Oh, I need my glasses. Someville Planning Board for Wednesday, June 24th, 2026. Please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying date, time, and location was one posted on the bulletin board outside
of Burough Hall. Two, mailed facts or emailed to the career news, and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
>> Chairperson Warner >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher is excused. Council member Vroom >> here. >> Jason Krasco >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Andrea Dar is excused. Chris Addex is excused. And John Manilia is excused.
Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Tim Hayes >> here. >> Bill Kale is excused. >> Okay. Uh please stand for the pledge. I pledge to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. I have no comments outside of anything that's going to be on the agenda for the evening. Uh architectural
review board for our review. Uh the only one we had was the Fresh Tiki Bar Sidewalk Cafe. Anybody have any questions on it? All right. Uh, I need an approval for minutes from session June 10th. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Tim Hayes was excused. >> Okay. I need uh we have resolution for 42 Ros Street. That was a resolution
adopting recommendations of the ARB with regarding that fence. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Chairperson Wer. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Barry Van Horn. >> Yes. >> Tim Hayes.
>> Uh I think I'm ineligible. Yeah. >> Next. Minor site plan approval for 86 North Gaston. What was that one on for? >> I think that was as a placeholder in case the resolution >> Okay, that's almost done. >> Yeah, I can get Mike's comments. I'm
sorry. >> No, you're good. >> I'll >> Oh, so for next meeting. All right. >> Thank you. All right. That brings us to our hearing for New Jersey Elixir. If you guys want to step forward.
All right. So, for those on the board, this uh elixir is here to um ask for an outside of what the resolution originally stated for the hours of operation. They're going to describe what those hour why they're looking for it. Um and then we can um ask comments
as needed, ask questions as needed. Great. Uh, thank um Cara, do we need to take a vote ahead of time about whether this was a material condition? >> We do. So, why don't you just put on the record, what you'reing
>> Okay, fantastic. So, uh, thank you for hearing us this evening and thank you for kind of fasttracking this because I know we we just put this in. Uh I'm here on behalf of NJ Elixir, uh better known in the community now as Middlemist meet. They've been open for about two months now. Uh about two years ago, they were
back before you. And at that time, as part of their approval, uh they mentioned that their intended hours were going to be from noon to midnight. Um so that was put in as a condition of approval that they would operate from noon to midnight. Um, since being open, uh, they've determined that it would be
beneficial if those hours were adjusted for until 7 am in the morning. Uh, so they can sell obviously not meat at that time, um, but teas and other breakfast beverages. Uh, and then being open until as late as, uh, 2:00 a.m. Uh, so we have Caleb Als, um, from Minimalist who will
be able to speak to this much better than me. Um, and we're just seeking to have that condition modified. >> Okay. And just for the record, um I think that there was an amendment in September of 2024 amending the original hours from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. >> Maybe our previous attorneys had submitted that >> that that could have been. >> We were not notified of any approval of such. >> Okay. All right. So, >> okay. I don't have that resol. I know Mike, you have the resolution here. But
in any event, let's clean it up. If the request tonight is 7 a.m. to 2 am, then that's what we're going to be dealing with. >> Okay. >> Well, thank you very much. >> We'll do one fail swoop just to cover it all. >> Yep. Yep. Appreciate it. Uh lad ladies and gentlemen of the board. Thank you for hearing our application today. My name is Caleb Ellis and I'm one of the
owners of New Jersey Elixir Company doing business as Middle Mist Honey Wines Insiders. >> And Caleb, real quick, just let me swear you in. You swear the testimony you're about to give this board for is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, thank you. >> Uh, we are requesting approval of minor amendment to our existing approvals to formally document our proposed hours of
operation and the range of products we intend to offer at our metery. We believe these changes are minor in nature, inconsistent with the privileges granted under our New Jersey alcoholic beverage control license. As part of our application, we have provided an exhibit outlining the products we intend to offer and the hours during which these
products may be sold. Uh as a licensed meery and cery, we produce and serve honey-based wines, cers, and other qualifying qualifying honeybased alcoholic beverages permitted under our license. We also have the ability to sell our products for off- premises consumption and to distribute bottled products through wholesale channels. Our
requested operating hours are intended to provide flexibility for these activities, including retail bottle sales and wholesale operations while continuing to operate responsibly and in a manner appropriate for our location and surrounding community. Since opening, we have worked to create a welcoming and comfortable environment
that complements downtown Somerville. Our space offers a relaxed lounge style atmosphere where patrons can gather, socialize, and enjoy thoughtfully crafted beverages. We believe that expanding our offerings to include coffee, tea, sodas, smoothies, slushies, and prepackaged food items will further
support that goal. Our intent is not to simply provide a place for alcohol consumption, but rather to create a community oriented gathering space where individuals can meet friends, work remotely, attend events, or simply spend time in a comfortable setting. These additional non-alcoholic offerings will allow us to better serve a broader range
of customers and ensure that all guests feel welcome regardless of whether they choose to consume alcoholic beverages or not. As Somerville continues to grow and new residential development brings additional residents to the downtown area, we believe establish establishments that provide flexible inclusive gathering spaces will become
increasingly valuable to the community. We hope to continue serving that role while operating responsibly in accordance with all applicable regulations. Thank you for your consideration and we appreciate the board's time and attention. I'd be willing and happy to answer any questions you may have.
>> Um, just so for the record, Mike, can you confirm that our burough ordinance does allow it? they start at uh 7 a.m. is allowed. >> Uh yes, I the burrow and the downtown doesn't have set hours. Uh but my understanding they're regulated by their
licensing from the state. So in some instances the bureau has restricted I when it comes to alcohol the bureau does have its own hours but general uh retail use there's no hours of operation. of the board uh in my opinion car can chime in on most applications the bureau can
put reasonable restrictions whereas because the >> right but there's no the ordinance right now is allowing from 7 to two as according to the state so we are within our rights to either accept or deny >> right >> okay I just wanted to get that on the record that >> yes >> the ordinance is open as just like the state is as well
>> um my first question would be what time do you plan on actually starting to serve alcohol then >> our exhibit indicates 10 a.m. >> 10 a.m. >> And this allow allows for like holiday brunches or whatever. Um that might start a little earlier. You know, we understand we're not going to be serving
alcoholic beverages right away at 7 a.m. Um but if somebody decides that they want to grab a bottle for a later event after work and their only time is really in the morning um or you know they have to leave midday or whatever, we want to be able to sell our um bottled packaged
products uh during that time. But pouring alcohol wouldn't start until 10 a.m. at the earliest. That doesn't intend to be every day of the week, but we want to reserve the right to be able to for those brunch events. >> Yeah. Because it's, you know, we can't really put a blanket statement across those. Yeah.
>> Um the only other question I had, can you just explain your prepackaged foods? >> What that would >> So, we're allowed to uh as part of our license, we're allowed to use um or sell dimminimous goods is what they label it. That's packaged muffins, crackers. We're
not serving or cooking any food. We're not making the food and then packaging it on site to be considered prepackaged. This is purely just um something supplemental that you might see in like a cafe. >> Thank you. >> Anybody have else anybody else have any
questions? >> Uh yes, the uh Sunday restriction, that's the only day that's different. >> That is >> that's only because of state law. >> That is correct. Yes. >> So that's That's That's not a real change. It's a change for here, but it's not against the law. That is the law.
>> Correct. >> On Sundays. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And 9:00 a.m. is the Sunday, not 10. >> Um, I'd have to confer quick with my Sunday.
>> How about package though? I don't know. I could be wrong. I thought packaged was 10. >> Okay. So my my colleague just for on the record is stating that 12 for poured beverages and nine o'clock is for uh packaged products
>> or as required by the site licensing. Correct. >> That's what I was just going to say. Yeah, we can include that as just in case. >> Okay. >> I mean I I have no issue with it. Um >> all right. So just let me go through. So any other questions so we can understand what the proposal is?
