Yeah, right. Welcome everybody. It is November 13, 2025 and please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly after for rescheduled on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. This
is the um zoning board of appeals in the town of Chadam. If anyone is recording the meeting, including the use of a AI note takingaking apps, please notify the chair. That's new. Anybody? Nope. Okay.
Pursuant to Governor Hilly's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the act of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency until June 30th, 2027 regarding open meeting law. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals
is being conducted both in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided far in the order. A reminder, anyone would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may call
158-9454410 conference ID651 816755 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams link posted in the agenda. This is a live broadcast and simalcast on Cadam TV Xfinity Chap
channel 1072, but despite our be best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. However, we'll post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or
business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. And that would not apply to our Main Street um portion of this, which we're going to start with because that is a public hearing that's already closed.
And um I'll get to that in a moment. The way procedural steps are as follows. We do a roll call vote of all board members. Then we ask if anyone is online uh by or by the phone, just make sure
that we can identify you. Um so Main Street, the board will continue. We will continue our deliberations. No public comment will be allowed. And then when we get to meeting house road, the following procedure will take place. Hearing notice will be read by staff.
Sarah Clark on my right. You your representative in this uh case um Penrose will um rep present first. I will read or summarize all letters received by the board. And I just want
to point out that we're we're going not going back. We never meant to leave our uh rule that all letters should be one page at 11 font and anything longer than that will not be read. So we've had that
rule and we've kind of strayed from it a little bit, but we're going back to that. So um that will apply today as well. Um I'll do the best I can to summarize. All right. Next, uh, anyone wishing to comment on the application may speak up
to three minutes and there's a clock as you know, and anyone uh, in the room first needs to be recognized um, followed by anyone online. The applicant may rebut written and oral comments.
Members of the board will ask questions and we'll vote to continue continue the application to a date certain. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment.
Okay, that being said, uh first we do the roll call. >> Uh David Hv, I approve of this format. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Paul C. Sample, I approve of this format. >> Lee Huby, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve.
>> Virginia Fick, I approve. Oh, and Randy Podash, I approve as well. We don't have any minutes to do right now, right? No. Okay. So, as I mentioned, we're going to start with um Main Street and we're going to continue our deliberations and I'm just going to give you a little bit
of a review to where we where we are. Um so, let's see. Last time, um Mr. V, David Vch, a voting member, he indicated that he is in favor of the project. And
um Ed Actton who's not here today, >> associate member indicated that he is also in favor and he sent a letter um just re reiterating what he uh said last time. I'm not going to read that but it
is online. We also heard from Lee Huby, associate member, and she is in support of the project. And now today we will continue with the rest of us and we're going to start with Paul simple in a second because what I I also want to say
something else. Um so since I think May we have negotiated certain conditions with Penrose and there's a whole list of them. I'm not going to go into details about them, but I'd like today for us to understand right now that these are
things that they've already that we've already agreed to and that we can work on and um achieve. First of all, there were building heights for all 10 buildings and we have come to an agreement about those. Next, we've come
to somewhat of an agreement, but maybe we need to deal with that um today. safety for crossing on Main Street. The police officer wrote a letter and Penrose um agreed to provide safe connection the best they can, but we all
know that at the end of the day, the state needs to provide permission for that. So, we might need to hammer that out a little bit, but we're essentially in agreement the best we can be right now. Trees and vegetation. Penrose is
very generous and continues to be about agreeing about all things trees. We've learned that and we um I feel very comfortable that not only will we have um several trees more than we had from the beginning, but also um in the event
that you know we have three votes, they'll also do irrigation with a well and we can we can work on the language of that. So then also let's see we have setbacks. We've we've agreed to
um substantial changes and setbacks the exterior of the buildings. Um we have uh talked about that and that doesn't seem to be like a big ticket issue. Then we have um let's see the management building at this
juncture. We have a management building that's half the size of what the original plan came in. So we have that much of an agreement as to that. Uh parking 1.52 spaces with a recent
agreement of every unit all 48 um having their own spot. And then resident amenities is probably an easy one to negotiate. Bike racks, gas grills, and we can deal with that later. So, I just want to go into the rest of these um
deliberations with the idea that these are things that probably could be worked out. But what I want to know is is this enough? So, I'm gonna ask Paul now, what do you what would your, you know, tendency be
towards a vote? And is there something else that you think you would need? Um, or very specific as to any of these or some, you know, what where are you, Paul? >> Okay. Um well let me first of all say uh thank
you to uh all the participants who have uh given us a lot of input both pro and con with respect to the uh proposal uh that's come from both uh neighbors uh on the Barn Hill Road area and Jesse's
Landing and also from other residents in town u all of whom have devoted a great deal of time and effort to giving us that input. Um this proposal was unanimously supported by the select board of the housing affordable housing trust. It's
the project that we've been given to work with. I think it's important to realize it is not some things. It is not for instance uh provide for home ownership. This provides for rental arrangement. So we don't have that option before us.
Um it also you should realize it is not necessarily housing for police, fire, teachers and so forth since their family income may be sufficient that they would not qualify for all of this housing. So
those things are things that we should realize are not part of it, but it will provide uh a needed affordable housing in shadow for a large workforce that we all depend upon. So, I'd like to review four aspects of the project uh that
we've dealt with in our due diligence in taking a look at the project. The four aspects are streetscape, uh landscaping, uh the crosswalk, and density. First of all, with the streetscape, this
is something that uh we tend to be very uh aware of on the zoning board because we deal with streetscape on almost every application and we're really trying to find out whether things will fit into the neighborhood uh based on a number of things. It's often very difficult
because we're dealing with architectural plans, site plans, and it's difficult to envision how that final thing is going to look. And there are times uh when we look back at what we've approved and say, "Geez, how did that get by us? That
isn't quite what we were hoping it would be." But uh so that's a reason why we try to look at these projects from that viewpoint. Also, with this PRA project, we're on Route 28, and we're on a a road that is traveled by 90% or more of the
Chattam residents who will not necessarily ever go into Buckley's uh prop property um will not necessarily be uh residents there. So, it's a property that is exposed to not only uh Chattam
residents, but also all the people that visit Chattam coming down Route 28. So as a result uh as you may recall in these hearings um we've looked at uh the village at Noset Green in Eastam which
was a project also done by Penrose and somewhat similar to what we're doing although on a different size uh property and I asked a series of questions over hearings because I did not understand how we were
going to end up with uh what was really deposed used as as the uh the result of our project. So uh I looked at photographs that were provided by uh one of the uh
people who uh gave us input based on the village of Noset Green. And uh I looked at the trees that were depicted in those uh photographs. And
in order to get some feeling for what we were looking at here, I measured the caliber of the trees that were there. And the caliber uh of the trees, which is basically the diameter, u was approximately in this case uh 7
in. uh in this case three in. So I had questions with uh the representatives from Penrose and uh with attorney Singer about the question of
what were we trying to do with the plantings that were going to be in front of the buildings on Route 28? And uh Attorney Singer uh corrected me by saying that we were not attempting to
hide the buildings, were attempting to decorate the site. And I think uh that that is in fact the case that we're not going to be hiding buildings. Um, we received a uh memo from uh Jeff
Dykens uh before our last meeting in which uh he said uh that our concerns about the streetscape and the tree sizes were overrot. Um, I thought about that. Um, I looked
at the situation and uh, I came to the conclusion that, uh, what he was politely saying is simple, get real. I mean, let's let's get your head going here. In fact, uh the neighborhood that we're
talking about is uh Ocean State Job Lot. It's Cream and Cone. It's Shop Hoy Plaza. It's Dunkin Donuts. It's several motel. All of which is true. Um we're trying to preserve the area with as much
as we can in terms of an attractive new project. But I think as a practical matter, we're going to see a new subdivision, a housing subdivision, and that we should expect to see that even though we will
try to do the best that we can in terms of the landscaping in front of it, but it's a needed subdivision. It's providing housing that we do need. So I think we need to in this case go beyond what we would normally accept perhaps in
streetscape and say okay uh that's where we're going to be. We'll do the best that we can. Perhaps we can increase the size of the diameter uh of the caliper and in some of these trees on the on the very front. Uh but I think to that
extent we're probably dealing with streetscape the way it is on landscaping. Um Ed Actton uh one of our members made the observation about two or three meetings ago that there was
a lot of green space shown on the plans. And he suggested that if there's going to be green space, he didn't see a well and he didn't see any irrigation. and he thought that that was necessary in order to provide the kind of
greenscape that we were looking at. The original design did not call for a well or irrigation. Um, and therefore they looked at that question and said, "Well, if you want to
have a well, uh, we'll put a well in." That was fine except that I then asked them to go back to the town and say, "Is this consistent with what you in fact want in the town given that we are trying to conserve our water and we're
underwater restrictions on a regular basis. Uh, as it turned out, they forgot to do that. And at the last meeting, uh, they talked about the irrigation system and the well as being perhaps temporary.
Um and then it seemed to be that they were scrambling a bit and uh I think we needed to have some further discussions with respect to that. Uh from my viewpoint, I would prefer not to have a will. It seems to me that we need to
consistently maintain a town position which would uh decrease the amount that we depend on wells. We should be using native species species and uh droughtresistant plants and attempting
to use irrigation or water only to establish the plants and not continue them on. So uh we can perhaps have some additional discussion about that. One thing that concerns me is that wells
which are are supplying uh water for landscaping are not subject to a lot of the restrictions that are applied to uh the rest of the town. For instance, we're not, as I understand it, uh restricted if you're out of well to the
kinds of uh watering on Tuesday or Wednesday and not doing it on other days. You're pretty much open to do whatever you want to in that line. But from my viewpoint, uh, we're all dealing with town water when we're dealing with the aquifer. That's where
our town water comes from. And therefore, I think I would prefer not to see a well. I would prefer to see water used to simply establish uh the new plantings that are coming in and then for them to take off on their own. But we can have that discussion in the
board. Uh, the crosswalk The crosswalk issue came up initially when Steve Buckley talked about the fact that when he was uh living in this area
at that property, it was common for children to play in the woods across the street. And uh he thought that there was a need for a crosswalk not only to deal with uh children going across to the uh property
across the street, but also because the sidewalk ends on that side of the of the road uh that goes all the way into Chattam. and uh therefore he thought it was important that we have a crosswalk uh an
additional crosswalk at the new property that we're establishing under this proposal. So as a result um Penrose has said yes we will put in a crosswalk if a crosswalk is allowed by
the state. It has to go through state approval and in order to get state approval there's going to need to be an advocacy by Penrose and by the town. Uh that kind of an advocacy may or may not
result in a crosswalk actually being established. So we then get I think to the second question and that is do we require a crosswalk regardless? In other words, if a crosswalk cannot be installed, do we find that we can't put the project
in? I don't think we need to go to that extreme. Where we're at is uh we have uh the possibility that people will be crossing the wall the road at that location and they may not have a
crosswalk that they're using. But on the other hand, if you look at the road uh route 28 from Dunkin Donuts down to Crawl Road, there's only one crosswalk in that entire space. And the only crosswalk that exists there is at the
cemetery just past Aguway going towards town. So when you think about it, it's possible for an awful lot of people who have been living in the south side of Route 28 to deal with the question of dealing with the road and having
children and educating them and educating the adults so that they do that safely. So I think if it's not possible to get a crosswalk additional crosswalk uh approved by the state that we can
deal with that and that we should deal with that and it should not be used to simply kill this project. The last issue that's that's sort of pending in this the elephant in the room is the question of density.
Um, I made the comment that perhaps at one point we were trying to put uh five pounds into a four pound box. And in the course of our hearings, we've done significant efforts to change the
project and to uh downsize it a bit uh in terms of the overall impact on the area. Building heights have been reduced. Setbacks with neighbors properties have been increased.
Plantings to screen the project from neighbors have been increased. The size of the community building has been reduced. Penrose has agreed to install an additional sidewalk or crosswalk and advocated for the state. A well has been
proposed for irrigation purposes if we accept it. Penrose has offered to paint the buildings different colors if we so desire. Parking spaces and dumpsters have been adjusted to respond to community comments. Lighting has been uh
devised to uh make a more attractive look and the sizes of trees along Route 28 uh have been increased. Additionally, we've put the project through uh peer review and it's been
through a number of different reviews uh at our request and expense. The community building has been reduced in size several times and there are some members who would like to see it eliminated completely.
Tracy Cannon, the director of the Cadam Housing Authority, has strongly recommended the community building based on her experience and the experience of other professionals. Um, I cannot see that there makes sense to
eliminate the building at this point. It does very little to decrease the amount of density on the site. It's been reduced in size. So the proposal as revised calls for a dense collection of buildings and this
frankly is the purpose of 40B and the uh affordable housing act. Reduction of the number of units from 48 to 42 will not significantly affect deting.
If density is the real issue, the reduction of units would have to be much greater. It would not be acceptable to Penrose and it would not be the proposal that's before us at all, which has been uh passed by the board of selectment and
the affordable housing trust. Several weeks ago, I voted against seeking an independent financial review of the Penrose Profama. It was apparent to me that Penrose would not accept someone else's interpretation
of their business and their proposal. The result would be that either Penrose would withdraw or it would appeal and the appeal could lead to litigation. Town council has advised that town
appeals in these situations are rarely successful. I thought at that time that we could successfully condition the existing proposal and there's no need for an appeal or litigation. In the course of my career as an
attorney, I've been involved in a lot of litigation. It rarely ends up in a situation where everyone is satisfied. So I support the existing Penrose application and in the question of density I support it at the level of 48
units. I do think that we need to have some conditions uh and we've talked about a few of them. Uh Randy has just mentioned a few, but uh
I think that in addition to the conditions that she's talked about, which we need to work on, we should also consider uh a provision which would allow for leases uh involving uh the uh units to allow for
parking of work vehicles of the type used by tradesmen uh to commute to work in in their work. For instance, pers who have vans, uh people like that who need to be able to use their parking uh somewhat for
commercial purposes, but really only to get back and forth to work. uh in looking at the housing at the village of Noset Green, it seemed to me that the uh mechanicals uh were placed in such a way that they seem to be
pretty obvious next to buildings. And that's in part because of the configuration of of the end of NSET green. But in terms of the mechanicals here, I think we should consider having mechanicals that uh meet not only meet setback requirements but also if
possible are out of sight. I think we talked about the question of whether there would be a requirement for town approval of any transfer of the comprehensive permit or approval by
Penrose and that that approval would be required in advance. I think we should continue to do that. Uh we've talked about local preference and the fact that uh both Penrose and the state and the town need to apply for a local
preference and get that from the state. Uh I think that should be a condition that we uh imply apply to this situation. So those are the areas that I think are
of concern. I would vote for approval based on those conditions being satisfied through a board discussion with Ben Rose. >> Thank you, Paul. Steve, you are up if you were voting.
