##VIDEO ID:U5nfbOW-m_U## e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] um welcome to the uh planning board hybrid meeting on October 28th 2024 uh please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording this meeting please notify the chair I don't see anybody so proceed 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 general laws chapter 30A section 20 until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chatam planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately assess the proceedings as provided for for in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 374 902 739 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simcast on channel on chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible uh so I guess would' like to start with a uh roll call vote um uh Katherine halin present uh Warren chain Warren chain present uh Charlene Greenhall Char green held here Frank Shear present uh Bob dubis Bob dubis here and art spru present before we proceed does U any member uh need to recuse himself on any item on on the agenda yes Bob uh the bond release on Middle Road okay thank you all right so let's begin with the minutes for September 23rd 202 before are there any comments from from the board members yeah want to goe I was there is one correction um on the uh next grid um Mr dubis recused himself but the vote has him in there I already did point that out to Annie good point that was my comment same one okay um with that with that change um would move approval of the meeting minutes second anyone for a second I second um okay uh let's go for a vote uh Katherine helper approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve uh Charlene Greenhall Charlene green h approve Frank Shar Frank Shar I approve Bob dubis Bob dubis approve and art sprew I approve uh okay um the next item on the agenda will be the West chadam Neighborhood Center discussion um I'd like to uh just remind um everybody who participates and board members this is the first time we'll be hearing this we we have not received any information in our packets none of us um so this is new information so I would like to focus just on this um and and I would almost like to defer a lot of discussion and comment if if he don't have any clarification questions until we're able to absorb this a little bit more information is going to be provided in in our subsequent packets and I think that's we'll we'll be scheduling that at our probably next meeting um and I think we'll even try to have our attorney available for that I think we're working on that is that correct Katie yes Mr chairman that's correct okay so um So Christine if you want to start this introduction off sure um we have um from BSC group we have adamz and um Heather gold on um they're going to give a brief presentation like you had just mentioned um we are considering possibly having some other meeting in November prior to the planning board meeting as a workshop to go over this but this is a presentation of what they have found so far go ahead great um thank you Mr chair is it all right if uh we get started here yes of course oh okay very good thank you very much uh through the chair and and for the record uh Adam deso planner with the BSC group and is it already if I share my screen to go through uh some slides we have regarding our findings please do all right very good thank you all right hopefully you can all see the first slide here is that correct yes all right very good so again Adam deso with the BSC group um we're going to be discussing tonight with you um our buildout analysis findings for the West chadam Neighborhood Center based on the proposed zoning bylaw that we were provided so just to give um everyone a little bit of background especially members of the public who are watching this evening um so the study area is located in West chadam along Main Street Route 28 it involves approximately 54 Parcels in this area which is outlined in Orange on your screen here um we um we dealt with two existing zoning districts in this area the GB3 the general business 3 and also the R20 the residential 20 um and there are two roundabouts um an East roundabout and a West roundabout located in this area as I'm sure many members of the board know as well as residents there's a wide variety of uses in this area including retail restaurants offices residential units post office Etc so we were given um some objectives U by your planning office to look at a few things and we wanted to provide an understanding of the potential increase in the housing density within this area we also provide a product that could be used for several different purposes one for public education and Outreach uh regarding the West chadam Neighborhood Center proposed zoning by law um to advance um the efforts your community's made to implement key items in your local comprehensive plan to help develop mixed use market rate and affordable multif family housing and also continue best practices in the areas of zoning and economic development uh we also wanted to um use this study to determine the approximate maximum residential unit and Commercial square footage buildout for the area so the next few slides I'm going to run through some existing conditions maps that we created so that we could look at a better analysis of the area so you can should be able to see on your screen here uh the existing zoning located in this area as I mentioned the GB3 and the R20 zoning districts um we were fortunate um that we only had a few base zoning districts to look at here and you can also see the the M the municipal zoning District uh just to the north of the study area which is where the airport is located we also took a look at the Water Resources in the area so you can see along the top edge of the study Z study area is the Wellhead per section Zone that's a zone two um doesn't have a huge impact on the study area but there is um some restrictions related to that for this area we also looked at Natural Resources so on your screen here you can see um some of the the wetlands and their 100 foot buffers in this area core habitat crital critical natural landscape features and also nhes natural haage endangered species program priority habitats of rare species so these are also some restricted areas um that would limit development within the study area we also examine topography so what you see on your screen now is the our one foot topographic lines in the area I'd like to call your attention to a few areas one kind of along the northeastern um edge of the study area hopefully you can see my cursor here you can see the lines get very dense um in there which indicates uh steep slopes this can also be found along um the Southwest um portion of the study area and then there's also a depression um on on one of the parcels in the northwes corner of the study area again these are geographic features um topographic features that would limit development in the study area we also looked at historic resources I'm sure as many of you know this is a local historic district area there's also a number of uh inventor properties in this district and there's even one uh particular property U or should I say structure that has a preservation restriction on it which um limits uh what can be done to that particular structure not the property itself but the structure that's on that property and then examining uh we examine protected recreational um protected areas and recreational open space um so you can see there's some a little bit uh of different coloring on this map some of these are some easements um but more importantly there are some properties here which are protected by the town of chadam also the chadam conservation Foundation um and there's even a property on here that um is restricted for drainage purposes by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that's located in the Northwest part of the study area so we took all of these existing conditions and kind of pulled them together in what we'd like to call constraints map um these are particular locations and properties that are restricted for some reason where that be a conservation restricted conservation restriction um conservation purposes um and you can also see um the large orange uh four-sided figure here um which is part of the runway protection Zone and that's on there because no new residential units can be stru can be constructed in this area new commercial square footage can be built here but no new um residential units can be structed can be constructed in this area so next we talked with with your town staff um and we uh wanted to take a little bit of a deeper dive um into some of these properties uh for some more realistic um conditions and so on this map what you're seeing are some properties highlighted in yellow and these are identified because they are likely not to be redeveloped in the near future again likely not to be redeveloped in the near future for a variety of reasons whether they're owned by the Commonwealth um May perhaps they're owned by by the town perhaps uh some there were some new dwelling units or new construction placed on them in the very recent past also I wanted to call out this property which is the Ocean State Job Lot which has the red star on it um this property we feel would be redeveloped in the near future but it would not be able to realize its full uh residential development potential which I'll get into in a little bit because of the runway protection Zone um we're looking at a yield of potentially 31 residential units on that property but as you'll see if we look at a raw um square footage the density calculation number it would be a little bit higher than those 31 units but I'll speak to that a little bit more in detail later so then we took a further deeper dive looking at the maximum residential buildout by property um across the entire study area so The quick summary on this is the proposed zoning at maximum density would yield 322 new residential units but there's an caveat um associated with that number we and what that is is we looked at this as a complete maximum residential buildout and in doing that we assumed that um this would be development that would be going through the special permit process with your board as you know um special permits are discretionary permits and whether it's your board or zoning board of appeals in the state of Massachusetts there's strong discretion um as as to development um underneath a special permit so these numbers uh could definitely go down um based on the requirement for a special permit but if the special permit were granted as it was proposed for maximum uh development capacity at each each site you'd be looking at 322 new dwelling units um in the entire zoning District also we have um colored some properties within the