Law enforcement. No law enforcement. >> Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, September. February. I don't know where I was going with that with September. That's that's wishful thinking. February 11th, 2026 will please come to order. Uh, adequate notice of this
meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall. Two, mailed facts or emailed to the Courier News and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or
comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Andrea there >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here.
>> Tim Hayes >> here. >> Uh Bill Kale >> here. >> Jason Kra >> here. >> John Manilia. Uh Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Council member Vroom >> here. >> Chairperson Warner
>> here. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Okay, I'll forego comments. I have nothing. Uh we have no ARB reviews to look at. uh minutes for January 14th, 2026 and January 28th, 2026. >> So moved. Second.
>> Andrea Dare. >> I can only vote on the 14th because I wasn't here on the 28th. So yes, >> Chris Addex. >> Same as Andrea. I can vote on the 14th, not the 20th. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes.
>> Tim Hayes. >> Yes. >> Bill Kale. Yes. >> Jason Kraca. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Verer. >> Yes.
>> All right. Up first resolution. So this is to amend the resolution for Pops Place 148 East Main Street. And I'll turn it over to Mike and Cara. >> Mike just going to ask Mike to uh put on the record what was discussed uh with regard
to the request of the applicant. Um and then we will discuss amongst ourselves. Uh basically what's required is a amendment to the internal plans of the uh building which were approved by this board. Um construction in accordance
with those plans was a condition of the board's approval. However, back in I want to say 2017 or 20 back in 2019, um the council did adopt an ordinance allowing for um field changes to be
approved um by the board by way of a a committee and then final board approval. So, uh I'll let Mike go through what happened, but once the board votes on that, assuming they vote to amend it accordingly, uh I'll have the resolution done for the next meeting. >> Uh thank you. Real real quickly, the
testimony the board heard from the applicant was he wanted stools only. So that was into the resolution. Well, things have changed and to be u more competitive, he needs some indoor dining. So he's asking for two or three
tables uh to be inside to remove interior wall. So that is where the request came. And why the resolution talks about stools is what the applicant stated. It wasn't the board saying you got to have it this way. This is what the applicant's testimony was and it was
reflected in the resolution. So, he's asking for a couple of tables inside. It's doesn't require parking variance. We have sufficient parking. It doesn't change the exterior of the structure. It's retaining one moving one wall down.
And uh as as Cara has amend mentioned, it's there's some field changes that have to be done on the fence was put up that needs to be addressed. So these changes are I think envisioned and with the amendment for the redevelopment plans to allow field changes. So uh
that's what's in front of you is that amendment. Uh the rest of the issues, this fence, all that will be handled separately. This is just to address the tables, the request of the tables within the existing perimeter. No changes exterior, no footprint changing. It's in
the flood hazard. And I I understand that it's probably going to be going away if another development happens down the road. But so this is what is being asked. >> And Mike, what was the date of that meeting when that discussion was? Do you remember? >> The last meeting we discussed this. >> Yeah. But the it was at the it should be
in the resolution or when it was adopted the discussion of the stools when that was done. >> Yeah. But when when the request and and when the when you became aware that the applicant was looking to make this change. >> Yeah. I think I think Cara's talking if I may. I think Car's talking about the
Thursday meetings that we have. >> It came up I do believe he came in for a construction permit and it came up during zoning review at that time. Okay. uh this is like two or three months ago and it was brought to the four o'clock team meeting to discuss what was being
proposed and uh what flexibility and what the redevelopment plan said to address this. So to answer your question I would say about 3 months ago okay this came up and I think it's reflected in Navalene's zoning denial for when it came in and then subsequent as the mayor had mentioned the team the Thursday's
team meeting had kicked this around about uh looking for flexibility in the resolution. >> Great. Thank you. >> Any comments from the board? >> No, I support it. I'll make the motion. >> I'll second.
>> Andrea Dear, >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> William Kale, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Chairperson Warner,
>> yes. >> Okay. Uh, so under ordinance review, we had two listed on the agenda. Just so uh, for everybody's awareness, the second one, 2784260202 is being pulled. We need to get uh, look at some of those items before that gets back on the agenda for review. Uh so for
the other one, amendment to the redevelopment plan for the East Central Business District redevelopment area. Mike, you want to give go over? >> Thank you. Real quickly, the red is the type that uh the board discussed in November of December of last year uh
that we had a pretty lengthy discussion and out of that meeting came the idea of what is zero setback? Uh give some clarity to people. Zero setback on East Main Street. What does that mean? It means roughly, and that's what the green language says, it's about 14 feet back
from the curb. So, we're talking about a zero step back, you're having a 14oot sidewalk. So, that you'll see that in green uh the text the um and then the trees. Larry had brought up
that I had comments in here about inudation and having the street trees and felt strongly about that. Uh Larry requests additional information about uh not having tiny trees put in and uh beefing that up. So just for the
benefits of the audience, it says the medium diameter of the street trees shall be 6 in diameter DBH diameter. The burough is currently revising the list of approved street trees to be used in special improvement district and throughout the burrow. The approved street trees will be provided to the
interesting developer you know preies once the trees are finalized and at the discretion of the planning board the landscape buffer and behind the properties on Hamilton Street uh the board has discretion whether they want to put uh some reasonable I say reasonable some large trees for a buffer
that that 6-in DBH would extend should the board request it to give a buffer along the properties on Hamilton. Uh so the green is again the changes. The red uh we went over all the red before that's where the 70 70 ft. We got rid of
the stories all that discussion. Uh Tim, I'm sorry this is before you came on, but you'll see the red uh was basically based on the concept plan the board saw I I guess uh summer of last year.
And I just wanted to confirm this is only for those certain blocks and lots. This is not for the entire redevelopment area. Correct. >> Correct. >> And there's some language there. This is the one where we had the the one lot that's out of the flood hazard. It's going to use to access the facility. So
that's some language in here which is in the red. We talked about that saying that's only for staging and for access, not for structure. >> Correct. >> Correct. So the red is what we discussed. The green is what the direction was from the board to amend
it, beef up the red. So that's what you have in front of you is those changes mainly regarding trees and to give an example what a zero foot setback was so that uh it doesn't jump out at some zero
foot. It's actually 14 feet or so back from the curb line. It's the state route 28 and uh so that's where it's coming from. >> Any questions from the board for Mike? >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Um further up the street
where the um Hammond building. >> Yeah. >> Is the building next to the Courier News was in there one time. >> Those steps are out into the sidewalk. Is this going to be a similar thing where it'll just be staircase or it'll be the entire
platform will be 14 >> based on the plans the concept plans that were from last year at the 14 ft is free and clear does not include the steps there's no it's a state riderway
for if this was a normal street to do a projection of private development in normal street would require planning board recommendation and council action so the plans shown shows everything outside the right including steps Larry. So it's right now it's clear free and
clear and that changes that would take a a recommendation from the planning board and it's route 28. So this is it might involve the state but right now everything's free. They have the 14 ft free walking >> and the other asked uh issue I asked
about was is there any way to put additional plantings or potted trees up on that plaza area the elevated area >> I think that comes at site plan. >> Yeah that's that's more sight plan. That's not
>> the this the board felt strongly, Larry, you included, you wanted street trees off vets and you wanted proper trees that are not small diameters and things that were the trees species that would survive a potential wet environment. So
that's what that language is. And we have the benefit of uh Jeff and T- Marie here that whenever this list is finalized, we'll certainly give it out to the uh potential developers for that proof list of trees to be used. Right now the b the burrow and the board has
been used on that case by cases. We but there's a list. This is eventually going to be coming out. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. I have a quick question. Really question.
