Uh, Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, April 8th, 2026, will please come to order. The agenda 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, faxed, or emailed to the courier news,
and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Chairperson Wer >> here.
>> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Council member Vroom >> here. >> Jason Kraka >> here. >> John Manilio >> here. Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Andrea Dair >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Tim Hayes >> here. >> Bill K >> here.
>> Please stand for the pledge. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, I will defer comments. Uh, first
we have up uh ARB reviews. Everybody got those? Division Cafe, Ka, Saver, Silville, Toala, and Verve. They were all sidewalk cafes. Okay, they were pretty standard. Any comments or questions on those? Okay. >> ARP approved those all?
>> Yep, they're all approved. Yep. Um, now, uh, moving on to minutes for March 11th and March 25th. Can we do those both together? >> Um, >> I don't think we can because I know there's absences. >> All right. So, March 11th first. >> So, move for March 11th.
>> Second. >> Chairperson Werner. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> John Manilio. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes,
>> yes. >> Motion for March 25th, minutes. >> Second. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Uh Jason Krasco, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Andrea Dar,
>> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> All right, moving along. We have ordinances. These three ordinances were introduced to council on this past Monday, the six. Mike, you want to go over these? >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, real quickly, these
are the three ordinances to address the fair share plan. They are the affordable housing uh, overlay- one, two, and three. And it addresses three of the four uh, projects identified in the fair share plan. The one that's not
identified is already built in Fair View Avenue. So the other three are being either converted or built being the Grants building, Mountain Avenue which is a vacant parcel at 610 bell. So these ordinances essentially pave the road for those
three projects and the board's already seen the fair share plan. It just all this does is put the ordinance out for what's in the fair share. >> And these were all introduced. >> Yeah, they were introduced this past Monday by council. >> So be review. >> Yep. Any questions, comments from the
board? >> Okay. Can we do a motion? We have to do individual, don't we? >> Uh, we don't. Uh, just put on the record whether they're consistent or not. >> They're consistent. All three of them are consistent with the master plan and the housing element >> of the burrow. I I would suggest you do
them individually. >> I think just to be safe, we will. >> I'll make a motion for which one we doing first? Uh, 2796. >> Second. Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes.
>> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> All right. Motion for 2797. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Someville. >> Chairperson Werner. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. John Manilia, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes.
>> All right. A motion 42798. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Chair Prison Warner. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex,
>> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> And I will do Mike usually does a letter to the council. I'll resolutions since these are the affordable housing just for us to memorialize at the next meeting. >> Thank you. >> I'll do an email then you'll follow up just to make sure the ball is rolling for the council's purposes.
>> Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. Discussion items. I'm actually going to move trees. I would like to start with trees. Um Mike, I know that you prepared what the requirements are. >> Yes. Uh, I want to thank the mayor for
requesting that we handle it the same way the storm water because I started really drilling down on it and you got all the information in front of you. So, what you have in front of you is the questions and answers from DP. You have the tree ordinance, the existing tree ordinance. You have the
proposed uh environmental commission model ordinance. You have the comparison between what the environmental commission did between uh Somerville's draft and Matuchen and you have a one-page summary for me that discusses
what the questions and answers and what it says on top of the model ordinance. And in summary, I'll read to you what I highlighted on item seven. Uh this is the questions and answers to DP that uh the model ordinance is only guidelines
your ordinances must follow is the the ordinance must follow is that there is some type of removal and replacement element and that is applicable to all areas in your community including private properties. Therefore those two items that essential you can have exemptions. Those are the two items that
has to be acquired uh addressed. You don't have to. If the burough so chooses, they can use the model ordinance or we could simply the burough could do its own ordinance, modify the existing ordinance, add a couple paragraphs, however uh the board sees
fit as long as those two items are addressed. >> I'm going to open it up and just start right out with comments from the board. >> Go ahead. You want to go first? >> No, go ahead. >> All right. Um, so, so I I looked over it all. I mean, I do think our current
ordinance is a little bit dated. >> Um, so I I don't think we sell wood anymore as a burrow or anything else. Um, so I think we can get rid of a lot of that um, discussion. Um, as far as the D model,
I like it as a basis. Um, I don't want to be anywhere, you know, anything we have to have in there. I think we need to start with the musts, the requirements from the D. I think we need to start with um you know I I I don't you know there's a lot of the recommendations by the environmental
commission about the fines and stuff that are escalated from even the D. Um I do have a objection to you know significant fees of you know $3,200 fines for taking down a tree in your own property. Um we're not talking about developments. We're talking about
somebody's home. >> Yeah. Um, so I I I would my recommendation for story is just the requirements of where the D says. Um, and I I I like your chart here, Mike. Thank you. Um, you know, I like having
that option of the the the recommended trees that they have that are native. I like giving all those suggestions, but I do like putting the power back in the homeowners hands. Um, and I do see it differently between homeowners and developers, which we have that covered already, I think. So, the only change
that this would do is homeowners in our municipality. So, that's my start. >> Yeah. When when I was looking at I'll refer to the historic almond in a second, but looking at this and I'm looking at your chart here, Mike, this
is really helpful. I think and I I put some time into this guys thinking about why I react the way I do to some of the things we're discussing. Um I think it has to do with um the burden on homeowners, right? I think Somerville does a good job on managing that. But at
a state and local level, it's just non-stop. It's more process, more money, more taxes. And I think that's a little bit what I'm reacting to here as we hear this thing. So the environmental commission saying, "Well, we want it like this one here, the notable governance money. It's not a much about
the environmental commission as it is it's yet another thing we have to another burden for homeowners to do something on land they own right so I think it's I I want to be in favor and protecting the environment that's important and historic elements and
we'll get to that later I know but each time I see something where there's a new group or a new process or a new tax or fee or penalty that's what I'm reacting to so when I see that specifically on the notable governance point here at the bottom it says our draft adds the environment of the commission in a
review consultation process as advisory. What does that mean? And if I go to take down a tree, am I going to have another party in my yard going, Chris, not a good idea, guys. That's a lot, right? Yeah. Another thing we have to jump through. So, that's that's what I'm reacting to, Jason. I I agree with you. I just think we need to continue to
