Yeah, [Music] yeah, yeah. [Music]
All right, we are about to begin. >> Welcome everyone. This is the August 21st, 2020 2025 meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025
signing of the chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made
to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided for in the order. A reminder to persons who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508945410 conference ID
um number. Oh, I don't have that here. Um, we'll get back to that. Oh, sorry. Conference ID number. Um, 866 011643 pound.
While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide realtime 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 on the on the business agenda um during the meeting when recognized by the chair. While I'm thinking of it, I'll just ask you to shut off all gadgets that make any noise whatsoever and take any conversations that are more than one sentence in the hall if you
would. Um so the first thing we do and at this meeting is we take a roll call vote of all members. We ask anybody participating um online to make sure that we uh have your ident we can identify you. The
hearing notice will be read by staff o'clock on my right. And the rest of what I'm going to um explain now is different than most of our meetings because this is a a 40B um affordable housing um meeting and we're going to
where this is our fourth meeting and so we're going to do things a little bit differently today all effort to move this along. Um, and so what we're going to do first is we're going to hear a synopsis from Penrose and I believe they're going to give somewhat of a
PowerPoint by attorney Andrew Singer to where we are now in the project, where what we've agreed upon and um the status and um our clerk uh Virginia Fenwick um has taken an accounting of all that too. So we're going to make sure we're both
on the same page. Next, uh, Penrose um, after Penrose and and after we make sure we're on the same page, Ty and Bond will will, um, recite their peer review uh, report and Penrose will have a chance to respond to that. And the topics um, for
today are traffic and civil. And so remember, your comments really need to be limited to those topics um, when you want to speak best you can. Um, and I I did mention that last time. Um, okay. Then we're going to read I will read the
letters that we've received. Um, then we'll have public comment. Anybody that would like to speak for up to three minutes. Um, it last time this uh group um made a queue and everybody lined up and that's really helpful. So that would
be encouraged. uh Penrose will have a chance to rebut um anything from the letters and and public comment. After that, we're going to review waiverss and if you stick around, you'll see what that means. Then
we will have questions and comments from our board. At that point, we won't really be speaking to the public unless somebody on the board would like to uh entrain you in. Uh other than that, um at the end of the meeting, we'll have a
motion to continue. Most likely, it'll be till September 18th. Um and we are looking forward to closing the public hearing either on the 18th of September or sometime very soon thereafter. At that point, we enter into negotiations
um also public meetings, but it's a different level. Okay. So, as I said, um, we are going to do a roll call vote of all board members, starting with Mr. Vich. >> Uh, David H. Vich and uh, I approve of this format.
>> Ed Actton, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I approve of this format. >> Paul C. Simple, I approve of this form of meeting. >> Lee Huby, I approve. >> Steven D. Dbor, I approve. >> Virginia Farmer, I approve. >> And Randy Pesh, I approve of this form of meeting as well. All right. So, 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 shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 9D, block 4A,
lot 1 and map 9D, block 4, lot 18. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law Chapter 40B sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR56 for the construction of 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 regulations promulgated by the town of by the Cadam zoning bylaw and other local regulations. The property contains 128,492 square feet, 2.95 acres in the R20
zoning district. This was continued from May 8th, June 5th, and July 17th, 2025. Welcome, Attorney Singer. >> Good afternoon. Click on that. This will get this
opened up at the end. Thank you. Uh good good afternoon. For the record, my name is Andrew Singer, an attorney in Dennisport here on behalf of the applicant uh with us in the audience today um available to answer questions as we go through discussion about peer review waiverss and any questions you
have. Uh we have representatives from uh Ki Cretell, landscape architect, Union Studios project architect, uh Horsesley Whitten, project engineer, and uh two representatives from Penrose, the applicant. Um, as uh noted, I I'd be
happy to give a synopsis going through this PowerPoint um of the updates that we've made to the project since our last meeting with you on July 9th. These were contained in the supplemental submission that we provided to you on August 14th. And there was uh but for one slide that
I think or two slides that maybe have been tweaked here, um we' submitted a copy of those slides to you in that presentation as well. Hope I'm not getting feedback on this. Um, we wanted to let get it started for you.
>> Oh. Oh, yeah. All right. Yeah, if you do this, thank you. See, I hadn't hit go. You usually don't have me running the PowerPoint. So, the since that last meeting um in
the questions that we went through, so peer review as you know, we'll have a discussion about both site design and traffic. We also updated and fine-tuned the waiverss list, which we'll get into in detail later. Um, I know we'll go through them one by one, but we updated that with changes because some things
dropped off, some things tweaked a little bit. Um, as far as Okay, site design upgrades. the um main sure. So the main change which was
discussed was the request for a crosswalk on route 28 and uh the applicant has noted this is um on the landscape architect plan and if it's something uh as we're going to discuss a few things today that need to be finally
engineered um by by horses whiten and so this could be added you know to the site design to the actual civil plan which is not there yet. Um so the crosswalk has been proposed. Um we did confirm with Masdot that they will not formally review, consider or respond to a curb
cut request until permits are in place. So as far as we can go with you is to say and I am saying this on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is willing to construct a crosswalk roughly where shown um if approved by the state
because it's a state highway so we can't do anything without state approval. But if uh the state approves it, then uh the applicant is willing to you know uh you know accept that as a condition in the comprehensive permit decision. And that we looked at it back and forth and and and they can get into the engineer can
get into discussing it with you more if you want, but this seems to be the most logical place. It's the furthest from the crosswalk that's at the roundabout. Um and I think the next slide will Here we go.
here is that that's the one um at one more. No, that's the one uh this is just an example of a similar one that exists uh on route 137. Uh this one is um you know an example of one it it would be something like this with the with the
panels um with the uh bars. So the also was asked the other main change um let me okay so the other main change uh was so the request on the back was is
there was there the possibility of lengthening or ex deepening the setback in the rear of the property. The buildings as shown here conform. They they're more than 15 feet from the property line. But there was a question, could they be moved? And the answer to that is yes, they can be. And a sketch
plan was provided to you. What would happen is the buildings would move forward 9 ft. So you'd have approximately 26 or 27 foot rear setback depending because there's changes in the back. It would result in the parking
being decreased a bit. But when when the RFP was first responded to, there was going to be one the parking ratio is going to be 1.3. It grew at requests of various times up to 1.8 and it's been slowly ticking down as you know changes
have been requested. This change would result in a parking ratio of 1.52. So it's above what was originally submitted during the RFP process. and we talked with Penrose and based on their and they have approximately 27,000 units
of of housing in their different projects. This will work. So what this will do is pull the buildings that rear buffer up to 26 27 ft and uh the fire department has confirmed that what's
shown on here the turning radi on here work. What will have to be done is that if the board likes this proposal, uh, Horley Whitten will put it all on their civil plans, go back to the fire department just to reconfirm that, you know, the the the turning radi still
work. Um, and they think it can it can be done. It just has to be put on those plans. The um is this the proposal where it's pushed therefore? Okay, so this is a plan showing you wh let me go back here. Sorry. This is a plan showing you with
that increased buffer in the back. And the reason why that's important, I'll get through it in the synopsis, is um we believe that um there is the chance that additional trees in the back could be saved. And we have some slides to show you the ones that those might be. Um
this slide is just what I mentioned to you about the parking. So uh the current plan from July had 84 spots. This new plan pulling the building forward would result in 73 spots. That shows you the ratio. Okay, this is that area now of the
buffer increasing by uh 9 ft. Okay. Um this is that area in the back. So the back of the property, uh the property is to the left on this image and the Jesse's Landing subdivision is to the right on this image. And uh that's the property line. And these are
some of the trees in this area. And you can see on the bottom, this is looking from between building six and seven looking east. Now, as far as the trees, um we want to be very clear. We're saying they hope that they can, you know, be saved. So, as you can see in some of these pictures, there's been a
fair amount of fill brought in on the Jesse's Landing side, which is elevated there. And so, there have been some drainage impacts. The site plan that we've submitted to you does show some retaining walls in the back to to try to make this all work. So, the hope is that these trees we're presenting to you on
these images can be saved, but depending on root systems and and drainage impacts from offsite, we can't promise them, but that's the goal. The goal is that you could save these additional trees. Um this is another uh image and you can see
the property line and again these on the right are the trees to hope to be saved. Um on the back this is in addition by the way to that that large grouping of trees in the center of the property that we've that we believe is very important to the community green and for for the neighborhood field. Those stay trees on
the side stay. This is only focusing on the rear of the property where the building is now uh buildings are coming further forward. And again, Jesse's Landing is on the left here. Um for those who know that where those large arbor vites are, I believe that's the currently vacant lot.
If you've come down Jesse's Landing, so you can see where it is and you can see where it slopes down with the fill um onto the town property. There's the property line. Um, and there are the trees in the in the sort of center back that hope clo the larger trees that hope
can be saved. Um, we wanted to show these two because very few people, myself included, have trapes back there. It's really thick. So, I think I don't know if it was Mark uh Mark from Koli Cutrell is here. He's the one who went back and was digging through the back of the property.
This is now looking west uh down that version of the property line. And there are the trees. And the this is again along the property line. Uh and those trees as well hopefully.
Um the last one, this is on the west side. Um uh the Levit property is on the right, locust is on the left. And again, these are trees. These were there before, but these these are trees that you know will be remaining uh in
addition to some others that are further um north along that property line. Um so this is just very quickly and again the uh the the consultants are happy to go through it if if you not to. I will go through these more quickly. As far as peer review, I'll go through this
real quick. Horsesley Whitten has been working with Ty and Bond and they've back and forth answering questions. There'll be more about this uh both about the uh site design which is on the top of the slide and the additional traffic numbers run in July that we had
said were done. They were submitted. Horesley Whitten has responded to those in the second peerreview letter that I believe you received today. And so again that'll be uh for conversation today. Um before I get to the architectural updates, I just want a couple other
things I wanted to note um because it was they were discussed um that won't be in this part. Uh it was asked about the number of residents that would be at the property and based on the applicants NASA green community in East Ham. They anticipate an expected occupancy of 95
to 100 residents. That's not the maximum occupancy by law because that goes by bedroom, but they anticipate 95 to 100 people uh living on the property. And as far as accessibility, that was another question. There will be 14 handicap accessible and visitable units and at
least one of them will be designed as accessible to the visually and hearing impaired. Um uh uh on-site management and maintenance. Uh there is staff on site Monday through Friday during normal business hours and by telephone 247. The buildings have been designed to
accommodate solar installations as revenues allow. uh in in response to another question that um one of you had requested. Um okay so I think finishing up with the architectural um elements. So what Union
Studios did is they went and are presenting a revised color palette much more in depth and um it's a more muted natural and varied uh palette than what you saw in July. These are some samples from um around town. And again, any
detailed questions um they're here and they'd be happy to discuss them with you. Um this is a sample of uh what they're considering for the uh siding and the roof and the trim. And all of these these are samples because when you
ultimately go to buy these a year or two from now, they may not be selling all of them. Uh but they'd be similar, you know. So, this pallet is is is a is a representation of what they would be proposing. This would be a building type A. Again, they're proposing slightly
different uh siding colors on each just to have a little bit more of interest. The doors would be different colors. And again, these are this is being presented as a proposal in response to uh questions uh from the board. These are the building
type C's and there are six of them and they'd all be, you know, a little bit different as you can see with um door colors, trim colors, siding and roof. Uh on the management building, uh they made some changes here and again in in response to questions, they've added the
dormer um and and some changes in the siding styles as you can see on the slide to uh provide some more interest um to the architectural features of the building. Um and we've been requested if we could
provide an expanded street script streetscape, excuse me. And so that is um what you see here. Um the the one on the bottom is what we showed you before. The one on the top uh expands to add the properties to the um east and west. And
this is presenting the view that you would have driving down the street or walking down the street. This is what you would see. And we believe it is very much in keeping with the neighborhood in the immediate neighborhood. There are two other multif family developments, two seasonal properties, one yearround
property, and one vacant property. Those are the abutters around the this project. And as we've said before regarding the height waiverss for unit C, the the cease type buildings, those buildings are still going to be less
high than the Fisherman's Alliance building and the Dunkin Donuts building, which are also part of the neighborhood. So I believe that's also um justification and and and more uh expression of of the buildings in this fitting into the neighborhood. This does
show as you can see the color palette that Union Studios selected and the change to the architecture on the management building. And let me go back and with that that is our that's the update. Uh we are all
happy to answer any questions and look forward to the synopsis you're going to present and if there are questions we can talk about that as well. Just right off the top of my head, I could say you did a little bit more even um in terms of you also um said that you would go along with the Cape Cod
Commission's um recommendation. So, you can add that to your feathers in your hat. >> Yep. Thank the one about the setbacks. Yes, the parking has been revised. So, they're all behind the front faces of the building. >> Yep. Yep. And uh so I'm going to just turn to Virginia Fenwick, our cleric,
just to see if there's any questions that she has about your synopsis. >> Excellent synopsis. I agree with Randy. That was very thorough. Um do have one question about um I I had all those things on my list and actually you had a
couple more even. Um I don't know that I heard was the um side setbacks improved at all just not just the back but the back was significantly improved from to 26 ft.
