Good evening. This is the town of you. You got a town of Harwitch. Town of Harwitch. Town of Chadam planning board hybrid meeting for November 10. You'd think after five years. November 10,
2025. It is 5:00 pm. Um, please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for schedule and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please
notify the chair. Um, my name is Charlene Greenhalge and I am the vice chair. Our chairman, Art Sprew, is I believe on uh remotely, but he did ask me to chair this meeting this evening. Pursuant to Governor Healey's
excuse me, March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law chapter 30A section 20
until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Planning Board is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the
order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-9454410 conference ID number 295428779 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 channel uh 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. I'm going to begin by doing a roll call vote. Warren >> Warren Chang present. >> Bob >> Bob Wetter present. >> Frank >> Frank Sher present. >> Bob >> Bob Dubis present. Arts Brew.
>> Arts Brew present. >> This is Katherine Halper and Charlene. I'm also present. >> Okay, we're waiting on Art. But thank you Katherine. >> Harts, I'm present. >> All right. And we can hear you. And I'm Charlene Greenhild. I'm also present. Um, let's begin with the minutes first.
We have September 29, 2025. I do have one minor correction that I found. Um on page two uh under release a covenant request the third line down
it's um says typically 1.5%. It should e either read 150% or one and a half times the estimate whichever language works better.
Did anyone else have anything? >> I think 150% works better. >> I think 150% does work better. Is there anything else that anybody found? Uh, can I have a motion to approve as amended? >> I'll move to approve the minutes as
amended. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Um, all in favor again. We'll do a roll call v vote. Katherine Halpern. >> I believe I have to abstain. I was not present. Okay.
>> Uh and Bob Dugas have to abstain. >> Oh, that's right. Okay. Well, technically we have to ask them anyway, though. >> So, Art Sprew, >> uh, Art Sprew, I have to abstain, too. >> Okay. Bob Dubis.
>> Bob Dubis has to abstain, too. >> Okay. Frank, >> I approve. >> Bob, >> I approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> And I vote to approve. And moving on to the meeting minutes of October 27, 2025.
Um I will be abstaining. Um is there any corrections or additional information? >> I didn't >> that anyone saw >> Katherine will also be abstaining from >> Yes. Yeah. Um if I could hear a motion
on this. As Warren Shane, I um move to accept the minutes as drafted. >> Second. >> Um roll call vote. Bob Duvvice. >> Bob Dubis, approve. >> Frank, >> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Warren,
>> approve. >> Charlene abstains. Katherine Halpern abstains. >> Yes, I also abstain. >> Okay. And Art Sprew. >> Art Sprew, I approve. >> Okay. Thank you very much. At this time, I'm going to take an item out of order because I think it will be relatively
quick. It's the certificate of compliance and release of um statement of conditions for 81 depot and I do believe David Clark is here for this. >> Uh David Clark, Clark Engineering on behalf of the Genotes. Uh if you've been
out there, you'll see the project is done. Uh we prepared an asbuilt plan uh showing uh the site improvements uh including the trench drain and the leech pit for storm water controls. Um
look I think they did a nice job on the project. Uh driveway looks great. Um of course the building looks pretty good too. So uh we're here for a certificate of compliance. Does anyone have any questions or
comments? >> I just want David, thanks for >> David, thanks for being so speedy on this and doing a good job in the asbelt. It's much appreciated. >> You're welcome. >> Um, if I could enter um Art and Katherine, I'm guessing you don't have
any questions or comments. >> No comments from Art. >> Okay. No questions or comments from Katherine. >> Thank you both. Um, uh, if I could entertain a motion to release Stephen and Jodie Lynn.
>> Genod. >> Genod. >> Jen. Um, from the statement of conditions imposed by the planning board for the property at 81 Depot Street and issue a certificate of compliance. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second.
>> And roll call vote. Uh, Bob Dubis. >> I approve. Frank, >> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> Katherine, >> yes, I approve. >> And Art, >> I approve.
>> And I also approve. >> Thank you very much. Have a good day. >> You're very welcome. Thanks, David. Okay, we're going to move on now to uh the definitive subdivision for 104 Croll Road. Uh Mr. Eldridge. This was uh
continued from September 8th, September 29th, and um October 27th. And I know Mr. Dubis has to recuse himself on this matter. Looks like we have Terry and Bill. >> Good evening, Bill Riley.
>> Good evening, Terry Eldridge. And uh September 8th, the planning board did review a proposed three large subdivision with a panhandle. And uh the board requested a profile of
the proposed panhandle driveway be shown on the topographical plan with conceptual development sketch overlay and a legend be added, which was done. it. Um
there's four plans in front of you. I believe the first plan is the original plan. It was submitted back in uh for the September 8th meeting. The second plan which is uh
entitled the first revision 01 and This shows the original plan with the profile and legend that you requested.
The third plan is entitled alternative plan A and it shows the three lots with access from Croll Road. Three separate driveways to enter each one. one
driveway to each lot. There is um also a document that I had given to you in that package which was the requirement for 50-ft separation
between driveways and then that the uh 50 foot separation was measured from the center line of each driveway. way. So, with that being said,
I have a list on here in the upper leftand corner that gives us separations of 73, 58, 57, and 85 ft between driveways in this configuration. This includes the driveways to the north
to the Chattam Drama Guild and the driveway to the south for the dentist's office. So then the next plan you should have before you is alternative plan B and that's showing one lot accessing
uh access is coming from C road and the other two lots would be from the panhandle. Obviously the panhandle lot is entitled to it but there would be a second lot that would access it. >> Yeah. One less driveway.
>> One less driveway. And then there is a another plan that I sent and that is the original they call it loting plan here definitive subdivision plan. And there were three
items that um you addressed at that meeting and um can't remember what they were. Okay. Um, at any rate, it was the locust map. You want it darker, which has been done. There was a note on the plan that
pertained to the planning board's responsibility that's been removed. And there's been additional lines added to the signature block that was requested. At this point, I guess if there are any questions,
>> do any of the board member Oh, actually, let's go to staff first. Is there anything you would like to to add on this, Christine? >> Um, the the first thing that you have is the definitive subdivision. So, the definitive subdivision plan does meet
the requirements for a definitive subdivision. Um and then what our recommendation is is that you then go through um the options and decide what option uh meets the requirements that you want to have. They will ultimately go before the ZBA um because this is a
residential use and a commercial um thing. I did leave something for you today. We got an update from the DPW director. So that was part of the paperwork in front of you. Um if you refer to the bottom of that page, it'll tell you exactly what he was proposing.
