Somerville Planning Board meeting for Wednesday, February, February 25th, 2026. Please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting is 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 Burough Hall. Two, mailed facts
or emailed to the courier news, and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any comments or questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
>> Andrea Dair, >> here. >> Chris Addex here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Tim Hayes here. Bill Kale >> here. >> Jason Kraco >> here. >> John Manilio >> here. >> Barry Van Horn is excused. >> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Council member Vroom
>> here. >> Chairperson Werner >> here. Please stand for the pledge. >> I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. Uh, we have a lot to discuss tonight, so I will forego comments. Uh, our ARB reviews, we had one from 1517 West Main Street. This was I think this was a sign. >> Yeah, it was just a sign. >> Yeah, coffee shop.
>> Okay. It was in there. It There was no issues. It come, you know, it looked great. So, >> all right. Minutes for February 11th, 2026. >> So moved. Second. Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland,
>> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> I don't think I'm eligible. >> Um, Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Chairperson Warner,
>> yes. >> All right. Uh, we have a resolution for amending resolution 148 East Main Street, Pops, please. >> So moved. Second >> Andrea there. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes.
>> Bill Kale. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraco. >> Yes. >> John Manilia. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Wer. >> Yes. >> All right. We are going to do just kind of veer from the schedule for a little bit. Um I'm going to have Ron come up.
We are about to talk about some things that there's a lot to give as an overview before we actually do the formal discussion. So I would kindly ask that he gives an overview on these items. >> Good evening, Madame Chairman, members of the board. For those of you that
don't know me, my name is Ron Gordon. I'm a senior partner with the law firm of Reon Copen and Menchello. We are your special counsel for affordable housing and redevelopment and it's my pleasure to be here this evening
to talk to you about where we are and how we got here. Um the Burrow of Somerville is to be commended for the position and the actions that they have taken in order to meet their affordable
housing obligation. You may or may not know that in the prior rounds, the burrow did not participate in either COA or any of the declaratory judgment actions,
but now has joined in um as a result of joining in with the um statute that was passed about a year ago which amended the way affordable
housing is dealt with in New Jersey. We have had a series of meetings with both Fairshare Housing Center, the court, the governing body, the mayor. Um, and I'm sure that you've been involved at least to a certain degree
because the way that the compliance mechanisms work is that they require ordinances of the governing body to establish the way that affordable housing will be implemented
in the burough. What we're here for tonight is are several parts of that same process. As the planning board, you are tasked
under the municipal land use law with making a determination and recommendation to the governing body whenever there are zoning ordinances that are being considered by the governing body
as to their compliance with your master plan. The reason that I phrased it the way I did earlier that there are several aspects of what we're doing this evening is because
the part of your master plan that we are working through in affordable housing is your housing element and fair share plan. So if you had not and do not adopt the
housing element then fair share plan which provides for your affordable housing mechanisms then the ordinances would not comply with your master plan. So they're they're all kind of meshed together. Um
not that the governing body couldn't adopt them even if they did not comply with your master plan. It would just require an extra step that's known as a reasons resolution. And the reason would be there's a constitutional mandate to
provide uh your fair share of the regional need of affordable housing and we are taking every step that is necessary to reach that goal. So with the assistance of your planner,
Mr. Cole, Mr. driver and your other professionals. We have been in negotiations with Fairshare Housing Center um through what is called the the Affordable Housing Mediation Program.
As a result of that mediation program which is court sponsored under the statute, we have achieved an agreement with Fairshare Housing Center. That agreement provides
that your affordable housing obligation for this round will be 74 units. That's called prospective need
because established municipalities would not be in a position to put that many new roofs to meet that obligation. The statute provides a mechanism. It's
called the vacant land adjustment. What a vacant land adjustment does is it says, "Yes, we acknowledge that we have this obligation, but we just can't meet it. We don't have the space. We're uh not a
growing community in the sense that we have a lot of open space where we could put multifamily housing to meet our affordable housing obligation. So, the vacant land adjustment is done through your planner, through Mr. Cole.
And what the vacant land adjustment that has been accepted by Fair Share Housing and the courts says is that of those 74 units that are your prospective need, reasonably we can put together a plan
that requires 22 units of affordable housing. The math then becomes simple. Well, if we have a 74 unit obligation and we can only provide for 22, what happens to the other 52?
The other 52 is labeled in a category called unmet need. The municipality's obligation is to provide a reasonable opportunity for the provision of affordable housing. Our
agreement with Fair Share, which has the court's approval, says we can reasonably provide 22 units, but those other 52 units, we can't really do them. But if a plan comes along to develop property
with a residential component that has more than five units, we will do everything we can to ensure that there is an affordable housing component included in that approval.
Before you this evening is your is an affordable housing ordinance that does essentially that. It says if there are going to be five or more units that are for sale units
that there will be 20% of them will be affordable. There's your why it's five. It's one in five. There's your 20%. If it is going to be rental units, the requirement is 15%
uh to be affordable. And New Jersey has chosen to meet its affordable housing obligations by agreeing through development process that builders can build. We're not going
to stop you from building. We're going to encourage you to build if you provide affordable housing. And if you provide affordable housing, you will get a similar yield to what you would have without it. But
you have to make it those percentages have to be affordable. So before you this evening is I'm sorry are
two ordinances that are what's called compliance mechanisms. The way that the statute, the affordable housing statute has been crafted and implemented is
it sets some really tight deadlines. You've met all of the deadlines to date. The next upcoming deadline is March 15, 2026 when you are supposed to have adopted
you, meaning the burrow, not the planning board, supposed to have adopted the implementing ordinances that we have said we would do to meet our fair share obligation of the
regional need for affordable housing. So, you've got before you this evening the I call it the catchall ordinance. That's the affordable housing ordinance. It's ordinance 2786-26-0217. It creates subsection H entitled
affordable housing. And you have before you ordinance 2787-26-0217 entitled land use and development article 11 zoning to create an affordable
housing overlay PN Aho-1 close parenthesis zone on block 127 lot 4 in the burrow of Somerville and provide appropriate development regulations. Therefore,
so part of what the second ordinance does is it attempts to resolve not just your affordable housing obligation, but years of litigation
regarding uh what I'm going to call the Bell Avenue property. I'm sure you're all very aware of it. So the the Bell Avenue property provides that it will generate
six credits of actual affordable housing and three bonus credits for the conversion of an existing commercial facility into residential.
So the statute gives some incentives. Um Bell Avenue is taking advantage of some of those incentives to get you more credits so that you will have not only met your affordable housing obligation,
you'll meet some of your unmet need. and the way that the system has worked over the last four rounds of affordable housing. Um, whatever you don't meet gets carried forward. It doesn't go away. It doesn't
disappear. You're supposed to do what you can to meet it. And if you don't, it becomes part of the next round. Next round. July 1, 2035, 10 year rounds.
What we have done with Fairshare Housing Center um through the agreements and through these ordinances is meet not only your obligation for this round which is 2025 to 2035,
but it takes a look back and with what the burrow has done over the years in providing affordable housing, not only are you meeting this current prospective need round, but we have crafted it so that you meet your prior
round obligations as well from the 19 say 1978 1980 forward you'll be good through 2035 I don't really want to bog you down in details but there is some issue regarding Bell Avenue just going to lay
it out there I'm transparent got nothing to hide the issue is the total number of three bedroomedroom units that are supposed to be in the facility um not affordables. The affordable units
are determined the number of bedrooms are determined by the uniform housing affordability control act called uh hack. The affordables, if my math is good, will be uh one one
bedroomedroom, three twobedrooms, and one threebedroom. The market rate units, the developer would like more three-bedroom units than we have provided in the ordinance.
