Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice to this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one, posted on the bulletin board outside of Borough Hall, two, mailed, faxed, or emailed to the Courier News,
and three, given to the Clerk Administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and the decorum appropriate to a judicial to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Andrea Dare.
>> Here. >> Chris Adkins. >> Here. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Here. >> Tim Hayes. >> Here. >> Bill Kale. >> Here. >> Jason Kraska. >> Here. >> John Manilio. >> Here. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Here. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Here. >> Councilmember Broom. >> Here. >> Chairperson Werner. >> Here.
>> Please stand for the pledge. I pledge >> allegiance 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, I have no comments except
this should be a pretty short meeting. I know you're all upset. Uh ARB was we had the 156 West Main, which was a sign. Anybody have any issues that you guys got to review it? It was pretty simplistic. Uh approval for minutes from July 8th. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Andrea Dare. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Tim Hayes. >> Yes. >> Bill Kale. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraska. >> Yes. >> John Manilio. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Councilmember Broom. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Werner. >> Yes.
>> All right, moving on to ECBD. Um we are I feel we're on the home stretch on this one. I think we just have a few things to tighten up. Uh, one of them was, did everybody get the final review of
um, schedule A on the adjustments? You went through the definitions. Do you have anybody have any additional comments on this? >> Go ahead, John. >> So, I'm going to be Monday morning quarterback. >> It's okay. >> Um, so I went through a a lot of it. Um, I know I missed a couple of meetings
when we're like through and I kind of reclassifying the properties. Uh, I guess one question, uh, just for everybody's, the EB-1 and EB-2, they seem very similar. They're close to each other. I went through the uses. Maybe there's three uses that are different. And even with the with the um, zoning,
looks like most of the zoning is the same with the exception of one has a building coverage requirement, the other one doesn't. Would it make sense to combine the EB-1 and EB-2 to just one zone? Something to think about. >> It would. Now, I just got to look at the
differences. >> Yeah. Yeah, so the I could go through those. And some of the differences in the EB-2, I don't know if they make sense cuz sounds like most of the EB-2s actually on Main Street. Um, and the differences are
uh, wholesale of groceries. >> Schools and educational services. Uh, correct. Non-profit parks. Which I I feel like should be permitted in all zones. >> Mhm. >> And railroad transportation. Which doesn't make sense because it's
not near the railroad. I don't know. >> know. >> [laughter] >> I've no issue combining those. >> Yeah, either way. >> easier and cleaner. >> Mike, any issues with that? >> No. >> It was one point I we made the difference, John. At one point, there was a Griffith
Electric on Meadow Street that we had we kicked it around to make that a permitted use. This is Griffith Electric became a landscaping and a contractor's yard. And it's right now, I think it's a landscaping right on Meadow Street. I think that's the background to why there's a distinction, John. But I think
it's a great great point. >> Uh and the second one is the EB3. It just seems it's it's kind of isolated in the back. Um you know, it's three lots. I think it's all owned by PSE&G, I want to say. >> Well, if you look at it, um it's already EB3 on the back end has already been
developed for the most part. And then the other EB3 on the original is under the flood hazard now. >> So, to your point, there really isn't much there. >> What is on EB3 right now? >> Metal fabrication.
>> Yeah. >> On the on the new map? It just looks like a parking lot. I'm not sure how up-to-date it is. >> Yeah, that used to be an auto body shop way back. >> I mean, I could see some uses there that are not um permitted in other zones.
Like a nursery or or something. >> I think I I think he's referring to see this little box here. It's not marked. John's map has this >> Lot 58. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, there was three houses. Yeah, you can see it on John's map really well. >> So, yeah, so though that's actually owned by PSE&G. >> Right.
>> Which is >> That was the old um um Ray's Auto Body after they left the the church. >> Which is under a zoning board application right now. >> Yeah. >> I don't know that anything can go on it, right? >> But It's It's capped.
