I feel Good evening. Uh my name is Art Sprew. I'm chair of the planning board. This is the town of Chadam Planning Board hybrid meeting March 23rd, 2026 and it's 4 PM. Please note this meeting is being
recorded and will will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair.
I don't see anyone. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 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 30th 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 n 508-9454410 conference ID 778378312
hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast ensemble cast on Cadam 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. Uh we'll begin with a roll call vote. Katherine Heper, >> present. >> Uh Warren Chain, >> present. >> Uh Bob Worer, >> present.
>> Frank Shear, >> present. >> Bob Dubis, >> present. Uh Charlene Greenhol is absent today and Arts Bureau I'm present. Uh we'll begin with the long-awaited uh seasonal community discussion. Gloria,
welcome. >> Yeah, there's they were talking about snow later on today, but >> Well, do you know what I was thinking? If it were 10 degrees colder, we would have had another blizzard with the way
it was raining last night. Yeah. So, >> yeah, >> I think I'm jinxed or something. Anyway, it's nice to see you all. It's nice to finally go over this and it actually worked out for the best because the first time I was scheduled, the um final regulations weren't out. So, now we have
a chance to look at the regulations as they exist in the law right now. Um so I don't I don't have slides or anything prepared to go over. I think my plan my um my report was was pretty
detailed. It included you know some excerpts from the law and a summary of all of the pertinent sections um so that you can get a general overview of seasonal communities and the regulations. Um but really we should focus in on what does it mean for the
planning board because a lot of this doesn't have anything to do with you. Some of it has to do with like residential tax exemption. Um yeah, some of it has to do with um other things. Um, but there are definitely a few
things that will be um part of your purview and a few things we talked about um in the past when we were uh going over the West Chatam Neighborhood Center zoning like a year ago. I know one of the big things that everyone was talking
about was like how do you get more year-round units? How do you do this? And at the time, I don't know if you remember, this is maybe this is even going back two years now. um we really couldn't do year- round restrictions because there is no mechanism under the law to do that. Um and so now by the
town of adopting seasonal communities at the 2025 town meeting um we are enabled to do year- round housing occupancy restrictions which could play a no more and you were the one who was really like pushing for that and I felt so bad
always being the one to say no no we can't do that. Um but now we can. So, that's one aspect of seasonal communities that I think can really come into play as you guys work through um revisions to the West Chatam Neighborhood Center zoning. We can start
figuring out what a mix of affordable, attainable, and now yearround units might be. Um and then the other two areas where seasonal communities intersects with the planning board's work is the required zoning that we have to do. So there are two requirements
like we got a lot of benefits by adopting seasonal communities. Um but we also um we also voted to um you know burden ourselves with two requirements and I say burden but it's not really a burden. So the two zoning things that we have to do to maintain our status as a
seasonal community and to be able to maintain all the benefits of being a seasonal community is to establish zoning that would allow tiny homes by right anywhere you allow a single family home. So, it's almost all the zoning districts in town. Um, and the other zoning that you have to do is um
attainable housing units on undersized lots. Um, I have some thoughts about how we can do that. I don't think it's going to be a heavy lift. Um, I wouldn't recommend doing anything above and beyond what the regulations require. Like, if they require a 10,000 square
foot lot then and and it gives the option of going smaller. We don't need to go smaller. Like, we don't need to do all of those extra things. we just need to meet the requirements under the law. Um, and I I tried to lay some of those out um for you guys, but I I'd like to
open it up for questions. Um, it was a lot to take in. Um, and I'm sure that um after my preliminary chat with Art, I think that there may be some um general questions and maybe specific questions too that hopefully I can answer. Um the
uh first part where you said the two uh required zoning pieces you um mentioned um are these two separate pieces or are they both tied together? The tiny homes and the tiny lots. Are they completely independent of each other? >> They're totally separate.
>> They're going to be two separate little zoning bylaws that are really just going to be it's not going to be anything like West Chatter Neighborhood Center zoning or ADU zoning. It's going to be really really small, like maybe a half a page each. >> Well, um just for Katherine's um
benefit, um the requirement of having tiny homes by right is one separate piece, but I'm not quite sure where that applies. And then attainable um uh housing on undersized lots. That's
another separate zoning bylaw that have to be created. and we'd have to put the criteria and as you say in there, we don't have to go underneath the 10,000 square ft, but we would need to at least have minimum of 10,000 square ft of a lot.
>> So, actually, it's it's any lot size that's below the area required in that zoning district. Okay. Down to 10,000 square feet. >> Got it. Yeah. Um I I just needed that clarification because I the first time I
I was thinking that both of these were tied together, but I guess um that's >> they're really separate and and and both of them will will involve changes to the use table, right? Because we have to add that. But as far as the tiny house zoning, like there's nothing in our zoning bylaws that would would prevent
that now, >> right? Like you can you can build small houses if you want. I mean, it's not profitable, which is why it doesn't happen, but um yeah, and the the requirements, actually, I'm I'm looking at my staff report now. The requirements are pretty slim for this. So, you have
to allow tiny homes um by right in all single family residential zoning districts. And by single family residential zoning districts, the regulations mean any place where a single family home is allowed by right or by special permit. So, it's almost all of our zoning districts. Um, you
have to have a year-round uh housing occupancy restriction, but no affordable or attainable restrictions. So, it's not income limited. It's just limited to year- round use. Has to be a principal dwelling on the lot. Um, must comply with state building code and local
enhancements. And we can as a town further regulate or prohibit movable tiny homes. So, you can say that in Chadam's definition of tiny homes, it does not include mobile homes. Okay, Katherine, did you have some
questions? >> I do have a couple questions. Um, so I want to in some sense zero in on what action the planning board needs to take. Right now we have three bylaws that are required that we're going to present at
annual town meeting 2027. The ADU that's already >> this that would be this year. >> Oh, this year 2026. Sorry. So these were going to aim for 2027. Okay. Sorry, my mistake. So, we have two that are required. Um, and the year round
requirement is included in the tiny homes, but not in the small lots. Is that what you're saying? >> So, both of them have to be year round. >> Both of them. Okay, great. So, that's sort of basically done and we don't have
to think much about it in some sense. But I do have some questions. Do we have certain things that we can think about? for example, design guidelines or design standards or form-based code. Would we
want to introduce some standard of some aesthetic standards? Um or can we or can we not? So that's one question. So for tiny homes actually for for both of these I don't think that you can put
design guidelines on them. The whole point of this is that these are as of right things. So if you meet these basic requirements as laid out in the seasonal communities regulations, those are going to be allowed. Okay. And then um I
so in terms of these two, the planning and correct me with if I'm wrong, the planning board doesn't need to put in a lot of thinking or time on them. So, what we can do is maybe what I would suggest is maybe take a look to see how
it impacts the town. You know, you're saying that it will apply in most of our zoning districts do allow single family homes. The one place we didn't allow it was West Cadam Neighborhood Center except for those two small lots because we put
in that clause that that said except in the case of, you know, so there were very two very specific lots that fell into that. So it I think for me it would be good to see where everywhere in town we will now be able to have tiny homes
and we'll now be able to have um building you know homes on undersized lots. Just give us a picture of where this is going to be permitted and year round occupancy required. That's a huge thing. I mean that satisfies so much of
what we wanted to accomplish in West Chadam. And I think maybe having digested that then we can take a look and see how does it impact West Cadam. And of course if um um if we don't do anything in West Cadam I think GB3 does
allow uh single family homes actually >> by special permit >> by special permit. So people could build smaller homes in it as as it is currently zoned. That's true. So we might want to take a look and just see then
I mean then just ask the question. So now what do we need to do in West Cadam to bring it up to do everything we wish it to do which is not just providing um a diversity of housing options but also we wanted to have that mixed use and the commercial piece and so on.
