Heat. Heat. Yep. Welcome everyone to Today's Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, as you know from previous meetings regarding the applicant,
the chair of those meetings was Randy Botto and Randy has moved on to a different position. So in my position as chair,
I have designated Virginia Fenwick >> to become the chair for this 40B meeting today and any future ones in regards to this application.
Virginia is eminently qualified through her profession to chair this meeting. And this is a meeting of great importance. And I think you'll agree with me when we're done that it was a good choice on
my part. So that's all you'll hear from me, Miss Fenwick. >> Thank you, Dave. And good afternoon, everyone. Uh please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on
demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Is is anyone doing that? Okay, Mr. Buckley is >> okay. We I just wanted to mention we
need to note that for the record. So, is anyone online doing that? >> Okay. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of the 2020 of 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during
the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can
adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may may do so by calling the phone number 1508-945-4410 conference ID 202781-914
pound sign. While this is a live broadcast and Simocast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible.
And in accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Okay. Okay. So, we have a few procedural steps that I'm going to uh go through.
We uh will do a roll call of all board members. We ask if any citizens and non-board members participating in the call via the phone only via the phone only for their name and the last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes. The hearing
notice will be read by Sarah Clerk to my right. And uh you or your representative pre presents the application. Uh I may I chairperson may read or summarize all letters received by the board. Anyone wishing to comment on the application
may speak up to three minutes and those present in the meeting room will be recognized first followed by anyone online. Um for the three minutes I'm going to try to announce when you have one minute left and then 10 seconds. So, I'm not going to be interrupting throughout, but I'll give you that um
idea, you know, mostly way through and then in the in the final seconds. Uh also, Penrose may uh rebut written and coral uh oral comments. Board members will ask questions. The board will vote and continue the application
to a date certain that we'll determine at the end of the meeting. Um all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment with roll call to adjurnn.
Okay. So that's our Okay. So before I do roll call of the board members, uh I wanted to quickly just reintroduce the staff uh and who we have on the phone. Sarah Clark is the principal permitting officer. Jay Briggs
is here today. He's the building commissioner. Jay Tolman is our town council. He's on the line and Shantel Kilk Kenny is here uh in person and she's assisting with the minutes. All right, let's do roll call of all members. Um that would be app you'll be
approving the format of this meeting starting with Dave Beach. >> Uh yes, David HV and uh I approve this meeting format. >> Ed act and I approve. >> Paul C simple. I approve of this action. >> David S. Nixon. I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne. I approve. Lee Huby, I approve.
>> As do I. Virginia Fenwick approve. >> Okay. So, uh, Penrose, I think. Uh, I'm sorry. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. Sarah will read the ad. >> Application number 25-077 Penrose LLC, 15 Milk Street, 16th floor,
Boston, Mass 02109. The properties are located at Zero Meeting House Road. also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4E block 11A lot AB owned by the town of Cadam and 87 Meeting House Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4E
block 12 lot 23 owned by Corey Baker. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Masser Law Chapter 40B sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR56 for the construction of 42 dwelling units in eight residential structures
and a maintenance building. The applicants are requesting the grant of various waiverss from regulations promulgated by the Chattam zoning bylaw and other local regulations. The combined properties contained 4.12 acres in the R60 zoning district. This was continued from August 14th, September
4th, October 16th, November 13th, December 10th, 2025, and January 15th, February 5th, March 5th, and May 7th, 2026. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Singer, and members of the Penrose team. >> Good afternoon. Thank you. For the
record, Andrew Singer, attorney here on behalf of the applicant this afternoon. And as you noted, there are several members of the team in the audience. You'll be hearing from some of us uh up front and then we're all here for questions. Uh we actually don't have a long presentation group series of
presentations for you today so we'll be able to have a a good conversation with you. Did want to just update the board. We submitted a further supplemental submission last week and in I just wanted to go over what was briefly in that go over briefly what was in that
submission. um uh going to have a quick presentation from Horesy Whitten and um uh colleague Cartrell about the revisions to the site plans, the landscape plans, the phototric plans. Um and then I'm going to uh come back and
want to talk about the uh sidewalk. And so in the supplemental submission that we gave you, there is a memorandum about the sidewalk which we'll come back to. Uh we also uh to evidence further evidence site control uh under the 40B we provided you a redacted copy of the
purchase option agreement for the property. It's also my understanding that at the meeting on May 7th when um I was out of the country and was not able to be here uh that a that uh the owner of 87 meeting house road also signed the town form that was requested um
regarding authorization to appear. So you have evidence of site control. You had the land disposition agreement for zero meeting house road. You now have the purchase option agreement and the signed authorization for 87 meeting house road. So uh evidence of site control has been just reconfirmed with
you now that the land has been added to it. Um we did have the additional plans that I mentioned and there's also a revised storm water report that was provided uh in the supplemental submission last week. What I would just like to first point out before we go to
the plans is the changes that you reviewed at the last meeting that you know how did the project change overall in you know in broad broad strokes in broad strokes the density of this project has decreased for two reasons.
One the land area got bigger and two the existing dwelling that is on 87 meeting house road the two-bedroom dwelling is being eliminated. So there is a decrease in overall density by the addition of land. You your denominator gets is changed and the fact that there's going
to be uh fewer residential units overall than what were proposed and existing you know prior to the last meeting. As far as site changes, and there aren't really many site changes, but a couple of the site changes that I wanted to point out, and you might hear more about that, is there is now going to be
covered bicycle parking, which was a conversation, you know, before to make sure that people had a place to put their bicycles. And also the maintenance storage shed previously was an accessory attached structure to one of the residential buildings. So, one of the
residential buildings was bigger because you had this accessory um maintenance area attached to it. Now, as you've seen, and we can go over on the plans again, um the maintenance shed has been detached and moved to the center of the property. So, it's more uh it's it's in
the central part of where nearer to where the um one better more centralized, but also closer to where there is the uh the play area and the open space and things like that. So, those really were the main physical changes other than
providing what we believe is better sight access through the new driveway, a better spreading out of the buildings, sidewalks, the path that we're going to discuss. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Rich Clator first and then Mark will come to discuss the landscaping. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Attorney Singer. For the record, my name is Rich Clater. I'm a principal with Horsey Whitten Group. We're located in Sandwich on Cape Cod and uh I'm a principal engineer and the uh principal of the project. Um and I just have a a really a very short uh
presentation um to sort of summarize what Attorney Singer was already informing you. Um the plans that were submitted last week are are really um they're preliminary engineering plans, but they're quite detailed. Uh we work
through uh revised grading plan which is shown on on the figure here. Uh drainage uh utilities utility connections for sewer and water to the public system in meeting house road u conceptual erosion and sediment
control. And so we've worked through all the details. I know you see a lot of like tables and charts. Those are the drainage structures. Um it it um it's really quite complete. Um and and when we did those plans, we had the benefit
of the prior peer review from the third party peer reviewer Tyian Bond as well as um DPW director uh Bob Fi's comments on on the prior um so we in we took those comments that we had addressed prior and uh made sure that they were
incorporated in this uh set. Um the uh drainage and storm water which is a big part of an environmental component for any any project uh we feel confident uh it exceeds the uh town regulations
uh for storm water management and the state's storm water standards. We also believe that it's protective of the environment on site. All of the drainage is contained within a natural depression, a a wetland kettle hole.
It's al also embankment from from the rail trail and um is protective of the receiving water um which is the Taylor Pond, Mil Creek uh watershed in terms of importantly uh nitrogen loading. So we you know we've gone above and beyond in
terms of making sure that u that that's the case. And then um my colleague last um last month uh Joe Henderson was here. He he did uh state that we had uh submitted um
the fire turning movements to the um to the fire chief uh Tavano. Uh and um we did receive back a a confirmation that uh he's okay with the um the alignments and and the uh the uh town's fire
equipment can can access uh the project. Um the only other things that I I would state is that uh from a utility standpoint uh we talked about this perhaps a little bit um last month. The um the connection the relocated
connection um really provides a a better um access point to the public utilities. So that's a net improvement. We also talked about uh things like site distance and transport or traffic. uh it's a it's a better location for that
and it does meet the setback distances from the uh adjacent driveways. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mark uh the landscape architect and he'll give you a little more detail on on those components. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Rich. Uh for the record, my name is Mark Warfl. I'm a landscape architect with Crowley Cautrol. Um the first slide here uh which was submitted is updated photoometric plans. So we went back through um to look at
site lighting and uh this is the technical drawing showing the calculated output of the site lighting. Um we like to include a di diagram of it here just to show the design intent. So, um, we're
using, um, the more nautical themed light fixtures that we've discussed, um, a previous project, uh, but shown on the right, that gives an indication of what they look like. And, uh, then on the
plan view, they're keyed by by type. So um the smaller ones along the path are uh lower output to provide a nice even safe
lighting along the path. We have uh strategically located Ballard lights um for lighting lighting pedestrian ways and taller uh parking lot lights that are of the same
character, but they're um 16 feet tall and those light the parking lot and the drive aisles. Um we've also submitted along with um Horsley in updated landscape plans uh which include the
planting and this hasn't changed much from what we showed last time. Uh just highlighting that there were some shifts here and there as we accommodated utilities. Uh but with all the same design intent of providing um increased buffer along the north
property line, um maintaining existing trees in the central green area as well as uh robust number of street trees and um a reforestation effort on the front slope.
