[Music] [Music]
Good afternoon everybody. This is the town of Chattam Planning Board hybrid meeting for September 29, 2025. My name is Charlene Greenhild and I'll be the acting chair for this evening as R is not available. Please note that this
meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for schedule and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording, if you would notify the chair at this time, it would be
appreciated. And I'm guessing no one is recording. Uh the call-in number for this meeting is 1508-9454410. Conference ID is 5157636 pound. Pursuant to Governor Healey's
March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law chapter 30A
section 20 until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Planning Board is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the
proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number and using the conference number that I already noted or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the
link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we will not be able to provide real time access. We will post a
record of this meeting on the town website as soon as possible. At this time, I will note that um Bob Dubis and Katherine Halpern are also absent this evening, but in attendance. Let's do a roll call. V I'm actually going to start
with Frank Shear. Um present. Bob Worfer, present. Welcome. And Warren Chain. Warren Chain present. and I'm Charlene Greenhelge and I am also present. Uh the
first item on the agenda are the meeting minutes of September 8, 2025. I know I had one very minor change that I noted and it's on page two and it is the third full paragraph. Second line at
the very end um it says within four months it should be within seven months. Did anyone else have any corrections or amendments? Um, I have a question. Uh, we, uh, the
minutes have to reflect what actually occurred. And I believe I said seven months. You believe you said seven? I believe I said seven months. Okay, very good. Seeing no other changes, uh, can I entertain a motion, please, to approve the minutes as amended?
So moved. Is there a second? Warren chain second. I'll do a roll call. Warren Warren Chain approve. Bob. Bob approve. Frank. And Charlene Greenh. I approve. Thank
you very much. The next item in the agenda is a continuation of the public hearing for 104 Crawl Road. Uh this was um uh Terry Eldridge presented this. As there is no one present uh this evening,
um I would entertain a motion to continue this matter to October 27th, the next regular meeting. So move. Second. Roll call vote. Frank uh approve. Bob, approve. Warren.
Warren chain approve. And Charlene Greenh approve. And just getting my things in order here. Uh the next item on the agenda is the site plan approval um for 71 CL
road. Uh they have requested a continuence to the 27th of October. Uh do I hear a motion to continue? So moved. Is there a second? Warren chain second. Roll call vote. Frank
Bob approve. Warren approve. Charlene Greenhild approve. Moving right along, the next item um and I do believe we have Susan Leoo uh with us uh via Zoom. Hi Susan. Um this is a
release of Covenant 435 and 50 Stson Cove Lane. Um Susan, if you would like to present this. Yeah, just quickly. Susan Leoo from Eastward Companies and we've uh been uh hired by the Watts family to demolish
the existing houses and build the new homes. Just so you have a little background on our role in this. And we are requesting a full release which are lots 27, 27A, 28, and 28A of the planning board covenant in order to be
able to apply for uh demolition and building permits on the lots. And so we are um I submitted a construction estimate for the driveway that's required to the rear lot or with what
will be 35 uh Stsons and Cove Lane and uh and we've presented that I think it's at the back of your packet uh the estimate and I believe it's 65,200 for the cost to install that
uh driveway as it was proposed. osed and approved by the board last year and so we are uh proposing to post that as security for the release of the lots and uh that's my presentation I can answer
any questions and and just as an aside we feel the existing uh driveway uh to the structures that are there now will suffice as far as the construction for the new homes and uh we'd prefer to hold
off on putting the new driveway way in so that it's not disturbed during the construction and and all the movement on the site by um vehicles and and such. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions or comments?
Um I had one question and that is uh the proposed driveway. You'll have to refresh my memory as to whether or not it's to be pvious or impervious. Um, in other words, gravel such as is there already, or is it going to be um asphalt?
It's my understanding that we're it's going to be um a a gravel or reclaimed asphalt surface. Yeah. I don't I don't I haven't been I haven't seen anything that says that it will be paved. I I believe it's going to
be the same as what is there. Frank, did you have something? Yeah. Uh partly because I'm so new to the uh uh board, but I'm wondering whether we could run down each of the covenants and have uh an explanation as to why they should be released.
That make sense. I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you say as to why what? Well, we have 11 covenants, I guess, or more than that if you and I'm wondering whether we could just run down quickly. It may only take a minute or two. and
explain why it should be released now. Oh, why it should be released now. Yeah. Okay. I'm confused on the 11 covenants. Well, I was looking at this which is the conditions on the statement of conditions maybe. Yeah, exactly. Right.
So, if we go down to help me as to why we should release. Yeah. I mean, I don't know specifically why the planning board at the time chose what they chose to add in here. I mean there are certain things that happen each time. Sure. Um but I can I can tell you like in a
general sense. I mean basically the first thing just talks about whatever is on the the definitive plan that was proposed. So like any new any new subdivision plan that you see. Okay. Second thing is so that we make sure we have it by a licensed professional. You want to have a you know a certified PE
you know professional engineer or you want a surveyor or something like that. And when does that happen? Once the work is completed, they are required to submit an asbuilt plan before we would release the bond. Okay. So, we're releasing the covenant
but not the bond. Is that why this they're seeking to switch from the a release of the covenant in place thereof of a bond? I see. So, the bond will cover all of the Yes. Yes. Okay. So, the reason I'm fine the reason that that happens is so that
they can build on the lot. So that's why they want to do that and we want to cover the cost to make sure that they actually don't disappear prior to construction being completed and leaving people in addition. So all the conditions are still like utilities underground and all of that are still going to be okay.
All of that still and the only thing that's being requested this evening is the request of covenant, not the statement of conditions. So they still need to abide by the statement of conditions. Thank you. Anyone else? Um, I did have one thing
and and thank you uh Christine for noting it in the um in the staff report uh in my former world as a planner um there was always a contingency uh because you don't know how long it's
going to take for the work to be done and if it takes a couple years for the work to be completed the costs are going to be greater. uh in in other communities I've worked in, it's been 150% of so one and a half
times uh what the bond or what the the cost estimate is. Um and that would be $97,800. Um I personally am more comfortable with that. Um, I've seen and and and in
discussions with Christine, we've both seen in communities that we've both worked in where things have happened in the town ends up having to eat something. So, um, no disparaging about the, you know, uh, Susan Leoo and
Eastward companies at all, but I think it's a good practice to have a contingency, especially for a a subdivision. Sometimes what has happened here from speaking to um Katie is that um because
of Bob Dubis's expertise, he'll he'll kind of go over things in advance, but by the time we had received this, he was already away. Um and he's not going to always be on a board or, you know, he could be away or be something. So maybe a standard practice going forward might
be a wise idea. And I mean, again, the cost of materials, everything is changing so much. It's particularly important now more than ever. I I'm fine. I'm fine with the one and a half. I don't think Bob's expertise changes the
matter that the prices that we need more protection. So I I think if that's what is standard in most other towns, I think that um we should do the same. Warren, the other thing you should also keep in
mind is that the um the applicants can go and as they get work done, they can request, they don't have to request a full amount. They can request, you know, installments along the way, and they're going to want to get it done as fast as possible anyway. This, you
know, Warren, um I was going to bring it up when we got to the uh to the posting of the bond. I agree 150% sounds fine. It can be reduced along the way if appears appropriate. Um but um the estimate that
we have largest item in it is um is listed as reclaimed asphalt service. So to me that says it's proposed to be asphalt. Um and I am not the drainage expert around here but there's um the
properties here are very close to wetlands. Um I'm not sure if it matters that we um to me it doesn't matter at all, but I'm not the expert to know if it should matter to the board as to
whether it is um to be paved or gravel. Um my vague recollection um confirmed by the applicant was that it uh they thought it would end up being uh gravel, which I'd have no no complaints about.