>> Um, well, a lot of the the the things that come to my mind are similar to what uh Paul just sort of outlined. Um the issue of uh density has come up at almost every meeting that we've had since the beginning
and um there has been a lot of negotiation um early on and and maybe to the midpoint of of this project about setbacks and um in in in doing so and in increasing
those setbacks for the for the neighbors along along Jesse's Landing and Barnhill Barn Barnhill. Um in in doing so, we then compressed the buildings towards the center of the property
and doing that um cost us I think some amenities, some green space. The parking lot parking was reduced um and the buildings just seem to get closer. Density, I think, can be
measured in a couple of different ways. You know, the number of buildings on the property, the number of people on the property, or the proximity of the buildings to each other. And I think all of that got compressed and and we lost
some of the green space that I think is going to be important to these folks. And I think Paul made an analogy a couple meetings ago and maybe even just said it now. It's it was like trying to to force five pounds of material in a
four pound bag. And I I think that sort of applies here. So, I wouldn't be opposed really to um seeing maybe one of the residency buildings removed or even the
administration building removed so that um that green space in the center of the property could be enlarged and more amenities be made for the folks that are living there. The function of the administration building could be maybe be moved into one of the um adjoining
buildings along Route 28. some office space could be carved out of one of those buildings. Um, and I think, you know, that would maybe even uh incorporate some reconfiguration of the buildings and and how they're they're located on the
property to to just relieve some of that compression of of everything into the central spot. Um the more green space would also I think allow more amenities for the folks that are living there. If if you look at these buildings, there's no private
space or personal space. There's no decks, there's no patios, there's no balconies, there's no place for these folks to go except in the green space. And you know, if you're a kid, there's it's probably a pretty good idea because there's a playground and things there,
but there's nothing for the adults. So, you know, I don't know if if by having more green space, there could be something done with that with that area. Um, some gathering areas, some park benches, some places for people to to to mingle. Um, you know, there's a barbecue
pit, but I you know, I don't know if there's you're going to need a reservation to use the barbecue pit. It might be harder to to get a reservation there than at Delmare. I'm not sure. So, um you know, I I think those um adult amenities need to be expanded
uh in some way and and and possibly by removing a building, you might have more space to do that. The vegetation uh Paul touched on. Um I I know that uh Penrose has committed to
protecting the the mature trees that are on site, but we really need to make sure that that happens and there should be some sort of substantial mitigation if if those trees are harmed. Um and and those trees should be replaced by
um a substantial amount of of greenery if if those trees are harmed. I' I'd like to see the larger caliber trees o around the entire property. Um I don't think anybody here wants to wait five or 10 years to to see a little sapling grow
into something that um that looks good for the on the property. The um something else that that uh happens is the conservation commission often when they have um um large mitigation um requirements is
to uh require a two to threeyear monitoring period that whatever is planted survives and if it doesn't survive that it be replaced immediately. Um so I think we should be looking at something like that. I know there's there's talk of a well, but
someone's got to maintain these. And if they aren't maintained properly, um then I think there should be some sort of um work done to to uh to preserve what gets initially planted.
Um the traffic. Um I'm all in favor of the u the crosswalk. However, I'm not overly hopeful that we're going to get it. I know it's kind of out of Penrose's uh control and it has to do a lot with Masot, but I'm wondering if since
there's already a crosswalk uh by the Dunkin Donuts if they're going to allow another one that's within 150 ft or 200 feet of of an existing crosswalk. I would like to see one there at the easterly um end of the property.
Um, it would be a nice to have, I think. Um, I think a lot of these people, um, from what I understand, don't have cars, so they're going to be using CCRT or some kind of, uh, uh, mass transportation or Ubers or something. They're going to have to cross Route 28
at some point. Um, and I think it's that could be a safety issue, and I don't know if they're going to walk down to Dunkin Donuts to do it. Um, and um, from looking at the drawings, I I don't know why I didn't bring this up
earlier, but I also thought that maybe um, a one lane uh, or one-way road along the around the property would might be helpful. I know the fire department requires a certain width of the road, but um you the the two-way traffic could
be reduced to one way and the road may be um cut down to maybe one and a half times the or excuse me, threequarters of the size that it is now. Um, again, uh, allowing more space for for the green space in the interior of the property
and maybe making it a little safer for people to cross the road to get to the green space. Um, I think that's probably it for now. Um, if I would really like to see some consideration given to some of these
thoughts, the thoughts that Paul made and the thoughts that I just did and whatever is is coming, but um, you know, maybe we we're still open to a little bit more negotiation for this. >> Okay. >> For some, yeah, for some things that you said, maybe not. I don't know. But, um,
Jenny, take it away. >> Uh, yeah. So Paul, thank you for that thoughtful um summary of your deliberations and Steve yours as well. So I I too want to reference the letter that Paul mentioned from that we
received last time from Mr. Dykins. Um he emphasized uh streetscape and and and emphasized the word where a a lot. You know, if not here, where? And you know, I I don't disagree with that. I think that the site it it uh the generosity of
the Buckley family and providing that property and then the work that the select board has done over the years and the affordable housing trust and many others. Um it's um it's I I think that that is a good spot
for affordable housing. But I I take it a step further. My my objections have been or not objections but comments along the way have been not really where but what what goes in there. And I I
think I' I've talked about density quite a bit and I think that 16 units per acre, which is nearly three times what two relatively nearby uh Penrose projects, East Ham and Wearham, which is
I mean 16 units compared to them is almost three times the amount. So I just think that the site is a great site and location. It has um a lot of reasons why I think that is a good location. Um
but I think that the fact that it's just under three acres, I go back to Paul's comments that he made um at one of the original hearings and he just mentioned it a little while ago. This idea of taking uh five pounds and putting it in
a 4 pound or a three pound bag is is what I see when I see this project. Penrose has been very patient, very accommodating. I mentioned that at the last hearing. Um, and I feel like our board has been very um patient and accommodating and listening. Um, and
we've heard a lot of feedback which I appreciate from the residents of of um of Chadam through letters, through attending in person, etc. Um but I one of the things that I had mentioned from the second hearing on was a reduction of
a building of units or uh reduction of the density and density isn't just the number of units in my view it's also the building coverage and just these the congestion Steve's word in that space and um so Sarah I don't know if you want
to pull up but I am not a Eldridge and I'm I'm Um, but I did a little uh cut and paste from from this Penrose project to just see just to see for myself and
and maybe share it for with others. And I asked Sarah to put it up in case I did want to reference it. Um this is an appro it's not to scale but just the middle part eliminates the management building and it's from a street case
from a streetscape perspective it's in my view potentially others view a little more attractive. Um I also think it provides open space green space resident amenities if you view it that way. I I didn't uh put in little
benches, but you could easily put in a few benches along the for people um you know either that are you know waiting for somebody or or just sitting there enjoying the um the outside. As Steve mentioned, there aren't those
amenities in the current buildings as far as patios and decks and things like that. So, a little more green space um I I thought is a is a good idea. So this is where I come back to instead of number of units, Penrose has expressed
um the importance of retaining the number of units um the town and and many residents have expressed um and I believe too the need for the affordable housing. So but where I I really believe
that the open space there there was something that I had pulled out of all my believe me you should see my floor at my home. it is covered with papers. Um, but this this quote I wanted to pull out because I think it referenced the the
reduction idea of of the of the buildings and Mr. Singer has has mentioned many times that it needs you need to have a valid reason for the reduction that's potentially being proposed and and what this says is you know the question was is the reduction justified
by valid health safety environmental design open space that directly results from the size of the project on the particular site. So that in a nutshell, I I think the size of the project is too
much for that site, but I could vote yes if the management building were eliminated because it would provide less density, improved streetscape and and um an open space amenity for residents. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Virginia. Mr.
Nixon, you are the pen ultimate again. last, >> right? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, when we started this, and it seems like a long long time ago,
uh, I knew nothing about it. It It just wasn't on my radar screen. Wasn't at all. I knew there was we had a committee and I heard a lot of talk and and so on so forth. And then it came to us and I realized that
I better find out where what's going on. So I went back in time and tried to start from ground zero. What's there now? What do we need? What has been proposed? What has happened to
the neighbors? And as I think you all know here, one of the absolute criteria to anything we do is how it affects the neighborhood. But we can't use our criteria in this scenario. It's like throw it out
and just, you know, listen and kind of come up with them. So I did that and I went back to a gentleman by the name of Abraham Lincoln. and he felt that when there was an
emotional issue, there must be a way to get to a solid middle ground. And he ran for the US Senate seat from Illinois in 1858. He ran ran against a guy by the name of Steven Douglas. And
the debates are very famous and many history majors here and all that kind of stuff. And the gist of it was of course it was about slavery and you know much more important issue than what we're dealing with here but um what Lincoln
promoted and it he lost that election. I said but two years later he was elected president of the United States because of how he set the pace and what was going on.
He believed and he didn't use these words but this is what historians believe. There has to be a balance between reason and passion. And I I'll say that again later. I don't care if you remember anything from today
but please remember that an emotional issue a balance between reason and passion. Now, you might say, "Well, okay, and we've certainly had a lot of passion here, and that's good, but we haven't had a lot of reason." And
why is that? Um, let me just pick up on passion. It's hard to have passion and reason. It backs up. If you're passionate, then you'll find reasons to justify your passion. passion in this
day and age. Um, best example I can think of is if you're going to go get married this Friday or Saturday, whenever day you want to choose, uh, there's a 50% chance you're going to end up divorced. Why? Because
passion drove you to the altar. Reasoning wasn't part of it. And I'm going to talk about my own personal scenario. I have three children. They've all been divorced. Passion drove him to the altar and
afterwards reason came in. So when I say a balance between reason and passion, this is different points of view, different individuals. I want to go back in time to uh the town meeting in 2021. There's a myth that's
floating around that we all voted for this plan. No, we voted to purchase the Buckley property. If anybody had me had mentioned at that time, hey, incidentally, there's going to be 48 units there. What
do you think would have happened at time remaining? This it never would have passed. But it wasn't. We all assumed different things. Well, that's our own fault, right? So
then what's happened subsequent to that the board of selectman and I believe it was in September of 23 it was around there and all that they decided to fire up the um affordable housing trust.
So, three members of the board of selectmen, as far as I can figure out, were very passionate. And so, they drove the bus and they made sure that anybody appointed to the trust
um was in lock step with their feeling about the passion for affordable housing. And that's fine. That's fine. Some of the people they appointed, I would appoint tomorrow to any committee in town. but it lacked those that could bring reason
to the discussion. So we ended up after that with Penrose being anointed, shall we say, and uh also um the board of selection made sure that
two of their three passionate folks were members of this committee. So you get two bites at the apple and those who don't know it goes from that committee to the board of selectmen and then to the town manager. Town manager
is not appointed by the citizens of the town. It's not voted in. There are five people. The five select people they pick the town manager renewal whatever it is. So, as you can see, it's a very
condensed group that led us to this point. There was an exception to that individual that was appointed to that committee, but um unfortunately that individual was squeezed out because
reasons that I didn't agree with. Anyway, so Penrose was selected. They're a for-profit entity and they were appointed and best I can figure out there wasn't a
lot of impact during the discussion at the AHT or the board of selectment about other citizens and there was some but anyway and so slowly details have come into the public
knowledge and we come to what happened in May of 2025, two things happened. Number one, at town meeting, the voters said, "You know what? Uh, having two members of the board of selectmen on the
HD is a bad idea. Very bad idea." And so, overwhelmingly, town meeting agree with that. And personally, I would say zero was the right number, but that's what happened.
And then there was a vote, a vote for the two um two of the seats on the board of Select. And what happened was that um the vote
was a huge wakeup call to me and that one of the leading individuals uh from the board of select select people uh was removed from office and a gentleman was put in his place who had
as part of his platform of running was hey this plan is too much. this plan is too much. It's not good for the town. That individual was the top vote cutter. So that that rang a bell with me.