Whatever option you end up choosing, if you choose one, um he has requested that the um uh the site triangle be added to the plan prior to um any uh any
approval. Um Charlene and Art and myself did go through statements of conditions today. the tenative draft of what I have out um what I had sent out to you in the package. Um that has changed a little bit. So Charlene will go over that um if
you decide to move forward. Um uh the DPW director had also said he would be um agreeable to a single driveway um in this case if you wanted to do that. Um, but you could
potentially be setting a precedence. Um, we don't typically see three lots on one. Um, so those are some of the options that you could be looking at. Um and then the other thing that I would say to you is I would make sure as part
of your conditions that you um make sure that lot six which was done by a previous ANR is actually merged with lot 25 prior to moving forward. um because it appears as um >> cases >> former lot six on one thing and then it
appears on one of the options as still being under the ownership of the guild. Um so just to confirm that that actually has been done because I don't have any recording information for that but again Charlene will address that and the
conditions as she moves forward. Is it possible for us to get a copy the corres correspondence uh from the DPW director and the draft statement of conditions
>> and to address the DPW's director's comments I did furnish a site triangle on an earlier plan and it ended up being I think it was under three on one side
and less than four on the other side. In other words, the triangle comes back to the street. It was less than four on this side and less than three on that side and then it went down fan down to nothing. And what I had suggested uh to
Kathleen was other than having the sight triangles, why don't we just have a statement of conditions that says that no plantings will be placed within 9 ft of the pavement. It's five feet
from the pavement to the sideline of the road. So that way you've got a sight triangle. You don't have a sight triangle. You have a sight corridor the entire length of the uh property.
And it makes a lot of sense to do it that way because nothing's worse than to have plantings in the town layout where you still can't see by. And I don't know that it just means that any plantings are now going to be 10 feet away from the pavement
versus with the triangles, it's going to be three and four feet at one point down to zero, less than 100 feet away. and somebody's going to end up planting vegetation within the town layout. They do it all the time.
So this way, at least you have a document says they're not going to be within 10 ft of the u of the pavement with plantings. And if I could make a comment, the the uh
years ago and there were a lot more of these developments using panhandle driveways. It was a standard condition of the then planning board uh that all all the lots had to access
from the panhandle to reduce the number of openings onto the street. But that was a long time ago. >> Do you know why they went away from that? because that makes sense to me. >> No, I don't. >> They didn't.
>> Yeah. Well, I see what happened was that's the way it was and there was a lot of development going on and there were a lot of subdivisions proposed using panhandle drives and the the uh and as land got used up there
were fewer subdivisions, fewer panhandles and it just you know membership on the board changed. So, ancient history, but of course, Charlene was there.
>> I was going to say I was here. Um, I was actually here when the panhandle provision went into effect that it was allowed. Um, but I don't remember. >> You were here. >> Yeah. >> You're not that old. >> Yeah, I am. Thank you, Terry. Um, but I
don't recall multiple houses off of that. But regardless, um, I know Art Sprew Oh, were you done, Terry? I'm sorry. >> Well, there is one plan here that shows one lots being serviced off of Crawl Road and the other two lots are from the
panhandle, which if that's the way you want to go, we've got the plan here for it. Um, I know Art had some items if we want to hear from him before the the rest of the board. >> I have one question. >> Oh, go right ahead.
>> Uh, see, um, if if we went with the one the panhandle plan, let me let me call it that, just having one exit on onto the road. Um, currently the driveway is
scoped at at 12 feet wide. Um, is there any particular reason why it couldn't be wider? >> Because it doesn't make a lot of sense to do that, >> but there's nothing topographic >> providing on plan 01.
>> Yeah. >> As we're providing a width of the road at 16 feet wide back to a point that I think was 40 43 feet back. If you think of it as parking spaces, we've got four
parking spaces there. So, two cars could be coming out, park there. While two cars come in and park there, somebody moves out, somebody uh moves in. So, that's that eliminates all of
the issue with, you know, having a highway going down through here for three lots. Uh, I just think aesthetically it's going to look a lot nicer being 12 ft wide and having that nice opening that's going to allow
for uh cars to stack if necessary. Plus with your 9 ft uh sight distance, 9 foot wide sight distance uh just make it 14 ft.
But Mr. Elders, >> the attorney has suggested we could make it 14 feet. >> Okay. Um, may I call you Terry? Mr. Elders, >> you call him Terry, but don't call me Terry. >> All right. All right. No,
>> please. That's my name. But but but there's nothing topographically or from an engineering standpoint that would prevent the driveway from being wider than the 12 ft that's presented here. Right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. That was my question.
>> Just aesthetics. >> Art, did you want to go over your um questions and comments? >> Sure. Uh, you may have to uh uh let me know if my internet internet connection keeps interrupting, but I'll try my best. Um,
the cross-section for the driveway, I wasn't quite sure what the material was going to be. Could you provide Terry some information on that? >> Let's look at the cross section here. I you're referring to the type of
pavement that's being proposed. >> Yes. >> Yes. Buminous concrete asphalt. >> Okay. All right. Well, it'd be good if I if you had a c a detail of that cross-section on plan uh similar with
the uh catch basin. Uh if if there is a preference on my part, um let me see. >> I I think it starts to get uh a little bit challenging when you putting all these driveways onto a
panhandle lot. Uh I would typically want to see a T turnaround at the end associated with that. So, I'm I'm suggesting that you we focus a little bit on alternative B where one uh driveway
would come into the panhandle uh drive and the drive the access drive up to that uh uh lot, that first lot that that comes
into the driveway would 16 ft and then 12 feet past that uh to the rear of the panhandle lot. And then we can avoid this whole issue of trying to get a T turnaround. Uh because then you're just dealing with two lots and the third lot would have direct access to the
um to crawl road. Uh I think that would be a little bit cleaner. I think we have to take a look at cross easements on this. um that that means the the lot which is connected to the panhandle would need to have an easement rights to
travel over it. Uh that would need to be part of this. Uh uh the other thing I think that would be important to note if we're going to have this panhandle u uh how are the utilities being serviced on these lots? Do we have separate
utilities uh going to each of these lots? sewer, water, underground power and and communication or is there going to be a larger water main line uh up the panhandle and tease off of that for each
of the lots? Um I think it would be important for us to understand that and that be developed and shown on on the approved plan. Um I those are are generally my uh
comments about this. Uh we can certainly if the other board members support those we can add them in as conditions. >> Cherry if you want to respond. >> If I can remember everything. The last
thing he said was >> sewer. He was talking about >> water line water line service. Water and sewer. >> We got sewer and water in the street. >> Gas. >> It could and gas and it could be accessed from the street. That' make the most sense. Alternatively,
when it comes to the sewer in particular, because out in the middle of the road, maybe there would be a sewer main that would come up through this panhandle to provide
a sewer connection for all three lots. But as far as the water's concerned, I believe it's in the grass between the pavement and the property. >> It is. Yeah. >> So, it's a simple connection to go to that. So, all three lots would have their own connection. As a matter of
fact, lot 23 has its connection right now because that's where the former building that was there connected. So, we have both the water and sewer for that particular building. We don't have it for
the future lot 25 and 24. Another comment that was made had to do with turning TE's. I would suggest we have three turning wise already. If you look at the plan, somebody can pull into a driveway, back up and go. And three
different instances. Obviously, the third one to the east, the back of the property, nobody needs that one. It's only the owner that would use that. And that's something for them to back into and drive out. Additionally, the width of the driveways
is going to be 21 ft. At 21 ft, when you come out to the intersection with the panhandle with those roundings, they're 10 foot radiuses.
