Planning board for Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been provided. A copy of this not notice specifying the date, time, and location was one posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall. Two, mailed facts or emailed to the courier news, and three given to the clerk
administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Chairperson Warner >> here.
>> Mayor Gallagher is excused. Jason Krasco >> here. >> Roger Broom >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Andrea Deair >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> John Manilia is excused. >> Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Tim Hayes >> here. Bill kill here.
>> Please stand for the pledge. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisibley and justice for all.
>> I will forego comments. Everything will be covered under discussion. Uh architectural review board reviews. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine of them, all for sidewalk cafes. Again, this is just for the board's awareness of what's coming through. They all complied and went
through the ARB. Any questions on those? >> I just I just have a question. >> I mean, I know they all You said they all complied. That's fine. When I was looking at the diagrams, >> especially Alfonso's, I couldn't really figure out um the fenas, but when I was
looking at Alfonso and Boulevard Seafood. Is there really enough walking space from where those because Alfonso is going to have eight tables, two on the side street, three on one three on one side of the door, one on one side of the other other door, three on the other side. And then they have the diagram
where they have the the flower um grates and stuff. Is there enough space? Really enough space for if I'm walking side by side with Art for the two of us to get down without having to go into a single line because there's another group of people coming toward us.
>> So they they have a six foot six foot space in front of uh between the tables and those fences, the uh the trees and all that stuff. >> And that's what they have to maintain is the six foot. >> Okay? Because some of them look a little I'm not saying there, but some of them
when you're going down the street, they look a little >> So this is again, you got to make sure you're basing that off of what they submitted, not what's actually out there. That's an enforcement issue. >> We're approving based on what they submitted. So the drawings show now, if they encroach out, that's an enforcement
issue for uh code enforcement. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I agree with you. I know what you're saying. Aren't you walking though between the flower box and the flower box and it says that's four feet, not six feet. >> So between the in the top there. Yeah. You have that one spot that's four feet in between those.
>> Okay. Because you won't be walking down the street that way, >> right? >> So that could be a little tight. >> So and and four foot is their minimum. That's the minimum. >> So four is acceptable. >> 4 foot is acceptable. >> Okay. My understanding. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. But whatever they have on the
drawing, so where they show that it's six feet, they have to maintain six feet. >> And that goes for every >> Yes. >> outdoor cafe. Every one of them is questionable. >> So yeah. So what the code enforcement goes off of is what we approve in the
ARB based on their drawing. >> Right. >> So if minimums four, but they put six, they have to comply with six because that's what was approved by the ARB. And >> it's just an enforcement thing. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> All right. Uh, I need a motion for approval of the minutes from April 22nd, 2026. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Jason Krasco, >> yes. >> Roger Broom, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes.
>> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Uh, Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. All right, we're going to move on to discussion items. Uh, first is going to be the fence ordinance. So, we just
recently passed this um made the recommendations to council. They passed the resolution. We've had some questions from that have come before our zoning officials. So, she's asking for us to give some clarification um so that she can continue to process
some applications. Mike, do you want to go over what some of the what some of the questions are? >> Uh the two main questions as you'll see in the correspondence here is can you combine uh the numbers B through H which is on
the attached fence ordinance and in your package it's in the end of the package. So just go to the end you'll see the corner fence ordinance discussion and then you'll see the ordinances attached right at the end of your
binders there. So the one question is B through H. it can a can they be combined or does it one style of fence have to be used for that size? That's one question. And then the other
one is for clarification uh regarding uh item D and B. Uh D refers to um maximum height is five feet for a picket fence and the other one
which is B is the issue of the solid fence with the with the five feet only be 30%. So the question is is 5T permissible the whole length for a
picket fence or is it 30% for a picket fence? How do you interpret the issue of the maximum height of 5T and be solid? So the two questions really it's coming up is can you like a menu pick and choose and
combine them number one. Number two is is the five foot uh picket fence allowed for the whole length or is it restricted to 30% as uh for clarification regarding B that's item B and then the
other one which is that's a 30% which says the maximum height of 5T and be solid. So that's the question and the other one is the picket fence which is D. A picket fence fence and line boards no larger than one it gives
the gap shall be not exceed a maximum height of 5T. So that's the question in front of the the board. >> So my interpretation when we did what I pictured um starting with one the the B through H I had no issue combining it. I
you know the the thought on it was you know if you had the corner property if you wanted to put a little more solid fence towards the backyard to give you a little more privacy and then you know the um picket type fence coming up to the corner so you still have that view. That's what I was picturing. Um so I
have no issue with that picking and choosing and that goes to the same thing of that 30% solid I think is just for the solid that 30%. >> Yeah. And then the the picket fence I think can be five feet the entire length
was how I interpreted it when we did it. That was what was in my head. >> Anybody else? >> I would agree with Jason. I just um >> should we put a limit as to how many we want to combine together? >> I was about to ask that question >> because theoretically someone could do
8t of picket, 8 foot of rod iron, 8 foot of landscape, 8 foot of board on board >> and I don't think we want that. We want we want the flexibility but we don't want valid >> an artistic mural fence correct on the yard. Could we do that based on the
you know let's just say the um based on whether it's sideyard back like you know what I'm saying like let's say the property on the back if you want that all solid because you that's you have a neighbor there and it's not on the corner the corner can also be a
picket then but to that point you know you can mix but to that point >> these options are only for the the fence on the front yard that doesn't have the mailing address. So, we're silent on the rear yard because this doesn't
applicable. This is for corner lots where uh this flexibility was built into the side that doesn't have the address. Okay, you have a corner fence. how we said is you could follow the the ordinance right now which is 60% and
four feet or if you want to uh use this conditional use it's for the side that's not the mailing address. So the side that has the mailing address still has to be four feet with 60% open. The side
this this is still the front yard that doesn't have the mailing address. That's what we're discussing here. So, it's not the rear uh fence at all. The rear fence can be six feet >> in height and solid. >> Correct. >> And solid, right? >> Do we have places that are solid in the
front >> on the corner? No. >> No. >> Larry, the refresher. The reason why the solid fence is problematic in my opinion is there's no interaction. It puts a wall up. It >> It's not inviting. So,
>> I agree. I think we should have any in the front. That's why I was asking are there >> I'm not aware of it. >> Solid. >> So to Barry's point, I I would suggest a combination of two. No more than two. >> Okay. >> Other than, you know, if you want to go
something very artistic, then maybe you need to go and get a variance of some kind. Have somebody look at that a little more in depth. But so that would be my recommendation. >> So the clarification would be no more than two options and to allow the 5-ft
picket fence for the entire length if that's what they want to do. >> So desired. >> The option was only there if you want to use solid. It is 30% length length of the fence. >> I can certainly send an email and give the zoning officer the this
clarification that no more than two the five foot picket fence can be used the whole length and the restriction on the 30% is for the solid fence. >> Correct. That would clarify the discussion. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I'm clear on this. >> All right. Um, moving on. Storm water. Mike, >> thank you. Uh, the storm water. I gave to back this up a little bit. The, uh,
environmental commission did a presentation and video that was handed or emailed to the planning board members. also went to Earl Council about proposed uh changes. So these changes I summarized them
you I got to find it. Oh my god. In this package it's storm water. It's before the ECBD tables and basically it was to regulate all
impervious surfaces more than 5,000 square feet or better that's roofs everything right now it's only motor vehicle surfaces would require water quality treatment for all surfaces right now roofs and uh
are not have to do water quality because this is the same thing about rain barrels. The water coming off a roof is not where motor vehicles stop where you get drippings, antifreeze. So the D says that they don't have to do water quality
polishing. The recommendation is to do water quality polishing for all runoff. And three is this existing site conditions. Uh the D says you use the
existing site conditions for the last five years. Uh the recommendation is the presumption would be a wooded site uh that is not doesn't it's not a hardcape. So if you had a site that was
100% building, you don't count the roof in the hardscape. You would assume that it is a wooded site. So the runoff would be much less. And four is the annual report permit saying that if you have a major
development that there was an an a burrow annual fee and that fee would be for doing annual inspections by the bureau. So those are the four items and there is a volume
there is comment on volume in the video too if you guys watch the video. I met with the vice uh chairman of the environmental commission on Monday and I sent him an email. I did a red line. I was asked to do a red line for environmental commission. So I met with
the vice chairman on Monday and I said typically you hold back the water and that's where the volume differences. I said if you say that you have to store x amount it becomes extremely problematic because that's not how storm water's
done. If you're having the existing runoff, however you want to calculate that, is 10 cfs and the proposed runoff is 20 cfs. The volume is the difference between the two. That's what you're holding back and that's how it's handled
on all storm water. I don't care what method you use. It's all you don't say, I'm going to uh volume's going to be 30,000 gallons because that's the way it is. No, it's the difference. You hold it back and you slowly discharge. So, uh, we had that discussion and I also
brought the downtown on how do you store volume if there's no room? For example, the property on South Bridge and uh, Main Street, that's one story. The oak application, this board saw, it's going
to be demolished. It's one story eventually. That roof is over 5,000 square feet and the building is the entire lot essentially. So, and there's no parking essentially on the site. So, if you had to employ this, where would
you put the volume, the storm water? You have to retain this. The comment back was where they would qualify for an exemption, a waiver, a hardship. That's not the intent of this. So, the Environmental Commission is going to be
revising what they're proposing in writing and they're going to be communicating that to the council that they need more time. The charge from the council was to get something back to the council by the
end of May and June. The environmental commission has some of these items that need to be further drilled down on. So, they're saying the ball's in their court and they're they will communicate that to council. And I said I would communicate to the planning board where
they are with these the video and a markup I did and some of these items. >> So, I I thank you for that. I I just want to make a couple comments before we kind of open this up for discussion on the board. You know, first is I'd like a clarification to everybody to include
the environmental commission and the council. Never once, and I rewatched every single video that we actually made this discussion. Never once were we concerned about what it would cost to a developer. So, I was very upset when I saw that. That misrepresented what we
were. We were concerned and every conversation we had was concerns to cost to our residents. Having said that, when I reviewed everything, this was all these were all in the initial things that they presented to us in their presentation.
