WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=mCEH7XlKTZY

Part: 1

1
00:00:26.560 --> 00:01:01.840
30 seconds. We're good. Someville Planning Board for Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one posted on the bulletin board

2
00:01:01.840 --> 00:01:16.400
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

3
00:01:16.400 --> 00:01:34.280
be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Mayor Gallagher is excused. Chairperson Warner >> here. >> Roger Vroom >> here. >> Jason Kra >> here. Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Andrea Deer >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> John Manilio.

4
00:01:34.799 --> 00:01:52.960
>> Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Tim Hayes >> here. Bill Kale. >> Uh please stand for the pledge. I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands. One

5
00:01:52.960 --> 00:02:20.080
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um I am going to have some I'm going to talk about something under our chairwoman's comments. So uh the stormwater ordinance was at council on Monday. They have passed our ordinance

6
00:02:20.080 --> 00:02:36.160
but in the meeting they are asking us to review four or five I don't remember the number. Uh other recommendations four >> four recommendations that they would like us to look at. Um the ordinance is I just want to make clear to the board

7
00:02:36.160 --> 00:02:51.519
the ordinance has passed. Um, this is not a formal recommendation that we're going to be out of courtesy because they asked us to by the end of May. We will review these. I'm going to ask every board member to please watch the council meeting so that you know what transpired, what the comments were from

8
00:02:51.519 --> 00:03:06.720
council. And then Mike has also obtained a video from the environmental commission that was sent to the council. We've never seen it. um that we will he will we will get distributed through Ryan uh so that everybody can access that and then we will pick up um under

9
00:03:06.720 --> 00:03:27.519
discussion items um and discuss that at the next planning board meeting. Okay. All right. Uh ARB reviews. So we had Ambi Coffee, Epic Desserts, Kai uh Kai >> Kaiu Kaiu. Uh those are all sidewalk

10
00:03:27.519 --> 00:03:46.159
cafes. They were typical. They all pass those and then the four division street was assigned approval. Anybody have any comments or anything on those? Okay. >> Uh motion for minutes from April 8th. >> Second. >> Chairperson Warner.

11
00:03:46.159 --> 00:04:02.720
>> I think I was absent for that one. >> Yes. >> Roger. >> Is that one right? >> Yes. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes.

12
00:04:02.720 --> 00:04:18.160
>> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> All right. We have a resolution for memorializing the consistency, determination, and recommendations of the planning board of the Burrow of Somerville with regards to ordinances 2796 26046 2797 26046

13
00:04:18.160 --> 00:04:34.320
and 2798,26046 amending the zoning and land use development ordinances for the burough code. >> So moved. >> Second. Chairperson Werner, >> yes. >> Roger Vroom, >> yes. >> Jason Krasco, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland,

14
00:04:34.320 --> 00:04:53.840
>> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> Opposite >> opposite. CR confirmed. >> All right. Uh, next reszo was for the uh, preliminary major site plan approval

15
00:04:53.840 --> 00:05:10.639
for six West Main Street. >> So moved. Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Roger Ver. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. But I have a question. >> I'm sorry. Um in one of the the sheets

16
00:05:10.639 --> 00:05:26.160
that we saw there was a discussion about who's going to be paying or planting replanting the tree. Though we agreed that the applicant would place the tree. You were looking at >> Oh, >> the resolution, the one that's before

17
00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:43.680
you in your packet tonight. Item number 12 says they're replanting it. Period. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I didn't mean to cut you off. I >> No, no, no. That's important. Yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes,

18
00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:59.840
>> yes. >> All right, moving on to discussion items. uh area need the uh so eastern ECBD Mike >> have a map that was added that's the to give the eyes acclimate you guys to the

19
00:05:59.840 --> 00:06:17.520
study area for basically the county properties that's when the report's done that's the area is being investigated uh as charged by uh council to the planning board >> okay >> I just give you information to what area

20
00:06:17.520 --> 00:06:34.919
The map is get together. The report is being uh put together and shortly we'll the report will be ready for the board to review. But I'm just this is giving you the map to tell you the area that's being investigated to help clarify the future.

21
00:06:35.759 --> 00:06:50.960
>> Um all right. So from last meeting we moved on to the southern portion. >> Yes. >> Anybody want to start? Sorry I gota take my jacket off. Um, all right. I I'll chime in. Um, so,

22
00:06:50.960 --> 00:07:05.599
so looking at this southern end, everything below Main Street there, most of it is already developed out. Um, I do believe we keep the residential, um, zoning for those houses on Hamilton and

23
00:07:05.599 --> 00:07:21.759
then over even on um, behind South Bridge. I always forget the name of that. Franklin Street there. >> I think it's Franklin's a dead end street. >> That's the dead end. Yep. Um, and we keep that. The rest of it, I believe, can all become basically one thing. I think we need to remove the uh the

24
00:07:21.759 --> 00:07:39.039
heights that vary all of them. Um, I would suggest just going to, you know, a threestory building, max across it, and then if somebody wants a variance because for whatever reason, they can come in. 90% of it's already developed out. So,

25
00:07:39.039 --> 00:07:54.720
that that's my recommendation on that entire southern portion. So the southern portion >> the southern southern portion you're referring to which which ones here the stuff below >> Main Street. >> Everything below Main Street. >> Everything Oh, the southern Okay, I see.

