Planning Board - Regular Meeting

SUMMERVILLE PLANNING BOARD FOR WEDNESDAY JUNE 10, 2026 PLEASE COME TO ORDER. ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING AS REQUIRED BY THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED. A COPY OF THE NOTICE SPECIFYING 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 Warner? Here. Mayor Gallagher? Here. Council Member Vroom?

Here.

Jason Kraska? Here. Larry Cleveland? Here. Andrea Adair? Here. Chris Addix. Here. John Manilio. Here. Barry Van Horn. Here. Tim Hayes. Bill Kell. Here.

Please stand for the pledge. Okay, I have no additional comments outside of anything we'll be discussing today. ARB, these are our courtesy reviews. We had two. Actually, no, this needs to be pulled out again because we have a fence in here, so they have to be done separate. The courtesy review was for, it was a sidewalk cafe, it complied. And then now we actually have to review for either approval or denial on 42 Ross Street. Let me pull that really quick, sorry. Did everybody get a chance to look at this? Any issues?

No. No, no issues.

Thought it looked good.

Yeah.

I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll second that motion.

Chairperson Warner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Council Member Vroom? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Chris Addix? Yes. John Maniglio? Yes. Barry Van Horn? Yes. Bill Kale?

Yes. All right. Approval of minutes from May 27th. So moved.

Second.

Chairperson Werner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Council Member Vroom? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Chris Addix? Yes. John Manilio? Yes. Bill Kale? Yes.

All right. We have the resolution for 56 Fieldstone. That was adopting the recommendations that the ARB gave with regard to the fencing.

So moved.

Second. Second.

Chairperson Werner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Council Member Vroom? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Chris Addix? Yes. John Manilio? Yes. Barry Van Horn?

Thank you.

All right. On to discussion items. We have no hearings. So ECBD, Mike. So before we go, did you receive any comments from the board members on recommended for bulk standards?

Just Jason. I got comments on Schedule A with his uses from Jason. It would be great to get more comments on those uses.

So I think we'll give it one more week for everybody to send in their comments, and then we're going to have to move forward because we really need to get this thing moving. For next meeting, Mike said he should have the recommendations or non-recommendations based on the area needs. So we're getting closer to where I think we could wrap this up.

Yeah, the plan is to have a draft copy of the, this is referring to the area in need of redevelopment study for the county facilities, what we've been talking about. The board, the plan is to have that draft report done by next Friday. Draft, so for the board to look at. And then once the board can go through it, then we'll have to notice it and finalize it and do what we have. But the plan is to get that done. One of the big changes is the state plan changed, which is massive. So all the references have to be changed, and Ryan Baicke was able to get that document in Word, which is gonna help immensely from putting that background. Obviously, the criteria hasn't changed, but the reference to the county and to the state has changed since the last one we did for West Main Street, the Grants Building. In that last six, eight months, THE STATE'S CRITERIA, THE STATE PLAN GOT ADOPTED. JUST SO ANYBODY KNOWS THAT.

OKAY. AND THEN ALSO FOR THE ECBD, YOU SENT US THE ORDINANCE FOR FLOOD AREAS.

yes you have a very exhaustive flood hazard ordinance that was adopted about three years ago so if my recommendations to the board is that we focus on the bulk standards and the uses and we let the ordinance the flood hazard ordinance dictate the height flood all the requirements that's FEMA and DEP requirements let them be in this flood hazard ordinance if that's just looking for feedback and that's how the board sees it too.

Anybody see it any other way? Any other comments? Yeah, I think we just reference it and then we...

I narrow it down on what our recommendations for uses. And we'll come up with the uses in which we'll talk about it. Like Jason got the comments back. But the bulk of it is going to refer back to the flood hazard ordinance because that was adopted by statute. That was acquired by DEP about three years ago. So that language is not optional. That ordinance, you can't change it without DEP approval. So that's where we are.

Right, but I think we can still put and limit the uses that are allowed there, no matter what.

Uses, bulk standards. Yep. Absolutely.

Okay. So really most important is we've got to get the comments in and thoughts on the Schedule A for uses. Next is anything else for ECBD?

No, that just, we left it that we're the board felt comfortable with a two and a half or three story zone going forward. So we looked, we talk about bulk standards, but my understanding is it's going to reflect that height. We're not talking about eight story buildings.

