e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music]
I [Music] uh good afternoon uh this is a planning board working session meeting February 3rd
2025 at 2 p.m. 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 don't see anyone yet uh pursuant to Governor he Hy's March 29 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 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 March 31 2025 this meeting of the Chad 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 proceedings as 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 1508 945
4410 conference ID 99955 443 pound or join the meeting online via the Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on channel on
chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible uh I'll begin with a roll call
uh Katherine heurn present uh Warren chain Warren chain present Charlene Greenhall present uh Frank Shear present Bob dubis Bob here and
on on the video uh is Bob workshafter presid present thank you Bob and arts sprw present okay and I think Gloria is also on the meeting here today so if we do have some questions or discussions we
can certainly ask her um Katie is uh out until tomorrow so uh we are this is really just a workshop on where we are with the the West chattam Neighborhood Center uh bylaws there has
been uh some revisions to the bylaw and trying to incorporate as as many of the items that have been in discussion over the last few weeks got two versions of it one is weather track change and one is a clean copy I I hope you had some
some time to take a look at it beforehand um I don't have any type of particular agenda but I thought it might be worthwhile going through Page by Page just to identify what was done uh if there's an ex a text issue or if there
was something to be addressed by the attorney how that was dealt with so why don't we start with the track changes version um on page one um I think uh and um Christine you may want to uh uh jump
in and clarifications uh the predominant thing was to change the U inclusionary requirement to 20% and then we just struck that last sentence based on the comment by the um Town Council so as um art indicated the first
two items um were uh Town council's first review of this they will he will be receiving um a copy once we go through today today's items um again for review and then throughout the course of things um the first thing like Bob uh like art had said is the 20% the second
item was we deleted the second half of a sentence um within the purpose um to help clarify um this some of this may change in the future as they've said each time with with um the seasonal Community guidance that we get that we
anticipate in getting from the uh the state go ahead Charlie I noticed in nowhere could I find a definition of inclusionary okay housing or inclusionary so I was just wondering if perhaps it would be good if we included
that and for our purpose is inclusionary doesn't just mean affordable it also means attainable so you know if if we want inclusionary just to mean affordable then we may need to come up with another term um um but that was
just one thing that popped out at me question do we have a definition elsewhere in our bylaw I I looked everywhere you did I did okay I guess we could add it here that's just the planner Y in me that was like oo wait a
minute I thought somewhere at one point we had it and we included both affordable and attainable I'm wondering if Gloria maybe my memor is just wrong so that's okay certainly worth double-checking but I think we probably
somewhere need something good point I don't remember ever putting in or or even discussing um the definition of inclusionary but I think it does make sense especially because as Charlene
mentioned our inclusionary does include both affordable and attainable housing okay great thank you okay well the idea was is let's do a review and any adjustments in here we'll try to finalize it for next week
to to advance this then okay um okay um next page two was procedures um Christine you did so well on that um I'm going to let you go with this one too okay so under this one we
just um we needed to put the standard for of review so it is under site plan review um I did see that but then we still have down below staff review and what you're supposed to do so I think there might be a little conflict there
where's where are you looking it say it's it's in the second paragraph um oh it changed from staff plan review to site planie but then it goes on to say set applications shall be made to Community Development and written
decision shall be rendered in 30 days of receipt so we've we're still talking about staff review but we've gotten rid of Staff review and may I and this is just for up
to 200 square feet totally understand that but now it's under site plan review not staff review yeah okay I will confirm with Katie this week yeah and um if we're looking for standards I'm actually going to put my old harwitch
hat on in the west Harwich overlay district there is language in that for staff review um which I should have thought of at the last meeting but didn't okay which might be helpful if that was the
intent that it is because I think it should be staff I think not that was the intent for 200 feet yeah no I just wanted to comment that was the original intent but then we changed it yes that was and if we changed it then we could even just eliminate this paragraph if we
just want everything to go under site plan review we just need to say that and totally agree with that then that can go totally bye-bye right I think to me small addition small changes shouldn't have to go through the arduous right you
know change that was the original intent but at some point I think the board voted decided to change that yeah so but the site only went the staff only went to site in in this version right so it
had if that happened it was not recent yeah I I think you're right I think that's probably should go back to to to staff and and uh I'll make sure Christine takes a look at the harage so let me go ahead Frank does that mean there'll be no
appeal from from the staff there would still be an appeal process right back to the planning board great good right and again this is just for up to 200 square feet changes yeah okay okay um page
three so under this one um I had uh put under building footprint for the discussion with the um Union Studios excluding porches and awnings but um after talking to Art about it um we have
decided that it should just say the first part of the sentence at the ground level comma any area underneath cever through the rest of it and then at the end of of that particular definition it said should say but excluding porches
awnings dexs in any other permanent structure and that would alleviate the concern that Union Studios addressed so we are revising it in this particular or go around um can we go back to attainable housing sure we pulled out imp
perpetuity so um yes so whether or not well because Town Council advised us to pull out I agree with that so there is an opportunity for you to put years if you're if you want to have a yearly I think we need something there either in
in consultation with the applicant to determine or put um um a time limit in there and um Gloria I do believe in provinc toown and their by which goes way further than um you know
the 125% is there an imper petu Clause there or do they use a year um so the the on bylaw that goes up to 200% Ami is
related to the year around rental Housing Trust okay and it's not part of inclusionary so it's it's a little it's apples and oranges okay I I I think we want to put something in there what that is honestly
I don't know I honestly don't know but I think there should be something in there is it bad to leave in in perpetuity I mean always say it's all it's all it's all legal until you're sued and you're Lo and you lose um so it
I mean there may be questions about whether you can get these perpetuity but we can always put it out there that that's what we want from developers yeah let me can can I jump in please Frank I I agree that we ought to resolve this
issue um I'm not sure it ought to be here right in this draft because we're going to have to have restrictions uh for um put in the deeds and those restrictions have to be approved by us so there's going to be a second step where they come back to us to resolve
what this issue is um I'm not sure we're going to get a definitive answer uh right now without some uh significant research so I'm a little bit worried about that um I I would be reluctant Gloria to put just imp perpetuity
