Okay, that would be helpful. Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, November 12th, 2025. 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,
faxed, or emailed to the Courier News, and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times.
>> Roll call. >> Andrea Dair >> here. >> Chris Addex here. >> Bart Aens >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Bill Kale is excused. Jason Kra >> here. >> John Manellio is also excused. Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher >> here. Council member Broom here.
>> Chairperson Warner >> here. Please stand for the pledge. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Okay. I need a motion for the approval of minutes from October 22nd. >> Second. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. Art Aens, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Jason Kraka,
>> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, yes. >> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> All right, we have no reszos tonight. So, moving on, we have a hearing for 122 West Main Street, uh, Estate, Real Estate Corp.
uh purpose interior alternate uh alterations, exterior alterations, and installation of a 24.5 square foot illuminated sign to convert the property located on 122 West Main Street into a fully operational pizzeria, 122 West Main Street. uh as real estate corp
seeks variance relief for sign installation. They want to come up Ready to proceed? >> Yep, you can. >> Good evening, board members. I'm Robert Falinson. I'm here on behalf of the
applicant, 122 West Main Real Estate Corp., the owner of 122 West Main Street located in the burrow's B1 business zone. The application before you this evening seeks minor site plan approval together with limited signage relief in
connection with the uh a vacant prop commercial space that was previously utilized as a day spa on Main Street. This is a proposed pizzeria restaurant use which is expressly permitted in the B1 district and it involves no expansion of the footprint of the of the building.
No site alteration and no changes to the parking or circulation. Strictly the relief we're seeking is related to signage on the uh exterior of the building. The property is located on Main Street adjacent to the an existing restaurant within the well established black block of active storefronts. The
applicant includes modest interior improvements, facade updates, and and potential building safety upgrades that will modern modernize the space and contribute to the visual continuity of the downtown corridor. The requested signage relief relates only to a simple
modestly designed wall sign that is proportionate to the building's narrow storefront. The physical characteristics building is very narrow. I believe it is consistent with the burrow's downtown signage aesthetics and intended primarily ensure appropriate visibility and wayfinding. We'll go into more
detail when we have our experts testify, but overall I believe this is a compliant application that advances the barrel's master goals of maintaining a vibrant pedestrian friendly main street with active ground floor uses that support downtown vitality. And if you're ready, we could go with
our we may have the applicant himself is arriving later. I would normally put him on in case we had any questions, but if the any questions arise, we could put him on. We're going to move forward with our architect. >> All right. Well, we'll swear you in first. >> Sure. >> Yep. Uh do you swear the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? >> I do. >> Wonderful. And just before we start, just a couple housekeeping issues. Uh we're going to mark the application and supporting documentation as A1. Um A2 will be the notice and publication proofs. Uh PB1 will be the board uh
planner engineers review letter dated November 6, 2025. and PB2 will be the letter also dated November 6, 2025 by the burough's fire official. >> We swear in the witness. >> All set.
>> Okay. Could you please, Mr. Donado, could you please state your profession? >> Sure. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. >> How long have you practiced? I received my license in 1992 and held my own practice throughout New Jersey since 1995. >> Where are you licensed to practice
architecture? >> Uh, New Jersey. >> Is your license currently in good standing? >> Yes, it is. >> Do you do you know what your license number is for the record? >> 1228. >> All right. And how long have you been licensed in New Jersey? I believe >> uh since 1992. And my own practice throughout the state of New Jersey since
1995. And in similar have could you please testify any similar projects to this one you've done around the state? >> Absolutely. I've uh testified from South Barnett all the way north to Edgewater Fort Lee and with this applicant who
owns this building uh for the past 10 years uh restaurants throughout northern New Jersey Morristown Paripany Livingston Closter uh Olden. So yes, >> and during those application the boards have accepted you as an expert in
architecture. >> Yes, they have. >> I don't I offer him as an expert to the board if they have any further questions about his qualifications. >> He is accepted. >> Thank you. >> Cara, did we actually swear him in? >> Okay. I just want I I know I zoned, but I was reading. I just want to make sure.
>> Same here. >> Mr. Donado, could you please tell us what the scope of your engagement was with this project? >> Sure. So, uh, this actually also owns the property next door to us which was a combined pizzeria restaurant. Uh I was retained
by the applicant to renovate when he purchased the building next door. It was really a combined three store, three properties, two buildings, the restaurant pizzeria and what is currently or was an existing massage
parlor. uh and I was retained to basically renovate the existing two buildings and the proposal was to renovate just a restaurant next door, take that pizzeria and then bring that pizzeria over to what was the massage uh
use in that building. >> So during your scope of engagement to say that you physically visited the site and inspected the surrounding area >> many times walk through the the main street behind the parking combined parking area. Now, have you reviewed a survey prepared
by John C. Rit PLS of James DD Survey LLC consisting of one sheet and dated October 25th, 2024 in order to assist you with your plans? >> Yes, I have. And it's part of the plans that were submitted to the board, sheet A2. And what this does, it shows uh West
Main Street. It shows what's it shows what's three separate lots, but it's really two separate buildings. Uh the lower part, the bottom which I'll point you to here is the what we're here for tonight, the use what is was previously
a massage parlor. Uh we're going to renovate the entire interior of the space into a proposed pizzeria. And this the survey also shows there's access uh from Davenport Street to a parking area
in the back. Uh and that's where the dumpsters are. And we also have access to the building at the rear of the building from that parking area. >> And now you briefly touched on it that the current use is is a vacant space. Do you know how long approximately it's been vacant?
>> I don't. I was there about a year ago measuring the inside of the building which uh for the record was a little scary. Uh sheets were hiding stuff. Even currently the the windows were hidden. So I I was in there. I measured the
existing space. I'm not sure when I was there the a year ago they were still operational. >> And you prepared initial architectural plans that were submitted to the board with this application that are entitled proposed restaurant pizzeria consisting
of three sheets dated 121624 which were subsequently revised. But you first provided a first plan is I guess my question. >> Yes. uh we provided our first plan to get our letter of denial and then when we received uh uh comments from the u
the burrow uh there were comments as far as adding the list of property owners on the plans uh providing a a detail of a pizza uh oven because we're proposing an oven in the building
and those were revised and submitted uh to the board. Now to that end, it's the these proposed pizzeria. It's the new plans consisting of three sheets and revised September 16th, 2025. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Did you personally prepare these plans? >> I did. Yes.
>> And your signature and seal appears on them. Correct. >> Correct. >> Now, you briefly touch I don't know did you all the uh re the revisions you made? Could you just uh articulate them so it's clearly for the record? So yeah, I measured the existing space and what we're proposing would be sheet A3 which
has a floor plan of the building and basically we're removing all the walls inside the their existing bathroom was nonaccessible was small was like three by there were two bathrooms. Uh they're like 3x5.
So basically we're removing the ceiling the wall wall finishes floors and the entrance. There's an existing door uh that that has access to West Main Street. That would be the accessible entrance to the building. And currently
the width of the building is 16 ft uh 3 in and the and it's 99 ft long. And what we're proposing is you come into an open dining area, a pizza counter behind the pizza counter, and then we'll have a
pizza oven behind that pizza counter. As you walk toward the back, there'll be a counter like almost like a bar, but it's a a pizza uh dining bar and a a small dining area behind there and a small dining area in the front. Then as we go
to the back, there's two uh handicap bathrooms. They're in the location of where the plumbing is currently, but they are uh going proposed to be uh accessible. Then we have the back room utility storage for the pizzeria. Then as you go toward the back, there's a
there's about three or four steps that go to a door that has access to the rear of the building. This is not accessible because as you go around the block, obviously the is higher than the front. So that's the difference in grade. But we do have two means of egress. So the
entire space will be gutted and renovated to new. Uh this is the sheet that was revised with the list of property owners. Also have a detail of the exhaust hood for
the pizza oven. The pizza oven or the exhaust of the pizza oven is not for smoke but it's for heat which will penetrate the roof. Uh then I have sheet A1 which shows it's another smaller version
of the survey uh zoning map showing the location of the site. Then I have a uh proposed front elevation. Currently there's uh wood slats that are painted red, white uh and tan.
And our proposal is to really same thing, remove all the finishes, stucco the building uh a white off-white to match the building next door and new fenestration uh within the openings of the the window
that's there and a door. There will all be glass. Uh currently what was there the glass was hidden. It was screened so you really couldn't see in. But we're going to continue the concept of that really what's going on on Main Street is
glass. You can look in see the dining area, see the uh the staff and see really what's going on inside. Uh so again the proposal will be stuck the entire facade. So the the width of the building is 16t 3 in and it's 17 ft
high. So it's actually higher than it is in width. And um so what we're proposing is again replacing the glass doors, replacing the glass uh fenestration that's there, stuckling the building, and we're
proposing a sign. Now, this sign will also have a background of white, so it's almost going to match the stuckle. So the perception of having a sign that we're proposing three and a half ft 3T 6 in high where 24 in is peritted.
