This meeting will come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. The copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one posted on the bulletin board outside Barrow Hall. two mailed facts or emailed to the courier news and
three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial pro uh 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 a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
>> Chairperson Warner is excused. Jason Krasco >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Council member Vroom >> here. >> Andrea Dair >> here. Chris Addex >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Tim Hayes >> here. >> Bill Kale >> here. >> John Manilio
>> here. >> Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Please stand for the pledge. >> 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. I have no comments. We're going to uh just move in with two ARB reviews. Um just for the board's edification, it's 84 West Main. That's Blue Sheep. Um it's moving into where Epic Cookies was on
Main Street and 183 West Main, which is the new Pilates Place, Jet Set Pilates. Um it was unanimously agreed on by the ARB. Um, we don't have the minutes, so we're going to move that to the next meeting. Um, so we'll approve those at the next
meeting. And we do have a preliminary hearing here for 6 West Main Street. So, if you guys want to come up, if you want to speak at at the mic the microphone up there where you can take a seat just so um we'll be able to hear you but the people watching won't. So if
you could just use the microphones. >> Okay. And you know what before we get started are you both going to be providing the board with information? Okay. So, you know, I'll just swear in both of you just so the record's clear. I'll just raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you're about to give us for is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. And >> what now? >> Thank you. >> Okay. And before we start, um I will just note that the jurisdiction has been provided to the board by way of notice and publication. Um, and we'll just mark
two exhibits. Uh, well, actually three exhibits. Uh, A1 we'll mark as the application and supporting documentation. A2 is the notice and proof of publication. And then PB1 will be Mr. Cole's report of March 20, 2026
marked as revised. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> So, I'm the owner of the property and uh I'm just proposing uh the renovation >> and your name. Just give your name. >> Yeah, my name is Prashant Patil. >> Great. >> Uh so we are proposing uh to uh rehab
the reconstruct the the fire damage building. So I'm just I'm going to let uh my architect uh take over explain all the technical details and uh uh we'll be able to answer any technical question you guys have can have. >> Okay. Just let me ask you a few
qualification questions. Can you just give us your education and experience as an architect, please? >> Yeah, sure. Um I um uh I got education back home in India and I got my um
license in this country uh as a in New Jersey and New York in 75 that is like 50 years ago and um um and past 40 years I've been my own business before that I worked in New
York and New Jersey for 10 12 years. And um what else? I have I have made uh many presentation presentations to different boards including this board. Uh I did something
25 years ago on um um uh they say four apartments. So so that's uh basically you know any questions you have. >> That's perfect. And your license is in good standing in New Jersey. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Um, we accept him as an Okay. He's accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. And if you could just spell your name for the record. >> Sure. Sure. My uh my name is Daram. Ma, last name is Ma. M like in Mary. E H like in Harry. T like in Tom. A like an
apple. First name is Daram. D like in David. H A R A M. Um. Yeah. And uh my office is at uh 248 uh West Main Street in Rockway, Mars
County. >> Okay. So I can proceed with this. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Sure. So um And yeah, you can take it out of there if you'd like. >> You can take it out.
So um so I have two boards here. This board here shows um properties um our property which is for example this is our property. Same thing is here. This is our
property. And uh this is from the front. And um you can see the side of the building here, existing building. And then we have this picture looking at
the back, the rear view. Um it has uh it shows one story building uh on the right side and three-story building on the left side. And um it has uh um existing
stairs. Uh the second means of exit from from all the apartments from first floor. Um and this is again another picture of u uh existing. This is our next building
and this is our building here. So um We'll mark that as A3 and that'll be a a photo board of four photographs of the existing property in the existing building. And just for the record, did you take
those photographs? >> Um, >> I chief. >> Okay. You took them? >> Actually, I took pictures also a while ago, but then a scaffolding was removed. So, I want to have the latest pictures. >> That was good. Okay. And those those photographs represent the existing
condition of the property as it is today? >> That is better. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> So, here we are. This is our All right. So um first page is basically a site
plan. It's a it's basically a survey not a site plan but it's a very minor change. So as an architect I showed some new addition we are doing. Um so
uh if you look at on the left side is a um it's a old plan which was revised with more information on this plan. So um uh if you look at this thing this is our
property here is uh what is it? It's block number 113 and lot uh lot 16. Um this is the building uh it's a existing three-story building fire
damage which that means inside we have to renovate everything um starting from the roof we see we don't know what kind of condition it is. I'm going to meet the structural engineers soon once we have approval
your blessing and we're going to go over everything uh with the engineer. Um so on this plan here um survey there's a I marked it yellow um I highlighted with yellow is hatching
it shows uh area um 101 141 square ft that's the addition we are doing on second and third floor and this addition is on a existing um first floor Um because first floor is
is it extends out. Um so I'm taking part of that about 141 square ft on second and third floor. And what I'm why I'm doing that thing is to make apartments more bring it up to date. I don't have
any information what was there before but um I think uh by adding 141 square ft it makes a little larger, more up to date and also um it it one of
the apartments I have is u it's a twobedroom and rest other are two onebedroom apartments. So >> again before you move on that sheet that he was just testifying to that was sheet S1 of one and that's in your packet.
>> Yes. Should I say something? No, that's okay. I just wanted to get it on the record and then we'll put the next one on as well as you move it. So, this sheet is which one is this? >> This sheet is uh A1 of uh three. >> Okay, perfect. And that again is in your packet as well.
>> Yeah. So basically uh on the first floor um what I have is um first floor we are showing here um it was a restaurant before and we are we are hoping that
there will be a restaurant again. So we are showing a a kitchen plan uh on the first floor and seating plan uh in front of it. That's your main entrance here. A sliding door right now existing.
So West will be basically called commercial. We are proposing we are suggesting a restaurant. If it's not a restaurant, it would be commercial space. Um uh
so um first floor the areas are first floor area is 256 square ft. Uh and um second floor is 1890 and third floor is
1890. Total area is 5836. So um so this is your first floor plan. This is second floor plan. Um so um
um second floor plan has um let's see how it works. So these are the stairs. You come like this and then you go into these apartments here, here and here. Three apartments. So this apartment here in
the front um it has two bedrooms. Um and the other uh two apartments have um onebedroom apartments. Um and I believe all the room sizes and
everything meet uh international building code New Jersey edition. Um so this I'm looking at page A2 now. Page A23. Uh up top is a third floor plan. Third
floor plan again is um this is your front there. And u um that's that's the front here. So this has two bedroomedroom apartment and then this is another bedroom one bedroom
apartment and then another two bedroom apartment. Um so basically uh what we have on the second floor we have same thing on the third floor. Floor plan is similar. Um
so each apartment for example um like two-bedroom apartment um you come in here there's a bathroom there's a bedroom bedroom living room living dining and
kitchen and it has also um wash and dryer which is it save a lot of time to people not to go for laundry outside and they have it inside. Um so I have done that in all the
apartments. Um so that's your third floor plan. Um so these are the the exterior elevations. Um this one is in the front. This is the
next door building. Three story building. This is our building here. It has a awning um like we have now. Um and uh this is a left side elevation
which shows existing windows. This is your first floor one-story building here. Um and and this is what I'm showing how it will look like after this uh these new windows here.
Um and then this is your rear elevation which has existing second means of exit which will be also we will fix that thing. It's it's not in good shape. Um
so that will have a roof and everything. So the entire building will be sprinkled u which is uh which is very very safe uh to do. Um and um this is the rear elevation.
