Borough Council - Regular Meeting

This meeting is called to order in accordance with the open public meetings law in accordance with chapter 231 of the public laws of 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. This meeting of April 20th, 2026 was provided to the Courier News and Somerville Ledger and placed on the borough's website and placed on the bulletin board of Borough Hall. A copy of this notice is available to the public and a copy of the statement shall be included in the minutes of this meeting. Mayor Gallagher is excused this evening. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Here. Andrew Conty. Here. Glen Denee. Here. Randy Pitts. Here. Gina Stravic. Here. Roger Vroom.

Here. Please stand for the salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance 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. I'll uh go through the department notices effective April 1. Garbage bags of solid waste are no longer allowed to be placed on the curb for pickup without being placed in an appropriate garbage receptacle. Uh the new hauler starts on or about May 1st. In April 2026, the tax office will have extended hours until 6:30 on the following Wednesdays to better accommodate residents during the tax season. So, April 22nd, April 29th, May 6th, July 22nd, July 29th, August 5th, October 21st, October 28th, and November 4th. Election district number three will be moving from Somerville High School on Davenport Street to the Somerville Rescue Squad, which is 135 West High Street. Election district eight is moved from Lincoln Hose on Warren Street to this location, the Somerville Civic Center on 24 Robeson. The Memorial Day parade will be held on May 25th, uh assembling at Culver and East High Street at the monument at 8:15 a.m. followed by the Tour of Somerville also on Memorial Day. Uh so, obviously expect delays and detours. Committee reports. I will start with Andrew. Uh historic advisory committee did not have a chance to meet this month, but we did all get together for the um zoning board meeting and talked about the preservation of historic buildings uh and their importance to our downtown and historic districts.

Thank you, Gina. The uh rescue squad uh responded to 145 calls in March. Uh through this time uh April, they've been dispatched for 78 calls. Um the um Board of Health um will meet the third Wednesday of May. Um they um have been working on various things, um but they will be um working with the Puppy Palooza program on Sunday uh doing vaccines. So, um the they are working together with uh the folks at at Borough Hall. So, um thank you to all the volunteers on those two committees for all they do. Thank you, Glen. Great. Thank you. Uh the fire department's been very active. They had 55 service calls in March including some outside fires, activated alarms, an elevator rescue, and a weather-related emergency. Uh just last Sunday on April or sorry, two Sundays ago on April 12th, the members uh cleaned up the training tower and participated in some other drills as well. So, we thank them for their service. I know they've also been busy with some calls recently, too. Uh as you mentioned, Tour of Somerville will be held on Memorial Day after the parade. Uh it's the 81st running. Uh it's the uh premier uh bicycle racing in the country, and there is an enhanced community zone that will be able to you'll find it between Bridge and Grove Street and lots of other improvements to that. So, keep your eyes out as uh some of the swag and other things will be coming out as well uh related to the Tour of Somerville. And then, uh the environmental commission. Uh we met last week uh right here, and we want to invite all of you to come out and celebrate Earth Day on this coming Saturday, the 25th, uh for a town-wide cleanup. We'll be meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Division Street, and we'll disperse from town there, help clean up, and then come on back to uh celebrate sustainability with some local vendors and organizations for our green fair from 11:00 to 2:00 also on Division Street uh come rain or shine. Additionally, uh the whole weekend,

Friday through Sunday, will be instituting a town-wide swap. We've done this in the past couple years. It's helped a lot keep a lot of things out of landfills. So, if you have some gently used items um that might find a new home rather than the trash bin, uh you can put them out on the curb and uh people can take and swap them. And then, uh anything that's left, we do ask you to bring in on Sunday, however, and find a suitable place to donate it. So, environmental's been busy. Thank you. Thank you. Teresa. Thank you. Um so, the Somerville Public Library is celebrating National Library Week all week. Um there will be great programs for our kids and adults ending with a concert by the Somerville School of Rock that will take place on Saturday, the 25th, from 12:30 to 1:30. The Library Board of Trustees quarterly meeting will be held this Thursday evening here at the Civic Center at 6:30 p.m., and the public is welcome to join. Thank you. Thank you, Randy. Thank you. Just a quick reminder, the Somerville Police Department is asking residents who have ring cameras or other home security to consider registering them. This is completely voluntary. No one has access to your system. It's It simply helps our police know where where the cameras are if anything happens and they need to follow up. You can register right on the borough website under virtual community watch. It's a small step, but it goes a long way in helping us look out for one another in keeping Somerville safe. Thank you. Thank you. Uh from the Somerville recreation, uh senior real estate seminar is going to be held on May 13th as part of the 2026 senior programming. Uh the Frank Quinn Family Fun Ride, which is before the uh big Tour of Somerville race, uh that registration is also currently open. Pool memberships are available now, and uh you can register for that as well. And Junior Pioneer Baseball Clinic with Coach

Nevolo uh will also be uh is also available for registration under 2026 summer programs. So, with that, uh we have the uh public hearing of the 2026 budget, but we have to uh have a amended first before we can do our hearing. Uh so, the amendment, and Page, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is just some um Oh. Okay, that's fine. All right. So, uh motion for the public hearing? So moved. Second. Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Conty. Yes. Glen Denee. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic.

Yes. Roger Vroom.

Yes. So, the public hearing on the uh on the budget is open. If you have any comments, you can approach the microphone, state your name and address. Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Dennis Sullivan, 8 South Richard's Avenue. I would strongly encourage the council to adopt the introduced budget. Uh I've been reading online and in the papers for the last several weeks about the uh local and school budget proposals throughout the area. And um some market increases this year. Uh today, at Piscataway, announced and Piscataway's got a lot of ratables, a lot of resources. Their borough taxes are going up $89. Bridgewater, just to our north, again, a community with a lot of resources, is going up $151. And to my understanding, the introduced budget here called for $27 increase. That's pretty good. And I think it's important for the public to understand that a budget for this fiscal year doesn't happen by accident. It It really it goes back probably several years, if not a decade. So, it's a cumulative effect. So, the fact that the budget this year is extremely responsible and manageable, it I think is a testament to anyone that sat in those seats since the turn of this century. So, I would strongly urge you to support the budget with the necessary amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments on the budget? Motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second? Discussion? Roll call? Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conti? Yes. Glen Denee? Yes.

Randy Pitts? Yes. Gina Stravic? Yes.

Roger Verm? Yes. Uh next up we have uh amending the 2026 municipal budget. I'll kick that to you, Paige. Is this on? I guess so. Yeah, okay. Um so, we just had to make some minor housekeeping changes for this amendment. We had um $200,000 outside of the cap um for the reserve for reval because we're going to be doing a reval ordered by the county. So, rather than raise it in an emergency over 5 years, we are putting it in a reserve so that we don't have to do that. So, we had it outside the cap, the state wanted it inside the cap. That's basically why we're amending the budget. So, it is inside the cap and then we had three grants that we added since we were doing the amendment anyway. And uh that's that's the extent of the amendment.

And it does not change the bottom line. not change the bottom line. Fantastic. Um so, motion to amend the 2026 municipal budget, item 138. So moved. Second. Discussion? Council members, I'm sorry. You're fine. Go ahead. Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conti? Yes. Glen Denee? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Gina Stravic? Yes. Roger Verm? Yes. Uh so, now uh with the amendment, motion to approve the 2026 municipal budget and user-friendly budget. So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conti? Yes. Glen Denee? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Gina Stravic? Yes.

Roger Verm? Yes. Uh next up we have a item for discussion. This was a a going to be uh a resolution at a previous meeting, 2799-26-0420, amending Article 7, Chapter 5 of the borough code by adding Section 5-67, which is establishing a public art advisory board. We're open for discussion.

Yes. Yeah. Why is this necessary? Per our current ordinances, public art is something that falls under DSA and if it's downtown. I know we have Arts on Division, it's another organization that we've designated, Charter Arts. I also generally think the government should not be dictating anything about art um and just let property owners that want to put up whatever murals or paint their house whatever colors or put up a statue in their It's it's not for us to say one way or the other, help people express themselves. I'm just curious as to the need for establishing a new, additional, third public art advisory body uh in town. Certainly. And I'll I'll throw this to Kevin because I know these these Excuse me, these discussions came up previously. Sure. Thank you, Councilman. The um So, there was a discussion uh adding this um changing the municipal code to include that really for several purposes. We have obviously the ARB. They they focus pretty much on signage that comes in front of the planning board so they the applicant does not have to go to a full planning board meeting um to to do that. And and their expertise is in that area, the signage. Um the DSA is predominantly focused within the special improvement district. Um we do have another arts group that's not affiliated with the municipality, Some of Us Art. Um and and they have their own mission as well. The idea of this was as the municipality continues to grow, whether it be in development or whether it be open spaces or just in general, to look at areas in which we can infuse art into either development or or elsewhere. And to have the idea of the folks sitting on this would be they would be um very very much in that space of art art, whether it be sculptures, digital art or

or or hand art, whatever it may be. Um for the most part, uh government employees we don't they don't necessarily possess those skills. Um but the idea of this committee was to look at areas in which we can somehow add more art to the municipality. Um in any way, whether and and that we talked about with this group, maybe anytime the municipality goes uh anytime there is an opportunity for a development to occur to infuse that mandate into into that, whether is a if there is a tax incentive to ensure that uh those properties are are putting up properties that also would engage the public from an artist's point of view. But they that that was the idea of the committee. There's no one slated to be on the committee. The idea would be um people would submit resumes and and just like we do with all our other committee like you do with all your other committees, evaluate those resumes and determine whether that person fits uh the cate- fits in that category well. Yeah, that was my next question is who gets to appoint the members of this advisory board? Is it mayor only? Is it council? Is it So, I I actually wrote the ordinance um and I just followed the kind of the the template that the borough form of government tends to follow. It's not mandatorily statutorily required um but generally the mayor makes an appointment and and the governing body, the council uh consents to that appointment. So, therefore, if the mayor if the mayor was to appoint someone that the council didn't agree with, the council doesn't consent and vice versa. If if the council wanted someone that the mayor particularly didn't want on the boards, um then then the mayor doesn't make that appointment. So, basically everybody has equal authority. It's pretty consistent with most of our committees with exception to the ad hoc committees. The ad hoc committees are usually mayoral appointments and the other statutory appointments like the board of

adjustments, the council appointments like that. So, I just followed kind of uh pretty much how your appointment structure works in in the in the code book. This is not an wouldn't be an ad hoc committee. This would be a a an committee established by ordinance. Um you know, and and we do um for the most part, not to get too lengthy is is there's areas that that we could certainly from a government side um you know, use some expertise in that area, a committee to kind of help um guide or or provide some policies on on on on the on whether it be murals or sculptures and so forth. Question. Are there any limitations to the appointees? Um I I don't think it uh I have to recall I it's not limited to I don't think it's limited to residents, to be honest with you. Are there term limitations? Oh, there are no term limit limitations. There So, what happens is it's a 1-year appointment. I guess that's the term limitation. It's a 1-year appointment that would be renewed every year similar to some of the committees. Um I know Councilman Pitts and I talked over the weekend. If if the governing body wanted to stagger terms or or make them 3-year terms, we can make that adjustment in the ordinance itself. Or you could establish a committee and they can make those recommendations. And could we keep it to residents? We We just I would love to see people that have skin in the game. Sure. That that would be entirely up to um Yeah. Yeah, they I think the vision originally was just a you know, we it wasn't talking about residency, it wasn't talking about um it was looking for people that are expertise somewhat expertise in that space. And Kevin, this was also uh

something that would be inclusive of areas outside of the SID as well. It wasn't just uh concentrated on downtown. That that's correct. It would be a borough-wide

why it would go beyond the DSA's purview. So, I think it's 2 years ago now we had a public [clears throat] meeting and we talked about what we wanted the police station to be. It was a visioning meeting. And the consensus from the community who came out was that they wanted it to be uh some type of arts center, um music, dance, that type of thing. And you mentioned development. Does this tie into finding someone to fund and and build and run a art center for our community? No, no. When I mentioned development, it was currently right now a developer or builder uh appears in front of the planning board. Usually a discussion about arts is not had at that board. Um it's about the construction, the building, and so forth. Um this group would this committee would basically, you know, talk about that development and maybe there's an opportunity to add um you know, art space on the roof or or maybe maybe there's a public walkway where you publicly walk through the building that's available to to to the public. Discussions of that nature would take place. Or or they could simply, you know, um request, you know, a sculpture in the back or something that that um would lend itself to a more um public space where people would come in even though it was a private development and and be able to um enjoy the uh opportunity for public spaces. Um and and and it could also be in a park. It doesn't have to necessarily be on development. But when you talk about the visioning, that was strictly a development vision. Um think I think it's it's more than that. This is more than that? They more than that when it comes to the artist space.