26
00:07:54.720 --> 00:08:09.199
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> What Jason is saying is the Warren Streets have been developed with the county properties. the deck is in. >> The properties uh along vets are mostly developed with the exception of the two apartment

27
00:08:09.199 --> 00:08:24.160
buildings in between the cobalt and station house. And we have the steel place which is the only thing that's not really developed on vets. I'm just walking around vets. You have the bank that's been there for Santander for a million years.

28
00:08:24.160 --> 00:08:41.279
>> Yep. And then what what uh Jason is saying is we have the older houses, the row houses on South Bridge on Franklin. >> Yep. >> And he's saying that they keep the height there at >> three stories. Three stories.

29
00:08:41.279 --> 00:08:58.720
>> Three stories. >> Yep. >> And everything on the west side of Bridge is in the West Main Street. So, we're walking east of South Bridge, >> which is the Lips Lounge properties going east.

30
00:08:58.720 --> 00:09:14.640
>> And so, the board knows we have an application for that. >> So, correct, which that was submitted before the before we make any changes. So, a full just came in. >> It's a not a full submission yet. >> It's just I'm just going to review it. But we have an a submission for those

31
00:09:14.640 --> 00:09:30.240
four parcels that the PLA planning board saw five, six years ago. So that is coming in. >> Okay. >> Which takes another area takes another area off the table. Should

32
00:09:30.240 --> 00:09:46.399
the board whatever that depending the outcome of course. >> Yes. >> Um I just had a question. My recollection for the northern side did we come up with what we wanted capped outside of the flood zone? What we wanted capped on stories as well?

33
00:09:46.399 --> 00:10:01.519
>> I was going through notes and I didn't see anything. No, I don't think we came up with a stories cap. I think we said everything on um the residential end we would keep residential and then I know we talked about

34
00:10:01.519 --> 00:10:17.440
three stories, but we were talking about if we wanted them to raise it or not. Does that count? >> Because we have to kind of address we do have two car lots there, right? So those are in the ECBD. There are some other properties there that are outside of that flood plane zone. Um so they we do need to address those on what we see.

35
00:10:17.440 --> 00:10:33.920
you know, even if it's a change in vision or so, I think for next meeting, I'd like everybody to that specifically. I think this is a little bit easier on the on the southern because to Mike's point and Jason's point, most of it's developed already. >> Um, and if we went back to we going back to the base zoning and getting and then

36
00:10:33.920 --> 00:10:49.920
restricting our um story limit. >> Yes. >> But I don't think we really addressed that on the northern part. As I was going through notes, I I couldn't find anything where we had kind of discussed that. >> Uh the mayor had pointed out on Park Avenue maybe the radical idea of going

37
00:10:49.920 --> 00:11:06.720
back to green space. >> Yes. I'm just talking about outside of I want to because we we got so focused what I what my notes led to is we got so focused on the flood areas. We never kind of went back on that discussion on like in that those car lots and in that area what we saw as what we if it was

38
00:11:06.720 --> 00:11:21.279
going to be redeveloped or change of use, what would those restrictions be? Right. Yeah. >> And >> to to that point, um I I agree and I I would recommend, you know, the same thing with three stories. Um but also throughout this whole thing, leaving in

39
00:11:21.279 --> 00:11:38.800
the um TDR. >> I I don't think we removed that. I think we >> No, I think we all agreed. Everybody else definitely, you know, unless there's a change, which is fine, you know, keeping the TDR in there for especially specifically so close to that flood plane.

40
00:11:38.800 --> 00:11:54.800
>> Trying to incentivize through TDR or other economic means to have the development outside the flood hazard area. >> Correct. >> Uh really quick, hold on, Larry. Tim, did you have a question or a comment? >> Yeah, a comment. Uh on the on the southern side, some of those properties

41
00:11:54.800 --> 00:12:11.200
are currently in the flood zone. What are our thoughts on those? >> So, I I think what what I'd like to do is I I want to I'm going to work with Mike. I want to see if we can work with GIS. I I'd like to get those very specifically so we can see that. Um in my opinion and the hearing the board

42
00:12:11.200 --> 00:12:27.920
that those really need to kind of be handled separately on how we see those and how we're going to do it, whether it's going to be lot by lot or we're going to take that whole area. Um, but I think that's going to be I'd like that to be one of our next steps to really fine-tune. Um because to that point and

43
00:12:27.920 --> 00:12:44.240
also depending where you're at whether you're literally on Park Avenue or are you a little bit higher higher up you know going up more um towards the east side so or west side west side um it would could be determined on where we

44
00:12:44.240 --> 00:13:00.480
some of that flexibility comes into because yes we did all talk about trying to keep that not developed moving forward >> right >> but as we start to come out of that we need to see what's that transition look like and what are some so I'm I'm going to that was one of the notes I made for one of the next meetings was I'd like to

45
00:13:00.480 --> 00:13:18.079
have that mapping done um and over and when I say overlay overlay of specifically where the flood flooding is um and and start talking about maybe making recommendations of whether we're going to allow for elevations or not allow for elevations. We have to

46
00:13:18.079 --> 00:13:33.040
remember too that um some of this is policy but it needs to be consistent with our master plan and if that's if we're looking for open space then we would need to make that recommendation on what's allowed and what's not allowed moving forward.