This is the ex this is the existing stairs which um we're going to have a roof on top of that and these are the stairs going up on the roof on the third floor roof because that roof will have all the uh HVAC equipment and everything
for all the units. Um so basically that's my presentation >> and that was sheet A3 of3. Uh, yes, ma'am. 83. >> Perfect. >> The Oh, go ahead, Michael. I was just
gonna >> um the sprinkler system. Uh, >> yes, sir. >> 13 system, a fully suppressed system. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, that's great. >> Um, regarding the rear edition, is it is it possible to have a staircase
on all three floors going to external, two staircases? uh and we can work it out or something. >> And if another question or thought I had was why not make the addition over the whole
first floor to give maybe you have an opportunity to enclose that staircase in the rear so it's not exposed metal on the rear. you have 8 feet where you can go another 8t and make a suppressed masonary. Now, the structure
below it would have to deal with this, but I I'm just throwing out the idea. Why stop at only eight feet when the footprint's already there? >> That's that's just a thought for the board. Uh I it's an unusual thought
because I'm not usually the one saying >> more but in this case >> if it would make you have an interior staircase external for the whole building. >> Sure. Yes. >> And you're not increasing the footprint. It's the same footprint.
>> Yeah. >> To me it's a win-win. In addition, I my thought on the first floor was if we could incorporate the duck system in now so the approval of the board could look at that before final. >> So any future restaurant the duck is
already designed. It wouldn't be external if the duck would go up. So we wouldn't have a a mushroom facing bridge street. Just a thought that if we could uh look at that to get the restaurant turn key. So another board approval
would not be required for the kitchen application. >> Yes. >> And um thirdly, if we get the egress resolved, I think those windows on the west would not be a concern, it like if
the board agrees like to drill down with the applicant to see if the adjoining property goes up that how we address these windows. just whatever the applicants here, I totally understand that just from a standpoint of if Wasabi
property wants to go up that we at least thought about this on how that impacts this structure. >> Yeah. Do do we have an application for that? >> No, but there was discussion last year with the new owners. They may never happen.
>> Yeah, >> it may never happen. But if the building's fully suppressed and there's two means of egress, I do believe the windows are not needed for emergency access. So that takes care of that. >> If Yeah. Yeah. And I I don't know and
maybe Cara may maybe you know, maybe you don't know what what's the legality behind if you have a building where they put in windows and then you have another building but smack up against it that wants to go up, who's whose rights trump
whose? >> And that's what Mike and I were talking about. I definitely do not know right now, but something we can look at in between preliminary and final. >> Yeah. Because we're not the first ones to go through this. >> Absolutely not. And it's very common downtown. >> Yep. And it very well may be that there
is nothing and it's whatever ends up being approved. >> Yeah. >> You know, it's not like I don't necessarily know that it's like air rights, you know, maybe a completely different type of issue. Um I do know that there is no right to a view. That was there's a big Hoboken case that
established that decades ago. >> Um but we'll look into this and and to use Mike's words, fill it down between. So, is is that something that you've considered that, you know, if if to to Mike Cole's point, if if there is a second means of egress out the back,
um it it would eliminate the need for the windows on the western side and allow for future expansion of the property next door. And again, we have to find out what the legalities are behind that. So I think his proposal is more
extending not only just u 8 ft but just all the way so that we can have >> it's the board determination it's up to the board but I'm saying I don't know eight why not go the whole footprint. >> Yeah we are flex I mean I don't see
I'm flexible in that matter. >> Uh I mean definitely uh it gives me more space uh inside. I'm not it doesn't mean that I'm intend to have like a more twobedroom but at least I will have enough space for even single bedroom.
>> Yeah. More comfortable. >> Yeah. More comfortable. That's the whole idea of even having me a thought of expanding at least up to some extent so that I can have a better apartment. The size of the apartment is decent uh more
like uh livable. Uh and I'm this considering this town um people pay enough. So why not give them a better living as well? >> Okay. >> So that's that was my thought. >> So that may be a consideration. >> Good idea. >> Yeah. >> And the also the dumpster closure. I I'm
I'm assuming that you're going to need a dumpster in the rear >> for the commercial activity and for the residents, >> right? >> Uh the board agrees maybe incorporate the dumpster enclosure in this application. So during final
>> Well, gosh. So, did did you go through Mike Cole's report um for the variances and everything? Yeah. >> I didn't know if you wanted to go through those then one by one for the application that you know he does have.
>> Thank you. >> I just have one question about >> Sure. >> your building compared to the property exactly to the east, the building that's on the corner. >> Yeah. I always heard stories that the two buildings were intertwined
and when everything that happened, it was very hard to get it to be separated. Is that is that still the case or your property at six is separate from the property at two? It's completely separate. They're not sharing any
>> Yeah. >> Except for a support wall. No staircases, >> no heating. >> They share a staircase. Yeah. staircase uh and the on the staircase the sprinkler also we are sharing
>> uh that's a understanding between uh us me and uh the owner next door we already discussed about that we also tried uh to see if we can find the separate entrance but then considering the size of the property uh the width uh it's a lot of
compromises and it was very difficult to do so so in the uh we come to a conclusion and when we had a meeting uh before as well formal meeting with the with the uh Mr. Mayor and also Michael
Cole was there uh we agreed that um it's very hard to separate out that entrance. So we going to have um definitely have a mutual understanding and and understanding and the contract making sure that whatever the utility being
shared especially the sprinkler system for the walkway and the stairs. We going to have an agreement with the with the neighbor. >> Good. >> So that's going to be like an easement, a permanent easement because the building's not going to separate. >> Yeah. Ever. >> So it'll be permanent.
>> Yeah, it is. Yes, it is going to be permanent as and it is same as today. Even today is the same thing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> I personally prefer to have a separate stairs, but it did not work out that
way. Yeah, we tried. Actually, >> we tried. So, so >> anybody else on the board have questions? Will we go through Mike's list? >> I have a couple questions. So, >> sure. >> I didn't see there's no existing layout. So, what So, pretty much you're adding
or converting two one-bedrooms to two bedrooms. >> My understanding is that there were three apartments before. >> Okay. >> There is no record of what kind of apartments they were. Uh so um
so that's what we are doing three apartments but just by adding 141 square ft it helps a lot to make the apartments more desirable more livable. >> I believe it was six apartments in there
>> John it's a three per floor >> yeah three floor I understand that but are you adding any more bedrooms? I I don't see like any walls you're adding. I don't know what was existing in the building. That's what I'm I'm getting at. So, I see the proposed plans. You're showing two onebedrooms and one
twobedroom per floor. Is that what was currently there prior to the fire? >> No, prior to fire, what I c what I know because I haven't seen that. But, uh what I know that was a one-bedroom apartment, three one-bedroom apartment on second and third floor each. Right
now by increasing little space uh we have room to add one more bedroom in in one apartment in each floor. So that's why we are proposing only uh updating like a twobedroom in the building to two apartment in the building with the two
bedroom and remaining four will be same single bedroom >> the two bedrooms are facing >> right so you're adding two more bedrooms. >> Yeah adding two bedrooms for the apartments facing Main Street. I questioned they're 9 by9 which is a small bedroom. >> Yeah, that was my next question.
