Appointments & Briefings Committee — January 28, 2026

We killed the other one.

No, we're not.

No.

Was that the gas?

Gas up there?

Hi, you ready, Gus?

Okay, tell me when you're ready.

You want to leave it there for a minute?

Dennis, leave it there for a minute.

Dennis.

Almost two months, no no problems.

I'll do it one more time.

How's that?

Counselors, would you take your seats?

We're going to be beginning in a moment.

Anybody that wants to speak, there is a sign-up sheet at the podium at the door.

If you'd like to go sign up.

I know some people have signed up already and some haven't.

So if anybody wants to, we'll leave it there for a couple more minutes.

So anybody want to sign up?

And the new people that just walked in the door, there's a sign-up sheet if you'd like to speak.

You can sign up at the podium.

Okay, councilors, take your seats.

Thank you, everybody.

This is the Committee on Appointments and Briefings.

It is January 28, 2026, and it's 7:03.

Note, this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.

City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

So today in the chamber, we're joined by a councilor at large, Ian Abreu.

I saw him, I walked in with him, he's not in his seat.

Councilor from Ward 2, Scott Pemberton.

Councilor for Ward 1, Leo Choquette.

Councilor Ward 5, Joseph Lopes.

Councilor at Large, James Roy.

Councilor for Ward 3, Sean Oliver.

And Councilor at Large, Jane Bergo.

Thank you all for coming.

And I'm Naomi Carney, Chair of Appointments and Briefings, and thank you all for coming.

Would you like anything to read in the record?

Nothing.

Okay.

Item number 1 is a written motion.

Councilor Oliver requesting that the Committee on Appointments and Briefings schedule a meeting prior to Thursday, February 12, 2026 City Council meeting for the purpose of allowing the residents of Illinois, Ohio, Jerry, Maryland, and Appleton Streets a forum in which they may voice any concerns regarding the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 9 Comprehensive Zoning, specifically as it relates to parking requirements under Appendix C, Table of Parking and Loading Requirements, to be referred to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings.

And it has been.

Number 1 is now before you.

A motion to receive and place on file.

Motion been made by Councilor Oliver, second by Councilor Choquette.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councilor Oliver, would you like to say a few things before we bring people to the podium?

Yes.

Uh, okay.

Thank you, um, Madam Chair.

I, uh, I appreciate the opportunity.

I, uh, obviously, as we've discussed, um, wanted to provide the folks a forum in which they can voice concerns around this proposed ordinance.

Um, be it as it may, there may be some miscommunication or whatever that the neighborhood might have felt slighted as far as representation when it came to the, the drafting and ultimately voting on this ordinance.

And most of that obviously had circled around a proposed development that's floating around.

The idea is floating around for this neighborhood, so they had some additional concerns as well.

Um, although those 2 things, uh, this ordinance and that development, were— are running in 2 different, um, tandems and in 2 different venues, um, I felt it necessary for folks to still come in and, uh, voice those concerns.

So here we are, uh, with an additional forum in which that neighborhood can, can do so.

Um, but with that being said, although they have concerns with the development, um, it's— this is a citywide ordinance, um, and it's not going to be a, uh, uh, it— we have to almost take a one-size-fits-all approach, knowing farewell that it's not going to fit every neighborhood.

And that's why we have other mechanisms in place, such as the planning board and zoning board and inspectional services, that are going to oversee any developments that come to be anyways.

But this is their opportunity to voice what their concerns are with this ordinance, and I just hope that the, the folks— I see it looks like they're here to take advantage of that, so I'm happy that it ended up working out and appreciate the opportunity for them to come in and give us their feedback on it.

So thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Abril.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Some of the points I was going to make, my esteemed colleague from Ward 3 already made.

But just to kind of piggyback a little bit off of that, just to be clear and transparent, there's no killing of this ordinance tonight.

There's no killing of the China Buffet development proposal.

I don't want to make sure anyone's being misled.

That's not the purpose of this hearing.

This purpose of this hearing, which I voted for and I supported, as I believe it was unanimous throughout the entire body, was for folks to come here and speak and speak their piece and give their opinions and views.

