e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] good evening and welcome to the April 22nd 2024 meeting of the planning board of the town of chattam my name is Katherine Halper and I'm chair of the planning board of the town of chattam uh this meeting is being conducted in a hybrid format both remote and in person and I'll give you a few points on that in just a moment uh please also note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly Hereafter for scheduled and OnDemand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else else is recording the meeting please notify the chair I'll give you a few seconds in case you're connected remotely I don't see anyone else recording so that's fine so pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GLC 33 A2 until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while it's in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1 15894 54410 and the conference ID number is 893 265 788 pound or you may also join the meeting online using Microsoft teams through the link that is in the agenda posted on the town website while this is a live broadcast and simal cast on chadam TV formerly chadam 18 despite our best effort efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access and as mentioned we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible so let's start with a roll call vote of the board members arts sprw arts Brew present Warren chain Warren chain present Bob wter Bob wter present Charlene greenh Charlene greenh present Frank sheerer Frank Sher are present and Bob dubis Bob dubis present and I'm Katherine Helper and I'm also present and I'll ask the board members is there anyone who needs to recuse themselves from any matters on tonight's agenda okay all right so why don't we go ahead um minutes from March 25th meetings are there any corrections additions there being none could I have a motion to approve the draft as submitted Madam chair I move approval of the March 25 2024 meeting minutes and a second please I'll second go ahead I'll second thank you so much Arts Arts Brew approve waren chain waren chain approve Bob wter Bob warter approve Charlene greenal Charlene greenhalge approve Frank Shar Frank sharer approve and Bob dupus Bob dupus approve this is Katherine hel and I also approve so next on our agenda is a site plan review for a change of use for an amended site plan this is for 82 and 102 Meeting House Road uh the chattam dog Club change of use um and Mr Riley can you present for us afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of chadam dog club and Corgan who is the owner is present with us today the uh the change of use is that uh up until now uh the chadam dog Club has not provided any overnight uh stays for the for the dogs and there's apparently quite a bit of demand for the ability for some people to occasionally leave their dog overnight uh and the uh so they I think the goal is that they want to be able to have uh six dogs uh six dogs still over night facility 20 dogs all right 20 dogs in could you repeat that into the mic please will numbers yeah yeah 20 dogs in the main facility could stay overnight and six dogs in the house where they have special care if a dog's got a special problem the um so there's no change in the in the buildings themselves they do want to put a run on the South Side uh fence didn't run so they the dogs can go outside the um uh right now uh began during Co but they're continuing it because it works out so well basically uh they have a uh camera system when an employee sees a client pulling in with a dog they go outside take the dog out of the car and the car leaves so there's no uh Park real parking issues there they just come in drop the dog off and leave right away um so we think that and so none of that's going to change it's just there will be some some animals will will stay overnight uh and they have one person who's who lives in the house where they do the special care of the dog so there'll be somebody on the property 24 hours a day uh that's basically our presentation uh we do have a a note from Judy Georgio and uh so I've spoken to Judy she said it's 50 gallons per day per kennel I said so what's a kennel I said as far as we're concerned we only have one kennel and she said well she didn't know she had to talk to the to find out what a kennel was but in speaking with Miss Corgan excuse me so uh I hate it when that happens so you know we think that this is a process where there's no requirement for additional parking uh there's really since there won't be any more dogs on the property that are on the property at this time uh we don't think that there's going to be any requirement uh for Board of Health that's really a board of health issue anyway and and we'll be dealing with the Board of Health about that so the um uh I'm not certain you know what kind of conditions you might be interested in imposing where there's really aside from the fact that some dogs are going to spend the night there's really going to be no change in the operation but happy to take question and let me just review some of the points from the staff report um and then we'll go to questions um regarding the requirements of the Board of Health um it is up to the Board of Health to to determine right if you need additional flow um technically it's not under the purview of the planning board it is a board of health issue and we may not need to condition you will need to comply with whatever the Board of Health requires um I do want to uh point out and you have in your packets a note from Jay Briggs The Building Commissioner um about the parking uh and Jay says due to the number of parking spaces 5 to1 CMR requires at least one van accessible space and access aisle surfaces shall have a uniform paved or hardpacked smooth surface parking spaces and access aisles shall be level with the surface slopes not exceeding 1 to 50 2% in all directions so I think Building Commissioner is asking uh for a proper van accessible uh parking space the board could choose to add that to the conditions um so and then let's just go through some of the other referral responses um zoning board of appeals the applicant will be scheduled to be heard on May 9th we have nothing from DPW police or fire or Health Department says the number of proposed kennels does not seem feasible for private sep septic um so they need to determine what needs to be done um hbdc no approvals required airport no uh it's out of airport jurisdiction um out of Conservation Commission jurisdiction and I just read you the response from Building Commissioner um so let's go to questions from the board Arts appr uh just just a couple of things um I I not excuse me I noted when I was out there that you have uh a couple catch basins on site so they do capture all the storm water they seem to be functioning very well um I think the the confusing thing about the board of health issue which uh we may need to do some sort of a Comon on is if there is a requirement that has that that the flow has to be upgraded um Your solution would be to uh connect to the Sewer then I'm asking a question I I don't think the sewer is there yet yeah so does that does that limit your ability to actually proceed with uh this if that is uh something that the Board of Health puts a burden on you I don't think so I think the uh typically when sewer is in the offing so to speak uh they usually give you a period of time uh to hook up and I think that's what we' ask for that if if they do in fact end up imposing additional flow we don't see there's going to be no interior changes to the to the building M uh we're going to put a run on the outside but other than that there's no interior changes to the building so uh Judy's thing as well it's 50 gallons per day per kennel M but we don't we don't have any kennels we have an open space for the dogs socialize and well the the only reason I'm bringing this up is if that is a requirement and you do need to connect to the Sewer I I just want an as built of that be on file with our with our board after if that's a requirement of the Board of Health that's all on that I have a question Katie maybe you can help I mean if we're approving a change of use and the Board of Health requires connection to the Sewer to supply the the flow that's needed for that change of use I would say that you cannot open till you are connected to the Sewer is that correct or how does that work well they can't until the Board of Health approves it in whatever form they approve it in yes okay great yeah okay all right uh the the only other things is um the run on the on the rear there's no dimensions on it there's uh there's no uh description of type of fence the height of it um there are some uh uh grade related issues in the back I'm I'm assuming you may have to grade that area off I don't know if you're going to cut down any of those trees so there's no information associated with it so it'd be helpful if there was a little bit more detail that you could provide to us associated with it I don't I don't see any reason why that can't be just supplemental information that you provide but right do you want to add that as a condition or is it we can add that as a condition and um but I I don't I don't have any other um questions or comments thank you okay Warren um I've had many of those same questions but just one additional clarification one of the uh back U background documents it doesn't really say which uh which applicant submitted it but anyway it describes the um the Run that's going to be put uh put on as an enclosed exterior run right the south end of the building it's on the site plan no but it's is it enclosed to me would mean it's inside but it's not it's enclosed in a fence yeah it's going to have a fence around it all right just for clarification and also again I was going to ask you know for dimensions on it if theoretically could have 20 dogs in it and it certainly doesn't look very big from the draft but it's just a hand written on there so it would seem to me to have um an adequate size for it I don't think there's any limitation on how big that run could be but certainly I think we ought to have something that indicates exactly what it is that's going to be there but that's all no other questions okay great thank you Bob wfter yeah I guess I'm just trying to figure out the outdoor run and the um the cleanup from that um is there is there any requirement that I mean because you just said it's all going down into a catch Basin that catch Bas is then going into our water supply is there no requirement that we have any restrictions on on how that that'd be interesting I would I would expect that this have to go to sanitary sewer but uh that again that would be a Board of Health and a building department related issue but that would be I I'm assuming that's they they're looking at the inside uh usage and I'm I'm more concerned about all those dogs running around outside with your nice water treatment lack of water treatment right going into the to the uh groundwater so I I I'm surprised that we don't have that uh in our um good point view in our purview you're surpr um can you that's not a I mean it is a it's not directly a health issue it's a it's a an environmental issue it is part of the site plan it's actually site because it's not it's not considered part of the building it's right and I and I and I I'm thinking 20 dogs in that area and we don't have