>> It would have to be remediated if >> If the That's the proposal is to put a cap to prevent leaks. So, infiltration of rainwater doesn't leach out or something. >> Mhm. >> The soil contamination is still down the ground 15 to 20 ft. >> Okay.
>> Do we just pull that out of the EB3 and just make it part of the EPR zone then? >> That's my my thought, but then it gets >> Because if we're making that flood hazard zone cover the rest of that >> We don't want anything else there. >> Yeah. >> Why don't you just make it part of flood hazard zone? >> Right. I think that makes more sense if
it's EP >> Cuz it's not in a flood hazard zone, is it? >> No. >> It's not. Are you saying if it's >> No, it's really high and dry in that spot. >> But if it's going to be capped, can we put residential there? >> No. That's why you have to do EPR. Is EPR I think it's just professional
and retail. >> EPR professional >> One family residence is allowed there, so no. >> We might say something like government use. >> Yeah, government use. >> The intent [clears throat] is and I know the mayor can chime in for all on this
issue, but the intent is maybe an opportunity from PSE&G for the borough to use those properties. >> Yeah. We've been after that property for 20 years. >> Right. So, that would be like a government we could just say government or institutional. >> Like the county government district, we could do something similar.
>> Remember, John, cuz there's only the three lots and the three lots are owned by PSE&G. >> Right. >> So, >> Okay. >> Um and then going through schedule A, so that's the kind of the >> So, wait, does that now eliminate EB3? >> I
>> So, existing up on EB3, we still have I think right off of Warren Street a little bit. I'm not saying we have to address that now, but if we again, if we're going to eliminate it. >> Mhm. >> Or we're leaving it for 1 2 4 properties.
>> So sorry. Is this the map that is the current or are we going off the hand sketch? >> Either or right now. It doesn't matter. That's what >> So the properties in the on Warren Street there in reality it's it's it's uh
station house the bank the multi-family built apartment building and then you have your your at Bridge Street. That's the three properties. Santander Bank Next to Santander is a
multi-family uh house. Next to that is the station house. Then you have the Center Street, then you have Cobalt. >> And on Warren you're talking the firehouse. >> firehouse and >> You've got the county properties there. >> Right.
>> I'd be more inclined to turn that um >> Move that into the new EB12, whatever we're going to call that one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Move those four properties. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Mhm. Anybody have an issue with that? >> No, I don't. >> So those are going to be left
This is also EB1 This is >> Yeah, so they'll all be >> one district one big and all lines down Simplifies things. >> Then we we have no uses in the flood hazard zone. I don't know if that's correct what we're going to talk about today or
do we want to add uses? >> I think we needed to decide what uses are. That was the only one basically open space is really what's going to be >> What could be active and passive recreation? >> Yes. >> Yes. Active and passive. Bill made the distinction which is current that
they'll make parking lots there. So that was the distinction made that yes, we have parking lots associated with a park or something, but keep it that way. Uh but we had the flood hazard ordinance that covered all the uses.
So we were going to use the existing flood hazard ordinance. And I I guess come up with uses which are green and passive that should be in the that table. >> Yeah. >> So yeah, I like the idea of the open space and the parks. Um my only question with the parking lots is
let's say if all those become vacated, would >> [clears throat] >> a park be able to have a parking lot? >> Yes. >> Accessory. >> As an accessory use. >> use. >> Okay. Yes. >> So my my thought also on the flood hazard, there are other uses I think that can go there that that won't be affected if it gets flooded and could
benefit the community as well. Um and and the other I guess concern I have is a lot of those properties are privately owned now. And that's assuming that you know, somebody wants to make it park open space for some reason or um there's some type of >> Yeah, there's no eminent domain here.
