The meeting of Somerville Planning Board for July 9th, 2025 will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the OP public meeting act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one published to the Courier News, two posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall, three posted to the
municipal website, and four given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of 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.
Andrea Deare here. Chris Addex here. Art Aens here. Larry Cleveland here. Jason Kra is excused. John Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. Goodbye. Jason Kra here.
John Manilio is excused. Barry Van Horn is also excused. Mayor Gallagher here. Council member Vroom here. Chairperson Warner here. Please stand for the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we need a motion for approval for the minutes from June 25th. So moved. Second. Art Dickens, yes. Larry Cleveland, yes. Jason Kraca,
yes. Mayor Gallagher, yes. Chairperson Warner, yes. All right. Next we have our resolution for Avalon for the amendment of condition C imposed into on final M on the final major site plan approval for the phase 2 residential development and
amended minor major final major site plan approval for the phase one residential development to incorporate additional signage. So move second. Larry Cleveland. Yes. Jason Kasa. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. Yes. Chairperson Warner.
Yes. All right. Next up, we do have our concept hearing for Gateway East Somerville LLC. Um, as they're getting themselves set, I just wanted to kind of give a little background here. This has been a three-year endeavor. I know I have not
always been there for that three years, but, uh, it has been a three-year endeavor back and forth with multiple revisions, uh, listening to us, going back and forth on the redevelopment committee. So, it's nice to see you here again for a fin another concept review. Um, good evening members of the board.
Uh my name is Michael Grodnik. I'm an attorney at Saboshock Law Firm here in town on behalf of Gateway East Somerville. Uh we're here tonight on an amended conceptual application for the redevelopment of several commercial uses into a mixeduse development including inclusionary apartment complex with
ground flooror commercial space 488 space parking garage on a property located at block 64 lots 8 10 uh and 11.01 and block 65 lots 1 2 2.01 013 and 4 on the burough tax map. This is
located, as I'm sure you're aware, at 1921 to 23 Meadow, 130, 136, 144, 148, 158 East Maine, and 37 Hamilton Streets. Subject property is in the ECB2 and ECB3
zoning districts. With me tonight, uh, I have Matthew Caruso on behalf of the applicant, uh, to provide about a less than 10-minute presentation. Uh you recall we were here about a year ago uh with the first application and Mr. Caruso is going to go over um the updates to the plan uh since we've last
met and considering all the conversations we've had with the bureau in the last 12 months. So Mr. Cruso you swear Hello. Oh, cool. Um, for the record, I don't know if you need this on the record, Matthew Caruso of the
sponsorship entity. Um, I hope that everybody had a fun sunfilled 4th of July. We're excited to be back in front of you again. Um, as was mentioned, you know, we've had a series of these meetings over the last several years pertaining to this project. Uh, notably
including the conceptual hearing in June of last year and, uh, a meeting with the RD committee in December of last year. So, uh, over the course of those hearings, we we received valuable feedback of of concerns that were raised about the project. Uh, those mostly
stemmed around a few main things. One was emergency service access uh, in the event of a flood. Uh, bulk height and density of the building was another topic. Uh, community centric uses for the project, and finally, affordability. Um, so we've worked over the last 6 to
12 months to address those concerns. We met with the redevelopment committee again in April of 25 this year uh to present an updated plan and ultimately uh received favorable feedback and support. So I'm here before you tonight to give a brief overview of those
changes uh and then open this up for questions and comments. Okay. Um, so regarding the uh emergency service access to the site, what we were able to do in the last 6 months is actually contract the purchase of an additional parcel located at 37 Hamilton
Street. Um, this parcel sits up into the hill uh on the back side of the project on Veterans Memorial. And uh the addition of this to our site plan will actually raise the high point entry of the site 10 feet above the D approved
regulation and 8 ft above what was previously proposed in the site plan when you last saw it. Um we proposed to use this site solely for the dedication of emergency service access and egress um to and from the property. Uh what
this does is it unequivocally allows unimpeded access to and from the site in the event of a flood. Uh we should note that this project remains fully approved by the DP. Uh we're in receipt of a flood hazard permit for this site plan.