manage that as a as a burough. >> All right. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. So, generally, I reviewed it. Um I reviewed the Environmental Commission's draft. I reviewed the uh the model ordinance. As far as the environmental commission's uh draft, I I actually
don't I do like the the structure of it. Um I think it can be refined. It should be simplified. Um it's a little complicated. Uh there's a lot of things involved, a lot of math, a lot of logging. I feel like just keep it simple. Um and I've seen many ordinances
throughout the state just in my profession. Uh so some of the the recommendations that I had was um so a couple things. So the definition of the the tree. So I know the D model ordinance is six inches. Environmental commission wants to go to four. Like I said, I see most towns go on the bigger
side towards a 6 inch because a 4inch tree is not that big of a tree. It's a a tree that wasn't planted uh too long ago. Um I the one thing I did note that I I thought was actually kind of interesting is uh I see actually the replacement trees being larger than what was specified in the model ordinance
from the environmental commission. I think one and a half inch tree is a small tree to replant. Um, I wouldn't mind seeing that go up to a two or three inch. Uh, even though it's a little bit more money for a homeowner. It's a more established tree. Um, exemptions. So, I see a lot of towns
also have exemptions for trees for residential. So, it says, "All right, you could, you know, remove one tree a year or two trees a year." Um, I think Milbour is three trees a year of a certain size up to 18 inches. Um, I think the way the environmental commission wrote it was that you're allowed to cut uh remove I believe it
was four or five trees per acre over a rolling five-year um clock. Again, I I just I like the the exemption. Um I just think trying to track that and when does that fiveyear start over? When was the first tree cut down? I think to simplify it, I would like to see it, you know, as
one tree per year or per calendar year. So you have a set start and and end date that can be tracked. Um, let me see here. What else? Oh, the plant species. I like that too being included in the ordinance. Uh, the one thing that I may put back on
environmental commission uh to review the species. Um, so some of the species I saw um may be troublesome. Um, there's ash trees which I know there's the emerald ashbor. Um, the box elder. I know my house gets a lot of boxelder bugs. >> Um, so that's something. And then just
some of the species may be more specific. Uh, like the honeyloust. make sure it's thornless. Um, and then there's some fruit trees as well, so maybe it's fruitless or male variety. Um, other than that, yeah, I thought in general, I I was okay with the, you know, more thoroughess of the uh the
environmental commission's ordinance >> or one suggestion. Uh, I think it'd be worthwhile maybe to look at expanding the definition of what a hazardous tree is. is why do you have to wait till your foundation is damaged? Why can't it be within I don't know if you have a tree
within 3 feet or 5 foot of your your house u or within a certain amount of a structure you can make the decision to remove it before it causes damage. Um that would be one piece of advice I'd have.
>> I have I have a question around hazardous trees. Um, so let's say you have a very large tree located by your house at it's nearing its end of a life and your arborist says it's it's time to it's time to go. Um, when you cut that
down, is that part of the exemption or does that have to be replaced? >> I think we we're still discussing that. We're not there yet. >> I think it depends. And the other thing I'd like to factor in is I kind of ran my property through this and that's a real situation. So, uh, it's within 10
feet of my house, but if you look at my backyard, there are nine arborite, there's a red sunset maple, there's a large dogwood, there's hedges on both sides, and there's a uh London plain tree. I don't have room for another tree and nor would I want one because, you
know, that's where I want my grandkids to have a little bit of room to play. So, you know, I think in some cases, if you only have one tree in your yard, yeah, replace it. If you have nine, 10, 12 trees already, do you really need to re, you know, do you I've already done
my fair share, if you will. >> Yeah, I'm just before we go forward, I am going to make a comment. Please try to be cognizant of your microphones when you're talking. I did listen to the meeting and there was a couple times I could not hear certain people and it was it's frustrating because they
were good points and I was like really trying to listen so just please try to use your microphones as best you can. Thank you. >> Sorry about that. >> No, you're good. >> Been told several times. >> It listen and we'll keep repeating it. It's okay. >> No, no, it's legitimate. Um a 4inch tree
will be a sixinch tree eventually if we're going to plant new trees and we can get a bigger diameter of the tree. It's better to start off with that way. When we were dealing with developers in downtown, we talked about
a 3-inch tree and it ended up being well a 3-inch tree is really only two and a half inch tree because it's there's there's a wiggle like a 2x4 is not really a 2x4 but okay. Same thing with a tree. A three inch diameter tree is really two and a half. It's going to
take 40 years for that tree to get to be anywhere close to what we try to envision. So a larger tree starting off in develop in developed areas would be a better idea generally speaking.
>> So and again I think that we should do into our development plan like when we're redoing the ECBD or whatever we're doing. >> Yeah. because I don't my only because I'm fine with that and for developments and us telling them mine my concern is the homeowner that we're telling that they have to spend more money to put a
six inch tree in when you know how much they can cost. >> Oh certainly >> and and our properties are a lot smaller than a development in you know that retrospect that 6inch tree may be burdensome. So, I would rather see that
be for developers in the redevelopment plan rather than in our ordinance for everybody across the town. >> Well, to to your point, what's the root ball on a 6 inch tree, guys? It's like this that like that's not like homeowner, I'm going to go plant a tree this Saturday. That's like I need to hire now you're adding costs on top of that, right?
>> So, there's a piece of that to think of, too. >> Yes. Well, we still haven't incorporated what we've touched on in the sense of encouraging people to do more on their properties,
incentives in some kind of way. We haven't documented that yet. >> I don't disagree with you, Larry. I think what we were trying to do is let's get focused on how we're going to handle the requirements that are there and then we can also talk about some other things but this is this is not an easy ask of
saying how are we going to satisfy these requirements you know you you hear the different opinions here we haven't heard from the mayor yet you you will have your turn I promise mayor um but having said that I I think this in itself is going to be difficult enough to for us
to figure out where we're going to land I'm not saying at all I don't think anybody's saying hey we're not going to look at maybe some incentives and other things and maybe that becomes part of this. But I think this is a basis to see where this lands that kind of might guide us in that direction of really where do those incentives belong because
maybe it's part of this but maybe some other areas that we see incentives that could work too. I just think that this is going to be right now it I don't even see this being done today. I see this is going to be some discussion of coming up with and then fine-tuning that and then
we can you know go back to some of those other bullets. I don't want you to think the answer is no. I just think we'd like to stay focused on this. >> Needs to be involved in the process because they're going to be deficiencies that we're
going to want to get people to, you know, replace a tree. >> Yes. As we go through this and we are fine. >> There's a way we can do it. There plenty of trees in town that are doing really good work for the town, soaking
up water in the neighborhood. So, you take a huge tree down in a neighborhood and that ends up there's no there's less there's less water that tree is taking up. It's putting it into the neighbors properties. It, you know, we're it's my
tree affects his tree. He's right down the street from me. My tree may not the mayor's trees around the corner. But nonetheless, it all kind of feeds together. We I don't think we should abandon that aspect.
