e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e [Music] [Music]
good good evening um this is the planning board hyrid meeting for March 10th 2025 at 4M uh my name is Arts Brew I'm chair of the planning board please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly
thereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chair I don't see any notification so I'll continue pursuant to Governor
Healey's March 29 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain cid9 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law General Law chapter 38 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 1 8945 4410 conference ID 22768 128 pound or join the meeting
online via Microsoft teams through the link and the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we will
post a record of this meeting on the town website as soon as possible I'll start with a roll call uh Warren chain Warren chain presid uh Bob H chapter B chap present uh Frank Shar
Frank Shar present uh Charlene uh Greenhall will not be here Bob dubis will be about a half an hour late and Katherine heurn I can't hear you but I'm seeing you waving present oh thank you and arts sprw I'm
present um I'd like to just briefly um uh start the meeting off the uh this was originally intended to have a public hearing for the West chadam Neighborhood Center um bylaw however there was um a
posting error and we'll had to postpone that um public hearing until next Monday the 17th of March at 4M so um we will have a discussion later on uh in the
agenda uh but we will not hold a public hearing to tonight um so I would say that we would somewhat use this as a rehearsal or vetting out any last things that we're thinking
about or understanding with with it we do have some comments from to council and I'd like to go through uh those just to understand what their latest comments were
um I I will probably um uh delay any um start of that discussion until about 5 o' since that was the original time that was posted for today's public hearing uh just in case some are attending either
online or in person here so that um they'll at least uh hear the discussion that we have beginning at that point uh like to start with um review of the minutes um let's start with the February
3rd 2025 working session uh do have any of the board members have any comments or questions about uh these minutes I just have one very important one um at the end of the minutes uh where the last
paragraph Yes a motion was made that sentence there's an R that's missing from the end of my name okay thank you any other comments uh with that uh do I have a motion to approve the minutes from
February 3rd 2025 working session so move second no I'll second um do a roll call vote uh Warren chain Warren chain approve Bob wsha Bob wsha approve Frank Shear Frank Shar approve
Katherine hurn Katherine helper approved and arts spai approve um next uh we have uh minutes from our regular meeting on February 10th
2025 again any uh comments or edits from the board members I'm not seeing any any I have no comments myself do I have a motion for approval of the February 10th 2025 meeting
minutes this is Warren chain so moved and a second a second I'll do a world call vote uh Warren chain Warren chain approve art spr excuse me word sha word shter approve Frank Shear Frank Shar
approve Katherine helper cathine helpen approve and art sprew I approve all right so like to uh next item on the agenda is change of use 878
Main Street uh D do I have an applicant who would like to present please come up to um the microphone and uh just state your name for for everyone
hi I'm Caitlyn Dian um and I am trying to open a small uh highend salon at 8 um well I it's 880 Bean street but I think it's 878 on here um so I have been in
the process of doing this now for a few months and I'm finally here so I'm very excited um I originally am from Nantucket and I've been on Nantucket for about 15 years moved over here about a year ago um so I'm used to the small
town um with the type of clientel in this area as well as Nantucket um so a lot of my clients will be coming uh from Nantucket um to enjoy chadam as well so
I'm excited and I'm hoping that all goes well okay uh so this is uh just a change of use so um um Christine perhaps you can just
give a couple of highlights from your site plan review criteria that you had sure this is a change of use um application for 878 880 Bane Street um it was previously an office use it um it
happens to be a condo unit within a condo association um um the applicant um ended up working with a surveyor to develop a plan for um parking the parking is based upon the
fact that she has three um three seats or three stations so we we're looking at possibly three employees plus a fourth for um for reception or for welcome that type of thing and then obviously clients for each one of those and maybe a little
bit of overlap The Proposal the way that the um that the surveyor has drawn it is for um additional parking spaces on a grass area um I am it it is unclear from the picture if they're going to like stripe
them or if they're going to mock them in some way but that is something that you would have to have done um I think that uh we do have the owner on as well to speak to it the owner of the condo unit that is being rent Ed or
leased we do have um that agreement in place and we do have the um uh the uh authorization and we do have a copy of the lease as proposed we also have um comments received from the various departments in town so the
applicant has applied to the gpw for increased water flow um so that application is is in in their hands um there's no status on that yet we have also got confirmation from the Board of Health that there is Municipal sewer in
this area we do have a member of the condo association who is who has provided you some additional information that I passed out tonight it was a plan from 1990s when the when the um Association was developed or the the
condo the condo units were developed um and it talks to the the um parking spaces there at that time um this is within the historic business district so obviously if they go forward with signage or any external um amendments to
the to the facility eventually then or the unit they would have to uh go before the hbdc but at present we do not have any anything suggesting that they're doing any of those type of things um I guess th that's the highlights and
I would say to you um after you ask your questions we can have the member of the of the condo association or the owner of the unit that would they would like to speak well why don't we do that first let's uh see if the board members have any question
of the applicant and then we can uh go to uh the next p uh stage Warren any any comments questions well in general I think it's a fine change of use um I do have a few
comments one of which is um that uh there was a handwritten plan put forward for the new facility but I can't for the life of me make that plan make any sense at all with the drawings that we have well so that's why you received the drawing because that's what came in with
the initial application when the applicant had said that we've had it for a while is because that's what we received to start with and then they evolved to an actual the big plan that's on the screen now okay so so the three um I mean no I mean it's obvious if you
go out there what's going on just what was so I just wanted to so yes we made them say gee is this the wrong plan yeah no I just left it in there because yes part of the the um with respect to the parking I
do expect that with this change of use there will be um an increase in the number of cars coming and going from that site as well as uh the intensity during the business hours uh compared to what its current use is um as a result
um I would ask the bo board whether it's appropriate to ask that the two parking spaces which are allocated or required for the resident of the building whether those spaces um perhaps should be
reserved um such that they wouldn't be necessarily trying to find a place to park all the time um it also um um as was mentioned earlier the spaces I think they're five of them on the grass strip
I think that's fine um plenty of room there but at the same time it's certainly not obvious that it's parking space so there needs to be some way to identify that it's okay to park there whether it's a sign or whether it's uh putting replacing the grass with gravel
or something um or lining the grass or something at least signs which says it's okay to park here because otherwise people wouldn't um the is as well I had a question of Staff really and that is whether with this
change of use do we need any more than one handicap parking space because there's only one identified uh that's just a question um it did not trigger the need for an additional parking space handicap space
so we just need one one handicap space out of the 20 yes okay okay um so that would be my only question is to um is really whether we shouldn't uh reserve two of the spaces and so indicate with
signage for the um for the condo owner who's the resident of of the location two spaces are identified in the in the proposal for uh that purpose um but again I'd be guided by what the uh the
board feels seems to me it would be uh an appropriate thing to record fire given the increased flow of traffic in and out during the day um that and somehow um identifying that the grass bases are in fact okay to park on whether it's signage or some other
method but that's all um Bob where shter no comments Frank Sher um I I go to chadam works from from time to time and and when I do there are many
many cars parked on the lawn oh uh on on the on the on the grass often 10 or something like that and there's there there there's no indication that you're allowed to park there people just do do and they they
they they just know that that's okay yeah um so uh I'm I'm not sure that we need some kind of indication that it's okay to park there assuming that it's flat and very clear that it's open and
available um so that's my only input okay uh uh kathern helper do you have any comments or questions of the Epic um I do actually I'm just wondering if you could show us on the the uh plan