[clears throat] This is planned for 2030 hours. >> TDR rights. >> Yep. So I'm thinking is there any commercial uses that could be there um that could actively use those spaces. So commercial recreational spaces like um soccer fields or private clubs uh something to
that effect or baseball fields. >> I mean my personal opinion is that thing floods. I I'd like to keep structures out of there as much as possible. >> Oh, I agree. So, if it's a field, you know, maybe it has like a concession stand that has to obviously conform with the the state regulations, but it's
still green space. It's It's not something that that's an infrastructure that will get um damaged. Or the other thing is like a community. So, I know there's a lot of people talk about community space or a theater. I think that that could work there if it's elevated um above the flood um cuz
nobody's going to go out to see a a play if it's uh you know, 100-year storm coming. So, >> So, part of the problem we also have to remember is going back to what Mike is talking about what our flood ordinance says. So, I think we need to read that because there are very strict restrictions, especially if somebody
gets an opportunity to do a FEMA acquisition, there is no opportunity for anything but open space. So, I don't disagree in trying to think outside the box, but I'd rather see those plans and then us have to address it on a case-by-case versus a blanket where we end up with something
that [clears throat] we weren't really intending on getting. You know, >> Right. >> and that's again, just my opinion. I'm looking you know, I I agree that it's not just about open space. Should be some you know, parks, recreation, um but I think beyond that vague word, I think
we'd want to see what is being presented cuz that area is the worst of the worst there. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, so how do we encourage moving towards that? Cuz if I'm a property owner, I own it, I'm not going to sell it or you know, redevelop it cuz if I do that, then I can't do anything without
coming for a zoning board approval on it. >> I I think the TDR comes into play that you know, in in the rest of the EB district, uh the you can get density bonuses by picking up a piece of property in that area in the FHA.
Uh you pick that up, you you get X density bonus on that project. >> Do Does the TDR stop in this zone? >> No, that's what this zone is. That's where you'd want to use it. >> No, I mean So, I mean I mean in the east uh end. Can it like Can the west end
come over and buy property and get better density at theirs? Is that allowed or is Is it restricted to the ECBD? >> If the board wanted to do that, Jason, my only concern with that is what really needs to be developed is the east and the west. Main is relatively good
shape. The focus, in my opinion, what has to decide that >> Okay. >> is trying to get that east east Main Street jump-started. >> Yeah. >> And to Lisa's point, I think we can take that on a case-by-case basis. If there is a project that comes in, um and they're shy on parking or they're
shy on density and they can't make it work, then then it allows us to have the flexibility to determine whether that's an appropriate TDR or not. >> Yeah. >> If they would help the board, I could fulfill in TDR, I could fill in the FHA, we can uh the flood hazard zone, and we
could make the math changes, simplify the table. >> Well, that's one of the The next thing's going to be the map. I wanted to focus on this cuz this in my chicken scratch and everybody else's chicken scratch ideas need to be discussed because we >> Yeah. >> we need to push through of where do we want to land with these now? Now that we
know what the uses are, what we're getting rid of, what we're not getting rid of, where do we see that fully laying out in that ECBD area? >> I did have a question. Um the Parkland area, I mean the PUR zone that's north of Park Avenue,
should we notch that off down Huntington and just >> That's not part of the ECBD, so we cannot do that. >> That's where it stops, on this side of Park Ave. >> Right up Park is the line. >> The idea is once we get this flood hazard zone, I think Roger brought this
up, we get the language right, maybe it could be extended throughout the borough, but the idea was this is the start. Get the language right, and then we can extend it along the flood hazard. Is that right, Roger? Is that >> That's that's the intended goal. >> Right. >> If we can get it right here, then we can
work this in everywhere else because, you know, going back to to John, what you were saying before, at some point folks have to realize, as as we've discussed here, um with flood insurance and things like that, it follows the property. So, at some point, it's going to be you're going to be way up Forget
being upside down underwater, but you're going to be upside down financially to continue to rebuild someplace where you're not going to get finances for it. And so, then we start to talk about green space takeover and and some of the ways that folks can get FEMA buyouts and whatnot, but I think I think we need to as well as working on
this flood hazard zone is also educating the public that of those things because they may not realize when they bought into that property that their time may be running out to get assistance to maintain that property in the event that we get another Ida or another Irene. >> Yeah, I agree. I just want to make sure
that we we try to, I guess, encourage people to to get down these structures, and that's why I thought, you know, the commercial, you know, recreational space, that's something that would take down structures and make it a field. Um but, yeah, I'm okay with that being a use for it and it has to come in front of have to come in front of the zoning
board, but yeah. >> Can I make one suggestion on on the map? >> [laughter] >> Sorry. >> You make me nervous. >> So, so at the corner of High Park, um we have the old dentist office. >> Yes.
