Um uh good evening. My name is Arts Broom, chair of the planning board. Uh, this is the Town of Cadam Planning Board hybrid meeting December 8th, 2025. It's 5:00 PM. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available
shortly there hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the you use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. I see no one on there.
Pursuant >> I see no I see no one on there. >> Thank you. Um pursuant to Governor Healey. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Stop. >> Could you just ask that question again please? I think >> Okay. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please note uh including the use of AI note-taking apps, please
notify the chair. I don't see anyone. Therefore, I'll continue. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two of the acts of 2025, extending certain COVID 19 measures
adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the opi meeting law general law chapter 30A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the chat and planning board is being conducted in person and
via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the 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 508-9454410 conference ID 30687743 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV
Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. >> Mr. Buckley has just gotten on to the
meeting. Um, we've already read the um opening statements. He has his hand up. >> Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I am planning to record the meeting. >> Okay. Thank you for for letting us know.
>> I'll begin with a roll call. Uh Warren >> Warren Chain present. >> Bob >> Bob present. >> Charlene >> Charlene Greenhelch present. >> Frank >> Frank Sher present. >> Uh Bob Dubis is uh absent today.
Katherine Hepborn, you remote? >> Yes, Katherine is present. and Art Spraw present. Uh >> before we begin, I see Mr. Buckley still has his hand up, so you want to just take your hand down at this time. >> Trying to figure out how to do that.
Thank you. If you can do it for me, thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Okay. Uh any board member have to excuse himself for any on the agenda for tonight? Nope. All right. Um,
first I uh let's begin with the minutes for November 10th, 2025. Are there any comments, edits or the minutes from the board members? Uh, yes, Frank. Um, on page three
um on the conditions at the very top, the fifth condition down. >> Yep. >> Are are those dimensions correct? >> Yes, I did go through those. >> Okay. Okay. I just wanted to be sure about that. >> Yeah. No, I I know this was uh we went through this several times. Yes. Fine.
>> But I I did want to verify. It's a good good thing that you asked the question though. Any other comments, questions? >> Do I have a motion to approve? >> Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the November 10, 2025 meeting minutes. >> Second.
>> Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Warren, >> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. >> Frank, approve. Katherine >> approve >> and Arts Brewer the chair approves. Uh next uh site plan approval amended
change of use for 470 Main Street. Um Mr. Lichfield, I believe you're representing the applicant. >> Before we begin, I would like to just um let you know that there was a question about a meter being replaced inside the building. It's not really part of your
purview um for site plan review, but we have confirmed with DPW that that was done on Friday. So, >> so if you walk us through this bill, I appreciate it. >> Certainly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of the
applicant. Fairity. Farad is a clothing store uh which has worldwide something like 80 uh outlets. Uh it is only arguably under the the uh definition of
the formula business establishment because nothing is particularly standardized about it. uh the decor uh the bu the layout uh and so forth as well as the merchandise varies from
place to place and they have a sense of what is appropriate in Chadam. Their their clothing is sold at a couple of local retailers but they'd like to have their own retail outlet. They I think the nearest one that they have maybe in Edgartown out in Martha's Vineyard. Uh
but as you know uh our bylaw says that when something meets or at least arguably meets the definition of a formula business we are required to go to the zoning board of appeals and also to you uh for site plan review as uh
Christine indicated and I appreciate the very thorough staff pardon me staff report which she did which she prepared for you. There are no exterior changes. Uh I have although I don't represent him, pardon me, I've communicated
to uh Mr. Chang who as trustee owns the building uh some concerns that this board had uh in prior uh matters. Uh and he was in touch with has been in touch with Jay Briggs I believe as recently as
today. Uh as Christine indicated we will be going to the HVDC for signage. The DT DPW has apparently taken care of the meter issue uh and everything is straightforward. So there are no exterior changes. I did pass out uh a
couple of copies of the just for your information of the proposed signage. uh this particular building uh had previously had a formula business in it and if you go back far enough uh known on the this board was
in Chadam at that town although Miss Greenhal's husband would remember it. Uh this was a Rexol drugstore in the 1950s. Miss Greenhald does remember it and it was uh that's a chain. uh we didn't have
the formula business bylaw then. Uh but this is not exactly a uh golden arches establishment. It is a low-key uh proposal for a clothing store again with no exterior changes. I thought that uh
Christine's staff report was particularly useful saying that if the board is inclined to uh approve the site plan, there is no change. So there's really no amendment other than the technical requirement that we appear before you. Certainly be happy to answer
any questions. Okay. I just um have one um document that came in just uh it's from Oh, I got the wrong one. Yep. It's uh I won't uh read the whole thing
into the record, but it's just a letter of support from uh Buffy's Ice Cream. >> We appreciate that. And as I think Christine indicated, Mr. Chang did send a letter to uh Mr. Briggs in regard to parking uh line delineation and so forth, which you have.
