e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] good evening good evening everyone and welcome good evening everyone and welcome to the June 10th 2024 meeting of the planning board of the town of chattam my name is Katherine Halper I'm chair of the planning board of the town of chadam this meeting is being conducted in a hybrid format which means both in person and remotely and I'll be reading you a few points on that in just a moment uh also please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly Hereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chair I'll give you a few seconds in case you're connected remotely and I'll ask um if there's anyone in the audience I don't see any hands raised so we'll go ahead so let's start with a roll call of the board um waren chain Warren chain presid uh Bob wter Bob wter present uh Frank Sherer Frank Sherer presid and Bob dubis Bob dubis present and Charlene greench Charlene greenel present all right and arts Brew is not joining us tonight he is overseas this is Katherine Halper I'm also present and may I apologize in advance I'm getting over uh a bad cold and a cough so from time to time I may need to um not be talking uh but that is why I'm remote for for Everybody's Health uh so regarding the hybrid format 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 GL 3820 until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chattam 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 1508 945 4410 and the conference ID number is 779 034 802 pound or you may also join the meeting online using Microsoft teams through the link that is in the agenda that is posted on the town website while this is a live broadcast and simal cast on chatam TV formerly chatam 18 as I mentioned uh despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access and as mentioned we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible so before we proceed to the first agenda item I'll just ask the board members if there's anyone who needs to recuse themselves from any matter on tonight's agenda there being no one let's go to our minutes from May 20th 2024 does anyone have any corrections additions um changes to the minutes there being none may I have a motion to approve the minutes as drafted Madam chairman I have a comment yes yes go ahead on page two where we're talking about 97 Sam Ridder Road um yes it was my clear understanding that we had as a condition that uh drainage from the downspouts be directed underground to the leech pits I may be incorrect on that but that was certainly the way I left the meeting on that understanding but that's not what is reflected in the notes it's in paragraph four and six on page two all right let's take a look notes so where is the sentence you're looking at uh um the board members expressed some concern about the down spout draining directly on the pavement outside the building and agreed to a condition that additional drainage will be installed to produce runoff uh to reduce runoff on the pavement but uh my understanding was that we were going to have as a condition that the downspouts be uh directed underground from the building to the leech pits maybe the board is going to correct me but that's my recollection so I thought I'd bring it up yeah I don't remember that we got that specific but uh do other board members have a comment and also Madam yes I actually made the motion on that and I don't think I was that specific that's what I would call yeah but I'm wondering if Katie um uh might or Annie might have uh what the decision actually stated cuz sometimes the minutes yes you know are just a summation of of a decision and I'm just curious if we might know what was actually put in the decision because that's the most critical thing the minutes can say whatever they want if it's written in the decision in a particular way that's what um yes um my memory matches Charlene's I don't remember that we specified it um Warren but we can ask the other board members but we should but Charlene is absolutely correct um what's most important is that the condition is stated correctly on the statement of conditions and it's fine for the minutes to Simply refer uh to the fact that we asked for additional drainage that's actually that's completely all right in the minutes so I don't know if um as Charlene requested any or Katie do you happen to have that document nearby or accessible um Madam chair I'm trying to pull up the draft statement of conditions if you could just give me a moment sure thank you so much yes Madam chair uh condition number five additional drainage shall be installed to limit the runoff on the pavement was the was the draft condition um the this we have not had your signature on this as of yet but that was the draft condition that we put in the statement of conditions okay and as I recall that's what I stated um when I was doing the the decision and the conditions yeah well then my my recollection is incorrect that we had um decided that the additional you know the drainage ought to be directed underground to the leech bits keep it off of the paves surface which is going to go right up to the buildings so we're creating a skating rank in the mean you add more drainage it just put doesn't change anything if it's on the surface so but anyway but if I'm incorrect I'm um uh I'm incorrect so thank you I I think we we discussed it Warren but we decided not to as I recall and again open to other board members as I recall we discussed that and decided to leave it just that there would be additional drainage as appropriate and with the obvious understanding that the water shouldn't be cooling on the on the paved area so um I think we actually made a conscious decision not to specify it that much as I Rec Madam chairman I think we recommended that it would be nice if they did that uh but I don't think we forced it yeah yes yes I agree um I agree we did we decided not to force it as Mr DUIs says is is everyone satisfied with that I move we uh we accept the minutes as uh presented to us thank you m CH second great all right let's do a roll call vote um Warren chain uh Warren chain approve Bob w chapter approved Frank Shar Frank Sherer approved Bob dubis Bob dubis approve Charlene green hge charlon green hge approve and this is Katherine helper I also approve that we accept the minutes as drafted for the May 20th 2024 meeting so our next item on the agenda is a site plan review uh this is for a town of chadam project um our DPW director Rob fa I believe will be presenting uh and this is for 85 mil Pond Road and this is for the demolition uh and construct of an existing Wastewater pump and construction of a new Wastewater Pump Station um Rob would you like to go ahead and describe for the board what you are doing and um and what's been done sure thank you madam chair so I'll just give a brief overview and I believe Jeff Greg from ghd uh engineering is in the audience in person today so uh he may have a better uh navigating some of the more finer details of the of the construction but this is basically a 50-year-old existing Pump Station that needs to be replaced um uh you know as we connect sewer to it it's uh it's again it's 50 years old design began back in 2016 we bid and awarded it in late 2023 uh the site is very con strained on all sides um uh intersecting roads to the east the ocean to the South Wetlands to the west and private property uh to the north and that we've been lucky enough to be granted an easement from the property owners to the north um the pump station is in a flood plane and a natural resource area uh variances we've pre previously received were from the zoning board of appeals and the Conservation Commission we've recently received a variance from the State Plumbing Board not to uh add a restroom to this facility which would have impacted the size incredibly uh so we've to try to minimize uh the construction the size of this plan um and I know uh Jeff I believe he's in the audience I'm going to defer to him to go through some of the finer talking points about how we've reduced the size and all the considerations we've taken into into account to try to reduce the footprint of this uh facility uh Jeff would you like to go ahead and please introduce yourself completely thank you so much sure uh Jeff Greg uh ghd um project uh manager and project uh director for various aspects of this project I was the project manager for the design and now I'm the Project Director for the construction um is it possible to pull up the existing site plan just so people could I don't know if people saw that in the in the packet um yeah that one so um let's see here I think there's a laser pointer so basically you have the ex I don't know for those of you that are probably familiar with that postage stamp size site um you've got the uh the walkway that goes out to the water you know Pier um uh the quote unquote landing and then the intersection of uh mil Pond and Homestead and then there's like a little Stone sort of wall with some stairs that heads up to what looks like a little concrete box and that's your existing pumping station and and what what I wanted to point out is this this Edge is pretty much the same boundary that we're holding on the next plan so if you go to the next page we're still staying within this this um curvature here is that same footprint and this is the existing um it's not even a wet well it's where their existing pumping system is located and we're going to be using that for our wet well and then we're essentially building back into the private property where we got an easement of a building to house the generator because we needed to get uh a we Chang changing the the pumping station process and we needed to get uh a generator in there we needed to get it above flood but we were also trying to keep this as low to the ground as possible so we I think we had to get a variance because we exceed the overall height by six inches uh with zoning board so I think this is 20 ft 6 in above ground to to an extent and then there's the stairs that go down and then this is all the existing Paving that's already there so we're trying to work within that confined footprint um and um shoehorn this facility in I think there's also uh a rendering that shows um well yeah so those so you can see the existing station in this picture you can see what we're proposing and then I believe uh a uh a page or two before this is the actual color there's some color renderings or they may be there you go yes kind of shows you a general idea of what we're talking about this door is actually just to go to a basically a piping Gallery below the station um and uh is designed for flood so it's a flood door um can I'm this is Katherine I'm just going to interrupt is there any way you can use a pointer and show us which door and it oh sorry I I was I was doing with a laser pointer but I realized I don't have a I don't have access to a mouse so I'm not sure how computer point oh that's okay yes so it's just that I can't see it um the board members in the room can see it so so that's all right that's all right go go ahead that yeah uh so if you look at the at the of the three images is if you look at the lower image and if you look at the lower uh right hand corner of that image you'll see a little doorway it looks like a little uh you know red light above it it's not red but it's and there's a foot Landing that's the flood door to the basement uh and then or the pump gallery and then there's a door that's diagonal from that up on the upper level that goes into the generator room it's basically all it is is a generator and electrical equipment um as um Rob indicated we're surrounded by all these different uh conditions uh and so we're Tred to stay within as much of the existing footprint as we could and then uh build back towards the Upland as best we could to uh site the facility ground water is anywhere from at ground level to you know maybe 3 ft below it you know when when it's low so there's no real Provisions to do any additional storm water we were trying to do storm water as part of the overall project further up mil Pond and up um Homestead we're going to be able to do some at the top of Homestead uh we are still trying to determine because of all the utility conflicts that we have and the number of utilities that we're putting into mil Pond Road to see if there's any possibility to pick up any additional storm water coming down from there but if it is it's going to be well towards the top of the hill um and again it's just because of the topography there the depth of groundwater and the fact that um we're going to have a gravity sewer there's Force main there's a water main there's a gas main we're going to have an electrical duct bank there's other underground uh utilities serving some of the adjacent homes so there's not a whole lot of real estate and if you're not too familiar with that road it's I think it might be 19 ft wide and if it is it's a really tight 19 ft it's very very narrow road um I'm not sure if there are other things that the board would like me to to to discuss or point out with regards to the the site layout for this facility um why don't we just if uh we'll go through the board and see if there are comments and questions for you how's that um and there's I'll just point out some additional information on the staff report um that uh we haven't let's see you did go before the zoning board of appeals I think that was mentioned um last year in August August 24th we haven't received comments from police fire Health conservation commiss um the staff report indicates we've received no comment but you did mention uh that you did receive something from them we have an we have an order of conditions for that okay great okay great so um Warren did you have questions or comments for Jeff or Rob well just for clarification first on the um the old facility there's no generator involved in that so what happens in a power outage in the past so it is a uh it has an air compressor and it's done by air pressure and then um I don't I'm actually not I don't know Rob I'm not sure if I know what so actually uh actually either Town staff will or consultant staff will arrive uh with the VOR truck and have to either suck it out or try to pressurize the system um it's not um it's not an ideal situation and um you know it's it's one of our kind of our weaker points to our operating system right now until we get a generator at this pump station and so uh the new proposal will in fact remedy that uh soft spot whichever we call it ums correct you um you'd mentioned that it is a significantly higher elevation there's been no comment from any of the butters with respect to the higher elevation of the building uh or the potential for additional noise uh from it I don't know what that been might be it would be the pumps or indoor the generators so we had no comments um so we did go through the Zoning Board in and conservation and the comments the the abutters understood the the elevation of the structure uh the person that's directly affected it their house sits well up on the hill so they're kind of looking over and to the left of it from their property and the other abutters