[Music]
Hi, good evening everyone. I'm calling tonight's meeting of the Felmouth Planning Board to order. Today is August 12th. It is 6:30 and we are meeting at Falma Town Hall. My name is John Dulie and I am the current chair of the
planning board. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that this is a public meeting and is being conducted in accordance with Massachusetts open meeting law. Please take a moment to silence any mobile devices or electronics to avoid interruptions.
Anyone wishing to speak should come to the podium, wait to be recognized by the chair to state their name for the record before making remarks. We encourage respectful and constructive dialogue during public comment periods. Thank
you. We'll now proceed with the first item on the agenda, which is public comment. If anyone wishes to speak about something that is not on the agenda this evening, please come to the podium, state your name. Okay, since no one is coming to the
podium, we're going to begin the meeting and we're going to start off with uh the minutes. Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the July 22nd minutes as presented. Second. All in favor? I I unanimous.
So then our first uh public meeting is a meeting that I have recused myself from and no covenant released. I'm sorry. You're trying to get out of here too fast. Exactly. Have to make a phone call.
The applicant, Mel Engineers and Land Surveyors on behalf of uh Joe Jungua, I believe, preliminary subdivision application to construct a five lots residential development.
Oh, covenant release. I passed right over it. Sorry. You did. Okay. Told you you were trying to get out of here too fast. I was okay. Uh, covenant release request for 187 Central Avenue, Betsway,
DEF Covenant release request, Jed. Uh, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, included in the board's packet is a request from the developer for a fourlot release. Um, this subdivision was approved by the board back in 2021. It's
named Bets's Way. Um as you can see in your packet is the request for the release of the covenant in lie of a bond. Uh engineer our engineering division has reviewed it and they have provided you the recommendation of $171,548.84
as the recommended bond amount in lie of the four lots that are currently under covenant. Uh our recommendation is that you follow the engineering division's uh recommendation included in the packet. So this this um subdivision is a little different uh in the fact that they've
had a third party engineering firm do all of the inspections. Under normal circumstances, our engineering division would do it. Um but those inspection reports are included in your packet and they were sent to the engineering division. So they had all of the information that you that you see tonight.
Thank you. You're welcome. Did did their u estimate for the work to be finished the bond is that from their engineer? You know uh it is from the developer themselves. Okay.
The amount requested is from our engineering department. I know there's two numbers here. Understand that. Yeah. Yeah. It has a contingency baked. Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? No. No. Oh,
I will move that we um approve a bond for what our engineers recommended $171,5484 in lie of releasing the covenant. Okay. 171,548.884. Can I get a second? That is to release all four lots on
Betsway. To release all four lots on Best Way. Best way. Yes. Can I get a second or a motion? Second. All in favor? I I unanimous. Terrific. Thank you. Thank you. Now I will recuse myself.
John, John, before you go, was I'm trying to remember its number. Wasn't it 53G? There was some talk a couple of years ago about the town uh moving to that system of having um outside engineers paid by the contractors do that work rather than our
engineers. What what became of considering that thought? Too expensive. We didn't vote for it. Yeah. Right. It didn't pass. It didn't pass. So that's it. Well, we can try it again. No, I'm not suggesting that. I just wondered why it never came forward
again, but they have opted for it. In this in this case, it was just a post bond for the work to be completed. Yep. So um our engineering department came up with that number to complete the project. I can see that
the road the road buildout and landscaping etc. So, so for cl if I may for clarity purposes in the um decision issued by the board back in 2021, one of the conditions was that the applicant or the developer uh
at the time um seek out and do those inspections with a third-party engineering firm. So, it was a condition within your approval. Normally, that's not a a situation. Our engineering division does it themselves. Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions or comments? Then I'll recuse myself and uh Pat chair this hearing. Okay. Public meeting. The applicant is Merryill Engineers and Land Surveyors on
behalf of Xiao Juniro. The preliminary subdivision plan application to construct a five lot plan residential development PRD subdivision at 428 Carriage Shop Road. And I see someone here for the applicant.
Not Tim Santos from Maryland Engineering. For the record, Kevin Clower, an attorney here in town. And I am pinch hitting uh for Mr. Santos this evening because he is on a well-deserved vacation. Um but I'm before you right now representing Jiao Wankera, who is
the owner of 428 Carrot Shock Road, which as you know is a uh 8.9 acre parcel of land. Uh Mr. Wankera is here this evening. So, this matter has been before the board. Uh, and you were previously presented with a five lot preliminary subdivision plan for a
planned residential development. Um, it's worth noting that what's being presented, what has been and what is being presented is a preliminary plan, which is effectively an agreement to make a plan. Um, so we sort of depending on how this evening goes, our intent is
to be back here for you with a definitive elevation plan as well as a request for a special permit for a planned residential development. So this uh 8.9 acre parcel allows for a five watt ANR plan. Rather uh instead we're proposing again a plan residential
development or cluster subdivision. So that plan resold on you said a five lot ANR. Uh we I thought it was a three lot ANR. So we had there's a five lot ANR that would require Oh the street. Okay. It was the waiver of the street. Okay. Sorry. Now I understand.
Yep. Um what we are requesting is um though sorry the plan res residential development allows for reduction of lot size requirements including square footage lot width and frontage in exchange for open space and that open space is designed to provide buffer uh
privacy for the lots being created as well as privacy for butters. The point of this is to reduce the development footprint and to protect the integrity of open space and the environment consistent with municipal goals. So, since the last meeting, the applicant has reduced his request from a
five lot subdivision down to a four lot subdivision, which is what's before you on the screen tonight. Uh, they're no longer requesting a waiver for street length. And in fact, unlike most proposals that come before this board for subdivision, there's no waiverss being requested at all. We're not requesting waiverss from sidewalks or
hydrants or anything. Uh, the open space, all that would actually be required is 4.45 acres. However, the applicant's proposing to preserve 6 acres of open space. um and and to donate that land to the town moving forward which would prevent further
modification. I know we've seen some situations where we've had open space that developers have gone back and you know had a little bit extra and have have used it that but the applicant here intends to donate this to the town. So that would not be possibility and uh that open space that we're proposing is
linked with significant stretches of existing open space currently owned by the town um including uh found country club which is a few lots to the west of this. It's almost point8 of an acre of open space between here and old Barnesville Road.
So, it's really a significant stretch of open space that would be uh open. We're hoping that the board will find this plan, this reduction in scope agreeable. Uh and if so, we'd be glad to finalize this and come back to you with submission for a definitive plan along
with a special permit request. However, I would be happy to address any questions that you might have at this time. Okay, Kevin, there is one correction that I noted and I checked it with Jed that would need to be made on this one. When you look at the linear feet of all
roadways on the plan, it says 687 plus or minus feet. That includes the um the roundabout the circle I measured. So it's it is so so lengthwise it is it is 500 less than 500 from the total amount of
I wondered I was trying to calculate it. Yeah. Yeah. It's that that's when you calculate the length of the the culde-sac and but the the actual length of the road is under 500 ft. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Charlotte, um thank you for this. Uh people have
been responsive to what was said to them at the last meeting and have come back with fewer houses. That's really good. You said something that confuses me. Um first you said now you're not seeking waiverss, but then you said plus a waiver. Which is it? No, there was the
the five lot ANR plan would have required a a slight waiver in the road length, but we're not requesting that. Not. So, this is for uh four lots, no waiver on the road. And one thing I I neglected to mention in my in my applica in my my little
saliloquy there, um I know there was some concern about manure piles relative to existing properties. I think it's important to note that um if you look at the open space, the open space itself is 20 feet wide and then you have a 10- foot setback here plus a 10-ft setback
on the other side of that property line. So that's 40 ft right there to the extent that there are any existing um piles on adjacent properties would be would of course locate those relative to the definitive plan and we could increase the required setback on any of those parcels if need be.
You can impo we can impose a more stringent setback requirement than the bylaw requires. Question, would it be correct to assume that you have conferred with the with the abuters on this? Uh I'm coming into this fairly late. So um I know that there I know that they've
come in uh there's been some commentary given at the hearings and I know that that's been taken into account and um they've tried to be responsive to those comments. Thank you. I'm good. I just have a technical question about
the use of ANR. It's approval not required, but how can you have approval not required when you have to have a waiver? I think that doesn't isn't that a conflict? I mean, I think what what attorney meant to say was subdivision plan. Yeah.