Um so that's the the overall plan. Um, and I'm going to turn it back to Andrew. >> Thank you both. Um, to close out our initial presentation, I wanted to discuss uh the sidewalk question that
has come up. Um, and uh, to clear up what I believe, and I just kind of realized this as we was walking in this afternoon, what might have been has been a a maybe a miscommunication or something ambiguous on our part. I just wanted to make sure clarify for everybody. Also, you have a memorandum
from uh, VI uh, transportation engineers regarding the sidewalk analysis that we have done, and Jeffrey Durk, who prepared that memo, is online. I know you can't see him at the moment, but uh he is there um in case you have questions. He wasn't able to stay for the whole afternoon, but we did ask him
to log in so that after I've just gone over this recap, if you have questions, you know, we'd be he'd be happy to answer them for you. So, what has been done, what what we proposed is uh the path that that you see on Mark's plan here, the path would go down and it
connects up to the rail trail. Now, there's been the conversation was over. Should there be a sidewalk along Meeting House Road from the new site entrance? And the memorandum from Jeffrey an analyzes
three things. It analyzes the path in the connection that we're proposing. It analyzes a sidewalk on the west side, our side of the street of Meeting House Road, and it um analyzes a sidewalk on the east side. And these areas that you see here, and I'm going to go to another
sheet in a second, but these areas on meeting house road that you see here, as he notes in his memorandum, are not conducive themselves to a sidewalk uh due to topography and and land rights and and and other things and having to cross the road. So what we've proposed
and we believe is not only safer and more efficient but in the long run for both the applicant and the town will be cheaper is we propose the path and then the path. Okay. So this is so this is the path. This is
this is the property the path roughly this is not to scale. So this but the path roughly comes out where where this line is here. And then right now the rail trail comes over and there's a crosswalk over to the rail trail continuing the nearest sidewalk on Route
28 is right here and the crosswalk is there. The applicant through the land land disposition agreement with the town and to is proposing to build a sidewalk on part of meeting house road. They're proposing to build the sidewalk here from the crosswalk to the crosswalk. And
so the safe access that we're talking about is coming down the path for the residents, taking this short distance on the rail trail, crossing the crosswalk, and then taking the new sidewalk to connect up to the larger sidewalk system because and there's nowhere else is
there a sidewalk here. This provides, we believe, the safest, as I said, most efficient access to that to the sidewalk system on route 28 because of the grades and all of the other issues that come up on the
furthest section of meeting else road from the rail trail north. So, I wanted to just clarify that um for and that and Mr. Durk discusses that in his memorandum. Well, he doesn't discuss this end part. He discusses how we get to this part. And that is why we are
proposing and we believe it is the most economical and frankly the safest um method of handling the pedestrian uh infrastructure. And this is something that's actually above and beyond what frequently the planning boards require with subdivisions. Yeah. You know, for
for non-40B subdivisions, very often there are no internal sidewalks and there are no sidewalk connections to the public infrastructure. But the applicant in discussing with the town through the LDA made that commitment to connect up and that's what we are proposing for you as part of this project. Um and with
that let me go back. That's as I told you Madam Chair we didn't have a real long presentation today. That is it. And we're happy to answer questions. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Singer. Thank you um Mark and Rich. Um I think now I would
I'm going to read correspondence. that we've received. Okay. The first is from Sharon Drown, treasurer, tax collector, town of Chadam. Good afternoon, Sarah. On June 3rd, 2026, communication took place with
Rio Sach Sachetti from Penrose LLC. Penrose is taking a proactive role by working directly with the homeowner and we'll be addressing the outstanding tax obligations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Sharon.
Okay. Next, we have an a letter from Tim Charlois. I hope hopefully I'm pronouncing that okay. Um, in relation to the Penrose affordable housing proposal for Meeting House Road, I continue to see safety as a significant
unresolved issue. In my view, the memorandum from VAI does not address the safety concerns raised at the May ZBA hearing surrounding use of the rail trail as a primary pedestrian walkway, including lighting, maintenance, snow
removal, and a conflict and the conflict between recreational and residential pedestrian use. Stating or restating the challenges of a sidewalk on either side of Meeting House Road provides no relief from the issues raised, but rather illustrates
significant limitations of the location itself for development such as the one proposed. I should also note that my that my previously expressed concerns about density pertaining to the project included the introduction of such a large development into Cha into South
Chattam. While Penrose has cited the reduction in overall density within the site that would be afforded by the acquisition of 87 Meeting House Road, this would not address the issue of the total number of units being higher than the area can reasonably be expected to
bear. Respectfully yours Tim Charlagua 9 Chat Harbor Lane to Sarah from David and Linda McElroy without question. Chadam needs affordable and attainable housing for its workforce. Too many Chattam workers are having to commute long distances
because neither affordable not neither affordable not attainable housing is available. This being said, such housing design and density should be in keeping with the character of Chadam, but currently the Penrose design most
certainly is not. Once the housing design is approved and built, it will be here in South Chattam for a long time. Therefore, we urge the board to carefully consider all the design and density elements before offering its approval. There are multiple design flaws, but we will focus on one in
particular. Penrose has not been willing to revise their design to include sidewalks for the new project entry driveway along Meeting House Road to Route 28. And this is a huge safety risk to potential residents who will be walking along this busy road to nearby
bus transportation. Meeting House Road is extremely busy and during this past winter of 2026 when there was significant snowfall for about six weeks, there were continual snow banks on this road with no plowed shoulder. This would have required residents,
including children, to walk in the roadway to get from the proposed Penrose development to Route 28. In the winter, it it becomes dark a few minutes after 4 p.m. which is a time which is a time during which pedestrian traffic would be expected. And it should be noted that a
pathway to the rail trail would not address the need for a safe pedestrian route route to Route 28. Before approving this design, Penrose should be required to agree to installing and maintaining a sidewalk along along Meeting House Road from their
development to Route 28 for the safety of the residents, including safety of the children and those who are mobility impaired. We do wonder if the lack of a sidewalk puts the project in violation of ADA requirements. We strongly encourage this Chattam Zoning Board of
Appeals to follow through with this requirement before approval. This is merely one of the multiple design flaws in what is a proposal which blatantly ignores the character of the neighborhood in which it would be constructed. We urge the board to withhold approval until a design is
submitted which corrects the many flaws in the current proposal. Respectfully, Linda and David Moy South Chatam. Uh then we have a letter from um the law off the law office of JP Burke. Dear
ladies and gentlemen, I present Gloria I represent Gloria Hicks, owner and resident of 95 Meeting House Road, Chattam, Massachusetts, a directive butter to the above property. As the board is aware, my client is the holder of a right of way passing through both
of the above identifi the above identified properties. My client has not arrived at any agreement with the applicant to give up or extinguish these rights and accordingly the applicant has not gained the required control the
property for the issuance of a 40B. In addition, because the applicant has added property not included in the original application, the additional property has not had a determination of eligibility. Control and eligibility are prerequisites to the issuance of the
permit. These are two issues that require resolution before the board should proceed with this matter any further. Both issues constitute grounds for appeal. The revised proposal significantly impacts my client's property both in terms of value and use and enjoyment. Unless and until
arrangement is made with Penrose. My client intends to oppose this project and take whatever necessary actions are required by way of court action to enforce and protect her rights. My client requests that you suspend any further action on this application until
these issues are resolved. Very truly yours, JP Burke, attorney for Gloria Hicks. Okay. Then we have a letter from uh EJ McKenna. No, I'm sorry. From Lou Hive. Sorry, it's coming in on that that uh email
address. I apologize. >> They're married. >> Oh, okay. They're okay. They're together by an undem democratic and possibly rigged autocratic process. The Chattam citizens, the Chattam citizens of South Chattam will suffer the egregiously
delletterious consequences of this atrocity ill-conceived housing atrociously ill-conceived housing project. Despite the recent Penrose adjustments, there are still more than enough problems with this project to fill the book, including overcrowded
density, public safety, and an aesthetic impact to the entrance to South Chadam that will per that will permanently negatively transform the character of South Chattam. The defeat at town meeting of the proposal, the proposed
transfer of community preservation funds for this project demonstrates the intense opposition to this project. It's been said that your hands are tied, but they're not completely tied. Hopefully, you'll figure out creative and imagin
imaginative ways to demonstrate your solidarity with your fellow citizens of South Chattam. Luhive Chattam. Uh we have a letter from uh the Reverend of the Holy Redeemer Parish. Dear honorable honorable board members, on
behalf of myself, most reverend Edgar M. Da Kahuna, Bishop of Fall River, and the faithful members of the Holy Redeemer Catholic Church. We express our support of the proposed affordable housing project at Zero Meeting House Road. Most of the
site is land sold to the town of Chadam by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River Corporation soul for the express purpose to be the site for affordable housing. That desire is so strong the land was sold to the town at a reduced price. It's is its assessed real estate
tax valuation. No project this side of heaven is perfect. There will always be aesthetic safety and other concerns expressed by a minority. Your board has con conducted a painstaking evaluation of the project over 10 months. Penrose
has been responsive to the concerns of the community and your board. Your decision should be based on the common good of the community. Your vote to approve this project will be in its best interest. I remain faithfully yours,
Reverend John Sullivan, pastor. Okay. We have a letter from Dave, Mr. David Frell. under Middleboro versus Housing Appeals Committee due to Penrose LLC deception issuance of a meeting house road 40B
comprehensive permit to a separate singlepurpose entity controlled by the applicant subject to limited dividend requirements as required by the March 2025 EOHLC project eligibility letter and
with five years of experience as required by the meeting house road RFP. should be denied. My attached June 1st, 2026 photo and the below email demonstrate that Penrose LLC does not control its East Ham affiliates. For
seven months since Penrose LLC had notice of my November 9, 2025 photo, neither Penrose nor its East Ham affiliates have rectified the documented East Ham construction maintenance repair failure. For Cadam, that failure is
compounded by Penrose's continued pre presentations at ZBA meetings while ignoring the ongoing East Ham problem. It shows Penrose arrogance and bad faith in the application process. It shows that Penrose will not be a good
neighbor. It shows that Penrose will not be welcoming to our new Chattam residents and will walk away from Meeting House Road just as it has in East Ham. And for these reasons, the comprehensive permit should be denied with the new request for proposals
promulgated to find a developer who will not try to deceive us. Thank you for your consideration, David Ferrell, Main Street. Okay. On our last letter received is from Mike Michael Shell. Um it is uh we
wanted to I wanted to note that it is correspondence that we received. We don't need to read it. He he actually mentions that we don't need to read it. It's it's longer than what is um what we have in our requirements. Uh but it is on the website for those that would like
to view it and read it and we have it for our record. >> Madam Chair, I could just point out for the record that that letter is a strong defense of the project going through the history of the project and why it should be approved just so everyone knows. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Singer, for
adding that. And the letter is online for anyone that would like to read that. Uh that concludes our correspondence >> comments from the public. Uh Mr. Singer, >> there should be I think there should be an opportunity for Singer to rebut.
>> Mr. Singer, do you have an opportunity before we go to the public comments to re rebut any of these comments in here? Um the one thing uh that I'll just because it's legal, you as opposed to to um
otherwise. Uh there was an allegation from attorney Burke about um the right of way that Miss Hicks has over the property and absolutely Miss Hicks has a right over the property. As you know, we've been pen has been negotiating with her for for many many months. They
actually had an agreement, you know, or orally on a new dedicated driveway for Miss Hicks. Um, she has is now not in favor of that, which is absolutely her prerogative. However, that being said, uh, Penrose reached out to her after the last meeting. They also hope to continue
discussions with her. But conversations with Miss Hicks about the right of way do not impact either site control or your ability or requirements to review the 40B application before you. It is a
potential title question, but there are more than one way to resolve the issue. What is shown here is what we ultimately hope after the board approves it uh is what the parties will agree to. If they don't, then as with any 40B, we will be
coming back to you with an amendment request. And what we could do is go back to the road that's there today. And the the driveway for the new development could go through Mr. through the owner, the current driveway at 87 Meeting House
Road. You could reuse that, join the existing right of way, and then the new owners and Miss Hicks could share that right ofway the way they do today. That's an option. It's not the one we think is preferable for everybody. It's not the one that Penrose wants, but that's always a legal option and it's
not something that ties into the review. The design that you have is the proposal that's before you. There is site control. This is the application. If we have to come back for an amendment someday because we can't satisfy a condition, then we will. Um, but that's the only response I think at this point.