Because I thought you just said it was less than that. It wasn't for development. You said it was

that it was not for the redevelopment of a of a space itself, but for the allowance and the review of art that would might go into public space. That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. Right now there's no, you know, the idea again was to look at opportunities where where public spaces, and not just public spaces, private spaces. You know, it's very common in certainly urban areas to to position the municipality in a in a in an in a location where where where a developer or private investor could add arts into whatever they're doing. And right now I that that's, you know, there's no one that's that that that committee's lacking. It doesn't exist. And I and I think you know, based on the the statutes we had a few years ago, and then there was also the installation on the courthouse lawn, I think the thought was that to try to institutionalize some of this, to try to help um increase Somerville's destination possibility and have some, you know, some framework for how those arts are are laid out. But you know, I think performing arts is a different that's not under this. That's a separate thing from this.

Thank you for clarifying. Yeah. Sorry about the The DSA will continue to do. Right now they have a grant out for for a mural. They'll continue to do their work within the special improvement district. It it it's a collaboration borough-wide. Would this as a as any other board we have or this require a councilperson to sit on it? The ordinance doesn't read that way. It could certainly be amended to reflect that. If that's a desire, this is an intro um I'm sorry, this is a discussion, so we don't need an introduction. Right. So what if you if if staggered terms, if if residency requirements, if if a governing body member sit on, those are the things I could put into the ordinance uh prior to introduction. Pretty good. Worthy discussion. Fantastic.

Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. All right. With that, we're going to move on to opening up the meeting to the public um for public comment session. Do I have a motion to open public? So moved. Second. Discussion? Roll call. Councilmember Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contente. Yes. Glen Denee. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Streva.

Yes. Roger Brun. Yes. Public comment section is open. Please direct your comments to me. And we will address them at the conclusion. Is this just for that ordinance? This is this is the open public session. So this is for everything right now. We will have public hearing on the items in number 13. But right now this is open public comment. Oh. Number 13 is the ordinances. Okay. Yeah, they all of the storm water and everything else that's coming up. The public hearing for that is coming up. Right now this is just the general public comments. Seeing none, going once, going twice. Sir? There's a lot of folks here. Give it people on people watching on YouTube don't know. I just your name and name and address here.

Sure. Timothy Cullen, 285 West Summit Street. So my question is we've just changed the disposal company, and now the garbage has to has to be inside of, I'm assuming, one of these green containers. My question is we've never really just been limited to only two containers. There's always the containers, plus you could have a bag next to it. How do we what's the plan for the the neighborhood or plan for Somerville when somebody has a third bag, but not another container? I mean I I don't have a five containers in my backyard. I only have the two that we're normally allowed, and then you were allowed an extra bag. How are we disposing of that extra material if I don't have another container? So right now this is comments, so we'll take your comment and I'll address it at the conclusion. Okay, great. Thank you. You got it. Any other comments for the public session? Seeing none, motion to close public. So moved. Second. Discussion? Councilmember Teresa Bonner. Yes.

Andrew Contente. Yes. Glen Denee. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Streva.

Yes. Roger Brun. Yes. Public session is closed. So the [clears throat] cans the whole concept behind the cans, and I know that there's been a lot of confusion out there on all sorts of, you know, various social media websites. The display that we did a couple meetings back was just to talk about a sturdy type of can. The the bid that we put out discussed because a lot of companies are moving to single operator and arms. Those were just again displays. As far as the bags go, I have a 96-gallon toter that I've had for the better part of 10 years now. There's five of us in my house, and I've I've counted on one hand the amount of times that I've had to throw out another bag. Usually what I do in those kind of circumstances, I'll just go to my neighbor and say, "Hey, do you have room?" And vice versa, I know that I have found or I've had a text, you know, in the middle of the night saying, "Hey, can I throw a a bag in in your trash for you there?" So I I understand that it it seems limiting. The whole point was to to show that with some of these more sturdy cans that are out there, that it would eliminate the need for that. And there are other things that that we can discuss down the line. I know folks there are looking for, you know, um mass disposal days and things along those lines. Those are comments that that can be brought up later on. But as far as things go right now, it is two cans up to 75 lb, but in all honesty, if you fill up that 96 gallon, it's going to be a little bit more than that, I would imagine. Um Thank you. The the um Yeah, so the the ordinance for cans was a 2024 ordinance.

Yes. Um which went into effect in the beginning of I think in the beginning of 2025, which the borough just didn't enforce it knowing that it was going to change haulers. We did meet with the new hauler. Um the new hauler plans on operating with a mechanical arm truck on a real load, opposed to what you see out there now. They will have two people on the truck. One will be driving that operates the hydraulic arm, and one will be on the on the rear of the truck. Cuz again, the borough of Somerville does have bulk waste as well, so it lends itself to kind of two people. Um we ran through a demonstration. Um and and and like Council President said, we we were able to fit about six bags in a can. So um the ability to put in a can is greater than the we had before. What what existed before. So um but if if there are those instances, as we've had before, if you had more if you had more bags than you were allowed to throw out, you do have to get a sticker for that. And the the person on the rear of the truck would would pick that up by hand. Um we we don't expect with the increased volume that you're allowed to throw out under the new ordinance, opposed to the old ordinance, that based on our history, we should it appears that we'll be able to get everything into the sturdy cans so they could be left in. Now, there there are questions, and I apologize for taking the time. The the truck lifts the has a hydraulic arm that lifts lifts the can. If the can is a sturdy plastic can and it can't still can't be lifted by the hydraulic arm, that will just get dumped in or picked in like the old time. So the the hauler does start on on May 1st. That's the plan. We felt that with the trial and everything, it appears okay. But again, we we do expect some some issues. There's there's no doubt I we

will struggle with on Main Street in some of the areas that seem to still have bags on the street. We'll work through them. The people will be notified that they during the first beginning of the process that they need to either purchase a can or put it in the can. And then we'll we'll evaluate and we'll we'll communicate via either via Facebook or or directly to that property owner. Our plan is also if you're throwing out something that's that that's not in the can, there'll be a notice placed on it. Even though it will get picked up in the beginning, the property owner will be noticed saying that that was they need to correct that item. And our goal really was to get bags off the streets cuz then you open it up to, you know, possible rodents getting in the bags and things along those lines. So the more we can keep our garbage in the containers for the garbage pickup, the better off we are. All right. Fantastic. Okay. What? You on? Yeah. Okay. I couldn't hear. That's fine. So I I can speak louder. You don't really want that. All right. We have an ordinance for introduction. That is ordinance 2800. And it is eliminating chapter 112 of the borough code entitled newspaper recycling, listing chapter 112 as it will be changed to reserved. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Discussion? Just to be clear, this is we had an ordinance that said you could stack up some newspaper at the curb and we would take it, and now we're since the county picks everything up in their containers, we're now no longer need this provision. Councilman, thank you for clearing that up. The cuz the title is the title in the book and I really can't change that. But yes, that's correct. The The old ordinance says you could throw newspapers out on the curb and someone will pick it up. This is the just a very very dated ordinance that was found while we were doing some research that we had to get off the books. Thank you.

Roll call. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Conty. Yes. Glen Dene. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic.

Yes. Roger Furn. Yes. Uh now we come to the ordinances for public hearing and adoption. Uh the first one for public hearing is 2791. That is amending schedule 12B of the borough code to add a mid-block crosswalk on Park Avenue. Do I have a motion to open public comment? So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Conty. Yes. Glen Dene. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Furn. Yes. So public hearing is open on 2791. Seeing none, move to Oh. My apologies. Name and address. Hello, yes. Jeff Kaiser, 23 Vanderveer Avenue, Somerville. So, this is So, there are going to be some white lines basically going across the street. That intersection right before when you turn from Main Street onto Park Avenue, the the lines are really rough in that section anyways and cars come, you know, pretty quick off of Main Street onto there. Is there any consideration of maybe adding some sort of like, you know, painting to that portion as well since we're adding, you know, doing some some some painting on on there as well. So, just wanted to bring that up. Maybe we could address that at the same time. So, I can tell you um right now a temporary paint job has been done. Uh as a matter of fact, the lines for the mid-block cross on Park Avenue already there. Um it's been already sprayed out. The existing crosswalk at the end of Park Avenue that meets up with Main has also been sprayed over again. Um thermal paint will be done once PSE&G is done with the road um because with the PSE with with PSE&G coming through to rip everything up, it thermal painting is expensive. So, right now it has been touched up. It would it's much better than it's been um but it right now it's just a temporary fix to highlight that there's actually a

crosswalk there. So, thank you for that comment. Thank Thank you. Any other uh comments for or during this now? All right. Motion to close public hearing on this ordinance. So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Conty. Yes. Glen Dene. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Furn. Yes. Motion to adopt. So moved. Second. Discussion. [clears throat] Roll call.

Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Conty. Yes. Glen Dene. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Furn. Yes. Uh the next ordinance for public hearing is 2792, which is chapter 149A {dash} stormwater control. Do I have a motion to open public hearing? So moved. Second. Discussion. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Conty. Yes. Glen Dene. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Furn. Yes. Yes, public hearing is open. Please approach the mic, name and address. Good evening. Uh Timaree Deal, 76 Culver Street. Um Hi guys. Uh chair of the Somerville Environmental Commission. Um thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I prepared um something so I'm pretty much just going to read it. Um the Environmental Commission has spent considerable time with this ordinance. Um I want to share a little bit of our perspective specifically on four enhancements um that to my knowledge were not addressed during the planning board phase and are not reflected in the ordinance before you tonight on the agenda. Um the ordinance that you're voting on um adopts the real rules um which they are a meaningful step um in the right direction and are much better um you know, in enhancement of what we have um currently in adoption for the the town, but the real rules are really just a floor. They're not a ceiling. Um so, what the planning board sent forward is essentially the updated state minimum requirements for stormwater management um and the Environmental Commission uh we believe that Somerville can and should do more um than just that state minimum um because we are not the average New Jersey municipality when it

comes to flooding and stormwater. Um so, we we need uh we need further than just the minimum. The EC has spent considerable time developing four targeted enhancements grounded in the Watershed Institute's um 2023 enhanced model ordinance that they provided. Um these are not broad rewrites to the whole, you know, 80-some pages of the ordinance. They are specific additions that go further than some of the state requirements and they apply exclusively to major development um already subject to stormwater review and they do not regulate new categories of projects and do not impose any additional costs on homeowners, which um is is a concern for for everybody. Um the four enhancements include uh number one, water quality treatment for all impervious surfaces, not just parking and motor vehicle. Um two, a forested baseline for all pre-development calculations closing the 5-year loophole. Um three, an annual stormwater maintenance permit with inspection reporting. And four, an expanded major development definition that covers all impervious reconstruction. Um as you guys know, to support the council in understanding these measures, which are dense and technical in um in nature, the Environmental Commission distributed an educational video and supporting materials last week on April 15th to each of the council members essentially just outlining the technical basis for these four enhancements in detail. Um so, I I hope you all had the opportunity to to review those ahead of time. Um so, I'm not going to go into to great detail tonight about those four enhancements since you guys were provided those materials um in advance, but I'd like to take a moment to speak about um the cost because I know that

