We're good. >> Someville Planning Board for Wednesday, June 10th, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one posted on the M bulletin board
outside of Burough Hall. two mailed facts or emailed to the courier news and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.
>> Chairperson Warner >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher >> here. >> Council member Vroom >> here. >> Jason Krasco >> here. >> Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Andrea Dair. >> Chris Addex >> here. John Manilio >> here. >> Barry Van Horn >> here.
>> Tim Hayes. >> Bill Kell >> here. >> Please stand for the pledge. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. I have no additional comments outside of anything we'll be discussing today. Uh ARB, these are our courtesy reviews. Um we had two.
Um actually, no, this needs to be pulled out again because we have a fence in here. So, they have to be done separate. >> The courtesy review was for Bliss CL. It was a sidewalk cafe complied. And then now we actually have to review
for either approval or denial on 42 Ross Street. Let me pull that really quick. Sorry. >> Did everybody get a chance to look at this? >> Any issues? >> No. >> No. No issues. >> Thought I looked good. >> Yeah.
>> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second that motion. Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Jason Kraco, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn,
>> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> All right. Uh, approval of minutes from May 27th. >> So moved. Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. Jason Kra,
>> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> All right. We have the resolution for 56 uh Fieldstone that was adopting the recommendations that we gave from the
that the ARB gave with regard to the fencing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Chairperson Warner. >> Yes. >> Mayor Gallagher. >> Yes. >> Council member Vroom. >> Yes. >> Jason Kra. Yes, >> Larry Cleveland. >> Yes,
>> Chris Addex. >> Yes, >> Johnilio. >> Yes, >> Barry Van Horn. >> I think >> Thank you. >> All right, on to discussion items. We have no hearings. So, ECBD Mike. So
before we go any did you receive any comments from the board members on recommended for bulk standards? >> Just Jason I got comments on schedule A with his uses from Jason. Uh be great to get more comments on those uses when
>> so I think we we'll give it one more week for everybody to send in their comments and then we're going to have to move forward because we we really need to get this thing moving um for next meeting. Mike said he should have uh the recommendations or non-recommendations based on the area need. So, we're we're getting closer to where I think we could
wrap this up. >> Yeah, the plan is to have a draft copy of the This is referring to the area need of redevelopment study for the county facilities. What we've been talking about, uh the board the plan is to have that draft report done by next
Friday. Draft. So for the board to to look at and then once the board's we go through it then we'll have to notice it and finalize it and do what we have. But the plan is to get that done. Um one of the big changes is the state plan
changed which is massive. So all the references have to be changed and Ryan Bakey was able to get that document in word which is going to help immensely from putting that doc the background. Obviously, the criteria hasn't changed,
but the reference to the county and to the state has changed since the last one we did for West Main Street, the grants building. And that last 6, eight months, the state's uh criteria, the state plan got adopted, >> just so you know, anybody knows that. So,
>> okay. Um, and then also for the ECBD, you sent us that the ordinance for flood areas. Yes, you have a very exhaustive flood hazard ordinance that was adopted about three years ago. So if the uh my
recommendations to the board is that we focus on the bulk standards and the uses and we let the ordinance the flood hazard ordinance dictate the height flood all the requirements that's FEMA and D requirements let them be in this
flood hazard ordinance if that's Just looking for feedback and that's how the board sees it too. >> Anybody see it any other way? Any other comments? >> Yeah, I think we just re we just reference it. Um and then we >> I
>> narrow it down on what our recommendations for using >> text and we'll come up with the uses which we'll talk about like Jason got the comments back but bulk of going to refer back to the flood hazard ordinance because that was adopted by statute that
was required by D about three years ago. So that language is not optional. That ordinance, you can't change it without D approval. So that's where we are, >> right? But I think we can still put in and limit the uses that are allowed
there no matter what. >> Uses, bulk standards. >> Yep. >> Abs. Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Um so really more most important is we got to get these the comments in and thoughts on on this schedule A for
um uses. Um next is anything else for ECBD? No, that just we left it that we're the board felt comfortable with a two and a half or threetory zone going forward. So we looked we talk about bulk standards.
My understands it's going to reflect that height. We're not talking about eighttory buildings. No, I think every zone we minus the flood hazard because we haven't addressed that really yet, but every zone was either two um was two and a was it three? >> Two and a half. There's two or three.