Redevelopment of the area will actually increase flood storage capacity at the site by removing existing structures that sit within the flood plane. Um and in addition, redevelopment here will actually uh remediate historic fill that dates back to this area. Um particularly
in portions that the Somerville municipality actually you used to use uh for a waste site. Um so that was the emergency services that we addressed. Uh we think it's a fantastic addition to the project. In addition to that and secondly uh we've addressed height,
density and bulk of the project. Uh so mainly we've reduced unit count uh unit count from 285 units to 243 units in this iteration and the way that we were able to accomplish that is actually removing the entire top floor of the building. So the building is now reduced
from five stories to four stories as you see presented today. Um with that we were actually also able to shift units around as they appear on the corner of Veterans Memorial and East Main Street. Uh this was a concern of the board because as you approach the building,
you wanted to be able to see predominantly residential and not exposed parking elements. Um that said, we've done all of this and maintained an abundant 2.0 times parking ratio, uh which is very significant for this part
of town. Um and then lastly, one of the elements that we added that is one of my favorite elements is you can see it on the screen. We're calling it the cornerstone element. Uh it sits on the corner of East Maine and Veterans Memorial. Um what this architectural
feature does is really create a landmark uh we feel signifying the entrance and the extension of East Main Street to Somerville. Uh this landmark creates a welcome that I think captures the essence of what we're trying to
accomplish, not only with this project, but the redevelopment plan for this area itself. Uh it's a great addition. We think it shows very well as you can see in the renderings provided uh and we're excited to implement it. Uh thirdly, just regarding community uh centric
uses, we've been working with the redevelopment committee and Colin Driver um to find uh public incentives in order to implement uh a performing arts center here at this building. We're proud to be able to find a use for the site uh for the performing arts center here. Uh we
think it'd be a fantastic addition into town. Uh frankly, something that the town might be lacking right now, but we could use the space for that. And from our perspective, we think it's a very creative use of the space uh that isn't the traditional retail on the ground floor of a multif family building that
frankly has struggled to lease in other parts uh of the town. Uh we're excited to add that. And then lastly, um affordability. We remain committed to finding ways to address affordability at this site and in the Somerville community. Uh that includes dedicating
portions of units to low or moderate income housing. Uh portions of units to the potential of h having uh workforce housing and then lastly the potential for development fees uh contributed towards Somerville's affordable housing
trust fund. Uh all that said, we've made major strides in the present presentation that you see today. Uh we're excited to present it to you. I think going forward, um our plan is to hopefully uh apply for a renewal of the
redeveloper designation. Uh move towards finding a way to incorporate updated language that conceptually allows for this plan and the redevelopment um uh language within the town. And then lastly, moving towards a site plan
application. Uh we've brought Craig Styers of the engineering team here tonight, uh Dave Mow of Minnow and Moscow architects uh who can offer detailed testimony and questions and comments. But um we really look forward to continuing to plan this project as uh
a public private partnership with the town. Um, and as the mayor mentioned uh at one of our meetings in the last uh year, finding ways to make this an accoladated an accoladed decorated project that the public can be proud of and I think a lot of these elements uh
secure that tonight. So, uh, the effectuation of this development really will accomplish the decadesl long redevelopment vision for this area and we're excited to make it happen. Thank you. Could you do me a favor and and just
kind of walk through each of the slides for the public that that may be watching on TV? Just kind of just give an over a brief overview on each each uh one of the slide decks. Yep. I think I think this is a good one. Um so this is a side by or top and
bottom, whatever you want to call it. um a before and after showing uh what we proposed in December of 2024 uh before we or before we received the comments and feedback that we did and then uh what we've since changed it to.
So you can see from the top going down uh the ghosted area on the bottom picture that was the old height of the building. We've now reduced it an entire floor. Uh if you look towards the I guess right side of the uh picture, you can see that landmark element that I've
been referring to. It's this cornerstone facing uh towards the corner of East Maine and Veterans Memorial. In addition to that, you could see um compared to the top, there was parking elements in the December 2024 plan that you could
see on the bottom left of um the top photo. that has been eliminated in in the bottom photo where you can now see residential units planned. I'll just keep moving forward. Um these are similar renderings just showing different perspectives.
