[Music] [Music]
Okay, welcome everyone. This is the October 30th, 2025 meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing a chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending
certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the
proceedings as provided far in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508-945-4410, conference ID 291 324885
pound, or join the meeting online via the Microsoft Teams link in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Cadam TV 1072, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide realtime access. So, we will
post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. At this time, I'd like to ask everybody to take off all hats and also shut off all
gadgets that make any noise whatsoever. And if you could keep your conversations either very very low and brief or in the hall, that would be appreciated. Thank you. So, we start meetings with a roll call of all board members and then we ask if any citizens or not board members
on the telephone would just make sure that they um make their identity known. The notice is read by our staff, Sarah Clark on my right, and town council will provide an update on the proformer. That'll be the first thing we hear about. The applicant will present any
changes to the project. I will read and everybody will uh read the letters received by the board. We passed them out for Halloween today. So, everybody is going to participate in that. Anyone wishing to comment on the application may speak for up to two
minutes today. Those present in the meeting room will be recognized first, followed by anyone online. The applicant may respond to uh to written and oral comments. Board members will provide additional comments or ask questions of
the applicant, public or town council. The board will vote to close the public hearing today and move into deliberations. Once in deliberations, no additional public comment will be allowed. All votes are taken by roll call and the
board will vote to continue the deliberations to a date certain. At the end of the meeting, we will close the meeting via a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So, as always, we start with a roll call vote
of all members. um authorizing this form of meeting. >> David H. Beach and I approve this form of meeting. >> Uh Ed Actton, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Paul C. Simple, I approve. >> Lee Hubby, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve.
>> Virginia Famick, I approve. >> And Randy Podash, I approve as well. So Sarah, take it away. >> Application number 25-034. Penrose LLC 15 Milk Street 16th floor Boston Mass 02109.
The property is owned by the Town of Cadam located at 0 and 1533 Main Street. Also shown on the Town of Chadam's assessor's map 9D block 4A lot 1 and map 9D block 4 lot 18. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law Chapter
40B sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR56 for the construction of 48 dwelling units in nine structures. Also proposes the construction of a management building. The applicants are requesting the grant of various waiverss from regulations promulgated by the Chattam zoning bylaw and other local
regulations. The property contains 128,492 ft, 2.95 acres in the R20 zoning district. This was continued from May 8th, June 5th, July 15th, August 21st, September 18th, and October 2nd, 2025.
>> Thank you. Okay, so the first thing we were planning to do is um speak to town council. I believe he's online, attorney Jay Talaman to give us an update on the um proform if I'm not mistaken.
>> Right. So, thank you, Randy. Um Jay Talererman Town Council. So, when the the board was last together, they authorized the um retention of an expert to peer review the proforma provided by
Penrose. And with that information, we then went out to speak with the various folks that do this work. It's a little bit complicated because it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. There are specific guidelines under 40B that have
to be adhered to that are not quite uh simple math. They uh involve standards that allow use of different values um in terms of interpreting certain particular items regarding related transactions and
land costs and and other assorted costs and revenues for a particular project. With that there are a small number of professionals out there that do this work from um top to bottom. Um sometimes
uh you know most frequently we use those experts there's five or six of them that we can use for this kind of analysis. If those experts are not available or if we had to pursue this matter through um an adjudication at the housing appeals committee we might combine it with a
number of different experts um accountants uh construction cost estimators and the like. um try as we uh might, we did contact five or six people who are the folks that are more most frequently identified as being capable
of doing this. Some of them didn't respond, some of them, several of them had conflicts because they have done work for um Penrose and some were retired. So, um, as I've discussed with the with the chair, with Randy and and
with Sarah, we, uh, were unable, um, to obtain, uh, experts. That doesn't mean that the analysis is done. In the event that this ended up at the housing appeals committee, and no one's clamoring for that, obviously, but in the event that it ended up there, we
would still be making a case under those um, things. But for the time being and in the short time period we had available, we weren't able to um get a single expert that could do all of the work to peer review. So, um that uh
leaves the board without an opportunity to have expert review um with this and puts us back in the realm of kind of negotiating in good faith with the applicant for um the
purposes of this which is the the final hearing session absent a um an approved extension. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So, we don't have a peer review and um there's nothing we could do about it. That's my
that's my understanding. Um okay, so we're going to go on to the next topic which uh is the applicant will present any changes to the project. Welcome, Tony Singer. >> Thank you.
There we go. All right. Thank you. Oh, good. All right. So, good afternoon. For the record, Andrew Singer here on behalf of the applicant. Um after so many months of meetings you know the whole team but I will hear with us Rio Sicetti and
Charlie Adams from Penrose Mark Waffle from Khali Catrell uh Joe Henderson from Horesley Whitten and Paul Adaman from Union Studio. Um what I wanted to go over this afternoon is as you just suggested uh updates and basically
closing discussion uh because you know you'll be closing the hearing this afternoon. um the what is up on the screen we gave you a supplemental submission which we're going to go through and gave it to you last week but this is the plan that you looked at last time so this was before changes just
wanted you to this was the layout with the uh management building with the community building and in response to uh comments and requests and suggestions from last time uh we've made a few changes and
first off is trees um the seven trees trees that are circled uh along Route 28 at the front of the property. The applicant is proposing to increase the planting caliber from 3 to 3 and 1/2 in, which is what it was originally, to 4 to
4 and 1/2 in. These larger trees will uh have a planting height of somewhere between 18 to 26 feet depending on nursery stock available at the time of construction. It also depends on different tree species, as Mark was telling me, grow to different heights. You just never know, but that's the
general height of what they would be. And as I've noted before, um we believe that this provides um additional screening that you were looking for. Uh remembering as I was submitting that, uh the purpose of screening is not to block
a property, but it's to soften it. And we would respectfully suggest that doing this with these uh seven trees will help do that. As far as irrigation, that was another topic of discussion. and the applicant is proposing to uh install an irrigation
well to handle the landscape needs of the property. So it would not be a uh it wouldn't be water coming in in the in the plant bags I was talking about. It wouldn't be tapping off any of the buildings. It would be an irrigation well. Um
we don't have it here. Okay. Um, we didn't put a slide in, but as far as lighting, we did pro provide to you a phototric plan and cut sheets for uh new proposed lighting. You would ask for something that was more in keeping with Chadaman. So, that has been proposed.
Unfortunately, I just realized we did not put it on the um slide packet, but I know you have copies of it. >> And I think it's on the website, too. I >> I think yes, it is. I just unfortunately can't show it to you right now. I apologize. Um, so as far as the management building itself, um, in the
spirit of ongoing cooperation and notwithstanding that it really does oppose the ideas, no surprise to you because I've said it before, if the board ultimately votes to approve the project, then the applicant is willing and proposes at that point to further
reduce the size of the management building. They will eliminate the multi-purpose room designated for resident use. They don't want to, but if you vote to approve the project, they're willing to. What this would do, they're also reorienting the building, and you can see the layout here. Before, go
back. If you can see on that plan, the entrance and the porch was on the back of the building, as you can see there. Now, it is being reoriented to have the entrance on the west side of the building. The building is cut back further in size. What you're's looking
at on this plan is a building that is 50% smaller than the building was originally when it had a gym, a fitness room, and the multi-purpose room. So, this is a one-story building. The footprint now that's shown up there is 2154 square ft.
We also had provided well, this is what it would whoop, sorry, this is what it would look like as uh the rendering from the street. And we can go back and forth to these. This is the elevation just directly up for you. And then this is
the floor plan showing what is in the building. And so I want to so what you can see on this plan as well is you can see in red dashed in red around the management building is what the building was going to be. So now it is further back from Route 28 than it was
before. It is a building that is absolutely essential to the applicant. Um, and so what's here before you today, as I noted, is if the board ultimately when you go into deliberations, vote to approve the project, this is the plan we're submitting. If, however, and this
gets to something Jay was talking about as well, if the board ultimately votes either to not approve the project or to approve it with conditions that the applicant feels would render the project uneconomic, the applicant at that point would respectfully submit that you vote on the original design and the original
plan that was submitted. the applicant made many changes to try to work with the neighbors on setbacks to try to work with you on the management building. If however those weren't enough, if if what's up here as a plan um does not garner uh the support that it needs to
pass, then they would ask you to vote on the original plan so that when the housing appeals committee looks at this, they can be looking at the original design, which is really what the applicant felt was the best for the property before beginning to negotiate, as uh town council noted, work with the
neighbors and try to come up with something that uh hopefully would work for everybody. Um want to talk briefly about the crosswalk in the uh top right of this. The applicant as you know has repeatedly stated that they are willing to do this
crosswalk. Uh they proposed it on this plan. It is one that has received endorsement from the police chief in a couple different emails that you have uh in the in your packet. And however, as we've noted and you know, Route 28 is a
state highway. So this development as far as conditioning, we are asking you to consider an condition that requires the applicant to submit to Mass Highway to do everything in its power to obtain approval for the crosswalk, but not to make it an absolute condition on
implementing the project. Because if you do that, then that can be a condition that renders the project uneconomic because what if the state doesn't approve it? Then the applicant can't build the project. All of that being said, the applicant is going has has tried to reach out to the
state, is willing to reach out to the state, will reach out to the state. And as we understand it, town support for this crosswalk is going to be critical to the state. Right? Just because an applicant comes and says, "We'd like a crosswalk in Route 28," they'll say, "Yeah, thank you." But the town needs to
support it. The police chief, the board of appeals, the select board. If there's strong and substantial town support for this crosswalk, we're hopeful that it will be approved, but we also the applicant needs to have the flexibility that if for some reason it's not, they still need a project if
you're voting to approve a project. Separate from all this, because we've had a lot of conversation about the crosswalk and about children, what I would like for the record and for you to realize is that from the beginning, the applicant has provided for a safe and efficient connection to the town's
infrastructure. There is a new sidewalk proposed across the entire front of the property. It connects to a sidewalk to the west that goes down to the Barnhill um roundabout. There is a crosswalk there. It takes you across the street to the town's um uh sidewalk infrastructure
on the north side of the street. So, it is not fair to say that this project has been designed without if it was without a crosswalk is is unsafe. It has been designed. The applicant took pedestrian safety seriously from the beginning. It proposed the sidewalk. It proposed the
connection to the town's infrastructure. And so we submit that without the crosswalk it's a safe proposal. With the crosswalk might be that much better. Um I'd like to end with and maybe not end
but follow with two two matters. The first is I would like to address the suggestion that was raised at the last meeting about somehow combining this project with the project at zero meeting house road to further reduce units. And I would like to end then with um a
discussion again about the legal standard and the guidance that boards of appeals and you look at uh in looking at comprehensive permit applications. At the last hearing uh it became evident that we believe there's a misunderstanding concerning density as
it relates to the economics involved in the two proposals. The applicant has noted in writing and in testimony that because of the synergies and operating efficiencies that can result from having these two projects within you know reasonable
proximity to each other that they felt they could do something less than they normally do. They normally don't do projects less than 60 units. what they that was interesting. Um, in this case, they feel the numbers that have been on
their original performer that they reviewed with the town and the subsequent proforming it that we submitted to you um for for a smaller density. They believe strongly that the 42 units at Meeting
House and the 48 units here at Main Street are the lowest they can go and still make the two separate necessitating separate funding projects work. Doing something less doesn't work. It just doesn't work economically for
them. So it is not a case of combining these two projects you get something more than 60. No, it's that these two separate projects are each less than 60. And in the applicant's professional opinion, doing this for so long, the number of units, the 48 units on this
site are the lowest they can go. And that's what they submitted originally to the town. And so that's what is before you, you know, as you vote. Penrose has been doing this for more than five decades. Um, their mission, their vision, and their drive has been
to provide a affordable housing for working people. You may have gone to their website. I know I have and and you'll see all that and you can see they've have over 27,000 rental housing units. They have oodles of information on that website about who they are, the character of what they are, and how they
do what they do. And I know I've said it before, I'll say it again now. This is not a case where Penrose proactively reached out to the town and said, "We're going to do a 40B in your town." No. This was the town of Chadam on town land engaging in an
extensive public and transparent vetting process seeking a denser development on this par parcel. The town reviewed multiple applicants as you know from this testimony. They selected Penrose. They negotiated with Penrose. They entered into an LDA with Penrose and we
filed an application with this board. This is an application that was done through a process that the town invited and Penrose responded to. The board of appeals has adopted regulations under chapter 40B. Not all
towns do but you have. Under those it's it says that these rules of cadam board are gr are adopted under the anti- snob zoning act chapter 40b. The purpose of that act and these rules is to facilitate the development of affordable
housing in Massachusetts. These rules must be read in conjunction with and implemented in a manner consistent with the complete regulations of the housing appeals committee and the guidelines for the local review of comprehensive permits.
Those local guidelines promulgated by the state. the guidelines that were just mentioned. Note that the statute chapter 40B requires that a comprehensive permit be granted when it is quote consistent with local needs end quote and describes a balancing test. You've heard me say that
on numerous occasions. That is on some sites it may be possible to build affordable housing that does not comply with certain local restrictions but nevertheless has no negative impact on local health, safety, environmental design, open space and planning concerns.
For other sites, the impact on these local concerns may be limited enough so that these concerns are outweighed by the need for low and moderate income housing. In either case, the law requires the board to wave local conditions, local restrictions, I'm sorry.
Finally, under the regulations, in considering conditions that might be imposed on a project, the zoning board of appeals should focus on the health, safety, environmental, design, open space, and planning impacts of the development. Respectfully submit that Penrose has
gone above and beyond in trying to do exactly that. Throughout the public hearing process, throughout meetings with the neighbors, throughout meetings with town officials, they have tried to respond to legitimate concerns and requests of the board and the neighbors. In some cases, they thought they had agreement with the neighbors. Didn't
turn out to be the case. In some of the cases, some of the changes this board has applauded. There has been ardent support for this project and there's also ardent opposition to this project. That's kind of part for the course with 4DB. This
project is a project that we submit merits approval. There is a desperate need for housing in Chadam and everyone including every single member on this board acknowledges that. I realize that there is significant support as I said for this project in the community. The
applicant submits that this project is consistent with local needs, that you can condition it as we have suggested and as submitted per the plans in the record in a way that provides affordable housing for the community. It provides what the community had set out for in
the RFP process and that the project merits approval. We appreciate all of your time as you've gone through this public hearing. This is, I think, our seventh month before you. uh we know you're going to uh close the hearing today and begin your deliberations and we welcome that. We
look forward to that conversation, listening to that. We obviously can't talk unless you ask us to um but listening to where that goes as you work your way towards a decision. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it >> and and thank you for that um very comprehensive speech. Appreciate it.
