Nothing. Welcome everybody to the December 10th, 2025 meeting of the zoning board of appeals in Chattam. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled on demand viewing on any
smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else recording the meeting, including those using AI note takingaking apps, please notifi notify the chair. Is anyone pursuant to Governor Healey's 20 March
28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2, the acts of 2025, extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027, this meeting, the Chadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation.
Every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder, persons who' like to listen to this meeting in progress may do so by calling the following number. 508-945 4410
conference ID 577871310 pound or join the meeting through the appropriate link on the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We'll post the record
of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. And that would only be for the meeting house um portion
of this um because that's a public hearing still. Uh first we do a roll call vote of all board members. Then we ask if anybody uh on the phone uh can make sure that they identify themselves uh properly. Um as to Main Street, the
board will continue our we will continue our deliberation. No public comment will be allowed. Meeting House Road. Um we'll hear the uh notice uh read by our staff. Uh Penrose uh will present um a portion of the uh
appeal or application today. Um I will summarize all letters that we receive. Anyone wishing to comment may speak for up to three minutes. Um th those present in the room will be recognized first followed by anyone online. The applicant
can then rebut all written and oral comments. We'll ask questions, continue the application to a date certain, and all votes are taken by roll call. At the end of the meeting, we close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment.
Okay, with that, Sarah, roll call. >> Roll call vote. Yes, >> David HVH, I approve of this meeting format. >> Uh, Ed Actton, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Als Simple, I approve. >> Lee Hubby, I approve. >> Steven D. Debor, I approve.
>> Virginia Fenwick, I approve. >> And Randy Pardash, I approve as well. So, as mentioned, uh the first thing we're going to do here is um continue uh our deliberation on Main Street. No public comment. And uh the reason why
we're doing that is because we had an issue, a legal issue with number 48, which is on page 14 of 17. Um I know members have >> 16. >> Oh, and number 16, uh to a degree. Let's
see. So, I guess we'll start with number 16. Um let's go in order. Um welcome, Attorney Talaman. Thank you very much. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. So, how about if we talk about 16 quickly um to
the extent we need to >> So, I think um and and maybe Sarah could um put it up on the screen. I think 16 was a minor um uh tweak. So, and there was a couple others and
thank you to Paul for finding uh a couple of things there. So I think um I think the the comment from Paul is that look there are no real restrictions. If they have to adhere to restrictions
later then they'll have to adhere to restrictions. Right now we just want them to get the get the well in the ground here. So I think what the effort there was just to simplify it. I know that I know that um Penrose had
suggested like let us go without some restrictions early on and then we'll comply later, but it it doesn't appear to even be necessary to to go that route. So, um nor is there a local bylaw as to a private irrigation system. there
would be a barrier to connection to the municipal water system for irrigation, but um but that's um not what's happening here because we're having them get a well permit in the normal course. So, I thought it was a good common sense
suggestion by Paul. >> Okay. So I'm just going to read that what we're going to vote on would say an irrigation system and accompanying well shall be installed and irrigation of the project plantings um well per
um what am I missing here? >> Excuse me. >> Well permit obtained >> there there should be a period after plantings. >> Okay plantings. Okay. Well, well permit. Oh, >> a well permit. >> A well permit.
>> Okay, I see the red threw me off because usually the red is out, but the the the red is in as to the letter A here. So, a well permit obtained in the normal cause >> shall be obtained in the normal course.
>> That's in red, too. All right. A well permit shall be obtained in the normal course. So, everybody's clear. Very good. Very good. Very good. All right. And now we're just going to go straight to number 48 if I'm not mistaken. Or is
there anything else? >> I think there was a couple other just little typos that um again Paul found, but none of them were were particularly substantive. I changed uh an and to an andor and there was maybe a couple he mentioned a couple of other just pure
typos, but nothing substantive. All right. So, number 48. Could you just explain that um to everybody? >> Yeah, this was a this this was a a little bit of a lift here. Um,
so if you'll recall on 48 and 48 the the the original version of 48 was something that we put in every single comprehensive permit and I've been putting in every single comprehensive permit for
25 years that some restrictions on transfer under the 40B rules and regulations. There's a minimum requirement that transfers have to go to um uh there has to be a
notice to the board, but it otherwise says that transfers are generally not considered um um major project changes such that you would have to hold a new hearing. But there's nothing about those regulations that say that we can't
approve of or require that a transfer be approved. And in fact, it's important that we have the um the right to approve transfers because especially in a rental project like this that has complex
affordable housing requirements because not just any developer can handle it. If there was going to be a transfer, then we would want to know that um we have the um
uh the ability to assess whether or not someone has the requisite experience and qualifications to manage an affordable housing project. So that was the basis of our uh condition which
I stand by as being a legitimate condition. and it's been approved by Mass Housing and EOHLC and other um um regulatory entities for years. However, there are this is there's two elements
that Penrose drew attention to and which I was okay with modifying to a point. We went back and forth with several emails and several modifications. The first issue related to the low-income housing tax credits.
And under that program, the way that works is Penrose will essentially get the low-income housing tax credits, but they don't use them themselves. They'll market them and sell them essentially. And when they sell them, those entities
um take a non-managing interest in the project during the period of time in which the the the tax credits are active. So in that it's a non-managing interest, it can be
cumbersome and difficult for these institutional investors to um uh to have to come back to us and prove their metal. And I I was sympathetic to that to a certain degree. And because they're a non-managing
interest and the managing interest would still be with Penrose, then I was okay with exempting them those kinds of transfers from the requirement that the board have to approve it. The next issue that was raised was one regarding
foreclosure. And I was a little less giving on this. They wanted to exempt not only the foreclo potential foreclosure by a construction lender or otherwise another lender but also the
subsequent foreclosure sale to the end user the new developer the new project owner and I was uncomfortable with that ultimately I was okay with the foreclosure sale itself but because the foreclosing bank is never going to manage the project
they're just going to foreclose and sell the project. What I was not okay with was um uh exempting them from the board's authority to approve uh a subsequent foreclosure sale to an
enduser, the purchaser of the project. So, um I built some provisions and asurances on that. However, there was still push back by some of the kind of quasi public entities, mass housing and mass housing
partnership as to the subsequent foreclosure sales. Now, frankly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for their particular arguments because at most it's an inconvenience that when they are selling out of foreclosure that they get
the board's approval of the entity. However, in communications with Mass Housing, they said, and I think it's true, in fact, I know it's true, that if they as a foreclosing entity are going to sell to another entity, given their
position as a primary subsidizing agency for the Commonwealth, then they are going to vet and convey to an appropriate entity out of their foreclosure. It's not like you know Acme
Bank. It is mass housing and they have a vested interest in ensuring that they're in continued investment in the project um is handled by a qualified affordable housing developer or a qualified manager of affordable housing development. So I
was okay then and this was the last piece of it in exempting foreclosures and foreclosure sales by either a state agency or a quasi state agency such as Mass Housing or Mass Housing Partnership. foreclosure is really
really unlikely here, but I still wanted to make sure that um in all circumstances we would have some asurances that um the end entity that we're dealing with for management of an important project for
Chadam be qualified. So, with the concessions that are built in here, and there's several exemp uh exceptions, I think we're still amply protected while not adversely affecting their ability, Penrose's ability to get financing from
an entity like Mass Housing. And they are um by their word, they are interested in obtaining some financing by Mass Housing under favorable terms. And you know, I fight with Mass Housing all the time on 40B issues, but they are
reliable um affordable housing agency. They don't have um always uh or they haven't always agreed with the way town see these things, but I think they are a trustworthy um entity.
So I was okay with providing an exception there which frees up Penrose to obtain financing from them under these circumstances. and my partner Lisa me and I kind of worked this over and kept you know thinking about the
language and I think this is an acceptable result that still keeps intact certainly any arms length transaction should Penrose wish to convey this property on the open market to another developer then you have the
right your right to approve that entity is intact as well as if Penrose sells a controlling interest in Penrose to another entity, we have the right to approve um that entity's transfer as
well. So I those were the two bigger circumstances I was interested in protecting. >> Well, thank you very much. So you feel comfortable putting your good name on this and that that means that that's all I have to hear. Um >> yeah, I I am comfortable again. I I
fought with them a little bit on this, more than a little bit on some of this. Um um but I I'm comfortable that this is still a very protective um position to be in. >> Okay. Any questions from the board on
this or comments? Yes, Virginia. So, uh, Jay, you mentioned that you were forgiving on the objection to restrictions on transfers of investors of the low-inccome tax housing credit.