any control over how that works perhaps we can throw little light on it so the dogs will be allowed in there kind of one at a time for a little exercise yeah uh and the any any poop will be is cleaned up by the employees okay so it doesn't get washed into it's not going into the water supply right yeah okay great all right Charlene once you collect the poop where does it go I mean how do you dispose of it it goes into the toilet no it doesn't God I hope not I don't know anything about it come up and explain that that's where i' put mine but I don't know thank you this is an Corgan So currently we have two playards to both sides of the building one is 100t by 40t and another is about 70t by 40t so there there're already spaces where the dogs are playing so this enclosure that you're worried about is just a small a pen to do timeouts or if a dog's not appropriate with group then we would put it by itself in this particular area it's not covered it's literally a chain link exercise yard period currently and for the last nine years that I've been at that facility what we do when we we scoop we bag and we put it in a chest freezer it goes in the chest freezer and it goes to the landfill uh to the um transfer station once a week There's no smell there's there's no there's there's it it gets picked up immediately it gets Frozen and then it gets transported off the property outside of that I have AstroTurf on both the front and the backyard playards and those get disinfected with a biodegradable disinfectant that gets hos down every day just to keep it clean and keep the the odor down and this has been a a a I'm no not new with this there's an industry that does this and there's protocols that we all follow so um the increase of load on the septic system will will be zero there will be no increase on that there you go it's great to have knowledge here isn't it okay I mean I know you've been there for a long long time and honestly I don't ever remember hearing any complaints about anything to do with your business wonder I appreciate that um I I you know if we are leaning towards approval on this I I would want to include um you know the Board of Health requirement that that be addressed prior to the um operation of the change of use um the as a condition number four um the the you really think that's appropriate it's just a board of health issue I I think it's check and balance we've in in my world of planning we always excuse me Mr Riley balancing how are you balancing the Riley I'm speaking I would hate for anyone to think that they could start the business under our purview without first and it is not unusual in any community that I've ever worked with that um you include requirements from other boards committees or departments just to be sure that the applicant understands what they need to do so you you know and so that being said I would also want to include the requirement that uh the van parking space be added and that um along with um I think we would see need to see a revised plan I I would not want to necessarily require a revised plan for approval but that we have some kind of an asilt plan showing where that's going to be located and and how that's going to be the parking space the parking space that one van accessible parking space as well as the dimensions of the fence right for the enclosure just so it's precise yeah okay that's fine so we're adding three conditions Charlene is requesting that we're adding three well actually it's the Board of Health it's the van accessible space and then the as on the as built we show the dimensions right and I know Mr Riley might take issue with me but um uh generally if zoning board of appeals approval is necessarily necessary that that be included that until such time as zba approval but I that one I'll leave to the board yeah we usually haven't cited that do you have any objections Katie or yeah no objections we we won't issue the permits unless everybody signs off but I have no objections included I mean it's not like this is going to need building permit though and that's usually that's where you catch things right this won't need I don't think a change of use permits going to be required with the building department it it actually may I would think yes we actually re good C track so and because it's being going from just Dog Daycare to boarding I think that we would ask for a building permit to be okay okay but at any rate you've requested let's review the conditions you're requesting for Annie's benefit yep for the benefit of the board for what I came up with is Board of Health requirements shall be addressed prior to the operation of the change of use and five one van accessible parking space and access aisle on a paved or hard um parked surface shall be provided and shall be shown on an asilt plan okay great all right can I have a question yes so I think the I think the parking requirement is abs absolutely appropriate I think the board of health issue is not appropriate unless you explain how the applicant is supposed to notify the board the planning board that the we have approval at the Board of Health is that an additional requirement on them they have to they have to get appr to notify Us in that case it's just it's one of the conditions and it all goes through Community Development Department yeah sure it could be requested that the health agent notify Community Development that they're allset with the yeah could request that but the the health agent can notify Community Development uh we do it through the building permit process anyway actually through our permitting software they actually have to sign off on any permits um that they're that they're that they're good with it anyway so so so it would not have to come back here as it yeah it doesn't as as soon as um the the health director determines all is okay they'll sign off so that the building permit for the change of use can be issued it seems to me that having that language in your permit then is redundant it can only lead to questions later that we don't have an answer to it doesn't lead to questions it's it's could be repetitive and but I think if the board uh would like to include it we we do site um sometimes in our conditions we do cite comments from referral responses um just to be sure that it that what Charlene said that the applicant knows what needs to be done I'll say it's not necessary that we include it but if the board would like to include it I don't see that it's harmful it doesn't burden you in any way you have to do it anyway you know the Board of Health will require whatever they require I I understand that but in the world that lawyers inhabit which is not a nice place to live by the way the you know if that if we're supposed to record you know your approval then somebody in the future is going to say well prove that you got the Board of Health approval and that's why I'm saying I don't think it's really fair to the applicant so five years or 10 years down the road somebody says well prove that you got border of Health approval you know I mean it'll be in the file I mean maybe Katie could respond well again it wouldn't necessarily be in the file but it would be online the online permitting we could do it another way if the board's amendable we do a cover letter uh to the applicant with the approval and we could state that um oh yes we've done that that Board of Health approves it in the approval letter as opposed to making it a condition of the statement of conditions it's another option the board can consider I I don't care for that option myself but whatever the board Ju Just to support you my experience is exactly what you have described here charling and the planning board is sort of the umbrella of all these others because none of the others give you a sign off on this we're the only ones say since this is site site plan that means everything has to be done and we are the umbrella for it so referencing sewer or referencing zba I'm my experience as that's always been in the approvals that I've I've uh been involved with in the decades that I've been on a planning board yes okay so let's and mine in my 30 something years of being a planner professional planner okay so let's continue and then we'll just see how the board wants to vote on adding those conditions I'm I'm fine with it at the very worst it's repetitive at the very very worst um at best it just you know gives a clear indication that um planning board's approval is also contingent on getting all these other approvals that you need so that's all Frank you have some comments or questions um just to say that I support Charlene um I think all of those comments are are well taken and I don't have anywhere near the breadth or length of experience uh on this panel but I do have some experience and it's mine as well that putting conditions um as discussed is quite common um and is is really best practice okay uh but no other comments okay thank you and Mr dupus first of all bill I uh I wish you wouldn't have given us a plan that's been uh around since the s 2017 2017 um we should have had a new plan because the engineer on here I'm sure does not know that you used his plan and wrote on it there's a big thing going around here of people doing that anyway that's beside the point next time make it a little bigger but I would have liked to have seen the where the dogs are going to sleep inside the 20 dogs now the 20 dogs have been there forever right yeah and they they play on either either pen and you've done a very good job at it and I have no problem with the uh doggy uh 10 10 minute out cu I know a lot of dogs that would need about two or three hours in and I know some humans that might need a few in there too but and and the thing with the the septic system now how many people are employed there at one time four four okay how many people are going to be there at night one and is there one there now the house is vacant waiting on this decision okay so you're going to have one person living there that's right now do they cooked there for themselves not in not at the facility at 102 which is a house there that is currently vacant that I've been leasing from Mr Stell for 9 years now my son was living at now it's no that's all right I don't I know so you have a place outside this the kennel call kennel just for no other reason that's about all I can remember so so there'll be one person on duty at all times inside the inside the kennel or or in the other building on the property on the property now how is there a connection with uh um uh video cameras and all that stuff everything's in on in the facility currently is under it has camera there's no problem with the septic system the way you're running it and you don't won't have to change it until the sewer goes will be in evolved when it comes by you and they say hook up that's when you're going to automatically hook up no matter what so that's a moot point the sewer thing right okay and as long as you maintain that septic tank which when's the last time it was pumped I'd have to get those records for you I don't know if I think you should look up the records because in that business with four people and five people in in there sometimes uh you should might want to have it pumped every two to three years so that it maintains itself all right Mr Stell I don't think it would be overlooked I'm just I'm doing that as as a courtesy to you guys so you don't have trouble and