that's on the screen if you could use the pointer or maybe if Annie could help whoever's showing the screen show us where are the 15 parking spaces that are not on the grass and where are the five parking SPAC that will be on the grass it's just not
completely clear to me which are the parking spaces and which will be the parking spaces for the residents of the the building can please go ahead so I think it's all so this is where they go in so I think it's all these spaces in here um
where he had drawn it originally um I do those are the grass spaces you mean yes so somehow on my screen remotely there's your marker okay if you could show that again I didn't wasn't showing before so let's see where the grass spaces are so
in here and and there's five grass spaces showing there on that particular plan correct okay again I'm not seeing an arrow I'm so sorry it's okay I see yeah uh Katherine if you take a look at the
entrance drive into the site it's the it's just before you get to the paved area for parking it's five spaces on the grass on the right side okay so and that would be the East
I think correct that would be the East Side yes and there lines there're actually lines on the on the drawing yes okay yes okay great thank you I see that um uh so that was my question and then I
will go with what the board decides you've had two opinions about whether those spaces should be marked the grass spaes should be marked in one you know in some way or another I'd actually favor marking them or I don't know maybe
even a small sign something that lets people know that they can park there um so those were the only comments I had about I think with this change of use the main issues are um the parking the and the increased traffic and then the
water the sewage and water flow needs to be increased so thank you those are my questions okay thank you um and uh want to welcome Bob dubis he's uh join joined our meeting so can I yes
please go ahead I'm not I think that the actually what is needed is a barrier at the back of each parking space people don't go that a stop yeah yeah and that would tell people that there's a parking spot there yep just one cement or
barrier that goes maybe six Ines that just tells people not to drive past that and go down the hill or whatever you know uh so I I only U need one clarification the there was a site plan
that was originally approved back in 1995 1996 it showed um 20 spaces required and 20 provided um uh with this change of use does that requ it appears like it still only
requires 20 spaces is that right Christine that no that's why they added the additional spaces on the grass well the original but there was a different there was a different use well there was a different use before but there was a salon before so I guess it is a salon at
that time and it's going to be a salon again now okay so that way back when okay the use prob might have changed a few times since right okay okay um I think uh the um you're the uh chair of the homeowners
association um if you have any comments or questions of the board um please step up to the microphone and introduce yourself um hi David vich um I am the um an owner of uh another of the commercial condos in a one of the storage spes
below and uh am president of the U Condo Association uh I can probably help clarify a few things for you um the um the reserve parking so I did um I
provided you with uh a copy of the um the original approved site plan from when we developed uh this property and that actually was approved in uh February of 97 and uh at that
time uh the uh and and I made a copy of the um parking allocation parking calculations for that uh that I um passed out or gave to Christine to hand out to folks because I'm wanting to
compare that to this current proposal um the um so that site plan was uh the the the commercial units the there were the two um spaces for the
residential unit on the second floor but the three uh commercial units were all a portion parking based on the 150 uh one space for every 150 square fet as uh outlined in the bylaw for
retail or office type of use and um in in under those calculations and those calculations maxed out the 20 spaces there are 15 paved spaces uh in the lot and then five
Reserve spaces on the grass that have been shown that way from since 97 and they do occasionally get used the spaces on the grass and uh I'm not aware of any the confusion with respect to using of those spaces if the pave Paces are full
people don't aren't shy about parking on in the on those grass spaces but what if you'll notice in the in the 97 plan which I would think is still in effect uh absent
some other and I ID asked and there doesn't seem to be any other site plan in the file the um this the space that um Caitlyn is is seeking to rent was is allocated at 600
square ft of space and so and that's allocating four spaces if you go to the and and you look at the um what this say is 200 two 450q foot offices in the front building let's
call the building on on on the street which required six spaces the allocation of six spaces again 150 square ft per space Dance Studio Eight spaces same under the same same
formula this plan in order to so this plan is maxing also at 20 spaces but the the indication is that the harlon with three stations and employees
is going to require as many as seven spaces so that's an additional three spaces of them were allocated in 97 and in order to accomplish that on the on the on the um um current plan the one that's been prepared uh most
recently it's allocate the the the um allocation for the um front building the office space has been reduced to three from 6 to 3 as a remote
office so I as much as and I just found out about all this actually less than a month ago so I'm I'm I hate to come in at the last minute and and present this but to to us this is somewhat problematic uh I I mean we're happy to
have a hair salon in the space but if what that that space that that in the um front building that was shown year in this plan as offices eventually became a retail was it was u a jewelry store for a number of years probably for most of
its of its existence which by the bylaw requires six the allocation of six spaces so if you if if if we approve this plan reducing those six spaces to three
spaces I can tell you that the owners of that space AR are don't look favorably on that kind of change and so I'm not sure where or what how we can if there's a way to work this out I we're happy to try to do that but
it to me it seems that that this the issue is somewhat compounded because they are commercial because they're condo units commercial condo units so you have different owners for these different spaces so if you
shift allocation from one space to another you're actually shifting from one owner to a different owner and uh the condo association like many not all of them but the um apportionment of of
ownership the association is basically based on square footage so that Maps pretty well with this 97 plan where the allocation of parking based on square footage and it was Equitable from all the all of the uh all of those commercial units so I just wanted to
point that out I don't know how or what you know you normally take into account but we showed a plan that that maxed out the 20 spaces and now we're see seeking to intensify the parking needs for this
space and we still don't have you know we don't have any more than those 20 spaces that we initially had so that's um the problem as as as we the association the other owners see it and and I don't know I S I did
suggest um to uh the contractor who who contacted me is how I finally found out about all this and I don't know if if cait's amenable this but I so one Poss perhaps a solution would be in instead
of the three stations that it be two and if if you had so then if you had two stations couple of employees there's your four spaces that have already been allocated to that to that uh unit so um uh let me just uh ask some questions
of uh Christine the plan that was submitted that is uh dated um January 22nd 2025 uh they're showing an allocation of parking
um to each of the different units uh did did um your review confirm that this is consistent to um what the application was looking at and that there's 20 spaces based on the way way
the allocation is shown here and that's all that is required because I I'm getting the impression from the from the gentleman here is that there should actually be more spaces required not just 20 so what I would say was we did not have in the
files we did not have up until last week we did not have the 1997 plan okay um the condo association provided it we have we have really good files in the office we did not have that I did not
um I did not catch the reduction that the surveyor made in in some cases of what exactly um uh he was proposing and that so you know now I see the changes that have been made you know I mean I don't I did
not check that um well I see it now I I don't know that they had the right necessarily to do that um I think that we do have like I said before if we stop sharing the the photo uh the plan for a minute we do
have the owner of the of the property on um who had actually uh I have been able to confirm with her that she had had some type of a conversation or an agreement worked out with the condo association I did not have the president of the association um I did not have
that information as part of the application package that's not something that we normally request I had requested the lease and the author uh the owner authorization um in this case I probably should have asked for the condo
association as well um I I don't know if the applicant before us tonight was review uh was aware of of the need to maybe consider reducing the number of um stations in the unit so I don't know if you want to maybe propose to them that
they go back and work it all out um or maybe find some other additional spaces somewhere but it seems pretty limited where they can put them um Bob you have a question we need to conf us can can we separate out the condo's allocation of
spaces yeah first let's answer answer the question given the current uses at that place how many do we require right and if we require 20 and the condo feels