Um because originally they was there it wasn't their discussion or or in the in the language that um they they wanted the right those those investors wanted the right to be able to handle those transfers without having to
come to the board or more in independently. Is that am I >> that's right. >> Yeah that's right. And and again, these entities under the lowincome housing uh tax credit um is they are never going to
be managing an affordable housing project. And the the whole point of the condition is to make sure we know who's going to be managing the affordable housing uh project here, which is why we inserted
the language non-managing. So if if people are investing in this project in a passive way, but it's still Penrose managing, I was okay >> with that exception there because, you know, there could be various entities.
There is a market out there for entities um acquiring um these kind of tax credits, whether they're low-income housing tax credits or historic preservation tax credits. And you know, there's some other ones out there as well. Um they're never
going to be something that we have to worry about in terms of who is calling the shots on certifying tenant eligibility or managing overincome tenants or making sure that the conditions of the permit
generally are followed. So um I was comfortable with that exception. Virginia. >> Okay. And the restrictions on transfers of them. You were comfortable with that? Yes. >> Okay. Um, so you mentioned as an
example, an investor could be the the mass housing partnership or mass housing. Is is the investor limited to institutions or could they be inredited investors? That could be investors. >> So, I I don't I don't know the answer to
that. And um as to whether or not my my experience with the low-income housing tax credit is that it is generally institutional investors um or corporations that are doing it and not individuals,
but I don't know I I'm not an expert in the in the program per se. I I'm understanding of the program as it applies to subsidies related to 40b. But who can invest and who can acquire those
tax uh credits is I'm I'm not quite sure. >> Okay. One last question. Would would it be um an an ask to or be okay to ask for list of the investors? Would that be something we would want to have or need to have or not necessarily? really I I
just I mean it's such a regulated environment in any way that I I'm not sure that we'd get much benefit and and the those investors could change constantly >> uh on it or it could be different investors within a pool of investors
that are doing it. I I'm not I'm I'm not saying that I'm I'm not curious or or that we shouldn't be curious as to who might be the ones investing in it, but as in terms of what we're concerned as a zoning board of appeals in a town as to
this project, I'm not sure that there's much of a a local concern that we need to be concerned about such that we need to be kept a breast of uh what's going on there. there all a lot of the records are probably public records and so some
of the a lot of this is ascertainable probably but I'm not sure that it's something that we need to concern ourselves with. >> Okay, thank you. That's all I have. >> And just to follow up on that, but if the public wanted to know who these investors were, there would be an avenue
for that. They would basically have to figure it out. I I I'm not going to tell you, Randy, that I that I know if there's any exemptions from either uh FOYA or the Massachusetts public records law for these kinds of things in terms
of uh privacy uh or anything else like that, but um I think it is possible that it's generally ascertainable as to how this goes. But again, um I'm not going to make a a firm or give a firm opinion
as to whether or not there might be exemp some exemptions from the public records laws on that. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, with that, anybody else have anything? Well, oh, we should probably just vote. You probably don't need me to read this. Um, everybody has it in front of them. I
mucked up the last reading. So, uh, basically want to just vote. Yep. All right. Very good. Paul, >> I'll I'll move to approve the uh uh issuance of the comprehensive permit on the terms and conditions set forth in
the decisions and conditions as amended uh through today. >> Okay. >> Uh David and votes yes. >> David, >> I vote no. >> All votes yes. >> Virginia votes no >> and Randy votes yes. So that this is
official now. um as to Main Street as far as we are concerned. Okay. Um now we're going to move on to meeting house and this is a public hearing. So we're going to start off with the reading of the advertisement
>> application number 25-077 Penrose LLC 15 Milk Street 16th floor Boston Mass 02109. The property is owned by the town of Chadam located at zero meeting house road. Also shown on the ch town of Chadam's assessor's map 4E block 11A
lawab. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law chapter 40B sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR56 for the construction of 42 dwelling units in eight structures. The applicants are requesting the grant of various waiverss
from regulations promagated by the Chattam zoning bylaw and other local regulations. The property contains 3.57 acres in the R60 zoning district. This was continued from August 14th, September 4th, October 16th, and November 13, 2025.
>> Welcome, Attorney Singer. >> Good afternoon. Uh, for the record, Andrew Singer, attorney in Dennisport, here on behalf of the applicant and just get that up on the screen. We uh wanted to provide some updates to you uh this afternoon. I'm just going to do a
brief introduction and then uh we have some uh members of the team will go through some of the updates. We submitted a letter to you on December 3rd and right now um and in that letter uh so some different people will talk about different parts of it. Um I just wanted
to give you a few updates. Um, first the uh a subsequent uh response letter to Tyian Bond's peer review was prepared by Horesley Whitten and submitted to Tyiam Bond and we did give you a copy of that. Excuse me. Actually, that response
letter wasn't from Horesley Whitney. It was from um Vanessa Associates. It was on traffic. So, that is in your file. Also um uh at the first meeting with you the DPW had uh submitted a letter to you
raising some questions. Uh I spoke with Rich Clater who's here from Horesley Whitten and between that first meeting and today they have actually had back and forth. There was written back and forth. Horesy Whitten has spoken with DPW and it's our understanding that
everything is all set. But I do appreciate that there isn't anything in writing in your file on that. And so, um, you may as well, but Rich is going to reach out to DBW and just ask them to, you know, submit a follow-up to you. Um, if there are any outstanding questions, we'll work on them, but we
think they're responded. That is similar with the fire department. They have, of course, the witness worked for the fire chief as well, and we believe everything is all set, but I also understand you don't have anything in writing uh, you know, in the file. So, we will we will follow up with that as well. just to
make sure that it's documented for the record. Um, last piece I wanted to address before I turn it over to Mark is I just wanted to um bring up the property location on a couple different maps. Um, just uh to be very clear for everybody. Um, the map on
the left, the locust is obviously outlined in red. The green on the bottom that is the um historic business district and it it's along Route 28. So this property is outside that district. So it's north of the DPW property and the sewer lift station which is shown on
there and then and the bike path. And so it's outside the historic district. If you look at the image on the right, you'll see also similarly the property is not in the South Chadam Village historic district. The the it's a national register district. Uh so the property is north of the register
district as well. So, I just wanted to submit that for the record because I know there's been conversation about it, but we hadn't had the images to show you before. Um, with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mark. And, you know, after we're all spoken, we're happy, as usual, to answer questions and discuss with
you. Thank you, Andrew. >> Good afternoon, everybody. Um, my name is Mark Warfl. I'm a landscape architect with Crowley Cultural Landscape Architecture. Um this first slide is the uh the
project as designed and what we heard at at our last meeting. See if I can point uh was concerning building six and uh specifically this elevation from the street. Um, so we took a hard look at
this about what we could do to help uh alleviate that. Uh, and we're submitting here an an alternate plan where we use a different building type which uh Paul from Union Studio will uh get into a
little bit further. But as as you can see from the site plan perspective, it doesn't change all that much. Um, it's more in the building itself. Uh, one thing I'll note is that the the building
itself has uh front doors opening towards the parking in building 7. Um, and then around the back side of the building or uh depending on how you look at it, the the side of the building um there are the individual storage sheds
as well as access to some um utility rooms. Uh go to the next slide here. So um after taking a look at this, we were able to um reduce the height waiver uh for this
building by uh 4 feet. So uh I'm going to turn it over to Paul to get into that a little bit more. Um thank you. >> Thanks Mark. Hello, Paul Atman, architect, Union Studio Architecture and Community Design. For the record, as
Mark indicated, this building type B is one that we've employed elsewhere on the site. It also has six homes, just like the type C building that was previously proposed. The type C building, as you recall, has two and a half stories on one end of the structure and is four
feet taller than the type B. So what that does is it reduces the overall building height by four feet, reduces the waiver by four feet from 6'3 to 2 foot3 in this instance. And what you can see is that this facade is further up
the hill than it was before in the building C footprint because the building C is a little longer. Uh next will be the floor plans. Uh we just modified the type B to accommodate the
site condition with the storage uh units for each apartment on the back side. And looking at the elevations, this is the type B elevation. This here is the side that would be facing downhill toward meeting
house road. And I know that there was concerns about the height of the windows of the second floor relative to the grade that as it slopes away on the side right here down toward Meeting House Road. What I think we didn't weren't clear about previously was that these
three windows are small windows high up. They're not the larger windows that are closer to the floor. Uh there's a living area here that will f provide a furnishable wall for that living room. This here is a window at a kitchen
counter and this window is in the bathroom. So, the sills are much higher up. They're 36 in high uh versus 18 to 24 on the larger windows. All the windows will also have fall protection
limiters. Uh there's a code requirement determining the height of a sill from the grade in which windows can open only 4 in whether it's a double hung 4 in or cranked out with a casement to prevent
uh children from falling. So in comparison of the type B this is the alternate side elevation which I just described. This here was is the current signed elevation of the type C type. And you can see how much more wall area on this gable would have been
facing meeting house road. And the oops I think I just in sorry inadvertently pressed the button. And then you can see that the the ridge line is about 4 feet less from building C. So I think it's a
we think it's a significant and positive change. Uh this here just takes a look at the two front elevations in comparison. Type B proposed up at the top and then the original front elevation down below.