Um, we are we've been transparent. We've been clear. The ordinance provides that there won't be more than five threebedroom units. That's what you're being asked to vote on.
Having said all that, uh I I don't want to be too pedantic and go on too long, but if there are any questions, um we have our professionals here. We're happy to answer anything you may have. Um,
and on a personal note, I think the burrow has done a great job with this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ron. >> Questions? >> Not a question, but maybe a clarification. Uh, Mike, if you could just outline what the um ordinance would
allow for on the Bell Avenue site because I know there's folks from Bell Avenue here and I think it's it's fair for them to understand. >> Yeah, the ordinance would allow for 34 town homes style buildings. three blocks in that facility with the
on-site parking of it's it's considered A, B, and C. Three buildings that are going to look like a town houses. Um, a total of 34 units and uh there's green space for every property to the east,
which was a concern from years ago, and to the west. So the buildings are closer to the road and uh the number has gone down from the well originally the proposal was from years ago 38 units to 34 units.
So uh it's gone down from 38 to 34 townhouse looking style buildings and that answers your question. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? There was a lot of work done on this. I do want to just thank everybody who was
involved. There was a lot of work by the professionals and um different board members from different boards, the council, etc. So, there was a lot of work. So, thank you. >> Yeah, I I agree with Jason. Um, this is uh probably about a year in the in the
in the making and uh you know, it's not going to make everybody happy, but I think what we've done is created something historic for Somerville. Um, it's uh it's shouldering a responsibility. It's aortioning the fair share housing
obligation burrowwide. Um, one of the things that, uh, we had talked about here and I had talked about at council, uh, we didn't want one building that had all affordable units for a whole lot of reasons. And, and one in particular is kids going to school.
And, and that is not something that, um, I want to see uh, or that I think anybody would want to see. that uh you know this is um an ability to uh have affordable housing burrowwide in a very
interesting plan. It's not just you build and that's it. It's it encompasses rehabilitation. Um it it uh it projects the possibility of what I call incubator housing. Uh it's taking a very creative approach to
our affordable housing obligation. Um and and it's putting it in play in Somerville and and you know I think the council has embraced this. This planning board has embraced it and uh and it it's a good plan. So
>> I have a quick question and it's maybe not even appropriate here. >> I have it on. Can you hear me? >> I'll move this way better. >> Yes. Just curious, affordable housing, which is great. Knowing what we are
paying for rents that are not affordable housing, who would set the rate? Does that come under that act that you mentioned, the UHAC? >> It's a very perceptive question. Um, there are regions in the state of New
Jersey and the allowable rents for the stratifications of moderate income, low income, and very low income used to be set by an entity called CO, the Council on Affordable
Housing. Unfortunately, they haven't done anything in 20 years. So, they are now a defunct organization. >> Stepping into the into the gap, however, has been the Superior Court. And the Superior Court has counted on
um planners who are called special adjudicators. Uh they used to be called special masters to help them implement these plans and the rents which are
permissible for the various re regions have been established by the affordable housing professional organization submitted to the court and approved by the court for the various regions. So I
can't give you the specifics but that's the process. >> Some of those in round three is the round that Ron's talking about which is Somerset, Middle Sex and Hunter County. So that region is what and yearly the
list comes out of what what the average family it's based on family size affordable 80% of the median income. Low is 50% and very low is what Ron's talking about. So that's that's updated annually is my understanding and that's
what the math is based on region three in the case of Somerville those numbers and the size of the family 1.5 to 2.5 you do the math and those are the limits set for the affordable housing.
Uh there was one one other thing that I did want to point out to the board um and the public. Um in the ordinance on the minimum lot frontage there is an adjustment it is at 387 currently and it is supposed to be it will be 388. So there is a foot difference in what we're
looking at right now. >> Yeah. From our from our perspective as your affordable housing council >> that's a dimminimous change. It's not a substantive change and that's just for the lot frontage. >> Yeah. >> Um not for the lot width or any of the
other dimensions that are required. >> Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right. So, we will move into public hearing portion for this. Um I can go right into inviting public up. Correct. Car.
>> I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. Uh, Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Krasco, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes.
>> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Chairperson Wer, >> yes. >> Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to come up? When you come up, just give your name and your address, please. >> Mike.
Now you're >> all right. George Falco, 21 Bell Avenue. Uh I'm a little confused. U most of the neighbors had this put in their mailbox basically given an overview of this and it was basically the first we've heard
of this. Um my question is there have been a number of us the place was half filled for the zoning board hearings. Uh and we felt like the zoning board had our backs. Uh Mike did exceptional job with the plans of
explaining every detail with us if we had questions. Uh the burough attorney for the zoning board did a great job questioning the person building. So my question is um I understand the lowcost housing. I have no problem with that.
Obviously we need that in today's environment. Is this going to just take away everything that was presented by the neighbors at the zoning board hearing? You know, things like uh water
u water mitigation because our street floods uh homeowners association because that was left open. They never answered Mike's question. Is there going to be a homeowners association so the place doesn't get run down? Um, traffic patterns, parking, because the developer
had mentioned the amount of parking spaces and pretty much everyone thought it was ridiculously low because they were estimating like one one and a half cars per family, which, you know, doesn't happen. So, what goes on from
here? Is this pretty much because of the affordable housing, it's a done deal and we just have to watch it being built. >> So, I'm going to let Ron answer that for you. >> That's a great question. >> The result of the actions the burrow is taking,
assuming the planning board recommends it and the governing body approves it, just puts the zone in place. the hearings that you're talking about where you raise those questions will no longer be at the zoning board. They will be at the planning board right back
where we are and those same issues um can be raised. The plan will be different. So hopefully they were listening to your comments and they will have addressed those issues
before they get to a full-blown planning board hearing. But you it will require uh notice and a hearing and you they'll be back here and I'm sure you will as well.
>> Right. Basically all the effort we put into this previously is gone. >> Sorry. You're going to have to do it again. So, so what I can also I I if I can add something to that, Mr. Palco, >> um Mike was instrumental in developing the ordinance and the zoning behind
this. >> Uh Mike brought to the table all of those experiences. Those experiences I wasn't there for those. Um it was before I came back, but Mike was adamant on certain things that that had to be included in this plan. So, it wasn't all
for not. Uh Mike understood what the neighbors were looking for, what they were adamant upon, and and incorporated as best he could those into this this plan. >> Mike was excellent. We have absolutely no problem with Mike. He did a stellar job, I might say.
>> It's why he's sitting where he is. >> Uh so the next meeting that this thing shows is the burough council. Oh, actually on the Yeah. Bur council on March 2nd planning board on March 11th >> which is the hearing that the neighbors
should >> be coming to express their they can come to both both. >> Yeah. >> So just to clarify for an application that would come before us that hasn't been submitted yet. So that hearing itself where you're looking at an actual
plan a site plan design elements parking elements that has not been scheduled yet. Because some of these will be just because of the affordable housing act and changing that. >> This is the this is the adoption of the zoning behind. >> Yes. All right. >> But we will let we will make sure. Yes. And we will make sure that the public is
very well aware when that application comes before us. >> I appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? >> All right. I need a motion to close public. >> So moved. >> Andrea Dear.