There is the building the deck is really close to the rightway and vets. So there's all kinds of language saying it's acceptable as long as the sightelands are not impeded back to your point everywhere for pedestrian walking and for motorists and for lighting. So
that's the you'll see red in here talking about that that I I agree with you, Bill, that if you look on his face, you say, "Oh my god, that's what the mayor brought up. Zero foot. What are we doing, guys? Is this is this appropriate having a large structure up against a property line?" So that's where the 14
feet along East Main Street, the intersection of East Main and Vets. We have to make sure the sight lines are clear from all directions from pedestrians and motorists. I'm going up vets on the curve and that the lighting
doesn't give shadows from a building. So it's safe. People feel uh safe that it's not shadowed because of huge structures up against the sidewall. So that's what that language is in there to address those concerns. And then you see the step back on Hamilton Street. That's
because the building uh logs and that jogs in and out. That's why the step back is varying uh from lots and that's why the tree comments put in there to give the board the flexibility that there may be a requirement or a concern of having residential properties there
with this big structure try to soften it down. So that's what the trees were. So the bottom line is the sight lines have to be maintained for everyone and that's why the caveat is you can yes you can have two feet off vets on the curve as
long as the sight line and it's it's the perception it's safe visually from both lighting and pedestrians. >> So is there a sidewalk? >> Yes. >> Yes. The sidewalk along vets it's the sidewalks in the riderway. So you're
going to have a full sidewalk the whole way. We're not take sidewalks are there. The sidewalks will be maintained. It's just a question how close to the the property lines does the structure become. >> So it's sidewalk plus 2 feet. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> The sidewalks on the inside from the it
goes curb. >> Long way to get to that. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> Anybody else? >> All right. So, do we need a motion to send this up to council with these revisions? >> Yes. >> So, I'll make the motion um with the
revisions that we just discussed and the new um green lines in it to send up to council for introduction. >> Second. >> Hey, >> sorry. >> Andrea Dear, >> 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 Werner, >> yes. >> All right. Next up is uh uh item from
our master plan element review is which is going to be the historic preservation committee. And I pretty sure I see the historic committee here. If you want to come up so you can be part of the conversation. Yeah, >> I can get Kevin. I'll give Kevin this
if you want. >> Mike. Mike. Mike. >> Okay, I'm live. >> Yes, you are. >> Okay. Um, good evening. I'm uh Marge Sullivan and I'm here on behalf of
Somerville's historic advisory committee. Uh and um I want to uh also mention that um Mr. Decker, Mr. Phil Decker, our chairman, could not be here uh this
evening because he's out of town. Uh so um I um agreed to uh do this uh discussion this evening and um Mr. Scott Schwitzer our vice chair is here as well
both representing the committee. So I want to thank you all uh for having us come before you this evening. We've we've waited a long time to be heard. And since a number of the people on the planning board have
changed since uh we first began our work on this um historic element, I thought I'd quickly just review uh what the history of it is and uh what we wanted to do with this historic element. Um the
historic advisory committee petitioned uh the planning board to do a revision of the 2019 adopted historical element uh back in 2022. Um Phil Decker and myself uh appeared
before the planning board and Mr. Neado was the chairman at that time and uh we put our case to the board about why we felt that revision was needed. Um during the discussion we uh came to an
agreement that the historic advisory committee would work on uh a revision working with Mr. Cole and uh two members of the planning board committee at that time also agreed to work with us and um
offer advice and assistance as needed. And they were um Al Carestus who I believe is no longer on the board and Mr. Chris addicts who is so um they gave us some initial input and feedback on uh
how to proceed. So um that uh document was actually ready by the end of 2022 but for one reason or another um we were never given a slot at the end of the planning board um meetings. uh since
that time that it needed to be uh updated a couple times to keep it current because life goes on and things happen like the county adopted its own historic element and that wasn't reflected in the revision we initially prepared. So we updated things. Each
time we updated it, we presented it to our full committee uh which is uh 10 persons to uh review, comment on, and vote. So uh it's been seen by our
committee multiple times. Uh and I'm so happy that we're here finally today to get uh your reaction to it. Um the strategy and the process we used preparing this document were that uh we
worked to make sure that Somerville's historic element had the structure recommended for historic elements by sustainable New Jersey which is a group that I believe
the planning board is familiar with. We also added um additional details to the document because we felt the existing uh one was rather thin in that department. Uh our intention in producing the
document was that we wanted to come up with something that was comprehensive and told the story of what the historic resources in the burrow actually are, what the historic um tools the board has
at its disposal to actually uh help uh deal with historic preservation, but also um uh we wanted to make sure it was a a useful resource that they could dip into when they needed. There's a lot of detail in that and nobody expects that
everybody on the planning board would know everything about historic Somerville. Uh after all, uh most people come on the board and maybe don't even have a particular interest in in historic preservation or they're newer
members of the community and they really don't know the long backstory of the burrow. So, it's a it's meant to be an educational uh resource and and something for the pling board to use as a tool going forward.
The bottom line of the historic element are what the goals and um strategies or recommendations are in the document. And uh I've prepared a little
chart which I'll leave with Kevin, but basically we went from the 2019 document which had u sort of a a a loose collection of about five or so uh different stated
goals and we whittleled them down to three. but we added more specific recommendations to what we wanted for those goals. And so I'll just say what the three goals are and then if you want
to you know have this for your reference I will leave it with you. Um the first goal uh was to preserve the historic resources of the burrow and that was in the 2019 plan and we kept that exactly
as it is. Uh but we uh rewarded things a little bit and tried to uh tighten up the language. Uh it was the case that um in 20 the 2019 version the historic
advisory uh committee's role in that uh was not at all mentioned or described. So we added it uh we added a a small paragraph saying what the role of our committee is and how we can be
used to promote the historic uh preservation of things in the bur. The second goal, and this was true in the 2019 element, that um we wanted to promote rehabilitation and investment in
Somerville's unique uh buildings and potential historic areas and the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation was adopted. Um the planning board has
always followed that and so uh we kept that uh we definitely emphasized in our document rehabilitation and reinvestment and uh we combined two of the 2019 uh
recommendations but they're essentially unchanged. And we uh uh retained the wording but it to include um neighborhoods in addition to specific historic structures.