Look forward to any other questions. Uh, and also for Mr. Durk if you have questions on the sidewalk itself. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Singer. >> Did you have anything else? >> Only if you thought Jay's opinion of what Mr. Singer just
said is important. If you don't, then you leave it alone. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so our chairman of our other part of our ZBA hearings is just um whispered in my ear. So, Jay Tolman, you're on the phone. Would you have any
comments? and maybe you don't on any of this legal rightway that uh Mrs. Hicks attorney is bringing up that Mr. Singer just rebutted and do you have any comments now or or perhaps you'll want to offer later? >> No, no, I'm I'm happy to offer some now.
Um I thought that this is an issue that has come up frequently over over the years under 40B and the way it is shaken out is somewhat similar to what Mr. um Singer has suggested is it's not really a sight control issue with respect to
the the roadway issue um because they the site control pertain requirement which is a kind of quasi jurisdictional requirement meaning it's a quasi requirement to make sure that they um can actually apply for you relates to
their control over the property itself and there's two things about that first of all they don't have to show much there except that through purchases and sale agreement uh agreements here two agreements here they have a valid
interest or perspective interest in the property. Second to the extent that the subsidizing agency has already drawn a conclusion that they do then that is a presumption moving forward they certainly do satisfy that requirement for site control and housing appeals
committee cases say that that's about as far as you can go. That doesn't mean this is a non-issue and I don't think that Mr. Singer suggests that it's a non-issue at all and I think his his practical response to that is is close to the mark and that is that the zoning
board is free to continue to um ask that this issue be addressed ultimately and I had a a similar matter to this in another community recently. we would impose a condition or I would think we would impose a condition if the board chooses to approve this project that
would say, "Hey, this is based upon the project as presented. We understand that there's an issue with the neighbor. If you have to change this access road in any way, you're going to have to come back to us for a hearing to address that particular change." And I think that's what Mr. Singer is suggesting that would
would have to happen anyway. So, I think it's important that we keep our eye on it and I think it's important that we continue to encourage um uh uh Mr. Singer and his client to continue to work with them and it appears that they are making some effort
there. I hope that they um are successful in that regard. As to the other issue in um attorney Burke's letter, the the change to the project, the regulations on this are clear. It is a requirement for Penrose to notify
their subsidizing agency of the change. Normally, most normally, and this is right in the regulations, the subsidizing agency will um address that issue if and when there's an approval and the applicant goes for their
required post-p permit final approval. That's what it states in the REGG. So it is an important issue um and something where there is an existing requirement for Penrose to comply with but it is not something where we um have to go
backwards and do new a new project eligibility letter. >> Okay. Thank you Jay. That's very helpful. And >> madam chair just to follow up on that Penrose has notified the subsidizing agency has not heard back but they have notified them. >> Okay. All right.
Thank you Mr. singer. Um, okay. So, >> Sarah, we go to comments now. >> Audience comments. >> Yeah, audience. Okay. In-person comments will we'll go to next. Um, I just would like to ask folks, there's a microphone
in the center here, which would be preferable. So, we keep that open for um for the applicants. And um just as a reminder, you have three minutes. And this um you know we've we've been asked
periodically to extend that to more time and uh we have thought about it you know a lot over the years. Um we we're going to stay with the three with the three minutes and it's not to limit the voice but to actually maximize the opportunity. There are a lot of folks here that usually attend these meetings
and it's to help ensure that everyone does have an opportunity to speak up. So, we're very interested in the public's input on the revised plans. Um, you certainly share whatever you'd like, but um, anything that is more specific to the revised plans would would help to
move it along. And again, at one minute, I will try with Sarah's help to remind you that you have two minutes left. And then just at 10 seconds, just a quick summary. If you um are at that point and you have more to say, you'll be cut off after that 10 10 seconds. Um, okay. So,
do I think we want to start with those in favor? Is that what we usually do? >> No. So, we'll do anyone that has a comment that's in the audience and then we'll move to anyone online that has a comment. >> Okay. >> Carol Gordon Southam quite a few things.
So, I'll try to talk fast and uh the easiest thing is one question I have uh will there be generators on the property and perhaps that can just be a yes or no >> generators on the property? >> Anyone know? >> Yes. Okay. Because I was wondering uh
>> pardon me. >> Yeah. Sorry, Miss Sorry, Miss You can't direct quions directly to them, >> right? Then I would hope we would discuss if there will be generators on the property, if the units will have AC, and what the winter storm plan might be after the winter we've had, there'll be
almost >> 200 300 people that will need care for the services and what their plan may be for that. Uh, also uh with the with the sidewalks. Okay. It's my understanding. I don't know if you could pull that up again or not, but uh when the uh when
the kids come out, they go over to the rail trail >> and we don't know yet who is going to maintain that rail trail as far as uh snow plowing and things like this. So, they'll come across and then they'll they'll cross over 137 and I'm assuming
there's going to be an appropriate uh crosswalk there. They'll come down the other side and then will there be a school bus stop there where they come or I think the school bus stops on the other side. So will that be will that be worked out that the school
bus changes their route and that they stop over there for the kids and it's still pretty long for them to have to walk when they're little. >> But uh anyway, okay. And then >> we're noting these questions that you're asking. So I'm sorry. Pardon me. >> We are noting the questions that you're
asking. I appreciate that. Okay. And uh just one other thing uh regarding the last meeting. Okay. I know that uh Mr. Shell had written a ninepage letter that went into the packet. So does that mean that anyone who writes and again this year I mean this meeting also it went
into the packet because it was longer than your usual requirement. So if someone else writes a long essay about it that will also go into the packet. We do uh yes we have all anything that is sent in is officially in the packet of
information related to this >> anyone should do that >> you can do it we prefer that you don't do it we prefer that you you write something that can be read and shared with everyone but yes it's part of the packet you can do that yes so >> okay so all right thank you appreciate
it >> okay Yes, >> members of the board, Jan Burke, attorney for Gloria Hicks. I I'll be brief. My letter was to the point, but I do want to point out, first of all, my client is willing to continue to talk with Penrose, but at the last U
encounter was uh not productive. We are still willing to negotiate something uh with Penrose, but it's an entirely different world this proposal compared to the other one for my client. The impacts are completely different. It's not a minor adjustment. Penrose, I
think, is going to have to come forward with some type of realistic proposal for my client to consider. It's a private property right. We'll work it out directly if it can. If it can't, I want to point out one thing. I don't uh completely agree with town council. The property rights under 40B have been
litigated not at the housing appeals committee but in the land court. And if my client brings an appeal, which she's going to do to protect her rights if necessary, it will involve the court system, not the housing appeals board. And this is not sight control. Right
now, the applicant does not possess the legal rights to build what's on that screen. And until they do, it's like there's a missing piece of property. this unfortunately the control issue here has just been sidelined. This this has been going on since last August and
that's a prerequisite to this thing and the board is expended all kinds of energy on this application without a prerequisite such essential as this being settled. We don't think you should waste any more time with this. you're just churning this over and over and
over again without the applicant having the basic building blocks that they need to build this project. So, I just want to emphasize that. I hope you'll consider that and uh uh we as I said, we'd be happy to talk to Penrose further, but in the meantime, we're
opposed to this and we're going to proceed with our legal rights being protected. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Burke. >> Any anyone else? Oh, I'm sorry. There's someone in the back already making his way. Yeah, you
you you can go next, Mr. Buckley. >> Uh, my name is John Wright. I live uh in South Chadam. I'm very opposed to this and the main reason being that if you travel 137 on a daily basis towards off
of 28 towards stop and shop both sides of the highway if you meet a runner or a child with a school bus anybody going to school or a runner you literally if there's a car coming the other way have to pull over wait until the car passes
and I think you know it's a dream to think these kids are only going to access 28. They're going to want to go to the nearest store, which is the corner store, or I mean, the only other store you have going the other way is the liquor store. So, you know, in my
mind in business sometimes you put a lot of money and effort into these things and I I understand Penrose have done projects that have probably made sense. But sometimes when you put a lot of money into things, you're more entitled to now you've got the bit between your
teeth. You got to follow through. But there's nothing about this thing that makes sense. It's very I mean when you think about the liability of putting all these kids onto that bike track and then suspecting they're all going to be like you know cattle going across to the
sidewalk that's going to lead them to 28. It's a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. You know these kids are going to want to go out the main entrance access up 137 and walking the side of the road. And I'll tell you right now it's going to lead to tragedy. You know it's not it
doesn't make sense. I mean, there's a lot of projects you look at that the flow is right, it's a safety issue, it works. You look at this project, I don't think there's anything other than affordable housing that makes any sense,
you know, practically. So, that's my comments. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir, for your comments, >> Mr. Buckley. >> Okay. Thank you, uh, Steve Buckley. Um, I'm glad to see that the, uh, new design, because of the expansion of the
property, allows for an island with the, uh, with a, a green area and a playground and the, uh, well, my prince to smile here, the maintenance building with and a bike
area for I hope it's electric bikes that it allows for that. But anyway, um um I'm what I'm concerned about or curious about is whether or not uh the applicant, which I guess I can't ask them, but whether or not the applicant
has considered the fact that there might be that the regional transit authority might be having a bus route stopping there just like it does now at the Anchorage off Curl Road where people and I think um what I'd like to see in
taking and designing This is redesigning it so that now with all this extra room that there could be a place where people could uh wait for the bus if it's and as my understanding that RTA would put one there just like I think it's going to
happen at the former Buckley property but that there'd be a more of a shelter place not just a overhang where people are exposed to the wind and so forth down at the anchorage people can wait inside they can also see the bus coming so you can gather up your stuff. Here it
comes, you know, and it's not just all of a sudden it shows up at your door at your, you know, at your feet. So, uh, one aspect could be to actually if you look at, uh, and I'm wondering if we could just pull back the screen for that, uh, that shows the island and
maybe even zoom in a little because it's Yes, thank you. And you can see that uh the maintenance building is at the top and the playground and some other areas is down at the bottom. What could be done I
suggest is to flip that so that the maintenance building plus a a room some type of place like I said to wait for the bus maybe even maybe the mailboxes I'm not sure where the mailboxes are but that would be a central place for
picking up mail also. And uh so that's my suggestion. That way it would be more a more useful thing. People can would be able then of course to see oh here comes the bus. It'll be coming along. They'll be able to look out. It'll go around the circle and perhaps stop at on the on the
left side or down below but someplace there and people will have that notice to be able to do that. I see have 15 seconds left. Thank you. And so uh and the other thing is I would suggest that under the this chair that straw votes be taken for particular items because
otherwise the applicant just has to interpret furoughed brows or you know or body language and a straw vote really would make it clear what should be included and what should not. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Mr. Buckley.
