e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] good evening and welcome to the town of chadam planning board meeting for March 25th 2024 my name is Katherine helper I'm chair of the planning board of the town of chadam uh and this meeting uh is being conducted in a hybrid format both in person and with remote access uh I'll also mention that this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly Hereafter for scheduled and OnDemand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify us I'll give you a few seconds in case you're connected remotely all right there being none we'll go ahead uh as I mentioned this is a hybrid meeting and I'll read a few points about that 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 suspend ending certain provisions of the open meeting law gl30 a20 until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chadam planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while it's in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 and the conference ID number is 5331 95598 pound or you may join the meeting online using Microsoft teams through the link that's in the agenda that's posted on the town website while this is a live broadcast and simal cast on chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access and as I mentioned we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible and just to mention we did have some internet issues earlier today um so uh again in if we do lose uh remote access we are in person here at the Town an Annex and the meeting will continue and we will will post a record of the meeting on the town's website as soon as possible uh so let's take a roll call of board members art spru Arts sprw present Warren chain Warren chain present Bob wter Bob warter present Charlene greenhalge Charlene greenhalge present great and we're happy you're present Frank Sherer present uh and Bob dupus Bob dubis present and this is Katherine Helper and I'm also present are there any board members I can't really see any matters but who would need to recuse themselves from any matters there's nothing actually that's reusable on the agenda tonight all right so then let's go to our minutes from February 26th are there any changes or Corrections additions to the minutes uh there being none may I have a motion to approve the minutes as drafted Madam chair I move approval may I have a second thank you Frank has seconded so let's do a vote art sprew art sprew approved War chain approved Bob wter Bob wter approved Charlene greenhalge Charlene greenhalge approved Frank Sherer approved and Bob dubis Bob dubis approve and this is Katherine helper I also approve so uh next item on our agenda is to continue uh reviewing and uh considering our long range planning efforts and the first item is the West chadam neighborhood center and I believe included in your packets is a copy with the uh draft language integrated that was drafted for us by Cape cot commission to address uh the open issues in the draft bylaw which were uh involving certain unintended consequences that we wanted to uh keep uh uh to regulate uh they have been reviewed by Town Council and integrated in the draft uh this is I know that you received this just shortly before the meeting so what we thought we do tonight is just an initial review and we'll have more time to go more deeply into it um at our next meeting but I think Katie did you want to go through some of the points with the board sure thank you madam chair so um as the chair mentioned um the draft language was worked on by the Cape Cod Commission our staff from the Cape Cod Commission as well as uh myself and our housing sustain and sustainability director Gloria mcferson um we have reviewed uh the language with Town Council um you may recall that initially Town Council had suggested that we come up with specific special permit criteria to deal with the year- round restrictions however uh when we created additional language um especially within the um density section um the language was prescriptive enough that Town Council did not feel that we needed additional special permit criteria and as we go through I'll I'll point out in section four language that he added um specific to do that so I think what we're hoping is that we are um fairly close on language um for dealing with the yearound deed restrictions um for the density bonuses specifically so if you give me just a moment I will share my screen and then I'll just walk through um the new language okay so I'm happy to answer questions as we go along or um you can save your questions till the end if you have any but I'll just begin looks good let's go home we're laughing but to be honest when Katie and I spoke earlier this today I had the same reaction but let's go through it I don't I don't expect that it'll take too long but um just so for the board's um information but as well as for the Public's or PE folks that may be watching Along on channel 18 um so under the purpose um there was an additional um Point added which would be to provide a mechanism by which residential development can contribute to year- round housing in the west chadam neighborhood center by require requiring market rate units permitted through density bonus Provisions by special permit to include units that are deed restricted for years around use um in section two under applicability uh we actually struck a sentence from there it just it didn't seem necessary it's something that we do anyway so it was just we thought it would be um a it's a little cumbersome so we decided to strike that let's see so under section four under procedure you'll see um specifically in the blue section this is language that was added by Town Council and so after the first sentence where it calls out the planning board being the special permit granting Authority it also States special permits shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this section as well as the general special permit criteria set forth in Section 8 C4 of this bylaw so those are the general um special permit criteria that all special permits um need to meet yes K just a question on that um assuming that there's a disagreement and there's an appeal to a special permit decision by this board um is it clear what that procedure is and and is the planning board the um determinant of the appeal and if so is that appropriate I guess no typic typically I mean the planning board would be the special permit granting Authority so any um decision that would be appealed it would be appealed the same way a zoning board special permit would be appealed and that would be through Superior your court oh out of the Town completely so that's clear if you just know that it's the same procedure as as if we were not the special permit granting Authority good thank you okay any other questions regarding section 4 okay so then we did add a a few definitions um first um and again please note that the definitions here um are used specifically the for the West chatam Neighborhood Center um so in this case attainable housing would be a dwelling unit reserved in perpetuity for a household earning 80 to 125% of area median income for Barnstable County as adjusted by size of household and again although other there may be attainable housing definitions that may go up to 200% for this specific bylaw um this would be up to 125 and I think that was a request made by the planning board um a number of months ago um we also chose to change primary building to Frontage building and those are the buildings that will be fronting along 28 or along another way um and we just thought it was a little bit more clear for the folks that will actually be interpreting this bylaw in the future um so you'll see that change throughout um throughout the bylaw can I I'm just worried that the 125 isn't high enough okay what does a what does a a fireman make and and as you know two two working PE uh people could easily be above 125 and I don't know that that was our intent to to make it just what I would say is moderately moderate income own I don't know I'm just asking where that 125 came sure and so at our the next meeting uh we plan to discuss this again on April 22nd and at that meeting uh we've asked housing and sustainability director Gloria mcferson to be um in attendance and we can ask that question specifically and have some information back to you about the what what about what the rents would be approximately for 125% of the are meting income okay okay okay so then we added a definition for mixed juice development which is a building or buildings in which there are a mix of permitted use uh commercial and dwelling commercial uses and dwelling units um qualified household um is an individual family or set of unrelated individuals who jointly rent a year-round rental unit on a lease of at least 12 months and who occupy the unit as their principal residents or who own and occupy a yearround ownership unit as their principal residents at least one household member must occupy the house old for at least 10 months annually to be to be a qualified household and I think that there were some concerns where you know we may have some folks that may you know winter in Florida or something along those lines we wanted to to allow for um allow for that um and so again the 10 months is something that was is suggested but if the planning board wants to look at a different length of time we can certainly do that see year round ownership units c one thing I just noticed um the definition of secondary buildings you want to change um those buildings other than the ohage building right thank you good C into my eye good catch catch yes thank you all right so then on to the next new definition which is yearound ownership units um housing units that are owner