Planning Board - Regular Meeting

10 seconds.

Summerville Planning Board, for Wednesday, July 8th, 2026, please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting, as required by the Open Public Meeting Act, has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was, one, posted on the 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. Jason Kraska. Here. Roger Vroom.

Here.

Larry Cleveland.

Here.

Andrew Adair. Here. Chris Addix is excused. John Maniglia. Here. Barry Van Horn. Here. Tim Hayes. Here. Bill Kale.

Here. Please stand for the pledge. Okay. I have no additional comments other than things we'll be discussing today. We have no airway reviews nor approvals. I need a motion for minutes from June 24th.

So moved.

Second chairperson Warner. Yes. Jason Crosco. Yes. Council member of room. Yes. Larry Cleveland.

Yes.

Barry Van Horn. Yes. Tim Hayes.

Yes.

Okay. We have two resolutions for approval. The first one has been the New Jersey elixir. That was 20 to 30, 2030. East Main Street.

So moved. Second.

Chairperson Warner. Yes. Roger Vroom. Yes. Jason Kraska. Yes. Larry Cleveland.

Yes.

Second resolution is for 86 North Gaskin. That was that pizza application.

So moved. Second.

Chairperson Warner.

Yes.

Mary Gallagher? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Roger Vroom? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Andrea Adair? Yes. John Manalio? Yes. Tim Hayes? Yes.

Okay, next up we have a minor site plan review for 2 West Main Street.

check one two good evening members of the board uh... my name is michael grodick i'm an attorney at savoshock law firm here in somerville new jersey uh... i'm here for a presentation on the bagel nosh application uh... this is located at two west main street block one thirteen block fifteen This is, as you know, the old Mike's Court side, which was almost completely destroyed by a fire several years ago. This is proposing the reconstruction of the fire-damaged building on the first floor for the installation of a commercial kitchen and operation of a bagel shop restaurant on the ground floor. The project involves HVAC and exhaust equipment installation on the exterior. There's really no site issues, no site changes. We have received several outside agency approvals. from the Somerset County Planning Board. For zoning, this is, of course, in the B1 Central Business District where the use is a permitted principal use within the B1 Zoning District. There's a number of pre-existing non-conformities. I'll go over them. I don't think we really need relief because we know this building is predated our zoning in the New Jersey tax map in the 1940s. So this building is about 50 years older than that based upon the tax records. But it is a 52-foot height building that's an existing and proposed, whereas there's a height limit of 45 feet in the B1 Central Business Zoning District. The setback in the rear yard is 20.69 feet, whereas 25 feet is required. And I believe that's the only bulk standards that are not in conformity with the zoning district. Today, we're here to go over, we have a number of witnesses, but they're going to be relatively brief. We have Mr. Stiers to go over the site plan. We have Yu Zhao, who's our mechanical engineer. He's a P, licensed in New Jersey as well. And we also have Alan Yang, who is our licensed New Jersey architect. We will also be asking for a waiver so we can get to TCO upon building inspections because this application has taken a number of months to get through the completeness process. Other than that, I've handed out two exhibits which I'd like to mark as P1. P1 would be the signage package and P2 would be the dumpster enclosure. There was a question. A3 would be the signage package, which we believe to be fully conforming, no variances, and A4 would be the dumpster. There's another application that was heard before this board that required as a condition of approval a Concrete dumpster enclosure with stone facade so that you'll see the detail on that which will be shared with all the tenants in this space Kara can you use your microphone?

I'm sorry

We'll also mark as PB1 Mike Cole's report dated July 3rd, 2026. And just to add, Mike, I think there's one more pre-existing condition, lot frontage, 50 feet required, 25.42 is existing.

Okay. Mr. Stiers?

Can you bring up, can we just swear in all of your witnesses at once?

Can you guys stand up?

Do you all swear the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Great, thank you.

Mr. Starrs, is your professional engineering license still in good standing in the state of New Jersey? It is. Okay, I would ask that he be allowed to proceed as our expert.

Completely accepted, and then we can move on.

Could you just go over kind of the history of this property and the existing conditions and then the proposed conditions?

Like you said, it's on the corner of West Main and Bridge Street. It's been there as long as I've been around. Same look, everything like that. It's got apartments on the upper floors, retail on the first floor. It's been... you know, from Pearl's Drug Stroller to on and on and on. Like Mike said, it was, I think we're lucky that it's still standing after the fire. It looks like the owner put a lot of effort into restoring what's there. And I think that's really what we're here for more than anything else. Hopefully there's more sympathetic than anything else as far as the demands or requests and things like that. We're really just trying to get that first floor back and occupied.

And just touching on the Cole report, could you just go over the location of the dumpster enclosure?

Yeah, we were actually just talking to the owner of the property, and as part of the, I guess, rehabilitation of the facade. So I don't think it actually came before the board. I think it was part of the permitting that they have a dumpster that's been approved already. I think that's what you had before you. As far as, for example, the tree replacement, I would ask for a waiver, again, kind of going off of the sympathetic part of it. I know you would like the tree.

There was one there before.

There was a tree there before. My understanding is that Six West got their approval and agreed to replace that tree.

That's correct. You're not sharing that tree.

Well, there's no room to put any other trees.

No, no, I understand that. I'm only half joking.

Mm-hmm.

So you have a frontage on East Main, excuse me. On Bridge. Well, Bridge and Main. So West Main and North Bridge. So if the one on North, on East, West Main is going to be covered, what about, is there room on the side? The sidewalk is too narrow.

No, correct.

So waiver to what? Plant more trees someplace else?

Yes. I think Craig is saying that he's requesting a waiver not to plant the three trees and to make the financial contribution.

I would say, respectfully, as for the waiver, the contribution as well, just because of the situation. I think it's, again, we're trying to restore a building that almost burned down. And I think all the efforts have been put forth to restore the building. And I ask the same thing. I mean, if the board chooses not to, but... that would be my opinion to waive that, to get this thing up and running. And, you know, again, he's also been waiting for seven months to get in and make the restorations alone. If you, if the board wants the contribution, so be it, but I would request that they waive planting and the contribution.