>> Nope. Okay. So, we've seen this before. This is an applicant coming in to not do a site plan change, but a condition of approval change. And the land use law allows you to do that without notice and a public hearing, provided that we do to uh we make a finding. And the board
members that voted on the application of which every uh I think Barry, you were not here for this. Um but I think everybody else We're not either. So, we may only have three. >> Um, the people that voted on the application first make a determination
that this change in the condition is not a substantial one that would have changed your vote on the application itself. So, that's what we have to find first. Assuming that the answer to that is yes, then we can move on and actually deal with the change in the condition
that's requested itself and any additional conditions which I have a couple of that we would impose on that. If your finding is no that you might have you do consider it to be substantial and you would have changed your vote or it could have affected your vote then they have to go and notice for
this hearing just like they would have for you know a change in any other portion of the approval come back and and do the same dog and pony show before you. So I would need a motion and a second to find it one way or the other substantial or insubstantial have that
vote and then we go from there. I'll make a motion that um this change is dimminimous and would not have affected the outcome of the initial application. >> Second. >> So it would just be um Jason
and so just the three of you >> for Roger, Lisa, Jason, and Larry. >> Okay. Uh chairperson Warner. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh council member Vroom. Yes. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, now >> I'll make a motion. >> Now, let's just open it up to the public just to be safe. I know again it's not a noticed hearing, but we might >> I'd rather be safe than sorry. Yep. >> All right. So, I'm going to open it up to the public for any comments on this application.
>> Hearing none. I will close public. >> Okay. So, now Jason, >> now I can go. Okay. Sorry. Uh now I'll make a motion to approve the changes as noted in exhibit A um for the hours of operation within the guidelines of the law. >> Okay. And what I would uh suggest to
impose as additional conditions obviously all prior conditions remain to the extent not changed by this approval. Um the applicant be required to replenish the escrow as requested and for payment of any additional professionals fees resulting from review of this application. Um, we do not, just
so you know, have an application fee for just amending a condition. So, just something to consider. But that's why I'm making the comment with regard to the escrow because we don't have a usual situation. Um, let's incorporate exhibit A as part of the approval. Uh, the approval would be 7 a.m. now to 2 am
subject to the items on exhibit A. Uh, subject also to any change in ABC hours without additional amendment. So, if the hours change and they're retroactive, this automatically changes. Um, all prepackaged foods must be made off made
and packaged off site and the hours uh have to be as per again ABC law. I know there's been a representation that it was nine. Um, I I don't know why in my head I'm thinking it's 10, but if it is, then it's just automatically changed to whatever it is. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, all all of that added into my
motion. Second, >> chair person Warner. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Krasco. >> Yes. >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> Thank you. >> You really made us work for that one. >> I know. >> No, but thank you for coming in on the
short notice as well. I'm glad we could get it in for you and uh good luck. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. We're going to move on to discussion items. We're going to start with uh area need uh ECBD.
Uh let's do area need first, Mike. Okay. The uh draft study went out to the board members. It was revised and the one went out I think late last week on June I mean
sorry for Friday. Just said June 2026. The one that's went out yesterday or day before is June 22nd, 206. The difference was there's a lot that was shown to be privately held, which the county purchased, lot 12, which is with
threecar garages. That's the big change is uh I started off by saying all the properties are county owned. Then spatial said one wasn't, and then that was incorrect. So, um that's the difference. You have
the study in front of you. It's basically uh stating that the the detention facility and lot 12 which has three car threecar garage with no principal use. Just so the board
knows, I drilled down on that. It used to be a professional office building there that the county demolished in uh 2020. I think the county purchased the property in 19. I have to drill down on that. But you you're looking at a parcel
that the curb cut was put on the driveway. This is off of East High Street. If you look at the photos, you'll see that threecar garage with the trailer sitting there. Uh basically, the report says that you can't do much with
the detention facility if it's not used as detention facility. It's very challenging to do adaptive reuse of that facility. uh and the threecar garage with no principal use is a challenge in itself. Other than that, everything else is by
area. Not saying the properties are not maintained well, they are. They're commercial building, government buildings that were built mostly, I think, in the 80s. I think the correctional facility was built late 80s, 88, 89. And I think the
administration building goes back to the mid 80s. Um, somebody here could school me on that. Some people know the dates better than I do. Uh, but the report basically goes through it and reflects the new state development and
redevelopment plan, which you see it's a lot in there. Uh so it could be beefed up but it basically gives you the criteria and it's very similar to the study that was done on for the Grants
building on the west side of town being uh besides the two parcels the rest of it is basically by location. Not saying that they're dilapidated or they need work just by needing that nexus of space
to have them all together. And there's a note on one of these sheets that says this is only applicable if the par properties change hand and a private entity owns it. So I make it it's clear in the report that obviously
the county is exempt from redevelopment. So this is only in case the county facilities would become privatized to some degree and then you would have should the board agree with this an act on a redevelopment plan would kick in for the permanent uses for any
properties the county doesn't operate anymore. >> So so to know that that was the question I had. Um I know they're exempt. Are they still exempt if they're renting the building to a private entity? I don't think so, but that's a career
question. >> I mean, we'd have to see what that private entity was using it for. I would say I think that's has to play into the analysis. >> Basically, Jason will cross that bridge if it comes up. >> Fair enough.
>> That's a very, very loaded question, >> but it is a good question. Really good question. Really good question. So, uh, it's a draft, so I'm not saying there's no typos. And I was just on to the chairwoman that I'm not 100%
comfortable with some of the history given on the report. I like to beef it up. Uh, just because uh, these reports seem to be around forever and someone in the future will use it for reference. So, if I would like to get more detail
about the the detention facility and some of the history, but I think the core is there subject to the board's comments on uh of the draft. >> No, I I reviewed it. I think that it is spot on. I think it's definitely perfect
to add into the existing redevelopment area. Um, and again to your point, this isn't, you know, if county owns that property for the next 30 years, the county owns the property for the next 30 years, but if it gets sold um to a private entity, I think this then can keep it in line with what we're looking
for throughout our master plan and and some of those redevelopment thought processes of types of um buildings and types of uses that we would want to see in that area. Especially, it is because any of those would be adjacent to other county buildings. So we really it's more appropriate to have it under a
redevelopment so that it's appropriate use and not just was allowed in the zoning. I have uh two questions. One about Jason was talking about um it's the ownership of the building that drives the
regulations about whether or not they have to adhere to >> that's the question that's kind of in the air right now. And and again, we could cross that bridge if it happens. Um >> because the opposite was true over on Warren Street, private building,
counties, the tenant private building. >> Yes. So, >> so it was everything was different. >> Yes. >> So, >> yeah. So, that's going to have to be analyzed in either way. >> Yes. >> Yeah. But this at least gives you the overlay and puts your intentions as to the uses out there. And certainly, you
know, it doesn't mean that even if the county continues to own it and use it, that they're not also, you know, guided as good, >> yes, neighbors, for lack of a better word, you know, to what your intentions are. But yeah, we'd have to look what is the ultimate use and the ultimate ownership and and kind of see where it
plays in on both sides of the aisle >> because I was thinking about that the jail property if it gets sold or moved. That would be a good place for a hotel to be at >> which of the water. That's going to be
the next part of this is we're going to look at what do we think are appropriate even and and as a you know to car's point as an overlay right so some of those uses may never see any light a day because those buildings may stay county government forever others might hey if and if so right that's the point what do
we see is appropriate there what do we not see as appropriate there um you know maybe we say we don't want residential there I'm just putting it out there right like that's that's an area we don't want residential it's right next to county buildings it's right in the complex it has a courthouse right there maybe it's not appropriate right maybe
we say so that is the next step Larry now that we have this is saying and and you know that we mostly I don't hear any disagreements as an area need that is going to be the next phase of this is to start drilling down and what do we see as appropriate uses how should that
zoning look like are we just calling it an overlay or are we going to assign it one of the base zones and and change it so that is the next exact step yes >> okay and the the next statement and I wanted to make on page 16 of this
report. We keep talking about the regional center designation. >> Yes. And I think we might want to review with Raritin and Bridgewater what that actually means because it seems like one
of the partners in the plan doesn't respect us and do what they want to do and we have to sue them to stop them on different things or threaten to sue them or change laws or change rules. It's everybody for Bridgewater and
Bridgewater for them and everybody else is too bad. And that's been going on for a very long time. >> So I think we should maybe review this before we adopt this because >> So we we're not going to So there's two
you're you're bringing you're not bringing bad points. They're actually >> just my >> accurate. Let's just say accurate. >> Okay. >> But they're kind of two different issues, right? Whether we have one of the municipalities that actually participates in the process or not, we are still a designated re um what
regional center. I kept thinking redevelopment because that's what we're thinking about. Um that doesn't change. We are a designated re re um >> regional. >> Thank you. I keep wanting to say redevelopment. >> Um regional center and we don't want to lose that designation. So we adhere to it. Raritton adheres to it and the
regional center partnership adheres to it. On that other note, well the center regional center itself does, right? So I attend those meetings. I'm the leazison from the planning board. Um we adhere to them and we do discuss multiple times larger projects that are going on. That's the whole purpose of it
especially when it's a bordering right. Um we do talk about whether they're attending or not. We do talk about projects that are happening in other areas of you know non-ritan non Somerville. Um because the the implication isn't just Somerville all the time. Sometimes it's both to
Somerville and Raritton. Uh when we're talking about connectivity projects, you know, so so just to give people an idea too that the the regional center is an advocate for connectivity too, right? So we use them a lot of times that that's purpose purpose place. Maybe they go for
the grant so that we can have that connectivity which ties into our master plans. Um so we're not going to lose that and we don't want to lose that at the regional center. It is being addressed. Um, and that's where your
comments on the other end, that's where it really needs to be addressed because they're the ones that, you know, it's a that's their responsibility to address the fact that we may have parties that are not participating and not adhering. >> Thank you. >> You're very welcome.
