[Music] [Music] Okay. Good afternoon everyone. This is
10:16 2025 October 16 2025 meeting of the zoning board of appeals here in Chattam Mass. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the act of 2025, extending certain COVID provisions um adopted
during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam zoning board of appeals 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, anybody who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may call 508-945-4410 conference ID54736042 pound or join the meeting through the link uh on the posted agenda. This is a
live broadcast and simal cast on Cadam TV, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We'll post a 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. If you're going to speak at this meeting, there'll be a three minute limit and there will be a clock that's posted and a reminder from me if it gets close and
you need to speak at the microphone and not until you get there or you'll hear the window uh some knocking. Um anyway, the way the procedural steps are we do a roll call of all board members. We ask that anybody on the phone just make your
make it known who you are. Hearing notice will be read by staff Sarah o'clock on my right. Now in this case it'll be Penrose which is the applicant and they will um present some opening words today. Um and then after that
we're going to hear from uh some of our peerreview experts providing that they're online. We will then summarize all the letters received and then people from the audience and online will be able to comment for up to three minutes. Um, and
I just want to remind everybody that we know that not only is there a housing issue in Chattam on Cape Cod in Massachusetts and through the United States of America, but also there is a world issue with housing. So you might want to save some of your time and not
tell us that because we the whole world knows that. So um and we've heard it numerous times. So let's try to focus on this particular project and how you think you could make it better or what you really think is very wrong with it. That would be helpful to all of us. Um,
and okay, so next, um, where are we after we hear from the public, um, and I read all the comments, we'll then hear again from Penrose. They'll have a chance to rebut anything they heard that they don't like, uh, and maybe repeat
some things they do like. Board members will ask questions and comment, and then we will vote to continue the application to a date certain. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via verbal confirmation
and note the time of adjournment. So, we're not going to vote on anything today um except for um continuing it, but voting for this project um most likely will be David
Vch, David Nixon, Virginia Fenwick, Paul Simple, and myself. And commenting and possibly voting will be associate members um Ed Actton, Lee Hvey, and Steve Dbor. um we're all eligible to
vote on all our um 40B projects um if need be because we've either been here at all meetings or we've signed um a waiver saying that well I don't know if it's a waiver but u a promise that we read that actually we read the minutes
and we watched the meeting on on uh YouTube or on the town's website. So right now we're all in good standing with everything. Um and uh I think I'll um ask Sarah. No, actually we're going to do um roll call vote. David V.
>> Uh David H. Vich and I approve of this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton, I approve. David S. Nixon, I approve of this format. >> Paul C for uh Sample, I approve of this format. >> Lee Hy, I approve. >> Steven D. Debor, I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick, I approve. >> And Randy Podash, I do as well. Okay,
Sarah. Application number 25-077 Penrose LLC 15 Milk Street 16th floor Boston Mass 02109. The property is owned by the Town of Cadam located at zero meeting house road also shown on the town of Chadam's
assessor's map 4E block 11A lot AB. 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 a 42 dwelling unit of 42 dwelling units
and eight structures. The applicants are requesting the grant of various waiverss from regulations promulgated 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 and
September 4th, 2025. >> Welcome, councel. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Andrew Singer, attorney in Dennisport. Here on behalf of the applicant, uh with me in the audience is Rio Saketi from Penrose as well as representatives from Horesley
Whitten, Ki Cartrell, and uh Union Studios. Today, this is our second session with you on this project. We appreciate your time. At the first session, we made our int introductory presentation. You had some your just initial comments um on
the project and we heard initial public testimony since then. And it was alluded to during the opening remarks, excuse me. Um peer review with the town's peer reviewer has been completed for both civil and traffic. Um and uh just this
week uh received you received comments uh from the planning board, the bikeways committee and the Cape Cod Commission. Um we have started to review those. We haven't been able to finish them all. I'm sure some of the topics will come up today. Um what we were think we don't have a large presentation for you today.
What we wanted to do is uh hopefully jump right into peer review. Um hear from the peer reviewer. Horesy Whitten uh has responded to them. So you have written response letters uh from both Horsesley Whitten and the traffic engineer as to the initial peerreview
letters. Um I believe that Horesy Whitten has discussed the peer the civil peer review with Thai bond. I don't believe that the traffic um has been further followed up with yet for discussion. Um but we can get into that.
OB we're here to you know whatever questions or comments come up during the peer review. uh additional feedback from you. We'll hear from the public again and if we can answer questions today, we will try. Um if we can't, we'll take it under advisement. We have not revised the plans. So, at some point, I
anticipate plans needing to be tweaked, waiverss will have to be updated, but we have not done that yet. Since this was the second session, and since peer review was done early in this particular process, we thought it would be good to jump right into that. So, with that, Madam Chair, um that's our opening remarks for today.
>> Okay. Thank you so much. Um, so who is here >> for the peer review? >> Um, from Ty and Bond, I believe we have Gan Christie and Taylor and I believe it's Gan and Taylor from Ty and Bond are here for
>> So, who would like to go first from Ty and Bond? Um, we understand you're you're um on teams. >> Yes, that's correct. I can go first. >> Okay. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. Um I'm Taylor Labby. I assisted with the site civil
peer review for the project. Um we had initially reviewed the project and issued a letter with some initial findings. That letter was dated August 28, 2025. We then met with the applicants engineer on September 2nd to
provide some clarification on points and just go through the peer review that we had provided. Um, we received then a response to our comments in a letter dated October 9th, um, with some updated materials. And then we went ahead and
completed our second peer review, round two, um, and then issued a letter dated October 15th, 2025. Um, so in that second round peer review, we did identify just a couple of outstanding items. The first of those being that we
did not receive an updated landscaping plan. So, we were not able to review that ahead of the hearing today just to confirm compliance with a couple of requirements. Um, one of those being the green space calculations, for example, as well as verifying that the
landscaping features just generally don't conflict um with some of those site civil features that are proposed. So, we did not get a chance to review that ahead of today. And then um we also identified just um that some of the
pre-treatment requirements for the site in terms of storm water were not quite met with the site being in a wellhead protection area that's related to some drinking water requirements in Massachusetts. Um there's a bit of a heightened pre-treatment requirement and
we made note of that in our second round peer review letter. Um, so those are the items that we are thinking may require a condition of approval as outlined in the letter we did provide. But other than that, we think that the majority of our
comments from the first letter were addressed and from an engineering perspective on the site civil side, uh, we are satisfied. >> Okay. Is there anybody else from Tai Bond that wants to um speak?
No. >> Yes. >> Greg Lucas. >> Greg Lucas. If you have a camera, it's helpful to put it on unless you know Sure. You just got out of the shower or something. Yeah. Very good. >> No, no, no. I'm in the office. Um, so
I'm the traffic reviewer on the project and so I just wanted to share that as was mentioned earlier, we um haven't resolved the responses that we received from the applic. We received those yesterday. We did have a conversation with the applicant team
and it looks like the majority of the responses um satisfactorily address our comments. The one outstanding issue was a comment that we made related to the parking um and specifically the ratio of parking spaces to units. Um they were
basing that ratio on it data which is industry established data but gives a wide range and they have data from a wide range of sites that is based on you know different sites with different characteristics and different place parts of the country and different proximity to transit which is the large
driver as to how much parking you need and what kind of parking ratio you need. Our recommendation was what was that they need more spaces than what they had provided um with 67 total spaces instead of 61 that are provided. And the
response that we received was based on the applicant's experience with similar projects on Cape Cod. The proposed parking supply is sufficient to make meet the predicted demand for the project. And so when we talked with the applicant team yesterday, we asked them to just provide some data to back that
up. Um, it's possible that that claim may be true, but we'd like to see it. We'd like to understand where these developments are, how many units they are, how many parking spaces they have, what their parking ratio is to find some comparable sites that support the parking ratio that they're providing
here. So, that's really the one outstanding um the one outstanding item in the traffic comments, and we'll produce a letter that resolves the rest of the comments and provides followup on that single comment. Oh, okay. Thank you so much. Um
>> All right. Thank Thank you. >> Is there anybody else for peer review that we should hear from? >> Okay. Um so now we are going to go to the letters that we've received. Um I trust that
Penrose has copies of all these as well. And okay. Um so the first one is from our planning board. It's sort of lengthy but um it needs to be read. Um we asked them to um opine and uh per the request of the zoning board of appeals um they
did send us this on October 9th, 2025. They reviewed um the comprehensive permit for zero meeting house road and the project area. Um they they've just gone through and and labeled where everything is, what you've asked for.
And then the first uh point they made with refers to adequacy in arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation including intersections, wide widths, pavement surfaces, dividers
and traffic controls. And according to the planning board, the site plans do address these items in varying degree various degrees, but it's still unclear um to them how the access to the abuing property is going to be resolved. The
proposed resolution to the abuter access agreement item may change the layout in some way. So if the agreement must so the agreement must be finalized prior to the completion of the ZBA review. The entrance driveway width is very narrow
with no shoulders, steep slopes, and only guide rail protection for pedestrians. So, consideration should be given to adding a buffer strip between the curb and sidewalk, wider shoulders, and a fence on both sides of the entrance drive to protect pedestrians
along the way. Number two, adequacy in arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with ve vehicle traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience. The plan set the plan set does not show the required connection to the offsite sidewalk to the south of the property per the request for proposals. So the ZBA should require this as a
condition of approval. Consideration should also be given to increasing the width of the sidewalk in the vicinity of the site entrance way to 5T given the steep embankment of that area especially if conducted no especially if school
children are required to get buses in that area. A traffic impact act assessment was conducted but did not consider peak summer traffic data on weekends, the summer church mass schedule, or the farmers market. The traffic study indicates that the route
13728 intersection will in the future operate at a level of service D. The traffic study should identify improvements to the intersection that will offer a level of service C or better. The applicant
should revise and resubmit their traffic assessment study so that it addresses these issues. Number three, location, arrangement, appearance, and sufficiency of off streetet parking and loading. The
waiver was requested for a reduction in the number of parking spaces needed from 84 to 60. Planning board members do not consider this reduction to be acceptable for residents or visitors to the development, especially given there are no publicly available overflow parking
areas nearby. Basically, zero meeting house site is in an isolated area and there are no opportunities for parking offsite in the vicinity. Provisions for designated areas should be provided for delivery service, public transportation, or school bus pickup and drop off.
Approximately 65% of the units are two to three bedrooms which may require second parking spaces or visitor parking spaces for those units. The 1533 Main Street 40B site has proposed 1.8 parking spaces per unit.
The planning board recommends maintaining that ratio for this site and increasing spaces to 78. Location, arrangement, size, designation, and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting, and signs. Compatibilities of
buildings with the surrounding area will be addressed by other reviewing entities, but the planning board has some recommendations consistent with this review criteria to improve the site. The board typically requires low foot candle lighting to facilitate dark
sky initiatives and recommends the post light poles not exceed 12 feet. Foot candle output directly under the light source should not exceed five, but it's shown to exceed this number on the ball lights uh along the sidewalks. Consider
having the applicant change this for compliance with this initiative. Warm tone lighting should be specified for all light fixtures no greater than 3200 um K. Any overspill lighting onto a budding properties must be eliminated.
Signage appears to be minimal but location should be verified by the planning board once locations are finalized since other groups will be reviewing types of material and design. Planning board um have differing opinions on allowing the increased building heights proposed for this
development. But regardless, consideration should be given to relocating the tallest buildings on the site. Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities. Because of the size of the development, the project will be required to meet the per the performance
standard um in Massachusetts. The RFP called for storm water management. The applicant's storm water design should be revised and resubmitted um to incorporate LIID design strategies as called for by the RFP and submitted in
their proposal. Issues raised by the peerreview consultant should be addressed. In particular, total suspended solids removal at address the zone to wellhead protection area of a public
water supply, snow storage locations, the stability of recharge basins, providing at least three feet of cover over the drainage pipes, reducing the pipe discharge velocities that exceed 20
FPS, and design the outlet discharge pipes with adequate R I P R R A to prevent erosion. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. It will be served by town
water and sewer. So it doesn't appear to be an issue. Number seven, adequacy, type, and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping. Um the RFP calls for retaining and and enhancing natural buffers to the surrounding residential neighbors. um and they haven't seen that
that any buffers to the neighbors that abut the site to the north. The buffer along the northern property should be enhanced to protect abuing properties from unintended impacts. The western property line vegetative buffer should
also be enhanced to shield residents um from buildings one and two. And in case of an apartment complex or other multiple dwelling, the adequacy of usable open space for play areas and informal rec recreation. That was number
eight. This development will will abut the twine field conservation area along the western edge of the property which increases access to passive recreation open space. The paved bike path on site
provides direct access to the Old Bay Colony Rail Trail, which runs across the southeast portion. The planning board recommends an 8- foot wide bikeway connector from the site to the Old Colony Rail Trail to allow safer passage. However, the planning board
must reiterate the need for an easement approved by town council for the bike trail and bike racks throughout the site given the limited storage that many units will have for such items. Number nine, protection of adjacent or
neighboring properties against noise, glare, unsightliness or other objectionable features. As previously stated, um they talk they go again to talk about the lighting and the dark sky. Lighting is required to be under five foot candles.
