Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Summerville Planning Board for Wednesday, May 27th, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting, as required by the Public Open Public Meeting Act, has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was posted on the bulletin board outside of Borough Hall. Two, mailed, faxed, or emailed to the Courier News, and three, given to the Clerk Administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the Board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call.

Chairperson Werner? Here. Mayor Gallagher? Here. Here. Jason Kraska. Here. Roger Vroom. Here. Larry Cleveland. Here. Andrea Dare. Here. Chris Addix. Here. John Manalia. Here. Barry Van Horn is excused. Tim Hayes. Here. Bill Kale.

Here. Please stand for the pledge.

Where did our flag go? It's probably down at the cemetery. Cemetery. All right, we're all staring at you, Gallagher.

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. All right, I have no additional comments, anything that's on the agenda. architectural the ARB reviews we are going to pull out the 56 fieldstone the fence because that actually has to be an approval not a review the reviews are that we had three sidewalk cafes and one sign they all met the requirements and were approved by the ARB on that and move forward So now we have to do the 56 fieldstone drive fence Anybody have any issues? They were in compliance with we did do some clarification for them. So at the last meeting they comply with all of those conditions Everybody anybody have any issues? All right, so I need a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the 56 fieldstone drive fence.

I'll second that motion Chairperson Werner. Yes Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Roger Vroom? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Andrew Adair? Yes. Chris Addix? Yes. John Maniglio? Yes. Tim Hayes?

Yes.

All right. Motion to approve minutes for May 13th. So moved. Second.

Chairperson Werner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher was excused. Jason Kraska? Yes. Roger Vroom? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Andrea Dare? Yes. John Maniglia was excused. Tim Hayes? Yes. Bill Kill?

Yes.

All right, we have no resolutions for approval, so we'll be moving on to our hearing for our minor site plan approval for 86 North Gaston Avenue. If you gentlemen would like to come up. Just make sure that you're speaking into the microphone. Sorry.

Yeah, just hit the button. It should be red.

There you go.

Yeah, that one too.

Okay. Good evening, Chairperson Werner, Mayor Gallagher, and members of the board. I'm Philip Baroud from Baroud Law Firm, and I represent the applicant, GMIB 86, LLC, which is owned solely by Antonio Rufa for this application. As you know, this is an application for minor site plan approval for my client to basically expand the existing pizzeria that's at the building on the first floor. There are two commercial units and to continue the residential tenancy upstairs. So by way of introduction, I'll have Mr. Ruffa just address the board for a moment, and then we'll call Craig Stiers, our engineer, to testify. Also in the room is our architect, Michele Piancazzo, in case there are any questions or anything to address.

We traditionally swear everybody in at once if we want to do that now.

SO WHO ELSE WILL BE TESTIFYING OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT'S REP?

WE'LL SWEAR YOU IN, TOO, SIR. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE THIS BOARD IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

I DO.

GREAT. AND WE'LL DO THE INTRODUCTIONS WHEN THEY TESTIFY. JUST BEFORE WE START, WE'LL MARK FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD A1 and all supporting documentation received by the board as A1. A2 will be the proofs of service that was received by the board. PB1 will be Mr. Cole's review letter dated May 21, 2026. And P2 will be the letter from the fire marshal dated May 22, 2026.

Thank you. All yours. You can have a seat there. Just before I go on, I did want to just, again, mention that we did serve the notice of the hearing on the 200-foot list. We also published the notice as required in the current notice. And I submitted an affidavit of...

Correct. We've marked that as A2, and the board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Thank you.

Okay, Antonio, do you want to just introduce yourself and just discuss your dream of this application?

Absolutely. Good evening, everyone, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Mayor. My name is Antonio Rufa, and the dream began 33 years ago when I left my hometown of Calabria to pursue the American dream. And since then, we established in Hillsboro, literally around the corner. And we have a business restaurant catering that it's been operating since 1995. My wife and I, along with my children, we live in Hillsborough. And over the years, it was always a dream. And tonight is a dream. So thanks for being here and listening to us. The dream was to own my own establishment and not make somebody rich, which we have. But that dream came true last year when we purchased 86 North Gaston. And it's been nine long months, as you all can imagine. our expertise over the years. Obviously, I'm a culinary graduate. So, you know, we build our clientele, you know, based on traditions, family, food, and of course, love. So, this is an opportunity that, you know, It's it's been it's been way too long and you know, basically, you know, I saw that opportunity when When the building came available and Honestly It's it's more than a dream. So my son is actually gave up going to school to to merge the family business. And so it's not only a dream for me, but it's also something that he looks forward. We have a vision for 86 North Gaston. I see everyone in the neighborhood. I see 86 North Gaston, a place where everybody can come, walk in distance, and purchase artesian pizza, homemade prepared foods. We are going to offer a unique product that I haven't seen around. Maybe some of you have, but I'm not aware of. Not in GMO products. organic flour imported from Italy and unbromated and unbleached. So it's a unique product. Pizza, pastas, homemade pastas and prepared foods is going to be our main thing. So We just asked to be considered. It's not another pizzeria. I hear that every day, especially from my customers. We have 30 in Hillsborough, I think, 29 maybe. So, and I'm sure Somerville has just as many, but it's a unique place where children can literally walk from school and come to have their part-time job. People can come and enjoy a quick bite for whatever it's available, or simply just do a takeout and take home some of the delicatessen we're going to provide. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. I THANK YOU AND THANKS FOR THE TIME.

THANK YOU, ANTONIO. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO, WELL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANTONIO? I KNOW WE DIDN'T REALLY GET STARTED BUT ARE THERE ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR ANTONIO?

DID YOU BRING ANY SAMPLES?

They're in the trunk. I wasn't sure if that was allowed.

Not till after.

Not till after. OK. So what I'm going to do is I'll call Mr. Stiers to testify. Okay, please, you're already sworn in. Just state your name and your business.

I'm still an engineer.

Thank God. Let's just put it on the record, and then the board can grant you your expert status.

Craig Stiers, president of Stiers Associates, 43 West High Street in Somerville. I'm still an engineer in New Jersey. Just renewed April 30th, so at least another two years. That's good news. I didn't realize that was an issue.

Have you testified before this board as an expert?

A few times, yes.

Just a few. This is his third time.

This year? So the board will accept him as an expert in the field of engineering.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, great. Thank you. So, Mr. Stiers, or Craig, you received the report of Michael Cole on Friday, is that right? Yes. And you had an opportunity to review it, and you're going to address the concerns set forth in the report right now? Yes, yes. Okay. So go ahead, and I'll help you along if needed.

Okay. Um, I guess I'll really go through the what's there now and work into the proposed. Um, I do have a rendering. I don't know.

Um, Carrie, if you want me to market, it's a different from what was submitted to the board.

Uh, it's over top of a area.

Yep. Okay. Let's mark it as a three. Just give us the title and the date.

Thank you I'm sure as you all know and as Anthony said the property is known as 86 North Gaston Avenue Otherwise known as lot 5 block 44 and on boroughs tax map the property consists of 80 8883 square feet contains a building that formerly housed Vinnie's to pizzeria as well as a nail salon and The parking lot, while not striped, appears to have had nine parking spots, mainly at the north end and three on the easterly side. It is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Gaston and East Cliff Street. It is in the B4 zone and also in the Gaston Avenue redevelopment zone. Some of the things that are stipulated in that redevelopment plan One, that the site is specifically in the redevelopment plan. Some of the items that are of note is to return unproductive and underutilized land to productive use consistent with the vision of the stakeholders. Increase property values and tax revenues by providing development that enhances the borough's economic vitality and serves the needs of the community. Supports the adjoining residential neighborhoods by encouraging boutique retailers to open with a short distance to these neighborhoods. Create an environment that invites interaction between residents, encourages walking, outdoor living, and is aesthetically attractive on a pedestrian scale. Ensures that the new development does not adversely impact the existing residential streets by requiring traffic impact studies. Provide for a greater variety of housing opportunities and choices within the borough. Bolster the surrounding residential community by adding new diverse mixture of residential dwellings. and enhance the principles of smart growth and sustainability by creating a compact, moderate density development that is pedestrian friendly and consistent with the metropolitan planning area. All of those things I think are specific to this property. One, we are redeveloping the property. I think bringing in, obviously there was a pizzeria there before, but bringing the pizzeria to that side of town, I know there's a couple there already, but it gets it closer to the community. So there is that walking sense. So I think what Antonio is looking to do is spot on with the redevelopment plan. Um, as far as the proposed conditions, um, obviously, like he said, he's looking to renovate the existing building. He's going to stay within the existing footprint. So there's not an expansion of the use per se, um, getting rid of the nail salon. So instead of two uses, you have one use on the property, um, making more efficient use of the space with the pizzeria and some ancillary things. Um, I don't necessarily mean, uh, With the brought up of the mini-mart, I think it's more ancillary products to the pizzeria. It's not like you're going to go in there and do your grocery shopping. I think those additional things are when you're in the pizzeria getting your food, you pick up the oils and things like that, which are part of that mini-market part of it.

Is it like your fresh pastas and things like that? Exactly. I just want to get it clear in my head. That's exactly it. That's what I thought it was.

Yes. So like I said, it's ancillary to when you go in there to purchase your Italian cuisine. The two-bedroom apartment will stay the same on the second floor. I think most importantly, the building itself has seen a better life. But at the same time, with the architecture, they're keeping the – architectural style of the of the building but just doing the outside over to current building materials you know redoing the roof redoing the siding windows and things like that so and I think the other thing is if you look at I think there was a colored rendering the rendering is actually tying in with the fire department colors pretty well so it's you know it brings the two sides together which is I think a good thing As far as the parking lot is concerned, I expect that we're gonna probably, if it's not repaved, it will be spruced up. We anticipate striping similar to what it was before with the six parking spots along the north side. We will add a ADA space in that corner. What we have shown on the side or the easterly portion of the lot is three parking spots. On the plans you have, they're all 18 foot long. Mike had the comment about they should be 24. I think if we do a compromise of the middle stripe going to 24 feet and then the two ends still at 18, there's maneuverability for the parking space in the middle. And then the two end pieces and spots can still maneuver without being 24 feet. Does that make sense, Mike?

The first one in the driveway certainly does. The last one, depending on where that trash enclosure is still there, Craig, I understand what you're getting at to maximize the space. It makes sense. I just don't know what the trash enclosure was on the plans I had.

Right. So what I've shown it on the plan, it's kind of hard to see, but this would be 18. This would be expanded to 24, 18. And then I believe we still have 18 feet. through and get it, you know, exit, be able to park and exit. And the dumpster, or the trash enclosure would be similar in size, maybe five feet deep.

Yeah, I think, Craig, that makes sense, maybe for employee parking. Yes. It's the least desirable to make that the employee's parking, so the trash, whatever the trash enclosure, getting in that would be a... Yes.

Yep. Sorry. Wouldn't those spots in the back be better for the residential? They have three dedicated spots along the back of the building. Those are their spots. Well, either or. I mean, I don't think we're going to. How many spots do you need for the apartment?

Technically two. And I think they're going to be kind of a shared situation. You know, with the apartment, if the people are out during the day. those spaces would be open for the restaurant. So, you know, I mean, it could go either way. I don't think we should designate them, but I understand both your points. That would be the, you know, the cars that are there all day would be off the beaten path, I guess.

So you support the position that I didn't put the parking demand for the mini market because you're saying it's basically accessory, therefore not going to drive foot traffic or vehicles, therefore the 12 spaces is accurate. I think, yeah, I mean... Based on the ordinance, what I'm saying.

Yeah, but I think what you've done is you've looked at it as a fast food, and I think it's probably a hybrid. So it's not necessarily a fast food. It's not necessarily retail. So where we're hitting the numbers is probably between 9 and 12. Right. So...

The point being the mini market or it's really... takeout accessory to the principal use. So we don't have to concern ourselves with parking for people going in there for the takeout. Yes. Or whatever you want to call the pastas, the side dishes or condiments that the restaurant is offering.

Correct. Yep. So, and I think the other thing is that it's mentioned also in the redevelopment plan that the board can choose to reduce the required parking for applications such as this as well. So, I mean, the board has the power to grant that change, I guess you could say, variance, if you want to call it that way. The next thing is I'll end up going through your letter, but I'm kind of hitting the points. One of the things we can do, which I did not show in the plans, is actually put in the four street trees.

I do have them shown.

So we can put one, what would be the northwest corner. what would be the southwest corner of the building, and then two on East Cliff Street. So I think we can, you know, maybe we get a little bit more columnar tree, but we would satisfy that. And your comment about the shade trees, I agree, it's a little tough to put those in. So a waiver for the shade trees.

Well, hold on one second, though. You could put a couple additional trees in that big lawn area that's wide open.

Let me keep going.

We'll go back to that.

Yes, we will circle back. Because I think we only need two, right? So I'll come back to you.

I'll be right here.

