Heat. Heat. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. and welcome to the April 7th, 2026 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-taking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two of the acts for 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted
during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. Massachusetts General Laws chapter 3A 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 203 386491 pound or join the meeting online via
Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on
the town's website as soon as possible. First order of business is to establish a quorum. Miss Davis >> present. >> Mr. Dykins >> present. >> Mr. Morris >> present. >> Mr. Smith >> present. >> And the chair is present. >> We have two sets of minutes starting with the minutes of March 17th, 2026. Is
there a motion to approve? >> Move the minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Any uh corrections? I have a couple. >> You do? >> I do. Yes. >> Surprise. >> Okay. On page two under public announcements and agenda item request,
the word installation I think should be um installment. >> Yep. And in the next line in the middle, the word released, I would substitute the word issued.
Uh and then on page eight um under item five, first paragraph last line where it says board's requests, I think it should read the voters's apostrophe requests. Voters plural apostrophe requests.
And lastly on page nine um at the very end uh under item D I would add this sentence. It will be stricken from the list of agenda item requests. It will be stricken from the list of agenda item requests because I did say
that. Uh with that any other corrections? If not I'll call the role. Miss Davis. >> I Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. And the chair votes side. Next are the minutes of March 31, 2026. Are there
any? Is there a motion to approve? >> Move the minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Mr. Mr. Matters seconded it, I think. >> Okay. Okay. Any corrections? Um, >> how many you got? >> One.
>> You have any? >> No. Um, on page two under public announcements, uh, fourth line, the reference to the library, I would just insert Eldridge Public Library because we have two. Okay. Calling the
role now on this set of minutes on Miss Davis. >> I, >> Mr. Dykins. Hi, Mr. Meadows. Hi, Mrs. Smith. I >> chair votes. I >> public announcement announcements and agenda item requests. I have one
which has been given to me. The Independence Day parade committee is seeking at least 10 volunteers to help with various tasks including directing spectators to shuttle buses, helping coordinate the final lineup at the start
of the parade route, help manage gaps in the parade route, or help wherever the committee may need you. If you are interested in helping out, please email cadam parade@gmail.com. cadam parade@gmail.com for more information. Any other
announcements from the board? Stuart? >> Sure. Thank you. Um, you know, you might not know it from the weather outside, but uh summer is coming and um there's a lot of um uh marine projects uh in the works. We have some
pending dredging projects. Uh uh Mil Creek uh Pleasant Bay at Scatterie. Um I think I think the Fish Pier might be done. Um we've got the sidewalk going on at the Fish Pier. We've got uh 90 Bridge Street. We've got number of projects. I
think it would be helpful that um uh some of our marine departments come forward and maybe give the board an update particularly about uh um Barnhill Landing as well. >> Okay. We'll do that. Any others from the
board? Jeff. And >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listen, I I I this is as yet immature, I guess, but I think it would be really cool and convenient for everyone, including the board, but also the public, our citizens, to have a a a town calendar of
events. I find myself saying to myself, why didn't I know about that? How, you know, how can you? So, I just think and I again, it's immature. I don't know if it's a particular agenda item, but something Jill and I can work out with Shauna, but just an overall calendar of events of what's going on in town that
day. Um, including including meetings, committee meetings and stuff, but more more event driven as well. >> I think it'd be really convenient and really useful for everybody. >> Yeah, >> Shireen. No, >> you had something. >> Oh, I thought you did. I'm sorry. Any from the public? Any agenda item
requests or announcements? I don't see any tonight. Okay. Next, as part of the agenda of public hearings, we have three scheduled. I'll ask the first is um to consider a request for a new annual entertainment
license for indoor live and recorded music for Chattam Moods, 1617 Main Street. Cadam, um I'll ask the clerk to read the uh public hearing notice. Stuart. >> Sure. Thank you. Uh, notice is hereby
given that the Chattam Select Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 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 Chattam Moods, 1617 Main Street, Chattam, Mass. All interested parties are encouraged to participate in person or remotely via the link in the posted agenda. >> Mr. Hemings, u do you uh want to say something about your application? You
need to come to the uh podium and you need to come over there. Please identify yourself and tell us what you're looking for. >> Oh, Orlando Hemings, Chattam Moods, chef and owner. Um, it's kind of simple. I think
music would help. I think everybody likes a little bit of a fun hour or a happy hour, I guess. Well, not a happy hour, but fun hour. You know, music does help. >> So, you're proposing to do this on I
didn't mean to interrupt it. >> Sure. >> On on Fridays and Saturdays? >> Yes. Um >> both or >> both? >> From April to to December, it says. >> Yes. >> Do you have particular times
of day that you're looking for? It does. Yes. Yes, it's 4 to 6 p.m. 4 to 6. >> Yeah, like 4 to 6. >> And um other than Fridays and Saturdays, you're not looking for approval. >> It says mostly Fridays and Saturdays on
your application. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Mostly Fridays, Saturdays. >> Okay. And we're talking about live m live music. >> Yes. >> Dance music and a live band. Is that right? Okay. Are there any questions or
comments from the board? Shireen. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and u welcome. >> Uh I'm supportive of this application. I think um it goes in line with the happenings of West Chadam that are starting. Um we have lots of great restaurants, including yours.
>> Thank you. >> Um and it it makes sense. So, I'm very supportive. >> Any other questions, Jeff? >> Yeah, I'm supportive as well. It's nice to see you. >> Moods is a great spot. I think it would help. Uh 4 I think the the times are right at 4 to 6. It's not, you know, 4
to 10 or midnight or something. So I think the time is right. >> Um and uh I look forward to uh to coming and I wish you well. >> Aman, thank you very much. >> Any other comments from the board story? >> Sure. Thank you. Um
I just had had lunch there. It was great by the way. I thank you very much. >> The uh we we had a >> Yeah, I was going to read that letter. >> Okay, then I'll wait. >> Okay. Any other comments from the board? >> All right. Before we go to the public,
uh I want to read a letter we received. This is a public hearing from David Bixby. He sent two emails. They're relatively short. Uh first is addressed to the select board. Public hearing comment. When you consider the request by Chadam Moods for indoor live and
recorded music, please be aware of the potential for undesirable noise in infiltration into abuing residential neighborhoods and inevitable conflict. Think of the impact of noise on neighbors of the squire and yearslong conflicts with entertainment establishments in Harwitch and Orleans,
well documented in the chronicle. The fact that one select person pointed out that the former Southwestern bar blasted music late into the night 60 or 70 years ago is hardly justification for a loud noise today. Also, please be aware that the board appeared unaware that
entertainment establishes establishments once granted license are exempt under state law from provisions of the town noise bylaw. The board approved a license for live amplified music for the taco restaurant under the mistaken impression that the noise ordinance
applied. It doesn't, as what point as was pointed out by the town manager's office after approval and complaints. If you must approve the license, I suggest it be with the prohibition of the use of amplifiers. Amplified music, even indoors, carries great distances. Thank
you, David Bixby. Then he sent a subsequent corrective um email. Select board correction. It is not state law that exempts certain entertainment establishments from the town's noise bylaw. The bylaw itself exempts estab establishments licensed
under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138. Unbelievably, it appears that bars and restaurants in Chattam have no noise restrictions. Maybe it is time to change the bylaw. David Bixby and he attached a copy of the uh noise control um bylaw.
Are there any comments uh from or questions from the public? This is a public hearing. I don't see any. So uh we'll bring it back to the board. Uh unless you have anything further to add. >> Uh no. >> Are we talking about um amplified music
at all or recorded music? >> Uh define recorded music. >> Well, how do we define that under a bylaw? I assume that's >> like saying like a Elvis Presley over >> I assume that's a digital presentation of some sort. >> Am I right
>> DJ digital? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Um I'll bring it back to the board for consideration. >> I move approval. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Is there a um Stuart, did you have a
>> Yeah, I had another question. Um to just kind of home in on the noise issue. um is so how do we handle noise complaints >> common sense >> at restaurants and establishments if the
bylaw doesn't apply? Is there some criteria? >> Do we just wing it? >> Is Sean here or do you want to answer that? >> I can answer that. So um every year the board reviews all of the licenses granted. We do ask at that time for the police department to provide a list of
any noise complaints received for the applicants who are applying for you know renewal of those licenses. We do present those at that time. If there is you know an um extreme number of complaints um we
can bring it to the board or the board can ask to have that applicant come back before the board to reconsider the license. But it's really at the time of the renewal process that we are reviewing that as well. Um, we haven't really had many and as you saw with the
last round of renewals, we didn't really have anything that was like to be brought before the board in terms of complaints. So, >> right, and this is unlikely to be similar to the southwester.
>> This is going to be indoor only. Yeah. I mean, and it's it's indoor only. So um that also has an impact >> the um but if there are complaints it can be brought forward before the renewal period. Yes. >> And um
>> and we can we could approve this contingent on uh no amplified music. >> The board is able to modify the license and improve the license however they deem fit. Um you know it's here. >> Yeah. I mean, if if I I I I think the
owner is sounds like he he's not interested in the in the amplified music. I'd like to add that as a condition. And certainly four to six should be tolerable for people. >> Are you offering that as an amendment to the motion, please? Yes. >> Amplified. >> No. Is there a second to that? >> He didn't check that as a
>> Yeah, he didn't apply for that. >> He did not apply >> and he's confirmed that he's not >> It's live music, but it's >> I don't think we need to amend it, Steuart, because he hasn't applied for it. We're just going to grant >> Okay. As long as as long as everybody's clear on that, I'm fine with it. >> If there should be a violation, it would come to us.
>> Yeah. >> Um >> Okay. >> I mean, I think the the order of the day is the applicant, you know, shows common sense. >> Yes. >> If it's reverberating outside the four walls from four to six, then we've got an issue. >> Uh there must be something. This has nothing to do with this application, but
there must be something in either chapter 138 or in the regulations dealing with liquor establishments, bars, bars, and restaurants to regulate noise because we have done that. >> I believe you're correct. I'm not sure the exact wording. I can provide that to the board.
>> We should probably take a look at that just going forward. >> Okay. So, there's a motion on the table to approve the license as applied for. Um, I'll call the role. Miss Davis. I >> Mr. Dyken. Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. Hi. Shai, thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you.
>> Next, we have a um an item to consider the a petition from NStar Electric Company doing business as Resource Energy to install 215 ft plus or minus of 2 to 4 in conduit and one new manhole 10242/010
for new underground services at 162 Shore Road. I'll ask the clerk to read the public hearing notice. Cadam Select Board will hold a public hearing at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 in the large meeting room of the town
office annex 261 George Ryder Road, Chattam Mass and remotely via Microsoft Teams platform to consider a petition from NStar Electric Company, DBA Eversource Energy to install 215 ft, 2
to 4 in conduit, and one new manhole 1024210 or new underground service at 162 Shore Shore Road. The public is welcome to attend the meeting in person or participate via the link at the meeting's posted agenda.
