##VIDEO ID:AeugiOOmlvI## e e e e e [Music] [Music] thank you um welcome uh this is a town of Chad I'm planning board hybrid working session meeting December 23rd 2024 and it's 4 p.m. please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for scheduled and ond demand viewing um any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chair um okay I don't see anybody pursuant to Governor he March 29 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 general laws chapter 3A section 20 until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the Chad and 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 will while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 841 75944 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted ad while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible okay I'd like to begin with a roll call uh Katherine helper Katherine helper present uh Warren chain Warren chain presid Bob wsha Bob wsha presid Charlene Greenhall Charlene greenal present um Frank Shear Frank Sher are present uh Bob dubis is absent today and art sprew on present all right so the only item that we have on our agenda today is a whoops there goes my name bo um is the uh a working session for the West Chad Neighborhood Center uh thank you yeah you're [Laughter] right uh I think what I'd like to begin with is sharing some information um I uh I I listened to what the board memb said last time and I thought I needed to um go back and and see what transpired through this process to understand it a little bit more and get the background on it I hadn't uh reviewed the documents in a long time so um that's what I did uh this is my engineering background working on me again um I have uh put together my own notes um I just finishing this this afternoon so I will issue these to the board members it but it won't be U uh tonight needs to be released in in the proper fashion but my notes essentially I'm going to hide light them about what I've learned and to help with sort of setting up what direction should the board go in uh and I think to just to give you an idea what I looked at I went through and reread the comprehensive plan the route 28 visioning study the the implementation plan which was documented by Amy um Ally Ally yes thank you yeah uh Ally and I not everybody knows who Ally is oh Ally was a former planner from oh at least three years ago four years ago yeah right and uh all of these pieces sort of uh it what it told me is that there was a process that we went through that um uh head headed Us in the direction that we are right now with this bylaw but I think when you look into it and you read the specifics of it there's things that I learned that I thought were worthwhile sharing and it had to do with uh what the town what the town um uh wanted communicated to each of the different parties as far as what they felt the the they want wanted to see happen as part of this so let me go through the highlights and again I'll share all of this with you um it's going to be a fair amount to absorb and that's okay um I don't expect you to actually respond or react to it tonight I'd like to perhaps once you see my notes um absorb them do your own research and then I would like to get into this at the first meeting in January where we can get set ourselves Direction and see if we can all agree on on the same same direction for that um so the the visioning study started by taking the comprehensive plan goals and the first goal had a couple of main points that I thought are very interesting it said chadam should retain its small town and seaside resort character and any development should maintain that not minimize or destroy it bylaws and regulations should be created to ensure that the intensity is maintained or minimized never maximized you'll see that that's a theme that's going to be throughout that whole document now the reason why it's important to take a look at the details in the in the visioning study and that's the one that was attached to the packet is that looked at the whole Corridor okay it didn't look at just west chanam it went all the way from South chadam all the way toward um where the uh Village sent uh where the um um uh craw right where the crawl road is that was the entire Corridor because they were looking at it holistically and came up with recommendations you got to remember this was done before all the zoning changes that occurred in in 2016 so what precipitated that what created that is what I was looking for because I was not here then I I on the board I didn't learn about it until I actually went through and started digging into this so what the the commit uh the capai commission was the one who put this plan together they had six listening sessions and three workshops with the public on this they learned a lot it was all attached in the appendix on this the listening themes came up with some dislikes and some concerns the dislike was there's too much pavement and parking lots in the west chanam area not a surprise now I was trying to pull things out that related to the west chattam or so and anything but the corridor was the entire part of the review and they had concerns on the sewer impact increased density and development and the flexible zoning District at this point when they produced this report the flexible zoning District existed there were more there were more several areas in town including at least three or four in this Corridor that had the flexible zoning District uh if you're not familiar with that um uh essentially it was allowing higher densities associated with uh uh certain housing developments there observations in the workshop on the residential land use side no group identified multif family in large buildings as the desired land use they were looking for small scale multif family residential and that was the focus to be in the centers when they when they summarized the issues and concerns that these six listen sessions and three workshops they came up with several themes on this SE SE almost 70% of the opinions cast wanted to see residential dens City stay the same as current or lowered and the flexible development District over half of them supported to remove that entirely from all zones within the town again couple of themes that they had in here the part of the reason that they were looking for this is they said if you take a look at the general business district where some of what we have right now where these Village centers were going to be if demand for the residential development remains higher than what commercial space is it is conceivable that the areas like the cornfield or west chatt may become increasingly or entirely in res residential in nature they raised that as a concern because the way it was structured and I think we saw it a little bit with um the buildout analysis that BSC did there might be more residential than what we would like to see unless it's managed right and you and you um approach it in the right way they reviewed the sewer regulations and what they found is and there are two important points that they came up with in here land use is primarily controlled by zoning and Sewer regulations do not allow for more development than what is allow under zoning that's interesting but at the same time sewer regulations uh can prevent properties prevent properties from reaching full buildout that's a situation that we're seeing right here in the west Jan Neighborhood Center that caught my eye and what we're do using as examples for example EX under zoning a restaurant may be allowed for this but the sewer regulations may affect how many seats it could have or in a case of a residence the number of bedrooms so you might uh limit certain aspects of this without realizing it because we don't have certain things in place right now in some cases the maximum number of dwellings allowed under zoning may not be achievable and in many cases a dwelling Allowed by Zone money may be achieved if if all were just one-bedroom units I don't think we want to see only one-bedroom units associated with this I think we want to see other things associated with the multif family couple more things regulations of the they were making regul uh recommendations for regulations of the neighborhood centers they thought to guide the configuration commercial uses could be required to occupy some portion of the lower level of all structures adjacent to the street that's something that we did they aim the aim is to have the majority of the space within