And if I have to be honest with everybody, I'll tell you I supported and voted for the two incumbents. I did. But this what happened in the vote was a huge wakeup call to me. Hey,
what's going on? The overwhelming majority of citizens essentially voted against Penrose's plan. Too late, right? Because they had already made the deal. But the message to all of us
is, hey, this is not what the town wants, not this plan. And we shouldn't forget that. Subsequent to that, uh, the new con new
newly configured board of select folks uh, have a pointed to the AHT, two individuals that um, present more of a reasoning than the passion, which I'm
very pleased to see. Very pleased to see. So when I think of all that and I think of Penrose and the negotiations uh and you've heard about some of the
things that they've agreed on and great, but it honestly doesn't mean much to me because they're not substantial to me. uh when you have a compromise
particularly when there are substantial issues involved there should have been more that happened on the density and I think Miss Fenwick mentioned it continually we would bring up number of units
not moving on that why well because our bottom line remember they're for profit they have a bottom line and we're not moving on that. Okay. So, we understand that, but they have to understand that isn't the way it should happen. It
isn't. It's sort of like airway or the highway kind of theory. So, I I don't see how I can vote for it. I honestly don't. Um I could come up with conditions. Somebody said, "Come on up with
conditions." I could come up with some, but I know the answer, but I was still I'll just read them. I have four conditions. Number one would be uh I was very disappointed there no studio units in this whole program. And it was explained
to me, well, it doesn't work for a number of reasons. Okay. But, uh, studio apartments are perfect for 20somes, 30omes when you're entering a workforce or entering something like that. My wife and I lived in the studio. We lived in the state of
Hawaii and we worked in the hospitality business translation. I was a bartender. She was a cocktail waitress and we had 325 square feet. It was great. It was great. Uh I have a good friend who lives in New Orleans. He lives in a studio
appointment. It's has nothing to do with the town or what he just does. He plays pays $800 a month. Great. This is good. Well, this is not something that we're going to see in a Penrose plan. So, that would be I'd want to see 20% of the units
as a studio in units. Number two, the administration building that's been mentioned. Goodbye. Donate it. Get rid of it. It helps the bottom line on Penrose. It's a building there to build. Number three, and I don't know if he's
here today or not, but Mr. Phillips brought this up. And when I heard this, I said, "Hey, there's no elevators over there. There's not one single building has an elevator. What's going on?" I know legally
speaking, you only have to have a certain number. And they have them. They've figured it out. You can have it here and there. All right. But there's a moral compass that says we should not be excluding x number of people from wanting an
upstairs unit. They might like I don't they don't want somebody over there or whatever it might be. And when you think about not only folks who have a disability, uh, senior folks, uh, all kinds of people I know, including
some members of this board, have members of the family where, well, you got to replace a part now and then, or you come down, you got a heart problem, you got a breathing problem, you got a back problem. How are these people going to get up and down if they had ended up with one of
these units? No, they're excluded. We can't do that. Not in the year 2025. What are we doing? We just can't do it. So, I would want to see elevators put in every building. Well, that's not going to happen. They're going to spend the
money because they don't have to. And lastly, going back to the crosswalk and all that kind of stuff, our experience, my experience, and I think Ry's too, and I I'm not speaking for Randy in any way, shape, or form,
but the children, and as Steve Buckley pointed out, it's not only the woods across the street, but it's also the pond behind that. That's where they that's where they want to go. I grew up in a neighborhood there was one area that was wooded and that's where we
went. We played hide and seek build roads and that's where we went until one day the developer came along another house. That was the end of that. The only way and whether the crosswalk comes or not my experience with children
and fear is they're going to congregate at the beginning of the two drives and they're going to run across the street. I know. Even if you had a crosswalk down here, remember it's got to be all the way to the east. They're going to run across the street. October 16th,
Chattam Chronicle. West Chattam man escaped with minor injuries, not really. Crossing Route 28. He ended up being medflighted to Boston hospital. He was found unconscious by the rescue
personnel. This is not a minor injury. And I don't know how he's doing today, but I hope he's doing okay. Anyway, that was October 16th. October 23rd, same paper. Two pedestrians struck on Main Street.
No crosswalk. Well, these guys, they weren't using the crosswalk, but the same thing happened. These are adults. Never mind a seven or eight or a nineyear-old. I don't want to pick up the chronicle and read resident of let's say I call it Buckley Farms, whatever
you want to call it, struck by car condition unknown. I don't ever want to pick up a paper and read that. And that is what's going to happen. The only thing that would happen to reduce that risk is
reduce the density. the if you reduce it down to I got a number 24 I don't think that should be more than 24 units if you reduce it down to that number that takes x number of children out of harm's way
I'd like to say to finish up first of all you're all pros I've enjoyed the education. Absolutely enjoyed the educ. Thank you. But you're wrong for this community.
I do hope you pick up your pieces and leave. I can't control that. I'm just saying that. Number two, everybody on this board, I can't tell you how proud I am of each and every one of you. Never mind your opinion of whatever. You've
really made me proud. We are the best board in town. Difference of opinion. That's okay. You know, it's good. We've done I know some people think we wasted way too much time. Yeah.
And my final my final message is to the current members of the AHT. Please please before you put anything out to bid in the future, have Annie talk to Sarah, come on in and talk to us for 60
to 90 minutes. That's Oh, so we know what you're up to. You want get a little feedback from us. You know what? We could probably cut three to four months off of this process. We really could. Thank you, Madam Chair. And >> thank you, Mr. Nixon. So, Abraham
Lincoln. >> Yeah, I'll tell you about him later. >> Uh, okay. So, as you know, our usual uh rules are that we have um a supermajority that's required for an
application to prevail. This is 40B. And I love the way Mr. Nixon alluded to the fact that the rules are out the window. So, all local rules. So, what we're faced with here is 40B and that is um
only requires three of us to prevail. As you've heard, we had one, we have Paul, that's two. I I'm not going to consider Jenny a yes at this juncture because I just don't think I think I'd be too far
out on a limb for that right now and we all we know that Mr. Nixon is a no. So that leaves me. Before I tell you what I'd like to do, I'm going to tell you how I came to this decision because you have to give me a couple minutes too.
Um, so last fall Sarah and I talked about that this was coming and uh our schedule is so busy. It was like pre-impending doom. You know, how are we going to do this and then we're going to get two and um I I have the uh great pleasure of meeting with staff every
week um when we reorganize Mr. Nixon takes it back in in January. Um I'm going to miss that and I really benefited from that uh very much. and we talked about how how do you do these hearings? And um so I went to the rules.
It's the because I'm a lawyer, I actually listened to uh several meetings from other towns because I wanted us to do a good job. Um I also listened to the affordable house um trust meetings and the select board meetings. Um I was particularly interested in the drafting
of that RFP. Um and I'm going to get to that in a moment. And uh I then I looked at the appeal process and I said all right so you know a good lawyer knows the law a great lawyer knows the judge. The judge in this case is the mass appeals court. I mean the mass housing
court. I guess it's hack housing appeals court committee. Anyway that's like the judge because what has to happen is that they have to decide oh does the town have 10%. No you lose. Basically that's what
happens. I was told that by uh different uh trainings that I experienced and I went and looked at the decisions at from for the hack and indeed it's no no no no no no no no no no if you don't have 10% you really have pretty much no chance.
So then I said, "Well, as we go into this," I listened to the the planning, the HBDC, all the different towns meetings and again, uh, to looked at the RFP, and I said, "Well, we're going to have to do the best we can here to get
the best project for the town." Um, and if we can't get something that moves the needle enough, it's probably no no big deal if it goes to the housing appeals committee because we have not a lot to lose. However, now we've gone through
seven months and um and what I've seen happen here is I'm not going to go through all the the u work that we've done because I sort of referred to that at the beginning. Paul talked a lot about that and and everybody knows that we've made a lot of progress. So the
question for me is is that enough or is it worth seeing what happens on appeal? And I have to say to myself quite honestly, it's enough and I'm going to support the project. And um I
have a few more things to say before we just um deal with that. However, the RFP I want to support everything a lot of things that Mr. Nixon has said, that Steve has said, and that Jenny has said with regard to this project. The RFP
said on it, it's unacceptable for over 30 feet. So, that's went out there. That went out there to the public. 30 ft or no. Um, it also said that um the um
how the storage in you all the storage had was going to be interior. That didn't happen here. Um, moreover, and this is a big deal, it at the affordable housing meeting on February 1, 2024,
they talked extremely briefly about the idea of a management building. And what was said, and I'm going to quote, is I'm going to take out this business of a management building. So, it wasn't even in the RFP. So, we're
not the devil here when it comes to that building. It wasn't even in the RFP. Okay? So, we're asked to do all these things and oh, you're mean. You know, you're not going to have a community building and you know, we need a management building and blah blah blah.
And that has been a huge, you know, topic here and it wasn't even in the RFP. So, you know, I don't have a lot of pity for that. I don't have a lot of um you know I just don't have a lot of patience for that because I think an RFP is important. It says this is what we're
looking for and then it's no no fault whatsoever of penrose and one thing that I respect that they did was they came and said well we see that you have a 30foot limit on height we can't do that. So they didn't try to talk anybody into
anything. They just said we're not doing we don't we don't do that. And they also said, "We like to have a management building. This is the way we do business." So, um, our town manager, who is one of the most professional people I've ever encountered in my entire life,
she she accepted Penrose as, you know, the vendor. And, um, I'm not sure if that's what you call it, but um, you know, and it it wasn't 100% in line with that RFP, but I don't like the way that RFP process went down. And I agree with
pretty much everything Mr. Nixon said, and I'm glad I didn't have to say it, but at the end of the day here, you know, I think the project that we're going to put together with conditions that we'll we'll hammer out with Penrose, um, it has a great it's going to have a beautiful streetscape. I'm I'm
inclined to leave in the management building because I think the streetscape will be better. And, you know, I gave that a lot of thought because I even asked, you know, poor Thad Eldridge on his weekend put that together for us. And because I really wanted to see, you know, and and we had asked for that,
too, and we didn't get it. And you know, you know, we we have a pretty wealthy, you know, community here. And so when we ask applicants for things, they usually find the money. But, you know, this is different. Well, in any event, I I think that we will really get down and dirty
with this with this um contract and we will get a great project that the town is going to be proud of because it's a lot better than if I vote no and Penrose goes to the Mass, you know, housing court for this and um and they say, you
know, you don't have 10%, you know, you don't have enough good reasons to to deny the project. Um and then they come in, come back and they do the original project after all that. We lose all the different um conditions that we would
have now. And what I'm probably most impressed with and I really want to get clear on the on the irrigation and on the trees and what that management building will look like. I would prefer to leave it in. So that's not going to
cause me to vote no. It's just not. Um, and I gave it a lot of thought. Just want you to know that. It's been up since two o'clock this morning. So, anyway, and extremely proud of this panel as well and so appreciative to
staff. You know, we've we've talked more than uh we needed to probably about this. So, so this project is is going to go forward. I believe it's going to go forward. So Jay Talaman council.
>> Yep. >> Good afternoon. What's our next step? >> So I've been taking notes um of what each of the board members preferences are and obviously you all still have to talk some decentsized
uh ticket items in terms of the core conditions. I need that um direction to draft the decision. I can draft an approval. It appears it's going to be an approval. I can do about 90 to 95% of of
it based upon the information that I have and with Sarah's help on filling in some of the particular information on what the plans are and this and that. And then I think we just need some some consensus on where we think we're going
on some of the issues we're hearing about today. Uh regarding the crosswalk, although I have a pretty good feel of how I would structure that. Um uh irrigation or non-errigation, management building or non-management building. Um
some of the other landscaping things in terms of what we may want to see enhanced or not enhanced. Um there were some other uh little uh amenity type issues or some of the appearance like issues that we may want to see in a
final post-p permit plan. So I have most of what I need, but I think that on some of those bigger ticket items that were some of the common themes between uh the members and the associate members, I think it'd be good to kind of round them out. We don't have to do it all today.
We can do it. we're going to have to get back together again within the time period to review the decision and nail it down. So, if we're not a 100% certain on things like, you know, what we want to do with the crosswalk or the
irrigation, then maybe once we see it on the written page, it'll come into focus a little bit more. But I'm been taking a ton of notes and I have a good feel for where you're going. But I think it may be good to kind of kind of congeal it
into um kind of a a vote or a straw poll. It's not a binding vote because you could change your mind the next time we get together on some of those bigger ticket items. We've talked about density. I didn't hear uh a vote for a reduction or an interest in a reduction
of the unit density. I heard a no vote, but not a conditional vote on a reduction in density per se. I have heard some stuff on the the management building and I know that um that Penrose would be okay with redesigning the
management building from their last design to make it a little more faithful to local architecture as well. And that could be a condition. So, I think we're in really good shape if we can kind of distill this to kind of a Jay, here's our three out of five vote or four out
of five vote and go ahead and draft a decision and we'll see you back here in a few weeks. >> So, are you asking us to take a draw vote right now in terms of >> Well, I I think I think on some of the key items, so um you know, uh Jenny
doesn't favor the management building. you're okay with it. I know you and I have talked about a redesign of it. Um, it looked like Paul was okay with it. Dave is okay with it. Um, so maybe there's something to do there. The irrigation seems unresolved amongst all
of you. I I I think some good points were made about let's not do it, let's conserve water, but we're going to then need to backfill with some landscaping conditions, which I have some samples of on how to um develop guarantees and a final landscaping plan that has an
operation and maintenance aspect to it that we would handle post permit. Um but th those kind of big ticket items that were the common themes between the six or seven of you that have given some thoughts today. >> So should we do a vote first? Um how
many of us support 48 units? Is that where you're going? >> Well, yeah. I I think I think you can management building. >> Can we we could do it that way? >> I think the I I think so. I mean I if I'm counting votes correctly, it appears that there's enough votes for an
approval. there was enough. I'd like to give um Miss Fenwick a chance to actually vote, you know, like if we say, okay, how many of us vote yes with 48 units and a management building no
larger than the one in the last um photo that we got last time. I think it's something like 20,000. I think we all know >> 2100. Yeah, that's what I meant. 2100. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 2154. So, how about if we do that vote first because those are
very big. That is units and the management building. So, >> I I think maybe you want to separate those two. >> Separate them. >> Yes. >> All right. Sure. Okay. So, can I have a motion on 48 units? >> Who wants to do that? Paul.
>> I'll I'll move to uh uh approve the application to the extent of 48 units. >> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> I vote no. >> Paul votes yes. So it's just the units. Okay. I I I would support 48.