We discussed them and we saw them as detriments. We will discuss them again because we're being asked to, but I feel like we're in a vicious cycle. And and I want to I'm going to read some things. I don't know how many of you
have actually read our master plan. >> Everybody should say we all have read our master plan. I'm kidding. >> Um but my biggest concern is our job on this board is to ensure and and for council once the master plan is in existence from the planning board, every decision, whether it's a policy decision, a zoning change, or whatever,
has to comply with our master plan. There are no options for that. That is how we dictate what we're going to do. It is the vision going forward and everything we do must comply with our master plan. decisions we make on, hey, we want to find a balance for developers, right? We want the developers, we want them to be able to
comply with things, but at the same time, we can't wipe development off the pro the the earth the the face of the earth for uh Somerville because we will go nowhere. So, I had some concerns and I was I'm going to read some things from the the very beginning of our um
master plan. And as a reminder, when we are focusing on planning and we're redoing right now, we're doing our master plan re-exam. Our goal, our mission is to make sure that there is balance in every single thing we do. Balance for the residents,
balance for development, keeping uh lifestyle, but allowing for growth, uh not overcrowding, but not underdeveloping. Right? We need to go further. And and I will be the first to say if you you know anybody that looks at Somerville 2530 years ago we were not
here and it was because of this document and the vision of being able to find that balance. So one of the things that it stuck out to me is the emphasis on conserving the best qualities of an established community while planning for selected redevelopment and revitalization and
encouraging sensitive infill development that is compatible with the surrounding areas. In formulating the master plan recommendations, the bur burough planning board has been directed by a desire to enhance those attributes that contribute to the vibrancy of the burough community while still providing
proper guidance for those influences created by changing market demands within the region. The challenges confronting Somerville relate to preservation, revitalization, and redevelopment. Before articulating specific goals and policies upon which the various master plan recommendations
for the physical, economic, and social development of the burrow are advanced. It is necessary to develop an overall development strategy for Somerville. The comprehensive development objective for Somerville Bur Burrow is stated as follows. Somerville Burough is a residential comm community and should
remain committed to that purpose. Housing is a critical burrow resource and should be protected. Critical resources such as the central business down district, county complex, and the medical center also need to be preserved without sacrificing the existing
character of the burough community. Every effort should be made to preserve the existing residential amenity while promoting the central business district. To permit office and mixed residential reuse of existing older buildings in designed areas without compromising
existing residential character to preserve the burough's historic tradition through planning to improve the vehicular and pedestrian circulation through the throughout the burrow and to increase recreational opportunities for all segments of the burough's population. augmenting this overall development strategy for Somerville
Burough. More specific goals and policies are as we're are also in there. Few more things. Sorry. Somerville Burough is planning for its future. It must address itself it itself to the task of carefully
combining new land uses with existing development within its boundaries. As Somerville plans, complex development issues have begun to emerge. maintaining those physical attributes which contribute to the burough's qual quality of life. Strengthening its commercial
and offic land uses, protecting historic properties and existing residential development from encroachment, encouraging an increase in economic opportunities and providing opportunities for various housings and it goes on and on. um providing a wide
range of types of houses and types of um commercial versus non-commercial. And every time I keep looking at the these four things specifically that were pointed out to our council, my fear is what are we doing to the
future of Somerville? I don't I have no argument. You'll never get an argument from me. We need storm water management. My whole world is about flooding. I am the county office of emergency management director. I deal with it for 21 municipalities. But I will tell you
the floods that happen like on North Planefield on 22 that has nothing to do with impervious surface. That was over 8 ines of rain in under an hour. I don't care if you have an entire forest. You will have flooding. That came at the top
of the mountain of the Wong Mountains and they had nowhere to go because that was all woods, guys. But it had nowhere to go. So, where did it go? It went down the mountain to 22. I respect I'm the one that entails all the municipalities, you've got to have
good mitigation uh practices. You have to have good land use practices. I will be the first to argue that and tell you that it should be in all of you. We do a hazard mitigation plan with the municipalities. How can we help? We've been talking about it in our ECBD strongly saying, "Hey, these areas no
more because they keep flooding." It's a balance, but to keep using our floods. People forget Doria. How long ago was Storm Doria? Does anybody remember? >> I wasn't living here yet. I was still
living in Flemington. Okay. But that's how long ago was in the 60s at some point. Right. That if you look at that waterline, pretty close to where Anida was and none of this development was here. I understand the importance of storm water management but there has to
be a balance when you are trying to plan for the future and constantly the way to do it is to look at the areas like we are that are around streams sto and um waterways because unfortunately that's where the bulk of the water is going to flood out because the waterways can't
hold it anymore to to penalize an entire burrow or entire entire municipality or entire township for areas that don't have necessar necessarily some of that flooding. I have I have a real problem with that. I think there are better ways for us as
a planning board to be able to focus on protecting our residents. One, and two, still encouraging proper and responsible development moving forward. I don't know how any developer is going to want to
develop in new in Somerville if we require them take the property that you were just talking about on corner of Maine and Bridge. How in the world are they going to be able to redevelop that if the minute they touch that building they have to pretend it was all forest?
You're not going to be able to do it. And that isn't trying to protect the co their cost. It's just impossible. No developer in their right mind is going to be able to do that. And what does that do for us? Nothing. It stops redevelopment. There's a balance.
I will get off my preaching. Um but that that is from from day one when I heard this that is what has bothered me. We did not ignore. We are not ignoring. We are not saying oh we don't want to hear it. We are not saying that we care what cost to the developer is. But there's a
balance because if we add too much for redevelopment, I don't care who the developer is. they will not come to Somerville anymore. And we do have this vision isn't over. There are a ton of properties that we are talking about on eh in the ECBD on the in the western
area on Gaston on all these other areas that we still want revitalized. This will stop that. So now I'm going to open it up for comments from the board. >> Go ahead. Um
the council asked for this to be re revisited. The environmental commission makes suggestions. The council said take a look at this. >> So it's not like it's the environmental commission's fault that we're still
looking to adopt four of these changes. >> I wasn't placing blame anywhere. I was stating a fact that we have already reviewed this. >> Council wants more. >> We've already reviewed this. I'm opening it up to comments, you guys. I'm not saying we're not going to make any more
recommendations. I'm saying this is now up to the board to re-evaluate and say, is there something that has changed your mind? Is there an area that you see that we can have some compromise? Is there an area that you say, okay, maybe we can give a little here? This is up, it's up to us.
>> I have a question about process. How is the process supposed to flow? So, environmental commission or any other commission um you know how are they how are they supposed to operate? Do they come to us?
We make the decision. It goes to council. >> It can go both. I know where you're going. It can go to both. They can come to us or they can go to council. >> Okay. >> Um they made a presentation when the ordinance was being reviewed at the council for adoption. council decided
that they were going to they adopted it. It was adopted as everybody saw, but they wanted it to come back here. These four recommendations specifically they wanted us to review again. >> Okay. So, so everyone is following what the process is because
>> Yes. And I did confirm that because it was so when when council makes a recommendation, there has to be a reszo that's supposed to be coming to us, an official. It's not just, hey, we want you to do this. There is an official uh our burough administrator and clerk Kevin Sluca did state that there was an
official document that came out of that. We haven't seen it but it he said it was officially taken care of. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Um, so I sat on a working group with uh
municipal engineers throughout the whole state and I went through the real act probably 50 times line by line, word by word. A lot of fun with a group of engineers. I'll tell you that was a great time. But I think
I don't use it lightly, but I think I'm intimately familiar with the Real Act, which is what we just passed verbatim. And in my opinion, points number one and four are or should already be happening. And I don't see why they're on this
list. So the easy one is point4 with the annual inspections, not the fee, but the annual inspections should be already happening based on the MS4 permit that the borrow holds in 2023.