Yeah. Okay. Let's see what's next. I lost my paper. Um, I think we're going to read the the letters now. Yeah. All right. So, we're going to um divide and conquer today with these letters. We'll start with
Dave V. Okay. Well, uh, this letter is dated 10:27 uh, 2025 uh, to the Cadam Zoning Board and Chattam Town Manager. I am in favor of developing affordable housing on the Buckley property.
However, I respectfully request that the zoning board and town manager carefully review several important considerations with respect to the Penrose proposal. Size of buildings. After walking the Buckley property with Penrose representatives who were very accommodating and informative, I believe
it is important for the zoning board, select board, and town manager to do the same. Visualiz Visualizing seven, eight, or nine large buildings on just three acres demonstrates how overwhelming such a development would be for the area.
The proposed buildings do not aesthetically fit the landscape and are out of place for this location. Community input. The current proposal does not reflect the community's preferences for this property. Community has continually expressed support for fewer buildings, preferably owner
occupied. Yet, these wishes have not been taken into account. Overflow parking. With the Penrose plan potentially bringing 150 to 170 new residents and limited public transportation options, parking will be insufficient. Where will the overflow
parking go? Water restrictions. Cadam is regularly subject to water restrictions. Adding as many as 170 people to this small area push put additional strain on the town's water system, exacerbating existing issues. Federal financing in light of the
current situation in Washington is crucial for both the town and Penrose to clarify how federal funding will affect this development. The project's success depends on such funding. There needs to be an explanation of how it could be secured given today's uncertain environment.
No one is asking for a perfect solution. We're asking for the right solution for everyone involved. Let's not create a congested living situation for the 150 plus people who would be living on this property. Please do not throw more money at this inappropriate proposal. Spending
more time finding the right answer is the right thing to do. Our turn, our town deserves better and can do better. Thank you, Debbie Finery. Finerty and her address is 28 Jesse's Landing. >> Thank you.
>> Um, this letter is from Brian Phillips, uh, dated Thursday, October 30th, uh, to Sarah Clark of, uh, of the ZBA. Uh, subject to ZBA Penrose hearing 10:30 to the Chattam ZBA. There are many
interesting and peculiar things surrounding the RFP and procurement process of this project that I witnessed and have been brought up by myself and others during these ZBA hearings such as but not limited to the circumventing of
town meetings approval for this project. The affordable housing trust completely ignoring overwhelming public opinion. Prevailing wage exemptions for Penrose. Rick Levit not being allowed to participate as a member of the AHT on the Buckley property project who is a
man of great integrity and excessive executive sessions in the June 20th 2024 edition of the Cape Cod Chronicle Chronicle in the editorial titled Our View the Penrose Problem. It is requested that we urge
Shadam town manager Jill Goldsmith who is a procurement officer will choose developers for the two parcels to strongly consider the HAC plan. Many of the many of these things could have been overlooked but but not ignoring the
request of Tim Wood. Tim Wood is a man a great man husband father and role model. Tim Tim Wood is not a manual label laborer, but he certainly has a strong bluecollar work ethic and embodies everything that makes Chattam special,
like prioritizing education, the arts, and charity. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find someone who cares about and has done more for their community than Tim Wood has done for Chadam. During the Governor Penrose project, Charlie Adams of Penrose was
reportedly warned about un inappropriate communication with board members during the open RFP process by the Orleans town manager. I am including attachments of an Orleans resident statement and emails that coincided with Penrose pulling out
of the Orleans project and the resignation of the Orleans Affordable Housing Trust Chair, Alan Mcclennen. I am also including an attachment of an email chain between Charlie Adams of Penrose and an Orleans selectman that is
very interesting and would support the theory that Charlie Adams of Penrose attempted or engaged in inappropriate communication with Chattam board members and officials for this project making the RFP process illegitimate. Thank you,
Brian Phillips. >> Okay, David Nixon. I have a short one. This is from Lou Hib. It is more and more obvious that these housing projects are bad for Chattam citizens and the future of our town. An
undemocratic undemocratic process has resulted in plans that primarily benefit business owners who employ low-wage workers. Many of these business owners are not Chattam residents. Increasingly,
several of these are outofstate corporations. We've been dealt a bad hand. Please do the best you can to maintain Chattam zoning standards, especially regarding density, crowding, building height, and
preservation of Chattam's unique character as an historic New England village. Thank you, Paul. >> I have uh two letters to read. Uh the first is dated October 29th, 2025 from
Lori Nolan McCain. Uh it's addressed to a number of uh Chattam offices. Uh this is my second letter regarding Penrose Management Company applying in Chadam to develop at least two parcels for a total of 90
transient rental apartments under the cloak of affordable housing. This letter is mostly concerning 1533 Main Street, also known as the Puckley Buckley property, historically known as Garden View Cottages. How did we ever get here?
The original plan for these Buckley lands, historically known as the Garden View Cottages, comprising of two parcels totaling 2.75 acres, was for 25 to 40 units of housing per the Chadam Select
Board in November 2023. And no one ever said they had to be rental units. How are we now at 48 units? Money, money, money, money, money for Penrose Management Company. complete disrespect for the town's people of
Chadam. It's that simple. Regarding quote workforce housing unquote, one might go visit the Stonehorse Motel in Harwitch, Mass on Route 28. This is not a pretty place. The eyesore that it is
quantity two two and a half or threetory buildings of 45 dormitories each or 90 units total and only 20 units which are zoned for yearround use is located on a historical road. This redevelopment is
out of place. Once a sweet 44 unit motel, it was raised and has been replaced with what is it is today. I've sat in the 20 space parking lot in recent weeks and witnessed three people coming and going in this development in
the month of October 2025. Workforce housing has a threemon season in the summer. Zero might meeting Meeting House Road South Chattam must be saved. Threetory towering buildings do not belong here. Back to 1533 Main
Street in the zoning board of appeals meeting scheduled for 2 p.m. October 30th, 2025. It is important to note that historical three or four unit C cottage complex parcel 9D-4-18
entitled zero main street on 2.49 acres plus one main house on parcel 9D-4A-1 on 20,75 square ft is being proposed to be developed by Penrose into a dense 48
unit rental apartment complex. It is obvious this acreage is to lo in an incredibly treacherous section of Route 28, nearly adjacent to the newly installed rotary. One can just imagine coming through the already challenging
rotary and being rearended or much worse. Check these curb cuts and location and common sense will tell you, Chadam, this dense plan is too dangerous. Plan on a fatality occurring. This is a very possible scenario in
front of this housing development if it is proposed if it is built as proposed. Please Cadam select board and town manager go back to your 25 to 40 unit aforementioned vision that you had articulated nearly two years ago. That is what you chattam select board stated
was your original housing development plan for this 1533 Main Street site. Rome. Rome was not built in a day. And as Chattam residents, we should not be forced to accommodate these projects with a suggested notion that they are
behind the affordable housing aid ball. We are no farther behind than many towns in the state of Massachusetts. I'd like the press and the Cadam affordable housing trust and others to stop suggesting we are bad students, residents, and neighbors. Build it right
or don't do it. I pray you don't greenlight this dense mess. Great things take a lot of time and patience and the focus should be in large part building homes for home ownership. Chadam has done this before and should be focusing
on that we can do it again. The Penrose proposed projects of zero mining house road and 1533 Main Street aka Buckley aka Garden View Cottages are beyond dense unsafe and the three-story towers
proposed at 0 meeting house road will destroy this seaside community. Penrose came onto the s scene suggesting that they build a total of 60 units in total spanning over zero meeting house road and 1533 Main
Street. They'll only build in Chadam if they can profit deeply otherwise they have no interest. Scale their projects back so that if they don't like it they should develop elsewhere. Penrose's 60 units cannot be now be 90 units. We can
build a better ship with our local teams and we should. Don't allow the unnecessary ruination of Chattam to become a reality. It is not worth it. Stop in the name of love. You are aware of the following much less dense projects on Cape Cod. 232 Upper County
Road Dennis eight units in four buildings built on 70.75 of an acre. I believe two units are affordable housing. Wellfleet, the residences at Lawrence Hill, 46 units on nine acres, affordable housing, sustainably designed
complex versus these incredibly dense Penrose Management Company proposals of 48 units in nine buildings, nine or 10 buildings on 2.75 acres on 1533 Main Street, Chattam, and 42 units in eight buildings, six of which are three
stories tall on 3.571 acres on zero meeting House Road, South Chadam. Some land of which may be unbendable, unbuildable. Why in the world are you even considering these dense housing projects proposed by Penrose? I realize
40B allows developers to try and stretch things, but these two projects are ridiculous. And by the way, Penrose does not want to assign parking at Zero Meeting House Road. I believe because when an a rental applicant finds out
their four vehicle family will be awarded 1.45 spaces, said applicant will withdraw. And it should not be assumed our Chattam Police Department can and should handle resident disputes over unassigned inadequate parking.
Sincerely, yours Lori Nolan McCann Pere a Chattam resident since 1965. Second letter is from Cynthia L. Fucci uh dated October 30th, 2025. She resides at 20 Jesse's Landing Chatam.
Dear members of the zoning board of appeals, I appreciate the board's continued diligence in reviewing these large complex proposals. I am a full-time Chattam resident writing to register the following concerns and requests before any approvals are
granted. One, right sizing and sight fit. The current density and massing appear out of scale for the locations and surrounding neighborhoods. Please require objective alternatives that reduce unit counts, preserve neighborhood character, and address
cumulative impacts across both sites. It was noted in prior discussions that the board requested reducing the number of apartments from 48 to 42 units, yet Penrose stated that could not proceed at that lower limit. This suggests the
project's vis viability may be dependent on developer profit or state funding formulas rather than on what is appropriate or sustainable for Chattam. The town should not be pressured into approving an oversized project simply because it supports the developer
financial model. Two, transparent pro-Eama proforma cost assumptions and third-party validation. The public has not yet seen the detailed financials supporting these developments. A one-page summary or
highlevel reference is insufficient. Before any vote, the full proforma, including total development costs, subsidi sub subsidies, tax credits, developers fees, management fees, operating expenses, reserves, and projected rents should be released for
public review. The board should also require independent third-party validation to verify that costs and profit margins are reasonable, that profit proposed rents align with market conditions, and that the project does not rely on speculative or overstated
funding assumptions. Only with full transparency can the community understand whether these projects are financially justified and in Chadam's be longterm best long-term interest. Three, local res residency
uh eligibility clarity. There has been confusion about local preference and how it would practically work. Please request clear written policies PNS consistent with state and federal fair housing rules unlosed PNS detailing any
local preference percentages local lottery uh mechanics weight lists and compliance auditing four community services and management plan testimony referred referenced a community center on site local on-site
social services. Consolidating services at one site may force residents at the other to travel for basic support. Please require an operations plan that shows one on-site staffing and hours at each location. Two, partnerships for
case management and resident support. And three, emergency protocols and clear points of contact for town departments. Five, parking, traffic, and access uh for care providers. Many residents may
need home health services and frequent visitors. The plans should explicitly allocate safe legal parking and loading for caregivers and service vehicles without spilling into nearby streets. Six, water, utilities, and seasonal
constraints. Chattam faced uh watering uh restrictions this past summer. The developer should present a realistic sustainable water use plan beyond any truck water stop gaps including conservation measures, landscaping
choices and contingency plans. Seven, long-term stewardship and accountability require a detailed asset management plan. PN's maintenance standards, reserves, capital repair timelines, clones, PNS, and a
transparent process for handling complaints with reporting to the town on key performance indicators. Eight, cumulative impact review. Given two large sites, please ensure the traffic, school, public safety, infrastructure, and physical impacts are
met modeled together, not in isolation. Resident and tenant eligibility concerns. According to recent data, full-time renters make up only a small percentage of CADM Chadam's year-round population. Given that limited pool, it
is unclear how Penrose intends to fill these units under the quote uh 70% local preference unquote get guideline. Will the balance be drawn from other Cape Towns or potentially from outside Massachusetts altogether? The community
deserves full transparency on tenant sourcing and eligibility criteria to ensure these projects truly serve Chattam residents rather than becoming regional or outofstate placements. Additional housing and maintenance concerns. According to US Census and
local planning data, only 10 to 12% of Chattam's full-time households are renters compared to over 80% homeowners. With such a limited rental population, it seems unclear how Penrose expects to achieve and sustain high occupancy under
its proposed local preference model. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned about accountability once tenants occupy these properties. If issues such as mold, leaks, or poor ventilation arise, which are not uncommon in multi-unit developments on the Cape, will
maintenance be handled promptly by on-site management, or will ma residents be held responsible? Low and moderate income tenants should not bear responsibility for structural or environmental issues that stem from design or upkeep deficiencies. The board
should require clear written standards of maintenance, responsibility, and response times before approvals are granted. These projects will set long-term precedents for Chattam. I respectfully urge the board to continue hearings until residents can review
complete documentation, including financials. Thank you for your service and for considering these requests. Sincerely, Cynthia Elucci 20's Landing, Chattam, Massachusetts. Thank you, Paul Lee.
>> Okay, this letter is from Elaine Gibbs, dated 10:30 2025. Um, unresolved issues that should be required of Penrose. One, we still haven't been provided with the actual lease for 1533 Maine to review and
accept. That should be a minimum requirement for such a significant project. Two, while Penrose surveyed the property long ago, 1533 still hasn't been staked with east and west boundaries and building setbacks so that
we can see the massiveness of this project facing Main Street. Three, despite numerous members of the public providing photos and NSET Green being used by Penrose and is as an example of their landscaping, we heard
at the last meeting the landscape designer has never even been to NSET Green in East Ham 6 miles north of the Orleans Rotary on a side street, six units per acre versus 16 units at 1533
to see the results of Penrose landscaping 5 years later. Four, using occupancy parking at NSET Green to determine them at 1533 is wildly underestimated.
Five. Since Penrose will own the property and buildings, we still haven't gotten a straight answer what legal authority, if any, Chadam has if the property is being mismanaged in terms of maintenance, upkeep, upkeep, or tenant
issues over the next 20 to 30 years. Six, we also need a straight answer about what, if any, legal authority Chadam would have regarding the property ownership or management if Penrose goes bankrupt or shuts down their Boston
office. Seven, we shouldn't have to learn from a Brewster Community Preservation Committee meeting last week that Penrose made a 15minute presentation of Chadam's affordable housing projects and will be
requesting from us $100,000 from our CPC as a show of good faith. In his eight in his 10:30 letter, Attorney Singer ignored the ZBA's very clear directive to address the
contradiction. A Penrose's argument that they require 60 units to be profitable. B they wouldn't have taken on the meeting house topography challenges and size without 1533.
and see that combined there are 90 units suggesting they can in fact reduce the number of units at both meeting house and 1533 nine in the same letter from attorney Singer I strongly disagree with Mr.