It wouldn't be an ANR plan. Okay. that that I only took objection to the terms ANR because what I've learned about ANR is it's really a simple plan. It either it is or it isn't and we don't get to say it's we we endorse or we don't endorse and it was I didn't think
that's what we were doing. So So Mr. Fox, an ANR plan would be relying on existing frontage whereas we'd be creating the frontage under a subdivision plan. I'm good with it now. Just wanted to get my words straight. Okay, Tom. I like it. It's, you know, versus the
original. Here you have three monster homes and you're clustering four and you're maintaining open space on both sides. I think it's it's a good plan. I think it helps the butters. Okay.
I would love to have the three lot subdivision. I just like more open space if it can possibly be had, but I'm not sure that we can do this because we can get other things coming in here that we might not like too. and and we are donating an additional acre and a half of open space that's not actually
required um that could have been utilized in one of one or more of the existing lots. So, you know, I think they've they've minimized the lot sizes to to a great extent. Um as as has been discussed, Mr. Mona has has hopes of using lot four for his own property. Um
and you know, where instead of 50% open space, we're putting uh almost uh almost two-thirds open space, 67 of the overall lot into into open space that would be donated to the town and joined with the existing. So that being said that my preference would obviously be the three lots if we
could do it. I think a good effort has been made to get the best that we could get with a subdivision here. Of course I'm going to listen to people there. Charlotte, I think it should be noted your proposal involves taking um land off the tax
rules. Is that right? I mean, open space that that that was restricted in uh as would be under planned residential de development would not be taxed as developable land anyways. So, it would be taxed at a significantly lower rate. Um, so I think
that the trade-off of of open space donated to the town is probably worth whatever minimal tax would have been gained by that open space being retained by the association. Thank you. Am I right in saying that the selectman would have to accept this donation? So if not if not the town I
mean we you know there are other possibilities whether it be conservation or 300 committee or sure Jim I'm in favor at first I didn't think it was a good idea to give it to the town for the same thing Charlotte mentioned in taxes however going back when you
we've done a lot first of all I'm really happy with the uh the plan unit development and this is our best tool to keep open space and I think it's really good that we're getting behind this but there's a lot of subdivisions that we go back and look at now and we can't tell
whether the open space, you know, we forgot, we don't have it. And I've actually had people come up to me and said, "Hey, I own this land behind me. I got 4 acres. It's open space. Can I develop it?" I had to come back to Jed. He had to dig in and find an old plan and say, "No, it's part of a
development, but it caused confusion." I think, and I know the tax rate is really, really low on open space. So, I don't think it's I think it's a great now I'm in favor of giving it to town, make it town land, and everybody knows it. We all have access to it. I just I objected to it before, and now I've just
rationed my reason my way through. I think it's a great idea. Anybody else on the board? Other comments? We'll hear from the public. We are going to I just wanted to poll the board first. Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, anybody from the public, if you wish to make a comment, ask a question, please come up to the podium
and state your name. [Music] Yeah. Ron Birdie, Munich's Madness, the uh 416 carat shop. Yeah, I like this plan. I think he's done a a nice job of u utilizing this land.
keeping as much wild as possible. Um there are there are definitely animals in this area and keeping this open would connecting to that golf course especially would be really nice. Um
the only concern I have is is is lot two. He says 40 ft. I'm not that's pretty close. If if they could put a restriction that the house could be, you know, the 50 feet act the actual house when it's built is back another 10 ft.
So in compliance with the 50 I'd be happy and the rest of them I think are going to be 50 feet from the property. So they the only one I have any concern about Mr. Py those not the end of the world but it would be nice to have a restriction in there.
Those circles just prove that they have the width to create a house there. That doesn't mean that's exactly where they're going to put it. Right. Exactly. Okay. I I understand that. And and the restriction, the way it's drawn is 25 ft plus 10. That's the 40. So it's it's
going to be within 10 ft of the health code if they build it as close as this drawing permits is the way to word it. So anyway, yeah, you've done a nice job with this plan.
Thank you for your comments. Good evening. Um, nice to see you all for the third time in a month. Um, my name is Bob Baker. I live at 40 Crosswinds Way and I am a director the butter to the land at 428 Carrot Shop. This new plan of course is news to me.
Um I wish I'd known there was another plan. I wish I'd had time to look at it, but I have raised had questions in the past. I still have some points I wish to raise. Some of them may be a little moot because of the new plan, but um here I
am. I still have questions regarding the open space land. I I see absolutely no advantage to the town accepting a gift of this land. I I know the the amount of taxes that would be paid on it are minimal. I knew that. But um I would prefer that it remains open space in
perpetuity and be deed as such to the four owners of the land or I guess HOA or whatever it would be. But I would prefer that I felt that four house lots of a half an acre each were kind of small. Now I understand that the three house three lots are going to be 15,000
square feet which is even smaller considering the size of the house lots on both sides of this uh of the farm on one side and carriage shop where I live on the other side. Um I also have questions about the larger lot that has been indicated to be the home of the
developer. I have absolutely no reason to not believe the developer nor do I have any reason to believe him. My experience in 18 and a half years at Cross Swins Way includes a person asking us for a driveway and then was going to
build a house. The foundation and you can go by and see the foundation which was put in 15 16 years ago was caved in. You also can see a 15t pile of weeds which is from uh yard waste that he allowed to be trucked in by by
contractors by you know landscapers. Uh there are also two uh empty truck bodies there that were being used for storage, etc., etc. That person took down a post and rail fence and told me they were going to be putting in a really nice white fence. That was never done. The
house was never built. Another developer came along and bought the two lots at the very end of the culde-sac, which have a shared driveway. He did build two nice houses and and they are very nice neighbors, whatever. But he did tell me that they were going to be putting in
white gate fences kind of on both side. I think gate's probably the wrong word, but white entrance fa fences on both sides. That was never done. Um, a house uh a horse corral was built and it's a very nice horse corral, but I was told that it would be painted white. It has
not never been painted white. We were told two weeks ago, I believe either outside here or a day later, that this new a new plan would be in the works and uh that it would be shared with Mike, who's not here tonight, and then Mike would be able to share it with all of
us. Well, that didn't happen either. So, you can see that I'm a little skeptical when a developer tells me something. Um, I'm a retired school teacher. I had nothing to do with any of this kind of stuff, but I'm skeptical when people tell me something and then it never happens. You know, I don't want to say
they lied to me, but you know, you can call it what you want to call it. All right. Um, I also have concerns about the wildlife corridor. I have, we don't have this thing up here, but I have a 50-foot wildlife corridor the entire length of my property, which abuts this
development, and that among other things precludes me from putting in a privacy fence. If I hated what they wind up doing, I had all sorts of issues with it. And that's what a lot of people put up, privacy fences. I can't do that because I have this wildlife card or I
haven't heard anything about any kind of wildlife stuff, you know, with this development. So, I'm just I'm part of me is fairness. I'm saying, why do I have this and the people right next door to me do not? I mean, I have enjoyed the few deer that come through. Um I have
enjoyed the turkeys, which at one time we had 45 turkeys at once on our property. I haven't seen too many lately. I can live without the rabbits and the coyotes. But, you know, I I like that idea and I'm, you know, I have some concerns that, you know, I have the
wildlife. Why doesn't why why does this development not? You know, it's a question of fairness. Um um and it is honestly, it is not my intention to do everything I can to block development. um is simply my
intention to try to maintain the character of the little part of East Felmouth, which I'm I moved here. My late wife and I built the house of our dreams. It's a it's a really nice street. The neighbors are nice and whatever. I I love the farm. Uh you
know, I hear I don't hear any of the animals inside the house, but I when I go outside, I hear them and I love to hear them. You know, occasionally if the wind's blowing the right way, I get a aroma, but you know, it's it's a nice
area and I'm not opposed to that area being developed. I just never thought it would be, you know, you know, wilderness forever, you know, but I'm just concerned about the character of the neighborhood, and it is a nice neighborhood. So, I thank you. May I ask you a question?