>> Thank you. Um I see Marissa Jackson is here from Members Source. Marissa, do you want to speak to this please? >> Thank you very much. Marissa Jackson with Eversource. So our starting point along Shore Road would be an existing pole which is 17 over 15. From there, 35
ft of two 4-in conduit to a new manhole. And then also an additional 180 ft approximately of two 4-in conduit. And again, this is to accommodate a resident's request for new underground service and that it will be located at
162 Shore Road. >> Thank you, Marissa. There is um email which you probably have seen um uh from the DPW director laying out some conditions. Um are you familiar with that and will Everource comply with
those as you typically do? >> Absolutely. I certainly received the email. >> Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? Any from the public? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve
>> and a second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Hi. >> Mr. Dikkins. Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. Hi. Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes side. It is approved. >> The last item um is uh to consider a petition from Verizon New England, Inc.
to install one new pole number 225 36 ft east of an existing pole number 225 and 80 ft west of an existing pole number 226 on Mil Pond Road and to install a new conduit from the proposed pole number 225.5
southeast along Mil Pond Road approximately 180 feet to new to a new Mill Pond to the new Mil Pond pumping station project. This was continued uh from both March 24th and AP April um I'm sorry and
um more recently there was a second continuence. Maybe that is the most recent continuence. This has been before us twice. I understand they are not ready on this. They're still trying to resolve this. So there's need for another continuence. I don't see Marissa Jackson anymore. But I would suggest we continue
this to what the 28th. Does that Kathy make sense at this point? >> Yes. And uh speaking with director Phy um he said you know it can take sometimes up to a month for the he his experience has been up to a month of uh
re-engineering those designs. So we have not heard neither he nor I have heard from >> I know it was there was some time sensitivity for the town on this. So let's not put it too far out the 28th we can always continue it again. Um,
>> so I would suggest u a motion be offered to continue this to April 28th. >> Motion to continue to April 28th. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Um, we will um take call the role. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters.
>> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I chair both side. >> We have a consent agenda of um two items. One is to consider the sale of goods and town property. the Chattam Men's Club author event on April
17th, 2026 at 702 Main Street, Cadam Chadam Community Center. Um the the men's club dire executive director Steve Saunders is here if there are any questions. And second to consider the use of town roads and special one-day entertainment license. This is the 8th
annual walk for home on June 20th, 2026 from the homeless sponsored by the homeless prevention council and Trish Trisha Murray is present online if need be. Otherwise, I would accept a motion to approve the consent calendar. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Thank you. >> I I move to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Okay. If either of you wishes to speak, I'll entertain it, but this is a consent agenda. We just routinely approve it. Okay. Uh we'll take I'll call the role
on the consent agenda. Um Miss Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dikkins. Hi, Mr. Meadows. Hi, Mr. Smith. >> I the chair votes I. >> Next are public comments on the business agenda for those who wish to um make them now or you can make them contemporaneously with the business
items. Seeing none, we'll proceed to the regular business agenda which consists of four items. The first is to consider the sale of goods and town property. the addition of food of a food truck to previously approved annual plan sale on June 6, 2026 at 702 Main Street,
Chattam. That's the community center uh sponsored by the Chattam Garden Club. And Susan Eldridge is present to discuss the addition of the food truck. Sarah Harris is here. She is the owner and operator of Full Circle Donuts, which will be the food truck in question if
there are any questions. Is um Susan Eldridge, do you want to come up and speak to this? and Sarah. >> Hi, I'm Susan Eldridge from the Cadam Garden Club and I'm the chairperson of the plant sale. Uh the sale will be June 6th from 9 to 1 at the lawn at the
community center and we are requesting in addition to our uh application that we have the food truck there during that time period to increase traffic or customers and help us with our
fundraising efforts. And Sarah is a proprietor of Full Circle Donuts. >> Sarah, you're welcome to say anything. you're you're not here in your official capacity. >> On June 6th, I would usually be operating at my um place of business at 16 Squanset, but they had invited me
down um to their area. So, if you already approved their permit, and I was just wondering if I can assist them on their day. >> Sure. Any questions from the board? >> Corey, uh just one quick question. supportive of it. But um logistics, if the town meeting's supportive and we
have the sefeld transition, are there any logistical um elements that we have to keep in mind with the transition of of that project? Um you I'm assuming you probably set up uh to the side.
>> I just want to make sure that we're >> Saturday. >> Yeah, it's a Saturday. So uh any of those logistics will be worked out well in advance. >> Okay. We this a similar conversation got brought up at park and wreck the other day. So I just want to make sure we're covering that. So >> Okay. Okay. Fine. All right. Any other
questions or comments from the board? >> All right. Uh and is there a motion? >> Move approval. >> And is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. I don't see any comments from the public. So we will uh I'm sorry. Brian Phillips
have a comment. Think it's smart. It's good. Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. I was wondering, are is it more of like the baked cake donuts or do you guys fry your donuts? >> They're fried fried cake donuts.
>> All right, beautiful. Thank you. All right. Any other >> They're really good. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. We'll call a roll on this. Um, Miss Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dikens. Hi, Mr. Meadows. Hi. Uh, Mr. Smith. Hi. >> And the chair votes I. >> Okay, you have it. Thank you.
Um, next is to consider the stepping stones road right of entry and license agreement. And um, for this, Gloria McFersonen, our director of housing and sustainability uh, is here and will present. There is a document in the
packet. Welcome Gloria. >> Hi everyone. Uh, thank you. So currently the town is in negotiations for the land disposition agreement for the property at zero stepping stones road um for the hack development of 14 um ownership
homes. A standard component of an LDA is a right to entry um and that's because before the property is transferred to a developer there are a lot of things that have to happen in the pre-development phase. topographic surveys, boundary
surveys, test pits for engineering, um things like that. And in order to do that on town property, the private developer would need a right of entry. And that's exactly what this is. We're basically just stripping it out of the LDA because we want to um keep this
moving forward. Right now, we're still on schedule. So um there's a survey scheduled for the week of April 13th, which is next week. Um, and if possible, um, I would ask that you approve this, um, right of entry and license agreement
earlier and separate from the LDA. >> Okay. Thank you. I I had a couple of, um, typo edits to the document, and I'll call them to your attention. On page one, the opening paragraph, right of entry
and license agreement, right in the middle, it's probably the seventh line down that begins, acres of land, more or less, and as further should say described. >> Yep. And then on the next page um the first well the the whereas um
sentence uh near the top whereas the owner desires that should be plural I'm sorry singular and under the right of entry itself paragraph one the owner hereby grants
>> and in the third line I'm sorry and in the second line it should say undertake the work on the property and access. I think the there is a conjunctive that's needed there. I also had a suggested um
addition to the vote because it looks like only one member of the select board is signing this unless we're going to authorize the town manager to do it. you does it make a difference because I was going to add a sentence to the proposed motion to authorize the select board
chair or the town manager to sign on behalf of the select board. Who has to sign it? Who do you want? >> Um, so this was vetted by town council and she put the town of Chadam select board. So personally I would prefer the chair. >> Yeah, the chair is more appropriate.
>> Okay. Well, when we'll offer that motion shortly. >> Any questions of Gloria on this? Corey, >> uh, just one quick one. Under right of entry, the item number nine, >> it says, "Prior to entry upon the property, for the purpose of the full survey, the developer shall obtain
permission from the school district and shall comply with all requirements, etc. Where does that stand or where is that queued up?" >> So, the um school district has given preliminary approval and they have a meeting on Thursday evening and the superintendent is going to bring this to
the school committee as an update. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, do we have a motion? >> Mr. Chairman, I move approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. And again, we'll just add this language to the motion. I I guess I'll read the motion. Approve the right of
entry and license agreement for the property at Zero Stepping Stones Road for the purposes of due diligence and predevelopment activities by the housing assistance corporation hack and authorize the select board chair to sign on behalf of the select board. I'll call the role. Miss Davis. Miss Davis. I
>> Mr. Dykins. >> Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> I >> and the chair votes. I >> um I Gloria, I know you have a second item. I want to take the final item. Please stay there. Uh we have one appointment to make and I I don't want
the the individual to have to wait. >> Okay. >> But um >> no problem to get my report anyway. >> Okay. So, I'm going to take out of order the um item D under six. considered the commission appointment for the Barnesville County Human Rights Advisory Commission town liaison. We did
interview Karen McFersonen recently. Uh and uh so um I'm going to ask for a motion to approve that appointment with the suggestion that we um uh impose a term of three years because that's generally how we appoint people for terms of office. So is someone
>> Mr. Chairman, I move to appoint Cara McFerson as the town of Chadam liaison to the Barnstable County Human Rights Advisory Commission. Um, it would be until let's see the 29 29 6:30 29 >> until 6:30 29. Yes, that >> unless soon revoked or a successor is
appointed if it's up for your term. >> Second. >> Okay, I'll I'll call the role on that. Miss Davis. >> Hi. >> Mr. Dyken. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes I. I assume Karen, you're willing to serve until 2029.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Gloria. Back to you uh to consider the um design guidelines draft for 127 Old Harbor Road. And um we've had this before us several times. Most recently, we approved design guidelines. And so this
is the report back to us. Um and I think you may have consultants present as well. >> We do have consultants present. So you're correct. In November, the select board voted to move forward with design guidelines to build on the work that Util had already done um by doing test
fits for the property at 127 Old Harbor Road, the former Ellis property. Um and we have the design team from UTIL to present the first draft of design guidelines which were kind of backed into from the um conceptual test fits
that the select board um uh preferred. And with that I'll hand it over to the UTL team. >> Hi good evening everybody. >> I'll I'll let Tim start off. >> Uh Tim Love here from UT. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes. >> Loud and clear. Excellent.
