How you doing? It's 5:00 pm. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the
chair. I don't see anybody. >> Yeah. Pursuant to go govern Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending
certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws chapter 3A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Planning Board is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made
to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-945410. Conference ID is 1448505
pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Cadam TV, Xfinity channel 1072. Despite our best
efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. I'll begin with a roll call vote. Uh Katherine Eper >> present. >> Um Warren Chain >> present. >> Bob Worer
>> present. >> Charlene Greenhall >> present. >> Um Frank Shear >> present. >> Uh Bob Dubis >> present. >> And Arts Brew, I'm present. Uh does any member have to recuse themsel from any item on the agenda today? Okay, let's go. Let's begin with the
minutes from July 28th. Are there any comments by Yes. Um, I had a couple which I actually already um sent to Annie, but I will go through them. Um, Katherine is no longer the vice chair. >> That's right. >> Oh,
>> and down under public hearing um for 79. This is page one for speech road. Oh, one, two, three, fourth, actually, first full paragraph. Um, there was the abbreviation of COC. I suggested that um
statement of condition should be spelled out the first time and then can be abbreviated. And moving to page two under the third paragraph um where it begins Mr. Chain the third line down um the word
conditions should be covenant >> release of covenant. >> Yep. And then on page >> and on page three um on both of the approval not required plans after um the
motion at the end of each motion it should say as it meets the necessary requirements for endorsement because that was part of the motion and other than that they were great. Any other comments?
>> Okay, with that, uh, do I have a motion, Charlene? >> I would move, uh, approval of the July 28, 2025 meeting minutes, um, as corrected. >> And do I have a second? >> Second. >> Um,
do a roll call vote. Katherine Hburn, >> I approve. >> Uh, Warren Chain, >> I approve. >> Bor, >> I approve. >> Charlene Greenhall, >> approve. >> Uh, Frank Sheer, >> approve. Abdubis >> approve >> and Art Sprew I approve. Okay. Next item is uh site plan review
for two feet uh two 240 Cedar Street the town DPW pump station. And if you could um introduce yourself appreciate it. And >> yeah thank you Mr. Chair. Rob Fley director of public works >> and Jeff Greg from GHD consultant for
the town of Chadam. >> Thank you. All right. Can you uh give us a brief introduction into your project here? >> Yep. So, this was the pumping station that we proposed uh proposing on Cedar Street. We came in for a uh pre-planning
board meeting. I'm trying to remember the official term, but uh I think in August where we presented um essentially the same package that we have here and there were some requests for some additional information. One of which was the first plan which shows the general
location of the pumping station along Cedar Street at the low point. Uh the second was there was a question about uh fencing detail I believe someone wanted to see. Uh so that was also included in the package and I believe a detail for
the retaining wall which was also in one of the in the detail package sets. Um, we haven't made any substantial changes to um the layout of the site. Um, and I'm trying to think of
>> maybe of some additional landscaping from the original plan as well. >> Oh, correct. Yes. Sorry. Um, so I don't know if there were uh other things that you'd like me to go through or review again or
I'll uh I'll begin with having the board members ask ask you any questions or comments. Uh, Katherine, want to begin with you? >> I don't have any additional questions. actually >> uh Warren >> I don't have questions but again um as
per the comments you made about additional fencing and screening and so on um now that I was able to find the site which was not possible before um it's it's quite a scenic road and um my concern is only that as careful
attention as possible be given to screening the pumping station from the road um and whether that's uh I assume that would could involve a fence and it could involve um landscaping. Um but you've been very successful in other
pump stations that are in public view and in special places that they're quite well screened, but there's examples where they're not. Uh and this is one I think where it care should be taken that it's uh invisible to those who will be walking along, riding along, walking
along, jogging along Cedar Street. Other than that, I have no questions. >> So, we it just uh when we provided the plan, it's slightly modified from, you know, a little more detail in the landscaping, but we will have plantings
along the front. We are limited by the fact that it's uh a narrow right ofway. Actually, it's really to the pavement edge. And then, um there is an overhead power line, so we have to be careful of trees growing up into power lines and things like that. Uh we do have a what
we're calling a privacy fence that'll be very similar to the sort of the stockade style that was also included in the packet that will run along the front and we're actually going to run up part of the side um on either side and then we'll have chain link on the on the
back. Uh I think the one thing we'll probably end up modifying is this piece because this is just to the woods. So the chain link would essentially be this corner, but you would have this box would have that privacy fence as well. So that you and then and then you'd have
all the plantings that we have going in um around it. There is going to it there is a gate because we do have to provide access for the operators and things like that. Um so you will have that uh on the front so we can't screen in front of
that but that's what we have proposed. We've heard from some of the neighbors with had similar concerns as well. So, we're we're trying to be sensitive to that. Again, as Jeff said, it's only when you're directly in front of it where the where the driveway and the gate is that we wouldn't be able to landscape at all the other areas. We
would try to screen it uh with a buffer as much as we can. >> Okay. >> We've not seen any comments from any of the abutters on the same side of Sear Street. Um I assume that uh the property that uh abuts um the site here is owned
by the property owners on either side. >> I believe the property owner on this side and on this side of the prop either side of the property I think it's the same owner. >> I believe so. Yes. >> So I think it's two separate lots but I believe they own it all and they're they're
>> fairly far objection from any of them and there's plenty of woods out there to to screen things. So >> he concerned only about right the view from Cedar Street be as screened off as as much as possible.
>> Thank you. >> Um Bob, >> I have none. >> Uh Charlene, >> I have nothing. >> Frank Sher, no questions. Uh Bob, >> I I do have a question. Just by any chance, you wouldn't have a profile picture of the of what the uh what it's
going to look like, you know, side view. I I I don't um >> Sorry. It's uh Don't It's going to be Oh, I am talking. Don't yell at me up there. >> I did push the button. It's um um it's
going to be well well uh shrubbed and and stuff and and like you say, you're going to see it, but going by at 20 miles an hour, you never even know it's going to be there. So, so an an example might be the station that we have at uh Meadow View where it's got the wood
stockade fence across the front. This is I believe the because we're uh the control panels are actually going to be separate from the unit sits down lower. So, it should be very similar to that kind of configuration. And this will actually have more plantings along the
front, taller ones in the back, and some uh lower um shrubs in the front. So, >> this is a prime area for one of these because of the housing that's all around there that needs to be collect cor collected the uh and processed and put out instead of having all them septic
systems in the in the swamp and the cedar swamp. It'll help that out a lot. I think it's a good good time. Thank you. >> Uh Frank, yes. Um I did have one question. Could could you go over the lighting plan for us?