have to put a septic system in before the sewer is ready all right um but I think it's a great plan and we it's something we need in this town for people to go away for on on weekends or something to be able to do that and to have a separate facility for the non-conforming dogs I I don't see any problems with that either so uh I'm I'm highly in favor of this project all right good um thank you great any other questions um I think we just need to see does the board as a whole agree that we want to add these conditions that were outlined by Charlene and art and Frank um one to certainly to add the the handicap parking and and aisle to that um that was not considered a handicap parking was it it was a parking for Van accessible accessible van accessible disability access okay all right my mistake yeah um with the specifications given by Mr breaks and then um continued upon Board of Health approval for the change of views um and contined upon zba approval uh and also that we want an asilt plan that that includes uh the dimensions of the exterior run right and the location of the parking space yes and location of the parking space the van accessible parking space okay so is that so does the board as a whole feel comfortable adding those conditions to the three standard conditions that are in the staff report uh that we usually have so if that is the case could I have a motion to approve the amended site plan with the conditions uh for the change of use with the conditions as just outlined Madam chair I move um to approve the amended site plan with conditions as we have outlined here for the proposed uh for the proposal to expand and change of views from personal and household service use pen dog care and Training Facility with retail component and Pen to incl include a kennel operation including overnight boarding based on the fact that the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to the protective zoning bylaws with the conditions as outlined wait a minute it's not a kennel it's not a kennel it's not a kennel it's a facility that provides overnight accommodations which I think is categorized as a kenel yeah by the zoning bylaw it's categorized as a kennel that's its name yeah so we have to call it that okay great great so we have a motion on the floor may I have a second I'll second it thank you so much art sprew art sprew approved and Warren chain Warren chain approved Bob warsha Bob warsha approved Charlene greenhalge Charlene greenhalge approve Frank Sherer Frank Sherer approve and Bob dupus Bob dubis approve and this is Katherine Helper and I also approve thank you so much and great success thank you on your expansion all right next item on the agenda is an approval not required um is there anyone yes Thad can you present on this this is for 320 and 342 Barnhill Road good afternoon for the record that alridge e Southeast um I have for review and endorsement and approval not required plan my clients own two properties on Barnhill Road one has 16,000 ft of area the other has 48,000 ft of area we're doing an uneven land swap where there's A4 square foot parcel and a uh 4,800 foot parcel the end result will be a 20,666 ft lot and a 43795 ft lot uh both have more than 100 ft of Frontage and the purpose of that little parcel is to be able to reuse that bound that already exists it just hinges the line on that great seems pretty straightforward any questions or comments for that all right um so may I have a motion to endorse the anr plan and titled division plan 328 342 Barnhill Road um dated April 9th 2024 so moved thank you and a second I'll second thank you art sprw art sprw approved Warren chain Warren chain approved wward approve Charlene green held Charlene green held approve uh Frank Sherer Frank Sherer approved Bob DUIs Bob dubis approve and this is Katherine hurn I also approve thank you thank you welcome back then thank you um just one thing speaking of an appr you're good that uh approval not required plan my signature and um oh my God signature are not recorded at the registry Deeds or the um Lane Court okay we will get a document to get those done so for the time being I would suggest then just the other five members sign I can I can vote to endorse it I just can't endorse it right okay so yes so we can sign it tonight yes great the my's back with Annie great thank you all right so next we'll move on to long range planning um I just like to make a couple of comments um so with us tonight to we'll be moving ahead with the West chattam neighborhood center and with us tonight we have of course Katie Donovan our community development department chair and glor mcferson who's our housing and sustainability uh director and also connected uh remotely is Pat Costello Our Town Council who are here to help us with any questions on the new wording now tonight I think we just want to consider the new wording that has been added to the draft of the West chadam Neighborhood Center in red um and and we have uh those who've worked quite a bit on it to help us with any questions or comments I just wanted to remind the board and remind the public um why we're only going to look at the items in red on the current draft and that's just to remind you of our of our 10 year long process with the West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning um there's been many layers that we've considered uh in this process we started with the comprehensive plan and the route 28 uh visioning study that was done by Cap Cod Commission in 2014 uh and uh there was significant public Outreach at that time and some of the basics of this zoning bylaw uh through that time there was significant public Outreach an integration of that knowledge into the bylaw then there was another layer added I think it was in 2017 we worked with Cape Cod Commission who worked on the design standards uh for the bylaw uh and then after that uh there was a lot of review by the board again taking public input um and then after that we embarked on adding the layer of form based code uh again at each point Point taking public input and incorporating that and each point in the draft bylaw has been considered by the board with the advice of experts such as Cape Cod Commission at each point um and the integration of community response at each point and then by formal vote of the board we decided on each issue so I think we're not going to review those at this time uh we're just going to look at the new words wording uh if we are if we can agree to the new wording tonight uh the as the uh buildout analysis is in process with Cape Cod Commission we're also planning to get visuals The Next Step would be to take the final draft the so-called final draft with the buildout analysis and the visuals to bring it to the public and to gather more uh it will have a couple of purposes to gather public response but also we have to do a lot of information giving and a lot of Education come January or so 2025 we'll look at a summary of new input we've received from the public and at that point if we need to reconsider any point in the draft bylaw we can before we send it to uh the select board um who would send it back to us to hold the public hearing to include it on the warrant for annual town meeting 2025 so I just wanted to review that process um so we're clear where we are um I also um there will be a chance for public comment if anyone is connected from the public again in consideration of time if we can liit our comments uh to five minutes and also just to consider the new language in red also I just wanted to very briefly address um some comments that came up from the board in our last meeting um please remember that the West chatam Neighborhood Center the whole concept of it is really based in the comprehensive plan and that's to create a mixed juuse pedestrian friendly um Neighborhood Center that also provides a variety of housing options for all income levels um the board has chosen during the course of this process to emphasize to give some emphasis to that housing option to provide a variety of housing options for all income levels because that that is one um aspect of our response to the housing crisis in chadam and on the cape but remember that first of all the West chadam Neighborhood Center is not a housing project per se it is not only that that's one element in the west chatam Neighborhood Center and also zoning um to include a range of housing options for all income level is one tool in our toolkit to address the housing crisis in chadam there are other tools that are also being implemented in town and also the board with Gloria and Katie we planning to look at other housing initiatives we can do through zoning that will also address the housing crisis so I just wanted to to remind you that it's never been the intention of the West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning District to be purely a housing project to address affordable and attainable housing um mixed use housing for all income levels that's been more the direction we've taken so um with that why don't we go I'm going to suggest that we just go through Page by Page and I'll ask the board if there are questions for Katie or Gloria or for uh attorney Costello on any of the wording um or any suggested amendments so let's look at the first page we've got Point h under uh purpose and we have some stricken language under applicability are there any questions or comments here no okay great then let's move to page three under five under definitions we have have a definition for attainable housing and then we have um for primary building we have that language changed to Frontage building any questions comments changes all right Madam chair I just have a yes question back on paragraph four it's paragraph question I'm just ignorant oh the part that is in blue actually yes okay I don't know where that is special permit shall be issued in ordance with the requirements with Section 8 C4 of this bylaw um that's the general uh protective zoning bylaw of chadam okay but I took this bylaw as being this bylaw we should we should change that okay do you have a s a suggestion how to change it Gloria I I would just say oh sorry sorry about that um I would just add um rather than saying of this bylaw of the zoning bylaw or protective bylaw okay thank you okay good catch um any other questions on page three um so then we'll move to page four there's quite a bit in red on page four so just ask if there are any questions or comments for Katie or Gloria or attorney Costello yes Frank um the question has to do with the definition of qualified household um how what was the thought process behind it how did we come up with that definition um so this was a definition that uh the Cape Cod Commission came up with um as a way of kind of addressing both the affordability as well as the um yearr round restriction um components of this um so I suppose that it's not it's not like something standard that you see in multiple communities across the Commonwealth so I think that there's a little bit of flexibility in this I mean the idea was that if you do these year- round occupancy restrictions um we should have some parameters by which to um Define it and let me think I think that we talked a little bit about the possibility of just having it uh be like a primary residence but you know to be a primary residence you just have to live there for like 6 months plus a day um and I don't think that thought that