e e e e e e [Music] [Music]
every are we okay good evening we good it's still it's still echoing yeah she it's her speaker around there good
evening this is the planning board hybrid meeting February 10th 2025 5:00 P pm. please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for scheduled and On Demand
View he says oh okay and it be scheduled for on demand viewing for any smartphone or tablet device if anyone is recording the meeting please notify the chairman uh pursuant to Governor 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 31st 2025 this meeting of the chadam planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for
in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 890
49454 pound or join the me meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simal cast on chadam TV formula channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to
provide for realtime access we will post a record of this this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible I like to begin with the rad call vote uh Katherine hper present uh Warren chain Warren chain present Bob wter Bob
wter present uh Charlene Greenhall present uh Frank Shear present Bob dubis Bob dubis present and art spru I'm present I'd like to begin with uh the minutes
for January 27th 202 five are there any comments on this I do have one on the last page underneath public comment it referred to uh a next meeting which was February
2nd that should be February 3rd that was the meeting that we had it was just a date Ed it there I didn't have any other comments Charlene uh with that um am Warren do you have any comments yeah I have one suggestion
change uh page two second to the last paragraph Where It quotes my me as saying there should be no living space on the third floor and um that's not exactly what I said I would prefer if it said there should be limited living space on the third
floor okay any other comments Charlie uh with those amendments I would move that we approve the meeting minutes of January 27th 202 five and do I have a second I'll second
we'll do a roll call vote uh Katherine hurn I approve Warren chain Warren chain approve Bob wor shapter B worter stain thank you um shaon Greenhall approve uh Frank Shear approve Bob dubis
Bob dubis approve and art sprw I approve all right the um next meeting on the agenda is the longrange plan for the West Chad Neighborhood Center I I just want to make the board um uh aware that
we just received the comments from the to council late this morning I didn't have a chance to go over it with Christine until uh uh midafternoon the reason why you're just getting it now is it took us a while just to flush through everything
that Town Council had I do apologize for that but we did the best we could based on uh when we were able to get feedback from town consult um it's was a fairly good turnaround by Town Council so I'm not trying to uh put any burden on uh on
that side of it it's just there's a lot that we've been going through on adjustments um it's uh I think Gloria um we wanted to go through she's here just for a brief period of time we wanted to go through some of her comments and her
responses to town council's comments we might start with that first and then we'll go back to the B getting the document thanks I appreciate that um so having reviewed Town council's comments having a couple of my own um and also
going through the document looking for internal consistency I um have made and I'm recommending a couple of changes they're already done on your documents but I want to specifically point out um the areas of concern um from a housing
perspective so if you go to page three definitions um the definition for affordable housing um was did you see that last time or is this brand new the affordable housing
I'm not sure it was included last time so okay I mean I've I've done a lot of versions of this already um so there's two I think new definitions affordable housing and attainable housing and
actually also inclusionary housing so I'm going to go through them affordable housing a dwelling unit deed restricted in perpetuity for sale or rental for Price or rent that is deemed affordable to a household earning no more than 80% of the area median income for
Barnesville County as adjusted for household size an affordable housing unit created as part of this inclusionary housing requirement of this bylaw must be a principal residence and occupied yearround and that's further defined as 10 months out of a 12month
period and this matches state and federal definitions of affordable housing which is 80% Ami and Below attain and Town Council reviewed that language and was fine with it attainable housing dwelling unit deed restricted um sailor rental for a price
or rent that is deemed affordable for a household earning above 80% and up to 125% of area median income um same as above an attainable housing unit created as part of this inclusionary housing requirement of this bylaw must be a PR principal residence and occupied year
round 10 months out of a 12-month period um and so attainable is defined here above 80 and up to 125 in the future if you guys ever want to come back like if in four more years we do another housing needs assessment and the attainable need
is shown to go up to like7 75% you can go back and edit that but right now the discussion with the board has always been up to 125% um and then I added a very general definition of inclusionary housing uh for the purposes of this bylaw means
requiring a certain percentage of housing units within new residential developments subdivisions conversions adaptive reuse projects and expansions of existing structures where new dwelling units are created to be deed restricted and set as side is Affordable
to housing households earning between oh that's got to be amended did I already amend that actually I think I have an early does it say up to 80% no earnings up to 125% okay right so right because that thank you I just have
my old notes um up to 125% so that that covers the whole range of affordable up to 125% um Andor a payment in L um or uh required fractional units so I think I think that's pretty
self-explanatory does anyone have any questions about that okay and Town Council signed off on all three right correct thank you make a comment okay go go ahead K in my humble opinion I think it sounds good
and I think it's more clear than what we had before so thank you I tried to clarify and also make concise um some sections and you'll see on the next page P so if you go to page four you'll notice that the definition for qualified
household struck completely if you go to page five definitions for year round ownership units and year round rental units also stricken completely and the reason for that is that we're not doing year- round units right and when you read the definition of qualified
household it's really only talking about those year round units and when I did a search of the documents of qualif household and year round units the only place it came up were in those three definitions so they made their own little like self-defined group of things
that aren't even covered in the bylaw anymore so those are out so now the most I'm no questions on that right okay so the most significant change that I'm proposing
um and you you might recognize this from an earlier draft and it doesn't exactly correspond to town council's comments although he's kind of like nipping around the edges of this um I don't know if you guys remember but like the first draft of
inclusionary when you talked about the distribution of affordability we had the first unit had to be 80% Ami or below it was an affordable unit and eligible for inclusion on the subsidized housing inventory and then over the last like couple of years there 's been so much
talk about like well the need for attainable housing and we've kind of gotten away from that original affordable housing and then another draft said the first unit had to be 90% And then the second unit 100% And then you'll notice that at some point I slipped in well the first unit should be
80 to 90% um and I'm going to go out on a limb and make the case for going back to the original which is the first unit is um afford to households earning I can't
remember that I said up to 80% or 80% Ami and below and eligible for inclusion on the subsidized housing inventory could you remind us where you're reading from I'm sry this is section nine the first bullet point under it thank you oh so page seven page seven page seven
okay the this section was always there but this is a an adjustment in the language that Gloria is is suggesting that we do and I I have a rationale for this too um and Jay this is what I said that Jay uh
Town Council was kind of nipping at the edges of this so we're calling this an inclusionary bylaw but when you don't have a requirement for affordable housing I think that it's pretty tenuous
to call it inclusionary right and if you are asking like the last draft before this change if you're asking for the first unit to be between 80 and 90% Ami a developer is always gonna pick like the highest limit that you let them
because it requires less subsidy there's less of an affordability Gap and so I think it's very unlikely that we would end up with an 80% unit and I think that that's an inherent weakness from a um an
attorney general the Attorney General's office perspective if we're doing an inclusionary bylaw but we're not actually including any um units that are at 80% Ami and below for low and moderate income housing because when you think about all of the inclusionary language
in Mass general laws it really does refer to low and moderate income housing and then state and federal definitions of low and moderate income housing is housing affordable to households earning 80% Ami and below so I just want to I want to make this
bulletproof um because we're doing a lot of really Innovative things like a fairly High base requirement of 20% allowing people to go up to 25% with a density bonus um for for inclusionary units and I would hate for this to get
kicked back on a technicality like that and the fact of the matter is from a housing needs perspective and our housing needs um assessment did show this that really the greatest need is at that 80% Ami and below so I think that we're hitting the purpose of providing um housing that meets the needs of the