A single dumpster for north end of the site for 42 units is inadequate. The pro the planning board recommends having a dumpster between the buildings and not abudding adjacent properties. Buildings six and five and six have almost no
level surface area behind the buildings which is open to a steep slope creating an unsafe condition. We recommend extending the level surface area behind buildings five and six and installing solid fence with both buildings and along the bite path connecting the rail
trail. A solid fence should also be installed along the north side of the adjacent to the building seven and eight. Number 10, adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency and uh the provision of fire hydrants. Um the fire department
will verify compliance um for that. Number 11, special attention to the adequacy of structures, rail, roadways, and landscaping in areas with sus susceptibility to ponding, flooding, or erosion. Bless you. The
peer review of the storm water calculations was conducted, and the need for additional information is required um of the applicant, which should address planning board concerns. While a list of requested waivers are identified, the planning board members do agree that a project like this may
require waver waivers. The extent of waiver to be allotted by each item far exceeds reasonable request and should be reconsidered. Additional items which must be shown on the plan set and accounted for per site plan review include the following. Test
pit borings must be conducted especially in the vicinity of the proposed drainage area. The development on this of this size cannot rely on assumptions as proposed. A quote possible test pit location is
shown on on the project, but it appears to be on an embedding property. Um, it should be noted that the test pits were planned for main street development. Underground utility lines are located are provided but the locations of
transformers pad mounts ballards and details have not been provided per requirements. The proposed use of native and drought tolerant landscaping must be clearly documented due to the complexity of site contours. Um, the construction
staging plan should be included in the application documentation per RFP and bike racks should be placed at several locations along the site. And so that was from our planning board chair Arthur Spru
Cape Cod Commission. They have a rather lengthy correspondence as well. most of their um the beginning especially on page one and page two they just talk about the um the
project quoting um the provisions that are already in the project that are that are known and then they go on to their um recommendations. Um so I'll skim over the first part. Uh the Cape Cod Commission seeks to protect unique values and qualities of life on Cape
Cod. So they go on to um to note what their mission is. Housing the act in RPP seeks to preserve the social diversity of the region by promoting the development of affordable housing and moderate income housing. Um so they again talk about the mission of the Cape
Cod Commission. Community design. The RPP community design goal seeks to promote context sensitive design that uses traditional Capecod materials and forms while minimizing development footprints and adverse impacts to scenic
routes. The proposed project consists of eight residential buildings surrounded a c by a central parking area. The sighting of the buildings in the rear of the lot follows traditional cluster development creating an enclosed central area with pedestrian walking paths and
outdoor public meeting space and covered seating as well as connections to a playground, bike racks and the Cape Cod Trail. In addition, each building engages the central area while appropriately scaled and designed um main entrances accentuated with large
front porches. All the buildings will be particular partially will be partially to fully screened by vegetation from neighboring properties to the north, west and south. The significant road frontage buffer will be provided by
existing vegetation and the entrance road is slightly curved to provide additional screening from the roadway. The eight buildings demonstrate three different designs that respect traditional scale and massing. The two buildings closest to the neighbors
residential properties, buildings seven and eight, have a footprint of only 7 1725 square feet, are two stories with eight with total height just over 27 1/2 ft and have facades less than 50 feet
wide with significant variation. The largest building is located furthest from the road and has a footprint of 3,416 square feet, is two stories with a total height of just over 28 ft, and has a
front facade with sufficient variation. Buildings 2 through six have footprints of 2656 square feet with a height of 32 feet and front facades of 66 1/2 ft. Although the recommendation design standard is at
least 10 ft of projection or setback for every 50 ft of facade length, the combination of smaller setbacks and large front porches provide sufficient variation to break down massing. In addition, the use of traditional lap
shingle and board in batten siding provide additional variety on the facades and reflect traditional building materials in the region. The project will require substantial disturbance of undeveloped woodland, but in a
significant area along Meeting House Road that there is a significant area that will stay intact using existing vegetation as a buffer. Whenever possible, existing vegetation should be maintained on the site. Improvements
include the installation of storm water management system containing water quality units and rain garden tourettes as pre-treatment structures for runoff from imperous surfaces and tree trenches are bioretention areas for treatment.
Overflow of runoff will be conveyed to the natural depression on the southeast corner of the property. Disturbed area on either side of the proposed entrance road where the terrain is most variable will be planted with rough lawn and
native whip vegetation. Parking is located behind and to the side of the buildings closest to the street providing significant screening. Two bike racks are proposed near the entrance of the Cape Cod Rail Trail path. Staff suggests that the provision
of more substantial bike parking infrastructure that is reflective to the project's proximity to the rail trail would be appropriate. In terms of imperous surfaces, the project proposes using concrete paving,
concrete unit pavers, and asphalt paving for the bikeways parking lot and public gathering space respectively. Permeable concrete pavers will be used for the playground and permeable asphalt paving for the connector path to the bike um
trail. There are 61 on-site parking spaces proposed which is then which is less than the required under local zoning. The commission generally supports reduction in parking due to the accompanying reduction in imperous
surfaces on the site. Still, the amount of impervious surface, especially the parking area, is substantial, and staff suggests that the parking area could either include permeable asphalt in some sections or decrease the amount of
parking area by increasing the sides of the central island or replacing some parking spaces with vegetation in order to reduce storm water runoff um and avoid heat island effect. Cultural heritage. The RPP cultural
heritage goal seeks to protect and preserve the significant culture, historic, and architectural, archaeological values and resources on Cape Cod. There are no cultural heritage concerns as there are no known cultural
resources on the project site and the proposed development is not expected to be visible from the nearby Chattam National Register Historic District. the parking. The Massachusetts Historical Commission determined on November 26,
2024 that the project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources. Transportation The RPP transportation goal is to provide and promote safe, reliable and multimodal modal transportation system.
The transportation objectives outlined by the RPP prioritize um enhancing safety, expanding the access to healthy transportation options, and mitigating congestion and other potential impacts and associated
with proposed development projects. The proposed project is consistent with the regional transportation goal and objectives and is located in proximity to regional transportation networks including route 28 and the old colony
rail trail. The site is currently designed to provide accessible sidewalks interior to the site with connections to Meeting House and Old Colony Trail, which will encourage residents to walk, bike, or access transit services
provided along Route 28. However, there are currently no sidewalks along Meeting House Road. The developer may want to explore sidewalk construction to connect residents from the site to the existing sidewalk network on Route 28. It is
likely that residents will need bicycle storage due to the site's close proximity to the old Colony Rail Trail. It appears that two exterior bike racks will be provided within the playground area and storage areas will also be provided at each building. We encourage
the design of each storage area to accommodate bicycles. A transportation impact um assessment TIA was prepared as part of the application and has estimated that the proposed project will generate 284
vehicle trips on an average weekday. 43 vehicle trips expected during the weekday morning peak hours and 52 expected during the weekday evening peak hours. The TIA analyzed traffic operations during the weekday period
during both an average day and summer days and the unsignalized intersection of Route 28 at Meeting House and determined that the intersections would operate at accept
acceptable levels of traffic operations with a slight increase in average motorist delay at the Route 20. um 8 and meeting house intersection during future conditions. No major
roadway safety deficiencies were identified. The TIA notes the proposed site driveway will be constructed to provide adequate sight lines to meet safe stopping distance requirements on meeting house and will require selective
trimming and removal of trees vegetations to um make it safe. The project is proposing several transportation demand management strategies to encourage the use of alternate modes of transport transportation by residents to offset
vehicle trips as well as provide several electronic vehicles, EV parking spaces, which supports broader sustainability and emissions reduction goals. Water resources. The RPP water resources goal
seeks to maintain a sustainable supply of high quality untreated drinking water and protect, preserve, preserve and restore the ecological integrity of fresh and marine surface water resources by incorporating proper
management of wastewater and storm water. The project supports those water quality improvement goals. The pro the proposed project is located within the wellhead protection area for Howitch Water Department and Chadam Water
Department public supply wells and the marine water recharge area for Taylor's Pond/Mill Creek which is nitrogen impaired. The project will be connected to Cadam's water and sewer system and does not propose any groundwater
discharges or withdrawals on the site. The project is not expected to generate or store hazardous materials. While it does require significant amount of land disturbance, efforts have been made to minimize impervious surface creation, which is consistent with the
commission's technical guidance recommendations for wellhead protection areas. Any ability to retain or reestablish native vegetation after construction will be beneficial um for the continued protection of water wells
supply wells to minimize unnecessary imperous surfaces. The project includes a reduced parking design. The project incorporates a storm water management system that is designed to treat 100% of
the imperous coverage using tree trenches, bio retention areas, and other low impact storm water controls. With proper maintenance, this system will appropriately treat and manage runoff. The application indicates that
storm water infiltration measures have been designed to maintain a minimum twoft separation from seasonal high groundwater levels and this should be confirmed. Natural resources. The site is mapped under the RPP as part of the natural
area place type due to being undeveloped land within a wellhead protection area. The site is not mapped for any other sensitive natural resources. So the primary concern from a natural resource perspective is ensuring groundwater
resources are protected. The site is on a major road and is surrounded by existing development to the north, east, and south. To the west is protected open space. The town of Chadam's twine field conservation area. the inclusion of
on-site amenities, including bike racks, garden beds, and playgrounds, as well as walking paths connecting to the conservation area, sidewalks, and bike path is consistent with the RP's open space goal to establish and connect
recreational trails. The walking paths and connections to the bike path and conservation areas will be a benefit to future residents of the proposed development. The site contains native trees, shrubs, ground covers, and soils.
These plants and soils help protect the groundwater sources and should be retained to the maximum extent possible. Proposed landscape, tree, shrubs, and ground cover plantings are are native species and appropriate for the area.
However, as noted above, as much natural vegetation should be retained rather than replaced. Planned grading activities will need careful attention to prevent storm water runoff and erosion from being a problem, particularly grading along the steep
slope and ravine between meetinghouse road and the buildable portion of the site. The application appears to indicate that either a bridge span or grading to create a burm will be used to provide access through the site. A
bridge spanning the ravine may be preferable if it allows for the reduction of more native plants and reduces the amount of overall graining. If the access is regraded to create a burm, the regraded slope should be
should use a variety of native species layered to mimic natural conditions. The rough lawn and native whips indicated on the landscape plan will be appropriate in this area to help stabilize slopes. All lawn areas should be native drought
tolerant grasses um to avoid or minimize the need for irrigation and fertilization. All landscaping will need to be monitored and maintained to ensure its establishment and um persistent.
In conclusion, based on the application materials, commission staff conclude that the proposed project is generally consistent with the regional planning goals and objectives um of our act. The protect the pro project is sensitive to
local context and designed to protect and enhance natural and community resources. Importantly, the project addresses the urgent and growing need for affordable housing in the town of Chattam and the broader Cape Cod region.
Commission staff are available to answer questions. Christy Senator, executive director. Next, we have a much shorter note from the bikeways committee. They uh tell us on September 24th, 2025
um that um the board they their concerns are that the width of the path from the development to the old colony bike rail trail be 8 feet which would allow for pedestrian and cycle traffic. Number
two, that the path, entrance, and exit be perpendicular to the old colony rail trail to clarify that it is not a continuation of the old colony rail trail. Three, that signage or other means of
identification be erected to identify the new development and indicate the path is a private way. The board may also want to consider the requirement to install a ballard at the entrance to the path adjacent to the development to
prevent motorized vehicles from parking or entering the path. So they just asked us to take their recommendations um into consideration. Next we have a note from Elaine Gibbs September 9th, 2025.