>> Oh. Um so we're uh I apologize. I don't recall if that was Did we uh I've been putting a bunch of these packages together so I'm I cannot remember all the ones that uh
I don't think we had the lighting plan included in this one but what the lighting is all onoff switch so and it's night sky so it's kind of downward facing the intent is to have we have to have one over by the generator to provide light for service during the at
the generator and then need to have one over by the wet well. Um, and then the panels will have lights inside. So, they say there's nobody there. >> Yeah. It's not It's not on a photo
sensor or motion dete motion sensor. So, it won't be lights turning on or it'll only be when they're there at night and they need to operate it. They'll go turn on a light switch like you would for your front porch light. >> Thank you. Okay, I have a few things. Um, the the
equipment, I think we asked you during the preliminary if you could give us some information on the height of the equipment. Is it how high is it? Is it above the fence? Are you going to be able to visually see any of this equipment from the roadway? >> So, this will be uh slightly higher than
the fence. I think the fence is 510. So, we're under the six foot high fence. So, I think we called for a 5 foot 10. fence. >> Yep. >> The fiberglass enclosure I believe is six feet and it sits on it's actually
sitting on top of the wet well which has like a 3 to six inch reveal. So it's about >> 6 and 1/2 ft but when you're standing there it's you're looking through a fence. So if you were taller >> okay >> you most people can't see over the fence
so and it set back. So it again, Meadow View pumping station would be a a good example of uh that's a six-foot fence with the same size equipment behind it. >> Okay. Um, so when you uh were here for the
preliminary and I had asked you the question because it showed that there was like a some some basins at the point of discharge of where your drain uh line is from >> on the roadway for storm water. >> Yeah, I don't see any information
associated with that. You didn't provide any storm water information on anything on the site and I was expecting to see something so that we can at least look look at it and put it in our files. >> Okay. So, um we have the storm water calcs for the road. We submitted them
because we had to submit all that all that documentation for the conservation uh commission meeting which I have Wednesday I think. Um so I can I can submit that. Uh it was my understanding you just needed that for file and I
guess I I apologize that it wasn't submitted uh when we sent the second pack. >> Well, do you have still those basins that you showed in the preliminary though? >> So we haven't we hadn't finalized the design on the storm water improvements on Cedar Street. So what we're doing is
we're we've called for storm water improvements. I don't know if you can show the the site plan before this uh the street. Uh yeah, that one. Um, so we have we have some storm water provisions that are going to be up near where they
have some existing storm water and then we have some down on the other end. So we're making improvements there and then um right now all the storm water basically goes into almost like a straight discharge into the wetland. So, we're having it go into
that structure, uh, basically a deep sump catch basin with, um, a flared outlet, >> right? You are you infiltrating any of that? >> The only thing that we can infiltrate is, uh, up further above because the
depth of groundwater is so high, and where we are at the wetland, we're in the wetland. So, >> um, there's no way for us to get any real separation. So that's why we have the basically solids catchment before it
goes into the wetland and then um we're trying to infiltrate flow that's coming down the hill that isn't infiltrated right now. >> Okay. Well, what I'd like to request from you is if you can write a narrative up associated with that just to advise us of what your storm water is on this
and the reasons why you are or aren't um proposing those basins right now. I can do that. >> I understand. And you can file again for our files, the stormwater calcs, so we have it in our planning board files, too. But I would appreciate that
information. I understand exactly what you're what you're saying there. There's no issue. I can understand why you're doing what you're doing. >> Um, >> does that need uh do we need to do another hear? Is that something else? >> We'll deal with that, but I'm not
looking to, you know, continue this. I'm I'm just looking for that to be, you know, documented information. That's >> I can send that to Christine and >> right. >> So, so what I would say to you is that typically with the site plan review application, just so you are aware, there is a whole checklist of items. So, like Frank had brought up about lighting
and things like that, it has to normally it's supposed to be a full complete package. >> Yep. >> Um >> yeah, >> and I guess they were anticipating based on what they had received the first time. >> So, uh I'll just go over that. Uh Christine summarized it a little bit. Uh
the adequacy and arrangement of the vehicle traffic traffic to and from the station would be minimal. So there that's acceptable. Adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic that's not applicable. Location arrangement appearance of street parking that's
really not applicable. Location arrangement size design uh and site compatibility with buildings lighting and signs. Uh lighting information requested is for a meeting. Again, if you could provide us just with a piece of information associated with the light
fixtures that you're going to be using. Uh adequacy of the storm water. Again, we talked about that. Uh adequacy of uh of water supply and sewage disposal. That's town services there. So, there's no issue. Adequacy type arrangement of
trees, shrubs. You've provided um a detailed landscape plan. Um, again, you have uh the the tree warden would need to be contacted for the scenic road. So, if you're going to do anything on the road there if you're going to remove any of trees, you'll have to deal with him
associated with that. Uh, not an apartment complex, so it's not applicable. Uh, protection of adjacent or neighboring properties. Um, again, that's a lighting related issue more than anything. Screening and I think you've addressed that. Adequacy of
fire lanes. We haven't heard from the fire department on this, but I imagine that this is all reachable from the road. So, that shouldn't be an issue. Um, and then special attention adequacy of structures, roadways, landscapings,
that's been addressed. So, those were the comments. I only have one other you um you show uh some erosion control uh um devices at some point on the on the site.
But then you have a limit of work line which is outside of that. Why isn't the erosion control device at the limit of work line >> and that might just be something that you need to adjust. Either the limit work needs to change or the erosion control location should be changed.
>> Yes. Let me uh Yes, I think it. Okay. So, yes. So the the intent uh was we established a limit of clearing line >> but we allowed them to basically
traverse in that in that added space if we can make that we can we can adjust it accordingly. >> Yeah. I just think if if you're going to be working at the liinal works you should have the erosion control at that that sign. I think some of it had to do with where we were trying to put new
plantings. >> I think it may also be the complexity of trying to install a sill fence appropriately when you have active trees and root balls and things like that. So, we were keeping it within the the tree the the clearing and grubbing. >> All right. >> To speak.
>> I'm sure the the conservation commission is going to have some more comments associated with that. I just wanted to wanted to raise it. Are are there any other comments or questions by the board members on this? No. Um I think the only other thing that I
would be looking for on this and might put it in as a condition is uh we'd like to see an asbuilt plan of uh the information and final what you're finally built including all the underground utilities that you're putting in any information associated with that drainage structures you know
rims and inverts things like that. for the record. >> Yep. So, the town gets a copy of the record drawings and also a a certified >> uh asbuilt plan of the site for all the surface structures and things like that.
Is that something that uh we just submit in addition to providing >> just submit it to the plan uh community development planning office and and we just sign off on it then? >> Likely doesn't happen for a couple of years after construction's complete. No, I understand. >> The key is many of those
>> the key is remembering to do and I in reality is for me to remember to to make sure that the team does that in the future. So >> there's often we have uh someone who pro was seeking information you know five 10 years down the road
well is there an asbuilt done to someplace and sometimes they come to us versus somebody else. So yep >> we we use we asked for every applicant to provide us an asbuilt. We have no problem doing it and just as a you know >> Mr. Chairman
>> we do provide it to the town like they get the town has to through DPW get >> I would imagine. Yeah. >> Should Should we ask for a bond so that we make sure that they fulfill that request out. >> What do you think? >> I I don't know. I'm I'm looking at
waving that. >> All right. Um I don't see any hands raised. >> I just had one quick thing. Sure. in the list of plans. Yeah. >> Um >> it does indicate that there are two plans identified as CS00002.
>> Oh yeah. >> The second one is a site plan, but it also shows landscaping. You just didn't give it a different number. It probably should have been the landscaping plan. I'm just pointing that out. Yeah. >> Because it is still part of this. And um
I'll probably make the motion which so I may say pump station site plan showing landscaping. >> Yeah. Okay. So let's let's go over that. I think we're looking for um uh cutoff design on any lighting, right? We're looking for an asbel plan. Uh were there
other things that >> you're looking for? storm water calculations and a written narrative as to how the storm water will be handled on the site and along Cedar Street in this area which shall be submitted to become part of the case file. >> Part of the file, right? Right. >> And then you also had lighting
specifications shall be submitted to become part of the case file. >> Part of the file. >> Okay. >> And you wanted to extend the um um erosion control. Well, um, they're going to look at that, but, uh, I'll I'll defer to the Conservation Commission
associated with that that particular one. >> All right. Uh, do I have a motion then? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the site plan as presented with the following general conditions.
one the physical features and data shown on the site plan entitled phase 1F-1 sewer extension project contract number quote 2026-CWMP1 not zero
prepared by GHD Inc. dated 0320 2025 present uh represent the approved design and layout on subject property. Any deviation from the spec specified use uses and layout constitutes a violation
of the planning approval unless it is reviewed by and approved by the planning board. The plans include plan number C002 Cedar Street which is the plan and profile two CS002
pump station site plan CS00001 existing site plan CS002 pump station site plan in PNS showing landscaping um CD00004
structural details CD 005 site and fencing details. Uh number two, certification by a licensed uh professional that all site work is completed in compliance with the approved plan is required prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit,
certificate of use and occupancy by the building commissioner. Um and then the other two I mentioned regarding storm water and lighting. And finally that an asbuilt plan shall be submitted upon completion of the project. >> Okay. And I have a second. I second.
>> Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Uh, Katherine Hutburn, >> I approve. >> Warren Shane, >> I approve. >> Bob Worer, >> I approve. >> Charlene Greenhall, >> approve. >> Frank Sheer, >> approve. >> Bob Dubis, >> approve. >> And Arts Brew, I approve. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have an approval not required. Uh, Zero Leaf Little Beach honormost. Do I have >> Nobody's here. >> Don Pool is on.
