We're on the meeting of the Somerville Planning Board for August 13th, 2025 will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one published to the Courier News, two posted on the bulletin
board outside of Burough Hall, three posted to the municipal website, and four given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
Andrea Dair here. Chris Addex here. Art Aens and Larry Cleveland are excused. Jason Krosca here. John Manilio here. Barry Van Horn, Mayor Gallagher, and council member Vroom are also excused. Chairperson Warner here. Please rise for the pledgece
to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one indivisibley and justice for all. Uh motion to approve minutes from July 23rd.
Second. Andrea Dair. Yes. Chris Addex. Yes. Jason Kraka. Yes. John Manilio. Yes. Chairperson Warner. Yes. All right. Next we have resolution 45 Michael Lane. This was the fence. So moved.
Second. Andrea Dear. Yes. Chris Addex. Yes. Jason Kraka. Yes. John Manilio. Yes. Chairperson Warner. Yes. We have no hearing. So, we're going to go right into discussion items. Okay.
Uh Mike, EV charging, where does that stand with what some of the comments from council? Uh we at the last meeting we had uh discussed that and to follow up because I was me it was stated more than once that existing conditions
recovering surface parking lots and I do believe that gas stations and all that were exempt by statute. So, I provided what I thought was the pertinent portions of the statute to carer and um I don't know if Cara agrees with that or I I think we're good with what's been
written with the exception of saying uh to clarify this is only for new uh parking lots or new developments as the statute says and it says you can't it says you can't make it that a gas station needs a variance for this. You can't do it. You can't. Right. Right.
So, I don't think we have to touch that. We just add a sentence in there to say where applicable or for new something to that extent something very minor and I think we're good to go. All right. Uh so the board I can work with cara to
get that one sentence in there saying for new development new or as not other than exemptions in the statute this is what right you say uh basically what it says if it's not exempt by statute these are the rules. So, we could certainly say
it's one sentence, okay, to clarify that if the board show and close, well, I can make that change with car and get that to uh the council for recommendation. Okay. And so, it's already it's already been introduced at council, correct? We're just taking some of their comments
and readjusting. The council asked us was re was introduced, correct? Yeah, the council asked us to tweak it or reook at the gas stations and address the issue. Are we picking or leaving omitting things? And I think the stuff
we're emitting is stuff that we can't touch by statute by So since it's re already introduced to council, we're just advised of possible tweaks. Do we have to revote to have those comments sent back or what are your thoughts? Uh well, we so they introduced they sent
it to us. We're reviewing we're making comments. I would Okay. Okay. Yeah, I would do that. All right. So then I need a motion. I'd make a motion to go ahead. I'd make a motion to um adjust the
to say anything that's not ex exempt by statute is covered under this. Some language to that extent. Just to clarify, this is for new and it's applicable for those things that aren't exempt by the statute. Got it. I'll second.
Andrea Dair, yes. Chris Addex, yes. Jason Kraka, yes. John Manilio, yes. Chairperson Warner, yes. All right. Uh, redevelopment plans, master plan and zoning. We have our timeline that was sent out to you guys. Um so just to give you an overview each
there are sections in each of the timeline for each of the redevelopment plans as well as the master plan. At the very top you'll see concurrent with the reviews of all zoning ordinances with reviews all zoning ordinances will be reviewed and amended if deemed necessary. So we're kind of looking at
the adjusting zoning as needed is based on as in conjunction with this because in looking at certain plans whether it's the master plan or whether other is this is kind of just going to be part of the process. So instead of giving it a certain separate timeline um it's
concurrent. All right. So that but we're not missing or not we didn't leave out the reszoning or looking at our zoning. It's just going to happen throughout the process. Um, so we did already start off with the West Main Street because that was um, council made that request
already. The timeline kind of gives you an idea of when it is expected that council may review it um, and offer. Um, and then from there, if that date holds, those dates would follow on how that process works. So, it gives you an idea
of when we will be seeing things. um as and if council it needs to be adjusted, we would adjust the timeline and we'll let you know. But this G kind of gives you an idea of how we will be able to get through as much as we need to get through. Um and then those are the
redevelopment plans. We will are hoping to get through all of the redevelopment plans. Um and then we will also have on the last page you're going to see the uh review and the update of the master plan. So with that um you can see next meeting
is when we will begin the process. uh we will have all of the different areas here invited so that they meaning historical environmental recreational all of them on those leads for each of those I don't want to because I don't think they're all committees right so so
all group all different areas for each of the different areas of the master plan will be here we will then distribute their areas to them and talk them through of what we're looking for this I don't think our master plan is going to be as heavy of a lift as you you know, it has been in the past
because a lot of it has been reviewed like I know environmental's looked at it, historical looked at it. So, a lot of these are going to be them giving one final look and then it'll come back to us um and then we can begin to do and re um review the fi we're looking at by mid
uh November to have our review our overall review complete and then we'll start going into the other aspects of what we need to do. Um, but that any questions on the timeline? No, just what are the little red what what's the red in the first one there?