Um and we retain the US Secretary uh of the interior guidelines as the standard. Uh under this section, the ARB does not mention you would never know that it existed in the 2019 document.
So we included a recommendation to guide the design of infill development and redevelopment, enhance the accessibility of architectural review uh committee and design uh guidelines. I mean the bur the burl already uses the ARB for this
purpose uh within the special improvement district and um we recommended that that continue. We also recommended that the planning board should update and make the design guidelines more accessible and expand the role of the architectural review
board to advise on actions that could potentially impact historic sites or in uh or in historic districts or neighborhoods if uh they are so designated. So that was a little bit of an expansion. And then finally goal
three um which is to provide the means for protection of existing historic neighborhoods and areas. Uh local regulations for doing this were described briefly in the 2019 uh
element. We expanded it more and we uh made two recommendations about uh how existing historic areas could be protected and we described those in considerable detail. So that in
a nutshell is the historic element and like I said I'll pass this over to Kevin and he can send it to you. Um and that what I have to say by way of introduction. If you
have any specific questions, I'll try to answer them. >> Thank you. Um, any board members have specific questions? >> You can go first. >> You had mentioned about the victory homes in one of these reports.
>> Yeah. >> Hang on. Just a second. Yes. >> Well, I was here when they had the salt salt report. >> Salt. That was back in 2008.
>> Yeah. And at that time they talked about trying to at least acknowledge the neighborhood, but I think that over the years then and even more now that
to try to preserve the houses that are already there >> and not let them change. >> You know, cats out of the bag, >> the horses out of the barn, you may just mention it mention the historic nature of it, but not put restrictions on that
neighborhood. Is that still the case? >> Yeah, I I think that this revision deals with that question for exactly that reason. Uh I think we referred to the victory home area and we mentioned that
it was uh once discussed as being a potential, you know, historic area. Um but you're absolutely right. You would be hardpressed to go through that neighborhood today and find an original model,
>> right? uh every uh it's kind of neat to see how people have grown into those homes and and uh that's part of the history of it too. So, um, you're absolutely right and this version of the
historic element, uh, acknowledges that and it says that, you know, we'll continue to, uh, think about maybe a way to recognize that that was a victory home area, but that we feel that the
best, uh, way to deal with it right now is to enforce the lot size and the zoning that it has and make sure it stays uh in in in sort of the spirit of what the victory homes were, which were,
you know, firsttime homes for people. So, it's not the current historic element does not say that it should be a historic district or in any way have any special designation except that we'll
continue to keep an eye on it and keep an eye on the zoning. >> Thank you. Um, I'll jump in. So, with with the overlay zones that you're proposing, would these restrict the entire neighborhoods from
doing I know it says in here, and without getting into too many of the details that they would have neighborhood meetings to decide if they wanted to be included. Um, if I was a homeowner and I lived in one of these areas and the rest of the neighborhood got together and said,
"Yes, they don't." I said, "No, I didn't." Would they be able to keep theirs outside of this overlay zone then, or would they then be tied to a new zoning standard and, you know, per this an architectural review board if they wanted to do new siding on their house? >> Well, it depends what the zone
is. So there would be in any neighborhood there might be houses that don't contribute to what the the overall sort of uh character of the zone is. And that's unique in Somerville because over
the years we've had so many infill development. So, um you know, uh there might be properties that would be exempt anyway. Um those are those are issues
that would need to be decided by the the neighborhood committees themselves. Uh the uh the uh idea of the overlay is that uh it applies to a to an area. We
have an example of an overlay. You guys don't call it a historic overlay, but uh the SID is uh a kind of an overlay zone. You don't call it a historic overlay zone, but you have, you know, special
architectural reviews of that and and something like that. So, what happens if an owner says they don't want to be in the SID? What do you do? Same question. and sorry, get my mic on. Um, and the SID is
designed and it is what it is. I don't know when that originally started, how that would have worked. Again, we're talking about individual homeowners and not businesses, >> which is where my concern lies is it's a different there is a difference between residential and business, you know, for-profit doing.
>> Um, and again, my concern is and I saw there was a list of addresses put in here of of buildings that have recommendations. I don't know if those owners have been, you know, it might have been they've lived there for 10 years or two years or families owned it for a hundred years at this point. I didn't know if they were included in
these previous discussions. And I guess I'm just trying to realize what the intent of how it would come to be is that you're looking for us to put in in the master plan to allow a study and meetings by the neighborhood to then
make a recommendation. Yes. to the planning board and to the council to change those things >> or to add >> but >> special zoning. So, so example um let's take the victory homes. suppose
uh some group of uh blocks of the victory home area came in and say we want to be recognized as a victory home area and we want to make sure that our homes stay little Cape Cods forever and ever and we want to you know make sure we have special zoning that allows that
and keeps the the the lot size very tight and we don't want anybody to raise a full second floor and stuff like that. they would be able to uh form a committee and decide what they wanted in the in their area and they
would be able to petition the planning board to consider creating an overlay. >> So, for lack of a better, I know it's not the exact same, but it's basically creating an HOA for each neighborhood. >> An HOA, homeowners association. >> Yes. I suppos I don't know enough about
the difference between an HOA and a historic overland. Maybe you might want to weigh in, but I I could say that it's something par. Yeah, I would imagine it's parallel. >> Sorry, >> just trying to get a feel for exactly what
the formula would be for this and how it would come because it's not really changing anything in the master plan. Adding an overlay, you're not asking to add an overlay into the master plan. You're looking to allow a committee to look at it in the future. >> Yes. To sort of self-nominate themselves
for an overlay. >> Thank you. That's that's the end of mine. I'm done. >> So So a couple of um and we have another overlay. It's called the Blueest Preservation Area uh which we created
that it's got to be 15 18 years ago. Um, so it's it's not foreign. Um, I I guess my overall takeaway, a very thorough margin, and I didn't expect anything less coming out of you and Phil. Um,
my my overarching concern is that it's too detailed for a master plan. um that it's it's it's crafting it's policy isn't the right word because that's that's really what a master plan is. It it kind of directs the polic but
it's crafting direct policy um rather than a guiding document that allows flexibility. Well, >> the the zones. So, I understand what you're doing with the zones, and I agree in some areas that um you know, that's
something that we should look at. And my my concern is that it's forcing um all of these areas instead of saying something along the lines within the master plan that says these are areas
that um uh have some significance to the burrow and uh should be considered for discussion. Um that kind of that's the kind of language that we really see in the master plan.
