Mr. DeLacy? Could you please identify yourself at this time, if so? Okay, thank you. Seeing none, we will move on to our next order of business. First order of business tonight is public comment. Public comment is allowed under council rules. Each speaker is limited to the subject matter relevant to this evening's agenda. and everyone must keep their comments to two minutes or less. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for a public comment in person or via email? We do not. Okay, thank you. Next order of business.

Council will hold a public hearing on the petition to amend special permit granted to DMS Trinity LLC on behalf of Charles Street Realty Trust 2020, Roseanne J. Spinney, TRS. Paper 334-26 Petition DMS Trinity LLC DBA Trinity Naturals Seeking Amendment to Special Permit Application CMID 040598-2021 as granted by Council Paper 202-22, time extended by Council Paper 233-23. amended floor plan by Council Paper 75-25 now seeks to reissue the special permit and or transfer the rights authorized by the special permit to a different entity at the property known as and numbered 36 Charles Street, Malden, Mass., also known by city assessors parcel ID number 062-239-910. Public hearing required.

Okay, thank you. Attorney DiMarco, if it's all right with you, I'd actually like to invite our building commissioner to join us at the podium if Nelson Miller is present with us this evening? Is he not?

Okay, that's no problem.

Mr. DiMarco, you have the floor. Please feel free to get us started. Thank you so much.

Council President, members of the City Council, thank you very much for coming tonight to this hearing. I am here on behalf of my client, DMS Trinity LLC. We have met a few times on this client over the years and I am here again for some changes that need to happen for my client to move forward. My client has done, frankly, a beautiful job on their property. We're gonna go through a little presentation, give you a look at what's happened. They have invested quite a bit of their hard-earned monies. They have begun discussions and entered into an agreement with a partner, strategic partner. It would be a joint venture with this partner.

they wish to have their special permit and their license not something the license that you need to deal with tonight it's not your purview but the special permit is and they'd like to amend it in order to be able to have this partner join with them in the project going forward. A special permit addresses issues having to do with property. When you granted the special permit, originally, you made a determination that the benefits and the detriments, the balancing test that occurs with a special permit, weighed in favor of granting it. None of that has changed. Who gets the special permit is part of the licensing. Your job is to determine whether or not that property should have this business in it. And you did that.

Tonight, we're asking a change to your special permit because you have a provision in there that says non-transferable. Now, here's the issue that occurred over these years. In summary, my clients have two locations. They have a location in Chelsea that we all talked about at the beginning to bring you back in history. And that location in Chelsea is open and operational and doing a wonderful business. The attorney and Chelsea, unfortunately, used the same LLC as you approved in Malden. Because they were moving forward with Bolt at the same time, the permits were issued to the same LLC, the same corporate entity, originally. Okay? And when they did that, the licenses sat together with all the shareholders and all the permits, et cetera.

if not for that, if they had opened up a separate LLC, and it was an interesting time. We were all at the very beginning of this statute. We were all trying to learn what it meant to have cannabis shops opening in our cities. But if not for that, if there had been two different LLCs, we would not be here tonight. We would have simply gone to the clerk and said, we're bringing in some different ownership structures. We would have gone to CCC, different ownership structures, but we can't do that without your permission because The LLC is tied up with Chelsea. And so first we want to separate them out, two different LLCs. and then we're gonna be changing the ownership structure a little bit to bring in these strategic partners. They are great people. They have gotten excellent reviews in Fitchburg. They built our site for us.

They're contractors, so they built it for us. And we got to know them during that process, and we want to keep doing business with them. So we're here tonight to ask you to first change your ordinance so that we can move the special permit into this other LLC, and then we'll be working with the Clerk to change the ownership structure. Okay, so let me take you through what's happened so far at the property so you get an idea of the investment thus far. There's a nice sign out front. There will be a change in name at some point, but we've got our sign and we're ready. Change in name should the licensing, et cetera, go through. and this is the interior. It stands ready to get our final walkthroughs. We have a provisional license. This is the security system. There is the security age verification check-in counter.

We are requesting that the name be changed to Beach House Cannabis. There is no request for any of the changes that protect the neighborhood. None of the 20 conditions except the transfer are being asked to change. Beach House Cannabis is an investor and a general contractor, like I said. They helped build the location. We will continue, DMS will continue to have financial interest. Beach House has done an amazing job at running their location. As a small business owner, we want to have partners that can help us to maximize this location. You all know about benevolent botanicals in the lawsuit, so there's currently no zoning ordinance specific to the cannabis that we used to have. So this actually falls back to your old and standard Special Permit provisions. So we're asking for that change.

The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend, as per the Planning Department's recommendations, that this stay, all 20 conditions stay, and that you put back on that preventing transfer, so that you can have these discussions with us. Beach House is owned by the Ferrazzi family, Paul Ferrazzi and Casey Baker. Casey is here with us today, as are my clients who you've met several times who have been running their location in Chelsea and have been working to get this one open. Ferrazzi family are owners of the Healing Center Cannabis Dispensary in Fitchburg for five years. They are licensed owners, marijuana establishment agents in good standing with CCC. In Fitchburg, they have contributed $5,000 annually to nonprofits, and they are in full compliance with their community host agreement in Fitchburg.

They have won Best Dispensary in the Sentinel Enterprise for three years in a row and in the Worcester Telegram. and all of their employees except for one are residents of the city. These are all things that attracted us to them. Mr. Ferrazzi owns a A union electric company and is a licensed electrician and construction supervisor. And Mr. Baker is familiar with Malden. He's going to be the one who's around here the most as part of the joint venture. He's worked with Doms, Hoffs, and LaMarca. and Brix. So he knows the businesses, he knows the community in Malden. These are great partners for us. The next steps, we would ask that after you approve us,

and we hope you will, that we will then go on to meet with the clerk and we will talk to them and after that we will also be meeting with the city mayor's office because they have to do a new Community Host Agreement. So this is one of three steps that need to occur. They are also very familiar with the other parts of our community involvement, like the Spot Pond Greenway project. They want to get that done. They think it's a great project. They want to be part of a community with us. That is our short presentation on that. I would ask to reserve time. I understand there has been a legal argument made against this transfer, so I'm asking that Madam President, that I reserve time to respond to that legal argument after you're done with me.

I understand that you guys got a pretty lengthy memo. I've supplied one to you myself, and we can go through that if the objector decides to present as well as He sent the memo, and if he's going to present on it as well, I would ask the same courtesy. But for now, I'll take questions.

Okay, I do have one light from Councillor Simonelli, so let's start with Councillor Simonelli.

Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any questions, but I just want to say this. I appreciate Attorney DiMarco coming before us today. who is well respected here in the city of Malden. Great attorney, great litigator. I have a lot of respect for him. That in itself, by saying that, representing the people that are before us today, I, you know, I hand them over all my trust as far as, like, getting this thing done. And, you know, I think if you were looking at it, I met with the folks that are sitting before us today, too, on several occasions. They're very good business owners. They've been before us on several occasions. Look, I'm a 12-stepper, so I really don't have much to do with the substance abuse as far as marijuana and alcohol and all that stuff is concerned. But this is something that's bringing in tax revenue into the city.

So, you know, as a city council, I have to do my due diligence to be able to Ask questions and either be in favor or not in favor of this situation. And I am in favor of this situation because, look, we need the tax revenue coming into the city. We've all talked about it. DeMarco, and the applicants here. It's very expensive to open up a business like this. It's a multi-million dollar type of business. And it brings a lot of tax revenue into the city. and I think that, you know, what they're asking for us tonight is to bring on another partner, if I'm not mistaken, a financial partner. which we should be applauding because, again, not to be redundant, it's very expensive to open up these type of shops. So we would want to make sure

that the folks that are coming before us have the financial capacity to be able to have a long-term effect here in the city of Malden and be able to bring in the tax revenues that we're looking to get under the financial situation that we find ourselves in over the last couple of years and moving forward. So again, Madam President, I don't have any questions. And maybe this is premature, so be it. But I would just say that I think that we should honor this. and appreciate the fact that they're coming before us and being very transparent on the fact that they want to bring in new partners, financial partners so that they're able to fulfill their objective that they've told us for the last couple of years that they want to do. And I'll heed to my colleague, Councilor Peg Crowe, because it's her award.

So whatever she says, I have to go along with. But that being said, I just want to say that as a city councilor here, It's not an easy task. And I haven't heard anything from the building inspector or the CLAC, CLIC-CLAC toll board or any of those folks as far as like they have any objections to this. So I know there's probably a lot of questions here tonight. I don't want to hog the microphone like I usually do, but I just want to say that I think this is honorable for them to come before us. I don't think they're asking, this is not a big ask here tonight. and I think that it would be it would be for us to to grant this moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Simonelli. So in terms of process, our building commissioner has just joined us. I do want to give him an opportunity to come to the podium and address the council. Thank you so much for the presentation. I'm sure we'll have a chance to invite you back up. In terms of next steps, we are gonna have the hearing after Nelson addresses the council. So we'll open the public hearing and then we will have a chance to deliberate. So that would be an opportunity for us to ask questions. And I'm sure that would be when we would be asking you to come back up. So thank you so much for your time. Nelson, please, if you could join us. Thank you, I know you're coming right from another meeting, so thank you so much.

Yes, sorry, we were upstairs approving ADUs. Great. Took a little longer than expected. We approved three of them. So I'm not sure where the discussion's already gone. My intention, as you know, Council President, was to sort of just give an overview of the process. We were at to sort of put you guys on the right track for what the discussion was about tonight. And to do that, I want to go backwards a little bit just to kind of review what the process is for retail marijuana approvals through the city. Back when it was created, there were three distinct processes that were put together. One was obviously a licensing process that was done through the Cannabis Licensing and Enforcement Commission, what we call the CLEC.

There was a special permitting process, our zoning process, which was put with the City Council. and obviously there was a host community agreement process which sat in the mayor's office. And that hasn't changed. Those three processes still exist and it was the way that the city decided to sort of make sure that no particular group or body or person had the entire say when it came to the issuing of any of our commercial marijuana uses. So where we stand now is that we still have those three distinct processes that have to take place. There is still a licensing process that this applicant will go through, through the CLEC, which to a certain degree still needs to be decided on exactly how that's going to go, but it still needs to take place.

There's still a host community agreement process that this applicant or this petitioner will need to go through with the mayor's office to revise their host community agreement. And there's a zoning process that sits with all of you that needs to be addressed. And that's really the first domino to fall. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for the clerk or for the mayor's office to push forward with their processes with the petitioner who doesn't have the zoning approval through their special permit to get into those other processes. So the issue with the zoning at the moment is the fact that they have a special permit which has a condition in it which states that it's not transferable or assignable. Just so you're aware, those other two processes, the CLEC and the Mayor's Office, the products of those two processes have those same restrictions.

So those restrictions also need to be addressed and changed. But the only one that you're really concerned with tonight is the fact that there's a special permit that has a and a condition written within it that says it can't be transferred and it can't be assigned. So the end result will really be if you decide to allow this, it would be that that special permit would get There'd be a new special permit. That condition will be removed. The special permit would be assigned to the property, like all of our other special permits are, and the new owner would be listed on it. all of our other special permits work that way. So I've been having discussions with a lot of you, and I've used 200 Exchange as an example because it's a big building. It has a bunch of special permits that Berkeley Investments have got over the years.

If Berkeley Investments decides to sell that building tomorrow, they can do that. We would have no say in that. And whoever bought it would get those special permits along with it. that's essentially what you would be doing here. You'd be modifying this special permit so that it is then assigned to the property and not necessarily to the current owner of it. I know there's been a lot of discussion about a lot of other things and maybe there'll be some discussion about that tonight about the legality of the special permit and if it's expired and if the licensing process is supposed to take place first. We can certainly discuss that if you'd like. or I can answer questions about that if you'd like. It's pretty involved. I can say confidently that the special permit that you are addressing tonight is valid. It is legally valid. That question could be put aside. And that's it.

Thank you so much. Do folks have questions for Nelson before we open the hearing? Okay, I see Councilor Colón Hayes first.

Thank you. I just want to... I'll clarify what you just said. This special permit is valid meaning the special permit is placed on our docket valid? Could you explain a little bit more what you mean by that?

There's been some question about the validity of their special permit because of the lack of it being recorded. The special permit has been acted upon. So the work, it has not been recorded, to my knowledge, unless it's been done within the last few days. The work under the special permit has been started and completed. So when it comes to our state zoning law, that constitutes exercising your rights under the special permit. So it is valid. It still should be recorded and hopefully it will be or it has been. There's also The Permit Extension Act over the last several years, which has been extended a few times by the governor's office, which this special permit fell under. and got the benefit of that extension also. So as far as we're concerned, the special permit right now is valid.