Singer's contention that the ZBA may not conduct a pro-former review because the location, density, parking, etc. are not valid in quotation marks in terms of health, safety, environmental design,
open space, planning, and or other local concerns that directly results from the size of the project on a particular site. Every one every single one of these concerns has been raised repeatedly since the very beginning of this project
by the various boards and members of the public. To make this argument this late in the process is in my view self-serving, unnecessarily provocative and not collaborative in any way. This is the
combat. This is the combative combative attitude we can expect if this project moves forward. I hope you will challenge this in the court if necessary. Regards, Elaine Gibbs. >> Thank you, Lee. Steve.
>> Um, I have two. Um, the first is from, uh, Carol Gordon of South Chadam. Um, it's dated October 27th and it's addressed to the zoning board. Um, I commend you on your due diligence regarding the affordable housing
developments on Main Street and Meeting House Road. Since Penrose considers our two developments as one, I have been told a combined reduction units in the Main Street Meeting House Road project is now being considered. If this is indeed what is coming to light, I
endorse the reduction in housing and suggest 39 units on Main Street and 35 units for Meeting House Road. This project has certainly garnered the public's attention and I thank you for listening to our concerns and moving forward in a conscientious manner.
The second one is from Jonathan Avery. It was received on October 23rd. It's addressed to the zoning board of appeals and it's in reference to the Main Street comprehensive permit application.
I am writing to express my support for the Penrose application or a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law Chapter 40B to develop 48 affordable rental homes at 1533 Main Street. Approval of this application with a minimum of conditions will provide much
neededed year-round affordable and attainable housing for households with incomes of uh from 30% to 110% of the area medium income. This development will provide a variety of housing alternatives ranging from
onebedroom to three bedrooms and a mostly townhouse style. There have been considerable instances instances and comments by opponents referencing apartment buildings seem to convey the image of stacked flats in three-story
buildings. Not the case. There are five fully accessible ADA units which will accommodate the range of family sizes and individual needs. I encourage the members of the board of appeals to carefully consider the great need for affordable and attainable housing
essential to the future of Chadam. The proposed development of year-round rental homes benefit a range of incomes from lower wage lower wage tourism sector jobs to teachers and firefighters employed by the town, fishermen and artists that are so important to the
cultural and economic heritage of the town of Chadam. The proposed design modified in a number of ways by Penrose in response to public comments is a good compromise. Penrose is an is an experienced successful developer of affordable housing with
solid track record and the resources to construct and manage a property which will serve neglected members of our yearround community with top quality homes to live in. This design includes an appropriate central green common open space for residents outdoor recreation
as well as an indoor community room for residents to gather and to host larger gatherings. These features are fundamental to having a livable and neighborly development for the future residents. I encourage all members to uh to carefully review not only the
negative comments but also the many positive comments and features and the consistent work by Penrose and their advisers to address the community concerns. This is a great opportunity to address willful shortage of affordable and attainable housing so important to
the future of Chattam. and it's signed by Jonathan Avery. >> Thank you, Steve. And Virginia Fenwick. >> Okay. One letter um dated October 21st to zoning board of appeals town of Chadam from Jeffrey S. Dyikens. I am
unable to attend the ZBA meeting on October 30th, 2025, and therefore I'm submitting written comments in advance of the hearing. I am writing again in support of the Penrose project known as Buckley Gardens proposed for 1533 Main Street West Cadam. As we all know and it
and is consistently repeated, Chadam is in dire need of affordable and attainable housing. The 3 acre parcel was purchased to develop affordable and attainable housing. Its purchase was supported by a town meeting vote. The leadership of the town negotiated a land
disposition agreement with Penrose that was signed unanimously by the select board and the affordable housing trust board. These three acres are the largest parcels ever made available to our town upon which to develop affordable and attainable housing.
Having researched town-owned properties and having solicited the private sector many times for parcels for town use, I ask if we do not go forward with this project at 1533, where are we going to meet the demand and need for such housing for our town? I believe ZBA
concerns about streetscapes are over wrought. Traveling east from Missouri Msurvy's Shell, the street skates west Chattam currently enjoys are the Ocean State job lot, a smart a small art gallery, the post office strip mall,
Cream and Cone, a commercial building, a medical office building, a smaller strip mall, a restaurant, the Ship Ahoy strip mall, uh Dunkin Donuts, and a modest motel before one gets to the Buckley Gardens parcel. Most of these commercial
complexes have parking in the front of the buildings, which is very much not preferred by village center pundits and planners. Moreover, many are also close to the road. There are apartment buildings behind Dunkin Donuts. There are apartment buildings behind
Dunkin Donuts. One could argue that the Penrose development will be an improvement over what now exists in West Chadam, given its attractive Cape style buildings on the road and the parking hidden behind them. The parcel is public by the parcel is serviced by public
transportation near near the bike trail and shopping and enjoys sidewalks which run all the way to Hardings Beach and other recreational opportunities. Again, if not here, where the proposed development fits in with the surrounding neighborhood better than any other area
in town where I believe that the ZBA concern over the size of the trees is overroought. Given discussion thus far, the ZBA is not applying the same standard it does to local developers who consistently clearcut, regrade topography and then replant smaller
trees to create suburban style high-end housing. I agree that the ZBA needs to request a crosswalk as a condition of their approval. I believe the state will approve the request. However, knowing there are no guarantees, I remind folks
that currently there are two crosswalks across both Barnhill Road and Route 28 just to the west of the proposed project that would provide pedestrians, young and old alike, with access to the Harding Pocket Park and the north side
of Route 28 for recreation. I believe that concerns about the CCRTA stop stopping picking up riders and endangering citizens is also overroought. The CCRTA buses stop all the time to pick up riders all along 20
Route 28. I also believe that CCRTA would pull into the development to pick up riders if we were to reach out to them as in the past. The CCRTA has been very amendable to their stated mission of convenient access to public
transportation and an overall increase in ridership. Denying Penrose the ability to develop Buckley Gardens will result in appeals, delays, and no progress in the town's stated goal of providing an increase in inventory of affordable and attainable
housing. If Buckley Gardens is not approved, we lose the meeting house project as well. Please do not lose these opportunities. Please move forward with reasonable conditions as you continue your deliberations and approve a project that all parties
find palatable. We will then provide 90 units of housing that are so desperately needed in our town with a with a commitment to increase to our school population and in housing to support families and workers alike. >> Thank you. Okay. I have a letter from
George Meyers. uh received on October 25th, 2025. I've reviewed the Penrose October 30th presentation, including the October 23 letter from Penrose attorney Andrew Singer. Although Penrose appropriately, though belatedly, addressed citizens previously stated
concerns regarding the size of the community building. There is nothing in the presentation that indicates Penrose is willing to consider reduction of the unit count as suggested by the board. If anything, the Penrose presentation appears to distract from the real issue
of concern for the board and for many Cadam citizens. The main street site is not adequate for safety and environmental purposes to accommodate 48 units of affordable housing. In the pen ultimate paragraph of his letter, Mr.
Singer refers to a desperate need for affordable housing in Chadam, which is undisputed. But contrary to Miss Singer's statement that density is the only way to move the dial, the need for affordable housing will not be resolved in Chattam by ignoring citizen density,
safety, and environmental concerns and their preferences, but will create unnecessary resistance in the future affordable housing projects that could detract from Chadam's history and character. Mr. Singer points to town visioning of Main Street, the RFP, and
its application as reflecting a need for density. Apart from Penrose's predictable emphasis on density in its application, despite its acknowledgement of the tightness of the site, there has been widespread opposition to excessive density at virtually every forum and
meeting of Chattam public bodies which have considered it. In fact, the Main Street RFP has a minimum 26 or 12 units per acre density, more in keeping with West Chadam proposed 10 unit per acre density. The affordable housing trust
was urged over and over by Chattam citizens to set a maximum density for both Maine and Meeting House. It refused. Both RFPs state the number of units 36 for Maine, 35 for Meeting House is based on a community engagement
process conducted through 2023 and 2024 um early 2024. In contradiction to those community preferences, the trust added, quote, "and should be considered a base number with preferred consideration for
additional density." close quote. Penrose took advantage of that contradiction to push as close to 60 unit minimum as it could on too small of a site. Assuming the projects are or can be made economic with financial or other
assistance as necessary, Penrose should be willing to accept 36 and 35 unit count citizens preferences for a 71 unit total, still satisfying its 60 unit minimum and providing safer, more
environmentally appropriate, affordable housing developments. Next, we have a note from Rick Levit from West Cadam. I want to and it was received on October 24th, 2025. I want to compliment you for your
patient, thoughtful, thorough review of Penrose's development plans, and this is to our entire board. The the Combined Main Street Meeting House project is the largest subdivision development in Chadam's history. A development of this magnitude deserves your careful review. I also want to compliment the Penrose
design team. Penrose is uniquely capable of partner partnering with Chattam to help solve Cadam's unique affordable housing challenge. Penrose was awarded the contract to rehabilitate the old soldiers home in Chelsea where my former business Chelsea Clock Company is
located. Both product projects present unique developmental challenges. A combined 75 unit Main Street meetinghouse project compares favorably in size with Penrose's 65 unit project in East Ham and 72 units in Orleans. It
should be favorably received by the state's funding agency. 75 new affordable housing apartments in a small town like Chattam is a major step forward in advancing both the state and town's affordable housing goals. I recommend placing a condition of seven
apartment buildings with 39 apartments for Main Street configured as shown in the attached 39 unit plan. This plan will open up the development allowing more open space for residents and creating a safer, healthier, environmentally sound neighborhood. The
plan provides internal traffic flow preferred by the town but lacking in Penrose's plan and a 1.8 8 parking ratio, which could be further reduced based on Penrose's experience. Dumpsters are conveniently located for tenants away from neighbors as recommended by
the planning board. Increased side setbacks of multif family buildings from single family residential neighborhoods meets criteria planning and design standards allowing more substantial vegetated buffers and preserving more existing trees. A similar sixunit
reduction should also be a condition for meeting house road. I am aware of some local opposition to unit reduction, but respectfully ask those folks to recognize the substantial progress of 75 new affordable apartments for Chattam
after decades of official neglect. Chattam is flexing its affordable housing muscle today. It would be an injustice to Cadam's history to build excessively dense projects on inadequately sized lots at odds with
Chadam's unique character. Again, that's Rick Lev of West Cadam. And now, um, I just want to ask Mr. Lev because I know you're right here. We have a combined letter from you and, um, George Meyers. Did you want me to read that as well? >> No, I don't think you need to read that
letter. >> Okay. Thank you. It's on the website if anybody's interested. Okay. Now, we have a note from Thad Eldridge which is accompanied by two videos and um first I'll read it. Uh I
was asked to create something visual for the ZBA to be able to understand how building 10 will look and I just want to note that this is before it was reduced in size for our consideration. Um but still I have used an older drone flight
December 2018 with a very quick modeling of the proposed site. I did not receive elevations for the reduced building 10 in time for my efforts so you may get the October 2nd revision. I did not have nor did I request the digital digital
fires so files. So the placement is close enough for a view but not close enough to build from. This is from me, South East Southeast LLC. I hope it helps ZBA reach their decision. I understand the difficult position that
ZBA and is in and it saddens me that the select board members would pressure the ZBA to be derelictked in their duties to simply approve a project that will have positive and negative impacts on our town for quite some time. I hope that
Penrose will be a good member of our community. Again, this is from Thaad Eldridge. Um Sarah, if you would, these are going to be one video with the building, uh the management building and one without.
And if you look right up there, I specifically asked for this not to play too fast because it makes me dizzy if it does. That was the one with the building. a little faster. I have the ability to slow.
So, that's the one with the management building. And now we're going to play the one without it. So, it's the same thing. >> Yeah, you can pass. Yeah. Okay, thank you Sarah.
And now for the last letter. Um, this is from our police chief, Michael Anderson. Uh, okay. Um, why am I missing the first? Did he have two letters?
Um, I'm going to read the first one. I think I lost the second one, but we're going to find it in a second. All right. So, um, thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, when we first reached out to ask, um, the chief um, for comments on the safety
aspect of U Main Street, he said, all number one, the PD likes the fact that the crosswalk is the farthest east on the map. If it was located further west, it would be closer to the roundabout and there may be sign overload. At a
minimum, the crosswalk should have the lighted warning and signage as shown in the attachment. And the PD would also suggest a petting um ahead sign that warns approaching motorists that the
crossing is ahead. Um and >> yeah, just those >> just that. Yeah. >> Okay. And then this one, um, in the in addition to the three items I mentioned below, I'd like to add the following. And, uh, this was received, um,
yesterday, uh, October 29th, 2025. If the lighted crosswalk was constructed the farthest east as allowed, it would a produce an added traffic calming measure, which was one of the original intentions for the two roundabouts. B,
make it easier for pedestrians on the south side of the roadway to cross Route 28 to the north side where there is an existing crosswalk. Sidewalk that extends east toward downtown. C. That wasn't a crosswalk. It was sidewalk.
Eliminate the need to walk west for a distance and use the existing crosswalk at the Dunkin Donuts to cross the street to then walk east. the existing crosswalk at Dunkin Donuts is already in a busy traffic location. He also says
that motorist and pedestrian safety are always a prime concern for the police department. And while final approval and authority rest with the state, the police department will work with the developer, town, and DPW to strongly
advocate for this sidewalk. Respectfully, Michael Anderson. >> Okay. I think crosswalk. >> Okay, crosswalk. Sorry. Um, okay. So, that concludes our correspondences.
And who wants to go first from the um audience? Yes, please come to the middle if you would, ma'am. In the >> Carol the middle. Yeah, we we changed it up a little bit today just to confuse
people. So you have two minutes as you know >> in South Chadam. Uh it's my understanding that if RZBA does not approve the revised plan shown shown to us earlier, we revert to the original plan which received many comments and concerns from Chattam
citizens. Our ZBA board has proven to uh the town to think independently and will decide what's best for Cadam. to give the board an either or situation seems to me unprofessional, unreasonable, and possibly bordering on unethical.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Who's next? Anybody? Yes, sir. Please come to the middle. >> Welcome. >> Hi. Uh Frank Msina, South Chattam. Uh just a clarification, the videos that we
saw there were done by uh Southeast or Southwest. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think in the future the the zoning board might want to ask the applicant to provide that kind of a view of what it is because if there ever was an argument
of what the heck this is going to look like and what it's going to do to South Chadam, I think that that clearly shooted the the the scale of the buildings, the the the monotony of the design. And um the attorney said this has been going on for nine months and
you know nine months ago they were told it was really not good. So So what happened? What went wrong? I don't know what you guys are going to be able to do to stop it or to change it. It probably is going to go forward and go to the courts or something like that. But where did we go wrong? And I think we went
wrong. The town of Chadam went wrong in in delegating as much authority, you know, to to other people to what we do. I mean, you know, yes, where we all need affordable housing. It's not just Chattam. It's all over the country. So, what do we do about it? Chattam doesn't
have enough land to solve the problem. But apparently, we had an RFP process that tried to squeeze as many units into a smaller space. And so, I think this is not necessarily for the zoning board, but for the town. We got to think differently the next time, if there is a next time for affordable housing.