It's you the team the the historic team got very specific. >> Yeah. I uh I think uh I want to say two things in response to that. I I don't think that um
we intended to make it be as strong direct as you are suggesting it is. They are recommendations
and as I said all of the details and all of the things that I that are added uh about the specific uh areas, those were things uh that were uh developed by the
consultant back in 2008 and we reviewed them to see that they still made sense. But we made them all go in the appendix. So nobody has to have them in front of their face all the time. They are meant
to be a dictionary, an encyclopedia. I know reference. Yeah. I and and I think I think crafting the language a little bit differently and referencing the appendix is probably
the more appropriate for the master plan. Um, I I know where you were going with it. It just I think the language has to be tweaked a bit. >> Um, and I like the idea of appendices because that is what gives a little bit more information. >> Um, and those appendices really are the
thought process behind what's contained in the master plan >> or or the preliminary source that you have to see if it's worthy of even thinking about doing. Um, >> yeah. because all of these uh historic
overlay zones, I mean, it encompasses almost the whole town. >> Well, but we're not saying that you have to do the whole town. We're saying the the one that we absolutely recommend is that you do a historic overlay over the SID
andor Division Street. That one, yes, that is a very specific recommendation. The other one is a soft recommendation and it's a recommendation that there are places in town that would be eligible for this kind of overlay. And
by the way, the appendix shows you uh what they might be. It doesn't necessarily say that those have to be. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole part of the thing that was named by the
consultant has to be it. It's just to tell you what the potential of it is. And the the recommendation itself is there are all these potential areas that could come forward with a request to be
a historic area. And if they do, the burrow will have a process that will allow them to be heard at the planning board. That is what the element does. I'm sorry if you thought that it was saying make the whole town of Somerville a
historic overlay. It certainly does not do that. And if we did uh uh seem to imply that in our language, then of course you're right. It should be modified. But that's not the intent. The intent is two recommendations.
one historic overlay for uh Division Street andor down downtown and second a general ordinance that would allow a historic overlay to be created by people who wish to have their neighborhood
preserved. >> See, but again, I think the master plan, my my impression of the master plan is is not that it's it's giving those end results. it's that it's recognizing um the historic character of downtown um
the the uh capture the ability to preserve protect those historic structures. Um and that that's the discussion within the master plan. the
appendix can say okay these are your options of how you can go about that >> or these might be potentially >> exactly >> and that's what the intent is >> so I think that's where the language has to be tweaked a little bit >> um because it it's again it's it's more
of a a global guiding document than it is those those very specific we're going to do this we're going to do that I think that comes from the interplay between historic SID and burough council and planning board Um, so a couple of
other things and and this really is just a couple of questions. The adaptive reuse because that I think is one of the hitching points and and how you reuse a historic structure. Um, sometimes the restrictions on a historic
structure are such that people don't want to go through that. So how do you encourage them to maintain that structure? Um, you know, by crafting, you know, And a lot of these homes that you have listed or these these buildings that you have listed to me are of historical
significance to the burrow, >> they may not want to uh get onto the register uh for a whole lot of reasons, >> but they wouldn't have to. No, I I and I recognize that and and I think identifying them, you know, the you know, again, in the master plan, it's
the burrow has uh you know, over 75 over 100 different structures that are of historical significance to the burrow for all of these reasons, x, y, and z. And then in the appendix, you can have those. Um,
something real small, but something I see all the time when I'm out running around town that people don't think are historically significant. I look at and I say they are hitching posts and stepping stones. >> You know, the to me and I don't again
they shouldn't be specifically in there in the master plan. No, >> but it should be a part of the character, you know, preserving those character elements in and around the burrow, such as um and and I think there are other things around town that we can
capture within this in that more general global language. If you have a historic overlay zone, you can specify that you want those things retained. And uh
I I don't have a problem with that, but I mean it's sort of the opposite of what you were just saying. You say you don't want to micromanage historic stuff and then now we're saying we want to save hitching posts and things like that. No,
a lot of people do preserve them. a lot of people want to get rid of them. When we hear about a place that has the hitching post that they want removed, we try to find a spot for it that is appropriate. Uh and uh I mean that's
something that we just would do as as a matter of course. I don't think it needs to be in uh a master plan. Uh it's that's too uh sort of minutia for a master plan
which is supposed to be your vision for what you want the preservation of the burrow to be. Um >> well >> in terms of just to go back to something you said before in terms of of the level of detail uh you weren't at the
presentation that Phil and I gave before this board because you weren't on the planning board then. But one of the things that we did and one of the things that uh chairman Nebato was very insistent on is that he didn't want a huge tome for a historic document. So
but we what we did is we reviewed the historic elements of existing towns that were similar uh to Somerville. either they were county seats or they were towns with a historic background like
Matuchen for example would be one. Uh Bedminster and we looked at their historic elements to see you know what they had in them uh and what level of detail there was and um uh how many
pages they were because Mr. VTO wanted something short. And so, um, we we did that survey and, uh, I think we looked at probably half a dozen of them. And we found that
Somerville had eight pages and it had almost no detail. there was no list of even the historic sites that were there or when it was just it was just a laundry list it didn't even say you might have said the address but it
didn't say you know why that building was significant and uh they also uh uh were all much uh longer and much more detailed. Uh but there were a few good
ones that came in at about 20 pages. So that's where we set our ballpark and we told Mr. Nevada we would keep it at that level and we did it. And I I'm satisfied that it has everything
in it, that a planning board member who doesn't really know much about, you know, every little building in Somerville could come in and look it up or read about it and feel better
informed uh even without coming to us to ask us, you know, what what our opinion is. The the point is things are historic not because one person says that they are and not everything has to be a
district. There's clear criteria and there's clear reasons for saying that something is eligible to be treated specially. And so I just want to when you say too detailed, I just want to tell you I don't think it is
respectfully disagreeing. And um I think you need that because not everybody on here is a preservationist. >> No. No. And not everybody in town is a preservationist, nor do they do they want it. So, I think that's, you know,
what I'm trying to stay away from is um I guess the legislative side of discussion >> in the master plan. Um, you know, I agree. I don't want hitching posts and and stepping stones in the master plan,
but what what I think is appropriate in the master plan is the recognition that there are historic elements scattered all over the burrow. And whether that's a plaque to, you know, Washington's movement throughout uh Somerville on a stone on the corner of
Hamilton and East Maine or at the county uh courthouse or it's a hitching post or a stone that there's recognition that we have these scattered throughout town. >> And that's that's what I'm talking about. >> Yeah. I think our committee's charge is
to educate about that and our committee does work on that. Um, we've created an inventory of the plaques in town. They're on a Google map now. It's posted on the burough website. >> Oh, I'm not saying you weren't, but I'm saying within within the master plan, we
just need to recognize those as as as a part of the fabric of our historic elements. Um, that that to me is valuable. Um, and then you can have that information as part of the append. I the appendices
That's info. >> That's substantive backup information. >> Yeah. And it's the it's detail if you want. >> Yes. Exactly. And and I think that's my overarching that I think we need to edit this down to its essence uh from the master plan standpoint. Um and and then
we can that's my impression. I don't know about anybody else. Um >> you're Just just make sure your mic's on. Yeah. So, you bring up a great point and
I actually on on page 11 um first paragraph, last sentence. I I caught something and I actually changed it in here and and I it kind of speaks to what is in my mind. um you know uh and a pedestrian plaza on
Division Street by ordinances have helped to preserve much of the downtown's unique character despite redevelopment and and I looked at that and I said no it's not really despite redevelopment it's in concert with so I think that's you know that's the
recognition whether it's the victory homes over on the east side of town the recognition that there is a a historic background to them But moving forward, you know, these are primarily starter
homes and people invest their lives into them and they want to expand them. We shouldn't stand in that way, but I think there is that recognition that this is how they started out. This is what they are. So, so the the the town adapts to
it. There are areas that need to be um and structures that should be uh preserved. you know, for for a small town, we have seven I think it's seven structures on the historic uh state and federal historic register, right? I don't know that there is a number, a
percentage. Uh I think it's really just that balance of of development of personal property um and and preservation and and how you balance that. I think that's the challenge we have here. And I think the first stab at this from from the
historic committee is is a good one. I do. I just think it needs to be condensed a little bit. >> That's >> Well, when you go to condense, I will send you I will send you the outline of
recommended elements of a historic element uh that sustainable New Jersey puts out. And uh that way when you do your tweaking, you can make sure that
you as you shrink it down that you don't uh remove sections that are recommended to be in there. >> Deal. >> Deal. >> Any other questions? >> None from the board.