that really got to the whole idea of building a year-round community and I know that um state senator Julian seer in his special legislation to create year- round restrictions actually put an 11mon uh residency requirement which I think is a little bit a little bit difficult I mean I was thinking about my year in 2023 and I wasn't I wasn't on the cape for 11 months out of the year so I think that we kind of negotiated it down to 10 months did we talk nine months at all or was it just I think we might have or I'm trying maybe I had that conversation with someone else but um we thought we thought the 11 months was a little bit restrictive and I think probably wouldn't um meet the needs of the the public and we landed on 10 months but that's um of course uh Up For Debate okay well thank you for that um so um just just a comment drafting comment it starts out by saying an individual family or set of unrelated individuals basically that's saying a person or persons basically um who jointly rent so the concept there is that all the individuals have to be on the lease um that's my reading of it so I think that I think the who jointly rent probably modifies unrelated individuals right because an individual or a family or set of unrelated individuals who jointly run a year-round rental unit so you might want to clarify that maybe it I I read I mean I think to me it's self-explanatory because a family isn't going to jointly rent like you're not going to put your kids names on the deed but we can I mean maybe Pat has a way of clarifying that but the idea is that if you have a group of IND of unrelated individuals um you want to make sure that they are all you know covered by the requirement to live there you know year round okay all right very good well I don't know if does Pat want to weigh in well they're not though only one of them has to live there right now yeah oh for at least attorney costell do you want to comment on this question fine with me they just one of them has to live there all year round except well 10 months 10 months yes yeah but that sure Madam's here how good evening uh I I read the language the same way that Gloria does I I do think that the jointly rent uh section of that sentence relates to the unrelated individuals um I think again I didn't draft it initially but that's the clear the clear meaning or construction I would give to that particular phrase yeah I I guess the problem it and maybe you can see whether this is you have one group of people who live there uh and most of them go away but one of them stays for 10 months that's one or you have one person who lives there and every week three other people live there and that's still the only I mean that's isn't that also okay under the it couldn't somebody who did that get away with the way the wording is here it's almost like a sublet while they're still there is what you're saying I'm saying I'm saying it's all there it's a group of of of unrelated people who live in the house only one of whom has to live there TW 10 months of the year to me I I I think we could probably make it a little clearer maybe everybody does have to sign that lease and and some of them don't have to live there all year round but they have to be on the lease I that's what we would that's what we're assuming is the is the pattern of of uh habitation there not that every every month there's another a new person in there I mean that's that's my read of it that they're all on the lease and at least one has to be there a minimum of 10 months okay well then then let's be a little more clear on that and Gloria on the same point I was I I think it says I'm not 100% sure how it could be clear than say than it actually says unrelated individuals who jointly run a year round rental and then going down uh another sentence at least one household member must occupy the household for at least 10 months annually to be a qualified household I read is there any discussion with the cape cot commission about subletting being inappropriate or would you had one of the people who's initially on the lease and everybody else isn't there but they all jointly sublet the thing to whomever for whatever period I was jointly rent I think is the key word well could could we just say a person or persons who jointly rent well that's what it says they can joint an individual family or set of unrelated individuals and that's leading to confusion well do we have a definition of family somewhere else in the zoning bylaw that we have at this so that's that's probably why we have it have it this way so that it's consistent with the rest of the zoning bylaw but also allows for that you know because who wants to Define what a family is and this sort of does by saying you know an unrelated group of individuals that are on the same you know lease well but just as I'd read it they could sublet it to a corporation all of the people on the lease could sublet it I know there's one of the people on the leas have to live there but the um you know the rest of the time it could be sublet to whomever maybe just right back into the short-term rental issue I mean that's a question not a statement really let me let me look into this and see if it's mentioned I know that it does restrict short-term rentals but later on under year round um owner units and year round rental it speaks directly to shortterm rental right so which says you can't shortterm rent it so I mean I typically landlords have a clause in their leases that don't allow for sublets um I suppose it's if it's that important we could probably put something like that that into here but at minimum they couldn't sublet for anything less than say 32 days so that they don't run a foul of the Restriction against short-term rentals well I don't know if it's important or not I'm just asking if it's important that's all attorney costell do you have any comments I see you I do think that the sublet issue is is an open question to some degree however I think the the definition of qualified household uh I mean I I would construct it as unrelated individuals who jointly rent a year round rental unit on a lease of at least 12 months is it when you read that entire Clause together it it indicates to me that those unrelated individuals do have to jointly be parties to yeah the lease of at least 12 months um but again that being said could those unrelated individuals jointly suas the property to someone else I I think I do think that's an open question under the uh the language we could expressly put a bar on subletting in there yeah the most simple way to address it but does it I mean I guess it's a slippery slope if someone's subletting it for like a month or two but is it a bad thing if someone has to I don't know go somewhere for their job and they put another yearound person in there through a sub a sublot I don't know I mean what are what are we trying to protect against we're trying to protect against U rolling these up such that they own by that R them out that rents them out by the day week month to maximize the revenue potential so they can't rent them out by the day week or month unless it's like a a month plus a couple of days um because that's prohibited short-term rental is so it could be rented longer it could be rented I guess seasonally um sublet I don't I don't know glor I think I would say it the other way around as is stated up front is what the objective of this is It's try to promote yearr round residents um and and uh therefore anything that allows that to be avoided is not inconsistent with the intent of the board I mean but then again we're saying that only one person in the household has to hit that 10-month annual threshold so yeah it could happen with the family I mean the same thing could potentially happen with the family that you know mom takes the kids to Europe for a year and Dad stays and lets out all the sublets it potentially could it's not as likely you we let us take this under advisement and we'll look into whether the open question of subletting kind of erodes the purpose of the year round restriction yeah and of course it also relates to owning as well which is and maybe we need to I don't think we're trying to prohibit someone owning something and just not living in it well I think we are somebody just buys it and goes two weeks in the summer why is that that doesn't solve our housing issue that I that has somebody has to occupy at 10 months that's critical well that's what it says yeah no in favor of that I just never sense that the board was overwhelmingly oh no on board with me no that's critical yes Frank um want to interrupt okay doesn't that tie to the density bonus though not by right that's exactly what Katie was just saying yes it does exactly because we have to face the fact that there will be units potentially built and we are allowing for this the bylaw allows for units to be built that are market rate and where people can do what they want they don't have to live their year round yes so that is part of this bylaw um we need to accept that fact um and it's part of what we need to include in the bylaw to allow for um um economically feasible development to take place yeah that's what of that's exactly what I was going to say so it's very important that there is a certain percentage of market rate unit because those are the units that actually subsidize the cost of the affordable and year round units even though year rounds are probably um you know more expensive than the affordables um there's still a limiting factor on them so the you know cost per square foot is going to be lower the ultimate sale price is lower and you need to make sure that this is economically feasible otherwise you will never get people taking advantage of the density bonus and doing you know small developments where they have the smallest payment in low Frank yeah let me um principal residents um I take it we're defining that as being a case where at least one household member is there for 10 months there are state laws that Define the principal residence and that's what we would be um relying on this referring to the tax loss that you if you're there for more than half a year you're a resident yeah okay so this is basically saying if you're here for six months you're good right well no because at least one member has to occupy the household for 10 months right yeah um but it's possible we'd have a situation here where for example nobody is a citizen of chadam being able to vote right um I'm I'm just trying let let me say it differently we're we're focusing on six months I guess why wouldn't we say eight months or nine months we're focusing on 10 months did say 10 months that's only one one household member right so yep okay um I mean I suppose I suppose it could be stricter I mean so for an individual that individual has to be there for the 10 as I understand for a family I'm going to assume that the majority of the family is going to be there for 10 months especially if it's a family with kids in the schools um I think that this is probably written in a way that addresses that whole group of unrelated individuals who come together and lease a place for a year um I think that it makes sense to make sure that it's not you know a group of you know unrelated individuals from New York who you know can afford to sure do a year's lease and each of them can you know come up for a month at a time but just to go back to the point by using the word principal