And I'd like to now pass it on to Rich which will talk about some site designs. Thank you members of the board. Uh Rich Clater uh principal engineer with Horses Whitten Group based in Sandwich. I'm going to touch on a just clear up some
uh housekeeping measures. Uh Andrew mentioned a little about this. Um I'm sorry. There we go. Uh so so first off, um just a couple of things with the peer reviews and and uh
our the the fire chief, for example. Uh this image shows our our fire turning uh movements. Uh we uh I think prior to the first hearing had the fire chief had approved the internal circulation, but actually one of the comments we got from
DPW from the DPW director was that when the fire truck comes out of the driveway and goes on to meeting house uh road, does it uh cross the center line? uh and you really don't want to do that, but um we
could make the turn, but it the the bumper of the firetruck would just nick the center line. So, uh what we did is we increased these radi at this entrance. It makes it a a wider radius and then uh resubmitted these turning movements showing that the firetruck
does in fact stay in its lane for the entire turning movement. And we sent that to the fire chief and he was okay with that and we will provide documentation of that. Um, we have also, um, I think as we talked about the last hearing, uh, all of the civil comments
from Tai and Bond have been addressed to their satisfaction. Uh, some of them will involve confirmation at construction plan stage, but uh, that I think is pretty clear in the record. And then finally, uh, the
traffic peer review. Andrew mentioned, attorney Singer mentioned that uh Vaness had submitted this uh peerreview comment on the 2nd of of the uh this month, December 2nd, and we have not heard back from Ty and Bond how they feel about
there were two outstanding comments. Uh one was on chip trip generation associated with adding the uh main street project trips into this uh study. And uh the other one was tra um accident
reports to include any accidents that were um reported by the local police department in addition to the state's uh uh database on that. So, uh, we we have not heard back from them, uh, to our knowledge, but or I I haven't, and I I but I suspect that we'll have those
comments addressed. Um, another comment we heard both from the public and um and from you in the in the past was regarding aesthetics and safety of of the guard rails on our entrance road. And we had originally
showed uh a guard rail similar to what's shown here, uh, a wooden guardrail. This is different than the two um rail guard rail that is right out on in on um
George Ryder Road across the street from us. Uh this would be a single rail and only um about 30 in off of the ground to the top rail. We are looking at um enhancing some of the aesthetics with that. We can use a bevel on the top of these posts. It makes it look uh quite
quite nice. I'll note that there are a lot of these in town. This is not um uh not unique. Uh in fact, I think there's uh some right across the street from uh the um or right next door to our our
project at uh on the other side of the the um bike bike bike trail or bike uh rail trail um at the DPW and at the uh uh wastewater uh lift station. So um it's there's several of those in town.
And then what we're proposing instead of a guard rail on the other side is we'd like to use a split a split rail fence with a mesh. Um this you can barely see see the mesh in this. So it it kind of blends in pretty pretty nicely. You
typically would use a black vinyl uh mesh product coated mesh uh in that and that would would help with any um uh you know uh safety issues of sort of uh tumbling. Now, what's not shown on this plan is the actual grading, but there is
grading that goes goes down the hill there. Uh, we don't believe you need a guardrail. In fact, we don't you don't need a guardrail with the additional safety area and the fact that we have um a sidewalk there. So, we feel pretty good about that. So, that's the proposal to address both aesthetics and and some
safety issues. Um, there was also some discussion about a sidewalk uh connecting the project to um 28 ultimately or at least to the the rail trail. And we just want to point out, I think everybody's aware of this,
but there are significant constraints uh to doing that along the side of Meeting House Road. And this photograph from from Google Earth or Street View uh provides um a pretty good illustration of that. The three key issues are the
slope. It's a very steep slope. Slope steep as 2:1, two horizontal, one vertical. Uh going down into the ravine. Uh you can see the utility poles along the way and the wires overhead. And then there's a series of um safety ballards
or what amounts to a bit of a guardrail, old school guardrail along meeting house there. So, in order to make a sidewalk work here, you would have to um put in some typically a barrier between a road like this and a sidewalk would have
either a strip or a curb. You would have a four or five foot probably 5-ft walk and then you would have to relocate uh utility poles and then a significant amount of grading and tree removal. So,
a lot of impacts um and that would uh affect the view into the property as well. So, um we just don't really think it's feasible. I mean, it's not infeasible completely, but it's not practicable to um to put a sidewalk
along along our side of the property on the way to the to the rail trail. And then the last topic that we talked about and questions were raised was about how the abuing properties uh to the north would be uh
would access their driveways. Right now they use a shared driveway off the road. Um in this you can see the clearing along in here and there are two points uh one to the north and one to the to the south. The um the plan is to provide
a a driveway for each abudding property and we've done a a grading plan and a driveway. These would be um uh 12 foot wide drive 12ft drive wide driveways. Um we've provided a turnaround at the
request of the Hicks property. uh so they can come in and back in and either park there or uh turn visitors could could park there and turn around um similar to they do what they do now. And then on the Baker property, uh we're extending this right along the edge of
the property line, uh with turnarounds and and adequate parking. And then um a significant uh screening uh between this u new driveway location and the grading and and um uh earth moving actually
including a little retaining wall along the edge there and then the buildings themselves. Uh these slopes are all uh set at a 3:1 uh slope which would be the same as proposed on on um the driveway to the project. Uh these um locations
work uh from an engineering perspective uh site distance-wise uh and um but would be subject to town approval. we need a curb cut and uh and uh approval from DPW and um the the town
in general and then the abutters ultimately have to agree that this is the approach they would like like to see. Um so that was it from our perspective and our presentation and I'll turn it back to you soon. All
right, let me go back to Thank you, Rich. Only one thing I wanted to point out. We it was on these plans, but I well I think it was on here, but we we neglected to say just wanted to point out with the change from the building C type to the building B type. This number of units stays the same at 42, but there would be a reduction in
bedrooms from 75 down to 72 because you lose some of the three-bedroom units when you go to the smaller building. So, just wanted to note that um for the record and >> Oh, there it is. Thank you. So the detail of that is uh on the right hand
side of this sheet. That is our updates and presentations. Happy to answer questions. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Um at this point I think what I usually do is read the letters. And today we don't have a lot of letters. We
have uh one, two, three. I don't have to read those. Right. >> We don't need to read T and bond that one. Yes. >> That one. Yes. Okay. So like four letters. Easy. All right. First letter is from Lou Heb uh received on 128 uh
2025. By an undemocratic and possibly rigged autocratic process, the Chattam citizens of South Chattam will suffer the egregiously delletterious consequences of this atro atrociously illconceived housing project on Meeting
House Road. We greatly appreciate the ZBA board members who have courageously called out the many flaws in these processes and the boards and some of the individuals responsible. There are more than enough problems with this project
to fill a book, including overcrowding, density, public safety, and aesthetic impact on the entrance to South Chattam that will permanently negatively transform the character of South Chattam. We understand that the ZBA is
in an untenable position hemmed by these processes and individuals. That makes it difficult to know what to ask from the ZBA perhaps asking you to do what in the future you will feel most proud of doing. Lou Heap.
Next, we have a short note also from Lisa Roy received on November 13, 2025. Uh I forgot to mention Lou Heb's address. Um I >> South Chatam. Okay. My name is Lisa Roy
and my husband and I are Chattam summer residents property owners at 38 Chattic Place. I am aware of the long-standing and ongoing issues regarding the availability of affordable housing options in Chattam. We are strongly in favor of finding workable solutions to this shortage and specifically urge the
ZBA to vote yes without conditions on the two pending initiatives. Having served on the city council in my community, I realize that these decisions are difficult and require careful consideration. However, we are hopeful you will keep the overall goals
and missions in mind as you deliberate. So much effort has gone into these opportunities, but even more is at risk if action is not taken um or if it's delayed. Next, we have a note from the Cadam South Chattam Village Association
received on November 21, 2025. Um, and it says, "The South Cadam Village Association implores you to take another look at Meeting House Road. Our concerns are as follows, and there are 12. 42 units on three and a half acres.