Sides setback is 15. What was proposed was 19 for the sides. Is that still 19? >> Yes. There have been no further changes to the side setback. When we were here before you in July, the setback on the west side was pulled in for the where
the dumpster is in that turnaround. So that was pulled in, but there have been no further side setback changes since July 9th. >> Okay. Including the front. >> Correct. In the front, the buildings stay the same. There was a numbers change that you'll see on the waiverss. Um because the front stoops on the build
on the two buildings east and west are greater than 30 square feet. Setback has to be measured from there not the front face of the building. So the buildings haven't moved at all but the number changed because of how it's calculated under the zoning bylaw. >> Okay. The number got smaller. Okay. Um
comment about the crosswalk. Mr. singer. In your summary that you wrote, you had um you had essentially you had said that you and you reiterated it tonight that um you are going to do that as long as
the mass dot approves it that that and that's required after permits and everything, but you're you're committing to to doing that if it's approved by the state. In your write up, you have an and is economically feasible and to do so based on connection to the
infrastructure of the sidewalk. Um would you be uh and you had also verbally said in one of the hearings you had stopped after if it's approved by the state period. So are you able to take that that conditional and part out or if >> I'm taking the conditional I discussed
this with a client before we're taking that conditional out the but let me tell you why it was there. The one concern that Penrose had and because it's not been studied yet is this a crosswalk has to connect to something. So the question was what's on the north side of the street? There's a sidewalk but it may
have to be completely rebuilt to have a a crosswalk go into it. So that was the only concern. So to answer your question, yes, the condition we're proposing is just that if um Massdot approves it, the applicant would build it. I I just wanted to recognize that it
may present a problem, but we'll have to deal with that. >> Okay. No, we appreciate that because um that's a very very important uh request of the board. And um by putting that if and and kind of pushing
it farther out, it was just getting um we just wanted a little greater assurance that that we stress the importance of that. >> Okay. Um, and then Randy had mentioned the Cape Cod Commission parking. Um, that they that was that was a new change. So, that
was landscaping. Um, oh, and the HBDC color changes that was that was asked for and that was was done. Landscaping. I still want to talk a little bit about that. I didn't see I know you talked about the landscaping in the back um saving trees but I still
want to learn a little bit more about frankly the streetscape landscaping. Um we talked last time about eight trees or so being proposed um as be as saving a couple on the side you pointed out on the western side but I just want to echo
what I've heard friends of trees some of the uh resident you know Chattam residents that have come in and spoken and written letters what I have also stated myself um is that it would be such a shame to take such a heavily wooded property and clearcut it because
um you can't you know replace those really mature trees. >> So before we get too deep into that which we definitely will later when we have comments and questions from the board that would be you could start with that even uh J. >> Yeah I just wanted that that was on the list and I know you talked
>> No definitely and go ahead. No, I just also wanted to reiterate that um the intent of this accounting was just to um make sure that the things that we have mentioned on the board that are important to us because they're
important to the residents of the town were uh were there and and and to try to give some assurance to the folks that um are so have shown up and are so passionate about uh seeing this project move along. I do want to acknowledge that the height was a very big thing and
it was the first thing that we started with many many months ago and that has really been significant and I did want to just reiterate that you did a nice job also but um originally all of the houses were requiring a waiver of the 30 feet of the nine are under 30 feet
that's been your change and also six of the nine while they are over 30 and that's the waiver um the lowest is 2.8 2 feet 8 in and the highest being 311 and then there's a few you know in between.
So I do want to acknowledge that I I think that that has been um was initially a big concern. We haven't talked about it in a while. That's why I wanted to circle back and just make sure everyone understood that that uh was was a was a big accommodation and um and the
setbacks. I think that what you've talked about today is probably the other biggest thing that we've heard over and over and um I I think uh we think that um the additional um 11 ft that's been changing to now go
to 26 is um is responsive. So that's all I had. >> No, no, thank you so much for that. And uh just going back to that setback change that you made, I just want to reiterate for the purposes of uh allowing the public to understand that they didn't have to do anything with that back setback. They already met the
15 feet and plus a couple of feet. So they now they're taking it to nine feet. Um and they didn't have to do that. So we that's why we're lavishing them with praise with that. Um, I want to just reiterate um go back to the issue of this the um crosswalk because I want to
just understand if you also are including that push button and it would look like it does on 137 because you just said crosswalk before and I couldn't help but notice that you didn't say anything about the push button. So, >> the crosswalk um and I just confirmed
with a nod. Yes, the crosswalk includes if it's approved. Yeah. the bar, you know, the the the solar push button lights on either side. >> All right. Great. Super. All right. So, um that's that. So, now we're going to go to Ty and Bond peer review. And so,
Tyen Bond was hired by well by this board to do a peer review. I believe they're online if I'm not mistaken. And so they're going to give us uh their uh report and then Penrose will have a chance to uh respond and then we'll try
to take an accounting on where we are compared to what they say, what you say and what's not agreed on will be the balance that we'll have to deal with. So Tyian Bond, welcome. >> Hey u thanks for having us. Um I'm Ryan
Casease. Um from the traffic side, the peer review. >> Great. Great. Yeah. So, we're going to do traffic and um and we'll do traffic first. Do if you have a camera, if you if you want to put that on, that would be great. If you can't, that's all right.
>> Yep. There we go. Can you see me? >> Yes, we can. Very good. >> Awesome. Um, so a lot of our comments that were significant from the traffic side, >> if you have a volume that you could turn up, that would be helpful.
>> Yeah. >> Or get closer to your speaking device or both. >> Yeah. Is this any better >> much? Thank you. >> Okay. Awesome. Yes. So, a lot of our traffic comments
have already been addressed in the first presentation of this meeting. Um, mainly coordination with Mass DOT and that crosswalk at the eastern site driveway. Um, those were two big things that we
were looking at. Um, from the traffic side, uh, we were hoping to take a look at the other roundabout, uh, main street at George Ryder Road and see what the impacts were there. Um, so we have, it was proposed that 60%
of site traffic would be coming to and from the west, which would go right through that roundabout. And then from a crash history analysis standpoint, uh we typically look at the
last five years of closed data, which would be 2017 to 2021. Um because anything after that is still going to be edited and isn't confirmed uh as like closed data. Um but that roundabout at
Barnhill Road was it looks like it was completed in 2021. Um, so just hoping to take a look at some of that post2021 data and see if any crash trends changed uh since that
roundabout's been completed. And then the last comment we had was just to identify an area for snow storage within the site plans. But those were the traffic comments that we had. >> Okay. Thank you. Um,
I guess we're going to move on to your civil analysis. Do you have somebody else from your office there to give us that report? >> Um, yeah, there should be someone else on the call. >> Do you know what that person's name is by any chance so we can see the initials
or you have a way of texting them or? >> Yeah, I believe another Ryan. Ryan Christristenberry. >> Okay. >> Uh, I'm not seeing Sorry, Ryan. Sorry, this is Sarah Clark. I am not seeing
Ryan online. >> I can message her real quick. >> Okay. Um, maybe Penrose wants to respond to the traffic. How's that? Hi, Joe Henderson, Horesley Whitten.
We're the civil engineers and um I just want to acknowledge we did receive the traffic report. We just got it today for the peer review. Um so we've passed it along to the NAS associates who's the traffic consultant. Um and they expect they'll be able to get responses back
within two weeks. So >> that's where we stand for as far as traffic. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. So, now we're We were hoping to have Ryan Christristenberry and we don't see her. So, I think we're going
to have to move to the next. Let's see. Yeah, that's what we'll do. I'll start to read the letters and then if she appears then I'll um take her after that. Fair.
>> Fair enough. Okay. So, we have a number of letters and three of them I am not going to read. However, they are located on the uh town's website. Um, one from Michael Shell, one from Rick Levit, and
one from G. Meyers. Those will not be read, but they are posted on the town's website. Starting with the ones that I will be reading. Um, we have a letter from John Avery, the chair of the affordable housing uh trust, and that
was received on August 12th. At the June 12, no, I'm sorry, June 18th meeting of the affordable housing trust. Um, the trustees voted unanimously to support the comprehensive permit application for the property on 1533 Main Street. They
recognize the great need for affordable and attainable housing that benefits a range of incomes from lower wage tourism sector jobs to the teachers and fighter firefighters employed by the town to the fishermen and artists that are so important to the cultural and economic heritage of the town of Chadam. The
trust supports the main street proposal by Penrose because it provides needed year-round affordable and attainable housing for a range of household incomes from 30% AMI to 110% AMI. The proposal also provides various housing sizes from
onebedroom to three bedrooms with five fully accessible ADA units to accommodate the broad range of family sizes and needs. Additionally, having a large central green common open space as well as an indoor community room and exercise space is critical to creating a
livable and neighborly development for future residents. The developer along with town staff will seek the 70% local preference which will enable the majority of 48 units to go to those who live and work in Chattam or have children in the Chattam schools which
will help stabilize our yearround community. We urge you to approve the comprehensive permit application to begin to meet the range of Chattam's housing needs. Next, we have a note from, let's see, uh, Stuart Smith.
This was received, um, I think today, which is August 21, 2025. Good morning, Miss Podash. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the proposed West Cadam housing project at the former Buckley property. As you know, I was elected to the select board
in May 2025, replacing Michael Shell. I corresponded. No, I correspond with the zoning board of appeals today as a private citizen residing in South Chattam and do not represent the town today regarding this proposed project. I
was not a party or a signator to any contract or land disposition agreement between the town of Cadam and Penrose developers. Your board's responsibility to the citizens and property owners and the enforcement of the zoning bylaws
adopted by the town's people is vital in retaining the Cadam's character, the town of Chadam's character and sense of community. As your board members are well aware, through your dedication to the citizens of Chadam, it's important to respect and give credence to the
neighbors concerns. If we as a community do not respect the issues raised by the neighbors residents, the town risk jeopardizing these proposed housing initiatives in West and South Chattam and future initiatives throughout the community. This proposal before you
today grossly oversaturates this pristine piece of property and negatively impacts the town, the neighborhood and neighbors by placing towering buildings far too close to the lot lines. The proposed buildings unnecessarily violate the height
restrictions adopted by the town's people while proposing an unnecessary building complex community center. We should be encouraging any potential future tenants to engage and participate with our residents at the townwide community center on Main Street.
Isolating th these proposed future tenants to any proposed complex community center contradicts the intent of integrating these apartment residents to the general community at large. Additionally, the proposed parking plan
is woefully inadequate to accommodate potential future couples and families. This proposal clearly is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and the community at large at this very busy intersection on Main Street and Boundhill Road. I encourage the zoning
board of appeals to deny this permit application and allow Penrose developers to appeal it through the proper channels if they choose. while the zoning board of appeals represents the citizens of Chattam. Thank you for your service to the community and your dedication to the
protection of our neighborhoods and community. Next, we have a letter from Ann Azerino uh received on August 20, 2025. Please, let's see. This is There was a real need to increase the sideyard and
rear yard setbacks between private residents and rental units. Chattam Township has maintained and is known for years as a private and quiet peaceful community. The unfortunate loss of privacy and quiet enjoyment of all the
Abua's properties at risk is a loss to all. Please respect the need for their privacy and peaceful enjoyment. Bruce Be Bruce Bean writes to us on Wednesday, August 20, 2025 to support granting Penrose the comprehensive
permit. It is no secret that I supported another proposal, but this is the proposal that got final approval. If the ZBA does not grant this permit, it will result in extensive delays in denial of a badly needed housing for 48 families
or individuals. While this may not be the perfect solution, I ask that perfection not be the enemy of the good in very good in this case. This letter was written solely in my capacity as Chattam concerned citizen.
Lou Heb of South Cadam writes to us on August 20. ZBA members, we appreciate the difficult position you're in. The Chattam comprehensive plan of two tweeting envisioned a small seaside town resort.
I doubt they pictured housing projects as pre presently planned. Please, for the sake of any of many Chattam citizens who are surprised, angered and frustrated by these projects, do your best to adhere to the Cadam zoning guidelines, especially regarding height,
density, and open space restrictions. Lucia Loose Quinn, Lucy Quinn of Cross Street in Chadam writes on August 20, "The facts of the Chadam of Cadam's rapidly accelerating housing crisis is
incontrovertible. Penrose has again and again demonstrated enormous flexibility and creativity to find excellent compromise solutions for the concerns and objections raised by neighbors and other members of the public. Penrose has have remained
professional and admirably patient after successfully addressing a series of concerns. Persistent objectives then shift this strategy to a new previously unexpressed set of concerns. the hours of meetings and listening to zoning board and other
town committee meetings and the repeated consistently supportive votes taken at town and select board meetings over an embarrassing number of years are now being held hostage by the self-interest of just a few voices publicly at a
theoretical level those voices claimed concern and support for solving the availability of accessible housing in Chadam. However, their actions and continued attempts to derail any proposed solution suggest otherwise.
Facts and data can be interpreted differently by different people. Discerning the intent of a specific interpretation is much more difficult. Are the facts being used to support a genuine genuine striving for the common good or are they being asked to advance personal interests and unspoken agendas?
I would guess this is often the toughest part of your deliberations. I am appreciative that you returned to the table to do so, but the commentary saddens me. First and foremost, I believe there needs to be a desire to find common good, a desire to live in a community with respect where all can
thrive. The housing proposed for Main Street is an important step in maintaining the viability of Cadam's vibrant local and year-round community. While our instate instinct for taking concrete actions lags many other Cape communities for at least
a decade a majority of citizens citizens have been attempting to protect and preserve a common good that is inclusive of all our citizens. Next we have a note from see
Thomas Clark Jr. 20 Uncle Zelotus Road. And this came um see August 21, 2025. The towning the town of Chadam faces a pressing need for more affordable housing for several interconnected interconnected reasons. Extremely high
median home prices. The median home sale price in Chadam was a million uh $1 million and 50 a million50,000 which is among the highest in the region region. Local wages, especially in Chadam's dominant sectors, are far below
the levels needed to purchase homes at these prices, making home ownership unattainable for many year-round residents. Severe shortage of year-round rentals. Over 55% of residential properties in Chattam are used as seasonal homes far above the region
average. This dramatically limits the number of year-round rental units, leading to a scarcity of affordable long-term housing for workers and families. Then I'm just going to he goes into a lot of statistics. He says income mismatch and significantly affordable
affordability gaps and he goes into um AMI and then workforce and community sustainability, state and regional housing crisis. Uh Chadam is part of the broader Cape Cod housing crunch driven in large measure by rising home prices, the dominance of
vacation rentals and insufficient new housing construction. Local leaders have declared a housing crisis, viewing affordable housing as vital for economic stability and community health. Limited zoning for multi multi-unit developments. Um,
Cadam's zoning allows for more than two housing units by right only on 1% of its land, which slows down uh new affordable options, the aging population. In summary, Chattam needs more affordable housing to ensure that local workers and
families can live in the community to prevent further population loss and to address imbalances caused by h housing costs and a large number of seasonal homes. And I urge you to take advantage of this incredible opportunity as
presented by Penrose. Next, we have a note from Carol Kenner received August 20 um 2025. Thank you for your service to the community. I ask you support the Penrose proposal. Affordable attainable housing is a top priority for our family because our son
Mike who has Down syndrome lives nearby in a group home depends on the care provided by direct care staff. Those staffers need places to live on the mid and lower Cape. Sadly, most can no longer afford to live here. There are no
places to buy a rent. capabilities. The program that provides him care struggles to recruit and retain staff because few can afford housing. The housing crisis threatens the viability of Mike's program as well as similar programs s such as the ladam community connections
and life. Our staff vacancy rates are very high. We live on Cange Lane close to the proposed project and we feel our neighborhood will greatly benefit from it. Thank you for your consideration and your service. Now we have a note from Robert Stevens
um and he writes on August 19th to comment on the proposed Penrose development on rental apartments on what was formerly the Buckley property. Uh density is uh 48 units. It's too aggressive for the size of the property. High density causes numerous problems
such as traffic congestion, lack of adequate parking, lack of green space and safety issues. inadequate parking with 48 families and an estimate of 100 occupants and guests. The proposed parking is inadequate. Several of the
spots are designated EV charging on site management. Teens can often acquire cars at a driving age or share a second family car. The vehicle mix is likely to be more pickup trucks and work vans than regular small economy cars. Safety.