So for the record, so in front of that building, not just two, but also... Two and six. Two and six. There was one tree that had to be removed, and that is already being replaced by Six West?

That's correct.

Okay. Just want that on the record.

Yeah, it was damaged with the firefighting equipment. So it had to be taken down.

So there's just confirming it was only one tree.

Yeah. And what, if you recall, those were the old four by like 10 that they were fenced in. And I think the borough is getting rid of those and going back more to the Smaller tree with a great around it. So I think my understanding is that six West has already agreed to put that Replace that replace the damaged tree and what what's the requirement on this one?

How many are they being required three, right?

They have a little almost 150 feet of frontage around now. So it's 50 feet time divided by 153 trees. I

That's on both.

If you add up the corner lot, it's 150 feet in total. So it would be three trees they're asking for a waiver from. Three street trees.

We can come back to that. I just wanted to get that clarification on the record.

Understood.

I don't think there's any other site issues. If there's any questions from the board or the public.

Yeah, I think the last thing was they have four seats out front, but I think that's a permit.

That's an outdoor cafe thing. We went through that, Craig. There's a process. They're showing two trees, two tables, but there's a permitting process that Craig was made aware of.

Yeah, and that application can go forth at any time.

Right, right. And then the ARB, is it – I think I was at the last application that was just approved. Is there a formal application or does it just go to the ARB automatically?

So there is actually an application specifically for the cafes because it shows the requirements that are there. We don't require formal architectural engineering plans. They can be drawn out but to scale of what they're proposing. It comes before us on the ARB. As long as it's conforming with the ordinance. It is a pretty quick, easy, painless, painless is most important process.

Okay. Yeah. As far as the other, any site, I mean, obviously it's, there really are no site improvements.

Questions, comments from the board? Yeah.

The fire officials letter.

I'm going to get to that in one second. Just based on the testimony we have right now. Any questions, comments?

I just one question, Mr. Stiers. Um, so there's a, it looks like a partial curb cut on the, um, bridge street side. Is that going to be utilized still for parking or loading? Yes. Uber eats.

You're talking about in the back of the building, right? Yes. Yes. Because again, I think it's their dumpster, I think six West and there are a couple of the buildings that all have access through there.

Yeah. So, Craig, the dumpster is going to be a joint dumpster with 6 West. Is that my understanding? That's the intent? Correct. That's great. That's exactly what the conversation with 6 West was, Michael, that it makes perfect sense to have one dumpster for the six apartments and the two restaurants.

Any other questions for?

No? Okay, hold on. I have a comment there from the owner of the building who's here. Just let me. So this is this property's dumpster. It's not the neighboring owner's dumpster.

So the dumpster enclosure we're looking at is for 2 West?

Correct. That was approved for this building only. It's not a shared dumpster.

Cool.

Is there any mechanism, Michael, to get a shared dumpster? Because it makes, you know what I'm going to say.

Yeah. Honestly, I just, we just got in touch with the owner of the building about an hour ago. So it's sort of news to me. We'll make every effort to have that discussion.

Um, so just so you know, six West is coming back for final. They got preliminary approval. It was part of an addition. So the board will be seeing the final application for six West. So did they propose another enclosure? They don't show one in the same conversation with the board was to try to reach out to this applicant and have the back uniform. Okay. Uh, for one dumpster so that you don't have, A mess. Got it. Understood.

So if you're, I'm sorry, if you're willing, if they're willing, you're willing.

We prefer not to because they are.

Yeah, we need to have him sworn in if he's going to. You swear the testimony you're about to give this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Great. Just state your name.

Tony Tsai. I'm the owner of 2 West Main Street, J&K Enterprises LLC. So we have six, we previously had six apartments and then one store. They're having six apartments but they're increasing the occupancy from one bedrooms to two bedrooms. We're still maintaining the same occupancy. So we also don't know what they're going in downstairs. You can fit a two yard dumpster into the proposed enclosure that was approved. And then we also have the retail tenants sharing all the residential. We can fit 12 containers of trash and recycling. So they're already taking care of our recycling. So there's really not enough space to add an additional dumpster there. Even so, pulling into that spot, they would you're essentially taking over the parking from our side to be able to empty those dumpsters so they would have to pull the dumpster out to the street anyways and that's how it's always been done since the past Mike any thoughts on that

I understand your concern. In the past, what the board has done is just require additional frequency of pickup to try to alleviate. You're saying your limited space and the adjoining property might be generating significantly more solid waste, so you might get into an issue of who's paying for what and then the frequency of pickup. That's correct. I understand. It's a really tough situation because both lot is only 25 feet wide, so you're looking at two dumpsters, independent dumpsters. It's a little challenging. I understand what you're saying. It's up to the board.

I'd like to see unified location I think my thoughts on this is you know we've talked about some of these pre-existing conditions and we have this is a pre-existing condition and I think we the board would prefer if we could find a compromise We have the opportunity here to improve something versus just saying well, this is the way it was done in the past I do completely understand what you're saying But I think, at least for me, I'm only gonna speak to me, the board can also speak for themselves, but I would really prefer if we could find some kind of compromise, even if it's some kind of an agreement, because we can also bring it up when they come before us as a board. But I do feel that this is an opportunity that we do try on the downtown is to improve Not just say it's always been that way. There are appropriate, like in this application, very appropriate times to say, hey, it's a pre-existing condition. We're not redoing the building because it happens to be like that. So I do feel that this is an opportunity. Other board members can also chime in if they'd like.

I completely agree with the chair. This is an issue we've had all over Main Street, up and down Main Street. We have shared driveway, shared back, shared parking, and at some point it has to be addressed and it has to be fixed. And, and we've tried, and here we have a, uh, a building, two buildings, one building, but inexorably linked, um, into two separate entities. But it, it, to go back and do it the way it's always been done as the chair said, doesn't make a lot of sense. I think there needs to be an ability. If you're willing and they're willing, I think the board and the borough would work to help facilitate that.