study area uh to show that these are Under common ownership and they would likely be developed uh with one another so there are five of those properties you can see the yellow red and purple along the south side of Main Street or Route 28 and then two properties on the North side there and again you can see the Ocean State Job Lot site um sort of in the middle of the study area at the intersection of George Ryder Road in Main Street just looking at Raw acreage there again that would yield 41 residential units but due to the runway protection Zone and where residential units could be placed on the property we think a developer would be hardpressed to even get 31 uh residential units there so then we tried to take a further deeper dive and actually look at some properties specifically and how they might shake out in terms of development for both mixed use residential commercial buildings parking spaces open space um so on this map you can see the boundary of the entire study area in Orange with we looked at five properties including the Ocean State Job blot site you can see uh existing building Footprints in Gray you can see the runway protection Zone which is the transparent red layer on here and then the residential buildings are those in yellow the commercial buildings are those in purple and the hatched purple and yellow buildings are mixed use so the first site we looked at we've talked a little bit about this already the ocean state joblot site which is at 1674 Main Street and again we're looking at maximum buildout potential for these properties so we're able to come away with 31 uh dwelling units in four solely residential buildings and two mixed use buildings uh 119,000 uh just over 119,000 square fet of commercial space you can see the four uh purely commercial buildings within the runway protection Zone and then the two mixed use buildings along the southern portion of the property so you're looking at 10 buildings total on this site um and 89 spaces of parking and then uh with some green space mixed in there as well the next property we looked at um is 1671 and 1653 Main Street this is where the post office and the cream and Cone are currently located it's three Parcels um this property would yield somewhere around 44 dwelling units um over the course of the eight buildings here 9,000 square feet of commercial space all in within mixed use buildings along the front of the property along Main Street um again eight total buildings and 75 parking spaces as well as um open space and even some protected area you can see along the southern edge of the property which um was needed to be left untouched due to the conservation resources at the southern edge of the property we then look at 1652 Main Street so this is on the north side of Main Street adjacent to the Ocean State Job Lot site just east of it uh this property would look at yielding somewhere around 38 dwelling units 3,000 ft of commercial space all within mixed use buildings you can see them along the southern edge of the property there seven total buildings 56 parking spaces and you can see the rear of this property would most likely have um a fairly significant amount of green space and this is due to the uh topography in this location as well as some protected area um due to the pond and other conservation resources at the North End of the property fourth uh location we looked at was 1610 Main Street this was two Parcels as you can see uh would yield about 15 dwelling units 3,000 square ft of commercial space in this scenario we had that is solely commercial in two buildings along the front of the property 24 parking spaces and again we're looking at some green space likely at the back of the property due to the um conservation resources there and some steep slopes the last property we looked at 1589 and 1603 Main Street um the currently this is two properties um there's a couple of restaurant uses there a liquor store taco restaurant um right at the corner kind of across the street from the Dunkin Donuts in the Main Street there 29 dwelling units there 12,000 squ fet of commercial space solely in four commercial buildings along Main Street um 65 uh parking spaces here but there would also be some green space that could be mixed in again all of these properties looking at maximum development potential uh based on the zoning requirements and all of these properties meet uh parking requirements um you know Landscaping we did have to take somewhat of an estimate in terms of the parking spaces for these because obviously different uses trigger different parking needs so we took an estimate of about three parking spaces for every 1,000 square ft of commercial space the residential units are approximately 1,000 square feet and we had about one a one: one ratio on those one one unit to one parking space for the residentials uses so then in summary again in terms of the buildout analysis for residential purposes again at a maximum buildout looking at 322 new residential dwelling units again this is going through maximum capacity through a special permit process with your board in terms of commercial uses we're looking at approximately one just over well 114,500 ft of newly created from Redevelopment or retained commercial space in the study area right now there's approximately 117,000 ft of commercial space under existing conditions um and you might notice that this is somewhat of a reduction in the overall commercial space in the corridor this is primarily due to um the creation of new dwelling units at property for example there might be a commercial structure on a property but this may need to be demolished in order to accommodate um new structures on the property for residential units um this is also duee to building footprint size limitations under the proposed uh zoning ordinance where we're looking at only 3,000 square feet square foot building Footprints along Main Street additionally um there were in talking with your toown staff uh it's our understanding there would be limited commercial viability on the upper floors of all these buildings it may be office space but we were thinking that when developers come in um they're going to want to maximize the utility of their building so they would most likely put commercial space on the first floor and if they did anything on the second floor it likely be residential units and then additionally um you know the commercial spaces themselves will want to be along Main Street along Route 28 there's there are not many businesses if any that will want to be be set back from the roadway or located behind mixed use or residential buildings they want that visibility um along Main Street or Route 28 so pulling in all those factors you're actually would tend to see maybe a reduction in commercial square footage for overall really no change in that amount of square footage and then lastly of note um we're anticipating um from this buildout analysis no change across approximately 21 properties which would total 9.95 Acres again these are based upon the properties we feel in consultation with your staff that will likely not be redeveloped in any manner for the foreseeable future here and again this is just the last slide I have for you this evening um this is again just looking at the buildout of the five properties with the runway protection Zone and some of other restrictions uh laid on top of all that so maybe I'll I'll stop there and be happy to answer any questions that any of you might have okay thank you Adam um I just need a couple of clarifications when you say maximum buildout that's based on the proposed bylaw and how many units per a were you assuming for that sure that is correct it's based upon the proposed bylaw um which calls for a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre okay so um the likelihood that every single parcel is going to be 12 units per acre is not necessarily the case it depends really upon how things uh develop out there um the other thing you had mentioned was the rpz and I just want a clarification on that um our our approach on this was that the site could be redeveloped with the with the existing um uses it could be reconfigured but as long as they kept the same uh footprint on it uh so I just want to clarify that it's if if as an example the Ocean State Job Lot site was going to be redeveloped that commercial they could break it up into two buildings it would have to meet the zoning as far as setbacks and stuff like that but um the resident IAL we're proposing that no residential would be in in the proposed rpz but as soon as uh as you show off of that there could be some units placed on there it depends on how the whole site works out though um is there um any other clarifications or um issues um Katherine hi Adam I just have a couple of questions um questions have come up to us regarding um the impact of the proposed zoning bylaw on infrastructure and considering what you've analyzed in terms of um the maximum buildout um were you also able to analyze how that whether or not that uh can be supported by existing infrastructure sewer water Etc sure if I may through the chair um that is not something that we looked at in particular for this particular analysis we we merely looked at how the sites uh could be redeveloped and what their maximum buildout could be um you know as you can see from the image on the screen right now there is definitely more um buildout at the site there's more buildings there's more square footage whether that be residential or commercial than what's out there right now and we only looked at you know uh five of the properties in the corridor here um there were definitely other ones um that could be built out even further um and those would yes likely you know require um additional services but we did not conduct an in-depth analysis regarding those matters okay thank you I've one more question go ahead um could you kindly review uh for me and for the board and the public the properties that you omitted based on your analysis that they are not likely to to be redeveloped in any manner in the foreseeable future could you review which properties those are and if you can give some reasoning behind that conclusion certainly through the chair if I may yes um hopefully you can see the the image on your screen now the slides and so you can see those particular Parcels uh that in yellow that we identified as not um likely to be red developed in the near future um we can start in the Northeast part of the study area um there are particular properties um can you see my cursor on here that I'm moving around yes little bit yeah we can a little bit so these two um sort of uh West um right here actually on the north side of of Main Street there these are properties that are owned by the town so the town controls them um they also