Heat. Heat. Yep. [Music]
Good afternoon everyone. This is the zoning board of appeals meeting for October 2nd, 2025 pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of the chapter 2, the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during
the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting, the 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 far in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 945410. conference ID 881692 656 pound or join the meeting online via
Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoccast on Chattam TV, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In
accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. And the procedural steps today will be we'll start with a roll call vote of all board members. One of our regular members is
online because he is ill, uh, David Vch. So, I just wanted to point that out. Um we usually don't have that but in 40bs we we are waving our usual rule and allowing members to participate online if they're able. Um we ask that any
citizen or non non board members on the call that are on the call just make sure we I are able to identify you. Um the hearing notice will be read by staff Sarah Clark on my right. you are your representative and in this case uh
Penrose will um have an opportunity to speak and then I will read all letters that we've received since the last meeting. Anyone wishing to comment may speak today for up to four minutes. We're also going to loosen that rule um since we're winding down. Um just make
sure everybody feels that they've had an opportunity to say what they want to say. Um and then the applicant um oh yeah then anyone wishing to comment. I already said that the applicant can rebut anything that they've heard in the letters or that anyone has said. Uh the
board members will have an opportunity to um state their concerns or ask questions and then we will um vote to uh continue to a date certain. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close with a verbal
confirmation and note the time for adjournment. So let's start with a roll call vote of all board members. Dave Vich will just um ask you since you're online to go first. Yeah, that's a good excuse me that would be a good start. I hope you can
understand me. Um but uh I David HV I approve this for meeting format. Thank you. Uh Ed Actton I approve. David S. Nixon, I approve. Paul C. Simple, I approve. Lee Huby, I approve. Steven Dbor, I approve. Virginia Felmick, I approve.
And Randy Pesh, I approve as well. So, at this point, um, Sarah, application number 25-034 Penrose LLC, 15 Milk Street, 16th floor, Boston, Mass 02109. The property is owned by the Town of Cadam, located at 0 and 1533 Main
Street. also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 9D block 4A lot one and map 9D block 4 lot 18. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under general law chapter 40B sections 20 through 23 and
760 CMR56 for the construction of 48 dwelling units in nine structures. Also proposed is the construction of a management building. The applicants are requesting the grant of various waiverss from the regulations promulgated by the Chattam zoning bylaw and other local regulations. The properties contain 1
thou28,492 ft, 2.95 acres in the R20 zoning district. This was continued from May 8th, June 5th, July 17th, August 21st, and September 18th, 2025. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, my name is Andrew Singer, attorney Dennisport. With me up here is Carmen Chung from Penrose. We also have our entire project team with us, although today um and you may appreciate this after six months of uh reviewing
with you in depth all of uh the matters that we've discussed. Our presentations today are actually going to be pretty brief because as the chair noted uh we believe we are you know shortly at the end of uh this portion of the 40B review process. As an update from the September
18th meeting, we did submit revised plans which merely uh show the outdoor grills and the one sign as was discussed at the last meeting. We also submitted a revised waiver list which merely changes the sign request from two signs to
reflect just one sign. So very minor changes. We also uh earlier this week submitted a letter to you with two proformas um one for 48 units which is what's proposed and um Penrose went and did a proform for a 42 unit. I did want to say
we did not intend to uh submit that so close to the meeting, but I was away and just got back at the beginning of this week. So, we put it together um as soon as we could and submitted that to you. So you have that uh before you and um
what I wanted just to start off on that right from the beginning is as I'll discuss is for financial and practical reasons as I wrote in the letter and I'll discuss today on the record um and after due consideration of the request that you made the applicant is respectfully not able to decrease the
number of units in the proposal and this is the original number that was proposed to the town was reviewed by the select board was ultimately accepted as part the RFP process and for the reasons I'm going to reiterate and that Carmen is going to discuss briefly as well. Um we believe that those are the numbers that
are required for this project to be economically and practically and operationally viable for the applicant. With that being said, what I'd like to also after so many months um again discuss on the record is as you get
ready to deliberate and issue and vote on a decision is the legal standard you look at because again this is very different from a 40A zoning special permit case. The legal standard you're looking at is the project consistent with local needs. That's it. It's that straightforward in words. It's not that
straightforward in in in practicality because to do that is it consistent with local needs standard. You have to balance every single board in town, right? You're looking at zoning, planning, historic, health, conservation, safety, everything. That's your job. And you've been doing a very
in-depth job looking at that over the past six months. So, is the project consistent with the local needs? I would say it is for at least two reasons. The first reason is a um presumption in Commonwealth of Massachusetts law that if a town is less
than 10% of its year-round housing stock as deeded affordable housing, then there is a presumption that a proposal is consistent with local needs. Right? That's a legal presumption. But then I'd ask you to consider every single person who has stood before these microphones
during this hearing. I don't think I didn't hear one of them. That was poor grammar. But I but I didn't hear one of them not say whether a supporter or an opponent of this project did not say we have an urgent urgent housing crisis in Chadam. Every single person. Now there
are obviously debates over the mechanics in what we're here. But from a consistent with local needs, I think it is very demonstratively proven that there is an urgent housing crisis in Chadam. I think that is why the town which owns this land put out a request
for proposals to develop this land for rental affordable housing. And that's the project you have before you today under 760 CMR 56.056A4. That's a long string of numbers, but
that's the mass regulations that govern um your review of 40bs. And it also discusses what you look at. It has a really good language and what you're looking at. It also gets to what's consistent with local needs. It talks about looking at density and it says the board is only entitled to ask about
density if the request is justified by a valid health, safety, environmental design, open space planning or other local concern that directly results from the size of a project on a particular site. Now, in this case, um, there have
been a few comments that have been made about some concerns when you were talking about density, but they revolved around, as I heard the testimony, um, a potential further increase in conforming rear and side setbacks, the word water, and then the phrase general wear and
tear. So, I respectfully submit, and the applicant does, that none of these rise to the level of a valid health, safety, environmental, etc. reason for looking at density, but there's a there's a reason for why I said that. During the
long review of this process with you, no remaining issues that are specific to those categories, all of those technical categories have been raised or alleged. None of the town departments that have reviewed the proposal have raised any of these issues with wastewater, storm water, utilities, traffic, lighting, or
site design that directly results from the size of the project. All questions that have been raised and there have been many questions and we have had lots of discussion with you with questions that were raised by town departments, by yourselves, by peer review. Every one of them has been satisfactorily addressed.
And even in addition, your town, the town peer review, the company that you hired to look at this project, which has reviewed everything several times, they also have stated they have no ongoing questions or concerns. So, we respectfully submit that in this
instance there are none of those concerns. You've looked at them. You've analyzed them. The town has analyzed them. Peer review has analyzed them. And the applicant has made many concessions, tweaks, changes. The plans have evolved and you discussed this at your last
meeting. The whole this concept of negotiations and deliberations. I think town council commented at the last meeting. That's been going on for the last six months. And that's what gets us to the plans that you have before you today. Now, I would like to address one thing that is very concerning uh to us. An
email came into you yesterday that made a So, this is a pre-butt as opposed to a rebutt. That email made a maliciously false statement and stated outright that a tragic fire at an assisted living facility off Cape earlier this summer
was a Penrose facility and that they were derelictked in how they responded at that site. There was a tragic fire in Fall River earlier this summer. It was not a Penrose property. In fact, it was is was an assisted living facility that was
located in a potentially a six decade old motel building which was absolutely nothing to do with the project that's before you for this site. The applicant's proposal before you has state-of-the-art buildings that comply with the 10th building code of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They're fully sprinkled. They have full access as required by the Cadam Fire Department. The Chattam Fire Department has looked at this site, as I said, multiple times, turning templates. You've looked at it as well. Turning templates, access to each of the
buildings, two driveways, so they can go both ways around if the fire department has to. This site has been designed and potentially could be one of the safest sites in Chadam when all is said and done, because it is all modern. to allege that a tragedy somewhere else.
First to outright say it was belonged to the applicant, which is a which is wrong and false. But then it goes on with a whole bunch of language to say that your review of this project and the fire department's review of this project and the town's review of this project have been inadequate, we respectfully suggest
has been done just to poison the well. It does not add anything meaningful or is at all relevant to your deliberations. The applicant responded to the town's RFP in the initial stages to and again it was a town request to develop affordable housing on this land. They
complied with the minimum density requirements that were put into the RFP and they purposely did not maximize the number of units that could be there. You've heard that from both uh the applicant uh well from several representatives of the applicant over the meetings. Their general uh
development size is 60 plus or minus. Well, they came in here with 48 because they felt that a larger size was not uh suff suitable for this property. And again, the project has been revised several times to take into consideration requests of both the board members and
the neighbors. You have had while there's always opposition to 40B requests, I've never done one that hasn't had it. This this project has had demonstrative and substantial and significant support in the community that you have heard time
and time again. In addition to the 42 unit proformer that was uh sub submitted and that demonstrates a nearly 1.4 million loss an inability to economically move forward with the project that gap reducing density in this case further
and you heard this have heard this before and we're repeating it because again this is kind of summing up everything as as this process is reaching its conclusion. it negatively would any change in density here will negatively impact the applicant's ability to best operate and manage the facility and the community.
Now, this 48 units, which again are less than the applicant's usual 60, they're needed because in their extensive experience, they need it to professionally manage the site to remain competitive in funding because if you don't get funding, you could approve anything all day long and the project will never get built. Money has to be
obtained for it. And as you heard last month, this allow this project along with um others allows them to co co-utilize their regional resources um to build a community that's smaller than its current standard practice, but one that is going to work for the community.
And when I say community, I mean the town of Chadam as well as the community of residents who are going to be living here. Penrose representatives have on several occasions reiterated to you and emphasized to you the fact that they are looking at building a development, a community that is a proud home to the
people who are going to be living there. And we respectfully submit that the plans before you are exactly that timing as the chair has noted and other times is running out on the legal review time that you have. what we and you have a meeting today and I believe there's
another scheduled meeting for October 30th and then shortly after that you have to you would have to wrap up deliberations within 40 days I think after that what we are going to respectfully request and Kerman's going to speak after I but what the applicant would respectfully request today we're happy to answer any more questions
you'll listen to maybe a final round of testimony from the public we would ask you to consider closing the hearing to public testimony today and beginning your deliberations and I ask that not cavalerely But October 30th is 28 days from today. That's four weeks. If you
are not able or choose not to start deliberations today, it's just going to rush you that much more at the end of the process. And if we're able to today begin deliberations, which don't lock you in to get anything, it's just beginning the time to discuss a decision, to discuss conditions, we
would ask you to consider that before you ultimately continue today's meeting. Um, with that, we appreciate all of the time that you've put in uh since May. We appreciate your time today and going forward. And I'd like to turn it over to Carmen. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Andrew. Welcome, Carmen. Carmen
Chung with uh Penrose. And I think I wanted to just add a little bit more context as to um why the unit count is so important. Um, I think whenever we go into communities and start working with the
public about kind of what things we can or can't do, I think it really helps when we can kind of explain the rationale. Not just no, we can't do it, but why. Uh, I think we've talked about it before. It's not just about the development budget that
you have in front of you and the gap it creates on the financing on the front end, but for us, so much of our philosophy of how we develop and operate is about what does this look like in 15 years. And every single unit that we
lose, it it it's like one more um it impacts the it's one more straw. And at what point does this kind of is the breaking point? And for us, usually we think it's
60 units. And this is already so far below our minimum that even one more unit from our perspective. It would we feel like from our history of managing and operating projects like
this that um it just creates so much more opportunity for the project to suffer any sort of unexpected condition and be challenged financially from an operating standpoint to be able to support its expenses, whether it be snow
plowing, whether it be the pest control, whether it be the landscaping. Um, and it's not that we've never done a 42-unit project before. We have in our past. And it's because of that past history that tells us that operating a project
feasibly in the long run is really challenging because expenses will start to uh the it's the it's kind of the math game here where expenses will start to increase more than our revenue increases
because uh expenses um will inevitably increase at a higher rate than um the income will allow us to bear. Um, and it's that history that has um really made us be disciplined about the types
of projects we do. Uh, and yes, having more projects in the region is helpful and that's an additional level of a redundancy, but each project needs to be able to stand on its own because all of our state agency lenders, our financing
partners, our investors will be looking at this as standalone projects. Um, and I also wanted to comment a little bit on the development budget and how it feels like numbers can be like very
black and white, but obviously numbers imbued in the numbers you see in front of you is also uh our reflecting our philosophy of how we operate and how we build because the operating numbers is numbers that we got from a property management company. This
is our model of how we build. And I think um part of the reason why the town selected us during the competitive RFP process was because of the things that we uh as a philosophy want to do like the full-time property management,
full-time maintenance. Um, and in how we build, um, things like all of our, uh, stove tops have are smart burners that turn off after a certain temperature because we know fires are one of the biggest reasons or risks for buildings
like this, our woodframe buildings. Or it's like how we do our piping and how we want home runs from uh, for all of our plumbing. These are our design standards that are also um part of our pricing from our contractor. And the
numbers you have in front of you are reflective of how we build and how we operate. And um someone else could probably maybe build a cheaper building, but I don't think that's necessarily what the town of Chadam uh wants. And
that's partially that's part a big reason I believe why the town selected us during the competitive RFP process. So um someone else can come in and give you a completely set of num different set of numbers and it could be true for them. Uh but these are numbers that are
true for us based on how we like to um build our buildings and how we operate. So um with that I think uh I'll reiterate uh Andrew's comment uh that we request to close the public hearing.
Part of the reason for that also is I want to share with the board is the financing that we are applying for from the project. There's only one application round a year and the pre-applications for that is typically uh sometime before the end of the year
and if we miss that pre-application deadline in which zoning is a really critical part of that uh then we would have to wait another year. With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions and we really appreciate your time. Yep. All right. Thank you. Um, so I
think we'll just do our usual um meeting uh procedures at this point and I will just urge people uh to remember that if you have any conversations that are going to be at all lengthy, please take them outside and shut off any gadgets that make any noise if you please. If
you do want to talk when we get to that, um, just please line up over there and, um, wait till you get to the mic before you speak. Um, okay. So, I'm going to read the correspondences. And first one is from Katherine Sheer,
14 Janette Drive. And she um writes uh on October 2 that was received today apparently that she urges each of us on on the zoning board to approve Penrose's application to create 48 affordable rental units on Main Street. As you are
aware, Charm desperately needs housing that is affordable in order to attract young families, house teachers, firefighters, fishermen, and other local workers and retirees. in response to the an RFP that was requested um development for at least 36 affordable units
um they elected Penrose throughout the permit process. Penrose has listened to the concerns of Chattam residents which it appears particularly attention to those who immediately have bought the property and will will be most directly affected. In response to concerns expressed, Penrose has made a number of
changes to their original design, which they summarize in their September 18th presentation. These changes reduce the impact of the proposals in various ways while retaining all 48 units. I believe the design has modified to be approved. Penrose has successfully addressed most
if not all of the concerns raised by immediate abuters as well as concern raised by others in town. CBA approval of the permit application will allow us to move forward with a creation of a thoughtfully designed affordable housing that we urgently need. Thank you for your consideration.
