2023-10-17 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
2023-10-17 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - We're on. It's hard when it's back there.
SPEAKER2 - I'd like to call the committee on municipalities and regional government, committee to order. My name is Jake Olivera, and I am the chair of the municipalities committee on the senate side, and I'm so pleased today to be joined by my friend and colleague from Northampton, from the western part of the state, who's filling in For, chairwoman Carol Faiola, state representative Lindsey Sabadosa, thank you, and welcome to the, welcome hoping to run a meeting.
With that, I'll turn it over to my, my vice chair to introduce the house members of the committee that are present.
SPEAKER3 - Wonderful. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us today. I would like to recognize the house members. We have Rep Phillips, Rep Scarsdale, Rep Shand, and I believe that's it for right now, though we may have others joining us virtually.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you, madam vice chair. I'd now like to start, before we go into testimony, going over a few logistics before We start the committee hearing. We are operating in a hybrid, model like all of our committee hearings now, but, unfortunately, the monitors in front of us and on the side of us are not working. So the only screen that actually is working is right behind, the rostrum here. So if you can fix your attention for committee members, you might be straining your necks to see, people that are testifying virtually, but they are behind us, and we will be able to hear them. I'd also like to remind those that are testifying virtually to make sure that you testify that mute your Teams app when you are not testifying. When you are testifying, please unmute. We'll give you a couple of seconds with the transition. Please keep in mind that money today is limited to 3 minutes. We will be taking legislators out of order. And if they have panels, we'll make sure to include them as well. I know, representative Shand has someone that's gonna be testifying, so, we'll give you a few minutes to walk on the other side to give your If you're not able to be heard today and if our technology fails at some point, please send in your written testimony. We will be taking in written testimony only until Tuesday, October 24th at 5 PM. You may submit your testimony to the municipalities committee@gmail com, and please address your comments to the co chairs of this committee. As I mentioned before, legislators will go out of turn. And if any members do have any questions at some point, feel free to get my attention or vice chair Sabados' attention to be recognized. With that, I am going to go through the list of first who have signed up to testify, and we are so pleased163 to have, state representative Machino Fromm Hall joining us to testify on a bill House Bill 4037.
REP MESCHINO - HB 4037 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here today, it's a home rule petition, an act relative to certain parcels of land in the town of Cohasset. My Cohasset town manager, Chris Senior, should be online with two of his staff members to both testify and to answer questions. He'll explain to you that this arose as a town meeting194 warrant article that was approved by town198 meeting in their most recent town meeting in May. It is a public safety issue, that he'll explain to you around cell phone reception. The reason I came in today was because this particular article involves Article 97 land, so what they're proposing to do is responsive to their public safety need for better cell phone reception, they are proposing to swap out two parcels of Article 97 land. I'll let him talk to you about the details; it's very practical, it makes sense but it is the first time, that we have to do new regulations that were promulgated and are responsive to EEA. And because it's Article 97, the town had to go through the process to actually, not just swap out one for the other, but they're giving up Article 97 letter, so they had to put another parcel of equal value into Article 97. We have done that, he will tell you all the details, I will not presume to explain it but I wanted to make sure you knew that we are liaising with EEA and we have gotten their preliminary approval to file the Bill and to278 move forward. I think we probably shared the email with your excellent and if there's anything more that the committee needs us to do, just let us know. We have requested a more express approval process, I'm not sure they have approval process yet but we did get that that initial authorization that said, we could do this. So I just wanted to make sure that I306 came in myself to explain that, and then I'm happy to stay if you want to take the town manager to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Absolutely. Thank you, representative. Are there any questions by members of the committee? Seeing that there are none so far,323 I'm gonna turn it over to your panel if325 you wanna stick around
SPEAKER4 - I will.
SPEAKER2 - Right now. So we have from the town of Oh, Hassett, I believe, on is, Michelle Leary, Ron Maynard, William Quigley, and John Dockery.
SPEAKER4 - And Chris senior.
SPEAKER2 - And Chris
SPEAKER6 - Unfortunately, Chris hasn't, isn't available right now. He had342 an incident that he had to attend to, but the rest344 of us are here.
SPEAKER4 - Great. Great.
SPEAKER2 - Feel free to start your testimony.
SPEAKER7 - Go ahead.
RON MENARD - TOWN OF COHASSET - HB 4037 - Well, thank you very much for bringing us in and allowing us to speak on this very important topic. The town of Cohasset has been wrestling with critically poor cellular signals for multiple years. We've had multiple studies done over that period of time, it's been identified throughout numerous regions along the coast that there's absolutely no cell signal whatsoever. This has presented a public safety issue and has had, poor results while 911 was trying to get a call for emergency situations. I'll allow the police and fire chief to speak more directly about the incidents potentially that had occurred in the past that brought us to this point, but we have done a fair amount of diligence with regards to identifying a suitable solution, as well as mitigation parcels that we want to utilize as part of this Chapter 97 Article. I will say that we have done and invested in the town of Cohasset's 911 systems through stopgap measures, including call boxes, both satellite wide at numerous locations, but those are just not420 sufficient enough to cover the vast422 area that is plagued with this issue. With that, I'd like to either ask for any questions or turn it over to the police and fire chief. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Feel Feel free to turn it over to the police and fire chief, and we'll ask any questions after you're done testifying. Thank you.
WILLIAM QUIGLEY - COHASSET POLICE DEPARTMENT - HB 4037 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William Quigley, I'm the police chief in Cohasset. Thank you for having us447 today. To reiterate what Ron said, we have a large swath of land that sits between Holland Cohasset with absolutely zero cell service, this is not hyperbole. We've had medical emergencies, at a beach in this area, and people are unable to contact 911. They have to run maybe a quarter mile, down the road and try to bang on doors and get someone with a landline. This has happened numerous times over the last three years and it's posing a significant public safety issue, and we fully support rectifying the situation, and we hope that you'll approve this transfer of land. Thank you.
JOHN DOCKRAY - COHASSET FIRE DEPARTMENT - HB 4037 - Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Dockray, the fire chief of the town of Cohasset. Again, thank you for having us this morning. One of the other issues too is, we have major nor'easters. This part of town loses power, so, it drops out communication with individuals in emergencies and the cell coverage doesn't meet getting in touch with us. So this tower would help that cell coverage, especially when there's a loss of power525 in525 that area to notify us in case of emergencies. Again, thank you529 for hearing our testimony. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you,533 chiefs, and thank you for testifying. Are there any questions from committee members? I will I will say We are been joined by state representative Brian Hamilton from Methuen. Thanks for joining us, representative.
SPEAKER5 - Madam
SPEAKER2 - vice president.
REP SABADOSA - A question either for Rep Meschino or for anyone on the panel. I551 was wondering if the construction of the553 cellular tower is going to interfere with the555 usage of the park?
MESCHINO - The quick answer to that is no. I'll leave it to the Chiefs to describe it, but it's a very narrow piece of land, it's not actually fully utilized. This did go through town meeting, was approved unanimously, so there shouldn't be any opposition by neighbors, and I think we've provided the certified copy already to the committee. I think everyone understands that they're tired of losing coverage, they're worried about being able to call 911. This has always been a space where it's been spotty and now it's just non existent, which has really been problematic. So, I think everybody is on board, the town of Cohasset actually has taken many strides over the years, they have a wonderful land conservation trust. They've put a tremendous amount of land, Wampatuck State Park is part of here, Wheeler Park, they have a lot of walking trails. This is really sort tucked off to the side, it's just not contributing to the larger piece. So in my mind, it's a win from the public safety perspective but it's also win from the environmental perspective because we'll be capturing and bringing a different piece of a parcel into it, where it might be better utilized.
MENARD - Yes, absolutely. If you compare the two parcels, the wheelwright parcel, which is being utilized, approximately two651 acres of land for the cell tower, in conjunction or in contrast to that is a property we refer to as the Esposito property, that is out of six acres of land, similar in666 scope with regards to the topology and use. So it fits very well with mitigating any public park designation that the wheelwright might have removed within those two acres. It's a win for the town, it's $115,000, I believe assessed value for the Esposito property as opposed to approximately $20,000 for the two acres of the wheelwright. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Any other questions from committee members. Seeing that there's none, thank you,699 representative, and thank you from our friends on the701 South Shore for joining us today.
SPEAKER4 - We appreciate it. We look forward to working with the committee staff to finalize this.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much. Take care.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you. Thank you, Lucas. Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Next, we have representative I apologize
SPEAKER12 - for the interruption. I just got A text from Boston City Council, Sharon Durkin. She's trying to get online and needs a connection. She said she doesn't have it.