No, I think every zone, minus the flood hazard, because we haven't addressed that really yet, but every zone was either two and a half, was it three and a half?

Two and a half, two or three. Some of the residentials, like Franklin Street that Larry pointed out, we're going to leave two and a half. The rest of them was three.

Okay.

That's where we left it, and using that criteria, I think we should start looking at bulk standards for that criteria, as opposed to...

much bigger building yes but that's why we need the comments from everybody on the right so the comments for this uses in those zones would be much most very helpful I have all right and then we'll start discussing those comments next meeting historic element under master plan review

The board went out two copies. I changed the community facilities. Didn't change the stormwater. Changed the stormwater language. It's the same to clarify it. Bill, are you good with that language? Great. So it was taken out. We're going to have that in the appendix, but it was passed out to all the board members. The changes were wiping it out and making the language much clearer on the community facilities and stormwater management. So with those changes, when we get the master plan together, we're going to have an appendix with all that information that was taken out. It's not being lost. It's just not appropriate. So the board's only element.

All right. So I think that closes out historic. Now we're done on historic. Any comments or questions on the community facilities? Because we just started looking at that one as of last meeting. This one's kind of straightforward.

A lot of these facilities, like, you know, with the new emergency management building, you know, seems like they're vacant or, I mean, is there another facility for a plan for that or you know how are we supposed to or how do you want us looking at it and then there's also you know some of the county or Somerset County you know facilities the whatever the jail is that how are we supposed to think about that I guess I'm curious of what's the goal of this document or how do we master plan that so this is just an inventory of everything we have I think there's some updates that need to be made obviously because

We might still have the building, you know, like you take Engine Company down on the corner by Vets. The building's still there, but it's no longer a fire department. So I think updating...

I think that is updated for the most part throughout here. Like that one, I think it says it's storage now and not being used. The old PlayStation, same concept.

So under properties under high risk, it's still there. That's what I'm looking at. Firehouse Engine Company 1, 170 East Main Street. primary fire response capability threatened during flood? It's saying it's still there, even though, you know what I'm saying? And I think, did we add, I didn't see it in here on the new. So it says it's repurposed on the one for fire one, I mean for the fire engine company one, but then still listed under flood risk assessment.

Yeah, as a firehouse.

Yeah, so I think it's just cleaning it up. But then did we have – I don't see the new – ESF has not – And that was my question because technically we don't own that. But it's still our – it's still one of our critical facilities.

Okay, yeah.

OUR OWNERSHIP WOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A RESOURCE OR NOT.

NO, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S STILL ONE OF OUR, WHERE OUR FUNCTIONS AND GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LISTING TO. WHETHER WE OWN IT OR NOT. BECAUSE SOME OF THESE FIREHOUNDS WE DIDN'T OWN EITHER.

SO WE SHOULD ADD IN HERE AS WELL.

YEAH.

THE CIVIC CENTER. YEAH. Okay. Because that's why I was making the assumption that we didn't put them in here because we don't own them and whatnot.

But if that's – It does say in the beginning owned and operated. Yeah, I was just going to say that.

Huh. I think – so from what I always understood is that community facilities is anything that we operate out of, not necessarily that we have to own it. And or operated?

Yes. There were two private firehouses that were never listed, though. Which, yeah. We operated out of them. We didn't list them in here. So the borough never owned those two.

That's interesting. Can we add the stuff and just denote that it's not owned? Yeah, maybe that's true.

Yeah, I think that language, Mike, can we add that in the beginning?

Yeah, good solution.

Barry, you're talking about Engine Company and Lincoln Hose?

Lincoln Hose, well, I'm hating myself, but Lincoln Hose and Central Hook and Ladder were never listed. One hasn't existed for a while, but then Lincoln Hose, that was never listed either.

I think it should be listed and say repurposed.

Lincoln Hose? Well, now it's not operating.

Well, it's not as in operating as an active fire.

It's not owned by the borough, though. Yeah, it's not owned by the borough. IT'S PRIVATELY USED NOW.

SO I GUESS IT IS KIND OF MUTE POINT NOW.

THAT ONE'S A MUTE POINT. YEAH.

BUT I'M SAYING IT WAS NEVER LISTED BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER OWNED. WE OPERATED, BUT IT WAS NEVER OWNED BY THE BOROUGH.