have a conservation restriction on them this property up here um that has a conservation restriction on so for those particular properties it's for the foreseeable future you know uh they will likely not be redeveloped there's ways that they could potentially be down the road but um the probability of that is is very small There's You Never Say Never I mean there are certain actions that you know you can take you'd have to go to the state legis L legislature excuse me to you know take properties out of article 97 and items of that nature but those will most likely not be redeveloped um there are then these four properties at the end of the culdesac um which technically has a main street address these are Habitat for Humanity properties um that were then sold they were constructed in the near future on very small Lots um you know within the last five years they're likely not to be uh you know redeveloped um this property at the end of Welden way um that's has um that's within a resource areas um it's within the buffer Zona black Pond there um the Conservation Commission would have um you know uh strong jurisdiction over that in terms of Redevelopment what could occur there again it's not impossible but there are many her many many hurdles that would have to be cleared for that property to be redeveloped in an additional densely manner an additional dense manner this property on the east side of Welden way um this is currently five um apartment units there um based upon its existing or current acreage the proposed zoning will not allow more than five dwelling units at this property so the likelihood of this property being redeveloped is is basically zero because they already have the maximum number of dwelling units that they can have at this property uh moving to the west side of the study area here just north of the Ocean State Job blop property uh this is a a single family residential home right now it's located in the runway uh protection Zone um therefore no additional uh dwelling units can be added to this property so the likelihood of that being redeveloped in some manner is is very slim um also this small uh Square property on the west side of George Ryder Road just north of the gas station on the corner that is also in the runway protection Zone um a very small chance that that could be redeveloped again because um you can't add any residential units there but um that that is a commercial property it's taking up a lot of that site right now it could potentially be rehab but the likelihood of that being redeveloped not not very likely and talking with Town staff um it's our understanding that the gas station um would likely not be to redeveloped in the near future um pretty functional use in this area um but also some of the background we got from from town staff you know they just didn't feel that it was something that would you know turn over in the foreseeable future staying on the north side of Main Street in the Northwest part of the um study area this particular property um as we saw on earlier slides is controlled by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts um it's our understanding that this is being used for drainage purposes um also I think it goes down about 15 to 20 feet in its center it's basically a uh very large depression If This Were if the Commonwealth decided they didn't need this for drainage purposes which is highly unlikely um and they were going to dispose of it in some manner would take a substantial amount of uh fill and alteration to to redevelop that property in some manner so we just felt that that was not not very likely um transitioning um to George Ryder Road South um there's four uh properties that are located on it sort of Southeast side uh the southernmost property that is a um having conducted the site visit recently appears to to be a nearly completed large single family home um likely would not be redeveloped in the near future considering constructions almost complete there the next two properties on the east side of George Ryder Road South those are also uh newly constructed properties in the last few years uh they would likely not be torn down um for redevelopment purposes and then this uh commercial uh building along Main Street on the east side of George Ryder Road South um that is also parti within the runway protection Zone um so really only new commercial space could be created there looks like a pretty functional building um but again no new residential units can be constructed so the likelihood of that being you know redeveloped uh in full very slim and then if again if we move to the Northwest the same is true of those two properties along Main Street between George Ryder Road South and Marketplace um there they cannot have any new residential units there um they are operating as commercial properties now and so without the ability to add new units the likelihood that they'd be redeveloped in the near future is very slim as well and then we have two properties um at the extreme West End of the study area uh the first one is a um is a single family home on Marketplace um you know it's very viable I think it was constructed within the last 10 years so a little bit um a little bit a little old getting on the older side perhaps but still fairly new in terms of building so we just felt that was a very viable property that you know the likelihood and its orientation size of the parcel really wouldn't lend to it um creating additional dwelling units there or commercial purposes and then um under the proposed zoning this last sort of flag lot here um that parcel only has about 60 feet of Frontage um it doesn't meet the minimum Frontage requirements for the proposed zoning uh it's kind of tucked back um Behind these other properties has a lot of challenges to um new or Redevelopment there again not impossible it could potentially be combined with another uh piece of land on the outside of the study area but um for our intents and purposes we just didn't feel that that was something that would be redeveloped in the in the near future so that's kind of a general summary but happy to um you know answer any questions about any of these Parcels in particular thank you very much I appreciate the clarifications um Warren do you have any questions or Clarity you you're looking for well just to clarify um was any consideration given to the impact on the traffic flow in this area if it under a full build out buildout analysis through the chair if I may yes um please proceed the again this was uh traffic was not something that we looked at um as part of this analysis again anytime you're going to be you know adding density to an area whether that's commercial or residential units um there will likely be an increase in the amount of trips generated by those properties but that was not um part of our scope not something that we analyzed as part of this analysis um no other questions now thank you uh Charlene uh I have no questions or comments I look forward to having a potential Workshop to delve into this more y um Frank um I know I know this is a theoretical exercise just to see how much we can do by pushing the envelope and Etc um how many bedrooms would be in these units in other words is do we have an estimate of Summer Studios summer one bedroom summer two [Music] bedroom uh through the chair if I may uh please thank you um so um so definitely a good question um we looked at 1,000 uh square foot uh residential units for these particular properties um but we didn't look at number of bedrooms um the units could definitely be a little smaller than 1,000 square F feet you know they could definitely be a little larger um and depending on layouts you know you could have Studios you could have one beds you could add two beds um we did not get into that level of detail um we really just looked at uh sort of a rough estimate of a 1,000 squ foot residential dwelling unit um which we felt we you know which we felt was sort of in like a midsize you know sometimes units are smaller they can be around 600 750 square fet um or they can be larger and so that again would dictate um you know the number of dwelling units that could be put on a property but we did not look at um number of bedrooms within particular dwelling units um then then how did we come up with the number of parking places uh through the chair if I may again um please we took a a rough estimate so again uh parking spaces um you know depend on particular uh uses that are at properties so the proposed zoning calls for um at least you know one parking space per dwelling unit um so we took the tact in terms of residential um that a developer would come in trying to minim miniz the amount of parking spaces at a property so that they could maximize their potential buildout so for residential units we looked at one in terms of commercial uses um the ranges there's was quite a range you know when we analyze the zoning table uh some uses would only require one space um per square footage or per seeding or amount other uh uses required a higher parking requirement so we tried to use an average and so what we did is we said we were going to going to use three parking spaces for every 1,000 square ft of uh commercial development and the properties or excuse me the areas on the properties that are closest to Main Street they call for a maximum building Footprints of 3,000 square fet so a Main Street basically within 100 feet of that you can't do a building footprint larger than 3,000 square feet so um you know each building would would yield you know about nine parking spaces um each commercial space that would vary a little bit you know in some instances for example at the Ocean State Job blot property there are sections of that um parcel that are further enough farther enough away from Main Street where they might be able do a larger commercial building but again we were looking at um three parking spaces for every 1,000 square fet of commercial space as an estimate okay thank you just one last question if I may yes um actually I'm going to hold that question for okay another meeting I I I think you U raised a good point but for example if you have a restaurant there's probably going to be more parking spaces required and then if they put something like that in it will put a stress on any residential side to it so I think what is the combination that is selected and proposed for the site and how does that all work so I would say this is this is a good interesting assessment but every site's going to come in very different from from what we see but it's that the idea is is what is the impact if you propose this and if it went this way so it's a good question though Frank what what I'm what I'm assuming here is that they've asked that the residential units be maximized yeah which would uh