Um, does that start right here? Thanks, Katie. >> If you'd prefer instead of reading it, I I I'll speak later if that's okay. >> No, I was just trying to figure out because it's an email form and I didn't want to use any of your private email. So, would you like to speak later? That
would be great. >> I I I would do that and so forget about Thank you so much. Thanks so much. >> Yep. And if anyone wants to read it, um, they can go to the town's website and just acknowledge that I let you talk and I didn't yell at you even though you weren't you weren't recognized by the
chair. So remember that in the future. Um, okay. Next, we have a note from Cynthia El Fucci and this talks this note talks about both projects. So I'm going to read the portions that relate
to meeting house only. Um although again I know Penrose has a copy of it and it's possible we'll read the other part uh on 30th. I'm not sure. Okay. I appreciate the board's continu continued diligence in reviewing these large complex
proposals. I am a full-time Cadam resident writing to register the following concerns and requests before any approvals are granted. Number one, right size and size fit. Right sizing and size fit. The current density and
massing appear to be out of scale for the locations and surrounding neighborhoods. Please require objective alternatives that reduce unit counts, preserve neighborhood character, and address cumulative impacts across both
sites. Then the next portion that has to do with uh this project, local residency eligibility clarity. There has been confusion about local preference and so she would like that clarified. Community
services and management plan testimony referenced a community center and on-site social services. Consolidating service at one site may force residents at the other to travel for basic support. Please require an operations plan that shows on-site staffing and
hours at each location. Partnerships for case management and resident support, emergency protocols, and clear points of contact for town departments, parking, traffic, and access care providers. Many residents may need home health services
and frequent visitors. The plan should have uh safe legal parking u for caregivers. Number six, water utilities and seasonal constraints. Chattam faced watering restrictions this past summer. The develop should present a realistic
sustainable water use plan beyond any truck water stoppage um stop gaps including conservation measured landscaping choices and contingency plans. Long-term stewardship and accountability require a detailed asset
management uh plan and transparent process for handling complaints with reporting to the town on key performance indicators. Cumulative impact review given two large sites. Please ensure the traffic school public safety and
infrastructure and fiscal impacts um modeled together not in isolation. Resident tenant tenant eligibility concerns according to recent data. Full-time renters make up only a small percentage of Chattam's yearround
population. Given that limited pool, it's unclear how Penrose intends to fill these units under the 70% local preference guide. Um, and she goes on to question that additional housing and maintenance concerns. According to US
Census and local planning data, only about 10 to 12% of Cadam's full-time households are renters compared to over 80% homeowners with such a limited rental population. It remains unclear how Penrose expects to achieve and
sustain high occupancy. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned about accountability once tenants occupy these properties. If issues such as mold, um, leaks are poor, ventilation arise, which are not uncommon, will maintenance be handled
promptly? These projects set a long-term precedent for Chattam. I respectfully urge the board to continue hearings until residents can review complete documentation including financials, operations, and impact studies with independent validation. This is Cynthia
Fucci, 20 Jesse's Landing in Chadam. Then we have a note from Lou and this is pretty short uh received on October 14th. We understand the ZBA is not responsible for the development of the proposals brought before them and
that the state has tied your hands on cases dealing with 40B projects. The Chattam citizens of South Chattam were denied their democratic right to have any input into specifics of this project that will have a significant consequence
for them and their neighborhood. There's worry about density and safety issues. There's also anger and frustration that it appears to be very unlikely that some other areas of town will be forced to have workforce housing projects. Town council told you that the housing
appeals committee usually sides with developers. This is despite their mission statement that says consistency with with local needs is the central issue in all cases before the housing appeals committee. Their website has
their appeal cases on it. It seems that the housing appeals committee believes it knows town's local needs better than the local towns do. The town of Milton lost a case at the housing appeals committee and appealed that to land court. The land court ordered the
housing appeals committee to continue proceedings that led to the the town and the developer coming to an acceptable agreement on their own. Please, in solidarity with the consideration of the concerned citizens of South Chattam, try
to do your best to maintain Chattam's zoning standards, especially regarding the building heights, density, safety issues as much as possible. Um, appearance that is consistent with South Chadam. South Chattam.
Next, we have a note from Tim Charal Boy 9 Chat Harbor Lane received on October 15, 2025, writing to express concerns about the Penrose affordable housing proposal on meeting house. The particular project would have a
significant negative effect on the character character of South Chattam due to high residential density and very extensive site redevelopment involved. It was suggested on se on September 4th that interested parties walk the site. I did this and found it to be extremely
helpful. Only by comparing the project plans to the topography and entirely wooded nature of the site is it possible to fully appreciate the challenges of this location are the comprehensive alterations envisioned by this proposal. I urge the BA to insist on specific
measures to support and maintain the natural appearance and habitat present on the ravine and hillside. It's hard to be satisfied with the identification of specific indiv individual trees to be retained when confronted with the overall reality of of how utterly
transformed the site will be. detailed plans to truly minimize disruption and maximize n natural appearance uh would be appropriate. Not unrelated to the above concerns are considerations of development density. the high highly
ambitious proposal for the total number of units and bedrooms uh presents a problem um and other communications will not be reiterated here. Requiring that all building comply with the height expectation expectations without
waiverss would be reasonable to reduce the total number of bedrooms. Um that would at least reduce the pressure on parking a bit. However, the effort to squeeze as many buildings possible onto the site more broadly exposes the overall insufficiency of spa of space
for natural buffer around the development. It would seem that significant modifications would be required to make the project more balanced in the with the overall needs of Chattam. Okay, last one is from Lii Nolan McCann,
October 15, 2025. Penrose Management Company is applying here in Chadam to develop several four rent housing apartment complexes. They wish to do this for one reason, profits. Their goal, develop zero meeting house
road. Developing this will destroy one of the few remaining tracks of land in Chadam to reap the benefits for profits for Penrose. In doing so, the landscape of our beloved Chattam seaside community will never be the same. In a word, this meeting house road um project is
detrimental to the preservation, safety, and overall well-being of all Chattam residents and citizens of Chattam. It is not a thoughtful project. All one true affordable housing, but rather a money grab and development opportunity for Penrose as they hide
behind the cloak of 40B, a perhaps well-intended set of guidelines easily abused and easily misused to develop vacant land and develop parcels for affordable housing. The change of this landscape in the name of affordable housing will be horrifying. Penrose has
broken every possible rule of zoning, density, setback, parking, sewer, water emergency response capable, capability, and more. Every rule is broken here. Every zoning rule is broken here. Elevation. The real the reality is what
might stand here under the Penrose proposal is shocking. I walked the parcel today at general meeting house and I am horrified by the reality that will result if the town zoning board of appeals approves this dense looming and high apartment complex. The topography
and elevation of this parcel will result in will result in tall looming buildings completely transforming the neighborhood. Travel Route 28 onto Meeting House and place your eyes to the right of Our Lady Grace Church and then glance to the left and please imagine
quantity eight buildings of three stories in height. Looming buildings comprising 42 rental units, 14 one-bedroom, 23 2 and 53. These buildings might be taller than Our Lady
of Grace Church. Imagine this as a gateways to Chattam. Traffic will be difficult. Parking impossible at the complex. The proposed sewer capacity is perhaps 50% short of what it needs to be. Light pollution, noise pollution, and safety of all those utilizing the
bike trail is deeply compromised as this is the safety of every vehicle traveling on Route 137. The proposed 61 parking spaces is identified on the plan. She says you'd need 90 um across the street
um at the bike path lot. Look at the skyline and imagine quantity eight. And she goes on to to to reiterate how many buildings there would be and what the heights are. But nonetheless, the natural elevation of this site will have its apartment complex looming over all
of us. Bright lights. It could be as many as 150 people. I agree affordable housing um is needed. Um, but this is a far-rit grabbed by Penrose and not the right project for the area. I have deep concerns about the articles written in
the Cape Cod Chronicle reference what appears to be overwhelming support um by former Chattam Affordable House Trust Chair Michael Shell for several of these affordable housing projects near all of which are transient and rental projects. In reading the article, one might
conclude Michael Shell is speaking on behalf of 7,000 residents in Chattam. a summer population of 20,000 persons estimated by some some he is not I believe he is speaking on behalf of his seven member chatable cha chattam affordable housing trust board
additionally the trust is under criticism and rightly right rightfully so for cheerleading a change in landscape here at meeting house road to satisfy their own personal values and agenda I don't think they know how this will truly look or understand that they are being courted by a developer this
board is a personal agenda they seem to be satisfying based on their own life experiences at the risk and safety of thousands of Chattam residents who have struggled to get here and should have the right to participate in a current vote on any of all or all projects of
this scope. Chattam Board of Zoning Board of Appeals please save our town of Cadam. Penrose is not us. They are a Pennsylvania state based developer. Nothing more, nothing less. And this is an apartment complex for profit which
would be managed by an outside company. My family became residents in 1965 on Bonita Drive. Like thousands of Chattam residents, I have nearly killed myself and sacrificed to be here. I don't deserve this new neighborhood to be part of my daily life. Penrose's buildings
are way too tall, too dense, and it's not home home ownership. Affordable housing can be accomplished in other ways as in recent p purchases of 558 CRL road there's a gracious homeowner there and the trust sells the deed restricted
property to a person of need transient nonprofit no transient forprofit looming buildings and density at meeting house is plainly wrong please stop it before it's too late it would be disgraceful
that concludes our correspondences is I I only do that so they don't have to because once in a while I skip a word or two which I am allowed to do. Um all right so who would like to go first from the audience? Yes sir. Please step up to the
microphone. I notice everybody has their hats off today which is our policy. Thank you for respecting the public building. And I forgot to mention before, please shut off all gadgets or any kind of uh noise making devices and keep conversations in
the hall. Yes, sir. Welcome. >> Sorry, did you say something about hats off? I missed that. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Hats. I left my hat with my wife this. >> I know. Yeah. You >> Thank you very much. Uh Frank Msina, uh I'm uh currently chairman of the planning board. The planning board, the historical commission planning board.
That was another life. and also a member of the South Chattam Village Association board. Um, just quickly aside, gonna watch the clock. U, you know, the individual in that last letter you wrote, it was very an emotional outburst, so to speak, of how she felt,
but unfortunately a lot of people in Chadam feel that way. Um, I don't blame Mr. Shells individually and as she did, but I think we made a mistake. you know, the town of Chadam, we went to town meeting. We
voted for something. We gave some authority to, I guess, the affordable housing trust and um they ran with it. So, I I can't blame the folks in Pembrose. They're doing what they were told to do, but we're still stuck with
this pig. Okay? And it's a problem, and there's really nothing we can do. Luckily, the development in uh in um South Chattam is going to be hidden back and away, unlike the uh the the the West
Chatam uh development. So, you know, early on when they first came to some of the meetings, I remember saying to members of the um the board, you know, if you don't get this right, this may be the last one we do in Chadam because it's got to go to town meeting, you know, to vote money unless the developer
comes in, buys up, you know, 10,000 square feet or acres, whatever it is, and builds it independently. As long as we, the town, are going to allow it, you know, we're stuck with it. So, we are having said that in a minute and 30 seconds left. This is a very difficult
site. The intersection of 137 and uh and 28. The South Chattam Village Association has been years trying to improve. We were able finally about three years ago to get the the crosswalks across that. Uh you you have a situation with the connection to the
bike path that was spoken for that that also was difficult. Sidewalks are essential. Okay. There are no sidewalks there. when we try to get sidewalks in that we're going to have to spend $100,000 for a study, you know, for environmental. So, I hope we insist that
they do that, that the sidewalks are provided from this from the development onto the the uh Route 28 sidewalks. There's a very integral sidewalk uh connection there on the sidewalks are and in one part are on the north side
and then they switch to the south side. It's very dangerous in the summertime as was noted in one of the thing the church when the church is you know putting out hundreds of people there and also the farmers market. So it is it is really you know an intersection. It's a center
of or the entrance to town. So that's that's difficult. I there's nothing much I can say about the development the density that's your guy's job. So I hope you you can get it right for us at least help to to decrease the in the intensity of this uh project. Thank you much.
>> Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Welcome. >> Thank you. Uh Hannah Smith of Chadam. Um first and foremost, I would like to thank the ZBA for the amount of time and effort they've spent working to ensure that the quality of life and safety of the future tenants of both Main Street
and Meeting House properties are of the utmost importance. I feel it's important to begin with those words because over the past few weeks there have been a handful of people including former and current elected officials critiquing the ZBA process which is made up of members that they themselves trusted to serve on
the ZBA. Unfortunately, those individuals seem to have forgotten why they elected these ZBA members in the first place. The members before us were ch were chosen because elected officials of Chadam believe they are the best for this position. We should let them do their job.
Respectfully, Chadam's dire affordable and attainable housing situation is not what it is today because of anything the ZBA has done or may do going forward. It is only because Chadam as a whole has not prioritized the needs of low-income residents and has ignored and continues to ignore long-term solutions that
provide housing security and don't prioritize temporary fixes that still leave folks rent burdened with no path to home ownership except in the case of the MCI properties. 40B and the 10% SHI threshold have been around since 1969.