>> Yes. >> Chris Addex. Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Bill Kale. >> Yes. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> John Manilia. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Room. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we have three things here, right?
>> Do we have to do them one by one? >> Yes, we do. Right. >> All right. >> Any order you want to do? >> So, the first is going to be for the revised housing element and fair share plan which is dated February 11th, 2026. >> So moved.
Second. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Bill Kell, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Room, >> yes. >> Chairperson Wer, >> yes.
>> Okay, next up is going to be ordinance 2786260217. This is amending chapter 10295, article entitle. Sorry, I don't have my glasses. Thank you. They're all blending together right now. 11 entitled zoning creation
subsection H entitled affordable housing. >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Kraco, >> yes.
>> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. Okay. Okay. And the next one up, ordinance 278726217, amending chapter 102 entitled land use development article 11 zoning to create
the affordable housing overlay. A uh uh one AHO-1 zone on block 127, lot 4 in the burrow of Somerville and provide appropriate development regulations. Therefore, >> I'll move it with the one um change that Lisa mentioned before on page six to go
to 388 ft for the minimum lot frontage. >> I'll second. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom,
>> yes. >> Chairperson W. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. I we cannot thank you enough. It has been a very long process and you have been wonderful. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Please thank Chris as well.
>> Yes. >> Okay, back to our regularly scheduled meeting. I think I have to pick back up. We are now at I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything here. >> 2784. >> Yes. All right. So, ordinance 2784260202
amending the redevelopment plan West Main Street and redevelopment area specifically block 10 lot block 12401 lots 2011. I'm not going to say all these lots and blocks very pleased as noted. Thank you. Um this was originally
on the 24 meeting and it had to be pulled and now it is back on tonight for the hearing. So, Mike, do you want to give a little bit of background and start with this please? >> Um yes. Uh last summer or so the purchaser purser for the granite building did a concept plan which I do
believe the board members all have copies of this. >> Yes. >> And who did >> uh it was it was favorably received from my understanding the council and the planning board. So the ordinance in front of you basically uh gives the
parameters to have this development go forward. It gives the redevelopment parameters and um I borrowed some of the discussion from the ECBD growing the trees, Larry. Uh there's tree stuff about 6 in DBH and some beefed up. I've
just I took a certain number of liberties the board needs to go over and I applied some of the redevelopment criteria the board has used in the last 20 years to this redevelopment uh documents. for example, that the the the
uh lights have to be decorative lights. Uh the building is where it's at, so the setbacks, I'm saying, are not applicable because the building is the building. And I uh threw some comments about solar panels allowed on the roof, the flexibility, and to encourage maybe some
seating or some recreation on the roof. You'll see that there's a lot there's a lot of red. So, uh, there's a lot of red, a lot of details. OEM backup power. It's in there because we provide require backup power
on most of the redevelopments. You'll see comments on there. The sidewalks, the building itself is in the SID and they have pavers which are literally from 1990. So, there's a comment there saying replace the uh the pavers with
meeting the D uh SID standards, the downtown standards, and put it on a concrete slab so they don't settle, which has been an issue. We've addressed that in the last 20 years. The the sections of the pavers which are on concrete are not moving. So, you could
see that by Starbucks and all that. Just for comparison, that's been around for over a decade. So, I think it's uh a prudent move to put concrete under the pavers to give it that base. Uh there is a flexibility built into the neighboring
property. If there's a shared parking, you'll see language in there about shared parking on the apartment building. Right now, it's one big parking lot, but there's an actually property line through it. And there's language regarding the uh remote lot 10
15 cars which is the irregular shape on veterans. Uh I don't think the concrete sidewalk is in good shape. So I said replace the concrete sidewalk if the the questions for the board is should it be pavers or should we keep it? It's not in
the SID. So the question is how do we what what is the surface that should be back going back on that? I use the same criteria on the one and two families. Uh there is no threebedrooms or studios which is something the board may want to
kick around. The concept plan had one or two bedroom and the bedroom sizes comply and the 800,000 square feet uh square feet for units in there. Uh it allows the accessories and basically the redevelopment plan allows what the
concept plan was retail. It says that the apartments on South Dia ground floor are allowed and it allows for miscellaneous uh appertances like ramps and so forth, steps, and it says certainly if you're
going to put steps in the rightway, and it's a burough rightway, council approvals required for that, but it allows essentially flexibility. the the building's not changing but allowing flexibility to get the egresses and to
allow the parking to work. And there's proofs in there about the parking. Uh the the planning board have to look at the parking arrangement and if there's a variance for parking permitted or revise the documentation. And there's language in there saying if the parking the board
feels the parking doesn't comply then obviously you have to scale back some of the units make them bigger something to that effect. So the old language about urban land institutes in there allowing that. So there's uh basically it's a
summation of the redevelopment planning ideas we've used in the past and incorporating what the board discussed on the ECBD in December of last year and earlier this year. You'll see similar language. The affordable housing has been beefed up and reflects what we're
talking about affordable to 20% 15% and it says that you have to comply with affordable housing. So, um, that's the nutshell. >> So, I also want to point out too because I know this came up um when we actually
you we reviewed and and we're reviewing uh your comments for the area need um this specifically also calls out that redevelopment is not currently envisioned for those lots and blocks. Right. So therefore, the zone uh district requirements for the PH shall
govern blah blah blah. Uh these lots shall not be considered for redevelopment unless the burrow receives a request from the property owner. So we wanted to make sure that that was very clear throughout this ordinance as well. Um that this is specifically for the lots and blocks proposed to the uh
proposed to be used during from this concept plan. Um, and Mike, I think you did a great job of being able to take that concept plan and make sure that those bulk standards match and as much as best we can without having specifics um, and taking in a lot of our comments
of what we discussed from when we saw the concept plan. >> Yeah, there's language in there about putting a fence or landscaping between the detached irregularly shaped parking lot because they adjoin parking mostly residentials. So, there's language about
a a decorative fence or landscaping as the board uh determines, but you'll see landscaping on that end on that plan. >> Opening I'm going to open it to questions, comments from the board. >> So, um one one question um with the
electric vehicle charging stations in section seven accessory uses uh C are are we putting anything in there about where we'd like you know, not up against the building, you know, preferred. >> It's in our ordinance already. >> So, okay. I just wanted to make sure
that this just kind of references that, but it's it doesn't it doesn't take that away. >> It's in the ordinance and there's a debate if the parking lot's there and you're not touching it. >> I I don't think it's applicable. >> Okay. >> But if you're touching it, you might get
draw you might have to get wrapped into it. But if you're reusing the existing parking lot and existing orientation, I think there's a very strong argument that you the make ready state statute, which the burough ordinance says is not applicable. There's language in there
talk about if you modify it, you have to comply, add it to it, but if you're going to reuse it, I I don't know. >> So this doesn't So this doesn't give them le ordinance in place, Jason, uh to address that. I'm just throwing out to
you that I'm not 100% sure EV charging is going to be a mandate if the parking arrangement doesn't change. >> Any other questions, comments from the board? >> Very detailed. >> It's every everything we talked about. >> I mean, it's what you talked about. I
tried to match the plans. For example, the B2, it says the uses for the the retail. We don't know these uses for the retail. they're showing limited whatever the B2 is. I think that's easier. Uh yes, the the re the west main street the
main area talks about uses but the easier way from my perspective is just to go back to schedule A which talks about you just go back to the ordinance and say the B2. Um, there is a question and I thought I I addressed it on the elevator to make
sure it it can handle a stretcher just to make sure that it's in there that in case you have an emergency an old elevators if they can't comply with the stretcher it becomes a problem of getting this person out. So the elevator
in my opinion is going to have to get revamped and I'm basically saying make it meet OEM requirements. There's a comment on there about fire suppression because it's a to I didn't know this until Mr. O'Neal pointed this out that I thought that building was a masonary