>> I questioned this and the architect is saying they're code compliant. I'm not 100% sure of that, but we can certainly dig into that. They're just very small bedrooms. >> Well, and if they do push out the back, would that free up a little bit of space to make them a little more
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It it it helps everywhere in my opinion. the size of the apartments because they're relatively what are we talking four and 500 square feet apartments which I it's main street I get it and it's there but they're for the burrow they're
small apartments >> so that would help that and it would help with the bedroom size should the board be it doesn't increase parking in the report I said that it adds point4 parking I'm basically saying the building the apartments pre-exist the
code so I'm not I mean, not even addressing the parking on the apartments because they've been there probably since 1960 or 50s. However, the bedroom increases the parking demand using RSIs, but it's point4 and the ordinance says
under.5, you're rounding down. So, for the purposes of what they're proposing, there's no parking demand. >> That is correct. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, like Mr. Cole, I think stated, I think my concern is the size of apartments. They're they're small. The
twobedroom is 585, I think, is what I saw in the plans. Um, you know, I'd rather see that extra space be utilized to make all the apartments a little bigger, make them nicer. But that that's, you know, it's your plan. It's your proposal. >> There's only so much space I have to work with, >> right? No,
>> we could, should the board be inclined to grant preliminary approval, we could ask for them when they come back for final to show proof that the proposed square footages are code compliant? >> Yeah, correct. That and ADA, I'm not sure if this is a total rehab, it falls on a rehab code or or u reconstruction
code. So, would you have to make any of these ADA accessible or ADA improvements? Just make sure that that's I guess something you can report back to when you look into the code. These apartments are not ADA accessible, >> right? But the amount of work that you're doing, right, per building code,
you do a certain amount of work, you might have to make improvements to make them compliant. Um, >> John, you're right. Uh, it's my understanding that this would be completely reconstruction >> and should the board agree, I would like to work out all these issues between
plury and final so we have answers to all this when they come back to the board for final approval. Square footage UCC rehab accessibility. I I do believe that there will be an accessibility. You're absolutely right. You don't have to put an elevator in. None of that. But
you might like, for example, the rear access from the kitchen, the second means egress. Is it accessible? No. There's two steps. Well, you have to upgrade to get rid of the steps to make sure it's accessible. Something like that. >> Yeah, sure. something. >> I I agree with what John is saying that
you're going to have to show there's a formula in the UCCC code for addressing the rehab component. >> Is the same thing going to happen for the the second building, the building closer to the corner, they're going to have the same exact issues.
>> They're going to have to be ADA compliant. So, if they're going to put a elevator in six, maybe they got to put an elevator. I don't know what they do. >> They they weren't uh completely gutted. That was just water damage. >> Okay. >> The same structural damage that this has. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Just one more question. I'm not sure. We're not talking about the first floor right now. That's coming back to us for a future, I guess, application. Uh but what's the basement utilized for? There is a basement, right? >> Yes. >> Uh is that just storage, mechanical? >> Storage. >> Okay. >> And some maybe some utilities like any
appliance for example. We try to put maybe water heater down there or in the apartment if you find a space in apartment. >> C can you just make sure you're talking into the microphone? >> Sorry. >> Yeah. So it could be the basement is mainly for the storage. Uh but any
utility we have to run through it's it's from the from the basement. >> Okay. And and would you be okay with a condition that no habitable space as far as you know office or any type of >> Absolutely not. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. just in case like for the restaurant they wanted to utilize as their storage.
Again, it's a storage. Uh that's only uh usable uh option. Uh otherwise uh no living space in the basement for sure. So, by the way, the the um
what I was going to say um um the first floor restaurant I have designed that has ADA bathrooms >> that is all ADA accessible. The only thing what Michael said that
for the second exit we have to look in the back if there are a couple of steps or something maybe we have to put a ramp or something we will we'll figure that out. Yeah, we just went >> sorry. >> Yeah, but first first floor will be commercial restaurant with with the two normal exits
>> and to be sprinkled also. >> Since the building's more than 75 ft, you need a second means of egress. This came up before >> for the restaurant or the retail use. Yeah. >> And it has a second means. I I just don't know if that's accessible. So that
could be used. Obviously, it's a benefit for ADA for reconstruction. >> Yeah. >> To get the accessibility out the rear of the restaurant. >> And if we can incorporate the duck work through the building, not from on Bridge
Street and screen all utilities on the roof so it cleans it up. That's another reason for the increasing the addition to incorporate the duct work. Sure. should I'm not saying you have to use it but if you have a commercial kitchen going in it's already I'll use the term
turnkey so that we've already looked at the CFM all this or the board has seen all this >> and should the board be comfortable with it to answer John's question that that could be addressed during final to the extent possible
>> I just have one more comment on a question so I know there was conversations about the windows along that that wall um me personally I I'd rather keep them um and not get rid of windows because you need some daylight for these residents. >> Um so obviously if if the code allows
you 100%. >> I agree with you 100%. >> I mean apartment should have windows >> otherwise you you're sitting in the basement. >> Yeah. you know, you don't know it's raining outside, snowing outside, what? So, uh I would like to have windows, but
if there is a issue, serious issue of future expansion of uh the labor going up three floors, then it's a issue. >> Yeah, it just we'll we'll drill down on that from a standpoint of you're here. >> Yeah, >> maybe it never happens, but if it happens, the code says you got to put
the the joining property is going to put window wells in. I I don't know. >> I'm just saying if the If they're not egress windows, it helps everyone immensely. It becomes a light and air issue, not an access issue. That's what I'm I >> Yeah,
>> it it'll probably fall on the burden on the adjoining property, but we have to drill down on that. Yeah. >> I just want to make sure we thoroughly thought about this. >> Uh I'm not suggesting any windows be removed. I'm just saying >> yeah, >> I'm asking what the what if question.
Yeah, we just need to understand should another application come in. >> Yes, sir. >> Whose rights trump whose? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> Any other questions from the board? >> All right. Um Mike, is there anything else in your report that you wanted to
touch on before I open it up to public? >> Um just briefly, he's he's asking for a C variance for the rear setback. That's why it's here. >> Um wall signs. They're place capers. So,
I'm sure that the applicant's going to say that the any future wall signs will comply with the burough ordinance. You're not asking for relief. I know you don't know. Obviously, the wall signs are going to be for the the retail use. The rear fuse dumpster, I think he's the
applicant's going to need that relief. I think there's going to be I don't see how this operates without a dumpster in the rear. So, if the applicant's applicable and the board agrees, incorporate a dumpster enclosure. That's a waiver relief that the board would have to give for a dumpster.
>> Street trees. There's one roof there. It's black topped over. >> I don't know how the board feels about putting a street tree back. >> I'm raising my hand for Larry. >> Yep. >> Okay. I went on >> We should replace the tree. We should.
>> No doubt about it. and I show a comments for a 4x4 tree grate with engineered soil. They give it the moisture and you don't have the tripping hazard and it's ADA compliant. That's what we've done in the past. So, no planters, the tree grates so they're flush with the ground.