Imagine 48 families coming and going on a road uh parking in the center of the project. Young teens would have to cross the road parking to um to access the tiny green space at the center. The road and parking are currently designed
inside the par perimeter of the project and it'll likely cause congestion for residents, lack of privacy. A road with parking at the outside of the perimeter of the project would reduce congestion, allow better safety for our residents, and allow for more parking spaces. The
community center, Chadam already has one. I believe the point of this project is to integrate those residents with the fabric of Chattam, not to isolate them. I support affordable housing, but I urge you not to pro approve this project. Um,
and I also urge the ZBA to set caps on density for any applications um, and setbacks consistent with the neighborhood. Then we have a note from Ellen Briggs and this is on August 14th. The Buckley
property in Chattam hugging Route 28 has been proposed to be a multi-unit affordable housing community. Would Chadam benefit from placement of an affordable housing? Yes. Is this proposed site and plan ultimately a good solution for the town? From my point
point of view, no. The reason is based on how the proposed density of the housing plan alters the ambiance of the neighborhood. Not only would it be a budding homeowners um they would suffer the impact of the plan buildings. So would the traffic flow on Route 28 and
Barnhill Road. Without question, attention should be paid to the impact this plan will have on longtime responsible taxpaying neighbors. abuing the the Buckley property. Due to the number of buildings proposed, not less than the estimated estimated 72 cars or
trucks will be entering Route 28 in Barnhill traffic. What a nightmare that would be, especially from June to August into September. Reducing the number of units would also address and help resolve this problem uh outcome. I do support a proposal to move the new
buildings away from the 15 um foot minimum setback. This would address the need to respect those neighbors. Um, let's do what's right for Chattam, including those aspiring to live and participate in our community. Give serious consideration to um a revisal of
the plan. Next, we have a note from Phyllis Nickerson Power. I think I have three more to go. As a year-round resident of West Cadam, I've always supported developing West Chadam village concept and affordable
housing for year-round residents, rental properties or otherwise. And again, this was received August 11th, 2025. I grew up in Chadam. My grandfather Willard Nichson senior was a selectman and my father Willard served on many town boards. Chamber of Commerce,
beautifification of Veterans Field, president of the Chattam Historical Society, Nichson Family Association campus in the in Chattamport. My mother ran the first adult educations classes in Chattam and they created a successful seasonal business, Nichson's Fish and
Lobsters at the pier uh 1950 to 1986. They always cared and contributed much to this special community. Back in the 1960s, they recognized and expressed concern about the housing for future generations. They told us as kids back
60 years ago that there was going to be a problem with housing for year-round people. They saw the handwriting on the wall. If it wasn't for their hard work, generosity with hopes to have their children and grandchildren being able to enjoy our Chattam heritage lifestyle, my siblings and I would not live in
Chattam. Now, as a realtor of 39 years in this town, I know only too well that the issues of rentals, the prices for firsttime buyers, and how hard it is to live in this town for working families, singles, and seniors. I embrace and support any project to enhance housing.
However, I do have some reservations about respecting sideline impact for neighbors that u about the Buckley property. The revised concept presented showing the new buildings moved away from the 15t setback leaving a green
space buffer represent a very viable and reasonable plan to also respect the neighbors concerns. R20 setback 15 was meant for a single for was meant for zoning of single family homes. The issue
of affordable housing isn't is a can that has been kicked down the road since the 1960s. The rush for the proposed new project will get it done now without respectful consideration to the thoughtful revised proposed plan which
would be a disservice to our town, the neighborhood and taxpayers who do support creating better housing for all. Please give serious consider consideration to a revised plan that will reserve that will serve everyone. See, Mary Burn of North Chattam writes,
"On August 3rd, 2025, as a 1980 Chattam High grad who has watched almost all my schoolmates move away due in large part to unaffordable housing, lack of housing stock, I am writing in support of the Penrose project. The situation is getting worse as time goes on. We need
housing for everyone to work in in this town along with seniors who've contributed to the community for decades and others who don't make enough to in the service hospitality hospitality industries to live here. Long commutes are bad for the environment and for
family life. They are also less likely to promote strong family ties to the community and definitely don't help the declining school enrollment. Thank you in advance for your support. Lastly, we have a note from Shirley
Smith. Um, a citizen of Cape Cod in parentheses Chattam. Let's see. Um, as a part Oh, just this part, right? Yeah. As a great grandmother, I hate to see our town turning into village floor
villages of Florida. It warms my soul to hear the laughter and to watch the playing of youngsters, even silly teenage. Kind of breaking up here. Their families will spend uh their families will spend
on essential goods and services, supporting local businesses, stimulating the economy. Affordable housing allows workers and their families to live near their workplace. Beneficial for the homeowners. also long-term economic
growth. This creates for everyone the chance for new connections to build a stronger social network. The children are our legacy, not the unused million-doll homes that are taking over Chattam. All right, that concludes the
correspondences. Do we have Ryan? >> Uh, Mr. case. I still do not see that Ryan is on. Is there anyone else from Tyen Bond that will be presenting the civil? >> Um, I reached out to Ryan and haven't
heard anything back. Um, I don't really have any involvement with the civil peer review. I just did the traffic side, so I'm not entirely sure who else to reach out to. >> Okay. I know we reached out to Sean and Ryan um and have yet to hear back.
Would >> would somebody be able to Would you sir online be able to call on the telephone? I know it's a new concept these days, but just call call the person and we can get back to you um later after we take public comment. We still have plenty of
time to do that. Does that work for you, Mr. Singer? >> That's fine. I was also just going to offer since Mr. Henderson was working with Ryan and Sean on the peerreview. If when you get to it, if they're not here, he's happy to, you know, discuss the letter since, you know, from our side,
but he was working with them on it. >> That that sounds maybe we should do that. >> And we we do have um and this was posted on the website as well for all the the public to see. Um we do have Ty and Bond's responses on each one. Um they
their responses are in bold. the applicant's responses are in italics. Um, if there are certain things that they felt that needed to be looked into more, um, I'm sure that the applicant can address those. >> Okay. So, why don't we do it that way
and then we'll go to public comment after that as planned. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sure. Yeah. Good good afternoon again, Joe Henderson, Horesley Whitten. Um, as you mentioned, we did work with Tai Bond on the peerreview responses and I can just go over just kind of a brief
summary of the process and then we can um, you know, if you I'll go over our synopsis of it and then we can decide if we want to dig into every comment. So, um, August 5th is when we received their comment letter. Um, and there were three
main topics of discussion. It was based on the town zoning rules and regs. If you've read the letter, there's Chadam storm water ress and then there's the mass state storm water rags. So, it was broken down into those sections in their letter. Um, we met with Ty Bond on the
ETH just to go over all these questions, discuss them, and come up with kind of our point of view on them. Um, and then we proceeded to write a response letter to Ty and Bond. And I that was on the 14th is when we had prepared that comment response letter. In turn, um,
what you have before you is their response to our comments. I believe that was the 19th we received it. And, um, that that was their final peer review letter. If you go through it, uh, virtually all the comments are addressed
or they're noted as acknowledged and will be um, addressed with the final plans. And the reason being is that we, you know, we're discussing this alternative plan which will change our design. So we were hoping that we could
just address those particular items that were directly related to the alternative plan at that time. So we would submit a fully revised set of plans that would um you know ahead of the next hearing so that they could review them and then
provide their comments you know confirm all everything's addressed and then that would so that's how we feel we feel all the comments were addressed virtually addressed and if you want I can go through every one I I don't know that it makes sense to because a lot of them are
just addressed or acknowledged. So, >> can you just go through any that you think are a point of contention with that? >> So, I would say there there's none. >> Perfect. Even better. Even better. >> Um, >> all right. So, >> so yeah, we feel we can address them all. It's just a matter of us getting this revised,
>> you know, if we decide to move forward with the the revised plan, we'll >> we'll be able to >> Okay. All right. So, we don't have to worry about that then. Um, we can count on you to to make it all right. And then what about the traffic? Do we have anything that we want to talk about with
that today or should we put that over? >> I mean I can there were some overlapping comments related to civil if you go through the letter. Um particularly there were related to the mass DOT permit right they mentioned that we talked about that already for the
crosswalk. So we we >> yeah Mr. Singer mentioned that there was a comment about the um and that crosswalk has been added. It will be added to our plans. Um, there's a comment about snow storage. That's fine. We can add snow storage locations.
That's typical for our drawing. So, we can add that to the plans this next round. They did mention um delivery vehicles. Um, the delivery vehicles are typically about 30 feet. We we can run our auto turn to make sure they can
circulate the property, but the town's firet truck is 45 ft long. So, >> I don't really see that that would be an issue there. Um and then the turning radius plan Mr. Singer mentioned we've sent that to the fire chief with the latest version of the plans. Um we will
we can update that once if we decide to you know change the plan to that alternative kind of concept plan we've been look talking about. >> Okay. So so if we have any questions or comments we'll save that to one you know we're not going to do that now. >> Um but that's helpful.
>> Great. >> Yeah. All right. So, um, with that, um, now we're going to take comments from the public and then Penrose is going to have a chance to rebut anything that they heard in the letters and from, if you want to start a line, Rick Levit,
why don't you just go first? Um, stick up step up to the mic. Um, and what are you doing? >> Oh, I just want to hand out. >> We don't really do that here. If you want to hand anything out, just the way we do it is you hand it to the clerk and she will pass them out.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. And when everybody in the room is uh done with their comments, we'll recognize everyone online. I I I just see one person actually online at this point. So, Mr. Levit, you know that
we're trying to limit it to um civil engineering and uh and to traffic today as but go ahead. >> My comments are directed to to Penrose's site plan.
>> Thank you. Now, first I want to just point out that proponents who are of this site, and I am one of them, make a mistake to confuse constructive criticism as opposition.
I don't oppose this. You received two site plans, one from Penrose and one from me. Both have the same number of apartments. No change. Penrose made a token adjustment to
setbacks on the southern boundary 9 ft and no adjustment on the western boundary where I live. That's an ownorous double standard. 15-ft setbacks, even 17t setbacks are appropriate only where single family
homes are on halfacre lots. Where large multifamily buildings, no matter what you call them, town houses, apartment buildings, makes no difference. They're large, looming over single family homes.
The site plan I submitted prepared by George Meyers provides a minimum 35 foot setback with dense vegetative buffer not just a few trees being saved. That is the standard where multifamily
bu buildings are adjacent single family homes. You would want that in your neighborhood. Earlier this week, town council advised the select board that you have the right under 40B,
and I would add you have good reason to condition your approval based on the site plan I submitted. Because 40B is intended to encourage affordable housing and looks unfavorably on conditions that limit development.
The site plan I submitted maintains the same number of apartment units. No change. And it does not make Penrose's development uneconomic. In fact, it reduces the number of
buildings from 10 to nine, reduces parking spaces, and eliminates clear cutting of a very large area. Finally, I ask you condition the permit based on the revised site plan I
submitted. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain for Chadam and its residents. If Penrose appeals, one of two two outcomes is possible. We are in a strong position to prevail
on a appeal because we are not asking to limit affordable housing development. >> I just have to caution you that you're just about out of time, but I'll let you finish your sentence. >> Thank you. If we do not prevail, at least some
neighbors, some households will receive token relief. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Who's next? >> Yes. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Mark Janess. I live in West Cadam. I just have a question about the the setback
facing the road. Um because uh I guess the the first question I have is what's the legal requirement and what is the actual setback from the road because it appears from from the drawings and the one I saw in the paper a month or so ago is pretty close to the road and
hopefully it's consistent with the setback of setbacks of the other buildings on the on Main Street there because it is a an important artery going in. You want to maintain the aesthetics of it and of course you want to have the safety as well. So, just wanted to know um you know what's the
setback for the front-facing side of the property and is are the buildings in compliance with that? >> We're going to let Penrose answer that later when they respond. So, it's not a back and forth with the panel, just so you know. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sure.
Next. >> Good afternoon, uh members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to add a few words. Uh my name is Bill Bdanovich. I am the president and CEO and owner of Broadreach Healthcare, which is Liberty Commons in the Victorian, most notably over in North
Cadam. And I um I offer you some words today speaking from the perspective of being a private employer of 300 plus um providing critical health care services to the folks in this town. Um and we've never seen the need for for housing to
be more critical in the 40 years that we've been here now. Um, in the last seven years, I've cobbled together some preferred housing opportunities uh for our folks, mostly one and two-bedroom apartments that are in Chattam, Brewster, and Dennis with a capacity of
about 30, which again is about 10% of my workforce. We went into it thinking that it would help recruit people, help us recruit people from off Cape to be able to move here. But it's really become all about enabling people who are already here to stay. Um, and that's changed
significantly in the time that we've been trying to do this. I can I can confidently say that none of the people we are now helping um with apartments would be here without that housing opportunity. I'd be remiss though not to also speak
from the perspective that I have as the board chair for housing assistance. Um, housing assistance addresses housing challenges at all levels across the Cape with hundreds of units and projects um, at different scales. And I can tell you
from that work that I know over 70% of employees in the region spend more than 50% of their monthly income on rent. Further we go out on the peninsula, the more that disparity increases. As much as we'd love to advocate for
everybody to be making the hundred or $200,000 a year they need to afford to live here, the reality is that cost would shut down many businesses and drive up prices on goods and services, bringing our economy to a standstill. Couple this economic disparity with a
rental housing shortage and we have an equation that leads us with a sense of urgency to get projects like this one across the finish line so that we can maintain a viable economy as well as a thriving community. So I stand in support of this project and ask again
that the enemy of perfection not be allowed or used to stand in the way of progress and movement forward. Thank you >> and thank you for coming. Okay, ma'am. >> Uh Hannah Smith of Chadam. Um just for
the to try and cover the time the three minutes, I'm going to cut out um two of the three cases that I was going to bring up, but uh if I have time, I'll address them. Thank you for Thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this housing project that has
been proposed by the developer Penrose. My only request going into what I'm about to say is that you please deeply consider the information I provide to you all today. While I am a resident of Chadam who grew up here and attended Chattam Elementary, Chattam Middle, Chattam High, and Monoy Regional High, and have witnessed the devastating
housing crisis firsthand, I will always put the rights of others first, no matter how badly this town needs affordable housing. This is why today I stand here as someone whose expertise is in social justice and human rights. And I kindly ask that you do not move forward with the permit application by
Penrose. Zoning boards in Massachusetts ensure orderly development and pri prioritize the balance of community goals with property rights. The ZBA is fundamental in sculpting the standards for how Chattam will grow and develop with affordable housing at the forefront.
