I just >> Yeah. Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, March 11, 2026. Please come to order. Adequate notice of 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 Burough Hall, two mailed facts or email 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 hearing must always be
maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Andrea Dear >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Tim Hayes >> here. >> Bill Kale >> here. >> Jason Kra >> here. >> John Manilia >> here. >> Barry Van Horn >> here.
>> Mayor Gallagher is excused. Council member Vroom >> here. >> Chairperson Warner >> here. >> Please stand for the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it
stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Um I do need a motion. We are going to be going into executive session. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Andrea dear. Oh, okay. >> Okay. Uh, chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Uh, Jason Kraco, >> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> John Manilio,
>> yes. >> Bill Kell, >> yes. This has Bill Kale as one on mine, but >> yes session to discuss during session. Okay. Yes. >> Motion to uh open the regular meeting.
>> Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraco. >> Yes. John Manilio, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Andrea Deer, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tims,
>> yes. >> All right, I will forego comments. Uh, our ARB reviews. We had Corner Cash at Kasha Pass Exchange 138 West Main Street. It was for vinyl window sign. It's in there. It was pretty simplistic, pretty cut and dry, no pun intended on a
vinyl window sign. I need a motion for approval for maintenance from February 25th. >> Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Council member Room. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes.
>> Barry Van Horn was excused. Andrea Dear, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> Bill Kill, >> yes. Okay, we have quite a few resolutions to
review. Resolution 26 26 2026. We don't have a number for it yet. Resolution memorializing consistency, determinations, and recommendations of the planning board of of Burough of Somerville with regards to ordinances 2786, 260217, and 2787,26017
amending the zoning and land use and development ordinances, the burough code. >> Mike, do you want to make any comments? >> No, it's basically what planning meetingmorializ on minor things I don't know what you have in front of
you. I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Roger. >> Chairperson Werner. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> Joe Manilio. >> Yes. >> Andrea Dear.
>> Yes. Saddex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> Okay. Next resolution is our resolution adopting our revised 2025 housing element and fair share plan. >> Need a motion.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Council member Room. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes,
>> yes. >> Okay. Next resolution 2026 260202 resolution memorializing consistency, determination, and recommendations of the planning board of the burrow of Somerville with regards to ordinance 2784260202 amending the redevelopment plan for West Main Street redevelopment area
specifically. I'm not going to read all those blocks and lots pursuant to and etc. >> So moved. This is Granite's building, >> West Main Street. Yes. >> Uh, chairperson W. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom,
>> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Maze, >> yes. >> Okay. Resolution for the application of 50 Kirby Urban 50 Kirby Urban Renewal
LLC. Application number 202127P. request for amendment to condition of resolution of approval. >> So moved. Second, >> we have to do a couple things. >> Yep. >> On this one, I can give a little
description. Um but basically this is one of those where the applicant seeking to amend the condition and specifically it's condition J of the resolution which limits the approval to the development as it's depicted on the site plan. um Michael explained, but after he does
that, we just have to uh have a vote and there's very few of the can that can actually vote on this. Um the only ones that can participate in the vote uh are Adair, Cleveland, Addicts, and Krasa. Um because you were the ones that voted on the original approval of the uh project.
um we have to first determine that that change in the condition once you hear what that involves um is considered insignificant and therefore would not have affected your decision on the application. If that's the case, then we can proceed tonight to adopt the resolution without a public hearing or
any notice. Um we've done this before, some of you may remember. Um but I'll let Mike just kind of explain what we're talking about here. >> Uh thank you. It's just a the clubhouse. There is a clubhouse with 50 Kirby. The accessible ramp was installed. Uh but
frankly the door is swinging in the wrong direction. So they're proposing to make the front doors the accessible route with a minor change to concrete for the ramp. It's technically not even a ramp because it's less than 5% but the bottom line is to provide an accessible
path on the outswing door. So the accessible the accessible ramp that's installed will remain and some additional concrete will pull to the front double doors to provide an outswing. That's all it is in a
nutshell. Um, so out of the four eligible board members, I just need a motion to indicate whe >> I'll make the motion that is not a significant change.
>> Uh, Andrea Dare, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Jason Krasco, >> yes. Excuse me. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> So moved. >> Second.
Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Jason Kraco, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Okay, moving on. Uh, we have an ordinance review. This was in introduced to council on Monday night for our
review. Ordinance 278826 of 302 entitled off- streetet parking and loading requirements section F entitled driveways. Any questions? >> I'm jumping the gun. So moved. >> All right. >> Second. >> Chairperson Winner. >> Yes.
>> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraco. >> Yes. >> John Manilio. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Taze. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Moving on. We have no hearing. So we're going to move on to our Sorry. Go ahead. >> That's okay. That was just the consistent with >> domestic. >> Yes. I'm sorry. Yes, I should have said that. Yes. >> Uh moving on to discussion items.
>> We are going to start off with storm water. So, we had put this on hold because D came out with that second set of regulations. As we are all aware, we wanted Mike to attend the um webinars on the new information. He has
summarized it for us. Um, so we're going to be back to discussing we've already addressed everything else that was in the storm order uh regs from D. This is in regards to the newest round of requirements. >> Mike, >> thank you. It's the optional section 9
or 10 of you'll see in the red the model ordinance provides an optional for municipality to adopt it to allow mitigation. Now to allow mitigation means we have to have mitigation sites and a something set up
for this. Uh right now the bureau is not set up for this. So you could include it make the recommendation the council to include it but I don't know where the mitigation would be performed. We could leave it as an option. The bureau could
certainly leave it in there as an option. But it begs the question where where is the mitigation site? Just for the summary, if if they can't the applicant for whatever reason can't meet the performance standards, the mitigation gives you an option, but you
don't you have to still do it just a different site that you have to offset the storm water and the quality. So it's in practice it makes sense to allow more flexibility, a different site to do storm water management just with 2.2 2.3
square miles. Where is that going to happen? And then you could argue that it doesn't have to happen with the bur as long as it's when the the waterershed, the huck 14 modeling, but then that becomes a whole another thing with this municipalities. So
it's really the pleasure of the planning board, but I I don't see how it we practically gets done with the option. Anybody comments, thoughts? >> I I agree with Michael. I think it's going to be hard to accomplish, especially for a small burrow like us,
and we could just take it out. >> I I agree. >> It would We would just The recommendation to council would be do strike through. He would He wouldn't even show it in the model ordinance. As far as my read, that's the only option in the model ordinance. This is I'm
sorry, I misspoke. It's section 11. It's not section 9 or 10. You see it's extra. >> Yeah, section 11. >> So that's the only option I see in the whole model ordinance that came out on January 20th. This is the new rags. Again, to refresh the board, this is
after a lot of drilling, the municipalities appear to have one year to adopt this. Now, that being said, we've been dealing with this subject for at least five, six months. So I'm not suggesting that we take the bureau takes a year.
I'm just saying there there is that that question came up at I think the last meeting. >> Yeah. I mean you know from I will say we we've taken a lot of time care consideration in reviewing all different perspectives all different reviews making sure that we all are on the same
page you know for whether we agreed or disagreed but on the same page. Um, I think that we've done a very good as a planning board serving back to the bureau a good job at ensuring that we have thoroughly vetted, reviewed, and
make can make I think we're at a point we can make some solid recommendations to uh to burrow council for this ordinance. >> I I agree. I think we strike this out the optional part out. Sorry. And um move it along back up to council for
with all everything we've discussed the new ch with the new changes. Sorry. >> Okay. Any other comments from the board before I open it to the public? >> Yeah, I was just going to say I agree. Um, prior to January 20th, I think we were all under in agreement that we like
the major development stuff that was in the ordinance. The new stuff came out. We all kind of digested it. It was surprising to some people, but we got into it. lot of the changes were all major development related stuff that it's going to have to happen anyway >> and uh so I think as it is you know we
all probably still wouldn't agree about the major development stuff let's send it up and get this done >> anybody else before I open it >> all right I'll open it up to any members in the public that have any comments on this you can come up to state your name and
address Hi guys. >> Hey, >> Jeff Kaiser, 23 Vandervir Avenue, Somerville. Um, so I just had a couple things to say. The um, so I'm I'm vice, you know, chair of the Environmental
Commission, if you don't already know. Um the the real rules that came out uh a lot of the um things that we had uh recommended to the to the board um the real rules included some of them and they included um portions of most of
them. They didn't go exactly where we had recommended. Um but I wanted to point out a few of those things that um some some diff the differences between what we had recommended and what they've actually included. So for instance on section 7.8
um so it's 78 um not 1.6 it's uh 1.2 major development. So they had included a quarter of an acre. We had suggested 5,000 square ft for disturbance. That's something that we we uh we felt strongly about the applicability.