Um but the question here with respect to the bond would be if it's not asphalt it would be a lot less than $15,000 for the surface. Um so it would affect the amount of the bond obviously. Actually when I read it and it I read reclaimed
that to me spoke to um actually a pvious surface because oftentimes they will reclaim the asphalt. But um Susan, if you want to just clarify that.
Yeah, it it will be a a gravel surface. It's just called reclaimed asphalt. It we're if if we were going to be paving, we would have said paved or um a final coat a first coat of pavement, a final coat of pavement. So it's as per plan
that was approved but I did not resubmit the road profile plan but it is I think detailed on that as approved and then as far as conservation uh both properties have orders of conditions and both have
been uh proposed houses on the lots have been approved in the site work. So the conservation commission is well aware of uh what's proposed for the site and the resource areas will be well protected
and we will have a limit of work fence uh between the houses and the wetland area and as you probably know from looking at the plans the driveway is the farthest item on the site uh from the wetland area. So hopefully that answers
the questions. Um, no that's very helpful. Thank you. I mean to me reclaimed asphalt means they're taking chewed up asphalt surface and mixing it with brand new asphalt to come up with the pavement. But so I'm very happy to hear that that's not the
case. So um the only other comment I'd have is whether we need um a single bond or two because we have the requirement for a two-year maintenance of the fac of the of the road. That won't be until such time as the road is completed and everything has been released from the
statement of conditions as well as the bond being released. At that time, the board would impose the um $1,000 bond for the two-year maintenance agreement. And so, it's clear that that won't be forgotten in the two years it takes to build something. That will not be forgotten.
Okay. Then I have no further comments. Thank you. Okay. Um, I would entertain a motion to release the covenant for 35 and 50 Stson Cove Lane, lots 27, 27A, 28, and 28A in exchange for a Is it a cash performance
bond or some other? It will be a check. It would be a check. So, a cash performance bond in the amount of $97,800. Seconded. No, somebody has to say so moved. So moved. Thank you.
All seconded, Frank. Okay. Uh, roll call vote. Frank, approve. Bob, approved. Warren, approve. Charlene, approve. Thank you very much. Bye, Susan. Thank you. Have a good night. You, too. You can reach out to the uh community
development office about how the submission works. Okay. Thank you. We'll do. Thank you. Bye. Next we have a release of statement of conditions for 33 Khloe Lane. Um is John
Broadick present? He's online. Oh, hello Mr. Broadick. Would you like to explain what you're looking for? Sir, I think you're muted. Sorry. Yep. There you go. I'm good now. Yeah.
So, I'm looking release of the uh commissions of uh the building permit on 33 Cleo Lane. Christine, would you like Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Would you like to add to that? Christine, I'm sorry. I thought you were
breaking up a little bit. Um, can you say again what I am looking to uh be released of the conditions on the building permit at 33 Cleo Lane. Yeah. Okay. So, um uh Mr. Broadick has
requested it was a one lot subdivision that was um amended in 2024. Um both Art and I have been out there a couple of times and gone over things with his engineer. Um and we have looked at construction. Um
uh so the work has been completed as requested. Um, when I was reviewing the application again today, just to get ready for the meeting, I did notice that one of the items in the statement of conditions from this one was for the two-year maintenance agreement, which is
similar to what we just had for the other one, in a bond of not less than $1,000. Um, that would be released after the completion of the two-year um piece of it. But, uh, there is no um concern with releasing this particular property
from the statement of conditions. Obviously, we would um you would sign the form tonight if you approve of it and then um we would give it to Mr. Bradick upon submission of the check to the planning the planning board office for submission to the um
the uh treasur's office the treasurer's office for the uh $1,000 which again would be released after the 2000 after the uh two-year agreement. And we would also need a copy of a of a maintenance agreement which would give him a pretty standard one that we work from. I I just want to be sure
I I have to say on my behalf I'm the only one that takes care of the road. Um my other two uh people on the road don't take care of it at all. So, uh, it's it's it's always been up to me. My
director Butter is, uh, is, um, the owner of Delmare Properties, and he does not really take care of his property at all. He just rents it. So, I'm just I'm just saying that I mean, I I'll put the thousand dollars up, but I'm the only one that takes care of the roads because
otherwise the town won't plow it. And I've I always look at the uh Cape Cod Chronicle and they they always tell me whether or not it's uh up to up to uh snuff, if you will, uh to to be plowed by the town.
So anyways, I uh so you need me to uh bring the planning board a check for $1,000. Hold on one second. Um the other thing I want to make sure that you're aware of that this has nothing to do with the building permit. you said something
about the building permit. This is actually the statement of conditions um regarding the subdivision, just so we're uh clear on that. Okay. Okay. Well, yeah, I'm I'm new to this. No, that's quite all right. Do any of the board members have any questions?
And see, Warren, this is a catch where they caught that we need to do the maintenance agreement for two years. Um well, first I just wanted to recognize that um the applicant has submitted different photographs of the
property um which um are really to replace those that were sent to the board because the ones sent to the board are not of his property. So, I'd like to make certain that we recognize that the proper photographs are um inhouse and
and held. Um and also that um the um department uh write up on this item u incorrectly lists the address as zero Cleo Lane and I believe it's 33. It's it's 33. It started at zero. Um on
the planet, it's zero. So, we would reference the plan, but we do on the revised piece that I gave you today, we have to put 33 once they get assigned an address. Okay, this is fine. Um, as long as it's I have been assigned I have been assigned an address by the town.