because there's a risk that if something's unreasonable it'll be struck down completely yep and the court will not say 20 years or 30 years they'll just say it's gone um so I think we we want to put something as long as we can
99 years or something like that uh but I I would just do what we've done here take out the the words in perpetuity and then come back and address this when we have to resolve the restrictions that have to be actually put on that's my thinking
anyway go Charlene I'm I'm a little concerned with that because somebody could come in and say well I'm putting a fiveyear deed restriction on right yeah and that's not going to meet what it is we intend to do no because the restriction has to be subject to our
approval that that's part of can you put something like in perpetuity or the length of time or the longest length of time allowable um under the law I think that our Main Street LDA had some language like that in it that I like
that I would I would support that as long as in the final review Town Council also supports it good idea thanks Gloria may I make a comment before we move on too far yeah please I just wanted comment on the porches and awnings and
decks um can we somehow add language in there that that fully enclosed porches are not included because they're really like another room of the building I would prefer that we don't include in other
words that we don't exclude fully enclosed porches cuz it's actually what if we said open decks open porches open on well because porches are enclosed on some sides um so I think the word fully
not having fully enclosed is yeah because I think that really more properly should be considered part of a building footprint y yeah okay fussy fussy okay but it's true if we're
through here next page four um this one is not completely resolved um we've been going back and forth on this this is going to need a little bit more work Christine I would say here um we're obviously still dealing with the
short-term rental item um we are going to Katie will be back in the office tomorrow um we were going to go over this with her again um it affects the obviously the year the qualified households and then the year year round ownership units
um so we haven't made any um any change to that at this point Gloria did um advise in the past that the seasonals community's guidance might influence this as well but we obviously need to have something in place on prior to bringing it Forward on the short-term
rentals we have this strong recommendation from carollyn that we simply bar them uh can I make a comment yes y Please Mr chair um the only thing is is as I
simply barring them is not in full agreement with what the board decided last time which is that we'd like to allow two months for people who are occu who are the owners or renters for a 12-month period that of that 12-month
period they could do a short-term rental for two months absolutely I recall that as well yeah but and what what concerned me about her note was she thought that bar that if we did not bar them that
might reduce our chances of approval at town meeting and I didn't I didn't under I don't I haven't been here long enough to have a sense of whether that makes sense or not well there's you know voters can pick just one item and say no to it so uh there's a lot of items in
here that could fall into that category um I think we've made a judgment as a board right now that this is a direction we'd like to go in with this draft and I would say that that that's fine um we'll we'll hear more at the public hearing
associated with this okay say one thing um just for anybody who's watching this after the fact that um the thing that is being referred to is a comment that was received from the general public with regard to this uh particular item of short-term rentals
yeah Mr chairman um Warren with respect to this qualified household you know I I I thought at our last meeting we had had a consensus that um being able to rent um for up to two months a year whether
you were a renter or an owner M um didn't matter we were okay with two two months of of lease which would mean that the on the uh second to last paragraph or line of that qualified household I think it ought to say 10 months each
calendar year um not 12 um but um I also with respect to the comment we received uh from the public would agree completely I would agree completely that that two months doesn't
mean that short-term rentals of day week um uh would be permitted um I think I think we need to find a way to prohibit short-term rentals in the sense that um leasing it out for two months is fine
but two months means two months right and I and I think you're right Warren that we were going to come up with a Define of what we meant by that that two-month period of time what and we didn't get that
result I know that but I I it hadn't clicked in my mind until I saw the comment from the public to which I am 100% in agreement we do not wish to open this up to having every unit in here is going to get leased out by the day or
week right for two months a year that's not what we wish to permit but again that Chang a Qui comment from 12 to 10 months the yes length of time and short-term Ral so my recollection is
that um old drafts did say um they must occupy the unit for 10 months in each calendar year um I'm not sure when it got bumped back up to 12 months but but I remember I remember working on this and discussing this with you guys probably a year ago go and we had talked
about 10 months in each calendar year so I would be in favor of changing that although um attorney tman does note that it is in conflict with the yearound ownership unit definition which talks about the um you know the tax code for
principal residents which is 180 80 Days plus one or whatever so six months plus one day and so regarding short-term rentals it's possible to not allow short-term rentals which just means that people have to rent their properties for
more than 31 days so it's possible then that you could get um someone living there 10 months out of the year and and rentals are banned in the west chatam Neighborhood Center zoning District um and then they rent out their unit for
either um two months or two one month terms banding short-term rentals doesn't mean people can't rent it just means they can't rent it for less than 31 days oh okay okay I think that's okay and that's those are all state
definitions okay I mean I can live with that I certainly would prefer you know you can rent it for two months period to a single le e I'm getting the nods and concurrences from the board members so I I would say that that would be our our task is to come up with that for next
next draft of this for next Monday yeah but I didn't hear any comment ments one way or the other about uh the second to the last line here where we have 12 months if you're an owner that you have to be in Residence because that seems to be in conflict with letting you leave correct so we'll have to revisit that
yes all right and if I could just make one comment I I think what you were just referring to Warren was in qualified households but I believe the board's intention is to apply this short-term
rental ban to everybody in other words market rate attainable affordable rental ownership um they have to have a 12 month residency span but out of that 12
months they we permitting I I thought that that was my understanding too that all all with this would apply to all everybody all units so we just need to incorporate that language all right that reflects the board agree decision completely I'm just saying the way I
read this yeah if you are a ten a less or um that no lesie then you would um be able to have the um 10 months living requirement but if you own it you must live there 12 months yeah well we're
going to I think that's just I think that's just a mistake I think it should just be 10 in both cases it was just a mistake I think if it's ownership you're saying it has to be principal residents and then we were further specifying that it's 10 months out of out of the
calendar year even for owners and so regarding the short-term rentals um you can not allow them by zoning District you can't pick and choose and say in all new developments it's not allowed so you're going to have to make a decision whether you're going
to ban it um by time place in manner within the entire zoning District there's a law that requires uniformity within zoning District I I think we agre and and we agree with that fine Gloria yeah that's that's where we're going this was actually a recent discussion Gloria it might have