community I think we're hitting the requirement of making this like a true inclusionary bylaw by having the first unit in any and the first and only one really like it's we're only requiring one affordable everything else can be
attainable after that in the development but just making sure that we hit that point so um any thoughts on that just curious why you said Town Council nipped around the edges of it
some of his not too blunt so if you look at comment um JT 44r 43 he goes but none of the units described in the bullet points are restricted at 80% or below and as a consequence Perpetual affordability inclusion on the Shi may
not happen so we talk about that we talk about in definitions and elsewhere like that permanent deed restriction we talk about inclusion on the Shi but in actuality we haven't done anything that really would actually produce those
units unless you specifically come out and say that first unit has to be 80% Ami and Below Frank well I'm I'm persuaded I agree with you so
so Charlene um I'm actually um pleased with this change um the only thing is under the definition of affordable housing it says no more than 80% and you're then saying earning up to 80% I don't know if we need to be consistent
the language or even or even make it shorter and just say the first Hing housing unit shall be affordable period as defined here in as opposed to because we already say it in the definition so I don't know if we need to
say it again in that first um bullet point um so I would say it in the bullet point only because it's not that you can't refer back but it really does kind of lay out our distribution really clearly so the first one's 80% and below the second one's 90 to 100 and then the
third one can be whatever they want right I'm just wondering if we want to be consistent because in the definition it says no more than 80% and then you're saying up to either way works okay but and I think in one other place it says 80% and Below or something like that so
it's it's all know but let's use the same language I agree we'll do that uh Bob you had yeah I iess guess um I'm just wondering why it's 90 to 100 um to why not 81 to 100 or even less than 100
if somebody wants to put a second under uh 80 or below why would we say no to that um so I I think we really are only setting the upper limits of these so that so this was a discussion we had a
while ago and the reason this was set up like this was because you guys wanted to guarantee like a range of incomes so that's why so the first one was like that 80 and when when you say 90 to 100% Ami when you qualify for 90%
what that really means is that you're earning between like 81% and 90% like that there's a range for qualification and if you're at 100% Ami you would really be 91 to 100% but the reason this was put out this way was so that you
guys would get a range of of different things we're still going to get the range because as you pointed out every Builder is going to build at 100% so um why have a lower limit I I think it's just the way it was
drafted I I understand this one goes I'm trying to make goes back simpler yeah the second one has to be under uh un up to 100% and the third one can up so so take the lower limit out and just say up to yeah so you're suggesting
just rise it to up to up to yeah take out the lower limit did that work for you glory yeah it does thank you I'm flexible on literally everything now that you've agreed to that whole 80% Ami and below so take advantage of my
Goodwill at this point all right so we have um up to 80% up to 100% And then up to 12 okay perfect [Music] um there is a slight adjustment made to
the second bullet point about um affordable units deed restricted at 80% Ami or below shall be affordable in perpetuity attainable unit Steed restricted above 80% Ami should be affordable in perpetuity or for the
longest time allowed by law so how what happened with all this and what triggered it was the definition where we used the term improptu and Town Council said that and that was with the definition unattainable and and he that's where he
questioned that it it he said it it is allowed and affordable but not necessarily in attainable so that's why we came up with this revised language that's just from the last discussion we had GL I have a TR I have trouble with the
word shall be affordable when it's attainable I mean it's just well she'll be affordable to households earning yeah can we I I mean that so that's that's just clear English it is but it is it we've
defined affordable somewhere else it's not capital A but it right but this so this is a verb and it's not an adjective modifying the noun housing I I'm I understand that I've read it 10 times I just
okay Frank again so Gloria has Council given us any hint as to what is the period that we can restrict a um no no but we're going to have to figure this out soon no we don't I mean
well don't we have to put the restriction on the change may depend on other things I've seen lda's land land disposition agreements for affordable housing development that is leased rather than sold and for instance it's a
99e lease and the language in the LDA about affordable says in perpetuity or as long as Allowed by law but no less than 99 years which is the term of the lease so I imagine that no no less than what's Allowed by law May shift
depending on the circumstance yeah I'm I'm aware of the polias situation I was wondering in an ownership situation what do do we have any sense of what it's going to be I mean because we have to draft the Restriction right well Town Council will
draft the Restriction you guys aren't Drafting and I think Cas going dictate we have to we have to approve it right I so I can't I can't put a number on it right now I don't know maybe Mike has some okay oh sorry to put you on the
spot never mind um so for attainable units we say um must be deed restricted in perpetuity or the longest term allowed under the law law I mean in the past it was 40 years
you know so yep you got to go to the microphone he said there's some places out in western Mass where it goes up to 50 I think it's going to depend on the circumstance and you know whether it's leased whe who knows who knows uh Katherine I'll just say um when they
break ground on the First Development that's when we have to really start worrying about defining that or I mean we can do it in advance but so I so I imagine that over the years this may change based on case law
so we might we might determine what our deed restriction is going to be for the attainable units on Main Street and then in five years um Court s might determine that it's actually you know five years longer than we had it or five years
shorter so that's why you have that kind of language I I guess my concern is that if that period is too short I'm not sure why we we're doing this at all if it's 30 years or something like that um so
I'll I'll let that sit so right now I know that certain restrictions can be put in place for 30 or 40 years like homeowners association rules and stuff like that it's 30 years for different levels of affordability it's been 40 years so we're we're in that ballpark
right and so we have uh units in chadam that are currently at that point they're expiring and I believe we're in the position of trying to extend them acquire them so is that where we're going to be do you think in this
situation yeah okay yeah I just want to understand um sorry I don't have a more definitive answer okay um the last the last change that I um edited in response to town council's comment is on the very last
page page 17 that old rpz footnote which I haven't looked at in a couple of years um Town Council had a question about whether you could limit the
expansion allowed of a the single family house um so footnote footnote one but sub subsection four below it um used to say any addition to a single family home located within or partially within the
rpz which was in existence as of the date of the adoption of this bylaw may be allowed up to an additional 50% of building square footage um the idea being that you don't want to expand it too much have more people living in there and Town Council
said um no we're not doing that so not not for pre-existing non-conforming exact that doesn't follow underneath our purview is what he say yeah and they and they have rights under um chapter 48 section 6 so we're not this over here is
not going to supersede um Mass general laws um so that section was stricken but we left in um no new dwelling units shall be allowed in the rpz which was kind of the gist of what people wanted to to be respectful of the
I guess the wishes of the airport commission relative to the RPC well what the well this was uh something that once the Town Council made an issue of this I I read the I was initially thinking that we just strike the whole note but then I
read that this is the note with the second part of it that said well we don't want any new residential units within the rpz of the West chanam neighborhood District to try try to um uh support the direction that the
airport was trying to to go with they they were agreeing with us that if there's a Redevelopment and all of that that a Redevelopment could occur and we if we keep status quo on everything but they were trying to uh uh manage any kind of
residential um new residential within the rpz and if you take a look at the area where this is there's there's only about one property that is impacted by this go go ahead Katherine um yes and we
probably heard from that property owner in a number of meetings so I'm not sure I quite understand this does this mean that there's no restriction on their expansion yeah yes in the rpz if they're pre-existing nonconforming so in other
words it's less of a restriction than what we had correct um okay yeah it's no restriction as opposed to on an existing residence yeah so okay on Gloria question um adrs are now
permitted by W correct many places does that mean you can build a an ADR Outback in the middle of the RPD so so my read of this language in in plain English is that no new dwelling units are allowed and an Adu would be a
new dwelling unit because you would have a single family home and then all of a sudden you would have a second residence on it I agree with that but that doesn't mean much really so glad you said it