Next, we have a note from Thomas Clark from October 1st, 2025. Honorable members of the zoning board of appeals, I'm writing to express my support for the proposal to uh build low and moderate income housing in the town of
Cadam. and Chattam faces a pressing need for affordable housing due to combination of economic, demographic and workforce challenges. I note here in the most important reasons for driving this need, workforce retention and recruitment. Many essential workers,
teachers, first responders, healthcare staff and service employees cannot afford to live in Chattam due to high housing costs. Affordable housing helps retain local talent and ensures that critical services remain staffed. aging aging population and fixed income.
Chattam has a significant senior population, many of whom live on a fixed income and struggle with rising housing costs. Affordable units allow older residents to age in place without being displaced by market pressures. Housing for low and moderate income residents. A
large portion of Chadam's population earns below 80% of the median income, making market rate housing inaccessible. Recent projects aim to serve residents earning 30 to 60 of AMI with long-term affordability guarantees built into
development agreements. Seasonal and tourism economy. Chattam's economy relies heavily on seasonal tourism, which creates a demand for temporary and year-round workers. Without affordable housing, these workers often commute long distances or leave the area
entirely, straining local businesses, preserving community diversity. Rising poverty values and limited housing stock have led to demographic shifts, pricing out younger families and longtime residents. Affordable housing helps maintain a diverse and vibrant community
by offering options across income levels. Legal planning obligations. Chattam is actively working to meet its obligation under the Massachusetts subsidized housing inventory and fair housing laws. Projects like Main Street and Meeting House Road developments are
part of a strategic plan to increase affordable and attainable housing options. I urge you to approve the proposal. And Thomas Clark lives at 20 Uncle Lotus Road in West Cadam. Okay. Next, we have a note from Stuart
Smith from October 1st, 2025. Thank you for considering my earlier correspondence to your to you regarding this project in August of this year. In addition to your thoughtful responsibility to the citizens of Cadam with with respect to our zoning laws as
public servants, we shall we all share a responsibility to our citizens and future citizens with regard to public safety, health, and welfare for our community. The proponents of the project of the proposed housing project on the
former Buckley property in West Chattam have not adequately addressed these issues with the recent tragedy and high death rate in the fire in Far River and it says at one of their housing complexes. This shortfall resulted in
tragedy. As a result, a demonstrated third-party evaluation should be required to be undertaken by the proponents. We must be assured that adequate fire response can be done effectively under the worst circumstances. It must be demonstrated
by this third party review that not only Chattam ladder trucks um have full and unhindered access to the buildings uh when the parking lot is full or parked vehicles um but also the likelihood of a second ladder truck being required
during any second or third alarms. It must be demonstrated that other fire apparatus such as Cadam's pumper tank fleet can access this property simultaneously to our ladder apparatus. Ambulances routinely and as a matter of
response directives respond to these building fires as well. Numerous fire command and police vehicles will also be responding. Clearly the proposal does not address the real life full response to a building fire that at this location
an outside third party will ensure the maximum objectiveness that is required for this evaluation. Let's not let's not be the next far river or Worcester or the many other communities that have faced unnecessarily high casualty rates
in their building fires. Given the close proximity of the neighbors, those buildings will also need to be considered and protected as well as the inhabitants of homes on any p to any prospective fire. Given the number of units proposed by this location, a
response to building fire would be most challenging to save life and property. The proposed number of units all but assures an unnecessary risk to the inhabitants of the building and in the neighborhood in general. maximizing the
property with 48 units taxes and already overtaxed fragile environmental area. Given our location to the sea and single source aquifer, it is vital that we be sound stewards of our already overdeveloped community. This overdevelopment is directly adjacent to
the main street thoroughfare route 28 in Chattam where no sidewalk has been assured to access the north side of 28 where the sidewalks are located. The project encourages the use of mass transit if not relies upon that
utilization but does not provide adequate and safe embarking and disembarking of passengers from area transit buses. It is imperative that the bus have a designated pulloff area to get off of 28 and away from this busy
intersection and the adjacent rotary. Short of this, adequate bus stopping area needs to to be provided within the proposed housing complex parking area. The proponents are capable of providing solutions for these critical public safety problems that exist as location.
The zoning board of appeals is the local mechanism for ensuring that proponents are required to do so. Thank you for your service to the community and a very difficult job. I'm confident you are prepared to meet the challenge. Again, this is Stuart FX Smith of South Cadam.
Okay. Next, we have a note from Rickella Levit, 31 Barnhill Road. We request the zoning board of appeals follow place the following conditions on Penrose Main Street building permit. Number one, and there's just two numbers. Eliminate the
three parking spaces at the southwest corner of the site bordering the Levit property and relocate the trash dumpster elsewhere on the site. This was request is premised on the town's RFP specifying that all traffic flow be internal and
that site design respect all adjacent properties. At December 18th hearing, Pendro responded to this request claiming that noise associated with dumpster pickup will happen only twice weekly and for very short periods. Our concern is not only with pickups, but
more importantly with night and day use of the dumpster by residents. The proposed dumpster location at the southwest corner of the site is a long way from residents living closer to Main Street. They will not walk carrying their trash barrels and bags, but drive to the proposed dumpster location. We
will be exposed to constant traffic and dumpster noise night and day from a large number of residents. A more appropriate dumpster location is behind the office community center building closer to Main Street or some other location near Main Street. The RFP's
internal traffic flow requirement is intended to respect all adjacent property owners privacy and quiet enjoyment of their property, especially single family homeowners like us, from the noise, light, and movement of traffic. Eliminating three parking
spaces will still allow substantially more spaces than Penrose initially and as needed for this affordable housing development. We expect the town and Penrose to live up to this RFP requirement. Number two, the town's RFP also specifies that site design retain and
enhance natural buffers to surrounding properties. We have worked with the Penrose design team and very much appreciate their cooperation on this vital matter. We request the Penrose be required to provide a planting plan and schedule specifying the types of evergreen trees, height and spacing of
trees at planting along the entire 200 foot extent of our property line to be included as a permit condition. Included also in that condition should be a requirement that existing trees be identified and marked for preservation.
Natural buffers are essential to the privacy and quiet enjoyment of our home when multif family apartment buildings are built adjacent to single family homes. We ask that you give special consideration to the town's RFP specifying retaining enhancing a natural
buffer when crafting these conditions. Respectfully, Rick and 11 31 Barnhill Road West Chattam received September 29th, 2025. Next, we have a note from Wendy and David Perry, 24 Jesse's Landing. We are writing to express serious concerns
regarding the town of Chadam's current approach to affordable housing, specifically the proposed chapter 40B development on 1533 Maine. We have been coming to Cadam since we were children and we were excited when we were able to buy a house to support the town we love.
While fully support we fully support of affordable housing, the current proposal to the 40B development appears to first consider Penrose in its requirements for profits instead of true needs of Chattam and its residents. Our concerns include
density. 48 units on three acres is too large and not in zoning alignment with the rest of the town. It will create more traffic, potential accidents on an already busy state highway. And this seems to set a precedent to break zoning
laws in other parts of Chattam as well. Once 40B housing is built, it can never be changed. The proposed development on Main Street is excessively large for the designated space. Such a large-scale project risks negativity negatively
impacting the existing character infrastructure and surrounding neighborhoods of the area. Number two, motivation. Chattam appears to be meeting the need of Penrose development and its profitility model. Ownership should be the priority of Chadam.
Penrose demands that 40B projects meeting house in Maine be built to keep them profitable and only have a rental model. Would it not be better to build long-term residency and community of Cadam by offering residents a chance to rent to own their own places so that
they have long-term security, can attend schools for years to come, and can truly integrate into the Chattam community. Each 40B project should be looked at independently and not to meet the developers demands. Home ownership of Chattam residents should be prioritized
above the needs of national developer. In summary, we asked the town truly consider the long-term need of Chadam residents who need housing and the original intent of the RFP, which was affordable home ownership in Chadam and balances that with preservation of the
town's character, its population, and uniqueness on Cape Cod. The 40B decisions are permanent and cannot be amended. So, this is a decision that will affect Cadam forever. Respectfully, Wendy and David Perry.
Next, we have a short note from C. Kenner, um, Carol Kenner, 68 C change Lane, South Chattam. First, thank you for your public service. As a year-round resident of South Cadam, I write to urge you to support Penrose Main Street
permit. Let's send Penrose out now to get the project constructed and completed for the benefit of our community. This note is from Gil Sparks and it was received on September 24th. I write briefly to support West Chadam
affordable attainable housing project. While I'm not a full-time resident, I have a deep affection for Chattam. I met my wife on ro at the Rotary 60 years ago. We have a second home here for 36 years. My brother-in-law is a year-round resident. One of our sons worked for
over a decade in the Chattam hospitality business. and I currently serve as co-director of Chattam Railroad Museum. I reviewed the long history of the town approvals related to West Chattam project from publicly available information. It certainly appears Penroll's proposal is a unique
opportunity to address the town not um affordable housing crisis which has been favorably viewed by any number of elected and appointed town officials. I am not a zoning expert and my sole contribution to this issue is to remind the board that the beneficiaries of this
project would be the very people who we rely upon to make Chattam a safe and special place. The families of current and future firemen, policemen, EMTs, teachers, hospitality workers, salespeople, mechanics, um construction workers, etc. I could go on and on, but
for the short of that, but the short of it is that many people of these of these um are friends of mine and many and many of us and deserve a chance to live where they work. While I respect the right of proximate neighbors to express their
views for the project, many of the prospective beneficiaries are already effectively our neighbors who whose well-being is also entitled to respect. In short, given the lengthy prior history of good faith town approvals of
the Penrose project, I am deeply concerned that if it's rejected at this ve at this very late juncture, it'll be nearly impossible in the future to attract viable affordable housing projects to the town. Uh, respectfully, Gil Sparks.
This is from Jackie Marcel, 32 Jesse's Landing, September 24th, 2025. I would like to formally acknowledge and thank the board for the extensive study and dedicated evaluation of the Buckley's property project. Your commitment and effort have played a crucial role in
advancing the interest of the community. Chattam faces a pressing need for affordable housing. To address this challenge, two major projects have been initiated. The Buckley property and meeting house projects are important step towards 10% of the housing um stock
as required um by the state. Throughout the development process, presentations and comments um and the public have led to several changes to the Buckley project, notably the board meeting held on September 18th. Several questions were raised regarding the project's
density. The developer responded with concerns and explaining that reducing the number of units from 48 to 42 would not be financially feasible. Their experience indicates that a total of 60 units is required to support a full-time manager and additional support services. However, because the developer owns
other properties nearby in East Tam and Orleans, they believe it would be possible to make the project work with fewer units. Between the Buckley property and Meeting House Road project, Chadam in Chadam, there are currently 90 units planned. If the Buckley property is reduced to 42 and the meeting house
project stays at the 42, that would be 84. This figure is still well above the 60 unit threshold to support a full-time manager. Additionally, the proximity of these properties, which are approximately one mile apart, enhances the feasibility
necessary to support services. Given that both projects are located in Chattam and together total 90 units, it raises the question as to why the developer is considering the properties outside of Chattam, specifically those in East Jam and Orleans as a means of supporting the Buckley project. I
appreciate the board's thoughts regarding the pro-former project and would be interested in the board asking the developer about the two proposed projects in Chattam supporting the necessary services. One other thought the board and developer should consider is the money's potentially coming from
federal government to support the project. As we have witnessed in the last eight months, every item in the budget is being scrutinized and cuts are forthcoming. I do not know what the situation with with respect to HUD monies, but it should be researched
before a decision is made. Jackie Marcel, 32 Jesse's Landing in Chadam. Next, we have a lengthy letter from Elaine Gibbs, and I'm going to essentially read it, but I'm going to take the opportunity that our rules
provide to summarize some of it. Um, okay. Elaine Gibbs um tells us on September 23rd, 2025, I ask that my comments be shared with the ZVA well before the October 2nd meeting and included in the correspondence. I
apologize for the length, but it's as if Penrose has never done one of these projects before. I'm not in a butter and therefore not personally impacted. But I felt strongly from the beginning this process that whatever we build on 50 33 Maine and Meeting House should be
provided in an environment that's not demeaning to those who reside there. The attitude by some that tenants should feel fortunate to have a roof over their heads is condescending and in my opinion a very low acceptable bar. density. Penrose has repeatedly asserted
that the ex excessive high density of 48 units is driven solely by their profit margin, not the quality of life of the tenants. And they continue to compare this project to Naset Green as an analog. They are not comparable in any way. And then she goes on to give
differences between NSA Green um in East Ham and this project that you could read online if you want to get to the the the details. Um, but she does point out that 1533 Maine is located an already heavily traveled congested state road and our
main access corridor of all of Chadam and that NS Green um is on the side of the road with six units per acre versus 16 units per acre at 1533. Um,
landscaping. May I ask you visualize the project on Main Street at street level, not from renderings provided. Virtually all three acres will have to be clearcut. The misleading renderings show mature landscaping with 40 foot trees well above the 30-foot roof lines which
none of us will ever see in our lifetimes. The proposed landscaping of both locations, if available per penrose, are deciduous trees and shrubs that will bear five months of a year. Assurances from Penrose that they will
retain as many trees as possible isn't sufficient or binding. They've made a lot of promises with caveats not in the RFP. The 9533 main residential buildings are huge. The larger buildings are twothirds the size
of a brick portion of the brick portion of the community center and will all be seen from the road year round for years to come. Despite what was said by the landscape designer about the rendering size of trees being accurate within a
few years. We didn't just fall off the turnup truck. That is simply false. Nas green was completed in 2020. Their landscaping is still sparse. Occupancy based on bedrooms. The occupancy capacity is potentially 172 to 200
tenants two-bedroom or more per penrose. The 95 to 100 projected based on Nars Green is totally unrealistic for Chattam which is a far more desirable location. Family isn't divine defined by state agencies and
could therefore be up to six or more unrelated individuals in a three-bedroom unit. In addition, temporary visitors are permitted to stay for 14 days taking up unassigned parking. It three is income of all six
individuals required and used for qualification. I think she meant how uh will how will subleting by individuals on the lease be prevented? As the only for-profit corporation to
submit an RFP, Charlie Adams made it clear at the meeting that profit drove the density and this is why they never should have been chosen. Penrose also made it clear they never would have taken on the extreme topography
challenges of meeting house except to make the financials work at 1533 Maine. The town was warned by many people many times this is where we were headed. Utilities and stage um this is the first time we've heard
that there are no basements. Um, at a minimum there should be common basements with access from the interior for storage and insulation. She goes on to talk about plumbing. Um, and where you're going to put your personal effects. Again, this can all be read on
the town's website. Um, if there's no, okay, if there's no washer dryer in all the units as the sample lease indicates and not checked off in the financial cost for appliances, a laundromat should be located in the community building rather than requiring tenants to drive
to the one downtown. Outdoor unit utilities at NSA Green are an eyes saw directly abudding the units and shouldn't be accessible to children. Every member should drive through that project. parking. West Chadam is no grocery stores, no pedestrians, no
pharmacy, no schools, no banking. Requiring cars for the basic necessities of life and for work. 1.52 cars per unit again based on NOS green is wolffully insufficient. Um and she goes on to talk
about um the issue of transportation. If cars are illegally parked with no sticker, Penrose has not mentioned how that would be enforced. Parking should be assigned near each unit, two spaces per unit.