>> Exactly. So where did how did West Chadam Neighborhood Center zoning land as far as single family homes were they allowed by special permit or were they actually >> they're not allowed. >> So then tiny So then tiny homes would not be allowed right >> in that zoning district. >> We we um
>> that zoning district but they are allowed as is now >> right >> as it is now. Correct. But with new zoning >> right >> as it is. >> And I just want to clarify something. We at the very end we noted that there are
two lots that couldn't build anything that complied with the guidelines that were being established in West Chadam. They were smaller lots and they were uh off the main road. Those currently uh the only thing that you could possibly
put on there would be a single family home. So, we established a criteria that if you were in existence before a certain date and you were under, I think it was 11,000 square feet, you were allowed >> to uh establish a single family home on
those pieces of property. That applied to two pieces of property. So, >> within it, all the rest had no criteria for single family home. >> So, I would actually run that by town council because I don't think that you specified the parcel. No, no, no. I
mean, as it relates to tiny homes, right? Because I don't think you specified the parcel and gave like an exemption to that. I think that any lot within West Chattam Neighborhood Center >> that was >> that existed at the time of the
>> that pre-existed that was right met those requirements. We couldn't designate those specific lots. We had to just say any lot such and such. >> But I'm wondering if that made it so that the district allows single family homes. No, it did not. We already had
that with the tongue council. >> Well, it it isn't passed yet anyway. So, we're just going to correct that. >> So, we'll So, we'll actually So, that's a really good point. So, we'll work on these in tandem so that you get the West Chatam Neighborhood Center zoning that
you want knowing that we also have to do tiny home zoning. >> Well, but but the attain the uh small lot covers those two. So if as long as we don't exclude small lots then then we we can stick with the no
>> single family. >> If I'm just saying if there's if there's single family homes that are allowed in that zoning district then >> but not really. It's just >> but but they are >> right. So that and so in general >> but but they are. So that's why I would
say I would like town council to see if it's actually a prohibition on single family homes in that zoning district, in which case tiny homes wouldn't be allowed. But if you allow single family homes, even if it's only on two lots, then that means single family homes are
allowed in the district and it may allow >> it could trigger it home. >> So So that's what I mean. So we'll work on these things in tandem so that we make sure that it it works out the way you want it to. And if I could just
offer a a point of view in West Chadam, I think we I would think we want to allow tiny homes and we would want to allow the smaller lots and the year round restrictions, but we don't want to open it up so that people could build
single family mega homes there. That's what we don't want there. Yeah. Uh any other questions on this? Um, and by all means, I mean, if there's some other other things that board members >> sticking with the same, it's almost like
the other way around that um we we will ban single family housing except on I mean and and and allow allow those little lots to be single family.
That's if we could get that wording where it is banned, but those two specific lots could could put a small one. That would be that's the reverse of what we >> That's the reverse. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We we just want the I mean
>> I just want you to take that to the lawyer too. >> No, I understand that an alternative way to look at >> understand that. And just so you know, I'm not going to go to the attorney or start any of this until after town meetings. So, this is another couple months off. But I have it in my mind um
what I need to ask him. >> So >> uh Frank, >> I'm sorry. >> My my big question is this merging unmerging. >> Oh yeah. Yes. >> Lots. Could we go over that?
>> That's the scariest part of this. >> So it's So it's not scary. It actually it worked out in a way that I didn't anticipate for the undersized lots and in a good way. So the the merging and unmerging of lots is a different part of
the affordable homes act and is not part of seasonal communities. And what that did is it allowed lots that had previously merged under common ownership to be able to be unmerged
provided that they serve as um like starter homes. So the homes that have to be built on there have size limits. It can only be 1,850 square feet which is fairly small. It has to have a minimum of three bedrooms to encourage families.
And so there are really particular circumstances in which you can use an unmerged lot. So that's totally separate from seasonal communities and you guys have no control over that. So under seasonal
communities, it actually says that you can't unmerge a lot to build an attainable house on an undersized lot. So that was one of my big concerns that, you know, it would potentially allow people to start dividing off and
creating all of these new undersized lots, but it doesn't. And you can unmerge a lot, but it's not under seasonal communities. It's under other circumstances under the Affordable Homes Act. >> Does that make sense? >> No. >> Okay. Um,
>> I have a lot. I'm going to cut it in up and I can only build a big house on that. Is that what you're saying? I couldn't build an attainable house or I couldn't build a a uh two It's got to be three bedrooms, you said. >> But that's not under seasonal
communities. >> I I I I'm just trying to figure out >> Yes. So that was it was it was a a little surprise in the Affordable Homes Act that no one saw coming. um at least I didn't where it does allow you to unmerge lots provided you build a small
family home with three or more bedrooms >> but you also there are I did I didn't spend a lot of time there is a frontage requirement >> there is and a minimum lot size okay >> but it's again unrelated to seasonal communities and it has nothing to do
with the zoning that the board has to >> so we don't have the ability to make that rule um for for year round. >> I think that there's a year round
requirement for unmerged lots too. I'd have to look back into it. I don't I don't remember and I don't have that section of the act in front of me. >> I I think Christine has something she can add here. >> The only thing I would say to all of you as we move forward, Gloria will do her piece of of of the other aspects of
this. when we move forward with the zoning the zoning components of it, we'll obviously be working together and we'll be working with Katie, but the you know, we will put in a request for town council on behalf of the planning board to answer some of these questions. And one of the questions that came to me
with regard to the merging and unmerging of lots is I don't know that that Cadam ever merged lots under common ownership automatically. Some cities and towns did and >> they all do. Massachusetts. Yeah, that was it was at the state level. So, yeah,
there's probably >> that Dartmouth didn't they didn't do that, but I don't know if people petitioned to not have it happen or how they >> I don't if maybe it was a home rule petition. I don't know, but that was at the state level that lots merged under common ownership. So you could, so there
was actually before this ways to quote unquote like unmerged lots if it was like an isolated lot that was, you know, in existence from the time the zoning was created. Like there are there are certain circumstances um for which lots could unmerge or they
or it's not that they could unmerge, it's that they never actually merged even though it seemed like they merged. But that's also unrelated, >> right? Well, that that's what I'm getting at. There's some places that they're not and it's not going to be a subdivision, right? You're not it's it's not a subdivision of an of an existing largecale lot, you know, that somebody
can just do it. It comes down to this merger piece of it and we'll get a lot of guidance on that before we move forward because I think that that's going to be a potential >> well >> interesting piece to us. >> It scares me that we've I've been on this for too many years, 12 at least,
and um we often say, well, that's an unbuildable piece of property. We don't have to worry about it anymore. They're all back in the Some of them are back in the game. >> Y >> and it >> Yeah, >> that's just what I'm looking at.