47
00:13:33.040 --> 00:13:50.000
All right. Any other comments on the ECBD? Oh, sorry Larry. I forgot to back. >> Sometimes I think we get comfortable using jargon that the public may not understand. TDR we we we know >> transfer development rights >> we know >> sorry but they don't know

48
00:13:50.000 --> 00:14:06.399
>> you can always interrupt and just correct us Larry >> I wasn't correcting I'm saying we just >> No I'm saying you say by the way that's transferred because that would remind us to say that because you're right we use these anagram uh >> acronyms >> acronyms I don't say >> no I was just saying that people don't know and then we get >> s >> what's that

49
00:14:06.399 --> 00:14:36.560
>> making ABC uh any other comments on the southern portion of the ECBD. Mike, is there anything else on the bulk standards that you see we might need to really focus on? how we approach

50
00:14:36.560 --> 00:15:13.600
those four areas of the standards. >> I think there should be a discussion because we're not consistent. height dimensions or be >> well I do think we also have to look at in the ECBD in certain areas we do have

51
00:15:13.600 --> 00:15:35.480
to look at parking >> um just because of the pre-existing constraints that we have too >> comes off ord The concern was to have a sixtory building

52
00:15:35.600 --> 00:16:03.079
resial house that was appropriate. So it's not clear right now >> specifically in the bulk standard area you're talking about. >> Yes. question is Jason

53
00:16:03.519 --> 00:16:25.920
stories we don't have this issue but if we allow five or six stories somewhere the question is what's next building and a resial building that's 30t apart or 40 apart

54
00:16:25.920 --> 00:16:57.199
going to stories that off camer >> save yourself to work on that if we're >> I was gonna say before we go any further with that is is anybody opposed to going higher than three stories in anywhere in this area.

55
00:16:57.199 --> 00:17:14.559
Speak now or forever. Hold your peace. All right. We're just >> That gives us a starting standard. >> Yeah. I think that needs to and then if something I think as we go further in discussions then to Mike's point, yeah, we would have to look at if we found something that we all of a sudden thought of, you know, moving forward,

56
00:17:14.559 --> 00:17:31.120
we'd have to look at how that stepped up and not just kind of plopped in the middle of >> Right. And with it, I do think everybody should go online and take a quick look at schedule B, the actual approved uses. Yes. >> In those base zones because some of them um I did make some notes. I think I sent them to you, Mike. Some of them just

57
00:17:31.120 --> 00:17:46.400
don't seem relevant or appropriate in >> the area at this point anymore. I mean, it allows hotels and zoos. No, not zoos, but you know, a lot of things if you want to look at that. It's only a page and a half to look at um for what those

58
00:17:46.400 --> 00:18:03.440
approved plans are uh uses are. >> Yeah. So I think for the next meeting I think um looking at those allowable uses which would also kind of wrap in what I was saying about we really didn't have that discussion on those two th those that smaller portion of the northern side of what is and and we do see you

59
00:18:03.440 --> 00:18:19.280
know possibly either be redeveloped or change of use etc. Um, but doing on the southern side now that we have a good feel of, you know, three stories max, what does that wipe out? What does it not wipe out? Um, and yes, I'm sure I have seen in some of them

60
00:18:19.280 --> 00:18:33.840
probably not what we would want in that area anymore. But >> for discussion, I can come up with bulk standards moving forward for the board to look at. Yeah, I think >> three stories just a fresh look at this with the eyes of trying to keep it

61
00:18:33.840 --> 00:18:51.280
uniform and clarity simple so that the public developers can look at this and get it. >> And part of that is is I think we need to once we get a lot of this solidified um we don't know what your area and need study is going to say yet, right? But if

62
00:18:51.280 --> 00:19:07.760
it does come back, having this kind of solidified what we see in the in this whole other area could impact on what we see if that is something that we need to look at in those other areas and that might maybe that's where stepping comes in. Maybe that's where you know you know that altering or easing into different

63
00:19:07.760 --> 00:19:22.960
bulk standards. All right. All right. So for next meeting for us it's going to be look at the base zoning for all of those areas. um what you like, what you don't like, and maybe if there's something that you don't see that you have an idea for, I

64
00:19:22.960 --> 00:19:40.799
will work with um getting maps and overlays specifically for that flooding area so that we can also start to have very specific conversations on how we want to look at that along Park Avenue, you know, right at that Park Avenue, main East Main Street vets area right there. Um because if we're going to move

65
00:19:40.799 --> 00:19:57.120
towards open space, we should, you know, the master plan um should this could tie into the master plan on what we see more in our open open space as well. >> Mike, can you send that schedule out also? >> Yes, >> the one that Jason was talking about.

66
00:19:57.120 --> 00:20:41.360
>> I will send the schedule out and I'll give you a new schedule. >> Thank you. Okay perfect. >> Perfect. Any other questions or comments on the ECB right now? All right.