So I could go on a and Mike knows this, I could go on a 30-minute rant about why the borrow needs its own engineer in house. I'm not going to do that tonight, but annual storm water inspections do fall in a municipality and someone in
the borrow's name is on the MS4 permit and is certifying that every BMP is getting inspected in town every year. I don't know if that's happening or not, but in my opinion, that eliminates point number four. >> Okay, >> the annual fee portion of it not included. But the inspections part of
the presentation, they were arguing that if BMPs aren't maintained, they don't work. Well, they should be maintained because they should be getting inspected. But I think that point number four really is irrelevant. The fee, if you want to argue a fee, that's an argument you can have. But the
inspection should be happening for point one. And this is when I tell you this was a many multiple hour discussion with those engineers about the definition of reconstruction. So in my opinion and many people's
opinions that the real act already says that all imperous surface over 5,000 square feet or greater is a major development because if you follow the flow path under major development point 4 is reconstruction of 5,000 square feet
or more motor vehicle surface or imperous surface. And pvious surface is defined as any surface that can't penetrate water which is roof. And then reconstruction is the replacement, rebuilding or restoration of a lawfully existing
structure. So as the burrow has already passed this ordinance, any building over 5,000 square feet of impervious, even if you don't touch the parking lot, if you just touch that building, if you reconstruct it as is, that's a major development
subject to the lawyer's interpretation. That's how multiple engineers read that as because we want we asked the DP for clarification because it's not very clear. I don't know if any changes are going to come down the road, but as it stands, I hold the opinion that
reconstruction of a building, even the same footprint, if it's over 5,000 foot, that's a major development. So that's in my opinion points one and four really don't need to be on the list. They're already happening. Two and three, different story. But I just wanted to make those comments about one and four.
I really don't think they need to be on the list. >> I I I agree with you um specifically on four that that's already a burrow thing that really doesn't have anything to do with our >> recommendations. We can't we can't deem that, you know, any additional
inspections the council uh has people doing. Um so I'm going to focus on two and three then because I'm going to agree with you, Barry. >> Um so I'll take my other comments here. So to to Lisa's point, I think three with assuming that everything is a
completely wooded site, that stops anything from happening because that is just overly burdensome to anybody to try to take a building or anything and pretend it was wooded and then meet those standards. Um, what we already
have in all of our redevelopment plans and everything else that we do is you have to improve what it is from now going forward. So you have to make it better than it was. That is a good starting point. I think that is important to keep in there for
storm sorry storm water management. I don't think it's realistic to tell anybody to go back to a forested and then do some kind of development that you know whether the idea there was that nobody would do construction and that's what the environmental is looking for is to stop it that because that's what I
think it would do. But an existing piece of property that's an abandoned building or, you know, a building that's dilapidated, nobody's going to make that building useful ever again if that's what they have to do. You know, and you can say it's because of money, you can say it's whatever. But just like developers don't
buy pieces of property, turn it into parks, and just let kids play on it, which is what the public wants to see everybody do, people don't buy property to do that. They're not, you know, the public doesn't do that. Anybody can, but nobody will. So I think three is way way
prohibitive and would just put a halt to anybody doing any kind of construction in the burrow. Um and as far as two um with the you know the the the treatment of the water and I'm going to default back to what Mike
said over there. You know the the corner property is a perfect example. And if they're saying that that would be um I forget the wording you said they used um in the meeting that that's a special case or >> it would be a hardship a hardship
>> one exception because that unique circumstance. >> Wouldn't everyone fall under that same hardship then? >> Yes. >> Anybody who was already an existing thing. So what does that actually do other than make people go into a board and spend money to say it's a hardship?
I just don't understand if if the intent is to say, "Oh, well, you can claim a hardship for it." Every building that exists would be a hardship, unless you're taking a park and building a development on it, which then you'd already fall under all this. So, I'm just not very clear what
that would then do, what the purpose of it is. >> And my concern on this one specifically was a residential side. How are our you're you're adding the c such a cost to, you know, we have allow for a certain and very limited right on
all of our properties but all none of us have large superlar properties we already allow or we already restrict the amount of imper impervious surface let's say they want to add you know I don't know a 4x4 area to their patio now
you've touched because it happens to be impervious now you have to have water quality treatment like I don't >> I was under the impression that all of these were all related to commercial uses, residential. >> I will tell you, I watched that video
numerous times and never once did they refer to it only in commercial properties. >> I believe the intent was to remove that barrier to make it that it was not residential. >> I went through all their original
documentations. I don't see that clarification. The way they presented it to council, there was no clarification in that. It was just a general blanket statement. I will get that corrected because >> in talking with Jeff myself that's one of the first things he said removing all of the residential component
>> but that's part of the problem I have Larry no offense that's part of the problem that I think most of us have we read the documents we had the conversations here we had this discussion and then the way it was presented to council is not the way it was presented to us which is why council
is asking us to do this >> then I'll get a clarification on that but I know in talking with Jeff that was specifically discussed that it's not for residential. That's the first thing he said. >> Is it small small business still then? If you own a small uh
>> development >> so development then that would be in a redevelopment plan. That shouldn't be in >> storm water townwide development. I think >> I would caution I would caution not using the word residential versus commercial because this is all of
residential development right here. >> Correct. So try not if you're going to make the distinction don't use commercial residential because this is all res >> single family home is what I'm intending. Yes. So to your point yes no it's a good point. >> They're saying it's not residential does we need to make that distinction.
>> Yes. >> Well the distinction I think was made is the 5,000 square feet. They are basically saying that if you're single family that you're under the 5,000 square feet. I think that's what the intent was. >> Not all of them. >> I agree. Look, I I think the intent was
that that would not capture a lot of residentials because of the 5,000 >> and you know, I look at, you know, the the the buildings on High Street and Cliff Street that are, you know, mixed use. It's an office. It would fall under the same thing. I think it's very very restrictive to anybody. And I and again,
I I echo what Lisa said about caring about storm water management. She yells at me about it. Have you on other items on other boards? But um it is important. I think this is just way way too
far. And I don't think I don't think there's any way to even introduce this that I that I can make a recommendation to introduce any either of the two because that's use Barry's concept that one and four don't need to because they're already taken care of. I can't
introduce two or three in good conscious without knowing that it's going to be a detriment >> to to a large you know all of Somerville. >> Another note on the uh assuming wooded site. A lot of people forget that the Ron this is the Raren Valley. The Ritan
Valley of the Lenny Lape Indians settled this area. They chose it because it flooded every year and it was good for their crops. >> Yes. So that if it flooded back then, what are we doing? Like it's gonna it's still going to flood now. I mean,
>> yeah. >> Um it since you've already spoken to the chairman, why don't we I think we've had enough discussion at this point on these. Um for next meeting, I would ask that because we need to get this moving. We have other agenda items that we're
now not doing because we're back on storm water. So, what I would prefer is if we could get the environmental commission get us clarification for what they are looking for. Um, and then we can continue the discussion at the next meeting. Um, but I'm not
opposed to by the end of May. There should be one more meeting of this and we should be able to give a recommendation back to the council. Um, and even if it is saying, "Hey, these two are already in existence. The permit fee, I mean, that's a that's a policy decision. So, if they want to add it,
council can add it." Um, the other two I think are the the real key highlights that are, you know, out of all four, those are the two that bother me the most because I feel like, and I talked to a few engineers and I talked to a few planners, land use planners, and they all kind of said the same thing in a
very general terms. eventually you'll see no redevelopment. They're not people are going to be discouraged because you're making it almost impossible for them to and we want that. You know, I even look at our PO zone and look what we did to those buildings and we said, you know, we're allowing for
pre-existing conditions. they touch something now they can't because let's say they are over like I just I have a really hard time with that because it to me it completely violates and goes against what we have as our master plan and much
of this isn't going to change some of the specifics of how we're going to continue this vision are going to change but the vision is still the same you know many of us I I already have grandchildren I want my grandchildren to be able to feel that they this is a place they would love to stay in And my
my kids, I want them, you know, granted some because of college, they just might not come back. I get it. But, you know, this is not a place I will tell you 35 years ago I would have ever ever imagined me living in. I won't I did not
come I came from an this was the area that I wasn't allowed to go to because of what was happening. And I don't mean that in a detriment. I'm proud of where Summerville is now. But it was not like that 354 years ago. And in it the
this this vision has allowed us >> to be such one of the greatest locations in in the state of New Jersey in my opinion. >> Um and a place that people really want to come to and we want to continue that in different ways, right? We know can't that what worked for right now is not
going to work for the next 20 years. We still have to have growth and we still have to be able to whether it's more elderly, more parks, protecting properties that you know constantly are flooding and there are no other options except to say sorry we're going to turn
this into open space eventually. We're not going to allow redevelopment in this area anymore. That is how you find in my opinion that's how you find that balance for us to continue to grow. So, I think we'll, you know, we'll table this now um and hold it for the next meeting when we
have a little bit more clarification. Um, >> yeah, it might be uh fruitful to wait to the environmental commission has it in writing so the board could review it in writing. Exactly. >> I'm going to ask you to relay that this there was a charge from the council because of them. I think it I would like
it formally from us. This is to be in writing to us by the next meeting. >> I will communicate that to the vice chairman. Thank you. All right. Uh, ECBD go. Moving on to that. Um, so I
know part of it was Mike sent out the schedule A and schedule B. You are also going to see in front of you. I gave you all two maps. My pretty non-GIS because we're so packed I could not get the formal GIS. But this is going to
give you an idea of what I'm going to have formally done up. Um I I just wanted to start with these maps really quick. It's kind of hard to tell, but it gives you an idea. I outlined in red
what I would feel is reszoning that entire area. Not even an overlay zone. Let's reszone it. It pulls some properties that are in other areas like I think it pulls from ER2.
