##VIDEO ID:MDg-VvWwVsk## uh Roger will not be here I just got that meeting of the planning board burough of Somerville for January 22nd 2025 will please come to order this meeting is called to order pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act both adequate and electronic notice of this virtual meeting of this meeting has been provided by way of publication in The Courier news on December 24th 2024 in addition notice of the meeting was posted on the bulletin board outside of the burough Hall located at 25 West End Avenue posted on the municipal website provided it to the municipal clerk and distributed to all persons if any requesting copies of same this meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and may be rebroadcast this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the planning board May legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times roll call Andrea D here Chris addex here R aens is excused Larry Cleveland here Jason crasa here John manelo here Barry Van Horn is excused mayor Gallagher here council member of room is also excused chairperson Warner here pledge allegiance please I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the repu for it stands one nation indivisible andice all right approval we can do these together can we don't have to separate I think they these out that's okay uh so approval for minutes for session uh December 11th 2024 second Chris addex yes Larry Cleveland yes Jason kka yes John manilo yes mayor Gallagher yes chairperson Warner yes and approval for the minutes for January 8th 2025 so moved second Andrea D yes Chris addex yes Larry Cleveland yes Jason crasa yes John manilo am I eligible I wasn't here at the last meeting no no uh mayor Gallagher yes chairperson Warner yes all right uh so on to uh the discussion about electrical electric charging stations um an ordinance I think everybody did get in their packets they have the proposed uh addition to the burrow ordinance for fire prevention Life Safety um comments thoughts so yeah canca on best practices and I'm still waiting to get back on out of the division of fire yes St says says you have to Prov obvious the only other thing that I think we had talked about um was requiring them to have fire blankets on site yeah if you look at what the fire aot well yeah because we had discussion this is just a I guess a rough framework because we had discussion about uh limiting it to top level open um surface or or surface surface correct yeah so I will say I did have a conversation with um the county HazMat team on some concerns and there is a larger concern about the amount of equipment that has to go up and would that be able to make it to a top um they the amount of equipment that has to go out because of the disposal and on the towing um I talked to Mike's Towing he would have some concerns about hey if I have to go up there depending on the way the the the how the vehicle is and the condition of it you know you could have a condition where you can't you don't have clearance to get it back down so it is something to think about when you're trying to put it at the top of a deck um and it also I did bring up you know when you got when we are extinguishing or trying to extinguish yes the concept is if the pitch is in if it's in the wrong spot at the top and their pitch is wrong is going right down your deck and all that is getting into it so there were some concerns you know and then just as many concerns putting it inside the deck you know you it depending on how it burns right it could and where it's burning it could immediately ignite something else and then you also have a structural Integrity issue um the question and I didn't think about this I know that this is mandated right we're kind of thinking all right we're only talking about we don't have to worry about some of the other decks right what I think we also need to think about because on the newer decks you could have a height where we could now put it okay maybe you can hit that because the height requir requirement um just to for Access and and Ingress and egress of emergency vehicles but we have some existing decks and I think we do need to think about what if they want to put a charging station into an existing deck so that that you know to me also I think we have to think of all that um I will say the Fire Marshals just had a a meeting uh yesterday and it is a topic of conversation because they're all trying to figure this out so I think the more insight to your point of um what people are thinking and what people are doing they did all agree I did sit in for a little while just to kind of hear and they it was they all kind of said the same thing the laws kind of do this and nobody's really addressing the big picture of that you really don't want them in there but yet this one says you should this one says this this one says that and there's pieces even to the point they're even more concerned honestly um some of the municipalities is more concerned obviously about the requirement of having it in the garages because that's something that a lot of them they just don't feel like that is a safe so again I think I think I like the framework but I think we still definitely need some more information and you know right now I think my personal opinion as safety of all residents and visitors to Somerville I would you know see if we could figure out a way to get external you know because I just don't see any Safe Way in