Nixon was president and I wouldn't even be born for another 29 years. Um, and though I strongly believe every town should strive for much more than that 10%, that does not mean that suddenly, after decades of little to no affordable housing, we should have settled for a proposal that I feel lacks an acceptable
percentage of open and green space, likely doesn't even have enough parking for residents in rural de in a rural development and entirely leaves the land itself and the rights of the tenants in the hands of a for-profit developer who by the very nature of any for-profit
affordable housing model is to maximize maximize profit. profits. While some have suggested public transportation as a solution to the parking, I encourage them to try and get their get to their jobs using the Capecod RTA. Chadam is not a flex bus location, so you'll have to use the Highness Orleans bus. Good
luck if you're a nurse. The 7 to 3, 3 to 11, and 11 to 7 shifts. You'll only have a ride home 50% of the time at best since the first bus comes into Chattam this time of the year around 9:00 a.m. and the last bus heading back towards Chattam is around 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. With
no service on Sundays this time of the year either, that bus schedule probably won't work for a firefighter, police officer, paramedic, teacher, or anyone in the service industry either, to name a few. There are families living in affordable housing rentals in town that want to own property in the town they've
grown up in. Many are your essential workers. Yet, they are no closer to owning a home now than they were when they moved into these rentals decades ago. We will continue to fail the current and future residents of Chattam if we continue to prioritize density, developers, and the lowest cost options
over residents safety, health, and well-being when this town has the ability to do more and should do more. >> Thank you very much. Perfectly timed. >> Yeah. Very good. >> Okay, ma'am. Whenever you're ready.
>> Carol Gordon, South Chattam. Uh, when Penrose received the contract for meeting House Road, they promised to work with the community and they've heard much information today from the community and from our boards. So, I'm just wondering uh with all this information, when can we uh expect to
see a revised plan for Meeting House Road? They'll answer that later now or whatever. >> That'll get answered. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yes, sir. Please. >> Whoever else in the audience plans to
speak, please um form a queue as they say. >> Good afternoon, Bo. >> Yes, good afternoon. >> I'd have five points I'd like to talk about today, but first with the RFP, >> if you could just state your name and your address. Mark Caprillian 26 stage
coach South Cadam. Regarding the RFP requirements, I'm going to read the exact verbiage on your website as it sits today. All all proposals must comply in all respects with the instructions, conditions, specifications, and other requirements
in the RFP. Penrose has neglected to abide by the conditions of the RFP, most notably adding a management office and increasing 30 a 37 unit RFP request to 42. On top of that, Penrose strongly
suggested during the September 4th meeting with this board that additional waiver requests need to be compiled with the because of the 40B statutes. The opposite is actually true. You need not
grant any waiverss. You must hold true to your original proposal requirements to be fair with all biders, those that may have bid and those who did bid. This could be legally problematic otherwise.
Second, the traffic impact, which has been mentioned a few times today. I see that as a study that needs to be between June 15th and September 15th. My understanding is that the
submitted impact report um didn't use it actually submitted low impact months. The study is flawed, needs to be redone. In this case, there are two critical areas of concern. The bike path and then the intersection of 137 and 28.
We talk about Chadam's architectural style which Penrose mentioned was colonial and then it mentioned that this development was colonial certainly is not Cadam nor this development cedar
sighting like what Penrose used in their C captain Rogue community in Hyenus is appropriate here. Beautiful cedar sighting cost two to three times more than cementuous sighting which is commonly used in Florida.
These tenementlike structures are best stacked cluster housing much in the way Lenar and Dr. Horton built. I know I have contracts with both of them. I know how they built. There's a sign significant difference between subsidized rental leases and
subsidized home ownership. In Massachusetts, the average tenant in a subsidized rental unit stays there for 10 years. Meaning the 70% initial local tenants will essentially be nonexistent 10 years down the road.
>> You only get 5 seconds left. So >> on top of that, >> in conclusion, >> in con well I in conclusion um I guess I'm pushing for the 90% of the people who stay in home ownership when they >> Okay. And I I would recommend that you listen carefully because I'm quite
confident Penrose is going to have answers to all the issues you you've um suggested. So >> very much stay and listen. Yes, sir. Next. Good afternoon. Bob Oliver, chair of the bikeways commission. Um we submitted an
application a couple of years ago um to extend the bike trail around uh 137 because if if you if if anyone tries to take a a turn north off of off of 28 onto 137, that's a very sharp corner,
very dangerous corner. um uh the CPC u came to the conclusion that that's the responsibility of the town to put in sidewalks at that location. So, what I'd like to do is um suggest that you ask the Cape Cod Commission, this is
probably not Penro Penrose's responsibility, but you'd you ask the Cape Cod Commission to give you uh their opinion on what sidewalks should be in that area and that you piggyback that requirement of the town to put the sidewalks in as part of this whole
development because we can't look at this development in in a vacuum because people are going to be able to want to walk somewhere. Right now, as I understand it from looking at the LA at the last drawing, they're they're really going to walk to the bike trail. They're going to walk down and then and then
they're going to cross the the crosswalk because there not are no other sidewalks. Uh so I understand it might be the town's responsibility to construct these sidewalks, but I think it's the responsibility of the zoning board to condition any any kind of uh
decision you make uh on the basis that the town will address the sidewalk issue. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, >> Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, again, it's too big, bad for the environment, uh, promotes uh, corporate
greed. And I guess one of my main points is I do want to stand up for a lot of the blue collar workers um that I feel are going to be excluded from these uh types of developments uh like landscapers and builders and fishermen particular who are you know kind of provide a heartbeat for this community.
Um those jobs uh you know require a truck and a trailer and if you know you're working for someone eventually you want to get your own truck and trailer and start you know taking on some of your own clients. Um especially would like to you know the fishermen you know it's everything's connected where
you know if we don't provide enough you know housing for fishermen you know the restaurants are going to um you know struggle a little bit uh things are going to be more expensive and it's the same thing with uh you know starting you know landscaping is $95 an hour um and
if you don't have people that can you know grow up and then start their own businesses these rates are going to stay the same where when you have you know people starting own businesses it creates uh you know for um
like a free market so that I'm and then on the other hand and I'm also in favor of home ownership and I think uh I'm request we're going to request a new project again I'd like uh tiny houses cottages and uh as much green space as possible for home ownership. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience or I'm gonna go online and if you change your mind in the audience I'll I'll come back. Um Elaine Gibbs, we promised that we would uh hear from you. Would you like to go ahead now?
>> Uh yes. Thank you. Is my mic on? >> It is. >> It is. Yeah. Mine wasn't. Yes. >> Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Yes. Uh just some comments. Uh the driveways split rail for the entrance of the property is totally insufficient.
Uh it is a split rail and if they're hit and fail, an accident could be deadly because of the 13 ft ravine on either side. Children have to walk along that 200 for 245 ft to the bus stop with only two horizontal rails. They could easily
climb through them and they will on a bed. Any guard rail cannot have any space uh for the ability for them to do so. There's no indication that Penrose has reached out to the schools on bus routes to see uh if children would have to cross the street for pickup and drop
off. Parking is totally insufficient. There's no alternative at that site if the parking lot is full. Unlike West Chadam, no assigned parking or guest parking to monitor and enforce visitor parking. Uh, Penrose continues to
compare uh, occupancy based on estimated based on NSK Green that only has six acres, six units per acre, six miles north of the Orleans Rotary and is not on is not on 6A but a side road. Chadam is far more desirable than that site and
will have a much higher occupancy. Uh, Penrose has also admitted that they would not have taken on meeting house because of the challenging topography except to make 1533 economically feasible and that's the reason why we should not have hired a forprofit. Uh,
there's a lack of green private green space and a very small communal area. There is no place for children to safely ride bikes either on or off the property. Penrose's uh RFP actually encourages children to play in the woods and the
ravines uh with photos actually in their presentation using what looks like an Ocean State job lot slide down one of the ravine slopes. It's asking for accidents and what I would be consider an attractive nuisance. I don't know how
that could pass any safety protocols. It would be a tremendous liability for Penrose and Chadam for approving it. The two units to the left of the entrance back up a 13- ft ravine. Uh there is no space behind it. The idea of children in
a second floor rear bedroom falling out of a window or having to evacuate from a fire would mean a 40 foot 43 foot drop into that ravine. Uh the fire department would be impeded because of the ravine in order to be able to enter from the
rear if necessary. This is simply not a buildable lot for this density and topography as designed. I asked myself when reviewing these projects if I would want my children or grandchildren living here for safety and the quality of life and the answer is no.
>> In conclusion, in conclusion, >> in conclusion, we can do it right or we can do this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else online would like to go next on Microsoft Teams? If so, raise the indicator, the hand.
No seeing none. Anybody in the audience? Okay. Henrose, come back. >> If I can suggest, Madam Chair, maybe a break so we can >> Sure. Yeah. There was a plenty of
lowhanging fruit for you, I think. So, um, yes, we'll see you after 10-minute break. Yep. I don't have to change. I'll just stick with this. >> Okay, we are back. So, now we are at the point in time where um Penrose has heard
a lot and we're going to give them a chance to um >> do some explaining or answering or um rebutting. Welcome back. >> Thank you. Uh, all right. We have a a series of responses. I'd like just to
briefly start off and say um not going to be explaining because notwithstanding the attacks against the applicant, what we're here to do is to discuss the project. Um although we might get into a little explaining, who knows? Um we're also not going to address all of the
comments that we heard because several of them respectfully are not jurisdictional in in front of you aboard what you're looking for. Um, now that being said, um, Rio from Penrose would like to respond and then we're going to have Paul Adaman from Union Studios and
Rich Crowley from Horesy Whitten respond to several of the technical comments that we heard. We're also mindful of fact that we haven't heard from you again. You know, so these are initial comments based on what we just heard during the public testimony. Um, and we're just going to give you some feedback. There's obviously things we're
going to have to take into consideration. There'll be comments and questions from you, I assume, after our responses. So this is just a next step in that uh discussion. >> Okay. Thank you. Welcome Rio. >> Thank you. Uh my name is Rio Sicetti. Um
representative of Penrose. Um so I I'll start off by addressing I think there were multiple comments regarding the parking. Um so currently we're proposing um 1.45 spaces per unit uh at this
development. So we think we think this is appropriate for the site. Um just for context um we have in our east project 1.5 spaces per unit. Um at the main street project which you're currently
reviewing we are also at 1.5 uh spaces per unit. And our our newly open project in Orleans called Fair um has 74 total spaces for 62 units. That's 1.2 spaces
per unit. Um the it the institute of traffic engineers um recommends for this type of project it have uh this type of housing development has uh 1.3 to 1.6 spaces per
unit. So, we think we fall right in the sweet spot. Um, right in the middle of where we are with our other outer and lower cape projects and right in in the middle of what the IT recommends. Um, I think there was a comment, it
might have been Mrs. Gibbs about the um assigned parking. Um, similar to Main Street, we're proposing unassigned parking. Um the reason we do that is it's more efficient utilization of the parking spaces. It uh because it
eliminates um stranded capacity. It lets the supply float to where it's needed. Um it's it's better able to handle daily swings between workers, gas, and home health aids. Um it's also more friendly
to snow removal and mate maintenance. Um it's also consistent with general multif family best practices. Um, you know, we want to keep the ADA and EV spots available for whoever needs it. Um,
you know, and and I think I think um the concern was well, you know, people won't always have a space at their front door. Um, but that's true in in in both cases with assigned parking and unassigned parking. Not every space uh can be at
someone's front door. Uh we definitely agree proximity matters to the people who will live here. Um we design short safe walks to all the buildings. Um and actually the unassigned parking improves odds for everyone that they won't get stuck with an assigned spot that's far
away from uh their unit. Um I'd also like to address um there were some questions about um well there were some comments about home ownership. uh you know we are not um proposing home ownership here and it's not we don't
have anything against home ownership when we uh replied to the town RFP um there aren't the home ownership subsidies available for the development of this amount and this type of units um they're primarily subsidized by the
low-inccome housing tax credit that's both federal and state that that's about 70 to 80% of the development cost is subsidized by that and that's only available for rental. So that's really what drove our our proposal. Uh makes it financially feasible. Um you know, I
also just want to touch upon briefly um you know, the the sort of trope of a a greedy developer. Um this isn't a speculative play by us. Uh this was a town initiated process. The town identified the site. The town hired a
consultant. they came up with um uh a feasibility studies very similar to what we're proposing. Uh it was a townup supported project and um we uh the our whole intent to go under 40B is uh the
reason the 40B exists is to meet uh documented housing needs. It's not to game uh zoning. So, our goal here is to produce what the statute intends uh which is highquality restricted affordable housing.