occupied and qualify as the owner's principal residence as defined in the code of Massachusetts regulations 830 CMR 62.3 point1 in which are occupied by qualified households a year-round ownership unit may not be used as a short-term rental subject to Rooms excise tax as defined in the code of Massachusetts regulations 830 CMR 64 g-11 and then also year round rental units are housing units that are rented by the property owner to a tenant using a lease or contract for a term of not less than 12 months in which are occupied by qualified households a year-round rental unit may not be used as a short-term rental subject to the room's excise tax as defined in the code of Massachusetts regulations 830 CMR 6 64g D I'm sorry 0.1.1 and under Section 8 density this is where a majority of the new language comes in so uh we thought it was important to note that it's base density in all zones within the West chadam Neighborhood Center um and so the first change is residential developments May exceed the base density by providing at least 25% of new dwelling units as attainable units and an additional 25% of dwelling units that are not income restricted for year- round occupancy in accordance with the incentive section below um yeah let me just reread it just to residential Del I'm sorry could you explain that I'm sorry I didn't really understand it either the first or the 10th time I read it it's really the second part of that where it's talking about an additional 25% of dwelling units so that's a the bonus I I think an example might help clear it for me too I was I was in the same territory that was so the way the and again we'll have other folks here just to make sure that we're all on the same page um at on the 22nd but when I read the way the way I'm reading this and the way I recall is that they're that those additional 25% are not income restricted but will require the year- round occupancy so they're not necessarily restricted to that 125% that's the way that's the way I'm interpreting that in the conversation that I recall having as we go down I think that they talk about the number like the distribution of affordability mhm may I just so does that mean that 50% do not need to be yearround no they need to be anything that we'll get to this later in the in the bylaw but any anything that's taking advant any units that are taking advantage of the density bonus will need to be year round 100% of the development so why is but 25 + 25 equals 50 yeah I think it's 25 as attainable an additional 20 yeah I'm sorry let me go back and read that and try to get back to you on that we'll come back to that one because yeah that's my question what would the other 50% that's fine as we as we get further down in the bylaw or may okay okay we could we just say what you said before that any anybody taking use of the density has to 100% year round that's really very clear yes and I think that becomes clear I know but that was very clear it and I think that that was added earlier on before some of the additional items were added so let's go back okay okay so we need to look at this sentence again y yeah okay great okay all right so the next um under the distribution of affordability it shall be as follows the first unit shall be affordable to households earning 80 to 90% of the area median income where are we under distribution of affordability um okay yes sorry go ahead and then second unit shall be affordable to households earning 90 to 100% Ami and then additional units may be affordable to households earning between 80 and 125% um if the 20 and then the next bullet that's been added if the 25% requirement for year-round occupancy units results in a fractional unit the number shall be rounded up or down to the nearest whole number yes and should those be reversed well I even suggested why don't we choose one or the other not say up or down but just because how do we determine which will it be so let's just decide should be rounded accordingly because if it's it's up and if it's 49 it's down that's oh you could say that that's how you could say that sure okay um fortunately because the next number is yeah okay but I'm wondering if the fifth bullet should be before the fourth bullet because then it it then it does say what fractional unit means where are you um the the First new Red Bullet if the 25% require I see I'm just wondering if they should be reversed in order sure that makes sense yeah okay and up or down yes because it says to the nearest whole number so that would make it clear that 49 would go down and but what if it's exactly 50.5 exactly because my the way I was taught how to round is different than my daughter a teacher is now how you round okay so we used to round to the to the even number that's how I was always even so so what does yeah if it's 4.5 you round to four if it's 5.5 you round to six I've never heard of that I have never heard of that but if if it's. it's exactly half so do we round it up or down I was always taught that you go up I was taught up yeah always up always up that's what I was done I think it's an engineering planning thing you're right no it's a math thing as long as we Define it I don't care you always go up you're over and you're you're totally overestimated and if you use the the the uh process I was taught then your your uh estimation will be closer to the to the actual yeah I think if we just use standard rounding I don't know why procedures it must be a New England thing that you guys were taught that 4.5 goes check the parking you know when parking it says how to round yes up or down so I would mirror whatever that says yeah it's okay as long as it's I knew how to do I don't really care how we round as long as when it comes out0 five that there is an answer as to which way it goes goes up only if we say that we've just said it do do you want it explicit in this sentence explicitly St I think it ought to be quite clear otherwise we're going to end up having another town meeting to all the problem about what happens with sheds so I'll see see what other language with is within the bylaw that talks about this and and we'll try to mirror that language it's a good point okay okay great please go ahead so required yearround ownership or yearr round rental units shall be included on the site of the project shall be integrated with the rest of the development shall be comparable in quality access access to and use of amenities and location within the development and shall be constructed at the same rate and time frame as unrestricted units in the project um I brought up something this afternoon maybe the word com comparable isn't clear enough that we should say equal inquality or the same inquality access and use of amenities comparable allows some leeway and we just should decide if we want to allow that leeway or do we want it to be equal to too are the same I know dhcd which is now whatever executive office of Housing and livable communities great um they actually used a word and I can't remember what it is that says that you know they should be indistinguishable yes and but it's a it's a standard word that phrase that they use and maybe want we want to use that same phrase okay all right great yes okay we'll look into that um so no occupancy permit for any unit subject to the density bonus will be issued until the deed restrictions specifying income restrictions and year- round occupancy res restrictions in form and substance acceptable to the planning board or its design has been recorded at the registry of deeds and Andor Lan Court that's a good idea yeah would think that okay okay the next bullet is provision shall be made for adequate legal monitoring of all deed restricted unit deed restricted units including an identified nonprofit housing or government monitoring agency approved by the planning board or its design successor monitoring agencies shall be approved by the plan board or its design monitoring agreement shall be in form and substance acceptable to the planning board or its design and we're going to capitalize planning board in all yes yes I just wanted Charlene to know okay so the next on the next page I think that the only changes are from um primary to Frontage building and then the rest of the changes are actually at the end of the bylaw and they are actually in the use table and so instead of having the single mixed juice development um we've broken it down to three categories so that so that permited as of right is a mixed juuse development with one to four residential units not utilizing the density bonus so that's again a permitted as of right mixed use development with five or more residential units not utilizing the density bonus um would be special condition and then the mixed use development utilizing the density bonus would require the special permit so that the planning board would have the ability to then require the year- round restrictions on those specific properties taking advantage of the density bonus good could we just review what is going to be the difference in what this board does or how we um uh apply any conditions to it with a special special condition versus a special permit so typically the special condition within our bylaw is pretty much they're they're they're almost laid out um that they need to meet certain criteria basically I think it will come down to being our site plan review criteria um and so we can bring those forth um at the next meeting as well but the special condition is not necessarily um it's it's a site plan review kind of plus like there's certain requirements that will need to be that will need to be met and so we don't see a lot of those um but you know usually if it's site plan review it's all of the same requirements um okay that a special condition would okay