Good evening. Uh my name is Art Spru. I'm chair of the planning board. This is the town This is the Town of Cadam Planning Board Highbeard meeting June 22nd, 2026. It's 5:00 p.m. Please note this meeting is
being recorded and will be a available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. I see nobody's hand up.
Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two 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 prog progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-945-4410 conference ID 1 192-578-580 pound or join the meeting online via
Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast ensemcast on Chattam 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. Uh let's begin with a roll call vote. Warren Jane >> present. >> Charlene Greenhall >> here. >> Frank Shear >> here. >> Uh Bob Dubis >> here. >> Uh Katherine Halpern, remote
>> present. and Arts >> present. >> Thank you. And Arts Brew, I am present too. Uh, is there anyone who has to recuse themselves from any of the agenda items tonight? None. Okay. Thank you. Let's begin with the um minutes.
Let's try to tackle the May 5th ones that have been bumped. I have one edit. It's the last sentence. And the second page of first paragraph it says therefore Mr. Spru suggested that the board not forward with the
options that at this time only because so it looks like didn't quite get finished there. I think what I was trying to say is we're not going ahead with the option that the attorney was recommending. Other than that I thought these were okay. Any other comments? >> Just one minor one. Whoa, that's loud.
Um, on the first page under present, it says Arts Brew chairman and then it says vice chair. That doesn't >> with nobody there. Huh. >> Nope. >> The old cut and paste. >> All right. >> I have one more just for clarification
on your motion art on the second page. >> Yep. >> It says um except for the following changes as described which um is a little bit confusing. So instead of saying following, you might just say
town council's changes as described for for clarity. >> Yes, that would be I think that's that's correct, more accurate. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. Just do a roll call vote. Uh Warren >> approve. Charlene >> abstain. >> Okay. >> You need my vote for >> Okay, we may we'll need four. Uh Frank >> approve. >> Bob >> abstain. >> Uh Katherine
>> approve >> and Artsboro I approve. So I think that's four. Yeah, there was only four of us members there at the All right. Next one is minutes from June 8th. Are there any comments or edits to these
minutes? I did not have any. >> Nor do I. >> Nothing. Okay. Then I have a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the board approve the June 8, 2026 meeting minutes.
>> And do I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay, good. Uh, Warren, >> I approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. >> Frank, >> approve. Bob >> abstain. >> And uh Katherine >> I abstain.
>> And Art Sprew I approve. Okay. Next is approval not required for 48 and 57 way. And I do I have somebody online who's present for that? >> So we do have one person online. And I
don't know if they're present for that that or something else or we have uh people in the audience. I don't know if anybody is here to speak to people behind you. Is anybody here to speak to the Silven Way? Nope. Okay. >> Okay.
>> Person online, are you here to speak to that? >> Nope. Okay. Um then I will give a brief brief overview. So this is a subdivision that you had seen before. It was a definitive subdivision. Now they are just um taking um an additional piece of
lot 48 and they're adding it to um uh to 48 Silven Way and they're adding it to um 50 Silven Way. It is approximately um well it's 4,786
square feet in size. Um it is on the northwest portion of lot what was lot one and they're just moving that over to lot two. Both will still be conforming um in their frontage and area requirements for the R60 zone. So I see
no problems with this. >> I had no comments. Any of the board members have any comments or questions? >> Okay. Then um do I have a a motion to approve? >> Mr. Chairman, I move to endorse the approval not required plan entitled plan
of land in Chattam, Massachusetts as prepared for Franklin Pitco LLC owned by Franklin Pitco LLC being a division of lot one for the purpose of merging with lot 2 shown on plan book 721 page 61
prepared by Paulie Sweetzer PLS dated May 15, 2026 as it meets the necessary requirements for endorsement as an ANR. Second. >> Okay. New roll call vote. Warren Shane >> approve. >> Uh Charlene Greenhall >> approve.
>> Frank Sheer >> approve. >> Bob Dubis >> approve. >> Uh Katherine have po >> approve. >> And Arts Bry approve. >> So I will just ask you all to sign the myar on the way out tonight. >> Good.
Let's see. Next on the agenda is a request for release covenant. This is uh Gross Pond Road lots four and five. Do I have anyone here from the epicant to speak to this
online? >> We have two people in the audience. If you want to just get up and give introduce yourselves and give a a brief overview. Um or I can also provide the overview as we get going. Good evening. I'm uh John Papalto. I'm representing actually the buyer of these
lots. This is my wife Jennifer. She's the representative of the seller. >> Okay. >> And uh obviously I'm the son-in-law of the seller as well. >> Okay. >> Um we are seeking release of covenant. The covenant that was put in place I think
in 200 can't remember the the year now. >> I think it's four. 2004. Um there was a order there and then there was conditions as well um that were part of that covenant and the buyer
of the property wants clarity as as does the title company >> wants clarity on on uh that property before we conclude the sale >> which is scheduled for July 7th. Um I did have the opportunity to meet
with Christine um last week and we've had a series of back and forths uh over the past week concerning this transaction and the covenant and the conditions. Uh I was not aware that uh
the asbuilt plan for the driveway wasn't submitted. Mhm. >> Um >> I thought everything was clear because the Covenant was released in 2014. >> Mhm. >> Um but apparently there was a Scrivener's error >> on that release. I'm sure you've been briefed on Yep.