We're at 7T wide. We're so we're asking for a signed variance of 24.5 square ft where 168 square feet is permitted. Now that's because of the narrow width of the
building. It's one square foot of area per width of uh the building. So what we felt was we needed a little bit more height because the building is higher than it is wider. And again the color of the background with the black letters
and the black symbol of a pizza uh kind of blend into the stuckco finish. We felt like, yeah, we're asking for a variance, but we felt that it's going to blend into the facade and and then the sign will be top lit with two gooseneck
neck lights. >> Okay. Now, there's been we've received some review correspondence. Have you had the opportunity to uh review uh the >> Yes, I have. >> Go through it. And uh with respect to the fire officials review correspondence of November 6, 2025, do you foresee any
issues with the proposed comment? Specifically, he was requesting certain safety features be provided at the >> uh not at all. I think one of the items that he was asking was the was provide a uh well we will have fire
alarms, smoke detectors, uh visual alarms in the in the bathrooms and and the building. Uh he was also asking for a sprinkler system where at first I code New Jersey building code this building
doesn't it's well below the threshold of where fire sprinklers are permitted. So I know his one of his questions was can we provide it if that's an issue then yes >> so the applicant would be willing if the board requires to provide such >> otherwise fire alarms visual alarms
audio alarms those are code related items that we would follow. >> So so the applicant whatever what the construction official requires will be complied with. >> Yes. >> Okay. With respect to the uh board planner engine review correspondence, do you agree with the the bulk waiver
and variance charts appearing on page three and four? >> Yes, I do. And I also have that uh on the upper left hand corner. They match as far as the variances that we're asking for which would be the uh area of
the sign where 16.8 is permitted. We're asking for 24.5 and maximum height where two foot is permitted. We're asking for three and a half. And that's uh the reason we asked for two and a half is if we had a two-ft
sign in this more of a a rectangle upright building. We wanted the sign to follow that same shape of the building. >> So you believe the sign it will it would look better with the if a smaller sign wouldn't you know wouldn't fit the character and space of the neighborhood? >> Okay. Okay, with respect to item A1, is
the dumpster enclosure large enough to to store solid waste and recyclables? >> So, yes, there's two dumpsters in the in the rear of the property, recyclables and trash. And obviously, this is a new business. We're
not sure of the scheduling, but it's a private dumpster, so we couldn't have that on a daily basis or as as needed by the service. >> And now with respect to Oh. Yeah. >> Apologize. Are you sharing the dumpster
with the restaurant next door? >> Yes. >> So, they're going to coordinate extra pickups as necessary. >> Correct. And it could be daily. >> It's a five days. >> It's a daily service that he would have, you know, and again, that's a new business. This is hasn't started, but
whatever that schedule needs to be. Yes. But at a minimum daily. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And the core or I don't know if you're with the coordination certainly won't be an issue. They you know it's the same operator >> right so >> same operator same right applicant same >> now with respect to item number two is
the exhaust fan in public view from the sidewalk located on the southern side of Main Street >> so no not from the right of way of the sidewalk it's it's it's one story it's 18 17 ft high uh is the parapit we're
about 30 feet back uh it probably may be visible I know the building store is about five stories high. I think they could see everything on all the buildings. Uh if screening needs to be provided, >> the concern was on the southern side near Wolf Gangs on that side of Main
Street. Can you see it? Because I don't think that building has a parapit wall. So you have almost three, no, two and a half, three feet sticking up. If it's the board's call, but I'd like to see lattice, some PVC lattice just to
screen it so that we're covering. >> We require that most almost all the other. >> We would absolutely not >> if it's visible. If if I'm saying I'm looking at the other I agree with you that on the for the sidewalk right in front of it, you're not going to see it. The question is on Alfonsos or the other
side of the street, is it visible? >> Right. Yeah. If it's not visible, it does need to be screened. >> Right. >> We don't have a problem and and screening too. We can have a fabric for sound or noise for AC units or whatever, but we can provide for that. Absolutely. >> Okay. >> And same with respect to item number four. Do you know whether the sound data
will exceed the New Jersey noise code? >> It should not, but we could have a once it's installed, we can have a test of the sound and if needed a a noise barrier can be installed. >> So the applicant would agree to that. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> With respect to item number one, page seven, do you know the level and source
of illumination of the lights, the downward lights? So all all lighting exterior will be LED lighting. Uh I don't have an illumination of we haven't picked the bulb yet, but we can have them on dimmer. Yeah. We could meet the criteria for for lighting. >> Okay.
>> Like the applicant if there was a lighting issue would agree to >> Great. >> Can we stop on the trash dumpster enclosure? >> Yes. >> There are separate lots and I understand one party owns them all, but for the future that might not be the case. In the past, should the board do it, we've
gotten a simple cross access easement to allow future property owners, if there's two or three businesses to use the dumpster, so that we don't have a problem in the future of one parcel sold and all of a sudden we have the okay corral, you can't use it. Yes, I can. Uh, it just makes sense should the
board. >> Yeah, >> absolutely. >> Just some simple cross >> dumpster is on is it on this lot? >> Yes, it's on this lot. >> It's on this lot. And I I it makes perfect sense for the two other businesses or one other business to use it. It makes perfect sense. >> Yeah. I would think the restaurant
>> right. >> So uh >> but yes, we would agree and have that part of the approval should be approved. >> Now with respect to item number three, do you know the proposed hours of operation of the exterior lighting?
>> So obviously the the hours of operation of the pizzeria is 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. So obviously the lights would be dusk to end to opening to closing
>> is so it wouldn't run all night. >> No. >> Now with respect to item number four, please advise whether the supports and brackets for the sign shall be constructed of metal not less than quarter inch thick if galvanized and not less than 3 in 316 in thick. If all
members included bolts and rivets are galvanized, >> they will be. There's no there's no projection of brackets. There's no projections of a of a cage or steel holding. This is up against the facade, bolted into the building, all galvanized. Yes.
>> With respect to item number five, will the sign be securely attached to the building by means of metal metal anchors, bolts, or expansion screws? >> Yes, absolutely. And with item seven, I know we briefly touched on it before, but what are the proposed colors for the uh sign, including the pizza slice?
>> So, the background is white and the the lettering and pizza symbol is dark brown lettering. >> We can I understand that you're going to produce color renderings. Typically, the ARB reviews these things. Uh should the
board grant approval a condition ARB approval back to the >> to to avoid the issue of where the ARB's >> yes >> reporting to since this is a a land use application and carage I'm in but I think the board can have the ARB review it and give comments back typically we
have color renderings >> you can have a understand >> you don't have that here and I'm typically in the past we've had the A or B look at those renderings and make a recommendation The ordinance doesn't require you to get A or B approval before the planning board. So you can do
it should the board approve this condition upon A or B approval. That's what the board likes to see. >> Yes. Thank you. So we don't have to spend all this time I >> going over >> I I spent time on it because I know the black and white I know the board's interested and the burough is really interested on the color aesthetics the
color of your sign how it's going to look in the overall but you could address that should the board agree with the A or B and they would make a recommendation back to the planning board regarding those >> I was going to say I think the recommendation needs to come back to the planning board though since it is a land use application
>> and we agree if there's any comments that we need to change we I have no problem >> the window space. Yeah, obviously more inviting the 40% rule. I'm sure you will comply with the storefront glass being 40% of the whole facade or
>> so that's the thing. So the overall height of the building is 285 square feet. >> Okay, >> it's a 8 foot high ceiling. So we're only we're we're currently if I we have a glass door. We have almost a full wall
of glass. We're at 20%. >> There's not much more space maybe to get to. >> Okay. >> 25 or 30, but the ceiling >> we're seeking. >> Listen, if you can't the the whole intent is inviting to show >> that's what >> to get the
waiver on that issue. Just >> if you're looking for a waiver, >> from my perspective, I'd like to see as much glass as possible. >> And us too, you could see the pizzeria. You could see the people sitting and dining. You can see we've pro there's the door and the window >> probably get more lower lower glass
>> as far as we can go. But it's not going to be 40%. I can tell you >> we're stuck with that width of 16. >> I get it. I'm just making sure we covered all this. >> No, we we're trying we we are absolutely trying to get that as close to >> you. You you mentioned that you'd go
further lower on the wall. We could do we can do here >> and what about further up closer to the sign so that the sign is >> well the ceiling is right there. >> Yeah. >> So you'd be looking above the drop ceiling. >> What if you slanted the drop ceiling at that point?
>> I don't Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I just think that's a lot to ask of an applicant just because I do understand. I think we all understand and respect there. >> I do hear what you're saying, but I think that's kind of pushing it. >> And also as you're walking along the street that's typical door height with
neighbors. So, I guess to push that up may look out of proportion, but we can go lower >> and it's far wide. >> It's just a uniquely narrow space. >> Thank you. >> Now, are you uh with respect to item number two, do you know what the
existing parking lot light levels are? >> Parking levels >> lot light in the in the rear um >> or whether it is lit. >> So, that's I'm not sure. That's never been there at night. Fair enough. >> There is lighting from as I speak to the
>> We could if the applicant's going to provide testimony. That's great. But we can just swear him in maybe now. So >> yeah, let's >> do that just for the record. >> You can come up to >> Thank you so much. Can you just raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Just state your name. Spell it for the record. >> Scand. >> Thank you. Need him to spell that. Mike, you okay? S K E N D E R G J E B U K A J.
>> Very simple. Very simple. >> Call me Call me Kenny. >> Now that we're on and we swore you in, could you briefly just describe what your relationship is to the C application? >> I'm the owner of the of the property. I'm the owner of the restaurant, owner
also to the next door. Uh we're trying to do like a pizzeria. It's going to be like small piece of a few tables and a small bar >> and uh tried to bring the central pizza back pretty much what they had just clean and your up to date. >> Now what now could you We're talking
about the rear lighting in the parking lot. >> The rear light in the parking lot. There is one pole of mine and then there lights on other buildings shine towards me. I think it's plenty of parking. If I put more parking, it's just going to distract the the neighbors because pretty much be a residential, but it's
enough uh light to move around obviously. >> Yeah, we're going to have a light meter for the front. Just shoot. As long as you have.3 foot candles, something in the rear. >> Yeah, it's >> I understand it's not it's a it's the employee entrance. It's probably not for the general public to use. So,
>> could you just uh give you might as well give testimony as to what your hours of operation will be? hours operation going to be like uh Monday to Sunday. During the weekday is going to be 11 to 10, 11 to 11. Depends on the traffic. And on Sundays, we're going to close at 9:00 p.m. >> And approximately about how many employees would the pizzeria have?
>> They're going to have like uh the week is about like 8 and the weekday four or five >> because it varies based on the demand. >> Yes, of course. It's a very small space, very narrow space. There's really not much.
>> I mean, we kind of got out of order here, but I I we're going to get back to the architect. I don't know if you guys had any questions. I would certainly I don't have any objection to asking him now. >> If not, I mean, we we could you could ask him later, too. If we need them, we'll bring him back. But let's go back
to the architect. >> I can tell you for the record, I've been doing work in many towns, restaurants, food establishments with this applicant, and he's a is a welcome uh tenant in any building. quality food, quality service, and especially the way he dresses up the
spaces, a welcoming person to any town. >> Okay. Now, back to the review correspondence. With respect to item number four, will any externally mounted HVAC or compressors for walk-in refrigerators be utilized? >> Uh, not only if they are on the roof,
the mechanical units, there is one there now. Uh, but yes, any any equipment that's required would be on the roof and obviously screening noise they would be. >> So the applicant would would screen if it if could be seen as required.
