The meeting of the summer planning board for September 10th, 2025 will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one published to the courier news, two posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall, three
posted to the municipal website, and four given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Andrea Dair
>> here. >> Chris Addex here. >> Art Akens >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Jason Kraca >> here. >> John Manilio >> here. >> Barry Van Horn is excused. Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Council member Vroom here. >> Chairperson Warner >> here. Please stand.
>> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Hi, I need a motion for approval for
minutes for August 20 from August 27th. Can >> we hang on one second? We got video issues. Oh, it's streaming. >> Is it? You got it. There. >> All right. >> And it's streaming online. >> It is. Okay. All right. So, that's just our monitors, which we're okay with.
Yeah, >> that's fine. Yep. >> You just made You can't see yourself. >> No. Now you don't know. Now you don't know what he's zooming in on either. >> The whole thing is you, Brian. I'll make a motion for the minutes. >> Second.
>> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraka? >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher? >> Yes. >> Chairperson Warner? >> Yes. >> Uh, were we able to get that resolution? >> I was not. I just got the transcript. I tried. I just >> All right. So, we'll carry that till the
next. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, moving on to We have no hearing, so we're going to move on to pending business. Let's start, Mike, with the West Main Street area development redevelopment study. We were asked to start.
>> Uh, thank you. Uh, there's a draft copy you all have that um lays out the criteria for all the lots. It references the state plan, which
it's from 2001, so it's a little dated, but the new redevelopment plan is just technically not adopted yet. So, it's written to the old plan with the caveat saying why it's in the process. Um
the area most of the area is using a criteria says smart growth principles. If you look at the photographs most of the properties are in relatively good shape. So, I struggled with this a little bit
because a lot of the properties, if you look at the photos and you look at the history and you go through it, um, are in good shape. So, the criteria H says in redevelopment, you you boil
this down is you have to have enough sufficient area to generate the nexus needed for the redevelopment area. you have one small lot, you can't do anything with it. So, it defeats the purpose. So, that overall principle
uh is the area using criteria H in its entirety is the recommendation. And I think that uh Colin had a great idea to say that references and a paragraph that
says that besides the granite building in the parking lot with that that the development should be completely at the uh the request of the property owner being that reflects that relatively
speaking the area is in good shape. The triangle with the exception of those two parking lots which is just underutilized. Not saying the parking lots are by themselves like craters are terrible. They're just not being used. >> Right. So I struggled a little bit
because I don't like using the term H because you can really nickpick that criteria saying smart growth regional center which is all wonderful and I don't know if some here remember many many years
ago I we did a study for Kirby Avenue and the mayor says that we had a photograph showing a dumpster or something and dumpster and he says you can't use a dumpster that's temporary and I agree with him. So these
photographs show the properties and it's entirely I think it's obvious that granite building needs is a challenge with the parking lot but overall I think the properties are wellmaintained. You have the Storms
property which is the property that going back and spending time on it was built in the 30s and there was an addition in the 60s. Now is the circulation challenging? Yes. From a parking lot
by being there, the virtue of being there 50 years, I think you could say they're making it work, guys. Is it ideal? Absolutely not. So, you'll see a little struggle with me in this. It's clean. It's there. It's boilerplate. But
at the end result, my recommendation is to keep the whole block with the caveats that uh Colin cut through the chase. I was going to go and and I started writing this differently and trying to chop this up a little bit to take some of the housing out that looks good. Yes,
it's old housing stock from 1920s. However, you end up with a really geometrically looking at it doesn't make doesn't work geometrically just doesn't work. So it's along me soap wind saying it the area meets the
criteria but there's a little bit of a struggle and I think the paragraph from Colin clarifies what exactly we're trying to accomplish here. >> So so Mike to that end because we also had a discussion about those properties
are in you know good shape. Um, can you talk about e the exclusion of properties that you have in this? >> Yeah, the exclusion >> or I shouldn't even say it's the exclusion. >> It's the it's the optin. >> It's the optin note that identifies the
lot and blocks. And what we're basically saying with the optin, it says that the development, the redevelopment of the properties, which is basically the the two family homes. If you look at the lot and blocks, there's a paragraph
in it uh that says that the owner it should come from them, not from the burrow because the properties are wellmaintained. They're not an urban blight, an old old term being used. So
that comment in that paragraph reflects that criteria or that acknowledgment that these properties are overall well-maintained. >> And just to make sure I'm looking at page 10, the last paragraph right before section four where it says,
"Additionally, we recommend with the exception of that's what you're talking about, Mike." >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And you see the photographs and the H is applicable um but for all the reasons you said
I think the it's there and it allows the flexibility and it accomplishes what I think the intent is but it clearly demonstrates or articulates that that properties are wellmaintained the ones that the majority of
>> but I think it also you know on the other flip side it gives the property owner more flexibility of if they do deem that they want to be a part of it they can >> right and It's a non- condemnation, which means the burrow is not going to condemn. It's been the burrow policy for
a million years >> not to condemn properties. So >> So it really doesn't change what >> it doesn't change anything. But if I was a property owner, the language, I think, and I I think Colin nailed it with that paragraph,
states that it's just at their own benefit. should they want to consolidate the properties to move forward. >> So there's two >> potentially could add value to the propert. >> It adds value because it adds
flexibility. >> And that being said, >> you you want to articulate what those blocks and lots are so that if because I know we have some public here just so that they're >> absolutely. Let me get back to 10.