Um you know again we went into minor development as well. I think it would be um I still would urge the the board to to consider some sort of some sort of um incentives um that could be had when when people are putting in more impervious services in their in their property. The
section 5.2 you had the um which was storm water management measures measures for ma um for major development as long as groundwater recharge. Um we'd like to we were suggesting to add that all
impervious services on site including the previous existing impervious coverage. This goes again to that um redevelopment loophole that we had discussed. I know that the real rules um did address it in some in some form but we were looking to see if we could um we
were suggesting that we add um the language that we included there to make it more strong to as well as including it towards water quality and water quantity which we'll get to. the green infrastructure. They did a good job with green in infrastructure, but um again the language I would recommend that we
make sure that it's there's no when they when they include things that so the included language we had was said that shall be required to the maximum extent applicable and not shall be waved based on solely so solely on cost, convenience or project phasing. So those that's a
bit stronger language to make sure that the green infrastructure is used. Water quality runoff and water quantity. Um again those things are a bit um somewhat addressed but not addressed across the entire property across across the entire um impervious surface that's being added
as well as not bringing up the uh redevelopment area to to the new standards across everything. um the maintenance requirements. I do think that if we're going to put in, you know, um storm water runoff and storm water management practices, it's good to
keep them maintained. So, that would I think that would be a good idea. Um there's a few more, but I would like um it would I I would encourage you to take a look at the differences that I've outlined as well as what we had already recommended
that don't um apply to the real rules um and those differences and and consider them. Um, I had one other thing I wanted to say real quick. Um, this was I wanted to add a brief note on behalf of Timurray, the commission chair from the environmental commission who could not be here tonight. And she wanted to say,
"Throughout this process, we've noticed that the discussion seems to center on a b um binary choice. Either adopt the state recommendations as written or adopt the EC suggested enhancements in full. I'm hoping we can widen the scope and approach it differently. There's
meaning meaningful middle ground and the EC would be would would welcome the chance to explore practical options that can be tailored to Somerville's goals, capacity, and constraints. Regardless of our long-term role as as the ordinance move forward towards adoption, we
recognize that this is about addressing a key concern for residents. What matters most is that the regulations we adopt reflect Somerville's real conditions, the storms we've already experienced, and the increased intensity we've projected to see. Because the state minimums are just that, minimums,
the Somerville's and Somerville's flooding reality often exceeds what a baseline standard accounts for. So, I'd urge encourage us to use this process to aim for resilience and best fit for Somerville, not just to meet a state threshold. So, thank you very much.
Thank you. Anybody else from the public? Okay, I will close public portion comments, questions, board members. All right. Um, you know, I I will make a
response to the chairs from the commission's comment of it with that it looked like it was in the eitheror. Um, this board took to heart everything that was brought before us and our main stipulation that kept us in in agreeance
was cost to our residents. Um, and I understand that there are two sides to that. Um, but we we had before this, just to make it clear, we had a pretty beefy strong storm water management plan. Um, we have never fallen short on
that in in and I'll just use Somerset County with 21 municipalities. we were far ahead of the curve for a long time. Um, and I think we pride ourselves on that. But we also have to have that balance of where does it turn into punishment to an a resident to do some
smaller adjustments, which is why we ended up not doing the minor development. We stuck with that major development. Um, I think the black and white view at times of it's either this or that, I don't think is a fair
statement because we did take everything you guys did and looked at very much to heart and we had to make those balances. Um my background and what I do for my live for a living, I'm very well aware aware of the flooding that happens not only in Somerville but in Somerset
County and that does come into consideration on what some of these adjustments could be to help us. Having said that, in the type environment that we live in this in the way that Somerville is built out already,
most of those are not going to change it. It is the bigger changes that we've been addressing for a while now. Not building certain places, keeping certain places as open space, keeping certain places that are not allowed to be developed on. Those are areas that we
can address and assist Somerville Burrow in. Um, but I do want that on record. We did very much take that to heart. We did look at it. We truly appreciated your thoughts and all the time put into it. Um just to so as a comment the this is
an ordinance so it's we make recommendations to council so please take your thoughts to council as well because they do get that uh another review added as well these are our recommendations I don't want you to feel like this is the final these are our final recommendations though okay motion
to push move to these recommendations up to burough counsel >> I'll make that motion and that's with with the Yes. >> Yes. >> with the strike of >> section 11. Sorry.
>> And keeping the current definition of major development. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> That we previously discussed. >> Right. Previously >> all the previous we're leaving the Okay. >> Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes.
>> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> Joe Manilio. >> Yes. Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Andre Adair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> All right. Next item for discussion is we are back to the ECBD area need study
re-exam. Mike, you have not completed the area need study, right? Just to get on that record. Okay. Um, and then the amendment to the ECBD district redevelopment plan. So, this specifically, I think we discussed it at the last meeting, if I can remember. uh
they do blur together at times. Um we talked about the overlays. Um so what we had Mike do was pull everything on the overlays for the uh ECBD as a whole so that we could look at it. This is where so in the overlays that one I'm going to
use that shocking number of what was it 90 feet? Is it 90 feet at the corner? Okay 90t we were allowing for a 90 foot building. Um, and I'm actually going to incorporate this in partly as as I as we're looking at these redevelopment plans, I'm going to incorporate
something from just the last conversation we just had on storm water management. A lot of when these redevelopment plans were there was really not any redevelopment in Somerville. Those are the kind of things of reasons why we're revisiting our redevelopment
plans. What is appropriate with the space we have left? What is not appropriate with the space left? And if it is going to be redeveloped, what is the appropriate use and appropriate um I guess use just use of and um I I think I
want that to be understood by the public as well is that's why we're doing this. Um me personally, I'm going to say I don't feel a 90 foot building anywhere in Somerville at this point is appropriate. I don't really know if I ever thought it was. Um but having said that, that's why we pulled the overlays
on. Um was a good idea. >> You know what? But here's the thing, Larry, to your point, it definitely was. Why? Because we didn't have anything, right? This was one of the first ones that This is one of the oldest ones and it was that gate. We called it that
gateway. We wanted it to really grab you from that end, right? Because Burrow Hall in West End was this end. We wanted it to start to grab. Um, so yeah, it sounded like a great idea, but again, that's why we're revisiting it. And I'll just I'm going to harp on it. 90 ft was
seemed a bit excessive to me now. No, back then it did not. You're right, but it was a different time. Um, did everybody get a chance to look at the overlay zones, some comments, thought process? Um, >> yeah, I'll I'll jump in. You want to go? >> You go first. I'll go after you. Um, so,
so going through it all, I I almost feel like, and again, just looking at each one of them and reading through them, I almost feel we can get rid of all the overlay zones, go back to the original base map, base zoning, um, aside from the one we just redid and we we just
updated. >> So, what Yeah. So, I will note on that we, um, what we can do is what what do we want in the event of? So, we can still put what's the right language I'm looking for, Mike. Mike, you know what I'm talking about. In the uh that one
block lot, the block and lots that we just did >> that we just did for the east end plan. >> Um specific redevelopment plan for lots. That's >> so that's the redevelopment plan. So, >> that doesn't affect isn't affected by any of the overlays
>> because it diverts because that takes precedence, right? So then I I mean I I recommend getting rid of all the overlay zones, going back to base zoning, then taking a look at schedule A, going through those and figuring out what uses, if there's any uses or anything in
those actual base zones that you disagree with or think should be added. Um, I did do that and went through and I had, you know, a dozen changes I would make to schedule A on those base zones, but I don't think to Lisa's point, we
need those overlay zones. I mean, a residential zone is a residential zone. I don't think we need to encourage the idea of the overlay zone was to encourage additional development above and beyond what the residential zone would have allowed.
>> And uh the Kirby Avenue redevelopment plan, we listed the permitted uses per lot and block. It made it very simple. Now, obviously, these are more lots, but it's not tremendous. It's not like 300 lots. And a lot of these areas, not a
lot, but a few of them like the cobalt station house, you just say developed developed. So it might if the the board might want to consider just going back to permitted uses per lot and block. Now Kirby at 50 Kirby Avenue, it was only
seven or nine lots. This is probably going to be around 40 or 50 >> at least. Yeah. I mean, I I think we could keep the base zoning for them. maybe extend like I I made some notes on the maps to redraw some of those base zone lines. Um you know from my opinion
like extending um the one zone that I'm not sure it's not e it's not EB4. I'm looking at an old map now because that's what I drew on. Um but extending it into, you know, down Mechanic Street up to, uh, you know, all the way up to Grove Street and including the block
that has um, you know, MLAN agency, the hotel, um, the courthouse or um, not the house, the jail um, and including that in the zone because that's not included in any of these zones on that map.
And then again, as Mike was saying, adjust the schedule A. And I don't know if we need to go as deep as every individual block and lot. You know, I think the residential we can leave as the residential. >> That's all I have. >> Yeah, Larry.
>> Um well, looking at Sorry. looking looking at the development over the last 20 years that Mike um gave us last week, we I think we should remove anything that's already been built on this, take
it out of the plan. I think we should break the plan down to basics because Cobalt is already done. Station House is done. Warren Street is done. There's nothing else to do there
unless they're going to tear down a building. >> So, are are you kind I just want to make sure I'm I'm following. You're saying remove those blocking lots from the plan? >> Yes. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I'm following. >> I'm I'm just looking at like it's unwielding at this point and there's a
lot of spots that are already fixed and then some of the spots are going to go away like fresh restorations. If they do the gateway building that's going to go away. Um the ice cream place going to go away.
The rental car sandwich shop going to go away. All that stuff's going to go away. So >> So I think about it. >> Yes. I on that I'm going to stay at that east gateway. You know, one of the things we have the opportunity to do here is let's say that that project goes away. >> That's another story. So >> we get to address those.
