[Music] [Music]
Good evening. My name is Art Sprew. I'm chair of the planning board. This is the town of Chanham Planning Board hybrid meeting. This is September 8th, 2025. It's 5:30 p.m. 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 I don't see anything up yet. Uh pursuant to Governor Healey's March
28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain coid9 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. General law
chapter 30A section 20 until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the chat and 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
precedings 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 508-945-4410 conference ID 605 082557
pound or join the meeting online via remote uh Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simo cast on Chattam TV ex Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be
able to provide a realtime 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 Hutburn, present. Uh Warren Jane, present. Uh Bob Worcher,
present. Charlene Greenhall, present. Frank Shear present. Bob Dwis present. And Artspan present. And I'll ask any board member if they have any uh reason to recuse themselves on any agenda item.
Mr. Chairman, I do for 104 CL Road. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's start with the minutes from August 25th, 2025. Does any any board member any comments, questions? Yes, Charlene. Um just something very Whoa. minor
feedback. Um on page three on the motion regarding the comprehensive permit um at the end of the motion um which says and highlighting the items as presented by the staff report and that the planning board looks forward to
the opportunity to review the project further. Um I believe I said something along those lines in my motion um regarding the comprehensive permit. Oh yes, we did. We we did. That was the note you made in your letter as well, Mr. Chair.
Y and I already got in touch with Annie this afternoon. Okay. Thank you for that. Any other comments? U Frank U on on the same page the uh second paragraph it says the board discussed
period. I'm wondering whether something was left out. We will look into it. Okay. I'm sorry. Sorry. And then look into it. I couldn't figure it out. Um on the last page, the fourth page, um
the first paragraph, the last sentence, um a few members noted that allowing tiny houses, I would delete tiny because it's not related just to tiny, it's related to any houses. uh homes on the
undersized lots could affect things like approval not required applications and that it was important to address that piece and I would certain okay because many other provisions are
optional and but this one is All right. So, if we need to uh look back at that um second paragraph on page three, should we uh just defer this to the next
meeting then the minutes? Um unless there's a reason for the board to do something different. I have a sneaky feeling it was just supposed to say the board discussed the proposal. Mhm. I think it's just missing a couple words. Okay.
Yeah, I I would agree with is that it follows with all our com, you know, discussion. Okay. And if it's something different than that, we can always go back and revisit this. Okay. That we have a motion for approval. Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
At the bottom of the fourth page last at the bottom of the last page, uh it says Mr. word chapter added that there was still a lot of work. Uh and it it the last sentence is also working on
a bylaw. It's the coastal resiliency bylaw which is different. Yes. Yes. From what we would do. Uh very good catch. Thank you. Okay. With no further edits or comments,
I have a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the August 25th meeting minutes as amended. And I'll second that. Okay. We'll do a roll call vote. Katherine Halpern, I approve. Warren Shane,
approve. Bob Worshaft, approve. Charlene Greenhall, approve. Frank Sheer, approve. Bob Dubis, approve. And Arts Brew, I approve. All right. Uh, next item on agenda is
public hearing for the definitive subdivision 104 Crawl Road. Um, just want to go through the procedures that we'll be doing. Um, first we'll start with a public notice will be read by the clerk and
then a presentation by the applicant. uh board will then ask questions and comments. Then we'll uh next step is uh we'll seek public statements in favor of the application. Then uh the chair will
read any correspondence. Next to public statements opposing the application, any rebuttal. Uh board comments and then the board hearing will be closed in deliberations and dur at the time of the after the
hearing is closed deliberations. The uh audience participation is not permitted uh during the deliberation process. So I'd like to begin if the uh clerk to read the notice.
Public hearing notice for consideration. Yeah. Public hearing notice for consideration of definitive subdivision plan as required by Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 41, sections 81L and 81.
The planning board of the town of Chadam will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 8, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at the Cadam Town Hall annex located at 261 George Ryder Road, Chattam, Massachusetts, to consider the application of application 25-16
104 Croll Road Dominique Trust for the Cadam Max Holdings LLC for approval of a definitive subdivision plan entitled loting plan for definitive plan of land in Chattam, Massachusetts owned by
Chattam Mass Chattam Max Holdings. LLC and being a subdivision of lot 6 on land court plan 16959-H and lots 8 and nine on land court plan
263300D and lot 13 on land court plan 26330G plan prepared by Bracken Engineering Inc. dated June 30, 2025 and showing three proposed lots. A copy of the plan and application may be reviewed at the
community development department located at 261 George Ryder Road on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 400 pm and between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Friday. Any person who is interested or wishes to be heard on proposed
definitive subdivision plan should appear on the date, time, and place designated for the hearing. Frank Sher clerk Cape Cod Chronicle. The print date was August 21 and August 28, 2025. Okay. Um, do I have someone from the
applicant here to present? Okay. For the record, my name is Terry Eldridge. I'm a registered land surveyor. I practice perhaps not in front of this board, but boards that were here in earlier days for about 40 years.
Um, I'm representing the Cadam Max Holding LLC. Uh, my client is obviously proposing a three large subdivision and the planning board reviewed a
preliminary subdivision plan at its meeting in October of last year and moved to accept that plan. I've reviewed the staff report that was done by your town planner, Christine,
and uh she reported that all three lots comply with frontage and area requirements uh as well as the dimensional requirement of a circle the diameter of the frontage, which by the way is a bylaw that I wrote.