Then the next topic is local preference and then ownership restriction management. So as to local preference, despite claims that 70% of the units will likely be local preference that isn't determined by state until after the project is completed. And as to home
as to ownership, units are deed restrict restricted with the current AMIs into perpetuity that's 30 to 100 years depending on who you ask. Penrose will own the land and buildings. I've asked before with no answer. What happens if Penrose as the only for-profit company
goes bankrupt at some point down the road or closes their Massachusetts office? With no answer. In conclusion, based on town council's opinion, I'm very pleased the ZBA is requiring Penrose to defend their contention of financial infeasibility by reducing
density, also requiring peerreview audit of their financials as other towns have done recommended by state lending companies before choosing a developer. Um, Cat and she there are some more uh notes here, but I will say that she says
Cadam can do better and should. Last, we have a note from Cynthia Fucci that's received on September 22. Dear members of the zoning board of appeals and Miss Goldmith, please accept this letter for inclusion in the official
record. While I understand the board has asked Penrose if they could reduce the number to 42 apartments, I remain deeply concerned that this density is still too far high too high for the location and inconsistent with the character and capacity and capacity of our town.
Building 42 apartments in this area will create significant challenges in terms of chap traffic, parking, public safety, and overall impact on the town. Many residents, including myself, support affordable housing, but it must be developed responsibly with thoughtful
regard to scale and infrastructure. In addition, I was concerned to hear Penrose explain that the community center will be located at the Buckley property and the future residents of Meeting House will be expected to travel to Main Street to access that building. This arrangement underscores how poorly
scared scaled both projects are. The Buckley site is too dense to function independently and meeting house will lack its own essential amenities. Penrose also mentioned that a social worker would be present on site while resident support services can be
positive in the right context. I find it troubling that such a role is being proposed here. It raises questions about whether development is being designed with challenges that require additional oversight. Who will pay for this position and will accountability be
managed? These details should be transparent before the board considers approval. Another issue that has not been addressed is parking for outside services. Many residents will at times require home health aids, visiting nurses, and other support professionals.
Um, with such high density and already limited parking, it's unrealistic to think outside services can be accommodated. I'm also concerned about the role of the town's legal council. From my perspective, there appears to be more advocacy on behalf of the project than for the community's interests. This
erodess trust in the process and makes it even more important that residents voices be given full weight. I respectfully urge the town and the board to consider a more balanced approach that provides affordable housing without overwhelming the site or the town reducing unit count further along with
appropriate safeguards for parking, green space, neighborhood fit and be more would be a more reasonable path forward. Um, thank you for uh reading it and please confirm that this letter will be included in the uh record for October
2nd, which it was. Okay. Who wants to talk now? You've heard my voice enough. Yeah. So, questions from the audience, comments, concerns.
Um, yes, ma'am. When you get to the microphone, as usual, just state your name for the record, even though we know who you are. Shireen Davis. So, I'm here today not as a select board member or um from the housing trust, but
as a someone deeply invested in a local business, which has provided good work to young people, many of whom are not housing secure. The industry in which my business belongs has brought to this town countless hardworking men and women who've built their lives here. Starting
out on the back of a fishing boat, in a packing house, or in a restaurant serving seafood that defines our community. And if you look around the room, there's a number of those people. They're probably here and they have built successfully uh successful lives here. The fishing industry is woven into
the fabric of Chadam's identity and economy. Yes, it has become increasingly difficult. Yet it has become increasingly difficult to recruit and keep crews. We need deck hands, shellfish harvesters, processing staff, and seafood seafood sail workers who
keep this historic livelihood alive. One critical reason is housing. Unique to Chattam is to work the waters of as a commercial shell fisherman. You must live in Chadam to do so. This is both a requirement and an opportunity,
but it's an opportunity slipping away for far too many. Without stable, affordable rentals, we lose the very people who power our multi-million dollar industry. An industry that not only sustains our economy, but preserves our Chattam heritage, and it feeds our
people. This project represents a rare and meaningful chance to address this urgent need. It would provide young workers, including those starting their lives in fishing, seafood processing, and local food service, a foothold here. It would give our businesses a fighting chance to recruit and retain the next
generation, ensuring that the tradition of harvesting and sharing Chattam seafood doesn't fade because of a lack of housing. I urge you to support this housing proposal. It is not just about buildings. It's about sustaining the working waterfront,
the economy that it depends on, and the opportunity for people to call Chattam their home. Thank you, sir. Well, good afternoon everyone. Uh Jeff Dykens, 7 1745 Main Street, West Cadam. Uh while I'm vice chair of the Chattam
Select Board, I am not representing the views of the select board with the following remarks. Having attended or viewed um all the ZBA Penrose hearings, I admit I was taken aback at the end of the last zoning board meeting where three members present and one represented as supportive but in
abstentia requested that Penrose run a proformer to include 42 units versus the 48 being proposed. I couldn't help sit there and think that a potential roadblock to the project's approval was being taken up possibly by the V by the ZBA very late in the game and thought to
myself to what end? Penrose has consistently maintained that they strongly preferred to develop a 60-unit project from an economic and management perspective but felt that the 60 units would not be a good fit for the Buckley Gardens footprint. Thus, Penrose
presented a 48-unit project that it believed would satisfy the stated housing goals of the town, meet their internal standards for a quality product, and be economically viable given the synergy of its possible development of the meeting house road project and projects on the drawing
board in neighboring towns. I believe the Penrose hearing so far, given the good work performed by the ZBA, town staff, Penrose, and their consultants have made much progress. likely waiver requests and other concerns including
building heights, building materials, setbacks, butter concerns, landscaping, parking, and density have been discussed and seemingly negotiated with what I have perceived to be consensus among the majority of the members of the ZBA with a high probability of eventual approval
on the requisite waiverss being requested. But given the last hearing, I am not so so certain. I beg to remind the ZBA that the town asked for development proposals in response to an RFP under the opaces of a friendly 40B.
Penrose was chosen in a very open process in a land disposition agreement negotiated and signed by the leadership of our town. Should the ZBA decide in its collective wisdom the project's requested waiverss not to be approved or
its request for changes to the project render it uneconomic for the developers. There are at least two possible outcomes in my prain and an overarching third most important outcome that I believe first the developer withdraws his
proposal for Buckley Gardens and therefore also for Meeting House Road. I believe an extremely very unfortunate outcome. Good luck to Chadam then to attract competent and worthy developers for any further efforts into providing affordable and attainable housing here
in town. It may be quite difficult to regain the credibility high ground on this one. Second, the developer departs and files a lawsuit against the town where we have been total told repeatedly by town council based on actual 40b case
law that the town would be at a deep disadvantage to prevail. Third, and most important in my mind, we will have lost the absolute best opportunity we have had of late to provide our town with a bolus of desperately needed rental,
affordable, and attainable housing. considering our truly abysmal historical record providing such housing for our workers, our professionals, and our families along with the children so desperately needed in our schools. So, I urge you to please work through any
outstanding meaningful issues, to close this hearing, to continue your your deliberations, and devote your approval of the Penrose Buckley Gardens project with all due elacrity. And I thank you very much. Thank you.
Welcome, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Ella Levit, a Barnhill Road of Butter. I am disappointed and distressed by Penrose's decision not to honor my request to locate a dumpster and eliminate a small
parking lot that currently are planned next to my home. I'm disappointed because it means a lot to me in terms of privacy and quiet enjoyment of my home and gardens. I am very distressed because it
is the right and neighborly thing to do. We share a long property line that will now have two large multifamily apartment buildings looming over me, one exceeding 30 feet, a road, a parking lot, and a
dumpster within a few feet of my home and backyard where a small single family summer cottage now exists. Relocating the dumpster will have no impact on this project. In fact, it will be more convenient for tenants if the dumpsters move closer to
Main Street. Eliminating the short road spur and threecar parking lot will honor Penro's Penrose's stated commitment to comply with the town's RFP specifications that all traffic flow be
internal respecting adjacent residential neighborhoods. I need your help by making my request a condition of the main street building permit along with my added request for a
substantial vegetated buffer the entire length of our shared property. Please help me. I thank you and I'd like to give you page from the RFP response. Madam chair.
Sure. If you just hand it to our clerk on the right, she'll pass it down. Thank you. Okay, who's next? Welcome. Hi, uh Frank Msina. Um uh two things.
one. Um, chairman of the historical commission. Needless, can I ask you to remove your hat? Sorry. Frank Msina, would you mind removing your hat? Sorry about that. That's okay. Didn't know I had it on. Thank you. Actually, put the hat on because my wife says when the TV camera come, it shines
off my head. Yeah. Frank Msina, uh, 58 Island View Lane, South Chattam, Massachusetts. uh from an historical commission point of view which I chair uh uh we're disappointed that after all this time since they came
to the historical commission back in January I guess it was and um I think it was a very loud clear message from the historical commission relative to the density and what you could do about it and also if you can't do anything about it at least do something about the
design so we don't get this institutional looking project. So other than putting a little you know lipstick on the pig as they say you know changing a few things it's it looks like this is going to be what it is which is a a development which is not going to be
very pretty for the town of Chadam. Uh so that's it. Uh I was especially enjoyed the attorney when they start giving his summation telling you what your job is. Don't you love that when they sit here and tell you what your job
is. But you know, you've got a bigger job and that is relative to the people of Chadam. Okay. And and I think you took a shot at it when you tried to get them to reduce the number. And the response you got back was, "Well, we
can't make it, you know." But you know, somebody shared an email with me and I'm sure you folks have it back in the beginning when the project started in 2024 when Penrose was was lobbying the uh the
board and the trust board, you know, very clearly about combining both projects, you know, was going to make it economically feasible and allow them to hire one manager. Well, that's great. Okay, makes good sense. But if I add the
48 in West Chadam and I don't know what's the number in South in South Chadam right now it's 40 something but far exceeds the 60. So it looks like we got a project which is going to be economically feasible to Penrose and you're going to make a
lot of money. Okay, but why don't you just realize it looks like we've lost West Chatam. Okay. If you you you don't approve it and it goes fraud, courts will probably overturn and and and force us to do what what they're suggesting. But I think when we continue the
hearings on the West Chatam, excuse me, the South Cadam project, we should approach it upfront and, you know, not last minute. Tell them upfront too many units. You know, let's at least have one development which looks like a community in Chattam and not a major project.
Anyway, good luck and appreciate your efforts and uh thank you. Thank you. Welcome, ma'am. Hi. Uh my name is Maryann Lewis. I live at 21 Cod Lane. Um and I just want to
say I'm definitely uh in support of this effort and I really don't think that uh you should consider reducing the number of units. uh the reduction of six units. That would mean six less teachers, veterinary technicians, firefighters,
fishermen. You know, if we're going to do it, let's do it in a way that can serve the most people. Um I bought my house in 97 for $127,000. We all know that that's impossible, but I was a young female who moved here with and opened a business, and we need more
of that. So we know that opening, you know, having people like that own someplace in Chadam is not going to happen anymore, but at least we can actually set up a place where they can rent with families. Um, if I sold my house right now, I wouldn't even owning
a business be able to afford to buy something in my neighborhood or in Shadam generally, you know. So we have to do what we can and we have to get this done and now is the time to do it. It really is. Um I respect all the work
that you're doing, but it we just really have to get this done. And I actually live two houses behind 230 Barl Cliff, which a couple a year or so ago was allowed. It was a modest house to be torn down and build something. And now, of course, the people who own it now are
going to flip it because it's already for sale again, even though they haven't finished building it or even really started. I would much rather I know I understand and empathize with the people who live in the area of this new development. I would much rather live
near a new development of you know young families and workers and fishermen than hearing the construction noise knowing it's just going to be another McMansion that's going to be vacant for nine months out of the year and take up space
for nothing positive for the town. I and I'm not lying because I've lived in the French Quarter so I know about noise. I would much rather have a whole community development of children and you know people picking up elderly people. If if you want to put in my neighborhood, awesome. I will never fight you because
that's what this town needs. When I come to a meeting, I'm trying to be more involved in the last year or so. I'm one of the youngest people at every faking meeting. And guess what, folks? I'm not that young. Language, language, language. Oh, sorry. I said friaking. Friaking. I know. Yeah.
But like I I'm not that young, okay? And the only way we're going to get more people younger than me involved is if they can actually afford to live here. Period. Thank you. Thank you. And since I'm getting used to going to meetings, I will watch my language.
Thank very good. Very good. I've been very sensitive about that with three-year-old granddaughter. So, hi Hannah Smith of Cadam. Um, I have a very simple request today, which people that know me that is a lot for me to do
a nice simple request, but um it is revolving around the Penrose example lease, which I can appreciate is just an example and not what the lease would actually look like. But um I did want to just have Penrose I know this isn't
going back and forth with questions but to address later. Um the section in the lease there's a lot of talk about mold and mildew in the example lease. Um the reason that I find that important is because um there's been some issues and
I know that Penrose has a lot of different apartment complexes and housing. Um, so I can appreciate that, you know, mold and mildew will come up. Um, I just think that, you know, when we're looking at the tenants that are going to be living here, I want to make
sure that they are protected. So, you know, some of the comments in the lease are that um, you know, it's necessary for the resident to provide appropriate climate control and to take other measures to prevent mold and mildew from accumulating in the apartment. resident
further agrees that residents shall be responsible for damage to the premises and residents property as well as injury to resident and occupants resulting from the resident's failure to comply with the terms of this paragraph. Um there's other pieces to it, but it just seems like a lot falls on the tenant, which
was a concern of mine. Um there was a specific case um Wells v. Penrose in Maryland in 2024. um 13 residents of and some of their children shared issues related to mold and moisture problems within their units right from the start of the building's
opening in 2022. In 2023, representatives from the Environmental Health Consultants LLC conducted testing in 17 apartments. The results found that 16 of the 17 tenant occupied apartments were confirmed to have varying levels of active mold growth present. Eight of the
16 apartments with mold were further designated as a level two or level three, meaning that the units would be expected to present a significant health hazard to the occupants. Um, you know, some people might look at this a certain way. Um, but it genuinely when
I think we should be looking, you know, at the quality of life of the tenants and I think part of that is, you know, helping to make sure that they're protected and I think that anyone should want to do that. Um, so that's why I'm just looking for Penrose to hopefully be
able to clear up some of the language with the mold and mildew conversation in the um, lease. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Did you state your name, Hannah Smith? Okay. Very good. Very good. I'm just going to go to Steve Buckley next online and then I'll get back to the um the line that we that you
formed. Thank you for doing that. So, Steve Buckley, please go ahead and then uh we'll we'll go back to our line here and then we'll come back to Elaine Gibbs. That's going to be the order. Steve, you have. Okay. And there's the little clock.