the area of pedestrian activity to be commercially orientated with display windows and uses that are open in the evenings and weekends such as eating drinking retail and personal services so essentially that's the thing that we we advance uses that could result in only residential development could be prohibited in these centers if the community wants to retain a commercial base in the neighborhood centers so again another element of there needs to be balance here on this and once you put more into one area it's got to be somewhat managed in the other um for the flexible development District they were recommending removing it because that was a theme and a clear message that they received during the public uh uh lisening process now after this report came out all the work that was done on that they had their meetings in 201 uh 12 and 2013 is when they had their public meetings the planning board actually um had four public meetings in 2015 those uh those were led by I think Peter cus at the time time he was he was chair on the board and the and the whole purpose of that was Implement implementation of the route 28 Corridor study elements so after those four meetings that they had with the public what happened is they produced multiple articles for the uh 2016 annual Town Meeting those were deleting the flexible developing development overlay District amending the South chadam zoning changes and eliminating the two small business zoning districts along Route 28 those I think are important elements to understand and what it got me to thinking about is are we headed completely in that direction with what we have right now I'm not I'm not quite sure that that it is in my mind after I did my own homework in here um it's something that I think we should UM Vet out sufficiently um I think there was some questions that we asked uh Katie to um uh see uh if the uh Town Council can clarify a few things that information just came in about uh this afternoon um we're ready to share that but I thought I would start this off by saying we need to head this in a direction that the public is going to support and from all from the there's 12 public meetings and presentations on this none of them are what we have for the density that we're proposing here you can go ahead and put that in that's okay however you what happens is there's going to be limitations on what the town service departments can approve they won't be able to approve this I think what we need to do is we need to have a good base bylaw here that we can start with that is achievable from day one and then if tweaks need to be done to this bylaw so be it we can do tweaks to it for five years in a row if we need to if we learn a few things more or if things change that's certainly easier to do but we need to start with a good base I know that this is sort of a pitch that I made but um after reading all of these documents I saw that them I saw what the character of the town was and what the individuals at these public meetings 12 of them what they said to all of all of us officials associated with how we should go about doing this so that I'd like to certainly open it up if there's any input uh not necessary if you want to take and absorb my notes you can see all the documents uh they can be made available to you if you don't have them um there was four of them that I reviewed here is part of part of the background on this um I'll open it up to the board members though uh Katherine yeah I'm happy to start um thank you it was a very clear presentation of some very important points I think what I saw um how to say this this board is very committed to increasing the housing options in the town of chadam and creating a diversity of housing options um we became aware I think subsequent to some of these studies it became very clear that there is a housing what we call a housing crisis in chadam and on Cape Cod and also to be honest with you it's it's actually Statewide Nationwide even worldwide um and a lot of that is just due to the disparity of incomes that's that's created worldwide in the current situation that being said I think one thing we have on our to-do list and that will I hope will be working with Gloria and and Christine and Katie and our chair in future is additional zoning initiatives that can offer um uh increased diversity of housing options to the citizens of chadam we've brief we've had that on our to-do list for a couple of years after West chatam um these include what we've called the transition zones or buffer zones to the east of West chatam and to the West um we've also discussed the possibility of townwide initiative Ives that apply to all zoning categories or some um we've we've just briefly discussed for example creating a new residential Zone which would be a higher density residential Zone that could be placed in some areas or townwide so I guess I'm just saying there are other additional options to increase the housing stock in chatam that we have yet to explore additional zoning options that we need to look at um I I agree with art that we do need to understand the work that's been done prior to this point in time on the neighborhood centers and that um it's really important to understand that also to really embrace the public input that we've had um there was a lot of public input in on the route 28 visioning study 2014 subsequent to that in preparation for 2016 annual town meeting and subsequent to that there the board took additional actions in terms of integrating form-based code into the West chadam neighborhood center and at each point um surveys were sent to the public and we had p a lot of public meetings and a lot of public input um the way I'm reading this is that we need to be as planning board members we need to think of this as a whole we need to consider some of the other options and what we do in West chadam still needs to maintain the fundamental principles of the comprehensive plan and the the points that the public has expressed to us that they are concerned about or not concerned about and I think Art's done a good job in summarizing that I have to admit that personally when I saw the BSC group buildout analysis I was taken aback um because in my experience working with the comprehensive plan and the planning board over the years that type of development is exactly what we've been trying to avoid in chadam um whereas we do want to have some areas where we can have more variety of housing we wouldn't want that kind of sort of conglomerate development so I do think in West chadam it's uh more in accord with with the work that's been done that we that we take a more balanced approach and that we look at it as an integrated mixed use development that's um I think the neighborhood centers are commercial centers with a housing with a residential element included so I I think it's important to understand the basic principles that this is based on that's all I'll say for now okay uh any other comments from the board members at this time yeah I I guess I'm uh a little frustrated that we're now going back to uh start this um that's a 15-year-old set of data it's a new generation of people living in chadam and um I have heard very clearly from the select board and from Ever from planning that we have to increase the housing in chadam and to say that we're going to keep it rural is just not in line with reality or or or the policies have been communicated to us so um I I appreciate what people said 15 years ago I think there's some lessons that we learn from that we they clearly are not looking for apartment buildings they clearly don't want very high density um you know 24 units uh to an acre um and we are we are proposing things that uh will look good will uh build the the community uh mixed use uh I think I thought we were on the right direct in the right direction we have to do a better job communicating that but it's certainly something that uh I believe the public would uh favor over an uh a whole bunch of very large uh developments which if we don't do something that like that they there's plenty of room for somebody to put another 40b on every one of those properties and we have nothing to say so I think it's our it's very important for us to to stick to what we're trying to do here which is to give an alternative to that and it's only in certain areas and it's only it's it isn't anywhere near the density that is achievable on those those spaces uh and that's where I thought we were going and I hope we don't retrench