I think having two separate dumpster enclosures is still possible because they just never built a dumpster enclosure. We built a dumpster enclosure. It was pre-existing there. We're building exactly the same dumpster enclosure, but, you know, obviously cinder block and stone, so you look nice from the street. But all the dumpsters always have to come out to the street anyways. That's how the neighbors at E and... you know 12 do it as well because the dumpster can't go in and physically pick up the dumpsters they all have to be rolled and then dumped before being put back so they can build a dumpster enclosure and just push the dumpsters out so instead of having a five or six yard dumpster and that we're both joint sharing they can still build their own dumpster enclosure and still have room for parking or you could have one dumpster and it could be picked up much more frequently

correct but then you we wouldn't none of us would be able to park in the back it might be fruitful um six west applicant just submitted concept plans and we're pushing for final i know they're receptive to having a joint solid waste area Should the board desire I think the borough can facilitate this communication and see if this can be worked out prior to the final approval in six West I Understand I think what you're said what the challenges you have I think can be overcome and Um, maybe it's one joint facility, but separate dumpsters just to get a uniform approach. So the dumpsters aren't shared, but the, but the dumpster and closer shared, but the dumpsters are individual. So you don't, I think there's ways to work this out, to address your concerns.

We're happy to entertain, but aside from the dumpsters, you also have the grease drum that also needs to be put there for the restaurant as well. For the proposed drawing that we have that's been approved by the ARB, there's no recycling dumpster, it's separate. So they still have to pick it up separately. So if you have two buildings with two grease drums, with at least two dumpster enclosures, you're probably gonna get a six yard. There's not gonna be enough space.

So I do hear you, but it is an equal lot back there, two properties, and we have to figure, and that's what we're trying to figure out, is figuring out a way to make the most use of the space back there, making it uniform, but we can't penalize another where all of a sudden now another applicant can't comply because we approved something. So that's why we're asking if you would at least be open to having those conversations behind the scenes. I do believe that there is a compromise that can be had That's all we're looking for is for you to have those conversations. I totally agree and I understand your concerns, but I feel like those conversations should be had to do the best we can to improve that site versus just saying, no, we're just going to stay the way we are.

Right, and the other option is maybe talk to them about putting the dumpster on 6th instead of on your property, because if you push it further back, you'll have more room in the front for parking.

Right. Because you're putting an egress, they're building an access egress for the back, then they won't be able to exit. They have a restaurant access, and then they're going to have another access to go up to the apartments. The dumpster enclosure would sit there. IT'S TIGHT.

YEAH, I THINK, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MIKE CAN HELP FACILITATE SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. AGAIN, THIS ISN'T LIKE YOU HAVE TO. WE JUST WANT YOU TO SAY YOU'RE OPEN TO THE CONVERSATION AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE THIS SITE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

And since you brought it up, I'm going to bite. The used cooking wheel, can you store it in the kitchen and have it pumped out as opposed to being stored in the drum and the dumpster? There's a lot of housekeeping issues. with the used cooking oil.

So they previously did that when it was Mike's court side. They didn't have a separate grease container outside, but there was one at 6 West. So again, it's very tight back there. for them to even, that's why in our lease with the tenant, we do have all the tenants put their trash with the commercial space and the commercial space is responsible for having regular pickups because we've owned the building for a long time. We know you can't fit 12 trash cans back there plus the retail.

Wouldn't bringing the vat inside save you space in the back then?

It saves a little bit, but not too much.

Mike, I have a question. Why does your report say refuse dumpster required prohibited?

What does that mean? The dumpster is not allowed in the B1. But in this circumstance, how else do you handle this in a... Dumpsters are unsightly, so you don't want them in public view. So the V1, it's a waiver to put a dumpster in. The preference would be 30-yard, 50-gallon, something smaller. It's less... doesn't take up so much space. But when you have a 25-foot lot with apartments, you're almost forced into a dumpster situation for what the owner has said here that the space requirements for individual trash cans. So it's a waiver. The dumpster is not shown on Craig's plans and that's why I brought it up saying you have a commercial kitchen with apartments above. It seems like you're going to need a dumpster. And the waiver is because you really can't use trash cans because of the quantity.

So that's not a variance, it's a waiver? It's a waiver. Yes, it's a waiver.

It's not a variance, it's a waiver. And typically, to address the aesthetics, the board has required a masonry enclosure with mold, so it doesn't get messed up with a truck, as Craig's heard us all before a million times. Concrete boulders on the inside, just housekeeping to try to make the aesthetics. And at 6 West, we had, there was a comment, I think the board was in the resolution, to try to have the facades in the back and if there's a dumpster to match so that we have some cohesiveness back there. So it doesn't look like it was a haphazard idea. It was actually planned for the restaurants and the buildings. And I understand your concerns. And that goes back to the dumpster because to use grease, what happens in some instances, the grease sits in the dumpster enclosure for an extended period of times it becomes a housekeeping, it becomes, frankly, a mess. And to address this, in the past, the Board has tried to have the grease kept inside so we don't have all the issues associated with dragging used cooking oil in the spillage and how most dumpsters end up looking really nasty where the can is. But it's up to the Board. I understand what you're saying.

I also have another question. Where the ARB said it's okay to put this, this planned dumpster, does that block off sixes access?

No, they can still, there's, our property line ends where there's the easement with the driveway that goes all the way to the back for all the other properties. Okay, I see that. So 6 West still can get in from there. It's more so, if you put the dumpster either fully against 8, and you put an eight-yard dumpster or a six-yard dumpster there, that can't be pushed out. That has to be manually picked up by an actual dumpster, and we would need to leave our parking spaces open for them to come and pick up the dumpsters, whereas everyone rolls the dumpsters to the side, and when the dumpster company comes for eight or for us, then they would pick it up and they would push it out to pick it up in the easement area, that driveway area.

So making the enclosure bigger to go further north on the property is not going to work.

It's probably not in everyone's best interest, more so because you can't move the dumpster physically. Whereas if you have two yard dumpsters, everyone just

So I think what the mayor was pointing out earlier was instead of going with a six-yard or an eight-yard dumpster, you can keep the two-yard and just get it picked up every other day rather than once a week or twice a week. Gotcha.