Okay, thank you. I did read that from our city solicitor. but the special permit, as far as is written, the special permit is non-transferable and non-assignable as of today.

there is a condition written within the special permit that says that, yes.

Okay. Yeah, okay, actually, that's pretty clear.

If I could back up a little bit, and I'm here to not muddy the water, so I'll try not to. Previously, our cannabis zoning ordinance stated the same thing. that's the special permits would be non-transferable, non-assailable. That section of our ordinance got thrown out. So that hurdle doesn't exist anymore, that's gone. However, the special permit, which is a lifelong document, still says it. So you all have to decide whether or not you want it to not say that.

Okay, and under normal circumstances, this would go to, I don't have any problem changing that, but I do on the floor, if it would go to rules and ordinance where we would discuss this. No?

No.

Okay, thank you.

No, you were the special permit granting authority. Okay. So they're back before you to revise a special permit. The planning board does this all the time, by the way. This is not... extraordinary circumstances. People revise their special permits frequently. It's just not this big of a deal.

And then just to go back to what the CLEC, I understand we had long conversations. about this to repeat that originally the clerk is there to make sure that what we're doing in our city is safe and that they're vetting people and they're vetting finances. I'm hearing that they had already gone through that, but the new, this is something that I'll wait to hear everything at the end because I want to hear about have the new owners been through the same vetting process just to be sure were making sure we know who's coming into our city. And just to state for clarity, everybody knows I am for having cannabis shops in our city. I'm not trying to hold things up. I just want to make sure they're fair and going through the same process and that they're vetted.

And if I can speak to that, because I think it's important to your conversation tonight. the the clerk is going to go through that process we have to because at the moment the rules which govern the clerk Chapter 6 of our ordinances also state that a license, which you're not here to speak about tonight, the license is not and so on. are keenly aware of the fact that our process needs to be reviewed and at some point changed by all of you through our ordinances to make sure that we have a process in place and it's something that's repeatable down the road because, let's face it, The odds of this happening again are probably pretty good.

Okay. And so no matter what happens tonight, you're still going to review it tomorrow in the clerk?

we're not gonna review them tomorrow night at the clerk. We're going to discuss the necessity to do so. And as I previously mentioned, the mayor's office will also need to revisit their host community agreement I'll let him speak to that.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Colón Hayes. Councilor O'Malley.

So I was watching remotely. Do you have a hard copy of the slides that you presented?

We can absolutely send it to...

Ideally for now. Thank you. And then if you could send a digital copy to the Clerk for the public record, that would be helpful. I did have a question about why... why we're here tonight. Because I know the process is usually Cleck, special permit, and then the community host agreement. So why not go to the Cleck first? And I guess it's... I don't know, who advised this process versus going to the clerk first? That would be to both the applicant and I guess the staff.

Sure, so as far as the process went, when you're speaking to when we first opened up applications for retail marijuana locations, it certainly was different. It was first an application through the clerk and that was an open competitive process amongst a bunch of people that applied for those licenses. And then through the vetting of the clerk, they were sent forward. We called it moving them forward where they got into their zoning process. That really wasn't the end of the clerk's involvement. when they went through their zoning process and their special permitting process, the clerk was still the body. We were sort of the point man when it came to the state licensing process, the state cannabis commission, which ultimately is the licensing authority over these places. We were the people that were in communication with them saying, yes, they've received their zoning approval. Yes, they've received their building permit. Yes, they've received their certificate of occupancy.

So the Cleck oversight was really ongoing, whereas the special permitting process was a moment in time. And then the licensing, when you get towards the end, to a certain degree of formality because the state had already gone through their entire process. We really can't compare the initial licensing process to new candidates to an existing location that is done sitting there has a certificate of occupancy and a provisional license from the state. So when Attorney DiMarco came to me to say we want to move the ownership around I forget how he exactly described it. The first impediment that I saw was, well, your special permit doesn't allow that. So like most things, let's get the zoning taken care of first and get the licensing taken care of after you have the authority through zoning to move forward.

If someone wants to come build a restaurant in the city and they want a liquor license, We don't send them to the liquor board until they have their zoning in place, special permit, variance, whatever they need. And we communicate with the liquor licensing board and they say, are they good to go? And I say, yeah, they're good to go. And then they go through their licensing process.

Yeah, the only reason being is this particular industry, I think that we were hoping to have the expertise in the vetting of the Cleck. And I think that that would be helpful for the city council as a special permit granting authority to have had that information tonight. Because I feel like tonight there's a lot more questions than answers. And I don't think that the petitioner benefits from that ambiguity. I think that I personally would have preferred just go to the clerk first to vet the potential new owner. then we would be showing that we did our due diligence and I would be more comfortable making that designation of removing this condition, whereas it feels like we're kind of doing that a little bit blind

without the availability of the clerk's expertise to kind of look at the financials and do the background check that we depend on. The other question is more procedural in scheduling. Why is this on this agenda tonight? Because this is the last agenda before we go on recess, and it just doesn't seem like it's a great time to have this conversation. Why was it scheduled tonight? And I guess that would also be to the petitioner. Why wasn't this scheduled earlier when we maybe could have tabled it and had follow-up conversations over a couple weeks if needed? Whose decision was that? I guess.

I don't make the schedule for the City Council, I don't know.

Do you want to address that? Yeah, I think it's just the way that the schedule came about when by the time we got the petition from the petitioner, I spoke with Michelle Romero, Attorney DeMarco, and we have to post it for two weeks in the paper. And so just the way the timetable worked itself out, this was the meeting.

I feel, and I appreciate it, Councilor Simonelli, I promise you I'm almost done. I kind of feel like when situations like this come about, it kind of feels like we're being a lot of pressure is being put on us to not do adequate due diligence. And I just personally don't appreciate that. I don't know how we got here. It sounds like it maybe was a collective situation that got us here tonight. but I would have appreciated a little bit more time to consider this and information before us. And I mean, I don't think this is in a vacuum. I mean, you know, I've been talking about benevolent. That whole thing has been crazy. And this exact topic has been brought up a lot in an attempt to try to prevent benevolent to move forward.

and so I know we're setting precedent tonight and I think that we need to make sure that we're doing our due diligence across the board and I don't want it to appear as though the city is treating different applicants differently. And this is not a criticism of the petitioners by any means. But as a city, we are subject to a lot of litigation when it comes to this. and I really think that the way this has come before us tonight does not put us on the strongest footing to show that we're really doing our due diligence and treating people fairly. That's just my feeling tonight. I'm just trying to be honest. I don't know where I'm going to end up on this. But yeah, I would have appreciated a little more time to consider this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor O'Malley. Councilor Simonelli, I'm going to go to someone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet. I know you've already had a chance to speak to this. Councilor Sica.

Thank you, Council President. Councilor O'Malley, really quickly. You think that we shouldn't be here tonight to vote to revise a special permit because we haven't heard from the clerk yet? on a vetting process? So why would the clerk waste their time on a vetting process, which I'm sure is not just one meeting. It's probably a quiz of several. How long does it take to vet an applicant?

What'd you say, Nelson? They were all somewhat different. Some were quicker than others, but yeah, it's usually more than one meeting.

So we're gonna make the CLEC meet to vet this applicant before we revise the special permit that we put in place with a condition that says it's non-transferrable. they currently still have this special permit. That's not gonna change. The only thing that is gonna change tonight is we're gonna allow the clerk to vet the new applicant to join the team that's already been established. I think this is 1000% the way it should be done. Because if not, we're wasting the clerk's time and we're wasting the mayor and whoever else does the community host agreements time. why would they move forward with any of that if we don't revise the special permit? The point would be mute. Oh yes, sorry about that.

I'm just trying to think, I'm not trying to attack you or anything.

And I would ask, from a decorum perspective, if you could speak to the chair, just so it's not so adversarial. You're being great, I'm not saying it, but just in case.

Clearly I'm not if you want me to speak to the chair.

No, I just, I would say that the same thing could be said about us. Why waste our time if the clerk is not going to approve them? And the whole structure was to go through the clerk first to vet the applicants. And I'm not saying that they need to go through the same rigorous process that the first time applicants went through, but a basic due diligence of a background check and financials I think would be behoove us before we agree to transfer the permit to anyone.

So what if, I'm just throwing this out there, Nelson. If we revised the special permit this evening to allow the clerk to vet the applicant, You do that. Then it goes to the mayor for the community host. Then it goes to the cannabis control. Tell me the process. Could we make it a condition or whatever that it comes back before us when that's all done and then we re-vote on an updated spot? I don't understand what benefits we would get from the CLEC vetting this person. today, tomorrow, before we do this vote, I think... I'd like to hear Nelson actually answer that.

Am I overthinking this? I actually would like to hear that process. If you don't mind just laying that out, I think it would be helpful for us to hear that.

Yes, so as I said, and in a memo that you all received today, hopefully you all received it, the processes that need to change when it comes to the CLEC and when it comes to the host community agreement some of those still need to be figured out. And there's some ordinances that may have to change with that. So as far as what exactly does the collect process look like, I really don't feel comfortable answering that because I can't, 100% say what that process will be, but I can tell you that they will have to go back through the clerk for that vetting that we did with everybody else. And they will have to go back to the mayor for the host community agreement. And maybe that agreement looks exactly like it does now. I don't know. That's up to them to figure out. But both of those processes will still need to take place. and to speak a little bit about the process for the new applicants back when we started retail marijuana as opposed to now, this isn't really all that much different.

When new applicants came back when we first opened up the application process, Their first step was zoning compliance. Their first step was to come to me with their proposed location. And when they got their compliance for zoning that their location fit or they found out what their speed bumps were, Well, then they moved on to the clerk. That's not that much different than what we're doing now. We're getting zoning compliance taken care of, which is the city council, the special permit, and then once their zoning compliance is in order, they can move on to the rest of the process. Clerk approval, HCA, state. And we can't forget the state's involved in this. And the Cannabis Commission looks to us as a city to provide them the information that they need to ultimately issue a license. This location already has a provisional license.

So they're right at the finish line of being able to open up.

Can I still have a flow? Yes, of course. Thank you. So Nelson, so the process that we are trying to do this evening is not allowing this applicant to bypass the vetting process in this process. We're here tonight to say, yes, we're gonna revise the special permit that we granted with the condition that the license non be transferable.

Correct.

Okay. The state allows licenses to be transferable, so we should allow the licenses.

To try to draw a comparison, if it makes it easier, FACES has special permits. which allows them to operate, allows them to brew beer, allows them to sell alcohol. They're not restricted to the Martinetti family. They are assigned to the property, so if Ron Hogan went and bought faces next week. He would get, along with that building, all those special permits to go with it. However, he would still have to go through his licensing process to get his liquor licenses to sell alcohol and to Brew Beer, which could be denied if we found out Ron was part of the mafia.

So by us removing...

Which is possible.

So by us removing this one condition of this special permit, it doesn't eliminate the special permit of the building. it only eliminates the condition that it cannot be transferred.

It changes special permit to be assigned to the property as opposed to a particular owner just like every other special permit.

And the new applicant that is going on with the others that have already been on this application since day one is going to be fully vetted through the clerk. It's not being bypassed in any way, shape or form. I know that I keep saying this, but this is, I think, what the confusion is in this whole, the emails that I've received, the stuff that I've seen online, it all made it seem like we were totally removing the process, bypassing the vetting process, and just allowing them to change an applicant on their application. That is not what is happening here.

those other processes will still take place.

Will still take place. As soon as we vote to remove the condition from the special permit.

and we figure some of those processes out.

And you have a meeting tomorrow at 5 p.m. because at one point you said tonight.

We do.

Okay, I just want to make sure.

I just don't want to commit to what's going to come out of that meeting, that's all.

I don't want to see anywhere that we had a special meeting tonight that was not posted because at one point you did say this evening. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. And with that, Council President, when ready, I make a motion. that we revise the special permit to eliminate the condition of not to transfer.

We have not even opened the hearing yet, but I have made a note of your motion. Thank you, Councilor Sica.

We've been listening to this so long, I didn't realize.

Yeah, and we have a lot of lights still on. I'm going to go to Councilor Winslow next.

So, Nelson, so just in terms of building permits. that doesn't even have to be a special permit. So when someone comes in to the building department and applies for a building permit and you issue it, they have two years to start work. If they don't start that work, Keep going. Oh, it's one year. So how much time do they have to start? They have six months to start work. Right. So if they don't start work in six months, that permit evaporates, right, basically, unless they get an extension. It can.

It can.

Right. So in this instance, when the council approved a special permit, did they initiate work within six months?

it's not the same rule for a special permit. Oh, okay, within the rule for a special permit. So it's within a year. Within a year. And to further confuse that, their special permits got issued at a time when the State Permit Extension Act was in place, which extended them beyond those expiration dates. So they never landed in a period where they were expired.