>> Nobody always >> Don P is on. >> Okay. Uh could you uh introduce yourself for the record? >> You're on mute. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Donald P from Survey.
>> Okay. uh Donald P from Outermost Land Survey uh representing the Dugans at this property. Uh we have about an acre of sand and of trust and the uh members wish to divide the parcel according to their interest. A quarter acre will go
to one client, 3/4 will go to the other client. The lots are not fronting on existing roads. There's a plan. Note that the lots are unbuildable. And I would ask that you determine this is not a subdivision and endorse it as approval not required. Please. >> Okay. Um board members, do you um that
Let's start with you, Katherine. Do you have any comments or questions about this? I do have a question and it is noted in the staff report uh on this um approval not required that the plan does not indicate uh how the lot 188 and lot 1877
which lots are they how are they getting conveyed uh usually we just like to see a before and after um on either subdivisions or on approval not requires and I we don't know how they're actually getting conveyed because the plan does
not indicate that that I can see. >> I don't know how I don't know how they're going to be conveyed. >> John, we were having trouble >> property this way. >> I'm sorry. >> Turn up your microphone. >> Yeah, >> please.
>> I think when you speak uh close to the to the computer, you're fine. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I don't know which lot is going to whom at this point. It's not relevant for me. Uh, I was just told to divide the property as it's shown on the plan.
>> Okay. Any other comments, questions? >> Can't tell >> on an ANR. That's what >> is really unfortunate about ANRS. We don't always know what's going to happen >> happen to them, right? They they have said that they're going to be two nonbuildable parcels. Exactly.
>> But we don't know who they're being conveyed to. It says they're going to be conveyed. So, >> right. >> You you don't know who they're going to be conveyed to. If they're going to both be conveyed to the same one or to the >> So, I have a question. >> I guess we're more concerned about the one
>> um to the west the southwest portion of the >> of the property. >> So, I have a question. So, >> parcel. Aren't we concerned that it meets the requirements of the ANR? So, if there are two non-buildable parcels
and will the resulting parcel, whoever receives them or two that receive them, will that also be nonbuildable? We just need to make sure that it meets the requirements of the ANR so that we can endorse it.
>> I'm not sure how it doesn't meet the requirements of an approval not required plan. I mean, if the lot 188 is conveyed to the 35 Little Beach Road property, it'll increase the size of that lot, but um >> there's no dwellings on that lot
already. I It could be conveyed to me for all that matters really. Maybe I'll have some beach. >> Um >> I really don't know what's happening to the lot. >> Yeah. and and the fact that these are um landcorded plans, landcorted lots. Yeah.
>> They may never be physically >> Yeah. >> combined so that the lot line disappears. >> Yeah. >> Um I think the fact that it does say that these are not buildable lots is clear that these cannot be built upon. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Yeah. It's right it's on a note right above our signature piece. I noticed that too. Um, >> and also on the left hand side of the plan there's a note that clearly states it also. And if I might clarify for Charlene, >> uh, actually there is a meth method to eliminate the interior parallel lines of
land court lots, but I'm not I don't think we're going that direction with this. >> I kind of don't think so either, but >> I've done it. >> Uh, any other questions? Katherine, you you might any other uh Warren, any other comments,
questions? Uh, no questions. >> Um, questions. >> Charlene, >> nothing. >> Frank Sher, >> no questions. >> Uh, Bob Dis, >> no questions. >> Um, I don't have any questions either. Okay, then. Uh, we have a motion then
for the approval. >> Endorsement. Excuse me. >> My sidekick over here just noticed. Yeah, >> my sidekick just noticed a little typo, so we'll correct that motion. Thank you, Frank. Um motion to endorse I move that
we um endorse the ANR plan entitled site of sight plan of land, Little Beach Road, Chattam, Mass. prepared for Janet Gove Dugan trustee certificate number 21421
and document number 1385584 and being a division of lot 13 land court plan 12208-6 dated May 8, 2025 and prepared by Outermost Land Survey Inc. as it meets the necessary requirements for
endorsement. >> And do I have a second? >> I second. >> All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Katherine Halpern. >> Yes, I approve the endorsement. >> Uh Warren Chain, >> Warren Chain, I approve. >> Bob Dubis. Uh Bob Bob Shapters, >> I approve.
>> Uh Charlene Greenall, >> I approve. >> Frank Shear, >> I approve. >> Bob Dubis, >> I approve. >> And Arts Brew, I approve. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
>> Do we have that plan to sign tonight? >> Do we have that plan to endorse tonight? >> We do. Okay. Thank you. So, everybody signed before we leave tonight. All right. Uh, next item on the agenda
is um driveway in the conservy district. Uh it is recommendations for 53 Little Beach Road. Um we heard this last time and as noted
um by Christine, the zoning board has continued this application to October 23rd in order that the applicant might consider reducing the size of the structure within the flip zone. Um we we could uh still review this as it
is and make a comment. Um we could uh provide conditions associated with it or we could uh uh wait until we get the updated plan and put our final comment on it. Uh Frank, >> um this is really a question more than
um the rule is the bylaw rule is that the plans for such construction shall be submitted and what we have is the site plan. In other words, we know where it's going to
go, but we don't have any plans for the construction. Mhm. >> So, I'm I'm wondering whether my interpretation is correct that we should be seeing the plans for the construction of the driveway. >> Um I guess
>> it's a good point. Yeah. >> Mhm. >> I mean there there has to be a plan and profile >> at least for conservation anyway, right? And I would assume we should get the same plan. >> Yeah. Personally, I would feel more comfortable if we're commenting on the
exact same thing that the zoning board appeal is commenting on. >> Um, >> I agree with Charlene. >> Yep. Uh, the board members agree with that. I mean, we can we can table this until u the future meeting
when we receive the updated plan. I guess we can just do that. We don't have to vote on it or anything, right? Okay. But but would would the minutes at this meeting reflect that the plan will be a construction plan, not just a site plan? >> Yeah, I think uh we >> Okay,
>> we'll ask uh >> All right. >> We'll ask our our planner through the uh >> through the ZBA's u individual to uh see if they can provide that information and in the subsequent
submission. All right, that leaves us with Let me get my agenda here. Uh, request for comment on the comprehensive permit for Meeting House Road. This is Penrose. This is the 40
40B project. Um, I think that uh I wasn't planning on getting into uh any kind of final, you know, comments and things like that. if their board has not had a chance to
um look into this in depth. Um it was only 634 pages if you looked at the whole thing which I did do. Um it's a it's a big document. It's hard to get your arms around it. I do have some initial thoughts associated with it. I'm
not quite sure when the Z the zoning board is going to be looking for our comments on this. Do you have some initial um information on that? Um Christine, >> they were asking for comments. They
being the ZBA were asking for comments um for September 1st, I believe, or September 2nd. That's at the bottom of the email from Sarah Clark of the ZBA uh permitting. They say they have to open that public
hearing on September 4th, but that doesn't mean necessarily that they're going to get through all of the pieces. They just usually read into the record some things like a letter that they would receive from you. >> Okay. >> I was not planning on getting something
to them that quickly. Uh, and I think if we go through some of the initial things that we all observed on this tonight and maybe get into it more in depth at our f first meeting in September, then we can have a draft
letter like we did on the previous 40B site that we can then review in detail. Uh, why don't we begin with any of the board has any initial thoughts or comments on what they've observed? I mean, Charlene, if you want to begin.