yeah okay I was just going to reiterate that the new um law that came through you can only have an Adu if single family residences are allowed in that zoning district with right okay well that that'll be an interesting
question because so single family homes are they are they allowed no no more okay yeah yeah so so yeah not new ones okay if there that was the extent of what I had to say if there are any questions lingering after that
discussion I'm happy to talk it so the other section that was modified and we did review was section seven but there weren't any edit done to section seven that's the other housing related component okay so no edits no edits no
no edits from the last meeting that we had that's all from what from what we reviewed previously well and Gloria I apologize for not having had a chance to thoroughly digest the latest draft but
could you um refresh my uh recollection of the scan I did of this as to where and how we are now um requiring year year round occupancy I.E 10 months of the year or um for market-based
units so we are not requiring any year round units just year round we're requiring deed restricted units based on that distribution of affordability so 80% 100% 125% and with those deed restricted
units they will be year round that's part of the definition no I understand that but that's likely to be you know 25% of the units no more than that the other 75% are market-based units and those are the ones that we definitely
want to restrict to your around occupancy so I know that there has been discussion about banning short-term rentals in the west chadam Neighborhood Center uh zoning District I have not worked on a section um for that so I don't know where that stands
I think that either Christine or Katie would be able to answer that U please go ahead I just wanted to make a comment that my memory is that the board agreed that we would like to apply the same restriction to all units
in the west chadam Neighborhood Center in other words that market rate as well be occupied year round uh with 10 months in Residence and two months available I think we we agreed on that last meeting or the meeting before then I
think I think what you referring to then is the yearround rental year round ownership units that might come back into the picture then the definition that was uh previously stated in there because I think that's where it was covered it would be rental units as well
as owner well and again that was probably the reason for the definition that was that was there below it that those two had that component of no short-term rentals in it so at this at this time
with seasonal so seasonal communities um passed you know as part of the affordable homes act and chadam is designated a seasonal Community because 35 Plus percent of our housing stock is short-term rentals or seasonal homes um
however we've not gotten guidance yet from the state whether we have to accept that designation through the legislative body which is town meeting um or deny it or whether it's automatic so until we know that it's automatic or until we
know that we've accepted it there's no mechanism for us to put a year- round restriction on a unit at this point so once seasonal communities gets fleshed out a little bit more um I'm thinking that maybe next year um we can go back
and start thinking about amending this in that way but we don't have the ability to do like a year round restriction but but we can limit short-term rentals you can right you can ban them but that doesn't mean that someone's going to live there no correct year round it just means that they have
to rent in blocks of more I'll take half the Apple if if I can so um so I think we need to have a very simple statement that uh a if a a owner occupied a a
resident can uh rent um up to 60 days in a calendar year but um the leases have to be no less than 30 days long something like that right but it but but it doesn't
necessarily require them to live there do you know what I mean like you're not making them live there you're just limiting their ability so it can be empty for 8 months they could be there for two months and they could rent it for two months no I know it's not what you want
but it's it's hard to get what you want we're working on it right now until we get the um the question of seasonal communities um squared away we can't really we can't really do that but you can do something about short-term rentals you can limit the total number of days it's rented and
you can limit the length of time it's rented revisit the definitions then I don't think we need to I think we just say something like that M you know okay I think an easy F would be to put it in the use table as
a not permitted okay yeah yeah yeah well that so so it go but it goes longer than that because if you want to limit if you want to limit the length the length of time you can you can ban them and that would limit it to 32 days or more but if
you want to put a maximum number of days that you can it you're going to have to have maybe a footnote under the US table right okay so you can rent up to 60 days but the lease has to be at least 30 days long right so I would just say no short-term rentals allowed um rental of
units up to a total of 60 days what is a short-term rental what what's the definition less than uh less less than 31 days okay so we don't need that definition we simply okay good all right is that definition in the zoning bylaw or is that in the general the it's in
the oh actually it's at the state level so we probably should we probably should Define so okay let's do a definition of short-term rentals in the definition section why can't we just say you can't rent for less than 30
days well I mean why can't we restrict rentals to no more than 60 days a year and that too right that's that applies to every dwelling unit in W every dwelling
my failing memory was what was a requirement from the prior Town Council as long as you yes applied it to everybody I agree then it was defensible right so we simply say that you can rent
up to 60 days in a calendar year but no leases for less than 30 days so um some language I think that you can actually so you should put it in the use table shortterm rentals not allowed XXX and then in the definitions I think we can
say something like short-term rentals for the purposes of this bylaw in the west chatam Neighborhood Center zoning um are res are not allowed and restricted to and rentals restricted
to 60 days maximum in any calendar year or something like that well you can do that Gloria but I think you just need a simple sentence like I threw out but okay but I think we can put it in the I think we can take care of it in the definitions I I I just have a concern MH
that you know Charlene greenh helge buys a market rate unit yep I live elsewhere I buy a market rate unit that I'm going to retire to you know in a certain number of years and I want to rent that out year round to somebody you can rent
to yearound yeah so that wouldn't but we're saying no more than 60 days no no no no no no we can I think we can have year round rentals you can have a yearlong lease as long as that's under as well as I agree with you on that one Char I don't want to you know so can I
make one other suggestion too if it if it's 30 if 31 days is the required lease 30 then it more than 30 so it 31 then then you ought to be able to rent the place out for 62 days otherwise you only
get one rent but I was going with 30 days well but it's it's actually a very good point I think we started maybe at 65 at one point can I make a comment Mr please Katherine I'd just like to make a
couple of comments if I might um one is I'm not necessarily objecting to our one 31 day leases but just a point that part of our rationale in providing this was for yearround residents who wanted to
rent out either their owned or rented unit for a couple of months in the summer to augment their income and most people who do that rent it out by the night or possibly the week because the amount of money that you can make is you
know maybe like 20 times so so if we're if that is our rationale is to help people who are living their full-time year round augment their income I I just think we need to consider consider that fact um the other point I do want to point out to the
board is it okay if so short-term rentals would be allowed but only for a maximum of 65 days in a calendar year or 60 days or something the agrees with really yeah it's not saying that short-term rentals are banned it's just saying you can short-term rent but you
can't short-term rent for more than 60 or 62 or 65 days but I do think we wanted that in terms of an occupied unit we didn't want it in terms of this situation where you know someone isn't occupying their unit yet and they're renting it out for 2 months a year I
think it was more for to give a benefit to earn some extra income to those yearr round residents whether renting or owned so I so that so that's a way of crafting a short-term rental regulation where you
can say if you're you can rent out your primary residence for instance but no more than 65 days a year I think that when you start talking about all of these things and pulling this out in West chadam I think that
it's a larger I think it's a larger policy question that maybe we should think about for the town like why why would we be doing this in West chatam and nowhere else why is it only in West chatam that you can only rent your principal residence and you can only
rent it for 62 days or 60 or 65 and we're because we're writing a new bylaw right now and eventually it could be applied to the rest of the time and the answer is there is no shortage of uh rental properties that can be shortterm in town
yeah there's no shortage at all what we're trying to do is create year round housing yeah in a higher density which is right the perfect place to have shortterm rentals if you can do it so we
need to prohibit it yeah um I mean I I get what you're doing and I'm thinking about the regulations that we have on the books already which is essentially a registration scheme through the Board of Health um I think there'd have to be another like tier of registration I
think you'd have to like verify your principal residence I'm just thinking of like all these ramifications I don't know Mike do you have any comments on this because this really is like a this is more of an upper level policy dis discussion and I think that because this