And Paul, I'd like uh Paul to come up to address some issues about the safety and uh with the sprinklers. Thanks, Paul. >> Hello, Paul Atman, Union Studio Architecture and Community Design,
architect of the project. Um there was um we heard concerns about safety and uh fire sprinklers and or falling children from windows. Uh the entire plan is being vetted with the fire department for proper fire and emergency access
vehicles and access and uh um turning radiuses throughout the site. That also applies to the buildings. Um we are in the year 2025. We have strict building codes, fire codes, fire alarm codes. Those are the buildings are all
designed to meet those standards. Uh there's one particular area, building six, if I can point with a uh pointer here. Uh I think there was this specific condition was alluded to as the sloping grade to that makes the fall from a
second story even greater. This area of the building is two stories just like 90% of the houses in Chadam. It's no different. Um there is al there was also concern I think and comments in the some of the u comments that were read to the
uh to the public about building heights along the property line here that is abuing the one neighbor here and the adjacent property. These two buildings buildings seven and eight are not asking for building height waiver. Neither is
building number one. and all three buildings and actually all the buildings in the proposed development are not within any of the required setbacks. >> Okay, thank you. >> All right, I'll invite Richard from
Horsesley Whitten up. >> Thank you. Um, madam chairman, uh, members of the board, uh, my name is Rich Clater. the principal engineer uh for the project uh with Horsesley Whitten Group, a sandwich-based environmental and civil
engineering consulting firm. Um what I thought I would do is just do a little housekeeping on uh what we've responded to uh and what you have for your record. Um and then uh and then respond to some comments uh primarily the planning board uh high level uh comments. We did just
sort of get this so we haven't fully vetted every single comment but I think I can give you a flavor for some of that. Um you did get an up updated set of plans last Thursday from us. Uh those updated plans really were to address the
engineering peerreview comments from Tyen Bond and those included really no geometry changes but all the um calculations. There was a lot of comments from the planning board and the Tyen Bond letter about engineering
calculations, storm water, uh utility uh whatnot. So you had you you got that you got a response letter from us and then Ty and Bon has responded to that. We also got uh comments from the DPW director um uh a set of comments uh and
we responded to those and one of those and Paul just mentioned that about fire safety. We've done a full turning move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move move movement ve vehicle turning movement for the fire safety and one of the questions from DPW director was to make sure that a fire truck would not actually cross the center line of meeting house road
when it exited the property. So the one change you saw in the October 8th planning uh plans is that the radius coming under meeting house road is a little bit bigger so it it can stay well within its lane. Um
and then the traffic engineer um uh Jeff Durk from from Vaness uh has responded to the traffic uh uh comments. And so you have a a response letter uh from him from w with all the the traffic components. And importantly, he did go
back in in August. His firm went back in August and did uh traffic traffic counts. We have a summer traffic counts and his report is based on that. And so you'll note you'll note that um we uh the comments that you got from from Ty and Bond on the civil
engineering uh I think we're primarily in in agreement on everything. They had mentioned one thing that that frankly we're not on the same page yet. Uh this is regarding the fact that the project is in a a a zone 2 wellhead protection
area and they interpret um the Massachusetts stormwater standards to say one thing and we've routinely uh done something slightly different. Um I was actually part of the committee that wrote the the regulations. So I'm pretty
confident that what we're proposing is fine. Basically, our storm water approach is to provide aggressive pre-treatment before any infiltration. That's what you want to do in a wellhead protection area. You want to make sure that the pollutants are clean. I mean, the pollutants are removed, the water is
clean before any kind of infiltration in into groundwater. And we're certainly doing doing that. So, we will talk to Tyen Bond and see if we can reach consensus on that that one item. If we cannot, they've suggested a condition and we can meet that condition. It's just going to cost more money and not
that that's a big deal, but it'll it'll also require some design changes and a few other minor tweaks, but we would do that. The planning board had they have a lot of comments and and you know, they start off by saying the the entrance
road is um narrow. Why is it not showing? Um, so it's a 24 foot wide road, two 12T lanes. The what I was talking about, we increased these two radius
right here for the fire truck. Uh, so TW 24T is a pretty wide road. We do have a two-ft shoulder on either side and we have robust guard rails on both sides. These are not uh timber um split rail fence. This is a DOT approved uh timber
guard rail uh shown on the plans and and meets the mass DOT mass mass department of transportation requirements. We do have a 5-ft sidewalk on the edge. I think the planning board mentioned something about we should increase the
sidewalk to 5T. It's already proposed at 5T. Um, we could see adding a split rail fence o along the sidewalk to to address a safety concern if there's a concern for people walking along that sidewalk. This sidewalk is provided
for a potential bus stop. It's it's not intended as a a sidewalk to anywhere else. Um the sidewalk connection me mentioned by the planning board that we've proposed is from the site property
through it's an ADA accessible uh sidewalk 5T wide to tie into the rail trail. Uh there's a comment from the pathways um and also I believe from uh the planning board about making that
wider. Uh we could we could make it wider. It was designed as a sidewalk. It was not designed as a bike um shared use uh trail or shared use path. Uh we could do that if necessary and make it to 8 ft. Um we didn't we didn't want to do that. We didn't want to encourage again,
you know, people to sort of bike down through this and then hop onto the rail trail and have to deal with all that. We figured that they could walk their bikes down and get on it or they could perhaps bike that. So we we could certainly address that if if that's the case. Um
Rio's talked about parking and I so I won't go into that. Um the planning board does in their you read their full comments in their their comments number five they talk about the adequacy of the storm water and drainage facilities and they sort of apply that we're not meeting the RFP the low impact
development also called green stormwater infrastructure approach and yet the Cape Cod commission said we are apply applying these low impact development techniques and I'll say that these are clearly low impact development green stormwater water infrastructure
techniques. They couldn't be any more. So we provide natural systems to pre-treat runoff there be we use water quality units to provide pre-treatment before that. But we use these things called tree trenches that are organic
filters to treat storm water. We have two bio retention facilities or bio rain gardens. One right in this location and one down here. Those provide additional pre-treatment. Everything overflows into a natural area where it's infiltrated.
We're not doing anything with any natural area. It will have all its existing organic matter. It's existing vegetation. Couldn't be a better uh storm water treatment system for protection of groundwater. So, it it it just doesn't seem to make sense. The
comments uh uh from the planning board at least at least related to to storm water. Um the next question they talk about I is buffers. Um Paul mentioned that all all buildings are within the required
setback per zoning. Uh we will be asking for waiverss for two retaining walls uh retaining wall here and on this side uh that are are necessary to to deal with the topography. So there will be a waiver
request because a retaining wall is over four feet. It's considered a structure and might be three feet, three and a half ft, but it it is considered a structure and and will require a waiver. Um the open space comment I think from
the planning board uh the site clearly does have open space but importantly it provides access to other open space access to the rail trail, access to the conservation area uh to uh sidewalk connections from the project uh to get
up to uh uh adjacent uh conservation area. So we're really doing our best to maintain and and um and deal with that. Um, I think uh I've already addressed the fire department uh questions. Um,
I think that's the lion share of what I wanted to cover uh in the uh both the responsive peer review uh and the uh the planning board comments for now. We will be responding all of this in writing. So, for the record, you'll have uh you'll have a full more detailed
response uh to all of these comments. >> Yeah. And the planning board wasn't privy to the Cape Cod Commission or are you know so they wrote that a while ago. >> Yeah. And they and they did I think they did make some comments about the storm water you know not being compliant with
this and the high velocity and other stuff. Those were reflected in the tie-in bond peerreview letter. the revised plans that and supporting calculations that were sent out a week before today's meeting uh addressed all of that at least to die and bond and I
assume the planning board will be okay with that as well. We'll see. >> We'll all be on the same page by next time. >> Y yeah. >> Okay. Very good. >> Happy to answer any questions you might have when we get to that. >> Okay. >> I I think that's it for our initial responses. We welcome >> Yep. >> wherever you want to go next. Yeah,
absolutely. So, we're going to do comments and questions from the board. Let's start with Paul. We haven't started with Paul in a long time. >> Well, thank you. I uh I frankly at this point I'm still absorbing. So, um I
don't have uh uh particular questions over and above what have been raised and the responses we've heard so far. I need to evaluate those. >> Okay. Um Steve, >> um a few questions. I think um I I don't think I haven't heard anybody address
the issue with the neighboring u the abuter's driveway situation. I know I think there was some talk about that last time and you were maybe in negotiations, but how are they going? >> Um they we as we said last time, yeah,
at least there are two driveways. You can see the houses over on the plans there. um off to the north and uh they do need or and the proposal is to construct new driveways for them out to Meeting House Road directly. Right now they share that little old spur that's
in there. Um they are ongoing. They are not finalized. Uh but they obviously have to be before, you know, the project moves forward. Uh one of the letters suggested, I'm not sure who it was, but suggested that that should be done first. I don't I I think that's a legal
title matter. I think it's going to be if it's not done available to be done before you ultimately vote certainly be a condition in your decision because it has to be done >> like like a condition that you have curb cuts and driveways for both of those. >> Correct. Well, what it would be is right
now Yeah. You'd have there going to be three new curb cuts. So, you'd have the new curb cut that's shown on the plan for the development and then each of those two houses would have their own respective curb cut out on the road >> and driveways. >> Oh, correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, if if the day comes that we're ready to condition this, so you you
think your client would be okay with that as a condition? >> Yes. Oh, Penrose has already reaching out to probably >> prepared a plan and they they've proposed it. So, absolutely. >> So, they need not worry anymore and stay stay up at night and wonder if you're going to do that because you are.
>> Well, I hope we get to that point. >> I hope the neighbors in question aren't worrying about it because Penrose has reached out. I know we met on site with one of them and so they've clearly >> said they're going to do it and have a plan showing it. >> Yeah. Well, you know how that is. All right. >> In answer to your question.
>> Yep. Okay. Steve, what else? >> Um the the width of the of the axis down to the bike path I think would be a good idea if that could be widened. Um I could see even two bicycles passing each other or someone with a stroller walking
down and being passed by a bicycle. So, I think widening that would be um probably a good idea. And um I think the bike ways suggested maybe a ballard or or or changing the angle of that or some signage so that people didn't think that that was
actually part of the of the bike trail and that they were entering private property. So, you might want to consider that. I think that's pretty good idea. the the width of the of the um let's call it the flat land between building
six and where the uh where it starts sloping down. Do you know how wide that area is before it starts sloping? I don't but somebody does.
Mark Warflul with Crowley Cautrol. We're the landscape architect. Um, sorry, just to understand your question, you're talking about the uh east side of building six. >> Um, yes. So, how how much level ground is there, you know, between the building
and where it starts sloping down? >> A few feet. It's not meant to be occupiable. So, it it's down below uh where the back area behind building five is >> because it would be difficult to put a
rescue ladder there for the fire department. >> I I think that the I mean has to be a quarter the the distance from the building should be 25% of the height that you're raising the ladder. So, if
you're raising the ladder 20 feet, you need about a five foot area there. And if you're telling me it's just a couple of feet, that's insufficient. I think >> because um Rich had mentioned they they they're working with the fire department. Certainly, we can just >> Okay. >> make we can ask that question. The
buildings are fully sprinkled. The windows are protected as as set forth under current mass code, but we can follow up on that. >> What is the the route of the drainage from the the parking lot down to the ravine where the uh where the uh water is expected to go.
Um escape. I had it right there. I may not Oh, I don't know if I have it or not here on this plan, but let's see. Here we uh that's utility plan. That's close. >> Here we go.
>> Um where's the Can you see? Okay. >> So, the question is where's how's the water get down to the ravine? Yeah. Um it's picked up in drainage pipes um at some uh catch basins in the system. A
lot of it drains over to these bio retention areas that I pointed out before. There's one here and and one down here. But and then that's piped back into a pipe system comes down here and then there's pipe down here. The comments that we got from Tyen Bond, they were concerned this is a steep
slope pipe and it did have a high velocity. We did put stabilization stone at the bottom of it, but they were concerned that the velocity was too high. They mentioned a number of 20 feet per second. That's high. That's a fast. So we put in a what we call a dropman hole halfway down so it flattens it out
in the pipe and the pipe is at a flatter slope and it exits at a much lower velocity like seven feet per second. So less than half and then the stone here is stabilized for all that runoff coming down this pipe is pre-treated by these
green areas and then the runoff from the road itself comes down to two low points in here and goes down a pipe that is at a flatter slope just because there's less height and has a slower velocity that goes into a buyer retention also called a rain
garden sometimes and then that overflows into this natural ravine. Okay. And how are the properties to the north, the two of Butters, how how are they going to be protected from any sort
of runoff from the road area or behind those buildings? >> Yes. So, what we've done here is um we've put in a pipe uh underneath the burm to allow any water that would come off the road that that currently would
possibly flow down there uh to go through. And that's been sized and we've actually shown this little dashed line and that's in the plans. A little hard to read here, but the blowup plans shows what the ponding level would be during a 100year event and that stays on the property.
um the driveways that were talked about just previously that you mentioned, we've we got a concept plan for a driveway right here along the edge and then another one for the budding property and uh both of those would have drainage features as well as needed to make sure that there's no ponding on the
uphill side during a major storm event. Uh this area is not wet. Um these are great soils. There was a comment from I can't remember who there were comments that the soils haven't been done. Planning board said you should do test
pits and that kind we have done tests since done test bits that's included in our filing to you. These are terrific soils for allowing storm water to soak into the ground. That's why there's no wetland down here because there's no other outlet. It just disappears and
it's 20ome feet to groundwater. So very good uh area for managing drainage. >> Okay. If we could I also Mr. Door. >> Sure. >> Mr. Waffle just wanted to respond to one the bike conne bike connection as well.