>> No. And I that's what I'm trying to say is we're not I just don't think we're there in the discussion yet. We have to kind of figure out what's our baseline. What are we seeing is going to be, you know, where where do we see whether it's going to be a replacement? You know, what size is that replacement? And then we can fine-tune it with maybe some incentives. But I think this is going to
be the hardest part in my opinion of us coming up with what that final recommendation should be. Um and and then I'm going to turn this over to the mayor. But you know, I will say that the general comment of the hardest part is how do we balance this without punishing our residents and making
things harder for residents. I don't think anybody disagrees that this is something that, you know, nobody wants to see us with no trees in Somerville, but we also have to balance that. you know, to Chris's point and some other points, we have to balance that on, you know, we also don't want to make it so
difficult that they allow the tree to now cause more damage because they couldn't follow the process properly. So, I that's the balancing act, okay, that we're getting at. >> How about it, Mayor? >> Can I can I jump in first? >> Um, just real quick, my big concern with
this is I look at this and my question is who's going to be reviewing this? Because as it's written, it's the burrow engineer, an LTE, or an arborist. I don't believe the burrow has an LTE or arborist on staff. So that defers to the borrow engineer. And I want to see the
look on a county engineer's face when you ask him to review trees because he's the burough engineer right now. We don't have a borrow engineer really. So that's my who's going to be reviewing this. And that needs to be defined, I think, in my opinion before we argue everything else
because We have no one to review it, you know. >> All right. All right. So, I I mean, all valid points. Um I think we can all agree everybody here wants to see trees in
Somerville, right? Is there anybody who doesn't want to see trees in summer? So, you know, this this has this started over two years ago and it it's been a problem. Somerville is primarily probably on
average 50 by 50 50 by 150 lots on average. There's some smaller, there's some bigger, but let's just take it as an average. I think one of the challenges that I'm looking at right now and I agree with everything that that has been set up
here. This is my visceral reaction of last year to this was the the burden, financial, physical burden that was placed on the homeowner as a result of the recommended uh ordinance.
And and that's not good. That's not our planning board's job, nor is it our council's job to make it more difficult, more expensive for our homeowners. it's actually to try to streamline it. So, Bill said something at one of the first meetings he was at and he says we we
need to look at things from an incentive base, not a punitive base. And and I agree with that. I think that's really where the nature of this goes. We we're faced with crafting an ordinance that meets the parameters of the D
but still meets the needs of our community. And I think one of the challenges we have is there's no quantifiable number of trees. How many trees are we looking to plant in the next five or 10 years?
We don't know that. Nobody has given us a number. What is our target? What's our goal? I think if we have a goal that is not placed on the individual homeowner, but is placed on a community, I think you've got a little
bit better ability to come up with an ordinance that fits the needs, that encourages people to plant. Um, and that almost makes it a little bit of a challenge. And and you know, that's kind of where I'm I'm I'm trying to dial back my
visceral reaction, the same reaction you have, because I'm looking at it and going, it's it's my property. It's your property. That big tree that affects, you know, two or three houses might be breaking up
my foundation. It might be break, it might be causing water infiltration into my house, which they do. So what's the benefit to the homeowner if he's got to now plant if it's a big old tree and he's now got to plant three
more trees and exasperate the problem that he's trying to alleviate. So I think the goal here is let's define how many trees do we want in the next 5 years or 10 years. Let's figure that number out. And I think that's a good conversation. I wish the environmental
commission were here. They should be here. um this is this is their stuff. Um I think it's a good conversation where we can actually come to agreement rather than dissension and it's it's something
that we can then both work towards instead of being like this. You know, having said all that, the simplicity of our existing ordinance is probably a little bit too simple. But we have there's two caveats coming out of the D. What are those, Mike? It has to be
inclusive throughout the burrow without the municipality, right? >> And secondly, it has to regulate removal and replacement in some fashion. >> Yeah, >> that those are the two caveats that has to be addressed. >> But the removal and regulation doesn't have to be mandatory. It can be optional
though as well, can it? >> I agree with that. Cara, do you agree with that? You're allowed to have you're allowed to determine the terms of the removal and the replacement and have exceptions from those hazardous trees,
you know, like a lot of the ones that are outlined in there. >> The one thing I think the municipality needs to make sure happens is we've been told the D very well can audit municipalities and when and if they do, you're going to want to have
some sort of way that you can documentation of the trees that were removed and replaced. Here's our mechanism. Here's our exemptions. Here's our requirements. And here's our documentation. >> So, hold that thought. Yep. >> So, we're in the process now of
obtaining a grant to do a shade tree inventory burrow wide. That would target that. Correct. >> Sort of. Kind of maybe >> that would target a baseline. Yes. Where where we are right now. >> Exactly. And I think and I think, you know, and I'm trying to look at the
bigger picture rather than dialing it into the individual homeowner responsibility because if a homeowner gets up on a Saturday morning and says, "I got a 5-in tree that's that's 6' 8t tall in my backyard. It's got stumps and
roots and stuff coming out of it. My kids are tripping over it. They got stitches. I had to run them up to the hospital. I'm taking the thing down." Why should he have to wait two weeks for the burrow engineer to come out and look at it? Why should he
then or she have to then plant something else? It doesn't make sense. So, let's look at the shade tree or or this ordinance from the from the community perspective and get it away from the individual property owner perspective.