hasn't I mean I so I can I can write what you guys want however this hasn't really been out there in the public like we haven't been talking about this we don't have like a short-term Rental Work group that's that's looking at this type of
thing we haven't heard people go to the select board and say you know we need we need to ban these we need to figure this out so I think that I think that we're getting into an area that is maybe not as well vetted as some of the like
traditional like Village zoning stuff that we're talking about well okay in all due respect I think the public has spoken in terms of their initial input that led us to down the path of where we are um as well as
the directions from the select board um the uh the whole idea is to create neighborhoods for affordable attainable and lower priced more moderately priced uh um market-based
units and um the only way to do that the only way to do it and it's been supported by the input that I've heard from the public um is to restrict it um I thought the suggestion from shelling
that we provide the opportunity to rent for a couple of months of the year that was our accommodation to not having a full you know complete prohibition um I'm not in favor of allowing you to have short-term rentals
of less than a 30 days um because it just means that's going the wrong direction what we're trying to do is encourage people to live there year round with the ability to rent it out for a couple of months if they can't rent it for quite as much as they could
if they did it by the day well GL I think we had a don't have don't live in West Jam neighborhood if that's the important thing we had a sorry I I would I need to support you that we had a consensus which Gloria may
not have been fully up to date on that we would not allow short-term rentals um with some exceptions um and I I think for all the reasons Warren has put out it's it's terribly important for us to address the issue in the
neighborhood and that doesn't mean that we can't put together a tax task force and look at it you know townwide and maybe that results in a change in what we do in the neighborhood uh it doesn't preempt anything that we decide to do
that's my view so what would you do with the people who already live there who already rent their units shortterm for as long as they want who have certain protections under the law they would be pre-exist preexisting
non-conforming no change no change that's another reason there's plenty of short-term rental possibil this is intended for all the new this is intended for all the new residential development can I make a comment Mr chair yes I just want to remind the board this is from years back when we
were first setting up the use table you will notice in the use table that we permit hotel motel and lodgings again as I recall and this was was preco when we were setting up this use table so again
part of our rationale in allowing at first we wanted it not permitted hotel motel and lodgings at first we didn't we we wanted that not permitted in the district we decided to allow it to allow some older couple who you know has owns
a unit there who wants to set up a bed and breakfast in the next store unit to earn some extra income again our Ral was kind of to provide a business opportunity for a full-time resident there so and those are definitely going
to be short turn rent rentals so it just to bring it up to the board if we want to delete that we did consider that before just not allowing that use um we clarify that I mean a hotel when I go to a hotel I'm not renting the room
no I think that's different not what you doing I'm I'm paying it's not I don't sign any rental agreement do I I'm I'm asking I think it's I think that's you could be there for a day or a week right yeah it
doesn't seem like it's a rental yeah I think that's you a whole different thing you're not signing a lease when you go to a hotel or on in well I I I think the the board members and I I agree with you that that this is
something that the board's Direction I think it's ex what we're what we wanted to do it's and it's the direction that I think it should be applied to the West chadam neighbor Center bylaw so appreciate it if uh any changes that you
doel who builds a new development um and wants to put in residential yeah um would not be able to sell the unit really at like the current market rate
because that current market rate takes into account the fact that people can buy and and rent out whenever they want so there's going to be some sort of restriction on these units because short-term rentals are only going to be allowed if it's your PR principal residence that's basically what you're
saying you have to live there year round to have the benefit of doing a short-term rental for 60 days max are you renting for the 10 year a 10 10mon term to someone Gloria buy or you just buy the
property and not rent it I mean that it doesn't reduce the right it doesn't reduce the value which in the long term it might restrict your so it definitely it will definitely devalue the property to a certain amount I don't know how much that is I don't know how that would
impact like a development Pro for Forma I don't know how it would inhibit development um maybe that's the goal I don't know um but I think that when you start talking about that and I I appreciate the sentiment um I think
that like I don't I don't really know enough about the impacts of that I can we can certainly write it in but if questions come up like I'm not going to be able to answer them like if people say like oh what does this do to the value it's hard it's really hard to say
like I don't know other towns but we deal well we don't deal with rental or ownership or anything on the property that's up to who whoever develops it that's been always a clearcut criteria that that's not not in our purview limiting that you're so so in a in a
sense you are dealing with this you're you're putting restrictions on their ability to do something I I hear what you're saying Gloria but our primary motivation is not what you're saying our primary motivation is get as much as year round residents in the west chadam
Neighborhood Center because that's what's going to make it Lively I completely understand that point and I appreciate so this is our Direction on the way the board wants to go okay this is so and what are what are we like a month and a half from town meeting or
something it's it's a tight time frame for this well I chrisye wants the's the turnaround so we do not have we're going to have to vet all this with Town C Council and okay so what I would say to you is that we received one round of
comments from Town Council at the end of last week after we had talked at at the previous meeting then you received a second round of count of comments from Town Council today as a result of some of the changes that Gloria made we are
now talking about putting the additional piece of the short-term rental and I know it has been discussed numerous times but if we want to do that there are some major changes here that would have to happen by the end of tonight we have to make you have to make a
recommendation to the select board if you would like this to go forward right now this is on the agenda for February 18th for the for the select board meeting and then we have to do the public the uh legal ads and then we have
to do the public hearing all of that has to be timed out perfectly so that we can get on the warrant and that you could have town meeting vote on it on Saturday May 10th um as has been going all the way through the process since I have been
here there is the issue of the seasonal communities guidance and how we're going to do that right so so that's another piece of it um I don't think that I I'm sure that Gloria is more than capable to give you wording to adjust and do
whatever I I'm sure that Town Council can give you some comments back in some way but we don't know how all of these things are going to be impacted like we have told you time and time again by the seasonal community's guidance so has anyone has anyone I know but we've
decided that we were going to defer anything associated with the seasonal communities piece because we don't know when that's going to come out right okay we started we also decided that we wanted to move ahead with the bylaw and if there's some changes then we'll deal
with them subsequent to this all right so that was that was a board decision too that we wanted to move ahead with this we also wanted to do exactly what the board members are asking for right now which is uh provide for as much as
possible year round residents so what I would say to you if you want the piece of short-term rental and you want to talk it through with Gloria tonight we can do that so I just for for background so I haven't had anything to do with short-term rentals at all I've been focused on inclusion and incentive zoning and some definitions so if there
have been discussions between like staff and Town Council about short-term rentals I haven't been involved so I don't know if you guys have discussed anything any comments that you see in the in the the uh B all of the comments we' received the only comment was like
at one point I put a comment in and I said should short-term rentals stuff go here but I don't we had restrictions on short-term rentals in the bylaw it was for the entire time that I've been on this board that's correct
it's just been struck out now nothing new when was it struck out like I don't your definitions last you did um you said I think we should delete this and then and then the um counil said well
mostly agreed because he was responding to your your comment but but that's different than short-term rentals that's a that's a different thing if it's just they're not comparable two
different laws if I could make if I could make a comment I just wan to I just want to Echo what Frank said time please I just want to Echo what Frank said I've been working on this bylaw for almost 10 years and since the beginning
ever since the beginning it has all to the best of my memory it has always been the board's intention to have yearr round residency period that's always Our intention and we came up with the idea of allowing
