Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Volunteer firefighters thank council for pulling ordinance; residents raise concerns about debris, parking and signage
Summary
Public commenters at Stone Harbor's June 3 meeting thanked council for removing a fire-department ordinance from the agenda and pressed officials about construction debris on a neighborhood lot, staffing parking, and large residential signage; the council acknowledged concerns and will pursue follow-up.
During public comment at the Stone Harbor Borough Council meeting on June 3, Lt. Dave Musaco, identifying himself as president of the Volunteer Fire Department, thanked the council for not including a contested ordinance affecting the fire department and requested a meeting to discuss the department’s future structure. "The department wished to thank Council for not including the ordinance on the agenda concerning the Fire Department," Musaco said.
Several residents raised separate neighborhood concerns. William Woodruff asked when a lot next to his 81st Street home would be restored to grass after being used as a staging area: "...filled with all kinds of dust and debris from all of the construction going on in town," he said. Councilmember Jennifer Gensemer responded that the lot has long been used as a staging area; the former DPW director present confirmed that it has been used for staging and said it will likely continue to be used that way. Interim Administrator Cynthia Lindsay told the public the additional parking discussed is intended for staff use.
Robert Rich of Sunset Drive criticized an error in Ordinance 1686's property description and thanked Council for removing the ordinance from the agenda; Joseline Rich questioned the need for additional parking. Maria Leonard, a property manager at 5 98th Street, asked that the borough consider adding sign-height limits to the municipal code after a neighbor's large, obtrusive signs prompted complaints.
Council members acknowledged the comments; after the public comment period the council moved forward with other agenda business, including tabling Ordinance 1686 so the clerks and staff can correct the ordinance text before returning it to a future meeting. The public portion concluded with a later question about a DCA report on shared services; council members said they had not been provided such a report.
Next steps: Council staff will correct the ordinance description for 1686 and the council will revisit the item at a future meeting. The council did not take immediate action on signage or staging-usage policies; those items may require separate staff reports or code amendments if council chooses to act.