all the way back to oh we're not going to we're going to cut the density down because the density isn't that high so that's what I got to say U prank um I I agree with what was just said um the comprehensive plan what I apologize what what was the date of that does anybody know well the the three documents that I looked at was um the uh comprehensive plan was in 2003 that's the that's the Baseline of everything that started the route 28 visioning study was 2013 right and then the uh implementation uh elements of it was in 2015 and 2016 right so those were the first stages of implementing what the direction was was to um revise the zoning on the route 28 quor right so essentially the work that was done at the 2016 annual town meeting was all the zoning changes that occurred that came out of that visioning study that was a part of it but it wasn't all of it the rest of it was recommendations on the village centers how to deal with that right so one of the I I hate to refer to practices in other states because when I do people say oh my gosh we that's a different state but in U comprehensive plans are required in Connecticut but there's a requirement that they be updated every 10 years because they get stale this one is 2003 that we're talking about and then we had the study the route 28 study in 2013 and that I believe was the study in which was put forward the idea of the village centers yep no no no so when did The Village centers come through probably the 1600s when the first White settlers came no the the plan yeah absolutely that's absolutely when they started no no when you're misunderstanding me when when was our concept of putting in Village centers when when did that occur I'm telling you the truth um chadam began as as separate Villages North chadam West excuse me I I really don't need a history lesson what what what I what I really want to know is when the plan for putting Village centers into our zoning was put forward it's the historical development pattern of the town of chadam and I think the comprehensive plan just confirmed that by calling them neighborhood centers and with the intention of of following that historical traditional development P pattern rather than allowing what was happened post World War II which was sprawl So the plan was to eliminate the small business in what was called the in between areas and allow the business in the more dense um development to occur in and when was that plan put forward Catherine you know I'd have to research that a little more if it was already in place prior to the comprehensive plan but it was was it part of the comprehensive plan absolutely it was a main part yes yeah absolutely a main part right very good and probably prior to that Frank I think it came into Clarity when in fact the uh resoning of the bulk of Route 28 West um of Craw Road uh went from General business to R20 okay so that zoning change was the quid proquo for um identifying um the zoning or The Neighborhood Center the IDE the neighborhood centers that um existed since the town was created since the beginning but uh but separating them from the rest of 28 right which was reson R20 right so what was not our 20 became a neighborhood center our Focus um by decision of the board but also I think direction of this select board was to focus on West chadam neighborhood center right because while identified and approved by the voters as part of the resoning of the route 28 quarter um there's no zoning in the neighborhood centers right other than what's there right until you change it so so the the visioning study set the direction on pretty much everything that we've done on the west chadam Neighborhood Center it defined all the elements was from the visioning study or the comprehensive plan well again the the visioning study got into the details of it right okay okay the comprehensive plan was a higher level right it's in the comprehensive plan yeah in the well I I would agree with you but and as a matter of fact they they had specific elements of what they talked about in the comprehensive plan but if you wanted to get into nigre of of and compare it to what we've done we we followed that pretty closely right the only variance on that that I saw is that they were not expecting to have high density that okay as a matter of fact they they specifically suggest that you stick with the four units per acre okay uh I guess what I'm trying to get to and I'm sorry for the detour is that 2003 is a long time ago and plant get stale um and I'd be very reluctant to rely on the findings and input in 2003 to decide what we should do now because circumstances have changed um there is no question that we have a crisis um elderly people who are retiring in chadam have have no place to go um we have this missing middle that that has come very very very clear um enrollment in oure elementary school I think is 150 um about 30 per per class sometimes it's as low that's an average so sometimes it's as low as 22 um so we we are on the verge of losing oure Elementary School to be blunt um and so so we have something on the table that we've worked on I think for 5 years no it's we've been working on this since 2014 so it's been it's been in process for over 10 years Adam yeah definitely so so to it it just seems that this has been pending and worked on for a very long time and and we have something in front of us which we can change we can change the density we can work on large buildings we can work on uh requiring a certain amount of commercial uh Etc uh but we have something in front of us which is fairly concrete um which we can accomplish now or next year which will help address the to be blunt the crisis that we're facing so uh I for one am reluctant to kind of step back and start looking at things kind of all over again anyway that's that that's my view I'm not suggesting we're look we're looking all over again this is a key element that could be a a focus point on whether this passes or not of course right I when I I was surprised at how much public participation was done up to this point right those are of the individuals that have to sign off on this right where first step it goes to the select board it needs to go through them finance committee puts their recommendations in then it goes for a warrant article yep and and if we don't get a two-thirds vote then we haven't achieved an outcome I'm not willing to give up all the rest of the good things on this and 90% of all the rest are good things it's exactly what we want this neighborhood center to be but we need to start with a good base and the reason why I'm suggesting that is because on day one you can't you can't get what you want on that you might not get that for 10 20 years think about what is going to be necessary for that the infrastructure has to be upgraded we got to go to town meeting to get an article on town meeting floor to make those improvements it's got to pass all right good if you get that past at that point where the infrastructure is going to be updated and everybody can get what they want there let's do it make the adjustment to the density on that to uh to increase that but if somebody else wants to build along this Corridor with the new criteria that we're putting in this bylaw I'd like to see him do this with the new criteria now that means that may maybe they're going not going to do as much density right up front they can come come back and add that later we get that all the time so I'm suggesting we put something that has a good base has a better chance to get into 2third vote that we need and then we tweak it in subsequent years we can tweak this for five years in a row if we want to I'm just trying to get us across the Finish Line in here and I'm not sure we're going to get there if we just ignore the other half of this that's all and I think that the majority of this doesn't change we've just got to make a little bit more simpler on this one element here and then I think we've got a good plan again I know I'm I'm pushing that point but Charlene do you have any I'll let go first okay um all right I think I've got to take issue with your general description of of of what's before us here I mean you seem to be characterizing it as the West chadam neighborhood bylaw that's being proposed is going to create a high density section of town um the highest density we've ever ever talked about is probably 20% of the density of of every um comparable um development on the lower Cape um it's probably 20% of the density being