>> Right. Um any uh the board members have any questions for for on this application? Just to clarify, I was not bold enough to remember Rexol, but my husband certainly did get a few ice cream sodas there. >> Is uh like me in that he is fortunate in
having a much younger and more attractive spouse. >> Any other comments? Uh Katherine, do you have any comments or questions on this? >> Uh no, I I think it's pretty straightforward. I don't have any questions. Thank you.
>> Um I don't have any uh uh comments or questions to um add as far as conditions and that. I just would appreciate if you send back uh a note verbal note to the um owner. I'd appreciate it if he clean up the parking lot in the back. All right.
>> That Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That has been discussed and in his letter to Mr. Briggs. He indicates that he apparently plans on cleaning it up and also delineating the parking spaces with cobbles. Uh sort of hard to do with a a
shell driveway, but I agree it should be cleaned up and my clients would like it cleaned up as well. >> Okay. >> Just for the record, the planning board did get that letter today as well just now when they came in. So, um there was a copy that was >> No, I can appreciate the board members haven't seen it yet, but I I was aware
of it. >> They they have it all. They all have it. >> All right. Well, with that, I'll ask if we have a motion to approve the amended change of use. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve
the um site plan approval amended and change of use for the proposed retail use formula business with new oper operator Farad. Um
and that the conditions as outlined in the staff report. One, the first one outlining the site plan and the second no additional exterior lighting, the general usual wording um be incorporated into that decision.
>> And do I have a second? >> I second. >> All right, we'll do a roll call vote. Warren, >> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. Frank >> approve. >> Uh Katherine >> approve >> and Arts Brew chair I approve too.
>> Thank you very much. We appreciate your time and in the event that I don't see you between now and the 25th of December. Merry Christmas to you all. >> Thank you. >> Merry Christmas, Bill and Ann Marie. Thank you.
>> Um, next the agenda item is site plan approval for 71 uh Crawl Road. Uh, received a letter um from um Jamie Karcross on behalf of
the client um CCNY LLC. I respectfully request a further continuence of the site plan review until December 22nd, 2025. So, we have a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue
the site plan review for 71 Coral Road to no earlier than 5:00 p.m. on December 22nd, 2025. >> Thank you. And do I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay, we'll do a roll call vote. Warren, >> approve. >> Bob,
>> approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. >> Frank, >> approve. >> Katherine, >> approve. and Art Sprew. I approve. Uh that's the regular business. Um just a couple of items of um brief discussion
for the long range planning. Um I included a draft of uh some suggested recommended storm water regulations. Um this would be related to
what the planning board should consider. Now, I don't really want to get into any kind of discussion tonight. This is the first time that you've seen this. I've I've worked on this extensively over the last several years. This is part of the reason why I was I uh got on the
planning board is is to try to help with this aspect of it. That's finally gotten around to that point. Um I suggest that you absorb it, take notes. uh I would like to do perhaps a separate workshop
meeting just to discuss this with no other agenda items sometime in 20 uh early 2026. Um um I will say don't look at it from a standpoint of uh dealing with where it goes and whatnot. Look at this from a
content standpoint. Is this something that the board should be looking for? Is it uh outside of what you're looking for? I will advise you that um some of this is predicated on uh the
town the DPW they have init initiated uh criteria like this for townwide by the DPW standards that was December of 2024 right um the rest >> do it as part of compliance with uh state regulations
>> with state regulations >> we're looking to do it from a commercial like in your site plan review that type of thing like a commercial standoint point. >> This is intended for site plan and for the uh subdivision control. That's pretty much our purview. It's not intended to get outside of that. There
might be some things that have to be adjusted to make sure it's very clear. That's okay. Um I'm not worried about that. Um I think that um uh other boards are looking to update. I think there was a meeting with the departments, right?