Here's the back side of the building. Um similar concept. Uh it shows in the ghosted areas on the bottom photo what the height used to be as we proposed it. Um it points out certain things. Uh we've added a park or or elements to
soften the green space at the corner of the building um to the right side of the screen in the bottom photo. We've also eliminated a lot of the parking elements for the right hand corner as you can see in the comparison between the top and the bottom. Um and all in all the height
reduction really just decreases the mass and and the appearance from the building from that corner. Um, we just have various renderings going forward of different angles when you're within different parts of the town. This is looking uh east from Main
Street downtown. Um, it's actually a great view. You know, it just creates this uh this this continuence of the main street, we believe. Um, this is a good overview just showing you a satellite image of the acquisition of the parcel that I
mentioned at 37 Hamilton Street. So um in the black within the black shaded that was the amalgamation of the properties that we had previously had. So those were seven the black uh outlined parcels represented seven
different parcels. Um the red new one is the addition. That parcel itself is a non-conforming lot that actually sits higher up into the hill. So there's not much that you can do with it as it exists. the implementation of it into our site plan does raise the access on
that high point of the site to a maximum of 10 feet above the D approved regulation. Um that's what this this depicts as well as uh the next slide it just shows you an aerial.
And then moving forward we did um we are we're aware that uh electric vehicle charging stations have become a concern for the town. Um and we've taken steps to conceptually get ahead of it uh now without having the full-fledged details
of of what you would work through in architectural planning and site planning. Um but the good thing about this building as is loosely depicted on this screen is there will be two floors of parking garage. So there will be a lower level parking and an upper level
parking uh each separated by fireproofed um or fire rated concrete slabs. So on the bottommost portion of the project, you could actually find strategic areas to place EV chargers that are not located in densely populated parking
areas that are adjacent to open air access uh of the garage in the case that you do need to uh put out a fire. And then lastly, it's not below any residential space. Anything above it um is concrete. Uh so it protects residents
and other usable space particularly also away from the commercial space on the back on the ground floor uh on Main Street. So th those were the last slides. We've also incorporated just a a mock um floor plan just showing how the units would be
laid out. There would be an amenity space located in the middle with a with a deck. Uh really creating a very amenitized uh project for the community. Thank you. Questions from the board? Yes. Um I know that um from the last
time the lower parking level was going to be a dual use like it was going to be able to retain detention basin like water to help with the flooding. But if cars are parked there, how do you get those cars that are in the flood zone? How do
you tell people, hey, come get your car? Because if somebody parks their car on Thursday and they go away to Boston and then Saturday is a storm, they come home on Tuesday and their car is under 10 feet of water. Now, what um before I start answering these
questions, I'd like to call up Craig from our team who is the civil engineer and and the planner of the site plan. Um just so I don't speak out of tune, but regarding u that issue, there will actually be no parking or vehicles
parked on the actual ground in this area. The structure of the building itself, and you can actually probably see it on one of these slides, uh it sits what they talked about the last time. I apologize. It sits um Greg, correct me if I'm
wrong, four to five feet above the ground, that first concrete slab. Yes. Yes, I do. Thank you. Yeah, Larry, if you look on the lower left, you can see those the black shaded
area right there. Yes, that's open. Completely open. So that is and then that the square boxes the next level up that's the first level of parking. So there will be no parking on the ground. All parking
spaces will be above the flood elevation. So you first floor of parking above the flood elevation. Second floor is obviously more. And then the driveway is just off the screen there that comes out on the Veterans Memorial above the
flood elevation. And then um like Matt said, Matt, go back to that grass one. Go back a couple. Oh, sorry. One more. See that grass area right there? Yes. That's going to be the emergency access. So you can see that the com one
component of the of the building right there over the trees. So the drive is going to go down that grass area which is 10 ft above the the maximum flood elevation. So to answer your question, there will be they can leave their car there and they can go to
Boston and come back and their car will still be there. Okay. So I was just concerned about that. And um as an environmental board member, you're going to put more trees on there, right? A lot more trees, right? To soften the blow, right? Yes.
More trees. Yes. We tend to put more street trees. Yes. And I there are trees on the property that doesn't you don't have to not do that. That's okay. Shade trees are nice. Yeah. And I think it's been discussed previously that although we, you know,
whether we put actual street trees on Main Street, there'll be components where there's benches, so they may be potted plants as opposed to actually in the ground and movable if necessary. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. I um I also noticed that from the
original proposal, the the lowest level was elevated. Now it's a little lower, like the entire plaza. At one point it seemed to be higher. Like if you look at the top picture and you look at the bottom picture, you guys lowered that.