like the this application is going to use more than they should that's for them to correct to work out and not for us so I I just want to um I just want to clarify what is the given the current uses of the of the
site and with the change what is the out is 20 the right number or is it more because some of these other other uses are not uh what was their so it it's 20 according to what was approved in the 1990s there were 20 spaces
required whe How some of these things have changed over the years okay so we don't have a we don't no one has gone back over this site and said given the uses of the other two applications and
this one it should be right X so we we need that yeah so there's two common elements um from each of these it's the dance studio that has eight spaces and a residential that had two spaces now
where the difference comes in is office and salon and it was offices and Retail now the off the offices there was they were saying that there was two offices of 450 Square ft each back in 97 and that
required six spaces there only they're showing now office only has 900 square ft so um is is maybe that's something that you can help us with is that still the case that there's 900 ft for the offices it's it's it's still the case
that essentially for for parking planning purposes it's considered 900 square feet it the I wasn't sure I wasn't until I looked at this plan I dug this out of my files but like you know initially uh the plan was actually
prepared before we formed the condo association but the uh original proposal what they thought they they would have a couple of 400 square 450t offices in that space as it turned out it was a a
single tenant took the whole 900 squ foot space was a Jew as I a jewelry store that was there for a number of years so that um the I guess from from from the perspective of the other unit
owners I I mean you know it may be that the additional requirements that that that are being sought that it may be that within those 20 spaces we can absorb that yeah but the proposal on this to go
to this site plan I don't own the unit that's that's um in question that's slated to be reduced from six spaces to three spaces MH but I've spoken to those folks and they're not happy about that
and and so then if they were to come back in right now it's an office they were to come back in for retail use as it as it was for most of time that would speak to saying it needs six spaces so now they only have three so that's kind
of so I I guess with this new plan I don't know where the uh whoever the consultant was who put this together um so they they took and changed the 900 square square foot of office that should
have been 150 square feet requires a single parking space that would be six spaces still so there there there may be an erir in this plan so this I think what had
happened is the people that rent the realtor space in the front had written a letter for me I don't know if you gave them a copy of that um it basically is just saying that in general they only use one to three spaces typically for
and that's very rare and at the most um in the three years that they have been there they have only seen five cars you know in that lot um during the time that I would be open uh because the dance studio also has different hours than I do um usually Dan is in the afternoons
and I'd be closed by then or on Saturdays and then also they have you know their recital where at that point they're taking up all the space probably there just to have a recital so I feel like the space itself can hold enough
for everybody that's there but I do understand this part that if someday that's not the case that they want their spaces so I don't I I yeah I I I think that excuse me I I think that it was real nice for them to offer that the the
point of the matter is is when a use is set up for offices and there's 900 square fet the requirement is um six parking spaces so you can't make that go away just by changing the number trying to be nice and be like Oh know it it
doesn't work that way now we as a board would have the ability to wave that if we felt it was necessary okay I'm not finding clear uh information to say that that's something that we we should be doing but it it sounds like there should
be more parking spaces in 20 with the way the uses are set up today I I I think you you need to get together with the other unit folks and work this out and come back with something that tells us what you really want to do because if
somebody comes in and wants to just change their use and still retain the office we're going to require six baces and now what happens then the burden goes back on them and that's not that's not really the way this should work the applicant who's coming before us needs to deal with what the requirements are
for the for the entire complex so I think the best thing for you to do is to work this out and then come back on what you propose to do to resolve this because we we can't we can't resolve this um uh just by saying well we're
going to wave those those spaces I don't see a reason that that should happen with the amount of use that happens here at this location Katherine do you have a comment yes thank you Mr chair um I just want to um what's the word support what
our chair is saying and I think what we'll need to see is can we get a very clear table on the one side all the different units and what the condo association how many spaces the uh have
been allocated to each unit um and then we want to look at the current use in each unit and next to that uh with the Community Development Department put in the number of spaces required by the bylaw for each of the
current uses and we need to see that table very clearly in order to determine whether you know whether there's some sort of violation of what the condo um Association has allocated to each unit
or whether there's a need in the bylaw to wave some spaces or um something like that so we just need to see it very clearly a table with those two sets of numbers side by side um and then we can evaluate the situation and and if if you
work it out to say that you can make 20 units work and you're asking for a waiver then then that's what you should be doing is asking for a waiver because otherwise we would be requiring more parking spaces so it's it's so so we could try
to work and see if we can you know what what we think in the answer to because then you're committing you're committing that as the criteria then moving forward for this site the
um actually first one comment I want to make was this the plan the current plan was prepared by the son of the gentleman that prepared the 97 plan okay um and um the yeah I think we can I the and the
condo association does not have an allocation of parking we've always basically tracked with the the the this plan that was done in in 97 from time to time there there have
been some Park from time to time there have been parking issues but generally and over the last especially over the last few years I'm not aware that there have been problems from time to time the those uh excess those the Reserve spaces get used but not not
frequently but again that's 20 spaces and and and that front space I don't I'm not sure I'm not sure where Thad came up with for for a remote office needing for
900 squ foot office needing to show only three spaces yeah oh according to according to our parking requirements there should there should have been listed six spaces there on his new plan so if you if you take for where the
salon is going where the retail was before which was four spaces now what that does is increas this up to 23 spaces on the site now that's just running through the uses and the square footage and the requirements all right
that would be what you should have came forward with and then ask for either a waiver or you someone is going to you know uh limit their ability because if a use comes in afterwards on the offices and they want six spaces we're going to
be asking for more parking so um that's why I'm here to to point out that that that discrepancy right I and I think I think it's it's best if you work it out first and come back and tell us how you want to approach this because I don't think we
can just approve the plan as shown with 20 spaces if the use is calling for 23 we need to resolve that issue first before we said okay we can wave or not wave or what and why would we do that okay so I yeah I mean is that is
that something the two of you can work out and then come back I hope so um so so we if we could work some we can work something out that we think it's going to work then she can ask you for a waiver that would be if if your uh
Association supports this and you're seeking some relief then that's what you would have to do and you'd have to convince us that that was something that would we could we could uh vote for and approve so the association we need to ask for for uh well again I think we
have to start there first because the association is is is part of what this uh new applicant has to has to get involved with if I could Mr chairman yes please my suggestion would be that if the
association was willing to do so that it would write a letter and support to provide the applicant to submit with this application or when they come back for approval I don't you don't have to apply for the waiver per se it can be done in conjunction with this
application I think that exactly so the association could write a letter in support of the of the proposal yeah that that that is showing up needing up to seven spaces over because we want to put that into our record here because if somebody comes
back afterwards and has a change of use with some of the other units you know it's going to trigger the same question right we we won't be playing musical chairs parking spaces basically so okay well I hopefully we can find I will speak to the other members and see what
we can do yeah epin is that all for you too yeah sure okay I'm willing to do whatever I realistically need three chairs in there to make it work financially I understand that yeah but I will let have them Park in public parking and bring them myself from there
I will make it work so I'm very open to making it work all right thank you all right so we need to continue this then or um set a date for that yes we have to set for no I would I would ask whether um