Um uh Christine, >> so what I would say to you is um we're doing a couple of other things in in town. So natural resources is doing um some updates with their um conservation regulations and things like that. We're
also um natural resources under a um doing a review of their MS4 permit application. Um so all of these things are going to be kind of coming up at the same time. So that's why we're trying to uh consider moving this ahead a little bit. Um this is this piece of it, you
know, part of it, like Art said, will go into our subdivision regulations and then another part ultimately will be in site plan review. Um and we have been looking at the timeline for town meeting um because there are certain requirements if we have to hold public
hearings to put it into the uh zoning. >> Yeah. if if it's only would we would need to do that if it if something needed to go into zoning. Um this could be set up as a rule and regulation underneath planning board and we would just need to hold our own public hearing
on it. We would uh close the hearing, deliberate on it and vote on it oursel and then it's done. Okay. So that whole part I would say we can work the details of that out at a future date. I think I would just like some feedback associated
with this. I will tell you there's nothing unusual what's here. It's there's a lot of parallels with what the DPW had. There's a lot of parallels what the criteria is. I mean it wasn't intended to go into minutia on the
stormwater handbook. You don't need to. It's very detailed. It tells applicants what they need to do. This is just saying you need to submit this information to us as part of your application. That's all. just because right now we have one paragraph that's that long and that's all it says about
storm water and that's not really enough quite frankly. So most towns around this area have regulations like this. Some of them are much more extensive. I think carriage is about 25 pages long. I didn't think that that was warranted.
You'll see that most of this is definitions anyway. It sort of defines elements so that when some points come up and says well what does that mean? you go to the definition on it. So there's about six pages of definitions. Most of it is is that it and every one
that was included in the DPWs has been brought over into here and just some added ones that are related to the site. If you have any any questions or comments, you'll certainly bring it up right now and but we'll reserve it most
of these I think for a workshop meeting. Go ahead, Warren. Um yes I have two comments really. One is in reading it I think it's um very nice very well done. Obviously a lot of times been spent on it. In reading it
I um I reflect back on multiple uh requests that we have acted on in the past for uh modifications to structures. Um and it has always been the case that to
the extent that there were modifications being proposed to a site that the entire site had to be brought up to um the current requirements which are that no storm water right >> uh leave the site. >> Yeah. Um, it wasn't clear to me whether
this is totally consistent with that or if it's dealing with site plans that are not the type that we have viewed in the past with respect to ensuring that no storm water left the site and this really talks about increases
to minimize storm water runoff increases. Um if whereas if you have an existing site the idea is is if there was an increase over existing runoff that's what you have to mitigate and manage. Okay. But we can set the criteria to
whatever we desire. What came to mind most recently and clearest in my mind is the um uh the motel that's now owned by um Pates or the company that owns Pates and they came in with a proposal to
really improve. I think the entire board felt gee that's really quite nice what they're planning to do. >> Yeah. But at the end of the day, the requirement here was that they eliminate all storm water runoff from the site, even though that was not the case before
they did anything. So that net result was that they ended up changing nothing on the site. So that they could just leave the runoff the way it always had been. We would have required our
um our our criteria indicated that in order to approve the site plan presented, they would have to have indicated that they had taken steps to eliminate all runoff. >> And this write up
um this draft proposal here, I don't know if it would have applied to that situation or not. Uh but that's my my quandry. Does it not apply to that situation? And if it were to come forward, had this been adopted as it is, if they
were to come forward again, since there's no increase in the runoff, would it now be okay to have approved that as presented originally? >> I I can I say there's the site plan criteria right now is in the bylaw. So
therefore there would need to be um compatibility with whatever we do here with that. If there is a change that we wanted to make at that there may have to be a change in the bylaw. So that was one of the things that I was mentioning before.
Look at the content here. Let's get the content down. And if there's changes that need to be done in the bylaw, then we'll have to make those in parallel with the changes in rules and regulations. Many times the rules and regulations are
what is uh um placed on and drafted by the planning boards. It's not uh it's not necessarily thrown into the the uh protected bylaw which was all of our criteria now is there for site plan
review. So if we want to actually remove some sections from there, say according to the planning board rule and regulations and then the rules and regulations could be easily modified or adjusted as things progress or as these
um uh storm water criteria changes at the state and D level, we we wouldn't have to worry about changing a bylaw, but just an update to our rule and regulation associated with No, I I agree with everything that's in it. I just was
trying to clarify for my own uh understanding whether this was going to be a subset of all site plans that we see um that would apply to only when to eliminate increases in sight in runoff.
uh versus what in the past had been my understanding that the bylaw had required that modifications to a site plan uh would require that all >> storm water runoff be contained on the site because this would not say that
that is the requirement >> and and I think that that should be one of the things that we discuss and deliberate on when we do a workshop meeting. >> Okay. Well, again, so it it does mean to cover all sites. This isn't meant to cover certain things but not everything.