I just don't want it to be a source of confusion in the records when somebody goes looking for something that doesn't exist um or is incorrectly described. Um the maintenance agreement um I recognize it was on the board when
we we we put that in. We thought there might be a significant amount of damage to the gravel road and and somebody needed to take care of it. Um and therefore that requirement that there be a bond at the end when uh to take care
of it was put in. Um I don't have a strong feeling either way about that. I think there's an enlightened self-interest on the part of the people that are using it, including the applicant, um, to ensure that it's passable. Certainly, there's no damage
to uh, in in my estimation to the road that was there before any construction began. So, um, there's been a year and a half plus of construction without any damage that I can see. So, I don't have a strong feeling about it.
um nor am I exactly sure that we have accurately accurately defined what we uh would have in the future specified constituted a maintenance agreement. Um um and so if we choose to have a bond
for a maintenance agreement, I think we ought to decide here and now what what it is that maintenance uh constitutes maintenance. Um, as I say, I don't see anything at the moment that suggests that anything needs to be repaired or
any maintenance is currently required. But those are just my comments. The maintenance agreement, if I might, um, is to ensure that two years from now, it looks like it does today and it hasn't degraded. No, it looks better. It looks better.
It looks better now than it did uh even before the construction started. I I put uh two tons of uh dense grade uh through the road and I filled up all the ruts and and everything else. So, I mean that's just what I do. I mean, no, there's no question. It looks
terrific. No, thank you, Frank. So, there is a a standard form of maintenance agreement that we use. Uh could we just circulate it at some point so we all can see what that says? That would be great. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. And why is it two years?
I just I I don't know. Again, these are things that have been in place and it seems to just be what what it is happens here. This was in place when I was the assistant planner back in 1987. But we could change it at any point. And when you look at the And it's in the it's in the subdivision.
Yeah. And it's in the subdivision rules and the rags. Certainly, if it's something that the board feels when when we review the subdivision rules and rags that we need to change, that we can do it then. We definitely don't have to do things just because things have always been done, but this
is where we're coming from right now because of how it's been done. I mean, and it's also, but we can change it going forward. And it's also in the subdivision rules and regs. But the guy we want to ask the guy we want to turn to about how long it should be is not here,
right? But it is in the subdivision rules and regs, which if we're going to entertain changing it, we need to wait till Bob's here. Yes. He's the one that would and it requires a public hearing and and other such sundries. Yeah. No, no, no, no, no. You're Yeah.
Well, it's it's been there forever. If my memory serves, when the whole subject came up, the the basic concern of the board um was that the road was in less good condition than it is today. Thank you, Mr. Applicant.
um but that after construction of a year and a half it might need repair whatever and that until things settle and so on. So two years was kind of what came out as to make sense. Okay.
Um but there was no uh reference or consideration for this is kind of the standard of what we've always done or anything else. It just seemed to be a reasonable number. One year might not been enough. two years is more than enough and um where more where I sit
um I don't think I don't think it's required at all the roads in better condition now than when right when it was first proposed I was thinking as a as a as a process as a procedure but again and we knew we need the other Bob here to and also you know not to belver this
it's in the rules and regulations that there is a twoyear maintenance agreement with a$1,000 bond And it is to ensure that two years from now it is in the condition two years from now that it is today. And
I have no doubt that Mr. Brick will definitely do that. But until we change that, we need to abide by that. Absolutely. So, so, um, I would entertain a motion to release the statement of condition for
zero Khloe Lane, aka 30 Chloe Lane, lot 14A, and to require an executed maintenance agreement and a $1,000 bond be posted. So, moved. Is there a second? Second. Uh, Frank,
approve. Bob, approved. Warren, approve. And Charlene, I approve. And what you will need to do is get in touch with the community development department and um they will explain and iron out what you
need to do uh going forward with this. Okay. Okay. All right. Have a great evening. All right. Thank you too. Appreciate it. Okay. Bye bye. Bye. And next we have um release a
statement of conditions for nine Betty's path. Uh this was Mr. Lichfield. I don't know if anyone is here for this. I am here remotely madam chairman. Well hello Mr. Lichfield. How are you today?
I am well Miss Green and members of the board. I will be brief because you have in front of you a very succinct uh staff report. Uh this is essentially housekeeping. Uh it was a statement of
conditions reported back in 2010. In 2014, uh the road maintenance agreement was recorded and sometime thereafter in 2021, I believe the bond was released.
However, uh there was never a request to release uh the statement of conditions and as uh in the staff report, while it is specific to lot 4, it would be sensible to release all of the lots 1 2
3 and four, lot two is owned by an entity called the town of Chadam, and I don't think they're disreputable, and they won't cause any trouble for the planning board. So if the statement of conditions in its entirety can be released, we will leave you in peace.
Does anyone have any questions? No. And this did have a maintenance agreement which that got released. So this was just an oversight at the time. Exactly. So it is in your packet just before the 11 by7.
Uh ah does anyone have any questions? In that case, I would entertain a motion to release lots one through four of the statement of conditions for Betty's path. So moved. Is there a second?
I'll second that. Frank Sher, roll call vote. I approve. Bob, I approve. Warren Warren chain approve. And Charlene Greenhild approve. Thank you very much, kind sir. Have a great evening. Thank Thank you very much. I
appreciate your assistance. Okay. The next item on the agenda is a request for comments for the comprehensive permit for Meeting House Road, the Penrose project. Um, we got a which I feel is a very good um
staff report dated September 29th um from Christine outlining the criteria and where it might be not quite in keeping with that. Um, you may have noticed that we also have a
draft letter dated September XX 2025. And talking to Christine, um, the, uh, the items for consideration were just an example that she used based on the Main
Street um, development that this board reviewed and sent a letter on. Um, so on this. I'm wondering if it might be helpful to actually go through each of the criteria. Um,
the two questions you ask me first. Oh, which um Oh, yes. Thank you. I know I wrote that down. Um, I did ask two questions this morning. One was regarding criteria number three, which was the um the
parking and that they're asking for a waiver on that and that they are required under the zoning bylaw to have 84 parking spaces. They are proposing to provide 60 parking spaces and therefore a waiver of 24 total spaces. And for the
life of me, I can't remember the second question. The second question was uh when letter will be due. So, if you uh point out to me um the items you want in the letter, we'll do similar to what we did with um with regard to the Main
Street property um we'll be reviewing it and then we'll send it all back. We'll send it back out to you for final comments, but we need to iron it out tonight because the letter is due by October 13th um for the meeting on the
16th and you are not meeting again until the 27th of October. out. Yes. And the board did do a preliminary letter to the zoning board of appeals back in August that um excuse
me that Christine and Art drafted and was submitted to the zoning board of appeals. Um and I think that was actually pretty thorough myself. Um so I don't know if the board is comfortable. Do you want to go through each criteria?