>> Welcome. >> Excellent. I I think um I first I'm hoping to confirm that you got a copy of the draft guidelines in your packet that >> we did. May >> maybe you could at least thumb through before um our presentation. Good. I I I
think just to expand on what Gloria said before we get into this, um um the purpose of the guidelines is um to make it clear to um developers, development entities,
builders who respond to the RFP what the town's expectations are for the site layout, um uh the general configuration of the building, things um and even even some
of the stylistic preferences that um I think uh we discussed when we did the actual development test fits with you uh I think almost exactly a year ago and so that's the signal to the market as in the real estate market what your expectations are so that um the
developer that you're so that you're assured that the developer that you choose will build something that roughly looks at looks like um and feels like um that option that you preferred. So that
that's um the logic for them. Um typically what happens in a in a request for proposals is that um there's language that says something like uh a develop develop development teams are
preferred that um uh that uh commit to build a project that most closely aligns with the design guidelines. So that's the general idea. Um, and so I I I wondered if there wanted to be any initial questions or discussion about their purpose. >> Um, yeah,
>> the design guidelines are included in the RFP. Is that the how this works? >> They're they're included typically as an appendix and they're referred to >> Okay. >> in the language of the RFP itself. Okay. >> And um the town can make
um uh decisions about the legal language up front that refers to them. It can say um anything from any development pro proposal must follow the standards and the guidelines um uh to be considered to
um something softer like um the town prefers uh uh uh a developer that um uh intends to follow the uh the majority of the design guidelines. Um but the town will consider variations of those
guidelines uh during the process. There's a there's a the language up front can either make uh the design guidelines ironclad like standards or um a kind of language that says more like we prefer these and that we can follow up and discuss that maybe after we go
through them. Um does that make sense to everybody? Mhm. >> So if we were to um give our okay and direction on these tonight, the next step would be a draft of an RFP. Gloria, is that
>> So I think that we'll probably have another round of edits to the design guidelines. Maybe not. Um but we'll have a final draft of the design guidelines and then yes I'll work on a draft RFP in coordination with UTL so that we reference the guidelines we come up with
um proposal submission requirements that reflect the guidelines and also a checklist for evaluating the proposals based on the guidance >> and that RFP would draft would come back to us before it's issued. >> Yeah, of course. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Um go ahead. I'm sorry. I I have any
other questions or comments from board members at this point? All right. Um why don't you continue please? >> Great. I think I think I then rather than go through every single guideline
that's in the packet, >> we um because that would be long and tedious and good news for you, I have a short attention span, too. Um, we thought it made more sense if Courtney
um in collaboration with me chose three of the guidelines um that represent the the range of guidelines that are in the document and then pointed out how the actual test fit that you preferred influence those
guidelines. So you understand there's a direct connection between the dimensional standards and the guidelines and um the process we did with you a year ago. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Courtney. >> Perfect. Thank you so much, Tim. And just to build off of what Tim was
saying, I um I checked our notes and the last select board that meeting that we attended was April 15th of last year. So almost a year to the date. So really nice to be back with you guys um this evening. Um, I'm just going to share my screen. Um,
you guys able to to see this? >> Yes. >> Okay, perfect. So, as Tim said, I'm just going to walk through um a couple of our our regulations. And um again, because it's been quite a while since we talked to you guys last, if you guys have any
immediate questions, feel free to, you know, uh let us know and we can we can answer and clarify anything for you guys. So, just um kind of to reorient us to to where we were last time with phase one of this project, um we went through
multiple test fits and we came up with uh three different scenarios. um in addition created these um street level perspectives which kind of showed um the the test fits at a much more human scale. So comparing the existing conditions where we have the um the
lovely existing home and existing barn. Uh scenario one which considered uh maintaining the existing home and then building two additional buildings on um both for duplexes. uh scenario two which got rid of the existing home and had two uh single family homes and one duplex
and scenario three where we went through and had two uh buildings which were both duplexes. So this is where we are now at with phase two. And just to clarify um with what Tim and Gloria were saying, the the
rest of the scope for this project is, as Gloria was saying, a second round of um of edits um with any feedback that you guys have um this evening. So, it'll be getting into the final draft and then um going through and and helping to
create the RFP. So, um you guys should have a a PDF or maybe even a printed version of this document that we provided to Gloria with a couple um original edits that she provided to us um which felt a little bit more appropriate for for dimensions. So, the three that I'm going to be um
kind of talking about today, which we felt were the most influential, um I'm going to be walking us through the site layout, which regulates building placement. Uh building in units, which sets the max minimum and maximum buildings and units on the lot, which um was a a big conversation we had um the
last time um we met at the select board meeting. And then roof form form, which um provides options for a pitched half-story roof and uh dormers. Can I interject with a question, please? Um, >> yeah, for sure. >> So, would the final product um show all
three scenarios or just one that we select? >> I think I think you'll see that we the design guidelines allow for a little bit of market flexibility. We're only we only think the rules themselves
should be the requirements. Um >> uh but not to I mean we could have an appendix of the scenarios that were shown too but we we we've created a rule set that will give developers some minor options but to make sure whatever they
propose um uh is within the bullseye of what you liked. And I think it's probably a better question I I I think it's a question that's better addressed after um Courtney goes through the the logic here. What I I think what's
important to realize is that um uh we want to create rules that are um mostly non-discretionary in nature. So any developer, their architect, builder
can play the rules. Um and but they there there's a little bit of market flexibility for decisions that happen. and um because you also want to attract um qualified developers and architects to participate in this. So um let us
explain the rules and the logic and I can come back to that. But if that's the question >> I want to add one thing to that. So typically when I've done RFPs and we've had these background studies, I've included a link in an appendix so that if a developer wants to, they can go
back and see the test fits. Personally, I wouldn't include the test fits and I would definitely not include only one because if you include just one, it looks like we're asking for that project and then that gets us into rather than a request for proposals. It's almost like
a town project where we're getting a a bid like we can't ask for exactly what we want. Otherwise, you're in like an Eldridge garage type situation where it's just a different kind of procurement process and then you have to worry about um prevailing wage and everything. So, typically what we would
do is we would link to all the studies that have been done. In this case, it's the test fits. We would attach the design guidelines without those scenarios. Um and then we would see what kind of creative responses we get from the RFP. >> Okay. Thank you,
Courtney. Please proceed. Okay, thank you so much. So again, the first um thing that we'll go through is the site layout. And to kind of answer your question throughout the um design guidelines and how we went about writing them is we made sure that we were
referencing all three of the test fits that um were approved approved by you guys um again almost a year ago. So all of these numbers um were were kind of taken from those and and we made sure that these are kind of regulated. Um but
again as Tim is saying they a lot of these numbers and everything is is more so like suggestions because it's guidelines and and not um required within um the zoning. So um first up is building placement. So, uh, again, this is a conversation we had quite a bit,
but we we kind of wanted to regulate, um, that the the new builds need to be built within a maximum of 10 ft from the front of the existing home. Um, what's important to note is that the existing home is built almost basically up to
what the current zoning setback is. So this number basically ends up being um about a 10 foot from from the um the setback line um which which in the zoning would probably be what that number would want to kind of um get to anyways. But we are making sure that
it's kind of in accordance with that and that it's not you know significantly set back because this lot um is so deep. Um this does not include um any additional porches or um bay windows that would be
built on those those would be um kind of extra architectural elements that could exceed that um that setback. So even with the existing home where the the porch and the bay window are they go past um that that um setback line. So that's just important to note there if
those elements are added on. Uh the second is building separation. So, we were saying that um for each of each of the buildings on um on a single lot, they should be offset by um a minimum of 20 ft from any other building. Um this
just is in accordance with what's already kind of existing within the context and also allows for um a really great penistration percentage that is um allowed within the uh the building code. So, just kind of comparing to what what those were looking like um within our
scenario test bits. So, uh, within scenario one, this is the one that maintains the existing building or the existing home, which you can kind of see where my mouse is. The two additional, uh, test fits were separated by 28 ft. Um, this kind of just ended up being with, you know, that drive aisle in the
center. And then scenario two where we had the two new, uh, single family homes, these were separated by 20 ft. So, um, all of our our test fits are within this metric that we um, we came to. Um, are there any questions about site layout before I move on to the next
metric? >> No, I think the only the only editorial comment I wanted to make is that um when when we were doing the test fits, we made an argument that that any existing structure should follow the pattern of historic development that's happening
along the larger road there. So, you know, yes, we're now referring to our test fits, but our test fits were predicated on the idea that you want a rhythm of structures there with the volumetrics, the porches, and the rhythm
that reinforces the existing context. That's all. >> Thank you, Tim. Okay, with that, I'll move on and we can come back to it if anything. Okay, so buildings and units. Um this is what I was talking about earlier when we we had
a lot of um kind of discussion about what we wanted to have as our minimum and our maximum um at our last select board meeting. So a regulation on the number of buildings um basically encourages the density of development that is contextually appropriate for the site. So in a lot of conversations with
you guys we came to the conclusion that there should be a minimum of two and a maximum of three buildings on the site. So again, this I remember this being kind of um something we went back and forth on um what the difference between buildings and units was. So again,
buildings is each of the separated buildings whereas units is the number of units within within um the buildings that would make up the entire number of units on the site. So uh for scenario one with the uh preserved existing building this one would have three buildings whereas this
example is scenario three has the minimum of two buildings on the site. So for a regulation of the the number and types of units again it's encouraging um contextual development um but also responding to what's required within the
special permit for zoning. So the minimum number of units for for um the entire development needs to be a minimum of four and is a maximum of uh six units for the entire site. And then within um the zoning for the special permit at
least one of the units um needs to be affordable. So again looking at scenario one I was somebody trying to say something. >> No. >> Oh okay. Uh for for scenario one, you're seeing uh five units where you have one
unit in the existing um building. Um if you're wanting to, you know, create some sort of duplex scenario in the existing building by doing an interior renovation, then you could have up to six units and that would work. Uh building two, you have two duplexes or sorry, two, you have a duplex with two units. And then uh building three, you
have uh a duplex with two units. So you have a total of five units here, um which is right in the the middle of the the four to six. And then for scenario three, you're having two separate duplexes um which have two units each, which you're hitting that minimum of four. Um again, if there's any questions here, I'm happy to answer them now. If
not, I'll move on to the the final part. >> Just unless you raise your hand. >> No, I'm just I think I think you didn't understand it all before. >> Yep. >> Um Yep. >> Okay. Okay. So then the final part is roof form, which as I was saying uh
regulates uh the pitch as well as um our regulation on dormers. So um a couple of these metrics here are pretty typical for for um metrics that we we use at UTL for a lot of our test fits on our zoning. So um we came to the conclusion
um with you all that the maximum building height in stories is 1 and a half um stories and then the maximum slope of the roof um at that um that pitched roof is 49° with a maximum height of a twoft knee wall which you're
seeing here. And then um any roof forms would need to be either gable or hip roofs. Um so no flat roofs are regulated. And then you get into dorma regulations which you know those start to be a little bit more of a of a metric there. So anything um uh you can have a
gable or a shed uh shape of a dormer. Um I I don't know if there's a preferred one for chatam of what's more contextually appropriate but but util tend to use both. Um the location from the edge of the roof uh needs to be three feet on either side. Um the
maximum width um is the the width of of the the set of windows plus a maximum of 18 in. So you'd have about 9 in on either side um of those windows to get the maximum width of the dormers. And then the the roof coverage that is allowed is 100% of the roof minus 6
feet. So, for example, on this side where you have this this shed dormer, if you had a long set of windows um plus the 18 in, you could go you could go up to basically the maximum as long as you have 3 ft on either side um to have that offset from
>> just some comments. We we call it a half roof, but you're getting more like 7/8 of the square footage that you would get if >> if if the usable space wasn't under the pitch roof. And then of course to make that second floor usable you have to
allow for for for dormers. And if you remember in the test fits we did and maybe we can come back to these um we used a lot of shed dormers which are common across Cape Cod to uh get those upper floor plans to work when we did our test fit. So
I think um this gets you you know I if the space between buildings and the number of buildings and the number of units is setting the basic logic for layout. Um these are really the key rules to make sure that the um the
buildings themselves uh have the you know the the roof itself is kind of job one. >> Perfect. Thanks Tim. Can I >> And then uh Oh, yeah. Go on. >> I was just gonna say, can I make a couple of comments because as you were describing this and I'm looking at it.
So, on the roof pitch um visual um it's not clear that 2 feet is the maximum kneewall height. I think there needs to be there's some language or something that says maximum two feet. >> Um and the fact that I didn't pick up on this beforehand says that it's not
clear. And then the other thing which I think I had commented earlier um and all of this is of course of the select board agrees but I think that when you talk about those long um shed windows especially if it's going to cover the entire roof plane minus 3 ft on either
end I think we should potentially have more standards for um the number of windows uh versus blank wall space. So glazing versus blank walls when you have a long one because you do that for the um you know the doghouse dormers where
it's basically the window width plus 18 in so nine on each side. >> Yeah, I think I think the same rules would apply to the shed dormers, Gloria. But we can we can make that clear. In other words, for every window you have in the shed dormer too, you're only
allowed uh 18 inches of wall. So standards are meant to >> Yeah. per window. Um, the other thing you can think about is limiting the length of a shed dorm or two. We've done that, too. But those are excellent detailed comments. >> Turning it back over to you, Courtney.