On page four of the same report at the bottom, it lists the seven that you were talking about. >> Page four. >> Yes. >> At the bottom. And then there's one more on page five. >> Yes. >> But
all of these are all either church or burrow owned. There's one house, one home that's on this list. >> Yes. on the National. >> Yeah. >> For all the other houses that are in
town, they have historic significance. You know, looking at the other pages, which gives the full list. It's only one private home. >> Yeah. I And and I agree. I mean, it's it's we you can't force anybody to do
it, nor would I want to, right? >> Um it's extremely expensive. >> Yes. >> Um it limits what you can and can't do in your home. So, I think some of it's education >> and helping people understand what they what that means. Um, I I I'm a firm
believer in, you know, creating the, as I said in the beginning, there's a lot of structures in Somerville that have historical significance. Um, and and it's a slight difference from historic register to historic significance. Well, there's a big
difference. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um but but I think recognizing people's homes and their businesses and we can do that formally and say this is this is significant to the Burrow of Summer. Your home >> That's right. >> your business is significant. >> That's right.
>> Without any restrictions. >> We're just recognizing it from a historical standpoint that hey it's it's from built in 1880. It's Italian it Victorian struct whatever that may be. And you know, I I I just
I hesitate um putting those those zoning overlays across these broader areas. I think the master plan can recognize those areas >> and then you see what evolution brings. >> So I just want to interrupt really
quick. So, one of the things that um that I picked up from after reading the whole document, one of the things I thought about was we've touched on this a couple times as it relates to specifically I'm going to go to High Street. We talked about some of these
homes where um to us there is a high value of a historical significance to these homes, >> right? And >> and it's the collection of them. >> Correct. And we have home they're now homeowners. they were they they purchased it back to and wanting to go back to a residential versus an office
and andor apartment and we we found that our current regulations on on it was restricting them and here they were trying to go back to the basically the way it was originally intended. So, one of the things that I I really thought about as I was reading the document was,
you know, I will say to to the mayor's point, the master plan is supposed to give that vision, right? And then and then that affects other policy decisions andor zoning decisions. >> And I do feel, you know, just for full awareness, you know, we are as we're doing each of these elements and doing
the master plan, we're also looking at pieces of all of our zoning in all of our districts, in all of our zones. Um and I think we can take I see it more as taking some of these you know recommendations and saying are there areas you know how do you preserve the victory the victory uh Victorian homes
the victory homes well in my opinion one of the ways you preserve it is you mentioned it before is not allowing you know you can't combine certain number of homes to build a bigger home or something like that right that preserves so through the zoning and that's how I I
see that historic preservation through Somerville and that same balance as a lot of us have brought up of we do need to be able to grow forward and we need to allow our homeowners to be able to have their own touch to some of the homes that they buy especially you know with the pride of saying this is I want
to buy in Somerville. So I I just want to, you know, it's it's another way of looking at it and understanding that using those overlay zones as a reference, you know, maybe more and like Brian said in that addendum. So it gives us that guidance um and understanding of
these are areas of significance that we want to pay attention to and we want to make sure that you know maybe it is on uh in that um Altimont area, West Cliff uh uh West High Street area that we say you know these are this is how we feel and we see through zoning and through
adjustments that we can preserve that moving forward but allow in conjunction for us to move forward with new development. So, I'll give you a great example. Um, West High Street across from the middle school, the old the old rectory. >> Yep.
>> The building they put up, it's beautiful building. It doesn't belong there. >> No, it doesn't. Thank you. So, so you know the the teeth behind, as Lisa was saying, the teeth behind understanding that zoning in that downtown SID corridor, West High Street corridor um
and limiting the ability of shouldn't say limiting creating zoning that will preserve the character of that street >> or that will encourage preservation of character. >> Correct. So if you had an HPV zone on
that section of High Street and you had it incorporated into it, you know, that corner of Davenport Street and you interpreted it as it was a former neighborhood of modest uh you know,
middle income and workingclass homes and um that you encourage uh you know similar heights and all that stuff and and you made that part of the the overlay. It would have been easier to uh
have a a de redeveloper that didn't come in and put in, you know, an additional story uh when uh the only buildings in that stretch of high street that's more than, you know, a two-story uh home is
the schools and the and the churches because they have steeples. So that's exactly where you would want >> and and the the overlay zone are not the same as a national register, >> right? >> You you're not having to apply to the
state or have to get state approval for anything you do it. And um yeah, it probably is the case if you decide you want to keep your home, the facade, the street facade of it looking historic,
you have to do things not on the on the cheap. But Helena Mitchell has a dishwasher. She has a modern refrigerator. It's on the National Register, but you know, nobody's told her what she can and
cannot put in her kitchen. So I think there's a misunderstanding about sort of how micromanaged u historic sites need to be. But um the idea as I said the intention is to try to help
neighborhoods stay neighborhoods and not have uh development that go in them that is is very incompatible. And I have to say for the the planning board mostly, you know, has kept a good fight going for that. But this would give you sort
of more teeth to what you do uh because it would be part of your planning document and your vision for the future. >> Anybody else have any other questions? So, so I guess my question is this we we
should give this back to historic based upon the discussion we've had tonight. >> Well, I think you should mark it up and say what you don't like. >> I think we need to make some of our comments and some of our markups and then go from there. >> We've been waiting four years to hear what you don't like. So, we want you to
be specific now so we can get this done. >> Yes. So, this and just so you know, this stays on our on our agenda until we are done. This isn't going away. >> Glad to hear it. >> Might be a few quite a few meetings, but we're going to get there. >> So, is that it then?