well I just wanted to understand and make clear I mean if there's certain um if there's certain leverages or abilities to uh work through specific issues and it gives you that flexibility I'm I'm all for it uh um one of my big things is always uh is waiver but when you put a waiver out there what what do we get in return and if you giving me nothing in return put it in uh I that's the way I like to approach it and I was looking to see if there's opportunities with special special conditions versus special permit yeah and I would and I would say also that I mean don't forget like these may be permitted as a right but they'll still need site plan approval right so that's so it's not that they'll just come in and get a building permit they'll still require approval by the planning board for okay thank you it's just that the these uses you know the P's are permitted as of right they don't need any they don't need to meet to go for a special permit um and then the same breakdown on the next page we looked at the same breakdown just specifically under residential so where it's not mixed juice where they're just strictly multif family dwellings we required the same um requirements you know for the density bonus so 1 to four um again it's permitted as of right in zone A2 and B but if you'll notice it's not permitted in A1 and that's because we didn't we wanted mix use buildings as the as the prim as the frontage buildings if you recall and so that's why um those are not allowed um in A1 so this and it follows the same multi family dwellings with five or more residential units not utilizing the density bonus um again special condition in A2 Zone A2 and Zone B but not allowed in A1 and then multif family dwelling units utilizing the density bonus again um not allowed in A1 but special permits in A2 and Zone B um and so K just a formatting thing on um page 15 of this um that's the first part of the use table but it has the footnote one at the bottom of that um it might be clearer to most including me if the footnote was at the end of the entire table so moving that footnote to the um to the end after um after the residential section just that specific one or all footnotes well yeah really all footnotes I think so yeah I think so yeah but one is um well I'm not sure I took it as uh 1.1 1.2 1.3 all the way down but uh all of the footnotes ought to be at the end of the table I agree that one yeah good point Thank you great and maybe I'm just missing it where are where actually are footnotes one through four in the text in the table am I missing it um it's a footnote just to use yeah but it's usually a footnote to something I mean it's got you know use one there's footnote number one point well there's a foot number all four there's only one footnote it's all four items all four items are in footnote number one sorry I missed and footnote number one is just a footnote to the entire use table gotcha all right I think that's how it works and Warren is absolutely correct it's better if all those footnotes were placed at the end of the entire table um so we don't necessarily need to discuss this tonight but I just had a general question um I've just gone through and I've circled again everything not not just the red additions but everything in the use table that's either special condition or special permit and I would just like to review together maybe when Cape Cod Commission is here on at our next meeting in any of these cases do we need to specify anything further regarding what the special conditions are or what the special permit criteria are for any of those including formula business establishment lunchroom all those situations yeah yeah I just like to be clear make sure that we've dotted all the eyes and crossed all the tees absolutely yeah well Madam chairman yes I'd like to do that but I somehow either am totally misreading this draft or I have something which is a major issue for me okay um and it has to do with if you focus on what a qualified household is in that definition and I put myself in the position of saying gee most of the things that are required here if you're a qualified household may not be what I want to do and if I'm a developer maybe I should just be I should not be a qualified household in other words I'm not going to rent or own and live in it you're around so I'm not a qualified household and if I'm not a qualified household household the only requirement for attainable housing is the 20% of the units I build which is one out of five and there's no ability at all uh to restrict a shortterm rentals because those are only part of the um restrictions that are applicable in granting a special permit so if it's built by right in the use table of which there are many things that are and you're not a qualified household you you know we are doing exactly what we have tried not to do and that is create a situation where the vast majority of the households or the units built will be built by Florida residents who want an investment and it'll be rented out short term doesn't it's by right there's no special permits therefore no special permit requirements and even know this the requirements of if you have a special permit are exactly what we're trying to achieve uh if you choose not to be a qualified household you basically can build 20% of the units you propos to build and only 20% of them will be affordable attainable and um anything that's not deed restricted will be short-term available for short-term r i mean that's the way I read it um and it seemed to me the only way to avoid that given the drafting would be to require a special permit of any any residents um any housing units that are in the entire District that's probably not the best way to do it but um and as I went back and read uh Town council's comments about could we restrict short-term rentals and the answer was yes all of his comments were uh focused around yes you can do it via the special permit granting uh conditions um as I say but there if you're not a qualified householder there aren't any special permit conditions for many of the housing units that are in the use table so I have a major issue with whether we're doing exactly what we started out not to do so I mean I think we go over this more deeply when um Cape Cod Commission is here in Gloria but so the permitted uses I mean the residential permitted uses are mixed use development with 1 to four residential uses not utilizing the density bonus and we're permitting those by right and so what we would be agreeing to is the 20% Which would be a fractional unit which would require a payment in L so all the other residential situations require special permit or special condition so I would understand those do invoke well the special condition is not the special permit okay so we right yeah Katie com the board could could you know we could have that conversation about whether or not the special condition requirements could be you know also just be special permit as opposed to just it's really you know just the question of whether um a nonqualified household as per this definition what are the ground rules of what they can be restricted to or required to do I think what we're saying is that it has to be a qualified household it doesn't say that at all it just says what a qualified householder is if you are a 12mon a year rental renter or if you own a house and live in it for 12 months a year you're a qualified household so in the definitions of yearround for year round ownership units year round rental units um it talks about qualified households and both of those and yeah in my re uh review of all this it it all goes back to the definition of qualified household okay let let us take your question back just by definition you uh you know live in Naples 182 days of the year you are not a qualified household right so you can buy a unit at market value and rent it out short term as much as you want because there no restrictions you can do that by right no special permit required in what use in right now by right we have mixed use development with 1 to four residential units y can be built by right so you can buy one of those if you live in Naples 182 days of the year and rent it out short term by the week no special permit required therefore no conditions of a special permit so we're asking the question um that in that case do we want to restrict that to your round occupancy as well well what's what's permitted by right is focusing on either I'm misreading this completely or I don't know what the right way to draft it is to achieve it but if you can live in Naples six months plus a day and buy a unit in West chadam neighborhood and rent it out short term without any uh ability of this board to restrict it then we have not achieved what I thought we're trying to achieve here and that's the way I read it so okay okay so let's review that um let's review that when we have everyone here on the 22nd sure and then I think the board does need to consider whether I had always understood that to some extent there would be we would be allowing some market rate units and that it wasn't really possible for us to restrict all residential units to be you know yearr round occupancy and attainable and affordable but that we wanted to restrict them to a good degree but I think we had at least it was my understanding we had always understood that there would be some allowance for market rate units and so it looks to me now but again we we'll want to review this with everyone um that mixed use development with one to four residential units not utilizing the density bonus are permitted by right and yes in that case it would seem to me that someone could buy one at market rate and live in Florida and rent it out but we anticipated that there would be some of