>> But it it does say you can't >> do that and then call it an undersized lot. So, I like that. Okay. >> Uh Frank, you had a question. >> Yeah, I had two. I >> two questions. Um and one of them was this one, you know.
Um but going forward when uh you know we approve a division of a property and one of the lots is not buildable under the old rules, it will still not be buildable is what we're saying. In other words, you would not be able to put a
tiny home on that. >> If it's >> Yeah. Let's say that we there's a division of property and we say that one of the lots doesn't meet the requirements. So, it's not buildable. Uh go but going forward it will be
buildable for >> for attainable housing. >> For attainable housing and for tiny homes. >> Um tiny homes I don't believe you can do on undersized lots. Hold on a second.
Yeah, tiny homes doesn't have Yeah, you can. It's It's really just tiny homes as of right on regular lots. >> Really? >> Yeah. It doesn't It doesn't mean that you can build undersized lots. Undersized lots is is its own separate.
>> So, a lot in Chadam is worth somewhere between half a million and a million dollars. And we're saying you can build a tiny home on it. >> Yeah. I mean, you could build a tiny home now. That's why you can already build it. It's just not profitable. So, >> it will never happen. No, it won't. Okay. So, so let's >> I won't think about it anymore.
>> Yeah, don't don't worry about it. And that's going to be an easy sell, I think, at town meeting 2027. >> All right. The second question I had was really just clarification on the bottom of your memo, but it's not there's no
pages. So, it's where it's the page where at the bottom it says discussion. It's like it's three or four pages in. Okay. >> The sections of the act that will impact the work of the planning board are the two requirements to to put in zoning
changes. But then ability but not requirement to do year- round occupancy restrictions that are not tied to affordable or attainable income levels. How does that ability um get implemented through the zoning
regulations? So, it's not a zoning change that you have to make, but you could do that. So, so there are two required zoning changes, the tiny homes and the attainable housing on on undersized lots. And then the ability to do year- round restrictions you can do
>> through um like negotiations with developers, like if you have a developer who wants to do something and you can write it into West Chatam Neighborhood Center zoning. So, you can make it a part of zoning. It's just not required. Okay, understood. Thank you.
>> Uh, Katherine, you had some follow-ups. >> I I think it's related to what Frank was asking. So, I just want to be clear. So, so we get these ANRs where they divide up their property. And
I just want to be clear that if someone owns a larger lot and for some reason they want to divide it up and come to us, usually it's with an ANR, not so much with the subdivision. >> And as Frank was asking, under the old rules, one of the lots they divided into
would not be buildable. Now it is buildable for attainable. So they can do that. Someone can just come to us. It wasn't an unmerged lot. it was just a bigger lot that they owned and they want to divide it by using an ANR for example
and previously maybe they cut off a small piece for some reason who knows why and previously we would have had to say it's not buildable but now it would be buildable for if it meets the requirements >> right >> the new requirements it would be buildable for attainable housing is that
is that a correct understanding >> no my understanding is the lots have to be in existence Okay. >> I'm sorry. They need to be what? >> In existence at the time of the of of this zoning. So, you can't start
creating a bunch of undersized lots. >> Okay. So then my next I'll just make a comment to the board that we have kind of entertained the ideas uh in the past especially for what we call the buffer
zones at West Cadam on the east and on the west that we might create a new zoning >> uh district in those areas that would allow for more dense residential building and we might do something like an R10 district. So that was my next
question. Would something given the new parameters we're going to be dealing with, it seems to me from what you're saying that would still be a useful thing for the planning board to consider. >> Okay, that was my other question. And then I have one last question. Um,
there's that other piece about the housing, I think it was the attainable housing, not so much the tiny homes being made giving priority to municipal employees and first responders and artists.
So, where does that fit into all of this and do we need to take some action on that? >> So, that would not be part of zoning ever. So that would always be part that would be more of like a program rather than a project. So if you had an
individual project before you, you could say we would like you know x number of units reserved for municipal employees under seasonal communities. >> Okay. >> All right. >> But it would never be written into it would never be written into the zoning
bylaw. >> Okay. Okay. I think those are my questions for now. I I I've got two. So, let's go back to this ANR. We creating we create the the two lots.
It the requirement you have here. Lots must be smaller than minimum lot size allowed in the zoning district by at least but at least 10,000 square feet or 25% of the min lot size whichever is greater. And that's all it says. So yes,
you can't effectively you can't build on it that day, but the day we create that second lot, it's now another lot. So I'm not sure how you think that we have restricted those. >> So when you're doing an ANR or a subdivision,
>> yeah, >> you're not creating undersized lots. >> You might there might be unbuildable for some other reason, but you're not creating a lot that is smaller than it should be. I mean, it might not have the right frontage. It might not have some of those other things, but you're not
creating undersized lots. And ANR doesn't allow you to do that. >> Okay. So, you have to go to a subdivision and you subdivide it and you end up >> But you still you don't usually create undersized lots. I mean, so maybe sometimes we have a parcel or something if it's going to be part of a roadway or
some other piece of it and we're taking out of the main lot, but >> and then there's usually conditions in there, but you're not ever creating undersized lots intentionally going forward before because there's no profit in it. Now, if you could take that lot and divide it into five 10,000 square
foot lots. So, let me go through an example here because I'm I'm having the same type of confusion in my head. Let's say you're in an R20 district. That's a 20,000 square foot lot. All right. Before the law was passed in here, if
you're creating a subdivision there, um, uh, like Hunter Rise, you're creating 20,000 square foot lots minimum to be buildable. Otherwise, it's an unbuildable portion of a land that is part of that subdivision.
I guess the question is if you pass if this law passed and it it did for this uh Oh, this is for for tiny lots. >> No. >> Does it allow us does it allow a a developer to come in into an R20
district or R40, R60 to create not just those 20,000 square foot lots, but also a 10,000 foot lot. >> No, because your zoning requirements require a 20,000 lot. >> Okay. So, because our districts say that you have to create when you're
subdividing, it has to be for a buildable lot, you have to be X. That's what the criteria is. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. >> Does that help? >> It it sort of >> I I guarantee you we will have somebody doing it.