Um, only 21 and a/4 acres buildable. No, two and a quarter acres buildable. Increased density is a primary concern at is as its impact on the sustainability of Chattam. This is only six units less than Main Street. This
lot is not really buildable. Building heights of 35 versus 30. Safety for children. Sidewalks, play areas. Children are going to be drawn to that ravine no matter what is available on the playground. The idea of having a dumpster at the centerpiece is only
asking for trouble in an unsightly mass in parking lot. Reassess dumpster placement. Again, no guest parking, storage for outdoor toys, outdoor public gathering areas, patios, grills, benches, etc. Appropriate landscaping,
streetscape, buildings that look like Chattam, not a military base, pets allowed, an extra fee, sidewalks, and connect connecting to the rail trail and to route 28, protection of the abuing conservation land, traffic control on
Meeting House Road. We urge that one building be eliminated from the meeting house development and reduced to 32. also that the select board weigh in according to Singer and Singer meeting house summary of reasoning at three
attached to the zoning uh November 13th agenda which actually invites and certainly waves any Penrose objection to select board input contrary to the town council advice. Other town boards and commissions are encouraged to informally
review the proposed development in order to make recommendations and provide advice to the board of appeals. This could be a critical decision for the select board and one and it's one it needs to address. We believe the zoning board of appeals and the town should
reject this plan. Let Penrose have the burden to prove elimination of one building is uneconomic and the town should also force Penrose to disclose its finances through a peer review. At this point, Meeting House Road is not a source of pride, but only a forprofit
for Penrose. We trust our boards will do their job and protect what is left of true Cadam. Thank you, Carol Gordon, President. Next is from car Carolyn Mlen. I find it disingenuous that a letter was submitted
to the ZBA on behalf of the South Chattam Village Association. To my knowledge, as a member of the South Chattam Village Association, we've not had a meeting where we voted to support or in opposition of the development. Members are certainly entitled to their
opinions and have a right to express them. But as an organization, no one should be speaking for the group without first polling all the members. Procedurally, the expectation is that there would be a basis threshold basic threshold to document support our
opposition. Their continued disregard for this basic tenant is disheartening and very contradictory to the demands for transparency from other town committees and boards. And that was received on 1210 2025.
Is that it? >> That's it. >> That's it. All right. Who would like to go first for public comment? Just raise your hand. Yes, sir. Please head up to either microphone. Your choice. One right in the middle for your
convenience. If you choose, >> welcome. Just state your name and >> uh David Mroy. Um I live uh on Tanglewood Drive in South Chattam, which is right up the road from the proposed development.
There's no question about the need for additional affordable housing in Chattam. And this property was acquired with a stipulation that it is to be used for that purpose. And it is certainly is a challenging piece of property upon which to build. Meeting that challenge
should not mean, however, that the answer is squeezing more buildings than the land can comfortably and safely accommodate. Overcrowding, steep ravines, and no attention being paid to pedestrian safety are just a few of the reasons that this project needs to be
re-imagined. Reducing the number of proposed buildings from 8 to seven or even to six. And reducing the density would allow for more open space, which would allow for more space between dangerous drop offs and resident walkways and
recreation areas. Parking has been limited to 1.4 four spaces per unit with no provision for guest parking for caregivers, cleaning persons, etc. Parking is felt by many of us to be inadequate as there is no other parking
space near the meeting host road property to park a vehicle if no spaces are available. This may well result in unsafe double parking or illegal and dangerous parking along Meeting House Road. We recognize that there will be a
walking path leading from the Meeting House Road development to the rail trail, but it is unrealistic to assume that this will stop a significant number of residents and their visitors from walking along Meeting House Road as there is no sidewalk between the rail
trail and Route 28. There will also be many who will undoubtedly choose to walk down the driveway and then down Meeting House Road. This is a dangerous situation. I'm on meeting house road frequently and it's a 40 mph speed limit, but many
people look at that as advisory rather than as a limit. While it is true that constructing a sidewalk would be quite challenging, nonetheless, sidewalk should be built to ADA certification on Meeting House Road from the Penrose property to the Route
28 sidewalk already in place there. for this not to be a condition would be extraordinarily irresponsible, possibly even unconscionable. Thank you. >> Thank you. Oh, thank you so much. Um, if you'd like to leave that letter, that would be probably helpful.
>> Yeah. Could you just leave that with our clerk on the right? That would be if you don't mind, do you? >> Okay. Thank you. Oh. Oh. All right. If anyone else wants to come up the
middle um next time, that'll be good. Um all right, great. Who wants to go next? Don't be shy. Yes, please. No one wants that middle microphone. >> It's time for online. >> Yep. Yep. Then we're going to go online after this. Um we're going to go back
and forth. Yes, please. >> Okay. Carol Gordon, South Chattam. Uh just a little FYI, the South China Village Association members were uh received the letter before it came to the ZBA and they were encouraged to respond. So maybe Miss Mlen just didn't see her email at that time. So just
wanted to clarify that. Okay. >> Just just so you know, we want about the project that Okay. Uh okay. I could stand here all day and reiterate all the problems and solutions you have heard over and over again about the actual physical
layout of Meeting House Road project. Instead, I'd like you to think what it might be like to have a family member or a good friend move into Meeting House Road the way it is proposed at this time. Would you be proud to say you made this development possible?
The answer to so many of our concerns has been it's 40B and our hands are tied. Frankly, I don't quite believe that. The folks moving into 40B deserve the same quality of life and community that everyone here is fortunate to have.
We can work creatively with 40B and insist on changes that give these folks a welcoming, safe, comfortable environment in which to raise their families and enjoy a quality life. Perhaps Meeting House Road is not that
place. Unfortunately, we have a for-profit development company that is very concerned with their bottom line than having this development adhere to Chattam zoning guidelines. It's up to this board to ensure the survival of the things we value in Chattam or vote it
down. Again, I ask that you, knowing what you know about this development, take a moment to seriously ask yourself, would you be proud to have a family member or friend move into Meeting House Road? If your answer is no, then there's only one solution to vote no to Penrose
and your conscience is clear. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, anybody you'd like to go next, please? We'll get to the online after um after this slows down. Yes, please. meeting house road. I just have a couple of questions about or concerns about the presentation. Um the first
being that uh safety guard rail. Um that's not much more substantial than what I have around my vegetable garden. Um it needs to be I don't see that wiring as being safe at all for children going to school and and and another thing to maintain it. It's going to be
impossible to maintain something that um you need something more substantial. The other thing I had is is there anything because um I'm going to have to now walk on 2137 to get to the bike trail, which I currently don't have to do. So, is there any access for the abuters to get
through the development to get to the bike trail to avoid that? Because it doesn't sound like there's going to be a sidewalk put in by anybody. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Yes, ma'am. >> Gretchen Kaufman, Fairview A, South Chattam. I just had a quick uh question
or suggestion regarding the sidewalk issue. Is there some reason there can't be a crosswalk uh and a sidewalk put in on the opposite side of the road? I have personally challenged the traffic just walking from the signal crossing up to the bike path
parking lot and taking my life in my hands and perhaps that would solve some of these issues and benefit both sides of the street. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um I'm sure Penrose can easily respond to that one. That that was uh one. Yes. Go ahead.
>> I have to remove this because I'm pretty tall. John Sweeney, South Chatam. I'd like to step back a minute and uh make some comments on the whole procedure by which this project was pushed forward.
When the planning board decided that it wanted to reszone the area along Main Street, which was in the historic business district and going through the village of South Chadam and West Chattam and other villages, they turned to the public. They had public meetings. They
had meetings with the individual village associations. They got comments and frankly out of that came a process that was recommended by people who were in the audience who had experience with zoning and planning and they came up
with an overlay procedure in order to have separate types of zoning in critical areas. This process was just the opposite. It was done in closed doors. There was
no communication before the request for proposals was put out. The instructions for this was that it be maximum density on this property which was donated generously by the arch dasis of the
Catholic Church. It was an opportunity to come up with something that the community would have collectively supported and felt comfortable with. But unfortunately the boards in town were not other than the affordable housing trust were not
consulted. The public was not consulted. There were not meetings to gain a consensus. So when you come up with something and you jam it down their throats, they joke. I think we should learn by what happened in this process. Thank you. >> Thank you sir.