67
00:20:41.360 --> 00:21:02.960
Uh, moving on to master plan element reviews. We have still the historic uh Mike I have that we're waiting on you to get summaries back to us on our comments in one document. Is that accurate? It's okay because I know we we keep

68
00:21:02.960 --> 00:21:21.760
dumping on you at every meeting. >> I will comments based on >> I thought we had that. So, I think we were waiting on you to put together a draft for us to send

69
00:21:21.760 --> 00:21:43.120
>> a finalized draft for us to approve. >> I'm sorry, I didn't get that. >> No, you're good. I just wanted I didn't want to make I want to make sure I'm not missing anything and the board isn't missing anything. Okay. >> Um, so and then the next one that we're going to start uh looking at is recreation. Um, I'm gonna have Jason,

70
00:21:43.120 --> 00:21:59.120
we're not gonna we can have some discussion tonight, but we I know you guys haven't reviewed it yet. This is the next one that we're going to move on to. Uh, so for next meeting, we'll have more in-depth, but I'm gonna have Jason give an overview on some highlights of some of the either updates, changes, removals, etc. that the recreation

71
00:21:59.120 --> 00:22:14.080
committee is um recommending. >> Thank you. Um, so you'll have it all in that zip drive that Mike provided to you. Um the recreation element is actually a very simple one and an easier one because

72
00:22:14.080 --> 00:22:31.520
um we went through it and recreation's pretty cut and draw. We want more open, you know, some of the things we added some more open space. Um some additional updates to the parks. We've put in a lot of different playgrounds and stuff like that. Providing more um senior

73
00:22:31.520 --> 00:22:46.559
programmings and things like that that we've all talked about over the last years. um you know a possible rec center looking into. So you'll see in in the element when you look at it it's sure it'll have red lines through anything that needs to be removed. Green is

74
00:22:46.559 --> 00:23:02.960
anything new that was being added. Um and I think I took out the purple which was questions. I think I removed that before I sent it. Um but it's pretty simple. Kind of falls right into as Lisa was saying the the open space. We discuss in there that um we should look

75
00:23:02.960 --> 00:23:18.960
at preserving more of the flood areas, open space to um mitigate damage um and even storm, you know, runoff into the streams from the flooding that will occur again. Um and just as a side note, I'm I'm the vice chair of the rec committee, so that's why I'm speaking

76
00:23:18.960 --> 00:23:32.880
towards this >> for full disclosure. >> Yeah, full disclosure. So that's I I helped you know edit this draft for recreation and they um have advised that I can be the voice for them in these meetings.

77
00:23:32.880 --> 00:23:50.320
>> Okay. Any questions before All right. We'll have that on for discussion the next meeting. One clarification on historic carrier just pointed out to me and this is for the next meeting members were asked to review the recommendations on page 10 through 12 of the draft element and come prepared to discuss

78
00:23:50.320 --> 00:24:06.480
when individually determine whether they retain the remove or modify. This is on historic element >> that was the last March meeting. So I what I'm saying is >> I'll get it to everyone. >> Well, did we miss that step? >> That's why I want to make sure that he's

79
00:24:06.480 --> 00:24:21.760
got information addressed. I'll get it. I'll get it done. >> Does anybody else remember? I know there was a meeting um that I missed when we did this. So, >> this would have been the minutes are from March 25th. So, this would have been the April >> 8th that you were not here. Yeah. >> Yeah, it's the meeting. >> Yeah,

80
00:24:21.760 --> 00:24:38.240
>> that's I think it's flipped. You were here at the first meeting in April. I think you weren't here the last meeting of March. >> Uh >> yes, I could have ordered >> yet last meeting. >> And that was the meeting where it was in depth. you had given the presentation on what your changes and updates,

81
00:24:38.240 --> 00:24:53.520
recommendations I should say were. >> The bottom line is I'll get it out for the next meeting and we'll just redline it. >> Okay. >> I'm not getting anybody caught up on anything. I'm just >> Carrie just point out to me that well there's some missing information. >> No, and that's really why I said I just

82
00:24:53.520 --> 00:25:10.720
want to make sure we're not missing >> and I'll just get it to everyone and we can do what the board always does and redline it. >> Okay. >> We'll get it right. That's it. >> All right. uh tree ordinance. How about it, Mike? uh based on the last meeting the

83
00:25:10.720 --> 00:25:27.279
discussions I prepared the tree ordinance that's with a big draft on it that basically says that residents property owners are going to uh use the link that has to be modified

84
00:25:27.279 --> 00:25:42.799
the burrow link to report installation of trees and removal of trees for recordkeeping purposes and it says that I will the board engineer will keep track annually of trees being installed

85
00:25:42.799 --> 00:25:58.320
on land use applications and removed and the policy says that the policy is that the bureau will not have a net loss of trees throughout the municipality. So on an annual basis, we'll take a look of

86
00:25:58.320 --> 00:26:14.880
what was installed, what was removed, and if there's a deficiency, the recommendation is to amend the land use ordinance regarding shade trees. Right now, shade trees, if the board inclines, gives a waiver if they're not there.

87
00:26:14.880 --> 00:26:30.000
There's not a financial contribution. We handle street trees that way, but shade trees are a big uh something that the board can mandate a lot more shade trees be done if they're deficient. So the recommendation here or this is based on

88
00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:45.039
the last meeting is if there's a deficiency, we'll address it in the land use ordinance on developments in front of the board. Uh this is handles hopefully the recordkeeping requirements. It says any

89
00:26:45.039 --> 00:27:02.559
tree over 6 inch cabra that you can say 4 inch. It's just record. Okay, I'm sorry. It's 4 inch. It could be six eight. It really doesn't matter. It's just to give the documentation. A tree was taken down and we installed a tree and uh I spent a little time on this and

90
00:27:02.559 --> 00:27:18.320
I don't think there's a cell app that you can use. I gave the hyperlink but it has to be set up because if you use that reporting hyperlink, there's nothing about trees in there. So, it's not set up. >> So, it would have to be set up yet. >> It would have to be set up. And it'd be great if we can get an Android or an

91
00:27:18.320 --> 00:27:34.799
app, but all you do is enter your >> property address. >> There's there's a possibility of that coming in the near future through something else. I'm working on that, >> right, >> through OEM that we may have the ability to do that. So you have all the definitions, but it basically if you

92
00:27:34.799 --> 00:27:51.760
read it says that if a homeowner property owner is taking a tree down, just inform the burrow of what's happening so the burrow can keep track on this to see uh how this is progressing a net positive on trees

93
00:27:51.760 --> 00:28:06.480
throughout the municipality. uh because the discussion and I think Roger might be able to say I think there's a grant and there's a study being done for the burrow on the trees the existing trees withoutin the municipality.