>> So, I actually maybe it maybe I'll send this to Christine or send it out to you guys. So, I did a map last year for the fincom actually with uh because they had a question about undersized lots for seasonal communities and they were just like, "Well, how many how many 10,000
square foot um lots do we have?" So, we have a map that was created through GIS that shows all of the lots in Chadam and it highlights all of the undersized lots. So, everything that's under the zoning district but at least 10,000 square feet. Um, I also did a bunch of
under 10,000 square foot lots just to see, but it doesn't matter because those aren't those aren't allowed in under the seasonal communities. So, I have a map showing all of those undersized lots. Um, it's surprisingly few. Then I have
another map that shows all the undersized lots in town, even the ones that have been built on. It's like twothirds of the town. So, it is. So, I'll I'll find those and I will um email them to Christine and then she can send them to you just so you have a
background. So, it's not just to give you a sense. It's not it's not going to be overwhelming to the town. And when you look at the undersized lots that are undeveloped right now, they're like kind of scattered throughout town. It's not like concentrated in any one area. Some
of them are undersized and clearly not able to be built on like there where where like sands are shifting and things like that. Um but it's not it's just so few in town especially compared to the developed undersized lots. >> So let me let me go through another
scenario uh with with the subdivision control law. There is dividing up property by subdivisions, but there's also the approval not required criteria. That criteria is very different than and our our our purview
and our uh ability to do anything with an an ANR lot. Yes, but you can't if they just a minute just a minute. Let me finish. Let me finish. Thank you. Um the only thing that we can verify or deny is
if there was not an adequate way. If there was not an adequate way, we don't have to approve that ANR. However, they could put together any kind of lot combination with that ANR and we still would have to sign it off
if it had an adequate way. So there could be a creation of different all sorts of different lots. So, is there something in the law that says any you can't create anything after the date of when this law went to effect? >> I So, that's something we can put in our
zoning, but also you can't you can't create new nonconformities when you do an ANR plan. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, you can. All the time they do. >> No, you can't. >> Yeah. >> But legally, you can't. >> People split up lots. They give they
give property to someone else, a small 100 square foot property to create that merges with the other lot. So, it's not like they're isolating an undersized lot that's going to be developed. Like, if someone wants to do a lot line adjustment, it it goes to
>> like the adjacent lot. That's not creating a new nonconformity. >> Yeah. >> And that's why we have the notes on the plans and things like that. When I insist on the note that it's going to be merged with such and such a thing, it's it's so that they can do a property transfer, but we never make a non-conforming lot. That's not your
non-conforming lots came about probably a lot before you even had zoning here, right? You know, everything was done and then as you built your districts or you developed your districts, then that's when things became non-conforming. >> So, I had one more. I I would like to
get the sense of the rest of the board, but I think I'm ready to absolutely prohibit movable tiny house. So I was I was assuming that like you were not going to get a draft of a tiny home bylaw that included movable homes.
Don't worry about that. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. >> We don't we don't even have to do that. So, um, for the for the board's benefit, the the timeline on this that you wrote in here that at least these first two
required, um, bylaws that have to go into effect, those would have to be in place by February 27th of 2026. So therefore, they need to be in >> 2027, excuse me. Uh, so therefore, um,
we need to go, uh, well, it's two years, you say 24 months. uh then it's 2028. So therefore we need to go with these two bylaws in the May town meeting of 2027. Is that right? Okay.
>> 24 months actually sorry about that. The 24 months actually ends before town meeting 2028. >> That's right. Yeah. Okay. So so we're going to have quite a quite a few things on our plate between now and Maytown meeting of 2027.
Right. this just so the board knows we'll be putting all this together um Gloria Christine and I and making the board aware of this and putting some sort of a plan together of how we get there. Uh I I think it's important since
these are in different parts of the law. If there's any kind of guidance or any type of uh criteria that we can put on here and we want to then we should actually move forward with making that happen to to to say well these are
provisions that we think are are most applicable to Chattam. >> Oh, I'll also say there's a conservancy um zoning bylaw that we're going to have to do next year as well. >> That's right. Yes, that's right.
Uh, any other questions of Gloria on this? I mean, go ahead, Warren. >> Gloria, I've had many of my questions already answered, but no one, you haven't talked at all about my biggest hot button, and that is yearround
housing. And um it does seem to me that in reading all of the information about the bylaw that we're going forward with plus the seasonal communities um mirrored against what we already have
in regulations relating to short-term rentals. There's not a consistency of definition as to what year round housing requirements signify. it's uh greater than 10 months of the year. No more than you must be in
rather more at least 10 months in the year. I've seen it is 6 months of the year. Um and for the short-term rental regulation, it's um what is it greater than 30 days. Um, I would only suggest
that we there's ought to be a benefit to having uh or at least considering a standard definition of what we talk about year end or year round housing requirements. So that's my first obvious my preference
is the you know 10 months of the year but there's flexibility for circumstances. >> So we'll have to do that because that's how it's defined in seasonal communities. So, if we're going to want to use seasonal communities to do year- round housing occupancy restrictions, we're going to have to use their
definition. And I think that that's what the West Chatam Neighborhood Center owning said, too. I think that it's >> and I I think we did that knowing that this was coming coming along, too. >> Correct. Uh and my other question was from my own education. Um, you have said
in the past that there is no way to make year round housing a permanent requirement. I've heard it said it can't be more than 30 years for example. Um, is that literally the case? So that if we have that in West Chadam Neighborhood
Center, just for example, that means that in year 31, we're going to then have our worst nightmare where everything becomes a short-term rental and and that's the end of it. Or um are there ways to make it permanent or are
there ways to extend it when that period comes? Or are there ways uh through while you can't have it as a um a a deed restriction, you could manage accomplish somewhat the same objective by
regulations, for example. >> So, we wouldn't be able to accomplish it by regulations, but this year on the town meeting warrant, there's a home rule petition that would allow the town of Chadam to hold attainable and year-round housing occupancy
restrictions in perpetuity. So, we're we're trying to get ahead of this and trying to >> Oh, that's great. >> Oh, amen. >> I'm on it. >> No more questions. >> That's great. That's really great. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> I mean, it makes sense because we were