Again, going back to the redevelopment plan, the project itself provides for a mixed-use building with a combination of residential and retail redevelopment plan states, provides for a walkable eating food store establishment. The mixed use will allow for residents to attract and support the limited retail within the zone and the immediate area surrounding the zone. And upgrading the architectural design will integrate with the new firehouse, as I said before, with the similar colors. The architecture will maintain the style of the house but upgrade the, I guess the exterior materials to current standards. Um, as far as the variances we're looking for, I guess ultimately it comes down to, we do need a parking variance or one way or the other. Um, maybe the shade trees, maybe not. Uh, the parking lot location, which is, it is what it is. Uh, it's there now, but it is in the, I guess side and even the front yard on Gaston Avenue. Um, the fence site, we're going to remove the fence. install a new fence, and pull it back to the front yard setback. So that would go away.

That's great.

The wall signs, we have one sign. The circular sign is more than two feet in both directions. So that requires a variance, right? It can only be two feet or more horizontally or vertically. And since it's a circle, It's in both directions.

Kind of hard to do that with a circle.

Right. Yes. But I think if you look at the architectural plans, it fits in that location on the facade appropriately. I think the size is pretty good, whether you guys agree or not. And I think the other signs as well are appropriate. They're not overbearing. They do also have the logo on the – east cliff street side on the doorway and i believe that complies that's that is it under 30 or 35 percent correct okay i just need some i didn't know um we talked about the parking spaces being the length two of them being 18 feet the parking aisle width is required to be 24 and right now we have 23 coming behind those six spaces And the other thing is we have not striped the loading zone, but we could. We could put one on the east side of the building. How much paint do we want to put on the pavement? So I think we do have a loading zone, whether we physically designate it with striping. I mean, I could really leave it to you guys, but the intent would be that the truck would come in on the east side, unload into the side of the building and be able to exit onto Gaston Avenue. So there is space per se, but not striped. So I don't believe we need a variance.

But is that the back of the truck that's going to be the wrong way?

I think it's more the truck that's going to pull up alongside. On the back of the building. And they would just unload.

Right there. And then go in on the side door by that walkway.

Yes.

Off a cliff right there. So the truck would pull in, door open. That's where the loading comes in. Correct.

What Craig is saying that the loading is going to occur during times when the business is not open, so we're not going to have a blockage of the travel way. Yes. Therefore, we can double up the travel way with the loading zone. Yes.

I do have a bit of a question on that one. So being that this backs up against the residential area, the loading and unloading between 9 and 7, those are typically quiet hours. How will the noise be handled on that, making sure there's not a bunch of ruckus?

So the hours of operation would be 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. So we anticipate the deliveries would be between 9 and 11 a.m. Okay, all right.

So there are no deliveries from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. Right now, the ordinance talks about 7, 9 p.m. to 7. Make it 9 to 9, and it's quieter for the neighborhood.

Can I clear that? Sure. I'm sorry. I just want to make sure that I make a point. My point is I'm a sole believer of... I go to the market myself. The times that there's going to be a truck coming in and dropping off merchandise, they'll be most likely limited. And if it is, it'll probably be somewhere around the 9.30, 10.30 time. They know, those guys know that we need the stuff So the merchandise, so we can get ready. If we open the door at 11 and we're missing lettuce or tomatoes or whatever, that's going to be gone. But for the most part, I've been doing it for 30 years. I go to the market. I go to Hunts Point, fish market, produce market, restaurant depot. And basically, I like to look at the stuff myself. I pick the items. So there won't be any truck. It'll be my own vehicle. if it makes sense. I just wanted to clarify that. I know it's an issue, and I respect that, and of course, you know, we need to address that, but for the most part, the way I operate, that's the way it will happen, so I hope it brought some clearance.

So a 9 a.m. start time would be okay with you still?

I'm sorry?

A 9 a.m. start of deliveries, no matter who's delivering, whether it's a supply truck or you.

Yeah.

9 a.m. Right now, the way... Mike wrote it up. It would be restricted from 9 PM until 7 AM. Absolutely.

We're just saying, I think this is what, no, there's, I put a two in between restricted in between. So Mike's language is correct. I was reading it restricted to between. Oh, Oh, it'll be you, but what I'm hearing is good.

Make it just a little bit longer so that there's no deliveries.

Yeah, I think a nine in that area specifically I think a nine to nine no volunteers Talking about deliveries what about trash pickup Craig and recyclables the cooking oil as far as the cooking oil that they'll be stored inside and then when they are

they will be coordinated to be picked up by an outside service. So it'll be stored inside that they would come and dispose of properly. Um, and then obviously the garbage and recycling would be in that, um, area that we're going to work on. So, I mean, I expect it to be probably like a small dumpster, not this giant thing. So it's maybe a three yard instead of a five or 10 yard.

So are you proposing a dumpster enclosure that somehow matches the facade of the building? uh... small or matching the fencing that we would put up well yeah my concern is with a dumpster the bollards, the stuff that we normally discuss for durability. Typically, we put bollards in the inside and we have the buildings getting façade, match the façade in some half just to make it durable. I'm sure you're going to say that the frequency of pickup will be as needed. So even if it's undersized, if it takes three pickups a week, so be it, five, whatever it takes, you're going to make that dumpster work for whatever that, right, so that you don't have a health issue. Correct. Of course.

Yep. And maybe jumping ahead, but the dumpster pickups, that is an issue all over town because the dumpster pickup people really like to come at 3, 4 in the morning. And obviously on the highway is one story, but in a residential or butting up against a residential neighborhood, it's another. So can you talk to that, or am I jumping ahead? For a trash pickup.

What, the pickup?

Yeah, the time, the timing of it.

Well, I'm sure it would have to be, I haven't reached out to, you know, the services, but I'm sure they, you know, if they want the service, they're going to have to come when I tell them to. So, and obviously it won't be 6 a.m. So, if that makes sense.

Can we define that? Yeah.

What does everybody feel is a reasonable for, you know?

Eight days.

Eight hours of the business. Eight.

Oh, what's the quiet?

I would, I mean, allow it in the morning. You got to allow it in the morning.

9 a.m. is.

I think we keep, so if you can do it where the same restrictions, no garbage pickup, door dumpster removal between 9 and 9 again. Just keep it clean and then they can come after 9 a.m. for you.

Let's see they're done.

All right.

Greg, I get the feeling you don't want a masonry enclosure for the dumpster.

You're looking for a hardy plank, something that... Yeah, something small because the dumpster itself is going to be smaller, so we've got to maximize the efficiency of the space. You know, if we take six inches and six inches, we just lost the foot.

How about a hardy plank or something that matches the facade, whatever that... I think it's T-111 or T-11 or... There's different elements of the side, but put boulders on the inside just to protect it then? Yeah.

What kind of fencing is going up?

Back there. You know, we got to meet this reviewer a little bit late. But we've been talking. I would expect it would be similar to what it is now, but in a better condition. So it would be like a chain link with either the slats or some kind of screening on it.

Yeah, I think it needs to be a little more sensitive to the neighborhood. Well, it's Iraq.

Immediately on the other side of the chain link fence is like a wood plank fence. Yeah, I know.

But I think we have to kind of set the standard and – You know, to have the tail end say, ah, we'll just put chain link up and put some slats in it. I don't think it'll look good. I really don't. Do you want a PVC fence? No, they don't last. How about a board on board? Board on board or T111, I think what Mike is. Yeah.

Okay. It would be nice if the color matched the building. Yeah.

Yeah, the T111, you can paint any color. Right?

Yeah.

The one thing that is a little funky with it right now, it's in the top of the curb. Yeah, we'll figure it out. Yeah.

Craig, with regard to the signage, do we need one for the projection? I think we need the other four, if I heard you correctly, or other three, I guess, that Mike identified. Do we need the wall sign projection, bottom of page five?

The question is, does the wall signs project more than eight inches? I didn't see the detail on the plans. No.

So, yeah, I think as far as like the materials and the supports and stuff like that, I think we could comply with. It's just a matter of the size and the dimensions of it.

I do believe the plans say it's dimmable. So the sun is all dimmable so that we don't have to worry about intensity. We can deal with that in the field with dimmable.

Yep.

Same comment came on. There's no site lighting shown, Craig, but you have wall lights. So we can just do a light meter and see what the ambient out there with the wall lights. I don't anticipate you need a freestanding light for the size of the site. I don't think so. Just to make sure that... Yep.

Okay. I guess we can go through Mike's letter right now. I think we'll just talk about the ones that we haven't hit already, which I think ultimately comes down to... The big one is the ADA accessibility. And from what I'm told, this is like a rehab. And I think that you can't do it in no other way to put it. Because you have three steps in the back coming in. There's three more steps inside the building if you came in the rear. If you were to go in the front door, there's three steps inside the building. So whether you make the parking lot to the door accessible, I don't think the building can be accessible in itself without being cost prohibitive. So I don't think that because of that cost prohibitive portion of it, I don't think we need to comply with the ADA accessibility. I mean, we will have the parking spot, but... I guess we could technically make the deliveries to them in the parking lot, but I don't think that they could get in just from the number of steps that are inside the building.

I get it. There is in the UCC code an impracticality clause. It's a reconstruction. My belief is a reconstruction is existing structure. It's just it's putting all this effort into it. if not now, it's never going to get accessible. And you're saying accessibility because of the interior layout, not just the steps getting in, you're saying interior.

Right.

So even if you do a switchback ramp and get one door, you're saying the door leads to nowhere. Right. Or because the internal layout of the existing structure.

For example, I could definitely get the ADA from the East Cliff Street side, bring that into the door, but then there's three steps once you're inside the doorway. And I don't think that there's any real way without winning the lottery that it could be done. And I think it's the same way. I mean, I could really let the architect speak to it, but I think the same thing would be regarding the sprinklers. So I think it's still part of the rehab portion of the code.

I understand. Regarding the, there's a formula on the UCC for adaptability when you reconstruct and you have to put certain monies towards this, a whole formula. And what typically is done and the accessibility can't be done is typically it's done in the bathrooms. That's what I typically see. The bathrooms are made ADA. Which they did do. Right. That's typically what's done, even though you can't get in the facility. Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, it's similar to the parking space. I mean, if you can't get, but it's there. So we're doing our part the best that we can.

Yeah, I don't have an issue with that. I think we collectively have to think, we kind of go back to what we know instead of what's coming. And I think from a technology standpoint, um having the ability to market the ada parking and you bringing it out you know there's communities that eliminate drive-through uh restaurants now it's you park and you're on your app that's the only way they don't have drive-through anymore so i think we kind of have to start to think a little bit differently than we normally do so i don't have an issue with that okay

With regards to the shade trees, Mike made the comment about buffering the exhaust for the kitchen. Ironically the exhaust if you look on the plans is on the side facing East Cliff Street So rather than putting up some kind of man-made Buffer whatever we can take maybe a couple Shea trees and put them in front of it in that crest area that you're talking about. So I think that's a great idea. Yeah, so I Yeah So I think what we do is the street trees, we kind of put a little bit more calm there. And then the shade trees, obviously, a little more fluff, whatever you want to call it, spread to them. And that would act as a buffer for that exhaust. Both sound and visual. Yeah. Yep. A couple of pine trees. I think... We've really addressed everything, either through testimony or the miscellaneous stuff that... Are you going to go through the fire marshal's report as well? Well, I think that we can, yes. All right. But I think, again, as far as the code is concerned, if there's not a sprinkler system, I think that would address those first two comments. As far as tying in the alarm to a central station, yes, we will do all that. So 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, we can agree to that. So it's really just a matter of the... whether the sprinkler system is required, which according to the code, we don't believe it's necessary.

Oh, I don't think it is either. Craig, this is a question of what the variance is, the heightened site safety we've put, it's a mixed use building.

So the fire department right across the street, right?

I understand. So I don't think the fire marshal is saying it is a code, but for the relief, the height, the public safety that we've discussed this on different items.

Yep. But as far as tying everything in and, you know, making it, you know, when the alarm does go off, it will get to Central Station. We will do that. So did I miss anything?

Well, I just want to go back to the sprinkler system just because we have been taking great pains as we go into redevelopment. And, you know, I'll say the larger projects, this is not one of the large projects in a redevelopment area, But we are requiring that, and for obvious reasons. You know, you look around the state and there's significant issues. So, you know, I'm leaning towards that as a requirement or a request that that be installed. I think because it is a mixed-use building, Because you have ovens, because you have residents living upstairs, I think it's something that the board should consider.

So I'm going both ways on this. I know we've done this in the past with the other application on Main Street, but I kind of see it as like a case-by-case situation. So this one, to me, I feel like, like you said, it's not one of the bigger ones. It's smaller. There's one apartment upstairs. It's not next to another building. It seems like the applicant's actually spending a decent amount of money improving this property. As long as everything's centralized and they're all interconnected, if there's a fire risk, an alarm that goes off upstairs, I think I'm comfortable with that. That's my feeling.

Is there a secondary means of egress on the second floor?

Just the windows.

It's the windows? Yes.

I think it's the windows, right? Correct. Yeah, it's the 5.4 or 5.7 square feet of the egress windows. It's the second floor. You're allowed to do the egress window.

Oh, okay.

We're chewing on that, Craig. Stormwater management, I had some comments about roof leader and make sure they tie in.

I actually went out there today. They don't tie in.