>> I didn't quite make it up here fast enough. Um so one of the one we were intentional about making this path five feet. Um, from a safety standpoint, this is a
it's an ADA graded path, so it's under 5%. But it's a long length and riding a bike down that you you could pick up some speed. And so our intention was that it's a sidewalk that you would walk your bike down the path and enter the
bike trail uh at the bottom instead of riding the bike down and having to carine out into traffic. I don't see 10 or 12 year old kids doing that, but Okay. All right. Um, that's it for now. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, who wants to go next? Lee, you want to go next? All right. >> Um, just back to the bike path for one second. The the pathway down, someone mentioned a a a wall. um both there and
somewhere else. Is is that a possibility or is that according >> uh the the wall is really um right along this edge. You can kind of see all these lines over here. Those are contour lines. It's a hill. So to to make the uh
these are uh ADA accessible all visitable all all entrances. So these have to be sort of at the grade of the parking lot lot area. So, and just to get make grades. So, we have a wall there and then there's a wall over here sort of for the same reason because
there's a lot of terrain on this site. Um, we have a a wall along the back here, small wall. Um, but but no walls along there. I think you could make this an 8 foot wide um path without any walls. Um, there's enough room. This is
a pretty fairly flat area right in here. We may have to have a adjust the grading a little bit right in here. We're trying not to cut down trees that we don't, you know, we want to save every tree here that we can. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. um to go back to building six for one
second. I have to admit I was a little concerned about the steep slope as well, but can you confirm that the building is oriented in such a way that that's the back of the building where the storage units are?
>> Yeah, there are no storage units on on this side. >> Oh, there aren't. So the the side this the there's a sidewalk in right in here. And then this is the building itself actually has a re foundation reveal. Um you could weigh in on that if if you
want, but but that's actually to help make upgrades. So there's no real pedestrian access that you would have. Now we've put in a four foot plus or minus flat area just for for maintenance to be able to get around there for whatever reason uh that you would if you
need it. And and if the fire department wants to wants more more, you can do that. Uh you could do it uh by pushing the grading out a little bit. That would have some impacts right where my arrow head is by pushing that out. Or you could build a little wall there, a
couple foot high wall. This wall here, you could just sort of adjust its location and run it straight across there and probably get up to 10 feet if needed. >> Okay. Um, so that building does have storage though, somewhere else. It's
just located somewhere else. >> Yeah. >> Um, Paul, you may know exactly where that's the storage. >> They're behind each of the buildings. >> You answered the question. >> Yeah, it's I think it is on I think it's uh right on right along this side. And you and there's a sidewalk that comes
back here to be able to access all that. >> But yes, all buildings have storage and per one for each unit. >> Okay. And could bikes bikes fit in that storage? >> Uh, >> Paul.
>> Hi, this is Paul again. Each storage unit is about 3 by 5t. So depending on the size of the bike, is the tricycle small? How you store it? Depends on what else they put in it. But you could store a bike or two in it >> vertically most likely.
>> Okay. Yeah, you could hang it. >> Okay. Um, and then my other uh only other question um is is there any room for another dumpster anywhere? >> That's that's probably that's all of us.
But um yeah, the answer is yes. We have a sketch that we're looking at to uh to add a dumpster. The current dumpster right here um um it does abut the adjacent property. It's not the butter here, but there is this is a um vacant
lot that I think has questionable um ownership, but uh regardless, this backs up against there. So, if we can move it, we're actually looking at a slight reconfiguration of the central island. We could put it in there. We could screen it and we could put two of them
in there. So, the you also want to have something that uh you can easily pick up the out of the dumpster. So, the geometry has to work. So, we're looking at that. We have a a concept. It looks like it works. We might have to tweak it a little bit. This parking space right up in here, there was a comment from
somebody that this is not an ideal parking spot, and that's true. It would be very challenging to back up here and make the turn to get in and out of that. So, that would help that situation. So, yes, the answer is uh uh updated plans would uh would address that uh that
dumpster location. >> Great. Thank you. All right, Dave V, you want to go next? >> Sure. >> Uh, I don't have a lot. Um, it's I just want to comment. It's kind of interesting now to watch sort of the
back and forth with respect to parking and whether it's going to be adequate or not. And um, but again, I I I think that um, Penrose is saying with their experience that what they're providing or what showing is adequate parking. Uh
so um I I I think they perhaps more have more direct experience than some of the speculation that's been made. Um and I just uh in with respect to the uh bike path connection uh I I also noted on the
bikeways um they had a couple of suggestions and and one of them um and and they seem to be there seems to be maybe some redundancy here. I don't know. One of them was that consider whether the path entrance be made perpendicular to the bike trail so that
it's not considered a an extension of the trail. Uh and I didn't know if that was something that that I mean if if that meant sacrificing trees or something you would can look at or not because the the next thing they say is that signage or other means of
identification be erected to identify uh the new development and indicate the path as a private way. And I don't know, you know, whether both of those things would be helpful or not, but I'm just calling it out again. >> Yeah, I think uh that again we can uh
create a a if not exactly perpendicular, pretty close to it. Yeah. Uh with a minor change if if you go to 8 feet and go perpendicular, you might need a little wall there to avoid um cutting down a bunch of trees. This slope goes down the hill quite a
bit. Mhm. >> Well, we could do that. So, we could make it a little more very close to perpendicular. You could put a ballard right in the middle of it certainly to address that. And you could put a sign there. >> I I I'm I'm thinking that the um um the
suggestion for the Ballard was for the upper end. Um um I I I was thinking I could be wrong. Uh because the Ballard on the on the um I mean there are ballards on the bike path in all places where there might be access. So, uh I would think that the suggestion from the
ball was from the uphill end of it, not the um end meeting the bike path. I could be wrong. >> You mentioned so that people wouldn't drive up there. I don't think there's going to be room to drive from the parking area to get a vehicle. >> Yeah. As long as that was, you know, there it it's been anticipated and not
Yeah. >> then it's not necessary. >> Yeah. I I don't I don't think it's necessary at the upper end. But uh you could argue that if somebody is somehow gets onto the bike path and they could drive up this but I don't >> well if if you're if there's a way to to as you suggested perhaps do it and that
does not sacrifice trees of any significance I then I think we want to keep all that in mind and in how we look at it. Thanks. just your point about parking because because I want to sort of address that you're you're you're um you're you're you're pushing between uh
uh you know the demand the parking demand the desire to minimize runoff the desire to minimize tree clearing uh our firm uh works for other clients affordable housing uh clients besides Penrose we have a number of projects on Cape Cod that we've been doing over the
last decade plus 15 >> so in our response to both um the traffic comments and the comments from the planning board and others on parking demand. We're going to give you a big list of the all of those the projects
their um you know their um parking ratio and so you can get an idea exactly where this one fits in for for more than just three or four. We'll see if we can get you a dozen or so that we have readily available. >> Sure. I mean, I I do understand and very
much appreciate that it's that everyone's trying to um you know, minimize the impervious services and and yet provide adequate parking for the the residents of of the project. Um, so and it's I'm sure it's all like everything
else is is a balancing act and um I think that the um uh again the the experience of your firm and and as well as Penrose can uh have a lot to say to that I'm sure. Um
so I don't think I really uh there was one other thing I was going to bring up and I've lost it so I'll let it go. We can always get back. >> If it comes back to me, >> absolutely. Um, Jenny, >> yeah, >> go next.
>> Sure. Um, so I, uh, want to start with building six also. Um, I'm sorry. Yeah, building six. What Lee and and Steve were saying, if you look at the plan A004,
it looks like there is storage on the back, not the side. Unless it's changing for that particular >> Hold on a second. >> Paul, I'm looking at the floor. Okay. I'm looking at the floor plan. Building
type C floor plan A4. >> I would I think this is a this was a late change in the design process. So that is a typical building C. Okay. which would pertain to the other building type C's but we don't have a
specific floor plan for that building six yet >> just that one which is >> just it's reflected in the site plan not in the architectural plans >> building number six >> yes >> that's the only one that won't have the storage in the back because >> well it'll have storage on the side >> right on the side but within this
complex all the other ones the building C's will have it in the back >> uh no on the side >> on the side okay >> it's just a different side. >> All right. So, this is not good for any of them, not just >> No. >> Okay. >> No, no. As I said, building six is the
only one that the storage units are reflected in a different place on the site plan. >> Okay. >> In the architecturals, it's a typical type C building. >> Okay. >> So, it's the predominant type. It would apply to the other type C buildings.
Building six is unique and that has not been reflected in the architectural plans yet. >> Okay. All right. >> I hope that's clear. >> Yes, that is it's confusing but it's clear. Um >> I could just show you on the the site plan
each >> these little triangles that are on each one of these are are the uh >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. are will are where the the storage sheds are. >> Okay. So you can you can just see them. It's a little hard to see at the scale,
but when you uh when you have a bigger plan or an 11 by 17 or something in front of you, you can see pretty clearly where they are. >> And for building six in a typical unit, those storage units would have been here, but because of the
grade for this building six, we brought the storage onto this facade. >> But the plan stayed the same. We were able to incorporate the storage units without >> uh affecting daylight windows. We were a able to do it on another plan which is
not before you >> and I know that was your explanation to Lee, but when I was looking at that floor plan, I I couldn't reconcile why that wasn't. Um so, and no wall there for that. Um because if it's only four feet, what's in the drop off? I I I do wonder why we're not extending the wall
there >> here. Yeah, >> we have a section showing that condition. >> Yeah, you want to >> I'm gonna have Mark scroll to it. >> I mean, is somebody's is somebody's uh
door they have access from their home back there or a deck or something? No. >> No. >> Okay. >> No, there's there's no access and the building essentially becomes the wall. >> So, >> yeah. Okay. It's not like it's a townhouse where you could walk out and
have they don't they don't have any access behind there. Okay. >> So, in order to be what' you say four feet to be walking around that four feet, you'd have to be intentional about walking behind that building. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think you'd only go there if I'm not in front of this.
>> Okay. >> I think you'd only go there if uh you know you had a maintenance issue you wanted to get there to check on a down spout or something that was there or >> Okay. >> something like that. four feet I think you said. >> Okay. All right. Um
and uh I want to also just quickly comment on the bike path. Um I agree with what Dave V was saying um you know about the comment earlier having it be perpendicular. I thought that was actually a good idea because I'm less
concerned about people going from the complex down the bike path as it is people going up the path from the bike path and into the complex and create that's a small which is part of a secondary comment. It's a really tight at least it looks that way from this you
know visual um the rec center you know it's looks tight. So anyway, I I do agree that I think the that some type of um I like the organic look of the current design, but I think that we want to make it really clear somehow that this is not
an extension of the bike path. Okay. >> That's how I think we read the bikeways committee letter as well. >> Wanting to make sure Yeah. >> Yeah. And I I know you just got that and you're still absorbing that. Um I do appreciate that your buildings two, three, four, five, and six, the sea
buildings are away from the single abuter. Um unlike the other project where we had a lot of abutters and a lot of comments from the utters, we only have one on this project which is on the northern side. Um so I do like that building eight and seven are smaller. I
I you can tell that was thoughtfully designed that way for that reason. Um, but I I one of my questions today was what was the resolution on the dumpster? Because I don't think that with the only a butter that you have that they should
have the dumpster there. Uh, we have questions on Main Street about the location of the dumpster being too close to the abuter. So, um, so I I would just I know these are still kind of early days, but I do think that that um should be considered to be it isn't just it
it's the it's uh the access from the rest of the residents. That's one thing. And also the noise. It isn't just um you know, the trash being there, but it's the noise and and that family um actually has small children. Um, so I I
I do want to just reiterate that I think that the same thoughtfulness that you have with respect to the heights of the buildings could could go a long way with the dumpster. Now, I remember you saying at the last meeting the reason you had it there, there was a reason it needed to be there. Um, it wasn't just like,
oh, let's put it there, but if that could be contemplated as you're reviewing some things, I think that would be um nice for the bakers. Um, Mr. Singer, there was this was a couple of hours ago, so I don't remember who said
it, but um that the that the original proposal for this um meeting house was 36 and it was changed to 42. This was a comment from someone who wrote in. Do you remember that today? >> I remember hearing the comment. I think the number I heard was 37.