that um if we want to eliminate that we could pursue that if we want does that make sense am I or am I misinterpreting it as well it does and also that you know if you look under Section s which there we didn't make any changes to so we didn't go through it today but um the mandatory provision of affordable and attainable housing for development of new residential units is any new or rehabilitated development involving two or more dwelling units shall provide 20% of the units as deed restricted affordable Andor attainable uh the applicant shall meet the requirements by either constructing the deed restricted deed restricting and perpetuity a dwelling unit or payment in Li and so that's that will cover those one to four again there would be some market rate but there there would be some advantages because if there's two or more units you're getting either a unit or a payment in Lo of that unit so again I think that that was part of we just yeah we discussed it but I think it's fine we should reconsider it and see if we want to leave it like that I guess um is the point that you're bringing doesn't actually say vient agreement as to what we are I think we're in violent agreement as to what our obje is yeah all I'm saying is as I read this draft it virtually requires or permits the exact opposite the vast majority would be market rate units that could be rented out short term if people if the developer or the property owner does not utilize the density bonus and builds one to four units that would be the case but it it's not even clear to me that the houses that aren't in the affordable attainable component of that density would also have to be year round no there's no way for us to require that I mean and I think that that's that's you know part of what Katherine was saying is I mean to get I don't know that it was ever the intent of this West chadam Neighborhood Center bylaw that all units created would be affordable and attainable no no no no so but it it was that we we weren't going to let people build summer summer rentals by including one attainable unit and then having four right summer rentals and that and it seems like I I have to agree that that's what we we've got here and it's not even clear to me when if we look at that in seven it doesn't it says unit uh 20% of the dwelling units as deed restricted affordable or attainable housing units it doesn't even say qualified and that shouldn't it say qualified under the qualified had the qualified households in there yeah yeah and again the use table does not um limit the um or it the issue it doesn't matter how many units are built um and one the only differential in there is we have a special condition for if it's more than if it's five or more um and um only it's permitted by right if it's one to four right um but the issue is still the same with respect to um you can build as many as you want some of them will have to be attainable 20% of them uh so if you build 10 you're going to have 20% you're going to have two affordable attainable housing units and the rest can all be market value rented out short term no that's not that's not what it says I think if they use the density bonus they have to build a higher percentage and that's outlined in section eight under D well the bonus is based on per per acre right density but if you've got a two acre lot then you can you know it's 20% of the units um it's 25% 25 it goes up to 20 I'm sorry it's but the point is um the density is a per acre thing as as opposed to the development which is if you've got a five acre the orig one but as soon you did then um you could build a whole lot of market rate units and you'd have 25% of them are affordable attainable and the rest of them you can sell at market rate to people who want to rent them out every week in other words most of the units 75% of them are going to be exactly what we don't want to have in the west chatam neighborhood center right well um Katie are are we still going ahead with uh uh having someone provide us a build out analysis Yes actually that's my next update okay well um I did I did some of my own calculations on this and and that's going to be the reality no matter what and if you see the build out analysis you'll see that for example the smaller Lots you almost can't achieve anything other than the uh the one to four unit that range there's limited larger Lots unless somebody buys up multiple properties and combines them together which is still possibility but when you see a build down analysis and you run through the numbers on this no matter what you're going to have a predominant number of units that are are not going to be in the attainable area it's just the nature of it the best you have is 25% no I get that I'd like more attainable affordable but you're not going to get any more than 25% I can live with whatever we we we can sell or permitted to do I think there's what I'm rely hung up on is I don't want to create a lot of new housing units that can be rented out shortterm by investors and nobody lives there yeah yeah I I hear what you're saying but and we have a draft which says that 75% some legal conso to say that you can do that all right I don't think you can well if we have a spe a special permit required for any new housing unit in the west chatam Neighborhood Center so you're saying for every single presidential would have a special permit I I'm just saying spal Council has Justified uh special permits are permitted to restrict short-term rentals I'll say it that way short version not the lawyer but well the only the only way you achieve that is you got to have a special permit for anything that's residential and and the justification for doing it to any housing unit he gave us the wording for which has now been incorporated into the Preamble it's for the best interest of the Town that's my short version of and it's in accordance with what the town has has a plan to do so you could a way to achieve what I thought we were trying to achieve is to require a special permit for developments any res neighborhood let me just I think this might clarify the sentence in Section 8 that we were not clear about perhaps I'll propose that residential developments May exceed the base density by Prov providing at least 25% of new dwelling units as attainable units and an additional 25% of dwelling units that are not income restricted for year round occupancy in accordance with the incentive section below so the way I'm reading that now is that 50% so say you're going to do a 12 unit development 50% have to be year around 25% have to be attainable income restricted so so that does provide a higher percentage of restriction for yearr round occupancy when the density bonus is utilized um I recall a few meetings when Gloria was here and she discussed with us that there's certain um um ratios uh where a Housing Development is no longer financially viable in general for devel Vel opers and that is the reason that probably we are not requiring 100% attainable housing because some market rate units need to be built so I would just suggest that we review that when Cape Cod Commission and Gloria are here but I understand that's that we have to sort of not cross a certain line otherwise we create a situation where um um the development of any particular property may not be financially viable for a developer so but Madam chairman that that's all focusing on how many affordable attainable units can you get I'm all for increasing the number and I think based on everything I've heard up until this point and in the past the analysis has it about right in terms of and the incentive bonuses as well with respect to Affordable attainable now my hangup is that if you are not a qualified household anything that you build which is not required to be attainable affordable has no restrictions at all nor does this board have an ability to restrict it to no short-term rentals well there's this you have in attainable yeah but that everything that restricts it and eliminates short-term rentals ties back into being an affordable household and if you choose not to be a qualified household not afford a qualified householder in other words you live in Naples Florida for 6 months plus a day then there's no restriction possible based on this draft and you will end up having the majority of the units built being perfectly available to be rented out by the day week month because there are very few you know people can choose to not be a qualified household which requires that you be there 12 months of the year or rent it out 12 months of the year so My that's my problem is that we don't have a way to ensure that anybody will live as a permanent residence in the west Cham Neighborhood Center other than the very few um attainable affordable deed restricted units as I say and I'd like it to be slightly more units and that but that's not my issue my problem is we''re doing exactly what we started out to absolutely avoid and that is create a and not only an ability but almost an incentive to not be a qualified householder because you can do much more and you'll make more money if you're a developer selling to people who are not qualified householders why there's no restriction on selling them to a corporation that can take every one you build and then you're going over and over this again I mean I I think I think it's appropriate for us to actually discuss this next time when we get a little bit more advice yeah but I'm not sure that that is going to be a viable solution and what I mean by that if you can't build it and it can't make it work economically you're achieving zero so I think you have to bring you know the that part of the equation Gloria introduced us to that when we first started this discussion so if you're trying to achieve