All of them come to the ground. All right, so you're proposing just a splash block?

Yeah, so I'm glad you brought that up. What I would suggest, the condition of the trench drain is just to eliminate it. It's fallen in, it's about this deep, and it drains to the circular inlet. I say we just take the trench drain out and everything will drain to the circular inlet.

You want to pitch it a little bit, or you think the grates normally go there?

Well, I'll adjust the grate.

You make the grates. You're going to make the manhole. You're going to convert it into a catch basin.

Well, it is a catch basin now. So it's a circular inlet. So it's a trench grate and a circular inlet, and everything – I don't know why they put it in. It was – but it's in bad shapes. But the inlet itself, the circular inlet is clean. I mean, I looked in there today. As far as the bend in the pipe, I have no idea what it does, but it appears to work.

So do you want to tie in the roof leaders to the building, or do you want to continue? I think we leave them the way they are. Leave them the way it is? Yeah. Okay.

Because they're essentially draining into the small gardens along the building.

so that your testimony is the stormwater management doesn't adversely impact the surrounding people, the public, or the street, and that the on-site is adequate for, the conveying structure on-site is adequate for the site?

Yes, yes.

Sanitary sewer? Do we have any documentation? I haven't seen this, this project hasn't been from the board, I don't know of ever. So the comment was, if it was to be replaced, with PVC, wonderful, but not just televise it. And if it's in bad shape, New Jersey American will replace from the road to the clean out and from the clean out to the building would be the applicant's responsibility.

That one we, you know, like we usually do.

We typically do. We video it. Send me a video, a jump drive if it needs work. What I'm saying is the, since New Jersey American has bought the sewer system, the applicant is not burdened with the connection into the road now. So it's the clean out. So it's 20 feet potentially of sanitary sewer lateral or 30 feet, whatever the building is from the clean out.

So yeah, we can look into it and work it out with Mike.

Yeah. Yeah.

You televise it.

And if it's televised in the crack, or there's a problem, let's say at the main, that becomes an issue with New Jersey American will replace it. If the whole line is bad, then the applicant, my understanding, would be responsible from the clean-out, which is typically put between the curb and sidewalk to the building, which is less than 30 feet of pipe. So that's the scope of what we're talking about here.

Back just to touch base on the sprinkler again because I go both ways. I'm sure it's in there, but there's a suppression system in the kitchen in the – in the pizzeria, an existing one or a new one's going in, I assume?

There's an existing one, yes.

And it'll be up to code with everything, because I know it's probably been a while since that's been inspected, tested.

It was inspected and tested prior to the purchase, which is last August.

I do have a question. Is the basement going to be occupied by office space or just material storage?

Just storage.

food cans, flour, that kind of thing, but no offices downstairs.

Thank you. And that's storage for the commercial aspect. The residents won't have access to the basement for their storage.

No.

Okay.

So we're going to have one torpedo that's existing.

Well, that's probably going to be replaced.

Okay. It's going to be replaced in the same location. Yeah. Correct.

Yes.

Okay. So it's a sound data. That's for the whole system.

Yeah, and I think they have information already about it. Okay. Yep.

SO WE'RE GOING TO SCREEN THAT LOCATION WITH LANDSCAPING. SO THAT'LL TAKE CARE OF THE SCREENING OF THAT. YES. YEP. MAKEUP AIR, IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR MAKEUP AIR?

SO WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT.

MAKING SURE THAT THE STUFF IS VISUALLY SCREENED, WHATEVER IT IS ON THE ROOF. MY CONCERN IS IN THE WAY THAT THE SCREENING IS DONE.

I'm going to piggyback on the question about the hoods coming out, not the hoods, the exhaust. Currently, there are four exhausts from that kitchen system, and we're going down to one. There's an exhaust that goes out of the roof, and then there's two more in front of the windows, and then there's one on the side.

I think those are heat vents.

Do you have one? And there's two smaller ones on the roof on East Cliff those chef hat spinners Heat vents Yeah

What does the current stack that's on the roof line facing Gaston, what does that currently serve?

Roger, I think it's the ovens. Is that true? Is it the ovens?

Oh, yeah. Oh, that's the old oven. Oh, yes. It's the old oven, right? Yes, the old oven. Which, by the way, yes, that's the old oven.

If they remove the chimneys on the roof, how are they going to heat the building and the furnace? Where is that going to exhaust to?

No, I'm sorry.

The way one of the drawings shows that the chimneys, the traditional chimneys at the top of the roof, they're both going to be removed. The plans on the new display don't show chimneys on the roof, but if they're going to have a furnace in the building, how does that get vented?

They're going to be self-vented. Designed with PVC and it's got the motor. It's going to be direct vent, you're saying? Okay.

And where is that going to vent out to?

Whatever it is.

Larry, what we normally do in direct vent is we have the applicant try to, the best efforts is to put it not in public view, the vents, and to color match the facade, paint them. This is what we've done in the past.

Regarding the direct vents.

It's not showing the plans.

Yeah, and I think one of the things is they've done a conceptual plan of the layout. They haven't gotten MEPs involved yet, so once they bring the MEPs in, they will address all the proper venting and things like that. So that's why there's kind of looking at each other and what we're doing type of thing.

Just to be clear too, so you have the existing kitchen hood coming out the side to remain, but it also shows the one on the lower roof on Gaston to remain as well. It does show that one's remaining, just the two smaller ones on the east side are being removed.

Yes, it will stay, right? So the old oven used to be... So the requirements for the ventilation is like literally minimum. There's no heat. Like literally you could rest your face on the oven. Everything will be contained within the oven itself being electric.

I think what the applicant's trying to say is they haven't fully designed it, and whatever events or exhaust is needed will be screened and be in compliance with the sound ordinance. So if there's something in the roof, they're going to screen it so it's not in public view. Anything on the side, like we talked about the exhaust, is going to be the landscaping, and the sound's going to deal with the sound ordinance.

Correct.

Back on the used cooking well, it's going to be on site. Is there going to be a tank in the ground? How is the used cooking well? You have some deep fryers there.

Usually what happens, it gets stored inside. It's a service that you call the night before. You schedule the appointment, just like a delivery. They'll come in the next day. They'll give you a time window. Basically, when the truck comes in, they'll just pump out of a gallons, 12 gallons, and they'll just remove that from the inside, and they'll be done. They'll give you a dollar per gallon, actually, to recycle the oil, and they'll put biofeed or something like that.

The reason for drilling down is we've had applicants that put the grease in the dumpster enclosure, and it becomes a housekeeping nightmare. Absolutely not.

They'll actually give you a receipt, too. It's required by the health department, so every time they come in, it's one of the things. Okay.

Any other questions for Mr. Saez?

Would this property benefit from a reversal of the existing traffic flow? Instead of entrance off a cliff, entrance off Gaston and exit onto a cliff, would there be any benefit to, you're going to fix it anyway, but if he flipped it and made the entrance off of Gaston, would that be of any benefit for layout, parking, circulation?

I think I'd rather have, like, that's kind of the residential side. I'd rather see it coming in than the cars going out and going left and right through the neighborhoods. So I'd rather see if they need to come in, they're going to come in from a residential and not pour out onto it. I'd rather pour out onto the state highway.

Yeah, and I would have just a concern on Gaston if they're sitting there waiting to take that left-hand turn coming in. I'd rather them just come in and come right in off the residential, yeah. Thank you.

Yep. Craig, I had some comments about the sidewalk. Most of it's in good shape. Some of it's cracked. So I had a comment about repairing or replacing portions. And with the note saying during construction. Yes.

And the gap in the curb on the north end, that was a tree stump that was like 36 inches. And Antonio told me today that they actually took it out. Okay. So we could close it up if need be. But that's the reason for the gap.

I had some comments on the light. I'm switching gears on you on the color temperature, which is a fancy way of saying the light colors. I think it was proposed. yet three thousand work out what i think i had recommend thirty five hundred or something that because you have the lights right there the mercury paper the high-pressure lights right on the cast yeah you to me it makes kind of sense to light looks very similar we're talking about white light versus the yellow light as you go up late temperature becomes i know but not So when you say you like Kelvin and all these fancy terms, we're just talking about the color of the lights.

Why don't you just say that, Mike? I don't understand. Yeah, it sounds good.

Right.

That side and that side of the table understand.

Yeah, I think we've hit everything. But if there's any other questions, again,

very sensitive to the neighborhood in terms of spillage and also in terms of style. You know, putting a mountain wall-packed light on it, that's not, you need, I mean, the building's got a little architectural dimension to it. So uploading is nice, it doesn't spill out into the neighborhood.

Yeah, I think what they have is like the vertical cans, so it goes up and down. So if we could make use of that and cover the parking lot, it'd be good.

And I do like the idea that now cars jockey yep agreed and then just the southern wall the wall with the mushroom vent it's it's a little blank it's it's just it's just a giant large wall and you know i like the idea of putting trees there to kind of buffer it and soften it a little bit you should put three not two because it's better balance is better with three thanks I don't know if there's architecturally anything you can do with that wall to soften it. That building's kind of a transition from the commercial side of Gaston into the residential side of East Cliff. To me, I'm looking at it and it's a little blank. I don't know if you can do something architectural with it. I don't know.

Or make that third shade tree and then maybe you can do lots of Really, it's the trees that are the focus and not the wall.

What about that logo that's going to be over the door to the left on the wall? You make an exception.

Well, then it might be covered by the trees you would like. So you have to pick, Larry. You want your trees or you want a sign?

No, no. I just hear Larry say he didn't want trees.

I did. I want it on the record. That's not what I said. I said they have to put that sign down on the building to the left of where the three trees will be, then it'll break it up.

We could do two trees with the logo in the middle.

But just your fan is right there.

I don't think a logo is the answer because that commercializes the neighborhood. What I'm trying to do is actually soften the commercialized side of it. which is just a large flat wall. And I don't think we're going to have an answer today, but I think there's something architecturally.

But you put the thought in your head.

Yeah, there's something architecturally that can be done that just softens it.

Greg, I had a comment about security lighting, which I think the light site's too small for it, but we'll see. You might get enough ambient from gas and ambient lights that it's going to be what it's going to be. But if you can get me some light, should the board approve this, some light meter, just with existing conditions. Oh, existing? Okay. Unless you want to, if you want to factor the wall lights into the lighting, great. But you might have enough lighting out there on ambient. I don't know that. High street, yeah. Right.

Okay. Got it.

The only other thing is the sidewalks. if there's going to be anything done to...

Yes, we agree to that. So any of the... It's okay.

You're probably still trying to figure out what the word's going on.

Is there going to be air conditioning in the building?

Air conditioning in the building? Where is the pad going to be or the compressor?

So if it's split zone and you're mounting it outside, you'll screen it or do something to screen it and we'll deal with the sound.

If it's on the roof, you'll screen it with parapet or something.

I have a comprehensive condition that I've kind of put together for all the different exhausts, HVAC, that kind of thing. So let me know if that works once we get there.

Yeah, there is a spot by the back door that's kind of like a little landscaped area, so you could probably get them in there.

Anything else for him before we move on to the architecture?

Okay, thanks.

Just utilities, Greg.

Public question.

Any upgrades to utilities? I had a comment that should be on the ground. I want to do architect first, and then we'll go.

They're going to do that. I didn't realize he was coming up.

I didn't think it was necessary to present the architect who came all this way, but if you have any other architectural questions, the architect is here, but I don't think we need to do a presentation. We addressed all of... Yeah, no, that was just...

He was here. I thought you wanted him to... Does the board have any questions that would relate to just strictly the architect?

Mike had a question about the utilities. We're not changing it from the building out, so it would continue to be overhead.

So utilities, okay. You don't have to upgrade the service. You're going to deal with what you have.

Yep.

Okay. Regarding the facade, my understanding is you have a standing ceiling roof, a new asphalt, new windows, hardy plank, and where the addition is for the freezer, it's a different, it's a T, it's a different style hardy plank or... Right. I'm just trying to give the color because I get the feeling that the architects really don't want to give this testimony. I just get the feeling that Craig's doing it, so I'll chime in there.

All right, does the board have anything else? All right, Mike and Kara, we've hit all points on your report, Mike.

Just the colors. We talked about the facade colors. Does the board want to know the exact colors on?

I think one of the submissions was color, right?

Yeah, the renderings with the red and the gray. Yes.

So the colors are?

So that is the color scheme. Okay.

Well, it's a redevelopment. It would have to go to the AARP, correct? Yeah.

For final, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

So this is just preliminary, right?

Yes. Well, it's technically preliminary. It's a minor site plan. It's not a major. Oh, so it's, yeah. So it's preliminary.

Because it's a minor, you're preliminary and final together.

So with the ARB, that's going to be... part of the approval, we would have to go?

ARB will have to do a review. Yeah, you don't really go anymore.

You submit it, and then we look at it, and then you'll hear right back. But you don't have to attend anything. You just submit it, and it gets reviewed.

Ideally, after all the penetrations are known, everything, that we can then go to the ARB?

Yep. Okay, got it.

Yeah, but you don't have to attend anything. Okay.

