Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, May 27th, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting has as required by the public open public meeting act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall. Two
mailed facts are 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 judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
>> Chairperson Warner >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Jason Krasa >> here. >> Roger Vroom >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Andrea Dair >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> John Manilia >> here. Barry Van Horn is excused. Tim Hayes
>> here. >> Bill Kill. >> Please stand for the pledge. >> Where's our flag? >> Uh, it's probably down at the >> cemetery. >> All right, we're we're all staring at you now.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Let that get to your head.
>> All right. I have no additional comments. Anything that's on the agenda? Architectural the ARB reviews. We are going to pull out the 56 fieldstone the fence because that actually has to be an approval, not a review. Uh the reviews are that we had three sidewalk cafes and
one sign. They all met the requirements and uh were approved by the ARB on that and move forward. Um so now we have to do the 56 Fieldstone Drive fence. Um anybody have any issues? They were in
compliance with we did do some clarification for them. So, at the last meeting, they comply with all of those conditions. Every Anybody have any issues? All right. So, I need a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the 56 Fieldstone Drive fence. >> I'll second that motion.
>> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> Roger Vroom, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Andrea Deer, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. >> All right. Um motion to approve minutes
for May 13th. >> So move >> second. >> Chairperson Wer. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher was excused. >> Jason Krasco, >> yes. >> Roger Vroom, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes.
>> John Manilia was excused. Uh Tim, >> yes. >> Bill Kill, >> yes. >> All right. All right, we have no resolutions for approval. So, we'll be moving on to our hearing for our minor site plan approval for 86 North Gaston Avenue. If you'd like, gentleman would
like to come up. Just make sure that you're speaking into the microphone. Sorry. >> Yeah, just hit the button. >> It should be red. >> There you go. >> Yeah, that one too. >> Okay. Uh, good evening, Chairperson Warner, Merrick Gallagher, and members
of the board. I'm Philip Birude from Barude Law Firm and I represent the applicant GM IB86 LLC uh which is owned uh solely by Antonio Rufa um uh for this application.
Um, as you know, this is an application for uh for minor site plan approval uh for my uh for my client to um to basically expand the existing uh pizza um pizzeria that that's at the building
on the first floor. There are two commercial units um and to um uh to continue the residential uh tenency upstairs. Uh so uh by way of uh introduction I'll have uh Mr. uh Rufa uh
just address the uh the board for a moment and then we'll call uh Craig Styers our engineer to testify. Also um in the uh also in the room is our architect Michael Pianazo in case there
are any questions. Okay, or anything to address. >> We traditionally all uh swear everybody in at once if we want to do that now. So, who else will be testifying other than the applicant's repreg? >> Oh,
>> yep. We'll swear you in too, sir. >> Do you swear the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do, too. >> Great. And we'll do the introductions when they testify. Um, just before we start, we'll mark for purposes of the record A1 and all supporting documentation received by the board as
A1. Um, A2 will be the proofs of service that was received by the board. PB1 will be Mr. Kohl's review letter dated May 21, 2026, and P2 will be the letter from uh the fire marshal dated May 22nd,
2026. >> Thank you. >> All yours. you can have a seat there. Um uh just before I go on, I I did want to um just again mention that uh we we did serve the um notice of the hearing on
the 200 foot list. Uh we also published the notice as required in the current and I submitted an affidavit of >> correct. We've marked that as A2 and the board has jurisdiction to hear the application. >> Thank you.
Okay. And Antonio, do do you want to do you want to just introduce yourself and just discuss your dream of this uh application? >> Absolutely. Good evening everyone, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Mayor. My name is Antonio Rufa and um the dream
began 33 years ago when I left my hometown of Calabria to uh pursue the American dream and uh since then we uh established um in Hillsboro um literally around the
corner and um we have uh a uh a business restaurant uh catering that um it's been operating since uh 1995. Um my wife and I um along with my children,
we live in Hillsboro and um over the years it was always a dream and uh tonight is a dream. So thanks for thanks for being here and uh uh listening to us. Um the dream was to uh own my own my
own establishment um and not make somebody rich, which we have. But um that dream came true last year when uh we purchased 86 uh North Gaston and um uh it's been it's been nine long months
as you all uh uh can imagine. um our expertise over the years um obviously I'm a uh culinary graduate so um you know we built um our clientele you know based on um uh traditions um family um
food and of course love. So this is an opportunity that um um um it's it's been it's been way too long and um you know basically uh you know I saw that opportunity when um
when the building came available and uh honestly it's it's more than a dream. So my son is actually uh um gave up going to school to uh to merge uh the family
business and uh so it's not only a dream for me but it's also something that he looks forward. Um we have a vision for uh 86 North Gaston. Um I see everyone in the neighborhood. Um I
see 86 North Gaston a place for uh where everybody can come um walking distance and uh you know purchase uh uh artasian pizza uh homemade prepared foods. Um we are going to offer uh a unique product
that uh um I haven't seen around uh maybe some of you have but uh uh I'm not aware of non GMO products um uh organic flour uh imported from Italy um and uh unbroated and unbleached. So it's a
unique product. Uh pizza uh pastas, homemade pastas and uh prepare foods is going to be our our main thing. So, um, we just, uh, you know, we just ask to, uh, uh, be, um, considered, um, of, uh,
it's not another pizzeria. Uh, I hear that every day, you know, especially from my, uh, my customers. Uh, we have 30 in Hillsboro, I think 29 maybe. So, and I'm I'm sure Somerville has just as many. But, uh, it's a unique place where, um, children can literally walk
from uh, uh, from school. um and and come to have their part-time job. Uh people can come and you know enjoy uh a quick bite um for whatever it's available. Uh or simply just you know uh do a take out and you know take home
some of the uh delicate test we're going to provide. So um that's pretty much it. >> I thank you and uh you know thanks for the time. >> Okay. Thank you Antonio. Uh, I would now like to um, well, are there any
questions for Antonio? But I know we didn't really get started, but are there any initial questions for Antonio? >> Did you bring any samples? >> They're they're in the trunk. I wasn't sure if that was allowed. >> Not until after. Not until after.
>> Um, okay. So, what I'm going to do is uh I'll call Mr. Sireers to Okay. Uh, please, you're already sworn in. Just state your name and your business. >> Thank God.
Let's just put it on the record and then the board can grant you your expert status. >> Uh Craig Styers, president Styers Associates, 43 West High Tai Street in Somerville. Um still an engineer in New Jersey. Just renewed April 30th, so at least another two years.
>> That's good news. I I didn't realize that was an issue. But um have you um have you testified before this board as a as an expert? >> A few times. Yes, >> few times. Just a few. >> This is his third time. >> Third time.
>> Okay. >> This year. >> So, the board will accept him as an expert in the field of engineering. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. So, um Mr. Styers or Craig, um you um you you received uh the report of Michael Cole
on on Friday. Is that right? >> Yes. and you had an opportunity to review it and you're going to address the concerns set forth in the report. >> Yes. Right now. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, u So, go ahead and I'll and I'll help you along if needed.
>> Okay. Um I guess I'll really go through the what's there now and work into the proposed. Um I do have a rendering. I don't know um Carrie if you want me to mark it. It's a >> different from what was submitted to the board.
>> Uh it's over top of Yep. Okay. Let's mark it as A3. Just give us the title and the date. >> Great. Thank you. Um, I'm sure as you all know, um, and as Anthony said, the property is known as
86 North Gaston Avenue, uh, otherwise known as lot 5, block 44 on the burrow's tax map. The property consists of 80 883 square feet, contains a building that formerly housed Vinnie's 2 pizzeria, as
well as a nail salon. The parking lot, while not striped, appears to have had nine parking spots, uh, mainly at the north end and three on the easterly side. Um, it is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North
Gaston and East Cliff Street. It is in the B4 zone and also in the Gaston Avenue redevelopment zone. Um some of the things that are stipulated in that uh redevelopment plan
uh one that the site is specifically in in the redevelopment plan. Um some of the items that that are of note is to return unproductive and underutilized land to productive use consistent with the vision of the stakeholders
increase property values and tax revenues by providing development that enhances the burough's economic vital vitality and serves the needs of the community. Supports the adjoining residential neighborhoods by encouraging boutique retailers to open with a short
distance to these neighborhoods. to create an environment that invites interaction between residents, encourages walking outdoor walking outdoor living and is aesthetically attractive on a pedestrian scale. Ensures that the new development does
not adversely impact the existing residential streets by requiring traffic impact studies. Provide for a greater variety of housing opportunities and choices within the burrow. bolster the surrounding
residential community by adding new diverse mixture of residential dwellings and enhance the principles of smart growth and sustainability by creating a compact moderate density development that is pedestrian friendly and consistent with the metropolitan
planning area. All of those things I think are specific to this property. Um, one we are redeveloping the property. Uh, I think bringing in obviously there was a pizzeria there before, but you know, bringing the pizzeria to that side
of town, uh, I know there was a couple there already, but it gets it closer to the community. So, there is that walking sense. So, I think what, um, Antonio is looking to do is spot on with the redevelopment plan. Um, as far as the
proposed conditions, um, obviously, like he said, he's looking to renovate the existing building. He's going to stay within the existing footprint. So, there's not an expansion of the use, per se. Um, getting rid of the nail salon, so instead of two uses, you have one use
on the property. Um, making more efficient use of the space with the pizzeria and some ancillary things. Uh I don't ne necessarily mean um with the the brought up of the mini mart. I think it's more ancillary products to the
pizzeria. You know, it's not like you're going to go in there and you know do your grocery shopping. I think it's those additional things are when you're in the pizzeria getting your food, you're pick up the you know like the the oils and things like that which are you
know part of that mini market part of it. Is it like your fresh pastas and things like that? >> Just want to get it clear in my head. That's what I thought it was. >> Yes. So, it's like I said, it's ancillary to when you go in there to purchase your, you know, Italian cuisine.
>> Um, the two-bedroom apartment will stay stay the same on the uh on the second floor. And I think most importantly, the building itself has seen a better life. Um but at the same time with the
architecture they're keeping the uh architectural style of the of the building but just doing the outside over to current building materials. You know redoing the roof, redoing the siding of windows and things like that. So and I think the other thing is if you look at
I think there was a colored rendering the rendering is actually tying in with the the fire department colors pretty well. So it's, you know, it brings the two sides together, which is, I think, a good thing. Um,
as far as the parking lot is concerned, you know, I expect that we're going to probably, you know, if it's not repaved, it will be be spruced up. Uh, we anticipate striping similar to what it was before with the six parking spots along the north side.
We will add a ADA space um in that corner. What we have shown on the side or the east of the um portion of the of the lot is three parking spots on the plans you have. They're all 18 foot long. Mike had
the comment about they should be 24. I think it if we do a compromise of the middle stripe going to 24 feet and then the two ends still at 18, there's maneuverability for the parking space in the middle and then the two end
pieces end spots can still maneuver without being 24 ft. Does that make sense, Mike? >> The first one near the driveway certainly does. The last one, depending on where that trash enclosure is still there, Craig, I I understand what you're getting at to maximize the space. It
makes sense. >> I just don't know what the trash enclosure wasn't on the plans I had. So, >> right. So, what I I'm shown it on the plan. It's kind of hard to see, but this would be 18. This would be expanded to 24 18. And then I believe we still have
18 ft from the back spot. So, I was planning on putting the trash enclosure in this spot right here. So, this vehicle can still get out. space still maneuver through and get it, you know, exit, be able to park and exit. And the dumpster, the trash
enclosure would be similar in size, maybe 5t deep. >> Yeah, I think Craig, that makes sense. Maybe for employee parking. >> Yes. >> It's the least desirable to make that the employees parking. So >> the trash would have the trash enclosure and getting in would be a >> Yes.
>> Yep. >> Sorry. Wouldn't those spots in the back be better for the residential? >> They have three dedicated spots along the back of the building. Those are their >> Well, either or. I mean, I think I don't think we're going to >> do you need for the apartment
>> technically two. And I think they're going to be kind of a shared situation, you know, with the apartment. If the people are out during the day, those spaces will be open for the restaurant. So, you know, I mean, it could go either way. I don't think we should designate
them, but I understand both your points. That would be the, you know, the cars that are there all day would be off the beaten path, I guess. >> So, you support the position that I didn't put the parking demand for the mini market because it's, you're saying it's access basically accessory,
therefore not going to drive foot traffic or vehicles. Therefore, the 12 spaces is accurate. >> I Yeah, I mean, >> based on the ordinance, what I'm saying? >> Yeah. But I I I think what you've done is you've looked at it as a fast food
and I think it's probably a hybrid. So it's not necessarily a fast food. It's not necessarily a retail. So where we're hitting the numbers is probably between 9 and 12. >> So the point being the mini market or it's really >> takeout accessory to the principal use.
So we don't have to concern oursel with parking for people going there for the takeout. >> Yes. or or whatever you want to call the pastas, the side dishes or condiments that the restaurant is offering. >> Correct. >> Yep.