enabled to do these things, attainable restrictions and year-round housing occupancy restrictions, but it didn't quite hit the particular chapter and section of mass general laws that allows them to be held in perpetuity. So, the home rule petition is actually asking
for attainable and year-round housing occupancy restrictions um because there's a critical need for them just like affordable housing restrictions to be treated um the same way and get the same benefits that other restrictions such as affordable housing restrictions, conservation restrictions, preservation
restrictions, watershed uh preservation restrictions um to get the same benefits that those restrictions have in being able to be held in perpetuity. And it just for the record and I think you realize this too um but um in
perpetuity is important to me for the West Shadam Neighborhood Center for the whole neighborhood center concept to work. Um but I certainly am not in favor of it being you know in perpetuity necessarily in other parts of the town. I mean that's another whole question. So
>> well I mean so this would apply to the whole town wherever you wanted to. So, if you didn't if you didn't want to have it in perpetuity, you wouldn't you wouldn't have to. If we have the ability to hold them in perpetuity, it doesn't mean that they have to be held in perpetuity. Personally, I would I would like to see that because most of the
time that we would end up acquiring an attainable or year- round housing occupancy restriction, it would be at public expense, right? We'd be using town funds either through CPA funding, through affordable housing trust funds, or some other way. And to me, when you
use um town funds for something, I would like to see that investment remain in perpetuity. Yes. But of course, you know, our concept in West Chatam Neighborhood Center is that developers would be given the flexibility to create additional
housing, affordable, attainable, and so on. And however that shakes out. Um but again that um um year-round housing requirement wouldn't be paid for by the town. It's just merely part of the zoning that
we're putting together. So >> right, but there there are other ways that we can get them. So for instance, the town may wish to purchase year-round housing occupancy restrictions. I mean we might put an RFP out and say, "Is anyone interested in selling a year-round housing occupancy restriction
to the town?" And we might get some takers. So Nantucket's doing that right now. >> Um, and so in that case, if we were to purchase one, we would want it to be in perpetuity. >> And the developer, I mean, in a way, you want the developer to have it in
perpetuity, too, because in the particular circumstance of West Chadam and maybe other village centers after, you know, West Chadam gets passed and you want to kind of duplicate that success. Um, you're giving them something. It's not money, but in a in a way it is because you're allowing them
to de develop at a greater density, right? So, actually, they do have the opportunity to make more money because of the zoning incentives. So, I mean, I can make an argument for for making that in perpetuity, >> but it is going to be possible in the
West Chadam Neighborhood Center to have permanent uh year-round housing requirements. >> So, there'll be year- round housing occupancy restrictions. They will not be in perpetuity until our home rule petition gets passed. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay, it's clear.
>> Any other questions from the board members? Oh, Katherine. Oh, Katherine and then Frank. >> Or would you like to go first? I'll go after. >> It was a followup to the >> Sure. >> Um, have have any other towns, to your knowledge, gotten
uh a home rule that allows perpetuity? No. Okay. No, I don't I don't even know other ones that are doing this, but I anticipate other seasonal communities will be doing this at subsequent town meetings. Chattam is really advanced. Like we were the first town to do um to
extend that housing preference for the fishing community like shell fishermen and fishermen. And now I know that there are other um towns on the Cape that are doing home world petitions like that. Province Town, Well Fleet, um maybe others. There's a lot of history on uh
perpetuities. You know, there's some, for example, that there's a rule against perpetuities, which is a legal rule. Um, and without going through the thousand-year history of of that, um, uh, any thought
given to perhaps not going for perpetuity, but something less in perpetuity that might accomplish the same objective like 99 years or >> it would so, so under the Mass General laws bec because like you said there's a
lot of um, background to this. the term of restrictions, any kind of restrictions like homeowners association restrictions, like any restrictions, defaults to a 30-year maximum, right? >> There are very few exceptions to that rule. And there, if you want to look
this up, it's in chapter 184, section 31. >> I've read it. >> Okay, good. So, and there's like five different um restrictions that are allowed to be held in perpetuity. So you either have the ability to hold it in perpetuity or it defaults to 30 years.
There's nothing there's nothing in between. >> But but there there there is a public policy issue that has driven that law which is there's historically
a a a it's disfavored to have perpetuity. Um, but there are others that amount to perpetuity that have gotten through. So, I'm I'm just throwing that on the table that we're we seem to be climbing a very
high mountain here and we might be able to do something that accomplishes it. um pick 99 years or whatever and then perhaps go back for perpetuity at a later time when it's more likely to be
>> I think it makes sense to do perpetuity now because the way the home rule petition is written it mirrors the language for affordable housing restrictions. >> Um we have a critical public need for attainable and year-round housing restrictions just like affordable housing restrictions. we were granted
the ability to do these things and I think that it makes perfect sense to tie affordable, attainable, and year round um together in one in one package. And so there are ways of getting around that. Like when you talk about a 99-year
restriction, a lot of times that has to do with like a land lease or something like that. So the the property is would be owned by the municipality. We you know lease it to a developer for you know whatever it is a nominal amount $100 a year or something for 99 years
and then you can write something in your restrictions that say um 99 years or um the longest term allowed under the law or something like that. But but it's not just a general ability to do these restrictions. And if we, like I said, if
we're using public money to buy year-round restrictions, I think that the public would anticipate that the town would protect that investment by making it a a restriction in perpetuity. I mean, we see what h what happened with the chop
properties. Those were developed using public funds 40 years ago. Those restrictions have lasted 40 years. Not sure how that term as opposed to 30 worked because in the 80s I don't think we really like had a good I I don't even think that there was like a prohibition against perpetuity at that point. I
think it was all muddled. So nobody knew. So it's 40 years and here we are. We're at like 38 years and everyone's like losing their minds that we're going to lose those restrictions. So, why would we invest town money, town tax funds to purchase restrictions knowing
that they're going to expire in a shorter term than the chop properties? >> Okay, Katherine. >> Um, yes, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I I just want to circle back to the sort of the big picture what what I believe I'm
hearing you say. So, we've got these two laws that are required that are put into place for the one for the tiny homes and the one for the undersized lots. Um, but based on what I'm hearing you say about how the town is currently laid out and
built up and just, you know, that who's going to build a tiny home, it seems to me that both of those laws are going to have virtually almost zero effect on the town. Is that right or wrong?