>> Absolutely. Yes. Okay. So any new equipment going on the roof will be screened if it's needed and comply with the state noise code? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Without no question. >> With respect to item number five, will the exhaust fan cause dissemination of
excess smoke, fumes, gas, dust, odors, or other atmospheric pollutant beyond the lot lines? >> No. So, I've done a few of these pizza uh ovens that exhaust through the roof. They're mainly for heat. They're not for smoke uh exhausting. It's just for
exhausting the heat have the oven. >> And because it's 200 200 CFM, you don't need makeup air. Correct. >> We don't exactly have hit the code would be yes, but it's not under it's below 400. >> I spent my homework on this, didn't I? And we appreciate that.
Now, in your conclusions about this application, do you have any opinion as to whether the proposed pod project embodies good civic design and arrangement? >> I think it's a positive use. Obviously, the traffic along Main Street with all the buildings that are going, it
generates people walking on Main Street, which is what you want, you know, with all the new stores going up and I think it just adds to the atmosphere of Main Street. Now, do you believe that the existing facads as it stands currently is consistent with the current streets
streetscape? >> Uh, no, not at all. Wood slats, the windows are closed in. It's it's not inviting. It's not promoting uh gener generating any clients in my in my opinion. >> Now, would with the updated proposal being here brought here tonight, do you
believe that would improve and be more in compliance with the immediate neighborhood? >> Absolutely. The more the more that you know he wants people to look in. Yes, absolutely. >> And do you believe that the larger sign would be beneficial to customers trying to find the restaurant? Is it
>> Yes. I don't think I I don't think the side the size of the proposed sign is is negative. I think it does. Like I said, the background kind of blends into the finish. So, it's really the lettering and the symbol. So, no, I don't think there's any negativity to this sign.
>> And we this testified will stip, you know, stipulate to an further approval of the actual, you know, design of the sign that we >> and the pavers were redone over and technically there's not a street tree, but it's 16 ft wide and the pavers are done over. So, it's
it's the bird the board's call on how that street tree is handled. 16 feet. It's one tree and 50 feet. There is a tree nearby and the pavers >> Thank you, Larry. >> The pavers were done. I'm gonna say within eight years ago the whole that
that h that property has the new look the new paper look. So what I'm saying is >> I would say that considering that this application is directly related to
the other two restaurants. What are we doing with the missing tree from that side or is the DSA going to take care of it? Well, because you're off. That's why. And I just I'm just curious that
>> Well, I'm going to back up. It's not two restaurants and and I I'm assuming that these two businesses while they may be owned by the same owner, are not the same business. Um, am I correct in that? >> Yeah, I have nothing I don't know anything about that.
There was a tree that might have been there before. We have to go by what does the code mandate? >> Yeah. >> What? >> Technically, it's one tree. Well, I'm putting on the report. It's 16 feet. And there's a tree. I don't think it's
appropriate, in my opinion, to have a tree every 16 feet. I don't think the storefront is being penalized, right? >> But but they're still responsible for a tree. >> They're responsible for the tree. In the report, I say the board can either, in my opinion, either request the $650 or
wave the financial contribution given unique circumstances. It's the board's call. >> Yeah. I I I would I would go back to the applicant and say, are are you um open to the idea of of making a contribution to the street tree uh fund, which would
uh which would amount to >> $650 >> in lie of having to put a tray in. We will agree to that. No problem. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. So that issue. Yeah. >> Note that, Larry. >> I I
can I just one more question. All these plans that we that were board mounted today, they were submitted previously to the board. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, uh I'm I have no further questions if you guys would like to ask a question. >> I just have one quick question. Um, when we talked about revisions to the plans,
um, we did talk about a revision to A1. I guess that last revision was September 16, 2025. Were there revisions to A2 and A3? >> So, yeah, not A2. That was the engineer survey. >> Okay.
>> A3, I added the pizza oven detail. >> Okay. >> And the list of property owners within 200 ft. >> Okay. So that revision date would be >> same revision >> 916. >> 916. >> Perfect. All right. Thank you.
>> So we don't have any uh cooking oil. So we don't have to deal with used cooking oil. >> Traps. No, >> it's just the pizza oven. >> Correct. >> So it's a B vent, >> right? Straight. Okay. The other thing in the report is there's
three or four parking spaces on the rear near the dumpster. Unfortunately, given the type of commercial use, one of those spaces, every remain has to be an ADA parking space. >> Just the way it is. >> That's fine. >> If we could designate one and then
stripe it. >> Yeah. >> Symbolize it. Yes. >> I do you guys any questions? I don't know. Open it to the public. >> All right. I'll open it to the planning board >> questions, comments for the applicant.
>> Is there is there another 88 >> spot back there? >> No. Not existing in that back lot. No. >> It's really not that meant for public, but it can be. But no, there is not one. I guess even myself when I used to come
I park in the back >> you know >> it's a hidden secret don't tell people >> they'd have to go onto Davenport come around because there is no there's two doors one to the new restaurant that he
has and one to the to what we're our proposed building but they're They're raised three or four feet lower than the front. So they'd have to walk around which probably more dangerous or Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But you're Yeah. You're required to have the ADS. >> You just can't get around that
unfortunately. >> Right. Not a problem. >> In theory, it's for the employees if it's not for the public. Yeah. There's two accesses. There's an easement >> which is shown the plans. The easement wasn't provided, but there's an easement to get to the rear of the property to
facilitate loading uh deliveries. >> Yeah. >> Uh Mike, did you address the door between the two build uh businesses? >> The uh there's a door that my understanding is to remain the fire marshall would like to see and I think it's by code has to be a fire rated
door. Yes. And the fire rating in >> the literature is either going to be a two or three hour. It depends on the what the rating of a wall is. the portition wall. So >> usually it's a door on the property line which is could be a threehour why you came up with the fire. >> I think it's a two-hour door but I'm
assuming that masonry wall is 8 in was 12 in might be a three-hour >> whatever the code requires for >> so they'll comply. That's >> comply. Correct. Thank you. >> Yes. the neighboring building. >> No,
>> we may potentially in the future. Yes, >> that that's governed by a separate burrow ordinance. >> Yeah, that would be totally separate application. He does have a license for >> Yeah. >> So, yes, I'm sorry.
>> Um, did we come to consensus on the planning board about the sprinkler system? >> Yay. Nay. No opinion. >> And I think if they're offering to put it in, I think it's a life safety thing that would be a great addition to have since we're renovating it. >> Yeah,
>> I concur. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page in the planning. >> So, like I said, we we will do strobe lighting or this doesn't fall under that threat threshold, but it's part of an approval. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yes. >> To us, we look at it as it's an improvement to existing. >> Yes. If we're approved, we will
>> and and in a very dense downtown with buildings abuing each other, >> especially 16. >> It makes it makes a lot of sense. >> Yeah. >> Right. Anything else from the planning board? All right. I am going to open it up to public comment
hearing none. I will close public session. >> Cara, you want to run through that? >> Yes. I just have two questions. Well, I guess one question. the issue of the variance for the storefront window glazing. I know we talked about that a little bit, but your requirement is that
there's should be a minimum of 40% of storefront window glazing. Um, they won't be able to do that. So, if we're going to grant a variance, we have to grant a variance for a certain amount less than 40%. >> So, I don't know what the applicant's proposing. What does it have to be? What was it that you were proposing? So by
replacing the the glass door, the existing glass that's there, we're at 20%. Try to go lower. >> So let's just say a minimum of 20%. >> Right. Yep. >> It'll probably be more like 25 to 30, but yes. >> What's the understand? >> Not on that. No, they're only for the signs. >> Absolutely.
>> For the color of the signs. >> Okay. So in addition to the other variances that are referenced in Mike's report as well as minor site plan and change of use um approval um the conditions that I would propose to the
board are uh compliance with all comments and requests in Mike's letter marked PB1 uh to the extent that have has not been testified by the applicant and witnesses. Um, compliance with the comments in PB2, um, as the board
indicated, uh, with regard to sprinkler, etc. Um, compliance with any and all construction code requirements, all other applicable laws, uh, and requirements as we typically have as a catch-all. Um, dumpster pickups will be scheduled as needed and as determined once the businesses are in operation.
Uh, there there will be a sound analysis completed once construction is completed and there will be any adjustments to that. uh as necessary if the analysis does not fall within the state code requirements. Uh the applicant will prepare cross access easements for any
adjacent property owners that are going to be using the dumpster and submit that easement to the board professionals for review and approval. Um based upon the testimony, the lights will be on from dust to closing. Uh the signed colors
will be as testified to and a color rendering will be submitted to the ARB that will make its recommendations back to the board for ultimate review and approval as required. Um the hours of operation will be as testified to. Um any visible rooftop and other external
equipment will be screened as necessary. The applicant will make the $650 tree contribution in l of planting the tree. The applicant will create one ADA parking space. Uh the applicant if they determine to uh engage any outdoor seating will comply with the burl
ordinance or come back to the board for approval. Um the glazing as we indicated will be at least a minimum of 20%. And if I understood correctly the the liquor license for the adjacent uh use
is going to be expanded into this property for use in connection with the pizzeria. >> Absolutely. >> That's the intention. Okay. that's already been done. So you have Okay. So I would just ask that proof of that expansion of the liquor license approval be submitted as a condition.
>> That's what I have. >> Yeah. >> Then then I'll move it based on everything Carrie just said. >> Did I miss something? >> Nope. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Bill Kale. >> Yes.
>> Jason Kra. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. Yes. >> Mayor >> Gallagher. Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, just before you leave, um thank you for investing in Somerville. Central Pizzeria. That's the original location for Central Pizzeria
>> uh for decades and it was an icon uh in Somerville and uh obviously they at one point expanded into that space that Deina is now in. And uh you've taken two spaces that have a long history. one of them you've already made absolutely stunning and beautiful and we'll see you
Friday night. Uh and we look forward to the same on this one as well and thank you for investing in Somerville. >> Thank you guys. >> Putting a lot of pressure on them to make good pizza now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much everyone.