>> The there's a lot of mention in the staff report, and thank you. This was a very good and thorough staff report. I I'm very appreciative of it. Help me go through um the plans and such. With regard to the storm water, this is still going to
have to meet the storm water permit >> because that's a state requirement. >> Yeah. So whe with regard to storm water, I'm comfortable because it will require a storm water permit. I don't think we need to get
into that um because that has specific requirements under the state um uh regulations. So, I I don't think we really need to get into that except maybe to say
make that comment that this still will require because it's obviously more than an acre of land's going to be disturbed. >> Yes. >> Will require a uh storm water permit. >> So, I think that will cover a number of things that um Christine had brought up
in in her staff report. And uh any others? I mean, by all means, I mean, continue if you have. >> Honestly, other than that, I I really don't have anything else. >> Any other words, Frank? >> Yeah, I I wanted to take talk about
sidewalks and the bike path for a minute. Um the um and and maybe there is a sidewalk going across the bridge or the whatever that is, the bridge. >> Correct. And then
>> the access drive. Yeah. >> And and does that sidewalk go down to 28? I mean eventually >> I believe it's supposed to. That was >> supposed to. >> That was um I think Christine picked up on this. It was in the um original RFP
that that was part of the work to go all the way down to 28. >> Okay. So that should be the principal way for people to for pedestrians to go down into town. >> Yes. >> Fine. um that probably uh alleviates my
concern. The the bike path is for bikes and you know children and you know occasional e recreation and um my question is you have uh this development
with a a sidewalk in essence going down to the bike path. Um and then the bike path becomes in essence a sidewalk going out to the road. So there'll be I would
assume more traffic there uh than you would ordinarily have. And um I don't know whether that's a concern or not. And I'm wondering whether we have an advisory bike group in in in town. Maybe we ought to be
>> ought to weigh in and on what they think. Um um bike paths if you know on the one that's in Chattam right now it's 8 feet wide. It's it's with a stripe down the middle. It's intended for you know um
>> I I do ride the bike path. So yeah, I'm I'm aware of it. >> Yeah. So but I didn't notice that that's what was being proposed here. If that's the bike path or is it just a pedestrian path? >> No, there's a pedestrian path from the development down to the bike path.
>> Yeah. And that pedestrian path looks to be the same width as the sidewalks that are within the development. >> So I'm just concerned that that becomes the principal way. >> One way to deal with that is to make it more of a path and less of a sidewalk
going down. So it kind of inhibits people. But I don't know whether I should be concerned about this or not. And I would think maybe the bike group in town might be the people to weigh in. If I might, if it is a paved walkway,
then it would have to comply with American with Disabilities Act. >> Yeah. >> So, it would have to be a minimum of is it four feet or five feet? >> Uh, I forget. >> It would I I think the absolute minimum is three
because it needs to be um >> needs to be passable. >> Needs to be passable, but um I can't imagine putting just three feet in nowadays. It should be four or five feet as a minimum in my opinion. Yeah, I mean there are times when the bike path is crowded.
>> Um and uh pedestrians can get run down by bicycles. Half the bikes don't alert people. They just go whizzing by at very fast speeds. Um there are people using the bike path which they shouldn't with with motorized bikes.
>> Oh yeah. And and so I I just thought, you know, maybe someone better know more knowledgeable about this issue than I am might might weigh in on that. Um so anyway, that's a suggestion.
>> Okay, Katherine, >> I if I could ask I can I get a little clarity on how that would connect exactly how does that connect to the bike path? Yeah, it's on it's on the plan
>> the path is right here. >> Okay. >> Yeah, here. >> Annie, can you go to the >> kind of the landscapy looking plan? >> So, it goes around the back. >> It goes up >> not out here. >> Yeah, it goes on the southern side of
the site is where the pathway gets to >> and then it connects to >> it connects to the to the bike path here. >> And where is meeting meeting house road is here? >> Meeting house road is here. Okay. >> Right. They they show they show sidewalk up to meeting house road, but they don't show anything going to Route 28.
>> My only comment would be it's good that the access to the bike path is sort of around the back and not right at Meeting House Road. That is a busy intersection. You know, there's a lot of bikes that go across Meeting House Road there. There's
also an issue with cars um meeting that crossroads. >> Yeah. I I I don't know whether whether I'm we are competent to make this decision. That's and that that's why I'm I really wasn't saying it is an issue. I thought maybe people that are better
knowledgeable should >> weigh in >> on it. So, >> uh Charlene, >> putting my former planning hat on, I I do believe having the pathway or sidewalk or whatever we're going to call it from the site down to the bike way is
a good idea. That's a very good idea. And in addition to that, they also based on the RFP will need to put the sidewalk, which bicycles are not supposed to be on sidewalk. >> Sidewalk. Correct. Correct. >> Down from the entrance to Yes.
>> Um, you know, down to Route 28, right? Yes. >> So, you know, I certainly have no concern about access to the bike path, >> right? or the extension of a sidewalk down to Route 28 from the site. I think both are important
>> for different I use the bike path, too, but I don't ride a bike because I fell off, >> so I walk. >> No, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm not worried about it being used for bike access. I'm I'm I'm worried about it becoming the principal pedestrian way
>> for for people to go into town. >> Yeah. and and pedestrians on the bike path are an issue. >> Um >> but they're not restricted from this. >> No, of course not. Of course not. And so
um I I also think it's a fabulous idea to connect the bike path. >> But whether it should be a 4 foot wide, you know, ADA compliant going down to the bike path, that kind of screams this
is the way you go. Yeah. >> Um, >> but it would have to be. They couldn't do like a twoft wide pathway down there. They just can't. >> But Frank, your your choices are >> they they go down and walk on the bike
path towards town or they go down to to 28 and they walk on 28. 28. >> How is how is it not better that they're walking on? >> Yeah. Well, if if there is a sidewalk going from the bridge down to 28, which
I think is >> But there is no sidewalk from 28. >> But isn't there supposed to be? >> It's uh >> Isn't there a sidewalk? But it's on the south side of Route 28. So getting over there, >> it crosses.
>> There is a there is a crosswalk. Yeah, >> there's a there is a crosswalk >> when >> that they just installed >> when Masdot uh did an upgrade over the last few years. They did do a crosswalk there that went from the north side to the south side.
Um but I'm not sure there's a continuous >> way to get directly into into town with a continuous sidewalk. >> Um certainly the certainly the bike path would be a much more easier route. There is a sidewalk that goes from South Chattam all the way to town.
>> Oh, there is. Okay. >> But it does cross the road a few times. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> Or at least a couple of times, I would say. >> I mean, it it's going to be available to anyone who wants to use it. They can use a route 28. They can use the bike path to walk walk or bike to town if they
wanted to. >> Yeah. I I it as I say, I don't personally know whether it's an issue or not. Um and uh if I'm certainly willing to go with the consensus of the board if they don't think it's worth investigating, that's that's fine with
me. Um, one of the uh things that I u noted we I think as Katherine and Bob you might remember this Bailey's path that development there correct >> they actually had a side um a bikeway that was connecting between their
roadway and the bike path and actually >> as part of one of their conditions was to actually provide an easement associated with that so that it would always be available and wouldn't go away. Certainly, that would be something that we would like to recommend here is
is if they're going to put a a connector in here and it's intended to be for bikes and all of that, then there should be an easement so that it's never going to go away. Um that would be uh that would be important to do. >> If if you don't if you don't make a way for the bikes to go >> to the bike trail,
>> Yeah. >> they're going to make a way through the woods. >> That's right. >> So, it's better to control how they get on it. Uh I'm guess I'm guessing that the the the way the route is they picked because of the difference in elevation there and it's you know even though you
could probably make a shorter route uh route another way it's not necessarily going to be as easy because of the steep slopes. There's some steep slopes out there. Uh any other comments? I have a few but I was just wanted to hear from all the other board members. Yeah, I I
mean we mentioned this I mentioned this before, but the um the drawing does not have the driveway from the uh northern of Butters that actually is part of the existing property that's being cut off.
>> Correct. >> And uh I think it does need to be on these maps and it does need to show how the uh access to the two properties will be uh remediated.