And we're also going to have to talk about pickup times, because that is something that we discuss with our applications. So to your point, yes, you might not know, but we will be talking about some restricting of times when it is not allowed to be picked up as well.

And I think as the board's listening, we should think about we could impose a condition saying that the applicant will work with the property owner at six to try to make this work. But as we've seen previously, if that doesn't happen, I think we should think about what Recourse or what the requirement should be after that whether it's more additional pickups every day if that's the case Or whatever the case may be so let's just think about that Yeah, no I agree I agree Anything else before you go to our next witness I

Craig, you're not dealing with the exhaust aesthetics. We have a mechanical engineer. Thank you, Mike.

To address that. I'm going to bring up Yu Zhao. It's spelled Y-U-E-Z-H-O-U, a.k.a. Forrest. Yes. So are you a licensed professional engineer?

Yes, I'm licensed in New York.

Can you just turn on that?

Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, I'm licensed in New York and in New Jersey.

Have you appeared before planning boards and other boards in the past?

Yes, I did a couple times in Bricktown and other township in New Jersey.

Okay, and you were brought aboard for this application. Can you describe what your scope of work is and then go into detail on the HVAC, the exhaust, etc. ?

Yes, basically this is just to, first I believe it's just to replace the HVC for the existing space. The usage might be different, and also install the new exhaust fan for the kitchen hood. That's our scope of work.

And have you had a chance to review the Cole and Associates Memorandum dated July 3rd, 2026? Yes, we did. Okay. And can you talk about some of the issues raised related to the noise and things like that?

Yes. Actually, related to the noise, we already added all the numbers on our plan. the manufacturing from the exhaust fan and also the HVAC condenser unit, the rooftop unit. We have the sun power numbers on the drawing, which is already lower than the required numbers for the sun pressure.

And could you just touch on screening? I mean, are these HVAC mechanical improvements visible from the street?

No, actually, because the exhaust fan is up on the roof. So unless you're standing behind a building, you won't see the exhaust fan.

And you're proposing to screen that with what type of material?

Yeah, we can screen that with perforated panels to screen the exhaust fan. Just defer to Mr. Cole on a color. Yeah, that's owner's preference or the architect. Care about the color of that?

Well, just whatever is appropriate.

Yeah. Yeah, I was going to say, just match the facade.

Okay, sure. Okay, and what about air handling systems? Is there any existing intakes that will be reutilized for the space?

Yeah, there is existing louvers in the back of the building. We're going to use that. We actually indicated that on our join, which is with the fire dampers in the back of the building for the makeup air supply, but the exhaust goes up to the roof. Other than that, we don't have any other openings on the facade.

There's going to be no makeup, no intake fan, only exhaust fan.

Yes, exactly. It's quite a small space and quite small exhaust hood, so that's why we don't want to put the makeup fan, just the duct.

So we're dealing with sound with two issues, the exhaust on the third floor and the RTU, which is a nice way of saying the HVAC 10-ton unit. 10-ton unit. It's on the ground floor, the first floor in the back. There's an addition. There's only one story. Yes. The proposed 10-ton unit is on there. I think I had a question about screening. Is it visible? Is there a parapet? I don't know.

It is visible from the back of the building, but I believe that that's where the previous unit sits because there is still existing damage there. Again, if the board requires screening, we can provide a screening for that unit. But the unit itself, it's well enclosed. It's very... nice units there, I don't think. Unless the board requires to match with the facade color. But other than that, I think it's good equipment to be there.

I have no further questions for the witness.

Anybody have any questions for this witness?

So basically it complies, once you put the numbers on there, everything does comply with all the sound and everything else?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Our final witness is our architect. The only change here is an ADA bathroom, but we figured it would be good to have him here to answer any questions. We've also done a signage package that's going to be fully compliant. So could you state your name for the record and spell it?

Yeah, my name is Alan Yang, A-L-A-N-Y-A-N-G. I'm a licensed architect in Jersey and New York City. And you're a good standing? Yeah, good standing.

Okay. And so could you just walk through the floor plan? What exists there today and what are the changes that you're making?

So yeah, basically, as I told before, it was a fire. So everything is destroyed inside. We're just trying to restore. hopefully making to a nice nice commercial place for the for the town and We have a ADA restroom for the wheelchair people. And the entrance is ADA compliance on a street level. And since it's only one floor, there's no need for elevators. But yeah, so the toilet will be shared by anybody inside the unit. I believe this is enough for a small commercial place like this. And the seating will have ADA seating in the front. for all the people who need the ADA. Yeah, that's pretty much it.

So my understanding is that the traditional Mike's kind of breakfast kitchen is being replaced by these large boiling kettles for the bagel making?

Yeah, so it's a bagel place, basically just boiling the dough and bake it, right? So there's no frying, not much cooking with oil and stuff like that. It's pretty clean. And it's an open kitchen for the most part, so you can see the operations inside the restaurant place. Yeah.

And your understanding is roughly 6.30 a.m. to 3 p.m.?

Yeah, based on operation hours, early morning to early afternoon. And what about sprinklers? This is all buildings, so I don't think, right?

Totally sprinkler. Okay.

Yeah, so they they just fade the building with sprinklers, but I don't believe he was there before so It does have current sprinklers.

Thank you.

Yeah, so he's improvement. We're making I

My understanding from talking to the fire marshal that it would be a 13 system on the ground floor and a 13R on the upper floors?

Yeah.

So I just want to say we don't have the upper floors on our application, so let's just stick to the bottom floor right now, please.

We didn't get that memo from the fire official, by the way.

Yeah.

So we're going to disregard that because it's not part of this formal application, and it's not fair to have those conversations right now.

So yeah, so if we are doing the new spring system, we'll be 100% compliant with the, you know. 13 system. Yeah, exactly. Whatever's required, it can be, yeah, we'll be there, so. That's a standard requirement, yeah.