>> Okay, moving on to discussion items. Um Mike, you want to review uh the ordinance 2774 on the sidewalk cafes? >> Yes. Uh chairman, chairwoman, sorry. That that ordinance puts the
recommendations of the back to the planning board for outdoor cafes. And I don't know this is the appropriate time, but we say all that's not The scope is what the scope is.
>> Yeah, this I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I'm just used to it. Sorry. >> I need a buzzer over here. >> Go ahead, Mayor. >> So, so I'm sorry. >> You're good. >> So, no, I think I think we need to just keep this to what it is. Um and
essentially as a just a very quick overview um the bureau is looking to tighten up the uh application process uh within the SID for the outdoor cafes because it kind of got a little bit loose. Um it's tightening up the
enforcement a little bit. Um it's tightening up the time frames for applications so that they're in uh in specified time periods so that we have compliance and that we can inspect them correctly. It also allows for an increased width of travel on the
sidewalks. So, we're going from three feet to four four feet. Um, there was great discussion at council about uh uh expanding that even further and I think uh cooler heads prevailed and uh 4 feet is a very appropriate width. Um and it
will give added room to what is already a fairly appropriate width if all the uh uh restaurants would comply. So now we're going to four, which should make it even a little more roomier. So that's kind of the overview. >> And to your comment, Mike, I I do I hear
you, but I do think of, you know, being on the ARB as a member, this is the one that's completely appropriate that needed to come back here. We were looking at some really outofthe box thinking and it's really not fair to put that on an ARB. It really belongs before the planning
board. So this was the very appropriate portion of those outside ARB appro uh reviews and then um I think this definitely uh signs in those can stay for now but I think this definitely um it was they really didn't belong just by
an ARB some of those applications. So any comments from the uh board? >> I just had a couple qu I don't know if they were comments or questions. Um, looking at A, B, and C on page two, um, I think they may just be typos. Um, so A says, "Seasonal applications are due no
later than March 31st annually, and no seasonal cafe shall not have a start date." So, are we saying no seasonal cafe shall have a start date prior to April 1st? >> Yeah, it's double negative. >> That's usually how I talk, but I write
differently than I talk. Um, and then B, I think the second se second sentence in B, do we want to say all furniture must be removed from the cafe area and an off-site location must be provided >> like is is that
>> to offsite an offsite? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, an offsite storage location must be >> or maybe just make a period there. >> Yeah, I think it's >> period after area and make the offsite. Okay. And then for C, I just want to
make sure that makes sense to everybody. Like, is that clear clear enough for enforcement purposes to you guys? >> Well, you know what? Let's go back to that for a second. Why are we requiring that they store furniture offsite? If they can store it on their site and it's
not obtrusive and it's not blocking anything, why are we requiring? >> I think this is leftover language. >> Yes. >> I don't think this was something that was new. I think they pulled this from the existing language. Um >> I think the intent is to it's not supposed to be leaned up against the
>> the building and saying, "Hey, we're storing it." >> You know, you know what it is? I think it was actually the old wooden decks during co >> Yes, >> that's Yeah. >> So, do we want to say an offsite area must be provided if it cannot be stored inside? Like, is that your attention? >> Because to the mayor's point, if they
can get it inside and it's in a place that's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> There's no reason we need to make them find an >> off. Why say anything? I want to say all furniture must be removed from the cafe area. Period. Yes. Period. >> I think I hear you, but I think we need to be clear that that includes a
storage. That was part of that problem is that they were removing it, but then they were putting it into a storage bin >> in that area. Yes. On the sidewalk. >> Off the sidewalk. >> Yeah. So, as long as it says removed from the cafe area. >> Yeah. >> Period. >> Right.
>> How about we just say to include no storage in the cafe area, too? >> Yeah. That covers that all that issue that we had years ago with them. >> So all furniture and furniture storage areas must be removed from >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> furniture. Let me take out the last sentence. And then maybe it was just me and I was reading this too late, but I'm not sure I understood the intention of C. >> So I can go into it. We were there for
this. And then I'll let chime in. Jason, um, this issue came up numerous times for specific restaurants like Dunkin Donuts. Um, >> what was the other one that came? >> Cheese shop where you're not actually serving customers, right? you're not going out like at Alfonso's or at Cafe
Picasso where you're actually serving on the caf in the uh sidewalk. The concern from everybody at that point was once you introduce and allowing them to go closer to the let's say the curb line, now you have waiters, waitresses, weight
staff going back and forth through traffic, pedestrian traffic. >> So we said we didn't want to restrict it completely, but we wanted to say it's only appropriate for those that don't have that. It's basically self-seing areas like a Dunkin Donuts, the cheese shop, you know, you buy something. Yeah.
You buy something and then you're going to go sit outside. >> Um, so we're restricting it to those CA type cases only. So they can't be no weight service and they can't be serving alcohol. >> Okay. All right. So if the there's an application where they want to put it
adjacent to the roadway, that's fine as long as you don't have any weight service or alcohol >> and or alcohol. Yep. >> If it's immediately adjacent to the building, it doesn't matter. You can have whatever whatever you need. >> However, in both cases, I got it. Okay. >> Yep. >> Fine.
>> Question. >> Only within front of their building. >> No, it unless they have an agreement with the uh adjacent property owner. So, there are a number of restaurants that do that. They at night they creep because those businesses close and they creep across.
>> So, like in this case, Absolutely. >> Yes. >> On the application and then it comes back to us for approval. >> Yeah. And the current process Yeah. The current process with that is that it would go to the ARB with proof that they have um permission from the existing
build other buildings. >> So the same would happen here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Agreed. >> Any other comments from the board? >> Okay. >> A motion to send it back to council with
those changes. >> So, those would be the recommendations and otherwise it's consistent with the master plan based upon. >> Yeah. Second. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Edex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> William Bell, >> yes. >> Jason Kroska, >> yes.
>> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. Yes. Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. Yes. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> All right. Next. Ordinance 2777, amendment to chapter 10269, land use checklist. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. 10269 is a checklist
for all land use applications. It's a general checklist. You have a minor site plan major, but all applicants and going to any board needs to do the the checklist of 10269. This adds a a paragraph that says anything that's
substantial and it's defined as 5,000 square feet or more needs to go to the council for the council to weigh in whether they have to be designated redeveloper or waved or whatever the council wants to do. Now, this language
we got a uh the redevelopment attorney Chris sent an email saying he would like the language slightly tweaked. So, I'm just going to read it to you. Not much. Just uh he says that he would like the language from shall be designated redeveloper by the
burough council to to be rechanged to shall require a redeveloper designation by burough council. So that one little tweak in the language that clarifies what's going on. So in summary, all this does is you can't be
deemed complete until the application goes to council and council makes a determination how this is going to proceed whether they have to be designated there are or it can be waved by the council. Once that's done they will fulfill that checklist item but
they it's a checklist for the history. Real quickly, in the past, we've done the burough has done this on the back end, conditioned approvals about redevelopment designation and redevelopment agreement. Isn't that correct, Colin? >> Yep. >> So, this just puts it up front a little
bit to get some of that housekeeping out of the way up front. >> Yeah. >> Any comment from the board, concerns, questions? >> And this was introduced by the burough council at our last. >> Yep. So we can send this uh I don't think with with those amendments
we would uh and I think this is definitely in line with our master plan. So >> So moved. >> So move with the amendments. Okay. >> With the amendments with Chris's email. >> Yeah. With Chris's amendments. >> Okay. >> Great. >> Andrea Dair. >> Chris Edex. Yes. Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Bill Kale. Yes.
>> Jason Kraco. Yes. >> John Manilio or Barry Van Horn? >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. Person Warner. >> Yes. Okay. >> Gotta love agendas where you got to flip a page.
>> All right. >> The next one, uh, ordinance 2779. This is the inclusionary ordinance that was drafted this board saw in June. Uh, the statute allows
uh the bureau to get all the enabling ordinances in place by March of 2026. So that's why it was drafted in June. It wasn't required. This just adopts it. The only change is some of the language up front was more flexibility. The one
paragraph was changed from what the board saw in June. Other than that, it's identical. It allows it basically puts an overlay zone on the whole burrow. I look as inclusionary being it's the same thing. Overlay inclusionary. What you're
doing is saying any development application that produces five or more uh dwelling units has an affordable obligation throughout the town. It doesn't matter where you are. It's overlay on the whole burrow. So I I I
don't know how you can go wrong with that because you're treating everyone the same. >> Everyone the same. >> And we're saying we don't know where the development's going to be, but where it is, we're going to capture that affordable housing. So this just gets the from a draft to the ordinance on the
books. This is so the planning board knows the development fee ordinance which is the percentage you have to pay if you're not doing let's say you're doing three uh four bedroomedroom apartment building or something not four bed four units you're under five development fee ordinance says that you
have to pay a percentage of the equalized assessed value into the affordable housing fund that will be used for rehab and so forth. So the burrow is already capturing any any development that's under the five to 20%. So that's already on the books. So
this is the other side that captures everything the small developments and now the larger developments. These two ordinances capture it. >> And to confirm this is an overlay zone that's going over the entire burrow. >> Yes. >> Correct. Just want to make sure which is inclusionary but it says overlay too.
It's the same very I just want to make sure that's very clear. comments, questions from the board. >> Okay. Um I think well it's definitely in line with our housing plan and our master plan so I would propose to push it forward.
>> Yep. So moved. >> Second. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Bill Kale. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraca. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Person Warner. >> Yes.