>> Then I think we might not want to remove it. We may need to just readress if it goes away. What do we want and not want there? So and this will go again. kind of goes, you know, listen, that's flood plane zone down there. >> There was a lot of thought processes of, you know, more recently within I say
within the last decade of what is more appropriate of doing in those properties and what is not appropriate to do to those properties. So I we have we're allowed to take the bite of that apple as well. If that project goes away, what do we want to see there and what do we not want to see there?
>> All right. You mentioned about Mechanic Street and I think discussions last week we should remove Mechanic Street as part of redevelopment. Maybe Key Park Avenue part of it if that's something that's
>> so what we I think by going back to the base zoning I don't think we and like mechanic I don't know if it's necessarily and partly that abuts what where the area need study is being looked at. So, I'd want to wait to see what we saw in that area and need study. Um,
>> but I think by going back to the base zoning, it allows for this is if it goes away, if something there goes away, we say this is still what we want here then. Does that make sense? You know what I'm saying? >> No, I understand. >> Yeah. So, it in my scenario of getting rid of the base zoning there.
>> Mechanic Street or sorry, overlay Mechanic Street, all those houses would just go back to being in a residential zone. That's all that's allowed there. And the other side of the street is not res. So that would be and that's where I was saying we should add that into >> Oh, bring bring the county facility.
>> That's what the area need study is looking at right now. >> Yeah. But but it would if we sorry if we remove the base zoning it would make if it's a residential area that's it. That's all you could do there without the variance. >> That's why listing by Latin blocks is very clean. It is. You say Mechanic
Street has been >> re uh reconstructed, revitalized, uh maintained the character, use this and we just lot list the lots and blocks. That's the benefit of listing the uses by lot and block. Jason, back
to your point on that. >> So, and the other option we have is if we're going back to bait zoning, which does anybody here disagree? That's because before you get too far down this rabbit hole, does anybody else disagree >> um with removing the current overlay zoning? >> Okay, just because I don't want to go
down that if there is some let's discuss that first before we go too far down. Right. So in that bay zoning, the other thing we the option we have to do we could do is realigning with the base zoning. So restructuring it, right? So kind of to what um Jason was saying, you know, we've got EB3. We could kind of
say, okay, where do we want to do this? where does does it want to be extended? Do we want to shorten it? Do we want to make it bigger? We want to uh you know R3 is right in that area. Um so and to Larry's point to your point and on Mechanic Street maybe that's realigning
what we want to see like let's make sure guess what I'm getting at is let's make sure each lot each lot and block matches up with what we see as the vision as that base zoning because there might be some where we're like yeah no this currently actually in the base zoning allows for this and we don't want to see it. You know, it might be down okay, two
blocks away, but not here, >> right? >> So, I I think what I'd like to see is everybody look at it right for next meeting. Now, we know we're going to remove the overlay, look at that base zoning, and then really look at and and
in the package, what you sent it, right? Because I have it, right? The transfer develop the colored map >> shows the >> the base >> zoning along with the flood hazard and I was about to bring up how maybe we the
next meeting we discuss the impact of the flood hazard areas. The last reiteration was trying to get the development. I understand that we just did a plan but that was with the individual permit. However, moving forward, the question is, do we want the
density above out of the flood hazard area? And that's where you're showing and that flood hazard line is still relatively accurate. It might be a little higher because it's based on the >> well it's 500y year but it it's a little it's higher now than it was but that I
that might be what the board wants to think about is looking at the uses in the flood hazard area with this out >> moving forward the exception of we already talked about >> and I think we take that opportunity now to do that right >> because our thought process is different than it was three decades ago.