Exactly. Yeah. I think that probably stayed the same elevation. Maybe it was just a perspective thing by taking the wall looks like it's just lower, right? Uh yeah, that might have just been changes in in different perspectives of the rendering. Um
and that and that's fine. It just makes it so that it's not up on a podium. the building. Yeah, it's a little lower. We can certainly explore ways to make sure there's a more prominent look. It doesn't have to be. I think that's No, I think he's saying he likes it.
Larry language that means he likes sometimes. I like things. I'll let you know. I have a quick question. Just curious. I mean, the building looks nice. I'm glad you as it is.
I turn right so when I'm making a right turn cars are coming um can you repeat that just so I make sure I'm understanding the question right facing Main Street
as it is When I go to make almost my left with this you have your cornerstone here will be um I think the best way to approach this
is to also have this included in a traffic study or with a line of sight with an architect. But I can say that um if there are ways to play with that platform and lowering it um like this gentleman just mentioned, it should add an aid within the line of sight of that
turn. Of course, whatever we do plan uh ultimately needs to be approved by an engineer and a traffic engineer for that area. And I'm I'm looking forward to getting into that detail more as we get into the site planning. Um yeah.
Yeah. You know what? And I'm Look, I I agree with you. I think there'll actually be better visibility with something like this. Yeah. Because the bushes stick far out. Yeah. I think you're going to have a better visibility. The bushes are higher than what um looking at what this wall would be.
Yeah. Yeah. So, you're saying like you would be that car right there? Yes. And you when you look up Main Street, you have the bushes at what what used to be the Pizza Hut. Yes. Yeah. I mean, right now that that
walkway is probably 5T and I think we're probably looking at closer to 10 feet. So, I think it will be further back, but yeah, I think obviously we'll have to address that as part of the site plan. Mike will make sure that Yeah, looking at it just at the aerial
of it now with the way it's rounded, it should be another like 10 ft of extra line of sight approximate. looking at it. I think we need to get that tree cut back. Yeah. Don't say that to Larry. No, that that's that's what you need to
do. It has to be a safe line of sight. It's not necessarily a tree. It's the bushes that are down low. That tree is not causing traffic. No, it's the bushes that are there. The bushes that are in your face. Everybody sees that. Other comments? I know you're itching.
Yeah. Well, I'm waiting for everybody. It's ahead, sir. Trying to All yours, mayor. So, so a few things. Um, I think what you've put together, you've listened extremely well to what this board has said in the past and and to
what the redevelopment committee uh has put forward as well. Um, you had a big challenge in front of you assembling all these pieces. It's like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone. um and and you've managed to put
that together and and you've stayed at the table uh to make something uh that as as I had said in a previous meeting that everybody can be proud of. This part of town is a gateway. Um right now it's not a great looking gateway. So,
you know, we are trying to uh to to regenerate that uh that end of town, the east end of town, and it needs it needs a little bit of help. Um it's gone through a number of floods and it's chased businesses out over the course of
uh two decades uh worth of floods and uh you know we have we we had created a redevelopment plan that went through a number of different iterations. Um and you've taken that redevelopment plan and you've understood it and you've put it
to paper. So having done that um you've addressed a lot of the flood plane issues that this committee had previous this board previously had as well as the redevelopment committee. Um emergency
services access is paramount um because we know it will flood down there again. But what you've done is given the ability to take the building out of the water. it's out of the water and you've still maintained that emergency access that uh is required because without that
it's it's a non-starter. Um coming down a floor just the the the density the bulk the you know when you come around when you come down Main Street and the first thing you see is that gateway
um bringing it down a floor actually adds to it. you know, sometimes bigger isn't always better and and having this big massive structure um is not the best. I think what you've done uh by creating that architectural element,
that corner architectural element, um and and bringing it down a level and reducing the number of units, let's be honest, um it it actually helps the the look, feel, and massing of the building. Um,
very happy to hear that you're, you know, you're intrigued and interested in pursuing a a performing arts, uh, center, a some type of public use that we can both work together towards. I think that's awesome. Uh, it's something that the burrow has been eagerly working
towards. um and your your willingness uh for to participate in our affordable housing because we all have that responsibility and uh um you know, your willingness to to to work towards meeting that uh that ordinance. I mean,
it's brand spanking new. Um but your your willingness to meet that uh says a lot. Um I think you've done a great job in in putting this together. I think there's been a lot of time and you've stuck to it. There's been a lot of push
and pull. Uh but I think at the end of the day, it made a better concept. Um and I'm eager to see this this move forward. The only thing that's missing on that architectural element on the
corner, you need a big old American flag right at the top. Consider it done. and and I think that completes that gateway. So, I think it was well done. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the board?