Anybody else have any other comments right now? >> All right. So, especially with, you know, members not here right now, I want to give everybody a chance to go through it. um any other comments, questions that you might have. Also, start thinking about right that we've have
this, start thinking about what you might see appropriate in those lots and blocks, what you might see not to see appropriate as we're having, we're going to move into um current um zones for the current ECBD, where where do we see that maybe extending? Where do we see that border? Because now we have to take that
those properties into uh consideration as well. So, um I think we'll be able to start some of that today, but that is going to be that last piece in my opinion on this area in need is what's appropriate, what's not appropriate. And it might be that we have to do that
based on lot and block. I'm just throwing it out there. I'm not saying we do because what might be appropriate maybe on Grove Street is not appropriate on mechanic, right? So, if it got redeveloped and it got sold and on mechanic side, maybe we have different thought processes. So you this gives us that clean slate then to say what do we
find is appropriate for this new area in need as it is attached to one it's right there in our downtown um downtown area as well as it's attached and touching now to the ECBD. Um and just for the
record I just want to uh note that uh Bill Kale has joined us for the record just so that's on the record. Thank you. Yeah. >> Um, so any questions or comments on this right now? Just on the area need because we're going to move I'll move right into the All right. So, moving into the ECBD
itself that we've been discussing. Let me open my large package here. Sorry. So, Mike, did we get any comments from anybody? Any suggestions from board members on what they were saying on we were talking about permitted and non-permitted uses within each of the
zones right now? >> Just Jason's Jason did a markup of the schedule a in detail. >> All right. So >> and Jason I haven't received any comments. >> All right. I'm going to go through my comments tonight since you have Jason's. Jason's here too. I think we'll kind of mine mostly are not really they're more
questions than comments. So, that's kind of why I was like, I really want the whole board to hear those questions and then I I'm going to need some of your expertise. But, one of the first things is um before we did everybody get the attachments of the GIS maps that were Okay, so that gives us a pretty clear
understanding of what lots and lots are in there. Um anybody um let me back up. So, one of the things that I looked at is I tried to now
realign based on seeing lots and blocks and giving it pretty much more of a strict line of what I would think to be this the flood hazard area. Um, and Mike, I'm going to send this to you a copy. I didn't want to copy to you first because I might change it while we're
having a conversation. Um, and and again, this is just my thought process and ideas. um because I do feel that there is some realigning that needs to happen specifically in other areas as we get closer to North Bridge um and in one
of the areas on Vets Memorial um but also now this flood hazard zone. So I kind of um the the properties to the west of Meadow Street only like not the
ones that are on Hamilton but strictly on Meadow. I put those in because it's pretty clear they're they're in that flood hazard. Um I did use So just so everybody's clear, you can see on your maps you have like that beige area and then you have that blue area. That beige
area is still a flood area. It's just not as bad as the zone AE, right? So I tried to use that as a guide to say we keep getting worse, so we should plan for the worst. So, I did include a lot of those properties in my dis in what I
was looking at as saying should be included into that flood area. Um, and again, I'll send this so that everybody can actually visually see it. I didn't feel like sending out my chicken scratches because it literally is chicken scratch on here. um that also at
the top um where we had ER2 half of that becomes now a flood had flood area and the other half I had staying as that ER2 is staying as that should stay as single family homes um that's that mechanic street side um then leading down to EB2
kind of gets split in half um EB2 is allowing for retail office and apartments you know I still felt that that zone looked good there. Um, and just for the record, we've already stated that nothing more than it was what, three and a half stories is what we landed at.
>> Two and a half for some districts with three in the others. >> Three in the others. Thank you. Two and a half to three. Um, the area of down by Hamilton on either side of Vets Memorial is that EPR, which
was professional offices and one family residences. I still felt that that was a good buffer coming out of the flood zone. Um, and then where I had kind of adjusted was that the properties from Center Street
to portion off of Hamilton. Um, I looked at and said kind of more because that whole area was originally that EB3, but it was under the overlay zone and we have those residential apartment complexes that are up now. We have um
the storms and um >> Cobalt. Thank you. Um I looked at that and said, "Hey, I think that's more appropriate to stay with an EB1 if we're going to re, you know, because it was kind of left at I think if you want to put a hotel there, I have no problem with putting a hotel there." That was really the only
thing that I saw that was really left out before. Um so I had said maybe a potentially an EV1 there. Um and then EB1 kind of going into moving um
uh would be northwest where we have like lots area of 63. So lot 32 3201. Um keeping that also is one. It was an EB3 I think or no I think it was an EB4
which wasn't even listed anymore. Um it was EB3 which was just offices and services. >> Um again with with shifting most of this right because the whole thought process is is get it out of that flood hazard and shift some of that density. I looked
at that and I thought I don't know why we wouldn't in my opinion right and this is where I want the conversation making that more of an EV1. Why not allow for a hotel? Why does it have to just be offices and services? Right? We know already know too offices are not something people are building these days right so I think that would really
restrict >> what is going to happen there and we'd have people coming and asking for uh you know condition uh for variances anyway because and a change of use because or changing the zoning because they can't they're not going to build something that's not going to um and then that
moved into really kind of all along east Maine from bridge to kind of right before mechanic all those properties you know forward facing to East Main Street I thought state you know make them all EB1 allowing for
those uses um especially because in my opinion we're where the restrictions come is the height right so we're saying hey we want it but with we are if we are going to restrict the height we still want to be able to allow some more density so opening that up where you know if they got more of a collective
they could still do some of that density with more properties and more lots and lots was my thought process. And then on South Bridge Street, um right underneath the first EB1 at the corner of East Main and and Bridge, that
whole area was an EPR, which again was um professional office and one family residential. I didn't feel appropriate to have I cut it right about South Street is where I let those blocks I I put a line and then kind of along Franklin Street those properties that
are right there I made you know included them keep the EPR you know so you have some of that transition but right above it um basically the police station and all that stuff I know police station is in it's that's in the west end right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, but those properties that are
right in that area, I felt, okay, that's where an EP2, right? Maybe that's not where we want a hotel just because the the properties aren't as large, but I felt that retail and apartments, you know, is appropriate. Um, so that's
really what I had kind of looked at and because I felt that until I couldn't for me personally, I couldn't really start thinking about uses until I really looked at how I saw the breakup of the areas. now and I tried to keep into consideration the fact that we are
trying to do this TDR pushing we don't want to penalize listen the thought process is not to penalize and hurt people in the flood har it's to say when and if something happens we want to give you the opportunity if you know if you've purchased property or you're trying to do something down there we're going to open it up so that you can do
it at the other end of the of the uh redevelopment area and give that density but also keeping that restriction of we don't want five six seven eight story buildings to be able to make up that density Go ahead. >> No, I I I I agree with you. And um when
I did do my markups, I sent over to somebody like that, you're pretty much spot on with what I did. Um dividing that one zone there and everything else. I I do think, you know, we can restrict it with those heights and still have the allowable uses, but still restrict things.
>> So, I'm happy with I'd like to see your chicken. >> My chicken scratch, Matt. But, uh, everything he said pretty much falls right in line with the comments I had, um, and my schedule A changes with allowable uses because nobody does do, you know, professional offices aren't
really a thing anymore. So, opening up some areas to additional uses, I saw very fit >> and I really felt were some of the areas where we were trying to push for that single family residential, as much as we want that, it just wasn't really appropriate in that setting. Now,
>> um, >> go ahead, Larry. >> I did have a question. Um, in the EB3 zone, the building at 75 Veterans Memorial, that's on EB3, but that's tied together with two apartment buildings. >> So, that's the base zoning. So,
remember, so that was built as and that's So, that would just keep really if we're going to go put back to base owning, we would change it to EB1 because that's already was there, right? or >> Yeah. Well, I'm saying to make it coincide with the other buildings that are there. >> That's what I'm saying.