>> All right. B5. Mike. >> Okay. Um, we last left the last planning board meeting that we were going to look the board was going to look into allowing or entertaining educational facilities in the B5 which is basically along the highways. It's the strip
center to allow infill to give more flexibility. So what you see in front of you is the NIC NIC classifications for the various entities that are involved with educational
facilities. So you have the elementary and secondary schools obviously is inappropriate. Uh the ed uh the technical trade schools maybe if you look at the definitions. So these are the the codes that should the
board want to recommend it would be one of these or all of them or none of them. So AI look at college universities professional schools that may be too small space uh for some of the strip centers we have the bureau has but uh
that's something that you see the definition descriptions are in here. Uh the computer training absolutely professional management and development training that could be small scale in my opinion. Uh the fine arts school that can be small scale too. So the only thing that screams at me that might be
inappropriate is >> the first two. >> The first one the first two correct the first two um is that's my two cents on it. >> All right. Open it for board comment. So, so we already have I mean, if you
look at Immaculata High School, they're essentially on the highway. >> They're they're in a an R zone. They're not in the >> their address zone. >> It is. Okay. >> It's an R zone >> because they front the the the ramp on
to 22. >> It's Mountain Avenue there is our zone. >> Okay. All right. Um, >> yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I just what I'm what I'm projecting is if there's an expansion of
the school at some point. Not that I >> not that I know they are. I it just I'm looking at it saying if they expand and they go onto their parking into their parking lot, whatever, >> and that would our zone be covered. So, we wouldn't be restricted >> because this is only for the B5. Yep. >> Okay. Right.
So, just for the board's edification, there is a C2 that got a used variance about 10 years ago next to the B Kitty Academy right near the Hes gas station. >> Okay. That there's a C2 in there that got a used variance. I'm going to say 10
years ago. And I think that's really like an educational support services. If you look at the 710, it's the >> Yeah, I don't think it falls under elementary or secondary. I don't think it falls under college universities or professional schools >> but I think it would fall in the other
category. So in the last 20 years >> the burough has seen one educational facility get a use variance and I'm just telling you what it is. It's too >> that I think the intent is to try to avoid those types of applications.
>> They add flexibility. So >> wouldn't the wouldn't the education part of it be you call it ancillary to the primary of that school is that it's a daycare center? >> It's an extra >> school part of it is >> yeah totally different use. >> Yeah.
>> That building has three or four tenants. The one on the west end is the daycare. The one on the far north >> the north end is the C2 education. Okay. >> To answer your question. Yes.
No other comments, questions. All right. I agree with you, Mike. I I would like it um to remove the first two. I don't think they're appropriate in that B5 zone, but I think the others allow a lot of flexibility to open up
um specifically. I know there's not really one for AI, right? But I think out of all the remaining one, two, three, four, five definitely can it can fit in there. >> Okay. >> With no problem. >> We can certainly make that recommendation. Just so the board's
aware of the majority of the codes in the burough ordinance, schedule A or SIC codes, standard industrial classification codes, but they've been phased out since ' 87. So sort of reinventing the wheel, it says in the ordinance on the schedule A as currently
defined in the current N So, as this gets mended, the new code goes in. So, you'll see some that has three digits that are SIC and then you'll see should the council agree with this, you'll see the four, five, six
digit NICS codes. I'm just giving you the background as we update to the update. >> What's going on here? Oh, >> SIC, you're using NICS. What are we doing? The long and short of it is this save the expense and doing the whole thing over again. We're doing it over
again as it goes and it clarifies that the zoning officer is using the current NIC AICS code for determining the use then and doing the cross back to NI SIC code to to handle the situation.
>> And then one last thing for the board, you know, we did say we're re looking at all zoning. So, in this zone, was there anything that you saw that you wanted removed? Because we can check this zone off now. >> Wow.
>> Okay. All right. There we go. >> Okay. >> Do we need to >> We need a motion. >> Motion. >> Yeah, we need a motion. >> We'll make a motion to send that recommendation up to council for the B5 zip district. >> Second. >> Andrew Dair.
>> Chris Edex. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. Bill Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Grasca, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> All right. So, now we're up to our re-exam and amendment of the ECBD, which
is our Eastern Central Business District. Um, this is where we have been tasked with reviewing this specific redevelopment plan. Um I know Mike has some portions that we're going to look at and then we'll go into further detail as a whole on this um redevelopment plan
afterwards. So go ahead. >> Thank you. Um what the members have is the concept plan that the board saw June Colin is it June >> somewhere. >> Okay. Uh and basically the concept plan
had reduced the scale of the my understanding the original drawing. Uh you have it was in the email. Uh I went through the ECBD. I don't think you have it in a hard hard copy, but you had >> it was in our email though.
>> I can certainly what I basically did is I went through the stuff that I know is going to need to be tweaked for the ECBD. There were basically setbacks on from veterans buffers onto the P zone. And I can read
that down. The one thing that I I to spend time with should the board is the height. >> Um I had said I had reduced the height to 60 feet and from looking at it there's a there's
a something going on with the the uh elevations. The the set you have doesn't have the C8 which the set I have I think from June does. I'm sorry it's A8. and it lists the total height is 58.5
ft. You don't have this. This is the one sheet that's not I don't know why it's not in the packages, but uh if you want to pass this, it just gives you the elevations. I don't I think 60 feet is
too low. Uh if it's 58, I'm not comfortable at at 60. I was recommending 60. Uh there's a parapit. I I think in in reality it should be 67 feet or so to get it down based on this. Again, we
don't have finalized plans. So I'll I'll whip through comments. >> Just I'm just want to make sure I'm understanding. You're saying changing it from 61 to 67 based on your current recommendation as your maximum. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that I
was understood. charge was to look at the concept plan and come up with what needs to be changed on the concept plan. So, I went through it and it's in your package, but uh number one comment, I'm just going to read it to you since you don't have the
hard copy of the paper in front of you. Uh there is a requirement for a transition zone, the PO, which is along Hamilton Street. Those properties are in the PO zone. uh the south corner of the building is located within 40 feet of
the P zone. Okay, that is saying that the height. So this the solution to that is to uh with the exception what I I know we're looking at the ECBD. We're going to be looking at it for the
content style and for the area. I'm proposing that we handle these changes as an addendum so I don't have to go in the report multiple times. Just slap it to the end as an addendum and list specific lots and blocks that this is
applicable to. I think that's the easiest way of handling this without ripping through the whole plan which we're going to do anyway. >> Right. So that was leading me to one of my comments which you and I have spoken about is that I really feel like this area needs to be peeled off from the
whole plan so that it still allows us time um which we're going to discuss after this to go through the rest of the ECBD in detail because it this is appropriate for this area but it might not be appropriate for the rest of and we want to make sure we get that right
as a whole and we're not just doing this because this is all we have in front of us right now. So >> yeah, the actual language is the death of the buffer shall be not less than 25 feet or one foot for each foot of building height of the portion of buildings or buildings located within
100 ft of the EPR. It's the PR zone. This project does not comply with that. So all I said it was with the exception developments and I list the lot and blocks which just says that this >> it's appropriate in this area but maybe not others right now. So the plan is to
make an addendum and list the lots and blocks for this and come up and pointedly say it's not applicable and the reasons why to make it clear in an addendum. Uh I was uh Colin I >> makes that that makes a lot of sense. Yeah,
>> it's makes a lot of sense >> so we can all get our head around if I start going in the redevelopment plan because this project's in two overlay zones. >> What about this one or what about this one? start doing this stuff and it's easy to miss if we just make an addendum to list the lots and blocks.
>> Yeah. >> This is applicable. I think we can it's much easier for everyone to follow. >> So, yeah. And that because this also has concept approval from both the council and and the planning board. >> Yes. >> So, yeah. So, we're splitting it off and and it's in a different phase of development.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Then it's the height. changing. What was the concern? >> The the concern is we don't know the actual height because the actual plans aren't here. So
there's two concerns with the height is technically the decks the parking decks are counted as stories. I'm trying to get away from that because it's confusing what's a story and what's not. So I took the story out and said a maximum height
>> overall height >> overall height of 60 feet. If you look at these plans the concern I have was was I accounting for the am I covering am I capturing this with the height reduction and I'm looking at that one
set plans it's 58.8 which to me I'm not comfortable. >> But that didn't include the parapit either. did include the parapit >> and I would like to have more wiggle room than 60. >> So we're going just to make sure we're all clear, we're going from the original was 75 ft. Then you said 60, now you're
asking to go up to 67. >> I'm saying yes. >> To cover any >> cover and to take the story out of the definition, list the maximum. I I don't want to get involved in stories because because of the parking decks. You have parking decks that >> No. And I think that's one lesson we learned in a lot of the redevelopment
areas is that we when we were using the stories, it was we were actually constraining a lot of um design elements. >> Um I like it better where it's just an overall height that we're looking for. >> Yes. >> Or height restriction I should say.
>> It's aesthetics and is it appropriate in that area? Yeah, we so if if in your packet you'll see uh the both the council and the board had gone through and felt that the massing of the building was too large for that corner. When you come around off of gas and you're coming down east main or the
other way, it was just too imposing. So the uh uh the project said, "Okay, let's let us go back and take a look at it." They actually brought it down a story. So I'm assuming on on their initial when they were at the 70 ft that didn't include the parapit either. So that's what I would assume.
>> I don't think so. Yes. >> So, so it is aesthetics but it's but it's also density and massing. So, it's a little bit of everything. >> And this height calculation would include. >> Yeah. I would like to as abundance of caution include the parapit so it's not
into an issue whether parapit is the over height. >> Well, taking out the stories I think we have to clarify that because it's it is truly the overall height. So that the highest point of that building no matter where it is and even if it's only in one spot inclusive >> include it or exclude it whatever you
>> inclusive of design fed. Yes, >> it should be I said that the proposed the height regarding the number of stories I said regardless of number of stories. I clarified that as a height regardless of stories so we don't have to deal with that but I think 60 feet is too low is what I'm basically saying
>> and I am I'm comfortable going to the 67 but I do like I think we do need to clarify that that is for any design finishes anything it doesn't so the highest point of the building no matter what it is whether it's a story whether it's a parapit whether it's I don't know a steeple on top it doesn't matter the
highest you're allowed is 67 feet >> I will clarify that in the next revision. >> Okay. >> Which says that we're clear, we're crystal clear on how we're doing this height. >> Uh, as Cara knows, my concern is a story is a C variance DVHC, but a height if
it's more than 10% is a D and the board can't hear. So, this is one thing that >> we got to get within 10%. So, so M, so Mike, and on this one, these guys, Engineers Row, just brought this up. >> Um, on the bottom iteration of this, it
has a It says building height 69.17 ft. That's exclusive. It looks like it's exclusive of the parade you on there. >> That's the old That was the original. >> Oh, that's that's the original. >> That's the original. And then remember, they came with the new proposed was on top.