that has been um a concern throughout this process. Um numerous studies have been completed relating to climate disaster impacts um including the National Institute of Building Sciences and the US Chamber of Commerce. Um their findings make a really compelling uh case for actually investing in resilience and mitigation ahead of climate impacts. The most conservative estimates from the NIBS assert that every $1 that we invest right now on resilience and mitigation saves us $6 down the line um in avoided damages, cleanup costs, and economic impact. So, $1 right now in stormwater management efforts really means um pretty pretty solid return on investment down the line for for the the municipality and $6 is the conservative estimate. I've seen seen it um up to $13 um So, really the question is is not whether uh we can afford these enhancements. The question is who pays when we don't adopt them. Um so, that answer is pretty clear. It's the Somerville taxpayer um through infrastructure repair, emergency response requirements, and flood damage that falls on residents um who had little to no say in the development that exacerbated these weather impacts. In addition to these numbers, uh Somerville can leverage annual stormwater maintenance permit fees to offset any borough administrative cost under a state level um law. Uh additionally, a stronger maintenance program qualifies Somerville for FEMA Community Rating System discounts on residents' flood insurance premiums. So,

really this isn't only an environmental um you know, argument. It's a fiscal one as well. Uh So, one of the things that's come up um is how Somerville's flooding is made worse by the runoff that comes from Bridgewater um cuz they the that municipality surrounds us. Um and I'm afraid that that argument has sometimes served as a fallback for inaction. At its core, the argument is correct. We are definitely impacted by Bridgewater's impervious cover. But Manville and Bound Brook are downstream from us. So, how can we ask our upstream neighbors in Bridgewater to do better if we aren't thinking about the communities that carry our own runoff? Stormwater is a regional problem. It doesn't It It does require regional accountability um which is actually an idea that the Environmental Commission included in the draft of our master plan, which is currently under review for the planning board in regards to stormwater management in Somerville. So, this ordinance is really um our opportunity to lead by example um in a region that is um significantly impacted by flooding and storm water. Almost done. Uh Somerville will continue to grow um and that is honestly exciting. Um as a resident here, I love living in Somerville. It's such a great place to live. Um we have such a vibrant downtown and the council, the DSA, the borough administration, um every all of the different entities work really hard to make it both a destination and a really good hometown. There is real roman- there is real momentum here in Somerville and that means that major development will continue to uh come come before the council and the other boards for

approval. Every project that moves forward under the minimum standard for storm water management is essentially a decision that we are making right now uh about what our infrastructure looks like a decade or two from here. I would hate for us to look back after a generation of successful planned growth and realize that we had every opportunity to set ourselves up for success and we didn't take it. Developers will still want to build in Somerville. Our business districts, our transit access, our community itself make it a very attractive market regardless. What we can control is the standard that we hold that development to. We are not trying to stop growth by any means. We are asking that that growth be held accountable for its impact and that it be completed responsibly in the face of weather patterns that are already changing and will only continue to do so. This is not a burden on developers. It's just good planning. Um so the environmental commission is prepared to draft amendment language for all four of these enhancements that were put forth um last week for your review if that level of um input is is requested. Um but for tonight uh we are hoping that we can at least table the ordinance for now and work uh to include some of these enhancements which we feel are very important for our community. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Hello again, Jeff Kaiser, 23 Vanderveer Avenue. Um Hi everybody. Um I'm the vice chair of the environmental commission and I'm a proud volunteer who has a pleasure working with some of the best community

leaders back there and also watching tonight um on the on the EC and also the green team and led by, you know, our fantastic uh chair Tim Marie. Um I hoped you all watched my presentation that I sent out. Um I spent a lot of time on it as the EC has spent a lot of time on it since for the past 5 years since Ida understanding and and working on storm water management. After Ida, I was I was appointed to the ad hoc flood advisory board um set up by Councilman uh Roger Vroom and that was is when my deep dive into storm water management occurred. Since then, through my education in this field, I have driven the effort by the EC to draft a well-crafted storm water ordinance for your consideration and well-crafted storm water educational information for you and the planning board to absorb. So, on a personal note, these are some of the best pieces of work I believe I've done for the town and tonight comes as the conclusion as to now have brought the storm water conclusion and now that you've brought the storm water ordinance up for adoption. During this whole process, I've learned two major things about our borough's government and operation and about its representatives. I've learned how frustratingly difficult it is, especially on such a technical subject such as storm water, to try and have an organized and constructive effort between all the bodies of our government and come up with a well-thought-out result we can be proud of. I believe this ordinance you are set to adopt is a culmination of a government proc- process which is not the standard we should set for ourselves. We can do much better. We should and we will. I've learned that our second, that's number two, I've learned that our two governing bodies, the council, mayor, and planning board, save for, you know, a few people, view their their decisions on storm water through two primary lenses. One, how much extra cost will this create for the homeowner? And two, how much extra cost will this be to any

anyone willing to develop in Somerville? Money. Money does come to my mind as well, but after a few other things. What if you were to read and watch what the EC has said? And what if you were fully understand and believe what it did say? That an increase to in cost to the homeowners actually the result of decreasing the cost to our developers. I urge you to read and understand the four amendments we are proposing and realize that the two primary lenses most of you, not all of you, uh view this issue through are actually at odds with each other. They're inversely proportional. The four amendments the EC is asking you to consider would not increase the cost to our residents since they are dealing with major development. I'd like to make the case that inaction on these amendments would actually increase our cost to our homeowners and our borough as well. Inaction would result in the very thing you're trying to protect. The storms are coming again and we and they'll be stronger. The rain is coming and will be more frequent. And without forward-thinking storm water measurements, we will pay more. Then again, these amendments would likely increase costs to the corporations and people developing in Somerville. And I understand that this might make you nervous or extremely hesitant to adopt such measures such measures since that is your chief concern as you work to shape Somerville into a more vibrant borough. But I think it is prudent of you to weigh the cost of not adopting these four amendments. We ask that you weigh the implications of increasing the cost to developers versus increasing the cost to the homeowners and the borough as our climate will continue to make storms more problematic into the future. Increased rainfall and stronger storms are going to result in the damage in damage to our property and our basements, furnaces, hot water heaters, washing machines, dryers, precious belongings, and damage to the borough's land and infrastructure. All that costs money. So, I simply ask you to consider the cost-benefit of these amendments to the ordinance you are to set to vote on. Controlling storm water volume and

pollution coming from the largest lands and land areas in Somerville would benefit all of us at a cost we can afford. Now that we are a destination town, not a borough desperate for developers' attention. I urge you to give this matter some attention as it deserves now rather than after another large development is built on a flood-prone area in town and after Ida makes you realize that you had an opportunity to act now before the storm rather than after. Thank you for volunteering and spending time doing as doing what you do. I hope you will table this and consider our amendments and then move forward. And let's set a better example for how our government generates comprehensive legislation and leads on solutions to our future problems rather than following minimal standards. Thank you. Thank you. Jerry De Saffio, 46 East Main Street, Somerville. I am one of the elders on the environmental commission. And I First of all, I wanted just express my joy in listening to what you've just heard and the hard work that went into this. I don't know if you're aware of the number of hours spent in this room that room on these issues. But what I want to say, I'm not going to read anything. I'm just going to speak from my heart. Somerville is better than just good enough. New Jersey's regulations are just good enough. The planning board heard us and they said, well, New Jersey's regulations are just the good enough. They're good enough.

We need to be better than good enough. When our country, when this United States was formed by our forefathers writing our Constitution, they didn't say, oh, let's give them a little freedom. It's good enough. Or let's just make two amendments or two articles rather than seven. It's good enough. And when Jefferson wrote the document, the the independence, the Declaration.

Yes. of independence, he didn't say some men are created equal. He said, all men are created equal. They didn't say, let's not give them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let's just give them life. That's good enough. Well, it's not good enough. Somerville deserves more. Our forefathers had the foresight to see 250 years down the road what was necessary and would still be alive. Our people are asking you to look down the road, not just about you today, not just about us. What about your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren? The our Constitution was written for a future. These regulations should be written for a future. The storms are coming. We know it. It's not a mystery. Somerville floods. I lived here I Next week will be the seventh year that I have lived in Somerville. I could have lived anywhere when I sold my house. I have that freedom. I chose Somerville. Why did I choose Somerville? One, it's a it's a community that cares. I drove the streets of Somerville before I even committed to coming here. And I listened and I looked and I walked on Division Street and I loved what I saw. And more importantly, I love what I felt. And I have not been disappointed in living here at all. I'm a part of the Environmental Commission. I'm happy to be that. But I'm a citizen here. And I'm asking you, is a minimum good enough?

I think we're better than that. What do you think? Thank you. Good evening. [clears throat] Jeff Lambourne, 32 Lisa Terrace. Thanks, Jerry. You can kind of see where some of our fire comes from on the commission here. I hope we can [clears throat] kind of learn from our elders. I won't I won't call her that, but we we we learn a lot from from everybody that's on the commission. I'm going to push you one further direction and offer some opportunities that will cost residents money for both regards to stormwater. As a part of that ad hoc flood committee, there have been many developments that have come through in the state since then. One of them is a stormwater utility, and for those who are unfamiliar with that, this is a a tax of sorts on any property in the municipality or whatever even even an example that's occurring now through a couple municipalities, a region, where those costs are shared for how to put the capital improvements, the maintenance, and otherwise adhering to standards that are coming from the DEP or from otherwise for us. This stormwater utility is an option in town. A little bit down the road, Readington, New Jersey, Ruby Red over there, has passed theirs about a year ago. It's nice to see them go through with it. There's other municipalities that have done the same. We put this into our draft of the master plan for the planning board for review because we think that as a region in particular, we can go into the watershed as it is, would be beneficial to jump into this. I think it's a great idea because it holds any property that has impervious surface or what their development is and accountable. That includes normal non-ratables that are usually non-taxable, county buildings, hospitals, etc.