>> So, I think the tiny homes law will have a negligible impact if anything at all. I think that the undersized lots I think that it's possible that you know the ones that we have in existence that are
10,000 to whatever the the the minimum lot size is. I think that there's a possibility that those will be developed. But like I said, when they're mapped out, it's like a smattering across town. >> And when you especially when you look at it compared to like all of the existing
houses on undersized lots, it's just >> right. It's not a lot. I mean, it'll I think that it'll be more than tiny homes, but I also think that those actually one's really funny. There's one neighborhood where one of the undersized lots is actually bigger than all of the
other lots that are already built on in the neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> So, I think I think that those could potentially be developed, but I don't think that the impact is going to be really big. >> So, if I could just >> Yeah. Go ahead. So the correlary to that is
how can we use these given our situation in Chadam and obviously we're going to analyze it visav West Cadam but is there a way to use these laws so that they can impact Cadam in the way that we're
wishing they could. Um, I think one of the other points I brought up that's kind of related to this is it is still in the planning board. It's still consistent with what we want to see to consider creating a new district that
allows smaller size lots like R10. So, I'm just asking you given the bigger picture, is there a way to utilize these new permissions and requirements in such a way that it benefits the town in the way that we'd like to see? I mean, you
can go above and beyond the limits in undersized lots. So, the town would be allowed to put a lower threshold. Like, we wouldn't have to say under the minimum lot size down to 10,000. You could say down to 5,000 or down to 3,000 or something like that. So, you could
expand the possibilities that way. I mean, it's also self-limiting because you can't you can't put a house on a 5,000 foot lot and have a septic system. like it's going to be limited to areas in town where there's sewer. You know, maybe in >> 10 or 15 years when there's more sewer,
that's when you see more of these lots being developed. Um you can put um you can put different setback requirements on it. Like you can minimize the setback requirements so that if you have an undersized lot that has like a really
inconvenient lot shape because it's like really narrow or something, you could reduce the setback requirement. So it could potentially be developed. I mean those those are the kinds of things that you could do to create more housing opportunities. >> That yeah that's my question is
>> it seems to me the way these are now it's not really going to help us a lot >> in terms of creating more housing opportunities. So >> is there a way to in a sense exploit these >> Yeah. >> to do what we want. >> One more. Yeah. To what? Okay. Um,
building on what Katherine just said, um, I can't find it, but I think I read somewhere that if we don't make progress somehow under these V zoning changes, >> we could lose seasonal designation.
Um, I can't find the exact words, but there's something like that. And following on Katherine's point, if we can make changes that allow us to make progress so we don't lose seasonal in the future, that would be great.
>> Yeah. >> So, I think that that had to do there are a couple ways you can lose seasonal community status. So you can not pass your zoning after a certain number of tries. But I think that the lack of progress I think that I think that it
would have to show that over time that the zoning that you put in place wasn't allowing any development. I think that it's more likely that it's more the financial aspect of development that's
going to make this difficult. It's not It's not going to be your zoning. >> Is it in your memo? Is it Is it in your memo somewhere about how you can lose it? And >> do you know it might >> I thought you did have something on that. Yes. >> Because the the words are that you have
to make some progress >> and what I'm hearing is that we might not um >> okay in the table. >> It's not that nothing can happen. I mean we need to make progress. >> Okay. So here's so the EOHLC may revoke
a municipality's designation if that municipality fails to adopt the zoning in line with the requirements. Uh fails to meaningful meaningfully permit new residential units under zoning requirements. I guess that's it. Or no longer exhibits the characteristics that
result in the designation. I don't see that happen. >> Yeah. So we have to has to be meaningful I guess is the >> so that's that's a tricky thing and I think that we could if we don't have a ton of units developed I think that like
a real simple proforma for construction costs and sale prices would go a long way in showing the EOHLC that it really it's not necessarily the zoning that's preventing this it's just the cost of construction and
>> you know what I mean It's Yeah. And if I could just follow up. So say for say we bring these before annual town meeting 2027 and they don't pass. How does how does that work? So we can
so we can get a waiver um under here for I mean I would I would probably ask for like a waiver of a year or something and then go back and try to get it passed. And then I guess I mean I guess ultimately after multiple attempts if it doesn't pass they could I guess they
could revoke it. I think it's a it would be a bad deal for the town not to approve it and for us to get a revocation of our of our designation because we get so much more out of it than we have to give. It's almost like you said like how how many tiny homes are going to be built? Well, how many
tiny homes are built now? None. So So I don't know if this is going to help that at all. Um maybe we'll get one. Um >> there there's one clarification that um uh Christine had uh brought up at the um ADU when that was being presented to uh
select board and to the finance committee. Um in this particular case, uh I think you said that um we only needed a simple majority to have to pass the ADU. Would any of those type of things apply to these bylaws in the
seasonal community piece? >> I don't think so. But I think it's still 2/3. And so how is it? Is it in the regulations? >> It has to do with housing. We had received um that clarification from town council. >> Is it housing or affordable housing? >> Maybe affordable housing. >> So how does that work with the ADUs?
>> Yeah. He said that that's what we have to have because of some regulations. So I assumed it had to do with the Affordable Homes Act. So I I'm anticipating that maybe he's going to say the same thing with regard to tiny homes. Even before the Affordable Homes Act, there was the ability to pass
zoning if it was all about affordable housing with just a simple majority. >> So neither of these zoning um requirements are about affordable housing at all. It's about attainable and it's about year round. >> That makes me wonder about ADUs because that's also not about affordous,
>> right? Yeah. >> So I I don't know. Maybe there's something. >> He asked the question a couple of different ways and then even the town manager asked the question. So that's the guidance we had gotten. >> Maybe there's something in the act about the ADU bylaw that it only needs
>> Yeah. because that's separate from seasonal communities. >> We'll ask the same question with regard to this one. Okay. Going forward. >> So So just a quick clarification progress going back to the progress. We have to pro have progress on both of
these to to maintain our our seasonal or we just have to have progress on the one of them because the small lot we're going to get a couple small >> I think we will too. >> I think we will too especially if it's like >> we have to build a small unit just to
keep our our designation. That's going to be the first thing we recommend. >> That would be tricky. So I don't I don't have an answer for that. I would like to think that they would be flexible, especially if we um you know, maybe we go down to 8,000 square feet instead of 10,000 so we can actually show the state
that we're you know, trying to make it easier >> or something. I don't know. >> I it's going to be hard to get an 18 a threebedroom house on >> Well, it doesn't it doesn't have to be three bedrooms. >> Yeah. >> For an attainable house on an undersized
lot. That's for an unmmerged lot under Okay. Okay. So, >> okay. All right. Are we ready to move on or no? >> Yeah, I have. >> Yeah. Okay. One last question. >> I just want to be sure I'm clear on the tiny homes. So, there are two separate
things. There's undersized lots and then there's tiny homes. So, is the thing So, what we're saying is that what this gives us is the ability to build a tiny home on a regular sized lot. >> Like, yeah. Which is almost a waste when you think about it. Right.
>> Dafted if you don't mind my saying so. >> Okay. >> Bob, you actually have a question. Okay, good. Go for it. >> The tiny home. >> Here's your Here's your push. >> The tiny home >> has to be the prevalent home on the lot,
>> the principal dwelling. Yes. >> Okay. So, what happens if you have a a lot and you want to put an ADU on it? I think you can put an ADU on it. >> Bigger than the natural home, which is bigger than a tiny home. >> The ADU is by definition cannot be more
than 50% of the >> Well, it would have to be a really small ADU. >> That was just a thing that like >> there's nothing to prevent ADUs from going on the law. >> Yeah, I believe we got the answer. >> All right. Are we are we ready to move
on? >> Okay, let's move on to our regular business. Gloria, thank you very much. I'm sure we're going to have to have you come back for some more though. >> I'm sure. And especially once we start that zoning, maybe this summer we'll have a first draft for you. >> Thanks everyone.