building. It is not. It's a timber frame building. So, it's combustible. So, you'll see language that we talked about at NFPA13 system in there or as determined by the planning board or the fire marshall uh because it is a combustible building. It
is not a masonary building. And uh Rich pointed out to me about it last summer that I said it's a masonary building. He goes, "No, it's not." So uh there's comments on the uh there's comments in there about the because it's ab budding the joining
property for higher for safety for safety of the building and the surroundings to put a full NFPA13 system. >> So I guess I guess my only actually had a note on that one as well. Um, should it just be that it should be in accordance with NFPA 13
and then if they want to deviate from that, it should be a variance because it kind of leaves a lot of leeway to say the fire marshall's office can just say no, you don't need anything or you need 10 times that and something and >> I put wiggle room in the planning board and OEM and fire marshall to what
exactly comes here that there's flexibility for how the board sees this. I didn't want to lock the board in, Jason. I thought the board needs that discretion, but again, we've been doing the 13 system, but it's up to the It's obviously the
board's charge whether you want to lock it in or give the discretion. >> So, I guess my question is does it there's no way they could subvert it even with that language though, correct? Like the language says you have to like
so if >> andor the planning board decides this some some part of the abortion doesn't need 13 needs something else you have the you have the flexibility to do that. >> So would we say basically the minimum is 13. >> Yes. Okay. >> Can we put minimum
>> I can certainly change >> because I I hear what Jason's saying the way it's reading it like it's kind of almost saying that our fire official or others could actually subvert that and say no not needed in >> Yeah. This is the first flush at this. >> No, no, >> never. The board's only seen the concept
plan. So, this is the first time we've actually started crunching the the actual specific. So, as the comments before uh on the ECB, the mayor said, look, I want to look about what's the setback, zero setback. Put that in there. Yes,
>> Larry brought up, we got to get these trees better. We don't want twigs out there. So, I incorporate these comments in there. So yes, if this is not if it's not 100% right, I completely understand. We can certainly men mind mend it. >> Mike Mike, can you just a 30 second?
What is NFP 13 versus? >> Uh it's the 13 system my understanding is the highest. It requires the whole builder building to be sprinkler not closets are excluded or the attics excluded. Nothing is excluded. The whole
building is covered with a fire suppression system. So my understanding is the highest NFPA system out there to answer your question. >> Yeah. And and I think it's just not not only for members of the board but for members of the public as well.
>> Yeah. Good. Thank you. >> Anybody else see anything that you need want addressed? You want added? >> Yeah. Do we >> make a motion to recommend that to the
council with those few changes? >> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I can. >> Yeah, I'll open it open it up for public comment. Hearing none, I will close public comment. So, I I will make a motion um
to recommend up to council with the um few changes that we just said adding in the minimum NFPA 13. And I think that was the only thing actually. >> Wow.
>> That's got to be a first. >> Uh Andrea Derek, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. Bill Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilia, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Room, >> yes. >> Chairperson Warner,
>> yes. >> Okay, moving on to master plan review element for the historic preservation. So, uh we originally heard and started discussing this on 211. Uh we are back
with for thoughts and comments and discussion from the board on things. Last meeting is when we had Marge here, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry I'm losing >> feel like it was longer than that, but it was only last meeting. >> A lot's happened since.
>> Um so looking for board comment, thought process on what the thoughts are based on um having some time to digest. So, I I'll start jump right in. Um, I
did make some notes to it. Um, I did send them out to everybody to take a look because I made a lot of notes. Um, I I guess one of the things I'm not completely comfortable with that I I'd like to see rewarded in it is making how we recommend making these overlay
zones. I don't like the idea. I think it should be pulled out of the actual master plan and more labeled that if you I if a group of houses or a house or anybody would like to be, they could petition in to be a
district or a historic overlay zone rather than us putting on our plan that we're recommending to have these studies done and have these people do these things. um because it makes it sound like we're pushing everybody, you know, it's basically the entire town from it to be in these historic zones um
overlays and it just I feel like from the master plan portion perspective, I just didn't feel like that was the direction that the master plan should be pushing. It should be them wanting to be included, not us telling homeowners that they would have to. So, an opt-in, >> an opt-in rather than a, you know, okay,
you four neighbors petition, now this entire neighborhood's going to be a historic and, you know, that comes with extra costs and everything. So, that's the majority of where my comments lie throughout the entire plan. Um, I didn't quickly just on that one.
So, agree with their thoughts, but >> what's what what would ultimately be the value of having two people in neighborhood going, we're going to do this. We are a what now? Right. So overlay zone on that property and us >> they would be able to apply for grants. >> Okay.
>> Because they're considered a historic overlay. >> All right. That overlay would allow them to apply for the grant. >> That's my understanding of it. >> And if I was just one house, >> you could still >> say I'm an overlay. And >> so and I think you can then apply to be what I forget the terminology. They Marge knows it a lot better. Yeah.
>> The contributing historic site that's noted or whatever. Um, so you can get on that. Like you can do that as an homeowner. >> Okay. I was just thinking in my mind a step further and why would we have this in there, but I see where you're going. So completely optional, but we're not recommending.
>> Yeah. We're not we're not telling people they would have to or or saying if a couple residents decide they want to that the whole neighborhood would become >> Gotcha. All right. Cool. Gotcha. >> I think it I think it would be important as an educational tool to have something in the master plan about the historical
zones in town. and what that looks like and then then when people look at it they can say well then we can opt into having that kind of a program. I think we I mean we can put that on the historical society certainly but I think putting it out there so people know that
the value that their house has and what it is you know we've got a lot of people moving into town on a regular basis for a sought-after community but I think you know making people aware of what they're buying into would be a great thing. We don't have to call them historical overlay zones. We can just lay out as
Marge said in her presentation where those areas are and what those >> don't we have I'm sorry to interrupt you because I just want to make sure. Don't we have that in some of the historical element or did we remove that last time >> because I thought we had those areas called out in the historical element. We
have it for guidance forformational purposes and I think what Jason is saying is he wants a little stronger language >> unnecessarily. >> Well, Roger saying >> I'm sorry but >> that's fine but I agree with him >> and that's my point is like I remember it and other people aren't. So it's it's
in there and I think yes to that point Mike we need to make that a little bit more prevalent as whether it's an addendum to it to you know the historical reference of all areas within Somerville and it breaks it down and we should have it matching the maps of you
know whether it's the victory zone or the you know area or something else like um I think that yes I think that to Roger's point >> is a good thing to have as part of that master plan because it sets the stage for you know, um, and we're going to I'm
going to we're going to get into a little bit more of a discussion about the master plan in a second, but that I think it sets the stage for the tone for, okay, this is where we were, and this is what you're seeing us move towards, but we're also not forgetting where we were,
>> which to me is what makes the historic element so important to the burrow. If it would beneficial, I can work with Jason to come up with some language for the for the planning board to spitball over to go back to Roger's point,
Jason's point, come up with something and uh we can float it to the planning board. The planning board's uh comfortable with it. See if Marge and historic are comfortable at >> I love additional meetings. >> Yeah, I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm
I'm good. You got plenty of time, don't you, Jason? >> I I think going back to Margar's comment, I think that we need to and again from historic is just let people know that designating their home a historic site does not mean they can't do anything to it. And I think that
that's where some of that our concerns are because we certainly don't want to make it so that people are paying more to live in their homes. They're already paying enough. Um but I think that if if we have that understanding of what that designation means um you know going
along with with the property uh that's over on uh >> I can't think >> west end. >> Yeah. No uh it doesn't matter. Anyways, you know these houses look great. Look at look at uh the um the burrow hall,
right? It is certainly not what it looked like when it was a house, >> but it still is on the register. Um, and so you have we do have issues with with doing building and things along those lines and making improvements, but >> the the facility is still usable.
