[Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music]
as determined by the building commissioner. Number six, the applicant shall see the engineering division for address assignment for the new building prior to applying for the building permit. Upon completion of construction, the
applicant shall post the address for this building per section 99-1 of the town code. And last, number seven, pursuant to section 240-12.2 two of his own bylaw. This site plan
review decision shall lapse three years from the date it is granted if substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause. The determination of good cause shall be made by the planning board.
>> Second. >> Any discussion? I have a note here from uh I meet with the town planning staff and it says they're also going to provide a certified calculations after the project is completed. >> No problem.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> All in favor I >> unanimous. >> Thank you. Um, I want to make everyone aware that we're being filmed for television. >> FCTV.
>> FCTV. Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Next applicant. Bill Wesley. Site plan review application to construct a 30 foot by 60 foot addition to an existing 2500 ft research and
development building at 19 research drive. Mr. here. Mr. Wesley, >> um good evening from the river for paper engineering. Um don't see that again.
Um but this hearing was first heard two weeks ago and I believe there was going to be a draft u order to for the product to be reviewed. Um, we did respond to to comments um to the planning department and if there's any questions I'll try to
answer. >> The drain calculations were updated. >> Y and we do have the draft motion. Would you read that please? Motion that the planning board votes to approve the application of Philip Wesling for an
1800 square foot warehouse and storage building at 19 >> research road under section 240-12.2 site plan review of the zoning bylaw with the following findings and conditions. Findings. The applicant
proposes to construct a new 30x60, which is an 18,800 ft² warehousing and storage building connected to the existing 2500 square ft building by a 10x8 breezeway.
The board finds that the seven space parking reduction request is in line with the purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw and will not have adverse effects which overbalance its beneficial effects on either the neighborhood or
the town. Next page. The applicant is proposing to collect and contain all new storm water generated by the additional building by installing two 600galon pre-cast leeching pits. The draining the drainage
calculations submitted with the application indicate that the leeching pits are adequately sized to handle the anticipated storm water. The applicant requested a waiver from the requirement to submit a landscaping plan with this
application. The board unanimously approved the request as the requirement would create an undue hardship on the applicant due to the size and nature of the proposed development and because it would not be in the public interest.
The town of Felicouth departments have reviewed and commented on the abovementioned application and the planning board finds that the applicant has adequately addressed the comments. The planning board's review does not include building code and zoning review
and the board defers that to the building commissioner. The board finds that the information provided by the applicant conforms to all the requirements of section 240-12.2. 2 of the zoning bylaw conditions. Number
one, the plan shall be constructed as approved. Any changes shall be reviewed by the planning board to determine if a modification of this decision is necessary. Next page. Number two, the project must not cause erosion to or
sedimentation into abued properties or direct any storm water runoff to public property abuters or public right away. Number three, any connections or alterations to public utilities would require permission from the appropriate
town department. Number four, construction of this project shall follow the town's soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions document which can be found on the engineering division's page of
the town's website. Five, the project shall meet all applicable standards set forth in the building code as determined by the building commissioner. Six, the applicant shall see the engineering division for address
assignment for the new building prior to applying for a building permit. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall post the address for this building per section 99-1 of the town code. And lastly, number seven,
pursuant to section 240-12.2 two of the zoning bylaw. This site plan review decision shall lapse 3 years from the date it is granted if substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause. The determination
of good cause shall be made by the planning board. >> Thank you. Any other discussion? Um all in favor I >> I [Music]
thank you. >> Next we have an applicant is Cape Cod Aggregates Corporation site plan review application to construct a contractor's yard consisting of two proposed buildings and associated parking. a 3,990t
building intended for contractor days and a 5,400T building to include a scale house, garage and accessory office use at zero Thomas Beanders Road and for the applicant. >> Uh, good evening again, Mr. Chair,
members of the board. For the record, Kevin Clower and I am before you this evening representing KitKat aggregates, the owners of Zero Thomas Beanders Zero Thomas Landers Road. Uh I'm joined tonight again by J Peterson of Kit Cutter Aggregates as well as Ro Lazardi
of Kip Islands Engineering. So we initially presented this matter to the board about two weeks ago. Uh however, we had just received the engineering referral that afternoon um and the staff report shortly before. So we've used the intervening time to review and respond
to the engineering referral and to submit revised plans to the planning staff which included updated uh site plans, landscaping plans, site distance plan and a lighting phototric plan. Uh in addition uh some written correspondence regarding the engineering
comments was provided as well as an analysis development impact. So as a brief review um this site is 7.37 acres uh located in the AGA district uh off land road. This particular property is boarded by
blacksmith blacksmith shop farm to the south by the landfill in the solar array there to the southwest uh by the an industrial parcel also own by hipot aggregates to the west and to the north by Thomas beanders road and on the other side of that another hip pot aggregates
property um as we've noted this is a proposed contractor yard with two industrial buildings for use as um industrial storage as a contractor base and office place. The proposal will result in law
coverage by structure of 3% where 20% is allowed by right and it's will result in lot coverage by structure paving and parking and 15% or 40% by right. There are 22 parking spaces provided which is what's required under the parking table.
Um this meets and exceeds all the requirements for not only set view but also a special permit number 246.1B. That special permit requires a 3acre minimum which is 7.37 acres. Requires a front yard set back of 50 ft and side
and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet. Here we have front yard set back of over 50 ft. Uh sideyard to the west is 396 ft. Sideyard to the east is over 650 ft. In the rear yard set back to the south is 51 ft. It's required that not be within
300 ft of a single family district within 300 ft of dwelling. the uh nearest dwelling the only dwelling that's close to this is 650 ft away. Um we as noted we did submit that analysis analysis of development impact which shows that exceeds all the
requirements we're fine we're still in >> so I believe that based on the last hearing information provided um that has all the necessary information both site as well as a special permit 246.1B.
Uh, I'd be happy to address any questions you might have or uh, and if none, I would ask that you, uh, ask the town to make a draft positive motion for the next hearing. I don't have any questions. >> Questions?
>> You're all set. >> All set. Okay. Um I know we don't have a decision on this. >> Oh, and I should have noticed Julie. Um, we did speak with MEES and he expressed two comments that both of which are
addressable to >> because I when I sat down with Jed this morning, he said that um it was not yet finished and so we have to continue to >> Well, when I spoke with Jed last week, he asked me if I was hoping for a draft decision tonight. I said, "Well, hoping
and expecting are two different things." I said, "I would love draft decision, but I'm not expecting it." So, uh, that was our conversation last Wednesday or Thursday. Um, but I did connect with Chuck Martinsson and that was uh that that email was provided to Jed as well.