Anybody else in the audience want to go next? Yes ma'am. Please welcome >> Hannah Smith, North Road Chadam. Um, so I had previously a few meetings ago talked about um, parking and you know encouraging people to take the uh, local
transport which is the bus um, and how they have an offseason schedule that starts in September and how it's difficult because it basically starts running at 9:00 am for Chadam which is obviously after a lot of people start work. Um, and since then I've been talking to some people that have brought
up more comments about the parking issue. I understand that Penrose has done has said that they've, you know, this is what our other developments have. This is what the Orleans Cape Cod 5 building has, which I think is like 1.1 um,
spots per unit. But um I just don't really I feel like parking keeps being brought up and no one's really taking it as seriously as they should because you know Main Street people have brought up you know someone's going to go park at Larry's PX they're going to park in the shopy plaza
they're going to be walking across the street down the road to if they're visiting someone you know if they have two or three cars for a threebedroom unit. Um, but then when you get to meeting house, it's just I mean, what are you going to park across? There's
like a small parking lot next to the rail trail, I just don't really know. It's there's no nothing that's said at all about, hey, what if everyone say you had every single one bedroom, what if there were two two cars in every single
one? You're easily going to go over the parking spaces. you have guests over, what there's going to be like five guest spots left if they leave it that way. I mean, when I visit my friends that live in apartment and condo complexes, the guest parking is always completely full
at night. It just there's no sense of how important this actually is. Um, and everyone in town knows you need a car to get around Cape. The average commute to work is about a half an hour. Um it's just I just really don't think it's
being taken seriously. I know people think, "Oh, parking it's not that big of an issue." Uh but when everyone has a car on Cape because it's just a necessity, it becomes an issue. And I don't see I haven't heard anything about what happens if they genuinely run out
of parking. Is someone going to have to sell a car to live in this building? >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss. Anybody from the audience want to go next before I go online? No. Okay. Uh Elaine Gibbs, welcome.
>> Thank you. Uh I've said a lot of this before, so I'll keep it brief. Uh I don't understand why Penrose is the only one who cannot put themselves in a position if they had to live there and try and have a quality of life. If they say you can't put in a sidewalk on Route
28 or it's it would be very difficult for them to do, they shouldn't have been on the property. That's a dangerous road. Kids are going to ride their bikes in the road. People are going to walk in the road to get to public transportation. The guard rails. I can't believe it could have gotten worse than
it was before, but this is it. I believe the chair did recommend she wanted to see something in white that first of all, it's going to be absolutely hideous. Now, the two fences don't even match. And then the one on the right is only 3 ft high and there's a ravine on
the other side. Just because there's no sidewalk doesn't mean kids aren't going to walk along there. And then the solution on the left is chicken wire and a different fence. I don't know how more um disgraceful
I unless they intentionally were trying to create something like that. There is absolutely no there's not insufficient parking. This is not downtown. They have people have no services there. They they don't have a bank. They don't have food stores. They don't have a doctor. They have nothing. And the parking lot's
going to be full and people are going to have no place to park. Uh children I I had asked several times children getting on and off the school bus. We haven't talked about a crosswalk. We haven't talked about a shelter where the kids can wait for the bus to show up. Um this
is not child-friendly. This is dangerous. There's going to be an accident. And I have said I want to see their liability policy because you they've been warned that this is a potential hazard and they are encouraging children to play in the
ravines. No question about it. Their pictures are there. Who tells kids to play in ravines? When mom and dad come home from work and can't find their kids and somebody finds out they're in the ravine, um it's an accident waiting to happen. I I this thing should be pulled.
It it it they never should have been on the property. They should have this is their job and they looked at that and they knew that they wanted to have a lot of kids there and this is not child-friendly. It's dangerous and I I I
I am stunned at the lack of quality and unprofessionalism of Penrose on this project. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. she >> um madam chair uh Lori McCann has posted a comment in the chat. She is online.
Typically we don't read chat comments, so it's up to your discretion as to what you'd like to do. >> Why don't you just take a quick look at it and advise me? >> Um just that she supports the letter submitted by the South Chadam Village
Association. She's a member uh since 19 in residence since 1977. Um uh she received a draft email as many others did and there's only about 2
acres of usable d usable acreage on the site and the density is not appropriate. >> Okay, very good. Everybody heard that? Yep. Um anybody else online? And then I'll go back to the audience and then we're going to talk among ourselves here
with Penrose. No. Oh yes sir, please. >> For the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, I guess one of my questions has been brought up is who are the investors? Because I do remember a
select board meeting, CHAM select board meeting that where uh former select board member uh Mike Shell and he was the on the affordable housing trust too asked for investors at a board meeting. Um, and my other question is who is
liable for the issues um to our drinking water infrastructure because I know the zoning board of appeals is going to have to sign off. I saw in one of the conditions that there is enough drinking water and I just kind of where do I got to these numbers where Buckley property being, you know, could be up to 16
uh,000 gallons a day and the meeting house could be up to, you know, 14,000 gallons a day. That's a lot of water. And where I get that number is, you know, two showers a day, uh, flushing the toilet five times, a load of laundry, uh, running the dishwasher, uh, brushing your teeth, you know, cooking,
washing your hands, and that could be, you know, 100 gallons a day per person. Um, so, and then the split rail fence with the mesh to me is just a microcosm that Penrose has no idea what's right for the Chattam community. Um, it's very
important that uh for animals to be able to migrate across the street, especially in wooded areas. So, you know, you got turkeys, foxes, coyotes, rabbits, goes on and on. Um, so they won't be able to get through if there's, you know, a mesh
fence over uh the split the split rail. Um, to me, this just is it's just the death of the middle class, Chadam. And this this project is just going to promote, you know, the halves and the have nots.
Um, and I guess mark my words, it's just a matter of time before, uh, you know, these private investors figure out a way to foreclose. And these will be luxury apartments that were snuck in under the false pretenses of affordable housing, which is very discouraging because then
where the people that need housing going to live then can't afford that. I can't read my writing. Um, >> 15 more seconds. All right, that's 20 more seconds. >> My last comment's inappropriate, so I'm just going to save it. Thanks.
>> Very good. Good thought. Anybody else online or not? No. Okay. So, now we'll give Penrose a chance to uh respond to anything you wish to respond to as to that. Can you specifically respond to
the sidewalk on the other side? I think we thought we had some uh information on that all along the way. >> Okay. Um first off, before that question is asked, um we took notes on everything we heard. We're not prepared and able to answer most of it now because obviously
we just heard it, so we have to think about it. Um I do know in talking u as far as land across the street um setting aside first the fact that Penrose nor the town owns it. It's private property. Um there there were uh also some
challenges over there with trees and grading and things like that. I can't give you more details than that now but it was looked at. Uh putting aside the legal questions uh there were some challenges there as well. Isn't there already a plan to put a sidewalk across the street connecting to
the existing sidewalk on Did I dream that or you know really >> Yeah. from on the open. Yeah. Please Gloria go ahead up and you know >> Yeah. >> Please hi um Gloria McFersonson housing
and sustainability director. So, this is part of the LDA, the idea of creating a connection from the project to Route 28 where there's bus stops and everything. Um, and understanding that the grades along the property itself are really
challenging. The concept was um to use the crosswalk that is already existing where the bike path crosses um and then it's actually across the street town land from that point all the way to 28. So, it would be really easy for the town to give permission to the developer to
build a sidewalk on town land. >> And indeed, that could be a condition, couldn't, couldn't it? >> I think it's planned to to be done. So, yeah, that would be an appropriate condition. I think it's right in the LDA. >> I believe so, too. And I think this is good information. Not trying to say in
any way, shape, or form that that would be adequate. I'm just saying it exists as part of the plan. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, Rich Clay again for the record. Uh, so I just brought this back up because it sort of shows the um the Lady of
Grace Church, Catholic Church across the street and the connection we're just talking about from the Well, I think I can use this uh from the rail trail. I think what we're talking about is uh connecting a sidewalk from here to here. Okay. And then using the crosswalk there
that does not address the crosswalk uh from the driveway uh to the rail trail. Um, so if you put a crosswalk across the street where our driveway is proposed, which you you could do, and I'll show you a f photo of that, but then you have to run it along
that side of the street, that has an opposite issue with slope. The slope is sloping up towards the church. There are two or three trees in there. It's not as steep, but I do not believe, I haven't done a study, but I not believe you can put the sidewalk in the public rideway
without an easement from the church. So that's the private property you would have to do it. It's I as I said before, it's feasible for both sides. It's just may or may not be practicable. It is a big cost to do that, but you could probably do it if you could get an
easement from the church to do the construction on on their property. and that, you know, you can kind I don't know, you can't really see it here, but there's not a lot of uh distance between the layout uh on Meeting House Road and and where
you'd have to put a sidewalk to make that make that all work. >> And on the church side, there are a couple nice trees. It's not as dense clearly, the vegetation, it's mo it's much more open than it is on the on the the west side of the street.