Sure. What I'm understanding is that you like the idea of the open space, but you'd rather have it belong to a homeowners association than to the town or the 300 committee. Well, is that correct? The the town I came from, I attended every town meeting for 30 years and they
rarely ever accepted property and most of the time it was like swamp land, some developer coming in saying all this lovely stuff and it was useless land. I I don't see any value to this land be going to the town. You know, I I mean I I would not like it to, you know, go to
the homeowners and then so many years from now, which I probably won't be here, but so many years from now, you know, all of a sudden it gets developed, but I guess that could be that could be deed accordingly. I would believe in perpetuity as open space, you know. So, I just don't I'm also a town meeting
member. I I don't know if this has to come before town meeting. Yes. Um, I would probably stand up and speak against it. And I can think of at least a dozen people I know who would say, "What's the advantage to us taking this?" And, uh, you know, I don't really
I don't I don't understand that at all. Jed, did you have any comments you'd like to make? Yeah. So, um, very briefly, is is it relates to the open space? It is only an option. So, there are technically three options in the bylaw for the open space.
It can remain uh as property of the HOA. It can be donated to the town or to a nonprofit land trust of some sort. So, it's just an option that can be ironed out in the definitive plan stage, sort of the next step. Um, and there are
qualifications or requirements for if the town were to accept it, it would have to be of certain value. So, in your draft motion, if you're ready, we have language that would support that. Um, basically having the applicant meet with
certain town departments to figure out if there is value to that land to the town for taking it and it would end up ultimately having to be um accepted by town meeting. Does that answer questions? And Jim, you Yeah. Um, we we throughout this whole
meeting, I've heard all kinds of testimony about wildlife quarters. Every single plan that I've looked at has a note in it and say there is no restrictions on wildlife. Yet the public gets up and keeps talking about it. We've already approved the plan. I think you see the notes on the square. I checked it. It's on every single plan.
It said it isn't there. The engineers swore to it and stamped it. So is it or isn't it? It's on It's on my property. I'm just telling you the plan that we have submitted. I read it carefully. There's four different notes on it and it talks about the wildlife corridors
and it said it doesn't exist and yet I've heard the neighbors get up over and over and say it does. I'm confused. Is it or isn't it? So, um it 100% is within a wildlife corridor overlay district. Part of that requirement means that the applicant
needs to meet with the Marine and Environmental Services Division of Natural Resources and um confirm that the plan as it's currently shown doesn't affect wildlife uh migration within that area. They have done that. I attended
that meeting with them. they will receive or you will receive in the definitive plan uh process a formal referral from MEES stating the requirements of the wildlife corridor or the latest it's just not there yet but it it says it doesn't affect them
right no I think what you're reading is is notes related to um endangered species and AC areas it doesn't mention that I see anywhere under notes number four it's mentioned number four it says it's in the wildlife quarter.
It's it's not it says site is not within a priority habitat per NHSP map priority habitats of rare spec species for species under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. Uh if you go to notes number four, it's it says it's in the wildlife corridor. Yeah. Yeah.
And subject to a AGA district, the Bay Coastal Pond overlay and wildlife corridor as depicted on a town with GIS mapping site. I was saying we are but as Jed not it passed we did meet with Mr. Martinson um there was no real concern expressed and and we
will have to address that as part of the definitive subdivision plan. It would be it would be premature to do so as part of the preliminary subdivision plan. I think also I would not want that to be forgotten once we get to the definitive
plan. I mean, there'll be a referral um through through that. Um to um Mr. Baker's point, I just wanted to to bring up one thing here. So, what we're looking at here is this
property and this rear portion here would um would very would be the area that's open space. And you'll see here this is town open space. This is town open space. This is town open space. This is town open space. And
this is town open space. So the benefit is linking an additional six acres to the town open space that exists today. Can you just uh click on the theme? There's an open space theme. Yeah, that might show it a little bit better. Under under the base theme. No. No.
Scroll down. Might be right there. There you go. So we'd be attaching an additional six acres of open space here. So that is the benefit of extending what is a wildlife corridor in open space. Um
you know he mentioned that there that these are small house lots but that's entirely the point. The point is to have smaller house lots and to minimize the area of disturbance and development. So where would the restriction of not being able to put up a fence come into this conversation? That would be part of
the referral from U wildlife and Mr. Martinson, Officer Martinson. Um, you typically a lot of times you can have a fence within a wildlife corridor, but they they need to be raised a certain amount. Bunnies get underneath. Yeah. Raised a certain amount or not above a certain height to allow animals to go
over and below. So, Mr. Baker could confer with I I don't want to tell Mr. Baker what he can and can't do. No, I understand. Okay. It might be suggested that, but oftentimes these are not hard and fast rules, but there is always an
element of um discretion. Okay. Thanks, Kevin. Charlotte, um I'd like to respond to Mr. Baker's statement that he doesn't see any value to the town on open land. Felmouth as a town values open land. Felmouth as a town has put millions of dollars through its community preservation act into
preserving open land and the way it zoned agricultural land, preserving open land. The state of Massachusetts values open land and they have built into the community preservation act that that must be one of the uses of that money if towns opt to take that. So there is a
high value in this community and this state on open land and I think there's a high value in your neighborhood on open land. So I just didn't want that to go unressed. We value open land. Is there anyone else who wishes
come back up again, Mr. Baker? Then um first of all, I didn't think I indicated that I didn't value open land. I just thought the open land should belong to the people who own the land as opposed to the town. Um, I have this, you know, done by an engineer in '05 and
it says wildlife corridor per section 240-91 of the Falmouth zoning bylaws. And it's not just me. It's part of my neighbor on one side and it's part of both of the people who sh have the shared driveway. It's part of their
property also. you know this I mean I so it's it I've had this forever you know but so I mean it does exist so yeah we're not disputing that it exists okay
is discussion completed oh please you were last last time and you put a good sorry together I'm Amy Vickers and the map is still up so I'm that weird little parcel there, that
weird little shape. I don't know how to describe that. That's where I am. Um, but today I was I I really like the idea that they have cut it back to four. So, I'm I'm positive with what they're doing. I think this is a good idea, but I don't want it to get overlooked the
other elements because when this is approved and some of these elements are ignored, then the next person is going to go, "Oh, well, we we approved this, but we forgot, you know, 10 things." Um, so, so I just wanted to make a point of
definitely Eastern Box turtles cross through that property without a doubt. There is no like there's no way anybody could argue. I've seen him for 10 years uh every year. And there was an article in the Enterprise. Let me pass this out in 2023
where it was put forth to the town that they were supposed to be studied on the Saxon property and then somehow they forgot to study them. It never got done. Like who's following up on I mean you guys make decisions. Not I'm not saying this is bad against
you guys. Everybody makes decisions but then nobody follows up on what's supposed to be done. And that's a problem. And it but it happens over and over and over again. And it's just it's like, you know, I'm not a specialist. I'm I'm not but and you guys have tons to do. I mean, I can't even imagine
doing your jobs. I wouldn't want to do your jobs. I couldn't do it. But at the same time, like where are the checks and balances of not forgetting those things? Um because with Saxon now they're going to get away with it and they're just going to breeze by and because nobody wants to
get sued and they're just going to litigate if anybody tries to do something to stop it which is unfortunate because that that is an important issue. Um and to be able to preserve the land and at least make adjustments with things. I think this
the quantity of open space for this as far as where the turtles cross and where I see them crossing. Um, but then I'm sorry about your name. Okay, so you guys, because you're down at the other end, they have some great pictures of mating eastern box turtles
and clearly they're mating and clearly they're possibly laying eggs in that, you know, the portion of down in the front, but it may be in the section that's going to be actually not built on is my understanding. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. like that could be something that
you guys discuss and I mean try to work through that because we know that's just that's there. Um so that is one thing I wanted to mention. Definitely wildlife corridor definitely deer coyote everybody's crossing through the land. um the owls and I do like the idea of
the land going to the town but only if it's in perpetuity and it isn't going to be developed into affordable housing and it isn't going to be developed into something else because it is in such a nice wildlife corridor section through there and especially with the water overlay and the ponds and all of the
access. Um but I really again appreciate you guys. I did want to give you one other article too. I pulled up because I know this was a this was mentioned at the end of the meeting last on the 22nd about Webster Woods, but some of the things came up for that