I do have another question. The 7x10 freezer that's going to be installed in the back corner? In the walkway. Is that walkway going to get the walk-in freezer?

It's going to be walk-in from the inside. Yeah, it's going to be internal. Larry, it's technically up to the building and then the entry is internal, but it's still going to stick out of the building. Yeah.

So the sidewalk that's going down there, that's going to be gone. So the sidewalk is going to end coming down the side of the building.

Correct. Well, it's going to you're going to come up the steps from Gaston and then go into the entrance.

Right. There's no there's no coming from the back building.

There's no walkway there. There's no right now. It's on the east side. And basically, though, it's the freezer box is going to be clad in the facade. Make it look like it. It's an addition, but it's technically it's an addition. But the addition is literally the freezer box. Right.

I know it says it on the plans. I know it says it on the plans, but there's no walkway there.

All right.

That's right, Mr. Mr. Yeah, there's no walkway there.

All right, I'm going to open it up to public for any comments, questions. Okay, I will.

I'm Anthony La Rosa. I'm a resident. I see a few familiar faces.

Can you just give your address for the record, please?

77 Lisa Terrace. Thank you. I think this is a great opportunity for our neighborhood. I have been hoping for somebody to open up a place like this. There's nothing quite as authentic as what he's about to put here. And I think that our community is really going to benefit. All the, you know, everyone's heading to Main Street. Great Gaston lost Raritan. Uh, they've lost their bakery. How am I maybe 20 years ago? Um, I think this is so cool. It's bringing it back. I think it's what we want. You know, I don't think this is even something to contend with given parking spots that he needs. You know, there's plenty of park in there. Cops are going to love being over there. You know, it's going to be a safe zone. Um, so I hope you guys are all in for it.

I'm excited.

Let's let's do this. You know, let's get it going. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public.

My name is Greg Ruffa. Antonio is my dad. And this hopefully will be mine in the next couple of years. You know, I am the new generation. So this will be hopefully mine. I'm hoping you guys all approve everything. It's been a long couple months, and I'm so eager. When you're eager for something, you just want it, and that's what I want. This is awesome. I have so many friends, so many family members, loved ones, customers that, oh, when is this coming? When is that coming? It's coming. It's coming, and they're excited for me because I am the new generation, the new future, the light that's going to be brought into this town again on that road. So I hope you guys approve it, and thank you so much for all your time as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Anybody else from the public? Okay. We'll close public session. Um, so I just have a couple of comments and then I do, we have one item that we still have to address cause we have to finalize what the sprinkler is going to be. Um, but, okay. Um, so, you know, as for the parking, I will address that. You know, I looked at this. This is going from basically two businesses down to one. I know that there's that ancillary, but it is really going down to one, and that parking has been sufficient for both businesses on a continuous basis. You know, it is a preexisting. It's not something new. It's just kind of combining and changing slightly. So from my perspective, I really don't see any need to worry or adjust the parking that's already going to be there. I think that he's met that intent. I do truly believe that this meets the intent of what we've been trying to do on the redevelopment side for that Gaston Avenue. We wrote that plan. This is the kind of ideas that we had of revitalization and bringing to, you know, the gentleman's comments from the neighborhood, like bringing something over there. Yes, we want people going downtown, but we also want to service all areas of the neighborhood. And I can tell you that it is definitely needed. And it's an area that or an idea that has come that was definitely the exact type of intent that we were thinking of when we did that redevelopment plan. So thank you. Those are the only comments I have. I don't know if anybody else has any comments, any other thoughts, and then we'll move on to the items that we still have to address.

If we can just address the items, then I have just a few comments to make, if that's okay.

You always like to go last, don't you, sir?

It's my job. I know.

You always have to have last word. All right. So I know one is the sprinklers, and Kara, what's the other one? The other one is whether or not we want them to strike the loading space.

Okay.

Let's start with the striping, because I think that's probably...

I have no issue with them not striping it. I mean, it doesn't add anything. They're going to have to get stuff in there. It's going to come in, and...

There's no issue.

Yeah, I have no issue. I think it actually will kind of crowd. You know, sometimes striping can actually crowd the look of something, and I think it would...

It makes it look more industrial, and we don't want that on the residential side there.

Yeah, so I'm fine. Is everybody okay with that one?

Yeah. Good.

All right, one down.

I'm sorry, go ahead. It's okay, sir.

You can dovetail.

So in relation to that to some degree, signage, I know in a lot of the areas we have very industrial highway-looking signage, and I think we need to take a look at that because this is a neighborhood. And the signage, whether it's entrance, exit, do not enter, that signage needs to be tasteful. It can't be, and I'm looking at the planner engineer on this. Now, I'm not looking at the applicant. I'm looking at right over here. It needs to fit the character of the neighborhood. We can't have metal and reflective signs all over the place. All right.

Is that duly noted, Mr. Planner?

Understood. Understood. Sorry, I'll shut up now.

No, you're good. All right, sprinkler. So the options from the recommendations, I'm sorry, from the fire marshal is the NFPA 13 sprinkler in the basement and then on the first floor, and then in addition the NFPA 13R system on the second floor, which is the residential floor. So thoughts, comments? This is where I will go last with my comments.

I have seen my fair share of kitchen suppression systems not function. So I think any opportunity that we can have to have a sprinkler system in a restaurant is a good thing because, again, I've seen lots of businesses that could have been saved with their kitchen suppression system not going off. Just my two cents.

I have the same, you know.

What do you have on you tonight? I don't know. It doesn't want me to speak anymore.

Yeah, I don't know what's going on. I do share the same concern. I also do know how expensive a sprinkler system can be to install. I don't know if maybe there's a way we can have some kind of a limited system, at least covering over the kitchen area, coming off the domestic or something, rather than a full 13-hour system upstairs and a full 13 system throughout the entire building. I don't know if there's a way we can... Some kind of compromise on that because I'll agree with Roger. I've seen a lot of Bad situations that could have been Avoided and with somebody sleeping upstairs You know it with the kitchen downstairs. I I'd feel more comfortable and I understand there's a significant expense to it. So Maybe we could do a small limited system off the domestic and

And that was going to be my comment. I'd like to see some kind of compromise. I can concede the one upstairs. I can concede the one in the basement. But I do feel like we have to kind of try to find something to improve that safety aspect. I know it's an existing building. I know it was already an existing restaurant. But we're always looking to improve. And I think at least with some kind of compromise just in that kitchen area. Anybody else on the board have any other thoughts on top of that? Yeah, do you wanna take a break just so you can discuss? That's fine, all right, we'll take five. As a reminder, all microphones are still on, so please. And the cameras. And the cameras. We'll go back into session.

Chairperson Werner. Here. Mayor Gallagher. Here. Jason Kraska. Here. Roger Vroom. Here. Larry Cleveland. Here. Andrea Adair. Here. Chris Addix. Here. John Maniglia. Here. Tim Hayes. Here. Bill Kale.

Here. Thank you for giving us the break. I'd like to have our architect, Patrick Orem, just present some information about our proposal of what to do in lieu of a full sprinkler system.

What we were thinking about.

Your full name for the record and qualify you.

Okay. My name is Patrick Orem, licensed architect in the state of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. I've been licensed since 2008. What else? I've served on and gave testimony to various zoning boards throughout the state in the past.

Before those boards, those fields of architecture? Yes.

The board accepts that, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

So what we showed in the plans was a typical commercial kitchen. Going forward, we had planned to provide an all-new kitchen hood, which contains a self-contained ansel system above the cooking appliances. The cooking appliances would be the fryer and, I believe, the gas-fired oven. There's a separate oven that's going to be electric, which is going to have indirect venting. But the kitchen hood with the Ansel system is self-contained over the cooking appliances. In addition to that, what we agreed to is provide some fire rated gypsum ceiling between the residential unit above to the A2 use of the pizzeria to create that maybe a two hour rating fire separation between the two. in lieu of providing the sprinkler system.

MS.

Thoughts from the board?

MR. And at the same time, it's going to be monitored by fire alarm And again, it's across the street from the fire station.

So this Ansel system is not like the old school suppression system that you've seen in older establishments?

Yeah. Again, it's going to be probably a prominent manufacturer's captive air. They make commercial kitchen hoods with the Ansel system. The Ansel tanks are integrated into the hood to provide fire protection over the cook appliances. all brand new.

I'll just tell you, I mean, you're going to need an ANSELS system regardless.

That's a requirement for code anyway for the commercial kitchen.

I mean, I like the idea of the two-hour fire rating. I do have a major concern about the people upstairs, so I'll wait to see what the board has to say.

Other thoughts from the board?

To Jason's original idea, his concept or suggestion for consideration, which was just sprinkling like a domestic system in the kitchen area, which doesn't have the expense of the larger system or the more robust system. But it does provide an added level of security, safety, and as the chairwoman had pointed out, time. Um, because you know, with, with a small sprinkler system, it, it does buy some time for, uh, the fire department to get there. Um, and it buys time for the resident above, um, and that the resident above is a big concern. Um, I don't know that you'd we'd be having this discussion if it was purely commercial, if there was nobody above, but with a resident above and a, an active commercial kitchen, it's, it's something that we have to be concerned with. So. Can you talk a little bit to the idea of that compromise, which would allow for a smaller domestic system?

I guess we can look into that with our fire protection engineers on how do you do a limited use sprinkler system in the kitchen area.

So I would just chime in on that. And when I say, when I suggested the limited system, You know, I am talking about tapping off of, like, the domestic lines or whatever. I don't know what's in there right now, so I can't be too specific. We also don't want it over... You don't put it over, like... greece and everything else you know your ansel system cover that this is more of a surrounding the area just if something happens contain it into that and give the time to the fire department to get there i don't uh i don't want to putting and i'm sure the fire protection engineers would you know obviously designed for that but i'm not i'm not suggesting anything very robust or anything yeah that's what

We don't want to get into like providing fire pumps and such like an NFPA 13 sprinkler system would require. But that's something we'd consider with talking to the fire protection engineer on how to implement that tapping off the domestic.

So we could say as the applicant will work with the board's professionals and fire marshal to agree upon a limited suppression system for areas of the kitchen only.

That sounds reasonable.

Well, if we're coming off this domestic and it's just PVC piping, why not do the whole restaurant? It's just plastic pipe at that point.

Pressure-wise is the only thing I would worry about because then you start getting into fire pumps and everything. I have a little bit of a doubt. you'd end up getting into pumps and stuff once you put too many heads in.

So that would be my only... And I agree with that with Jason. We're trying to keep this what... self-contained as possible to the kitchen area and not cause erroneous costs on top of to have a whole sprinkler system. But I do feel that, and I think it's pretty much a consensus on the board is if we can at least figure out a way within that domestic system to be able to do that in a limited area, in a limited way, I should say, in that kitchen area to keep that containment It does buy time. It does allow a little bit, you know, I feel a little bit better for that resident upstairs, as well as trying to save the business, too. So, you know, there's a two-fold there. But I think that, you know, Mike, I think we're looking to not solve an entire problem. We're looking to limit and mitigate the problem so that it is contained and buys time for everyone.

Can you repeat that again, Cara?

The applicant will work with the board professionals and fire marshal to design and implement a limited sprinkler system covering the kitchen area only.

Are they also talking about the fire-rated ceiling buffer also?

Ask them.

That's a question for them, Larry, not me.

Oh, no, I wasn't sure. Are you also thinking about still including the fire-rated?

Yes, like a two-hour-rated fire separation between the residential use down above to the A2 pizzeria below.

And the basement will be just nothing?

No, no work. Yeah.

And I do just want to point out one thing for just to have it on the record from the fire marshals report. I don't think we're looking at that number 10 there that says the changes can be made by the fire official during any on-site visits. So unless the board has any, I think that's a bit onerous to just leave a blanket statement like that in there. So we'll remove number 10 out of the fire marshals report. I don't want that ambiguity.

No, and that was to be clear. What Craig had gone through on 2 through 9 is 2 through 9, and we're not conceding or including 10.

So unless you have any other questions for Mr. Orem, I just want to bring up one more thing with Mr. Stiers, if I could have a moment, please. Okay, thank you. This has to do with a practical situation that we're dealing with right now. My client's dealing with, Patrick, you want to, I mean, I'm sorry, Greg, you want to talk about this a minute?

So since they bought the building, he's gotten insurance. I'm told that if he cannot replace his roof, his insurance will be canceled on June 9th. So as a condition, could we at least pull a permit to replace the roof while we're going through post-approval? that will allow him to get his roof on and keep his insurance with the bill.

I don't know that we would have any jurisdiction over that anyway. I think that's a cosmetic issue.

I think under normal circumstances that would be if they went in for a permit, which I don't even know if you need a permit, maybe for a commercial you do these days to put a new roof on. But since they are here and we're imposing conditions, I can understand that concern. So we can certainly put that in there and the board can say they have no issue with the building department doing that. That's the better way to frame it. Yep.

YEAH, I DON'T THINK REPLACING A ROOF, AN EXISTING ROOF SHOULD BE A CONDITION EVER.

NO, I THINK TO THE POINT IS HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO, HE DOESN'T WANT THE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE TO SAY, WELL, NO, YOU HAVE TO WAIT.