>> So, and I think the other thing is that it's mentioned also in the redevelopment plan that the the board can choose to reduce the required parking for applications such as this as well. So, I mean that the board has the power to grant that change, I guess you'd say,
variance, if you want to call it that way. Um, the next thing is, um, I I'll end up going through your letter, but I'm kind of hitting up the points. Um, one of the things we can do, which I did not show in the plans, is actually put in the
four street trees. Um, I do have them shown. So, we can put one northwest corner, uh, the southwest corner of the building, and then on East Street. So, I
think we can, you know, maybe we get a little bit more columner tree, but we would satisfy that. And your comment about the shade trees, I agree it's a little tough to put those in. So, >> a waiver for the shade trees. >> Well, hold on one second though. You
could put a couple additional trees in that big lawn area that's wide open. >> Let me keep going. We'll go back to that. >> We'll Yes, we'll circle back >> because I think we only need two, right? So,
>> I'll come back to you. >> I'll be right here. Um again going back to the redevelopment plan um the the the project itself provides for a mixed use building with a combination
of residential and retail. Um as the uh redevelopment plan states provides for a walkable eating food store establishment. The mixed use will allow for residents to attract and support the limited retail within the zone and the immediate area surrounding
the zone and upgrading the architectural design will integrate with the new firehouse as I said before with the similar colors. The architecture will maintain the style of the house but upgrade the the um I guess the material exterior materials to current standards.
Um, as far as the variances we're looking for, I guess ultimately it comes down to we do need a parking variance or one way or the other. Um, maybe the shade trees, maybe not. Uh, the parking lot location, which is
it is what it is. Uh, it's there now, but it is in the I guess side and even the front yard on Gaston Avenue. Um the fence height, we're going to remove the fence, install new fence, and pull it back to the front yard setback.
So that would go away. >> That's great. >> Um the wall signs, we have one sign, um the circular sign is more than two feet in both directions.
So that requires a variance, right? It can only be two feet or more. horizontally or vertically. And since it's a circle, it's in both directions. >> Kind of hard to do that with a circle, >> right? Yes. But I think if you look at the architectural plans, it is um it
fits in that location on the on the facade appropriately. I think the size is pretty good. Um whether you guys agree or not. Um and I think the other signs as well um are appropriate. They're not o overbearing. Uh, I do also
have the logo on the East Cliff Street side on the doorway and I believe that complies. It's that >> is it under 30 or 35% correct? Okay. I just need some I I didn't know. >> Um, we talked about the parking spaces
being the length, two of them being 18 feet. The parking aisle width is required to be 24 and right now we have 23. um coming behind those six spaces.
And the other thing is we have not strike the loading zone, but we could we could put one on the east side or yeah, the east side of the building. I just, you know, how much paint do we want to put on the pavement? So, I I think we do have a loading zone. Whether we
physically designate it with striping, I mean, I could really leave it to to you guys, but the intent would be that the truck would come in on on the east side, unload into the side of the building, and be able to exit onto uh Gaston Avenue. So, there is space per se, but
not striped. So, I don't I don't believe we need a variance. >> But is that the back of the truck that's going to be the wrong way? I think it's more the truck is going to pull up alongside >> the back of the building >> and they would just unload >> right there and then go in in that go in
on the side door right by that walkway. >> Well, yes. >> Or off a cliff right there. So the truck would pull in door open. That's where the loading comes in. >> Correct. What Craig is saying that the loading is going to occur during times when the business is not open. So we're not going to have a blockage of the
travel way. Therefore, we can double up the travel way with the loading zone. >> Yes. So I I do have a bit of a question on that one. So being that this backs up against the residential area, the loading and unloading between 9 and 7, those are typically quiet hours. How how will the the noise be handled on that?
Making sure there's not a ruckus. >> So the hours of operation will be 11:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. 7 days a week. So, we anticipate the deliveries would be between 9 and 11 a.m.
>> So, so then no deliveries from 900 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. Right now, the ordinance talks about 7 9:00 p.m. to 7, make it 9 to 9 and it's quieter for the neighborhood. >> Can I clear that?
>> I'm sorry. I just want to make sure that um I I make a point. My point is I'm a sole believer of I go to the market myself. The times that there's going to be a truck coming in and and dropping off merchandise,
it'll be most likely limited. And if it is, it'll probably be somewhere around the 9:30 10:30 time. They know those guys know that we need the stuff so the merchandise so we can get ready. If we opening the door at 11 and we're miss,
you know, we're missing lettuce or tomatoes or whatever, that's that's going to be gone. But for the most part, I've been doing it for 30 years, I go to the market. I go to Hunts Point, Fish Market, Pros Market, Restaurant Depot, and and you know, basically, I like to
look at the stuff myself. I pick the items. So, there won't be any truck. It'll be my own my own vehicle if if it makes sense. I just wanted to clarify that. I know I know it's an issue and I and I respect that and and and of course, you know, we need to address that. But for the most part, the way I
operate, that's that's the way it will happen. So, I I hope it clear. >> So, a 9:00 a.m. start time with you still. >> If I'm sorry, >> a 9:00 am start of deliveries, no matter who's delivering, whether it's a supply truck or you
>> Yeah. 9 a.m. Right now, the the way Mike wrote it up, it would be restricted from 900 PM until 7 a.m. We're just saying I think this is what >> No, there's I I put a two in between restricted in between. So Mike's
language is correct. I was reading it restricted to between. >> Oh. Oh, okay. I the opposite. It'll be >> what I'm hearing is good. make it just a little bit longer so that there's no deliveries >> at 7 a.m. >> Yeah, I I think a nine in that area specifically. I think a 9 to9 no
deliveries volunteers to uh to do that because I'm not I'm not waking up overnight to do so. So, there you go. >> But thank you. >> Oh, talking about deliveries, what about trash pickup, Craig? And recyclables and the cooking oil. Um, as far as the
cooking oil, they will be stored inside and then when they are they will be coordinated to be picked up by an outside service. So, it'll be stored inside that they would come and dispose of properly. Um, and then obviously the garbage and recycling would be in that
um area that we're going to work on. So, I mean I expect it to be probably like a small dumpster, not this giant thing. So, it's maybe a three yard instead of a five or 10 yard. >> So, are you proposing a dumpster enclosure that somehow matches the facade of the building?
>> Uh, small >> or matching the fencing that we would put up. >> Well, yeah. My concern is with a dumpster, the bowlards, the stuff that we normally discuss for durability. Typically, we put bowlers on the inside and we have the buildings king facade to
match the facade in some halfh just to make it durable. >> Um, I'm sure you're going to say that the frequency of pickup will be as needed. So, even if it's undersized, if it takes three pickups a week, so be it. Five, whatever it takes. You're going to make that dumpster work for whatever.
Right. So that you don't have a health issue. Correct. >> Yep. And I mean maybe jumping ahead, but the dumpster pickups uh that that is an issue uh all over town because the the dumpster pickup people really like to
come at 3:00 4 in the morning and and obviously on the highway is one story, but in a residential or butdding up against a residential neighborhood, it's another. So um how can you talk to that or is am I jumping ahead >> for trash pickup? What
>> the pickup? Yeah, the time the timing of it. >> Well, I'm I'm sure it would have to be I I haven't reached out to, you know, the services, but uh I'm sure they you know they if they want if they want the service, they're going to have to come when I tell them to. So, and obviously
it won't be 6:00 a.m. So, that that makes sense. >> C can we define that? >> Yeah. What does everybody feel is a reasonable for you know >> suggest hours of the business >> in the day? What's the quiet? >> I would I mean allow it in the morning.
You got to allow it in the morning too. >> 9:00 a.m. is >> I think we keep So if you can do it where the same restrictions, no garbage pickup or dumpster removal between 9 and 9. Again, just keep it clean and then they can come after 9:00 a.m. for you. >> See, they're done. >> All right.
>> Thank you, >> Craig. I get the feeling you don't want a masonary enclosure for the dumpster. You're looking for plank. something that >> yeah something smaller because the the dumpster itself is going to be smaller. So we got to maximize the or the
efficiency of the space you know if we take 6 in and 6 in we just lost >> how about a hardy plank or something that matches the facade whatever that I think it's T111 or T11 or >> there's different elements of facade but we'll put bowlers on the inside just to protect it then. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. >> What kind of fencing is going on? >> I was going to ask that >> back there. you know, we got to meet this reviewer a little bit late. Um, but we've been talking to I would expect it'd be like a similar to what it is now, but in a better condition. Um,
so it be like a chain link with either the slats or some kind of screening on it. >> Yeah, I think it think it needs to be a little more sensitive to the neighborhood. Um, >> well, it's immediately on the other side of the chain link fence is a like a wood
plank fence. >> Yeah, I know. But I I think, you know, we have to kind of set the standard. Um, and and you know, to to at the tail end say, "Ah, we'll just put chain link up and put some slats in it." I don't think it'll look good. I really don't. >> You want a PVC fence?
>> No, they they don't last. >> They How about a board on board? >> Board on board or T111. I think what Mike is. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Be m It'd be nice if the color matched the building. >> Yeah. Yeah. The T111 you can paint any color,
>> right? >> The one thing that it's a little funky with it right now. It's in the top of the curb. >> Yeah, we'll we'll figure it out. >> Yeah. >> Craig, with regard to the signage, um,
do we need one for the projection? I think we need the other four if I heard you correctly that Mike or other three I guess that Mike identified. Do we need the wall sign projection bottom of page five? >> The question is does this the wall signs project more than 8 in? I just I didn't see the detail on the plans.
>> No. >> So I yeah I think as far as like the materials and the supports and stuff like that I think we could comply with. It's just a matter of the size and the dimensions of it. >> I I do believe the plans say it's dimmable. So the signs are all dimable. So that we don't have to worry about
intensity. We can deal with that in the field with dimmable. >> Yep. >> Same comment came on. There's no sight lighting shown Craig because but you have wall lights. So we can just do a light meter and see what the ambient out there with the wall lights.
>> I don't anticipate you need a freestanding light for the size of the site, but I think >> just to make sure that >> Yep. Okay. Um, I guess we can go through Mike's letter right now.
Kind of I think we'll just talk about the ones that we we haven't hit already, which I think ultimately comes down to the big one is the ADA accessibility. And from what I'm told, this is like a
rehab. And I I think that the it's you can't do it. There's no other way to put it because you have three steps in the back coming in. There's three more steps inside the
building. If you came in the rear, if you were to go in the front door, there's three steps inside the building. So whether you make the >> parking lot to the door accessible, I don't think the building can be
accessible in itself without being cost prohibitive. So I don't think that because of that cost prohibitive portion of it, I don't think we need to comply with the ADA accessibility. I mean, we will have the parking spot, but
um I guess we could technically make the deliveries to them in the parking lot, but I don't think that they could get in just from the the number of steps that are inside the building. I I I get it. I there is in the UCCC code impracticality
clause. It's a reconstruction. My my belief is a reconstruction. It's existing structure. It's just it's putting all this effort into it. If not now, it's never going to get accessible. And you're saying accessibility because of the interior layout, not just the
steps getting in. You're saying interior, >> right? >> So even if you do a switchback ramp and get one door, you're saying the door leads to nowhere, right? because of the internal layout of the existing >> structure >> because I you know for example I I could
definitely get the ADA from like the east east cliff street side bring that into the door but then there's three steps once you're inside the doorway and I don't think that there's any real way without you know winning the lottery that that
it could be done >> and I think the uh it's the same way I mean I can really let the the architect speak to it but I I think the same thing would be regarding the sprinklers. So I think it's still part of the rehab portion of the of the code.
I I understand regarding the um there's a formula on the UCCC for adaptability when you reconstruct and you have to put certain monies towards it. So whole formula and what typically is done if the accessibility can't be done is typically it's done in the bathrooms. That's what I typically see. The
bathrooms are made ADA, but >> which they which they did do, >> right? That's typically what's done even though you can't get in the facility. >> Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever. >> Makes sense. >> Well, it's it's similar to the parking space. I mean, if you can't get But it it's there. So, we're doing our part the
best that we can, but >> yeah, I I I don't have an issue with that. Um, you know, I think we we collectively have to think a we kind of go back to what we know instead of what's coming. And I think from a technology standpoint, um, having the
ability to market the ADA parking and you bringing it out, you know, there there's communities that eliminate drive-thru, uh, restaurants now. It's you park and you're on your app, that's the only way. They don't have drive-thru anymore. So, I think we kind of have to start to think a little bit differently
than we normally do. So, I I don't have an issue with that. Again, the solid weight. With regards to the shade trees, um Mike made the comment about the uh shade um buffering the um exhaust for the
kitchen. Ironically, the exhaust, if you look on the plans, is on the side facing East Cliff Street. So, rather than putting up some kind of man-made um buffer, whatever, we can take maybe a couple
shade trees and put them in front of it in that grass area that you're talking about. So >> I think that's a great idea. >> So I tre. >> Yeah. So I think what we do is the street trees we kind of put a little bit more
caler and then the shade trees obviously a little more >> u more more fluff whatever you want to call it >> spread to them >> and that would act as a buffer for the for that um exhaust so >> sound and visual. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. Um, I think we've really addressed everything either through testimony or the miscellaneous stuff that >> Are you going to go through the fire marshals report as well? >> Well, I think that we can. Yes.
>> All right. But I think again it as far as the code is concerned if there's there's not a sprinkler system I think that would address those first two comments as far as tying in the alarm to a central station. We yes we
will do all that. So three uh four five six seven eight and nine uh we can agree to that. So it's really just a matter of the whether the sprinkler system is required which
according to the code we don't believe it's necessary. >> Oh I don't think it is either Craig. It's just a question of with the variances the heightened sight safety we've put it's a mixed juice building. >> So the fire department right across the street >> I Craig I understand. So I I don't think
the fire marshall is saying it is a code, but for the relief to heighten the public safety that we've discussed this >> on on different items. >> Yep. >> But as far as tying everything in and you know making it um you know when the
alarm does go off it will get to the central station. We will do that. >> So did I miss anything? >> Well I I I just want to go back to the sprinkler system just because we we've we have been taking great s uh as we go into redevelopment and you know I'll
I'll say the larger projects this is not a one of the large projects in a redevelopment area but we are requiring uh that >> and and for obvious reasons you know you look around the state and there's there's significant issues so um you
know I'm I'm I'm leaning towards that as a as a requirement um or request that that that be installed. I I think because it is a mixeduse building, because you have ovens, um because you have residents living upstairs,
um I think it's something that uh that that the board should consider. >> So, I'm going both ways on this. I know we've done this in the past with the other application on on Main Street, >> but I kind of see as like a case by case situation. So, this one to me, I feel like it's like you said, it's not one of
the bigger ones. It's smaller. There's one apartment upstairs. It's not next to another building. Um, it seems like the applicants actually, you know, spending a decent amount of money improving this this property where as long as everything's centralized and they're all interconnected and if there's a fire is,
you know, um, an alarm that goes off upstairs, I mean, I think I'm comfortable with that. That's my feeling. Is there a secondary means of eress from the second floor? >> Just the windows. >> Windows? >> Yes.