>> Um my understanding is is that that was a work in progress and it hadn't been submitted yet. That is I I believe it's it's supposed to be submitted. They're supposed to be addressing uh that driveway which is on this property here.
how they're going how they're going to uh resolve that. Also, once this access which goes across this particular piece of property is cut off with this new access drive, they're spo
2 says that your scope is to resolve the the intersection that would be safe for those couple of properties there to access u route route 137 meaning house road. So those are in progress from what I understand when uh
when I've had some uh discussions associated with this. I assume that we're going to get updated plans or additional plans associated with that. Um they state for example that they need
to do some testing for the storm water. Um that's in progress and they don't have that information. So there's several things that they have noted that they owe and I believe one of them was also the sidewalk that went to 28. Um that might be another one that was on
the list things I we can we can wait until the next meeting to see if they submit it or we can request this or we can note it as part of our our letter. Uh it's up to up to the board representative. >> I mean we bring it up every time. It's
until it's on until we see it plans we get. we might as well put it out. >> We might as well keep telling them that we still expect to see it. >> Um I I think the other thing that um is unclear is this uh access drive. How are
they going to um uh create that? Um they they show it as being a way, but it's not necessarily going to be a way. So are they creating a a separate split off of a piece of property? doing an ANR associated with this. How how are they
accomplishing that? Uh because from what I understand that is going to be turned over to the town. It's not going to be part of the site itself. So, um if that's the case, there needs to be a a
piece of property that's outlined that identifies what that is. That has to be created in some fashion or another. Um so, I I don't know where that is. I think that they're it's a work in progress. >> I didn't quite follow what you what you meant.
>> If you if you take a look at their their plans, they show >> they're splitting off the access drive. >> Show us. >> Okay. >> Show us where >> that goes from the rear of the property to the front.
>> This is being split off. >> Which one? >> The the old access drives being >> No, no, no. I'm talking they're creating a new access drive and >> I would look at um sheet C
>> I won't tell you >> um C4 is called the definitive subdivision plan and we've asked the question um and we're waiting for some additional information but the front access piece going in is technically they're calling it an access way but it's probably just more of an access
drive is what? >> So the road the road itself would be its own division of land. >> Correct. >> Yes. But but they don't want to call it a road because if they >> Exactly. So it would have to be done by approval required. They can't do a subdivision plan to create that. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So um but if you think about it, if that way is conveyed or or that drive property is conveyed to the town, right? Take a look at the construction of that. Um it's
there's a significant amount of fill that's being placed there. There's an embankment on each side. If there is to be any kind of maintenance that's going to be done by the town on that, there could be some erosion or some issues associated with the embankment. There needs to be
easements associated with that too so that the town would have the rights to go on to a private piece of property and do do maintenance on it. Otherwise, they'll lose the roadway and there's no way for them to without getting permission for it. >> Very good point. And beyond that, the
town's going to need easements to all the drainage. >> Well, that's that's my that's my follow on thing is there's collection then in this particular excess drive that is I may even be collecting some of uh runoff
from uh meeting house road. So that is being conveyed and and discharging down into their detention basin area there. I agree with you. There needs to be some sort of an easement because if that's associated with a a parcel that the town
will now own, operate and maintain, then they would need rights also for the drainage to be discharging to >> their their property. Yeah. >> Do we know why they want to do that? So the um the funding source that came in
to get the site like a site readiness um loan had to do with uh >> that has to that's why it has to stay in in public ownership or in town ownership. So we've asked the question of Katie and of >> Gloria and so ultimately it's not going to be seen as a road technically it's
going to be seen as an access drive but they are going to be under separate ownership. Okay. >> So that that the loan doesn't have to be back be paid back in the same way. >> Is is there going to be have they gotten um approval for peer review for the
drainage and for this situation? >> Um right now they haven't yet again because the public hearing has not been open. >> Okay. I mean that that is something that we recommended. Um, I strongly recommend that and include not just the the drainage part of that, but the
>> technical part that you described of the town >> having now maintenance of that. And I I understand why >> um uh the funding source wanted the town to then have this. >> Yeah. >> Um that that's actually pretty typical.
M >> um sometimes they just say that the town has to maintain it, not own it. >> Right. >> So the fact that they've now said ownership >> in this in this particular case, the Penrose is probably going to maintain it is what it appears to be. So it'll be a
little bit different. >> Okay. Um >> I think that they had to um when we asked the questions so that the application had to be submitted by a certain date >> and then it has to be heard or opened up by a certain date which is why all of
these came things came in >> and >> you know with all of the pieces in place >> and and that's why I don't want to rush our comments. I I want to develop them over several of our meetings. We could put several draft letters uh together
before we actually send that along. Um I do have a couple others. >> Yep. For >> a list I'm >> and I'm glad you do. Um but uh for the purposes of the meeting on September 4th, can we just simply say we've done a preliminary review of the plan and look
forward to >> Yeah. any revisions or additional information that may result from peer review and and >> that's exactly what I think you should do tonight because you you know they're waiting for a response technically. So just to show that you want to see additional information and to leave the
door open to say more things. >> Yeah. >> Um I thought it was uh interesting in some of um um Christine's comments when she used the criteria and I I really like that.
Um the criteria associated with traffic. It's interesting that their traffic study this is meeting house road. This is 137. When is the busiest time? It's during the summer probably on a weekend. They don't have any traffic information
associated with that or any tra or traffic analysis associated with um the weekend summer uh traffic congestion. And that should be what they should be analyzing because that is going to be some of the most
challenging times for this property to have access and etc. So I was sort of surprised to see that the traffic study completely avoided that. Uh so that would be an item that I think that they need to you know go out there do the do
their counts just like they did on the other weekdays that might have been lesser ownorous but weekends are where everyone comes in. Saturdays are many changeover days where traffic is coming on and off. 137 is a major corridor for that. >> Also, the King Commission has a number
of sorry a number of traffic count information. >> Yeah. >> So, they would be a good source to just, you know, >> legitimize if there is more of a traffic issue on the weekends. >> Y >> but they they need to do it this weekend
if they're going to have to wait till next year. I mean that's a good point. Yeah, >> I think it's good that if I could just comment that Christine included in the report also to take into account the summer mass schedule for the church and
the summer farmers market which is on Tuesday. I mean I live not far from there and the Tuesday farmers market that intersection is very very busy and the bike and that bike path that crosses Meeting House Road is very busy in the
summer. So, I think we do need to be we do need to have more accurate traffic studies for the summer period, for Tuesdays when the farmers market is on, and for the church mass schedule to accommodate all those events. >> Uh, I think that's right.
>> I I um I I concur with you, Charlene, on the storm water piece. I think one of the things I picked up in the um criteria that was put out there for Penrose to uh comply with and they actually submitted it as part of their
proposal. They were going to do um low impact design LI. There is none on this. Their proposal showed all sorts of features associated with that because that proposal was in
the 634 pages that I looked at and is not included in this. But there is no LI in this design. Now what happened between their proposal, the criteria that's in the RFP that says that they should be doing this and the plan that
was submitted? It it disappeared. Um, I mean, we promote that all the time. We We had Jam and Jelly. We asked them to take the pavement out, put some gravel in there, put a French train in, and put a rain garden in. Guess what?
They did it. That's L. Why is it that this applicant walked away from that? Um it so those are things that perhaps we can we can ask for even though somebody else is going to perhaps comply with with the design. That is something that the town asked
for. They submitted but they're not not doing now. Um let's see. Uh bike racks. Of course they got a bikeway uh access, but we haven't seen any bike racks over there. Uh I I was just um uh sort of
surprised at a few of the many obvious things and we may be doing uh you know an initial letter and we may have to do a follow-up letter as we get other information. So >> um perhaps um Christine and I can put a
u some of these down into some sort of a draft form that we can start with. not necessarily issue for our next meeting, but perhaps we can um just review that, see if there's other things that we should include or whatever, and then
maybe finalize it later on in the month of September. >> So, I think what Charlene had said before though was maybe about getting something into them. >> Yes. >> For their September second, right? Okay. Okay. >> I'm talking about the more detailed one that could be multiple pages.
>> Yeah. But I think there are a couple things we can include in the short letter. Yeah. >> One is how all of a sudden did we go from, you know, low impact design to no low impact design. um you know just some of the some of
those items I think could be quick little snippets that we include and you know that and we look forward to reviewing even more as revisions become available because a lot of times on 40B applications um and I sit on the home consortium
um for the entire Barnstable County which provides funding for um uh low-income housing you don't see final plans until >> you go for your final sign off and loan
applications. >> So, it could be two years before anybody sees signal final plans. I'm hoping it's not that long, but it can take that long. >> Yeah. I I think that this application has to has got a timeline of about 180 days
with the ZBA though. So they do need to make some sort of a >> they do, but it will still grow. Y >> from the comprehensive permit approval to final design and and loan agreements,
>> right? Because this plan set is clearly labeled for permitting purposes only, not for construction. Every plan in the package is that way. >> Okay. So, um I'll work with uh with Christine to get a brief letter out to the ZBA about this.