Okay, Mr. Shell. Uh Mike Shell Chadam. Uh first I want to confirm um I did say uh you don't have to read my letter. It's a long letter. Uh I think I should tell you what you I think you need to know or you might be interested to know. And that took me
seven pages. Um I did offer a summary. Um I I'll just note here quickly. 23 years ago, Cadam unanimously at town meeting adopted a plan that said we are going to get our subsidized housing
index to 10%. And they and we said we were going to do it by 2015. We're at 4.81. Um this plan, this this project together with the other uh project that you've approved is going to put kids in the school. Matter of fact, a lot of the
people who oppose the project say we have to worry about the kids. You have made decisions based on kids in the school and protecting the school. This is an opportunity to do something for the school that it desperately needs, which is increase the enrollment. There
is evidence that certainly says we can expect that financially. This is a phenomenal project for Chadam. It's a 20, at least based on their proposal originally, it's a $28.5 million project. Cadam pays absolutely nothing
for it. Indeed, they're going to give us $300,000 in cash back for the property when they clo when we close, plus a $200,000 note. We can argue about whether it's worth anything, but a $200,000 note um for the property. um
density. The density as now proposed is 10.2 units per the the the fin the planning board with its West Cadam Neighborhood Center um uh inclusionary uh planning proposal,
inclusionary zoning planning proposal said 10 was the right number for inclusionary uh for for basically for affordable housing um per unit. uh sorry per per acre this is virtually
identical. Um I also note that there are 10 acres surrounding this project of unimproved open land that's never going to be developed. Density absolutely first of all I'm not sure whether it should be an issue legally but I'll leave that to the lawyers. Um as a
practical matter you got 10 acres of open space surrounding it. density should absolutely not be a uh an issue here. I I thank you for your work on this. I appreciate it. I hope you will move expeditiously to address the issues
and get to a decision. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Shell. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Gloria Hicks, Meeting House Road. Um I have to begin by correcting Mr. singer. For two and a half years, at every single meeting at Nauseium, I have asked
for my own driveway. It's all I wanted. It's all I asked for. Um, and with the previous plan, I had pen and paper. I had a pen in my hand last fall. I told Jill Goldmith, "I'm ready to sign." A few months ago, I reached out to Penrose
and said, "Do we have an agreement on the driveway?" So to say that I'm not on board with the driveway, it's all I ever wanted. Um this whole plan is a gamecher. It is a completely new plan. Um and everything is different. Uh and
just a driveway is no longer good enough. I currently have a private backyard. I've invited all of you to walk through anytime you want and see how I live. It is an oasis. Um, I am surrounded three walls of my house, um,
or woods. I enjoy my night sky on the deck. I enjoy quiet. I have no lights, no traffic. I walk on that ement road every single day to get to the bike trail to avoid 137 to walk my dog. That's how I
live. All of that goes away with this new plan. Every bit of it. And it's unacceptable. Um, I have been at every single meeting and I want this resolved faster than
anybody. This has been I've been held hostage by this thing for two and a half years. I want this resolved and I want it resolved tomorrow. Um, and that's it's just it's gone beyond. And to think that this is not
more dense is crazy. It's expansive. It's huge. Another half an acre has been consumed and another small family with an affordable attainable home has been displaced and another small home has been destroyed to create affordable and
attainable housing. I mean, the logic of that just escapes me. And you want kids in the school, there's two kids that live at that house. Um, so that's why I'm opposed to this project. It completely changes the way that I would live my life. I still want
the driveway, but it's not just about a driveway anymore. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Hicks, for your comments. Okay. Yes. >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I didn't intend to speak, but the one subject that hasn't come up
>> Oh, I'm sorry, ma'am. Can you >> Timson Chadam? is the substandard construction issue. Um, attorney Frell does mention the problems up at Noset Green in East which apparently haven't been attended to, and
it's been several months since December now. And also I have started researching all of the lawsuits against Penrose management in different states and I haven't had enough time to go through each one in detail and there's only so
much information one can get. But issues like mold and mildew, that's a big deal when it comes to the point where you can't live in a unit and all that's offered initially is a dehumidifier, which of course is going to cost the
tenant considerable electrical bills. If you are a affordable tenant, you probably don't have money to hire a really good lawyer to defend you. But many have tried and some have been successful and some have not. My concern
is the quality of construction. I've attended all these meetings and I've gone to the CPA meeting where Penrose basically said, "If you don't give us 500,000, we will have to deal with less quality construction material." That should have
been a buzzer. That should have alerted everybody. It alerted the town. We didn't vote that way. We We didn't give a lot of money for that one. And nor did the CPA, but please please let's investigate the
the construction issues. How are we going to monitor that? Uh isn't Noset Green worth investigating a little bit? At this point, I would even say, can we have a copy of the rental tenant agreement
>> so we have some idea of whether those who get into these units have any rights at all before having to go call a lawyer in. Thanks so much. >> Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Phillips at the
>> Oh, or Mr. Diggins, >> Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, I just like to bring up the fact that our neighbors uh Orleans and Harwitch um signified they do not approve of this project because they did not vote for the CPC funding uh for it. I think it has to do with that the project is bad
and that the company they don't approve of uh the company uh Penrose. We also voted the funding down um at town meeting for this project uh signifying that we don't uh approve of it and I'm pretty sure according to LDA that they that we need a proper um town meeting approval. So I'm not sure if we even
have that or if this project should go forward. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Phillips. All right, Mr. Dyikens. >> Yeah, I hope we're not wasting hot air this evening given the legal uh issues that have been raised. Um, but I'm very much in favor of this project. I think
we lose sight of the fact that it provides 42 families and units of housing in a town where we've only achieved 4.81% of our our our need for housing, our our subsidized housing inventory. Number one. Number two, um, we we voted down the CPC monies for
Meeting House. We approved the CPC monies to the tune of $400,000 for um, for Main Street. We also approved, I believe it was $100,000 for the town of Orleans for a Penrose project that has been built that has yielded 40 to excuse
me 20 students to the schools. They built 65 units that has yielded 20 students for the school. East Ham 65 units. It's it's yielded 40 students for the schools. So, let's talk about what's truly needed in the town. We need a more diverse affordable town. We've been
harping about this stuff for for for 10 years, for 20 years, and it's time we acted upon this. I love the sidewalk plan. I love the fact that it comes out of there. It ties into the to the to the to the rail trail, and then they're willing to to do a sidewalk down into
the intersection of 28. Kids are going to use the rail trail. They're kids. They're going to ride bikes everywhere. That's all I did when growing up was ride bikes everywhere. That's all we did. I'd love to see kids riding bikes down Route 137. I'd love to see him on the rail trail. I'd love to see him on Route 28. We've never had him. So, let's
let's get off the dime here, please. And and approve a project that we invited these folks to come in and develop and and at very very low cost. Please be reminded that Arch Dasis sold this land to us at a deep discount for affordable
and attainable housing. We invited folks to come in to with a very reasonable, I believe, reasonable project and we should approve it. It's going to be, if we're ever going to do anything with that, it's going to be affordable and attainable. We're going to do another whole RFP with these kind of terms. I
don't think so. So, please do your best. Please do your best to improve this. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Dykens. Anyone else comments? >> Anyone online? >> We have Frank Msina online.
Mr. Msina, can you hear us? We see that you want to comment. >> I think you are on mute. We can't hear you. >> We also have Ms. Gibbs online if she would like to speak. and then we'll go back to >> Exactly.
>> Uh thank you, Elaine Gibbs. Um uh I think this project is a mess, frankly, and my notes are a mess because of it. Kids are not statistics. They're not a box to check off and they shouldn't be collateral damage. And I don't want to see children riding their
bikes on Route 137 and Route 28 unless you want an accident to happen. Under mass uh mass chapter 40B, the developer is legally required to disclose the cost of land acquisition because 40B developments are restricted profit
projects. Uh land costs are directly tied to calculating the developer equity and permitted return limit. the purchase of 87 U meeting house and the cost should be included in revised financials
because they um it's something we need to know. Penrose has previously said that meeting house was a financial loss without 1533 yet somehow they've been able to come up with at least $600,000 to buy that property. And so I want to
know if they have that discretionary income or if they don't, what is going to get cut? Is it going to be the materials? They have alluded to that fact before when they said they could never uh do meeting house alone because they'd
have to cut the quality. And I see that coming. And this property is not safe for children. There are ravines. The entrance is bad. There are no sidewalks. on foot or for bikes. I'm even confused now where the bus is going to pick them
up. That's how messed up this project is. I thought they were going to be picked up on 137. It sounds like maybe they've got to go down the path and get picked up on Route 28. Um once again, uh there's no place for the children to
ride. There's no assigned or guest parking. It's one thing on 1533 people can find other places to park. There's no place to park. You've got shift workers. They're coming home at night. They find out that there's no parking. >> You have one minute left,
>> right? Um Penrose knows that there are safety issues. They have acknowledged it in this and they are trying to get out of it on legal technicalities. Uh there is liability to the developer and there will be liability to the town because we
all know it. It's been acknowledged here over and over. It is not safe for children. There will be an accident and god forbid it's fatal. This needs to This project is outrageous. It's absolutely insane. And uh I I don't know
why we're even pursuing it at this point. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Miss Gibbs. Mr. Msina, did we connect with you? Are you back unmuted? Oh, we lost you. Okay. Feel free to call
back in if you want to. Anyone else online? Sarah, that's it. Okay. All right. Well, yes. Rebuttal. Um, Mr. Singer or anyone Rio from Penrose
rebuttal for the comments that you heard. >> Madam, I mean, there were a lot of comments that we heard. We were writing them down just like you. What we'd prefer to do after one more question I'm going to ask you is maybe suggest a short break so that we could we haven't
been able to talk about them so that we could at least uh try to address some of them. We won't be able to address all of them. Uh however before a break if you're willing to grant it. Um want to ask we're going to shortly lose Mr. Durk and I didn't know in addition from the board now um to his memorandum or
anything that's been discussed to this point. Are there any questions the board has that they think Mr. Durk might be they might want him to answer. If not, we'll answer them. But >> so those would be specific to the sidewalk questions. >> Yes. Yeah. Which is what he did
yesterday. The sidewalk um would be if you have questions that you think he might be helpful for. >> Well, I I had questions about the the AI uh the VAI memorandum, but uh I they you might be
able to answer these questions or Penrose. Um, do you want me to just go through and start going through? Okay. Um, so on page I guess page three of Mr. Durk's letter at the very top um, he
mentions a grading easement and it made me think about is what about an easement? Is there an easement required to connect to the uh, rail trail? the town. We know the town owns it, but is does Penrose have an easement or do you need a permit to actually connect
from your property to the town rail? >> From my point, I'll say I don't know. I don't know if Jeff Jeffrey does at this point. We can ask. >> Okay, that was that was one question. Um, who who manages the rail trail and maintains it? Um, and maybe Mr. Singer,
you know this. What legal mechanism authorizes the actual connection to the rail trail? And maybe that's sort of the same as a permit or easement. I guess those go together. >> I think that's the same question. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, also there was a comment that Mr. Durk made
at the end of that first paragraph, the first paragraph on page three where he talks about introducing a new conflict point for pedestrian bicycles is not desirable. So is entering the rail trail at about the 150 foot mark from the from
the end the stopping point is is that considered a new a conflict point? That would be a question. >> Jeffrey, can you respond to that if you're there? >> I am there. And can you hear me, Madam
Chair? >> We can hear you. Thank you. >> Thank you. And I appreciate you hosting me online. Um, for the record, my name is Jeffrey Durk. I'm the managing partner with Vanessa Associates and with the transportation consultants for the project. Um, Madam Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might
have relative to safety, pedestrians, bicycles, um, as it relates to the project. Um, specifically as it relates to the options that we evaluated in our uh our letter, I think first starting with the easement connection to the to
the rail trail itself. If the project site abuts the rail trail, then the connection can be attained through whatever requirements the town may have to allow for a connection. Um, I would think, you know, subject to your attorney's review, this would be no different than like a a driveway
connection out to a public way. and I think it would be handled the same way. But um I I I don't think there's any impediment to that connection actually taking place um as a part of the project. Um to your question as it relates to conflicts, I think as we look at the three options that we had
evaluated uh relating to the sidewalk connection, uh what I think our focus was really on is the sidewalk on the opposite side from the project site. Um and that what we were saying in terms of um conflicts is that um what you do not want to create is an additional midblock
crossing as we term it. A crossing at a driveway um is considered a midblock crossing. If we were down at 28 or at another intersection with a public way um it's considered an intersection crossing. Um that's a point where motorists expect there to be conflicts and pedestrians to be crossing even if
there's not a crosswalk. um introducing a a driveway or crosswalk across um a location where a driveway is is considered a midblock location and that it's not desirable to have crossings at that location or at such locations. If you do introduce a crossing at a
location such as a midblock, uh you do want the rectangular rapid flashing beacon, which is what you have down at the rail trail. So, I think what we were suggesting in looking at what what is termed option two um is that it's not desirable to create another crossing of
of uh meeting house road where there's already an existing one just to the south of the project site that is under control and so that's what we were pointing out. >> Okay. So just to summarize a a mid block I understand that that is but you are you asserting then that because you're
merging into the bike path it's not a it's not a new conflict or it's not a conflict >> correct. It's not it's not a yeah it's it's not a it certainly is not a conflict point that rises to the same level that you would have with crossing a roadway.