That's great. That's one of the reasons for going offline. You can see the time right there. So, you don't have to remind me. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to reserve my right to remind you, but Okay, fine. Thank you. Uh yes, I brought up an issue which I think is even uh
probably the smallest ask of anything that's gone on for um all this time and that is getting reserve making the property the former Buckley property uh look like it fits in where of with the
rest of the West Cadam village district. And if you go all around there, it doesn't look like the old village down by the lighthouse where there's a lot of white going on. West Chattam doesn't
look like the old village district or or look like South Chattam which has a lot of white clabard as well. The rest of Chadam in between those two areas is predominantly cedar shingle. And if if you put
something in there that has off-white collaborative for eight I'm sorry 10 buildings then it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. And so anyway the last few time just to summarize um I had asked about this and uh the architect
for Penrose said oh well white clab is predom is the predominant style in Chadam which I'm sorry but I've lived here for a while and it's not. I've gone other places and Chadam. Yes, white gray cedar shingles reminds me of home. So
anyway, uh then it was oh uh they came back last time and said oh fire safety we can't have se cedar shingles. I said that's fine synthetic. Why not synthetic? And uh at the last meeting the uh Penrose
spokesperson said, "Oh, well uh it'll still have a good effect." Yes. The the clabbered the cement fiber cement siding that they're going to put on will still have a nice design effect. And I'm like,
"No, it won't. It will not look like Chadam." So anyway, I'd like to know what the standards are. I've reached out to them and it was relatively late. So I don't I that that's okay. But to clear it up, it's like why can't at the very least if we do this, it's probably the
smallest thing that could probably be asking for is to say, can we not have something that looks that you won't even notice when you drive by or you're least apt to notice that you could drive by this whole project and miss it because
it fits in so well because there's at least some not doesn't have to be 100% cedar shingle, could be 50% or any of just something that shows that because a lot of buildings do uh including one couple across the street or uh that have
um that are apartment buildings and they have cedar shingle and clabber. So that's how it can fit in. But if there's some standard for fire safety, what is it? because then I'll go out and find out if there's nothing in the world
that looks like a cedar shingle that will fit the fire safety and it won't be a missed opportunity to have at the very least whatever we build at least have it look and fit like it's like it belongs
in Chadam. So that's it. And um and uh uh yes, I say there's also, by the way, there's also a 40B in uh Dennisport right off uh Route 28 on uh Upper County Road. They're putting in some and the
those buildings are uh multif family. Um and they uh have synthetic cedar looking shingles on it. So um I can provide that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Rick Levit, please approach.
Welcome. Thank you. I'm Rick Levit of Barnhill Road. Also, uh I'd like to add just some more context to this conversation. A lot of context was added earlier and quote from a letter by Penrose. In a
letter submitting its proposal to the town, Penrose made the following statement. Quote, "Developing both Main Street and Meeting House Road presents many opportunities and will allow and would allow for
economies of scale. Combining the projects can result in cost savings due to streamlined processes and shared resources. To effectively and efficiently develop multifamily housing, Penrose requires a
minimum six a minimum of 60 units. End quote. Because Penrose was awarded both sites, meeting house road and the Buckley property sites totaling 90 units.
unit count far exceeds and this has been mentioned by several other speakers here today far exceeds the 60 unit economies of scale that is required by Penrose.
However, the main street proposal had to be based on the possibility that meeting house road would not be awarded to Penrose. Consequently, Penrose had to maximize
Main Street units to come as close as possible to the economical 60 units that they require. As said here before in another meeting, earlier meeting at 48 units, Mr. Adams, Charlie Adams of Penrose acknowledged
that the Main Street site is very, very, very tight. His words, trimming Main Street unit count to 42 when combined units with units 42 units
at Meeting House Road gives Chadam 84 affordable housing units. 24 units or 40% more than Penrose's economical 60-unit
requirement. A six-unit reduction at Main Street barely moves the needle, if at all, given Penrose's acknowledgment of the economies of scale from its combined
development plan. Furthermore, and this is vitally important, Chadam's RFP provides a path for Penrose to negotiate local subsidies and
incentives, including buying the land at a lower price. The RFP even says a nominal price instead of the $2.3 million that will help make 42 units or even 36
units on the main street property, affordable housing development economical when combined with the meeting house road project. And thank you very much. I do have that letter and I'd like to hand it out to you.
Sure. Thank you very much. I'm going to go to Elaine Gibbs as promised online and then I will get to um the line and stay with that line after that. Miss Gibbs, please go ahead. Thank you very Thank you for reading part of my letter. There are just a
couple things that were in there that I would hope you would address. Uh, one of them is that even though the property has been surveyed, it is not staked out for our purposes to see the actual boundaries. Uh, by my estimation, uh, the frontage on Main Street is about 325
ft long. Uh, that is the size of a football field plus an end zone. And, um, it's going to be clearcut. And I think before any decision is made, that has to be staked out so that the zoning board and the public can see how massive
this is going to be. Uh as far as a lease is concerned, the only one we've been provided with is a generic lease that they've used at NOS Green or wherever. I think we are we should have a copy of the lease that's going to be used on this property so we know what
the parameters are. Um, one of the other things, uh, in addition to the question about whether or not if Penrose goes bankrupt, uh, what does that mean to Cha Chadam, uh, it it also, uh, what happens
if they sell the property? They just decide they don't want to be here anymore and they sell it. Do we have any, um, input into that, how it's going to go out to bid, uh, if it's going to revert back to us? Uh, I think that that's uh kind of important uh because
they will own this land and they will own those buildings and the LDA is totally silent on what happens under those conditions. I think Mr. Singer's uh September 30th menu memo and his
comments today regarding the uh 760 um CMR actually made our case. We have from the beginning had concerns about safety on and off the property, environmental design concerns as a
direct result of the density and that is the criteria used by the state. Uh for them to their proformas show that from going from 48 to 42 units it's it would only be an additional cost of $1.4
million. And they're saying that would ruin their ability to make a profit. They could make that up very easily in the first round because they um uh they're going to have more units rented here than at NSET. Everything's been
based on NSET, which is a totally different uh situation. Um that is six miles north of the Orleans Rotary on a side road, not in Chadam. So, the occupancy is going to be higher. They would probably be able to get higher rents. And again, with six people in in
a unit that are unrelated, um it's going to impact the parking uh because it's not assigned. Um I think once 1533 is bulldozed, there's going to be shock, regret, and a lot of
fingerpointing because we will not have realized how how massive this project is. and we are going to be stuck with it from 30 to 100 years or until the building falls down. Uh, and I think we can be a model for affordable
housing and Chadam or the poster child for what not to do. Uh, let me see. I think I think that's pretty much it for now. But I I think there's a lot of information they haven't provided us. The fact that we didn't know until last last meeting that there are no basements
for personal effects. I I you know the quality of life for the people there is really really important. You know to say that they should they were forced they intentionally reduced parking so people would be required to take public
transportation or ride bikes not taking into consideration storms little kids out there waiting for buses and the fact that parents might have to take a bus to go to the hospital. I'm not sure if you can see the clock but your time is up. If you want to finish your sentence, I'm happy to let
you do that. That's all right. I I think that this thing needs a lot more work and I hope the ZBA will not be pushed into this until we have all the data. Thank you very much. And thank you. Okay, welcome. Hello everyone. Carolyn McClullen, uh,
South Chattam. Um, I'm very concerned about the attempt to amplify the false narrative that weaponizes the community's anxiety about our critical water resources and identifies with no static stat statistical evidence affordable housing as the threat. If you truly believe the town has reached its
capacity for new development, then you would be obligation to restrict all development, not just affordable housing. Week after week, the ZBA issues special variances allowing modest homes to be replaced by massive dwellings. For the most part, these parcels will be lost forever to seasonal
investors, turning year-round homes into small boutique hotels. Just one example will be a property that came before your board just last year. It's located at the end of Coral Road where an old house that needed demolition was flipped into a 6,800 ft residence. It has five
bedrooms and five and a half baths. No one mentioned the potential for excess w use of water. Again, that was 6,800 foot home. I'd like to point out that the largest building being proposed for the Buckley property is a thousand square feet smaller than that,
but still this kind of private development is allowed to go on unencumbered. None of you mentioned our water reserves while you were reviewing their application. Over the last decade, hundreds of home like homes like this have been approved by our local boards. Meanwhile, only nine modest individual
affordable homes have been built. Affordable housing is not the problem. It's undeniable that the continued tolerance for uncontrolled private development is the biggest threat to our ability to sustain our local character, our year-round community, and pro protect our critical resources, not affordable housing for year-round
residents. I'll ask you all once again to have the courage to look in the mirror and acknowledge the disconnect between your actions and your words. Many of us express concerns for the current h housing crisis, yet fail to see our own bias as a contributing factor and an obstacle to real
solutions. Thank you. Thank you. And next, welcome. Hi, I'm uh Tracy Cannon from South Chadam. Um I want to I can speak sort of, you know,
romantically and emotionally about I've lived here for 40 years, my son has a restaurant, workers need housing, etc., etc. Um and I could do that for a long, long time, but I won't do that. when I am going to talk to you uh as the executive director of the Chattam
Housing Authority. So, I am very very familiar with what is you know the need. I see it all day every day. My phone rings, my emails are full. I had two today that were particularly heartbreaking. Um so, obviously we all
know the need is enormous. But the one point that I'm going to make and then I'm going to let it go is that density seems to be the big issue here. Obviously, clearly um multiple times, most times when I see people I haven't seen in a while and
they say, "What are you doing, Trace?" I said, "Oh, I'm working the director with the housing authority." And they go, "The the what?" And I say, "The housing authority, the Chattam Housing Authority." And they go, "Where's that?" And I go, "It's on Crawl Road. It's it's a facility on Crawl Road. It's got, you
know, for low-income people." And they go, "I don't really know where that is." And I'm I take great pride in that that people don't go, "Oh, you're low-inccome housing." Yeah. No, they don't. They don't even know I'm there. And I have elderly, non-elderly
family units, and I have 69 of them. And no one even knows I'm there. This is not Lake Street. Lake Street is separate. This is just me. And I think if you're talking about the difference between 42 and 48 units,
frankly, all I can think of is those six families that need housing. They all need it and there's so many of them. And in closing, I'd like to say, as I do every time I speak about housing, if you have any questions or want to know what
the temperature of the need for housing in this town is, my office is open Monday through Friday from 8 to 4. I am happy to talk to anybody and I really really welcome any questions and any input but the density for me is just the
most important part just to know that it isn't it isn't I just don't think it it's as dramatic as everybody thinks it's going to be those six units but it's very dramatic for those six families. Thank you. Thank you.
Jesus. Welcome. Hi, I'm Carol Kenner. I live in South Chattam. My family and I strongly support the Penrose proposal. Our son is severely disabled. He is cared for 247
by staff at Capabilities and the direct care staff are paid $1967 per hour. We are losing staff at Capabilities and
other agencies throughout the midcape and lower cape rapidly. We can't keep qualified people. We need housing such as Penrose is proposing. Thank you. Thank you. Next.
Welcome. Thank you. My name is Priscilla Smith. I've vacationed in Chadam for 50 years. I've owned a home here for 20 for 32 years and lived here for 24 years.
I fully support Maryanne Lewis's statement about families and the importance of this project for young families to live here. I sat back there and thought, what would
this town look like in 20 years with no young children running around with no primary school, with no playgrounds to see children? We'll see children in I won't, but we'll some people will see children in July and August when when
the visitors come, but it's going to look very different. And for those of us who are older, imagine what it'll look like in 20 years. We need to do this now. I have one more story. When we moved here from
New Jersey, close to Rumson with my four-year-old grandson, he was used to going to birthday parties at his age that were costing 8 to$10,000.
The first birthday party he was invited to here, which is so typical of Chadam, my daughter and I dropped him off at a house. There were 10 four-year-olds running around with bubbles
and throwing tennis balls around and chasing them. And then the mom came out uh she put down a blanket and they all sat on the blanket and she came out with the little Dixie cups. That was the
birthday. The most wonderful birthday he's ever had. And that's what Chadam was like. Hopefully we can keep it like that and make it even better. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause]
Welcome, sir. you are next. Thank you, Mike Shell. Uh, I'm going to tell a story. Uh, you've heard from me on all the the the uh what I'll call the merits of the case. I'm just going to tell you a very brief story from my experience on the affordable housing
trust. Um, relatively early in that service, I was uh I had a longtime um multigenerational resident reach out to me to see if the affordable housing trust might be interested in talking
about acquiring the resident's property uh which had been in the family for a long time. Um a price was mentioned very reasonable. size of the property roughly the same as West Cadam, a little bigger.
Um really before I had any chance to do anything with that, I might have had a conversation or two. um a developer came in, bought the property. Uh and today um
there is uh one house uh almost completed on the property that will be sold for multi-millions of dollars and another one planned. Um I I think and and I I tell you the story simply because there's a lot of talk about well
if we had this, if that, if the other, if Penrose this, if Penrose that. In the big picture, I I'm here speaking on behalf of using what little land we have in this town, owned by the owned by the
town, uh to to to create housing for families. You've heard the case for families. Uh I'm I I just want to endorse that and say I hope you will take the side of families. Thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome, sir.