>> Okay. Because all I can tell you is what Jed said to me. So I don't know what he felt was not accurate. >> Well, he said to me this afternoon that we have a revised site plan with lighting and landscaping and but he said uh not a decision.
>> Yeah. So I again not expecting a decision this evening but if if you have no further questions and we wanted to direct Mr. Corno to draft a positive motion that would be I think probably the first step for both set of you and special
projects. >> I would say that if Jen has no further questions that we can direct him >> okay >> to prepare a positive motion provided he has no further questions that have not been answered. You guys
okay for a motion? >> Okay. All in favor? >> I thank you very much. >> Also special. >> Yeah, I mean I can stand up and say the
same thing. If we can just condense both of them into that hearing. >> They ask me to keep the special permit here. >> Yeah, I'll be here. Okay. Okay. Uh, next on the agenda, applicant Matthew Terry Esquire, site plan review
application to construct a new 7,475 square foot light manufacturing warehouse building at 117 Bernard St. Jean Drive. For the applicant Good evening members of the board. Uh
for the applicant and for the record, Matt Terry from the law firm of Ahmed Clower in Falmouth. Uh we're here tonight our first hearing on this site plan review. Uh so um this will be sort of introductory in nature. We've uh
received a number of referrals including uh from engineering which was uh provided late last week. So we'll be working um with our engineer to incorporate those comments and have further discussions with the engineering and planning departments. Um with me
tonight is uh for Reessa LLC is Jesse Richards. Also here from Longfellow Design Bill is Scott Masili and Will Paglia who are project engineers. uh to give you a overview of um
uh this uh warehouse that's uh proposed to be added to 117 Bernard East St. June Drive in the Tech Park. It is a 7,475 square foot uh warehouse
and um the uh purpose is uh um storage and light manufacturing. Um the uh only uh review that we need for this project other than the building permit is site plan review.
Uh the uh subject property here in the tech park is uh just shy of 30 acres. It's uh in zoned in the light industrial B district. The applicant has owned the property since 2007 and has operated their business there since the
acquisition. Currently, the only improvements on the property are one 1940 square foot building housing the applicant's business and some temporary storage containers uh to the north and east of
the building. The proposed project would be compliant with all dimensional zoning requirements. Prior to the application being made for site plan review, we obtained a determination from the building commissioner.
um with respect to a front yard designation. And we did that because as you can see uh the property is surrounded on three sides by uh the the drive and uh only on the south side by
private property, excuse me. So lots of frontage to choose from. And uh based on the proposed sighting of the uh new building, we had proposed to the building commissioner counter signed and agreed in a letter dated August 1st, 2025, which was
included in your application materials that uh this stretch of frontage here where my uh mouse is going from the east uh property boundary with the the road up to the north would be designated as the front yard. purposes of establishing
setbacks. The uh resulting lot coverage by structure incorporated in this new building would be 12.5% where 25% is allowed by right in a li district block coverage by structures
paving and parking will be 38.4% 4% or 70% is allotted about right. The new building will provide workspace for seven employees bringing the total number of employees on site to 25. There's no retail component
contemplated. Uh and so visitors are are really fairly rare to the property, one or two at most at a time. Uh, accordingly, the applicant in our application again this evening is requesting a waiver from the
commissioning of a traffic study as to place an undue economic hardship on the applicant. Um, as a result of the um the low additional employee number being added and the current uh non-publicf facing use of the
property um and would also not be in the public interest. The uh driveways will remain in place uh where they're currently cited. Parking spaces added uh will be added to accommodate new employees.
10 uh would be required. I'm sorry, 20 would be required. 22 will be provided. New gas, water, and electricity lines will be run in to service the new building. And a new septic system to the east of the building will be installed
to be dedicated solely to this building. uh lighting will be uh on the building similar to the existing building. The landscaping plan gives a little bit of detail around the lighting. Uh you can see the bumpouts on uh the perimeter of
the building indicates where the proposed lighting would be. These are dark sky compliant LED full cutout wallp pack exterior lights. New landscaping will include 12 5gallon hydrangeas around the exterior of the
new building and installing new grass behind and to the side of the building. Storm water mitigation is also as shown on the plan set. Um let me see
that skipped over that one. um with uh a um installation of a hydrowwork catch basin uh to the uh northeast of the building and the installation of uh some hope
drains and a proposed drainage basin to the southwest of the proposed building. The uh truck simulation plan was also included in the plan set and as you can see here using the fire department's template uh shows the
ability uh of first responding vehicles to circulate within the site uh including in between the current and proposed buildings. The erosion control plan included in the site plan set shows catchbasin filter bags, a stockpile
staging area to the east of the building, and erosion control barriers uh throughout the property. I wanted to take a moment just to show a few uh 3D renderings that we've had done that will
show the uh the new building in the darker shade. Um this is a fairly heavily wooded 3acre site. Uh clearing will be limited um based on the existing conditions. Um
here's an aerial that again shows uh what's been cleared over time and uh that this building will be conducted uh will be constructed um with a minimum of additional clearing um and uh fairly well screened from the
roadway. And this is just a uh ground level view. So with that, um I happy to address any questions or have the engineers come up and address any questions that the board might have.
>> Thank you, >> Tom. Any questions? >> No, I didn't hear which waiver, sir, are you seeking? >> Uh from a traffic study. >> A traffic study. Okay, that was it. Paul. >> Yeah. Just one quick question on the catch bas and filter bag. Is that during
construction or is that permanent? >> Uh the filter bags. That's during construction. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Well, I'm going to preempt something that you might ask because with the catch base and how deep is it? Um John
has always brought up there was a drowning. We don't want to have another one. Would you fence around it? Is it deep enough? I don't know if um Scott if you can speak to the catch basin. >> Uh good evening. For the record, Scott Mitchell. I'm a professional engineer
with Longfellow Design Build. Um so the bottom of the basin is at elevation 88. Um the existing grade at that point is 90. So we're only excavating at two additional feet. It is higher. So it goes from 92 down to 88 on the road side
and then here it's naturally graded. It slopes upward. So it's not very deep and it's not very steep. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Jim, any questions? >> Okay. Um I think we have uh just about
everything. There are uh a few open items from the engineering department which I don't think they've been resolved yet. So, >> no. >> So, um we'll have to uh >> continue this >> continue the hearing.
>> Well, we should ask for public. >> That's right. >> Yeah. >> Is there anyone here from the public? We never have anybody from the public. So, >> want to comment on >> Does anyone from the public want to make any comments or any questions about this application? >> Okay. Thank you.
So, we're awaiting the uh engineers report on the drainage. >> Well, we we have it, but they had some questions that need to get resolved. >> Those questions, >> it looked like everything else was uh >> could they possibly be resolved administratively? How how difficult are those questions? I mean, this happens a
lot. The information do we need to hold them up for weeks just to have the engineers talk? [Music] >> Just asking a question. >> I don't want to hold them up for weeks. we can continue this until November 4th, which is our next meeting.
>> Um, and if everything is resolved, then I it's not a big hold up because this is the first time we've heard this, Jim. >> This thought it looked like pretty good, ready to go, fine. >> It does look everything else good, but we can't override the engineering department. So, yeah.
>> So, presuming we have that, then uh >> they're all at the selectors meeting. Yeah, >> it's a ton of them this time. >> Presuming that we have uh that result, we probably can do a a positive motion at that point. >> Great. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Do we need a vote on that?
>> No. >> Okay. >> Just continue. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Next on the agenda is TGR Realy LLC site plan review application to approve an existing detached accessory
dwelling unit at 33 John Parker Road. >> I have to recuse myself from this guy here. >> Just this one hearing. >> Okay. Just sit here and be quiet. Okay. Have to leave the room.
You don't want to jeopardize anything. Your presence could be imposing, you know. >> Yeah. >> And for the applicant. >> Yes. Good evening. I'm Bob Ament. I'm a Felmouth attorney and I represent the applicant uh TGR Realy Trust, the
principal of which is Tom Rockley. Uh Tom and his wife bought the subject property uh 33 John Parker Road which is just a few doors up John Parker Road from uh Route 28 in East Felmouth. They bought it in 1977. They've owned it for
almost 48 years. And when they bought the property, it was always configured the way it is now. Uh the principal dwelling in the front of the property was then and is now uh a two family uh
unit has an apartment on the first floor. Happens to be a section 8 rental and there is an apartment on the second floor. In addition to the rear there's a um detached uh dwelling. I'm pointing to
it here. Um and it has an occupied apartment. um in it. This parcel is uh shown on this uh insert. It's 1.8 acres of u property. As I said, it's just off
of uh Route 28 and the rear is all vacant. We've actually it was uh plans were developed for a uh 40B with many as 24 units on it. But all we want to do
now is legalize the existing apartments. Now, when we um filed this application, and this may be the last site plan review that you have for um an accessory drawing unit because that's soon going
to be um just the domain of the building commissioner uh subject to town meetings action next month. Um but when uh we put this together, the property was under agreement. we're going to sell it to somebody who only wanted to use the
principal dwelling, the front structure as a single family uh dwelling. So, our request before you is just to have the uh rear uh um detached onestory dwelling
unit approved as an ADU. Um we've um that deal didn't come to pass and our intention is to um try to confirm the legality of the uh two family in front so that there'd be a
total of of three apartments available um on site as again there have been for so many years. Um it may well be that the existing use is protected because it's so old, but we don't have um enough proof of that and
we felt the easiest thing to do would be to uh take advantage of the existing bylaws of the accessory um apartment um accessory dwelling unit bylaw and uh get these present situation approved that
way. Our intention is to come back before you uh seeking a special permit for the apartment on the second floor of the u principal dwelling to uh also be an an
ADU. Your present bylaw allows that uh to have the planning board by special permit can approve um a second ADU. Um the proposed bylaw will not allow that. So we uh will be filing a plan
that will freeze the zoning in place. So we will be able to do that and end up with the three apartments as they've as they've been there all the years. Um the the accessory dwelling unit in the uh rear uh meets all of the
requirements in terms of um percentage of floor area in relation to the um principal dwelling. Um and it's just a perfect place for u for an apartment close to um public
transportation on Route 28 and on a large lot. the board of health or the health department has already approved a new septic system uh for the site. I submitted a copy of their approval. Uh the septic system is
shown on the site plan that you have and that's uh on the screens before you. Um and because the lot is so large uh 1.8 acres, uh we don't have any problem with the 10,000 square foot per bedroom
requirement. um plenty of room for parking on the on the property and so on. I don't know how much more information you need for a site plan review for an accessory dwelling um unit. I'll be
happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I have a couple Mr. Just looking at the map. So, how far is this dwelling from the property line? It looks like it's about 4T. Should that
be I don't know the exact uh distance. I'm not sure we have a a plan that shows that. We have other plans and I might have that information. Of course, the the proposed bylaw expressly states that a nonconformance
uh doesn't prevent the approval of the uh the ADU and we're not proposing any new construction or changes. So, I'm not sure it's that important. I submitted photographs of the buildings with the application. >> So, I so actually I have a question. Does that go to the building commissioner
John? >> Sorry. If if that dwelling's close like less than 10 feet from that property line, will that still have to >> No, they'll have to have a certified site plan. >> All right. So, that that's a step beyond us. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> All right. >> Um, Mr. Z, just to help out a little
bit, um, as you may know, a a zoning non-conformance or a zoning violation which has existed for more than 10 years is is protected. Um, so, um, that structure's been where it is probably for, um,
well, the the old assessor's cards have records of it as a dwelling back to 1952 when it says it was renovated in 1952. So, um, >> Okay, >> that's that, >> right? Is that is that does that have a
foundation or is it on blocks? >> It has a foundation. >> That has a foundation. Okay, good. Thank you. Um, >> are there going to be any drainage issues? Just looking at the contour lines. >> Um, is that something we may
within our purview that from the rear it's 33 ft to the front? It's 30. Will that need any sort of um French drain or catch basin? Have you noticed any drain uh drainage issues on that lot or the owner?
Uh well, the owner uh isn't present tonight and I've been there in a on a very rainy occasion um and didn't notice a problem, but I can't say that there there isn't. >> Okay. >> And as far what happens after this
review, of course, is this goes to the building commissioner, >> right? >> Um he has to issue a building permit uh for the use. So, he'll require the filing of it and then he'll review these issues. Um at that time he'll probably
consider the fact that the existing plans uh show uh two units in the front but by the time he sees that we will have filed an application for uh your special permit to approve the second unit. And one of the things I like about
the fact that we'd be approving the two apartments besides the main unit on the first floor as accessory dwelling units is that they then will be subject to the to the rules for accessory dwelling units that they not be used for short-term rentals. And that's uh that's
fine with us. >> Yeah. >> And my my only other question is is the exterior light. So the front is that is that so you have obviously the fence is here the dwelling is the front of the building on the opposite side of the
fence I guess only because they're so close to the neighbors. I'm just concerned about any lighting that may be imposed on the uh uh the neighbors next to them. >> Well, whatever the conditions are, they've been there for some 70 years. Um
um the floor plans which I have do include the first and second floor of the principal drawing plus this is the plan of the rear cottage. Um and the
um entrance facing the street is over here. Um, and so I think you're referring well either one of these sides. Actually, it may be that this is the entrance. I'm sorry. I should have that and match it up with the site plan. Um, but there
would be a windows on each on the side of the house facing the neighbor. >> Yeah. I mean, if it is, I mean, that's just I was they decision whether or not do dark skylighting to be a good neighbor. That's all. Just wanted to make that comment. All right. I'm all set. >> Thank you, Paul.
Well, I was looking at the septic system. It's pretty uh interesting they were able to fit that in that site. >> Excuse me. >> Well, um apparently they did because it's received its permit, >> but that's an existing building.
>> I'm sorry. Say that again, please. >> The accessory home is is an existing house. >> It serves both the existing building. >> The dwelling septic is new. >> The septic system will serve both structures. kind of interesting way they were able to fit that in.
>> I had nothing to do with it. >> Did a nice job. >> I don't know how to comment on this. I prefer to have it pre-existing, non-conforming, and let it go rather than convoluting things with
special permit and all that kind of thing. It's been here, as you point out, Bob, for 70 years. I think we should be able to just stamp it and say it's pre-existing, non-conforming. It is. >> I don't think we get to do that, though. >> I don't think we get to do that, but it
would be preferable because right now you've got the main dwelling as being only the first floor. >> Correct. >> Uh, no, that's not correct. >> Why isn't it? because you've got two apartments. >> The principal dwelling is the principal
dwelling. >> That's the that's the phrase in both the town bylaw and the state statute. Um and it's that principal dwelling which is both floors. That's the basis for the allowed size of of either one or two if
there were two accessory dwelling units. So the um upper floor has about 900 square ft. That's relevant because an accessory department isn't isn't supposed to have more than 900. I've very carefully measured it. It's actually 898, but that's measured to the
exterior, >> which has always been how we defined gross floor area. But under the state regulations and your new bylaw, we will be calculating at least for purposes of ADUs
um gross floor area only to the interior exterior wall. So actually we we aren't won't even be close to the 900 square ft maximum. >> There's just we need >> but the important point is and it may seem confusing is that the principal dwelling
um presently consists of two units. um and has a total of about 2100 square feet of floor area uh or footprint and uh that's the the figure that you
measure. We will end up having with your special permit an an accessory dwelling unit within the principal dwelling as allowed. And we will have an accessory dwelling unit detached in the rear, but
it's actually only the the rear structure that um you're approving tonight as an ADU. >> Yeah. And and to your point, it would be lovely to have them both as ADUs so that we could control the rental periods,
too. >> Right. >> They can't do interval rentals. >> Right. Right. >> We're discussing tonight. >> Yeah. >> We haven't approved anything, but we're discussing. >> I understand. >> Thank you. Anything else?
>> No, that's Bob. Yeah, it it's it's the the matter of making the numbers work for the uh detached ADU based on the square footage of the existing property. And I
I don't know, I I kind of agree with Pat when we uh uh created this uh ADU bylaw, one of the goals was to bring in non-conforming units into the fold. and uh greater minds than mine can probably
figure out how to make the numbers work, but I'd like to see it >> come out so that it is a legal dwelling unit and it can be used as such. >> We could actually have two ADUs there that are controlled in >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Well, presently your bylaw specifically says that to have more than one ADU requires a special permit from the planning board. >> And that's in there because that's in the state. Yeah. >> statute passed last November. >> Um your proposed bylaw will eliminate
that provision and so you we won't be able to have two ADUs. Um I think that in this is a case especially since we have 70 years of of history to look at. This is a case where having two ADUs on
this lot is a terrific idea. Mhm. >> On the other hand, there'll be some other case where having five or more on a lot is absolutely a terrible idea. Um, so I think there's merit to the change in the bylaw, but I think this is a situation which happens to fit the
existing bylaw and we can uh have it processed under it. >> Will there be enough time to get this second one passed under special permit? Do you think >> the first unit will be um approved
pursuant to site plan review through the process that we're in right now? >> The second unit under the present bylaw can only be allowed with your special permit. >> Right? >> The window to do that is closing uh
because with the passage of the uh town meeting article, you won't have an opportunity to do that. In fact, as you know, a town meeting change, a bylaw, the effective date relates back to the first publication date. So, that's already happened. However, state statute
also says the filing of a plan with the planning board freezes the zoning. Um, and that's what we will do just because we already have the plan and we can do it and it's a way to make this work.
We have a staff report and number two on the staff report states it must be determined whether the principal dwelling qualifies as a two family unit. If it does, only one unit may be used to calculate the allowable square footage
for the ADU. In that case, neither unit is large enough to support a 699 square foot ADU. Actually, I had a conversation for about 20 minutes um at about five o'clock this afternoon uh right here with uh the town
planner about that and I think he now understands and agrees that the principal dwelling means the entire uh principal dwelling. It doesn't refer to principal dwelling unit. You'll that word is never found in either the state
uh statute or the local bylaw. The principal dwelling is both floors and you'd calculate uh both of those areas for determining the allowed size of an ADU. The size of the detached ADU in the
rear um is less than 50% and less than 900 square ft as required. The same will be true of the second floor ADU. But if you have a house that contains, let's say, 2,000 square feet, this one together, it's around 2100. Um, you had
2,000 square feet, you're allowed to have an ADU in it. That ADU can be up 50% of the floor area, gross floor area of the principal dwelling, that is the entire structure, not to exceed 900
square ft. So you could have a 900 square ft uh foot um ADU leaving only 900 ft left. So you could have two 900 square ft units. You're not limited to 50% of the floor area of the building
that is not an ADU. >> Well, I'm glad you had a conversation with him, but we have not had that conversation with him. >> I'm sure you will. >> So I think we will have that conversation. >> Yeah. Okay. And >> and ultimately the building commissioner as far as whether this is a one unit,
two units, whether we comply with the building code. No, this has to go from the planning board to the building commissioner. >> Correct. >> And whom I've discussed this uh project with at length. >> It looks like there's somebody who wants to comment.
>> Okay. Anyone in the uh are are you finished? Mama, are you finished or you are? if you're finished with me >> momentarily. Anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir. >> How you doing? My name is Aaron Perry.
I'm here on behalf of Karen Murphy at 25 John Parker Road who is in opposition of allowing this. Uh she had a letter prepared if I may give it to you. >> Certainly. >> Is she in a butter? >> She is. >> I'm not sure how you want to do this. If
you guys would like to just read it >> or you'd like me to read it, >> you can read it into the record, I think. Don't you? >> That'd be fine. Sure. Thanks for >> uh this is to the Fmouth Planning Board. Uh the subject objection to proposed ADU
at 33 John Parker Road, East Falmouth, Mass. 02536 zoning violations. Uh it states, "Dear members of the Falmouth Planning Board, I am writing to formally object to the proposed and continued use of a
structure located at 33 John Parker Road, East Falmouth, Mass, 02536, as an accessory dwelling unit, ADU. This structure is situated approximately 4 in from my property line, which is in
clear violation of the town of Falmouth's zoning setback requirements. Specifically, the minimum 10-ft side and rear yard setbacks required under section 240-11.4 setbacks of the zoning bylaw.
The main residence on the property also already contains two separate dwelling units, allowing the use and continued use of an additional structure as an ADU would effectively legally create a third unit on a lot that is zoned for single family use and in violation of section
240-9.1 accessory dwelling units of the zoning bylaws. In addition, the structure does not meet the design standards as required under section 240-9.1D design standards of the zoning bylaw.
This raises serious concerns about over occupancy, strain on infrastructure, and non-compliance with local zoning regulations, which are designed to preserve neighborhood character and ensure public safety. While the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act, Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2024, permits
ADUs by right in single family zones, it does not override local dimensional standards such as setbacks, lot coverage, and open space requirements. Furthermore, the law does not permit ADUs on properties that already contain multiple dwelling units unless
explicitly allowed by local ordinance. The structure in question not only violates setback rules, but also contributes to an intensification of use that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The cumulative impact of multiple units on a single lot, especially one with inadequate
separation from neighboring properties raises concerns about noise, privacy, parking, and emergency access. I respectfully urge the planning board to deny any application or permit that would allow the structure to be used and continue to be used as an ADU unless it
is brought into full compliance with both state and local zoning regulations. Thank you for your attention to this matter respectfully, Karen Murphy. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Hey, good evening. Robert Ryan, 41 John
Parker Road. I'm the butter immediately to the north of the property in question and I'm representing myself and my wife Don Waga helped. We've resided at this residence for 25 and 30 years respectively. Um, in deference to Mr.
Amit, uh, TGR Realy LLC in fact took property took res took deed of that property in 2003. It is not 48 years. Um, we're opposed to granting of the permit for this ADU unit. The owner is an absentee landlord, currently a resident of Charlotte County, Florida.
Um, the property is currently and has been for a number of years in a state of disrepair. The yard and multiple structures are continuing to be neglected and this simply seems like a opportunity to add multiple rentable units to a property that's currently neglected and does not meet any of the
neighborhood standards. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Jeanie Rackley took title to this property by deed in 1977. The Rackley's or the uh LLC, which uh
Tom is the manager of and the member of have owned the property uh since 2003. Uh but the Racklings have owned this property for as long as I've uh um correctly represented. Um
as I said earlier, the um these buildings have existed since before zoning began in Felmouth. They are protected um from the current setback requirement. uh they are do not
constitute a um a violation and uh they've been there for uh all the time that the uh neighbors have owned their properties and much much longer. Um it wasn't uh stated how the properties
don't meet the design standards. I would contend that they um that they do. The intention here is to be able to uh upgrade this property um which needs significant upgrading
um and that can be done u pursuant to legalizing the existing apartments. We are not creating any new apartments. We are not creating any more bedrooms. We are not adding a single square foot to
the footprint um or the floor area of these u these structures. And again, as we said uh before, the proposed bylaw specifically allows ADUs to be created without reference to pre-existing non-conformances.
>> I I have a question for you. Does the Rackley still own this property or has someone purchased it? No, Rackley owns the property and um once the um issues are resolved with regard to
the legality of the three units and it may, as I said, it may be that these three units are so old that they are legal, but we felt that it was the better thing to do to come before the board and get current permits uh for
them. Um, in any case, um, uh, Rackley may continue to own the property, um, if we, um, have all three units legalized and he can fix them up, um, or there'll be a, a good market for the property
from people who would like to, to, um, own and keep three apartments. Thank you. >> Okay. Hey, I'm Don Wahhop, 41 John Parker Road. I just want to clarify that it is an LLC that owns the property. He does live in Florida. It's not a resident.
The ADU really is not intended as a money-making opportunity for a person who doesn't live there. He has never lived at this property. I've been there 35 years. He has never lived at this property. His parents lived there and his sister lived there, but he has never lived there. Um, also I'd like to bring
your attention to the property has been listed at since 2023 for sale. In the initial listing, it says it's being marketed as a land sale. That tells you the overall condition of the property. Again, in 2023, the price
was or 2025, the price was reduced by $20,000 and saying pending ADU. This property has been for sale in an area that properties turn over very quickly. As we're fully aware, I just told the local Massachusetts Association of Realtors
figures for September of this year. The average single family sales date on market is 66. In September of 2024, it was 33 days. If this property was in good shape, it would have sold as is. the fact the owner is still trying to
sell it should be an indication of the um his negligence overall in the property. He just wants it as a money-making opportunity and that's not the intent of an ADU in my opinion. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> sir.
>> Aaron Perry on behalf of Karen Murphy. Uh I truly wish she was here to talk about the longevity of the property. Uh this house is a family property. her parents grew up there or her parents lived there, owned it. Uh they actually knew the original owners, I believe they
were the Pacheos, and this actual building was a garage they stored farm equipment in. It was just a shed. Over the years, this is building has grown considerably. So, I'd be curious to know what building permits were pulled, what inspections were done for this structure
because it was not always a cottage as it is now. Uh the other thing just so I can kind of clarify it is uh primary dwelling. Does that mean that it's the entire building with two separate
apartments that don't connect inside or would that have to be a full home that you can easily egress from one to the other? So, I think that would be I'm curious about that because I actually looked at this property to purchase it
when it went up for sale and on the inside there was no way to get to one floor to the other. It was outside. So if primary dwelling, I would say that that would have to be a a continuous unit and opened up so that you could
flow through it or one of the units would have to be designated primary and that has been the question for a lot of years. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Yeah, we need a little direction here. >> Sure.
>> So we had the hearing. Uh do we want to uh continue this >> 33 John Parker? Yes, I would I would suggest you continue. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um we can certainly provide although you know as as just walking in so I'm not sure if there's still open questions,
but we can draft a positive motion if you're ready. But I don't know exactly where you're at. >> Well, the question the question is about the principal dwelling, >> right? And um the uh applicants attorney suggested that he had a conversation
with you this afternoon that correct uh clarified that for you. >> It did. So >> but on our staff report it remains open. >> Correct. So we drafted the staff report prior to the conversation that I had with attorney. Um and it was related to
the definition of a principal dwelling. As you know the affordable homes act passed in February. So we are currently operating under that um law. What I believe we need to do as staff is ensure that not only are we operating
underneath that law and the principles of it but also the regulations that go along with it. Um my sense is that we are I would like to run that by town council to make sure first because within those regulations as you know there's a definition of a principal
dwelling which would apply in this case. We just want to make sure that we are actually operating under those principles, not uh the old bylaw or the soontobe adopted uh fingers crossed at
town meeting um new amended bylaw. So that being said, yes, I think maybe a continuation would be um appropriate so that we can work with town council to figure that out. So in in the future, say we have a similar situation, um the determining um person we would
ask would be town council or would it be the building commissioner or do we need both to give us a a response or >> I don't think well so in the future it again in the future if things go the way town meeting is that we're hoping it will the planning board won't be
involved in ADUs anymore. So essentially um the planning department would be a sign off but all of those applications would go through the building commissioner. >> Okay. >> Now as it relates to uh one or more that special permit criteria that's a different conversation and that um we
can talk about with with town council ahead of time but as far as this type of application I don't think that you folks will be involved moving forward if town meeting approves. So, you're recommending we close a hearing with a positive motion in the future depending on your conversation with town council.
>> Yeah. So, two things. Keep in mind it's just a public meeting, so you're not closing any hearings. But, >> um, yeah, I would like to confer with town council before, but we'll also draft up a positive motion just in case so that we can keep the application moving if uh, council advises that
principal dwelling is the whole structure. I'd like to say something to Jed, too, because I don't know about anybody else on the board, but right now I'm feeling a little bit of pressure to give a positive >> on this because oh, that window is closing because they want to come after
us for a special permit for that upstairs apartment to be an ADU, >> right? >> And that window is totally closing at the November town meeting. So I myself am feeling I would say for myself undue pressure to
come up with a decision on this >> that may be illegitimate. >> You're not alone. I too feel that pressure. Um >> and I'd want to spend a little bit more time on it honestly just to make sure. I'm somewhat comfortable with the conversation that I had with attorney
Amed about the the way the application would move forward. Um, but you know, spending time reflecting on it afterwards, I just want to make sure that we're not making the wrong decision. I'd like to have that opportunity just to consult first to
make sure that what I think is um correct is actually correct. >> It's rare to be incorrect, but it happens >> even to you, Jim. >> It does. It does. >> Thank you for that, Paul. >> You're welcome. >> Just like I can make a brief comment. Uh,
the town planet was not here earlier. He was requested to attend a meeting at the select board on the new police station. So he had subsequent simultaneous meetings. So he was not here not for lack of interest but because he was asked to attend another meeting. So we
tried to go along without him for the first half of the meeting and I think we made it. >> We're still here. That's good. >> Bob, any more time? No question. So, I would just like to say that um I'd like to hear from town council also, and I
don't feel any pressure, but we you got here a little late. You're right here a little late. So, we have had um Butters >> that are not in support of this and basically if this gets approved, it'll be three three rentals on in a
residential neighborhood. That's their concern. >> Got it. So, we'll close keep the hearing open >> and we'll wait to hear. >> So, I would suggest continue to the October 28th meeting. >> Okay.
>> If that's doable for the applicant, >> Mr. Thanks. Just a a quick couple of comments. First, I'm sure that the town planner will review the the tape of of the first part of the hearing so that
he'll be in goodstead to comment. There's no question that the property is not in good shape. It isn't in good shape. And although um um I've been advised that the um all three apartments were occupied
when in 1977. Um, I don't have the proof of that. And so, again, there's a way to legalize these apartments and that's why we're here. It's because of questions about
the status of the apartments. It's because the property is not in good shape that it's been difficult to sell. What we're trying to do is make it possible uh to fix up the property um and have uh three apartments that are
recognized as as legal by the town. Thanks. >> Thank you. So, next public hearing is October 28th. >> Yes. October 28th. >> Yeah. Can I add one more thing about
responsive to to Pat Keroot's concern? You don't need to be in a hurry. We're going to file a plan. The filing of the plan means that the uh present zoning remains into effect for a period of 3 years um or longer. And um um so you
don't need to feel in in hurry. They would >> thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you for that. So, uh, next our next public hearing is, uh, Mr. Raphael Citizen special printed application to allow a non-conforming front yard setback in the mixed
residential commercial overlay district and to allow parking in the front yard and within 5 ft of the property line at 683 Main Street. And I think he was here earlier and left. Oh, okay. >> Yeah, he did. But we've got a The
hearing was closed, >> correct? >> Jed told me earlier. So, we have to reopen the hearing to put the new plan into it. >> Okay. >> So, I guess I should move that we reopen this particular hearing because of the new plan. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor?
>> I I unanimous. >> Do you have members that is Jim abstaining from the previous >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. He's got to come back in. >> Yeah. Wherever he disappeared to. There he is. >> Welcome back.
>> Okay. So for the record, you are allowing the revised plan that was part of the site plan review application labeled site plan of 683 Main Street, Falmouth, Mass, prepared for Raphael
Citaden, prepared by Collie Site Services, uh dating April 14th, 2025 with the latest revision date of 10625 into the record as the official site plan that will uh go along with this
special permit approval. >> Do we need to vote what you just said? >> You might want to say so moved. >> So moved. >> And then we've um well I put together a draft uh motion for you. >> But so moved. We've got a vote on that now.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Excuse me. What are we voting on right now? Uh we had to we had closed the hearing and because a new site plan was sent in to us in regard to parking. Yeah.
>> We had to reopen that hearing to accept the new site plan and that's what we've been vote that's what we're voting >> just to accept the site plan. >> Yes. Because it's an updated site plan. >> Haven't we reviewed the plan yet or anything? >> No. >> Okay. Fine.
So, as you um are aware, you closed the hearing previously um with um a very similar site plan. Um this new site plan, none of the parking uh that was subject to the special permit uh has
been moved or altered in any way. Essentially, um all that's been changed on the plan itself were some of the drainage um uh infrastructure and how the water would get to it. So you can now if the hearing is open which you
have done and accepted this new plan you can open it to public comment if there are is there a >> if there is any if there isn't close the hearing and then you can read the motion into the record. >> All right. Thank you. >> Is there any public comment for this
hearing? >> Seeing none. >> Okay. Move to close the hearing. >> I got a second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I unanimous. >> Then we have a uh
motion to approve. Tom, would you read that into the record, please? Right. >> Motion that the planning board holds I'm sorry. Motion that the planning board votes to approve the application of Raphael Zenet Citaden on behalf of
Pilgrim Hill Holdings LLC for a special permit to allow parking in the front yard parking within 5T of the property line and to exceed the maximum front yard setback at 683 Main Street under
sections 240-14.115B, 240-7.5 F5, and 240-12.1 of the zoning bylaw with the following findings and conditions. Findings. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 3,697
ft mixeduse office and residential building into a five multi-unit development. The applicant is seeking a special permit under section 14.1 5B to allow for f six parking spaces
located within the front yard and five parking spaces within 5 ft of the property line. The board finds that the location of the building and the shape of the lot creates challenges with respect to locating parking spaces.
The board finds that the proposed parking layout, provides optimal circulation of the site, limits impacts to public safety access, and supports the functionality of the site. The applicant is also seeking a special
permit under section 240-7.5 F of the zoning bylaw to maintain the existing 48ty yard front yard setback. The board finds that although the proposed setback exceeds 25 ft, the
project includes the redevelopment of a lawful pre-existing non-conforming structure on Main Street that falls in line with the purposes of the mixed residential and commercial overlay district.
Next page. The planning board finds that the site is adequately sized for the proposed use, that the site is suitable due to its location within the downtown commercial area and the mixed residential and commercial overlay district. It will not
adversely affect traffic flow or safety. It won't have adverse impacts on views and vistas. The methods for sewage disposal, portable water and drainage are adequate, appropriate utilities and
other public services are provided, and that the project will have a positive impact on the supply of affordable housing in town by providing two additional affordable units and by including all of the rental units on the
town's subsidized housing inventory. Therefore, given the above and the conditions to be imposed below, the planning board finds the application for a special permit to allow six parking spaces located within the front yard,
five parking spaces within 5 ft of the property line, and a 40 foot front yard setback will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of sections 240-7.5, 240 12.1 and 240-14.1
of the zoning bylaw. Additionally, the proposal will not have adverse effects within overbalance, which overbalances its beneficial effects on either the neighborhood or the town. Conditions. Number one, the
plan shall be constructed as approved. Number two, pursuant to section 240-2.1C2 of the zoning bylaw, no permit for full or partial occupancy shall be issued until the planning board is satisfied
that the conditions of this approval and predecessor approvals have been met. And lastly, number three, pursuant to section 240-12.11 of the zoning bylaw, this special permit shall lapse 3 years from the date it is
granted if a substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause shown. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh go ahead, Paul. >> Yeah, I had just one question. Um under the findings
second paragraph the fourth line says therefore and it goes on that the setback will be in harmony. We normally use the terminology in accordance with Is there some reason why we're using that in harmony rather than in accordance? It's is that a legal
issue? >> Not that I'm aware of. Um it was uh just >> I've never seen that on any of these uh these decisions. >> Um so technically it wouldn't be in accordance with because your um Mr. COD
bylaw only allows up to 25 ft for your front yard setback. So, um although it's not, um meeting that requirement, I wouldn't say in accordance with because of course it
doesn't meet it. Um but as you noted, uh you're not going to require the applicant to move the building and so therefore you're issuing a special permit that >> basically a waiver >> essentially. Yes. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
I just need to be refreshed. This is when we were talking about we had uh some concerns about drainage because the site was so flat. Did they ever resolve? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's why I need I couldn't remember
that or not. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. All in favor? >> I I unanimous. >> Thank you. Next, uh, the applicant is Cape Cod Aggregate Corporation
special permit application to construct a contractor's yard consisting of two proposed buildings, a 3,990 ft building intended for con contractor bays and a 5,400 ft building to include
a scale house, garage, and accessory office use at zero Thomas B. Landers Road. And for the applicant, >> uh, good evening again, uh, Mr. Chair, for the record, Kevin Clower. Um, I don't have much to add beyond the testimony I provided during the cycle
review portion of the hearing. If you'd like, I'm happy to go through it again. Uh, just so you have it for the record, but I know there's a lot of people here and I don't want to hold up to that. So, if you're satisfied with the testimony I gave previously because I I addressed a lot of the special permit considerations within that presentation, um I think
that you probably have enough information to move forward with your u with your decision. Subject to of course Jed just for your edification. Um it's been continued uh requesting a positive motion provided you don't have any
additional questions or engineering that we can't address. continue to the 28th. >> Is it the 28th or the 4th? I don't think we actually gave a date, >> didn't we? >> I don't think we set a date. >> Either would work for me if that matters.
>> I have November 4th with a question mark after it. And since I didn't take the question mark out, it was probably 11:4, but we can change that if >> I mean I I I don't I don't believe we gave a date, but I'm I'm happy to do either. Uh earlier is always better. I guess >> 28th is fine.
>> Okay. >> All right. 28 days. >> So, um you'll be keeping the hearing open. >> Yes. Yeah. >> For this one. Y. >> Is there anyone in the audience that wants to make any comments or any questions? >> Okay. >> Uh because this is a special permit
though, do we need I think we need to make a motion on it, don't we? To keep it open. Sure, that works. >> Okay. So, I move that we keep the uh special permit application for Cape Cod aggregates open until October 28th.