>> Thank you. I'm just writing these notes down so I don't forget it. Uh, and you said maximum length of dormer. >> Okay. So, >> consider that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, I I'm by no means an architect
at all, but I I do have an opinion on gable versus shed. Don't you need shed dormas for height in the room and and the gable dormer to me, you're losing space? I mean, they're they're attractive. Don't get me wrong. I get why they're included. They're good. They're good to look at. They break up
the roof line. They're they're architecturally attractive, but I think you lose space. And just just if you would comment on that just for a second. I mean, both both are okay. It just I think it was facing the gable. >> I I think a a an architect and a builder
or a developer or the collaboration between the three is nine times out of 10 going to pick a shed dormer which is why for these one and a half story buildings on the Cape. They're the more common type because they create better room. So, but we thought we would
include the gable warmers too just in case people wanted to choose them. But I I I I I think the guidelines um I I think a way to think about the guidelines is we're meeting what the real estate market wants to do h halfway
and they'll always choose those options where they can get better spaces or a little bit more square footage. Um so I think it's an excellent comment >> and I might so um >> bear with me. I wasn't here a year ago,
so I'm kind of playing catch-up with what you're saying, but um >> Okay. >> The uh Did you mention that you were not going to permit flat roofs? Did I hear that? Or >> That's right. No flat flat roofs are not allowed >> because under your site standards, I
guess it's page one, two, three, under the uh gable picture of the house, it says flat RS are discouraged. might want to change that to prohibited. >> Yeah, I believe Tim can correct me if I'm wrong, but because it's design
guidelines versus uh >> a lot of the language ends up being kind of loose, but we can make it prohibitive. That's your call. I I think I agree it's probably better to have them be standards. >> Yeah. And the history is most of them leak here in
Chadam anyway. So, >> yeah, >> like to avoid that. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, it's an excellent point though. think I think if people are comfortable um I I think we could just make these standards and um and and then the lang
as Gloria said the language in the RFP itself might might condition that a little bit but I think that I think these should be as much as possible standards um so they're non-discretionary um but then to allow at least choice of dormers might make sense you can e you
know I I think you're right more developers would pick the shed dormer. We might, by the way, put the shed dormer on the side of the roof that faces us, Courtney, and put the other ones >> in the diagram. >> Yeah. On the diagram. Um, but I think these these are all excellent comments.
>> Mhm. >> The the one >> Yeah, these are great. >> One other thing I think you mentioned earlier that the the buildings would be I forget 20 feet apart. >> A minimum. >> A minimum of 20 ft apart.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> And is that >> Sorry for the dumb questions, but is that for >> uh square footage on the lot? Why is it why is it so close? >> Because in in in one of the three test fits that we landed on, um the the
buildings come as close as 20 ft apart. I I think in truth, if you're allowed a maximum of three buildings, there's very little reason that a developer would choose to have the buildings that close together except for decisions that maybe
have to do with the existing house or that narrow neck of um property that dovetales around the playground as as that site plan from one of our test fits. It's labeled scenario two says. Um >> Okay, thanks. I'll have more questions
when we get there. Thank you. >> Okay. But I think that's that's another really good question. >> Yeah. And I mean Tim will be able to talk to this a bit more than I can, but I believe that when when two buildings are sprinklered in and uh 20 ft apart, you can have a maximum of 100%
penetration on that wall. Not that that would happen. But buildings that are closer together, uh you start to have a less penetration. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think I don't think anybody in our audience is arguing for the buildings to be closer together, Courtney. So, I think we're good. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay, that sounds perfect. Yeah, I
guess them being any any further apart would just kind of counteract what we were showing with this scenario specifically, like setting a minimum of needing to be further apart. Um, I don't I mean, because this was about a year ago, I don't remember exactly why this building specifically kind of ended up
here and not a little bit further over. Oh, actually, it was because I think a lot of what we were doing was trying to preserve a lot of the existing trees. >> Existing trees. And it was a logic about potential subdivision, too. So, um, >> so I I you have more you want to cover,
right, Courtney? >> Yeah, it just goes up until the end like this is the last the last part of this and then we can get back into questions if that's okay. >> Yeah, I I think there's a couple of things we didn't include this in this presentation that are worth reviewing in the document that that you received. One
is that we have a maximum facade length before you have to jog the building so that you don't get big simple buildings and and that was based on >> the the kind of massing the volumes that that that this group seem to gravitate
towards. Um there's other there there there's other finer fine-tune um uh dimensional standards that um uh you can add porches on um uh within setback lines to encourage porches to
happen to to copy the kind of look and feel of the existing house. So there's a finer grain um beyond the roof form there's finer grain requirements that just get builders and architects to do the right thing. I think is a is a good conclusion.
>> Okay, I'll I'll finish this up and then we can we can get into some of the finer questions. So again, just refreshing. This is the existing conditions uh of again of the existing house and the existing barn. Um and then again, we're looking at uh this one is scenario one
where you have the the existing home which is the single unit. You have a duplex here and then you have a duplex here. And then just kind of calling out a couple of the things we we spoke to you today. So again, in the design guidelines, um scenarios that preserve
the existing home are preferred. Um this is kind of language like um how you were just talking about the the concept of uh flat roofs being discouraged quote unquote in the um the design guidelines. Um the word preferred again is um a word
that we we use a lot in the guidelines because they are guidelines and not just distinct zoning. So, if there is a a different form of language you would like us to use um to describe a couple things um we're happy to make that change. Um calling out number two, this
is this is talking about the building placement where where um buildings are encouraged to be within that that maximum 10-ft setback from where the line of the existing home is and the front lot line. So, if you kind of are imagining this dash line here being that that uh that front lot line, that's
where that line is. Uh three is calling out building separation. So again thinking about the minimum 20 feet separation between buildings. So this this distance here would be about 20 feet or at least 20 ft. Uh number four is calling out number of buildings. So um again minimum of two maximum three.
This scenario is showing three. Number of units being uh minimum four maximum six. This one is showing five. Again you have one one in this building two in this building and two in this building. Uh six is calling out roof form. So again, thinking about uh gable or hip
roofs. I believe all of these have have just gable roofs. And then number seven, thinking about dormers. So um again, as Gloria was talking about, maybe we we set an additional regulation where you have 18 in um regulated with with number of windows. Um but you can kind of see
it's a little bit difficult to see behind where this this existing tree is placed but um this test fit here has gable dormers whereas this test fit here has um shed dormers um and I believe yeah that's the last slide that I have um to kind of go through before we
wanted to get into um any additional questions that you guys might have. So I wanted to ask a question. Gloria, maybe this is directed to you. If if the RFP if is is if if it's the wish of the board that the RFP
include um a preference for pres for preserving the existing structure. Is that specified as such in the RFP or is it the in the design guidelines or is it in the evaluation criteria
that you get extra points if you come up with a plan that preserves the building? >> So it would be in the narrative of the RFP which I fully expect to put in and then it would also be like you said in the evaluation criteria. Okay. Design guidelines. Where that shows up in the
design guidelines is if you look at where it talks about number of units, it does say single family homes are discouraged exclusive of schemes preserving or renovating the existing home. So we have it in there that even though we prefer um that's on in under
type of units E. >> Yeah. Can I cl just jump on that one a second? So you're saying if we preserve the the existing building sing um single family home model would be acceptable, >> right?
>> But if and but if we don't preserve it then it's not not um it is discouraged. >> It is discouraged. Exactly. >> So you you don't really want that. So that can change like that's why we're having this meeting like you guys. >> Well I think one of the pitches when we
said about you know it' be a nice structure we finish it up a nice family. I mean, playground, school, downtown, beaches. It's a great location for a single, you know, a family. >> Um, >> yeah, it so it says single single family's homes are are discouraged.
They're not prohibited. Um, except if you're renovating that, then that's that should be a single family home. And I think the logic at the time was that by focusing on that building um there would be a higher likelihood the developers
would consider saving it because that could be the single family home. So it's a little bit of an incentive too. I don't do why are we well I don't want to ask the obvious I guess but um we're trying to strike that balance and I'm confused as
to why we would discourage the developer from proposing another single family home >> because we're trying to I don't want to say maximize because we're certainly not maximizing the site for the number of units but it's a town owned property it's an opportunity to get you know
middle-income ownership housing. And if we can do two duplexes as opposed to two single family homes, then we've doubled the number of families that we've helped. >> Yeah. And you know, we've we've been round and round with
different terms of uh saturating properties and uh this is a this has been a very controversial uh project. Um um I I supported it. uh whenever we voted on it last time uh to move forward
with the RFP and expend the 15,000 to um to get more information as you explained and um I'm not sure prohibiting another a single family home is getting that information that I was hoping for. Um,
we can get into it uh a little bit further down the road, but I I don't want to lose sight with the fact that um I I want to rehear the discussion on seasonal uh communities designation that Cadam has become and voted for and uh
how that will affect uh us being able to uh more control uh who is going to be owning these properties. Uh um we chat about before about um about uh
hopefully some of the employees at the school will be interested in this and having that opportunity would um would be more in keeping with Miss Ellis's gift to the town. Um so >> I agree and we so that would be part of the RFP. We would say something like,
um, the town intends to, you know, um, offer X number of units to, you know, municipal employees as allowed under seasonal communities. It's like we can actually work our desires for that into the RFP so that when we
get proposals they're designing structures for you know uh you know a family understanding that they're going to be a municipal employee for instance >> and when we chatted about this earlier um my recollection is we were able to
focus it not just if we chose not just generally of municipal employees but those employees at the school because um you know clearly from Miss Ellis's will she was interested in you know promoting the school and the children and um
there's still a fair amount of concern in the community about that. >> So we can do that under seasonal communities provided all of the funding comes from the town like we can't use any state money or anything for it which we're not planning on doing I don't think. >> Good. Thank you.
I I I just wanted to say I mean this is a relatively small development compared to the others. So it's going to be a challenge to get people to propose on this I think and uh so I think we should be flexible enough to entertain all
comers. Um, and I guess the question is um um do we need to say that this and I'm not pitching pitching for two single family homes period on this lot. I kind of like we got the lot. We should try to get what we can on there within reason
and within character of the neighborhood. But um do we have to say that they're discouraged or that if someone wants to put a proposal in for single family? We don't have to say that at all. >> Okay. Maybe that's something we could we could adjust.
Any other questions or do we can how do we what do you want to do at this point? Gloria, >> what do you want us to do? >> So, you guys have come up with a few ideas. Um the most recent is that you don't want to discourage single family homes. I think before we ask um the
consultants to make that change personally I would like a a vote to understand you know to make sure that it's actually you know what what you guys want. So all of these all these little points of question like how are we going to do this how are we going to do this um it would be helpful if we had
really clear guidance and understood that it was the will of the entire select board. So the the guidelines themselves the the draft is this document that was in the packet. What was been on the screen is somewhat different. It's a presentation I think. Right. That's not >> That's right.
>> Okay. >> That's right. I mean it's a it's a it's an explanation about why the guidelines are the guidelines. >> Okay. All right. Um I'll throw it open for the board. Um we need to give some direction to Gloria and the consultants as to what we want to see in these guidelines.
Stuart. Well, I mean I I I I agree with your thought process and what um I thought we had chatted with about a couple months ago, which was, you know, kind of writing the RFP in a manner that we had some u maximum flexibility. Um
there's, you know, there's concerns in the in the neighborhood and I think we need to take those into consideration. Uh we have Mrs. Misellis as well that although you know legally uh dismissed by town
council is not um in my opinion uh morally uh correct thing to do but I think I voted for this to move forward because I thought there was an opportunity to have you know both sides um concerns met here. So, um I mean I
I'll start by uh suggesting that um without suggesting a scenario because I'm not sure there's a scenario here that we we can mix these up I assume right for instance you know there's one here well scenario one
>> um if the board decided that you know to to uh more fit the neighborhood but also further our our attainable housing or affordable housing or both um uh process that we would have uh one building here.