been the last meeting even or the meeting before that and you might not have been here so I know we did do all of this you know a year ago with you but then the board looked at it again either last meeting or the meeting before and and as I understood it it was for
ownership for rental for attainable affordable and market rate just across the board we wanted to allow in this District in this District we wanted to allow them two months that they could lease out their property if you know
because a lot of people make a little extra income during that time or um we wanted to allow that for them and my point is that whatever you decide has to be uniform across the whole Zone District right agreed agreed agreed all
right um are we ready to go to to next page okay page uh five uh just a heads up on this uh there's been some challenges of trying to find this original image that has not been uh adjusted yet um we're going to uh okay
we're going to just stick with zones not subzones so it's not confusing um and then the text underneath it underneath Zone A2 that should also say 150 ft instead of 100t so those are a couple the things that
didn't get fixed they they're still working on them as soon as we find the image we'll be able to adjust the uh adjust that text and and the visual too now moving down to the next sections go ahead I would say that
Gloria is probably best to discuss this section good good point the 20% Gloria can you walk us through this um uh section seven and maybe Section 8 uh Gloria yeah um sure so section seven is
the mandatory provision of affordable and attainable units which was set at 20% meaning all new units developed have a 20% inclusionary requirement that requirement can be met either through the construction of units or in the case
of fractional units um by a payment in L so none of the language for like two three four units is new we worked on the that a while ago that's the same I added a bullet point which um attorney tman commented on and actually you guys
commented on also at a prior meeting um just to clarify that for five units we actually because that's a whole number um one of those five has to be affordable and it has to be actually constructed on site um and then for additional units
above that any fractional has to be a payment and loose so if you're building you know six units um one of five has to be an affordable unit that's built on site but then that that sixth unit is you know 20% of the requirements so
you'd have a a payment in Loop for that I think it's pretty clear I think that it's been worked out um and then the final bullet point which talks about the average cost of a unit in development shall be determined based on the values provided in the building permit application that's just the Baseline for
how the building department is going to determine what that payment and low is um did anyone have any questions um on any of this the only thing I had is um Town Council I thought it was pretty clear myself but Town Council had said are we
talking about the construction of a typical house or a um house in the development I think it's clear it says a unit in the development yeah so I don't think we need to do anything it does say a unit in the development and I actually pulled out some information into a new
section n which gives some information on what we expect for those units that are created through um sections seven and 8 mandatory provision and density bonus which talks about um what we expect to see in the in the development
I mean I so I think it's clear if you have suggestions for making it clearer I'm happy you to do that too I I just have one uh in going from the top of the page on six 1 2 3 four bullets
down uh for five new dwelling units that paragraph you drop three lines down it says constructed I think that should just say required for because it says now the construction of is shall be constructed
so I'm just changing minimum you're talking about on page five no because that's that's to actually say that a minimum of 20% of the con of the ACT well I guess you could say required or it's just grammar you you're just saying the construction
shall be constructed I'm changing it to required that's all construction shall be no okay the construction of one okay she'll be re
okay right I see what you're saying now okay shall be I mean or we or instead of construction maybe it's just for five new dwelling units and multiple of five dwelling units one deed restricted affordable unit per five total unit
shall be constructed I like that better because it has the shell next to construction construct okay that's good that's sounds so just take out the words the construction of sure after five dwelling units I want I want to keep the shall be constructed language in there
MH okay good thank you okay um next section 8 uh Gloria so Section 8 first of all I noticed a mistake so I struck that whole
25% uh year round units everywhere except in this first paragraph although I have a draft where it is where it is struck so I don't know what happened but basically that first say residential developments May exceed the base density by providing at
least 25% of new Andor redeveloped units as de restricted uh year- round affordable and attainable units period in or in accordance with the requirements below so that additional requirement for the 25% year round occupancy that should be struck like
it's struck everywhere else in this document um so let's go once once that struck let's go back to the idea of providing at least 25% of the unit so so I had some questions about that and about whether that should be 20% like
the base I think I think finish sorry go ahead Gloria please finish like the base requirement and the short answer to that is no um so we're requiring 20% as a base requirement of affordable Andor
attainable units and if we give the density bonus that's like a really that's a big thing for the town to offer to a developer um and we need to get something in return and in return we get an additional 5% affordable and
attainable units that's why it's 25% under density bonus because they get something from us and we get something back from them which is the additional 5% does that make sense um I have a question I I I guess this this only
works if it's more than just 10 units correct uh Gloria um no because what if someone has a small lot um that for whatever reason only
allows I don't know like two units on it so then you can get the density bonus um of doubling that to four units it it works for anything I mean not all the Lots in West chadam are are one acre even I mean some are Le some
are less some are more um yeah what I was challenged with is I'm trying to figure out how the heck the board figures out what this what this uh statement means because I'm trying to
make it make sense of it in my engineering head and I haven't been a and I and the only way I can do it is by running through some numbers associated with it if you have a site and they have 10 units on there and you you're applying this how many units fall into
this category I still see only two the only way the only way it could be more than two units when there's only 10 units being built is if you go to say there's total number of 20 units that are going to be on a larger site and then the density bonus kicks in so the
so the density bonus kicks in anytime a developer wants to use it so if you have a property that's an acre and a half and you're allowed to build what is it like seven units on it or something like that um and instead you choose to build 14
units because that's allowed in the density bonus then you would have to give the town 25% of those 14 units um as affordable the density or attainable May it's possible that developers will not take advantage of
the density bonus um and it's possible that some will want to because they'll want to create more housing units than the site would normally support Arthur I I think it's pretty clear I mean are are you concerned that we're not going to have
enough affordable units construct no it has nothing to do with that I'm trying to figure out how we actually apply this I don't understand how we apply it as a Bo you don't apply it a a developer would apply I'm with art I may I ask a question also I think
in our last meeting or two we changed um to saying that five units per acre is the Baseline 10 units is maximum right so so that the percentages could always come out to 20% that we could always F calculate the
affordable attainable at 20% and have more of a chance of them actually getting built rather than getting payments in lie that we'd have less fractional um um possibilities so the the density