SPEAKER7 - I have received it. Okay.
SPEAKER2 - We received an email on that. Okay. Alright. Thank you. No. No. No. Thanks for clarifying. No. Next, we731 have state representative Brian Murray from Milford733 who's testifying on House Bill 2090. Representative Murray.
SPEAKER13 - Mister chairman, nice to see you.
SPEAKER5 - Nice to
SPEAKER14 - see you
SPEAKER13 - too.
REP MURRAY - HB 2090 - Mr. Chairman, nice to see you, Madam Vice Chair, committee members, thank you for taking me out of order. I'm here to testify on Bill, H 2090, this is an act to improve parking and pedestrian safety. As I think the committee knows, there's also two other identical Bills, H761 2106,761 which is filed by Chairman Roy, and H 3603 which has been filed by Rep Vanna Howard. Obviously, we should have coordinated our efforts better, but I think this is an important Bill, and I just want to take a little bit of time to try to explain it. Basically, it calls for when you have a situation, you have municipal on street angle or perpendicular parking adjacent to a commercial building, it's going to require safety appurtenances to be constructed and that brings to mind the ballads that we see. It defines commercial building, which I think is important in terms of construction, reconstruction, or substantial rehab805 which cost in excess of $1,000,000, that would trigger the requirement. Any requirement that has to be built has to be in accordance with local zoning bylaws. The Bill also looks to establish a commission, a pedestrian safety design advisory group to investigate best practices going forward because there are obviously a multitude of different designs and buildings that we have that are subjected to this kind of thing. You know, the idea is836 is a clear one, it's to prevent vehicles from going into buildings, and I think, certainly, when you just look at the news at night, it844 seems like every day, this occurrence is happening somewhere, whether it's a convenience store, a Dunkin' Donuts, whatever. I reached out to the Storefront Safety Initiative, which was started in 2017 by the Storefront Safety Council, and their purpose is to end vehicle into building crashes, and they provide resources to private property owners as well as municipalities towards that end. They have some interesting statistics. Nationally, they find there are at880 least 100 incidents every day882 throughout the country resulting in 4,000, injuries annually and 2600 deaths annually across the country. I will be submitting written testimony on this, and with that will be a list from the storefront safety initiative that shows a partial listing of incidents in Massachusetts just dating back about the last 10 years or so, and there's over 900, close to 1,000 incidents just on that alone.913 So I think the need is there, I think that this Bill is a good common sense way to start, and, I would ask for a favorable report. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Thank924 you, representative. Are there any questions from committee members? Seeing that there are none, I would also like to introduce, state representative Tram Nguyen from Andover, who has joined us here today. And I know that Representative Howard, I ran into her in the hallway, and she'll be coming down to testify as well on this in a little while. And we'll see if chairman Roy and is able to make it as well. Seeing that there's no further questions, thank you for testifying before us.
SPEAKER13 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Very much. Next, we're gonna move on to to a some folks that have joined us virtually, state representative Pat Haddad and her, fire chief from Swanzey. Eric Hadjter have joined us. Mhmm. I think you're on here, representative Hadad. Can you hear us?
SPEAKER15 - I I am. I can hear you.
REP HADDAD - HB 4047 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thank you so much for taking me out of turn and including, Chief Hayter from Swansea. We're here to testify on House 4047, establishing a trust to administer a length of service program for the Swansea Fire Department. The Chief can give you lots of details, but I just want to say that Swansea has the largest volunteer fire group in the state, and they also have the most land area that they cover. So we1012 have, for many years,1014 been able to get lots and lots of people to volunteer to be in the fire service in Swansea. Several years ago, we did, a home rule petition which allowed the town of Swansea to give a tax break on property tax to people who would serve. So this is another way to entice people to become part of the service and also retain those who have been serving for quite a long time and also give them a reward for hanging with it and doing all the things that they do. So let me turn it over to the chief so he can talk much more about his department.
ERIC HAJDER - SWANSEA FIRE DEPARTMENT - HB 4047 - Good morning, thank you for having me today, and thank you to Representative Haddad for championing our efforts as she always does, very much appreciated. As you're well aware, the fire service today becomes more and more difficult for us to attract and certainly to retain. I think that's especially important here with the volunteer fire department. Our staff as the Representative had alluded to was entirely volunteer, we are certainly proud of that, but we certainly have our struggles, and over the years, it's become more and more difficult to attract and retain those firefighters. This particular program that we have put forward is another step to that end. We had some success with improving our recruitment and retention through the tax incentive program that we had put in place about 11 years ago now, this would be the second program that would allow us to be able to support our volunteers, hopefully attract new volunteers, and certainly reward those long standing volunteers for their time of service. It is vitally important to us to be able to continue that, we take great pride certainly in our volunteer fire department. The history, the heritage that we have, we want to see that continue as it would become a significant burden on the community should we not be able to do so and had to turn to a career fire department. We are hoping that this program will pay dividends to that end, we're certainly hopeful that this in conjunction with the other programs have will allow us to continue our volunteer fire department. The program would be essentially a very short or small kind of rewarded pension, if you will based on the length of service through the town, they would be receiving1165 something after their retirement. Again, a way to to entice them to stay longer in the service. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer on the program but we certainly would appreciate your support in this, to helping us to retain our members and certainly helping us to retain the volunteer fire service in Swansea. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you, chief. Before I turn it over to the committee for questions, I'd like to introduce state Representative Michelle Dubois from Brockton News joined us. Thank you, representative. And now, committee members, any questions, for the chief or representative Haddad?
Seeing none. Thank you, chief. Thank you, representative, for joining us.
HADDAD - Mr. chairman, can I just add one thing that we've forgotten? The board of selectmen is on board and so is the advisory and finance committee, as is the town administrator. They may try to get in today, but I just wanted to make sure that you realize that the town is 100% behind this. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great.
SPEAKER5 - You.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, representative. Thank you both for your testimony. Turning now to, someone who is here virtually, I'd like to invite state representative Dawn Chan to, to the table to testify with her, from the town of Merrimack, a select board member, Chris Manny, who has joined us as well. Representative Shand, you're here to testify on h 4097.
REP SHAND - HB 4097 - Thank you, Chair Vieira, Madam Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Yes, I am here to testify on behalf of the town of Merrimac, their act is 4097, an act to increase the membership of the select board of the town of Merrimac from three members to five members. So Merrimac is new to the first Essex, it is a gem of a community, the population has stayed roughly the same, it's grown about 500 people between 2010 and 2020. However, the number of registered voters has increased substantially more since, 2006 to 2023, we think they have approximately 1500 more voters. So the impulse behind this town warrant is a really democratic impulse, there are just so many more people who want to participate in municipal governance. Currently, Merrimac has a town administrator and the three person select board but it's a town that faces a complexity of decision making and infrastructure that's much bigger than a town of Roughly 6700 people. The select board, I've also noticed is responsible for the town's most treasured traditions. It's Santa parade, it's old home days, so they really need to be able to share the leadership and the civic responsibilities more broadly. I'm going to let the Chair of the select board, Mr. Chris Manny, testify and talk a1335 little bit more about the impulse behind1337 the Bill and why it passed unanimously and what they hope to accomplish.
CHRIS MANNI - MERRIMAC SELECT BOARD - HB 4097 - Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you, Vice Chair, and all committee members. Representative Shand, as always, thank you for all of your support, your unwavering commitment to the great town of Merrimac and thank you so much for testifying in those kind words. What I would like the committee to know today about H 4097 is really as Representative Shand said, it is a call for civic engagement. At this point, where Merrimac is is we are what I would say, is a quaint New England town, but with many opportunities for expansion and improvement. From an economic development standpoint, I think priorities have changed over the years, I think the expectation of our community and our citizens have changed, and I think with that, along with some of the other more fun activities, as Representative Shand said, as old home days said, the Santa,1404 parade and those types of activities, the expectations have been raised. I think that's1410 probably not just for the Merrimac select board, I think that's probably across many different municipalities across the state where citizens are very engaged, they're very in tune to what is happening in their municipality. At this point, moving from three members to five members, I think it's going to better serve our community, not only engaging them directly, but also engaging with folks as yourselves, right? Our elected officials in the state house, and the various departments that we have to work with on a daily basis. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions, I just want to say once again, thank you all for your time today and consideration, and, once again, thank you, Dawne for your continued support as always. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, chairman Manning. And representative, are there any questions from committee members start 1st, with representative Scarsdale.
SPEAKER18 - Yes. Thank you.