Hopefully, you will consider and try to put the pressure on them to try to reduce the scale. It just changed the design so everything doesn't look exactly the same. I mean, the attorney kept reading everything what you have to do. I love when he told you what you have to do, but he even said it three
times. Design, design, design. That's a responsibility. And unfortunately, this design just does not meet the requirements of TANTM. And um hopefully you can have some impact and make them think about doing it again.
>> Thank you. Who's next? >> Yes, sir. >> Hi. Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. I'm Rick Levit, West Chatam. And could I have the screen? Scaling back the community building was
a wise move and we appreciate that. The site is too small. Scaling back some apartment buildings makes sense, too. The more people crowded on this small site, the more traffic threatening tenant safety. The 50- foot wide internal road is wider
than Route 28. Children will be crossing between parked cars to get to and from the common green. Overcrowding is a threat to health and the environment, too. Taxpayer supported housing is intended
to relieve overcrowded living conditions for working families. 48 apartments with over 100 people where one lived before is overcrowding by any standard
other than urban tenementss. Chadam can provide housing without compromising safety, health, and the environment. Trimming back two apartment buildings and nine apartments does not make this project uneconomic.
If anything, downsizing will increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of a fulltime management and maintenance personnel. I encourage you to rightsize this project as shown here.
It has been carefully thought out and deeply researched. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Welcome. Thank you. Uh Kimberly Robbins, South Chattam. Um just a quick background, born and raised here. I own
a business here. Um I love conservation. I love um anything that we could do to, you know, keep any any amount of nature possible. However, with that said, I fully support this plan with Penrose. I
understand that um you know any project like this and again I've born and raised here I've seen so many projects um come in front of this board and so many objections um you know from on Croll Lake Street everything if you drive down
Lake Street and I think this was addressed at the last meeting at Croll Road you don't even notice anymore anything like I I went to school there every day I coached there all the time it's something that you really become
accustomed to as far and it's and I don't think it's a eyesore or anything like that and I just want to say my contemporaries and my peers really do want something like this. I employ people the housing I had to we bought a rental property so
that we could house the people who work for us. Nobody can afford to live around here. I have um my stepmother is living with her niece and her family because they have in such a small area. There's just not enough here. That's all. And to
decrease it by the number that you know was originally asked for 39 units or something is is important. I mean it's too much to decrease it. And I think that Penrose has proven themselves in the town of Harwitch and around Cape Cod. I mean is anything perfect? No. But
I think that they have um really put a good plan um in front of us. And then secondly um the video which was really interesting. It did look like it was like this behemoth. >> Get your two second warning. >> Okay. Um the >> the conclusion
>> Yeah. The conclusion is that video did take out all the existing buildings that are going to be blocking and some of the trees and vegetation. So it did look very big in comparison to what reality it is. So anyway, thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
>> A little horsearo today, but good afternoon, Ella Levit, Barnhill Road. I also want to thank the board for your thoughtful and thorough review of this application. I hope you will place conditions shown in the 39UN plan that we've just seen. First, downsize the
management building as proposed. Increase side setbacks on the southern border by eliminating two apartment buildings. Create internal traffic flow as requested in the town's RFP by eliminating roadway and parking spaces
that abut existing neighborhoods. Relocate dumpsters away from existing neighborhoods as recommended by the planning board. We have shown that these improvements to Main Street's planning and design comply with chapter 40B. They
do not make the project uneconomic. The town has indicated in the RFP its willingness to make up any funding shortfall projected by Penrose. Very important. This is a win-win for everyone. Town officials get 39
affordable modern apartments for working households. Penrose gets more than its 60 unit minimum when combined with Meeting House Road. We all get and we all want an affordable housing development
that can be supported by citizens and serve as a model for future affordable housing development so desperately needed. I have a handout of my request for conditions and the plan. Madam Chairman, may I pass it out? >> If you could just hand it to our clerk,
Virginia Fenwick. That's that's our usual. >> Soon the next person shouldn't come until the she sits down. >> Thank you, Elaine Gibbs. Um the questions I had asked are not rhetorical. So I hope they'll get answered because I've asked them before.
Uh surveyed over a year ago 1533 still hasn't been staked out with east and west boundaries and building setbacks. So we can all see the sheer massiveness of the project. Uh that's pretty basic. I think we still haven't been provided with a tenant lease specifically for
1533. The only one that we got is from NSET. We are not East Ham. We are Chadam. Uh and we still don't have a straight answer on the record what legal authority, if any, Chadam has. if the land and buildings that Penrose will own
are mismanaged, whether maintenance, upkeep, or tenant issues or if Penrose that is for profit goes bankrupt or shuts down their Boston office in the next 30 years because that will impact us. So, I hope that will be addressed. Thank you very much.
>> And thank you. Who's next? Yes, ma'am. Please in the back. Yep. Welcome. Hello, Carolyn McClullen, uh, South Cadam. So, I'm very disappointed with the current
plan because I feel like we've given up too much and I know uh the intention has been to squeeze Penrose into uh being a having a smaller footprint, but I believe you're doing that to the sacrifice of the your occupants and that too much has be been given to the
abutters. Um you this board, you guys are the gatekeepers to development in Chadam. Week after week, every every other week, you sit here and you listen to applications for people requesting tearowns and buildouts on non-conforming lots and you regularly issue permits for
that to happen. Massive homes that have 5 to 8,000 square feet, eight eight bathrooms. I've never heard on the meetings I've watched, I've never heard anyone ask, well, how is this going to impact Chadam's water? How is this going to impact um the density of parking in
your in your area? This is just allowed. And yet, you have a different um scrutiny for our local development here. So, I ask that you have consistency in how you apply the rules and rags and that you don't squeeze our future applicants into having a lower quality
of life for the benefit of the abutters. You when Randy, when you and I last spoke, you mentioned that you had an issue about the um streetscape and that you want it to be more in historical uh character. We had what wasund 180 days,
120 days to work on that. You could have sent sent it to back to Paul and his team with Union Studios to work on the architecture if he didn't like that. He could have done anything other than reduce the size and its use because it has to be a management building. And it would have been nice to have at least
two units, two pieces of uh two uh spaces, flex spaces for the 48 households that have to live there. It's not too much to ask when every other week you're issuing thousands of square feet for other people.
>> Thank you. Who's next? Yes, ma'am. >> Gloria Gloria Hicks Meeting House Road. We went wrong with this at the RFP. Um the RFP had absolutely no density limit whatsoever despite outcry by the public.
Um and that's where this all started to fall apart. So, you can't blame Penrose for following the RFP. Um that's all on on the trust. Um, Penrose has made revisions to this and nobody's happy with this project. It's
too dense. It's too high. You're going to hear the same thing when we go over meeting house. But the bottom line is that they're not changing the density. Period. We've heard that at every single meeting. And
what I heard today was a gamecher. what I heard today and I'd like to know if if somebody can answer if it's correct or not that if the if the project as revised by Penrose does not go through with your approval they are
going to appeal to the state and we're going to end up with the original plan. I can guarantee you that if Penrose goes to the appeal they win 99% of the time that these things go to appeal they win.
So, you have a massive decision on your your hands and I don't envy any of you. >> Thank you. Who wants to go next? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, please. Welcome.
>> Hi, I'm Shirley Smith. I live in Chadam. Um, I just have a statement that I wanted to make. Uh, I'm sorry, Shirley Smith. Uh, Chadam, I have a statement that I wanted to make. How come the letter readers get as much time as they
want the people that give up their jobs, cancel their appointments to come here to be in person? you're only giving them two minutes. I I don't understand that. If somebody could explain that to me and then also after you get through uh have
listening to the people here and you go into your own discussion, if somebody could bring up what year did Chadam decide that two acres was buildable and if anybody can uh comment on it, why did they think that two acres was
appropriate uh at that time? because I think that's what got us in to trouble. But just remember, two minutes. These people, they need more time than that. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Who else wants to go? Yes, sir.
>> Welcome, >> Ryan Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, I've put in uh for an extensive OEAA evaluation to the FAA um which is an obstruction evaluation uh because of the close proximity uh to the airport which is currently being investigated. Um
there are a lot of zones runway protection zones, hazard zones, safety zones, noise ordinance regulations and they all differ from class one, class 2, class 3 planes and military planes um that go into the airport a lot. This project does not cater to police,
firefighters, nurses, and teachers, most of which which work summer jobs uh because they make too much money uh especially if they have a significant other. I think that uh this proforma needs to be investigated because a lot of these numbers look bogus.
A moratorum uh that the development cannot be sold for at least 20 years should be imposed. The for the foreclosure uh loophole that gets rid of 75% of the affordable housing unit should be closed. If I could have three wishes that were conditions, they would be more trees and green space, so
probably closer to 30 units, home ownership, and most importantly, number one, equal AC access for people with mobility disabilities, so elevators in all the buildings. This project is almost entirely funded by state and federal funds, so this should be
required. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Anybody else from the art? Yes, sir, please. >> Yes. Hi Mark Janes West Chadam. Um just listening to all this the one one issue or question or concern I have gets
relates to density and with respect to kids as well because I assume with 48 units there'll be at least 40 kids or so. Uh where are all these kids going to go? You know this is on Main Street. This is route you highway 28. It's basically a commercial street. So, I
just question where where do all these children wind up and is this a a potential safety issue because it's a very tightly packed area right on a very busy street. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> Welcome. >> Thank you.
>> Good afternoon. Leslie Schneburgger, 392 Main Street. Um, I've been watching this closely for all this time. Um, and what I think I've observed most of all is fear. Um, I think there's a lot of fear in what's happening. It's new. It's different. It's unknown. We all have it,
right? Um, I've heard fear that it's too dense. I've heard that children are going to get hurt. Children are not going to have anywhere to play. Um, I fear this project isn't going to go forward. I fear it's going to be stopped for the fact of potentially hurting
someone, but it's actually not going to give anyone housing. Um, I think we all know that if if we don't if if it gets conditioned too far, it's just not going to happen. Um, it's going to walk away. And I think this has been a really well done design. I thought so from day one.
I personally think the management building is really well placed and was really well sized actually. I think it's relative to Dunkin Donuts, to Larry's PX, to all the things you see on that streetscape. and it actually protected and buffered the green space for the
kids to play in the back within this community. I think it's perfectly planned. It has a central community green space for that. It has housing that is beautiful in comparison to a lot of what we put in in new developments. It's really well thought out and I hope
that this board sees that as well and I hope that they can look beyond fear and find a good way to make this happen. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. and welcome. >> Good afternoon. Uh David Whitam, lifelong resident of West Chattam. I've
been uh reading your 40B um book for zoning board of appeals on the subject and I'd like to share some of the thoughts I have after reading that. As you mentioned earlier, the public hearing portion of the Penrose application for Buckley Gardens will end
today. That gives the ZBA up to 40 days to deliberate and render a decision based on a majority vote of the five of you that are voting. The ZBA has three options. One is to approve as proposed.
Second is to approve with conditions and the third is to deny the comprehensive permit application. Chapter 40B gives the HAC, the Housing Appeals Committee, authority authority to adjudicate appeals arising
from the ZBA's denial or condition of approval of the Penrose project. Since Cadam has not met the criteria for the stat statutory minimum, we are not consistent with local needs and therefore I don't believe we qualify for
a denial. I do not believe you folks uh are inclined to approve as a prop as proposed. So that leaves us with the third option. One of the advantages of the 40B is that projects can be negotiated. Penrose has made a
significant compro has made significant compromises during the public hearing process. But the elephant in the room is density. If the ZBA conditions its approval on a reduction of proposed units and Primrose insists that 48 units are critical for
the feasibility of the project, they have 20 days to file an appeal with the HAC. The housing appeals committee's duty is to balance the local need for affordable housing with the degree to which the project threatens, and I quote, public health.
>> Second warning, if you could just in conclusion. >> Wow, that two minutes went fast. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh >> in conclusion, >> what would you like to say? >> Um the lack of a I'd just like to talk the lack of affordable housing in
chapter 40b handbook uh will make it difficult to reduce density. Okay. Thank you. project >> and if it's any consolation, we've read it numerous times and we started to read it about six months before we began these process and we've um had trainings
with the attorney and we've also watched several videos on this. So that should make you feel better. >> The last page then because >> Yeah, we we we're good. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's good to see people read the rules and understand what we're
up against. So, thank you. Who's next? No one. Okay. Anybody online? Sarah, the hand up. >> Okay. So, we're going to take a short break and then we're going to come back and close the public hearing and take it
from there. So, um Oh, actually, we're going to allow Penrose to rebut anything that they want after. All right. We'll see you in 10 minutes. Thank you. We're going to be starting up again in a minute, just so you know. Oh, we are
actually on. Okay, we are back. And um people aren't aware. We're back, folks. So, if everybody could sit down and at least um not talk, that would be awesome. So, the next thing we're going to do is we're going to hear anything that Penrose wants to rebut from all the
uh information that they received and then I'm going to ask the our attorney Jay Talon to respond to a couple of um points and then we're going to close public hearing. So, >> if the board has any questions. >> Oh, yes. If the board has any questions. Yes, of course.
>> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I only have a very brief response to what you heard uh since you've heard a lot of it repeatedly. Um the statement I made about if the board chooses not to um vote to approve the project uh that that
the applicant respectfully asks you vote on the original plan. That was not said to gain leverage over you. It was said because the concessions that the applicant has made um you getting rid of the fitness room, getting rid of the multi-purpose room, squeezing the
development in and improving the buffers, making the green space in the middle smaller. They did all that uh to try to work with you and the neighbors. Even though they feel, and I've said this is not a secret, that they feel that it does impact the quality of life for the residents and their ability to
professionally manage. they did it and they were willing to do it provided if you know in in a sense of cooperation and negotiation that the project was going to be approved. If you ultimately during deliberations aren't going to go that road then they ask to go back to the original plan because on an appeal
they would like to promote what they believe is the best for the residents and their ability to manage. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um so questions from the board. Paul, >> I uh I have a few things that I wanted
to uh just clear up because I'm still doing the factual uh information that I was looking for. I I see in the uh latest uh letter that you've submitted that there is going to be a will well
installed. I had asked um at I think either the last meeting or the meeting before that if you had run the landscaping plan by the conservation officials in um Chadam uh and whether in their view that was something that was
consistent with what we were trying to do in Chattam. >> That was a good question. Um I think that is something we did not do. Not intentionally I think until you just remembered it might have just been we Rio can respond to it was not
intentionally. >> We had not done that um post you I guess mentioned that at a previous hearing but prior to submitting an application we gave our plans to the conservation committee who reviewed them and provided us with their feedback. I I know that uh that you had uh you mentioned that the
last time that you had submitted the plans to conservation uh before submitting the whole application. But um I mean there have been a number of changes and uh uh one of the issues that I talked about
uh is that uh Cadam has been concerned about the use of water and uh the uh need for native species as opposed to invasive species and the need for droughtresistant planting. Um I know
that some of this stuff is included in what you provided. Uh I do know that uh I don't believe under Chadam's regulations now u you can use uh water from the town for
purposes of irrigation but um a well would be required and I understand that you're doing a well but at the same time we're dealing with the same aquifer and u there's been a lot of discussion uh in Chadam about the fact
that We've been uh low on water and we've been restricting the use of water. I'm wondering whether it makes sense to have a landscaping plan which is designed to
uh use a well and irrigation under those circumstances. >> Yeah. Hi, Mark Warful um with Crowley Cultural Landscape Architecture. Um the design and the plant selected has
not changed appreciatively since uh the review with the conservation commission. Um the plants that we've selected are all native to Cape Cod um and are designed
to be supported on the site without irrigation. uh the conversation around watering um that has happened in past meetings has been about establishment. So whether that water to establish those plants
comes from a well or trucks um that that's what the discussion has been about. or well maybe you can clarify that for me then as I understood it uh well and irrigation are now being propo originally when you you made your
proposal there was no well and and there was no irrigation as such it was designed to be temporary establishment of these plants and then they would take off on their own that's no longer the situation. Uh now you're looking at irrigation and using a well in order to
maintain the property. The well would be for establishment. >> So that would only be for a limited period of time. >> Yes. >> And how long would that be? >> Uh typically a year to two years.
>> So you're talking about using an irrigation putting in an irrigation system that would go to all of the new plantings. >> Uh it would be a temporary irrigation system. So usually that's done with uh water bags. uh soaker hoses, sprinklers,
that kind of thing. And the period would be different based on um the plant areas. So something like a lawn might be 6 months uh where the trees can take two years to establish.
>> Um so you're anticipating a lawn? >> Yes, there's lawn. There's both. Um See if we can bring up the plan. >> Sarah, maybe are you able to Thank you.
>> There we go. That Yeah, that one. >> It's not a lot. >> So, there's both um moan lawn as we would normally see in the central area and some of the parking lot islands. Uh and
on the periphery we do a uh kind of lower management lawn that's mowed less uh just to be a little bit more environmentally conscious that we're not mowing it every single week. >> So the mowed lawn is an irrigated lawn
>> not not permanently just to establishment. >> So after after the initial uh six months or one year at at that point the irrigation would no longer be provided to the lawn. Correct. Um
I don't know if you Yeah, I mean that's correct. This the design has always been for no irrigation that's reflecting the species of plants of respect. Um, it was just the temporary establishment
and I believe the concerns was using the water hookups from the buildings for that establishment and the board member suggested the well. So that's what we're proposing a well uh to help water for
that establishment period. So, um it's not permanent underground sprinkler systems >> and the board had suggested a well last time because a you can't tap into a you know town water and and also uh there
was concern about having watering trucks coming to and from the property. You know, if you don't have a well on site, you're going to have to get the water from somewhere. And so, in response to the board members concerns, that's why the temporary well was suggested. >> I see. Um I didn't realize it was a
temporary wall, a well uh and uh this plan with respect to uh how you address the uh landscaping and watering and so forth. Is that in writing in something >> where where do we look to to see that
that's what the plan is? >> Well, I would suggest we don't have a written plan that we submit to you. suggest you put that in as a condition in your decision that there shall be a temporary irrigation well you know for the purposes of establishing the lawn and the plants and the trees and shall be discontinued respectfully or
respectively after establishment of the each vegetation is is taken. One of the things I'm trying to get a feel for is how much we need to put into our conditions that we may be assuming that you're doing based on your representations um and how much of your representations
we can rely on regardless of whether we put it into a condition. >> Well, I will tell you after having, you know, represented Penrose on multiple projects across the state that I would put faith in their representations. If as a board you want to add specific conditions on those things that are most
you know important to you then absolutely that's something you should do. >> Okay. >> And is is the condition being contemplated a condition that the landscape can never be watered or irrigated after establishment? Well, I'm
not sure what the condition would be, but I guess I what I would like to know is what what your intent is and then we can craft it to the extent that we think it need to uh based on what we understand to be the town policies. But um when you started with the idea of
there not being any kind of well or irrigation system um then there would never have been any watering going on. >> No, that there would have. We mentioned before the we'd bring watering trucks or
if certain areas of maintenance would use hook up to a bu a building with a hose from a spigot and hit certain areas. But um it was primarily would rely especially in the trees and the lawn on the on the contractor to establish with water trucks and gator
bags. And based on your experience, uh it's possible to have a an attractive looking landscaping without that kind of permanent irrigation system here. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It's it's more difficult, but that's what we've designed in previous places.
Um and I know folks don't always like to hear about village and green, but there's an example where we had designed that with no irrigation. >> All right. >> And I >> you designed it that way, but that wasn't the way it was implemented, right?
No, we added uh irrigation in some areas after um the landscaping was destroyed because it was planted and we were immediately hit with a drought, but I believe that uh irrigation system was used for a year, year and a half.
>> Is that irrigation system still being used now? >> I don't know the answer if it was if it's been used this past summer. I don't know the answer to that. >> Okay. Um, there were a couple of other small items that I wanted to cover. Uh, we at one point we talked about the color of
of buildings that were going to be built. I'm not sure how that was resolved. >> We Paul can address that if you want. We had submitted detailed color charts, chips, he had outlined the different buildings, different doors, the different siding. So you have all of
that. that would be part of your you be your decision would say refer to XYZ plans and those plans and Paul can add to that will reflect all of that that we already submitted to you. >> I I recall that there were uh plans submitted that showed different colors
for different buildings and then there was a fair amount of feedback from the board about the fact that perhaps actually the white uh facade was was the appropriate one. I didn't know where it ended up. >> I I think that's exactly where we ended
up. It was not We never came back to a conclusion by the board or the applicant and we want >> So that's another we should add. >> Well, it's something you should decide. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Um there also was talk at one point about some perimeter fencing. Um, where did we end up on the perimeter fencing? >> Uh, we had rejected that suggestion. We
think it sends the wrong message. We don't like to fence in uh low-inccome and affordable housing and workforce housing. Um, we think we've designed a beautiful site with beautiful buildings. It doesn't need to be hidden. and um we
feel it's comes across as exclusive um for the residents that live there. So, >> plus the fact that there's tremendous amount of topography and screening, natural screening around the property. >> I understand that. Yes.
>> And that's been increased, I think. Um we talked about exterior mechanicals. Uh and uh I think at the time that we raised it uh there was no clear concept about where the exterior mechanicals were going to be other than the fact
that they're going to meet setback requirements. >> That is correct. >> And would that be in front of or behind the buildings? >> Most likely on the side and or the back. >> On the side or the back? Yes. >> Would it look like Noset Green?
Well, they'll be on standups on concrete pads each individual unit. >> Well, in looking at it at the village and uh in uh in East Ham, they appear to be uh almost metal holders for the air
conditioning units or the mechanical units. I didn't know whether it's the same concept here. >> Yeah. You mean from the ground up? Yes. >> Or wall mounted? from the ground up >> most likely because there you want them up above the grade out of the snow. >> Okay.
>> I I believe one small difference here um I think at Village at Nasa Green there were some uh of those units um on the front and the front side of some of the buildings where here we'd be um putting them uh to the rear of the buildings.
>> Yes. So, I mean, there are some certainly on the front side of the buildings there, very visible. Um, and I just wanted to get a feel for whether that was going to be the case here. Um, we talked about parking uh at one point and we were talking about aside from the
number of spaces and so forth, the availability of using uh parking for your work vehicle. If you were a a fisherman, a landscaper, uh um a flooring person, you might have a van or
a uh a pickup truck that you use in your business that you also use going back and forth to business and and the sample lace lease that we looked at uh seem to prohibit that. I'm wondering whether you've thought about how you're going to address that issue.
Yes, I I think we won't prohibit um vehicles that will be able to fit in the parking spaces. I think if it's a vehicle that does not fit in the parking spaces, I think that would be an issue. >> So, it would be an issue if you had a
pickup truck and a trailer behind it wouldn't necessarily be an an issue with the pickup truck itself, landscaper pickup truck. >> Yes. And there are some instances where uh applicants can um submit for reasonable accommodation.
Um and that may be an issue if if something somebody needs something for the terms of their employment where they would need to take uh or find a space to provide a vehicle. Sometimes maybe it's necessary for a medical pickup or
something. Um that would be the avenue for those specific incidents. incident um where there was an applicant that had a vehicle that would that wouldn't normally fit in the standardized parking spot.
>> Okay. Um I think those are the only questions I had. I will come back to some of the issues uh perhaps in the discussion. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Paul. Who um Lee, do you have questions for the applicant or for the
attorney right now? Not right this minute. No. >> No. Steve, do you >> um I I I know you've talked about this in the past, but could you one more time go over the the personnel model for us? How many people are going to be
at the site andor shared with the U meetinghouse road site? >> Sure. Um, so this staff would start with a uh full-time property manager on site.
Um, a full-time uh maintenance on site, a um part-time admin, so assistant property manager slashleasing agent. Um, during the initial lease up, we'll we'll have an additional leasing agent there
temporarily. So that at one point there'll likely be three office folks during the lease up, but then once stabilized it would be one and a half persons um on the office side. Uh there would also be a um part-time resident
service coordinator, supportive service coordinator, which at Penrose we call our impact coordinators. Um they would and that person would be shared with some of our other projects. So, so that's one of the shared costs. Um, and
for the maintenance there, there would be likely a shared um maintenance tech under the maintenance director um that would be shared between this property and meeting house. So, um you know, depending on meeting house goes, that
might not be that second maintenance person. In those instances um when the maintenance person is out or vacation we pull in maintenance from Eastam Orleans or Wear him or Harage. So we have coverage
and the coverage is full full-time. >> So the number of people that you just listed is that typical for a 60 unit development? >> Yes. As for affordable housing, which is um typically has more staff than
conventional market rate apartments where it might be one property manager for 50 units and one maintenance for 50 units because there's um because we'll have a supportive service person involved and we the assistant um property manager also helps with all the
compliance aspects which folks working in a market rate uh apartment development don't don't have to handle. >> Okay. And if if the meeting house road project were to proceed, would you have an equal number of people there?
>> Yes, that yes, we would. Um and it would be the um shared maintenance tech and shared resident service coordinator and the shared assistant property manager. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you,
>> Jenny. Questions for the attorney or for Penrose or anyone >> any of us? >> Anybody? >> Um, so I had question about the irrigation well as also I didn't realize either that it was temporary. So I'm glad that
we confirmed that it's not uh temp that it's um I'm sorry that it would be temporary and it's not permanent. Um, so, so we're not we're not going to have it be ongoing through the project for
uh, you know, I I believe one of the reasons why the the other sites don't maybe look as lush is because they're not, you know, they're not they're watered enough to not die, but they're not watered enough to flourish. So, I'm a little disappointed that. So, you're
planning to to go to the build an underground well that'll just um be temporary for two years only in the trees in the front or the whole complex. Mark, do you want to help with this? So,
I guess I guess maybe we're guess confused what the board is looking for from us. I mean, we we came with a plan with um no permanent irrigation system, and there's drawbacks to that. You know, it's difficult to get the flowering
plants as many plants >> in the spring. Um but that's usually how we design these to be very costefficient using the native drought resistant plant plantings, which is also encouraged by the state. Um,
and so I think that the irrigation well, if my memory is correct, came up because of the temporary establishment and the the greater need for water during that time period once we finished >> and the fact that you couldn't use town water for this.
>> Correct. >> The other Yeah. >> And so um so we uh we proposed the irrigation well. Um, I guess we hadn't thought through whether that would not be able
to be used in the future. I mean, the main intent of that was for the establishment. That's what we needed the water for. Um, >> but uh if the if the wells being built and put in there, is there a concern from the board for future use of it that
it would have to only be temporary? Can can I um say something, Jenny, about that while while we're on the well? So, in your response to us um in number two, irrigation well, the applicant will install an irrigation well to handle
landscape watering. So, that seems pretty clear that you you say that you'll install a well to handle landscape, you know, watering. So, it doesn't say temporary or for a startup. So, what if we were to ask you to
condition it um into perpetuity so that we can have good-looking landscaping there on in the HBDC? >> I think you know that for that we would be willing to to do if that's the board wants. I think we can do that. We were
trying to and that was I didn't put the temporary into the letter so I apologize for that. Uh trying to address the concerns of the board about conserving water as as Rio just said. If you want it to stay, it can stay. It's in the ground. Um, but that's really a board
decision at that point. >> Oh, okay. Well, good to know that you're open-minded with that. Go ahead, Jenny. I apologize. >> No, no, that's I'm I'm glad you chimed in. Um, would it be for just the front, like the trees, or would it be for the whole I mean, you I guess you've got trees in the back and everything. It'd
be for everything. Okay. I originally thought Mark it may have been just for the newer larger caliber trees which will really that's more substantial investment. So you're you're trying to establish those but really it' be for the whole the back.
>> Yeah we have to do the same level of watering on all the plants for establishment. >> Okay. >> So so we would utilize the well for that. >> So it is not just the front it's for all of them. Okay. Um I also had a question about parking. So, did we land on Rio uh
152 >> for parking? Okay. >> So, that's the current. And then, um I know it's been asked several times and it's been answered several times by you that you do not like the assigned parking. Um but it does continue to come up at 152
which I know we continue to reduce the parking because we were improving the setbacks and I have made the point that without changing units and density you're getting uh you know the offset is we now have less parking. So 152 was I
think a agreed by the peer group right u Mr. Singer? Okay. >> Yeah. Peer review looked at it was between the standard of 1.3 to 1.6. 6 I think was the IT standard. >> Okay. So, so it's 152 but you know your
number of units are um I think we have yeah we have 30 32 units are either threebedroom or two-bedroom the majority being two-bedroom. So if we have that many um units
out of, you know, out of 48 that I just wondered if assigned parking could be for at least one one dedicated spot for those for the 48 people. >> So So then there'd be essentially, you know, the the less than one for whoever,
you know, was coming. But at least every unit there'd be 48 assigned units out of >> we can do that if the board wants one assigned. I mean I think it's it's and and I've said it before I think you know we think it's more efficient use of the
spaces that works if spaces are free and available and not assigned because >> you know Rio when you have said that I I I have agreed with that too thinking yeah that that's just it just kind of works out. It's sort of like a restaurant that has takes reservations and one that doesn't. You know, you can
um but but because it has come up several times and because we have also been consistently reducing the parking number, I I wanted to ask if that was something that would be possible. >> So, so that would be one per unit.