There's a lot of research left to be done on whether it's the right move, but I believe that a regional collaboration is something that we should continue to do and and further. Bridgewater, who I have personally engaged with, is willing to talk about these ideas. Even going far as far back as 15 years ago, there was a commission called the excuse me, the Raritan Millstone Rivers Flood Control Commission. It's inactive nowadays, but it was a a plea to the Army Corps and the federal government. Let's work on Manville. Let's work on areas that have been decimated by floods and continue to do so. I think we're going to find ourselves in a position every 10 years [snorts] or less where we're having flooding that's significant here. I'd like to propose that the council consider what it means to push forward to have a a review of of what is on the books currently for uh Somerville. I'll read off the communities that were previously on it, Bridgewater, Manville, Hillsborough, South Brunswick, Franklin, Millstone, Rocky Hill, and then the county itself in Somerset. Revisit the idea of pursuing a stormwater utility or some other regional stormwater because what's on the books for us is important, but what we consider abroad from our where the rain goes comes down to us is is important as well. So, I think we can do a little bit better than that and and I do recommend the four enhancements, the four amendments that Jeff and Tim Murray have brought forward. I think those ones in particular are are worth considering. So, thank you. Thank you. Any further comment? Hi. Jenny Mariana Satellius. I'm 23 Reimer Street, Somerville. So, I hear a lot about like the cost being a concern here for this project to implement this this

recommendations. And all I could think about was the flood that already happened here. And it is not about like what we're thinking about yes, the cost, and as a resident, I feel like I'd rather pay a little bit more in my taxes now than knowing that we are damage that is going to be done, but it's not only about all the physical things that get destroyed, you know, with the water, but it's about the lives. Not only how they're impacted, but like we know that people died in the storms. So, I think that I will be happy paying a little bit more in my taxes if I know that I will save lives. And I think that if we are going to be saying like no, the cost is too high, we should understand very clearly how much are we willing to not pay and just live with the consequences of not doing that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other for the public hearing? All right, seeing none, motion to close. Second. Discussion? I would like to thank the Environmental Commission for all their hard work and for the public's uh listening. I know it's a lot. Um I I I don't usually prepare statements, but I I did do a lot of work and a little bit of research. Um based on everything you heard today, I I I will highlight with a couple of things. Um So, know that this ordinance was supposed to be passed in 2024 in a less form. For whatever reasons, it's been kicked around. Um the Environmental

Commission has brought it to forefront um with the new second the second state recommendations, the these real rules which you just heard about. We're remiss and we are not meeting our obligations as a state not having them approved. So, that's the first piece. The other piece I want to remind you of, I did a little research. And as uh Jenny from Reimer Street just pointed out, um we need to think about our future. We need to think about water flooding again. So, FEMA and their website uh states that there have been 14 federal weather disaster declarations from 2011 to 2023 in Central New Jersey alone. And that's just federal FEMA reports. That doesn't include the little flooding that we had, if you remember, this past July when we were spared, but Plainfield got hit and people died. We also um had an occurrence in December 2023 when um our OEM had to respond for flooding in our banks. So, as the Environmental Commission speakers said, these incidents keep going and it's not going to change. And as as Jerry pointed out, the minimum is not enough. Um and Jeff, I'm happy to approach the county again. I did speak to them when I was chair of the Environmental Commission about utilities, stormwater utilities, when they first came out. Um and we can revisit that um as things have only gotten worse. Um So, I can only support this minimum as a temporary um ordinance. And I think we have to do better as as it's been said. Um and temporary in the fact that we want to have something in

place should there be other legislation, other construction, other major development projects coming before us. But but I will um beg my fellow council people here to take the next steps to fix this and make it the strong ordinance that it needs to be to make Somerville the leader in our state and in our region for sound practices. You don't have to beg. Thank you. I don't think you'll have a problem. And I also just want to clear something up. I don't think anybody sitting up here right now is worried about the cost. That's not nobody here right now is worried about it costing us too much to do this. That's not a thing. Just to clarify that. Okay, council members, you have a motion on the floor to close the public hearing. Yes. All right, so you need a on the public hearing, right? Yes. Yeah, okay. Thanks. I I didn't want you to lose sight of where you are.

Kevin. Uh so, let's let's do a roll call and then we'll have uh we'll go on to the adoption. This This is the You had a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. [clears throat]

Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Uh so, now it's a motion to adopt. So moved. Second. Uh discussion. Um I'd like to speak up for a second on this. Uh as an environmental planner by education and a person who works in the sustainability field, I hear everything everybody said and I 100% agree that we should do better. Um but at this time, what we have on the books is not enough and between the time it would take us to get the amendments fully integrated uh that you're asking for, if we tabled it this evening, there may or may not be new applications that could skirt around and use the old rules, which again are not enough at this point. So, I would recommend and when the reason I made the motion was so that we could get this minimum in place uh and then I think we also need to discuss enhancements to that s- very quickly. So, um my comment is merely uh I hear what everyone's saying. I 100% agree and more. We need to do more to give the water a place to go that's safe and free of people. Uh and we need to do more to make sure the water doesn't end up in Peter's Brook immediately uh or in everybody's street immediately. It needs to be retained especially by the largest, most impervious properties uh for as long as humanly possible before it impacts flooding throughout the municipality. Uh but without these rules that are in front of us tonight, uh it will only be worse uh if someone decides to try and build something monstrous in the meantime or apply for it, let's say. So, that being said, uh as I said, I make a motion that we pass this tonight. I I would like to say to the members of the Environmental Commission, thank you. I've said it before uh when you guys came through previously, the time that's

spent putting this forward and working on it uh it's immeasurable and this town is better because of the volunteers that are a part of it uh and that is the absolute truth. Um you know, some of us end up here and some of us keep doing the work behind the scenes, but it's all appreciated and that can't be over- understated. Um uh or overstated, I should say, excuse me. Uh overstated enough. I will say, sitting on the planning board and and this is important to understand, is that the discussion around stormwater doesn't stop with this ordinance. We're currently looking at the Eastern Central Business District and there's been a very lengthy discussion about Park Avenue and about the area around Veterans Memorial Drive. These discussions are continuing. What the What the water means because it's not just one spot in town, as we all know. Um the planners that planned this beautiful borough knew what they were doing. They looked and they said, "Along the Peter's Brook, we're going to make that parklands." And it's served us well, but now we've got to think about where we're going to in the future, which was an important comment that was made before. Where do we see ourselves? So, it's not just this ordinance. The planning board is considering all of these things and I I do recommend, if you have the opportunity, it's the second and fourth Wednesday of every month, meeting right here in in these chambers at 7 6:00 p.m., sorry, uh to come out. Again, we're having these discussions. We had at the last meeting, we had quite a lengthy discussion about what does the What do the flood waters mean and then what is the zoning in those flooding areas and making sure that our books uh follow what the DEP he classifies as those flood zones. So, this is not We're We're looking at one ordinance right now, but understand that these conversations are existing across everything that we're doing because everyone at this table and at that table understands the impact that water has on our borough. But again, I before we vote, I just want to say again, and I

think everybody in here is a is of course of this, thank you very much for your feedback. Thank you very much for what you have to say. Um and it All of these things are still being considered, so please do not think this conversation is over. Yeah, we're not letting it go. Roll call. Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome.

Yes. Uh I'd like to make a motion resolution from the floor um to direct our planner to draft amendments based on the enhancements suggested by the Environmental Commission and to direct the planning board to review and draft their response to us before the end of May such that we can take this back up this summer and adopt any necessary amendments from here. Second. Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Ran- Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Okay. Uh next up, we have uh ordinance 2793, replacing chapter 159 entitled taxicabs in its entirety with a new chapter 159 entitled taxicabs and transportation network companies. Do I have a motion to open public hearing? So moved. Second. Discussion. Roll call.

Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Seeing none, motion to close. Not here for taxis. So moved. Second. Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Uh motion to adopt. So moved. Second. Discussion. Roll call. Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes.

Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Uh next up, we have ordinance 2795, approving two amended and restated solar lease agreements and authorizing the execution thereof, including associated easement rights. Do I have a motion to open open public comment? So moved. Second. Discussion. Roll call. Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Public comment is open. Seeing none, motion to close. So moved.

Second. Mhm. You got Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Uh motion to adopt.

I so move. Move it. Yeah, second. I'm getting tired. Discussion. Uh I just want to point out again that this is uh solar leases on the landfill to help close the landfill uh finally uh properly and to put solar on top of it so that it can become a community solar project whereby the residents is can uh sign up for that project and receive a savings on their bill a credit uh from that program from the solar energy that's produced. So, not only is this going to provide a lease to the municipality, it will close our landfill uh with state money and money from the developers at zero taxpayer cost to the municipality uh and ultimately provide the benefit of solar energy and savings on your electricity bill should you so elect to participate in the program. So, just want to point out that this is a pretty big win for a landfill that's been not properly closed since 1986 um as long as I've been alive. So, I just want to throw it out there that uh kudos to all that have worked on it. Colin, for all the time that you've put into it uh and I'm I'm glad we're finally here this evening. All right. Roll call.

Council members Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Brome. Yes. Uh for these next three, we're going to be taking them individually, but I would like to ask uh our land use folks to come on down uh to the dais and uh just give a brief before I open up public comment uh for the public hearing, I will ask for just a brief synopsis and then we will open up uh the hearing to the public. So, the first ordinance that will have public hearing and adoption is 2796, amending chapter 102 entitled land use and development article 11 zoning to create the affordable housing overlay AHO-2 zone on block 153, lot 4.22 in the borough of Somerville and provide appropriate development regulations therefore. Uh the block and lot, Kevin, are for that one. 153. For the for 2796. Uh block 153, lot lot 4.22, but that's the um What address is that in town? Well, I apologize. I I I know you have the Mountain Avenue property, you have the the Granits building and and you have the Bell Avenue. I'll just have to look to see what order they're in. Okay. Sorry, I know that was off the cuff. Kevin, 2796 is the Mountain Avenue property.

Great, thank you, Mike. So, this is the Mountain Ave property um almost across from uh the end of uh Brookside Avenue, if I'm not mistaken. Okay, so quick synopsis. Mike, if you I don't know who wants to start. I just want to thank you for allowing us to do this, Mr. President. I'm going to kick it across to Christopher being our affordable housing attorney. But as you know, we've there's a lot of work for the last 18 months gone into this. So, I'll let Chris do the talking. Thanks, sir. Uh Council, good to be back. Christopher Sengewald, Ring on Macello, your affordable housing council. I'll try to keep this um relatively short. Been here several times over the last 18 months. You began in June 2025 with a housing element and fair share plan that set forth the mechanisms that the borough would use to satisfy its affordable housing obligation. And through the course of a number of um procedures, processes, we've reached the point now where under the statute um the amended fair housing act a borough, a municipality needs to adopt the implementing zoning ordinances in order to effectuate that plan. And that's what we're here tonight to finish up the last um approval of the last mechanisms. Uh so, there are three ordinances, and these ordinances are overlays. They overlay the existing uh existing zoning. Uh the Mountain Avenue um is an existing zone. It's simply being modified to increase the density by a small amount from four to six. That's correct. Four to six uh units uh an acre. Correct. Correct. Um all existing all existing um regulations are still in place, and that will capture four additional units. Now, what's important to recognize is that this is not a development commitment to a specific project. If a developer comes

along, as they could always have, and wanted to develop this this parcel, they would have to they could increase their density, and that would capture some additional affordables. If they choose not to, or if they're not able to because of the plan you know, clear in the planning board process that they can't meet a higher density, then there will simply be fewer affordables built on that site, and we'll address that. Uh but this simply meets your obligation to put the zoning in place for the next 10 years so that the property could be could be developed. The remaining Excuse me. So that units can be uh so that there can be a potential generation of units to meet your obligation. Uh the other two's overlays are um the other two's Excuse me, zoning ordinances are similar. One is a Bell Ave it is the zoning for Bell Avenue. That's a specific project that's already been before you with a settlement agreement. And then the remaining uh project is zoning that's tweaks the zone zoning for West Main Street. Uh so, those are those are before you today. With that, you'll we will have completed your fourth round process, and you'll receive a compliance certification. It gives you protection from builder remedy lawsuits through 2035. And I think it's important to note, as you said, there currently is no plan in place for Mountain Avenue. Uh that's right. So, your obligation to put the zoning there if a developer comes along. Correct. Okay. Uh so, at this time we'd like to open up public hearing for uh ordinance 2796. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Roll call. Council member Teresa Bonner. Yes.

Andrew Conty. Yes. Glenn Denney. Yes. Manny Pits.

Yes. Gina Stravic. Yes. Roger Vroom. Yes. Approach the mic. Uh name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Kim Wortman, and I live at 289 West Summit Street in Somerville. I'd first like to thank you for your service to the community and allowing me the opportunity to speak here this evening. Based on my review of the Somerville Borough Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, which was revised February 11th, 2026, and the proposed ordinance for block 153 lot 4.22, I'm submitting the following concerns regarding the potential high density. Respectfully, four to six is high density, and it also represents a significant increase in development. The ordinance allows six dwelling units per acre on a 5.04 acre site. While Mr. Cole's report states it appears there are only 3.3 developable acres, other public records indicate 1.1 acres are wetlands. Which mathematically leaves 3.86 developable acres. Potentially allowing over 23 units. This represents a significant, again with all due respect, a significant increase in density to the original proposal, and constitutes a high density large scale development at this location. So, originally I had um two asks, but actually after listening to the Environmental Commission, I have a different ask. My request is that the borough acquire the space and create a park.