>> All commercial sites and sites >> subdivisions, subdivision roads. It's not intended for residential. That's usually that falls outside of the planning board's perview. That's that's with other boards. >> Okay. Thank you. That was it. Just wanted to clarify
>> Charlie. >> Yeah. >> Oh, Bob. Well, first of all, under wetland resource area areas specified in the mass wetland protection act and in the town of Harwitch wetlands did protection. >> Does it say that?
>> Yeah. >> Oops. Um, but my my bigger question is um well, it's the 2500 square feet. It's it's actually a desire to
do something more comprehensive if we can to include residential to not let little projects slip through this. If we're going to go to all this effort, let's write a a set of um storm water
um rags that apply as broadly as we can and not leave loopholes and other things that people will take. >> Well, well, just so you know, the the D's uh guidelines and criteria, they and what the DPW has instituted is anything
one acre and more, it automatically falls into the criteria. So, you have to do that. It's usually a planning board's prerogative to make a decision how far below that that you would want to do. Um, when I looked at this criteria with
all the other towns, it's all over the place. Everybody does what they want. Could be 2500. It could be 5,000. It could be uh 10,000, 15,000. The towns decide what they would like to do and the planning boards decide we'd like to
do. I've highlighted that here on this. It's a discussion point. It goes right along with what Warren was speaking to. >> And these are some things that says, well, when you get down to this, and I tried to set this up with it's a minor or it's a major site development, and we
can define what that means. So if it's a minor thing and it's underneath a certain square footage or something like that, we can say, well, we'd like to see these things done, but you don't have to do this ownorous analysis here. Um,
major whatever threshold we set in place. Um, then we can do that. um any of the things that you had mentioned there those all could be amended put in here added to this we can adjust this so
this is again intended to be a first pass there hasn't been an update on the these particular regulations forever in the town so this I expect to put the time into it in order to get this done
there's no urgency on it we still you know go through regular site plan review and may we make our decisions based on what we think is appropriate anyway at this point. Anything else? >> Okay, good. Uh Charlene,
>> um who is the storm water permit entity in Chadam? Is it the DPW? >> Yeah. >> So, they issue the storm water permit. >> Yeah. >> For anything over one acre. Yes. It triggers them >> over one acre. Yeah. So
regardless of we can't take that away from the DPW. So if we have a subdivision that comes in >> that triggers that permit >> correct >> they have to go through DPW's permit. >> Correct.
>> Are we being duplicitous here by >> duplicate? >> Yeah. Thank you. I knew I wasn't going to get that right. Are we, you know, because if it is over a an acre, then
this board really has no say >> based on the storm water bylaws. I do agree that particularly for site plan review that there should be more extensive Yeah.
>> um uh storm water uh regulations than what we have right now. >> Yeah. Um, but I'm just concerned that if it's something over an acre, this board has no jurisdiction over that. >> Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree with you on that. We could set other
conditions that the um DPWB doesn't have. >> Can we go above and beyond what they have? Like, we can't require more stringent road construction than what the town requires for subdivision roads.
That's that's a a no no in Massachusetts. >> Um that I know of. >> That's a no no in Massachusetts. Um having been in a town where the town tried to do that and it was kicked back and said you can't do that.
>> Um unless something has changed. But you know I you've done a lot of work here and I so appreciate what you've done here. Absolutely. Um, but I'm I'm just >> All right. So,
>> I don't want to be counterintuitive to what the storm water bylaw says, but if we can for site plan review require something more substantive than what we clearly have now, that would be >> preferable. I think it's an important
point. That's a third point right now from for the for the from what we've spoken about that we need to clarify on how we want to deal with it. And it doesn't surprise me that uh your board members are raising all these points that it was certainly expected.
>> Um I think that there has to be um uh some interconnection with other pieces. We got a bylaw that has a site criteria in it. We have a town DPW. We are also have things with concom that has
criteria. I think they have to be coordinated. I think even after we finish with this, it would be good for us to actually reach out to the other boards and departments and confirm that this marries up to them in the right way. Uh so I I can see that this is
going to be um a step-by-step piece that we'll have to do. I'd like to get the first feedback though since the board members haven't even read the the document and any questions. Let's do it as part of a workshop that just focuses
on that. Um Frank just very small question. Uh it's captioned proposed updates to rules and regulations. Um but we don't have a storm water regulation right now. Is that situation?