East. >> Yes, it's the >> west. >> So, it would be blocks >> to the west >> 124, >> right? >> And lots 2.01, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. >> Correct. That is essentially Colin is
correct. the properties toward the west of Noon Street with the exception of the parking lot which is the weird shape that's associated with the grants building that sits on the corner of vets
which is part of the grants my understanding it they're both tied together so that parking lot has been used in the past for overflow parking so with the exception of those that's what that exception is. Everything to the
west of New Street, there's a parking lot that's just not used. It's unutilized. And then you have the uh group home that was built 2004, 2003, the threetory on the corner. >> Yeah.
>> And if you just walk up the B block and you take a look at what's going on, they're all wellmaintained. Some of them, most of them are from the 1920s. However, There is a professional building that was a tear down I think in the '9s
uh that there's a there's a corner marker that says I can get you the line block that says Kerwin I think her Mike Kerwin's father I think did the development on that. So there is some properties there which are newer. I think the surface parking lot that I was
referring to is from the 90s too. So you have you have the two families are essentially from the 1920s and you have the group home let's say it's 2003 which is in three stories it's in not in bad
shape and so you have generally speaking that area that triangle is in relatively good shape. >> So and I think I hope that reflects it in the study. um
that that is uh what the intent is. The intent is to give them flexibility as the mayor had said and uh really to address the Granite facility, the Granite building and their parking
lot. That that's that's long- winded, but I I >> I think I have to give a little color here that yes, it's an H. Yes, I I think it meets the criteria. However, and that's where the hook is. However, >> however,
>> any questions from the board, >> it is pretty cut and dry. So, the only thing I would ask, Mike, is on page 19, um, where you have the granite building, uh, it says the building is currently vacant in the layout of both the offices. I I would just put in there, how long has it been vacant? I think
that's valuable information. at least five years. >> Three years. >> Three years. >> Three years. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think it's because three years was the height of COVID. So, I think it was >> I think it's farther than that, but I can certainly put the history. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think I think that's
important information to have in this type of talk. >> All right. Cara, procedurally, um, we need to have set a date for a public hearing on this. >> Correct. Um >> what is is it a public hearing or does it get referred to count?
>> We have to have a public hearing first. Yeah. So I think uh we also have to meet the minimum of what two weeks. >> So it has to be published two weeks prior once each week. Okay. The last the second publication has to be at least 10 days prior to the actual hearing date.
>> So I think we are at the earliest we said would be the earliest we could do would be the October 8th meeting. >> Correct. >> In a minute. Um, what is do we have anything on the ETH? >> We currently do not, but we'd have to
check with the Courier News as far as when they can post it because if we can't get it posted in four days, then I don't think we'd be able to make the two weeks. >> So, what if we just pushed out to the next meeting? Do we have I know we have one >> We have nothing on that one either. Yeah. So I think to be safe we push it
out to the second meeting in October that we can guarantee that no matter what the publish the publishing can get taken care of with no issues. >> Okay. We do need to get a list of all property owners within >> and that gives enough time to do all that too. >> We wouldn't be able to get until Friday either from Brett because that's when he
comes in. >> So what is the 22nd? >> I think it's the 24th is the second. >> 24th. Yes. >> 24th Friday. >> Oh. >> Uh you're correct. Yes. 22. >> I don't typically planning on Friday night. Sorry about that. >> Ryan, you'll be here on that Friday by
yourself. Sorry. >> Nobody wants to hang out with me. >> It'll be a quick question. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Along with the date the mayor is talking about like how long it's been vacant. >> Should there be a slight discussion
about there's been some interest in changing it or moving it or making it different? I don't know if that's really appropriate for this document or more of a conversational thing, but >> No, I'm just curious whether or not we do mention that or not. >> Yeah, we some feelers, but it did
>> I I don't think it's appropriate. I think we you know, we move on of why we feel this is an area of need. Period. >> Okay, just making sure. Thank And to reflect the comment that the properties to the west of new street I think that should the board
declare a scenario. I think the redevelopment plan can reflect that. >> Yeah. >> So it be articulate in the redevelopment plan the base zoning the current zoning should the planning board want to say that is still applicable and we can clarify this issue that it's the
flexibility for the property owner. I think that clarifies it in the redevelopment plan once should the board uh declare the area need of redevelopment council. >> All right. So 10:24 will be the public
meeting and then we'll 10:22 >> Ryan. >> Sorry I was looking at the wrong month. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> It'll be the three of us. >> Yeah. >> 10:22 October 22nd will be the public hearing and we'll start all noticing um as soon as >> Yeah. this week as soon as we can and
then get them all in. >> Do you want me to put that draft notice together or you want redevelopment council? >> Uh I don't Yeah, please. Um specifically on this and this isn't a public uh hearing on this, but I want to open it up to the public if anybody out
there has any comment or questions specifically as to this redevelopment plan. Okay, hearing none, I'll close public specifically for that. All right, next uh item. Hold on. I'll go back to my agenda here.