>> On the other side. And that >> So EB3 is gone. That's what I was saying. Um and it went through because that was done under the overlay zone, >> right before everything. >> So it would that would now be like that EB1. >> Okay. >> That at least that's I shouldn't say
that's definite. That's what I had on my map. >> That was my thought process. It might be helpful if a map a z a proposed zoning map is prepared >> which is why I want to send it to you. He has his comments if you can do that.
>> Yeah. >> Not in colored marker and the way I visually do things. >> My staff love it when I do that and I hand it to him and I say this is what I want. So >> but yeah that's how my mind keeps it separate. But I think if you can I think that is the next step. Then we can all
look at hey this is what we're thought our thought process is. We'll start talking about some uses today right we'll finalize some of those as we move forward in the next couple meetings just because we have to include the area in need now. And then also um in case there's other questions from other
members but yeah I think if if you don't mind Mike thank you. >> Yeah I think you see the air rail it was done for the the county facility. Use the same arrow. Put the right Larry would do the same thing for the whole zone with the proposed zone
district boundaries with the uses maybe in boxes just so the board could see the uses just for finalization. Then that'll be cleaned up until a schedule A if that's >> Yep. So one of the things so are is
everybody already if we start moving into uses and into the schedule A. Okay. So one of my first questions is Mike on schedule A now obviously I'm ign I ignored all the overlay districts because we're not doing those anymore right so I I focused on the the base
districts of EV1 2 and three the EPR and the ER2 um my question to you was so under the base zoning most of these things were not allowed in here right because
they were trying to push for you single family homes, blah blah blah. What can you give the definition of a garden apartment versus a mid-rise apartment versus a high-rise apartment? >> Yeah, there
there the definitions under RSIS basically for the mid-rise and high-rise there's a difference. I do believe it's 65 or 70 feet. If it's bigger than that, it's defined in the UCCC as a high-rise. If it's below that, it's a midrise. And the mid-rise I think is goes down to it
has to be more than three stories to be a mid-rise. >> Okay, that was what my question was because if with our restrictions I'm like it sounds like you would do could use do mid-rise but I it doesn't because now with our restrictions it would not be allowed. >> I can get the board the definitions of
these either in the RSIS or in the ordinance. So, you could see there's a nuance on duplexes versus a a uh a duplex versus a I can't even think of it. One's one's horizontal, one's
vertical. Uh a twin, I'm sorry, a twin versus a duplex. They're both two family, but they're defined by the partition wall. >> And I think that discussion would be needed for multif family. If you're defining what multif family, you want to say, okay, a mid-rise is what? And
that's by height. >> A twotory, a townhouse is defined as what, >> right? >> Generally, it looks like the administrative code goes uh midrise or lowrise, no more than three, mid-rise, four to seven, high-rise, eight or more.
>> So, right around that area. >> Perfect. Yeah. >> All right. So, that was my one of my first questions. Um um let me >> let me just go through my um on the
third page under services. Um my again this is my what my thought process my opinion was was to remove the allowing of rooming and boarding houses in any of these bay zones. Um and again I keep thinking about the appropriate
area and the appropriate use in this. Again, we're trying to push more density there because we're going to lose a lot in the end. You know, it could be 30 years, but in the end, we're going to lose that flood her and allowing for that. I don't really feel that the boarding houses and the groom the
boarding and grooming grooming houses or grooming houses would be able to fulfill what our thought processes at least for me for my vision of what I see in that area. Um because right now it's a conditional I think in EPR and ER2. So,
that was one of mine of to be removed and not anywhere in the ECBD to allow for that. Um, and then under amusement and recreation services, it says dance studios, schools, and halls, and it was PD and then TD. The D
I think was upper floors only. Must be located only on upper floors. And I was trying to think what was the thought process of not allowing it on the ground floor. Is there it could just be because that's what back then they didn't want it on the but I thought of opening it if we
had a dance studio or you know and again us thinking outside of some of these newer uses that have come like a dance school or a hall and wanting to start implementing more performing arts types things. I think my opinion I would open that to
just be a permissible use. >> Sorry. Agreed. I think the concern was um if you had dance classes and yoga spandex and people would like a little more privacy that I think that was the general >> probably and I could understand that
right because we've had those conversations with some of those stores that have gone down right down on Main Street, right? Um and I think their the businesses themselves have kind of I think regulated and figured that out because they don't want they don't want it either, right? even um you know to the point of their configuration inside
that that's usually towards the back of the the location so that you're not >> to your point staring at >> I'm just going to stop right there but >> um >> so under EB1 nonprofit parks
I really don't feel in the EB1 I I don't again I think I thought of just saying let's that's not a really what we want to see. We know not again we want to promote that at one area of our ECBD but not at that
other end of the EB1. So I had said taking that out. Um the other one also I had more of again is a you know kind of like a question um under educational services other schools
in educational services we we hit this on what was it the route 22 right I think that I think we allow that under those EB ones for anything retail because it we found that that is the area especially with remote work with AI
with all these things uh these different types of schools and education centers are coming in and I think we want to be able to allow that moving forward whereas I get it 30 years ago that wasn't even a thought process like no we want only certain things but the world
has changed um and again on the social services job training and vocational rehabilitation services again it was loud it was only allowed on the upper floors I think we removed the upper floor and my thought process again like I just
want to keep con re affirming that and confirming for everybody that it's um I understand why in the past but I think that these businesses have self-regulated and figured it out and I think that these again are areas that we
want to allow and because we want different types of retail different types of services in our downtown and this is that you know second gateway into and and having a you know a good and my opinion to be honest with the
county right there I think is something if somebody wanted to come in and do job training and things like that it's a great location >> so I I just want to I agree with that and you're kind of hitting most of my notes here so sorry Jason I got my colors and you're hitting
>> um no that's that's great um >> because I also think that th those terms like when I hear job training now it it's a very broad term and to lose boost that up to allow it allows people to come in cuz job training doesn't mean 30 people sitting in a in a classroom
anymore. It could be me sitting there on a computer teaching 30 people across the country something and I don't think that has a detrimental effect >> um like the AI that we had looked at on 22. >> Go ahead Larry. >> Going back to the educational services.
Yep. >> We don't allow colleges and universities. What if middle six, what if um Raton Valley decided they want to put a satellite office right in Somerville? >> I mean, so >> we say no to that. >> That's not a bad point, but I think we
would need to Is there a way to stipulate that that we can have a satellite uh location or an alternate location, but not a primary? >> Should it be conditional use? Then >> I'm asking Mike, how would we, you know, >> Yeah, Larry, that's a good idea. So you could do conditional use or
>> so so and again >> limit it to a certain number of people, parking spaces, that sort of thing which lends it to the satellite idea. >> I agree. See, I I looked at it and and maybe I'm looking at it wrong when I thought other school and educational services like if they put it office or
whatever. I didn't see that as a college or a university. I'm thinking classrooms only is what that intends. But >> but you Larry, you're right. You know, think about it. A lot of these colleges are doing um even bigger colleges they do, you know, it's might be a block
size, let's say, and it's um their satellite office or it's very specific on on what you can take there, but it is an offset of and it's part of that college location. So, it's actually a good point. Yeah, I like that. >> What are other school and educational services? What does that mean?
>> Well, this is what remember when the um AI educational facility, it's these things. Yes, it's these things that were >> they fall into this bulk area but nobody thought of all these years ago. So >> So we're going to change that conditional use or allowed
>> other schools in educational would be permissible but the colleges and universities I like the idea of putting that as a conditional so that um we can set some restrictions on it but it's not that it's not allowed. Um >> thank you.
>> You're welcome. the let's see, museum, art galleries, botanical gardens, and zoolological gardens. Um, at first I was like, I think they should just be allowed because we're trying to open up that arts district, but then I realized I don't know if in the middle of East
Main Street we want a botanical garden. So, I like the conditional because then it allows for us that flexibility. um other membership organizations as just strict permissible. Um I was looking for some comments and thoughts
from you guys on that. Uh it is a very broad area. Um and did we because of the vision we have for this and and I'm asking the question. I don't really have an opinion either way. I'm thinking there's probably people thinking of things that I can't even think of. Did
we want to make that more of a conditional? Um because it is just so open, >> broad, >> very broad. >> Very broad. There's things that would fall within there that I would not want and there's things that fall in there that I would be happy to bring in. So,
um I I would lean towards conditional on those. >> Um >> and I would follow that down through all of that. Um you know, either those other membership organizations. I I really don't understand what other membership organizations >> Yes.