>> Yeah, this is this right here. That's No, that's these are the This is the new one. >> Yeah, this is just the west elevation >> page we're looking at. >> It's there's three levels. >> No, we don't have that sheet. It's not in your package reason. It's only in the
package that's curled >> that I think came from the original meeting. I think the email of the PDF brought up didn't have that page because that's what Ryan, you don't have that >> submitt digitally. That is I think from the original concept plan that I kept on
the desk. Uh, >> so if it's 69.17, we just we still don't know whether that's inclusive of the parapit or not. >> Well, >> well, they have it as bulkhead. >> So top of roof deck and then they have up to the bulkhead which is >> Oh, dear God.
>> Within within 10%. I'm good with that, uh, mayor because it's the board can hear it. If it's 69 and we said 67, as long as it's not 75, yeah, >> we're good because then it'll be a deviation from two feet maybe. Does that matter where it's at?
>> No. So if the building is because isn't the back end of the building at a lower grade than the front end of the building? >> Well, what's the front? What's the back? >> Well, from main Okay, so Main Street is at a higher grade >> than the back side where you pull in the
parking deck >> is lower. It's the average grade plane if you look at that plan. And the average grade plane by definition is the average elevation around the facility. If you look on that one curled up one, you'll see a dash line that they say the
average grade plane and that's what they're measuring the height from. >> I see it. Yeah. >> Okay. You see the average plane? So I don't if you look at the average grade plane, >> it says it's 58 and then the parapit's an extra six feet. So you're up to 64
65. If the board's not comfort, I'm saying if it's 70 and we say 67, the board does it's not a problem, right? It would be a deviation or a C variance, but it doesn't stop the works. Okay. As long as within 10% we're comfortable with 70.
>> Yeah. And the reality is as as the project goes forward and Mike and I had this conversation, Mike's raising the flag saying, "Look, the caveat is as as plans come in, we may have to make some, you know, the the planning board may have to recommend
some changes to council in order for the uh for the project to be compliant." >> And when >> Well, yes, at that point, they would have to come in with a site plan, and there would be variances on there that we would have to review, >> right? We're doing the best we can based on our concept and understanding of what
we're looking for with no actual physical dimensions given to us as a fin as an actual even preliminary site plan. >> For example, in schedule B there's a requirement in one of the zones close for area of the residential can't be more than 80 or 90%. I can't calculate
that right now because I don't have the square footages and the deck does the parking garage doesn't count. So that's the retail versus the apartments. It's It's very high, but if we exceed that, it's a problem that has to be amended. But I I don't have the information.
>> Yep. >> So before someone gives me stink eye in five months, why didn't you catch this, Cole? I'm just telling >> which is has been a concern and one of the reasons we're going to peel this off because we're going to do this and do these amendments to this area based on
full concept thought processes, no actual facts. And if that ends up being and not not catching everything now, there's nothing we can do about that. >> Right. >> And and us here on the board looking at it saying this is what we would
recommend. >> Right. >> So thoughts on the 67? >> The board be comfortable with 70? Just make it 70. >> What was it current what is it currently again? >> 75. >> I got all my numbers mixed up and jumbled in my head. 75. I'd be I'll be
honest looking at some of these concepts I I'd be feel more comfortable if we went to 70 in this area. Again, this is specifically because I'm not comfortable with that in other areas. So that is specifically for this area. Specific area of the EC >> not to exceed 70 inclusive of
>> Yes. >> parapet and all fenestrations. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> What's the speed limit on the highway? >> No. No. On the highway, >> depends. >> Depends which highway you're on. >> Depends which highway you're doing. 65,
>> but what do you drive? 70 75. When do you get a ticket? 78. So, what do you drive? 75. >> So, if we raise this to 70, they're going to go to 69.5, which is 5T more than we've already agreed to. >> No, based on that's what I'm saying.
Based on these concept drawings, they proposed 69.7. And that's what we saw in the and that's why I'm allow I think we're okay because that's what we saw in front of us. >> I'm just concerned that if we raise it, they're going to go to that raise >> there and that's what we already saw and
said was acceptable. If it wasn't, I would agree with you, Larry. But when we looked at that concept plan, we were looking at around 70 ft. They reduced it from um whatever it was before 75 >> um and just that even I know five feet
doesn't sound like a lot but it was enough that definitely change the look in in the of that >> the story. >> Yeah. And again the addendum is going to be for lots and blocks. So it's specific for this concept plan as opposed to
anywhere else in the ECBD. We'll try to narrowly define why they're being >> I'm fine with the 70day. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And just so everybody's clear, it was like 58.5 where they were saying building height,
right? So it is glad I'm glad we're going because then including the overall bulkhead which they didn't include in the building height. Now you're at just under 70. So I think that's where we have to say very clearly that overall it's not building height as they're
classifying it. Our new building height means even your decorative finish of anything. >> Yes. So we can clarify that >> you can pass that. >> Next uh comment was there is a setback from Veterans Memorial Drive that this
project doesn't meet. Uh the setback is uh is 10 feet. The setback on the concept plans is four feet and four feet and change. So I had proposed
>> not overall in sections >> in sections correct not overall but the setback from veterans memorial along the curve essentially there is it's closer so I had said a minimum two feet setback
but with the caveat was I don't have the sight lens it doesn't exceed the sight lance when you go through a curve you have to be able to see on the inside on a curve veterans memorial is curved there where it hits East Main Street. So I just said two feet and and not impede
sight line of motorists traveling the vets either direction >> because we don't have that information. >> No, but I think that's enough of a catchall for now that all we can give. >> Yes. >> Is that enough for the sidewalk coming? >> The sidewalk's in the rightway. >> Yeah.
>> Doesn't impact the sidewalk. It's a actual structure. It's not going to meet 10 foot setback. If you look in the curve, you'll see where that structure is. I want to make sure that the site lands work so you're not having a traffic hazard. You can't see enough,
>> which was something that was brought up during the concept review. So, I it's appropriate to make sure that it's clarified in the redevelopment plan. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> It was brought up by numerous members, I remember. So, let's make sure that that is in there. >> It's a state highway. So we really have
no we we can make and a request but it is not our roadway. >> Yeah. Yeah, I don't I don't ever foresee New Jersey Department of Transportation approving that with the proximity to her point of the Gaston Avenue one. Um I know nothing's ever impossible, but
unfortunately we all know how DOT is and that's most likely a um as close to impossible as we possibly get. It >> it's a it's a good comment and I like the idea of thinking forward. One of the discussions we had with them was how do you increase pedestrian safety in that
area because of the accessibility to the tennis courts, the pickle ball courts, the ball field and the greenway trail. Um and I think that's something at site plan that we can we can begin to address. a little bit more whether it's markings, lightings, crosswalk, uh,
signals, um, because you have this great intersection of kids and and pedestrians in that area between the two park lines. So, it's it's good thinking. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's good. >> The board like I could beef that up
because site plan should be we talked about the intersection brought up east main the sight line I had mentioned on vets but we could have a catchall that the sightelands throughout the project have to comply so that to address any obstructions anywhere on the project
that it has to comply so we can add a sentence saying the site lands and list veterans intersection of east mine and veterans wrapping around even intersection of Hamilton Does it say at all >> that the project cannot impede sight
lands so it's safe for motorists and pedestrians? >> Yes. >> It should be anyway. But I know again this was specifically brought up during this concept review. >> Right. >> And the the ideas the areas I didn't
touch I just said in the end is the bedroom sizes which I don't know because we don't have that specific GFA which we discussed. Uh and then whether or not The plan does talk about meaning if the bureau has an obligation all the redevelopment plans say if the bureau
has an affordable housing obligation the applicant has it since we're here I don't know if you want to further the board would like to further clarify that saying uh this applicant on these lots has to abide by the fair share plan the
bur just say be clear it doesn't state that >> is is it in the existing no it's not in the existing redevelopment plan is it it's broad overview. >> It's a broad statement. >> Yeah. Then yes, I think the answer to that is yes. That that uh this >> right >> will comply
>> and that must comply >> in my opinion is consistent with >> everything else that we're looking at our master plan, our affordable our housing plan. We need these plans to be consistent with overall. >> So I'll added in the addendum that this
any development on these lots has to comply with the burough's housing element and Yes. Period. >> Nothing specific. >> Just have to comply right now. We'll look at this with the different plans,
but basically the language goes back 20 years ago. It says uh if the bureau gets an obligation, the developer has to address it, but doesn't 20 years ago, guys. >> We just did something about this an hour
ago. That's that's the ordinance that allows for the uh the the 20% rule. >> So it applies to applies to everybody. >> Yes. >> All the time. >> No matter who it is, >> but there's nothing wrong with putting it in twice. >> No. No. That's what I'm saying. But that's the
>> Yes. Exactly. Yeah. >> Because it'll also show you're not exempt, right? Yes. >> Because a lot of times that's what happens. They're like, "Oh, we thought redevelopment was exempt from that even though we have it applicable to the entire burrow." this will be very clear that they're not
exempt. >> So I will add that in the addendum uh that that that language on the fair share plan the obligation. >> Yep. Okay.