Use green acres to actually create a park. We have significant flooding. I was on council when Floyd came. I don't want to watch more people being pulled out of their apartments and their homes. Now, if you don't do that, I still want to go on record with my other request. My second option, less desirable now after listening to this evening's presentation, is twofold. First, reduce the maximum density. Put a cap of no more than 12 units on that property. You can't fit that many. I I invite you to come. I'll walk the property with you. Please come see what you're proposing. And two, affordable home ownership. Home ownership. I stress that word. Amend the affordable housing component to mandate owner-occupied rather than rentals. And here's my reasons why. So, first, my first option, which is green acres, we're flooding. So, please, whatever you if you need a volunteer to go fill out a grant, I'm your girl. I'll be there. I'll help you. Second, if you don't take that route, the reason for this is there is significant ambiguity with regards to the wetlands. The exact developable acreage is unclear, creating a risk. I know you don't have a developer, but you all know, once you develop the or you know, once you put the ordinance there, it paves the way. All they got to do is show up and comply. So, if six dwelling units per acre is applied to a larger than expected developable area, we're going to be laden with 23 plus homes. Traffic. I don't know how many people, and we love our neighbors at Immaculata, but come down our road on Mountain Ave

and try to get to 22 at 2:35 p.m. in the afternoon when they're dismissing, you can't get down that road. It's a game of chicken trying to get around, and you watch folks going in the other lane. So, this particular property at 165 Mountain Avenue will exit onto Mountain Ave. So, that actual density is going to pour out on top of children who are coming out of school, and individuals who are coming off of 22, and out through town. So, further density is only going to exacerbate the safety hazard. Infrastructure stress. Oh my. The local sewer system, it's already strained with residents, including myself, experiencing necessary infrastructure replacements. I just went through it a month ago. It was horrific, and three of my neighbors have as well. Adding high density units will further overburden the system. Furthermore, the I don't know if you've ever been in that neighborhood, but the surrounding streets don't have sidewalks and limited lighting. This is going to add to an unsafe condition for our pedestrians, and our children who ride their bikes in that neighborhood. And lastly, I know I talked about the affordable housing, but in terms of housing mix, given the numerous high density projects, everyone spoke about it. Great place to be. Everyone wants to live here. We have lots of rental properties. I would encourage you, if you pick option two, which I like door number one, which is the green acres, and I'm going to continue to stress that, is the affordable home ownership ensures a mix of housing opportunities for all our residents. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Any other? Good evening. Henry Hughes from 6 Prospect Drive. Um Ma'am, you took almost all of my available data, but just one thing to add. I did provide further record in for your viewing exhibit A, which is a document outlining the plot and the wetlands there. So, just to add there, 40% of that tract is deciduous wooded deciduous woody wetlands, which does in the which does have a 50-ft setback requirement. So, it's not 3 acres, it comes out to be about 1.44 acres of developable uh land if those setbacks are maintained, putting the density closer to 20 units um per acre rather than the six. If you are if you were in some way to get a total hardship um a total hardship relief and have those setbacks set all the way back to the line, you're now looking at uh a 10 uh lot per acre density, which now not only are you going to have that increased density on that site, you're further stressing the wetlands, further stressing that um with those impervious sur- impervious surfaces. Um so, I won't belabor the point. Just the only additional thing that I'll add is these quotas that are these quotas that were provided with as our um number of units. Uh Somerville should not accept this as a done deal. There's several of our neighbors that have had these quotas adjusted based on improper land allocation. Um Hillsborough is in process of looking to get their quotas um reduced by 50%. Bridgewater has had their quotas um reduced by 11% and uh Raritan has also had significant um reductions in their quotas of this affordable housing. And it's not in it's

not in opposition to affordable housing. It's to provide the fabric of this community to as many people as possible and not have it destroyed by completely changing the density of uh of our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you again, Tim Cullen, 285 West Summit Street. So, I've been on Summit Street for a few years. I think it's coming up on 30. And uh we had a development across the street that was fairly large. And uh the doctor who lived there wanted to split it up and put like six or seven homes on that property with a common driveway, you know? And uh I know that at the time we also had a lot of concerns about it and were against it in the neighborhood because of just changing the whole fabric of the neighborhood from single-family homes to now this fairly dense piece of property. So, ultimately, one home got built on that property. But I will tell you from living across the street, first-hand knowledge, when I used to walk my dog in front of that new home, that that poor person who owned that house must have had four generators in the basement pumping the water that was filling up his basement on a daily basis, whether it rained or it didn't, from the water runoff. And it was coming out to to uh West Summit Street. As you would walk along, for the longest time I thought there was going to be a sinkhole on Summit Street at any particular time because you could physically see what the water was doing to the road where his sump pumps were pump- pumping it out. So, I really uh when the environmental commission folks got up, I was really happy to see that because I will tell you that that area has got such a runoff problem with water. And uh I know that when we saw this property um it took down the house

that was on it, that this was going to end up happening. And uh I really I'm against having high-density housing at this section of town because literally that impervious coverage is going to cause a major um water problem for these homes, the neighborhood, the homes around it. And uh I'm just against having this kind of high-density in that particular area of town. So, thank you for listening. Peter Roos, 190 North Middle Street. Um everyone here has stolen my thunder here, so I I would like to just parrot everything that they said right back at you. Uh one of the things though on this whole thing is initially the concept plan included as appendix F uh of the revised February 2026 housing element shows a proposed disturbance area of just 2.7 acres. The borough's own documents consistently pointed net acreage, yet the ordinance says gross. You know, we could clarify that, too. Thank you. And I don't think anybody is opposed to affordable housing. It's just the density thing that's that's got everyone up in arms. Thank you. I'm Heather Berger, 18 Prospect Drive. Um I echo everyone else's comments and I agree. I'd like to add on to the greenway comment by asking the town to adopt an open space easement over that space so that we can secure for the

future a permanent um ease from potential development and flooding and all that in the area cuz there is a tremendous amount of it. In addition, I'm against the density um for the neighborhood. It's not consistent with the town plan for an R1 district. And you know, really think that if we're talking about maintaining the integrity of the town, um the plan as well that's in the appendix has a lot of flaws. And I just want to point out I great concerns about if you have an HOA, it's not really affordable housing anymore. The cost to maintain a bioretention pond as well as the retention wall and the street, snow clearage, and all the associated really does not allow for affordable housing with that kind of density. Um the other point I'd like to make is what the future development is for the remainder. Um as they mentioned, the gross not net is a problem. Um and 165 is not the only address in that section. Um the Mountain Avenue or the Prospect Drive uh property carriage house is also part of that lot. So, I would like to know what the intent of it's going to go all the way through to the depth of the neighborhood. Cuz as you said, this is not final, so there is the potential for that overflow high-density to go deeper into the neighborhood. As well,

[snorts]

um the tree canopy is an issue. There's a lot of old-growth trees and there's a significant amount of tree canopy in that area. So, raising all of that for new development, I think would be a huge detriment to the community. So, those are my additions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh good evening. Rick Proctor, uh 2 Prospect Drive. Um I everyone else has pretty much said everything, but I just want to uh note one thing. Um I live my property is right behind that property that we're speaking of. I back right up to it. Uh recently I tried to extend my driveway, go through permitting to extend my driveway. Um asked if I could use stone. Um just extend it like 30 ft by 10 ft, and I was denied because of impermeable surface uh surfaces and stuff like that. Um this property, like Henry pointed out, could add 20 properties, which could be 20 houses, 20 driveways, 20 decks, 20 just covering that over. I don't understand how, and I'm not asking you to answer this question, but the flooding in that area is terrible. And that's why they wouldn't allow me to put stone down. And stone is permeable. Like the the water can go through the stone, but it's not going to be able to go through all this. I also like to point out, as you said, the um property is right across from Brookside Apartments, which as we know, it floods all the time anytime there's storm issues, and Peterbrook Peterbrook's is right there. Um adding and developing this this area is just going to continue make that, you know, flooded even worse. Um so, I just wanted to add that cuz I'm right there and I see it happen all the time, so. Thank you. Thank you. HI, TERESA ANGRISANO, 190 NORTH MIDDLE STREET. Um everybody did such a great job and basically said everything I

wanted to say, but I just had a couple things. I had looked at about um the potential for um tax assessments. And um I'm going to read to you. In summary, this is a summary. As zoning changes can lead to an increase in the tax bases of properties, resulting in higher property taxes. And it just said property owners should be aware of these potential changes and may need to respond strategically to protect their investments. So, I don't know how that would be, but or in the future. That was one of the points I wanted to make. Um I also wanted to say that about a week ago, um I witnessed I was coming up from 22, and Immaculate was picking up they were getting an early dismissal, I think, but again, it was a very dangerous situation that someone was trying to turn left while it was probably way past Rubin Estate. Cars were waiting to go into the parking lot um into the parking lot. And a car two cars behind me passed me and the car that was waiting to go left and almost got hit head-on by a car coming down. Um I called the police department, asked them about it, and they said they had to do some kind of traffic study. Uh years ago there was one, but anyway, I again, it's just going to be a I think there's going to be a safety issue the for the children that walk there. Um there's only one way in and one way out of that of the estate. Um so, I just wanted to Tim already touched on that, but I just wanted to say something about that. And um my other thing is a couple of my neighbors that are abutted to the property have had constant water in their basements and they're that's we already people already talked about that but that's something we wanted to bring up that they said that their basements flood all the time. So, the development it just, you know, if they're taking away the the trees and everything that it making it, you know, not semi-permeable or whatever it will cause an issue. But I just want to go on record that um you know, that I'm not opposed to affordable living but a density will be a problem. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Any further? I You get one, unfortunately.

Oh, really? Yeah, it's only one per person. I'm sorry. Good evening. I'm Brett Radi. I live at 289 West Summit Street in Somerville. Um just a quick ask. So, obviously, you know, we all pay uh portion of the county open space tax. So, I'm not sure the last time the borough received uh funds from that particular uh tax, but I would ask if you would be kind enough as the council president uh to reach out to the uh commissioners at the county to see if there's any way that we could acquire that uh space uh through the open trust uh uh county tax fund. I'm sure we don't have a big enough trust fund at the at the local level um to to accommodate that ask, but I was wondering if you could approach the county and see if we could purchase or if they could purchase that property on our behalf or even consider eminent domain at some point if that's if that's a possibility. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comment on this ordinance? All right. Motion to close? Second. Council members, True Sabatino? Yes. Andrew Contti? Yes. Glenn Dene? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Gina Strabuc?