>> I mean, >> I get you the definition of that. >> I I started looking them up through the uh the SIC numbers and stuff, but it it it's still very broad on depending on how you word what you're going to do. >> Yeah. Um, and the one above it, um, for
the houses of worship, it's conditional under EPR, which I think is appropriate, but under the ER2, I think it needs to be not, it just not allowed. Let's try to keep that into that single family home. keeping that. >> You know, I would hate one of the things
we're trying to preserve is some of that those areas that are in those buffers that are they're beautiful single family homes and I would hate to see somebody a nonprofit or a church come in or an or organization come in buy five six lots and then they put up a big church and then that's not what our intent is at
least from what I'm understanding from the board of those single family residential areas as of right now. So that was one of the things I had thought about with, you know, saying that that should come out. I And again, the con the conditional under EPR, I didn't really have a thought process either
way. >> I removed it on mine >> on both of them. >> I I removed it on both of them on mine >> for that same reason. I don't think we want a giant church going in in place of some of these other things that we could be putting in there.
>> I'm fine with either way. Does anybody have an objection to just remove their >> Okay, let's just remove it. >> Well, if you go up one slot above, business, professional, labor, civic, social, and political associations. >> That's one we were saying should go to
um conditional. >> That's going to go to conditional. >> All of them? >> Yes. All of them are going to conditional >> on the page before at the top >> except for the residential still though. Correct. Not allowed for those. >> Yes. No, that page is not allowed yet. Um, which one, Larry?
>> Motion pictures. >> It says, uh, production and distribution and services not permitted anywhere. >> Uh, theaters are conditional, but videotape rental is permitted use. If it was 1985,
>> I was gonna say if you can find a video rental business these days, then you know, >> but that that would be a a broad um statement because you could have rental >> Netflix. Yeah, like they have like the
Netflix things now. I don't know. I don't know what that would entail now. >> But why is there a reason why we would not allow it or should be a conditional also? >> That's just let it ride. >> That's a question for you. you guys as a board. It didn't pop out. Let's these are
things that popped out to me based on what our new vision is for this area. So, I'm not opposed to either of it. I don't >> So, ju just for a point of clarification now going back to that and I because of Larry's comments, I'm thinking this the
motion picture production and distribution not allowed right now. in and first thought I agree we we can't be but does that encompass what if somebody's coming into town to shoot a show and wants to use a specific
spot does that say they can't do it or only if the building like the building can't be purposed for that >> I think it I take it as if they come in and it's a a a temporary use and the
building owner allows it on a temporary I I see that as Okay, because it's >> I just wanted to because that's how I saw it. But now I >> It's just a temporary use to me. That's no different than saying saying we want to shoot on Main Street. You know, >> that's how the bur's always done it.
Temporary use is shooting even spot, you know, spot our galleries have been allowed on division street for temporary use. >> Yes, >> we've done that in the past. >> Then I'm good with it. >> Um, okay.
Hold on. >> I went down to public warehouse and storage. >> I actually had a question on um under services continued and then it's engineering, accounting, research and management services. What's private
households under that? What does >> in terms of what what does that mean? Yes. >> Households >> just single family like I I don't understand >> why that's there. >> Yes, >> we have it as accessory use. >> That's why I'm questioning what is the definition of
>> what >> private household >> household. >> I will get you that. I don't >> Thank you. >> I and I don't think I would have caught it unless to Larry's point it was accessory use and I'm like >> huh >> is that I'm an engineer and I decide half of my basement is going to become my office now. I
>> I don't know. We already got one of those. >> So, yeah, if you could just get clarification on the private households. >> Um, as well as what other services um just if you had some ideas because
everything right now is permissible. >> So, just want to make sure we're not going to allow something that all of a sudden we're like, whoa, how'd that get through? >> And and just be careful with that. But I know a lot of ordinances do have that, but then you're going to get into a
discussion of which board has jurisdiction unless there's going to be something in there that basically says if it's falling under other services, it automatically goes to the zoning board. Yes, >> you could certainly do something like that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um
where did you and a lot of these um so under public administration municipal public safety other governmental I took out permissible under ER2 again trying to push that away from there.
Um, what was your next one, Jason? >> Public warehousing and storage. >> That's what my next one was, too. >> So, I mean, I I have a hard time in our downtown saying that an accessory use should be public warehousing and storage.
>> Yeah, >> I agree. >> So, I I removed it completely from all of them. >> That was mine, too. Just remove it. Anybody opposed to be it could be zoned for other places in town just >> just not here. Yep. >> Yep.
>> Um under transportation and public utilities pipelines ex accept natural gas. Can you give a little bit more explanation on what's allowable for that? because it's a conditional use right now and I'm like hm
>> I'd really like a definition before we said we still think it's appropriate or not appropriate. So that would be another one that I was looking for definition. >> Yeah, I'll get you definition. >> Um Jason, what's your next one?
>> Um the antennas. So in in the residential I just wasn't really sure we wanted cellular antennas. I'm thinking those towers that they have up and I don't think in the residential portion we want antennas strapped to the top of people's houses. >> So
>> if if they're what I'm thinking they are. I mean, I'm I'm picturing >> I think again I have that as marked as I'd like to know what specifically a cellular antenna because I don't disagree when you see these the Verizon towers when you see the communications towers like again, hey, that's might be
completely appropriate up by the government buildings, but some of these areas >> plopped in and somebody buys property and puts up an antenna >> on top of one of the the apartment complexes in the middle where nobody can see it. Okay, give everybody better signal. But I don't know if I want it on
my neighbor's house 20 ft above the >> They have several cell towers all over the area. >> Mhm. >> That are antennas are packed into the church steeple. >> It's there. You can't see it, but it's there. >> And that's why I think I want the
definition of what it means, too. And then I I don't mind it then maybe keeping it just as a conditional so we can always look at it and see what is appropriate, what not. Um, what was the why on that one? only antennas mounted on >> a definition on that because don't we have a couple of dead spots in
especially in the downtown area and we should be you know maybe mindful of what we're saying we can and can't do. >> Well, we want the definition first and then yes that's what we're saying that's why we're asking that question built to that point. >> What Larry's talking about is the micro stations. There's one on Main Street. >> Yeah.
>> They're wrapped in the repeaters or >> Yeah. As long as as long as they're aesthetically pleasing. I'm just picturing these 20 foot towers sitting on top of somebody's house and I don't know that's what >> the last time Verizon came through they put two towers or not two towers two poles up by the high school.
>> Um one right next to the football field the concession stand and the other one in that empty lot on Davenport >> towards the end. There's that lot there. It's a uh it's a repeater uh that they is it about six feet off the ground is
where it sits. Seven somewhere on that. >> So what they said when Verizon came through the last time was that they don't want they're not putting them on buildings because of having to rent the space. So they've been doing a lot more >> right away. Makes sense. >> They put the repeaters inside >> looks like a garbage can on top of the
pole. >> Yes. >> Because that's just what we want. Some bowl. >> They do that everywhere. I know it was a sarcastic comment. >> Guess what I do for a living. >> I know that's why I was making that comment. >> Put the circuit in for you system as to where those need to go. Like first you
look at public buildings, then you look at >> that's where I think it once we got that definition. I think that could be part of our traditional uses, right? Where we're kind of pushing it to maybe a certain area that we really think this is better and then just not allowed in other areas.
>> There was an application to put a small cell I think booster in the rightway of Mountain Avenue that they came through the zoning officer and Mountain is a county road so it was sent to the county but they are
looking at facilities now within the rightways. >> Yes. >> Back to Larry's point >> on the poll. >> Yeah. >> Um I do you have anything else be on in that area that you were looking at?
Mine went down to manufacturing next. >> Um, the only other one I had was heavy construction except buildings. I apologize. This was supposed to be muted. Um,
what was the CC now? Hold on one second. >> Only permission loss located or partial or fully in the NJD flood. >> Yeah. And I think that needs to be removed >> because I don't think we want that in No. manufacturing.