>> And it's not included in the zone in the FHA. >> That's what I was thinking. >> And it's it's a it's kind of like a a sore thumb just sticking out on its own, and we're not doing anything with it. My suggestion would be we just extend that uh FHA.
>> We can't. >> Why? >> ECBD is a designated area. We would need to to have Mike do an area need a study to see if we want to add those properties. >> We can talk to council about that. We have a study done for the county parcels. >> Yeah.
>> If the recommendation from council is to study that, I would suggest we just add that lot into the county study. >> Yeah. >> If that's >> Makes sense. >> I think it I Yeah, I think it makes sense. >> So >> Yeah, I agree. I just want to make sure we >> Do it right. >> right. >> Yeah.
>> The normal process and it's Cara's question is we normally get a recommendation or from council, mayor and council to study >> the area then the planning board studies it. >> Yeah, and it would just be an additional recommendation for the existing cuz we haven't closed out. We're still in discussions on the area needs, so that's
not closed out yet. >> Yeah. Okay. So we'd just be adding it. >> Adding a lot to the study area and if anybody sees another lot or something that sticks out like a sore thumb, we do have the county open
and it's 90% written. So >> [snorts] >> adding a block, a lot here and there, as long as council agrees and Cara agrees, I think it makes perfect sense to do all in one shot. >> John, did you have anything else?
>> Yeah. >> You sure? >> Yeah. I have two questions on the schedule. >> Okay, go ahead. >> So um EB2, I see wholesale grocery under a conditional use. Do we want a
wholesale grocery in the EB2 section? >> Well, I thought we were getting rid of EB2, so it becomes EB1. >> Okay, I mean >> As a whole, so to your point, yes. >> Do we want a whole Yeah, I mean do we want a wholesale grocery in that area?
I'm not sure. Just thought I'd bring that up. >> So the definition of wholesale grocery, is that bulk? Is that >> [snorts] >> Mike? >> Generally, yes. Yes. >> or BJ's? >> Something like that. >> Or or an Aldi or something. So, I Okay. >> [snorts]
>> Yeah. >> That makes That makes sense then. And my other question was around um I see a physical fitness facility only listed under EB3, which I'm not sure if that exists anymore, but >> Just got rid of that one, too. >> Just got rid of it. >> Yeah, so
what's the thought with the physical fitness? >> Yeah, I think that's that's an acceptable use. >> Yeah, I would think so. I would think anywhere in here. >> So, that would just flow into the EB Are we going to call it EB1? And get rid of EB2 and EB3?
>> Yeah, EB1 and then EPR right after that. >> So, we would just extend any of the uses that were in the EB2 and 3 into the one. >> Okay, makes perfect sense then. I was just curious why did you know we wanted a fitness center only in that little >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> parcel.
>> middle of nowhere. >> anything in the EB3 that we don't want pulled in? I didn't look at that yet. That's not in the others. >> What about the the non-profit parks in two, three, and EPR, but not in EB1
now. >> So, I think that would slide over into it. >> Yeah, I think parks should be permitted anywhere. Someone wants to put a park. Um >> Mhm. >> The only ones that I I think maybe we should think about is the transportation public utilities. So, I guess the SIC
code 40 and 41. So, that's the railroad transportation is more like a railroad yard. And then 41 is um >> Which Yeah, that's not Okay. So, for railroad, I would say just eliminate that and leave it as the EB1 where it's not approved.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Maybe the second one is a local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation. So, I looked that up. That's um bus terminals, taxis, um school school bus terminals.