Some of the residentials next Franklin Street that Larry pointed out, we're going to leave two and a half. The rest of them was three. >> Okay, >> that's where we left it. And uh using that criteria, I think we should start looking at bulk standards for that criteria as opposed
to a much bigger building. >> Yes. But that's why we need the comments from everybody on the >> right. >> So the comments for this uses in those zones would be much most helpful to have. >> All right. And then we'll start discussing those comments uh next meeting.
>> Uh historic element under master plan review. Uh you the board went out two copies. Uh I changed the community facilities didn't change the storm water changed the storm water. The language is the same to clarify it. Bill, are you good
with that language? Great. So uh it was taken out. We're going to have that in the appendix, but it was passed out to all the board members. The the changes was wiping it out and making the language much clearer on the community facilities and storm water management.
So with those changes, when we get the master plan together, we're going to have an appendix with all that information that was taken out. It's not being lost. It's just not appropriate. So the board's only element. >> All right. So I think that closes out historic. Now we're done on historic.
Any comments or questions on the community facilities? Because we just started looking at that one as of last meeting. This one's kind of straightforward. a lot of these facilities like you know with the the new emergency management building you know seems like they're
vacant or I mean is there another burough plan for that or you know how are we supposed to or how do you want us looking at it and then there's also you know some of the count or u you know Somerset County you know facilities the whatever the jail is that that like are
how are we supposed to think about that I guess I'm I'm curious of what what what's the goal of this document or how do we master plan that? >> So this is just an inventory of everything we have. I think there's some updates that need to be made obviously because we might still have the building, you know, like you take engine
company down on the corner by vets, the building's still there, but it's no longer a fire department. So I think updating >> I think I think that is updated for the most part throughout here. Um like that one, I think it says it's storage now and not being used. Um the old police
station, same concept. >> So under properties under high risk, it's still there. That's what I'm looking at. >> Oh, >> firehouse engine company 170 East Main Street. Primary fire response capability threatened during flood. >> It's saying it's still there even though
you know what I'm saying where >> Yeah. >> Um and I think did we add I didn't see it in here on the new >> the ESF. So it says it's repurposed on the one for fire one I mean for the fire engine company one but then still listed
under flood risk assessment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So it's I think it's just cleaning it up. Um but then did we have I don't see the new um ESF has not >> and that was my question because
technically we don't own that. >> It's still our it's still one of our critical facilities. So >> Okay. Yeah. Our ownership wouldn't make a difference on whether or not it's a resource or not. >> No, that's what I'm saying. It's still one of our one of where our functions
and government functions. That's that's what we're listing. >> Whether we own or not is not >> because some of these firearms we didn't order. We didn't own either. >> So, we should add in here as well. >> Yeah. the civic center. >> Yeah. Okay. Because that's I I I was making the assumption that we didn't put
them in here because we don't own them and whatnot, but if that's >> It does say in the beginning owned and operated. >> Yeah. I was just going to say that. >> Huh. >> I think so. From what I always understood is that community facilities is
>> kind anything that we operate out of, not necessarily that we have to own it >> and or operated. There there were two private firehouses that were never listed though, >> which yeah, >> we operated out of them. So >> we didn't list them in here.
>> So the borrow never owned those two. >> So can we add the stuff and just denote that it's not owned by >> Yeah, maybe that's just >> Yeah, I think that language might Can we add that in the beginning? Barry, you're talking about Engine Company and Lincoln Hose.
>> Lincoln Ho Well, >> I'm dating myself, but Lincoln Hose and Central Hook and Ladder were never listed. >> One hasn't existed for a while, but then Lincoln Hose once we that was never listed either. >> I think it should be listed in say repurposed >> Lincoln Hose. >> Well, now it's
>> because well, it's not as in not as an operating as an active fire. It's not owned by the borrow though. >> It's privately used now. >> So, I guess it is kind of mute point now. >> That one's a mute point. >> Yeah. >> But I'm saying it was never listed
because we never owned. We operated, but it was never owned by the burrow. >> Um, and then looking at the objectives and goals, I don't think anything there. I didn't see anything too.
to adjust I wouldn't so I wouldn't say eliminate ground floor adapt it can be used we just have to Which one are you talking about? >> Right. >> But just for emergency services
equipment, it says I mean I I understand what you're saying. I also just if we're going to be reszoning and that's going to fall into a zone that we're telling people they can't build and use on. >> Well, you know what? This this is language from long. >> It's saying to repurp why we wanted to
repurpose it is what that language is saying. >> I think we can clean up a lot of this >> with minimal. >> I mean, are we >> Yeah, because some of these objectives I'm sorry, but some of these objectives we've met like that one we met like keeping it in. We've already we met
it. I don't think we even need it anymore. >> But on in the inventory, it says bottom floor will be used for recreation purposes. >> Yeah. So kind of >> kind of >> Yeah, because I think the idea was to store like soccer balls and
>> but that's not emergency services equipment. >> Correct. >> That's what I'm saying. So >> kind of meets that. >> So eliminate ground floor use for emergency services maybe rather than just saying eliminate ground floor use.