>> Yeah, heavy construction. So, uh in my so general building contractors, I don't necessarily I I guess again maybe we need the definition of what that entails. Um because this is right now only in the EB2s
um which I think once we get a little bit more but definitely not heavy construction and because that's the going to be a budding against a a purely residential just didn't feel like that was an appropriate use. Um
so I I really and special trade contractors I think if we can get some more now uh more defined um definitions in that construction area because here's the thing if if their services and they're not actually
storing the equipment there but they're having an office building there that that's where they're doing their business as general contractors I have a problem with it but you know I know and I know we've been able to on I think Meadow there's Right. >> Yes. And I I get that, right? But I'm
we're also trying to move away from having things in that flood her, you know, and a lot of times it's looked as an interimm use until and I think we're at a at least for me, I'm at a point, yeah, no, we need to start pushing back
and saying these are flood hazard areas that we are not allowing these things in. So >> yeah, the board struggled a little bit with that with Griffith Electric. some of those members. It was on Meadow Street. >> Yep. >> And it got sold to a contractor and the board struggled with this concept of
having trucks and heavy equipment stored on top of residential areas. >> So, this is a unique language back to the chairwoman's point regarding this issue that came up over a decade ago. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. All right. Go ahead, Jason.
So under manufacturing um the only questions I had there was the the craft distiller and malt beverages if we're allowing those in the you know any of the areas a brewery or a mead place or a
distillery. Um >> where does that fall underneath in there and under these headers for manufacturing to that to that point? >> It's craft distillery and malt beverages is line three uh two and three underneath manufacturing immediately.
>> Why don't I see that? >> Yeah, your skip mine in between tobacco. I think she has an older version. One of the last versions was tweaked to add the distilleries. >> Okay. >> To allow that. That was not permissible
>> and we uh the board got some activity and that was added to it. >> What is it listed as on there? >> So, it's blank for craft and then malt is >> um >> Yeah.
>> No, I agree. I think those definitely should be um >> even a conditional use if we want it. I mean >> I I'd lean towards some of it being more
um conditional just so that we can in certain areas of depending on what else might be going in there then it gives us a little bit more flexibility to kind of gear it in you know and move it to >> but definitely at least saying no we're not opposed to it. That's >> Yeah.
>> And that would I would only do that for EB one, two, and three. >> One, two, and three. Correct. Not the residential. >> Um, did you have anything else under manufacturing? >> No. >> Uh, I have under so fabricated metal products. >> Yeah.
>> That I think get rid of that, please. >> Yep. Um, and then >> even though it's there now, we're talking about for future, >> right? >> Yes. >> Right. >> Um, and and I think some of these, if you look at the old EB3, it's all Meadow
Street. It's where now some of that is actually going to be flood, you know, under that flood. So, it's not appropriate to keep it, you know, in that area anymore. >> Just going to rust and throw water. Um and then what was the comment titt to veterinarians and veterary service for domestic pets excluding excludes animals
or pet hospitals. Um >> yeah but that doesn't I think that that should be restricted because that doesn't remove dog kennel cat >> well >> like that in the middle of a residential
neighborhood. So the veterary services I think does I don't think the kennels would fall under that but it might fall under animal specialty services for domestic pets >> so that the is another that was you that was limited to only domestic pet grooming pedigree resource services
domestic services and vaccination. So it does the restriction of that letter does restrict that that's not a boarding home uh you know >> thank you. >> Yes. >> Um >> that would be quite unpopular.
Yes. Um, and then let's see. >> That was it. I don't have Oh, except for public parks. >> I just don't think appropriate in EB1 with again with what we're trying to
accomplish by taking and um in a sense moving that density. I think where I see public parks is like absolutely we want that in flood hazard right and and that'll be the next one that we look at to see if there's
anything outside of what I say is open space is what we think would be appropriate for the flood hazard area but >> I'm not so sure then in the EB one two or three is >> and even the EPR I I just >> right
>> I think that stays maybe potentially in the ER R2 that fits nicely if there was a nice little playground that they wanted >> I was going to say can can we make it like a conditional because I just didn't want to take the parks out if if you're doing and again some kind of development let's say where the jail is if it's
going to become a private building or something and they want to section it off >> Jason we can make it an accessory use that would that's not a principal use but if you have a pocket >> okay >> something I'm just thinking with like >> if you look at the old train station You
see that little part accessory. >> All right. >> Right. >> I just don't want to take all the green >> idea out of it. >> So, changing that to accessory. Um, and then what was V? Limited
detached single family homes subject to special requirements for home offices. Yeah, that's fine. Um, all right, Jason, did you have anything that we didn't talk about? >> Um, no. The only other one I think I had on here I don't think we touched on was
eating and um, back towards the top, eating and drinking places. It is not allowed in the PR zone at all. This is up on uh, page one. Oh, because the EPR is more offices and services.
>> So, I didn't know if we wanted to if we're looking to say, hey, maybe offices aren't the thing. If we wanted to allow, you know, a bakery, a bakery or something. >> What if we did that as conditional? Then, >> I'm happy with that. >> Page one of yours. Um,
and that's all I had. You hit most of mine. >> Oh, I do have one here. I think I know why, but I just wanted to clarify. So, I had under wholesale trade durable good goods, furniture, and home furnishings. That's not your just your
typical um home goods or home furnishing store that's more of like a distribution type thing. Okay. I just wanted because when I read it at first I'm like well no we I wouldn't mind a furniture store another one down but then I thought oh wait it's
under wholesale so I bet it's a distribution. Okay. I just wanted to >> um and I don't know if we skipped over this but under durable goods where it's motor vehicles etc. lumber and construction I removed all those. I just said I don't think any of those are appropriate in that area. I can't
remember now if I actually brought that up or not. >> Where was that one? >> Under wholesale trade, durable goods, motor vehicles, parts and supplies. >> I'm fine with that. Wholesale >> and then lumber and construction materials. And again, not thinking about
what's existing there, but in the direction that we're trying to move um >> of flipping where a lot of that density might be right now. But you said the furniture you think that's >> No, I I think it's good. It's no not permissible right now. It's not even allowed. I'm okay with that. I just
wanted clarification that I was reading that it's more of a distribution center. It's not, you know, >> it's not a furniture store. >> No, it's a distribution center type thing. >> You got anything else, Jay? >> I don't I don't. Now, we did have
some folks from the public who were concerned about zoning things out of areas. >> Is that something that we want to discuss at this time? >> So, >> I think you need to give me a little bit more context on that of what you're asking. >> I think I know where he's going with
this one. Um, I don't believe recreational services is included anywhere in here. Recreational sales. I mean, if we're talking about gun stores specifically, I assume was the big one that everybody came in for. >> I don't think
>> I want to make sure that we're having conversation because there were a lot of >> I did look through I >> I don't believe that's a permitted use in any of this area. Well, I I think what what Roger's bringing up is >> specifically stating it
>> uh sporting goods stores >> is classically includes sales of firearms which I think Roger saying we should drill down on >> uh since this was a >> but I don't think sporting goods store is allowed in this. >> Yeah, I didn't see it listed which is
why it didn't >> I specifically looked for that. That's why. So it's it's that's so that was the same concern I think that folks had brought up previously with the area. Um so anywhere there's retail I don't think anything on schedule A in
any of the areas discuss specifically sporting goods. >> All right let's look at that. >> All the miscellaneous retail it says miscellaneous shopping goods stores. Is that a typo? >> That's a question for Mike. I don't
think it is. The question is >> what's shopping? >> It goes back to the NIC codes which we can get because I I I know from the from the history here of how we dealt with this issue or how it came up to become a
major bone of contention. And what I think what I'm what Roger is saying is this should be very clear what the what what's what retail is being permitted >> down to the goods. >> No. And I think if you can help us drill
down on that, Mike. Right. Um and also um recreational use type stores I think also and um dispensaries. I think >> I don't see where it would fit in here. I don't know how. but let's also make drill down because again not appropriate
downtown definitely other areas that it's more appropriate. Um but let's just make sure it's not going to fall. >> So with that when we created that ordinance when the when the council created that it's only in because it it >> it's already in there. >> It's not No, no, no. It's not anywhere except for where it's been zoned.
>> Yeah. It's only >> So it's covered by the ordinance. >> Correct. >> Perfect. Okay. >> Cover. It's only in the B5 and I do believe only two licenses are available. Correct. Is that correct, Roger? Well, technically one now. >> One now. Yeah. >> Yes. >> But two total. >> Two total.
>> All right. That's perfect because then we don't have to worry about that one. But yeah, if you could drill down because that's a very good point, Roger. It didn't click for me because I didn't see it when I looked. So, I thought I covered. Yeah. So, >> I just want to make sure that we have the discussion since again it was a very
hot button issue and and we want to make sure that the public knows that we are >> certainly bringing it, you know, up as we discuss the zoning in all of our zones. >> And to that point, you know, outside of even that, um,
can we think of any other, when I say hot topic, um, more I don't like using the word yeah publicized >> more open for need some discussion type uses that have happened even in the last
10 to 20 years never mind just recently of saying hey this has come up and it and it was a loophole or it never got caught before ahead Larry >> well um I think even though we're the county seat and legal is legal bail bonds
check cashing places So, Mike, do >> I don't >> what would that fall under? Because I thought, hold on. I thought that was going to be under a services. >> Yeah. >> Professional services. And I don't see
it. Business services. So, maybe that's another one that we just make sure that we're it's not going to be a loophole where somebody comes and goes, "Yeah, but it falls actually under this It's just been my experience over the years that
>> some of those institutions attract >> Yes. >> not the best sometimes. So, >> no, it's a really good point >> in in a in a neighborhood like that. That's not what we want. >> No, >> maybe somewhere not there.