REP SCARSDALE - Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this change also reflected in the town charter, or is Merrimac not governed by a town charter?
MANNI - So this did go to town meeting, so this is our home rule petition so then we could update our bylaws.
SCARSDALE - Can I ask a point of clarification? So usually in town charters, the membership of boards are expressly laid out. So will this home rule petition be in conflict with your charter or is it not laid out in your charter? How, like, representation on the board, the number?
MANNI - So as this home rule petition goes through, we will update our general bylaws with our legal counsel to make sure that there is no conflict with the charters. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER18 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, representative, representative Salvadosa.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. And I1527
SABADOSA - I think this is probably going to be a question for Chair Manni, although I'm happy to have the Representative answer as well. I just wanted to clarify because I had a note that the Article passed 49 to 38 at town meeting, but then I heard you say unanimous. So I just wanted to clarify what that process looked like1543 and if there were multiple votes or what1545 occurred?
MANNI - So, basically, it was unanimous among the select board members, so it was 3-0 from the select board members, and I would say across the finance committee, capital planning committee, everyone that is heavily involved, I think they understand what the expectations are of their town government, and they very much respected that vote. Now, at town meeting, there was healthy discussion about whether we should expand the select board from three to five or if we should go a different avenue, maybe as a town manager. So that's where I think that there were maybe some conflicts about what the1581 community was thinking, but regardless, the spirit of it is capacity and increased representation. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. It it certainly wouldn't be town meeting without healthy debate, so I appreciate hearing that.
SPEAKER7 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Are there any other questions from committee members? Seeing none. Thank you, representative. You can join us on this again.
SPEAKER19 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - And, thank you, chairman Manning, for joining us as well.
SPEAKER17 - Thank you, Evelyn.
SPEAKER2 - Moving now to very close to where we sit today, there There was a bill that was been filed by representative Livingstone having to do with1615 historic Beacon Hill districts, and we are joined virtually by city councilor Sharon Durkin from The Boston City Council. Counselor, are are you on?
SPEAKER20 - Yes. I am.
SPEAKER2 - Welcome, counselor. You have 3 minutes to testify.
SHARON DURKAN - BOSTON CITY COUNCIL - HB 4076 - Thank you so much to the Chair and members of the committee for listening to our testimony today. I'm here to voice my support for House Bill 4076 on behalf of my constituents and lovers of history in the city of Boston. The effort to expand Beacon Hills Historic District has been a labor of love for some time now and I'd like to quickly start by thanking engaged neighbors, the members and leaders of the Beacon Hills Civic Association, Representative Livingstone and my predecessor, Kenzie Bock, for working so diligently to move this as a priority for so many years. Right now, along Cambridge Street, there's a 40 foot wide gap in Beacon Hills Historic District from West Cedar to Bowdoin Street. As a resident of the North Slope of Beacon Hill, I live so close to the edge of this boundary and cross through and it shares the same1737 history, the same characteristics, and as understood by both our residents and visitors is being one in the same of the rest of Beacon Hill. The North Slope of Beacon Hill is currently home to the Museum of African American History and was historically home to Boston's African American community. Many of these structures, leaders, and icons lived in the area are currently being preserved by the historic district, and this expansion will protect these great Bostonians and considered part of their community. Expanding the historic district towards Cambridge Street to cover this edge will correctly align the district with the natural boundaries of Beacon Hill, what we all understand the historic district to truly be. It's a common sense adjustment that will make preserving our neighborhood a little bit easier and straightforward. On behalf of my district 8 constituents and my North Slope neighbors, I ask you to support House Bill 4076, and thank you for your time today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you, counselor. And I know we have some people that are here1796 in person to testify. But before we do that, I wanna introduce, State senator Ed Kennedy, the vice chair of this community of this committee, thank you for joining us, senator Kennedy.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Are there any questions for the counselor? Vice chair Sabadosa.
SPEAKER3 - Yes.
SABADOSA - Councilor, I was just wondering if you could tell us about the public hearing process, that led to this home rule being filed?
DURKAN - So the home rule petition, there was a lot of community the leadership on behalf of the Beacon Hill Civic Association. So just a little history here, in 1963, there was some concern that an expanded historic district on the North of Beacon Hill might interfere with the city of Boston's plans at the time to build a new fire station at the side of Cambridge Street now that it now exists. So, given that there's new development happening, on on MGH's campus, and construction is beginning, a lot of people just felt like we should right the wrong of 1963 and get these 40 feet, part of a historic district, but there was just a history of of why these 40 feet weren't included originally. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.1873 That's very helpful.
SPEAKER2 - Great. Any other committee members
SPEAKER11 - who have questions?
SPEAKER2 - Seeing None. Thank you, counselor, for joining us, and we'll turn over to a few folks that have joined us in person, to support this as well.
SPEAKER20 - Thank you so much.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, counselor. Have a good day. We have Nicholas Armada. Are you here, Nicholas? Do you wanna come up together, or do you wanna testify separately? We also have Mark Kiefer, who's here as well. Mark. And we also have Is Megan here? Megan? So and then Robert, Whitney? Alright. Do you guys wanna testify separately, or do you all wanna come up?
SPEAKER12 - Probably separately. Yeah.
SPEAKER2 - Alright. Separate. That's fine. Yeah. Alright. The floor is yours, Nick.
SPEAKER21 - Great.
NICHOLAS ARMATA - BOSTON LANDMARKS COMMISSION - HB 4076 - Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chairman, thank you so much for having us today. Special thank you to Representative Livingstone for shepherding this petition through. My name is Nick Armata, I am the senior planner for the Boston Landmarks Commission, and part of my responsibilities are managing the day to day activities with the Beacon Hill Historic1937 District, and I'm here today to speak in support of the expansion of the district. For background, established in 1955 and expanded in 1958, 1963, and 1975, Beacon Hill is the oldest protected historic district in the Commonwealth and one of the oldest national register districts in the country. Although the buildings facing the South side of Campus Street are currently outside of the district, many of them are no less historic than the properties that are currently in the district. Expanding the district to encompass the entirety of the South side of Cambridge Street is essential to safeguard the numerous historically significant structures that greatly enhance the unique sense of space in one of the nation's most culturally important neighborhoods. This extension would provide protection to several key landmarks on Cambridge Street, including the Puffer's building at 214-218 Cambridge Street, an integral part of the cigar rolling industry that thrived on the hill throughout the 19th century. Number 228, Cambridge Street, which is an activist organizing hub for the LGBTQ community during the mid 20th century, and 310-316 Cambridge Street, emblematic of the early 20th century automobile culture and currently services a legacy business of Harvard Gardens, which is deeply rooted in the neighborhood's history.
For background of the current boundaries as, Councilor Durkan had just mentioned, it's likely that today's boundary stopped at his current location 40 feet from the curb of Cambridge Street, so it's not to impede in the construction of a new fire station currently located at 200 Cambridge. Today, that is, fire station is there in a valued part of the community. Furthermore, it's crucial to understand that expansion of this district will not impose a ban on new destruction for non contributing sites on this side of Cambridge Street, instead, it will facilitate the incorporation of modern designs, that seamlessly blend with the distinct character of the hill. A good example of this is the Whitney Hotel at the corner of Charles and Cambridge Street, and, moreover, this designation will empower the community to have an influence on the design of these buildings through both the public input process of our commission as well as the members of the Beacon Hill architectural commission themselves who are members of the community. Finally, safeguarding this portion of the Cambridge Street will uphold and enhance the human scale development and walkability principles that planners like myself consider essential for fostering a dynamic and vibrant streetscape, conditions that are difficult to replicate in today's, landscape. Again, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate the work that you do for our Commonwealth, and thanks for having me speak today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Thank you, Nick, and thank you for educating me on the cigar industry on Beacon Hill that I did not know about. Yeah. As you probably know, coming from Western Massachusetts, both vice chair Sabadoso and I have a lot of tobacco fields and a lot of the wrappers on the outside, So it's interesting that
SPEAKER21 - before Aguana. Oh. Yeah. Wow.
SPEAKER2 - Alright. We have western Mass in the house. We like that.
SPEAKER5 - Yeah.
SPEAKER2 - Well, you you stick around. Southwick's coming, virtually testifying on a home rule. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for members of the committee for Nick before we turn it over? Oh, seeing none. Thank you very much. Next, we're going to Mark Keefer from Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, testifying on the same bill. Mark, Thank you thank you for joining us.
SPEAKER22 - Thank you.