>> I think it's the windows, right? >> Correct. Yeah, it's this 5.4 or 5.7 square feet of the egress windows. >> That's it's the second floor. You're allowed to do the egress window. Oh, okay. >> We're chewing on that, Craig. Storm
water management. I had some comments about roof leader and make sure they tie in to >> uh I actually went out there today. They're they don't tie in. All of them come to the ground. >> All right. So, you you're proposing just a splash. >> Um Yeah. So, that I'm glad you brought
that up. Um what I would suggest the condition of the the trench drain is just to eliminate it, right? It's It's falling in. It's about this deep and it drains to the circular inlet. I say we just take the trench drain out and everything will drain to the circular
inlet. >> You want to pitch it a little bit or you think the grades normally >> Well, I'll I'll adjust the grade. >> You make the grade. So, you're going to make the Yeah. the the manhole. You're going to convert it into a catch basin. >> Well, it is a catch basin now. So, it's a circular inlet. So, it's a trench
straight and a circular inlet and everything. I don't know why they put it in. It was but it's it's in bad shape. But the the inlet itself, the circular inlet is is okay. Clean. And I mean, I looked in there today. Um, as far as the bend in the pipe, I have no idea what it
does, but it appears to work. >> So, do you want to tie in the roof leaders to the building or you want to continue? >> I think it's we leave them the way they are. >> Leave them the way it is. >> Yeah. Okay. because they're essentially draining into the gr uh the the small gardens along the building.
>> So the your testimony is the storm water management doesn't adversely impact the surrounding people or the public or the the street and that the on-site is adequate for the conveyance structure on site is adequate for the site. >> Yes. Yes.
Uh sanitary sewer. Do we have any documentation? I haven't seen this. This project hasn't been in front of the board. I don't know ever. So the com comment was if it was replaced with PVC, wonderful. If it's not, just televise it. And if it's in
bad shape, New Jersey American will replace from the road to the cleanout. And from the cleanout to the building would be the applicant's responsibility. >> That one we Yeah. Like we usually do. >> We do. We video it. Send me a video of
jump drive if it needs work. What I'm saying is the since New Jersey American has bought the sewer system, the applicant is not burdened with the connection into the road now. So it's the cleanout. So it's 20 feet potentially of san sewer lateral or 30
feet whatever the building is from the cleanout. So yeah, we can look into it and work it out with Mike. Yeah. >> From the building to the clean up. Yeah, you televis it and if televising the the crack there's a problem say at the main that becomes an issue with New Jersey
American will replace it. If the whole line is bad then the applicant my understanding would be responsible from the cleanout which is typically put between the curb and sidewalk to the building which is less than 30 feet of pipe.
>> So that's what we're that's the scope of what we're talking about here. >> Yep. back just to touch base on the um the sprinkler again because I go both ways. Just I'm sure it's in there, but there's a suppression system in the kitchen in the in the
pizzeria. An existing one or a new one's going in I assume >> and it'll be up to code with everything because I know it's probably been a while since that's been inspected. Tested. >> It was inspected and tested prior to the
purchase. I do have a question. Um, is the basement going to be occupied by office space or just material storage >> like food cans, >> flour, that kind of thing. But no, no offices downstairs.
>> Thank you. >> And that's storage for the commercial aspect. The residents won't have access to the basement. their storage. Okay. No. >> Well, that's probably that's going to be replaced.
>> Yeah. Yes. >> Yeah. And I I think they they have information already about it. So, Yep. So >> landscaping. >> Yes. >> Yep. I'm going to piggyback on the question
about the the uh the hoods coming out. Not the hoods, the uh the exhaust. Currently, there are four exhausts from that kitchen system, and we're going down to one. There's the there's an exhaust that goes out of the roof and there's two more in
front of the windows and there's one on the side. >> Just one one on the side. >> Okay. >> And then the other one is on the roof >> and there's two smaller ones on the roof
on East Cliff. Those chef hatch spinners. Those are just probably just regular >> vents that heat vents. >> Yeah, >> it's just a heat. >> What does the current stack that's on
the uh roof line facing Gaston? What does that currently serve? >> Oh, yeah. Oh, that's still Yes, which by the way, yes, that's >> it will not be used. If they remove the chimneys on the roof,
how are they going to heat the building in the furnace? Where is that going to exhaust to? >> No, I'm sorry. Like the way one of the drawings shows that chimneys, the traditional chimneys at the top of the roof. They're both going to be removed.
>> The plans on the new um display don't show chimneys on the roof, but if they're going to have a furnace in the building, how does that get vented? >> They're going to be selfented. Designed with PVC and you know, it's got it's got the motor and
>> it's going to be direct vent. You're saying >> direct. Thank you. >> Okay. And where is that going to vent out to? >> Whatever. >> Larry, what we norally do in direct vent is um we have the applicant try to best
efforts is to put it not in public view the vents and to color match the facade, paint them. This is what we've done in the past. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I think one of the things is they've done a you know conceptual plan of the floor of the layout. Uh they
haven't gotten MEPs involved yet. So once they bring the MEPs in that they will address all the proper venting and things like that. So that's why there's kind of you know looking at each other of what we doing type of thing. So >> just just to be clear too, so um you
have the existing kitchen hood coming out the side to remain, but it also shows the one on the lower roof on Gaston to remain as well. It does show that one's remaining, just the two smaller ones on east on the east side are being removed. >> Yes,
it will stay, right? So, so the old oven used to be a gas fire. Our our office is going to be electric. So, the requirements for uh the ventilation
is like literally literally minimal. There's no heat. Like literally, you could rest your face on the oven. Everything will be contained within the oven itself. I I think what the applicant's trying to say is they I haven't fully designed it
and whatever events or exhaust is needed will be screened and be in compliance with this with the sound ordinance. So if it's there's something in the roof, they're going to screen it so it's not in public view. They anything on the side like we talked about the exhaust is
going to be the landscaping and the sound's going to deal with the sound ordinance. Yep. Correct. >> And is it the back on the used cooking well? It's going to be on site. Is there going to be a tank in the ground? How is
the used cooking oil? You have some deep fryers there at least. >> So, usually usually usually what happens it gets stored inside and it's like literally it's a service day. You call the night before you schedule the appointment uh just like a delivery and they'll come in the next day. They'll
give you a time window and basically when the truck comes in they'll just pump out of a it's only it's a small drop you know uh 10 gallons 12 gallons and they'll just remove that from from the inside and they'll be done they'll give you a
dollar per gallon actually to recycle the oil and uh they'll the reason for drilling down is we've had applicants that put the grease in the dumpster enclosure and it becomes a housekeeping nightmare. Absolutely not. >> So
>> they'll actually give you a receipt, too. So keep it's required by the health department. So every time they come in, it's one of the things. >> Any other questions for Mr. Sers? Would this property benefit from a reversal of
the existing traffic flow instead of entrance off of cliff entrance off Gaston and exit onto cliff? Would there be any benefit to re you're gonna you're going to fix it anyway? If you flipped it and made the entrance off of Gaston,
would that be of any benefit for layout parking circulation? Uh, I think I'd rather have like that's kind of the residential side. I'd rather see it coming in than the cars going out and going left and right through the neighborhoods. >> So, I'd rather see
>> if they need to come in, they're going to come in from a residential and not pour out onto it. I'd rather pour out onto this state highway. >> Yeah. And I would have just a concern on Gaston if they're sitting there waiting to take that lefthand turn coming in. I'd rather them just come in and come right in off the residential unit. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Yep. Craig, I had some comments about the sidewalk. Most of it's in good shape. Some of it's cracked. So, I had a comment about repairing or replacing portions >> and with a note saying during construction. >> Yes.
>> The uh the gap in the curb >> on the north end. That was a tree stump that was like 36 in. And Antonio told me today that they actually took it out. >> Okay. >> So, we could close it up if if need be, but that's the reason for the gap.
I had some comments on the light I'm switching gears on you. Yep. >> Uh on the color temperature, which is a fancy way of saying the light colors. I think it was proposed. >> Yeah, I think >> 3000. >> I think I had recommend 3500 or something that because you have the
lights right there, the mercury vapor, the high pressure lights right on a gas. >> Yeah, >> you to me it makes kind of sense. The light color looks very similar. We're talking about a white light versus a yellow light. As you go up, the light temperature becomes Oh, I know. But
>> so when you say like Kelvin and all these fancy terms, we're just talking about the color of the lights. >> Why don't you just say that, Mike? I don't understand. >> Yeah, it sounds good, right? >> Understand? Yeah, I think we've hit everything. Um,
but if there's any other questions, I again just a couple things. One to Mike's point about the lighting. Um, it needs to be very sensitive to the neighborhood >> in terms of spillage and also in terms
of style. Putting a mounted wall on it, that's not needite. to it is nice. It doesn't spill out into the neighborhood. >> Yeah, I think what they have is the like the vertical cans >> so it goes up and down.
>> So, if we can make use of that and cover the parking lot, it'd be good. >> And I do like the idea that less traffic and cars. >> Yep. Agreed. Um, and then just the southern wall, the wall with the mushrooms in
it's a little blank. It's just it's just a giant large wall. And you know, I like the idea of putting trees there to kind of buffer it and soften it a little bit. >> Exactly. That's another term we don't understand.
So, um, I don't know if there's architecturally anything you can do. wall to to soften it. I mean, it's that building's kind of a transition from the commercial side of the resial side of East Cliff and it just to me it's I'm
looking at it and it's just it's a little blank. I don't know if you can do something architectural. I don't know. >> Or make that third shade tree and then maybe you can do lots of really it's the trees that are the focus and not the wall. What what about that logo that's
going to be over the door to the left on the wall? You make an exception. >> Well, then it might be covered by the trees. You would like >> So, you have to pick, Larry. You want your trees or you want a sign? >> No. No. >> I just hear Larry say he didn't want trees.
>> I did. I want it on the record. >> That's not what I said. I said they have to put that sign down on the building to the left of where the three trees will be. Well, if we do >> then it'll break it up. >> We could do two trees with the logo in the middle.
>> But the just your the fan is right there. >> I I I don't think a logo is the answer because that commercializes the neighborhood. What I'm trying to do is is actually soften the commercialized side of it, >> which is just a a large flat wall. And I don't think we're going to have an answer today. Um but I think there's
something architecturally >> our head. So >> yeah, there's something architecturally that can be done that that just softens it. Um, so >> absolutely. >> Yeah, >> Greg, I had a comment about security lighting, which I think the light sites too small for it, but we'll see. You
might get enough ambient from Gas and Avenue lights that it's going to be what it's going to be. But if you can get me some light, should the board approve this, some light meter, just what's existing conditions? >> Existing. Okay. >> Unless you want to, if you want to factor the wall lights into the
lighting, great. But you might have enough lighting out there on ambient. I I don't know that >> high street. Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. Got it. >> The only other thing is the sidewalks >> if there's going to be anything done to >> Yes, we did agree to that. Okay. So, any
any of the >> It's okay. >> You're probably still trying to figure >> any of the cracked fix. That's fine. Is there going to be air conditioning in the building? >> Air conditioning in the building.
>> Where is the pad? Where's the pad going to be or the uh compressor? >> Yes. Most likely split system. >> So, if it's split zone and you're mounting it outside, you'll screen it or
do something to screen it and we'll deal with the sound. If it's on the roof, you'll screen it with parapit or something. >> I have a comprehensive condition that I've kind of put together for all the different exhaust, HAC, that kind of thing. So, let me know if that works once we get there.
>> Yeah, there there is a spot by the back door that's kind of like a little landscaped area. So, you could probably get him in there. >> Anything else for him before we move on to the architecture? >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Just utilities. >> Public question. >> Uh, >> any upgrades to utilities? I had a comment underground. >> I want to do architect first and then we'll >> do that. I didn't realize it was coming up. >> Well, But uh we we we I didn't think it was necessary to
present the architect came all this way >> but um if you have any ar any other architectural actual any other architectural questions the architect is here uh but I don't think we need to do a presentation. We addressed all of
>> Yeah. No, that was just he was here. I thought you wanted him. So does the board have any questions that would be relate to just strictly the architect? No, I had the one I which is the southern wall. >> Mike had a question about the utilities. We're not changing it from the building out. So, it would continue to be
overhead. >> So, the utilities Okay. You don't have to upgrade the service. You're going to deal with what you have. >> Yep. >> Okay. Regarding the facade, my understanding is you have a standing ceiling roof, a new asphalt, new windows, hardy plank,
and where the addition is for the freezer. It's a different It's a T. It's a different style Hardy plank or >> right, I'm just trying to give the color because I get the feeling that the architects really don't want to give this testimony.