>> that include bus stops? >> Um I don't believe so. >> No, I think John's right. I think it's the hub. It's the whole bus terminal like Greyhound would have terminals. >> Then I don't think we need that as an approved use. So, just keep that one out. >> And then next page um the
construction, general building contractors. >> looking at that. >> Yeah. >> So, I I guess in some areas I'm okay with that as long as there's no outdoor storage or equipment. So, if it's like a a general contractor, he has an office. >> Mhm. >> That that could be EPR, I think. Doesn't
have to be EB. >> With the double CC, though, we have to be careful because now it says I mean we've we've now delineated the flood hazard area. Uh but it says only permissible on lots located either partially or fully in the NJDEP flood hazard. So, if we're going
to have the flood hazard area, I think we should remove >> Yeah, that's got to be >> a condition. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I think I'd like to see those go to EPR instead. >> Yep, I agree. >> any equipment or storage of materials.
So, maybe that footnote CC could just >> Change the footnote of CC, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, any of the fabrication or the lawn and garden services, a bunch of them. >> Yep. >> And then to your point, Roger, on the the next page, agricultural
we still have that CC uh condensation or indication there of that. So, that can come out for lawn and garden services. But we we took that out, right, on EB? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Now, I do have one more question on
miscellaneous repair services. We have real upholstery and furniture repair as an accessory use. What's that an accessory to? >> I think it's typically accessory to to furniture store. >> Right, correct. >> Like the one that we have that's
>> Okay. Doesn't do repair. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And they host events now. >> Right. >> That one. >> Right. >> Tim, did you have another one? >> No, that was it. >> Oh, I have one. Just just an explanation, that's all I
want. Why are houses of worship um prohibited not and not even conditional uses? >> What page >> think we can prohibit a house of worship. I think they're an inherently beneficial use and >> But it's um it's the
What page, Lisa? It's the >> So I saw that as well. I actually I don't know I Googled it. I didn't know if it was cuz I thought it was permitted in all zones. It says you can >> exclude it from zones. But like you said, it is a beneficial use. So if it does come in front of the board,
they have a good stance on that. >> imagine parking is the issue, right? >> The issue is houses of worship in the borough right now is a conditional use because of the parking and there's a lot size. So many of the houses of worship don't qualify and I think the mayor is right.
It all goes back to the number of parishioners and on-site parking. So >> it be a conditional as opposed to being a prohibited? >> Yeah, I don't see why not. >> Yeah, this way we're not opening ourselves up. >> We can certainly make it a condition and
the board states conditions on sizing. >> Yeah. >> Right? We say it reasonable conditions given the lot size in the area. >> Mhm. >> Uh >> And on-site parking. >> On-site parking, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Cuz we don't want to flood the streets with more cars. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Take Andrea's point as well. So, child care centers, I think that's permitted in all residential zones. I don't know if the EPR is considered residential or is considered more professional office.
Um and the ERT, we call it as an accessory. That should be a permitted use. That might be a Kira question. >> The existing building that was a church or is not a church, is that still a church? Is that >> Yes, it's a house of worship.
>> It is a house >> worship. So, >> Yes. >> it's already there. >> Yep. >> Mhm. >> So, it either got a approval >> It's seen many lives. It started out as a temple and back in the early 1900s and it's it's gone through many iterations of
denominations. Which is kind of neat. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any others? >> No. >> All right, Mike, can you make those adjustments for us? >> Yeah, I'll >> copy. >> I'll work with Ryan and we'll get the table right and it'll be red. All the
changes from tonight's meeting will be shown in red. So, it'll jump out at you. >> Perfect. >> And then update the map to >> Well, we're going to talk about the map next. Listen, guys, I sent this out, but this is not gospel. This was just to give you an idea where my head was. So, this is not a done deal.