The one is partially EB2 and the one is all EB3. I think those we kind of split that top one where ER2 and you know anything on Mechanic Street there should you know we can we can treat separately. It's not in that flood
plane zone. um around that area on on East Main Street where you have that flooding line in that area right around there and that's where we can get where that that line stops with lots and block blocks. Um and then bringing that down to um the
the railroad track area beyond Viv uh Vets Memorial that to me are the biggest concerns and and the reason is is if you look at the next map which is an official firm map from uh from FEMA. This is what we use in our world in my world to determine uh
worst case scenarios this area. Uh so that interior area that's um like a greenish aqua, that is what we call a zone AE and that's basically where you shouldn't be developing there. You really shouldn't. And the recommendation from FEMA and the
recommendation we make from an emergency management standpoint is you shouldn't be rebuilding anything there either in our opinion. That is where when you look at FEMA grants, that is where they are trying to get most home acquisitions done. um elevating in that area has
turned out to be a worse problem because you might be saving a portion of the home, but you were still putting those residents at risk and you still put first responders at risk. And I think for all of us who live here, we know how that area is. Even if you elevated your home and and I'll tell you at the in the
AE, it's higher than the 4 foot. So, you have to raise higher than that because you have to raise based on your waterline. that becomes your base your base what we call basic um flood elevation. So that >> minimum is 4 feet in certain areas but
under when you are a zone AE it's your minimum water line. So it doesn't matter what that four feet is which again think about in my opinion I look at some of those properties and we see this in other municipalities. We are not the only municipality that goes through
this. any of those other areas that flood. You have a home that maybe didn't get touched or isn't rebuilt, doesn't need doesn't get touched. And then you have a home and you see it down the shore. It's a little bit more expected down the shore. Okay. Not sure we want to see that in Somerville where you have then
another house that's like, you know, elevated, you know, 15 feet for, god forbid, we have flooding and then you have a house on top of that. Um I just don't think it goes with the character of us, right? again in keeping with our master plan, in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. So that's why I kind of I wanted to have for tonight a more official map for you that would also kind of give that dividing line, but that was what I was talking about in where I was kind of thinking and and again, I don't think it needs to be an
overlay. I think it needs to be a clearly new zone and in that zone and maybe there are other areas that we want to talk about that you know further down the line in in town that we would do the same thing but I think specifically since this falls under the ECBD these
um should be not redevelopable redevelopable whatever it is you know what I'm saying >> I I I have a question the hash the red and blue hash marks on the AE zone what's that >> that's just giving you different ele so
zone AE if you look at um that is Mike refresh my memory why am I drawing a blank >> flood >> thank you >> okay >> the flood >> Larry there >> that's where the river is is the streamline 90% of the all the water
volume goes in the flood way in the fringe it doesn't take the volume in in the old days >> you couldn't you had heck one and heck two >> and you couldn't impede the flow more than 0.2 feet or something. >> Yeah. >> So that's the real difference is the
flood wave versus the flood range. >> Yes. Thank you. >> And then if you look at those what we are you're looking on here on that like orangey those are the ones that certain storms are worse than others. Um and that is why I was kind of saying I think we need
to really kind of contemplate those because there's still a safety hazard there. And again, if we can control redevelopment and do, you know, through some of those TDRs and those transfer development rights, right? Hey, you have property here. We're going to allow the density. Maybe it's, you know, moving it into a little bit higher density in in
other EB3s or EB2s in that area, allowing for that because we're offsetting the the problem area in that redevelopment zone. >> Were you taking recommendations for >> Yes. I I mean, this I just wanted you guys to see because I know I was visually talking about it and or saying
it. I wanted you to see visually what was in my head. I'm not saying we have to go with this. That was just what my thought process was. >> Yeah. No, it makes certain. >> I had marked up B. I'm sorry you guys didn't have the markup. This is when the recommendation was to go to three stories, 45 ft. So, I marked that up and
I took out the multif family residential because that was the Park Avenue that uh my understanding was the board was against that uh multifamily massive buildings in the flood in the flood area flood hazard. So, I have a markup that I
guess will go out at the next board that shows the markup of schedule B that reflects the three stories and uh just takes the multi on the I'm talking referring to the overlay zoning. Uh I was I just tweaked that based on the last meeting. Yes.
>> Um and and again like I did this with the base zoning because we were taking away the overlays. Um and my thought process was I know we kind of gone back and forth. Do we do another overlay? that we knew. I just feel like it's this area, however we deem it or where that line goes, something in this area just
needs to be its own zone >> and it has its own schedule B and basically everything's per only thing permitted open space and parks something that you don't really care if it's flooding. Yeah, I like where you're going with that because creating its own zone because then we can use that when we look at the other areas of town as
well and just say, "Yep, this is going to fall right in line with that and we're not creating overlay zones in every um different area." I have no issue with the the dividing line you had. Um I did want to discuss the threetory thing just because >> Yeah, I was going to say if if everybody
I'm not saying we have to go with this, but if any questions on what my thought process was. Okay. So then if we want let's move to the schedule A and B. >> Which one do you want to start with? >> Uh let's start with schedule A or
schedule B because it's much more compact. I think it's a little bit more simple. Um, my first comment was I think we need to start on these schedules, whether it's schedule A or schedule B, we need to remove all the overlay districts because we've agreed we're not doing overlay districts. Not at least these.
If we add a zone or add something else, we can add it in. But the the retail, retail, hotel, office services, and multif family residential. I unless I'm wrong, please correct me. I thought we said we were getting rid of the overlays, those overlays. Okay.
So then all those would then default back to the base zoning. Um I I do feel that the the entire thing I think we can basically go back to most of it's already developed, >> right? >> So I I have no issue if we want to, you
know, scale it down and go to a threetory right across the whole thing. >> Yeah. >> And because there's existing buildings, they're over it, but if they do want to redo them, demolish it, let them come back. um and just very very quietly not
quietly but very cleanly just blanket the whole thing with the um three you know no more than three stories and you know the footing that goes with it. So the only I just wanted for clarification because the only two zones that I felt the threetory needed to stay at two and
a half was the EPR and the ER2 just because of >> where that is like you're talking like Mechanic Street and all them >> I'm sorry and Hamilton and Mechanic >> and Mechanic allowing for a threetory there I think opens I think we like that
character and I think on those two specifically >> so then we are we removing the EPR from over on um South Bridge >> and maybe it's reszoned to another one then another base zone that makes more sense >> because Yeah, because I I would then
allow the South Bridge one to fall under the you know the EB1. Um >> but that's mostly business district on Main Street coming down south bridge to all those houses. Mhm.
>> That's those are not compatible. >> If you look at the the map with a flood hazard area, that's going to be at their own zone district. I think that should be reflected in the zone based districts. >> Yes. >> Correct. And my thought is that
several years ago, their thought was to continue that base zone flood hazard throughout the municipality. Just don't end it at the ECBD. you have properties going up around Petersburg. They're in the same exact situation. So I
understand we're just talking ECBD. But >> I think Jason and I we we agree that that that's why I like the base zoning same thing as him and new zone that we can then look at it you know and what made me think of it is when um it was brought up when Roger brought up the I
know you guys had met as a was it a task force or a group whatever it was >> that thought process then at least this is set and then if that gets looked at again for all those areas we have an established zone that we might need to just do some reszoning >> if we can get the langage Right. We
might be able to apply at the burrow on the other areas so there's uniformity throughout. >> Correct. >> Um but on that EPR, Larry, I hear what you're saying. There are some residential there. So I I think >> you also have those businesses that abandoned there and
>> they're basically abandoned, right? So I I think what we have to look at in that zone and and I don't it does maybe it's not you know another maybe it's in you know EB2 makes more sense or an EB3 whatever one it is. I think we have to look at
what we see and what we envision there. I think that is an area um that allows for growth if that makes sense. You know, I just wasn't sure looking at the existing houses
>> that should be its own separate >> similar if it's going to stay housing >> you say similar to what's happening on >> Hamilton >> Hamilton and Mechanic Street. >> Those are the only single family home
>> units in the area. everything after that kind of >> or maybe adding portion of that saving some of that as EPR and then other portions maybe mixing into the EB1 because we do have some of those that are abandoned properties already that they're not going to rebuild them as angle family homes.