bonus would going to play out like that in real life because you're talking about like the perfect one acre lot with no constraints where someone could perfectly build five or 10 units I mean it's it's nice in some ways
I feel like it's almost um worse that these numbers add up like that because it makes everyone think that oh we're going to get five units per acre no we're going to have a lot that's in 1.2 Acres that allows six units and someone might want to do 12 units then instead
of five and 10 or maybe they don't take advantage of the full two time you're missing you're missing the point you're missing the point yeah you're missing the point that last time yeah they put a and I'm not sure I want to
claim that I did this but um we restricted the density to 10 per acre period maximum maximum so there is no den so the density is 10 per acre there's no there's no way to go beyond
that that's the bonus correct because you have a base density of five and the density bonus says up to two times the base density correct but that's assuming that you have a 1 acre lot if you have a 1.2 acre lot then you can build six
units on that but it's still 10 per acre per 10 per acre yep yeah and and also I just have a question about the 25% because we've always had concerns about
that um uh incentivizing developers to go to a 40b um and we don't want to allow we actually don't want to encourage that so this is why we're up to 25% but not over
25% it's still more reasonable and more certain for a developer to follow these guidelines which still require 25% but they don't have to go through eoh hlc they don't have to get a project
eligibility letter they don't have to jump through any hoops at the state and it's all laid out pretty clearly in this kind of hybrid form based code exactly what the town is looking for so I don't think that you're incentivizing anyone
to go to 40b so if you had 25% affordable and oh and also most of the units that they build um can be attainable so they don't even have to hit the lower affordable incomes um but in the old draft where it actually was
25% affordable or attainable units plus 25% year round restricted that was what was really pushing um past that 40b limit like this is this is still more desirable than 40b even though it still
requires 25% yeah they're not 25% affordable at low income and um there are no state state Hoops to jum through but the adjustment can't be that you can build more houses because we've because what we did last time said it's only 10
so the incentive has to be if you make it for if you make it 25% instead of 20 the board will grant you relaxation on parking spaces or other things to to
encourage you to make it more than 20 and I and I I'm so for this but I the way it is now the way this is worded just seems to contradict that other decision that was made that we're never going to let anybody build more than 10
per per acre I so this actually this actually says up to two times the base density is allowed up to a maximum of TW of 10 dwelling units per 40,000 square F feet so so it doesn't contradict it it
literally says just that but that's what we have now we are we already are restricting them to 10 10 so what the the there's no bargain in making it 25 you're
restricting them to the base density is five the only time they get up to 10 is through a density bonus and if they get a density bonus then they give us 25% affordable units instead of 20 well then um then this statement for
additional units and developments over five is the is the statement that's out of line on the paragraph before because it's still saying 20% and the only way you could do more than five so that's under a different
section that's under mandatory provision and that section is about 20% Which is the base density so I can build section eight is about the density bonus I can build 12 10 on this upper portion I can build 10
and it's 20% why would I if you have a why what do I get if I say now it's 25% I still can only build 10 but now I have to make an extra one of them affordable why would I ever do that I'm telling you these two things are out of line with
each other I I I think you're I think that I'm in same thinking as you are on this Bob and uh what it does is it puts you into the fractional category and then another Clause down below says if it's a fractional category you got to kick it off all the way automatically up
even if it's say a02 then if you it means that you got to kick it up to another unit that was never our intent we agreed last time that we were going to stick we were going to stick with just just as we have
you've mentioned it there if you have five units fifth unit is is Affordable attainable if you have 10 units that means the 10th unit is an addition affordable or attainable and that was it we wanted to keep it simple and this is
definitely going to complicate the whole equation and I know and if we don't keep it simple I'm not sure we'll get any place I know but I I'm going to give glorious right yeah that we don't want to go beyond five unless we get
something else for it and what we're if we're just getting the same an extra one more unit at the same one 20% we've gained nothing I I I all along I thought the first five you had to do one if you
do more than five then the second one's at at 25% okay so that means that the second five would be 1.25 of the density bonus you have to provide 25% okay so you could have a 2 acre lot okay which
allows 10 units by R right five per acre and that would require two affordable units 20% no density bonus required it's just a bigger lot that has more units that's just under Section seven the mandatory
provision and by the way we're also getting the year commitment with a density bonus so an additional 25% getting the year round commitment with everything with everything we're getting the year round commitment across the
board with everything so we don't need to add it could I just make a go ahead Catherine so I'm just wondering this is something the board again considered it was like the last meeting or the meeting before um and we
changed our maximum from 12 to 10 so we could have at least two units built um and maybe what we're considering considering is we just don't want a density bonus we want five units and then 10 units maximum at 20% and then we
get two units um so because what is the density bonus go from a base density from five to 10 right on the same lot so you have a one perfect one acre lot you're allowed five units on that that's your base density
but if you allow someone to double that base density to 10 and it's still a acre lot not a two acre lot then you should be asking for 25% that's a density bonus if it's a 2 acre lot then they can build 10 10 units by right because the base
density is five per acre times two acres 10 units 20% of 10 is two and then two of those 10 would have to be affordable that's with no density bonus the density bonus means you're allowed or let's take that 2 acre lot again you're allowed 10
units on that because it's a 2 acre base density of five units with a density bonus you would be allowed 20 units on that of which four would have to be affordable no actually five because it's now 25% yeah but the density bonus should
apply to just the additional ones over the the base of five not not the entire amount because when you do that that means the entire thing is 25% it's I've done dity bonuses before if you're using the density bonus it applies to the
whole project and if you don't want to use the density bonus don't use it but if the developer uses the density bonus it applies to the whole thing and if you do that then you're right back into the same territory that we were in before which which we the board was not
supporting that that direction so I think we got to stick back I'm agreeing entirely with what Gloria is saying I totally understand what Gloria is saying and it it is based on five units per 40,000 square fet
period And if you want to go to 10 it's the density bonus if you have a 2 acre parcel you automatically are allowed 10 units under the density bonus you could go to 20 units right so let's and and
then you would need the 25 so the the size of the lot and the number of units are key here I I know but what you described there and what Gloria is describing here is that if you go with the density bonus and you make that 20
units four of them is a table five of them all right that puts you into a 40b category and they can do much more than that no that's so that's not true it's not true because I I went through this