>> Okay. Thank you. One more question. At the uh the very last sentence of your of page three, you say the proposed on-site connection is consistent with the suggested approach defined by the Cape Cod Commission in the 2020 complete streets
living streets design manual. Uh and then you've provided an excerpt below. Now where so when when I read that excerpt that you've provided um
I see that it says inserting pedestrian paths in areas with narrow roadways and structures like the wooden fence which isn't the rail trail. Um close to the road roads edge requires sensitivity. So it does say that. Wouldn't you say that that's applicable to the rail trail in
uh merging? So what they're speaking about as it relates to the um the narrowness is is not so much the rail trail. What it's speaking to is where pedestrians become come in conflict or in close proximity to moving motor vehicle traffic. Um and
so that's what they're speaking to and probably to provide a little bit more context to my statement. It's really in looking at I think as you see on the um what I see at my screen now which is that excerpt um the idea of separation separating pedestrians and bicycles from
motor vehicle traffic. Um that's not only consistent with what the um Cape Cod Commission is recommending. It's also now more standard mass dot process in that separated bikeways is the more desirable approach for or separated
conditions for either bikeways or sidewalks uh is to actually move them physically separate them from the edge of the traveled way. And so as you look at kind of what is shown in in the excerpt here um that green u uh patch that you see there that's more of the standard approach that's being taken
now. So the idea here is really introducing pedestrians of bicycles onto a shared juice path separated from the traveled way is more desirable than putting them right adjacent to the traveled way. In fact, that's that's something that now we're always trying to separate by at least 4 feet from the
edge of the traveled way a sidewalk or a shared use path. >> Okay. Okay. So, would it be fair to say in summary there that you were talking more specifically in your letter about vehicular traffic, not bicycle traffic? >> That's correct, Madam Chair, and I
appreciate you pointing that out. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, that's all I had for Mr. Durk. >> Thank you, >> Jenny. I had uh a couple of questions for Mr. Durk if we have time. Um, at on
the top of the uh uh paragraph, the top paragraph on page two of your report, uh, you indicate a sidewalk connection along the project site driveway to Meeting House Road has been added to serve as school bus stop and to allow
for connectivity to a future sidewalk to be constructed by others. Um, it seems to me you're saying that there is no likelihood that a future sidewalk is going to be constructed by others. Is that correct?
I so I don't think that that's not what I was inferring. Um, we would recommend even to the extent of that if this connection was not to happen to the bike path, which I think is it's advantageous at this location, we will always recommend that a sidewalk from within
the development be provided out to the public way. Um, just in the event that it two things. First of all is for the school bus waiting area there. Um but also to the extent that a future sidewalk is constructed uh along Meeting House Road, it's not to imply that one
won't be constructed. Um I think you know the location of affordable housing at this position here and that there are existing sidewalks along Route 28 more make it highly likely that to some point um the state would provide funding for
the construction of a sidewalk to complete that missing connection that's there. um it it's not something that is a part of this project is obviously being proposed. In fact, it's something that um the cost of doing such a connection is disproportionate. I think that the cost of the project so that
there that's why it's not a part of the development that's before you. But we provided a connection as a part of the project and it's highly likely that a sidewalk would be constructed in the future and it's not suggesting that that would be done with town monies. Uh but we think that affordable housing at this
location provides that opportunity for a state grant funding uh to complete a sidewalk. >> So you're anticipating that the only person or group that would be likely to to do such a future connectivity to the
sidewalk would be the state >> with state funding is what I would suggest. It's it's constructing a sidewalk is not a an insignificant undertaking. And I think that's kind of what we were pointing out in our our letter here just because of the fact
that uh as we said just in terms of basic elements curbing needs to be installed that implies a closed drainage system which is not there today. It also applies as it relates to a sidewalk along the front edge of the property is that there's the possibility of you know
the need for a retaining wall because there's been a lot of discussion about ADA compliance and that sidewalk has to be ADA compliant and so that would require a leveling of the shoulder area to be able to construct the sidewalk which is again closed drainage system
vertical granite curb uh and then a potentially a retaining wall to retain the sidewalk so that it it can be built to a standard. hands. >> Okay. Thank you. Is uh let me direct your attention to the pedestrian connection that is a part of the actual
proposal right now. Uh is that going to be ADA compliant with handicap access? >> So, I'm going to defer to the site engineer uh as to that, but if it's if it's to substitute as a sidewalk and provide a connection, it needs to be compliant.
>> And Mr. Clator can respond to that. Uh, regulator for the record. Uh, yes. It's designed to be ADA compliant. Yes. >> Okay. I think those are the only questions I had. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board for Mr. Durk before we let him go and
take a break. We'll take a break. >> Okay. Seeing none, uh, we'll take a fivem minute break. And, uh, is that work for you? >> Yeah, that should that should be fine. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. D. Mr. Leer,
>> just >> we're back everyone. Mr. Singer, you ready for rebuttal? >> I can't see all of you doing >> almost with you. >> Okay. >> Okay, now this Okay. >> All right. Thank you. You had to get
some technical answer help. >> No problem. >> All right. Um, so I'm going to respond to uh a few different things that we heard. I'm not going to be responding to everything because frankly both pro and con, you've heard much of it before for the last many many months. And so we're
not going to respond to everything, but a few simple responses to some of the questions we heard. Um, yes, the units have central air. No, generators are not proposed at this time. Um, as far as the uh construction
and the quality, um, not only does Penrose follow all state, federal, and local rules and regulations, their properties have won multiple awards. And, and again, I'm not saying that, you know, to be crowing. It's just in response to a comment we heard. The final thing I do think we need to
respond to and show um, is a slide I want to show and it deals with, uh, the issues Miss Hicks brought up. Okay. Um, since it became such an issue, we feel it's important for the board to understand what in fact has happened.
And you know, there have been, as she said, there've been negotiations with her uh for a long long time. Some of them included Mr. Clater and myself on site with herself and other representatives. Um, the whole goal, as she said, is improved access for her to meeting house road, which is something
the applicant agreed with. So initially um what they've done they came in with a driveway at the beginning that that driveway has been expanded to have a larger turnaround uh at her request uh for not only her cars or her guests but also for any delivery trucks to come. So now there's a large enough the plan it
showed off to the side of one of the plans you had earlier. Um additional roll lean cypress hedges were uh added to bolster the landscape buffer. A stone barrier was uh included by the applicant to replace a guard rail. Uh this also
would provide her with improved access to future sewer connection uh if she wants on the town sewer and to maintain better access than she has now because now she walks down the old layout and gets on to 137 and has to walk right on the shoulder of the road as everyone's
been talking about to get to the rail trail. Um uh the applicant proposed the path that you saw on the plan that would bring her to the driveway, which is a public layout, uh coming up into the development uh and into the path that
the applicant has proposed leading to um leading out to the rail trail and then the bike and then the the sidewalk system. I'm bring it back to Okay, so here we go again. So, and you can see that path on the
right hand side of this image uh shaded out. So, again, after the last meeting, Rio has reached out to Miss Hicks. Um, as you heard, she is is is, you know, upset and and is does while they're willing to talk right now, the only
thing that's been on the table was a request to purchase the property, which is not something the applicant can do or will be doing, they still to I'm going to reiterate it again. We're happy to meet with I'm not sure where she went. I'm happy to meet with Miss Hicks or not me, but Rio is happy to meet with Miss
Hicks. Uh, I'm happy to meet with a lawyer if she would like. Um, we would like to hopefully work it out. However, as we stated and as Mr. Talaman confirmed, this is not a issue that impacts n the legally impacts what's on
the the the screen before you. That is what we're asking you to approve. That is what we're asking you with conditions and that is what is is being presented to you as what we feel is the best project for the development on the land. Um, with that, that's the rebuttal for
right now. We welcome any other questions you have. I know we've been meeting with you for a long long time. This is uh something new. This is the second meeting on this revised sketch here. Um we're happy to try to answer further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Singer. Um okay, so now
we are going to go to the board questions from the board. Let's start with Dave V. Um well I you know I think that any most of the questions that I came up I think
have primarily been answered. um if um with the um indulgence of the rest of the board and perhaps uh I I would like I was thinking
that in my reading of Mike Shell's letter, there was uh another part of it that I wanted to hear a little more emphasis of. So I thought I would ask him if he was willing to do that. Um, but I don't know if that's stepping on
anyone's toes or not in terms of time uh to speak or whatever. >> I I believe you can ask uh follow-up questions. >> Yeah, you can ask give you the three minutes. >> So, Mike, if I'm wondering if you would
be willing to just there was a a portion of your letter that um Yeah. Yeah. And in your summary, you you didn't really mention this, but I thought I wanted to focus just on this portion of your letter of your letter that um
outlined some of the um uh obstacles or difficulties that that um and and in objections to uh that have been raised about um issues with respect
to um density and other concerns with respect to chapter 40b. Um so if you just could maybe there were maybe two three points and I don't remember what they were but you you did kind of had a little section talking about the difficulties that that um or
the the the constrictions under which we need to work with in in um reviewing 40B. >> Well um is this on? Is this on? Yeah. Okay. Uh I I I'm I'm reluctant to get too detailed here because uh although I
once had a license to practice, I'm not here as a lawyer. I don't presume to give you legal advice. Um you have a lawyer, they have a lawyer, and ultimately it's for them to say. Um what I what I did try to say it was this.