So I mean, I did look at the, you know, the permits, you know, the building permit database, and there's a heck of a lot of work that's been done out there. Lots of lots and lots of permits. So I mean, there's this is literally I mean, when you see the pictures up there, they are literally really, and with the certificate of occupancy, they're basically ready to open the door. It's just figuring out how to make the business model work at this point. But basically, they did all their diligence in working to, get the building ready to be open as a marijuana establishment. So it's just that other things have not happened Actually, them open up their doors or whatever, so they're figuring that out. Correct. All right. So, yeah, that was my only question. Okay.

Thank you, Councilor Winslow. Councilor McDonald.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just had a few questions to the Building Commissioner. Nelson, is there any reason that we couldn't make a change to this permit contingent on the CLEC's approval of the new operator?

but you can add anything you want as a condition to a special permit. I just think that's something for us to consider so it would make it clear that that. I'd be more, sorry, I'd be more comfortable with Ali answering that question. Sure.

I'm just looking to see if there's a way to make it clear that we are in fact going to be relying on the CLEC's judgment regardless.

What's your question again? Alicia McNeil, City Solicitor.

Thanks, Sally. My question was, is there any reason we can't say that We can't consider a change to this permit to the new operator and have that change be contingent upon that operator's approval for a license by the clerk.

I believe you can make whatever condition you want to on the special permit.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I had a question for Attorney DeMarco, is that okay?

Yes, of course.

I just wanted to understand more about the restructuring of the finance. And you had made a comment that if there had been a separate LLC for this location, we wouldn't be here. is this a separate LLC for this location or is this an existing LLC? It's a separate LLC for this location.

This will be a separate company that is licensed for this. And the reason I say that is back to what was said. Your job... is really about the property, the vetting. To Councilor O'Malley's point, I understand the concern about wanting to vet people, but... You can make a condition to a special permit. We go into licensing, and licensing says, well, you get a condition on your special permit, but the special permit has already told us not to be able to go forward. My client is not abandoning their special permit. They're not abandoning their license. They are asking you for permission to change them so that they can bring in financial partners. So that's vastly different. And the clerk will deal with that, and the mayor's office will deal with that. Your job is to deal with whether or not this change

fundamentally changes the use of the property in such a way that we shouldn't be allowed to do it. And the answer to that is absolutely not. There is nothing that's changing. You still have your 20 conditions. You still have your ability to control how the property is used. None of that is changing. Who operates, just as Mr. Miller said, is about the clerk. That's the license, the use, the zoning. We need approval from you so that we can then walk into the clerk. And this was logical in our view. Talk to you first. get the transfer able to be done, we'll go to the clerk, we'll go to the mayor's office, we'll get those things done. Now, if the clerk turns around and says, we hate them, I don't think they will. Obviously, I wouldn't be here. But if they say we hate them, guess what? We still have a special permit, right? I mean, we're still moving forward. These are great partners.

We're going to build one of the best businesses in Malden. But you need to allow us to do that. And we have a vested right in this property. We have a lease. We have rights in the property. If you say no, my client will go forward, but you will have interfered with his business.

Well, mostly I just wanted to make sure that we're not, if we approve this, we're not going to be back here again in a year amending future special permits.

And Mr. Councilor?

You could be. Councilor is fine.

But you could be, right? As Mr. Miller said, special permits get amended all the time. Businesses change. You got through the initial startup of a new type of business. You did a great job in my view. You've had hiccups. The court had its opinion on the botanical case. But at the end of the day, Malden's been benefiting from cannabis coming to the city. Now those businesses evolve to the next step when they want to make business deals. So we need to come to you because you have restrictions there. This is very simple. Is this going to change the property's use? The answer to that is no. who does the work there, the licensed person, that's up to the next board. Each piece has been separated. The relationship with the city between that operator and the city is the mayor's office, right? Everybody has their piece of the puzzle. I want to urge you not to overstep your peace.

We want to work together, but this is really about the use of the property, and it's got to be fixed to the use of the property.

Thank you. I just had one other, I just wanted to make sure I understood a clarification of this. So as the original owners are still maintaining an equity stake in this? Yes. In the new company? Yes. Okay.

We'll go over that structure. We'll be talking to CCC and all of that.

Okay. Well, thank you for that. I mean, I look forward to hearing the public hearing. My general opinion is that we have been... We have made it far too hard to open cannabis businesses in Malden, so I look forward to further conversation. Thank you for those clarifications.

Thank you, Councilor McDonald. So I have Councilor Crowe and Councilor Condon. Everybody else whose light is on has already spoken at least one time. I just want to say we have not started the public hearing yet. So I'm going to ask folks who have already spoken once, please think about whether you need to speak again before we let the public have a say. Councilor Crowe, you have the floor.

Thank you. and I've heard a couple weeks ago this was going to be on there. I've spoken to multiple people on all ends of this. And so I think, you know, Mr. Miller and, you know, Ali, we've had these discussions. is really that the special permit does go with the property. So this is a unique thing, I think again, because we were brand new to this. So I do think if we're gonna keep things in line with special permits, we really need to look at it that this is substantially separate than any other special permit that's allowed by the planning board or this body. So I think that needs to be taken into account that it is but I do agree with Councilor McDonald and I think Councilor LeJuan just said the same thing to me, is making some contingent on the successful vetting of the of the Clerk, you know, with some of the new structure that has. I would think that would be the same way for, as you said, you know, faces.

Someone's getting their license. They're going through different processes. But I think I do think it is the right step because they're not going to be going through these processes if there's nothing to be going through. So I do think this is the proper way to begin. And I think, again, I've talked to lots of people on this subject. And I think keeping it in line with the way other special permits get amended is probably the right way to go.

Thank you, Councilor Crowe. Councilor Condon.

Thank you, Council President. I think this is a way to get people in here for business. We haven't been very good at it at times, so I feel comfortable they're going to be vetted. You know, if you're comfortable, the Clerk will be involved. And I think they'll be successful. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Condon. Simonelli.

Thank you, Madam President. I know it's the second time and I apologize. Listen, I'm not too sure what's even going on here tonight. I think that what's being asked of us is for us to move forward on our part of the process so that these folks may move forward into going before the collect board and the host agreement with the mayor. But they can't do that, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't do that until we've done our due diligence on our end to make that process available. And I just wanna go a little further by saying like, You know, as far as vetting goes and everything else, I don't know if everybody's been asleep here for the last three years or five years that I've been up here, but we've already have dealt with Attorney DiMarco and his clients. and we know what type of people they are.

And I don't think that's asking for a lot that they want to like bring somebody on board financially to help them be more successful. I think if nothing has taught us here, and maybe our city solicitor's office can talk more about this, but I think we've already been spanked already, if I'm not, Staken on the restrictions that we've put on prior to this. So I really don't know what we're doing here tonight. And I don't know if it's grandstanding on some folks, I hope not, but I think they're making this bigger than what it is. And it really bothers me. to see this time. This is the last meeting before we break for summer recess. A lot of us have a lot of Fourth of July stuff to do. Thank you, Councilor Sica, for helping me with mine. And those are the things that we should be working on right now.

I got to be honest, man, I'm appalled of the fact that we're sitting up here with this type of delay. You know, I'm looking out in the audience and I see so many competent people out here that are going to be hearing these issues. with these folks that are seeking licenses. Same group of people will sit up here and say for the last five years, correct me if I'm wrong, how we need all this revenue. And we're hurting for revenue. but we're gonna sit up here and we're gonna delay this process because they wanna take on, they're not changing anything as far as the special permit conditions are concerned. Just asking to take on another responsible financial to help make this work. So, again, I mean, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I apologize, Madam President, for taking up this time, but I do have to speak my piece here tonight.

and I am appalled at the fact that, you know, we're sitting up here and then next week we'll be saying how we need these places to open up so we can bring in more revenue. Get it together, folks. choose a side and stick to it. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilor Simonelli. Councilor O'Malley.

Is there any representative of Charles Street Realty Trust 2020 here?

He is not here. I've spoken with Mr. Spinney. He is well aware. He had actually met with counsel for these partners previously, and he was going to send in a letter, Ed gets a little busy at times, so we'll have him at the vetting, but there is absolutely, we've complied with the lease, been good tenants, vast improvement on the property, so I think that as far as the use of the property, it would benefit his property to have a special permit that attaches to the property versus the particular tenant.

Well, that's one of the reasons why I was asking if they were here because this is not just vetting the operators, it's also vetting whether or not the property owners are qualified to have this type of special permit. You've done that already, Councillor. Currently, the special permit is for the operator.

But that was together. As a special permit, you vetted the property. and you've made a decision that that property fits the parameters the city wants. And I understand the attachment, but it was still going to be this person operating this place.

Understood. you called it a joint venture, is DMS Trinity LLC, I feel like I have to do the clerk's job right now, which is what is annoying me, is, DMS Trinity LLC, a member of Beach House Cannabis LLC?

I The ownership structure of Beach House will involve the owners of DMS. I'm not going to go further than that because I find that it's improper to get into CLEC issues in front of the City Council. those are two different pieces and I'd really like to stick to the issues that are with us. And I'm prepared to present it when we finally get the hearing open.

Yeah, and two last questions. Is there an operating agreement that's already been,

There is an agreement in place that we have that has been signed between the parties. The operating agreement of Beach House has, yes, there is an operating agreement for Beach House. I mean, every LLC needs an operating agreement.

And who's the managing member?

and the public knowledge on the website is the way it works. Casey is going to be running that LLC, and Dennis Pignoni will be also managing the company. So these two individuals are here. They are going to be a partner with us, but we're going to discuss that with the clerk.

Understood. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor O'Malley. Mr. Hogan, did you have something to add?

Yeah, can I just clarify? I know Nelson mentioned early on, but I think it got lost a little bit in the discussion, that currently the ordinance that dictates the responsibilities and the powers of the Cannabis Licensing Enforcement Commission doesn't allow us to transfer this license. So I know there's a lot of discussion about, and Councilor, you just mentioned you were annoyed that it hadn't come before the, you know, the clerk first. Well, they can't. We don't have the power without you amending the ordinance to allow a license to be transferred in addition to removing and this piece of the special permit, there is no process for this because it's not allowed by ordinance. So two things need to happen in addition to the host community agreement and so forth. The challenge with this process is there was three different places that you could start, host community agreement, special permit, or cannabis commission, and all of them had their flaws to it because each one of them was going to be dependent upon something else.

but I want to be clear, it would not be appropriate for the Cannabis Commission to have this transfer before it when by ordinance, licenses aren't allowed to be transferred. So in addition to doing what you're doing with the special permit, you would have to amend that ordinance to allow for the transfer to license and whatever else you might dictate in that ordinance in terms of the process to be followed forward. I just feel like that got lost a little bit because there was a lot of talk about, you know, if we were to have somebody before us and send them back to this body when the ordinance says we shouldn't be doing that, that's also a problem. So the ordinance has to be amended also. I'm sorry to add one more step to it, but... It's really very clear. It doesn't allow us to transfer it. So thank you.

Thank you. Is everybody clear on that? Any further questions before we open the hearing? Okay, great. At this time, I will declare the public hearing open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition, please come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Roberto DiMarco. I reside at 17 Division Street in Malden. I operate a law firm at 350 Main Street, Malden Third Floor. I speak in favor. I depend upon this testimony I've previously given to you. I will add to that that there is nothing within this request to your board, your committee, that will create any further burden will not change the rights that the city has to enforce the obligations of whoever is operating that cannabis license. So when that location becomes operable, the same 20 conditions plus any that you might add tonight will be will carry through. I would ask that you vote accordingly.

Once again, I reserve my right as to the legal issues raised by the memo brought in by one of the people in opposition. I request that I be allowed to answer those when they are raised if they are presented to you in full instead of just depending on the written record. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Do we have anything we need to read?

I'm still not done. I'm doing this.

I'm trying to think.

Okay, okay. Hearing none and seeing none, I will declare that portion of the hearing closed. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the petition, please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Attorney Blake Mensing. I'm with Cable Fleischer & Sussaby, which is a cannabis law firm based out of Northampton, 90 Conn Street. So there's been a bunch of statements here that are completely unsupported by the public record. Building Commissioner Miller stated that the special permit is valid by operation of the construction that happened after its issuance. The letter from the City Council that says you've been awarded a special permit contains very clear instructions on what the applicant is supposed to do after they get it. And unless the applicant here can show us the book and page where any of those special permits were recorded, there's nothing to assign. I also just want to say I couldn't be more pro cannabis I've been a cannabis attorney for years. I've owned multiple cannabis dispensaries. I think it's a delightful plant. So I'm not anti anyone, but I am pro process. And MGL chapter 40A, section 11 says on its face, A special permit takes no legal force in effect unless it's recorded.