Uh the planning board has a paragraph in the storm water uh and subdivision control regulations and they have a paragraph in the site plan uh uh criteria that's in in the bylaw. >> All right.
>> It's it's paragraph like this and it says you have to design to 25 year storm event and that's it. That's all they really >> okay >> asked for. >> Understood. All right. The the only thing is I it's the first time I've seen a regulation where 11 pages along where it's seven pages of definition before
you get to the regulation. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, like I said, Harriarch has about 25 pages, >> but that's also their storm water management permit guideline. >> Yes. >> Because I actually helped the the town engineer with it
>> when he was drafting that. Um, >> well, I I tried uh tried not to complicate this from the standpoint of saying that we're going to do something different than what the stormwater handbook says. I that that the DPW has referenced the stormwater handbook. This
references that. And then we say, well, we'd like you to submit this information to help us understand how you're complying with the storm handbook. And that's really it. And most of the time, the engineers are the responsible parties on this. And I like to have
these put into the record because when a site comes up at a subsequent date, this is the background that we have to show that it does meet the criteria for it and you don't have to spend any time on on the topic. So um my preference is to
have more information that and if you notice at some of these meetings I asked the engineers to submit you know their calculations for the file for the record not necessarily to scrutinize them because it's not warranted but if
there's any question that come up with a modification at a subsequent date that is a record that could be used by this the new applicant and and a new development of that site. Uh Warren,
>> um with consideration for the comments today here, um I would have found it very helpful if there had been what I'll call a preamble to this. >> Sure. >> Which sets the table, so to speak, explains
>> um that the DPW >> Yeah. has responsibility in this area that um the regulations and guidance is um included in >> y >> referencing where it is covers it.
>> Good point. >> And having said that, indicate the purpose of these >> y >> updated regulations >> and then explain what the purpose is. >> Yep. in the context of who has
responsibility and that isn't going to change >> or if it is going to change how. Y >> and so my question that I started with would have been moot because it would have explained what it was covering and what it wasn't. >> Very good point. And the person who has no clue
>> like me reading this for the first time >> uh was left trying to figure out okay >> what is the what what's the situation right now and how is it changing uh with respect to who's in charge who who has to approve uh and and are what
is what is no longer relevant that is in the bylaws and the regulations that exist. Um, but that's just a preamble which would have I think helped >> as we go forward. >> Good point. Uh, Katherine, do you have any uh comments or questions at this
point? >> Uh, no. Uh, I think a workshop is a good idea. I know that you have put quite a bit of time into this. Uh, I think it's good that we review it. I um I think my
viewpoint might differ a little in that I do think the planning board has a kind of overarching responsibility to ensure that anything affecting the public good is addressed. So whether it's clearly addressed by the
jurisdiction of DPW or by our rules and regulations regarding storm water, we do need to make sure that everything that needs to be addressed is addressed. I do think that falls under our responsibility. So
I think it's good that we take this on. Um and as you say, just review it more thoroughly in the workshop setting. Um it's it is something that we need to do. I agree with Charlene that we're a little light in this area and um I think
it's good that you've asked as you have in our site plan reviews. You've asked for follow-up information, but I've never quite felt that's enough. I agree with you on that that we should have a more formal review uh as part of site
plan and subdivision control. Okay. Uh >> I I have >> Go ahead, Bob. >> So, the my my bigger concern about a lot of this is that we uh we have a
definition of a 25-year storm that is outdated. I I know in my uh other work we've had to redefine what a typical weather year is and it's made a significant difference in terms of of looking at the
last 20 years versus the last 40 years. It is that even something that is part of this? I mean it we have to recognize that the storms we're getting uh are are worse than what is predicted
in the historic record. So we either have to have a mechanism for updating what his what the definition of 25ear storm is or we have to be or or or we at some point either it's done by somebody
else or we have to have a provision in here to start saying no we we can't take 25ear storm anymore. We have to use a 50-year storm because >> that is the 25ear storm in our opinion. So to what extent are we building in the
fact that um old historic record that sets how much capacity is needed and things like that may be outdated. Um the only thing I can tell you is I know that there's two different criteria for what the rainfall event is
associated with the all the storm events and um I think most of the consultants have adopted the higher rainfall rate criteria. Um it's not specifically stated here. Um
that's something that we can do. Um it's probably another one of those items. what is it that we want to seek uh to do? I think it's important to understand if we do make a change from say 25 to something else