residence we're using six months as the guide and there's no particular reason why we couldn't use seven months or eight months you see it is that right I'm I'm I'm just wondering why we used 6 months except for the fact it's a convenient reference to the tax law what we really want is to have people living here year round or more or less year round um so why use six months why not use seven months or eight months just a question so I mean I think we're using 10 months for one person well at least one using 10 months as drafted yeah but for the for the group you wouldn't need that 10 month at all if you change the six months to let's say eight months or nine months but I won't go any further with it I'm just throwing that out as a possibility um let me make a minor drafting suggestion in the last sentence where it says at least one household member must occupy the household I think it should say occupy such leased or owned unit and then for at least 10 months annually it might say for at least 10 months in any calar in each calendar year just to be clear so noted thank you okay and if I could just comment the way I'm to comment on Frank's comment the way I'm reading it is that say you had a family or unrelated individuals um the whole everyone in that group has to occupy the unit for at least 6 months and a day the way it's worded now and at least one person of that group must occupy it for at least 10 months in a calendar the year that's the way it's worded currently because that's how principal residence is defined so does the bo would the board like to change that so that all members need to do the 10-month or are we happy with the most that the most of the members have to do it for six months and a day and at least one has to be there for 10 months I'm my sense of the board is that the board is fine with that okay and can I just ask and then we do want to add some language about um uh barring subletting and I think attorney Costello suggested that and I my sense of the board is the board would like to add language in that regard um we can adopt Frank's my sense of the board is uh that we're fine with adopting Frank's rewarding instead of household saying least or owned unit such least or owned unit um for at least 10 months annually in any in each calendar year okay yeah that's good and then I just want to ask the question again in response to um something Frank brought up is it a grammatical confusion because we say individual family or set of unrelated individuals who jointly rent and the phrase who jointly rent a yearr round rental unit actually applies to all of those that was my reading yeah three um types of people an individual a family or set of unrelated individuals so that's correct I mean I think that's a correct understanding okay great M chair can we move that so it's less less what individuals who occupy that in I think it's correctly worded the the suggested revision to make it in each calendar year I think would create an issue because many leases don't start on January 1st so if you have a one-year lease that starts in February excellent point then you would have an issue with you can't stay in a place for 10 months of the year if there's only nine months in the year left so okay yes or your lease might start in not sure how you do it I was with it at 10 month 12 month lease yes that that would be better months yes that would be better okay great okay so are we satisfied with vetting this particular paragraph um any other comments on the the next two paragraphs still on page four about yearr round ownership units and yearround rental units yeah I've okay I don't have a a problem with it what it says substantively um I was just wondering why we have a different definition of short-term rental than for example we have in the health regulations that were just adopted for um registration of short-term rentals after rental unit right there why why why wouldn't we have a parallel definition just so people don't get confused I'm not I'm not clear on what the difference is I mean we I think we reference short-term rental in the uh Health regulations has a residential dwelling or any bedroom within a dwelling rented out using Advanced reservations for a fee for a period of not more than 31 consecutive calendar days excluding certain things like and here we have a different but our definition but ours referen is the CMR that the board of health definition was taken from I went to the CMR and read it it and it doesn't seem to parallel the definition that we have in the so you just might want to look at that because I think um just for the sake of transparency and understanding standing by the citizens of chadam I think it's important to have consistency on our definition of short-term rentals um and if it is consistent I stand corrected I okay and I I I hate to do it but can we go back to qualified household and then put in a semicolon a semic and where do you want a semicolon in after the uh ye year round rental unit on semicolon on a lease of at least 12 months wait where is that an individual family or set of unrelated individuals who jointly rent a yearr round rental unit semicolon on a lease of at least 12 months that's questionable grammatically yeah I I think I think that's Ox well so as so I have a the problem is you don't know where the on the least at least 12 months whether it applies to the whole uh series or it only applies to the last one that's the problem appes to the whole series we're going to we'll word Smith and we'll send this to Pat to make sure that it's I have a best friend from high school who made 10 thou $10 million on an Oxford comma and it's virtually the same issue but this is an Oxford semicolon Yes it's just the problem is I I'm going to interpret it the thirds that qualification is it's ambiguous it doesn't you don't know whether who jointly rent a year round rental unit on a lease of at least 12 months is is the only one one that it applies to or whether on a 12 months applies to individual or a family or and it applies to figure out a better way to do it but right now it's ambiguous we'll definitely Wordsmith it and send it to Pat to look at okay great thank you okay um so any any other comments on the last two paragraphs and attorney costell I just wanted to ask you any comments on the question of consistency with the board of health definition of shortterm rental I just reviewed Madam chair the definition of shortterm term rental in uh section 6411 um I don't have the Board of Health regulation before me but this is a Statewide regulation it's premised on the provisions of the general law uh I assume that the reason the commission chose that analogy was because of the the broader application of the regulation uh whereas individual towns might have different local Board of Health regulations but um I I the definition I see in the in the 830 CMR 64g is the standard definition for short ter term rentals in multiple contexts so uh with the ex with the exemption for two weeks so anyone can rent their place shortterm for two weeks and not have to pay taxes on it and not have to register it right right now so I understand the uh the point about the consistency between chadam Board of Health and Zoning by law regulations but um I I assume that's the reason why um the commission ch shows this particular definition as we modified it okay thank you uh any other questions or comments before we move on okay next page is page six so um let's go any let's go start at the top but any questions or revisions or comments on on any of this language in red um I'm going to go back to something we talked before about before so we're on a previous page yes okay the the words rounded up or down so which page are you on um I think we're on the section about density yeah okay so you're on you're on page six okay I my pages are now numbered I see that okay right in the middle yes says number shall be rounded up or down I think we should simply say rounded up rounded up or round it down or something rather yeah I actually we had a version that just had up yeah like that was my recollection I thought we had to so can we strike or down or Katie did you have a comment about oh yes I remember so I did look at the parking regulations we always round up for parking regulations because we never want to be short um the only other place in the in our bylaw that we reference is under the mandatory um units in the affordable um section and what we say is that you know um I think it's 1.5 actually let me just give me a moment I can pull it up but it it basically says 1.5 we round down or above 1.5 we go up so it's if we wanted to do that I think it's better to just go round up I agree sorry yeah we should just round up because then if you round down you're not hitting the percentage required yeah I agree too any objection from the board to strike or down okay great um I have another I have a comment on this section um in the next paragraph um required year round ownership or year round rental units shall be included on the site of the project shall be integrated with the rest of the development shall be comparable quality access to and use of amenities and location within the development and shall be constructed at the same rate and time frame as unrestricted units in the project the word comparable I'm just wondering if it could be a little stronger such as equal to something like that Katie did you have a comment yes we had we had talked at the last meeting about looking and to see if there was a definition through the executive office of Housing and liable communities I've looked I haven't found it yet but I'm sure that there is and and we'll I've got that highlighted in our working version um so and again just um going back to um you know we've I've got a working version where we capitalize planning board and you know others but I wanted to make sure that the board had the version that was looked at at the last meeting okay um so we do have that highlighted for review as well okay great great can can I make a suggestion in that first pair graph that it's right at the top where it says that are not um that are not income restricted but are yearr round restricted or something like that are not income restricted but are in yearr round restricted an additional that are not yeah I would are restricted for year round occupancy restricted for year round occupancy but not restricted for income yeah something like that yeah okay other comments any on any of the red highlighted to to make it even clearer 50% of or 25% all units are restricted for yearr round occupancy 25% are not no% no the 25% of new dwelling units as attainable or are also restricted to year round occupancy that is true I why don't we just leave it the way it is and say all right Point ended it income restricted both all of these units are res are also restricted for year round occupancy all of these up to 50% yeah all such units or something make it two sentences but our definition for the rental units that are year round occupancy is 10 months right right right whereas the affordable housing unit regulations may be different I'm not sure we want to go change what rules apply to affordable housing all right anyway this is attainable it's attainable I I understandable what Bob is saying so we'll like the like the last thing we'll Wordsmith a little bit and run it by Pat because right so you have year round and income restricted year round