Uh, my name is Richard Cre. I live at 1934 Main Street, which is about half a mile west of 1533. Um, I've owned property in Chadam for more than 25 years. I've lived here for a couple of years now. Um, and following
Chadam closely, as I have over the years, one thing that's been constant is that we have a housing problem here in Chadam. Um, and it's getting worse and worse. And we have here an opportunity to seize something and come up with the
start of a solution to that housing problem. And it seems to me that that we should seize that opportunity and not lose it. I think Mr. Dykens was very eloquent with his statements about the possible directions that we we could go
here. So, um, we've heard a lot of reasons, uh, but to me it's very simple. We need this housing. Uh, families need this housing, and I encourage you to approve 48 units expeditiously. Thank
you. Thank you. You are next, sir. Good afternoon. Uh my name is Bill Bystrom and I live here in Chattam and uh for 50 years one of my hats I've been wearing is that of a sociologist
and when you deal with sociology you find that one of the most pressing problems we have is many people are afraid of what is known as culture lag. And the best way for me to explain that is when I was growing up, there was
something a Dick Tracy watch that you could call Dick Tracy could call people on and it was really cool. And I said that'll never happen. Well, now we get a cell phone and I'm still a uh a victim of culture lag to a certain extent
because oftentimes if I uh need to order something on the cell phone, I have to talk to my expert, my uh seven-year-old grandson who can do anything on that that I can't do. So, I I think one of the big problems if we stop and we look
at at it is that many people are afraid of change. Uh, in 2005, the town of Chadam hired me to open the community center. I was the first director of the community center. It had taken about three town meetings, I think, before they decided that's what they wanted to
do with the old high school, make it into a community center. It's a fantastic accent. It It's a great star in the crown of the town of Chadam, which is a wonderful place to live. uh 2010
I was on the uh the town appointed me to be on the interim school committee to form uh Monoy Regional High School and the elementary schools. I I think it's a great project. It was a great project then. It took them at least four or five
times to get to regionalize. It started back I believe in the uh 1960s. They started talking about they brought the town meeting. It didn't pass. Da da da da da. Finally, it did. Today, it's a wonderful school. Um, I have a 13-year-old granddaughter who's visiting
for a half a year from Germany. She's going to the eighth grade. She loves it. She thinks it's a fantastic school. The Chamber of Commerce, 2012, I was president of the Cadam Chamber of Commerce. One of the big issues we had that year was would the merchants
association ever really get along with the rest of the chamber of commerce. Today they're working hand in hand. The merchants association, the chamber, they do the the pumpkin people in a few weeks. They do the stroll. They do the
yacht in the park. It's come full scale. It's working great. uh a private example of that uh we can we can is a charitable organization in the early 2000 I was on the board of that and I for three or four years I was
president of that organization. I remember one meeting we had at that at one particular meeting sticks out in my mind because of financial issues when we were first getting started. We tried to figure out whether we should shut it
down after two or three years of trying and walk away or continue. We had a meeting. We pass that by one vote and look where it is today. It's it's phenomenal. It's a great example of a private public partnership to help women
who need it. I mean, you can go on and on and on. And if you just go back in history, seriously, I know this sounds corny. The pilgrims the pilgrims took a chance and came here and look what they did look what happened to to us because of
that really we should the sky really I honestly don't think that the sky is falling uh Florence Seldon who used to be a selectman and was also chair of the affordable housing committee here in Chadam as I was at one point I I once
said to Florence why are you working so hard for affordable housing and Florence said to you know, it's a really worthy cause. It's something we really need and I agree with Florence. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Last but not least, I think unless there's somebody else, we're going to take a break after this. There is someone else. Go ahead. Ryan Phillips, 374 Road. Um, for the record, I did uh reach out to Charlie
Adams and asked him if he would be willing to do home ownership. He told me it was in the RFP. We don't know who Charlie Adams is. So if you want to qualif I mean we might know but Charles Adams the guy that works for Penrose. Okay. Just that close enough. Just for the public. No, that's fine.
That's fine. Just I did and I did meet with Mike Shell for three hours uh to try and convince him to convince Charlie Adams to change to change to home ownership. That didn't work. I just wanted that for the record. Um, I agree with one of the previous speakers that
we do need housing for uh, fishermen. Um, I'm not sure if this is appropriate. I'm just wondering where they're going to keep their boats and fishing equipment and dingies and stuff in this uh, particular um, complex. Um, another speaker said that we uh, you know, you can't buy house in Chadam. If
we had picked the right project, you would be able to buy a house in Chadam. Um, we do need housing in Chadam, but this isn't the right time. Um, I was made aware that one of the uh projects in Hyenas, the one around BJ's
was built $50 million and then flipped and sold for $150 million. So, I'm a little curious uh reading the LDA. I don't know if town council can help me out with some of this, but it's um it section five um one uh C1. It says in the event
designated developer assigns its interest in the agreement and/or the property to an affiliate of the designated developer which shall include the same principles officers members and the wholly owned controlled by the designated developer. It shall not uh shall notify the town of you want to just try to crystallize your
question. So I think that I think this means they can sell it. You know I'm wondering if they can sell it or change you know ownership or something lines. I don't because I don't quite understand it. Um so that would be an issue and possible loophole. Also when it's used with um if
they file for uh foreclosure or bankruptcy or something it um they can take it down to only 25% affordable housing which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of it. And this is a for-profit uh corporation and you know the business is to make money. Um so I'm pretty concerned about
those possible loopholes if someone could look into it or explain it to me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much sir. Uh, good afternoon. David Whitum, 41 Indian Trail, West Chadam. I'm a little reluctant to come up here because I'm sure you've heard everything from
everyone. And I think you're probably just as ready to make a decision as those of us are to hear your decision. So, I just want to talk a little bit about um our history of affordable housing and the lack thereof. Uh in 1972, we built the Anchorage, which uh
Miss Scannon was uh manages, uh with 41-bedroom units for senior citizens and disabled persons. In 1988, we built 19 studio units for the elderly who require supportive living services.
And in 1998, we built eight three-bedroom, two two-bedroom, and one three-bedroom homes for um families. Um, and that was it. 1998. The next project we had was uh Mr. Nixon
was the chairman of the zoning board of appeals at the time. It was the only other 40b that came before the zoning board of appeals. And it was approved uh to build 47 houses on Lake Street. And I think the the
process to get that was a lot less than this has been the six month the uh interrogation the going back and forth to get to that that situation. So uh with the exception of 10 other uh
Habitat for Humanity houses, three houses on Maronei that brought a total of 60 houses since 60 units since 1998 for affordable housing somewhere around two per year. We are woefully inadequate
of affordable housing. This project from Penrose isn't perfect. It might not even be ideal, but it's necessary. If this doesn't go through, this has taken us around six years. We started the property was bought in uh 2021.
When it's completed, it'll be what? 2026, 2027. Six years. If you add that on to if this doesn't go on six years, seven years from now is 2030, 2031. This is a a project that really needs
your con your uh your support and I hope that you'll be able to do that in a timely manner so that we can move move on with this. Thank you very much and thank you. Anybody else online or in the room? No. Okay, we're going to take
a short break and be back um by 10 minutes of four. We are back. Okay. So, this would be the time where um Penrose would have an opportunity to discuss what they uh heard in the letters and from the
public. Um if you'd like to take that opportunity. Okay. Thank you. Um uh it's actually going to be very quick. I just want you know we have heard after six months passionate opinions on both sides of the equation. There are
people who are strongly in support and there are people strongly opposed. And frankly with all of the concessions and modifications that Penrose has made we know we're never going to be able to satisfy everyone. I mean, you have heard the same arguments repeatedly, both pro
and con, at all of your meetings. And so, there's really there are no other additional answers we have in response to what we've heard today. I think we've responded already. We believe respectfully that with all of the modifications that have been made that the right balance has been struck
for this development of the property. And uh we welcome any questions you have and that's our response. Thank you. Okay. And I just want to point out that um I want to do a little bit re rebuttal for our group just on one topic that um
the rules provide I guess they used to provide that the zoning board of appeals at the beginning of a process would ask for a proformer and I understand that that's not the case anymore. I think in 2008 yeah that it changed and the time
for that indeed is towards the end and so we are we are squarely within our time frame and right to have asked for a proform exactly when we did and if we had done it earlier on we would have been out of side of the rules. So I just want to make sure the public understands
that this isn't like coming out of nowhere. It's coming out exactly where it was supposed to come out of towards the end of the process. So, with that, I'm going to talk have our board uh start to talk about what they wanted to get answers about that they didn't maybe
that people brought up or things that you want to see as conditions possibly or just any kind of comments and questions. Let's just start with Steve. Hi, good afternoon. Um I have a couple of questions. Uh the one I was going to
ask you um which you already um addressed was uh whether or not these units were going to be sprinklered and I think you said they were correct. Um but is I don't see on the plans anywhere if where there is a second means of egress for any of the especially the upper floors is how is
that being handled? Going to ask the architect to respond to that if through the chair. Should I come up? Yeah, please. Please. Hello. Paul Atman, architect. Um the they are not required by code to have a second means of egress
due to the configuration and the travel distance from the living areas to their front doors. They are designed to meet fire and building codes. Okay. Okay. I would think that there might be some moral obligation here other than
building code, but okay. Um, the next question I have has to do with um, well, I guess I'll take these in in in order of difficulty. How is um, one the the meeting house road project is 42
units. How is that project profitable at 42 units and the one on Main Street cannot be? Hold on a second. Uh before Rio types respond to that, um through the chair,
I'd like to ask maybe to ask town council how far down the road of meeting house and Main Street we can go, you know, given the hearing and what's open. I we have an answer, but I just would just I don't want to get into trouble with
Attorney Talon, I know you're there. I am here. Can folks hear me? We can. Thank you. Did you hear the question? Sorry, I don't I did. I'm I'm not sure. I'm I'm not too concerned about the
answer about the ability to answer the question. We're not opening up a hearing or discussion or deliberations on the other project. The board member just asked a question kind of comparing economics by between the two. I wouldn't
expect that the board will now start entertaining on the merits of the density of the of the uh meeting house road project. He's just asking a a basically a finance question. I think that's that's fair game. And and also
attorney Talaman, do you think this would at this hearing there should be some explanation um some details about the proformer that we had or should we just wait to talk about getting an expert or do you think there should be more discussion about what's presented?
Well, I I think that's up to you and it's certainly up to uh Penrose as well. Penrose has made their case. They've submitted materials. if they're comfortable resting on those materials, then the next question for the board would be
whether or not they even want to still go there on the the density question. And that's an open question, I suppose. And then secondarily, if it's still an issue that the board wishes to pursue or at least contemplate as a potential
condition while preserving all their rights, then the next question would be whether or not the for the you breaking up a little bit, council, can you just start at the beginning of that sentence?
Okay. So I think where where I may uh have lost you is I think the secondary question here would be um No, now we lost you. You might have to call in on the telephone. Um
satisfied that the Can you hear me? We we missed uh we missed it again. It was it's in and out. Yeah. I know I think I'll I'll be getting I'm apologize that I I'm I had to jump in the car, but that's okay. Can you hear me? Okay now.
Yes. Yes. Okay. So the secondary question is whether or not if the board wants to pursue the density question and if the board can tie it into a local concern which is really kind of a low bar at
this juncture frankly but if they can do all of that whether or not they are satisfied with the information provided by Penrose um uh as to whether or not it forms a good basis for them to then deliberate
on that question whether or not they want to impose a reduction in density or not or if they feel that they would want someone to review the proforma and other
materials provided by Penrose. Okay. Okay. I think we get the gist of that. We we'll we'll get to that question whether or not we we would like to calculation of reasonable return. He doesn't realize he's cutting up. Okay. Well, we we'll we'll call on you.
Will you be available analysis there that the board would have to undertake? Yes. Yeah. That the reason are is I knew that this was going to go I do have I wanted to make sure I didn't miss any of it. So, I took advantage of
the break to to resign in on the from the guard. Oh, that's okay. We'll come back to you then. I think we get we have uh an an understanding of where we want to go. Um well, we what we want to discuss going, but um Okay, Andrew. Yeah. Um Rio and Carmen can answer that.
just would like to since what Jay just said just like to again note as I noted in my letter to you that if you decide to go down the route of a condition a potential condition or or even peer review on that that we have a reservation in that letter in providing you the performance because we
respectfully don't believe that the board has identified and articulated uh concerns that meet 760 CMR 56056A4 what that section. So, I just want that on the record if we're ultimately going down that road. But we do have for the
finance as Jay mentioned. Okay. Yep. So, one of you Sure. Sure. So, when when we originally responded to the RFP, um we were pretty clear upfront um with the town that um
we would only do meeting house uh if it was being done in conjunction with Main Street. We would we could do Main Street at the 48 units which was below our normal 60un threshold because there were some efficiencies from our local
presence in Orleans and uh and East Ham. Um but the 42 units and meeting house wouldn't work on its own like Main Street. Um if we were successful with Main Street, we could capitalize
similarly as we do on Main Street. Um with some efficiencies at Meeting House by having Main Street, including specifically shared staff like the supportive service coordinator. Um the second maintenance tech would be shared.
So um there would also be uh economies of scale from purchasing um service contracts like landscaping and snow removal which would make a normal 42 unit project on its own not really be economical. It would be almost similar
to a second phase of Main Street bringing it up to a 90 unit combined project. Um but I just interrupt you for one second. Earlier you said, and I'm going to quote, "Every project should stand on its own merit." Can you just square that
with what you're saying now? Do you remember saying that? I think I said that you did. Yeah. So, I can't help that. I just can't get past that. Yeah. So, when our investors or the state agency review these projects, they will be reviewed separately. The
projects will need to stand on their own. Uh I think the reason why for us right now in front of you is Main Street. No one knows what's going to happen with meeting house. Uh this project will get financed first. It's
going to be first in in with an application. the uh I guess the proceeding with this first this will be the first of the two and we cannot assume that the second
that meeting house will happen when we proceed with phase one or with Main Street. Um so when we close on Main Street and start construction and start occupying, we won't have meeting house
as a additional kind of um to share any sort of resources or to um so we will have to hire a full full-time property manager and there is no sort of
sharing that is possible if we needed to. Uh but we have budgeted for Main Street Meeting House to each have their own property manager. But uh that is kind of our kind of uh best case scenario and uh that is our
kind of base case scenario. Uh but there is no guarant I guess I'm not explaining this very well. Um can you see there's no guarantee. So I guess each project's going to be financed separately and owned separately. I have a seven investors. Um, but the economics
of a 42 unit that's sharing staff with an existing 48 unit is superior to then a 42 unit not sharing expenses. Okay. But then they don't really stand on their own merit then do they? Well, I guess we're quibbling about the
definition of stands on its own merit for the So, you would be right that 42 units I mean we're agreeing with you. We submitted the performer showing 42 units doesn't work on its own. Okay. I just wanted to try to get some clarity on that. Um Okay, Steve, please
go ahead. Well, the reason I bring that up is because I would think that the the the meeting house road project may be more difficult to build, may require additional expenses.
Um you know, the topography is there. it's top topologically challenging. Um, there's more site work that has to go on there and there's a a greater it seems like there's a greater outlay of of expenses to get the project off
the road. So, I'm just wondering how that 42 unit project can support itself. Um, well, I I think I said earlier we wouldn't do meeting house without Main Street.
Okay. So, you're you're right. It it wouldn't really pencil out on its own and it is more expensive construction. Although on that deal, I don't want to get into too much details. There is um grand funds available for improvement to get access
because of the ravine that um might not be as as available on Main Street. But but yes, the mean house would on without Main Street, which is which is what we said at the beginning at the RFP response. We we couldn't do that on its own.