already where we have some really clear guidelines we have really clear expectations we have form-based code and we have none of the federal and state Hoops that you have to go through for a 40b even though the number is the same
it's really not from a developer's perspective there's more certainty there's fewer Hoops to jump through there's no dealing with the state as well as the town in addition to that our 20 25% allows them to do attainable
levels up to 125% Ami so those units if they're if they're being rented can be rented for more if they're being sold they can be sold for more it's just not the same it's it's better it's better can I make
a comment uh Katherine please so I'm going to stick my neck out a little bit here so if they do 10 at 25% it means they need to build two and then they have half a one that we'd ask for for a payment in Li basically correct
correct yes so what if we did something wild and went back up to 12 for the density we can't go back there again can't go back there we can't go back there wouldn't that mean that five would be the Baseline at 20% they'd have to
build one and if they use the density bonus and went all the way up to 12 they would have to do 25% which would be three and we'd require that they would be built no payments in L I mean I'm just trying to
get more things built lot but lots aren't perfect size like there's going to be there going to be more examples than not when you have like a 1.3 acre parcel okay and and numbers aren't going to be round that's why this is you know
in percentages so that we can figure out what you're allowed by the base density it may be that you're allowed seven units with the density bonus you may be allowed 14 with site constraints they might only be able to build 12 okay is different every parcel size
is different this is like really solid and easy to follow math for calculating out um the number that they could potentially build and how much they would have to either build or pay okay
so so I'm almost with you the the first there is somewhere where we say that the uh the shall be maximum of five five units okay now I get
it I would like to say that I understand what Gloria is saying and I'm in accord with it and I don't think we should increase it to 12 no okay okay we've had that arum as long as we understand you know that we're going to get fractional
units and do we I just want to be sure that we have some language in there that requires that whole units get built that there's no payment inlo for whole units but fractional units even using the
density bonus would get covered by payment and loop I think that's in there now so that so that language is in there um and it's further clarified in section nine um specifically where we have that that waiver language which you guys
talked about last time um because who knows there may be a reason why they don't want to build a whole unit um but they they would have to go to you with um explanation and justification um for a waiver of that
requirement can can I ask you a a different question if actually quickly I want to let's not strike that part um the last thing or making a payment in lie because that's the whole point of a waiver that there may be circumstances
um and you guys don't have to approve a waiver um it's all discretionary but there may be circumstances where a payment in Li is a is allowed so if you're never going to allow a payment in L then we should take out the waiver language but if you take out the waiver
language that makes it much more um legally non- defensible okay I'm ready to move on to something lower in the de density bonus where you have the distribution of affordability
is it is that your experience that we need to be this specific here um so we had we have one at 80 to 90 one at 90 to 100 and then everything else can be 125 is that so you guys we we really
worked this out last year and the reason we did that was because um if you don't put that distribution you'll never get those 80 to 90 or even 90 to 100 every developer is going to want to build like the
highest Ami that they can because that's going to bring them the most return on their investment either through rents or sale price so if you if you don't specify it it's just going to encourage people to go for the the
highest okay so can this is just a typo okay in case you missed it so in in what uh um we were just talking about the very first one one sh unit shall be there's still a strike through on the bullet where's
that oh oh there is I guess yeah yeah I don't know who where are you no this is so this is um dist distribution of affordability shall be as followed oh first unit it's stricken if there's a St through on the bullet oh okay okay just
a a teeny typo yeah all right I said it was a teen let me let me see if I can summarize this um it the the uh underneath the density bonus all uh all zones it's going to State this
residential developments May exceed the D the base density by providing at least 25% of the new Andor redeveloped dwelling units as deed restricted or yearound affordable or retainable units
period okay and then in in accordance with the require Ms below we're going to keep that part okay where does it say in accordance okay requirements below okay all right and then we're going to keep the bullet U as is that is the fourth bullet down
oh I see yes got it okay oh are we M are we all on board okay thank you you're round so actually so I think that did I strike that and put that Below in
the section nine just another uh it's not a typo um section nine should be all caps to be consistent with the rest of them yeah that's right yeah good point yes so we see it as a
separate so so actually this was this is not the that's not the version i s I thought I had that put that below because it's not just the density bonus requirement for affordable and
attainable units um it's for all units created because we want the whole numbers I did that did someone change that doesn't right I I think that should go in the section below because that describes what needs to happen in both
mandatory and yes yes same language we're just moving it what are we moving from where to where please that funky little bullet they said needed to be unri yes first unit so distribution of affordability that th those those should
be in the next section in the next section yes got it those under nine okay so that's it's five and six should be in section n no the distrib shall be as follow should be in section
n got it and even the bullet point below if the 25% density bonus requirement really it should be if the requirement for affordable attainable units results in a fractional unit in addition that should go the whole units must be
constructed on site and a payment in loose shall be required for the fractional unit so that's also goes below yeah that one I thought I did put below goes in section nine is that what you're saying okay right those okay okay
all right so then going to page seven then the the additional bullet that was added there are we going to uh strike or making a payment in Li of or retain that I think we should retain that okay because it's only if there's a waiver
granted and like Gloria said we can always go oh no with alternative well I just I just get a little nervous about making that payment a of because it never is anywhere near what it takes to build something but we
have said that payment in lie of has to be the construction cost of a unit in the development I hear what you're saying so I I just no practice is there a way in practice I think that even a developer would recognize my guess my
guess is you might even get an inclusionary unit built if it's like an 80% fractional unit because paying out the money for 80% versus them actually constructing an additional unit I'm not sure it would make sense for them to pay
the 80% yeah especially with the revenue okay I have a question go ahead Katherine yes I hear what Charlene is saying but I'm a little uncomfortable with leaving making a payment in L in there because it offers
the option and I think they would need to request the option from us I mean is it legally that we we're saying we might that we will consider a request for a waiver of constructing
affordable attainable units I don't know if we want to offer that we're going to offer no no no we're not offering it the bylaw is putting that provision in if it's not written in there then the then the applicant cannot not request it is that true they cannot request a payment
in they're asking for a waiver they're asking right so in that waiver we need to be specific as to what they can actually wave if it's not in there they can't ask for it like we say you can Wave parking requirements you can wave