>> the background of this, but we're here to make sure we can clear this up so we can have the transaction. >> Okay. Um uh Christine, maybe you can just summarize your comments. Um, so the initial subdivision, just so everybody
understands, was done as an ANR and that was in 2003 and that involved a number of of lots. This was ultimately a definitive subdivision of of one lot in particular and that's how we got to lots four and five. There have been numerous
um plans that were in your package that talked to slope easements and to view easements and things like that. We ultimately ended up getting to um 200 I'm sorry um
>> uh two no 2006 was a plan and that took an additional piece off of lot five and added it to 204 um Crows Pond Road and that made that a little bit bigger. Then in um 2009 there
was a modification to the driveway. So, the driveway was a requirement um with the the um uh the covenant and the statement of conditions that were referred to earlier. Ultimately, in 2014, there were two lots that were
released. Um, it is unclear whether or not those lots were supposed to be labeled as four and five or if they were were in fact referring to lots one and two from the original subdivision which did not which was not part of the um of
the the covenant in any way. So where we are today is I did receive this afternoon the asbuilt that was missing. Um what we're going to request of the um of the engineer is that they put the note on there um ultimately to because
they haven't given us the hard copies of it yet anyway. The it is appropriate to do that but to put the um just to put the note that the access to lot 4 is via the panhandle on lot five because that was the biggest requirement that was missing. So initially when you all
received your packages last week, we have it for the release of covenant, but ultimately we want it to be the release of covenant and the release of statement and conditions. So I'm saying if as long as we have this note showing somewhere because right now there is nothing legal moving this forward, we've at least got
this note on there. Um and then we have the asbuilt. So then we are comfortable with moving forward in that direction. Um, uh, the engineer has not been told yet, but depending on the the motion that the planning board makes tonight, um, I will be directed to tell the engineer to do
that and then we will be able to give you the things. >> Okay. >> Does anybody have any questions for me? >> Any comments, questions about this? >> This one. Uh, so the asbuilt is in accordance with the statement. >> Yes. So, one of the plan, one of the
plans, the original plan that goes with the covenant and the statement of conditions from um 2004 basically had the panhandle and it had the note on it saying the lot the lot was there. So, the covenant and
the statement of conditions goes with that particular plan. I think that the note should have been covered all should have been taken through on the other plans. Yeah. >> But it but it wasn't. Um we can't rewrite history. It's not exactly how I'd want to do it. An asbuilt doesn't
typically get recorded. We're not going to record the asbuilt. Um that being said, we'll have the asbuilts in the file and the note is still there in the history that says for whatever reason the planning board decided at that time that lot 4 cannot access from Crows Pond
Road. It has to go through the panhandle. The driveway is already in place. Um I know that I gave Annie a couple of pictures that I took today. So the driveway is already there and it shows the access to both to both lots. >> Okay. >> Uh we have panhandles we look at a
little bit differently and in this case if if if an applicant who owns both properties wants to have a driveway that connects to it and steam butter that's that's fine. We go ahead and do it. But we want to make sure that somebody doesn't come along later on when property gets transferred and say well you didn't have any right to do that.
>> Understood. >> Yeah. So, it's it's a protection for for you in the transfer of your property. So, >> uh wherever we can to clarify that and with documentation, we'd like to do that. >> Um with that, um >> Oh, Katherine, uh do you have any
comments? >> I do. Um Christine, I just wanted to clarify what you're saying. um in our packets basically is in a nutshell I'm understanding that um we were feeling comfortable releasing the covenant but
not the statement of conditions. Are you saying have you reviewed the note and the new documentation and have the statement of conditions been met and we can release them? Is that what you're saying? I wasn't quite clear. >> Yeah. Oh yes. I'm sorry. That is what
I'm saying now if you're all comfortable with it. I have the I have the asbuilt that arrived today. I have gone through the asbuilt. I have been out on the site. >> I just I want the final asbuilt that is in our in our files to have the note on it when I get the hard copy because I
don't have hard copy right now from the engineers. So, I want the PDF >> with the new note and I want the 24 by36 as built. >> Yeah. Uh >> right. But you're confirming that based on what you've seen, statement of conditions has been met. >> Yes. >> Right. Uh
>> okay, great. Uh, Katherine, when I had saw this in my packet, I I spent time with uh Christine and she was working back and forth with the applicant and their engineer to resolve that issue with the asbuilt and and this note. So, um, that's the reason why, right,
>> the motion that's in the comments was from back in last week, but um, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to release both the covenant and the statement and conditions tonight. >> Right. Yes. Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions from board
members? Uh, do I have a motion? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we release the statement of conditions, release the covenant book page book 18654, page 268, and release of lots four and
five for sale to a single entity in order to ensure that the notes is documented on subdivision definitive subdivision plan of land in Chattam, Massachusetts, Crows Pond Road, dated and revised May 3rd, 2004. Book 591,
page 32 are met and provided that prior to the actual physical release of those documents to the applicant that the necessary PDF and asbuilt plan would the required notes be submitted to uh town staff. >> So, so what I would say now is based on
the information that we got, we don't need to make sure that the lots are transferred to the same buyer at this time, the same entity. They can So just >> going I have to keep the asbuilt piece of it but we don't need to have them go to the same entity anymore because >> so I would change that to the release of
lots four and five. >> Y >> okay and also release of the statement of conditions. >> I that was my first part of that. >> Okay. Good. >> All right. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it again. >> All right. Uh any any other discussion?
If not, I'll do a roll call vote. Uh Warren, >> I approve. >> Uh Charlene approve. Frank >> approve. Bob >> approve. Thank you. And Katherine, >> yes, approve. >> And Archbbury, I approve. >> So, what will happen is you can um I'll
notify you when I get to Asbuilt with the correct information. You can tell your engineer um I will also reach out and then you can come and get the paperwork. I'll release the paperwork at that time for you to record. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay.
>> All right. Uh, next we have site plan approval. This is change of use for 1615A Main Street. I believe this channel Moods and I think we're going to continue this. Is that right? >> Yes, that is correct. We um I did speak to the applicant in this case. Um, they
are still working on site plans. So, we're going to continue to the next meeting as far as we know. We might need to do it again. >> And that's the 8th of July. >> No. Then >> no, >> I feel more comfortable for the for staff to be able to review whatever
comes in that we continue it to the 27th of July. >> Okay. >> And I would so make that motion. Uh date and time certain no earlier than 5:00 p.m. continue this to July 27th. >> Second. Okay. Bob has a second on this.