um the two months you know because of the logic that I describe that there are people who would be living there who could earn a little extra money by renting their unit for two months but it's nothing new this is always this has had continuity since the very beginning
what we don't want to have is some inclusionary aspects to this bylaw um and then the rest of the market units being built that our invest properties that nobody's there we absolutely do not want that I so totally get that right now until seasonal communities is
clarified and we know that we can do year round restrictions there is no mechanism in the law that allows us to do a yearr round restriction that's not tied to affordability I think we did have some
Lang as we did have some language fire Town Council had said in W had language there yeah okay one at time on pages four and five you have the definition of qualified household and then you go to page five which has yearr round
ownership right units and year- round Rental Right units that's where we talked about no short-term r no short-term rent that's the only place we talked about that's correct y but then we decided to extend that throughout the
district right yeah but those that these definitions apply to The District in in in the district and only in the district if we if we and I'm I'm just going to suggest this if we for now
don't um allow the short-term rental for two months because these the these homeowners or renters are getting a better house they're getting an affordable housing right house it it's
we're we we're helping them and if we don't do this other thing we're probably not going to have anybody building anything so or they'll be living there by themselves the two two units out of 10 that will be occupied so I'm
suggesting that we go back if we can go back to some of the wording that we have here and and not worry about allowing people a two-month rental for now and I I think that's complicating this immensely we it's just
go back to year year round ownership and no short-term RS so put those two definitions back in back in yeah the pro the problem is that current Town Council is telling us we can't do that no they where does he say
that no I don't think so no Gloria just said that we can't put year round restrictions that was something different I don't think I think it's the qualified households that he was having an issue with if we take qualified households out which I always kind of wondered myself that why that was in
there but if we leave year round ownership units and year- round rental unit definitions in there for for all units all that is for all unit so every unit in West chadam is going to have to meet this year- round ownership
requirement I or occup there's a really great chance that the agos um the AG's office will strike that down unless that's clarified by seasonal communities and he um the AG's office may very well strike those two definitions they won't
strike the whole Lang the whole bylaw but they you know they have the ability to strike certain definitions if they deem it it's not constitutional lawful or what have you so uh board members is this the
direction where we'd like to go in put these two definitions back in and then strike the other provision where they would be the the 10 months and and two months yeah is that agreed certainly that's
where I come out okay just clarifying so the the latest definition then of affordable housing and attainable housing we're taking out that 10 months out of 12 month period you should still leave it in that I think you should yeah I think we could leave that because
that I think is the only place that that language actually shows up that's that's where you would allow it is what you're saying well that's the only those are the only two places where it is provided under the definition of year round a year- round ownership may not be used as
a short-term rental subject to and it defines that there okay so and then are we I'm not sure if the AG's office is going to buy this in all honesty but if if it's a comfort thing and and the board's comfortable leaving those in
leave them in and let the AG decide if it can't be in there right so but then somewhere in the body of this bylaw you have to have something about the creation of yearound ownership or rental units because right now those two
sections and the qualified household they're its own little bubble like the only time those terms are referred to are among those three definitions like there's absolutely nothing in the bylaw itself that talks about the creation of yearound
units well am I misunderstanding or is it just the way this is written when when it just say may not be used as a short-term rental that it still isn't you'd still have to limit it to a maximum number of rental days or something because all that means
is that they can rent it like every month for the whole year it just means they can't rent it you know for 30 days or less I believe what the board is asking is that all units that we add language
that indicates that all units are for yearround occupancy either owned or rented I think that's illegal I agree I don't think you can do that I mean that would be like me buying a market rate unit and only using it
myself two months out of and Pats Pats no year round that's not that's not what I'm saying we're saying yearr round residency Pat's take on that was for in my opinion a little a little bit dubious but if you
recall the way he the way he enabled that was he said well if you do it under a special permit then you can require a year- round restriction I so I disagree with that anyway um especially in light of the affordable homes act and what
it's saying like that that um description that he came up with is inconsistent with what I'm seeing in the law now so if you want year round occupancy units we have to not just put it in a definition which means nothing all you're doing is defining it you have
to put it in the bylaw you have to say when you want them you want to say how you want them you have to put a special permit process on it or something like that and I just don't think given the affordable homes Act and the seasonal communities that this is legal
so but we're not discussing affordable this is completely outside of affordable this is for all units this is for market rate units so but ju just hang on a bit so that would be Our intention we we've discussed this at length I mean for
years that that we want that if there's no legal way to do that what we have to face is that we have the potential of many market rate units being built that yeah are not occupied year round and a
few affordable attainable that will be occupied year round and then we have to ask ourselves is this really what we want in West chadam I think the answer is no we want a yearr round Neighborhood Center so I think opportunity is next
year or the year after after we get guidance about the seasonal Community section of the affordable homes act which allows for seasonal communities to do yearr round restrictions then you can go back and put it in right now we
can't like as a professional I'm telling you that it's not I I get what you want we all want that like it would be ideal if like I walked down the streets of Province toown walking my dog and I actually saw someone you know it would be fantastic if we all lived in year-
round communities on the cape but this bylaw is not the place to do it right now maybe exactly the place to do but not but not now not now I'm telling you you can't you can't just say every unit that's
created has to be year round I mean you can try to do it with a special permit process but if you were able to do that they wouldn't have had to pass a law in the affordable homes act specifically for seasonal
communities to enable us to do that so at the state level they're working down this kind of enabling legislation for us to do that but we're not there yet so therefore this is not what's that what's that TR to like not ripe or something
like that just it's not it's just not time for that so let's just put in the um restriction on short-term rentals I agree we know we can do that yes we can
so I would agree with you um I am I am not interested in bumping this for seasonal uh requirements that are months or years out yeah that that leaves us hanging here way too long so let's do
what we can do at this point I agree with what uh what Frank just suggested so short-term rentals for no more than 65 days a year or 62 or something like that sure no no no no short teral
shortterm rental but if you don't so I so so they rent it out for six months of the year I I would rather Define and regulate short-term rentals and put a cap because if you say no short-term rentals all that means is that someone
can rent their place continuously for 31 day chunks fine that's okay that's right but that's even more rentals than 65 days out of no it isn't no because it's up to it is it why I I don't follow your
math so if you if you say no short-term rentals all that means is if you want to rent your place you have to rent it for 31 days or more right that's right so you can rent it for June to June 1st to July 2nd July 2nd to August 4th August
4th to whatever and on and on and on every 31 days if no only only only two months out of every calendar year no we got rid of we got rid of that but that we did yeah but you so you can't you can restrict short-term rental sure that's
to like a c that's what I'm saying allow them but put a cap on the number of days in a year that you allow them that's better than no we got rid of them all together and we we if somebody Rents It for 30 days and then 30 days in 30 days
or 31 31 31 and then there's nine months left and they they're not they'll rent it for the winter for nine months that's fine I I I I just I think that's very different than uh you know having somebody in
there for two days and somebody else for three and I I thought the proposal was you can rent up to 60 days in a calendar year full full stop Frank we we we decided that where did we get rid of that though where did we get rid of I don't think we we did get rid of it
except for the affordable and attainable we did no there's two issues here one is short-term rentals and the other is long-term you know yearr round occup they're two different things we were told that we cannot do year round
restrictions but we can restrict short-term rentals so we could ban them completely but instead we're going to allow them up to 60 days but it has to be 30 days a piece I thought that's where we were no because I asked