what you're just describing there I don't think that's going to happen and I think that you have to put that into the equation of the discussion that we have absolutely but I'm not at all arguing that we ought to increase the number of affordable attainable houses that are permitted units not at all I I didn't say anything about that I'm talking about if you can't make a port of some money associated with building the regular units yeah all right the rest of of it doesn't matter yeah but they'll be at market rate selling prices that's right that's right and that's what we've been talking about since we've been talking about that since day one and accept and we've had to accept that as a reality of the world I'm not restricting the selling price of any unit that's somebody that's going to live there yeah I just don't want it to be bought by someone who does not live there with the intent of invest in selling I'm not sure you're going to get that though we heard you saying that yeah all right we've done it with respect to U all of those units that are owned by qualified households it's in the it's in the draft you can't okay we don't know what this yes um the the thing that we should look at is whether that 50% requirement for year round could could be applied in general we're asking we're allowing for a a higher density than was allowed there before yep so by by making it them allowed to have more than one unit on the property we should at least have the provision that 50% of the units have that year round restriction on them regardless of of whether it's affordable attainable or market rate because that just by the nature of allowing for higher density period in this District we we should have some restriction that that at least half of them have a um year round deed restriction on them now whether we have to do that through special permit every time that's then we do because that I I have to agree here that that's what we really are looking for we're not looking for giving people the opportunity to put more units on properties than they had before and they're all rentals that that was never Our intention I don't I I I don't know if that works but that's what I would suggest we look at sure I'll certainly bring that back for further discussion with um staff and the cape card commission yeah I think it's a question of can we do it I think I even though all board members haven't spoken I'm going to assume that in general we're in agreement that we would much rather have if it were up to us we'd want 100% yearr round occupancy and 75% attainable I mean we'd want something like that um the question is can we do it legally and also can is it practical that it will give enough incentive to a developer to create that development and Gloria did review with us some standard ratios and there's a certain Tipping Point where it doesn't work anymore um financially economically so I think we should just review that and just see ask the question can we maximize this can we or are we maximizing it are we doing the maximum that we can legally and economically um to maximize the number of attainable units and maximize the number of um yearr round occupancy units in all cases Madam chairman I may sound like I'm arguing against myself but um I do not feel that we have an ability based on prior legal advice that we can tell a homeowner um that they have to live in that house 12 months a year people want to go to Florida for 6 months and two days so they're a Florida resident so they're not going to be a resident you're never going to achieve what you're trying to do I am going to achieve what I'm going to try to do you can own the property and have it empty for 6 months of the year if that's what you choose to do but what you can't do is sell that six months to a company that's going to rent it out by the day week or month I don't know if we can I mean we'll just explore the question I don't know if we can restrict that um but I think let's ask the question maybe as what can we do to make it maximum maximum yearround occupancy and maximum attainable but still make it a viable yeah you know as drafted anything that requires a special permit in the use table as drafted anything that requires a special permit allows this board to restrict short-term rentals eliminate them it's just if it's if you can do something in the Ed table as a permitted right and you choose not to be um a qualified home household then those restrictions and that ability of the board in this draft disappears so maybe there's a way to expand the applicability of our ability to restrict short-term rentals Beyond what's in the draft wherever it says a special permit is required we have that flexibility um to expand it further such that it covers many if not all of the housing units that can be built by right never and that's irregardless or that is regardless I guess of the attainable affordable Provisions which I think are fine I'd like it to be more attainable rain units but it it is what it is and uh it's not going to be a whole lot more than what we have here no matter what so I think that's we've I'm not focused on that at all only on trying to expand the ability to restrict the short-term rentals because I can see the future and it's it's not pretty um if we don't okay so I I also mentioned that we just we'd like to go through the use table and look at everything that special permit and special condition and just evaluate each case and make sure that we're satisfied um with how we've structured the use table and in that regard we can also consider the one residential um use that is one to four res itial units that is permitted by right yeah and just consider that more carefully yeah Frank Madam chairman I I think I'm sensing we're going to go back to Town Council get clarification as to our ability to restrict housing to full-time ownership is that correct no not necessar I think what we're looking I think from what I'm understanding um is that we are looking to see whether or not we can restrict the units the one to four the units 1 to four that are permitted as of right to not allow them to be utilized as short-term rentals I think that that's ultimately Mr Chain's I I would suggest it should be broader than that and we should have an understanding of our power our authority to restrict units so that they aren't short-term Ral units all the time I think that was the the question that was asked of Town Council some months ago in response to our concern about the unintended consequences of the additional density that was provided in uh the bylaw and I think the wording that's been inserted is the result of um Town council's response then taking that response to Cape Cod Commission asking them to draft the language and then Tong council's review of that language so if Warren is correct I'm I'm not saying he's not correct but if if he's correct that the only way we can accomplish this is through a special permit um I don't understand it frankly I mean I I'm blunt I just I just don't understand it and I I'm wondering whether there might be an opportunity for me to talk to town counsel about that with we don't get to do that with the staff um as I say I think we've already forwarded the questions to Town Council but Katie please go ahead we have and I could put a request for Town Council to attend a meeting but we haven't typically had board members specifically speaking to Town Council but I we can certainly make that request it's well my thought Town Council attend a meeting of the town that we fully understand what our Authority is that it might be worthwhile having Town Council in if that's the method that we can explore it but the other way I could I'd be happy to join in a meeting with you that's the other way to pursue it well let me just say this I think this issue was in the was our question for many months um and the the response that our principal planner was advising us is that at this time there was no le and the initial response from Town Council was there was no way to regulate it and back in October um when we first were reviewing what the open issues were again uh on this bylaw um I was advised that we needed to submit these questions to Town Council but at that time we were anticipating that a possible answer very possible answer we would have gotten from Town Council is sorry there is no legal mechanism to do this at all and I was looking at a situation where I would have had to come back to the board and say okay we have no legal me mechanism at all of addressing this do you want to go forward because it's that big of an issue fortunately we did not get that answer fortunately we got an answer from Town Council that gave us some legal Avenues to address that issue that was forwarded to Cape Cod Commission who then drafted this language so I think we've vetted that issue with Town Council and this is what we've come up with if we again want to ask Cape Cod Commission along with Town Council can we make make this more I think that's essentially what we're asking we can ask that question maybe utilizing the special permit mechanism somehow yeah um yes well first of all I I think that the the solution to the to the um short-term rental is a different tax taxing for for those properties um that you know classify them differently and they get it they get taxed differently that that can that could have a a significant effect but if we are going forward with this remember we said we wanted one to four units as as by right well let's change it to one to two units per property by right and and up to you can get four market rate but that's only by special permit of which two would then have to be year deeded year round that it's we we came up with the one to four that isn't that isn't um law