>> I I just get the feeling that Craig's doing it. So, I'll chime in. All right. Does the board have anything else? All right, Mike and Cara, we've hit all points on your report, Mike. >> Uh, just the colors. We talked about the
facade colors. Does the board want to know the exact colors on >> I think one of the the submission was one. It was color, right? >> Yeah. The renderings with the red and the gray. Yes. So the colors are >> So that's the that is the color scheme. Okay.
>> Well, it's a redevelopment. It would have to go to the ARP, correct? >> Yeah. >> For final. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So this is just prelim preliminary, right? >> Yes. >> Oh, it's technically plary. It's a minor
site plan. It's not a major. >> Oh, so it's Yeah. >> So it's plary and it's >> because it's a minor. your preliminary and finals together. >> So with the ARB that's going to be part of the approval, we would have to go. >> ARB would have to do a review.
>> Yeah. You don't really go anymore. You submit it and then we look at it and then you'll hear right back. >> But you don't have to attend anything. You just submit it and it gets reviewed. Yeah. >> Ideally after the all the penetrations are known, everything that we can then
go to the ARB. >> Yep. >> Okay. Got it. Yeah, but you don't have to attend anything. >> Okay. >> I do I do have another question. The 7 by10 freezer that's going to be installed in the back corner >> in the walkway. Is that walkway going to
get >> the walking freezer? >> It's going to be walking from the >> Yeah, it's going to be internal. >> Larry, it's technically >> So, it's up to the building and then the entry is internal >> but it's still going to stick out of the building.
>> Yeah. So the sidewalk that's going down there, that's going to be gone. So the sidewalk is going to end coming down the side of the building. >> Correct. Well, it's going to you're going to come up the steps from Gaston and then go into the entrance. >> Right. There's no >> coming from the back building.
>> There's no walkway there. >> There's no on the east side. And basically the it's the freezer box is going to be clad in the facade to make it look like it it's an addition, but it's tech. It's an addition, but the addition is literally the freezer box,
>> right? >> I know it says it on the plans. I know it says it on the plans, but there's no walkway there, >> right? >> That's right. >> Yeah, there's no walkway there. >> All right, I'm going to open it up to public for any comments, questions.
>> Okay, I will Hi everybody. I'm Anthony Lar Roza. I'm a resident. See a few familiar faces. >> Can you just give your address for the record? >> 77 Lisa Terrace. >> Um I think this is a great uh opportunity for our neighborhood. Um I
have been hoping for somebody to open up a place like this. There's nothing quite as authentic as what he's about to put here. And I think that our community is really going to benefit all the, you know, everyone's heading to Main Street. Great. Gaston lost Raren. Uh, they lost
their bakery. I maybe 20 years ago. Um, I think this is so cool. It's bringing it back. I think it's what we want. You know, I don't think this is even something to contend with. Give him parking spots that he needs. You know, there's plenty of park in there. Cops are going to love being over there. You know, it's going to be a safe zone. Um,
so I hope you guys are all in for it. I'm excited. Let's Let's do this, you know. Let's get it going. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other public? >> Uh my name is Greg Rufa. Uh Antonio's my dad and this hopefully will be mine in
the next couple years. Uh you know, I am the new generation, so this will be hopefully mine. I'm hoping you guys all approve everything. You know, it's been a long couple months and I'm so eager. And when you're eager for something, you just want it. And that's that's what I want. Um, this is this is awesome. You
know, I have so many friends, so many family members, loved ones, customers that, "Oh, when is this coming? When is that coming?" It's coming. It's coming. And they're excited for me because I am the new generation, the new future, the light that's going to be brought into this town again on that road. So, hope
you guys approve it and thank you so much for all your time as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public? Okay, we'll close public session. Um, so I just have a couple comments and then I do we have one item that we still have to address because we have to
finalize what the sprinkler is going to be. Um, but >> okay. Um, so you know, as for the parking, I will address that. You know, I looked at this. This is going from basically two businesses down to one. I know that there's that ancillary, but it is really going down to one. And that parking has been sufficient for both
businesses on a continuous basis. You know, it is a pre-existing um, it's not something new. It's just kind of combining and changing slightly. Um, so from my perspective, I really don't see any need to worry or adjust the parking that's already going to be there. Um, I
think that he's met that intent. I do truly believe that this meets the intent of what we've been trying to do on the redevelopment side for that Gaston Avenue. Um, when we wrote that plan, this is the kind of ideas that we had of revitalization and bringing to, you know, um, the gentleman's um, comments
from the neighborhood like bringing something over there. Yes, we want people going downtown, but we also want to service all areas of the neighborhood. And um I can tell you that it it is definitely needed and it's an area that or an um idea that has come
that was definitely the exact type of intent that that we were thinking of when we did that redevelopment plan. So, thank you. Um those are the only comments I have. I don't know if anybody else has any comments, any other thoughts, and then we'll move on to the items that we still have to address. >> Uh if we can just address the items, then I have just a few comments to make
if that's okay. You always like to go last, don't you, sir? >> It's my job. >> I know. You always have to have last word. All right. Uh, so I know one is the sprinklers and Cara, what's the other one? >> The other one is whether or not. >> Okay. Uh, let's start with the striping
because I think that's probably um >> I I have no issue with them not striping it. I mean, it doesn't add anything. They're going to have to get stuff in there. It's going to come in and >> there's no issue. >> Yeah, I have no issue. I think it actually will kind of >> crowd, you know, sometimes striping can
actually crowd the look of something and I think >> more industrial and we don't want that on the residential side there. So, >> yeah. So, I'm fine. Is everybody okay with that one? >> Good. >> All right. One down. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, I sail. Yeah,
>> you can dovetail. So, so in relation to that to some degree signage, um I I know in a lot of the areas we have very industrial highway looking signage and I think we need to take a look at that because this is a a neighborhood and the
signage whether it's entrance, exit, do not enter, do uh that signage needs to be tasteful. It can't be and I'm looking at the the planner engineer on this and I'm not looking at the applicant. I'm looking at right over here. Um, it it needs to fit the character of the
neighborhood. We can't have metal and and reflective signs all over the place. >> Is that duly noted, Mr. Planner? >> Understood. Understood. >> Sorry, I'll shut up now. >> No, you're good. Um, all right. Sprinkler. So the the options from the
um the recommendations, I'm sorry, from the fire marshall is the the NFPA13 sprinkler on the in the basement and then on the first floor and then in addition the NFPA3R 13R system on the second floor which is the residential floor. So thoughts, comments,
this is where I will go last with my comments. >> I have seen my fair share of kitchen suppression systems not function. So, I think any opportunity that we can have to have a sprinkler system in a restaurant is a good thing. Um, because
I again I've I've seen lots of lots of businesses that could have been saved uh with the with their kitchen suppression system not going off. Just my two cents. >> I I have the same, you know.
>> What is it? What do you have on you tonight? I >> don't know. doesn't want me to turn this on. >> Yeah, I don't know what's going on. Um, I do share the same concern. I also do know how expensive a sprinkler system
can be to install. Um, I don't know if maybe there's a way we can have some kind of a limited system at least covering over the kitchen area rather, you know, coming off the domestic or something rather than a full 13R system upstairs and a full 13 system throughout
the entire building. Um, I don't know if there's a way we can >> some kind of compromise on that because I I'll agree with Roger. I've seen a lot of bad situations that could have been avoided. And with somebody sleeping upstairs,
you know, with the kitchen downstairs, I I I'd feel more comfortable. And I understand there's a significant expense to it. So, um maybe we could do a small limited system off the domestic. >> And that was going to be my comment. I'd
like to see some kind of compromise. Um I can concede the one upstairs. I can concede the one in the basement, but I do feel like we have to kind try to find something to improve that um safety aspect. Um I know it's an existing building. I know it was already an existing restaurant, but we're always
looking to improve and I think at least with some kind of compromise just in that kitchen area. Anybody else on the board have any other thoughts on top of that? >> Yeah. Do you want to take a break just so you can discuss? >> That's fine. All right. We'll take say we'll take five.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> As a reminder, all microphones are still on. So please And the cameras. >> And the cameras. special process. responsibility. We'll go back into session. >> Chairperson Warner >> here.
>> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Jason Kraka >> here. >> Roger Vroom >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Andrea Dair >> here. >> Chris Addex >> here. >> John Manilia >> here. Tim Hayes >> here. >> Bill Kill >> here.
>> Thank Thank you for giving us the break. Uh I I'd like to have our architect Patrick Orin uh just present some information about our our proposal of what to do um in lie of a full sprinkler
system. >> What we were thinking about >> your full name for the record and and um qualify you. >> Okay. My name is Patrick Orm, licensed architect in state of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.
I've been licensed since uh 2008. Um what else? Uh I've served on and gave testimony to various zoning boards throughout the state in the past. So >> before those boards in the fields of
architecture, >> yes, >> the board accepts that. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. >> So, what we showed in the plans was a typical commercial kitchen. Going forward, we have plan to um provide all
new kitchen hood which contains a self-contained handle system above the cooking appliances. The cooking appliance will be the fryer and and I believe the gas fired oven. There's a separate oven that's going to be electric which
is going to have indirect venting. Um, but the kitchen hood with the Anel system is self-contained over the cooking appliances. Um, in addition to that, what we agreed to is provide some fire rated gypson ceiling
between the residential unit above to the A2 use of the piece area to create that maybe a two-hour rating uh fire separation between the two in lie of providing the sprinkler
system. >> Thoughts from the board? At the same time, it's going to be monitored by fire alarm and again it's across the street from fire station. So this Anel system is is not like the old the old school uh
suppression system that um that you you've seen in older establishments. >> Yeah. Uh again it's going to be probably prominent manufacturers Captive Air. They make commercial kitchen hoods with the Anel system. the enhanced tanks that
are integrated into the hood provide fire protection over the cook appliances, all brand new. >> I'll just I mean I mean you're going to need an Anel system regardless that that's a requirement for code anyway um
for the commercial kitchen. So um I mean I I like the idea of the two-hour fire rating. I you know I do have a major concern about the people upstairs. I'll wait to see what the board has to say. >> Other thoughts from the board?
um to to Jason's original uh idea, his concept or suggestion uh for consideration, which was just sprinkling like a domestic system uh in the kitchen area. Um which doesn't have the expense
of uh the the larger system or the more robust system. Um but it does provide an added level of security, safety, uh and and as the chairwoman had pointed out, time um because you know with with a
small sprinkler system, it it does buy some time for uh the fire department to get there. Um and it buys time for the resident above and that the resident above is a big concern. Um, I don't know that you'd we'd be having this discussion if it was purely commercial,
if there was nobody above, but with a resident above and a an active commercial kitchen, it's it's something that we have to be concerned with. So, can you talk a little bit to the idea of of that compromise, which would allow for a more um a smaller domestic system?
I I I I guess we can look into that with the with our fire protection engineers on how do you do a limited use sprinkler system >> around you know in the kitchen area. >> So I I would just chime in on that like
you and when I say when I suggested the limited uh system you know I am talking about tapping off of like the domestic lines or whatever. I don't know what's in there right now. So, I can't be too specific. But, we also don't want it over. You don't put it over like grease and everything else. You let your ansol system cover that.
This is more a surrounding the area. Just if something happens, contain it into that and give the time to the fire department to get there. >> I don't uh I don't want you putting and I'm sure the fire protection engineers would, you know, obviously design for that, but I'm not I'm not suggesting
anything very robust or anything. Yeah, that's what we don't want to get into like providing fire pumps and and such like an NFPA13 sprinkler system require. >> That's something we consider with
talking to the fire protection engineer how to implement that tapping off the domestic. So, we could say as um the applicant will work with the board's professionals and fire marshall
to agree upon a limited suppression system for areas of the kitchen only. >> That sounds reasonable. >> Well, we're if we're coming off this domestic and it's this PVC piping, why not do the whole restaurant? It's just plastic pipe at that point.
>> Oh, >> pressure-wise is the only thing I would worry about because then you start getting into fire pumps and everything. I I have a little bit of a background in this. Um you you'd end up getting into pumps and stuff um once you put too many heads in. Um so that would be my only >> and I agree with that with Jason. We're
we're trying to keep this what self-contained as possible to the kitchen area and and not cause ext you know erroneous costs on top of to have a whole sprinkler system. But I do feel that you know and I think it's pretty much of consensus on the board is if we
can at least figure out a way within that domestic system to be able to do that in a limited area in a limited way I should say in that kitchen area to keep that containment does buy time it does allow a little bit um you know I feel a little bit better for that resident upstairs as well as trying to save the business too. So, you know,
there's a twofold there. Um, but I think that, you know, Mike, I think we're we're looking to not solve an entire problem. We're looking to limit and mitigate the problem so that it is contained and buys time for everyone.
>> Can you repeat that again, Carr? >> The applicant will work with the board professionals and fire marshall to design and implement a limited sprinkler system covering the kitchen area only. Are they also talking about the fire rating ceiling buffer also?
>> That's them. >> That's a question for them, Larry, not me. >> Oh, no. I I wasn't sure. Are you also thinking about still including >> Yes. fire like a two-hour rate of fire separation between the residential use
down above to the A2 pizzeria below >> and the basement will be just nothing? >> No. No work. Yeah, >> just an alarm. Um, and I I do just want to point out one thing for um just to have it on the record from the fire marshals report. Um I don't think we're
looking at that number 10 there that says the changes can be made by the fire official during any on-site visits. So um unless the board has any I I think that's a bit ownorous to just leave a blanket statement like that in there. Um so we'll remove number 10 out of the
fire marshall's >> letter. I can't I don't want that ambiguity of >> No. And that was to be clear what Craig had gone through on two through nine. It's two through nine and we're not conceding or including 10.