Uh she reported that um this subdivision is invoking the panhandle option in the bylaws. The definition of lot frontage is defined the protective bylaw and the panhandle lock requirements are and she
lists what they are and B in that is suitable access by a driveway to such a lot is provided within the panhandle. And in the opinion of the board, the access is wide enough and otherwise satisfactory
for a driveway. It has come to my attention that some members of the board believe that if the if the two lots with frontage on Crow Road access their lots from the panhandle driveway, the driveway should
be meet roadway standards. Planning boards in the past imposed the conditions that in this case all three lots would access from the panhandle thereby reducing the number of driveways out to a in this case public way.
U and back then the driveway pavement was 10 ft wide which is by no means adequate. So I have a plan that I submitted with
the application. Um m Mr. Eldridge, uh one of the things um I'd like to clarify uh during your process here presenting is um are you um approaching this as an ANR? No. No. Oh, it's a definitive plan.
As a definitive uh subdivision. Okay. Okay. So, the topographical plan with the conceptual development sketch overlay that I submitted with the application. Um,
it depicts a rather wide opening, some 73 feet of opening along Crawl Road. And then as you move back further, it narrows down to 16 ft in width, which
used to be the standard for minor subdivisions in Chattam. And um Abs Run has one that's 16t wide, which in my mind is much too narrow for the number of lots that are in there. But in
this case, we're looking at three lots. would be accessing it. Very little traffic flow. It uh the other thing is that with the width, it's approximately 47
ft back from the edge of the pavement. There's ample room in there for somebody to pull up the road, stop while another car can come in on the other side. it. Uh, also if
there happens to be a car coming in, it can stop while another car is coming out the driveway in the 46 ft. It's more than enough room. It's almost enough room for two cars. Um, actually it is enough room for the two cars because parking spaces are only 20 ft long in
this town. So there's ample room there and also somebody could pull into a driveway etc. and people can get by. So the lost my on another matter uh there was a issue
about a lease agreement uh for the people at 71 Croll Road and the fact is there is no lease. There is a document that Ron Rdnik agreed in writing to lease 15
parking spaces, but the lease agreement never got prepared. The the while Ron is interested in helping his neighbors, he has no authority to execute a lease. He's not on the business entity summary for Chattam Max
Holdings, which I submitted a copy of. And there's only two people in that LLC that have the right to sign any document. Ron is not one of them. Uh
the attorney for the neighbor, William Riley, will be present for another filing later this afternoon. He can confirm that Ron's only interest was to help out a neighbor and that a lease does not exist.
Um on another matter I re in that in your report there was a question of application of um
intersection site triangles being uh analyzed which I have done And that was a plan that was submitted to you today. Yes. Okay. So, as you can see, the site
triangles are look very small. U one is about 3 feet deep by a length of about 18 almost 19 feet. The other one is almost four feet deep with a length of 53 feet.
And that uh it's those little spots shown in green and then the upper right hand corner gives dimensions for them and bearings and distances. Um there's no issue with that. I mean it's
and then anything within the road is obviously uh town's responsibility if somebody unfortunately this never happens but uh people put shrubbery up in the rightway
and nobody ever does anything about it so many places in town that occurs and why somebody doesn't do something about it is beyond me. But in this case, the sight triangle
which can be referenced to this plan and your statement of conditions is so minimal that you know it's not difficult to adhere to. So if anybody should have any questions,
I'll be happy to address them. And on behalf of my client, thank you for your time and consideration this project. Okay. Um there are some comments. Um but I'd like to hear from some of the board members first and I can get back to the
comments that were submitted. Um, Katherine, do you want to begin with any comments or questions of the applicant? Yeah, excuse me. Um, it's been our practice. I mean, the plan that you've submitted shows a driveway
that basically has, even though lot 25 and lot 23 have frontage on Croll Road, the access to those lots is off the driveway that is in the panhandle uh portion of lot 24. I I think in
general what we would I believe we'll see what my colleagues think but in general we would require that that is not a driveway but that it becomes a private way that it becomes a road with the appropriate road with um and then
you could have lot 25 and lot 23 having access to that private way which would be a private way for this um subdivision. Alternatively, lot 25 and 23 should have access to
Croll Road from their frontage. And I understand there's a um some advantage in having only one curb cut there, but that can't be a driveway that is a driveway for three lots. It would need
to be a private way. So that would be my comment that the revision of that might of course change the analysis of the site triangles. Um let me just see if I had any other um yes I think there's some additional
information that we're going to require but I I think I'll ask the chair to request those. Well, one of one of the reasons why I asked you the question about you're treating this as an ANR, um, if this is filed as a subdivision, then we got to go back to some of our
rules and regulations on rightaway widths and roadway widths. Um, if this is considered a panhandle as a driveway, if if it's approached as a an ANR, then there's a little bit more uh
flexibility on because you're looking for a 20 foot wide access point. Now, panhandle is allowed to have that. If you would like to be filed as an approval not required, I'm happy to do so. Yeah. You in this town, you can't do a panhandle lot under an ANR.