When it comes to this proposed project, I was willing to possibly overlook the numerous design issues that violate zoning bylaws, the warranted neighbor complaints, and even the very serious issues regarding environmental impact. But what I cannot overlook, nor should anyone, is a pattern of blatant
disregard for the safety and well-being of tenants of various projects Penrose has already completed around the country. I'm going to skip two of the cases, but in perhaps the most damning of the allegations against Penrose over the years, on January 27th, 2022, a report
by the worldrenowned Human Rights Watch, spanning dozens of pages titled, "The tenant never wins." On the private takeover of public housing that puts rights at risk in New York City, Penrose is mentioned multiple times. In this report, Penrose is both
the developer and the company in charge of facilitating the property management company. In the case of Hope Gardens Housing in Brooklyn, New York, an elderly neighbor who speaks little English and suffers from various med medical conditions and cannot get out of bed independently in and out of the
hospital was unable to arrange the support needed to allow her to travel to the management office organized by Penrose in order to certify that she was eligible to remain in her home. The management company organized by Penrose sent a letter warning legal action as they have done with others and both the
elderly resident and her neighbors contacted the management company with the reasons the resident could not reach the management office. However, a notice was still sent and the elderly resident was given 60 days to vacate her home. The following is a quote from one of her neighbors. She's panicking. She's
crying. She calls me saying, "Anthony, they're trying to kick me out. Where am I going to go?" I call and email and tell them, listen, she is physically unable to come to you. >> Just so you know, you get five seconds left. >> Essentially, >> Penrose has stated that in response to
threatening a tenant with eviction that they have to send those harsh letters to make people react faster. I want you guys to know, >> I'm just going to have to cut you off out of fairness and social justice. Everybody gets three minutes. Thank you so much for coming.
>> Who's next? Good afternoon, ma'am. >> Hi there. Thank you. Um, I'm Mary Ellen Ikeman. I live here in West Cadam and happy to do so. Um, I'm also, um, have had a bit of
experience with Habitat for Humanity and, um, and I know we're not talking about Habitat for We're talking about housing for people who need it. Um several years ago, three or four, I went
to a dedication se ceremony at for five Habitat homes in um Harwitch. And as many of you know, um, when they have a dedication ceremony for these homes, hundreds of people were
there, volunteers and local people and were there. And as a part of that dedication, they asked anyone who would like to to go to one of the homes that were just built and see what they're like inside. And I So I did that. And when I got to
the home, I looked inside and there was the living room and a lot of people in there chatting in a very happy way. But I was greeted at the door by a child who maybe he was three or four. And he held out his hand, as kids sometimes do, to
take mine. And he drew me into this new house. And as we went back, he took me to his bedroom. And I admired it. and there was a window and you know he was sweet and happy about it. But then he took me to a
closet and he opened the closet door and took a half a step in and reached up to reach the light bulb. No, to reach the light switch and he got the light switch and he smiled and pointed at the light
bulb. So, um there I've been to your meetings and um have learned some things, but what I remember is that there are children who need homes and who are so delighted at
the prospect that they're excited about a light switch. At that point, his mother came into the room and introduced herself and she simply said, "Yeah, he's really happy. He's got his own room and his own window in that room and a closet
with a light switch. I wholeheartedly support this plan. Thank you very much. And sir, you are next with the green sweater. >> Henry Marceli, 32 Jesse's Landing. Um, I
support affordable housing. I've said that every time I've been here. I continue to say that we need it and uh we're for it. I'm for it. The revised plan shows a 9- foot increase in the setback on Jesse's Landing, but nothing on the Barnhill Road side of the
project. This is not responsive or in the spirit of the directive from the chair to look at this measly uh which was in quotation marks 15t boundary for the abutters. Um, a question. If you went down to the
1.3 parking spaces that were originally proposed, would we be able to increase the setbacks on the south and west boundaries? Another thing, we're talking about a retaining wall. Yet, I don't see any details in the drawings of a retaining wall. How long, how tall? What's the
surface treatment? What's the material? I'm sure that's going to come out. Are there going to be plantings in front of it? Vines or something? Because people will be looking at that retaining wall. Um, would it be possible to flag the trees that may be able to be saved so
that we can see them, the people that are our butters, to take a look at that? Because I know it was sketchy and we're trying to figure out what the boundary is. That would be helpful. The other question I had or the other consideration I would ask you is at some point are we going to identify the size and type of trees? I know that there's a
lot of drawings there with a lot of flowery things, but do we know the height of the trees? Are we going to put in three-foot trees? We're going to put in 10ft trees. That's going to be important to the abuters because of how much time it may take to grow to provide some screening. Thank you for your consideration and thank you for uh the
opportunity. >> Thank you for your comments. Ma'am, you are next. >> Good afternoon. Ella Levit, Barnhill Road. The developer's revised plan is very disappointing to say the least. It disregards the chair of ZBA's request to
give some relief to the abutters. A token 9- foot increase to the setbacks on the south side is not realistic or acceptable. I am personally offended by the shameful lack of any consideration of my adjacent property on the west
side. The lack of any compromise is further exaggerated by Penrose's revised plan, which actually adds parking and dumpsters within 15 ft of my gardens. My backyard will be adjacent to a roadway, a parking lot, and dumpsters.
This is outrageous and cannot happen. The thoughtfully crafted alternative plan maintains the same number of units that the developer has proposed and therefore poses no financial impact to the developer.
It offers more trees and vegetation and setbacks that are realistic for the necessary separation between residential properties and multifamily apartment buildings. Regarding trees as buffers, I quote Penrose's attorney in their August
14th correspondence. The category was saving trees. The applicant's proposal has been carefully designed to preserve significant existing trees where possible. This includes most importantly the grouping of mature growth trees that will be located within the central
community green. This augments the neighborhood feel of the property and in bold provides an incredible amenity for residents. The alternative plan not only keeps the trees in the central green, it provides a total of about 20,000 square
feet of open space in the southern and western part of the property, a much more incredible amenity than Penro's. This project, as currently designed, will have a dramatic impact on existing neighborhoods if allowed to proceed. It
is ridiculous to build 35- ft buildings 15 feet from the lot line of adjacent homes. It will rob me and my neighbors of our privacy and quiet enjoyment of our homes to have two and three-story buildings looking down on us. And to be
clear, the 15oot setback is for single family homes, not multif family. A butters have rights under chap chapter uh 40b and developers have the obligation to respect those rights. I am pleading with you not to accept this
plan as is. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, sir. And if there's anybody that wants to speak, please. Yes. Just if you could get in the line so we can see who wants to talk so we know where we're at today. Yes, sir. Please go ahead.
>> Good afternoon, Mike Shell Chadam. Um, I I just want to start by saying, and I I'll try to do my best to address what I'm supposed to be addressing here, but I I think in really uh the technical
stuff is for you folks as you are doing to um finally determine what has to be what. And and I appreciate your efforts in that regard. Um, I I think everybody, we hear it over and over and over again,
everybody's for affordable housing. It does a lot of good things that we're all in favor of. Puts more kids in the schools. It makes it easier to hire for all of the people. You heard from Bill Bdanovich. Um, it it makes it easier. It it
promotes year-round housing here. Um, it it increases our subsidized housing inventory, which way back in 2003, we said we were going to have up to 10% by 2015. We haven't done that. We haven't
even hit the 2005 target. What I want to say here is on Tuesday the select board made a very important policy judgment in instituting a residential tax exemption which promotes
yearround housing. You have the opportunity subject to all of the technical stuff that I defer to you on. You have the opportunity to make an equally substantial policy judgment to promote yearround housing in Chadam. A
hundred people, whether it's 90, 100, 105, whatever it is, those people are going to live here year round. They're going to be in the schools. They're going to work here. That's a big deal. And I I hope um you know um as somebody
said, I think I said it, I hope you won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So, thank you very much. >> And thank you. You are next, ma'am. >> Carolyn Mlullen, South Cadam. I just want to acknowledge the um the work that
Penrose has done to increase that buffer zone from the the 15 foot foot to the another 9 ft. Um I also point out that I mean that's a lot of space there. I know that at the previous meeting you mentioned that 15 feet wasn't really a lot. I will note that the abutters don't
really have any significant buffer zone on their side of the property. Um the southern development is a recent development and if you were to go on the town's website, go to the aerial map for 2010, it's an aerial map, you'll see that Jesse's Lanes was a completely
densely forested lot which was 100% clearcut of any vegetation. and then they put lots of housing a number of housing in there and they built to their borders um you know with their patios and their lawn and that's their prerogative but the fact that they don't
have a buffer zone now for their neighbors is a choice that they have made and I don't think anywhere is it written that you you're not allowed to see your neighbor and it's not your responsibility of your neighbor to prevent any visual exposure if you want
that privacy then that's on you to to create that we're going above and beyond on what's required and the height limit is very insight limit but that's within the 40B to do that. Uh we have lots of local developers that have property that's
towering over their neighbors like the Hunter Rise development. That's all legal and it's legal. It's within the rules and regulations of the 40B for them to provide a waiver for the height requirement. And I think we've done a lot and the the need for uh affordable
housing far outweighs um the desires of fewer butters. And I think it's a really bad look for Chadam to have a standard where we're we're we're concentrating we choose to concentrate our affordable housing to give this enormous buffer
zone to um the butters who have seasonal development a huge lots and they they've chosen not to uh create a buffer zone for themselves. So I think we have to think about the quality of life of the renters who are going to live there and uh that's a value also. Thank you. Thank
you. Who's next? Yes, sir. David O and I'm formerly a member of AHT. No, now not now, no longer. Um, I just want to say I've uh as as having been part of all of this and and the uh LDA and the agreement and looking at the
proposals, we all thought the proposal was very well done initially. Um, I haven't been involved with affordable housing and apartment complexes and things for years and years and years and I'm not going to get into a lot of detail. I think Penrose has been more
responsive than I ever expected them to really be. I think they've addressed every single concern as much as can reasonably expected. I think the idea that one, you know, when you talk about Jesse's landing, which was clear-cut, and if you look at the size of the trees
that were planted there, there may be three or four caliber. Um, so the for the demands for other trees to be different. Part of the problem that I was I was watching this as I was trying to get here. Uh, the drainage the drainage issues that were created by the grading on Jess's Landing is, you know,
something Penrose is going to have to deal with in some factor and they've acknowledged that. I don't know how much more you can ask anybody to do. And this is a beautiful development. We need it. You just saw uh if you looked at last week's chronicle, the front page was
talking about 600 applications for for 60 units in Orleans. The amount of applications is four and five, as much as 10 times the amount of housing that's available. We need this. It's time. It shouldn't be postponed in
any way. They should be I think Penrose should be congratulated for the effort that they've made and the efforts they've made to to do everything nine extra feet. I mean that's 50% more than the setback that was before with with buffering and trees like that. You can
put the conditions. I think the peer review shows that from what I understand that minimal amount of things they've addressing the fire department. I certainly agree that the the slightly smaller ratio of parking is more than adequate for something like this. So, I
strongly encourage you to approve this as soon as possible. Thank you. >> And thank you. Who's next? >> If you want to come closer to the to the um podium, everybody, you know, then we're trying to save time here. Yes, sir. >> For Orleans Road. Uh I just want to address the local preference real quick
before I get into the uh traffic. I think I'm the only one to talk about that. Um, in one of the Orleans meetings, uh, that's recorded, Penrose says they denied 93% of the 70% local preference. And if you guys dig into the numbers of who gets these apartments, it's not the locals that they're
promising. And that's only the initial them moving into the buildings. That has nothing to do with, you know, after the fact. They're just basically filling apartments. So, it has nothing to do with, you know, they don't fill it with locals like it they're supposed to or is hoped to be. As far as the traffic, um,
even if I was for like a high density, uh, development, I don't think you could put it in a worse spot. I mean, before you had that rotary uh, and Barnhill Road, it took, you know, five, six, seven, eight minutes to take a lefthand turn onto 28. Um, the traffic and
congestion is going to create is, uh, it's going to be crazy. Um, without doing anything about it. Um, even like taking a lefthand turn, you know, into the project is going to be a pain. And that's only during, you know, June, July, August, September. So, I mean, I don't know who did the traffic study,
but, uh, it's going to create a lot of problems, a lot of backup, and it's going to be like you're not even going to want to be able to drive down that that road after this project's put in. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Gloria Hicks, Meeting House Road.
No one is opposed to affordable, and attainable housing. No one. We're here today talking about the same issues that we've been talking about before the RFP was done, before the LDA was done. The problem people have with these projects is the density, the
height, and with respect to the abutters. That's that's been what we've been talking about from the beginning. And it's unfortunate that the trust put forth density that we knew was going to be a problem. Um, things should have
been included in the RFP that weren't. Things should have been um in the LDA and there were problems with the LDA that just went unheard. So, it's it's really unfortunate. Um, none of this had to happen. Now, we have resistance. We have opposition, which we
shouldn't have. People want housing. everybody does. Um, and that's pretty much all I had to say. Thank you. >> Thank you so much for coming. Is there anybody else here in the room that would like to take part in public comment? If not, I'm going to go to the two people
that I see online. Oh, I'm What am I? >> Oh, we have three people online. Um, I think I saw E first. Please go ahead if your initial is E. And just state your name and tell us your three minute up to three minute comment.
E. >> So Elaine, Miss Gibbs, the chair is calling on you. >> Okay, we're going to go to GM and then we'll come back to um whoever E is. I'm just assum we're assuming that it's Elaine Gibbs, but I I don't like to
assume. GM, please just identify yourself and um please go ahead with your comment. Thank you, Madam Chair. George Myers from Venice, Florida. It's clear that the three acre Main Street sites very tight for 10 buildings and the other
amenities. Uh nine large twostory multif family buildings cited right next to the property lines will house 48 apartments. Uh a Butters have and Butters today have even made it clear they support this affordable housing project and the plan
48 apartments that are going to be there. It is unfair to dismiss their concerns. However, it turns out that it was fair to criticize that minimum 17 1/2 ft setback of four large pinrose buildings
overlooking their properties. But moving those buildings only another eight or nine feet away is unacceptable when according to the plan that I had prepared and was submitted to you 18 ft is available to provide a more typical
35 ft setback from large buildings and simultaneously eliminate unneeded parking spaces. What is inexplicable, and others have pointed this out, is that Penrose did absolutely nothing in response to the chair's asked
for Barnhill Road homeowners. It actually moved the buildings closer to them. Penrose also did nothing to keep the roadway, parking space, and dumpsters internal where they should have and away from the abuters as my
plan provides. Now, this 10th building is a 3,300 square foot one-story community center office complex with a design that's incompatible with a Greek revival architecture of the other nine buildings
on the project. The complex contains a societ a social services room, a conference room, a manager's office, a waiting room, a break room, a file storage room, two hair two halfbaths, two kitchenetses, a,200 square foot
community room with two storage spaces, and 900 square ft of combined maintenance shop and storage. at six times the size of the 42 unit meeting house road community space and four times the size of the Anchorage
community space on Coral Road. My revised plan has only nine buildings but retains all 48 apartments and 86 bedrooms. It replaces the 81 foot wide complex with a design compatible
forplex, an end department of which can be sized to provide 1,200 or up to 2400 square ft of community. >> Just so you know, you have just a little over 15 seconds left. So, if you could just finish a sentence, sir. I'm going to have to stop you.