Katherine and I said that's that's creating the problem let's just get rid of that for everyone and just ban short-term rentals period it's much cleaner well I can do that too that that that but but I
still I still think that if if you say up to 60 days all right that means for 10 months of the year there's somebody living there not or not living there maybe they're in Singapore sense or or vacant yes is not economic no one not
too many people are going to have a house it's just vacant for for 10 months I and and and the and the low the affordable person can rent it out for 31 days for two months in the in the summer
that that they can um that I mean my friends that move move into their garages rent the thing to one person for the whole summer that that's that's how they make their money so
um I I I think yeah I just think it's at this point given that we have to finish this tonight given that we don't the one thing we know we can do is Ban short-term rent just do that Charlene does the state Define short-term rental
yes so in the I'm going to suggest in the use table you put short-term rental and in P pen pursuant to the CMR or what have you yeah there's a couple things it's in the tax code and and then just
put it's been a while across the way but then you need to finish yeah okay right I'm not sure how easier that can get than this um for the attainable and affordable units would there be an
exemption there no no there wouldn't so that I myed so it has to be their principal residence yeah Gloria I don't I I actually read the state rules on short-term rentals that reference at one point and I've forgotten completely what
it said but I know it was a couple of pages can can you just summarize what that says so there's there's a couple of references in short-term rentals and it's it's actually really it's fuzzy in a way when when I when I testified at the State House on the Adu regulations that was like one of the things I
brought up so the short-term rentals is part of the tax code it doesn't Define the length of short term it's elsewhere in the cmrs that it talks about 31 days but there's also a reference somewhere for like short-term being 90 days um but
generally people go um for the 31 but I will pull out those um citations because I have them for my testimony so I'll be able to get it really quickly I believe there's all there are exceptions as as well in in so two week any anyone can rent for two weeks and you don't have to
register with the state do um you like anybody can do a twoe short-term rental and it's completely off the books and you don't pay taxes on it or anything short term yeah short term is less than 31 days yeah that's it yeah no reference
to estate law okay so we need a definition of short rental shortterm exactly so if you want it specific to this bylaw and this zoning District we can put it in the definitions um if you're okay with referencing um the actual law um we can just put it in the
use table I am not okay let me let me see if I can summarize here the the affordable housing and the attainable housing definitions stay as they as they are with a reference that
10 months out of 12 month period of time yep that all stays is that that agreed right the now the definitions for yearr round ownership units and the yearr round rental units we're we are removing them
is that correct y as well as qualified households and and a qualified households we're removing that you're going to add what we're defining as short-term rentals in as a defic yep and and then we are going to note
this in the use table then I think that's the cleanest way to go that's a what I've been hearing is a suggestion I think can we clean that up for right we have a day or two to clean before we refer this and that's about all we
have okay yeah pleas clarify what does that mean you can rent shortterm how long how often well um we're we're Banning short-term rentals we're Bing so nobody can rent their place for less than 31 days 31 days and can they rent
it 10 times a year for 31 days yeah they sure can this is just totally against anything the board is indicated it wants but I think Gloria is indicating it's the best we can do right now until the seasonal no so I don't think glor said
that I don't think actually I would do it differently I would allow short-term rentals and I would tap the total number of days at 60 that's that's how I would do it it's more complicated I would agree with that I I can agree to that but I would
also make the observation that if like red lined marked it if if if there's any possibility that a large number of units will be built and be able to be rented out too many conversations one at a time if there's any chance that large number
of units can be put in by a developer and rent it out you know uh short term I'll use the term the chances are slim and none actually I'll say none that the voters of this town would approve this bylaw it won't happen um it's been
consistent right from the beginning that that's the last thing that they want to have happen there are plenty of short-term rental units available in chatam there's no shortage what we're trying to do is make sure we don't increase the supply so um as long as
whatever we come up with and put forward says no I'm in favor I want to go down the line in here Bob next you putting on the a limit on the short-term rentals for two months does nothing to prevent somebody from then renting that same
place for a for a month and a half and a month and a half because you've only limited the shortterm rental you so yeah the way so so why not res strict the short-term rental that's what you guys said I I literally was like writing
notes as you were all agreeing to ban short rentals and put x's in the use table that's why I did it but then you said you would prefer I no all I said was if I were doing this yes that's the way I would approach it because you
would have 10 months out of the Year where you could not rent it you no no I totally disagree with you right I know that's why we're not doing because your definition does not restrict a long long-term rental your your restriction is just
just allows in addition to the long-term rentals two months of shortterm rentals yeah and okay so I think it's simpler just to from from everybody's perspective just to say get rid of the short-term rental because that's what
everybody's going to object it's definitely the easiest okay I don't think that it's going to have the ultimate effect that you are after but but that said I mean it's really digestible so when when people at town meeting see this they're going to see oh
short-term rentals X XX right exactly that's why we doing it right that's why we're doing it next Charlene any further comments nope okay Frank um I let's not confuse this now I'm not
going to I I I I just just want to support Gloria's position and I I think limiting short-term rentals to 60 days or rentals to 60 days a year I I think we're going to complicate this to the point where we're not going to move ahead I think we have to go the
direction that has been suggested by by Bob and Charlene and and Warren that's that's I think where we have to go on this I I don't have time to flush this out any further than that all right and
if if that is the direction of the board I'm fine with it then we're not moving ahead with it this year and that's going to make life a lot simpler for me I'm not I'm not objecting to push pushing this through as we have it right now I think it's a good bylaw I'd like to get
over this hiccup that's all so we just we would just we we would your proposal is that we just have no short-term rentals corre at all correct all right good yeah as a not permitted use not permitted let me ask the dumb
question again so no short-term rental right but the guy that owns that year round rental can rent it anytime he wants correct it's just it has to be more than 31 days any perod longer than days see that's where the that's where
the gray area comes in so I buy it and I rent it for the whole year yep you could do that that's fine or you could could do that yeah or you could rent it to one person for the summer and another person for the winter which is commonly done which
is very often done and they charge something higher in the summer we we have been yeah right five years seven years let's let's we're down to this clip right here yeah let's get the paper clip done so I think
can I make I think we're agreed this is the best we can do for now it doesn't it does not address the idea of yearround occupancy which Gloria is telling us that legally we cannot do it this time I just want to make a comment
just for the sake of facing reality there are many many houses in chattam actually the majority of houses in chattam which are now um non-resident owned in other words they are empty except for maybe two
weeks a year when the owners come from New York or Singapore and enjoy their second home so that's the thing I think that we didn't want to have happen in West chadam because there's plenty of that I mean and if you look at the data
um you know over the last couple of decades the the change in the percentage has been astronomical changing from year round from homes that are occupied yearr round to homes that are occupied like a weekend a year or a couple weeks a year
and that's what we wanted to avoid so if we can find a legal way to to address that I think we'd look forward to hearing that I want to thank the board for at least coming to a closure at least on this um I do have one other thing for Gloria though before she
leaves um and it has to do and I think there's two references to this by Tong counil and the one that he makes a statement on is in section 7 where on page six section seven where
where the high where he highlights the 20% and I think one two three four five five footnotes down it says JT oh the Emerson test yes the correct my point is that a property owner made
challenge this may not pass what we call the Emerson test it would have been fabulous if we had an explanation of what the Emerson test was yeah my point this is yeah this is new yeah this is new to me and this is a com on this
is about the 20% the the only thing I can say is that there are a number of towns in the Commonwealth that have uh mandatory inclusion of affordable housing that's over 10% up up to 20%