and not income restricted each at 25% we'll make that clear okay great La I just for clarification would would ask you know if a developer has a 1acre lot and has no interest in pursuing the density bonus how many units can be put there without any restriction on attainable housing or on yearr round occupancy so without going for a density bonus there's no requirement to do a year- round restriction and in fact it would be illegal to do so because they're allowed to have five dwelling units per acre so without pursuing the density bonus they can do five units on a 1 acre parcel of which 20% need to be affordable or one or they can choose to do fewer units and have a payment in lie for a fractional unit right five I thought it was four but we have base residential density she be a maximum of five dwelling units per Baker we we're not we're not revisiting that we we we're not so we we've talked about that we hashed it out I have my old scratch notes where we were talking about that where you guys didn't want to go over four and I said hey I have an idea why don't we do five because if you do 2.4 Time 5 you come up with an even 12 so all of our numbers work out right now you know we can we can justify five units per acre based on the pre-existing buildout analysis and Dr Bob's work with sewer and septic and everything so and aren't we talking of zoning acre not a true acre and that's why it worked out better at 40,000 square ft with five units or something like that so I so I actually remember talking about that zoning acre versus this but right now this says an acre it doesn't say 40,000 square ft so if you want to do it five dwelling units per 40,000 sare ft which does make sense from a square footage perspective but but that that doesn't really matter because in the real world we don't have like exactly 40,000 foot Lots we have 4,067 ft or 40,200 feet so um but if you want to do 40,000 as opposed to an acre um I don't know when that Chang changed back I know we did have a 40,000 discussion we did have a discussion I just think we never agreed to change it we thought saying an acre was fine yes I'm sorry interrup the teams is frozen okay we need to take a break to reboot so that our remote participants all right great y all right how convenient is that so so we'll take a break but I hope it froze before I was like we're not redoing this guys are done sit down let's say it'll be uh 10 let's allow 10 minutes might not be that long but let's turn our microphones off and we'll be offline e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e welcome back everyone um we've fixed the problem with teams and everyone who's connected remotely is still con connected live uh and will resume our meeting uh we were just again looking at page six of the draft bylaw and I just wanted to ask the board if there were any other comments or additions for the wording in red on page six Katie did mention that at the bottom where the planning board is NOT capitalized that'll be capitalized that's a small correction any other Corrections or comments if not we'll move on to the next page page seven which is again just a change from primary building to Frontage building um and then the next wording in red is on the use table 15 page 15 and as a general thing I just wanted to make sure the board that you review the use table at this time and just make sure that we are comfortable with everything that we've designated as special permit or special condition and that you feel clear on the distinction and if not we can discuss those with Katie um maybe Katie Could you um review that for the board sure thanks Madam chair so at the last meeting some board members expressed um questions regarding the special condition and and what those conditions are so we actually have that spelled out already in our zoning bylaw um actually if you give me just a moment so for example let's see um you can see here um a conversion of an existing dwelling to a multif family dwelling is currently a special condition under the under the current bylaw and so if you see here the convert that for that to happen by special condition it needs to meet these criteria already laid out so it's already there but there was a question at the last meeting about how do we know what those special conditions are and I just wanted to make to bring the board's attention to that part of our bylaw great I have a question are the special conditions particular to six conversion of existing dwellings or is there like you know how you have a special permit section which lists all the criteria is there a special condition section that lists all the criteria yes the special conditions for each um category are laid out uh the conditions are are laid out for each of them so let me so this is just an example this is just an example right okay so would would we have to have would we have to have special condition criteria specifically for this yes so I think that when we brought this back we actually added um changed from I think by right to by special condition for multif family with five or more so we may just want to revisit that to see if we need to add specific special condition criteria um but everything else if you look under the last section section 18 under special use regulations all of these other um uses that have a special condition are already referenced in the current bylaw and those special conditions would remain okay and the special permit granting criteria are also defined in the Box yeah and just to review I'm just going to read to you so even outside of the red in this case I'm going to refer to the uses even outside of the red for special permit we have formula business establishment we have motel hotel and Inn we have mixed use development utilizing the density bonus um we have affordable apartment incidental to a single family dwelling for pre-existing single family dwellings and we have multif family dwelling utilizing the density bonus including tow houses duplexes Etc so at least in one in some zones those are allowed by special permit um and by special condition in our use table um we have lunchroom we have restaurant we have tourist home we have mixed use development with five or more residential units not using not utilizing the density bonus I'm sorry that was that was special condition my mistake mixed use development utilizing the density bonus we have a special permit and then we have affordable apartment I'm sorry incidental to single family dwelling sorry I've been misreading some of these did I um and then we have multi family dwelling utilizing the density bonus allowed in zone A2 and Zone B by special permit so I just in reviewing those I just want to make sure the board is that we're all on Deck with what is special condition and what is special permit and my apologies if I might have read one or two of those incorrectly art did you have a question on any of them yes um um Gloria maybe you can help me understand this the there's residential components underneath mix use and then there's residential components um in the last page on page 16 that's titled residential only um I'm not not quite sure is that where part Parcels are not do not have Frontage on Route 28 and say the secondary roads so where we we call for a commercial use in that Frontage there and that but there are some lots that are at the rear that could be just residential is that is that the intent here for it to cover this yes so that that is exactly the intent so and I actually so I'm still I'm still a little bit bit up in the air about uh multif family dwelling with 1 to four residential units not us utilizing density bonus multif family dwelling with five or more units not utilizing the density bonus and the other one that says it's utilizing the density bonus not being allowed at all in A1 so A1 is 100 ft um from the edge of the road right of way so 100 100 ft is a long way to only allow mixed juice and I can think of a couple examples on the ground because I actually drove around and lucked um where I could see potentially the frontage building which is key that has residential so that your you know pedestrian yeah has commercial sorry so that your pedestrian experience is of that kind of commercial Village um you know feel but that potentially depending on the scale of that building there may be room behind it but still within that 100 feet where it might be appropriate to put residential only and the other place where I think it's um and that's really just a judgment call I mean maybe you don't want that but the place where I think that it could potentially be an issue is not that I want to bring up a store point but for those split Lots with the rpz like if you guys remember what we talked about with the rpz foot footnote where we allow the Redevelopment with the same density that's already there however if you're taking buildings down you can't put them within the rpz but you have that density that you can then pull out to not the rpz and if that area happens to be part of that 100 foot where you're restricted to Only commercial then that would severely limit your ability to redevelop that lot with commercial residential mhm I I when I did my look uh on this I I came up with that same assessment there I I guess if there was a oneoff like that um what would be the applicants um remedy if if they wanted to seek some relief on that could they do that and and apply for it in some way whether it's by our board or zba I think it would end up being a variance because we don't give the option for a special permit for this but I think I guess my point in saying all this is um you know we're not under time pressure we're not we don't have to get this out before town meeting in two weeks right so let's think about this let's do a couple little sketch plans let's see where problem Lots might be and let's think about maybe parsing this a little differently and I think that it might be um easy enough to do because we redefined that you know the frontage building to Frontage and that actually was was one of my other comments which is like well you know it's really diff it doesn't have to be the primary building but the the key is what's happening along the street skate so maybe if we can look into those and come in come in with like a little bit more of a nuanced approach that wouldn't um and I'm trying to think of the I'm trying to think of also the alternative so if we do something like that where it's just like well your Frontage building has to do this would that cause like a developer to like minimize that Frontage building and the commercial component in order to maximize housing at the expense of the streetscape all I'm saying is I have a lot of things swimming around my mind um to get this particular part um just right so I think that it's worth looking at unless you guys are happy with the way it is I I think uh I think the build AO analysis and and visual images of it is going to clarify the picture because it helped me I did my own associated with this and then it helped me understand a lot more so once we get that I think uh we we could delve back into this and that's a good question to ask is that 100 foot the right number yeah for this well the 100 foot is the Oh you mean so for actually changing that A1 well I'm not necessarily I mean I'm interested in in a good mix between uh a commercial and residential and there will be plenty of opportunity for residential I think so