Floor area ratio F. Mike, you're up again. >> Oh, thank you. >> Plain language, Mike. Plain language. >> Plain language. There's some documents. You have a historic from 1953, American Planning Association. You have something
from Rhode Island. Uh just to give you something, a snapshot, just just easy reading. One page. Page five is key because it gives diagrams that are right understandable >> and I think the diagrams speak for themselves about what floor area ratio
is and it it basically limits the size of the structure or the square footage in relation to the lot. it it's really reflection on small dents at small lots is to have something that
matches the fabric of the community as opposed to and I think the Rhode Island summed it up saying they they were having tear downs and having cottages replaced with threetory monsters and that's what's reflected. So that's what the floor area ratio is all about is the
is to make the size of the structure in keeping with this the lot the proportions there and whether it's it's 02 but I'll use percentages 20% 15% as you see in communities with very large
lots you'll see F is much going down because the lots are so large acre lot what have you In Somerville, the the lots are relatively it's a compact community. So, the the F numbers are higher and it's a number of the whatever
is comfortable with the burrow, the planning board and the council what those numbers should be in the zone if if they want to control >> and currently where are we at right now? What is it currently? >> It varies on the zones. And the one here
is 25 is 0.25 or 25% professional office. And the question was, well, what size is the lots? And I was talking to Ryan about this, and the lots are all over the place. You have some lots are smaller than 10,000. You have the bulk standard saying that the minimum size is
10,000. So the analysis is showing it's 2,000 on 10,000 foot lot. It's 2500. If it's 25 F, it's 30. It's it's 3,000. >> So this is specifically what we're looking for for the P zone. Just to be clear, >> my understanding. Yes. So, I just gave
you the bulk standards and schedule uh schedule B says the minimum lot size in the P. Yes. Yes. Yes. There are lots bigger than 10,000. That's the minimum size. There's lots that are double that. But just for the analysis purposes, uh
the lot size of 10,000 was used and then it's simple math saying 20% of that, 25%, 30%, 35%. It's just 35% of 10,000 would be the size of the building. >> And this ties in, just so everybody on the board kind of understands, too, this
ties into, you know, some of those discussions that we just had conversations about impervious surface, you know, pre-existing conditions and and restrictions that are on some of these new homeowners who have now taken over the property, bought the property, want to transform that property. with
some of these restrictions, they're not able to do what they want to do or need to do to really continue to rehabilitate that area uh and keep it in with the growth of Somerville. So one of the suggestions was increasing this from 25%
to 30% allowing a little bit more flexibility um whether it is going up or out a little bit but it does allow them to improve that property and improve that structure in the P so that they can do what they need to do without being
penalized really and having to go for a variance of something some sort. Um and again that's stressing it's zone right now. I think we've, you know, from the board's perspective, we've seen this area as an area that needs to be updated in our standards and um, you know, so
we're looking for some feel on what we feel as a recommendation to go to council to say we want to get this changed from 25 to 30%. And I think the the numbering is, you know, enough to allow that flexibility and allow for
some of those improvements that want to get done, but not opening up floodgates where we have, you know, to your point, a fivetory story building all of a sudden is allowed on in the P. >> And is this for the board to recall that we're going to the plan is mayor's plan was that we're going to look at the the
land use in its entirety. >> We're going to look at residential zones. We're going to look at improvement coverage. We're going to look at everything, but there appears to be a pressing need to address the PR right now. That's why it's being singled out as opposed to the rest of the zones. >> I just want to make that distinction
that my understanding is we will Yes. >> This board will be looking at the bulk standards throughout the burrow. >> Absolutely. >> So, this is just the first step. >> We're seeing most of the pressing issues. >> It's like the change of use. the change of use as the board recalls it's front
of the council right now that tweak was to address something that was felt to be glaring. >> Yeah. My and my understanding is and I wasn't at the meeting I was away um at the last council meeting uh the one previous to that um that there is an appetite uh to address F in particular
um and also to uh you know to alleviate this from 25 to 30%. >> Yeah, >> fair enough assessment. >> Yeah, absolutely. I think, you know, I know that I missed the the last time that we had this discussion. Um, but I think being able to use the usable space
in an already existing structure, >> yeah, >> is something that not only obviously was addressed with what's in front of council right now, but the reverse. So, for residential and also for, you know, uh, office space if you have it, we're not talking about adding, we're talking
about being able to utilize what you have >> in a safe manner. >> In a safe manner. Absolutely. >> Correct. It still doesn't you still have to follow all codes and have absolutely with it. But you can use the the space you have existing. I have no issue with going from the 25 to the 30.