So you'd actually have 30 feet at the edge of the pavement and 30 21 31 feet at the edge of the pavement and 21 feet back behind it. That's enough room for a U
parking lot. That is uh parallel parking. Somebody can just pull in there, parallel park while somebody else drives in. It works. Don't need to have turning. We've got the turning TE's. Got three of them. So, and I think there's a third thing, but I can't
remember what it was. >> I can't either to be honest with you. >> I think one of the one of the things that our >> there should be crossfits for each of these access points from uh >> Yeah. Now, we do that as part of the
part of the real estate law stuff. We don't do that with the planning board. Right. There'll be an easement over the entire panhandle which ends at about where the curve starts. It ends um you see the the angles and the property
lines where the panhandle ends there and it's shown on the definitive plan. So that would be the panhandle and the attorney will be drafting up a document that says that one of the other lots would have a benefit of an easement over
the panhandle portion of of the driveway coming in. >> Yeah. We you can't grant an easement to yourself. So we we do the easement when we convey the lot to another entity, >> which is common practice. as long as the
lots are all in single ownership. I mean, you can't grant yourself an easement. So, the uh but the other thought that Art had had to do with having uh two driveway access,
one with a lot on the south side having its own driveway. And I mean the only comment I would make to that is that you know that's opposite what uh Mr. Freillley suggested in his comments
which is that having a single access uh on off of Crawl Road where there are already a lot of access points makes more sense to him uh than having you know two or three. So, it's just
reducing the chances of conflict with a with traffic going by which can be pretty busy these days. But I mean that so that would be my suggestion. I think I think Mr.
Freillley's concern is is wellounded and is a good suggestion and again it's something we did many many times but that was a long time ago. Uh, Katherine, do you have any comments
or questions? >> Um, yeah. I'd just like to say, um, I actually agree with what Art has said. Um, and I did read Rob uh, FY's letter and considered the matter carefully. Um,
I think what our concern is is it seems acceptable. This is not a This is not a private way. This is a driveway in a panhandle. And it's acceptable to have two access
to two separate lots off of that driveway. But to have access to three separate lots off of a driveway through a panhandle, I do think sets a precedent that we do not wish to set. And I think
it is an over Madam Chair, if I could, nothing you do is a precedent. Each each case that comes before you is decided on its own facts. Uh
>> I I would prefer to finish. Um >> you cut out there a little bit, Katherine. Sorry. We thought you were done. >> So, let me No, I'm not done. So, I think we're trying to find a balance here between avoiding too many um uh
entrances from Croll Road and also overt taxing a driveway through a panhandle. I do agree that alternative B is the best alternative because it provides a compromise. >> She's fading in and out. So,
>> yeah, Katherine, I'm sorry. You are fading in and out. >> Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? >> Yeah. Lean in and shout, Katherine. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Anyway, I favor I think we should
go ahead. I agree with Art. I think alternative B is our best alternative uh with widening the driveway in the panhandle as Frank suggested. So, why don't we leave it at that? >> Frank, did you have anything else?
>> No, I'm done. Thank you, Katherine. >> Well, she I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the with the history and and the law. The the panhandle, you were here. I was here put in. That's fantastic. So, you could help.
>> Um my my understanding is that the panhandle was put in to allow people to build on on land that otherwise would be landlocked in the back because it couldn't meet the frontage requirements. >> Not necessarily. It was more because as
the um larger lots were dwindling, it was a matter of not being able to get frontage requirements for the lots. >> Um well, yeah, sort of. But um >> so where where I'm coming from is the the purpose was to allow a one building
to be put back from the main drag and have an access for that one building. That was the purpose. It wasn't to create a vehicle for people to have common driveways. That wasn't part of the thinking at the time. >> Not that I recall. No.
>> Okay. So, uh, however, uh, I'm hearing that there is precedent where we've done that here. Um, and it is ambiguous whether that would be permitted or not under under the rules. Uh, so I think
the president is important. What is the president? Have have we um allowed two or three? >> I I believe >> we found one >> from 2006 that allowed three. Till then
we've been mostly two. Almost all two. Well, I should say all two. >> Okay. >> I haven't found anything any different. >> Understand? So I I guess where where I'm coming out is uh number one, I think it's preferable to have one entrance on the road, not two or three. and that's
where I would come out. Um I don't have any problem with a common driveway if it's wide enough. Um and um you know although if the consensus of the board is to go with two, I'm I'm happy with
that as well, but I think I would prefer just one entrance to the development if you will. That's it. Bob. >> So, the the front two um buildings are are going to be commercial use.
>> Not necessarily. >> Okay. >> Really? >> You you did say at one point one was going to be uh >> well, you know, it's commercially zoned. >> Okay. And so
the it was possible that they would be used these would be used for workforce housing. So that would be all residential. >> Yeah. >> And you know the the uh so the developer really hasn't made up his mind if they're going to be used for residential
we have to get a special permit from the planning board uh from the zoning board to use them as for residential single family residential. So, at some point soon, they're gonna have to make up their mind how they want to use them. >> And if I might interject, if they were
going to do commercial development, they'd leave it as one great big lot and just have one big building or multiple big buildings. It uh you could have two of the buildings the size of the one that was there running east west, one on the
south, one on the north, a big parking lot in between. It would make a great area for a commercial development. The client wants to do residential. At least that's what he's telling me. And thus, we have a plan before you showing residential buildings on a reg
residential subdivision. It's all conceptual. >> It's just an idea so that he can look at and say, "Yeah, I like that." And uh let's go with it. And uh but I wouldn't worry about commercial at all because it doesn't make any sense.
because the site coverage goes up dramatically. I can't remember what it is offhand, but it uh >> 60% >> 60%. And right now we're dealing with something that's uh I don't have it on the thing here. It's less.