were more concerned about the power lines and the trees in the area and so power lines are getting removed and poles are getting relocated and um some of the trees on that corner were need to be uh removed in order to um construct the the site and then we're doing landscaping caping that we're going to work with the ab butter that uh granted us the easement we're going to be working with them to finalize what the final Landscaping plan is but we had proposed one that uh was the sort of the placeholder um for that area um in terms of noise right now this actually should be quieter the pumps just make a hum and you will only hear the gener it's only the generator noise when the generator turns on so during a major power outage everybody will have their generator on but that will be you know a noise impact but but are likely to be quieter than what's there yeah right now they actually will hear the you know as I think David pointed out the sort of the whoos of when the compressor kicks on and the and the you know so it's the sound of the compressor charging so you get that that noise right now and this would just be when the when the generator has to be um exercised so there's a periodic exercise and we usually program that around what the Neighbors in the area would would prefer but usually it's on a Wednesday in the middle of the day so it's you know it's not uh being exercised at night or early morning or things like that where it be or in the weekends thank you for that one one other thing I noticed in the um the rendering of the U the photograph it's been doctored up to show the new facility um uh the the power pole is missing and I was wondering does that mean that the utilities are going underground now because that would be nice and in terms of the view and perspectives and so on so the so yes the telephone pole at the corner is actually being removed and that's why we removed it from the picture and is and uh it is being moved further up the road and then everything is going to be underground electrical utilities from that new pole down and so it will remove the wires which were the concerns of the neighbor here with the white picket fence and the next neighbor up were both concerned about you know you know the The View and things like that as well so they were happy that power lines were being well I moved I think that's important to note yeah I think it's important to note sorry um just that that was not part of the original plan and it was uh when we started working with the neighborhood and the property owners that was uh you know a design change that we felt um would promote good good will towards the neighborhood and and they've worked very closely with us to uh to try to get that other utility poll out of their viewshed so uh it improved their view of mil Pond um thank you for that um if I were the one behind the white fence I think I'd be very happy with losing the utility pole so thank you for that um is there any attempt or going to be to I don't know screen the building or any of the facility there or it's going to look basically the way this rendering likes it look yeah so what we did is obvious there's not much you can do to screen it from the ocean so what we elected to do is the is the town uh went with a it's like a stone facade so we're actually going to have like a veneer or whatever you want to call that that basically so it looks um not like a big concrete block or brick or something like that so right now you you kind of see that stone at the bottom and then you see this concrete thing that sticks up and now uh we're going to be doing it all with stone and then the the building itself is is the white white white ASAC trim you know PVC trim with um the Hardy plank to look like cedar shingles so it'll be similar to other stations that we have around and then it's just a black asphalt roof so it looks you know it's a Cape Cod uh style uh finish as best we could and then there'll be plantings on the like Upland side and then we just basically have to do wetland restoration you for the grasses and things on the on the um East Side so there's not much we can do to really to really screen it um so we we've tried to make Provisions but it's it's a as you know there's not a whole lot of real estate there um so we did our best thank you for all those clarifications I don't have any other comments thank you great thank you Warren um Bob por shter is the building heated at all yes it is yes so um technically it needs to we need to see a um a zero cost option Zero Energy option for that building as part of our of the uh bylaw okay so um I don't know if that's putting solar on the roof and it's it's electric it's a heat pump or or is a gas uh I'd have to go actually back and look at the design I believe believe it is gas uh unit heater I mean it's not we're not trying to heat massive amounts of space we're really trying to the electrical room itself generates a lot of ambient temperature so it's really in the winter time and then we have to provide it down below just to make sure that the pipes don't freeze so um that's that's what we've uh that's what we've provided I I'm not sure solar panels would provide provide sufficient you know um yeah it I'm I'm not suggesting necessarily uh solar panels but it certainly uh speaks to insulating it enough that you really don't even need to put a gas heater and you probably get by with a very small electric resistance um panel and you and save more money and I mean I'm not big on electric resistance but there's no reason not to make that really tight and and and such yeah I guess I'd have to look down the the only other concern is that the classification of the area below May warrant that it has to be explosion proof equipment so then it tends to be more expensive to go with electrical equipment than others so I can so is I guess the question to the is that do we just need to this board actually but it's it isn't this uh board's uh um responsibility but it it is my other committee's responsibility so I'm hitting on you now let sorry um I guess I I will I'll talk with Rob afterwards and we'll see what we need to submit with regards to that okay that's all I have did you have other comments or questions no that's all right um I think you've done basically a great job in a very difficult situation so uh but I just have one question has to do with the elevation we're we're raising the uh structure I guess how how did we decide how much to raite to raise it well so we're we're con we're constricted by two things one we have to get above a minimum of 3 feet above um flood elevation so by federal uh mandate there is a executive order that says we have to have at a minimum and right now we're at the minimum we had to design everything to be flood protected to 3 feet above flood elevation and flood elevation currently is 12 in this area so that we had to be at 15 so we're at 15 so but to keep the building low what we had to do was we had to put all the electrical equipment and things in the room up above elevation 15 but we kept the roof down and the door so that um I believe the top slab of the um wetwell is elevation 13 13 and 1 12 somewhere in there and so so uh we kept all the louvers and the um electrical equipment above elevation 15 so that we could keep the roof down as low as we we could go we tried to flatten the pitch of the roof as much as we were comfortable because we still have to be able to fit people in there in the generator and equipment and things like that so we kind of squashed it from above and squashed it from below and to make it to uh keep it as uh short as possible yeah I understand um the um the 12 foot flood map um how how recent is that the it's the current one of 2014 so that 2014 so it's current yeah um we all know that the sea is rising and they get revised um and every time they get revised it goes up so what happens at the next revision when the flood level goes up what what what happens to us um well it uh eats into the free board and so which is basically that that three feet of elevation that you're using to protect your your facility and the problem is is that there's no one uniform statement of nobody knows what sea level rise is going to be there's all kinds of projections and so um uh so the requirement the three-foot requirement is a requirement it's a legal the federal government says the minimum that you have to be is 3 feet above flood so normally you would design it a foot and then it depends You' go a foot above flood and then you'd have then it would depend so that's what it used to be before um how you kind of manag that and so let's say the flood level goes from thir from 12 to 13 yep so we're no longer 3 feet above no but your building is an existing building at that point okay so you you built the building under the conditions of which it's kind of like you're asking me to predict the future well so if you know it's going to be you know 17 feet in 2022 [Music] I mean sorry in in 2222 you know 200 years from now or whatever I that's I can't we all know it's going to go up but the the the answer is that uh it's a pre-existing structure it becomes a pre so you built under the code and you built under the requirements that were known to you at the time okay um with those conditions what happens in the future if you really had to depending on what the situation is and what the flood elevations were you the first thing you would do is you you put a flood door on the on the building and the next thing you do is you'd probably have to raise the roof and move your louvers up and then block below it if you I mean if for really talking yeah was there any consideration given to anticipating sea level rise and we don't have to rebuild building we we did an evaluation but it's a it's a balance B between um all the provisions of what we're trying to design around what we're required to design around what the neighbors will accept for things and what the code allows for in terms of height understand so we're trying to we're trying to balance all of those and the directive we were given at the time when we designed this was from the town we want to keep this building as you know the roof line as low as possible for a number of different reasons not only the people behind but the people that are looking at it from the pond and and so on and so forth to make it so it doesn't okay thank you very much can I jump back in I I thought our we passed the bylaw that allowed you to raise to 6 feet and then go 20 feet above that so in in the flood PL in the in the um Coastal area that we when we redid the um the the height we there's a 6 foot provision for raising your uh house up and then the 20 ft are above that raised portion and that we weren't penalizing people for getting out making their houses out of the flood plane I mean out of the this this is Catherine I don't recall that it was 6 feet but maybe if I don't know if while we're talking if um Katie and I don't if you have access to my recollection was that was for residential structures so okay but I just yeah it it was a residential structure but why would we I I hear where Frank's going we're building it for now but we know it's going to need to be it's going to be higher in 10 20 years why not build at least a couple more feet into the to the height now knowing that at least it'll get us through the next 25 years uh 2T higher at the top is I I don't think anybody's going to notice that and and I do think it's still within something we're allowed to do I think we just need to check what the current what is stated currently in the bylaw um I think Bob you remember that we that's what we were doing in 2016 we had to revise the flood plane bylaw based on the new um uh location of the flood plane which basically just as a anecdote puts most of downtown chadam right in the flood plane and the revisions we made were for remodeling or uh uh you know remodeling of existing structures and how they could be elevated so the current bylaw didn't in any way to my memory doesn't in any way say but we're going to put in this fudge factor for the future it just deals with what we have now and then when we get new you know when the flood plane is revised again we may need to revise our bylaw again so but but no there was I I think the definition and I I I wish um I I don't have it in front of me I'm sorry but but what it what it did was it redefined what the what you what the sort of the base height was yes and then you instead of penalizing people for raising their house up to that level and then only getting the extra if they raised the 6 ft they could only build their house 14 ft it allowed them to build the 20 ft above whatever that level was so and this is an existing structure that's being redone so I don't think that we uh we that is an issue I just I I'm thinking that we should look at it and make sure that it isn't something that we could raise a couple more feet just to have a little bit more wiggle room because 3 feet is asking for trouble within the next 20 years okay um all right I just think we as I say I don't have the byla in front of me I do apologize um Jeff do you have a comment on that um it it that's it's a major design change with and a project that's in construction right now that would add a significant cost to the project because we'd have to relook at all of the access to the building right now so um I think there are Provisions that you could make that in the future if you really get to that those levels uh of concern um you know I mean that's you know so even if they adjust the flood levels you've never seen 12 feet here I mean 12 ft is over is well over the structure that that's there now which is 10 ft High um I mean that's that'd be a it's a it's a pretty significant event up in the upper reaches of your area I'm not saying it can't happen I'm just saying that um I I don't think 3 feet of this location is unreasonable but I mean that's I I I I wasn't aware it was already under construction that we're giving a a site plan review for for something that's already being built it was yeah so what so uh this one was supposed to go in front of both of the boards and for whatever reason this it went to the zoning board and it didn't go to planning board at the same time and I I I I don't have a good reason for you besides that here we are now having the conversation about it because it was determined that it never did actually go to planning I was under the impression it had so and that was it was last August that it went to zoning board um so that was prior to construction the construction was begun uh sometime since last August of 2023 that correct the contract was signed um in December of 2023 all right or sorry sorry the yeah no I think the contract was signed in December of 2023 you're correct ground ground hasn't physically been you know broken for the pump station but you know in addition to the the significant cost Jeff was mentioning it would add a significant amount of time to the project as well and we're really eager to try to get this operational um before long so we we intend to full-blown construction to begin in the fall all right so so Bob and Frank how would you like to um it seems