as far as the Eastern Box turtles and the concerns in those areas and I everything's up for development, but it there is a point where you have to draw a line in the sand and just say, you know, we're not Boston. Like we just we can't be Boston. I mean, that's essentially the way I look at it. We're
special and we need to really value that. Thank you. I hate to say this, but I'm going to anyway. To some degree, I think you have to trust the board and our staff because you've been amply clear what you are
treasuring and I would anticipate that some of this will see its way into our decision and we have to trust you that you will review the decisions too and make sure. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. My only additional comment, Miss Guroot,
would be that, you know, this is a preliminary plan. Um, and and this doesn't allow us to do anything. No. So, we'll be back with a definitive plan and that's when, you know, that does go through the referral process to various departments and that's when we you do put the restrictions in place. Right
now, right, if this board approves this, it's just saying, yeah, you can try. You can try and we'd like to be able to try. We're not saying we're gonna bless you on it. Thank you. Okay. Um, if the board feels
that they are ready to uh vote a draft, preliminary motion. We've got it here. I don't know that. Is it a draft or is it a preliminary motion? It always says draft on it. It's a It's a
It's the draft motion that we prepared for you. If I may just cover some of the important components. So, um, as you know and as attorney Clower had represented in his introduction, this is a fourlaw proposed PRD subdivision. They are proposing to
take advantage of section 249.8G, which is a density bonus allowance. Essentially, if the open space is considered to be valuable, then you are allowed to grant an additional lot uh
based on a calculation. So, I won't go into the exact calculation of what that looks like, but I did put a finding in here for you um and I'll just read it for you so that you're aware of it. It says the board makes no determination as to the ability of the applicant to obtain the density bonus per section
249.8G. the applicant will need to provide that information as part of the definitive plan stage. So again, the next phase of this subdivision or the next phase of this subdivision process will include that analysis and you'll be able to
approve or not approve based on the information that's presented by the applicant related to the density bonus. And then just to support that fact, there's a condition in here as well that says that shall, you know, provide that information to the board. Um, another
condition that I think is important for you to to know about is that we put um the applicant should consider the appropriate or cons should consult with the appropriate town departments related to the potential of transferring the open space to the town before filing the definitive plan application. So, in
other words, meet with us. We'll try to figure out who else should be in the room to discuss the value of the land and whether or not that's possible or if the town would be inclined to accept that donation. Therefore, it's cleared up for you when they come before you and
and officially submit the definitive plan process. There won't be any question at that point. Um, and then you know the remainder of this is is simply just indicating that it's a PRD that if any waiverss are going to be requested that they be filed with the definitive
plan stage and that importantly with this one is that they identify the amount of disturbance because as you know anytime there's a distur disturbance of land more than an acre they're in a storm water management permit with our engineering division and they're not doing drainage calculations
with the planning board. So it's a separate thing. We need to know that in advance so that it's nice and clear for the applicant which direction they're going. So that's the basics of what you've got before you. But essentially it's an approval of the plan as submitted this four lot with some
recommendations. It is not approving the plan for be for any sort of construction. It's simply just allowing them to advance to the next stage which is the definitive plan. Charlotte, um I I could not support this the way this is written. I think after all the
conversation we've had um around the initial reaction to this uh unusual use of the cluster development bylaw and the overcrowding of the house the houses on a narrow lot that to say that we make no determination as to whether or not they
can now add another house back when we've worked so hard to take a house out. I don't know why we would approve that. I would It's to allow for that four the potential fourth lot. No, I don't think we should allow for that. Okay. You think we should only have three lots
there. Period. You think we should only have three lots? No, I think that we could approve this but take out the ability of the applicant to obtain a density bonus. The four lot would be with the density bonus. That is so this doesn't mean that
they can now add back another one. No, correct. The extra lot is All right. Thank you. I misunderstood. I read it several times, too, Charlotte. Thank you. The street's 500 ft.
I know that they don't need the waiver. We still Right. So, so if the board feels comfortable, what is the vote? How what do you need? It's the vote is to Yeah, I know what I know what it is, but how many is it?
Civil majority. Oh, in this case it's a simple majority. Okay. Cuz it's I guess preliminary. Are you okay with it now? Any reconsideration? With the understanding that it's absolutely restricted at four houses in
that lot on that piece of land. The fourth lot is the bonus. That's it. Yeah. You're okay with that? I am. Okay. So, it would take a vote of four of us to pass this. Okay. Yeah. this that only allows them
to proceed with their final. No, I understand. Okay. Well, could Okay. So, if you all want to consider this tonight, I would need somebody to read it and we vote on it. Tom, read the red.
Okay. Motion that the planning board votes to approve the preliminary subdivision plan application of Joua Jeanquera under article 3 preliminary plan chapter 305 subdivision regulations of the town
of Felmouth with the following findings and recommendations. Findings. The applicant is proposing a four lot plan residential development PRD subdivision which will include three single lots at 15,000 plus
or minus square ft and one single family lot at 50,200 plus or minus square ft. Additionally, the proposal includes the creation of 261,150
square feet of open space, denitrification denitrifying septic systems for each lot, a 500 linear foot culde-sac roadway with a sidewalk, and all necessary utilities within a 40 foot wide roadway layout. The board
recognizes the benefit of smaller clustered lots and protected open space and therefore supports the applicant's intention to move forward in the process as a planned residential development PRD. The board makes no determination as
to the ability of the applicant to obtain a density bonus per section 240-9.8G. The applicant will need to provide that information as part of the definitive plan stage recommendations. A list of any waiverss from the planning board's
rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land must be included as part of the definitive plan application. Next page. Number four. The application. The applicant should identify the amount of
future land disturbance as more than one acre would require a storm water management permit from the Felmouth Engineering Division. Number six, the applicant shall demonstrate eligibility for the density bonus provision in
section 240-9.8G 8G of the zoning bylaw as part of the definitive plan application. Number seven, the applicant should consult with the appropriate town departments related to the potential of transferring the
open space to the town before filing the definitive plan application. Is there a second? Second. Okay. And I want to tell everybody who's out here that we read Tom read the significant portions, but there are
other little things in here in black as well that haven't been read. And if you want to get the full decision, you can go into the planning office and get it. Is it on our web page? I think it's not on the web page, but they can uh anyone can come by and get a copy of it. Okay, we'll have a copy.
So, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor signify. I opposed. Okay. So, there are four of us in favor and one opposed. I just have I just wanted uh we we
I don't say his name right, but we've been butchering this guy's name. And Joah, could you get up and say your name? So, we next Okay. So, that we Joel Juna, I've heard it said 10 different times. And I just want your food. You're gonna say
Joel Jada. Sorry. I just thought we need to clarify that he's been a town person for a long time and last name I need to say his name right. Thank you very much and I look forward to all of your participation as this comes forward
it's going to be affordable. Uhhuh. The size of Okay. And we'll need all of you to move out for conversation. I want to get home early tonight. Right. Wow.
You're paying attention. We were butchering that guy's jaw. He his family owns a house on Mil Road. I see him all the time. I waved to him. 10 years ago he did a septic system with he's capewide engineering. I've gotten
business with him. So I should at least know how to say his name. I don't say it right either. I just thought that nice thing to do. Give him a break. He's getting butchered. Delay on I think this approve that, didn't you? Yeah.
Oh, it has to be a motion, I think. Yeah, continue it. No, no, no, no. To continue these two property. That's what we want. We have two of them or one? Oh, we actually have two from him. Nice about landscaping.
We are site plan review and special permit. And he's asking for continuance on both. That is correct, isn't it, Jed? That is correct. Yes. Go ahead. Sorry. for 683 Main Street,
the site plan review and special permit, they are requesting a continuence until the next uh board meeting, which I think is August 26. I have that memorized correctly. So, you want a motion now to accept that request?
Okay. I move that the board accept the request from the applicant Raphael Citaden um to continue the hearings on the site plan review and the special permit application
for 683 Main Street until our next meeting which is August 26th. Thank you. Second, please. Second. Thank you. All in favor? I I unanimous. Thank you.