>> Yes. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> So, I think for us on the board, I think, you know, take the next couple weeks really review absorbing what uh Marge has represented and what she's said from the from their perspective of
why certain things in there and then I think the next step is us to discuss it at the again at the next meeting. seeing, okay, how do we what do we like? What do we don't like? And then and some ideas on how we continue to move forward. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Sorry, I had to pull my agenda back out. Okay, moving along to all right, our discussion items. So, first up under discussion is storm water. Mike,
>> thank you. Um, there's a summary that came along with the model ordinance. The model ordinance was uh obtained. Uh, I briefly talked to Barry about this right before the meeting and I text Jeff back and forth Kaiser on. I do believe the
model ordinances here is the one the state it is the one the state's done but I think that's the one the bureau has to adopt and the other um item here is time frame. I do believe the bureau has a year and that needs to
be drilled down further from the from when the state came out with it. How this is working is the storm ordinances are enforced on the local level. So you can only enforce what the ordinance says. So the state comes out with
regulations and they give the municipality a time frame for when it needs to be adopted. prior to the adoption, the town cannot enforce it. It has to go with what's on the ordinance currently speaking. So, there's two dates. I think uh
there is a date of July, I think the 20th, Barry, that the state is going to enforce their end of it being what they're doing. And municipality, I do believe, has the year. I gave you the statute and the summary. It's not the clearest because the summary, I think
the The summary came out in the statute stormwater when this was originally came out in ' 06. The statute says a year from blah blah blah. Uh there is mandatory training on February 24th that I have to attend all the reviewers. So
I'm probably going to get a PowerPoint and clarify exactly the time frame for when the bureau has to take action on the ordinance and more clarification. There there's a lot in the model ordinance. If you take a look, there's a
lot of red. >> Yeah, >> a lot of red. And what the red is is the proposed changes or the changes from the state. And the green is just putting in the burrow's already tweaked the language saying a half acre and 5,000.
So the green I added is what the change is already in place. So >> what >> can I just ask a quick question, Mike? So in the model with the changes here, >> the last piece that just came out of the
of the newer requirements and newer >> Yeah. >> It so none of that is addressed in here, correct? Because we're going to wait or are they is it addressed in here? >> The model ordinance addresses what was just promaggated on Okay. 20th. It's in
here. It it basically focuses on when the existing impervious is treated a new surface. For example, if you reconstruct the road as opposed to a mill and overlay, it might trigger storm water. Same thing with parking lots.
There's distinction being made now between what is ordinary maintenance versus reconstruction and what the trigger is. So, if you look at the D's website, there's a three or four pages of questions and answers addressing this
because in the past, a parking lot's easy an easy way. In the past, you could reconstruct it and say it's there for 50 years. I'm exempt because I'm not increasing storm water runoff. I'm just maintaining the parking lot. The state is saying depending on
your threshold of reconstruction, not so. So you might have to address the new storm water rakes. So there's a lot of nuances there, gray areas that have to be uh thoroughly thought out or make sure that the bureau understands these.
Some there's options, there's some areas where there's flexibility and other areas there's no flexibility. So the 24th it it the it changes are substantial enough that all the the certification I provided everyone all
the certification people certified in the state mandatory retraining no if ends or buts about it and the date is the 24th which I'm signed up this is team it's a zoom call with it's going to be probably 700 people but the idea is
the state is viewing these changes to be substantial in nature require hiring all the reviewers to get the review course. So, >> so I think what I'm getting at is is we're kind of on hold until you do that because we're going to look to you.
>> I think there's two main issues. Where's the time to act? Does the bur have a year? Does it have six months? I think that'll be come out on the 24th. And secondly, the nuances with the PowerPoint will will further clarify what exactly the options are for the
municipalities versus what is mandatory. And this is going to be an educational thing because it kind of changes the script on how things have been done up to this point because in the past if you have a road for example whether I reconstruct the road reconstruction is a
fancy way of saying you're going to take it down to native material. Somerville is mostly clay >> dirt. In the past, you can reconstruct and that didn't trigger any storm water. Now they're saying if you reconstruct depending on X, Y, and Z, it does
trigger storm water. And I know Barry is going to have his hands full on the munipal side of it because this really affects municipalities and how they construct reconstruct mill overlay or how they maintain structures. >> Uh so this is substantial.