uh requiring a new Street tree in the bylaw but those are the things we're specific about you can't ask for a waiver for something that isn't specifically okay okay I just don't like to offer them something that we don't
really want to but we're not really offering it you can say no that's the nice thing about a waiver okay so just just a reminder we we have until about 3:45 at this working session um we do have to sign off because they need to
set up for the next meeting okay so um we have about 45 minutes or so so I just want to give a heads up to the board um we're on page eight now um I have a suggestion here underneath parking setbacks which is the new item 12 so do
I the the first bullet actually is and that was raised in question by the uh Town Council it seems to be confusing I don't think we need it we can just delete it and the second and third bullets really are very definitive on
what the criteria is so I'm not quite sure we need the first one which might be confusing so that's my suggestion you're saying to eliminate the whole point parking in front yard is prohibited in all zones that that's that
statement there is essentially the uh is more definitively stated underneath the next two bullets for example a uh zone A1 and B minimum parking setback is 10 ft behind the primary building facade well it depends how you define the front
y y the front yard could be defined bigger than those dimensions and I was suggesting a front yard kind of be defined as within 20 ft of the minimum Road setback I was going to go one further yeah parking on the street or roadside
which is Route 28 of the proposed new building or structure shall be prohibited we don't want parking in front of the building right all right here's unless it's pre-existing here's my understanding of bullet of
bullet two there which is zones A1 and B okay uh essentially if you have a building and it's set back say 10 ft the parking has to be set back an additional 10 ft of 20 ft that's what it's saying
right if your building is set back 20 ft then the parking is set back 10 ft further which means 30 ft that's what that says and essentially you can't put any parking in the front that bullet that's what that bullet tells me any
place in front well that works well except the draw if you look at the the drawings they've got parking in front of all the houses you're just talking you're just talking about which drawings which drawings no just these are just the ones
that front on the roadways these are setbacks from the road only from the roadways that's what this says when you get into when you get into Zone A2 which is everything Beyond 150 ft there really isn't any restrictions
per se if you take a look at it because they're saying that setback has to be 30 ft from the roadway well zone two doesn't begin until 150 ft back so it really you can put it any place in zone two A2 that is well I'm not sure why you
say that parking in front front yard is prohibited in all zones I think we should leave that in there that's what we want if you want to leave it in there that's fine I think we have second and third bullets are more defin we have to Define front yard just
say no parking between the primary structure and the street well no we're doing this for all zones right so it's going to be for the zones in the back as well there are no roads it doesn't matter we we don't want parking in the
front of the building period well no that that's what we've put forth we don't that that would be anything that fronts on the roads okay when you get into Zone A2 that is not going to have a a a road
there's no Road other than the drive for for the parking I agree with you so you're going to have parking that's not a just about any place in zone A2 depending on how the buildings are arranged okay defin may I make a comment
I don't think that was our intention I I think saying parking in front yard is prohibited in all zones I think that's what we intended we didn't want to have parking in the front of the buildings anywhere I think that was our intention not just the buildings in facing the
street so I I think that was our intention and that statement then is different than the following two yes you just have to Define what a front yard is yeah okay so U Warren I want to get you in here point one um I couldn't find a
definition of what we mean by the front yard yeah to me if I just read this it means you don't need to be in a parking space you can just pull up on the grass somewhere yeah Park in the yard yeah I thought we don't want to permit that so it ought to say something more about what we do want and that is that parking
in other than an aligned parking space is prohibited but we have to Define where we're going to allow line parking spaces put that's in the site plan review as to where the parking need is going to be I
mean if um so parking in other than the areas we approve an aite plan for parking is prohibited but but or we or we need to Define what front yard means well let's
let's take for example Union Studios um image there for it's this is 1652 1652 Main Street okay now what you have on this image you have what page is that
this is teeny tiny the bottom yeah it's it's this one with the site plan but which page uh let's see it's on page two this the back of page two okay page four yeah page four you're right that's right
so that's 1652 Main Street this this would be a classic example of what we would be dealing with for this section of the bylaw the building in the front is the required building to have a commercial space now they could put residential
above right but they would have to have at least 50% commercial all right when you get to Zone A2 you go back 150 ft now where you going to put your parking all right they're showing parking
for all practical purposes in the front of the building right so where where would the unless they turn the buildings and say the front of the buildings at at the boundary of the property line well Arthur that's why I was defining the
front yard in reference to the frontage requirements I well um yeah I I think our intent on this was exactly what they're showing here which yes which is which that which is what said in my parking on the street or roadside
whatever word you want to go of a proposed and I actually changed this of a proposed primary building shall be prohibited plain and simple say that again that oh parking on the street side just to make it clear you don't even
need that of a or you can just say parking um y parking on the street or roadside of a proposed primary building shall be prohibited may I make a comment please I don't know what that means it it means first of all what street are
you talking about are you talking about 28 are you talking George rder Road those are those are your main roads so you can it can be you don't want it on George Ryder Road either though right or you can just say along Route 28 that
whatever you guys want to do but the intent here is to strictly prohibit parking in front of your primary structure may I make a comment no I think the is to restrict parking in front of any building and if I may
comment this design that's presented to us by Union does that because you'll see they've created sort of a separate parking area but they haven't put the parking right in front of building two three or four no no no no no all that parking is
that's no it's separated from the building it's not in the front yard I I don't I think there is a distinction I I don't believe that there's a dis there's no way we're going to want you're never going to parking yeah those it's going to look like a strip mall if
you do it that way hey I think they followed that instruction to avoid parking in the front yard for buildings look at the the the parking in the front yard would be right next page where they put the cars on here oh those are
parking spaces those are parking spaces oh then they should be taken away parking well you can even see in yeah I thought we were just trying to avoid the parking on the main road on 28 exactly that's the only thing you're supposed to
be avoiding that very clear and just say on the front of 28 is prohibited y that's what we mean well on the 28th side of a pro proposed prank sorry parking on
the route 28 side of a proposed primary structure shall be prohibited yeah but then the same thing could be said about George Ryder road too so why why just primary yeah yeah see that the way I read any structure I read any structure