um understand the consequences of that and feel that that's something we're okay we're comfortable in doing and seeing what the impact would be for development and properties and that um
I I think that that's just what my experience is in working with these type of regulations and and part of my uh business. That's usually what is the um challenge associated with applicants who come forward is is how
does this impact me and how much does it cost and how do I deal with it? I will tell you there's some applicants that come before us that design their sites for 100ear storm events. They just do um there we don't tell them they don't have
uh that that's not required. we don't say anything about it. They meet the criteria of what we have. So, um that happens on certain sites only because there's limited impact and they can do that. They can uh to upgrade from
one system that has not too much impervious area to one-year storm event. That's great. They're protecting their properties and their investments. So um that but if you want to actually go to that next level I think that economic
analysis would be an important piece to do. Okay. Um next um the West Chadam Neighborhood Center. What I thought I'd introduce to you is we have certain aspects of this that we
need to meet a time schedule on and I just wanted to go over that a little bit. I asked Christine to put this together. Uh for the annual town meeting warrant, deadline to submit warrant articles for 2026 uh annual town meeting is February
13th. Okay. Now, >> but before we go any further, I I did not put this together. This came from the um the uh town manager's office, but the dates, >> right? I mean, so >> I think I think art is trying to um part
of it is trying to decide how what and what you're going to work on, what you're going to try to bring forward because we're obviously out of time. If you're going to be making changes to West Chadam or you're not going to be making changes >> or if you want to, >> you know, consider how some of the other things are
coming. >> Uh the next important date is the closing of the warrant and order of articles for the meeting uh annual town meeting. That's March 17th. Now, if you remember, uh, this past year, we were right up against that
deadline of the March 17th, and we we got it in just in time. Um, it doesn't mean, um, that we have to have our public hearing before the 13th. It just means that we need to hold it and have everything ready by the 17th of of of
March. Um, here's my thought process on this. Um, I think there is some things that I'd like to do before that that deadline of the 13th. One would be at least one meeting with um an outreach program, seeking input
from um um from town residents on what they think of the bylaw, walk them through um the the key aspects of it. um very much like some of the things that we
have done. Um I think Katherine and I have done this question and answer piece which has gone on a tape loop. Um uh we also made some a presentation at town meeting, an abbreviated one because
we only had five minutes each to do this. And hopefully we can spend a little bit more time developing more aspects of this uh with a presentation and and then dealing with a question and answer with the public so that we can
understand where some of the concerns or highlights of what they uh expect to see. and also we give us an opportunity to clarify um if there's a misunderstanding with some of the things because it took us a
while to get to this. I think we have a good understanding of what this bylaw is intending to do. Um, but I want to start with something say in January, sometime on a Saturday in January at the community center, have
subsequent ones after the 13th of February and we could do one in February and then one in March still. It may not be ones where we'll be have time say the ones in March. We might not have be able to modify anything on the bylaw uh draft
bylaw on it, but it helps us understand or clarify with the public if there is something that is misunderstood by what the intended bylaw will and won't do. So, that's my thought process on this. There's a lot of other things that are going on in town. I think we should make
our assessments as part of going ahead with this. If we see hiccups or some uh comments at uh by the public on this that uh we may have to do work on it, we will I I would say we would deal with
those as as we progress along and make decisions um uh as part of this. That that's my suggested approach. I'm open to any comments or suggestions by board members though. Uh uh let's go with Charlene first. >> At this point, my only comment I I think
it's a good approach that you're you're looking at. Um I think we need to go back and look at the comments and misinformation that transpired at the annual town meeting. >> Okay. >> Um because there was a great deal of it
unfortunately. Um, and I think if we can address or at least have a handle on what those issues were, we can kind of try and nip those in the bud beforehand. >> That's a very good point. I like that. >> At this point, that's really all I have,
but I think your approach is very good, >> Warren. >> Um, just to clarify, what the seasonal uh designation of the town is a um a seasonal community. I've got the wrong term, but um that is available to the
town or has been adopted. I'm not sure which that allows um and would perhaps require some amendments to our draft bylaw. In particular, I know that I've read that it would permit us to require year- round residency
and to prohibit short-term rentals potentially. But if we need to modify it, then I would say this is the time to try and do it because it would be at the same time we're explaining
why there's misunderstanding about the draft that was turned down. we would be able to explain and we've updated it to reflect the requirements of the recently adopted >> uh classific u opportunity for the town to have a seasonal property designation.