>> So, I think that that's what people have to understand. Um, and if I may, I know I'm capitalizing here, but downtown, I think that we need to I don't know how we make that a little bit stronger because there is a character and and that's kind of what we struggled when we were talking about the Granite building
and what they were what the initial plan had come to us with is maintaining the character and the styling that we have downtown and not losing that because we have some new buildings, but they don't capture the ornamentation that we have
that the little things that you notice um that the mayor takes pictures of um and shares with everybody. But those are the things that we notice and I think we have to do something to to make sure that people understand you're buying that property. We want to see you
maintain and upkeep that property and keep that the way that it is there. I mean I know there used to be tours if I'm not mistaken of >> the second story tours of downtown. There are some pretty tremendous places that I've had the pleasure of going into for false alarms that I never would have
gone into had I not seen that. Um, but it is a tremendous thing and I think that we've got to try as best we can to maintain that. And you know, obviously the initial discussion with grants was due to concerns about it being not being
salvageable, but with the new folks now they they feel that they can and really pushing people and encouraging them to do that. Maybe that's incentives as the mayor has talked about before, but keeping that charm, I think we that ornamentation is is extremely it's it's who we are, I think, as Somerville.
>> I I agree. Um, and I think Roger brings up a bunch of valid points. And it's not just the main street corridor, it's it's uh north, it's it's the high street corridor as well. And it's one thing that we've actually started to talk a little bit about is, you know, the character of the homes that that are
that front high street but back into our parking lots. You have these beautiful old Victorian homes and they've got these beautiful old carriage houses. How do you activate the carriage houses and make them something other than maybe just a uh an apartment or just a a a
garage that's not looked after? and and how do you activate them and make them again a part of the character? Yeah, it fronts maybe a parking lot, but you know what, that's okay. It it's adding a little bit of life and vibrancy to an area that otherwise people want to
escape. Um, so it's it's something that we've talked about here and we've kind of talked about in some of my meetings on Thursdays. Um, and it's something that we we need to address. >> A couple years ago, we did approve like a art gallery
one of those houses. >> We we approved something. >> Never got approved. >> It never got approved. >> I thought we went through the whole process. >> It went into a process. >> That was before me. >> Well, I Okay, I know we talked about it
and there was going to be apartment there. So, that's it. >> That's exactly that's that's a great example. >> And that was backing up to Yeah. >> the main parking lot, but it was going to be used for something else, >> but it never took off. No, it met with too many zoning roadblocks.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's that's the goal is to remove something. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> Just one other thing I had that um people I don't know the the key contributing historic sites. Maybe that
could be in a different like we can reference that we have a bunch. I just don't know how I feel about putting people's private addresses into our master plan who didn't ask to be or they actually aren't on any historic red shoes. The historic society went around.
They said this building has historic uh significance. It's not on any national qualifying list, but we think it does. So, we're putting their address in the master plan. So, I don't know how I feel about that. I can I can tell you
>> in some of my other towns that have established actual historic districts, that's exactly what happens. Um, you have to have a public hearing before you create a district, before you amend a district, to remove or include additional properties. So they have the
opportunity at that point to have their say as far as it goes, but ultimately it's up to the governing body, input from the planning board as to creating that district and what's in it or out. Doesn't necessarily mean you have to do that, but that's that's the
way it it goes. >> Yeah. So I say if we created a a district, we would, but these aren't in a district. These are just houses that they deemed so if they went by Lisa's house and decided we think there's historical significance, they put it in here without even asking you.
>> And it's not in a district or anything. It's just random houses throughout the town. So I don't >> Yeah, >> that's an that's interesting. I I never thought of that, you know, because there are a lot of homes that are of we believe of significance when you look at
them. They're old, they're you know, they're beautiful. Does it have an impact if their property is in our master plan? >> And that's what >> without their >> without their consent. >> Oh, I mean I think >> that's very interesting. >> I think it's I don't know if it's
necessarily only a legal question. I think it's also >> um there's going to be some that are going to say yes, have no problem, and there's going to be others that say absolutely not. It's my private residence and it shouldn't be in your actual uh public master plan. Well, does it have a a a potential economic or
development impact by being within the master plan, positive or negative? >> I I would say unless you're going to marry that with requirements in your ordinance, >> then the answer to that is no. They may have a personal feeling as to what that
may do. But unless you impose any additional requirements, restrictions on it, just I would look at that as no difference as putting on your website. These are some historic buildings that we believe should be highlighted in the burrow. >> Something along those lines.
>> All right. So, any other comments or questions right now for the for the historic? We're not done with it. I'm just asking is there any questions currently? >> Uh, no. So, I wasn't at the last meeting. I did listen to a little bit. I read um the housing element and um what
Jason wrote. Um, so I kind of have kind of like somewhere in between, you know, the overlay zones. I wonder if maybe the contributing historic sites is something that people could opt into saying like, "Oh, I think this should be they want to preserve the character of the house. They own it. They've spent their whole life there. They want to preserve it for
the next owner." So maybe that's it instead of an overlay zone instead of the whole zone. Um, just a specific house. Um, and I think we should probably look at some type of preservation. Um, not not fully that it hurts a homeowner. Um, I had one application uh in Short Hills or or Milbour and they
have I thought it's unique. Um so if you want to demo a house that's on that that list, then you have to go in front of them and you have to state the reasons why you feel um that you could demo it. Even it's in disrepair, it's too costly to repair. Um if it's a nice house and you just want to knock it down and build
a new house, that's it was a different story. But then they have different kind of um criteria. So if you want to do an interior renovation, you don't have to go in front of the board or historic preservation. if it's something that can't be seen by the public and doesn't need to go in front of the board, it really takes in account just like the
character if you're like driving down the street and what the what the house looks like. So, I thought that was interesting. >> It is an interesting I don't think we've ever discussed it to that level. >> All right. So,
we're not done. Uh we need to kind of sum up what get to that next step. Do you want to work with Jason on some of the >> I'll work with Jason and we'll come up with some language for the board to kick around >> and I'd like to incorporate some of the comments that you know as well that that Roger and John
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> But I'm saying I know you have a bulk of the document re reviewed. So, but I think we need to also make sure that in that what's presented for next meeting also has um John and Roger's comments in there as well. >> Sure. >> Because then we're going to get to a point where we're going to have to sit
everybody look at it and say, "Okay, what do we really want and don't and don't want." Yeah, >> but I think we I like to see every option in front of me and sometimes I need to see that visually before my brain kicks in on what I like better or not. So, >> okay. Um, so before we move to
discussion items, I did want to kind of go over um does everybody here actually and well I know John Manilio does and some others, but does anybody here actually even know and understand what the master plan is and why we do it?