Do you want to re-review the comments that we made in the letter of August 28th? Is there anything we want to reiterate? Um what is the board's feeling on this? U somewhere in the uh support documents
for this item. I saw a reference to an updated plan by the applicant and I'm wondering if that um has made any recognition of the comments that we already made to the ZBA prior to their
presentation to the ZBA. Um I feel a little bit as if they're now being asked to comment about a plan that none of us have seen. So I do not have an updated plan at this point. We have not received any updated plans. Um there was an email that went
out last week referring to some items. Um there was a peer couple of peer reviews done for um things like traffic and things like that. So those plans were all available. Um I guess what I would suggest to you is to
um maybe consider having the criteria with the comments. If you just go through these this piece of it and putting that in there, they're a little bit more specific than we had in the first letter. The first letter we really kind of focused on the the fact that the subdivision thing had not been um ironed
out. We had requested a couple of pair reviews. Um we had uh had had um uh had a comment about the um access to the other property. So if you want to give some direction in this way as far as the
criteria and the actual things that we don't have we have also we will end the letter Warren with um a comment about having any updated plans and offering comment again um throughout the process we did try to do that with the last time
to date for for the other project we have not been asked to um submit another letter with updated plans or you know as a result of reviewing updated plans but there's nothing preventing you from doing that. Let's just say so I would say the same thing in this case.
So why I think then why don't we go through each criteria? Um do you want to run through it? Do you want me to run through it? Oh, thanks. You just don't want to talk. Okay. No, that's fine. So the first criteria and again this is under site plan review
criteria, not subdivision criteria. So the adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic control. Um staff has
provided that the site plans do address these item in varying degrees but is still unclear how the access to the abetting property is going to be resolved. The proposed resolution to the abuter access agreement item may change the layout in some way. So, the
agreement must be finalized prior to the completion of the ZBA review. Could not agree with that more. Um, I don't know if we need to add any more to that, but I think that's pretty straightforward myself. Um, does do the board members
agree? Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh criteria number two, adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections with with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
uh convenience. Again, the staff has provided that the plan does not show the required connection to the off- streetet sidewalk to the south of the property. The town should consider whether the access way sidewalk should continue the entire length of the eastern edge of the
Penrose property or if it is acceptable to end the access ramp within the meeting house road rightway. It would be my recommendation that we um would request that they add as a
condition to the zoning board's approval um a continued walkway from Meeting House Road down to the the um sidewalk along Route 28. We're not talking the bicycle path. We're talking a sidewalk.
We've got a sidewalk coming out of the development to nothing. Yeah. and as requested in the RFP. I think there that was in our request for proposal and if it was we should say that.
Oh. Oh, okay. It was in Okay. In the RFP the basis on which they made their quote sir. Perfect. And also um I do recall that in our discussion and I believe in the letter previously sent there was a um a
suggestion that the sidewalk that goes from the site down to um Route 28 ought to be um at least a 5- foot wide sidewalk, not the minimum um um available for a sidewalk because of the
volume that is likely to be on it. Um and it's not directly in this particular um point for review, but also we um had a recommendation that separate from the sidewalk, there ought to be a bike path
connection from the development down to the bike path such that you did not have bicycle traffic interfering with um with pedestrians. Are board members good with that? Yeah.
Okay. Moving on. Location. Uh criteria number three, location, arrangement, appearance, and sufficiency of off- streetet parking and loading. Um again, they have requested a waiver for the reduction of the number of parking spaces per unit and the o overall total
number of spaces. Again, the zoning bylaw requires 84 spaces required. They've requested 60 spaces and that would be a waiver of 24. This is a 48 unit development.
Um, I don't Remind me again, Christine. This is 100% affordable or is it um uh how how does this break down? Do you do
you recall? I'm sorry. Yes. No, I do not remember. To be honest with you, I I think it's it's 80% or below. I don't think it's I don't want to say the wrong thing. Yeah, I don't either. Um there's a very good chance that somebody
at 30 or 60% is only going to have one vehicle. If it's 80 or above, they may have two vehicles. Mhm. Um, so if there's 42, there's an extra 18
parking spaces. I hate paving paradise and putting up a parking lot, but do we believe that um 60 spaces is going to be adequate for the 42 units plus any visitors who are going to come? I mean,
yeah. No, I I think it's totally um not enough. And I I I guess they're probably giving us evidence of other buildings and other establishments where they have that proportion, but um I I'm pretty
sure all of those other establishments have other spa other places for people to park. And this is totally an isolated spot. There really is absolutely nowhere else for people to park. And so I don't
think any kind of waiver like the the uh the apartments in um you know some of the other towns Orleans for instance that that project is is compar comparable to this. So I I I am
very concerned at the number there. I think it's gonna create some kinds of really uh interesting uh issues with people putting their cars all over the place. Alternative parking. Yes,
I I would just like to say that I agree with that. Um I certainly agree with that. I'm not sure whether 84 is the number. Um but 60 is I think totally inadequate. I'd be inclined to go with the 84 that are
required. Again, I have not seen a revised plan that might indicate where there's space for uh visitors or how many spaces might be required for visitors or for deliveries or for um
service vehicles that might be there. But there is certainly some requirement for parking for those um in addition to the residences. Um and again there is really no available parking anywhere um
around there. Um and um so it's it's not a it's not an option to totally run out. You'll have people parking on uh meeting house road um or at least uh trying to figure out where to park or the bike park uh the bike trail
parking or even the church. Well, um, yeah, and those I don't think ought to be part of this proposal that we would totally agree. Um, and so I would be reluctant to, uh, change it, um, uh, at the moment until
there's a very good cogent explanation as to, uh, how it can function in what would appear to be a place where more rather than less parking compared to other developments might be required. Um the um part of me would say too that it
might be uh a data point, a metric to compare the number of spaces here with the number of spaces for the 1533 Main Street project. Um and um and and utilize that to say if we were okay with
that number of spaces based on the occupancy and the income levels of those there plus plus then that might give us um comfort to reduce it from 84 but um I
see no basis to do so at the moment. I um in looking at what we have for the example, they had requested for the main street development 1.85 parking spaces instead of two spaces per unit. I'm not sure what this works out to be. I didn't
do the math in my head. Um I believe it was 1.4 1.4. Um I think the 84 is too many. I think the 60 is too little. Well, 84 is the 1.8. No, 84 is the two
per unit. No, there's 48 units. No, there's 42 units in this. Okay. How many bedrooms? Uh 75. Again, there's going to be a number of children, we assume, hopefully in this development,
right? Um but I think the 84 is not necessarily needed, but 60 is is too little. in in my um well I I'm sensing violent agreement
here among the board that 60 is too many too few. Yes. And 84 I think we could comfortably say we could probably reduce that some but I certainly would like to see um uh some rationale put forward by the
applicant as to what the number might be. Um and that has to take into consideration such things as service vehicles and maintenance vehicles and guests and um and um you know because they're basically there is no overflow
option here. Whatever might be there needs to have a place to park otherwise it's creating a problem. Um, so I would expect that other things equal, it would be at least as many um, proportionally as in 1533,
but probably a little more than that. I think it were, if I did my math right, it using the same number 1.84. If I did my math, it's 78 spaces. If we use the same math, I think that's I think that's a you know
closer to the right number, but I don't know that we have the basis to really come up with what the right number is. But the comment to um ZBA ought to be as we've discussed are you comfortable? Okay,
moving on. location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting, and signs. Compatibility of buildings will be addressed by other reviewing entities unless the planning board has something
specific to add regarding building height, layout, arrangement, etc. Planning board members typically require low lower candle foot candle lighting to facilitate dark sky initiatives. Lighting is required to
be under 10 foot candles per unit. Signage appears to be minimal, but location should be verified by the planning board. Again, with other groups, again, other groups will be reviewing types of material and design.