>> Can I comment on that really quickly? >> Y >> um >> using the shade tree. Sorry. >> If the shade tree inventory is used as the baseline >> and then two years down the road the D
comes out and says, "Okay, I want your documentation without some sort of property owner request form document. The only way to address the audit would be to go out and
do another Sha Tree inventory." So, that's just and I'm just throwing things out there. the question you raised about requiring a form to be filled out in an emergency situation. I've dealt with this in other towns and what we basically said is we
are concerned about the documentation. So if on Saturday a tree falls on your house and you have to remove it or you find yourself in that situation, just come fill out the form so we know what happened. So you know it's a It is
a balancing act. >> I'm sorry. Can you you you're saying even after the fact it was an emergency situation just come back and at least document. >> What we want to know is there were 10 trees on your property. Now there's eight. Why? And which fell within
exceptions and which fell within replacement. >> See now now I'm starting to twitch because I I look at it and I go it's landscaping and I I you know and I'm not trying to be to toss it off. It's it's personal choice landscaping on your
property and and the government being involved in how you landscape your 50x 150 lot to me I just I start to twitch when I think about that >> and and I think that really the genesis
of all of this is not Somerville but when they enact these requirements they have to be applicable municipal w statewide and which is why They build in the concept of you can tailor it to your municipality because if there wasn't this, you would have your more rural
areas clear-cutting acres and acres of land and creating the storm water management requirements and issues that these tree ordinances are overreaching designed to protect against. That's and that's where the rub is. So, the concept of it makes sense because if you don't,
you're going to have all these problems, but it's not necessarily tailored to this type of town. >> That's why I'm trying to bring it away from this is so centered on your piece of property, your piece of property, everybody's individual piece
of property here. >> I hear you. And I'm just going to interrupt for one second. I'm sorry. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. I think what at least I'm stuck on is how do we get around that when the law says we have to >> regulate the re the inventory and replacement. Can you create an optional
well? So, burrow website, you have a tree section and if somebody takes a tree down, you go in, you you log in, you register that you took a tree down. And >> but I think that's what Cara is saying is as long as we have them, we need a mechanism, right? We're not I don't
think anybody's disagreeing where it's there's no attachment to a fine. If you don't do it, you're not going to jail. You're not paying $3,200. We're not sending an engineer out to say you should or you shouldn't have. Nobody's going out to to check up on you, right? there's no consequence. We're looking at this as this is the mechanism that we
put in place, right, as a whole. >> So, >> and to to Carara's point, let me finish to Cara's point. If an audit comes back >> and they say, "Okay, but there's 100 trees." I'm just using a really large number. There never be 100 trees in here, but that aren't accounted for. Okay, well, you know, here's the
mechanism. Here's the original, right? >> Here are the people that did do it, but the mechanism was in place. They can't necessarily knock the fact that you were you have a mechanism, but we're not going to go out there and I because I do agree with you. It's that portion that I
think is rubbing everybody. If I hold on one second, if if I choose to get up on a Saturday, you know, and I'll use my property as an example on the record. We had a tree that we spent thousands of dollars on. I loved it. It was a Japanese maple. It was absolutely beautiful. It was one of the reasons I bought my home. We for two years spent
thousands of dollars on trying to save this tree because that's how much I didn't want to lose it because it was you know it was a portion of my it was a port part of the beautiful landscaping in the front of my house. We got up on a on a day and I said it's got to come down because it is eventually going to fall on my said my my daughter's car you
know and she is going to kill us because that's where she parks under it every day and then we're going to have to pay for it. So I hear you right. But then if I knew there was a mechanism I would, you know, take a picture, boom, I I look at it almost no different than when we had do you remember we had the app where
you could um I can't remember. You take a picture of a pothole. You take a picture of something that was wrong and you just it automatically went to DPW >> direct. >> Why couldn't we do something as simplistic as that, right? It's just very simple. Boom. And it goes right into a database, you know, and to
>> There's no enforcement. There's no I'm okay with that. See that? I'm okay with >> because at least we have a mechanism to say you know we we when we advertise it and you put it out there and we say this is what we would like you to do this is what we you know we feel is would help
us right to see how our tree inventory is and then to your point as we see if we see tree inventory then then the replacement also comes down into okay maybe it is spread out into other areas right but I I feel at least the
mechanism needs to be in place no matter what even if it's you know we're not going to enforce you're not going to get punished when I say enforce you're not getting punished for not doing it um because I think that's the rub on everybody
>> question quick question for you so in the D it says the permit for any non street tree greater than 6 in triggers the process >> that's on the model that's not required >> correct but so anyway >> um I'm just I'm looking at uh Mike's
compar comparison chart. So if if greater than 6 in is what triggers the process, does that mean we don't have to document anything under 6 in because it's not part of this process? >> I'm sorry. The the diameter is up to the municipality. For example, using 8 in.
>> So So but is anything under that that >> you can Yes, Jason. You can pick a diameter, you can pick a number, you can do something to make it anything under that is an exemption to the process. >> So they don't need to even go on the portal and allow for exemptions. >> So, this has been one of the things that
has been so difficult for everyone to kind of grasp. Look at this as a twostep or a twopiece issue. There's tree exemptions from replacement and tree permits for removal and replacement.
Both are part of the documentation process that the D is going to want to see when trees are removed from the town. So, when we talk about permit for any non- street tree greater than. What they're essentially talking about is a permit for removal that requires
replacement versus a permit for an exemption or an application for an exemption. Towns call it all kinds of different things. >> So either way, we have to document it regardless of the size that's being taken down. So, we couldn't get around the documentation issue by just upping that or giving
>> just we can set the parameters for replacement because again, you're going to always get people, you know, we have zoning requirements, we have construction code requirements, and you have people that don't follow them. So, that's it's going to be the case regardless of where you are. So, you
know, any steps you can make as um as simple as possible and as non-bburdensome as possible for a property owner and having that mechanism in place like you're talking about. I mean, towns would love that that extreme. >> So, let's I'm just trying to to gel this
because we can go all over for a lot of hours on this. So very simplistically, the idea of having a portal where if you are taking a tree down, you just Saturday morning you decide, all right, I'm going to take it down. You log online, you take a picture of it, you
upload it, you're done. Now, the replacement portion, because you have to have a replacement portion, I think that's where we we let's divert the conversation. Everybody's looking right to that homeowner for the replacement uh portion of it.
Burrow got uh a grant and environmental um implemented it. We we planted 350 trees over the last two or three years that covers the replacement plus all see this is why we have to find out what's
the goal. What's the number? So, so I mean it maybe this forms the basis of of something that kind of meets what environmental is looking for and what the planning board could recommend or or the burough council would would
accept. So, it's a portal. Um, and then the compliance replacement compliance becomes community-based as opposed to individualbased. >> So, when you say community based, it would basically I'm just going to use a scenario to make sure I'm understanding it. I put it in there. It's a tree. I'm
not required. I'm not responsible now for that replacement. It falls on the burrow. >> It It doesn't fall. It falls on the community. >> But I guess that's my question is how is the community giving back to that? >> Well, part of it is through developer uh uh kick-ins to the shade tree.
>> But I see that's what I'm saying. I see that as a burrow responsibility, not I hear what you're saying, right? I I just don't want the misunderstanding out there that, you know, now we have to all be a part of picking as a community, right, as residents. We're not really picking where they're going. Yeah.
>> It would be more set on that burrow side. A and maybe it's, you know, >> I I like the offsetting because I don't, you know, I want to go back to Tim's example of I might not have uh room on
my property to put the replacement tree, right? So, you don't want to be penalized because, you know, I'm in the same position. You I don't want anything else in my backyard. That's for my grandkids right now and my fire pit. Yes. But some of my grandkids like I don't really want if I have to replace a tree, it it can't go there because then
it ruins the atmos the the environment that I'm So, I love what you're saying. I'm just trying to figure out that mechanism, right? And and maybe it's a maybe it's a multitude of things, right? We have the um um >> Thank you. I couldn't I don't know why I
couldn't think of that. Maybe it's also something else. Maybe constantly going for grants. And then to your point, maybe I'd like to hear from the environmental commission, a committee on top of us of where let's have a map out of where the trees need to go.