>> Thank you. >> Uh okay, so next item on agenda is the minutes from March 9th, 2026. Um there's three board members that need to um abstain from that and Charlene's not here, so we're going to move that to a
future meeting for approval. So that moves on to uh site plan approval uh amended change of use for 631 Main Street. Um >> yes uh uh Mr. Ireley you um
the um I since I filed this I I just recently received a full set of plans. So let me pass them out even though they're late. Uh, no. We have them. >> No, he's saying he's got something different.
>> Something different. >> It's not much. It's alive. It's alive. 631. Yeah. >> Is it 631 or is it 361? >> 63. >> 630. >> Okay.
I think the principal difference is they show the they show the shrub they're going to put at the store. >> I saw that. Yeah. >> Because there's there not a lot of land here. And I I what I filed with you shows the color of the
facade, the new facade of the the store. >> And no, that's the principal change really. >> Do you want to introduce say anything further about >> Well, we're here because it's a uh formula
business. >> Okay. >> And we already have one down the street. I don't know why. >> Yep. I No, I I I get it. Um, so let me just read some of the comments that came from inter intergovernmental and committees. >> Sure.
>> DBW director, the bot uh the bottom of the new blade sign blade blade sign shall be no less than 7 ft above the surface of the sidewalk. Uh, another DPW comment. The property is currently allowed
151 gallons per day for sewer flow or the equivalent of 3,15 square ft of retail as long as it as it remains as a retail store. They do not need to ask for any additional flow. The Historic
Business District Commission has issued a certificate of appropriateness on December 17th, 2025 for renovation of the front facade. The applicant is scheduled to be heard by the zoning board of appeals on March 26 for the above reference special permit
requirements and requirements stemming from the property being within the flood plane overlay are being addressed with the building commissioner. So, what I want to just uh comment to the board on, if I recall, this um um
this property, this lot is part of a larger um piece that came before us before it was all um it included the parking and everything else as a um a single submission. And then these were
individual lots that had separate uses that were on them. That plan was approved a while ago. There's been several uh u um changes that have occurred with change of use in that.
However, the criteria didn't change any. So there wasn't any really issues unless there was a significant change in the in the use that created um say a parking rest uh issue or something like that. So that's just to give you a heads up. We
had we didn't deal with any of the other um elements that were previously approved uh storm water requirements and all of that because they were all met and from that previous larger submission. So but if the board members have any comments or questions Mr. Riley on this.
>> Well, also I just want to say that the uh the professional engineer Danielle Danzing I believe is online. >> Hi, this is actually Elizabeth Roach. I work with Danielle. She is on the road actually going to a different public
hearing tonight. So I am on from Kimley Horn. >> So Elizabeth is a professional engineer uh who created the plans that we're that you're looking at now. So, if you have any questions for her. Okay. Uh, Katherine, why don't you begin?
>> Um, I have a couple of questions. So, this is Lily Pulitzer. It's a formula business, but there's another Lily Pulitzer down the street. Are they maintaining both locations now on Main Street, or are they moving the location that's further down on Main Street to this new location?
>> The marketing people did not consult me on that question. I believe though they're just going to move here. >> They're just moving. So they're not actually going to maintain two locations. >> I I believe so on Main Street. >> So my second question is
it's true it's retail so everything should remain the same but I get the impression especially during summer that there's a lot few there were a lot fewer employees at Ben Franklin than there are at Lily Pulitzer. So parking does depend
on number of employees. We need to factor that into the retail as well as floor square footage. So I think we need to know the number of employees. >> Uh I don't have that. I'll have to get it for you. I mean >> because that affects our calcul.
>> I understand. But if you look at the plan >> Yeah. >> You can see there's no room for parking. >> Yeah. >> At all. >> No, but the board >> Well, they could have 100 employees or two. Doesn't matter. There's no parking on this property. >> They just they they park
and the main lot to the rear >> like everybody else. So, um Bob, >> I have to agree with uh Bill on this. The Ben Franklin stores have been there ever since before me and uh there's no
way that you can have any parking in that area. It's always been they find a place to park usually in the way in the back or they find it somewhere else or they bicycle or whatever. But I don't
see uh how any parkings can be there, maybe one or two cars there for a while, but they have deliveries there. They've been there forever and ever and ever and never a problem. and and uh the Ben Franklin at sometimes uh was quite the
uh unique store and in the later years they've slacked off a lot which is with like every other five and 10 store uh they they couldn't make it because of the box stores. So I I am in favor of
not even thinking about the parking or how many people work there. I'm absolutely ecstatic that somebody is taking this building and putting it back to good use. And I think the clothing area is the clothing store is is a a perfect
thing for that because the they won't have that many trucks coming in and out of there. >> Um with the with the five and 10, they had all kinds of different things. So it was always a constant truck after truck after truck after truck. to me that the
clothing store they would they would come in at a certain time at least I'm assuming Bill I I don't think you know that either do you >> well no but I know that what they were part of the part of the difficulty and
uh with this property is that it's in the flood plane the back half of the building's in the flood plane >> and the the uh and as luck would have it the basement floor inside the building
is actually uh a foot or so below the level of the parking lot outside. So that creates >> water >> well that creates a serious flood problem. >> I think the likelihood of a flood water
ever being there is something that's going to have to happen long after all of us are long gone. But the so they're going to end up to have usable space in the basement. They have to floodp proof
the basement which is a huge deal. And they're negotiating that with the uh the seller. So the deliveries will be made to the back of the building through the parking lot because that they'll be using the basement for storage of
materials and then you know so there won't be the FedEx truck or the whatever that truck they always parking on the street but and I and there may be four employees on
a shift instead of two but >> well I'm going to I'm going to say the four employees that used to work down the street are now working here. >> Here. Yeah. >> So, I'm less concerned about this then. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Uh any other comments or questions of Mr. Riley? >> Okay. Um I don't have any others either. Um, I guess a possible uh motion is to approve the site plan review application with conditions for the propo for the
proposal for the formula business establishment because the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to the protective zoning bylaw and as the conditions that are outlined in comments by Christine. So, I would just add that
you should um probably add a condition four for the uh the 151 gallons the thing from the uh DPW. >> Sorry, I can't hear you, Christine. >> I said I would the only thing I would add was um based on the comment received
from the uh DPW about the 151 gallons. So, that's on the top of I would just add that to the bottom as just as a re reassurance or whatever, but that would be it. Right. >> Was that the second page of the memo that you received from us? It's the second item down.