>> What is that Franklin Street right there that dead end? >> Yes. >> So what if we do a dividing line at Franklin Street south of Yeah. south of Franklin stays in EPR and then you know split it that north of there's all those abandoned ones the old lips lounge and
all that that's abandoned and not used put them into the EB1 or EB3 >> you might have to cut it off at South Street where South Street hits South Bridge >> I see where you're >> there because those houses that are on Franklin
>> are on Franklin so they're they're actually north of Franklin so you'd have to have the houses >> correct >> that are that are on Franklin, the property lines behind that >> that lines up kind of close to >> Yeah, I think you're right. If you look at it, >> the the north the north port the north
edge of South Street would be behind those houses. So, I think we'd be good there. Good point. >> Um, did anybody have an issue though? You know, I I mean, is everybody okay with the EPR and in the
>> my glasses back on so I can see the darn er and a half only? >> Yes. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense. >> But everything else I said I thought three stories was applicable. >> But not three stories stacked on stilts or anything like that. Just three stories. >> Just three stories. >> Just three stories.
>> Yeah. Because then that comes into permitted uses. And so the permitted uses are going to restrict to your point making them build it the way we want them to build it. Yes. >> Um anybody have any other um for schedule B any other things that they
saw. >> The only other question is if we're going to touch the F. I know that comes up in things occasionally. I don't know if anybody had opinions on changing that while we're looking at it. >> Well Jason once we get to zones down we can look at the bulk standards
throughout. my opinion >> about that. >> Yeah. And I I do have some um so I I guess to to Mike's point um does anybody have any issues with having
Mike reszone a map like this? We'd have to come up with a zone >> Yeah. designation for that area which could be used in other places in the burrow beyond >> that's all it wants. >> Um
and then dealing with that one um the homes on Franklin kind of splitting that Mike so that they're kind of left alone as single family. >> Um >> and then at the next meeting picking back up with base districts because I have I do have a lot of comments on some
of the base districts for the schedule A. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> does it make sense for us to send those to Mike and have him compile it for the next meeting or just >> if I'm just for seeing if we sit here
and we go through because I have a lot of notes on that too. If each one of us is if there's one that everybody has the same thing and says like this should not be allowed then Mike can just cross it out or we can just do it at the meeting. I don't care. >> Yeah, I'm okay with that. I think you know some of mine are comments on where
we allow on the upper floor only where I think that needs to be removed. It should be allowed at the bottom floor only like some of that thought process on that base zoning right and maybe that is where some of that thought process as we had with that overlay zoning. I'm looking at the overlay zoning going that makes more sense even for the base zoning now >> correct
>> on a lot of the stuff. Is everybody okay sending those comments over to Mike um within the next week? And then Mike, do you just put them all together and then we'll look at them all as a whole? Because to Jason's point, there's probably a lot of us having some of the same comments, we might as well just look at it as one piece.
>> Yes. get the schedule B correct, then look at bulk standards, and once schedule B is correct the way the board wants it, and then look at the uses within those zones >> because schedule A is going to be drastically changed because it's not
going to have the overlay zones and there's a lot of stuff in here which is going to be carved out. So from a reading perspective, it might be a lot easier for the board members to see a a schedule A with uses for the zones that the board wants to see as opposed to >> Yes.
>> this. >> Yes. All right. >> Be I good with that. Just a quick question uh for clarification. So I looked at this a while ago. I didn't ask a question. I thought I'd be able to figure it out, but I'm not that bright. So C I know what C is, right? But then you got a a dash CC, and I read the
footer here. Mike, could you just explain that for me so I understand that a little bit better? See what I'm saying? >> Yes. The CC was that was put in only permissible lots located partially or fully in DP flood hazards or IC text for more information.
>> That was a last iteration where the TDR was introduced. >> Okay. to try to jump start. >> And what it basically said, Chris, is >> if you want the higher density in the overlay if you own any you can get that
density if you own any port portion of a property in the flood hazard zone and you were to restrict it. So that's what's referring to. Uh that was the idea was to try to give a a b a density
don bonus to eliminate green space and eliminate buildings in the flood hazard zone. >> Not eliminate green space. I'm sorry. By the way, eliminate >> save green space. >> Look at the language. I'm sorry. Yeah. >> No misquing. >> Yeah. Gotcha. The language basically
says to use the flood hazard areas parcels as either parking lots which D permits or green space open space. So you'll see language in there about using the urban land institute and
allowing a a longer walk path to the parking lot if that made sense. trying to give more flex. Typically, you do on-site parking and if you don't, you have a parking variance where if you look at the ECBD, it has almost a whole
page talking about if your parking lot is within a,000 ft, it makes sense. The board would entertain it essentially. So the the the TDR section basically bent over backwards to try to get the parking to work in the flood hazard no matter
where you are in the ECBD. >> Okay, gotcha. Thank you. >> Got it. >> All right, so we're going to send Mike. >> And Mike, we can work on um a more official quote unquote reszone
map. Where were we? add a new zone in there. Not my uh Sharpie marker. >> No, I um we have a lot of this mapping already for the flood. Yeah. >> Affordable housing. >> So, I I'm envisioning Ryan Begy can can
add to if you can give them a shape file on this from the county at some point, get contacts and we can do a zone district map that makes sense along property lines so we don't have split lot zoning. and we can create that boundary.
>> Yeah, I should be able to have that within the next couple weeks. >> Yeah. >> Um just that's how backed up we are. So, >> all right. Um comments. Okay. Um All right. We are going to move
on to historic preservation. Good job, Mike. >> Yep. >> Um, >> I don't say that often, Seth. >> Well, I I it took a lot of I I took what was given and I went through the past board hearings on this and I took some
liberties and amended this to be more in an element form. And I'm not 100% happy because there's on an el a master plan element it should be the 30,000 uh foot view and the details and how you do something is an ordinances correct
>> you say in the master plan what the vision is what the goal is what the overall policy is and you defer to the ordinances to do this. If you look, the board seemed favorable if homeowners
wanted to do an overlay. So, there's some language in here that's a little too descriptive in my opinion, but I don't how I didn't I don't know how way it get around that because the board my review basically said, well, residents
want to have a historic district overlay, then they can come here and we would entertain it. The planning board would. So that's the language in here. I might have gotten it wrong. >> No, I read it and and to your point, you
know, we we can't forget that this is a piece of our master plan. It's not a an ordinance that's attached to it. It's not a resolution. It is that view and that what that um how we see to craft that.
>> Um as I read this, I think we're closer to that than where we were on giving specifics. um you know using in the word and if and as you go through our master current master plan and and it it does talk about it's talking about we say as a master plan and the in the vision that
we see that we want to encourage property owners to do certain things we want to adopt if the if the property owner wants to we want to promote the preservation um those are the type that's the type language that should be in our because then that goes with you
know as some of those policies might come forth or some of those recommendations might come for maybe an ordinance update or a policy change. It stays that is giving us enough them enough room to be able to say yes that meets the intent of the master plan. getting really really specific. I think
we could get you get sometimes I've seen municipalities get themselves in trouble with their mun their master plan because they've actually boxed themselves into a corner that isn't really good for the over or there's confliction because you're really strict on one area and then it doesn't really match when you
read it with the overall, you know, 40,000 foot view. So, in my opinion, I think you you got it. I I think we could even get less specific, but I still think that even where we're at is still much more of taking the intent of all
those recommendations and saying, "Okay, how do we bottle that into a 40,000 foot view and allowing for that?" >> And the only recommendation that was presented from the historic advisory was the only thing that was not in here is
the historic district on Main Street. I just took that out because I didn't think anyone any comments from the board was favorable on uh having a historic district in the downtown. That's the only comment from the historic advisory
that's not in here. >> So w with that um and to both of your point the the guidelines for the infill I don't know if we need to be that detailed of given the actual guidelines and th those bullet points. I think that
could be, you know, we recommend, you know, the the some type of yeah, language, but I don't think we want a bullet point and telling, you know, right in there >> that you have to have roof line shapes and everything else. I think that's going to be more of a
down the road kind of ordinance or whatever they decide. As far as the um the historic mission, I I think you kind of hit it though with um number five on page 11 with the enhanced design guidelines to the SID. >> Yeah. >> Um I think that kind of
touches on those things that they were looking for. And again, if all the business owners are, you know, on Main Street wanted to get together and create a historic, they they have that mechanism now that they'd be able to based on I don't think I I I think you hit it enough in that one. I didn't see it as an omission of
it. I saw it as built into that. >> And I was about to say, you know, to your point on that comment, you know, tagging along with Jason just said, you know, the whole intent when you read the the initial intent and the initial uh mission statement of what the ARB, why it was formed was basically exactly
this. It was meant so that you could have control over what was happening in your SID in our SID and how and control down to the level of again the policy was the ARB formation and their policies but it came from the intent of the
master plan saying we do want some restrictions but we're not going to make it a historic zone we're going to do and that was you know if if there's tighter guidelines again that becomes a more of a policy or an ordinance change on those restrictions under the ARB for the his
for the SID. But I mean, I remember while a lot of that um redevelopment was going on downtown, I mean, you're looking at paint colors. You're looking at I mean, it it's pretty specific on the guidelines under ARB and that was because preserving
>> that quote unquote historic look and historic nature of those buildings while allowing for growth at the same time. So I I agree with Jason. I think that does touch that >> different language, different approach, but I still think it gives the same
exact end result of what we're trying to control down there. >> Yeah. The challenge is to make it into an element, not an ordinance. That's challenge. >> And and given that the board was favorable for residents that have flexibility,
that is a little a little unusual. I have never read an an master plan that gave the residents flexibility like that. It usually doesn't do that. And what the planning board is doing, which I think is >> unbelievable, is saying we don't see
this. However, a residents have passion and feel this. The board's open to revisiting this topic. That is incredible. That's I've never read that in the master plan or any ordinance.