That to me is pretty straightforward. I think originally we had asked that um the the taller units that were on the north side of the project maybe be flip-flopped so that the shorter units were on the north
which abuts the um uh the butter. The abuter. Thank you. And to the south there's nothing. It's the rail trail and woods. Mhm. We had also had some discussion and disagreement among the board, but the
consensus was that we should hold to the 30 foot height. Um, which I also would say was two and uh two and a half stories for any of the buildings. Um but that's in addition to suggesting that the u lower structured singlestory
buildings be um somehow configured to be on the um north of the property adjacent to the abutters. Um uh and Frank I think you're the expert on and very crisply defined our suggestions with respect to
lighting. Um oh well in terms of the warmth of the lighting. Yeah. warmth of lighting, intensity, candles and so on. Yeah. That um because I think that this is a very dark part of town and the abutters have and have already suggested that they
would like their dark sky reserved. Christine, the specific recommendation I think was in the letter we did for Main Street. So we could just pick that up. Yeah. Yeah. I can certainly endorse that, but I wouldn't have presumed that. Yeah. I can't remember the Kelvin that
we came out with. I think it was more than 2700. It might have been more than that, but I'm not sure. So, whatever we did with uh Main Street. Um I I would just like to note and I I I'm not one of those who is uh insisting
on adherence to 30 ft. I'm not either. I I I I think we we have to allow some flexibility here. Uh that that that's my view. Um, you know, I even am open to that, but I would like to see some
effort on the part of the applicant to try and respond to the um to the height of the buildings that are on the north side adjacent to the abutters. The topography of there is such that um it goes, you know, the whatever building is
there is on a rise and it's basically at least a full story above uh the house that's there. Um so uh a one-story structure is really two stories above heightwise uh the abutter.
So um you know the again I would say I'm I'm not in favor really of of permitting large buildings that are there. We haven't gotten to the setback requirements, but I also um at least on
the north side am um very reluctant to be approving uh very minimal setbacks from the property line considering the topography, considering the height of the buildings being proposed. You're going to have uh these giant structures
that are looming quote unquote my quote uh over the uh the Abutter's uh property. Um but um the the consensus when we had our previous um letter did
say we had said we'd like to stay with the 30-foot height and that that really was two and a half stories as well. I'm not sure I'm not sure it said that. I'm not sure we said that. No, we said there were differing opinions on the Yes, we did.
Right. And it was not the consensus. So, well, um, but in any event, uh, I agree with you, yes, we're in I'm in agreement with you as well. Um, on those that was brought up for the main street. Yeah.
Where you've got buildings and and you know, development all the way around that except on 28. Um, again, I'm only saying my concern is just for the abutters to the north and buildings that are on the north. And that's why he said they if there's an opportunity to flip them. so that the
buildings on the north side meet that is correct 30 foot limitation. I would venture to say zoning we have consensus that they ought to do everything possible in terms of height and setbacks to not be a problem for the butter
and I'd say screening as well between fencing and very high get to landscaping. Yeah, we will. Yes. So, all right. So the we also discussed the inadequate uh supply of dumpsters
in the location of of one dumpster somewhere in that's that's that's elsewhere in the Okay. Yes. I wasn't sure if that was part of the Yes. in the flow of the traffic. Okay. But that probably is somewhere.
Yes. Um just uh we do have a member of the public who has their hand raised. Um I'm a little reluctant to hear from the abutters or or not even abutters but hear from the public as this is the
board's review. If if the board would like to hear from the public we certainly can do that but we've we have discussed this numerous times. Um, I'm not sure if there's anything new
somebody wants to bring, but it I'll I'll leave it up to the board. I'm not so inclined just because I think at this time it's really up to the board to provide our comments and input. I think right at the moment, I'd prefer continuing through this. Otherwise, we
won't get through it. If we start having u input from the public that's not required, but if we can finish it, then I would very much like to get the input from the public. I agree with that. I think we should go. So we will we will move on. Yeah.
Um are we good with that discussion? Um adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities. The presentation that the planning board received in June had a proposed site layout plan showing some civil engineering consideration for low
impact design which are not included in the permitting plan sets. These items should be applied to the project. Absolutely. Um uh there's also 11 which touches on the same issue. Is it 11? Storm weather
calculation should be redone. I I I mean it's not just that that they put out certain facilities, but they haven't actually proven that what they have is adequate. Exactly. Did this get peer reviewed this
part of it at all yet? I forget what the peer review was. I believe the peer review was traffic and storm water. Okay. Yes. Um so what when you had um received the presentation from Penrose and Associates, it was before that they had actually submitted this application
to the ZBA and they had a plan there that they showed you and that was what in a general manner in a in a general manner that showed these low impact and that was something that um Art and I had discussed when we were looking over the items for this because this will have to to comply with
the state storm water requirements. ments. So, I mean, that's going to just take precedent over anything that we all say. It's got to comply with that. There's no way around that.
Okay. Uh, moving on. Adequacy of water supply and sewage facilities. Um, it's going to be served by town water and sewer. There's really not much more we can say about that. Um
seven, adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other landscaping um constituting a vis constituting a visual and or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands including the maximum retention of existing vegetation.
um couldn't agree with Warren more that the buffer and it's in here. The buffer along the northern property line should be enhanced to protect abetting properties from unintended impacts. The western buffer vegetation um should be enhanced to shield
residents of buildings one and two from disruption um from users at Twinfield property. Can I ask a question? I mean, I'm not familiar with what happens at Twinfield property. I mean, is it loud and noisy? I mean, is that what we're It's a conservation area, Sure. But it's
not it's it's land that's being um protected, right? It's not a true conservation area in the grand scheme of what we generally think of conservation. Um it used to be a farm, right? But this has went and visited.
This has to protect the residents from activities. There are butters I believe on either side, right? That are fairly close. Oh, really? Yes. I I thought the whole side was the the the top or the north piece of it. I don't have the here in front of me
that has the conservation area, but there are some of the north has the right the north has a butter. So, it's not just it's not just the twine field. It's it's the actual it's the actual it's the actual butters. So, like the ones that have the um the access agreement that is being worked on. That's
okay. Very good. Yes. And I think also to protect that that's on on a different side that's on that is that is strictly north. So so what we're talking about is the western border, right? Just the western just the western border which is all twinefield.