Um that would be the time to do it. Um >> well there was um have the guidelines been uh issued at all on seasonal communities yet? >> So there's a draft out there to be pretty far pretty far along. I think um it'll probably be pretty close to that draft that's out there that everybody's
reviewing, but we still don't have it yet. >> And and one of the key objections that we faced was u short-term rentals. >> There were misunderstandings as to what people thought about the draft. Um it didn't, you know, but at the same time,
we were unable to prohibit short-term rentals or to require year-round residency, >> right, >> under the rules. and those rules seem to be changing or will change and perhaps we should consider that as we go forward. I
I do think that much of the misunderstanding um that was expressed at the town meeting effectively boils down to uh those that are against
significant increase in affordable attainable housing in large part because of the two large afford developments on either side of the West Chadam neighborhood center and the perception that our proposed dry
law is turning West Chadam into a an affordable housing development. That can't be further from the truth because the maximum number of affordable housing units is not a very large number. Um and it might even be quite
small. Um so the the un you know we need to address the perception in town that there's too much affordable housing right in that area. We already know that and I think the way
to do that is to explain clearly what ours is and what it is not. We're our draft bylaw is not principally to increase or maximize the amount of affordable attainable housing in the
West Cadam Neighborhood Center. That never was and isn't and shouldn't be uh the principal objective of our bylaw. And we need to make certain that we know that pre people are perceiving it as as that.
Um and also I think we need to take um very firm aim at those that are opposed to anything in and around relating to the airport. Um we have thought on this board at length about the airport and
the situation that is there. There is some clarity recently from the FAA about the bylaw that was approved prohibiting um certain aircraft from getting in there. Um but um we need to make sure that people are not against our proposed
bylaw because they are against the airport >> because they have nothing to do with each other. And ours, as a matter of fact, um makes that quite clear >> and actually accommodates this principal objectives that the board felt had
validity with respect to development um in and around the airport. Um, so anyway, we need we already know what what expressed objections there were. And to me, they the principal ones are those that are against further and
increasing and viewing us our bylaw as uh yet another affordable housing development on top of two others and those that are against the airport. And there's something here which is viewed as promoting development within the uh
the runway approach zones. Uh both of which are just flatout wrong, but we know they're out there. So, we need to be prepared to address those issues. I >> I think there was one thing I recall from several of our meetings in the past that was a good point that we hadn't gotten
around to yet. um is do a comparison of what the current bylaw is and what it allows, the uses it allows and what we're proposing. And I think that that it will help individuals
understand that if you leave the current uh bylaw in place as it is, this is the developments that are allowed to go there as of right and compare that to what we are trying to encourage from a village center
standpoint and I think that that might be a good point too. Um, I may have making notes with um Christine. I will work on this and hopefully I can get you some information by the 22nd.
>> Oh, she says yes. Um, I plan to be a big participant in trying to >> put that together. >> I would agree with that, but I but I don't think we ought to lead as our first and most important and with the greatest stress.
what'll happen if we don't pass our bylaw >> because who knows what'll really happen. >> I'm not suggesting any order on any of this. I'm suggesting that as a content I would agree. As a matter of fact, we don't even have to drill into it. What we can do is is give you the the high
level of what it means that >> ours is intended to look like this. This is what the existing does and we're trying to update to what a good village center would be. >> But actually, I'm just trying to agree with you. That's >> okay. Good, Frank. I I just wanted to add on to what Warren was saying. I
think as we know everybody is in favor of affordable housing. What they really don't like is density. >> Yep. >> So that that that's usually the rubric. It's just too much there, you know. So I think if we could do something to address that for one thing, the density
is optional. It may never occur. It's it's something that you get if you do something else. Um and uh so I I think if if we can work on the density piece, I think it'll go a long way. That's my point. >> Okay. And uh Katherine uh you have
>> have some time comments. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say that um actually I agree with everything that everyone said, Art. I think your approach is very good. I agree with Charlene that we do need to address the misunderstandings that came
up at town meeting. Um Warren I think has pointed out primarily what those two issues are and I agree with Frank that you know we need to address the density piece
um versus the housing piece. Um, all that being said, um, I do think one thing I remember from town meeting is I think there is a confusion, there's possibly a confusion in the public's
mind as to what West Chadam Neighborhood Center resoning is uh, compared to the two major um, housing developments that are going on, particularly obviously 1533 Main Street.