>> Any other comments questions from the board? >> I just have uh so definition of floor area looking at the ordinance. So for residential is it the same as commercial or is it different? >> Same. >> Same. So that includes basement area.
the basement draws. There's a paragraph, John, as you aware in the ordinance that talks about seven feet, which in my opinion goes back to the UCC. There is a that paragraph should be clarified because it's in my opinion confusing,
John. The attic, it says clearly, but this is the basement. The floor area ratio is counted for areas above seven feet which I we in my opinion when we look at the land use in this entirely we should drill down on that issue exactly
what we mean in the basement with parking is the seven feet so the board knows is a UCCC requirement that if it's new construction you got to have a ceiling height and some of the rehab goes down to it but dealing with this
>> if you don't have the seven feet my understanding is you can still get a construction permit if you wanted to finish an existing building. So I think we should drill my opinion look at that John. >> Yeah. So my question is maybe we look at the definition as well. So maybe there's
um space that could be utilized like the basement um that is counted as floor area now but if it's you know >> exist >> a basement it it shouldn't be counted as >> yeah and and and I agree. I mean, you know, you you look back and the old model of a home is you don't use the attic other than storage and you don't
use the basement other than storage. And that's that doesn't work anymore. >> Um I do understand from the safety side of things though, you know, the the parameters of having um bedrooms in a basement or in an attic and those those are things I think we need to address through the code as well. Yeah, there's
windowless stories, but John, to your point, I think maybe later this year, if not later this year, it' be early next year to really look at the land use ordinance to address all these definitions, windowless stories where to make sure
that the bulk standards, the bulk sideyard setback, front yard setbacks, improvement coverage reflects where the community is going. I It's on my radar. I know it's on the planning board's radar. I just view this
as as a stop gap to address the glaring issues that's coming up in the last few months. >> All right. I need a motion >> a recommendation to send up to council to change it from 0.25 to.3
F in the P zone only. >> Second. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. Art Aikens, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Jason Kraka, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes.
>> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> All right, moving on to the B5 zone along Route 22. This was something that council what the last meeting was asking us to look at. Anybody have any a little bit more insight for us?
>> I do. Um, so it all it rests on the definition of um, might correct me if I'm wrong, e education um, in a zone. So apparently there was an application for a um, an AI
school, if you will, on Route 22. Um, so if you look around, you know, you have Cuman Math opening up. You have all these different types of of the not necessarily education, but you know, enhanced personal growth, whatever you want to call them. Um, some of it's up
to interpretation. And, uh, it was a great use, uh, on Route 22. Um, and they were denied because they considered them a an educational uh, business. and
so they went away. Um, but there will be more to come. It was a good use. Uh, the interpretation of what that use was I think met with some discussion. Is that a good word? Yes. Um, >> uh,
because the business didn't want to. They could find somewhere else to go that would take them. Um, so it really came down to, you know, what's the definition? So, so what we're doing is looking at the idea of allowing um that type of business to go on Route 22, which we
think is a good use. So, that's it. >> Mike, can you send us so that we can discuss it at the next meeting on uh what is allowed currently in the B5? >> Yeah, I think what the mayor is getting at and I think most here retail is a
challenge in this atmosphere. So the the concern or the need is to try to address it so we don't have vacant storefronts that should be used a more productive use. So that's what >> Yeah. And and you know what what is the the market demanding?