my opinion of based on everything we're seeing um being able to keep it in that deck somewhere or even on the deck like so let's just say the deck at top is part of being in the deck Kevin can can you reach out to your administrator Network and your clerk Andor your clerk Network and see if anybody body has uh enacted any ordinances at the local level regarding uh whether it's vehicle charging or even bike bicycle charging yeah okay I think part of the problem with that I finding is that a lot of these laws and regulations are they've been pieced but they're all newer right so nobody knows what to do so maybe somebody did come up with some kind of template that we can follow and I think everybody's kind of waiting for the state because it ultimately it's going to have to be a state level uh action and I did um the state will be um the which one was it I wrote it down they will be this year adopting the here it is um the 202 for the um I I International yes thank you that one the 2024 because right now they've only adopted to the 2019 and that's where it states that that's why the parking garages were the the regular garages were because that is where it states in there that you have to have it in in your garages if it's one or two you know based on so that is getting adopted and that so to your point they are waiting for the state on some of the stuff because they're not sure when that comes and are there going to be other changes going to adopt in the meantime your microphone on excuse me um towns like Bound Brook or Bridgewater like either they're not looking at it or they think they're covered no they are looking at it there's just nothing to prevent it right now there's no ordinances so I think that's what can't even the mayor was getting to is it just what talking with Kevin and just seeing what they're trying to do that's about as good as we can get yeah yeah I guess the rub really is that's what the fact finding is that the statute says that you have to provide this barkings but no one seems to fully address the safety aspects that's why I'm looking for what's appropriate to have provided where what's the best practices if you have a five story deck where should these go great statute says you have to put in the deck where Mike C can you check with Bobby Lynn the Fire official and find out I'm assuming there's also a fire officials Network Statewide and see if he can tap into that as well this shouldn't be no and he was just at the meeting yesterday so it came up so he has those contct yeah this is probably a dumb question but why can't just EVS be mandated to just have outside surface parking that may be ultimately well that's what we have to go through at all just completely outside if you if you have an EV all your surface if you have to provide so much parking then provide enough outside surface parking for your EV so you're not worried about putting it inside and potentially causing that's more of a safety hazard like Lisa said if it catches fire on the on the top and the emergency vehicles can't get up there or they have a problem coming down and then if the fire slides or the liquid slides downhill then you risk damaging other cars and what not why can't I mean so we have to wait for everybody to come on board to see that that would be the most logical I think part of that was on our discussion last meeting was that the IBC currently in 2021 Edition is requires it under was is at 48 48,000 Square ft so there is a requirement somewhere that says you have to have it and we're looking at well does that mean it has to be in the actual structure or can we say as a burrow we get it you have to you have to have them but we want it external to the said parking facility I think was the language you used so what does that mean does it have to be in the deck and then I guess the second part of that is just availability of land so if you're going to do a deck you're going to have enough to meet the state requirements for the number in an alternative you know adjacent piece of property I mean it's not our problem it's the developer's problem but you know It ultimately affects development overall and what I found interesting too is um the the reference in the fire Marshall's letter that you know not even the NFPA has standards for sprinkling of these things I mean it's it's so disjointed it is they have to do something the other world is with the new codes requiring sprinklers sprink in my opinion address a fire not this kind of fire not this kind of fire 90% of time the sprink was will protect the structure that's the whole intent but this Burns so hot that the sprinklers in my opinion are and if you look at it the the sprinkler from the NFPA came out in 23 if you look at it there there wasn't even enough data by then you know a lot of it has really come up in my opinion you you've seen it a lot in the last 18 months to two years is when you're seeing more and more of them so that's and that's part of the problem is this new something new comes out right and you have to kind of wait and see right it's and we've seen that but now the laws are two three years old or a year old and now that we have more data to really kind of say hey this is something we probably don't want to do the laws are now that they're they're now already Antiquated or weren't addressed properly in the first place because the thought process was way back is you just pour water on it right you know uh Rich we just pour water