Yes. Roger Firm? Yes. Uh so, I will say that, you know, uh obviously, we hear what you're saying and I think it's important to go back to the testimony from uh Mrs. Zingara is that anything that would be built on that property would have to follow all of our zoning guidelines and that refers to wetlands and that refers to all of the other different things uh that would come before the planning board, for example. The planning board or would still hear this application if it was a conforming use um whether it's whether depending upon the size. And again, there is no plan at this point and I think that's that's the most important piece. But as far as traffic studies, it's part of planning. You have to present a traffic study to the planning board and they consider that in the application. Uh storm water management is part of your planning board application. Density is part of your planning board application. Um and that's that is the key thing that I I do want to make sure that everyone understands is that it all goes through that process and just because it says that there can be a certain density in there does not mean that it'll necessarily make that density based on the environmental features of that piece of property and I think that that's an important piece. Um Mike, would you like to speak to Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Um the density that the zone stays intact with the only exception it's single family, same bulk standards with the exception of the density and the borough frankly has no control over the density because the COAH round three presumptive minimum presumptive density is six units per acre. So, it has to be six acres per units per acre. Right now, it's four. So, uh to back this up, it's the only developable lot in round four identified in the vacant land analysis. Since it was identified as vacant land,

you have to come up with a plan to address that. So, the fair that's why the the borough had it on the the fair share plan. So, the density right now, the R1 zone is roughly four units per acre, 10,000 square feet. The R2 is 7,000, roughly 6,000, 7,000. So, the borough has no choice but to change the density because the COAH round three rules require six units per acre. So, that's where the six units per acre came from. Now, regardless uh the storm water management, the wetlands, the flood hazard evaluation, all that stuff has to comply with. RSIS, everything has to comply with. Traffic, everything. Regarding the question of home owners association, it's typical that any development here, be it four units, seven units, 12 units, it's going to have storm runoff. That runoff has to be treated on property and it's common to have a home owners association to take care of the storm water management facilities. So, it's a vision that they're fee simple lots, single family with common space. The common space is going to have some vision, some type of storm water management, hence the reason for a home owners association to maintain the common ground. That's why that language is in there. The language is identical with the existing bulk standards with the exception of the density and the borough has no control over that density. It has to be six. It can't be five, can't be four and a half, it has to be a minimum of six units per acre. So, what you have in front of you is the minimum requirements by the statutes in front of you that's required and it's still single family. It's not multi-family. It maintains the integrity to the extent possible in the R1 single families. And back to it says four units, uh the the housing element fair share plan says you round up. So, if you have

12 units, you're going to generate three units of affordable. Why? Because it's more than two. 2.1, 2.2 goes to three. So, it says four, but in reality, if it's nine units, it's going to be two units of affordable. It's going to be 20% of whatever ends up being developed there. And what's going to be developed there we don't know, but it has to follow all the statutes that we're all aware of. Correct. And I I think there was another comment made about whittling down our numbers. Uh the three folks that are in front of you and uh Mr. Saluka did a lot of work uh through mediation to get our number down as low as it is because I think that there was quite a large number thrown out at one point. Mrs. Zingara, what was that number? Um Well, I'll just quickly say that numbers are were recommended by the state. We started there and then municipalities like the borough that have an insufficient amount of developable land have the opportunity opportunity to take a vacant land adjustment and that substantially reduced what you affirmatively have to plan for. And so, um I I Mike, do you have the exact numbers?

It was in the 300s and it took a few months ago from 320 or 340. This is what fair share housing was at. There was a To answer the question, there was an assertion made by fair share housing that the borough had to satisfy round one, two, and three and that number was I think Collins said it was 330 or 340. And that number went from 340 [clears throat] to around 100. Uh and then the fair share plan took the vacant land adjustment and got it down to a much more manageable number, essentially. So, we've they've done the work and that's important to understand is that this this has been again as as Mr. Zingara said in the beginning, we've been going through this for over a year now. Um and it's an it's important to really clarify and Mike did a great job of that that zoning still conforms and that we are held by uh by state factors, unfortunately, for for uh what the recommendation not even the recommendations for what they require. Uh motion to adopt. Can I ask two questions? Me, too. Well, let's Motion to Motion to adopt. Motion. Uh so moved. Discussion. Uh Chris, can you explain to us what a that? Yeah. Uh so, the way the the way the affordable housing um process works is that if a municipality does not have a plan that satisfies its constitutional obligation for a housing cycle, which is typically uh a 10-year period, um if you do not have a court-approved plan, a builder can approach the municipality with a proposed alternative plan for satisfying an obligation. If your obligation is 100 units, your obligation 70 units, well, uh the ball's in the developer's court as to how large a

project they can provide um if the courts find that you don't have a compliant plan that's been certified by the courts, they then move on to the stage of awarding a builder's remedy um and they strip the zoning authority out of the municipality's hands and apply uh and determine what project should be placed. Um and so, that builder's remedy lawsuit, that be that that risk begins as soon as the court finds that you don't have a compliant plan and we have pretty strict statutory deadlines this round. Right. So, just to be clear, theoretically, and I hate working in hypotheticals, but let's just think if we take an inaction on this and don't do it and we have this as our only vacant property in land in our borough that can be developed into affordable housing, a developer could show up, a court could give them the ability because we didn't comply to recommend whatever they want even though it wouldn't meet our zoning requirements and we could end up with a tower that fits 70 to 100 units, all affordable housing as opposed to developing a neighborhood that is 20% affordable housing that has to meet the underlying zoning requirements. Uh that's kind of well, to some degree, the trade-off we're looking at with this ordinance tonight. If you don't have a compliant if you don't have a compliant plan, that's the builder remedies are are always out there ready to be brought. The argument would be the borough is not meeting its constitutional obligation. Therefore, the developer wanted to do multi-family. Right. They could certainly make the case and say, "Court, we have the need. The borough has a need for 100, and this is how I'm addressing it." Right. And I'm I'm new on council newest on council, so I cannot explain by any means why other councils prior to this have not taken up affordable housing, but I'm happy to be part of a group that is taking it up. Uh but I do have the question that it was raised, and I don't disagree with it might be a great idea. We passed this ordinance in order to make sure that we

are compliant and are and within our requirements. Um is there anything to stop a future council from making such a decision to raise the money through funds of grants or otherwise to turn part or all of this into an conservation easement or a park? I'll just give a really fair legal answer. That's a complicate It's a very complicated process, and I only say this uh there's going to have to be a lot of moving parts. You're going to have to You certainly could raise those funds, and what you'd have to do is make sure that you work to ensure that there are other properties, that you're amending your plan. So, there's going to be some procedural hurdles um or steps to get there, but that's a process you could discuss and um certainly pursue. It have to go back to the court. You have to amend your plan. So, there are definitely steps along the way.

meantime, we'd have to hope that a developer doesn't show up with something compliant. on the property until we purchase it. Essentially. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Concerns? Well, my question the same was could we still pursue open um space uh funding if we [snorts]

approved it? Um and you're saying yes, but it'd be difficult. You know, I'm I'm certainly as to the open space funding, I'm not going to comment on the procedures for acquiring open space. What I'm saying is that if the borough chose to pursue the acquisition of this land, it would need to make sure that it followed all the all the We need to make sure it follows a path to speak with Fair Share Housing Center, to speak with to go before the court, to amend its housing element. Were it to simply unilaterally choose to simply purchase this property, effectively removing it from its plan, that would complicate But we could find a trade-off somewhere else.

Yeah, you have to come up with the four units. The housing element plan would have to come up with the four units somewhere else within the borough. Got you. Right. One last quick question kind of building off of what Gino's Councilwoman's mentioning. Uh could private citizens or a private organization or a nonprofit decide to collectively go out, collect the money, and themselves purchase the property to keep it from being developed into what is written here? Theoretically. Theoretically, yes. The process is in 5 years from now, the borough has to give an update to the courts on where we are where the borough is in supportive housing. So, if we're not making the numbers or the anticipation, it will have to be addressed at some point to answer your question. Is the number 40 units? No, it's four. Is it Could it be Is that a huge hurdle? In my opinion, no. Thank you. And as part of this process, as Mike said it before, we had to do a land assessment, and we had to have a plan for all vacant land. So, this had to go to the state, and where we sit right now was achieved through multiple rounds of mediation to get to this point. Yeah, and it's been expensive. All right. Roll call. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gino Stravic. Yes. Roger Vern. Yes. Uh next on the agenda is 2797, which is amending chapter 102 entitled land use and development article 11 to create the affordable housing overlay 1 AH01 zone on block 127 lot four in the borough of Somerville, and provide the appropriate development regulations therefore. Quick overview on this one, gentlemen. Sure. This is a implementation of the

zoning for previously um settled a for property that was part of a challenge to our affordable housing plan. This zoning implements the This implements the zoning for to make that project possible on Bell Avenue. That was a settlement agreement was previously brought to you at the last council meeting that incorporated this zoning, and this was This zoning was developed through a very complicated extensive negotiations and court meeting court mediation. And so, we're here on the second reading. Thank you. Uh motion to open to public? So moved. Second. Roll call. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contti. Yes. Glenn Dennehy. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Gino Stravic. Yes. Vern. Yes. Uh public session is open. Would like to approach the microphone. Can I ask that someone else go first? Yeah, every Once I open it back up, everybody gets a fresh start. But unfortunately, we can't come up and then sit back down and come up. Yeah, no problem. Same question. Uh Rick Proctor, two Prospect Drive. Um just cuz I'm ignorant to, but I I um seriously wondering, why does Brookside Apartments and the senior housing not satisfy the affordable housing? And if we have known that we're supposed to be doing this, why couldn't it go in all those apartment complexes that have been popping up all over the central business district, which are already like rental areas? Why does it have to go on a homeowner area instead of the rental areas? That's all. I forgot to ask that last time. Evening. Uh Jim Gilroy, 53 North Mountain Ave. Uh apologize, just came from the fields, obviously. Uh so, sorry for You're wearing suits. Um the problem, and I know the state's making you do it, but you're changing

the rules. We bought houses in single-family zones, and never dreamed that you guys would change the zoning in the towns, right in the places that we lived. And now, we're dealing I bought my house. I knew Mountain Ave Street was the Daytona 500. I get that, right? I have a backyard. Bell Avenue, there's a church on Mountain Ave. Good luck getting down Bell Avenue on a Saturday because churches They have church on Saturdays on that church, right? It's a one-way street. There's a daycare behind my house. Did you guys know that? Right? I know it's renters, and we're just talking about, you know, everyone's here talking about four houses on Mountain Avenue. I'm talking about 38 more properties, 80 cars on a road like Bell Avenue, and you're not even putting it out to Mountain Ave. Planning put it out to Bell Avenue that does not have the infrastructure for this. I know it's the record, and and you're being forced to do this. I'll just simply say I'm look I'm looking through the ordinance, and it said that you're adding these units, and then you're putting in 10 chargers. Uh EV chargers, right? So, I'd ask you to look at that because not only is Bell Avenue now going to be incredibly congested, but now PSE&G is going to come and upgrade my 15 my 14 kV that's out in front of my house, knock down those poles, and probably put in subtransmission 69 kV cuz you're requiring you to put the EV chargers in. Like these things have consequences, and it's just very hard, and this neighborhood is not like I don't mean it in a bad way. Like, you know, the Mountain Avenue neighborhood. I got renters. I have elderly people. Uh and you know, we're not up here screaming, but it's just very hard when I guess the rules are changed from the beginning, and I mean

my wife said call Pat Kelly. So, I hope I'm still wearing orange later. Thank you very much. Back again with a different board. I'm like George Palco, 21 Bell Avenue, Somerville. Uh I wasn't really planning on speaking today, but after listening to the environmental commission and uh the gentleman who just spoke, as well as Mountain Avenue people, a lot of my concerns are the same. I'm on Bell Avenue, the other end of Bell, almost to Raritan about 100 ft from Raritan. Uh You guys are whittling us down. Um we've lost one of our neighbors uh deceased last year. Another one has dementia, is no longer with us. And we had a pretty full house here for the zoning board, and we felt the zoning board really had an idea of what was going on because the Bell Avenue property didn't really fit a lot of the zoning restrictions. Too dense, buildings too tall, um whole lot of different issues. So, first I have a question. After this, where does this does this go? Does it go back to the planning board? Does it go to Do you guys make the final decision on that the builder have to resubmit plans? I'll address that one. Okay. All right. Uh as the last gentleman said, our street It was a quiet street. Uh We've got people on there been there 40 years, 50 years, retired. We've got combat veterans such as myself. Some of us have PTSD where we like quiet and don't like noise. That's going to change. A lot of the issues we brought before the zoning board. I assume you guys haven't even heard unless you watch the