AND THEN LOOKING AT THE OBJECTIVES AND GOALS, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THERE. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING TO ADJUST.

I wouldn't say eliminate ground floor use. I would say adapt, adaptive reuse of the ground floor. We want to use it. We don't want to abandon it. It can be used. We just have to understand that it is going to go underwater.

Which one are you talking about?

Objective two.

Right.

Just to eliminate ground floor use. We don't want to.

But just for emergency services equipment, it says. I mean, I understand what you're saying. I also just, if we're going to be rezoning and that's going to fall into a zone that we're telling people they can't build and use on.

Well, you know what, this is language from, I think, a long time ago.

It's saying why we wanted to repurpose it is what that language is saying.

I think we can clean up a lot of this with minimal...

I mean, are we... Yeah, because some of these objectives, I'm sorry, but some of these objectives we've met, like that one we met, like keeping it in, we've already, we met it. I don't think we even need it anymore.

But in the inventory, it says bottom floor will be used for recreation purposes. Yeah. So kind of... We're kind of bouncing back and forth.

Yeah, because I think the idea was to store like soccer balls and stuff like that.

But that's not emergency services equipment.

Correct.

That's what I'm saying.

It kind of meets that. So eliminate ground floor use for emergency services, maybe, rather than just saying eliminate ground floor use.

Yeah. Well, I mean, but we've met it. So I don't know if we, it's again, like going back to your point about Lincoln Lake, it's already met, even though the language probably wasn't correct.

We can just remove that objective.

Just eliminate the objective?

Yeah.

I have a question just with looking at Objective 4, return properties no longer needed. Do we need to keep a lot of these buildings just for storage, or is this something that we want to get rid of the buildings, or is it just seems maybe you're – It's competing objectives, I guess, maybe.

That might be one way to say it. The former police department, down the line, the former building will be repurposed, will be going up once the council decides what we're going to do with it. We had a visioning meeting two years ago now about what that would look like, but at this point we haven't moved forward on that.

Yeah, and that's really, I mean, I think the goal and objective is to do something with it, and so I think it's a much more generic goal and objective, because ultimately the council's going to decide whether it's a public use or a private use.

Well, and I think by saying no longer needed, that's where the flexibility is, right? Because it can be used, like you look at engine company, right? No longer needed as a firehouse, but there are other uses that we're saying it could be used for, so that's still technically needed. might be different for the police headquarters where it's looked at by council and say, yeah, we don't really need this property. We're going to figure, we're going to get rid of it. Or they look at it and go, Hey, we can repurpose this and we have this new use that we can use it for.

So maybe it's just returned properties, um, deemed no longer, uh, appropriate for municipal use to the tax laws.

I would say needed versus it. Yeah. I think you put the deemed in there.

Yes And I think the goal always was to keep engine company as a building because nothing once that building goes down There will be no building there ever again.

I Think this leaves it vague enough where it can be the determination based on a property by property basis and Any other comments? Mike, you'll make those adjustments, and then we'll look at it, see if we can get it through next meeting? Yes. You got it. Thank you. All right. So included in the packet was the Downtown Somerville Alliance. I know we weren't looking at that, but let's add that for next meeting. It wasn't asked to be looked at, but it does kind of roll right from community facilities right into downtown.

Yeah, because they commented on every portion of the master plan.

Yeah, so... I think that's our next one we're going to add on because historic's gone. We're just about done with community facilities, and then I think we look at the DSA's comments for moving forward as our next document. Sorry, I'm writing my notes. Okay. Tree ordinance. Mike.

The revisions were made to the tree ordinance based on the last meeting and the revision date six for the tables were taken out the Item 10 which basically says go the Environmental Commission will have the tables for street trees, in the SID, outside, trees under utility lines will have all that. Also, there was a comment made to beef up evasive species. So Governor Murphy just recently signed a bill in January, and I just referenced that evasive species shouldn't be used throughout the borough based on the state statute. I don't think it's fully, it's been adopted. He signed on the way out, but I don't think there's a list yet. I think it's still state still formulating a little list Well, this leaves it vague enough says as they update it It just points it right back to the state the boards just I think it was Jason was a great idea stop putting trees and Stuff that we have to change in the future reference it so that changes it doesn't Mess up the ordinance and I think that's a great comment All right comments

The Environmental Commission reviewed it, and one of the biggest concerns is that they feel that we're missing some of the key points for accuracy with what the DEP is talking about to the point that it may end up, we may do something and then have to redo it again because we're being deficient on several things like the current draft does not control removal. The way the state ordinance talks about it, they're required to have control over the removal and replacement.