MARK KIEFER - BEACON HILL ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION - HB 4076 - Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mark Kiefer, I am a 32 year resident of Beacon Hill. I formerly served as President and Chairman of the board of the Beacon Hill Civic Association and, most importantly, for our purposes today, I currently serve as the chairman of the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, the official regulatory body for the historic Beacon Hill District in which capacity I worked very closely with Mr. Armata. As you already heard from both Nick and, councilor Durkan, the historic district has been expanded many times, several times over the years as, in the light of, fuller knowledge, we have come to appreciate the further historic resources in the district. It's worth noting that two of the most significant historic resources now in the district that now comprise the Museum of African American History, the Abel Smith School Building, the first public school building for black children in the United States, and the African Meeting House, the oldest excellent black church building in the country and the birthplace of the 19th century abolitionist movement were not in the district when it was first created. So I think, there is certainly a precedent to suggest that we have come to appreciate that there are additional resources worthy of this protection. I want to reassure you in the first instance that there's three things this legislation won't do. It won't impose additional burdens on existing property owners, the enabling legislation already provides for the grandfathering or2221 legacy, if that's a word, of existing buildings.
So they're not going to have to go back and make changes to apply with the guidelines. As Nick already stated, it won't preclude the further development of Cambridge Street and the positive economic impacts that that will bring, the enabling legislation already provides for new construction and buildings, as Nick said, and it certainly won't preclude or pre and the existing other regulatory processes that govern new development, most importantly, zoning and licensing, which will ultimately determine if a new restaurant can be built there or how tall the buildings will be and so forth. What it will do, and I think the important benefits of this legislation will be as Nick said, it will ensure the preservation of existing important historic resources, which we've come to appreciate are included in that 40 foot stretch, not currently in the district. It'll provide important standards for new development and renovations. We have two standards we work with, historical architectural appropriateness and importantly, quality of workmanship that ensures that the materials used and the methods used are of the finest quality. Importantly, finally, it provide for a transparent public hearing process which will give us another opportunity to vet architectural changes in Cambridge Street with public input. That's what we do every month at the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, and this is particularly important because this portion of Cambridge Street is an important gateway to both the community and the city. So I'd, urge you to adopt this very important legislation. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER5 - Thank you
SPEAKER2 - thank you so much, Mark.
SEN OLIVEIRA - This is less about the actual Bill before us, but we are sitting on a top Beacon Hill right here. Do you do any work with the state house itself, or is that completely out of it? I mean, this is just for me. I probably shouldn't ask this more of a sidebar conversation, since we're here.
KIEFER - Right. There are two per se exemptions in the original legislation. 1 is the property of Suffolk University, which has since been sold off, and so that no2341 longer applies. But the other is property of the Commonwealth, so believe it or not, this incredibly nationally, and I dare2347 say, globally significant historic building is technically not in the historic district. Now, one could argue, of course, that because it is such a public building, it does enjoy a higher level of public scrutiny that has ensured2362 its maintenance as a great historic resource over the years, but the short answer to your question is, the State House is not in the district.
OLIVEIRA - Thank you. You'd be interested, I do have a Bill before another committee dealing with the renovations and long term planning of the State House is such an iconic feature here up at the statehouse, and, having traveled to 30 other state capitals and state houses across the country, obviously, this place holds a special place in my heart, but it's also kind of the center point of the city of2392 Boston and our Commonwealth. So, take a look at that when you get a chance. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER22 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Appreciate it. Any other questions from, committee members? Representative Samanos.
SPEAKER3 - I
SABADOSA - I do have a quick question. So I was just looking over the text of the Bill, and so it says that the language previously adopted exclusions, allowing changes that don't alter the design, material, color, outward appearance, right? So one of things that we found with our historical commission is that sometimes, homeowners in particular, have found it very difficult to work within the confines of what the historical commission wants, but also to modernize their homes to meet the demands of climate change, and we had very significant issues with this. So I just wonder, is there something in this that I'm reading that will allow homeowners to make sure that their homes last into the next century as well, or do you foresee potential conflicts arising?
KIEFER - That's a great question. This issue is one that the historic preservation community generally has been grappling with over the last several years. Our experience so far suggests that this is not unresolvable conflict, and it doesn't necessarily need to be a conflict. For example, I've been very involved with historic New England for many years, they own 38 historic house properties throughout New England,2467 and it's the largest and oldest regional conservation organization in the country. They did a very significant, renovation of the Lyman estate in Waltham, where they're both able to reduce the energy consumption by 67% and all of it is completely invisible and retains 100% of the historic fabric of the building. So I don't think environmental concerns, and particularly climate change and historic preservation need to be in conflict. It's also important to point out that preservation itself, you could argue is an environmental observation measure. How many times have we seen significant renovations where an entire interior winds up in the dumpster? And, our mandate has long been to preserve existing historic materials to the maximum extent possible rather than replacing them, and that in itself, reduces emissions and therefore, contributes positively to the fight against climate change. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER15 - Thank Thank
SPEAKER2 - you. Great. Any other, questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you so much for joining us. And next, we'll go to Megan Hoff and the Beacon Hill Civic Association for their and you're their board chair. Thank you.
MEGAN AWE - BEACON HILL CIVIC ASSOCIATION - HB 4076 - Thank you Chair and Vice Chair and members of the committee for your time this morning. My name is Megan Awe, I'm the board Chair of the Beacon Hill Civic Association coming after several of my neighbors and colleagues beside me. The Beacon Hill Civic Association supports the district expansion as described in H 4076, an act to enhance the Beacon Hill Historic District. The city council put a home rule petition, and that hearing was held in on March 20th, 2023, the docket number is 051 and that petition2580 was2580 for a special law, and act2582 to make certain changes in the law relative2584 to the historic Beacon Hill District. As you well know, the district was created in 1955 and expanded in 1963 to the current area. Because of, as mentioned, the plans for a new fire station at 200 Cambridge Street which was completed in 1965, the district stops 40 feet South of Cambridge Street, a small area of the neighborhood remains outside the historic district. The latest expansion will include the North2616 slope on the south side of Cambridge Street, and there are many historically significant2620 buildings and facades on North slope along Cambridge Street as well as a portion of the district, which includes Otis House, which is the last freestanding home on the North side of Cambridge Street, which is the West end.
The North slope of Beacon Hill is home to the Museum of African history, the African meeting house, and several sites connected to the underground railroad. It's also the center of Boston's early black community. It continues to be home to the Vilna Shoal, which is center for Jewish culture and the only immigrant era synagogue remaining in Boston. Many of the buildings along the portion of Cambridge Street that are not included in the historic district and have been mentioned previously are no less significant than the buildings I've just mentioned to you. In addition to the importance of the architectural contributions, the Beacon Hills Civic Association has worked since 1922 to protect and enhance the quality of residential character of the buildings and life in Beacon Hill. The expansion will help the BHCA's efforts in advocating for his residents, ensuring public input through the community process, also as mentioned before. So thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much, Megan, any questions for Megan before we turn to the next panel? Seeing none, thank you so much for joining. Next, we Robert Whitney, who's a Beacon Hill resident, to testify in the same bill. Robert.
SPEAKER12 - How are you? Try not to be too competitive. It's a big these are great speakers. First.
ROBERT WHITNEY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 4076 - Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members, good morning. I am Rob Whitney, I'm an attorney practicing in Boston here. I've lived on Beacon Hills since 1985, I also was an 18 year member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association Board of Directors. I was was the former President and the2729 Chair right before Megan, and I'm here to personally support, Representative Livingstone's Bill to enhance the Beacon Hill Historic District. As you know and we've heard, the idea is to basically move the boundary line from 40 feet up from Cambridge Street down to the Cambridge Street itself. As Nick Armata mentioned, one of the important features here is that this will protect the sort of last piece of what we colloquially refer to as Beacon Hill that got, I'd like to say, inadvertently left out of the historic district, it was as and I've actually done the sort of the history of looking at this happened, and it literally was in order to make room for the fire station instead of sort of making an inset into the district, they just drew a line from one end to the other and and excised it, which is an interesting way to do it, but that was what was done. And was mentioned by, councilor Durkan, the fire station was built almost 60 years ago, and yet since then, there's been efforts on and off by the Beacon Hill Civic Association and other concerned citizens to basically correct this omission from from the original historic edition for the North slope.