>> Yeah. Well, I I mean but we've met it. So I don't know if we it's again like going back to your point about Lincoln like it's already met even though the language probably wasn't >> in correct >> that objective >> eliminate the objective.
>> Yeah. >> And I have a question just with um you know looking at objective four return property is no longer needed. Um, you know, we keep do we need to keep a lot of these buildings just for storage or is this something that we want to you
get rid of the buildings or you know, is it it just seems uh you know, we you know, maybe are um uh you know, it's competing objectives. I guess maybe that might be one way to say it. the former police department. Down
the line, the former building will be repurposed, will be going up once once the council decides what we're going to do with it. We had a visioning um meeting two years ago now, >> long time ago, >> about what that would look like. Uh but at this point, we haven't moved forward
on that. >> Yeah, I it's and that's really I mean I think the the goal and objective is to do something with it. And so I think it's a much more generic uh goal and objective because Ultimately, the council is going to decide whether it's a public use or a private use.
>> Well, and I think by saying no longer needed, that's where the flexibility is, right? Because it can be used like you look at engine company, right? No longer needed as a firehouse, but there are other uses that we're saying it could be used for. So, that's still technically needed. Might be different for the
police headquarters where it's looked at by council and say, "Yeah, we don't really need this property. We're gonna figure we're going to get rid of it." or they look at it and go, "Hey, we can repurpose this and we have this new use that we can use it for." >> So maybe it's just return properties um
deemed no longer uh appropriate for municipal use to the tax. >> I would say needed versus Yeah, I I think you put the deemed in there. >> Yes. And >> I think the goal always was to keep
engine company as a building because nothing once that building goes down there will be no building there ever again. >> I think this leaves it um vague enough where it can be the determination based on a property bypropy basis.
Any other comments? Mike, you'll make those adjustments for and then we'll look at it. See if we can get it through next meeting. >> You got it. Thank you. All right. Um, so included in the packet was the uh downtown Somerville Alliance. I know we
weren't looking at that, but let's um add that for next meeting. It wasn't asked to be looked at, but um it does kind of roll right from community facilities right into >> they they commented on every portion of the master plan. So,
>> yeah. So, I think that's our next one we're going to add on because historic's gone. We're just about done with community uh facilities and then I think we look at the DSA's comments for um moving forward as our next document. Sorry, I'm writing my notes.
Okay. Tree ordinance. Mike, >> the the revisions were made to the tree ordinance based on the last meeting and the revision date 64. The tables were taken out. The
Item 10 which basically says go the environmental commission will have the tables for street trees in the SID outside uh trees under utility lines will have all that. Also there was a
comment made to beef up evasive species. So, Governor Murphy just recently signed a bill in January, and I just referenced that evasive species should be used throughout the burrow based on the state
statute. That's I don't think it's fully it's been adopted on the way out, but I don't think there's a list yet. I think it's still the state's still formulating a list. >> Well, this leaves it vague enough as they update it, it just ports it right back to the state. the boards this I
think it was Jason was a great idea stop putting trees and stuff that we have to change in the future reference it so that changes doesn't mess up the ordinance and I think that's a great comment >> all right comments
>> yes environmental discussed this yesterday and they had several um things that we wanted to talk about I I think one of the biggest things is they're concerned they're the environmental commission
reviewed it and one of the biggest concerns is that they feel that's we're missing some of the key points for accuracy with what the D is talking about to the point that it may end up we
may do something and then have to redo it again because we're being deficient. on several things like the the current draft does not control removal. The the way the state ordinance talks
about it they're required to have control over the removal and replacement. >> I thought the language Can we just clarify, Mike? I thought the language was we had to track it. I didn't say I wasn't aware of it saying we had to control it.