I thought the language, can we just clarify, Mike? I thought the language was we had to track it. I didn't say, I wasn't aware of it, saying we had to control it.

The language says it has to address all trees in the municipality, and it has to be some inventory provisions for tracking, which is correct. The model ordinance they provided, which I think Larry's referring to, does not have to be followed. It's the polar opposite from the stormwater. Stormwater, you have very little flexibility, And in the trees, they suggested the model, but when you drill down on it, the model does not have to be followed as long as you carry those two points. That's my understanding.

Well, which two points are that? There's no need to enforce replacement. Does the state say that or does the state not say that there should be some enforcement mechanism for removal if we're just counting to keep track of it But does the state say that there has to be some kind of provision for replacement?

Didn't we handle that anyway, though, with we're going to do our inventory, and then if there was a deficiency of 20 trees were taken out and not replaced, then the borough was going to utilize... Is that in here?

That's in this. That's in here. Okay.

So we're going to replace and make up for that.

Off-site?

We're doing somewhere, yeah. Wherever environmental, I think we're kind of giving them some of the money.

The way this is drafted is we're doing this, the boroughs, if this goes through, we're doing this annually. The boroughs are doing it annually. We're going to look at annually if trees are increasing or decreasing. I think, Larry, one of the concerns is it should be done on a case-by-case, not annually. I think that's what their concern is. The annual says we're gonna have a baseline my understanding there's a grant the borough received to do a baseline we're using that baseline and I'll track it from the land use side and The properties were call it in and we'll track it internally on the non land use size and And annually, we'll take a look at how many trees were installed, how many were removed, and if it's a deficit.

I mean, I look at it, and we already do it on the land use side. If we have a development and they're not going to put in three trees needed, they give money, we up the money. it's the same thing. That just goes over to the environmentalist tree fund, whatever it's called, and it's done whenever environmental deems is the right time to do it and where. We don't, every time we do a development, say there are three trees short, we're planting three trees tomorrow in X, Y, Z. It's a rolling thing to keep it going, but I kind of look at it as it's the same concept for private or personal homeowners.

Yeah. We upped the fees from $650,000 to $1,000, and then made clarification the Environmental Commission can plant these trees for street trees or shade trees at locations they deem fit, and the language says that they, whatever, it's in the floodplain, that the trees have to be inundation tolerant, but they...

Getting a lot of flexibility except in the SID if it's a tree is generated if the value of the tree is generated within the SID But that's not what's been done no, but we're going to this and that and that's perfectly it makes sense to Take trees all of the ones out of the SID and plant them all down in one park Make a woods somewhere and then empty the main street.

Yeah, that's not the intent of it. So I I think we covered, so I just want to handle the issues one by one, so I'm clear on theirs.

I have like five things that they hammered about.

So on that one, though, I mean, so was there concern, like Mike was saying, that we're not handling it on a case-by-case, that we're doing it as an annual thing?

Not necessarily that, but it just doesn't seem to be any... full accounting for what happens. If somebody doesn't report they took a tree down, wherever the tree is, it's a $100 fine. That's nothing. That's like a joke of a fine. It's not enforcement. It's just, oh, you caught me. Okay. But there's no enforcement on that. That's what we're trying to say is that it's

It's self-reporting.

It's self-reporting. It's self-reporting. I trust my neighbors. Well, okay. You're nice. But some neighbors are jerks.

But you know what? Again, I think this is a very classic approach of the punitive side of individual landscaping. versus the collective side of how is the borough going to be green overall. And this is the balance. So there's one side that says we want the individual and we're gonna punitively charge you if you don't landscape the way we want you to landscape your property. That's what's being said.

And I think what this- It's not quite, but I'll hear you.

And I think what this board is saying, which is a very wide cross section of this community without a singular focus, And what this board is saying, collectively, we would like to see an overall program that promotes the greening of Somerville without individual punitive penalties.