>> Okay. Any other recommendations that you had specifically in this one area? >> No. >> Any other thoughts for this area from the board? concerns. >> Talk about >> sighteline issues. You're talking about about the building spaces that are two
or three feet from the property line. >> For them to fix that, they'd have to truncate that those apartments. No, what I'm what I'm basically saying, Larry, is the building is within a few feet of the rightway. And you can see that you're right. Page 811, you'll see
how close the building is on that small location on 811. It shows you I'm on 81. >> I'm looking at the overview on page 11 of 13. That just shows it right. >> This one. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> That shows the corners that go very close to the sidewalk. That's what we're talking about. >> In order for them to fix those, they have to potentially move the building, make the apartments smaller. >> Yeah, Larry, the point being the question is, is it appropriate to have
the building within, let's say, two or three feet of the rideway? And if the council and the planning board likes the plan, then it becomes a sighteline public safety issue. Can you see? Can people walk? Is there any kind of we're
going to have a dark area where people are walking and you have a an area where you don't have illumination because the building's on top of the road? Those type of things. So that's what I'm trying to get at the addendum saying that if the board's comfortable with this, you can do it as long as you're
meeting the public safety issues. Sight land, lighting, the sidewalk. That's where I'm coming from. It screams it's very close, right? Typically, you don't have developments within two feet of the rightway, but in
this application, given the Veterans Memorial, if it's appropriate, it's appropriate. You just got to make sure it's safe. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments? >> So, procedurally, since we're peeling this off,
uh, next steps, Carol? So next step at this point um would be to and just so I'm understanding the the peeling off concept. We're basically just going to take this one section and
create a separate portion of plan. I don't think we have a choice. Yes, because we want I I'm not comfortable and I don't know how the other other board members feel, but I know I'm not comfortable that we have truly look at looked at the entire ECBD. we've been
very focused on this area and I don't want to miss this opportunity. So that thought process was can we section this off and that's what I'm saying procedurally how do we do that where this piece can move forward where we can still look at the rest of the ECBD. >> Okay. Well, we'd have to take it out of
the ECBD. I mean we talk to redevelopment council of course and make sure from a procedural standpoint it would have to come out of that area and essentially either >> I don't know that it can so So maybe it's it's
>> so so here >> it's >> really a phased process. >> Well that's and that's kind of what it is because because this project is already in motion. Uh there is not another project that's in motion uh in that district. So we
want to be able to take a look at the rest of the district but we have to make some changes within within the redevelopment plan for this to allow this to continue that forward momentum. Um, Colin, you got anything out of Chris Angara? >> Can I finish one really quick?
>> I do, actually. >> I thought that we could do an amendment. So, this is really just one piece of an amendment, but it doesn't close out the re-exam. We can't. That's what I'm asking. >> That's what we did at 40 Hannes. It was in 50 Kirby redevelopment plan. We did
an addendum to allow the density to be higher because they were higher. So, we didn't redo the whole plan. it was a sightsp specific requirements for that one lot in that case 50 40 Hanes >> and what I've also seen is creating
districts within the plan so kind of subsections subdist areas um that can have different requirements than other portions of the plan because again when you've looked at the area and determined it was an area in need of redevelopment you looked at
it as a whole and that determination was made as a taking each one of those lots and parcels into effect. You created the plan around that designation and that finding and now like you said there's a certain portion of it that's proceeding
in a certain fashion and you want to um look at those particular areas in order to allow that certain portion of the project to to continue. >> Yeah. And and to that point really quick, I just want to clarify it. It's >> I kind of like the idea that, you know,
district or something because >> that's kind of my point. >> You look at what we're doing down there, my my opinion, and again, this is my opinion as a planning board member. I'm not comfortable with that all the way up East Main Street. And I think that's
what we've been tasked to look at. So, however we can do that is what I think, >> and I don't want to speak for the whole board. I'm speaking for myself right now. That is and then the board I'm asking for you all to chime in to say how can we do that in this area but then
we're going to continue to look at the rest to say it might not be what's down here. >> Well, and I think a subd district or something along those lines or it could just be as simple as on these blocks and lots these are the density these are the heights these are the requirements. >> So >> and then that amendment is changed and then you continue to look at the
>> so that amendment with those details could move forward and then we can still look. So, so Colin's had discussion with redevelopment council on this. Colin, you want to talk to that? >> Thanks, ma'am. We've got an example that we've already done some years ago, but I spoke to Zingara and he said we can
amend the plan by block and lot. And that's what >> that's what you just said. Yes. >> It's just it's as simple as that. It's a simple amendment to the plan for those blocks and lots. And that's exactly what we did when we added the north side of
Main Street. >> It's an amendment to the West Main Street redevelopment plan. So, we've already established a precedent essentially that we can amend plans um without getting into districts or anything else. You just state the bulk
standards for those particular blocks and lots. >> That's probably the easiest way to go. That's how Mike has it listed right now in this recommendation. So, if that's what we're doing, then what's this? >> Yeah. I just want our on record, our board attorney giving us that
recommendation. Yeah, that's what I'm looking for. >> What I did is I gave you the commentary. You saw what the language is. >> Green is commentary and red's proposed change. If the board's comfortable that I would just do an addendum, work with Cara and just give you don't need a
commentary. just say what the bulk standards are >> for these lots and blocks and I think it would be helpful if we attach >> to facilitate this. The whole intent of this is to do this. Yes. >> Somehow we can get a small diagram something in this. So this is what this
is trying to facilitate for a dendum. >> Yeah. Because the board has seen a concept of a proposal and as a result of that this amendment >> right >> is being assisted to help facilitate that. So the next step would be in my opinion list this list on
this common set. Forget the commentary. Yeah. >> List the bulk standards that we know of. Obviously GFA stuff we know. Put the affordable housing. Show a picture of it. >> And you and I have done that dialogue. Anyhow, when we first wrote it included
affordable housing, a lot of other stuff. So if I may just continue a little bit and and really you make a recommendation to the council to amend the plan by ordinance. >> Amended amended by ordinance to make
these changes with regard to these particular blocks and lots. >> Yeah. >> As the board continues to look further at other blocks and lots within >> Yeah. >> the area. >> Yes. >> In reality, the addendum as to what we're speaking is going to be a couple
of pages. two, three, four pages. It's not 40 pages. It's gonna >> list it intro what we're trying to do. >> You're not changing any uses. You're not changing findings. You're not changing anything. You're not removing lots and blocks. You're not adding lots and blocks. You're just amending.
>> No, because under the current direction, we're not allowed, we can't add anything right now. >> Okay. >> Um, so I guess also procedurally a requment required for a public hearing. >> Is this amend Well, Now it would just be a recommendation back to council.
>> Okay. >> Okay. And then they would have to amend the plan which would then have to come here for review. >> Okay. >> Um and then it would consistent. Yeah. You wouldn't really actually even need a it would be like any other ordinance.
>> Okay. I just want I'm just trying to figure out timelines here. >> But we do have a an public hearing for >> a public hearing for consideration by the board. Yes. for consistency with your master plan because it would be like any it's a it's a change to the
redevelopment plan which is essentially an ordinance which comes here the same way any other ordinance. >> Yes. >> And but I guess I still don't have an answer to my question. Are we required to do public or is that taken care of at the council level for the public?
>> It's taken care of at council level. Have to consider and do the consistency finding the same way we did four times tonight at a public hearing. But the public hearing is not to hear the public. That is what happens at the council level. >> Okay. That's what I just wanted because
we right our timelines that Colin and I worked on there's a lot of details that got missed. >> So I'm just trying to clarify our timelines of what's required on this moving forward before so there's no surprises. The these are the next steps that have to happen. >> I mean it's really it's technically the
same thing because I know how you usually operate. usually like to have, you know, whatever commentary there may be if necessary, >> but I'm more worried about that public noticing time, all that other that's more what I get concerned. >> We had when we were doing the public hearing on the actual designation of the
area and the findings, that's a totally different story. That's when we needed double publication. We needed completely different not what we're talking about here. >> Okay. So I can work with carara and give you a two threepage addendum with the map.
Planning board likes what they see then it'll be kicked off the council for recom for consideration. >> There's a timing consideration here and you've got two meetings to get an
ordinance in. You've got two meetings in December. So if everything If everything was perfect, the ordinance would be ready to be introduced on December 1st. There's no more planning board meetings before.
>> Nope. >> So, it either gets booted to next year, which means you hear February or we try and work out a way getting it done this year. >> Well, we don't have to boot anything. We still have it still has to come back
here for a final. So, we're not at this point ready to move it to council anyway. We can now at our next meeting, our final meeting, we can do that final review and then we can make the recommendation at that meeting >> which would be your second meeting in November.
>> No, we do not. We only we're down to one meeting in November, one meeting in December. >> All right. So, so then everything would have to happen to to Colin's point next year because council can't introduce an ordinance in one year and adopt it the second year to follow. can do it,
>> but they're not introduced. They wouldn't >> introduce it on the first comes back to you for the 10th, which is your last meeting. Then if everything's copet, it goes back for the 15th for adoption. >> Okay. That means everybody here has to
be comfortable. We're not going to see a final draft. It's going right to council. >> No, you will see a final draft between introduction and adoption. >> Yeah, >> it'll be at our meet this meeting. meeting the planning of board meeting in December.
>> I guess what could happen is if the change I mean we since we don't have another meeting in November because this is our only meeting between now and a date certain could get final draft done and everybody have enough time to look at it
>> prior to the December 10th meeting. >> I mean that's the only other option. >> That's what I'm saying. in order for it to go back to council because this has to go back to council. That means the recommendation has to happen tonight. Not looking at any new draft or anything. >> All right. So, so is is is there an
impetus to do it before January 1. You know, I we're we're killing ourselves here with this conversation. >> That's what I'm that's what I was trying to say. And I'd like to I'd like to clarify. >> So, let's let's just go on our path. We already know the path. Mike, you get it to the planning board. Once the planning
board makes the recommendation, then the council will take it up in due course. Done. >> As the chair, we will see hear it at the December 10th. That will be the next time we see this. It is not going to council from this point on. We will hear it back again for final draft of this
portion on December 10th. >> It'll be clear. I'll work with car >> and everyone's comfortable. There's no other with what's been talked about with regard to height. No, but I think that's why we all need to see this final draft of what will be peeled off and made final recommendation
back to council. >> What you'll see is the addendum >> addended addendum >> with addendum however we're going to call this with the exact standards with the concept plan. So you have everything in one docket with the language about the 70 including the parapits all around it with the housing element and fair
share of language in that addendum and the sightelines all the language for the board to review. >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Um now but not done with ECBD. So everybody was given a flash drive by Mike. Has everybody been able
to go through the overall ECBD and really take a look at the details of that? No, we're not discussing the rest of that tonight. I just want to make sure that every I just want to make sure that everybody still has that and knows that when you see items here under discussion, that means every meeting we
will be discussing it and it moves it forward to the next meeting and sometimes we can push it off. I mean, or I shouldn't say we can move it to the next step of going to council, but anything under discussion is that full out discussion and until we're in that good spot where we're in the proper spot
where we can now move it back to council, it stays on our agenda. So, I just wanted to make sure everybody's understanding that and that is what's still going to happen with the remaining portions of the ECBD. I I well I I think we need to be a little more clear for the public on that
because when we list it here if if it's being listed and we're not having discussion, we don't want the public coming out and and and not having substantive >> or and having substantive discussion and
vice versa. If we if we don't have it, I I think we need on the agenda to at least tell them and we've done this in the past. No discussion is slated for this other than >> that's what I'm saying, sir. Mayor, the everything under discussion is that
>> but we I we need to articulate that because if we have everything listed, we we could have we could have anybody who's interested in this and all we're doing is giving an update. And I don't I don't know that that's fair to the public to do. I think we have to be clear on whether we're going to be
having significant discussion, significant dialogue on an item or if it's just going to be update from the planner or update from the chair on the status of of what it is because I don't it's I don't want people to have to come out
when they don't have to come out when they could sit home and just get a quick update. You know it to me I I think we just need to be a little bit more >> fair to them to the public. We can get more detailed in the in the actual description I think is where to your point it might say just an update
>> by the planner other than that it will continue on as to Ryan and I can work on language that is that is detailing the fact that it is actual discussion with an open and one of the things I was going to make that I want Ryan to add is
right after before open business is because open business is separate that is just listing something that we might discuss us to say, "Hey, this is where we're still at. We're still because I have a couple questions on the master plan, but we are not discussing the master plan. We're talking procedural issues." I want added uh that the open
these discussion items that are on the agenda because technically anything like that, it is open to the public for them to make a comment. So, I want that separated out because the only thing we have on this agenda open to the public is for items not on the agenda.