when they think they'd be ready to come back based on uh yes if you could uh continue to be by the microphone there and we'd like to continue this um when do you how much time do you think you need to resolve
this uh two weeks sometime in April we usually meet on the 2 and fourth Monday of uh but we do have public hearings on the 24th of March so yeah our preference is not the 24th of March yeah it's so
yeah that's two weeks we I I mean I there's not that many players to talk to and I I don't know we'll we'll see how how about the first month uh our first meeting in April then is April 14th April 14th do you think you can we'll put you on the agenda I would
hope so I mean I would hope we can come to an agreement I okay um and then we'll we'll go from there yeah okay okay okay April 14th April 14th right we don't we don't need U make a motion or anything on this do we you do
need to motion to make a motion to continue then um I hear a motion to continue the 8 878 Main Street um site plan review meeting to April
14th so move uh do I have a second second um Warren chain Warren chain approve Bob worter Bob wsha approved Frank Sher Frank Sher approved Bob dubis I'm going to recuse myself or uh uh
what's the other word okay because I wasn't here that's fine and uh uh Katherine hurn yes I approve that we continue this matter to April 14th and art sprew I I approve of the continuance we'll see you
on the 14th thank you I don't think we're going to have to worry about 5 o' uh let's see next agenda uh next agenda item is site plan approval amended change of use 200
Meeting House Road uh Sun shelf storage so that when the applicant had um sent an email on Friday saying that they would be requesting to come another time they didn't quite request a continuance but they said that they would not be
available for tonight's meeting um we do have some items with that one and um in talking at our meeting today ear with art um there was some consideration of maybe requesting a time for a site visit for that particular one the issue here
is that um it is a self storage that you had um approved previously um there was a there was a request by the planning board at that time to increase the size of the um Island out front the applicant is now requesting to keep it the way it
is they're also requesting to keep a couple of trees that are on site that appear to be in good condition um and then there was um a relocation of the HVAC unit we're mainly concerned with the size of the island so unless the
other option would be if you all want to just go out there and take a look and kind of look over the meeting minutes from that meeting to kind of refresh yourselves those are an option or I can request a formal site visit with all of you uh I think the um confusing part I
had on this when I saw the application is um I wasn't all they did is submit um uh xerx copy of the previous plan and then they just circled things with yellow mark so I'm not quite sure what they're asking to do they they should be
a little bit more definitive on that and with their information know what they're requesting I don't know which trees that they're talking about that they want to uh um preserve and keep and which propos trees that they don't want um they really need to give us a little bit more
information so that we could make a better informed decision on this um are there any other comments be before we just I did go out there and okay they're they're in the package there are pictures of the trees that they want to keep MH so we know what the trees are
that they want to keep and they are in good shape Christine you went out there and you you you thought that the proposal to uh increase the size of the island would pose a problem or could well I think is that your opinion that
is correct I I think because given the um the the tightness of that of the front aspect of that site if you know bringing in if you're bringing in a truck or something like that to a storage unit to put items in then maybe it's concerning but then um in looking
going back over your meeting that day and going over your minutes watching the meeting um there was a reason why you had asked for it the applicant had had said to me during the um the site visit that um the engineer at the time had offered it up to you
um as an as an option without her without her knowledge initially um okay I yeah I I personally do not see a need to necessarily that's I'm perfectly willing to go for a site another site visit but
my my reaction is that we could we could possibly just approve this uh um I defer to your greater well experience um I was uh I was here for the previous um right
um site plan modification and and there was uh major discussion about this point uh one the use was changing from what it was and um the appan was putting parking
in the front which they show a space there we asked for and it's in the conditions that the circulation Drive is 24 ft there actually shown 29 1/2 ft even with the extended Island so
eliminating that extended Island puts it like wide open and we wanted to manage the circulation there's no we felt that we'd like to see more Landscaping there I think there was a criteria that the first 50 ft or so
needed to have Landscaping I I'd have to go back in and look at this there so there was a reason why uh we uh put that as a condition and I would like to have the applicant come
forward and make their case uh and rather than just make the decision without the applicant here um and you know I would probably go out there again I was sort of uh out of commission over the last few weeks with uh with the flu and it sort of didn't catch up with a lot of the the homework here that I
usually try and do before I have my meeting yes uh so I would just suggest that um we if if if the board members would like to go out as a group or individually that's fine um I think it would be uh helpful if we uh just
Revisited this and I I would take a look at at the conditions that were put on there and sort of ask why and then I want to understand which trees are are are proposed trees are not going to be put in and which um existing trees are
staying it's sort of hard to tell from looking at that plan now I can take a look at pictures and all of that but um I I would like the applicant to clarify that for us and maybe when they come next time they can do that I agree and thank you for the background okay so
with that uh I guess we should uh Mr chairman Catherine Mr chair oh I'm sorry go ahead uh Katherine I apologize no that's all right no worries it's hard to see someone remote and Mr chair I do want to support what you've just said um
and what I find is always really helpful um we need to see clearly the plan that we approved and then we need to see exactly what they want to change on a plan in a picture I would like to see that before we do a site visit if we
choose to do either a formal or individual site visit um I just we just need to be very clear about what they're proposing to change on what the plan was that we approved previously and I do recall Mr chair there some of these
issues um we did discuss at length when we first reviewed this um because of the the issues that you've described so thank you that's it Mr chairman uh yeah Mr DUIs we could either have them flag the ones that are coming out ah good ide
flag the ones that are staying yeah and uh good idea he could he could uh if he knew what day we were coming out there he could spray paint the islands that he wants to add on to uh so we get a visual out of that another good idea I like both both of those okay um so we should uh make have
motion to continue this are we going to do the first meeting in April again for this well we have to we have to talk to them but I would continue it till the first week of April I will tell them yes okay so um uh that's April 14th yeah there'll be a motion to
continue um the site plan approval amended change of use for 200 meting House Road to April 14th 14th 2025 do I have hear a motion for that so approve so move so um and do I
have a second Mar Chaine I second thank you uh I'll take a roll call vote uh Warren chain um uh approve by wor Shafter approve um Frank Shear approve Bob DUIs
Bob DUIs approve um Katherine hurn yes I approve and rspr I approve okay so I would uh we have a few minutes before five so what I'd like to do is um the public hearing is uh was
originally scheduled for five but I'd like to take the long range planning and one item out of order there the future uh accessory dwelling units bylaw update and uh just to give a an update from
staff about um what the next steps are with that so we received the um State um accessory dwelling unit bylaw and we have Town Council is currently reviewing
it um we will bring comments to you all once we get all of the comments in line staff is going over it as well um we are waiting still for the guidance from the seasonal communities um uh from the seasonal communities
bylaw so that we can incorporate that into it as well so this will be something on your docket for long range planning as we move forward yes Christine this is a proposed bylaw that we have here that is what came from
that's what we have from the state right now does it say proposed no no so that's the state that's the state bylaw I'm sorry that's the state one you do not have you do not have the proposed one from from counil yet right I from my understanding is that it will um uh
require some major changes in our bylaw and a redrafting needs to be done for the for the bylaw so uh based on the the law the legislative law that was passed okay um uh Katherine do you have
something yeah no just my the same thing um when we get to it if we can again just see clearly I mean what the bylaw that we have currently in place and what the proposed changes are based on uh the
changes in the Massachusetts state law um when we get there um so okay uh all right so the next longrange planning item
since we're not holding the public hearing is um a discussion of uh the West chattam neighborhood uh Center District bylaw uh just says uh a a reminder for the public
the original date for this hearing was scheduled for uh today the 10th at 5:00 however due into a posting error we it was required us to actually um reschedule this public hearing to March