Um and then one other thing, it's a little bit easier. I think the questions get easier. Um we talked, I think last time about maybe um making the lighting a little bit more Cape Cod friendly or Chadam friendly.
Um, has anything been done to do that and do you have any examples of what you propose? I Mark Warful with Karly Cajwell. I'm the landscape architect on the project. So um, we were looking into that actively. It's a little bit more
complicated than a fair swap because um the more ornamented fixtures tend to have more reflective qualities which can lead to uplight making them not dark sky friendly. So we're working with our partners to select fixtures that um kind
of aesthetically meet the the nautical theme. And uh once those have been identified and selected, we have to go through the engineering of it to make sure we meet the same performance of um
zero light at the property lines, no uplighting, and uh and the even light levels that have been proposed for the community. Okay. Well, thank you for keeping that on the list. Thank you. That's it. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Dave V. We know you're online. Um I'd like you to go next if
you would. while you're still feeling energetic. I I would like to um I'd like to reserve the right to, you know, not comment at this point until after I've heard other remarks. Thank you.
Okay. Until until other people make their remarks. Is that what you said? Okay. Okay. That's correct. I will grant that. Yes. Sure. Um Ed Actton, please. Um, I guess I' I'd like to discuss maybe
conditions for the project. Um, uh, I think Thaad Eldridge and and Stuart Smith now have brought up, uh, perhaps a a pulloff for mass transit and I'm wondering if you had put in any thought
into that or if you thought that was capable at all. It it does seem to make sense to have an area for the uh you know a mass transit bus to perhaps pull off. I I imagine you'll have that's a state road. It's probably similar to the permitting
process you have to do for the crosswalk, but I guess that's my first question. If you could address that and if you could handle that perhaps like you're you're handling the crosswalk to ask for permission for that.
Yes. So, this would be presumably something in the current um right away uh the state DOT of that road. Joe, is there anything maybe you could help with on this? Yeah, the buses go down Route 28 now and
I don't think there are any other pullouts that I know of. I think they just stop in the road. Yeah, I guess if Joe could let me know if he thinks that's something that Sure. Joe Henderson Horesley Whitten. You're you're asking if we could put a a pulloff in front of the site to accommodate a bus. I mean, there's right
now there's a sidewalk, so we would have to manipulate the um the walk there. But what what's your opinion in general on that? Um I don't know that there's enough I don't know that it's needed um to be
honest. Um, I guess it would number one depend on whether the state would, you know, that would be the first priority, right? Would they approve something like that? Um, I the site could probably accommodate it between the two um
entrances. Um, but other than I think you could potentially fit one there, yes. But it would be up to the state if they would approve something like that. Okay. And would that be something you would look into or could look into? Sure, we can look into Yeah. what it
might look like. Okay. Sure. Thank you. Uh the second um condition or I had brought up uh electricity costs Massachusetts and um these being rental
units and I'm concerned about the residents and uh the the the electricity cost there. There the project calls for solar. I think right now when I read the plans it says you're just going to provide conduit for the solar for future
solar. Um correct that the reason we do that um there will probably be some level of solar because we're designing to pass a house which in of itself is means very little utility bills. There's super
efficient. Um there's uh in terms of air coming in and out and then the makeup air will usually have uh ERVs to to transfer the heat from the outgoing air into the incoming air I mean in incoming air. So there these these type of
passive house projects usually have utility bills 70% lower than typical utility bills but um there'll be some level of solar usually to meet that passive house requirements uh being like net zero overall. Um so there'll be some
design but we design all the buildings to have um um the conduit for future solar. Usually that's something at the end of a job if there's project savings that's usually something we'll use it use it for. Um there are some costs.
It's usually um one of the things that gets value engineered when you're um competitive you when you're applying for these competitive subsidies and there's certain cost caps that the state wants to see that that's usually some of the
lowhanging fruit to get your costs in line with what the state's looking for. Um but uh but there's been several projects where we end up with some savings at the end of the job and and that's usually one of the areas. It's
usually the first priority of um of the savings uh is to install um solar and and also there could be future programs that aren't available now that help cover the cost of the solar. there's a program opening in Connecticut. And so
the having the conduit there gives us the opportunity if something comes up once we're fully designed and engineered um that will help support the cost of adding the solar, we could take advantage of it. I I'm actually surprised Massachusetts
given the the funding they're providing isn't making it mandatory. Um, and it I think that would be a condition I'd be looking for is that you maxi maximize solar and that the the credits or the money actually goes back
to the renters and not necessarily to to Penrose. Um, the next thing on my list was I had mentioned an irrigation well and I didn't know if you were had any thoughts on that.
Yes. Uh we can look into a irrigation well on site to um for future for landscaping. We haven't we haven't done any designing towards it. I I know that there's a permitting process through deep to um to get a license for
irrigation. Well, but usually it's not that difficult and some of it depends on what's the neighboring property's use. Um, but that's something um that's something we can definitely look into. Okay. Uh the it's been brought up a
couple times now. Basements. Uh this was designed slab on grade. Um I assume that's uh based on construction costs. Um also passive house. Also passive house. It's very difficult to get the passive
house rating of net zero overall with a basement. Usually we have um and I don't yeah the vapor barriers under the slab to prevent any um air from coming up through which also helps with radon as well but it's it's almost impossible to
get through passive house with having basements but we we have exterior storage. So in lie of the basement storage what we've done is we've appended storage to the buildings. Okay that for uh for the residents and and each unit has its own storage.
Okay. Uh and then the issue of washer and dryers has has come up is do the residents have the availability to put washer and dryers in their units? Yeah, we will have washers and dryers in the units. I'm going to furnish them.
You're going to furnish them. Okay. Yeah. Come that answers that. And then um I mean I I I don't have a problem with density. I still am not a fan of the community
building. Um uh what what does uh what is the cost of that community building? You can call it by whatever name you want to call it. It's the It's that big building right in the front.
Yes. We don't have the individual cost from that from our contractor's pricing. He hasn't broke it out by buildings. So, I don't have that handy. We could get it, but but you know, I I think we're unwilling on our end to remove it for for the reasons we've discussed at the
previous hearings. Okay. That's all I have to think. Thank Thank you. Okay. uh Jenny and then Paul. Okay, I've got a lot of notes here, so forgive me if I'm jumping around a
little. Mr. Slinger, I think in the very beginning of our meeting tonight, you said um you began today by talking about density and kind of like that's a really important topic or it's our however you open today. Um, and my recollection
several hours ago is that you said that that was addressed through setbacks or primarily addressed through setbacks. Is that am I characterizing how you opened today? No. What I was referring to with the statement you said is that in order for
the board to be authorized to look at a proformer to examine a potential condition about density, you have to have identified a and I'm not looking at it right now, but you've had to identify a health, safety,
welfare, something um expressly that was due to the size. you'd have to say that because you have too many buildings, you don't have enough parking or something like that. What I noted was that from my review of the record, both listening and and
attending is that I had heard as part of that discussion of the board at the last meeting when three of you and and sound like you with your letter had requested a review. I heard three comments and that's what I was referring to. your
letter and please I'm paraphrasing so your letter had talked about um if there was one less building in the back you might be able to further improve the setbacks. So that was what I was referring to and then I noted water in general wear and tear what I was so that's what I was
referring to. Okay that thank you for clarifying that that is how I remember it as well. I want to remind though that in my letter that was read at the September 18th meeting, I I said that I was okay with the setbacks. the setbacks were just you
know I wrote out several things and I actually said um that regarding that Penrose's notation number four page one of September 10th supplemental memorandum regarding the setback the abutters noting that the
previous site revisions addressed my concerns. I I said that in the setback section. Okay. What I also said in that letter was the very last one, density, and I said that it is one of the most
frequently mentioned and frankly most important topics. So I I was very distinct in setbacks being separate from density. Um and and so and and I also specifically said to the point you just made about connecting it
to the broader state is I said density correlates to traffic and parking. Okay. So now I didn't I wasn't here and I didn't get into the specifics of that but I did I think that would be would fall under the local concern of safety.
And another thing that I've been very consistent about is trees. I've mentioned that throughout. I think that correlates to the environment. And I also have been very consistent in talking about streetscape
and the open space, the visual appeal. Mr. Buckley talked about it today. It's it's um and and I have at our at um in the in my letter I correlated that to the management office and I have asked about the management
office a couple of times as well. So I I do believe I've been consistent and another thing I want to mention is that the 48 to 42 I brought up in our second hearing that that's not a new thing that we just brought up in our last um or or
recent discussion. Um and I think at that time I mentioned and Rio you said we actually did address this Mrs. you know Miss Fenwick because um but I think what you were referring to is it was being addressed primarily through the subsequent hearings in the
context of setbacks. So 48 to 40 and I did say at one point that the 40 the 48 to 42 would help reduce the pressure on the setbacks. That was a constant discussion in almost every meeting. But that wasn't the only thing and I
clarified that in my in my letter. So I think that um so so I just wanted to kind of get to to say that that I think maybe we've had a lot of hearings. How many Sarah? Seven. Six or seven. And
it was mentioned tonight in one of the the um the comments, one of the readers that it was he was a little takenback that we're just bringing that up. And I wanted to clarify that we aren't just bringing that up. That has been brought up and it was brought up very early on. Okay. So
the reason that I mentioned density as the last item in the letter that was read at the 18 at the meeting on the 18th is um because I do think that the density connects to safety and specifically
three acres. We've talked about three acres. You you've mentioned your other properties. We ham is 16 acres. Eastam is 11 acres. meeting house is 37 and Main Street is three. So I think four 48
units on three acres is 16 units per acre. That's dense. That has been brought up by uh Miss Gibbs and many others that have written in. So I just want to I just want to make it clear that that is not a new thing that we're bringing up. And if you want to
correlate it to um safety, then I think it squarely correlates to safety. I I don't know if how many people can safely live on three acres of land with 16 units per acre. So
that would be that would be one comment that I'd like to make, not really a question. Um the other one is the trees. I think that correlates specifically to the environment. Mark has done a great job with the landscaping plan and revi and and
updating that. And for the most part, I'm pleased with it. But I I still think there's no getting around the fact that in order to to build this very nicely proposed complex, you are going to have to remove a lot of trees. And and now Rio, you're mentioning that the
irrigation um you're unsure about that and and we have a massive landscape plan now with more established trees was the commitment. Um and I don't know how you're going to save those and preserve them without a
without an irrigation plan because I don't think you can use town water if that's the plan to like have tri I don't know what the plan is but but I think that's an important followup. Um, and I would say, Mr. Singer, that I think that trees connects to uh the environment.
Okay. So, just trying to help with some of the things that you've brought up from the what do you call it? The um local concerns. I think that's your term. Um, the bylaw and so yeah, I didn't make up the term. Okay. Well, okay. You you've mentioned it. Um, and then I think the last thing
is the open space, which is uh the management office. that I have brought up in the past because I have talked about streets in mostly in the context of streetscape and how that management office uh with the two other buildings and all the
buildings behind it really create um a a look a sense of density on what is a street that is a mile and a half not even from downtown Chattam. And uh so I do think that that that I agree and I have brought that up a few
times as well. The uh the management office and how open space is important to the residents and I think um for that reason I I re the management building specifically removing it or relocating
it either to the back of Main Street or to Meeting House. And so tonight, you've come in here, you've listened to, you've heard my letter, you've listened to my comments throughout the previous hearing. So I am disappointed that um
there there's no consideration to go to the 42 because that was for those reasons that I mentioned in my letter. I thought I would like to revisit the 48 to 42 for those reasons. and you have and that's why I asked for the proforma to see if that could because I've heard
repeatedly it's not financially viable and so that that's just why I asked for it and you've come in today you've shared it previously but we have it now but what I what I'm also hearing you say though is that you have it you can review it and we will uh but you're not
going to go to 40 to 48 so I mean to 42 from 48 so I I think that um the I would like to have the management office re re you know that part be revisited. So anyway, that's I said it was going to be a little bit rambling
and it was, but um any uh any questions about what I said through the chair? No questions, but just a response. I agree with many of the things you said to develop any project you're cutting down trees and you have to I mean otherwise you can't build something but and so I understand
what you're saying about density about trees about street excuse me streetscape um say that one fast. What I where we respectfully are responding is that we believe we have responded not maybe to the way you're talking about with reducing the units or
reducing the management building because both of those as the applicant has said repeatedly are very important to its um program. Now the management building has been made smaller. You as you recall it was made smaller. This project, unlike another design, we believe one of the
biggest benefits of it is it has that community open space in the middle of the property which is screened from the street by that building and the grove of trees, the natural really nice grove of trees that are there that Penrose is committing to to keep. Most subdivisions
are clear-cut. They're stripped. Absolutely. They're proposing not to do that. So what what I was trying to communicate is that we hear what you're saying and we believe we've been very responsive in trying to preserve as much trees as possible while accommodating
the balancing of needing housing. The density is something that so you look at the density. So you look at what how that manifests as you said. Well, we have enough parking and we demonstrated throughout several meetings why the
parking that's proposed that was reduced at your request works. We have sprinklers in the building. The heights of the buildings were reduced in size. You know, parking in dumpsters and things were pulled back from the buildings were pulled back from the property. So,
we are not willing to reduce the density or remove that management building. But I believe the applicant has been very responsive to try to address not just your concerns but others uh to make this a project. Again, it's a balance as someone said earlier, you know, the the
the was it the don't let the enemy the perfect be the enemy of the good or something like that. Um that's and it's a struggle for an applicant as well as a struggle for the board. So that but we've heard you. Yes. Yeah. Okay. No, thank you for for that additional uh those additional comments.
I mean at the end of the day we have been so attentive and and for all good the good reasons on the abutters and by improving those setbacks which has been the vast majority of our meetings you haven't remove you're still you're squeezing it in and it's just
more congest so less parking as a result of that you're right and we still haven't lost a building we still haven't lost so we're we're still working with the same infrastructure and just crowding it more and that that's why I wanted to open the density conversation back up. I still think that the
management building would relieve some of that pressure or one of the buildings in the back which is the 48 to 42. So that that's just and I I I do think I've been consistent throughout the six or seven uh hearings on those particular
points. So that's all I have today. Thank you. Okay, Paul, as promised. Well, thank you. Uh let me just pick up with a couple of easy questions. I guess uh we we heard from u the levits about
uh the question of moving a dumpster and dealing with some parking spaces. Have you said no, we can't move that dumpster uh and we can't deal with those parking spaces or is that still pending as an issue?