First of all, you've had a lot of legal advice from the public. um legal advice, most of which is coming without benefit of a license. Uh and if I um took the privilege of joining that crowd of
giving you legal advice without a license, um apologies. I do think and I did want to say there are and and you've heard it from Mr. Talimman basically that there are four areas where it is
appropriate for you to examine into the conditions of the project and to say um we we we have either it passes muster or we have a problem and legitimately we need to impose a condition or we need to
say no. And I outlined those four things. Um, and and I I I stand by that and I I'd be surprised if the lawyers object to that. With respect to some of the things I said about improper objections,
that was based on my desktop research as to areas where um generally speaking, it is not um appropriate or or it isn't legally um cognizable uh for either you or uh
the the housing appeals board or anybody else to say this is a reason to deny um the the the um uh to deny a permit. And again, really just trying to focus the
the the conversation mostly coming from here, not from you. >> Um so that's that if that answers your question, I'm glad. If not, I'm sorry. >> No, no, no. It it does. I because I I mean I I appreciate the history that you gave, but this was sort of not not so
much a history piece. It was another piece I wanted to put amps on. Thanks. >> Yeah. Thank you. Is that all you had, Dave? I >> That's all I have for now. Just if something comes up, Nikot. Thanks, Jenny. >> Um, Ed, >> I I don't have a question for the applicant, but could I ask Jay a
question? >> Sure. Um, Jay, um, I guess I'd like to know, has a friendly 40B ever been denied before in the state of Massachusetts?
Um, I'm trying to think of from my history of it. So, first of all, my guess is yes. And I'm trying to think if in my experience I've seen
um a select board sponsored friendly 40B through the lip program or otherwise be denied. And I I think probably yes, I have seen that before. Um, I think that
like any 40b, there's long odds to to denying things. Um but all the same rules apply and um whether or not what the select board did to work towards reaching
consensus with Penrose might have resulted in improvements to the project that might allow you to um uh express certain concerns regarding local um issues because they were all
kind of negotiated doesn't mean that you don't have the same jurisdiction to approve approve with conditions or deny. So you're there's nothing binding, but there's certainly at the very least a very there would be a very slim history
of that occurring. And as a followup, have any project friendly 40bs that have been denied uh not been overturned? >> Well, I I'm not a I'm certain I can
state a little more confidently, although not with a 100% certainty, that that has not occurred. So if if it's been well let let me back up. You mean if there's been a denial of a
friendly 40B and an applicant then appealed. >> Correct. >> So my guess if that has occurred and again I haven't been party to any of those that have reached that kind of litigation. The overwhelming odds is that they were
reversed, but not necessarily because they were a friendly 40b, but more because the housing appeals committee reverses almost every deny that comes before
them. Sometimes there are projects that are reversed maybe on a procedural ground or something like that. But in terms of being overturned on the merits, I mean, I've been doing this for close
to 30 years and I can count on one hand the number of projects that I've worked on where there um hasn't been a reversal. So, um I think that almost in every
instance denials face long odds of being upheld at the housing appeals committee and even in the courts beyond it. >> Okay. And and if we weren't able to reach an agreement with Penrose and say we denied it um and
it goes to the appeals board, do they do they have the right to go back to their original plan? and do we then know how don't have any input as far as conditions or uh are they able to or will it be remanded back to us to uh to
to try and work something out? >> So two things there and um one is a practice tip and one is kind of um more of a legal process question. First, I think it's incumbent upon this board,
and I think this board should and I think Penrose should decide which project is their application. As a town council for a lot of towns under 40B, when someone is doing a proposed revision to a project, my
practice is to universally say, well, it's got to be one or the other. either commit to the new project or commit to the old one, but we don't deal in whatifs and hypotheticals. So, I think it is well within your right
to say which is your project, which is the one you're doing, that is the one we're going to evaluate. And cuz I don't cuz I've been involved in situations where boards didn't do that. And an applicant is saying, "Well, we always reserved our right to go back
to the original project." And that to me is not a place where we want to be because very often the original project is a worse project. So I think you as a board should ask Penrose and I think Penrose should tell you which is the project. I think that there's a lot to
be said for the improvements that they made. There's obviously a critique about some of the um the new the elements of the new project too, but I think you should know what project is before you and that should be the project. There
should only be one. As to the second issue, normally when the housing appeals committee makes a decision, they are going to and if it's to overturn a board's denial, they aren't
going to remand it back. In the courts, we see that more frequently under chapter 4A, but we very, very rarely see that under chapter 4. Very rare. >> Okay. Thank you. Welcome,
>> Paul. >> I guess I'll ask I'll ask the question. Is this the project that you want us to go forward with? >> Uh, the answer is you want to answer too. I mean, >> yes. >> This is this is the >> the old project is off the table and
this is the project that we're now dealing with. Correct. >> This is the project that's on the table. If I could also though, just to add to what Jay said as far as conditions to Mr. Actton's question. I am familiar with a case in Dennis many many years ago where it was either in I think it
was a denial where the board had discussed a lot of conditions. They talked a lot about them in the decision. They denied it anyway. When hack overturned it, they overturned it. They approved it. Those conditions went away. And so there that's an and that's a project that was built on on north side
of 6A and Dennis probably 20 odd years ago. Um, so yes, this is the project depending on whether you voted no or voted with conditions, how an appeal was happened, you know, the conditions I think and I don't want to step on Jay's toes, but that's my knowledge of one of
those cases. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, at our last hearing, we had some discussion uh which seemed to to take uh take you by surprise a little bit about the question of maintenance of the bike path uh wintertime and so forth uh and the uh
status of the bike path. Uh, do I understand now that what you're proposing is that you're going to maintain the bike path from the point where it has entered from your property down to uh route 28.
There's there's a I have a legal respon so you're asking a legal question. I'll I'm going to hit you with a legal question back or when there is a sidewalk. So, for example, the portion of the side the portion of the sidewalk that um Penrose will be building and you
know to loop from the crosswalk to the crosswalk on the east side of meeting house that becomes it's in the town layout that becomes part of the town infrastructure. The town is responsible. A private citizen doesn't maintain town infrastructure.
The path down to where it hits the bike trail is absolutely Penrose's responsibility. They own it. They're liable for it. They ensure it. It's theirs. Once you get to the bike path, the short section from, you know, where their path hits to 137,
you know, you know, Rio might be able to say, "Yeah, well, we can we can plow it when for our residents to get down there." But I don't know if they even can. I mean, that's it's a you know, it's not their property. It's town property. It's the town's responsibility. So, I don't
have a I I you know, I'll turn to Jay on that, but I don't have, you know, from a legal point of view, it's not as simple as just saying yes or no in my opinion. >> Well, doesn't that just take us back to the issue that we had before, which is that in the wintertime at least, the bike path is not maintained, at least
that I'm aware of. It's not plowed. Right. >> Um, so how are your residents going to get from where they exit the property that you're proposing here onto the bike path and down the bike path to Route 137?
>> I'd ask you the same question in reverse. If you went with the option, forgetting the cost and all the problems that Mr. Durk mentioned if there was a sidewalk in Route 137, no matter who built it, if a sidewalk was on 137 that went down to connect up, let me ask you,
a town sidewalk in the town layout, who would be maintaining it in the winter? >> Well, I think it's the same question. >> I don't have I don't have that answer, but but you need to have an answer. >> Well, I Well, we're talking to the PE. I mean, you know, the building commissioner is here. Town council's
here. I mean, we we'd have to we could speak to the town administrator, you know, but that question is the same question no matter where the sidewalk is. Is I guess my point is yeah, wherever the path or sidewalk is, your question is the same question. >> I think Mr. Telman, C can you answer
that? >> Not sure I can answer it fully because I don't know about the process by which the the path itself was created. M >> I think that there could be a difference and I'm not this isn't to debate or
disagree with Mr. Singer. I think sidewalks are can be different than these bike paths. Sidewalks are generally part of a public way and the sidewalks are generally part of an accepted public way and there is generally an acknowledged requirement
that as part of that the towns are going to keep sidewalks clear. I don't know. And I think it may be worth looking into by Penrose or our DPW or whoever is responsible for creating that bike path because it's not part of a public way.
It is a public amenity, but it's not necessarily subject to the same requirements that a town may have with respect to keeping a sidewalk clear. So, it may be uh subject to those, but it may not be. So I think the
history I think it may be worthwhile to at our next session to have a little bit of historical or benefit of the historical record with respect to that bike path and we could look at that in between sessions too to see exactly how
it was created and what the expectations were or the requirements were for keeping it clear during adverse weather conditions. There may be no requirements at all, but there may be requirements. And to that point, I think that may help
Paul with his with his question in terms of where do we go from here if that's viewed as something that may be an essential component for pedestrian access 12 months a year. Well, it seems to me that that's
certainly a safety issue that would be of concern to us and we would need a resolution of it prior to any approval. >> So, I expect that you'll probably be able to address that somewhat at least at the next measure. >> Yeah, I think, you know, I'd be happy to connect and and meet with DPW
um post this meeting. I will say I feel really strongly that that should be uh a town um maintenance uh issue because uh you know for example uh the milliondoll home uh developments
that we've seen here, they get their streets plowed, they get their sidewalks plowed, uh they get their trash removed. Um none of which we're getting in our project. So now we're asking you're asking for an additional burden for us
to go and u do maintenance on on town ways the the bike path at the cost of the affordable housing project um which I I I feel is uh is is a burden that's unfair.
Uh there'll be residents of the town too which also deserve town services. >> All right. Well, I understand I understand your position. I guess all I'm saying is that we're going to need to have that resolved before we're going to be able to approve your application
to use that access as your primary access for pedestrians to get down to uh Route 137 and to 28. >> All of which is key to getting approval here. I think >> as Rio said, we'll reach out. I know
we're going to be continued to a date in July and we will reach out to DPW. Thank you. Um I would like to have you address at some point here. Uh not necessarily today, but uh we've got we had a number of issues that
we dealt with on Main Street that we resolved favorably from our viewpoint that I'm not sure are included here and I just want to see if uh what the situation is. For instance, the storage units uh on Main Street we requested be
enlarged and be provide for at least the storage of one uh adult bike. I don't know whether that's the case under what you've got proposed here. Secondly, um with respect to trees, we
requested an increase in the size of some trees that were near the entrance to the main street proposal uh to be not less than 4.5 in in caliber. And um I would like to see the
same condition be true with respect to the trees that are the entrance way from the uh driveway uh on uh 137 going up to the uh uh project.