like it's a major design change um what it is is some trying to maximize uh the flood mitigation measures that they can take um but it would be a major design change yeah I guess I guess where I am is that um given where we are and it's unfortunate we are uh it should have come to us earlier um that we should probably just let this particular issue go yeah I feel the same way I wasn't trying to add additional costs I was trying to save costs down the line so right exactly it's not it we'll have to wait and see if when we need those extra costs but doesn't make sense to change that now on the other hand I wish we had had been given this back in August when when we could have had some something more uh concrete to say about it so my apologies Rob I think I see your hand up go ahead thank you madam chair so i' just like to apologize on behalf of the town because this was an oversight um I think it was somewhere uh in the transition between uh Dr duncanson handing over the sewer construction projects to the DPW director and um this this was not you know it just got lost in the communication and uh so we do apologize we normally would be out well in advance of construction to ask the planning board approval and um you know unfortunately slip through the cracks you do have the uh the towns and my apology for that okay thank you and I think I hope I'm speaking for Bob and Frank and I think our intention is actually just to to help you mitigate the flood Hazard to the maximum and and even anticipate um for the future so um so great um so Mr dubis is next do you have some questions or comments I have a few first of all I'd like like to uh spread a little happiness on this I think you guys have done a great job a great job on designing this uh it's been a long time coming I've been aware of the problems that that pumping station has had over the years I'm like one of the people that were here when they put it in and uh I've seen some pretty horrific or heroic uh bailouts of that pumping station all nighters two or three days in a row trying to keep it working and stuff and it's about time we get a new one there and I think what you guys done is great it looks good I think it looks good uh the people I know around there are going to be happy because you did low profile it uh I don't know if any of us are going to be around when when when The Tide Rises up another 3 feet but I'm not too uh I'm not too worried about that uh because by then we'll probably need another pumping station anyway so you'll be designing another one but I think you've done a good job uh the neighbors I think are going to be happy with a low profile I understand that's a tough tough thing and I'm sure that the higher you kept that building the more the people would be upset uh with their view so I know you had to go to the bare minimum on everything the only thing I'm going to say which Bob didn't mention was all lights down casting and uh but but I think you've done a good job with the rock facing and everything the pctures look good uh and uh let's get on it because we got more people to put on it thank you thank you and and my apologies as well to the fact that this slipped through and you're getting it at this time so thank you Charlene do you have questions or comments um just I want to Echo um Bobby dub' comments I think they've done a tremendous job with what they have to work with here I think um aesthetically not that we get into Aesthetics but aesthetically I think this is a much more pleasing looking structure than what exists there um I showed the plan to my husband and he goes oh it's about time they did something with that eyes sore um I did look at the flood plane not to you know beat that dead horse anymore there's nothing in there about six feet um so I'm not sure where that came from but um I think with what they have to work with what you know the the additional three feet that FEMA is requiring um it's what we have to work with and I think they've done an excellent job okay great um this say Katherine I just wanted to call out one piece from the staff report regarding parking um it's noted in the staff report that there's no specified number of parking spaces required but in these cases um where the parking is not specifically enumerated um it must be determined by the planning board under site plan review so I just can you tell us um Rob and Jeff um is there parking required for employees um and if so what is required and what have you provided do you do you want me to start with that Rob and then yeah go for it so um we tried to so there's no parking there I mean there's I don't know there's spaces there there's no EXC me there's about three spaces there that fishermen use uh people that drive down to check their boats use and uh it's a free-for-all so there is no parking designated for anything at any time in any place over 30 years or 40 years that that building's been there they come down they Park they check the building and out they go so I I think that's a moot point yeah so we're trying to we're trying to maintain basically what what they had um we are we do encroach a bit more into the you know pavement for the for the walkway uh but that's but that's it um the space on the side is the same um and there's I don't know how else to explain it they if there's a if there's an emergency then the the The Operators find a way to squeeze in there that's what they've done for the last 50 years I think okay great um as long as the board is satisfied with that um I think we can move ahead um so if there's no other questions or comments from the board I'll just ask ask if there's anyone from the public who is present or connected online with any questions uh on this project I don't see any hands raised I can't see the room so I'll just rely that there are none um that being the case we do have our three standard conditions I did not hear from the board that we need to add any additional conditions besides our standard so I would recommend that uh I would ask now for a motion to approve the amended site plan with our three standard conditions as stated uh for the proposal to demolish the existing Wastewater Pump Station and construct a new Wastewater Pump Station um based on the fact that the application meets the necessary requirements um for approval pursuant to the protective zoning by bylaw Etc do I have a motion Madam chair it's Charlene ISO move do I have a second to that motion I second all right uh so let's do a roll call vote Warren chain Warren chain approve thank you Bob wora Bob wter approve Frank Sherer Frank Sherer approve Bob dupus Bob DUIs proove Charlene greenh helge Charlene greenhalge approve and this this is Katherine Halper and I also approve thank you so much for coming before us and uh good luck on continuing and finishing the project thankk you all very much for your time you're welcome uh so the next the next item on our agenda is actually a preliminary site plan review this is not a formal this is a preliminary uh for 81 Depot Road and this is a pre-application it's essentially for a change of use uh the addition of a storage building uh so um I'll ask the applicant to present and just a reminder to the board and the applicant that the purpose of this meeting uh is to we would vote to accept the pre-application and just to give the applicant any idea of what we need to see on the formal site plan review in order to uh give approval to this project so if the applicant is present um is it David uh David Clark here on behalf of uh the jodes um great please go ahead David yeah so the uh the applicants are proposing to to build a garage with some storage uh above um this being in ANB U zoning District requires uh site plan approval um because the um existing structure is a multif family structure so it it's not a single family resident so it it's before you um so proposed Garage on second floor uh storage uh Mr janod owns the fish Pier um uh fish market and so uh being in a high flood Hazard Zone um he'd like to move some of his storage of his materials to the second floor of of this structure um we're showing a an alteration to the parking area uh it's actually a reduction in the amount of uh gravel parking area on the property so the overall project uh reduces the site coverage nonetheless we are showing a trench drain across uh the the uh double doors for the entrance to the garage because we're basically at the bottom of the driveway from uh Depot uh that trench drain will go to a a leech pit uh which we also connect the down spouts uh from the structure this project has to go to um hbdc also so they'll have a a review of the architecture and uh and the lighting and uh that's about it uh pretty simple project uh so happy to answer questions great yes and and again a reminder what our purpose is to give the applicant a an i a clear idea of what we need to see at the formal site plan review um so Warren do you have comments or questions um just for clarification um the number of parking spaces that are there or going to be proposed I think it's uh eight where six are required um where where does that come from it looked to be uh a duplex it is a duplex so uh two spaces per residential unit so there's four required there and uh and basically one space for the uh for the uh storage area one space for the so the garage is U only got one parking space in it or the entire structure storage I'm sorry so two per dwelling unit gives us four um the size of the structure the storage area um requires one space and we have one employee um basically that would run uh materials back and forth from here to the fish beer so s in our opinion six are required um and we're counting the two spaces inside the garage uh as parking spaces so it is going to be using yeah that's fine um I noticed that there's a magnificent maple tree um as invasive as it may be classified um but is it your intent to try and U protect and and maintain that uh that tree in its current location um no that kind of come out yeah um okay um has there been any discussion with any of the abutters really I um it's really on the Upland side with respect to the view being impacted no okay we can build this as a matter of right uh under the zoning bylaw um we just need to go through site plan yeah understood well that's on the other side you know it's um and we have multif family next door too um the drainage structure I saw that it is uh proposed here is that um is that a replacing an existing drainage there's no drainage now there is no drainage now no because uh it's basically open space uh the property slopes to the rear so we have natural area that absorbs all the storm water now well what I was getting at is you know has there been a problem that your proposed drainage plan is solving or it's just um you know it's the right time to put in a drainage Lee bad we proposing drainage because we feel it's required all right I don't have any other questions okay great thank you Warren Bob wfter no I don't have any questions okay Frank uh just one question uh the the map we provided indicates that the zone is GB but the STA memo says it's GB3 which which is it um which which zone are we in Oh I thought it was theb that's down the other end of the street um it's either two or three it's certainly not one um well I think the requirements are different uh between the two so uh my only input is that the plan itself should be correct oh I'll check that when we file the all right definitive thank you any anything else Frank that's it okay yes you're absolutely correct thank you and Bob dubis uh I've seen I've seen this property before and uh I don't I don't see any problem with it David okay yeah you know my feelings on trench strains but in the circumstances here it's probably be yeah better better that way Charlene hi David hi um I am only seeing and maybe I'm just not reading this properly but I see the three parking spaces on the um east side of the property and then the two parking spaces right up against the garage and I'm assuming two spaces inside so one two three four I count your your eyes aren't fooling you uh it's only seven there so I'll need to correct that okay I'm going what I know I'm losing something here but no it's not me um I I have no problems with this I actually worked for the town when they got the variance to make this a duplex and uh very supportive back then and very supportive of what they want to do now great okay great um this is Catherine and I'm just going to mention uh under in the staff report under staff comments um we usually require a a full grading and drainage plan and so just to be sure that you do provide that for us at the formal site plan review um and noted that you will what additional grading do you need to see all the grading is on this plan yeah other than what's there okay if it's complete enough I mean it's such a small site it didn't make sense to do multiple plans uh just for a garage so the the propo the existing and proposed grades are on this plan um and I do see you've got the drainage all the drainage and the drainage details are on this plan um since they have to go to hbdc I imagine they're going to have cut sheets on the lighting and we'll submit that as part of the formal too all right the only thing else I think I need to do is probably drainage Cals and uh yes in a formal narrative uh describing how this complies with your review requirements yes yes that's we'll need that thank you um also I'm just going to ask the board I think I know the answer but uh do we need to schedule a site visit and or a public hearing so I cannot see the board but um is there anyone on the board who wants yes okay good I I agree we do not need either of those um great so if there's no other questions or comments I have one question Madam chairman yes David David your plan says a gb2 that was brought up I I I think it is a gb2 cuz across the street is all gb2 yeah so I don't think they would change it to GB3 over there so I think that you're you're correct on here well the old Harbor Road end is SB so uh I I'll double check it okay good anything else from the board um I'll just ask if there's anyone from the public who has any comments or questions um and there being none then what we would do is we would vote to accept the pre-application um so if there's no other comments I will ask for a motion to accept this preapplication Madam chair Charlene I so move thank you so much may have a second to the motion I'll second it Bob DUIs thank you thanks Bob um Warren chain that's Warren chain I approve Bob worka Bob WF approve Frank Sher Frank Sher approve Bob DUIs Bob DUIs approve char greenhalge Charlene greenhalge approve and this is Catherine Helper and I also approve uh and just to note as also noted on your staff report that the applicant now has four months in which to submit the formal uh application so thank you davidc and we'll see you sometime within the next four months thank you thank you next item on our agenda is an approval not required and David are you also presenting on this matter yes I am please go ahead uh David Clark on on behalf of the ls Clark Jr trust um what you see is a approval not required plan for a land off of uh chicks way we're