The language says it has to address all trees in the municipality and it has to be some inventory provisions for tracking which you correct. The model ordinance they provided does which I think Larry is referring to does not have to be followed. It's the polar
opposite from the storm water. storm water you have very little flexibility and in the trees they suggested the model but when you drill down on it the model does not have to be followed as long as you carry those two points it's my understanding
>> well which two points of that that there's no need to enforce replacement >> does the state say that or does the state not say that there should be some enforcement mechanism for removal if we're just counting to keep track of
it. But does the state say that there has to be some kind of provision for replacement? >> Didn't we handle that anyway though with we're going to do our inventory and then if there was a deficiency of >> 20 trees were taken out not replaced then the burrow was going to
>> utilize. >> Is that in here? >> That's in here. >> Okay. >> So we're going to we're going to replace and make up for that >> offsite >> we're doing somewhere. Yeah. wherever environmental I think we're kind of giving them >> the way this is a draft is >> they can do that
>> they're concerned >> we're doing this the burrows if this goes through >> they we're doing this annually the burough's doing it annually we're going to look at annually if trees are increasing or decreasing I think Larry one of the concerns is it should be done
on a case by case not annually I think that's what their concern is uh the annual says we're gonna have a baseline. My understanding there's a grant the bureau received to do a baseline. We're using that baseline and I'll track it from the land use side and
the property owners will call it in and we'll track it internally on the nonland use sides and annually we'll take a look at how many trees were installed, how many were removed and if it's a deficit. >> I mean I I look at it and we already do
it on the land use side. If if we have a development and they're not going to put in, sorry, if they're not going to put in three trees needed, they give money. We up the money, it it's the same thing that just goes over to the environmental tree fund, whatever it's called. And it's done whenever environmental deems
is the right time to do it and where. We don't every time we do a development say they were three trees short, we're planting three trees tomorrow. >> Yeah. >> In XYZ, it's a rolling thing to keep it going. Um but I kind of look at it as it's the same concept for um private,
you know, or personal homeowners. Yeah, it we up the fees from 650 to a,000 and then uh made clarification the environmental commission can plant these trees for street trees or shade trees either way at locations they deem fit and the
language says that they whatever it's in the flood plane that the trees have to be inudation >> tolerant but they we're given a lot of flexibility >> except in the SID if it's a if the tree is generated if the value of the tree is generated within the SID stay in the has to stay in the
>> and that that's that's perfect. >> But but that's not what's been done. >> No, but we're going to that >> and that >> and that's perfect plan. It makes sense. It doesn't sense to >> take trees all of the ones out of the uh SID and plant them all down in one park.
>> No, >> make a wood somewhere and then empty the main street. Yeah, that that's not the intent of it. though I think we covered. So, so I just want to I just want to handle the the issues one by one so I'm clear on theirs. So >> I have like five things that they
hammered about. So >> but so so on that one though I mean I >> So was there concern like Mike was saying that we're not handling it on a case by case that we're doing as an annual thing? Not necessarily that, but it just doesn't seem to be any
full accounting for what happens if if if we if if somebody doesn't report they took a tree down. Wherever the tree is, it's a $100 fine. That's nothing. That's like a joke of a fine. It's not enforcement. It's just, oh, oh, you
caught me. Okay. But there's no enforcement on that. That's that's what we're trying to say is that it's lack >> self it's self-reporting. >> It's self-reporting. >> It's self-reporting, but >> I trust my neighbors. >> Well, okay, you're nice, but some neighbors are jerks.
>> But you know what? I again, I think I think this is a a very classic approach of the punitive side of individual landscaping versus the collective side of how is the burrow going to be green
overall. and and this is this is the balance. So there's one side that says we want the individual and we're going to punitively charge you if you don't landscape the way we want you to landscape your property. That's what's being said. And I think what I'll hear
you >> and I think what this board is saying which is a very wide cross-section of this community without a singular focus. >> Um and what this board is saying collectively we would like to see an overall program that promotes the
greening of Somerville without individual punitive uh penalties. And I just want to add on that because one of the things that was brought up too and this um I'm pretty sure it was Tim that had brought it up. >> Many property owners who have to take
down a tree for whatever reason. There is no appropriate place on property and we want that flexibility where they shouldn't be penalized. Right. And I used my property as an example. I had to take down a dead Japanese maple. There is no appropriate place on my on the
front of my house to do it because of uh my underground ground um infrastructure. I can't plant it right there. And in my backyard, I already have a ton of trees. So, there's really no appropriate place. What? And I we used this after Tim
brought it up. Somebody shouldn't be penalized because they cannot. We want that like okay report it and then we'll make sure that it gets done somewhere else where it is more appropriate. >> So these those two statements that you made and the mayor are they in here? Is that
something that we can point to and say if this then that like it should be fleshed out because it's not being explained? >> No. Because once again you're going back and penalizing uh the the individual homeowner. No, no, no. But what I'm saying is that if that's the goal is not
to do that and that's an honorable goal. >> Doesn't paragraph two cover that and the purpose. >> Well, that's that's that's what we're trying to make sure because they're not saying >> Well, I'm I'm a little disappointed that they're not here. >> I mean, and you granted you are the liazison and I appreciate >> supposed to be doing this my job.