And the travel distance is less than 100 feet, so the front entrance works for you. Exactly. And the occupancy is under 50, so you're good for the one entrance. Right. For egress for the public.

Yeah, yeah, 100%, 100%, yeah. It's a small, small place, yeah.

And there is an exit, there's a kitchen exit, and then there's the main entrance with two.

Yeah, there's two means egress, one in the back and the obvious entrance. The kitchen area is in the back, but for the customers, the front will be the egress because it's less than 50.

And how about number of seats?

Number of seats will basically be less than the maximum allowed for a restaurant. In this case, around less than 10, about 10 seatings, including the ADA.

If you look on the plans, they don't show a lot of tables. There's a lot of counter space, but to Mike's point, it's not like 50 tables in there. Look at the layout, which goes back to the occupancy being under 50.

Right, yeah, in this case, probably under 20, I think. So it's small, small shop. Yeah, it's just a regular, it's a 30. It's basically a bodega, you know? You guys pretty much know what it is, yeah. It's good for, you know, the neighborhood. I think it's convenient for the morning commuters.

And the only new addition is the ADA toilets. Were any other walls moved, or...?

I yeah, so It doesn't really matter because it's burned down. So we're not really putting the same we're not really Revising them for a plan. We're just building a new place. So okay would have to I

But these are new walls or the ADA toilet? Yeah, of course.

So there will be a wall for the toilet room, of course. Otherwise, it will be open.

And then the basement is just storage. Yeah, exactly. It's unimproved. It's vacant.

Yeah, it's original.

So everything is open air? Yeah.

I pretty much accept the toilet. So it's open floor plan. Yeah, yeah. So yeah, I mean, it's very straightforward and not too...

There's a coffee area and juice bar.

Yeah, we'll definitely be there for the morning commuter because this is open early, 6.30. Yeah, I think it'll be good for the neighborhood. Thank you.

Can you go over the hours again, Mike, the hours of operation?

6.30 to 3.30 is what is anticipated.

I don't know if you want to qualify those hours.

I was just going to say.

Yeah, I mean... There's no ordinance in the town over as restricted for hours.

One of the things that we're going to try moving towards is where we're going to say that the board does not want, and then you have that leeway within the available, right? So then you're not locked in if you decided, hey, I want to start opening it. I want to stay open until 5. That's obviously, to your point, allowed. So what we're trying to do is versus putting these applicants, you guys, into like, hey, you're bound, and then you have to come back before us to get permission. I THINK THE BOARD PREFERS MOVING FORWARD WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, NOT BEFORE 6 A.M. AND LET'S SAY NOT AFTER, I'M JUST GOING TO THROW A NUMBER, 7, 9, WHATEVER IT IS, AND ANYTHING IN THERE, YOU GUYS CAN PLAY WITH YOUR OWN HOURS. YOU KNOW YOUR BUSINESS, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU MIGHT NEED TO ADJUST TO. IT ALLOWS FOR MAYBE ON ONE DAY YOU WANT TO STAY OPEN LATER, BUT IT DOESN'T, WE'RE TRYING TO make it so that you guys aren't having to, you know, your poor retailers aren't having to come back for saying, hey, our business model's changed slightly. We're seeing this. You know, it gives you that flexibility.

The only reason I bring it up is for the noise. There's a different standard after 10 p.m. So if the restaurant's closed, I don't have to worry about the RTU exhaust fan noise. They can use the day level, which the sound data I looked at I think complies with the day but not the night. So I'm just trying to clarify that we're not looking at night town sound data that the restaurant's going to be closed before 10 p.m. That's the only reason I brought it. So let's use that as a restriction.

Not before 6 and then not after 10.

Or if it's after 10, it has to comply.

But that would be, that's that trigger. If they hit that, then they have, that would be something that we would need you to come back to make sure you complied with those.

Well, I will say they're making bagels. Sometimes they start at 3 o'clock in the morning making bagels. So, you know, they're, operationally they may be working.

But what we've done here for anything on us is the hours to the public, not operational hours.

Okay.

Yeah.

I want to give them the ability. I want to make sure they have the ability to operate at 3 in the morning.

Yeah, no, these are public hours coming in. Yep. And to the Mayor's point, we're clarifying. You have to prep something at 3 a.m. That has nothing to do with this. This is open hours, open to the public hours. So we would say not before 6 and not after 10.

And you have to comply with the sound whenever you indicate when it's going to be. If you're operating at 3 in the morning for making bagels, obviously you have to comply with the nighttime sound level. But obviously if it's not until the morning, it's the daytime levels.

A quick question. On the plans, you have a new panoramic door storefront. Is that the accordion doors, the accordion glass doors? So you're opening, you're bringing the inside out?

Yes. We, yeah, we have a, wait, you talking about the entrance? It's up top. Can you show me the?

Yeah, it's up top. It says new, it's right next to the exit B door.

Oh, okay. I think that means it's, yes, those make open. to the outside, like folding door. Yeah, foldable accordion doors.

Yeah, folding door. So it will be in open air.

Yes, when you fully open it, it will be open to the air. You love it, right? Okay, good.

Love it.

Good. Thank you.

So I do want to go through really quick. I am we'll go through what was on the fire marshals the fire and officials NFPA 13 sprinkler system on the commercial space, which you've already said yes Does the building have a fully monitored fire alarm and carbon monoxide system? Yes, okay kitchen hoods fresh and suppression Thank you System shall be hooked up to the end monitor to the fire alarm system. I Walk-in cooler will be tied into the building sprinkler system. Fire alarm annunciator shall be installed in the front of the restaurant. Exit exact location to be determined later. Okay. Knox box, they're looking for it to be lowered or replaced and installed on the right side of the apartment. Entry steps at the height of five feet above the sidewalk, and they would like it to be done directly through Knox box. That is a standard requirement. And you can comply with that? Yes. Okay. And then the last was for the fire marshal, for part of your final approval process, you will have to submit, this is normal, is your evacuation plans, maps, and your seating plan, just so that they can see that. But that would be part of your final process. Okay. Okay. Just for the record, the other comments on here I did not bring up because they are relating to the residential, and that is not this application.