proposed for the um affordable 40b development just to the east um 20% of those densities doesn't sound like a very high density development to me yes it's higher than an R20 Zone but that was what we were Char uh charged with by the select board when the rest of 28 was rezoned R20 was to come up with increased diversity of housing options in the neighborhood centers to create places that would create options one for younger families lower income families but also those who wish to downsize the big house in chatam and still live in chatam um and create a neighborhood where people could live and walk to many of the services that they would need and create a neighborhood right um in places that have traditionally since chadam has existed commercial centers um and it wasn't the planning board's idea to come up with this it was the voters when they said yes we want the neighborhood centers when you and we and we want the rest of 28 to be our 20 picked up by subsequent uh commissions and the select board Who challenged us with saying okay come up with the zoning which will increase diversity increase uh density as the quid proquo for resoning the rest of it not to be high density when I have seen that buildout analysis I was mortified there's just no way no way ever I don't care what the zoning is that this board would ever come up with 300 units per acre uh or 300 units in uh the West chadam Neighborhood Center it you know for any number of reasons there's not enough parking there's not enough sewage there's not enough we don't want that I understand that so so that's never been our objective here is to you know but we want to come up with at least some contribution to the goal of the town to increase uh attainable affordable housing as well as increase ing the diversity of housing that is available in town because there just isn't a lot of multifam uh slightly higher density neighborhood type housing other than maybe on Main Street which isn't going to be expanded in terms of housing um so I take issue with the general feeling that what we're have in front of us is a draft Zone in which is going to be unattainable because we can't support it for uh utilities Andor that is going to be viewed as high density housing which it's not if if you me the density is in there if you have the pieces in place to support this fine we can go ahead with that but this development will not occur as proposed okay it it it it can't well over the next 50 years I think it could that's right and when things are in place we would make adjustments to it just like we're doing right now we're making adjustments to the West Jad Neighborhood Center so we get the rest of the pieces in place on that and then when we can actually do higher densities at this location because it's supportable then yes you make those adjustments at that time that's what I was suggesting you not going to be able to do that until you get some funding that updates the infrastructure to support it you know town meeting has to vote for every one of these things so let's start with a good base that can be built today I'm suggesting that if you stick with that five units per acre that we have as a base that averages out to less than four units to all of the area of the West chattan mwood Center and then that can be built today no restrictions anybody that comes in with 12 they'll be denied not by our board but it'll be denied by the other departments in town because they have not they can't support that type of development at their loc at that location with the infrastructure that's in place that's all I'm saying well I would I would say that there is a reasonably limited amount of real estate that could be developed at the densities that we have discussed the smallest or the largest and for then that could be done instantly with all of uh with no strain on water or sewer fire police or anything else at the equival of five units per acre but not not at not at 12 if somebody came in with 12 units that means that that has to be supported today okay correct and as soon as you do that and deny the next one because you put it all into this property now you have to fight that person because they're not going to be allowed to do that I all right so I don't want the our board or the town departments to get stuck in the middle of deciding that this one's going to be allowed because they came in first they're going to be allowed 12 but the rest won't be because with there's no infrastructure to support that the the entire West chadam Neighborhood Center needs to be treated the same on every single property and we're not going to that's not going to be allowed to happen if you just put forward a higher density without all the other elements in place I mean I certainly don't have the engineering studies to suggest this but my guess is that the design of the entire Town's sewage system was not done on the basis of a maximum possible buildout scenario of building as many houses as could possibly be built under the zoning of 1950 um I I just don't think that was the case that's that's the reason why there was a map that was provided to you comments by the DPW director and why we asked them these questions okay and we have reduced the amount of development that can be done on the bulk of Route 28 West from when no you you can't do that it's not doesn't work that way doesn't work that way that those properties are allowed to develop as the zoning dictates right I'm yeah I'm speaking as my engineer I'm speaking from my engineering background associated with this okay but they've been rezoned R20 they can't be developed the way they were in fact when the when the sewage system was designed all all of I I would have to go back to the DPW director and the work that they did essentially if you take a look at his map it shows this Corridor all the infrastructure is in place this is the first phase that they started with the sewer program I understand that right I just don't I I would need someone to convince me that given the cost of the sewage system for example that's what we seem to be focusing on well that when it was engineered that it was Des it was engineered to be the maximum possible ever under of maximum build out of the all real estate in the town because that would have been frightfully overbuilt because it would take a hundred years if I'm not mistaken this plan that the Wastewater program was done was at least 10 or 15 years ago that's right around the same time of all of this was occurring here there was no discussion at that point that there were going to be as a matter of fact the the flex development District which had the higher density was all removed we didn't have any place in this town that had that high density but the point is trying to deal with the reality of what the program can somebody else get in here the infrastructure is there we were told that the flow was not an issue the only issue is one or two pumps that is not the infrastructure that is a small component so to say that that we can't build forward because eight years from now when we have to replace that pump anyway we might have to accelerate it a couple years or or we may have to do something else I I I'm really not buying the argument that all of a sudden we can't do this because there's no infrastructure that's just not what the case is and and that and let me say something else the idea that we can just reduce the density and we get everything we want is not true the only way that this becomes attainable housing is if the in if the density is higher if you leave it at four or five units Builders are going to build regular units that they're selling now to to us wealthier people and there will be not enough profit for them to to build smaller units and make them attainable on that property so I I don't buy it we we've gone over all of this we talked about why we needed to increase the density to at least get some attainable housing you're given that that's the first thing you're throwing away when you go back to okay we're going to lower the density I I I I don't get this art I mean it one one little study comes in and says uh one of the pumps isn't isn't capable now of of meeting that load but but the flow is there we just have to replace the pump and now all of a sudden we're going to back this all up and stop and do it all again honest to God heart if if you keep pushing this I'm walking off and I'm quitting because I spent five years putting this plan together and if it's one pump station