>> All right. So, we're going to hold off. >> Okay. >> I I I I think that's the best approach. Hold off to get the dates clear and to get the PowerPoint to all the planning board members. >> So, that's the 24th. Our next meeting is going to be the 25th, which I think and we already have a packed meeting for the
25th. So, I'm going to we're going to push this to the next time it's addressed is going to be on the 11th >> of March. And I think that gives you enough time to collect what you learn, get it out to the planning board members as well, so that we can have a more fruitful versus
having only knowing the day before. >> Yeah. >> Jared, >> sorry, I was writing my note so I don't forget. Would it be a good idea to have Environmental Commission people
who are here tonight offer assistance work with Mike ask for their comments or we open up to the public or I mean I'm going to be honest not knowing and not having enough clarity of what this is I'm not comfortable having a discussion
on because we already have the recommendations right I want to hear what is really what's coming from D. >> Which recommendations? >> We have the environmental commission's recommendations. >> But my understanding is that this has changed so much that
>> which is why I don't I really want to hear it from D first, right? >> And then we that's what I'm saying. Then we'll open this back up for some more recommendations. But having a conversation now when we don't have all the information that's coming from D. So no, I don't really want to have that
discussion now. But yes, on the 11th we'll open it back up and and have that discussion. >> So the information that we'll get from Mike between now and then, >> we'll share it >> with the environmental commission. >> I mean, we can it's
>> well, they're going to want to look at it >> and eventually some of the things that they did recommend before are coming back. I've heard stories like 60% of it is going to come in, 70% of it, 40%. So there's going to be different that are going to be
>> which is why I want those facts before we really do anything. >> And I certainly understand I just want to make sure that they're here. >> No, that's why I'm giving a data the next time it will be discussed will be the 11th, right? I want to make sure we have enough time. Um and that's not going to be the end of it. There's there's so if there's that many of
significant changes. >> Um you know, we were thought we were at that tail end. We're not. Right. >> Right. So I'd rather make sure we get this right. But I really want I don't want the board making any decisions or having discussions on stuff that could be completely doesn't matter what we think because
this is how it is. >> Certain I'm just trying to encourage. >> Yes. No. Absolutely. None of that part changes that you know once it's you know we want the environmental commission here any time that we are discussing this. >> Yeah. If they want to come. We would never force you. But
>> that's why I like to be clear when we're actually discussing it so that you know. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, moving on to another fun one. All right. Uh, area need study, the re-exam and amendment for the ECBD
redevelopment plan. Mike, I have lots of questions for you, so I'm going to let you start. Um, area and need study obviously is not completed yet. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we're going to kind of bypass that tonight because I know you have to do your study first for that. Um we've
already taken part in earlier tonight you know we obviously we talked about that one area that we were looking at down um for that we had seen the concept plan on right >> understanding that that does not preclude us as a board to look at right
the what if >> right that is because we see a vision there that it works with the existing um redevelopment plan but I I I've been encouraging you of all that we also want to and look at those pieces as whatifs,
right? It doesn't um we're not that doesn't mean we can't is what I'm saying. I don't want anybody thinking that we can't look at that area and say, "Okay, well, if this doesn't happen or this happens that we can't." So, that should be part of that review. So, one of the things that I I will say
uh going through um this redevelopment plan, wow, it's old. I I mean, it's old. Um and it was interesting as I was going through it, you know, not sure if I'm I'm not if I'm missing
pieces or if there, you know, because we've had some adjustments to this along the way, right? Um I'll take the the area um back by where we have on um vets memorial where we have um the storms
project, the Weiss project, right? Those updates as we've gone along. Do we have those so that we can see what the actual current is and some of those adjustments and changes that have been made over the years? >> The maps haven't been changed in over 20
years. >> Oh, I know. because I had to make my own. >> The uh overlay mapping goes back to 1999. The concept was base zoning for every day and overlay zoning which gave more density uh more mass and there was
a carrot but that concept is from 1999 and back to your point no the mapping does not reflect what redevelopment has been taking place there already. So, is there a way that we can also maybe pull some of that so that we can also look because listen what the reason I say that is I'm looking at some of the bulk
standards that exist in the original plan and even some of the updates as they've gone I think I had one update in there that I was able to that it was on record in here. I don't want to rip something apart if it's already been changed through an ordinance and you know what I'm saying
and I have no problem I mean I'm not shy you know I'll have no problem ripping something apart but I don't want to waste the time of going through it and everybody and then we find out oh wait this was adjusted or this was changed right >> um you know I look at some of these areas um it was interesting because I
had honestly the way it originally was you had multifamily residential office services retail hotel and retail were the four different zones, quote unquote zones, areas. Um, and it was very interesting as I was going through it
going, "Wow, we had on retail and hotel, >> do you know we have 90 feet that's allowed in that area, guys?" >> Yeah. >> Um, and just so that everybody's clear, that's on the corner of Bridge and Maine. >> Yeah. >> So,
I think those are the kind of things that I really hope everybody's looking at, right? because that's those are the pieces of does that vision for this area, >> you know, and we can break it up into smaller pieces as much as we want throughout the entire redevelopment
plan, but do we really still Okay, and I'm not trying to sway. I'm bringing it up as the extreme. Do we still see six stories of retail and hotel space in that in that area as acceptable or what
we see moving forward? So, but I did want to make sure that we had at least what the current is. >> So, I and I'm not saying we need that. We can't have discussion on stuff without that. But I do I did find that as I'm going through I'm like I you know we allowed a lot of stuff in a certain
area. So, there had to have been ordinance changes. Um, and if we can get those so that we can build that history as well because I think part of that also shows how things have changed since 1990 that even though we haven't necessarily done an overall
redevelopment re-exam we have made quite a few adjustments to this plan and I think this now I want to encapsulate all of that together and then also see where do we see moving forward. So that's my speech. So now I'm going to look to you guys. You know, I don't know if you guys have actually reviewed it, have some
comments, questions. Go ahead, Larry. I see you going for your mic. >> We've already approved things that were different for that hotel corner. The restaurant, I know the plan didn't come together, but we approved the two restaurants right on
that corner. The hotel, that was a good idea maybe a long time ago. We've already moved past that. >> But that's my point. Nowhere is it documented what it was approved to. So >> I think it was approved to what we approved. >> But that's we need that we need those
records to say because maybe it was then at that point in the ordinance update. Maybe it was brought down from 690 ft to something else in that ordinance change. >> It may be beneficial for me to put a list together in the last 20 years what's been approved within the ECBD both base and overlay
>> if you don't mind. Yes, that would be very helpful especially on this >> land development in the in the last 20 years and then you can see what the trend is and what's worked and what hasn't. >> You mean like that parking deck that wasn't there 25 years ago?
>> Yes. >> I that actually predates the or the ECBD >> does. >> It does. The ECBD was done draft in 99. It wasn't adopted until ' 08. The deck was put in about 20201 just for you.
>> That's the scary thing. I'm >> I'm I'm forgetting. >> No, it states. >> I I I Yes, I am. >> But I can certainly put a list together for the last 20 21 years of all the activity and which some of it's going to
predate like you just said, Larry, the plan the last plan I do believe the first adoption was 0708. It's been tweaked and the last I think the last revision and I can put that together the revisions just so you can see the history was the TDR the I the transfer
of development rights I think was 16 or 17 >> it was new >> was it came out of a little bit of frustration and the storms we had to try to give uh get that dwellings out of the flood hazard and give a credit to building highland
>> yeah it came about because at that point it was post floods And a lot of people were screaming that you know burrow the county the state you've got to buy this government isn't always the solution. So we turned it around and said let's see
if the private sector can't begin. I don't think we should still need to look at what those tied to density I don't know. you know, density at the level we were
at. Is that where we're supposed to be now? To your point, maybe not. A lot of folks are looking at it. Do we so that you have smaller as you enter East Main Street as you're
going up towards downtown and then start to build them up in you know these are things that we have to talk about think about and then also with the expansion of the zone you know what mechanic street I don't think I think it's a beautiful little street
wonderful things with their homes and it looks great. Leave it alone. >> So interesting that you say that because mechanic right now is actually included in the current plan. >> So I think that's something >> and again when the plan was developed mechanic was not a very I shouldn't say
it. >> It had some challenges. >> Yes. and and but what folks have done with the problems there looks great. >> But I think to your point that's the perfect example of what the vision 30 40 years ago, 20 years ago, however
long it was was that the last vision was for this plan still included something possibly happening there. And now we're at a point we're like, no, wait, stop. Right? We like what's there. So, you know, those are the things that I think we need to we need to look at the detail of that. Um, and I and I feel like this
plan is so unique in the sense because it it is we've looked at it as an the second gateway into the burrow. Um, and I don't think we forget that, but I think that vision of what that gateway may look like is now different than what
we saw before because you got to figure most of this was, you know, there wasn't much redevelopment going on, right? So you were looking at you could do it here, you could do it up on this west end. So now that we have it, it really pivots in at least the way I feel it really pivots that vision of how this
area should be treated. >> So So just as we're moving forward and looking at this, because I I agree mechanics was going to be my one question. Is is it easier? Does it make more sense or which way is the right way to do it? Can we pull properties out of
the zone? So just like we just did in the West End where we said specific laws these are you know these are not included in what was the language that we used >> unless they opt in. >> Unless they opt in. >> Yes. >> So and I guess that's my question because I do look at this it's it's a
large area in a large district to be using the same standards across it all. I do believe that you know you have mechanics and then even over on Park A on that side there should be completely different standards than we're using up on the corner of Main Street. I don't agree with the 90
foot building, but I I think they're different standards. So is which was when I'm looking at it and trying to figure it out and make recommendations. Do we keep it in one zone and tier it by block and lots or change it by, you
know, this area or do we create different zones? >> I So I hear what you're saying, right? Because that's what I tried to do by by going back and looking at this. Um, when I say base zone, I'm saying the the zone the the zoning that we landed at with the plan, right?