94
00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:22.559
>> So we have that and on an annual basis we can see how many trees through the land development boards and through reporting >> you can see where this is going. Oh we have a gain of 2,000 trees. No, we're down 500 trees. Okay. If the policy is

95
00:28:22.559 --> 00:28:39.039
we're going to maintain the existing trees and then if you go this direction and the council goes this direction, we be revising the land use ordinance to require more trees on applications. >> Um so so one question I had just under

96
00:28:39.039 --> 00:28:53.679
um section three of the regulated activities and exemptions number five um it talks about the the fee that the developer you know that we're all used to the 650 going to 750. Is that only for things that come through the boards

97
00:28:53.679 --> 00:29:10.159
or is that also if a resident removes a street tray? >> No, it's only for the board. >> That's only Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's only if it comes through the board. >> Jason, thank you. The the comments in green are my comments. I changed it from 650 to 750 for discussion because the

98
00:29:10.159 --> 00:29:25.200
650 has been around for >> Does anybody want any higher? >> Yeah. Right. I >> Yeah, I have a comment about that. I did a little googling. I did some googling today. The cost to in to purchase and install a 6-in caliber tree is between

99
00:29:25.200 --> 00:29:41.679
2500 and $3,300. Now, that's for an individual homeowner. We would probably get much better pricing buying in bulk, but I think that number is pretty low. >> It's been that number for about more than 15. >> Yeah. Know, we know we want to change

100
00:29:41.679 --> 00:29:58.240
it. I just need to know what people's opinion is on what it should be changed to. >> Yeah. >> Might be higher. >> Yeah. the the Google told >> what is your recommendation Larry? I know you're saying higher. That's why I'm looking for numbers because this is our this is our chance as Tim's pointing out and Mike's pointing out. This is the chance to say what do we think in the

101
00:29:58.240 --> 00:30:13.919
>> So googling it, Larry, it was for a 6-in caliber tray. Cost of purchase and install was between 2500 and 3,300 in New Jersey. I used a a maple, so pretty standard tree for a 5-in caliper, 1,500

102
00:30:13.919 --> 00:30:30.640
to 3,000. So that was the cost cost range. >> We want to keep it so that it's not killing the borrow. Also >> the borrow more money >> the cost of doing it. So maybe $1,000. >> I'm I'm looking for advice. You guys get to make the recommendation here, not me. >> The $1,000 somewhere in that area works

103
00:30:30.640 --> 00:30:46.080
better because again that that's hiring somebody to install it. We would have our DPW doing there's you know and buying in bulk. So I also don't want to kill somebody on you know >> trees here. But so I think a thousand is fine. hasn't gone up in more than 15 years. >> No, nobody's disagreeing with that,

104
00:30:46.080 --> 00:31:03.360
Larry. We just need to come up with a number that's fair. >> There's no inflation. >> Anybody look think higher than a thousand? >> Thousand. >> I think that's a good jump. >> A thousand >> thousand. I have one other question on

105
00:31:03.360 --> 00:31:18.320
that section. Um, it does say if street trees are required by the appropriate land use board or the burrow. Are there other instances where the burrow would require it without coming before the board? >> I can't. We should probably take >> Yeah, I think take that out because it's

106
00:31:18.320 --> 00:31:38.799
okay. >> Um, the one thing I know we talked about was um >> I Oh, >> hold on. Now that we're talking about that, >> let me The only other way would be if there's a redevelopment agreement, a redevelopment plan >> that,

107
00:31:38.799 --> 00:31:54.080
>> right? >> So, you know, >> I would say leave it in just for the catchall in case for a redevelopment. >> It could it could in that instance. I just want to make sure there's no >> Oh, you're right. Because if they're Yeah. If something's compliant, they don't have to, but yet that they still have to meet that requirement. >> Correct.

108
00:31:54.080 --> 00:32:08.159
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, perfect. >> I just wanted to be clear, but based on what we were saying and what this >> I was a little lazy with this the summary. It also says I know I know it says there was a comment made that the trees in the SID need to be planted in

109
00:32:08.159 --> 00:32:24.320
the SID. That was one of the gripes that came up. So there's a comment on six saying that that whatever the tree has to go it has to if the tree is being not replaced. It's six West Main. It is Larry. Don't get me don't freak out.