17th at 4 4 p.m. so therefore we are not going to uh be um uh holding a formal public hearing tonight we're just going to have a dis sort of uh I would call it a prep meeting uh by the board members
um and we do have comments from Town Council on on the latest draft that we have I thought it would good be good if we could review some of those and see um what issues they raise and I don't expect that we will make any decisions
on this at at all tonight that that is something that is going to be uh deferred to the actual Public public hearing on the 17th um and uh I would say at the end if uh there is any public comment um that
would be fine however um that public comment is will not be official and will not be part of of of the record for the hearing because that would either have to be submitted in writing or if uh the
public uh attends the meeting on the 17th and they present their comments at that point so with that if I think everyone has a copy of town council's comments and maybe we can go through
these as we did before some of these are pretty straight forward um but the implication on this is if it's a simple text thing the edit might be straightforward enough for us to do the edits would be done after the
public hearing on the 17th for referral to the select board on the 18th so we really don't have time to I guess make major refinements revisions that we would need to uh discuss and
deliberate that is part of what we have to live with based on on the state we have right now I think after we review these comments and we make um an we have an understanding of what the major points are that to Cil is bringing
up if after the public hearing on the 17th we find it NE uh necessary for us to um make some uh adjustments in this we can make a decision at that point on whether we move forward with it or we just
leave the uh comments as they are I mean the um the language as it is also I believe this is being reviewed by the Attorney General's office is that right uh Christine that is correct the Attorney General's office um had
offered uh recently to review bylaws in advance of town meeting um they did it particularly with regard to the exess dwelling unit um bylaw obviously since we do not have ours ready to go forward yet um we had inquired about them
reviewing this bylaw so they do have that um we hope to receive comment within the next couple of days does everybody have a copy of the bylaw with the with the with the um Town Council comments in front of
you it seemed like it seemed like there was some confusion down at the end yes yes that's that's that's true I think just Bob Bob dubis doesn't have it is the version that we just I think um different than the comments we have seen previously from Town Council that's
correct this these are these are more recent y okay's the is there a date of these more recent so I'm sorry you have to is there a date of the comments so at the top it says uh February 13th we received them
on the on the 20th from so we had given Town Council a clean copy based on all of the revisions that we made and started fresh with check with uh track changes so you have yeah this Annie had passed this out prior to the meeting um we do also have uh the housing
specialist here today to answer questions as we go through the items okay uh when don't we start um some of these are going to be pretty quick others are going to be a discussion it so um let's let's just start with the um first one on page one
this is a comment that's been carried over by Town Council for quite a bit and I I think uh our understanding after I talked with Christine about this is and this might be where we look for feedback
from the Attorney General's office there may be no issue associated with this uh we won't know that um and if my understanding is if we had a uh um bylaw
for the inclusionary housing that this would be something that could be covered every place and not just for this meeting and I think Gloria can perhaps clarify that for for me or
incentive um yes as mentioned this is a comment that is um consistent um saying that you know maybe 20% is too much I would put out the possibility that maybe as part of the purpose we could say something like um obviously in better
terms but like because chadam is so behind the game and we're at less than 5% we need to actually have a higher percentage in our inclusionary bylaw to push us up to that 10% so that can be part of the purpose if you want to go that way I think that the 20% is
probably fine um without that though I mean that's why we're doing it right if we put if we put 10% on there we'll never hit 10% right um Bob where sha there no I like that and I I I like having it in the at the beginning and
beef it up a little bit the purpose okay uh one comment yeah Frank please yeah this has been submitted to the attorney general it has been submitted to the Attorney General's office they're going to do a crary review that does not mean that they're going to approve it even
after if town meeting approves preliminary it's just a PR preliminary look um I I think obviously I am not a housing specialist but I had some consideration to maybe the purpose you can still have it be the percentage that
Gloria has suggested 20% or whatever the percentage is that you want but maybe you don't need to be that specific in this opening opening statement so that is another option you can pursue as well I mean you seem to all be in agreement with going forward that way but most of your other purpose items are um very
general in nature so I don't know if we just leave the 20% later on in the document but that is another another thing that you should possibly consider so if that's the case I would I would end up striking all of the language after West chadam neighborhood
center and again that's for consistency with the with this the guidance the other oh I see okay okay so uh going on to page two these are just uh some
inserts that um the Town Council has put in here um it was just for clarity these are pretty straightforward I didn't see any issues with these if uh the first under procedures by the planning board was
added at the end and uh after affordable housing the a dwelling unit that is was added so it's just some language that Town Council wanted to use for
clarifying the points in that section you see them the underlying sections are what the Town Council has added um page three uh cther can you remind us yes
what what is the current page that we're on uh that was page that was page two page two yeah at under under procedures it was uh Town Council added by the planning board at the end of the
paragraph okay fine okay thank you all right um similar on page three at the top it was added at the end as clarification a deed restriction for attainable housing shall be the longest
Peri perod Allowed by law and I think this is something that we talked about previously well that's it's also further on in the document okay thank you it was already added just not there all right so underneath the next
one which is inclusionary housing um this is where uh I think there was uh uh some points that the Town Council wanted to make I'm not quite sure um
it how um because I don't think we use the word inclusionary housing any place El in the document do we Gloria um no I mean you guys asked for a definition of we did to me it's it's very odd having a definition which isn't used anywhere I
agree yeah okay so but oh wait a minute it is you ah Christine did find it someplace just a minute where it's at the end of section s there is one in the section seven yeah it's on page the last bullet six and it
is the uh at the top of the page the second bullet first first line uh in the first line it says for additional units in development of over five units that result in a fractional inclusionary unit
but I'm not quite sure that's the same thing as inclusion and housing so I I think we're still okay with deleting this and it would be it wouldn't be an issue I agree okay yeah I I think
agreed is that you Katherine yeah I just agreed okay um I think dels are easy to do it's where we get into added language that we would really
need to actually review it by the board that's where it's going to be might be a challenge for us so on the next on the next one uh the uh Town Council put a question in using Advanced Reser
reservations we and and I think Gloria helped us with this this is consistent with the board of the health definition and and I so it's actually the state definition oh in statute and and the code of Massachusetts regulations so this is actual language at that level
that we pulled into the Board of Health and that we mirrored in the planning board stuff so I I don't see any issue with us keeping it the way it is I would I would recommend that you actually do keep it so that it is consistent with the law thank
you okay I think that was it on that page so now we go to page four and this was just underneath mix's use there it's just he added um a statement in after commercial and
residential uses and he took out and dwelling units at the end so that was just a a little edit I didn't see any issues with that okay so going on page five he
highlighted each of the bullets underneath section s and then his comment is over on the top of page six and this requirement could be vulnerable to a challenge um
um I I'm I'm not quite sure where the issue is on this and maybe it's the 20% um maybe you can 20% or is it the payment and L so this payment and L mirrors um what we did in province toown which was approved by the AG's office
like 10 years ago so I don't if the if the overall issue is a a payment and loose schedule there's already you know approved um municipal bylaws that include that so um maybe it's a more General um you know question about 20%
as oppos ex except the for five new dwelling units it clearly says 20% and he didn't he didn't comment that com on that one so maybe you're right yeah uh this to me on this one uh if
we're going to flush this out further would cause us to pause this bylaw I don't see a reason to do that at this point if there was a major flag on this if we got something from the attorney general's preliminary review that said that there's an issue that might well