Oh, that's right. That's right. But we still can actually treat this pretty close to that. I mean, this is essentially what's going on around here. And if the board would like driveways to come off of Croll Road in just the one single driveway going into that one lot
in the back, that's fine with my client. Well, I and that's why I'm sharing this with the board right now. I'm interested in how the board wants to approach this. Do they want to uh continue as you propose it or is there some uh concerns about them because of the filing that we
should um have each of the individual uh two separate lots have access off of Crow Road. Um okay, why don't we go down the road and uh the list and Warren, do you have any other comments? We'll come back to Katherine.
Okay, no worries. Well, uh to me my familiarity with the technical aspects of this is such that I don't think I have any um anything to really ask at this point. But I would say that um if in fact um as
Katherine points out that this really looks, smells, and tastes like a private way, not a handhandle, then I would um I would ask that the applicant explain why um it's
appropriate, necessary, uh to treat it other than as a private way. Yeah. Go ahead. So, what I mentioned to you about the entrance, that's really the key point of
bottlenecking. Cars are trying to come in, cars are trying to go out and it's problematic and vice versa. And it uh so by providing
a distance of almost 46 ft in length of space for cars to be side by side, one coming in, one coming out or really two going out and two coming in would fit in that scenario.
And uh then they'd narrow down to I think a sanctuary was one in one makes more sense. Then the one coming in could go into the driveway and continue on. The one going out could go out. There's no issue. And
in the past the 10 foots have worked very well in this town, but I never liked them. I always wanted something wider. I always specified 12 feet of pavement just because 10 is too narrow, but I've always wanted more for the
intersections, which I was able to do on this particular plan. And um you know, 16 feet of width while it's not near regulations today, there's a lot of roads in Chad Chadam that have been built 16 feet wide. The biggest
being Absukami Run. The biggest that I'm aware of is AppScam, right? And I've gone down that road and there's a UPS truck coming the other direction. We pass fine. it. Uh,
at any rate, it I just think that that adequately addresses the concern that the board would have relative to access. And as far as cars bottlenecking on the driveway, the guy in the back isn't
going to bottleneck with anybody back there. But as he's passing through, if somebody wants to come in, he can either back up into his own spot or pull into another driveway. And by pull up, maybe just swing into it
so the other car can get by. It It just makes sense. and it it eliminates all the driveways out onto Crow Road. Okay. Um Bob, do you have questions, comments? I don't have any questions. I I think I
actually would prefer when we don't have three driveways, right? Yeah. Um Charlene, um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um actually, my first thought is or question is, is this um properly before us? Yeah,
this is commercial property, right? It requires a preliminary plan. Preliminary plan that was filed is more than seven months ago. Yeah. So, there should have been another preliminary plan. Yeah. That being said, I am not at all
comfortable with the layout of this um and having the three driveways. I think I know part of the reason why they have this because from a road there's a 50 foot setback requirement. Correct. And if they do a 40 foot way, although we only required 33, right?
Yeah. So, um I think a different configuration, you could still get three parcels here and still be able to meet the necessary setbacks from the proposed subdivision road. And then um
one other comment on the plan itself, the loting plan. Um, note number four, planning board endorsement does not constitute a determination of conformance under current zoning. I've never seen that on a definitive subdivision plan. They're supposed to
meet zoning if they're for building purposes, which I believe that these are. Um, and I have a couple more, but I don't want to belabor it because I'm not quite sure if it's actually lawfully before this board.
Okay. So, actually you have an interesting point there. Um, the way I'm looking at the plotting plan, lot 23 has 100 foot of frontage. I think lot 25 has
is that it has if it if it includes has 100 both lots have 100. Yeah. Is it both lots have 100 or is that a 127 beund? It'll be 12 would be it would be
127 but they do meet the requirements for frontage for 23 and correct 25. Yeah. So, what I was looking at is if if if this was submitted as a full subdivision, the rightway going to about 33 feet
would still make those two buildable lots there on that. But at the same time, we would look at this and say, "Okay, we need a full constructed road. We need a a culde-sac or a T intersection at the rear." Um that's um
that would be the alternative on this is what you're It would certainly be my preference. I'm I'm not at all comfortable with three driveways off of a panhandle, right? It's kind of circumventing the whole right thing. But again, I go back to is this actually lawfully before us because of
the requirement for a preliminary plan for commercial land. Yeah. So why don't we determine that first because Okay. Okay. That would determine whether we can proceed. Isn't that the case? Uh
interesting point. Um this was seven months ago is when it was filed the preliminary. The prelim the board took up the preliminary in October. Yeah. So if it was going to come back, it would have had to been May. May.
So it did not. So can uh can can an applicant actually submit go right to a definitive without a preliminary? In Mass general law, it's my understanding that for commercial land, and this is commercially zoned land, okay,
you have to do a preliminary plan first. Okay, that's that's a requirement under the subdivision control law. All right, that one. And I don't have the chapter in verse because I didn't I know what you're talking about. Yeah, we've we've had a one like this in the
com in the commercial uh GB3 district. uh does require going before the zoning board of appeals also because this is a special permit that would be required for res use but I mean for if you know the ZBA denied the special permits
y and this was going to be used commercially then it really wouldn't meet the requirements of having had a preliminary plan done no less than seven months prior to the filing of the definitive all right the alternative then would be
to file this as an ANR with three separate lots. No, no, you can't because you can't do a panhandle under an ANR. Oh, you're right. Okay. So, it's either kind of table this until such time, but technically it's the the
horse went before the cart or the other way around. I always screw that one up. But anyway, um I I think it was we're missing a a vital step here. Yep. I I believe I I if I could make a comment, Mr. Chair,
I just think we probably haven't faced this issue before in my memory because subdivisions either they're on residentially zoned land or or there hasn't been a time issue. Yeah. So, so my thought would be we need
to first decide that or confirm. Um, if that is the case, we we actually cannot continue with this proceeding. We've opened a public hearing. We would probably I'm not quite sure what how we'd handle that. We need to probably close this public hearing and then
reopen it again. No, we cannot. We It would require a new filing. I was trying to figure out a way that we could table this, but we really can't because the preliminary discussion is really going to I think weigh in on on a lot of these points. Yeah.