I think it's very possible that people don't separate these things in their mind and they think it's all one effort. And so I think we need to be I think that is something maybe the main thing we need to address is to clearly
um spell out what the difference is and also to allay the fear that it's going to be way too much in West Chadam with 1533 right next to West Chattam neighborhood center. Any issues regarding that?
I think we need to vet those and spell it out that it will >> it will work. >> And um there was one other thing. >> Um Art, I also do think that what you're working on with Christine about what will happen if we don't do anything, I
actually think that's a good really good idea because I think people don't realize what GB3 could produce. >> And so I think we also need to bring that out. I think that's a really good point.
Um I think that's it. Um I think we have our work cut out for us. I um we I agree with Warren that we need to look at the seasonal community and see if we need to make changes. But that being said, we I
remember that we agreed as a board that we would not we would avoid making changes to the bylaw um that was presented at 2025 annual town meeting and just bring the same draft before
2026. And I would favor that. I think um we need to just sort out the misunderstandings >> and I would avoid making too many changes but nevertheless we do need to respond to the seasonal community piece.
So those are my thoughts. >> So trying to I'll try to uh have Christine see if they she can chase down any of this information from some seasonal community. Um, I was going to suggest that a Saturday in January
either the 17th or the 24th, um, if board members can help me narrow in on what would be a suggested date. I understand from Christine that the dates are available, both of those dates would be available with the uh, >> so
>> on Saturday at the community center. Um, yes. As of last time I checked, I would tell you that the um, if you're saying maybe the 24th, that is the long weekend. So, you probably wouldn't do that. >> That is what I was going to say. >> Oh, okay. Fine. Um
um well the this would give us uh a chance to uh flush out if we do it on the 17th. We'll have two meetings to at least vet whatever drafts we're putting together for information that we want to start with. And certainly when we get
into the um uh the actual um discussion with um residents um it could lead to all sorts of different things. I think we have to be prepared to um respond as best we can and if it is
um something that we don't have the direct answer to is to try to get the name of the person and try to get back to that person associated with it. Um, >> I was just going to say for our next packet, if we can get the most recent um
version of the bylaw, that would be helpful. >> Y and then what I'd like to do also is see if um um Christine and I can put together the main framework of the content on this and what it would be. Uh and then work on it. um have it flesh
out a little bit at next meetings and then um we can refine it over the next meeting too because I think we have one meeting on the 12th. Is that right? >> That's right. >> We have to a meeting on the 12th of January planning board meeting. So we
can again right so we would have at least two meetings to sort of flush things out and that Christine and I can work on. I don't have any problem uh being the focal point in introducing this to uh at
the meeting. I certainly would ask for any kind of uh uh support from the other board members who would like to get up and speak to a specific topic. I think that each of you have your certain passions and I would welcome that if uh
that's some something that you would like to do. >> I I just wanted to one add one thing about the seasonal since that's come up several times. >> Um I agree with Katherine that we should probably not worry too much about it like we did last time we made that decision. And keep in mind that the
seasonal act is is controversial. Mhm. >> It's not something that passed by unanimous acclamation to the town meeting. It it was it was controversial. So, by adding seasonal community factors into our proposal, it's likely to make
it even more controversial. That's my reaction. >> Okay. >> Actually, the 17th is the long weekend. >> Oh, 17th is. So, Shall we do the 24th then? >> Target the 24th. >> Yeah. I I'm looking at my calendar now and it says MLK day is the 19th. Okay. 19.
>> Okay. So, then let's target the 24th. Is that good? >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I I I misread the uh calendar here. It does say the 19th on the calendar. >> There it is. >> Yeah, but I was looking at the other date that Yeah. >> Sorry. >> That's good. I'll take that extra week
of time. >> Um I don't mind working on this. I'm not going any place. Uh I know it was remote a couple of meetings there, but I'm not going any place for an extended period of time. Um, I don't have any other uh comments
or questions. Uh, if there is anything else, I entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. >> I second. >> All right. Do roll call vote. Warren, >> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Charlene, >> approve. >> Frank,
>> approve. >> Katherine, >> approve. >> And uh, Arts Spru, I approve. And the time is 6 to 6 p.m. >> Excellent.