And it's going to be opinions and views that are well taken because as Sean— or I should say, excuse me, the Ward 3 councilor had said, and he's correct— when this development, no matter what goes on at that China Buffet property, whether it's, you know, a fast food joint, whether it's the housing development which is being spoken about now and talked about, this will have to go before the planning board.

Called site plan review.

That's where restrictions can get put in place, like parking, lighting, signage, all of that.

So that's where this stuff sort of gets litigated.

But the points that are going to be brought forward to us tonight, I think, could be points that could be well taken and used in that hearing for the site plan review, that we could use and testify on behalf of the neighborhood if and when this development does go forward.

So I just wanted to be clear on everybody so everyone understood you know, uh, the balls and strikes here tonight.

This isn't getting killed, it's not getting stopped.

This is just a discussion where we can hear the concerns and then we can move forward from there.

So with that, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Avril.

Councilor Shookat.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to continue with what my 2 esteemed colleagues had said prior.

So nothing has been submitted yet.

On this issue.

So we are in like what you would call a prototype, prototype stage here.

Nothing has been submitted.

So this is really kind of, you know, us wanting to hear from the, you know, from my constituents, our constituents in Ward 1 in these areas.

It's, as you all know, I take this very seriously and I always like to have the people's voice heard.

Far in advance of any surprises or any issues coming about.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for allowing this to happen, and I'd like to thank the constituents we have here tonight for coming in and wanting to be heard.

That's— this is all part of the democratic process.

And thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Choquette.

Anybody else want to speak?

Okay, so we'll start with the people that signed up.

We have Caroline Carol Sassolini.

You can approach the podium.

Thank you.

Okay, this is.

Um, I just put these notes here because otherwise I would forget half the things I wanted to say.

Um, but it's hard to believe the hypocrisy of what's happening in our city.

For years we've been hearing about quality of life, about green spaces, about alternative energy, about planting trees, etc.

Excuse me, Mrs. Cicilline, could you get a little closer to the microphone?

Okay, thank you.

You want to start again?

Sure, please.

Oh, we have it.

Yeah, she's— people that signed up, we have their addresses.

Okay, okay.

It's okay.

It's hard to believe the hypocrisy of what's happening in our city.

For years we've been hearing about quality of life, about green spaces, about alternative energy, about planting trees, etc., ad infinitum.

Yet all of a sudden it's okay to build a monstrous-sized apartment house on a postage stamp-sized lot with no backyard, no porches, no balconies, virtually no landscaping, and very limited parking.

A huge building that will necessitate necessitate the stealing of parking spaces currently being used by the existing neighborhood.

A huge monstrosity that will put their neighbors' sunny gardens in the shade, that will take away the possibility for the surrounding single-story homes to install solar in the future.

This is a nightmare for the current neighborhood and not exactly offering a quality of life for the future tenants who will be warehoused like rats in cages in order to line the landlord's pockets with gold.

This lowering of required parking spaces is applicable to the whole city and is ridiculous in the light of the fact that we are in an area that has snowstorms and narrow streets and already have more vehicles than places to park them, as is plainly evident by the number of cars that were ticketed or towed this past weekend.

This whole issue— sorry, this whole issue is not only hypocritical and ridiculous, but both heartbreaking and cruel for the present neighborhood, but also for the future tenants.

And I want to also mention that where I live is I live in the second house north of the New York Chinese Buffet on Ashley Boulevard, and my driveway is what was supposed to be part of Appleton Street.

Um, half the time when I'm coming out of my driveway and people park along Ashley Boulevard, I can't see the traffic that's coming from the left.

And it's very, very difficult that we already have a problem with parking and visibility, and it's even more compounded once— when Voigt gets out and when the people from the industrial park get out.

And it's, it's already very, a very congested area.

So thank you.

Thank you.

John Chabot, you're up next.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

I'm from 142 Illinois Street.

I've been living in that neighborhood for 37 years.

Very, very residential neighborhood.

Uh, the parking there, it's going to be a nightmare.

You add that many people in that location, 22 complexes, most people have 2 cars.