on it but unfortunately with this one there ain't enough water that you're going to get on that thing Mike are there ADA requirements regarding charging stations yes so how does that how does that then interplay with with uh what we're looking at doing by restricting in a deck we now now do we are we going to clash now with Ada the board of adjustments dealt with this and you have to provide Ada EV charging stations and they can't double them up using the federal code because you have toer the EV space that says no parking for nons charging but the EV space doesn't that the Ada space doesn't that have to be in a certain proximity to the door well that's the statute doesn't say that but the Federal Regulations do so so we're gonna we're going to run into an issue run into an issue because we're running into now that the real right now one you need a van accessible you you have a 25 parking lot or less you need one van accessible well with the EV mandate you end up with two van accessibles because of the this New Jersey statute it says you can't double them up because you have to sign them it says EV only so we're running into that situation you end up with two van accesses when the federal code requires one because of the fed the state statute right and there's this it's black and white what the penalties are what the signage has to be and just well my concern is the conflict between the two is it going to force us to have an EV charger in the deck or in a deck in order to be compliant with Ada standards because it's closest because it's closest yeah yeah that's all their design now if we say it has to be outside and they still have to make that work push yeah it's just something to be aware of as we go through this it's something to be aware of about the growth issue like you know the Mandate of they have to build out the gate with a certain amount and then have preparations for the next couple years to expand it that also a question for us because okay five spots outside the out outside the deck that's great now they need 10 where are they're going to put these extra five they can't put them inside if we're saying no so does yeah or at least it could compound over the years so it's something we have to you know when you're speaking with Bobby or you speak you know or or even the administrators um you know it's something to be aware of that inherently there's going to be conflicts how do we how do we deal with it all right uh lot coverage um so I I know I think everybody has it in their packet the subcommittee Met um do you guys want to go over what your recommendations to to date were be great the uh subcommittee met met by via Zoom I guess it was last Wednesday and we burned through for an hour some I call the low hanging fruit what came up was Dex that was one of the items so what you see in front of you is a recommendation to amend the land use ordinance Bic all the first 100 square feet of the deck to be exempt from the Improvement coverage and then any decks over 100 square feet you count as 50% now the caveat for that was how do we address storm water management and if you have a deck and there was no definition of a deck in the land use ordinance because it was no never a need before it was all Improvement coverage matter whether it was a patio or a deck so the deck the the definition proposed definition here is right out the UCC so it mirrors What the uniform construction code is saying what a deck is and uh there's a spacing between the boards so that runoff infiltrates between the boards so it's uniform as opposed to a sheet flow to one point which may cause a problem on adjoining property the idea you know you have fiberglass decks you have Solid Surfaces if you had a huge solid surface that was pitched away the you could pitch it all to one side and cause storm water a runoff problem so this language uh defines what a deck is and says you got to have the gap between the boards so you hopefully get uniform uh dispersion of a runoff on the deck down as opposed to a point discharge can I ask a question it with it's maybe stupid question um but I've been known for Worse um square feet and then over that 50% why the idea was the okay why not just say Dex period I guess that's what my question is why do we need to also over 100 square feet go to 50% yeah so I could talk about the rational that we talked about uh so originally you know we talked about do decks count as impervious because the water could go through and go into the ground and we said yes and and no because you know typically if you have a lawn area all the water goes into to the ground with a deck you're not going to have lawn underneath the um the deck surface it's probably going to be bare soil or gravel so that's why we came up that 50% um number because we said you know it's going to infiltrate some of the water but not all the water is going to go as if it was grass um and then there was a discussion you know do we limit how much of the deck can be built and there's other you know zoning controls there's setbacks requirements and one thought was not to count Decks at all and and just keep that as as zero % Improvement coverage but then My worry is what's stopping somebody from putting a deck in their whole backyard as long as it's within their setbacks so we kind of want to give a that I understand yeah I think and the 100 was just arbitrary we threw out some numbers 100 square feet 200 square feet um I think the thought