Do a roll call vote. Uh Warren >> approve. Uh Charlene >> approve. >> Frank >> approve. approve. >> Uh Katherine >> approve >> and Arts Brew I approve. Uh next we have a request for comment
for zero and 87 Minion House Road. This is Penrose. It's the 40B project. Um in your packet you have notes. Those notes were my review of this. I used those as just background. I'm not
suggesting you have to do everything that's in here, but perhaps what I can do is I can summarize a little bit. Um, the site that was submitted, and this is in the June 4th packet, I believe of
2026, is completely different than the previous submission. Um, the applicant has bought the property that butts to the north. They've changed the configuration of all the buildings. They changed the access drive. I don't know if you've looked at the details of it,
but pretty much everything has changed. The storm drainage system has changed. The parking has changed. So, I did do a fairly uh comprehensive review of my part because I was sort of nervous with everything that's changed on it. And so,
I summarized that in some of my notes in here. I'll give you a high level on it. There there's needs some work that needs to be done on the storm water. the first three items are associated with it. Um they agreed to do a few things even with
the peerreview comments to get you know uh 18 inches of cover over the pipes. They have not done that. I'm suggesting they go back and revisit that. There's a couple pipes that have less than a foot of cover on it. That's really not good practice um for this. Uh so it's that
the velocities are still coming out pretty quickly at the out at the outfalls. Um the the one that's uh it's got a big 24 inch pipe that's a 13% velocity. It's pretty fast. Uh uh they were they were
asked as part of the peer review comments previously because they had high velocities to reduce them down to 10 feet per second or less. Uh so they have not done that in this particular application. They're still very high. Uh
and the issue with that is uh the rip wrap that's at the outfall. It just it creates a lot of scar. So they came up with calculations to show that there is adequate rip wrap there. It's just that their calculations are incorrect. I
don't know what they did with the uh the uh Excel spreadsheet formulas, but when I just did the formula that they had in there and ran numbers, it's about twice the size of both the length and the width for this rip wrap. So, they need
to go back and and revisit the calculations that they had for the rip wrap. Um it's interesting they they reference the Army of Corps of Engineers um um article on this because they're they're the premier entity who actually created um the guidance for RIPRAP at
outfalls because that's all they did and uh it's it's very effective. It works. They made the recommendation way back when. It's never been changed since that time, but it wasn't really applied right here. So my first three comments really
deal with that high level. Bob, >> Mr. Chairman, that there are different size rip wraps around. >> Yes. >> And andor they could uh step step the out ball. >> That's correct. They could do a lot of different things. Yeah. Uh they are proposing 6 in at this point.
>> That's that's small, I think. >> Yeah, they might be. So >> I mean they they have some pretty good size rip wrap. >> Yep. And I and I think that in this case, if they're going to have high velocities, they should deal with that. >> Um, the next ones is gets into this
access drive again. And I I have a problem. I had a problem with it before, but I have a bigger problem with it now because the access drive, they're parking cars off the edge of the road. Now, if this was in a private way a uh
it's part of the site access and drive, well, it's no different than any of the other uh circulation that you have around on the site, but they're asking for this to be a public way. And we don't want to have a car backing
up on a public way. So, >> I'm a little confused only because it says it's an approval not required plan and that drive is within the approval not required plan which the zoning board of appro zoning board of appeals has the
authorization to endorse that as well as a subdivision plan for the purposes of a um of a 40B. At least in the world I used to be in. That's what I don't see it as the I don't this isn't a
subdivision. It's an approval not required plan. >> Yeah. But they're still asking for it to be a public way and it's going to be turned over to the town. >> It should be a subdivision plan. >> It should be a subdivision plan. >> Then it it it probably should be right >> a a subdivision plan, but also the
zoning board of appeals can endorse that as part of their per their review under the 40B. At least that's my knowledge of of that. >> But I mean maybe they're doing they're keeping this separate. There might be
some reason for the town to have this as a public way. But >> we have concerns with it being a public way. >> No, no, no, no. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I think that even if this were done as a subdivision and it was a
public way, you know, unless the town wants to to um plow the whole road and take maintenance over the whole, you know, the the parking everything, >> we don't want to do that, right? >> There are number of 40Bs out there where
it's the developer who does the actual >> road maintenance both in the winter when it snows and everything else. Well, in this case, they're silent on the whole issue. Let's just say they go ahead with the public way. Um, there's three to one
slopes that are on both sides of this drive because it's elevated. All right. Well, they're silent on that. If there's erosion in there and it undermines the road and we own the road, does that mean that we have to go in there and do the repair, but we don't have rights to go
in the sloped area? that whole thing needs to be worked out so that there's understanding of who's responsible for what on this. And so I I made a note of that in there. I, you know, can work on the wording associated with this, but I picked up that that is >> an issue. I I think it should be made
very clear that the applicant is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of any pavement, sidewalks, what have you throughout this whole development. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Bob, >> I I believe that they they're in charge
of these buildings for quite a period. >> That's correct. For a >> long time I don't believe that the asphalt part of this should be pardoned or pushed off to the town. >> Uh because in 99 years, you know darn well that they're going to have to do the road over the snow plowing. We we
should not be have anything to do with the snow plowing of this property. >> I I certainly agree with you on that. >> Uh and or the maintenance as far as the parking on it. I I understand that if it's a public way, it's going to be a little touch and go, but this should all
be privately absorbed by the the the whole property. >> Yeah. >> And facility until such time as they turn everything to the town. >> Yeah. So, for for example, on on the Main Street 40B, the access way was private. It was part of the development.
This should be the same thing. I mean, it's it's sort of like cutting a piece out that just doesn't make any sense. >> There's there's a lot of volume to be absorbed there by the town if if it's not done right. >> Yeah. Um the other thing that they've
done is they wrote a they had their traffic engineer wrote a a a letter associated with these sidewalks. Now, the RFP and the agreement said that the sidewalk was supposed to be provided from the site to
12 to Route 28. They're they don't want to do it. They just want to use the the path from from the their development to the rail trail and that's it and then they want to walk away from it. I I just don't get that.
>> Y, >> Mr. Chairman, I have I have an issue with that because >> I don't see a school bus driving up this uh driveway >> or entrance way >> and turning around. I see the children, kids, whatever they are uh people.
>> Yeah. >> Getting on the st school bus at the intersection of of this in 137. >> Yeah. >> And so >> when they when they are, they're going to they should have a sidewalk. I'm presuming I didn't look that close. There's a sidewalk going up into the into the subdivision.