creating four lots and a parcel uh the four Lots comply with zoning uh being in the industrial district uh 50 ft or Frontage is all that's required uh and minimum lot size of 10,000 ft F feet so all the lots are well in excess of uh 10,000 sare ft parcel C there's an interest in one of the abuts of acquiring additional land so we we we created parcel SE David would you would you speak a little closer to the mic please I know I'm a little deaf um so we created a parcel SE to be conveyed to an a butter so it does not have the requisite Frontage although it does have the requisite area U so it's not a build lot uh under under zoning uh the road was constructed uh in 2006 I think uh and uh there are already uh three buildings um that are being served by chicks way um the road was designed in the minimum standards of industrial district which is uh 60t layout um and uh an additional I think it's 5 in is a pavement where your rules and regulations only usually call for four uh so it's a well-built road um been hacked up by the town of chadam but uh it it was patched and uh and so uh we believe this uh meets all the criteria for approval not required great um any questions from the board it's an approval not required we would just endorse it as you know um even if we don't endorse it it can go to town clerk um but any questions or comments from the board Warren no comments you want to okay Bob B Chester no comments Frank sheer no comments uh Bob D I got a comment good going yeah it's about time that thing gets divided up yeah it's been a long time coming I just wish uh we done it sooner but thank Charlene any com any comments no comments All right so I would need a motion to endorse this approval not required um may I have a motion to that effect so move thank you Frank and may I have a second this Warren chain a second okay great both Charlene and Warren seconded so let's vote Warren uh Warren chain I approve and Bob WF W approve Frank Sherer Frank Sherer approve Bob dubis Bob dubis proove charling greenh charling Green approve and this is Katherine Halper and I also to approve that we endorse uh this uh approval not required thank you David thank you um I had the myar with me but I forgot to get the Lance be to stamp it and sign it so I will drop that off fig that's what like did somebody lose it no I didn't submit it yet so I will uh I will drop that off in the morning and uh then at your leisure you you all can come in and sign it thank you thank you thanks so much great so the next item on our agenda uh is our long range planning continuation with our discussion of the West chadam Neighborhood Center um for the benefit of the public and the board I just wanted to do a brief recap and remind everyone where we are in this process um basically what we are looking at tonight is um our it won't be a final draft till we get to 2025 but it'll be our working draft um we're looking at the draft with the so calleded new language and comments highlighted at our last meeting we had the same draft barring a few refinements um but the the new language and the comments were uh not highlighted as they are now for tonight we just want to review the new language that will be uh in red and any comments uh as all of you know this uh West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning district has been a long time in process um I was going to say going back to 2014 te uh when we did when cap God commission helped us with the route 28 visioning uh project uh Visa implementing the comprehensive plan along Route 28 I was going to say that that was the beginning of working on the west chadam Neighborhood Center zoning District however in thinking of it I realized that what we're doing here and what the comprehensive uh plan calls for is simply a reiter ation of the very historic and traditional development pattern in chadam which started out as the old village and I'm talking you know back in the 1700s and 1800s the Old Village was the first Village of chadam um and then it was a series of villages west chadam south chadam and north chadam and what was in between was farmlands and Forest and hunting grounds and so that is the traditional development pattern of chadam was a series of villages uh which previously uh were separated by farmlands and hunting grounds Forest um and I believe what the comprehensive plan is seeking to do in the creation of the neighborhood centers and the El and the elimination of intense development in between the neighborhood centers is really just to affirm that traditional historic development pattern and to avoid the development pattern that occurred post World War II which we all know as urban sprawl um we did not want urban sprawl to occur in the town of chadam but we wanted these distinct neighborhood centers separated by less dense areas along room Route 28 it's no longer farmland or Forest but we have uh reverted that zoning to R20 which was also C called for by the 2024 um Route 28 visioning study um so that the commercial development and uh more dense development residential and Commercial would be focused in the neighborhood centers and so that really is to implement the comprehensive plan and to reiterate the traditional development pattern in chadam this has been a long long time in process uh really starting in 2014 with the recommendations of the route 28 visioning study as most of you know there's been many layers to this process and at each layer we have uh taken it out to the public and received a lot of public response and integrated into the drafts of the West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning at that time um the most recent um layer that was added was the layer of form-based code um and the Cape Cod Commission uh worked with us on this uh over I think a period of about a year or 18 months to add that layer of form-based code uh also just a reminder to the board uh and that when we did that uh we we had some education in form based code uh with Cap Cod Commission and in other seminars and the board made a choice there's a a number of different um modes you could say of using form base code one is somewhat skeletal just kind of the bare outlines of what the zoning of what the forms should be one is more kind of middle of the RO where we actually specify the forms uh using visuals and so on and there is a layer of implementing form based code that's very almost completely specified as to what exactly will be built there the board at that time and this was now at least 2 or 3 years ago it was preco um chose the middle route so um so what we're looking at now uh the the newest the newest um language that's been added although it's not completely new we've reviewed it before is mostly the language uh that was reviewed by Town Council uh to attend to certain unintended consequences that we saw and to try to mitigate um the undesired effect of those unintended consequences uh so what I'd like to do is first ask uh Gloria and Katie to go through the new language the language in red section by section with the board and just review it with you uh and then if there's any questions from the board we'll ask them by section uh and then uh when the board's review is complete we'll have any other comments or discussion from the board and after that we'll go to comments or questions from the public also like to mention just in view of time uh that we want to limit public comment to 5 minutes and we'll take it at the end um so I think that's enough of a recap but let's now let's just r view the new language uh that will be highlighted in red on your draft and so glor and Katie could I ask you to uh Take the Lead please sure thank you madam chair um again I just wanted to apologize to the board for the um for last meeting's um mixup as the chair mentioned um you had the appropriate language but what you didn't have was the track changes so they weren't highlighted and and so we did realize that um it was you know when the document was printed for the packet um that you got a a version that didn't show the track changes on it so we apologize for that delay um but that what it did allow us to do or what actually Gloria actually took the lead in doing was to go through um version by version and make sure that all of the language that um had been discussed over time has been now incorporated into the bylaw so I'm I'll ask Gloria if she wants to to start um with that and then we'll be able to answer questions as we go through sure I'm happy can you hear me yeah I guess yes yes and this is Katherine I'm just gonna I think Gloria does it work better for you if you go through all of the items in red for each section and then at the end of the section take questions and comments from the board is that um I think that makes sense the best way to work yeah okay great okay great um okay so going Page by page I don't think there are any new changes on page one that haven't been talked about or two um trying to think so on three there was a slight change where um the word deed restricted was added so attainable housing a dwelling unit deed restricted in perpetuity for a household earning 80 to 120% um Ami uh we had already talked about Frontage buildings there were no changes there and um page four um I'd like you all to look at the section on qualified household there's been a lot of word smithing on that um and I'm going to read it sometimes it's hard to see with uh with the track changes but um if I read it out loud maybe it'll um make sense or it'll draw your attention to any issues so qualified household an individual family or set of unrelated individuals who jointly rent a year-round restricted rental unit on a lease of at least 12 months and who all occupy that unit as their principal residents at least one of whom must occupy the rental unit for at least 10 months of each 12-month lease term or an individual family or set of univi unrelated individuals who own or jointly own a year- round restricted unit and who all occupy that unit as their principal residents at least one one of whom must occupy the ownership unit for 12 months in each calendar year in order to be a qualified household does that take care of all of the concerns that we've had over U meetings that kind of like bifurcated the um rental versus ownership um and then you know a 12-month lease 10 months out of a 12-month calendar uh year can I is this a good time to call all right okay yes we're yes I think I think it's much much clearer uh just a question sure um it's 10 months for a lease but 12 months for ownership what's the thinking behind the difference oh that's that's a typo okay thank you for 10 months in each calendar year okay oh there's always something sorry about that and and my question is is it defined that the income is the whole household income so that's part of um any type of deed restricted for affordability um rental where you have to reup your verification of income every year it would be the household income and that has nothing to do with this bylaw that's just the regulations around deed restricted for affordability units right but if I if if if I get the house and I'm renting it and all of a sudden I get a roommate who makes more money to I I'm now no longer qualified yeah okay yeah just want to make sure I mean you might be qualified it depends on the right I I mean there is a possibility yeah it's it's the household income that's taken into consideration but just a point of clarification you don't have to move out of the house at that time if you are you talking ownership or rental uh ownership ownership once you get in um your income can rise and you can get married and you can you know bring other people in but rental is different you really have to do an annual um you know update of of yeah of income information to the monitoring agent which is usually some nonprofit like hack or the Housing Authority okay but even but remember even as your income goes up and I know adding another person is a different story um so your income could go up but the Ami for barnable County goes up every year too so there's room to grow yes because everyone's growing but not an that's a small increment as opposed to adding a whole another earn right well that I mean it makes sense because if you no longer need an affordable unit because you have enough income in your household why would you take up an affordable unit from someone who needs it well well that's very truistic of you but it's not reality that that is reality though no because if I'm in the I mean if my my brother lived on Wall Street and lived in a deed restricted uh apartment because he couldn't find another one and he wasn't going to move out I mean why would you uh I mean this is this is an issue that I'm I'm more concerned about the B you it all right this is another issue this is not the zoning issue so let's just leave it but you if you if you buy it and you no longer qualify for income because you make too much money you can just stay there right because but you can't sell it for more than what your original Ami that you bought it for so even though you're making more money ultimately your Equity is going to be capped by the initial Ami that you bought it under okay okay great gotcha okay thank you go ahead uh other things on this page I think we already talked about um I left that comment in but I mentioned at the last meeting that I did look at the um CMR for short-term rentals and the Health Department's definition and the and the tax codes definition and they're all you know roughly the same they're not like exact language word for word but I think that there's no um issue if if I may I I made that comment not because I thought there was an inconsistency or conflict but that it's important that laws uh be in plain language and so people understand what they are and so to have a definition of short-term rental which requires somebody to run to Massachusetts statute and read through a definition um there it's fine I mean if if you want to go that way I'm not going to hold things up but um there are differences I mean there's 12 exemptions under the state there's only four exemptions under ours um so rather than just go through all of that in detail I'm just will go with your proposal but that's where I was coming from I was trying to make simp things simpler and make them understandable to people just so you know um thank you um changes on the next page page five um I added a short little phrase in section seven so um in talking about the payment in L um so it says you can um provide provide uh the applicant shall meet the requirement by either constructing and deed restricting in perpetuity a dwelling unit or by a payment in lie of providing a fractional unit and I added Andor combination in accordance with the following um okay and then the rest is the same it just gives them the option that they don't have to pay a payment in Le of 120% they could build a unit and pay a payment in Le of 20% instead um the following page Builds on that payment and lose section so we talked about initially units uh 2 three and four but it's possible that someone could build more than four units without using a density bonus um just because you're building five or more units