that's going to derail the whole thing I've been wasting my time okay yeah uh charl Lane Charlene um no disrespect to to you or the vice chair but I think we're we're going in the wrong direction um if if we drop back I I agree 12 units per acre may be a hard sell to the town meeting but I would be remiss to to agree with going down to four units per acre if we don't allow for multifam development in whatever configuration it may be whether it's you know eight small one-bedroom units all you know all on their own or one larger building and with all due respect there are some huge single family dwellings in this town that are not in in keeping with the character of this community they are not they're huge some of them I think are quite distasteful but they're allowed under zoning and so I think using the argument that we're getting away from the community character I I can't buy that um I think we have the opportunity here if anything to create multifam in larger buildings I mean we don't want apartment buildings I agree we don't want anything that looks like that however you can create a a a multif family dwelling that is quite tasteful and is very period you know and character driven and we will have the mechanisms in place through hbdc and whatever guidelines that we establish to help create that so I I I'm just I'm um and and I also agree the you know the comprehensive plan is 21 years old the last time there was a major zoning change in this town was 1987 that's when the complete zoning bylaw was Rewritten and I know that because I came to work for the town as the assistant Town planner in November of 19 1987 and I had to deal with all the protection subdivisions that came in to to lock in Zoning for the eight years that you know so that they could build what they want and most of those were built and which is unfortunate a number of them were not built but that is the last time we had any kind of major zoning change and quite honestly when we got rid of the flex will development I was sorely disappointed because in the developments when when I worked for for this town as a town planner and an assistant Town planner those developments were exactly what we needed and in most cases were done very Tastefully and and and looked very nicely there are a number of buildings in West chadam that were a mix of commercial and residential and in all honesty they couldn't get anybody to go in them for the commercial space they went to the zoning board of appeals and now they're all multif family it's all residential whereas before it was a mixed use and I think because of the zoning in place at the time it didn't allow perhaps for the creativity that I think this bylaw would I agree I don't think we're going to be able to sell 12 units per acre to to the town meeting I just don't think that's going to happen but I think we'd be remissed if we go down to four units per acre because I look at the some of these big houses on half acre Parcels that have 10 bedrooms why can't we do that for multif family okay Katherine um I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments that a couple of people have made um uh one I just wanted to respond about the flexible overlay districts and what the concept was when those were removed um and how that happened just yeah if I do understand that I just don't agree with it no I know but just let me give you the background if I could um that was actually done by citizens petition um who came before the planning board maybe you remember yeah and they wanted that removed largely because they didn't want the density on Route 28 the residential density and as I understood the purpose of those flexible overlay districts on Route 28 was largely to allow for congregate housing such as Parkplace uh so there was also the idea that we could have congregate housing in chadam but Route 28 wasn't the best place to put it that that so the idea was that they should be moved to other places I think the citizens who came before the board just wanted them removed they just didn't want the density the planning boards um recommended that action because the planning board viewed it as the first as a technical first step towards implementing the idiosyncratic Zoning for each of the neighborhood centers that the first step was to remove the overlay and then implement the underlying new underlying Zoning for each Neighborhood Center so the planning board didn't actually have the same goal as the citizens but it was the same action so if that makes sense um also I just wanted to address I agree with what you're saying about the large houses um that being said um when we did some initial review of chadam and traditional housing forms in chadam when we were working on the massing of residential structures a few years ago which was also part of these recommendations um we found interestingly enough that although it's true to say I think um that the number of large houses has increased in recent years there are a lot of large houses in chadam again ever since the beginning it is a traditional and historical housing form in chadam there's a lot of old large houses so it's not necessarily totally out of town character but but but it is true that sort of the um incidence of them has increased in recent years um I wanted to respond to what Warren said about when he saw the buildout I believe this is what you said please correct me if I'm wrong the build buildout analysis from BSC you were mortified that we would never want to build that in chadam I have to tell you if that's what you meant I also responded that way but we need to understand that the buildout analysis that BC produced was we have to understand it was based on the draft bylaw as it's written so my concern with that is that if that's not what we want built the bylaw as it's written now would allow that and if that's not our intention it is again an unintended and undesired consequence and we do need to go back to the bylaw to make sure as Charlene is suggesting that there are mechanisms in place that would disallow that from being built so if so that that's another issue and to be honest with you my personal reaction to all of this was largely based on the BSC buildout that when I saw that I thought it's not that we don't want more housing and it's not that we don't want greater density but we don't want that and that is something that we've been working for many years in chadam to avoid that kind of you know uh block box development um responding to Frank about the age of the comprehensive plan it's true it's 20 years old um it was developed 10 years it people worked on it for 10 years prior to 2003 so it was a long time in writing and then um it's been a long time in implementation it hasn't been implemented fully yet it is true that when it became more apparent to the board that there was this housing crisis which is maybe what six years ago seven years ago um the board decided to take actions to increase availability of housing including the Adu bylaw um the comprehensive plan does site the need for affordable and attainable housing it also cites the need for economic stability and opportunities Etc to create a yearr round Community for young families and people of all income levels um the comprehensive plan includes all of that I think it's just a question that the situation as all of you are saying is a little more extreme now than it was 20 years ago um the first one of the first workshops that were done in 2014 which is uh the route 28 visioning study was was to confirm whether or not the comprehensive plan was still a valid document so the first workshops asked the question some questions to determine whether the principles of the comprehensive plan were still valid so I think we can say it's 10 years old because it was confirmed um and it was confirmed as you heard Arts say that in general the citizens of chadam um still agree with the principles of the comprehensive plan I think all I'm saying is we do need more housing and no one knows that better than I do um but we can't we shouldn't do it at the expense of of other principles that have guided the actions of this board for many years that are still valid even though they might be in older documents and and just to reference my main concerns were generated by seeing the BS C buildout analysis that that was just um it's not what we want to see in West chadam and so we need to address that somehow well I've listened to all the board members and um I'm going to go do my own