I just had a couple questions. Um, all the mechanicals are going to be on the rooftop. All mechanicals, air conditioning, venting. Yes. Um, including backup generators that we plan to have for the site. The next you're going to have on site. Okay. Just again for the emergency service um
concerns. You know, in the event of a flood, people still need power. So, we are committed to planning that. That's the shelter in place. While we're here. Anything else from the board? All right. I am going to open it up to the public for any comments that you
might have on this concept plan hearing. None. I will close the public session. Um, I'm just going to close and say I agree with Mayor Gallagher. It has been a pleasure to uh I know not on your end but on our end to have an applicant that is willing to really truly listen
to what we um have concerns for and this project is absolutely beautiful. I think you've done a fantastic job on it and I look forward to it. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
Okay. Moving on to first we have the resolution area of need. Oh yeah, sorry I forgot. I already crossed it off. That's why I forgot about it. Sorry. Um just on the notice
that we do have we are adjourning the uh Somerville Estate LLC 157 East Main Street. That will be for August 13th. Unfortunately, they had some conflicts with their professionals, so they will be heard on August 13th. Microphone. Are you not working?
No further notice is necessary. Who? And uh Ryan, you confirmed we don't need an extension from them, right? For August 13, we do not need an extension, but they did say that they were going to renotice just on their own accord. Oh, they did? Okay. All right. Okay. Uh so back to the resolution from uh
burough council recommend asking the board to look and reexamine whether um certain blocks in um this is the west end west end I I know not so many west end uh redevelopment area is an um
can be added in as an area of need of redevelopment. Can we get like a landmark understanding of what we're talking about? Yeah. So, I'm sorry. No, I'll I'll stop. Please do. No, please. Please do. So, so the uh and that's a good point,
Larry. The the burough council took up um at obviously at the recommendation of uh of the planning board at at one point uh we heard the concept for the granite building. Um this is in relation to that. So, it's looking at the blocks and
lots that are that comprise the granite building and the adjacent properties in and around. Doesn't mean new street. Uh I don't know if it extends across New Street. Um but it it's it's that it's not a triangle, but that block um and it
doesn't mean that all will be included. It just means that this is the area the burough council says have a look, see what you come up with and then come back to us with your recommendations. Okay. So, and it's not a new area. It's just extending. So, we have the existing West
Main Street redevelopment area. Uh, it would be extending it across the street to the next block. Yeah, I believe it does go across New Street to for the reexamine of what they're looking for. Yeah. But again, it's it's not it's up to this body to make a recommendation as to what should should or should not be
included. What's our next step then? get cracking. So, Mike will be a part, you know, we'll be using Mike for this a lot. This member um on the we have that where we said we were going to start re-examining anyway our redevelopment plans, master
plans. This just falls in line. It kind of just kickstarts and gives us a definitive of what one of the things that we really need to start on. So that will be um and I know the timeline don't see Colin um I know the timeline has been fine-tuned um and I'm hoping for
the next planning board you guys get a copy of that I know we weren't didn't have a chance to re revisit it um outside of this just to make sure that we like that timeline and we were waiting for this as well. So with that then you'll start to see that's where that's the next step. Are we also
thinking about taking another look at the Eastern Business District? Yes. We have what we just saw. Yep. But across the street, the world is different than it was I think 20 years ago. I think Larry once you see
this timeline so the timeline incorporate and it has listed the master plan every redevelopment plan we have because there's not that we have Gaston Avenue too that needs to be red you know all Kirby Avenue all of them need to but based on to your point what this timeline takes into consideration is um
what we see needs to be looked at first so and it doesn't mean this timeline is we're going to start one and have to end that before we start the next one so that's what this time two weeks ago yeah so this timeline I think will help with a lot of that to understand how there might be three that we're working
on at the same time, but we're towards the tail end of one, in the middle of another, and the beginning of the next. So, we're not uh waiting, you know, and saying, "Oh, we got to finish one before we get Yeah. We're not starting one and working through it to finish and then starting another." It's they're going to be in tandem. Yes.