110
00:32:24.320 --> 00:32:40.159
then that tree that check would have to go for a tree in the SID as opposed to burough eye. Uh that I don't I'm just throwing it out to see what the board thinks about that condition to force the trees to be in the SID if the

111
00:32:40.159 --> 00:32:55.679
development's in the SID as opposed to burrow wide. Um and then I hooked in the existing land use ordinance requiring the caliber of the tree. So, you're going back to 102 uh on the calibers and saying that's

112
00:32:55.679 --> 00:33:14.000
applicable for trees that are being uh on land use application. That's not applicable for homeowners. I made it very clear that that's only applicable the the three the caliber that we always talk about three caliber 15t high tree

113
00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:30.399
is applicable for land use applications. If a resident wants to put a much smaller tree in the backyard, the thing is silent. It doesn't say you have to meet any performance standards for size or root ball or anything. It just allows

114
00:33:30.399 --> 00:33:46.720
the property owner to put a tree in they feel he or she feels is appropriate. Period. So, >> so, so we've covered the reporting process, >> we've covered the tracking process,

115
00:33:46.720 --> 00:34:02.000
correct? >> Mhm. >> The caliber we went up to 4 in uh for removal. And did we say it was does it say that it's 4 in for I forget where that

116
00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:19.919
>> 4 in is on section >> number two. >> Yeah. Okay. removal of street and non- street trees with a caliber of basically four inches or more by property owners. >> Or we could say any tree you take down, just report it.

117
00:34:19.919 --> 00:34:35.839
>> Yeah. I I >> I >> Why add to the confusion? If you take a tree down, you take a tree. >> Just report it. If it's a 3 inch or an 18inch tree, report it. Just like you putting a tree in. If it's a 1 inch tree or a 6 inch tree, it doesn't matter. You're reporting it, right? >> Yeah. Catch all it. Why don't you just

118
00:34:35.839 --> 00:34:52.480
catch it all and say you're taking a tree down? Report it. >> I don't know where to I don't know where to measure the the average homeowner is not going to know where to measure that to know if he's right or wrong or >> and that is how we've done it in other towns because the distinction is reporting and replacement. >> Yeah. >> So you're only replacing if it's not an

119
00:34:52.480 --> 00:35:09.599
exempt exempted tree. Some of which are less than 4 in or hazardous or blah blah blah. So report all but replace some. So, the only thing I really don't feel like we, unless I'm missing it, that we really touch on is the replacement

120
00:35:09.599 --> 00:35:25.040
portion. We talk about regulation and exemptions. We talk about um removal and reporting, but I don't am I missing where we're talking about how the replacement is getting done >> on land use applications? The

121
00:35:25.040 --> 00:35:41.200
replacement has to comply with the current burough ordinance. So I know that we had talked about too, you know, having some kind of pot that money can go into. >> Um, and as we see the reduction as we see if if we see, you know, inventory

122
00:35:41.200 --> 00:35:57.680
that, you know, again, as we're talking about with the master plan update, looking at more open space and, you know, we want more trees in those areas, especially in those flooded, you know, we want the trees. Um, but I I think this is also an opportunity for us to kind of point that out. And I, you know,

123
00:35:57.680 --> 00:36:12.720
I think we have to capture something to say this is because we do have the intention and and want to do the replacement. We're just trying to keep it off of it's a one for one on everybody's property. We have a large burrow that maybe the tree is very

124
00:36:12.720 --> 00:36:28.560
is is better off going somewhere else. to catch that. On item seven, it says the tree installation requirements associated with land use applications for sites located within the SAD may require engineered soils, tree grates, irrigation, etc. These requirements will be determined by the land use board in

125
00:36:28.560 --> 00:36:43.520
conjunction with the board with the board engineer. I I could expand that to go burrowwide to catch the utility polls are there. >> Yeah. I mean, I I I think to Lisa's point like if if we're going to use a no net loss

126
00:36:43.520 --> 00:36:59.280
>> Yeah. At the end of the year, we just look at it and we have that pot of money from the developers now giving $1,000. So, we'll have that pot of money if we're at a net loss. So, we just write into here that if there's a net loss, the burrow will utilize

127
00:36:59.280 --> 00:37:15.520
can utilize the funds from the tree, what do you guys call it? The tree fund. >> The tree fund. um to keep us above above a net zero loss >> and and and something like inappropriate locations because that's what we're trying to you know Tim brought up the

128
00:37:15.520 --> 00:37:30.720
good point that we talked about at the last meeting about >> you know you remove a tree it doesn't necessarily mean you have the property on or the room on your property to now put another tree in right because some of it what depending also on the size of the tree and where the roots are and everything and then you're you might

129
00:37:30.720 --> 00:37:46.480
have um you know underground utilities going through like on my property I have a um uh >> easement. Thank you. I don't know why I couldn't think of that. So, I'm restrict you know there and there's stuff there but I'm not going to be able to plant

130
00:37:46.480 --> 00:38:02.960
there again without you know so I I think that those are things that we we were those were concerns we were talking about and saying why there might be another appropriate more appropriate location and I think we had to capture that because that's the intent of what we're saying. We're not saying we don't want to replace. We're saying that there

131
00:38:02.960 --> 00:38:19.040
may be more appropriate burrowwide in areas, especially as we're trying to look at capturing and and maintaining more open space. >> And that's what we're doing at at the environmental mission. They do that. Now, if you notch out just the trees in

132
00:38:19.040 --> 00:38:35.280
this um special improvement district, a development anywhere else in town, if they're deficient, they write a check and then environmental will go out either plant trees in the park. >> Well, that is for any development even outside the SID. But right, I'm talking

133
00:38:35.280 --> 00:38:51.440
we're we're trying to also capture because we we were concerned about residents and taking down trees. We've done a lot on the details on the development side and and we don't want to penalize the residents, but we have to capture how we're also trying to replace those residential trees coming down the shade trees. So, I don't know