And again, we're just asking for the ability to get to TCO as soon as we got our inspections on rather than, you know, perhaps wait to get the resolution approved. I mean, I don't know what the timing is going to be, but I'm sure it'll work out. But we would ask that we can just get to TCO as quickly as possible.

What do we have open that we need to still resolve from tonight? The waiver and then the language on the enclosure if an agreement can't be happened. Because we don't want you to come back. We want to see if we can figure it out. So I'm looking for any recommendations from the board on either. Don't all speak at once.

I'm going to let Larry go first.

Thank you. I think that they should have to contribute to the street tree fund. If six already took care of the first tree, That leaves two more trees somewhere along the line. Break the checks. Environmental Commission will put them in someplace else. There's no room on the property and no room on North Main. I mean North Borough. North Bridge.

We know where you're talking about, but you can keep naming names. All Elizabeths.

The two trees, it's done. We'll take care of it. The one tree on the front is already going in.

Any other thoughts from the board?

So a question for Mike. Had there not been a fire and a new applicant came in for a bagel store, Mike's closed, would we be having the same discussion regarding a tree?

I don't think there would be a trigger, Mayor, for a trigger being a catalyst. It would be a site plan. There has to be something to require that without a use application. So in this situation, what is the trigger? The trigger essentially was the fire. Yeah.

they have to redo the space completely and then also ask for the hood and all that has to be redone. Yeah.

Yeah. See, I, I, I have a bit of a challenge with, with mandating, um, the trees on this issue there. It's almost as if we're punishing the applicant because there was a fire and, and we're holding them to a standard that we wouldn't hold anybody else because they had a fire. So let me, let me finish. Um, Given that scenario, what I don't understand why, why we are doing that as a board or, or bringing it to my table, to the council. Um, it doesn't make sense to me. What we're trying to do is to encourage them to re reinvest back in their property. And Mr. Tsai is doing that. He's bringing the property back. He's already, uh, built out the facade he's built out. He's in the process of building out the interior spending. Obviously, he's gotten insurance money, but it doesn't cover all of the losses over the past year and a half. It is a year and a half, right? Yeah. Of lost income, lost revenue. And now we're saying, okay, we want you to fix it because I'll tell you, I've been harping on him and the other property owner to fix it for the last year and a half, and now they're fixing it. And we're saying, well, you know what? Because you had a fire, we want you to plant more trees. I think there's an ability here to come to a compromise. And I think what that compromise might be, one tree.

Right. Because also, you've got to think about it, we're going on and on about the dumpster, and we're trying to make an improvement. Yes.

There were never any trees on Northern Bridge. Right.

Let's make an improvement. If we can't do it there, we'll do it someplace else. But one tree is not asking too much. We're asking for three. They already got one reduced because the other applicants fill in that.

And the reality is they're the victim of the fire. The fire did not originate in their property. No, no.

I understand that and I respect that completely.

So, you know, we're arguing to improve.

We're trying to make a general improvement.

So you and I can come to that agreement that, you know, I think a reasonable accommodation is because we are trying to beautify the rest of downtown and you're a partner in that one tree, the value of which at this point is seven 50, six 50. Is that something reasonable that. Okay.

So, so now we have to just worry about the dumpster.

Okay.

All right, so we've agreed that we want to have those conversations to see what can happen. What we need to do is come up with, if they are not able to, what are our expectations so that they have a plan that they can follow that we agree upon and is approved and they don't have to come back. So open to thoughts on that one.

I think it essentially comes down to what they have put forth is great. And if they can't do a combined, then what they've put forth is sufficient.

Yeah. I think what car Cara had said earlier that, you know, best efforts to, uh, to come to an accommodation for a shared dumpster. Um, and we'll see where that goes. I mean, it, it isn't, I get it. It's a difficult situation. It's, it's, It's probably the tightest area in town for parking and for dumpsters, and it's a challenge. So I think given your ability to say yes, you will give a best effort to try to come to an accommodation between the next-door property owner. I think that's something reasonable that can be built in.

I think one thing I'd like to add is if you can't come with a combined if you can the applicant two and what six can work together on some kind of uniformity in their enclosures even if they're two separate that gives some kind of uniformity back there right you know because again that's the improvement that's the whole thought process of why we wanted one I get it and then which would also allow for the fact that not one is going to get picked up. They're both going to be brought out if they need to. That is fair. You know, we try not to, I get, you know, two is in a, in a unique position cause you're closer to the road. So you get, and you have that parking. They're not, they're on the interior part of that property. Um, so they can't get it picked up. So I think that was the kind of compromises I'm at least I'm looking for as, um, from the planning board's perspective of work together as best you can. And in the end if it has to still be separate and two separate pickups and all that then at that point at least try to come up with some conformity and their enclosures that allows them you both to do some kind of very nice enclosure that looks I'm not gonna say it has to be exact right but some kind of conformity back there that Gives us that uniform look Is it the same dumpster company?

Has it been the same? Is there any coordination between dumpster companies? I Okay, so that's something I think we can discuss. We also have to settle on times. There's a history of dumpster companies picking up at 3.30 in the morning, and obviously we can't have that. So what have the times been?

That's what I was about to ask. Mike, do you know what the general has been that we've been doing? Because we haven't had one in a bit.

We generally restrict before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m. Okay. That's generally what the board's been doing throughout the borough.

Because I'd like to keep that conformed and uniform as well. All right, so not before 7, not after 9 p.m. Can you comply? Okay.

Same thing with the food deliveries.

Yeah, so that time frame usually complies with all food deliveries, everything, all trucking, everything can't be before 7 and not after 9 p.m. Okay.

And the grease is best efforts for the used cooking oil? Well, this doesn't have fryers for this operation. It's because it's bagels. They're boiled and baked.

So what's the grease vat?

Yes, what's the grease vat? Mike, there is a deep fryer shown on the kitchen drawings.

Okay.

Yes, and we would ask best effort on that.