>> That that's that was my idea. um >> bec because you do have you know you have 26 units that are two bedrooms, six that are three. So there's the 32 units. So it's a >> it's a large number of units visav your total units and then the onebedrooms of
16 um >> that doesn't mean they won't have more than one person staying there because the estimate of people staying here uh I think you've said it is 95 to 100 >> correct? So >> well 1.2 two to 1.3 persons per bedroom.
>> So, I think that the one, two, and three bedrooms should get a dedicated parking, but it would be >> um >> we can do that. >> Okay. I'd like to hear what other people say, but I I wanted to bring >> if if the rest of the board agrees with you, I just want to be very clear, just in my mind, you'd have one 48 spaces
would be numbered one through 48, and one will go with each unit. The remainder of the spaces would be visitor use slashnot assigned, >> right? I mean, it has to be because you don't have we don't have enough parking for everyone to have more than Yeah. >> And it's not needed, though. >> Yeah. And I mean, if you think that's
complicated, it' be really complicated to have Okay. If you have a two-bedroom, you get this. If you have three bedroom, you get that. So, I I think that's that's a positive step. Um Okay. Um I have a question. So, you heard at the beginning of our hearing that from Mr. from attorney Talererman that we were
unable to get the professional pro-forma reviewer and I am not a professional proformer reviewer but I did take a look at it. We didn't read the letter that Mr. Levit and Mr. Meyers wrote but it they sent one in for this hearing and um
we we the board had an opportunity to read it and anyone can read it that is going online as Brandy mentioned it was sent in. So, um, so knowing that we weren't going to get this expert, I I just, um, and again, I want to preface. I'm not the expert, but I wanted to just
look it over, um, which I did, and, uh, I have a few observations. So, Mr. Levit and Mr. Meyers in their letters, they talk about um, overcoming two primary hurdles. I'm going to try and keep this really high level and just use a few numbers, I promise. So, two
hurdles. Those two hurdles were a funding source and the operating budget. Okay, I want to start with the operating budget because that was actually in in my estimation um and actually I think in Mr. Levit's summary as well that that that looked good um meaning that the
pro-form says that cash flow of 54,000 annual is staying the same from 48 to 42. So from an operating budget perspective, um that's good news. No change in the operating budget because if there was a
change in the operating budget, it could make it uneconomic and that is, you know, that's the hurdle. So hurdle number one, operating budget appears to be a check. And that's a question for you. You don't have to answer it right now, but that's a question for you guys.
Um if that's a true statement or not. I think I wanted to um start there. All right, that's number one. Number two, the other hurdle is the operating um I'm sorry, the funding source. And this is I'm not going to say it's more
complicated, but it gets into a couple of numbers, but I can keep it high level. Okay, so the funding source, the proform says that there is a loss in construction funding. Um and and there's a bunch of numbers here, but I've
aggregated them. 3.4 just anchor 3.4 4 million is the loss that your pro- fora from 48 to 42. Okay, but there's a savings because your costs are reduced. Okay, so that's offset by savings, but it's only 2
million. So the difference is the 1.4. That's on the proforma. That's what you in a nutshell are saying is your gap or your shortage. Okay, 1.4. So I just um in in in examining the kind of
the underpinnings of that funding source that 3.4 I had a couple questions. First of all the um there's so so that number is made up of the state credits the income credits the federal funding. There was no change to
federal funding. There was a change to the state funding but not to federal. I don't understand that but that that was something I observed. And then there's a change um to loans. Okay, the loan category. And there there two categories of loans. Permanent loans and other
funding sources. The permanent loans was very curious to me because that went down from 4.4 to 3.1. It went down 1.3 million. The permanent loan. Okay. On its face, that seems fine. But that's a
30% reduction in the permanent loan when your reduction of units from 48 to 42 is like 12%. Now I don't know again I'm not the expert so I don't know if that's a correlation but that was an observation that I thought was curious. Why would
there be such a delta to um to that number the permanent that I'm talking specifically Rio about permanent loans um which is part of that funding source that 3.4 for funding source that we um were trying to trying to get to. Okay,
so that was question number one. 30% reduction in the permanent loans but only a 12% reduction in units. And there I'm sure is a good explanation of it for that, but I would like to know what that is. And then the other question I have for the proform is um
um we talked about the loss of the loans. Okay, it it's almost $2 million. It's 1.9. It's almost $2 million. And my question is, in both the RFP and the LDA, there is specifically language that says
the town shall provide also provide assistance and support to the designated developer. This is in the LDA in securing other financing such as grants, tax incentives or other available funds if needed. This is this is was in the LDA and a very similar
item was offer was in the RFP. Um town of Chad was willing to entertain applications from the selected developer for funding and tax incentive arrangements as well as submitting applications for infrastructure grants to support the development. Now, I don't know the details of that, but it seemed
to me maybe a willingness by the town to assist with I'm not saying giving more funding, but assist with opportunities for Penrose to acquire more funding. So the question is
did Penrose take any steps uh to attempt to make that that uh 1.9 up so that because if you could make that or close to that you'd cover your 14. Do you see what I mean? So since one I I said I wasn't going to give a lot of numbers
and I have but one nine was the was the number for um creating a deficit that contributed to your 14. And maybe you can't raise that money. Maybe you can't raise all the money, but was there an attempt to raise any of the money to try
try to cover that to get to the the 1.4 deficit that is the reason why you can't go to 48 to 42? That's the other question. Only two questions. Sorry, that was a lot. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh so starting with the first
question. Um I'll start with the operating budget. >> You said, oh, you end up with the same cash flow. So that seems like there's no problem there. Well, it's by design we end up with the same cash flow. The cost per unit on the production is much
higher and um we have to have a certain amount of cash flow. It basically is a buffer because if some costs go way up, snowplowing or something, we can't all of a sudden default on the first mortgage. Mhm.
>> So we need to have some type of buffer especially with much smaller unit projects. Um so what that means is that um we're supporting a much smaller loan that and that gets to your second part
>> because the the NOI is much smaller in the reduction of units, >> right? But the reason the cash flow is the same is because the permanent debt service was reduced so much which is why you see it >> right equal. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> So um so I think that answers your first and second question which was you know as the operating budget seems like it works well it it doesn't work in the sense that it doesn't allow us to raise as much debt
as we need to to cover the development costs. >> Okay. So, um, c can I also I also just like to put on the record because, um, I'm you can ask whatever questions you want. I'm concerned with any reference to the
Myers Levit um, analysis because it is clearly not a professional analysis. It's biased. Every plan Mr. Levit submits conveniently provides more trees, not open space next to his house. So I'm concerned with uh the board relying too much on
that numbers which only because you mentioned it Jenny. >> No and I I want to clarify what um I I was always thinking I could lean in a little bit to the proforma but knowing we were going to have a professional. I stayed back knowing now that we're not
going to get the professional I I wanted to um spend a little time on it. And I'm only referencing Mr. Levit's letter because um he and Mr. Myers have have meant I think it maybe even it's the second time that some of those um responses to the because the the
proformer was sent in a month ago, Mr. Singer, right? September 30th. So there's been I think there's been some feedback um some feedback on it, but the the numbers themselves that I was quoting were in the proforma. I just wanted to leverage the 54 because that
was in the letter. And I just want to add that Virginia Fenwick is a CPA, so she's able to look at it with some type of professionalism where I it would be a different language for me. Um, but we have a wealth of of uh
>> I don't work in housing >> strategy, you know, we have a lot of uh talent on this board and that's her talent. So, >> no, absolutely not challenging that. Also though, and I said this at the last meeting, please recall that um you know the board's ability at the
end of a process to look at a proforma is if there is a stated concern that a reduction in density would somehow solve or resolve. And so if reducing a building in six units, the question I ask the board to consider is what would what life safety issue would six fewer
units you don't have to answer this question, but it's for you know for you to think about. What would that solve? We respectfully submit with the peer review and all the studies that it wouldn't change anything. That's all I was trying to have on the record. >> Understood. And this is just a comment
which I I just want to make since you brought that up. Um you're right. Maybe it doesn't link directly to safety and to the specific legal criteria, but we have heard from day one over and over and over from residents, from folks
writing in, listening, paying attention to this um that they want a smaller development and and and and so, you know, I understand that legally maybe you don't have to do that, but it would be nice to have be
responsive to that. Okay. >> Well, well, no, if I could also just say you've also heard numerous numerous people in writing and in testimony, oral testimony, support the density, support the project. So, yes, you've heard a lot of outcry and you've heard a lot of support. The board and and Frank Msina
likes telling me I'm telling you what to do and I'm not. I'm just sharing what the legal standard is for the board to be reviewing. All I'm saying is that when you're looking at a comprehensive permit, you're supposed to be looking at ABC. That's all. >> No, I understand. And you have you have
stated that um well and previously um a few times. Okay. So, those were uh two questions. Oh, did you answer the question about the um Penrose exploring? >> I wasn't really sure. I mean, we have a we have the 48 unit plan and we have the 42 that shows the gap. I mean, there's
I'm not sure what um what your question was in terms of >> Well, I I think in the spirit of trying to work with the board and the questions we had about reducing the number of units, which is, by the way, not my opinion or my it it's what I'm a vessel
for what I'm hearing our town want. And so that that's why I' I've brought it up several times. >> Yeah. >> Um and so because that has been something that's been brought up, Mr. Adams, over and over and over at every hearing. Um when we got the proform and it showed the gap, we take that out its
face. Um if you know in the spirit of partnership, hey, we know they'd like to have less, you know, fewer buildings. We have this gap. Would there be a way to try to cover the gap? That that's my question. >> Yeah. I I mean, no, we haven't we haven't had any of those conversations. I mean, because, you know, we're we're
trying to move this along and get, you know, get into an application, but um you know, no, there hasn't. But by by by trying to find other sources and maybe being able to reduce it a little bit in in in the partnership, uh it could be moving it along. >> Yeah,
>> that's >> and also please recall that through the RFP process which was a public extensive process, the initial proformer was provided, the initial proformer was reviewed not only by the town but also I believe possibly by town council had seen it. And throughout that entire
process, there was nothing secret. You know, Penrose didn't come in and say, "I'm going to ask for 60 units and reduce down to 48." They went with maybe in hindsight, not the best decision. They went with the base number that worked for them and that and and that's what's before you with the 48 units.
>> Okay. Um I think that's all the questions I have right now. I might have more later. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Nixon, you said you had a question for Jay Talon. >> I do. Actually, I can start with Attorney Singer. So, correct me if I'm wrong. You kind of
gave us three choices. Voting. All right. We're talking about down the run when we get to voting. And we can pull the lever says no. We can pull the lever that says yes with the following conditions. And then there's another lever over here
on the left that if you don't like the conditions that we put on it, then you want us to vote again. just yes or no based on what you originally submitted. Am I correct? Is that what you said?
>> I think what I was suggesting was say so there it's not up there at the moment but the the plan that we had submitted um if it's going back up. Okay, that plan. So what we had said is and you obviously vote however you want
you you know you can vote to approve you can vote to approve with conditions you can deny you know those those are the you know whatever you choose um what I was suggesting is that if the board when you're deliberating is predisposed after you go through all your deliberations and considerations
and conditions to uh approve the project then this is the project that the applicant's able and is willing to to proceed with what I was requesting is that if the board isn't, you know, for whatever reason, if you are going to vote no or if you are going to vote uh
yes with a condition that the density be reduced, which again is something you could do, then I was asking that you uh go back to the original plan, which not on the not on building heights, the building heights are what was agreed to
subsequently, but on the site design, Mr. Nixon because as I noted it provides a better quality of life for the residents, you know, more protected green space for the play area, etc. So that's what I was suggesting. I if you have any questions on that.
>> Yeah. And it seems to me to be um that doesn't don't make sense to me that if let's say we do vote yes with the following conditions whatever they might be and that either you decide or you
decide on the spot. No, we can't accept that. Well, wait a minute. We just voted yes with the following conditions. So, I I can't see that you would then expect us to vote
again based on the original plan. >> Oh, no, no, no. I think you'd be having I think you vote once because you have one application. >> I just want to understand that >> 2534 is one application you'll vote. If you vote yes with conditions that the
applicant feels are uneconomic, then the applicant has the right to appeal to um housing appeals committee. And what I believe the applicant would do at that point is request the housing appeals committee review plan for the reasons we've discussed.