>> It might be uh productive just to do the renew table. with the permitted uses as opposed to three pages of not permitted uses maybe. So how the ordinance is done in schedule A is you
have five six pages of everything listed >> and that works but if you have only 30% permitted the other way of doing it is to show the permitted uses >> and everything else is not >> corrected. So, as long as to
>> and I like that definitely, right? It cleans it up. So, you're not like, "Hey, if it's not allowed anywhere, then just leave it off." But I just want to make sure that by doing that, we're not open to somebody interpreting as if in other zones where it says it wasn't specifically listed as a sporting good,
so by default it falls. So, I think that's the only thing we have to drill down on. Um and the same thing like the bail bonds and things like that >> other than that I really do feel that yes >> sorry uh 738 is uh for bail bonds which is uh
miscellaneous business services anything that's not categorized and it is >> uh currently permitted in a lot of the zones. >> Yes. >> And and one of the problems >> one of the problems with the codes is if that changes then you may get an unintended consequence. Mhm.
>> So, you know, I think that let's incorporate what you're talking about and then let's look at what specific language can we include to make sure that that doesn't happen. >> That's what I was about to ask. Isn't let's just take this one for instance. So, it's permissible, right? Can we add
another footnote where it says with the exception of >> type thing? Okay. >> 100%. >> All right. Um, can anybody else think of anything else that you know off the top of your head you're like, "Yeah, I don't see it here, but we also definitely don't want it."
>> I have a quick question. The automobile parking, do we want to build a parking garage in this area because it's what is it 752 there? I mean, I get it. And you know, you need parking with a maybe a specific lot, but are we looking to have
a you know, what does that exactly mean? >> I So, I hear you. I think I would I would move it to, you know, the EB1, EB2 as a conditional, but not as a full permiss. That's a good point. Like, do we want an entire two blocks taken up with a deck
>> as a principal use as opposed to an accessory use to whatever the principal use would be, >> right? Yeah. >> So, move it to an accessory use. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. I guess conditional. I think Bill's bringing up is do you want a massive
parking garage right in downtown taking that real estate up >> just to be a a a paid parking garage? Is that the question, Bill? Yes. I mean, >> is that the best use of the real estate? Does it drive foot traffic? Does it There should be on the side streets or
underground or something else, right? So, do we want it as an accessory, permitted accessory, or actually conditional >> recommendation? >> I I like conditional, but the problem with condition is we're going to have to
come up with every time we say condition, we're going to have to have a paragraph or a page of what those conditions are. >> I'd prefer an accessory then because if a development comes in and then they're going to give part of it as public, but most of it's housing their own, I think that >> that would constitute as an accessory
use. Correct. Yeah. >> And we can think about percentages. >> Yeah. >> Too. >> You know, so that you don't have, oh, yeah, we have 20% of the area used for retail, but 80% of it is parking. Yeah. >> You know, clearly then that's not accessory,
>> right? Okay. >> We can deal with it like that. >> All right. >> Good catch, Bill. >> Anything else? Right now, we're not, this isn't the end all be all, but I want to give enough to Mike that you can play around with it and clean it up and
then give us some more context on some of the questions we had. >> The planning board hasn't visited this question in about 15 years, but currently there's only one tattoo facility allowed in the burrow. Just throwing out is should that be
opened up to the ECB or keep it the way it is? So, I'm gonna I'm going to give an opinion here first. I think that I'm not opposed to opening it, but I think with restrictions, that's exactly what we did for the Division Street one when it moved in. There was very strict
conditions. >> Yes. >> Um and moving it more towards the ECBD, you know, not down on the on the heart of the SID. I I'm not opposed to that area as as bringing that is in a service, especially on one of the side streets.
But how how do we do that with with with so many conditions that we would have on it? I don't know how we I don't remember how we did that on the division street one. Uh because that was months and months of and they were moving from one location to another and it wasn't going to be allowed on division and there was a lot of how are
we going to do this because it's based on our terms not anybody else's. >> I think the ordinance talks about it can't be more than 500 ft spacing apart. So that essentially made it one. That's how I think that's what division street ordinance says
which makes it one tattoo place because of the spacing requirement. >> One division. >> Yes. >> I don't think it's allowed anywhere else in the burrow. If you go back 20 years ago, tattooing was not permitted anywhere in the burrow.
>> And and I'll I'll say opening it up to current times. I think times have changed. >> Yeah. And I don't again not opposed in that area, but I know that when that application went from Davenport to Division, >> right, >> it was pages and pages of conditions and
restrictions that were put on that shop owner um to to include how the layout had to be, how the privacy had to be, things that were not allowed in the windows, things that were not allowed to be done at all. So like we were very strict. Um,
>> yeah. >> And I don't remember how we captured that. Was it during the application process or was that also part of I I just don't remember. >> I I can get the board the current ordinance and see if the board feels it's appropriate to open it up to
>> Yeah, I would like to see what the ordinance actually says on it and what those conditions were. >> And that's a good point because if it came up during an application, then that's always a good place to look if you're trying to regulate a use. you know, what were we concerned of then? Maybe some things have changed.
>> Yes. >> And maybe some things once you put it into action were good, maybe some were bad, but that's a that's a great way to look at it. >> Yeah. And I because I think that'll help a lot because I know the biggest concern was, you know, and and it has changed over the years. You see a lot more reputable, a lot more the clean
cleanliness, the adhering to the Department of Health standards, the you see some of these that are you wouldn't even know that you're walking into a tattoo parlor, right? Or tattoo shop. And then there are others still that you know are not the best. So and that's
what we wanted to control and that was why we always had issues. But with newer times of more and more let's just say modernizing and more acceptable >> because there's a lot to look at with it. Um you know even the fact that we have you know the amount of window space
you have to have on the frontage. Well bluntly people get tattoos in places that you shouldn't have exposed at the front window walking down Main Street. >> Yes. and we got into that detail when it came to artisal on division like I know I know we did because I remember the conversations >> I wasn't here for that one
>> I remember so but again so if you could you know to car's point if we could pull all that kind of stuff up because I do feel it is something that we should probably revisit for that area um I don't think on the west main anymore but I do feel like in that e ECBD is is where we could start to look at that again
>> I will >> anybody else. Mike, I will take this chicken scratch and I will get it over to you, too. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Along with my colored marker mat.
Um on the EC. All right. I lost everything. Hold on a second. Here it is. I think that was all we had on um we went over the flood zone maps, we went over the schedule A, and then we talked about the area. So, I think we're good.