Okay. And the species, we can reach out to the environmental commission as there's a list that we can provide the applicant or approved trees. I just don't have that list. I don't know it's been finalized yet, Larry. >> Okay. Okay. the apartment layouts, the wall signs we
went over. Sorry. >> Oh, thank you. >> That later. >> Yeah, the storefront glazing if before final we could look at the glazing. Thank you on 40% coverage requirement. I think you're
under on the glazing. So if we could increase it just invites people interaction from the foot traffic seeing and uh if we could just see what to the extent possible you could do on the glazing which is a fancy way of saying
complete glass to show public what's going on. Thank you. Um the san sewer there's a unique situation here where the existing san sewer lateral goes to the through the property to the
east which is a problem. So they're proposing a new san sewer which I completely support. It's just documenting that the existing lateral is grouted in because that building was filled with and maybe Mr. O'Neal could
comment, but feet of water and debris on top of a lateral. So my only concern is that if it was sealed properly abandoned in place, >> right? So actually the applicant brought
to my attention that this was the situation and that's why he was proposing >> we have our existing sewer was going through the neighbor's property and then now we are going to have uh our own sewer line >> that's common downtown there's a number
of properties that share they pump it into the neighbors property and then it gets >> so I'm trying so whatever can be done better I'm trying to do it And that's about all of it. The relief
is there. I'm hopeful that should the board grant a plary approval that we can clarify and show something that's uh hopefully addresses the commercial kitchen, the apartment sizes, the egress, second means, the staircase,
>> ADA, the dumpster, the tree. >> Yeah. >> All right. Anything else from the board before I open it to the >> just just a couple of things and you may want to consider, you know, if if if pushing that back out a little bit doesn't work. You know, you may want to
consider going back and looking at those front bedrooms and instead of making um you know, a primary bedroom and a very small bedroom number two, making one very large that may be as appealing as a two-bedroom. I just I look at it a
9 by9 is >> it's tiny. Yeah, >> it's it's real tiny. >> You know, we're probably most six foot tall. >> You got you got three, >> you know, that leaves you that much
space for a dresser for, you know, I just look at it and you may be it may be more advantageous to actually create a larger bedroom, a single larger bedroom that overlooks Main Street, which I think is a kind of nice a very nice look. We can consider that but also just
uh as Michael and everyone of you said that if we extend the wall all the way to the same level as the first floor then we can have enough room to increase the size of the twobedroom. So we may
consider your uh suggestion as well that make one bigger but if we have get enough room >> to make the keep the twobedroom and have the bedroom size increase we can we can try to do that as well. >> And then the only other thing I mean these these two properties are are
intertwined. They've been intertwined >> forever and when Mike said the 1960s I think it's really the 1860s that they they've been apartments. >> Yeah. >> So I'm looking at Rich. Sorry, Rich. >> Um, but one one of the things that you
may want to consider, they've got a dumpster, you're going to need a dumpster. Do you then talk about a shared dumpster that you can So now you've got one dumpster. It creates more accessibility, more room in the back. You know, it it may function a little bit better back there because I know it's tight. It's tight as it is right
back there right now and and in its existing operation. >> Yes. So, you know, it it may be worth having that discussion with them as well. >> Sure. So, we'll certainly do. Yeah. Thank you. >> Also, is the applicant agreeable to the fire marshals
uh comments? He issued a report he was uh requiring or stating a 13 system and announcing in a panel box in Is it in our package? >> No, I don't think we had that. >> Okay. Um
there's at least three. There might be one I'm missing, but uh it's basically life safety issues. And the big one is the 13th system. Um I I can get you tomorrow a copy of if you don't have it a copy of
the fire marshal correspondence. >> Sure. >> And Mike, will this trigger an affordable housing component? If it's existing and the board takes the position we're not creating and it's just rehab of a fire damage. No.
>> Well, it's adding bedrooms under the current plan. It's adding bedrooms, >> right? The bedrooms will have to look at if the bed the apartments. No, the apartments have been there forever. The bedroom we'll look at. >> Okay. Anything else from the board?
All right. Then I'll open it up to the public for any questions or comments on this hearing. None. So we'll need a um motion from somebody for the preliminary approval.
>> So it'll be a motion for preliminary and approval of the variances and and waiverss outlined in Mike's letter. Um I'd suggest we put some of these conditions on here as well just to guide the um applicant with regard to what has
to be done prior to final. Um some of these are things that need to be done and some others are just to confirm. The entire building will be sprinklered. The applicant will work with Mike to uh discuss putting the staircases along the
rear for secondary access. um increasing the proposed size of the addition for the entire size of the foot footprint. Uh they'll come back for final with revised plans and addressing all of Mike's comments in his report. Um they'll come back with an answer as to
whether the proposed square footage of bedrooms are all code compliant and provide proof. Obviously, that may change if the layout changes a little bit based on tonight's discussions, but we just want to make sure that whatever square footage is proposed is code compliant. um also come back with regard
to answers concerning ADA applicability, affordable housing applicability and also we'll discuss the window issue. Um any future wall sign will comply or come back for board approval. Um they will provide a refuge dumpster and put that
proposed location on the final plans. Um the tree will be replaced. Um >> the duct work, >> glazing. >> Um say that again, Jason. >> The duck work. Having the duck work in place so that when they do get a
restaurant to move in, they won't have to come back to the board. Yep. >> For another approval. >> It'll go to the roof. >> Correct. Inside the building, inside the walls that are getting redone. >> Thank you. That's the last one. >> Can I make one comment, please? I'm done.
>> No, absolutely. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Um Um, no. It's okay. I don't want to start something new. I'm okay. I'm okay. I'm >> We can discuss it. Should the board approve this in between pimary and
final? >> I was just going to add maybe the basement too, just use for storage and um utilities only. >> It's a partial basement. It's a small area. It's not much. >> Yeah. >> Anything else from the board or does
somebody want to make that motion? >> I'll make I'll make that motion. >> Do we have a second? >> Roll call. >> Roger. >> Roger. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> John Manilio. >> Yes.
>> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Tim Hayes. Yes. >> All right. >> Thank you, Bo. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much >> and look forward to seeing you soon with the final uh
>> absolutely soon. >> Okay. Next up on the agenda, um we have our discussion items. The area need um study. Mike, do you want to just go over? I know you sent out >> Yeah. To follow up with our last discussion,
I had made the comment and I Colin agreed that the par parcels that were on the west side of Bridge Street were moved to the West Main Street redevelopment. So dividing line is Bridge Street, South Bridge. Uh what you have in your package is the resolution
from council doing that and with the study you have that added the police building the bur councils and the partials off the south street into the redevelopment area but that was added to the west. So the you have the
documentation the clean break is south bridge and then uh Ryan bake prepared the aerial uh mapping of the ECBD. you have that takes those parcels out and obviously it' be nice it' be 11 by
bigger mapping but you have the mapping in front of you that shows the current aerial of the question I think Larry raised as this we're showing stuff from 40 years ago that doesn't exist on the or I think it was Larry maybe it was Jason
>> it was Larry >> Larry so this gives you the current uses so you can see what's been redeveloped and what's not and the flood hazard line is roughly right roughly. Um this is using the county's GIS system. So in
future discussions, we know what's developed and what's not and looking at uses for the redevelopment plan, which appears to be we're going to be doing a redo of the whole plan because I'll use the terms a little long in the tooth and a lot of stuff has been developed and it
may not reflect where the burrow the vision current vision of the burough for this area. >> Thank you. Um, did everybody have a chance to look at that? Does anybody have comment on first
moving the uh area over to the West Main Street redevelopment plan? >> That That's common sense. It probably shouldn't have been in the east to begin with. We were trying to do improvements back then on that, but making it to the
west is better. Any other comments on that? No issues. >> So Ryan can give a email 11 by a much bigger map for the board members and we
could use that aerial for future discussion on uses and overlay base zones wherever. I think using the aerial was a great idea to show you what's developed in real and what's not and what areas the the planning board wishes
to focus on. >> So, we don't need to do anything with their resolution. Correct. >> No, that's all done. >> 100% done. >> It was part of the history of I I made the comment that the lots were moved, but I wanted to get the documentation
and you saw the study. >> So, you have the documentation of why what why it was moved and what was done. So, moving then right over to the ECBD. Um, does anybody did everybody make some comments on after our last discussion
with it, does anybody have any additions, changes, thoughts for discussion? I think in the obviously in the area that's impacted by the the flood which is the EB3 and the EB2 and part of the ER2
um you know we when we had met some of us as members of the the flood committee you know we had imagined ways for folks to be able to lift their homes if they want to stay kind of like the shore idea where they can lift their homes out of
that water. So, we're not saying they can't live there. And I know for developers, we've talked about transfer of developer rights, but that doesn't always pan out to homeowners who want to stay and keep their houses and rebuild if they must. Um, and obviously when we had our last flood come through, it went
way past uh most of the areas that it has gone in the past. Um, but I think another thing would be reimagining and strengthening kind of some comments to create and expand our park space, you know, for future. So if if places
are vacated or you know something were to happen where we have further floods that cause people to vacate, you know, maybe it's a concept that we have. We've talked about blue acres in the past. We've talked about green acres in the past. Um including something like that in the master plan where we absorb that
and and I know it is a little bit. We've talked about that that part of uh EB3 was uh supposed to be designated as park zone. Um but maybe even doing because we've we've asked developers to create flood storage. What can we do? And what
can we do with some of those lots? Because that area of Park Avenue is is, you know, pretty heavily hammered by wet weather. >> Yeah. I I I think Thank you. I think an
interesting approach to that might be and it's not that it's excluded from it, but the TDR would work in a scenario like that. if if a property were affected um you know you've got the doctor's office the dentist office at the junction of Park A and High Street
and it's it's been vacant it's been flooded teen times and it's it's now vacant it's been vacant for a whole bunch of years >> yes >> and there it sits I know the council when I was last on on um the council
prior my first run um we did look at that as a as a potential acquisition and incorporating ating it as part of our park plans. Um, keeping the structure and using it as a facility of some kind. So, you know, the idea I think it's a
good concept and and I think the TDR as we move forward, you know, looking at as we look at our redevelopment plans, our other redevelopment areas, we use that um as a leverage isn't the right word.