>> It's around there somewhere, but not much. >> But so our suggestion is >> percent >> one driveway 14 feet wide instead of 12 feet wide. the pave surface 14t wide
uh past the first two houses and then it can narrow down to 12 feet once it gets past the first two driveways. Uh the you know I don't you know I don't think
it's not a bad idea to have the sewer connections coming down the driveway. I don't know if uh but I don't know if it makes economic sense because the two houses closer to the street or one's already got a stub.
So you'd only be having two houses servicing off the panhandle sewer wise. But I think gas and water uh for the two new the houses when the one further back and the one on the
north side uh because again there's a water line already servicing the area where the southernmost house is located. So uh but you know I think that I think the developer really needs the flexibility
uh to do the thing that's most economical uh for him. Yeah, I I I I could see a very different um driveway structure for if they were
commercial if they But there's a couple of reasons why I'm with Frank. The first is one opening on that that stretch makes makes more sense to me than having two. But the second is that the the
driveways are behind the properties is something we're trying to do in all our other planning and all our other areas is to not put the put the driveways and the parking in front of the building. So, um
this this puts all that behind the structures, which is another advantage. and it it's going to turn out to be less um con you know asphalt in across the whole area. So I I think in the long run
it would end up being a a easier um you know storm water. I So I my preference unless somebody can tell me other would be one one driveway. Warren,
>> my feeling is that the one driveway is certainly very preferable, but my um opinion of formal opinion on it really depends a whole lot on whether there's going to be commercial development here or not. Once you have um approved the
panhandle with three house driveways on it, uh that doesn't require that it be three houses. And if you have the uh the single access that then ends up being developed commercially, then that's going to mean potentially you've got
commercial access off of the panhandle, which I'm not >> if I might speak to that, anything commercial has to come back to this board, >> right? So if that time the panhandle as it's shown if it does not provide for
adequate um uh access for commercial >> we can change that >> then then I would say I um endorse Frank's recommendation to widen the panhandle driveway. that was um of
concern to me, although I was very much in favor of endorsing uh the DPW's comments about a single access. Um I think in this particular case, I'm not concerned about President at all because that that particular road
um warrants as few additional uh curb breaks and entrance points as as possible. It is so heavily traveled. So that would uh president or not in general I would say in this case um I'm
persuaded that it would the benefits of having a single uh panhandle um entrance and albeit slightly wider which is going to provide additional space for parking it's also going to provide additional space to park I mean
to a pass it's going to provide better access for emergency vehicles etc etc so I'm uh I'm very much in favor of 14 ft out to uh where it becomes a single drive going to 12 as um councelor Riley had proposed I'm I'm in favor of a
single break in the um not two um recognizing that to the extent this ever were to be proposed for commercial development then my opinion would change >> one more >> go ahead go ahead >> so regardless of whether it's Um, two
driveways are one. That long driveway scares me a little bit in the sense that I think people are going who don't live there will see that as a place to park. And I I think whatever you do, you're
going to need to make make it very clear that it is not public parking. >> Are you suggesting a gated community? No, I'm suggesting signs or >> No, we have Well, there there is a there's a similar division
uh on the other side of the dentist office and that has not been a problem even though we're directly across from Panam. So, it's it's hasn't been a problem there. Well,
>> honestly, I'm I'm comfortable sort of with either one or two driveways. Um, my question if it were two driveways, the driveway shown on lot 23 from Crawl Road, that's on the the B
alternative, Bees and Boy, seems awfully wide at the road. I mean, you're you're only really going to have one car passing there. Most driveways are are not quite that, >> but there's no dimension there, so I'm
not really sure what it is. >> The street to the garage is a very short distance. And to make the turn to go into the garage becomes awkward. Now, the car is going at an angle to go into the garage. So, no matter what, you've got to have the uh the 20 foot in width in there in
order to go directly into the garage with both cars. >> No, I mean where where at at Croll Road where it meets Crawl Road. >> Well, what happens is if you had you've got such a small turning radius,
you really need to have the two driveways works out perfectly. You have a single driveway. Now you got to make a turn. >> I think she's just >> not enough room. >> Indicating I think Charlene is just indicating that it could be narrower at the at the edge of pavement and then it
could widen out when you get to the garage. We can make it 18 ft >> or 16. >> No, we want it to be 20 feet if it's a real hangup. Well, in the first place, they prefer the one. >> I'm just asking. I'm
>> I'm just asking. >> There's a definite reason for it, and that's so that each car can go straight into the garage. Otherwise, one goes straight, the other one makes a turn, backs up, makes a turn, backs up, and then finally gets into the garage.
>> Sounds like would be an issue. and we can't move the house back any further because >> setbacks. >> Um in that case I would prefer the myself the one driveway then the one shared driveway
>> um in looking >> surface at 14 ft >> as long as it's still um it on the plan uh a 01. Okay. >> It It does show 16 feet at the opening.
>> I'm going to leave it 16 feet at the opening >> and then taper down to 14 ft. >> Down to 14. You really need the 16 ft in order to have the cars coming in, the cars coming out. It works. You really don't need the 14 ft behind
it because you've got three turnouts. You've got the ability to stop at the entrance. >> You don't need the 16 ft behind it. >> Pardon me. We're going to do 14 ft. So >> 14. What' I say? >> 16. >> Oh, no. This is 16 in here. >> Yeah, but we don't need 16 behind that.
>> 16 up to 43 feet back. And then it narrows down to 14 >> 14 ft. >> It's one car. You haven't accomplished anything as far as parking vehic passing vehicles, but you've got that with the turnouts being
the driveways. They can just pull into that while another car goes by. It all works out well. >> The the attorney has indicated 14 ft. >> Yeah. Until you get by the second driveway. >> Exactly. >> Yeah.
>> Exactly. Um there are a there were a number of um recommended conditions um that were in your staff report. Um I I found out late later today that I
was actually chairing so I scrambled to try and cover some things. >> Um >> I noticed something I forget >> based on >> Okay. Could uh Terry forgot to bring his copy of the proposed conditions. Can can we get a set?
>> Um Annie's Annie to the rescue. Thank you very much. Yeah, my pages got messed up. Okay, thank you, Annie. Um,
obviously it would be, you know, referencing the proper plans. My first thought was based on um the uh DPW director's comments um would be to condition that prior to endorsement
require that the site triangle be added to the sign before endorsement. >> And could I interject on that? >> Okay. >> No. However, based on something that Terry provided, it actually makes a little bit more
sense to me rather than having the angles as he described. So, what I would throw out there, and I wrote this down while he was talking, is that no plantings or fencing other than ground cover because obviously you want
something green um shall be allowed within 10 ft of the paved surface of Crawl Road, >> right? >> So, it would be 10 feet back from the pavement. All it can be is either grass or English ivy or something that's ground cover that
>> tree. >> Um I think there are existing trees there and if there are I would hate to see those come down. >> But what about new trees >> on B? It shows the existing trees. >> Yeah. >> With nothing getting uh violated.