Um So, we'll move on to the map at this point. Um So, this gives you an idea of and I know we just made some adjustments. I made some notes on mine now. I I was trying to take what we had and look at I was looking at uses of, you
know, some of the things that I thought were appropriate, some things I thought were maybe not. Um you know, specifically if you look down at the uh over by bridge, South Bridge, towards the bottom of the
that was an EPR. I split that. I think that we need to have some more movement above South Street that that needs to be, you know, that shouldn't be professional. That's kind of like that gateway into you know, our downtown. So, I added that into EB1.
Um this kind of turns into a like vast majority of EB1 now because we got rid of two and three. >> Mhm. >> Um Um I did mark that one, the property for government use.
Um I still did like around that Hamilton Street area, you know, personally I thought, you know, some of those uses that are in EB1, even the EB2 at that point, I didn't think were appropriate. I think like that EPR is a nice you know, especially coming out of that flood hazard like area, not trying to
draw I I like that, you know, professional use. They could do still some residential there cuz there are residential homes there. We don't want to stop residential. Um but it is on that opposite side of the flood hazard. Um and then ER2
um you can see at the top I split that cuz I do feel those properties definitely needs based on the flood maps. >> Mhm. >> Um this line basically follows those that we did um in my GIS department where we overlaid the
uh lots and blocks onto the flood hazard maps. Um So, those were That was just where my brain was. Um again, it wasn't meant like, "Okay, this is what we have to do." It was meant to start and ignite that conversation. Do you agree? Do you not agree? It really
does as we're going through this turn this into a majority of EB1. Um I'm okay with that because we are we're we're losing such a big portion of this ECBD that we want to use this TDR. I think we need to allow more uses and
more opportunities for something in the EB1. Um thoughts, comments not able to follow it. Chicken scratch was too anything. You're not going to hurt my feelings. >> No, I think it's good. I think it's um I think if Mike, if you can take this and
just kind of I just clean it up a little bit. >> And maybe can you do redo the line so that's so confusing. >> Just so everybody knows that the border is South Bridge. Yes. Stuff to the west is not going to be on the map. It's going to stop at South Bridge.
>> Did we move those properties into the west? Okay. >> Those properties were determined to be an area need of redevelopment and added in the same study to the West Main Street. So, the dividing line is South Bridge. >> Okay. That helps a lot. Thank you. >> So, they would all go back to B1 or B2?
>> They'll be EB1. Oh. >> I mean, those properties that are on on >> We'd have to look at the west end to see where they got >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's going to be handled. My understanding, the parcels were added to the West Main along with the old council
chambers. The whole area uh is going to be addressed. >> Um So, the last piece that I had for tonight to talk about was um which we already touched upon. The area need where we're at. So, you're
saying we're about 90%? >> The draft was done. I need to bolster the detention center. We talked about getting more data there. But, you have 38 pages. It's 90% done. We can add a lot >> Okay. >> dentist office to it. Uh the question is
if the board's I can polish that area need study. And then we're going to have to go and do the noticing and all the proper procedures to >> That's what cuz, you know, we're I I really my goal is I really want to get this one done. >> Okay. >> Um we'll wait for the council to make that
recommendation. >> What what I would suggest is um Mike, if actually allow the board to take a vote uh and then we send that formally to the council saying we are recommending that this be included. Uh we can craft a resolution, have it on the next agenda.