>> Yeah. I do want to clarify. I I did not um think we should get rid of the TDR, >> right? No. So, but when I said the overlay, I did not mean the TDR. The >> But again, to Mike's point, right, then where is that appropriate? Because maybe we're going to exclude it from anything that's under the flade plane. You can't
do a TDR. Like, you can >> when you start looking at the TDR, Jason, and you look at what's developed, we might end up with less than 20 lots is what I'm getting at. >> 20. We're not talking 200 lots. when you start whittling it down. >> Yeah. >> From what Larry said, what's developed
>> versus what need is in need of development plus to whistle the flood plane out. >> So it to me it makes a lot of sense to maybe start looking at this as one zone or zoning per lot and block or one not not an overlay zone. >> So one of the things that I was trying
to get at was uh was looking for and it is in here the schedule B. So schedule B is really the one that I would say if you focus on that at first, right? that's saying in each of them where it what their primary use was intended, right? Matching it to the schedule A,
but then also it has your maximum building height, right? So, I really hope that we never see 90 feet again. >> 90 ft. >> I'm going to get a t-shirt says 90 ft with a big X on it. Go ahead. I I had a secondary question on the far western
side of the eastern business district down by um the end of Veterans Memorial. >> South Bridge, the residents that are on the the the left hand side of the road, the >> you mean you're talking on South Bridge,
the residents there? Should they be removed because maybe that might be better to be included in another overlay zone or another redevelopment zone? >> I think we look at everything. I think we look at everything. Um I get where you're going because that's that's
butdding against the west uh west and main street. West and >> West Main Street >> West Main Street redevelopment >> redevelopment there might be better suited to match up with whatever we're going to do or police department. >> Yes. So, I I do I do I think that's definitely those are the kind of
comments and thought processes I think we need to bring back as a whole and say, "Hey, this is why we're looking at taking this out and maybe moving it to it's a better suited combined into another redevelopment plan because that's that's the use for what we're seeing in our central downtown versus
the way we're envisioning this East Main Street." Now, >> aren't they in >> Yes. that the old police building were added is an area in need of redevelopment. And I do believe that that was already
flipped to make the uh South Bridge Street to be the dividing line between West Main Street redevelopment and the ECB redevelopment because there was some bleed over Larry and this was discussed a couple years ago >> and I can uh reach out to Colin, but
that was envisioned to address that issue to separate the two red. >> So you're saying a line might have already been drawn down the middle. Okay. Can you get that clarification for us? have that clarification. And just so everybody is aware, the properties in the vicinity of the old uh
police building council chambers that has been about four or five years ago that was designated area redevelopment. So that area is tying in to the missing pieces just so everybody knows that. >> Yep. >> Can I just ask one question just to make sure I understand? When we're talking
about the zoning for each lot and block, we're not talking about picking and choosing. We're just looking at each block and lot to decide whether we want to change the boundary lines. >> Correct. Okay. >> That's the way. Yes. Y >> because I to your point I think you can't unless you start to really dive in
and you visually see this lot, this lot. Oh, wait. That's where I kind of feel no. Yes. >> Yep. Just want to make sure we're not talking about one particular zone for one random lot here and there. >> No. Okay. >> Y >> that's what I figured. >> All right. Um
any other comments? I think I think this is going to bring us a little bit a lot further along, a lot faster. Um, any other on ECBD? Okay. Um, >> can you update the
uh the color map because all the lots are all still subdivided? >> Yeah, I >> on both sides. This even shows the old newspaper. >> We can update the map, Larry. >> Yeah. What I think we'll see how the next meeting goes, but it it looks like
we're going to be picking and choosing the good stuff, the TDR in this plan and rewriting the whole plan essentially. >> So, uh we can uh >> B the planning board can certainly we can beef up the street trees and we can >> use a fresh aerial to your point
something that's not dated that's actually an aerial from 2025, right? And >> well that show that shows the the new reality. >> And I think a fresh aerial with a fresh boundary lines would help the board immensely in terms of what's developed,
what's not developed in driving that discussion if the if the chairwoman's okay with that. >> Yep, I'm good with that. >> All right. Um we are moving on to historic uh m so one of our master plan element review items is we are still
working on our historic preservation element. Jason was so kind enough to go through and um comment make uh address certain items. That copy was also sent out to you guys. Um Jason do you want to do
just kind of a general >> Yeah. So, I met with Mike um and we kind of went over and took what the board was saying at the last meeting, how we were having the discussions um and I kind of went through and the latest copy have has the red lines in it of things looking to remove. >> Yeah.