I'm not afraid of the 100 feet but I I think uh when you see graphically some of the examples with the buildout it's I think it's going to help all of us on the board to understand you know is there any refinement that we need to do on on some of these these numbers so you're suggesting that maybe we'd take a second look at it in the context of the buildup analysis that Cape Cod Commission is working on course I think that might be a good approach I I think one reason we kept the uh zone A1 at the 100 ft is we want to have enough commercial activity in the area as a whole and also we want to look again as we did before Gloria at the exact location of the rpz and exactly which lots are affected and see because it's it's going to go lot by lck for that just just to clarify I don't have a problem with the 100 ft I think that that's a very reasonable depth but what happens within that 100 ft I think we should be able to control a little bit more than just not allowing that I mean maybe it's so much as you know um the frontage building has to be a mix and it has to be um at least 50% of the gross floor area of all the uses within that 100 feet like there there's so many different ways to to do this um well okay well if you take a look at the commercial area the commercial area can go in zones A2 and B also so it it doesn't have to be residential at all yeah if the way I read this is that right yeah yeah you are reading it correctly so there's going to be pressure to do Residential because it's more profitable I I understand that um residential is going to be a driver on this and from my experience that is an important component and I would surprise me if the residential doesn't happens first on this and that's going to help the overall development in in the west chanan neighborhood and Senate once it's gets approved yeah yeah and I think what your last comment Gloria that the residential is more profitable I think again we wanted to be sure that there was a incentive or requirements for enough commercial development to make it what it should be which is a neighborhood center that has both commercial and residential and also given the fact that some of the commercial will be providing a means of income I mean ideally for some of the residents that hoping that we can reestablish the traditional pattern of commercial below living above and and Commercial that's actually providing income um it's but we do have to be realistic I think what you know that the residential is probably the most profitable and the the West chadam Neighborhood Center bylaw as it stands now um does allow for market rate units and we're going to see um when it gets redeveloped we probably will see a lot of those and and the residential drives the economic development right you need a critical mass of of people living in a village to make businesses economically viable so at this point I'm sensing the board that and Gloria and Katie and attorney costell that we're not going to make any changes or reconsiderations but we will take a look at this uh in the context of the buildout analysis is that we'll take a look at special conditions special permit what we allow everywhere and just make sure uh that it's working given the actual Lots is that all right everyone agree to that mhm so we're looking at a few areas that are we're going to reward from tonight's consideration correct um I think we've made notes of those and um our next meeting is May 20th Madam chairman I'm sorry to do this but we went flying past the density section before I have chance the density section make some comments P page uh six okay I did ask several times if there were any more comments but sorry if we missed you recog by chair okay um all right Warren go ahead our objective here is to try and promote uh yearr round residency as well as attainable housing um but as I just work through the wording here and said am I incentivized as a developer to seek the density bonus it's not clear to me that I am if you only build four units everything can be market rate and no no restrictions at all so that's true except you'd have to pay a payment in low yes yes yes yeah that's if you un right uh as soon as you go after the density bonus um the arithmetic is that you essentially have fewer totally market rate units until you get up to a density of of seven um per acre and you never get more than six market rate units if you go all the way to the max of 12 units per acre in other words it just seems that there's a disincentive to going after the density bone bonus which seems to be the opposite of what I thought we were trying to do which was to um provide incentives in other words get more market rate units if you went into the density bonus although be it you would also have attainable and um rental restricted units um so um my question is are are we creating a situation where nobody is ever going to build more than four units per acre um in which case then we have no con no restraints at all um on short-term rentals or uh and we're not creating any affordable housing retainable housing um I in in just working numbers myself I wanted to ask whether it would be appropriate for the board to consider consider that the first four units would have to be restricted in terms of rental and that you would then if you get into the density bonus you would be able to increase the number of totally unrestricted units um as well as create attainable and everything that's here would apply and the simplest thing that I could do that seemed to be consistent with what our objective was was to make right from day one the first four units have got to be uh rental restricted so that so that's not legal I mean it has to be part of a special permit process to be able to do that that type of restriction we don't have a mechanism in state law um that allows us to do these year- round restrictions so it so you're allowed to build those one to four units by right essentially except that we have that overlying affordability requirement which is going to manifest in a payment in Li because it's below the 20% right so once you hit five then one of those units is 20% but below that it's a payment in L but you can't you can't just require deed restrict deed restrictions for yearr round um occupancy on you know construction that's allowed by right in the zoning District what if it was just affordable put aside the yearround part um could we require let's say two of the four to be affordable so I mean you could but that would incentivize a developer to use 40b where only 25% are required to be affordable okay so we're I was talking to Mike earlier today so we're working we're working with like our base requirements for zoning here 40b up here and this is our this is our territory where we're trying to get something out of developers um without pushing them towards using 40b so we can that's why that's why we feel relatively comfortable going up to the 25% affordability requirement because it's not more than 40b and it's a little bit more um it's a little bit easier to get a special permit as opposed to comp permit it's um restricted primarily to attainable housing right so it's it's the income gap is is less to close so the way it's structured now makes this a reasonable alternative to 40b if you put out a bylaw that said 50% of everything has to be affordable um nobody would use it everyone would go to 40b or they'd build like a you know two single family homes or something like that and answer the same if it was 25% um so we we do have that we have a base requirement of 20% and then to get to that 25% that's when we allow the density bonus but but you can buy out of that right payment and L for the partial units but once you're using a density bonus you have to construct aordable units and put aside I'm sorry put aside the density bonus for a minute um could we simply require that 25% of the units be affordable I yeah I suppose you could okay as opposed to the 20% Baseline but then what do you get for what would you require for a density bonus or are you just trying to take density bonuses off the table and not at all I was following up Oren's point of trying to give an incentive to get people into the density bonus where we have these other OB Ives that will be met so I think the issue might be that if they don't take advantage of the Des density bonus and we set it at 25% it is essentially a 40b they correct and they could use 40b and the thing about get density yeah and the thing about using the 40b is then they don't need to pay attention to any of the other zoning and we actually want them to pay attention I Frank I think we would lose out tremendously if we push that level as soon as somebody sees an opportunity to circumvent a lot of the other things that were incorporating in here we want they they'll do that and they'll get what they want and we'll get nothing and so I I think that's the reason why we structured it at 20% for that first level and it makes sense that if you want to go up levels we can ratch that a a little bit which is what we did it still gives them incentive to go ahead use the bylaw as is proposed versus going a 4B rout and 20% is pretty Progressive so we will be the third community in the Commonwealth Cambridge first then Province 10 then chadam to have 20% as their Baseline affordability requirement yeah yeah I think that was the thing um we didn't want them to go to a 40b where they don't need to pay attention to the rest of the bylaw basically um so so I I I'm going to go back to my four you could build four units when you build the fifth unit it's it's no longer you can't build five units that are not that are all uh market rate no correct once you hit five one of them has to be affordable so that's where when you build four you have to pay like 80% of the cost of a unit when you build three you have to build you you have to pay 60 % of the cost so it's not I mean it's just it's just a different way of addressing our housing needs like sometimes they're going to get things uh constructed and sometimes we're going to get a payment in L sometimes we might get a little bit of both a payment constructed and then because of the numbers you know we get you know 30% or something of the the cost of that affordability Gap um there's nothing wrong with having a funding stream through a payment and low because the funding stream would go for affordable housing yeah I'm just going back to where my one one and four came four density game from does the stream go into trust um how did I can't remember how I think we need to turn microphones on microphone Frank does the funding stream go into the trust I my under so originally when this was conceived and I don't I don't know where we landed with the language but the idea was that because this is um focused on attainable then yes it would be able to go into the affordable housing trust to be used for attainable housing but technically there's special legislation that's still pending that allows the affordable housing trust to work up to 200% Ami but yes right so that's where it would go it would go into trust yeah it's not going to the general fund okay good other any other questions well just comments I think I heard you say that it you know by law we could not require that the zoning in the west jadam Neighborhood Center um require that there be rental restrictions on Lots you mean year round restrictions yes so not unless it's through a special