>> Yep. Go ahead. >> Okay. The plan was carefully thought out and designed, especially with economics in mind. hopefully to satisfy all parties and obate Pinrose taking a position that the plan was uneconomic. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And now we're going to go back to um E, you are on. Take it away. >> Is that Ela Gibson? >> That is I You're telling me that all I can see is E and I don't assume because you know what happens when you do that.
>> Yep. Thank you. Uh the 1533 Main Street design is not compatible with the neighborhood by any standard. West Chadam should not be considered a neighborhood center as it's on a state road and our main highly congested corridor. Uh Penrose intentionally limit
limited parking in their RFP in their own words to force tenants to walk, bike or use public transportation. Yet there are no food stores, no bank, no primary care doctor, no pharmacy within walking
distance. Uh the planning board requires two spaces per unit, but on this design it is 1.52. The state does not define a family unit. It uh so a threebedroom could be rented out to six unrelated people each with a
car because there is no assigned parking and no guest parking. Any units that have two adults who work could come home at the end of the day to find no spaces available. Either one of the they all had they had six cars and they had a party. Uh Penrose keeps referring to
NSET Green in East Ham for comparison. I don't know if any of you have been there, but you need to go before you make any decisions. It has been in operation for five years and is in an an indication of what we can expect. It is not on a state road. has only six units
per acre versus 16 that are going to be at 1533. The landscaping, common areas, uh exposed utilities and general maintenance should not be acceptable. Again, I urge you to visit it. Um
uh the occupancy at their location should not be compared to Chadam. It is a far less desirable location there and Chadam is very desirable. The renderings submitted uh by Penrose for 1533 are
deceptive. The trees shown in their renderings are 40 to 60 feet high and you can tell that by the side the height of the buildings which we know are about 30 uh and that we will it will take easily 20 years before the saplings that
they plant will be put in um will reach that height. Uh so it is deceptive. All are deciduous, which means the entire three acres from the street to the back will be bare in the winter with no shielding from the road. They've said
they're only taking down six to eight trees, maybe more. >> I'm just letting you know, you have 20 more seconds. Um >> Okay. Uh when the bulldozers come, the three acres will be clearcut and virtually uh gone, and the damage will be extensive
and irreversible, and everyone who sees it will be shocked. I would also ask that you place more weight on the abuters who are going to be directly okay impacted from people who are from >> Thank you so much. I'm going to have to be fair and uh wish you a good night.
Next we have SB SB, you're on Steve Buckley. >> Steve Buckley. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Again, I don't assume. Go ahead. >> Yes. Steve Buckley, personal representative to the estate of the late
Joseph P. Buckley, uh co-owner of the property at 1533 Main Street. Uh following his death in 2020, uh due to COVID, um I offered the uh I responded to the town and offered the
property to the town which they eventually bought. uh it had long been my uh expectation that it was had a high potential for exactly what's being or for generally what's being proposed
today and um I but I was having lived off Cape in various types of housing um I was concerned that yes it would end up looking like a housing project all lit up and all the same color so forth and so on. I erased I asked about this at
the last meeting uh of the ZBA back in um in July, but I didn't get to comment. I only asked the question what's going on with the colors and then I didn't I was the chair said that's all you get to
ask get to say. Uh fortunately uh the uh Penrose has responded with one of the packets today and showing that they have come back with some colors. And so there's three colors, white,
cream, and light gray. And white and cream to me is white. And uh the light gray to me is I I don't know any Yes, there's still it's all sideboard. It's all clabbered.
Growing up in Chattam, I always thought that uh the most defining and predominant uh feature of architecture in Chattam was white cedar shingled, which turns to silver siding. And the further I would
get away from Chadam seemed that oh that was particular you know that would go away. And so what I'm trying to say is that according to the union studio architect the predominant he said the word predominant last month style in
chatam is Greek revival white clabard and I'm sorry that is wrong and I don't think somebody from out of state should be telling us what our style is architecturally. I think it should be 50%
white cedar shingle or synthetic. One of the abutters is a siding contractor and he can say yes. >> And just so you know, you have 15 seconds left. I'm sorry to say. >> Okay. Yeah. And so anyway, we can make this look like Chadam and I would say that 50% of the coverage should be just
that way. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Anybody else online or in the room that wishes to partake in public comment for up to three minutes? Please make it known to me. I don't see anybody. And so now, um, it came to my
attention that somebody from, uh, Tyen Bond is online now, so we might as well hear from them for a moment, um, before we, uh, hear a rebuttal from Penrose and then we take a break. So, you're on, Tai Bond. Um, thank you. First, I I
apologize for the miscommunication on our part. My name is Jean Christie. I'm a principal engineer with Tai Bond. Uh we perform the civil peer review um which is really specific to the civil design the site plans and um storm water
management design. Um kind of as an update to what what's happened. We issued our initial letter on August 5th. Um you know a couple days later on August 8th we did have a meeting with the applicants engineer with horses whitten. Uh we went through lots of comments at that time. um talked about
how to resolve them, what we're expecting, you know, what what what do I need to see to say that the comments's been addressed. Um and we agreed in that meeting that um that Horsesley Whitten would or the applicant would provide a response that said this is how we're going to approach things. Um a number of
comments have been addressed. There are a handful that we think will be addressed, but we can't fully say that they are until we receive revised site plans, revised storm water package. Um, so I think we're on our way. If there was anything specific that the board
wanted to talk about, I'm happy to dive into more. Uh, but I'll leave that up to you. >> All right. So, we're going to leave that for now. Would you be willing to stick around for when we do get questions and comments from the board just in case? That would be great. Thank you so much. And now, Penrose, would you like to
rebut anything that you heard that you're not happy about from comments from the public or any of the um notes that I read? Um where all he is. >> I'm I'm going to turn over to Rio, but I
just like to preface it to say is we're not objecting to anything. We just wanted to respond before we take a break. >> That's what I meant. Yeah. >> Sure. Thanks, Andrew. Uh, Rio Sicetti, representative from Penrose, the applicant. Um, I just have a couple um things I want to say to respond to a
couple of the questions. Uh, there was a fellow who mentioned he wanted more information on the front setbacks. Um, so there's the front setback requirement under the zoning bylaws is 25 ft. We have three buildings. They're
all at differing uh levels of setback. One is at 6.2 2 ft. One is at 9.6 ft and the other at 12.4T. I do also want to mention that that's to the property line. Uh there's a state highway there. Um and with a
considerable uh size of um of land off the road and uh the the actual distance from those buildings to the street is approximately 20 ft or more to the
actual street. Um the other uh question I think there was a question about whether uh we were putting a retaining wall on the um backside of the property facing uh Jesse's Landing. Um we do show we actually do show a detail. Uh it's in
the landscape drawings though, not the civil drawings. I believe it's a twoft uh retaining wall. And the reason uh that retaining wall is there is um uh the the current condition I think some I think the board saw on the earlier presentation some of the pictures um
that the u that Jesse's landing uh was filled and it's up high and the current condition is unstable and there's some drainage encroaching. So that necessitates the need for that uh retaining wall. >> That's one of the things question. Did
>> you also say anything? >> Yep. Yeah. >> Thank you. One final comment from Adam. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Charlie Adams from Penrose. Um the one we heard a lot of things I think today that we've we've sort of heard before. The one I think thing that new that came up was some um comments about our
management. Um I don't have those specific facts. I'd be happy to investigate and get the information from the um from the woman that um that was talking about it. I will say this, Penrose has been around for 50 years. We have 27,000 units. We currently manage 13,000 units. So, they're going to be
things that are going to happen in our management company. We don't we don't manage assisted we don't do any assisted living facilities. We do a lot of senior properties. We often run into issues where there are seniors living in our properties that start to um uh have ADLs, deficits of those. So, it becomes
challenging. I don't know if that was this particular situation, but we often encounter that where there are residents living in our buildings that have deteriorated and need to move to independent living. I'm sorry to assisted living because we're independent living. So we try to do we have uh supportive services coordinators. It's a group called CIC,
community impact coordinators that we assign to most of our properties and especially our senior properties to work with uh individuals that may start to uh have failures uh to work with their families to identify their needs um and if they can't live independently to help them find uh you know alternative
things. So that's a general statement. I don't know the specifics of this case, but um you know, given the volume of of units that we have and the things that we manage, there will be issues that will come up like this and we try to address them and deal with them the best we can. So, I'd be happy to try to get more information on that um if that's of
help uh at another meeting. So, just wanted to say that. >> Oh, yep. Thank you so much. Um anything else, Mr. Singer? No, >> not right now. >> Okay. So, what we're going to do now is we're going to take a break uh 5 to 10 minutes, then we're going to come back and go over the waiverss. Um, and then we're going to have questions and
comments from the board, pick a new date, and um, see what we're what we have left. So, with that, we'll be back. All right, Elaine. Okay, we are back. We're back. We are back.
>> We're back. Um, we're gonna go to >> We're back. Yeah. On the air. >> So, we're going to go to review of waiverss, I think, now.
>> Right. >> Yes. Could I make one just a one comment that forgot to mention before we went to the break before we jump in the waivers. just wanted and and I mentioned it earlier, but I just want the board to and I think you know this but to know it again is the on the west side because there were several comments about that
earlier on both after the May meeting, the June meeting and at the July meeting the there were changes made on that side so that the smallest building in the development is the only one that's behind the Levit property. It is under
30t height. We pulled it back so it's more than 22 feet at its closest from that property line. And then parking in the dumpster were also reduced and moved earlier to expand that setback there too. So more screening and I know the parties were talking during the break. More screening can certainly you maybe
be done there but but the applicant did try to respond and made changes there as well as in the south. >> Okay. >> And then yeah happy to go over waivers. >> All right. So, the waiverss that I have in front of me um start with um Cadam
zoning bylaw number one. I'm going to try to make this easy because some of it is uh preunctery. The uh first one looks like it's all set waiver uh for a 40B which
>> it's the density waiver. Yeah, that's an And then the second one I think for height we've already beat that to a pulp. So I think we're good with that. Yeah. >> Yes. We just I just put the final numbers >> in this revised in this list.
>> And then the next one um is waiver from appendix uh two. I think this is the is this the one that was going to Jay? >> This is building coverage. >> Yeah, building coverage. I'm gonna ask our um building commissioner to respond to this one a little bit. Um please go ahead. >> Thank you.
>> Jay Briggs. >> Jay Briggs, building commissioner. Uh in looking at the uh buildable upland for the site and the original proposal of 23% building coverage and then a reduction to 20% building coverage, I just ran some numbers and that comes up
with 3854 square ft plus or minus difference reduction in building coverage. And I just wanted to ver have you guys verify that because the only reduction I I'm aware of would be the front building and
uh that was about 900 or so square feet. So >> I just think there should be a change in that or a check on that just to make sure that the waiverss are accurate and appropriate. >> We can double check that. Yeah. >> Okay. We can even come back to that if you want if you if you want.
>> Yeah. I don't know if I'm going to be able to answer that with your calculator stand here, but we'll definitely get >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I I we understand. Number four. Um so that was uh about parking and you you've already done you that correct?
>> And then number five, let's see. Um did we have anything with that one, Sarah? Uh >> five of the front. >> You made you made improvements. Uh that's what my note is on that. Um oh, number six. This this is kind of interesting because we don't have an
appendix three and you you you say waiver from appendix 3 footnote 11. You probably mean appendix two. >> That might have been a typo. >> That's fine. Um and um do we need anything with that one? Sarah >> town.
>> Town council. Oh, this is the one. Town council. Um Jay Talon, you with us at this moment? >> I am. >> Oh, great. So, as uh we indicated earlier, number six, I think it is on the waiverss footnote 11. Can you um
opine on that if we need it? >> Yeah, it app it appears to me that that is related to um non-residential or or commercial properties based upon the exchange. I I didn't get a chance cuz it came to me shortly before the hearing, but it appeared that the footnote in
question doesn't relate to residential and relates only to commercial. You know, my response in an email to Sarah is that it it's probably harmless to include the waiver. I don't think they need it. You know, my general approach to waivers of things on certainly a
dimensional nature are that if we can see it on the project and the project's otherwise approved, then we're probably going to grant a waiver. I think it is a good exercise to get familiar with what the waivers are, which is exactly what you're doing. Ultimately, we're going to
care about the ones that they need. And so and we're probably going to give a big block of conditions with respect to the waivers that relate to the dimensional stuff. And if there's more process related or fee related waiverss,
we'll probably dissect those separately. >> Okay. Thank you. You okay with that, Mr. Singer? >> Yes. >> Okay. Very good. Um, so Cadam bylaw waiverss, there are three here. Uh the first one that's a demo
delay for the cartages I think. Um can we talk about at some point you you talking to the town about people taking those or um ces? We we have had um some preliminary
conversations um in in conceptually if there are if the structures that are on the site are otherwise salvageable and if there is a third party in the community that would like to salvage it and remove it from the property. Uh that
is something that Penrose has no objection to provided only that if that because again these are town owned buildings so Penrose as the applicant has no problem with that. So assuming that the town's okay with it, then provided that um the structures could be
removed in in a manner and in a time frame that does not interfere with Penrose ultimately building the development, then Penrose has no problem with it. So happy to work with the town because we it's really not up to Penrose, but happy to work with the town on that if that's
desired. >> Okay. Thank you. um a waiver to the extent necessary for the HBDC guidelines. So, we've talked about that and we're likely to talk about conditions with that and you've already
been um flexible. So, we might have some questions about um that topic later from the board based on what Mr. um Buckley said earlier. So, why don't we keep that one open? Um and then number three that's HBDC
waiverss. Do we do we need to talk about that one? >> Uh yeah. >> So you have the uh B2 is um for certificate of appropriateness for the signs that are being proposed. B3 is for um demolition new construction site
improvements um for the HP from the HPDC design guidelines and procedures from their review. So, you want two signs? >> Yes. >> Let me >> Oh, yeah. >> Let me have somebody who can >> that's that's something that the board
might not realize at this point and we can talk about it. >> We haven't discussed it yet. >> Yeah, we haven't discussed that yet. That's a sign waiver. >> Mark from Crowley Cautrol. We're the landscape architect. There are currently two signs proposed, one at each entrance into the project. um they are shown on
the landscape plans and there are details included in that package. >> Okay. So we we might get back to that later then um see what what the board thinks about two signs versus one sign. Um okay and then the Cape Cod Commission, my understanding is that has to be
given. So >> yeah, the Cape Cod Commission is treated as a local board for purposes of 40B under state law. So we always have to technically get a waiver from that >> and we always have to give it. So It's like the density waiver. It's the same, you know, it's the same concept.