See the little red text here and there? Is that on your critical dates? Okay, got wasn't sure. So, I wanted to make sure. Yes. Um, and like I said, as we if it gets adjusted, we'll get you guys new and update. Um, because obviously it's a
fluent, but it gives you an idea of how we can get all these done without just doing one at a time. All right. All right. Uh, last but not least, improvements coverage, subcommittee, and residential zone conversion kind of go together.
Mike, John, either one of you can take the lead on this. All right, John's looking at me. So, um, to address the concern, the concern was that conversions from professional offices, which seem to be not there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand. The
demand seems to be more residential. So what the bureau has been seeing is a lot of applications going from mixed use or professional offices back to residential. So in that case the ordinance has been saying that's a change of use. If it's a change of use
the ordinance says you have to meet the existing bulk standards. If you don't there's some type of board action required typically from board of adjustment. this the red here the the three points uh would exempt that exempt would say
they're not a change of use therefore it would not require a board action and uh John's email today said and I agree with John that on C the conversion of mixed use buildings to a to a to a two family John is suggesting that it should be a a
singleuse building if you have a professional office building not not necessarily a if you want to take the whole professional office building, convert it to a two family, it should be exempt. So that C should be tweaked should the board agree with that to go from a mixed juice to a professional
office/mixm mixed juice building to cover that. And as we was briefly discussing, the only downside to this is if you have a 20 uh car parking lot in the backyard because it was a professional office and now it's a two family that there's no mechanism. And I
think the thought was and before to weigh in that will organically work itself out under family moves in they they say the landlord or the owner I don't have any place to for green for someone the kids to play that they would address that at that time as opposed to
having a board action. So that's that's the only downside I see from this is the big parking lots that some of these offices have would would main would remain. Other than that, the building's there. We're not talking about additions. We're talking about just the
building changing the use of the existing structure. And I I think this addresses some of the issues that we've seen in the P is is to your point organically it will happen, but it allows them to move forward with what they're doing. And then they're, you know, they can address those things
separately through the burrow, but they have their cos they're able to do what they need to do to get into this home. Um because we want to we don't want to continue to penalize them for doing something that we seem we feel is a benefit to the bureau as if it's not
going to be used as professional, let's get it back to a residential and have a nice family be able to enjoy that without having penalties associated with that. And when I say penalties, they're in almost a never-ending loop of how do we satisfy this without spending all
this money to tear up a parking lot or, you know, dig up stone just to put grass in when it was already a pre-existing like it's been that way. We're not they're not adding to a condition that's already there. They're the condition is already there. So, I think that this
does a really good job of addressing that and allows um either residents who are already residents of Somerville buying some of these properties and or somebody who's new coming in and adding some wonderful, beautiful residential, single family and multif family homes to it.
Yeah, I think it's the the simplest way of addressing the issue. Yeah, just take the not make it a change of use. The ordinance is brilliant. However, getting caught up on the pre-existing conditions, this would just take it off the table. Now, if you're doing an addition, something else, of
course, but if that becomes separate, but at least they have that base of that they're not already starting off behind the eightball, right? Um, one question. I think I know the answer, right? I think the answer is because you
reference in A and C the specific district we're talking about you already know that they're in B we say as long as the sing of them or you already know that whatever the changes is already allowed
so there's no need to make that reference yeah I I already know that I figured that was it just make Any questions or comments on this? I I have a question. I had asked Mike, but then he told me that you guys had discussed and I'm probably asking a question you just answered.