video of those proceedings. And so we feel like you know it's going between this board, that board. The rules have changed as the last speaker said. And you can see there's only a couple of us here today. People are getting frustrated. Hopefully not giving up. Because there are still issues and a lot of issues we have are the same as the issues that uh the first group of people on Mount Avenue brought up. The density of the units is just too dense. And if any of you, and I hope you have have gone down Bell and actually looked at the property and envision all those buildings. That's a lot of people coming into a very quiet and subdued street that some of the houses have been there over 100 years. Parking and traffic, the last gentleman also mentioned that. Our street is a one-way street if there's cars on both sides. So it can become basically a one-lane bridge. You know, I looked and followed very closely the reports that Mike had done and the L first initial plans. And of course they always paint the rosy picture. It's only going to be this many cars. Well, they they're kind of using like 1955 stats that you know, the wife stayed home, cooked, and the husband went to work. Those days are gone. Not accounting for visitors on a Sunday or holidays. You know, we really don't want our street packed on both sides, which I think is going to happen. You know, and then seniors look out the window at night if they see cars in front of their houses. I'm not calling myself a senior by any chance, but some of the neighbors are. And you know, they get a little worried. It's like why is that car there? You know, you know, I don't remember that before. We have issues with you know, the mayor himself has been to my house on Bell. I brought into the zoning board 13 by 19

pictures that I blew up of our street during not only hurricane but a tropical storm. It's underwater. Our sidewalks are underwater. My backyard is an actual lake. I mean, it is almost up to my house. So I'm paying for flood insurance even though I'm not in a flood zone. Hundreds of dollars a year just to be careful. We've got issues with you know, toxic dust from demolition. The developer says you know, it's all cleared out. Do we trust him? I never quite do. I mean, they have experts, but I worked in the court system for a lot of years and the prosecution has expert witness, defense has an expert witness. Both experts, two different opinions. So we want to make sure the town really checks that closely. You know, we don't want to hear years later that you were breathing in toxic dust from demolition. Sewer system. The other gentleman gentleman mentioned that. How's that going to impact? Again, storm drains are not working in our street right now. The water comes from Bell Avenue down towards Cornell, which is the end I'm on. And I can show you numerous pictures from different times where our street is totally underwater. The storm sewers just bubble up, they back up. And when they redid our roads under when Christie was governor, no one really knew what was under there. It turned out our road was hollow underneath with some kind of steel bars going under. No one knew why they were even there. So a lot of our storm sewer system, no one really knows what's there, what pipes go where, what sizes. The mayor came in my backyard. He they brought a crew, they lifted there's a big storm great in my backyard and they kind of said, well, this doesn't make sense cuz the big pipes going into a

small pipe. That could be part of the reason. So we have a lot of issues on this. Um You know, I understand the affordable housing part and I realize some of you kind of backed yourself in a corner. Again, I think it might have been you that mentioned or one of you guys mentioned that it probably should have been done before. Uh maybe with the city that's behind us. So uh but it's not to be, so to go back to my original question, uh where do we go from here? Like I said, at the end we'll I'll go once everybody's

I'm done. Okay, thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Hi, I'm Vicky Tarantino Proctor. I'm on two Prospect Drive. Um this is my first time speaking at a meeting here and so I I thank you for all that you do for the town. Um I've sort of just sat back and listened because I don't generally involve myself in in matters, you know, really and so it's inspirational listening here. I I feel as though perhaps with more regularity I should. However, I just would like to in addition to echoing all of the concerns that have been raised on both properties, um Mount Ave and Bell Ave, you know, I echo the concerns and the questions in particular that were asked along the way here and I just wanted to ask also that when the answers are given to some of those questions, um to please to please not ask us to accept the best case scenario or sort of ask us to oh, we know that the ordinance is going to allow all these things, but please know there's no plan because as it was said earlier, we do know that it's it's setting the parameters for exactly that to happen. And so when um you know, when we were discussing the last issue and I think it and it relates to the Bell Avenue issue, we were asked to consider the worst case scenario, which is why we should be in support of the issue because the worst thing possible could happen if it's not passed. And yet we're asking you're asking us to have a palate for it because once it does pass, don't worry, the best case scenario could be that you know, nothing would happen. No developer might come just because it is. So I just ask that

or would rather suggest and just add to the commentary here that when the answers are given, um perhaps they not include an answer that says, oh, but please just hope and assume that it won't happen because one of the reasons given why we should accept it was that the worst case scenario would be if we didn't. So what is the worst case scenario then for us as residents if these things do happen? Um I mean, it sort of echoes the last gentleman when he said, you know, where does that leave us? Because I would be remiss if I didn't echo Mr. Gilroy's commentary of young families that have invested in a certain thing that we thought we had. It very much looks like that's not going to be what we have anymore and we know the value of what we have right now. We enjoy it. And so when we really see a steep potential decrease in our future, there's a lot of unfortunate reasons to consider leaving because it's just it is it's real money right now for young families that could potentially be impacted. So again, I just I just ask that question and when the answers are given that we please not be asked to assume the very best case scenario when also being asked to assume the very worst and and tolerating them. So just consistency in that, please. Thank you. Motion to close. So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. [clears throat]

Andrew Coppola. Yes. Lindsay A. Yes. Randy Pitts. Yes. Junious Stravick.

Yes. Roger From. Yes. Uh so I will say um to the last comment, the the takeaway that I I think for myself that I wanted everyone to understand is that there are zoning regulations and that's really the big piece of this. That referring back to the previous um the previous ordinance that we passed has to conform to zoning. The one that's in front of us right now, uh this plan was created through mediation. So this went to the courts. It was through mediation that it came to this. And since it was brought up that it was at the zoning board, it is no longer going to be going back to the zoning board. It will be going to the planning board from this point forward. But I will let Mike talk about the concessions that were that occurred from the original plan that was heard at zoning to what currently uh was approved through this mediation. Thank you. Uh the original plan was 38 units. Uh the board of adjustment had issues with that. Uh the fair the original fair share plan envisioned 30 units to take the two buildings off. Uh the planning board was comfortable with that. And as Chris entered this, we went through a very lengthy mitigation mediation program and the settlement was 34 units for sale with the option of the developer either rental or for sale for the the additional affordable housings. So, uh the swing was 38 to 30 to 34 was the ultimate settlement agreement. Um uh it wasn't my number one desire or the planning board or I think the council's number one to have 34, but uh that's how it went down on the settlement agreement and it was again three buildings. So, the buildings furthest to the east with both the board of adjustment and the planning board in concert had a problem with are not

there. So, there's green space up against the residence toward the east uh and there's three buildings that are half town homes. That addresses Yes. Chris

I I'll just also note that there are a lot of components of the settlement agreement and one of the items that the bureau was able to obtain were certain uh design um certain concessions on design elements uh that were built into the ordinance that were part of a negotiated settlement. So, there were a lot of components that the bureau was able to walk away with um uh despite reaching a settlement. Uh but yes, they the the the apple the um excuse me, the developer would need to come before the planning board uh to obtain planning board approvals. And that's and that'll be uh obviously in the future. Again, that application has not come before the planning board at this time. Um but it it may come in the future uh with the design that has been set forth in the settlement. Um Yes. Uh I think there was a question about why this wasn't done and incorporated in other parts of town before this, but I really wish the mayor was here so he could help explain the logic behind avoiding any of these obligations prior to this, but unfortunately he's sick so we wish him well. But I am it's important to note that I don't think any of us were really comfortable with the way in which this developer had us over a barrel during this process. They were very opportunistic in putting us in a position where we could not not have it to negotiation over it in order to settle this, otherwise we would have been subject to to worse potential outcomes. Um but um you know, I I I wish I had more answers as to why it wasn't addressed prior to this in other denser parts of towns. Those are questions I have as well, which is what led me to be up here. So, I have to say thank you for all of you participating in government tonight and I'd love to see you all come back and want to participate more cuz the more we hear from you, the more we know what we're talking about up here. Uh otherwise, we're just going off of what our neighbors say to us or what we can best judgment in what we know. Um uh but I I don't have an answer for you as

to why it wasn't uh addressed earlier, but it is being addressed now. Um well, I'll take the responsibility for taking responsibility for it. Well said, Andrew. And and Mike, I I think this might be the perfect time to see uh as we work through the planning board plans when development comes to be, you know, what can we bargain for with additional agreement infrastructure? Can we look at the issues on Bell Avenue and the surrounding area and see if there's other things we can do. We've done pretty successful things like uh the rain the the rain gardens on on on um at at Carol Pager Park, um how that captures a lot of the downhill run off and maybe we can look at some some simple things that that aren't really costly that will bring solutions to to the residents and the flooding issues. Um and continue Continuing with what uh council saying the entire bureau cuz there was questions about uh currently why we're focusing on a few of these areas and I think the important thing to understand is that again going back to uh the land use uh mediations that we went through, the one area on Mountain is undeveloped land that can be developed. That's why it's part of this plan. Um the location on Bell Avenue was also mediated, which is why it's being uh approved right now. And the Granite's area was just uh we just created that as a redevelopment zone and that also falls under the fair fair share housing agreement that we came to because it is a uh impending redevelopment. So, when you're asking why it's certain these certain places, it's happening as a mechanism from us getting to this fourth round with our housing element. Um understand that the entire bureau has an overlay zone over it for affordable housing. So, it's not just a few pocket areas. We captured

through previous ordinance that across the bureau uh affordable housing can be created. Um and and uh Chris, if you'd like to speak to that.

clear I just one uh council council person just one item. The set aside basically says that if a developer comes in and uh brings an application to develop a property under the existing zoning that's in place that zoning applies, you just have to meet a set aside of 15 or 20%. 15 for rental if you're doing a rental project, 20 for for sale and that just means whatever zoning's in place, you go to build, well, you have got to incorporate affordable housing units into that uh development proposal. Anywhere in town. Anywhere. Anywhere in the If it's development, it's less than five units with a development fee. There's exceptions to one and two family homeowners, but the development fee is a equalized assessed one and a half or two and a half percent and the purpose of that is for the the for the bureau to rehab and to promote affordable housing. And again, that's all in our previously passed ordinance. Uh the other question before we move on was about the car chargers. By the DCA we are required to have a certain number in new developments or redevelopment areas, we're supposed to have a certain number of parking has to have um chargers. It's not it's not a Somerville rule, it's not a negotiable. It has to unfortunately um and we've actually had previous conversations with the planning board about that um because we've we've had discussions about where they should be placed uh due to concerns of other issues that that come with electric vehicles. So, we've we are aware of that, but I I know you said I know, but it unfortunately it is what it is with with that.

your fault. Thank you. No, it's a state statute. The state The state statute says says it point blank, the bureau cannot issue variances or waivers for the EV mandate. Yes, and it has to It has to go on. Yes, and it has to be within a very It has to be in proximity and on the property. It can't be at another location. That's another thing cuz we've again at the planning board we've tried to be creative about that. Uh so, at this point, motion to adopt. So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contini. No. Glenn Danae. Yes. Mandy Pitts. Yes. Jean Stravic. Yes. Roger Brawn. Yes. Uh next up we have our our final uh ordinance for public hearing and adoption is 279 uh or 2798 amending chapter 102 entitled land use and the development article 11 zoning to create the affordable housing overlay uh AHO-03 zone on block 130 lot one in the bureau of Somerville and provide appropriate development regulations therefore. Uh and this is the Granite's area um in the new redevelopment zone that was created. There was a redevelopment zone created on that side of town um specifically naming the Granite's area, but others in the triangle that's there and that's um New Street and Somerset Yes, and that's in that triangle there could could opt in. At this point, the only redevelopment in that zone currently is the Granite's building. Did I Did I get that right, Mike? You have it right. Right. Fantastic. Uh motion to open public. So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner. Yes. Andrew Contini. Yes. Glenn Danae. Yes. Mandy Pitts. Yes. Jean Stravic. Yes. Roger Brawn. Yes. Motion uh public session is open. If you'd like to approach the mic with any comments.