Ideally, it would be great to have it inside because of the housekeeping. You guys hear the concern.

I'm looking at the street view right now and there's venting and can we at least put the tree in a pot?

You are not going to have to do the tree that we've asked the weight part of the waiver is the cost the fee for one tree only I'll pay the fee.

Oh, okay. Take that back. I thought it was plant the tree And I'm just looking at them like there's no. No, we all agree.

They disagree. Now you're going to plant it.

I'm like, where am I going to put this tree? Hold on.

It's a fee for one tree.

Okay. Sorry, just so, because I got that wrong too. Yeah. I thought they had to plant one and pay for one.

No, so what we're talking about the planning is 6 West is taking care of. Yep, they're taking care of one. The replacement of the one that got damaged during the fire. Yep. The compromise, instead of three, we're asking them to, and we're going to grant the waiver of the planting, but the fee for only one of the three.

Got it. Was three, will be two, one, six is taken care of.

It was actually three on top of the one that was already there. So three strictly is for this applicant. Got it. Okay. Yep.

And, Craig, while I have you here, there's some housekeeping things about settling the pavers and televising the lateral. Just so you know, 6 West has indicated that the lateral for 6 West went through the applicant's property. They're going to take it out, but they have a condition to see of the sump pumps and debris, what's going on with the basement, essentially. Just to throw it out to you, Craig, because sometimes you have some...

So what does that mean?

That means televising the existing lateral, which I think the applicants were proposing to reuse, right? Just televising to make sure it's not full with, or collapsed, and just dealing with...

So it has nothing to do with six?

i think six up because six indicated that the lateral for six went through this property it didn't go to the street the lateral from six west went through to west so they're redoing the lateral uh... out to main street so it's not going through the applicants parcel but the same thought process was the same if you're reusing the lateral just to televise it craig just to make sure It was, I don't know how many gallons of water was in that basement from the fire, just to make sure. Well, the water's cleaned out now. Right.

The usual.

Yes, the usual. Any other comments or thoughts from the board? Mike, we have any open issues? Did we address everything? I think we got everything on your plan. Oh, no, the wall sign. The wall sign, did we actually...

I think they said that's conforming. Yeah, so we're not asking for any relief for that.

The canopy that was there is actually getting pulled back quite a bit. You can see on the new renderings there, but it's all conforming.

And you're saying you'll conform with all of it?

It looks nice.

Yeah, it is actually very nice.

Do we have to add anything in about the request for the TCO? Because I think last time we just...

We don't control that.

Make a recommendation. Say that we're okay with it or something.

The board has no objection to the issuance of a TCO provided that all conditions.

What's been done in the past on bigger projects is the buildings, or in this case, maybe the upper floor has a different construction permit so that the apartments get done. They're not all one permit, Mike. There's ways of handling this that we've done with bigger buildings so that. Rolling TCOs. Right. Correct. I understand the point.

So I can work with the CO. And we'll have, and Carol put that language in there that we are okay with that moving forward.

I think the intent is to have some of the apartments occupied prior to the restaurant. Is that what the thought process was? Yeah, okay.

You got nobody else? Because I gotta open it to public. I just wanna make sure that we have no other comments or anything. All right, so I'm gonna open it up to the public for any comments or questions on this application. Hearing no, we'll close public.

Yeah, the language as usual. I'll make the motion to approve based on the numerous items that Kara will run through real quick for us.

Kara, your mic, sorry.

along with our standard conditions, the street tree waiver has been granted subject to the contribution for one tree in the amount of $650. The applicant will work with the adjacent property owner at 6 West Main to attempt to establish a shared dumpster situation, and if they cannot, to show uniformity in the dumpster enclosures. I'll put some language together, just proof of the attempts, submit to Mike, just so we can kind of see what's going on and what the end result is going to be. The color of the screening of any utilities shall match the facade. Compliance with the call report and the fire report, which by the way, let's mark the fire report as a, or PB2, and I'll clarify it for you. Madam chair, to the extent that it's not going to apply, uh, PB two is the fire prevention bureau report dated July 6th, 2026. Um, so back to the condition compliance with the call report and the fire report, but for any comments in the fire report relative to the residential occupancy, um, basement shall be utilized for storage. Um, hours are. The, they can not be open to the public between 10 PM and 6 0 AM. YES. DO IT THAT WAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I HAD TO THINK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU REVERSED IT. I FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE STREAMLINED THAN TO SAY IT THE OTHER WAY. I'M GOING TO DO THE SAME THING LATER ON. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME SOUND REQUIREMENTS. BOARD HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF TCO PROVIDING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. No deliveries, trash pickups between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. Correct. So same thing. Standard language with regard to televising the sanitary lateral, and all signage will be conforming. Otherwise, they're going to come back to the board.

One more item, sorry. With item 10 in the fire marshal's report, we pull that out as well. Yes. That states that the fire marshal reserves the right to make changes during inspection or site visits. That comes out of?

Yes. Sorry, I did miss that one, but yes, we're taking that out.

That's okay. What I'll do is I'll say that complies with the comments in the fire report. I'll list which comments they are. Okay, perfect.

Just to come back to the screening, it's a red building. Do you sure you want red screening on the roof?

Yeah, you were saying match the building. I don't know if you want to do that. I think black.

Dark, right? Game day decision. Yeah, you know what? Can we just put it at... Mike, you're taking this one.

I got it.

No, it's a good point. So we're just going to let him. You guys can do that. At the discretion. Yes, at the discretion.

so moved with all of that.

I'll second that.

Chairperson Werner? Yes. Mayor Gallagher? Yes. Jason Kraska? Yes. Roger Vroom? Yes. Larry Cleveland? Yes. Andrew Adair? Yes. John Manilio? Yes. Barry Van Horn? Yes. Tim Hayes?

Yes. Thank you for your time.

You're welcome. I just wanted to say thank you so much for reinvesting. We know this has been a project for you. We know it's been an uphill. After a disaster, it's really hard as it is. Thank you for hanging in with us and continuing to help us thrive downstairs. So good luck and thank you.