>> Okay. So, that concludes our discussion on waiverss at this juncture. Um, so now we're going to go to questions and comments from the board. That should also include what you'd really like to see that you haven't seen yet, if anything. If anything, so we can start
to um see the end of the uh the road here. Who would like to go first? >> I'd be happy to. >> All right. Mr. Nixon. uh two things. Number one, the uh crosswork that you we've all been talking about ever since and so forth.
Um, since we live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we know that, um, uh, influence when it comes to getting anything that the Commonwealth will do for you or whatnot,
uh, is important. And I'm not saying that's right or wrong. That's just the way it is. And so in our case, um, you happen to have, actually, he's in the audience, the ward boss, let's say, of the Democratic party in the town of Chadam
is here and he has three jobs that I know about. Number one is to make sure people get out and vote for the Democratic candidates. Number two, raise some money for them. And number three, uh, make sure that favors are done for
his constituents. So, I'm surprised I haven't heard about um the inclusion of our state senator and our state legislator
to the great and general court. Uh shouldn't they be involved in this in helping to convince the do that this is something that is necessary? End of statement. I just bring that up. Uh number two, we keep hearing the word
density, density, density, density, density, density. So I haven't seen any particular um movement uh on that subject. So my question to you, and maybe you
don't want to answer it, but maybe somebody else would, where did the number 48 come from? Why? Why isn't it 96 or why isn't it 24? The only time I've heard it even
mentioned was from Miss Fenwick brought up the subject of perhaps it could be 42 and that was kind of dismissed. I don't think did you ever get a straight answer on that, Miss Fenwick? >> There wasn't a a response uh in the
followup to to that particular comment. Okay. So, uh I guess I'd like to know where did the number 48 come from. And well, that's what I'd like to know. >> Someone other than me is going to speak
about it. >> Sure. >> So, thank you. Um so whenever you look at we spend a lot of time when we when we study these properties um we read what's in the RFP we read what the requirements are we read what the
preferences are and then we craft our site plan around those uh parameters that we think best meets what is being expected from the town from the town side. And so we spent a lot of time working on the site plan, figuring out
what the proper uh amount of units would be that we could um support from an economic perspective uh and balancing that with um not overburdening the site with too many buildings um and too many units to do that. And so it's a real iterative process where we sort of
landed on that number. The one thing I will generally say about that is that uh and in this case in particular and why why the number 48 is particularly important for this project is that Penrose's um general um principles are
to do not do any project less than 60 units. Um we were willing to make um to to go below that here um mostly because we have other properties and other resources in the area that we could draw on. Um, but the reason why we have that
standard of 60 units is we really want to put a full-time property manager and a full-time maintenance person on these sites. We would be doing a disservice to our residents and we'd be doing a disservice to to the towns which we work in in terms of the town of Chadam if we didn't do that. We want to stand behind
our properties. We want to have a presence there. We want to make sure they're well managed and we can't do that um with at a certain at at below a certain number of units. And so at 48, we sort of thought that was kind of the bare minimum with which we thought we could do um uh to do to to for this
property to try to manage it in the way that we think is is uh responsible um and would be in the best interest of you as the as our partner in this um and for the residents. Is that helpful? So, so you came to the number
via that process you just described to me first and then from there you said okay um we can put in 10 buildings >> or would you go the other way around? >> We we look at the site and we figure out how do how do we get to the critical mass of first of all we'd actually look
to the site and say how do we get to 60 units here? That's how we that's where that's where we start because that's our that's the parameter for which we look. >> Okay. And then when we looked at that, we're like, "That doesn't feel right. That's too many units here." Okay, how do we scale it back to a number that we still think we could live with and if
this was in and the reason we could do that was because we have these other assets in the community. So if you really go I mean that's that's where we would have started from. So if for instance uh you had thought well let's try 36 that wouldn't work for
you because economically to Penrose it would have not Yeah. It's not about e it's it's about it's about being able to deliver um a good quality project for you. >> Okay. and you couldn't go up to the 60 or
beyond that because you didn't believe the acreage would support it. >> We we did when we did different site plans with 60 units, it just didn't feel comfortable. >> Okay. >> We scaled it back to 48. >> It would just be too much >> and we just can't go below that. >> Too much. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you for the answers.
>> Okay. Do Oh, David, do you want to um talk about what you need if you have any other um facts that you're going to need or anything that we need to investigate before we start to think about closing the hearing? >> No, I don't think so. I think um
I think the discussion we've already had about the crosswalk which is very important to me u that's why I brought up the idea of political aid um in order to get it done >> right >> um >> I I don't think anything beyond that
hasn't been touched somehow but thank you >> yep yeah sure David Vch I already know the answer to this you were happy with the project right from the beginning but I'm going to go to you next just to get that out of the way. >> I was, I think, happier uh than some of
the changes we've made, but uh so I'm this uh so I'm looking at well, we're we're losing another 11 parking spaces in order to increase uh to create this
buffer of additional 9 foot of of planting buffer in the back. and um my and I've noticed that a few of the letter writers today and speakers and
and uh um other members of the community have expressed concerns about, you know, whether the parking is adequate as it was originally presented. Um and it seems that we're hearing from Penrose
that um they feel that this um by re so you know we started out we started out talking about height building height and in that case much of the what we were hearing and what we were trying to do was was was
because certain of of buildings were in excess of what the town's bylaw uh re uh standard is the 30 ft and there was uh there were a number of people in the community seem to be upset
about that. Um and Penrose has responded quite well to the the suggestion uh that suggestions that we made about the ability to lower some of the buildings and and and take the height down somewhat on on the other buildings. Now
we're talking about the parking and the standard for the parking in the bylaw is two spaces per unit and the initial proposal was for 1.85
spaces. Now we're getting suggestions and we're pushing to to drive that lower than the standard that's in the bylaw. So I I would think Penrose would be getting a little bit of whiplash here in
trying to know how how to respond and what to what what how far to go. And so I don't know if if Penrose feels that I guess this is my question. Penrose feels that that in order to achieve this
additional buffer and the loss of 11 parking spaces, if they feel that that will not negatively impact the quality of life for the residents
in the proposal who I'm ma mainly concerned with. I want this this looked to me like a good project. I think it still is. And um but I'm thinking about the people that are going to be living there. So I I if they feel based on their
experience that continuing to reduce the parking is is a doable and is not going to significantly negatively affect life in the project, then I'd be happier. Other than that, I'm not sure.
on me because because as far as the 9 ft additional buffer, first of all, what I'm hearing from some of the neighbors is they don't they don't they're not happy with that. They don't like that. Um and um so I'm not
sure the other part of this I guess my question or comment is well all right so we had 17 feet of buffer along that line now we're at 26. So does does that additional 9 ft what what does that translate to in terms of plantings and
and the ability of buffers to be effective? You know, we have we have the sections from the last meeting that the architects had prepared showing that that from from various angles given the
um the plantings that were in that were pre proposed. I don't know at what level of maturity that would be, but showing that the the concerns about viewing seeing the the buildings
were perhaps not accurate in terms of what it will actually be. Um, so I don't know. I mean, I'm So I guess I'm seeing this as a trade-off, losing parking in order to create an additional buffer. And if that buffer
can be that much more effective, fine. Other than that, I'm not sure that it's it's something that I think is an improvement for the project. Um it's I don't some of the comments and I and I note particularly some of the comments that
uh Carolyn Mlullen has made to us over some of the meetings really have have have stuck with me and and um you know one of the things that she said was you know we we're seeking to a to in many respects
to ask more from this developer than we do from um our everyday subdivision. uh uh developments in in many respects and I'm not sure how uh you know how fair that is. I don't think that um you
know and I think that we you know we've reduced the the other main concern that we hear a lot from the community is about the community center and and I'm not sure why I I really I have a problem with where that I'm not sure where that's coming from. I mean, I understand
there's an argument that, oh, we should be integrating these people into our other community center, but keep in mind that there's these buildings and these apartments. I mean there really not is not to me the idea of having a a community
oriented space to be used by occupants to me makes a lot of sense and and and it's amenity that we should not be taking away and we are certainly not I mean I don't even agree necessarily with taking away the fitness room but it did
improve the the front setback so that I that's that's in their favor. But I I I want to when it's all said and done, um, if I'm going to sign on on onto it, I I really want to feel that the things that we
have sought to do have made this a better project, an improved project, and and and we've responded ways that I'm not hearing anything much different from the neighbors. They're not any happier.
So, I'm I'm not sure where I am on it. Is there anything you want to see done that hasn't been addressed? >> I don't think No, I think um um I guess maybe other than sharpening their pencils and and and looking at
parking experience and and the ratios. >> They were they were actually excited about reducing the parking last time. So >> they used the word excited. >> Excited. >> Yeah, >> of course you >> I don't remember using that word. >> No, common used the word excited. I
never forget. >> You notice she's not here today. >> No. >> Yeah. >> Um I something else might come up, Brandy, but I can't think of anything else that I want. Thanks. >> I'm going to swing over to the other side of the room and then we'll come
back to Ed. Uh Lee. >> Well, I I have to say I was um very pleased with what the updates that um Penrose has made. Um I completely understand where um David Vich is coming from with the parking and I'm concerned about the parking too and I guess I
would ask Penrose does giving up those spaces for that buffer does it is it is it okay? I mean you guys have the experience with these developments. I mean if I were here in this uh development I and I couldn't get a parking space I would not be happy. But
um you know if you say that it will work with that specific amount then I I believe you. Um I also will say that I am totally fine with the height the way it is. Um I appreciate the um you know
accommodations you've made um with lowering some of the building heights and I also really like the new color palette. I think it looks very nice. I like the fact that the roofs are different colors and the buildings are different colors and I love the doors being different colors. I think it makes
it look less like a development and more like a neighborhood. Um uh and and I and I initially liked the rear the increase in the real rear setbacks. I like the um additional
plantings. Um, I'm a little surprised by the fill that went in at the Jesse's Landing project. That's
that's high. Um, but that's not really um, you know, a concern of yours or mine right now. But um, so I guess um, those are my thoughts. I'm I'm pleased with the way it has gone. so far.
>> And is there anything that you're looking for at this point? >> Well, you know, I I I have to say that I am partial to the cedar shingle look. I love that look in town. Um I don't think you need to make all of the buildings cedar shingles, but um and and they have
to be the real ones because I'm particular about that. Um but maybe, you know, there is a look where the front of the house is clabbered and the sides are cedar. I I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there, but it's not a it's not a dealbreaker.
>> Not a dealbreaker. All right. Uh Jenny, >> so Mr. Singer, could we go back to the very first thing you said um after the break, which was the setbacks on the side >> because at the beginning of the hearing, I I wrote down there was no change. And
I think what you've corrected is that there actually was a change to the western side. Correct. >> No change. who I said since July 9th. >> The changes were made prior to July 9th. >> Can you just repeat those numbers? >> Uh yeah, I can't tell you what the original ones were without looking, but
>> where are they now? >> The current side setback on building A, which is that small building closest to the that question. >> At its closest point is uh it's approximately 22.7 feet. >> 22. Okay, that's what I had. and the dumpster as well. If you drop south of
that on your plan, that's also at its closest point, 22.7 feet. Those had been closer before. And that's when two other parking spaces had been lost. Yeah. >> Earlier when that was pulled in, but that So those were the changes, but they weren't made since July 9th. >> They were made earlier.
>> But they started at 19ish and they have improved. >> Yes. 19 and change. Yes. >> All right. I I I don't think I was clear or made that clear at the beginning when I was doing the accounting. So, I wanted to kind of reconcile that. Okay. Then, as you go, so building three is 22,
building two is 218 or something. I mean, they're they're all in this. And then building four is around 21. They're all >> I believe. I'm not looking at the plan, but I believe what you're saying. >> I I just wanted to to clarify those that I had those setbacks, right? And that I verbalized that. Um, so we hear a lot
about setbacks. We hear a lot about density. Um I did bring up the idea last time about shrinking the back from four to three going to 42. Um primarily to re relieve
some of the pressure on the side setbacks, both of them, the motel as well as the western side, but also reduce some of the pressure um uh on Jesse's Landing, three buildings as opposed to four.
And um I do understand from what you've said, but I just want to clarify 48. And I appreciate the comments from um >> I'm sorry, I don't know, you're Yes. Um but I also just want to make sure I'm I'm clear and that others maybe are
clear. Um that part of this land LDA, this this agreement that we have the town with Penrose is for 48. >> Okay. I mean, you didn't say that, but I want to make that I want to make that clear to everyone that we really can't negotiate that number. >> Is that true?
>> Yeah, I as I after I sat down, I I should have I should have added that. Yeah, that that is our agreement with the town. We have for 48 units. >> Okay. So, so initially I was asking last time for 42, not really appreciating that or understanding that. So, that >> that's what I've learned since then and
I just want to make sure that that was understood by everyone. >> That was Yes, that's what the town wants. >> All right. I wanted to clarify that. um traffic. There was something that I read um and that we heard I think I heard a little bit about it today but not as
explicitly as this. There was a study for the there was a comment made that the traffic study that was previously done was done in November and that that wasn't an accurate representation. So another one was done and it was done in July and
what I read was that it was significantly higher. I mean I think we would have guessed that 60% higher really but then the comment after that was but this shouldn't change the impact of our study. So can you explain why such an increase would not impact the
overall traffic assessment. >> So let me step back a second. The traffic study was originally done in November like you said, but the Cape Cut Commission standards are they provide they require the traffic engineer to um do a seasonal adjustment for what is
anticipated in the summer and I think that was 1.42 in this particular case >> and that was done. So the traffic the original traffic study had those numbers. So it wasn't November numbers, it was November numbers seasonally adjusted. >> Okay. >> And the Cape Cut Commission reviewed
that and so did the traffic engineer. new there were questions about the numbers. So new numbers were counted in July just last month and they did come in higher. Um now so that's all true. What I'm about to say I'm not a traffic engineer. What I can say from reading
the traffic engineers letter >> and Tai and Bond's peer review of it is that based on how traffic engineers look at safety and access and studies and all that, they felt that even with the increase in the numbers in July over
what the seasonal adjustment had been anticipated last year, it did not negatively change the functioning of the intersections at play. with the one comment that you heard that our engineers looking at. They asked to look at the uh roundabout just south here of
town hall um because 60% of the traffic's coming from the west. So that is being looked at. So that was the one thing that >> okay >> they'll uh respond to in their letter or maybe other things but they'll respond to that. >> Okay. Thank you. That that >> information. >> No, there is no such thing. Sorry.