I live on the North slope, I live about 100 feet up from the 40 foot strip, and as already been testified to, I'm very supportive of the historic features within the North slope and also that still exists within the 40 foot slope. As we mentioned, there's a great history of the African American presence on Beacon Hill, particularly in the 40 foot strip area. There are Bills, some have been raised since that time, but there are few structures left that go back to the 1860s, and it's very important that we have the opportunity to try to protect them. One thing I did want to mention as well, as was mentioned briefly, Mass General hospital is busy constructing a very large project right across the street from the area we're talking about and there has been great concern by, at least, residents in my neighborhood about the effect that2849 will have on Beacon Hill, and there's a great desire to try to protect the last little sliver that is unprotected, that is not covered2855 by the protection of the architectural2857 commission as Mark Kiefer and Nick talked about, and that we think need to be brought into it to protect those last pieces of the history of what I call the last little bit of the North slope on that part. There is just I want to bring your attention to one other small change in the Bill, and that basically gives the authority to the commission to levy fines for violations of the enabling Act and the Beacon Hill Architectural guidelines. Right now, the commission does not have the specific authority, so if someone violates the act, they are unable themselves to issue a fine. What it does is the particular part of the Bill adds that little bit in there with due process, of course, and a hearing in a public process by which they can actually issue fines as needed. Thank you very much, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Robert. I think that's the first time the timer's gone off, During this year
SPEAKER12 - I kept my speech today.
SPEAKER2 - Are there any questions from committee members for Robert before we turn to some more legislation? Seeing none, thank you for testifying.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you all so very much.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. I'm gonna turn it over to vice chair Sabadoso for a few minutes as I step out for 2nd.
SPEAKER3 - Wonderful. Well, we're gonna move on to h 4079, and we should have, I believe, a panel Virtually from Southwick, Doug Molgen, chairman of the select board.
SPEAKER23 - I am here. Thank you. Along with Michelle Hill And Carl Steinhardt.
SPEAKER3 - Wonderful. Thank you.
SPEAKER23 - Well, thank you very much for the opportunity. I was gonna, Thank Senator Olivera as well. He was in our town hall a few scant weeks ago when we were brought into the green communities program, but, I see he stepped out momentarily, but, with
SPEAKER5 - our thanks.
SPEAKER3 - He can still hear and hear and see you, so, we appreciate the things.
SPEAKER7 - Jacob. Hi, Jake.
DOUG MOGLIN - SOUTHWICK SELECT BOARD - HB 4079 - So good afternoon. My name is Doug Moglin, and I'm the Chairman of the select board in the town of Southwick. Southwick in my understanding is the last, if not, amongst the last towns in the Commonwealth to maintain a combined office of treasurer, collector and clerk. At town meeting in May of this year, after much deliberation and discussion with the treasurer, collector, clerk and the select board and the finance committee, an article was presented in town meeting to request special legislation to split the combined office that had come into being by a special legislative Act in 1971, Chapter 331. So that's why we're here in front of you, and basically, the current structure no longer meets the needs of our growing community. Essentially, the roles and responsibilities exceed the abilities and capabilities of a singular person. Our 17 year tenured treasure collector clerk has done yeoman work and should be fitted for a cape, but, the time has come to split that office. So we appreciate your consideration, towards this legislation.
KARL STINEHART - TOWN OF SOUTHWICK - HB 4079 - Madam vice Chair, this is Karl Stinehart, the town administrator. I've been3061 here for almost 35 years, and I can see over the course of time with changes in law and regulations and the new challenges that town clerks are facing as well as other laws that are put in place that the situation is just too much for one individual to address, especially when they have to be out for training all the time to keep all the core certifications. So this makes sense to do this from a best management practices point of view, any outside financial organization looking at this like a department of revenue entity or an outside auditor would recommend these types of3106 measures that we're going to undertake, so that's why we need your support in undertaking this modernization act for the improvement of these operations.
MICHELLE HILL - TOWN OF SOUTHWICK - HB 4079 - Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. For the last 17 years, I have been the treasure collector and town clerk for the town of Southlake. I have been past President for the treasurer collectors association and have been on the board of the association for the town clerks. I am pretty confident that this is the last town of Massachusetts that has this unique combination. During Covid, a lot of the election laws had changed, making it pretty cumbersome to have this combination to continue going forward. I am in support of separating them. I ask that you do consider separating them as quickly as we possibly can. I am leaving the position pretty, quickly soon, so having this expedited would be very much appreciative. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. And is there anyone else on your panel that had wanted to testify?
SPEAKER25 - There's no 1 here in the room with us at Southwick Town Hall. I was not sure whether or not senator Mark or Representative Baldiga would be weighing in, but they certainly helped have helped facilitate this legislation, going before your committee and being assigned a house number. So, you know, I think this is just a a straightforward business decision.
SPEAKER3 - Well, thank you. I I appreciate the testimony. Are there any questions from any of the Committee members in the room. Seeing no questions, I'll thank you again for your testimony. I will say I know that representative Bal Degan, senator Mark have reached out about the legislation, and I'm I'm sure they will be in continued communication with us to help move the bill forward. Thank you for testifying today.
SPEAKER26 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER23 - Thank you very much. We appreciate your time.
SPEAKER3 - Alright.
Yes. So we're gonna move to h 2104 and, Benjamin Fierro, who I believe is present with us.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you,
SPEAKER27 - of the committee. Let me begin by introducing myself.
BENJAMIN FIERRO - LYNCH & FIERRO LLP - HB 2104 - My name is Benjamin Fierro, I'm an attorney and lobbyist here in Boston. My firm is Lynch & Fierro, and I have been representing clients before the legislature for, believe it or not, 40 years, and I have specifically been representing the Home Builders and Remodelers Association for the past 25 years. Let me also say that housing is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, I am the vice chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals in my town of Ipswich, where I've served for over 18 years, past Chair of the Master Plan Commission and a member of the zoning subcommittee of the planning board. I'm here to testify in opposition to House Bill 2104. This legislation, interestingly has to do with Chapter 40B, and I begin by wondering why this legislation is actually before this committee, because Chapter 40B, which is the affordable housing law, the comprehensive permit law, enacted in 1969 as actually a civil rights law, is really within the jurisdiction of the joint committee on housing. I testified earlier this year on a number of Bills on 40B before that committee, and there's a dozen or more that are yet to be heard. Fundamentally, our issue with this legislation is that, in our view, it would weaken the effectiveness of Chapter 40B to build affordable housing and, actually, all housing. And, by the way, this is both rental housing and for sale housing. Again, in my personal capacity as a volunteer in Ipswich, we have had many 40B projects one of the most recent, actually, is an over 55 development, something that we actually very much need in Ipswich. We need to free up these large homes like the one I used to live in with my two kids until I became an empty nester, my wife and I, and looking to stay in the community.
This 40B project would not have been possible if it was subject to the local wetlands bylaw. I know I only have a minute left, so let me just be quickly. Under Chapter 40B, if a community has not met its goal of 10% affordable housing, year round affordable housing, it is subject to the law, which means that an applicant can come forward and if they're going to do a project which will set aside 20 or 25% of the units as affordable, it files a single comprehensive permit with the zoning board of appeals, and3410 the zoning board of appeals has the authority to3412 grant all of the permits so that it's one stop shopping. That means that it also has the authority to grant waivers, and waivers from local zoning, Title 5, which is septic system, and, of course, local wetlands regulations. It is for zoning that usually is the waiver sought, right? Because so many frankly don't even allow for apartments in its zoning, so that's how you come under that. But both title 5, which is septic systems and local wetlands regulations can also serve as a barrier to housing. Let me make clear, any 40B project is subject still to the state wetlands regulations,3457 the state board of health regulations, title 5, the state building code, fire codes, and so on. It is the waiver from local regulations that is essential in these matters. I'll stop there, Thank you for your attention and I know we have some new members of the committee, and I look3475 forward to working with you on housing issues, if you have an interest in that.3479 Thank you so very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Are there any questions from any committee members? Yes.
SPEAKER18 - Thank you. Thank you for that.
REP NGUYEN - Thank you. Can you clarify to me; so what happens if red curling right now under our laws, if, a project doesn't call or or isn't in compliance with local ordinances?
FIERRO - So let me give you an example; I mentioned this, over 55 development in my town of Ipswich, this project would not have been able to be built at all if It did not receive a waiver from the local wetlands regulations. Why is that? Because many communities adopt buffer zones that is 100 feet beyond the bordering vegetated wetland where in many instances, you cannot do anything, couldn't put up a shed, you can't put a sidewalk, whatever. Many communities also adopt buffer zones, so a 50 foot no disturb zone. From 50 feet from the edge of the buffer, you cannot disturb the land, a 65 foot no build zone. Under the state wetlands regulations and DEP. DEP recognizes in that they acknowledge that communities adopt these local regulations. But under the state wetlands regulations, you can still build, of course, never in the wetlands, but you can still build or disturb if necessary, as long as you take certain mitigation steps, prevention of erosion control, pollution, and so on.