>> Yeah. >> What what businesses are looking for space because they're you know with the internet and and AI it's it's all changing >> within reason. >> Yeah. Exactly. And I do think it's a good uh opportunity for us um to
especially on Route 22 with this ever changing market to really look at yeah >> what we want to draw and what we don't want to draw there. >> Um but to the mayor's point allowing >> some uses that were probably never thought of in the last 20 years >> until now. So
>> and defining those uses. >> Yeah. defining those uses and and the the the ability to take a step back and say, is this a good thing for Somerville, uh that business? And you if we have that as kind of like the uh the
overarcher as we look at our zoning uh as we update our zoning or if we're interpreting our zoning. Um that to me is the is the uh the principle that all of us us council and Burough Hall need to look at when we start to have these
types of applications come in. If it's a good thing for Somerville, then we have to look at the the zoning um and if there is an adaptation to it, then allow it. If there is not, exactly what we're doing here and we bring it to the
planning board and let's fix uh or I shouldn't say fix, let's expand it to meet the needs of the consuming public. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we will resume that conversation next. I will have schedule
A for the board members to start to look at. That's where it has all the uses, permitted uses and the the burrow is light and day above most municipalities is it uses a North American classification system. So we we're
capable of drilling down very easily using that classification. It's the standard industrial classification is the update to that. So you can there's reams of information to clarify the uses
without reinventing the wheel and all these definitions. >> Yeah, Larry. >> Should we be looking at other business zones also to allow this or change that B5 is because we got >> Well, we will. We will. >> Yeah, >> I think right now we focus on and I'm
going to have that conversation. I'm going to go into that conversation next, but I think for right now, let's focus on some of the ones that we know are pressing so that we don't delay the pressing ones because we have a tendency to tie ourselves up in knots. >> Let's figure let's fix the bigger to the detriment of the littleer,
>> which is going to I'm leading into my next part of my conversation. All right, any other questions for the B5 right now? Um so all right so moving on to redevelopment plans master plan and zoning tying into you know I just wanted to say that is why the planning board this these discussions whether it's um
floor ratio or the B B5 zone these this is why the planning board had stated at the beginning of this year that we would be looking at all of our redevelopment plans re uh updating and um looking at our master plan as well as all the zoning. So right now I know you see a
lot of peacemealing but that is because we really we have the pressing matters we want to but we will be looking at to Larry's point we will be looking at everything. >> Um that schedule that I gave you kind of allows us to have some flexibility which I don't I think we have we're haven't
changed or adjusted that schedule much yet. Um, but it shows you that how we're doing things consecutively and but allowing us not to be overwhelmed and get tied up where we can't move forward on on instances like this. So, um, you
know, making it clear to everybody um to include the public, we will be looking at everything. Um, can't not be by the end of this year. Um but we have a pretty it's in my opinion still a pretty robust schedule that we've put together
um that within the next year we will have gone through everything and have some mass uh major updates and adjustments allowing for things that you know like I said before weren't thought of 20 30 40 50 years ago and it's time
to update everything within Somerville. So uh we will get there. It is a very good point, Larry, but we just right now we want to focus on those that are pressing and keeping us and and getting some guidance from Burough Council and
the um administration there on so that we can address some immediate needs for residents and uh businesses. Um last but not least, the improvement covers subcommittee. My question on this one is I know we've we came to a resolution. We brought up decks came up.
I know pools is still an issue that we have to address. Um, and we did do the change of use where they're not penalized anymore on the PO and in certain in the certain residential zones on that change of use and then they're
already mic matter in compliant out of compliance based on that change of use. So, we've addressed those pools obviously still needs to be addressed. Is it appropriate to send it to the committee or is that something that we should be bringing back here to the board for us to decide how we're going
to move forward and maybe be able to come up with some recommendations for that pool? I don't want to forget the pool issue because it wasn't it is a resident issue that's come up. Um and then in addition to that, what else we should be looking at as it relates
specifically to some of those issues that have been brought forth to us. I well my feeling is that maybe we should just um because the the council was fairly clear in that they didn't want to address the pool issue.
>> So um I think as we address the overall zoning that's when we can kind of have resurrect that discussion. >> Okay. >> Um because there may be things within that that we can tweak to make it more palatable for council to consider. So then on the record I am relieving the
subcommittee of their where I won't ask every meeting where we're at because I think we have addressed John just was like thank God. Um but I that's why I wanted to have a conversation. Are there any open pressing issues that we really needed to continue to have the subcommittee look at? I and I feel the
same way, but I wanted to make sure that everybody's in agreeance that these issues will now be brought up through other issues that we're going to come forth, whether it's, you know, something specifically from council and or as we're going through each of the different areas of redevelopment, master plan, and zoning.