>> Absolutely. >> But >> and it goes both ways because I went to the meeting yesterday and >> gave a rash of BS about all kind of stuff also from the other way. So I'm I do my job on both sides. I mean I think I do, >> but I do. >> Larry, how many times have I appointed
you? >> Several times. >> I think it's more than several. >> Yes. No. No. And I appreciate it. >> I am doing my job to be the liaison for both. So I take our concerns from here and give it to them and tell them the truth. But
when they have concerns, my job is to bring it here and talk about >> to Bill's point. I think it is in the second paragraph. It's B is clear clearly states the burrow will track the installation and removal of regulated trees on an annual basis to determine whether the tree inventory is increasing. Should it be determined that
the tree inventory of burrowwide is not increasing, consideration will be given to amending the land use ordinances to require additional trees be installed on land developed applications appearing before the planning board zone zoning board of adjustment or approved by the zoning official. >> And then there's the the link to the the
reporting and all that. I think the only thing that I'm hearing from Larry that I will say is with every single municipality in this town is enforcement if the property owner doesn't do what they're supposed to do and balancing that with hiring somebody to do that
which none of the towns are doing and it's it's quite impossible. >> It's it's it's false enforcement. >> Correct. So it's false enforcement. It's an unfunded mandate of the state and it's >> so what we're trying to do is and I agree and I think that's a great item to point out. So, what we're trying to do is to encourage people to self-report so
that we can understand that. And I think that's a role of the Environmental Commission to help people understand that, to educate them. >> They're looking forward to it >> and and that's a great thing. >> Yeah. That's what they're supposed to do. That that's that's a part of their charge. That's what they're appointed to do.
>> When we talk about incentives, have we fleshed that out yet? >> The incentives >> that doesn't belong in this ordinance, though. that that's and that's we talked about that >> and I don't think that's the role of the planning board. >> No, it's that we are not we don't talk about how things should be done. We can give recommendations but you know just
like saying that we feel somebody should be um you know how something is going to be um inspected or something like that's not our place. So we put in here that there shall be a fine. It is up to the burough council to decide how that fine gets enforced. That's not our job. Our
job is to just say our recommendation is that it there should be a fine of $100 if someone is found. >> Other than >> I don't even think there should be a fine. That's one of my notes on here. I don't even think there should be a point. >> But that's I don't I hear you may I don't think that's the point right now is that is not in what you're asking is not in the purview of the planning
board. We we talked about a lot a bunch of different ideas and which is why we want to you know I think there's other ways to get the self-reporting to be something that is something that is obtainable and people are like okay yeah. Um the one comment I will say is the one as reading this I do feel maybe
on this language because we did all agree that it's not I don't think it's just going to be on land development applications before the planning board zoning board I think we do need to say because if we talked about the uh flood zone area right so as we see that along
the Petersbrook if there are ways in certain type of trees that we can help assist with that that isn't a land use but that might be a more appropriate to add our tree inventory, too. So, can we find language to say that it doesn't
have to just be a land use application? Does that make sense? >> Number 11 kind of hints towards that because it states uh >> that's the flexibility bar >> results of removal data. >> Yeah. >> Yep. All right. which which we we opened
up in my opinion the flexibility to try to address this with the environmental commission. They can plant shade, street trees, what whatever they want to plant at any location. That was the intent of com. >> No. So yeah. No, that was exactly what I
was looking for. I just as I read that I'm like, wait a minute, I thought we So yes, 11 takes care of that. And between self-reporting people that want to be compliant and residents environmental commission, I mean, I think you're going to find that you're
going to know about 95% of the situations that are non-compliant. >> Yeah. >> It's just how it rolls. >> And listen, it's going to have to be done through the burough council and through the administration, through the burough hall. Like they're going to have to put it out and let people know that there's a link. So that's part of that,
you know, outreach and and what maybe they come up with on to entice people to to do it. Like it's because, correct me if I'm wrong, is this link intended to be where if my neighbors removing a tree, I could ultimately go onto that