So that these projects, again, if they're subject to the local rig, can't be built. Again, please remember, you can never build in a wetland, and I would also add that and I talked to the administration about this, I hope they can consider this in their upcoming housing and housing bond legislation. As you know, land use decisions in Massachusetts, and we're quite unique, are made by volunteers, local volunteer boards. I serve on my board, now I'm an attorney who know something about zoning. We have had over the almost 19 years many interested volunteers who've gotten on who don't know anything about zoning. Same is true for conservation commissions and boards of health. Interested, well meaning individuals, citizens who are willing to give their time, but bring no knowledge or expertise. Where I'm going with that is that local conservation commissions may adopt their own regulations that exceed the standards promulgated by DEP and their regulations, but please keep in mind that a local conservation commission does not have to provide any substantive justification, they do not have to provide any scientific evidence or other evidence that these regulations that go beyond the wetland regulations are actually environmentally or scientifically justified. Candidly, as we know with zoning, in some instances, communities use both zoning and non zoning regulations frankly as exclusionary housing measures, and that's what we're getting at. I hope that's helpful. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 - Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions?
SPEAKER27 - Thank you so very much.
SPEAKER3 - You so much for your testimony. Alright. I think we're gonna be switching back to, virtual testimony now at moving to h 2107. Do we have Ryan Earl available?
SPEAKER28 - Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay?
SPEAKER3 - Yes. We can hear you.
RYAN EARLE - EVERSOURCE - HB 2107 - HB 2110 - Good afternoon. Again, my name is Ryan Earle, senior government affairs specialist at Eversource. Thank you, Chair Oliveira and Vice Chair Sabadosa for the opportunity to testify today in support of H 2110 and H 2107. Eversource views this as an opportunity to facilitate and streamline energy efficiency and decarbonization projects. In order to meet the Commonwealth's climate goals, Eversource and our partner Mass Save program administrators Work with customers and vendor networks across the state to make energy upgrades and improvements to buildings including single family, multifamily, income qualified housing, as well as commercial buildings. These improvements can include weatherization upgrades such as insulation and near ceiling, electrification of HVAC systems, and associated barrier remediation for health and safety such as ventilation and knob and tube wiring remediation. As we continue striving towards our climate goals while making improvements that benefit our customers, both owners and renters, it is important that these projects move forward without undue delay in permitting. These Bills will ensure that municipalities review and issue permits for important energy improvements regardless of lead constraints that may be associated with the building. Energy efficiency permits should be issued for these properties, notwithstanding any outstanding liens because the improvements will tend to save up against money leaving more to pay off any past due dollars. In cases where energy efficiency related permits are delayed or denied on account of liens, renters lose out on the comfort and savings benefits that energy efficiency measures have to offer. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for3793 the opportunity to testify today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from the committee?3799 Alright. Seeing none. Thank you again. We're gonna continue on the same piece of legislation. And I was wondering if Steven Smalley was3810 available virtually.
SPEAKER5 - Yes. I am vice chair.
STEVEN SMALLEY - NATIONAL GRID - HB 2107 - HB 2110 - Good afternoon, Vice Chair Sabadosa and the committee. Thanks for allowing me to testify today in support of H 2107 as well as H 2110, an act to facilitate the issuance of local permits for building energy efficiency and decarbonization. I am Steven Smalley, and I am the government affairs manager for National Grid. First of all, I want to thank Rep Roy and Rep Ryan for filing these Bills. These Bills would prohibit municipalities from the dying permits needed for energy efficiency work to renters whose landlords have a tax lien on the property. The Mass Save program administrators and partners in the home contracting industry and low income advocacy community regularly see good projects often for the benefit of low income and moderate income customers delayed or blocked entirely due to the local permitting hurdles. This legislation would add permits needed for energy efficiency and building decarbonization activities to the already established exempt list of local permits and make significant impacts in leveling the playing field for access to important programs.
One example of a program that would benefit from this law change would be the weatherization assistance program or the WAP. It provides energy efficiency services to low income residents and with the passage of this Bill, tenants who often are at least able to afford the burden of high energy cost due to poor weatherization would not be from the program by absentee property owners who owe taxes. The WAP provides tangible benefits to low income renters who would be helped by this Bill by reducing energy costs, improve indoor comfort and air quality, enhancing overall quality of life for their housing. H 2107 and H 2110 can help the Commonwealth achieve it's energy efficiency and climate emission goals without leaving behind its most vulnerable residents. I urge a favorable passage of both of these Bills and happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Are there any questions from the panel? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. We are going to move to Charles Herak, also on the same bill, h 2 1 0 7.
SPEAKER29 - Hi. Can I make sure you can hear me?
SPEAKER3 - I can hear you just fine.
CHARLES HARRICK - NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER - HB 2107 - HB 2110 - Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Charles Harrick, I'm a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center here in Boston. I am testifying in support of H 2107 and its identical Bill, H 2110 on behalf of the Massachusetts Energy Directors Association or MEDA and the Low Income Energy Affordability Network, LIEAN. MEDA is the association of the local nonprofit agencies that deliver the state's fuel assistance program in each of the Commonwealth cities and towns, and LIEAN is the organization of community action agencies that lead the low income weatherization, program. Chairman Roy's H 2107 and Chairman Ryan's H 2110 each seek to address a barrier to the Commonwealth meeting its energy efficient decarbonization goals as the very build title makes clear, an act to facilitate the issuance of local permits for building energy efficiency and decarbonization. Currently, some cities and towns in the Commonwealth refuse to grant permits to nonprofit agencies seeking to deliver energy efficiency and electrification measures to low income housing if there are any unpaid local taxes or fees. The reasoning appears to be that a property owner who is behind on any local taxes or fees should not be allowed to a permit without first clearing the debt.
This makes sense if the owner seeks a permit, for example, to add on a new garage since it appears the owner has funds available to pay the back taxes, however, this policy makes little sense in the situations that MEDA and LIEAN frequently encounter. Permit denials for weatherization of low income multifamily homes, these permit denials penalize low income tenants, not the property owners because the low income tenants were thus denied the benefit of lower energy bills. Moreover, these permit denials impede the Commonwealth from achieving its energy efficiency goals. For several years now, the Department of Energy Resources has consistently identified the multifamily sector, which disproportionately houses low and moderate income households as an area where we are simply not reaching enough buildings through the Mass Save program. Low and moderate income households are among the Commonwealth's highest priorities for receiving energy efficiency and decarbonization services. H 2107 and H 2110 make it clear that cities and towns should not deny permits for project that move Massachusetts energy policy forward. These Bills do that by making sure building permits will be granted that are necessary to implement energy efficiency and building decarbonization measures authorized by the Green Communities Act. I thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, and thank you, vice chair Sabadoso, for relieving me for a little bit.
For by committee members. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
SPEAKER29 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Moving on. We have virtually Gina Granberry, who is a resident of Lynn, testifying on House Bill 2036. Gina, can you hear us?
SPEAKER30 - Yes. I can.
SPEAKER2 - Terrific. The floor is yours.
SPEAKER30 - Alrighty. Okay. Let me get get my notes.
GINA GRANBERRY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - Again, my name is Gina, I'm from Lynn, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify again on another Bill that would prevent foreclosure theft by predatory or pretender lenders. I am in support of H 2036, an act enabling municipal people closure mediation. I want to thank my Representative Pete Capano for sponsoring this Bill, something he supported and passed when he was a councilor in Lynn along with Rep Dan Taylor. Unfortunately, we no longer have mediation in place. The statewide mediation would not only prevent unnecessary foreclosures, keep people in their homes would also expose the actual credit of a purported loan held by securitized trust. And I ask for a favorable report. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Gina. Are there any questions by committee members for Gina? Saying that there are none, thank you, Gina, for testifying. We're now gonna move we're now gonna move on to some, panelists that are on right now. There are 4 panels that have signed up to testify. The 1st panel who I see is on includes, members of the Massachusetts alliance against predatory lending. The 1st panel, and they're testifying all on house bill 2036, an act enabling municipal pre foreclosure mediation. We have Gary Yarden. Gary, are you on?
SPEAKER7 - Hi. Yes. I'm Gary.
SPEAKER2 - Hi, Gary. And who signed up to testify with you as well on Panel. Are Carrot Young and Ken Gilchrist, are you on as well?
I see that they're on, but why don't we start with you, Gary, for 3 minutes to discuss the bill you're testifying in support of.