No, it's fine. So, you know, just just trying to figure it out. So, um, why couldn't we use, and like I said, you probably just answered it because of people not being held back. The R2 standard for setback and imperous coverage, but that probably
just So, it it does in in some of those they doing these conversions actually requires them to be Yeah, they'd have to meet those bulk standards. And we're seeing that as more of as a hindrance where people are like, I don't want it
because they have to go before the zoning board and all of those costs associated with it when it's already in existing. So it's because it can only get better. Yeah. They can only improve where it is for the impervious coverage. They can't make
it any worse or they would have to go back. The concern I think would be if you hook it to any bulk standard, there's going to be some example where it doesn't comply. So if you hook it to any bulk standard or an existing structure, in some scenarios, you end up in front of the board by
hooking it. This doesn't hook it. It says that structure where it is is fine for a one and two family. Essentially, it's what it says. If we It takes the bulk standards out of the equation. uh because the concern is that it's uh an
undue burden for something that physically isn't being uh changed. So I think we can look at the bulk standards on new developments which you suggest and look at R3. So I think we're going to look at the the standards for all the different zone districts down
the road. But for the conversions back to and I John said this a few months ago. John said a less intense use. And I think if we're going from a a less intense use and the structure is not
changing other than the parking lot. What what is the an application in front of the board accomplishing? They're not proposing anything that the building's there. They're going to come in and say I want relief from the sideyard setback. We're not doing anything. So the question is why are we
requesting that relief? Just take the change of use off and then that this one issue goes away. We can still look at the bulk. I understand what you're saying. You're saying, "Let's look at the R3. Let's look at these bulk stands." And we will, but in this case, all we're talking about is converting
existing structures back to a less intense use and trying to make it a lot less. No board action or something. Yes. That's all we're doing here. And no, we're not touching additions. We're not touching anything other than the existing structure. The zoning board's
not gonna and I don't want to speak for the zoning board, but I don't see them denying somebody no pre-existing. No, it's just wasting time, money, and delaying the process. Right. The question is if the building's there, they're not proposing it. It's a C variance. Just say it's a sideyard setback. What's the board going to do?
It's there. They're not proposing anything. All right. I mean, I've heard it on the board, you know, for the benefit of YouTube. We have a board of planning a board of adjustment member here and I'm I'm on the board. So I I rep I work with the board. I'm not on the board. I work for the board. Anyhow,
the board feels frustration being if nothing's changing, why are we reviewing this? That's is the frustration. So this would address that. The board wouldn't be uh address seeing these applications if it's a less intense use to steal a
John is what John said. So could they eventually No, they could do whatever they want. Oh yes, they could. Once they once they are done, they probably will I can see some of these where if they have a whole parking lot, they're like, "Well, I would like some grass for my" and then yes, they can still do it, but then it becomes separate. They're not
it's not tied to them actually, you know, being there and purchasing. And we, you know, thinking about we with us as as a board, our philosophy is, you know, we don't want we want to have um
we want to encourage a less intense use versus discourage. And right now we're hearing more discouragement because of this. So this at least encourages the process to understand that hey you're not you don't have to it's not mandated if you want to change this from you know
a a professional use into a single family or or multif family. You won't be tied to that and then they can decide on their own that maybe later down the line when they yell yeah now we're going to start a family who would like some grass then they can deal with that separately with the burough. Okay.
So if the board's good with these recommendations, then I would just write an email copy car to Kevin saying these are the recommendations from the board of the planning board for the council consideration. That would be the process.
Yeah, we're going to need a vote on this. Yeah. So I I'll make a motion to move this um and send it up for recommendation to the council. I'll second. And that's with that one revision. Yes, with one revision stating C that it's mixed
juice in professional office building slash just to clarify John's point that it includes that that application have to be both and professional. You can be and or we say or and or okay or mixed juice
and or professional and that would cover those facets. Yep. I'll update my my motion to that and to add an and or professional use and misuse. Andrea Dair, yes. Chris Addex, yes. Jason Kraka,
yes. John Manilio, yes. Chairperson Warner, yes. Uh, with that, I have we have no ARB. I have no open other comments. I will open up the meeting to the public for any comments or questions. Hearing none, we will close public
session. And I would like a motion for adjourn. I make a motion we adjourn. Second. All in favor? I.