assessment on this I'm going to go back I'm uh I hope you will do the same thing too and we can come up with an outcome uh I'd like to get the board's input the first uh meeting that we have in Janu and a direction we have to that we would want to go in on this and then button up the last issue so that we can go forward with a uh uh public hearing on it and public um information on this so um but I would like um since Gloria has listened in on all of this I'm not sure if she has anything to uh provide uh some background on her experiences associated with this but uh Gloria have any uh comments that you would like to or or Katie I haven't asked you either thank you I I think more specifically if Gloria can speak a little bit to some guidance that we should be expecting from the state on the seasonal communities designation as well as um the adus um just to give the board some background on um some of the aspects of the um affordable homes act that may be beneficial to the town overall from a housing perspective um and then and from my perspective I think you know we all need to go back and take a look at the byar and see see where we're willing to you know do give and take do we do we re look at the parking calculations um do we you know do we look at the the number of units and maybe it's not 12 and maybe it's not four or five but where's that compromise and so I think that my suggestion would be is all all of the board members you know go back and take a look at the bylaw and read through it and try to come up with some examp uh some conversation points that we can have and C can you send us the most recent one just so we're all working from the same document June of 2024 so sorry Gloria I didn't mean to cut you off I just wanted to jump in there thank you no no problem I was not even ready to start um so first of all I want to say there is so much good conversation and discussion at this meeting um I'm really impressed with everyone's level of analysis of the situation and the zoning and pulling in the local comprehensive plan and everything and I think it just goes to show that there's multiple ways of dealing with things like this um you know that said I would say that um you know the buildout scenario is so unlikely to happen like I wouldn't look at that as as like if we do this zoning in 10 20 even 30 years it's going to look like that it's it's really unlikely to look like that um that said for me the most important um issues that started coming up were the issues of the sewer capacity and how you ended up dealing with that and one of the things that um I recall reading that Rob the DPW director talked about was um kind of parsing out the two different directions of flow in West chadam that one goes to a pump station with capacity um and one doesn't so I think it might be worthwhile um looking at How the West chadam Neighborhood Center can be um a portioned so that it actually reflects the realities of the sewer capacity um that's maybe a little bit different than what we've done but um you know there's three zones uh within the West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning um that are based on proximity to the street maybe it's more important that we look at um sub zones that are based on the actual um sewer capacity um so that's one thing to do um I also want to um formally agree with art that um you don't have to do the perfect complete zoning bylaw right now you don't need absolutely everything that you want all at once um zoning bylaws are living documents um in other communities that I've worked in I put forward um zoning bylaw amendments at every town meeting regular annual town meeting as well as fall special Town meetings um it just became a common thing that like we were going to be tweaking zoning we were going to be looking at this when I did the um Adu bylaw in Province Town which I did by a footnote because it was uh pretty efficient um I started small and then the following year I added more zoning districts and then the third year in a row of amendments we covered the whole town with with um Adu regulations and I think that that's a very reasonable approach for West chatam I mean start with what you you know know is really important um I think sewer capacity is important I think ultimate buildout is also important um I don't want to lose sight of the fact that density actually is really important because when you talk about a neighborhood center and you talk about um commercial uses so so you're proposing to require commercial uses um on the street facing first floor which I think is great and I'm in favor of that but um there's such a connection between economic development and housing um you know you can't really support these kinds of neighborhood businesses if you don't have a really good residential density to support that not that you're not going to get people driving in but you really want the village and the people who live there um to be able to at least partially support those businesses so you really do have to look at higher density from an economic development perspective um and so getting back to the idea of zoning being a living document um Katie mentioned the affordable homes act in seasonal communities um so that was recently signed into um law we're getting guidance and regulations kind of trickling down from the state we have some Adu regulations that are draft um the comment period's open for them um we're waiting for guidance on seasonal communities um so at some point we're going to have a full understanding of what seasonal communities means for chatam and one of the important things that they have in there is um a year round restriction option they also have an option for employee housing they also have an option for um housing for artists and writers and other creatives and all of these without an affordability component so perhaps in like a year or two after we understand what's available to us as a community as a seasonal Community we can look at you know maybe requiring a certain percentage of yearound restrictions maybe requiring um not requiring but maybe saying like oh if you create employee housing um you know for for Municipal Employees or other other employees um then you can potentially have a higher density there are all sorts of things that we're going to be able to do um that we don't even really understand yet um so hopefully in the next few years that's a really strong reason to not throw away everything but you know make sure that we get good solid West chadam Neighborhood Center zoning um that people can generally agree with and then as we understand more of what's available to us as a seasonal Community we can go back and we can amend and you know who knows maybe one of those pump stations is going to break in two years and in two years as soon as it breaks uh we can go back and amend it again and increase the density and hopefully um convinced town meeting to vote for a pump that supports greater capacity I think that's it unless anyone has questions okay uh perhaps I should ask if there's any I no go right ahead I really don't want the word out there that that um Maxim imum density study is based on our bylaw because I don't think it it is I think there are things in that bylaw that were not taken into account in in putting together the buildings and so um I I think it was a lesson that they said if we go with your density this is what would be built out but there are other Provisions that we put in that I just think if if we if we were really doing it they wouldn't be that big so I it it's it's a minor semantic point but I if we keep saying that this is what could be built there uh we're we're defeating ourselves because people are going to go whoa that can't we can't have that that's the the bylaw we're putting in is clearly not going to allow that level of of development that's why we're doing this and so let's let's let's try and be a little more strategic about what that other study did uh Bob you uh just triggered something in my mind um I have dealt with this before in my previous community and um the planning board there which I was on for 17 years we did have a a little idea which sort of deals with what you're talking about maybe that'll help me get across my uh my hesitation on some of this um we asked for if there was a mix uh a single uh site and there was a mixed use on it you know where there's commercial and some residential and that say it's two acres three acres we asked the Epic um the first submit