SPEAKER7 - Just wanted to just Make sure that, the the echo I don't know if it's my your side. My
GARY YARD - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - My name is Gary Yard, I live in Springfield, I bought a house4288 in 95. I went to get a mortgage, promise that a closing, I found that agreement split in two parts of the mortgage, and it will pass the extended to a loan that was put a strategy to turn out. Under the right loan, illegally, more than property is worth the escape to regulators because the computers are trying to have a way to connect the loans to give the same loan to the same person on the same day. Instead, it conform with the whole package or not. I quickly found that it was more than I could afford. They acted like because they had they have enough money for the first loan to pay it out, and but now it was dropping an an overpriced loan. Watching what happened to other people that has stayed through and it happened on the 2nd. Maybe it would be just4386 to have job on the side. Ultimately, I tried to get more than more the loan application and refinance. The name never existed, it was never added, it never existed either but that's an outflow. The loan modification process will determine the English language but nobody ever inform me on the financial impact of the loan characteristic of the origination verification. Whenever I never got paper and I never got to review details, and I never had property disclosure to me. Thank you very much for the opportunity to to speak to you today.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank Thank you. Thank you, Gary, for your testimony. Are any other members of the panel that you signed up to testify that I mentioned? Carrot Young, Ken Gil Chris, are you on?
Seeing that, they're not on at this moment, are there any members that have any questions, for Gary Yard? Seeing that there are none, thank you thank you, sir, for your testimony. The 2nd panel that is signed up. I'll just ask if they're on. Jay Lively and Alanis Umana?
Don't think they're on. We'll circle back.
SPEAKER5 - Yes. I'm I'm here.
SPEAKER2 - Oh, you're here. Okay. Sorry about that.
SPEAKER1 - SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I I just I'm kind of getting Set up. Would it be possible to come back to me in a minute?
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Absolutely. Take your time. I can assure the rest of the other panelists who have signed up on this bill, and we'll circle back you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, sir.
SPEAKER2 - On our 3rd panel, we have Grace Ross and Alton King. Grace, Alton, are you on?
SPEAKER14 - Yes. For Alton King. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER2 - I can hear you, Alton. Grace, are you on as well?
I don't think she's on yet. So, Alvin, why don't you, begin your testimony? You have 3 minutes.
SPEAKER14 - Okay.
ALTON KING - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - Well, thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. I am reporting on H 2036, thank you for hearing me. I live in Longmeadow, Massachusetts. We need mediators for loan modifications to avoid foreclosure. When I got two mortgages underwritten together in 2006, I was told that the appraised value of my home was $1,500,000. The second mortgage, which I was going to put on because of an addition, was going to be for $410,000. I was absolutely promised that when the renovations were done, they would be rolled into one single affordable mortgage. But when the renovations were done, suddenly, they could not find an appraisal above 1,250,000. So that meant that the $410,000 that I put into the home reduced the value of my home $250,000. What we can tell now from municipal assessment is that the original appraisal was not legal, as a matter of fact, it was a part of a lie of this historic baseless inflationary housing bubble. They had the municipal assessment but the answers to having lied about the real property value was to say no and denied me the promised loan modification. I was stuck with a debt that they knew could not possibly be paid. We now know that all of the inflated and baseless values have been in one mortgage, it would have been unwritable. The Office of Control of Currency responsible for supervising banks said a mortgage could not be up to at most, 97% of the asset value. Our Longmeadow study at the height of the housing buzz bubble in 2005, 2006 sales that they were split, into a single underwriting mortgage into two, like in my case, to avoid being caught in overpricing the property illegally, prohibitively and endangering their own existence as a lender. Light of date mediation would have saved well over $100,000 foreclosures in Massachusetts so far, I'm quite sure of that. That's my concern.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Thank you, Alton, for your testimony. And before, we entertain any questions that committee members might have, I believe Grace Ross has joined us as well. Grace, are4743 you on?
Oh, I think you might be muted, Grace.
SPEAKER14 - She she might be muted, and I think that Karen Merritt was muted at the time and wasn't able to get on.
SPEAKER2 - Okay. We have, couple other folks that are gonna be joining us shortly for the the last panel, including Karen. So I'll start first with, Grace and you, Alton. And, Grace, can you unmute? You're having a little trouble with it. Is there any way that IT can possibly unmute them? Grace, if you look at your screen, if you're not top, there should be an unmute button at the top.
So near the camera button, there should be a mute and unmute button.
SPEAKER31 - Got it.
SPEAKER9 - Victory.
SPEAKER31 - Sorry. It's a whole new system to me. Sorry about that.
SPEAKER21 - Not a
SPEAKER2 - problem, Grace. The floor is yours.
GRACE ROSS - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - Thank you. So we've been, I think you're aware, trying to get closure mediation for well, I think before the market crashed on all of the predatory loans in 2008. What has been shown, Connecticut had it the first state, and they were running at a 85% success rate and we know that the originations now, I think you've heard from a few people, were overpriced. They split the mortgages to avoid regulatory oversight. Let this prescient legislature4850 of ours had in 2004 passed the predatory home this is act to avoid exactly all of these practices, and that law only finally got to the SJC and got affirmed last summer, thanks to two Brockton African American homeowners who got heard. We need pre foreclosure remediation if we can get it through the municipalities which have been hardest hit, those would be the folks most likely to pass it, and, pre foreclosure mediation where it's been used, if mediators are trained to know what to look for in terms of originations, our people would be prepared to come in, show that the municipal values, show that the loans were overpriced, unaffordable, and meant to trap people.
The studies show that if it's overpriced and unaffordable, then people would normally sell out from under a loan they couldn't afford, but they don't have the information to show that it's overpriced. They didn't know how to4915 do it, but we know how to do it now, those municipal appraisals, actually, the officer controller of the currency has told banks that they are to use municipal assessments to assess whether their appraisers are being pressured to overprice the properties so that people then get unaffordable overpriced loans. So we now know how it was done and if we could get mediators in early so that the practices that are leading up to illegal foreclosures are moderated by informed mediators who can ensure that those practices are not allowed to go forward, then we would be in a position finally to rein in a bunch of what's going on. It would give some light of day that because we have nontraditional foreclosure in Massachusetts, we don't have. So this is a huge way to finally get some justice here. Our laws hold, including the predatory home loan practices act,4980 that if a mortgage is unconscionable and unenforceable the way it4984 was originally written, it is supposed to get modified because if it doesn't, then, in fact, the banks don't even have a right to collect on it. So this is to everybody's benefit, it would reset the housing market fund, get people some justice, and hopefully stop the still spiraling number of foreclosures that are returning post Covid.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Grace. Are there any questions for, Grace or Alton by committee members? Seeing none. Thank you,5015 Grace. Thank you, Alton, for your testimony. I'm gonna circle back now to Jay Lively, who is, just getting settled in. Jay, are you still there?
SPEAKER1 - Yes. Sorry.
SPEAKER2 - Hi, Jay. The floor is yours for 3 minutes.
SPEAKER30 - Okay.
JAY LIVELY - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak. In January of 2006, I signed what I5048 was told were two legal5050 mortgages for the purchase of my first home. It was never explained to me why two mortgages were needed nor why MERS appeared in these documents. The first mortgage was for $323,000, and the second mortgage was for around $80,000. The second mortgage had an adjustable arm, which was set to increase within a three year period. At the time, the town had assessed the property at $333,000. The mortgage company advised me that I can refinance in the future to get a more traditional single mortgage and a fixed rate. Eight months later in October of 2006, I signed a mortgage with Fremont in the amount of $420,000 not realizing the principal was already overpriced and unaffordable. I was not aware of the Fremont decision in 2008 nor the prevalence of predatory lending that was occurring at the time. It never occurred to me that the mortgage was overpriced, illegal, and doomed to fail. The underlining stress and financial strain was the proximate cause of the failure of my marriage, business, health, and even ability to walk. I did obtain a5138 modification in 2011, which lowered my interest rate, but did not5142 bring my loan into compliance with the Fremont decision.
From 2009 to 2020, I had multiple surgeries, enrolled in alcohol treatment, and was on 20 different medications for pain, depression, anxiety, sleep, swelling, etcetera. These medications side effects include memory loss, lethargy, weight gain, and sleep disturbances. At one point, I was over 70 pounds overweight and taking medication at very high doses. In 2020, notices were served, but not at my primary residence, that my house is to be auctioned. I would later learn that the reported auction of my property was done by a non legal entity that had no standing on my case in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the country. In 2017, they offered a mortgage modification that would reduce the principal, and I signed that, returned it to him, and then they didn't honor it. It's clear that some oversight is required to make sure that these companies are following the law, and so I support H 2036 so that this may not happen to others.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Jay, and thank you for telling your personal story. Are there any questions from committee members? Hearing none,5246 thank you for your testimony. Moving on to the final panel that5250 we have signed up, we have a Deidra Dunn Don, signed up a Tom Satchudovsky. I'm sorry. I'm butchering your last name. And a Karen Merritt. Our, Tom and Karen, are you on? Yes. Okay.