why yeah why don't we wait and see if we got a reaction but well we're not quite sure when we're going to get the preliminary comments from the Attorney General's office sure but um I don't understand the comments so I can't uh okay uh moving down on page
six I think he put again he he kept inserting the word a average construction cost in every single one of them anyway that's a simple clarification um I don't see any problem with that moving down to the just above
Section 8 he modified the language there to instead of value replace it with construction cost that's a a pretty uh easy uh change of the language there is
clarification uh if there's no comments on that we can just go to the next section8 um okay so Section 8 uh underneath density bonus and this was a highlight comment that he had before so
double density for one extra affordable attainable unit and this was commented before and we said said yes so so and that and that's misleading too because if you double the density and you end up with 10 units you actually have 2.5
units that's right of inclusionary housing not one so I I don't know where that came from I I I don't see any issue with this this is always our intent and and we've written it that way
um just below that on the third bullet down it says uh if the 25% density Bon requirement for attainable units that should say affordable and attainable yes affordable and attainable yeah okay I don't know where that okay that got
lost okay uh going down to section nine below these are just some edits that uh Town Council was making with some of the language um first required unit shall be an
affordable unit that's the language that he is suggesting to used and shall be an eligible for inclusion on the town's subsidized housing inventory uh any any so I I I might go back to the definition and change
affordable housing to like affordable housing unit or or something like that okay I mean if you're going to add it there I would add it yeah I would add it and then he Carri I mean the Lang the language that was now crossed out and changed to Affordable unit was actually
edited by attorney talerman like that that was the the language that's there was you know his language affordable to households earning at or below 80% of Mii and then and it's consistent with what we have in the second which is second require
um affordable to households earning no more than 100 right all right so he had he added the language and attainable unit in each of those cases I I guess again he was trying to clarify a point all right well but so so actually
I'm glad you pointed that out because um was that the intention that it would absolutely be attainable cuz I vaguely remember conversations saying that it could be anything up to that like it could be affordable correct so is that is that
the intention that we're only doing attainable units or are we giving them the option of doing anything up to 100% I I thought it was the latter that that we were given them an option to do anything up to 100% that was that was my
recollection as well so does that change the language I would take out a tainable unit so the second require one can be up to 100% meaning it can be 80% which is Affordable 90% attainable 100% attainable
yeah Mr chair may I make a comment please Katherine go ahead um I do recall however that there was some discussion at one of our board meetings that we did want to make the second one attainable
rather than affordable because we wanted to ensure that in addition to to Affordable with a capital A that we did get attainable units so I do recall that the board discussed um you know that we did want
the second required unit to be an attainable rather than affordable I I don't think this is I don't think this is eliminating that but it's given them options that they could go with an affordable unit though okay that's what I recall is that
we actually not it written it said it shall be an attainable unit oh I see yeah oh I see what you're saying yes is my recollection too we had decided that that would be a useful thing to do all right so what what is
the board's uh U pleasure for this how well if that's what we decided then the the the wording is I would take his Corrections and leave them leave the leave his Corrections all right um Katherine is that is that okay with you
yeah all right I I recall that we did decide that we wanted the second one attainable so I would be in favor of just leaving the language as it is okay I might unstrip the in the first bullet point affordable to households earning at or below 80% Ami that way
it's consistent with everything else so the first required unit should be an affordable unit affordable to households earning at or below 80% the second required unit shall be an attainable unit affordable to households earning no more than 100% additional units may be
uh attainable units actually we should say affordable or attainable units how about that unless you don't want any more than one affordable unit that I mean I think what I said is we didn't want to do this we wanted the
second one to be attainable what about the third one yeah the same thing we wanted the third one to be attainable that's um okay yeah yeah all right so um the second and third bullet we're
going to leave the word attainable units in perfect each of those uh next page seven um I think when I talked with Christine about this and Katie I think if we this is the second bullet there
he's talking about the base amenities and I think if we insert after in Quality Base materials and finishes that should address the comments that uh Town Council has has made there associated
with the comment jt7 so just add the word base before materials and finishes that's that's what I think what we suggested right when we talked yes that's correct yeah so if one of them has a hot tub they all have to have hot tub I mean
it's not just the materials it's the amenities as well so I think we yeah this this is actually an interesting comment comment yeah it is well doesn't it read so indistinguishable for market rate units in Quality Base materials and
finishes comma access to and use of amenities so that would be amenities within the development yeah it doesn't it doesn't seem like we're going to require amenities for do you know what I mean
cuz base would be describing materials and finishes so it's the adjective for for those but access to and use of amenities is a separate you know phrase so the regular
base unit has has a fancy um bathroom yeah and the others would have to have that same bathroom they would if all of if like the base materials and finishes are you know marble countertops
then yes they would have to have that and and there's no room for um custom well the other so the other units could have custom things but if like the base that they're going from is marble counters then they're all getting marble
counters some people can upgrade okay you know that's I just it doesn't say that though okay it does say well if sorry this is Katherine can I go ahead um if we add word base as we're suggesting market
rate units in Quality Base materials and finishes access to and use of amenities and location if we add the word base they can up upgrade over the base it's just that the affordable and attainable um deed restriction well the affordable
deed restricted units need to have the same base level so just to reiterate what Gloria said if the base level is marble countertops they will have marble countertops if someone wants to upgrade to Carrera marble countertops or
something they don't need to have that that's an individual upgrade yeah and the access to and use of amenities is is separate that means the amenities for the development yeah I agree I I it's fine because I don't think we can get around
it but every every Builder will figure out a way to make to get around that this one but I don't think we could stop it right let's just put the wording in the way it is I I agree
yeah uh the next bullet down um this uh the type of review it is a special permit uh so the suggestion uh is the applicant May apply apply to the planning board through the special permit process for a discretionary
waiver so just insert the words through the special permit process and that addresses that item it's just a clarification that it's not site plan it's a special permit agre
agreed um the next uh I think the fourth bullet down this one is a little tricky um I think the comment that is put uh forth by the U Town
Council does uh State some nuances that that occur based on certain situations um I don't know how we're going to resolve this language um before uh we can um refer
this to the to the select board so I I think this one we either this goes into the category if it's important enough for for us to address then we may have to look at pausing this uh advancing this
bylaw or we just leave it the way it is right now and if we run into some issues we can we we'll have to deal with it that's that's my that's my take on this
comment I agree okay uh page let's see what page am I on this is page eight uh there's a bar underneath section 12 parking setbacks Christine I'm not quite sure what that one is is
looks like there's a period oh oh okay so that's just a typo piece um the next one underneath section 13B it's the second bullet um a he's referring a certain amount or
any and I think my discussion with you Christine and Katie is let's just delete the highlight and if residential development includes deed restricted affordable housing units maximum height
allowed is 2.5 stories so it's just a simple doesn't his his was complicated ours was actually confusing it so just delete it and it's pretty direct um Mr chair I again as I had sent
a message off to you with a suggestion on this that um I don't have an issue I suppose if the board is fine to um do what you just suggested but if so then the first bullet there is meaningless because as soon as you have
a an affordable unit in a development of perhaps 10 12 units per acre or something like that it means that every structure in the entire development can be two and a half stories high no it's just that structure but it doesn't
that's not what that's not what you suggested is that was that part of the bonus like the that's correct density bonus my understanding is this only is applicable to the density bonus so then so then maybe we so if a residential