Typically, it's top down. This is the policies. That's what we're doing. That's not what that reads. >> Um the only thing I do also agree with Jason on is that guidelines for infill. I think we need to bring that to a higher level.
>> Okay. Would it be uh beneficial to give a word version of this to the board members with more time? I understand that some of the members only got this two days ago. Uh would it be help helpful to have awards so you could mark
>> I mean ask poll the board members are you at a point I mean of reading it other than like like we have already kind of pointed out for the guidelines for the infill needs to just be reduced or let's say more vague I hate using the word vague but you know what I mean. Um,
was there anything else that stuck out that needs to be also revisited or is that the only area? Because if it's the only area then >> I think in my opinion I think that's why I was saying I think we're there. I just think it's this one area we just lifted up a little higher and then we we should
be good for a final review. >> So two questions there. Sure. >> Yeah, I think we got to where we need to be. So yeah, I agree with you. And then like just for in terms like word versions when we send documents out that'd be super helpful for me just to kind of do live edits instead of the PDFs. So just kind of general statement there.
>> I got it. >> Send it to everybody. >> I got it. >> All right. So I think I think we should have a final draft from you by >> I will revise this and it will go out in word and uh try to get
>> I really like that. and try to get it to the board uh maybe the Friday before the Wednesday meeting to give a little more time >> for the board members. Assuming the chairwoman is good with that. >> Yes, that is fine.
>> Sorry, I'm making my notes. I have hit that age. If I don't write the note, I'm not going to remember. So, Okay. Uh other one under uh Jason recreation uh element. >> Hey
um did everybody have time to review that one? I know I had sent it out again just yesterday. I know it was included with the original uh um flash drive everybody got. Um, but I'm happy to
answer any questions on it. >> I think you did a great job. I read through it and I >> I'm going home. >> Mic drop. >> Yeah, I I >> It's an easy It's an easier element than everybody else's.
>> I had no issues with it. >> So, if there's no other issues, I would just recommend then we close that one off and >> Yeah. make those changes. >> We can check one element done.
>> And I sent that one to you. >> Technically, we do have two done on the books, but we've been asked to review one of them already. So, >> okay. All right. Last item that we need to discuss is our
tree ordinance. Okay. Based on the last conversation, I revised the tree ordinance. It was based on comments uh about species and comments that it would be helpful to have a table of
street trees, which was I reached out to the environmental commission, got the tables, redid the tables in a different format, but that's the species. I I tweaked it to put language about the zoning official in here just to cover
whoever is doing it uh on the trees. I liked it. I think I got everything we had the um that we discussed at the last one. The one thing in grain, you'll see in the table,
I want to bring it to the board's attention that there's evergreen trees right now on the tables that the ordinance doesn't allow evergreens for street trees because you want deciduous because of the winter. And you'll see
the blurb. I had said that John had brought up ash trees. He's not here. and maples. So, I had tweaked this saying we might want to restrict this based on not allowing evergreen trees as
street trees and uh to see how the board feels about that. Right now, it's not permitted because you'll see the just read the paragraph there. It says why uh you don't have the board could change that. Well, seems like the evergreen
trees would be more of screening than shade. >> The problem is in the winter time, Larry, you get >> icing and >> that you want. >> That's the problem, >> right? >> Yes. >> That's why right now it's not allowed, but on the list it's there.
>> So, I'm bringing up that >> evergreen trees may not be appropriate for street trees within the burrow. That's what I'm throwing out right now. It's not allowed, but it's on the tree list of approved species. >> So, but I guess that was kind of what what I was when I was looking at this,
right? So, it sees it says and maybe it's just clarifying what the appendixes are because when I was looking through and you have appendix A, right? And then I went into and you see appendix B, street trees within the SID and then
street trees outside the SID. To me, maybe we need to clarify a little bit more clarification because to me I see that narrowing down, right? Okay, here's here's everything that within a burrow, but if you're doing a street tree, these are the only ones. That's how I read it. These are the only
ones. So, I know it's on that list, but I didn't take it as being as I read it, well, it's not a street tree allowed. >> It the list or street trees list from the environmental commission and they included the evergreen. So that's why they're green and I have the poll saying
maybe >> So are for clarification I'm not a tree guy. I don't know very much about are all of the ones in green considered evergreens. >> The ones you highlighted in green are those all evergreens and that's why you highlighted them. >> Lion and green for John's comments
saying the honeyloust the male version. So you don't have the pods and I I highlighted evergreen trees. So if you look in the >> So Mike, just to clarify, when you're talking a pitch pine, is that an evergreen? >> Uh, yes. >> Is a Jersey pine or Virginia pine evergreen?
>> Yes. >> Eastern red cedar? >> Uh, yes. >> And an eastern white pine. >> Yes. >> Okay. That is where I was confused. I was not taking them. No offense. I am going to be the first person to tell you I'm not a tree person either, and I didn't take that as an evergreen. >> So then, yes, I think they should be
removed. Sorry. >> The green trees are the ones flagged by John and or and or or evergreens. I'm sorry I didn't make that distinction. >> No, you're good. It's >> so >> I if the if the board so inclined I to
keep this so everyone's on the same page. The agreement was to use the list that the environmental commission generated so we don't reinvent the wheel. >> Yeah. >> So those are the lists you had. These are the lists from the environmental commission. Upon reviewing the list, I'm
calling out things that the board may want to further restrict evergreen trees. John brought up the the box elder, he brought up the ash blight, and he brought honeyloust being you don't want the pods, which I don't I agree with. >> No, I agree with all those. And listen,
and I think we just just for clarification for anybody any of the public listening or watching, the evergreen is not on your property. We're restricting. We're restricting it as a street trait. Yes, >> there's a big difference and there's a big difference in location because to Larry's point, a lot of them do use it on property for screening, but that is
on your property. >> It's just we're saying not on the street in that area where you're putting a street tree. >> You have the approved trees which >> it up right here, the street trees. >> The street or we just take it off the street. >> You could take it off the street tree list.
>> We leave the big list which has everything. But I think the comment I think was from Tim saying, "Hey, how about tables for street trees? Why don't we make this a little easier?" >> Yeah. >> So, you have these two street tree tables that came from environmental and they had evergreens in some of these
trees. >> All right. So, I I'll poll. Is everybody okay taking based on John's recommendations and as well as this the evergreen? So, the the honeyloust um >> everything in green. >> Everything in green. Is everybody in agreement we pull those from those two tables?
>> Yes. All right. >> Yes. I think we pull it. I have some other comments though. Okay. Table. So, um, looking at appendix C street trees outside of the SID. Um, sycamore, one of my favorite trees. Have one in the
backyard. 100 foot. Is that appropriate to have a 100 foot street tree between the sidewalk and the curb? >> Wouldn't even fit. >> That's an awful big street. >> Wouldn't even fit. Yeah. >> And if you look at the list, some of
these other ones get very pinnoke, like in your backyard, my backyard, they get to 80 to 100 ft. Those are too big for street trees in my opinion. >> Yeah. There's no room for it to begin with, >> right?