Where are they going to park?

They're going to park on the street.

People aren't going to be able to get out of their driveway when we have a big snowstorm.

What are they going to do?

You've, you've got people in there that can't get out now.

That's— it's— to me, it's ridiculous to try and put something like that in that neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sharp.

Now the next one we have is John Preston.

John Preston, 250 Jarry Street.

Um, I want to thank the council for letting us be heard tonight.

I know we all don't agree on everything, but one thing we do agree on is that healthy debate should never be stifled, okay?

And I appreciate— I really do, I mean that— I appreciate you guys letting us come and say our piece.

I realize that this is about the ordinance specific, um, and it just cuts deep because of the timing of where it hit, and it felt as though the ordinance was specific to that project in the timeline, and perhaps that's not the case.

Okay.

I'm a veteran of the, of the United States Marine Corps, and we have a saying: proper prior planning prevents poor performance.

And I, for one, appreciate the fact that we need more housing, okay?

But I'm, I'm very concerned about lowering the parking to one spot per unit.

It's going to create traffic nightmares across the city.

There's going to be undue strain on infrastructure and school.

I mean, the population really could, could, could explode.

I don't want to get into too much detail about that project because that's not really what we're here to talk about.

I want to thank Bruce for coming.

Bruce and I have worked with Councilor Choquette and the neighbors.

You know, the big, the big thing with this parking is the potential for negative impact on the taxpayers, on the equity in our homes.

You know, specifically to our neighborhood, if there's a 20-unit apartment building at the top of the street and there's cars parked everywhere and I have an open house to sell my house That's going to dissuade some buyers and probably going to get lower offers, and the equity in our homes is going to be affected.

And I think, in my opinion, on my humble opinion, is that, um, and I, I don't know, you know, the ins and outs and the, in the proceedings of the city council and ordinances and how things, you know, move forward.

I don't know if there's some kind of caveat that could be added to limit these, uh, changes in, in single-family neighborhoods like that.

It's, it's, um, you know, Massachusetts had a net negative migration of 33,000 people last year.

I promise you those are taxpayers and voters, and people are fleeing So please consider our concerns as a neighborhood as it relates to this ordinance.

I don't know what the final number will be, whether it'll still be 2 or 1.5 or 1 or 0, but those are our concerns.

Thank you.

Those have— everybody that signed up, but anybody here would like to speak?

Anybody else would like to approach the podium and say a few words?

Yes, please.

Wait, we need your name.

You don't have to give your address, just your name.

That's all right.

Michelle Pacheco, 136 Jerry Street.

P as in Peter, A-C-H-E-C-O, E-C-O, and it's Michelle with 2 L's if we're really going to get into it.

So Um, I just— I, I, to summarize, or actually just add to what we're all hearing here, yes, I'm from Jerry Street.

Yes, the project that is currently on the, um— well, actually nothing's been presented— is one of the reasons that I have an issue.

But I want to remind this council, or this, this board, that there, there should be a plan for New Bedford, a vision for New Bedford, and we do need housing.

We're grandfathered into the historic nature of this of this wonderful city and the parking issues that we already have in a lot of neighborhoods, including ours as well.

I mean, let's face it, these one-family homes that we do have, we have single-family neighborhood, but there's 4 cars in a lot of houses because, you know, teenage kids are driving or whatever.

So we have, you know, we're trying to make the best we can for what was grandfathered.

But now for the vision and the future of New Bedford, I don't understand how we can be saying, oh, the reality is there's less cars on the road.

Let's make, you know, let's let people build with less spaces needed.

Let's maybe add to the congestion that we already see.

You know, again, I'm not just talking about Jerry Street, but, you know, I know I was actually very happy to see that I believe it's Kudo Construction got a $5 million grant or something like that for an old nursing home that has ingress, egress, I mean, that can really be, you know, but, but, you know, maybe, you know, that could be again where you're looking at your site plan and things like that.

But I feel like there's a responsibility to your constituents, to the residents of New Bedford, that we don't continue by— you know, I don't see how you're solving a problem by saying let's build more units because we have a housing crisis, but let's just sort of ignore the fact that, you know, most people are driving, most one-bedrooms are going to have 2 cars.