I mean, the smoothest way and sorry Terry would be to to request a withdrawal without prejudice. Yeah. Of of this application in in just in my thought process. And before that is done, could I have
the uh chapter and verse of that particular statute because I don't remember it. Oh, I do. It's under Mass General Law chapter 81. I can't remember which. L I think it's probably L is what I'm thinking. Yes. Or it's under the preliminary plan
requirements, but it's in there. I remember this distinctively. Well, I suffer from CRS as well. Well, at least I remembered the part that you're supposed to do it, not the chapter and verse. Sorry, Terry.
Uh, I have reached out to Katie. Um, she is listening, but she can't log in at the moment to answer the question, and I can't get out of my meeting thing to look it up for you. So,
I don't know the answer to be very honest with you. I think rather than belabor this perhaps it would be prudent to continue this to our next meeting. I I was thinking that answer chapter verse to to Terry.
Um but having worked in communities with much larger commercial areas Yeah. Um, you know, this is sticking in my brain as a requirement. Okay. Um, is there a reason that we
should continue any with any other discussion than until we resolve this issue? I mean, there's a lot of steps in here and I don't know if we want to cut off any of those as part of it. Mr. chair if I could just comment. I
mean there might be some comments we could make that would be helpful to the applicant when he returns with the preliminary plan but in some sense then we are performing the analysis of a preliminary plan which
if we're understanding that this is not lawfully before us we probably shouldn't do. So probably the best thing to do would be to continue this to the next meeting. Um continue the public hearing and then at that point determine the
proper course of action. Um Frank, I haven't heard from you. Let's let's at least have your input. Well, I I just wanted to say that I agree with everything that was said, particularly Katherine's point on on the panhandle. Yeah. So Okay.
Well, uh, then at this point, shall I ask for a motion to continue this? And Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this to the September 22nd. Is that the next meeting? 29th.
29th. No earlier than um, are we meeting at 5 that evening? Um, sorry. No, that's okay. I bring it all with me. No. I think it's I think it's the 29th
next meeting. Maybe you might be right. Uh from now it is the 22nd. 5:00 pm I'm hearing Annie say. Yeah, it is. It's the 29th, I think. No, the next planning and board of meeting is the 22nd.
22nd. Yes. No, no, it's the 29th. Is it? It was moved. Yeah. Oh dear. because it is a holiday on the 22nd. So it is the 29th of September.
Yes. Oh yes. So are we going to have a quorum on the 29th? Well, I will not be here. I can't attend remotely and Katherine I don't think is going to be here. And Bobby has to step down.
Yes, step down. So the four so it would have to be a unanimous vote of the board, right? Yeah. Uh maybe the suggestion is is to postpone it to the next meeting in October because I think uh that would be Can can I ask something? I mean absolutely
if we find that ruling and send it to Terry Yeah. that he can he can withdraw without at any time. Yeah. So, but the but the board has to vote on it because it's been advertised. If it
hadn't been advertised yet, just a matter of plucking it, but the board has to act on the withdraw. So, we just have a quick withdraw nothing else. I don't I don't want to uh postpone the inevitable for five weeks
to come back and oh my gosh, you know, none of this is valid. If we we know that tomorrow, well then and it's just a matter of formality on the 29th that we close the hearing. That might be the only thing on the 29th, too.
Could I make a comment, Mr. Chair? This hearing all this, it might be a better course of action for the applicant to withdraw without prejudice tonight. I can't do that. Uh yeah, you can't on behalf of my client. Okay. I legally have the authority to,
but uh without discussing this with a client, it it I'd really like to see the chap in verse that uh Yeah. Okay. Well, then why don't we continue this to the 29th? So, I move that we can I amend my original motion to continue this to the
29th of September, no earlier than 5:00 p.m. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Katherine Halpern, I approve. Uh, Warren Chain, I approve. Uh, Bob Worsher, I approve. Charlene Greenhall, approve. Frank Shear,
approve. And Arts, I approve. Thank you. Okay, I think the um next item on the agenda, I think the applicant has asked to be moved. I think the the attorney is um running late and would like to have
us move up the release of the covenant for lot 105 at zero ren uh rentals circle. So we'll do that next and then we'll come back to the site plan approval. Okay. And
if you could uh state your name for the for the record, please. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Andrew Singer. I'm an attorney in Dennis Port. I'm here with Mark Zippo, who is the owner of Lot 105.