minimize the amount of commercial commercial correct which may not be what actually happens right so okay uh and it's a question for us to actually raise too during the workshop um Bob dubis do you have any questions or Clarity you'd like uh no questions I think presentation was pretty good uh gives us a little eye opener about what you can can fit in there so save it till uh we have a little more info okay um Adam I just uh have one other um question if you have this information uh you assumed a maximum build out of 12 units per acre did you uh we also had another threshold in there of eight units per acre did you come up with a comparison buildout using that that figure uh Yes actually we did we did take a look at that the eight dwelling units per acre um and what we found is that based again based upon the properties that we felt would be uh redeveloped in the study area that would yield approximately you know give or take again 207 dwelling units um so again with the 12 dwelling units per acre we're estimating that would yield around 322 dwelling units and with eight dwelling units per acre this would yield around 207 units for the study era okay that that's a sign yeah that's a significant uh difference I think and it it could be some good um things for us to consider about where we go with this when we do the workshop um okay um I think at at this point um it's probably too early for any type of uh comments this is going to be out as a packet it'll be available to to the plan uh to the planning board members as well as to the public and I think at that Workshop that we would do next month that's where we should get into some of the Gres I think it was helpful just to get clarity of if we start here at this point and if we make adjustments based on the information we have uh where is it that we would want to go with this so I would like to defer any other um comments at this point until the November meeting that's all right with the board members okay all right next agenda item is the site plan Amendment for for 425 oh sorry Katie thank you thank you Mr chair I just wanted to say thank you to Adam and to Heather for all the work that they put into this and um you know we'll certainly be in touch again I think that there will be a um you know we'll work to schedule a workshop hopefully um before your next regularly scheduled meeting which is not until the end of November so we'll work together to try to find a common date that could work for you with as well as for Town Council um and again I just wanted to thank Adam and Heather from the BSE group they put a significant amount of work into this and I is is it your intent to also have uh the BC group representatives there if they're available we can certainly ask them to be if they're available on that day right thank you very much Adam thank you for your time all right let's go back to the site plan Amendment for 425 435 Main Street Street uh do I have a representative of the applicant here to explain the project good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Ron Rudnick this is a project that's actually been here before and approved previously uh at the moment uh there are two small Cottages uh behind the main building there 425 433 Main Street and our proposal which has been through the zoning board uh is to demolish both those Cottages uh and rebuild one in the uh southwest corner closest to um what used to be Christians um same number of bedrooms that exist on the site today U and uh as I say this has been to the zoning board and approved by them hbdc the uh now so the parking lot will be repaved and we have a drainage structure in the center of the parking lot which I think would pick up any uh drainage so I don't think there's any significant change proposed other than the fact that two buildings are going to be removed and one building is going to be replacing them okay um I think um Christine you put together some comments on this um HB and we receive some comments from some of the other departments in town that is correct um do you want me to go through what you received from the other departments or um well let me highlight a few things um the adequacy and re uh arrangement of circulation circulation patterns are similar to those found on the site now uh adequacy and arrangement of the pedestrian traffic again that's similar comment location Arrangement appearance of off off street parking and loading non-conformity reduced but not eliminated uh location Arrangement size design of the general site compatibility of buildings you said is a satisfied adequacy of storm water drainage no changes proposed I think that reflects also on the 2019 uh submission that and approval that we provided to adequacy and type arrangement of trees shrubs Etc additional buffer plannings to be installed near the formal dwelling location uh in the case of apartment complex which is what I proposed here um or other multiple dwellings the adequacy of usable open space open space areas are being updated I think with this proposal that actually creates more open space than what was the previous proposal right yeah um adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones is again it's a similar pattern um and the special attention to accuracy of structures roadways and Landscaping areas susceptible to ponding floody erosion cell that is a uh not an NA not applicable uh some of the the department comments the water department DPW um they want to cut cap and inspect for demo and any new uh infrastructure uh no comments on the water quality at the fire department no comments Building Commissioner uh 2019 uh zba approval has expired um there was an 8 222 24 approval is that the one that you were referring to in your comments right yes sir yeah okay uh nothing from the traffic committee police department at least one lane must remain open at all times on Main Street Conservation Commission um no jurisdiction Board of Health no comments historic business district uh the 2019 um commission approval expired on expired on 6524 approval um we we went again got reapproved sir you got reapproved on on June yes sir okay uh tree Warden no comment airport uh commission uh no jurisdiction and uh beaches and Recreation so um with that do uh any of the board members have any comments or questions on this uh C Katherine help um I actually don't think I have any questions um I actually think it's an improvement over the 2019 plan that you submitted um replacing because I think that kept the two buildings and it was a little tighter now you're replacing them with one building um just noting that the board does need to approve the waiver of the required parking spaces to nine parking spaces but that's as it stands um I don't think I have any other comments I think it's an improvement over the what was submitted in we think so so um uh Warren um yes I too I think it's a significant improvement over what is there already um I didn't see any a butter comments presented to the board and I wouldn't have expected there to be based on just my site uh inspection um I did have a couple of um um suggestions uh for input from the board with respect to conditioning perhaps on the construction um clearly uh the police department leaving one lane open at all times that's um that's kind of a bare minimum if you talk about construction going on in the middle of August having one lane open on Main Street um is uh a challenge um I'm not sure how we could condition that except but I'd ask for some input from my board fellow board members as to you might um restrict that yeah that might be a zba item too you have to go before zba again we already have that's always addressed in the zba of construction and we've already been through the zba sir yeah that's why I that's why I brought it up because it it didn't seem to come up um but another one might be you know restricting um a construction on the site between say Memorial Day and Labor Day um and or um deliveries I can't hear the comments so well I'm just asking my fellow board members for their consideration since I am not uh um experienced really in uh in what could be conditioned or what's appropriate but then also um you know the trash situation it was conditioned before I think that there be trash um facilities on site but that not visible from the from the road I actually didn't see any site uh any track crash at all so that probably ought to be conditioned again and and located on the site plan as to where it would be not visible from Main Street it's it is it's hiding in there if you say so I don't have strong enough glasses on for that um but um it's only those issues uh with conditions that might be considered to be uh and avoid what is uh likely to be a very difficult traffic pattern for material deliveries plus um um construction traffic during uh the busy summer season but I think it's a great project okay Charlene any comments um I imagine the parking Outback is primarily going to be for the employees of the store I mean honestly I never even knew there was a parking lot back there um so I'm assuming you know well there there are residents on the second floor in the main building also yep so it's primarily for the residents tell you the truth um because I was a little worried about you know the tightness of some of it back there but if it's going to be primarily for the people who are living there I don't think it's going to be a problem it's not like you're going to have cars coming and going looking for parking because they want a shop in the in the shops there um no I think this is far better than what was originally um reviewed and approved back in 2019 I actually tried to figure out if this was protected under the extension of the permits but you missed it by a little bit um yeah but no other than that I I have nothing okay thank you uh Frank Shear um well I've got a question I guess for Staff first of all and I think I know the answer but um I thought site plan approvals are not needed for single family houses this is this would not be considered single family because it's on a lot with other okay um residential structures so it would be considered mixed use mixed use thank you mixed use thank you um I we have a housing crisis in chadam and it's discouraging to see two units go for one unit uh it's not our Province to to really say much about that we just have to approve the site plan and your project clearly is far more attractive than what's what's there so I those some of cottages that are there now we use them just for j1's and hb2 yeah okay this is going to be a year out housing okay I'm sorry yeah and the same number of bedrooms same number of bedrooms that were on the site going back on the site okay all right that's it thanks thank you um B dubis any comments or questions a few comments I am I've