>> Okay. So, all right. So, um, let's go to our board and, uh, do comments and questions and sort of like try to design a punch list for the January 15 meeting. Things that you would like to see, whether or not Penrose wants to provide
it or not, what would you like to see? Um, so who wants to go first? Anybody? Ed. >> Yeah. Great. Um, with the change to building number six, could we see a um a streetscape uh
rendering of what the project will look like from Meeting House Road? Um my concern is um especially with the change the now that you're you've taken the storage units off of that end
and there's just the three windows up at top. You it's rather stark looking and um I' I' I'd like to just see you know what people are actually going to see when they're going by the project.
>> I could just ask Mr. Actton. So, you're talking if you're at the driveway. I mean, you this I'm not sure you'll see anything because of vegetation. We can ask, but you're talking about from here though, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, the the um the buildings are roughly
building number five is about is elevated about 10 ft higher than the street. So, I actually think you'll see that. Um, I'd like to see, you know, a view along the the whole fringe of the property to determine, you know, what
we're actually going to be looking at when you're going by the property. Thanks. >> Did you have any other comments about, you know, I know you're you were into the grills and, you know, bike? >> Not at this point. I'd like to like to
see this and sort of go from there. >> Okay. But I just want to caution the board too that we need to close the public hearing um by February the 9th and so that doesn't give us a a crazy amount of time. So I wanted to try to
get a lot done today the best we can. Um >> so anyway, we can go back to you if you want to think of anything else. Yeah, >> Mr. V. Well, I um well, first of all, I I wasn't clear um
I had noticed in the I think it's maybe November 19th um correspondence from Tai and Bond on in this process and um so there has has there been a response from
Horsey Whitten to to that and spec I guess specifically what what came to me was at this point anyway way I want to read that um in talk they're talking about the parking and they had asked for some numbers and ratios and and and was given that information
um but then they responded timan said the data presented provides a wide range of parking ratios for comparable sites um etc etc and they and then they further say we recommend a condition of
approval that identif identifies an alternative parking management plan plan if existing uh parking supply is not sufficient to support demand. So I'm not sure if has responded to that part or not. I just
caught that caught my eye because it might be something we might be considering given some of the concerns have been expressed. >> Yeah, >> we we can respond to that. >> Yeah. Yeah, please. Sure. Um, so we did not put a a written response into that comment, but uh that comment was said
they recommended uh adding a condition to the um to any approval or action by the board that if the parking was deemed inadequate, I'm paraphrasing now because I don't have it in front of me, but if the parking was deemed inadequate, then
Penrose would apply or employ a management plan to to deal with that. Uh it's it was a pretty vague uh comment uh to recommend as a condition. I'm not exactly sure how you would respond to that. Um there are options. Um you know,
in a case like that, uh you could look for off-site parking if need be. You could contact the church across the street. They certainly have plenty of parking and many times you could certainly employ um uh parking management onsite. you know, number of
spaces per unit and whatnot. Uh, but uh that would be if if needed and and I think that's now, again, I'm not the traffic engineer on this, but um the plan was to uh accept the condition, a recommended condition if there is a
problem. I mean, Penrose uh knows this uh topic pretty well. They've been doing this for a long, long time. They know how many uh uh parking spaces their tenants use. And so the if they didn't feel comfortable with that, they wouldn't be proposing that.
>> We're the ones that need to feel comfortable. >> Yeah. >> We have to put our names. >> Yes. Understood. >> This is just Yeah. Just noting it was the same just so you know for it was the same analysis that we submitted to you on Main Street where Penrose again using their experience what they see as the
numbers looking at the IT thresholds. We can follow up but just in direct response to Mr. Vich's question that was what Tai Bond had recommended. Yeah, I I just I just just noted that in in case that may might be something that we might be considering putting in as a
condition and and I do respect their experience with it all for sure. >> Um, you know, I I actually really hadn't thought about this a lot in in in terms of I'm say well you know we've just had this all this goaround with respect to irrigation on Main Street and and I
don't know that we've we've discussed it here at all. Uh, and so that might be something that we have not >> we want to >> I don't blame for not want to get into it, but um >> I I don't know. I don't have even following all our discussion on
Main Street, I'm not sure that I have strong feelings about it when we're here, but I'd like to hear, you know, at least some some discussion about it, you know. >> Okay. I'm I'm certainly going to get to that one. It's my turn. Listen, >> Andrew, I have a small list for you. Okay. >> Uh,
>> you have it in writing. >> Uh, I wrote it down, but I don't know if you could read it. Uh, anyway, we need to move the guard rail issue down
to something that is uh more attractive uh more substantial. This idea of a meshing or a netting is crazy. Uh something has to happen with the guardrails. Number two, >> Mr. Dixs, can I just ask for clarification? Are you talking about
both sides? Because again, there's a guardrail on one side and the fence on the other. I just wanted to be clear. >> I am talking both sides. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh only because of where it is. You just can't pick one side. Um I do believe there needs a needs to be an
auxiliary parking lot. Let's say 30 cars. Let's see where that could go. Uh, I've talked about density of these projects before. On the one on Main Street, I felt the max of 24 was really pushing it. And I would say
the same for this, the max being 24. I had mentioned with the other um um project that I was uh concerned that there were no studio units and uh I think it was Rio gave me an answer. it isn't um economic or whatever it might
be. But to me, when you start with affordable housing, you must have studio apartments because that's for the first time. The first the person comes who's maybe 22, 23, 24. They don't have a dime. A studio apartment is what makes
sense for one or two people. I lived with my wife in a studio apartment for a year. I know what I'm talking about. Uh so I would like to see those somehow included into this uh on the sidewalk issue. Absolutely. A sidewalk on the
Penrose side, not across the street. We don't need more worries about kids going across the street and what kind of lights we need and all that sort of thing. And while we're talking about sidewalks, uh let's talk about the rail trail. That is the last place you want
people walking. If you've ever used a rail trail for a bicycle or, you know, whatever you might want to, they they pedestrians and bicycles do not mix on rail trails. Some folks drive their bicycles faster than they would on
Meeting House Road. Uh and also and I didn't get any place with this subject uh in the previous project, but I believe it's unconscionable to have a building with two stories that you don't have an elevator to take people to the second floor. You can't exclude somebody
who might have a disability that say I'm sorry, we only have the and I know what the law is. I don't want to hear that. I'm just saying I use the word it's a moral compass. I want to see elevators in every building. Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir. Uh Lee. >> Okay. Um well, I I'm looking at this in two ways. I'm looking at it um as to how it looks and I think I suggested um the
removal of building six. Um and I still would like to see that happen. I think it would do a number of things. Um, it would in decrease the density, it would increase some parking and maybe some green space. Um, I also was the one
that requested doing something different with the dumpster. And now I'm having second thoughts about the center of the parking lot for the dumpster. I'd love to see some brainstorming around around that as well.
Um, but I'm also concerned about how this is going to work. Looks are one thing, but how it works is another thing. And, um, I don't know. It just I I think the safety issue, the
walking, the fact that, um, people will have to have cars if they live here because you can't really walk anywhere else. Um, that's different from Main Street. Um,
you know, the guard rails definitely, um, those need to work. It It all needs to work from a safety perspective as well as, um, as well as the looks. So, okay, Paul.
>> Well, I think uh I think we've covered an awful lot of the issues that I was going to raise. Uh so um I'm not sure I have much to add to that. I agree with Ed uh about a perspective, a street perspective. I think also a perspective
from uh the inside of the uh development. In other words, if you were if you were at where theoretically the dumpster is going to go, how do these buildings look uh when you when you look around the interior and look at each other?
Um I'm a little unclear as to whether the way the uh site plan is set up as to whether you're going to be clear cutting um everything um from the road um
in the area that's that's designated as green such that it's all uh cut down and your view from the road is then directly into the entire development. Um, or whether
there are going to be trees preserved uh in the area that's designated with the light green. I'm not sure whether your landscape person can answer that. >> Sure, I'll take a stab at it. Um so any place designated with the green fill on
this plan is an area that's designated to be cleared and and replanted. Um part of the waiver requests, the height waiver requests on building uh five, six, and seven. Um, one of the reasons
they are uh greater than the other buildings is because we're using um the foundation of the building to retain some of the grade to be able to limit the amount of sight disturbance on the front uh part of the site. if we
were to we we did a study um bringing those waiverss down and it disturbs a lot more of the site causing more trees to be removed. Anything that is kind of the brownish color of the underlying aerial is
existing to remain. So there's a large section in the front um I guess it's the uh southeast corner of the property that will be preserved. Uh and then along the rail trail on the south side will be preserved and then um
pockets that uh on the northeast corner that'll be preserved uh but are being impacted due to the construction of the a butter driveway. >> Have you put anything on uh meeting house road that designates the uh
entrance way uh to the property as you're envisioning it now? >> You mean a sign? Yeah. Are any uh any staking or uh polls reflect on the ground so that people driving by there could know now where the entrances are?