So you cannot just declare that a special permit took legal effect without following the statute that governs it. No one's addressed that. So in the absence of a book and page of any of those special permits of the extension being recorded, you don't have the legal power to extend or amend anything that never took legal force. In addition, there's a timeline under Chapter 40A, Section 9 that says you have to have substantial use commenced predicated on a validly recorded special permit. So the fact they built it out is a mistake by the building commissioner, not the applicant, not the city, just the building commissioner. So what he should have done before issuing that first building permit was check that it was recorded. That's not new. There's been talk, there's a term of art here calling a special permit typically runs with the land. It runs with the land precisely because you can go to the registry of deeds and see where it was recorded. That's when you can buy that right. Until it's recorded, there is no right.

So we can't ignore chapter 40A because other things have happened in the city. Beach House has never gone through Cleck as we know. I think there would be a permissible avenue to condition the amendment of an invalid, not legally enforced permit if you wanted to go that route to say Cleck had to go first. You know, the entity and the folks that made up DMS Trinity that went before Cleck is not the same entity that sits there today. There's an independent obligation that starts when the provisional license is issued by the Cannabis Control Commission, that you have to go through changes of ownership and control to change your cap table. The slides from the CLEC presentation by DMS Trinity shows a bunch of people who aren't involved in the entity anymore. I think the CCC is going to have an issue with that because they already changed control. That seems to have happened after the provisional license was issued. We have the third amended

operating agreement that came in that differs substantially from the humans that were vetted by Cleck. I think also the fact that the Clerk vetted an original group and said you met the financial standards and then clearly they didn't by seeking financial and operational partners I think is an indictment of the Clerk's original process. So there's been a couple statements that this is not a big ask and that they're being very transparent. Yeah, they are being very transparent. They're being very transparent that they want their own set of rules to apply to them. there's a prescribed set of processes in order that has to happen by an ordinance that the Land Court case in Benevolent Botanicals didn't touch. So the reliance on that case to say let's circumvent the zoning law, it didn't touch the general's ordinance on cannabis or the clerk's approval of power or its role in this process because explicitly the land court judge said we can only touch zoning ordinances. So the citation of that case is a red herring. That's not a real argument.

In addition, the HCA specifically says you have to let the city know if you're going to have a change of ownership. They've already consummated a change of ownership. They violated their host community agreement. Mr. Hogan from the clerk said that they couldn't have gone to the state He doesn't know what he's talking about. That's simply incorrect. The CCC should have been involved in this process already. I have an outstanding public records request pending with the commission's record access officer to provide me with a copy of any change of control application. My suspicion is it hasn't been filed yet. This is ultimately what happens when you use attorneys who might be locally known but don't do cannabis all day every day. I've lived and breathed these regulations since 2017 when they were first put on paper. they're not being followed here. Nor are the city's ordinances that are in place being followed here. I also think the addendum very grossly misrepresents the public record. There's a factual claim that the clerk has approved this new applicant and that the HCA is already in place.

the HCA is in place with an entity that had different human beings on the cap table than sit there today. So this applicant doesn't seem to think that the city rules apply to them and they very clearly don't seem to think that the state CCC regulations apply to them. So what you'd be doing by granting this quote unquote simple amendment is to ignore that 40A section 11 wasn't followed. That's a very simple statute. It just says it has to be recorded to take effect. How are we glossing over that? Where's the argument? Where's the book and page? Show me at the registry where it's recorded and I'll sit down and go home. I also think there's an incredibly Big issue with the notification provisions in the host community agreement saying you come to the city to amend that host community agreement before you make a change of control. Every single thing they've done in this record that I've reviewed has been out of order. and what they're trying to do, I think, is get to you before you go on vacation and relying on some other city issues that happened with benevolent botanicals, which really isn't relevant.

The general ordinance stands. You can't ignore the clerk's role. Why would they think that the clerk should come after the special permit? And again, I don't know how you answer the question of what special permit when it wasn't recorded. Right. I mean, again, just if you look at the public records of who's on Beach House, I think you noticed Attorney DiMarco's evasive answer about who's on the cap table. He actually misrepresented something to you tonight. He said that Dennis was on the Secretary of State's records that he'd be one of the business owners. Well, here's the record here from the Secretary of State It only lists Paul Ferrazzi and Casey Baker. This is a public record. I can verify everything that I put in my letter with a citation to a direct publicly available source. every other representation and every bit of frustration is misplaced. You have to follow the law whether you like to or not.

And if you do go ahead and amend a special permit that's not currently in force, I think there's a very strong likelihood that people will appeal it. Again, back to that notice when the first special permit was issued. You have to get a certificate from the city clerk saying no one appealed it so you can have it recorded at the registry. The applicant didn't do that. We can't jump out of order now just because they got, I think, very bad and incorrect advice from Building Commissioner Miller as well as their attorney. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I think we should proceed. Well, I was going to say, I'd rather proceed with the hearing and then we can take questions at the end. But thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

Good evening, Council. My name is Eric Gath. I own and operate Misty Mountain Shop located at 323 Commercial Street, one of Malden's licensed cannabis dispensaries. Attorney Blake Mensing has submitted a Tailed a legal memo. He also just spoke for you. I won't repeat his arguments. I'm just here to speak what I saw firsthand. I went through this exact process. and I want you to understand what this petition is really asking you to undo. When I applied, the clerk didn't just approve a location, it vetted me. My application ran over 600 pages. Business Plan, Standard Operating Procedures, the resumes of my operations team, and financials proving I could actually build and run Misty. The CLEC Vets people, their experience, their finances, Their character and their commitment to Malden.

That competitive vetting is the entire foundation of how a cannabis license happens in the city. DMS Trinity went through that same vetting and they won it on the strength of who they were. The city was told this was a woman-owned business led by Mary Susan Blount with minority and LGBTQ members and a survivor of the Boston Marathon bombing. They committed $800,000 of their own money and made promises about hiring, scholarships, and supporting addiction services. This is the application the city approved, but that is not what stands before you tonight. The state provisional license issued in December lists Dennis Pannone Dos Santos as 90.5% owner with no one else named. And now they want to hand everything over to Beach House Cannabis. a new entity run by people the CLEC has never vetted.

The equity, the local ownership, and the people who earn this, they don't transfer with the assets. and they're not even listed as owners on the Secretary of State website. The city has already said no to this. When DMS Trinity applied to transfer the permit to Beach House, your own building commissioner, Nelson Miller, denied it. because the special permit is non-transferable. So they've come back with a new request. Delete the condition that stopped them so the transfer can go through. they're asking you to remove the one rule that blocks us in order to allow the very thing that rule exists to prevent. And that condition isn't yours to waive because the ordinance makes it mandatory on every cannabis permit. I suspect the real reason this is being rushed is the benevolent botanicalist's decision, a belief that it opened a loophole. It did not.

The judge struck the zoning section 12-12-190 in its entirety. But the reason for that was the buffer zones are too restrictive. Not that it's non-transferable. Nothing to do with who may hold the license. She didn't touch 6870, the licensing ordinance that creates the clerk and governs who qualifies. That framework is fully intact. The right response to a struck zoning section is for this council to revise it properly as the Rules and Ordinance Committee is already doing. not to rush an unvetted transfer through a side door while everyone waits to see what the new rules say. The clerk itself doesn't even take this matter up until tomorrow. If Beach House Cannabis wants to operate in Malden, they should do exactly what DMS Trinity and the rest of us did.

Apply to the Clerk, sit for an interview, then earn their own new special permit signed their own new host community agreement. That process applied to all of us and it should apply to them. For these reasons and for the reasons in Attorney Mensing's memo, I respectfully ask the council to deny this petition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the petition tonight? anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Clerk, can you summarize what we received by, oh, so sorry.

Yeah. Hi, I'm Christopher Dreyer from Malden, Mount Naff. I'll be brief. I know that the state has permitted cannabis dispensaries and Malden has a supportive business model for cannabis dispensaries. I draw a distinction with the dispensary model and its benefit to the community. I personally don't agree with the use of Marijuana as a beneficial product for the community and I think that

The distinction with marijuana and hemp, while it's both cannabis sativa, I think under the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp is a legal product to be considered cultivated under federal legislation and recreational use of hemp is very minimal. Although there is CBD oil that can be cultivated, I just I just don't see it as a benefit to the community. That's just basically what I'm trying to say.

Even though there's tax revenue that can be generated, it's... Are you opposing this specific petition that we're hearing tonight?

Yes, and others. that would be related, yes.

Okay, I just want to make sure you're clear that the petition, the hearing tonight is specifically about this petition, this location, not cannabis in general.

Both, yes. I think it shouldn't be in this community. Thanks.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this petition? Come on up to the podium. Name an address for the record.

I'd like to apologize to my parents. I understand this isn't... the best look to come in and speak in front of people like y'all.

That's no problem.

I apologize for that. I'm very sorry. I'm new to this community. And I just want to say that this guy right here, Paul, You ain't looked up or listened to not nor one person who was sitting here. You've been looking down and I don't know why you don't take people in this community seriously. I've heard about you and I know what you do.

Okay, folks, sorry about that. Yeah, I just want to make sure we have a summary of what was sent in by email. because there are some things that we're going to attach to the agenda as well.

Everything that was sent in through email has been expressed verbally by the members of the community that are here tonight. Okay. We had two that were in opposition and that one was in favor and they were from Attorney DiMacco, Attorney Mensing, and Mr. Gath of Misty Mountain. the same people that we heard from speak directly tonight almost exactly what they said in their letters.

Okay, thank you.

And the letters are attached to the history of this paper for public viewing.

Okay, great. So for anyone watching that's click through the agenda you can see all those attached to this item. Thank you. Okay, so seeing no one else wishing to speak in favor or in opposition, I will declare that final portion of the hearing closed. We can now move into council deliberation, including hearing from our city staff if folks have questions. So let me shut off the podium microphones so the audio comes back a little better.

I would listen to them first.

Do folks want to respond to any of the comments that came in before we move into councilor questions? Could you, oh, I'm so sorry, I did just turn that off. Could you actually just?

I just want to clarify, so I got up and addressed the council earlier and I think Councilor O'Malley, what are your points about why we hadn't come before the Cannabis, the local Cannabis Licensing Commission, and I explained that because the ordinance doesn't allow us to do that, you know, which is, that's specifically the reason why, you know, we weren't in a position to have them start with us, so... and it was represented by the attorney that I quote unquote didn't know what I was talking about and mentioned that I was referring to the state. It was clear that I was referring to the multiple references here to this entity starting with the local cannabis licensing and enforcement commission and the fact that the ordinance doesn't allow that. So I know it was clear to you all, but to anybody listening from home, again, they could not have come before us because the local ordinance doesn't allow them to. I don't speak for the state, I do speak for the Cannabis Licensing Enforcement Commission locally and that's what I was speaking to, so thank you. Thank you, Ron.

Commissioner Miller, did you also want to respond?

Yes, in regards to the special permit being valid, I think I said this earlier. I didn't give much detail to it, I don't think, but it was not recorded. however there is state case law and there's a lot of it and there's recent case law that people who are familiar with zoning are very familiar with McDermott versus City of Melrose that states that if the Special Permit was lawfully granted. If it wasn't appealed and if construction or use has commenced, then all the rights are vested. that does not mean it shouldn't be recorded. Attorney DiMarco should certainly make sure it's recorded. But all those things took place and there's no issue with the special permit.

Thank you.

Michelle, Ali, did you have any other pieces to respond?

I'll just echo what Building Commissioner Miller said, is that the special permit is a valid permit. There is case law, which I believe I provided to the City Council, just for your information that states that it is valid and again it should be recorded but the fact that it is not recorded does not mean that it is fatal because they have started construction and again as I believe somebody said, I also provided you in my memo, I believe it was Commissioner Miller, that there was an amendment made where the permits were extended for an additional two years.

Based on that, the special permit that was issued in 2022 actually did not expire until 2025.

and I'm sorry, I just wanna make sure, did everybody get a copy of that memo from the city solicitor this afternoon? It was emailed to the full council? Okay, thank you.

Hi, Michelle Romero, City Planner, thank you. I just wanted to note you should have also received a copy of the Planning Board report and recommendation just to make sure you're considering that as part of the public record as well. I didn't speak in favor even though I'm here for the planning board and the planning board recommendation is in favor of...

Yes, of course. Is there anything else that you wanted to add to that, Michelle?

No, I was just going to say the Planning Board recommendation is in favor of reissuing the special permit to the new entity. There already is a condition that requires prior to certificate of occupancy issuance all approvals are obtained from the state Cannabis Control Commission, from our local CLEC, as well as any that might be required of the Board of Health. So that's already in as a condition. the board is not in favor of removing the condition regarding non-transferability and non-assignability. So I just wanted that to be clear for the record. They're in favor of reissuing the special permit and transforming the rights to the new entity. They are not in favor of removing that condition.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, you have a question for Michelle. Okay, Councilor O'Malley.