>> None of the trees all those trees will remain. All >> the problem with trees is until they grow, >> right? >> You can't see through them. Right. >> These are huge. They're specimen trees. >> No, no. Um, if there are existing trees, I would
prefer that they stay and we can say if there are existing trees that don't inhibit the sight line or something along those lines. Um, but new trees take a while to grow. And obviously these are deciduous trees, which is what we want.
Um, so that I'm just throwing that um out there. Um, and >> Yep. >> Yep. And I think those should stay if as long as they And I I can picture those trees. I've gone up and down that road
many, many times and they're I believe they're maple trees if memory serves me. Um, excuse me. But what I would say to the trees is that whatever plan or whatever option you end up deciding, make sure they're on that plan because they're not on all of the plans that we have.
>> And for whatever it's worth, all all the branches on those trees are well above >> seat height in the car. So, >> and the other thing is that any property owner is going to want those trees there. So, I don't see them being
removed. Nobody's talking about removing them Terry. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, second thing that I came up with is that lots 25 and six shall be merged via an approval not required plan. We need to eliminate that lot line.
>> It cannot be done. There are two different cases. >> Land court. >> Land court. Yeah. What would you >> I'll recommend to my client that they withdraw from the land court
system. They've recently changed the regulations where it used to be a major pain in the neck to withdraw property from >> once in land court, always in land court basically. >> Now they've changed it because they're
so understaffed up at the land court. takes months to get things done or even years. >> Are you going to run into a problem with setbacks with that line there though? >> No, because it'll be common ownership.
But see, but if we withdraw them, then we can then we can merge them and that would make sense. And besides, mama needs a new pair of shoes. So then I would pull that one back. Uh my third one is this subdivision for the
purposes of single family residential use shall require the necessary approvals from the zoning board of appeals. You got to do that anyway. Um for the subdivider shall coordinate the provision of municipal water and sewer
with the Chattam DPW director. >> That doesn't be a condition that goes without being said. Madam chair, uh there's uh once once you start setting out as a conditions just requirements that they do something
else that they're required to do like go to ZBA or historic or whatever. Um that really isn't a condition to our approval. That's simply something they need to do. And if we're concerned about them actually doing it, we could give them a separate letter. But one of the
legal problems in setting out those things is that you might forget about something and if you do there's an argument that planning has said it's okay to go ahead without those. So uh I think the better practice as I've seen it is not to set out all the conditions
that you know are there anyway. Uh but in terms of making certain that the applicant knows that they exist, give a separate letter setting those things out. >> This would be in the statement of conditions. >> That's right. I would take it out of the statement of conditions and put it in a
separate letter. That's what that's what I would >> kind of I we don't do separate letters. So I'm just trying >> I'm suggesting that actually what appears to be a change in process uh where we not put into our approval
uh a condition that they simply do something that they're required to do. Anyway, >> uh if I could if I could make a comment in agreement with Frank and that is that uh we're going to we're going to work with uh
Dick Freley on this stuff and I don't think >> well that he's got nothing to do with zoning board though. So >> I understand that but you don't want a condition in here that requires something that he's that he doesn't approve of. So, we have to we're going
to hook up the shore and we're going to hook up water and all those things and we're going to work with him to get it done. >> So, I don't know why you need a condition for that. >> Bel and suspenders, >> but it's entirely up to the board. Not
not if >> I could I understand, but in the first place, you could not get permission to put a septic system on this property. You could not get that because it's already served by su the board of health
wouldn't approve it. >> Madam chair, there's uh this came up in a seminar that I went to not dealing with Massachusetts law at all. It was Connecticut land practice, but there are cases there where this has happened. You
know that some people have put these conditions down which they didn't have to do and then they just forgot. and then some lawyer said, "Well, it wasn't a condition in planning, so therefore we didn't have to do it." And there was litigation over that. So there is a
minor risk in just trying to set out everything else that they need to do that they're required to do anyway. So there is a there is a difference between the condition and us approving a site plan that doesn't have
>> the the sewer and the everything in it though. I mean >> to Art's original request that where is that line? Doesn't that have to be on the plan? >> If this was a subdivision with a road
>> Oh. All that would be shown on the plan. >> Yeah. >> But this isn't there is no road. It's a driveway. >> So there in lies my concern because we're not approving a road here that we want
to be sure that we have in what I'm calling belt and suspenders. If the board members don't agree with that, that's fine. Art, what do you think? >> Uh, I'm I'm a belt and suspenders person
along with you. Uh, Charlene, >> Madam Chair, >> Mr. Riley, >> what did you just say? You know, sewage connections have to be done in compliance with,
you know, the town regulations, >> water connections. >> Same thing with the water connections. I mean I you know I mean I mean the DPW is going to do whatever they want anyway >> without regard to what shown on the
subdivision plan because they never see the subdivision plan other than the lines on the road. >> Madame Chair, may I make a comment? >> Yes, Katherine. Go ahead. >> Um so a couple of comments. Uh, I think
I'm also a belt and suspenders person as you and Art are. >> Um, secondly, in regards to Frank's comments about whether or not we as a board should include all these other things that the applicant needs to do as
part of our conditions. If I could just I think we never used to do that as a common practice of the board. I'm just talking about the practice, not whether it's right or wrong. I think we introduced that with
the idea that in certain cases the board felt uncomfortable giving approval to something that hadn't already received approval from another board for which approval was needed. We felt uncomfortable because it indicated that
we were approving something that in some sense hadn't gone through its complete approval process. So I think that actually is valid. What I believe Frank is indicating that in Connecticut law that was also interpreted as that if the
planning board for example didn't mention that requirement in their conditions the applicant would think it's not necessary. So then it sort of turns it upside down and says that we're responsible for listing everything that needs to be done which clearly we are
not. So however we do have this concern that we felt unc or we sometimes feel uncomfortable giving our approval to a project that we know has other aspects that need to get approved and then we include it as a condition. So I think
that's where we're coming from and I actually like that idea um because we don't want to just give approval for something where we know there's a gap. Um so and with regards to DPW's
requirements in previous instances in practice before the Chattam Planning Board um we've sometimes included conditions that we wanted all of DPW's requirements to be met as part of a
subdivision um approval from our side. Um and that's again just that we want to ensure that everything that DPW requires is done. It is in some sense out of our purview but again it's something that in
certain cases we wanted to be sure was observed and we did include it. So again I just think it's it's addressing a concern of the planning board to do that. That's all I wanted to mention. >> Madam chair >> go ahead. We're going to accept whatever
your recommendation is. >> My recommendation keeps changing based on everything everybody's saying. >> I know, but we're whatever it is, we're going to accept it. >> So, let me throw this out.