And let's put that in a congested, already, you know, narrow street where if you have people on both sides— it happens to me every day now— you gotta wait.

You're hopefully in front of someone's driveway so you can let somebody pass because you can't— 2 cars are not able to go down a lot of these really narrow streets.

And I don't see what the vision is and what you're thinking here.

And just to piggyback off, I believe it was, uh, Councilor Abreu said, um, I believe— and I haven't seen the motion or the draft of this change in the ordinance, but I believe it's by right.

So no site plan review can be limited.

Is it not by right?

Is it by— are you going to give this change in parking— it's— if it's from what I'm assuming, and again, I have not seen it, are you not doing— isn't this going to be by right that it's going to be one space?

So you can't then come in when a developer comes in and say, oh no, we're going to change it, we really want you to have 2.

You can't limit— and then if you're doing it by right, you can't then limit a site plan review in the planning board and say, no, no, we want more restrictions.

What you should be doing then is proposing that the change be instead of by right to, you know, uh, 2 cars only, maybe say that, you know, in, you know, circumstances, certain circumstances, it can be by planning board or by zoning, or, you know, just like you do with any other use ordinance that you have.

But I don't see why this is a— we're just going to change it across the board to one parking space, no vision, no thought.

I mean, let's face it, this is 2026.

Very few people don't have more than a, a 2-car family or a 2-car dwelling.

And again, I think that we need to have a little bit more vision and plan for the city of New Bedford.

Oh, and it's like I said, I've lived in Boston.

I had to get my Charlestown ticket.

I had to get my South Boston.

Are we going to now soon?

I mean, soon what we're going to do is we're going to all have to have parking permits and, you know, guest spots.

And it's going to be, you know, that whole thing.

I mean, I just— I foresee just problems and problems and problems if we— we should be being really careful with the changes that we're making.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak?

Councilor Abril?

No, I just want to mention something because I was, uh, mentioned by name, and she is absolutely correct.

The resident is correct.

What I'm talking about is we're seeing it currently right now before the planning board where you can mandate that the developer figure out and find out parking offsite for their tenants.

We're seeing it right now on the planning board with one of the developments from Ronald Oliveira, for example, that's happening, which I know several others— excuse me— in this body are aware about as well.

That's been kind of a back and forth.

So you can mandate that, okay, you know, we have the 22 parking spots here, but the planning board can say, but for you to go forward, we need to have 20 more spots somewhere.

We've got to find somewhere nearby where you can rent or whatever the case may be.

So that's what I'm talking about.

That could be part of the process.

That could be litigated in planning.

So that's the point that I'm making.

It's been done.

It's happening right now.

And it could happen here as well.

Thank you.

Sorry, I just want to— and again, maybe I didn't think that the planning board could do that.

If you're giving them a right to 2, how can you say no, it's no, we're going to make it a right to 1.

But, you know, now we're going to add this extra limitation when it's by right.

Again, I still don't understand how the planning board has any authority if the ordinance that you're going to put in place says one per spot.

So I think you've got to be really careful with what you do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I just want to remind those in the chamber as well, because we do have a number of people here that haven't spoken.

They might not feel comfortable sharing any testimony, but if they are here to speak out against the change in the ordinance, I ask that they record themselves against it.

That is also an option for those in the chamber that don't feel comfortable getting up there to, to share anything, that they can just stand up and say, I'm Shane Burgo and I want to be recorded against or in favor of said ordinance.

That's also an option for those that are in the room today as well.

Yes, we can do that.

I will allow that.

So, um, anybody else want to speak before I record?

Would you like to read?

Okay, you're on the list, so— and you made me cross you off.

Now you're back up.

Yeah.

Um, okay, Beth Kalanowicz, 220 Appleton Street.

Um, we do not have sidewalks on our street.

In the summer— well, not summer, spring, fall— there are families walking their dogs, walking their babies.

There are children playing up and down the street constantly.

There's no sidewalks to walk those dogs or, or their children.

So if you put more cars there, where are these people going to go?