known that this project ever since it was uh 20 years ago 35 35 years ago so um we approved I was here when we approved the other one uh which was a little tight and I think this is a much better proposal I think it'll work out well especially having a year round house there okay um then my only comment is is I I don't see any um proposed utilities to this new building I assume that you're going to be putting in you're going to have to put in new utilities um my comment would be current building has utilities and right the new building's going to have the same utilities I would like to see proposed utilities shown on plan okay I'm just make that a condition that's all sure there it's pretty straightforward but that's the purpose of a site plan to show especially for the planning board is what infrastructure are you placing and where are you putting it on your site and then an as built is associated with that not asking for that for the existing utilities I'm saying if those existing utilities are being purposed repurposed and reused that's fine instead of cutting in a cin you're actually going to reconnect fine but we want to know that U as part of the proposed plan and then as part of an as bill so that that's my only comment that I have I think it's definitely an improvement and what was before and I think it's it's a good plan to go forward with um let's uh discuss a little bit uh some of Warren's uh comments about whether we want to condition that Mr Mr chairman if I may please so the zoning board of appeals um did speak up please Katie oh sorry the zoning board of appeals did condition that um all construction activity in vehicle shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner and also that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 am and 5:00 P p.m only so the zoning board of appeals did address I think most of if not all of Mr um Mr James conern I think that addresses the couple of comments that you had War okay well with that um then we should uh uh take a vote on can I ask for a clarification absolutely do you want to see a revised plan showing the utilities or do you just want to see them if there are new utilities put on the asilt plan I just want to put it on on the well I I would like to see the plan as as a part of the proposed well they have to show that for the when they get their building permit anyway right so have have them filed it with our with our uh planning board office too yes I that's the only uh addition I would like to put on any the conditions so um the board should take a vote on uh the amended site plan and change of use you want to vote on the waiver of the parking first well that's interesting because I I did talk about this a little bit and it was approved previously for nine spaces so I'm not sure they pardon me but they didn't build it so this is kind of new yeah well I was going back and forth on this so um um as far as I'm concerned we can go ahead and do a waiver first um down to nine spaces that would be fine at least that would clarify this if the board has no problem with that we can do that first in that case I would move that the planning board authorize a waiver of the required parking spaces to nine parking spaces second um with that uh I take a vote Katherine helper I approve waren chain waren chain approve approve Charlene Greenhall Charlene greenal approve uh Frank Sher Frank Sher I approve Bob DUIs Bob DUIs approve and arts spruit I approve so that we'll go back to um approving an amended site plan for the change of use with the conditions defined uh the proposed conditions that were um listed in in the summary and we're adding one associated with the utilities um for the proposed and and NZ Bill plan Mr chairman I would vote that or move that we approve the amended site plan with the conditions as outlined um for the proposal to demolish the two existing dwellings as identified above and replace one structure with the proposed three-bedroom house because the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to the protective zoning bylaws with the conditions as we outlined I second the motion um thank you um let's take a vote Katherine helper I approve Warren chain waren chain approve Charlene greenal Charlene greenal approve Frank Shear I approve Bob dubis Bob dubis approve and art Brew I approve thank you very much thank you thank you okay next item on the agenda is site plan review for 81 Depot Road uh Clark engineering David are you going to present uh good evening David Clark Clark engineering on behalf of the jodes um we were here a couple of months ago for the preliminary um the board asked for some clarifications um one being drainage calculations so we've we provided drainage calculations um so with with the I think that was pretty much it but with the project is uh Mr janod or the janod own the fish Pier Market um that building is entirely in the flood plane um they were a couple years ago looking at trying to get a little more storage on that property and given that it's uh uh any change at that building would require a variant um they look to get stored somewhere else uh the genoes have owned 81 for a while now and so they saw an opportunity to uh get the storage they need on this property and provide some sheltered parking for their tenants so there are two units in that in in that uh number 81 and we're providing um two first floor parking spaces in this garage Barn uh if you call it and then the second floor be dedicated to storage uh for um basically packaging goods and and things associated with the fish Beer Market um we're also showing a bathroom um basically a powder room for for whatever whoever is there from the fish Beer Market uh rather than going somewhere else uh have a small bathroom there but primarily the second floor is just dry storage um we're showing a total of five parking spaces um four required for the two residential units we only need one parking space uh for employee to get materials or drop materials off um additional utilities that are required um we're required to uh connect to the municipal sewer uh we're also providing a uh water service from uh Depot and uh electric uh and maybe Communications uh will run from the existing building to the back building um right now there are no storm water controls for the existing parking area the gravel parking area and driveway we're proposing a trench drain across the face of those uh two garage doors leading to a leech pit um the parking right now is is very close to the part property line on the east side uh this will improve and improve that setback and actually meet the setback now where it was non-conforming before uh no trash will be generated from this uh if the if there is a small amount uh the employee will either take it with them or keep a refuge container on the second floor or first floor the structure no dumpsters needed because it's highly unlikely they're going to generate enough trash to to Warrant something like that uh as far as exterior lighting uh there will be down downfacing Lighting on each corner of the building in front of the on the parking side and then there's one pass door on the east side will have a small scon on on the side of the door um and that's about it okay um Christine you put together some comments on this I'll just try to summarize this um I'll go through the criteria the adequacy and arrangement of the vehicle traffic this is a minimal changes to patterns who occur you head in here proposed materials for parking area not identified but I thought I saw on the plan that you are going with some gravel or something like that for the parking stone stone it's going to remain perious okay so that and I think that was identified on the plan uh adequacy arrangement of pedestrian traffic was set ified location arrangement of appearance and of off street parking proposed parking are materials now again they are so that's satisfied location Arrangement and size design of the general site compatibility of buildings that was satisfied advocacy of storm water drainage that was incorporated in the design so that's satisfied adequacy of the water supply and sewage disposal uh the both Town services so that's satisfied adequacy and type arrangement of trees shrubs etc for landscaping that was satisfied in the case of the apartment complex or other multiple dwellings the advocacy of usable open space and that was satisfied more lawn area provided protection of adjacent or neighboring properties uh overall parking area has been reduced so that has been satisfied uh adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency routs that's uh not applicable for this and special attention to the accuracy of structures roadways and Landscaping in the areas susceptible to pounding pling and erosion that is satisfied um there were no real comments from any of the uh different departments uh Conservation Commission said there was no jurisdiction and Airport commission responded with no jurisdiction uh oh Board of Health both have common I have to dig down on my paperwork to find it yeah the proposed Barn will uh with storage over over this property is connected to the municipal and will require connection to the property sewer line I have no concerns about the project okay with that um uh comments from the questions from the board um Katherine hper um I just wanted actually to ask you about Christine's comment um as requested by the planning board at the pre-meeting a full grading and drainage plan with calculations was submitted for this review the formal narrative referred to by the engineer has been requested for completion of this application process but has not been received to date so I want to ask you if you are satisfied with what's been submitted I was satisfied with it because it's pretty straightforward and simple uh design just capture it and infiltrate it okay good I I did provide a narrative oh you did okay right it was not um okay he it was I when he responded to my questions I should say and he did answer them okay great I'm not sure why it's not in the packet or why okay okay no thank problem thank you so much and I'm just could you David just um on your site plan you note that seven parking spaces are provided could you just use the pointer and show me where those seven are on the screen five outside two inside though two inside okay great great um I don't really have any other questions okay thank you Warren any comments questions uh no questions uh Charlene I just had a question actually of Staff just I want to clarify for myself on the possible board vote um the it says to approve the amended site plan it should just be site plan right cuz it's not an amended site plan that is correct okay cut and pting always does that that is that it that's all I had oh okay uh Frank any comments question um just