And here and here we're worried about activities on Twinefield disturbing passive recreation. So why are we worried about that is what I'm question. That's actually a good question. Well, I thought it was the other way around.
Twinefield is directly west, right? And it's got and and the butters are directly protection, which there is no no uh um there's nothing here that could stop
the the kids from making a baseball field in the in the middle of it or any of I'm just there's there's nothing here protecting Twine Field. Well, the this board can't quote unquote protect Twine
Field except to increase a buffer a buffer, put a fence up, which I would not be in agreement. I think if there's a a conservation area that people can enjoy and walk to from this development. Yeah. But there's a difference between
enjoying it by going through a nice path that's made and totally allowing you to run anywhere through the whole whole thing. I I I'm not I I not sure that we just say, "Oh, well, we don't need to protect that at all."
I don't think we I don't think this board or even the zoning board of appeals, I don't believe, can put a or recommend a condition that's going to condition the use of Twinefield. There are Oh, no. No. I don't think that that's I think Am what Bob is trying to say is
that this this particular item was more to put a buffer from like to have the buffer like for buildings one and two so that to provide a little bit of protection to Twinfeld and to and to the the buildings themselves, right? You
want you want to protect both the the quietness or the the the conservation area itself and the actual, you know, residents of the building. So, it's not necessarily doing something at Twinfield. It's doing
something on this property to give a little buffer between both. But I agree with Bob that a bigger buffer to protect Twinfield. Yes. Makes a lot of sense. But well, regardless, so I think that that's what this is getting at this this statement here. Okay.
If it's not worded the right way, you can give me additional wording. Well, just take out the word to protect the tenants. And I think you're already there. Again, without um um disagreeing with anything said because I basically agree, but the whole discussion about
Twine Fields and the proposed development was really that the new development will be a severe a significant difference of ambiance and activity level and and function from
Twin Fields, which has been set aside as a quiet, peaceful full place. Uh and I think that the character of each of those facilities uh being so different that it's highly appropriate to have a little bit of a buffer between the two.
Oh, absolutely. So that neither never mind the activities in one or the other, but they're just different in terms of their ambiance. Yeah. And that ought to be preserved to the extent possible. I couldn't agree more. I just didn't want to have words that'll confuse the ZBA.
Yeah, what we're suggesting is that Thank you. Sorry. What um Christine and I was just saying is perhaps just flip-flopping to enhance um disruption from Twine Field
and shielding building. Just flip-flopping those. So the emphasis is on the buffer to twine field for buildings um one and two. Okay. Because we're not shielding the residents of one and two from TR
Twinefield. It's more anybody enjoying Twinfield won't be impacted by buildings one and two of this development. It's got it flipped. Yeah, it's got to be flipped. Everybody good with that? Mhm. Okay. Eight. In case of an apartment
complex or other multiple dwellings, the adequacy of usable open space for play areas and informal recreation. Again, staff provided that um uh this abuts the Twinefield conservation area along the west edge of the property um
which increases access to passive recreation open space. The paved bike path on site provides direct access to the old colony rail trail which runs across the southeastern portion of the development site. The planning board
must reiterate the need for an easement for bike trail and the adequacy of bike racks throughout the site given the limited storage many units will have for such items. And again, this is where I think um it
would be appropriate to reiterate the board's suggestion that there ought to be a um a bike path connection separate from the sidewalk from the development down to the um to the bike path.
I think that's what this is saying. I think there is one. Yes. On the plan. And we're saying um the southwest portion of the development. No, but the point the point being that it would be separate from the sidewalk. Yeah, absolutely. Yes, it's and
I believe that's clear in this statement myself, but if others have word smithing they think would be more appropriate. Um, I had a question about the easement, how we go about the easement to to just
I I I think that the easement should be uh settled upon the wording and approved by town council. And that condition that they signed that particular easement approved by town council should be a
condition to whatever approval is is given because e there are many kinds of easements to just say easement may not get you where where you want to go. How wide should it be? You know does it include other uses? For example, right
now the bike path is used by people with you know semi motorized vehicles you know. So, we need to have the easement, I think, fleshed out with town council and specifically made um the the wording of it made a condition to any approval
that is given by ZBA. Good idea. I concur. Uh moving on, protection uh this is number nine. Protection of adjacent or neighboring properties against noise, glare, unsightfulness,
or other objectionable features. Uh staff has provided as previously stated the planning board requires lower candle foot lighting to facilitate facilitate dark sky incentives or initiative, excuse me. Lighting is required to be
under 10 candle foots per per unit. And I think this goes back to what you said earlier, Frank, to avoid the the glaring very very white industrial type lighting, right? and using the wording similar to what was used on the main street. Right.
And I believe we had some discussion too about suggesting that where appropriate they have motion sensored motion detector um switches on them so that they're not on all night long where allowable by law.
Well, let me let me talk to that. Uh, in my neighborhood, I have buildings around me and they've got their security lights on motions. So, um, cars go by or whatever and they go
on and off, on and off all night long. And my daughter, for example, has trouble even sleeping because of the blinking on and off. If it just stayed on, you could get accustomed to it. But it's the on and off that creates the problem for people sleeping. Uh, and so
I'm just mentioning that because I have a personal experience with it. The the strobe drives me a little. Um, but also I don't know if in a multi-development site like this you can do the motion ones. I don't know what
the code is for that. There are certain lights that have to be on all the time in a residential development. We can certainly request that they be as low lit as possible. Agree completely. We're required by law.
They should be there. Um and they ought to be as low intensity as possible. Yep. Um the ones that I can think of where I would probably say I am not in a have no objection to are say the light over the front door of the uh of an particular
unit. If there's nobody there, then fine. if you walk up to the front door and then a a light will go on. Um, and it would seem to me they don't need to be on all the time. Um, and therefore there's a
benefit to preserving the dark sky to some extent if you don't have lights that don't need to be on on all the time. Um, I'm not here to say at all that um, security lighting ought to be motion sensored. Um, I think not. But I
do think it ought to be downward facing. I think it ought to be the lowest candle power that is appropriate adequate to the situation that the uh the light stansions ought to be uh as low as possible uh etc etc and it seems to me
that I have not seen anything in the applicant's proposal that really addresses that concern that whole paniplyplay of concerns from the planning board. That's my only point. Not that every light ought to be on a on a motion sensor.
Okay, moving on. Item number 10, adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The obviously the fire department will verify compliance vehicle circulation plan ladder truck
patterns um was run uh for results. Not much more we can really add for that. Um 11. special attention to the adequacy of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with sus sus
susceptibility uh to ponding, flooding or erosion. Again, the storm water calculation should be redone with the actual area of the parcel and the results of the test pit analysis. I believe that was done as part of the peer review.