Um thirdly, um we'd like to see a perspective uh of what this project will look like from the road so that we have an idea of people entering town. What will they be seeing as they drive past
on Route 137? Uh are we going to be seeing a lot of buildings, tall buildings? What kind of buildings? How much of that is going to be uh obscured by road by trees if any? Um we had a good deal of uh discussion
about the exterior of the buildings on Main Street and I'm not sure I've heard what the materials will be for that. Um the uh construction at NSET Green has been an issue uh with respect to uh some
uh residents. David Ferrell being one of them. And um I went back up to NSET Green two days ago to take another look at NSET Green and uh frankly did not see a problem with respect to the maintenance of the of the buildings that
were there. Uh it seemed to be wellmaintained but um if if that is continuing to be an issue, presumably we need to hear about it from uh the public. Um, we suggested that an
irrigation system be provided on Main Street and I don't know that there's an irrigation system included in this project, but we would need to address what happens with that. And uh the uh
parking ratio has been an issue for a number of us. Um and the question is whether 67 spaces is is sufficient. Um, and I think one thing that would help, I'm not sure you've provided it, is what is the parking ratio at NSA Green
because then we can see a uh a development that has been done and which we can see how the parking looks uh on a project that's actually been there for a number of years. Um those are some of the questions that I
had uh that could be uh included and uh the question which was raised earlier about generators is certainly one that's current uh here and uh I guess we'd like to know uh if generators are going to be provided if they're not going to be
provided why not. >> Sure. Um understood about the generators. um we we circled up earlier and that we don't have generators currently in the plan here. That's something we we actually do
have with a lot of our projects, but it's usually projects with the community building like we had at Main Street. Um so we'll look into maybe seeing the feasibility of adding one to the maintenance office space building here.
And then going back to um the parking spaces ratio. So, village in Nasa Green is 1.55 spaces. Um, fair in Orleans is 1.19. Uh, Swift's Landing in Wearham is 1.38
spaces per unit. Main Street here, Chadam was 1.31. This project has a higher ratio than all of them. It's at 1.6. >> And and also, Mr. Temple, I understand um this this is a chart that I believe
was handed in at the last meeting, so it should be part of the public record where it compares them all. >> Any more questions, Paul? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, Dave Nixon. >> Yeah, Paul, did you want those that the
views four seasons? Three, two, or one? H okay. Um I'm involved in a commercial building in the city of Newton here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Uh the city of Newton uh the tax situation
is a little different is around here. If you've got a commercial building, you pay 140% of the tax rate, which is one way to give people with a single family home a break and all that, but they won't collect your trash and
they won't plow your sidewalk and it's up to you. And if you don't do it, they give you two days and then they find you. So you you you're talking about I I don't know what you know cuz we we don't do that
around here but it could be done. So it's not a good excuse I don't think just to say well I don't know or it's the town's responsibility. I don't know. All I know is uh that property that we're talking
about, the rail trail, that portion uh became owned by town of Chadam in 1967. I don't know, Mr. Singer, what led to it. I don't know. I mean, the railroad was long gone. Railroad last ran in 1937. So, been a long time between those
two. And since that time, I don't know. Um I I have uh a number of questions. which I'm not going to um bring up today, but it has to do with the specific buildings. I'll write them
out and Mr. Singer, I'll submit them to you so you have them in advance. It has to do with um what's in them and so forth, you know, but I'll just leave it at that. So, just expect that from me. Okay. Okay, that's it.
>> Thank you, Mr. Nixon. Um, Steve, >> um, one of the buildings that you mentioned is a maintenance building. Is that going to be is it is there going to be somebody there all the time? Um, and and what kind of maintenance are they
going to be expected to do? So, there will be one full-time maintenance director and likely sharing a maintenance tech with uh Main Street and Fair and some of the other
surrounding properties. Um they do a lot of things there. Um uh general property upkeep, paint touchup. Um they do uh turns uh or or um repairs in units like clogged sink stuff
like that. They also um do the shoveling of the interior um interior sidewalks. Um water watering if we didn't have an ir if we don't have an irrigation system
they would do watering. They also um do the unit turns when the unit becomes vacant. somebody moves out, they go in, paint, make all the repairs, change the carpet, flooring. Um, and and usually, and for this one, uh, maintenance
director would be on call, uh, 24/7. In the maintenance shop, it's really like two rooms. The maintenance shed, there's, uh, like a work area, um, where they would have their tools and some benches to do whatever type of repairs.
And then there's usually another um storage room which is like uh parts inventory, you know, maybe bags of salt, also uh additional um window shutters or or anything that breaks and is need of
constant replacement. We usually have a large inventory of products that we keep um post construction period. You know, the stuff we buy, we'll buy extras and keep them there so they're handy when they need to be replaced. So that's that's what's going on in there. It's
not it's not occupiable space for for living in I don't believe is there a restroom in it? Yeah. So there there's no restroom. >> Okay. So what's the mechanism if something is beyond their ability um
you know as as drastic as some storm damage or something? Do you have folks that are on call that can come out and that you employ or what what's the mechanism for making a a a major repair that's not that's beyond the ability of
the person who's there? >> Yeah, that that happens all the time. We have national contracts with large um disaster service. Um, we we'll also have um contracts with local like like for
example there was a um kitchen fire uh in a property um a couple months ago and um I forget the name we there's one vendor that works we work with all over the northeast that you know they come in and
they do the whole repair in a day and because it's a sort of above and beyond what one or maybe two maintenance techs would be expected to do. >> Um we'll also have um annual service contracts with landscapers,
um snow plowing, uh pest control. Um so there are there are third party servicesers that we'll have under contract um that do the scope of work that's outside of what uh typical
maintenance director would handle. Um, back to the use of the rail trail. It sounds like there's going to be some discussion about the maintenance of it, but the
path that you have from your property leading down to the rail trail is lit. Um, what happens once you get to the rail trail? proposing any kind of lighting along there to get out to 137 or they're
just going to walk into a dark hole? >> We have not currently proposed any lighting along the rail trail. >> Okay. So, okay. Maybe you should consider some alternate then because that's not a good
idea. >> Mr. Dbor, just note that if it was a sidewalk, it wouldn't be lit either. I know we'll we'll follow up with the time. >> I understand, but you're you're treating you're sort of annexing this uh and making it part of your infrastructure. And I would think
>> No, that that's not true. It's it's town infrastructure that we want our residents to have access to just like anybody else in Chadam has access to. >> You're treating it as if it's your own. You're you know. >> No, that's not true at We're treating it as a sidewalk
in the public which is publicly owned >> for under its own rules pedestrians and bicycle traffic. >> Okay. Um, is there any discussion on where um a bus stop might be or for a school bus
stop might be or are you proposing that the school the buses go onto the property or are you thinking that they're going to be uh picked up elsewhere? Uh regulator for the record um as um um
Jeff Dirks said uh we're providing a bus stop at the intersection of the driveway and uh meeting house. Um if the bus doesn't want to stop there, then the first thing you do is you normally coordinate with the school committee and
>> figure out uh what what is acceptable. It's very rare and I think I heard at a previous hearing for a um you know municipal bus system to come into a a development and and pick people up inside um for for a number of reasons
liability I think being the the main one. So there would be a bus stop there at that location. That is the plan. That is pretty standard uh to provide that and then to coordinate with the school committee and the SC the providers to say okay this is where we're going to
have kids and a lot of them or depending on how many you're going to have and this is a good place to pick them up. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you >> Lee. Okay. Thank you Madam Chair. Um so
I am going to follow up with um Mr. Simple's question regarding the bike path and um who maintains it and I have a suggestion um the path that comes down from your
property that then um accesses the bike path that will be lit that will be plowed I'm assuming shoveled so that people can access it at any time night or day snow or no snow. Um, my
suggestion is that you seriously consider and really look into extending that path along the bike path to the point where it comes to the doctor's
offic's um property line. there's a little, you know, jut out >> that would that would be um less expensive than making a sidewalk along 137. It would be safer than a sidewalk
along 137, I would say. And if you could extend it, it's probably what did we say? 120 ft. I'm sorry. >> To do to doctor's property line. >> Is this the property line you're talking about? >> Yeah, that's the property line I'm talking about.
So extended along that side. I don't know what you have to do with the fence that's there along the bike path. Um and you maintain that and you light that.
They get to the doctor's property line and you are essentially at the crosswalk. It is maybe another 20 ft. I'm ex I'm suggesting that because I think it is um a better option for the
residents. I think that if it's on your property and it it's part of your path, you maintain it, that solves that problem. And I also think that by the time you get to the property line for the
doctor's property, you are at a point where the bikes have to slow down. They're about to cross a main street. There's the flashing, you know, crosswalk signals. The bikes have
to slow down if they are coming from, you know, down the bike path and crossing 137. And if they're crossing 137, they're just getting going. It's a safer little section of the bike path.
Um, it's it's not a horrible place for a sidewalk. It's going to take a little bit of or a walkway, whatever you want to call it. It's going to take a little bit of grading. Um, but I would really encourage you guys to go take a look at
it. maybe you have and see if there is any way that you can extend it so that it comes down. And I'd also like to request that you look at adding another entrance from the property onto the walking path, maybe over near the second
dumpster or something. Um, or whatever you think is better. I mean, that's it's a long path. That's a long way for people to walk to get down to 28 where they will either walk to the ice cream
store or walk or flag down the bus. Um because I don't think any buses are going to be coming down meeting house road. I think you have to get to 28 to get a bus. So that would be my major um request and
major concern regarding people exiting that property on foot. Um >> that's all I have to say. >> Yeah, we will look at that. >> Yeah, can't answer it today, but we we heard them both. >> Yeah, I've been out there several times.
the second access you were, >> you know, maybe by the second dumpster >> by building seven. She's just >> Oh, >> just just a little another entrance or make that the main entrance. >> The main entrance >> referring to >> you can't I think it was a ADA issue there.
>> You can't meet uh ADA accessibility. Sorry. >> You can't you can't get up to that grade and we we did look at that a lot. Now, you could have a second area with some steps. >> Okay. >> So, you probably do that. >> Okay. Well, that's that's a definite that's a thought. It was just um it hap
where where you access the walking path is a pretty busy that's that's where all the cars come up. That's a pretty busy area. Um to have another access even if it's just by steps, I think that would be fantastic. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, I have a couple of questions um in no particular order. Um Mark, you um had talked about an extensive landscape plan and um the area in the front that sort
of green triangle that's between the bike the bike path and meetinghouse road is very I think you called it um or someone called it a kettle you know kettle pond you know an old one. So right now it has a lot of you know broken branches, trees down, debris.