134
00:38:51.440 --> 00:39:07.440
if we have to tweak the language, add something in there, but I think we need to capture even if it's our recommendations to council is, you know, you should have a, you know, this tree right now is it if it's just for shade tree, I mean, for street trees, that pot of money should

135
00:39:07.440 --> 00:39:23.440
be opened up to street and shade trees because there's a difference between the two. >> True. The street trees that the environmental commission works on planting, they come from people up for the trees. The money that we use comes

136
00:39:23.440 --> 00:39:39.599
from the development. >> Yes. >> From the developers. They can't plant it. We'll do it for >> So, I I I agree with you. Let's just beef that up saying that we're going to have a, you know, no lawsuit, including homeowners or anything. If a tree is

137
00:39:39.599 --> 00:39:55.520
taken down, it should be re, you know, be replaced in an appropriate location deemed by the burrow >> or we could say replacement. Best practice is replacement in kind. >> There you go. >> So if you're taking down a street tree, try to put a street tree back. If you're

138
00:39:55.520 --> 00:40:12.400
taking down a a >> But I think we need to Mike, I think we need to be clear that this is not on the resident. The burrow is saying and we all agreed that the burrow is picking up the lift on this. If I can't replace the tree on my property, we need to put out there that that's the intent of what this is. Unless somebody else agre disagrees. We were trying to listen. We

139
00:40:12.400 --> 00:40:28.720
want the residents to there's going to be plenty of opportunities and plenty occurrences where they're not going to be able to and we're saying that's what this pot of money would be for as well is that okay and now that if we have this net loss we'll look into that and

140
00:40:28.720 --> 00:40:45.359
then it could be maybe we were fine on street tree side but on the the shade trees within you know maybe we were 40 trees down in the year. Okay. Well now we have to prove what's the replacement process. So, and that's and it if we're saying that we're not mandating the the

141
00:40:45.359 --> 00:41:02.160
residents to do a one for one, we're recommending it, but we're also saying the burrow is willing to pick up that lift and put it into a more appropriate area if needed. Does that make sense? You know what I'm saying? I think we just need to capture that intent. >> Yes. You're saying, well, right now the

142
00:41:02.160 --> 00:41:18.800
environmental comm Larry says the environmental commission gets the money and plants the street trees. Maybe some language here says that that the charge should be if the need is for shade trees, the environmental commission expands the scope to address the shade

143
00:41:18.800 --> 00:41:36.400
trees also. Is that what we're saying? That the money coming in >> and can be used to replace homeowners >> money coming in >> just yeah to make sure that no >> the net loss of all trees within all trees, >> right? So the money coming in that the net loss happens to be shade trees not

144
00:41:36.400 --> 00:41:52.480
street trees shade trees that the environmental commission is in charged to replace shade trees with the money coming in right now that's how right now how it works is the money coming in goes right to the environmental commission for their discretion for planting trees

145
00:41:52.480 --> 00:42:08.160
within the burrow >> it to address more than just street trees if the annual report comes fact that shade trees are lacking to allow the environmental commission to charge to put shade trees in. >> Yes,

146
00:42:08.160 --> 00:42:26.079
>> that's what we're basically saying. So, I would add item eight and say that to that extent that based on the annual data coming in, the environmental commission should be required is empowered to install shade trees and in

147
00:42:26.079 --> 00:42:41.520
in addition to street trees. Does that make sense to you, Larry? >> Yes. Okay. >> And how does the replacement work? Is it like like you said kind for kind with shade and street? But in terms of replacement, someone takes down a oneinch tree, we put in a one inch tree. We take down a oneinch tree and put up a

148
00:42:41.520 --> 00:42:56.880
six-inch tree or is it how how are we doing that piece of it? I think that would be deemed by the environmental where they have a location and what is appropriate in that location because we we may hypothetically speaking, you know, if we come into more vacant land

149
00:42:56.880 --> 00:43:11.599
that we knock a building down and it's just empty, we may have the ability to put a bigger tree and that, you know, >> the limiting constraint there is the cost. >> Correct. >> Yes. But I think that's why we want to say a more applicable site because in

150
00:43:11.599 --> 00:43:29.040
that new applicable site, it could be very different than what was taken down. >> Um, and it could be a different use. If you're bordering on the um area of let's say it was something that is completely not in a flood plane zone and you're going to plant near a flood plane zone, you you're going to want to use different trees. So I think the inind

151
00:43:29.040 --> 00:43:44.560
needs to be, >> you know, if if we're going to say street tree for street tree, shade tree for trade shade tree, but everything else beyond that, I think we would leave up to the environmental commission on where that, you know, based on where they're selecting. >> Yeah. And they they manage the budget

152
00:43:44.560 --> 00:43:59.680
for that. So they can pick and choose size of the tree and the cost >> because they manage the money now. Yeah. >> Makes sense. Yeah. Good. >> Sure. They have the environmental commission has the discretion to >> use the funds for trees where they deem fit. If they're shade trees, let them

153
00:43:59.680 --> 00:44:16.720
decide where they want the shade trees, calipers, everything you brought up, Chris. Uh >> clarifies. Yeah. No, it's perfect. Good. >> Right. We just put a line in here to make sure the environmental commission has the backing to put other than street trees in the burrow if that's what the