Excuse me, apologize. Um, this is a very unique situation. Um, Mr. Zippo bought the land a few years ago and he's in the process of selling it. And uh through some research that uh buyers council did at Town Files, it was discovered that 23
years ago the then planning board um approved a two house lot subdivision at the end of uh Mil Lane on Reynolds Circle. And I don't have something to put up so I know that what's on the screen is not me. That's the last case. Um
the that the board in 2002 imposed a covenant and a statement of conditions. Very standard. It's what the boards do. But the then owners of the property never recorded the covenant and the
statement of conditions. And it sort of I guess was forgotten because in 2005 a house was built on lot 102 in the subdivision. So it was lot 102 and the the Mr. Zippo's lot was then lot 103. It's now lot 105 on the land court plan.
So there was going to be a house on lot 102 a house on lot 105 owner lot 102 was sold 20 odd years ago and a house was built as I said you know 20 years ago uh with no release of covenant because I assume no one knew there was a covenant because it hadn't
been recorded at the land court. And so life just went on. Um and then about three weeks ago or a month ago, uh this all, you know, was discovered. And so Mr. Zippo would like to sell his lot. The attorney for the buyer said, "Hey,
it's not recorded, but there was a covenant that this board, you know, imposed." And so we're here asking for a release of lot 105, Mr. Zippo's lot, from the covenant and the statement of conditions. uh the road Reynolds Circle
which um and you have it. It was in uh and Christine attached it on her um staff report. Lot 104 is the circle. The circle was made built. There's a there's a Oh, okay. And uh someone sitting next to you knows about that road being
built. So it is a uh paved culde-sac with a nice grass circle in it. Uh it's at the end of a gravel dirt road, but it's a very nice subdivision road for the two lot subdivision. And so we're happy to answer any questions we can. We don't
know the history beyond what I just shared with you because none of us were involved. There it is uh on the plan. Thank you. So lot 105 is what we're asking for the release of. Um and happy to try to answer any questions, but we'd appreciate if you would vote to release
the covenant and the conditions. Um, Bob, you can start. I do have information myself, too, but go ahead. All right. I He happens to be talking to the guy that that made this circle. Oh, okay. Also, I worked for the people that that had the lot, and I I actually have the
plan of the house and the septic system, which I believe I almost believe the septic was put in before the house was built. Is this for lot 102? What are you referring to? Lot 105. Okay. That's vacant. Law 105 is vacant. I know. I think Well, you mean there was a plan to build the house?
I have the plan and I I almost I almost I can tell you it was never built. No, I I know it is. I know it wasn't built because they were friends of mine. But I almost think that there might there might have been the septic put in because it was going to be put in before
the house was built. Um I'm that's only a guess because that was the plan to do it. But I do have the plan of the building that was going to go on there. All right. Okay. I I I accept that. I don't have a better response.
So the um just going down the conditions and the statement of conditions um uh all lot shall be served by town water measure out there, but it my observation was is both of those conditions are uh
evident and and um have been met. So I don't know if that was done. Again, remember member, this was approved back in 2002. Um, I was surprised that there wasn't more growth out there and probably to the point that it could be much narrower
than this, but it was it was a clear corridor, I thought. Um, and I think the other the other those are the two primary conditions associated with with this. So I I'm not quite sure that uh
there's any limitation into um considering what the applicant is requesting. Um Katherine, why don't you u comment? Mr. Chair, as we discussed earlier, I had the question about the covenant.
Doesn't don't covenants run in perpetuity with the land. You assured me that we could release Yeah. the covenant. Um, from my perspective, all of this is a bit hard to track down
and it's a little bit wispy. Um, but given the current situation, I I see no reason why we couldn't release lot 105 from the statement of conditions and the covenant.
By the way, Reynolds Circle is is all built. It's paved. It looks good. It's got catch basins at the end of it. It's the best part of the whole section there along Mills Road. Mr. Dubis did a good job. Go.
I guess my only my question is if if we release 105, is the covenant still for 102? Yes. Okay. But it isn't filed, right? Is there any reason not to just Yeah. let them both go at the same time here? Uh
stole my question. Um, well, it's a it's an interesting question. I mean, they've they've certainly built on it without any release. Um, that I guess is up to the board to make a decision on that. Warren, do you have any I guess those are the kind of things
that were sort of percolating around in my mind as to what questions were relevant. I mean, is a covenant that's not filed really a covenant? Um I mean are we um excluding it? But it doesn't exist. So yeah.
Um and then again the other lots, you know, does it still exist for them even though the covenant doesn't exist? Yeah. Um just because our board did it and if it's not in the deed, it in in some sense
it is recorded. It is recorded with the the land court. So it does it does really exist. Oh, well that's recorded. We we weren't able to find a registered finding a recording. I'm sorry. I take that back then. Okay. It was found in the planning
department's in a hidden in a planning department, but it's not. Okay. Okay. It was that was the issue. That's why Mr. Zippo and no owners ever knew about it. It was never registered with the land court. Okay. Yeah. Well, I guess the only con the only comment I would have is whatever we
do ought to solve a problem that ultimately is going to pass before us here, right? Um, and not just create a problem that we know is going to come back to us. And if there's no way for us to solve that problem from coming forward,
then I would ask um the those smarter than I here how we should proceed. Well, Charlene, maybe you can enlighten us. It certainly would be my recommendation we release both lots. Both lots. Yes. It doesn't have to be recorded, right,
the release. So, it doesn't cost the applicant anything to add the other lot on this. Right. So, we would just be communicating this as part of uh our record then to the applicant. It would close out the file nicely. Yeah. Okay. Frank. Uh
I I just have a question being being new to the board. Yep. Uh conditions five and six restriction on number of bedrooms. Is that unusual or uh No, it's not. That was from the board of health. That was from the board of health
probably back in 2002. Uh there was no plan in place to put sewers in. So at least something that was implemented or uh passed at town meeting or something like that. So it was all tied to five. Thank you.