sort of like a comprehensive plan about how the whole thing is arranged and everything where's all the pieces fit in uh do you have all the Landscaping in that we're looking for and all of that and we sort of signed off on that first um and once we really signed off on that and get out H around that you know the site plan was a piece of cake because we knew all the elements that we wanted all the pieces fit that was something that I saw might help deal with some of my concerns associated with this and probably address what you just mentioned there and um maybe that could get us to the point that um each of these as we see them come before us um will feel more comfortable but by taking this as a two-step process during the site plan review I hadn't thought about that before but maybe that's an applicable element here to the West chadam because we normally don't deal with mixed use developments too much so that might be a component that we would add in I can probably dig up what we had done in my past community and see if I can um share that with you all um but I'm I'm going to have an open mind on this I'm I'm not going to just uh force my point of view on this I've listened to all of you you have you brought excellent points I'm not willing to discount any of that I'm willing to revisit my my premises U yeah one more comment for me I mean I have in my mind's eye what I think our draft zoning uh could produce over a reasonable period of time um others on the board may have their mental image of what our draft uh would produce um I'm very interested in trying to see the representations that have been requested already for the three select chunks of the West chadam neighborhood center to see um what a 12 um unit per acre density could might look like um if I am surprised um at adversely by what it looks like then I would be perfectly free to change my opinions but um my predisposition is that even at the largest density we've ever talked about it's one fifth of the density of the 40b in town which is 60 units per acre I think 16 isn't it 16 it's 60 units I thought it was the for the 40 BS the friendly 40 BS those are 16 unit breaker 16 all right so that's so it's half of what we're talking about two3 well if you go up to the 12 whatever i' I'd be interested what those look so you could say we're minimizing the density I mean if you wish to Visa what could be developed in 40b it certainly compared to the I'm hearing 40 to 60 units when I go to the uh lower Cape Outreach discussions of the development that are in the drawing been done or in the planning processes for Orleans and and and other communities I mean I have no interest in that but but the point is what we are talking about is very small yeah in terms of the density is it more than we are used to in chadam yes does it need to be yes and I had uh it resonated with me what Gloria's point was to say look if you wish to to have a viable downtown type Community you've got to have housing there you got to have people that can service it locally you need higher density right there or it will never emerge and Blossom as a neighborhood center the way I Envision it and the way I think others including the select board have mandated that we try and create here um I am um last comment with respect to uh my comment about uh the buildout analysis that if I don't like it then obviously we've got the wrong plan well I agree it could never happen glorious comment but I also believe that the buildout analysis didn't come even close to representing the restrictions which we had baked in in other ways they had half of the parking that we thought about and we might we were talking about maybe we need more parking than that uh there was issues of open space that we have uh always re included in our landscape planning and so on so and there is no intention here to permit or incentivize or try and create anything like the number of houses in that buildout analysis is it valid yes is it useful for looking at sewage capacity and so on absolutely but if we are in the position of trying to sell to the town that this board is trying to build 300 new houses in west chadam then obviously we are not going to succeed but that's not what we're trying to do we're trying to increase modestly at best the diversity of housing all right and create a viable critical mass of housing in a neighborhood that'll support commercial activity there mhm with the things you know variety stores restaurants yada yada um in in the neighborhood center and that requires increased density as well um but I would like and need I think to see what smarter people than I can create in the way of a vision and a presentation of what our our proposed density would look like because I think without that I just have to go with what I think it's going to look like and I'm in favor of that y um um Katie um we're uh we're still on track with Union Studios can you give us an update sure um their expectation was the end of January the end of January asked if right they had said six weeks from yeah so they they're working on it and I think that will be the final lynchin I think uh maybe we can uh coales along a direction the first meeting in January once we do that uh I think we just start finalizing things to move forward on it um I'm I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus on this it it sounds like it's a possibility I mean I think it's I'm open to it all right I'm I'm not going to say no just because all right that's that's not my my ideal but uh any else yeah I was going to suggest that maybe some of this needs to wait till we get back what their Visions are sure of that um but I also want to raise this question if I look at at Jay's response to us it does not say we shouldn't pass a zoning law a bylaw it just says that um if the INF structure isn't there um there won't be a permit it doesn't it does not correct tell us we cannot correct we cannot pass a zoning bylaw and and so to say that the in you know that we can't do it I I just I I missed I'm missing your point I I I think you're right about that because if you look at the flex districts that had 12 units they may not have been able to do that either but you know they they do or don't happen because of uh who is proposing to development and and what is generating the ability to do that so I I would agree with you on that b because it it's specific if you look at point three if we have a special permit and infrastructure isn't there then the permit will be denied y that that says we we you know well you weren't the first in line Y and so you'll have to wait until we have the capacity and maybe if you want to speed it up you can make a voluntary payment to help speed it up it it's all right here it says we should we should not let that infrastructure issue especially okay uh a pump now if it was the pipe the whole flow system and we had to do it all over again that's a completely different issue so I hear you and also um we had talked just briefly before the meeting the whole issue of um short-term rentals um has never really been brought forward for discussion here um but um as most of the board would um recall I'm in favor of prohibiting short-term rentals and short-term to me is anything less than 365 days um because if we in are successful in selling the concept of modesty ly increased density uh but don't prohibit short-term rentals then all we're going to do is create a short-term rental business and there will be nobody living there um and that's not what our objective is in terms of trying to increase the diversity of housing in the uh town of chattam um and so somehow or other we need to make room to have the discussion about how best um and to what extent we should restrict or prohibit okay so let me let me take that on as an assignment um I like to work with Community Development to see what we can come up with on that to to respond to this because I think this has been hashed around I'm not quite sure the best way to do do it yes uh Mr chairman this has been discussed and I think that you know we've heard concerns from board members but I think that the board overall needs to make a determination that no short-term rentals will be allowed in the zoning District because I think we've heard next you know that that we also need to look at this as you know not just affordable and attainable that this you know Neighborhood Center needs a mix of you know various income types various housing types to be successful so I think that