But you're vote you only vote once. >> All right. Okay. Good. I I just want to get that straight because I I thought I heard you say, "Oh, no." and then we're going to ask you to vote again. Uh but you're not going to >> No, but if in deliberations it's very clear, you know, you deliberate, you know, kind of if in deliberations it's
very clear that what's going to happen, that's when I suggested it. >> Yeah. I say, okay, fine. Thank you very much. >> But but we don't have to do that. You suggested it and we're going to ask the attorney if we had to do that. So, um >> Oh, yeah. I just requested it. >> Just Yeah, you just asked and the answer
may well be no. So, um, okay, questions from Ed Actton for the attorney or for Penrose at this juncture. >> Um, for Penrose, uh, I just wanted to I I think I may have been the one who originally brought up the irrigation
well and I just want to give you my thoughts on what I I was asking for. I was asking for an irrigation well and uh you know permanent drip edge for all the shrubs and permanent irrigation for the grass areas. And the reasoning behind
that was I wanted this development to look like the rest of Chattam. I want it to look nice and I want it to look nice in the future. I want the kids to have a green grass to run around on. So that was sort of my idea and
why I suggested the the private well was so that you had the availability to to do that to actually water when you when you needed to to keep things looking nice. Uh this is sort of a gateway into Chattam and I I would like it to look
like, you know, a condominium development in Chadam or another apartment complex in Chadam. So that that's just my thoughts. how the board votes is is up to you, but that that was what I was thinking. And then
um at one point I had also brought up uh the solar panels. Um I believe we've heard that you you are going to do solar panels. I I would expect that you would you know maximize the number of kilowatts uh for the development. That
makes sense. you know, the all the south facing uh uh roof lines, all the southwest facing roof lines. I'm just assuming you you would do that. I'd like to see that. But I would also like to see uh your I know these are passive
houses. Um but even passive houses, I've I've built passive houses with heat pumps, their electricity bills are going to be high, especially if it's cold weather. if it gets below 40 degrees and they're having to use those heat pumps, they're not efficient. So, I'd like to
see the the um money from the solar panels go back to the residents if possible. Um uh it it doesn't have to be metered separately or anything like that, but it could be simply um you know, you total
it up at the end of the year and perhaps that gets deducted from the rents. I don't I'm just my concern is uh you know the Massachusetts is is pushing electricity and wants us not to use fossil fuels and um but at the same time
they keep increasing our our electricity rates. Um so I'm concerned that people who have you know are living on a budget will have a problem. So I'm trying to offset that how however I can. Um
>> one thing I I will note there is we do reduce the rents for the utilities. >> Great. >> So there the cost of their utilities is conceptually or already taken out because of the reduced rent and it which
is above what the calculated affordable rent is. >> Okay. >> Then it takes a step below to cut out costs for their utilities. So that's already going to be done. I I don't know about the mechanics of giving the solar back. So I I don't want to commit. >> So you don't actually know what the
figure is compliance issues or anything. >> You don't know what the figure is yet because you don't know what you're doing exactly for solar. >> But if it's a revenue source for the project that's best for all the staff and the folks that live there because that provides money for, you know,
>> common areas. >> Yes. Landscaping, you know, um resident events, stuff like that. Fair enough. Okay. Uh that's pretty much >> Oh, thank you very much. Um and Mr. V, questions for Penrose or Attorney
Talaman at this juncture. Are anyone else? >> Um well um I I also just in terms of the discussion about the irrigation stuff and thanks for clarifying that Ed. Um
and it because my understanding at least with the town currently is that uh the town has for a while taken the uh position that if you have an irrigation system it and you're using town water it
has to be metered separately from your other so that they can you know probably charge different rates. Um, so that is an understanding for anybody who's putting in an irrigation system absent having a well. And so a
well can get around that. However, as Paul pointed out, we're all drawing from the same aquifer. So at a certain point, who knows who wins in that in that deal. Um, and then the only other thing, and I'm not sure I I'm not even sure how to formulate
a question. I am thoroughly confused about the the the proposal to drop the um community to to decrease further decrease the size of the community slash management building by eliminating the
common room. Um I mean first of all I I think that's a horrible idea and I will try to push back against it to whatever degree I can. I just I don't think it's completely antithetical to what we're trying to do here. Um and especially um
especially when I consider that some of the objection um uh to that has been about the uh streetscape and and and by the time we're all said and done here, I don't think this changes the streetscape in a way that's positive. But I so I'm
not sure how I mean I so given that's how I feel about it. I'm thoroughly confused about how I should be voting when as it ultimately comes to us. Somebody's got I'm have to somebody's got to tell me, well, Dave, if you vote
this, then that means that or you >> we will. >> I'm hope so because idea what to what to expect. >> Yeah, >> we'll go through each condition. >> Yes, we will. All right. So, um >> Madam Chair, >> yes. >> Just to respond to that. >> Sure. This is going to sound self-
serving because it is, but the applicant, you know, would be happy if the board wants to put the community room back in the management building. They'd accept it either way. >> That would be something that we can deliberate on later. >> Absolutely. All right. >> While the hearing's open, I wanted to put that on the record.
>> Of course. Yeah. So, um, before I say anything, I I I I wanted to ask our attorney Talaman to respond to two people in the audience that I want to give that respect to. Um, Carolyn McCullen is uh she's a housing
official in our town and she um made a statement about why do we treat this different in our deliberations and our questions than we do for the all the other um applications. And I thought that was a great question and um she's not going to like the answer, but
Attorney Talaman, please answer it. >> Right. This um brings us back a little bit to where we started. It's because this is a different statute. There's chapter 48, which is conventional zoning where all the difference goes to the
board. um uh where a board can say no, yes, maybe with basic impunity as so long as there's a rational basis uh for their decision. This is chapter 40B where the difference is st is flipped a
little bit where the difference is to be afforded to the benefit of the affordable housing developer. That is that the statute presumes that there's a benefit to affordable housing. And the burden then shifts
to the board to demonstrate that there would be no benefit to the affordable housing or that the local concerns related to that affordable housing um uh um it outweighs the affordable
housing. So in other words, that the impacts to traffic, safety, environment, whatever locally um is more important than the affordable housing with a heavy weight to be placed on the presumptive benefits of the affordable housing. Um,
so in other words, under chapter 40B, we have to we're in the shoes of essentially making an argument that the affordable housing um uh would be outweighed by the local
concerns. We're under chapter 4A. We don't have to say much of anything. We can just say no for basically whatever reason we want within reason. Um but um so it's a little bit different and we don't hold the all the cards and
furthermore as the cases have developed over chapter under chapter 40B for the last 56 years the courts and the housing appeals committee have taken a relatively dim view on municipal
um positions of denial of affordable housing projects proposed under chapter 40B. That's not to say that that's universal, but it is an overwhelming majority of cases that suggest that the towns will have a difficult time meeting
their burden to demonstrate that local concerns outweigh the presumptive benefits of affordable housing. In between that, of course, is the issues that we've been speaking about over mere conditions on that affordable housing. And it's a slightly
different standard. Again, it puts the town at their proof rather than the developer at theirs for that um uh analysis. >> Okay. Thank you. And then when uh when we received the um correspondence from
Elaine Gibbs, I I emailed you that um and I CCD Sarah and I asked you to go through just to make sure that we're not missing anything. Um I I thought that some of those responses are probably not in our lane and I wanted to I wanted to
hear it from you if there's any are in our lane. Yeah, please. >> Yeah, I mean some are out of our lane a little bit and some are in our lane. Now, a lot of it has already been addressed within this hearing um over the past several months. So, I'm not
going to retread over that last ground, but Ms. Gibbs made reference to a concern over essentially an enforcement issue, like how do we ensure that um Penrose lives up to the expectations
and the letter of what they're proposing. In that vein, the any permit issued to Penrose would be no different than any zoning permit that we issued to any other entity and that we would have enforcement of the basic terms within
that permit. Meaning that the zoning enforcement official in the town could initiate zoning enforcement proceedings with respect to the Penrose project should they not comply with any condition of approval. Now, some of that
um necessitates us being very careful about imposing conditions that are exacting and clearly understood and leaving no stone unturned, especially on the um issues of importance to us. But we've we've been drafting 40B decisions
for a long time. Um, and we uh try to make sure that we have everything baked into those conditions that would enable our zoning enforcement authority to enforce if they have to any particular violation of the conditions of approval.
>> Okay. And what about the one about the lease? Is that in our lane? We haven't seen the f final lease. Should that be something that people should be concerned with or or not? Well, I think I think you mean lease of individual units.
>> Yes. Well, I think what we could ask for in terms of a condition is at least to see like if if we have a requirement like take the assigned parking for example and if we have a requirement in there
that says that every lease shall um have a specific assignment of one space and then you know whatever other rules there may be with respect to the other parking spaces. then we would certainly ask to see for at least an administrative
review a copy of their um prospective lease to make sure that it has the terms that reflect the necessary conditions of approval. the business terms of those leases, the amount that they're charging. Obviously, those are going to have to conform to whatever regulatory
agreement which operates as a deed restriction on the affordable units, but um we would expect to see all of those documents, but only to the extent that we need to make sure that they conform to the requirements under 40B and
reflect the conditions of approval. There may be some other terms that are irrelevant to us, but it's not atypical for us to at least re have, you know, just a simple review of the lease to make sure that it gels with everything else that we're doing here.
>> Yep. Okay. Um, and then last but not least, we need to talk a little bit about this crosswalk and flashing light uh situation because, you know, that's a condition that I think some board members, especially in light of the
police officer, police chief's uh letter and his feeling of it that it's it's very important. So what if people want to condition that and um and that would be the their most important condition say to approve it. Um how how much teeth
do we have with that condition? What happens if the state says you don't really need that sorry you have one too close and then does Penrose have to come back to us and ask us to remove that condition at that point? And what if we
don't want to? So this this becomes a fairly tricky issue. You know, we can only issue decisions with respect to things that are under our particular control here. I think it is perfectly acceptable for you to say that you are
requiring them to seek and apply all due diligence to the obtaining of uh state permission to install a crosswalk there. And I think probably they'll be successful. I think it would be probably
beyond our ability to say if you don't get this, this project is dead. I think what we would say probably and we can work on this when we're drafting decisions is that if you if the state denies you despite all due diligence,
then come back to us and tell us and explain why they denied you. And you know by and large what I we would probably be compelled to do because it's not our lane to decide issues with respect with respect to state highways.
We were only issuing a decision with respect to our local bylaws and the jurisdiction that we have under our local bylaws. We would probably be somewhat constrained to wave that. Now, I if the state is nonresponsive or unreasonable, we might say try harder or
have you thought of this or have you thought of that. So, there could be some gray area. It's entirely possible the state has a very good reason or could have a very good reason for rejecting the crosswalk where we want it, but I think it's certainly fair game for us to require it and affirmatively require and
affirmatively require that they work hard to get it. I just think it's probably um one of those things where the more recent cases of the housing appeals committee have pressed pretty hard to make sure that uh local boards
stay out of things that are regulable by states by the state >> even when it's a safety issue e >> even when it's a a safety issue. So what we can grab a little bit, Randy, is our general omnibus authority under special
permits which are kind of subsumed in the 40B process. What I'm suggesting is a kind of a combination of those kind of analyses and if in fact they we have an otherwise pretty good permit and don't
want to risk um uh uh losing this battle, then I think what we would be constrained to do is go my route. Now, let's spell let's kind of spin this out how we go. If they otherwise get an approval that they don't appeal because
it's a reasonable condition and they come back to us be and say, "Look, everything else is going great. We just can't and they don't appeal. We just can't get approval from the state. We'd like you to wave that requirement." And we say no. Then I think the the path
forward is probably for them to appeal that specific denial. It doesn't open up the rest of the permit, but it really kind of depends how we structure it as to whether or not it would be so ownorous that they might appeal from the get-go. But I think there's a way to do this in a way that is not harmful to
Penrose. That just puts them to their due diligence to do what we think is best. And frankly, I think they're likely to be successful provided that there's not a good technical reason to not do a crosswalk to get a crosswalk in the vicinity of what our police chief is
suggesting. It's a bit of a it's a bit of work because the state is slow um and they're exacting, but unless they have a specific reason and no one has indicated a specific reason to say no, then I would hope that they would be successful in that regard. >> Okay. So, we can bring this back up
during deliberations then. Correct. >> Yeah. I think it's something we should del obviously it's going to be the subject of deliberations because the police police chief feels really strongly about it. >> Yes, he does. Yes. Okay. So, um I guess that's that's it for questions. I mean,
yes, please. Virginia. >> Okay. >> And anyone else that has questions? Absolutely. >> Okay. I have two two more questions. Um there was a comment a letter a letter was written in about the Stonehorse Hotel. Remember that earlier tonight. Um, so it just reminded me of a question
that I've had for a while and maybe maybe you know it, maybe you don't, but that was an existing hotel that was demolished is my understand. This isn't Haritch, but it's just a good example of the question. Um, and so it was sold and
then it was demolished and it was re it was um, uh, a new development of affordable housing went there. Okay. So my question is if it was rehabbed instead of sold to a developer
and rehabbed all for affordable housing would just the theoretically pretend this is in Chattam. Would would we and maybe it doesn't apply because I think it's a state thing. Would you get the same state and federal tax credits for
rehabbing an existing building? in this case, a hotel, 44 units. Would you get those same state and federal credits or or support visa v a new development? >> A new development. >> I'll let Rio answer, but I just want to
point out because so I know the property you're talking about just so that the board is clear besides the fact that it's in Harwitch under different zoning that's not affordable housing. that is se that they obtained a variance from the board of appeals in Harwitch to operate seasonal employee housing. It is
a dormatory style. So it is a completely >> you can answer the question but it's completely >> so so forget about the stone horse forget about Harri just in general Mr. singer would would if if there was a house uh let's say the Chattam Motel which right next to the Buckley property
said hey you know we're going to get out of the family business and we wanted to go to affordable housing and the structures already there and it would be rehabbed not redeveloped torn down and re and sold and redeveloped would is does the state give the same credits to
that scenario as they do to new development that that's my question >> yeah Not to sound too much like an attorney, but I I think the answer is it depends. >> Okay. >> Right. Um >> Okay. >> On a bunch of factors. He did it really
well. He might not tried, but he did it well. >> I I just have had that question for a while and I' I've never um found the answer. So, >> um yes. So, there there's different allocations of low-income housing tax credits based on preservation, rehab,
and new construction. New construction is most attractive to HLC. Um there's also historic rehab credits which could potentially if it was a historic structure which >> why is new development attractive more attractive >> uh it's production because they they
want to produce new housing. Um and I think they it's still important to maintain and rehab existing housing. >> Yeah. >> I think the priorities >> you're not going to get that same commitment if there's not the same amount of credit. That that's where I was kind of just wondering if it was
tilted for new development. >> Yeah. And it it depends on on a bunch of different factors like how many units are going to go going. >> All right. It sounds like I don't want to spend more time on that. It's it's not applicable here, but I it made me think about it. Um Rio, you said before just not long ago that the same people
at meeting house, the support staff at Meeting House, it would be the same roles and num maybe number of people. I don't know if you said the number, but the same people and you went through what all the roles were. Um would be the same would not be different
than this than the support staff you have at Main Street. Is that that's what you said? >> Yes. Um they would each have a property manager. >> Yeah. >> Maintenance director. >> Yep. >> Um
>> yes. Yeah. And that that's um we would be sharing a resident service coordinator, a assistant property manager and potentially assistant maintenance tech that would be shared. Some of those
people shared would also be shared with fair in Orleans and village at Nasakrine. >> But but that is one of the reasons we're able to get support on a 42 unit project the type of staff that we need whereas if it was just
you know >> so the question is where are you staffing them if they don't have a management building over there? Are they in >> there's a management room? Yeah. >> There's management space in meeting house. >> It's not as big. There's one less office, but there's >> Okay, >> there's space there.
>> Just not as big of a management building. Okay, >> that's right. So, I think the resident service coordinator would really be based um at the office in in Main Street. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have a question before we ask Paul to move to
close the public hearing? >> Okay, Paul. >> I'll I'll move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations. Uh Dave V seconds and vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> All vote yes. >> Oh, >> did you want us to stop?
>> The only thing I just want about the crosswalk. We we're we're in support of it, too. Like I want to make sure like >> we understand. >> Yeah. Okay. I just want someone said if we weren't wouldn't want to do it. I want to make sure we >> No, no, we we never said that. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Jenny. You close the vote yes to close public hearing. >> I vote yes to close public.