was 100 is you know it's a decent size it's 10 X1 um you can put a patio set out there it's not huge and then anything after that then that would count as 50% um so I'm not sure if that kind ofers here right now orig allows depending on the Zone District you're in between and 50% improver R1 to P R2 R3 it varies from 35 to 50% Improvement coverage but there's a caveat right now it allows you additional 5% if you handle storm Mar management so this just loosens it up to address the deck situation to allow more flexibility so you do have an extra 5% 3 50% on the Z and then this allows additional 50% yeah I was just wondering what the rationale is where we came with the 100 and then you know why not just the whole thing and I do understand listen you can't just do your whole backyard yeah that that yeah I get that so maybe you know is there a way another way of restricting I'm just throwing it out there because we're GNA get one bite at this apple right and sorry the the philosophy was that that so you can get a table with chairs and still have theability around now you know could be big and then we got into that discussion well you know you know 100 is is reason that people improver a PA that size is fair customary if you look at you know that type of table it's not a big event the number was so should beer or lower the only about lower is you reallynot you get a cafe so have toer we discuss what's that number and the just seem like a reasonable number for not only for someone to kind of fit that into but had to be a little and then what's the control to make sure the decks get too big is that a good question or did I miss something that's a good question so I think there's a couple controls there's the the setback so decks if they're attached to the dwelling is considered part of the the structure so that's one um two we're still counting decks over 100 square feet for 50% so they still have to comply with the Improvement coverage um so that's why we kept it at 50% and not you know Free Will as far as how much Deck you could build um and we kind of went back and forth with the deck as well there's I've dealt with many municipalities some of them don't count decks at all some count 50% and some of them are 100% um and we thought 50 was was a fair number so I mean one one approach is up on it officer keeps track of all the zoning approvals if this BEC a problem look at this down the line and say 100's not working should be 200 if there's very little action then it seems to be working it's a question so I I guess my only concern with the 100 and I think Kevin Kevin kind of addressed that and you know making sure that we're are looking at the town as a whole and any home can somewhat put on a deck relevant to the size of their home like not taking the whole backyard to your point uh no matter who that is and not be penalized for it that's really what I would that's what I was thinking is so where did the hund you know square feet and you know I know that on average there I there are probably some homes that you could probably go a little over the 100 square F feet and it's relevant to their home not a lot in Somerville um they might already have decks right so but that's really why I was asking because I want to make sure we don't now start penalizing somebody because they have a different Siz home than you know other people within Town that's really why I was asking that this issues bottom line I think From perspective said quickly so the goal would be to get at least this to the counil as early as possible and then we could you know as Mike said P the going take a little de and and probably de at this table so so you know um so there'll be another so 100 after a while start getting I can't put a barue I need 12 that can be adjusted as a whole you're saying I got it yeah so let me let me bounce something against the wall on this um part of the challenge is we're going right back into the size fits all program so we have lots that are 50 by 100 and we have lots that are 200 by 250 and everything in between so as a percentage you're looking at a lot that is 50 by 100 and you're you're you're potentially creating impervious coverage that is huge on that lot and vice versa on the you know the 200 by uh 150 lot it it's minuscule and it means nothing would it make sense and I'm going to look at Mike because he's got that mathematical head to do it as a percentage of either um a ratio to the square footage of the house the footprint of the house not the house itself but but the footprint of the house so that it then because somebody talked before about being proportional so that you're not covering your entire backyard does it make more sense to be proportional to the lot and to the home on the lot I think you already have that because if you have that bigger lot that 50% you're allowed to go up to instead of being you know if you have that 20 foot by 50 foot lot you're going to put a 10 by 10 you're a lot closer to that 50% perious coverage already so now we're excluding that where if you have a 200 by 250 that and you want to put aund you know 500 fo you'll still be under that 50% so this wouldn't even affect you anyway I think correct am I correct yes yes it's like the P I do believe is 50% Improvement coverage you're allowed to develop property up to% which is and actually it's 55% if you're allowed without board approval to go extra 5% if you deal with my office and you deal with the storm own management