>> Um I can't answer the question. Okay. >> I heard the comment. I can't answer the question. Rio might be able to. >> Yeah. Do you remember that? >> Yes. Um, we didn't change our proposal. I think the RFP was looking for a development with a minimum number of 37
spaces and >> we had always proposed 42. >> You had always proposed 42. >> Remember that. Yeah. >> Um, so, so Rio, before you go, I this is more and I think Randy I have this is
com questions and comments. Okay. So, um, while we're talking about the proposal, and I know we're only talking about Main Street, I mean, a meeting house here, but when I look at the things we're talking about and contemplating here, um, from a
from a micro level, there are some differences here on Meeting House. The topography is clearly different. Main Street's flat. Um, this has two roadways, you know, one 137 and and uh and 20 28. One side is conservation
and so we really only have the abutters on one on one side and really only one direct butter. Um, so I just at a at a micro level there are those differences on this site. But at a macro level, a lot of these sitting
here, a lot of these questions and comments and concerns are very similar to the things we've been doing for six hearings with Main Street. So I guess my one of my questions is or comments is when I was going through all the paperwork at my house, I came across
this original letter from Charlie Adams from 2024 which says that combining the projects can result in cost savings due to streamline processes and shared resources um including staff amenities. to effectively and efficiently develop
and manage the multif family housing. Penrose requires 60 units of housing. And Rio, you said that several times throughout the course of all these meetings. Um that that is the size of your typical project and that this uh both meeting house here at 42 and Main
Street at 48 are are smaller than the 60. Um, and you've explained, you know, the property manager and the reason for for that. But he goes on to say, although the development plan is to do these two sites together to get these
synergies, um, we are willing to develop Main Street on its own independently if Penrose is unable to develop Main Street and Meeting House together. So, so you yourself or Penrose is is is
combining these two properties, if you will. And I I just wonder why we have been sort of told, no, we're not talking about Meeting House today. We're not talking about Main Street today. What would be helpful I think to sort of talk about some of the more macro issues like
density uh in particular um across the two sites because when you add 40 uh 8 units which is Main Street and 42 units which is Meeting House it's 90 units and you've
said many times 60 units is what you need. So it just seems as though that there's some a little surplus maybe. Now I know there's more cost. These are two different sites properties. They require some differences like that managing the ravine and all the engineering.
But I I just wonder if we you know so much of the comments are around setbacks and density and if we move this over here we have to shift something over there. And the answer is never changing the number of units which would help with moving the dumpster for example in
this case. So, I just throw that back out there because um I I would well I want to hear what you have to say about the idea of potentially you know discussing the two in totality with respect to density which can help with
some of the crowding of this. Another example would be the the smallalness of the rec center that could be could be expanded. So, um, it could just relieve some of the pressure that we've been hearing from so many of the town
citizens attending here, writing in, and um, anyway, I'll I just want to ask >> I just want to interject. So, I didn't want you to have to wait for me because I go last. So, I'm wondering about this, too. So, I think I'm not sure if Jenny
means this, but I I I mean it is that maybe it would be a good idea to have a global resolution and vote on both projects essentially at the same time when you think about it so that maybe some density could get you know shifted a little bit perhaps just the just open
asking you to open up your mind to that because we could you know with court cases they call it bringing forward. So you you know you take two cases and bring one forward so that you put them together. And you've said yourself you can't do you can't do uh Main Street if
you don't have I mean you can't do Meeting House if you don't have Main Street. So it only makes sense to try to combine these whatever the law permits just to see if you could you know find a way to Yes. with us and um it would be
efficient certainly to do that. you'd have a chance to try to get your funding a lot sooner than trying to deal with what what we're going to do for Main Street and then wait on Meeting House and like if meet if Main Street didn't go your way if you appeal it then you
got to go through all of that and then it could even be another appeal and meanwhile meeting house would be sitting here you know in the vapor um knowing too that you not even doing that unless you do Maine we're just trying to help you out in a sense to help and that
would help us out to get to yes perhaps more efficiently. So just I don't expect you to answer that now and I'm hoping Charlie doesn't come flying through the um the teams on this but we're just opening up the dialogue about it. That's
it. You know, >> I get what you're saying. It's I it's reasonable. I I understand. Um, so we'll I guess I obviously I'll circle back with Andrew on that, but I I think the general idea that you propose does make
sense. Um, because and you're right, we've we've said we could do Main Street on its own, as is Meeting House. We really can't unless we had Main Street. Um, and that's, you know, this comes up when we talk about things like, well,
why is there no community building here or why is there only 42 units here versus the other one where you said we can't go below 48. So, um, >> maybe there could be some shifting and and even for you, you know, one in the hand is worth two in the bush, you know,
so if you knew you were going to get something that was more than 60 units, for sure, you know what I mean? that >> that's the one in the hand. >> That would be the one in the hand perhaps. I'm not speaking for my colleagues, but but I'm I'm speaking for myself. You know, it would help me get
to Yes. >> As as Rio said, we can certain we hear what you guys are suggesting. We can certainly consider it. I also asked the board as you're considering it to remember the conversation we had at the last time we saw you on the other project and town council's listening to this. I know is
discussions about density and performers and that need to be tied to something more than just the public feels it's too big. You know, they need to be tied to and I'm not saying you wouldn't come up with these concerns, but they have to be
something that is life safety. You know, again, these projects have been peer-reviewed. So, I just wanted to be very clear that I don't think any of these either of these projects since they're both being discussed one informally because it's not open. Um, neither of these projects raises in our minds and anyone team's minds or in your
peer reviewer or your town department's minds any safety issues. Everything has been vetted with the town departments. There are other questions that remain open. And I'm not saying this to say no. >> Yep. say, but I want to be very clear that as
we're being open with each side on on on desires, how legally the applicants looking at it and also the fact that, you know, other than we clearly we've heard the the angst about density, but that's angst. It's not necessarily
life safety. And I just want that on the record. And just I don't know if you know this, but somebody just got hit by a car right in front of your prospective um application on Main Street like within 48 hours. I'm just saying, you know, there's issues on that street and
um that's unfortunate and nothing. I'm very sorry. >> Yeah, of course. Yeah. But things like that happen and um also you know we have a water shortage and that's been you know we we have ways that we could make an argument you know whether or not and
we all know too and it's really unfortunate that that housing appeals um committee is really one-sided and we understand that you know so that's why we try to work with you. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Sure. So go ahead Jenny.
>> Okay so just one more quick thing. Um so just to your point Mr. Singer. Um earlier today we were talking about parking. Um 1.45 spaces per site proposed here. Main Street is 1.5 and
some of the studies we have heard from the IT 13 to16. And then was there another study earlier today in one of this piles of paperwork u from an IDE organization or someone else that was it our Cape Cod Commission or somebody had
another >> well are you talking about Rio made the the IT standards you said 1.2 to 1.6 >> 1.3 to6 was it >> 1.3 to 1.6 earlier in the evening in the day um >> review.
>> Okay. Someone said uh that that um parking was another organization and it had a higher number. >> I see Rich looking through something. >> We're not sure, but Rich is looking. >> My my point about that is that that goes to safety. If there isn't enough parking
and you have to park away from your unit or something or maybe you can't even find a place for whatever reason, someone's having a party that that could be safety. Clearly looking here, where is the open space? There is no open space. Um that tiny bit on the corner, I
don't think personally it's large enough. So I think I agree with Randy. I think we don't have to really stretch to find some correlations to the density because every time we've tried to address the setback issue, we've been squeezing everything in. For example,
the dumpster that it needs to go there. It can't go over here. we'd have more flexibility with making this um the these better uh properties for the for the residents and also um less density that the town clearly um is responding
to. So that's all I have for today. >> Did you have something Jenny that you wanted to see like to be on their new plans that they come back with? Anything specific? Well, I think we could be flexible here, but an example of this um
using some of the extra 30 units, if you will. Let's just use the example 90 60 is 30. Um so, if you think about that, we're we're not at all proposing the full 30, but 30 is 50% 50% of 60, which
is what you've been saying throughout, you know, weeks and weeks and weeks. Um, so it's it's a big number and I'm just I I don't know why it didn't dawn on me sooner, but if we could use some of that. So So let's just hypothetically say, all right, let's just say half of that is reasonable. I'm not saying
you're saying that, but um and so we can play with 15 units or 12 units. You you could potentially take ma uh Main Street to um for 36 units and this could stay at 42 or they could be 42 and 36. I
mean, there would be a potentially significant reduction in the number of units um by using some of that 30. So, I mean, Randy, I think that's just an example of where we could get specific, but I don't know that it's, you know,
>> I I I I think we'd have to discuss that broadly. >> And just to go back, Steve, did you have anything specific that you wanted to see in the new plans? Um, I don't know if it's critical, but I don't see any ADA spots by buildings uh,
seven and eight. The closest one is um, in between five and six, and there's one up by building number one. I think we need to address that. Um, the dumpster issue, several people have mentioned. >> So, like other other locations for the
dumpster. Yeah. >> In addition, Mr. Clator mentioned it. >> Yeah, he did. looking at >> um I think the playground is insufficient for the number of people that that are potentially here and uh you know to assume that you can use a
twine field um I don't think you should you should be assuming that. So I think there should be more green space available just things like that. >> Yeah Lee, did you have anything specific? I forget if I already if you already went. You didn't even go yet. >> I Yeah, I did.
>> You did go. Yeah, I did go a few hours ago. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm losing. >> Um I I guess I would just throw my support um behind um Jan's idea and your idea. Okay. >> Looking at holistically >> looking at it a global a global and it doesn't have to be um a certain amount.
It just we're just asking you to consider it. >> Okay. I just want to clarify when I when I was when I heard earlier seem to be like moving some units from one site to another site, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about
reducing sites on reducing units on both sides. >> If I in the event you could move some from Main Street over over to over to Meeting House and you wanted to show us something like that, that would be super helpful. >> No, no, sorry. I'm just we're just
putting out hypotheticals, that's all. >> Okay. That that's I think that's what I had been thinking. So I I >> did not I was confused on that. Sorry. Um I I think the issues there is just It was the same issue as feasibility. Now
we have two projects that are both less feasible. >> Yeah, good point. Sure. No, we're not trying to get more density. I apologize for that insinuation. Okay, so um please Dave V.
>> So Randy, I it did come back to me. What? I didn't even need to write it down. It came back to me. Um, well, I'm just curious because I mean there wasn't there was uh some discussion uh uh about um side about sidewalks and
um creating a sidewalk connection to from to Route 28 along 137. Uh and there was a a consideration that might be a town's responsibility. It might be what I
I'm just opening it up because I don't think you guys responded one way or another. I had always I'd kind of thought, well, you have the sidewalk connection to the bike path and that's what you were thinking of as being a pedestrian
uh connection and then you've got the sidewalk coming out to 137, but there's been some people at least suggesting uh the creation of sidewalks uh along Route 137. So, if you care to comment on that,
I don't have any I'm not looking for um an answer. I'm just looking for some background or whatever, you know. >> Well, I can speak about the feasibility of putting a sidewalk on Meeting House in the immediate uh vicinity of where we're extending this uh so-called uh bus
stop location, potential bus stop location. >> Uh this um slope here is um severe, >> right? uh and uh to to do that it and there's guardrail and um I can't
remember whether there's utilities or not but uh just by looking at the terrain it was going to be a severe approach and and it's really why right right out of the gate we we figured well this makes sense for the pedestrians here to get you know to get to there ultimately here now there's a sidewalk I
believe in this stretch uh just from there's a parking lot here right for the for the bike path and then there's and and then but there's nothing in here um to connect to 28. >> Okay. >> But you know if if you can imagine this
project being able to like access the bike path go down here cross there's a crossing crosswalk. >> Yeah. with a rectangular rapid flashing beacons and then >> you know you would you could make that connection and I think that um connection is part of the your
developers agreement um >> the penrose >> I I think that's what one of the speakers writers >> maybe that's what >> comment I I in my mind that's the section they were talking about >> because I do see I mean I I I think that you're you're pointing out with the
topography to try to create a sidewalk along the side of route of 137 there is um that's kind of beyond >> right but that that agreement that Penrose has um the town for that is a development agreement is a separate
contract >> okay right >> where and not we didn't want to tie it to this project because it's a different matter >> okay >> um but um real you can >> yeah that's the sidewalk here to get folks across here
to then get to the bike path Yeah, because this is town town owned >> alone. Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's what we agreed to do in the development agreement. >> Okay. All right. Well, that that answers some of the questions I think that came up uh in that regard. Um and no, so that
was it, Randy. >> Okay. Ed, >> um I can't tell from the site plan, but has is your proposed development connected to to Twine Field? Do you It doesn't
seem like there's any access and it to me it makes sense that there should be access to Twin Field. >> There are two um pedestrian access points. >> Those little like sidewalks it looks like. Is that >> And they are um the terrain works. So not not the grades are pretty good.
>> Okay, perfect. >> So yeah, two two locations. There's one right um right here just you could barely see it right a little and then another one right here between these two buildings. >> Okay, great. >> So two locations. Okay. And then um when I was out at the site, I I believe I met
Mr. Baker and um >> there you go. >> A very nice gentleman. Uh but one comment he made to me just really stuck out. He he did say he was working with you uh you guys were working together to for access to the road. But he made the
comment to me. I think he's been out there 20 years. and he and he said to me, "I've lived in the woods for 20 years, and now, you know, he has this development going in next door." And and he didn't seem bitter or or anything, but I I would like to ensure that he
still has the feeling that he's in the woods if at all possible um by, you know, screening over there, uh moving the dumpster so he he doesn't really have to hear that. Um uh and that's really all I have for now.