So, it comes both at the same time. So, it's it's less back and forth. Does that make sense? [clears throat] >> You're saying the board makes a vote and I can send Kevin the council a recommendation that the dentist lot be studied. >> Yes. >> And
>> be included in the in the previously approved study. >> Right. And if Roger agrees on the agenda, then the council would entertain that motion next council meeting or whatever the next meeting is. And the council agrees with it, comes back here, then I can add that >> Yeah. >> study, add it to the already study, and
then we could do everything in one motion. >> Yes. >> The public meeting on the area need of redevelopment. And we we we're done. >> Yes. So, I'll make a motion then to add it looks like it's 2 Park Ave um to the area need study
recommendation from council. >> Second. >> Andrea Adair? >> Yes. >> Chris Adicks? >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland? >> Yes. >> Tim Hayes? >> Yes. >> Bill Kale? >> Yes. >> Jason Kraska? >> Yes. >> John Manilio? >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn? >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher? >> Yes. >> Councilmember Frum?
>> Yes. >> Chairperson Warner? >> Yes. >> And that's Was it block 67 lot one? I believe. >> I was trying to pull that up. >> [laughter] >> I'll get that recommendation out to Kevin tomorrow.
>> Um >> Can I ask one question about the map? >> Sure. >> On the ER2 area there, at the very northern part, the uh I was curious the like the couple Let's see, one, two, three, maybe four of the lots
closest to park, they seem to be closer to the brook. Are they not in the flood hazard zone? It just seems, you know, like the line was kind of just following the property line, and I didn't know if the Did the flood line follow >> flood, they're they're not as like that
is really where that >> Okay. >> where you could legitimately say severely flood hazard area. >> So, the the flooding comes up actually it starts down all the way down um at the bend >> Mhm. >> on Veterans from that from that soccer
field there, and it works its way up that way. So, it it it diminishes as it gets further up that way. >> And if you're looking at those properties along Mechanic, Mechanic Street actually sits very high. And there's a big drop-off in those backyards. So, you're not you're not getting
flooded on those closer to Main Street. >> Okay. Yeah, it just was I just wanted to understand cuz, you know, the folks that are you know, how would you say it? In the In the flood zone there, >> They were rebuilt. >> bit farther away from the the brook than the other folks. >> Yeah, those ones did flood and and have
to be rebuilt, so. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um Mike, other than now that area in need, we're going to finalize this, uh, you know, an updated schedule A, get the map area in need, what is left in the We've
touched everything in the ECBD, correct? >> Correct. Well, we haven't We talked to uses, which I'm going to amend the zone districts. >> Mhm. >> We haven't discussed, once that's done, uh, the plan was to deal with the bulk standards, which are typically schedule
B, the setbacks, FAR, improvement coverage, and then schedule C, if the board feels we need one, how do we address parking? I'm not saying that the areas we could address parking in a paragraph in the report as opposed to a special schedule.
Uh, in the past, we've with ECBD, to encourage development, the board has been very, very flexible with parking. So, the question is >> the flexibility comes with the TDR. >> That's what the language says right now
about parking. The question is, do you want to give specifics for uses, like a classic schedule C, or do you want to say, uh, by category, and then bring in that What what It says right now that you can park up to a
reasonable distance away, 1,000 ft, as long as the board agrees with it. You don't have to have on-site parking if you're going to use the TDR. That's the current language. The question is, to the board, do we keep that current language regarding parking,
or do we say, "No, this is your parking." Still have the TDR language, but assign parking for every use. >> I think a 1,000-ft distance is extreme. Now, we've talked about it before in the past, and they've tried to do it in different places on Davenport
Street and stuff, and 800 ft was outrageous. 1,000 ft, plus we're not going to be parking in the Park Avenue area because of the flooding. So, that should be removed. >> idea that they would buy it and it would become surface parking and then they could walk.
I'll throw in the schedule C so the board can review it. >> Yeah, please. >> And the language in the TDR. The idea was to try to encourage the growth. >> Yep. >> So, and this goes back to Bill. The old idea was you could park in the flood hazard
zone, developed 400 ft away, 800 ft away, Larry, so that we could get the density in the not in the flood area. I understand, but let me get that language to everyone uh because it it dovetails back on what Bill said 3 weeks ago, three meetings
ago, about do we really want parking in the flood hazard zone? Do we really want that as a primary use? >> No. >> That >> It should be only an accessory use. >> So, I'll get that schedule C to the members for the next meeting. And schedule B.