Okay, that is it for pending business discussion items. uh ARB approvals. You're going to see sidewalk cafes are a huge thing for us right now. Um full disclosure, we did just have a meeting on sidewalk cafes. We are going to be
trying to make some adjustments to make it a little bit more clearly defined what is allowed, what is not allowed. Um but we have been getting a lot of them. Um so we did approve 150 West Main Street, 92 West Main Street, 24 West
Main Street, and 24 East Main Street. all were approved for their sidewalk cafes. Um, and just so that everybody's clear, sidewalk cafe is not supposed to be in existence unless they have an approval on record. If they don't, that
is where code enforcement gets involved. It doesn't come here, it's code enforcement. >> Okay. >> Um, >> yeah. And then we did look at some sign uh issues for S uh 30 East Main, 147 to 195, and then 41 West Main. Um and those
were just signed very simplistic, met the um intention within the SID and it was those were approved. So that's just for the disclosures just to for full transparency of we have had quite a bit and but some of these applications for the sidewalk cafes have led us to say
that we might need to update some of that. So we may see some recommendations coming that need to be adjusted. >> So So the ARB approvals on the sidewalk cafes, I don't think we need to see those. >> No, it's >> but I think for the signage I I still would like to see even >> Yeah, I thought Did
>> I didn't see them in this one. Normally they're in the package. >> Yeah, normally I do send them out, but there are so many this time I didn't include them, but I can send them all out tomorrow morning for you guys. >> Yeah, just so that you guys can see them because that is the purpose of why we're doing it, so that you can see the signs. I kind of think that we should see
sidewalk cafes because I'd like to see >> what they proposed to the reality. >> That's not our job. That's that's >> Well, then whose job is it to >> code enforcement? That's why I was saying that that's why I'm asking the question if there's a problem. So, they proposed
>> there's an existing code and if they're not compliant, uh they are more they're better compliant this year than they were last year. Um the and I'll be honest, it's a fine balance we walk in trying to encourage outdoor dining. Uh you know, being hospitable to the store
owners, the restaurant owners. Um I think they're doing a much better job this year than they were last year. And that's partly due to code enforcement um monitoring not only at the beginning of the season, but during the season. So it's it's the code is there for us to monitor it. We're overstepping our
bounds. No, I I I understand what you're saying. My concern is and it comes from discussions at the Environmental Commission also and just in in general that people can be insensed that they can't simply walk down the street. So
just because business whatever does this, it doesn't mean that it's it doesn't mean that it's applicable or real. So enforcement becomes nobody wants to be daddy. Nobody wants to start this. Shut the party down. But if they
have two tables that are in the wrong spot, somebody should go, "Hey, you move those two tables." Otherwise, we're calling code enforcement. >> Well, that that is a job for code enforcement and it's not a job for the planning board. >> I I I certainly understand that. You
know what? I got my tape measure and I'm doing You can't do that. That's that's overstepping. So, >> but there's got to be some sort of balance because there hasn't been a balance. >> That's got to just be a direct to code. >> So, in addition to code enforcement, we've also gone and on the uh southern
side of Main Street, all of the planter grates are gone. >> Yes, >> they're gone. Um, which has created it's it's exa I shouldn't say exacerbated. It's it's it's showing the bad shape that those pavers
are in from tree roots. Have you gotten any word back from Marstown about that soft? >> Uh, yeah, Kevin looked into it. Uh, I don't I don't know any further on that. >> Um, it has its issues because I don't know that it's as permeable as think people think it is,
>> which may be a very big issue for the trees, especially those the street trees because everything else around it's concrete, >> right? >> Um, I know the um well, so so that's being looked into. Um, but it it doesn't
solve the problem of the pavers. So, uh, I know DPW has been out there, uh, and actually, sorry, you shouldn't say DPW, DSA has actually hired somebody to fix some of the very, very bad problem areas. Uh, but they're quick fixes. They're not they're not permanent fixes. So,
>> even bricks and things like that, >> roots. Well, yeah. So, but we have to um there was a uh um I got a complaint uh last week nearly She tripped on one of the paver stones and had a three-month-old in a front pack and near
came this close to falling. That's a problem. So, so these are things that are going to be addressed. And I've said it before, safety of people walking downtown is the primary. Um, it's not to say trees aren't important. Um, I I love
them, but the primary is to make sure that people have a safe passage. As as you agree, you know, they need to be able to have a safe passage through. Well, they have to safe passage over as well. Yeah. So, uh has to be, you know, we have to take a good aggressive look at this.
>> Thank you. >> Um moving on. I have no extra comments. Um I will open up the meeting to the public for any comment or questions. >> Reluctantly, yes, please. >> Love you, too. Could you please state your name when you started record? Can you please state
your name and address for the record, please? >> Colin Driver. >> Thank you. >> 25 West End Avenue. Some of them. >> Well, you speak you have to you speaking on behalf of the burrow or you speaking on >> I'm speaking on behalf of the burrow. >> Okay. When we started the studies of
redevelopment plans, um, zoning and everything else, the mayor required us to bring in outside experts. And I'm here to remind you, you will be getting a email probably tomorrow that October the 6 council meeting we're bringing in
a gentleman by the name of Jeff Otto. He is uh at least renowned in this state as an economist and a a retail residential expert uh at who has
the ability to predict based on economics and statistics what the future market looks like. And the mayor asked us to bring him in as we did the gentleman from Rutkas to tell us what he believes the future will be so we can
consider that when we're doing the plans. I thought this was a good time to say because I get sick of sitting there and there yelling at you and that's all I've got. Thank you. >> I don't think the yelling will stop but I appreciate it. Thank you. >> And that's October 6th at the council meeting. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> At 6 p.m. >> Correct. Um, and just for the board's edification, those that have been on the board for a while, >> sorry, 7 pm >> public session. Public session at 7 is executive. Yeah. >> So, we we'd be waiting a long time to be >> Yes, you would.