So, next on our agenda is the uh planning board fall 2025 town meeting zoning articles. Jed, do you want to take that? Um if uh yeah, Tom can read in the
reading public hearing notice. Sure. Which one is that? The the highlighted one. The highlighted whole thing or just the yellow in accordance with the provisions of MGL
chapter 48 section 5 and section 1.1D of the Felmouth zoning bylaw. The Felmouth Planning Board shall conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, August 12th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. at the Felmouth Town
Hall, 59 Town Hall Square, Felmouth, Mass 02540 on the zoning articles proposed for the warrant at the annual town meeting to be held November 17th, 2021. And I think at the end of that Tom at
the last page you can just say the two dates it was published in the enterprise. Yep. And this was published on July 25th 2025 and also on August 1st 2025. Thank you Linda.
Yes. So I'm going to do some of the presentation. Um so the first article um we have a little PowerPoint presentation. Um and the first article that we have uh for town meeting is
uh for prohibited uses and special permanent allowance. It's 240-5.1c. Um we're proposing to remove the portion of this article that that has a special permit allowance. um just to remove it alto together. Um the reason for this is
that um this this bylaw provision right now allows people to Next slide. There you go. Thanks. allows people to uh bypass the building commissioner and go straight to
the zoning board of appeals for a um zoning determination when really the process should go through the zoning or the um building commissioner. He should make his determination and then if someone doesn't agree with it then they go to the zoning board of appeals. So
this isn't the normal or the practice we would like to use how we how it is right now. So, we're trying to streamline it, make it a little clearer for people to know that they only go to the building commissioner. He decides whether something can be done or not in that um
district and he is the one that that takes a use that maybe not be uh listed. And if he decides that it's close enough to what's in the zoning table, he can allow it. if he says it's not close to something that's in the zoning table, then he determines that it's not allowed
and then they go to the zoning board of appeals. So, this this prohib uh prohibits the um applicant from getting that from Gary first and just streamlines it to the zoning board of appeals and it really shouldn't be that way because Gary Gary's a zoning officer,
correct? Yes. Jim, I just have a question. Why do you think that was put in here in the first place? We're undoing something our previous boards thought there was a reason to do it. I I don't know. All I do know is that it's been used two times in the last 10 years. Right. And so I I think what I've heard
you said it's not totally eliminating. It's just a process that we now now I I objected to it going away, but now I understand it's they can still appeal. Yes, they can. Okay. Then that's one of those I just didn't want to just, you know, start shutting everything down. If if if they can make an argument,
they still can do it. It's just a process. So now I'm in agreement. Thank you. Okay. On the black and white, the words and special permit were crossed out. I don't know if you want it crossed out on this slide. Thank you. Y Okay.
All right. So, any other questions on that article? Oh, next. So, the next one is um the building dis the business district use table. Uh the attorney general office came back to us
um from the last town meeting where we adjusted the um ADU bylaw and they made some comments that since we allow single family homes in or residential homes in um the business district that we need to
allow accessory apartments as well. So we have changed or altered the the business district use table to allow um accessory apartments or accessory dwelling units I should say uh by right one of them um in the business districts
and it has to there has to be a primary dwelling on the lot as well. So they can't just do it with a commercial. Sorry, I keep forgetting to So, it can't just be added on like an accessory dwelling unit to a businesses there. There has to be a res. It would
have to have a primary um dwelling unit on the lot. Jim, question if it's appropriate. Yeah. Now, is this just one or does every primary unit have an have the ability to have an accessory if it gets approved?
You mean if it's a multiple? Well, let's say there's five. Uh, it's a big property and they've decided to put in six family homes. Now, do they all get to have an accessory? That is. Yes. Okay. That's what I thought.
I don't know if we thought about that, but I I believe that's the way I read it. Um, we should discuss that, huh? Yeah, that look at your face. I thought I was probably the only one
that uh picked up on that. Well, Jed kind of we we've had previous discussions. I got this weird property that I've been trying to sell for a long time. So, I know this lot. So, and on this lot, you could put if it's in the business zone. Yeah.
And I believe you could either have six or eight depending on it, single family homes and and if we approve it and then by right they all can have an accessory now. And that's what we're that's what we're doing here.
So, let's think about that. Is that That's what I thought we should think about. I mean, is that is that it might be a good idea. I just wanted to point I don't know if the rest of you had actually considered that. Why don't we table that conversation for the uh accessory dwelling unit article and we can talk more in depth about that
in a minute. Fine. I just want to bring it up. Yeah. Anyone else for the use table? Because this is what the state told us we had to do. Yeah, we don't have much choice. We have no choice anyhow. Um so the next article is uh the
accessory dwelling unit bylaw in its whole. Um we if you you can see um and we added some definitions that pertain specifically to the accessory dwelling unit bylaw.
Um, these are important definitions because they came directly from the regulations that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities published approximately 3 to four months ago. Um,
and so these will be definitions that are only applicable to the accessory dwelling unit bylaw. They're not applicable to the entire bylaw itself. They're contained only within the ADU bylaw and these are required by the state,
not required, but suggested and included in their regulations. So, we felt like it was important to put in some clarifying language because I guess to for layman's terms, the um accessory dwelling unit um model bylaw
and regulations can be a little confusing as we just witnessed, right? Um, and so there are specific definitions such as what's on the screen, single family residential zoning district. That definition technically
says that it's any zoning district in town that allows single family residential. So that can be your business district because you allow single family dwellings in your business district. So that's where the confusion
starts to creep in because traditionally people look at that and say, "Oh, well single family residential zoning district, that's just RC's, RAS, agricultural districts." That's not technically true. And that's why it's important to know that this definition
only applies to the ADU bylaw. And you'll see why in a few minutes because throughout the bylaw itself in the amendments that are going to be presented, there are references to that definition which circle back to how the
state views a protected use ADU. A protected use ADU is now allowed by right anywhere you allow a single family residential uh dwelling. And municipalities really don't have any control over them. They are a protected
use now. They're similar to child child care facilities, solar, uh any sort of dober amendment um uh application. So, educational facilities, uh religious institutions, you you have a limited amount of jurisdiction over them, but
it's very limited. So, they're important definitions to to note. Chairman, go ahead. I'm sorry to keep bringing up, but I have actually really familiar with this. I've been studied for a long time. There's another area that we need to consider. I don't think any of you have
thought about it yet, but we have a conversion bylaw that allows us to take a four or 5,000 square foot house and if it hasn't been changed since 2000, we make it into four units. And now my question is, does this law also make all
those four units now eligible to have an accessory apartment? And we should consider that. I think that's what we're doing here. Well, only one of the units would be a primary residence on all four. I believe that I believe they're primary residents when you
I believe the conversion bylaw and that's that's like condominium ownership. It's still primary resident I'd like to disc I'm not in favor of it. I'm just bringing it up that we should understand what we're doing here because I believe they are primary
residents and I believe it is an issue and I I'm not in favor of doing it or anything. I just think that no one here has considered it. I have No, it's a good point. And it's ownership. It's ownership. It's a pri I mean I I believe my condo that I live in is my primary residence. And I have I I developed I have three
units on my land. If I could fit an affordable thing, I can't. But I I can't. It doesn't fit the so sewer. You have to have the right sewer system, the right setbacks. You have to all that. But there are these weird properties in town that have an extra two acres of
land that it could happen. You want to discuss that now, J? You want to table it? We might as well. The right time. I just I don't think anyone here thought about it, but I have. Okay. Well, you're about to get to it. So, at the end of the definitions, you're about Melinda's about to get into the requirements. The first requirement
I think speaks to this. So um shown on the screen requirement number one under under this 9.1 C says only one protected use ADU shall be allowed as of right on a lot containing a principal dwelling unit in a single
family residential zoning district. So I read that as you get one protected AD use protected use ADU for a principal dwelling unit. So in your situation, you would have to
determine in my opinion a pre a principal dwelling and a principal dwelling unit for which an ad a protected use ADU would be allowed. So as I say that out loud, I realize that think about what we just did in the
business. Yep. I I'm not trying to propose this. I'm just we want to make it clear that this is something we have to deal with. What are the other limits within the conversion law? because that was designed for house existing houses and repurposing them.