Municipal water, sewer, utilities, and storm water management shall comply with town regulations and requirements. What about >> Did I miss anything?
>> Hence the problem. Did you miss anything? If we miss >> Well, Madam Chair, I would without being an attorney and not having drafted anything, it would seem to me possible to say something general that I believe
u councelor Riley already mentioned um that a condition could be that you comply with all existing um town regulations uh to uh including but not limited to the following and you can add the ones
that we know of but it doesn't by any means exclude any that we didn't mention that might become relevant. >> That would work. >> Somebody word that for me. >> I thought what you did was fine. >> I have municipal water, sewer utilities
and storm water management shall comply with >> and any other including >> including but not limited to >> is what Warren put. I think that's good. Um including
but not limited to so including and not limited to municipal water, sewer, utilities, and storm water management shall comply with town regulations and requirements. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. Then we don't need this one. We don't need this one. Um I'm still leaving the zoning one in there. >> Why? Why? Why are you doing that?
>> I don't know. Because I want to, >> but if the board feels it doesn't need to be there, >> well, I think that that's a very important issue here because they have not received approval for this from the zoning.
uh from the zoning board of appeals >> for residential use as single family. >> That's right. >> Yeah. >> So, if that was denied, then this this is not a valid uh submission. You see what I'm saying, >> Mart? I I I would disagree. I think they
have to go before the zoning board of appeals anyway. Um whatever we do. >> So, >> only if they're going to be doing it as single family use, which is what they're pitching here, right? Although they did mention some business,
>> if they were to deny, the subdivision would be thrown away and there'd be a massive uh commercial development going in. >> Um Warren, did you have something >> only that it potentially could be included if appropriately worded among
the including but not limited to you could say um DBA approval? including but not limited to municiping regulations. >> You could do that too. >> Or you know >> or zoning bylaw.
>> All right. And zoning >> and building permits. >> Well, stop it. >> Throw that out there. Throw it all out. >> That's the purpose of not limited >> including but not limited to. >> You just have to obey the existing rules and regul.
>> Okay. Moving on. Any future or relocated dwellings or structures on lots 23, 24, 25 shall have downspouts and gutters connected to dry wells. Again, do we
need that? Because >> that's fine. >> We'll leave that. All right. Um, prior to the issuance of any building permit for any of the lots shown on the subdivision plan, all bounds and or
monuments shall be set and an asbuilt plan shall be prepared and submitted to the planning board. Because we're not going to have a covenant, we don't have a catch. But we need to be ensure that bounds and
monuments are set because a covenant goes on a road. There is no road. >> Right. I was just explaining that to Terry. >> I probably learned that from you a very long long long long time ago.
Um, a cross-section showing the construction of the driveway and detail of the infiltration catch basin shall be shown on the topographic
plan prior to endorsement. >> Yeah, that's fine. At this point, I just want to take a step back to get a consensus from the board which plans we are moving forward
with. Obviously, it's the subdivision plan itself that's that's a given. I know that there are a couple board members who are preferable to plan B, but it appears that there is the
majority who is preferable with the 01 plan with slight modifications to it. >> Yeah, if I'd like to add one thing. Uh I I didn't consider what Bob had said about the parking being less visible
with the one entry and I just wanted to emphasize that I think that's consistent with what we're where we're going as a as a board. So >> that's actually one of the things that moved me towards the one driveway as
opposed to the two driveways. Um Art and Katherine Do you have >> um I I I think I can uh go along with what the majority of the board is is doing in here. I I didn't hear the
condition where the driveway width would be 14 ft. >> I haven't gotten there yet. >> Okay. All right. >> That's why it pulled back first just to get a consensus of the board. >> Yeah, I I can understand where that's going. Um, if something comes along in
the future and we see a lot more of these, we may have to put some more uh definitive criteria from a planning board perspective on this because now all of a sudden >> this is looking like it should be a
roadway with a T turnaround and um I think that that's something that we'll have to deal with down the road. this this doesn't necessarily fall into that condition, but it's getting close to it. >> Madame Chair, yes, this is Katherine. I
would agree I agree entirely with Art. I mean, um I can go for the one driveway in this case, but I do think we need to be alert that we're not looking at things that actually should be private ways and should be roadways in the
future. So, Thank you, Katherine. I'm just trying to catch up with some of the um conditions. Um, I'm trying to figure out I'm I'm thinking of this before I write
it down. On the topographic plan, the plan shall be revised to also include the existing street trees along Crawl Road and the width of the common driveway
shall be increased to 14 ft rather than 12 feet. >> Yeah, that'll uh >> let me hold on. rather than 12 feet. >> Oh, it's the paved surface, not not the panhandle itself.