>> Yeah, it's directly across from the northern entrance into the church. So I can point on the So this is the driveway and it is um directly across from that. >> But the answer is it's not staked.
>> No, it's not staked. Is there any reason why you can't stake it? >> No, it could be staked >> at least partly. I'm not sure. >> People would understand where that is. Is there is there a way to designate I mean I realize there are a lot of trees there now. Is there ready to designate
where the corner of building six would be or seven, the two of those or uh five so that people would get a feel for where the buildings would be on the property or is that just not seeable given the current foliage?
>> Uh I'm getting a yes from Rich. >> You can stake them, but is the separate question also accurate that you'd have to trick trek through the woods and up to get there? So it could be staked, but you're not going to see it without going up to it. Yeah. >> Yeah. They're they're quite a distance off the road,
>> but they could be. >> Okay. Um the bus bus route right now, is there a bus route that goes up 137 or does it only go 128? >> I don't think we can answer that question.
Well, how how are you accommodating people that need to use the bus? >> Why do you have a bus stop in front if you don't know if there's going to be a bus going? >> Well, that's for school bus. School bus. >> Very good. Good answer. >> Okay. So, let's go back to let's go back
to my question. If if we're talking about people trying to get back and forth from this location to wherever they need to get to for shopping, going up to stop and shop or whatever it may be, how are they going to do that? I think it's important to uh reiterate
that the the residents of this um community that would want to walk to 28 would take the trail, which we have specifically designed for pedestrian, not for bikes. There was some question about making that wide enough to have
bikes so you could ride down there. We did not want to do that. So, it's it's a setup for pedestrians. You go down to the rail trail. you'd go down, cross at the crosswalk, and then the um developer is going to put a sidewalk in from that
location to 28. So that will provide pedestrian access, safe and accessible pedestrian access, ADA accessible access to route 28. >> So that would that would combine using your walkway down to the rail trail and then using the rail trail.
>> Yes. to this to to the existing crosswalk, flashing crosswalk across meeting house and then a uh as part of the land development agreement, LDA, the a sidewalk be constructed from there to uh route 28 on the opposite side of the
street. >> And how far then would people be walking on the rail trail? >> Just this distance here, it's up um it's maybe not even 100 yards, it's probably about 50 yards. >> Mhm. And the rail trail is how wide there?
>> I think it's 10 feet. Might be 12, but I think it's 10 feet. It's a typical number. >> Okay. And uh am I correct in thinking that one of the peerreview comments was that we needed to have alternative
parking available if it was necessary? the the question that David was asking earlier is yes, they have a that if uh it turns out that there's in if there's inadequate parking then to the Penrose would have to provide a management plan
>> to accommodate that. >> But we haven't seen that yet, have we? >> No, we haven't uh we're not proposing because I don't think there's going to be a problem. So the question would be would you uh would you like to see that now? What is the uh what is the you know
what do you what are you what we're looking for now versus a condition of approval. >> Peer review was suggesting it as a condition of approval if there's an issue in the future. Maybe different than what you're looking at, but that's what they were talking about. >> Yeah, it seems to me what I'm hearing from the people from the public and and
some of the members of the board is that we'd like to know what that is now before we start getting into approving things. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, we we'll put together >> we're taking Yeah, we're taking down a lot of information, so we appreciate it so we can give you responses.
>> All right. I appreciate that. I think that covers the questions I had. A number of mine were covered by other members already. >> All right, Steve and then Jenny and then me. >> Um, well, I had a couple of comments or questions about the the the fencing or
or guard rail. Um, I think it's inadequate to have a split rail fence along there. Um, I don't think that's going to prevent a car or something from driving over that in bad weather. Um, at best if if a guard if a uh split rail
fence is the only solution, I think the conservation commission would like to see a gap at the bottom of that for wildlife to uh get under the fence or circum circumn the fence. Um, I think that's one of their requirements sometimes when when something like that
is done. Um, but I I I think that you need to have something much more substantial that a split rail fence there anyway and and uh larger scale. I was going to ask about the driveways
for the abuters. Um, the one thing that you mentioned is that there's some sort of a retaining wall along the property line for the um abutter there in the in the the the property. You you can see it on this image. This image right here, this dark
line right here is a small retaining wall. It's no more than four feet. It's three and a half feet and it tapers down to about zero. But >> that's a retaining wall. It's it's into the topography. It's not a like a noise abatement wall. Correct. It's into the into the >> It retains uh the the earth on the
project side and then the wall would be exposed. This would be a block wall um exposed up to 4 feet on the on the meeting house side and then on the abuters side. There's also one on this side as well and another one here. And
those are all on the site plan >> and they're all basically surface level. They're not above the ground. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um I would like to see something done about a bus shelter. Um you're you're you know you're saying that that's going to be a school bus stop. Um
but we do sometimes have inclement weather in Chadam. So uh I think at least that idea, you know, might need a little more work. Um the crosswalk is a good idea. I I don't
think I would rely on the bike trail. It's called a bike trail for a reason. It's not called a sidewalk. Um, so I think if you can do something to get a crosswalk over to the church the the church's side of the road maybe and talk to them about extending a sidewalk down
or doing something else that doesn't rely on the bike trail as a sidewalk. Um, I would like to see the I I think Lee mentioned this, the elimination of building six and maybe the relocation of building
five. um to the I guess that's to the east um or it's elimination alto together as well and I think that would uh address a couple of issues. It would first give a
larger recreation area for the kids. Um it would um give great green space. It would create a public space where there really isn't any now. Um similar to the main street project.
Um it would uh maybe uh address some parking issues and um I I think it would reduce the density. I think um I I don't I don't think two extra buildings are going to
affect Penrose that much. So I think that that density can be reduced on the property. Um that's it. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you, Steve and Jenny.
>> Okay. Um I have a few the mass transit we already covered. I had that same question that Paul did. Let me start with um density. Um Miss Miss Hicks brought up in a previous hearing two and a quarter acres this because buildable um even though
you know what you read says it's over three. And then it was mentioned again. It was mentioned again tonight. So, um I I I we are talking I mean I I thought the other property uh project was too dense and so this one is even less
acres. Um does the LDA Mr. Singer state that it's a maximum of I'm sorry a minimum of 36 units. Is that what the LDA says? >> You're at 42 now. But does the LDA see 36? >> I don't know the answer to that. I don't know. Do you off top of your head or
believe it's >> Miss McFerson? I don't know the answer. But >> 35. Hi. So, >> so the RFP required a minimum of 35 units. The LDA itself says a minimum of 42. >> Okay. There's a lot more uh wording
surrounding that. It uh is not a mandatory number. My it's my understanding. Um this Go ahead, Penrose. Well, >> let's talk about the LDA and the units that you believe we're we're uh bound
to. >> I'm sorry, Randy, that this is Rio Seci from Penrose. I was just was going to say the same thing Gloria said. Um the RFP may have said that but we had determined the minimum that we could do was 42 and that's what we had presented
which the town approved and the select board approved and that's codified in the land development agreement just that 42 units and >> that's just to answer your question. We appre we hear your comments and accept what you're saying. >> I just wanted I wanted to ask about
that. Yep. Um, so similar to what Steve was saying, open space. Um, where is it on this project? Um, I know we have the the playground area. Um, it's not it's not really open space. So, I think that
given the um, you know, the importance of that. Oh, Marky, did you want to comment on that? >> Well, keep Okay. I know if you had finished your comment >> because I think there was a comment that uh Mark I think you made that when you look at this color um everything that's
light green is going to be clearcut and redeveloped or replanted. Okay. So that's the whole perimeter of the project and and the the entryway and then everything that's gray is the existing primarily trees the existing V
but where is if if you're going to re be planting all that green space and it's a sloping ravine where are where is the green space in this project open space rather >> so we have the advantage of being adjacent to Twine Field which I walked
today and there's plenty of space there for uh outdoor activities that might be similar to what we proposed at the Main Street green. Um other than that, there are community gathering areas between buildings one and two. Uh and then uh kind of adjacent
to building four and five, there's another gathering area with uh some play equipment. I think also there's there's some mischaracterization of this being a ravine. Um, it's not it's not steep to
the point that there are cliffs. Um, and I walked it today. You can walk down the side easily. Uh, and so we we had imagined that there's plenty of room elsewhere on the site for people to play
in the woods, uh, as well as use the amenities that we're providing and the amenities that we're connecting to. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. So, the the reason I said ravine, but I guess sloping would be a better term. I'm looking at like those lines that I'm
looking at the the green the green area on either side of the of the main entrance. And and typically when you see those lines, it's a it's signals, you know, some steepness. Is that what you're trying to represent with those lines? That That's the way I read it and that's why >> Yes. Yeah. It's a graded slope. Yes.