>> Thank you. >> Uh so unless you have any other questions for um for Mr. Orum, uh I just want uh to bring up one more thing with Mr. Styers. if I can have a moment. Sure, please. Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. This has to do with a a practical situation that we're dealing with right now that my client's dealing with. Uh Patrick, you want to I mean um sorry, Greg, you want to talk about this? >> So, since they bought the building, he's
gotten insurance. um um told that if he can not replace his roof, his insurance will be cancelled on June 9th. So, as a condition, could we
at least pull a permit to replace the roof while we're going through post approval? That would allow him to get his roof on and keep his insurance with the bill? >> I don't I don't know that we would have any jurisdiction over that anyway. I think that's a uh that's a cosmetic
um issue. >> I I think under normal circumstances that would be if they went in for a permit, which I don't even know if you need a permit. Maybe for commercial you do these days to put a new roof on, but since they are here and we're imposing conditions, I can understand the
concern. So, we can certainly put that in there and the board can >> say they have no issue with the building department doing that. That's the better way to to frame it. Yeah. I don't think replacing a roof, an existing roof should be a condition
>> ever. >> No, I think to the point is he wants to be able to if he doesn't want the construction office to say, "Well, no, you have to wait." He wants you application with conditions. You don't want to do it twice, blah, blah, blah. >> Yep.
So the the insurance company has they had a few requirements that had to be done. Well, the well, the insurance company's not making it easy because they they do want the uh the roof replaced, but also
they're talking about um cleaning the kitchen exhaust system, which we're replacing under under this application. And uh and they also want grease accumulations
removed from electrical outlet located in the kitchen which is also going to be renovated as well. But >> yeah, I don't think those are issues we can deal. We may have to convince the insurance company that it's going to be replaced or if >> you know if they're going to make you do it now and then replace it. But I I
don't think we can do anything about that. >> No. But we can put in there that we have no object objection to you drawing a permit to get your roof done immediately. >> Thank you. We'll have we'll have Antonio go to to the town to
see see what has to be done see what permits we can get or see what work we can do so that he doesn't lose his insurance. >> All right. Any other comments, questions, concerns from the board? Go ahead, Mr. Gallagher.
>> Thank you. Um, obviously the board has to take a vote, but what I will tell you is this is a a great application. Um, it's a property that has been vacant for many, many years. Um, as the chairwoman had said, uh, we have a redevelopment
plan in place for that area and and this fits, um, it's a, uh, an adaptation, a rehabilitation of an existing building and, uh, and it's a good use. Um, it's a continuation of a use, a pre-existing
use. Um, you've indicated that you're looking to be sensitive to the neighborhood, which I think is very, very important, which I think is fantastic. And uh um and what I really like also is that you're fulfilling your American dream. And not only that, you're you're
going to have the ability to employ people who can then also fulfill their dreams. And and I think that's fantastic. Um I like that. And I like that it's family. You're making your son go to work. That's a good thing. Um so I want to I want to thank you for
investing in Somerville. Um, it's Gaston Avenue is a great street. Uh, and it's only getting better and with a project like this, I think you'll do well. So, thank you. >> Okay, Cara, can you read off where we're
at, please? >> Street area maxer access items that you're voting on tonight, materials, satisfaction against satisfaction
employee parking by voting will occur when business I'm sorry between not deliveries will not occur between
Same thing with trash. with oil. Hours of operation will be 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. trash pick up as needed until the third party pick up
in the board. for purposes and letter. In addition to the proposed suppression will only The rooftop HVA system, venting,
exhaust, all of those related existing will be installed and satisfaction. The lighting style significance. Perfect.
>> So moved. Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Jason Kraco. >> Yes. >> Roger Vroom. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Andrea Dair. >> Yes. >> Chris Addex. >> Yes. >> John Manilio. >> Yes. >> Tim Maze.
>> Yes. >> Welcome to the neighborhood. >> Yes. Again, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> All right. Moving on to uh discussion items. Mike storm water.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um for those who didn't get a chance, I emailed the for cursory discussion the stormwater ordinance proposed revisions from the environmental commission. Now, there's some typos in there. This is for
discussion for the planning board. So, you it's if you didn't get a chance, I spend a little time with the vice chairman of the environmental commission. So, I understand what the recommendations are. The recommendations
essentially is to capture all developments over 5,000 square feet and call that a major development. That would be including roofs that be capture that. Uh there is a require a storm water
maintenance report be issued to the bureau annually. No annual fee. The fee was taken out and there's an exception in there regarding uh rooftop. If you have a development
that's all roof that is exempt from water quality and water quantity. So that there's an exemption in there regarding that. And the other item is to require during the analysis that the
sites be other than hard top pavement for in terms of runoff. So if the site would be assumed to be grass, wood, something other than if the site was 100% paved for whatever reason for doing the it qualifies as a major development
under that scenario, you would do the calcs based on grass or something other than a hardcape. Uh the purpose for that would uh it would require capturing more storm water volume that way. it. So those are
the major comments there is about there's a definition of redevelopment in there but uh it's very similar to reconstruction which is already in the ordinance but the the intent I think the intent here is to
uh really tighten up that anything that's that uh requires more than 5,000 square feet of a hard surface be captured and be defined as a major development. I think that's the overall
theme and the rest of it is addressing the volume and to capture uh the annual inspection and there's comments on what the annual report would go to the border engineer. There's the there's no annual fee in there. So that's what you see in
the red is basically those points. It basically expands the definition of a major development and requires water quality if it doesn't meet the rooftop exemption uh for all projects being
right now if you have a roof D says it's it's you don't have to treat it because it's clean rain barrel this thing we we always people capture water and reuse it. uh this would require it if it's not exempt being a rooftop project. There's
an exemption saying if you're just doing a building, no sidewalk, no loading areas that that's exempt from water quality and quantity. Other than that, you're going to have to address the water the rooftop
runoff in water quality standards, not just the quantity standards. So that's what you're looking at in front of you for the re uh in a nutshell. >> Uh sure. Go ahead. >> All right. Um so I I did have time to go
through all this. Um and it and it was last minute so I apologize. I might need some clarifications. Um, I I understand the intent is to basically force everybody to do more water treatment, water collection, etc.
Um, and I understand they're trying to pull out that rooftop clause for somebody just doing a roof. Um, but what would happen if they were doing their roof and at the same time they were doing, you know, uh, the the front
walkway going up to their house where they're building the the pizzeria, they're replacing the roof. This would trigger on them because they're putting they're they're repairing the sidewalk for the driveway. So the roof and everything that would
then become, in my understanding of reading this, they would now have to go back to treating all of that because there was, you know, that outside freezer is being added. Um, I I I don't know. I support that. And, you know, I understand they were trying to come up
with a thing, but just saying that if it's only a roof, it still leaves a lot because if you're doing a whole roof, you know, you may be doing other things as well. On the same point, it shouldn't you shouldn't be penalized for wanting to replace your
roof >> and decide I'm not going to do additional repairs because >> and I'm going to add a comment on that. I think my concern too on this was and I have a lot of comments on this that I I'll get to, but specifically on this roof only, you know, um we'll use this
application as an as a as an example. Many times when applications come before us, we use this opportunity to make things better. Not just the building, not just the parking, but the infrastructure surrounding it. And infrastructure isn't just storm water. Like we have curbs, we have uh I mean,
I'm sorry, sidewalks, driveways, curb cuts. We we've we've always made that as an as a part of a whole application. And I think we're dangerously close to saying people saying, "Yeah, nope. Just touching the roof. I'm not going there now. I don't
want to be penalized. I don't I don't have the cost or I don't have the expenses to be able to to do extra for you. And I think that is a big disadvantage to us on the planning board. It's one of the things that we you know in our master plan it's about getting better.
And I think on this one specifically, I think it really would restrain it would really um restrict and I think it is more harmful than it is actually helpful. Um and again, you know, I'll go back to my statement I made at the last meeting. There's a lot of balance when
it comes to this stuff. And I think this is one example where I don't really think it benefits us by saying, "All right, well, if you're going to do a roof only, you know, you're exempt, but maybe we don't want them to just do the roof only." >> That's Yeah, that's kind of where I'm going with this. I don't I understand
their intent on it was to get away from somebody who's just replaced, but I agree with you 100% is we just told them to fix the sidewalks. Now, now they would have to go back and pretend that it was a forested area and do a storm
water in different way. It's it becomes very exhausting and very difficult. >> I had this conversation with John recently before the meeting. Right now in the ordinance there's a if you the last five years, let's say it's a developed site the last five years, you
can use that hardcape in doing the runoff. This would eliminate it's some people call it the fiveyear clause elimination. So that would eliminate the fiveyear and uh the chairwoman asked me what can I put some numbers to this. So
I apologize for this but this just got I don't know if anyone saw this but I just cranked out the numbers today on a 10,000 square foot site. uh you should have uh Ryan Bakey had prevented uh gave
hard copies of all this is got a seal on top and all it is is the calculations if the project right now was a building and it qualified hardcape it's there for the last five years
if you use that this the bottom line is you would have a very high CN number and the runoff would be um 31,000 the volume is 31,000 gallons for a 100redyear storm
total volume I'm not talking about the routing which is the flow I'm saying total volume coming off that site for a 100redyear storm is 31,000 if you treat it as a grass area uh with a CN which is a fancy way of
saying how how pvious is the soil in Somerville the soils are from a B to a D. Most of the soils are C. So for uh this iteration I used a C with a good condition means it's grass. It's not
bare soil. So it retains. So you have a CNF of 74 and that makes the runoff almost 50,000 49,000 gallons and change. So you're looking at a swing of roughly
18,000 gallons on how you do the analysis. The difference >> that is looking at a a 98 CN. Everything is being identical. It's a 10,000 square foot lot. Uh similar to the lots on
South Bridge Street, I think in the SID, a lot of the lots falling around 10,000 square feet. There might be some larger, but there's some smaller. And 10,000 is what it's what the the bulk standards are for the P. So just to give you an
idea, 10,000 isn't huge. It's basically what the other zones use and I think it's appropriate in my opinion. Yes, there's bigger sites. Of course, Edgewoods is acres, seven acres with shop. Of course, four acres, but on all the infill and all the smaller lots of
buildings, I think most of those lots are somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000. So, I just did did it on a quarter acre lot and the runoff volumes and you see the difference. The difference is 18,000 uh gallons. So, with the change, the
applicant would have to address that volume on site in some manner. And I was making sure these numbers are right. So, John got Hydrocad out and said, "Oh, of course, Cole, 30 seconds." Yeah, I'm actually coming up with a
higher number is what he said. So, uh, this is manually doing it using TR55. It's a fancy way of saying this is what the state one should use. This is the right way of doing it just to give the board some feeling of what the runoff the volume we're talking about here. So,
you're looking at a runoff of 98, which is a heart of paving versus a a soil that has silt in it. It's not the greatest soil as grass. And that's the difference in how you look at this project. >> So how much would they need to store on
site in this example? >> In this example, um your runoff would have to be less than existing. So if you say it's you have to match it, which you it doesn't you would have to store uh the 18,000 gallons.
>> Now you actually have to reduce the flow >> uh as John knows you have to reduce to 50 80%. So the flow would be higher, but for simplicity assuming a one to one, that volume would have to be it's it's going to be detained over time. You're not storing
it indefinitely, but you're going to hold the runoff back. So the >> what's coming off the site pre and post for the purposes of here match the same. >> It the D rules actually require reduction, but this is not go with reduction. This is say one to one. So
for one to one, you're going to have to address to detain a significant amount of gallons uh for these sites. >> And so to that point again and and again I just want clarification to understand it in case I'm not and without going
into the mathematical details of it. If for example I'm just picking on random places in town. If Shopright were to because of this routine maintenance not being a replacement, if a building or a business decided to
repave their entire parking lot, that would no longer be routine maintenance and that would fall under a redevelopment and they would have to comply again as if it was completely grass beforehand. >> The existing ordinance requires reconstruction. The ordinance on the books right now
>> uh hooks those things. If it's not ordinary maintenance, Jason, you're you're you're into the major development. >> So I I guess my question is is right now because this is in the Reddit says that routine maintenance does not include >> so like right now if a business wanted
to repave their parking lot they would be that would be considered major redevelopment. >> If it's a mill and overlay it's not there's exceptions but if a full reconstruction or regrading of the parking lot it would be. >> What's the difference? Regrading I can understand but the milling and the
resurfacing replacement if it's the same square footage. What's the difference between >> ice? I I think the the thought process if you're disturbing like the earth. So if you get to the actual soil and that's >> even though the net pvious or impervious is the same >> correct. Yeah. >> It's the actual disturbance that's the
issue. >> Yeah. It's the hook is whether it's routine maintenance or reconstruction. >> And that's kind of what I'm that is what the the difference is >> because it's the same thing with, you know, um it says like routine maintenance is not Sorry, I got to go
back and find it. Like if I want to replace my deck, patio, anything. >> Yeah. >> If I replace it, I have to comply now. >> Yeah. It says routine maintenance does not include complete replacement of a roof system, deck surface, patio, pavement, or other imperous surface.