It's okay to say no. Okay. So, even if it's just one. So, the master plan, I put some notes together. Um, this is I won't lie, I pulled out a lot of my notes when I had my initial meetings with Bernie Nevada when I first came onto the board. Um, a very long time ago. We're not saying how long.
>> Um, and these are things that stuck with me when Bernie and I first, you know, it was it was probably the first year that I was on the board because it was that time. Um the review process was already kind of started at that time. So I kind of came into it. Um so I had a lot of
questions, right? Because I was kind of in your spot. I really was like what is this master plan? What does it do? Why are we in charge of it? And what are we supposed to be? So uh master plan is that long range strategic document that provides a comprehensive vision and framework for our future growth,
development and decision- making. um its core purpose is to guide intentional and this is something I always remembered with uh Bernie guide intentional coordinated progress rather than reactive decision-m so as we're looking
at this right if you really look at where the master plan sits right now and what we're reviewing right to include all you know where we've se what we've seen in redevelopment plans it literally has built Somerville and been a roadmap for Somerville for the last 2530 years.
So, I was thinking about I'm like, okay, and we keep saying, okay, how do we see the next 20 years? How do we see the next 20 years? And I don't know if that we're really there to be able to really kind of say that, but we kind of have to in order to continue pro this progress of reviewing our master plan. So, I
think one of the things that I I think we all do need to sit and kind and and I'm going to bring it up at the next meeting. What are some of the things that we see? Right. We had um Otto come in and talk about some of the things of what and how they see New Jersey
unfolding and and and what's happening in New Jersey. And I think we need to take that into consideration, right? You know, are we done with the density, right? If we are, what are we replacing the density with? Is, you know, um Brian, uh Mayor Gallagher brought up a
good point. I think it was at the last meeting where you said, you know, the master plan previously was geared towards supporting a downtown, right? Not that we don't want, but I think the development side of that we've kind of
moved beyond, right? We, you know, we can only have so many apartments. And I I think we all kind of have that tired feeling of, you know, enough is enough, but we still need to keep expanding. We need to still keep evolving so that we outlast because that's what happens, you
know, and I I'll never forget Bernie trying to explain to me that um what scares people about planning and and moving forward is the future is they're just so used to the way it is right now, they don't want to see that change. And I think what our the way I see that
master plan is um a portion of okay, but it's not going to be scary. See, we've thought about this and and here's a vision so that we can, you know, I want my children to stay, right? I've got one child that has and my grandchild is like a mile and a half away from me. I
wouldn't give that up for the world. Um I I think that those are things that a lot of us look at, right? We want, but we have to have that available units. Um, and that may also mean we always talked about, you know, one of the things I
thought was um in when Otto presented, one of the things that I thought was interesting was having more senior options, options for senior housing, right? And I think one of our biggest focuses, right, we've been so focused on, hey, what were we
doing on the trans on the transit lines and and that transient developments, right? We wanted to bring in those millennials. we wanted. That's what they were looking for. And now I'm like, okay, but we don't have any place for us to go. And and I think that was part of that messaging, too, is you know, I love
my home. I love having that my grand I have a room that's all put for my grandchild, but there might be a time in 10 years I'm like, you know, I want to downsize. Is that available for us? And and so and I'm not giving answers here. I'm saying these are things we really need to because that is going to shape. It also shapes how we want to address
historic like how do we what do we want to keep versus what is acceptable to move forward and make progress and change on. Um and that applies to every single one of the elements. Um when we're looking at zoning, we're looking at zoning differently. So, I think, you
know, looking for that strategic direction, um, long-term goals, desires, what how and what do we feel that we think Somerville should look like in 20 years, 30 years, because that's the whole purpose of this document. And if we can't see that, we're going to
struggle with each one of these elements. >> I have a comment about that. Some of the things you're talking about could be simple policy, social policy issues about
making uh making homes available for elderly stay retiring place. Those could be policy issues and necessarily building a building or a z or plan for a zone. Some
of it could be a a policy change encourage redevelopment. Encourage putting ramps in somebody's house. courage, you know, those kind of things could be policy issues, not necessarily part of the master plan. Most of the
time the master plan we're thinking about what do we envision we see. >> But I think to that it's not just if you really read these documents, it's not just what you see, they are shaping, right? So if if we want if we do see some of that, then I think it does need
to be outlined and and and very generically, right? We're not saying we want a policy written, but I think those kind of things do have to be, you know, that shapes the vision, right? But it allows for the flexibility of how that vision unfolds and that's the purpose of this master plan. It's not supposed to
give us such a blueprint that is so specific that in five years it doesn't work. Um, and I think those com comments like that of how we see the housing element. We're looking at housing. What kind of housing do we see? What do we see that we don't have? that helps also
to shape, you know, another interesting point that I thought Otto made was, you know, we have been um downtown, right? We we were so focused on, you know, ensuring that we had enough liquor licenses. And listen, we we could still use some. I'm not
going to say ever that we don't, but you know, the next generations, they're not drinking. They're not going out and drinking the way we were, right? So, and not that we were all drunk. I I realized as it was coming out, I was like, I don't know if that sounds so good.
>> But um but they don't they don't go out and drink the way that our young our younger selves used to. You know, it was it's very different. Okay. So, that also is could come into how we're what we're also trying to support downtown. um and
what how we see downtown when you're looking at um I had another thought about something and it slipped out because I got stuck on the fact that we were a bunch of drunks. So um but so but Larry, I guess what I'm getting at is I don't disagree with you in the sense of
what you're talking about, but I do feel there is a way that that should be in the master plan somehow. And then and then that's some of those discussions on because remember that master plan is a guide for everything moving forward. you know, if we're going to discuss a zoning change, we're going to discuss this, it that this is the template. It has to be
like tonight. It has to be in line with our master plan. So, I do think that those things should come up. I do think that we but I think we need a little bit better direction as we're reviewing each one of these. And I don't I Mayor
Gallagher is the one that kind of brought it up and the more and more I thought about it, I think he's right. I don't think we have that direction. I I'll I'll summarize what you said kind of into three categories. And I think when we look at the master plan, look at it
through three lenses. The economic lens, the residential lens, and the social lens. And you know, so for example, so um the social lens that that could be historic, that can be recreational. A lot of those
elements can fit into that social. Why does somebody come here to live? And you look at those three I I look at those three categories and I say, okay, the economics behind it. What's happening? How do we have what's the economic engine? That was the drive 20 years ago was getting the economic engine going.
And we did that. We did it very well. Um the economic engine still has to drive, but it changes. What we created was the residential component to support an economic engine. So, now we've got that economic engine going. What do you
change in your zoning mix downtown? What do we want to see? Is it um we we now have uh outpaced the mall? Um but what's next? What do we see? Um we've for years we've talked about trying to get RVCC to
have some kind of presence in our downtown to add another element that's partly economic, it's partly social. So, you know, I I try to combine those three elements. Um, people come here for education. They come here because we're
at the center of life for Somerset County. We've got walking trails. Is it now time to expand the walking trails, get the landfill going as our central park, which it is. Um, so these are the things that I look at when I when I think of the master plan. It's okay.
What do I want to see economically, residentially, and socially 20 years from today? I try to boil it down into those three. And that's it. I'm done. >> Any other questions?
Did Does it give clarity? >> That was helpful. That was that was very helpful. >> All right. Good. I'm glad. >> Just it'll help me to kind of frame things and and I like that. I like the fact that we are you really have to
define your future and then you define the elements to get you to the future. Yes. So I was wondering what where did all this go? >> They're all pieces towards that. Yes. >> Now that that helps >> once you have the 30,000 foot view. Right. >> Right. >> Then you you
>> then this is >> then you narrow down right >> 30,000 view overview broad brushes and then how do you make that happen? These are the things that help make it >> right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have another suggestion.
>> When I first came on to the planning board, we were given the master plan from like 1990 or 19 >> You mean all you're talking about previous versions? >> Yes. But I mean just to see this is what they thought 1980. You could see all the
things that actually happened and the things that didn't. what they thought in 1980. Some of it came to fruition, some of it did not. Then other things came and another another master plan comes through and we go with that. So we have
if we can look back at the old one, we can it just it's it's not to it's just to show what they thought in 1980 or 1990 and what we got out of it 10, 20 years later. Looking back, it's not a bad >> Yeah. What's the oldest one you have,
Mike? Do you know? There's some zoning documents. I'm not going to say it's a master plan from the 50s. >> That's too long. >> Yeah, I think I do. Also, I'll try to dig it out and then I'll bring it in and if it's electronic, >> then we can just send it to everybody
just so that they can Yeah. >> Just to see. It's just It's just to to see what the old ones did so that we can understand what we want to try to do. Just like what Tim was saying. >> Yep. >> I'll try to find >> Yeah. All right. So, >> I have a question about like the
surrounding areas. Like how much, lack of a better term, intelligence do we have of, you know, our neighbors like what they're going to build or, you know, like um a shopping center is going up or a new Home Depot or you know,
things like that that we're aware. So, like, hey, we don't spend or waste effort, you know, trying to do the same thing here. you know, how do we look at, you know, our transportation and stuff around like >> there is a there's a couple ways. Um the
the best way that we've seen and um it we've been struggling in it is the regional center partnership. That's the whole purpose of why that um was formed was exactly that that the partners of of Bridgewater portions of Bridgewater Ritton and Somerville collaborated
together. Um, a lot of the greenway was has been developed by that. Um, the the bridge project that went over from Somerville over to the mall, that was all a a vision as it came out of the regional center partnership. A lot of Dukes and how we can connect to Dukes.
Um, that really has been instrumental in trying to be so that we could be interconnective and kind of to your point be on that same page. um as it relates to larger things that like you know whether Home Depot or everything um
you know we are they the surrounding municipalities are required to let the um burrow know you know when there uh if it's depending on proximity right uh other than that we watch and we can ask if we hear things I mean I know we um in
the past have reached out to Raritin a lot of times like when we weren't sure something we have a relationship but that's also again what that regional center partnership is there for and the the importance of it is um can sometimes get lost on people but it the main
purpose was exactly that purpose. >> Yeah. And I I agree. I think the regional center is a great place for that data. I don't know if you were here for Jeff Otto. Um and maybe if not we'll get that >> I can find a link because I know >> he's a nationally acclaimed not
economist but >> well he is but he's also a statistician. >> Yeah. and and and he kind of gave the direction of where the country is going, where the state is going, where the county is going, and where the burrow is going from an economic perspective. Um,
and also a demographic perspective and what's happening in the world. And I think that's it's a lot of great data. Um, and it's it's actually an interesting watch. It's a very interesting watch. So, we'll get we'll get that to you as well, maybe to the whole board just as >> Yeah, I'm gonna I'll pull it back up because I know I have it. And one other
thing, as of I think it's March 1st, all of the towns have to post the notices of the applications that are coming before them on their website, whereas before it just had to be in the newspaper and some did post it. So now, to the extent you want to see what's going on on the
planning and zoning board websites, that'll be there. >> Yep. Okay. All right. Uh, moving on to discussion items. Uh, update. This is just going to be an update. Quick update from you, Mike, on the storm water because >> uh
>> we all need to digest >> uh to earlier today an email I sent out the PowerPoint was from yesterday's uh D webinar uh that uh I there's some hard copies here but everybody got the email
and there's a lot to digest in that and uh it was correct when I said that we the bureau has a year to adopt it that came out in the questions answers from the webinar that yes, you're using the existing ordinance statutes that say you
have a year to adopt. So, the bureau has a year to adopt this and you have the PowerPoint. >> Okay. And then we're going to um for next meeting you'll be able to incorporate some of that.
>> Yeah. I I'll digest this into bullet points for the board for a more technical discussion details about this, but you have the PowerPoint and you have that monster striketh through ordinance that was all changes. What I'll do is
I'll do a a bulp point of the changes and what the options are and get the the what the board's temperature is on the options >> and this gives us >> that's what we're left with essentially. But this gives us something to review and look at as well too. >> Right. That's D's telling you what has
changed. They highlighted underscored it. There was a problem with that webinar. Some attendees couldn't get in. I think John was one of them. So they're offering other training dates that I just got an email for that. U there was
some technical glitch. I got a text from John saying, "Are you in?" I'm like, "Yeah, I'm in." So yeah, I will go through this and uh just give you the ball points of the changes and what the options are. Really in reality, it's the options are only
thing really discussed that the board has control municipality while the recommendation goes to council. But uh it's just the options. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh ECBD, where are we at with this? This is um
>> the recommendation for the standards for the project that's gone to council. >> So those recommendations were made at the last meeting and the email was sent to Kevin was copied saying this is the board's recommendations. So council has
that the study of essentially the county property. I have to do that. I haven't done it yet. Uh we've been a little um focused on affordable housing. >> Yes. No, understood. That's why I think it's all blurring together at this point, which is why I'm asking for where we're at with it.
>> So, I have to do that study and the state uh master plan redevelopment plan has changed. So, the references are all different. This is the master plan on the state level has been the same since my god uh 2000. It just got adopted, the
new master plan and redevelopment plan. So the references to that will be done, but it's a similar area in need of redevelopment study that was done on the triangle-shaped on new street that the the planning board made a recommendation. The council adopted that
and we just went through that on the granite building. So a very similar study has to be done. I just haven't done it yet and uh it's on my uh to-do list. >> All right. because that's not going to that doesn't stop us from continuing to look at the existing redevelopment area.
Does any did anybody get any further along? I know we talked about last meeting um some surprises that I had seen in some of the different areas you know 9 foot whatever 60 foot whatever I can't remember >> 90 ft thank you it was 90 foot building that was a little bit surprising to me
so I think that you know I don't know if anybody else had a chance to really look it over put some eyes on it and maybe some suggestions or things you liked and things you didn't like >> the uh list of all the development projects in the ECBD was handed out Oh
yes. >> So you have a list of the projects in the last 20 years. You'll see in draft is a two-page lift list. It talks about the station house, the cobalt, uh fresh restorations down on Meadow Street. It
goes through Pop's Place that we just dealt with, but it tells you uh where the land development applications were. Uh the ECBD was adopted in 0607. So it's about 20 years. So, >> no. Go again.