doesn't mean that you're taking advantage of a density bonus and I just wanted to make it clear and this was actually language that was in a prior draft um I just wanted to make it clear that for additional units and developments over five units that result in a fractional inclusionary unit being required the above percentages apply with the required payment in LOE for one additional unit being 20% of the average cost of a unit in the development and then I also readded the same language that we had before the average cost of a unit in the development shall be determined based on the values provided in the building permit application and we had many many discussions about how how we were going to set the value of the payment in Li and this is something that I think everyone agreed on and I remember Ryan and I had reached out to um Jay our building uh commissioner to talk about this as a potential way of of coming up with a value that's that's fair and consistent for everyone you guys okay with all that it's not it's not new it's just I think sometimes I I don't know I think that we had so many documents Flo floating around and so many drafts this is what Katie said in the beginning I looked at literally a dozen old drafts and cross referenced everything and then cross referenced um Pat Costello's comments to make sure that if we took something out there was a reason we took it out because Pat said so um or if we left something in it was fined by him that it was left in and basically cross referenced all of those drafts and came up with these um few additional sections that are not new but being reintroduced no just to clarify my understanding was that our base density was five units per acre correct which I've always understood Through The Years here to mean if you got to more than five per acre you were by definition in the bonus density world no because you can have a lot that's more than an acre you can have a 1.5 acre lot which means you can build you know seven units on it and seven units doesn't mean that you're doing a density bonus 10 units would be a density bonus but not seven this is just to take care of the the possibility that someone builds more units than four without employing the density bonus five units per acre is just for an acre so some lots are less than an acre and you can't even build five five units but I'm you know for Simplicity in the arithmetic and just say for an acre right I said yes you could build you know we're increasing the density significantly but to five units per acre no five units per acre is the base density correct and that there is a bonus density for increasing it Beyond five Beyond five units per acre not Beyond five units it's possible that the lot size is bigger than an acre and you can do more than five yes units by right okay so that's that's the that's the clarification and it's the per acre is five units per acre if you're doing more than five per acre on whatever development you're doing on whatever size lot it is then you're by definition in the bonus density world if you're doing a density greater than five units per acre correct but it's possible to do right but it's possible to do more than five units without density and that's what this section takes care of that if you build you know six units because you have an acre and a half then you still have to cover the extra units beyond the four that was here in the first place for a payment in low this is just kind of you know extending that out got it Catherine y okay okay yeah I got it um okay Section 8 density base density Gloria I'm sorry oh sorry guys just one more question seven what was the thinking behind going to 20% for the fifth unit um because that's one one5 so a payment in Le would be one one because the the payment in L for no density bonus is one out of five units so it would be a 20 20% of the but it's just T it's it's like the only reason I'm I'm I'm certain that you're right and I'm not understanding it but uh for for two it's 40% for three it's 60% for four it's 80% and for five it's hold on second it doesn't say what five is it doesn't give well that's because five is 100% it's not a FR requ you can't do five you can always you can always buy yourself out or you no so that's what so that's what the base density says you can build a unit you can do a payment in LI or you can do a combination build a unit and a payment in Li the only time that this bylaw requires a unit to actually be constructed is if they're taking advantage of the density bonus but there's no requirement under the base density to yeah so we don't have we need another one we're missing uh A5 is that where we are well I mean CU we have I guess I I could add something for we have it for two three four and over five but nothing for five because F because it's a because it's not a payment well I guess it is a payment in L but it's 100% I'll work on that to make it clear that it's yeah I mean okay and Gloria just toy you you're also saying even though it's 100% it doesn't mean you have to build the unit you could make a payment in Le of 100% that's exactly what this section says is that what the board has always said I thought you know the payments in L were to be the fractional units so the where you don't have the requirement for a special permit to get a greater density we have never required the actual construction I think that at some point whether it's you know five or 10 units um it might be worthwhile to the developer to actually build it as opposed to give us a pay giving us a payment in L but it's not required so this is Katherine I just want to step in um so let's look at five units and let's look at one acre to be honest with you I could be wrong but I don't recall it that way I thought if say it was the standard five units I thought we were going to require that one unit be built because it's because it works out you don't have to go to a fractional unit it's 20% um one unit out of five is 20% and because you don't need to go into that fractional Universe they it can be built and I and again I could be wrong but I remembered that we decided to Simply require that it be built and it was just in the case of the fractional units that we were going to offer the option of payment in L so that is specifically not what this says um we can we can change it if you want um well I think not changing it would be the change I mean that I mean it says it says right from the beginning mandatory provision of affordable and attainable housing any newer rehabilitated development involving two or more dwelling units doesn't cap it doesn't say two to four two or more dwelling units shall provide 20% of the dwelling units as deed restricted affordable and obtainable housing units the applicant shall meet the requirement by either constructing and deed restricting in perpetuity a dwelling unit or by a payment in Lie by providing a fractional unit and that's when I added end to our combination in accordance with the following we've never required the actual Construction without using the density bonus I wasn't part of the earlier discussions but what um Katherine is suggesting makes a lot of sense to me um that the fifth unit should be income restricted um that at least because because it doesn't put you in a fraction and that's why as I recall that's why we chose five as our base density is because we could get that even division of 20% equals 1 unit and we could in that case not have to require not have to ask for payment in Lo but just ask for the actual building of the unit I would ask for the other board members to search our memory banks uh of what we had agreed to and and Gloria I'm not saying that what you're proposing is either correct or incorrect it um is there any difficulty if the board board so chooses is there a difficulty in going this route that when it hits five units that we can require that the unit be built because it's not fractional Madam chairman this is Warren and I am firmly in your camp on this this been talked about odium and the whole objective um in the from page one is to try and get some affordable housing and to allow developers to not build it just by making a payment doesn't get us there so that everything you said about you know 20% that meant one unit if you had to build a unit you had to build a unit you couldn't buy your way out of it um you want to go to more units okay then there's a payment in L as well but uh you're not doing the math if you build five units it's $5 million okay that's a million dollars that you have to give back to to us you get five you're going to get five units right um if if you build four units and one of them is attainable it cost you $4.5 million and you you know I why would you why would you ever go to build five units and and have to give a million dollars back to the town when the last one isn't going to cost you a million dollars but again you there's no payment in L involved yeah but you got you got the unit so part of our discussion when we decided to do it this way and we're going back like almost a year at this point so if you remember we talked about Cambridge which up their inclusionary requirement to 20% and it actually did start to stifle development and they did see um projects that were below that threshold so that's I that was at least in my mind and I know Ryan's mind as we were working through this that was a consideration in other words it was incentivizing payments in L instead of building no it was disincentivizing building period well this is my concern um I first of all I think there's a need for 200% of income uh housing in this in this town I think we've actually got a whole bunch of affordable housing going in and now you're you're forcing the Builder to make the houses more expensive to provide money for affordable housing that makes it less obtainable for somebody who doesn't qualify for for uh affordable because now that Builder has to add the extra cost in into the price and that makes it more difficult for for them to build $600,000 5 $600,000 units um no they can't build five 600,000 units because for now they have to contribute um $600,000 to to uh the attainable housing that adds another $125,000 to each unit so I I I I think this is I I I'm concerned the way we're doing this here and I actually was thinking that we get I mean whatever money we get the the other thing I was thinking about and maybe I'm wrong but we just get the money and buy down the price of some of the units ourselves so um if if they build two units and we get 40% we we take that 40% and buy down the second unit to whatever price that is and that's what it becomes attainable at um so if it was a$2 200,000 $2 million units we now have a $600,000 unit that is perpetually available to whatever that $600,000 uh income qualifies for and at least now we have something that somebody can move into every time somebody builds something here we're going to end up with something less than the 4 billion you know $4 million condos so um I mean if if somebody wants to build five $2 million luxury units we're going to end up with an awful lot of money to buy two of those you know or three of those down to be affordable so I I'm I'm not sure this is the best approach now I've been thinking about it some more because of what you what you've said that if if all the money that we're raising here is going for affordable only then I think we're we're pricing these houses to be either very luxury you know luxury apartments or attainable and nothing in between I just my current thinking on that so do you guys want me to keep going through this or we are we are we scrapping this no no it's going to be in here for now but it's somebody's gonna we're gonna have to think about it some um yeah I I I do think I maybe I'm just not understanding it correctly um so for additional units and develop vment of over five units that result in a fractional inclusion so we are so so it's true we don't have that five unit piece in there um and then you say the above percentages apply with the required payment and Loof for one additional unit being equal to 20% of the average cost so how is that going to work I I'm just I'm afraid I'm just not quite understanding it I I think La if you just put it all in per acre it will take the issues away but this isn't this isn't a per acre thing it this is it's two two dwelling units per acre or four four dwelling units or there's it's not it's not tied to any particular acreage it's only tied to the fact that you're not getting a density bonus so you can't have more than five units per acre but I'm not none of this tells you how many units per acre you're building right yeah okay well so if you're just going to build two units um then it's they only to pay 40% of the average cost of one unit correct and if you build building and if you build that one unit over five it's 20% because we don't have for one new dwelling unit unit the payment in L is because our payment in Le doesn't kick in until you're at two units so that's why that one unit for 20% was added over there at the in the other bullet point I mean it seems it seems pretty intuitive anyway but um Let me let me how about if you put in that sentence that goes for additional units in properties with more than one acre no no it has nothing to do with acreage the the plus five does I'm just saying in that one sentence where you have for additional units in developments of greater greater than an acre where people don't build greater than five units I understand that but the the the question that people are having trouble with is five units only can occur more than five units can only Ur occur if there's more than one acre unless unless they use the density bonus right but but for that one sentence that the that's at the top of the of the next uh page if you just insert for properties with more than one acre additional units in developments over five units result in a fractional but there can be properties of over an acre where people are using a density bonus and that these density these percentages aren't going to apply like it's just not tied to the number of Acres on the property I'm not I'm not tying it to that I'm just trying to get the people who are looking at five units and thinking density all right let me let me think about how I might be able to um Wordsmith this Madam chair can we let um Gloria word Smith at another time I know I know how difficult it is to try and word Smith um you know while you're on the go um yeah I'm not so inclined to include and actually we're dealing with 40,000 square feet cor yeah so I'm I I can see um glor's hesitation with adding a size parcel into the equation for that um there may be another way in which to do that um I'm also going to make a suggestion that you know I don't think it needs to be in the bylaw itself but maybe some examples you know after this you know a note here's an example of what we are talking about so that somebody you know can can see and better understand what we're talking about I think using examples for public Outreach is really important it's a great idea yes right okay um okay why don't we why don't so that section still needs some attention but why don't we move ahead to