right is yeah um zone A1 is adjacent to Route 28 Zone B is adjacent to all the other secondary roads okay whether it's let's call it Frontage building based on the definition correct Frontage building
not primary correct yeah and if you want to leave and you want to leave the first primary then we changed it to Frontage okay so leave the first bullet in is that correct what does it say it says but you got to change it well you know leave it
in but what with the new word so parking on the route 28 I've changed it so many times parking on the on the route 28 side of a proposed Frontage building shall be
prohibited what about parking off to the side of that building not on the back and then but how but how do we it goes all the way across all right we need to make that clear is what I'm saying it it's clear in the def
definition of Frontage and the diagrams that are in here I believe yeah and and also and also the other and also the other bullets Define a dimension to it right further Define that anything has to it's got to be another 10 ft or or 30
ft back it's with the okay side of the building so I've been I've been um given a warning that we really have to end our our meeting at 3:30 not at 3:45 so moving right along we're we're moving
along uh the next the next piece there is all zones um I didn't have a any comments or adjustments to this I think this is something that was decided way back that we wanted to allow the flexibility for
the board to look at a site that isn't modifying anything more than a th000 square ft and then we can make some decisions associated with it provide some flexibility for pre-existing uses so I didn't have any any issues with
this okay I guess excuse me I yes there I don't there are three bullets right under the what y okay the first bullet I I understand giving some flexibility because that's that that's a major Improvement can you talk to why the
other two bullets are sufficient to entitle that well if they were going to do an addition to this and that addition is uh uh going to be adjacent to and toward the front M you wanted to make sure that the
building was going to be set back so they put that landscape piece or that criteria so but this says that as long as they do some Landscaping they can expand the current non-conforming property only by 1,000 square F feet that's it why but why allow it at
all just because you put in some trees I mean what why well they have to still go through a site plan review but we can review it under a different criteria you don't have to revisit the entire all clauses of of this bylaw okay you could
restrict it just a few items okay um okay uh I think the next one is on page n uh this was Frank's uh item of changing a A2 zone for from 5,000 to 4,000 I think everyone agreed with that
M okay uh oh and then it was it took out that all zones paring is on page 10 right we just deleted that because it's it's a duplication and we want we just spent 20 minutes on
it okay I'll just have to agree to disagree on that one on page 11 there's a bullet that didn't get deleted this is on the clean copy sure yep yep I see that on the clean copy the top of the page on it's 14 uh Street
Escape standard there's one bullet and then a second bullet and technically if there's not a second bullet you don't need the first bullet so where is it where are you looking um I'm looking on the clean copy oh or it's I'm looking at
the Bulet helping well 14 under 14 under 14 so it's page 10 14 under under page 10 need to look at these because it's only in the it's only the page on page 10 zone A1 saying it doesn't need to
have a bullets yeah there there don't need to be any bullets okay fine okay okay um I think um uh Christine if you can and just highlight page
11 and there this was just um some clarifications based on the attorney's comments correct on page 11 yes this is correct um we added site plan review in this particular case too during the site plan review application process if
existing Street trees shall be made additional trees unnecessary okay um you have two uh subsection B's in there no it says one was changed to c one Chang was Chang if you look if you
look at the excuse me it's a and b are the same if you look at if you look at the very clean copy page 11 is transition buffer to residential and B is transition buffer to residential got it
so they need to be red oh you are particular you you picked these things up huh well so I can say that grammatically we have I mean or not grammatically but uh styl and formatting wise we haven't gone through everything and we've been going that's an easy one you can miss if you're not paying I
appreciate you picking it out yep okay page 12 all right on page 12 this is um based on uh your comment Charlene you wanted to add this in this was a very good comment to add in cuz we wanted to
have that green area in front of the residential spaces it was a good CL I actually just Googled it and found language I liked and stole it okay all right it's actually from the one of the towns in California that burned down oh
dear and on page 12 it I think that the um paragraph d uh should be C that's mislabeled they've got to change accordingly she's going to review all of that yes okay right okay and um down a
little further than we're retaining um two dwelling units for the residential please uh yep and I think that's it on that page on page
14 um I think there was a question I forget who raised the question about the word expert um and I think we want to actually add uh not just engineer but professional engineer this is you know your civil engineer would be the one that they be
looking for for on this okay good um then on 15 all right so okay I've I went over this with Christine she's got the revised language
on this it's just little bit think that we're going to do here and we had just talked about it for a few minutes today was to add the word and in between um site plan approval amending SL change of use and the build the Building
Commissioner um I think when Council Town Council goes over it again he may he may put a comment about the Building Commissioner um he may I don't so I don't know if he'll give us some additional language so here's here's the way and
and really all it is if you take a look at at your your track changes one after the word use we're putting in and bu okay so it reads uses not listed in the permitted use provisions that are
similar in character scale and impact to permitted uses may be allowed if determined by an application for site plan approval amended SL change of use and by the Building Commissioner to be consistent with the reg regulations and
intent of this article if you take a look at what this was before the addition of an application for the site plan approval it all makes sense why is the Building Commissioner involved in this process Building Commissioner has generally made the first pass associated
with this with what um uses with uses yes so this is not any language that we added to it this was a language that was in there All Along The Building Commissioner piece of it I mean you can change that going forward sure and I think that maybe that was what council was getting at but I I just don't know
what it adds um I mean if they if it's going through site plan approval anyway I I just don't know if the if the language about the Building Commissioner needs to be in there so you want to strike it right after that yes I was
looking at that too but I didn't want to necessarily assume I should strike it without getting an input from the board members would agree to Strike It Strike it okay because what it implies is that the Building Commissioner could review it independently of the site approval of the planning board and approval use that
we don't approve of okay and and is not consistent with the bylaw and Y stri so I actually think we should strike it okay good I think that's right okay um and 16 um we do have a de
definition of this elsewhere in in the protected bylaws so we don't may have to make any changes here on and again you'll be merging the two tables that are shown here well as soon as they get the final formatting
yes I hope we can get that through on by the next meeting on the 10th um on 17 um I wanted to make a clarification on this because um we're not um this is
dealing with just the rpz that's in the west chadam Neighborhood Center so it should be very clear associated with that and it doesn't necessarily apply to the rpz that's outside of the West chadam Neighborhood Center that's a separate separate item and we always had
that be previously as a separate article um that that's correct and I had suggest I was going to suggest adding some wording in there to make that clear I um in addition to any