>> Okay. Um All right. So, uh, this is a question for Paul. Maybe, uh, Mr. Singer, you know it, but the length of, so you're proposing to change building six from a C to a B, and we we see that that brings the height down to four
brings the height down four feet. What about the length of the build of the building? Because part of the comments before with C, the building six being a C building, was that it was so long and was kind of hanging over. Um, is B going
to be a similar length? >> Hi, this is Paul again. >> We'll just go to the plans. We do not have dimensions on the floor plan themselves, only height. But here you can give a little sense. It's probably about 8 to 10 feet shorter. But
what we've also done to get the building uphill is we've moved it in its sight location here. This whole building footprint has been pushed closer to the sidewalk because building C had a front porch there
>> and you >> this is building C type. So it had a entrance here that pushed the the building quite a bit further down slope. So, it's a substantial improvement. And we'll go now to the side elevation right
here. And this is the point that I was making earlier is this is the BT type building with only two stories of exposed wall versus the C type which is two and plus a roof cable facing Meeting
House Road. This is going back to your comment earlier what that would look like. >> I think this is a much more less impactful elevation to the street than this is to see storage unit doors
uh toward meeting house that's further closer to meeting house. Uh there's less wall and there's it's just a smaller elevation uh facing meeting house and it's further away. >> Okay. >> Does that answer your question? it. Uh
well, I want to see the dimensions at some point, but but that >> Yeah, we could provide those. I I just >> And what we could do if we want is right now on the landscape plans, one has a building C, one has the building B. >> Yeah. >> And so like this, maybe we could just put >> if you want on the same like a a an
image on on side by side. >> I think that's what you're asking for so you could see it. Yes. >> Yeah. And I I would point out it's probably on your original plans. >> Yeah. I I don't have that those with me, but if you wanted to get those tonight today, you >> I could probably find so sorry.
>> Thank you. I'm sure I can. >> Okay. Uh, so I um was was also hoping that the new I mean I appreciate what you're doing in reducing the height four feet of course, but what I agree with Lee and and Steve
that I think a better entryway for everyone who lives there and visitors as well as creating a look a little more open space, green open space, not playing in the in the woods and and in Twinefield,
But at the entryway and for as a um an extension of the playground would be to remove building six entirely and shift building five over um and uh and create a little more green space
on the driveway side and most importantly uh on the playground side and have that be really the open space for this project. So, that would be my density comments and um I don't have any other questions. Thank you.
>> Yep. So, um All right, >> Randy. >> I'm going to be just completely blunt. You're looking for me to vote yes on this project, and I'm going to tell you what it would take for me to do that. Not going to waste your time. Number one, building six is gone. Gone. That
takes you down to 36 units, which is one over the amount on the RFP. Um, I reject that we are legally bound to permit something that we don't think is safe. That that particular building, it
teeters on a very treacherous looking terrain. Pretty much to your own admission, it is. So, what would have to happen? That building's gone. the building one which now has your management building. I would like to see that swapped for building five. You can
put building five back there. Your management building along with units can then have eyes and be scooted over and have a larger play area that is adjacent to the um bike trail. Needs to be a
larger play area there. I completely reject the notion, and every time I hear it, I get irritated, that the Twine Field is an amenity for you. Number one, if the Twine Field was an amenity, I would have already known about it before this because I have a dog. I'm a runner.
I have 140,000 miles on my body since 1978. I've run all over this town. Now, the Twine Field has a sign up and it says, "Dear ticks." Okay. You have to you have to try to find these things.
And you as a runner, I find it. I find everything. I know where all the trash is. I know people's yards that have that are sort of like dumps. So, there's a sign on the twine field, dear ticks. There's also poison ivy. And what makes
matters even worse is that there's twine, and you can't even walk in there unless you want to trip. So, that's why no one goes there. And that's why I've lived here for 11 years and I haven't known about that because it's not friendly. There should actually be a
sign up on the back of Penroes if in the event you ever put this here that stay out of the twine field because dear ticks are deadly and so it's not going to get treated because it's a conservation area. So it is not an
amenity, it's a hazard. Now, as to the amenities that you do have, you have that tiny little outdoor space near the twine field and that would be larger if you have a smaller building back there. And you need to in
my mind make that that green space larger just like the green space over near the uh bike trail that has to be larger and have decent play um apparatus for kids. We have two really nice parks
in Chadam. One needs a little work, the older one, but we have a new play space and you could get some tips from there. It's uh at volunteer park. It's it's great. And so um you should probably model some of your apparatus as to what's there because that's modern day.
Um, also let me think we need to have bike racks that the Cape Cod uh commission recommended a lot more bike racks and also impervious parking. Um, where you can because imper the Cape Cod
Commission recommended some I think uh I think it's per I I always mean impervious parking >> pvious parking. Yeah, because and and the the idea of the trash being in the middle is ridiculous. So that is out. And when you remove building six, you'll
have you won't need as many spaces, but if you keep the same amount of space, you have 61, you'll be able to rearrange where the dumpster goes, maybe back over on the same side as uh the property of
the butter, but further down and you'll have more spots for it because you'll have some more parking options. Um, so I think that should pretty much go back where it was essentially and just not be right next to the butter. Um, let me
think. This is that's off the top of my head. Um, let's see. Obviously, the wooden guide rails need to be attractive. Um, I reject that anything that goes over in South Chattam should be second rate. um you know just the
clear cutting of one area nearby there just reminds everybody that um more attention needs to be paid what happens to South Chattam it is South Chattam itself encompasses adjacent historic
district and the HBDC maybe this doesn't fall squarely in that those districts but it doesn't excuse you um from respecting that so this is a hazard the way it is now. I call I think it's a
disaster area. Um so those things that I mentioned may improve it. I'm not afraid at all for the appeals court to see this or to to um to go ahead and take it to land court because those land court judges, they come and look and walk and
when they see the idea of no sidewalk on on one side and part of a sidewalk on another side and a building sticking out over ravine, they're never going to approve that. I I'm very comfortable that you need to take a real good look
at the safety here because we have safety and welfare on our side when it comes to the arguments for this particular project. And you said yourself that this project is not financially feasible on its own. So it's not going to be us that renders it in
financially unfinancially feasible. It already is. So, um, that's, you know, I know I sound like I have an amount of passion, but I do, you know, I think it's all within reason, too. This is all reason passion. I I asked that gentleman
to drop off his letter because I agree with every single word that he had said, Mr. Malaroy, I think it was, and I like, you know, that should be part of our record. It's it's already part of our oral record. But I agree with um and what I really respect is the fact that
people of South Chadam, they want you to put the project there. They're not trying to say not in my backyard or don't put affordable housing there. They're just trying to say make it safe and and decent for the people. These people that have to drive to get into
there, they they're going to they're going to be trapped in there. They can't really walk out, you know, safely. They can't come out the front where they drive in and have any amount of safety crossing. And they're going to want to cross. People aren't going to want to go
all the way around, especially kids. You know, I I I ran around there today and I I just was like I couldn't believe how unsafe it is there without sidewalks. So, um you know, that's my short list.
I could add Nope, that's fine. We heard you. >> All right. So, anybody else? Anybody want to agree with me? >> Absolutely disagree. >> All right. So, I guess um you want to
come back January 15th. >> I think you said that's the next date. >> Yeah. So, we could ask Paul to uh for a motion. I'll move to continue the uh this matter to January 15, 2026. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Yes.
>> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Mandy votes yes. Okay. What now? We need a motion to adjurnn. >> Move to adjourn. >> Yes, please. >> Excuse me,
>> Randy. You have knocked yourself out for us for two the last two years as our chair. >> You've done a spectacular job. >> I really mean it. >> Uh I didn't want this is Ry's last meeting this year, so I didn't want it
to pass without saying a huge thank you to you. >> Thank you. >> And uh >> my pleasure. >> No, it's >> this is the best board on the planet. >> It's been great. You've been sober. >> Thank you. Thank you. All right. Motion to adjurnn. Then >> I'll move to adjourn.
>> David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> I'll vote yes. >> All vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. We are adjourned. And what time is it? >> 3:48 p.m. >> Oh boy. Good evening, Chadam.