>> Panhandle's 20 feet wide. >> Now, you messed up my thought. >> If I if I may, where wherever it's 12 should be now 14, >> right? But I we need to >> so on the on the topographic plan
prior to endorsement the existing street trees along Crawl Road shall be shown. The existing pavement width of 12 feet shall be amended to 14 feet. >> The proposed
>> The proposed >> Are you writing this down because >> Yes. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. Um to the point just past the second driveway, >> right? May I suggest you say the easterly most
driveway? >> Yes. Well, actually, no. You don't want to say that because that's the back one. You want the middle one. >> So, let's say the second driveway. >> Easterly driveway on lots uh 23 and 24. >> Yeah, let's make it Let's make it
several pages longer while we explain it. >> Okay. So, >> language is perfect. We're we're not changing that 16 ft or we can. >> No,
>> I wasn't thinking of that. No, but in terms of defining where the 12 to 14 ft is, it should be I'm Isn't it where the panhandle is that? Because we have a definition of where the panhandle is on one of these maps. Um,
no, >> I don't think it it doesn't matter to us. We know what it we know what it means. So it's whether it's where the panhandle is, but the problem is sort of technically a panhandle the whole length. That's why Terry's suggestion of
or Charlene's after the second driveway. Just makes it really clear. Are the driveways uh definitive that we're we're actually approving the position of the driveways. So, for the
purposes of the width, >> yes, >> it's got to be 14 ft to what is shown as the second driveway on this plan. >> Okay. >> Just past that point. If they move that driveway somewhere else, it's still got
to be 14 ft to that point. >> Is okay. Why is it the small subdivisions are always the most confusing? So,
um, access to lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be over a single curb cut on Crawl Road. The curb cut shall have a minimum width. Uh, actually, we don't need that anymore. Although, do we want to talk
about the radius? Terry, what is the radius that you have where that >> the radius and I made two tangent lines that came out so that we don't have that huge curve that makes a real wide entrance that nobody uses. And the
contractors generally don't build it. They always make it short. So now I've got a perfect width in here and it uh it's down to 43 feet wide at the street and narrows back to 16 feet wide
and then down to 18t wide it'll be >> from a planning perspective I I concur with that art from an engineering perspective >> well it it's fine This this is again still considered a driveway. So I can
see why this is is being approached this way by the applicant and and their consultant. So I think uh I think what Terry is saying will work in this situation. >> Yes. >> Also the contractor is going to build it
pretty much however he wants to or she. >> Yeah. uh uh a lot of that uh that curb cut will be dictated by the DPW. So if they want a slight adjustment here and there, if they want their curb cut,
they're going to have to do what the DPW asked for. So if they're looking for a radius, they're going to have to put one in. Uh so um if they show what they're proposing, that's fine. But if the DPW says you got to do something different,
then that's part of the reasons why you put that condition in the way you did, uh, I think that's, uh, that's within their purview. Um, and if they want to do something different with the sewer and water, that's within their purview. That's fine. I like the condition, the
way it's set up. So are you you're you you like the condition of access to lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be over a single curb cut on Crawl Road. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Do we need to further state these curb
cuts shall have a minimum width of blank or is that on the That's actually on the the the plan itself. Yeah, we usually do want to see a specific um you know radius and things like that. Uh but this is that's mostly
for a roadway access. >> This is a driveway. So >> I I think that what Terry has proposed and I think he showed in one of his u plans would work in this situation provided that he gets an an approved
sign off from the DPW. >> Great. Um, further on that one I just read and I don't know if this is something the board would want included in that. In the event of commercial development of any of the lots, the planning board may modify this condition if said
modification for provides for a better development. >> That's fine. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to go through these really quick. All right, gentlemen and lady.
Um, no question. >> Madam, Madame Vice Chair, I have a question. >> Yes. >> Can you hear me? I have >> Yes. >> Yes. So this last condition you just read implies that we're saying the
subdivision as we are proving it with this access along the panhandle driveway still is approved if this subdivision is developed commercially.
But it's my understanding that we don't that that's not what we think that we're approving this for residential development which is why we are including that condition about going to ZBA
>> but if ZBA know >> and they decide to stay commercial >> do we approve access to all the commercial lots by one pan manhandled driveway. I'm going to predict we don't. >> Oh, >> I'm going to predict we may not.
>> Oh, in the first place. >> No, Mr. I I >> She's not done. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'd rather hear from our chair and our chair and vice chair and our um planner in response to this
question. >> Can I make a suggestion that you read it again because I think it does do what you said. Access to lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be over a single curb cut on Croll Road. >> Period.
>> No. Then >> and then a new condition. In the event of commercial development of any of the lots, the planning board may modify this condition if said con modification provides for better
development. may modify, but >> I think that this one will need to be here because we've heard all different options of what's going to be here, right? It was initially coming to you tonight as a residential >> as a residential development. Now
they're saying maybe it's going to be commercial, >> you know, but we don't know. >> We're not saying that, right? You guys are saying that. >> No. Well, Terry Terry brought up commercial first. We did not bring up. >> I said if it went commercial, all the lot lines would disappear and they would put massive buildings up because they
could. It's 60% coverage as being in the GB3 zone. >> So I think I think this condition is just covering in case it becomes a mix of residential and commercial. >> But any but any any commercial site is going to require a site plan.
>> Right. Right. So, do you want that's what So, what do we want the rest of that sentence that second to be remove? >> I just don't think it's necessary, but >> whatever you guys want to do, we're going to agree to. >> May I have a question? >> Go ahead, Catherine.
>> This is Katherine. May I? >> Yes. Go ahead. What I'm asking the board and asking our chair and vice chair, are we approving the subdivision as it stands now, as it looks with the lot divisions and the one
driveway off of the panhandle, etc. Is that approval applicable only to residential development? >> No. Or are we potentially approving that same configuration also for commercial
development? >> Yes. >> Or is it null and void? Is is our approval of this subdivision null and void if the development is commercial rather than single family residential? >> It's not. >> It's not. It's it's black letter law in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that a planning board decision. Uh the planning board has no control over the zoning aspects of a property if it's determined that the plan is presented
or complies with their regulations. I mean, you know, but put in whatever you want. We're not going to go commercial anyway. >> One one at a time, please. >> Yeah. So, Katherine, >> that's not >> we're not approving this. >> We're approving this as a division of
land, >> regardless of whether it's residential or commercial. So, I don't approve this for commercial. I don't approve this layout for commercial development. I don't think the access is adequate.
I'm just going to say that. So I don't >> I think that's an important point here. If if uh if we don't have any say so over this then there's no way that this would uh be sufficient for any commercial development which we don't
even know what that commercial development is. Uh so if this isn't residential this is a no-go as far as I can see. >> I agree. >> I agree that would be my position as well.
shall I if you change the may to a shall or a will then I think we're >> it's going to do >> we've covered that >> in the event of commercial development of any of the lots the planning board shall modify this condition if said
modification provides for a better development >> why don't we say >> that's fine >> I I don't think that's strong enough I I think >> I think we need to say the subdivision is approved for single family residential development and if it's
developed commercially it has to come back for another subdivision. >> Catherine, I don't think you can you can't legally do that, right? We can't determine. >> Okay. >> The the ZBA will make that determination on whether or not they allow
um the the residential or not. whether it's allowed >> and then the the the applicant would come forward. But we can't stop the division of the of this piece of property. This is a definitive subdivision before you. >> I think they made it pretty clear that
it's to their advantage if it's commercial to not do this. So I'm I'm not too worried. >> Yeah. I mean changing to shall it's perfect. We agree. And I don't think you need any more than that. With all due respect to
Katherine's concerns, >> Madam Chair, could could you read that again, that phrase? In the event of commercial development of any of the lots, the planning board shall modify this condition if said
modification provides for a better development. Can can we add the words in or in its sole discretion or something? I mean, it sounds like we're creating a standard there that would >> we have to meet before we could make a change, >> right?
>> But we don't care because it's going to be developed residentially. This division plan is going to be developed residentially. if for some reason it ends up being uh commercial, they're going to do an 81X
plan, so it's all a single lot again and they'll just, you know, put up commercial development. I mean, in other words, I don't know how else to say it. We have no interest in commercial development with this division of property.