>> Okay. Um All right. So that and I would too. So that's unanimous. I mean that's not unanimous. That is um I can't even count. >> Close. >> Close. >> Four. >> Four to one. Four to one. Four to one. Okay. So now, can I get a motion on the
management building being 2,154 >> 2,154 square f feet? >> I'll move to approve the application with the management uh building as proposed by the uh applicant in their last proposal as to that which was approximately 2100 square feet with uh
whatever revisions we can do in terms of architectural style. >> Exactly. Uh David seconds and votes no. >> Well, are you not going to vote support the project? >> I no I support the project. I've been clear that I don't think the the
reduction of the size of the management building is something that I that I support. H >> I'm going to stop and go to >> council. How's that work? So let let's go through the let's go through the discussion and then let's
see where we end up with the number of votes and then we'll back into what a condition would look like. >> Okay. So um so we're going to have a discussion on the management building. Is that is that right council?
>> Well you you've you you've now taken one vote which is a no vote from uh Mr. V. I think let's go through the what the rest of the the crew thinks about it. >> Mr. Nixon, >> no. >> Paul, >> yes.
>> Um, Jenny, >> no. >> No. And um, yes. So, Mr. Vich, do you want to reconsider that? >> I will reconsider it a bit, but with Yeah, with the statement that I I think that eliminating the um common space was
a was a big mistake. So in in order to keep things clean, I will vote to support the reduction as you presented. >> Okay. So that worked out. Um so we are for that three to two.
>> Okay, that's good to know. Now next thing we should vote on is probably the the irrigation. Um let's can we have a quick discussion on that? um council first before we vote on the
irrigation. >> Is that does that work? >> 100%. >> Yes. Okay. Good. So, I'm going to say something first which is unusual. Um the way I look at it is I want whatever it takes to have the trees that they
plant flourish and to keep the irrigation I mean to keep the um the trees and all the foliage. Well, I don't want it to look like what happened over in East Ham. I, you know, I don't want that. So, if it needs to be
a well that's used from time to time um in order to establish and then um maintain. So, I I need that or I'll vote no. I would have voted no on the project if it that was one of the things that put me over the edge. Just want you to
know >> signing me on. No, I'm just letting you know that that is one of the things the reasons why I came out today to vote yes because I really want it to look nice. I think >> you want it to look the way that it's
been presented as closely as possible as quickly as possible. >> No. Yeah. I mean, things take time to grow, but still I don't want it to be neglected. So, I'm I'm I'm in favor of very very precise language that's essentially bulletproof on this that we
have a nice looking um tree um situation. I know there's a better word for that, but um >> Okay. So, do you want me to comment on it? >> Yes, please. Well, so I'm a little torn in that um I I felt that the way Paul
presented it, I that's the way I was thinking. Um I mean and I think it is important that they try to cho choose um materials and and plants and things that are going to survive and not need regular
watering. Um because I think that the installation of a well um on the one hand is a good idea because it that will help with the initial establishment of the uh of the
plings and there could be uh we could put a condition in that you know as far as any future use of it after three years or something like that or Jay may have some things. The other side of that though is it seems to me that as Paul pointed out is
that the town is really is trying to discourage the use of of watering and irrigate and we're using water for irrigation town water and but as he said private wells that go in the ground and
and there we have one on the property I'm on they all tap the same aquifer. So if you had enough private property owners going around trying to get around the the the town's
position and then the as you some said the watering and all that. I don't know where we're headed with all this. So, I can vote for a well um but primarily
for the to help get the um landscaping well established. I don't feel like I'd want necessarily want a well that they can just keep >> an endless I just want to point out one thing. I I feel very compelled to point
out that part of the town's problem problem with the use of water is they don't want people to use treated water, the drinking water. Does that make sense? They don't want you to use the treated water to water. And that is the big sticky wicket with irrigation. Um
I'm pretty confident of that. And I talked to the appropriate person as to that and he said, "Well, they're not going to be able to use the water there um because we don't use treated water to irrigate. It's against town rules." And so that's kind of when this whole well
thing uh spouted. >> So, pun intended. >> Yes. Paul, what do you think? >> Well, uh despite the spouting, yes. Uh I think that uh I think there first of all as I said I
prefer not to use the well at all. Uh I think we do need to establish the uh uh new plantings and that we can do that uh as uh they were originally planning which was to bring in water uh for a periodic period of time perhaps two to
three years to establish the new plantings. Uh if the board feels that um no they want the ability to continue to use well water in order to irrigate and support the
uh landscaping then I think we should make it uh consistent with uh the requirements that the town imposes with respect to uh the rest of the people who don't have wills i.e. uh if if there are restrictions that say
you use it only on Tuesday or Thursday be based on where you're located, then they're subject to those same restrictions, which I think right now is not true with respect to the well water that's being used. Um but u overall I
would prefer not to use a well at all. Uh and we've been told that that can be done and it can be attractive with respect to the uh plantings that are going to be done there. Um, so that would be my suggestion. If we if we need to compromise and have uh
landscaping that uses a well, that that use be restricted to what's consistent with the town's position uh as to those who can uh in establish irrigation uh uh
on on existing town water. As I understand it right now, you can't put a new landscaping system in without a well. So, uh really the the people that are they're subject to these restrictions right now are the ones that
already have irrigation and are on town water. I think those same restrictions if we're going to put in a well system in this situation should be those same restrictions should apply to to this well. >> Okay. Um, Jenny and Dave, do you want to
comment on this at all, please? >> Yeah, I'm 100% in favor of a well, we're clear cutting that property practically. Not not exactly, but I think it's something like 13 trees on three acres are being saved. And so all
of these circles are new trees. And I think it's critical that they are um irrigated. Maybe the well doesn't need to run for 15 years or 10 years, but I think there's a substantial amount of um of
taking these very important trees out of that three acres and that uh we need to do everything we can to re replenish it. Mark has put a really great plan together. I'd actually like to ask for more trees going not just along Main
Street, but um down the center. Well, maybe not more trees, but the larger caliber 4 and a half inch trees also going down the the lane, the two the two lanes to just create more green,
you know, more green and uh more nature and more trees and to to establish them and have them flourish. I think we need the water and and I I agree with that. Um and I know Penrose will do that for us. Um, I see a lot of head shaking like this. So, um, Dave, do you want to say
anything about that? No, you're good. Okay. So, I think we could council, does it sound like you could craft something that's going to um really respect the vegetation? That was the word I was looking for before, the vegetation. And um, and make the language um, pretty
strict about if if any of the newer trees um don't make it, then they need to be replaced. Um, this is my big thing, right? You know, um, and the management building looking historical. And so, it's about the streetscape. That's the that's the least we can do
here. Um, is have a beautiful streetscape and have some trees that make it. >> Yeah, I think I can I think I have a sense of what the board wants. Obviously, we want to preserve as many um existing uh larger mature trees as
possible. I'm going to require a final landscaping plan anyway, like a full like 100% design uh landscaping plan anyway. I have a sense as to where I would go in terms of guarantees of the plantings. I think I have enough to go
on with respect to especially with Paul's comments on where we would go with irrigation that would maybe be qualified by working with town officials and adhering to common sense restrictions on well usage for that. Um,
so I think I have enough that I could do some drafting and then of course when we get back together, we're going to have an opportunity as a group to refine that um in any way in any direction that you want to. >> Okay. And in the meantime, is it all right if Penrose sends us over a
management building draft um to look at administratively or how are we going to deal with that one? >> I I have a good feel for how I would structure that. I I don't want to take in additional evidence from Penrose because I want to preserve the process in case there's a collateral or third
party appeal, but ba just based upon the colloquy mostly through emails on on what Penrose would be willing to do before we close the hearing, I think that I can craft something. And again, Penrose can take a look at it, too. And
certainly the board's going to take a look at, but I have a good feel for where the board wants to be on a redesign of that management building. Um, and obviously it's not >> I don't think it's a particularly difficult topic. And we're going to require that Penrose submit that um
final plan for at least administrative review, >> you know, which is more of just like a thumbs up, thumbs down review rather than a full-blown hearing posture. Yeah. >> Um, following the issuance of the permit. >> Yeah. So, our last day that we need to vote on this is uh December 4th and we
do meet of course we meet every week. We meet every day. Um we meet next week um as well. Is there anything else we should do with regard to this project today before we um move on to meeting?
>> I was I think maybe I would like to maybe hear from Paul. Paul spoke, I think, pretty eloquently about um some of the exterior design and some of the mechanicals. And I don't know, and Randy, you and I have talked a little bit, and I know the board has talked a
little bit about those little ex exterior storage bins. Um I I have a feel of of where we what the board likes and doesn't like, but I'm not sure if there's anything worthy of discussion there. People have been
generally satisfied with the general architecture of those buildings, but I don't know if there's anything particular about the mechanicals or those storage bins or anything else about the exterior that you want to nail down now. Paul had some good comments
about that a few minutes ago. >> Yeah, Paul. Uh well uh my experience in going to uh uh the village at NS at Green in in uh East Ham indicated to me that in part because of the situation of the
buildings and so forth but there were a number of exterior mechanicals used for the building individual buildings which uh are elevated but they're elevated on uh um metal structures which frankly are
not very good-looking. And I uh thought in terms of uh of having a condition which would say that the uh exterior mechanical should be behind the buildings that are on uh that are shown on the uh depictions that we're looking
at and not always necessarily behind but uh they do need to meet setback and uh we should try to keep them out of sight. Um that was one suggestion that I made. The other is with respect to storage. Um
I didn't really go into but um one of the other things that I noticed in in the village of Noset Green is that uh almost all of the bicycles are stored outside because I don't think that there's enough room in the storage
portion that's set aside for the individual units for them to put the bicycles inside. Um and that uh leads to, as was pointed out in one of the comments that we received, um a tarp being placed over uh a bicycle which is
on a rack uh and is visible to everybody walking by or driving by. Uh perhaps we could have a little bit extended u storage facility a little bit bigger that would allow the bicycles to be stored vertically as opposed to
horizontally and would then keep that uh off the uh off the outside and tarp storage and that issue. >> That's helpful. Um, and I I too just editorially, not that my opinion counts
for anything here, that I had been as someone who rides a bike uh pretty frequently, I had been thinking that maybe the bicycles would be the measure of some enhancements on that exterior, those exterior storage bins. So, I think I can craft something along that and I
can certainly craft something in terms of um rearranging the mechanicals so that they're either uh screened more appropriately. >> I don't think we've actually seen a plan that shows the exterior mechanicals uh because that was something they felt
they were going to deal with later. >> Yeah. >> Well, that'll come with a a post-permanal set of plans, I think. >> Okay. Yep. Good. Good. Um, >> Randy, just one thing that that I thought of when you were going through
things at the beginning >> is um >> I know that that Penrose was came back to us and said that they they could um go along with assigning a a parking space to each unit.
Um, I I'm just I'm just questioning because I I mean I know I mean I think maybe it was something I for our next hearing or whatever that was a reminder to me. I saw some wording
about uh that um not assigning spaces provides maximum flexibility, maximum flex use for a parking area. So,
and I having lived and worked in downtown Cadam for many years and and recognizing that there's a place where parking on paper never works but somehow always works.
That rang a bell for me because once you start assigning spaces, you have changed, you've changed the process. You change the way things can work. Now,
I've said other times and I continue to say they're professionals and they know and they should know and and know better than than we. But I just am am wondering do we really want
that as part of our do we want that as a condition or do we want them to say that's going to be it? uh we're going to assign a space and I just don't know the the wisdom of that because I haven't heard enough back and forth about it
honestly. So I don't know where where we are in the process of terms of that but just something I want to bring up. >> Yeah. And I I've recently learned that um things can this everything that we do here is not cast in stone. It could be changed
>> um >> with their needing to come back to us probably. I don't know with something like that if they'd have to come back to us, but um I I'm flexible with this one. >> Okay, >> I am. I think um you know, if you don't have I said at one of the at the
beginning of these hearings that I have had some criminal cases where people get very particular about their spot that they say is their spot >> and then they put like a chase lounge or whatever in there and then there's been fights and then there's been cases with
that. So the idea of having an assigned spot some somewhat appeals to me um because we don't need that. We're not even if we had that in Shadam, we'd probably never read about it. But but anyway, um so I think that whoever's an expert on this should probably decide it
and that certainly is not me. But um that's I'm flexible. Paul, Jenny, and any of anybody, you know, your thoughts? >> Well, I'm uh I'm with Dave here a little bit. Uh I I do feel as if we probably don't know enough about the situation to
know whether it makes sense or doesn't make sense and therefore I'm inclined to go with the expertise of the people who actually do this on a daily basis. Um at the same time, you know, it's my natural inclination to always push back against pe people who know what they're
doing because then again, they maybe don't know what they're doing. Uh but I think in this instance, we should leave it up to them. And maybe between now and next time, if it's permissible, we could get some input about at the Cadam Housing Authority and what works there
because that is a that place runs like a very well tuned instrument and uh I think that some information from Tracy may be helpful here. Um because it is Cadam and she knows what happens here
with spaces. So, um I can't ask you now, but um we'll find out maybe. Is that all right, Jay? If we if we if we ask if we call a friend between now and next time. >> Yeah. Yeah. Provided that there's not deliberation in and amongst
>> I'll do it. I will do it >> by in between. Right. >> And I will report back. >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll put a placeholder in for parking. I think that everyone raises some good points here. Um uh you know there's thinking on parking has
evolved a lot in terms of we always used to reflexively say two per every unit of that's pass a thinking. So um but we do have to manage uh the parking spaces effectively. So I'll just kind of put a placeholder in it
>> in my draft and we'll go from there. >> Okay. Very good. anything else we should accomplish today before we take a quick break and come back on meeting house? >> You know, I'll go through I know we we received some notes from Ed. Um uh Jenny
did uh an amazing uh amount of work as well in terms of thinking about, you know, um how this shapes up. So, I'll make sure I look at everything >> that'll be great >> that has that has been out there because undoubtedly there's some substantive rather than boilerplate provisions that
we're not thinking of right now. Um, it might be in a little bit in the margins, but everything's important. So, I'll make sure I go through that. And obviously, Randy, you and I talk pretty frequently, so we'll um probably get our heads together um on some little things.