that's stuff we came up with so let's change it to one to two and above two uh to four is special permits deed restricting for the third and the fourth property that they have to have a yearr round Beed on them okay I mean I think those are options again I think we just need to review this with Cape Cod Commission yeah yes we have a meeting later this week scheduled to discuss tonight comments that we heard heard tonight um the expectation or my expectation was that you know after further digestion that the board members may have additional questions that um and again we'll have Cape Cod Commission staff um and uh myself and Gloria mcperson here at the next meeting um on April 22nd to discuss any you know any concerns further um that the that the board may have um the other thing I wanted to mention is that we were successful in getting the dlta grant uh through the Cape Cod Commission to update the buildout analysis um specifically for the West chadam Neighborhood Center so we have not um we just heard last week so we haven't gone through the um we haven't created the scope of work or anything at this point in time but that that's a um I think it was a $25,000 Grant award so I think we're in pretty good shape to get that done and we'll be working towards that as well um so we have a lot of work that we're going to continue to do with the commission um and continue to move forward but I I would just ask that you know if if there are further comments um you know you're welcome to submit them to me or we can you know have a a more formal discussion uh with everybody at the next meeting yeah okay um and I think we just want to I just want to reiterate and Express on behalf of the board I think what we're looking to do as I said more if there can be more restriction um to create 100% yearr round occupancy I as I recall I don't have Town council's opinion in front of me that he replied to us um but as I recall there were some legal obstacles as we understood it to having any sort of restriction um like that that it was rather difficult to create that so I don't know if it's possible to create 100% year round occupancy um but it's a question that's worth exploring I suppose yeah um okay and then so we'll look at all of these in Greater detail on April 22nd I think that's the best we can do we we did just just want to do a kind of initial review tonight yeah Frank so Kenny um I have additional comments and I've got a salw of comments every time I picked this up over the weekend I had a new comment I should just send it to you um it'd be better actually I think to bring it out an open meeting if I may say so so I'll be happy to please go ahead yeah okay um there's a restriction on Building height in all zones to two stories in this spot yes but if you if there's an affordable element to it it could be two and a half stories that's as I understand it why is it restricted to two stories through the entire area it seems to be Draconian that's why it was it's based on our current bylaw right but this is the new bylaw right well this is for West Chad only for West chadam right there's a 30 foot height restriction townwide no that that stay I'm I'm just curious as to why it's limited to two stories that's all I think it was considered if I could just to my memory it was considered by the board and the public as part of our consideration of form-based code and I think the integration of the board's opinion as well as public response um this was when the form-based code was integrated into this bylaw which was a lot of work done aoup years ago now I think it was considered to be more favorable to keep it two stories rather than two and a half so yeah two stories includes does not include the roof so it's two stories up plus a normal roof right that's still two stories right okay good um what was the thinking behind the maximum building footprint per Zone that that was one thing that I didn't understand again I think re you know a lot of review with the board and the public um in terms of wanting to create in general smaller buildings rather than huge uh buildings so I think that 5,000 4,000 3,000 by Zone and I just wondered why the differentials but that's I was just curious we don't we could move on no that's okay um I just think these were considered in in the process of considering form based code looking at the Lots looking at what the potential uses were in each Zone um and how that would work out and that certain buildings are more appropriate along Route 28 and certain uses are more appropriate um along Route 28 and then the the Lots directly behind and then the Lots behind those that there would be a differentiation of uses in building forms okay I don't want to reinvent the wheel four years I'm I'm just getting into it outdoor lighting there is there are provisions on outdoor lighting in business areas but I can't find any in residential areas this is a mixed use Z so we'll have some residents in some businesses or commercial but since we're it's not a business anymore unit there would be no restrictions on lighting um and the town that I came from in Woodbury we had restrictions for example on lumens you know how bright a light can be how warm it can be um so you know you don't you want incandescent type lights you don't want the right you know objectionable FL florescent lights so I would do not want incandescent lights so I would suggest that we consider having a section on lighting um what I'll comment on is I think some of these issues are also considered in our site plan review process and it's understood that uh in the case of multif family developments as well as mixed use developments any new development will go through site plan review and lighting is re is included in our site plan review so I think for that reason it was felt not to be uh not necessary to include it in zoning because it's included in site plan review okay okay if it's if it's covered in another way yeah I think that's that was the issue on that required parking um hotels and lodging in the new allows 1.25 spaces per room um no that's the old rule 1 1.25 but this increases it to 1.5 in West chadam appears to me way for motels yeah and I may be reading it wrong but I it seemed to be increasing the number of parking rather than keeping it the same or reducing so I just note that if okay something to look at okay um we are materially reducing parking in the area which is great and we have Provisions as to two people coming forward and saying well we going to share parking um but one thing we might want to look at maybe townwide not even because we have this issue of parking in a lot of places is not not to Res not to allow people to take their parking slots and say this is only for the these 10 slots are only for the lawyer that works in this building and and the lawyer doesn't ever fill them up or goes on vacation or whatever so uh since parking in a sense is fungible you know they'll kind of the same and we're also putting the parking in the back you know so it's it's easy to connect um should we say that no parking places shall be reserved except as permitted by planning if somebody shows that that's necessary if somebody says we need to reserve them we're a hospital we what whatever but other than than that you can't reserve it's it's just a thought again I'll just say I think what the rationale of the board in considering this parking is something that's thoroughly reviewed uh in our site plan review and again so because it's reviewed in site plan review I think it was felt a detail like that does not need to be considered in zoning okay I think that's was the um feeling of the board um definition zones yes if I may just add that the board at the time of site plan review would have the opportunity to make that condition of a site plan yes application okay very exactly to either rest my ignorance here so no it's good to go through it and better to go through it in open meeting rather than um emails the definition of zones if a lot in zone a gets divided so that the area away from Route 28 doesn't have any Frontage on 28 does that area now become Zone b or Zone I think I might have to get Katie's input on that zones are defined as if if you have a lot that has Frontage on 28 that goes back is a front of the lot the 100 ft is 1 a and the rear is A2 right right the entire rear is a right but if that lot gets divided does the back now become Zone B no I the 100 foot strip of zone A1 maintains regardless of what the frontage is along Route 28 so if one of the larger Lots gets subdivided um by way of an approval not required plan you know gets sliced in half um it would still be 100 fet from the right of way of route 28 into the property and then beyond that it would be A2 even though that lot in the back no longer has any Frontage on 28 you it h there has to be some kind of Frontage you can't create a landlock parcel y so any lot has to contain Frontage got it that answer that does okay all rightor um thank you sidewalks I think this is I could go on but I'll stop with sidewalk no go ahead um I mean one of the objectives in the front is to create pedestrian friendly um but we don't have a lot of Provisions in here on sidewalks we don't really talk about it very very much um so I think there should be some thought as to sidewalks throughout the district and how we can incentivize that or require it now I know for example that we have some sidewalks there now I'm aware of that but I did go around the district on Sunday and looked around and some people have planted Hedges right up to the edge of the uh Road so that you a pedestrian has to walk on the road you can't there's nowhere else to go um so should we think about incorporating sidewalk requirements or incentives going forward because