additions to a single family home located within and then I'd strike the or I'd say within then I'd add the West chadam neighborhood center and within or partially within
the rpz and then the rest would be the same so that that paragraph refers TOS a home that is within the West chadam Neighborhood Center okay all right put
the word existing in there or is that wrong we probably should because we're not allowing the construction of new single family homes so we so we have to stay that's correct the existing single family home right um okay that would
make sense right two okay I think what Warren said is right so again I'll I'll say it again any addition to a pre-existing single family home located within the West chadam neighborhood center and with
within or partially within the rpz and then the rest would be the same says which was an existence yeah I don't think you have to have the word existing because that phrase which was
in existence as of the date of the adoption of the Spy law is for an existing house right any additions to a single family home yep various phrases which modify that which was in existence as of the
date of the adoption of this bylaw yeah okay y that'll deal with it yes yep okay thank you Gloria that helps okay and let's see I think uh the last section is just some text
changes I have a question um small question um Katherine small question just is is there any reason why we consist seem consistently don't want to say West chattam Neighborhood Center District and want to say
WCNC District I mean if if there's not what you do in zoning so you don't have to keep typing it out yeah but it's already typed we have to take it out well right in the front it's it actually has the
in okay okay fine all right yeah I spelled it out but I had included the acronym instead yeah okay so that's the modifications done are there other things that the board members have on
their got some work to do still oh Katherine I just wanted to make a comment I don't think we need to do anything about it right now I wanted to first of all thank you and Christine for your thorough review of this and also
Jay um really helpful great job really help yes oh you still got more work but really helpful and a great great work um I did also want to thank you art for um pulling up the results of the surveys that were done by the Cape
Cod Commission um when we were Implement when we were adding form based code to what we had already um put down for the West chadam Neighborhood Center bylaw I mean I was a part of that process in reviewing them it was a bit
of an eyeopener um I think it would be useful for board members to review those survey results see what the responses from the community um were about each uh question and also um Cape cot commission
divided them up into I live in West chatam year round I live in West chatam seasonally I own a business in West chadam so we could understand um who was responding there were a few issues where I just noticed that the board chose to
include in the bylaw something that differed from what the community responded in a couple of those instances I remember why we did that but I think it's just good to be aware of that especially as we bring this before the public
again okay so I guess we have a few minutes if there's any uh comments from the public or uh certainly you can uhu if you identify yourself Rick nothing for you nope nothing today
um chairman I'd like to get on the record what I mentioned before the start of the meeting oh okay and that is um I applaud the consultants for having come up with these drawings uh renderings of what things can look like under our draft y um but I have to say that I have
the same reaction that I mentioned in our last meeting and that is what I see in these renderings is essentially three-story apartment houses and never has the Cape Cod Commission nor um nor
the pictures and renderings that we have seen from that they recommended that resulted in our draft have I seen what appears to be three-story structures um and um much of the reaction to this
perhaps by the extensive use of shed Dormers because you've got three living floors um and we have said right from the beginning we were looking looking for twostory structures um there I even have angst with we said two and a half
if you're talking about the affordable attainable um but the use of the shed Dormers um is um essentially creating a three-story structure out of a two-story building
and um my my feeling is that's not what the public had in um included in their response that um that Katherine is referring ref ing to it's not anything that I ever saw in the Cape Cod Commission um proposals with respect to
form based zoning based on what they had seen in the uh interests of the town and the preferences um they had talked about um essentially a twostory structure or one story with with Dormers even shed
Dormers okay so we we only have a few minutes the question is I did I did a little bit of research on sense of the of the board with respect to whether three story structures are going to get approved by the by the by by the voters okay so a little pause here if you take
a look there's two sections in this bylaw that Define this okay if there's something different that the board wants to do is they should give directions so we can make that adjustment and here's the first piece if you go on page nine all zones two stories not to exceed
30 ft okay all zones if next bullet down all zones of residential development includes a certain amount of deed restricted affordable units the maximum height is allowed to be 2 and a half stories though not still not exceeding
30 ft the next section on the next page where it goes all zones and it's underneath the roof slope that's where they talk about using Dormers they're allowed to be set back 5 ft and they not to be any more than 50% of the roof
that's the criteria that was used by Union Studios that's the images that you are seeing okay two and a half Stories the Dormers don't exceed 50% so that's the criteria so the images there are consistent to what was in the bylaw now
if the board members want to do something different than that then we have to change this criteria I'm I'm agreeing completely with that that's what I'm saying they've done a masterful job of Shing creating renderings that are exactly in accordance with our draft what I'm
saying is the input from the public the input from the Cape Cod Commission that came up with what form based zoning might look like has never shown two story structures with large shed Dormers that are essentially three-story structures and we've tried to limit it
to two struct two stories with the comment about two and a half for the attainable the attainable is only 20% of the units okay so what I'm saying is I'm asking whether we need to change it because I was very surprised to see
three story structures okay Charlene I don't think I am fine with what union Studios put together I'm fine with the language we have and whoever put these together I don't know who did um so that was a member of the public as well that forwarded that um which I think gives a
perfect example of we have a number of of structures in this town which make look like they're three stories but they're not it's the total design of the building because of the peak of the roof that we're requiring you know and and the Dormers break up that asphalt that
you see that so it's D line yeah yeah it's it's a design thing the to me I don't look at these as being three-story buildings at all yeah Bob yeah it we hadn't talked about this before but if you're only allowed to do two and a half
if it's affordable or attainable yeah another incentive for the that's another incentive and I think the reason for that is if you don't do what the criteria is setting aside in here you're never going to get the higher densities right and I think that the two go hand
in hand and I think it they they support support each other so I'm I'm okay with the criteria as it was proposed yeah and the visuals that were provided and the visuals right yeah I think I agree I I think it might look
like three stories but it's not that's the best that can be said all right we're almost at 330 so uh do I have a a motion to adjourn Mr chairman I move that we adjourn this work session I'll second that okay we'll do a rad
call vote uh Katherine Halper I agree uh Warren chain Warren chain approve about wrafter approv uh Charlene Greenhall approved Frank Sher approved Bob du what do was approve and arts Brew I approve and the time is uh
3:29 3:30 [Music]
n [Music]