But uh depending upon when we meet next, I should have a pretty, you know, close to final decision ready for you all to work on. And my preference is is that we sit and we just kind of go through it. We don't have to go over every single piece of boilerplate, but um but it's
helpful to walk the board through the entirety of it because undoubtedly a board member or two is going to come up with something like, "Geez, I forgot. Let's add this to it as well." Yeah, we can maybe do that next week. Um, well, it's going to be up to Sarah. And that one other question I have. So, Penrose
hasn't had a any kind of uh visible mental fit here today. So, I'm kind of hoping that, you know, they haven't seemed to uh, you know, show any kind of distress on any of the conditions. And so, I'm just sort of reading the room here. But they must have must have to
have the ability to to to concede these once we come up with a um document. Correct. >> Yeah. Well, I mean that's up to you. That's up to the board. My my general preference is not Well, first of all, if
I was Penrose, I'd be pretty pleased at with the direction of this um uh um voting so far. uh even though it's not binding, they got they most of the hard work was done already where they've made some revisions that got them to this
point. So the rest of it I think is should be pretty acceptable. My preference is that I don't share my draft with them until the whole board gets to sit down with it. But at some point I think it is important to um let
them know and and obviously Attorney Singer can contact me directly if he has anything in mind. He's already emailed me once to ask to whether or not he wants uh we want him to do the drafting. I said I'm okay doing the drafting. I've
drafted a whole bunch of 40bs over the last 30 years. So um I think we're in pretty good shape there. But I think there'll be an opportunity to get some of their input on things and obviously Attorney Singer can contact me if he has
anything that he needs to add. >> Okay, Mr. V had one more thing. >> Just um correct me if I've missed if I've missed something, but I I just looking at my notes up here and and I didn't see I actually didn't get a copy of Jenny's thing. So
>> we couldn't really do that. So, um the uh the other thing that I think was not necess necessarily answered was the question of uh color of the buildings. Um and so we haven't discussed that any further and I
don't know where we are with that. So that might be another point to to to discuss. I don't know. Yeah, I think we we should um just quickly go over the idea of whether we're going to ask for cedar shingles or we're not going to ask for cedar gray cedar shingles or where where are we with that? I mean,
>> well, I don't think we're I mean, you know, that there's the material, the shingles or not. And then then there's color as well, which we've kind of went around with them. And as I recall, last I said was, "Hey, you know, I have no
problem with anything they presented. I'd let them decide, but I don't know. I don't think we have had any resolution of any of that." Sarah might know the what you know what we what we have had with that because I think we we we moved on from there at one point.
>> Well, I think we keep moving on from things and and sometimes we not we don't all know that somehow. I mean I'm just Yeah. Yeah. >> I mean I'm I'm not unhappy. I'm just saying it's just a note I looked at. >> No, no. I just meant we moved on from it. We talked about something else because I thought we came to some we
might have come to some agreement on that. Let's see if we did. Um I believe well there was quite a bit of discussion on it. Um and one or two meetings ago um and I'm just pulling up what we had
uh and seeing if this is what the board wants to go with where they gave us sort of different pallets. Um my recollection is that certain members uh at subsequent meetings had said no maybe we should have it be all white so that way it doesn't look too much. So, I don't know
that there was any real resolution as to colors or just >> that's my understanding of where we are. Those are the things I >> And you're fine with that. If it was white, >> I'd be fine if it was white. Um, and I when I revisit that th those things the
only thing that um I I mean in looking at it is I find that they they've they've shown a possible gray color uh that to me looks grayer than I would like to see. And so um but the whites and the off-white
fine with me. >> I think white is more Cape Cod that based on what I know either that or greasy or gray. You know, >> that's I mean that's where in my mind white is frequently used if there I think that it may be there also that
they're proposing the proposal is on the backsides and and sides of the buildings some of the buildings is using um um that they're like a cement board type shingle not not clabbered but shingle. Is that true? I'm not sure.
>> Jenny might be able to shed some light on this. This is her expertise. >> Yeah. Um so uh I remember these conversations and when I think we were t we landed on white it was just the Greek revival clabbered portion of the buildings not the entire three four
sides two of the buildings have the white clabard across and I think the sea building only a portion the gable end portion is white and then the rest of the front is cedar. I know Paul's here
and he can comment on that too. But um so I think the question of white was was it were people thinking that it was the entire four sides or just the clabard? I was thinking it was just the the horizontal clabard and the cedar board
the fiber cedar board which is a alternative synthetic shingle look. Yeah. um was on the side both sides and the back of buildings A and B. >> Yeah.
>> And C except for the front is is a combo of the fiberboard and the >> Okay. So I guess what I kind of did not see here in in those and you're is I saw a few you know where they
actually present the entire building as being sort of gray gray collaborative and all that. So, I'm I'm along with you in terms of the white, especially if it's a collaborate, uh, you know, if it's a white white or a slightly off-white. I don't have a problem with that. The only thing I'm trying to get
at is is if they're using if we're using the the um shingle board, let's call it that, shingle board around on the other sides, then I think white can also apply. However, I wouldn't mind looking at a a
more faded gray. I agree >> on those three sides. >> So they look like gray seed shingles. >> I get more look like I mean what I see honestly these days I'm I'm looking around everywhere I go and and I don't
go up to the building to look at the type of thing. What I see is a lot of shingled sidewalls that are pre-stained. You know I see a lot of that. I see a lot of shingled sidewall. They're
pre-stained a gray color. Um and and and you know, I don't I haven't well I don't want to get too far, but I think that's what how I feel about the color. >> Yeah, I agree with you, Dave. I think what you're saying. At one point we had had proposed that Penrose do the
traditional real white cedar shingling on the sides that are called um fiber cement shingle panels and it came back at the next hearing that that was cost prohibitive
>> and maybe not practical >> and and not practical or they didn't want to do it. So I think at that point we we didn't push back and make it a condition. Um that's we understood that. However, I think at least in my mind we
still wanted the original just the Greek revival what they call the uh white front lap siding >> is just in the front of buildings A and B and just a portion of the front of C. >> And that the shingles I agree are the
simulated shingle look. >> Yeah. would be a grayer, more traditional looking. Even though it's synthetic, it would it would look like the cedar shingles that you see faded in in town. >> If nobody objects, why don't we just ask
council to to incorporate that unless anybody else wants to >> work for me. >> Okay. Because I think that's how I remembered it too, that we walked away from it with some kind of resolution. >> Um, >> yeah. So, Jay, you
You can always you can always wind this back. Um >> so are we looking for white on the fronts and and um cedar shake on the sides? >> Well, it or sort of >> or did I miss something? >> It's it it's all in my summary that you
have. So >> yeah, you have it in that summary. All right. So just to be >> Yeah. Go ahead. The white referred to in the diagram is painted. I think it's stands for painted. It's PTND. Painted white front lap siding is on the front
of building A and B with sides and the rear being the fiber cement shingle panel. Now the C building has a front gable portion only that is the white lap siding and then there's sort of a secondary or a
recessed portion of building C that is um at least it appears in the rendering to be the the fiber cement shingle. Okay. So, the front of C is a combination. I think a clear the clearest way to say
it is all of the horizontal lap siding is white on every building. and the cedar shingles. Um, I think to Dave's point is making sure that those if we have an option of having them not be white or not even be a light gray, but
sort of a more medium resembling traditional cedar, faded, you know, uh, aged white cedar. >> I believe they're going to agree to that, uh, Jay. So, um, why don't we put that to pen, too?
>> Sure. Um, okay. >> Okay. Is everybody happy for today? I think we've, you know, again, if you think about what came in originally and you think about how it's going to look now, I hope you agree with me at least
that it wasn't worth jeopardizing and that um we have a a better project for the town than we would have had if we had, you know, tanked it today and then they came back and put that original project and it would be unfortunate for many people if that had happened. So, I
I hope that um people are somewhat satisfied. All right. So, at this point, we're going to take a short break and then we're going to come back and talk about meeting house. Thank you. Okay, we are back and um
first thing we're going to do is ask ask our attorney about dates for the next hearing for Main Street. Um Sarah, can you articulate that? >> Uh Attorney Talerman, um is it possible to have a decision to the board so that
way we could have this on our November 20th meeting? in the alternative. Um, when do you reasonably expect that we could so that way I could schedule um for either Well, we have December
4th, but I I would think that we would want to have one more meeting to sort of >> Can we do it or >> fly through it? December 4th, we have nine items on our agenda. Hold on. >> I think that it is going to be a stretch
um for me to do to get it done on the 20th. I could I could I could try and put some other things aside and get to it. I have the Yarmouth town meeting um and some other stuff. So, Monday's a wash. I should I'm in I'm in Chattam all
day on Tuesday, but I may have some time to do some drafting in between things because I have a bunch of meetings for um for you all. Wednesday is an okay drafting day for me. So, why don't we tentatively say the
20th? It's going to be um a bit of a lift just because it's going to be a significant amount of drafting for me and and for you, Sarah. But um let's let's try for the 20th. >> Um we can >> is what I would say. >> So I'd say I'll I'll put it on the
agenda for the 20th if we can't pull it all together and get it to the board before then. Um Mon the 24th and 25th of the following week. It doesn't appear based on the calendar that there are any meetings scheduled during the day. That's a
Monday and a Tuesday. Um so we could always theoretically if the board was available, um, book some time during the day to meet and do that as well. >> Yeah, potentially the 24th. The 25th
probably wouldn't work for me. Um, so let's let's try for the 20th so we can stick with the board schedule and not have to inconvenience the board any more than we have to. And let's see what
I can get done. Um, and uh, again, I'm going to be using templates that I that I have existing. I just have to make it all work with the stuff we just talked about and then the facts and procedural history that we have here. So, let's
give it a try. >> Okay. So, November 20th, the continued deliberations for Main Street comprehensive permit will be placed on our regular business agenda. >> Do we need a motion? No. >> Okay. So, November 20th,
for Penrose Main Street. Okay. So, the die has been cast for that. So, we know what's going to happen. We just have to see how it's going to happen. All right. So, now we're going to go to meeting house. Sarah, application number 25-077
Penrose LLC, 15 Milk Street, 16th floor, Boston, Mass 02109. The property is owned by the Town of Cadam, located at Zero Meeting House Road. Also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4E block 11A lot AB. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Mass General
Law chapter 40B sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR 56 for the construction of a 40 42 dwelling units in eight structures. The applicants are requesting a grant to various wave waiverss from regulations promuggated by the Chattam zoning bylaw and other local
regulations. The property contains 3.57 acres in the R60 zoning district. This was continued from August 14th, September 4th, and October 16th, 2025. >> Welcome back, Mr. Singer. Attorney Singer. >> Good afternoon. Excuse me. Uh, thank
you. Get this. Okay, here we go. Uh, thank you. Uh, for for the record, Andrew Singer, attorney on behalf of the applicant. the applicant is uh we're all here today have just two brief
presentations uh this afternoon. Um I just on November 6th we provided a uh supplemental submission to you uh with plans and I'm just going to show them briefly and then Joe Henderson from Hory Whitten will discuss uh give you an
update on the peer review. There's been um further peer review with Tai and Bond. Uh as far as the site plan itself, and we'll I'm sure have discussion about this later, but just to go over it quickly with you, um the as you can see up on the plan, the dumpster uh as discussed and as requested has been
relocated from the northeast side of the parking area to the center uh part of the property. And you can see it there um uh in that island in the middle. Um it uh will accommodate um uh the
dumpster areas there within an enclosure. It did result in the loss of one space but um Mr. Henderson will discuss you know we still meet the ratios that Penrose believes um work. So mentioned that and also if you look at the extreme southwest corner uh a
Ballard gate has been um proposed and added that was discussed if you remember from the I think bikeways committee uh had asked about that. So uh one has been put in there and then we can have more discussion. I just wanted to uh you know quickly outline it to you. Um the uh and
finally um just on the last plan here and we can go back to them. Uh Mark has also added um additional plantings along the northern property line and in the areas of the reforestation select larger trees have been added to diminish the effect of site clearing. Um so these are
the revised plans that we have submitted you know for further discussion today. We know we're just going to have you know we'll be meeting today and then ultimately being continued. Um I'm going to turn it over to Joe and then uh you know we're here I know there'll be public comment and we're here for any questions or how we can discuss it.