>> So, yeah, my concern on that one again was somebody wants to go replace their deck because it's falling apart or you know, you want to replace uh your roof, you know, again, like it's not considered routine maintenance where I I
just I don't see the I'm trying to find that balance of where's the true benefit to this. Um, you know, I am going to make a couple other comments on on some of this, too. Is I in in really doing research on this over
the last month, as we've been tasked to do by council, and I I can't seem to get out of my head that there is appropriate planning. Planning isn't just planning, right? So, what's appropriate for us might not be
appropriate for Branchburg. And I'll be honest with you, a lot of things that are appropriate in Branchburg are not appropriate in Somerville. And you know, one of the things that I'd like everybody to remember is we are a regional center, too. And we are a regional center designation, which means that we are supposed to have smart
growth. And in order to do that, we we we have to find balance. And how do we maintain what we have, continue to update and
redevelop what we have? You know, to be honest with you, we don't have real vacant land. We're not like a Branchburg. We're not like a Bridgewater. We're not like a Hillsboro. We're not even like down some of the southern counties where you have a lot of vacant land. And to me, yeah, vacant
land. you've got 50 acres and you want to go develop that. These recommendations now, these higher recommendations absolutely make sense to me. You have a lot of property, you have a lot of land, that's where you want to do it. And you are disturbing pro uh land that has not been developed yet.
That's where it makes sense to me. I'm having a hard time in most of these things. Um on on this going back to the forestry based and and this the water quality system um
for existing projects that you're just you know you're not changing the impervious surface you're starting let's just say I'm just going to say let's say it's 100% impervious surface you're going back to 100%. you've started there. You're improving the site other
under even the existing stormwater management. You're required to make it better than it was. So, we're already going better than where it was. Even if it was a project that was 100 years ago, it's going to be better than it was. And I I feel like some of these additional just aren't appropriate for Somerville
in the direction that we've been going. I I see this as a constraint. you know, when you look at some of these, I I see it as, you know, developers and and I and I'm focused on the downtown area or and on our
redevelopment area plans because we have redevelopment plans for a reason. We want to redevelop these areas. And my concern is with some of these, are we going to put ourselves in a position where we're going to tie everybody's hands and they say, you know what, it's too much. It's this, you know, yeah, if
I was in Branchburg and I was working on 10 acres, sure, but in Somerville, I think we're adding too many restrictions and I think we're adding expectations higher. Um, I I will say too, and before I forget, you know, I'm also not a fan
of putting adding more and more and more definitions into plans where we've got definitions in 50 different plans. And let's say I'm just going to use the um the example um when we're talking about impervious surface.
We start adding impervious surface definitions to all of our plans. And then let's say we decide as as a board that we want to make a recommendation that we want impervious surface as a whole for the burrow. We want to change it. We now have to remember to go into all these plans. You know, I'm a fan of your
plans should direct you to a higher level. And I think something like an a a definition of what redevelopment is in Somerville, a definition of what impervious surface is in Somerville, that belongs up here, not in a plan like this. In each one of our redevelopment plans, we go into in depth what
redevelopment means to us and what it and how it is appropriate specifically even to those areas down to that finite. I don't feel it belongs in a storm water management. We know what redevelopment is. Storm water talks about minor and major and then when do you have to
comply? um redevelopment for the most part all falls into major. So, and that's kind of already stated. I have a concern with adding language to a plan that we already cover in other areas. Um and as for the the
forestry based, you know, their their comment on they they moved away from the language, but it still says the same thing. And it says, "Under no circumstance shall impervious services or other conditions resulting from prior development be used as the basis for establishing the pre-construction
condition of a site." And I I I still I I haven't changed my mind even reading the new language. I I still feel that this is something that is inappropriate for Somerville. I think we have so many other ways that we are working on mitigating
storm water and and working on it in Somerville. that again I just I can't get beyond the fact that I don't think we're finding that balance and I think this will these restrictions and I read from the master plan last time I'll read from it again I
really feel that we will hurt and we will be going against what our master plan says as we're supposed to find that balance on what is appropriate in certain places and I will continue to compare we are not a Hillsboro we are not a branchburg and we are not a Bridgewwater with all of that property I
fully 110% agree with some of these things for a, you know, 10 acre, 50 acre, 30 acre where you're starting from zero. Absolutely. But we don't have that in Somerville and I don't think it's appropriate to put
those restrictions on Somerville. And to your point, I mean, remember this body is going to have to review it in connection with the master plan and make that specific finding >> for against recommendations that the council will have to go back and take a look at. >> Um, just, you know, just to your point
so everybody remembers that. >> Thank you. >> And I did forget to say that yes, what the chairwoman's talking about is there's a couple definitions that were added for redevelopment. That's she's referring to. I failed to say that in my summary. So there's a definition of
redevelopment that was added. Uh and there's some language in there about gravel and based on my conversation it would be that it's not the environmental commission would accept the definition. Okay. The issue
with gravel is is it is it pvious or not pvious. So there is a whole guidance that D gives if it's in the ground packed it's not pvious. It's a hardcape and I originally had that language and for for
simplicity it was taken out and they would defer to whatever the definition is from the D. >> I think the whole definition just needs to come out. Period. It doesn't belong in here. That's not that this isn't the place for that conversation in my opinion. I think going back to the first time
that we had this conversation when we discussed this prior to that well no prior to even it being brought back up to the council. >> Yeah. >> Is that we talked about incentivizing greenscapes. We talked about finding ways for developers and homeowners to
improve their properties and then like I said incentivizing more green infrastructure on their end of things. I think that still that was our recommendation the last time. I believe that is the strongest recommendation. Again, going along with your concerns, I think, you know, you I was the entire
time that we were having this conversation, I was thinking the Granite building >> that is that would fall under this and I'm not sure where because it's an existing structure and there's an structure adjacent and there's streets. I'm not sure where they would have any kind of system to store the amount of
runoff that would be calculated from what's going on. And and that's a project that's coming down the line. It's not in front of us right now, but it's it's coming. Um I I think the right way to go is education and again going back and talking about incent
incentivizing as we had said when we talked about this prior to it coming back to this board. I think that looking at this with this certainly we all want to protect our neighbors. We all want to look at ways to do that. This board has been having, and I said this to the
council when this came up, that this this board has been having very conscientious conversations about our areas and looking at our master plan and looking at what we want to do in some of these zones where we know we have extreme flooding and how we can mitigate
that and help our neighborhoods. I think that's the course that we stay on. Um, you know, I I think we have to we we certainly can find other ways to meet and and work with the environmental commission and find some ways to mitigate, but I think that, as you said
before, this is an overreach. I think we can definitely work on incentivizing, educating, you know, and putting out the right information out there and and reaching our goals another way, but we can't stifle the good work that has
occurred and that will continue to happen when we see people wanting to invest in making this burrow better. >> Well said. Very well said. Uh both of you, um I agree with exactly with what you've said. Um, and let's dial back
because we're talking there there's a whole lot of theory going on. Let's dial back 15 years. This burrow was nearly broke. Nearly broke. And we had started a process back in 2004 of redevelopment. Um, and we're
keying on redevelopment, but this has an impact overall. And it has worked. If you're lucky enough to own a home in this town, it's it's either doubled or tripled in value because of strategic investments, strategic policy, and strategic
decisions made at this table and the council table over the last 25 years. Implementing something that begins to put the restraints on our ability to allow reinvestment in our burrow is
going to have serious implications. uh not just on the commercial community, but on every single residential home in this burrow. The whole goal of redevelopment was to
begin to shift some of that tax burden to the back to the commercial side and away from the residential side. As soon as we stifle the ability for our economic engine to crank, guess what happens?
We don't have people like that gentleman who was here who wants to live the American dream and have his son take on a business. They'll go somewhere where they can. They're not going to come here. The We currently have a storm
water plan in place that's compliant with the state regulation. Correct, Mike? >> That's correct. So everything we are talking about is going over and above. We're a regional center. That means the burrow recognizes, the county
recognizes, and the state recognizes that we're a center for investment, and now we're looking at ways to stop that investment. And I know that's not the intent. I get it. It's not the intent, but that's the result.
So, I absolutely 100% agree with Roger. We started this conversation with the idea of incentives and education. We started looking at the east end of Main Street going green. We get it. That's what this body does. The long-term
planning. Let's plan that long term. Not just from the environmental perspective, from the residential perspective, from the financial perspective. We have to take all of that into consideration and make
those good decisions. So, I'm done. I am just going to add also um just for clarification too is um because I went over this with Mike today just so that the board understands too these are not things that if the the
applicant came before us we'll use the granite building and let's say this goes into place and they come before us and they absolutely positively prove that it is impossible we cannot grant relief. This is not something that we as a board can give them relief on. So that's where
our hands become tied. Um and and the most I haven't talked to one person that said that these would be doable things within Somerville. And they're and again it's within Somerville because of the way we we are right. We're we're not forestry based and any
trees and woods that we have we're trying to to limit and protect. But we don't have that like others do. Um, the other thing that I would like to also, you know, get on record too and we and I and it's it's this conflict, right? We just approved
an affordable housing plan because there are state requirements. So, we have to meet these requirements. I don't see that as like so now we're in conflict. We do these things and nobody's going to be able to help us meet our affordable housing, right? So, it's not just about
making it look better. we have requirements that we just said we are willing to invest in and work with uh developers on and I don't know how that gets done then right so again that balance how do we do both um and and you
know the last thing is is that you know I I can't stress enough we're a regional center the regional center uh and the intent of what the regional center is and how it mean what it means for Somerville is in our master plan our master plan is very clear on
what that we want the growth. We we want smart growth and we want to be conscious of what's going to happen in the future for Somerville to continue to make it thrive. And I feel um and again I will read it if anybody is still not clear.
I'll read it again. Um I see these two provisions needing to be fully removed from this draft. The only recommendations that I see that we can move forward on which is what we're
already in there is their first one of the impervious surface of 5,000 square feet or more and the um required um inspection which are already in our ordinances. Um,
of the four I I can't I I just don't They came with four. Two are already taken care of. You know, maybe they just didn't realize they were taken care of, but they're already taken care of. And and listen, if the council wants to in uh to put fees on and and permit fees
and all this other stuff, that's a council decision. That is not a planning board decision. We meet what the requirements are for when it comes to maintenance and for inspections and annual that's part of this storm water management plan we've already done.
Anything beyond that that's that's a council decision. That is a policy decision if they want to start charging fees and and fines. That's not our that's not our call. I think the fees were taken out, but the
the report requirements were beefed up and that's what you'll see on the end of this stormwater manage. Some of those comments from the environmental was to beef up the submitt, but I do believe that the fees were all taken out.
I'm referring to page 55. So, I I I mean, not to belabor it at all, I I agree completely with Lisa with removing those two completely. Um I I can't get behind that as well. Um and is the 5,000 square foot and the annual
inspection. I'm fine with um the inspection. I did think that that list was a bit um and again I don't know much about some of these things like how you would like what they want by embankment erosion control like how you're approving that every year what you're
supposed to I don't know if there's a report that you give you are you paying somebody to create these reports or is it just certifying that the plan you submitted and that you did for your initial inspection is still compliant >> because
>> which we already have in here And it says all storm water management facilities are to be maintained by the responsible party or homeowner association in accordance with the approved maintenance plan. So there's already an approved like we've already said, you've got to have this. You're required to maintain it.
So that's where I go. I I don't think we need the additional detailed report portion. Um that page 55 that Mike's talking about. What the chairwoman is saying is you have to for private stormwater
management facilities once they get approved you have to record them with the county clerk's office the maintenance plan which is required the language is required from DP um what's not required is submitting
this annually to the bureau so the distinction the chairwoman's saying is that these requirements are done based on the maintenance plan that's recorded with the county clerk the what's not is the submitt to the burough engineer is what we're discussing.
This I I agree that the maintenance is in there. There's a language that has to be recorded, but right now it doesn't have to be submitted to the burough engineer on an annual basis. >> So then where does where do those reports go? Where where is the
enforcement on something like this? >> It's a good question, Larry. The bureau has to certify annually on let me rewind that the bureau has to
tell the D through the storm stormwater coordinator what major developments were approved. So you're supposed to reporting what was done to the D through the coordinator on an annual basis. No, ultimately if the
stormwater management facilities, it doesn't matter if it's the homeowners, it doesn't really matter. Ultimately, who's responsible is the municipality for all stormwater management facilities. Whether it's recorded the county, it says it's 15 million in tall.
It doesn't matter. That's all well and good. Ultimately, the burrow through case law has been found responsible, even as a homeowners association, to maintain the structure. But but to to that and I just keep going back to this for different topics. Enforcement is not the planning board's
>> directive. >> I got it. >> So that that is a burrow thing. If they're not enforcing it, that is not on us to, you know, write anything else up. If it's in there already, >> correct? >> That's Brian's problem. >> There's Yeah.
>> And I think Mike, just so I'm understanding, if there is a storm water management measure and there's an operation and maintenance plan that's prepared that gets with the county that follows the deeds and follows the property owners. It's the property
owner's responsibility in the manual, but if they don't do what they're supposed to do, it ultimately falls on the municipality who then has to report to the state. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> If there's ultimately this this case law goes about from the 80s where a homeless
association went bankrupt and the question is who's maintaining these detection facilities? This is why there's case law in it because the municipality said it's not us, it's a homeless association. Ultimately, the court rule, guess what? Ultimately, it's the municipality. So, even if you have a
home association, so what I'm saying, the bulk does stop with the municipality, but there's a lot of safeguards into the system so that the municipality isn't on the hook. If that if that answers the question. I mean, there's a lot of safeguards. They try to make it
so on private stormwater facilities that you have to record it. You're supposed to be doing annual logs. There's what you're recording now is in excess of 500 pages, 400 pages on a major. I John might be able to speak to this, but the
template keeps growing from the D on what is recorded with the county clerks back on what Cara what you said. The whole purpose of this so no one can say in the future I didn't know >> but that's already in the ordinance. We already have >> it's already in the ordinance. It's already in the regulations. And the
purpose of that is that if properties change hand, Larry, no one knows that when you do a title search, it comes up what you're supposed to be doing and what the facility is, who's responsible. It's very, very detailed to try to
address maintenance. >> The based on the maintenance report, the property owner, the developer is responsible based on what's recording. That's true. But ultimately, I'm just saying if it all goes to, you know, down the drain,
the burrow gets sucked into it. But the burrow is going to say you didn't follow the maintenance plan that's recorded, which is so true. So it's not don't think the burrow is by itself. It's not, but it's it's a last resort. >> And I think really what it comes down to, and I think Jason and Mike B said
this, it is not our responsibility to infill in instill fines, penalties. That is not our purview. If the council so deems that they would like to move that forward, they absolutely can. Doesn't in my opinion, it does not belong in our storm water management plan. Our plan is
the basis of what is required. If the burough council decides that they would like to go further than that, that falls on the burough council. Um, anybody have any other comments, questions? The Environmental Commission is doing what they think is right.