I mean um I'm I'll have a lot more to say at the appropriate time, but those are the two things that stick out to me right at the moment. >> Okay. And uh David Nixon. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um first of all,
I want to say that I triple down on Ry's and Jenny's points. I I look at this as one project meaning Maine and this I
really do. So my question to you Rio is if for some reason Maine didn't make it or you know whatever would this be pulled or would you accept a
separate vote on this? >> No, this would be pulled. >> It would be pulled. >> Yes. Okay. And just leave Mr. Nixon even they would have to be separate votes no matter how you did it even if you took them on the same day because they're separate pals and all. No.
>> Okay. So as long as I understand that >> it's for this to be even considered you'd have to get a green light on me. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, you know, nowhere along the line have I heard anything, and maybe
it's not because of Penrose, but maybe it's because of the HT. There's no talk about studio units, and I I bring that up because studio units are great for people
20somes. Uh, not it's not designed for firemen or policemen and all that. It's designed for uh the line cook or the uh the waitress or the guy that works for
like the folks that would work for Eddie, you know, they they're they're and I don't want to use the word, you know, let's just say they're they entering into the u the workforce. And there was a time in my life when my wife and I
lived in a studio and uh it was perfect for us. We worked in the hospitality industry in Hawaii and I know that's double speak. I was a bartender and she was a cocktail waitress and a studio unit for us at
that time in our 20s was absolutely perfect. But yet I have not heard a word from anybody about a studio unit. And I I think that's odd. So Rio, I suspect your answer will be well that wasn't we were
asked for. We were asked for one, two, and three units, right? Is that correct? Or could you have injected into this mix a studio unit? >> We could have. The reason we didn't was because um we it would make us much less
competitive with HLC. They do not like to see studios and family developments. They want to see two bedrooms and three bedrooms. In fact, the reason we have so many twos and threes is based on a specific percentage that HLC wants to see. >> So, they're uh that's what's
incentivizes us to come up with the unit mix that we come up with. >> Okay. That's interesting because they're excluding a certain part of the workforce and for whatever reason. Okay. Um I I think with
what you've said before those two were my only questions. Thank you gentlemen. >> Okay. So um I'm not going to talk again about a global resolution. I've I've planted that notion and it'll be nice to hear what you think. Um, so permeable
asphalt, I need a little bit of an education on that. Um, that was recommended by the Cape Cod Commission and I know what it means. It means somehow the water makes it through. And what I'm wondering about is is that
better for the environment than um regular asphalt because you're going to treat it somehow or would it all get treated? What's better? >> Yeah, good question. Uh like most answers, uh it depends. Uh but I can give you a real quick one here. Uh we do
have great soils here and we could infiltrate uh through a permeable asphalt or alternative pavers to do that. Um but you don't get the organic pre-treatment that you get in these bio
systems that we have ahead of time. We're we're using organic soils and microbial conditions in in the soils to remove pollutants and to actually remove nitrogen and some of the other key things that we're worried about on Cape Cod. So, um the other issue is spills.
Um so, if anything spills on a permeable surface, uh it goes through and then you have a a cleanup problem. Okay? And and not to say that they're going to be a lot of contaminants here that are likely to spill, but things happen. you know, pe people are just filling antifreeze or
doing something and it it spills. So, we use permeable paving when we have to and when we can't do this. Um and and when we don't have space to do something on the surface perhaps. Uh so it has a place um it it's um harder to maintain.
So it has a higher maintenance burden. Uh, I think the Cape Cod Commission, they make this comment sort of generally, but they they didn't really think, I don't think, think it through that this is a a much better and more environmentally conscious way to handle the storm water. >> Yeah. Y
>> maybe on its face it just sounds more um advantageous but um it sounds like you've really got this >> and I'm sorry I was just reminded that the playground does have a permeable component that is mentioned uh somewhere I think in the Cape Cod commission but that doesn't have the spill containment
issue and then that's also >> easy to do and it you can combine the permeability with the safety of of spongy surface for the for fall potential children. That makes a lot of sense and we do that all the all the time on playgrounds. >> So you'll do it where your professional
experience deems it needed. Um and that's great. Um so the materials for the guard rail that you know that guard rail over on George Ryder is really not a good look at all. I don't know if you're familiar with that. Um it's, you
know, it's nice that George Ryder put um an, you know, they improved the bike trail, the sidewalk and all, but I mean, I can't I thought for sure that was temporary when I saw it. I still can't believe my eyes. I run there all the time, and I like the sort of like the
sidewalk there, but that is ugly. >> Yeah. >> Plain old and simple. >> I didn't really notice it, but but uh we we do use a wooden guard rail um on in a lot of examples on something like this. Um, it it's not it's not ugly. Wooden
posts. Um, I think it's 4x4 by six is the actual beam. So, they're not huge, but you know, they're not 4x4s, but might be 4x4 by eight. But, you know, it's it's a big chunk of wood. They're two rails. >> There's got to be a way to make it look better than that. You know, that's what
I'd be kind of hoping to see. >> Well, the the detail is in your in your package. Uh, you can kind of take a look at it if if you'd like. And I and when we come back, we'll I'll I'll show you a couple pictures of some alternatives and >> that'll be great. Yep. Yep. I'm trying to be specific. How about solar panels?
Um is it just going to be solar ready or can you go a little further than that and um help the help the people out with their with their bills? >> Yes, we can go further. In fact, I I didn't catch this when this was asked at
Main Street. All the buildings are solar ready, but we actually in our development agreement with the town um committed to putting in some portion of solar panels. So even if we don't need it for passive house, we still have to put them in.
>> Oh, okay. So we could condition that and that wouldn't bother you at all, you know. >> No. >> Oh, no. Great. >> No, because we're already obligated to. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> I guess it would just be the the the amount >> the amount the condition we would just have to discuss. But we'll we'll discuss that down the line hopefully. Yep. Okay.
And then the reta >> the retaining walls, what um I apologize if I didn't see them on your rendering, but what do those look like? And um or I can go back and check if you can just say Randy, go look at it and I
will. Yeah. >> Uh hi Mark again. Um the the gu or the retaining walls are shown in the landscape package. It's similar. um to what you've seen before for the other project. They're a pre-cast
concrete block that gets stacked up. Um I it's pretty a pretty typical look. We can provide some imagery for it though if that'd be helpful. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, I mean between, you know, those those wooden guard rails and
then some real industrial looking go, you know, um, uh, blocks, you know, that's really not Cadam. So, I'm concerned about that. All right. Um, all right. Let's see. So, you say you had 600 applicants over in East
Ham, Rio, and and I don't doubt that at all, but I'm just wondering, you know, were they qualified? how many were qualified. You know, throwing out numbers to me, it just doesn't mean anything because I don't know what these people, you know, who they who they were. And I'm wondering without giving
us names at some point, maybe next time, could you give us like the demographics of the people that the 600 people um in a way, you know, that makes sense to us, you know, how's that sound? >> Sure. Sure. We we've been providing that in information to the Orleans Affordable
Housing Trust. I think as of today we have 45 occupants of the 62 units. We have five moving in. Um tomorrow and over the weekend um I don't have handy with me that you're looking for
demographics sort of >> where they're moving from where they're coming from. Um maybe that, but especially what kind which type of units do they want and um you know what do they do for work to to a degree or you know that type of thing because I think
a lot of us are curious about that. Whether that's in our lane or not, I'm not 100% sure, but um all you can say is no. >> Just have to be careful about fair housing laws. >> Yeah. No, and I that's why I particularly said don't give us their
names or anything. Um okay. or >> any whatever information I can get and provide. >> Yeah. >> Have an issue. >> Yeah. And if out if the if out of the 600 like just be, you know, obviously you'll be honest. If 250 didn't even
stand a chance, we would like to know that too, you know. >> But that's usually always the case. >> All right. Well, I'd like to know a little bit more then. >> Usually, yeah, >> you know, rule of thumb, 50% aren't going to qualify. They're either going to be >> over income. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Or too low under income. >> Yeah. So then you could understand why telling us 600 doesn't mean there would have been 600 people that would have lived there if they could because a lot of them wouldn't have been able to pass muster. So that's why numbers don't mean
a lot to me. Okay. Um wells for irrigation. I understand this project is not going to need as much irrigation as Main Street. I mean, Mason Street is going to need a lot and but this is a lot of Cape Cod lawn and there's not as
much, but would you be willing to put a well in because we understand that you're not going to be able to use the treated water. So, we'd like to not only have an irrigation um that we can depend on, but one into perpetuity perhaps just
so it always looks nice. >> Yeah. If it's feasible, we can do it. Then >> you can come back and tell us next time. I'm just >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. Um, let's see. Snow removal on the bike path. Would that be something you'd be
doing on the bike path? >> That is not something we considered doing. >> Okay. I mean, at on our path that we're showing, but not the old colony room, >> not the whole bike path, but just the part that Well, I don't know how people
are going to get over to wherever they need to go for the bus. Um, but >> well, there's a the sidewalk going down the main driveway is intended to go to a bus stop. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, that's separate from >> What was the question? Plowing. Wow.
>> So, yeah, this this white uh line, bright white line is a 5-ft sidewalk to connect to a potential bus stop here. That would certainly be plowed. >> That that's great. >> Yeah. And uh you I guess this would depend on I guess whether the rail tail is going to be plowed or you know
whatnot because I you know, we're going to have to plow this. We did um it was a peerreview comment to to have snow storage areas. We provided that to the peer reviewer. >> Yep. Uh, so we have that. Um, >> okay. We don't get a lot of snow, thank
God. But yeah. Um, let's see. And then one last thing. So I think I noticed that the mail people are going to have to pick up their mail in the middle. Is is that accurate? Um, so they have to come over and walk over to get their mail and their packages. Um, is I just
want to make sure that was is that typical? Well, with the So, yes, we we usually have uh mailboxes, sometimes multiple locations of the MA mailboxes. I'm not positive if we're showing multiple locations for
>> No, I thought Yeah, in this one, I thought there was just one central area and I if I if I remember what I read that people would have to Do you know what I mean? Sorry, you're shaking your head. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. There's there's one central location uh outside
of the uh management rooms >> in the back there. And >> so if they have packages, they they're on their own basically. >> Um so there's usually there's two ways that it usually these packages get
delivered. will have spaces for packages at that management office space but um with the town home style a lot of times like Amazon or stuff will just leave uh at people's front doors individual front doors >> at the numbers >> so that happens very frequently sort of
depends on what the um what they're comfortable with doing. >> Okay, sounds good. And I'm I'm fine with depending on relying on your training and experience with parking. Um, I know we hear a lot about that, but I mean you'd put more spaces if you thought it
was needed and you have a lot of experience with that. So, I would uh defer defer to you on that for sure. Less is more, you know, I think. Anyway, so um all right. Do you I think we're unless anybody else on the board has anything
at No. Looks like no. No. Um unless you have anything else to say. Did you how November 13th looks like our next available slot for this? Um, would you like us to make a motion to >> Could I just ask a question just to make
sure? I got an email from Sarah earlier. It was a meeting invite for 116. I just want to make sure we're not mixing my apples and oranges. >> That was for an application. Um, >> was that my other my unrelated application? Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I see a woman with her hand up. It's not something we usually do, but if you want to go up to the mic, I'm >> okay. >> I'm happy to. >> Thank you. >> She's 13. 13th. >> Again, this is out of character. >> That's okay.
>> Hi, I am Lori Nolan McCann. I wrote a letter earlier that was read and I just wanted to make a comment about the parking. Two comments. >> Oh, we're not going to do this now. >> Well, I just want to say this, if I may, please. >> I thought it was some procedural question. No, no, you you may not
actually because it's not fair. >> Okay. Well, I'm sorry. >> When you don't assign parking. >> Okay. Bye. >> Okay. I also want to just mention that when Hannah spoke earlier, >> this is not the type of thing we do now. >> Okay. Very strict about the rules, but thank you. >> Well, she's on the affordable housing.
>> No, we know that. But thank you. Yep. >> I thought you were going to say something about dates or procedure and that's why I gave Okay. No, we know. And you can't talk from there either. Sorry. You can be mad at me if you want. >> 11:113, if that's a date, that's fine. I mean, it's a
>> Okay, very good. Paul, >> I'll move to grant the requested continuence to November 13, 2025. >> Dave Beach second and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Lee. Oh. Oh, okay. Just the voters are
voting on this. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Go ahead, Jenny. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And Randy votes yes, too. So, motion to adjurnn. We all vote on that. >> I'll move to adjourn. >> Uh Dave seconds votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes.
>> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. What time is it? >> 4:51 p.m. >> 4:51. Okay. Good evening, Chadam. [Music] [Music]