Um let's see the waiverss that were identified on on uh sheet C4 of the application. One was the building coverage. The second was the front and side rear stepbacks and the total number of
parking spaces. Uh I do we know what the build I can't remember what the building coverage was. Um whereas there's such a large area that's not going to be developed at all or touched
um and as long as the buffers around the development are adequate uh enough to help buffer to any abuts. Um what does the board think about that?
Well, I would agree. I think that's that's right. Okay. Yeah. um the front side and rear setbacks. I think it's really only from the side and rear. So, it would be the north property line and the west property
line. Again, the north property line or where the butters are. Um the west property line would be to uh Twinefield and then the east would be to the land that's going to remain open and to the south would be down towards the bike
trail which is essentially going to remain open space. Um again to me it seems as long as there is adequate buffer for the butters to the north. Um we talked about the parking spaces
and then additional items um must be shown on the plan set and accounted for um including test borings that will have to be done and may have been done as part of the peer review. Um underground utility line locations. Uh I do believe
that we want to definitely encourage that all utilities be underground in this development as that is required in all the developments that we do. Uh the proposed use of native native and drought tolerant landscaping must be
clearly documented on the plan. I think that's crucial. Um connection to the off-site um sidewalk per the RFP. We discussed that earlier. low impact design. We discussed that construction staging uh must be included
in the application. I think reiterating these items which were included in the RFP is is not a bad thing for this board to do. Um uh bike racks, how many trash locations? Um I think when we reviewed it the first
time, we felt that the trash locations were not adequate and were lacking. uh storm water concerns. We've talked about that and traffic impact assessment um that was done. I don't know if the
numbers were revised to consider peak summer traffic. There's calculations they can do even if they did them not in peak. Um there are standard uh numbers that can be done. Is there anything else the board can
think of regarding this before I um open it up to the public for any new comments, please? If you have any. And I'm actually going to start with Stephen Buckley um as he actually had his hand raised first if
you don't mind. Elaine, you asked if we had comments. Oh, let's go to the board first. Sorry. um just with respect to trash locations and stuff. I think we had suggested too they consider um increasing the number of dumpsters but also perhaps placing
them between buildings instead of out in the um um out on the perimeter of the property. Um and I thought that had some significant merit. Um also um the um we had some discussion as well um as
for whether there should be any areas designated for picking up and dropping off uh either deliveries of which there are an increasing number between FedEx, UPS and um and uh the post office um and
those if if there ought to be such an area board designated dropping off and it should be on the plans and there had been some discussion I forget if we put it in our former other recommendations for consideration of electric vehicle
charging areas in the development there being really no place in close by where there's any possibility and there's certainly no way to sort of add it to your unit. Um, it's it's required by the new the new
building code and they say they've addressed that. They say they've addressed it. All right. I have yet to see it, but they can't vary from the building code. So, they're going to have to address it. What they have to do is provide the
potential that wiring for for I think it's 10% of the parking spaces something. Okay, that's excellent. And we don't need to mention it. And also with respect to the buffer along the northern uh property line between the abuters,
um I would suggest that we recommend you know solid fencing uh in addition to whatever natural um trees and perhaps very tall evergreens. um as well as in general for the site but especially on the northern
boundary retention uh to the maximum extent possible of existing trees. Um if u if in fact the setbacks remain what they have proposed, they're basically going to be clearcutting the entire
place and there won't be any trees along the northern border. There just can't be um if it's 5t from the property line. Um and um so I would suggest we consider um
recommending retention of the trees and um putting in a solid uh tall fence 8 feet maybe along the northern border with the abutters. I don't think they can do an 8 foot fence. It's considered a spite fence. I I believe
well the maximum height solid fencing as I say the topography is such that you'll be looking over the fence from um uh from either side at the other buildings. Um but anyway, having it be solid fencing in addition to
retaining trees and um and enhancing the um the plantings to try and provide a an insulation, a buffer between the property and uh the butters. But those are the only things that I picked up that perhaps ought to be added.
Is everyone amendable to the fence idea? I certainly am. eight foot or the maximum allowable under maximum allowable under code. Okay. Um I think retaining as many trees as
possible is is a good idea and as long as they're healthy trees. I would hate to see a number of of scrub pines remaining because we have a pine issue with pine bore beetles. So that's the only thing I'm gonna on that
one. large number of um hardwood trees that are there. So yeah, those aren't evergreens, but certainly um if there are substantial specimen trees worth saving, I think they should be saved. One other thought
I had is um and I know this has been done in a number of other uh developments throughout the Cape is to see if a um there can be a bus stop within the site for the Cape Cod
Regional Transit Authority as some there may be a number of people who are going to be relying on that form of transportation. I think it's an excellent idea, but it's very tight as it is looping around. it there have been
tighter developments where it has worked out and there are a number of other organizations um SEAF fall you know council on aging um um even the community center um the veterans um so
administration all have transportation capabilities as requested yes as requested but if we going to be more than just uh public transport transportation that would be looking for a place to have a
stop. If there was a bus stop somewhere within the site for whatever variety, but certainly the regional transit authority, you know, a dedicated not outside, but inside it would be good. Again, it's certainly not our purview to
say where a school bus stop ought to be, but there might well be. No, I understand that. But it's yet another bus that might be around in the neighborhood. Anyone have anything else? All right. Um, Mr. Buckley, if you would like to
make any comments, if you have anything new and different, that would be great. Yes, I think I do, Madam Chair. um related to uh well let me they have to do with uh criteria number four which
talks about location size design and general site compatibility of buildings lighting and signs and uh certainly I have those concerns with the former Buckley property at 1533 Main Street. I
I don't want either project to stand out as you know as as a housing project. I would like that it would fit in of course with and I think everybody says that but you have to be careful uh that we ask for you know that we what we ask
for. Um anyway I went over to Orleans because Penrose has a uh property over there by Sket Corner and I wanted to see what kind of lighting and you know the layout and what it looked like over there and uh the lighting seems to be
the same. It looks like the same I've seen in the drawings. I didn't go at night, but um I did notice though that um there were uh two electric uh u hookups for electric vehicles,
whatever that's called. I forget what Yeah. Anyway, they were already there, not not uh wired underground and ready. And so anyway, I just wanted to point out that I go, "Oh, well, there's at least two." And I don't know how many
units are at that location. Uh maybe 20 or 30, something like that. Anyway, um I just thought I'd pass that on that they appar apparently Orleans got them to put it in or or some for some reason it it shows. I'm just wondering if if that
would be a good question to ask Penrose. how did those come to be in Orleans and uh why aren't there you know how come are we going to get them here too either at at both locations so I just want to point that out um getting back and it related to lighting uh glare I had also