But you can't they can't be expanded. They have to fit the in 2000. They have to exist in 2000 about the same size. And the only additions are for egress and stairwells and you know you can't add on to it, make it bigger and then you got a fixed shell,
right? So within how many fixed shells could you possibly fit an ADU? I think I think the buildings themselves limit well the application. I've been studying this one pro property for a long time and I'm not we're not doing it. I'm not doing something here. We're
your example wasn't about a conversion property. Your example it was an alternative to a a pro a house was built in 1870 and it's the way we determine square footage now on the primary residence. You count the basement and and you count the attic
space. the new the new ways of interpreting are much more liberal than what our accessory apartment bylaw and in my opinion it opens up a door here that we should consider. I'm I'm not proposing it, but when I heard that now
even basement areas are now talked about the areas and even attic areas if there's enough clear height that now that that what was a 1600 foot building now becomes a 3200 3200 foot building and by determination
I think we got to be careful we I think still the 50% or 900 square f feet right and then there's lot coverage too well there's lot coverage but there are properties really weird properties that have an acre lot out back. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, this isn't going to apply to very many because weird limit says you
right away it's not very many. But nonetheless, it's within the intent of the ADU changes because that's to stuff more people onto every lot. It is. But think about what we just did when we talk about the business. And there's a lot of business properties, big pieces of business land that could
be made into seven or eight single family homes. And there's nothing that says you can't have a twotory ADU. I think there's one now in West Vmouth like that. There's lots of them. Yeah. Well, there's one I can think of. Yeah. So, anyways, I I just was bringing it up for discussion. I'm not a
proponent. I don't want to I just don't think we've all discussed it enough. So, I think Jed and I will reach out and try to get some clarification on that as well for the next meeting. Yeah. Let's see what the lawyers think. Yeah. Yeah. because it might just read that
there's one per lot regardless of how many principles seems to say that. So you could interpret it different ways, I think. So we'll get some guidance on that for for the next meeting. I think that's they might have been applying it, but I think when you read it might somebody could twist it the
other way, too. And that's that's what we want to try to avoid, right? You know, getting into these types of debates with the attorney general for an opinion. Yeah. Yeah. because I do think that if you eliminated unit in that statement, could you go to that slide real quick?
Yeah, that one. So if you eliminated where it says containing a principal dwelling unit, if you eliminated unit, then I believe what it would say is that you get one protected use ADU on a lot
containing a principal dwelling which is defined as a structure regardless of whether it is or the lot is I'm sorry, let me let me restart. A structure, regardless of whether
it or the lot is situated on, conforms to zoning, including use requirements and dimensional requirements such as setbacks, bulk, and height that contain at least one dwelling unit and is or will be located on the same lot as a
protected use ADU. So, there's a lot of words there. You said at least. Didn't you just say at least? Yeah. So, that opens the door. That contains at least one dwelling unit. So a principal dwelling is a structure that contains at least one
principal or one dwelling unit inside. But the point I'm trying to make is that it's just a structure. So if one protected use ADU shall be allowed uh as of right on a lot that contains a principal dwelling structure in a single
family residential zoning district. you are only one structure for which one protected DD use can be allowed. So if you had a two family structure only that structure can have a protected use ADU.
So then the business zone would be still possible but this idea of putting condos inside one structure would be closed out. Right. I'm glad if we can get that determined that would straighten out a lot of questions. So, we'll we'll confer with with town council and get back to you.
Does Laura have any comments on that? We can get to that. Yeah, I know. I just wondered if she might because I saw her doing a lot. Yep. But I didn't read it. I just Who's Whose language is that? The states or It is the states. It's the states. Yeah. So, may we change it?
Uh, I believe that you can. Yeah. Yeah. But again, we'll confer and we'll come back at the at the at your next, you know, your continued hearing because this will be a likely a at least a few meetings to to make sure the public is aware and has the opportunity to comment.
Can we only change it if we make it more restrictive? Um, I believe so. That's good. Yep. I don't think that you can make it more generous. So the some of the main points from the accessory dwelling unit bylaw are that
we deleted multiple ADUs by special permit and we are eliminating the site plan review process for ADUs and making it by right through the building permit um application process. Um we also added
language from the state's bylaw. Um, so the reasoning behind the multiple ADUs for special permit deleting that section is because we don't have any guidance at the moment as to if someone came before you and wanted eight ADUs on their
property. Um, we don't have guidance right now uh or a criteria that you guys have discussed on what that would look like. So I think before we start allowing multiple ADUs on a lot by special permit, we should have a
discussion on what we want, how many we want, um you know, certain size or lot size requirements, you know, a little structure rather than having someone come in and just propose a bunch of ADUs by special permit.
I have a question on this. I believe the state's trying to get us to consider tiny houses. Yes. Yes. And this is going to be in the face saying we're not going to do that. No, I it's just a discussion on how you guys want to approach it. Yeah. How you guys But we're deleting it as a special permit now.
Yeah. We don't have to have it as a special permit. The state isn't making us We only need to provide the one by right, which we are. And we don't have to allow any by special permit. So, we're just taking it away from now till the board has time to decide what criteria they would like for the special
permit process. We could because I have people telling me all the time, well, I want to do tiny houses. I want to do this. I said, I don't think you can. I don't think our zoning doesn't allow for it. Well, that's why through the special So, if you don't if you allow it by special permit right now, if you keep it the way
it is, then someone could come and do all that. So, we're going to end any possibility of tiny houses until we redo the decide. Yeah, we I think it I think it needs to be a longer discussion amongst the board on what you would like to see or not see some guidance so that when
someone does come in the future or if someone does come in the future, you have something, you know, set out of what you would like because it's important to note that anything past the first protected use
ADU is what's considered to be a local ADU and you can create further restrictions or you can set uh square footages o over 900 square feet. You you have total control over that second and
beyond ADU. And so it's important for if you're going to allow it, you're going to want to have the guard rails in place before allowing it. But we're saying right now we're not going to allow it. Correct. temporarily until we temporarily until we as a board have
time to discuss how you want that to look if someone came before you for multiple ADUs. One is easy, but there are some people that I that would come with multiple and there's no rules in place saying what size you'd want that second one to
be capped at number how the building if you want it all in one building. But if they were separate buildings, you know, that's when you can get into the design uh Bob that you were concerned about. That's where you have more control over the second ADU and beyond. But the first
So until we have parameters that um control what you want, we can't we shouldn't allow it as a special permit because we don't have any guidelines. So when we have that discussion, we should kind of have a an example type of
situation. Let's say somebody has three acres, they build one house on it, uh you know, 1,800 square feet, 3,000 feet or whatever. Then they get their by right ADU. Then we need to discuss okay on three acres how many ADUs would fit
that would uh work with the lot coverage work with setbacks would work with septic. So that's the discussion that yep we're planning to have. Yes. Okay. So you'll have the control over figuring all that out. Yeah. So that won't be it for this town meeting. That's why we're putting a
pause on that for the for now and just allowing the the protected use. So, at town meeting, we're going to be telling them for now, no uh no special apartment, no tiny houses. This is also have to be dealt with in the future. I think yes, that's what we're saying, right? Yes, that's what you're saying.
I'm not sure that it's going to be I think we might get some push back on that. I I'm Please don't think I'm in favor of anything. I just I just have been dealing with this professionally. Um
the other things the other sorry the other requirements um the gross floor area is 50% or 900 square f feet. That's that's uh is the same. Second one's a really good one. Yep. Sorry. The protected use ADU shall
not operate as a short-term rental at any time. Um, and neither the principal dwelling nor the protected use ADU shall be used as a commercial accommodation at any time. So, a short-term rental is anything 31
days or and less. Um um there's other things I believe that we took out um were the there's no restrictions on bedroom counts now and uh we took out the requirement for
the coastal pond overlay district and the uh water resource protection district that specifically only associated with the ADU bylaw. We It wasn't allowed um because we're restricting it only for ADUs and not for regular single family homes. So, we took
that out. However, a home still does have to or tiny not sorry tiny home accessory dwelling unit still has to uh get approval from the board of health for septic and all of that. That's separate from this process. Um and so just if you go back a slide, so
we mentioned that in number eight. So, in number eight up on the screen, um, all protected use ADUs will follow the building code. They'll be subject to title 5 regulations. Um, there's also number seven, which allows for a separate entrance. So, the
ADU can have either a separate entrance or be um allowed an entrance through the principal dwelling, through a hallway, um, whatever is allowed by building code. Um I think number five is really important um as it relates to um the
fact that the affordable homes act made it very clear that a protected ADU a protected use ADU one of these times I'm going to get it right um it cannot be more restrictive in dimensional requirements
than that is allowed for a single family dwelling. So that means that in a protected use ADU can be the same height can be subject to the same setbacks as a single
family dwelling. Same height. Correct. 35 ft. It's an important point. Yes. So that you can build yourself a little tower. Yes. That's strange. Yep. So again, that only applies to the first
ADU. That's why we were saying before is so important. The first ADU that someone has on their property, you, the town, many municipalities have lost control of that. The state has basically told you what the regulations are going to be. Anything after that, now you've got more
local control. So you could say, well, the second ADU can only be 22 ft, which is the building height for an accessory structure, but that first one, it cannot be more restrictive than a principal dwelling. You could stack 3 10 by 30. Yeah. I mean, you get 900 square ft.