Kim Wortman, 289 West Summit Street, Somerville. Thank you and thank you for all of your input and your thoughtful exchange. And I actually hadn't planned on talking about Granite's, but now given I probably should have been here a few other meetings. I've been busy in Bridgewater um attending those meetings for Cornell Boulevard. So, I guess I'm going to pivot back to Somerville. So, my question is Bridgewater actually created an AH3 zone on Cornell Boulevard and on that specific lot, it is a 100% dedicated affordable housing. Is there anything to preclude Somerville from doing that with the Granite's building to achieve that density, which they actually got a 10 times requirement like so, they put in 15 units and they got 10 times that amount in terms of credit. So, they got credit because they created a specific affordable housing zone just dedicated to affordable housing and they got credit for 150 units. So, my question would be why wouldn't we do something like that with the Granite's building, which would alleviate the need for Mountain Avenue as well as Bell Avenue potentially. I know it's a little late to the party, but um I would certainly respectfully request that something like that be considered cuz Bridgewater did a fabulous job with theirs. Thank you. I don't I don't agree with that one though, by the way. I understand. Any other comments on this? Janice Mayesholder, uh 13 Bell Avenue. Uh something that surprises me the when we talk about um people, we don't talk about children. You're getting all these new apartments or or homes and you're not talking about

children. As we know from living on Bell Avenue that there cars driving back and forth from Raritan uh and from some Somerville to 206 and it's amazing that no one has been killed. [snorts]

Many years ago, one little girl almost was killed um because she couldn't hear and I ran out in the street and caught her before she was hit. Now, my point is you we're going to have all these um new homes will have children and I have nothing against against kids because I taught for 29 years. But I'm concerned that that never comes up. I've been to other kinds of sessions, not here in Somerville, where people never consider children. And um that needs to be considered. Because we're going to get a lot of little kids running in and out of the street unless and somebody might just lose their child. Thank you. Thank you. Nancy Bello 8 Spear Street. I didn't plan on speaking tonight. I wanted to come here and hear what people had to say. I wanted to see what you all look like and what you were about. And I have a couple of things that I'm I am 58 years old and I grew up here. I was born here. And I have seen this fascination with developments with this place. Let's bigger, bolder, bigger, Westfield like you know, brand new spanking. When I grew up this town

was was rated number one by Homes and Garden as Hometown USA. And that was the the town that I grew up in. Everybody knew each other. Now, granted, I do know quite a few people here. But everybody knew each other. Everybody it it was safe. We didn't think about, oh, let's re-district and let's do this. And I think something you guys need to think of is, you know, I see all this stuff coming through and you know, yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes much as yes yes yes yes yes yes yes, we want new development. But you guys are the only people who have the power to stop it. You need to really think like I love some of these comments like Kim made. You know, like why didn't anybody here on any of these boards figure that out before? You get to a point where you're behind the eight ball and now all of a sudden, oh, we have to do this. We have to do that. We have to do that because we've been mandated to do that. But somebody somewhere needs to stop the craziness. Like they said, you know, we've got all these kids that we need We love our kids. You know, I'm sure you love your kids. I actually unlike some of these people, I don't butt up to those properties. I live on a dead end street. It's not going to personally affect me. But what does affect me is the fact that the character of this town is going to pot. And that bothers me because I grew up here. And I have a very grounded background here. My mother used to work for him. My father helped build Lincoln Hose. My family started the Kelsey Fund. I have a you know, there's something here in Somerville that's a little

different than other places. I left. I moved out and I came back and I thought I would retire here. But the way it's changed, I don't think I'm going to do that. Because all I hear is yes yes yes yes yes without really considering, could we possibly have another alternative? Maybe there's How about Here's a thought. Oh, this property's for sale, let's buy it. Let's put Let's put a low income there. Let's put a low income there. Why do we need to have like this gorgeous property over by Immaculata be turned into some you know, crazy area and I love Kim's idea that it should be owner occupied because I can tell you I was a landlord in town. I was one of the good ones because I made sure that my tenants were good tenants. But I can tell you there's a whole lot of slum lords in town that are going to bring in a lot of crap if it's allowed. And you need to think of this stuff like someone said. Not just tomorrow. Not just while you guys are here. What legacy are you leaving for the future? Because guess what? Once you put those buildings up, they're not coming down. You're not going to change this. So that's just something to think about for the future for you guys. You know don't just say yes. Think maybe there's another way around it. Just just something to think about. Motion to close? So moved. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conty? Yes.

Glenn de Neé? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Janice Travia? Yes.

Roger Balam? Yes. I will address obviously I know your comment was tongue in cheek about having one spot be the entire thing. I I think you said that. No, you were serious? They did say it. I know they did. Um and I know that that's part of the conversation um on that lot. But the this council and the planning board did not want to stigmatize an area of the borough. Um and have it where everyone knows that that's the low income area of town. Um and that that whole conversation revolved around the concept and that's why the entire borough is an overlay zone. So the entire borough has the opportunity when there's new development for there to be um low income mixed in with everything else. And that was kind of the overarching. So it's not the the thought process is and and I know the mayor would speak to it if he was here as well, but the thought process was to make it so that it is across the entire borough, not concentrated in one location. Um and that is that is what the ultimate goal is. So the entire as I said before the entire borough is an overlay zone and affordable housing can be created in any part of the borough um through redevelopment or whatever the case may be. Um as far as uh saying yes yes yes yes yes um there are plenty of conversations that occur at the different boards that all of us are on. We all do not just sit up here at the council table and make these decisions with horse blinders, earmuffs, and gags. Uh we are on these boards. We talk to our fellow um members of these committees. We have very thoughtful conversations. It is as the councilman was saying before, an absolute pleasure to see this many folks here and this passionate about these issues. Um we've been having these conversations about affordable housing for over a year. Uh as a matter of fact, the affordable housing conversation started, I think,

if I'm not mistaken, Kevin, 6 years ago. Um we had a consultant come through and and kind of start to direct us into that to that um mindset. So these are conversations that continue to go on and and things that we have thought very hard about. And there are certain things, as we've said before, unfortunately, that through mediation we've arrived at. Um part of it is state requirements. Part of it is through court requirements that we are that we have to meet. And we understand as a council that hearing these things, some of you may be for the first time, some of you may have known about this coming up. Why does this have to happen? And as I've said before everyone on here lives in town. Everyone on here has children uh that have gone through these schools or will be going through these schools. Um and so all of these things are considerations when we make these decisions because every single we all live in in different parts of this borough. Uh as far as safety goes and the and the concerns about traffic and things along those lines, again, that's addressed through the planning board when the applicant comes forth and creates a a a um a plan as far as transportation goes, but the um Councilwoman Bonner here is the chair of our safety and pedestrian committee uh that was reformed last year. Um and they meet on a regular basis and and come up and I even uh threw some things out to her committee so that that we could look at them. Um We've tried to do calming measures. I am sorry about the ringing. We have tried to do multiple calming measures in town. Now, I know that they are successful and not successful. I know everybody wants a speed hump on their road and and things on those lines. We get that. But bring your concerns to us and we can address them if there are things that we're not aware of. We certainly want to do that. We certainly have the

opportunities to do that whether it's through the safety committee, whether it's at the planning board level. You know, one resident reached out at the last meeting and wanted us to influence the zoning board. That's an entirely other operation. They are of their own entity. But again, we encourage you especially as some of these things might be coming online to go to these meetings. We are currently going through zoning. We are currently reviewing the master plan. A lot of the things that you're talking about we want your input on because they're going to go into the plan. That plan is going to be approved by the planning board. That plan is going to be sent to the council and it is right now it's taking us a long time to get through because we are being extremely thoughtful about it at the planning board level. But you if if The thing I can say is that as as passionate as you are right now and we appreciate it and and I know it feels like you're not being heard. Promise you you're being heard because we've all had these discussions. Um But coming out to those meetings and looking at what those agendas are especially when it starts to to be areas where you're that are near your homes or or areas that you're concerned about, come to those meetings and make your voices heard because again we want to hear from you and your your voices are not unheard. We're not brushing them off. It's I and again, I know sitting in these chairs they've already made up their minds. There are certain things that we have to do. And that's always hard when you sit on that side of the table. When you come and you sit on this side of the table, you sit there and you go I get it. And it's a tough thing because it's very hard and you'll notice when I vote I'm looking at all of you. I don't want you to think like, you know, I I have my head down. I I need you to understand we when we vote, we're doing it in what's the best interest of the town and I know it doesn't always seem like that. But I promise you we've have multiple conversations about doing the right thing for and that's why we're all here. Every single person that's sitting up on this dais right now

is doing this because we want to do the right thing by the borough. And that's what I we we would like you to understand and it's hard sitting there and and feeling like you're not heard and we we understand that feeling. Um But we really truly want to see what's best for this town. Council president, may I may I make one comment on the 100% affordable?

Yes. Uh just just for some perspective on that. The uh speaker was certainly correct that the amended FHA provides bonuses for 100% developments. However the legislature also recognized that 100% affordable projects are very financially um uh it's difficult to build them. It's difficult to finance them. So as a result, the amended FHA contains um contains checks to make sure that if a a municipality is relying on a 100% project, it has to show developer. It has to show performance. There are a number of number of things. So it's not simply I'm going to create a zone, mark it as 100% affordable, close the book and walk away. There are a number of items that require that you partner with a developer, that you facilitate that development. So it's not it's a little bit different than doing overlay zoning where you're just simply providing the opportunity for 10 years. So um I just wanted to make that one comment to provide some context around those 100% affordable projects which are very unique. Getting the developers in the door um it during the planning process can be complicated. And often you have you you you result in a lot of density to make those projects possible. But it's not simply the creation of a zone and the closing of the book. Thank you. Um motion to approve? I uh could I just say one thing about the Granite building? Um I'm this is one of the only developments that I'm happy about because they are rehabilitating the building. They are not tearing it down and building a crazy looks like every other cookie-cutter multi-use apartment building. It is going to bring the Granite building back to its former glory and

uh also will have affordable housing units in it. So I just wanted to put that out there. That's this is like the only one I'm yay about. So there you go. Motion to adopt? Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conti? Yes. Glenn Denee? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Jonas Travick?

Yes. Roger Verm? Yes. Um Again, I I can't say it enough. Thank you for your comments this evening. Um Again, they they are they don't go unheard and I know I know it's tough to come up and speak in public. It's a it's a daunting task for a lot of folks and we just appreciate you taking your time tonight for what has been a long meeting to this point. But we appreciate you you feeling passionate enough to come up and speak. This is it's been it's been long but it's been wonderful to have you here. So thank you very much. Next we have consent resolutions. Are there any that council would like to pull? All right. No. Thank you, gentlemen. Sorry, I should have dismissed you. My apologies. Thank you for your time. Um All right. So we're going to go in order. Um 139 authorizing the award of a contract to Advance Landscaping in the amount not to exceed $50,000 for maintenance service at Carol Pager and Michael Lep Park as needed per quote date February 10th, 2026. Motion to close. 140 approving Bridgeville Ice Cream Truck as a renewal vendor for 6 months. 141 authorizing the acceptance of a grant award for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Communities Grant Program in the amount of $20,000 for a municipal tree inventory and updated community forestry plan. And 142 opposing pending legislation Senate Bill S1836 concerning the conservation or sorry,

excuse me, the conversion of religious and nonprofit organization property to inclusionary affordable housing developments. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Discussion? Roll call. Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conti? Yes. Glenn Denee? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Jonas Travick? Yes. Roger Verm? Yes. I make a motion to pay bills and vouchers in the amount of $681,940.06. Second. Council members, Teresa Bonner? Yes. Andrew Conti? Yes. Glenn Denee? Yes. Randy Pitts? Yes. Jonas Travick?

Yes. Roger Verm? Yes. Councilman Pitts, motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Council meeting is concluded.