permit process and that was that was a decision from Town Council about that that we would be able to pursue year- round restrictions through the special permit process but we cannot do that without a special permit process okay well then I would is it therefore possible to consider and given the objective which is not to promote market rate units um to have a special permit for units 1 through four which we would then put in there uh the year around rental restrictions I I I don't think we were wanted to restrict market rate units that was not the objective that that is a component of what is going the market is going to want to drive anyway so if you restrict Market Ray units you may not get anything at all yeah so we're trying to be realistic with with the econ with art Arts right that the market rate units just so what we're doing is almost like a mini 40b process for the town of chadam and just like in 40b it's going to depend on the developer being able to develop market rate units and having a certain profit margin and then using some of that profit to subsidize our affordable un well attainable units and actually subsidize those year- round restricted units because they're not going to get as much on the open market right so if we and I and I totally get the impulse to say you know as long as we're doing this let's make sure that like everyone lives here we create our community we look at you know Community sustainability but it's it's not economically viable to restrict every unit that's developed it's just not like we really need that you know the profit margin on a market rate to be able to subsidize all of the other things that we were doing and my guess is that you know every now and then you'll probably have a market rate that sells to someone who lives here year round but most likely it'll be you know a seasonal home or or something like that and we won't be able to restrict it my only real objective is or objection is that the density bonus seems to be perverse as I say you the developer has fewer market rate units if they opt for the for the density bonus but even even if you think of simple math so we're going to have 50% of our units restricted right but the density bonus is 2.4 it's more than double so just like pure numbers I'll look I'll look at it a little bit closer and I'll do like a you know I'll do like a little spreadsheet that says if we create one unit this is what happens two units this is what happens three and I'll go through and I'll make sure that it it makes sense but from a pure math perspective um like 2 point 2.4 times is greater than two times so that covers that 50% um restricted units and also as I understand it 25% are income restricted but 25 5% are only restricted in terms of yearr round occupancy so um so presumably those can even go for a market rate but to year round exactly I mean those are market rate units they just would have you know perhaps a a different market value than if they could be rented out by the week or month that's exactly right right so um so they it's not as if they are you know obviously uh the same value as an attainable unit right so they are getting bonuses with the density um bonus they are getting incentives MH yeah well that would like schedule I I did the same thing already that's how I came up with this seems to be a perverse incentive uh the more units you build the fewer you end up at a market rate the more attainable you have to do and the more you put on a rental restriction so as I say hence my question can't we get more of the rental restrictions up front so the the density bonus gives you really more money for the developer that's all thank you okay okay great um any other questions from the board okay okay and um we can take questions and comments from the public but first I'll ask attorney Costello do you have any comments on our discussion that you'd like to make otherwise I'll move to the public I'm all set u Madam chair I think it's been a very very useful and very constructive discussion thank you thank you so again just a reminder in view of the time if we can limit our comments to five minutes and I do see one hand raised is that Elaine yes it is madam chair thank you uh yeah two things first of all I just like to say that I think it's critical to make sure that we don't discourage market rate Apartments I know lots of people who would not qualify you know at 125% Ami or less and they need housing and I would say that a lot of them are Town employees that uh would not qualify and yet we promoted the need to provide housing for that group of people um two things one is on the um the five you know unrelated people living in a unit um I think you need two categories one is you know the family unit where you say one person you know the the mother and kids go off to Disney World for you know the summer or whatever and so that somebody has to be there for 10 months when you have five unrelated people which you could have because my understanding is Board of Health of two bedroom is two plus 2 plus one so there could be five people in there and if they're unrelated and only one has to be there for 10 months um I see a concern where it's going to be um a lot of people moving in and out and with the potential of becoming seasonal workers I don't know how you can enforce that there's no enforce ability that I see here um where you know someone would work for the summer and then they leave and they send a friend up and even though that person is on the lease uh who goes away for the winter and that new person comes in they're not on the lease and I don't know how you would monitor that when you've got four or five people in a unit so I think the easier solution is to say that everybody on the lease has to be there for 10 months then if there's a complaint it's easier to enforce if only one person is there's no way you can keep track I would also say that I think you're going to have a problem with that definition of having people who are unrelated because if you're only saying two cars or one and a half Cars per unit and there are five people unrelated there's going to be five cars and they're going to park somewhere they may not park near their apartment but they're going to be taking up retail space so I think that's something you have to consider I don't know know if by law you have to have a policy for five unrelated people or if you can simply say we're not even going to Define family it's just you know X number of people in the unit and this is the way it's got to be otherwise you should have two separate categories and say that all five people if they're unrelated have to be on the lease and they have to be there for 10 months um and I don't know I thought that in a law there was usually an enforcement paragraph I thought there were for adus uh and I didn't see that here uh because I guess I would wonder who would be enforcing that um that's that's that question and then the other one I have is related to uh the definition for attainable housing it says a dwelling unit reserved in perpetuity for a household earning 80 to 125% so I guess my question on that is why I assume that means it's deed restricted rather than reserved and it probably should say that it would be deed restricted and according to mgl uh imp perpetuity is 90 years and I'm wondering if you really want to say imp perpetuity uh you know there are old Harbor Road you know people gifted it they thought it was imp perpetuity and it turned out it was only 30 years but I have a real concern with tying up properties indefinite for 90 years you know we're talking several Generations are going to pass what if in 10 years we find out that our needs have changed that in 10 years all the towns are going to have affordable everybody's going to have affordable housing everybody's going to have indeed restricted and we're not going to be able to fill them but we're going to have a need for market rate uh can you undo the deed and if so how you do that with another bylaw if we deed restrict a bunch of properties and then find out in 10 years we don't need that many what do we do is it irreversible that's the Next Generation okay thank you Elaine um we'll give some thought to those issues okay um any other comments I never I really got a question answered I town council's here it's just a general question on imp perpetuity all right attorney C happy to answer the questions sure uh first of all the enforcement aspect of of the bylaw would be carried out by the uh Building Commissioner it's this is a section of the zoning bylaw and in the the zoning enforcement officer Building Commissioner has has the right to enforce its Provisions um the question is going to be is is that town officer equipped with the staff and what have you to uh undertake the additional measures that are going to be necessary to Monitor and enforce the bylaw but that legal Authority does rest in him and as to uh restrictions in perpetuity uh restriction in perpetuity can be released by the party benefited by the Restriction uh which would be the town in this case if the town through town meeting action or otherwise legislation down the road would deem it uh uh necessary or or prudent to release some of these restrictions it could do so by legislative action so they're not necessarily binding for Generations uh in a situation where they become ineffective or are non-beneficial to the public thank you very much yes thank you so much any other questions from the public I don't see any hands raised great so I think that is our final point on the agenda um we'll be looking our next meeting is May 20th correct and we have a few rewordings that we'll take a look at Katie did you want to make some comments um that's correct the next meeting is May 20th I think we have uh two or three uh site plan applications that we'll be looking at uh we'll bring bring back the wording um the changes s suggested edits um for the board's review um um I did want to mention from the standpoint of the buildout analysis so we had a conversation with the Cape Cod Commission so turns out they're not actually doing it what they've done is they've given us money towards having it done so we have to do an RFQ okay to seek a consultant which we are in the process of I think we should be the RFQ should be ready to go out at the end of the week great uh we'll seek a consultant to come back in and then then they'll actually do the work um with us so I just wanted to give the board an update on the process great and we're still um working with Union Studios about the visuals which will be based on the buildout those will be based on the buildout analysis yes okay great so all that's moving ahead great great any other comments from the board before I ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting Madam chair I move that we adjourn this meeting thank you may have a second I'll second of that thank you Frank so Arts Brew Arts Brew approve forgot about me already I thought you wanted to say something art approve sure Warren waren chain approve W Bob approve Charlene greenh Charlene green held approve Frank Sherer Frank sharer approves Bob dubis Bob du Bob dubis isn't sure yet I'm a minute to wake up I approve and this is Katherine Halper I also approve that we adjourn tonight's meeting and let's note the time as 7 is that actually 7:40 uh and thank you every everybody for participating and enjoy the rest of the [Music] evening e