The condition of the non-transferability, is that unique to marijuana cannabis permits or is that something that's common for other special permits?

I wouldn't say it's common. It has been in other special permits, most recently in the Malden Hospital Redevelopment Special Permit. There is a condition that's specific to Tufts and Acadia Healthcare. or its affiliates exercising those rights. So that's the most recent example. There are a few others further back. It's not typical, but it is occasionally done.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor O'Malley. Colón Hayes.

Thank you. Could you just stay? I'm sorry, Mr. Romero. I want to repeat back what I just heard to make sure I understood it correctly. So the Planning Board approved the conditions but keeping in the non-transferable license, could you just repeat that back to me, sorry.

Yes, so the petition was to amend the special permit. So the planning, specifically it was to, transfer the special permit or reissue the special permit to this new entity that was listed. Okay, so that's the advisory recommendation that the planning board is making based on that petition. to keep in and the second part. So they recommend that that be granted. So a new special permit be issued to that entity. However, that it be subject to the same 20 conditions that the last special permit was subject to and I believe the prior as well. And in those special conditions is condition eight that says the special permit is non transferable. Excuse me, this special permit is non transferable and non assignable.

Okay, thank you very much. and thank you so what I hit my button for originally is just to say after hearing all this personally I am NOT ready to make a decision right now on this especially if It is the last meeting. I wish this came before us so we could talk this through a little bit more. We have had so much litigation that I am concerned about opening up anything else. I feel very comfortable about opening up cannabis shops. I am very much in support. I spoke actually on your case when that happened. I'm just super concerned right now, and again, wish I had more time, and I did call so many people. I have a different opinion about what we should be doing now. What I would also say, we care about our community.

There's been some reference to grandstanding, but people here are asking questions because we love Malden and we care about Malden. We want to make sure that we're doing the right thing and that we have the right people here. Full stop. With that, though, being said, I would, if Councilor McDonald wanted to make that motion, I'd certainly think about seconding a motion to grant it with a condition that it's approved by the Clerk. That makes me feel a little bit better. but for me, this is, yeah, I'm not comfortable with voting on this tonight. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And just to review, an hour ago, we did have a motion on the floor Two grants, so we'd probably be looking to add to that, amend that, just to go way back in time. Okay, next up I have Councilor Simonelli.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to caution this council tonight. With everything that's been going on with the cannabis thing over the last year and a half, you gotta be careful here tonight because it's almost like if we had like a a bunch of pizza shops up here tonight that are in competition with one another. Of course they don't want competition with one another. That's what I'm hearing here tonight. So I caution everybody tonight that there are five licenses We've already had conditions. They've already been vetted. Again, they're just changing and adding a financial partner. And I think we need to be careful. And I'll let legal come in and talk more about it than me. but for me I think that we just got to be cautious of the fact under the

Things that have happened in the last year, year and a half with the cannabis license and what's transpired in the courts with botanicals and other folks. Yes, you know, we can take into consideration how other people feel. But again, you know, they're all in competition with one another. So I think that needs to be taken into consideration. So you have to do what's right tonight, not about influence on other people that already own cannabis shops that might have competition coming in their direction. So I would advise this council to be very careful tonight on its vote. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councillor Simonelli. Councillor Winslow.

Yeah, no, I am supportive of issuing a revised, you know, the... new special permit as the planning board recommends. You know, just looking back, I mean, I was definitely highly involved along with Councilor Crowe and Councilor Sica in helping to develop the whole idea of having to collect having the special permit process. And I think when you look back when we started, I mean, this was going to be a competitive process. And one reason why we would put in a provision about not not allowing a transfer of special permit was we didn't want to have someone come in, give us a show, get a piece of paper, and then hand that off to someone right away. or hold on to it. I remember when I worked on the River's Edge project down here, we were very concerned when we were doing an RFP process

for that about having someone come in and, you know, often big investors buy up, you know, land to sit on them for speculation. We didn't want people coming in, buying the piece of paper and not investing. And what I see here is that now that it's been a few years, we see a entity that has invested. I mean, they're basically done everything they need to do to get ready. And yeah, I mean, years have gone by. They need to have the investment to get them over the line and adjust the operation and the structure. I mean, I think one of the things, seeing generally, you know, you go to the registry of deeds or our permit database, often there, you know, investors set up individual LLCs to a particular and property. I'm sure Misty's done that. I know, you know, Biotonicals does it. You do that.

So it's unusual that this was not done that way. So however that was done. I think that now that it is having in my ward, I've had some restaurants change over. And when that's happened, they've had to get, you know, They get the business use transfers easily. It's that liquor license that the new person has to come in. It's very standard. The whole purpose of the SELEC the CLEC was to really be the liquor license equivalent to the liquor board for the cannabis. So the whole purpose was that they are the bedding of the Operator. And, you know, the special permitting is to really take into account the impact on the neighborhood. So the special permit, we got 20 conditions here, but this has been a couple of times to the council already.

I don't really think we have much justification to say, you know, to say there's any, we haven't vetted this as a council and the neighborhood supported. So I favor issuing the permit and I would, vote in support of it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Winslow. Councilor O'Malley.

Yeah, just my last question would be for legal. I just was wondering what legal's involvement was in this order of things. in not going to Clerk first but coming to the City Council first. And then second, I know, I'm assuming we have not appealed the clarified judgment in Benevolent. and if we have not appealed the clarified judgment, when does the appeal period end?

So to your first question, legal would have no involvement whatsoever in how this process went forward. Legal's involvement was to advise the city council after I received the memo, and that was it. Secondly, as it relates to, can we talk, should I be talking about benevolent? Is that relevant? I don't think we can, to be honest with you.

It's referenced in this application, and it's been mentioned many times tonight. I would like to know if we've appealed. the benevolent clarified judgment, and when the appeal period lapses.

We cannot have a legal update on that case. I understand what you're saying.

That's public record.

The question isn't whether it's public record, it's whether it's topical to what we're being discussed on the agenda.

It's mentioned in the presentation. It's a fact. of Public Record. I just would like...

If we want to get an update on that, then we're going to have to do that not in this session, not on this agenda item and not on the floor. Okay. Thank you, Allie.

Any other questions for me?

O'Malley, do any other attorneys in the room know when the appeal period collapses?

Councilor O'Malley, do you have any other questions on this paper?

I move to table the application. Thank you.

Do we have a second to that? Okay, seeing no seconds to that, that motion fails. The tabling motion has failed for lack of a second. Do you still have the floor? Do you have any other questions? Okay, Councilor Sica.

Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Allie. So, my head is spinning. Okay, so we're worried about being sued for revising a special permit that we placed a condition on that has nothing to do with the vetting process of the CLEC, the Community Host Agreement, and the Cannabis Control Commission. I'm just trying to say this out loud because it's going in my head 10 million different directions. if we're worried about being sued for that, then we should probably be worried about being sued for not allowing DMS Trinity to potentially sell their business like any other business in this city can do, legally do.

For the past several weeks of the most critical budget process I've ever been a part of in the 14 years I've been sitting up here, we've been talking about leaving millions of dollars of tax revenue on the table from not opening up pot shops in this city. I've heard it loud and clear from just about everybody. We're talking about economic development and how we can make this city better. and we're gonna sit up here and we're gonna argue with a potential business that's had a special permit with us for years. when all they're looking to do is add one person. I think everybody up here is forgetting what our job is. Our job is to do we want to revise the special permit and remove a condition that we put in the special permit.

and to sit here and say we may, maybe we should put something, I understand, Councilor McDonald, where you were going with that, but the more I sit here and think about it, that makes it seem like we don't trust our clerk, we don't trust the community host agreement, and we don't trust the CCC. and I'm comfortable voting tonight to approve the revised special permit to allow those things to to continue and take place because the ultimate decision maker is the CCC. They are the ones that are gonna say, DMS Trinity or Beach House Cannabis, whatever its entity ends up being, they're the final decision maker that says that this company can move forward. We're only here right now, and I think everybody's forgetting it,

to discuss the special permit that we put in place, that we decided we wanted to be the special permit granting authority of. I did not want to be this person, but here we are, all these years later. I think we need to move this vote. I make a motion that we revise the special permit by eliminating the non-transferable piece and any other cannabis business in this city, I think they would have to come back before us if they do hold a special permit that we have granted but I don't know why they wouldn't want us to allow this because in the future it could only hurt their business from being sold if they ever if something ever happened to come up in their life where they would need to sell their business. I make a motion that we...

So we already have that motion on the floor. and the motion that we need is to grant the petition to amend the special permit. Who did that?

You did that. Oh, all right. I wasn't, I'm like, listen, my head is spinning because

You both already did the same thing you just tried to do.

Can I just really quickly, to reiterate this, and I know that it's, can I just have Nelson come back up and restate this process? if you can do it so, so briefly. If tonight, Nelson, we approve to revise the special permit to remove the non-transferable piece, where does it go next?

So as I said, it still needs to go to the clerk. and it still needs to go to the Mayor. Now maybe further to the question should be and it's been asked a few times now and I thought Ron and I both touched on it but I don't think necessarily we're getting across. Right now it cannot go to the Clerk.

So we need to change the ordinance.

The ordinance does not provide the ability for the clerk to transfer a license. So if they petitioned us to come in, we'd have to say no. there is absolutely no reason the mayor would entertain changing an HCA with someone who hasn't gone to the clerk who can't go to the clerk and has a special permit and says that they can't do those things. Anybody who has a special permit has the right to come to me and ask me to amend it. Anybody. They don't need a process laid out to do that. This business has a special permit. if they'd like to amend it and they come to me and say we'd like to amend our special permit, I deny their request and send it to you all. So that's why we're at where we're at. The Clerk cannot address this. There's no reason for the Mayor to do it. You all can.

But now you can tomorrow?

I'm sorry?

No, we have to redo the ordinance. So this isn't even going to get done until September.

I don't know when it's going to get done, but tomorrow night at the clerk, we are not vetting this candidate, no.

Okay. And the Planning Board has previously already reviewed this in addition, just for clarity.

for any special permit, whether you issue it. Well, any special permit that you issue, the planning board first reviews it and provides you a non-binding recommendation, which Michelle previously provided to you.

Correct. If we're talking about like how much bureaucracy is around this and we have an open ordinance now. I just feel like we've been talking about this for two hours now. If we're talking about the bigger picture, that's just yet another layer here.

I just really wanted to underline why this is the first step, because it's the only step that can be taken right now. This is the first step.

Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your time tonight. Councilor McDonald, you are next in the queue.

Thank you. Yeah, Councilor Sica, I think I really couldn't agree with you more at this point. Like, I don't even know why we grant these special permits.

I never wanted to.

because it is such a messy process with the city council. And I will say to the folks at Trinity, when you first came to us to get a special permit, I said, I feel like we're being too hard on you. but I just wanted to get your permit approved. So my question about conditionality was to see could we get to like a consensus so that you get a unanimous vote about this because I think it's important for businesses to hear and the City Support. But that does not seem forthcoming. So I'm not gonna make that motion and it's been helpful to understand the problem with the CLEC. and their ability to, or lack of ability, constrained by our ordinance, to actually vet this new operating candidate at all currently, and we will have to address that. So I do think, while this is separate from what, my understanding, so the planning board has recommended that we issue a different permit that has the non-transferable clause.

Councilor Sica, your proposal is to amend the existing permit to simply remove the non-transferable clause such that it would have to be approved at a future point.

That's the paper before us. Can I just say something? Just for clarity, what we have before us on our agenda is this hearing is on a petition to amend the special permit.

I just want to make sure that that's the motion, Councilor Sica.

That's what I just restated back to Councilor Sica.

Can you just put my... Oh, thank you. Yeah, your light's on now. I apologize. Okay. So, Councilor McDonald, to your point of wanting to double check, I think if we only revise that... if we change it, then I think the revision is probably best at this moment to remove it. Because if we change it, then the vetting process, I feel like the vetting process may be bypassed because they'll have a special permit with their new name, that Beach House LLC. I think we have a little bit more I think just revising it to remove that allows us to still follow the process because technically, if we just change the special permit to the new name, they've already been vetted. and we're giving them basically, they're just gonna be able to, if I'm thinking of this correctly, that's how my thought process is going with this.

If we change the name to the new entity, they've already been vetted, we're just changing a name. If we revise the special permit to

Remove the prohibition.

Remove the transferable thing, then the new applicant still has to be vetted through all the other channels.