>> They do they do have one now. >> So when when they go back down to the school bus and and they get let off, some of them are going to want to go down the bike trail. Some of them are going to want to go across the street and down to maybe the the ice cream shop or or something like that nature.
>> But the the safest way would be to come down on the Cadam >> Center side of 137 in my opinion. Yep. >> Because that connects down below and there's a sidewalk there that they can continue down by let's say Chicky Clark.
So they could go and and uh uh there's a the beach down there. They could cross the street, walk to the beach or walk around rather than having to walk down to the bike trail. >> Yeah. >> Which has bicycles. They're going to be walkers, I assume. >> Yeah.
>> Uh and so they're not going to the bus is not going to let them off at the bike trail. >> Yeah. They're going to let him off at the at the intersection and and to to walk down and have to walk down to 137 and then where do you go? You go to the
parking lot and then walk down through the church or something of that nature. I I feel that absolutely should have a sidewalk on 137. My recommendation is across the street. Yeah. from this and and with and and then the bus a bus actually should have a little bit of
pull into the entrance to let them out. >> Um Yep. Uh Frank, you had some comments. >> Yeah, I I just wanted to uh support what Bob said and also add that my understanding is that the bike trail is not plowed in the winter time. >> No, it's not. So, you know, you could
mention that. Uh because >> And then secondly, uh it's it's unfortunately turning into more than a bike trail. It's turning into a motorbike trail. >> Yes. >> And I I bike on it. I walk on it >> and things go whipping by at 35 or 40
miles an hour. >> Um so I it it's it it's a safety issue. It's a danger. >> Yeah. to have children and a lot of pedestrians congregating on that spot
with motorcycles zooming by at 40 miles an hour. I think that's a mistake. So, >> uh, Katherine, I think I see your hand up. Did you want to have some comments on some of these points? >> Yeah. Um, first of all, I just want to comment that
Art I shared your concern about um the access way and I agree with all the points that have been made um so far. Um the one question I had are did
you mention in the beginning that you did say this is completely different and I have taken a look and you've you mentioned that they purchased the property to the north >> correct >> because I did want to ask okay so does that mean that the abutters who had many
concerns with the previous design there were some abutters as I recall to the north so does that mean those abutters no longer exist? Well, one of the there's there were two properties to the north and the immediate one to the north. It was purchased by I would say
the applicant Penrose and is now and now is incorporated as part of the site. >> Okay. >> And actually some of the some of the buildings that they had on the previous site are actually on that piece of
property that um that they just purchased.urched. Yeah. So I would just So are there other there's another a butter to the north? I would just again want to confirm that if there is another butter left to the
north that any concerns that they have are addressed. >> Well, >> so that's my question to you. Yeah, I think that the uh what uh what was in the agreement or the RFP is that both of
those properties to the north had to have their driveway access reestablished in some way so that they have a means to uh enter and exit their properties. Um I don't I think there was a bit of a challenging issue with this immediate
property here. Then they resolved it by buying it. I haven't heard any I haven't heard anything about the uh butter now that's immediately north of this property. I haven't heard anything about how that property is going to be addressed for it. I didn't comment on
that but I think it was a good point to actually indicate has that issue been resolved because we did say that in our previous comment letters to the ZBA is is that >> yes >> that those two properties needed to have their driveway access resolved. And as I
recall, it wasn't just that. It was also there was concern. And what I'd like to see um before actually making final comments on this redesign, again, I'd like to see exact um um dimensions for the building
footprints and exact heights of each building. I think there was some concern from the abutters about the heights of the buildings on the north and the size of the buildings. that that concern might be uh eliminated
because they've purchased that land. But nevertheless, I'd like to see, you know, the specifications, the exact dimensions of the footprints and the heights of the building to get a better understanding of this redesign.
>> Uh that's another good point. Um I do know that they've changed a lot of the grades on the site because the orientation of all the buildings and the site access uh circulation is all changed. Um but it's still elevated in
the back and then it drops off significantly as you get closer to um meeting house road. Um >> it still does it did that previously and it still does that uh with this new design. So, uh they at least are
providing some retaining walls there. They're providing some protective fencing there, but uh they uh they have a lot of other walls around on the site with no protective sensing fencing. And I think I put that in as a comment too that >> anytime anytime they have a retaining
wall, even if it's only 2 feet, I think they should have a protective fence on this. Uh especially you know that right there are going to be families here with children and >> agreed >> two feet is still still good. >> It's still it's still something you can
trip over. Agreed. I mean is it too much to ask since this is a complete redesign that we have a complete new presentation with all the details that I just outlined. You know the building height. I I guess we can request it and put some
of these questions to them. Um I have no problem with requesting that and I'm not quite sure we have an they have an obligation to uh appear before us, do they? >> Not that I know of, but we can definitely we can ask. Um I do. >> Would that be something that the board
members would want at all? Because this isn't going to be settled too quickly yet. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I mean, those were my comments and just that I completely agree with with the other comments that you've brought up, Mr. Chair, and that the other board
members have brought up. >> Okay, let's go to Bob and then Frank. >> There's major changes in this and and maybe it might be easier for us for them to answer our questions about the sidewalk and about the backing out and about this and that. I think Frank would
agree with that. It's a major uh change. >> It's a major revision. Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. Just I'm sorry. Go ahead, Frank. >> Uh there I I think it whenever we send the letter, it should include the uh paragraph that we had on lighting and
foot candles and warmth and all of that. >> I I I think the lighting that they provided um they've toned it down quite a bit. >> Do you think it complies with our requests? >> I think so. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Uh it's the last sheet. There's about a thousand little points on it.
>> Okay. The uh and I I just you'd have to take a real close look at it. >> I I do recall that a major uh question for us was the height of the buildings and there's nothing in here on that. So, >> I did not check any of that. >> Right. And that's because it's not in
the in the materials that >> But they're also interesting on the Sorry, just speaking to that on C4 where they list the uh the waiverss they're requesting for zoning >> regulatory requirements. There's nothing in there about height.