Yeah. Okay. And the master plan is also something we have to look at going forward. All of Yes. And the first step for that was that's going to be distributed to um which we're going to discuss is going to be distributed to each of the different
committees. So historical environmental each uh recreational they'll get their parts to start looking at as well. So that the thumb drive was also yes so that those pieces can also you know it it gives us that kickstart because they it's they need to review it. So instead of waiting on us to say
okay now we're ready for it. They can start looking at that. Yeah. So what's been done in the past Larry? I mean, you know, you you've sat here. What we've done is typically we've handled it and brought them in and said, "Tell us your thoughts." We're doing it a little different this time. We're saying, "Here you go. You you this is
your area. Come back to us with what your recommendations are and then we'll have a look at it." So, it's it's kind of it's a we're kind of reversing it a little bit. So, the thumb drive that you gave us, I can start to share it with the environmental people for the park. I think Mike is going to do that
separately. Oh, the Yeah. The the concept is we're we're actually going to bring the constituencies in to a meeting. Um distribute. Yes. First to kind of give everybody a game plan. Yes. Timelines of expectations. Um and and what we're
looking for back, you know, redline documents so we can see what revisions, changes were made so the board can see what revisions, changes were made. Um so that we don't have everybody kind of going off in their own direction. um we need to corral it a little bit. So that's that's next on the list.
And the thumb drive to clarify was it's for each of us as board members. It has every plan on it. So that's what we can continue to use to reference as we get to those elements. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And if they you know what if they want to start looking at it just to the master plan's on the website so they
they can they can take a look at it. motion. A motion and a second to authorize Mike to undertake the uh study of that those particular lots in connection with redevelopment statutes. So moved. Second. Andrea Dair, yes. Chris Addex,
yes. Art Aens, yes. Larry Cleveland, yes. Jason Kraka, yes. Mayor Gallagher, yes. Council member Vroom, yes. Chairperson Warner, yes. All right. Next up is we have the draft revised draft ordinance for the EV
charging stations. Uh Mike, I'll let Mike take over in a minute just to give an overview. Mike took the thoughts and comments that we had at the last meeting, incorporated them, made some of those adjustments. Um so Mike and you want to I think it's all the red, right?
Yeah, the red is revised. we had read before, but I drilled down on comments received from the planning board, which were to clarify what a single use parking deck is, what's a mixed use, to
clarify exactly what we're talking about. And then there was discussion about well on the surface parking lot, the fire, the hydrant, what's the location? So, I met with uh Bobby Lynn more than once regarding this. So,
you'll The range given for the fire hydrant 3 uh 75 to 100 ft is the range for the surface parking lot. And you'll see that you can be a a party wall attached on two sides and still be considered a a singleuse deck which is
similar to what's been in town, the county deck, two sides. And then it's clarification on if you had another building, what distance constitutes another connection to clarify. The whole
idea is so the the OEM and the fire department can fight something and get access to it. It's not impeded by other structures. And that's why you see the fire lane 30 feet. The idea is so they can get around the structure to do what
needs to be done. And uh I I do believe this this reiteration addresses what the planning board does comment on addresses the the uh the charge from last meeting. Anybody have any extra comments,
additional comments? I just quick questions and it's probably just clarifications. Um when we're talking about the side of the adjoining building not being it's not considered to be 30 feet from a structure if it's separated by a road
alley or fire lane. Is the intent even if if that separation by that is less than 30 feet it's still okay. It's still not considered a joining. Do we need to say that that separation needs to be at least 30 feet? So if you've got for instance a roadway that's
only 10 you don't have to say but The exception is it's 30 feet if you don't have the roadway. If it's less, it's to what the fire marshall. It could be 20 feet if you have that, right? Is that the intention?
The way So if the side of the adjoining building is located within Yes. Unless it is separated at a grade. So it's saying it's 30 feet separation unless you have an access road around it that complies with the fire marshal. So that less than 30.
So that's the road satisfy. Okay. So the the roadway can be 20 ft. It allows for the fire truck to come and it becomes a fire inspection or fire of engineers and the fire marshall says the fire lane has to be right now it's typically 10 ft. So they say with we
want 20 feet works for us. Well that satisfies it then because you have the fire lane road. It doesn't ne have to be a public road. It just needs to meet the access for the fire uh department to address. Okay. So that's why it's written that way. That makes total sense. Now,
however, if you have a fire lane that meets the requirements, it could be 12 feet if they're comfortable with. Yep. Okay. It's just giving flexibility. Absolutely. It makes total sense. And then page nine, uh, 5B,
I just think we might want to consider saying after the word feasible, put as determined by the board hearing the application. So, we just know that. Oh, yes. We have to clarify that. Y. So other than that, I mean, I'm I'm good.