So I just, like I said, I didn't expect to speak, but I just thought of that while I was there.

Thank you, Beth.

Does anybody else want to speak?

Okay, at this time, is there— I'll take names and we record you whether or not you're in favor again.

So first of all, I'll ask Is anybody in favor?

Anybody in favor be recorded in favor.

Okay.

Anybody want to be recorded against?

In favor of the ordinance.

You got to give both sides.

In favor of the ordinance.

The parking ordinance.

Correct.

Yes.

All right.

So folks that are against, raise their hand.

Okay.

So we're going to start recording you.

Name.

If you've already spoke, you don't have to be recorded.

Okay.

Joseph Steylin.

Joseph Steylin.

S-T-E-Y-L-I-N. Who's— who's what?

Against.

We're doing all against right now.

Carol Mendoza.

Okay, Mr. Chabner, you're— Mr. Chabner, you've already spoken, so we're good with you.

What was your last name again?

Machado.

Okay.

Yeah, move your head.

Lori Preston.

Lori Preston, right?

Pamela St. Louis.

Pamela St. Louis.

Christopher Souza.

S or Z?

Z.

Thank you.

Wayne Kalaniewicz.

Lois Tryer.

What was your last name?

Tryer.

Like in court?

No.

Okay, as— okay, one more round.

Does anybody else want to speak?

Any councilors?

Yes.

Yes, you know, you need to come to the podium if you want to speak.

You should know that.

So I, I too— first of all, I want to welcome our former Ward 4 city councilor.

Thank you.

I too want to thank the councilors for giving us this opportunity tonight to speak.

It's very important.

It's very important to hear from the people, right?

That's why you guys are here, and that's why we're here, to have dialogue, to talk about things that we think that aren't appropriate for our neighborhood.

And that's what this is all about.

I don't, as well as my neighbors, don't think this is appropriate for our neighborhood.

The change, the parking change, is going to in effect fast-track this development, which is going to be a nightmare for our neighborhood.

A nightmare.

We had the most snow we've had in many years.

Where did people park?

Over 2,000 tickets were issued, from what I understand, because people couldn't find places to park their vehicles.

And that's just one thing.

You talk about folks that are walking their children.

I see it every day in the summertime, walking, riding their bicycles or whatever.

There's no sidewalks mostly in our neighborhood.

You know, the mayor said on BSM a few weeks ago that this wouldn't affect single-family neighborhoods.

Well, this is a single-family neighborhood and this is going to affect that.

And so I am totally against this.

I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today, because I think it's important.

As, uh, Councilor Choquette said, it's our democratic process that allows us to do this, and I thank you for giving us this opportunity.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Oliver, would you like the floor?

Um, I, I was just gonna— with, with that being said, I was just gonna make a motion to, um, referral to the full city council, uh, taking no further action on this at this time.

And I'd like to speak on that when able to.

Yeah, no, yeah, go ahead.

Councilor made by— motion was made by Councilor Oliver, second by Councilor April.

On the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know we normally don't speak on, on, on the— on no final action, but I think this is something that is a little bit unique.

And, you know, who cares really?

We're gonna speak for the people and speak for this process.

So I know that folks may hear it as no further action, and I think that that gets mistaken as we're not doing anything.

That is not what it is.

This is just to discharge it from the committee.

That's how our process works.

Obviously, I think all my colleagues that are in attendance tonight have taken what this neighborhood has said, and it's, you know, now up to this body to make any changes or amendments in which they feel is warranted.

I'm not sure if any of those will come forward, but I think that the comments that were stated here tonight were, were well received by this body.

And again, just because we're taking no further action tonight, merely just to discharge it from this committee, um, doesn't mean that action still can't be taken before the vote on February 12th.

So I just wanted to do that for, for clarity.

That's all.

So thank you for the opportunity to do that.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Anybody else on the question?

Seeing none, all in favor— we have to take the vote first.

All in favor of no further action say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion made to adjourn by Councilor Abreu, second by Councilor Bergo.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you all for coming.

We're adjourned at 7:33 PM.

Residents, again, thank you for coming.