um a point in the plan that says, "Look, if you want a little bit added density, if we're looking at density in these redevelopment areas, you're going to have to acquire a parcel of property or maybe it gets uh put into a fund that
can help for the acquisition of a parcel of property for parklands." So, just a thought, just throwing it out there. It's it's aligned with what you're saying. >> Yeah. And I think obviously this is not the only area along the Peters Brook. You know, we have big problems when we
get towards the Y >> and Carol Pager, but again, how can we start to to the mayor's point, think of something now that will then ripple to those other properties because we, you know, we've been tasked after the last
storm to help people, homeowners do something to help their properties. Um, you know, the one the one homeowner on uh Culver and High Street, >> that place has been rebuilt multiple times. >> Um, and
>> it's, you know, like they've done a fantastic job. >> Looks great. >> It looks fantastic. But what can we do to to give them the ability because then we're going up against F. We're going up against a few other different things. How can we get them out if they want to stay where they're at? How do we get
them up if they wanted to do such a thing? So >> yes, that's that's my point is what are we looking at? Because that was when we met as the as the flood committee. We we were bouncing around a bunch of different ideas of how we can people
want to stay here. That's their big thing. They don't want their homes to keep flooding. >> And that's kind of Park Avenue what we're seeing. Um but it again it's going to ripple to other parts of town. So this gives us an opportunity to really kind of think about some of those recommendations that that we received in
helping out our our residents. >> So So you suggested an overlay zone into the flood area along the entire thing whereas we were talking about pulling back all the um >> overlay because we wouldn't be able to unless we did I I don't know how we
would do that in the plan without adding a overlay zone. I think what Roger was referring to and I was on the flood hazard committee is looking and this is more burrowwide looking at all the parcels that are in the flood hazard
zone and if they're residential parcels trying to uh incorporate the ordinances to allow people to floodproof those properties so be it uh without uh going
through the whole process the land development process. >> Yeah. Isn't that right, Roger? Is that where you were going with that? >> And it doesn't Yeah. And it doesn't have to it doesn't have to be overlay. We could certainly could do block and lot because we know >> we've seen it multiple times, but as I'm saying right now, you know, I keep
looking at at that stretch and and it's the same thing with, you know, again, we're going to talk about it on the other side with um uh Codington, right? They get impacted the same way. I know that's not in this current what we're looking at right now. >> No, it's the exact same situation.
>> Exactly. So, I I think we really now is the time and you mentioned it at the last meeting. We really need to kind of hone in on this to to help out as as best we can to create an avenue and and like you just said to to you know make
it easier for people to stay. >> Is is Go ahead. >> Are you contemplating something like what they've done in Manville at the Lost Valley for the last couple of years where they get flooded all the time and eventually they stopped saying no, we're
not going to rebuild these houses. >> Well, get out. >> I don't I don't think No, I don't think that's what Roger saying. I want to speak for you because what he's saying is actually the opposite that these are people's homes and they want to stay. How can we streamline the process of of rebuilding
um and and minimizing the uh future flood risk? That's >> right. So, you know, and and through through our process, through our review process, so it's not a land use application to put a house up on stilts to bring it, you know, raise it four
feet. I think that can be done very simply and and really it's just it you wouldn't even have to do it by block and lot. I think you just say any any property affected by a flood magnitude of XYZ has the ability to u bypass the
typical and and we >> as long as it's legal. >> Yeah, >> I like that idea better than trying to do by block and lot because as the flood >> might exclude something and and Yeah. And and I didn't want to do it by, you know, EB2 also goes all the way over,
you know, to the other side of the town. Not the town, the other side of that district, and we don't want to tell them that they need to, you know. >> No, I allow the heights and stuff. No, but my my point was >> as the area. I was just using it as reference so that as we're looking at
the map, >> everyone understands what I'm talking about. >> I like that idea. But on the flip side, let's say there's a homeowner that's been hit one time, two times, three times, uh, and they want to give up. They want to throw in the towel. How do we help them do that, you know, without
a like, let's take that property on Codington that's been flooded so many times. If he wanted to say, you know, I don't want to build up, you know, can we help facilitate wants to cash out? >> Yeah. Getting that property and giving it back to the river, if you will. And I
think that's where the TD comes in, the transport development rights. I think I think that has the ability for us to leverage a developer's wants with the burrow's needs. >> Okay. >> I think that's >> Yeah. I mean, they have the blue acres and the green acres plan. Um but that's,
you know, that's based solely on the individual doing it. Um the town doesn't fund that. We don't do anything with it. We've had two in the last couple years that I've gotten it. the one back on Davenport Street um right by the bridge there, the one set back. >> Yes. Which hasn't been torn down.
>> Hasn't been torn down yet. Um but so they do have that option if they're looking to get out after multiple. They have to make an application. Um and then the transfer developer right to do the same thing >> and and we can certainly put something in the language about about that that the bureau would be supportive if
they're you know. >> Yeah. Let's think about this. Kick this around a little bit. I I I like this. Um, and Mike, it could it could become part of your compliance review on on the more major site plan applications of at
least a discussion of TDR. Um, and and you know, I I think it's something we have to kick around and think think about a little bit. But I think there's an opportunity there. I think that's Yeah. >> Yeah. Because again, if somebody wants to go up, I'd love to see them, you know, they get flooded, they want to go up, but then all a sudden now they have the heights that they're going to go
over. So it would have to be something that going up, you know, is allowed. And I don't know how, and again, Mike, this would be your tricky language of >> that. I mean, the problem with the parcels and just raised is the only
flood hazard insurance you can get today is from the feds and it's capped at 250 and it doesn't once you hit it the next storm, you get zero. Yeah. Storm after that, you get zero. Zero zero zero. So, as a property owner, you're essentially
you don't have flood insurance if you you get hit with a couple of storms. And that runs with the the land, not the property owner. That's the rub with the real estate transactions. Right to know this isn't covered in right to know. So, if you buy a parcel that has had
previous claims, there's no information >> and it's not covered in right to know. This was the whole thing a couple years ago that Murphy, Governor Murphy was going to change it to make this part of the right to know. >> I don't know where it stood, but the
issue is that that that inability for flood insurance runs with the property, not the property owner. So, there was a big stink on this on this issue, >> which again, take that first 250 and raise the house and so you don't have to worry about it. >> And if you have deep pockets, maybe some
homeowners would not care. they just if you have the money, but a lot of homeowners are going to hit this. >> So, I I just throwing it out there. >> I I I like the idea a lot. >> Yeah. >> I don't know how to write that up that you can, >> you know, if you're in the flood hazard
area and you want to do these things, then we make it easier. Yeah. >> You know, >> takes away all those other variances without allowing them to do something obnoxious. >> Right. >> Right. It keeps with the character, but it gives them the ability and we I mean we we've seen it on >> Mercer.