>> Oh, really? >> So, >> are we to assume, and we know it happens when one's one assumes, but are we to assume that they're no longer asking for a waiver from the height? >> Oh, well, that would be we should add that to our >> and that's why I didn't even think of
the height because it wasn't in their list of waivers, but we don't have the original letter which outlined all the waivers, >> but clearly they've changed. So, >> I think the cover letter that they sent with this packet had no no waiver letter
requests. Yeah. >> Um, a couple more to think about. Um, last the again the same number of units previously there was 42 units, eight buildings. That has not changed. Maybe the building
sizes and orientation have changed but that hasn't changed. They previously had 62 parking spaces. We thought that that was too low. They've reduced it. Now they only have 56 parking spaces. Now this is for 42
units. Um the ratio that they agreed to at the Main Street site was 1.85. Now our comment letter previously was well if it's 1.85 and you do something similar to that you need 78 parking spaces.
This is really an isolated site. I mean, there's there's no place that anybody could park if they want to. If they if they can't park on this site, where are they going to park? On the church's parking lot across the street. I don't think they're going to be too happy about that. Um the the only other places
there's certainly a parking area for bicycles for the rail trail, but that that's not meant for private use here. >> Did you actually count the parking spaces? Yeah. because on their list of waiverss, they say they're providing 67
parking spaces. So, when I saw your note, I went, "Wait a minute." >> I took this. >> I I did count them and it came up with the number that they had. But you got to it a bit
>> because what I did is I I took the number that they had on their plan here um along the access drive there at the top over here and I only came up with 56. So maybe I'll go back and I'll revisit that >> because it does say they're providing 67
spaces which still is not enough. >> Yeah, that's really that's really not enough. That's really the point. >> That is the point. Thank you, Warren. Especially when some of them are really on the road going in, which >> it's not going to be a road. We already said that
>> on the way in. You know, it's not a good place to have that parking. I I want to know where the doctors, the nurse practitioner comes in, uh some people coming over to visit where I
mean, I don't expect them all to have company at once, but uh this is this is if they're married, they they have two cars because one goes to work in Boston, say one goes to work in Hyannas, one goes to work in Chad, one goes to work
here. So, so most families have two people working while their kids are in school. >> So, this is going to be where they're going to they're going to park in the woods, they're going to park in the lawn. This is something these these are for families, not individuals, retired
people. >> How much of this is actual capital A affordable? Do we remember? It's been so long. Oh, that's always been a question because even when I was part of the C CPC group and we were looking at that, the number uh that
they had on affordable was like only like six units, seven units, something like that for each site. >> Uh the >> well that >> the it's a really low number. >> Got to be at least 25% though, >> right? It has to be 25% but it's not a
single unit above that. >> Then they definitely need more parking. I mean, if these were affordable units, a lot of times, you know, a family who needs affordable housing often cases only has one vehicle and a electric
bicycle to get from here to there. But if this is a low percentage, lower percentage of affordable housing, then there's going to be more than one vehicle. >> Well, I'm going to count these again, but I only come up with 60.
>> I never counted them. >> Yeah. I actually did count them and it's I came up with the number that was in the write up. >> Oh, is that right? >> But the point is that's not enough parking for this location for the reasons uh that Bob has outlined.
>> There needs to be a place for >> uh nurse practitioners. There needs to be a place for delivery trucks to have >> um various tradesmen come in even ordered by the uh the owners. There's there's no place to park anything. um
that's around um and the way of visitors and so on. So, uh and it's such a remote place that if you can't park on the site, uh you've got a real challenge as to where you're going to park. >> Okay. Uh just a minute. I think Katherine, you have your hand up again.
I'm trying >> um No, no, I actually don't. >> Okay. Somebody behind. >> Yeah, but I I want to finish with the board members. >> Okay. But why don't I finish? I agree there's not enough parking y >> and I just want to comment we need to be
careful about how many units we assume are actually affordable >> because I I just remember and again we should probably ask them for that information and be very clear about it because as I recall it it doesn't turn out to be that many
and then any pref preference for local preference evaporates after a year. So, we just need to be careful in our assumptions about how many people who need affordable housing in Chadam will actually be assisted by this project.
>> Um, somebody uh was Bob, you you had something you wanted to add. >> I just was saying like a service person coming in to fix a washing machine. >> Yeah. >> They're not going to walk they're not going to walk up the drive, park in the driveway. >> Yeah. >> And then walk all the way up. They're going to drive to the Pacific House. >> Right. their house
>> and pull in there. >> So, either either they're going to park behind the existing car, >> right? >> Okay. Which is which is acceptable. Two spaces if if it has to be one in front of the other. That that's acceptable. So, one car has to move before the other
one goes out, that's okay. But they have two places to put people, right? Uh and they don't have to be side by side. >> Yeah. And so if you take a look at the site layout there, they they don't have a lot of opportunities to add uh unless they change a lot of the site in order
to add the extra parking. So Warren, do you have something? >> Um I want to start by reiterating the support for the comments about sidewalk. I mean, there's got to be a sidewalk from uh where this uh entrance to the
development is down to uh down to 28. >> 28, right? The the best place to put it from a um topographical point of view is on the east side of the road as Bob suggested. Um how to do that however requires
um some consideration as to a crosswalk. How do you get across the road to get to the sidewalk? >> Same way you get across when you're at the bike trail. >> And the bike trail. Yeah. Pretty straight shot through there. >> No, understand. I mean, and therefore there needs to be a crosswalk put into
this. Uh otherwise, that's a real disaster waiting to happen. Um which also then raises the question, well, you've got another major crosswalk down where the bike trail is. So, you're going to have two major crosswalk um in
crossings within a very short space. If the driveway, if the sidewalk was on the other side, the west side, that's not a good place for the sidewalk, period. But you wouldn't need to have a crossing, per se. But, um, it, you know, the I just have the issue.