>> Do you want a motion just so it's on the record? >> We can certainly do that. Yes. Um, I would move that um the chair work with Christine to prepare a preliminary letter to the zoning board of appeals
indicating our preliminary review highlighting some of the items as presented in the staff report. Yeah. >> And that we look forward to further opportunity to review the plans. >> Yes.
>> Okay. and and also just clearly stating that the letter is just a very partial comments. >> Yeah. >> So they know that we have additional concerns. >> All right. Do we do we want to have a roll call vote on this or just just
>> need a second? >> You need a second. >> All right. A second then. >> I'll second it. >> All right. Uh then I'll do a roll call vote. Katherine, >> yes, I approve. >> Warren, >> I approve. Bob worship Charlene >> approve.
>> Frank >> approve. >> Bob Dubis >> Bob Dubis approve. >> Art sprew I approve. Okay. And then maybe it'll get some sort of a start on uh a draft letter that we would build on for our next meeting then in more
detail. >> I do. >> Oh, excuse me. Yes. Um, can you uh please introduce yourself? >> Brian Phillips, 374 Elan Road. I guess my one question was is is 137 on Town Sewer.
>> Is it It's Seward. >> It It will be. >> It will be. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> There there's a pump station that's down on right at 28 and 137 there. I'm not sure if it's been uh put alive yet. It's It's not active red at the moment, but
it's uh just waiting for the process. >> Okay, >> that was my question. Thanks. >> Great. Any any other Yes, Warren. >> Um I just wanted to um reiterate support for Frank's comments about um access to
the bike path. >> Yeah. >> Um 137 is a very busy road. We all know that. >> Yes. And we're going to be dumping or encouraging really >> a lot of bike traffic from this development down to guess where the bike path, >> right?
>> Um but it also is a place where people will be walking to church to the and other places. Um and and I'm not sure that there's room on um what I've seen talked about here to have a very active
bike path access to the town bike path >> as well as a um um a sidewalk. >> Yep. Um because if you've got bikes passing each other both ways as well as a sidewalk >> or does that does that mean it's a very
wide bike path >> or do you have a sidewalk plus a bike path >> that goes from the development down to access to the town bike path? I'm not sure how it goes. I'm just very concerned that somehow or other that you
don't end up with a 3 or 4 foot wide sidewalk, which is bikes going both directions plus plus people. >> Plus people, right? >> Because what you're going to end up with the bikes are all on 137. >> Mhm. >> Um which is not a good thing. >> No. No. >> So, >> uh,
but it was just not clear to me. >> Yeah. what the sense of the board was uh with respect to um bike path plus sidewalk. Yeah. >> One or the other and what they ought to be because there's nothing in the plans which really talks about exactly what's
being proposed. >> I I'll tell you what my preference is. Uh the sidewalk on mini house road 5t wide. uh the the connector to the bike path should be 8 ft wide so that that could accommodate >> and they're two separate things >> both both traffic both ways that would
be my >> my suggestion associated >> that would be my strong uh preference as well because >> I would agree with that >> yeah well maybe that's a comment that we can put together for the you know the more detailed uh recommendation letter >> and the other comment I was going to
make I had several others but I think they've been taken care of here adequately other than the fact that we have submitted uh comments after the initial presentation here. >> Uh virtually none of which has been reflected in anything that we've now been shown. And that's everything from
lighting, it's everything from landscaping, it's everything from screening to the house on the north. I >> I think with the snow, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. >> Yeah, we we were looking for something to mitigate perhaps that property to the north. You have a tall 35 foot tall
building right next to a single uh family ranch style building and they could make they could have made some adjustments to address that. I mean there's no buffer. There's no vegetation. Maybe there's a fence there,
but it's it's I think that's a a tough a tough buy for on a butter to have something like that just popped next to them. It's actually there's some fill that went in. So, they're actually raising the ground level before they go put up the 35 foot building. So,
>> well, I know based on what I read in the um the the town now has this thing they're doing with information um other than the the Cape Cod Chronicle. Chronicle does a great job. I'm not knocking them at all. But one of the things that I read is that the uh the
select board reviewed and made similar comments that hey this needs to abide by what was in the RFP. Yeah. Which included some buffers um in different areas. So I think it they're they're going to nip it in the bud one
way or the other that yeah, >> you know, there there needs to be some modification to what they're proposing. Maybe flipping, >> you know, the the shorter homes, you know, the shorter structures to the north or the >> Yeah. to the north and the taller ones
to the south where there is no physical abutter. Good idea. There's a bike path. >> Yeah, good idea. Could I just make a comment, Mr. Chair? Just um I agree with what Warren has said and what Charlene has said and if our letter even this first draft of it can somehow indicate
that even the preliminary suggestions we made, we don't see them being implemented yet. And also I just wanted to comment that the staff report that Christine did and I'm sure you had a hand in it Mr. Chair was really great
and very complete and you know those are all the issues that we need to consider. So um so thank you both for that. Yeah. >> All right. We got some homework to do. Um uh if we've finished with that agenda
item we can move to the next one. long long range planning as promised. I put together actually I back I looked at all the long range planning that I received from Katherine since 2019.
Um and uh she had like a little bible there on one of them back in 2019. Uh it summarized everything up to that point. But I I think I wanted to call it down to some major related topic points
and I think it came up with these four. The last one which is the seasonal dwelling uh I mean seasonal communities uh that is going to encompass several different things that were in the attached letter and
with dwelling units and that you know affordable dwelling a lot of that I think is going to come out in those guidelines in there. So, I'm assuming that that is all going to be rolled underneath there. And uh, you know, until we understand it a little bit, I'm not sure how we're going to get our arms
around it because if you take a look at all the items that are listed in the January 22nd, 2024, there's no way we could possibly deal with all of those even if that was our number one priorities. So, uh, Frank, >> just one, uh, comment on on the
seasonal. Um my understanding is that um all of the provisions are our option. In other words, there it's something that we can decide to do or not to do. >> Great. So um there's no particular legal
urgency to to pursue anything other than one of them which is uh we are required to allow houses on uh small lots non-conforming lots and I don't know
what that means and I'll be looking forward to the >> to the uh help from the group that's looking at this because >> that's a big topic. >> Yeah. >> And and so we are subject to that and the question I have is what are the
limitations? What kind of criteria can we have in our local >> right >> bylaw to deal with this? And if we don't have them, are we all of a sudden faced with a situation where people are by right uh have have the
right to put um structures on on small lots? >> I I think uh I think you bring a good point up. I think if if the guidelines are going to come out sometime, you know, in September or around that time, uh perhaps that's something that we can have a little workshop meeting with
several of the folks from community development, whether it's Gloria, Katie, Christine, and flush some of this out and define what are what are the things that we as as a community of Chadam want
to pursue as as part of this just because seasonal communities, as you've do this, we still have to go forward with it and pass it. If it doesn't pass, then it doesn't get implemented. So, and I don't know what the the implications
associated with that are. Do we lose do we lose our status as a seasonal community? I don't I don't know. >> I don't I don't think so. But >> okay, >> one of the things that we really have to address >> uh right up front is this the ability
for people to put houses on small lots. >> Yeah. And how do we deal with that? >> Yeah. >> So, >> can I ask a question? >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> Did we just Am I going to sign a document that was clearly said no buildable on those properties?
>> That's correct. >> And now you're telling me that's not actually valid. >> I don't know what it means. >> That's what we need to understand. And what >> Well, but but also that those lots are not buildable for other reasons. >> Other reasons. Yeah. I I get nothing
with zoning >> in this case. Okay. But that it just that's a really scary >> it it is if you think about all of the the properties that are in the conservancy district that that to me is a is a bit of a challenge. I mean
>> maybe I say that only because Chadam won a court case that you know of a lot that was in a flood plane. Yeah. >> And said it's not buildable. Right. and we won that okay case. So, we do have that to back ourselves up on. We
certainly don't want to build on, >> you know, if if there's a, you know, 8,000 square foot completely dry lot, no conservancy, no no anything, then that should be able to be built on and it should be able to have some kind of a
small dwelling on it based on whatever criteria we put together. But if we're going against conservancy district or flood plane or anything like that, we can't do that. That that's not good for the environment. It's it's not good for anybody.