just a comment and a question um uh David's letter indicates that no fish or shellfish related food items would be stored above the garage um would that be a concern for us if if it were I'm not sure if it's I don't believe it's related to a site plan right so I don't think it's all right that's I mean it's information but it doesn't affect our site plan review or approval okay thank you uh Bob DS comments questions David I got a couple of questions for you you say you're going to have a bathroom up there yep that's it that's it okay why don't you piggy back the water off the house you know what it's going to cost to put the water across the street there it's deep too I know it so piggy back the water we might do that and and if you needed if if usually the landlord pays for the water if he's not paying for it just double meter it would be a lot less money the same with the sewer is the sewer connection amend amendable to the house sewer it's not um well what about what about putting a pit with a with a and pump it from the back with a trash can pump or a little bigger pump you don't it's only a bathroom David yeah you know what it's going to cost to put the SE in I know because I'm going to do it across the street it is very expensive you can buy 100 trash can pumps for what going to cost well we have to use an E1 no you don't my instructions are you have to use an E1 it's not you don't well I'm going to tell you you don't have to this little big thing and I'm wait a minute even if you have to use an E1 David yep it's it's probably a quarter of the cost of putting a uh hole in the in the in the road well we're we're not doing that now we just put the sewer in right I know how de it is it uh we'll be we'll be connecting right at the property line so we where we show it going out to the main on Depot uh DPW responded and and said they want us to use the existing condition uh existing connection all right um so we we need to as we come up the driveway we need to take a left and and right at the property line we'll be putting in a manhole you're attacking serious serious money to dig that road up they don't want their AC main touched because it they don't want the AC main touched well it's going to be it's going to be from across the street yeah but anyway all right those are my own comments I just hate to see you waste waste money when there's an alternate way to to uh relieve the pressure especially for a garage we're trying to save the retaining wall that would be nice so that was the reason to go straight to the street I'm sure you can figure that out David It's Only Money so I assume you don't want to put any conditions on associated with that no that's that's a lot of lobster you RS you have to sell believe me they are very good all right um my only comment is uh we probably should add our standard condition on a cut off designed for light light fixtures um oh no there isn't I don't see one here it's it's just one of our normal conditions fix yeah they should have been I mean he's proposing them but we usually try to put that in anyway in our it's part of our I agree with that we should put it in anyway yeah yeah so uh with that uh if the board would like to vote for uh an improve the site plan for 81 Depot Depot Road with our standard conditions at outlined um with the lighting added right yeah yeah with the with the cut off lighting added as an additional uh condition M Mr chairman I would uh move that we approve the site plan with conditions as outlined for the proposal um to Dem to demo demolish the existing shed and construct a new two car garage with storage above because the application meets the necessary requirements and criteria for approval pursuant to protect bylaws with the conditions as outlined do I have a second I'll second Frank Sher um Katherine hurn I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve uh Charlene greenal Charlene greenal approve uh Frank Shear Frank Shear I approve Bob dubis Bob dubis approve and art sprw I approve thank you thank you you can you can say there David you're up next uh uh yes site plan review again for 166 Depot Road yeah I think all right uh David Clark again Clark engineering on behalf of monoy community services and Bill attorney Bill Lichfield as well and Teresa Malone who runs the joint uh is here also um so this is we were here again a couple of months ago uh for the preliminary um what they're what they're looking to do is had a couple of renovate the building uh small addition on the each side uh removal of the front entry and and the construction of a new front entry rebuild the deck and uh which was and the last thing which was not on the preliminary is uh rebuilding the walkway out to uh Depot Road um the uh there are no storm water controls on the property now uh we're proposing uh to add uh two in two areas to take care roof runoff from the additions uh there are there is no on-site parking now uh what we've added to the plan since the last time and showing the municipal parking across the street um there are 20 plus spaces what we don't show are uh parking spaces in front of uh the old George Skipper residents uh that's to the northeast of our property um there are no it's not proposed to add any staff as part of this renovation so there's six existing staff members and uh and so we did provide a parking calculation I think that was something that was asked for uh at the preliminary stage um and that's about it um we're not proposing any Landscaping uh no additional Landscaping in that we want the yard space available for for the kids uh so we don't want to uh add a lot of plantings to this I don't believe any are required in that uh we have one residence uh to the east but that's really the one the skipper house to the north uh but it's it's primarily all it is Municipal on on three sides of the property so uh um if there's any questions on the engineering plan happy but Bill's here to to talk about other things well if I could thank you David please go ahead Bill thank you Mr chairman member of the board bill litfield here behalf of MCS I saw the the staff report late this afternoon and I spoke with Theresa Malone about it and in fact because the chadam Children's Fund will be joining us in the building there will be some additional people involved but only seasonally uh the chattam Children's Fund has volunteers coming in and uh post Labor Day uh prior to the Christmas season but MCS has been on the site for a half a century uh has always been uh Cooperative with the town the town is cooperative with it in terms of the parking across the street uh Municipal parking and for that matter the parking right on Depot I uh have had conversations with Katie as to which a fact to which is the res illusion in the staff report uh while we are covered by the do Amendment we're perfectly happy to go through uh the review through which we're going now um and we think we have given the special circumstances to the degree that parking is required uh we we match a couple of the examples of cases where exceptions can be granted in waivers such as the use of a common parking lot age or other character istics uh very few of mcss children Drive uh they're PR primarily non-driving uh and we also have what the B refers to refers to as peculiarities of use which uh render usual measurements of demand invalid so I hope that you can find the site plan sufficient for your approval David and I or Teresa would be happy to answer any questions well Katie um I wanted to ask you about um the do Amendment and the applicability for this site yes um so Mr chairman so we we don't have a a formal opinion from Town Council though in an email he did um indicate that he does um that he said he did some research and that it's clear that they are a nonprofit educational Corporation um and so he said that we would go through a you know sort of limited site plan approval um and they'll still be required to do their special permit through the zoning board of appeals but okay um but those are um those were his initial comments so but it it is a do protected use that's a good question um do we need to formally wave the parking on this I think you could at this point in time I think it would be beneficial for any future expansion that they may want to do it would it would it would show that it's already been done yeah is is if uh a Dober Amendment fully applied the parking wouldn't even be a consideration would it for I think you can look at reasonable regulation so I think that it I think it would be beneficial to do the waiver all right um well maybe what I'll do is start with just board comments because I didn't see much in the in the comment letter from uh from staff um Katherine you have any comments questions thank you Mr chair um just a suggestion that since uh we are doing a limited site plan review but parking is usually considered in that I would propose that we formally vote on waving the parking in this case as part of our site plan review and otherwise I have no questions thank you thank you uh Warren um I don't think I have any questions either and as for parking I may have no parking spaces but I think of all the places in town that I've ever driven by uh there's fewer parking issues along Depot Road in front of this facility than anywhere else I've been so I'm very much in favor of a waiver um Charlene what Warren said okay Frank sh I agree Bob dubis any comments questions I only have positive comments for this place okay um I just need I just want understand one of the things that you noted on your plan um I don't really have any comments or questions but on the rear of the building you say proposed first and second floor addition um I'm not quite sure are you proposing an addition in rear to it's a it's on it's a second floor Edition oh it's a second floor Edition okay got it all right I got the plan well unless there's any other comments or questions are the conditions that we had stated so far I guess that's all we really oh we're going to go with the waiver first Mr chairman I would move that we wave the parking entirely for this um limited site plan I second that motion okay thank you um I'll take a vote uh Katherine I approve Warren chain Warren chain approve all charene Greenhall I'll approve Frank Shear approve Bob dubis I'll approve and art spu I approve uh now we should take a vote on to approve the site plan with uh the general conditions that are outlined in our report Mr chairman I move that we approve the limited site plan I move that we approve the limited site plan um with the standard conditions for the proposed addition to this educational use bill I second that motion thank you um I'll take a vote uh Katherine I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve Charlene Greenhall approve Frank Shear I approve Bob