Thank you. Thank you. >> Welcome, Joe. >> Hi, good afternoon. Joe Henderson, Horsesley Whitten Group. Um, and I just, as Andrew said, I just want to give an update on our peer reviews. We've had a civil peer review done and a traffic um
there was one remaining comment from the civil peer review related to the the storm water design. We met with Tyen Bond last week and we um came to an agreement to make a modification to our bioplanter one and that satisfied that their um
their question there that was I think reflected in the letter they just recently sent. Um there was also a um a traffic peer review letter that had comments related to the site and we made uh we did make those changes on the
plans that were submitted. Um, one was related to space for backing up of vehicles and that was addressed with the with the dumpster location move. Um, we also had some ADA parking spaces that we
adjusted the um the symbols basic. And then the trash pickup was related to how the um vehicles were going to get to the trash enclosures. So um the idea is that they would come in and pull head in have head-in pickup. they'd be able to pull
into the trash enclosure and back out and circulate back out of the site. Um, and lastly, there was a um a question related to the parking ratio. So, we have a parking ratio of 1.42. Um, that's um the the peer reviewer
questioned that and was looking for something a little higher and we, you know, respectfully think that our ratio is adequate. Penrose um has provided some data that shows that they um can you know accommodate this ratio. So
that's all in the peerreview response. We've submitted that to Tai Bond obviously for comment and we'll you know work with them on that as needed. Um and there was finally there was a letter of I think October 22nd um with some additional traffic comments and we have
forwarded that along to the to Vanessa Associates who are the traffic engineers and we we'll have them look and respond to those comments. So that's where we stand on peer review. I think at that this point we'll just uh take any questions. >> Okay. We'll we'll come back to that. I
think basically what we do now is um I will summarize the letters unless Penrose says anything else on this today. Oh, do you? >> No. Okay. So, um as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, just for anyone that wasn't here, we already have a rule on letters and they are to be no
longer than one page 11 font. Um I see that somebody gave me one page and the font is about a one. So, I'm going to summarize c certainly that one if I can even read it. And um I'm going to essentially summarize I'm going to take the opportunity to summarize um a lot of
times going forward because otherwise um we we spend a lot of time we've spent extra time on letters that we really didn't have to based on our rules and also they're all posted in the online. Okay. So the first one is from um conservation commission from October
17th and this project does not have to be conditioned to meet the performance standards because it is not in the conservation jurisdiction. Next we have a note from Douglas Boeing Bon and he's writing to um express his
opposition and this was received uh today November 13th. It looks like he he's opposed to the project and uh the projects are too dense for the available acreage, inadequate for children to play safely, not enough parking spaces. They
are both near busy roads and will create traffic hazards. The meeting house project is planned for a terrain challenge pl terrain challenge plot um in less than three buildable acres with 42 units. There are more than 14 apartments per acre. I compare this
density to Nars Green and East constructed on 11.2 acres with 65 apartments or 5.8 units per acre. The that earlier Penrose project lacks any redeeming architectural style and has the charm charm of a warehouse district.
The Penrose representative at South Chattam Village Association meeting on 12 on 20 in 2024 suggested that the company take over a portion of the Twine Field Conservation Land as a play area for children. He he also could not
identify Main Street on the aerial photograph of the development site. I was not impressed. I've lived for Chadam in Chadam for over 20 years and um I want the town to be safe for children. This is a two-page and the font is
probably not exactly what it needs to be. So, I am going to summarize it. And this was received on November 13, 2025 from Lari Nolan McCann, a Cadam resident since 1965. This was um addressed to pretty much all
of our departments here in town and um and especially to me and to Joe Joe Goldsmith um and the fire police. Okay. This is my third letter regarding Penrose Management Company applying in Chadam to develop a total quantity of
90 transient rental apartments. The proposed project being heard um here for meeting house has 42 apartments, eight buildings, six buildings of which will be three stories high, towering structures which are well above the height restriction. The development will
be erected on only 3.7 um 3.571 acres of land. Much of it is upland and has a significant grade um of X and will result in the buildings looming over the quaint village of South
Chattam. Some of this land is unsuitable to build on. Um 42 units on on that amount of land is too dangerous. It's unsafe. Please refer to my letter October 15, 2025 and revisit those points. The select board has failed. The
residents of Cadam their invitation to develop like to developers like Penrose to develop this land for affordable housing has comproi compromised their vision statement and pledge. They pledged to this town preservation of our pristine environment. This project will
be devastating demolishing this once South Chattam neighborhood. The same holds true for Penrose deeply dense um on the Buckley property. Workforce housing is suggested, the suggested audience, but the reality is our local
community professionals, education, police, fire, to name a few, won't qualify for the housing. Um, let's see. Now, I'm on the second page, so I'm going to continue to summarize. It's imperative that Chattam citizens are aware and that our Chattam government
agencies understand that a member of the Chattam Affordable Housing Trust Board is not in favor of these developments. She read aloud her po point po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po po poantant letter at on October 15th she's intelligent, understands what thoughtful affordable housing can and
should be. The residents of Cadam deserve a safe environment um the idea of all towns in Mass having 10% affordable is absurd. The slam to slam this project in for the sake of the goal is irresponsible. I've heard the
heartfelt stories of the of a Cadam zoning board of appeals member that is also uh and also that of one of two members of the affordable trust. They have cited their own personal life struggles to secure and maintain housings housing um and their experience
seems to uh cause them to support the project. um using their personal life uh struggles to favor dense unsafe safe projects is wrong. I also object to local business persons rallying in support to build these dense unsafe
projects. I have not seen a Penrose lease or rules and regulations for these proposed apartment complexes. Um, if you greenlight this project, it it may well uh be the demise and destruction of Chattam New England architecture won't
be installed here. And again, this letter is on the website if you want to read every single word, right? Yeah. Okay. >> Not um letters. >> It will be. Yes. Because we just got it. Okay. No, this one is from the executive
director of the Chattam Housing Authority. Um, and her name is not signed, but I think it's Oh, Tracy Cannon. Okay. Now that the public comment portion of the Main Street Housing Buckley property deliberation is closed, I felt feel it's very important
for me to speak of a few of the issues that were raised before and will no doubt be raised again as we begin to look more closely at meeting house. The issues I feel I can speak to with confidence are specifically parking, public transportation, trash, and road
safety. We face all of these issues at the housing authority, as have all low income and affordable housing developments. The single truth is that in these situations is that if you have the right management company, none of
these things are insurmountable. They are certainly not worth losing a desperately needed opportunity like this. parking. There's no way to know in advance how many parking spaces will be needed. We do not have as many parking spaces as we have tenants at the housing
authority and we've managed to find solutions as the need arises. It's always better to borrow from a little bit of green space later if it is needed than to pave over an area prematurely. Public transit. We are the housing
authority have a fantastic relationship with the Cape Cod regional transit bus system years ago when Lake Street Terrace was built. It became clear that our neighborhood having a bus stop nearby was going to be very important. The CCRT actually made the housing
authority an official stop on their route from Hyenas to Orleans. The bus pulls very slowly through our horseshoe driveway, stopping at both ends. Again, I do not mean to say that this is where this is what we should do here. Only
that CCRT is very willing and able to do work with to work with the community to find solutions to serve the people in the most efficient and safe way possible. Trash and dumpster. Again, we very simply again very simply ways to
change if the first way isn't working. It has been trial and error for us. We have swapped out dumpsters for rolloff barrels in some places, vice versa in others. You have to pick a cooperative trash service who's willing to work with
you. Road safety. We have not we don't have an insignificant number of kids that travel on foot down Crawl Road to and from the middle school and they have remained safe. We have a large number of seniors as well that walk downtown, village market, banks, post office and
have remained safe as well. As long as there are sidewalks available to current crosswalks at near at uh near by rotaries, people by and large will utilize them. They are never there are never any guarantees, but it's
always the case no matter that's always the case no matter where you live. Certainly no reason to build very badly need not to build very badly needed housing. In closing, I'd like to say mostly most importantly, a development must have a good management company running it. They need to be willing to
listen to the tenants, the neighbors, the residents of Chadam in general in general and the town officials when there are concerns and address them as they arise. I have diligently um tried diligently to do everything in
my power to do this with the housing authority and I am very proud of our relationship with the town of Chadam. Again, I'm always available to answer questions and share my experiences with anyone. Tracy,
short note from Debbie Swenson from November 13, 2025. Writing to recommend the ZBA votes to disapprove the meeting house affordable housing development. The proposed structure have no cellars basement um needed for mo
needed uh something to do with moisture, mold, mildew in this area, insufficient parking, no outside recreational space, no water for plantings, local service employees and seniors won't qualify. Um and rental prices are too high for those
who do. There are no requirements or limits on the number of occupants or family units and no enforcement. A poor proposal in every way. Debbie Swanson Lou Heb of South Cadam writes on also November 13, 2025. The more I learn
about the Penrose projects, the more disturbing they are. By an undemocratic process, the citizens of South Chattam will suffer egregious dilitterious harm. um to our community. The project
is dangerous, especially for children. The parking and traffic congestion will be a mess. Warehousing of lower income folks and crowded conditions has historically not worked out well for those involved. The amount of environmental damage planned is painful
and not consistent with our town's stated values. The project is glaringly inongruous with our community's character. Please do whatever you can to maintain maintain Cadam's zoning standards, especially font. Um, and it
says, uh, let's see, I'm coming in late on this issue and have spent hours watching the trust meetings and following the Buckley meetings and meeting house road projects that were contracted to Penrose despite the public and several board members being in favor
of nonprofit choice with uh, home ownership. And this is from Ann Timson, and I don't see her address yet, but I'll see if I come to it. Um, most of us would like to see a postponement of the vote on Main Street project and a list
of conditions for both projects. Everyone appreciates the ZBA has come a long way in presenting to Penrose both alterations and conditions for Main Street. Um, we hope the ZBA will continue to negotiate for their reasonable terms rather than vote on Thursday. I'm trying to get to meeting
house. Uh there are with regard to meeting house there there are some concerns. She lists 18 in the smallest font I've ever seen. Penrose has not been transparent. There's no extra parking. There is no enforcement of occupancy.
Uh no requirements as to one family unit. Poor security restrict no restrictions on water. Um problem with clear cutting the property. No permanent well for irrigation or planted saplings. No security person available at night.
No basement. Local preference in our for our town's people. Um is an issue. Um it only lasts for three months. Rentals start at 2,000 a month. And then she goes on to name how that all works. Um if you're a
senior wanting to downsize space, um your equity is primarily in your home. you won't be eligible. Um, and again, there's 18 of these and if you want to look at the town's website sometime, it might already be on there. No, that was received November 11th, but try Monday
or Tuesday. Farrell Smith O'Connell. It's a law firm and um they are in Chadam. I think I messed this up last time in terms of the address. I will not do that again. David J. Farrell Jr. and he is right on Main
Street in Chattam. I write to supplement my September 3rd, 2025 letter and to reiterate my support for affordable housing in Chattam. However, Penrose based in Philadelphia will not be a good neighbor and is is not up to the job here. At a recent ZBA meeting on Buckley
property, Pence Penfield attorney Marian Singer Rose announced that wooden shingles would be too expensive in a fire hazard. This is a slap in the face of virtually every building owner in Chadam and our architectural aesthetic.
The Sally's Way affordable housing site in Turo built by On Cape Community Housing Resources nicely features white cedar shingle siding. He goes on to show a bunch of photos and again this will be
on the town's website if it's not already. And um one of the photos uh in particular um he notes as alarming um because it's uh another project he says of Penrose in East Ham where there's
some damage five years after construction. There's a couple of photos like that. Um okay. So there's that. Next we have Linda David and Linda Mroy Mroy. Um, and that was received November
10th, 2025. With the many affordable housing units being built in Chattam and adjacent towns and the high density of this construction on Main Street and Meeting House, is there a penalty that Penrose will be required to pay the town of Chadam if their rentals do not meet
70% local rental agreement? Will units just remain vacant or will local non-locals be allowed to rent? We would appreciate review of the level of property taxes Penrose will pay. What will be the impact on the developments on police force staffing? Will
additional police positions be needed? How many school age children are expected from the proposed number of units? We'd also appreciate a review of whether water and sewage costs will be paid by Penrose or covered by the town of Chattam. A traffic study has apparently been done in each location,
but data has not been distributed. It's hard to imagine the traffic from these units will not create backups, accidents, and new traffic choke points on Main Street and the intersection of Maine and Route 137. Parking has been limited to 1.4 spaces with no mention of
guest parking for caregivers. Um, this may result in double parking or parking along Meeting House Road on 137. Recognizing that there will be a path leading to the Meeting House Road development on the rail trail is unrealistic to assume that this will
eliminate a significant number of residents and their visitors from walking along Meeting House Road as there's no sidewalk between the rail trail and 28 and also may um many will undoubtedly choose to walk down the driveway. Um, let's see. There's no ADA
certification on meeting house from the Penrose property to 28 where there is bus service. Not to do so would be extraordinarily irresponsible. Constructing a sidewalk should be required for this development.
Okay. Elaine Gibbs has a two-page letter that I will just um summarize. She goes over um many topics. Topography. By Penrose's own admission,
Meeting House is challenged. They've stated repeatedly that they would never have bid on it if it not if it had not been combined with Main Street to make it financially attractive for them. U 65% of the percents of the units are two
and threebedroom, resulting in potential dozens of children living there. This entire project is too dangerous for children and families. And this, by the way, was received uh today as well. Boundaries. The pro the entrances and boundaries should be
staked so the public can see how much they will have to be clearcut. Um and the location and depths of the ravines entrance. The proposed wooden guide rail entrance is not only unsightly George Ryder Road at Ocean State, but dangerous for children as
it's a 245 foot long structure over 13 over a 13 foot ravine on either side. Um, and she goes on to express her concern for safety and children. Um, location and parking. She uh thinks occupants at meeting house are trapped.
There is no bank, pharmacy, etc. And there's no alternative place to park if parking spaces um are full when they get there. Public transportation should not be their only option. Density. Penrose actually encourage children to play in the ravines with
photos in their RFPs. The potential for accidents cannot be underestimated. Ravines or potential hazards should not be Penrose's alternative to open space. Storage. With no basement, there's insufficient storage for families for seasonal equipment. etc. Uh liability Penrose in the town of
Cadam. Knowledge of a potential hazard and failed to act reasonably can be considered negligence and a reckless disregard for health and safety. Safety issues should be remedied during the public hearing process. Penrose has been made aware of the potential hazards. And
then she gives a list on the second page of this um of 13 requirements that she thinks need to be done to proceed. Again, you can look on the website and see what she suggests and we will all read it.
That looks like that concludes our correspondences. Good job. >> Okay, folks in the audience, who would like to go first? >> Nope. So, we just move on to the next
item. No. Welcome. >> Thank you. Uh name is Joe Meeks, South Chattam, 229 Pleasant Street. And this is the second meeting I've been at. I was at the last, so I'm getting an education, too. And I guess the thing
that frustrates me is I just look at the density of this the buildings on this site. They have buildings backing up to other buildings trying to shoehorn stuff into this location which they know is not a great
one to build in to begin with. So what I'm frustrated with is the just the blatant lack of any regard for the character of the town and the neighbors that might have bought these properties.