development includes 25% deed restricted affordable housing units as opposed to 20 well no I think the maximum I think what the sense of the board was when this issue was sort of in the drafting stage was that if um a a building is
going to have affordable unit in it or units that will'll try and part of the bonus could be that would be two and a half stories whereas one but that's an incentive right that's for the 25% as opposed to
the base affordability of 20% um May I make a comment Mr chair uh yes Katherine go ahead um the way it's worded here is just that for a deed restricted portable housing unit we wanted to allow 2 and 1 half
stories so I don't think it was a part of the bonus or anything it was just any deed restricted affordable unit would be two we'd allow two and a half stories whereas otherwise we were allowing two stories I think it was just that simple
well if it were worded that way that would be fine but that's not simple but if it's not changed from what it is then the limit of two stories is meaningless as long as there's one affordable unit in in the entire development right but people may if
we're one at time Bob go okay if we're building single unit structures that works if we're building multi-unit structures then it's two and a half for the structure not for the unit so yeah
um I think we have to fix this to either be I I thought the 25% if you get the 25% then you can go to two and a half still stories that's seems to be what we we want but that's different because 20
isn't the 25% a mix of affordable and attainable and this is referring this sentence here refers just to destricted housing yeah so I don't think it apply we might need to reward this to
say what we affordable and attainable housing well if that's what we mean I don't think that's what we me I think what we meant was for deed restricted affordable housing units we wanted to allow two and a half stories for that building yeah that's correct
building that had an affordable or attainable unit would be two and a half stories so if there is I don't think we included attainable in this I think was just affordable as I that's the way I'm now that you mentioned it Katherine that's the way I'm reading it too if
there is an attainable unit it doesn't go two and a half stories it's two stories correct cor correct we wanted to make that allowance the only place that you're allowed if you if you take a look at the wording of this it's only deed restricted affordable housing units are
allowed two and a half stories that's all nothing else is allowed two and half stories no but it as if the residential development and the development might have one building with one affordable
attainable unit in it oh I see what you're saying develop given two and a half stories even though all of the other buildings so the clar market rate units exactly so I see what you're saying so if you have multiple structures and only one of the
structures has an affordable unit that's the only structure that goes to two and a half stories all the other structures don't because don't have it cor otherwise bullet one means nothing so is this something we can clarify with some e easy adjustment yeah yeah see we'll
word SM it okay thank you thank you just some basic English grammar changing around that's what I'm hoping on in this yeah is that is that uh agreeable with the board okay I think that was the
intent all right next on page nine uh it's down at the bottom of the page I think um four bullets up from the from the bottom okay I think when we this has to do with historic structures I I think
when we talk about this Christine Katie the uh other the general bylaw does describe this correct okay that's not that right there yeah okay historic structures the historically significant Billings are
structures as defined in section 158 of the general bylaws of hbdc so it's there in the general laws so I'm not quite sure that we need to do anything associated with this it is it is elsewhere and I think at the but you
could make reference to that if you want to that other section in the general bylaw I think you mentioned to me Katie that there's a a piece in here that says that oh I think that's the that the rest of the bylaws are
still revisions the section right that was not in relation to this but other sections of the town's proteced bylaws also apply within the district except that where this section conflicts with and and differs from other sections of chanam uh protective
bylaw so underneath two applicability it's saying that all those other sections are still applicable that is clearly defined in other sections so I don't think we have to well it I kind of agree with Christine it would it wouldn't hurt to put in a reference
that's correct if Town count council is asking a question I suggest that that's reason enough to put a parenthesis in there you know see okay blankety blank okay and just to clarify bylaw yeah go ahead those are not necessarily defined
in our protective bylaw they're oh they're in our general bylaw oh General bylaw okay okay I think we should clarify all right so the language that I read There is what we would be adding okay I would agree to add a reference to
the definition elsewhere all right I'm at page 10 now at the bottom of the page Street trees I don't think we need to make any edits here I think it's uh it states that the
planning board and consultation with a tree May wave this and it's during the site plan review so it is clearly stated here so I don't think we have to do anything on this particular one agreed that agreed
agreed agreed and I think we're getting close to no other edits us usually the case that nobody read puts edits on the last four or five
pages we don't read this okay there is there is one other item that came up when um Christine and I were um first at the select board meeting and we
discussed this with them um the question of a single family residential uh was raised um I explain our thought process associated with this um however there may be something that um the board would
would entertain associated with this um I think we always intended that zones A1 and A2 would not have single family residential we're looking for that to be um you know uh multif family dwelling
units however Zone B which is off the main road there's a few lots that are existing today that could fall into this category not many I I think a couple
three um we could add uh under the table there um special uh for zone A1 and A2 single family dwelling units would not be allowed but um we could consider
language to allow single family housing to still be built on properties by owners in Sub in zone B by special permit at the time when this bylaw was adopted and or consider something like that we can put language in on that now that to
me would be a little bit of a compromise because this issue keeps coming up coming up coming up and and I can understand if it's far enough off of the main road and the main zones that this is something that we consider and it
would only be a few lots that are existing right now today it wouldn't apply to New Lots if somebody was creating a new lot right and they wanted to put residential on it then I would say no so it only existing
lots that that would be a suggestion to perhaps address this question that keeps coming up yeah I I I think that's a very interesting proposal I would I would agree with that Warren chman I I I would and
respectfully disagree with that we've had long conversations about this and I'll characterize my sense of where we came out and that was there are few enough Lots in the west chadam Neighborhood Center to develop there's
no shortage of single family dwelling units in chattam as a whole there's no shortage in places where you can put a single family or single dwelling unit and Our intention here is to increase the density right of housing in the west
chadam neighborhood center and therefore in order to consistent with that overall objective we do not wish to have single family dwelling units built in that one small little section that is limited in
its total ability to increase density by allowing single family dwelling units and that's why it is the way it is so that's my recollection and the way I still feel I I I think I was in the same thinking that you are um however I've
gone to the to the direction of we're increasing the amount of density here now on this we're allowing um more density than when we originally started with um this is going to be a good thing we've done buildon
analysis we've gotten images from Union Studios associated with this we can get and we'll see that development can occur on this where many of the larger sites could be residential uh multif family
residential uh the number of lots that this could apply to is very limited we talking about what exists today and the way they are um today I I think this would be a um reasonable compromise
because of the density that we're allowing as a bonus to all the other zones um and this is not a requirement this is an option it's a special permit we would still go through a process of vetting this so I'm I'm thinking as as a
compromise this is something that because it's very limited uh and we've adjusted the density up to the point that we are going to have significant density if we have one or two in the B Zone only that are pre-existing today as
single it it it it it's not going to break the bag I understand the comment okay um and my recollection again my collection is that as we discussed this y the compromise that
we sort of came up with was the introduction of the um transition zone concept which would be correct um adjacent to the West chadam Neighborhood Center potentially on both sides and in a transition zone
we could have increased density but would it certainly permit single family dwelling units y um and that way um you would be able u in the next iteration of of zoning
modifications to address that issue but again we come back to it there's little enough in the way of space in the west chadam Neighborhood Center um and to um in the net well unless we prohibit
single family dwelling units that's what you're going to have we have them being built in the commercial zones in town I mean yeah but we're not talking about this in the A1 and A2 zone no I understand that this is I understand outside of the major Frontage zones of