>> Well, again, that that would be a DPW thing. We generally don't get into Okay. >> that criteria. That's fine. >> So, I would leave that off. >> Okay. >> Detail. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You got to turn your phone down. >> Frank and I both think that the
gallantage should stay the same. I mean, >> it would and and we generally don't uh have purview over that anyway. >> You don't have to put it. I was just saying that you and then the only other thing I would say for tonight is I would do one thing for the amendment >> and then I I would give a second thing
just to have uh me forward your statement of conditions to the ZBA because they asked for a referral on this property for their records. >> That's normally we do it twice. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Make a recommendation. >> Yeah. So I I u noted something. Do I
have a motion for that approval? the the um proposed flood proofing is not in our view or >> that would be the building commissioner because it's a building related item. Um >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, I just wonder the chair can make a motion. I think you just did. >> Oh, I can. >> Yes, you can.
>> All right. I wasn't sure if I could. >> Well, I just >> make a motion. >> Yes, I just >> I'll second the motion. Just before you vote, I mean, there shouldn't be anything in here in your decision about the sewage flow because that's something we deal with.
>> Yeah. >> Correct. I I took that out. >> Okay. Great. Perfect. >> So, it stands, we're trying to work with you on this one. >> Okay. >> I appreciate it. >> All right. We'll do a roll call vote. Um, so we have a motion in a second now. All right. Uh, roll call vote. Katherine
Halpern, >> approve. >> Warren Chain, >> approve. >> Worshiper, >> approved. Frank Sheer >> approve. >> Abdubis >> approve. >> And Arts Brew I approve. >> All right. Thank you very much. Thank you Elizabeth. >> This this will also go as our recommendation to the zoning board of
appeals then because they were looking for that from us. So we'll give them that >> too or >> um is that something? >> Yeah. Okay. So we we should uh have a separate um uh motion and vote to uh for our uh recommendations to the zoning
board of appeals. I'd like to send a positive note to the to the board of appeals. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I second. >> Okay. Uh let's do a roll call vote. Uh Katherine >> approve. >> Uh Warren >> approve. >> Uh Bob Worshaft
>> approve. Frank >> approve. >> Uh Bob >> approve. >> And Arsur I approve. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> All right. Next item is uh a discussion item proposed application for site plan approval. It's uh 39 George Ryder Road.
Do I have anybody here from the applicant and if you could uh state your name for the record, please? My name is Ed Sebring. I live in a teeny house in West Chattam.
And if you allow me, I'll be able to walk to work from my teeny house in West Chattam to the store at 39 George Ryder Road. The teeny house was built in 1940
and I love it. What are we doing here? Is it just a discussion? >> Uh yeah. Do you have a question for us? Because um we don't really have uh information that we can react to or make a decision on or vote on tonight. Um
>> so I would just want to give you all an update. I know that Mr. Sing has been trying to um bring forward. >> This has been going on since November, >> right? >> And but we don't have a complete application as part of the problem, >> right? um as a result of you asking me the questions and about having some type
of a discussion so that we could get this to move forward. I did confirm with David Clark, he is working on a site plan. So what I would say to you now based on the information I have from him when we get the site plan then we consider the application complete and then we can move forward and put you on
an agenda. So he is working on a final site plan for us. Now, and part of the problem is we don't have any information with regard to any of the businesses that have gone forward, but we're trying to help to bring this >> to completion so we could move forward.
>> This this uh particular piece of property has never had an application on file with planning board. >> And I'm still getting mail from six of the previous people that used that building. Mhm. >> A year and a half later, I'm getting six
different companies that use that address. >> Okay. Um so my uh recommendation is is once David has that um existing condition plan, um have them reach out to Christine, go over uh elements of
what we think are going to be important to to have included on that, and then you can uh reapply. >> Okay. >> He's already got his application in. We're just trying to trying to finalize it. We already have the paperwork. We already have payment. We just don't have the plan. So, we need the plan in order to move forward. We're almost there now
is what I would tell you. So, >> and then and then we'll put you on our agenda in the near future. >> Do you have any questions about what I'm trying to do there or >> we can't ask questions because we don't have the site plan. Yeah. Perfect. And there's certain we have site plan review
criteria and I'm sure Christine will make sure those that we have all that information when she gets the site plan from the engineer. >> Yeah. So um generally the the pieces that we have we we focus on the site only not the building but we use
information that's in the building if there's any criteria we need to uh estimate the number of parking places uh for the site. David can help you out with that. He's very familiar with that whole process. >> Okay. So, we need that to be able to move forward. >> That's correct. So, he's he'll ask you
for information on your your floor plan and you know how much square footage or retail and all that so that he can determine the number of parking spaces that are required. Uh your piece of property has a lot of flexibility there. So, I'm sure he's going to be able to
come up with something to help you out. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. And I think there's correspondence you want to comment on, uh, Christine. >> So, yes, just quickly, um, a couple of things. I Your planning board schedule
for the year had May 11th on it as a meeting before the select board chose to have that for annual town meeting. Um, so we are looking at a couple of other dates to see what's available because otherwise we have no meeting in May and that could potentially be a problem. We can always cancel, but it's better to have something to start with if we need
it. Um, so I'm working with the town manager's office on that. Um, the other thing I would say to you is that the um, town manager's office had put out something from the National Weather Service. Um, it's called, uh, Skyworn and it's for, um, storm spotter
training. So to just get some information on how to with all of the the intense storms that we're getting now. So, they actually are going to hold um a a conference here or a um a night of information if anybody's interested. So, that is April 29th. It's a Wednesday
night and it's from 6:00 to 8:00. It's at the community center. And the reason I want to point it out to you is because the town is now doing their hazard mitigation plan and a couple of other things. So, we're trying to do some additional research um reach out outreach I should say. So, we're kind of
moving ahead with that. And then for anybody who is interested um on the Cape Cod bridges thing, the mass do put out something with regard to some of the um the final state environmental review document. So that is available online.
Um so if anybody wants a I wouldn't necessarily unless you're really into it, read the whole thing. But there's a there's a good summary usually >> on construction and timeline. So if anybody wants to leave the Cape at any point in over the next 10 years or so, you might want to look at that. Um so
that was in your packet as well. And then um uh and if anybody wants to give comment on that, they can give that to the state um through April 10th. >> Your next meeting is April 13th. We've
got some meetings shifting and stuff like that because of Patriot Day and because of some of the other holidays coming forward. So, just wanted to remind you April 13th and then again that town meeting, we're going to need all of you for the ADU thing for May
11th. >> Okay. Um, if there's no other points of discussion, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> I move to adjurnn. >> I second. >> Uh, let's do a roll call vote. Katherine >> approve. >> Warren >> approve. >> Bob >> approve. >> Frank
>> approve. >> Bob >> approve. >> And Ars I approve. And the time is 5:20 p.m. >> 5:21. >> Go have dinner.