So, we may want to set and work with or ask environmental to set some appropriate height requirements for some of these trees. And I don't know what that high requirement is, but I know 100 is too high. >> I think the hard part is if we set you
can't really do it based on because they grow as they grow, right? So, >> well, yes, but they usually, you know, this species will grow between 30 and 50 feet. This species will grow between 20 and 30. >> And and so I get so I guess that's my question. And again, sorry for my
ignorance because I don't know any of this. >> I have no problem saying I'm ignorant in this area. Um, using the first one on that list on appendex C, um, not even going to attempt to pronounce any of the names of any of these. Is that species the one that grows to 75 to 100 ft or is
that species within the American sycamore? >> That that is a sycamore. That's >> that's what I'm saying. So it has the common name, >> right? Common name >> the species name. Is that a species of a smaller one? Is that why environment? >> They're the same thing. Latin name
>> just the Latin name. >> So that's not Latin name. This is a scientific name. >> Yeah, >> I I added some of this. Some of the uh the whiffs were not in the environmental commission. So I went through and I think it's correct. I think
>> that's the canopy can. >> So to Tim's point, you know, Tim saying that, what do you feel is is a maximum height that we would want to go on the street trees? You know, I I don't know off the top of my head, but when uh PSEG
came and trimmed all of our trees, and that's a whole different issue. They took this beautiful sycamore, and it looks like something now from a Heronomous Bosch painting. I mean, >> we've seen many of those trees throughout town, >> you know, these beautiful trees. They just >> they're they're going to die because
they cut them back so much. Um, but they had a little flyer and it showed um height of the street tree and I can't remember what it said because I threw it away. And then it had a recommended height for the front yard, which was about half of what my pinoke is in the
front yard. I remember that. And then, you know, backyard trees, which is where an American sycamore should go. So, I don't have that off the top of my head, >> but maybe, you know, >> I bet you we could pull that get that in. We can probably get that out. >> Yeah, because to me that's a good
guidance, right? Is looking at the the the wires, not wanting to interfere because there's quite a few trees as we drive around town that you you can very much tell that it was interfering. And the tree used to be beautiful and now it kind of goes like this and it's this creature now instead of a beautiful
tree. We've been talking about that for years about >> planting trees on the pole sides, the wire sides that were naturally grow small. >> Yes. So, I I think that's a good one. I
I think that's a great place if we can get, you know, I we can reach out to PSNG might even be on their website. >> 25, >> huh? >> 25 ft near power lines. >> Google is great. >> There we go. So, so I guess I guess my question then is do we restrict it based
and put just put in a line that says on the side of power lines? >> That's what that's what PSC recommends. They say 25 ft or less near overhead power lines >> because there might be some places where you can get a bigger tree because the setback and you know you have no obstructions in the way
>> but if they grow much bigger than that then they're you know then the sidewalks you know become a roller coaster. >> Good point. So if we go saying so it was 25 feet you said yes. >> So going with 25 feet um we lost about threequarters of our and I'm not I'm
just making a fact saying a fact I'm not opposed to that but then maybe we need to send this back to them and saying okay make some recommendations with a 25 foot maximum. >> There's one tree on here. >> Yep. I think it was only one, right?
>> Yeah. I think I think we do have to get some other examples of that >> and within the I mean you could use the ones from within the S. So let me ask this question. Why if it's a street tree within the SID couldn't it be used outside the SID?
>> I don't know. I would have to we'd have to ask them why they distinguished. I don't >> because the SID ones they have some five 5 to 8 15t 20T. >> A lot of the SID ones grow vertically with limited spread wide. >> Yeah. versus the outside, the SID ones,
they go out wider, but the SID ones tend to stay pretty vertical. They don't spread out. >> And I think the logic with that was impeding on the buildings. >> Yeah. >> Going out into the roadway. Keep it >> That's right.
>> Would would it be a detriment to have those in your front yard? Would they not look >> It would Again, I'm not a tree guy, so I I I defer to all of you on this. I know a lot more about this. >> I want to clarify, not your front yard. We're talking about a street tree. So, your front yard might have whatever you
want on the list. >> I don't think it would look bad. I mean, if you did it sporadically, it could look interesting because you have a, you know, 50 foot front edge and a thin tree. You in the in the residential
areas, you want something that's a little wider, but unfortunately, the trees that grow wider also grow taller. So, I don't know. Are there species that get wide but don't grow as tall? I >> Yeah, >> I don't know.
>> And maybe these are those, but they just unfortunately also have a max height of 75 to 100 feet. >> Correct. The max height doesn't mean they're actually going to, you know, the max size of a, you know, >> and >> Yeah, I think I would, I mean, I would even I know 25 is is where that that
PSNG is. Even if we said, you know, 35 to Mhm. >> You know, because to that point, not all those trees are going to grow to that, right? and we might get every tree that let's say it's 20 to 30 and it's 15 to 20 is really where they're landing then we've kind of defeated we want the
growth but but I I still think it needs to go back to them to say and I I hear what they're saying about the street trees within the SID versus outside the SID but I think I think the SI in the SID is more
restrictive but anything in the SID should be allowable on the outside the SID as well. Yes. >> And many of those trees would qualify for the under the power line. >> Yes. >> Issue, >> but they didn't bring those over >> into that list
>> into our appendix C, which I think we should >> they had two separate lists because they were looking at >> street trees for the SID. That was a project that was something they >> No, I think it's I'm sure they don't even realize it. I think that we, you know, allow that because it'll allow
for, you know, more options for outside the SID as well. >> The rest of it, I think, is is good, though. >> Yes. I think it's just this piece. >> I think we just got to we just got to nail down the >> Now that I realize evergreens are >> I I was confused by that. So, PSEG
actually has a site on their site called Right Tree, right place. >> Nice. >> That lists a host of trees and what it looks like, probably along the lines of the flyer that you were talking about. um what they expect and where they will prune because they will prune trees uh
to be 10 feet below their power lines. So that's why those some of those got demolished. >> So I will bring both uh tables. I will email it back to the environmental commission with the concerns being uh need more trees for for under the power
lines for a low canopy >> suggestion >> suggestion and um >> and maybe send them that PSG list. >> Yeah. and the starting point >> and ask the question >> can some of the SID trees be included in
non SID areas and I'll float the idea of the term is what Barry is talking about is colmer tree a colmer is a very straight tree it's right so I don't want to go there but the bottom line is I can I think we can get some good language from the environmental commission to
clarify this to address these concerns Yeah, >> that would be a great meeting. >> I have a question about just one more thing. The enforcement on this. We had talked about different suggestions about incentives.
We're not talking about that now. >> I think that's a whole other >> that's something else. I >> I think there's plenty of ways to do it. And that was one of the things I said is that the the educating and doing some marketing quote unquote on this I think is what the the
um I can't do the word >> incent >> incentive I don't know total mind block I think that's what is going to add to that incentive to do it that's what I was pointing out is that >> the concern that a couple people brought to me was that if there's no enforcement
people are not going to not going to follow the rules. So when Carol was talking about counting the tree, yeah, but $100, is that enough or is that >> Well, yeah, Larry, what we have written here is the resident property owner will has to report whether they take a tree
down or plant a tree just >> and if they don't, >> $100 fine. That's that's what it is. No, I'm just making sure. That's what it's called. >> That's what it says in here. Yeah. >> Yep. That's what I wanted to make sure there were there was this concern that people blow it off. >> But if that's going to be the fine, then
that's going to be what it is. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> Yeah. The what the the process was to get the link to work hopefully and apply to work as Jason said on your phone, >> inform the burrow. I will take care of the land development pluses and minus
and trees and then look at this on the annual basis to see where we are with the tree. Are we in a plus or negative in terms of more trees were taken down or more trees? And if we the burrow finds that we're losing more trees that
are being installed, the suggestion I had was we could look at the shade tree ordinance and beef that up to require an land development and uh more requirements for shade trees. I I think to Lisa's point, the
the education because I I don't want to because I agree with you, Larry. You know, the $100, but it's not a permit or anything that they have to get. It's it's just >> only if they're >> just notification. So, if they didn't do it, my fear is I don't want to make that, you know, $1,000 or something and
a resident had no idea we even did this, right? >> And all of a sudden now we're dropping thousand fines on people. No. >> You know, I I don't want it to be like that. I'd rather more education. >> Correct. and noticing. >> Thank you. >> The hope, Larry, is that hopefully if
there's an app that the residents can get, it's as easy as using the app on your phone. Just to say I took an elm tree down. It was no elms anymore, but I took down whatever tree of maple and put two
uh Japanese tree of lilac, whatever it is, just to keep track of that. >> Thank you. Um before I open up to the public the there were two projects here um we had six west main and 122 which is
central where >> we uh done with the tree ordinance you sir are you >> yes I thought yes going back >> you had other comments >> yeah I had one other comment there uh with the definition of the hazard tree I had asked a couple meetings back does a
homeowner um have to wait till their home gets damaged before they can remove a tree. Uh because a lot of times the tree is healthy or whatever and then it's, you know, whatever the roots start busting up the foundation or something along those lines. Is there any way to
uh uh expand the definition of a hazard tree, you know, specifically with a, you know, the home, not necessarily a sidewalk or that sort of thing, but the definitions are there for the future. Right now, there's no requirements for a tree you want to take down, Bill. It
doesn't have to be a hazard. I kept the definitions in as basically a placekeeping in case they're needed in the future, but there's no reference. >> There's no regulations for that. >> There's no reference to the definitions at all. It was just there uh basically.
>> So, I can choose to take down a tree if I want. I just have to report it and that's it. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Correct. >> I guess I just I didn't see that. I the definitions there there's an argument you made a good point Bill that you could argue that we should take the definition out but if we need to tweak
things in the future I don't want to add them back in or to have to do that I don't see the harm as long as it's clear that >> those those definitions are necessary >> otherwise it's a free-for-all >> well it'd be necessary in the future yes I agree with you
>> it's necessary now I know people in my neighborhood that just take down trees willy-nilly period laugh about it. >> Period. >> A tree. >> I I think you could, >> per the one is take take down a tree.