We could do that, right? >> So, >> I'm sorry, one duplex. >> No, no, no. I know what you mean. So, let's let's kind of separate these scenarios from the design guidelines. The scenarios were something we did last year really. It was almost an exercise
to see from my own perspective like what's your what's your maximum unit count like that was really what I was after like what's the tolerance for density on this site and the tolerance for density was like three four five six
units that kind of thing that range I think that's a great range to put in the RFP to give developers a lot of flexibility >> when you excuse me but when you say last year do you really mean a year ago? Yeah. When we were Okay. When we were doing the design guidelines. Okay. Not
the test. Just wanted to make sure. So the test fits was a conversation. >> No. Stuart wasn't on the board a year ago, but two months ago, >> right in November when we approved the $15,000, didn't we? My recollection, we had some discussion. We were looking at scenarios. >> We did. We did.
>> We had talked about density. >> We were here then, right? like the I don't think the consultant was here, but I think you were here with us >> if I remember right. >> Yeah. Yeah. We had this discussion. Um I just wanted to make it clear. I wasn't here a year ago, so
>> we're not we're not going to attach the scenarios to the RFP. We're not going to put it out there and say this is what we want. So when you look at the scenarios that have been shown tonight and all the scenarios that were done, I mean you all of them could be combined or mixed and
matched and everything. There's there's not an infinite number of possibilities, but there's there's a lot of permutations on all of the work that was done. And so what we're trying to get at with these design guidelines is let's put a maximum number of units. Let's put a maximum building height. Let's put a
maximum number of stories. Let's think about the placement of the buildings and the rhythm along the street. Like that's those are the kind of big picture things we're looking at with these. We're not dictating the proposal that we're going to get. that's going to come from the
developer and their development team. >> You know, Glory, just to interrupt virtually here, if if Courtney, if you go to the first of the guidelines, which is min and max units, um, >> this one. >> Yes. Um, and so this is a good example,
which is where at least we thought that this board had landed when we were last involved, which is there should be a minimum of two and a maximum of three buildings period. Um um and then the other important thing is there should be a minimum of four and a maximum of six
units um with one unit being affordable. Um that was um the comfort level that the board unanimously agreed was the right range
with maybe two of the board members having to be convinced a little bit. And I think that that then sets in motion um I think that's a range that sends the message to the market um uh this is what's possible. Then the kind of
building form standards that Courtney went through um um then has an impact on you know how many units are going to be in those buildings and what their shapes can be. So I I think that's the starter question I think for
the board which is are those still the right ranges on the previous slide? Yeah. >> Well and I I think that's an appropriate question because it was it was my last involvement in this several months ago. I had met you folks but uh was that that
was still uh up for debate and maybe that's tonight. I don't know. Um, but I hadn't settled absolutely on a number of units or or property, number of buildings or saturation. I had some general ideas as to what I was hoping
for. >> Yeah. I I think if that's still unsettled, then it's premature for us to move ahead with the guidelines until the board makes that decision because that that's the >> those are the starter rules and I you know those want to be arranged for the market and um uh m I would suggest that
that's either a discussion that happens now or in a follow-up meeting. But I think it's hard for us to do guidelines if those basic principles which tee up the development opportunity here are still unclear.
>> I think it was consistent with what we had discussed both a year ago and in November for you to come back with what you did. But I agree with what Stuart said. Nothing was carved in stone. The intention was that you would come back
to us um with those parameters, I'll call it that, and then we would discuss it and and give final direction either tonight or at a subsequent meeting. Um Corey, then Shireen, then Jeff. >> Okay. So, it's no big secret. I've had
some I've been on the opposing side of this. I've had a lot of issue with the philosophical side about the Marionella's will and how we've addressed that. And there's a long history there. Town meeting was presented uh an action to support a
housing project using the existing structures. I've been trying to key keep an open mind on that. Um I'll be honest with this process right now is I'm I'm not getting that comfort feeling that I I was hoping for to kind of ease into it
a little bit more. So you mentioned it a short time ago. I'm getting the impression you're looking for some answers for some very specific questions. So, you have some clarity on how to proceed. You want some very clear direction from this board in certain boxes. What is it that you're looking
for to to at least us to discuss? We may agree or may not agree, but I think I that if I'm not if I'm reading you correctly, you want to get some very clear positions on certain boxes so we can proceed in >> I do. Okay. So I think that you know the
f let's just go right through them. A um you know existing conditions preservation building placement I don't think those are are controversial number of buildings I mean at prior meetings you guys had actually like as a group
voted on a minimum of two and a maximum of three buildings. So that's something that if you want if you want to revisit I mean we can revisit it now. Um the next thing on my list is uh number of units. So we have four to six. That kind
of falls in with the number of units. Two to three buildings, four to six units. Um that would be two per unit or I guess one could be like a triplex with one bedrooms and a single family. Um type of units. Do you want to discourage single family homes or not? I mean we
can take that out easily. Um really I just want to go through this and get your general feelings about this, but also I want to make sure that you guys kind of coalesce around these decisions as a board. It's not like it's not good enough for me or Tim or Courtney to hear
Stuart and Corey say um yeah, we want this. I would like to hear the whole board say that >> or majority of the board. I think we have to take the the the two threshold questions are number of buildings and number of units and I think that needs
to be finalized as a board decision one way or the other. Corey, did are you done for the moment because then I will turn to Shireen? >> Uh for the moment. Yes. >> Okay. >> I mean I I recollect the list. Yeah. Thank you. No, no problem.
>> Yeah. Skip over me. Um so I get um the flexibility around the design guidelines as they read. I get that you know we want an appealing enough fle project that speaks to
the market and who might be interested in a project like this as it is a small scale project. It's not a big one. Saying all that um and and will help with creative openness. I mean, there's a lot more flexibility when you're looking at, you know, where, you know, the amount of we said two to three
buildings, four to six units. I mean, it could come in very different. Um, I'm everybody's I think would probably I'm not sure I shouldn't say everybody because I, you know, the the heart is in
the Ellis's home. It's a symbol. Um if if it's preservable and renovable, that would be fabulous. What happens if it isn't and we and we we have it in the proposal that um somebody comes comes with a yes, we're going to preserve the
home. Is there is there a process before that a developer would come in and look at the place and the building and say, "Well, I'm not going to pitch a a I'm not going to pitch that this is going to be a single family home because it's not renovable." So, part of every RFP
includes a site visit with um town staff, the DPW, and any prospective developers who want to understand, you know, from the DPW perspective, how do we hook into the sewer? what's the water situation and also in this case because there's existing structures um they
would walk through that too >> and because this is design guidelines it's not set in stone how you know what we'll get but you all we all know or there I I probably won't be sitting here at that time but um you know whoever is
will have the opportunity to look at different proposals I mean there will be opportunities for more discussion and if not if if If we're limiting in we're if we're getting narrowing this
down, it becomes a our project and we're not the ones that I think are qualified to uh to say that that's exactly what would be the best. I think we need the flexibility. The creativity will come to us. We it can be discussed again. Um and
you know, I'm I mean, if we need to take another vote on the number of units and the number of buildings, that's fine. let's do it and get it over with and move on. But, you know, we this is this is a this could be a really beautiful addition to this neighborhood. Um, it's providing year-round homes. Stuart, you
were talking about the idea that weighing in with uh people that were working in the community. You know, this would be this would be a really proud moment for the town. >> Jeff, and then I Stuart, I think, had a comment. >> You know, I I I I'm pretty comfortable with what we've got here already. We've
kind of hashed this out before. to, you know, I don't care about single family homes. I'm I'm more concerned that if we could possibly preserve the Ellis property, we do. I have my sincere and deep doubts that it's reclaimable.
Um, and instead, we've talked about um proposing or suggesting that folks if they're going to do a single family home that it be evocative of the Ellis property that exists there now on that lot. And I'd be extremely comfortable with that. But I'm less comfortable with saying, you know, I want two more single
family homes here because it's really not that that scenario playing out to not really provide the community with as many units as as as we could. And I think the duplexes when we get some renderings back, etc., can really be
done tastefully given these sensible guidelines and the way they're, you know, positioned on the property and stuff. There no, there's not going to be a height issue. I I think they can be done really well and still have more than three units. If you do single family homes, a guy can come back with
three units. That's that's three families versus having five or six. So, or five if you have a single family home. So, I'm I'm not again I'm repeating myself. This is what I um articulated the last time we met on this that I think trying
to preserve the Ellis property in some way, shape, or form I again I doubt that it's preservable without a considerable expense. What we're what we're not talking about here is the market. We're not talking about what could be attractive to builder or builders versus what we want as as a board. I think we
need to give the market the parameters, the guidelines to come back to us after we've crafted an RFP. So, um I I the next step for me to be honest with you is to keep these like they are for now and get an RFP in front of us and see what that looks like. That that's my
preference this evening. I I wouldn't change these guidelines yet because I don't know what what's the RFP going to say. I I want to know the RFP is saying, okay, single family home, especially if it's Ellis and that that property. If you can preserve it, great. If you can't,
maybe you prefer a single family home there to preserve that her legacy. I'm good with that. But I'm also good with doing duplexes elsewhere here. Not not three single family homes. We're not maximizing the use of the property sensibly, I don't think. Stuart, did you have something you wanted to add before
I comment? >> No, I'll I'll wait for you to comment. I I I don't disagree with um what's being said. I'm trying to find that happy medium for everybody to so we can >> Cory, >> just a couple just quick quick comments. Um I think it's safe to say that to to
preserve the um structure at 127 is unlikely. Uh it's going to be extremely expensive. Um, this conversation has gone on for a long long long time and I don't recall anyone like Protect Our Past or groups like that coming forward
and saying you showing some support for this. There's been a difference of opinions philosophical on Marian's will. I don't recall anyone championing or helping a campaign to preserve that property. So, if it hasn't happened over the last couple years, I don't see it
magically happening now. So the economics of it, it's it's it's not economically uh viable to preserve it. It should be um but it's just not realistic. Um and then the other part is and this is another part I struggle with
desperately is we brought this to town meeting and and what my belief is at a certain level this is what we're going to do with the property. We really wanted to move it forward. um we wanted to pull it forward very quickly and as you can see
that hasn't happened but how how beyond what was pitched at town meeting is palatable for me um because this is this is this is not just taking the structures and finally reusing them because we've been kicking the can for so many darn years about use you know is
sitting and we're not caring for it and I mean Christ sakes the propertyy's not even secured we had a fire in it you know a month or whatever ago I mean it's you know we we need to do something with it obviously um but at what scope is is proper um or
at least supported. So that these are things I struggle with. Um this is this is obviously been a long long discussion. Um but hopefully there's a there's a light at the end of the tunnel. >> To put it in perspective, this is this is practically the most restrictive like
potential RFP I've ever seen where it's like two or three structures, four or six bill. Like it's so it's so specific. Like I and I wouldn't want to get even more specific than this because of that um fear that we might fall into like a
town project as opposed to a request for proposals. Like we we need we need flexibility and we need to keep it open so that we get we get proposals back and we don't tell people exactly what we want. In which case we would procure
this as a bid. >> What would be the downside of that? >> What >> what would be the downside of that? Aside from economics, I mean >> the cost would be >> would be outrageous. >> Yeah, >> it's a unique property. >> No, and I don't think we have I honestly
Util um developers have more expertise than any of us sitting in this room to come forward with. We we we know we want housing. We know we want um want this to be home ownership. We know this. We know
we want it to fit into the neighborhood. we've already set all the criteria we we want. We just we we can't we can't nitpick the project and I I just feel like I would love to see several um you
know several proposals come and look at the creativity that would be behind that and the opportunities that will afford it you know with having that kind of flexibility. I'm not going to close my mind to you know >> let me ask a couple of questions and we've talked about this before. First of
all, the reason we've started talking about preserving this house after hearing the building commissioner come before us and lay out the terrible state of affairs at that in that building uh was because we had we did have some
interest voiced by members of the public. So, we said, "Okay, we'll that's my recollection, Corey. uh I don't think it's been a major project of protect our past or even the historical commission but so we said okay we'll include that
as an option and we'll give some extra points to someone that might want to do that this is not within the historic business district commission Katie right this is a but it would be subject to the historical commission >> HBDC >> um >> it's not in the HBDC
>> No it's not HBDC >> but it's historical commission It's more than 75 years old. >> It would have to go before them. Um, we The reason you're talking about one affordable unit is so that you can get around the zoning, right? So, it can be a 40B project. Is that the reason? It's
not because we want to >> tap into or is it because we want to tap into a AHT funds. >> So, I mean, it could be both. >> Okay. But that's not The idea was to have ownership here. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. And in order to accomplish
ownership, we might have to tap into the attainable housing fund. >> We will 100% have to tap into that. >> And that means we go to town meeting. >> Yes. >> Just as we're doing on stepping stones. >> Yep. So whatever whatever comes whatever design whatever proposal comes out of
this that that that this board determines on a recommendation of whatever committee the town manager wants to appoint and she comes before us and says I this is what I want. That's going to have to go to town meeting to be funded. So town meeting could look at and say
that's not what we wanted. And Cy you've said this before. You're absolutely right. This was sold. I opposed this at town meeting not once, not twice, maybe three times. I opposed having housing here, but town meeting voted to do it. And it was sold to town meeting on the basis of, hey, we
can put a school teacher in that house. That's >> Well, some people made that argument. >> Wait a minute. Let me finish. Let me finish, please. I'll let you speak in a minute. >> Sure. Thanks. >> So, so I I you know, town meeting voted it. We had two town councils say much to my
surprise, two town councils said the the the restrictions have expired. So, I'll accept all of that. I'll honor town meeting. If somebody doesn't want to do housing here, they have to go back to town meeting. Don't come to me and complain as people have for the last
several years. Um, so my my feeling is uh we should try to be flexible. Um, and I, you know, was and remain sympathetic to the parameters of the number of units and the number of buildings that we're
talking about. I don't know where it ultimately lands. Six is probably too much for me, but I could live with four or five units. I thought the sort of sketches in these scenarios were attractive for the neighborhood.