>> Warren, I I looked into that and that could be, but they'd have to move the road over because, um, the work that's been done on that side of the road, I don't believe there's enough room to put a sidewalk there without moving the road over. And I'm in favor of that because >> well I'm in favor of where you're in
favor of the sidewalk. I'm just raising the issue about I needing a side a crossing. >> If you go down and take a right towards towards South Chadam. It is in South Chadam but more towards South Chadam. There is a sidewalk across the street there. There's a there's a small
restaurant where you can get sandwiches and snacks. Uh there's the post office there. So I mean either either side is adequate and maybe maybe it is better to go towards the post office way and move the road a little bit but you know 10
feet on the road is nothing in that area. Yeah it's going to be uh some walls and where the church slopes down and stuff but it can be done. So so how many children do you have to hit before you put the sidewalk in? Well, um, also further to your comment, Bob, too, I
think there needs to be some way, you know, a bus stop down at the, uh, right down Route 137. That's where a school bus is going to be. That's where they may end up having public transport stopping, and you can't have it. You know, there's got to be a way to get off the road, and that isn't seemed to be
considered in this plan at all. Um I I had a comment on the last presentation of this about the bike path, excuse me, the path to the bike path. Um it's um very likely to be highly traveled. Anybody who's got a bike, motorized or
otherwise, is going to be taking that bike path down that path to the bike path. So they're going to be going quickly and you're going to have people going up and they're going to be going slowly. Some people may even get off to walk. Um, so the the design and
construction of that path to the bike path um isn't really elaborated in here at all. It seems to be it needs to it needs to be constructed in a way that you can physically get off of that path so you can not get run over by somebody
who's on it. A place where you can actually walk along it. you don't need a sidewalk um a sidewalk, but people will use that path uh to get down uh if they're going to be going down to walk on the bike path. Um and there's no
there's no description exactly uh that makes me comfortable that that's going to be a safe passage down from the development down to the bike path. And it's important that it be wider than it perhaps might otherwise need to be. It
might be appropriate to have a couple of spots where you could actually get off of the bike path and not be in the in the woods. Uh that it be landscaped in a way that you're not dodging poison ivy all the time. Um and there's nothing in
here which talks about that. Then there um I had hoped that there was going to be a presentation this evening where we could get some clarity about many of the things here. I know um from my recollection of our initial review of
the proposed plan all sorts of things as the number of dumpsters that are there for this 42 units. I mean they've got I think two you two places where there's a dumpster. Um and you know I'm not sure that that's adequate. we had suggested it's you want to kind of have one per
building. It would be nice, but um but the um and and uh they now have a place where you can have a a bit of a play area. That's a big plus that we had talked about before. Um but the circulation of traffic here, they've got
uh both, you know, two-lane traffic going all the way around this, which is a plus in the sense if you're trying to have delivery vehicles and so on get by. But, um, it does suggest to me that, you know, you have issues with respect to
the safety of kids that are running around here, uh, to get to and from the play area. Um, and there's nothing in here which is talking about signage or crosswalks or or anything like that. Um, it's also the case you're very likely to
have bicycles here, motorized or otherwise. Uh and yes, there's some bike uh bike racks that they have put in, but um people who have expensive electric bikes, there's no real place to store them. So, they're going to perhaps take
them inside their houses, which is fine. Um, but it it just seems to me that many of the things that you're going to want to have handy that we brought up in our last review of the site plan uh haven't
been adequately addressed here. Um, and again, I was hoping that we were going to have somebody make a presentation to us um where we could talk through some of these. >> Nine bike racks that they never showed before. So, that that's >> Yes, the bike racks are there. Uh
absolutely. There was a lot of discussion before about the access to uh the twine fields on the backside as being a big plus here that we was going to have access to recreational areas from the backside of this development.
There was discussion here as to whether that was a plus or a minus because the people in the Twin Fields don't necessarily want the world going in and playing baseball there. Uh but I don't have a strong feeling about it, but it's
not at all clear from this plan exactly the degree to which this development is going to be encouraged to walk through out to the twine fields. There seems to be a bit of a sidewalk that goes right out into the plane twine fields. Um but
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it and not sure how the board feels about it, but it's not addressed at all in here. Um let's see. Anything else? Um, >> that was Well, that's it for now. >> Okay. So, I did find my six spaces that
I was missing. I found them. They were parallel parked. I didn't see the parallel parked ones. Yeah. So, there's 67 there. Um, >> it's still >> Yeah, it's still not enough. >> It's still enough. Uh, a couple last things that I noted. Um, we suggested
and they did put in what they call a bus stop area for the students to be in. Now, if you take a look at that, it's right adjacent to um 137 at the end of the sidewalk. It's it's something that's in the neighborhood of maybe uh 6 by 8,
6 by9, something like that. All right. So, let's let's see. We got 42 units. Um how many children are going to be as part of 42 units? Uh one per per unit, maybe more than one. You could have 40
students, 50 students who are coming down to this bus stop. You think that that small area is going to be adequate enough for all of those kids to be on? They're going to be all over the place. So, and I'm not quite sure having it
right adjacent to the roadway that close without protective measures is is a good idea. I think if they're going to have it that down there, they have to have some pedestrian protection marriage measures on it. It it should be a traditional pulloff. >> Pulloff >> for a bike.
>> That would be >> or for the bus. >> Yeah. >> With adequate waiting area and also a shelter. >> Yeah. >> You want some kind of a shelter there for the kids when it's really cruddy weather. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that's good. The last
thing I found and they the bio retention basin is associated with the access drive. I'm assuming that they want the town to take over all of this too because the discharge of the infrastructure goes down in there. So the civil plans say that the landscape
plans have the plantings on them and the planting and the landscape plans say the civil plans should have it. So nobody has any plantings on the bio retention basin. So I think that should be pointed out to them that somebody's got to identify what they're putting into this
bio retention basin. Simple things like that are it doesn't it doesn't seem like the last briers and uh how about a Chinese bamboo? >> That's a great one to retain the water
>> and poison ivy. >> They don't drink much. >> All right. So, uh Katherine, any other comments from from you? Uh we uh we I think we have one uh one or two from the public that might be wanting to make comment.