Bob. Oh, you were Any other things to add, Bob? I I need two seconds. Could I talk to the owner for a minute? That's the owner right there. Mr. Zippo is the owner. I I I This is I know this is out of line, but I just need to ask him or tell him something for two seconds, please.
Is it relevant to the release? Yes. No, it's not. Well, it's relative to what he's doing. He's selling. I think you have to ask You'd have to ask. I don't think that's appropriate, Bob. No. Yeah, you'd have to ask the question publicly. Can I just say one thing to him then? Please
call me. Please call me. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, with that, uh, could I have a motion on a release? Mr. Chairman, I move that the board release lots 102 and 103, now known as
105, from the statement of conditions and the covenant for the subdivision for Francis J. and Joyce J. Reynolds. And do I have a second? I'll second it. Okay, we'll do a roll call vote.
Katherine Halpern, I agree. I approve. Uh Warren Chain, Warren Chain, approve. Bob Worsher, approve. Uh Charlene Greenhall, approve. Frank Shear, approve. Uh Bob Dubis, Bob Dubis, approve. And Arts Brew, I approve.
Thank you very much. We we appreciate your consideration of this. It's It's good that we released the non-existent. Yeah. And and just for the record, this was nothing the planning board did that they shouldn't have done. It was just it got
we understand. Yeah. Way back then. Yeah. I think it'sual the responsibility of the applicant to file it. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Um, next on the agenda is we're going to go back to the site plan
approval for 71 Carl Road. Uh, could I anyone from the applicant here? Oh, Mr. Riley. Good evening. Bill Riley on behalf of
Pandem Mario who is the operating partner of Pandem. The uh so Pandem wants to add uh seats outside their building.
Uh we that's going to require modification of their liquor license because they want to serve dinner with alcoholic beverages. uh and we have a need a site plan approval
uh and of course we don't have sufficient parking on the property. So the the current situation is that we uh are parking on 104 Croll Road uh which was just withdrawn from
their subdivision. It wasn't. It wasn't. Oh, well, sorry. It was continued. I apologize. So, the U and they So, they they don't have an easement or contract to park there. They just park there with permission.
And um Mr. Marini is aware of the fact that we're going to have to be able to provide at some point um an additional nine spots uh for the How many seats we putting in? 49 total. 49.
Um, so I think the what I'd like to do is talk about what our our thoughts are and see uh get your reaction just on parking. If you have any questions on anything else, we can talk about that first if you want.
I do. Um, Katherine, go ahead. Um, so we need to we need to get a little more I need to get a little more clear picture on the number of seats. Um, I'd like to see you're you're saying you want to have 49
seats total. How many inside? How many outside? Also, how many seats do you have right now? How many inside? How many outside? And you're changing to 49. How many inside? How many outside? And usually in these situations when we have
an amended site plan for outside seating, we like to see a seating plan for both inside and outside. That's been they did provide one. Yes, they did. Okay. There was a um only the outside. We want to see the inside.
No, they they they did get the inside. Yes, you all received it um from the uh I had gotten it from the building commissioner's office from the last application that was um filed for the property before this applicant got there. So, that only shows a total of 16
of 16 seats inside. So, I don't know if there's more inside at this point. Oh, this is um and the the occupancy permit was this in I didn't get that. So, you just you got it before you tonight. We found it today. tonight. Yeah, it was just it was just a fine today.
So then there's three things if I could just I believe and Mr. Chair correct me if I'm wrong and Christine there was the prior approval then which was you know we understand is only 16 interior seats but we want to
see that then we want to see what you currently have number of seats inside and outside and then what you're changing to number inside and outside with a seating plan. Forgive me. It's it's Mario Mariani. May I just ask you, do you have um um
engineered drawing architect uh let's see Rerunian. So the last thing that we found today was from um the previous I think it says 2022 on it. 2022 and it was an architectural plan. We we
were um myself and um Bill's partner uh James Norcross met with an informal site plan a couple of months ago and we covered all of this and we presented this to the informal site plan. They made their findings and suggested we do um
wasn't us, not you. Um here in the in the town we met with uh Yeah, I was I was in the I was in the meeting. So we just pulled out what was on the online permitting system and what we found available. So, I don't know that it's accurate. I don't know what
your numbers are in inside at this point. And then I guess what the board is asking for is just the numbers for outside the layout. Right. Uh again, so we can just confirm the submitted an architect's stamp drawing
of the seating plan proposed and you have the original one that we were approved for um when we opened in June of 24, May of 24. So you all of that should have been filed with this amended site plan, right?