this is the presumably the um start of something that's going to be expanded to other neighborhood districts right hopefully we can use this as a template but I think the comprehensive plan does want us to to evaluate each neighborhood center of course according to its own needs but I think we do we are looking at a situation where this could be a template for the other neighborhood centers as well but they're going to be each one will be a little different um I'm going to let Katie respond to this I think sidewalks are usually not private property owners responsibility they usually go to the municipality but I'll ask Katie to comment right so again along Ro 28 I believe that there are sidewalks you know within all within the district um if we're looking at the properties you know perhaps A1 and two the zones A1 and two um again those will all be looked at through the site plan approval and we do require um or one of the criteria is to look at vehicle and pedestrian access so I think that those are something that you know the planning board could bring up on a case-by Case basis if if needed yeah we we have in in past cases asked for a sidewalk that went from 28 to a rear apartment complex I think what was it 785 Main Street I can't remember the exact exact address yes uh and and it was for that exact reason it was there wasn't going to be a safe way to access the rear of the property so and that was all on the site so I I think it's a site by- sight B uh case and I and it's really important to flush these things out during the site plan review and insist upon them yeah in uh Woodbury again where I come from when we had subdivisions we required sidewalks yeah um and so it's something it's terribly important I don't think it's a minor matter so we might want to think about writing something up so I think again as Arthur mentioned we do consider this in sight plan review and I'm popping into my mind right now are a couple of site plan that we've done where we have actually required uh pedestrian walkway at a certain point in the site for safety reasons right I'm talking about along the road access for everybody that's that's the sidewalk along 28 that I think or along that's a state highway and I think we might need to consider that differently Madam chairman I'm talking as a general matter along any road as a template for the whole into the Z for sidewalks that's that's really where I'm coming from Okay so yeah okay I'll stop there no that's okay that's okay you can you can continue with your points but um I'm not sure if the question you're asking now is something that should be incorporated into the zoning or it's something that's about what the municipality will provide so we do look through our subdivision rigs um I think that that would be the location where we would require um sidewalks if there was a new subdivision going in that's an that's an appropriate place for that to happen but it's not necessarily something that we can require through zoning on private property because if a sidewalk is to be maintained you know again not that somebody couldn't put in a sidewalk but I don't know that we could require um a sidewalk along a roadway to be installed as part of a site plan review on Privateer I can say is that we did precisely that in in Connecticut but I I frankly don't know the answer in Massachusetts Connecticut's planning laws are so far advanced than Massachusetts just so you know we plan by zoning and you Zone by planning in Connecticut they're very different unfortunately but I think it is something we can address in site plan review so if a property comes before for us and there is an issue about pedestrian um uh access we can require that a s sidewalk be included in the site plan and we've done that so that may be a good way to address the issue I don't know and Katie's saying that we can't require it by zoning on private properties that right I don't believe that we can I think it's you're looking at a right of way which would typically include a sidewalk not a sidewalk is not typically on private property if you will yeah so we can address it okay and please do you have more points please go ahead oh yes absolutely because I think it's just good to um we have to do what needs to be done um thead transparency when I saw that heading I was very excited because what I was mostly concerned about was you know a whole wall of sheet you know glass you know you know where particularly with commercial establishments that are open a lot all of that light spills out into the outside and it's not I don't think it's in accord with what the town would want just to have all but those transparency rules don't provide a maximum I can't find one anyway they provide a minimum transparency is that right um can you site the page that you're looking at in the dra bylaw I'll try number four page four transparency the measurement percentage of clear glass within a solid wall along a building facade but where do we Define what we say it has to be page nine eight eight or nine yeah it's in towards the back um there is an energy code that would per would not permit a lot a lot of window you just wouldn't be able to build your your building anymore with with a a full facade of of of glass yeah I'm if we could find the page where that's pass noted page nine page nine okay it starts on U bottom very bottom of page eight where it says building feur zone A1 assade transparency then it ground story 35% minimum for Street facing facades and upper story 20 20% minimum so this is just 4 A1 um on Route 28 that and again it was in the consideration of um form-based code and I think it's something we considered pretty thoroughly with Cape Cod Commission as well as surveys that went out to the public and it's mostly that we wanted to present something in the facade that faced Route 28 where there was clear display of the commercial activity available so that's why the minimums are stated um and you're suggesting there needs to be a maximum stated yeah I I'm I'm very concerned about an entire wall of glass facing the street right yeah so because that happens yes and there is an exception for historic structures to maintain historic window consig configuration so let's put a note that we could add a maximum there Madam chair I'd also like to mention that that that this um the area in A1 is also within the historic business district oh that's right and so right and so will all of the any new structure will be designed in accordance with their requirements so that may obviate the need to add a maximum we could but um for as long as you have a minimum I I think it's important to say there's a maximum yeah okay we could look at the hbdc design guidelines which planning board has adopted as our design guidelines it may already be uh included in that okay great and also other points go ahead Charlene under the subdivision control law I looked it up um the board can or may require um sidewalks on new subdivision roads okay it's on new subdivision roads yes okay great good have a more point Frank no it's actually better to to go through them and so yes I think I I'm interested in let's do it because otherwise we'll need to do it on April 22nd and we'll have a lot of additional points to discuss on April 22nd and this way too anything that's still open we know that we can can bring it up on April 22nd and and vet it at that time and Katie has the opportunity of speaking with Cape Cod Commission who also assisted Us in developing the form based code so I think it's more fruitful to bring it up now it's uh well to give you an example of uh purpose item c um enhance the character of the WCNC and promote the adap adaption of existing buildings to permit development red development I I would have changed that to say enhance the character of the WCNC and promote the Redevelopment of existing buildings in accordance with Section 3 C9 that's the kind of comment I'm going to be making C9 yeah which is this it's it's going to be this section oh yeah okay okay I I mean basically just saying Redevelopment in accord with the promote the Redevelopment instead of saying promote the ad the adaption of existing buildings to permit Redevelopment I would have said promote the Redevelopment of existing buildings in accordance with this section that's all I'm okay with that change just long as the rest of the board is I'm seeing heads notd so great section three it says location and area is the caption section three location area it's where the map is yes I think it should say perhaps location and boundaries uh we don't want to define the boundaries here because that will be defined in a separate article so we're not specifically defining the boundaries here it'll be a separate a separate article that'll be brought before town meeting and voted on and passed so so this map is not the boundaries doesn't reflect the batteries it does reflect it but it's it's not the the be all and end all that will be drafted in a separate article I think I understand okay I both articles will come up one right after the other and they're both tied together but usually the map is dealt with as a separate article and then the boundaries will be specif ified yeah and that's how we did South chadam right yeah okay um allowing this is section four allowing the staff plan review to make certain decisions small changes uh of pre-existing non-conforming uses and structures which I'm all in favor of and where is this oh yes first paragraph section last sentence well it's that whole section that allows this discretion okay and which I'm in favor of um I'm not certain that haven't thought it through that the definition of what is minor works so that's something which you might want to think about but I in any case I think that all such