dubis Bob DUIs approve art breu and I approve thank you very much thank you Mr chair can I have a have a one question based on the last uh right ahead thank you um this is the second time i' since I've been on that the do amendment has come up and it's not entirely clear to me what how it's limited versus a regular review um and I'm wondering whether you know we have a list of criteria that we go through this this chart and it would be nice to know which ones apply don't apply and maybe we could have a a chart for do Amendment proposals which is different from from this I I don't know makes no problem with that um I I think a lot of it is subjective to uh depending on what what is actually being proposed I mean there was almost no site plan approvals improvements on this particular one in my opinion so I agree this is just for the future and the do says reasonable yeah yeah what's reasonable yeah um Katherine maybe you can clarify I'll just comment that that um in the past when we've had site plans come before us where we've been able to uh put it through Town Council and get a definitive answer that the do Amendment does apply usually we've had in our packet a copy of the do Amendment plus um some interpretation as to what we should be looking at or should not be looking at Vis V that particular site plan so I think in this case um Town Council indicated that the do Amendment could apply but we didn't get a full definitive answer which is perhaps why we didn't get you know the the full documentation um but in general as I recall it's we don't we generally don't look at drainage and ask for all of those details um it is the language isn't highly specific as I recall but it the word reasonable is used and we do look at maybe parking and um pedestrian and vehicular circulation just to make sure that safety is covered um but we don't look at the more um but it would be helpful to have that set up absolutely yeah well I'll put that on you Christine if you could include that in our packets when we have this apply we can do that going forward we um didn't receive the uh letter saying that this was the direction that they were going to um pursue this until like toward the end of last week so um that's when Katie got it and we were working around town council's um time away and a couple of other things that were going on but going forward you will have it yeah um I think the last time we ran into this is the uh the solar panels on the church property at 137 yeah and actually the Nickerson Barn was it okay I I had to recuse myself because it's behind me okay all right so um next we have uh preliminary subdivision plans for 155 Bridge Street this is Eastward companies Mr chairman I believe Susan Leo is online yeah okay I am hello and I believe David Clark is still uh with us also I don't know if Mr Riley is but he has been involved with this project but just quickly I'll quickly go over David Clark for the record and Bill's on his way up okay so so you want to start then Susan it's all I'll yeah I'll present my um the letter that I wrote to the board and uh this is a preliminary subdivision filing and the subject property is located in the R40 Zone and is a total of 2.83 Acres with 330 29 ft of Frontage on Bridge Street and we're proposing to divide the property into two building Lots Lot 8 is a 1.81 acre 79,000 ft lot with a buildable UPL of 33,000 ft and 294 ft of Frontage on Bridge Street and lot nine is being proposed as a panhandle lot and it's 1.02 acre 44450 square ft with a buildable Upland of 32350 ft and 3629 ft of Frontage on Bridge Street the pan handle portion of the lot is 35 ft wide and just over 90 ft long with a proposed 11 foot wide pav driveway to provide access from Bridge Street and both Lots meet the circle shape requirement and I'll just add uh we did go to the Board of Health on September 23rd and they approved the preliminary subdivision plan I don't know if David or Bill want to add anything to the presentation but thank you uh David Clark for the record uh we do know that uh the board will be looking for additional information on the definitive plan primarily drainage for the plant pan and utilities for the Panhandle and trees um on the property uh there not many trees left um if you've been watching what's happening out there uh we we did have a uh a zoning board of appeals approval to build a house on this property as well as uh we still have conservation approval to build a house on this property and part of the conservation process was uh was uh mitigation for the house uh or the houses and um that what uh blue fla design proposed was a removal a lot of invasive trees um pretty much the entire Upland of the property is is non-native uh uh silver leaves um and uh so there was a eradication program that was started uh and most of them were removed and uh the Northeast uh storms took the rest um there are some trees along the easterly property line which I said we will show on the definitive plan um but I believe most of the vegetation on that easterly property lines are the same invasive that or uh throughout the rest of the property but again we'll show uh significant trees uh within the Panhandle and if there are any within the building envelopes of this property okay um one of the comments that um um Christine um provided I think is important to to read the board may wish to impose a condition on a definitive subdivision plan when it is submitted that states following Lots 8 and nine shall not be conveyed into separate ownership until such time that the existing tennis court which currently spans both proposed Lots as removed to comply with setback requirements of the protective bylaw so uh can we can we get a copy of that please since we haven't seen it certainly um so uh also stated that the proposed driveway and a panhandle of law 9 is proposed to be 11 ft width uh proposed Lot 8 appears to have an existing turn on location that has not been identified as a proposed driveway um uh it should be noted that the proposed lot has a construction and maintenance easement along it uh on it along its southernmost boundary with Bridge Street East uh from the Mitchell River for approximately 90 ft I yes though all those items were shown on your preliminary plan um this again is preliminary we're looking for information is um on what we're seeking on the definitive plan on this so if there's any comments or questions associated with board members uh okay cine we'll start with you um can you show me where this proposed the access to Lot 8 and the proposed turn I'm just having trouble seeing it um typically we don't show new driveways for conforming one it's usually just the panh handle there's an but there are two curb Cuts uh that serve that used to serve trouble seeing it that's it okay yep so there are two driveway cuts for that line okay great great um other than that I think besides this sentence about um uh Lots 8 and N shall not be conveyed into separate ownership until such time that the existing tennis court be removed I think that should be added to the plan but it it is indicated that the plan is to remove the tennis court is that correct it has to be removed it's a Zing violation that's why it can't be conveyed till the tennis court okay all right other than that I have no questions you agree Council I do agree um or Ching you have comments questions I don't have any questions uh Charlene Greenhall uh no questions uh Frank Shear no questions Bob dubis David I have a question they say you have a 35 foot Panhandle lot yeah what's the legal what's the legal uh uh width on on a panhandle the minimum is 20 feet 20 feet yeah okay we've been bumping it up I think it should I should think it should be because of of the utilities that now have to go up and down it it should be a little water yeah yeah we're planning on maybe sewer being available in the next half century and uh it would be nice to have that extra R maybe we'll see well we make it over 30 ft so we can add the area no that's the right idea build aable up that's the right idea thank you I have no Pro no uh no questions on it okay and um my only uh comment is um I'd like to see more detailed information on Bridge Street um with pavement uh underground overhead utilities if you're going to be connecting to them and serving those lights uh just provide a little bit more information on your Defender plan so the only other thing I would say is um in your report it says to approve but what it should say is accept because this is so sure of that that's good so okay um with that we should the board should take a vote to accept um I'm sorry I misunderstood what Katie said it is to approve the it is to approve the preliminary okay then that's what we'll do Mr chairman I move that we approve the preliminary subdivision plan um for 155 Bridge Street in chatam Mass um as presented do I have a second I second that motion okay we'll go for a vote um Katherine Halper I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve Charlene Greenhall approve Frank Shear approve DUIs B DUIs approve and arts sprw I approve thank you thank you thank you sorry for that confusion okay uh we have another preliminary subdivision 104 cwl road do I have an applicant oh okay if you'd like to introduce your project to us yeah good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Ron rodnick the uh this is uh the former Roy misseri accounting office and Robin Turner Insurance those of us who' have been around a while uh the uh the you know the proposal is as as shown here they convert it into uh three building Lots uh we have a tentative agreement uh still under consideration to acquire a strip of land from the drama Guild uh that's not yet concluded but we anticipate it will be uh and so we have a panhandle lot to the rear and two lots that comply with current zoning on the front there'll be three building Lots any anything else Bill no okay I just wanted to make sure you were finished that's all well it's one of those things try to show up here and do what the surveyor is doing I'm not very good at it okay um let me just take a look at the comment letter yeah again we don't have a I don't know why we don't get a copy of the comment letter before we show up here excuse me I um I didn't realize that the comment letters went out to the um applicants Representatives so going forward that will be done I was told that today I can give you an overview of my concerns if you'd like that I think that might be best um yeah so what I would say is first of all I know that I had spoken to the surveyor he came into the office the other day um he is proposing to do the anr with the um AB budding lot um at a future date um they want to as as I'm understanding it the applicant wants to go forward and subdivide this lot first um with Lot 25 being or proposed