>> All right. As do I. That's unanimous. The public hearing is closed. Now, we're going to start deliberations for a little while and then we're gonna ask we're going to come back on November 13th to hopefully
complete deliberations and dare I say vote, >> but no guarantees, you know, but >> start deliberations now. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. >> Just >> you want us to sit? He wants to sit and
>> I didn't. Yeah. I you sure >> if you have a question, ask us. >> As you were. Yes. Yes. All right. Let's just see who wants to go first on deliberations. Maybe Dave V does. I don't know. >> We know how you feel. >> Well, yeah. I mean, I'm I don't think I
I think feel like I've been fairly transparent u you know, certainly about my goals anyway. And uh that's why why I said what I said about dropping the uh communal space. I I just think that's
that's a I don't see how that um enhances this project in any way, shape, or form. Um, and so I would um like to see us um consider uh allowing them to put that back back in because I don't
again if I look when I look at the streetscape and we've had various discussions about the streetscape and opinions given and things and also in in looking at um this helped kind of reinforced it
for me looking at THAAD's um lidar um um representation to me a building belongs there. you look at that, you look at his his uh lidar with the with no building there and and I think Leslie mentioned this and when
when she talked to us uh today or tonight it you you've opened up it's like you're missing some teeth there, you know? I I mean I'm sorry it just that building
belongs there in my judgment visually and for the streetscape. I mean the streetscape and the streetscape as I as I had mentioned um before if they if the planning board is successful at at um getting the the
formbbased zoning placed in in West Chadam they're hoping to um that that that zoning is is designed to over time eliminate those parking spaces in front of the buildings. bring
the buildings up to form a street wall as you might find in downtown Chattam that everybody thinks is is the great thing or province town or whatever. So I I don't see that having buildings, you know, three buildings in this project up
not far from the street marching along that's all within the the the rhythm of the architecture in that area. So that's just another another reason why I don't think there's you know to to to eliminate that space.
it doesn't add up for me in in terms of I don't see that as an improvement in this project and and you know ultimately all of us and I think we have some different ideas but the part of what we
are doing here in with our in in in um you know thinking about our conditions is to try to um improve make improvements in the project from the perspective of the town. Um, and again,
I I'm I tend to favor more the um the occupants of, you know, of the of these projects and what life will be like in those situations because those people are going to be members of of our
community. And um you know it's um and then again you know and and as um Mr. Whitam started to quote from our our handbook and Randy you pointed out that we've all been looking at and we have
and and I continue to to you know and um you know it just I just want to read one little a couple of sentences here in talking about this because it helps to frame it a little differently for me too about some of the objections to these
projects. It says that low or moderate and this is the page two in this handbook that the state has prepared. Low or moderate income housing often sparks objections from residential and non-residential neighbors and in
most cases the proposed housing involves a higher density than the development pattern found in surrounding neighborhoods. However, communities have largely controlled the makeup of their population by the choices they have made
to control housing growth. The the zoning that we have in place. Introducing different types of housing opens doors to a more diverse population and sometimes it is fear of difference that triggers opposition.
And I think we have seen some of that among various things. So I I you know the we're we are watching with the real estate and what happened and the other the other thing
that I think is instructive that I keep going back to is an abuing property on Jesse's Landing sold for $3.2 $2 million this past summer while we were considering all this. To me, that
illustrates the huge problem that we are faced with with respect to affordable and or attainable housing in this town. I think it's a perfect illustration. So,
I'm trying to keep all this in mind and and and I I don't some of the things that I'm hearing I don't like I I wouldn't agree actually lead will lead or would lead to a better project and and I and I think also I also you
know this process has been going on since long before we became involved and and there's there's a there's a history of of this process and I think I I think there are many of the people who who are
hoping that we are going to as a board are are going to um maybe rewrite the history of of what's happened with the board of selectmen and the affordable housing trust and all the various things that that have components of the process
that has led uh it to come before us. And I'm I I don't not sure that I see that as our role at all. Our role is to provide a comprehensive permit with conditions that we think uh are improve the project or are better
for the town uh in one way or another. um and not not to be trying to reitigate um past decisions that have been made by the town fathers and and and and other boards um that that many people aren't
happy with. There are also many people who are happy with those. So >> So fair to say you would find it pretty easy to approve. >> I I think I would find it fairly >> That's all we're trying to That's all we're trying to get to. >> All right. Yes. I think it'll be fairly
easy to uh to approve it. I think there are some conditions that have been we've talked about that I I would have some problems with, but we'll get to that. >> Yeah. >> Ed, what do you think? >> Um, >> if you were voting,
>> if I was voting, well, I've been an sort of an advocate from the beginning. Um, as far as the community center, uh, I I wanted to perhaps eliminate the community center in order to provide more units.
Obviously, that that it isn't going to happen. Um, so going back to the original size is fine for me. It's going to provide more services to the people. Um Carolyn made a statement in a in a
meeting earlier that um excuse me that uh most of us couldn't relate to a project like this or would never have experience with a project like this. Uh I grew up on the Cape and for five
years lived in a subsidized project and it helped our family greatly. So I may have a different perspective on these type of projects. And when I think about them and
especially reducing the number of units, I think of myself and my family and how much it helped us. >> That's a great perspective to have. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Nixon, would you like to deliberate today?
No, I I really have an awful lot to say and uh it's getting late. Plus, we've heard a lot today, so uh I don't care to deliberate today. >> All right, Paul, would you >> Well, I also have a fair amount that I'd
like to say uh in connection with this. Um and I agree with Dave that we've gone quite a while. Um, and I'm thinking that perhaps uh doing this uh with some reflection and also with uh a fresher
mind makes more sense than to try and uh put it in today. Um but u because my view my views have changed on some things and not changed on others. So uh that's why I think it makes sense to give it another break.
>> Sure. Sure. because you're not you don't want to just say one thing one way or another at this point. So, it's not as easy for you to do. All right, Lee. >> Well, I I can say a couple things. Um
I will uh echo uh Dave Vich's feelings regarding the management building. At first, I liked it. At first, I thought it looked better, smaller, but then I looked at the floor plan and I thought
to myself, where if they wanted to have a birthday party, could they use some of that space? And I don't think it would work. So, I'm I'm kind of back and I think we've had three different renditions of the of the community building. I would go back to the middle
one which was not as big as the original and a little bit bigger than the one that we have now. Um I think it's important I think to have no community building would be um not a good idea. Um
I think that it is ser does serve as a great buffer to the green space and um I think I think it looks nice. Um um this whole this whole process has been a real learning experience for me
in particular um first time for me with the 40B um and I think most time for most of the people on the board with the 40B and it's just it's a lot it's but it's so important and um
and I think it's actually maybe the first time for the town and select board in a long time. So anyway, and the affordable housing trust, which is I think a new entity. Um, so I I think it's been valuable. I think it's been a
good experience. Um, I I believe that this will be a good uh project. I believe that it will um fit in nicely. It will be different. That is for sure. But I think that as
time goes on um it will fit in. I am especially um happy with the trees along Route 20 28 being an increased size. I think that's a good move. Um I think the irrigation system is a
good move and the the concept of a temporary irrigation system doesn't make sense to me. Um I think if we have a well there we should we should use it with discretion. you know, you know, kind of abiding by the town's guidelines
regarding watering days and times, um, like we all do. Um, some of us anyway. Um, so, um, and you know, I feel like the other thing I would like to do is kind of, you
know, talk to Penrose, too, because you guys have been so patient, very accommodating, and it's amazing that you guys can sit there and just listen to all this. Um, so I commend you
guys for that. And um I think I'll stop there for right now. >> So fair to say that you would be happy to approve it if you were voting. >> If I were voting, I I could find my way to approve this. >> Yes, Steve. And then we're going to go to Jenny and uh
>> Okay. I guess I'm sort of in the same um mindset. I think I'd like to deliberate with myself before I deliberate. >> Okay. Fair. >> Officially, but there are a couple of points. Um you know, the well issue I think is a no-brainer. I I think it would be silly to make it temporary, you
know, and we're going to, you know, water the trees and grass for two years and then stop and then watch everything die. So, I I that doesn't make any sense to me. So, I think it would be a good idea to put in a permanent system. Um, the admin building is um I was kind
of surprised to hear that you might want to downsize it. I I think um I I think it would be it's a needed asset for the people who were there. They don't want to downsize it. They think we might and we might. So, just keep
>> So, I I thought that was an interesting conversation. >> And then the I'm going to go back and watch Thad's videos a couple more times because um I am a little concerned about some of those buildings, especially along 28, the height of some of those buildings and the way they their perspective on
things around it. So, I'd like to go back and and look at that a few more times and and then maybe I'll have a a little bit more to say about it next time. >> Yeah. Well, that's great. And I just want to point out that um we had asked Penrose, I believe Paul did, for a 3D
video and uh we didn't get it. So, we took it upon oursel to try to get one. And we appreciate that. I think it was extremely helpful. and uh we'll be forever indebted to um to um East Southeast. So, Jenny,
>> so I'm going to keep it short, too, because I'd like to deliberate a little bit more myself, but I do want to also say a couple things. First of all, um to Penrose, you have been so patient and so professional throughout, and it is um not lost on us at all. We've had
disagreements about some things. we've been challenging on things, but it's um it's really been uh it's been a pleasure to to work with and Mr. Singer uh your whole team through these seven months. Uh you have helped through that those
seven months. Um you have been accommodating uh I would agree trees, the well tonight the parking you gave us a little more there setbacks um but we've been accommodating too in this process. It's been very much a give and
take. We we uh reduced height from the very beginning because you said we need that height, that extra height for those um building, you know, sea buildings. Um and we we did spend a lot of time on the setbacks because uh I think about a
comment that Frank Msina made. If we don't get this one right, it's going to be harder to get the next ones. So, this isn't just about this and we're done. We we'd like for this to be um a continuation of more affordable and attainable housing in Chadam. Some for
um for purchase, not just all rentals. Um and so um so so anyway, we it I I have been focused a little bit on or maybe a lot on on the future and not just this project and trying to show the
town. Again, I mentioned earlier today, I'm not um the these aren't my opinions. I I'm sort of a I'm taking it all in. I do a lot of research. Um I listen, and I feel as though much of what I share is
what I what I I do agree with, but I'm sharing it on behalf of the town's people that are saying that they want these things. So, I just want to be clear that that is um where you know a a big part of what guides the the things that I bring up and and the things that
I'm asking for. Um and I will also say that I am disappointed in the number of that there is not a change at all in the number of units because we have talked about it from the beginning and many many many um town citizens have asked
for that. And so in the spirit of compromise, and I touched on this a little bit tonight, um I was hopeful that we would find some compromise there um so that we could we could I think Mr. Shell said, you
know, we don't want perfect to get in the way of moving this forward. and and no one's asking for perfect and I felt like because the density has been brought up so many times and I do feel as though even though you've been accommodating in order to accommodate
all the things like the setbacks and and things have had to shift because the one thing that was a constant was the density and I'm talking about number of units and so in doing that it you know just created pressures in other areas so
uh we I I I just think that's been Um, that is a frustration of mine. And one of the things that I said in the letter that I wrote when I couldn't attend in September was that I'd like to see a few less units or the removal of the
management building, not and or. And so I appreciate again you're reducing it. It's still over 2,000 square feet. And I I would still like to uh you know for me I don't feel like you've addressed the things that I have been pretty staunch
about from the beginning. So um so that is uh that's all I have for tonight. Thank you. >> Okay. So um what I'll say are a few things. Um I'm dazzled by the community. I just want you to know that the time
and effort that people in this community have taken to give such detailed letters, most of them factual. I'd say 99% of what we got was factual. Um, some of it is opinion, but still like I just can't believe the efforts people have
made. I'm I'm from a from Medford, so I'm from bigger town. I'm not used to, you know, this kind of coziness, but um I felt warm by it. Um, and so none of the comments that we've gotten have fallen on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. And we're in a very difficult
position here because Paul said it, you know, early on we we're trying to stuff three pounds into a two-lb bag or however he put it and that's never changed. That has not moved. And yes, that is a um what happens with
affordable housing that you have density. I get that. But I'm still disappointed that we can't co coordinate some kind of a, you know, a compromise on that. Um, could I find a way to um
vote to approve this? Um, yes. And when it comes to uh all the things that I consider, I think that we need to look forward to the streetscape and not look at what's there now and say, well, you know, some of those other businesses have very um immature looking trees and
they don't have a good streetscape, so anything they put here is going to be better. I I think we could do a lot better than that. I think we could have a beautiful streetscape here. And I think that's what we need to um aspire to. And so when I look at I I was really
happy that THAAD provided us with those um outlooks because I do think that it would look nice to have a middle building. Now I have I've come to terms with that. However, I am not a fan of the uh building that you have provided
us with. It doesn't look Cape Cottish to me at all. And I think if you came back with another rendering of that that look like a cape of, you know, and and the two buildings that that flank it are attractive. There's no doubt. But I think something in the middle there
needs to look Cape Cottish and be, you know, more appropriate for the HBDC. I think it needs to be perfect for the HBDC because we have an opportunity to do that now. And if you need to talk to um people on the HBDC or staff um and
whatever you need to do to make the best uh I guess they call it elevation to use the right parliament to show us um I could find I think I could find a way to yes. I'm not promising but I would not find a way to yes with the with the one that you've showed us now. Um and then I
would start to dig in about all the other things that I think are not are not good. never mind not perfect. Um it's we're we're under a different law than we usually are and no one gets that any better than I do. So um I am trying
to work towards yes and get the best project for the town within our abilities. So um I'm going to leave it on that note and ask for a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjurnn. >> You need to set
>> Oh, sure. Yes. You might want to vote to move to continue first and then adjurnn. >> There you go. Yeah. Yeah. I got ahead of myself. >> Good point. >> You don't need to move to continue. It's not a public hearing anymore. >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, how do you like that? >> Do we have a new date? Is the new date?
>> Yes. November. >> Sorry. No, >> November 13th will be the continuation of the deliberations for the board. >> November the 13th. And we're likely to go >> Wait, hang on. No. >> Um,
>> Ed can't make it. >> Oh, you you can be remote even on a phone for these. >> You might be on a plan >> because that that is our regularly scheduled meeting house project 40B day. >> So, that's double whammy for you, but you could be on the phone. We we do
allow that for these 40bs. >> We'll figure it out. >> Okay. All right. So, with that, >> I'll move to adjourn. Uh Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes >> to return. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> Doesn't matter what order. We all vote yes. It's unanimous. And we'll see you next time. Good evening. Cadam. >> What time is it? >> 519. >> 519. >> Thank you all. [Music] [Music]