section8 if that's agreeable to everyone um sure so we have base density um base density should be a maximum of five dwelling units per 40,000 square feet it was updated and then density bonus all zones I added that subsection heading um really just trying to clarify language a little bit residential developments May exceed the Ben base density by providing at least 25% of new I added Endor redeveloped to be consistent with the prior section uh dwelling units as deed restricted year- round affordable endoor attainable units and an additional 25% as deed restricted year round occupancy units that are not income restricted in accordance with the requirements below and then we talk about um up to 2.4 times base density is allowed up to a maximum of 12 dwelling units per 40,000 sare ft we changed the acre to that um in the next bullet point I added and provided on site just to clarify it does say they shall be constructed as part of the project but I think it doesn't hurt to say and provided on site um the other bullet point no additional edits have been made um the bullet point that talks about if the 25% density bonus requirements for attainable units this has been Wordsmith so I'm going to read that out loud um just to make sure it all makes sense and if any anything jumps out let me know uh if the 25% density bonus requirement for attainable units results in a fractional unit in addition to the whole units that must be constructed on site a payment and loose shall be required for said fractional unit based on the average cost of the unit in the development is described in section 7 above multiplied by the fraction of the unit required under the 25% density bonus affordability requirement for the project any questions or comments Charlene gave me the thumbs up um anyone else and just to be clear that does require that the units the whole units be constructed right this is the density bonus section by special permit the other talks about um not not using the density bonus so we're not requiring them to be constructed unless you're doing the density bonus um I'm happy to revisit that I think that it's potentially problematic um I think there are other things that are problematic but we'll get into those soon too um okay the next bullet point if the 25% density bonus requirement for year- round occupancy units without an affordability requirement results in a fractional unit the number of the year round restricted units provided shall be rounded up I think we talked about that at the last meeting um required deed restriction deed restricted ownership units shall be included on the site of the project shall be integr oh owner ship or rental units shall be included on the site of the project shall be integrated with the rest of the development and shall be comparable to and here's where we added language comparable to an indistinguishable from market rate units in quality materials and finishes and then everything else is the same in that section okay um the next bullet point I think the next two bullet points are all the same and not edited from prior drafts okay good um Gloria as you know I had a comment about this section um that we discussed afternoon this afternoon if we can go back to page what page is it to the second paragraph after point8 um Justice what we're asking for is 25 5% deed restricted year round and an additional 25% year round that could be market rate so we're asking for 50% year round um and what I was asking about is will this be an incentive to a developer or a possible deterrent that would move them to build a 40b instead of taking advantage of what we're offering here and might that be an unintended consequence that actually we wish to avoid because with a 40b they just need to provide the 25% affordable units they don't need to do the 50% year round and with the 40b they don't need to be subject to any of the other requirements that our West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning would require of them so they're looking at in my humble opinion potentially lower cost um because they could build you know they don't need to look at the form based code that we're putting in there they could build a sort of a square apartment or something like or condos so um I just wanted to call that out and you mentioned this afternoon there's no data but could you comment on that possible unintended consequence um sure I I'm not sure I could say it any better than than you already did okay I I think the the biggest issue is that we really have no data to understand how much the value of these year- round restricted uh rental or ownership units are going to be depressed above uh below what a developer would normally expect to get so it's a bit of a mystery um I can tell you that kind of quote unquote market rate rents in chadam are are falling at like maybe 110% Ami so like a 200% Ami rent is not something that is actually you know found in chatam it's not something that the Market's really um demanding at this point when we were um talking about this in with the affordable housing trust and the Community Housing partnership in the beginning of this year the were a couple of apartments that were for rent for I going to say like they were on the market for 2500 or something like that did not rent for months and ultimately the rent dropped to be I'm going to say 2,100 or something like that I'm a little fuzzy because it was a few months ago but that's a really great example that we don't really have that need for those High rents and maybe it was the timing maybe it was the apartments but there were three bedrooms and there just wasn't that like need for those really high rents right now or at least they weren't able to rent them so I would look at this and when I look at like the year round occupancy I think that the need in town is maybe lower than what people um intuitively think and I think that like I said earlier the sheer lack of data on that makes it um an unknown so this was something that was added in um I I wasn't I don't think I was really working with you at the time and if you recall as a way of incentivizing year round units there was originally a section that said something like um for rental projects if you um rent year round all your units then your payment in Li is deferred like you don't have a payment in Li anymore until the time when those year- round rental units um you know become short-term rentals or something like that or you take it out of that that that situation where we're deferring that payment in low um and then somehow it morphed into the requirement of these year round occupancy restrictions um and I definitely appreciate that because I think that that's a really great way of addressing Community sustainability for these you know for year- round occupants um but I think that there's a big unknown with that right now with how much the S either the sale price or the rental price price is going to you know drop because of that and developers don't like uncertainty yeah so anyway I just I wanted to bring it out and just maybe it's just something because of where we are in the process it may make sense to leave it as is and go forward um because what we will do is we're going to do the buildout analysis and the visuals we're going to take this to the public in a very vigorous way starting in early fall and then probably in December and January we'll uh you know collect all of the public feedback that we get and we'll look at integrating that into the draft that we ultimately send to select board uh to send back to us to hold a public hearing to be put on the warrant for annual town meeting 2025 so since there is going to be another really thorough review and integration of public um public opinion and comment um we might want to just defer any changes till that time but again I'm just it just occurred to me if I were a developer you know I we just need to remember that the any property owner developer will come and look at this bylaw and use it in such a way that benefits them to the maximum and sometimes some some Clauses that we put in to try to maximize what we are looking for and we're looking for more affordable attainable units and we're looking for more year round units but that may may be a disincentive uh economically and they might find a 40b more attractive economically but that's less attractive to us because it means that the other aspects of the form-based code don't need to be um worked into their development so maybe just something to keep in mind as we move forward I think glor is telling us we don't really have information um to make us to make a fact-based decision but we may need to make some decision on it in future so I mean from my side we can go ahead unless there's more s from the board um Madam chair um yes I I think Frank yeah I I think you said um one of my concerns very very well and that is um whether we're going to spend a lot of time and effort putting something into place which isn't utilized um and doesn't uh either because it's not economic or because there's a 40b preferable approach uh that a developer might might take so um I I know that we don't know for example what the effect of yearr round restriction on a unit would be in terms of price and resale value but we can make some assumptions and run some numbers and again even if it's on the back of an envelope just just see seeing whether this makes sense for a developer um because we have to look at the commercial side um and so far I haven't seen anything now maybe there isn't anything but um even even to throw it in front of a developer or two and say does this make sense to you run it through your software what whatever you use to decide whether to do a project and and see whether this will ever happen um so anyway I yeah yeah thank you Frank I think I mean I think that's one type of feedback that we will hope that we get when we take this out to the public that it will include uh the commercial side of public feedback that has happened before we do get comments from property owners and developers and business owners and as well as occupants people who will need year round housing so we want to hear from everybody from all the stakeholders so so I think to address your question I think that is part of the feedback that we hope will get when we take this out to the public um so Madam chair what one other suggestion and I you you you have just thrown out a very sensible timetable um but I think it would make sense for me anyway because I'm new in the process to actually see on a piece of paper what the timetable is uh so you know when when we're going to have a preliminary draft who's going to see that draft is it going to be looked at by other departments um what kind of outreach are we going to make do we have time to make revisions if there are any need for revisions um what further involvement from you know third parties we may want uh all in terms of making certain that we reach the town annual meeting because it's taken so long uh to get there so my thought would be that we actually produce a timetable which can be updated um but that we see what we're tracking towards uh just a thought yeah yeah um I think how to say this because we've done this a number of times before um I and perhaps the rest of the board are pretty familiar with this timetable but certainly we can map it out and I'll map it out here and I'll ask right now um basically this draft this is our draft we we don't need to make more revisions now the time when we'll make revisions is after public review so this draft will be used as the basis for the buildout analysis that we're already working on uh the proposal for that will be done by an outside consultant and the visuals when we have the visuals and the draft together which will be early fall so we're going to say early September that is when we're going to start taking it out to the public um between then and December that is when we will be doing the public Outreach and I'm going to suggest that we do at least one meeting on a Saturday at the community center in each of those months as well as have a community listening and information sent session at every planning board meeting between September October November and into December and then usually it's around mid December that we will gather and make a summary of all the public comments that we've received uh and then we'll integrate it into the draft between mid December and the end of January I think it has to be sent usually it's the the end of January that our so-called final draft has to be sent to select board um for consideration to be included on the war warrant for annual town meeting 2025 and then generally it's about February 2025 that we receive that back from select board with their formal request to hold a public hearing at which point we'll schedule a public hearing which will be in February I think we usually don't do it later than March uh again there can be revisions even you know based on the public hearing um although there I think there are some restrictions about not making any substantive revisions after select board has reviewed it so that's our standard timetable um we are already very far along in this process this should be the tonight we should in a sense ratify this draft to go forward to be brought out to the public I think that's where we stand um and that'll start in September when we have the buildout analysis and visuals for support so I'm just going to ask Katie if you have more details to add to that timeline so we can we can map that out for you so we'll do like a little month-by-month chart so that it's because is that what you were asking for we'll we'll do that so it's really clear to you um and to and to all of us it helps to have that visual so that we can like work toward that and and hit deadlines and everything and one of the things I was going to suggest and something that I have found um in previous positions to be really helpful when you're doing zoning especially zoning that has the potential to be um controversial because it's difficult to understand um and I did this in Province Town when I did our inclusionary incentive zoning bylaw um we did um focus groups so we didn't just like take a draft and put it out to the public we had one meeting where we called in um and had a bunch of Realtors there we did another meeting where we had developers and so we got really targeted feedback on our draft from specific user groups um before we put it out to the general public who really are not user groups for this right they're just like the general public so in my opinion it helps to hear from people who are going to be directly impacted by this before we put it out to the public and incorporate any suggestions that they might have before that I don't know how much that's going to add to the timeline and whether it's um I mean I think it's feasible but um I'm going to leave that up to um Katie and the chair well it's it's thank you very much that's that's very very helpful and I think putting it down in writing will be helpful because time flies Okay um yeah so great yeah and I I'll just just make one suggestion as the chair just knowing how the time goes and that we do need some