>> There are the a few of those houses that were built after the explosion are certainly that much higher than they previously were and so we've allowed it. We just have to codify it. >> Good.
>> I can certainly work on that. the the the trigger would be lawfully pre-existing structures and and we can drill down on additions or >> Yeah. And it doesn't have to be recently affected. It could be affected by storms in the past, you know, 40 years, whatever it is.
>> Mike language. >> Exactly. Larry, >> uh just one other comment about the lines. Maybe the Summers Hotel can be taken out of the Eastern Business District and moved into the future county redevelopment.
>> I I think we're looking at moving the county buildings and stuff into this district. >> Oh, >> yes. >> Okay. >> Capturing that whole >> block. Okay, then never mind. >> Never mind. >> Um,
so Mike will work on that and then did anybody else have any comments? I mean, I know I sent Mike over some on the um you know, I don't think we need 90 foot buildings in some of these zones when you go back to it. So, um if anybody took a look at schedule A
and B and had any additional comments to put a No, >> I think we definitely need height restrictions that are in line with, you know, that section of Main Street and that section of town. Uh certainly not
nine stories. I I agree. >> Is it safe to say we're going to get the planning board wants to get rid of the overlay zones, we're going to go to the zoning requirement in the zone >> or is that still for future discussion to get rid of it or keep the overlay zones?
>> I think that's a future discussion >> that future. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Any other discussion on this? >> I think the overlay zones are holding us back. Uh, I think we should just say we're not doing this anymore and because we have so many different new
developments over the last 20 years, things are different now. It might be better to just blow the whole thing up and start from scratch. >> You know what? I agree >> because overlay zones, they they cause too much confusion. >> It does. And and the only reason I say it's a future discussion is because I
think we need to get the uh plan revisions done first. Then I think we can have the discussion of, you know, what What is it now? What is this zone? >> So, what what revisions are we going to do for next meeting then besides Roger's
comments and taking that in? >> I just don't want to stall it where we come back and we have the same discussion next meeting. >> I I think we you know we talked about height restrictions. I think that you know what do we have on that that end of town? Three stories for for the most part. two stories.
>> So, are we doing that per overlay zone or per original zone or by >> property and lot? >> I can throw out bulk standards that I think the board would like to entertain and we can work on the structure later. Height where
>> Yeah, I think >> because we talked Park Avenue was was to be dense, very dense and and I think after the last storms, everybody's looking at that going >> we need to pull back. Yes, it's it's got to come back. >> Yes. So, um I think that's an area that needs to be addressed. The inclusion of
the government uh envelope into the area as well. Um and and we had talked about, you know, as you enter Main Street, you know, if if um you know, if if the East Main project
gets off the ground, that's one thing. If it doesn't get off the ground, you know, what what does that property become? and we talked about what do we want to see there. That was a big that's a big discussion point I think that you know we have to you know let's plan um
because the developer hasn't uh um hasn't moved anything forward at this point yet. So, let's let's begin to at least plan in the event that nothing happens that we're we're prepared and that we've looked at it and we've revised it from what it was, which is
the iteration that we all that we saw at this table um into in the context of what has been developed. What do we want to what would we want to see down there now with a blank canvas as we look at the ECBD? And I thought that the consensus was
mechanic street that was good the way it was. >> Yes. >> So either take it out of the redevelopment zone or put strong language to maintain the the what's there. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Either way the board can make that decision. But I can give an outline of these points. Yes. Yes. Yes. And we can
start going from there. >> Back to the uh acting chairman's comment. >> Just in general. So there there's a lot to take in. There's a lot of different um zones and you know properties in the zone. So I'm wondering if we kind of like backstep a little bit and kind of
just break it down like what's our assignment for next meeting? Is it to look at you know what's are are these good the EB1, EB2, EB3 and do the properties fit in them? Do we readjust that or do we just take one zone at a time and say okay what do we want to see in this? That's just my thought instead
of kind of looking at all this at once. There there's a lot >> that's and yeah and that's kind of what I was looking for is some kind of direction for the board to look at >> so we we continue to move it forward >> John with the aerial why don't we just not even think about the zones just where you want it and start from there
you have the aerial forget what the zones are today where does >> what do we want to see >> right >> and then we'll go from there I if you start with the zones it's >> we're chasing our tail in my opinion we have an aerial what areas do you want to see redevelopment been focused on and
then we'll if the board agrees carve those out or address it in some way and the areas which are developed we can in the plan say these areas are developed >> uh use the current B2 or the P or whatever it is the zoning unless you
want something special for those areas but they're carved out >> can you send this map to us all so that we could >> Yeah I I apologize if anybody got that uh I can certainly reach out to Ryan tomorrow and get a PDF of 11 by7 or even
bigger but 11 by7 I think so you have an option of printing it out on a normal printer. >> Um >> the only thing I'll say and it may not matter because I I like this approach of doing it. I think it probably furthers your endgame better. Um but there's
different notice requirements for when you change the boundaries of a zone versus and some are a lot more expansive and could be more costly. So again, that may not matter at the end of the day because you're looking to really revamp this, but just just a thought.
>> So to John's point and and to Mike's point, why don't we take either the northern portion of the expanded ECBD or the southern portion for the next meeting? And and you know, I leave that up to who you know, make make
>> Where's your dividing line? >> Main Street. >> Main Street. Okay. My thought was the northern triangle. Start with that. >> Yep. Well, and it would expand because now you're bringing it up to uh >> up to Grove. >> Grove. >> Okay. >> Grove High Park. >> So So what do we want to see? So the
homework for the next meeting is what do you want to see on the northern side of Main Street from Park A up to Grove, High Street, Maine to High, Grove to Park. Right.
Everybody good with that? All right. >> So, we'll all see each other walking around out there next week. All right. So, moving on to the master plan, the historic uh preservation
element. Did anybody have any updated notes, comments, anything from last meeting? Yeah, I have one thing. Um, as I was reading through it, like I understand we we went back and forth about the overlay
zones and formation of them, the historic overlay zones. And as I'm reading it, I understand the intent of the advisory committee, what they're trying to achieve. And I can't help but think, and it's really a governing body decision, but what about upgrading the
historic advisory committee to a historic preservation commission? because a lot of what they want to achieve and do with these overlay zones, the way it's written, it's going to get dumped back onto the planning board. And
soon we're going to be bogged down with approving siding types in certain neighborhoods if there's an overlay zone as it's written. And there has been ca there was a recent recent 2010 I think it was there was a
planning board in some county that was sued for making the wrong historic decision and the ultimate end of the day recommendation was have a preservation commission to fall back on. They would be the gatekeeper. Planning board still has the final say. It's like a screening
body. But a lot of what they write in their in the uh historic element and a lot of what the MLUL says the goals of a preservation commission are it's like neck and neck. So I know that's not our decision to make. That is a governing
body decision. But I don't know if anyone else had any thoughts about that or so. And again, my my interpretation of the way they wrote it is that it would start with them, filter everything through them and then come to the planning board for a final.
>> It would come go to the neighborhood zone. >> Yep. And then they would go to the historic advisory. >> Advisory committees don't have that power. You need a preservation commission. That's >> right. Yeah. So the way it's written, the historic advisory committee would
they're basically shifting all their power over to the planning board and I I think what they want to achieve is not how this is written. We those powers have to be done by a preservation commission because that's a legal structure defined in the MLU
>> and in fact they have they're supposed to have either separate council or utilize the municipalities council. There are definitely some very separate There's two forms. There's a strong and a weak form, different powers, but at the end of the day, they would be the
gatekeeper to make recommendations to the planning board. I I I think a commission is a slippery slope. Um there's been talk of that over the past 20 plus years
and the council uh at each step said, "Look, we already have a planning board in place. we have a governing body in place now. We're going to add another layer of government into the mix and and it it just
I don't know that the will is there. Um and I don't know that uh the public would understand enough about the commission or a commission in order to say, "Yeah, we think that's a good idea." Um I just I find it a challenge
adding another layer of government in. I really do. I just I understand what you're saying. But the at the end of the day it does it should rest with this body. Our our we our job is to balance all of those elements. It's historic,
it's economic, it's growth, it's the lack of growth, it's that's our job. That's what we do. and and I think there's a way to balance that and and it's having our historic committee acts
as an advisory body to the planning board and to the burough council. I don't see that changing. I don't um will it mean more coming to us? We don't know. We don't know. I don't know that neighborhoods will get
together and say we we you know we're not going to allow anybody to change their vinyl siding color. I don't know that it's going to happen. I really I don't see it. >> Yeah. >> Well, this the simple fact that we struck all of the addresses that
commonly are known to be historic sites that everybody goes, "Yeah, every one of them is removed >> because nobody wants that. designation without their approval on it. So we just removed all of the historic sites. So that
>> well they're not addresses block and lot is okay >> but you know the actual physical address that's you know a problem >> essentially though it removes it as an idea. If you're going block and lot, that's a
pain in the neck. But if I can see an address and go, "Oh, 34 Grand Avenue. That's my house." >> What's your block and lot 377 >> extra work? >> Yeah, you're referencing the block. You're essentially also referencing the
address. >> The address. Yeah. Well, what I'm saying is that if we're removing all of these known historic, we we call them known historic sites. Most people would agree, but as soon as you remove it, it takes it out of your mind as a place to
preserve. Why are what are we preserving? Which ones? Why do we have to then unnot that? Because if we if we can't determine that that particular building is of of historic significance, the only thing that we could do is say
Burrow Hall. >> Well, the the counter to that is we going to each property owner and saying, "Do you want your piece of property included in our master plan?" >> And when they say no, >> there you go. It's out. But but what
this does, the manner in which we do it here is it recognizes it as something of historic of a historic nature in the burrow of Somerville. >> Except we removed it. >> No, we didn't. >> Yeah, it's struck. >> Well, it should be block and lot should be in there.
>> Oh, no, it's not. This is just But every regular address. >> Yeah. Well, we had a discussion that we should have the block and lot. >> Yeah. Okay. >> No, we don't want to take it out. I Yeah. So, >> I'm just concerned that >> we're moving ourselves away from the
idea that there are historic structures that we would like to preserve and encourage preservation. >> Well, I I think I think you just hit what we would like to do is to encourage a property owner to preserve uh and protect their property. We can't force
it. >> No, no, of course not. But then we have to set this up to say if you think that your house is of historic significance and you want to do re renovations on it, then that should be what part of the master plan is, never mind blocks and
lots. It could just be >> just if you think you want to do this, call us. >> Which I think that's what the, you know, creating the historic overlay zone does is if the if the resident wants to be included. So, it's an opt-in instead of us putting it out there that any, you
know, area is, they would have to opt in as individuals or as a group of neighbors, not um, you know, not us telling them, which is again why I I struck it out in mine. You know, what you're looking at is the draft that I did with my changes.
>> Um, which is why I struck it out as we're putting people's addresses in here and they don't know. And there's nothing we do based on that because we can't stop somebody just because their name's on this list or address I should say. Does that make sense?
>> I'm kind of with you on that. Putting the the whether it's block or log, you can still identify the address. It's not that hard to get from point A to point B on that. And I think it's really up to the property owner to decide what they want to do. And I don't think this is the only place that this information can exist, right?
>> Yeah. Historic has it on. I think education can happen. I think conversation with property owners can happen and that's something that we or the environmental group can do. Um so I'm I'm with you Jason keeping these out but um you know I'm open to the board decision you know.
>> Well I think the other thing to consider is that and we talked about this at the last meeting. I may live in that house now but before this plan gets revised someone else may live there and they may not their want their >> address in the plan. So saying yes now
doesn't guarantee that someone wants, you know, folks riding by and taking pictures in front of their house. They may do that anyways, but you know what I'm saying? >> Like it it's >> it futurep proofs it. Um, you know, I think there's something to be said even with the, uh, historic advisory committee to having them create, you
know, Somerville historic placards and putting them on on houses and giving, you know, again, that there that's part of the um, part of the education to teach people the provenence of their homes. And so then then that's something small that we could do if they so desire. But at least we reach out to
them and give them the opportunity because someone may have moved into a house. They don't know what it was. >> Yeah. >> You know, but at least we can we can educate them. We can work with historic advisory and create, you know, uh placards and things along those lines that are just Somerville, not historic registry and not the confines of that.
And maybe that's really all they need. >> I agree with you. >> Keeping it simple. I agree with you. >> Keep it simple. >> So I have a question. What is the purpose of the recommendations in here? Because I mean based off what I've heard over the past few meetings, it sounds
like most of these, you know, the board doesn't want to accept or is is it just in there just >> which recommendations? >> Yeah. So like starting on page 10, page 10, page 11, page 12, you know, a lot of these things
are u you know, is this is this something that we want to do as part of the master plan? It's I guess I'm trying to understand what's the purpose of the recommendations or maybe is it are we going to do them or are we not going to do them? So these
these again are are we reached out to all the departments >> and asked them to provide us with their recommendations going forward what they'd like to see. Um and then that's where it comes here for our discussion to say well >> that's that's good. We appreciate those
those recommendations, but from a financial standpoint or from a um you know from a a exposure standpoint or whatever the case may be, there might be other considerations that we have. Um you know, the one thing that this board has
tried to work on for the past couple years now is making things easier for folks to get through. And while these are great suggestions, doing some of these things may make it a lot harder for folks to be able to do simple things to their homes. So that was kind of so what we have here. That's
why that's why we're pulling it apart >> to see as we discuss as a planning board the recommendations that we want to make into this plan that would eventually get kicked up to the uh uh council. Sorry, it's been a long day. So I really bring up an interesting point that that gets
me thinking about these recommendations. I mean in the master plan, these should be actionable. There should be actionable things someday. We want to do X, we want to do Y, right? Those recommendations are for us to consider and they're not necessarily actionable things. >> Correct. So if if we decided we'd like
this in the form it is those would go from recommendations to what we would be >> recom not not that we would be recommending what we would be adding into the master plan as our thoughts moving forward. >> Ultimately this text wouldn't appear as is no in the plan. So we should probably
discuss each one of these one by one to decide whether we want to take the recommendation then build into an actionable statement for the plan to go in there that I tracking. >> Yes. And that's so to to Jason's point before that's why we sent out all the
documents and have been asking for as we've been going through here. Jason made a series of of comments and highlights and and changes asked us all to kind of do that. That way we could kind of say, "Hey, this is good, but let's do this." Or, you know, in the case of what we were just discussing,
>> let's give another avenue. We want to recognize historical places, but give them an avenue to do that, and then we can make it actionable. >> Yeah. And and and these are Jason's comment. The a lot of these are Jason's comments. So, it really is to to your
question, that's up to all of us, you know, that that's up to us to decide. Do we want this in here? Um, do you not want it in here? Do you want to change it? That so, so it's that's really up to the whole board.
>> Can I think you had a point and Jason, you you kind of drove it on the last comment that John made. I forget what it was, but it was a point. Can we have like a smaller actionable task before the next meeting? I mean, we lead the board and I know we have to devote time to this, but we're all juggling a lot of
homework. So if there's smaller constructs of tasks to take >> so >> that would be cl that would be clarifying for me allow me to execute better than I am today. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Very much. >> Okay. I don't need babysitting. I just need some some specific direction so I
can focus between meetings. Right. Let's take this. >> Yep. So, so the recommendations ju just so you know when when I went through and I did these red lines and the additions those recommendations are incorporated into the original first nine pages of
it. So like the um pres um the historic zones uh number two preserve historic resources consider adding a uh historic overlay zones to existing ordinances. that is what you know they were recommending that I was striking out and
making an optin. So like that language of that recommendation just disappears. the recommendation language disappears unless there's something in there that's not which all of it is included in, you know, with the overlay zones. So that
once we change the language of the overlay zones in the beginning, those recommendations would just drop off because we adjusted the language in the first six pages of what the overlay zones are as an opt-in. So you would just remove any of the recommendations that talk about an overlay zone because
it's covered in the actual meat and potatoes at the beginning part. Does that make sense? >> So we we can go one by one and go through them. I can I can put something together for the next, you know, and send out to you. Um, and just kind of
say like this would disappear, this would disappear and we can talk about each one and if you want it add it in. I think from my perspective just having the direction to look at these 10 I'm here >> eight
>> eight recommendations and come to the next meeting ready to discuss the eight make a decision as a team whether we want to keep them >> sense or backtracking I don't want to back you're making sense and and I I
agree with every with the idea that smaller bites rather than >> here's the plan come back with your recommendations let's take it smaller bits. >> No, that that would help me at least. I don't want to speak for the board, but it would help me. >> I think it allows a more focused discussion, too. We're not all over.
>> So, are so this is one thing that we'll we'll take away. >> Yes. >> I do forget what you had mentioned, John. What was the other item? Oh, >> this down notes people got >> notes. So, yes, real struggle's real >> north side of this.
I got a picture here I drew out >> and then going and then looking at the recommendations and deciding if it's something that you do want incorporated into the plan or if it's getting nixed and or if it's covered under something else already. >> Make sense? >> Just going to say one other comment
reiterate kind of what I said last week. I'd like on page 12 the guidelines for the infill development >> and I don't know how it's like kind of hidden in a in recommendation number four. I don't know how if I don't know maybe getting better teeth or where to
you know does it just stay in the historic part of the you know the master plan and you know uh you know that might be worthy of a a good discussion um because I I actually think that paragraph in there is the way it's written I think it's it's pretty
good. I guess really the question is is you know how far do we want to take that? I know we don't want to handcuff uh folks uh wrists too tightly, but I think there's been a couple of, you know, examples in town where if we had something a little tighter, I I think the town would be a lot better off.
>> Agreed. >> For it. >> That's it. Thanks. >> But these are these are also just a recommendations for in a historic district or next to a historic site. So without a district, you're only talking about a handful of sites.
Anybody else? All right, we have our orders on that one. All right, moving on. Um, tree ordinance opening up a new uh can of worms here. Mike, you want to give a uh quick overlay of what you did here?
>> Uh, what you have in front of you is what was put together, I think, in October of last year. So there's nothing new. It's just um the existing ordinance with a markup
and the blue is just for discussion purposes to find the blue is not what the D model ordinance talks about. The blue is >> me throwing an idea out so you guys can just catch your attention. What should
the fines be? Zero. Yeah. So this is just I I took this as to be the intro since the storm water is done. We discussed the storm water and that recommendations went to council. So they went out last week or the week before
right after our meeting the recommendations on the model ordinance that's done. The next charge is my understanding was the tree ordinance. So, I asked Ryan just to put in your agenda package the original analysis
done. I I think it's from October of last year that we just didn't discuss. And now, if I understand it right, now that the storm water is done, the next topic is the tree ordinance in some fashion. >> And so, the the red in this is the
additional stuff that was added by uh that environmental sent over. Correct. Yeah, it was additional, but it's also I do believe what's required. It's Yeah. No, you're right. You I think that's correct statement. >> So, the things in red aren't all
required by the D. Some of them are just or all the or is it >> they're all required, but the >> the for example to to regulate a 4 inch diameter versus an 8 in versus a 10 in that's up to municipality. The language
is there, but what's really where the planning board can make a recommendation is on what triggers it, what size trees triggers it, and the process. Are there fines? There's not fines, who reviews
this from the burrow. Is it a a certified tree expert? Is it the zoning officer? just those types of uh issues or organization is what really the bureau has control over.
>> So, so just and again I just want to make sure when we go and review this we're not reviewing things we can't change. Um so for example on the tree replacement requirements table. Um there's no page numbers on mine so I
can't reference it but it's the this one that has the diameters and then um >> yes I will >> the criteria. So those are the thing we can change those numbers or we can't >> you can >> okay >> I I'll give you example Bridgewater has a cut off of 8 inch diameter. If
you're under 8 inch diameter trees you're not regulating Bridgewater. How do I know this? Because I was looking at a different application. So in Somerville, the environmental commission used four. That's a very good point. I should go back on this
and discuss and I'll leave blanks on what is exactly what the planning board can >> Yeah. Or even highlight >> the language. The language is most of it is by model ordinance, but the triggers
are not. When I say trigger, okay, it's 8 inch, it's a 10 inch, it's a 2 inch. What triggers is the recordkeeping, the fines, all those >> uh is within the burrow's purview. >> So, I mean, I I I think it would be good for the board to have what Yeah.
>> We actually have the ability to >> like a third color in here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Or even just highlighting the stuff that >> Yeah. Yeah. >> that we can change if we want. Yes. I >> Yes. That would be very helpful. I see. >> Because otherwise, I'm going to go
through this. I'm going to be marking things up and saying, "I don't want this in there." And you're going to go, "It has to stay in there." >> Right. >> And and that's really been a big topic of discussion among municipalities and boards because they're they've provided this model ordinance,
but not much guidance as to what you can and can't change. So, it's been very very difficult for a lot of towns. Um the other thing that I didn't really take a very close look at this um but the not only the enforcement mechanism but the accountability mechanism because
at the end of the day whether it's Mike or whether it's whatever other engineer or individual in the town is going to have to be able to report should you be audited by the D as to what trees were removed what trees were replaced and what your mechanism was to keep track of
that. So whether it's an application, whether it's a permit, whatever the case may be. Um, another thing towns have struggled with, but um, yeah, those are the two things I've seen lately. >> Yeah. Mike Mike, I think what you did with the storm water ordinance was great because it gave
>> what the existing ordinance was that the bureau had, what the mandates were, the, you know, no contest, you must put this into your >> what the recommendations were from environmental uh, within that what we what we have
flexibility. >> I agree with you. >> Let me uh redo this. I'll show you separately with the environmental commission. I'll reach out to Larry. Make sure I have those. >> Would you like additional help? >> Of look, this is >> it won't even be me. I'll get somebody
to come and help you. >> This is from last year. So, I I want to get the current environmental proposal. I'll have that in one color. I'll have the model and the existing so we can look at all three as we did as the mayor suggests with the storm water management
and then we can based on that discussion I'll whittle it down just like we did on storm water boom and then we'll whittle the ground again we'll say okay we we bid off this this got us to here and then from here we'll keep going drilling down is what Chris is basically saying
the same thing with the historic element and is what the board did with the storm water management I'll pass it along to them. >> Right. >> Also, yes. >> Just to make sure I have the current version. >> Yeah. And also so they have what you're talking about. Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Perfect. So, we will have that as a discussion for next meeting. Um, no other discussion items. Um, there is open business. No formal discussion on the rest of the master plan and the zoning. Um, at this time I will open up
the meeting to the public. Seeing none, I will close it. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Thank you very much.