And I hear the back and forth and I understand there's a real limit to what the the board can do with 4DB projects, but it's very clear to me that this is not a partnership
in any sense of the word. Very much a predator preying on the town, taking advantage of whatever le levers they can to get what they need. So, I just ask the the board to do everything they can to listen to the
residents concerns, do what they can to mitigate the project. We're all in favor of affordable housing and workforce housing. There's no issue there, but I fortunately I don't live next to these things, but there are other people that are town people that I part of my
community that do, and I'm just trying to be sensitive to them and their requirements as well. And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Gloria Hicks. Welcome. >> Thank you, Gloria Hicks. Meeting House Road. I'm an a butter to this project.
Um, and I'm for affordable housing going in this site despite the fact that it's going to impact my life immeasurably. Um, and I sort of have bullets because I know I have three minutes and we're all been here a long time. Um, but one thing
before I forget is I'd like to know from Penrose when you do get to speak about the traffic studies. I'd like to know exactly what was said um for the results for you to make the revisions for the revisions that you made because I don't have that information.
Um 3.75 acres was purchased. Only 2.25 acres is buildable. So, everybody does the math differently, but in my math world, that's 17 units per acre. So, you're going to hear about
the density again with this project, the density and the and the height. Um, these this project will be hanging over thousand square foot onelevel homes. So, you're not fitting into a
neighborhood or working becoming a part of the neighborhood that's already there. you are creating a neighborhood. Um, there are no sidewalks on the plans. There are no sidewalks planned. I know uh it's a town road, so I don't I don't
know what is going to happen with that. There are bus stops for children. Um, there's going to be a lot of people living there, a lot of kids going to school. Um, it's a dangerous road to begin with. I went to the traffic safety uh committee to ask for speed limit signs, children's signs, and um the
digital readouts for for uh for people. There aren't any on on 137, which is amazing. Um it's going to force me to walk out onto 137 to get to the bike trail, um which I currently don't have to do. So, a
sidewalk um would be imperative not only for the development but for those of us that are already living there. Um and in terms of the conservation land behind us, um I don't hear a lot about
that. Um we have very little conservation land. That land is going to be completely cleared and that conservation land needs to be protected. We don't have any any of it in South Chattam at all. And we're losing a lot
of uh foliage um with this project going in. Um and in terms of the water, you know, you're going to have the same conversation that you just had about Main Street. Um the most absurd thing that I heard today was that the wells
would be used temporarily until trees get established. Um that that just I I lost three trees three years ago. These were 8year-old arborites because you were looking at the irrigation system for 95 meeting house road.
And then I drive by peoples with lawns um true green trucks all over and we're creating the problems that we're trying to fix. Um water is water. We've had this conversation. Um it all comes from the same place. So,
one of the things that I'll bring bring up to the select board is that when there's a water restriction, it needs to affect everybody. Um, nobody should be privileged. Water is not a luxury item and it's becoming one. So, you're going to have I'm sure you'll have the same
conversations about this project that we just had about Main Street. Um, and I think that's all I have for now. Um, I just need you to know that I've been at every single trust meeting and every single select board meeting since last year when all this started. Um, the few
that I have missed, I've watched. So, I have kept up with every single thing every step of the way. And people are actually sick of listening to me. I've been talking about things at Nauseium. I also have been working with Penrose about um access for my own driveway. Um,
>> I hate to break it to you, but you're three minutes. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Thank you very much. >> Welcome. >> Thank you, uh, Carol Gordon from South Cadam. Allow me to share with you some concern concerns from some emails I've
received regarding Meeting House Road. Uh, here are just some of the concerns. Each rental unit should have its own water meter, assuming each tenant pays their own water bill. Each unit should be separately metered for sewer usage.
Is there a pet policy? And this is something I don't think you you discussed. We've discussed at all even with Main Street. And is there a pet fee with the policy? What happens with pets? Uh if this plan goes through, a copy of the lease should be published, made
public. Uh once again, cedar shingles on the homes to look like the homes are part of a Cadam community. uh lack of working with the community as far as with uh Penrose. Everyone agrees that we need affordable housing. People just want it done right.
Why is Penrose looking for funding from other Cadam organizations? These are just emails I've received. Uh regarding the affordable housing meeting November 10th, an email was concerned that if uh the trust does not represent the taxpayers of Cadam, they should not be
holding their positions. Uh the lot is also not suitable for this development at this time. Uh once again, we turn to the zoning board to make the decisions that are best for Chadam. Thank you. >> And thank you.
>> Welcome, ma'am. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. >> I am I've already sent you an email. Um but this is very sweet and short. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the ZBA. Thank you for your ongoing efforts
to research and present realistic conditions for the two Penrose projects in Chadam. I have sent an email and since then have gone to the community housing partnership meeting on November 10th. Several facts and comments stand
out from that meeting. Number one, the Affordable Housing Trust now has over 6 million on of our taxpayer funded revenue. Thus, no need for another funding this year from CPA as they have 11 other requests and apparently Penrose
has also requested 1 million from RCPA. Number two, a member of the housing board stated and I quote, "We are not supposed to be advocating for the abutters. It is my understanding that committee members in this town are
supposed to represent the public's interests." Number three, again at the meeting, a member suggested that seniors in most cases did not need parking spaces as they could not drive. It just
does not seem equitable to be paying 2,000 or 3,000 a month for an apartment with no parking included by Right. Number four, it was just announced that Chadam will be receiving over $500,000
for infrastructure improvements related to the Main Street Penrose development, including underground utilities and electrical connections. While present taxpayers and residents do without such modernizations,
when power outages occur so frequently, only the renters at Maine will be lucky enough to be protected. Number five, unrelated to the November 10 meeting, I hope there is a way for this board to continue to research further into the
labyrinth of borrowing avenues available to Penrose, including loans from TD Bank through a syndicator Redstone Equity Partners. Is funding co-mingled for different projects in different locations? this is worth looking into
and I thank you very much for listening and for so much service for our town. Thank you. >> And thank you. >> You um miss could you just go back and just tell us your name? I I forgot to ask you. >> Yeah, right here. This is perfect. Thank
you. >> And Timson. >> That's okay. >> And Timson Chadam. >> Thank you. Welcome, sir. >> Uh thank you. uh David Ferrell at uh 2355 Main Street and uh thanks for your work. Um I uh I just wanted to reference
the uh summary that's in your package on this agenda from uh Penrose uh where they say their goal is to uh provide affordable housing uh that is a source of pride uh for the residents and the town and I don't think they can do that.
Um it was earlier suggested that that drawings and plans are all well and good. Uh but um let's look at the reality. Um I have some photos I'd like to show. Are you going to be running it, sir?
Now, it was said that um Penrose had categorically denied any consideration of wood shingles in this town where wooden shingles are very much part of our character. I I think that's just the
tip of the iceberg. Now, this is affordable housing in Truro, uh on Sally's Way. Uh Province Town also has uh shingled affordable housing. I don't know why it can't be done here except that uh the reasoning was it's too
expensive and a fire hazard. Um mo the rest of us deal with it. Um the next um uh slide is an example uh that that Penrose touts um as
a good representation of the kind of work they do. Um, the village at NSET Green um, aims to evoke the local Cape Cod style. >> You have to stay near the mic and I I caution you. You have a little over a
minute left. >> Uh, next slide. Seriously? Um, that's Yeah, that that one. Uh, that is not Cape Cod style. That uh unless you're looking at Otis uh military bases uh
barracks. Uh next slide we have uh a bonomation a hodgepodge of gabled um angles and um um composite uh shingles. If we can do a closeup of the um
southeast dorma. You see the missing um and this is important. Look at the missing trim around the windows. Look at the cracks and the crooked um courses. Uh this is this is either or lousy construction and poor maintenance. And
this is five years after it was built. And they're going to give that kind of attention to Meeting House Road because I know it's too late to talk about Main Street, but that is that is going to be something that nobody that's resident there is going to take pride in. And
neither is the town. And we deserve better. It's a beautiful town and old residents and new residents ought to be able to take pride in what they have. >> Thank you very much. >> Welcome, Tracy. >> I'm I'm going to be real quick, I
promise. Um Tracy Cannon, South Chattam resident, um executive director of the housing authority and vice chair of the housing partnership. So, I just want to say one quick thing on each thing. I'm sorry. Um just I wanted to direct my
comment to Miss Timson from the um housing partnership. I didn't I think either I didn't make myself clear. Um I apologize, but the I did not say or I did not mean to say that elderly people don't drive. What I said was that we
originally we have 40 >> You have to speak to the board. We have 40 units at at the housing authority and when they originally built them um 52 years ago, they only put in 24 parking spaces because back then a lot of elderly people didn't drive, but a most
of my tenants drive now. So, I I just I'm sorry. I apologize if that was um if that was misunderstood. >> That's okay. We go ahead. >> I also want to say as a South Chattam resident just that I am 100% on board with this project. I live right around the corner and I frankly um the
character of my neighborhood I think would be wildly enhanced by having a bunch of kids around and families and and that and I'm I just I can't think of anything I'd rather see in my neighborhood. Um but finally as the uh director of the housing authority I want
to reiterate what you said Randy that um I'm available all the time. I would love to talk if you have you know uh Quinn Kar next door at Lake Street and I you know we we've seen a lot of the issues we we see them all the time some of the
things that are ongoing and I think that if you have a really good relationship with who it is that's running these projects a lot of the concerns that people have would be assuaged you wouldn't they if you can talk about it if you can address these things and if
you have a good you know a good working relationship with the town, with the residents, with everybody. Um, a lot of stuff that people are worried about. Um, they just they they get solved, but you have to you have to have that good relationship with your management company and you have to have good people
in place. Um, so that's all I have to say. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. >> Brian Phillips, 489 Orleans Road, Chadam, for the record. >> For the record, 374 Road, Brian Phillips. Um, you know, I don't have much for you today. Um, I guess one
thing I like to bring up is that when you talk about affordable housing, people always bring up the fact that, you know, brings a lot of crime in, you know, a lot of crime, maybe drug dealing or something. But what I've come to realize over the process of these hearings is it's not the tenants who are
the criminals. If you look at Penrose and some of their criminal activity, you know, the way they've procured a lot of their projects, >> you know, they we're not here to indict anyone. Um, right. >> Okay. If you you know what I I just want to point out, and this is a great time
for me to do it, and I can do it as chair. I think the most helpful thing people can do is tell us how to make this project as good as possible. And if you think that there's no hope for it, then just say that, too. But um those are the things that are extremely helpful. Go ahead.
>> Oh, that that was a curveball. Um so I guess uh the last thing, you know, because I saw the density kind of approved and I guess all I'm going to have to fall back on is an I told you so on, you know, the density and how it's going to
affect our infrastructure and how it's going to cost Chadam taxpayers a lot of money to fix that stuff with our drinking water, our roads, and who knows what else. Thank you. >> Thank No, thank you very much. Um, yes, ma'am. Oh, wait a minute. Didn't you Did you already go? You can't No, no, no. You need to sit down. We can We cannot
do that, ma'am. Ma'am, I'm asking you again quite respectfully to sit down to defend myself. >> You are not able to defend yourself. I apologize. Thank you. >> Okay. Who would like to speak next? Who hasn't spoken yet? >> Uh, we have Mr. Buckley and Miss Gibbs
online. >> Okay. Um, who wants to go? Who's first? Anybody? Well, ladies first. Go ahead, Elaine Gibbs. Welcome. >> Thank you. Um, I will be quick. I've
submitted the my uh email to you. Uh, but I would like to expand a little bit. Safety should come first. Uh, there. If Penrose cannot do that, they need to walk away. Uh, one of my recommendations was to remove building six, which is the
one to the immediate left of the entrance way. It literally hangs over a ravine. If there were to be a fire, you can see where the fire trucks, if they had to access the back of the building to get a child out or if a child fell, they would not be able to do so. That
building should be eliminated. It will increase the green space, more parking since these people are trapped out there with no alternative parking at Platsville when they come home. I also would recommend that you request the liability uh pol policies for both
Penrose and Chadam because Penrose for developing it where safety is an issue and for Chadam for approving it because I think there are going to be serious when when Penrose tells kids to play in ravines as an alternative to green
space, we have a problem. That is not acceptable. Those ravines are dangerous. Uh kids can get lost, they can get trapped, they can get hurt. Um >> anything that's not in your letter that we could >> very unsafe and if you >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. I just refer I hope people will focus on Dave Frell's photographs of the quality of construction after 5 years. If that's the condition of the exterior, those windows are leaking. And I can't imagine what the interior walls are like. They are cutting costs on
materials in order for profits. And that's the problem when you're dealing with a prof for-profit company. That that's totally unacceptable. And everybody should go up and see the quality of NSI Green. It is disgraceful. Those buildings are going to fall down
uh within a matter of years or it's going to cost a fortune to repair them. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thank you. Steve Buckley, please go ahead. We're talking about meeting house. You probably know that, right? >> Right. And uh yes. Uh but this is an
issue that applies to both Penrose properties or future properties as it is. Um parking. I believe that uh having lived off Cape for 25 years before returning back to my hometown of Chadam. Uh, I lived in a
number of different places with my family and as a young couple with children. We lived in a townhouse development with a common parking area and assigned spots
and occasionally people would park in quote our assigned spots and there was some contentiousness there. But what I'm trying to point out is that if there were no assigned spots and you're coming home with packages and young children in
the weather and this has had happened before where you had to walk all the way hundreds of feet away with like I said coming trying to come in through the weather with young children on a day and it's guess what you're going to remember that for a long time. So if there's only
one spot, if there can be one assigned spot, then I'm telling you as an expert in living in these places as a user, as a tenant, as that's the expertise, the life experience that you should be
listening to, not the landlord. The landlord isn't the one who's going to be walking across from all the way across the other side of the complex in the rain with toddlers and packages, you know. Um, so that's so don't leave it to
um the quote unquote experts, meaning the landlord, because I would love to hear the story how about their experience about how that works out because having done that, having been through that whole experience for years and years, I would love to hear a story
about how it worked out better the other way. So that's my uh advice to you on both properties that there be at least one spot >> for each unit. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, that looks like it concludes the
remarks for today. >> Is that possible? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it is. >> Okay. So, >> let's talk to the board. Let's talk to Penrose board. Who wants to go first?