So from my perspective, when we look at the the application that we just heard a little bit about, right? That's a number that's a that's a number three, right? That's a mixeduse structure because it's underneath, right? Is that did I read that right?
Okay. So I mean that's not even feasible if this gets approved, right? Like help me understand that a little bit because it's right from the get-go. So, I'm not going to repeat what I said before, but I'm not sure if we're solving the problem, and I think maybe we're just
putting hurdles in front of developers. I I agree with you, but I think what they said was the the EV parking there, they had that green space above it, no residential above. Yep. So, I think that actually falls under
a different area. I see where you're going. Yeah. So, but by definition, this is a mixeduse structure. We'd have to say, well, mixed use structure, but it's located in a place that makes it okay. Six needs a clarification.
Item six on page nine. Yeah. Item six that needs a better clarification to point to what you're saying. Yeah. They were saying that where they're intending to put these parking spaces. Yes.
Yes. in the deck but no residential above. So that's Yeah. So when I when I heard that and I saw that I'm like that's a good idea and that makes sense to me. Right. But by this definition this is prohibited. I think this is now a question for the board. We've been here before. What does
the board want to do? Do we want to allow it or not allow it? Because I hear your point. Oh yeah. Right. So and that's the impass we keep coming to. So it really is do you want to allow it or not allow it. Right. So if we say no, we don't want to allow it. That's that if we say okay well an application like that we're
looking at it the way they're doing it then we make the adjustments. So that's really so that we would still have that ability to say well even though it's prohibited we can listen no matter what they can always come here and ask for variance on this nothing prohibits an applicant coming from before us saying well listen we
tried that's how we manage those situations but it would now be a variance that has to come before the board and in the concept at least what I saw they were proposing the EV in the surface parking lot so they are addressing this that's what I saw where was a service parking It's the
lower. No, it's the It's the lower level, right? But wasn't there a surface area shown? No. And then there's there's green space above that. Yeah. And that makes sense to me what they did there. It makes a ton of sense.
Should we incorporate that into My preference is to to leave it and let it be a variance by because if there's nothing directly above this space, but six feet over there's an apartment. Technically there's nothing above. I don't want that. And that's, you know,
my personal, you know, if it's 40, you know, if it's 80 feet away and it's a giant parking deck, well, maybe, you know, but also to look at, you know, and I didn't want to get into the nitty-gritty on these plans, but are those EVs now blocking the access to the fire department from
getting into the building or into the parking deck? And again, I don't want to get into it as, but those are things I think we can look at if they want. And I think to the point the one of the thought processes we had with allowing this to come you know doing that where we say they can come before the board right
is because we want to be able to look at these unique situations and what are they doing to address it and do we feel that there really is no other option for them. I think the once my personal opinion is once we start opening up an ordinance and allowing it now it allows
everything and we lose control of allowing what we feel is still a safe project based on this project specifically and everything they have done specifically with this project. Yeah, Chris, I would just follow up that I there's no perfect fix here.
No, there isn't. I agree. But I think what the charge was to give guidance to the development community that something needs to be thought about and that this would it's prohibited but it would be a C variance and they can
come and give the proofs and say this works especially as right as things change as you know fire blankets are no longer the right option and something else is becomes easier. It would be no different like a parking variance thing. RSIS says 2.0. We're
proposing 1.6. And this is why the board hears those C variances all the time. I I think that just to give clarity on right now it's silent. The the the ordinance that was on the on right now gives no direction at all. And
I think it to give some direction. It might not be perfect. I understand exactly what you're saying, Chris, but I think some guidance versus no guidance is what's front of the board. And to that point, I think, you know, I've heard this across the state, too, is that I feel from a planning board
perspective by us not giving guidance. We're doing the actual disservice not to the not only the community, but to the developer, right? Not giving them something to refer to to say and then still that option, right? As with any other uh ordinance or other law that's out there, they come and ask for the
variance. So there is that always that end but at least it gives them that guidance and then by the time they come with that variance I feel that they should have well they should they will have to because they're going to have to prove it but proving that they really literally have done everything they can
and then it's left up to that board based on that application and that application only. There you go. Yeah. And that would that would be the criteria or the the standard they would have to meet because it specifically says it's prohibited. Correct. We know that's a much higher standard for uh
granting deviations. Thumbs up. No, it makes sense. I like I like how we're we're taking a stance and then managing through variance. When you talked me through that, I was like, "Okay, that makes a ton of sense." So, all right. No, we're good. Chris is a little creative. I mean, we're ideas of something.