>> Okay. >> So, um, but for those that have been on the board for a while, this is um Otto is who we heard the last time we actually did an update. Um, >> yeah, it was phenomenal. Um, if you can
attend, I highly recommend it. Um, it was pivotal in us completing and finalizing and fine-tuning a lot of our plans. So, I do highly recommend if you can, for those that are new, you will not be
what's the word I'm looking for? >> Disappointed. >> Thank you. I don't know why I couldn't think of that. Um, but you will not be disappointed. That goes for the public, too. No, it's that you should come and or at least be able to watch it if you can because uh he is uh
renowned for what he does and it has been extremely valuable to this burrow. >> So 10 years ago he spoke a lot about uh service-based industries, restaurants, uh advised that this new generation I think ate dinner was it 26 nights out a
month. Um that's what I said. That's yeah, it's a big wow. Um, so, you know, he's he's tuned into what is next up and coming. That was 10 years ago. And guess what? We have service-based business and and restaurants. So, it's going to be
very uh interesting to see, you know, where he sees main streets in New Jersey going over the course of the next 10 or 15 years. And he had a lot of insight also on that um type of housing market and how the that was you know transate
was not really something a lot of people were looking at and he really stressed at that time that that is where it was going. Um and that confirmed a lot of some of our I don't want to say uneasy but we weren't sure we thought and that
really confirmed the direction we were moving in in certain things. So, we're hoping for some of that insight as well because what is the next housing stock market uh you know uh stock that we should be looking at that we haven't really looked at and and as it's based on to the mayor's point of what is up
and coming and where does he see that going. So, from the commercial standpoint as well as the residential standpoint um you know it's I would highly recommend if you can go please go. So, >> anybody else from the public?
>> Yes, sir. >> Ladies first. >> Yeah. Ahead, ma'am. >> Hi. How are you? Um, my name is Christina Duncan. I'm the owner of Fort East Cliff Street in Somerville here. Um, I just and I don't know what's allowed, what's not allowed. I just have
a question. >> Um, so I'm in the P zone. Um, I have a business and um, I'm just trying to understand because we have an attic and um, what the height I guess there's an issue with height requirements is what
I'm understanding at this point too. Um, so just trying to understand that and understanding the board's position. I know everything is being re-evaluated. Um, but we have an open unfinished attic that is going to be losing heat in the next couple months. So I'm a little concerned to say the least.
So, do you want to start? >> Well, I I I think it's Yeah, it's I mean, we obviously we have a a meeting set up for tomorrow and that's one of the items that's going to be addressed and it's probably better to address it in that meeting. >> That's fine. >> Um it's more appropriate because the board really doesn't have I mean,
ultimately they make the recommendation to council for the zoning requirements. >> That's fine. >> Um but they don't control those, you know, they're not the enforcement side. >> That's fine. I just figured I'd ask to understand, but thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Yes, sir.
>> I know. >> That's not even a compliment. >> Nope. >> Rich O'Neal, 124 Westcliff Street, Somerville. Would you guys hold Larry down? I got to say something. >> Oh, boy. >> There's only one solution to Main Street
trees. Remove what's there and buy large pots and have potted trees because the trees compete with the utilities. They compete with the sidewalks and the trees win. And our sidewalks are a mess. Have been for the last 15 years. There's no way you could keep up with it. It's
expensive. Fix them once. Get large pots. Put ornamental trees in there. You can change them. You can move them. You can do a lot of things. And they don't damage the sidewalk so they don't interfere with people's signs and they don't stick in windows. I mean, you I
think you got to address the issue. When I was a kid, there were no trees on Main Street. Nobody thought about it. and then there was a planting, then there's been a second planting and kind of a third planting. And they always end up the same way. They damage the sidewalks and they create problems with the utilities. It's an ongoing problem. And
we all know government cannot keep up with ongoing problems. I've said this many times. Government doesn't fix anything. It waits till it's all damaged and broken and then go into a big program, cut the ribbon, get the picture taken, and walk away and forget it. So just think about pots. You okay, Larry?
>> No. No, the reason why is because maybe 10 or 12 years ago there was a proposal to do just what you said. They talked about it up in Jersey City and they did a clearcut on Columbus Avenue, I think in Jersey City.
>> I'm familiar with it. >> And they went in and they took everything out. The reason why our town is so nice and our downtown is so beautiful is because we don't do a clear cut. If we do a clear cut, you and I both won't be here to see the benefit of
it. I can guarantee it. >> You're correct. Except if you put in trees in a pot, we'll see in the next year. >> No, no, but what they if they're going to do that, and we've talked about this for the last 10 to 12 years, and we still haven't done it. We still haven't gone in and say we're going to replace
that tree. We're going to take a tree out and make a plan with the utilities to do the right thing. Put it in the right way, use the engineered soils, dig it deep enough, all these things, tree grates and everything. We still haven't done it and it's been 12 years or more.