Uh no, I I can I can respond to Mr. Simple. Um yeah, we I think we have noted when when Rick first brought them up that there was totally uh reasonable comments. Um so we we reduced the
parking um near here near the border of his property from 8 to 5 to three in different iterations. We've pulled the dumpster back from the setback and then we pulled it back a second time even further away. Um, we put a six-foot
stockade fencing around it and most recently we put a hedge of evergreens in front of it as well. So, we have been responsive to it. Right. Right. I understand that. I I appreciate that. Uh, but where you're at right now is no, you don't think you can
go down more than the three parking spaces and that you don't think you can move the dumpster to a different location so it's not so close to a neighbor property. Is that is that where you're at? That that is correct. If you move the dumpster behind the management building,
setting aside that two of you don't like it. Um there's no way to access you can't access it. You can't get a truck to back into it. It's it's in the wrong without cutting down trees and open space. We're losing um the parking space. So again, it's it's this balancing. So yeah, the the it's been loc relocated
twice. It's been screened much more heavily than it was, but not able to relocate it elsewhere on the site. So, so that's the that's the issue is you would not be able to put it to another location because you can't access it and use it effectively. Correct. Okay. All right. I hadn't heard that.
So, um I understand what you're saying. Um let me ask a second question and that is uh relates to uh landscaping. As you know, I've talked about streetscape quite a bit. Um and assuming that this project goes forward, one of the issues
that's going to be facing the town is uh the number of people who will see it from the road because that's going to be 90% of Chadam going past it and visitors. Um, when I look at the uh aerial perspective and the street
perspective, what I see is the potential for adding um a couple of uh trees and uh I'm looking at the two forms that you provided us about preserved site trees
which shows uh two preserved street uh site trees between building two and three and uh some preserved uh tree sites uh in the area of the common area.
It doesn't look to me as if there are any preserved tree sites on the on the site um other than those. Is that correct? Make sure we understand you.
Yeah. All right. Mark Warful again. Um, so there there's a few locations where so, uh, let's see. Trying to get this. There we go. So the area you're referring to is in the center. There's a big clump of existing trees here as well as here.
We're also preserving trees you're preserving. These are existing trees that are being preserved. Uh there's a clump of trees along the um eastern property line that'll be preserved. Uhhuh.
We have a a pair of trees on the western side that will be preserved right along Main Street. The only existing trees on the site are located in this area as well as two evergreens that are
the they're set back quite a bit here. And a a tree there's an existing tree in this area that's kind of growing into the utility pole. Um this this tree was not surveyed but because of its location
with the utility pole we know where it is and um that is staying. We have no no um no reason to remove that. It's a beach tree I believe. So there's another tree there that is going to be preserved that's not on your site.
Yep. and and again that's it's in the right of way um on on the norththeast side or northeast corner of the site these existing trees are um at a much lower
elevation to the road and because we are um enhancing the sidewalk by extending it to the eastern property line as well as providing accessible entrances into um building 9. the regrading that needs to happen there to to make all of that
work um means that those trees are are not able to be saved. Right? So, and going back to what I said before, the three locations that we're talking about or four locations are what I said in terms of where there are going
to be existing trees that'll be preserved uh as well as the uh enlarged buffer along the southern side of the propert. Correct. I understand. So looking at it from the streetscape, looking at it from the road, um there's basically nothing
that's being preserved in that area other than uh what's in the common area, what's on the border towards the Levits and a few trees on the far right hand down side. That's correct. But there's also not
much there to preserve. Um, okay. When when we did our site visit and and site inspection, um, there there are there's a large existing tree that's kind of right in the middle of what would be building one. Um, there's those two evergreens
that I spoke about which are in poor health. I think one of them is even missing the top of the tree. Um, and but when you look at the site, the existing driveway that comes here and the and the existing house, there's
large areas of lawn in in this area and over here where there just there aren't trees to preserve. Um, which is also why we utilize those areas in the project. All right, I understand that. So that
that brings me to the question of uh the trees that you're going to put in. There are a number of trees that are shown uh on Main Street uh that presumably are there to uh assist in
presenting the overall concept of the of the subdivision to the road and to the people. Um those trees um I think are similar to uh the trees that uh are used
at uh the village at NSET Green in uh East Ham, are they not? Um I haven't been to the village of Noset Green, so I can't speak to that directly, but what I can say is that the the trees that are being proposed are um
of significant size. They're three to three and a half inch caliper trees. Um, you know, a typical tree you would see at a home center is an inch to an inch and a half. So, imagine three times the size of that. Um, and we're
proposing street trees that are um robust and suitable for these environments. they can tolerate uh the salt from the road, the um kind of more of a harsh environment that you
would get in this situation than say in the backyard of of a house. Well, we had at one of our hearings, we had some photographs of uh the village at Noset Green submitted by uh Mr. Marcel
um which you perhaps recall but these trees uh uh and I've been up and looked at the village uh a couple of different times are basically the kind of trees that you seem to be uh specking for
uh the frontage that we're dealing with here. And they're really very thin. I mean that those those trees aren't in any way blocking your view of the buildings behind it. Are they not the same kind of trees
you're talking about? Like like I said, I haven't been there, so I don't know. Um and I don't know what size they were spec. I don't know. All right. Yeah. Collie Cultural wasn't the landscape architect on that project, so they don't know the tree type. And I
don't know, Rio, of you know, but I don't know off the top of my head what tree type it was. I I would say based on based on those photos, what we're specking here is larger. Well, they appear to have a diameter of about three inches. When I looked down,
but u perhaps we can check that out with this with the plans that were provided at NSET. I'm really I'm just concerned about how it's going to look and whether we could u provide for some more mature trees so that there is more of a
blocking of looking into the subdivision that may be coming here because you're going to be looking at more than just one one and two buildings uh at the two corners towards the front. You're going to be seeing the other buildings as well behind it. So that's why I had some concern about it. I realize you're
you're saying that you're not clear cutting, but you are doing a lot of cutting. Um, and it's necessary for for the purposes of the of the uh project, but at the same time, um, we want to try and preserve a look here
that is not something that slams you in the face. And I would just ask you to also, I understand what you're saying. The purpose of landscaping is to, in my opinion, disagree with me if you want,
is to have a attractive streetscape to use your words. It doesn't mean that you're trying to hide all the buildings. When you look at Fisherman's Alliance, you look at Dunkin Donuts, you look at the motel directly to the east, none of those buildings are completely screened. Some of them are
right up on the street. So I think what we're looking at or I would respectfully submit is what we're trying to look at is not screening the front of the property. It's landscaping the front of the property. So what Mark is proposing in and showing you is what they're proposing as landscaping with a vibrant
both trees and understory that will and the shrub growth that will be attractive. They will do some screening. Absolutely. All trees will block a building. But the goal isn't to block view of the site. you know, you're not putting up a fence to say you can't see in. Perhaps I didn't use the right word, but
what I'm thinking of is a balance, as you say, a balance of both landscaping and blocking that will be attractive for people coming into Chattam and going out of Chadam. Uh other than just the residents who are in the uh the subdivision themselves. And and I'd like
to just add that that it is also a balance that we weigh when selecting these trees because the larger the tree is, the more likely it will fail. Um, so we we stick with that size because we know it works and have experience with
it. Um, so I mean there are larger trees available, but the larger you go, the more likely you are to not have success. Okay, that brings me to another question. Ed has mentioned uh in
connection with uh the landscaping and the green areas uh the question of irrigation and um I know that in Chattam one of the big issues that we have is the question of the aquifer and
landscaping and the use of uh irrigation systems to support um landscaping. We tend to want to have landscaping which is uh native species. Uh we like
to have landscaping which does not require irrigation. Um and I'm wondering whether this makes any sense to be talking about irrigation uh in order to keep a lawn going uh in
the center area of this project. Um I know that you did do that in as East um and that there is lawn in Eastamp and it can look attractive but on the other hand it's not a goal that we have here in Chattam with almost any of our
projects. How does that square? So currently we have no irrigation which is our typical Penrose standard. So what you had mentioned earlier and Mark can certainly confirm is we're specking
native droughtresistant plantings um trees the grass um and so uh what I mentioned earlier about looking into the irrigation well um that would be new irrigation because we currently have
none planned. Um there is some limited irrigation owned by the contractor to establish the landscaping when they're installed and typically that's for uh a couple months a season. Um and that's usually done with gator bags. They'll
come in with a water truck and fill the gator bags and um or set up a couple sprinklers. Um which I guess setting up sprinklers from the buildings would be on town water. And how long does that last?
Uh, usually two months. So, you expect that you're going to satisfy able to satisfy establishing these trees in two months? Um, so it's kind of a it's a multi-stage process to establish the landscape. We
um we typically require the contractor to maintain it for a full year and at the one-year mark we have um a walk through and they're responsible for placing replacing anything that has not succeeded. Um we
the the tree establishment um is somewhat easier because like Rio said, we use water bags that are located at every tree. They can drive in with a water truck and fill those up periodically. Usually it's a couple times a week. Um, but they take much
longer to establish fully than say the lawn or the shrubs. And so the lawn may be deemed fully established within a month or two months. And that's where we would then dial back the intensive irrigation of a temporary sprinkler
system. Um, same with the shrubs and perennials. um it'd be a couple intensive months of just getting them uh kind of adjusted to the new site. Uh the trees, it's really that full year and sometimes even beyond that. Um but it's
much less intensive. It's filling, you know, it's filling up a water bag. It's not a sprinkler that's running for hours. Um, so, uh, and we, we try to pick plants for these sites that we know will do
well and and we've had experience doing well in in similar situations. So, can you have a conversation with our conservation people uh, between now and their next hearing to let us know whether they're in agreement with your
proposal in terms of shrubs and trees and how they would be maintained? consistent with what we're looking for here in Chadam. Yes, we can do that. Um I will note that we did meet with them prior to submitting our initial application. Um
when we were had the schematic design post RFP, we met with him uh now we're down to specific trees and types and so forth and and to that extent it would be helpful if we knew we were complying with what we're really trying to do in the town of Chattam.
A number of the other questions that I have are uh issues that I think can be addressed with uh potential conditions on uh the overall project. Um
uh I have some reservations as have some others about the common area, common room and so forth. But I at the same time I've heard comments from people who are active in our housing community here who say those are important and it's necessary and I understand it's a part
of your philosophy that um you're you're building a community as opposed to simply housing. And therefore, you want the common room areas, you want the ability of people to get together, you want social work uh available, all of
those kinds of things. Uh so I'm trying to balance those two issues as are I'm sure other members on the board. Um but um I think some of those things can be dealt with by conditions.
Uh at one point I made the comment I think several meetings ago that uh we may be trying to stuff five pounds in a 4B box and um I didn't uh
I hadn't reached a conclusion on that. I still haven't totally reached a conclusion on that. But I certainly am uh leaning towards airing in favor of trying to get that done if we can get it done.
Um it's not easy. Um but uh there's obviously a need and we've we've seen that need u mentioned by a number of different people here in town. Um
I think those are the only questions I have for right now. Okay. Uh Lee and then we're going to go to Dave V online. Unless Dave V, do you want to go now? No. Uh, no. Lee, have Lee, go ahead. I'll I'll
pick up after. Okay. Very good, Lee. Okay. Um, so I just have a couple of questions regarding what Attorney Singer said was the goal of this project and that is it consistent with no local needs. Um, I
guess my first question is regarding the whole lease up. Um, someone brought up it's a threebedroom lease could potentially have six people in there. How would that lease um, you know, how would that look? How
would that process? What would that look like? The lease up of say a three-bedroom, just use that as an example. So I guess I can't say that this never happens but what happens during the lease up is people
apply put their name to be applicants and usually the these are people of one household because uh they need to verify their income and there's a lot of verification of income
and to apply as I think also our metric is one and and a half per bedroom, right? That's our typical standard, but it can be up to two, even though that is a rarely ever happens. So, we have to um
assess that applicant's entire household and the individuals who live in the apartment and assess everyone's income and verify do background checks, criminal checks, uh and um they sign a
lease with us like any other um res rental applicant would. Okay. So it's it sounds fairly controlled. It is very controlled. There's a lot of rules related to okay how we lease up. Um the state uh reviews
and a uh approves affirmative fair housing marketing plan and a tenants election plan which lays out all the rules of how we lease up and um how we do our verification and our assessment of applicants because they want to make
sure there's a fair process. Got it. Okay. All right. And and my other question has to do with um it's probably unlikely, but it it may happen. Is you all selling Penrose selling the the development? Um perhaps that could
be a condition as well that you know if that should happen the town needs to be notified, involved or whatever, but I don't know how that would all work. But I mean the the comprehensive permit decision
that you would issue um would be recorded on the chain of title to the property and all of the conditions that you uh may impose would run with the property forever no matter who owns this. Just like when you grant a special
permit for a to raise and replace a single family house and you put a condition on it, that condition survives when that house gets sold. um that would that would be the same from a legal point of view, title point of view, that would be the same case here, you know, where there's the the the land development agreement and everything
else. There are other rules that may be applying there, but I don't know that you can make a comprehensive permit. I don't believe you can. Um although I'd ask town council to confirm this. I don't believe you can make a comprehensive permit specific to an
applicant, you know, but the but all of those conditions would continue. Those would never go away unless someone came to you and asked to modify a decision. Okay. Um I think all of my other questions have been um addressed as
well. So that's Okay, Dave Vich, you're up. Um try to get this all set up right. Okay. Um well given the difficulty I'm having speaking I'm not going to go too much
into all of this. Um and I don't have a lot to add. Um the um the thing that I'm I've got all this paper in front of me which I usually do and um some of the the um questions and continuing um
issues and problems that some of the board members continue to have. Um, I I'm I'm I keep looking for this section and I can't find it um uh in the in the regulations, but somewhere I saw this unless I made it
up. And so maybe Jay Talin can weigh in on this. But you know, I found in looking at the regulations after our last meeting with them that um this this uh um um condition of or if for us to
seek a um a pro-form with a reduced um um number of units that um we have to justify that by valid health, safety, environmental design, open space planning or other local concern that
directly results results from the size of a project on a particular site. So that didn't really come up so much during the meeting, but we have members want to go ahead with it. So that's fine. But beyond that, and this is the
part I can't find, you know, looking through all these regulations, but somewhere I I I'm pretty sure I saw a statement saying talking about the kinds of evidence that the state would look at uh
in in were there to be an appeal of a condition like reducing density. And uh this may be my imagination. Maybe Jay Talic can answer this for me. I'm pretty sure I saw the wording bas
wording basically that indicates that the kinds of evidence that we could introduce is would be um um testimony of some of the experts the the professionals the engineers our
peerreview engineers uh town staff um basically professional opinions not so much what we might individually we think of as well this this is tied to the environment or it's tied to this or
that. There's it seems to me there's a very specific process that's been laid out uh and it's very narrow in and and and then seems to me that that attorney has pointed out to us that our chances
of success as a town in trying to achieve this might be fairly narrow. So that I just want to point out here. I I'm not here. I'm hearing lots of concerns about this and that and little things and that this but when I when I
look at the what we're supposed to be balancing this on the other side with the need for the housing which is which is in clear evidence and clearly de demonstrated I I'm not sure how we're doing here. I really don't. And so I I
think that's about all I have to say at this point. I'd be curious to see hear what Jay's answer to that might be. Yep. Okay. Council, are you you able to uh connect to us and respond to that before we Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. You can you can hear me here? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Let me I wanted to also address the question on on transfer. So, first of all, before I get to Mr. Vich's questions, uh the comprehensive permit
is specific to a specific applicant. We can require as a condition of approval that before they transfer to a nonrelated entity of selling it just to another developer that's not related to
them that they come and see us and get our sign off. What we can't do is make that ownorous and deny it for no good cause. That we would have to have substantially good cause. But we can
track and require that they come back to the board and ask us for our stamp of approval. Not cannot be unreasonably denied um in the event of a transfer. So I just wanted to to put that on the
record for the benefit of the of the board. Okay. On Mr. Vich's question, there's a lot of what I would call conflicting regulations and conflicting understandings. First of all, on the threshold matter of
asking for uh a proforma and asking for peer review of that pro-forma, my view of that is that it's a fairly low bar and whether I agree or disagree
or Mr. Vich agrees or disagrees with what V said. I think Virginia has laid out just cause to at least cross this threshold. That does not mean that that would be a basis on which that I could
sustain a reduction of density if it came to that. It just means that to engage in the process. I think that she has outlined thoughtfully enough to utilize what's in the in those regulations to engage in this process if
the board wants to. And what I'm hearing is I haven't quite heard that yet. So that's the first part of it. Let's say for example that the board did choose after all of the analysis to reduce
density whether the numbers say one thing or the other and let's say that Penrose appealed that to the housing appeals committee. This is where the regulation that Mr. Singer has talked about and
that Ms. Fenwick referenced is different than what it you would have to do once you get to the housing appeals committee. Once you get to the housing appeals committee on a reduction of density or a removal of the community
building or both either or or both would be it would be the burden of the applicant without regard at all to the merits of whether or not that was a good idea or a bad idea to reduce the density
or get rid of the community building. they would have to demonstrate that it would make the project uneconomic. Now with the res with respect to the reduction in density which we see a lot of and I've done a lot of cases the
standards there are not like typical standards of money in money out it's a lot more complicated than that and the requirements and the evidence would be in accordance with the state's guidelines for determining reasonable
return on investment. I can tell you now as I've told you previously that that is not a particularly a boardfriendly calculus. The boards do not do particularly well in that review. That's not to say that
it's ne a board has never demonstrated um that something is un um or that an applicant um has failed in that test. But normally an applicant comes out of that with a conclusion that indeed a reduction in
density and I want to talk just about the density of units. I think it's a different question alto together with removal of the community building. If the applicant demonstrates that it will make the project
uneconomic, then the burden shifts back to the board to demonstrate that there is an adequate public health safety, local concern, public welfare thing that overcomes the
presumptive benefits of affordable housing. That is a really difficult burden again for a board to meet and it is rare, very rare over the 56 years of this statute
where boards have met that. That's not to say that they haven't and that's not to say that the the ration that that Ms. Fenwick has have brought to bear might not survive scrutiny there. But anyone that reads the cases would clearly
conclude that it is a difficult burden of proof there to demonstrate because the weight of the benefit of affordable housing um is very significant in the eyes of the housing appeals committee.