>> I I doubt very I doubt very much they're superseding those things. What I what I'm concerned about there I don't know what the actual >> trying to address, >> right? Oh, sorry. >> That's okay. >> I I I don't know what uh the percentage of non-conforming laws is in Chattam, but I think it's fairly high. huge 75%
like over 50%. >> 75% >> 75%. So if now we have to allow everyone to build >> you know we really need to understand this quickly. >> Yeah. >> Because there may be things that we can do to >> and that's why we're looking forward to
the guidance documents that I mean we can cows. >> I would put that as a number one priority. That's what I'm getting to. >> And may I ask a question? >> Yeah of course. Um I I don't I'm not sure how this
interfaces or intersects with our desire um to create those what we were calling those transitional or buffer zones on especially with regards to West Chattam on the east side where we were going we were thinking to allow greater
residential density which could mean creating a new residential zone that allowed for smaller lots. >> Smaller lots. Right. >> So, I don't know exactly how the question Frank is bringing up relates to, you know, our desire to actually
create a zone a a new zoning uh that might allow for smaller lots and denser residential >> um construction. C can I just ask for a clarification? >> Sure. >> I feel like I might have been in a time warp. on the very end of the the memo uh
that Christine put together, >> the very last approval of the designation at the 2024 annual town meeting. Did we do that at the 2025 annual town meeting? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Okay. I was just like
>> I missed that too. >> Where is that >> very bottom of the page? >> Here 2020. >> Yeah, it's it was the main town meeting that we just the current Yeah. Yes, >> good catch. >> Yes, good catch.
>> Um, a a couple other things. Going back to the top on on the West Cham Neighborhood Center. Um, I would like to to discuss this a little bit with with the board. Maybe not necessary tonight, but I'm thinking that
we need to do an outreach in like the October time frame, a another one in the beginning of next year, and then perhaps one be um around the March or or April time frame. Um the
first one would be um to help us identify if there's anything that is a flag that we need to refine of what we've done. I'm not looking to change anything right now, but I'm looking for feedback associated with that. We haven't had
um that type of outreach and I'm suggesting three at at this point for the upcoming year. Uh certainly there's nothing that I've identified or refined associated with that, but that's something that I think is important for
us to do as part of that element and make sure that we did a lot of homework. We wrapped a lot of things up. Is there something that is or isn't going to to uh go forward and support for for the
town meeting in May? Yes, Frank. >> Um we almost got it through. Uh we're that that close. So I'm not sure I tinker with it too much. Um >> I'm not suggesting we do. I'm I'm looking for for actually an outreach to
inform >> more. There are people that spoke against it. >> Yeah. >> And um I would go back and I'm happy to do that. Look at the film. >> Yeah. >> The tape. >> Yeah. >> And see what was said against it. >> Right. >> And so we can put together something in
response to that those particular comments. So at the next town meeting, we can actually say, >> "Yeah, >> these are our responses to the comments that were made at the last town meeting." >> Yeah. And I would like to even do that at the outreach program at meetings, too. >> Yeah. >> Could I make a comment, Mr. Chair? Sure.
>> Um I just want to say I think your plan is great. >> I'll just >> It's not a plan. It's just a concept right now. >> Concept. >> Three three three outreaches. >> I'm just going to suggest and and we'll see how everyone feels that we do more
just because I think in previous efforts when we've wanted to put through a a amendment to the zoning bylaws, sometimes we didn't get it through till the second time around. I think that's what happened with the ADU. >> ADU, it didn't pass first time,
>> but what was key was information, information, information. >> And even though we almost passed it this time, and that was a great success, I still think the public just needs to be sort of
barged almost with information, information, information. I agree with Frank. I don't think we should change it because it almost went through. >> But I think we just need to repeat and give out the information again and again. Maybe even um so I would suggest
that's all I'm going to do is suggest more frequent >> Sure. >> outreach. >> Sure. Okay. Um the um >> Go ahead, Warren. >> No, I didn't want to interrupt. >> Okay. >> My turn will come. I hope >> um
the next one on the rules and regulations. Um I've been working with uh Christine on we do have storm water regulations now in the town. The EPW has put that together. They've done that as part of their MS4 program that they're they were
obligated to do. They've done it for their purposes, but they don't nec it it doesn't really wrap in everything that we do as a planning board. And I I've I've been working with Christine to actually create that. But
what came up at the end of uh uh the town meeting with the article that those citizens petitions associated with the storm water in the conservancy district. And then uh in speaking with
the the director of natural resources, Greg Greg, he said that there there should be some steps that the town takes to promote um low impact design. We don't have any criteria now. Neither
does the DPW associated with that. Um that is also something that ties in with the conservancy district. Certainly we would want to have low impact design and that's the only design we would want if we were going to encourage storm
water in the conservancy district. Um I in the draft that I had put together and I was going to eventually share this this upcoming uh year with the board uh on the storm water piece. it. I there is nothing in there on that because I had drafted this
several years ago and that was not my focus. My focus was to actually get some criteria that we could have applicants submit as part of their site plan and any subdivision. That's really the focus on that. Um it needs to be flushed out
with the board, but is that something that we should be pursuing or as the MS4 program is recommending? If I might, um, I'm I'm sure Christine that you are part of the Mass Planners listerve.
Throw something out there because I know this exists already in subdivision rules and regulations. Um, so that we may not have to reinvent the wheel, but there are some communities out there that have already looked into
the low impact um, you know, design work. Uh so we may want to as as planners we're always beg borrowing and stealing from other communities where it works where it doesn't work we don't bother with them but for where it works you know the language may already be
there you may have to you know smooth it here and there but I think that might be a really good start so that you don't have to sit there and try and write something >> no I I agree I think there's something out there already and that's but if the board thinks that that's something that
we should we should include right Now it's it's uh it's something that the MS MS4 program is is uh saying that we shouldn't initiate in the town and and I think we have been doing that. If you take a look at um the gem and jelly
place, if you take a look at 48 Silven, that is all low impact design. You know, we put uh surface roadway, you got rain gardens for storm water in there. That's exactly what low impact design is. >> But that's not going to be covered under
the planning board rules and regulations. That's got to be in zoning. >> Um >> we can do it for subdivisions. >> Yes. >> But >> Right. >> Well, in in any respect, I think we need to have that stepped up as part of this.
if it goes into if it can go into regulations or if it it has to go into zoning that's you know then we let's identify it and let's do it. I mean it looks like what uh the citizen petition was doing is it was actually incorporating something in
zoning. So we certainly if we're going to go down this pathway with the conservancy district we should identify that it should be low impact design then and what that means. Uh the last one is a the accessory dwelling unit that we put in here.
Essentially, this is state law right now and from what I understand uh our town council says we have to modify and change what we have approved in zoning right now. So since it's say law, I believe this draft is going to come to
us and then we would be reviewing it and holding a public hearing on it. I don't know that we are going to have to do the leg work associated with this so much as others will do this for us. Pretty much like the the the flood uh flood
regulation uh bylaw that we had to pass. It was complying with pretty much the state criteria. the edits were made and we didn't do anything except for just you know um hold a public hearing and then make a
recommendation to approve it at town meeting. >> Not to confuse matters but it's also my understanding that we can actually have two different um ADU bylaws. One that's compliant with the state which because I think that's a
min I forget the minimum square footage that that can be. um and it has its crit criteria. >> If we want to allow something smaller than that, we can still do that under a special permit process. I believe that
is what um we can do if we want to do it. I just want to, you know, it doesn't proclude us because I I honestly I can't forget what our language is if we have a minimum or a maximum um criteria for that. I I think I believe we have a
maximum criteria. >> So, >> you know, I don't believe we have a minimum, but we do we do say it has to contain certain elements as part of that. >> Right. >> Okay. Um that that is somewhat a summary of the long range planning that I had.