And then I think to your point, mayor, more detail in there on >> so that they know prior >> Yeah. >> what what what is truly going to be in discussion >> and and what's just going to be a an overview update of status. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Well, we could say on the agenda actions to be taken, things for discussion. >> Well, you know what? We'll let the chair work that out with with Ryan. I think we I want to be careful because I also don't want to also be misleading to the public. Some discussions lead to some
decisions and I I want the board to have the flexibility for that. We're trying to be more transparent to them to the public. But I also don't want to back ourselves into a corner. We said, "Well, it was only an update. Now we can't talk about it." >> That's going to happen though. It it has to happen. >> But no, no. I'm saying I don't mind
general conversation after an update, but nothing that >> substantive. >> Right. That's what I'm getting at. >> And Maybe it's as simple as saying discussion items are items that will be
subject to and open for public comment. Whereas open business is items that are slated for update to the board and even with an asterisk somewhere that says you know at any time however the board has the ability because you do by law to
make amendments to your agenda. >> Yes. >> You know so and the agenda is only required to to the extent known at the time of the meeting and when the agenda is made public. So maybe if there's a distinction between discussion items and what those are open business which is
what that is you know whether that's not for discussion or whatever the case may be and we can work through that but you know then maybe that segregates the two. >> Yeah. And and the other thing is I also don't want to be misleading to the board members. We have a lot going on right now. We can't keep pushing and kicking
the can on some of these items because we're not ready to discuss it. So that's one of the reasons they need to stay front and center, right? So that's it's that's that give and take right now because you look at we still have the rest of the ECBD to look at. We have a storm water ordinance we still have to
look at. We have a tree ordinance. Those three major items are still front and center for us. They cannot skip meetings. Those discussions have to keep going. So I I hear everybody and I think Ryan and I can work on some of that language so that it's a little clearer
to the public on you know like right now tonight I knew there was in my opinion nothing that was under discussion was meant for an update. It was full out discussion to make sure because we had to send stuff either back to council or have discussions to see where we stood with those. Those aren't updates, right?
>> Yep. >> But and I agree, but and and it says that so like for zoning board to discuss status and review recommendations from board planner um or refer back to council, but storm water ordinance and tree ordinance, we don't we're not telling the public what we're talking
about. >> And I think to your point, that has to be more detailed. Yes. >> Yes. On specifically the tree and the storm water. >> All right. Did we beat that to death? >> I think we did. >> No, we could do a little bit more.
>> Um, and then now on to that stormwater ordinance. So, Mike, can you give us a recap because I know that some members were not here at the last meeting. >> Sure. >> Just a recap of where we are because I want to make sure that we are all still discussing this because again, I cannot stress enough we these timelines of the
stuff that has to get pushed through. We can't keep saying, "Oh, I didn't get to it. I didn't get to it." We need to discuss these items and we need to make sure that we're reviewing them in between meetings. >> Yes. U the D is requiring the bureau to update its
stormwater ordinance. So you have a redline copy that was discussed the last minute was uh I would say the argument not the argument the ordinance right now is 95% consistent with the D model ordinance.
So if the planning board and the council would so choose to make it uh totally consistent with very minor changes and to come up with the definition of major development or keep it the way it was which changed in 2023.
The environmental commission gave a presentation sewing a sign in my opinion a significant change in the ordinance which is permitted under the model. you can go stricter to come up with different scenario minor development and to tweak and modify the definitions of a
major including infiltration and permit fees. So it it really depends uh if the planning board is leaning towards or that we the planning board hasn't had that discussion yet but depending on which direction or or something in
between it could be a significant item for discussion. So I guess I wanted that recap so that everybody here who who has been in attendance and has not been in attendance understands that really for the next the 10th that is an item that should be I want everybody to review
what those red lines were what the recommendations are on that storm water and they should be coming back with comments and questions so that we can continue to move this forward because I don't think there was that understanding after the last meeting of what that task is. So the task is you need to read this
stuff. You need to look at it and it will be on the agenda for the 10th, our last meeting of the year to really have some in-depth conversation and comments, questions, concerns, anything. But we have got to make sure that we're looking at that detail. >> Yeah, that summary table really calls
out the differences between the two and we have the board has not had the discussion on the nuts and bolts. You talked about overflow you and what the model says and the environmental commission gave its presentation and you
have the red line but this body has not discussed what ultimately recommendation the council is going to >> correct. That's correct. And that's that could be literally if you get lucky it's one meeting. There's a lot of unpack in there. >> Yes. It could be two, three meetings in
reality depending on how the board wants to do with the current ordinance. It could be a minor change or it could be a substantial change. >> Yes. Um >> if everyone is and I'm I'm asking for opinion on this. I I know I can make the
decision as the chair, but I would like everybody's opinion. um tree ordinance. I would like to hold off full discussion on that until after the first of the year so that we can continue to focus on the ECBD on the other rest of the area and looking at the storm water. >> I agree. >> So everybody comfortable with that. >> Take them one at a time.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure everybody's okay with that because I think it is way too much to ask all of us or any of us to do that. >> Um so Ryan and I will look work on language for how we're going to list tree ordinance. It's probably going to go right to open business. Okay. and it
would just be maybe an update if needed, but we're not it's not going to be up for full discussion. Doesn't mean we don't have we're not looking at it, you know, behind the scenes, but we're not going to do that discussion till after the first of the year. And if the board have any questions on storm water between now and the next
meeting, please reach out. I could chop this up into different segments to look at or maybe it's just overkill. You want to look at a broad bunch then narrow down. take the 30,000 foot view and then continue 10,000 5,000 to go that
direction. Overview to specifics if that's I think that's the most appropriate way of handling it. what you're trying to accomplish. Number one, the overview. And then once you settle on a policy decisions or recommendations, and then from that policy, you drill down to the actual
language. If that makes any sense to >> as opposed to going to every little detail. We could spend the whole meeting on what's definition of major development and then go through all the nuts and bolts. But I think it's better to start with a policy, what we're
trying to accomplish. >> Yes. >> And then once that polic there's consensus with the board. Then based on that policy, you craft the ordinance to reflect that policy. >> Correct. Yep. Which and to your point, which is why it's not going to be one meeting.
>> That's what I'm getting at. I If we start with policy, that could be one meeting itself, just knocking out policy because the policy. Do you want annual stormware permits to applicants? Yes or no? That >> Let's not Let's not even get it. No.
Let's reb could be quick. It could be >> I I just just want to focus on the fact >> to any issues. >> I want to just focus on the fact of what the task and the charge is for the planning board members for the December 10th meeting. >> Um >> I have a go ahead >> question
people at the environmental commission making themselves available if anybody has questions about their presentation or any of their short sheets. our people can reach out to them. >> So, I think if a board member has a concern or a question, you reach out to
Ryan. Go through Ryan >> and then Ryan and I will talk to see if it's if it's something that maybe we can just get an answer or do they need to come back. All right. But yes, opening that up because you may need clarification on on something that they or maybe looking for some clarification. >> They're more than willing back to answer questions. Very
>> well. And I would think the clarification should come in a public session. It shouldn't be behind the scenes. No, that's what I'm saying. Then Ryan would be >> Ryan would schedule that with the Environmental Commission. Yes. >> Um, all right.
Open business master plan update and review procedurally. Have we received everything back? That's what I thought. So, I'd like to get on record who has not who has not sent back. >> I wouldn't do that to them, chair. I
would suggest that Ryan let me know um offline and then I will approach the chairs. >> Okay. >> And impress upon them that the >> Can we just get a a percentage then? I'd like we need to know where we stand because this is something that has got to continue to charge forward as well.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Don't get into names. Yeah. Yeah. >> No. All right. So about 50%. All right. So, we do have So, what I guess my point is that also I'm trying to get an idea in my head how fast we'd be able to
start discussing. It's not going to happen anytime soon for that, right? Okay. Then, that's really more of what I wanted. We can deal with it behind the scenes on how we get that moved forward, but All right. So, we're not everything's there being able to move forward. All right.
Any other questions as it relates to the master plan? I don't think so. We're just kind of waiting now. Okay. uh architectural review board. We did have 181. Again, this is for uh transparency for you guys and the public. We had uh 181 West Main Street was a sign. I don't
remember what what was this. >> Thank you. The yoga sex. Um it was a very appropriate sign. It was it was no issues. Everybody has that in their packet. I think everybody is about done with all
my comments tonight. So I am going to say I have no more comments. Um I am going to open up the meeting to the public. All members of the public who wish to address the board on any manner not listed on the agenda tonight might do this. So yeah. Okay. There we go. Closing. Now I'm going to open. Now it's closed. There we go. Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I. All opposed.