So that's like all of the steps in that. And then, you know, I could break that down a little bit further if people wanted me to, but that's the kind of analysis that I think would would factor into your next steps here.
Okay. Um, let's see. Mr. Nixon, thank you. Uh folks, uh in the past I've mentioned about the crosswalk and I know where that stands now. You're going to apply to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and if you get the green light, you get the green light. But unfortunately, uh that doesn't help with what the final decision would be, meaning let's say no.
And as Steven Buckley pointed out, I think maybe it was back in April and perhaps June since he'd lived there for I don't know how many years where the kids play is across the street. There's a green area if you happen to be right there at this Main Street. If you look
right across the street, there's a big green area and that's where the kids go to play. And that rang a bell with me because the neighborhood I was brought up in, there was one big green area and all the kids played there. I mean, we played all the games you can think of
and some we shouldn't have. It's okay. And I'm still afraid of what's going to happen because to me, the welfare of just one child, just one child would override
the value of the housing. So, that being true, you've laid out uh a play area on the green. Well, that's great if you're four or five years old, but the older kids, they're going to say, "Poof." And
they're going to go across the street. And what happens is, as you know, the rotary or the roundabout, whatever you want to call it, that you go around in front of Larry's and all that, and you're heading east. You come through that and you put your foot in the gas. I
mean, just go out there for five or 10 minutes. That's what I did. And I watched that. Boom. They put you you put your foot on the gas. So, you're coming down and you have, let's say, three or four kids that have banded together. And they want to go across the street and play in that green area. And what
happens? The two older ones said, "Well, let's go." And they go, "And we dare you to come." And then maybe the third one and the fourth one. God love them. God love that's where my concern is. So
going back to our discussion here, density relates to the number of children we are going to have there. Is that not correct? Yeah. Uh yes, we will have presumably a one child at least.
Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, uh to me, since there's no other place on this 3 acres that would appeal to the 7, 8, 9year-old, the 10year-old, whatnot,
running across the street, daring one another to do it brings to me a a definite density problem.
And it means to me to protect those kids that density has to be lowered. Did you want to say anything or do you want No, thank you. All right. So, true story. It doesn't affect my ability or willingness to
approve this with conditions, but when I was five and I lived in Medford, I was supposed to wait and cross the street when my mother came out. I did not wait and I did get hit by a car. Truth true story. There was no crosswalk and the woods were across the street. So, I just
can't help but say that kids do that. And if there had been some kind of a situation there for safety, maybe that wouldn't happen to me. I don't know. But uh I'm not again, it doesn't mean that I don't see everything else about this.
But it is a fact that kids cross streets when they're not supposed to. And the more safety uh measures you can have, the better. At least you can say you tried. So we're trying to say we tried. We're looking at safety. we're looking at. Um I I mean I agree with everything
that my colleagues have brought up. Um I don't really have anything new. I'll start with uh the proformer was absolutely timely. It was legal. Um I I never liked the idea of a community center front and center like that. Um it
doesn't I don't know how you could ever argue that that furthers your ability to make this financially feasible because there's no units in that. So, I agreed with my colleague at Actton from the beginning about that and I stand by that. Um, I just think people can use
the community center. It's not that crowded there. I go there a lot. I go there all different times of days with my two granddaughters just to even let them run around. And there's not a lot of people in there. And that's a great place to chat with you. You never know who you're going to run into. It's just
more friendly as a community to use that. It's right down the street. Um, so I'm not a fan of that community center. It never was. And so that is not nothing new. I'm also not a fan of all these trees coming down. And I think that you do have to come back to us and talk
about a well because my understanding after conversations with experts is that the town of Chadam will not let you water use the water for irrigation. You're going to have to dig a well or find a spot or something. And the idea that you have the people come back if
the tree failed after a year and just plant a new one. That rings a bell of the, you know, the issue of the definition of insanity. What makes you think it's going to if you put another one there that's going to survive? So that isn't enough for me to know that you're going to replace it with another
one. You know, I think you really have to have a very direct and um great process for your irrigation. so that we're not looking at a train wreck
there. Um, so let's see what else. Uh, I don't know if I have to say that much more now, but I do want to get an expert. Um, I want to make sure that our our board is on board with this. Um, I I can't read that performer. That's why
I'm a lawyer and I'm not a doctor. And you hear that all the time, but true story. I I can't look at those numbers. It's not fair for the community to expect, you know, us to look at that and just take your word for it. No, no offense, but we need to get the we need
to continue to do our due diligence. That's all we've ever been doing here. We, you know, we don't we don't get paid for this and we're just doing this because we care about what goes right there in the HBDC in the in, you know,
leading towards downtown Cadam. Um, and we're doing our due diligence. we have time and we want to get I want to get an expert to look at that proformer and let us know um what they think does. So I want to just make sure our board I don't make all the I don't make the rules. I'm
just saying that I would like to do that. David, would you like to do that? I certainly would. But I agree with you 100% that it is part of our job here to do that because as you point out uh Miss Fenwick has a lot of financial
background and ability but I'm sure she would like I don't want to put words in your mouth but even if she could read it perfectly she needs a little bit of confirmation and in my case I need a lot of confirmation.
Is there anyone on the board and and please feel free to say you don't want it, you don't think we need it? And uh is there anybody that doesn't want us to to look at that proformer with professional eyes? Yeah. Yes. That would that would be me. Okay.
Well, I keep losing my I've been losing my voice figuratively for a long time on this board and now I'm losing it physically. But no, I don't think this is necessary. I don't see the point. Okay. Honestly. Okay. Yeah. No, this is not how in in when I
was in business and do this. This is not how I was raised to treat people that I was doing business with. And that's what I'll say. Okay. Mr. Vch, respected and noted. Paul, let me indicate that uh uh it seems to
me pretty clear that u from Penrose's viewpoint uh they don't feel that they can go forward with this um with a reduced uh 42 unit uh project and um
it seems to me that their analysis um even if we have an expert come in and say we disagree with them, we think they could do it, they aren't going to do it. And uh that does not make sense to me given the possibility that we can
condition this project such that uh we can arrive at a result which uh as they say may not be perfect but will work. And I do not see the need for an expert,
independent expert to look at the proforma uh and determine that they think Penrose is wrong, let's say, and uh as a result of that uh Penrose walks and we end up
with nothing. Um that doesn't make any sense to me. So I'm going to ask uh Attorney Talaman, how do we go about is it a vote? um or how do we go about deciding? Um and I guess I could ask Jenny quickly first
and and the other members. You you haven't said you don't want it. You want the information. Do you want the information? You put your mic on. It's been provided. It It's It's been provided. It's been
requested. It's been provided. Why wouldn't we try and interpret it and understand it? Okay. So that's three and maybe even the associate members, they haven't said that they don't want it. So council, can you help us out here? Have
we met our burden? So I I think you've met your burden in in my view, but I I I guess I want to would want to have a little bit of clarity and and maybe and I don't want to put Virginia on the spot. When I
heard Virginia's comments, it almost appeared and and please correct me if I'm wrong that it was you wanted the site to be more open that and that it almost seemed like it was an eitheror.
Either remove the community building or remove six units. I don't but I I I was would like to have some clarity on that um just so I could help give good advice. I'm not sure it's ultimately determinative if three members have
chosen to seek a professional review of the proforma. Okay. If so the removal of the management building does not impact the density that that I agree with someone that said that earlier. So the the comment that I had made many many months
ago about the density and removing one of the unit one of the buildings and going from 48 to 42 was to help um reduce the density of this 3 acre uh parcel. So So that's
separate. The the management building I have was not as vocal about early on because um I didn't need to be. there were other other members that were bringing up but I never liked having all that streetscape with buildings on on
the street such an important street so when the as the meetings progressed I I wanted to also as as we're accumulating our feedback I think it would make the project look better to not have that building there and have that whole area
be open space um so so so no they're not they're not the same and they're not connected Ed. Um, but I I just I think to clarify for you, Jay, the I think the most important thing is the density. And if it helps, Jay, I agree with everything that Virginia just said, I I
I concur entirely and and that's fair. That's why I wanted the clarification because I I think that if the board's view was we could live with the other six units or that there's not enough bang for your buck by
reducing by just six units in terms of the public health safety welfare issues and you just you felt you could accomplish your goals with the removal of the community building. I'm not sure you would need a proforma review to do that because I don't think their
pro-forma addresses just that issue. Nor do I think it would be particularly easy to address that on a proforma on a project programmatic level maybe. But that's not dollars and cents. So I think it's good
to get that clarification. The board is entitled under the regulation to get some review of their proforma. There are a handful of folks out there that know the standards under 40B which are different than most
development standards for review of pro-formas and I could probably get one of them to um take a review of the proforma that they have uh provided by and I think your next hearing would be the 30th. Is that right?
That's correct. Is that the Yes, we would. And where does that stand with visav the 180 days since you opened the hearing? Sarah's going to answer that. Uh 180 days is November 4th. So that would be the last Thursday that we could
meet before the deadline. Okay. All right. So I think we I think that we could probably get it done by then. I think it would be somewhat cursory in nature and we'd have to give them some facts. But I think the proforma that um Penrose
has provided is is fairly cursory in nature too. That's not a projorative. It's just a straightforward um uh uh review of the dollars and cents of this. So I think I can get that reviewed. I already talked to one person
today and I'm waiting to hear back and I there's another person that um that I wanted to tee up just in case the board took this vote that I want to talk to as maybe being a good fit for this and then I can work with Randy and with Sarah to
identify and get that person, you know, get a scope of review and get it funded and do all that other good stuff. That Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. I think um in
our response to kind of the conversation today um Mr. Simple's comment about what Penrose is willing to do uh regardless of the results of this peer review. Uh I understand the board wants to better
understand it. Um, but what I started with saying at the beginning of this hearing was these numbers are reflective of how we operate our properties. And I think that's why the town chose us. Uh,
and um, a peer reviewer can review it and provide you more context. Um but for us the 48 unit is the plan that we are willing to do and 42 is not
something we're willing uh to move forward with. Are you still willing to come back on October 30th? Yeah, certainly. Can you make a motion to do that? I can't. Request. A request. A request. No, you can't make
a motion. And I apologize. A request and then Paul will make the motion. Okay. Um yeah. All right. Then request to me uh uh request a continuance to the next meeting. Very good. October 30th. It's our our decision.
Yeah. Okay. Paul, I'll move to grant the requested continuence to October 30, 2025. I second that. Okay. Point of order. Can I ask just one question? Sure. Um, accepting everything we've just talked about and knowing that we're really continuing for the purposes of
discussing the peer review and you have to close on the 30th because right we absolutely do. Question would so that we could streamline the meeting on October 30th and hopefully get to deliberations depending what happens. Would you be willing to close the hearing at this point to new public testimony and the
only thing coming in is the peer review and then during deliberations you're entitled to talk with us? I'm sorry, but we're not going to do that. Okay, I agree. So, um, yes. No, I know. So, you seconded the
I did motion for October 30th and the five of us vote on that, I think, right? Okay. So, and you I'll vote yes. Okay. All votes yes. Jenny Jenny votes yes. Dave Vich is still with us. You still talking? Yes. Dave Votes yes.
Okay. And I vote yes as well. That's unanimous. We'll see you on October 30th. Thank you. Spooky times. Is this is this one of ours? We need to move to adjourn. I'll move I'll I'll move to a journ.
Dave V second. Yes. I heard Mr. V second and vote yes. Very good. All votes yes to Ed. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I vote yes. Good evening,
Chadam. Thank you everybody. [Music] [Music]