And um I'm sort of of the view that we we should continue to go in that direction, but there's ample protection for the town because we still have to go back to town meeting to get the funding for this. >> There's actually one more one more point
of protection. So if you get one proposal in and the evaluation team looks at it and says we don't like this, the town can reject proposals. like we don't have to we don't have to accept it and actually that's also an informative thing like if we get a proposal that we
really don't like that's going to be on us to then workshop that RFP so that we can put parameters so that we get something that we do like. >> My concern is that we've been charged with doing something with this by town meeting and I'd like to get multiple
proposals and it's going to be very hard to get multiple proposals because it's a small project. But if we if we were to get a proposal that looks nice that that provides four or five units, you can add those four or five to the 12 to 14 that
we're talking about for Stepping Stones Road. And that's a pretty good >> that's a pretty good thing. Okay, you can talk now. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, well said. I uh you know whatever was said years ago at town meeting to to sell this this notion I
think it got defeated once and then got passed. But I think we have to revisit the vision of why folks got somewhat excited about the property and that was to provide affordable and attainable housing and it was mentioned at the time and it still should be the vision as has
been articulated here that it could go to teachers, firemen, policemen, local folks. That is the vision I would like to still see here. Stuart's mentioned it, Shireen's mentioned it, but that's the vision we have to hold. So, I don't know if we can articulate that
meaningfully in a in a RFP that goes to the market, but I want us to be thinking about, okay, how are we going to get local folks into these or not, as the case may be. I know the 40B messes it all up. But the attainable doesn't, I don't think. So, so let's talk more about that. I'm I'm good with what we've
got out there to send out to the market. I think we're going to I agree with Shireen. I think we're potentially going to get some really creative ideas back. >> Don't we have even greater control over who can go in these units because because of the seasonal communities law >> and and that's what I want to see happen. That's why we
did this. >> So So I I my my view can be quiet now. My my my view of the design guidelines is uh and and what we're looking for tonight. We should we should clarify if we can what is the number of
buildings? What's the range of buildings we're willing to tolerate? What's the number of units we're willing to tolerate? We we've taken a position before as a board. I mean it may not have been unanimous. I don't remember every vote here, but and then I think for me everything else that's in these
guidelines is fine and and we've been advised that they should be standards rather than guidelines. That's fine with me too, but that's how I feel about it. The roofs and all this other stuff that's sort of incidental to the main threshold questions, Mr. >> buildings minimum two, maximum three.
>> I'll throw that out for discussion. What do we want to do about that? That's they need direction. I'm fine with the the the guidelines as they stand. I don't have any problem with the number of units or the number of house uh buildings at all because I think it
keeps it more flexible. We can turn around and say no, that's not going to work if if they come. >> Let me let me add one other thing to the mix. As you indicated, Shireen, you're not going to be here in another month or two. There'll be someone else sitting in that seat. these guidelines could come
back as we vote tonight and that person may say I don't like them you know and there may be three votes there may not be three votes to continue another protection >> okay that's true or you can postpone >> re-election >> no thank you it's too late
>> right >> you can do it right in >> stop go ahead I'm sorry what I'm trying to say is if you are you know I I'd like to take a vote on this I've worked on this quite a bit I want to you know, I want to finish up strong. I don't want to be a lame duck here. So, I'm not
going to propose that we wait until the election. >> No, I'm just saying that's another protection. >> Yes, it is another protection because you're not you haven't finished, you know, you haven't finished this and I you know I and as as Gloria had mentioned, town meeting is the is or
Dean had mentioned, town meeting is going to dictate what this is. So, there's so many layers. Let's keep it as open as we can. is, you know, we we we talked about this a long a while ago that this these were okay guidelines. We we're all like, you know, it's all on
how it's going to look when you see it or read it. It's not it's not it's all ethereal. It's all it's all in our own heads right now. >> Not one of us probably has the same vision of what they're reading here. And I think if we keep these flexible, then we'll see something solid and and and be
more realistic. >> Okay, >> that's my discussion and then we should probably entertain a motion if we want to change the votes. Story. >> Well, you know, with with each change of a board member, whether it was myself or or or Shireen, there's going to be new
thoughts coming into into here. So, um, what I'm trying to do is not lose sight of what we chatted a few months ago, uh, when this was brought before us and we authorized it to move forward, um, with, and I'm I have to tell you, I'm still
not comfortable with some of what I hear. I'd like to know uh just tell me if we can't say this uh that this property that we can require or we
can only allow it for municipal employees or more importantly which is where I was headed for employees of that school to to try to honor as much of that will as we possibly can. We were g we were given a gift. we accepted a
responsibility and I you know we've been over this but I haven't lost sight of that and I'm that's why I supported it is that we were getting close to that. >> So I would be flexible and use the municipal employee category from seasonal communities and say we're going
to reserve x number of units maybe four out of five for municipal employees with preference given to teachers. I would never want to say I'm reserving x number of units for teachers because what if you don't get x number of teachers applying? >> Can you can you reserve a 100% of the
units for >> municipal employees? >> So um 100% of the attainable not the affordable that would have to go through fair housing marketing >> because we had talked not just about employees but about people that live here and have children in the school system.
So that is a local preference that could be Oh, actually it couldn't be applied if you only had one >> um unit because that would be 100% local preference. If we had two affordable units, one of them could >> but that's not a category under the seasonal community. Okay. All right.
>> Jeff Je, >> I just wanted to remind folks that we've been we've been uh told by town council that really the the the strength of the core of the will was the playground, not the house in the playground. she left the house to the town, but the playground was the was and we've preserved the playground and the most
recent ruling um that our town council now has given us that it's okay to to do something with the house. I just want to remind folks that that and in the spirit of her will I get it and I I share I share your you know sentiment. However,
it's not I don't think going to be practical >> and it it maybe it will, maybe it won't. The uh I'm I'm still um you know, you're right. It was uh preserving the playground, but mo I have it right here. I can read it again, but the will specifically said saving those buildings
and no other buildings would go on the property. So, uh we're probably not going to get 100% of of of our will, but I'd like to uh get as close as we possibly can. >> Shireen, >> I just want to remind we're talking about design guidelines, not the RFP part, right? and and we really need to
nail this down >> and then then we can get a real creative RFP going that includes some of the stuff that we were all talking >> from what we heard earlier there's going to be another iteration of these design guidelines based on what we decide to do tonight. Um Tim you had it wanted to make a comment or question so
>> yeah I mean I think this is really excellent really excellent discussion. Um I I I support the idea we need to leave we we need to provide some market flexibility because um it'll it'll be good to get
more than one response and um in my experience I've been doing this helping municipalities and state agencies with RFPs for decades now is there's more confidence um in the decisions if you get more than one response because
typically one project emergence that's better designed, is more thoughtful, uh is higher quality. So that's I I think that'll boost confidence for the next stages. I I also um um while the maximum number of buildings and the maximum
number of units are the kind of gating issues that you're discussing tonight, um the design guidelines will guarantee that the buildings that result will have the look and feel of the renderings that we did. um the masses will be broken
down. They won't be a single large mass. Um we have maximum facade lengths. We have offsets so that the the the buildings look more like an older house that's been added onto for the duplexes. Um and so the design guidelines are very
carefully conceived to be just a rule set but to make sure that when developers propose um uh even duplex projects with two units in them will look like just a a big house that you would find down the street. And so, um,
I think that we spent some time during the earlier process to make a case that having three buildings in a row with um, a cadence that we're proposing in our test fits will look and feel like just
the rest of the kind of um, kind of historical development patterns that you find um, on both ends of the street. And so we we aim for design guidelines that will maximize uh the the design that will be
contextual and should blend right in and not stand out as a kind of standalone project. And that I think the design does matter here because um uh we want it to we want new buildings to look like they're they've always been part of the community. And I think that's an
important thing to emphasize. It's not just about the upfront things. Although the upfront things are kind of the essential qualifications. Okay. >> Um I also think that in terms of creating attainable housing um those
units in duplex buildings are going to be more attainable for town staff and school teachers than single family houses um uh just because of um their value in the market. So, I think to have a single family house as
part of the mix, but also units that are part of a duplex is going to create different price points that are going to help with some of the discussions you're having about um uh uh uh privileging employees at different pay scales, too. Diversity of diversity of units will
will provide a diversity of opportunities for town employees. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, just to just to build off of what Tim said quickly, I was just checking a couple of our metrics with our test fits and the largest building that we test fit on the site, which is uh the duplex
that has that has three beds in it. The entire footprint of those two units that create the duplex is 1500 square ft. So, the building itself is still quite small. Like what Tim was saying, it would appear with our regulations to be basically like a an existing single
family home that's just a little bit bigger than than some of the single family homes that we drew through that were test fitted. >> Can Can we Thank you. Can we clarify what did we vote? Did Kathy, do we know what we voted? Did we vote previously two to three buildings and four to six
units? I'll entertain public comment in a minute. Um Meredith It was April 15th that vote was taken. I just want to make sure I'm pulling up the right >> Okay. >> April 15th is what I had written down here. >> We also we discussed it on November
18th. >> November 18th. Okay. >> Of 2025. I I think we did take a vote that night and that may have been what we're referring to. If not, then we'll have to clarify tonight. >> Oh, I think I quoted the whole motion in my report. I thought it was just to
expend 15,000 to continue design guidelines. >> There may have been a discussion, but I don't think that there was a vote on the number of units. >> It was consent. >> It was consensus. >> Well, we're looking for the minutes.