Uh, no, not at this time. But I do think that I need a lot more information. >> Yeah. >> Um, and I think I'm hearing that from everyone that we we need more information to really evaluate um the new design. >> Yeah,
>> I would agree. Okay. Um, Christine, do you know uh who's online? Who >> I do not know who was online, but there is a hand raised. So >> yes, if you could um uh give us your Yeah. Introduce yourself and let us know
your comments. >> Yes, this is Ela Gibs. >> Oh, hello Elaine. >> How are you? Uh you guys have done a wonderful job going over this. It's really appreciated. I just would like to reinforce a few things. Um the parking issue here, I
think you've all covered that there's no place to go overflow. Uh there there's no assigned guest parking. There's no uh uh unrelated people. In a in a three-bedroom, you could have six unrelated people because the state does
not I define family. Yeah. >> So, it's it's conceivable you could have uh five people in an apartment and they all have their own cars. >> And I have previously asked uh Penrose and they're not their management company is not going to, you know, even check on
that. So, they're not going to have license plates. So, people are going to come home and find out they have no parking, no place to go. Uh, which is really disturbing. Um, secondly, uh, they have not, uh, consummated the the
deal for 87 meeting house, which is rather infuriating to me, uh, because they've been crying poor Mel on this project, saying they'd never do it because it's not financially feasible. and and yet they've redacted the arrangement when they they haven't
closed on the property. Uh but it's assessed at 600,000. So if they've come up with 600,000 to put towards this project, where are they going to cut financially? ZBA did not ask for revised financials. And I'm concerned about that
because they had previously said in in the condition they were before that oh they may have to cut corners in terms of the quality of uh the playground etc. Um there's no green space for the kids. Uh it's it's there's no private space. Um
and I think we should have advised financials to find out. I'm concerned that the it's going to be the quality of materials. They keep referring to NSET Green. NSK Green is in bad shape. They have leaky windows. Their sighting um is coming off. It's it's a mess. And they
were notified of that by our people uh members of the public six months ago and they still haven't fixed it. Um the entrance itself, I'm really concerned about the children. Uh it had come up earlier that it's split rail fence
basically that goes into the property and there's space in between each of the um lateral uh whatever you call it split rail the kids can climb through and if anybody thinks they're not going to do it on a dare. They're going to do it and
that's a 13t ravine. >> Yeah. >> So they've got to do something to protect the kids from you know on a dare doing that. And I would agree that the bus stop has to be bigger. Um, let me see. Uh,
I I I just think that um it has uh it's not safe for kids and I don't believe for one minute anybody that has grandkids at Penrose would let their kids stay here. It's dangerous. Uh there were in a 24-hour period last week, I
believe it was, there were three incidents re involving children. One was on 137 up towards the intersection into Haritch. The kids were at 5:30 in the morning. They were on their ebikes and they were laying in the road when the police went by and then they got up and
moved, but they could have been hit because that's what kids do. And then there were two other accidents. One was on stepping stones and the other was near Bailey's path where children were hit on their on their bikes. So kids go out on bikes. They're going to do it
there. >> They're going to get hit. somebody's going to die. And it's I I was shocked to find that out that with ebikes, not dirt bikes, but ebikes, they only go 20 miles an hour. There is no age limit.
Eight-year-olds can ride them on the road. All they need is a helmet. >> And that's what's going to happen here. These kids have no place to play. There's no green space. I'm sorry. Any green space they added is are ravines. So, they have no place to go and they're
going to get on their bikes and they're going to be on the road and somebody's going to get hurt. This is not a userfriendly property and I'm really angry with Penrose for pushing it and I hope you guys will stick to your guns on this and make sure it's more
child-friendly. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh, is there anyone else that has their hands raised, Christine? >> No, there is there is no one else. Okay. >> The only thing I would say to you is that the um ZBA meeting, just so you're all aware in case we cannot get a
presentation, that ZBA meeting is um July 16th. >> So our next meeting in July is what day? The first meeting? >> Um July 13th is your next meeting. >> Is that possible that we can ask them to be on our agenda for make a presentation
on the 13th of July? >> We can ask, but I don't know that we will get that. what we can ask >> because >> we were initially going to put this on the agenda as a continuation. We're going to write up the notes that we received today in >> I think we should write up the notes, do a draft of this, review it for the 13th,
but if the applicant can make it and clarify some things that might help in resolving some of their comments. Um, is is that acceptable with the board members? All right, that >> Do you need a motion to continue this to the 13th of July?
Well, I don't I don't think we have to do that because we can just put this on the agenda for uh >> um >> We can anyway though. >> Oh, you like I like the idea of that. Yes, >> I I kind of do, too. So anyway, I move that we continue this matter to the 13th
of July to allow for the notes to be >> drafted >> drafted and uh and also in do an invitation to the applicants to see if they will provide us with a presentation. >> Okay, second on that.