>> And there is a replacement alternative section that we could use as our base and take all these things into account and maybe make that even the first option. >> Yes. It's like, okay, you remove a tree here. We know it can't go back here. Okay, but here's
>> the plan for Somerville, like you said, and okay, this is an area that the the now that mechanism that's in place is going to get kickstarted and a tree is going to be replaced and built in put in that area. >> Maybe that's where that incentive concept comes from because I don't
believe in this. If all right, Tim takes down a tree, doesn't have place for one up, but John is voluntarily planting three new trees on his property because he wanted to >> you know credit get credits for it.
>> I think there's a point that as many people that want to take down trees, there's probably equal amount of people that want to put trees in. >> So why not make that part of the reporting process, the voluntary reporting part process as well? >> Yeah. But let's say the bureau takes the position of this baseline trees that
we're going to maintain the baseline. No net loss when it's all said and done. From a land use point of view, I can track it here. >> If the residents would log in for what trees are planted and what are taken down at the end of every annual year,
you can see if that baseline is being maintained. If it's being maintained organically, you have the documentation. you have the baseline >> in in the days obviously AI is just prevalent and with GIS mapping
>> isn't there an ability to look at forestry coverage on a community as a percentage >> absolutely yes >> so isn't that then can't we use that as part of our calculation you know we're we're at 32% coverage in 2026 and in
2030 we're at 36% coverage which leads to x trees right is uh the the tree canopy slash coverage may increase just by virtue of the tree itself. >> Yeah. >> So, but but again, I like where you're going. This is you guys are thinking a
lot more outside the box than >> many other towns. >> Yeah. We're already doing this because if we have a developer who can't put his trees in, >> he writes a check to the street tree fund and then the environmental
commission puts the tree over there or puts it over there. >> Yes. And we're saying on building upon that, >> we we can certainly do that. You can even call it what do they call it? Transfer of development rights. >> Transfer of tree rights. >> Tree rights. >> No, no, I mean it sounds silly, but it's the same thing. Okay.
>> The person porch the tree, got to put another tree in. Okay, we go into the street tree fund >> and we plant another tree over there. It's not here, but it's over there, but it's someplace. And that lines up with what Mike just said about >> being a uh zero loss.
>> Yeah, of the the tracking should be the thing. I think the other thing we should do if we we should be zealots about the public street trees and what goes on on the public street
trees. Can maybe we have to surrender what goes on on private property. But we've all seen way too many trees in town that some yahoo goes in and cuts it down with no permission and no excuse except that he doesn't like it. A street
tree. our tree. We planted it. Maybe it was 30 years ago. Still a burrow's tree. We need to stop that. >> Well, I don't know. I don't know that stop is the right word. I think it's it's having a a >> without without any kind of permission or >> have a better approach.
>> Well, I don't know. What I'm talking about is like a guy I can give you an address. >> He cut three trees down in front of his house. Street trees that would burrow property. So, so my my only >> no no no reason and it doesn't seem like
anybody gave it the blessing. >> So my my only concern with them and I I agree in theory with it, but if if we're going to say that this is the burrow's property, burrow tree, then when it upheaves my sidewalk, the burrow better pay for my sidewalk. >> That's the challenge. And the burrow right now
>> and and we do not. So, if I want to pull up that tree to save my property, that should be if I'm responsible for the maintenance and care and financially on that tree, it shouldn't be I I treat it the same way as I would treat the trees
in my property. Maybe there is a caveat a little bit different, but it's the same thing as a sidewalk. It's public right away, but if I don't shovel it, it's my ass who's >> yes >> on the hook for it. >> It's a vicious circle. So >> that's why the 30,000 point view may be
the way to attack this being get the number >> and then through this portal document the installs the removals. I can certainly document on the board the land use side and just keep track of that over a year. >> I I I think we what I'd like at least if
the board agrees I' I'd like you if you could Mike you've heard our comments right we definitely agree on a portal what that use would be how we would do it. we agree on having some kind of guidance or document or map I'll just use say whatever on where replacements
should and should not go. Um and then how that mechanism how you see how that happens and the fund right maybe maybe we stopped calling it a street tree fund maybe it's you know just a community tree fund or a community replacement tree fund or replacement community I whatever so that it's not strictly for
only street cheese right we can put them in other areas >> as well as what because I think the next portion of this is where are the exemptions and then I I think if you could give us some definitions of what you would you you feel should be included in the hazards like what are
hazards because we do we should have that as well um documented in this um even though we're looking for the stuff afterwards somebody should know what you know what is a hazard and and what we see it as a hazard >> we we also may want to take another look at
how much we're allowing in the street tree how much 650 we raised that about 15 >> but that's on the developers so that's a whole that's a whole other conversation this is only about the residents right now. >> Well, I'm just saying that >> Yeah, we'll we'll handle that account that you have to
>> we talked about this >> and we've talked about increasing that. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I >> I think the approach make >> You got it, Mike. >> I got it. Keep it simple. And Larry, to your point, if we're still having a problem, uh right now we're silent on
shade trees, not street trees. Shade trees. We could certainly on the development side put more teeth into requiring the shape. There's ways of handling this on the development side to make additional trees if the burrow finds itself in a deficit. >> And and to you know to I think
everybody's point we beef up what we already have, right? We already have that fund. We already have that mechanism on the developer side >> to help offset what so that the burden is not on the residents. >> Yes. >> Okay. I gotta find my agenda.
All right. So, or trees done. So, ECBD. Um, before we I got to pull up my notes. Sorry. Um, I want to jump into the ECBD. Um just one thing before I know at the last meeting it was the task was every
on the northern portion of the um plan and I just would like to stay away from the property that is not currently designated in the ECBD in the current plan. There is uh Mike is in the process at the request of the council then came to us. We made the request to Mike. We
he is looking at additional lots in that area closer to Grove Street along West High. Um is that West High or East High there? Why can't I think of East High? Thank you. >> Um that that whether they really are deemed it is an area need and does it need to be added. So I'd like I really
would like to wait for the board to discuss anything on those properties until we see that report. all other properties north. I think it's a great opportunity to to start with there and it's around that Mechanic Street area. >> Yeah. East east side of Mechanic.