>> Absolutely. >> They're presenting all sides. The Environmental Commission is not are not the bad guys. >> Nobody's saying they are. >> No, I'm just making a statement that they do hard work. They do the best they
can and they're presenting all sides. That's what they're doing. It's not >> an evil no plan or anything like that. It's not that's not >> and that's why I said what I said, Larry. If it were if there was other conditions in Somerville, I absolutely 110% agree with them. It's just not
appropriate for Somerville, >> you know. >> I wanted to thank them for the job they're doing and you guys should too. >> We do thank them. We thanked them last time and we're going to thank them again. You know, >> they they want the participation.
They want to be able to give their two cents and they've been working with Mike and the cooperation level has been better. I think it's been better across the board. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments?
>> All right. So, I'd like to make somebody to make a motion. What I would like is that our recommendation back to council for next council meeting be um that our recommendation is to no no further go no further with the
um water quality requirement as well as the going back to the the wooded right um and that one and two I'm looking at the original because I know that they changed all the language but it still comes down to 1, two, three, four. Um,
they got some specific in some areas. Um, and that the the regulated of the impervious surface over 5,000 was already there. Doesn't need to be changed and that the um issue as it relates to following a maintenance plan
and ensuring that you have that recorded somewhere is already done. It's already in our plan. Um, I I'm not in favor of us making recommendations as to whether they should instill fees or anything. I think that really needs to be a conversation amongst the the council themselves.
That's not our purview. Um, but I feel, you know, most of that that draft I I can't really see moving forward with any of the red line because we already have existing as we need it. And if anybody disagrees, please, but that would be my what I'm asking for a
motion on. So I I will move forward and make that motion and and duly noted to Larry, I I do want to thank the environmental commission. It is a lot of work and it's a lot of good work and they have their lane of, you know, looking at it and they do a very detailed job. Um so I I
do thank them. They're not here tonight, but >> they'll watch. >> That's why I'm here. Um, but I I will make that motion. Um, as Lisa said, to move it back to the council with the recommendation that those don't need to be adjusted.
>> I'll second that motion. >> Sheriff person Warner, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Jason Kraco, >> yes. >> Roger Vroom, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> abstain. >> Andrea Dear, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> John Manilia,
>> yes. >> Tim Hayes, >> yes. Bill kill. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh area need ECBD Mike. So you had sent out the updated schedule B, right?
>> Yes. I haven't received comments yet from the boards on us. I know it's coming. You didn't get a schedule. >> Did you send me? I what I did is on
schedule B I took out the overlays and I created a flood FHZ which I'm saying stands for flood hazard zone and I have it open space and parking those are for the properties and I say see text
because this is going to need text because we're not saying you can't maintain your dwelling or the building that's in the flood hazard zone. just that the ultimate goal is open space or parking and I don't know how to
do that in the table without the table becoming unbelievably wordy. Uh I changed the uh the stories to match what we discussed. So it's all three stories except for the two zones which are two and a half. And if the board likes I can
start working on the text but I don't know how to get that text into a schedule. >> No, I agree with you. I was looking at it when you said see text and I'm like huh and then I started thinking about it and I'm like that might be three pages so doesn't belong in there. >> I I'm not suggesting I'm sure the board
is not that you can't live in that dwelling right >> for example Park Avenue. I'm on Park Avenue. Obviously you can maintain your own structure. Just because it says parks and open space doesn't mean the burrow is going to the bureau's never done this. It's not going to condemn
your property or make it that you can't do anything without going to a board. That's not the intent. But I don't saying that in a schedule in a table. So just so you're clear here, do you want parks or parking like vehicles
parking along the flood zone or what what is what are you saying there? >> The parking is for parking. >> You did put parking. Yeah, I'm sign the TDR right now has stated that you could park in the flood hazard zone. You could the carrot was to put the high density
and you not non up and have parking or open space in the flood hazard. So that reflects parking which is vehicle parking which is allowed. And again that's all comments from the board members. Maybe parking is not allowed,
but right now D does allow it with with placarding with noticing, but you're allowed to park in the flood hazard. So right now I it's down the intent on the red was for parking of vehicles or open space
subject to your comments. >> Yeah. Yeah. I And go ahead. You if you if you want to go first. So, so the parking that was the original intent behind the uh TDR, the transfer of development rights and the idea was
to shift the burden off of government in in funding the acquisition of these properties and shifting it to the private sector. And the intent was that that whole area, I shouldn't say the whole area, a portion of that East Main Street area would be redeveloped and
they would need access to parking. So rather than building decks, we could we could uh encourage the acquisition of that property and turn that into parking availability, which then can cars can move. They can leave. But if we're going
down the path of green, um I agree it starts to look, you know, open space or parking. It's it's either grass or macadam. It's it it kind of doesn't it doesn't wash. It doesn't balance. Um, so I I would I would I I
know where Bill is going with that and I agree. I mean, let's let's strike the parking. >> Yeah. >> You know, if we're going green, go green, baby. >> And I I will say I was going to add to that, mayor, that um I think it the consensus that we've had on the board is that we are also trying to use this to mitigate some flooding issues and adding
or allowing imperous surfaces down there. It's kind of defeating what we're trying to do in that area. So, I mean, I'm in favor. I think it the parking needs to be removed and that it's just open space or parks >> unless it's a verb for park. >> It's also impossible to maintain it.
>> You pave it, it's going to get flooded. >> Yes. And and and again, the the reason D allows it is because you can you remove the vehicles and there's really no >> no harm no foul to the parking lot, right? except for the fact of our intent of why we want to have this as as a that
buffer to allow for, you know, that flooding and that you're not going to avoid along that greenway um that you're not going to have structures or anything that are going to be in the way and and allow for as much pvious surface. >> So, the one thing I will just throw a wrench in because I like to be difficult
is if we're going to, you know, long range plan, we're looking to make all that green, you know, parkland, we we might need some parking for the people who want to go to the park. Yeah, that could be a permitted accessory use. >> There we go. >> There you go. >> Perfect. >> Um, and then just to follow up on the
the C text, um, can we just put in like an asterisk and just say existing uses could uh remain or >> as long as they're not expanded? >> We we don't in any of the other um zones when we have it like we don't kick people out and say it has to be a hotel. So, >> it just falls to the underlying the
baseline. >> Yeah. Well, my question is we when we had the flood committee, we talked about uh in those zones that there's a certain amount that it is once it is once it has reached a certain amount of destruction, it is then
considered new construction if you intend to refurbish. So, is that something that we have to capture in this? Um because I know that there was a lot of discussion about some of the proposed R zones that that had been floated to council.
>> Um would we have to capture that language? Because again, yes, it's it's existing, but if it's to a certain point where you basically have to rebuild an entire place, then does that fall under that zone AE uh different requirements from
the D? Um, can I make a comment on that, Mike, before you chime in? So, I agree with you and I I think but I'm not sure that that purview of the details belong here or does that really belong at the council level because it's a
policy statement on how whether you would be issuing and allowing for storm improvements, right? And and where does that start and begin? Because I agree with you, right? But I think and if it does belong here, then we need to think about that, right? Because any
flooding on their first floor, they're going to need permits to be able to fix things. Do we say no permits in this area? And I'm just going to go to extreme. Once you have flooding into your first floor, no permits are issued. And is that how we start to do that transition or to your point, is it
there's another threshold that has to be met? And that's where we say and again I think that becomes more of a policy decision versus us saying this is what we feel and and if I'm wrong Mike if it does belong in here I got no problem with it. I just don't want to overstep
the authority of the board right in what our redevelopment plan says and what we're saying. Um >> yeah I how I see it is if the board's comfortable with flood hazard zone to
Roger's point that would be my vision is to be that zone would be expanded throughout the whole flood hazard area. That's what the committee wanted. Yes flood hazard zone. >> We're in favor of that. But I think what we're trying to figure out is there are existing homes there. Right. We're not
doing eminent domain. We're not saying you have to get out, but on the next flood, because you know, I know everybody can throw tomatoes at me, but it's going to happen, right? Um, when it happens and they now have damage to their homes, what is that threshold to
say it's triggered, I'm sorry, it needs to turn into open space. >> And and I I agree, Lisa. I think that belongs as something in code enforcement. Um, maybe we should look. I know the shore did this >> down Point Pleasant and uh, Manisquan
and all that. If you hit a certain level, and I want to say it's a percentage of the cost of the the property, you know, so if the house is worth $100,000, maybe it's 10 over 10%. I forget exactly how, but maybe we look at that and send that up to council for
a recommendation because I do agree with Audrey. I mean, at some point >> there is a flood hazard >> leaving one wall up. There's already on the books a flood hazard ordinance that it would be I think helpful for the the board planning board members. >> Yes, I think that >> if you have that we obviously don't
reinvent the wheel. There's a D required flood hazard ordinance and the flood hazard officer right now who's the construction official that has to enforce. So I can get that ordinance to the planning board members >> and then make that's where we would make
if we feel it needs to be beefed up that's where we would make those recommendations >> and the flood hazard and then here we have the text on >> not the flood hazard ordinance but >> right >> what the vision is here's the vision >> right
>> and that's what I was trying to separate out where does that belong you know because we just talked about we don't like certain specifics and plans I think this became two more polic policy oriented in a plan versus the vision we see and you know the plan gives the vision and those ordinances and res
ordinances are supposed to back up that plan and that's >> okay so that's perfect if you could get us that >> I'll get the flood hazard and I'll start working on the language that doesn't doesn't duplicate the flood hazard ordinance keep that's one thing in my
opinion property maintenance the stuff that says that you can live in the structure. It's not going to be condemned. I think has to be clear in the plan. The flood hazard ordinance will take care of the inmudations, all
those things. If that's a good if that works for the board. >> Yeah. And the and the one last thing, um I still haven't gotten the the overlay map that had the um lots and blocks on it or block and lot block and lot um on it so that we can re because we do need
to dictate that, right? what is in that flood hazard zone, you know. So, I will I'm still working on that. >> Um once I have that, then we can clean up that language. I know the schedule A we need to if everybody can get comments
to Mike by next week uh next meeting, I'm sorry, so that he can we can review those because I see light at the end of the tunnel on the CCBD and I I want to keep pushing it along. Mike, from your perspective, anything in the existing because I know you still have to give us
your um the area need report, right? Um but on the existing as it is, >> what else do we need to hit on? I I was going starting to go through over the last few weeks um the language inside of it, like listen, all the overlays have to be taken out. We're going back to
base zoning. Um, I didn't really see much of a change in what we saw in the vision for those base zonings because the schedules, the new schedules will take care of that. >> Um, and everything else for that area. I don't really think we're changing that. We're just readjusting where and how we
see that, right? Like, you know, how we see that coming to fruition. Um so I I just want to >> if we get the stories down to what the vision is three stories and then and we have the uses
somewhat defined then it becomes what are the appropriate bulk standards for what the vision is for this for the use. >> Yeah. >> Obviously the bulk standards for an eight-story building is different from a three-story building. So I think the bulk standards in schedule B should reflect
the visioning on the stories in the intensity of use of >> but I think we had said and that's that's why I'm saying if everybody could please get your comments go through that schedule A look at the base zoning and and you don't have to worry about the flood hazard area because basically the only uses allowed is going to be parks
and open space. So, it's the other ones of what we see um and what you don't see in certain areas and you know because there are certain areas that I see and we might need to also I I did look at I think there was one zone area where I was like I think I kind of want to change that to another base zone. So, just because I'd see more residential
and nothing else allowed but in another area I'm like I could see a little bit more of a mix. So, if you see that too that's also going to go into your permitted uses because I I really do see feel like we're in the home stretch. I'd like like to get this done in the next few meetings of of um because the area
need your area need I would like to have that if that's going to be a recommendation that's the final piece that I'd like this to go up to council as a package because those we're going to have to look at where we see that base owning too if there's adjustments there if that's going to be brought into it.
>> I did have one question about the park areas. Um, are we circumventing the homeowners insurance companies or the homeowners right to rebuild if they have the money to do it or if their
insurance company's going to >> It's not really about circumventing. It's about um what is that level or threshold where we say it's not appropriate anymore. >> Larry, I'll get you. the flood has an ordinance. >> Well, we can do that out with respects to,
>> you know, uh, national flood insurance like the things they did in Manville. Yeah. >> The Lost Valley, >> it seemed to be in conjunction with >> Blue Acres. So, the money that they were getting to say >> that wouldn't stop that because anytime you get either a FEMA grant or Blue
Acres money that's from D, either one of them, you're required to turn that property if you're going to do most of them are doing acquisitions. you h you're required to turn that home that property into open space. >> So it doesn't restrict that. It's the perfect intent of what we're actually looking for.