time to allow the um the visuals and the buildout analysis to be generated and it's at that point that as a complete package we want to take the draft plus the buildout analysis plus the visuals to publ to the public and to any special groups we have usually approached special groups in the past in this case I'm going to say I think we need to do my humble opinion will be starting early September um and we need to do it all at once we can't do special groups first and then the public I think we just need to start bringing it out all at once because we we just have the fall um so and then look at the comments that we get all together and typically we have done it in that manner in the past we've we've it out to specific stakeholders um as well as to the general public at the same time so I would just suggest that we do that again and it's definitely good yeah Madam chair with with respect uh I I think I think the idea of approaching um individual interest groups uh before we go out the general public is an excellent idea so so but we do have to ask the question do we have time for that so hence my concern about having a timetable which we're trying to work to so right um Charlene Madam chair I think in all honesty we can do it concurrently yeah you I don't think we need to do one before the other but I think if we do it concurrently I think you'll get a lot um of very good feedback and information by doing it that way yeah um yeah that's what I would say I don't see any problem doing it concurrently um well the problem of course is that if you take it out to a constituency like a developer group and they come back and say well this isn't working we won't have a chance to fix it before we go out to the general public it'll actually slow things down so that's that's my view anyway so okay um then we also need to Define all of the special constituencies um again which we've done in the past there are you know developers are one piece of it um we also have to go to Property Owners we also have to go to the citizens of uh everyone who lives in West chadam there are also two West chadam neighborhood associations um and that I believe are still active and in existence and we usually go to them directly um so I I think there's there's also going to be other sides my personal opinion is I don't see difficulty going to the sort of special stakeholders as well as the general public I think people involved in the conversation know that it's a work in progress so and I would be concerned about the time because starting in September we have a limited amount of time so um anyway we can consider that as we move ahead um so should we move on to the next section which is section nine is there anything Gloria that you I don't think there's anything here you need there I don't think there are any more changes in the document that we haven't already discussed okay great and then there's the use tables at the end um we did discuss briefly this afternoon uh the idea of how to handle the special conditions in the use table and Katie did you want to comment on that um we were thinking of eliminating the special conditions because the special conditions are already cited in other areas of the bylaw so we we're thinking that we don't need to cited here but Katie did you want to you wanted to consider that did you want to make a comment so just to comment the other than the mixed use development with five or more residential you units not utilizing the density bonus under the Mi mixed use section as well as under the residential section uh where we're looking at those um requiring a special condition all of the other items that require a special condition are already spelled out in the bylaw but most of what you're looking at when you look at those special conditions they're based on site plan review criteria and so the question was do we just want to call out that it's actually permitted um because they will require you know we will require to meet our special permit CR site plan review criteria um so the question is do instead of calling out as special conditions um do we just want it as permitted as of right with the requirement for site plan review so so this would be so I'm sorry I'm just looking at the use table so this is would be for everything that requir that we're saying is special condition besides mixed use development with five or more residential units correct no actually the opp the opposite the opposite way because the other the other uses in the table are already already require special conditions and they're already spelled out in the bylaw so they're already so lunchroom lunchroom tourist home like that yes those are already spelled out the question is do we want to spell out special conditions for these two mixed use development categories I'm sorry for the multif family under residential and then the mixed use development with five or more um under the mixed juice or because really what we're looking at when we're talking about special conditions are items that we look at under site plan review uh do we just want to call out that it just needs you know site plan right and it's a discussion we can add the special conditions it's just that they're going to basically be our site plan review criteria well um I understand from a a simplification of the bylaw that it it's not necessary but for an explanation to the public it is so necessary so right if you want to take it out and say p you have to have a footnote that says yes but we will be looking at these th it still requires such now I don't know whether that you want to do that or not but but if you put p in some of those places people are going to go what you're allowing that without you know so I I I I think that's the issue or we could put s like we could add another for a site plan review and we could change those you know but a lot of those you know also require s would require a site plan review if they were coming before the board if they were new so um so we can look at that um so any other discussion on that well the Assumption here is that special conditions would be as defined in other parts of our our general bylaws we couldn't have special conditions relating to the West Cham Neighborhood Center for a given proposal as defined by to be defined what those criteria might be but I certainly have assumed along the way based on discussions we've had at prior meetings that if we we are going to be the permit granting Authority the planning board would need to be determining itself what are the special the criteria for granting special permits um not just merely we assume that it'll be the same as for a site plan review in any other part of town maybe that's what we end up doing but um my it's really a question are we restricted to uh not having a discussion here as to what criteria we would choose to utilize in the west chadam Neighborhood Center that would might be different than other places so if you'll remember a a few months ago I think Town Council was here um we went through uh the bylaw we had we had a conversation with Town Council about whether or not special permit criteria not special condition but special permit criteria additional special permit criteria were necessary and he felt that because this bylaw is so prescriptive that actual special permit criteria are not necessary because there are so many requirements to meet within this bylaw that he did not feel that special permit criteria additional special permit criteria were necessary it's all spelled out in the bylaw all right so be it but what we're discussing here is special conditions not special per understand that yeah so um for the use table then for the Mixed use development with five or more residential units where special conditions are not defined elsewhere in our protective bylaw do we want to leave that in the use table as SC with special conditions not defined or we need to define those special conditions or we need to put XPR for site plan review meaning that whatever special conditions we want to apply would be done project by project in the site plan review process so that's the question I'm asking Katie and the board yes mad Charlene so I I'm wondering if at the very top of the chart um accessory structures that comply with are allowed um somewhere in there say that all of these uses are fall under site plan review because if you're calling out some and not others in here people are going to think well a bank I don't need site plan review but they do right yes that's true I think somewhere just having um you know a footnote or what have you that each and every one of these uses proposed uses is required to go through site plan review and I think that would simplify things and if you call it out at the beginning um you know whether it's by by by um by right uh you know by standard permitted use or by special permit these still all do require site plan review yes okay so but then for those the mixed juuse development with five or more where we have SC unless give some specification to what SC means in those cases we're just going to have to put that as p as a p or if you know between uh Katie and Gloria if they can think of other um criteria that would be appropriate that goes beyond um the um you know site plan review criteria then perhaps um you know um it may even mirror um uh you know conversion of existing dwelling to multif family dwelling special criteria already exists for that maybe we look at that and see should some of those be special criteria for the site plan or for you know those uses yes can we Al could wejust where it is set SC just say and I don't know whether we have to be specific but it could be special condition as uh specified in other parts of our bylaw or special conditions specified in this spylaw I mean is that the issue that we're dealing with here they're all a little bit different in I know so so if it just put a footnote that SC means that there are special conditions that exist for this some of of which are in this bylaw and some of which are in in the general bylaws and we don't have to specify every one of them well they're not going to be in the general bylaws because well whatever wherever they are yeah I mean well I mean in theory that's good but we do have to specify I mean I would see a footnote you know for lunchroom just citing where in the zoning bylaw that is those special conditions are put forth and the same for restaurant and the um and and the same for tourist home and then the ones where they're not sided anywhere are the two you know mixed juuse development with five or more residential units there are no special as I understand it special conditions are not cited elsewhere so those are the ones where we either have to change it to a p or we have to Define what those special conditions let's just footnote exactly what you just said for the lunch room it's special conditions as um defined in this place right here and in the ones that aren't there's a whole special condition section within the zoning bylaw okay so you would want we just refer to that yeah you know and and it it's kind of instinctual that oh it's a special condition let me go find the special conditions so if we and I don't have any problem with doing special conditions for like the mes development or you know some of the other ones if it's appropriate we may already have some language that works for uh like the multif family um which I think already has special conditions uh criteria so that's you know we may be able to utilize that same language for what we're talking about here okay Charlene are you suggesting that we have in the general special conditions these new that that we need to just add these um multiuse ones that are not previously defined to re find have them in the special condition that would solve the issue if we feel that additional special conditions Beyond site plan review conditions or criteria need to be complied with then yes I mean I'd rather not be searching all over the the whole bylaw for special conditions if there's one place in there all the others Place actually being shown right now um on your screen yeah right so so this is you know for example this is a dormatory so these are the the conditions that all need to be met um for a dormatory although dormatory is not something so I was just trying to get to an area to one there is one for multif family let me just show you so let's see what that is because maybe we just Chang the heading to multif family and um mixed use yeah here multif family dwelling new construction yep there we go does it have to be new going to be renovated as part of a project Gloria it's hard to hear you oh sorry I took off turned off my microphone sorry I was going to say does it have to be new construction or can it be redeveloped as part of a project I mean maybe you just take out the words new construction and just have multif family dwelling and mixed use development I mean that may be I don't want to word Smith it here because I think that's a waste of of your time and our time but um you know there may be bits and pieces that it may work it could be um multif family dwelling new construction it and um you know or the comma West chadam um overlay Redevelopment blah blah blah I mean you may be able to fit you know everything in one place without going through the criteria I I don't know and and a lot of the criteria may already be in the bylaw that we're writing right now correct right you may not need to have additional special criteria in which case then you'd put a p and just have um you know site plan review okay we'll take a look at this at the at the special conditions that are already in place for the multif family dwellings um in the B byw as it currently exists and see how we can work that to incorporate the two lines from the use table in the west chatam Neighborhood Center bylaw if NE I'll just say if necessary because maybe what Charlene is saying is correct that there's enough specifications already in the west chadam Neighborhood Center bylaw that we can just put it as permitted yeah the two multif family could be just permitted um cuz there's enough specification already in the west chatam neighborhood Bao but I do think it is a good idea for the other situations where special conditions are already outlined in this other section of the bylaw to Just note that like somehow in West CH for lunchroom tourist home just to note the section of the bylaw where those are spelled out out for reference so if we can just add that so okay great um all right so Gloria and Katie other any other points from your side about what we reviewed and then I'm also going to ask the board for other additional comments um on what we've reviewed tonight I think we're done Madam chair with our okay um presentation Madam chairman you know I my head's going to explode here if I don't at least get my um core issue out in front of the uh my colleagues here um all right would you mind if I took three or four minutes yeah no please go ahead because that's what we're doing now is additional comments and discussion I'm very much in favor of virtually everything in the draft subject to the things that have come up today but um Central of the entire