Yeah. And it can go up to 35. Yep. Yeah. Rapunzel, this is We can have a legal opinion on it. Yeah. We already have. We already have. Okay. Yep. I think it it it goes for
structures such as an ADU that's over a garage. It gives them a little more headroom. Yeah. I mean, we did 22 recently. Now it's 25. Is that going to be 35? 35. 35. Where did I see a change from 22 to 25? I saw that.
That's for um properties over two acres for accessory structures. And actually later we have to take keep it all straight. Yeah. That's actually another article that we're we're changing because we need to remove accessory dwelling units from that, but that will come later.
So now accessory structures do not need to seek a special permit and further can be allowed within the first 50 ft of the front yard setback. So it's definition, you said accessory structure. I'm sorry. Accessory dwelling units, I'm
sorry. protected use ADUs can be set back from the street um 25 ft. They're no longer be in the front yard now. And it could be in the front yard. Yeah. Because we you used to have to get a spe I was just talking to a guy today. Uh he
had to get a special permit but because he put it in his front yard. Correct. And we gave it to him. Yeah. But now you can put it in your front yard. I should clarify. So, I think that accessory structures, the clause was accessory structures can
seek a special permit if they're in the front yard provided that they're not within the first 50 ft. So, there was a preclusion of having an accessory structure within that first 50 ft. That's gone. Now, however, if it's in the front yard, I do believe they'll
still need a special permit, but we can clarify that with town council as well. it. There's a lot there's a lot to do with protected use ad use. Got it. My house is a lot of layers. I could put one in the front.
Sure. Yeah. I'll do. So, we're all going to become generic communities under state law. My house if you say a number first. Thank you. Okay. Please. So,
so if we're we're at number nine now under the requirements. So, um the protected use the protected use ADU is located on lots within the water resource protection district overlay overlay district and the coastal pond overlay district are subject to the preservisions of those districts. So,
that's separate from what I was saying about their subject before. Um, it just means that if it's in those districts, whatever those districts require, as it would for a single family home, it would require for an accessory dwelling unit as well.
Um, and then for number 10, it talks about parking. Um, there's only one parking space needed unless you're within a half a mile of a transit station. Um, and we have defined transit station as well.
is a bus stop at transit station. So the route 28 everything within a half a mile of route 28 would now qualify. Yes. Right, Chad? I'm I'm looking just very quickly. I don't know if it's the says transit station.
It's a station, not transit. Well, so again, stop, right? We defined transit station to go there. I'm not advocating for it. So, it's a bus station including any location serving as a point of embarcation for any bus operated by a
transit authority. So, it's bus stops. It's bus stop. Yeah. Which you can call up Cape Card RTA and they'll pick you up. Well, so that Yeah. So we can get clarification on that language because embarcation means getting on and if
you're ser if any location serving a port of imbarcation. If you've got a flag stop system like the CC RTA has then in theory an argument could be made that the entire route is a is a bus station. That was my question specifically as it relates to route 28. Yep.
And getting up there and getting on the B bus and go to Province Town is every day. Yep. We'll seek clarification on that as well. So the distance is a quarter mile, half half mile. And the other transit station that we have here is a ferry terminal. Um but
only ones that uh operate year round. So it would be the steamship, not not the island queen. Um let's see. So number 11, a protected use ADU shall be permitted within or on a lot with a
pre-existing non-conforming structure. So long as the protected use ADU can be developed in conformance with the building code and state law. Uh, number 12. Only a protected use ADU shall be exempt from any required finding under MGL chapter 4A section 6.
Jud, do you know what section that is? Non-conforming. Those are all non-conforming structures. Lots. And then number 13, protected use ADUs located within the town's designated historic districts shall comply with the requirements of chapter 36 of the code of Felmouth and the design requirements
adopted by the historical commission. Same as with any single family house. So that's the only design see this jurisdiction that you have for the protected use ADU. Um so any before I go on to
administration are there any um comments about requirements that you want to discuss? Go on. I think we're all set. Okay. Um so the next part portion is administration section D number one. The building commissioner
shall approve a building permit authorizing a protected use ADU installation and use within or on a lot with a principal dwelling in a single family residential zoning district, including within or on a lot with a pre-existing non-conforming structure if
the requirements of section 249.1C are met. So ultimately, it's saying that it's through the building permit um application process that this is going to be permitted. So, no more site review here, correct? That's what we're doing. We're eliminating our site review and going
totally to building commission. Just for the protected use ADU. Yes. Um, so and number two, that said that goes right along with it. It's a protected use ADU is not subject to the requirements of section 240 12.2 site plan.
Okay. So, I think we should think about this for a minute because there's quite an industry developing now of prefab ADUs and they can be in any style, any kind of thing, any any price range, whatever. So, you can get these little popup ADUs um that are completely
outside the character of your neighborhood that suddenly no one's going to take have the authority to reject it based on non-conforming character. What what would the building commissioner be thinking about that? So, you wouldn't be if it came before
you for site plan review, you wouldn't have any authority over the design or the character of of the the building either. I thought I read something in I thought that we did. No. So, the only thing that you have um authority over is the size,
the height, and the parking. No. Um in Section 249.1B in definitions for the principal dwelling or within a detached accessory structure on the lot.
An an accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed so as to maintain the appearance and essential character of a dwelling or accessory structure there to located on the lot. We actually have to remove that. That was that was one of the comments that was in Laurier general. Okay.
We caught it after so Okay. So I thought because it was here we Yeah. So that's being changed. This doesn't belong here anymore. Okay. Uh but I don't see why I mean the building commissioner has the ultimate say in in what goes on a lot.
So it will be through a referral process through the planning board, right? And that that's what I'm getting at is is we should be able to uh have a list of criteria as a referral to the building commissioner. So, the only things that we'll be allowed to look at are the size, the
parking, and the height, right? So, as long as it's 900 square feet or 50%, whichever is less, if there's a parking space, unless it's in within a half a mile of a transit authority or um if it's too high,
but we why do why do we landscaping no design, right? So, that's why we're saying it doesn't need to come before the planning board. So that's why we're just saying the building permit process with a referral from the planning board staff to take a look at it to make sure that it does match everything that it's supposed to.
Bob, referral from planning board staff. That means we we're not getting referral. They're the ones I know. But what I'm saying is if they don't have the authority to require it to conform to the character of the treat. No, they won't either. So the fact that it's going to them for that doesn't matter. It wouldn't go to us for that.
Complete. It's the way it is. Yeah. But I don't see where we can't create something for guidelines for the building commissioner. I mean because he can he can make those determinations. I think those are the guidelines. Yeah. Parking height. That's it.
Parking height and size. Three things. Yeah. Yeah. Again, only for the first one. We do it best. So all the from from ADU number two onward, if you decide that you want to allow multiple, now you've got all the jurisdiction. the first one.
Yeah. But that's like meaningless. So now you've got Yeah. one regular house, one itty bitty little quans hut, and then these other things. Yeah. State law. Yeah. Massachusetts. Yeah. So, I'm going to continue on to number
three. Um, no building shall be changed or in use or configuration without a building permit from the building commissioner. That's standard. And number four, no building shall be occupied until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the building
commissioner where required. That's um the ADU, the protected use ADU bylaw um summary. I'm going to let Jed come up and do have any option on some of this. You're going to have a good time, John,
explaining these to town meeting. Hope I don't get sick that night. It is true. You're the new chairman. You get to speak at the podium. Yeah, that'd be a big You got to present it. Yeah. All right. So, the last two amendments
um uh are up on the screen. The first one uh being the deletion of the accidentre prevention overlay district and the search and rescue overlay district from the maximum building height and stories table within the
zoning bylaw. Okay. And the reason for this is because primarily for search and rescue overlay district which if you read the table carefully it seems to indicate that you would allow a 100 ft structure within that overlay district.
That is not technically what it says. And I should uh note that the search and rescue overlay district is already in your zoning bylaw. That statement simply says that no structure can exceed 100 ft. And the reason for that, as many of
you already know, but for the public who's listening, that search and rescue overlay district are the flight paths from um from the base. And so clearly having a structure above a certain height would be a problem for a
helicopter flying in that flight path. So that's why that language is included that it can't exceed 100 ft. But your your um structures in town are already capped at 35 ft for your building height. So nothing can go above 35 ft
unless you're in the Mr. Cod district which has some different language. But again, all we're trying to do is eliminate some confusing language because we've received questions about, well, does this say that I can build a structure up to 100 ft? And technically, if you look at just the table, it says
that. Well, that include like a cell tower or something of that nature, those are structures. So, yep, those are structures. A fixed to the ground, they would be considered structures. And they go to 120 ft at least and some higher. They can. Yeah. With lights on. In this case, it be maxed out at 35.
Correct. if this gets approved. Yeah. So, for full transparency here, we are not eliminating the overlay districts. We're not eliminating any of the language in the overlay districts. All of that remains the same. We're just removing these two overlay districts
from the table within section 11.5A. Otherwise, we would have to add in the Mr. Cod district and say, in this circumstance, you could have this building height, and in this circumstance, you could have this building height. That's unnecessary. That's already within the MR cod uh
bylaw. We don't need to repeat it within the building height table and it would create confusion which this already has questions. Okay. So then the last one uh relates to
brings us back full circle to the uh ADU or the affordable homes act where essentially you we've already discussed it at length tonight. you have lost the jurisdiction over that first protected use ADU. And we talked about this particular section in the bylaw a few
minutes ago about on properties that are 2 acres or more, we've always allowed by special permit an accessory structure to go up to 25 ft in in height, right? And it's only for those properties that are 2 acres or more. The issue, as you can
see on the screen, item B says that no accessory apartment shall be allowed. We can't say that anymore um because, you know, we've already covered that tonight. So, what the proposed amendment includes, hopefully you can see my cursor. Yep. Great. It includes adding
the language uh shown in bold. So instead of saying above in the zoning bylaw, we refer to the table and then it simply just scratches out or removes no accessory apartment shall be allowed because again they cannot be that
protected use ADU cannot be more restrictive than uh what's allowed for a single family dwelling. Questions? That's it. Those are the five amendments that we're proposing for your
Laura Moahan apparently has given us some comments on it. Right. I at least haven't had time to read. We didn't get it till and they're really tiny. So we provided to you. So thank you um Charlotte Laura Moan had sent in these comments I want to say last week. So we
prepared them for your packets tonight. Um, what Melinda and I plan to do is go through each one of the comments and provide you at least a response in our opinion to the comments that have been provided. Um, because they are numerous and they're a little small. And what we
also plan to do is at the next hearing, which will be your August 26th meeting, is showing them up at the screen so that everyone has a chance to see what they say and and how we might respond. Some of them may be great comments and we might cons you may consider uh them um to be included. Others may not. We'll
we'll handle that at the next meeting. Can we can we get an electric electronic copy of this? Yes. Yes, we can. And whatever we we have discussed tonight, if any of the board members have any comments to you guys in between. Yes. And if anyone from the public,
because this is a public hearing, if anyone from the public has any questions, they can always come by the planning office. We can provide them copies. Um, we've already printed them so they're ready to be displayed for folks if they have any questions, we can answer them and they can come to any of
your hearings and ask questions of of you and provide testimony. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. While you're at the podium, do you want to do the planning department report? I was actually going to give that to Melinda this evening. Never.
It's always a good time. Um, yeah. So, the planning department has been uh very busy, but we've been really focused on these zoning amendments um and actually preparing for the next round of zoning amendments because what we've found is that well,
as I've described to many of you is that the zoning bylaw is a spiderweb. So, when you're adjusting one part of it, there's another part just in another section that you, you know, may have forgotten. So, we've identified a few spots where we need to make some adjustments. So, we've been working hard
on that. That's been primarily our our um our update for at least the next couple of weeks. But for these zoning changes, what's your what's your goal? I haven't written by. So, these will be the warrant technically closes on August 29th. Okay.
Um I've already submitted the potential amendments to um the select board's office so they're aware of what you're proposing to do. We've allocated um three hearing dates for you. So, we've got uh August 12th. Let me just look at
our calendar real quick. Hopefully, the folks at home can see it. 12th. So, we've got August 12th tonight. You've got August 26th uh for your next meeting. We can do um September 9th and September 23rd and still be able to meet
with um or get your recommendations and your explanations in on time. Okay. So, we've got we've got ample time. If we find that we need to uh add another meeting, we can certainly do so. I'm not seeing anyone from the public tonight, but if there are folks that really have
burning questions, they can always attend one of your next meetings. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Uh do we have any committee reports this evening? Nothing CPC. There hasn't been any since our last
meeting. Okay. short-term rental met. We had our first meeting. Um it didn't produce anything of great interest except we plan to meet again and we will not be trying to make it to the November board. We just absolutely couldn't do it. We'll be aimed at the uh the spring
board. Um and there's u a general sense among the people who are there who are already appointed to it that we we have a similar understanding of what the output will be. We're not looking to really disrupt common practice here in Felmouth. We're looking to be sure that
we shape the future in a way that it fits with what we already have. Um the most interesting thing to me about the meeting was the um board of health um and the health department were um selected by the select board to name one person to this um uh committee and they
haven't done it yet. Um I don't know why. Doug Brown didn't know why either. Um but another person may or may not be added. How many people in the committee altogether? So far we have five. So it won't be a big committee. Be seven max. Right.
Excellent. Thank you. Thank you for the update. Yeah. Any other reports? Uh any announcements? Um, having closed down my art gallery, I had got to know a lot of people that like to
do live music and we I was doing a lot of events there. I've actually gone back to the EDIC and asked if I can start doing live music at the train station at the depot. at the depot. And on August 31st from 4 to 6, we're giving
free ice creams, an outdoor picnic, and we're having four different groups play live music outside. And they're not being paid. They're just they're it's uh you know, they're amateurs, but there's so many I got to know so many people that liked it. Uh they encouraged me to try to find another
venue. And the EDIC, the stations, no one do anything. The station's kind of gone dead again. So, I'm going to try to jump back in and pump it up. Good. What time? 4 to 6. 4 to 6. It's a picnic. You just bring your own picnic. And I got Ben and Bill's gonna have uh about 150 free ice creams for
the first halfway through. We're going to give away dessert. Multiple flavors or one flavor? No, they're going to have three flavors. They're not going to have all of them. They prepackage them. They scoop them up. And I'm paying for it. I mean, it's it's not I don't have Could you say that again, please? I'm paying for it.
Oh, there you go. Okay, we'll be there. It's free. It's free. And they're going to have about 120 servings is what you're going to get. I mean, they charge $7 for a scoop of ice cream. It's really only for you.
Yeah. Really? Only the price. You get a kid a little kid's cone, it's it's seven bucks. No, the Interfaith Alliance isn't paying that. We're doing an ice cream thing on St. Barnabas lawn and we're not paying anything like that. We haven't penned bills to it. No,
that's the difference. Still good ice cream. Smitties. Smitties does us. All right. Any other uh announcements? No. Want to talk about your promotion, Melinda, or you know, different different day.
Just kidding. Uh any future agenda items? No. Okay. Thank you. And uh Tom, any general correspondents? It's a slow night tonight. Okay. So, the next meeting will be August 26th and
then September 9th. Boy, I think for the record before you um adjourn the meeting that perhaps you make a motion to continue the public hearing on the zoning articles to the August 26th date. I'm realizing that we
didn't do that before. I think just for clarity sake. So moved. Second. Okay. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I unanimous. Motion to adjurnn. So move. Second. All in favor? I
Good night. [Music]