So, >> well, that's kind of exactly what I'm saying. This division of property is not what's the word amendable to commercial development. >> Yeah, I know but the planning board doesn't have doesn't have the authority to say that the language that the
chairperson has suggested I think is sufficient to protect that concern. >> Okay. >> So substituting the word shall which does make it stronger. >> Yeah. And and I think that um Christine
was right in saying that they would have to come before us for site plan review for whether it's one, two or three of these >> was a commercial site. So, uh we could put whatever other criteria we want into the mix to satisfy be depending on the
use and whatever they're proposing. >> Okay. And so while I said that there'd be no commercial development, what happens if somebody buys a house in there happens to be a lawyer that says I'd like to put my office in there >> because that's what the world needs is a
lawyer. >> Something like that. It's one man, one woman operation and you know they'll see a car every other day. >> Oh no, it's >> okay. So do you want me to run through
these slowly? Okay. Number one, no plantings or fencing other than ground cover shall be allowed within 10 ft of the paved surface of Crawl Road. The existing street trees may remain.
Number two, any future or relocated dwellings or structures on lot or excuse me on lots 23, 24, and 25 shall have downspouts and
gutters connection to dry wells. Number three, access to lots 23, 24, and 25 shall be over a single curb cut on Crawl Road. Number four, in the event of commercial
development of any of the lots, the planning board shall modify the condition if said modification provides for better development. Number five, including but not limited to
municipal water, sewer, utilities, and storm sewer utilities, storm water management, and protective zoning bylaw shall comply with town regulations and requirements.
Number six, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the lots shown on the subdivision plan, all bounds and your and or monuments shall be set and an asbuilt plan shall be prepared and submitted to the planning
board. Number seven, a cross-section showing the construction of the driveway and a detail of the infiltrating catch basin shall be shown
on the topographic plan prior to endorsement. And number eight is the one you wrote down for me. That was getting so confusing, I believe.
>> Um, >> no, I think that's it actually. >> Bear with us a second. >> Madam Chair, I did not hear in any of those. Bear with us a second, please. Just >> the one you were having the most trouble with was the utilities. >> Okay, Warren,
>> I did not hear in there um the required width of the panhandle drive. >> Thank you very much. >> And the extent of it or the length of it. >> Yes. So, uh condition seven
a cross-section showing the construction of the driveway. A detail of the infiltrating catch basin and the width of the paved area shown as 12 feet shall increase to 14 ft
to the easterly boundary of the second driveway shall be shown on the topographic plan prior to endorsement. We added the ZBA to the
including but not limited to >> and I'll give you this. >> Is everybody good with those >> eight conditions? Seven conditions. What about the condition where we
planning board shall if we do something commercial planning board shall do what? That's not in there right? >> No, that was in there. In the event of commercial, that's number four. In the event of a commercial development and in the lots. Yes, that was there.
>> Great. >> Okay. So, I just want to make sure we have So, those are the seven conditions >> and the applicant has no objection to them. >> Good.
>> I'm not sure I would care at this point if you did. >> Oh, I'm getting a point of not caring either. That's >> so based on all of that, I would entertain a motion to approve the loting plan for definitive plan of land. Oh,
back up. Is there any public comment on this as this is a public hearing? Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? >> So move. >> I second. Second >> and we will take a vote on that. Frank,
>> approve. >> Bob, >> approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> Arthur, >> approve. >> Katherine, >> approve. >> And I approve. Now I would entertain a
motion to approve the loting plan for a definitive plan of land in Chattam Mass as prepared for Cadam Max Holdings LLC prepared by Bracken Engineering Inc.
revision dated uh dated June 30, 2025 with revisions through 10 925 and October 30, 2025.
Nope, take that back. Not the not that one. and and October October 9th, 2025 and a topographic plan showing
conceptual development plan and profile dated 0714205 and revised 9:30, 2025 and revision date of October 30, 2025
with the conditions as previously stated. >> So moved. >> Okay. >> Right. But we still have to reference. Yes. Exactly. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> I second.
>> We will do a roll call. Frank, >> approve. Bob, >> approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> Arthur, >> approve. Katherine >> approve and Charlene I approve.
Okay, I think we're good on this one. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, thank you gentlemen for your patience >> and >> and our patience. Oh, we um Jamie Norcross asked me to uh give you a
report regarding our pandem. >> Uh we did receive a letter requesting a continuence, >> right? And he asked me to update that because he was notified today that the draft plan has finally been
completed. And so we expect to uh be back uh before you fairly shortly. >> So we have a um a a continuation agreement of this to December 1st. So our next meeting is um
November 24th. The next meeting is November 24th. >> Is that amendable to you? And >> we don't have an application. We don't have the rest of the package yet, but if we get material, we would need that ASAP.
>> I think we'd better stick with the December date. >> So then we need a timeline extension. Um because Yeah. Okay. >> Uh send it to Jamie and he'll sign and get it right back to you. >> Okay. Fabulous. So the motion would be to
um approve an extension to for action by the planning board to so I would say till December 31st just to give us time to do all of the thing but the meeting in December would be December 8th >> and to continue this hearing to December
8th for this matter to December 8th >> just I mean the engineers been so slow up till Wow, I'd hate to pick a date that was too early and then have to request another continuum. So, >> uh, >> number eight should be fine. >> So, an agreement to extend the time in
which the board has to act until the 31st of December, but to continue this matter to December 8th, no earlier than 5:00 p.m. >> So, move. >> Second. >> Uh, Bob, >> approve.
>> Frank, >> approve. Um, >> approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> Arthur, >> approve. >> Katherine, >> approve. >> And I approve. >> Thank you.
>> You're very welcome. >> And to all us veterans, have a happy Veterans Day. >> And thank you for your service, sir. And to everyone who has served or are continuing to serve. Um, I don't see that we have anything
else on our agenda. Uh, the next meeting is the 24th. >> Yes, the next meeting is the 24th. It's the week of thanksgiving that Monday. >> I will be remote. >> I will be remote. >> Okay. So,
>> I move we adjourn. >> Second. >> Well, uh, qu question >> discussion. Yes. If this was post if this was postponed until the 8th, is there anything on the agenda for the 24th? And do we even cancel that meeting?
>> Um, we could potentially cancel that meeting. We did have something else that came in, but that came in after the deadline. So, we could we were planning to do that for December 8th anyway. So, do you want to cancel the meeting on the 24th? >> Absolutely. It would be my recommendation that
unless something comes in that needs the board's attention >> that we cancel that meeting. >> Go. >> I I move that. >> You don't need to move that. There's already a motion and second on the table. >> All right. >> Any further discussion?
>> All those in favor of adjourning? Bob, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> Bob, >> yes. Warren, uh, >> yes. >> Art, >> yes. >> Katherine, >> yes.
>> Thank you everybody. Um, it is 6:37 and uh, thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.