>> You just have to >> It doesn't have to be a hazard tree. You just have to >> You have to report it. >> You have to report it and then plant a new one or whatever it is. I don't think we're restricting what who could take down what. >> Correct. Correct. >> What's this definition indeed? >> Hazard trees. It's five.
>> It's just a It's just a definition. That's the definition. >> Yeah. >> So, if it doesn't meet the definition. >> Okay. Mike, can you pull it, please? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> should we pull all the definitions or >> pull all the definitions right now? Yes.
>> Okay. >> I think we'll be back here with confusion and I and I think we need to be very clear-cut. This is the ordinance. This is the recommendation. This is how it's handled right now. >> Well done. >> You have to have some rules though. >> There have to be some established rules. Otherwise, it becomes a free-for-all.
Then it's just at the whim of me. >> So, the intent of this, and that's where the education comes in, Larry, the intent of this is to there are trees that are going to need to come down and we do not want to restrict homeowners. The intent of this is that the onus is
more on us as a burrowwide to replant knowing a tree came down. >> Okay? >> So, that's why we talked about increasing the the fees to the redevelopers, right? And because that goes all into a pot that the reporting as we start to see what's going up and
what's coming down through the reporting process, if we start to reduce stock, then we plant more. But we brought up numerous times, many of our properties are not going to allow for replanting on our own property.
>> So then that's why we go. So that's why we've left this as more vague because it's more about the replanting versus taking down that we're concerned with. >> Okay. >> This allows us in a mechanism to track our tree inventory and we as a as the burrow now, right? So
whoever in Burough Hall is tracking that inventory saying, "Oh, we need to plant. Oh, we had five trees come down." That's where it would work with the environmental commission, DPW, whoever. and they're going to work on a more appropriate place that might be needed. You know, look at going back to the
ECBD. There might be a lot of trees that need to be planted down there. That's an appropriate area if we had to have some, you know, local residents take their trees down. >> My concern is that if it's vague and somebody makes a decision,
the tree is gone. >> Are you trying to res are you saying you want to restrict what who can take down what trees? I want to say that if there's a tree that's coming down, if it's a hazard like like Bill was talking about, >> let's say it's a healthy tree. >> If it's a healthy tree, that's a whole
another story because we've taken down healthy trees because somebody wanted more sidewalk space for their cafe. >> What What are we do? Hey guys, what what do we You We've been discussing this for three months. >> Yeah. >> What? We're back to square one. >> No, no. I'm just I'm just say I'm just concerned that if we don't have
>> Sorry, guys. some sort of guidance to the burrow >> but I think Larry what we're saying is this is has been the multiple discussion this and the consensus of the board was we don't want to restrict we want to focus on replacement right now
>> I think that that's dangerous but that's one man's opinion I just think that without guidance it's going to be a free fall >> that's what I think and and that's the entire here. Everything that we've been doing for the last 12 or 14 years has
been based on that one tree in downtown that somebody said, "Ah, I want more sidewalk sakes." And they cut the tree down. >> Okay. Well, that's a little different. First of all, resident trees versus sidel we have some sort of guidance on private property is one thing. Public trees is
another story. >> Okay. Well, public this is this is for private resial. what I want to make sure on. That's exactly what I want to make sure on that it's the private property. >> Yes. >> That we're going to remove the restrictions. >> Everything else is on the street tree and no no business has any right to take it down. >> Correct. >> Yeah, Larry.
>> That's what I want to make sure on. That's exactly what I want to make sure. >> The uh my understanding that the burrow is going to get a grant or is doing a tree canopy survey. >> So, we will have a baseline. The burrow will have a baseline of trees.
>> So, we track this annually. We compare it to the baseline of trees to see if the canopy or number of trees is growing or not. If the trees is not growing or maintaining, that's why I said about the maybe the planning what will consider.
Right now there's the street trees is $1,000. If you can't plant it, >> it's going to go up to that. >> That's what it says in here. Uh right now the ace in the hole is the burrow hasn't been
crying or financial contribution for not planting shade trees. Every parking lot has shade trees. I'm suggesting that if we get into a deficit, we start the burrow, the planning board may consider that if you can't plant the shade trees
for parking lots, that that goes into a financial contribution similar to street trees. Yeah. So to give the environmental commission more funds to plant more trees. I think that's the in my opinion the way to that's the if we get >> so that we can replace we have the
option to replace just like with everything else where appropriate. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> You know and I used my property the last time I had to take down my Japanese maple and my and most devastating moment I had spent thousands of dollars on trying to preserve that tree. That's how much we did not want to lose it. I had
to but I don't have an appropriate location based on my water drainage and all this other stuff to put another one in my front yard and I definitely don't have any more in my backyard that place because it's full almost fully wooded. So that's where that's we wanted to use that is forget even whether the trees in
that replacement we want to be able to have some of that control ourselves to say there is a more appropriate and we'll take care of it for you. >> Yeah >> on the residential side. And then I just want to clarify one comment you made. Uh you said remove all the definitions.
Maybe just remove the definitions that we aren't using because there are a couple of definitions that are applicable like street trees. >> Got it. >> Yes. >> Thanks. >> The ones that cause confusion though I I'll take out
>> ones that are not referenced in the actual ordinance. >> All right. back to uh projects that are pending that final approval. So uh Mike 6 West Main and then we had C the 122 West Main is central. It What's the
holdup on these? Six West Main. The a revised plan architectural drawing was just submitted and a punch list was done uh based on the preliminary resolution of approval. Uh noticing proof of
publication all the stuff that we had was in the preliminary approval. >> So the delay was on them. >> Yeah. All they submitted was revised drawings. So you do a compliant when you do plumary approval you have to to go to
final in front of the board you have to satisfy the conditions of primary most of them the D approvals no but obviously the stuff you have control over uh for example uh either paying connection fees the SRVSA or getting the letter saying there's no connect you can certainly do
that so the resolution of approval states these things that none of these documentation was submitted other than the revised plans. So, a compliance. >> So, it's it's on the it's on the developer. Okay. >> On the Happy Feet, the pizzeria. I guess
it was formerly Happy Feet. Uh they have never come in for a compliance review. So, I there's nothing actionable from the burrow. >> All right. >> As long as it's not us holding them up, >> that's that's why these are on here. And
and I apologize. Um, our administrator reminded me that we had and I had forgotten to keep putting these on. So, we will keep putting these on on open items so that we see where these applications stand. Um, all right. I am going to I'm going to combine
public sessions because I did not want to go to public session after each discussion item. I am going to open up public. So, I'm gonna um I need to open up public to uh members of the public that wish to address the board on matters either it was listed to be talked about it tonight
and or not listed. I will allow that for this thing on the agenda to make sure it's time all parties interested in addressing the board may approach the microphone. Please state your name, full name and address for the record and provide your comments and questions. All comments and questions are limited to five minutes. >> Hello, my name is Mary Swani. I live at
56 Fieldstone Drive. Um, so my husband and I are first- time home homeowners. We just moved to Somerville. So, uh, we're very happy to be here. I loved your comment about how people want to come to Somerville, and I I agree. We're we are very excited to find a house here. Um, so one of our first projects
has been to um construct a fence for our property, mostly to add some functional privacy as well for um our dog to secure him in the yard. Um, we do have a corner lot. Um, and we're currently we have a conditional use fence application that is pending. Um, and so we really
appreciate the discussion that you all had tonight about clarifying some of those points. Um, we understand that this ongoing discussion or these discussions that happened tonight um, may relate to applications that are currently under review, including ours. Um, which is why we are here this
evening. So, we submitted our application about six weeks ago and have made several revisions along the way to try and comply with that um conditional use requirements. Um, since then, our application has remained under review and we're just unsure what steps remain
for the process. >> So, ma'am, I am going to I I do have to stop you on some you have an open application before us, so we really can't discuss an open application, but I'm going to give you some guidance because I know what you're looking for. >> Yes. partly probably why it's still remaining open is they were waiting for
us to have this discussion so that they could give some guidance back to you. Okay. >> Um I just want to we're we're treading a little because you do have an actual open application. Um but that is I'm going to tell you from conversations of why that um was came back to us to have
the conversation about the zone uh fencing. >> They are most likely holding it because they really wanted to see guidance and give you the best direction back. Okay. without forcing you to go one direction or the other without our input on those. Okay. Maybe some of those confusing items for you.
>> Yeah, that makes sense. I think we just wanted some clarity on the that what steps have to happen like what review so I understand something with >> this gets done that would I think this will definitely um reduce and clarify some of those steps that are involved. >> Perfect. Thank you so much for your
time. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? >> All right. Hearing none, I'll close public. Motion for adjournment. >> So move. Second. >> All po. All opposed. I mean all in favor.
>> All All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. Mary's got nothing better to