SPEAKER19 - Yes.
SPEAKER2 - Alright. The floor is yours, Karen, for, 3 minutes.
SPEAKER19 - Okay.
KAREN MERRITT - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - Good day to the Chairs and members of the committee. I thank you5279 in advance for hearing my5281 brief story. Again, my name is Karen Merritt, I was in trouble financially in 2010 as were many of us, it was called the great recession. My long term accountant came to me and said, Karen, I'm going to help you. I wasn't working, I was a stay at home mom, I owned two properties, I had over $500,000 in equity. He induced me to sign what I now know is called a hard money loan because I didn't work. He refinanced my two properties to his brother-in-law, and he used the collateral as the payback as the security. I didn't know any of this, I just believed in my accountant. $10,000 check went to him, I thought all was well. I had received no disclosures, this is my fiduciary, this is my person. Years went by, I'm thinking all is well. 2018, I get a letter from an attorney, I owe about $1,000,000. I was devastated, both of my properties. I'm a senior citizen, this is my peace of mind, this is everything that I've worked for my5380 entire life, my children's inheritance, I was devastated to say the least.
Then to top it off, secretly through those years, they compounded the interest that he had illegally given that loan, that hard money loan, he had compounded and compounded and compounded it, it reached 54% interest. That's what they use to foreclose on5410 my home, a 54% interest rate. Mortgage is supposed to be simple interest, our cap in the united in Massachusetts is 20% interest unless you contact the Attorney General, obviously, that was not done. They foreclosed on me without the legal notices that are required to say the least. If they had been forced in a municipal mediation program to talk to me, I would not have three court cases trying to get enforcement of the predatory illegal nature of the so called loan and the so called foreclosure. They must have to at least sit at the negotiating table with an expert mediator who knows how to read these documents and how to help us understand them. If it reveals criminal action like in my case, clearly, in my 54% interest rate, I would have found out before the foreclosure could have bought it, and somewhere, some judge is going to care about criminal usury if I had had the opportunity to showcase this, but I didn't. We really need overseeing of these documents because mistakes happen, there's criminal activity, and here I sit, our system has not picked me up. I've lost my home on a 54% interest rate, it's outrageous. Thank you for5510 listening, and good day.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
5512 SPEAKER25512 - Thank you, Karen, for sharing your story. Is Tom on as well?
SPEAKER7 - Yes. I am.
SPEAKER2 - Hi, Tom. Before we turn it over for questions for you and Karen, you have 3 minutes to testify.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you.
TOM SECADALSKI - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2036 - Good afternoon, and, thank you to the Chairs and the members of5531 the committee. My name is Tom Secadalski. Like Karen, I'm 65 plus years old, I am from Amherst, Massachusetts, and I am specifying in support of H 2036. I have been dealing with two overpriced unaffordable loans on two separate properties. On my home, the loan to value ratio when the mortgage was presumably offered to me, the loan to value ratio was 135%, which is 40% over the legal limit of 95%. So I started with the principle which was significantly higher, than it should have been. In both cases, I have applied for loan modifications and, you actually would have to put, and lift through it, put yourself in our shoes and lift through it to understand how emotionally draining the process is how lengthy it is, in some cases, it took up to three years. There were no negotiations, no process for figuring out what the terms of the loan modifications should actually be. On one occasion, I attempted to negotiate the terms of loan mod, and, the servicer did not respond. They allowed the letter of loan modification to expire, and I had to reapply again. Again, going through the lengthy, emotionally draining process. Now I know that both mortgages were predatory, illegal, with overpriced originating principles, and I have been stuck and enable, to get out from under from day one since those mortgages were given to me.
I also now know that a mortgage contract is not legal as originally written, and before or the loan is modified, they actually have to make the contract legal. Instead, we ended up in sort of a take it or leave it position. You know, good luck next time if you get a chance to reapply. The loan modification they gave me had a balloon payment at the end. So essentially, in order to make it work and lower my payment somewhat, I have been paying an overpriced rent to whoever claims to own my loan. At the end, with $500,000 balloon payment, I am not going to be able to afford So, this is sort of a recipe for disaster, it's a ticking time bomb. Even crazier, the party that I supposedly signed the mortgage with or the loan modification with announced three years later that they were going to apply for the mortgage assignment. So when I signed a loan modification, they didn't have the right to my mortgage, so I was kind of duped into signing a loan modification that the party that I was signing with, that I believed I was signing with the rightful party, didn't even own my mortgage at the time. So, presumably, a trained mediator would be able to realize what's legal and what's illegal in the process and would clean up the loan modification process early on, and the real lender would have to maybe write down the principle and give us the terms that we would be able to afford. Thank you for listening, and have a great day.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Tom. And is there a Deidra on this well who signed up to testify with this panel?
I don't think so. So, Tom and Karen, if you're still on, are there any members of the committee that have any questions for Tom or Karen? Seeing that there are none. Thank you both for your test, testimony. I don't see any other members that have signed up to testify today or members of the public who have signed up to testify. Just a reminder for those who might not be able to sign on or couldn't make it today, that written testimony will be accepted by the committee until Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5 PM. Please email the testimony to the municipalities committee@gmail.com. I'm going to read in the bill
SPEAKER15 - I just have Excuse me? Is on. Excuse me. Gilchrist is on.
SPEAKER2 - Excuse me. Who's this? I we couldn't hear you.
SPEAKER15 - My name is Laurie Ansley. Ken Gilchrist is on.
SPEAKER2 - Ken Ken is on.
SPEAKER15 - Gilchrist.
SPEAKER2 - Ken, are you on and are able to testify?
I we don't hear Ken on right now, so I would I would suggest that if Ken, if you wish to and you're not able to unmute right now, that you email testimony to the committee by next Tuesday at 5 PM? Alright. I'm gonna read in the rest of the bills that were not heard today or we did not see testimony. House Bill 20 6 0, an act authorizing cities and towns to establish reduced maximum tow rates during certain declared emergencies. H 2061, an act relative to permitting the construction of accessory dwelling units. House Bill 2066, enact encouraging public private partnerships to create affordable housing at public sites. House Bill 2077, an act relative to Veteran Housing Advantage. House Bill 2106, enact to promote parking and pedestrian safety. House Bill, H2 107 h 2 1 1 0. Both acts to facilitate the issuance of local permits for building energy efficient House bill 2116, an act relative to the maintenance of private roads, beaches, and amenities in municipalities. House Bill 2 119, an act relative to parking permit fees. House Bill 40 42, an act, facilitating the appropriation expenditure of community preservation funds for community housing purposes in the town of Wellesley. House 4046, an act authorizing the town of Nantucket to convey a certain parcel of land situated in the town of Nantucket held for park purposes of the Nantucket Conservation Foundation Incorporated for open space, recreational, and conservation purposes. House Bill 4056, an an act establishing the appointed office of town clerk in the town of Bolton. House 4 0 7 5, an act relative to changing the term of the elected office of moderator for the town of Stoneham. House Bill 4077, an act authorizing the town of Nantucket to convey certain land situated in the town of Nantucket held for open space, recreation, conservation purposes to the Nantucket, Island Land Bank for the purposes pursuant to this legislation. Senate Bill 1278, enact to generate revenue to expand transit options. Senate Bill 1318, enact to improve parking pedestrian safety. Senate bill 2435, an act authorizing the city known as the town of Barnstable to change the use of purport of of a portion of land within Mother's Park, senate bill 2436, enact amending Nantucket Sewer Act. Senate bill 24 38 and act amending the town, amending the charter of the town in Nantucket. Those are all the bills that we have before the, committee hearing. Before we adjourn today, I wanna deep express my deepest gratitude for my friend and colleague from Western Massachusetts. It's the vice chair of This committee, representative Sabadoso, for, stepping into the chair's role for a little bit and also to the staff above the committee, Haley, Jeff, Sumia, to our court officers and to our team at LIS, thank you for doing, doing your job to make sure this committee runs smoothly. That concludes, the hearing for today. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Is there a second? 2nd? 2nd. Thank you, senator Kennedy.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. I I all those opposed.
© InstaTrac 2025