And I just want to add on that, because one of the things that was brought up, too, and I'm pretty sure it was Tim that had brought it up, Many property owners who have to take down a tree for whatever reason, there is no appropriate place on property. And we want that flexibility where they shouldn't be penalized, right? And I used my property as an example. I had to take down a dead Japanese maple. There is no appropriate place on the front of my house to do it because of my underground infrastructure. Can't plan it right there and in my backyard. I already have a ton of trees. So there's really no appropriate place What and we use this after Tim brought it up? Somebody shouldn't be penalized because they cannot we want that like okay report it and then we'll make sure that it gets done somewhere else where it is more appropriate so

Those two statements that you made and the mayor made, are they in here? Is that something that we can point to and say, if this, then that? It should be fleshed out because it's not being explained.

Once again, you're going back and penalizing the individual homeowner.

No, but what I'm saying is that if that's the goal is not to do that, and that's an honorable goal,

Isn't paragraph two cover that and the purpose?

Well, that's, that's, that's what we're trying to make sure because they're not saying, well, I'm, I'm a little disappointed that they're not here.

I mean, and you granted you are the liaison and I appreciate it.

Absolutely. But. And it goes both ways, because I went to the meeting yesterday and gave a rash of BS about all kind of stuff also from the other way. So I do my job on both sides. I mean, I think I do, but I do.

Larry, how many times have I appointed you?

Several times. I think it's more than several. Yes. No, and I appreciate it. I am doing... my job to be the liaison for both. So I take our concerns from here and give it to them and tell them the truth. But when they have concerns, my job is to bring it here and talk about it.

To Bill's point, I think it is in the second paragraph, it clearly states, the borough will track the installation and removal of regulated trees on an annual basis to determine whether the tree inventory is increasing. Should it be determined that the tree inventory borough-wide is not increasing, consideration will be given to

Amending the land use ordinances to require additional trees be installed on land developed applications appearing before the Planning Board zone zoning board of adjustment or approved by the zoning official To the reporting and all that I think the only thing that I'm hearing from Larry that I will say is with every single municipality in this town is enforcement if the property owner doesn't do what they're supposed to do and balancing that with Hiring somebody to do that which none of the towns are doing

And it's quite impossible. It's false enforcement. Correct.

It's false enforcement. It's an unfunded mandate of the state, and it's a very difficult thing to do.

And I agree, and I think that's a great item to point out. So what we're trying to do is to encourage people to self-report so that we can understand that. And I think that's a role of the Environmental Commission, to help people understand that, to educate them.

They're looking forward to it.

And that's a great thing. That's what they're supposed to do. That that's, that's a part of their charge. That's what they're appointed to do.

Um, we talk about incentives. Have we fleshed that out yet?

the incentives. That doesn't belong in this ordinance though. And that's, we talked about that.

And I don't think that's the role of the planning board.

No, it's that we are not, we don't talk about how things should be done. We can give recommendations, but you know, just like saying that we feel somebody should be, you know, how something is going to be inspected or something like that's not our place. So, We put in here that there shall be a fine. It is up to the Borough Council to decide how that fine gets enforced. That's not our job. Our job is to just say our recommendation is, that there should be a fine of $100 if someone is found.

I don't even think there should be a fine. That's one of my notes on here.

I don't even think there should be a fine. I hear you. I don't think that's the point right now. What you're asking is not in the purview of the planning board. We talked about a lot of bunch of different ideas, which is why we want to, you know, I think there's other ways to get the self-reporting to be something that is something that is obtainable, and people are like, okay, yeah. The one comment I will say as reading this, I do feel maybe on this language because we did all agree that it's not I don't think it's just going to be on land development applications before the planning board zoning board I think we do need to say because if we talked about the flood zone area right so as we see that along the Petersburg if there are ways in certain type of trees that we can help assist with that that isn't a land use but that might be a more appropriate to add our tree inventory to so can we FINE LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO JUST BE A LAND USE APPLICATION? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

NUMBER 11 KIND OF HINTS TOWARDS THAT.

THAT'S THE FLEXIBILITY.

RESULTS OF TRANSLATION REMOVAL Yep.

All right, which we opened up in my opinion the flexibility to try to address this with the Environmental Commission They can plant shade street trees where whatever they want to plant at any location.