which is a fancy way of saying get the storm water to the street so it's not impacting the adjacent property that's the big the issue that's really the concern that's why we State the de is not to address storm water runoff the try did not cause a problem on any other joining properties and when you have a large surface area you can cause a problem so that's why the deck surface defining a deck and trying to keep the slats back to John trying to balance the issue of allowing flexibility but yet not impact the neers property and I think Jason has a point being if a lot is Big mayor you do have proportionally allow more Improvement coverage I get bigger lot I get it so you kind of have that built in the concern is think Kev can say this we do we've had issues where just the way it is that residents pave parking areas and now we have complaints to run off it happens on minor subdivision that we were dealing with last year it's just becoming an issue because when you're dealing with a lot of improvement coverage on small lot you have to in my opinion be very careful because all comes up I get it no good good I I think to Kevin's point it's an awesome start you know and if we do need to re reexamine it because we do get some people that are like hey you know he just did it and now all of a sudden this and you know and I think that can be addressed pretty easily um and it does open it up where at least they have up to that 100 square feet you know and and really I think it it does you know and I I asked the zoning officer to keep an eye on this to track it for the board use how many zoning permits are being issued for Dex is it a problem is is this so we have this information as Kevin says later in the year is 100 is it reasonable right so we'll know from this zoning you need a zoning per ju just for clarification I I do 100 sare foot I'm good if I do a 200 square foot I'm getting I want say charged but it'd be 50 square feet is what would be applicable of that 200 right it's not 50% of the whole thing just 50% of the above exempt calulation the 50% so I I'm hoping that the zoning officer will tabulate this on all zoning I think what the board is basically saying is we looking for flexibility of residential zones well I think it'd be great if you had all the zoning permits in the last couple years so you can see what are residents getting zoning permits for right and so we can use that well and now that this isn't a deterrent right that hopefully we start we can start to see that and collect that data because this was you know somewhat of a deterrent for some if they're getting permits because you have a lot of people that are going out there and most be hon they're building their lot of people that don't unless you need a permit for a right they they're building their decks and unless you get a neighbor that's pissed at you you don't know about it and then that neighbor gets upset and decides to make a phone call then you go oh they buil a dep we you weren't supposed to you know so you you probably have people out there have Decks that you know that are there yeah as far as sending it up to council I would prefer to have a number of items rather than just do them as onesies I think we wait at least another couple yeah recommendations because as you start to get into those other issues I'd rather bring them uh and I few at one time some of the other things which I'm going to get into next of the of the next things that I think we should kind of look at could also affect to the point of what's under your de so yeah uh decks pools gravel driveways of I think yeah I agree I would hope that those two also us issues recognize yeah I do think folks counil approves now right gooun well let's at least get pools the yeah I I should have mentioned pools I thrown out to the committee that right now the pools the pool surface is counted as and the pool typically have a free board to say six in so you're not going to have run off Sur unless it fills up then runs off so I we got worse problems at that we have worse problems John point out to me that it's not going to be 100e storm is8 Ines show you're not going to accommodate a 100e storm you're going to have run off on a pool okay but is that should that be the litness test for requiring Improvement coverage I think it's a little too conservative I think the surface of a pool on a 10e storm a 20 year 50 year stor is not going to have runoff so that's why pools are in here clarifying that the surface areas of a pool does not count as Improvement coverage solely because I don't think I'm good with that yeah right so we're just trying to more flexibility again right now it's counted with this it wouldn't be counted there is yeah we could have a situation where we cause adverse runoff it's going to be if we have that much rain we the runoffs there anyway's going to be that's what I said we have far worse problems everybody's G to have a swimming pool so is the idea with the the the deck the 100 square feet is that it's going to pitch into the pool is that why you're saying separate subjects but the pool the deck around the pool the deck pool counts I'm talking about the pool surface the surface of the pool itself if you have a pool that's 30,000 GS whatever that surface area doesn't count so if you have a deck around the pool standard decking around the pool would count that's where the deck qualifications come in if you put a deck around it obviously you can have more