>> Oh, Lisa, just something clear, which which ones are we excluding? I'm sorry. >> The county properties. >> The county properties. >> Yeah. No. >> Yep. >> County properties. >> Okay. Um, and before we do that, I just wanted to bring up a couple things. I know, you know, and I apologize I could
not make the last meeting, but I did watch the I I wanted to just make a couple comments on I loved the conversation that happened, you know, evolving um what you guys discussed in general over in that area. One of the things that um I think that and it is
part of this portion of the north. So, I'm going to start in that area. Um the the flood plane area, that flood zone. Um, I love the idea of having some kind of ordinance that's in place that we can make things a little easier for people
to get out of that area and or to elevate. But there's one thing that I everybody kind of needs to understand about floodplane zones. It's not just you're in a flood area. Those areas, almost all of them along Park Avenue are zone AE, which means there are mandatory
regulations that have to be followed. So we would have to look at that and maybe that's part of the ordinance is that hey saying if you're in this zone AE or you're in you know zone A those are areas that the you know you you have to meet like so no matter what we say those
regulations have to be done. Um, and I do like and and that's where um I was tying that into in my head of I know we were saying we didn't want an overlay zone, but I think that's an easy way to kind of guide those prop because it's really about what flood zone are you in. And if you're in that flood zone or
you're in that designated area of that severe area, then you you know the special flood hazard area. Those are the areas that we really want to focus on because that's where to everybody's point of what you were talking about making it where it's hard
that's the hardest part hardest area for people to try to cut get out of. When I say get out of I'm not saying even just leave elevate your home do any of that. Um, so I think that's something to I know we're we're we're stripping the existing overlay zones, but I think in
in that area and the flood zones, I think whether we end up with another overlay zone or not, because you know, just because we're stripping existing overlays doesn't mean we won't land with maybe some others, I think by calling out those zones because that's the specific areas, I think would also help
um in the in that area. But then on top of that is in those zones, what do we want to see? Right? Um because I think that was the biggest portion. And I know we're not talking about the southern portion of this area, but in that southern portion, the original idea is
not really what we stuck to. And I think that also needs to come into consideration. um from a mitigation standpoint and regulatory standpoint, FEMA, D are making it almost impossible these days to build in these areas and we have to
remember that um because we don't want to promote something that's never going to get built and so that on that flood area I kind of just want to uh to focus on that um on the northern I will just open it up then
now to start having some conversations on what you guys saw on that northern area before I go. John would kill me. So, John Melio, hold on. >> And just if we >> Oh, yes.
>> Three. >> If we could just make a note in the record that John left at 6:44. >> Yes. >> You can leave. >> You can't. You can't. >> Now you can't. Sorry. So, John did put together his he knew he
might not be able to be here for this, so he wanted us to to have his comments um his map. The line that you see on the right hand side, the white line that goes from top to bottom, that's he's showing that the new flood plane, the new flood zone because it has expanded.
Um even though some of our firm maps have not been updated in FEMA, it is more of an expanded idea of where that flood area goes. um and then his comments as well as what he saw as some potential uses in that area.
>> So, are we starting with >> Yes. Go ahead. >> All right. Um so, looking at his map real quick, I I agree with the um the red on Mechanic Street. I went more by um addresses, but I think Mechanic Street um the exact properties you're
looking at on his map, which is addresses 12 to 44, I think they should just be removed from the ECBD, completely left as a residential. Um and the same thing with Park A 9 to19, which is those residential houses up at the
north side of it up until you hit the um old rescue squad. um they were the ones that were redone. Um I I'd like to see that all just be left as the residential that tie in. And then coming under that where he has the green
um I would almost include the green, the blue and the yellow on the right hand side and everything other than the red in his um as a possible mixed use. But I did actually have a note, Lisa, to your point that I think there should be
something about making it easier to raise it and giving a little bit more if you do, you know, um ground level parking that you can go up um if if we go to the the other schedules. I was saying, you know, three stories is what I think would be acceptable as a
starting talk point. >> So, another 10 ft. uh total height if only if you're doing the parking and getting all the residential commercial anything you're doing out of that and I don't know how that gets written but
>> well you can require I mean part of it can be is underground parking under under the building parking like you can because that has to have a minimum height no matter what >> so that was my thoughts I mean that's really the only I mean you can look at the the existing hotel but I kind of
lumped that into that whole thing when when it happens. >> So I the one thing I'll say about when with the the talking about removing or or not including in the ECBD, I think we've learned even from the um West End.
I don't think they get removed. We just make it perfectly clear what we want it to stay as because that those properties could get all bought up by somebody and we want it very clear in our plan that that intent of that area what it was and what we want it to be in 20 30 years.
>> And I'm fine with that, >> you know, and that I just think it's it's does it it does what you were looking for, but it really clearly lays out that it's you're replacing residential with residential. You're not allowed anything else. This is what single family homes like we can be very strict in those areas of saying single
family. Um but I get nervous when we have pockets within a redevelopment area because it opens up for the future. >> Makes sense. >> I think from a thousand foot level John's uh overall is very good. Um the blue I
agree with. I think having that as a gateway um to downtown is good and as a recreation space, a softer use as opposed to a hard use because we know in a severe flood there's six feet of water
in that blue area that it's just what comes. Um I agree on mechanic that they should remain as single family residentials as they are. Um the green however I think Those
currently are in the TDR, transfer of development rights and I think they should remain in the transfer of development rights and I think the yellow is where we target the commercial which which he has and and the thinking
is if we suppress isn't the right word. Uh reduce the acceptable level of development in the yellow right now. But you're dealing with two car two used car shops. Um, you know, it it needs some
help down there. So, so if we create something that says commercial below and then maybe two stories above. However, depending on what you acquire in the green that is then converted to open space,
you have the ability to add density >> in the yellow >> in the yellow. >> And I'm just throwing that out for discussion. I think that supports well you said it much better than I would have but I think that supports my thought around like 20 to 30 years from now returning as much of this reasonably
speaking in the flood zone back to green space. >> Yeah. because I don't know if it's economically if it economically makes sense to continue to develop that at least to your point there's going to be there's different rules and regulations that need to be put in place the cost elevation and how do you
>> so and I I do want to address one thing on the and it goes in line with what you're saying Brian and and kind of ties into one of the comments that um Jason made my one concern on this Park Avenue area where you have some of these residential I like I like the green where he has and I think it's a little
bit closer up to the high street area. Um, I can't say that I'm opposed to it saying certain areas in residential. The problem is in these zones, so if an elevation, like let's say that another flood comes, let's pray it doesn't, but
if it does, you get another IDA, those homes are going to need to be demoed and built up again. >> The issue is is these days, they're not gonna like, and that falls on us as a burrow, right? We keep allowing them to
keep rebuilding as is. They're in a zone AE. They really technically should not be. The only reason it never got flagged is because they did it on their own, right? We should be helping and saying, "Okay, and and I I guess we need I would like a mechanism on that as well because
we keep allowing residents to put their homes right back into a hazardous area." And that isn't also I think something we have to think about. I don't necessarily want it to not be residential, but I think we also have to think about in some of these areas in those greens and in that you know in some of those that
zone AE what is the mech what do we see right because that this is our opportunity to write make the recommendation to council hey we're looking for an ordinance on this we're looking for a mechanism right and we have this um mechanism of TDR for
commercial >> and for developers But do we have some kind of option or something that we could look at for residents? And my last point on that is is in zone AE you have a BFE which is a base flood elevation level that you are mandated and it's getting higher and
higher and higher and higher. Eventually some of these homes, no joke, in this area it could be minimum 10 feet of height has that that has to be built up to before you can hit your ground floor ground floor level. That's an awful lot on that street. Are we now really
keeping in with the the what that look is of that residential home for us? I mean, and you see it down the shore. You can tell who went where they're supposed to and who didn't because they, you know. So, I just want to keep that in mind as well on on that residential
portion because I think it ties into do we start looking at that where as if they go we do want it turned over maybe to green space and then but what can we ask burough council to help us with in giving those that ability and that mechanism to the resident.