That was the intent No, so yeah, no that was exactly what I was looking for I just as I read that I'm like, wait a minute. I thought we so yes 11 takes care of that and

And between self-reporting people that want to be compliant and residents, environmental commission, I mean, I think you're going to find that you're going to know about 95% of the situations that are not compliant. Yeah. It's just how it rolls.

And listen, it's going to have to be done through the borough council and through the administration, through the, Borough Hall, they're going to have to put it out and let people know that there's a link. So that's part of that outreach and what maybe they come up with to entice people to do it.

Because correct me if I'm wrong, is this link intended to be where if my neighbors are moving a tree, I could ultimately go onto that link and see if it's been reported?

I don't know. I don't know.

I think those details would be done by council.

Yeah, okay. I think it's not going to be as much of an issue as they're concerned about. That's kind of my point because that's what I've been seeing, you know, ever since municipalities have been talking about this.

I think Larry can sum it up. This ordinance addresses the tree on a borough-wide basis, not on an individual lot-by-lot basis. It skirts the issue of property rights and appropriateness. It says we're going to be looking at trees on a borough basis. As a whole? As a whole. Okay. So we don't get caught up in each slot and whether it's suitable and not suitable and who's making that determination. We're just looking at the borough as a whole.

And you feel that All of these, this entire thing fits the spirit and letter of the law of what the DEP is talking about. We're not going to have to do this again.

The rules always change. Unless they change the rules. But we're going to create an inventory and it's applicable borough wide. So the borough will know whether we're losing trees or gaining trees. on an annual basis. I think that's the intent. The intent is DEP wants to keep the trees and have more trees because of the benefits that we all know about.

But the DEP doesn't have a requirement for replacement. That is not something that you're saying that is not a requirement for the DEP to say there needs to be replacement.

It's in the model. The draft ordinance has something to that effect, but that's, that's just a model that you can use if you so desire. It's not mandatory. And I think, I think Larry, that may be some of the issue here that I think people looked at the draft ordinance as you have to do this.

Like the stormwater.

Exactly. Well, with the stormwater, you did.

Actually, no, not in the whole model ordinance. So the model ordinance from DEP on both were full of recommendations and mandates. That's the problem. Everybody took it as the whole, each of those documents as a whole were all mandates, and they were not.

I think Kara said this. I think the intent is to for the canopy to grow, to have more trees in the borough. I think that's the intent from DEP, every municipality to have more trees. And I think we capture it in the first sentence, the first paragraph. That's the spirit of this. We'll look at this on the annual basis. I think we have enough mechanisms in place to know this with the inventory being done. We're gonna have a baseline. And it becomes, once you get that baseline.

Even without that baseline study, I mean, it's going to be easy to track land use. That'll be easy. And then as you have people reporting trees coming down, it's a pretty simple plus minus.

Yeah.

You know, whatever the base number is, it doesn't really matter if we're up 30 trees this year and we're down 30, we're going to know.

I can give you a spot of good news. They just completed... 20 tree plantings throughout the borough, different residents' houses and stuff. They had a grant of money, and they used it. 20 trees. That's pretty great. To people who want them. There was a list beyond that. Yes.

Which kind of goes to the point in the direction of this one, is the people who want them, let's get them to them, and the people who don't have space for it, let's not penalize them. Yes. which is, I think, where we landed with this one.

Yes.

Larry, are there other? I think we addressed everything. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for being a good liaison, and I actually mean that. No, I appreciate it. You bring back what they're discussing, and that doesn't always happen.

People hate me on both sides.

Nobody hates you. I don't. I mean, Larry.

Anybody else have any other comments? No, so I would make a motion that... Well, I think the mayor has some more comments, so we're going to all...

I was trying to get...

I was allowing everybody else. I know.

One I think is very simple. On 11, it says the Environmental Commission shall use the fees collected. It really should be the Environmental Commission with the approval of the borough. Council shall use the fees collected.

Mm-hmm.

Because when all is said and done, the Environmental Commission is an advisory body. So I think it's just cleaning up some language. That's all that is.

It has to be approved. The locations have to be approved by the borough.

And then the last, Section 5, violations and penalties. Any person who's found to be in violation gets dinged for $100. Why? Well, I just asked a question. Why?