>> And then green is things that we're adding um to catch some of the comments from the board and then yellow is stuff that's being relocated into an annex. Um, >> so basically from the last discussion it, you know, I scaled back a lot of
what I was saying to to to pull out and leave in that you can have, you know, there's the option to have a um, historic overlay, but it has to be drawn from the residents. um believing all those options of what
you can do and the the benefits and kind of beefed up, you know, that there is more, you know, there's benefits that you can have to it, but um but really just kind of leaving it as it's resident driven. Um and then adding some, you know, keep keeping all the language
about the infill that the people wanted that was discussed. Um and then just kind of cleaning it up from there. And then moving a lot of the um the individual recommendations for the uh overlay zones into an annex and
kind of deferring people to the historic if they wanted to deem their area and and come up with all that information rather than it all being in the plan and saying we're recommending it. >> That's what the over quote unquote overlay zone. So portion you're talking
about. Okay. Yeah. >> Anybody have any comments, thoughts, >> few comments here. Uh I like the infill uh section that's in there. I, you know, I appreciate that especially. I think it's important in some of the um areas
where there are a lot of homes that have historical value. But I guess I just wonder if someone can explain like what are we trying to do with H uh POZ's you know with respect to the master plan and then the second piece you know what's the purpose of the strategies and
recommendations in this is this is that just what the one committee that presented to us their recommendation that's not going in the master plan at all. I just kind of want to get a better clarification on that >> you're talking about like at the end of the uh >> like page 10 you know like though that
section there because it's like you know you look at I don't know like very bottom of page 10 you know consider adding an HPO you know or whatever u you know these different or middle of page 11
um yeah it's just kind of you know a little confusing to me of what what we're trying to accomplish. lish with this document. >> I I I I agree with you. I wanted to pull and that's you know my initial was to pull out any recommendations of um uh
historic overlay zone. Um and I you know I guess I got the feeling from the board that they wanted to leave in you know the possibility of doing one for Main Street. Um so that's why I didn't pull that recommendation out. So it wouldn't be, you know, and and yes, you're 100%
right. That's this is all based on the recommendations um when Merge came and did the uh presentation from the historic society. Um so that's what everything was based on. But no, I mean the the final language, I guess, wouldn't have a recommendation from the
historic um advisory committee. It would just say that Somerville is looking to, you know, promote X, Y, and Z if we wanted to >> moving it to resident driven.
>> Resident that we would be doing. I'm just clarifying, right? >> Except for the except for, I think, Main Street. Everybody kind of wanted >> Yes, Main Street was >> to to leave it in that we would look at it that we should look at it as a board for creating one. >> Unless I got that wrong at the last
meeting. Okay. >> I don't know if that really answers. >> I guess what will the final document look like or is this >> That's what we're discussing. We're looking >> So, yeah. So, if people like these ideas and the the things that were taken out, then we can clean the language up for the stuff that's being left in.
>> Yeah. >> Um I didn't want to go through line by line and and take take individual words out just to clean it up. If we came back here and everybody was like, "No, just get rid of that whole section." Um, >> I I think what I'm going to ask everybody, everybody got this Monday. I
think what I'm going to say, ask is everybody goes through this. I want you to look at the language. what's what's being proposed to be either used as an addendum or moving it from a mandatory to a resident driven um and look at the comments some of the there's a lot of um
there is quite a bit of additional language that Jason had added in there based on our comments the thought process on the main street alone and then bring those comments back because to your point Bill what does it look like we haven't gotten there yet because we need everybody's input on what what we do see that document to look like but
this was just Jason's attempt you Oh, great attempt. Thank you. Was taking everything that we kind of discussed at the last couple meetings saying, "Hey, this is what we're hearing. Let's move this forward instead of just constantly having discussions." So,
>> okay. Well, I I agree that it's a a great start and I just was trying to understand like the uh the long term of it. So, u Yeah, that that's it. So, thank you. >> Yep. and uh agree directionally and I
think um Lisa to your point the sooner we can get to the next version I'll sit down and kind of look at something that's consolidated that would help the discussion I think so it's perfect >> and uh any chance there's a word version of this floating around that's a little easier to put comments in and edit >> because PDF I I started going through it
I was like I I did it through the PDF editor it was it was not fun um I can see if I can convert it into a word >> try >> yeah I I have some software I might be able to convert it into a word document Yeah, don't don't kill yourself. I was just wondering if we had >> It might kill me to try to keep editing
the PDFs. >> Yeah, I'll see what I can do on that. I probably should have done that first instead of playing with the PDF, but >> tomato tomato. >> Yeah. >> But yes, thank you, Christie. That's the That's where we're at. We want I want everybody to get those comments on here
now, address it, bring it back, and then we will be one step closer to saying, "Okay, this is what the next phase, next portion of the next document looks like." closer to the goalpost. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think we're getting closer. I think Jason did a good job. And if you
look at 16, you do have recommendations and um >> uh strategies moving forward. So, I think that's it. I think it just needs to be cleaned up a little bit on on the top far as so there's no conflicting information. >> Yeah. >> All right. I do see Marge here, so I do
want to open this up to the public to have her give her a chance. I'll open this up to the public for any comments or questions. Okay, I will close public and we will move on to our final discussion item, regional center notice. Mike,
>> that thank you. There is a regional center notice. We got a full application for what I refer to, and it's I'm dating myself, meeting casings. >> Yep. >> It's in Southside. I know it's not called that, but please I'm just how I know it. Okay. It is the manufacturing
facility that is right by the burrows uh ball fields uh chambers park I do or southside however you want to refer to it. Uh that they're doing an addition a substantial addition to the one of the warehouse buildings
adjacent to the railroad tracks. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 square foot uh warehouse building addition. So as part of the regional center we have that notice was provided to the burrow. Uh it is an addition it's
an expansion of the facility that's currently operates and that's the extent of it. >> So just out of a curiosity um do we know where the addition is going? If you're looking at the building, >> it's the building closest to the tracks,
not from the road. >> Okay. >> You have that curve. Southside goes into >> loer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh it's the one if you're on lo on the curve, it's going to be the one kissing the railroad tracks. The
building back there is being a huge expansion with a parking lot. >> So the smaller >> So they're adding manufacturing facility and surface parking lot. >> Okay. >> Something like 20 or 40 cars, two bays on either side. It meets the criteria.