Yeah. So I'm happy to support that. I... just wholeheartedly agree that we are leaving dollars on the table because we made it hard for these businesses to open and operate. And I've said that consistently. I don't fully understand what the level of opposition to this permit is. I've listened to this. I've tried to wrap my mind around what would be so Offensive to another operator. And I can't get beyond the argument that you made, Councilor Simonelli. So I think respectfully, I am happy to support the removal of that prohibition so that our own licensing commission can do its job and the state licensing commission can do its job and we can get that badly needed tax revenue which we I've spent so much breath in the last year talking about this and the budget crisis that our city faces. So let's just get them operating. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor McDonald. Councilor Colón Hayes. We're closed, Councilor Simpson.

Thank you. So, I think what Councilor Sica, you just, I think you just changed my mind. something that you had just said there. So thank you for that clarity. What we were looking for tonight and let's be very clear about this is that everyone, well I shouldn't say everyone, myself, I have been extremely vocal about needing cannabis revenue in our city, opening them up, being open to it, that that's what we need, so vocal. So I caution anyone to think any different. And the thing that you had just brought to mind is that, okay, let's say we grant it and I have lots of questions. Obviously, everybody does and we wouldn't be here. So if we grant this today, it's still going to the CLEC. It will still be vetted.

it will also go, I think is what you heard, it will also go to the ordinance which I've been asking Councilor Winslow here all night. Is this still coming to ordinance so we can talk it through and make that change? I wanna be clear about that too. There's a couple of levels that we're still gonna get through and then I have no problem supporting this. I think we needed to have this answer lots of questions. I'm glad we had it. But now I might have come full circle on this. So could someone here make sure that that is correct? It will go to ordinance?

Chair? No, it's come from. Ah, thank you. Okay. It's come from planning. It's to us. It goes to Clerk, then the mayor. Okay. Then the state. Okay, so we're bypassing ordinance because it's here. Come up and clarify if I got that wrong. I'm trying to just.

And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the only way it can come to the clerk is if the ordinance gets changed that allows that to happen.

Understood.

Yeah, so yes, that's got to get changed to allow it to properly be for us for a transfer, which isn't allowed right now. And that's what I stated earlier.

Thank you very much. That's okay. Okay. So yes, I get that now. Thank you.

Okay, I have Councilor O'Malley next.

I'm just concerned how unprofessional this is. and I'm not clear what we're even taking action on. Are we adopting the planning board's recommendation? Are we changing the applicant to the Beach House applicant It's not clear what is going on. I don't see it in the papers here. So from the scheduling to the lack of legal's involvement in this process and how in which This happened here while we're still in an appeal period for a case that might invalidate the zoning ordinance related to cannabis. This whole thing is just crazy that we're here right now at this exact moment. when so much is in flux. And I can't in good conscience do my due diligence and be a good vetter of what needs to go on on behalf of the city of Malden.

I'm going to recuse myself from this, guys. This just does not seem appropriate. It doesn't smell appropriate. So I'm just going to recuse myself. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor O'Malley. Councillor Winslow.

Yeah, I mean, I think just related to the Rules and Ordinance Committee. I had to go and look. And we did have a paper. I think it was really relating to changing the zoning, not the licensing. So we... we would have to have a paper come up on that. So not, you know, if that's what we need to do, that's what we need to do. But yeah, I don't think, I mean, that's something that can be done. So, yeah, great. I mean, I think what it might come down to setting up a process particularly how to transfer licenses. I don't know if that licensing committee has that but that's Really, you know, it's not clear how that process works, but obviously, you know, that's really what it's about, how a license might be transferred, you know, for a property.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Winslow. Councilor Simonelli.

Thank you, Madam President. Look, I'm just gonna say this. You know, I think we beat this dead horse to death. And, you know, I'd like to move the previous question. Let's take a vote on this thing now. We've been on this thing for two and a half hours. I think everybody's made valid points. I think that down the road, councilors can take this up in ordinance if they want to, you know, make some changes to it. But for tonight's... Agenda. Can we move this forward, please?

Let's call the question, Councilor Simonelli. We have a motion on the floor by Councilor Sica, seconded by yourself. We do need eight votes, am I correct? Yes. Okay, we need eight votes. to grant this petition. To adopt. To amend and adopt. So the petition is to amend the special permit. We need eight votes.

to amend the special permit.

Okay. Is everybody clear? And we have lost Councilor O'Malley, so... Right. Yeah, so he is subtracted from the total that we need. Clerk, are you ready to call the roll? We still need eight.

Yeah, we still need eight. Councilor Colón Hayes. Yes. Yes. Councilor Condon. Yes. Yes. Councilor Crowe. Yes.

Yes.

Councilor LeJuan. Yes. Yes. Councilor McDonald. Yes. Yes. Councilor Sica. Yes. Yes. Councilor Simonelli. Yes. Yes. Councilor Taylor. Yes. Yes. Councilor Winslow. Yes. Yes. Council President Linehan.

Yes.

Yes, so that has been granted. Okay, that has been granted.

Next order of business.

Paper 335-26, be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the Code of the City of Malden 12.12.300 Inclusionary Zoning is hereby amended by striking the ordinance in its entirety and inserting the following which is listed in the body of the paper.

Okay. Winslow for the paper. I can also recognize our Director of OSPCD, Alex Pratt, to come to the podium for any questions. So I'm going to put the podium mic back on. Winslow, do you want to?

Yeah, I mean, just briefly, you know, I, you know, I think we were, you know, I was involved with Councilor Spadafora when we developed inclusionary zoning. Ordinance. We had an in-depth study conducted on what was workable. I mean, this is like five years ago in terms of the economics and financing of inclusionary zoning. The markets changed. And so I think the intent of this is try to continue to to keep our inclusionary zoning in place but to make it better and make sure we keep going forward on this but adapt it to what's happening there. Our Director Pratt could speak more in depth about that.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Winslow. You have the floor.

Thank you. Good evening, everybody. So as Councilor Winslow alluded to, there is no evergreen inclusionary zoning policy. A policy that is good in one year might not be good the following. The council wisely five years ago included a provision in our first inclusionary zoning policy that said we must revisit this every five years. And I'm very grateful that we did so because the economy has changed like three times since then. The inclusionary zoning policy that we adopted five years ago was based on a financial feasibility analysis and was seen as an aggressive but somewhat feasible policy at the time. It is not working today. the cost of building housing, the cost of building affordable housing, changes in construction market, inflation, all the reasons we've been hearing about every day for years now have made our inclusionary zoning policy too restrictive.

that means that we are requiring too much of market rate developers in terms of the affordable housing that we are requiring such that it is very difficult if not impossible for them to build anything at all. The important analogy here I guess is, or the way to think about this is, you could require 10, 15, 20, 50% of the units to be built to be affordable. If someone can't afford to build the units, you're getting 50% of nothing, which is nothing. So what we want to do is we want to update our inclusionary zoning, which we expect we will do at least every five years to make sure that it meets the market conditions that we are facing. And there are two sides of that. On the first side is the requirements that we have on the development. So what is the size of project that is affected? What is the level of affordability that is required? And what is the percentage of units that must be made affordable? And then there are details within that as well. on the other side of that equation. So those are the requirements. Think of those as the sticks.

We also have carrots. Those are the incentives. We know that it is financially challenging to build affordable housing. We know it very deeply. and we have this confirmed by our study as well. So the intention of the council five years ago was to create incentives so that you both had a carrot and a stick approach to make it easier and more feasible for market rate developers to build that affordable housing. and even in some cases to reward them for building extra affordable housing, to incentivize them to do the right thing. So tonight what we are recommending is changes to both sides of those equations, both the incentives and the requirements. I know you have a number of papers in front of you from us on this topic and I'll start just going with the memo that we provided. The only incentive increase or I'm sorry let me start on the and so on. And then we have a requirement increase. So previously we had 15% of our units were required to be affordable.

from 50% of the area median income for rental units to 60%, from 5-0 to 6-0%. Those changes make it easier for those projects to pencil out. It will still be a challenge in this high-interest environment, but it makes it easier. and that also aligns the change from 50% to 60% aligns us with state and federal tax credits that can help fund affordable housing which could help make these things work better in tandem. on the incentive side. Oh, and I should say the home ownership is consistent. We are removing certain requirements around nursing homes that were previously covered, which don't really make sense to be covered. operate the same way when you pay a nursing home. Rent costs, you're not paying for rent, you're paying for service as well, which can be nursing services, I don't know, things like that. There are apples and oranges. You can't build them under our policy right now, so we want to make sure that those types of uses are still allowed in the city.

We don't want to be a barrier there. On the incentive side, we are increasing from one unit to two unit, the density bonus that you get for building a required affordable unit. On the parking adjustment, We are keeping the one parking space per unit requirement for market rate projects. However, for projects that are doing more affordability than we require, we are dropping that to 0.75 per unit. and we've provided greater flexibility for 100% affordable housing projects by special permit to be able to go up a story in all zones to a max of three stories in all zones except industrial and to give them more flexibility in doing so. We also made some process improvements. The largest one, the policy previously required that all inclusionary zoning

Projects follow a special permit process. We are moving the IZ compliance from special permit to administrative. So that would be our office would confirm that the project either complies or does not comply with inclusionary zoning. The important thing to note here is any project that would require a special permit anyway would still have to go through that process. The change here is that the special permit granting authority, the city council or the planning board, does not need to wrestle through the wonkiness and the particularities of inclusionary zoning compliance as part of your special permit review. That will be done before it gets to you, before it gets to the planning board. This provides more clarity. It makes the process simpler. It takes something off of your plate and off of the planning board's plate while still keeping the responsibility of granting special permits for all the other reasons we typically do that in the same place. Now, there are a number of other changes throughout. I'd be happy to go through them.

Been meeting for several hours already, and I don't want to bore you all, but I'm happy to answer any questions or focus on places that are of interest.

My one question is are you hoping to have us refer this to the joint planning hearing that's in August?

We would hope that you would refer it to the joint hearing whether that is, I know there's been some discussion about that being held in July or August. Okay. Our hope is that that hearing could take place sometime over the summer. Okay. And that the council could be prepared to potentially vote favorably on this in September.

Okay, so do our homework based on what you've told us tonight and what's amended to the agenda and be prepared to go to that, have the ordinance committee be at that. Okay, sure. Maybe Councilor Winslow can speak a little more to process.

Yeah, I mean, I read very carefully what has been, you know, the Community Development Department has submitted here. And, you know, in particular, the you know, the detail about the section by section changes are very detailed and very thoughtful. So, and you know, the vote tonight would just again to get it to a hearing. I just don't think we would need to spend a lot of time in rules and ordinance nitpicking at this point. So I think that we could get it to the hearing, see what public comments and then you know refer it back and if there's a need to the rules and ordinance to you know review it then but make any amendments but you know I think it's it's ready to go and that's my point of view but if Councilors feel they need more time, but I feel it's ready to go. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah, is that a motion? Okay, did you have one more thing to add to that?

Yes, just two things quickly. So the summary of changes that we provided, we will be sending you an updated one, which what we provided before was this is what the section looked like before, this is what it looks like after. We're going to add some plain English. This is what that change was. It's very brief, but that'll make it easier for your review. And then the other one note, we made an error in how we addressed the payment in lieu piece. What we had previously provided was that OSPCD would be able to approve or deny a developer's request to make a payment in lieu. What we would like that to say is that that would go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board, and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board would be able to make that determination. So if there were a motion, I would respectfully request that the motion could amend that proposal as I described.

Move to refer as amended. Oh, I'm so sorry, Steve. I didn't mean to turn the mic off.

I would move to refer to the Joint Planning Board and Rules and Ordinance Committee with the amendment that the payment in lieu of taxes waiver be required to be approved by the Affordable Housing Trust basically. So thank you.

Will you be sending that to the Clerk so that we can have the updated? I mean, I understand that if we don't send this tonight the way we need it to go to planning, it can't go.

All I'm suggesting is if you're going to refer it as amended, you should probably take a vote to amend it first. Vote to amend, then vote to refer as amended.

Okay, so we have a motion by Councilor McDonald. Second. Seconded by Councilor Winslow to amend. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

The amendment is to change the body that has the ability to approve a request from a developer to make a payment in lieu instead of building the units. Our prior draft said that was with OSPCD. We would like to have that be the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board as the more appropriate body for that.

Okay. And then we had the previous motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Colón Hayes to refer to the joint hearing to be scheduled. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that is referred.

Thank you so much. Next order of business. Paper 336-26, Communication. The Board of Registrars of Voters respectfully submits to the City Council the board's recommendation for papers necessary to the upcoming 2026 state election cycle numbered as 337, 338, 339, and 340 series of 2026 The board recommends these papers favorably by unanimous vote for adoption by the council.

Okay, so we, it looks like we need to do, we need a motion to receive. Motion. Okay. So moved by Councilor LeLong. Seconded by Councilor Sica. All in favor? Aye. Okay, those are received. And then we need a motion to adopt. Do we need to do these individually?