Lot 25 being a um a non-conforming lot no we're not we're not going to do anything until we have our deal set with right the drama guilt so this what we're going to do is discuss this we're going to ask for a continuance okay okay all right well excuse me I like to just talk I'm not quite sure you need a continuance this is just a preliminary no I understand that but the uh uh okay well I think what I would prefer to have happen is for you to do the the an anr piece of it first obviously if you get you know your piece all if you get all accepted or the deal or else come followed with both pieces together okay I understand this is not really what I want to do doing this for protection I really want to build multiple dormitories and I might go for zoning change okay that's what I really do I want to make hb2 we need Zone I need people to live in this town but I am buying this to protect it but really what I want to do is put H2S and j1's which which I do all over our company does this is not what I really do but I need to deal with the banks and I need to deal with the protection and so this is what I'm doing right now and if I can't get the approvals with the town this is what I'll end up with well I'm I'm confused now are are you asking for a continuance on this or would you like us to proceed no proceed with this proceed with this yeah all right right then uh let's let's go through the board comments then first on this um Katherine uh I guess I'm I agree that I think the anr should be done first this is a preliminary subdivision review so all we're really doing at this meeting is to give you our feedback as to what we need to see on the uh formal subdivision uh approval yeah definitive subdivision approval um you've got this issue of the anr that you want to do later but I agree with our planner and I believe I our chair is also in agreement that you really should do the anr first and then we can look at the um definitive subdivision um plan um I'm a little confused about what you just said that this is not really what you want to do that you're going to want to do something else but will you still keep this subdivision plan in place no if I get what I no this is not what I really do okay but I'm buying the property with the and I have to you know deal with values what I really want to do is come and do a zoning change this town doesn't allow us to build what I want to build right okay I build j1's and hb2 I build dormitories and we can't build dormitories in this town you everybody says we need help for a places think we have no places okay and everybody keeps talking about it and nobody does anything so so this is what I prefer doing but if I can't get approvals I'll end up with this so you do want to take this subdivision this proposed subdivision plan through yes yes okay all right so my only comment would be that I agree that we should do the anr should be accomplished first and then we should take a look at the definitive subdivision plan okay okay uh Warren you have any comments questions um I don't have anything to add to that uh Charlene uh no I I agree that um prior to the submitt of a definitive plan the approval not required plan should be completed first but otherwise I've got no questions or comments okay Frank Sher um my only comment is whether we have authority to do that and I I agree it would be preferred but um I mean if theyve if they've submitted a proposal it meets all of the requirements whether we can say no you got to go do something else first we're not saying that what are you saying what what we're saying is that we would approve this plan as presented yes but before they come in with a definitive plan do the approval not required plan to get that little sliver so that they can complete it as right is that your understanding complete subdivision yeah very good okay good uh Bob DS any comments questions no I think uh my my only thing is if we did go ahead with this plan I'd like to see a little wider Panhandle only for the utilities but other than that I have no problem thank you very much and uh I don't I don't have any um comments or questions so with that um BGE uh should U move on to take a vote for approval of the preliminary subdivision plan for 10 for our well so moved um there is a suggested condition in the um staff report about not conveying separate ownership oh we don't know that have to happen anyway good point the Lots 23 24 and 25 shall not be conveyed in separate ownership until such time that existing structure is demolished if granted in the historic business district commission and a special permit is granted for the proposed residential structures is granted by the zoning board of appeals think you delete the second is granted there was a cut in PAC but it goes without saying just like the prior right with the um tennis court they have to remove that building before they can right um convey it okay it's The Zing zoning violation otherwise but but we did include that condition in the other one this one right no we didn't no it's on the paperwork doesn't doesn't apply to us yeah and and also this is a preliminary plan we're actually not locked into anything we say during a preliminary review because the board could change completely or we could change our minds and require something different so anyway I'll second her motion okay so we're going to go on with Charlene's motion and Bob second all right with that um have a vote Katherine H I approve the preliminary subdivision plan for 104 croll Road as presented um Warren chain Warren chain approved uh Charlene Greenhall Charlene greenh Howers approved despite the look I got from Mr Riley uh Frank Sher Frank Shar approved and uh Bob dewis can I think about it yeah no I approve and art that was a friendly that was a friendly look thank you good night see you tomorrow okay uh last last item is the bond release for 225 Middle Road and I think Bob you need to recuse yourself uh could you introduce yourself and uh yep uh for the record my name is Nathan Collins director of engineering with NEX grid um and as noted we are here requesting uh certificate of compliance and bond release for the solar array at 22 five um Middle Road um I don't have I don't have I don't have too much to add we've worked extensively with the building department fire department um planning department on addressing kind of a small list of pous items uh since our last meeting uh we received a plan Amendment uh just showing that and provided as bu showing that we're in compliance with those plan amendments so um okay um Christine I'd like you to uh just go into the background a little bit about this um decommissioning Bond I think you had it back and forth on this so could you clarify for us about this I think it's appropriate in this particular case if Katie does it we re we received some counsel this afternoon so sure so we go from there so I believe if you recall uh the applicant was before you I think it was at the last meeting to um have some revisions done to the to the plan that they had originally presented um we have received um information that they have completed all of the items that needed to be completed so they are looking for a certificate of compliance and a bond release in your packet um through conversations that we had had with the applicant they were proposing to potentially replace the decommissioning bond with an escrow agreement um it's been since decided that that's not the way that they would prefer to go just because the timing the timeline that that would take for them to be able to do so and so they do have um a decommissioning bond in place um that they would like to continue on with um we have had our Town Council our new Town Council review that he has some suggested edits to that however we don't feel that because there is a decommissioning bond in place uh we don't feel that there's any reason why we would not um move forward with a bond release and uh release of the statement of conditions and certificate of compliance at tonight's meeting um we feel pretty confident that we can um make any changes needed and if the changes aren't agreed to the decommissioning bond that's currently in place will remain in place okay all right thank you for that clarification um I like to ask the board members if they have any other questions or comments on this Katherine Halper uh I don't have any questions I do recall from the last meeting that we wanted you to submit an asilt with the the changes that were approved by the the board and that we're already in place and is it correct that that as built has been submitted yes yes the ad built was submitted and the um verification of the plantings and all of the missing components were thank you were confirmed yes and so what we're approving tonight is the um release of the statement of the certification of compliance for the statement of conditions and the release of the construction Bond that's of 250,000 and the issues that you were bringing up were in relation to the decommissioning bond um but we are satisfied that that remains in place that's correct mad okay great thank you no other questions uh Warren Jan no those things I I want to clarified that's been done thank you right uh Charlene Greenhall I'm good now okay Frank sh okay my only question is is um the vote should that include the release of the construction shity buy because I don't see that here in the U yes it should that was the item on your agenda so the construction bond is as somebody had pointed out $250,000 so decommission the board should vote to consider issuing a certificate of compliance with the statement of conditions except the escrow agreement which will serve to replace the currently held decommissioning sh we're not doing that're not so it should be um that the board um issue the certificate of compliance with the statement of conditions and release the construction Bond um interest and full and any portion that the board deems appropriate at this time okay so you make that motion yes I do okay do I have a second Warren chain a second okay and we'll take a vote uh Katherine helper yes I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve uh Charlene greenhous Charlene greenh approve Frank Sher Frank Shar approve and art sprew I approve thank you very much um I think we're at the end of our agenda it was a long one I appreciate Kudos this was with the heavy agenda that we had this went very smoothly and well very I moved to a chur and chair I second that okay we'll take we'll take a vote Katherine I approve Warren Warren chain approve Charlene approve Frank Frank approve and Bob DUIs this is to to adjourn I do approve you sure Arts bre I approve and that uh the time is uh 650 am I do I have that right yes 650 thank you [Music] no it just I we should I mean they should [Music]