YOU HAVE A PENDING APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT TWICE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

SO THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS, THEY HAD A FEW REQUIREMENTS THAT HAD TO BE DONE. Well, the insurance company is not making it easy because they do want the roof replaced, but also they're talking about cleaning the kitchen exhaust system, which we're replacing under this application. And they also want grease accumulations removed from electrical outlet located in the kitchen. which is also going to be renovated as well.

Yeah, I don't think those are issues we can deal with. We may have to convince the insurance company that it's going to be replaced or if they're going to make you do it now and then replace it, but I don't think we can do anything about that.

No, but we can put in there that we have no objection to you drawing a permit to get your roof done immediately.

Thank you. We'll have Antonio go to the town to... see what has to be done, see what permits we can get or see what work we can do so that he doesn't lose his insurance.

All right, any other comments, questions, concerns from the board? Go ahead, Mr. Gallagher.

Thank you. Obviously the board has to take a vote, but what I will tell you is this is a great application. Um, it's a property that has been vacant for many, many years. Um, as the chairwoman had said, uh, we have a redevelopment plan in place for that area and, and this fits, um, it's a, uh, an adaptation and a rehabilitation of an existing building. And, uh, and it's a good use. Um, it's a continuation of a use of preexisting use. Um, you've indicated that you're looking to be sensitive to the neighborhood, which I think is very, very important, which I think is fantastic. And, uh, um, and what I really like also is that. You're fulfilling your American dream. And not only that, you're going to have the ability to employ people who can then also fulfill their dreams. And I think that's fantastic. I like that. And I like that it's family. You're making your son go to work. That's a good thing. So I want to thank you for investing in Somerville. Gaston Avenue is a great street, and it's only getting better. And with a project like this, I THINK YOU'LL DO WELL. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY, CARE, CAN YOU READ OFF WHERE WE'RE AT, PLEASE?

ALL RIGHT, SO THE RELIEF THAT IS NOW NECESSARY IS THE VENOM OFF-STREET PARKING, 12 OR SO ARE REQUIRED, AS COMMUNITY 9 PROVIDED. WE GET AWAY WITH THE STREET TREES, WE GET AWAY WITH THE SHADE TREES. PARKING AREA IN THE REAR IS REQUIRED. We need the three sign variances that are referenced. The space is parallel to the access aisle requiring 24 feet. We need that as relief. We need a waiver from the park and space selection travel aisle as well. And we need a relief from the loading space since we're not to the satisfaction of the board of professionals. With Follards Incorporated, an offense of either T111 or board on board, again, to the satisfaction of the board of professionals. Employee parking to be by the dumpster. Loading will occur when businesses to 9 a.m. Same thing with regard to trash and recycling, and same thing with regard to oil pickups. The hours of operation will be 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. Trash and recycling pickup will be as needed. The oil will be stored inside until the third party pickup. The lights will be dimmable and may require a reduction in intensity once a light test is conducted, of items one and two, which I'll address later, and item 10, which will not need to be satisfied. With regard to the sprinkler system, items one and two of the fire marshal's letter, the applicant shall work with the board of professionals and the fire marshal to design and implement a limited sprinkler system covering the kitchen area only, in addition to the proposed suppression mechanisms that are on the plans. We talked about fire ratings and things like that. The septic line will be televised to determine what is necessary with regard to cleaning or replacement to the satisfaction of board engineer. Basement will only be utilized for storage for the commercial use. The rooftop HVA system, venting, exhaust, all of those related items, either existing or to be replaced, will be installed and located to the satisfaction on test requirements. The lighting style and acceptable spillage, again, will be to the satisfaction of the Board of Engineering based on comments from the Board. The color scheme with regard to signage on the renderings shall be acceptable and submitted to the ARP for review and comment. And there were comments with regard to signage specifics being complimentary to the area, which again will be reviewed by the Board of Engineering Planner.

So moved.

Second.

Chairperson Werner?

Yes.

Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Roger Vroom? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Andrea Adair? Yes. Chris Addix? Yes. John Maniglia? Yes. Tim Mayes?

Yes. Welcome to the neighborhood.

Yes. Again, thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, moving on to discussion items. Mike, stormwater.

Okay, thank you. For those who didn't get a chance, I emailed the, for cursory discussion, the stormwater ordinance proposed revisions from the Environmental Commission. Now, there's some typos in there. Just as for discussion for the planning board, so you it's if you didn't get a chance i spend a little time with the vice chairman of the environmental commission so i understand what the recommendations are the recommendations essentially is to capture all developments over five thousand square feet and call that a major development i mean including roofs that we capture that uh... there is a require a stormwater maintenance report the issue to the borough annually no annual fee the fee was taken out and There's an exception in there regarding Rooftop if you have a development, it's all roof that is exempt from water quality and water quantity So that there's an exemption there regarding that and the other item is to require during the analysis that the sites be other than hardtop pavement for in terms of runoff. so the site would be assumed to be grass wood something other than if the site was 100 paved for whatever reason for during the it qualifies as a major development under that scenario you would do the calcs based on grass or something other than a hardscape the purpose for that would uh it would require capturing more stormwater volume that way. So those are the major comments there. There's a definition of redevelopment in there, but it's very similar to reconstruction, which is already in the ordinance. But I think the intent here is to really tighten up that anything that requires more than 5,000 square feet of hard surface be captured and be defined as a major development. I think that's the overall theme and the rest of it is addressing volume and to capture that annual inspection. And there's comments on what the annual report would go to the borrower engineer. There's no annual fee in there. So that's what you see in the red is basically those points. It basically expands the definition of a major development and requires water quality if it doesn't meet the rooftop exemption for all projects being. Right now, if you have a roof, DEP says you don't have to treat it because it's clean. Rain burrow, this thing we always, people capture water and reuse it. This would require it if it's not exempt being a rooftop project. There's an exemption saying if you're just doing a building, no sidewalk, no loading areas, that that's exempt from water quality and quantity. Other than that, you're gonna have to address the water, the rooftop runoff and water quality standards, not just the quantity standards. So that's what you're looking at in front of you for the, in a nutshell.

I DID HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS. AND IT WAS LAST MINUTE SO I APOLOGIZE. I MIGHT NEED SOME CLARIFICATIONS. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT IS TO BASICALLY FORCE EVERYBODY TO DO MORE WATER TREATMENT, WATER COLLECTION, ET CETERA. AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE TRYING TO PULL OUT THAT ROOFTOP CAUSE FOR SOMEBODY JUST DOING A ROOF. But what would happen if they were doing their roof and at the same time they were doing the front walkway going up to their house where they're building, the pizzeria? They're replacing the roof. This would trigger on them because they're putting, they're repairing the sidewalk or the driveway. So the roof and everything would then become, in my understanding of reading this, they would now have to go back to treating all of that because there was, you know, that outside freezer is being added. I don't know, I support that and, you know, I understand they were trying to come up with a thing, but just saying that if it's only a roof, it still leaves a lot because if you're doing a whole roof, you know, you may be doing other things as well. And the same point, you shouldn't be penalized for wanting to replace your roof. and decide I'm not going to do additional repairs because... And I'm going to add a comment on that.

I think my concern, too, on this was, and I have a lot of comments on this that I'll get to, but specifically on this roof only, you know, we'll use this application as an example. Many times when applications come before us, we use this opportunity to make things better. Not just the building, not just the parking, but the infrastructure surrounding it. And infrastructure isn't just stormwater. We have curbs, we have, I mean, I'm sorry, sidewalks, driveways, curb cuts. We've always made that as an as a part of a whole application and I think we're dangerously close to saying people saying yeah No, just touching the roof. I'm not going there now. I don't want to be penalized They don't I don't have the cost or I don't have the expenses to be able to do extra for you And I think that is a big disadvantage to us on the planning board It's one of the things that we you know in our master plan. It's about getting better and And I think on this one specifically, I think it really would restrain, it would really restrict. And I think it is more harmful than it is actually helpful. And again, I'll go back to my statement I made at the last meeting. There's a lot of balance when it comes to this stuff. And I think this is one example where I don't really think it benefits us by saying, all right, well, if you're going to do a roof only, you're exempt. But maybe we don't want them to just do the roof only.

That's kind of where I'm going with this. I understand their intent on it was to get away from somebody who's just replaced. But I agree with you 100% is we just told them to fix the sidewalks. Now they would have to go back and pretend that it was a forested area and do a stormwater in different ways. It becomes very exhausting and very difficult.

I had this conversation with John recently before the meeting. Right now in the ordinance, the last five years, let's say it's a developed site the last five years, you can use that hardscape in doing the runoff. this would eliminate it's some people call it the five-year clause elimination so that would eliminate the five-year and uh the chairwoman asked me what will put some numbers to this so i apologize for this but this just got i don't know if anyone saw this but i just cranked out the numbers today on a 10,000 square foot site. You should have, Ryan Bakey had prevented, gave hard copies of, all this has got a seal on top and all it is is the calculations. If the project right now was a building in a qualified hardscape, it's there for the last five years. If you use that, the bottom line is you would have a very high CN number, and the runoff would be 31,000, the volume is 31,000 gallons for a 100-year storm, total volume. I'm not talking about the routing, which is the flow. I'm saying total volume coming off that site for a 100-year storm is 31,000. If you treat it as a grass area, with a CN, which is a fancy way of saying how pervious is the soil. In Somerville, the soils are from a B to a D. Most of the soils are C, so for this iteration, I used a C with a good condition means it's grass, it's not bare soil, so it retains. So you have a CNF of 74, and that makes the runoff almost 50,000, 49,000 gallons and change. So you're looking at a swing of roughly 18,000 gallons on how you do the analysis to difference. That is looking at a 98 CN. Everything is being identical. It's a 10,000 square foot lot. Similar to the lots on South Bridge Street, I think in the SID, a lot of the lots are falling around 10,000 square feet. There might be some larger, but there's some smaller. And 10,000 is what the bulk standards are for the POR. So this will give you an idea. 10,000 isn't huge, it's basically what the other zones use, and I think it's appropriate in my opinion. Yes, there's bigger sites. Of course, Edgewoods is acres, seven acres, of course, four acres. But on all the infill and all the small lots of buildings, I think most of those lots are somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000. So I just did it on the quarter acre lot and the runoff volumes and you see the difference. The difference is 18,000 gallons. So with the change, the applicant would have to address that volume onsite in some manner. And I was making sure these numbers are right. So John got hydrocat out and said, oh, of course, Cole, 30 seconds. Yeah, I'm actually coming up with a higher number is what he said. So this is manually doing it using TR-55. It's a fancy way of saying this is what the state wants you to use. This is the right way of doing it, just to give the board some feeling of what the runoff, the volume we're talking about here. So you're looking at a runoff of 98, which is a hard paving, versus a soil that has silt in it. It's not the greatest soils grass, and that's the difference in how you look at this project.

So how much would they need to store on-site in this example?

In this example, your runoff would have to be less than existing. So if you say it's, you'd have to match it, which it doesn't, you would have to store the 18,000 gallons. Now, you actually have to reduce the flow. As John knows, you have to reduce to 50, 80%, so the flow would be higher, but for simplicity. assuming a one-to-one, that volume would have to be... It's going to be detained over time. You're not storing it indefinitely, but you're going to hold the runoff back so that what's coming off the site pre and post, for the purposes of here, match the same. The DEP rules actually require reduction, but this does not go with reduction. This is, say, one-to-one. So for one-to-one, you're going to have to address the detain a significant amount of gallons for these sites.

And so to that point again, and again, I just want clarification to understand it in case I'm not, and without going into the mathematical details of it, if, for example, I'm just picking on random places in town, if ShopRite were to, because of this routine maintenance not being a replacement, if a building or a business decided to repave their entire parking lot, that would no longer be routine maintenance, and that would fall under a redevelopment, and they would have to comply again, as if it was completely grasped beforehand?

The existing ordinance requires reconstruction. The ordinance on the books right now hooks those things. If it's not ordinary maintenance, Jason, you're into the major development.

So I guess my question is right now, because this is in the red, it says that routine maintenance does not include, so like right now, if a business wanted to repave their parking lot, That would be considered major redevelopment?

If it's a mill and overlay, it's not. There's exceptions, but if a full reconstruction or regrading of the parking lot, it would be.

What's the difference? Regrading, I can understand, but the milling and the resurfacing versus replacement, if it's the same square footage, what's the difference between those?

I think the thought process is if you're disturbing the earth, so if you get to the actual soil, then that's the disturbance.

Even though the net pervious or impervious is the same, it's the actual disturbance that's the issue.

The hook is whether it's routine maintenance or reconstruction. That is what the difference is.

It's the same thing with routine maintenance is not... Sorry, I've got to go back and find it. If I want to replace my deck, patio, anything. If I replace it, I have to comply now.