Any kind of violation of any law, whether you're speeding or you keep a library book out too long or anything else in between, there has to be some sort of... carrot and stick approach, for lack of a better word. I'm not saying people have to go to jail because they kept the book out too long. No.

What about a warning and a nice warning that says, hey, we were advised, the borough was advised, you cut a tree down, can you please log on to the borough website and drop in, you either planted a tree or you took a tree down. If you took one down and you planted one, please note both.

How about we change language from shall to may? I don't even think we should may, I think it should just be, you know, the, the borough, I guess we'd ask the rest of the, cause other board members here did ask for the hundred. So I'm asking the board to also, you guys are, you know, weigh in if, if nobody feels any more than a hundred is there, that's fine.

But we ended up with a hundred because I think the board had decided, I think we do what we do with all property maintenance, right? You have the opportunity to remediate it. Like the mayor is talking about. If you don't, then you're fine.

That's why I said change it to a May. And then leave it up to enforcement.

I think to Roger's point, if you send the notice out, it's not even a warning, it's a notice that you need to register that you either took a tree down or planted a tree. And then the violation actually occurs if they don't, after they've been notified. So we change it to May and then add... After notification.

Right, yes.

I like that because also, I mean, if Larry just planted 20 trees in 20 yards and each one of those homeowners didn't go on and put that in, they're each getting fined $100 for adding a tree to the canopy.

Well, and to that point, we talked about this. But that's a violation still. One more time. To that point. there is going to be a learning curve here. So to that point, yes, the fine shouldn't be an immediate, there should be leeway of an educational allowance of, because a lot of people are going to be like, I didn't even know it existed.

Right. Well, I think that comes down to what happened with the most recent property when we talked about mountain Avenue, right? The, the letter went to the, to the wrong address. Correct. These are things that are going to happen. I think to, to that point and to your point, give everyone an opportunity. If you, miss that opportunity or you disregard, then certainly.

Well, the only other thing is that if a mistake is made, it's a permanent mistake. If somebody does something they really should be talking to somebody else about or talking to the borough engineer or talking to somebody and they take a tree down and shrug their shoulders, hey, it's a hundred bucks. They've killed

CHECK DOWN THE CANOPY. LARRY, WE'VE ALREADY MOVED BEYOND THAT. WE'RE NOT PUTTING OVER ANY OVERSIGHT TO SAY YOU SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE TAKING A TREE DOWN. THAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S DECISION ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO TO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY IN THEIR EYES. What we're saying is the borough is taking the responsibility of ensuring that those trees get replaced. So I hear what you're saying. Yes. If necessary, if necessary. So I think, you know, that is now saying, you know, it's like somebody saying you can only have a white fence throughout all of Somerville. Well, what if I want a wood fence?

I think the may works and the rest of it becomes like Rogers said in a policy decision on the council.

So I do think to the mayor's point though, if we add in there, Um, notification letter, um, subject to a fine of a hundred after an initial notification and then let the borough council then decide what that initial notification is. And then that process thereafter. Okay.

After initial notification. Okay.

Mary, you have any other comments? Come on.

No, that's it. It's a little disappointing. No, you know what? There we go. There's only those two. And I thought it was very well crafted. I mean, we've been laboring over this. The board's been laboring over this for a long time. And I think it's just to the point of the board that they've taken great pains to understand the positions of the Environmental Commission. the positions of their colleagues on the board, and I think most importantly, the positions of the residents and their rights and responsibilities. So I think that's a good job by all of you. Thank you.

So, Cara, can we, with those two provisions that we've all agreed upon, can we actually vote conditionally with those that might get sent?

Again, as long as we're very clear on what it is and you don't want to see it again, I mean, it's completely up to you.

Does anybody see a need to have this come to another meeting after this? I think those are two simplistic that we can add, and then it goes.

That's fine.

Okay.

So we can, you know, motion and second.

So moved. Second. With the amendments. Yes. Yes.

Chairperson Werner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Councilmember Vroom? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Chris Addix? Yes. John Manilio? Yes. Barry Van Horn? Yes. Bill Kale?

Yes.

Bill has found his microphone.

Is somebody here in the military?

All right. Other than that, all right, I'm going to open up the meeting to the public for anything that was not on the agenda. We have no public, so I will close public session. Motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed?