[music] [music] [music] Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the December 16th, 2025 meeting of the Town of Cadam Select Board. Please note, this meeting is being recorded and 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 takingaking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending
certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws chapter 38 section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Select 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 158-945-4410
conference ID 203386491 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 10772,
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. First item of business is to establish a quorum. Miss Davis >> present. >> Mr. Dykins >> present. >> Mr. Matters >> present. >> Mr. Smith >> present.
>> And the chair is present. >> We'll first take up approval of minutes of two meetings. 1st November 25th, 2025. Do I hear a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Any corrections? >> Hearing none, we'll call the role. Miss Davis, >> I. >> Mr. Dyken. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. Hi.
>> Mr. Smith. >> I chair votes I. Five to zero. >> Next. The meet the minutes of the meeting of December 2nd, 2025. Do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> And a second. >> And a second. Any corrections? The chair has a couple. On page four,
middle paragraph, which begins, the board discussed in the last line, right in the middle, I think it means I think the word should read regulatory changes, not regulator. There's a Y missing. Yep. >> And then on this next page, page five,
very last paragraph, second line again in the middle after the word shelter, regional shelter. I think the words option fail should period should should be added should the regional shelter option fail. With that, I'll call the
role. Miss Davis, >> I miss Mr. Dykins. >> I >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith, >> I chair votes I. >> Thank you. Public announcements and agenda item requests. Any from the board? Miss Mr. Mr. Dykins. >> Thank you, Dean. I just don't want to lose track of the letter that Graham
Millie wrote regarding the transfer um to commercial hollers and uh um some concern about the affidavit. So, I think we may have it adjudicated before the end of the month, but we know we need to do something I think with to clear it up before the first of the year. So, I would like to have a placeholder there.
>> Yes, we'll do that. I know we have a staff meeting that I requested scheduled and I invited you today. Um >> Yes. Y >> next uh next week and we'll see what we can resolve there and if we can't we'll have to bring it before the board. >> Super. That's exactly what I was seeking. Thanks, Dean. >> Any others from the board? Uh any from
the public online? Seeing none, the chair just wants to announce that next week at the on our meeting of the 23rd, which is our last meeting for the calendar year. Uh we have tentatively scheduled the agenda item request that was made by uh Dee Holt, uh Dr.
Thompson, and joined in by board member Smith for the airport tree removal. Um but whether that will occur next week or subsequently that will depend on uh when the uh Mass Environmental Protection Agency issues its determination on a um
petition that had been filed by Mr. Bixby. So I think that's an important piece of information the board has to have in front of us before we can put that on the agenda. But my intention is to put it on the agenda as soon as that comes in. Uh, with that, um, the town manager, I think I have a Yes.
>> to you for an announcement. >> Yes. Thank you. And I have, uh, Greg Burman, our director of natural resources. Greg, why don't you go first? >> Greg, thank you. Um, >> Greg, >> just wanted to let the board and public know that the uh, bulkhead at the town
landing at Barn Hill, a portion of it has been able to be reopened. Um, our welder got out there and, you know, despite holidays and working with the tides, we now have a big enough area for a, you know, truck to work the landing bulkhead. A portion of it still going to
have to stay closed until we do the full bulkhead replacement and site improvements, but we do have an engineer on board and going through that design process, but wanted to let people know we're back open for business on a somewhat limited basis. >> Thank you, Greg.
>> Thank you, Greg. And I wanted to um announce to the public and to the board that I have promoted Candace Cook as our assessing director. Candace has been with the town since 2006 and most recently as the assistance assessor in
2015. So that appointment took effect on Monday the 15th following a really fabulous sendoff of Dale Kelly for her retirement on December 12th. So I had sent the board a memo. There's information in the main sheet. I just I wanted to make announcement to recognize
Candace for her hard work. >> Thank you, Jill. I think that's an excellent appointment. I I know my colleagues share that. It's nice to see continuity within the department, the division. Any other public comments? Okay, we'll go now to the first of two
public hearings. First is to consider an application for a new ann annual entertainment license for Branches Grill and Cafe, 155 Core Road. and will open public hearing with us by asking the clerk to read the notice. >> A town of Chattam Select Board public hearing notice. Notice is hereby given
that the Chattam Select Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 16th, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. in the large meeting room at the Town Hall annex, 261 George Ryder Road to consider a request for a new annual entertainment license
for indoor live music for Branches Grill and Cafe, 155 Crawl Road, Cadam. All interested parties are encouraged to participate in person or remotely via the link in the posted agenda. So, Mr. Ian Burke, the owner, was notified of the hearing. Is he present or is there a
representative present Shauna? >> Hi. Shauna Ney, licensing agent Ian had indicated that he would be able to attend, but he may have gotten held up at the restaurant. Um, it's very pretty straightforward. It's a small space, so he's only looking for maybe a trio now
and again, possibly steel drums during the summer months. >> The the question I had, Sha, was the the date of the event is just responded to with the word varied and also dates of the entertainment, hours of the entertainment. >> So, it would be during his operate
normal operating hours, but not a nightly event. Um, it would just be sprinkled throughout the throughout the calendar year. Can we grant something like that with >> you do it with all the other annual licenses? >> Okay. Any questions or comments from the board?
>> Move approval. >> It's a public hearing, so I'll ask if there are any um from comments from the public. >> I see none. So you >> move approval. >> Is there second? >> Moved and seconded. Okay. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi.
>> Mr. Dikens. Hi. Mr. Meadows. Hi. Mr. Smith. Hi. and the chair votes eye. Thank you, Sher. Okay. Um, >> next item on the agenda is um public hearing and
I'm going to ask The the subject matter as posted on the agenda is an appeal hearing of of the historic business district commission decision on the application number 25-084 by Shadam Productions LLC relative to the demolition of certain buildings at
776 Main Street, the Monoy Theater property. We will open the public hearing by asking the the board clerk to read the public hearing notice. Stewart, >> Town of Cadam Select Board, public hearing notice. Notice is hereby given that the Chattam Select Board will hold
a public hearing on Tuesday, December 16th, [snorts] 2025 at 5:30m the large meeting room at the Town Hall annex 261 George Ryder Road to consider appeals by Chattam Productions LLC of the Historic
Business District Commission's decision on application 25-084 relative that the demolition of certain buildings located at 776 Main Street uh the Monoy Theater property. All interested parties are encouraged to
participate in person or remotely via the link in the posted agenda. >> Thank you, Stuart. I would note for the record, uh we are talking about one building. Um and that's the uh the former playhouse. Um and I have a couple of procedural points first before we get
into the appeal. Um first of all, and all of this was in the packet that was posted. This is the way we're going to run this. Um there'll be a presentation by the appellant and then um board questions and comments although the board is board members are
free to uh interrupt with questions at any time. Then there will be a presentation by the historic business district commission uh chair. There will also be board questions and comments. Then we will entertain public
comments. Under our rules, it's five minutes a person per person within the discretion of the chair. Then we will read correspondence that has come in and which has been provided to the two parties. Then we will give the appellant
an opportunity to rebut. There will be further board questions and comments, an opportunity for that. Then we will close the public hearing. The board will deliberate and make its decision. during the process of deliberation and decision-making the audience is not participated uh to to to is not
permitted to participate. The second comment I want to make make is that um the town council is online uh and also we have the availability of the police chief, the fire chief and the building commissioner. And I note the presence in the audience of the chair of
the uh Chattam Historical Societ historical commission who has submitted materials for public comment. I expect he's probably going to want to speak during the public comment section, but board members are free to ask questions of anybody they want at any time. The standard of review
um for this board is as set forth in the memo, which is based on advice given to us by former town council and current town council. And I'm going to read the standard. If the select board concludes that the HBDC decision was arbitrary, capriccious, unreasonable, inconsistent
with the HBDC's own rules, or that the HBDC acted outside the scope of its authority, the board can enull, modify, or supplement said decision as it deems appropriate. If the board determines that the HBDC's decision was reasonable in light of the established facts and
within the scope of within the scope of its legislative authority, the HPD decision should be affirmed. And um the final uh thing I want to do is to read the reasons set forth in the
decision uh for the H made by the HPDC um uh for uh denying the application. If I can find it. Here it is. [snorts] They listed five reasons. So, please
bear with me. They voted zero zero to five in in opposition to granting the request to deny to demolish this particular structure. Specific reasons. One, the theater structure represents an important part of Chadam's history.
Based upon information presented to the commission along with the recommendation of the Chattam Historic Commission, it is clear that this structure has a rich history that is worthy of preserving. Two, the commission is cognizant of the fact that the building is in disrepair, but there is no indication that the building cannot be restored or and
renovated to support a viable use while preserving the building's rich historical character. Nor is there any evidence from the building commissioner or otherwise that the demolition is required to preserve public safety. While the commission may have considered a report slashassessment by a structural
engineer, no such report was provided despite the fact that the applicant stated that an engineer had inspe inspected the building. Three, while the applicant in Chattam Police Department has introduced evidence that the building is currently an attractive nuisance, there is no evidence that the building cannot be
adequately support secured from illicit entry. Four, documentation from the Massachusetts Historic Commission and National Park Service showing the submitt and denial of the application to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places was not provided.
Accordingly, the commission cannot presently credit the applicant's verbal representations regarding the rejection of an application to place this building on the National Register. Additionally, a rejection of any effort to place the structure on the register would not be determinative of the question as to
whether the structure is sufficiently historical to reject an application for demolition. Five, based upon the foregoing, the commission members found that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to support the demolition of the structure. The board finds that the denial of the request to demolish and the preservation of the building is in
the public interest. the um applicant um Chattam Productions LLC did submit a timely appeal to the select board as they are permitted to do under the statute and um I they uh that [snorts] has been provided to the board. It is
about five pages in length and I am now going to turn to um Mr. Gregory Clark andor Victoria Clark to make a presentation. Um are you there? Um, and please feel free to go forward. >> Mr. Chair, did we read the hearing?
>> Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? >> Can you hear me? >> Um, yeah. Yes. One one second. >> We read the notes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Victoria. Please proceed. >> Of course. I just >> Please proceed. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Um, I wanted to
thank the select board as well as Dark Darcy Sequin of the HBDC for taking um the time to have a site walkthrough two weeks ago at the former Mono Theater site. We are appealing the HBDC decision to deny the demolition of the former Monway Theater building as we feel it is
arbitrary and capriccious. As you just state, as the chair just stated, um the HBDC listed five reasons for the denial of the demo approval. And while they did request a continuence, we did not want to draw out the process the process out longer as we feel three of these items
are not relevant to the historical significance of the property and we wanted to move the property forward. Nevertheless, we did provide the entire structural report. And while we did not provide a plan to address the illicit entry at the property or replace a placement plan at this point, we are now going to move forward with allowed by
right uses incl which this property is located in which include but are not limited to retail, office, restaurant. Whether or not this and this will be the case whether or not the select board allows the demolition of this structure or not, this structure will no longer be a theater. Um, we have not provided a
proposed layout of the new buildings because the final layout will be dependent upon the determination of the removal of the existing structure. Once we have that determination, we will proceed with our proposed design for this submission to the HPDC, whether it is a new building or it is reutilizing the existing building for a different
use. Um, speaking to the historical significance of the structure, as we stated in our appeal, there was no documentation that the structure had been deemed in the way the town requires a structure be deemed by the state or the town as historic, which is supported
partially through our um mass historic uh commission's correspondence with the Chattam Historic Commission as well as their correspondence with us. Um, in 2011, the Chattam Historic Commission submitted um form B's for over 50 properties in Chadam as inventory forms
to the Mass Historic Commission. These inventory forms do not deem the structure historic. Rather, it opens the door for the potential for them to be deemed historic. The 2019 follow-up submission by a preservation consultant that was hired by the Chattam Historic Commission featured additional
information that the 2011 submission did not. However, that additional information featured some correct information such as that the architecture on the Monoy Theater is Greek Revival and while the Washington Taylor House is Greek Revival architecture, the former Monoy Theater building is not. Additionally, in the
letter that was submitted with the continuation forms, um it stated that they believe the property could be eligible to be deemed historic, but not that it was elig but not that it was already eligible. In our opinion, the HBDC as well as some other community
members want the former theater restored as a theater and nothing else. As we have stated today, there will not be a theater regardless of whether we have to keep this structure or not. We have received no support in the past six years for a variety of plans and approvals for projects that would have funded the lengthy and costly process to
restore and bring back the theater, which is ultimately what has brought us here today and why we are appealing this decision. >> Thank you. I I do want to note that the structural um report was provided to the select board as well as a number of
photographs. Um and um um I did want to ask this question. If you were compelled to restore this building, do you have um a guesstimate as to what that would cost regardless of
what the use might be? I suppose it does have a bearing um on What I suppose what you decided to do. >> Yeah, I I think that that um >> this is >> we we obviously have this is Greg Clark. Yes, we have we have internal our own
estimates of what it's going to cost for us to do what we plan on doing on the site, but we're not willing to share that at this time because it's irrelevant to what happens with whether this this building stays or or goes. If the building stays, as we said uh
previously several times, when we purchased the property, we did due diligence and we had a structural engineer and architect go out and walk through the building. They confirmed for us that basically we would have to rebuild all the floors, flooring framing
in the building, uh a lot of the roof structure, and potentially quite a bit of the exterior wall. So we knew all along it would have to happen that way and we anticipated that in our um financial model. So um we have no
problem either way whether we utilize the existing structure and convert it or whether we tear it down. It's um it doesn't doesn't make a difference to us. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I would note that um council prior council has advised that
it is certainly open to the select board to consider the replacement use of this building if it were to be demolished. And I would also note for the record that um the applicant the appellant did provide us as well with some correspondence
uh between um the applicant and the mass historic commission. I think there was also some correspondence between the his the Chattam Historical Commission and and and the um applicant that was provided to us. So, wanted to acknowledge that. Any questions from the
board at this time? Mr. Matters and then Mr. Dykens. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. This is either for the applicant or or actually maybe Katie. So, with the site, um I know there's there's a strong sentiment that there people would like to see a theater there. Um, but if it were a theater or
um the the footprint um and I guess it would kind of depend on what potential future use became of the property. Um what is the expected um parking requirement? Because historically when there was a theater, everyone parked in
the grass. It 40 50 cars. I I don't know exactly what it was, but you're going to need um some kind of parking for the use, which would be either on the side by the lawn or further in the back. Um so I guess a question is um potentially
what kind of parking space are we looking at location um and access point? >> So if I could um thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Katie Dunovan, director of community development. Um if the property the future use of the property were to be a restaurant, the
parking requirement is one space for every four seats um plus one space for each employee on the busiest shift. So depending on the size of the restaurant um would be you know dependent on the number of parking spaces. Also for retail and office [clears throat] I
believe um the parking requirement is one space per 150 square feet of area devoted to um use by the public. Was that correct? So
um again it would also all depend on the type of use um that was in the building. But yes, um the requirements um any new use would need to go before the planning board and uh for site plan approval, it would need to meet the um parking
requirements as set forth in the zoning bylaw. >> Um would the access maybe from Mr. Clark, would the access be coming from U Route 28 or depot road um for for the I
guess the redevelopment of the property? That's for you. The That's for the Clarks. Is that directed at them? >> Yeah. We have We haven't determined which which side we would be pulling the um vehicles off of yet. I mean, obviously there's there is access on the
back on Depot Road. There's access currently on the front on Main Street. uh we'd probably be more looking towards having it come in the back so that Main Street didn't have as much traffic on it, but there would be discussions with the planning board.
>> Okay. So, just make sure I'm understanding a little bit. Um, so basically I know the back side of this parcel we've had multiple conversations about was we had a special town meeting about having an overlay district um some
element of housing. Um that did not move forward. Um there was I think four or five residential homes that were proposed at this site that went through ZBA approval. um two seemed to have some support, but
that event, you know, essentially did not move forward. Um I I my understanding is there's always been need been a need for some kind of financial element um to help fund um any type of push to bring the the theater back because of the economics of it.
It's a it I understand the development con concept of it. You you know, you got to have funds from somewhere to carry other elements of the project. So if this were if the appeal from HBDC were denied
um the backside that has had those kind of proposals in the past um would not have any such proposals and essentially would most likely have like parking elements or some kind of minimal use. Would that be safe to say?
>> It would be safe to say that it will become parking. >> Okay, that's it for the moment, Mr. Dkins. >> Yeah. I just wanted to be clear about um a statement. Um I if if we were to uphold the uh HBDC's decision to deny a
demolition, is is it is my understanding correct that you're ambivalent about um whether it actually does come down or not because in the future when you do your by commercial development there, you're going to incorporate some part or piece of that building into that
commercial development. Is that is that a fair statement? Not exactly. So we we're developers. If we can build the new building from ground up, it will work better. The existing structure is not a a very good
layout. But however, if we're required to keep it, we can figure out how to make it work with the with the frame that's there. >> Okay. Okay. I mean, if you're envisioning, just in my P brain, and I'm not a developer, but if you're envvising a a restaurant called the Playhouse and
kept the foyer, if you will, where the ticket office was, that would be really cool. Some type of application of some creativity. Um, knowing that there are a lot of heartstrings are being pulled um with respect to this question about the Monoy Theater. Um, it, you know, it
pulls a lot of heartstrings folks in this town, as you well know, I think, Greg. So, if there's a way to incorporate some element of the theater into future development, I think that would go a long way um for the town. Thanks. I'll have more questions later, but I >> Shireen,
>> uh thank you. I I just have a a technical question for I guess Katie or um the HBDC's jurisdiction is the exterior of of the building. Does it speak to the interior of the building? >> Yes, they they do not have um jurisdiction over the
>> interior. All right. I just want to make that clear. Um, so this is for the um for the Clarks. I I guess um you said that you were unwilling to disclose any financial cost to rehabbing
or demolishing the building, but um I wanted to know does the structural evidence demonstrate that the building cannot be rehabilitated or that the rehabilitation is financially challenging for you? It's more that the it's financially
challenging. It's you can you can pretty much I mean we we have restored buildings. We have placed about uh 21 buildings onto the National Park Service register. We actually own four of them oursel that we did that in and some of
them the structures were as old as the mid 1800s. We went into them. We brought a structural engineer in and we rebuilt them with the timbers the exact size that they built the original building with. We did it because we we we wanted
to preserve that look of that structure. So, you can do it. It's just obviously it costs more than um conventional framing and conventional construction. >> Okay. Um I probably have a follow-up
question on that, but I'm going to wait. Thank you. >> Thank you. I I just have a question, a couple of questions, I guess, for the clerks. And I appreciate that you provided the the 29 the 2019 structural summary. Um I think it was the executive summary, maybe it was the
full report, but it basically laid out the condition of the building at the time. Um uh we we we did a site visit on December 3rd. Uh we obviously couldn't go in the building um because it's pretty well boarded up, but we saw and
you indicated some evidence of um attempts by um I guess young people to get into the building. And I'm concerned about not just the history issue, but the public safety issue. Um, and
what efforts have you made in the six years you've owned the building to protect it from outside invasion as it were. Um, it seems to have certainly just from the visible from from the
outside looking at it from the outside seems to have gotten worse. And so I wanted to just ask what efforts have you undertaken? >> So as we discussed when we did the walkth through um we we went through
with the board but I'll do it for the everyone that's on online and listening also we secured the building when we purchased the building. A lot of the doors did not have locks on them. We secured them and we secured the windows.
Over the years, people have been breaking into the buildings and damaging the interior. And we have gone down there and we have, you know, re resecured the openings after they damaged them. But then they got to the point in the last two years
that they're just destroying things, smashing windows, smashing doors, and just breaking things. Before they were just trying to force doors open and get in. Now they're smashing them and breaking them up. They have no consideration for others
property as we discussed. And we've had this conversation. The police are well aware of, you know, this happening over the years. There have been some instances where um other things. Like I said, we we filed
and received the police reports of several of the instances which were not in the letter that was handed to the HBDC for that meeting, which then we brought up to show that there was even more than people were
aware of. But if we go and board up an opening, the next week they they smash the next window beside it. So the question we have for the town is that you know in some instances you know the these these young kids that are doing it
in most occasions their names are redacted from the police reports. However, there's other information in the police reports that lead us to to believe who these people are. And we've asked several times, why aren't they
being forced to at least deal with the parents so the parents understand what their children are doing? Because if they'll do this to the theater building and the other building, what's going to prevent them from doing it to someone's house who goes away for four months
during the winter? So yes, we have been addressing this, but we're at a point now that they break if we if we secure every opening, they just break the next window. And is that what the town wants to see
us to board up every window? And and if there's ever a incident where they do, and we believe we have a police report of one time them setting up a place as if they were going to set a fire in the building. If
they ever set a fire to the building, there's no the windows are all boarded up. That's not a good thing for the fire department to be going in there. So, we agree. This this is why we say it's kind of a nuisance that What do you want us to do? Do do you want us to
board up every opening? I don't know if the town wants that. Look, we we prefer that the the the people that are doing it actually act responsibly and not damage our property. Has the has the damage that has been
caused by these um break breakins affected the structural soundness of the building or more uh the either the cosmetic aspects or something non nonstructural.
We we have not looked at it as far as um has it caused any damage to the structure when they smashed, you know, windows or doors in, but the the stuff that they did inside the building is more cosmetic. They spray paint uh
over all the walls and things like that. So, >> okay. >> I am not sure. We we have not we have not gone inside with the our structural engineer again to look at it to see if they actually damaged anything further. Had you considered particularly in the last couple of years since from what you
say things have gotten worse um putting a fence around the building? I know it's a pretty big structure. It's kind of ramshackle. There are different parts to it added at different times. But had you considered that as a way of securing the property? >> I can tell you this. We're going to
apply to put a fence around the entire property and then we're going to start doing our prep work. >> Yeah. So, but I don't know that that's going to stop mischievous kids from breaking in. If if they'll smash windows
and doors, I think that they'll find a way to get over a fence. So, [snorts] unfortunately, >> well, I bring these issues up because I do think public safety, it's more to me, it's more than just an attractive nuisance. I think it's a public safety
hazard and I don't want to see in Chadam what happened in Worcester 26 years ago. Um uh but in any event um if there are no other questions from the board at this time, I will um ask the clerks, did you
have anything more you wanted to say be? You're going to come back later for a rebuttal, but I just wanted to ask if you had anything more you wanted to add at the present time. >> No, we're all set. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, I'm going to ask now the chair of the uh
historic business district commission, Darcy Sequin, to present um a response. >> Good evening. Welcome, >> RC Sequin, acting chair of the HBDC. >> [clears throat] >> I would just like to reiterate what
happened at the um hearing with the Clarks. Um after hearing the Clark's application for demolition, the HBDC commissioners asked them several questions specifically regarding the condition of the property and why there was no effort to restore the property in
the six years that they owned it and where was the documentation to support the demolition. the records regarding their application for the Mass Massachusetts and National Registry and the subsequent denial. Mr. Clark stated
that he had it in an email. We saw no written documentation. I then pulled the commissioners to see if they felt the demolition was warranted given the information that was provided to us at that meeting. We all felt we did not have enough information to approve the
demolition. I then proceeded to inform the clerks there were some options that they could take. Excuse [clears throat] me. Number one, to withdraw the application. Number two, to continue the application to a later date so they
could provide further information on what they had done to receive a denial from the Mass Registry and National Registry. Miss Clark held up a folder and said, "I have it right here." So number three was another option to
continue with a vote which they knew was going to be denied. So they opted for number three [clears throat] and the vote was 5 to zero to deny the application for the demolition. So that's brings us here today.
>> Thank you. Um I wanted to ask a question. Um, does the his does the HBDC look to guidance from the Chattam Historical Commission on whether something is historical? Obviously, if a building is within your district, you
have jurisdiction over it. >> We have, >> what do you do about the historical aspects or not of a particular building? How do you address that? We don't normally um interact with them, but we have had
communication with um the commission. >> Okay. >> The historical commission. >> Any other questions? Shireen. >> Darcy, I have a question. Maybe it's for you or or for uh Katie. Um is the National Registered Listing required under the HBDC Act for structure to be
considered historically significant? Is that a factor? I mean, is that a guiding factor? >> It was not a deciding factor. It certainly was a factor, >> but is it I'm asking is it is the National Register listening
required under the HBDC act for a structure to be considered historically significant? Katie, can you >> I don't believe it is required. >> Do you know? >> Sure. Just um from the HBDC guidelines and procedures, any building or structure located within the district
which is in whole or in part 75 years old or more or any building which has been designated by the Chattam Historical Commission to be historically significant to be a historically significant building or structure following a finding by the CHC that such
building or structure is one associated with one or more historical persons or events or with cultural, economic or social or political history of the town or commonwealth. Or two, possesses arch architectural value or significance in
terms of period, style, method of construction or association with an historically prominent architect or builder [snorts] either by itself or in conjunction with a group of buildings or structures or three listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places or is listed as a contributing
building in the National Register District. You're reading from the HBDC rules or the historical commission rules? >> HBDC design and uh guidelines and procedures. >> M Davis. >> Uh thank you. That was the question I had. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Uh Darcy, um you said that you asked the
applicant how are they what steps are they taking to preserve the the structure? And this is one thing I I don't want to get lost in the process because and if I'm wrong, correct me. But from the HBDC perspective, the history of this parcel has been
there always there needs to be some kind of financial engine to kind of drive the the theater. People people want the theater back. They you know there's there's a lot of sentiment for it um and everything. And and my my my read and if
I'm wrong, you know, please correct me. My read is the steps of either going to the overlay district at special town meeting which we know did not happen. The actions of taking and developing the back parcel to residential homes or slightly higher end houses. Um th that
was kind of a that was presented as the key element in bringing forth the development of the front the the theater the Washington Taylor house and everything. So is am I correct in in saying that was the that was the presentation that was made by the
applicant understanding that this really can't be done unless the financials of another part of the parcel kind of help ground you know future projects because of the dollars and cents and the economics of a project like this. Is is that a safe comment or
>> we don't look at the financial aspect of anything. um you know people have come before us for other things and it's it's financially we can't do this we do not um look at that financial aspect of it >> okay fair enough that answer your question
>> does answer the com and then another comment that was made and and I and I need to um put my two cents forth with this is you know everyone says you know everyone has their kind of you know stays within their jurisdiction um I served on the planning board for many years planning board HBDC
we are very distinct regulatory commissions, but we have a lot of overlap. We've we've we've so so having certain, you know, in our in this case, like >> questions [clears throat] that the HBDC is asking that potentially the planning board are going to be asking is common because we've done that with, you know,
CVS, CVM, you know, collaborate together. So there is even though HBDC is a separate regulatory commission, it is it is not un it is is not unusual for them to kind of go into some of the gray areas of the
planning board and vice versa because we have similar you know review criteria um and that we you know it's collaboration is is typical some of these reviews. So >> I do I just want to clarify that too. >> Okay, any other questions of Miss
Sequin? Okay. Thank you, Darcy. >> Thank you. >> Um I'm now going to open it up to um public comments and under the select board policy um um for public participation
um each speaker gets five minutes within the discretion of the chair. So um anyone want to come step forward and make comments? Please identify yourself. I'd rather be at the dentist than be here tonight. [laughter]
>> I've been involved with the >> state your name, please. >> Property. >> Your name? Uh, Mr. >> Oh, sorry. Frank Msina. >> Um, >> are you speaking for South Chadam, chair of the Chattam Historical Commission? >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I've been involved with the uh Monmway Theater property
770s Main Street for since the late 90s and uh and on the historical commission for many many years uh I worked with Mr. Clark and Victoria over many years and the historical commission in attempting to find a way to uh keep this uh
property together. Unfortunately, it's being slowly demolished, one building after the other, and now we're down to the to the last main building, the theater. Uh there's a lot of discussion here, and things are getting distracted. As far as I'm concerned, the issue
really is very simply. Is this building is this property historically significant? Does the author, does this historical commission have the authority to do that to designate something is historically comm significant? We did that again today and you have a memo
from the commission which we reaffirm the decisions the previous decisions from 2011 and 2019 not just by the historical commission but our preservation consultants the professional consultants that this building and these property does meet
the criteria for eligibility on a national register. Miss Davis asked a very good question. Is it necessary for a building to be on the national register to be historically significant? Absolutely not. They're two separate
tracks. Okay. The historical commission tomorrow can apply to Mass Historic and ask that this building be recognized as eligible as a national register property. We didn't do that. I didn't do it as chair because the applicant or the
appellant, I love that new word that we have here has indicated he was going to do it. He was proceeding not just to get it listed, not to necessarily get it listed on the National Register, but in so he could get the tax credit. You can get a tax credit if you have a commercial
property in which you're going to restore it in according with Department of Interior standards. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. There may have been some conversations with somebody at Mass Historic and said, "What do you think?" And they may have said, "Well, we don't
think so." It took over 20 years for us to get the South Chattam village listed on the National Register. It takes a long time. It's not a yes or no. And it's not one person's opinion. There are state review boards. There's a lot of things that have to happen. So, we've
really never crossed that bridge. Uh the issue here before you as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not on the HBDC historical commission, is this building historically significant? Is it worthy of being saved? An attempt to be saved? And the answer to that question as far
as the historical commission is yes. I think the HBDC has done their due diligence and said, "Well, one little thing, did you apply to Mass Historic? And if you did, did you get a registr approval or not?" But notwithstanding, even if they did not get approval from
Mass Historic that this property is eligible for a national register, it does not imply that the building is not historically significant. An historic district is created by a town of Chadam at a town meeting. Okay? A n historical
commission is a separate bylaw. We have the authority to determine something is historically significant. We also have the authority to issue a demolition delay. There happens to be an overlap here between the HBDC and the historical commission. So I hope you at this
particular point can recognize that this building is historically significant to the people of Chadam, to the town of Chadam. Is there a way to do something with this property? And you know the idea from my friend Mr. Clark that well we're not going to build a theater. Okay, if you're going to give up on
that, fine. But it doesn't mean you have to destroy the building. Okay. You can have an historic building and provide some kind of an adaptive use that saves and maintains the exterior of the building, not the interior, the exterior. And yet we still have the
Monoy Theater building and the property for the people of Chadam. 32 seconds. Not bad. >> Mr. Mine, I have a couple of questions. You did submit a couple of letters. We made them available to both parties. Um I will read them during the um p after
we finish with public comments. I'll read those letters. I wanted to ask you a question. I think you answered it. Um Shireen, Miss Davis asked you about whether if a property was not on the register, could it still be historically significant? You answered yes. >> We do it every day.
>> And the other question I have is if it's not deemed eligible for listing, is it can it still be historically significant? >> Absolutely. Let me give you a quick Sorry. >> Go ahead. the entire stage harbor road, the historical commission determined it
was eligible and historically significant. We determined that it should be a national registered district. We proceeded to receive what was called a determination of eligibility, a DOE, a determination of eligibility. All that says is that's the
first step in a long process. It could be eligible. Now you got to go back and do all the work to prepare the applications and convince not just one member of Mass Historic, but the whole state review board that is eligible for a national registered district. I use a stage harbor as an example because it's
one in which it was very confusing. The residents did not want it and so the historical commissions backed away. weren't going to force something unlike the old village or the Maronei or the the South Chadam where the residents really wanted it to happen. Even though
the owner of this property may not want it to be listed on the National Register, it doesn't mean it can't be. It can't be determined that it's eligible. Notwithstanding that, you're talking about that issue of the National Register, the building does, in far as the historical commission is concerned,
meet the criteria that we use. Is this property historically significant to the history and the culture of the town? You know, it may not be the prettiest building in town, but it doesn't mean it's not historical. I mean, that something didn't happen here.
Mr. Dunar, who's well known, and that's one of the criteria used. Is this property associated with one of the more significant people? And for those of you who are not sellers who may not know, Mr. Dunar is, but you know, I see Stu smiling. You know, there were a lot of important people to the pe to the town
of Shadam who were involved in this building and designing it and creating it. So, >> I have one final question for you. One final question for you. In the appeal um made by the Clarks, they referred to um
section 6C of um the um rules and regulations of the historical commission which says, and they quote, "The commission may make recommendations to the board of selectmen or other town bodies regarding the protection and
preservation of significant historic resources in the community." And they go on to say that there is there are no documented meeting minutes from the CHC to the selectman recommending that this structure be designated as an historic
structure with a proof of such historic significance. My question is um if you have a circumstance where the commission your commission determines that a particular structure is historical or historically significant
but don't proceed to make a recommendation to the select board to do something about it. Does that take does that mean it's no longer historical or >> with all due respect to this August body, you have nothing to say whether or not the historical condition determines
in accordance with chapter 158 of the demolition delay bylaw whether or not we consider the building to be historically significant. It's no different than the um than the >> Yeah, but what I'm getting at is whether the the absence of a recommendation to
us take derates. >> Okay. >> We had 66 applications last year. We didn't come back to you 66 times and say, "Hey, we we this thing is historically significant. What should we do?" >> Okay. >> We proceed independent within ourselves, within the commission, within our bylaw,
and with the Cape Cod Commission, which we won't get into because it's another hole. Sorry. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Any other any further questions? >> Any other public comments? Yes. Uh, my name is Brooke Thomas and I own 51 Elephants Lane in the old village of
Cadam, a home built by noted naval architect Spalding Dumbar, the cousin of Harold Dumbar. The interior of my home has mural walls, paintings by Harold Dumbar, and recently celebrated an in-home viewing organized on the occasion of the Cadam Historical
Society's 100th anniversary a few years ago. Today, I am here to oppose the demolition of the Monoy Theater. Chattam's value isn't just its coastline, it's its character. And character is made of the places that
tell our story, not the places that maximize a parcel. Once we start knocking down the buildings that carry our cultural memory, we don't modernize Chadam. We erase it and replace it with something you could drop into any wealthy coastal town in America.
The Monamoy isn't just an old structure. It's a symbol of the arts in Chadam and a direct thread to the people who built this town's creative life. Starting with Harold Dunar's early work converting this space into a community arts venue.
That legacy still matters and it echoes. This town is already under pressure from constant redevelopment. If we can't protect a landmark like this, one that even our historic business district commission recognized as worth preserving, then what exactly are we
preserving? Keep the monoy. Let's be the generation that adds to Chadam's story without deleting the chapters that made it special. >> Thank you. Any other public comments? Miss Smith. >> Hannah Smith, North Road Cadam. Um, I
wasn't going to speak. Um, but a few weeks ago, my mom, who is actually from Ohio, but um, she didn't go to Ohio University, but she ended up here. Um, she ha uh, lived with a woman who opened up her doors to let her stay at her house.
>> Without deleting the >> And um, that same woman had opened up uh, her doors again to house some of the Ohio University students. um in when they were here in the summer. Um and to me, she you know, it's not like
she was into theater really or um you know, went to one any of the shows, but she it was important to her because she felt that other people in the community were connected to the theater. Um and then also the woman that had taken her in uh felt this was very
important. So when she had seen that it could possibly be demolished, she thought how sad that is. At the end of the day, I think a lot of the things behind cultural significance have been brought up. And I'm not really sure that it's anyone's place outside of the town to decide if something is culturally
significant or not because people that have grown up in the town have various reasons why different things in Chattam are significant to them. Um, in Boston for example, the sitgo sign is of cultural significance to a lot of people. Um, people outside of Boston or
even New England, even people in Vermont, they might think, why would a SIG go sign be culturally significant to to anyone? Um, but at the end of the day, everyone has their reasons for for thinking that. Um, but there's people that are no longer with us in this town
that I think 100% would be up here saying the same thing. This is a part of a lot of people's lives whether or not they were involved with the theater. Um I just think recognizing the original building um the playhouse regardless of
its current use uh you know whether it becomes a retail or a restaurant uh would be really important because if the building itself is unrecognizable then the alumni of the theater program you know they're coming by they're driving to visit. if they just see a completely
new building, you know, what does it mean? It's it's not necessarily that they care about what's going inside. Obviously, they would love it to still be a theater program. Um, but a lot of people know it's it's not that realistic now. Um, but to see that building when you drive by,
you know, it doesn't really matter as much to people what's inside of it as long as it's still alive and going. um you know 100 years from now if people go by and say that building was still here they're going to know what that building was here for um you know if it wasn't
there anymore then it's just commercial buildings and doesn't really mean anything. Um, at the very least, I would like to see some sort of, you know, if this, if the select board does decide to overturn this decision, I would like to at least see some roadside, some
recognition, um, of what used to exist on the property. Um, I think that's really important for everyone that comes into town, people that are moving into town, you know, kids that are leaving the school system and becoming adults. Uh, I just think
it's there's signs around town that everyone goes by and just reads um and it sticks with you forever. So, I just I think that's really important and um yeah, I just wanted to say something because I knew that my mom would like me to say something and I know that the
woman that um helped her start her life here would have wanted that as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, you know, prioritizing, you know, uh, theater and the arts has, you know,
always been important to Chadam and, um, I think in that place has brought a lot of joy to a lot of people and I think tearing it down would be a tragedy. Um, I was just gonna tell one quick story is when I used to work at the Red Nun, the theater would come out. When the theater
would get out, everyone would go over to the Red Nun to eat afterwards. And on more than, you know, you could feel like the positive energy, you know, from the people and the joy. And on more than one occasion, you know, show tunes would break out. And um, you know, theater people a lot of fun and that's,
you know, uh, something that we should pres preserve. Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other public comments? Any online? Yes, ML. Who's that? >> It's Maryanne Lewis.
>> Please identify yourself and speak. >> Miss Lewis, I think you're muted. >> I heard her name. >> I I said it. Miss Lewis, >> please begin.
>> Trying >> give you one last chance. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Oh, f finally. Sorry. is this whole setup and I just heard about this meeting so I got on pretty quickly and didn't set it up. I'm sorry. And um I
hope that I don't repeat things that already discussed earlier which I um >> Can you please identify yourself? >> Yes. My name is Maryanne Lewis. I live at 21 Codl Lane in Chadam. >> Okay. >> And been a resident here for 30 years.
Um and also as my youth remember fondly going to many Monoy Theater productions. Um, and I do feel strongly that the decision to not allow the the theater building to be destroyed should be
upheld. Um, my main issue also is that there tends to be a trend now lately in town of people coming in saying that they're going to do one thing with a property or building, then doing nothing with it until it completely falls in
disrepair, and then kind of saying like, "Oops, sorry." um oops, there's nothing we can do now but like, you know, tear it down and build something brand new and monetize it as much as possible. And I think that the board really needs to
stand against that. Um because to my knowledge, and I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong, there really has been no um the new owners have not really done anything to lessen the damage in the five or six years that they've owned this building. Like I mean have they
even put dehumidifiers in the building to kind of you know control the the mold or done any type of remedial work to preserve the building rather than just kind of sit while while they went through the planning process and not done at least the bare minimum to try to make sure that the building was
salvageable. And I think the building probably is salvageable. It might be expensive to do it and we might need to get creative as far as finding other people to join in the project, but I don't think there's anything that has been said um that we should just abandon
the idea of a theater right now. You know, the world is a very tough place right now and people need things that make them you feel good and the Monoy Theater has always made people feel good when it was in operation. And that's all I need to say. Thank you and thanks for your patience with the mic situation. I
appreciate it. Thank you. Any other comments online? I see none. Um I'm going to read some correspondence. We've just received just two items of correspondence. Uh and they're both from the Cadam Historic
Commission. The first is dated December the 11th from Frank Msina, chairman Chattam Historic Commission. Members of the select board, the primary focus of the subject appeal is that 776 Main Street Monoy Theater is not historically significant. In addition,
the Chattam Historical Commission has no authority to make this designation and that the Mass Historic Commission agreed the subject property was not an historic property and the CHC failed to provide information required to obtain the necessary designation required to allow the applicant to receive tax credits.
The historical commission clearly has the authority from chapter 158 of the bylaw establishing the historical commission. The CHC designated 776 Main Street quote historically significant in early 2010 and refers to attachments as this was
required as part of the process in authorizing our preservation consultant N Avery in updating and preparing the MHC form B. also referring to to an attachment. Our professional preservation consultant Ann Avery completed the National Register of
Historic Places criteria statement form indicating the subject property was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The ongoing efforts by the CHC to obtain national registered designation for the subject property was continued again in 2019 by
our preservation consultant E dre and additional research provided to MHC in our efforts to document the theater building complex. These are the first steps in the long process in assembling information to request a determination of eligibility DOE for 776 Main Street
to Mass Historic Commission is eligible for a National Register designation NRD. At this time, the property was sold and the new owner, Greg Clark, informed me he was going to pursue the listing of 776 Main Street. The CHC backed off as he had the resources and seemed
committed to pursue the National Register designation process. the DOE and the formal application. See attached letter. His interest stemmed from the possible tax credits when a National Register property is restored for commercial use. The National Register approval process for any structure or
site is a long complicated procedure and can take years. Structures can be listed from meeting a number of different reasons and criteria. Architecture is one but not always the primary criteria as is cultural and its impact to history of the community. There is no question
the Monoy Theater in the historic district HBDC has had a significant and lasting impact on the history of Chadam references an attached history. Hopefully together we can find a way to save this iconic structure for future generations in Chadam. The second letter
dated today also from Mr. Msina uh as chair of the Chattam Historic Commission. Members of the select board, at the December 16, 2025 Chattam Historical Commission meeting, the members voted to reaffirm the historical significance of the buildings at 776
Main Street. Mr. Lear motioned and Miss Hamilton seconded that the Washington Taylor House and Monoy Theater are historically significant structures because of their age and they are unusually wellpreserved examples of the Greek revival and colonial revival styles and are associated with
influential individuals who played an important part in the history, social and cultural development of Chadam. The Washington Taylor House and the Monoy Theater possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association and meet criteria A, B, and C of the National
Register of Historic Places. The motion passed 700. Hopefully together we can find a way to save this iconic structure for future generations in Chadam. That is the extent of the um communications received by the select board. I want to
ask a So, I'm going to take this back now before we um allow a rebuttal from the appellant. I want to ask a couple of questions of town council. And again, I want to go back to the public safety concerns that I've expressed.
Um Mr. Talon, Jay, are you up there? >> I am. Jay, um, and and maybe we need to expand on this by asking, um, the building commissioner and the fire and police chiefs, what, if any,
um, requirements or obligations could the town impose on on a property owner in this instance to, for want of a better word, better protect this property?
You know that that's a difficult question, Dean, that we often face in demolition delay issues or issues um where we have some extraordinary authority to slow down requested demolition as is the case here. And this
is a fairly extraordinary authority. It's a special act of the legislature and the HBDC has pretty um wide bandwidth with respect to its jurisdiction. We can't compel anyone to
fix uh a property. We could certainly direct someone to secure there's a process under chapter 139 to secure a building that is serving as an attractive nuisance, but it would be limited to either securing or
demolishing as the case may be under chapter 139. And then there's some analogous statutes under the building code and under the board of health's statutes to require folks to abate attractive nuisances. But in terms of restoring a
property, we can't actually force someone to restore it to its original historic um grandeur in any way, shape or form. We get concerned as municipal advocates that sometimes um demolition
happens by way of neglect. are the range of tools that we have to prevent that are pretty limited. However, so I mean this special act is designed as a means to kind of compel encourage
coaxes uh property owners to do the right thing and repair and restore historic structures. Ultimately requiring them to restore it rather than just secure it is something that's fairly difficult for us to do by way if
not impossible in many instances to require that they do um in kind of an equitable via an equitable order of of any kind. >> Let me ask a follow-up question. Um >> sure. If the select board
um um upheld were to uphold the decision of the HBDC and deny the demolition of this property and we had um and there and they have subsequently uh occurred um a
tragedy uh akin to um what happened with the Worcester cold storage situation where um for folks who may not remember a couple of there was a homeless this couple in the living in this building and um a fire was started. They
evacuated the building um and the fire department went in because they were advised that were there were people in the building. They tried to save them but six firefighters were were killed. Um it was terrible terrible tragedy. Um
would if that if something like that were to happen, would the town be liable? Would the property owner be liable? Is is this a discretion? >> Is this a discretionary action? >> Liability >> a discretionary u exemption under 258.
>> Yeah, I don't see how the town could be liable. Enforcement is always discretionary. So, we start there and then we have the mass cla mass um tort claims act. So we have certain liability there, but there's no action that we're
taking with respect to um uh somehow making the property less safe. Again, we have the right but not the obligation to do something under a statute like chapter 139 where we could hold a
hearing two weeks from now for example in order that they fence secure board up or prevent attractive nuisances at the property and that's enforcable in equity. So we can do that but it's discretionary. It's not required and no
liability can flow from our decision not to do that. Whether to do that or not is another um topic that we could discuss in in another forum, but there's no obligation that would um invoke any kind of liability here. And I'm not going to
comment too robustly with respect to potential liability by the property owner. Obviously, it doesn't take much imagination to um think about ways where someone could raise a claim for um uh um
essentially maintenance of a negligent condition. And I appreciate that and that was probably an unfair part of the question but on the first part of the question I was thinking of the wear case where the town of wear where as I recall
um the town was held liable because um someone was driving under the influence and the the town the police I guess um did not um interrupt
what ultimately turned out to be a a tragic result. Does that >> Yeah, that's a that that's a very kind of um [clears throat] particular band of cases under the Mass tort claims act where there is a certain amount of duty
potentially, not in all circumstances. if there was a traffic stop or the means by which um a police had a duty to uh retain uh or restrict the movements of someone who was under the influence. There's a line of cases that fall on
both lines of the liability there in in terms of restraining folks or or taking further action. I don't think that those are analogous to this situation here because it there's not a police action or an entity that has an affirmative
duty to prevent harm here. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Any uh M Mr. Matters, >> just to follow up on your concern with public safety because it's a big building and we we the facilities and doors are, you know, boarded shut,
windows are busted open. You know, there's only so much you can do to kind of secure that spot because kids get creative and they they cause mischief. But if I heard Mr. Clark earlier, if this if tonight the select board
decides to uphold the HBDC decision, they I believe the suggestion was they were going to move forward with a by-wight, you know, process and put putting a fence up. So that fence up would, you know, I guess deal with a lot of the, you know, the the um safety
issues and if there's construction on the site, um kids will be less likely to to go into an active work site. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I at this point I'm going to uh invite um the the appellant
that to uh make a rebuttal. I guess I would throw out for consideration as you're as you do present that um Greg and Victoria um something that um Mr. Dyken suggested um
in in in a sense perhaps preserving part of the building maybe the the icon what I would call the iconic facade which has been painted sold in paintings here in Chadam over the years anyway. [clears throat] Is that what you were talking about Jeff? Yes. And and Frank
actually Mr. Msina referenced adaptive reuse and if if by right the Clarks can develop the property, you know, in a commercially, I think it would be wise to incorporate some part of the Monory Theater in that um in that development.
Um I really appreciated the comments uh about Harold Dunar. He was a wonderful painter and he used the facility as an artist uh facility for three or four or five years. he actually owned it for four years. There is a lot of history there and again as I referenced earlier
a lot of heartstrings but Mr. Clark has spent a lot of money to buy this property and has been fairly well stymied um in his efforts to get the financing to restore the theater by the town and I understand it's expensive to do that. Um and by right he can develop
this pro this parcel commercially. Now it has to go back to HBDC and there may be pling board considerations etc. However, he does have rights. he owns the property, but I I would strongly suggest, and again, Frank referenced it, some kind of adapted reuse of this
property that does incorporate elements of its history as a wonderful playhouse and theater here in this town. And I think a restaurant is a great idea. But anyway, those are my those are my thoughts. And >> okay, >> certainly has historical significance as well, whether it's registered or not, it
has a lot of historical significance for residents of this town that have history here. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, Greg, did did you want to make your rebuttal at this time? >> Sure. I I appreciate those comments. Um, and and we have no problem with it.
Obviously, if we do decide that we're going to move forward and keep the theater portion of the building, then, you know, we have no problem if if we're going to keep the structure, obviously the structure is going to be there. the inside will be different, but um we
think that we can do some things with it that would be nice for the community. I'm hesitant on believing that it will get approved by the different boards because for the past six years, all we've gotten was push back on everything. Um the comments
some of the comments that were made by the speakers in the last you know 15 20 minutes were were very uh questionably accurate. Okay.
I'm not going to get into the details of it because we put it into our appeal to you and the board can read them and understand them. There's a certain criteria of how something has to be determined to be historic. It's not one person or one group just saying it. It
has to go through the procedure and you have procedures in your bylaws that require it. And we contend that has not been done for this property. The CHC a comment was made that I did didn't really care for as if they worked on it
and then gave it to us and we dropped the ball. The CAC attempted to get the property accepted by the Mass Historic for nine years. As I stated, we have put over 20
buildings onto the National Park Service historic register and most of them are done in a year to 15 months. We have done it. Another comment was made about the love of the community for this theater. And
I'm just going to tell you, we didn't buy this property from the Steiners cold. They offered it to the town and they also offered it to the group that
was running the theater long before we got involved, long before they put it out on the market. So, I discovered this because during the due diligence, they gave me all the correspondence packages. Okay. Ohio University was the original
backer of the theater. They left. They stopped because this was a triple net lease that the Steiner family had given to the Monway Theater Group, which was supported financially
by Ohio University. A triple net lease means that the tenant has to pay for the maintenance of the property. There's a reason why Ohio University left. Then Hartford University stepped in.
They backed out a full year before we bought the property. So the theater was closed a year before we closed on purchasing the property. That was again because financially it required a lot of work. The buildings
were falling apart. There was no financial support from anyone to keep that theater going. And that's why it closed. Not because of something we did. And this and and the reason why it's not on
the National Register or accepted by Mass Historic is not because of something we didn't do. I just wanted to clarify that. Now, we have no problem. We think this is a we think the reality here is this is a a
double issue. You're we fully expect what you're going to decide tonight, but that's fine. We wanted it because this is the route that we have to take. We think that everybody has been voting
for the past six years on this property based upon and and it's in it's in the the meeting minutes. We want the theater. The theater needs to go back there and all comments like that. The reality of it is is that the HBDC
has guidelines to look at. And if you go back and look at the meeting minutes from, you know, if you look at the transcript from that meeting, you'll see a lot of comments of, well, why aren't you doing the theater? That's not what they're supposed to be reviewing, and
that's why we filed this appeal. So we [clears throat] will plan on moving forward one way or the other and we will be back to the selectman to look at you know what else we can do there to try to do something for the community
but we will also take further appeal. Thank you very much. >> Okay. I would just like to comment that there should be no presumption that the select board has made up its mind on this. Nor do we have any say about what
the autonomous regulatory boards in this town do. They make their own decisions. With that, I'm going to um ask the board to take a formal vote to close the public hearing unless there are any comments or questions of Miss Mr. Clark.
>> Stewart, >> I just have a couple of >> Why don't you ask them before we close the hearing? Did you want to ask them? Did you want to go into deliberation now or did you want to ask questions of >> I don't have any questions for >> Okay. So why don't we close the hearing? Um I'll take a motion >> to close the public hearing. >> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. I'll take a vote. M Miss Davis >> I. >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> Chair both sides. Public hearing is closed and we are now into deliberations. Steuart. I'll recognize you first. >> Sure. Um
so I was just reading this uh over the last few days some of the course some of the information that has been supplied to us um the historical business district design guidelines and procedures under general
guidelines. The purpose of the district is to promote the cultural, economic, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the town of Chadam through appropriate development of commercial and business districts. Um, protect protecting and preserving
distinctive characteristics of buildings and places uh that have significant in the history and the development of Chadam. Um, I mean it's it seems to me that um
the HBDC and the historical commission has pretty much done their job and done exactly what they were supposed to be doing uh preserving uh when appropriate these buildings. Um, I've looked through. I don't see anything that's arbitrary or uh
capriccious um that would uh make me inclined to overrule their their decision. Um, as a matter of fact, it uh it kind of goes on and maybe Jay can opine better than I, but I'm looking
at Mr. Costello's uh uh opinion from uh two uh 2020 and that agency action will not be overturned unless it is proven to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the agency's own rules. I don't see
that. looks to me like they did exactly as I we can talk about whether it's going to be a theater or what the developers are going to do but I'm just looking at the uh the boilerplate of what we're supposed to be doing and I don't see the grounds to overrule uh what they have decided. I also um you
know we did a site visit with the with the Clarks um and you know from my perspective uh and I think pretty much the layman's perspective the building is not secure. I don't know what they've done for six years. I haven't monitored the building
but I can tell you that the uh some you know eight or 10 pieces of plywood would have gone a long way to secure that building properly over the doors and windows. still it isn't done. And uh it seems to me that that's a a minor way of of helping prevent some of the
intrusions that he's experienced. Um uh I have concerns about the public safety condition of the building. Um but the owner has some responsibility to secure the building and from my perspective he hasn't done that adequately. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments from the
board? >> M Mr. Mr. Chair, >> the matters. >> This is this is I mean >> I I don't see myself um overturning the HPDC decision. I mean, I'll be I'll be honest with you. Um, a lot of respect for our regulatory boards, you know, may
not always disagree with some of their positions or or findings, but you know, our regulatory boards, um, they put a lot of time and effort into reviews and, um, you know, I don't see enough information that would lead me lead me to appeal, you know, to overturn them.
But the reality is um you know this property um six years, seven years, whatever it's been um you know property owner does have rights, does have um by right options to develop that property and it
appears that property is going to uh not contain a theater. I know that's a lot of desire for a lot of people. Um it has been part of the conversation earlier on with trying to find the funding element. you know what is going to what is going to fund that that goal. Um you know we
and we've gone through the you know various housings in the housing project options in the back that have not come forth with any you know success. So um I understand that from a developer perspective the frustration um to to
have come to this point but the reality is you know they they have rights they have they have right to move it forward. Um any any building can be fixed to some degree. It's going to cost money and there's going to be a lot of engineering elements that come up with redesigning
the interior and making it all work. I mean, obviously the front of that theater is the most uh visually um architecturally relevant thing that you want to keep. Further in the back, um it's, you know, especially the rear of the building. It's nothing special
architecturally. It's a big old, you know, sidewall with a big barn door and big stairs that are not to code or anything. So, um there are elements of it that definitely could be saved and should be saved. Um you have um and then the reality too
what whatever happens whether it it be it had become a theater a restaurant retail um that site is going to be drastically changed because by code you're going to have a hardcape parking lot most likely you're going to have parking lot I'm assuming hardcape could
be shell I don't know but you're going to have the drainage redone you're going to have lighting potentially um so that site's going look extremely different than it does now or and it has been for for you know growing up here. So um we are going to see a distinct change to
that site um with any kind of further development. So um I I I you know it appears that all doors are closed with some of the desires that some other people in the in the community want for this pro parcel. Um but I I understand you know after six years you you the
applicant has a right to move forward. Um but um tearing that building down is not something that I'm ready to entertain. Um I just hope that whatever the end of project is is something a little bit um you know that is something for the community. But um you know we
are where we are. It had it is you know the applicant has you know taken a building that has had significant wear and tear over the years and um you know at some point you know if if they were to say we're going to put it on the market my guess is the next person's
going to come in with something similar. So it's you know it's a matter of who's going to end up doing it. It's it's going to be developed and redeveloped at some point. So, um I respect bottom line, I guess, for tonight, I'm not going to vote to um to appeal or um overturn the HBDC decision.
>> Miss Davis, >> thank you, Dean. Um so, our role is on this appeal is limited, that's for sure. And we're not here deciding tonight whether demolition will make the development easier or less costly, but whether the HBDC acted outside of its authority or made a decision that was
arbitrary, capriccious, or unreasonable. So after, you know, reviewing the documents and hearing the presentation, I don't find that to be the case here. The commission followed its established guidelines and acted within the authority granted to it under the town bylaw and the state statute. And because
the appellant has to me not met the burden of showing that the HBDC decision was unlawful or unreasonable, I'm standing with the commission's decision. >> Thank you, Miss Mr. Dyikens. Yeah, I would conclude as well that the HBDC decision was not arbitrary, capriccious, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
HBDC's own rules or that it acted outside the scope of its authority. Um, that being said, and and I'll add that I thought the HBDC when I watched the hearing uh gave the Clarks a few offramps, if you will, come come back with the history on the CHC and come back with the history with the mass
historicals. sort of come back with the original um the original um engineering study, you know, uh we'll have another conversation. So, I appreciated that on the part of the HBDC, you know, saying, "Hey, look, there's some offramps here. We can continue this conversation." Um
that being said, I very much appreciate um Greg Clark's comment about he would certainly pay attention to incorporating um the historical aspects of the Playhouse. I would hope just the playhouse the front of the playhouse building and that and and Mr. Mr.
Meadow's comments regarding um the reality of the um circumstances. Um he has by rights uh he's a he's a developer and he has rights as a as a developer under the opices of the um the GB2 uh commercial development and um it's been
he's been very clear that if he didn't get financing um with the properties uh over on depot and and next to veterans field to finance the refurbishing of the theater that wasn't going to happen. It's clear. I want folks to know that we're we're never we're not going to have a theater here unless some other
third party jumps in here and and decides that it's critical that the Monoy Theater be redeveloped. I don't believe Mr. Clark or the Clarks have any intention now of having a theater there. So, I think the best we could hope for at this point is that um enlist uh the
with with some persuasion that the Clarks would incorporate some of the historical aspects of that property in their future development and an adaptive reuse. Uh that's the best I can come up with and and we're faced with certain realities of zoning and and and rights
of developers. And one would hope that if the Clarks do come back and um do attempt some or plan some adaptive reuse with the historical aspects of the Monoy Theater that the town would have a warm
year with respect to those plans. So I'm not going to vote to overturn the HBDC's decision. I think they did a fine job especially with listening and giving us some offramps. Um and but I would hope that there is some place where we can come to some common ground with the
Clarks uh and they develop a wonderful development there in that property. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Well, [clears throat] I have followed this over the years and I think it is very clear that once the Clarks bought this property, there was never ever going to be a resurrection of what
used to be the Monoy Theater model. I I I think Mr. Clark would agree with that. They did have a theater um model, but it was different. And they have decided based on circumstances and the history
of their endeavors um that it will not be a theater going forward as is their right. They own the property. They bought it fair and square. Um I um am satisfied um on the public safety
side with the comments of our town council. So I'm I'm just going to proceed directly to um the decision of the HBDC and the first sentence I that I read before of their specific reasons
for denial. quote, "The theater structure represents an important part of Chadam's history. I am not persuaded by the argument that the appellant has made that it is not historically significant. I think it is abundantly clear from the
record from the history of what has happened here and the documentation that it is historically significant. Um but most more importantly the standard as has been articulated by several of my colleagues is and I'll
quote it again is that the board this board should o should should uphold the decision of the HBDC unless we find it arbitrary, capriccious, unreasonable, inconsistent
with the HBDC's HBDC's own rules or that the HBDC acted outside the scope of its authority and I don't think they have done that. So I I cannot vote to overturn their
decision. Now, it's open to the clerks, uh, if we take the vote, which we will in a few minutes, to appeal to the Superior Court, as they've indicated they plan to do, or they could go back to the HBDC and try to work out an arrangement where perhaps there could be
a partial demolition while preserving certain parts of the building, particularly the facade or as Mr. Dykins has mentioned um the entryway I guess is what you're talking about and incorporate that into whatever else they
want to do of commercial um or retail nature consistent with with zoning. But that's their option. When you buy a property and you intend to develop it develop it um it's there's a risk involved as to whether you're going to
get the various approvals along the way. and they got they got the approval ultimately to to demolish various buildings uh various other buildings which they came before us on and we referred them back we remanded them back to the HBDC and they worked out an
arrangement with them where they could um demolish those particular buildings. In this case, the HBDC feels that this building is um important historically and um as the chair indicated um there was certain material that they felt they
wanted to see and that wasn't provided to them at that time. It was provided to this board. Um so with that um I'm going to um vote to uphold the HBD HBDC decision and I'm going to offer a motion
that um that the select board um vote to uphold the decision of the HBDC because it was not arbitrary, capriccious,
unreasonable, incon consistent with the HBDC's own rules, nor was nor uh did the HBDC act outside the scope of its authority. >> That's the motion. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Any further
deliberation or discussion? I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes eye. >> Thank you. Thank you everybody. Um this agenda item is concluded. Thank you. Uh, Miss Mr. Clark, Miss Clark. Thank you,
Miss Sequin. And thank you, Jay. >> Uh, Dean, just a quick note there. Um, as you uh reduce this to writing, I I'll be certainly happy to um fill in, help
the board fill in with uh some findings and conclusions along the lines of what the uh board members uh concluded, >> okay, >> during uh their deliberations. Okay. Is the board comfortable with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then do we present that document back to the board
>> for if I think if it's faithful to this vote and I'm not going to spend like multiple pages on it because I think the vote was pretty clear. I think if it's faithful to the decision and the board um uh feels as such right here today,
then just having you sign something that is short and sweet and captures uh what the final vote was. I think would be appropriate, but I defer to the board on that. If they want to see it again, um certainly it could be presented at your next meeting.
>> What's the pleasure of the board? >> Okay. Thank you, Jay. I appreciate that offer. We'll we'll proceed along those lines. >> Okay. Sounds great. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> You too. >> You too. >> Okay.
Let's get this stuff off the table here. The next item is the consent agenda [clears throat] and um there are two items in particular. One is to consider the outdoor display and sale of goods on town property. Chattam Garden Club annual plant sale June 6,
2026 at the um Chattam Community Center at 702 Main Street. And second to consider renewals of select board issued licenses for common viter entertainment automatic amusement and movie theater class one two and three auto dealer inkeepers and lodging houses and um we
can vote this in one fell swoop but I'm going to remove one particular item on on the common vitular Sunday dessert renewals. I'm going to remove the Chattam penny candy store for separate consideration. >> Um and sweet I have two. I have two.
>> Oh, you have another one. >> I have two. Sorry. >> Sweet dreams. >> Sweet dreams ice cream. >> Sweet dreams ice cream and candy. Sorry, I did forgot you were such an entrepreneur. [snorts] >> Thank you. Uh, so is with the the balance of the consent calendar. Is there a motion to approve that?
>> Move to approve the consent agenda. >> Second that. >> Moved and seconded. >> All right. I'll take a vote on that. Um, Miss Miss Davis. >> I. >> Mr. Dykens. Hi. >> Mr. Matters. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes size. So that's five to zero. Okay. The separate items out uh
were Chad and Penny Candy and Short and what is it? It's not short and sweet. >> Sweet dreams. >> Sweet dreams. >> Sweet dreams. Sweet dreams. >> Motion to approve. >> You got to stay with the advertising. >> That's all right. Sweet dreams ice cream and candy. So >> motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. Second. Moved and seconded. I will call the role on that.
Um Miss Davis I. >> Mr. Dykens. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes I. And Mr. matters has recused. Thank you. That's 400 with a recusal. Next, uh public comments on the business
agenda and you can make them now or you can make them later on. Um contemporaneously, I don't see any currently. Uh so we'll proceed to the business agenda. First is a report on zero and 1533 Main Street housing development from the zoning board of
appeals chair Randy Pach. Welcome Randy. >> Thank you for having me. Hello everybody. So um I know uh you didn't invite me. I invited myself and um I acknowledge that I I wanted to come give you um a report on what we've done since
May and how we came to the decision we did and not just for the select board also for the whole town of Chattam and anyone interested um because this is in a sense a historic project. So, we received um the project at the zoning
board in the month of May. And from May until uh December of 2025, we had um eight meetings and they took uh 24 hours of airtime. And uh I'd like to just take
an opportunity to thank Katie Dunovan, Sarah Clark, Chantel Kelkenny, Jay Briggs, Channel 8 um because they made it all um really um tolerable for the town, you know, the people that came to
all the meetings and for us. Um so we had 24 hours of meetings and a lot of prep time and we all started to prep for that last fall when we knew it was coming. We watched videos, we read materials, um, and we were ready. And, uh, it was
it was an interesting process. No one knew what would happen until the vote. We, um, obviously obeyed open meeting law the whole time. And I didn't know what the vote would be uh, until it happened. Um, I can say for sure. Um, so there's 48 units in nine buildings in 3
acres of land. Uh, they're all rentals and so they take us from 4.8 8 to 611 um for affordable housing. Um so what I wanted to point out were the things that we did over the last uh
several months. um we were presented with a with a certain um layout and I think we all knew that unless we had a really profound safety or welfare issue that there would be really very little chance on appeal that any denial would
prevail. So I know for myself I took the approach of trying to make this the best project that we could for the town and it took a while um because um I also didn't feel bound by the streetscape that surrounds it right now. I looked at
this and I think most of us looked at this as the future of West Chadam and we there's a low bar right now on many of the properties around there and they could be improved and so we didn't feel as if we needed to uh set a low bar. We
wanted to set standards high. So this is the HBDC and now I know you know a lot about the HBDC and we encourage Penrose to use the design rules of the HBDC and we also took a lot of attention to the streetscape there. Those were very
important. So we were able to um we were able to do the following things. Uh we were able to um provide flourishing vegetation. That that's what we hope we'll see because we they're going to put a well in. There
was um there was no um plan for irrigation when they came in. None. The the idea was that they ship they would truck in bags for the first year maybe. Um so having a well there and having our
conditions really outline that they are going to um need to keep it alive and um pay a lot of attention to the uh the vegetation. They are also going to put real trees versus uh little sticks that
are sort of held by by you know rope. They're going to put at least four and a half caliber trees in in all the very important areas. um they weren't going to do that. They were going to buy whatever trees were available at the time and there was no real plan. So I
think those things are important. Um we also improved setbacks for the abutters and we improved vegetation screening screening screaming uh for one of the abutters in particular. Uh we lowered building heights as as close as possible
to 30 feet. Um, I don't have the statistics off the top of my head. We did that early on. Um, we also, um, have them comply with the HBDC sign rule. Um, they came in with a whole different plan for that and now their sign is going to
look like all the other signs in the HBDC um, size-wise and the fact that they're only going to have one. Um, your RFP, interestingly enough, did not call for a management building and it didn't call for a community build community. It did
not call for a gym. It didn't call for that building at all. Um, however, it did call for a management um, agency and you really wanted that and I I noticed that and that's why another couple of other members wanted to take the
building out totally. But I thought based on their argument and what the town was looking for, it was perfectly reasonable for them to have a management office. And they're they're putting that office uh front and center next to two
large uh housing buildings. And it did not start off with what we have now. It started off with a very large building that did not look Chattanoo in any way, shape, or form. And then they reduced it in size and it looked a lot like a
drive-thru uh fast food restaurant, being quite frank with you. And we were able to persuade them to put um what's going to be a cape, like just a cape house. And it's going to look similar in design and uh colors and uh cedar what
looks like cedar shingles to the buildings that flank it. So, it's going to look nice and it's going to have real trees and irrigation in the front. Um, we also uh let's see. So, they did take
out the gym and the common area. Um, as to parking, we um all thought it was important and we did get some input from uh Tracy um who uh is in charge of um Chadam. I can't remember the name of
>> Yes. Thank you. And she she also agreed with many of us that there should be one assigned space for per unit. And so we have 48 assigned spaces and the rest will be for for guests. Um they agreed
to do that. Um let's see. Siding was an important topic. As I mentioned, they're going to have traditional white classic uh cedar looking shingles. Um, they're made out of composite, but they but they look like real cedar shingles and it's
it's just more economic and it's it's not going to fall apart, so that's helpful. Um, and white clapboard. So, the the buildings are attractive. They're all attractive. Um, the amenities are bike racks, um, grills in
the common area, uh, and the the enclosures for their storage. Um, so they don't have basements. um is going to be large enough for at least one adult bike. Um let's see. The common area in the center has uh trees and they
agreed to not clear cut. That was important to us. They they're going to cut down the trees they need to and they're going to replace them. So the dumpsters are on the sides near the rear and they're screened quite nicely. Um so
safety is was a very important topic. We got some input from CH C Chadam uh chief of police um and uh David Nixon was adamant about it. We all felt strongly that there should be a signalized
uh crosswalk out front. Um as strongly as we felt about it, we knew that it's going to be up to the state, but Penrose agreed to advocate and uh I know the chief of police will advocate. I'm quite sure that the town will. Plus,
I guess the town got a pretty um hefty uh grant for to be included in for this purpose. So, it seems to really defy logic that the state won't put this crosswalk and signal in. But in Paul's
words, if they don't, we will adapt. And it wasn't worth um killing the project over. Um, and I didn't think it was worth killing the project over either, but uh, some people did and some people stand by that. Um, and one thing I want
to I want to note that I I really am proud of is that we spent a lot of time with council at an open meeting going through this 17page document that um, is the decision. And it didn't matter if the some members were against it. They
participated with a lot of um enthusiasm because they knew they wanted to help make it the best project that we could and they all had input and everybody had a great attitude the the whole entire time. Um and that's the culture of the zoning board and that's what you know
that's probably also why it you know it took several months because we tried to have due process for everyone in the town and for ourselves. Um, let's see. I think I pretty much covered
what I wanted to cover. Well, oh, also the lighting lanterns that are the same from downtown. So, it's it's going to be pretty nice looking. That's at the end of the day. It's dense. That's what 40B is. It's dense. There's a lot of
buildings on a small area, but it's we did the best we could. And uh I hope that even if you aren't happy about it, and this is to everybody in the town, at least know that um we did our best and
this is why we came out with what we came out with. >> Well, thank you. Thank you, Randy. Um you know, this was a first time novel experience for the town, for for your board. Um I didn't watch every minute of
it. Um, but I really applaud you as chair and all of your board members for how you conducted yourselves, the diligence that you undertook, uh, the open process, um, the, uh, considerable
input from the public and from the developer that was accepted and the very thoughtful uh, decision-making process um, that resulted from that. Uh I read the decision uh and I appreciate you're
highlighting the significant points. I just really had one question. Yes. >> Is it um should we assume that uh the developer is going to accept this or are they going to appeal to the state? Do we know? >> Oh, no. They're going to accept it. >> They're going to accept it. Good. Okay. Great. >> We we knew that it it was kind if you
were at the meetings. Um the body language was really uh dramatic. We knew when they were happy, we knew when they weren't happy. There was a lot of head shaking. It was helpful. I I I I felt that Penrose was very good to work with, you know, and you know, we're not done
with them yet. And I know, >> you know, when you I might not be reporting the same news when we get done with meeting house. Um I don't know, >> but um you know, we know each other well now and uh and maybe it won't take as long. We have to close that public
hearing by February 9th. Just wondering. Any comments from the board? Jeff? >> Yeah, and I I said this earlier at uh on camera and in a live meeting of the select board, but um the ZBA did a uh took a very thoughtful, diligent um
approach to this this consideration of the 40B project at 1533. Um there was uh body language on the part of the ZBA as well, by the way. Um I mean, but you guys you guys did a great job. I attended many of the meetings and if I didn't attend I
watched them and um I read the entire conditions the entire decision if you will and uh the project I [clears throat] will state unequivocally is a much better project for the ZBA's having been involved and its input
>> that's much better project um uh the the issues of safety have been covered I I do agree with you and I and I think ultimately um although maybe Chadam West Chadam in particular may not be Mass Dot's favorite um geographic location in the state of Massachusetts. I think they
will um be able to give us permission to to do a crosswalk and a and a signage there. But but the overarching issue here isn't isn't it's density. Yeah. But we're providing 48 units of housing that we never had before that are desperately needed. And so that's what we have to
keep in mind what we accomplished together working with Penrose. Um and also what we need to keep in mind as we work together with Penrose on Meeting House. So um you did a great job as as the chair, thoughtful, very clear
approach to participation and um the organization of the meeting which I really appreciated. I thought you did a great job and I've said that this is the second time I've said that and I thank you. >> Thank you >> and I wish you well a meeting house and uh you'll see me at the meetings. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you Randy.
>> Any other comments from board members? Uh Shireen, >> uh Randy, thank you for the presentation and and the ZBA's diligence on this being the first initial project that we of significance for the town in a very long time. Um when you were going
through the RFP and the proposal together, was there something significant that you saw that we should be taking into consideration if we ever have another proposal? Um that I mean are you would you be willing uh as a ZBA
to send that along to the affordable housing committee as a recommendations or just uh some thought a thought piece or something that that would um maybe uh help us coales a little easier on the process of permitting? >> I would enjoy that. That would be able
to purge my brain of a lot of thoughts. >> Okay, I appreciate that. Um the um as as um as Jeff said, the uh the the big the big deal here is that um 48 families are going to have um um a
residency in the town of Chattam and they're going to be part of our Chattam community, which is going to be a really good thing. Um, and we just recently had a presentation by the superintendents of the schools in the Cape um, at a meeting
we were at, Jeff and I, last Friday where housing um, and enrollment of the schools and the success of our schools is tied to to the idea of housing. And it I don't think I think the superintendents couldn't drive that
process home more to us that we need housing and we need um we need to get through the process in a you know more streamlined manner and I think that you know now that you have this and I know that you make comments about meeting house road but I think we also have to
keep an eye that we are providing housing that's going to be a substantial um addition and um benefit to the town. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments? >> All right. Thank you, Randy. >> Thank you for having me. >> You're very welcome. Any anytime. Thank
you. >> Next is the update on the watershed permit planning and sewer expansion efforts. We'll have a presentation by GHD. I'm going to >> Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Were you going to ask any comments from from the public or questions? >> I'm sorry. Were there comments? Carolyn,
please come forward. >> Thank you, Shireen. I I missed that. Welcome. >> Thank you, D. I appreciate that. Um, Carol McClullen, South Chadam. Um, I just want to say I'm I'm very excited that we're moving forward with these 48
units, but um, and I know the ZBA did a lot of work and a lot of time, a lot of effort. a lot of people in the community did uh put a lot of time and effort in prior to that for many many years to get to this point. I have to say that I'm
very disappointed in um the I guess the aspect of how we quantify um the value here and um as the chair just mentioned that they they already knew that they couldn't do anything about the
density and yet that was always a threat that they would go to appeal because of the density and in exchange for that they were able to concentrate the site and give the abuters more of a buffer zone which was great for the abutters. I'm sure they like that. But the
sacrifice of that was the quality of to some degree the quality of life for the future residents. And I don't feel as though um I don't think that's an e there's equity in that. Um there's the community the flex space which was in
the RFP. It was requested. It's a flex space for 48 households to have a little bit of space for community activities. It's not a lot to ask. Um and yet that seemed to be too much. It's even with the concentrated space, there was still
room to have it, but for whatever reason, they don't want to have it. Um, they can certainly speak to the architectural style. They had 180 days to tweak it in any way they wanted. It could have been a a that community building could have looked like a a farmhouse, a boat house, a lighthouse,
whatever it was that the the ZBA wanted them to draw, they could have done that. So, um, that was a possibility. But I am disappointed about um the equity between the future residents and the abbutters and how we decide how that's going to play out. Um one of the abbutters, the
recent uh property owners next door, they've just finished their home. Uh the the the developer has just finished developing that home, building that. It's a 4,500 square foot home. Has a swimming pool, a patio. They've they've used all their property up to their to
their line. and they have a single arboride uh line between their property and our property. And good for them. That's fine. They get to do that. But we had to sacrifice another 9 ft along the entire uh southern and western border
which is about 5,000 square ft. Um that building that that home there is 1500 square ft larger than the Penrose building across from Mr. of it which was perceived as being a
monstrosity and this is a private home. They're free to do that. I have no problem with them doing that. I have a problem with using different scales depending upon whether it's an affordable housing or um a private development. So, I'd like people to take that into consideration when they're
looking at meeting house and our other developments that um it's not always an exchange getting a better development doesn't mean being a benefit to the abuter at the sacrifice of the future occupants. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Caroline. Miss Smith, did you
have comments? >> Hannah Smith, Chadam. Um, I just wanted to thank the zoning board um for all the time that they spent on uh Main Street and what they're spending on Meeting House right now as well. Um, I want to keep this light [laughter]
because I think this is just about providing an update, but I did want to say, um, with respect to Carolyn, you did originally favor a proposal that was less units than the one that we're going through right now. So, I don't really know, you know, everyone has had
different ideas of density, this and that. Um, at the end of the day, I think that having a process that's open, like the zoning board process, it does provide a lot of valuable input. Um, and I think that a lot of people you there's
people that don't agree with the project that are happy to see how it finished. Um, and I think that's kind of just where we should leave it at. Um, but yeah, I just I'm happy with this. I believe this is the best that it
probably could have turned out. >> Thank you. I just wanted to comment in fairness to Carolyn and um the comments about what she favored earlier because I was favored the same thing along with Corey Meadows. That was an that was an ownership
>> concept and I think that's what drove Carolyn. I can't speak for her, but I appreciate your comments. I appreciate Caroline's comments as well. Thank you. Anybody else? >> Mr. Chair, Steven Buckley is online. >> Uh, Stephen, Stephen, you're on.
>> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Um, I'm glad. I'm I'm currently at a a public meeting in Bourne on the Canal Bridges and I just spoke one minute ago. So, it's funny how all of this seems to co, you know, coales at the same time.
Anyway, uh yes, I'm I'm uh wanted to comment on and and I missed uh most of what uh Randy had to say, so I guess I'll I'll watch that later, but uh it doesn't really change from what I
wanted to say, which is that uh yes, having sold the former Buckley property for exactly this purpose, I am certainly not a a nimi in and respect. So that was the whole idea was to provide as many housing
units as possible in the most beneficial and um valuable way the highest and best use of the property. And so uh however uh I I tried to hang back and only concentrate in providing input on on
cosmetic things because I liked the generals. I liked generally speaking where things were going and I didn't think I could do any I didn't think it was worth weighing in on density or anything like that. So, I'm not complaining about density at all. However, um yeah, I did want to see something that looked like white cedar
shingles, but not white. They're they're gray, but seasoned cedar shingles because that is the predominant sighting. So, I was concentrating my comments on stuff that were I thought was easy to nudge. However, um towards the end,
there was a proposal to take away a community room in the um right community room in the administration building. And so to me,
I I certainly had the idea that this would be and I was hoping it was ownership involved, but it didn't go that way. But lacking that, I wanted there to be some, you know, the community room seemed to me to be the heart of any kind of social
gathering place where people who lived there could do more than just live there. They could be neighbors. They could be a small little community. They could be a real neighborhood. and that there would be a place where people who were perhaps in a one-bedroom
apartment uh couldn't entertain a bunch of people, but perhaps use the community room to have uh birthday parties, social gathering, clubs, whatever. Uh uh wait for the bus to come.
uh all kinds of things that could happen in a community room that they wouldn't be able to do uh because they don't these buildings won't even have basements that you could go down. So there's no elbow room that would be the place to go. And when I saw that it it
was because I think the process was compromised I believe because there was no vote on taking out the community room out of the administration bill. came late in the process and I think
there should have been something where so that people could go on the record even even the members who voted against the whole project have been making beneficial suggestions. So, I'd like to see there be a vote uh when the design
comes back in 60 days or 60 days from December 10th and and give that an honest up or down so people can say yes, I think this would be better without a community room that having a community room would be a negative.
I want to hear I want to hear that discussion. And I want to see those votes and and then it whatever happens happens as long as the process is not giving short shrift in that regard. So um that's my suggestion and according to
the agreement it appears that's possible because it doesn't say anything in the agreement about not having a community room. It just says it was unacceptable. So now that it's been decided, I believe that um details like this won't sink it.
It it wouldn't have sunk it anyway, but now it's clear that community room or not, it won't that the approval of everything won't hinge on whether that's not a danger or a risk to the whole project. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Stephen. Uh last call for
comments on this agenda item. Okay. So, now we will proceed to the watershed permitting and sewer expansion efforts and we'll call on um our public works director uh Rob Philly to present uh the consultant. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rob Philly,
director of public works. So, this presentation is really a continuation of uh followup of the presentation that GHD uh performed last I think it was late spring, early summer. Um, in addition to this and previous presentations to the
select board and to the water and sewer advisory committee, um, we included uh, neighborhood outreach uh, meetings, public information sessions in South Chattam. We conducted two of those, one in May, one in September. Um so Jeff will present um you know a project
update which will include progress on the watershed permit uh sewer expansion planning phasing and anticipated timelines as well as uh what we had promised most of all was the preliminary cost estimates associated with the remainder of phase one. Um so uh Jeff
myself or Greg Burman are available for uh questions afterwards but uh with that I'll leave it to Jeff Greg from GHD. >> Thank you very much. uh Jeff Greg, GHD. Um so I'd like to we'll do a little
background that we had done before, talk about the planning, uh the grants that kind of helped facilitate um these updates, um the timeline that we're looking at, what we're looking at for compliance, uh for the TMDLs, for the nitrogen TMDLs,
that's the basis of all this work. uh the preliminary costs and um some of the schedules. So, as everyone's aware and and we went over the last time we uh town filed comprehensive plan back in
2009, it was approved uh that basically called for the sewing of the town of Chadam. Uh the the plan was broken into two primary phases. Phase one being what's it going to take to get to the TMDLs
uh to achieve compliance with the TMDLs and then phase two was to uh serve the benefit of the town of uh providing sewers for the entire town. Uh in 2018 uh town of Chadam as part of the Pleasant Bay Alliance uh entered into
the first watershed permit uh in Massachusetts. Um and then in 2023, the state promulgated their regs that were based on a lot of the work that was done through the Pleasant Bay um [clears throat] alliance um permitting
process and they came up with um some requirements and one of those was to file a notice of intent to file a watershed permit back in uh uh 2024. So, the town filed that and with the intent
of actually doing their actual permit filing in 2027. [clears throat] Um, move the cursor out of the way. Uh, this document that we've been working on as part of these grant efforts is not intended to replace the comprehensive
plan. It's literally just an update of the water use, uh, the costs, looking at the phasing and and making sure that we're still kind of working on the same path pathway that we were before. Um, and then moving forward,
uh, once you in 2027 file for the actual watershed permit for the remainder of your wersheds, uh, the permit cycle is every five years. Um and then you'll you can make modifications as needed throughout the process throughout the permit with
approval from D. Um and one of the things that was actually clarified for me today in a discussion I had with Duh about this project was um the goal is for towns to reach uh
TMDL compliance in 20 years or have a plan that can reach it in 20 years. So that's 100% with the idea that you could uh with D approval get to 75%. So a lot of the presentation and and our understanding
before which D also said was um a clarification that a lot of people needed is that uh the 75% isn't a um guaranteed number. It's it's a fallback
number. So they really want people going towards the 100% which our plan does show but there's a lot of discussion about in our document right now the 75 and 100%. So,
um, as we talked before, the town had two grants, one in 2024, one 2025 for, um, just just over $190,000 to basically, uh, continue Pleasant Bay Alliance
support, file the notice of intent, provide this water uh, this basically the outline for the permitting process, do these presentations, public outreach, and get a document which we have given to DP for their initial comments on uh
this is you know the framework of of what we're going to be doing in 2027 to present. Um and as we went through the last presentation uh this map shows uh the town and all
the various different phases. The area in red has been either designed uh or constructed. So has um sewers available to it as of now or is being finished up as part of the uh the current
construction projects are finishing up. And then the next area is the 1F1 project which we presented on as well as um Rob indicated um that is focusing on uh the Cedar Street neighborhood and
some neighborhoods that are off of uh Main Street. Um and then what we did as part of this plan was look at the next subsequent phases and break those out and we colorcoded them. Um and as you can refer
back to the previous presentation and all those little sort of sub areas. Um then as we talked about last time, we talked about the watershed timelines and what we're really trying to do and we discussed this with DP as well is it's
in the best interest of the town to line up all your timelines. So if in this first column, this was what the Pleasant Bay Alliance uh permit original date was 2018 and then when they prolongated the regs to
go to five-year reporting periods, we were thinking that they were basically going to fall into this um uh these these three time periods. So when we started drafting our notice of intent, we were doing that same. We were trying
to match up our south coast and bayments uh proposed permit with that. Since that time, um the Pleasant Bay Alliance and and uh D are finalizing their updated permit for Pleasant Bay
and it'll likely come out in 2026. So presuming that it does come out in 2026, those five-year reporting periods would be in these in this uh these darker numbers and because we are now proposing
to file the the south coast and payments uh permit in the end of 2027, so it would start in 2028, we kind of had to compress some of the reporting periods again to get in alignment. So that's basically what this is trying to to to
demonstrate. Um it'll work well in the sense that the work that we've been doing now, the water use data is up through 2024. So it'll essentially be a five-year update when we get to 2031 anyway. So it'll actually line up quite nicely with when you have to do updates
for Pleasant Bay and your future South Coast embainments. I believe we presented this as well. We talked about the timeline. So we looked at existing and or kind of current conditions and then a future
projection of a 20 year planning horizon. And for Pleasant Bay, we were looking at based on where we would be in the various different phases um how at what point we would reach
either 75% or 100% compliance uh with the TMDLs based on those future future load conditions. Obviously, if you don't get that growth, then you'll likely be hitting those periods earlier in the in the process. So that's what this table
was basically representing is that by fa the end of phase one you'll essentially for all those watersheds be at that compliance point under those future loads. >> What years is that then Jeff? >> I'm sorry. >> What years are that are that then? So
the 78% for Pleasant Bay were compliant with the TMDLs in Pleasant Bay like >> uh when Okay. So, I would have to I didn't have that on this table. >> Yeah, >> I have another table in the report. Um, >> well, you think we're going to you're
going to get the 75% TMDL on on the south coast before we get to Pleasant before we get Pleasant Bay. >> Is it 2041? >> Okay. >> Um, >> did I have that on the other >> Oh, on the other Okay, sorry.
>> Oh, nitrogen. >> Yeah. So, I can Yeah. [snorts] So, and then one end is 2047. So, >> it's coming up. >> Um, and this is an aggregate of all those some of the watersheds because it's a very busy table when you start looking
at each subbatement. You achieve certain compliance a lot earlier in some areas of town and less in other areas of town. So, it it takes longer. So, this is this is for the uh Pleasant Bay system.
You're getting there just before the end of phase one. And for all the remaining south coast and bamements, which are um Sulfur Springs, Bucks Creek, Taylor's Pond, um Mil Creek, and Stage Harbor
systems. Those are all your south other south coast embainments that you don't have a wershed permit for. So then the big thing is obviously the project cost. So um we know this has been uh a very important issue. Um so
some of the background on how the costs were developed. So when we did the comprehensive plan uh in 2009 when that was issued um those were based on a a 2007 construction dollar. So we didn't
project out when that would be. So all the dollars were based on on $207. [snorts] So at that time the estimate was for just the collection system. So taking the treatment plan out and not talking about phase two, just for phase
one, it was estimated at about $170 million. So knowing that things obviously inflate over time for the purposes of of this discussion what we did is a straight line analysis and said okay if th that dollar value was
inflated to 2047 which is the new projected end of our project we'd be somewhere around $650 million for all those phases. And that's design, construction, construction phase services, all the utilities, police,
it's all those components. The only thing it doesn't include because that was being sort of handled separately was the grinder pumps, uh, which I know there have been other discussions about that. Um, so I might just a quick question on that
one. So 650 gets us to 2048 at 75% for bothce and and Pleasant Bay. done. So that's so that's that phase one. >> It's a total projection. I mean I get it. It's a big huge number but >> yeah it is a >> but that gets it done done forever and ever.
>> So that's the that's that based on the future Yeah. based on future de future growth and things. So if you don't get to that future growth then you may you may the the key of going through your permitting process is every five years you can kind of check in on see how you're progressing.
>> Yeah. And if you're not seeing that growth, you you're because the town's plan is to sewer the entire town, then um and we're not proposing to change any of that. You may hit compliance earlier than
those periods of time, but you'd still be carrying it through till, you know, beyond 2047 for to sewer the entire town. >> Got it. But we we we could do better than that. I was going to ask what what where what have we have we improved at
all TMDLs in anywhere in town and like [snorts] any and finish your deal and I'll be quiet. >> No, these they're very good questions. So, >> um so to date the town has appropriated now it's appropriated not spent but
appropriated $135 million just on the collection system. So, that's not including the treatment plant and it doesn't include any of your Sorry, I got to stop playing with the mouse here. Um, the debt forgiveness, 0% financing, the,
you know, connection fees with Harwitch, any of that money that that has come in for any of that stuff. So, the 135 is just what you've appropriated, and that includes your most recent appropriation for 32 million uh uh dollars.
So when you take that and you take the 135 and you add in what our new projection is, which I'll show you in the next slide, and you take the approximately $500 million there, that gets you just to around the 630 million, which is pretty much in line with what a
straight line projection of what you would have spent on, you know, by 2047 or what that value of that money is in 2047. It's not complete apples to apples, but that's we figured that's the easiest way to kind of show that projection. Um,
what we did is the we then when we were trying to do it by our various different areas, we looked at when we were estimating the midpoint of construction might be for each of those projects. We looked at what our uh current bid climate is, what what we've been getting for bid uh for recent projects on the
Cape. You know, obviously we've been doing a lot of projects uh here, but there are a lot of other collection system projects that we're aware of as well that So, we use those factors and then we inflated using the ENR index uh uh each year u to get us to those
values. And then we didn't project that the phase 2 cost just because uh there's so much uncertainty in the next 20 years. It's it wasn't worth exercise. So um on the right hand side I mean
sorry the left hand side is all those various different phases and they have my lovely wondering wonderful numbering system that um the basically phase one is basically TMDL compliance and then all the letters are just basically all
the subfases that we've been doing. So I'm sure people have fairly familiar with it but that's the general gist of it. um the phase when I presented the 194 it takes out the money that's been
associated with phase one F1 because that was appropriated as part of this uh funding uh last appropriation and a portion of the phase 1 F2 because you were obviously you're appropriating some of the money for design uh and other services for that as well. So
that's why there's a difference between the the 494 and the 518. And then um and then each is we tried to give you a general period of time roughly about three years uh for that
project from design uh through construction. Well um so there actually the design period will kind of be larger but the construction period is roughly a three-year period. Uh it could be shorter, could be longer, it just depends. So it was just easier to kind
of pick a standard. Um so uh we carried that through. Um and then like I said, picked a midpoint to uh give you an estimate based on that. And we had to make a lot of assumptions.
Do you get a pumping station? is the pumping station in an area that's going to, you know, require something a lot more elaborate like what we had build down at um the Harbor Masters garage, you know, the old mill boatyard, or is it going to be something that's going to be a bit more smaller, straightforward,
uh doesn't have to have all the other sort of conditions of being in that you have to deal with in a coastal community. So, we tried to take some of those things into consideration. And we also know that, you know, there's the possibility that you won't be able to secure all your pumping station
sites. So the cost could come down as you adjust with whatever your collection system is to to deal with that. So um that's generally the the gist of the costs. And then in terms of just closing out
the presentation, uh I I prepared this presentation before I actually knew that I had a meeting today with D. So we met with so the this upcoming meeting actually happened this afternoon. We had a very nice meeting with them went over this. They gave us some recommendations on some things
they'd be looking for. And then we asked for some input with regards to any additional studies or evaluations or things that they might be looking for so that uh if the grant opportunity comes up again this summer uh we can align our scope with what we're trying to do
there. We're also uh meeting with the treatment facility, the operators and DPW staff to talk about the treatment plant because one of the other things that's not covered in the cost projection is when you might have to do
the next phase of your treatment plant. Likely it's going to be closer to the 2047. Uh but some of that will also depend on uh how much how close Haritch gets to their uh their purchase flow
value, their max value. Um and then we plan on uh right now the the NOI basically says that by December 2027 the South Coast Abbements uh watershed
permit will be applied for and we've we're very far along in terms of the report to to support that permit application. So, um the 2027 numbers seems like a good u
good horizon for that. Uh with that, I will take any questions that you might have. >> Uh well, thank you very much Jeff for that presentation. Um I know you presented this to the U water and sewer committee week or so ago. Um I just had
one question regarding the next phase as you referred to it of the treatment plant. Is that are we talking there enlargement of the plant to accommodate the additions to the collection system? Is that what we're what we're referring to?
>> So the meeting tomorrow is is twofold. One uh as the system is aging. So, we want to talk with them about some improvements that need to be made or up or or um sort of uh re rehabilitations that need to be made
from when the facility was first put into operation. And then we also want to identify what the what what the projection is and how we want to build out the site. The plan was already um when we developed the plan and when we
first constructed the site, we did a lot of the infrastructure to allow the expansion to add a ring at the uh orbal. Um so a lot of the foundation and footing is actually there so that they wouldn't have to try to build all that.
They just basically be building up the walls. Um and then um we wanted to look at the flow projections to see how close we were going to be getting at what point we reach the threshold with the state of
80%. So once you get to 80% of your design flows then the state says you need to be doing an evaluation and we're nowhere near that um right now. So, this is really more of a okay, what things should we want to be talking about so
that as we document the report for the watershed plan, um, we can outline those and then we can kind of set where we think that expansion might need to be. Right now, it it doesn't look like it needs to be
any sooner than towards the end of phase one. So, that's still a long ways out. >> Who's at the who's the meeting tomorrow with? It's with the operators and with DPW. >> Okay. Thank you. Any uh comments or questions from the board? >> I just want to get back to a question I
had earlier. So, if we went are we making any progress in Oyster Pond or on Little Big P Little Mill or Big Mill Pond in terms of TMDL loading or we see any kind of positive results anywhere? Do we have data that supports our investment or not? So the so the town's
been collecting data on on that and we're also just had another part of for the ground for the groundwater discharge permit. We had to do some additional analysis. So we should be getting a report on the um on that work that was done this past fall summer fall uh in
the spring. And then, you know, it really comes down to um when the town, you know, wants to have discussions with uh ESM or whoever to kind of give them maybe a a summary report because you've
been collecting data, but I don't know if they're in line to I mean, it's really a question for for Greg on if they're in line for lining that up that would help kind of show what that water quality has been doing over the uh over the years.
>> Yeah. >> Great. And uh so you know, water quality has been collected for well over 20 years. Um all of that is available on the town website under uh DNR water quality. You can uh our fancy new GIS
system. You can click on the map and it will bring up the graph of you know dissolved oxygen and utrigication index. So you can see how it's changed over time. Um, if you'd like, I'd be happy to prepare a memo kind of describing Oyster
Pond specifically. Uh, but you know, a lot of these areas looking at the the 10-year groundwater flow line, like even after we sewer, there's going to be kind of that lag. And, you know, we we are hoping and we're kind of seeing hints of
improvement in some of the areas. Um, but, you know, we we still have a bit of a wait to see the true improvement come. Okay. Thank you, Greg. Thanks, Corey. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to jog
my memory because years ago, I remember um attending a meeting in Orleans. Dr. Duncinson, I think Carol Ridley was there and obviously Chadam was very well positioned in, you know, in comparison to our other surrounding communities with our programs and wastewater
planning and everything. And there was mention of I want to say credits like nitrition loading credits. Is is that still part of the conversation? Where does where where does Chadam stand? Are people looking at Chadam are look are people looking at Chadam to ask for our credits? Like where does that all stand?
>> So it's it's definitely a topic that's come up as part of the Pleasant Bay Alliance meetings and with regards to I mean that's primarily where it would be tied to. >> Um I don't know that there's been any decision on that. I think that there's
obviously been an understanding that Chadam Chadam has committed to going above and beyond a lot of the other communities with regards to the decisions that was made to to sewer the entire town. Um
obviously credits is a is a is a topic of uh interesting discussion for the communities and um there may be the I think the opportunity really comes in is where it becomes more coste effective
for the community that um doesn't have the credits to give. it becomes more cost- effective for them to buy nitrogen improvement from Chadam than it is for them to do it themselves. The complexity is that
because not all of your water bodies are shared, all your submainments are shared. It really comes down to the overall improvement to Pleasant Bay and what that influence is to the other communities that are in a different part
of the watershed that only see the water from Pleasant Bay proper. So it it wouldn't be like a true one to one in my opinion. It would likely not be a true one to one because yours might come up
through Bassing Harbor and or Ryder's Cove and then into Pleasant Bay and then somewhere north of that um you know Orleans or Brewster where that water water goes into
you know is it's going to be different because it's obviously had the you know it's diluted with all the other flow from the harbor. So it's it's definitely a complicated topic. >> I recall from your Yeah. >> So uh but it does it it does get discussed
and you know it really does come down to then you know how do you document it? I mean, it's certainly something that in Connecticut, they've done it for years with regards to what goes down to Long Island Sound relative to all the treatment plants that, you know, are in there. And there are treatment plants
that can buy credits from some of the, you know, other larger, you know, municipal facilities u because it's more cost-effective for them to to pay another town than it is to, you know, advance their treatment process. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Yep. Any other comments from the board? >> I'm a pain. Can I have one more? >> Yeah. >> Do we have data from the Bonai River, Muddy Creek before and after before we did the bridge and and fixed the culvert? Do we have data from from there? >> That cleaned up very quickly >> visibly.
>> Pleasant Bay gets such a flush. It's unbelievable. I can't believe we don't have market improvement in Pleasant Bay and and in Ryder's Cove, Crows Pond, Basking Harbor, um you know, Bunny Creek. It's just and then, you know, the reverse side is that when you go up into Little Pleasant Bay and up into the, you
know, up in the far reaches uh in Orleans, they've got a problem. The water turns green. I mean, it's it's pretty bad. >> Yeah. So, I mean, first part of the question is we do have that data. Um, you know, I think that memo might be a good idea that I can uh send that over,
but you know, we we do have the before and after the bridge installation at Money Creek, so we'll be able to share that with you. That'd be great. Yeah. >> And one of the things that that Jeff was talking to about the the credit tradings, you know, some of the problematic watersheds like maybe the one you're talking about, you know, we
don't connect closely enough to be able to trade that credit. It's not across town. It's kind of by the particular watershed. I think if credits ever really do come start coming into effect, you know, every every town is planning to handle it. Uh but some of these
things with the the innovative nitrogen reducing methods be it shellfish be it you know uh those kind of things like they they require monitoring and if that monitoring you know shows it's not as effective as sewing then they might need
to you come knocking to Chadam to see if uh our sewing can help them in the short term. Anybody else on? >> I see one public comment. It just says G. I know who that is.
>> It's Elaine Gibbs. >> Oh, Elaine, welcome. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. Um, I hadn't planned on speaking. I didn't realize this was on it. I just want to go back to historically, I'm sure many of you remember back in uh 2009 when we
approved this, the entire project was going to be two phases. 70% was going to be phase one. 70% of the properties with the remaining by 2030 and then completion in 2040 and it was going to cost $300 million. About 35 million was
going to the wastewater treatment plant. Um at the time there were about 8,200 properties and that included institutional, commercial, residential, industrial properties. That meant 5,000 properties were supposed to be connected
to connected to the sewer by 2030. We're now two two and a half years away from that. Uh what I didn't hear tonight is how many properties are actually connected. We cannot make a difference in our water quality and the TDMLs
unless the people connect. And right now my understanding is give or take a hundred here or there out we were supposed to have 5,000 properties connected in phase one by 2030 and maybe a thousand are
some actually because of when they were put in have to be replaced. Uh so the it makes it sound like that we're getting there with the collection system but until people connect that's going to be the problem. And what has happened and I
have been concerned about this now that number is up to 650 million for phase one I believe you said versus 300 million for the whole thing when we approved at a town meeting. Uh we've got to stop giving away our flow or
redirecting our priorities. Everybody in this town has been paying for the sewer whether or not they will ever be connected um for years and it our water rates continue to go up because of it and we have we have basically seeded
East Haritch because they didn't want to build a treatment facility and this has been a real bone of contention. We redirected it there at the expense of people in Chadam that should have been connected, should have had the infrastructure put in. And so I would
hope and now we're getting to the point that it's it the system at the treatment facility has gotten so old it's going to need repairs. And uh so we we got to start focusing on Chattam. we got to start talking about
the number of people who have not connected and have to connect in order to you know accomplish our mission uh which is to reduce TDMLS. Um and I I I find this all really
disturbing that we're now talking 650 million versus the 300 million we we had all talked about doing alternative systems in neighborhoods to avoid this kind of expense. Um, and we never did that. And so we're still doing a very
invasive kind of thing. I mean, uh, we are in the most fragile part of the state. And we we dig 30foot trenches to put in hardware. There has got to be a better way to do this that is not so
invasive. And then when the pipes break and there's flooding and the sewer system doesn't work, uh, you have tremendous problems. So, um I'm I'm concerned with where this going and where the timeline's being pushed out further and further and our rates keep
going up and we're still nowhere near where we're supposed to be sewed by 2030. Not even close. That's all I got. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Elaine. Um I don't see any other comments. Jeff, did you have anything further to
say? Well, thank you very much for the presentation. Uh thank you, Rob. We'll go on to our >> Thank you. >> Sorry you had to wait. Um go on to our next item which is to consider the recommendation of the parks and recreation commission amended town facility use fees for businesses
operating on town property at the community center beaches and parks as of January 1, 2026. This has continued from 11:18 2025. This is actually the third time this has been before us. So, uh, we'll call on Amy Howell, our
um, deputy, I guess, deputy director for parks, >> deputy director, full title. What is it? What is it called? >> Community services, deputy director, recreation and beaches. >> Okay, thank you. >> Uh, I'll do a quick recap. Um so at the
September 15th parker reccomission uh they voted and recommended to the select board to grandfather all current businesses operating on town property to the old um fee structure.
Uh that recommendation uh was then taken. Uh it was forwarded to legal counsel uh who informed us that uh that presented legal and liable uh liability issues with the town. Um and uh basically said that all businesses
should uh have an equal uh fee structure uh across the board. Um so that was presented at the November 18th select board meeting. Uh and with that uh new information being presented at the November 18 select board meeting, you guys voted to send it back down to the
rec commission uh to discuss uh because of legal council's uh opinion. So after uh internal meeting with town staff uh park and rec commission chair and uh select board matters uh we then uh
presented at the December 8th park and rec commission legal council's legal council's opinion um and the select board's um recommend or send to send back to them. Uh so after uh receiving
uh again uh business operators input uh the public's input uh the recommendation from the park and recommend uh park and recck commission before you guys today is to update the fee structure to a 12%
uh fee of revenue collected for all businesses operating on uh town property. And that is where that is what's in front of you right now. >> So um so it's 12% but your recommendation was what originally 20%.
>> The recommendation was originally 20%. So um the park commission felt um you know again after listening to the business instructor's input, public input, their their feedback, they felt that this was a fair compromise um you
know for the businesses while also achieving our original goal. uh when we started this process, which was to obviously make sure that the town was covered legally uh and liability-wise and to bring all businesses operating on
town property to an equal standing. Um and so the park and rec commission felt that the 12% uh not only accomplished that goal uh but also compromised with, you know, um public input.
What about the folks that the the department engages to conduct programs at the center? Are they going to be 12% or are they going up 20 to 20%. >> So they so it it ranges anywhere from 15 to 20%, depending on what the cost of
the program is. Um you know because we're not going to put you know 12 25 to make it exactly a a 20%. So um that is the the industry standard um that has always come as we discussed uh at the park and rec commission you
know it can be uh argued that because they're getting um promotion we're handling registration um you know all those type of things that the businesses are not that that would kind of offset and why the percentage is a little bit higher. Um, so
>> what are they at now? Who? >> It depends on the program, you know. So, >> if they're all going up, are they all going up? >> You're talking about >> the ones that you engage. >> The ones we engage. No, they're not going up. No. So, those have those have been consistent. So, for example, um our
fitness class and our yoga, so that's $12 per class, the instructor gets $10, we get two. So, that's technically 83% that the instructor is coming. So again, it's it really just kind of it it fluctuates
between 15 to 20% depending on what the class is and and what the price is of the program because >> but there's no increase in theirs. >> Nope, there's no increase in theirs. >> What about >> they've always been between that 15 and 20%. So there was no no need to increase theirs. Well, I'm just wondering what
incentive there might be if you're only proposing, and I realize it's coming from the commission, not you personally. If if it's if the increase is only two two percentage points on on on those who
are that are not engaged by the town, might there not be an incentive for those that are engaged by the town to go out on their own? >> Yeah. Um, for sure. Um it's also important to note that not everyone was at that 10% um fee structure. So for
some businesses um it's a much larger increase for them. Um so and for some it's just to 2%. >> How many how many businesses are we talking about that are going to be affected by this? >> Currently four. >> Four. So, two of the two of the four
operated under a 10% um revenue collected and then the other two was a flat rate of $150 max per month. >> And you're and and the commission is proposing that all four now go to a per
person. >> Yes. So, all businesses operating on town property would fall under they would have to enter into a license uh agreement with the town and all fall under um the 12% fee structure. And again, that was um you know, backed up
by town council saying um that uh all businesses should be charged the same fee structure. >> What about our surrounding towns? The town of Haritch, I understand, is charged as both a flat fee and handling. >> They do. Yeah. So, at the Haritch, so they charge 10% along with a flat fee.
Um, so I think that's played a part into the park and rec commission's 12% so that we didn't have to get into semantics trying to keep it as simple as possible to sitting at 12% instead of um
including a flat rate um per use. Um so again they felt that 12% kind of >> was a fair compromise comparatively. Yeah, I guess compromise is in the eyes of the beholder to me. Um um you know I almost feel like and no
disrespect to you. You're you're just carrying out your responsibilities as the director but and and I I appreciate the efforts of the park and rec commission but I almost feel like we're wasting our time here in three separate sessions. And if all we're getting is 2%
I think the compromise could have been at 15%. But that's just how I feel right now that Mr. Matters. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Ch. Let me let me just try to put some background um that may not have been totally covered. So, yeah, we've been back and forth on this. We met internally
um you know, the the the percentage was going to be 20% that was going to take effect January of of next year. And we discussed we we we compared Haritch's, you know, 10% plus plus a flat rate. um
what how do we come up with a fair uniform percentage for all the programs? Um internally we came up with 15% only because essentially the in-house we're getting charged 20%. And at 15%
is that 5% difference going to be um a deterrent to um you know for how the all the in-house resources advertising support whatever where independent would be paying 15 park and w reduced that from 15 to 12 and that's what we're being presented
tonight but rolling back to the in-house if we're going to roll um outside vendors at 12% um we probably should have a conversation to take in-house and rolling them down because a 12 and a 20% gap is significant and you're gonna have
people that are inhouse probably saying we don't want that in we all that little extra help isn't really maybe worth it per se to roll down. The the the the really tricky part of this conversation is now because we are working with
trying to figure out a fair equitable program. You know legally we're bound to you know this has opened up a whole discussion is we have um you know how to prioritize how to how to acknowledge
those entities that have been around for quite some time. give them the respect from their long-standing uses of the property but understanding that we have in-house and outouse uh vendors that at some point there could
be a clash of prioritizing time, location, you know, space utilization. So that is something that I think you know staff has you know navigated quite well to to this point. It is it is very difficult. Um you know as more people
getting interested in certain spaces or time slots um and then we had the bigger discussion about you know in facility inside rooms or outside spaces because we have to treat them kind of the same but they're it's difficult because some of the
spaces are more you know unique. you know there's certain limited um opportunities to have courses on these locations and then you know there's a whole can of worms you start opening up if you have a certain location and there's more interest in it we'll say because there
has been I think I mean you can clarify the you know how much but I think there's some growing interest in certain spots locations time spots you know are we looking at a different type of program are we looking for an RFP process so this is really starting to
open up a whole broader conversation. So, um we're trying to navigate it as best as possible, but um I do think we need to keep a lot of the facts in place because I'll be honest with you, the 12 and 15% I don't care which way we go, it's not really that much monetary, but
we've got to come up with a program that deals with more equity. We we really do because I'm worried if we do to support the 12% that we really need to go look at the in-house and what you know where that gap falls at that point because you know if it's if we support 12 and
then we do in-house more like 15 or 16 I can support that but if we do 12 and leave it end house at 20 I I see a problem. So I I'm just going to ask in followup before others speak. Um do we how how much additional revenue is this going to bring into the town? Do we
know? >> I don't have that number. I don't know. Not off the top of my head >> because it's really dependent on how many people participate in these programs. >> Yeah, absolutely. And it's why it's why um I know that the board had asked you know difference between flat rate and and percentage and and we really focused
on the percentage because we just felt that that allowed it to be more footprint-based. Um, so obviously a smaller program is going to have less of a footprint on any recreational facility in the town. >> Uh, where a larger program is going to have a larger footprint on that
recreational facility. >> Um, and then in addition to that, it also, you know, obviously our whole goal too is to offer community services. And the percentage rate allows us, you know, if we have a a business, whether um so whether it's a business or or even one of our, you know, in-house ones, you
know, if they have five participants in their program and they're paying a base rate, that those five participants might not even cover that base rate for that day. But if they only have to pay a percentage of those five, it makes it much more attainable for businesses and
for our programs to operate on small uh class numbers. you know, otherwise you're always basing, you know, a program or a class off of you have to get to a certain number to even just break even off of that flat rate. Um, so it's really why we've focused on the
percentage um fee as opposed to the flat rate fee. >> Yeah, I don't have a problem with the percentage concept. It's just I two two percentage points is trivial to me. Any other comments from board members? You may not you may not want to hear
from me. >> Mr. Dyer, >> I just think we're way overthinking this and maybe I missed a whole part of the conversation, but a couple of a couple of the a lot of the emails that came in for the beach yoga was amazing. We got inundated with with emails in support of no increase to for beach yoga. And then,
you know, charging a flat fee for the use of a room to run an exercise class. That that's a service that person's doing for our community. So, I you know, do we do we really need the I mean, not so sure we need the incremental revenue and I'm, you know, I'm lost on this one
to be honest with you. I think we're really overthinking it. I would take what we do now and multiply it by the the CPI every year or something if you're looking for a few more bucks to to offset the expenses of our facilities, but just really think we're overthinking it. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Uh uh 12%
is better than 20% but I I I I don't like the percentage model to be honest with you. I don't like it. If you're using a room, pay us 25 bucks. Next year pay us 2650. Next year pay us 2850. What I mean I don't know. Those are my minimal thoughts. I'm sorry
but I just uh can't get my mind er on this one. This is hours we spent on this. >> Yeah I I agree Jeff. And you know, I always go back to especially for like the outside facility, the the yoga beach yoga stuff is what do we what do we
charge for landings for a you know, for a boat to do a charter off of a landing? And what what are our expectations from that? You know, it's liability and it's a fee. Um I'm not sure what that fee is. I asked and I'm not sure I've gotten that answer um yet um as to what that
fee is. I I just don't remember. Um, but I think it's a comparable comparable sort of concept um u to do that. As far as the smaller classroom um um inhouse,
I agree with Jeff. There's there's people that are doing community services for us when this is health and wellness and quality of life for community. Um I think that the uh the 2% is trivial and I'm I'm kind of like this is I don't
even know why we're doing it, honestly. >> Thank you. I I just would note that, yes, we did get multiple emails. The staff competed them at 26. I thought it was closer to 50. Many of those, if not a majority of them were from people who don't live in the town of Chattam.
>> We're subsidizing quality of life. I guess we're subsidizing the business community. We do a lot for the business community. We give free parking to the business community. I don't I don't want to hear I don't want to hear that we're not doing enough for the business community. We're doing a lot.
>> I didn't say we weren't doing enough. I'm just pointing it out that this is health and wellness. >> But that's an argument. I understand that. Shireen. Uh Stuart. >> Sure. Um I'm I'm not going to complicate this, I hope, any further. But the um
are there any other fees like the waterways you those are all flat rates. There's no percentage. I'm trying to think are there other fees that we use a percentage as opposed to a flat rate that that I I don't I don't >> think of one
think of >> and I just think that >> the leases for the fish pier packing houses it's a straight monthly fee set for the year >> right so I don't know why we'd be doing it differently here um it seems to me
a flat rate would be easier for the public to kind of understand. Um I don't know how much money we're making or what the we're making compared to what we will be making. Uh >> I don't think it's going to be very much sir. >> I think the objects on that are pretty >> and and it so
>> I don't know why the park and recreation commission is wasting our time with this for 2%. >> Well um I I would suggest Well, is there a particular re is am I missing something on the flat rate? Do do you have a a thought on whether
>> So this this all stemmed from over a year ago. So essentially it stemmed from Wicked Wavy uh if you guys remember coming in uh and uh wanting to do swim lessons on town property. So we went to town council. They suggested because they're operating a business on town
property that we should be entering into a license agreement with the town. So that all went through. It was a 20% which was approved by the park and rec commission and the select board. So after that happened with town council's opinion about how businesses operating on town property should be entering into
these licenses we uh as a internal staff along with the town u town manager's office looked at what our current um businesses operating on town property uh policy and fee structure was and realized that there was no um standard
across the board. one business was paying this, one business was paying that. Um, and it really was no rhyme or reason because there are outdated policies, outdated fees. So, we um, you know, collected data from, you know, all the other towns um, presented it to the
park commission and to you guys um, and essentially again because legal counsel, you know, stated two things. A, we needed to be entering into license agreements with anyone operating on top property and B that the fee structures all needed to be the same across the
board. >> So, so when you I haven't seen the legal opinion, but when you say legal council, we have to charge all across the board the same. So if a business is using uh I don't know the the building for
something uh we should be charging the same for business using as an example the beach is that what they were >> so conducting a recreational uh program on town property. So yeah so recreational business I guess is the the correct term.
>> Yeah. I guess I I I don't I haven't seen the opinion but I'm not sure there's a disconnect there or I just don't agree with it. Um, seems to me that if you're using a town building, you're using a lot more resources and we're incurring more liability than somebody doing
something on the beach. Um, so I don't know if I've added any clarity to this other than I would support a flat rate as opposed to a percentage because how do you even determine what the are you taking how do you know? Do you audit these people's books? I mean, how does that work?
>> They self-report. They self-report. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Well, then I'd be even more so for the flat rate because it would save a whole lot of time on we we did this at the fish beer a long time ago and it we ended up getting out of it the the 25 cents a box. We had no way of knowing
whether we were getting you know you're just assuming >> fish buyer self-reporting. I'm pretty sure they didn't do that. [laughter] >> So anyway, uh I I would support a flat rate because I think the rest of our fees are structured that way. But that's where I'm at. >> I would just mention that the taxpayers are pay for the maintenance of the
beach. the taxpayers pay for the parking spaces, maintenance of that. It's not it's not nothing. I'm not saying you're >> I understand your distinction. >> Yeah, it it would be less. I assume. Yeah, >> it's not it's not a completely >> I have another question. Um >> Cy, >> Shireen and then Cy.
>> Yeah, sorry. Um are we requiring liability insurance on on Correct. Okay. Thank you, >> Cy. And then >> just I think we need to tread carefully because and the percentage 12 12% 15%
really doesn't make a huge heck of a lot of difference. But what we're doing is we're starting to put a lot of light on these programs. um that we want to support all the small businesses, support all the um individuals who are willing to provide a
service for the community, but also we're going to start putting we're I'm concerned we're going to put open up the door for more competition that's going to put us in a very awkward position because you have outdoor spaces that are very unique, you know, and have certain either location distinctions, time slot
distinctions, and if we put a flat rate on them, you Wouldn't we RFP that? I mean, >> that's that's exactly where I'm going. I I I don't think that is necessarily the best path >> because that does not guarantee someone who's been in business for 5 10 15 20 years.
>> It does it just not grandfather them. It opens up it gives >> I get that it gives that. So, but that is that is where I'm >> just putting it out there. This is that's the direction you want to go in for some of these locations. Then we have to have that conversation. I'm not um you know looking to go in that
direction but that is that is where I'm thinking that as more locations become more you know if we put a flat rate of X and then you know three or four people say hey I want to run that same place then again we got competition you know
interested in the same location same time slot whatever um we're opening up a whole other conversation and you know the results are may not be where we want to end up I'm I'm just I'm just putting caution in in the wind a little bit. I mean, the RFP process. >> Oh, it's Meredith Fry.
>> Wait, Meredith. Meredith, wait a minute, please. >> I'll recognize you in a minute. Stuart had something you wanted to add. >> Um, I mean, the RFP should be able to address those types of concerns because, you know, you're right there that we would be able to take
people's background, experience, and tenure here as a consideration in awarding uh those type. I think we've done that in the past. So, but I see it as Yeah, you'd have to address that. Yeah. >> Okay. So, there are two on screen. Leah
has had her name her her hand up for a while, but I will recognize the chair of the parks and rec commission, Meredith Fry, first and then we'll go to Leah Lacrosse, the director of community services. Meredith, [snorts] >> hi. Um, we've been going back and forth with this. Meredith Fry, chair of parks
and rec. I I don't agree with a flat fee for many reasons. Um, for example, if you only had three people show up for a class and you're paying for a room, um, you might be paying more for the room that the people
are participating. And also these instructors, we have put no regulation on how much they can charge. So, you know, Lighthouse Beach Yoga is charging $20 a person right now. Um, so that's
why a percentage works when they self-report. Um, and we did originally talk about 15%. So what after our last meeting we had gone back and forth with the public
and revisited and we said 12% for 2 years and then we were going to go back and and look at it. Um, we are just trying to do because we were charging 20% to Wicked Wavy and as Amy
said, we are just trying to do a percentage across the board um to be fair to everyone. And we're not telling these instructors how much they can charge. They can charge whatever they want.
>> Okay. Thank you, Meredith. Um, Leah, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I I guess Meredith made my point. I think um just but two points. The the reason we did a percentage instead of a flat rate was
because of that very reason. If someone, you know, Lighthouse Beach Yoga, if it's raining and she has two people show up instead of, you know, 20 people show up, the percentage is is more fair. um than it would be if she paid a flat rate. And
and also uh there is you know the the the whole point of this whether it's 12% 15 or 20 is that legal counsel has recommended that we are consistent across the board. And that's the whole point of this is that we're trying to
even the playing field for everybody and and protect the town while supporting small businesses. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Any other public comments? >> Yes, Shireen. >> In the argument of the flat fee, just to take into consideration, everybody's
thinking in terms of flat fee per day, but um if it was a flat fee per month or lease agreement for cons some time as a business, you're going to average out what your exp, you know, what your costs of doing your business are versus a dayto-day accountability. And that would
that was, you know, for me would justify a flat fee a little easier if it was a monthly fee versus a daily. >> Um, thank you. Um, yes. >> Hi, Jennifer Fedig. Um, Cadam Lighthouse Beach Yoga.
Um, my current arrangement is that for the season I pay $1,200 minimum or 10% whichever is greater.
So, if we wanted to go to a flat rate, I would just encourage you to consider the $1,200 because it's already been established as considered fair by the Park and Recreation Commission. Um, and I just wanted to say that in terms of
the number of emails that were sent that were um, potentially from people who don't live in Chattam, it's just to demonstrate how many people come from out of town to participate and then spend time in town
um, you know, going to other businesses. And >> I appreciate that. That's the point that they made in their their emails. >> Let me I did you have more because I wanted to ask a question. No, you can ask a question, please. >> Are are you if are you okay with the 12%
proposal for this coming forward? So, you're would no longer have to pay a flat fee. You would just pay the 12%. >> Right. I'm $1,200 um or 10% whichever is >> right. Okay. >> So, 12 would be great. I mean, I think
that if the goal is to just create consistency and if the, you know, the difference between 15 and 20 is negligible or 15 and 12, then the difference between 12 and 10 is >> even more negligible. >> It is to me. It is to me. It is to me. Yeah,
>> it is to you. >> No, I'm saying the difference between 10 and 12 isn't much isn't more significant than the difference between 12 and 15, as you just pointed out. They're both kind of >> Yeah. >> negligible, right? They're both kind of negligible. And um you know if we're not
trying to balance the town's budget on the back of these people who are using community property or just if you were just looking for an even playing field, >> you know, we keep going back and forth. >> Okay. >> I just encourage you to >> Thank you.
>> consider staying at 10. >> Thank you for your comments. Any other comments from the public? >> All right. I'll bring it back to the board. My myri >> Who? I'm sorry. Brian >> Brian Phillips 374 Lanes Road. Sorry, I don't want to waste too much more of
your time on this topic. Um, just a couple things, you know, I want to say. I was at the uh the meeting at the park and Rex and then that whole little room was filled with people in support of, you know, lowering the fees or or, you know, keeping them the same, lowering them what they, you know, Isaac had
voted for. Um, you know, something I want to say about yoga uh teachers. I mean, for lack of better or worse, they're soldiers of peace, love, healing, and goodwill. And like they really need to be uh promoted. Um, yoga is really expensive. $20 for a class is a good deal. I mean, and you can do
dropins there. [clears throat] I mean, a lot of times you had to sign up for, you know, like a whole, you know, like a six week session or whatever and it's like $500, $600,000, you know, upfront. So, I mean, that's a really good deal. She's providing good, you know, great service. Um, you know, [clears throat] and then being a
trainer, it's really hard. Um, it's a lot harder than people, uh, think it is. You need to, you know, you need to know the medical history of each person in your class or that you're training. You know, uh, what past injuries they had, how that affects, what you can do with them, uh, what kind of, uh, you know, medications they're on, blood pressure,
cholesterol, that affects things. Um, and then there's always, you know, continued education is needed in all these fields and like that's at the expense of the, you know, the instructors. Um again provides you know a valuable service uh micro macro for a healthier happier cadam. You know as a
whole as a society we are you know we're out of shape uh you know obesity is a problem um our diets are terrible and that's all things that these people help out with. Um and then on the other, you know, kind of aspect of of of looking at what the
alternatives is to this kind of thing is, you know, would be employing in the town employing instructors for these classes and how much more expensive would that be. Um you know, you got to give them, you know, the salary, the health insurance, the retirement fund, all that stuff. Um
[clears throat] and then the thing is it's like, you know, kind of, you know, treat people how you'd want to be treated. uh you know, is the park and Rex willing to take a cut to kind of, you know, pay cut to balance out the budget? Um if so, then, you know, maybe we should go forward with this. Um and then, you know, because there the
reason why there aren't more, you know, trainers and instructors because it's it's very difficult to make a living uh doing that, you know, and u the fact that she has so many you know, these people have so many um clients in their classes is is really uh telling. Um and as far as like how much they uh you know
can charge to me that's you know the free market's determining that you know it's like a basic elasticity. You know if you charge too much there's going to be you know less people in the classes. So I think you know it's you know up to them to kind of find you know a balance because if they charge too much these people aren't going to come to the
classes. Um so I think you know that you know the initial 10% or the flat fee or whatever they were comfortable with before you know should be implemented. Um, I would say even less, 5% promote it. You know, it's really, you know, they're providing a service for this community. Um, I'll stop wasting uh your
time. I think you guys get how I feel. Thank you. >> Thank you, Corey. >> Well, I'm a I'm a numbers guy and visual guy, so I'm just I'm just, you know, you can tell me if I'm completely off base, but outside class,
probably $20 ahead is the is what is a potential charge. It could be higher, could be lower, but I'm just throwing this for argument sake. $20 a person, average class of 25. Um, complete season 90 days. Is that
high? Maybe, maybe not. So, >> what do you average, Jennifer? Is that what you're saying? 85. Okay. >> Okay. Well, so the numbers I just wrote down for $20 ahead, 25 person class, 90day session, that's $45,000.
At 10%, that's a $4,500 payment. At 12% that's a $5,400 payment. So it's an additional $900 and at 15% it jumps up to 67.50. So we're I mean these are not numbers that are going to you know solve our budgetary problems or issue. It's
not about money. It should it should not be about money. you know. So, no, but the point you made earlier about equity as between um what we're what we're going to charge
the independent contractors versus those that we sponsor within the building taking a look at that relationship I think is well taken. >> Yeah. If we if we go if we support 12% I think we got to reook at that in-house because if I was the in-house instructor char being charged 20% and I go
independent for 8% um on a on a smaller class you know a couple you know a couple bucks more in my pocket may be worth it to me you know so that's the reality of it. >> Um I see Leah do you you have still have your hand up. Did you want to speak a second time?
>> I'm sorry um Dina I don't know why it didn't go down but I will take my hand down. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Items. >> So, Mr. Chair, so these are annual licenses. If the however the board votes, if you want us to come back next year at this time, we can look into it
as well. Funds all go into the general fund that has helps offset the tax rate. And if we need to look at our offerings to incentivize someone to offer a program in the community center, we can certainly look to that.
has to be a level level playing field. >> I mean that I keep going back to the town council saying you got to do it be the same. Well, the beach is different than a room in the community center. >> But he was he was responding to the the initial notion that the >> grandfather
she's a case manager >> grandfathering. Your mic is life. I think the big difference was did does you can't charge a higher rate if basically the the staff time required to monitor that program is is is has any
difference. You know if if you more staff time to monitor a program then obviously different rate structure but if you can't justify a different staff a lotment of of resources then you you can't charge a higher rate. >> Yeah. I mean, he was responding to the initial proposal from the parks and rec
commission that pre the people that were already on board be grandfathered at the old rate. That's what he was responding to. >> Correct. >> Amy, the other three, we heard from um one of the contractors, Jennifer, I'm sorry, I can't remember your last name.
>> The the other three, are they okay with the 12%. Do we know? >> So, two have just chosen not to give an opinion one way or the other. Um, the other one is Susan Hunter. She's here. I don't know if she wants to speak. Uh, that's up to to her. >> You're okay with the 12%.
>> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I'm going to bring it back to the board. Hopefully, someone will offer a motion and >> I'll offer a motion. >> We can dispense with this >> because this is too painful. The um I'll I'll I'll offer a motion. staff uh
has made a recommendation here um to amend the town's facility use fee schedule for any business class or program operated by a private entity on town property at the community center, beaches, parks to collect 12% of all
revenue starting January 1, 2026 to be submitted as outlined in the license agreement and request a review of the facility use fee scheduled by the parks and recck commission and staff in two years. >> Is there a second?
>> I'll second. >> Okay, moved and seconded. Any further discussion? >> All right, I'll call the role. Um, Miss Davis, >> I. >> Mr. Dikkins, >> I. >> Mr. Matters, >> I. >> Mr. Smith, >> I. >> Chair votes I. >> Thank you. It's done.
>> Thank you, Amy. >> Thank you very much. Okay. The last item >> is to consider the date and time of the 2026 annual town meeting by we have to do this by December 31st and I'm going
to turn to the town manager and I don't know if the town moderator is online but >> he might be. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um there's a staff report in your packet that outlines the bylaw as well as
suggested dates taking into account uh when Mother's Day is and for the annual election annual town action to happen four days uh following the annual town meeting. Kathy today had sent you an
updated listing of availability based on our audio contractors when they're available. And I I'll just address that first. Uh they're at this time not available on May 4th. And that's Monday, May 4th, and then Saturday, May 16th is
still um they're not available now, but they might become available. I did have an email correspondence with the town moderator. um his preferences would be for Saturday, May 2nd at 100 pm and then any
carryover could occur on Sunday, May 3rd. However, we didn't check availability on a Sunday uh with the audio contractors as well as the um cart people who uh do the translation um services for us. And then the other date
he had um had suggested would be Saturday, May 9th with a carryover if we need a second date to Monday, May 11th. >> That's the Mother's Day weekend, right? >> Yeah. >> Mother's Day is May 10th. >> Mr. Chair, we heard we heard loud and
clear from the community that that was a really bad weekend. It was spring fling. It was Mother's Day weekend. Our merchants weren't happy that they couldn't be represented at town meeting, >> right? >> So, I would say the 9th is a no.
>> Um, what what do other members feel? >> The town monitor is recommending at 1:00. Didn't we start the last one at 11:00? >> We did >> in the morning because we just don't really know how many >> earlier. >> We don't know how many articles we're going to have and he's pretty good at ramming them through and getting it done in one day.
>> I prefer 11 o'clock. >> Yeah, I kind of think so, too. time of the second if that's >> I was thinking even earlier than 11 but it up to you. >> What's the earliest we could I mean could we start at 9ine? >> Yeah I was thinking nine or 10 would be >> I think nine. I don't know if Mark Mark
if you want to Mark Vanborg just want to confirm with you how much time you need uh with the audio vendors to set up but I think nine should be fine but let's hear from him. six
6 a.m. >> I'm sorry. What's the question again? >> How on a Saturday annual town meeting? What's the earliest you think that we could start? We're we're contemplating 9:00 a.m. Last time it was at 11:00 a.m. >> We'd need to get in the day before.
>> Okay. So, we could start as early as you wanted on Saturday as long as we have access >> the day before. >> Okay. >> Do you need to get in the day before if if it were 1:00? >> Um, we'd like to. I think we probably could do one o'clock. I'd have to check with the vendor,
>> but we probably could. >> But your your your preference is to come in the day before. >> My preference is to not do a Saturday, please. >> I I lost that battle a long time ago. I'd rather go back to Monday nights, but I don't think I have for it. I'm a support I I would prefer Monday. I I I
No matter what we pick, we're going to, you know, we're going to upset somebody. And we have strong opinion. It's 50/50. I I do think I do think Monday actually is a better ch, but it's it's one of those one half dozen the others. So, I mean, I actually prefer Mondays, but
you're you're you're going to, you know, >> it's the it's the issue on the warrant that's going to bring out the crowds, whether it's whatever day or time it is. >> But anyway, anyone else have any thoughts about this? What we'd like to do? >> Uh,
I you know, I [clears throat] always like the Mondays and evenings. Um, but you know, I looked at the numbers. um since we went to Saturdays and the participation rate is up slightly
but not huge. >> Um so I'm not sure, you know, I think Saturdays were kind of an experiment maybe to see if we could get more people there. I assume um >> I think we wanted younger people. I
think that was a sense too, but then it conflicted with >> Saturdays you got >> Saturdays is a tough day. >> Sports starts kicking in, people are working. >> Um it there's there's there's there's no perfect answer. That that's the reality of it. So coming up >> there isn't because I mean Saturday's a
you know a day off for some people and >> you know I I'm we fine with going with whatever just >> I am too. I mean >> I would go Monday. I >> there's no perfect science in this. I was working. Mondays were tough, but >> they are tough. >> You're at night. It's night, you know.
>> Yeah. And Yeah. So, Monday of May 11, >> Monday, May 11th is the day after Mother's Day. >> Good with me. >> Good with me. >> Does someone want to offer a motion in the time? >> I Oh, boy. this I'll probably I'll make
a motion that we uh the annual town meeting uh start at um guess we didn't chat about that but start at uh 6 6 p.m. on Monday uh May 11th 2026
>> second >> at the and the motion should include at the Monoy Regional Middle School >> sorry at the Monamoy Regional School on Croll Road. Is the moderator going to have any angst about this? Do we know? >> Let me check my email. Just I don't
think so. >> If he does, we could always modify this next week. >> It was part of his second option. He had said um if necess Monday May 11th if necessary could also work is what? >> Okay.
>> Followed by on Monday May 11. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. So, the motion is from Monday, May 11th at 6:00 p.m. >> Yes. >> And there was a second, I think. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. We'll call the roll. Miss Davis. >> Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. I'm sorry, Mr. Dykins. Hi,
>> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. I >> final motion of the night. >> A motion to adjurnn, Mr. Chairman. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded. Miss [snorts] Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dykins. Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. Hi, Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. I
>> Thank you. Good night, Chadam. [music] [music]