Yeah, it says routine maintenance does not include complete replacement of a roof system, deck surface, patio, pavement, or other impervious surface. So yeah, my concern on that one, again, was somebody wants to go replace their deck because it's falling apart, or you want to replace your roof. Again, it's not considered routine maintenance where I just, I don't see the, I'm trying to find that balance of where's the true benefit to this. You know, I am going to make a couple other comments on some of this, too, is I, in really doing research on this over the last month, as we've been tasked to do by council, and I can't seem to get out of my head that there is appropriate planning. Planning isn't just planning, right? So what's appropriate for us might not be appropriate for Branchburg. And I'll be honest with you, a lot of things that are appropriate in Branchburg are not appropriate in Somerville. And one of the things that I'd like everybody to remember is we are a regional center too. And we are a regional center designation, which means that we are supposed to have smart growth. And in order to do that, we have to find balance. And how do we maintain what we have, continue to update and redevelop what we have. You know, to be honest with you, we don't have real vacant land. We're not like a Branchburg. We're not like a Bridgewater. We're not like a Hillsborough. We're not even like down some of the southern counties where you have a lot of vacant land. And to me, yeah, vacant land, you've got 50 acres and you want to go develop that. These recommendations now, these higher recommendations, absolutely make sense to me. You have a lot of property. You have a lot of land. That's where you want to do it. And you are disturbing land that has not been developed yet. that's where it makes sense to me i'm having a hard time in most of these things um on on this going back to the forestry based and and this the water quality system um for existing projects that you're just, you know, you're not changing the impervious surface. You're starting, let's just say, I'm just gonna say, let's say it's 100% impervious surface, you're going back to 100%, you've started there, you're improving the site, under even the existing stormwater management, you're required to make it better than it was, so we're already going better than where it was, even if it was a project that was 100 years ago, it's gonna be better than it was, And I feel like some of these additional just aren't appropriate for Somerville in the direction that we've been going. I see this as a constraint. You know, when you look at some of these, I see it as, you know, developers, and I'm focused on the downtown area and on our redevelopment plans because we have redevelopment plans for a reason. We want to redevelop these areas. And my concern is with some of these ARE WE GOING TO PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TIE EVERYBODY'S HANDS AND THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S TOO MUCH. YEAH, IF I WAS IN BRANCHBURG AND I WAS WORKING ON 10 ACRES, SURE, BUT IN SOMERVILLE, I THINK WE'RE ADDING TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS AND I THINK WE'RE ADDING EXPECTATIONS HIGHER. I WILL SAY, TOO, AND BEFORE I FORGET, YOU KNOW, I'M ALSO NOT A FAN OF PUTTING, ADDING MORE AND MORE AND MORE DEFINITIONS INTO PLANS. WHERE WE'VE GOT DEFINITIONS IN 50 DIFFERENT PLANS. I'M JUST GOING TO USE THE EXAMPLE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WE START ADDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DEFINITIONS TO ALL OF OUR PLANS AND THEN LET'S SAY WE DECIDE AS A BOARD THAT WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WANT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AS A WHOLE FOR THE BOROUGH. WE WANT TO CHANGE IT. WE NOW HAVE TO REMEMBER TO GO INTO ALL THESE PLANS. You know, I'm a fan of your plans should direct you to a higher level. And I think something like a definition of what redevelopment is in Somerville, a definition of what impervious surfaces in Somerville, that belongs up here, not in a plan like this. IN EACH ONE OF OUR REDEVELOPMENT PLANS, WE GO INTO IN DEPTH WHAT REDEVELOPMENT MEANS TO US AND HOW IT IS APPROPRIATE SPECIFICALLY EVEN TO THOSE AREAS DOWN TO THAT FINUTE. I DON'T FEEL IT BELONGS IN A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. WE KNOW WHAT REDEVELOPMENT IS. STORM WATER TALKS ABOUT MINOR AND MAJOR. AND THEN WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO COMPLY? REDEVELOPMENT FOR THE MOST PART ALL FALLS INTO MAJOR. SO THAT'S KIND OF ALREADY STATED. I HAVE A CONCERN WITH ADDING language to a plan that we already cover in other areas. And as for the forestry-based, you know, their comment on, they moved away from the language, but it still says the same thing. And it says, under no circumstance shall impervious surfaces or other conditions resulting from prior development be used as the basis for establishing the pre-construction condition of a site. And I still, I haven't changed my mind even reading the new language. I still feel that this is something that is inappropriate for Somerville. I think we have so many other ways that we are working on mitigating stormwater and working on it in Somerville that AGAIN, I JUST CAN'T GET BEYOND THE FACT THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE FINDING THAT BALANCE, AND I THINK THIS WILL. THESE RESTRICTIONS, AND I READ FROM THE MASTER PLAN LAST TIME, I'LL READ FROM IT AGAIN, I REALLY FEEL THAT WE WILL HURT AND WE WILL BE GOING AGAINST WHAT OUR MASTER PLAN SAYS AS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FIND THAT BALANCE ON WHAT IS APPROPRIATE IN CERTAIN PLACES. AND I WILL CONTINUE TO COMPARE. WE ARE NOT A HILLSBORO, WE ARE NOT A BRANCHBURG, AND WE ARE NOT A BRIDGEWATER WITH ALL OF THAT PROPERTY. I FULLY, 110% AGREE WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS FOR A, YOU KNOW, 10 ACRE, 50 ACRE, 30 ACRE, WHERE YOU'RE STARTING FROM ZERO, ABSOLUTELY. We don't have that in Somerville, and I don't think it's appropriate to put those restrictions on Somerville.

And to your point, I mean, remember, this body is going to have to review it in connection with the master plan and make that specific finding for or against recommendations that the council will have to go back and take a look at. Just to your point, so everybody remembers that. Thank you.

And I did forget to say that, yes, what the chairwoman is talking about is there's a couple of definitions that were added for redevelopment that she's referring to. I failed to say that in my summary. So there's a definition of redevelopment that was added. And there's some language in there about gravel. And based on my conversation, it would be that it's not – The Environmental Commission would accept the definition. Okay, the issue with gravel is, is it pervious or not pervious? So there is a whole guidance that DEP gives. If it's in the ground, packed it, it's not pervious. It's a hardscape. And I originally had that language, and for simplicity, it was taken out, and they would defer to whatever the definition is from the DEP.

I think the whole definition just needs to come out, period. It doesn't belong in here. That's not – this isn't the place for that conversation in my opinion.

I think going back to the first time that we had this conversation when we discussed this prior to – well, no, prior to even it being brought back up to the council. Yeah. is that we talked about incentivizing greenscapes. We talked about finding ways for developers and homeowners to improve their properties and then, like I said, incentivizing more green infrastructure on their end of things. I think that still, that was our recommendation the last time. I believe that is the strongest recommendation, again, going along with your concerns. I think, you know, the entire time that we were having this conversation, I was thinking of the Granite's building.

Mm-hmm.

That would fall under this, and I'm not sure where, because it's an existing structure, and there's a structure adjacent, and there's streets, I'm not sure where they would have any kind of cistern to store the amount of runoff that would be calculated from what's going on. And that's a project that's coming down the line. It's not in front of us right now, but it's coming. I think the right way to go is education. and again going back and talking about incentivizing as we had said when we talked about this prior to it coming back to this board. I think that looking at this with this, certainly we all want to protect our neighbors, we all want to look at ways to do that. This board has been having, and I said this to the council when this came up, this board has been having very conscientious conversations about our areas and looking at our master plan and looking at what we want to do in some of these zones where we know we have extreme flooding and how we can mitigate that and help our neighborhoods i think that's the course that we stay on um you know i think we have to we certainly can find other ways to meet and and work with the environmental commission and find some ways to mitigate but I think that as you said before this is an overreach I think we can definitely work on incentivizing educating you know and putting out the right information out there and and reaching our goals another way but we can't stifle the good work that has occurred and that will continue to happen when we see people wanting to invest in making this borough better well said

Very well said. Both of you. I agree exactly with what you've said. And let's dial back because we're talking, there's a whole lot of theory going on. Let's dial back 15 years. This borough was nearly broke. Nearly broke. And we had started a process back in 2004 of redevelopment. And we're keying on redevelopment, but this has an impact overall. And It has worked. If you're lucky enough to own a home in this town, it's either doubled or tripled in value because of strategic investments, strategic policy, and strategic decisions made at this table and the council table over the last 25 years. Implementing something that begins to put the restraints on our ability to allow reinvestment in our borough is going to have serious implications, not just on the commercial community, but on every single residential home in this borough. The whole goal of redevelopment was to begin to shift some of that tax burden back to the commercial side and away from the residential side. As soon as we stifle the ability for our economic engine to crank Guess what happens? We don't have people like that gentleman who was here who wants to live the American dream and have his son take on a business. They'll go somewhere where they can. They're not going to come here. We currently have a stormwater plan in place that's compliant with the state regulation. Correct, Mike? That's correct. So everything we are talking about is going over and above. We're a regional center. That means the borough recognizes, the county recognizes, and the state recognizes that we're a center for investment. And now we're looking at ways to stop that investment. And I know that's not the intent. I get it. It's not the intent. But that's the result. So I absolutely a hundred percent agree with Roger. We started this conversation with the idea of incentives and education. We started looking at the East end of main street going green. We get it. That's what this body does. The longterm planning let's plan that longterm, not just from the environmental perspective, from the residential perspective, from the financial perspective. We have to take all of that into consideration and make those good decisions. So I'm done.

I am just going to add also, just for clarification too, because I went over this with Mike today, just so that the board understands too. These are not things that if the applicant came before us, we'll use the granites building. And let's say this goes into place and they come before us and they absolutely positively prove that it is impossible. We cannot grant relief. This is not something that we as a board can give them relief on. So that's where our hands become tied. And the most, I haven't talked to one person that said that these would be doable things within Somerville. And again, it's within Somerville because of the way we are, right? We're not forestry-based, and any trees and woods that we have, we're trying to limit and protect, but we don't have that like others do. The other thing that I would like to also get on record too, and it's this conflict, right? We just approved an affordable housing plan because there are state requirements and we have to meet these requirements. I don't see that as, so now we're in conflict. We do these things and nobody's gonna be able to help us meet our affordable housing, right? So it's not just about making it look better. We have requirements that we just said we are willing to invest in and work with developers on and I don't know how that gets done then, right? So again, that balance, how do we do both? And the last thing is is that I can't stress enough, we're a regional center, the regional center and the intent of what the regional center is and what it means for Somerville is in our master plan. Our master plan is very clear that we want the growth, we want smart growth. And we want to be conscious of what's going to happen in the future for Somerville to continue to make it thrive. And I feel, and again, I will read it if anybody is still not clear. I'll read it again. I see these two provisions needing to be fully removed from this draft. The only recommendations that I see that we can move forward on, which is what we're already in there, is their first one of the impervious surface of 5,000 square feet or more and the required inspection, which are already in our ordinances. Of the four, I can't, I just don't, They came with four. Two are already taken care of. Maybe they just didn't realize they were taken care of, but they're already taken care of. And listen, if the council wants to put fees on and permit fees and all this other stuff, that's a council decision. That is not a planning board decision. We meet what the requirements are for when it comes to maintenance and for inspections and annual, that's part of this stormwater management plan we've already done. ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, THAT'S A COUNCIL DECISION. THAT IS A POLICY DECISION IF THEY WANT TO START CHARGING FEES AND FINES. THAT'S NOT OUR CALL.

I THINK THE FEES WERE TAKEN OUT, BUT THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS WERE BEEFED UP, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE END OF THIS STORMWATER MANAGER. SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL WAS TO BEEF UP But I do believe that the fees were all taken out. I'm referring to page 55.

So, I mean, not to belabor it at all. I agree completely with Lisa with removing those two completely. I can't get behind that as well. And it's the 5000 square foot in the annual inspection. I'm fine with the inspection. I did think that that list was a bit. And again, I don't know much about some of these things, like how you would like what they want by embankment erosion control, like how you're approving that every year, what you're supposed to. I don't know if there's a report that you give. Are you paying somebody to create these reports or is it just certifying that the plan you submitted and that you did for your initial inspection is still compliant?

Which we already have in here, and it says all stormwater management facilities are to be maintained by the responsible party or homeowner association in accordance with the approved maintenance plan. So there's already an approved, like we've already said, you've got to have this, you're required to maintain it.

So that's where I go. I don't think we need the additional detailed report portion, that page 55 that Mike's talking about.

What the chairwoman is saying is you have to, for private stormwater management facilities, once they get approved, you have to record them with the county clerk's office, the maintenance plan, which is required, the language is required from DEP. what's not required is submitting this annually to the borough so the distinction the chairwoman saying is that these requirements are done based on the maintenance plans recorded with the county clerk the what's not is the submittal to the borough engineer is what we're discussing I agree that the maintenance is in there. There's a language that has to be recorded, but right now it doesn't have to be submitted to the borough engineer on an annual basis.

So then where do those reports go? Where is the enforcement on... something like this.

It's a good question Larry. The borough has to certify annually on, rewind that, the borough has to tell the DEP through the stormwater coordinator what major developments were approved. So you're supposed to be reporting what was done to the DEP through the coordinator on an annual basis. Now ultimately If the stormwater management facilities, it doesn't matter if it's a homeowner's, it doesn't really matter. Ultimately, who's responsible is the municipality for all stormwater management facilities. Whether it's reported to county, it says it's 15 million inches tall, it doesn't matter. That's all well and good. Ultimately, the borough, through case law, has been found responsible, even if it's a homeowner's association, to maintain the structure.