So that's why we're getting the notice. >> I'm I'm just glad to hear it's over there and not coming right up against Southside right next to the park because that >> No, it's it's not near the park. It's I I guess you would say it's closer. It's the development is pushing towards Loer,
not Southside. >> Okay. >> Okay. It's you would say it's on the eastern side of the existing building >> and the parking lot would be on the eastern side. The surface parking lot >> but also close Excuse me. >> Also closer to center street
>> or central street. >> Well, yeah. Yeah. Going up across the street. >> You go. Yes. >> Yeah. On the other side, >> right? That is >> if you look on the other side of the correct side of the railroad, >> right? >> You have that weird situation where south side is a burrow street. It
becomes Bridgewater, swings around, then becomes Thornville again. So you have that stretch and I always that's always a poor that road's always in poor shape around that corner as anybody knows. So yes, and we also got a notice, but I
don't have the plan. So it'll come up probably the next meeting on a raritan center. Raritan's giving us a regional center notice. We just got a letter cover letter. I don't have any plans for anything. It's not on your package. What was here was a box on the bridge order
for I'll call it cases. >> Anybody have any comments? >> To learn more, we'd have to attend their meeting. Yeah. >> This is just our notice that it's happening because of the boundary lines. Yep. >> Bill, which what we typically do if there's like a kindergarten or some
intensive use that's might adversely impact the burrow, we dive into the plans and write a concern letter from the planning board to the Bridgewater Planning Board voicing our concerns. Uh if there's if the board doesn't feel
there's any concerns, we we're silent. Typically, we don't say anything to Bridgewater. In this case, the manufacturing facility has been there for decades and um I don't know of any complaints
ever in 21 years from the facility from Burough side. >> Are there going to be more trucks, expansion of the warehousing? >> Again, we we'd have to go to their application hearing to ask those questions. We have no idea. >> Right. Good point. >> So,
>> al also the letter says, "Oh, you're only being told closure within 500 ft. They always talk about the regional partnership. Does this actually go to the regional partnership? >> That's who gave us the notice was regional center. >> Yeah, because it looks like it came from their lawyers.
>> Well, it goes through the regional center and then to us. >> Does the regional center have any comments or questions or >> I don't know. We haven't met. We are meeting in few weeks. Normally it comes up, but I can't tell you if you have any comments because we
haven't met since February, January. So, >> the burrow ordinance, and I think the same rarity in Bridgewater requires 30-day notice for the joining municipality for items that trigger regional center notice. Larry, and you're giving me that face.
>> And it's 50,000 square feet of warehouse and I think it's 50 apartments or dwelling units. These are triggers. >> Yes. >> Or as you said, Larry, if you're within 500 ft of the municipal boundary, >> that's requirement, too.
>> So, >> thank you. >> Okay. Pulled my hair out. Um, all right. So, I am now going to open up the meeting to all members of the public that wish to address the board on any matter that was
not listed on this agenda. All parties interested in addressing the board, please approach the microphone, state your name, full name, and address for the record, and provide your questions and comments. All questions and comments are limited to five minutes. Okay. Hearing none. Oh, go ahead. >> Yeah, you got to just come mine up,
Marge. But absolutely. >> Yes, please. >> I'm Marge Sullivan. and I live at 8 South Richards Avenue in Somerville. Um I want to make a comment about the 141
uh property on what is it? U street >> the southside. Okay. Um I my concern and I would ask the board to think about it is that is such a floodprone area and
even if um the factory has been there for a long time, they're planning an addition they're planning uh additional parking you mentioned which means they're going to have more impervious surface. And um even though it seems
like not a big deal, it is a big deal because the burrow park land is there and all that water backs up uh onto uh uh burrow property. And so I think uh it might behoove people from the planning
board to maybe get copies of what the plans are for that and to think carefully about how it affects the storm water because um like you said it's half Bridgewater and half Somerville but the water doesn't divide itself by
municipalities. That's my comment. >> Thank you Margie. Any other public comment? All right. Hearing none, I will close public session. Uh motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I opposed.