I'm sorry. We can do them all at once. Do you want me to just explain what they are? Yeah, that'd be great. Okay, so these four papers are basic housekeeping. We do them prior to every election cycle. The first one is to just adopt the early voting hours that we will have coming up in August for the September primary and in October for the November election. The second paper is just to designate our polling locations for the entirety of the 2026 election season. No polling places have been changed since last year, so no heavy lifting there. The third paper is to allow the chief of police to work with the city clerk as far as placing the police officers on details at all of the polling locations. And then the fourth is, it's a little bit hot before the horse, but you are ordering me to get the warrant as posted when it comes down from the state, which we don't have in finalized version yet, but by the time we get it, you'll be on summer break, and it will need to be posted in August for a September 1st primary.

So these are papers 337-26. 338-26, actually let me just read it proper. 337-26, order that the City Council adopt in-person early voting. for the 2026 election cycle and to designate the City Clerk's Office at 215 Pleasant Street, Room 220 as the central early voting polling location during the dates and times to be determined as voted on the Board of Registrars of Voters, which are in the body of the paper. . . . Polling Building to be determined by the Chief of Police and the City Clerk or their respective designees. And Paper 340-26 order that the City Clerk will notify and warn the inhabitants of the City of Malden who are qualified to vote

in the state primary and election to vote at their respective awards and precincts on Tuesday, September 1st and Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026, respectively, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. per the Secretary of State's election warrant.

Okay, do we have a motion to adopt these orders? Okay, so moved by Councilor Simonelli, seconded by Councilor Taylor. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Those are adopted. Next order of business.

Thank you. Paper 341-26, Committee Report. The Standing Committee on Rules and Ordinances to whom was referred Paper 317, 318, 319, and 320, Series of 2026. haven't considered the same, make the following report.

Okay, on a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Luong to receive the committee report. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That is received.

On the agenda, the first paper is 317-26, but that was actually tabled in committee. So if it's okay with you, Councilor Winslow, we'll skip over that. Okay, paper 318-26 is the first paper. be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the Code of the City of Malden 2.16.040 Cemetery Trustees is hereby amended by striking subsection A and inserting the following. City cemeteries shall be under the care and management of three trustees, all of whom shall be chosen by the City Council for a term of five years, commencement of the three-member board, shall take effect at such time as the current five-member board is reduced by attrition.

Okay, Councilor Winslow.

Yes, so, yeah. Maria Louise was there to speak about the paper. So right now we have, the board has five spots for trustees. One spot is vacant. and we anticipate someone retiring from the board. So both kind of in the interest of and the Board of Trustees. Rules and Orders Committee voted three to one in favor of and recommending this to be adopted tonight. Thank you, Craig.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Winslow. Do I have a motion to enroll? Okay, is that Councilor Winslow and Councilor Colón Hayes? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? So... Councilor O'Malley, was that you? Okay.

I mean, then I would make a motion to suspend rules so that we can, for the purposes of ordaining tonight. Second by, oh yeah.

Okay, one second. Okay, on the motion by Councillor Winslow, seconded by Councillor Crowe, to suspend the rules for the purposes of ordaining, we need to call the roll.

Councillor Colón Hayes? Yes. Councillor Condon? Yes. Councillor Crowe? Yes. Councillor Luong? Yes. Councillor McDonald? Yes. O'Malley, Councilor Sica, Councilor Simonelli, Councilor Taylor, Councilor Winslow, Councilor President Linehan. Yes.

Okay, so the rules have been suspended.

Okay, on a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Crowe to ordain, we will call the roll. We just did.

Councilor Colón Hayes? Yes. Councilor Condon? Yes. Councilor Crowe? Yes. Councilor LeJuan? Yes. McDonald, O'Malley, Sica, Simonelli, Taylor, Winslow, Linehan. Okay, so that paper has been ordained. Okay, next order of business. Paper 319. 26, be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the Code of the City of Malden 2.16.090 Emergency Management Board is hereby amended by Striking Subsection A in inserting the following. The Emergency Management Board shall be comprised of the Police Chief or their designee, the Fire Chief or their designee, the Director of Public Works, the Director of Public Health, and the Director of Public Facilities. Oversight of the Emergency Management Board shall be the responsibility of a Director of Emergency Management who shall be designated by the Mayor from either the Police Chief or their designee or the Fire Chief or their designee.

Okay, Councillor Winslow.

Yeah, so right now the Emergency Management Board has seven members. This would reduce the number of members to five. And then also in doing so, would make clear that the The Director of Emergency Management who chairs this would be either someone appointed by the Mayor from a designee of the Fire Chief or the Police Chief. So those are the O'Malley, we did make and recommend an amendment that this language that talks about the

the emergency management director being designated by the mayor from either the police chief or his designee or the fire chief or his designee which is this is listed as section a that that actually be the amended to be that phrasing be shifted to section D1. So we did, the committee did vote to make that recommendation for an amendment plus we did vote I'm not sure I followed what you said you changed. So the last phrase where... Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Okay. So just the clarity of... Okay. No, I understand the motions. I just didn't follow the moving from Section A to D. I wasn't sure.

Okay.

If it's just for clarity or flow of language, that's fine. I'm good with that. Okay. So we need a motion to amend.

Okay. So motion to amend so that the language that says the director of emergency management will be designated by the mayor from either police chief or his designated or Fire Chief, and the other amendment was to make this gender neutral, so I have the Clerk there, but that was another thing. So two things that Councilor McDonnell caught that. So those are the two parts of the amendment. So to change that phrase to gender neutral and move it to from Section A of the ordinance to Section D1.

So Section A is going to Section D, and his is becoming there.

Yeah, just that final bit there, so yeah.

Got it. Just the last sentence, understood. Okay, that's a good policy. Okay, so that motion by Councilor Winslow. Do I have a second? Second by Councilor Simonelli. All in favor of amending? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

Motion to enroll as amended.

Enroll as amended. Thank you, Councilor Crowe. We have a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Crowe to enroll as amended. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

And so then motion to suspend the rules so that we, for the purposes of ordaining in one night.

Okay. Motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Simonelli. to suspend the rules in order to ordain. We need to call the roll.

Council of Colón Hayes. Yes. Council Condon. Yes. Council Crowe. Yes. Council LeWong. Yes. Council McDonald. Yes. Council O'Malley. Yes. Council Sica. Seminelli, Taylor, Winslow, President Linehan. Yes.

All right, so motion to ordain.

Okay? On a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Simonelli, to ordain, we will call the roll.

Councilor Colón Hayes, Councilor Condon, Councilor Crowe, Councilor Linehan, Councilor McDonald, Councilor O'Malley, Councilor Sica, Seminelli, Taylor, Winslow, Linehan. That paper has been ordained.

That is ordained. Next order of business.

Paper 320-26 be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the Code of the City of Malden 4.12.020 Building Permit Fees Winslow, Subsection C is hereby amended by striking $16 and inserting $18 in its place.

Okay. Councilor Winslow, I'm just keeping your light on.

Yep. So right now when someone comes in to apply for a building permit, They pay a fee of $16 per $1,000 of value added. And Building Inspector Miller investigated what other communities around us charge. as well as Ron Hogan. And they found that we kind of fall at the low end, that the range is sort of from 16 to up to over $20. So the thought was to bump this up and so forth. then recommended this be favorably recommended to the council to be adopted.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Winslow. Any questions? Do we have a motion?

Motion to enroll.

Okay, on a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Simonelli to enroll. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that is enrolled.

So motion to suspend the rules so this can be ordained this evening.

Okay, on a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Simonelli to suspend the rules for the purposes of ordaining all, sorry, call the roll.

Councilor Hayes, Condon, Crowe, Linehan, McDonald, O'Malley, Sica, Simonelli, Taylor, Councilor Winslow, Councilor President Linehan. Rules have been suspended.

Motion to ordain.

Okay. On a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Simonelli, to ordain, we will call the roll.

Colón Hayes, Condon, Crowe, Linehan, McDonald, O'Malley, Sica, Simonelli, Taylor, Yes. Councilor Winslow. Yes. Council President Linehan. Yes. That paper has been ordained unanimously.

Unanimously ordained. Okay, thank you. Next order of business.

Paper 342-26, Committee Report. The Standing Committee on License to whom is referred papers. 273, 274, and 311 through 315 series of 2026. Having considered the same, make the following report.

Okay, on a motion by Councilor Sica, seconded by Councilor Taylor to receive the committee report. All in favor? Aye, the report is received.

You can read them, please.

Paper 273-26, Petition, Open Air Parking Lot, AGM Auto Sales Incorporated, 135 Eastern Avenue, 28 Spaces Renewal. Paper 274-26, Petition Full Tables, Top Pools Incorporated, 77 Exchange Street, Malden, 7 Tables, New. Paper 311-26, Petition, Extended Hours, L. Maxell, 97 Medford Street, Hours, 7 days, 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. New. Paper 312-26, Petition, Livery Company, Luxury Fleet, LLC, 9 Constance Street, 1 Vehicle, New. Paper 313-26, Delivery Driver, Akush Kumar, 9 Constance Street, New. Paper 314-26, Petition Outdoor Parking, United Properties Incorporated, 25 Florence Street, 34 Spaces Renewal. Paper 315-26, Petition Outdoor Parking, United Properties Incorporated, 29 Madison Street, 40 Spaces Renewal.

Okay, Councilor Sica for the committee report.

Thank you, Council President. The License Committee met this evening to discuss all these petitions. We had compliance offices with us. None of them had any issues. Melody, and we made a motion to refer them all out of committee favorably. So I make a motion to grant these petitions.

Councilor Melody, you had your light on. Oh, okay, on a motion by Councilor Sica, seconded by Councilor O'Malley to grant, all in favor? Aye. Aye, any opposed? Okay, those petitions are granted.

Paper 343-26, Committee Report. The Standing Committees on Economic Development and Rules and Ordinance, serving in a joint session. To whom are referred, Paper 263, Series of 2026. Having considered the same, make the following report.

Okay, on a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor Taylor to receive the report. All in favor? Aye. The report is received.

263-26 be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the Code of the City of Malden Title 12 and 9 are hereby amended by the following as is outlined in the body of this paper.

Okay, Councilor Winslow.

So as you may recall, this is the paper that Councilor LeLong, as the lead sponsor, put forth related to residential kitchens. We had several meetings of the Joint Economic Development Committee and Rules and Ordinance and we also then actually had a kind of a and the meeting of some members along with staff to really sort out how to approach this. And ultimately what we, The paper has some zoning things that really focus on allowing a residential kitchen as a home occupation. then there were some provisions that related to how a residential kitchen would operate under you know it was proposed under License, and then there were some other issues that came up.

So based on the discussions with staff and then with the committee, the recommendation sorted out to be that to basically sort of split this into kind of a few efforts. So the first thing that we would split the sections related to the zoning chapter 12 which would then create Right now we have a section that allows some home occupations. So residential kitchens would be added as a home occupation and be subject to the provisions of home occupations. So that is there, and there's

there'll be some definitions related to what a residential kitchen is and what under that category there's something called a cottage food operation that's really allows this type of Kitchen to operate in a residential district. So that would go forward and the recommendation from the committee is to send that language to the joint Planning Board, Rules and Ordinance Committee meeting. So that was for the zoning amendment. Then the related to the actual how these residential kitchens operate. One of the things we realized that that and so forth. I think that regulation really falls to the Board of Health. The regulations are under the state sanitary code and the Mass Department of Health has guidelines how to do this.

The city's Board of Health Sanitary Code actually conflicts with some of the state regulations. So really the recommendation then from the committee is to refer how these actually operate. to the Board of Health so that they can adopt the state sanitary code provisions related to residential kitchens and then also adopt the policy. One of the barriers that was presented first up was that a restaurant needs three sinks. I mean, basically, you need a sink to wash food off on. You need a sink to clean dishes on. You need a mop sink. So that's how a restaurant has to be done. residential kitchens. There's no expectation that someone's going to have three sinks.

so the state policies recognize that so but that really because that's overseen by the Board of Health and the Special Services that it really makes sense for the Board of Health to adopt the state regulations and the guidelines so The recommendation from the committee is to refer that matter to the Board of Health. The one other issue that came up was related to just how does trash get handled from a residential kitchen. and so we have under chapter nine, we do have our solid waste regulations that talk about how residents handle waste and how commercial businesses. So the recommendation of the committee is that the Rules and Orders Committee develop and some changes to our solid waste regulations to say that residential kitchens have to get enough bins and tags to handle the waste that they're generating.

suddenly they're generating more waste out of their house. If it takes two bins, they need to have two bins. And then also the thought that maybe they would, they have a lot of, you know, Waste that can be composted that they would sign up for the composted row. So those are the three recommendations. And I do know the committee then also made a recommendation that under the provision for residential kitchens that the people, they would be prohibited from wholesale or retail sales. But except by pre-ordering. So those are the recommendations there. So I think Caroline has a more detailed language on that. But the recommendation is to

refer the zoning things to the joint hearing as we discussed in the committee. So we discussed that. So that's the basic stuff. So I don't know.