But to that, and I'll just keep going back to this with different topics, enforcement is not the planning board's directive. I got it. So that is a borough thing. If they're not enforcing it, that is not on us to write anything else up. If it's in there already, that's Brian's problem.

And I think, Michael, so I'm understanding, if there is a stormwater management measure and there's an operation and maintenance plan that's prepared, that gets recorded with the county. That follows the deeds and follows the property owners. It's the property owner's responsibility in the manual, but if they don't do what they're supposed to do, it ultimately falls on the municipality who then has to report to the state. Correct.

If there's ultimately, this case law goes back from the 80s where a homeless association went bankrupt. And the question is, who's maintaining these detection facilities? This is why this case law, because the municipality said, it's not us, it's a homeless association. Ultimately, the court ruled Guess what? Ultimately, it's the municipality. So even if you have a homeowner association, so what I'm saying, the bulk does stop with the municipality, but there's a lot of safeguards into the system so that the municipality isn't on the hook, if that answers the question. I mean, there's a lot of safeguards. They try to make it so on private stormwater facilities that you have to record it. You're supposed to be doing annual logs. What you're recording now, is in excess of 500 pages, 400 pages on a major. John might be able to speak to this, but the template keeps growing from the DEP on what is recorded with the county clerks back on what, Kara, what you said. The whole purpose of this, so no one can say in the future, I didn't know.

But that's already in the ordinance. We already have that.

It's already in the ordinance. It's already in the regulations. And the purpose of that is that if properties change hands, Larry, no one knows that when you do a title search, it comes up what you're supposed to be doing and what the facility is, who's responsible. It's very, very detailed to try to address maintenance. based on the maintenance report the property owner developer is responsible based on what's recording that's true but ultimately I'm just saying if it all goes to you know down the drain that the borough gets sucked into it but the borough is going to say you didn't follow the maintenance plan that's recorded which is so true so it's not don't think the borough is by itself it's not but it's It's a last resort.

And I think really what it comes down to, and I think Jason and Mike just said this, it is not our responsibility to instill fines, penalties. That is not our purview. If the council so deems that they would like to move that forward, they absolutely can. In my opinion, it does not belong in our stormwater management plan. Our plan is the basis of what is required. If the borough council decides that they would like to go further than that, that falls on the borough council. ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IS DOING WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY.

THEY'RE PRESENTING ALL SIDES. THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS.

Nobody's saying they are.

No, I'm just making a statement that they do hard work, they do the best they can, and they're presenting all sides. That's what they're doing. It's not an evil plan or anything like that.

And that's why I said what I said, Larry. If there's other conditions in Somerville, I absolutely 110% agree with them. It's just not appropriate for Somerville.

I wanted to thank them for the job they're doing. You guys should too.

We do thank them. We thanked them last time, and we're going to thank them again.

They want the participation. They want to be able to give their two cents. And working with Mike and the cooperation level has been better. I think it's been better across the board. Thank you.

Any other comments? ALL RIGHT. SO I WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO MAKE A MOTION. WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION BACK TO COUNCIL FOR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING BE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO NO FURTHER WITH THE water quality requirement as well as the going back to the wooded, right? And that one and two, I'm looking at the original because I know that they changed all the language, but it still comes down to one, two, three, four. They got some specific in some areas. And that the regulated of the impervious surface over 5,000 was already there, doesn't need to be changed. and that the issue as it relates to following a maintenance plan and ensuring that you have that recorded somewhere is already done. It's already in our plan. I'm not in favor of us making recommendations as to whether they should instill fees or anything. I think that really needs to be a conversation amongst the council themselves. That's not our purview. But I feel most of that draft, I can't really see moving forward with any of the red line because we already have existing as we need it. And if anybody disagrees, please, but that would be where I'm asking for a motion on.

So I will move forward and make that motion. And duly noted to Larry, I do want to thank the Environmental Commission. It is a lot of work. And it's a lot of good work. And they have their lane of looking at it. And they do a very detailed job. So I do thank them. They're not here tonight, but they'll watch.

That's why I'm here.

But I will make that motion, as Lisa said, to move it back to the council with the recommendation that those don't need to be adjusted.

I'll second that motion.

Chairperson Werner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Roger Vroom? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Andrea Dare? Yes. Chris Addicks? Yes. John Maniglia? Yes. Tim Hayes? Yes. Bill Kiel?

Yes.

All right. Area in need, ECBD. Mike, so you had sent out the updated Schedule B, right?

Yes. I haven't received comments yet from the boards on uses. I know it's coming. You didn't get a schedule? No, I didn't get mine. did you send me I what I did is on schedule B I took out the overlays and I created a flood FHZ which I'm saying stands for flood hazard zone and I have is open space and parking those are for the properties and I say see text because This is going to need text because we're not saying you can't maintain your dwelling or the building that's in the flood hazard zone, just that the ultimate goal is open space or parking. And I don't know how to do that in the table without the table becoming unbelievably wordy. I changed the stories to match what we discussed. So it's all three stories, except for the two zones, which are two and a half. And if the board likes, I can start working on the text, but I don't know how to get that text into a schedule.

No, I agree with you. I was looking at it when you said see text, and I'm like, huh? And then I started thinking about it, and I'm like, that might be three pages, so it doesn't belong in there.

I'm not suggesting, and I'm sure the board is not, that you can't live in that dwelling. Right. For example, Park Avenue. I'm on Park Avenue. Obviously, you can maintain your own structure. Just because it says parks and open space doesn't mean the borough's never done this. It's not gonna condemn your property or make it that you can't do anything without going to a board. That's not the intent. Saying that in a schedule, in a table.

So just so you're clear here, do you want parks or parking? Like vehicles parking along the flood zone? What are you saying there? Parking is for parking.

You did put parking.

Yeah, I'm saying the TDR right now has stated that you could park in the flood hazard zone. You could – the carrot was to put the high density and not up – and have parking or open space in the flood hazard. So that reflects parking, which is vehicle parking, which is allowed. And again, that's all comments from the board members. Maybe parking's not allowed, but right now DEP does allow it with placarding, with noticing, but you're allowed to park in the flood hazard. So right now it's down, the intent on the red was for parking of vehicles or open space. Subject to your comments.

Yeah, and go ahead if you want to go first. So the parking, that was the original intent behind the TDR, the Transfer of Development Rights. And the idea was to shift the burden off of government in funding the acquisition of these properties and shifting it to the private sector. And the intent was that that whole area should say the whole area a portion of that East Main Street area would be redeveloped and they would need access to parking so rather than building decks we could we could encourage the acquisition of that property and turn that into parking availability which then can cars can move they can leave but if we're going down the path of green Um, I agree. It starts to look, you know, open space or parking. It's, it's either grass or McAdam. It's, it, it kind of doesn't, it doesn't wash. It doesn't balance. Um, so I, I would, I would, I know, I know where Bill is going with that. And I agree. I mean, let's, let's strike the parking. Yeah. We're going green, go green.

And I, I will say, I was going to add to that mayor that, um, I think it, that, consensus that we've had on the board is that we are also trying to use this to mitigate some flooding issues and adding or allowing impervious surfaces down there it's kind of defeating what we're trying to do in that area so I mean I'm in favor I think the parking needs to be removed and that it's just open space or parks unless it's a verb for Park you pave it it's gonna get flooded Yes, and again, the reason DEP allows it is because you remove the vehicles and there's really no harm, no foul to the parking lot, right? except for the fact of our intent of why we want to have this as that buffer to allow for, you know, that flooding that you're not going to avoid along that greenway, that you're not going to have structures or anything that are going to be in the way, and allow for as much pervious surface.

So the one thing I will just throw a wrench in, because I like to be difficult, is if we're going to, you know, long-range plan, we're looking to make all that green, you know, parkland, we might need some parking for the people who want to go to the park.

Yeah, that can be a permitted accessory use.

There we go.

And then just to follow up on the C text, can we just put in like an asterisk and just say existing uses could remain or as long as they're not expanded?

We don't in any of the other zones when we have it, like we don't kick people out and say it has to be a hotel.

That just falls to the underlying, the baseline. My question is when we had the flood committee, we talked about in those zones that there's a certain amount that it is once it is once it has reached a certain amount of destruction it is then considered new construction if you intend to refurbish so is that something that we have to capture in this because I know that there was a lot of discussion about some of the proposed our zones that that had been floated to council would we have to capture that language because again yes it's it's existing but if it's to a certain point where you basically have to rebuild an entire place then does that fall under that zone AE different requirements from the DEP

Can I make a comment on that Mike before you chime in? So I agree with you and I think but I'm not sure that that purview of the details belong here or does that really belong at the council level because it's a policy statement on how whether you would be issuing and allowing for storm improvements, right? And where does that start and begin? Because I agree with you, right? But I think, and if it does belong here, then we need to think about that, right? Because any flooding on their first floor, they're going to need permits to be able to fix things. Do we say no permits in this area? And I'm just going to go to extreme. Once you have flooding into your first floor, no permits are issued. And is that how we start to do that transition? Or to your point, is it there's another threshold that has to be met? And that's where we say, and Again, I think that becomes more of a policy decision versus us saying this is what we feel. And if I'm wrong, Mike, if it does belong in here, I got no problem with it. I just don't want to overstep the authority of the board in what our redevelopment plan says and what we're saying.

Yeah, how I see it is if the board's comfortable with flood hazard zone, to Roger's point, that would be, my vision is to be, that zone would be expanded throughout the whole flood hazard area. That's what the committee wanted. Yes. A flood hazard zone.

We're in favor of that, but I think what we're trying to figure out is there are existing homes there, right? We're not doing eminent domain. We're not saying you have to get out. But on the next flood, because I know everybody can throw tomatoes at me, but it's going to happen, right? When it happens and they now have damage to their homes, what is that threshold to say it's triggered, I'm sorry, it needs to turn into open space?

And and I I agree at least I think that belongs as something in code enforcement. Um, maybe we should look. I know the shore did this down point pleasant and, uh, and all that if you hit a certain level and I want to say it's a percentage of. The cost of the. The property, you know, so if the house is worth a hundred thousand dollars, maybe it's 10% over 10%. I forget exactly how, but maybe we look at that and send that up to council for a recommendation. Cause I do agree with Roger. I mean, at some point.

There is a flood hazard.

Leaving one wall up.

There's already on the books a flood hazard ordinance that it would be, I think, helpful for the planning board members.

Yes, I think that is what we're looking for.

If you have that, we obviously don't reinvent the wheel. There's a DEP-required flood hazard ordinance and a flood hazard officer right now who's the construction official that has to enforce. So I can get that ordinance to the planning board members.

And then that's where we would make, if we feel it needs to be beefed up, that's where we would make those recommendations. And the flood hazard.

Okay. And then here we'll have the text on, not the flood hazard ordinance, but...

Right. What the vision is, here's the vision.

Right.

And that's what I was trying to separate out. Where does that belong? You know, because we just talked about we don't like certain specifics and plans. I think this became too more policy-oriented in a plan versus the vision we see. And, you know, the plan gives the vision, and those ordinances are supposed to back up that plan. And that's, okay, so that's perfect, if you could get us that.

I'll get the flood hazard, and I'll start working on the language that doesn't, doesn't duplicate the flood hazard ordinance that's one thing in my opinion property maintenance the stuff that says that you can live in the structure it's not going to be condemned i think has to be clear in the plan the flood hazard ordinance will take care of the inundations, all those things. If that works for the board.

Yeah, and the one last thing, I still haven't gotten the overlay map that had the lots and blocks on it, or block and lot, block and lot, on it so that we can, because we do need to dictate that, right, what is in that flood hazard zone, you know, So I'm still working on that. Once I have that, then we can clean up that language. I know the Schedule A, we need to, if everybody can get comments to Mike by next week, next meeting, I'm sorry, so that we can review those. Because I see light at the end of the tunnel on the CCBD, and I want to keep pushing it along. Mike, from your perspective, anything in the existing, because I know you still have to give us the area in need report, right? Um, but on the existing as it is, what else do we need to hit on? I was going, starting to go through over the last few weeks, um, the language inside of it, like, listen, all the overlays have to be taken out. We're going back to base zoning. Um, I didn't really see much of a change in what we saw in the vision for those base zonings because the schedules, the new schedules will take care of that. And everything else for that area, I don't really think we're changing that. We're just readjusting where and how we see that, right? Like, you know, how we see that coming to fruition. So I just want to.

If we get the stories down to what the vision is, three stories, and then, and we have the uses. somewhat defined, then it becomes what are the appropriate bulk standards for what the vision is for the use. Obviously, the bulk standards for an eight-story building is different from a three-story building. So I think the bulk standards in Schedule B should reflect the visioning on the stories and the intensity of use.