Okay. Um, >> this is November 18th, Kathy. >> Yes, I have the November 18th minutes. Um, >> read that to us, please. >> Sorry, my Adobe just crashed. Give me one moment to bring it back up. Okay. Um,
nothing. Okay. Okay. So, the original motion was a vote to expend $15,000 to continue design guidelines on 127 Old Harbor Road. Um, I'm not showing
there was discussion about the number of units. Um, sorry, I'm trying to read this quickly. Um, Mr. Smith had made a motion to amend the original motion to limit the number of structures. It was seconded, but it was
withdrawn um because the design guidelines were going to come back to the board for approval prior to the issuance of any requests for proposals. >> Was there anything back in um when was
this first discussed? in May, April >> 15th. >> You check that meeting or would we have a date of that? >> Do we know the date of that meeting? Cler, >> Mr. Chairman, I think that's the meeting where we didn't decide to do the voted against going forward with the guidelines, I believe, if I'm not
mistaken. You're right. It's >> the meeting where you finalized the test fit scenarios with those three those three options. >> Oh, okay. Gotcha. You're right that there was a pre there was an earlier meeting where who didn't go forward. We >> yeah at that time then we because stepping we decided to have stepping
stones step in as a priority. >> All right. So at the April 15th meeting the board agreed by consensus that scenario one was the preferred concept with the request that the current house be considered in the project. That was there was no vote but that was the consensus.
Um, >> okay. Well, it would appear that we haven't taken a formal vote on the number of of buildings or the number of units. So, I think we should do something tonight so the people will
know what to do if anything. So, I I'll throw out again for consideration what should the number of buildings be >> and I would suggest as I did earlier between two and three. >> And is that a motion? >> Yes. I I'll second it.
>> So, there's a motion and seconded to have the guidelines um recite that the number of buildings be two to three unit two to three. >> Correct. >> Any discussion on that? >> You've got a hand up. I don't know if
you want. >> Yes. So, we'll we'll do that in a minute. And and if it were uh let's just say if it were two buildings because I know we chatted about that as well and I get the advantage of broadening it to three but if it were two
>> one could be the single family home and then the second would be >> whatever we decided it could be >> we probably wouldn't but it could be another second uh single family home but >> so it would be whatever a developer decided. >> Well ultimately it's coming back here I assume for a decision.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um, you see where I'm headed? I am really uncomfortable, and I'm kind of going back to Cory's discussion about a developer deciding what's going on on this property that I don't want to lose
control of of what's happening here. >> We'll have the ultimate control. We're not going to be able to predetermine what the developers are going to propose. >> I understand, but we could predetermine the number of buildings. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yes. Shireen. And then I want to go for
public comment. >> Meredith. >> Good evening. Meredith Fry, 18 Cross Tree Hollow. But I'm also here as park and recck commissioner, chairman of parks and recck because I remember when this first went to town vote. I stood
outside or sat in the blazing sun on the A's field and it was the last item on the agenda. Uh Mrs. Ellis wanted this property to go to the children. She loved the noise of the
playground. It brought her joy and that's why she wanted her property to go to the children. Um, and that's where park and wreck were was involved. Uh, it was first voted down. So, it came back and was approved for affordable
attainable housing. So, I just think the board should be very very careful here um and make this property look inclusive and not stand alone. Also, if you're talking about municipal
workers, you should really be talking about young families with children. Um, because that was her wish for children to hear, you know, children brought her joy. So, if the town is going to do
this, uh, I think you need to be very careful about the number of buildings. I agree with Corey. I don't think the first home is salvageable. There was a fire. It's been sitting there rotting for years. It's going to cost the town
way too much money. Uh I think you can make it look like her old home. It's not historic. I mean, it's older, but it's not part of the historic commission. Correct. Or >> it it's under the jurisdiction of the historic commission, but not >> not the HBDC.
>> HBDC. So, I think um you just want to be very careful here. Also, the town wants more attainable housing. So, you really want to make it look nice. You want to make it look that it belongs there and
that families feel comfortable going there, that they're not in affordable housing or attainable housing. So, I think moving forward you should be very careful with what you decide tonight with how many units you want there because this is a unique property and
it's not like, you know, stepping stones where you can fit a few more and you want it you want it to look nice and you want more. So, I just think um the board should be very careful in how they decide tonight >> if you decide tonight.
>> Thank you, Meredith. Thank you, >> Brian Phillips. And then who's going first? I thought Carol Gordon. >> We're all lined up. Carol Gordon, South Chadam. Uh I was just wondering if uh any of this has been uh weighed on weighed in through the public. Has there
been a maybe I missed it. Has there been a public hearing on this or anything like that? >> There's been or will there be? There's been no public hearing per se, but uh because we haven't been required to have that, but there have been multiple occasions where this is >> this property and what to do with it has
come before this board and we've entertained public comment on numerous occasions. >> Okay. >> But there hasn't been quote a public hearing. >> Also, the affordable housing trust had discussion on this. The >> affordable housing trust. >> Yeah, we did. And also it was informed by the you know our housing need
assessments and what what you know how we brought stuff forward. >> That's the town meeting that's the document. Yes. Town meeting has weighed in twice >> right with the funding and things. Uh, will the public have a chance to look at the designs once you you know if like
tonight there's three designs and I was wondering if you go through with those three designs with the public on that those scenarios um aren't final designs but they're certainly in the packet of materials that's that's in um with that
>> um whatever >> future product is presented to us >> from the consulting firm through Gloria Those will be publicly available for observation and comment by the public at our meetings.
>> Okay. >> So, there'll be it will be a public process. >> Good. Thank you. >> It doesn't proclude a for us to have a public hearing. >> We we can have a public hearing on anything if we wanted to. Yes. >> Brian Phillips. >> Brian Phillips, 370 Orleans Road. Um I
know attorney Ford was representing some clients um that are opposed to this, you know, use on this property. I was wondering where that stood, if the town had any information about that. >> We haven't heard anything more from from either of the two attorneys since they
sent their two letters. I believe they they sent. >> So, I guess I'm just wondering, are we wasting you know, time and money and resources in uh you know, a relatively controversial, you know, site that's just going to result in a you know, lengthy, expensive legal battle? Well,
well, I mean, I all I can tell you is our current town council feels confident in in the position and opinion that he's given us and you know, that's what we have to go by and um you know, I'm not
going to stand in the way of that. Um we we have a charge from town meeting to do something about it. And if um people feel feel really strongly that their position, their legal position is correct, they can they can go to court.
I haven't seen any any evidence that they're likely to do that, but they could. I mean, that's they can go to people can go to court on anything. Um but you know, we we're charged with doing something with this property by town meeting. And the solution to stop it if people want to stop it and I'm not
proposing it proposing that is to go back to town meeting you know that's >> I mean I'm just you know >> very controversial property >> I understand I understand I was in I was at that meeting in the sun and Meredith and I voted the same way. >> No I get it it's you know we have another property in George Rider Road
that's donated for this. I just wondering if it's better to you know put our resources towards that instead. >> No your points are well taken. >> All right. Thank you. I just want to point out that the George Ryder Road property is fundamentally different than this because it's for the purposes of affordable housing whereas this is
primarily attainable. >> Yes, >> thank you. I had one more question. Um instead of doing you know you said one U is got to be affordable and the rest are attainable possibly. You know, although I am opposed to putting new buildings on this, if we were to, could we do something like
market value um with the year- round deed restrictions? >> Gloria, >> I mean, we could. It's allowed under seasonal communities. >> It's allowed. >> Yeah, >> she's saying it's allowed under the seasonal communities designation.
>> All right. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. So, Corey, we have a motion on the table. So, Cory, >> no, no. I mean, basically, we're talking we can keep going round and round on this, but we have a um >> and we have >> we have we have so keeping beating a
dead horse, but no. Um it's a range two to three. Two falls in line with what it you know, there's two structures there now. There's the house and the barn basically. So, um two falls in line. Three gives some flexibility. I don't think it precludes us from a
month from now arguing two two over three again. So, this is move forward with two or three. I don't think it's going to make that big of a difference um at this stage. So, I'm I'm fine with move forward with two or three, you know, buildings. >> Any more comment from the board before I
call for a vote on this motion? All right. So the motion is to um establish in these design guidelines that the number of buildings will be number of buildings will be two to three. >> I'll call the ro Davis.
>> I >> Mr. Dykins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Matters. Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> I. >> And the chair votes. I >> All right. That's progress. >> Finally. Now, the next item
of consequence is the number of units, and it's been proposed in the guidelines that it be four to six units. And I'll throw that open for discussion. Shireen. >> Well, I'm going to make a motion that we accept the design guidelines of four to
six units. Um, and >> is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Is there any comment or discussion on it, >> Corey? folks, you want to say something? >> I'm on the lower side of that, but I guess four to six again, you know, we
can split hairs here. I'm on the lower end of the spectrum. It gives it gives us a range of arguments for later. So, I'm fine. I'm fine. >> And I haven't really said what I think is best. So, I'm saying four to six. I want to see what comes back. Well, um
the the what the reason I'm struggling with with this a higher number of units is again my opinion is this was presented at town meeting and supported with a certain kind of what I believe is a certain package and I think we're
pushing what was presented um at town meeting a little bit broader than um I feel comfortable with. So that's why I'm trying to stay within the scope of what I believe town meeting voted for. I think six is beyond that. Uh we've argued about having flexibility um but
I've said my piece and I think we can kind of work with the discussion. >> Any other com >> um do you ever feel like you're being dragged down a hallway that you're somewhat reluctant? Um I I I could
>> I've been feeling that way since town meeting voted to do this. >> Yeah. And and as you've trying to make it work >> and as and as you aptly have said um uh the the select board is a a different entity from town meeting. >> Yes.