>> So, >> how did they do this in man lost the lost uh lost valley? They're doing it through attrition. >> Federal Yeah, it's it's it's Blue Acres. It's federal buyout. >> So, they're doing a lot of grants. I mean, obviously, I won't full
disclosure. I mean, my county is involved in a lot. So, I'm a lot involved in a lot of this. It's through the natural you can't force somebody to want to have somebody come in and acquire their home, right? It's an opt-in. But what you can do is you can prevent them from making the
improvements that they might need to make it a better living, right? And that's really where it becomes a standstill and it's not a good situation for the resident and it's not a good situation for the burrow. Um but the acquisitions themselves have been through overtime and through attrition.
Um but it's an opt-in program. You cannot force a resident. >> The the other question I had is that in the yellow area on the the western side like you said there two car lots there.
Can we encourage car lots to be someplace else, maybe a higher traffic area on Route 22 or someplace else that's not there so that that can be redeveloped into something that's more usually either residential from Park
Avenue. I'm not saying put the auto place out of business. Let's move in someplace that's better. Maybe there's a better place along 206 that might be better or along 22 that might be better. Well, and I think that's
>> that's a zoning issue. >> Well, no, that's that's the goal of of the redevelopment process that you know, we're encouraging a redevelopment of those existing areas and somebody owns those properties now. So, whether they choose to keep them as used
car dealerships or if they choose to relocate them or if they choose to say, you know what, I'm going to redevelop it or I'm going to sell it. >> Yeah. So, so that's that's we're we're trying to create that incentive here. >> Okay. >> So, you know, I I I think the whole idea
is the yellow portion becomes So, so now you I mean now there's pockets in here. You have the old synagogue which is now a church. Do you want that? Do we want that to stay? Do we want that to become I mean it's iconic. I think it was the first temple in Somerset County. >> Is that that first is you think that's
that first yellow piece or you think it's It's right next to the cross. >> So, you know, it's it's it's got history to it. And actually, if you look very closely at the very peak of it, the Star of David is in the in the uh set inset
into the stone at the very very peak of it. It's neat. >> I I I think it's actually the the blue one to be honest. >> That's right. It does look like it's the blue. >> I'm looking I'm looking at it. I'm looking at aerial map. It's it's the
blue. >> It is. >> Just so everybody's clear. >> But I think that does fall in line with when you read it. He's saying, you know, just looking at something that's creative, recognizing downtown, you know, the way the buildings he is talking about the the
>> the iconic portion of that corner >> before does any did anybody come up with anything in when you looked at that this this northern portion that really is different than what John laid out here?
I just want to make sure that nobody feels like okay we have we're going like he did a great job and listen he can do all our maps moving forward he's gonna be really sorry he can put these handouts in um but be I really just wanted to make sure that everybody was on in agreeance that bas I think maybe
fine-tuning or tweaking some stuff based on some comments but I think does everybody for moving forward does everybody like this area and this portion >> I think I think this works I think you know talking about you know transfer development rights. I think we have to
base that though on if we're going to add density, it's above that everinccreasing line that that keeps going forward, which is conversations we've had on different properties in this area. Um, and I think we have to decide on that if we're going to continue to talk about transfer
development rights. That's a piece that's got to go in this. I think John did a fantastic job, >> but we really have to pay attention to that line >> when we think about increased density in different areas. >> The uh the carrot might have to be increased. Roger. The the TDR has been
around for a decade and nobody's >> with zero traction being what we're talking about is in the plan right now given the density encouraging open space park land and the flood hazard and we're just not getting any activity to date.
>> No, I I I know. Uh but I'm what I'm saying is I want to make sure that we we're we're looking to tighten up language across the board, right? And I think we need to to to do that um because that could lead to concerns about density in flood pl flood plane areas. Yeah.
>> So I don't disagree with you, but I think we I I think we also before we can kind of decide what that density looks like, let's see what we see on the southern portion. >> Sure. >> Because some of that density could now be shared in some people's view and and then where to your point, where does
that density stop? >> Yes. >> And where does it start? >> Yeah. So, so with that this the green area there that you know we're discussing um do we want to restrict I mean
do we want to restrict it from having residential to keep it out of the any residential out of the flood >> yes >> area because it's it's a hard cell regulatory wise to and justification >> to justify why you're allowing it these days.
>> So so let's be a little bold. So, so a hundred years ago, here he goes. So, so a 100 years ago, some very smart people created the Petersburg Greenway and they didn't they created our parklands and they knew the
parklands flooded. So, unfortunately, our parklands have not expanded, but our flooding has. All right. So, if you take that white line and let's take a look at what is on the other side of Park Avenue. We have a
baseball field. We have a pool. We have a splash park. >> We have a basketball court. Across the street we have the old firehouse, which you know eventually should become a wreck area, rec center. And then we have tennis courts.