link and see if it's been reported. >> I mean, >> I don't know. I I don't I don't know. >> I think those details would be done by council. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I I think it's it's not going to be as much of an issue as they're concerned about that. Yeah, that's kind of my point because that's what I've been seeing, you know, ever since
municipalities been talking about this. >> I think the I think Larry can sum it up. This ordinance addresses the tree on a burrowwide basis, not on an individual
lotby-lot basis. It skirts the issue of property rights and appropriateness. It says we're going to be looking at trees on a burrow basis >> as a whole. >> As a whole. >> Okay. >> So, we don't get caught up in each slot and whether it's suitable and not
suitable and who's making that determination. We're just looking at the burrow as a whole >> and and you feel that all of these this entire thing fits the spirit and letter of the law of what the D is talking about. We're not going
to have to do this again. >> Well, the rules always unless they change. Uh but we're we're going to create an inventory and it's applicable wide. So, we're gonna the bureau will know whether we're losing trees or
gaining trees on an annual basis. I I think that's the intent is the intent is D wants to keep the trees and have more trees because of the benefits that we all know about. >> But the D doesn't have a requirement for replacement. That is not something that
you're saying. It is not a requirement for the D to say there needs to be replacement. >> It's in the model. The draft ordinance has something to that effect, but that's that's just a model that you can use if you so desire. >> It's not mandatory. That's what I'm trying to get to.
>> Yeah. I think and I think I think Larry, that may be some of the issue here that I think people looked at the the draft ordinance as you have to do this >> like the storm water. >> Exactly. Well, with the storm water you did >> was Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That >> actually no, not in the whole model
ordinance, >> right? the model ordinance from D on both >> were full of recommendations and mandates. That's the problem. >> Everybody took it as the whole each of those documents as a whole were all mandates and they were not. >> Yeah, I think Cara said this. It's
I think the intent is to for the canopy to grow to have more trees in the burrow. I think that's the intent from D. Every municipality to have more trees and I think we capture it in the first sentence, the first paragraph. That's >> we we that's the spirit of this. We'll
look at this on the annual basis. I think we have enough mechanisms in place to know this with the inventory being done. We're going to have a baseline >> and it becomes once you get that baseline >> even even without that baseline study. I mean if we you know it's going to be easy to track land use that that'll be
easy. Um, and then as you have people reporting trees coming down, it's a pretty simple plus minus. >> Yeah. You know, whatever the base number is, we're doesn't really matter. If we're up 30 trees this year and we're down 30,
we're going to know. I can give you a spot of good news. They just completed 20 tree plantings throughout the burrow at different residents houses and stuff. >> Nice. Just got they had
grant of money and they used it 20 trees. That's pretty >> great >> to people who want them. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> There was a list beyond that. >> Yes. >> So, >> which is which kind of goes to the point in the the direction of this one is the people who want them, let's get them to
them and the people who don't have space, let's not penalize them. >> Yes. >> Which is I think where we landed with this one. >> Yes. Larry, are there other >> I um I think we addressed everything. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And thank you for being a good liaison. And I I actually mean that. >> No, I I appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You you you you bring back what they're discussing and that doesn't always happen. >> People hate me on both sides. >> Nobody hates me.
>> Well, I don't I mean Larry, >> anybody else have any other comments? No, I would make a motion that >> No, I think the mayor has some more comments, so we're going to all >> I was trying I was trying to get >> I was allowing everybody else to get one I think is very simple on 11 says the environmental commission shall use the
fees collected. It really should be the environmental commission with the approval of the burrow council shall use the fees collected >> because it's they're they when all is said and done environmental commission is an advisory body. So, >> okay. >> I think it's just cleaning up some
language that that's all >> it does. It has to be approved. The locations have to be approved by the bureau. >> Um, and then the last section five, violations and penalties. Um, any person who's found to be in violation gets dinged for $100.