>> Anybody? >> Oh, you want to rebut? >> Sure. respond. >> Just like to say um one thing for the board. Uh you we look forward to continuing to work with you. Um as as much as Mr. Nixon and I don't
necessarily always see eye to eye, he mentioned passion and reason earlier this afternoon. You are hearing a ton of passion. And I would venture to say besides the fact that much of it is libalist and slanderous, it's also not
reasoned. So, as you look, and I know you will as you continue to review the process, um you know, I'm hope that you will be looking uh there is passion, but also that you're using reason as you look at the project just because there is an awful lot of the lack of one that you've been hearing from the public. Thank you.
>> Okay. And Rio, >> oh, no, I have nothing further to add um Sure. >> in terms of responding to the public comments. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Does anyone from the board want to talk about tai should we
be talking about ty and bond today? Um you can so the changes that were submitted in your November 6 supplemental materials um if you wanted to you know comment on the dumpsters the bike uh trail the um additional
peerreview response that we received the buffer plantings that they have shown on these set of plans any of those things that the board would like to remark on or anything else. >> Does anybody have the strength and the ambition today? Um or do you want to
take time to Yeah, go ahead, Jenny. >> Maybe you'll some >> might deviate a little bit from Sarah's parameters, but I just had some some questions about um Yeah, please. >> Okay, so well and a comment. Thank you for moving the dumpster um away from the
bakers. I had brought that up. Um would would there be any possibility to um swap out building six for a building A because it is that's just an a question. You don't have to
answer it right now, but it it is um a large building right on the edge of that ravine and I I too was just wondering if it was a little oversized for that particular spot. So that was a question. Um >> I'm sorry, Jenny. Which buildings are we
talking about? >> Building six. Swapping out C for an A. Just a small >> profile. Yes, that's okay. >> Yeah. >> So C for an A in that. That's what you're just so we understand what you're asking. >> That's what I was asking. Yeah. >> Got it.
>> Um because of the just the size of that building and and uh it it does appear as though it's really on the edge. So, that was uh just a question for consideration. And um did was the Baker's driveway resolved?
Because when I'm looking at this plan, um it does look like their driveway, a portion of their driveway, crosses over the property line, and then what about the current uh driveway that Miss Hicks and Mr. and the Baker family share
today? So the point about previously Miss Hicks as an example could leave her house and walk to the bike trail and now uh with your property there how does she get to the bike trail? So I just want to resolve a little bit of those engineering items or
understand it better. >> Sure. Um okay I I guess I'll I'll start with mi um Mrs. Hicks. Uh I believe we have uh a solution that works for both of us in terms of reconfiguring her driveway. The existing ax access way
that both her and Mr. Baker use would be discontinued, but um she did bring up the idea of wanting to access the bike trail considering how difficult it is to add almost impossible to add a sidewalk along
meeting house. So, we are looking at options to have the path there and just figuring out how to get it back up to the bridge to so that she can then continue with those accessible ways down to the bike path. >> That which would be the ways our residents would go as well.
>> Okay. So, you are aware of that concern and and are working on that? >> Yes. Okay. >> And in terms of Mr. Baker, we've um made a couple of adjustments um that he had requested in the primary ones with the
moving the dumpster, which which we've done. >> And then you can see we've added substantial screening um along the property border. What you don't see and what he sees with a plan we sent to him uh yesterday is um a proposal to add
even more substantial landscaping, but it's not shown here because it would be on his property. >> Okay. When I met him uh many months ago, there was some dis discrepancy about his driveway.
Has that been resolved? What? And it looks like that's his parking. That's the corner of his house, but that's his parking area. And it looks in one of these plans like it crosses over the line. >> That's right. It does. Yeah. And it would have to be removed to >> Okay. >> for this to work. Yeah. So, what did we
propose to was building a new parking area for him? >> For him. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Um, and uh I just want to say I agree with Mr. Buckley that I like the assigned parking and I like it for meeting for uh Main Street, too.
>> Okay. Who who wants to go next? Yes, please, Lee. Um I had some concerns about building number six as well. And I had the same thought as Jenny to maybe
switch it out for a building A or to um instead of the building uh number one which is a building A having the management building as part of the building. Would it be possible? Would you consider
um and you don't have to answer this now, but would you consider um putting the management building where building six is and which would be probably a smaller building. You might even be able to move over
building C a little bit, getting a little bit more green space. I don't know how it would all work out, but um that building six does make me nervous. Um. >> Mhm. >> And I don't think it would be a bad place for the management building to be
located. But that's those just some of my thoughts. I do also want to say I appreciate you moving the dumpster. I think that's a pretty good spot for it. Um I am also in favor of at least one
parking space per unit. I know if I lived there, I would like to be able to count on the fact that I had a one at least one spot. Um the additional um plantings look great.
Um and I guess I would in a perfect world I'd love to see a sidewalk. Is there any way to put one on the other side of Meeting House Road, which then of course would require another crosswalk, but
>> this side over here? >> Yeah, the other side. >> But just just some of my thoughts, that's all. >> Got it. Yeah. >> So, the management building is in the back. Isn't it just part and parcel of a
building with units in it? >> That's right. So can you explain that just for benefit of all of us one more time? >> Sure. Um on the So this is a combined management and residential building. It includes uh management space, offices
also maintenance, storage space which is all on the first floor. Um this building is approximately I think 5,800 square ft. the uh type C building, which building six is down here, is slightly bigger. I
mean, they're roughly the same size, but that's 6,030 square ft. >> Stand up. >> So, they're very similar size buildings. So, I think swapping them might not be helpful. I mean, this this one, even
though it's a smaller building with square footage, the footprint's bigger, so it might It might not fit here or have, you know, overhang in this where the grade drops sharply even more. >> Uh, yes, please.
>> I guess I I guess I was um I guess I was thinking of the management building as a standalone building, not part of the A. Um, and I mean, you could even put a type C building where the type A
building number one is. What what is it that makes people and and I share your concern, but maybe we could better articulate what don't we like about the way that building is in the front? The way it's just like >> Yeah. That it's hanging >> awkward. >> Yes. It's very awkward. It's large. It's
>> bulky. >> Yeah. Um and maybe it does mean reducing some of the units. >> Um >> and seats sea streetscape is not particularly attractive with that. Um um
>> because that's what you're gonna see. You're gonna come down the hill and that's be right there. >> You're going to see that. Yes. I mean, I think from a convenience standpoint, the management building would be much better there. I mean, it kind of I
mean, you've spoken about seeing people coming and going, being kind of centrally located. Um just just a thought. I mean, maybe it does mean a reduction in units slightly if you swap building one with building
um six. >> Mhm. >> And then you just make a standalone um management building. >> Yeah. No, I I I don't disagree. >> Yeah, >> we could take a look at that. The reduction in units is going to be
difficult. Um but maybe there's a way we can we can get something to work there. um it would be kind of and then pushing density off in another location. >> We appreciate you taking a look at it
and we'll talk about that next meeting which I think is going to be December 10th. >> 10th just so you know. Uh which is a Wednesday so it's going to throw you off. >> Wednesday. >> Yeah. >> Yep. It's the best we could do. >> Okay. >> Um okay. Who else wants to add some
input today? Um Steve, please. Um, well, I guess today is the day to talk about building six. I don't like that building at all. It's actually the tallest building. I think it's 36 feet 3 in tall. Um,
I would like to either see that eliminated completely and possibly sliding building five over a bit to give some more green space or playground space on that side of the the project.
um or eliminate it as a a residence building and put a smaller um admin maintenance building there. One story with no
residence. I believe building five and building six are the same exact buildings. So it would effectively be the the same height. I think it's just a in terms of the waiverss because of >> well the the >> the average drop in
>> I have building I have building five is 35 ft too. >> It's for calculation purposes Steve. It's because of how the zoning bylaw calculates zoning height looking at the different sides. The buildings are the physically the same but for zoning. We had this conversation earlier for zoning
calculation purposes you get a different number. Now that being said, Mark has prepared a sketch which through moving retaining wall, forget what happens to building six eventually, but but through through changing retaining walls, so
changing the the grades, you can actually keep the same building and the height becomes lower even though the building's not changing. So that is something I'm not sure if we can show it to you necessarily today, but we certainly can. >> We have time. Yeah. Okay. I mean for another day to do it. Sure.
>> Um Paul, did you want to do anything today in terms of comments? >> No, I'm maxed out for today. >> Yeah. Yeah, I hear you, brother. Um yeah, I don't think um I mean I I would have pointed pointed out what what Andrew just said. Um because I can see
if there's any difference in height, it's what the grading at this point between those two buildings. Um and um no, I'm I'm I'm kind of done. Thanks, Mr. >> Nixon. Not today. I I want to go back to
um Miss Miss Hicks uh driveway. I mean, I've been paying attention, as I mentioned before, all along the way with this and um I'm sure that a lot of other people understand that right now she
comes out safely and that safe way to get out is going to be unavailable. So, in order to get out, she'd have to sort of pull up and then take her chances with turning the wheel. I've done it. I
tried it because obviously we go there and it's ridiculously uh it's not an option, you know. So, where are we with that? Uh the our proposed design, which I believe she said was acceptable, was to
move the driveway to straighten it the meeting house. So you could easily take a left or right. >> Okay? >> Because she's losing the way. >> If she wants to go right, she she can't go out her current driveway. She has to travel down this the basically the dirt
paper road to get out, >> right? >> So she won't need to do that. So we're rearranging going to give her a straight out. >> Yes, correct. >> Okay. Her own driveway and you're going to pay >> and >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And we we're also expanding it for a turnaround area for her at her request.
>> Okay. So, we I I just don't think we had clarity on that. Maybe I'm on an island with that, but that's good to know. >> And just to clarify that the same goes for Mr. Baker's property and Rose is proposing a new driveway that would come out, you know, to meeting house um you know, that they are proposing to do.
>> Okay. Um, well, good to know. That's that's your position right now. Um, yes, please, Steve. >> Uh, one more question. The dumpster in its new location is that diagonal wing off this the center island there,
>> right? >> Yes. >> So, what how is the pickup proposed? The drive the truck is going to drive straight in. >> Yes. Yes, it will with a front load of Joe. >> Sure. Yeah. So, the truck would come in and
>> with a front load truck, right? Be able to pick up the >> the bins back out and then recirculate back around the property and out. >> So, come in. Yeah. >> Pick up. >> Yeah. >> Back out. And then >> there's room enough for them to get
around there. Okay. >> Yeah. There's room enough for the town's largest ladder truck to circulate. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. one dumpster for the site for 42 units. >> That is correct. So, there would be more frequent pickups.
>> Okay. Any chance there could be a dumpster and a half or two dumpsters or >> We had a tough time. I mean, this is not ideal for us. Obviously, we This worked very well, but it was an accommodation to the neighbor to move it here. Sorry.
I was just going to point out it's a that's the enclosure for the dumpsters. So, there could be multiple that would fit in there. So that the enclosure would have I think you would say recycling and potentially several bins could fit in that enclosure area. So it's been expanded larger than
normal. >> Okay. Um well can you address the issue of this uh ravine and the safety and what are your thoughts on that? I mean we hear about it a lot. You know I have to go there. I have not uh put my boots
on yet but I I would like to see what everybody's talking about. I admit that I have not. Have you? >> Yes. Yeah, I've gone up and down it a bunch of times. >> Okay. >> On the ticks. There's a bunch of winterberry there. It's which is very pretty. Um, I guess it would be dangerous if you start running full
speed down the hill, but um, it's it's not a it's difficulty to build buildings on it, but people it's not it's safe for hiking or walking through. It's it's
very thick, you know, with brush right now. But I've we've I've walked this up several times with town staff. Gloria McFersonson, I think Katie, who's still here, has walked it with me. >> I I'll do it the next time. That's my homework. >> Yeah. I don't think it's a public safety
hazard at all. >> And and there is a play area which is shown which is not I hear those comments that Miss Gibbs keeps making, but you know, there is a dedicated play area that is not the area that Ria was just describing. It's not just her. Other
people have mentioned it. So, you know, >> whenever there's a body of water, that's the first thing I think of. I'm a I'm an anti- pool person, so think about that. >> There's um there's no standing water here. You know, maybe in a shortterm period after a large storm, but it's mostly dry,
>> okay, >> all the time. Um also point out, you know, there's a lot of areas for children to play. There's there's the twining field, which is right behind the property. We have the amenities we put together here on site and then they also have access to the bike path.
>> Right. Right. Yeah. Which is great. Sure. Okay. Yes. M. Nope. Okay. And that appears. How about that's it for today and uh you can uh >> Great. Thank you very much. >> December 10th at 2:00.
>> So Paul, we we do need a motion >> December. >> Do I do I hear a motion to adjourn to December? to continue the public hearing. >> Continue the public hearing to December 10, 2025. >> Yes. Wednesday.
>> I do hear a motion to that. >> No, you you're making the motion. They have the request. >> Thank you, Mr. Singer. >> Yes. The request. >> Thank you for that request. >> The request. >> I'll move to grant Mr. Singer's request for a continuence >> to December 10th, 2025.
>> I'm looking for >> Dave Beachs and votes yes enthusiastically. >> Yeah. Say yes, Mr. Yes. >> Paul. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Now we need a motion to adjurnn. Paul, >> I'll move to adjurnn. >> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes.
>> David Nixon. Yes. >> All right. >> So yeah. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. And Randy as well. It What time is it? >> 5:12 p.m. >> Okay. Thank you everybody.