Other comments by board members? Uh Warren? Well, when I first joined the planning board, there were two principal projects that were handed to us by the select board. Um, one has come almost to
the finish line now, the uh West Chadam Neighborhood Center zoning. The other was trying to wrestle with the question, how do we encourage homeowners to work with the housing stock that they have on non-conforming lots? um and um and and
provide an incentive for them to work with those buildings to retain them rather than bulldozing them to build mega mansions. Um and somewhat related to that uh was is any is any house too big? >> The massing piece of it,
>> the massing piece of it. Um but it was the principal objective was to just retain the housing stock we have, >> right? uh to the extent that it's possible to incentivize um homeowners to utilize that providing
additional flexibility guidelines for what you can do if you keep what you have so on. Anyway, that project um was was dropped from active consideration uh due to the urgencies and the work required to get West Chadam Neighborhood
Center to the finish line >> or at least to the red zone. >> Great. um not to belabor sports uh metaphor. Um I I felt that um mostly due to my colleague on my right, we did a
tremendous amount of work which I think was getting fairly close to something that would uh resonate with uh the majority of the town as to things that were reasonably non-controversial
ways to um incentivize homeowners >> to retain housing stock they had if they wish to make revisions and addition. s or whatever. Um as well as addressing to some extent the the massing issue is any
house too big. >> Um I I would like to see that on the agenda because I think that I continue to see lovely houses being bulldozed and mega mansions being built. >> Um some of them mini mega mansions but
on tiny lots um which are just as objectionable to me as well. Um, and I know it's fallen off of even the 2024 because by then we were not worrying about the massing study or
incentivizing retention of existing uh structures rather than demolition. Um, but I don't know how the select board now feels nor this board because most of the members here are >> new. If if you recall, that was uh
a a letter came from the select board um identifying that as an item that that the select board wanted the planning board to try to get their arms around. And it's a bit of a challenge. I mean, Bob, you did a lot of work associated with this. And I think the shocking
thing that you you advised us on is 75% of everything is non-conforming. So, it's all special permit. It's it can be managed in that that aspect and many of them have been managed that way from the ZBA. If you see some of the direction
that they're going in most of these are all special permits and if you want to put something on a smaller lot, you you're not going to be able to put a 5,000 square foot home on it. You have to put something that's more manageable based on the size of the lot. And so that's something that they're doing
already because so many of the lots fall underneath the special permit criteria. So now what do you do with the other 25% that as of right I don't know >> well make it >> as we went in that direction I think the
board was concluding that we needed to develop some metrics some criteria that would guide the special permit process. Y >> and you know that uh and it was along the lines of well if you agree to work with what you've got and not put in a
demolition request >> then you'll be allowed to increase by such and such an amount >> and so on. And there was a great deal of work that was done that would be guidance in terms of how to process special permit requests because again
it's uh four out of five houses that are uh or lots that are involved here are non-conforming. Um and the the question again of is any lot too big that would also be guidance because you a special permit request there's no guidance or
metrics in there as to you know how big is too big. Um I think we had a good bit of uh progress toward answering that question in a way that was I think um not terribly controversial. Um but the
bigger point was providing guidance, metrics and criteria and propo and suggestions for uh approving special permit requests uh for for additions that would incentivize an applicant to work with what they have
rather than demolish what's there. Um, and I'd like to see that work continued, whether it's a bylaw, whether it's a regulation, whether it's just guidance to, uh, the ZBA with respect to special permit reviews. That's, you know, that's another question.
>> All right. Um, Katherine, go ahead. >> I just wanted to make a comment. Um, I agree with Warren that somehow looking at the massing of residential structures is still a priority. Um I think it is
true Mr. Chair what you said that the current practice of the ZBA uh is more in the direction of of modifying or moderating the massing of residential structures. I do have to say that it's a big a very important principle in the
comprehensive plan. Ever since I've been on this planning board, it's always been a top priority. Um the select board reiterated that priority when they sent us that memo in um I think it was April of 2019 and it's absolutely correct what
Warren said it was tabled due to COVID and then due to giving priority to West Chattam Neighborhood Center and the ADU bylaw etc etc. I think if I could suppose I think probably the only reason it's not on your list is because it's
going to be a big chunk. It's going to take a lot of time and focus. And I would agree with you, Mr. Chair, that our top priority should be, even though we won't be making many changes to West Chatam Neighborhood Center, I think it's still our top priority to get that
passed. Correct. >> Um, but I would agree with Warren that I don't want to lose sight of addressing the issue of the massing of residential structures. Okay. >> Somehow, I'd agree completely. top priority is West Chadam Neighborhood Center. Um, but
I'd like it on the list. >> Any other comments in here? >> Yeah. Well, go ahead, Bob. >> Well, first of all, it uh I don't think I actually did a lot of work, but >> No, you did. Total work, >> but the the amount that remained was far
more substantial. So, um, unless we're going to commit a big chunk of time, >> uh, to dealing with that this issue, uh, I think it's probably better to wait to hear from the select board that it
becomes a priority again. Um, I so that would be my that would be I think you the perspective the four you have is right. The thing I want to make sure um is understood is that the conservation commission and the energy and um climate
action committee are working on a a a bylaw uh conservation bylaw that is going to really need your your waste uh water. >> Storm water. >> Yeah. Storm water. >> Okay. Yeah. And so you we're counting on
you being uh I think there's going to uh Janet Williams is going to be making a presentation to the select board in next >> I'm I'm comfortable with the draft that I have. There's just it needs to just be flushed out with the board members.
>> Right. I I do want to mention just briefly that um the driveway in the conservancy tonight that you uh continued to the next meeting. The ZBA did did in that particular case indicate that the uh massing was a little too big
>> and to take it take it down a little bit. So, >> but I I don't think it necessarily can hurt to have it on the list somewhere. I mean, so it doesn't get lost in in the future, you know, if it's something that's very important. >> Well, I have a a thought. Yep.
Um, presumably these are the goals and objectives for next year. >> That's I think the ones that we're going to be able to tackle >> for this year and next year, the next 18 months, let's say. >> Well, right. >> Well, mostly till the June 30th.
>> Okay. I'm trying to get the time frame down. >> So, what we're these are for up to the second the first half of ne of next year. >> That's correct. >> Right. because then there could be a new board members. >> Sure.
>> New leadership. >> But by that time uh presumably the annual meeting has occurred and the west chat correct >> is either on or off. And >> that's correct. >> Right. >> Yep. >> Passed. Yes, I stand corrected. Um and I
agree that massing is is a I agree with Warren that massing is a a very important item. >> Yes. Um, so I I think it should be included, but it it maybe should should be a second half of the year priority. It's not We shouldn't go at it first.
That's my thought. >> We'll we'll refine the long range priority list and I think we'll we'll put that back on. I I don't think it was intentional to drop it off, but it has dropped off over the last couple of years. So, >> but we'll put it back on. But I think
it's it's not only the massing, it's uh incentivizing preservation of existing housing stock. >> Um the two go hand though, right? >> They go hand in hand. But as I say, to me, it's as important as is anything too
big. Yeah. >> To try and preserve the housing stock we have, which has a lot of character to it. >> I was just going to say the saving grace with the the rules and regs that doesn't go to town meeting. No, >> just requires a public hearing. >> Correct.
>> So that is like the hue of everything. >> Right. >> So I I'll be happy to set aside one meeting that we can just go over that. Uh because once we review it, we'll need
to officially uh do a public hearing on it. Public hearing uh will just be after we close it, it would just be our vote that we re required for it. I don't think there's going to be any mystery to it. I mean, if you saw the regulations from the DPW, it's not much different
than that. It's supporting that. Um, but what it does is it focuses on on what it is that we do as from a planning board perspective. All right. Any any other comments before we uh move to the next agenda item,
>> which is >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn this meeting. >> Do I have a second? >> I second. >> Okay. Uh uh do a roll call vote. Katherine, >> I approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> Uh Bob Warch,
>> approve. >> Charlene, >> yes. >> Frank Sher, >> absolutely. Abdubis, >> Bob Dubis, approves. >> Uh Arts Brew, I approve. And the time is 6:41 p.m.