Why? >> Well, >> well, I I get I just asked the question. Why? >> Any kind of violation of any law, whether you're speeding or you keep a library book out too long or anything
else in between, there has to be some sort of carrot and stick approach for lack of a better word. I'm not saying people have to get go to jail because they kept the book out too long. No. >> What about a warning with and and a nice warning that says, "Hey, uh, we were advised, the burrow was advised you cut
a tree down. Can you please log on to the burrow website and drop in you either planted a tree or you took a tree down. If you took one down and you planted one, please note both. >> How about we change language from shall to may. >> I don't even think we should may. I think it should just be, you know, the
the burrow. >> I guess we'd ask the rest of the because other board members here did ask for the hund. So, I'm asking the board to also you guys are, you know, weigh in. If if nobody feels anymore the hundred is there, that's fine. But we ended up with a 100 because the board had decided.
>> I think we do what we do with all property maintenance, right? You have the opportunity to remediate it like the mayor's talking about. If you don't, then you're fine. >> That's why I said change it to a may and then leave it up to >> enforcement. >> I think to Roger's point, if if you you send the the the notice out, it's not
even a warning. It's a notice that you need to register that you either took a tree down or planted a tree. Um and then and then the violation actually occurs if they don't after they've been notified. >> So yeah, I >> we change it to May and then add >> after notification. >> Right. Yes.
>> I like that because also I mean if Larry just planted 20 trees in 20 yards and each one of those homeowners didn't go on and put that in, they're each getting fined 100 bucks for adding a tree to the canopy. >> Well, and to that point, >> but that's a violation still.
>> One more time. What what to that point there is going to be a learning curve here. So to that point, yes, the fine shouldn't be an immediate. There should be leeway of an educational allowance of because a lot of people are going to be like, I didn't even know it existed. >> Right. Well, I think that comes down to
what happened with the most recent property when we talked about Mountain Avenue, right? The the letter went to the to the wrong address. >> Correct. >> These are things that are going to happen. I think to to that point and to your point, give everyone an opportunity. If you miss that
opportunity or you disregard, then certainly >> Well, the the only other thing is that if a mistake is made, it's a permanent mistake. Somebody does something they really should be talking to somebody
else about or talking to the burough engineer or talking to somebody and they take a tree down and drug their shoulders and it's 100 bucks. They've killed taken down canopy. >> But Larry, we've already moved beyond
that. We're not we've we're not putting over any oversight to say you should or should not be taking a tree down. That is the property's owner's decision on what they want to do to improve their property in their eyes. What we're saying is the burrow is taking the responsibility of ensuring that those
trees get replaced. So I hear what you're saying. Yes. >> If necessary. >> If necessary. Fine. >> So I think you know that is now saying you know that's like somebody saying you can only have a white fence throughout all of Somerville. Well what if I want a wood fence? I I think the May works and
the rest of it comes like Roger said in a policy decision on the council. How >> so? I do think to the mayor's point though it we add in there um >> notification letter >> um subject to a fine of 100 after an initial notification and then let the burough council then decide what that
initial notification is and then that process thereafter. >> Okay. >> After initial notification. Okay. Mayor, you have any other comments? >> Come on. >> No, that's it. A little disappointing. >> No, you know what? It only got on. It
was only those two. And I I thought it was very well crafted. I mean, we've been laboring over this. The board's been laboring over this for a long time. And I think it's just to the point of the board that they've taken great pains to understand the positions of the environmental commission, the positions
of the their colleagues on the board, and I think most importantly the the positions of um the residents and and their rights and responsibilities. So I think that's a good job by all of you. Thank you. So, Cara, can we with those
two provisions that we've all agreed upon, can we actually vote conditionally with those that might get >> again? As long as you're as long as we're very clear on what it is and you don't want to see it again, I mean, it's completely >> Does anybody see a need to have this come to another meeting after this? I
think those are too simplistic that we can add and >> Yep. >> then it goes. >> That's fine. >> Okay. >> So, we can, you know, motion second. >> So, moved. >> Second with the amendments. >> Yes. Uh, chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher,
>> yes. >> Council member Vroom, >> yes. >> Jason Krasa, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> John Manilio, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Bill Kale, >> yes. >> His microphone.
>> Phil has found his microphone. >> Is somebody here in the military? >> All right. Um, other than that, all right, I'm going to open up the meeting to the public uh for anything that was not on the agenda. We have no public, so I will close public session. Uh, motion
to adjurnn. >> So moved. Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All opposed?