I'm just going to dovetail onto the chair. Mr. Tsai, thank you. You've patiently gone about your business. You've refitted your building. It looks good. You took care of the tenants, the number of tenants that were there that were displaced. You handled them carefully, and I think that's a testament to you. So thank you for reinvesting back in. And are you the owner of the bagel store? You are. Thank you very much for investing in Somerville, and I'm looking forward to my Sunday morning bagels.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next item is back to ECBD. So, Mike, at last meeting, we went, we ran through, right, what the permitted uses and structures were for Schedule A. I know that there was, and I thank you for this, we had a lot of the questions were what those definitions were because we didn't want to say yes or no without understanding the definitions. What I am going to propose for this, has everybody had a chance to really in-depth look at this? Please be honest because, okay. What I'm going to request is now that we have these with a decent amount of time for the next meeting, please bring your comments, your thoughts. Mike, this, you did update the actual schedule with what we, right? It's just the definitions on top of that now, right?

The schedule, the changes made or suggested the last meeting were in red. Roger brought up, clarifying, thank you, Roger, on the sporting goods store. I called out the cannabis and the tattoos separately. Okay. Any topics that need drilling down, They're in red and the overlay zones were taken out and the flood hazard zone was put in and there's proposed no uses for the board to, that's why they're blank, for the board to go through that to see what's appropriate for the flood hazard zone.

So I'd like the board to also do that then, look at the flood hazard, look at uses. Um, if it literally is two, because it's, we know what our intent is, it's two, but I think, but, um, but, and comparing it to those definitions, I think this, it gives us two weeks to do that. It's enough time to really dive back in. And, um, but I would like to have some final movement on this for the next meeting. Okay.

Um, clarity of anybody and the board members would like to see something else called out, not lumped in like, for example, The tattoo is called out. Is there something that should be called out? I'm all ears. You'll see what was called out was based on the last meeting. Right. Chair Bonds, thank you, Larry, too, for those comments. Larry brought up the Bear Bonds comments. He wanted those brought out to make sure we're clearly listing some hot ticket or items that the board felt that should be clearly articulated.

On the third page. On page three. It's just a typo, you can't. Caching?

Yeah, check chasing. I saw that too.

You meant caching.

Yeah.

Check chasing is interesting. Can we have a definition on that one, please?

And if there's more definitions, just send me an email. You have 16 pages of definitions. Some of them are right out of the ordinance regarding the high story, mid-rise. The other one is what I think the chairwoman asked about the requirements from Division Street for the tattoo place. So you have those requirements listed in entirety, so what was done. 10 years ago, something like that. So, uh, if you need more information, we can certainly provide more definitions if that's required.

Okay. Um, and then I did, I'm sorry, I did not send you my drawn up colorful map. I promise I will get to that. I did get tied up and then yesterday I was like, Oh, I never scanned it and sent it to Mike. So I will get you that, um, my very colorful, marked up with Sharpies, different colors of what I was looking at as proposed, because I would like to also have everybody see that, what was in my head. You only want to see what's in my head on this. I can tell you everything else you want no absolute transparency for. Okay. I think that was the only open right now for ECBD, correct, Mike?

The mapping. Yes, that's right. You said that. So you have the map and you have the flood maps and the proposed baseline based on the last meeting.

And actually, what I'll do is I can ask. We'll ask Ryan. So you guys have these now. I can ask Ryan. I will scan this. I'm going to make a note that I will scan it, get it over to Mike tomorrow. And then if we can get it out to you guys so that you have the next couple of weeks to look at it instead of waiting till the next meeting on that. I'M GOING TO WRITE THIS DOWN SO I DON'T FORGET IT BECAUSE IT WILL BE FORGOTTEN THE MINUTE I WALK OUT THAT DOOR. OKAY. LAST IS COMMUNITY FACILITIES. THIS SHOULD BE IT, RIGHT?

The red lines are there. I thought I captured all the comments. There was a comment to combine one and four and to combine six, seven, and eight into the policies and objectives and to take out the fire alarms and the cost and some of that stuff that's just superfluous. And anything else that I changed, it's in red, so it's obvious to anyone. If you disagree with it, we can certainly change it.

It looked good. It looked like you captured everything that we had gone over.

Yeah, I didn't see anything you missed.

Just so the board knows, there's so much said in these meetings that I had to go to YouTube because I have to get it done within a week with Ryan, and Mike doesn't have the transcript done in time. I'm up. No dig, Mike. I'm just saying that I thank God for YouTube because I go back. and rewind it to make sure I'm capturing all the comments because we went through a lot.

Yes, we did go through a lot last time. So thank you, Mike, because you did do, when I reviewed it, you did a good job of capturing.

I appreciate that, but the comments were great. Roger, that's a good comment. I'm glad we're right. And Larry, just calling out everything. In my opinion, now's the time to catch all this. If there's any uses, and that's what the board's doing.

uh... so on the community facilities unless anybody has any other comments i'd like to say that this is good we accept the comments and in it this is going to move forward and it'll be part of the update sounds good uh... i think on the elements of the master plan wasn't that was our last one what do we have left i don't think we have

We have to go through the DCAs, and I have to say where it's covered. Oh, the DSA. The DSA did a shotgun approach, and the comment was, isn't this covered, isn't this covered, so I'm going to go through the DSA. All right. And read and say, this is covered here, this is not covered, so they go through all their comments.

All right, so is it possible to have that for next meeting? Yes. Okay.

Yes.

And there's a regional overview in here, too. Is that something? Yeah. Part of it as well? Okay.

Yeah, what I'll do, since we have the DSA one for next time, I will go through and look to see, and then we'll talk about what's missing. And to Kara's point, like I know regional, there are some elements still. I just, those separate elements, I think, is what we were looking at. But there are portions in that base portion of the master plan that we do still have to go over.

Okay.

Okay. Okay, nothing on the Open business needing to be discussed. I'll open up the meeting to the public for any matter that was not listed on this agenda Hearing none. We will close public session and a motion to adjourn So moved second all in favor all opposed

I really bought my time.