flexibility and then literally I'm thinking like an inground pool if you have if you look at the Improvement coverage and you're going to do some kind of grass with gravel Matrix in theory and John brought this up the grass doesn't count right it's only the gravel it's on Improvement coverage so you're doing some kind of mix with vegetation grass with stone or some kind of we technically that grass portion is not Improvement coverage under the current definition so yeah I guess my confusion was in this in the second paragraph here because where it talks about the pool it says the surface area of the pool is exempt I like that and then it says and 100 square feet of deck when I'm thinking of a pool deck I'm thinking there's an inground pool and you have that concrete right around it yeah so maybe we just for the language push but it's it's being treated the same as below if it's SED good but if it's solid surface it counts a would be it's a around po a that back table whatever and just so my opinion the board knows that we need definition we're calling decks out separately that we use the UCC deck so that we're duing no it's a standard definition that everybody correct so that definition is right out of the UCC B any other comments on pools or Dex OB and come backu hopefully yeah yeah for the for the spring season yes okay all right I'm fine yeah that works so do we have to vote on this though make a motion to send it up to council yeah just so it's official so motion to send it up to council second Andrea D yes Chris addex yes Larry Cleveland yes Jason crasa yes John manilo yes mayor Gallagher yes uh chairperson wner yes um so these two will go up and then we're going to continue on so the one thing that I did want to talk about um I don't I just want to make sure on the subcommittee that we also don't lose sight of the fact that one of the reasons this came up was because of our P Zone and some of these were there was pre-existing conditions I don't want to lose sight of that because that is going to be a lot of discussion so if I could just ask that maybe that's some of the next conversations that happen there might be things under other areas that you know what adding it is one thing but somebody that's stuck with something as a pre-existing such as pavement or gravel those kind of things I think that is really that is going to take a little bit more discussion and they aren't two separate conversations but they kind of are and I I just don't want to lose sight on that because here we've started to open up the P there's a lot of people that want to transform these properties which is what we want to encourage but we've they're they're kind of strapped right now and we're trying to see whether we should or should not like there isn't any definitive answer on that which is why we wanted that discussion to see so if some of the next few discussions can be focused around that specifically some of the issues that we know are happening in the P absolutely this was great thank you guys yeah thank you good work thank you thanks yeah and we actually started talking about that subject as well our last me we kind of sidetail all this was done in one hour I know I'm pretty impressed actually one hour so Mike when you send this up to council you're going to delineate it between decks and pools so it's very it's separated Cara gave me a nice Marco yeah okay to make it more clear yes user friendly yeah Y and I said the car are you going to do this I just did it okay make it simple for people like me keep Ming yeah all right next item is that General affordable housing discussion that um com over to Mayor gallager and yes an update so um as everybody uh should be aware the uh DCA Department of Community Affairs came out with uh the projected numbers for every municipality back in November and every municipality has until January 31st to take some action on those numbers they either have to agree with the number disagree with the number and provide their own number or do nothing um if they do nothing they begin to open themselves up for uh developers uh remedy law suits um we were given numbers our numbers were 74 units on our prospective need that's moving forward and 103 on our present need that's with what we have um so we had tased our professionals we formed a uh a subcommittee an ad hoc subcommittee and uh that was comprised of uh Lisa Jason artad there from the zoning board uh Mike Uh Kevin Colin uh myself and from Council uh Rand Ry Randy pits Randy Pitts um and and we had been meeting uh since before November before the numbers came out to begin to wrap our heads around these uh these numbers so uh once the numbers came out uh Mike Cole uh who we designated as our affordable housing planner um was tasked with uh determining whether those numbers were accurate and if they were let us know and if they were not to let us know and provide us with some type of uh documentation that we could then challenge uh Mike uh along with our redevelop our uh affordable housing Council attorney uh ran through the numbers and uh did all of their analysis and discovered that the numbers are accurate uh based upon what we have so uh last night at the burrow council meeting the council certified those numbers Uh Kevin by tomorrow this time tomorrow has to send it or no actually the attorney has to send it uh submit it to DCA everything okay good all right so so there's a whole series of events that has to happen between now and June 30th um in short uh other than the filings that have to be done we now have to create a housing plan uh that housing plan will then take those numbers uh and what we will do is begin to apply some of the housing that we already have that may be uh compliant with either one of these present or future needs and uh and then that will adjust that number up down sideways or neutral whatever whatever it winds out to be um probably going down um so once that's done we will then bring that back to the planning board for a uh you know to tear it apart chew it up um and then once we come up with a a a a portable housing plan that we feel is appropriate for Somerville uh we then kick it up to council as a recommendation and the council can take it modify it uh or or uh approve it um Somerville I and I've said this before Somerville has has shouldered their responsibility of housing uh very well uh about 10 years ago we did a housing analysis and uh that was done in conjunction with the planning board and the burough Council and and we created uh what we we essentially just analyzed what we had ex from an existing housing stock and as it turned out um we were more than compliant with uh affordable housing but it was based on Market forces it wasn't based on uh um dedicated homes but it was through Market forces well obviously since the the housing market has gone ballistic and and it's due to a number of factors um you know increased need um a lot of it is supply and demand in the last four years it's not political but you've had 10 million people additional people looking for housing in this country and that has created an excessive demand which has shrunk the supply and driven the costs uh way up so that's just a an economic fact um so so you know a lot of people will complain in a lot of different communities about the cost of housing and they're not wrong it's it's out of hand it really is the numbers are are just staggering so um our job is to figure out what then is appropriate for some of them and um that's that's where we're at so that that's the update uh next steps are once it has been submitted once we get confirmation it's been submitted to uh to DCA we will then begin to reassemble the uh the ad hoc committee and we'll start uh putting that plan together and you know we we've already begun creating the the affordable housing office the trust fund uh we had uh one of our developers uh provide a donation uh to that affordable housing trust fund which we can then use uh not only for startup costs but potentially down the road for rehab costs um and uh and and we'll move forward uh but but you know I my goal is to craft something that is appropriate for Somerville uh not appropriate for Trenton but appropriate for Sumer so that's where we're at questions I just had one question the two numbers that you gave at the very beginning yeah is that supposed to be you know you said what it's existing and what our goal is no one one is a prior need that's the 104 that that's that's what they're saying we're short right now they saying short yeah the state says we're short 104 uh 73 is the or 74 sorry 103 and 74 74 uh 74 is the perspective need that they see based upon uh uh vacant land uh based upon a number of different factors Mike would be better lry it's based on the the past two censes what they projecting the growth's going to be and based on the projected growth they're saying to the burrow the burrow has to provide on the future growth developments 74 units so now so now for example so on our uh future need Andor our uh past need so the senior citizens complex for example that is not calculated in that required number so that will have an effect on what our required number is driving it down now it's not a one for one because there's different formulas for different categories um you know seniors veterans Workforce lwi income moderate income and they all have different um thank you yeah different weights so that's where the plan begins to come in place and then you know how do we integrate Rehabilitation into it and and that's how we move forward you know rehab my my thoughts are seniors and Veterans first and and you know that that's what I see uh as as Rehabilitation that's just you know that's that's my opinion we'll go through all of that thank you any other questions it's a learning process for all of us um I don't think it's one that a lot of us wanted to uh to do but you know what it's uh it's timely and uh it was an interesting it was an interesting conversation yeah and and it's appropriate it's you know we're we're I think every Community is faced with this challenge now you have uh these these Dynamic groups of folks Young Folks old folks and and you know they either they can't afford to stay in their house or they can't afford to stay in the town they want to stay in or if they're on the other end of the spectrum they they can't afford to buy into the the community they want to be in um not everybody can be in every Community they want to be in you know I want to be in you know Far Hills but that's not going to happen um but uh um you know there there's it's a challenge and we have to figure out how best to help Somerville shoulder some of that responsibility all right uh I have no other comments uh we will open up the meeting to the public for any comments hearing none I'm going to close public and I would like a motion to adjourn so move second all in favor I all opposed all mic