Because something that happened a couple months ago with staff isn't part of your application. The the other thing, if I might, there's no parking table whatsoever on the plan, right? So we also need to know how many employees there are on the maximum shift to,
you know, correct to make sure what the total number of parking spaces. So I I can confirm to you that they have been before the um historic district commission with some additional materials that so they might have received a different
package and I think maybe that's where the confusion is coming in. They received a different package from what we received. There was there was no parking in that package. Okay. This afternoon we were in front of that group uh at 1 p.m. today. The board of health or with that group
with the historic commission historic. Okay. Oh, okay. But the historic commission, we met um uh via Zoom and uh that wasn't based on parking or anything. That was just based on offense. Yeah. Right. Right. They don't look
HBDC. HBDC was concerned about a fence and the and so I covered that hearing uh for my partner James Norcross and no parking involved there. additional materials from for the ZBA
meeting or something like that that we did not receive. Um I'm not aware that there was any zoning matter involved. Okay. I'm just asking. I don't know if there was or not. I mean I don't have I didn't have any architectural plans to pass along to my board. Yeah.
And they were not part of government hearing from my partner and I I assumed mistakenly Yeah. you know that there was a uh uh you had a seating plan and you would know the number of seats inside the number of seats outside
but we don't. No. And we need we need it as it currently is and as you propose it. Yeah. Both. Yeah. And so we can see the change and then we need the parking table and then we need to evaluate the parking.
And just to be clear, there's no change to the structure of the build exterior of the building. You're not building out. No, no. This is just to to change the the seat able to serve uh alcoholic beverages outside right now.
I mean, there really is no seating plan for exterior seats. We just have, you know, picnic tables and stuff out there for people that get sandwiches or or uh coffee and donuts and things. So, That hasn't changed since,
you know, whatever initial approval they received. Okay. I'll uh I'll provide a couple of other things of concern that I have. Um uh based on what has occurred in town,
what's uh which is a concern to me um with protection of any um uh patrons who come and have outdoor seating. I I think it's going to be essential that we protect those um
customers so they don't have to worry about vehicles driving into them. Um, I'm going to recommend to the board that anytime that we have an outdoor seating requirement like is proposed here that ballards are placed at the end
of where the park parked cars are. So that prevents a vehicle from uh for whatever reason um uh being possibility of hitting and injuring any of the uh e exterior patrons. I understand. I think
it it's a it's a simple straightforward thing and it's a safety issue in my opinion and I don't think we want to see that happen again in this town. I I understand but of course the town has been here for a couple hundred years and it's happened once and I don't want to see it happen again overboard either.
Yeah, it's a simple thing to do. It's really not that expensive. It's can be added to whatever you have there. So that's something that I think is going to be essential anytime anybody wants outside seating. That would be a recommendation. If the board agrees with that, then that would be a condition
that we would add. Yeah. Well, the we have a a very substantial um line of plantings between the parking and where the proposed outdoor seating is. So we'll we'll take a look at that. the when we
come back with our seating plan. The the other thing is the original site plan was approved with um eight parking spaces. One of the parking spaces, the eighth one was out in the rightway and that's really not a
legitimate parking space. The area that was in front of the dumpster was not uh listed as parking on the original uh approval. This is going back to 2002 2003.
Uh those have since been painted over. I don't believe there was any site plan request interchange in that that made that from 8 to 10. But you're still dealing with if you want 49 seats total inside and outside, you're dealing with a lot more parking than what you have
here. So, and I think you understand that 104 is not elvable for for that parking. the uh well, we don't know what the prior owner might have done with the
parking spaces, and we weren't we weren't park painting over parking spaces, but the the uh uh you know, we need nine additional parking spaces and we understand that. Mhm.
And we right now we're providing them uh down at 104 uh for uh you know we believe at least a year or so and we're currently looking for alternate locations uh where we can
uh you know get an easement whether it's uh someplace where we do valley parking if it's offsite. Well, it's going to have to be offsite, so it most likely be valet parking. And we're working to secure easements
for that purpose. I think that you're going to have to come back with a a new approach and new information so that we can Well, we're going to need respond to that. Yeah, we're going to need obviously we need the plan. So, we'll uh my suggestion is continue to your
next meeting and and we'll uh make sure the plans you receive are appropriate. Yeah. Um any other comments that the board members want to make on this? Um Warren,
um I just like um like clarity on how many spaces are required. Right. Exactly. That depends on how many employees you have as well as how many seats. Um I could I could address the employee parking. Yeah,
the employees all park off site. I mean that's we need to know that and where they're parking and we still we need to know where they're parking have to look at. So, we still need a parking table that shows x number of spaces needed for x number of employees and then if they're
offsite, you tell us that, you know, but and then we would have to wave those parking formally wave those parking spaces. So, and so we need it, you know, just clearly spelled out parking table. Yeah. Um Bob, yeah, I I'm a little concerned about the
valet parking. Um, we're not only going to You can't just say you're going to have valet parking. I I want to see a way for the cars that they're going to pull in and they're going to queue up because uh there's not a lot of space
there. And I guess I'm asking, are you going to have valet parking in the morning when people come for coffee? No. For donuts? But so you're going to need the same number of spaces that you needed now as a bakery. and and valley parking isn't going to solve that.
Well, the you know the the uh uh you know the coffee shop is a completely different thing than sitdown dinners. And so we've never needed additional
parking and what we're currently providing. So, we wouldn't be doing valley parking for people stopping for donuts and coffee. If you're going to have that many seats, you have to have it all the time. Then, I don't think so. I think that's
inappropriate. It's you run your business the way you run it. If you tell us we have a history of use, it the criteria is is if you have 49 seats, you need so much parking. Period. It doesn't give you options to say,
well, we're going to have this much parking this time of day, that much parking other time of the day. I mean, it's a basically a completely different business. And and I think takeout requires a certain number of parking spaces. Yeah.