Will that all be part of a cleanup even though you're not going to be disturbing and replanting vegetation necessarily in there? At least it didn't look like it to me. Um would that be left completely natural or will there be uh some things
uh called from there? Uh landscaping wise, >> uh the intent is to leave it as is and preserve the existing buffer. >> How about the trees that are broken? I know some of them might have even happened in this most recent storm, but there was a lot of um you know really uh
messy debris actually in there. Ju just you know from the forest over time. Some beautiful trees too. Uh but some of that is any of that cleanup in that area proposed? I >> it's no we're preserving the existing
habitat and the existing vegetation. >> Okay. which which also aids to the visual buffer um that there's been concern about. >> Yeah, I I wasn't really proposing removal of any trees, but really just um the cleanup of some of them so that that it they can flourish and um there are
some really beautiful trees in there that could be um you know just more even more signature if it was they're a little more visible. Okay. Um, Rio, a couple of meetings ago, maybe the last one, you had I think Mr. Nixon had
asked the question about studios. Okay, I'm going to be more specific. There's, you know, it's a that's called a zerob unit. Okay. Because, uh, but you you know, this still provides housing and I don't remember you, you had a reason for
why that wasn't part of the Penrose proposal. Um I I think it had something to do with the state didn't offer credits to Penrose for those. Could you just repeat that for my >> Is that what it was? >> Yes, that's that's correct. I mean I I
wouldn't go so far as saying they won't um because there have been instances, but it's usually not brand new construction. It's usually for existing properties that have already had studios. The state does not like studios. um they think that they're substandard from what that should be
built for affordable housing which is one bedrooms, two bedrooms and threes. In fact, our unit mix is based on specific ratios that were um under the EO, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities um requirements for the type
of funding programs that you need to get this type of project funded, >> which is why we have a very specific distribution of three bedrooms, two bedrooms, and one bedroom specific ratios to comply uh with what the state is looking for and make the
most competitive and most likely to be awarded the scarce resources that are overs subscribed. >> Okay. But it would a studio apartment, zerobedroom apartment would still count towards the number that we're striving for in town, increased affordable
housing. It the state doesn't prefer them. >> Say it. >> Yeah, I believe it. >> Okay. So there they're just an option Penrose chose not to pursue. It's not that it wouldn't very good reason because we don't like, you know,
bitching developments to the state that aren't what they're looking for and that they may think are substandard. >> Okay. Um I think this is a comment maybe for you, Mr. Singer, or for Jay Tolerant to add to Paul's question about the
legal question was um just what was this was one of the questions Mr. Singer I asked earlier on and it was while Mr. Durk was on the line and it really wasn't for him. It's more of a legal question. Just to confirm what what is the legal mechanism that authorizes the
connection to the rail trail? >> My understanding from Yeah. Well, I'll let Rich answer. He's the one who told me. >> Okay. >> Uh it's short answer is like a driveway permit. So you're act you have physical
access. You don't need an easement to get there. You're going right up to the edge. You need an entrance permit from the town. >> From the town. Okay. An entrance permit. >> Local uh to similar to the driveway if you're putting a driveway to a public street. >> So, you don't need an easement. You just
need that permit. Okay. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Rio, probably this is a question for you. The um I I I just came across a statistic. It didn't surprise me, but I I just uh thought about it in the
context of a proposal, which is why I was asking about the studios. Um that 48% of Chattam residents are greater than 64 years old. You know, we've been talking about affordable housing in the context of families and children in schools, but but that's also um a a
subset of of of applicants for for this project potentially. Um, so I know that or I recall you mentioning there were five ADA units in the proposal, right? >> There are ADA. It's a specific ratio per
code. Paul, maybe you can help identify the exact number. If it's five, >> I was hoping I could say something tonight. >> Oh, good. Okay. Well, now you can. >> Atman with Union Studio Architecture and Community Design. All of the ground floor units are rollin accessible
compliant with mass accessibility rules. That's a group one or group two and group two way units. >> Okay. >> There's I think I haven't done the calculation but it's probably about good 14 to 18 apartments. Okay,
>> that are ground floor onef flooror living units. Okay. >> So that is a very good ratio um in this development really steered by housing of livable communities their requirements as well as state building code
>> 14 to 18 units um with no stairs. Is that what you're saying? Okay. All right. Um that's all I had. Thank you. >> Jay, I'm sorry. >> A followup. And to follow up, there was a question about bike storage. With this new maintenance storage accessory
structure, there is a covered bike storage that's in your plans. It's part of the uh floor plan of the maintenance storage building. So, we submitted for 24 bicycles. We did not have that previously. So, that's a big plus. >> That's within that maintenance shed. >> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you for adding that. Uh looks like Jay had his hand up. Jay Taliban. >> Yeah. So, two things about what we just heard about the the permit that might be required for kind of that making it akin to like a street opening permit or
driveway permit. First of all, um if it is a permit, and I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that, then this board would have the authority to to grant it under 40B. Second, um I think
it's still necessary to do run the history, which I think Rio has suggested that they're going to do in between sessions of this particular bike path because I don't think the question is that simple. It may end up being a nothing burger and that they have the
right to connect and this board can approve it if they're otherwise satisfied with some of the issues that Paul raised and others have raised. But I still think that it may be very specific because there's not a lot of
law that's specific to it. It's a public amenity. That doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be treated the exact same way as a roadway for the purposes of permitting. There could be other restrictions on it. I doubt it um
just having done a bunch of this work. But I think it is an important that we run down the history of it so that we understand it a little bit better. It may not require a permit at all. >> Um provided that we have that the um Penrose has the rights to connect to it,
but it it's possible that we may have to fashion some kind of process here. So I think it's worthwhile doing the work in between sessions and then um taking the next steps later. >> Okay. Thank you, Jay. So we'll add that Mr. Singer to the followup. Okay. All
right. Any more questions, comments from the board? Dave Dave Vich, you said maybe you'd have some at the >> Oh, I guess the only thing that that I that ran through my mind was um and I was looking at the drawings and I didn't see I I wondered I relative to what
Steve Buckley had commented on there is I don't see like a planned shelter type bus shelter thing down at the end of the driveway. Is that uh contemplated or or not? We we don't
>> Yeah, we don't show one. Um I guess that's something we'll think about. We do have one in village and nasa green. Maybe something similar. >> Um we'll look into it. >> Yeah, we'll look at that.
>> All right. Thank you. Ed, did you have something? >> Um are we uh is there going to be a comment se session or is this there was a question section. Is there >> questions and comments? >> No comments. Okay. Um, so
I spent some time out on the property and um, originally I was I was very adamant about, you know, having a sidewalk along Meeting House Road, but when I spent time out there and there is significant grading issues
and the there is a significant amount of traffic along Meeting House and and I think of kids and roughousing and playing. I do think a the sidewalk idea of using the rail trail is is a good idea or even better maybe
something next to it. My concern about next to it is and we run into this in the ZBAA all the time is you have a paved area but then the easement sometimes is much larger than that. So I don't know what the size of the easement is here but the easement for that rail
trail may go far into the property. We don't know. So there there may be even it may be really difficult to do that. Um and also I've spent a lot of time on the the rail trail >> and you know depending on the time of the year, depending on the hours of the
day, depending on where you are on it, um the amount of traffic varies, but I in general I'd say there's there's more people walking than biking on this on this trail. And then you also
have to remember um it changes. So, you know, during the school year, Monday through Friday, I don't typically see a lot of traffic on the on the rail trail. On the weekends, it picks up quite a bit. On the
summertime, the dynamics change again where you'll have bicycles, you'll have people walking and and it picks up, but then again, that's not during the school year also. So we have a lot of concern about children and rightly so. But
just you know we should put some thought into the usage of the rail trail. From what I see you know it's weekends where it's get its most use in the summertime and uh you know we're we're concerned about you know accidents.
There is a speed limit that people are supposed to follow and um they do allow electric bikes, but they're supposed to be at a at a reduced speed, but you know, generally Monday through Friday, not in the summertime,
not a lot of people out there with me. So, >> um I'm thinking instead of along Meeting House Road, it it might be better. I mean, it would be wonderful perhaps if we could get an easement on their property uh along there, but um some of
my concerns about the rail trail are are alleviated or I think it may be a better idea than a sidewalk along Meeting House, right? >> Meeting House. Yeah. >> Yeah, >> that's my two cents. >> All right. Anyone else have comments that they didn't add before in addition
to questions? No. Okay. All right. So, Mr. Oh, >> uh, I do need to know does is the board going to be looking for any additional peer review based on the new plans because all of our peer review was done on the old set of plans as far as storm
water and everything. So, that's a question I have for the board because we'll need to start that process if you choose that you feel you need more peer review. Does anybody have thoughts on that? >> Are we talking about the uh addition of
the extra driveway and the >> 87 >> primarily that change? >> So the the plan that the board is now reviewing, the new plan which includes zero and 87 meeting house is different than what Tai and Bond had reviewed
previously. Um I'm not sure what changed for storm water. Maybe uh the engineer can speak to that. Um and then the board can decide whether they feel it's necessary. >> Yeah. Uh and I mentioned this in my
initial remarks. Um and as the professional engineer, I stamped this drawing. Uh I could certify that our um that our design meets the peerreview comments from the previous one. and the board of professional engineers take my license away if that's not true.
So if that if that matters to you that's fine. Uh but if you want to do the peer review, we'll do that as well. >> Okay. So Dave Beach. >> So I'm just trying to now I'm going memory here. So there was the engineering peer review. Uh the um they
had the traffic peer review as well. Um were those what else? What's that? >> Planning board plan. >> No, no, >> it was it was just tra civil and traffic. >> Civil and traffic. And so I'm And then
we did weigh in on the new plan with respect to the sidewalk. And I I think what we're being at least it appears all appearances are that the new driveway configuration is actually better probably from all of those st. So I I
don't think we would I don't think we need to be asking to see another peer review on traffic necessarily. >> I'm not sure about engineering, but I think we've just been assured that there's multiple hoops they have to jump through and standards to meet. So I'm
not sure we need them. >> Okay, Jay Talerman, I see we see that your hand is >> Yeah. And and I'm not trying to create more work for anyone. I I do think that if you know given some of the changes in the imperous portions of the property
that it may be a good idea at least to um have some very limited update on the um civil engineering peer review at least from a storm water management perspective. I'm not trying to create extra work for anyone or unduly tax the
applicant with the cost for that. But when you're changing the the the scope and the the nature of all the impervious area on the site, I think it's worth checking that box by our peerreview consultant. I don't think it would be particularly ownorous or time consuming
for them to confer with a horsely whitten and just kind of tie tie that all up in a nice neat boat. >> Yeah, I think I agree. I think that's a great idea, Jay. Um, you know, we have a lot of sloping photograph uh topography
there and the comment about the storm water, you know, that's I think that's really applicable on that site. Um, okay. Any any other All right. So, Mr. Singer, I guess we'll talk about the next we want to continue. Did you have
anything you wanted to >> Yeah. Well, I was say we'll f Rich will follow up with time and bond. So, we'll we'll we'll close that down. Um, yeah. uh continue unless you wanted to close and approve the project today. We'll ask you to continue to the next meeting.
>> Uh we are proposing to continue to we have a date to throw out July 17 I mean 16th 100 p.m. is what we can do. >> Is that >> that's fine. >> All right. So that's July 16th 1 p.m. we'll continue.
>> All right. So we just need a roll call. We we need a motion to continue to July 16th at 1 p.m. >> All right. >> I'll move to uh I'll move to continue the hearing to July 16, 2026 at 1 p.m.
>> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay. And then I think we just need a roll call vote to end the meeting. >> Move. Move to motion to adjourn. Okay. I'll move to adjurnn.
>> David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> It is 4:27 p.m. >> Okay.