there are towns that have 20% you know I just and so maybe there is an Emerson test and you know maybe we'll get tested in chadam whereas other communities that have 20% aren't getting tested I I don't have control over that
but all I can say is like the yeah the number of communities that do that is is growing I and I I think I when we discussed this before I agree with you his original comment on this is on page one under G where he said the Attorney General would generally approve
inclusionary zoning but justify an amount more than 10% is somewhat vulnerable to challenge I Prov I'm not quite sure that that's the case Province Town's inclusionary bylaw is a decade old and we did
16.7% and it was approved so I would say we'll need to if this always was our intent on this and we need to go forward with this let attorney general say yes or no to that agreed yeah yeah all right
okay good okay really good all right we're not done yet folks but I'm done Gloria we're finished with Gloria though I think do because I we need to vote this evening to send this to town C to uh just to refer it to the to the select
board that's all that's all we're doing would there's still opportunities to do other things we're going to have a public hearing on it we can make another adjustment if we hear hear something at the public hearing on it but each each one is going to be a short short
timeline it's not major overhaul right I would move that we refer this bylaw With The Changes we got a few more things to go over though oh do we yeah that's what I said we're not done yet and we need to remember that we're adding um the prohibition on
short-term rentals in the use table as a prohibited use my motion oh okay that's a good idea what more do we have well th this one is again another town council issue yeah thank you Gloria
GL um there's two components in here where we drafted some flexibility with review of a pre-existing and there was slight modifications if you have 200 square footage you can do this if you have a th000 square footage you can do
that that's that's where tongue Council has made a comment so the two sections are under page three procedure the entire second paragraph there so page two item four item four
under procedure the entire second paragraph and section 13 where it says all zones and that refers to a th000 square feet and criteria so I'm going to put my previous Town
planner hat on from harwitch very similar language it was done as an overlay district and it passed muster at the AG's office yeah having it having something 200 square feet or less being reviewed by staff it's got a appeal
procedure through the planning board I I don't I don't understand the concern quite honestly all right um can you um Christine at least read the comment that the uh sure um Town Council had on this CU he just raised this again with
his latest set of comments so the last comment that we received from him today on this is that perhaps if administrative site plan review was unsatisfactory you could allow them to apply for more formal site plan with the
planning board but rather than have a two-step you two-step process basically um may just do it all through the planning board site plan review so so taking staff out of it take a staff out of it was probably the cleanest way to do it I would just take the whole
paragraph out then you don't need it I and and I that was my conclusion on this too along with Section 13 because it's a similar thing where we're talking about th000 Square
ft but here's the here's the situation on this if there is a change that they want to do on this it's a pre-existing non-conforming use and it would not be before the planning board it would go to the zoning board of appeals that's my understanding only the site plan part of
it would go before the planning board correct only the site plan part but any type of dimensional or or change to setbacks and stuff like that would have to go to the zoning board of appeals I think the idea here was to have a stepped process I agree with you to make
it simpler for somebody if they want to do an addition and this is almost exactly how we did the overlay District in West hartch he was Raising questions on both of these paragraphs I mean it was done under a district of critical planning concern however you know we
have the formula based bylaw so it's I I I don't see a problem with this but I would definitely defer to others you don't see a problem leaving it in I don't see a problem leaving it in or being approved by AG you're saying that
we don't really need it that it might be simpler to leave it out oh no if if we are concerned with Town council's comments oh take it out but then we're taking out this provision that I think the board liked the 200 200 sare F feet
and the th000 square feet we like both of those is is it possible we we have a list of things that we're going to come back at perhaps next year like the height issue is this one of those is issues that we simply put on that list to come back next year because I am
concerned that Town Council is concerned about it it's up to you tonight to make a decision on how you feel about the the comment that he brought forward you don't necessarily have to act upon it I'm not saying I disagree or don't agree so I think it is something you can you can change anything put it aside and do
it with that other list we have going yeah you have to make it decision for this even St the paragraph is that what you yes for now say that again Frank you would like to well we have a list of things we're going to come back at um one of them is the height that's very
clear to me we're going to have to come back on on the height and there are others so I would add that to the list if this gets approved we're going to come back and take a look at it and see what it modifications what tweaks we need to make this sounds to me like a tweak okay so are you talking about in
section four and section 13 I take them out take them both out is what your suggestion but put them aside and look at putting them back in as a tweak if if if you will um that's where I would
go well he his last comment that he has here under 13 is is if uh it conflicts with the rights of a property owner to seek whatever they may like in terms of an alteration you can do this as a guideline but there are legal issues in
here and I think that's what is referring to they they would have rights as a pre-existing um use to actually go before say the zba and ask for a a special permit to do something different that doesn't comply
with zoning and they could still do that yeah even with this bylaw in in in place we don't have Town Council here no and that's why I'm trying to just put this aside and deal with it next year so
well uh okay Katherine so I just want to be clear so Frank suggesting we strike both paragraphs in both places in response to the hesitations of Town Council um Charlene has assured us that this same type of thing was approved by
attorney general in hartch I would just like to comment I've always looked at this particular passage as being extremely optional it was just added yes um at the suggestion of our previous Town planner Ryan christenberry for the
convenience of the applicant and I think that's why we agreed to it we thought in some cases it'll make it more convenient for the applicant but it's sort of not that much more convenient I think it's an optional thing and I would agree with Frank that that it's something we could
come back to and consider later all right um Katie is actually on on remote and I'd like to Katie I think you wanted to speak to this point hi good evening everybody um so yes I just wanted to point out out that Town Council had said you know we could
we could just make it a site plan review um but again I think that the board's option to strike it for the time being is also an option um and we can review it further um we can review it further down the road so I just wanted to make sure that folks saw that he had
suggested that um site plan review in it of itself was an option rather than an administrative review and then site plan review as well okay so this is the one of the last major things that we need to to decide
before we we're going to go ahead with referral so uh could I hear from each of the board members on which way they want to go on this um I'm I'm open to either way I'm I'm I think that these are good
ideas but if there's some gray area here uh I could live without it so Katherine um I would go for striking both paragraphs I think just for the sake of Simplicity and expediency and it's something and it as I mentioned I I've
looked at it as an optional uh uh route that we added for the convenience of the applicant but I I don't think it makes that much difference to be honest and I I would go for striking both paragraphs for the sake of Simplicity okay
Warren I think I would try and um utilize the expert and experience of Charlene here it's a real life example and if she thinks it would pass muster I'd be in favor of it um but I don't have a strong feeling that if it if it disappeared that it would do any damage
to the uh to the overall bylaw so okay but I'm in favor of okay of going with it um Bob yeah I'm I'm I got to admit I'm a little confused um I like the the making it easier it was a good
intent um if the good intent is we will allow site plan review for these kind of of um pre-existing non-conforming then let's just say that
if that's allowed no okay no so then I I I don't I don't I think either way works okay Charlene I'd go either way okay all right Frank um I agree with Kathleen okay and
Bob I agree with Kath all right uh for Simplicity I would concur let's delete the second paragraph on section four and delete section 13 right um um Mr Mr chairman can't delete
I I want to be clear that it's only the first paragraph only the first paragraph of section of section 13 and then the bullets that follow that okay you're right my mistake thank you if I if I could I think that the prop that they
were very well intended yes so I think we ought not to forget and come back to it oh we we have a list already I I um okay now before we move on to the referral I just want uh Christine who
spent more time on it than than I have if there's other things that we should point out to the board members before we refer this the only other things would be in section 7 um we uh did get the new map