>> Correct. It does. Um where we could restrict, right? And and you've seen municipalities and again I'm not saying you should or we should. I'm saying where you could say is we're not going to allow elevations. You can do an acquisition and you can go through that process and apply for that grant and try to get that acquisition and my
municipality can help. Somerset County is finally doing um 11 properties that you know throughout the county. We're getting there. Um >> yeah, there's one on Davenport Street that's that's going into that. >> No, not on the one we have. >> That's different. That one's already done.
>> Okay. >> This is five years in the works. >> Yes. >> Um different. >> Yeah, different. But the point being is most municipalities are moving towards and the county will only support as of right now will only support acquisitions. They will not support elevations.
Lisa, just off track for a sec. If you're planning and we're talking about the recommendations for the area in need, we'll need a public hearing on that. >> Yes. That's why I'm trying to but I I really would like it to be one kind of package. So, even if we're done with this portion, then we can go through those steps and then as a complete council to see it because I think you
kind of need to see it as a complete package once it goes up there. >> Okay. Just >> Yeah. No, thank you for that reminder. Yeah. >> Um, anybody have anything else on ECBD? Is the board happy with what FHZ that designation? Anybody works for everyone?
>> Keep it simple. I understood the words you came out of your mouth. FHZ, flood hazard zone. >> Okay, >> perfect. >> No interpretation needed. All right. Master plan element review. Um,
is that final for the historic? historic was revised to eliminate redundancies. There's a striketh through and that a couple of elements were missing. So I put the language in a couple of elements of that language works for everyone and
obviously there's a there's attachments that go with this the reference the material that's been taken out has to be an attachment. That was the intent that we still provide that information just not in the element. So the comments were
to let me find it. >> Thank you. >> All the addresses and everything. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What? Thank you. Um >> all it Yes. The change and you it's in strike
through is in page 10 is just to take out the specifics to put that in an addendum which I do was the chairwoman's comment last meeting and just come up to say on the very end
and it's in red just the relationship from the historic element to the community facility and storm water management. So if everybody's comfortable with that, I'll take those out. I'll come up with the addendum for the information that we
wanted addendum and the historic element is done. >> Yes. >> On the last the storm water management one, is it possible just to like rework that a tad? In general, I agree with it, but you know, when you read it, it I
kind of struggle to see what, you know, how it ties back to the historic element, which is what I think the intro paragraph of that section >> says it's supposed to do. >> It's just it's more of a edit spice,
a wholesale change of it. It basically says, Bill, that the storm water management plan will help preserve the historic structures from mitigating floods. No, the three sentences before is just basically the feel-good stuff,
right? I get it. You want me to take some of it out or just rewrite it so it's better? >> Yeah. Slap it in J chat GPT and make it sound a little better. It doesn't The first sentence doesn't make sense at all. >> Okay.
I think the last sentence is is the the >> Yes, that's why I just read it. >> That's what you're saying. >> I like it. Yep. >> Sold. >> Sounds good. Next. >> Um well, just to clarify, are we going to see is this you're just going to take that and we're done or do we need to see
another draft next meeting? >> You can see it when we put the whole It's up to the board. Uh, I can take it out, make the changes >> just on the storm. >> I'd recommend just emailing. I don't think we need to print it every week. >> I think we just you can just send us a final. >> Okay.
>> Um, and and as of right now, unless I hear comments, we're just going to move forward with that final. Perfect. >> So, I'll revise it a new date so everybody knows that and I'll just get an email from Ryan. I'll email it to everyone and hopefully I'm not doing well with Bill over here today.
Cole, do you mean parking? Well, yes, I did. Oh, no I don't. >> I guess not. >> Okay. Tree ordinance. Looks like we have one more that we will be able to move forward to burrow council. Um, thoughts,
comments? >> I I read through it and uh Mike, I'm going to say again, good job in catching everything we said. I I'm going to defer on the actual tree stuff because I don't know what these trees are. So, I'm just going to assume that environmental and
everybody does. So, >> they did chime in on this and they worked with >> Yep. So, >> I I clarified it. The green is evergreen trees. John had comments on the locust and to eliminate uh ash trees because of
disease and box elders. >> That is in appendix A. It's it's highlighted those trees to be taken out. Uh also the environmental commission indicated in an email that the trees in the SID can be used outside. So I
initially started doing the language saying I said why don't you just put the trees in the other so you don't have to have the language. So you'll see all I did was add the trees to the list appendix C which is the trees outside of
uh the SID. >> Those are the highlighted ones there in yellow. >> Yeah. You'll see the ones in yellow. I'm going to get to Chris. Thank you. >> Okay. >> The Environmental Commission felt that large trees at the appropriate locations is appropriate. That's that's not the
good sentence. Uh large trees can be appropriate, not in utility lines. The comments from the board was, do we want an 80 foot potential tree between the sidewalk and the curb? Those are the highlighted trees that I need. The environmental commission saying at the
right locations they're good. The concern from some of the board members the last meeting was no not so good because it heaves the sidewalk and >> yeah it wasn't just about the wires. I think the wires was the perfect place to start but the these larger trees in in in as a street tree um I think caused
more damage along our sidewalks pavement pavers wherever it is. Um I think they're that's where you know right place right uh place right tree right place I think they um street trees should be smaller they should be under I think we just follow
those guidelines from PSENG on the the height um and then remove anything but above that and then >> there's plenty of other locations to put those trees as shade trees. >> So that was the question on the highlight Chris is whether those trees should remain or taken out because of
the size of the trees. That's the question. >> Thank you, Lisa's statement. >> Okay. The second one is I gave you the PSCG right place which is a list three tables. Now, do you reference the list
as the chairwoman has indicated or do you include that list? It's substantial and some of the trees may be evasive. I started going through it, but some of these trees I don't know if we just reference it. >> I think we were in consensus last time about more of a height. I think we have
the tree list from the environmental commission and I think everything in my opinion what I'm recommending and I feel we should do is on that street tree side anything over 25 ft is removed and it's allowed as a shade tree but not as a street tree.
>> Say that again Lisa. >> So PSEG the height was what 25 ft. >> Yeah there was small trees there was a whole list that >> 25 ft or less >> for a street tree I think that's what we restrict. I think anything over that 25, I'd even do that 30 because you could have a good chance that it's not going
to hit that 2530. Um, they be removed. They're appropriate as shade trees, but not as street trees. >> So, would you are you saying put the trees in the list or just reference the trees saying the trees from PSCG can be
>> No, I'm taking I don't I don't think we use the PSEG list. We have a list already of what right use that. So, street trees period. I I want shade trees. Street trees and street trees can the shade trees can have all trees, but
the street tree only list should be nothing above 25 to 30 feet. Anybody disagree? You know, there are some pin oaks um on certain streets, I think at South Bridge
that and and probably a few other places, too, that are very large. The sidewalks are perfect. So, it'd be interesting to see, you know, why do they work in some places and not others? And >> so, I hear you. My fear is now we're
going to we need a map to say where things are. You know what I'm saying? And and I think that's why we're trying to say moving forward um because I don't disagree with you, but I I where do we draw that line to say that it's not so
difficult to decide, okay, it's okay here, but it's not okay here and then it's okay here and it's not okay there. >> There you're right because there's a million variables. I mean, sometimes the strip is this wide. Obviously, you can't put an oak in there. Other times you've got 10 feet and then at that point,
right, you know, you could put a pin oak in there, but it it you can't come up with every one of those scenarios. >> So So when when I look at this, I agree that the ones in highlight, the ones that are highlighted, those should be removed. Those are those are monster trees. Um but Lisa, to to your idea, and
I I hate throwing a wrench in the works, it really reduces the list to only handed trees if we do a 30 foot marker on that. So it's It's a bit of a catch22. I agree in the direction you're going. I was just looking at the list. I'm like, "Oh, that leaves like >> Well, this this comes back to the conversation that we had last time,
which is >> we're going to put beautiful trees up and then PSCG is going to have to cut them down in certain spots. >> So, there are trees listed here. I think that that part of the conversation that we had was was giving this list to the environmental commission to have them
also vet and see if there's more that they can add based on PS&G's list obviously and remove the ones that that are invasive and that do not you know are are non-native but I think that that's the direction that we should head would it would bolster our list
certainly but I think keeping manageable trees in those common areas whether it's underneath power lines or not to the chairwoman's point. >> It eliminates then having to decide is that an okay tree there. It's just this is this is what we want to see on our
street trees. This is what you can do on your shade trees. And I think that that keeping it simple, the old KISS method I think is perfect. >> And to your point, 30 ft non-invasive put together that list and that's a list. >> Yeah. So, >> and the PSNG list was emailed to the
environmental commission on Thursday. So, they just got it before the holiday. So Mike, do we want to uh do we want to send this back to for one last of saying hey listen anything above 25 30 ft we're taking off we're looking for you to add
>> or are we just saying I mean >> can we just say instead of saying exactly what trees can we kind of just say it has to be a non-invasive you know street trees here's some recommendations but but noninvasive >> blah you know >> and maybe we say here are some
recommendations wait a minute waitar Sorry. Maybe we say here are some recommendations and then come up with the language. I agree. I think, you know, if it's a non-invasive, why are we not allowing it? >> I I agree with what was just said. And
what we can do is on the environmental commission website have a list of suggested trees that folks can refer to. Um, and and let's just limit it to what Jason just said. just give give the 25 to 30 ft non-invasive blah blah and list
those items >> and we're done >> because then we don't it could be reference their website whatever and then we don't have >> then we don't have to change our ordinance every time you know they all you know not they the environmental commission is like oh this this tree is
no longer good anymore we have to now change the ordinance to remove it they could just reference it and then that makes it a lot easier on >> everybody's >> and getting into the landscaping design business is not a I don't think it's a position of the planning board or the burough council. >> Yeah. All right.
>> The rest of it I like. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm getting there. So, we're going to eliminate appendix A, B, and C and make a simple list and we're going to reference everything else. Like I had a comment here that evasive trees I just said go off the website because
they're always changing the list of evasive trees. So, we're okay. Most of the towns are doing it that way. Yeah. >> Yep. >> I going back I took the definitions out based on the last conversation. Bill
said, >> "What about these definitions?" The comment was only leave the definitions which are somewhat relevant to what's being said. So you you have the striketh through. So a lot of the definitions were taken out. Street trees were left
in. You could see what was left in. >> Yep. I also added points 12 and 13 in the red which is the language out of the current ordinance which I think needs to be in there because I missed it on saying the 50 foot. It refers back to
the design stance. It says 50 feet but it this should be independent. why this came up on a we have design standards in the land use ordinance when we get there. The land use ordinance right now says it's applicable
for subdivisions and site plans. Therefore, you can make an argument on one and two family homes that the whole design standards are not applicable, which obviously I don't think is the intent. The shade tree ordinance covers
everyone and it says 50 feet regardless if it's a site plan or not. Just so the board knows if one or two families the board typically doesn't see it here because that they're defined by the municipal land use as being site plan exempt. So the planning board typically here is site plans or redevelopments.
The reason you hear the fences the conditional uses that was the workaround. So I put 12 and 13 back in saying you have the 50 foot. So if you're doing a tear down a brand new house, tear down in my opinion the 50 foot trees would be applicable on it
would be a zoning officer plot plan. It wouldn't be in front of a board. So that's why you see 12 and 13. It specifies the 50 ft so that you don't have to rely on the design standards. So you have that language and I got enough to adjust appendix A,
B, and C to what we talk about. Reference the evasive species, reference everything else, and we're going to get feedback on and there's 25 trees right now that we have 20. We have the trees under 30 feet, but the list is going to
be relatively sparse, like maybe six or seven trees. >> Remove the list. >> We remove a whole list, not even to 25 trees. Are we are we just going to reference and say non-invasive trees under recommendations to be >> okay found at Yeah. found out wherever.
I don't I don't want to speak for the environmental where they want it, but >> Okay. >> The that place makes sense to put it on the website there and referred there. Yeah. >> So, we're going to refer to the street trees to be used in shade trees. Please see. And I'll give a hyperlink to the environmental. >> But I do think it should be a general
statement of they should be non in here. It should say noninvasive. I I'll keep the language in here. >> Sorry for being a little dense tonight. I'm getting a little tired. >> Yeah. No, it's getting late. >> Yeah. Um but I will put that note that non-invasive. I'll hyperlink that. This
should be in the list and I'll hyperlink it to the environmental commission for the exact trees to be used uh given the shade and street trees. >> Okay. And then and is that with that is it
ready to go to burough council? >> Yes, I can get those changes. I don't know if the similar to historic element should I circulate the changes? >> Yeah, if you can just send it out and then if there's no comments then >> it'll go up. >> Then it goes up. >> Well, we I think we have to car. Do we
have to do a vote on making those recommendations up? >> Uh I would if we have ones that are going right to council and you're not seeing them again. Um, if you're looking to see an email like with the last one, you want to see not printed, we could do that at the
next meeting. >> Yeah. I mean, that's why I'm saying it's if if we're waiting and we're asking to see a version, it's not going to the next council meeting. So, >> I would just like to see that wording of the recommending the >> I hate delaying things. Sorry. >> No, I but I wanted that to be clear
that, you know, we can't say we want to see it and it's still going to the next council meeting. Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um uh the only things I have left is um with the master plan, uh the areas we
have left are community facilities, the SI and the SID overview. Um community facilities next. >> We can certainly do that. >> I want to keep this moving. All right. Community facilities. Everybody has it. If you don't have it, please uh email
Ryan uh and he'll get we'll get you another copy. But uh community facilities is next. >> Um >> great. >> And that is all I have for
that. All right. I'm going to open up the meeting to the public for comment for anything not on tonight's agenda. >> Hearing none, I'll close public session. >> You're still public. And no motion for adjournment. >> So moved. Second.
>> All in favor? >> All opposed.