There's no such thing. >> Go ahead, Mr. Singer. Uh I'm I'm done in responding to >> Okay, one one more question and then two comments. Um the opportunity to rent that came up in uh one of the comments today and I I've actually been hearing
some about that too. Can you comment on like what that process is? Like there's a certain percentage that goes to this group and then there then it can go to anyone. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? the concept of local preference. The state allows
um a local preference to be offered up to 70% at the time of initial tenant tenant up only. So there is what the applicant is committed to is to offering a local preference if there is such a demand up to 70% um at that time of
original leasing out the 48 units. thereafter if they're year two years 5 years from now there's a rollover in tenency you're not allowed to offer local preference it's just then available to those who apply and otherwise are income qualified through
the process your monitoring agent you know they have to qualify through those numbers so that is you know and I see that Jay has come on as well in case he wants to add as well but that's my understanding of local preference >> okay >> um >> did Jay did you have anything
>> attorney Talon you got big on the screen. So sometimes we think that means >> just trying to just trying to anticipate uh when um you may want me to to swoop in. No, I um Attorney Singer H has it right. The the other thing I'd add about
local preference that I think is important and we're going to have to cover in the conditions is it's not a given. We are going to have to demonstrate and we're going to need the applicant's assistance because they've conducted a lot of demographic analysis. We're going to have to demonstrate to
EOHLC that we actually need local preference here, that there's an unmet need here, that we need local preference to solve. There's a way to do that. Penrose is familiar with it, and we're probably going to bake in some conditions that
allows us to work with them and for them to take at least one of the laboring ores in helping us prepare that presentation to EOHLC. So, I I don't I just don't want to lose sight of that that if people think we're automatically getting local preference, we're not. We
have to work for it to justify it um under the Fair Housing Act, but they've been pretty good about allowing it provided we provide the demography to support it. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. That's um that's
good to hear. Um, okay. My two comments are um I I was um curious about making sure that the there's been, you know, so much feedback about this
project and I said, you know, I'm pretty sure the town voted on this project. The town had the opportunity to do that. So, I did some research and yes, on June 12th, 2021, article 18, there was um it
was about acquiring not just property for the town or not just property for the town for possible affordable housing, but it was to acquire this lot 0-1533 Main Street. And it's also specifically
said for affordable and attainable housing. and the vote at that town meeting was greater than twothirds. So, I do just bring that up because I do think it's important to consider um that the town has voted for this uh
not necessarily Penrose. I get that that's not but that's who the our select board has had uh chosen through RFP process process etc. So, I I wanted to that's a comment that I just want to make. And then my other comment is what from Ry's what what else do I want to
see more? I want to see more on the trees. I would like I I see you've done a great buffer in the back. I frankly am was commenting more last time about the streetscape and keeping mature trees within um I I agree with Mrs. Briggs. We want to have a little more specificity
about diameter of the trees uh the new ones as well as just really maximizing what we can can keep because um I I do agree with I think it's Mrs. Mlennon is the name her name um when she's come in
a couple times and said you know it's not lost on us that Jesse's landing was clearcut and now they want all this these trees and I appreciate the abutter's concerns 100%. I'm not I'm not being dismissive of that. But we have an opportunity with
this project to not clearcut or be very uh you know very thoughtful in what what we clear um so that we can mitigate some of this um you know the abutter's concerns and and improve the streetscape. That's my other comment. Thank you.
>> Okay. And I'm going to ask attorney attorney Talaman to um comment on the LDA in a moment. But I I do want to just say that when I said there's no such thing as point of order, there's no such thing in point of point of order um unless unless it's found or or assumed
that there's a mistake in the procedure that we're we're partaking in here. And there is no mistake in that. There could be people disagreeing with facts that are said, but that would not be the topic of a point of order in my as my understanding. We don't we're not bound
by Robert's rules in the town of Chadam, but um we that's my my take on point of order that it has to be something that we're doing radically wrong here and I'm quite confident that we're not. So atory Talon um as uh Virginia Fenwick um
referred to 48 units are noted in the LDA land disposition agreement. Is that accurate? And if so, what does that mean to the town and to us? Well, I think that I would view that more as a cap um of of what's in the
LDA. Um if if the zoning board came in under 48 units, I don't think that upsets the apple card. After all, there's nothing in the LDA that constrains the zoning board to do what it would normally do
under 40B. whether that would be increase the number of units which is rare or decrease the number of units. So a decrease in the number of units wouldn't necessarily impact adversely the LDA. It may have the result of
impacting the viability of the project in terms of what Penrose can afford to do, but I don't think it violates, in fact, nothing the zoning board does violates the um the LDA itself. Whether
or not it affects the the deal and the contract between the select board and Penrose is another question, but I I'm not overly concerned about the how you handle it as a zoning board of appeals.
You should handle it the way you need to and but I view the 48 more as a cap under what the select board agreed to. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And um so Paul tell us your thoughts in comments.
>> Okay, I do have uh a couple of comments and I and I do appreciate that uh uh Penrose has responded to a number of the comments that I made the last time around. One of those comments uh that I made was uh based on their experience
what they expected to have in terms of numbers of people that are going to be here. We're talking about units and bedrooms. Um, and they did come back with uh a maximum occupancy of about 172
residents with the idea that it would be more I think from what I've heard today in the area of perhaps 150. Um, one question that I didn't quite get an answer to and that is how many children do you expect would be in that mix of
people based on your experience? I say that in part because we're talking about a crosswalk uh over 28 and we're talking about a fairly congested area, certainly an area with a lot of traffic. Um and I
wanted to be clear that uh we're considering the question of children and safety. Um, and in connection with that, perhaps it would be helpful if you could provide us with the number of children that are currently at uh the village at
Noset Green since that has uh 124 residents at least uh under your uh information that you provided to us. So the number of children there would be helpful. Um with respect to the question of the
crosswalk, um I noted that uh your memorandum said that the applicant has confirmed with mass DOT will not formally review, consider or respond to a curb cut or crosswalk application until after the local regulatory permits
are granted. I understand that. I guess my question is, is there an informal process uh that might give us an idea of where that is headed? Because I see the crosswalk as being potentially
um a deal breakaker if in fact it cannot be installed. We'll see whether that's in fact the case. I don't know. I'm simply trying to pull together some facts so that we know what we're dealing with.
Um, one other thing I'd like to have you provide if you can is a draft of a uh a sample of lease arrangement or covenants that you have with the tenants so that I
get an idea of uh what you say with respect to motor vehicles uh and what that uh might impact on uh the question of parking. um and whether those motor vehicles have to be registered in order to be in your
parking. Some of that you may be able to answer right now, but uh >> well, I didn't know if you wanted us to hold off. We have answers. There were several questions if you want. Okay. >> Yeah, let let them finish and then >> that's fine. So I guess one question would be do the vehicles have to be
registered in order to be in the parking areas uh that would be uh used here. Um I think you're making a good effort of doing uh uh adjustments to setbacks and I
appreciate that. Um and you're responding to the questions that we've been providing. Um, I am anxious to take a look at the question of signage uh and the waiverss that you're looking for there. I don't think I've actually seen the landscape planning and the signage that's going to
be necessary there. So, u I wanted to be clearer on that. Um, I think from what I can see, one of the overall questions that's being asked by some of the some of the tenants here,
excuse me, some of the residents in in Chattam is, are we trying to fit uh five pounds into a 4B box? In a sense, in a way that's density, but are we trying to make something work
here, which uh is just too big for the site that's involved? I realize that that may be within the parameters of what Penrose wants or can do. I don't know whether that means that it can't be done by someone else at a lower level
uh without perhaps the restrictions that Penrose has as to its own guidelines. But uh I think that's perhaps part of the question of what we're dealing with because there's a limit to how much we can re adjust setbacks and uh get to
where we want to get to. Um and in that regard, uh one question I would have for perhaps Mr. uh Levit and that would be uh uh you submitted a an alternate plan site plan which involved
different parking and different uh access, but I'm unclear as to whether that plan was in fact acceptable to police and fire departments. My last impression was that it was not necessarily acceptable to the fire department.
Uh, is that in fact the case? If you can just go up to the mic. Thank you. U Thank you, Paul. uh we did not consult the fire department but we designed it in such a way that the
previous um approval that the fire department gave for the for the previous site plan. >> So the fire department has not seen this alternative site plan. >> No, it has not. We did not uh but we designed it in such a way that would satisfy the the requirements of the fire
department. I I think you can probably understand that we would be reluctant to adopt a site plan which has not been >> I wouldn't want you to. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um if I could just follow up legally. >> Yes. >> And it's in some of the correspondence
that you have. Um whether that plan is acceptable to the Levites or others or not, it's not the plan before you and and what the board of appeals under the law has to review is the plan before you. And so that is so that's not the plan that we that's before you for
consideration. >> I I understand that. I guess the question is the extent to which we would want to impose a condition on the plan that's before us that would revise the parking arrangements and the traffic flow perhaps more consistent with that
site plan. if it in fact would provide additional space for uh free space uh setbacks uh uh landscaping or whatever. I think those are the only questions I had at this point. >> Okay, Paul, I think you also included
what you'd like to see right in your comments. So, thank you for doing that. Um Steve and then Ed. >> Um thank you. Um well, one of the advantages of going later on is that most of your questions have already been
asked. So, um I won't delay uh as as as that that much. Um the things that I do like to see is the crosswalk. I think that's going to be an important issue. Um, I I tend to think that there's going to be a lot of children there and even
adults that want to get over to the to the to the bike path and to the airport and everything else that that that provides. So, I think if whatever we need to do to make that happen, I think that's that's that's very important to me. One of the things that I was concerned
about was um the westerly and it that seems to come up quite a bit setbacks. But um you seem to have somewhat compensated for the setback by first uh
installing the the smallest building in this location and moving it further away from from the from the from the property line. So, I you know, I guess that's a good start, a good idea. I also wondered
if now this might be a stretch, but if you could switch buildings four and seven, um I don't know what that would do. Um that would bring the other small building to that corner of the of the of
the uh of the development also. So you'd have the two smaller buildings adjacent to each other. >> I would just note just that at that pause um as Mr. V noted before and I've noted several times in the review, a 40B
is is a bunch of balancing compromises and trade-offs. So you might be able to do X, but then someone's not going to be happy with X, someone's not going to be Y. So >> I understand. >> Yeah. Um, the other concern or one of the concerns that I had was the parking. I think that is going to be a problem.
Um, I don't know if you're going to have some sort of contingency. You know, if if two or three people residents have a guest over or two guests over, uh, there there might be a resident that's driving around the the parking lot looking for for a spot. So, I think something needs
to be done either with the sign spots or some sort of overflow parking because it could actually affect the um the the local businesses in the area. I could see people parking in the Dunkin Donuts and walking over or or in the the hotels that are adjacent to this or worst case
is even parking on Jesse's Landing and walking through the vacant lot and over the two- foot high retaining wall. So >> after you've gone down the 12 foot high hill with yes but not people have done it.
>> So I I think parking is an issue and should be something to to consider some sort of contingency plan for that. >> Um I'm glad to see the wider buffer in in the back as as much as you can make it. I would like to see some sort of um
a revised um landscape plan of how you're going to populate that with um and the types of trees and the sizes of trees that's going to occupy that space. I think that's important to the folks in Jesse's Landing.
Um the siding issue um is is um a good one. Um I I would rather see that be a little bit more chattamque. Uh so whatever you can do in that regard would be important to me.
Um I think that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. And and Ed, please. >> Um well, I I don't know if the last meeting I and I'm definitely in the minority here, but I
I don't see the need for community building. I do see a need for more housing, affordable housing in Chadam. I'd prefer or I'd like to know if it's possible to convert that building to
housing and how many units you could could get there. So, I'd like to see Penrose come back. And I guess I'd like Jay to also clarify that. Are we stuck on 48? because I'd rather see a higher number in that
community building taken out. >> There was a camp. >> Um, let's let Jay Opine on that and then we can go to Tai and Bond and ask about parking. Um, Jay, please. >> So, I think you are not technically
constrained if you wanted to see more housing there. I think that I think that the select board um is going to have to check check in on whether or not it's offensive to the LDA that they signed to
go beyond the density that was agreed to. I I don't have the LDA right in front of me right now and I'd have to look and see what kind of flexibility is in that and maybe Attorney Singer has a thought or two on that. But that would be my only concern that we would want to
if there is a bonafideed interest in increasing the number of units that I think we'd want to hear from the select board on on that or at least I'd want to check in with them perhaps in executive session to discuss that in advance but I
have some hesitancy there. Um, it is rare to increase the number of units in a project before 40B, but not unheard of. So, it's just a slight caution there. And I don't know if attorney Singer has any thoughts on that either or Rio, but um that that would be the
only caution, but you're not constrained technically as a matter of law. It just it's like pulling a thread a little bit. I asked because we we have this large community building that uh you know from looks to me could
possibly be an additional six units, additional eight units for for a very you know strong need for housing in Chadam. So I think it should be looked at. Um, and the only other comment I
have is I' I'd ask Penrose to contact the uh the neighbors regarding the buffer at the rear of the property. Um, and I ask you to contact
them because you're putting in a retaining wall 2 ft, but the the property at the rear is it's got to be 10 ft higher. And if you really want to do a screen, the the trees should go on
the neighbor's property because that's that's where you're going to get your bang for your buck. There's no reason putting an eight foot tree that's going to be down eight below but eight feet below where their houses are. So there should be some communication between the two of you how to
make that work best. And I'm suggesting is that the way to make it work best is you have the retaining wall and then the trees should be perhaps at the highest point if you can if you could work something out in that in that area. And that's it for me.
>> Okay. So before you you have plenty to say I'm I'm quite confident you didn't hear from me yet. Um but I want to just address parking because a lot of people have asked about it here and we have Tai and Bond. So um what what do you think about our parking situation um as
amended uh tying bond I I hope you can hear me. I don't know which initial pairing that that would be. Um >> Yep. Um, >> thank you. >> Did some quick calcs just through the IT
parking generator and those numbers look like the average for 48 units would require uh 61 parking spaces. Uh 85th percentile would be 76 spaces.
Um so those are kind of the numbers that we found. >> What do we have? It'd probably be helpful to look at similar developments in the area. Um, Penrose might have more information on that to see kind of what the demand is
like >> um for similar developments. >> Okay. So, is you seem to think that the amount of parking we have now is suffice. It it's it's uh adequate. Yes.
Um it based on the trip gen or parking generator numbers, it seems like 61 would be the average spaces that you would require. >> And we have more than that. >> It's 72. >> We have 72. So okay,
>> 70 something. So, I know you don't want to say yes, but I think we can we can we can uh use our imaginations. And if you say we need 66 and we have 70 something, then we're good. >> 73. >> We have 73. So, I hope that helps the
people on our on in our on our committee. >> Not yet. You will. You will. No, Ed's going to get his a response from everything uh as soon as I shut up.