it's not a question of what it looks like from the street or anything else it's a question of the number of housing units that we're going to be able to put in the west chadam Neighborhood Center the intention is to increase it by increasing the density and single family
units don't fit with that overall objective there's plenty of places in town to put a single family dwelling unit we don't need to put it in the one little section of town where we have said Gee we're trying to increase density increase
affordability and uh that's why we ended up drafting it saying no not in this area transition zones that's a good concept I agree I think that's great um and single family units that are on perhaps smaller uh lot sizes that would
be authorized in transition I think that's a terrific idea I just um firmly remember and was very much in favor of saying well not in the west chadam Neighborhood Center no single family units that's not what we're looking for
there's plenty there already right I mean they can be redeveloped at single family units it's not as if there aren't any all right let's let's hear from the rest of the board members uh b or chapter yeah I I I tend to agree with Warren that we had okay we had address this and first of all I don't think it's
a big thing because you're talking about an existing property so that existing property does have the right to stay a single family okay right no no we were talking about vacant Parcels
that are in existence at the time of adoption of the bylaw could be allowed by special permit as they would be allowed Now by special permit to build a single family dwelling so you're talking about maybe three or four lots that are vacant Parcels
currently in the west jadab neighborhood center and again we were thinking wording that the lot would have to be in existence so you couldn't subdivide a lot and put a single family dwelling on it but if there were some of these smaller Lots in
the zone B that would lend themselves better to a single family dwelling rather than a multi family dwelling that the board could entertain a special permit in zone B only that and that was staff's
recommendation for wording can we put a m a maximum size on the on the on the property because I mean if it's if it's 40 if it's a a half an acre it really should have two units
so you you could say lots under a certain Square footage but it have to be real small because we would really love to have a duplex on there yeah yeah I see what you're saying uh good point of uh Frank your
thoughts on this we have we haven't changed anything by the way I just know this was brought up and I thought it was something that I I should share with the board members just just to flush this out before we
finalize I I I think that um I'm I'm I'm reluctant to take existing property rights away from somebody um and so someone has a lot and they have been planning to put up a building on it a
house their their home and now they can't um and that just kind of makes me feel uncomfortable um the I think the reality is that this resoning is going to make the Lots worth
far more uh if they're developed with the bonus Etc than if they if someone does put a single family home on there so I think the even if we allow this the reality is that of those four Lots maybe one would end up actually having a home
on it yeah um so I I'm in favor of of that approach that you've that live okay um uh Bob DUIs I'm in favor of not allowing the uh single family houses okay in that area because there's not
that much area left right and this is what we're trying to do okay is your mic oh sorry did I say it all right yeah want me to say it again as long as yeah go ahead I said I'm in favor of not allowing okay single family houses okay uh Katherine do you have a comment on
yes I I do Mr chair um uh when we discussed this previously I had understood this was for Lots where there was already a single family home built on that lot that we would in a sense allow that to be grandfathered
right you know to use that word um but if it's pertaining to vacant lots I'm afraid I'm going to have to uh change my opinion and concur with Warren and Bob dubis that I think we should not allow
sing new single family homes to be built um I think we need we've been quite strong on that since the beginning this is the place where we want to have multif family housing allowed um and smaller units I think in the buffer
zones what we're thinking of is smaller single family home we might create a new Zone like an r10 or something and have smaller unit you know sort of the cottage type of development um that could still be single family homes but I
think I had understood it was for already existing single family homes in the B area but if it's for vacant Lots I would agree that we should not allow single family homes I don't think we're uh taking away property rights in some sense whenever we do zoning we're taking
away property rights and we're creating property rights we're defining what the property rights will be um and in this sense I think what we be doing would be consistent with the rest of the district so I I would favor not adding single
family homes one suggestion I'd I'd make is we could see what the public input is at the public hearing y um because I think uh it's also correct to say that we we haven't really heard a huge outcry
you know from many people yeah um that they want single family homes in West chadam so why don't we also hear what the public says at the public hearing right okay Katie did you have something you wanted to add no okay only only that
state law protect would protect any pre-existing pre-existing right single dwelling right so just that that that's how that would happen not necessarily through anything that we're writing into this bylaw correct um if you look at in the
residential section one two three four boxes down this is on a table yeah multif family dwelling with one to four residential units I think it should probably say two to four oh yeah yeah yeah if we're if we're not allowing
single family homes yeah that's right good point good pick pick up okay I I think that uh Katherine's suggestion is is that we defer this to um uh to after we hear from the public input on the
17th and we can go from there uh I think it might be tricky uh to get the language in uh in less than a 24-hour period afterwards so um that might be part of our challenge associated with
that uh if there I think that was the last of the comments right now so would like there's there is some um next we have one comment from um the zoning um permit coordinator thank you that we
need to address the first one uh that one there okay landscape standards page 11 Corner lack concern reducing two to three inches to two and
a half would solve the issue I'm I'm not quite sure what this is talking about okay so at the end of of that um let's see page 11 right page page 11 the third bullet which is third bullet the first bullet starts on the first page so at the top of the page the second bullet
down it says at the end um and or a low fence or landscape wall 2 to 3 ft in height and she is just recommending that um you make it below 2 and 1/2 fet because there is something
in the protective bylaws that refers to 2 and 1/2 fet okay so it's only for Corner lots and it's for like visuals okay so just change the two to three to two and a half two yeah two and a half and Below or or maximum of two
and a half% okay Mr chairman that's that's for site when you're driving around a corner that's correct yeah yeah and this is at the top of page 11 is that correct yes second bullet
Katherine okay got it okay and the other uh nothing on second comment okay does that are we did we tackle everything yes I was going to go to if if there was um any public comment and I
I just uh uh like the public if you do have a comment um you will either need to put this in writing if you can't make the meeting on the 17th or you would need to appear on the 17th for it to be officially a a public hearing comment so if there's a I don't see any hands
raised but if there's anyone would like to make a comment of what we've discussed so far not seeing anything um that completes activities for for the night cther Mr
chair yes go ahead Mr chair could I um maybe you can verify this you know subsequent to this meeting but according to my notes I saw only one comment from attorney tman that would cause us to
have to pause this going forward um that might take greater uh uh consideration by the board and work and that was on page seven seven yes his comment yeah that was the only one I noted that could
cause us pause so um I just want to say I think that's pretty good and we need to look I will review this with uh Christine and Katie and seeing if how uh do you me much of an issue no occupancy permit
one pardon me the no occupancy permit bullet point uh that's correct he highlighted the last um last part of it which says has been recorded at the registry ad deeds and so that's certain nuances of particular
applications might require different criteria so so one of the ways that you can handle this in an ownership project is to say something like um the last occupancy permit for a ndeed restricted
unit cannot be issued until the deed restricted unit is recorded so instead of having deed restricted units recorded you can go on and fill those units um market rate affordable but you can't fill the last market rate until you have
the deed restricted unit for the afford the deed restriction for the affordable unit recorded okay that's that's a way of getting developers to do that last affordable unit when they have to wait to do the very final unit so let's uh let's catch up uh on this Christine and
see what that would take to do this okay any other items before we uh have a motion to adjourn okay seeing they're hearing none uh do I hear a motion to adjourn you get
your job back yeah I move to adjourn do I have a second all right roll call vote Warren chain Warren chain approve Bob wora Bob wsha approved Frank Shear Frank Shar approved Bob dubis Bob dubis approve Katherine helper Katherine helper approve and arts
Brew I approve and the time is uh the 555 [Music] [Music]