>> Um, and having basically there was only four at the time, right? So, I tried to look at that and that to your point, I was looking at it going, do I still think that's appropriate even the way it's broken up? So, I think to your point, I hate to say this and it's going to sound odd, but I think it's how your
brain works. So, if your brain works better with saying, "I'm going to take these out and then let's go figure out because I don't I think you have to look at it as a whole, but still pieces." And I know that sounds contradictory, but >> I don't think you can, you know, I think
you have to take it as a whole. >> Yeah. >> And how you see breaking some of that out and maybe some of those exclusions like literally, you know, Mechanic Street, boom, all right, done. We're not going to include that. >> The other thing is >> that was the original overlays. That was the whole point of the overlays to make
it in parts but as a whole. >> Yes. >> So >> and I just see those overlays changing now. Right to your point. Yep. >> Because we have so many different things that are new. they like you said remove >> and that's how I didn't know if it was either to remove something or just
change the sorry or change the bulk standards for let's just use mechanics and say the standards for mechanics in those properties are x y and z but leave it in the zone or >> I think in certain areas you're going to find it's probably to your point yes easier to say okay let's just pull this out and we won't even discuss it
>> I don't know if that was easier >> well because then as we're now looking at how we want the new overlays to possibly look um we know that they're not included and that could happen with also in the area need if it comes back that there might be some that yes and some that no. So
the same thing we would say only if they opted in. >> For example, Larry, there's uh on Park Avenue the overlay shows high density apartment buildings. >> Is that the appropriate location in 2026 across from the splash park and the
flood hazard zone? Maybe not. Maybe that's because of what's happening with the park. We don't want that transition. Maybe that's back to the TDR. But that screams to me that this overlay needs to be relooked at. And and I found it interesting because actually according
to the original overlay, that area between park and mechanic, that back end, I'll call it back end as close to High Street was the only area we saw vision for multifamily high density. in that entire in this entire ECBD,
>> right? >> That's correct. >> So, >> so I'll get the list for the last 20 years of all the activities, >> all the land approvals in the ECBD for the boards to use. >> And I think we can start looking at, you
know, as you look at that, start looking at um just even if you just say, hey, this is my vision. I see how it is. But yeah, no, to Mike's point, high density multi- family uh is not appropriate back there anymore. So, you know, you definitely don't want that there, right?
Maybe if we to Jason's point, I know it's not taking it out, but it's also giving what you want as your restrictions and nose first. >> Anybody else have any comments, questions? >> Okay, you have your charge, Mike. Thank you.
>> I got it. All right, back to our agenda. Sorry, my glasses. Uh, all right. So, for open business, we have nothing else to discuss on those. All right. So, I'm going to open up the meeting to the public. While members of the public wish to address the board on
any matter not listed on this agenda, please do so at this time. All parties interested in addressing the board may approach the microphone, state your name and address, full name and address for the record, and provide your comments and questions. All comments and questions are limited to five minutes. >> Hi, uh Timurray deal uh 76 Culver
Street. Um I know we're not supposed to talk about the storm water stuff. Um I was hoping just to um Larry had sent us over the uh meeting minutes from last time when he alerted us that this meeting was happening tonight. Um, and I was just wondering if I could make a
couple of clarifications. Um, knowing that the meeting minutes are a summary and not a transcript, I just wanted to make sure that, um, you know, my my intention was was recorded accurately for the record. Um so uh firstly when I mentioned that storm water isn't just a
personal property issue um I really meant that incremental changes um to imperous cover across the you know span of a town that's built out like ours um those really add up over time and um you
know that's that's exactly why ordinances like this make an impact on um you know those incremental changes. Um, so, uh, just wanted to mention that. And then when we talked about affordability,
um, I'm not advocating for any sort of burdensome, uh, penalty or requirements for small projects. Um, you know, the intent of our our suggestions and um, enhancements that we proposed to you guys were really just to find kind of that workable middle ground. um you know
things like clear thresholds um repair in kind language and straightforward compliance options um so that you know homeowners aren't in an impossible um situation and and can't pay for for simple simple updates. Um I also
additionally had a little bit of a process question and it's um sort of in line with what Larry was thinking. um you know since you guys are revisiting this at a a larger scale with the um adoption of the real rules at the state level um I don't know if there's any
precedent for it but would you guys consider some sort of like small working group with some um members from the planning board and the environmental commission and and the engineer um as as needed um you know we can kind of walk through the sticking points and stuff at
a little bit more of a conversational ational level. Um, you know, I understand that you guys would still have all decision-m uh jurisdiction over what's actually presented to um the burough council. Um, and I'm not trying
to get get my hands in that or anything. You know, we're definitely advisory still, but um you know, our commissioners spent hours pouring over the regulations and um had anticipated the real rules and we are very
wellversed in these matters and um you know, I think it would be helpful to be able to have a more conversational and more technical conversation about this and and discussion that isn't really possible in uh you know the public
comment. kind of forum that um that we're provided right now. So, I just wanted to mention that and offer that as a potential um collaboration and and let you know that that we would be open to that if if it's appropriate for you guys. >> All right. Thank you. We will discuss that. Thank you so much.
Anyone else? All right. Hearing none, I'm going close public session. >> Uh motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All opposed? Uh this is
almost