>> You want to go ahead and address um what Ed Actton has has uh said. >> Okay. Well, as as you said, we have a several things to respond to and it won't just be me responding because I'm not the best person to respond to the various questions. >> Are you going to respond to everything now that we've all said at this point?
Is that your plan? >> We can. >> Okay. So, let me just say that I would I would like to see >> you do something on the Levit side because um we didn't I had asked for that and I know you heard me because you did would I still stand by a great job
for the for the back. You did and we didn't get anything on that side and you know we I'd like to see that. I'd like to see a a larger setback. Um, I know you don't even need to do anything. I I understand that it's more than 15 feet.
But I do think our bylaw was was formed for for single family housing and not for multifamily housing. And 15 envisioned single family housing at the time the town voted for that. So, um, again, I'd like to see that and I and I
agree with every everybody else's request, so I don't have anything further. Um, okay. So, now you have the floor. Okay. So, let me start out with the last one that you just said. Um, we can't keeping the project that's
before you as Napoli, you can't pull it into the interior, which is what you're requesting, either one side or both, without making the driveways too narrow for the fire department to get around. So, the, as you saw in the fire department letters, to have parking and
to have the fire trucks be able to get around. What has been designed works. they've pulled the buildings in um you know as far as they can. Now the parties were speaking during you know a break and and you know hopefully they can continue talking but um excuse me there
is only so much you know that you can do and and provide the housing with the balancing that we're trying to provide um to that did did um do you want to respond to certain comments you want me to keep going and then turn over to you? Uh, sure.
>> Rio at Penrose. Again, you know, one thing we can look at is um introducing more plantings as a buffer in that area because we're not able to push the building in closer without jeopardizing the access for the fire department. Um,
and I I I just want to um also reiterate that that building next to the Levid property is is already past the setback. It's not right at the 15t setback. I think it's 22 feet sub approximately back. Um, I al I also just want to say a
couple things about the parking. And this was um David, Randy, and Lee. And um I think you all had the similar um comments about the parking. We I I feel
um we feel that the 1.5 parking spaces works. I mean, we actually originally came in in the RFP at 1.3. Um we uh we think this alternative plan um with the increased setback and the reduced
parking which is an option for you uh to choose on if you so like um is a win-win. Um you mentioned earlier that Carmen was excited about the parking. It's because typically she said that because typically we we tend to be forced into overbuilding parking in a
lot of our properties. I know I don't know if Miss Elaine Gibbs is on. She doesn't like talking about village innoc similar property. We have 65 units uh 101 parking spaces which is a 1.55 spaces tounit ratio almost exactly as
what we're ended up with now. Um, as of uh two weeks ago, they had um 64 units leased with 75 uh resident vehicles. So about 1.15 cars per unit. So uh 25% of
the spaces there were unused. So we think this project should com you know there should be more than enough parking at this ratio to to accommodate the people who live here. Oh, uh there was one other comment. I'm sorry. Um I think uh Paul, you had
mentioned um the occupancy and I think maybe you just just misspoke. Um the the maximum occupancy is you is um two persons per bedroom. Now there are some it is an asterct on that. There
are some situations because of fair housing laws that that you may have to accommodate a larger size. Um but those situations are rare and um uh we based on the current occupancy at
village and green we're estimating here to be um 90 to 100 residents living at one time. I think maybe you had said 150 would be um n 90 to 100 which is I think um would be
based on the exact same ratio at village and green and also interestingly enough during our lease up in Orleans we ended up with that same exact number of people's per bedroom that we had a village at NASA green so it's it's a
pretty good rule of thumb that's all So, I had a I had a few other comments or responses. Um uh as far as um Ed, your your question. Um the
man Penrose does not want to do more units on this property and they believe that a management building which provides office space, maintenance space, space for the residents, enhances the quality of life for the residents. They originally wanted the fitness room, but they were, you know, willing to give
that up. But having a a a place where residents who are living on this property can can gather and can there's an office and uh is important. And so, and as Mr. Adams noted at the beginning more units on this site they feel
doesn't work you know given the site as it is and they feel comfortable and they feel that the 48 is what they need uh and can best do on this site and the management building is very important to them. So you know coming back with more
units is just you it would impact parking, it would impact septic, it would impact a lot of things, but it's not something they want to do. Um and ju just in response you know to your to your question um there were um the parking we've addressed um my
understanding and we can check again this is to I think uh Paul I think it was your question um we can check again but my understanding is mass dot doesn't really apply uh won't really look informally at anything they basically I think told Mr. Durk who's the traffic engineer when you get your approval come talk to us now that being said and
getting back to a comment that that Mr. Nixon made um when an application is ultimately submitted by Penrose to the state for this curb cut. Having town support as well would be I think very helpful. Um in addition to maybe other
support that may or may not be out there. Um but having the town participate through through support I think would also uh be send a message or or be be receptive you know at that level. Um, we heard and we can look at
um some revisions to the landscape plan to um show in more detail the streetscape streetscape which you had asked for um and uh possibly in the back um a little bit more and then we talked about the west side. Um so that is
something that can be looked at. Um, as far as you know, someone again mentioned assigned parking. It is in pen and I've said this before, so it's not that new, but in response to somebody had a comment on it. Um, in Penrose's experience, assigned parking actually
leads to less efficiency and more challenges um, and needing to go back out onto the main road and come back in. So, they really don't want to do assigned parking. They do require everyone who's there to register. Um, I don't know. Um Paul I think this was
your question. I don't know what 40bs allows visav requirements of submitting of leases with covenants since that's a legal contract. That might be a a J question as well. And um uh but that's just something I wanted to you know put out there. We can and there was another
question about signage. Um I'm not sure you guys have even designed signs but um >> oh they're in the package. Okay. So they're apparently in there so we can try to >> Can you I've been trying to look for them. Can you tell me what plan page they're on because I'm not seeing it. >> What plan sheet they're on?
>> Be in the landscape L600. Maybe. So either way, you either have them or we'll get them to you. >> Yeah, because that would be something that maybe we could just um decide on today. Who cares if there's more than one sign? Somebody might. Somebody maybe
nobody does. I don't know yet. Um, so we might be able to decide if you need a waiver on that. No, no. If we have any objection to that. >> I think that the reason for the waiver is not even so much because of the numbers. What it is is because this is in the historic district. If you are you
are now with these questions we're talking about, you're putting your historic hat on. So if this wasn't a So you need to in approving the >> buildings, >> both hats. Both hats. >> Both hats. Well, several hats, but with with the historic hat part, you're
approving the signs as a certificate of appropriateness and you're approving the building. So, it's not so much that you're approving uh necessarily the size or number of signs, but it's what they look like, just like you're looking at the buildings. >> Let's just let Sarah Yeah. >> Um actually, Andrew, you would need both
approvals or both waiverss. Um ground signs in residential zones, you're allowed one. >> Okay. Um, so that would actually be from section 225 of the general bylaw in addition to a waiver from the design review by the historic business district
commission. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> we can add that to it. You know, certainly. >> So, okay. >> So, you need both of those waivers and then we should have a a quick discussion among us about signs. Yes. Um, Ed, >> I would say two would be important at
either end because it's a busy road. you miss one, maybe you catch the next one. So, that would be my one comment. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um Okay. What do you think, Dave? They want two. Are you Are you good with that? >> I I would like to look at the situation a little more closely. I mean, I I I
think um our concerns with respect to the count, the number of signs, um really would want to focus on safety and and convenience. Um uh so I had not given it
much thought and um you know it's it's I'd like to look at it a little more closely and look at the proposed locations and and um and and decide about Denver. >> That's fair. David Nixon, >> unfortunately the town of Chadam has
gone sign crazy recently uh just trying to get to my home. They have added to six signs in between the Coast Guard station and
stage island which is ridiculous. >> So sign everywhere a sign. >> Okay. Um Paul, >> well I mentioned I mentioned the sign question because uh the the waiver
request is to the extent necessary. I don't know what the extent necessary is. I don't know whether they're talking about we're putting give me a dramatic a neon sign a 10-ft sign a two foot sign two signs one sign rather than just say
blanket to the extent necessary. I'd like to know what it is we're waiting. >> Yeah. You want to wait and see? Sure, Lee. >> Yeah, I would like to wait and see, too. >> Yeah. And and Steve, I guess we're going to wait and see. >> Yeah. Well, have a little bit of experience with this from a past. >> Yes, you do. Yes, you do.
>> I would probably rather see one double-sided sign unlit. >> All right. So, we're going to get back to that >> and that's fine. But just to point out, um Sarah, it's detail 10 on sheet L41. So, you have the signs.
>> We can talk about them. I'm not in the um >> landscape package, >> right? Which was not part of the PDF filing that I received. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Don't argue with Sarah. >> Well, no, no, I remember I remember I had to deliver something by uh flash key
because the files were too big. Um so, we'll follow up with you, but they've been designed and we can discuss them. That's not a problem. >> We need something to look forward to. So, >> yeah. Um do you have anything else? >> I just want to add some cond. Yeah, I think I might have missed something, but I think I hit most everything.
>> Oh, yeah. All right, please. >> Just add a little bit of color. So, just to go um so first add like just to follow up on on what Andrew said, love to do more units here. It gets closer to our 60. Um but I think at this point, I think, you know, sticking with the 48 probably makes the most sense given where we are and how we want to, you
know, move this project forward and where where people are at. But I really appreciate you, you know, looking at that and and and asking us to to take a look at it. So, thank you. Thank you for that. Um, I think there was a there was a question about kids. Um, yes. >> So, we can get back to you. I actually
am not sure we're allowed to under 40 be allowed to talk about kids though, but we have to we have to check on that. So, I feel like there's something there. Do you know? >> I don't know. I can't imagine what you're not going to talk about anything. >> I don't know. >> Okay. Well, if we can answer we will if we can answer your question, we'll have
no problem talking about about uh about the kids. Um and then I just wanted to say um also on the on the setback just just to remember where on the like so I think this is important just to remember where we are. So on the west side we were at 15 we moved to 22. So we got 22
there now. And on the south side we went from 15 or 17 and now we're 26 or 27. So we definitely have moved both. You asked us to take a look and see if we could move again. Um, we're going to try, but I'm really skeptical we're going to be able to do that, full disclosure, because of of the of the of the
>> Can you come back with some new pictures of what the um, you know, the the foliage would look like or the, you know, the the screening, you know, something like that. >> We're happy to do screening, you know, and I think, you know, as a general point just to know, I mean, like we when we when we respond to the RFP, we took
your zoning code, right? And we tried to >> No, we know that. So, you know, we were working with 15. Like, if if it had been a different number, we would have come up with something different or maybe not been able to get to a number we could even support here to, you know, >> Yeah. And just for the record, I I totally I think I said it at an earlier
meeting, I agree with Ed. I I don't think you need that community building. I think you could have a small office and then and then people could use the community building that we have in Chadam. I agree with that, but I understand that you've said no and I know what that means uh in the long run.
So, I haven't argued it too much, but I agree with Ed. Um, I am fully on all fours with him on that. Um, so just want you to know that. >> Well, I also want I also want to clar we keep calling it a community room, you know? It's really it's really sort of a more like a a club, like a community
club. What is the word that I'm trying to think of? >> Management. I I know you can call it whatever you want, but I still stand by the need for I know you need an office space and we need housing and that's a big building right smack in the front and that's my opinion. I'm not pushing you on it. I'm not going to vote no because of that. Okay.
>> But I'm just letting you know just to support my my um colleague and and I do think that I do. I think he's absolutely right. >> Okay. I think for the for the public to hear though, that's also a place where when the when there was a when there's a bad when the power's out, it's a place of refuge for the residents. That's
that's another primary reason why we have it. Just so you know that. So, okay. >> Yeah. >> Um I think that was it that I wanted to add. Thank you. >> And I think >> I think that's it for me at the moment. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, I think we're we're in pretty good
shape in terms of we're not as far as I know we're not going to get any more peer reviews. Um and we're gonna >> Well, actually, we're Yes, please. want to clarify on that if the board and so I'll ask you this and this is something it was raised by Mr. before the plan
that shows the buildings in the rear coming the 9 ft that is on that's a sketch plan on the landscape plan right now we presented it to you as an option because we weren't sure you wanted it we'd ask if you say to now and so I'm asking we're asking you this if you say
yes we want that then we witness going to then go put that on the site plan do the engineering the utilities the storm water all of that resubmit that to bond so they can do another pass on it and the fire department. So that is important for today. If if the if the
board would like that option >> then we need to know that. >> So you're asking us just to be very precise. Do we want that 9 ft set back in the back? Is that just to be perfect in plain English >> because then we will revise the plan. >> If the audience could please not talk,
I'd appreciate that. Um go ahead. >> If you said no, we want it the way it is already, then we won't change it and then peer review doesn't need to be redone. But if the board would like that option, which the applicant's willing to do, that's why we presented it. We just need to know that. Okay. So we can have the
>> So why don't we do it this way? Is there anyone that doesn't want that 9 foot set back in the back? >> Uh it's a 9 ft increase in the setback for a total of 26. >> 26 foot setback. >> Yeah. I apologize. A 26 foot setback. They've already
>> I'm not sure I want it, but I can go along with it. >> Okay. Is there anyone that doesn't want to go along with it? No. Good. Please. >> Then we will have Thank you. We will have that engineered. We will submit it
to you. We will submit it to Tyen Bond and we will submit it to the well will review it with the fire department. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Very good. So, we know that next time we're talking about September 18th and at that meeting we'll talk about um
squaring away all the um let's see the uh the peer review topics. We'll be able to get clarity on all of them, right? And we'll be able to say that we're kumbay on that probably >> and then we'll talk about all the
waiverss and see where we are with that. And I think Sarah, >> so um the applicant will confirm the building coverage numbers. Um if they can please supply uh the signed
information, a potential rendering if you have it with sizing so that way we know what if any waiver might be requested from the general bylaws. Um in addition to the HBDC's uh for the design review um updated
plans for you know the rear setback being increased. Um and I believe those are all the different action items for Penrose that I had in my notes in addition to you know seeing if you can answer certain questions about the children on the site
and and those types of things. >> And when you said updated plans it'll be civil and landscaping. Civil and landscaping. Yes, please. >> Okay. So, can we have a motion to move to >> I'll move I'll move to continue the hearing to September 18, >> 2025.
>> Steve V seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Lee votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> as do I. Um so we're going to have a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjourn. Dave seconds.
Votes yes. Ed votes yes. >> Yes. All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. That's unanimous. And what time is it? >> 5:15 p.m. >> All right. Well, good evening, Chadam. >> Thank you very much for
[Music] [Music]