Yeah. And also, if I could just interject, we obviously we're going to be asking for more information. We're going to be asking you to come back and we're going to ask you for a solid plan about the parking. At that time, we can discuss
these ins and outs um about does is it adequate? Um but right now we're just sort of speculating and I I don't think it's a good use of time. Uh Charlene, any comments, questions?
No, I was ready to make a motion. Okay. Well, Bob, I have a question. Bob Dub was first. Uh, is is uh the loading zone area considered a parking place? No, it's supposed to be separate. That's the same as the delivery area,
right? Yes. Okay. Well, on this plane I'm looking at, they count it as a space. Well, I didn't want to get that. May I make one comment, Mr. Chair, before we have a motion? So, I just also wanted to comment about
the alcohol use. Um I don't know that whether that decision is actually within our purview. It's in select board's purview. However, I I do want to express a concern that there may
be a concern to a butters about increased alcohol use ex especially uh outside serving to outside that is a a departure from what's being done now. And again, I'm not quite sure how that
falls under the planning board purviews. We do usually uh typically we do deal with hours of operation and concerns of a butters uh regarding that. So it might fall in our purview in that sense. Yeah,
we did receive a letter from the town manager's office from um with regard to the licensing of the liquor and the hours of operation and things like that. So that is not something that you will be making a decision on. I think hours of operation hours of
operation we do often consider and we do consider concerns of the abunders. We make recommendations especially if it's an outside um purview like this. Yeah, I I understand you'd make a recommendation of course. Um okay. Uh
so they and and they do as part of the as part of the process there the um the select board does notify abouts and take all of that into consideration. Right. All right. Charlene the extension would have to be go back before the the select board.
Okay. Uh would you like to make a motion Charlie? I move that we continue this to September 29th no earlier than 5:00 p.m. Okay. And just bear in mind there's only four members will probably be present at that meeting. No problem.
Probably here. You just Oh, yeah. That's right. That'd be five minutes, right? Okay. It's great to have a quorum. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have to vote first. We have to have a second. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. Uh let's do a roll call vote. Uh
Katherine Halpern, I approve. Warren Chain, approve. Barbara Worshap, approve. Charlene Greenhall approve. Frank Sheer approve. Abdis approve. And Arts Brew I approve. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you. Um I I I don't have any other comments at this point on the long range planning was on here. Um there is correspondence in your packet. It's um some good
information in there. uh if you'd like to comment about that. I would like just to say that the the letter that uh you and Christine put together was amazing. It was very well done. There was a few drafts of that. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
Uh yeah, there was a there was a peer review that was done on both traffic and the storm water. So th those were very good letters too that were done independent of our board. And the um ZBA did open up that hearing um at their meeting yesterday and they've continued
to October 16th. That's the next time that they'll hear this particular item. Right. And I don't know that we need to comment on anything until after we hear what what any if anything happens on the 16th of October.
There there was one point I wanted to make on on priorities. Um, and I we did a uh housing needs assessment plan which we approved and the board of selectman approved and the state approved.
Yes. And in that there are a list of things that we're supposed to do. Yeah. It's a pretty big document and Oh, I know it is. But there's the number of things that we have to do is not that thick. And I was just wondering whether any of that uh was considered when we put
together the priorities. Um, I remember reading that, but uh, I did not consider that at the time, but I think you're right. We should go back and look at that and seeing if there's something that we need to address. And I'll do that with Christine.
Mr. Chair, may I make a comment? Um, I agree with Mr. Sher that the letter that um, the preliminary letter that you put together with Christine and sent to the zoning board of appeals is excellent. However, we did agree that the board as
a whole would continue to discuss the um project on meeting house road and that we would follow up with a summary of the board's comments. Right. And there were certain specific comments that you that we agreed that you would go ahead and draft. I want to dis I
disagree. I think we do need to submit that before their October 16th um hearing. the letter that was sent to them for for their hearing on the fourth. No, I know. But I think we need to have another discussion by the board. Okay. And make a summary of the board's
comments and send a follow-up letter before their meeting again on October 16th, not after. Okay. Weren't we hoping to see revised plans before we commented further? Well, that was my point in making my suggestion. see them
only. You're not going to see them until the 16th if you're lucky. You're not going to see them on the 16th. I can just about If I could jump in here, I I I know zoning wants to have our input as soon as possible. They do all of course they do. Yeah. But there's no reason why we can't. It's
a long process and there's no reason why we can't u do it later if that appears to be the timing for us. Um so that's that's my thought. Okay. Yeah. I I would like to see how they're
responding to not just our letters, but also the the two peerreview letters because it would if there was any adjustments that are going to be done, it's going to be those three doc um uh comment letters um perhaps would uh call for uh
modifications of what the applicant has done and their engineer has done. Yeah. and the the whole issue of uh access for the for the for the neighboring um butter. That's right. I mean I don't see we we need to see that. Yeah. So yeah, there was there was many missing
pieces. Yes. Okay. Um I have nothing else. Uh so is there a motion to adjurnn? Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn this meeting. Second. All right. Let's do a roll call vote. Katherine Halpern. I approve. Warren Shane,
approve. Bob Orcher, approve. Arling Greenhall, approve. Frank Sheer, approve. Uh, Bob Dubis, approve. Arts Pro, I approve. And it is 6:42 p.m.
[Music] [Music]