So the motion is to refer this to the joint here.

Yeah, I mean, I guess ultimately what we did vote on was we voted to amend the paper to be consistent with the language that we would... be adding definitions for a residential kitchen and cottage food operation that we would amend the zoning to allow residential kitchens as a home occupation. with the proviso that they could sell pre-sale. So that was an amendment. So I think we have to make that amendment.

So I... but what do we need? Okay, so I was in committee for the split of the paper. I understand part of it's going to Board of Health and part of it's going to the hearing. So do we need I'm unclear what we need to do right now. Sorry, let me take Councilor O'Malley. You have a point.

Yeah, I was just going to ask the Clerk. So we're going to split this paper. I'm assuming that the Title 12 zoning will keep the 26326, paper number. And do you think that the Section 9 that's going to go to the Board of Health will get a new paper number?

When we've split papers in the past, usually what I've done is just add an A.

Okay.

So same paper number, A.

That makes sense to me.

Okay.

That was my only question. So my understanding is that Title 12 is going to get referred. as amended to joint planning and ordinance, and that section nine is going to refer to the Board of Health in this new paper format.

263A-26 would be Title IX going to the Board of Health. That was my understanding.

So Section A. So that would be, I guess, the first thing to split the paper and to do things. So I make that recommendation that the paper be split into two sections. and Section 12 to be referred to the joint hearing in this section.

Do we need two motions to split and then refer? Or can we split and refer?

You do not have to vote on splitting a paper. It can be done at any time. But you do have to vote to amend.

Right. So then... I guess with the consent of the council, the recommendation of the committee is to split the paper into two sections.

Okay. I do have a light from the sponsor. I'm going to go to council a little long quickly before we take the vote.

If we could just be, if we could, I know it went back and forth in committee, and I just wanna make sure we're clear on what exactly the two different sections are gonna read. Could you go, do you have those prepared City Clerk, if you could.

Well, I don't have them prepared because they were kind of just thrown at me in the middle. So I have to go back and re-listen to the meeting. But basically, what I can tell you is that on paper, 263, there were, the draft paper was written with amendments to 12.28030. to 12.32060. There were three different sections, I have to open it up. And then when we came into committee tonight, the language on those sections were basically struck and rewritten. I swear to God, we've been here so long that the Wi-Fi shuts off and I can't get into it. I'm sorry, the Wi-Fi shut off.

So, but I think everybody, we I guess the consent is to split the paper into two sections. I guess that's the first thing, right? So that's done, I guess, by consent. Then it's just figuring out what the language is.

There was just one part. Yeah, I want to make sure you're comfortable. I'm sorry, yeah, no, I just wanted to make sure. The one part which was under home occupation, it was supposed to read here on number nine, this paper here. We were amending it at the very last statement to read, on-site sales shall be limited to prearranged pickup.

Oh, I did write that down, yeah.

So I just want to make sure that that's included.

Yes, that I have.

Yeah, that was made on the fly.

Right, I've got that.

The body of the first part, the number one inserting and to MCC, that whole first section. That's the amendment we need to do. Right, so that was being struck. The very first one on my paper. So I just want to make sure those two changes, that make sense?

It kind of feels like it was yesterday.

It was so long ago.

Yeah.

I don't know what we were striking. What I wrote down was that we were adding this to nine.

All of the proposals that we were adding, A, B, C, D, E, and F. are now being struck, and we are simply inserting this new highlighted Section 9, which reads, a residential kitchen, cottage food operation, permitted to produce cottage food products as regulated by 105 CMR 590, and regulation of the Malden Board of Health as it may be amended and provided that no retail or wholesale transactions are made on the premises except for prearranged pickup.

on-site sales with prearranged, limited to prearranged pickup.

Yep. And so that would be, that's, so that would be the, that would be one. And then there was, then there were the definitions, they were adding definitions of, Retail, Residential, Kitchen, Cottage Food Operation, and Cottage Food Products under 12.32.06. Yeah, so those are the, we were striking the original language of for Chapter 12 and substituting that. So that was the recommendation. So, yeah. So, yeah. Sorry. Okay.

So are we ready to vote on that amendment? So the paper's split. We need to vote on amending that language. Councilor O'Malley made the very helpful suggestion in committee that we add that language back in so that we could hear from the public as to what they think about allowing on-site pickup, which I thought was a very smart Suggestion. We've gone back and forth on that a lot. I think it's time to move it to the hearing and hear what the public thinks of it. All right. So I had Councilor Winslow made the motion on the amendment. Do I have a second? I just have one more. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilor Lalonde.

and then the second part was to make sure that what was written in for the Board of Health was that they were gonna go back. We were asking them, just to be clear, to go to the regulations dictated by the state's regulations on residential kitchen sanitation. I just wanna make sure, because there's a clear difference with how that's written, that's all. Because we're asking them to adopt that.

We're gonna ask the Board of Health to adopt the rules allowing residential kitchens consistent with Massachusetts Sanitary Code 105 CMR 590 and the guidance developed by Massachusetts Department of Public Health for residential kitchen operations. Yes, that's it.

Thank you. All right. So first we have to do the amendment of the paper. So make that amendment.

And I'll have Councilor LeWong second that. All in favor of the amendment?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, so that is amended.

So make a motion to refer that to the paper as amended to the Joint Planning and Rules and Ordinance Committee.

Okay, on a motion from Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor LeLong to refer. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Right. Okay.

Then I guess I'd make a motion, you know, per, as Michelle just explained in the language, to refer the... refer it to the Board of Health for development and consistent with the residential kitchen regulations of under under 105 CMR 590 and the guidance of the Department of Health.

Okay. On a motion by Councilor Winslow, seconded by Councilor LeLong to refer that section to the Board of Health. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. And then the third recommendation that the Rules and Ordinance Committee take up amendments to the solid waste regulations to accommodate residential kitchen.

I forgot about that one. Okay. Michelle, I'm just going to put you on that one too.

Okay.

Okay. A motion by Councilor Winslow. Can you restate that? I'm sorry.

So a motion to request that the... Rules and Ordinance Committee take up drafting amendments to our solid waste regulations to accommodate trash and composting from residential kitchens.

Thank you. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that is all set then, I think.

Next order of business. A lot of things going on tonight. We got it through.

Isn't it? The docket is clear. Does anybody have personal privilege? Oh my God, everybody does. Yes, Councilor Condon.

I'd like to address that paper. Okay.

The Cottage Kitchens? Oh, you want to talk about National Grid? It's already on the table.

Yeah, I'd like to continue to leave it on the table.

Oh, okay.

Rough treatment tonight.

Oh, man.

Okay, Councilor Crowe.

Thank you, Madam President. So I thought I'd start off the 4th of July announcements. So Ward 1 and Ward 2 will be hosting the annual movie night in the park on the 3rd of July at Green Street Park. We start at 6.30. We have some music and we'll have some inflatables and other things. And the movie starts about, it's sundown, so that's usually about 8.45. So just to plan accordingly. And we always give a hint of the movie. and it's when Buzz and Woody first meet, considering they're on their fifth saga. So come on over, come on over. Just keep an eye, we will reschedule for another time if this looks like rain because we tried to move it last year and it's not as easy, movable, not something close, but so. and on the 4th of July at Deva Park from nine to 1230 ish in the Deva Park is next to the Irish American.

We will have inflatable rides, water slides, races, Pony Rides, Face Painting, Cookout, Frozen Treats, a three-on-three basketball tournament. And so if you're in grades or going to grades five through eight, you can sign up through the rec department. It's a lot of fun. And we have some... and we'll have just a lot of fun. So I hope everyone comes down and enjoys. We're always looking for volunteers. The more hands, the better. So you can reach out to me or Councilor Condon and have a wonderful Independence Day.

Thank you, Councillor Crowe. Councillor Sica.

Thank you, Council President. I just want to wish all Malden public school students a wonderful summer. I spent the afternoon with a bunch of them bowling, including little Miss Phoebe and the mayor. They were hysterical. We had, I don't know, there might have been 100 kids there. It was really nice because a lot of them were... I actually had more older kids today than I had younger kids. It was really awesome. So we had a lot of fun. So I just wish them a... A safe and happy, healthy summer. And then I'm going to keep it short and sweet. The Fourth of July at Linden Park is on the Fourth of July, Saturday. We open festivities at 8.45 a.m. and we go till about noon. It's the usual, same every year, just about, and we got a few little surprises up our sleeve for the 250th birthday celebration of America. I hope to see all my Ward 8 residents there. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Sica. Councilor Taylor. Thank you, Council Resident. So Ward 5 sleeps in a little bit. We will be on the 4th, but we start at 10 a.m. And we go until 1 p.m. And we do have our petting zoo back. So that was a lot of fun last year. Slush. lunch, races, and inflatables as well. So come down to Forestdale Park at 10 a.m. and enjoy the 4th of July with Ward 5.

Thank you, Councilor Taylor. Councilor Colón Hayes.

Thank you. First, I just want to say thank you to everyone who showed up to our Juneteenth Freedom Celebration here in Malden. It was tremendous. All the community groups, all the performers, it was just a day that started off rocky but ended up being a fabulous celebration so I just want to thank everybody for that and our fabulous team we're going to be doing a debrief if anyone has any notes they'd like to text me on how we can improve or what we did great, please send them to me. And also Fuji, Friends of Oak Grove Inc, we're having our fishing festival this Saturday, nine to 12 at, We're going to have the mass wildlife anglers there. And I'm hoping I'm going to pronounce this right, but the traveling Akafikari? Is that right? Okay, good. Yeah, so they'll be there and very excited about that. There'll be some games and we teach folks how to fish and help them learn there.

There's no prizes. it's just a relaxing day. And then our pride, I'm sure a lot of people are probably gonna bring this up too. I was actually just, following up with some things with them, but Pride celebration is Sunday the 28th from 12 to 4 at Corte Melilla. I'll let you go into the details of that at your park, but I am super excited about that. It gets bigger and better every year. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Colón Hayes. Councilor O'Malley.

Award for Independence Day will be on July 4th, also 9 a.m., Quarterly Park. And I actually just want to give a nice shout out to Caduce, one of our students at Malden High School, who got a great grant from Social Capital Inc. to do a rain garden at Quarter Millie Park. So Caduce, Karen Buck, the DPW, and the Water Department spent our Saturday all day installing this rain garden, so go check it out. When we put the path in with the Community Development Block Grant a number of years ago, The bottom of the path near the basketball court would always flood when it rained a lot. And so, you know, with this collaboration, we were able to put this rain garden in and literally not even a couple hours later, We had thunderstorms that completely downpoured and we were able to prove that the rain garden does work. It's not a petting zoo, but it's a rain garden. So please stay out. Thanks.

Cool. Thank you, Councillor O'Malley. Councillor Winslow.

Great. Well, I do want to say if anybody's around tomorrow at 11 at Trafton Park, we're going to have a ribbon cutting for the new shade structures there that are for picnic area. Thanks to the Baird Foundation for donating that funding there. We have some spots in Drafton where we can't really grow trees effectively, so having shade structures over the picnic benches is a real nice amenity. Linehan will not have to put up a tarp anymore if she goes over there. That was kind of one of the inspirations one time. Forever be remembered for my tarp. We are going to be Sooners this year for the Independence Celebration. We are going. Ward 6 is happening on July 3rd at Trafton Park. So our festivities are 9 a.m. to noon. You know, we start out with the Pledge of Allegiance and the

and that, and then we open up things to our races, bouncy houses, water slides. We have pony rides that start around 11. We have food that Henry Catering, Henry's Catering is catering again. Richie Slush, face painting, races and games, our basketball shootout. You can come out and show off your costumes or your talent. And we do have some special 250th toys we're giving out. So you all aren't busy on the third day. If you want to drop by, if you have a moment, I'm sure you're going to be pretty busy. We're starting things out, so everybody's welcome to come out to Ward 6 on Friday the 3rd. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Winslow. Well, seeing no other lights from the chair, I'll invite anybody who's around. I just want to give one more reminder about the 4th and Ward 3. We're going to be celebrating at Amherst Park on Saturday the 4th from 10 to 1, so come on down. and if anybody's interested in volunteering, of course, we always love to have more volunteers. With that, do we have a motion to recess to the call of the chair? Okay, motion by Councilor Crowe, seconded by Councilor McDonald. All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned at 9.55. We are recessed. We are recessed. At almost 10, but not quite. Thank you, everyone.