154
00:44:16.720 --> 00:44:33.760
data shows and allow them to choose the suitable caliber and species based on the site specifics. Let the environmental commission uh deal with those uh details because that's what they're for, right? >> And one of the other things I'm sorry real quick, Tim, I didn't want to forget

155
00:44:33.760 --> 00:44:49.200
this. One of the other things that um I actually had um talked to Mayor Gallagher about it that I think it was the day after it might have been the night of the meeting because I thought about it after the meeting was over. I think you know we with the incentive you know we're we're making this an optional thing for residents. We're not mandating

156
00:44:49.200 --> 00:45:05.760
that they have to take the picture send it into us. Right. But I think that with that I think the environ I would encourage the environmental commission to work with the bureau on a an incenting type of program and marketing strategy. Right? You know I said for me

157
00:45:05.760 --> 00:45:23.280
as a resident unless you give me some incentive or explain to me why I'm not going to do it. But I think there's a lot of opportunity to say you know hey um you this is what the bureau is doing. we're moving and these are areas and maybe it's areas that the environmental commission already knows needs trees,

158
00:45:23.280 --> 00:45:39.040
right? So you take down a tree, we're going to plant it here in, you know, for you. So I I think there's an opportunity here to also use that incentive size, right? And it's not just a monetary, it's about saying, yeah, we know you might not be able to replace your tree, but we'll replace it for you.

159
00:45:39.040 --> 00:45:54.319
>> Yeah. >> And that we are collecting funds for that. So I that I would highly encourage and ask the environmental commission to work on that as well because I think it would be a great thing and then we can that you know especially when we launch the app um but then also keeping that up on our website you know because a lot of

160
00:45:54.319 --> 00:46:08.480
times people do ask why do I have to report this why do I have to do this and I think this would be a great opportunity to do that. So >> that's great >> quick comment and suggestion for appendix A comment is um it's a very

161
00:46:08.480 --> 00:46:25.440
nice list of native trees. I think uh the EC could be helpful in identifying which of these trees would be appropriate for street trees because some of these are shade trees, some of these are street trees. Just putting an asterk there because you know I'm

162
00:46:25.440 --> 00:46:40.880
probably going to put a street tree out in front of my house. one was cut down maybe 10 15 years ago and I want to make sure I don't put a a tree up like a pin oak like was across the street from me that grew up 30 feet and you know he >> do we have that list still Mike from the

163
00:46:40.880 --> 00:46:56.960
from the tree sh from the street tree list >> we have a street tree this list is right from the environmental commission for their approved list but >> for all trees you're saying >> this is for all trees >> right but I think it's a great distinction to distinguish the shape the

164
00:46:56.960 --> 00:47:12.880
street trees separately and I I think we have that. >> That's what I'm saying. I think we already have that. So, yeah, I think it's either either distinguish it in here or add it >> or I do appendix B. We do that and we have that list. We just do appendix B for street trees. >> Okay. >> Approve street trees. They're coming

165
00:47:12.880 --> 00:47:28.720
right from the environmental commission. >> The street appendix A. This is all from the environmental commission. And I I think the easiest way is appendix B and list the street trees. And just so the board knows, I think we have a lot of wiggle room with the shade

166
00:47:28.720 --> 00:47:44.240
trees because almost every land use application has a challenge with the shade trees for parking lots. So there's a lot should there be a deficit, I think the shade trees can really make up, should the board require

167
00:47:44.240 --> 00:47:59.920
a financial contribution for shade trees, I think we could make a dent in if if there's a deficit, a substantial uh increase in monies through shade trees, just throwing that out. I'm not saying we the bureau does that now, but I think

168
00:47:59.920 --> 00:48:15.920
that's a huge um land use tool that isn't being used to to address any deficiencies or deficits in trees. >> Any other comments or questions for trees?

169
00:48:15.920 --> 00:48:32.960
>> All right. Uh Mike, can you do those additions for next time? Well, maybe we'll have a final draft for next time. >> I'm going to revise this based on the discussions, add the points. I'm going to reach out to the environmental commission if I don't have it and see if I have a street tree list. I'll put the whole thing together for a final review

170
00:48:32.960 --> 00:48:52.240
of the board. >> Thank you. There was one other thing. >> I think the um DSA had declared they wanted a particular tree in in the in the zone in the business

171
00:48:52.240 --> 00:49:09.119
district. But if they only have one tree designated, that could open them up to a problem with a blight on that tree. >> Yeah. We don't normally do that. So, I think that >> But there was a big discussion about,

172
00:49:09.119 --> 00:49:24.400
oh, it can only be this. I'm like, no, I think we can do whatever we need to do. No, no, no. Burough council. >> I don't No, I don't. I've been doing trees for a long time, too. I, you know, the committees and we've never had just one that came from the DSA and this has always been a group, you know.

173
00:49:24.400 --> 00:49:39.200
>> So, we need to research that because they're making it seem like, oh, no, we >> Oh, it'll go to council and they can make some comments there. >> Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, Larry, the intent is for appendix A and potentially B is to give the developers, everyone the what the approved list is. >> Yes.

174
00:49:39.200 --> 00:49:58.720
>> So we don't have one tree like you're referring to the Japanese tree of lilac that was I know. I got it. All right. Anything left open for anything that was under discussion?

175
00:49:58.720 --> 00:50:18.480
All right. Uh moving on to open me um opening the uh meeting to the public. Hearing none closing public session and a motion for adjourment. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.

176
00:50:18.480 --> 00:50:21.720
>> All opposed.