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. Um Warren >> approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. >> Frank, >> approve. Bob >> approve. >> Uh, Katherine >> approve. >> And Artsboro, I approve. Okay. So, lots
of input. I have some more homework to do with Christine on this. I welcome it. Uh, yes, Bob. >> Should we uh to save some paperwork and and to to have the original uh that we're talking about here? Should we save this paperwork? >> Yes. >> Uh till next till our next meeting with
it? >> Yes. >> Because I I don't expect them to change it. If you want, I can give you the big set here that they give me. >> Well, that's okay. It's too heavy for me. I My back can't take it. >> Okay. Uh, one one more item on the agenda
tonight, and that is um the uh rules and regulations for storm water and erosion control for the planning board. Um, the reason why I'm bringing this up is, um, I had a meeting with, uh, Rob Philly,
um, and, uh, director of natural resources, uh, Greg Greg Berman, and they have been working on this MS4 permit for storm water. That's something that there was a
review done. There was a 167 line item uh Excel file which identified all the comments and issues associated with what we have to do in order to update and
upgrade our regulations in all areas whether it's concom DPW or um planning board. Um so I met with them on that. I mentioned to him that um we um had
drafted some regulations, but uh based on that meeting I had with them, it looks like it's something that we need to go ahead with to actually support the town and their effort associated with the MS4 permit and the MS4 permit is dealing with storm water. It's principal
element of it. So highlights in here. I think um C uh Christine, you had summarized some of the comments that board members had previously. Uh I just wanted to um
identify what it is that we should be doing and set maybe some dates for a public hearing on this that we could advance these further. So I'm just trying to step things along. Uh so that's >> so I left out um just before you came in
I left out the the uh summary of of notes here and basically we had talked about it in December. We talked about it a little bit in April as well but there was um there was a like a paperclipipped copy. It had the asbuilt plan that you received and then at the end of it it
had it had the storm water regulations that um Art had proposed before that you have seen numerous times. You can save this as well to save me paper and um and to save me printing things. Um but basically there's a couple of bullet items there. Um somebody had mentioned
about a preamble um to kind of go over what the purpose of it was. >> Um we have the the rules and the the definitions directly in the rules and regulations. We'll have them there. Um the planning board responsibility and DPW coordination. Um, we had talked
about the 25-year storm uh rainfall event. Um, and we had talked a little bit and you all seem to be agree in agreement with Art's proposal to put it at 25,000 square feet or greater for new con >> 2500. >> Oh, 25 I'm sorry. 2500. Oh my god, I put
an extra zero in there. I'm sorry. Um, or greater for new construction or land alteration. And that's important. Um we also Bob Wooder had suggested um adding some residential language in there and um so this will count towards these uh
rules and regulations. They'll be called rules planning board rules and regulations for storm water management and also for erosion erosion control or erosion and sediment control. I don't know exactly um what the wording will be and they'll be a standalone regulation
at this point so that that way there we can um like you have uh planning board regulations for subdivision control um and then that way there we can do it via um via public hearing and we won't have to go to town meeting initially
>> and it it would apply to say all the site plan review that comes before us as well as subdivision control. Those are our two primary areas that we we deal with. Um Frank, you had something. >> Yeah, it's just a I guess a technical
perhaps there's a reason why we have definitions that are not used. >> I did look at I look I did look at that because I remember you saying that. I checked every definition that was in here. Majority of them >> and they are used. Yeah, >> they are used. There's four that are not. >> Well, I would take them out.
>> That's my reaction. So that's I and I would agree with you on that, but um it it's uh uh some of them are different than the DPWs because they're slanted toward what we do for sites and things
like that. Uh Charlene, >> I'm a little confused on the I know the planning board for subdivision control Yeah. only needs to hold a public hearing.
but a separate document. I don't know if the board can actually do something that's either not a zoning bylaw or a subdivision rule in REGGG. >> I I would I would just >> Okay, I can check I can check that.
Okay. Okay. We were trying to keep it ultimate. >> Well, I believe you me. I'd love to keep this as simple as we possibly can. I mean, we can we may have to make changes to zoning regulations later on, you know, in the protective bylaw, and those will have to go to town meeting, but
>> but I think we definitely need clarification whether the board can create a separate document that's not subdivision control and not a zoning bylaw. Okay. >> I hope we can because that would be awesome.
>> Yeah, Katie had me looking to um I don't know if it was East Ham or Orleans. I was looking at both of their regulations. I'm still pretty early in that are I know like Harwitch adopted them the board of selectman Har uh adopted them as a regula as one of their
regulations that for the storm water management and it fell under the the town engineer and they don't have one so I don't know who it falls under anymore. So, um, just double check. Okay. >> I would hate for us to go through
everything and then find out we booooed. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> Uh, very good point. Um, I would, um, I would like to see if we could clarify that because I'd like to get this to apply to sites as well as subdivisions.
Um, we seem to have a lot more sites than we do subdivisions lately because of the development that has occurred. So, this is more applicable there than anything. Um, >> um, may I make a comment?
>> Go right ahead, Katherine. >> Um, I know Christine will investigate this, but we do have the ability to amend, change, expand our site plan review criteria and that does not need to go to town
meeting. And just a thought, if the storm water regulations pertain to our site plan review criteria, could they be included there where we clearly have the ability to we can write we can rewrite the criteria
entirely if we see fit? As I understand it, it's it's a a planning board um uh regulation basically as I understand it. Okay. But I I think that we'll do a
followup and just see get a clarification of where we uh where we can head this. Um my preference is again let's uh apply this as just a uh planning board rule and regulation for site plan and you know and for
>> and subdivision >> for the things. Yeah. Subdivisions. So the introduction on this would would state that, >> but we'll confirm and do a followup on where where we have the authority to do that. >> Don't get me wrong, this is very very important.
>> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. Um, so what I'd like to do is uh well, let's do a followup on that first and then uh at uh our next meeting have
definitive information associated with that, flush anything else out and then set a date for assuming that we can for a public hearing on this. um not a lot of the other items that are on our list to do for this upcoming year
are really in place so that we can jump on them. This one seems to be hanging around for a little bit and I think I got pushed a little bit when I had this meeting on the MS4 permit. It seems like the town is getting um the D is getting
on the town and all towns to do this an update with their MS4 permit and this is an element of it. So what it's really saying is is we've got to ask all this of all the applicants that had come before us. You have to address storm water. It doesn't mean that we have to,
you know, um get hard nose on it. We can wave a lot of criteria. If it's a site that has addressed a lot of these things already, we we can essentially say, okay, you've complied with it. You don't have to submit a whole document over. we still have and that's it's set up that
way with this um um regulation with a waiver at the end that says that we can make a choice and decision on that uh on a case-by case basis and and we do that now anyway a lot of times we ask for information and they come back with it I
haven't seen too much push back by consultants because they know everybody else has been doing this every town has been doing this so it's not it's unusual that we don't have regulations that pushes forward. And the other thing that triggered it is the DP DPW did come out with the their own storm water
regulation that applied to anything an acre or more. So this is dealing with um not just the acre or more, but also those underneath that four specific sites that relate to that come before us.
And if the board has members have any comments about this, by all means make notes, send them in to Christine. We'll try to compile them and make adjustments to this. There's there's there's there's nothing about this that we can't adjust between now and public even that a
little bit after the public hearing if we decide to do that. That's all I have for tonight. Are there any other comments, questions by board members? No. Anything Christine? >> No. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All right. Um Warren >> approve. >> Charlene >> approve. >> Frank >> approve. >> Bob >> approve. >> Katherine >> approve. >> And Artsboro I approve. And the time is
uh 6:13. Hello.