Any other discussion? Open items that you guys want to talk about for ECBD? I think we killed that one tonight. Um, all right. Master Plan, community facilities, you did an update for us. Yes, the changes are in red
and uh it was based on the last discussion. So, it's in the package after the study. area and need study. Uh we if you just go through this
quickly uh own was taken off because of the ser uh this building and the distinction was taken out the I'm on the first page. >> Yep. >> Um I I did have a couple quick questions. Um, how come for some of the
buildings we're including the value of the building and others were not? >> They should have been all taken out, Jason. U Okay. >> It was put in because I think this was done in the flood hazard for flood insurance. >> Oh, yes. You have to include that. >> I I thought I took it all out, but if
you see it, it should it's not in my opinion, she's not appropriate for a I don't think it should be in there. Um, and then with the facilities also with features, the only thing I noticed we list in any of them for features is fire
alarm system. Is is there a reason we're listing that as a feature? I mean, we're not putting in if they're sprinklered or if they have >> suppression cameras. >> I don't think it should be listed at all. >> No, I think I would say that should come out. >> Yes. >> Um because I Yeah. And then the only
other thing I had was um the recreation high flood thing. I think there's two more parks that were um let park and John Long Park need to be added to that. The recreation and high flood risk areas. >> Yes. So if we can just add those two and
then the rest was I have no issue with. had a few comments on the I guess maybe not the features part of the buildings, but would it make sense to highlight like the Burough Hall as a historic building >> as something along that just to I know
it's probably in the other chapter, but that was one thing that kind of stuck out to me. And then on the objectives, I was curious, would it uh would it make sense to combine objective one and objective four since they both deal with
the DPW facility? Um or do we want those those separate? >> They are the same. >> Yeah, I was going to say that we could probably just get rid of >> um four. >> Get rid of combine, you know,
>> combine. It's the same thing. >> And then another question I had was um >> difference I think it's a difference probably without a distinction, but you could relocate to an existing building versus investing in a new facility. That's the only difference between the two. But
>> so let's combine them then. A new or >> which one do you combine? Combine >> one and four. >> Thank you. Okay. I missed the one and I couldn't I'm looking at four. I couldn't go. And then the next one I was curious on objective seven,
you know, I'm trying to understand um who's reading this or how like in general I agree with investing in walkways and and that sort of thing, but this coordinate with downtown Somerville Alliance, um I'm just confused at like what this
master plan is. Are we telling folks that they need to coordinate with these people first before they can invest or or is the goal to invest? >> So I think to your point it's missing in the downtown SID >> because that's really the only the only actual authority and purview that uh DSA
has is in the SID which is basically you know our main street businesses. >> Um that's probably what the I'm going to assume because they're talking about arts on division and Main Street alleyways. So I'm assuming that so maybe to your point we put that clarification in the SID consult with DSA to clarify
that that's not even because these facilities to your point are all over the bureau not just in the SID. That's I you know are you okay with that adding that and then kind of clarifying that it's >> yeah it just was confusing to me like this you know everything in here is is
more I guess actionoriented vice you know this one it says coordinate and and my thought is is like you know do we want to drive more action than just a coordinate with DSA I think what's more important is investing in walkways to create you know something along those lines
>> so yeah creating and investing instead coordinate. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And I think we can spear off that. Uh we had that green >> committee that when we talked about the Peters Brook, right, >> and the greenways and attaching that in
some way to downtown. So that way you have use use the greenway as a way to get to the destination instead of it being something that you know folks around the town use, but people can come and walk the greenway and get between here and RAD and everywhere else. So some way to correlate that in and that might be part of and we can add that
into uh number seven where you know we're we're focusing in on where a location especially once the uh solar is done and we have that green seam and that all connects it'll be an easier way to get to the uh greenway.
So, Roger, to that point, what about I just want to read this language. Create and invest in walkways and connectivity to and throughout the burrow to create places of interest that would encourage use. Encourage use, I think, is encourage use of what
>> of the places of interest, make a pathway to them. And >> okay, I just think the sentence reads funny when that's what I was getting at is it kind of leaves it open. But Mike, you >> are you hearing what we're what Roger's putting down? And can you words smmith
that please? Because I'm not doing a great job on it. >> No. Active seven. Um >> yes, I understand the concern with seven. I will uh redo seven. >> Okay. >> And actually if you look at eight, >> maybe it's
>> Yeah, I think Yeah. Six, six, seven, and eight can all be kind of combined. >> What about looking at trying to com combine these? >> Six, seven, and eight. >> Yeah. >> I'm glad you didn't stop at 67 because if I hear that one more time, I'm >> abandoned my household.
>> Yes. >> Um, >> it's not as cool anymore. >> Never was. >> Didn't have to be. >> Is that it, Bill? Yes. Thank you. >> Anybody else have any other comments for
that? >> I think Mike with those if we see one final draft at the next one, we we should be able to move on from that one as well. >> Uh the same format will be strike through with the red font to make the changes.
>> Thank you. >> All right. So, moving on to um the next portion was the DSA comments. So, um to clarify some of the um language that you might see in there. I just want to make sure everybody understands, we
asked the DSA to take a look at this and pick out portions of the master plan that would be relative and under their purview of the SID. I do feel most of these are, but I I didn't want anybody to be confused by that first statement. was not like okay have cart blanch on
the master plan. Um so the way I read it through was how does this you know because some of it is the ancillary of getting into and making more connectivity to the downtown. So, I understand that, right? Because we want that. Um,
uh, the I didn't really have as I I looked through at that some of them. Um, you know, I do feel I know we've talked about the rerouting of 28. Um, and that's been looked at numerous times. I I feel like keeping that as portion of,
you know, ideology of our master plan was appropriate. Um um I haven't but maybe Mike if you could tell us what some of these things not now um in the DSA comments. I thought I see a lot of this is already having been
part of the master plan. So I just I'd like to kind of see just kind of like we did with all the other elements what's new >> versus what is already in there so that maybe we look at the new ones because that's where I kind of got confused. like, "All right, is this a new request or is this just reinforcing something
that's already in there?" >> And with that, um, I do think one of the things we have to be careful of is not mentioning specific, you know, companies that we're work, you know, that maybe work with like Arterial Design. I know they've been doing work with them.
>> I don't think our master plan should say we are going to be working with a specific company, >> by any means. Um, so we just got to be careful and I know why they put it in is is the background of it and what they're doing. Um, but I think we just need to be very cautious when going through um,
and doing that. Um and because again even in the parking I I thought a lot of that was addressed in in the overall master plan but I just for me the clarification of >> seeing um community facilities
um we've kind of already said we don't really want some of those in the SID so I don't think it's some community facilities um I guess maybe only addressing maybe performing arts >> and the cultural
>> and the cultural of of staying in that SID. I think that's appropriate, but I think we need to fine-tune that to be seeing what's what is the permissible and what is what are the what are the avenues that we want to push for but other ones in that >> that we're saying no and I again that
comes into what that schedule will be >> for maybe that area >> if I think what what I can do is under circulation element every item that is brought up by the DSA at the end of that item I can give in red
If this is covered somewhere else, this is new. Yes, please. >> Just on everyone. So, this is repeat. This is new or as per discussion, this should be moved here. >> Uh so that the board could see every one of these elements, parking, whatever. What this what the status is
>> because some of a lot of these comments as I'm reading it, I'm like that we were talking about the dog park here. Bur should continue after. Absolutely. But if it's already in there, I don't want to double it somewhere. >> That's kind of what my thought was is if we could get some more clarification on that. Um the same thing with the pedestrian walkways. You know, we kind
of just talked about that in the community facilities. Like having certain things in five different places in our master plan can get very dangerous because if we do update something then we have to remember it's in five different places. So if you don't mind and that does not have to be this one I'm not does not have to be by
next meeting because I think that could be a little bit longer of really trying to go through and trying to figure that out. So I think we table this until you're done. >> Okay. >> And you tell us when you're done. And are there to me I look at a lot of these things it seems like out of our purview like you know
>> yes >> maybe kind of highlight like hey this is not something for the board to >> yeah I think we're supposed to be that highlevel view of what we're doing not and that's why I was saying like even like the details I don't think we need to be you know like yeah pedestrian safety is you know we should be
>> designing and building towards safe pedestrian walkways I don't think we need to get into specifics of what walkways things we want to redo or anything of that nature. >> Right. Which is why I kind of want to see what's in there because the overall broad language to your point, Bill, is
probably already in there because we've been working towards that. Um, so I want to make if the broad language is in there, the specifics are not we're there for that overall vision and that's it to your point. Yes. Um,
all right. Any other questions or comments before for Mike before we move on from this one specific since he's going to kind of do a comparison right up for us. >> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mike. All right. Um, open business, we have none. I will just say for moving forward um I am going to kind of put in a comment here right now. Um moving forward we're into that those summer months. So we're
moving into July August where we you know we do become and I hate you I don't use in my industry we do not use this word so I will not say it that sword it's very nasty that jinxes us when we say it. So, but um for right now I'm not adding even. So, if we reduce and like
right we just got done basically with the community facilities. >> I'm sticking to ECBD will be the main focus for us for the next few months. I'm not adding anything. I think that um we have done a lot and if anybody disagrees with me, have at it. Um, I
think we have done a lot between we've done West Main, we are now, you know, fully into ECBD, we've had to do storm water, we've had done the tree ordinance, we've done a lot, we've done historical element, we've done recreational element. We've done a lot as a board in the first half of this
year. So, um, just letting everybody know like I want to be able to focus on what we're focused on right now, but I will not be adding I know I've been adding little things as we get done. I think right now everybody needs a little bit of a break on planning. No offense.
Um so we're gonna right now this is all we're going to focus on. Okay. And and then you know if hearings come up that that's outside I'm talking about on our plans and the master plan. So all right. Um nothing for under open business to
discuss. All right. I will now open the meeting to the public for any item that was not listed on the agenda. >> Hearing none, I will close the public portion and a motion for adjournment. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> All opposed. Glad you showed up.