You hit it right on the head. There's no perfect answer. And by the time you got the perfect answer, you'd have 45 pages of like caveats, which And then I think we'd be strap booting them even more. Yeah. cancer will get something accomplished and the cat will be out of the bag or you can't put the genie back in the bottle I think
is what the pressing thing is we have activities coming up and if you keep waiting you're going to reach a point same argument the town's 99% built out it's too late at this point some direction so is this ready to go to council well I was just about to say are there
any other comments I'd like to make a motion to send it to so I'm going to just say that the a motion but with the one addition from carara where it says you know as um determined by the board hearing the application.
Um so we'll need a motion for that. And you said the uh um fire official is good with this. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yep. Robert
at least three times. He's comfortable with it. Good. All right. So moved. Second. Andrea Dair, yes. Chris Addex, yes. Art Aens, yes. Larry Cleveland, yes. Jason Kraca, yes. Mayor Gallagher,
yes. Council member Vroom, yes. Chairperson Warner, yes. Okay. Um, I will just touch upon this. I I didn't get a chance on I know John is not here tonight. I was going to reach out to him. The improvement coverage subcommittee. Mike, have you seen any
movement on that? I know that they were going to go back and look at see if there was other We haven't met. So, what I'd like I'm gonna reach out to John, too, because I know he's been um involved in this. I think we want I want to look at where we're at. Um and if we
are pretty solid with where we're at and we're going to keep delaying it, then I think this is one of those again where I think let's just get this through, get it through to and then just kind of like how we separated the decks with the pool. I think we're at a point because John had come up with for a m what we
feel and that's what we wanted to confirm but I think for the majority of the issues that they're hitting in that P to residential um we'll cover with that um and if I'm going to talk to him and if we feel so I'm hoping maybe at the next meeting we
can uh make that recommendation to get that at least that portion of it and then we can still revisit it like listen we can still look at it we know it's not done but I don't want to keep holding that up because we have gone back and forth and I know the committee it's about you know a timing issue too. So um
and then the last I know it's not on your agenda but you did did everybody receive the storm water management. Okay. So the storm water management uh plan that is the copy that was sent to you um has already been reviewed by the
environmental committee um so you can start reviewing it and looking at it. The only concern we had is that when the environmental committee made their adjustments, they didn't redline it. So, you have no idea what they've changed. So, we're also going to ask I'm going to ask that a clean copy that was
originally from the Yeah, I'm sorry. May maybe Larry can can ask environmental for that. I think Kevin Kevin asked um but I don't think he got it. So, maybe if you can I'm not Well, I'm not sure if we have a clean copy. I'll have to go back and ask
because this is from a couple years ago. So if we submitted this, there was a good baked effort to submit it, but I don't know if there's original copy. So I have to find out if you could find out because it's just so that the planning board can see what those revisions are because now we have to look at it and make our
recommendations and then you know don't want to do it twice if it's already been find out. Thank you. Thank you. Uh so you can start reviewing that though. Is this something that's going to be on the nexth agenda for discussion management or
um I will discuss with Ryan because I know we have a pretty we have our presentation next one we we have we might it might be a little packed for that. Okay. But I will we'll see if we can get that in for discussion based on the other items that are on the agenda.
I think TNM's doing our storm water. I believe they've done it and the environmental commit uh commission has done yeah revision of that. So I'm just trying to see if I need to do like a if there's a difference in the two and Larry provides a red line of the two
then we can cut to the chase. A lot of it's done by statute is requiring certain language but there's flexibility. So it might be prudent just to look at the differences between which is why we were asking for a clean copy. Yeah.
Exactly. So I can do a a sheet showing the differences. Okay. I think as K would say cheat sheet quick synopsis, but I just didn't know if I'm leaning towards going to be too much already going on at the next meeting just so and that also I know gives you
some breathing room but I think there's going to it's going to be a pretty big meeting next weekend next meeting. So um and I think that is it. We don't have any approved ARBs already, right? Because we have some that are on hold. Uh I have no further comments. So, I'm
going to open up the meeting to the public for comments and questions. Hearing none, close public session and a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. All post.