suggested at the former Buckley property on Main Street that they use um even synthetic uh siding uh for se that resembles cedar shingles so it looks more like the h the houses that are town
in that area and I realized South Chattam has a lot of clever buildings but as you go meeting house and in between South Chadam and and other places it's predominantly you know gray cedar shingles and uh right now it's all
going to be all clabbered and white uh cream and light gray but still um I think that if we've all seen uh houses through the trees. Sometimes you have to look to see. It's like, oh, there's a
house over there, but it's all gray gray cedar shingles. It's almost like camouflage, if you will, uh, hiding it. So, whereas if you had had a white collaborative building, you could see it through the trees and you wouldn't need as much screening
uh, you know, to put up there. It would just, uh, complement, you know, the idea. So that's what one thing it's it's unclear whether or not they can they have said something about fire safety and can't put in this or that and I I'm I'm I'd like to see where it's those the
requirements that say that they have to put in collaborate all around. So, and the only other thing I want to say was that I was, you know, if I was a young family and I had kids playing in the twine field, it would be nice to look out the window and see if the kids, you know, they're still playing out there,
you know, and uh I don't think they can make a ball field there, but they could play throw a football or play catch or something like that or throw a frisbee. I guess that's passive. and so and to be able to look out and see the sunset
instead of uh looking out and seeing a giant you staring you in the face. So just just a thought that came to mind when you were talking about that. Thank you very much. Thank you Steve. Um Elaine. Yes. Thank you very much. I will try to
be quick. I think all of my comments meet your criteria. If not I apologize. In terms of the entrance into meeting house, it is directly opposite the church entrance. And if you look at that, there is a re ravine directly
across from that. So the entrance is basically going to be a bridge that's going to have to be built up. And according to topography, those that ravine is about 13 ft deep. Uh it's going to have a split rail guard rail. Uh there are no specifications on their
plans on Penrose's plans as to the quality of the wood used or whether or not it's going to be steel reinforced, which it should be according to MASH, which is the manual for um assessing safety hardware in in things such as
that. Uh if someone if a one a bus or a delivery truck or a car hits those and breaks through them, they're going into the ravine. It's going to be very dangerous. The children have to walk about 245 free feet from the complex to
the road. That's a long way for little kids, number one. And according to the design, there are only Sorry about that. There are only two split rails. Kids can climb through those. They do it on a
bet. I've got three grandkids. Uh they would end up in the ravine. Uh, so I think that any anything they put up there, it's going to look like basically on the by the drawings what's on George Ryder Road near Ocean State job lot. And that's just not acceptable in my view.
Uh, no indication that Penrose has reached out uh to the schools on bus routes to see if children are going to have to cross that street either during pickup or coming home. Uh 137 is a state road regardless of what
they're saying. Uh and I don't think they've reached out to DOT. Uh in terms of parking spaces, uh we need more parking spaces. Uh this place is really isolated. There are no stores, no
pharmacy, no doctor, uh no schools, no banks, no nothing. And uh uh if we're encouraging families, you need somebody to go to work and you need somebody to do all the other stuff like go to the doctor, go to the hospital. They shouldn't have to take public transportation, pick up their kids after
school. So, I would urge you to stick with the two assigned parking spaces per unit and then have assigned guest parking. They should have that so it can be monitored. Otherwise, guests could come take up the spaces.
Somebody's put on a full day of work and they come home and they have no place to park. Um, if this is going to be built like 1533, we just learned that these buildings are on slabs. There's no basement. So, there's no place for personal effects and insulation. So, I
would hope that someone asked that question. Why didn't we know there are no basements and what are you going to do about it? Um, there is no green space or communal communal areas to speak of twine. They're selling it as they can go and play in Twinefield as if that
actually belongs to Meeting House like, "Oh, it's right there, you know, have a ball." So, if you're concerned about that, that's not how it's being promoted. Uh, there is no place for children to play
safely, to ride their bikes either on or off the property. So, there has to be uh a sidewalk and a bike path down to uh down to the uh the bike path and and to route one uh route 28. Um to actually
encourage kids to play in the woods in the ravines, they actually put up a picture of kids playing in a ravine because that's the only green space there is. and they had what looked like a slide from Ocean State job lot and they were trying to say this is good for
kids to do this. Um, I'd consider that an attractive nuisance. I don't know how it could pass safety protocols and I think it would be a tremendous liability for Penrose and Chadam if it's if it's approved. Uh, units one and two are the
two units to the immediate left of the entrance. They are over the ravine. The idea of children in a second floor bedroom falling out a window or having to evacuate from a fire would mean a 43 foot drop. There is nothing down there
except a ravine. Um I don't think this is a buildable lot. Uh Penrose has said uh that they would never have taken on this project at meeting house because of the challenges of it except that they needed it in order to make a profit on
1533 Maine. So this is kind of a throwaway for them which is pretty disturbing and they also keep comparing it to NSET Green and East Ham that they built. East Ham had six units per acre versus R16 at Meeting House. They are
seven miles north of Orleans off the beaten path. They have plenty of parking there and they're saying they're determining occupancy based on that. Chattam is far more desirable than that location. They they are underestimating the occupancy when 65% of the units at
meeting house are two and threebedroom. You can put six people in a bedroom and they don't have to be related. Three of the six might be working and they're going to take up extra spaces that would normally belong to one or the other. So I hope you stick with the maximum
required two and required guest uh parking so it can be monitored. Um I when I review projects I look at it. Would I want my children or grandchildren living here? And I wouldn't. I don't think it's family friendly and I don't think it's child
friendly. And I hope a lot of work is done on this and these things are downsized so that the quality of life that we should expect in Chadam. We give to the people living there. It's more than just having a place to lay their
heads. The quality of life should be better than these places are offering. Thank you very much. I hope I didn't delay you too much. Nope. Thank you, Elaine. Um, any board members? I I did look up the EV um requirement is
in in over 26 uh parking spaces, 10% have to be EV ready. And that doesn't mean they all should just be ready. They they I think there's a requirement as to how many have to be installed at the beginning. But I I
can't I haven't found that. So it it they're not just going to make them all ready. Somebody they need to comply withever the whatever the state code is for that. Yeah. Warren, did you have something? Okay. All right. Thank you um folks for for
your comments. Um they are appreciated. Um I think we are going to move on. I know we have some documents to sign. Was there anything else that you wanted to bring up for this evening? No, you have um the only thing I would
say to you is you have correspondence as always. That's just um just for your information that comes to the board and the next meeting will be October 27th at 5:00 p.m. Okay. With that, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn.
I move we adjourn. Is there a second? I second. Roll call. Frank, I approve. Bob, approve. Warren, approve. And I'm Charlene Greenhouse and I approve. Thank you all for a great meeting this evening.
Great job. [Music] [Music]