that should be something that's decided by the board before we get specific on how we would prohibit short-term rentals okay Charlene first and then Katherine I agree on the on the prohibition of short-term rental but I'm also concerned about and and I'm glad Gloria brought this up but there's also a need for employee housing so if a business wants to house their employees in the apartments that are available second floor behind what have you but the business is only open for six months or nine months I don't want to preclude you know that type of rental housing for employees for the businesses that they will be serving so that I'm not sure how to tackle that but you know I don't think we want to prude that type of housing can I okay and then um Bob yeah I just wanted to respond to the short-term rental thing it's not the case that this hasn't been discussed I think we've been discussing it at many many meetings for over 2 years um with a variety of conclusions we did at one point also submit the question to our previous Town Council we got an answer regarding wording that could be inserted into the bylaw and included into the bylaw regarding short-term rentals um and that was worked on by Cape Cod Commission and it was included in the bylaw are in my reading my read of our new Town Council has given us a slightly different interpretation um and also Gloria has just addressed the issue with regards to the new legislation that has just been passed that there are some um new ways or different ways that that issue can be handled um they are not what you're hearing though I think from Gloria is not different from what Ryan christenberry told us on the occasion of many many meetings over a long period of time um so and we do have some language in there that addresses it partially we could based on what I heard from Jay um we could address it more fully or what I understood Jay to say and I may or may not be correct in this is that if we don't say anything it's automatically prohibited if we don't automatically allow it um but it might there might be some other nuances because of the new legislation that Gloria brought up one thing I do recall hearing from Ryan and Katie and Gloria that any what's the word any prohibition of short-term rentals is better done as a townwide initiative rather than for one just one zoning District I don't know if that's still the opinion or still the case but definitely I think it's it's something we've discussed we might be able to improve how we address it in the current draft bylaw um I just wanted to go back to this issue of BSC I I can't believe that BSC would be remiss in not paying attention to all aspects of the by the draft bylaw that they were given to generate that buildout analysis which means to me that that buildout analysis that some of us reacted to can be built according to the draft bylaw that we've proposed in other instances where there's an unintended and undesired consequence quence of our draft we have gone back to the draft to be sure that we include measures to avoid that unintended outcome so I think in this case we have to assume that BSC did that and if we don't want that to happen we can't just say oh it's unlikely we have to make sure that the law doesn't allow it because I think our experience as planning board members is um how to say this that whatever the letter of the law is it is often the case that a property owner or developer will push that to the Limit because they'll do what they can do according to the law so if we don't want that result we need to address that issue yeah I I I specifically have said that we haven't said um what requirements there are for like public space right but I do think we had a pretty clear uh indication of how much parking would be needed and I think I don't think they were they were right right on that one so and and that would be our board's decision anyway I anyway I think um I I think now I'm even more convinced about this two-step process on a on a mixed use site I think we can deal with a lot of it at that point uh we can try challenging a lot of these different things then before he gets too far into it and then the appin would know how they would should readjust it in order to meet meet what we view is um I I still will work with the uh Community Development staff about this issue uh I'll see if we can come up with something I I think um Charlene you had some very good points about this uh uh we want to be careful perhaps not do a a you know a cart bange thing but maybe leave some wiggle room for aspects like that and maybe that's a special maybe that's a special uh for type thing that you issue it for a period of time or something like that um let me see what I can and what I mean by that is have them help me with this one on it because uh I I don't think I would be able to draft it as well as they could so I'll share that with you and I'll share with you my U my other uh background on this first step process with this and maybe maybe we can get to some conclusion in January I'm hopeing on it okay so my light wasn't on for that my light was on for the um short-term rental oh okay that is not the issue it isn't short-term rental it's it's second home low occupation of that would be worse for the for the downtown for the area you're right and and so uh not letting somebody who's only going to be here two weeks a year rent their house out is actually counterproductive at least would be occupied for the the season so I I think we need to think a little bit more clearly about what that is that we need to put in there to make sure that the homes are occupied not that they're just they're sold to people who are going to come down for a few weekends okay that that's even a better Point yeah I like that Frank did you have something else yeah I did um on on the shortterm reyolds I concur that we should deal with that here in in in the neighborhood um I I see some arguments that we should look at it on on a townwide basis but I think that's a huge undertaking um and I can see all sorts of problems uh if if we and taking what Gloria said earlier you know maybe it's good to take things in steps um so if we could you know address a short-term rental in this neighborhood that might take us forward in addressing it for the whole town um okay I I I think that your concept of a special permit for you know the workers is is a great idea um I also think that we ought to think about allowing you know maybe two weeks four weeks whatever people who who actually live and that is their their home giving them some uh flexibility to rent I wouldn't I wouldn't block all short-term rentals I I think i' you know even the federal government says you can rent for two weeks not even declare the income on it so you know I I I I would give some flexibility for people who actually have that as their own any that said okay um I guess I should ask if there's any public comments first before we uh move on um I don't see any hands No Hands okay uh no well I I don't I think we're going to flush this out a little bit better during our meetings in January un intended right Mr CH yeah I know I uh sorry I don't know I'm I'm feeling a little bit better than when I started um M Mr chairman if I may I just I'm getting the board's thoughts on perhaps starting we have a pretty full agenda with applications for the January 13th meeting and wonder if the board would like to start at 4 perhaps to do some long range planning before moving on to regular business just a thought um that's on the 13th the 6th I think we have a difficult time getting a meeting room we had looked at that but I think that there was some issues there so um my suggestion is we try to do that as much as we can for the next couple of months because after that it won't make any difference so let's see if we can break some time out for that I would agree if we can start at 4: use that first hour for that and then do use our regular business afterwards okay so I'll try to structure our agendas that way all right and I'll work with uh with that on on issuing those for our next meetings thank you I appreciate that okay Mr chairman a motion please I move that we adjourn this meeting and wishing everybody a very happy holiday season uh do I have a second second okay I'll do a roll call vote Katherine hurn yes I agree uh Warren chain Warren chain happy holidays I agree Bob WF I agree uh Charlene ditto and Frank I agree Arts appr I I approve and the time is oh it's 5:30 yes [Music] n [Music]