So clear cutting sounds nice, but it just decimates the town. >> Strangely enough, I know we can't get into a dialogue. I'm talking to the mayor, but you just you just exactly verified what I said. Government doesn't take care of anything. 12 years ago they were going to do it. Still going to do
it. >> No, we stopped them from doing it. That was the entire point. >> That is the point. >> That's the entire point that we we slowed them down to say, "Let's think about this and do it the right way." When Tom Gova was here, we had a
discussion and we had a plan. We were going to do it, but it didn't work out and it just fell apart. And it's been ever since one upheaval after another. This is like war. No, we're not gonna just cut down the
trees willy-nilly because it's cheaper. That's not the point of a tree. It's not just cheaper. It's something that makes a difference for cooling in the town, for beauty in the town. And other towns have trees and they can seem to work
around it. Marstown, Cranford, Westfield, all the towns that we're aspiring to be. We're number four behind them. >> Oh, no. No. We're number one. They're behind us. I agree. Well, no, we are, but you know what I mean. Every time they do a survey, it's always Westfield and it's always Cranford. Well, we're
right there, but they have trees in their downtown and they take care of them. We should make a concerted effort. If we're going to do that, then we have to really do it. And that means taking the time to do it the right way. Clear cutting is a disaster. That is
unacceptable. And I can assure you that if there's a plan to do that, that will be 150 people in this room screaming. or we can plan it out the right way. >> The right way is to get rid of the trees, but we'll have that conversation some other night.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Anyone? >> I I just want to clarify there has never been nor will there ever be while I'm sitting in that seat a clear cut of the trees on Main Street. 12 years ago, it was never a plan. It was actually a
phased uh planting um of of trees that were dying. It was it was over the course of 10 years we wanted to do it and uh and it met with um a lot of friction. Um and I can tell you every iteration
after that has met with a lot of friction. Uh the the count the burrow and and the DSA were ready to move forward and each time we were ready to move forward um there were other folks in environmental who created some friction and it it dropped um Those are
the facts. Will there be a uh a tree renewal plan? Yeah, there will be. Um and it's it's going to take time and it may just be a natural progression. When that tree um is no longer viable, which is happening right now, we are in the
midst of taking some trees down because they're no longer viable. Then we'll replant. When we have trees that have upheaved the sidewalks so much that it creates an extremely dangerous area for people to walk in, they're going to be removed. That's the way it is. Um and uh
so that's there was never a clear a plan to clear cut trees. Never. At least in maybe in the six-year gap I wasn't here, but during my tenure, >> this was a while ago. >> During my tenure, there was never a clear clear-cut plan ever. You know, I've been dealing with this
>> with you and without you. Absolutely. For years and that's why I'm a little >> Larry. I was on that tree committee and I remember and the mayor's right. We did come up with a really good phasing of a plan and it >> which we all agreed on >> which we did. >> Yes. >> And it got funded. >> No.
>> I had to walk up and down Main Street. I can't tell you how many times and I've been right there. Yes. Well, I certainly understand. I There has to be a better way to do to accomplish what Rich is talking about to make it better, to talk about what
the mayor is doing to make it safer without just blasting through. We don't want to destroy the beauty that we have. We have ways to do it. >> We're not going to. And because I don't want anybody walking away from this meeting or anybody on TV going, "Oh my god, they're going to clear cut Main
Street." No. >> Not the case. >> Right. See what you started, Rich. >> Before I close public, any other me public members? Okay, we'll close public session. Uh motion to adjurnn. >> I have one more. >> Oh, go ahead, Mike. >> Sorry.
>> I tried to get it in before him. >> I know. I know. Just real quick, all the elements of the master plan went to the various committees. That was emailed out. Thank you, Jason. Jason provided me the contacts and Ryan of the different
uh environmental commission recreation who should be getting the elements. The elements went all out and uh the response came back from the environmental commission requesting additional time. They in the email I said please have comments back by
October 15th. They requested November 1st. So we do have environmental commission responding and there's some dialogue on the stormwater ordinance but uh >> Larry can you give do you have any insight as to why they would need beyond
October date? >> Our next meeting is not until like two days before. So we talking about we just had a meeting yesterday. >> It's a timing issue. >> All right. >> It's just it's just that it it'll be like four days between when we >> That's what I was looking for.
>> Yeah. And so that's why we're saying >> I will work with Colin on readjusting slightly because if we allow that it throws off our schedule. So >> right. So right now we just talked about it last night. We're looking at it. We're going to have responses back so
that they can cobble together what we want to >> talk about and talk about the things that we have already submitted >> the red lining on the other one reports that's missing that kind of thing. And then that's why >> No, it's a legitimate reason that was just I I couldn't really get a straight
answer from anybody. >> Just that timing comes up slightly off. >> Okay. All right. So, I will I'll talk to Mike and Colin about just maybe having to readjust that um timeline. Not a lot, but maybe it just pushes it out a little bit to allow everybody to have the proper time.
>> Okay. >> Now, a motion to adjurnn. >> So, move second. >> All in favor? >> All opposed?