and that is put in there um that does show the zones we did switch to the 150 ft that's that one um and it's in the it's in the graphic on that one as well um is that section six six page five page correct that's
this is the new map yeah I have a question on the map yes um I'm sorry to have a question on the map but uh if you take a look at the far right there's a lot on the north side of
Main Street and it shows the blue going into which would be zone A1 going into the lot behind it is that what we intend cu zone A1 is defined as areas within 150
ft for Lots with Frontage Zone A2 is that's correct I think I think you're right about that but I think they correct me if I'm wrong Christine I think that I've seen this before in our town center we did have a site that came
before us that had the dimension there and it went into the adjacent property which was not Frontage CVS yeah s market yeah and uh the market itself the mark the market is partly in there partly in there so I
think you can Define it this way okay right we we have several of those on the south on the south side too I noticed that that's why I jumped in well you may have to define the definition of zone A2 then
because Zone Zone B is Lots without Frontage on Route 28 yeah and one of those lots is now half in zone A2 so okay that's all right there are split
Lots yeah there split Lots yeah that's not one of them that's not one of them this the the first uh descriptor for zone A1 that the back of the lot goes into a different thing that's that's all over
town yeah but but I think Frank is right because if you look at these sites on the west on the Southwest correct they do not have Frontage on 28 that's right and they're listed as zone eight one and they're not so which which lots are you
talking about that are and that don't these here 150 setback there's second lot behind them have Frontage on they yeah I see all over town I I they've come before us this way
where there's two you have to make a decision yeah when you're there that's correct I do believe there's a provision in the um towards the Preamble if you have a split lot how you deal with that right yeah that's why
there's I will speak to uh Katie on it tomorrow and we will have GIS um I just wanted to it was unclear to me now that you point now that you pointed out I think it is good a strong point M Mr chairman we had we had at one time gone
by lot lines with this we did and then you decided to do it by the footage and this is what happens when you do it by foot you do it by the footage yes and there are ways to get around that yeah okay we'll we'll look at that as
one last thing good should be all right any that that WRA I'm I'm on uh anything else Christine um we had no other comments um
from Council on Section 8 um section nine we we went over the bullets for that which were bullets four and five um and we did find that they were in bullet four and that item it was in it's in the use table Gloria confirmed
it and then on both at five we were looking at um I'm sorry what page oh I'm I'm sorry I'm sorry uh so we're on page seven AG seven which bullet are we talking about at the very end three four the bottom bullet on that one so it's
starting applicant applicant May apply yes okay yes so I would say to you for that one um he had asked the comment and um so we do have that it is in the use table we did find it so I don't know if there will just be a note like if there will just be in the use table here if
you want to do that or if we just do it it's not necessary because it is in the Ed table and then on the following page on item um on page eight bullet number five which is the top bullet um you had given additional
clarification of what you wanted at the February 3rd meeting and Gloria did put um additional information in that on on February 5th so I wanted you to know that that one was addressed okay um we've handled the all zones and we've handled the foot the footnote so I think
we're good at this point okay so what you will need to do before we leave tonight is you will ultimately need to um refer the two bylaws so one bylaw will be the actual bylaw or two articles I should say one will be the bylaw and then one will be the the map with the
revisions that were just discussed a few minutes ago and those and those are the only two articles that we referring at this point there were other there were there were articles that we were considering but those are not going to move forward at this point just these
two can I just clarify what exactly are we changing on the map you're you're saying about the the lot lines the ones that are not part of that are not actually AB budding on Route um 28 Katie is back on
again Katie you you can clarify this yes it's a zoning map amendment to create the District no I understand that what but it was just said that we're going to address changing the map again I'm confused on what we're changing in oh I
miss I misspoke oh okay yes sorry we're not changing the map not that map we're changing this map so we're not changing the map right the zoning map Amendment will relate to the outline of the West chatam Neighborhood Center the subzones
will not they're not technically zones they're sub zones for our working purposes as we Define and review site plans however the zoning map Amendment will simply be the outline of the West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning District okay
great okay good all right want me to wing it uh yes Ju Just so you know we will do a cleanup on this so that we give a clean version and to the uh to the referral okay and you will all get the clean version too
my first motion would be to refer the changes to the zoning map for the West chatam zones to the board of Selectmen for inclusion on the town meeting warrant okay and to have it referred back to us for public hearing do I have
a second I'll second that but I think in response to what Katie said we're just approving the boundaries of chadam Neighborhood Center as a separate article to be introduced at annel town meeting just the boundaries just the boundary that's what we're approve
that's what we're sending not not this map the this is the map that goes into the bylaw itself right right I think that's kind of what I said so well it's not zones it's one the West chattam Neighborhood Center zoning District boundaries and we need to
change the title of this from West chatam zones to West chatam boundaries boundary I was referring to the name of the mount there is a separate article that we had prepared a a couple years ago that had all of this
defined and that is the article that we'll be putting forward that would the I would say to you if you look on page two of your bylaw the map that is there shows the boundary and that is the boundary is what is going to be put on
the zoning map for the and that would be what the separate article would be this other map is just something within the bylaw within the bylaw and it's not the boundary but are we then I would Drew I would withdraw my motion okay you need
to withdraw your second I withdraw my second I move that we refer the West chadam description boundary bylaw to the board of Selectmen for inclusion in the on the town meeting
warrant um and I second that motion okay let's vote on this first and then we can move on to the second part that's why I did it two parts I thought the first one was going to be easy so uh Katherine hurn I approve Warren Chan Warren chain approve Bob wsha Bob wter approve
Charlene greenh Charlene greenhalge approve Frank Shear approve Bob dubis Bob dubis approve and arts spur I approve um okay for the purposes of the proposed West chatam Neighborhood Center
District propos proposed bylaw I would move that we refer this um bylaw to the board of Selectmen don't worry I'm going to include the changes um for inclusion in the town meeting uh warrant W uh with
the Proviso that we delete the second paragraph of um section 4 procedure that we uh Delete on for the purpose on page nine all
zones the very first paragraph yep and that we include a definition for um short-term rental and that we include that use in the use table of
this bylaw prohibited across the board yep do I have a second you Al also need to um delete per uh Gloria's comments qualified household well those that's already in here those already deleted so
that's why those were already deleted okay but okay yeah okay can I get we're gonna put this map that's on page three just as it or five just as it is and not not
make that no we're going to put this map in there and then and also include the new map in section three of the bylaw subsection three of the bylaw section six sub we're going to
include the new Sub Zone Map okay what's the map on page three then this one no no this one okay the map on page three is just the boundary map okay then on page six okay page or section six page five section section six yeah okay were
there good luck Annie all right all right I I have a motion do I I have a second uh Bob dubis I have a second so let's I can vote on this uh Katherine hurn I approve Warren chain waren chain approve B Bob work shter I
approve uh shene Greenhall approve B uh Frank Shear I approve uh Bob dubis DUIs approve and art SP I approve we still got work to do but we'll get we'll get this to you um that I think that's all I have on
the agenda tonight any other any other things going make a motion to adjourn but I think I want to make one comment I just want to compliment the board yes compliment the board really Christine compliment Katie compliment our chair art who's worked very hard on
pulling this together you've done an amazing job pulling together all the the bits and pieces at the end and I just want to compliment everyone on a job well done really happy to see this done I'm I'm all for moving this forward because that's been a mission since I've
been as chair I made that commitment to the port and I'm going to still continue to do that until somebody tells me I can't all right on that note I move we adjourn this meeting all right second um kathern hu I approve uh Warren chain
Warren chain approve Bob rter I approve Shen Greenhall approve uh Frank sheer I approve b dubis b dubis approves and art spw I approve and the time is uh let's see 6 44 go Eagles
[Music]