Why shouldn't we target this area as a municipal athletic soft athletic complex that has the ability to flood, recede, and reuse? >> Where can I just can you just Where are you talking about? In the green area to
the blue and and probably a good part of yellow. Okay. I just want to make sure that I'm I'm >> looking in the right area. >> If we want to be bold, >> this area >> then then let's be bold. Is it something that the burrow >> would want, need, use? Absolutely. Um
and and it could be hard surface courts, it could be grass fields, it could be multi-purpose area, but we we're looking at it from that same lens of development that
we always look at everything u that we've looked at it for the last 20 years, including myself. So, let's change the lens and let's look at it. What does the burrow need? We're always screaming for fields, right? Fields are not a bad thing. We're
re repositioning some fields over at Carol Pager now. >> So, let's look at this and we don't have to define what it is, but we can define the concept of what it is and say, you know what, athletics, green space, um, open space
and to be determined. And then that begins to shift that that will start to shape how we develop the rest of that yellow area. And then should should the northern area of that or the western area of that come into
the eastern central business district that will have implications then for that. Well, and to your point, I I like so the the blue right that creative draw as you're coming in to that, you know, east end, that east gate to the
municipality. I think that even allows for even more opportunities to do that to that corner because it becomes in a sense that open space and it could be you know maybe it's statues maybe it's you know a a nice you get what I'm
saying it's >> a beautiful gateway >> yes but without it being you know we've always thought it had to be a building that was going to do that and I think this gives it us more opportunity to look at that and say no this is the the this is the east gateway this is a beautiful entrance to Somerville from
this end. >> Can I piggyback then on what the what you're both saying and we if if we get to that point and we have acquired that space and through attrition or whatever the case may be that Park Avenue is
vacated and then it really becomes it's not you don't have to cross over the street. It's all as the mayor is saying one large >> Yep. You know, >> and listen, these days, I'll be honest with you, you know, um and the specifics would have to be, you know, burough councils and and the the bureau's decision, but there are plenty of
opportunities these days to acquire open space, use grants, county, state funds. They're all pushing for in these flood areas, figure it out, we will help you, and then they give you the money to do it because they want these areas. So I
think to that point to the mayor's point if that's the vision we're seeing down there right and then I think it also sets a platform because if there are going to be grants that are going to be going for guess what you need documentation of what you're trying to get for and that would give that so that's just another perspective to look
at as we're as we're trying to figure out where this plan lands it does open up a lot of opportunities on the other side for the burrow to have access to as well as homeowners >> and I think it would help us in our
mission as it's been that if we're, you know, even on both the uh southern end of of that section, maybe even 28's vacated and we finally get what we've been looking for, which is to bypass it onto vets and then we
really get something and and have true green space there that would be fluid across and that would be something tremendous because that is an area that floods. It is dangerous for cars to go through there. And if we can get them to go around, we might have, you know, that that could be more fuel to something
we've talked about for the whole reason Veterans exists. >> Yeah. >> It's it's it's an opportunity. It's almost the the dead center of the burrow. >> Yep. >> When you look at it, um you can get to it from any corner of the burrow uh by the green uh the greenway, the
Petersburg Greenway. So I I there's just some opportunity there that if we take a step back and go back in time and look at what was done right a 100 years ago. >> It's a good point. >> Let's let's try to mirror what they did
right and do it again. >> I would pile on to it a little bit. Maybe we get rid of Park Avenue period. Make that all green. the northeast purple corner there, you know, that could potentially be future
parking or something like that. And that burrow entrance, you know, kind of the blue piece, you could actually slide that more to the east almost onto Codington Avenue and use kind of the trees, you know, behind it. So, just another kind of perspective like look a
little bigger uh on that. >> Yep. >> The stream might get in the way right there, though. >> The bridge. >> The bridge. the bridge area. >> And then I know it's not in the area, but you have the old dentist's office at the corner of Park and East High that's been vacant since the last flood
>> and and it was vacant for years after the flood before that and the flood before that. >> Um and and that's a great connection once again to our athletic fields. Um so maybe we have the germ of an idea here.
So, if everybody's okay on this, I I think we've kind of somewhat landed with a really good base for the north. Is everybody okay with I'd like to do the same thing for the southern portion. Um, that does go a little bit further. So, maybe if we
>> I got to look at my map, not John's, because I have my layout here. >> Um, I mean, we could look at the whole southern if you want. It is a lot. Um, but we can look at the whole southern or we can kind of say what do we see in the southern, you know, up to
Hamilton or do we just go you want to go all the way to Southbridge? You guys tell me what you feel for the lift. >> Well, I still we talked about this the last time. There's been so much development there that has been separate
from the Eastern Business District. We have buildings and >> where where are you talking? Well, if you're talking about going further west, the um the county buildings, >> we can't that that's going to be discussed. >> No, no, I meant the southern part. Like
we have we have these >> that's already portion of the plan, though, >> right? But I mean, it seems like we should be removing some things that are already developed out of a plan. >> I Well, I think that's what we want people if if you want to look at the southern then come back with those comments. But I think that's what we're saying is >> Well, I thought you weren't comment now.
No, I I'm trying to give task give direction. Listen, we could be here till 10 o'clock if you'd like. >> I I say we do the whole I I say we do the whole the whole thing at once. >> I just don't want to make sure you know if everybody's comfortable with doing the whole All right. So, we're going to do the whole area from all the way to
>> South Bridge. >> Yep. Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments on that? You had you had mentioned about the county facility. You mentioned about the county
>> in the southern portion. >> Uh no the the whole northern section the county the county block and there is there some potential for something to happen? >> So we're waiting on Mike's report. So if you remember that was the area in need
that council had asked us to look at. >> Yeah I know. So, we turned it over to um Mike and said we needed he has not completed the area and needs study yet. That was all those properties up there. >> The one comment I had about that because that's what I was thinking about the
last week is that >> we can't I don't think we can trust the county to do anything for us. >> Well, I again I think what Lisa is saying is >> I really don't want to have this discussion please >> until Mike >> Yeah. >> finishes his report to see whether it is
included or not. Yeah, >> this is not clear. We don't need >> Okay, thank you. >> I >> we will get there. >> I think the charge is in the southern portion is right what Larry said. We have the station house cobalt, the
Warren Street deck, uh the county building on Warren Street. There's a lot of development with Larry was getting at. So, I think part of that charge to the planning board is how do we handle lots that are developed right now? Do they stay in? Do they do we have
specific language regarding uh those properties? I think right Larry is that what you're saying? >> Yes. I think we should remove things that are that have >> But I think that then definitely those are the comments we want to hear about that area next meeting. Definitely.
>> All right. My glasses I can't see a thing. Okay. Um All right. So I Where are we with the historic element? I'm not going to lie, I followed the meeting and then I got lost as to where
we landed in the end of the historic. Got a little sidetracked with some of the um comments towards the end. So, where are we at with this? >> Defer to next meeting. >> Okay. Because I'm good with that. Um I
think that we are in a spot. Um, I I will work with Mike and Jason on trying to recollect where we're at on that historic element and then get some comments out to you guys before the next meeting and give you some charge on on where >> the minutes might help. There was a a
good summary in there. Take a look. >> Yeah, I really did do my best, but I got too distracted on certain conversations on them and that there were some microphone issues, too. All right, having that uh no other is I'm not going
to pull anything for uh open business. It's going to stay there. All right, so I'm going to now open uh the meeting to the public. All members of the public wish to address the board on a matter that is not listed on this agenda may do so and I'll open it up to the public hearing. None. I'm going to close public
session and I would like a motion for adjournment. >> So moved. Second. All >> in favor? >> I. All opposed.