effort here was to provide increased density of housing units in this in the west chadam or in the neighborhood centers um we also wanted to promote attainable affordable housing and along the way we've tried to say Well we'd like people to actually live there and maybe we ought to figure out a way to have people live there um but as I have modeled out the uh draft as it is it seems to me that the incentive is to uh from a density point of view uh really just to build 4 or five units per acre um and never any more than that because if you do that there's no restrictions on uh residency there's no restrictions on there's no affordable attainable housing built absolutely nothing and at the same time a developer is going to say well that's pretty good if I have to make some payments in Li well so be it but gee right now I'm restricted to R20 zoning at least now I can put five units per acre in there and no restrictions at all um if we get into the bonus areas I think the bonus mechanisms look very nice but they it seems to me we've got it upside down they're ought to be an incentive to a developer to maximizing the number of total unrestricted units that I can build Market rates no affordable attainable whatever and that's going to occur if you have all the way up to the maximum density of 12 per unit or 12 per acre um on the flip side of that in order to incentivize a developer to increase the density rather than build the fewest most expensive that they can um I would like the board to consider the concept of saying the units one through five all have to be restricted to yearround occupancy the affordable attainable piece can be just as as specified but um you know you're not going to be able to build $5 million $2 million condos um whereas before you could have built one or two um but now we're increasing what the density can be none of which will be lived in year round and they're just going to end up being short-term rentals maximizing the income flow potential for them which is means we are essentially creating a blueprint for a ghost land 5 50 years from now there's not that much developable land uh in the west chatam Neighborhood Center really um and so to achieve our objectives it seems to me we want to try and incentivize developers to go to higher densities using utilizing the density bonuses all as as provided but also disincentivize them from building as few units as possible because there are no restrictions at all um on occupancy or um or on affordable affordability and attainability um you know um so I would very much you know like the board to consider something along the lines of saying units one through four are all going to be occupancy restricted so that the units that are built there are going to have people living in them um which is our Point that's the whole idea of the neighborhood center if we can't ensure that that will happen now you can't make you can't make people live there that's true um but if we that's not the same thing as saying we're setting it up such that almost certainly nobody will live there um they'll all be taken as Investments they'll be run as corporate uh entities accumulated and run rented out as short-term rentals there'll be Investments for the future people living in Florida but nobody's going to live there uh which is we've got enough of that in chadam the whole idea here was to increase density therefore probably making the units more affordable because they're you know denser packed and then trying to provide affordable attainable as well as occupancy so at any rate I would like the board to consider the idea of um requiring that the base units all be um occupancy restricted to yearr round occupancy just as described here and that the incentive therefore is to maximize developers income potential they do so by increasing the number of units they build and they have the greatest number of totally unrestricted units if they go to density of 12 per acre um and the incentive is to build more rather than less so enough said I now my head won't explode okay okay um I'm going to ask I mean the comment I'd like to make Warren I to say this I want to compliment you on your intention um your intention is to provide for the town as much as we can in terms of uh options for year round housing and for attainable affordable housing I I believe the board is generally um in accord with that intention um that being said I I have to disagree with your um your thought that the primary purpose of the West chadam Neighborhood Center um has always been to provide housing um West chadam Neighborhood Center has always been a neighborhood center project not primarily a housing project I think as we moved along uh in response to the housing crisis in chadam which the board took a long time many meetings to review and to to be educated about several years ago the board chose to how to put to emphasize as much as possible the creation of a variety of housing options uh for diverse economic situations in the west chadam neighborhood center but it's never been primarily a project to increase housing Den it um it's been to create a multi-use um uh Neighborhood Center to reiterate that that development pattern um your request and I'm going to ask for more information from Gloria and Katie in response to this but your request to make the first five units um year round required I I think that goes back to the point that I brought up earlier in our review of the draft that this may it there's a possibility that that requirement of yearround occupancy May disincentivize a developer because we we don't know the we don't have enough facts but in general a year round rental uh it may actually bring in less income for the developers so we need to look at that I'm going to ask uh before I go further I so I think it's related to the point that was brought up earlier that was discussed with Gloria and Katie and also Frank chimed in but I'm going to ask for comments from Gloria and Katie on what I just brought up and on Warren's idea of of creating the first five units as required to be yearround occupancy um could you comment on that I'm going to ask Gloria Katie for comments so my first instinct just in conversations that I've had with Town Council was that in order for us to be able to provide like we were providing an incentive and that's why we were able to get some year round restrictions I don't believe Town Council would say that it would be permissible for us to restrict any type of initial you know the one to four dwelling units I don't again seems a little um backwards when we're trying to to do an incentive um but I do know that that was a specific comment made by Town Council um do you want to go through your yeah the spread I that's that's what I recall too yeah yeah I I I'm sort of in the between here because I I tend to agree that the incentive structure right now is is probably not going to work but I think we already agree agreed that we were just going to go ahead with what we have now and put it out there and that we will have to discuss this and and other proposals uh I mean the incentive structure could be structured so that the first one you get the incentive with the first one being a uh yearround as opposed to the last one so I I think there are solutions but it's too late today and we already agreed that we were going to put this out as our first um attempt but with an understanding that when we go to builders and developers and other people we're going to come up with other ideas and maybe changes to this so I I I'm not ready to discuss that tonight Madam chair yes um I think we need to move forward with what we have in front of us um I do not think it's lawful to uh require that the five dwellings be yearround as much as we'd like to be able to do that it's just it's not lawful you can't do that um yes that's what I recall yep so I would very much like to move forward and and again thank staff um and you madam chair for your diligent work on this document I'm very much looking forward to seeing the buildout analysis and the the schematics that that are going to be drawn up I think that will be extremely helpful um in moving forward okay good yes I think I I would agree with you Charlene as I recall again I'm just going to basically repeat what Charlene said it is as I recall Town Council has given us the opinion that it is not lawful that we can't uh put in those restrictions except as part of an something that's incentivized for um increased number of units but we can't restrict it in that way um according to law and I think what this is about this is just my humble opinion is that when we're dealing with zoning law and planning we're walking on the junction point between what the commu what is required or Des desirable for the community and as planners that's what we are trying to implement and on the other side is individual Property Owners rights and um there are certain rights that by law we simply cannot infringe upon um there are also considerations as we've discussed in a variety of um on a variety of points tonight just economic considerations um we wish to put into place laws that would give us maximum of this and maximum of that we would like to do that for our community but if nobody's going to build them it's not going to work so we might need to scale it back a bit to make it financially workable for property owners and developers which might mean that we'll get you know less you know of what we might like ideally um but we will get projects that will be built and will contain some year round and some affordable attainable units and that might be a kind of compromise that we need to look at um unless of course we get someone who just loves chadam has has a lot of money would just like to set up would just like to do it if they do it by choice if the property owner or developer does it by choice and sometimes that happens um it's just a question there's a limit to what we can require by law so um so Madam chair yes if I could FR yeah um I what I recall from the uh legal opinion is that um we can use the special permit mechanism um in certain circumstances and um if if those circumstances include benefiting the town in terms of yearound and affordable housing and uh objectives like that that that could justify using the special permit he was very reluctant if I recall that we could do that uh except through the uh density bonus uh approach right and so I I I if if we wanted to go down this other route uh I think we'd have to go back to council and see what's possible but I think it's a mistake to leave the impression that it's simply unlawful um I the answer is I don't think that we uh know whether a particular approach is lawful or not until we go back and ask the question okay it's my impression that we have already asked that question of Town Council and we've received the answer um but we can revisit it if we need to certainly um and ask it again but that's my impression is that we have asked that question and received the answer so but what I want to put before the board now uh I want to if we need to take a formal vote we can but we've seen there are some open issues and we're and we know that there will be more open issues when we bring this to stakeholders and to the public um but I want want to I'm hoping that the board is satisfied that we can put this for we can move this forward and proceed with the buildout analysis and the visuals and then with a Target date of early fall which is when we're anticipating that the buildout analysis and the visuals would be ready that then we'll be able to start bringing it out to stakeholders um and the public um so I want to get a sense of the board is willing to proceed um with what we've got um I'll start yes okay good Frank says yes I say yes and Frank is answering yes and yeah I'm certainly willing to go forward with what we have um okay I think moving forward is a great idea um I think we need to do that to to get it to 2025 and I think we will get more um useful feedback when we have the buildout analysis and visuals nobody okay all right good so um so I don't think we need to take a formal vote I think the board is in agreement that will move forward um with this draft and move forward with getting the buildout analysis and the visuals and then with the target date of early September we'll look at what we've got we'll start bringing it out to the public uh Katie and Gloria will provide the written document of the schedule that Frank you requested I think that yes that's going to be very helpful um and I think we'll call it a r um Madam chair there's no yes Katie so just to just to be clear the um timeline that we have given um the consultant for the buildout analysis is the it's the I think the second meeting in September so just I just want everybody to be clear we may have a meeting with them beforehand um St staff certainly will um but we would we're in moving ahead with probably signing a contract later this week uh the quotes were just due this past week so um I just wanted to give the board um that information so that they're that's a clear expectation about the timeline Katie there was also um I believe just disc about using our Consultants to try and come up with some of the um visuals that we might use to sell this to the community right so actually it's it's not it will be a different consultant but we've had a conversation with Union studio um and they're willing to provide visuals but they would be based on the buildout analysis so we haven't we're we're it's we'll move ahead with that once the buildout analysis is done could may I just ask a question um since we have a Target date for the buildout analysis to be done again our time is actually somewhat short we have September October November December for public Outreach um can we put the contract in place with Union studi so that as soon as the buildout analysis is available they start on the visuals so that we don't wait till the buildout analysis is done but it's just ready to make a transition immediately sure I can talk with I can reach out to them this week to just make sure that they're aware of the timeline yeah that would be great and then if we can get an idea from Union Studios when the visuals will be done that would also be great okay so great so um I did say that after the board completed its review that I would ask for any public comment on the west chadam Neighborhood Center so if there is anyone from the public either present in the room or connected online I don't see any hands raised online is there anyone in the room I can't really see the room there are no members of the public in the room this evening Madame chair okay all right so if there's no further public comments um then I will move to adjourn the meeting a motion okay actually you I'll move yeah I'll ask for a motion to move it Charlene moved and Frank seconded so let's do a vote Warren chain Warren chain approve bober Bob approve Frank Shar approve Bob DUIs Bob dubis approve Charlene green hge Carn green helge approve and this is Katherine helper I also approve thank you everybody for participating let's note the time as 7:43 in the evening everyone please enjoy the rest of your evening [Music]