>> And we can disagree uh with town meeting um to our own peril. >> So I I I could support four. I think six is a I know it's a I know it's a it's a four letter word but uh density is an
issue here and um so um I I I I could support four but I'd be very reluctant about six. >> Jeeoff you had your hand up. >> So I just want to remind folks as well on the reminder this evening that this this board all of us including Stuart have signed on to our our overarching
goals and objectives for the town. the number one of which was to pro increase the uh the uh inventory of affordable and attainable housing. Um that's number one. Um and has been for a while. Um we've been behind the eightball for
decades. Um and um I think we're overthinking this and I really think that we ought to keep as flexible as possible and put out to the market four to six and see what comes back. I think we're going to be delighted when it stuff comes back. Thank you. I've uh
just to respond, you know, I've been um supportive of of this attainable housing and some of the affordable. I've uh adamantly against the Main Street and and meeting house, but the others I've been very flexible about and I've supported stepping stone and this one
correctly done because this be the third meeting I think I've said this at correctly done we can we can conform to a lot of Miss Ellis's wishes and we can add to the inventory of attainable home homes. >> I think you have supported every every
vote that we've taken on this since you've been on this board. Um, >> and I wasn't suggesting he hasn't. Making the point that we've all signed off on those goals and objectives. >> No, I agree. And I'm just saying we've we've had unanimous >> Yes. Yeah. >> approvals on these. So, you know, my
sense of the four to six is I think personally six is probably too many. I I find I I think it's not likely that I'm going to want to see six on there if if that's what comes in from from a developer. We might have a nice project
and they're proposing six. And I think we might want to knock them down to five. That's but but I can I can live with the range that's recited to four to six. For me, something of comfort would be probably four or five, but but I I
can live with four to six. Um so, uh are there any public comments? Is there any public comment on this item? I'm looking. I don't see any. I don't see any online. So, did we have a motion? I think we did. Motion in a second. >> Motion and second to have four to four
to six. Uh and that at least gives some >> It looks like there's somebody online. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. It just says G >> guest. >> Guest. >> Oh, yes. It's Ela G. I just want to I just want to remind people. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. Absolutely. Yes. >> Yeah. That um sometimes I think there's situational ethics and this is more of a global thing. And when Kate Ghoul Park came up, everybody was very concerned about uh following her wishes about what
was to be done at Kate Ghoul Park. And yet when it comes to Mrs. Ellis, that's not the case. And Kate Ghouls was over 30 years. So I I would hope you remember that. and and just because you you think you found a technical loophole
uh in this uh people are not going to donate land to this town anymore knowing that you will change your minds and do what you want with it. Uh so bear that in mind. Thank you. >> Thank you, Elaine. Any other public comment?
Okay. So I'll bring it back to the board for a vote. We have a motion to have four to six units. Uh and I will call the role. Miss Davis >> I. >> Mr. Dikkins. >> Hi. >> Mr. Meadows. >> Hi. >> Mr. Smith. >> No. >> And the chair votes size. So that one is
4 to one. Okay. So that gives direction. What about the rest of the guidelines that have been proposed to me? They look fine. But >> Shireen's about >> the type of units. There is some discussion about single family homes
being okay. And I might um offer a slight edit to what's already in there. Scheme should consist of a minimum of two units per building. Single family homes are discouraged. I would leave that exclusive of schemes preserving or renovating and then adding or rebuilding
the existing home. Like maybe that's a way to get like the home. >> Let me back up because we're just eliminating the discouragement of single. The line that says they're discouraged, right? Well, I would keep that they are discouraged unless you're rebuilding that that home or renovating
it >> or you can take it out. You don't have to discourage >> them. I mean, I asked the question earlier, did we have to have that in? I think the idea of >> offering the option to renovate the existing home should be in there somewhere. Whether it's here or in the um
>> as you said earlier in the in the umation criteria or in the RFP, they should be somewhere. But I think there was some sentiment that having a statement that we're discouraging single family homes probably doesn't belong in here. >> That was my take from the earlier.
>> I didn't get that from the majority of the board. >> Well, I fully agree because if we're having the argument we want to have a lot of flexibility, my feeling the single family home would be the existing structure sadly renovated and not preserved. But if the architect comes back and says a plan that has the main
house as a duplex or something and then another single family home on another part of the parcel, we're we're we're shortening our options and that's the argument we're all been making or the majority of the board has been making. So I think discouraging taking that changing that language uh I'm not
supportive of. >> Okay. >> So what what do we want? We're not are we going to leave it in or and take it out? not >> the language of discouraging single family homes and I would not keep in >> okay so what we're doing now is tweaking
the guidelines so that they can proceed so what is the sentiment on that this particular item >> well >> I don't think there are many items we're going to be talking about here but this is one >> I mean I agree with Corey but to get back to Gloria's comment I think that to get back to flexibility that the the
renovating of the uh of that building should be considered >> okay What? >> And she also And she also suggested andor it's rebuilding. >> Yes, she also suggested and or it's rebuilding. It's renovation and it's rebuild. I honestly think renovation is a where you know
>> it may not >> we should try. Shireen >> I I I I I like the idea of adding the um rebuilding into it. But I I think that the caveat that we're discouraging single family except for the Ellis
building, the the Ellis home makes sense to me be-c because we're maximizing effort here. Uh and we just voted on how many units we want to see four to six. So, I mean, logic would tell me
>> maybe it may be an oxymoron to expect that somebody's going to come in if we want four to six and that they're going to come in and propose single family homes. But you're right. But I don't know. I I personally think the language of discouraging single family homes
should go out should not be in because I I don't I don't think it's realistic that somebody's going to come in and propose it. Uh and but I I I'm perfectly comfortable with including renovation or rebuilding of the existing
premises as an option. >> I agree. We'll have to we'll take a vote on this because we I think we need to clarify. >> Yeah. I mean I I would agree with you that >> it's remote but um nothing ventured, nothing gained. I mean all they can do is say no, we're not going to propose
that, right? >> Yeah. So, so you're but you're in favor of eliminating the discouragement language. >> Yeah. I do not want to discourage single. >> That's the issue before us right now, >> right? And I don't want to discourage that. >> You're not going to not going to get your units. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Free single family homes. You're not going to get you. I mean, no one is we want to do here. What do we want to accomplish? We want to accomplish tasteful, attractive, very, you know, units for folks to live in. Hopefully, for locals to live in. So, so if we say single family homes are
disc, who's going to come in and build three three? We're not going to gain, we're not going to attain our goal. And what is your goal? What is your goal? Your goal is to provide more housing, attainable and affordable housing in this town if you I don't think single family homes should be encouraged,
>> but I don't think it >> except for that's what I think. >> I don't think it adds anything to say that single family homes are just >> you're going to get three well three units. So, so I think it does and I'll I'll explain why. So, when you think about the last couple of things you voted on, you're already starting to
shape what this project is going to look like, right? So, you said two or three buildings. So, but four to six units. So, technically, you can't really build three single family homes and be in conformance with with the other part of
that where it says four. However, if someone is going to do a single family home, I want it to be the Ellis house. >> Yes. >> That's why bec because you can't build a project of all single family homes. You
want to focus that single family home energy on the Ellis house. So, you do want to discourage single family homes unless it's the Ellis house rebuilt. That's the way I look at that because you've already discouraged single family
homes by having two or three buildings but four to six units, >> right? So, it's already discouraged just by by by the numbers when you puzzle this out. >> Why do you have to recite it? >> Because the opportunity is to encourage
if the the renovation of a single family home for the Ellis the Ellis house, >> right? And so in saying so, it sort of defines that there's your that that would be that we're we're wishing that that becomes a single family.
>> That's like if you can work a single family home into these numbers, which I mean technically you could work two and a duplex. That would that that's like your minimum. That would be right. That's four units, which hits the minimum, and three structures. But don't
you want one of those to be the Ellis house like that? So that's why I would always say it's discouraged because you're already discouraging it anyway. So it's discouraged except if you're doing that. I'm happy to take it out though. I agree the Ellis house would be the
most sensible location, but we we're arguing about flexibility in four to six and two to three and you know in one breath, but we're narrowing ourselves. >> It it's it's it's contradictory to what we've been preaching. It's it's >> this is probably why it's taken so many
damn years. >> I I'm I'm going to concede and just let's me too. I'm done. I'm done. Take it out. Take >> So, we're taking out discouraged. Are we going to say anything about encouraging the Ellis House renovation and rebuilding because there seemed to be some sentiment? I think it was pretty
much unanimous around including that. So I would probably because now single family homes aren't discouraged. I would probably make that point stronger in the RFP itself and not in the guidelines
>> for the rebuilding of the >> Yeah, >> I >> I think that I think that's what you guys had left to decide. >> I'll add the word rebuild. So I >> you should have rebuilding in there because if we're going to have a single family home, it should be on I think I think we have consensus here that it
should be there on on that lot. >> Why does it hurt Gloria to just to say that renovation or rebuilding of the Ellis house >> is preferred >> preferred is >> is encouraged >> encouraged and including that in the in the guidelines it doesn't seem to hurt
to put it in there >> as anybody >> with a consideration of its renovation tongue and cheek. So, you know, >> but okay. So, we know do we want do we need to take a vote on this one? Well, let's take a vote. So, there'll be no question. >> Motion.
>> The motion by Serene Davis is to include um encouragement of the rebuilding or remodeling renovation or rebuilding of the Ellis House. Is there a second to Miss Davis's motion? >> Second.
>> All right. No public comment. I'll call the role. Uh Miss Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dyken. Hi, >> Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi, >> Chair Votes. I Okay, >> now you had something else, Gloria, that you started to >> say about
the types of units or something earlier. You said it a little while ago and then >> the windows and stuff. >> No, it was it wasn't far back. It was just at the beginning of this. >> I think it might have been unit sizes. >> Unit sizes. Was that it?
>> You were talking about unit sizes. And you were about and you and then I interrupted and I said we need to focus on >> I don't remember nothing of unit sizes. >> Yeah, I don't think we qualified any of >> Kathy's can pull this up. >> There was dormers and siding and
windows. >> I don't remember that. >> You you were looking for some clarity. >> Kathy can pull it up. And we were also going to say flat roofs are prohibited rather than discouraged. Is everyone on board with that? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Excellent. Thank you. >> You want to vote? >> No. That was my vote. Yeah, I don't have any notes about >> I don't recall that coming. I don't >> Is that Is that an AI thing or
>> It's the captions that the transcript that >> Yeah, it wasn't that far back. It was just when Gloria said there were a few things we need to pin down right after we took the vote on the four to that was 4 to1 on the number of units. rest of the guidelines. Um,
>> I think she was mentioning the size of buildings, >> the types of units. There's some discussion about single family homes being okay. Offer a slight edit to what's there. The scheme should consist of a minimum of two units per building. And then you went into the the discouraged conversation.
>> That's that is what you said. I don't I wasn't sure whether you were proposing something. Well, you can >> she did propose an edit, but again, the discussion went into the word discouraged and kind of >> Okay, so we've taken the votes on the number of buildings and the number of
units and we're encouraging the preservation of the eldest house. Those are the three votes we've taken. Um, they've all prevailed. Um, and uh, is there anything else in these design guidelines that we want to give
direction to otherwise? Um, we can either take a vote or it can be consensus that Gloria will work with Utah UTIL and finalize these and come back to us for a final approval. >> Okay,
>> that the sense. Do we want to take a vote on that? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. It's kind of a clumsy motion in my part, but I >> Yeah, it's okay. We got the gist. We're voting on our consensus for those three items. >> Okay. All right. All right, I'll call the role on that. Unless there's public
comment, I don't see any. Miss Davis, >> hi. >> Mr. Dyson, hi. Mr. Meadows. Hi, >> Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> And the chair votes I. I think we've completed this agenda item, right, Gloria? >> I hope so. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Courtney. Thank you, Gloria. And
>> thanks for your consider. >> Second. >> Moved and seconded to adjourn. Call the role. Miss Davis. Hi, >> Mr. Dyson. Hi, >> Mr. Matters. Hi, Mr. Smith. >> Hi. >> Chair votes. We are returned at 7:44 p.m. Good night, Chadam.