But I think we had said, and that's why I'm saying, if everybody could please get your comments, go through that Schedule A, look at the base zoning, And you don't have to worry about the flood hazard area because basically the only uses allowed is going to be parks and open space. So it's the other ones of what we see and what you don't see in certain areas. Because there are certain areas that I see. And we might need to also, I did look at, I think there was one zone area where I was like, I think I kind of want to change that to another base zone. So just because I'd see more residential and nothing else allowed, but in another area, I'm like, I could see a little bit more of a mix. So if you see that too, that's also going to go into your permitted uses because I really do feel like we're in the home stretch. I'd like to get this done in the next few meetings because the area need... Your area need, I would like to have that, if that's gonna be a recommendation, that's the final piece that I'd like this to go up to council as a package, because those we're gonna have to look at where we see that base zoning too, if there's adjustments there, if that's gonna be brought into it.

I did have one question about the park areas. Are we circumventing the homeowners insurance companies or the homeowner's right to rebuild if they have the money to do it or if their insurance company's gonna rebuild?

It's not really about circumventing. It's about what is that level or threshold where we say it's not appropriate anymore.

Larry, I'll get you the flood hazard ordinance.

We can do that with that respect to national flood insurance. Like the thing they did in Manville in the Lost Valley, it seemed to be in conjunction with

Blue Acres.

Blue Acres.

So the money that they were getting to say – That wouldn't stop that because any time you get either a FEMA grant or Blue Acres money that's from DEP, either one of them, you're required to turn that property. If you're going to do – most of them are doing acquisitions. You're required to turn that home, that property into open space. So it doesn't restrict that. It's the perfect intent of what we're actually looking for. That should probably be set up for them. Correct, it does. Where we could restrict, right, and you've seen municipalities, and again, I'm not saying you should or we should. I'm saying what you could say is we're not going to allow elevations. You can do an acquisition, and you can go through that process and apply for that grant and try to get that acquisition, and a municipality can help. Somerset County is finally doing 11 properties throughout the county. We're getting there.

Yeah, there's one on Davenport Street that's going into that.

No, not on the one we have.

No, that one's already done. That's different.

That one's already done.

Okay.

Yeah. This is five years in the works. Yes.

Different one. Yeah, different.

But the point being is most municipalities are moving towards, and the county will only support, as of right now, will only support acquisitions. They will not support elevations.

Lisa, just off track for a second, if you're planning and we're talking about the recommendations for the area in need, we'll need a public hearing on that.

Yes, that's why I'm trying to, but I really would like it to be one kind of package, so even if we're done with this portion, then we can go through those steps and then as a complete council to see it, because I think you kind of need to see it as a complete package once it goes up there. Thank you for that reminder, yeah. Anybody have anything else on ECBD?

Is the board happy with what FHZ designation works for everyone?

Keep it simple. I understood the words you came out of your mouth. FHZ flood hazard zone. Okay. Perfect. No interpretation needed. All right. Master plan element review. Um, Is that final for the historic?

Historic was revised to eliminate for dependencies. There's a strike through and a couple of the elements were missing. So I put the language in a couple of elements that language works for everyone. And obviously there's attachments that go with this. The reference, the material that's been taken out has to be an attachment. That was the intent, that we still provide that information, just not in the element. So the comments were to, let me find it. Thank you.

MR. All the addresses and everything? MS. Yeah.

MR. Yeah, what – thank you. All the – yes. The change – and it's in strikethrough is – on page 10 is just to take out the specifics, to put that in an addendum, which I do as the chairwoman's comment at the last meeting, and just come up to say on the very end, And it's in red, just the relationship from the historic element to the community facility and stormwater management. So if everybody's comfortable with that, I'll take those out, I'll come up with the addendum for the information that we wanted as addendum, and the historic element is done.

Yes.

On the last part, the storm water management one, is it possible just to rework that a tad? In general, I agree with it, but when you read it, I kind of struggle to see how it ties back to the historic element, which is what I think the intro paragraph of that section says it's supposed to do. It's more of an added spice, a wholesale change of it.

It basically says, Bill, that the stormwater management plan will help preserve the historic structures from mitigating floods. No, the three sentences before is basically the feel-good stuff. Right, I get it. You want me to take some of it out or just rewrite it so it's... Better?

Slap it in chat GPT and make it sound a little better. The first sentence doesn't make sense at all.

Okay.

I think the last sentence is the cross. Yes, that's what I just read.

That's what you're saying.

I like it. Yep. Sold. Sounds good.

Next. Well, just to clarify, are we going to see – You're just gonna take that and we're done? Or do we need to see another draft next meeting?

You can see when we put the whole, it's up to the board. I can take it out, make the changes.

I'd recommend just emailing. I don't think we need to print it every two weeks. Correct.

I think you can just send us a final. Okay. And as of right now, unless they hear comments, we're just going to move forward with that final.

Perfect. So I'll revise it, a new date, so everybody knows it, and I'll just get an email from Ryan. I'll email it to everyone. And hopefully, I'm not doing well with Bill over here today. Oh, do you mean parking? Oh, yes, I did. Oh, no, I don't.

guess not okay tree ordinance looks like we have one more that we will be able to move forward to Borough Council thoughts comments I read to it and Mike I'm gonna say again good job in catching everything we said I I'm gonna defer on the actual tree stuff because I don't know what these trees are so I'm just gonna assume that ENVIRONMENTAL AND EVERYBODY DOES.

I CLARIFIED IT. THE GREEN IS EVERGREEN TREES. JOHN HAD COMMENTS ON THE LOCUSTS AND TO ELIMINATE ASH TREES BECAUSE OF DISEASE AND BOX HELDERS. THAT IS IN APPENDIX A. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED THAT THERE'S TREES TO BE TAKEN OUT. Also, the Environmental Commission indicated in an email that the trees in the SID can be used outside. So I initially started doing the language saying that. I said, why don't you just put the trees in the other, so you don't have to have a language. So you'll see all I did was add the trees to the list, Appendix C, which is the trees outside of the SID.

Those are the highlighted ones there in yellow?

Yes, the ones in yellow I'm going to get to, Chris. Thank you. The Environmental Commission felt that large trees at the appropriate locations is appropriate. That's not a good sentence. Large trees can be appropriate, not in utility lines. The comments from the Board was, do we want an 80-foot potential tree between the sidewalk and the curb? Those are the highlighted trees that I need. The Environmental Commission saying at the right locations they're good. The concern from some of the board members in the last meeting was, no, not so good because it heaves the sidewalk.

Yeah, it wasn't just about the wires. I think the wires was the perfect place to start, but these larger trees as a street tree I think cause more damage along our sidewalks, pavement, pavers, wherever it is. I think That's where, you know, right place, right place, right tree, right place, I think they say. Street trees should be smaller. They should be under, I think we just followed those guidelines from PSE&G on the height and then remove anything above that. And then there's plenty of other locations to put those trees as shade trees.

So that was the question on the highlight, Chris, is whether those trees should remain or taken out because of the size of the trees. That's the question.

I agree with Lisa's statement.

Okay. The second one is I gave you the PSCNG right place, which is a list of three tables. Now... Do you reference the list, as the chairwoman has indicated, or do you include that list? It's substantial, and some of the trees may be evasive. I started going through it, but some of these trees, I don't know if we just reference it.

I think we were in consensus last time about more of a height. I think we have the tree list from the Environmental Commission. And I think everything, in my opinion, what I'm recommending and I feel we should do is on that street tree side, anything over 25 feet is removed and it's allowed as a shade tree, but not as a street tree.

Say that again, Lisa.

So PSE and G, the height was what, 25 feet?

Yeah, there was small trees. There was a whole list that 25 feet or less for a street tree.

I think that's what we restrict. I think anything over that 25, I'd even do that 30 cause you could have a good chance that it's not going to hit that 25, 30. Um, they be removed. They're appropriate as shade trees, but not as street trees.

So are you saying put the trees in the list or just reference the trees saying the trees from PSE&G can be?

No, I'm taking, I don't think we use the PSE&G list. We have a list already of what, right? Use that, so street trees, period. I want shade trees, street trees, and street trees, the shade trees can have all trees, but the street tree only list should be nothing above 25 to 30 feet. Anybody disagree?

You know, there are some pin oaks on certain streets I think at South Bridge that and in probably a few other places too that are very large and sidewalks are perfect So it'd be interesting to see you know, why do they work in some places and not others?

So I hear you my fear is now we're going to I Do we need a map to say where things are? You know what I'm saying? And I think that's why we're trying to say moving forward, because I don't disagree with you, but where do we draw that line to say that it's not so difficult to decide, okay, it's okay here, but it's not okay here, and then it's okay here, and it's not okay there.

You're right, because there's a million variables. I mean, sometimes the strip is this wide. Obviously, you can't put it here. and oak in there. Other times, you've got 10 feet, and then at that point, you could put a pin oak in there, but you can't come up with every one of those scenarios.

So when I look at this, I agree that the ones that are highlighted, those should be removed. Those are monster trees. But Lisa, to your idea, and I hate throwing a wrench in the works, it really reduces the list to only a handful of trees if we do a 30-foot marker on that. so it's work it's a bit of a cat twenty-two agree in the direction you're going i'll just listen like folk that leaves like well this this comes back to the conversation that we had last time which is

we're going to put beautiful trees up, and then PSE&G is going to have to cut them down in certain spots. So there are trees listed here. I think that part of the conversation that we had was giving this list to the Environmental Commission to have them also vet and see if there's more that they can add based on PSE&G's list, obviously, and remove the ones that are invasive and that are non-native. But I think that that's the direction that we should head. It would bolster our list, certainly, But I think keeping manageable trees in those common areas, whether it's underneath power lines or not, to the chairwoman's point, it eliminates then having to decide, is that an okay tree there? It's just this is what we want to see on our street trees. This is what you can do on your shade trees. And I think that keeping it simple, the old KISS method, I think is perfect.

And to your point, 30 feet, non-evasive, put together that list. And that's our list.

And the PSE&G list was emailed to the Environmental Commission on Thursday. So they just got it before the holiday.

That's fine. So, Mike, do we want to send this back for one last of saying, hey, listen, anything above 25, 30 feet, we're taking off. We're looking for you to add.

Or are we just saying, I mean... Can we just say, instead of saying exactly what trees, can we kind of just say, it has to be a non-invasive, you know, street trees. Here's some recommendations, but non-invasive, blah, you know, 30 feet.

And maybe we say, here are some recommendations. Wait a minute. Wait a minute, Larry. Maybe we say, here are some recommendations, and then come up with the language, I agree. I think, you know, if it's a non-invasive, why are we not allowing it?

I agree with what was just said and what we can do is on the Environmental Commission website have a list of suggested trees that folks can refer to and and let's just limit it to what Jason just said just give give the 25 to 30 feet non-invasive blah blah and list those items and we're done reference their website

then we don't have to change our ordinance every time, you know, they all, you know, the Environmental Commission is like, oh, this tree's no longer good anymore. We have to now change the ordinance to remove it. We could just reference it, and then that makes it a lot easier on everybody's back end.

And getting into the landscaping design business is not a, I don't think it's a position of the Planning Board or the Borough Council.

Yeah.

All right. That's the bit I like.

yeah okay well I'm getting there so we're gonna eliminate appendix a B and C and make a simple list and we're gonna reference everything else like I had a comment here that evasive trees I just said go off the website because they're always changing the list and evasive trees so we're okay I going back I took the definitions out based on the last conversation Bill said What about these definitions? The comment was only leave the definitions which are somewhat relevant to what's being said. So you have the strikethrough. So a lot of the definitions were taken out. Street trees were left in. You can see what was left in. I also added points 12 and 13 in the red, which is the language out of the current ordinance, which I think needs to be in there because I missed it on saying the 50 foot. It refers back to the design standards. It says 50 feet, but this should be independent. Why? This came up on a... We have design standards in the land use ordinance. When we get there, the land use ordinance right now says it's applicable for subdivisions and site plans. Therefore, you can make an argument on one- and two-family homes that the whole design standards are not applicable, which obviously I don't think is the intent. The shade tree ordinance covers everyone and says 50 feet, regardless if it's a site plan or not, just so the Board knows. If they're one- and two-families, the Board typically doesn't see it here because they're defined by the municipal land use as being site plan exempt. So the planning board typically hears site plans, redevelopments. The reason you hear the fences, the conditional uses. That was the workaround. So I put 12 and 13 back in saying you have the 50 foot. So if you're doing a tear down a brand new house, tear down, in my opinion, the 50 foot trees would be applicable on the zoning office or a plot plan that would be in front of a board. So that's why you see 12 and 13, it specifies the 50 feet so that you don't have to rely on the design standards. So you have that language and I got enough to adjust the appendix A, B and C to what we talk about reference. the evasive species, reference everything else, and we're going to get feedback on, and there's 25 trees. Right now that we have 20, we have the trees under 30 feet, but the list is going to be relatively sparse, like maybe six or seven trees. We're going to remove the list. We're going to remove a whole list, not even the 25 trees?

Are we just going to reference and say non-invasive trees under recommendations to be... Okay, so found at, yeah, found at wherever, I don't wanna speak for the environmental, where they want it, but okay.

That place makes sense to put it on the website there and refer there.