>> And as the mayor said, the Warren Street deck that predated the redevelopment zone. So, we have the Warren Street the council uh the the the county buildings that was done since the ECBD was done.
Uh the deck was there and the building on the corner of East Maine and Warren Street that was in the ECBD. So you'll see the list of the projects. >> Um I think also um you know going back
to the discussion about the master plan and what that strategic decision with that that strategic how it strategically looks moving forward. Um I think in some of these redevelopment plans I know at least for me and I'm not saying anybody has to everybody has to do it this way
but a lot of the redevelopment plans as I'm going through it I'm finding myself saying okay I don't want that. I don't want that. I don't want that. I like that. I don't want that. And I'm not saying I'm saying I don't like the whole thing. I'm just saying I've noticed my as I'm reviewing them, I'm seeing more
things that I'm like like again that 90 foot building, right? That stuck out to me is like, okay, I know that's an adamant no. uh at least for me and I'm not saying we end up there but I think one of the things that I would like to see is you know maybe for if I I for next meeting I'd really like everybody
to go through that and say all right I to look at it from a different perspective not what I want to see what I don't want to see and because one of the things that I thought about as I was looking at the ECBD um specifically I was looking at the area like by the where the park is um in that area right
that's that's actually the the old place that we wanted all the high density over it was on at um >> Park Avenue, >> Park Avenue, High Street area, like that whole area cut pushed back there was that that was where all the high-rise buildings were supposed to be. And then I guess another 90 ft on Main Street. I
don't know how that ended up there, but but I when I was looking at that area, I was like, you know, I I I could see maybe more recreational. So, and I'm not saying that doesn't have to be public space, right? Because that also was a whole other can of worms. I'm not saying that. I'm saying what other kind of
recreations could we encourage? You know, we've always talked about an art a performing arts building. We've always talked about So, you know, in that area that ECBD, it lends itself because we've we said it's the other gateway, right? So, how do we envision that other
gateway? And I think for me in the ECBD, the residential boom I think kind of overtook because I think when you really look at it, the vision was to have a lot of that in there, right? That's why they
wanted the residential further away and why they wanted lower buildings at that gateway area. So I do think that we can for me at least that helped kind of separate it out. So, but I think, you know, I would like the board to come back to the next meeting with like, you know, some, hey, these are the few
things that stuck out to me that I do think definitely need to be addressed because I think that will help guide, okay, well, if that if we don't like don't like 90 foot, what do we like? Is it that we 90 foot period or is it because you don't want anything high-rise there? And then we can because
building height is that one thing and then next time might kind come come of what we see in those buildings. But I think we kind of have to see both. At least for me that's >> Yeah, >> I I I agree. I I did go through and and I've got markings and notes and
everything else because there's also some things are just outdated and you know um certain blocks and lots that have to be um offered up to the town for an emergency services building. >> Don't really think that's applicable at this point. Um I don't think we're
building a secondary one. Just double checking. Um, but to that I, you know, I I agree and I I guess my question is, does it make sense, you know, and Mike, this is probably more for you if if we make notes into these
documents and send them to Mike so he can compile them before the meeting. Um or >> yeah I think what >> because if seven of us or I don't know all of us say we don't want 90 feet okay we we we all agree on that but
>> I think the focus should be the overlay zones and whether the overlay zones right now okay the ECB does this base zoning for everyday stuff and overlay what's the discussion I'm hearing is some of the overlays are maybe not appropriate that's at the corner so
maybe we focus on eliminating some of these overlays or modifying the overlays to get uses that the planning board's comfortable with in 2026. >> Yeah, because that that's kind of what I was when I was remapping >> Yes. >> your overlays and kind of saying like, >> well, I don't think a hotel is,
>> you know, appropriate here. But I do think that in, you know, the B4 >> when you look at where it is here, well, maybe a theater is okay there. >> Yep. So, it's really a tricky and that's why I didn't know what I mean, we can sit up here for days going through line by line on this, >> but that's why I, you know, I'm not I
keep saying that and I'm not trying to put pressure on you guys, but we need that feedback from you guys because it's it's all of us up here. It's not just me or it's not just Jason or it's not just Mike or it's not just the mayor. We're all adding input to this. So I think we we all need to come back to the table
with you know even if it's two or three things to your point you know that those few things have really stuck out. I mean there's other ones I just don't feel like going into them but yes like seeing where we had the bulk of the residential that was that overlay zone like I don't think it's appropriate now. So I think
we really need to have that list coming back on focusing and I think the language you use Mike better is let's focus on the overlay zones. What don't we like in those overlay zones and where maybe where they're more appropriate and maybe it's you like the concept but it doesn't belong there anymore.
>> Yeah, the overlays are good but the the uses are not that's one thing. But if you overlays are not appropriate today then this has changed the overlays to where the overlay should be. Assuming that the board feels that overlay is the way to do this just for the edification.
The overlays were done by giving more density. It was for bigger developments. that talks about acquiring 24,000 square feet to get the critical mass for bigger buildings. That was the concept. Uh I'm not married to that concept because we
didn't use it in other redevelopment areas. If that concept is still valid, great. If it's not, we just get rid of the overlays and we say what the vision is for these lots and blocks and areas. >> Uh you don't have to do an overlay. Uh, for example, West Main Street, 50 K C
Kirby Avenue. There's no overlays. It says what the requirements or what the redevelopment plan is. I'm just throwing out to the board. I'm not saying you have to get rid of it, but there's nothing in stone saying you have to stick with a base in an overlay. That's the only thing I'm saying. >> No, I think I like that. And I think maybe that's the direction for the board
is to really kind of come back with some of that those those opinions, doss, what you like, what you don't like about that concept. >> Is the overlay still valid? Yeah. Is that what the board wants to see or the overlay is stated and we rather list what we want per per lot and block or
section uh like we've done in other plans >> and and don't forget you know I know that we have the east skate um concept plan and all that I know we saw right and we have we just put the ordinance through that would allow for um any vision there that's not off the table
though there's still a whatif that we need to address in that so you know kind of looking at the whole East uh ECBD as if that doesn't exist. That's that's our base right now. That's what we'd stand by if something happens. But you know, if looking future, maybe we don't see
that anymore if the if the plan doesn't or the project doesn't happen. So, >> yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Um open business. I don't really think >> those >> um I can I don't have to, but yes, I will.
>> It may be formally, but yes, I will. Um So, did my Did we We changed this language, didn't we? >> Which one? >> Yeah. >> I will find out what happened with that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
All right. I'm going to open it up to public for either the storm water ordinance or area in need. >> Hearing none, I will close public. Okay. Open business. I don't really have anything for open business. um to ensure that uh the tree ordinance
is once we're done with storm ordinance, we will get to tree ordinance. We everybody knows that's next. I'm not giving you a date because storm ordinance keeps moving, but we're not starting it until storm water is done. We talked about master plan and and zoning and um re-exam timeline. So, >> and just so the board knows, I did reach
out to the environmental commission and gave them the same PowerPoint. >> So, perfect. Thank you. >> They have that team Marie Jeff, they have this. for their edification too. >> Okay, thank you. All right, I am now going to actually open it up for final
public uh anybody on out there that wants to come up and talk about something not listed on the agenda hearing. None, we'll close public session and I would like a motion for adjournment. So >> second. >> All in favor? I. >> All opposed?