decisions of the planning department should be we should be advised of what they were so we're oh that's a matter of up to date yes you know so I would add some language that says that the next meeting would be advised so we know what's happening okay I think that's a matter of course um I'm not sure if we have to add that language but we could um if the board chooses to reconsider the 200 square feet whether that's still allowable the only reason I'm um responding in the manner I have is that most of the points you're bringing up the board has like thoroughly considered I know I know and I apologize this is so I'm just asking the board do would you like to reconsider that and if you would we can yeah okay great so next Point um building Frontage occupancy talks about facad parallel page three page three sorry just turn just turn right what if a facade is not parallel are we requiring that they be parallel will I think so yeah okay yeah in the Redevelopment I just want to be sure about that okay um just a general point I think this has been made before on the provisions having to do with affordable and attainable okay uh whether they really work um okay is a is an economic question for developers and so it might be worthwhile once we settle on the final to actually run a proforma to see whether this is actually workable whether it will generate what we hope it will generate um you know based on the current construction costs and rental costs and things like that um just a performa you know nothing terribly complex but just a I wouldn't call the back of the envelope but sit down and spend a few hours working through the numbers to be certain it really works uh or not the other way to go about it is if this kind of um approach has been used in other places I don't know whether it has or not whether it's been used in Province Town or whatever what has been their experience as it worked and that would serve the same purpose it's kind of a reality check yeah and I think I mentioned when we've worked again over a number number of meetings with Gloria mcferson our housing and sustainability director there are some standard uh ratios there are some standard that have already been generated and I'm just going to ask again let's look at this again with Gloria on the 22nd um but to answer exactly that question okay and that's also um pertaining to Warren's issue uh and the board's issue that we have to find that balance point um that we can restrict to a certain extent legally we didn't know that we could but we can restrict to a certain extent yearr round occupancy and affordable and attainable but we can't but we also have to make it financially viable development and I think I think Gloria does have some statistics that she can review with us again okay okay yeah um you've helped me a lot in saying often that in site plan review Etc we have apparently great discretion as to what we can require we don't have to set it all out in black and white right in the zoning we don't yeah yes so on that basis I'm going to stop okay all right as long as you you're sure because it is it it is better um and in fact required that we bring all these questions up in open meeting I think we like to avoid substantive discussion questions behind uh the scenes so I would want to answer all your questions and have board discussion in open meeting if you have any further questions um please bring them up again on April 22nd when we discuss it and uh but I think in in most cases what you've asked has been the board is considered pretty thoroughly you know over many meetings and many months and we've even done public Outreach when we were in the process of developing the form based code with Cape Cod Commission uh everything at every point they sent out surveys and we reviewed the responses to the surveys um so there's quite a bit of information that's been integrated but I do appreciate your questions okay um other comments from the board before we move on yeah I just saw the and I can't find it now where it said 4,000 oh it's on the bottom of page who makes these numbers that small uh eight bottom of page Zone B 4,000 square feet per building um five in zone a um okay I I just I I think that's what we agreed to but we're also talking about massing restrictions and I'm wondering if when we pass our massing restrictions three years from now we have to come back and rewrite this or how's that work um we can but then we I mean I hate you know we're not going to be able to get back into every single one of these little ones that we create and say oh by the way we didn't mean that now or or we put in un less superseded by um uh townwide uh restrictions or something in there that I think there is a general statement here isn't there in the bylaw that if there's a conflict that the um more restrictive takes yeah that the the the points in the west chadam Neighborhood Center take precedence if it's in Conflict yeah if it's in Conflict um I don't Katie do you have a comment on Bob's question I mean I think it's hypothetical because we haven't even gotten to the point that's why I said but also maybe in different areas districts we want different massing yeah haven't even gotten to the point of considering it yeah yeah okay are you saying that the massing that you're addressing in the subsequent subject is not just deal it's not with single family residential it's for any structure on any Zone on any line talked about that no we were talking about residential that's a little bit too yeah so yes Katie and I and i' just like to like go back to look at we we're talking about form here we're actually prescribing what we want things to look like and I think that that is kind of reducing the um likelihood of massing issues by imposing all of these requirements with the you know with the um not just with the height but the you know the length of the facade yeah the different requirements the transparency I mean those are all items that I think um you know the board was considering all along when we talked about you know what we wanted this bylaw to look like yes and IT addresses yes exactly yes I I think I've had I might have had U um a discussion with you about this when I was doing my buildout um um my uh high level an analysis I think it was brought to my attention that I think the criteria on this says that 60% is the maximum amount that the property can be develop 40% is I guess greener on that and that would include building as well as parking and that so there's that limitation too if you take a look at um the setbacks and the criteria that I have here you're not going to be able to put as big of a building as you might want to I I get that yeah okay so why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it B would that be okay none of us will be here because we can we'll be able to and we haven't even gotten to the point where we've defined how we're going to approach that issue and Charlene's right we might approach it differently in different districts um so so let's take a look when we get there yeah any other comments before we move ahead okay um so we also had scale and massing of residential structures I just I think we're still working on updating the research um and yeah Katie did you have a comment that's correct Bob and I had we did have a meeting with Chrissy um our GIS planner um and so we'll be reporting back once we have additional information back from her okay and also um I think we're looking at that again just a reminder we put on our priority list housing initiatives and we may be able to very soon have some housing initiatives that we can look at that would have a broader uh applicability to the whole town or to many districts um and we can also work on those but um but anyway yes we'll we'll continue with that I think we've got our plates full with West chadam and just making sure we've put in all the refinements and put in all the final considerations that we need to on this one and we'll be able to meet with Cape Cod Commission hopefully on April 22nd and with Gloria and go over everything again more thoroughly um and it's looking like the buildout analysis can go forward yeah yes and I hope we'll have more information at least to discuss a timeline with you on the 22nd or or shortly thereafter yeah and we're also moving forward on the visuals yeah yes that's actually I'm trying to incorpor gr everything all into all into one okay we can from my perspective as chair I mean even though we've brought up a lot of issues tonight this is really I'm very excited about where we stand with this now I think it's about ready to when we get the visuals and the buildout analysis I think it's ready to be brought before the public I think what surprised us a little when we brought it out last October people do forget it's been in process a long time I think we need to do a lot of public Outreach and education when we get it in final form and of course we'll get another level of input again and we may you know need to make additional revisions and changes again um but I think we're really close to that as soon as we get the buildout and the visuals so I think we're looking really good for this in my humble opinion great um any other comments before I ask for our motion to adjourn Madam chair I move that we adjourn thank you may I have a second art sprew I second all right let's do a vote art sprew art sprew approve Warren chain Warren chain approve award chter award chter approved Charlene greenal Charlene greenhalge approve Frank Sherer Frank Sherer approve Bob dubis Bob dubis approve this is Katherine Halper and I also approve that we adjourn the meeting let's not the time looks like 7:12 and thank you everyone for participating and enjoy the rest of the [Music] evening [Music] n