And we can look at schedule A revisions all the done EB1 JT. This zone district south, get this map corrected, updated, and then look at get the schedule B and schedule C. I could just send submit the existing schedules
and then we can mark it up like we did for schedule A's >> Okay. >> on this and see how the is is there going to be flexibility on the TDR or how we're handling parking to encourage parking in these areas. >> Okay.
I actually have another question. What about a structured parking? Not surface parking. Three or four-story deck parking. >> That was decided, Larry, to be an accessory use, not a principal use.
Being if you had a use it was accessory as opposed to a putting a for pay parking deck right down there. I thought that I think the discussion was that that was a a poor use. We wanted residents, people, businesses. >> Yes.
>> Yes, and the accessory was the parking, but we didn't want a parking establishment right in the heart of the ECBD. Gateway, correct. >> Yep, thank you. All right, any other comments on ECBD right now? All right. Uh we're moving on to DCA.
Or D DSA. Why did I say DCA? I know why cuz it's something in my head. Uh-huh, state of my brain. Uh DSA. Um so Mike, you went through this. Um redlined it for us with some suggestions.
>> Yes. >> Yeah, and on a lot of these as I was going through is these were some of my comments. So, you know, a great nice thorough review. Um I think most of these are actually comments that we can take into consideration for other elements and for
other parts of the base plan that we're actually going to go to from the from the master plan. >> You'll see that most of the comments were addressed. Some were not, but will be addressed in the circulation plan. So, I we could just if the board of people can save this when we address the
circulation, we can go back and tie a piece >> Yep. Um so, that was actually one of my next questions is with the master plan. So, we've gotten through most of the um Like we've gone through rec,
gone through historic, gone through stormwater, we've gone through What else have we gone through? Recreation. What else? >> Facilities. >> Facilities. >> Right. >> What what's next? So, uh we need to pick another piece of this
pie pie to actually get through. >> The big one is either circulation or land use. >> I would say circulation first. >> I'm not ready for land use yet. >> Okay. I'll do circulation cuz that'll tie into a lot of this stuff. >> Yes. >> Mhm.
So, I know everybody had it, but we could certainly give out the existing circulation element for review. The question is do you want all this the next meeting or what is the >> I think get it out to the board members. I'd rather get it out or sooner rather than later, and then we'll look at the schedule and see when I first when we
first want to start reviewing it, but these are things that we can >> Takes a while. >> Once we have it, start reading it. And then maybe it gives a couple meetings for us to get through that, and then before we actually put it on to review. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um >> Just a comment, I had a chance to review
master plans of the adjoining municipalities and the borough's master plan. That plan is easy to read and very concise compared to other municipalities. It's It's It's It's user-friendly is what I'm
trying to say. I was reading a plan that was about 7 in thick. And if you look what that plan said, it was well written. But, I think we the borough accomplished that in 70 pages. Just to give you a Just a food for thought. I was just
doing it yesterday. So. >> On your free time, you read other people's master plans. That's That's lovely. >> I am on [laughter] my free time, I read other people's master plans. >> Apparently, Mike, you're not busy enough. >> [laughter] >> Jason, I didn't have a choice. I had to be prepared for the borough, and it just didn't I just
>> Just throwing it out to the >> to the planning board that when you read all the master plan, I'm not saying they're written poorly, it's just you have to read a lot to get the flavor, whereas the bureau's plan you read a couple pages, you know exactly where the bureau >> Where they're going. >> The intent is
>> The intent, yeah. >> in my opinion. >> [snorts] >> I know and you know, I remember the last revision we did we focused on a lot of that easier, the last revision or the revision before that, we focused a lot on cleaning some of that up. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh nothing from open business. All right, I will open up the meeting to the public for anything that is not listed on the agenda. Hearing none, I will close public session. Uh motion to adjourn. >> Second.