>> And just just so I'm clear, along with the site plan review decision, are you directing Jed for a positive motion on this subject to those caveats we discussed? >> Good. >> I believe the terminology is asking nicely. >> If I'm asking very nicely. Okay. He's
asking very nicely >> and if he if he doesn't have any questions y >> we could have >> we'll address you know any anything that comes up whether it be further comments from engineering or or from Mr. Cornog will certainly address >> so it's continued till 10:28.
>> Okay then that's not that's not the next meeting. >> So it's been moved and seconded. >> All in favor? I >> I next meeting is 4th of November. Yeah, I know. That's why I had the 4th of November down there. >> Unless I'm unaware of a conflict on the
28th. >> So, the reason the reason you have November 4th as an option in November is because your first meeting would be the 11th of November, which is Veterans Day, >> right? We voted on that. >> Right. So, you voted to move it up to um
the 4th. >> Well, I thought we were postponing this till October, a date in October. October 28th, but that wasn't what it said. Our next meeting on here is November 4th on our >> Oh, on the agenda. Yeah, >> that's an error on our part. >> Yeah, I know.
>> So, we have a meeting on October 28th. >> Yep. >> October 28th. >> Okay. Yes. Sorry. >> So, there is a meeting. >> Yes. Apologies. >> Details. Details. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. So, now we're going to have uh we have uh
>> two zoning articles, petitioner zoning articles to discuss. >> And the first one, Tom, you want to read the first one? >> Y >> we have don't we have to give publishing on that? >> So, go ahead and read it and I'll I'll
provide it. >> Okay. in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 4A section 5 and section 1.1D of the FEL Felmouth zoning bylaw. The
Felmouth Planning Board shall conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 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 17, 2025. >> Thank you. Yeah, this is the first time I've done this. So, >> published >> correct? Yeah, just indicate the published publication date.
>> And this was published uh September 26, 2025. Also published October 3rd, 2023. >> And for the record, there were 76 abutters notified by regular mail.
>> Okay. I didn't get no the petitioner's applicant. >> Correct. So step forward to the podium. >> And this is for article 14, which is uh to see if the town will vote to amend the official zoning map of the town of
Balmouth to remove the following parcels from the large-scale groundmounted solar overlay district. And um I will read the entire article uh for the record. So bear with me. >> I think the first one's for the five. Yeah. >> Oh, I apologize. It's article 19. I
apologize. >> Yes. So, I'll start from the top to see if the town will vote to amend the zoning bylaw by authorizing the construction of house scale multif family dwellings containing up to five dwelling units by right in areas of one/4 mile of the
business redevelopment districts provided that the lot served by municipal sewer the water and water with adequate capacity determined by the department of public works at least one dwelling unit within each building is restricted in perpetuity as an affordable housing unit for households
earning no more than 80% of the area median income persuant to master general law chapter 121B section 38D and subject to a regulatory agreement approved by the select board and the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development DHCD to meet SHI standards.
The building is designed to be consistent as house scale residential structures typical of Falmouth's traditional neighborhoods with maximum building footprint, height, and bulk to be defined in the bylaw to preserve neighborhood character as set
forth in the zoning bylaw or take any other action relative there too. On behalf of Eric, help me with your last name. Uh, >> and say one more time. Uh, >> okay. And others.
Hi guys. So, uh good evening. Um thanks for having me. Uh we introduced this just to uh open kind of some debate. This this petition is based on guidance from Smart Growth Cape Cod, the Housing Assistance Corporation and Association to Preserve Cape Cod. And it's also
based on some similar bylaw amendments that were introduced in especially uh towns in the Connecticut River Valley that also have large seasonal populations trying to address housing needs um while reducing impacts on municipal infrastructure and the
environment. Uh and this article is written in relation to the mixed residential commercial overlay district for residential areas that are walking distance from centrally located businesses with stipulations for suitable municipal uh sewer and water.
Sure why the presentation's not working. That's a bummer. Okay. So um I can >> we see where this is is Jed at least on the GS map. Can you >> Yeah, I do I do have it in the presentation as well, but not sure why it's not. >> We have a good map that should be able to
see it. >> So, the area that currently would be eligible is basically along Worcester Court down to uh Jericho path given the extent of sewering. Now, a big a big question about this is that the current
um sewer planning districts would probably not allow the additional capacity. So I I assume most applications would be rejected at present because of the Department of Public Works. Um but yeah, so the given area >> hold on. Can you show us what area
you're talking about? >> Yeah. So the area that currently would would be encompassed is this area over here. >> Well, you've already finished the sewer for that area. >> Yeah. So there is sewer, but the issue is that the capacity may not be deemed suitable for the sewer equivalent units. So that's kind of a stipulation. I
understand that you guys will probably vote just to postpone this, but I wanted to bring >> Wait a second. That's not even our jurisdiction. That's net zero. That that is a selectman's issue about the sewer, not ours. >> Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make it clear where
we're we're >> sorry if that's confusing. No, no. I might have >> It's not our job to do that. I don't understand. >> Okay. Keep going. >> So, this is making no modification to that. I was just saying that that's the given area but the way it's written currently without changes to the
infrastructure um it won't actually allow poly building but um >> yeah so the the area is the the it's a quarter mile from >> Alma Road let him let him give his presentation I know but let him give his presentation
>> be nice if he showed us where it was I I >> I'm sorry my USB is is not working sure why. Yeah. Um, >> I can't tell what he's talking about. >> Do you want me to try to troubleshoot that? >> Sure. Yeah, >> you can draw you can go on this and draw lines about it and say this is it. I
have no idea what he's talking about. >> Presentation here. >> Yeah. Yeah. One second. >> This guy. Let's try repair. Can't be repaired. All right. So, it doesn't want to open it and
doesn't want to repair it. Would you be okay with me trying to do it on my machine and then bringing it over? >> Okay. In the meantime, proceed. >> Sure. Yeah. Um so the given area is it's in relation to the business redevelopment district specifically. So
it's a quarter mile radius um and also but is served by sewer and water. So the way that is currently encompasses is it basically goes from down Worcester Court until it intersects with Jericho path um and then over to to the water on each
side essentially. Um so that would that's the area that is encompassed. Now, uh if if sewer were to be expanded in the future, um then obviously it would encompass other areas as well. Uh the the this this area specifically
is identified as one of the high high priority areas by um association to preserve Cape Cod and Housing Assistance Corp. um as well as obviously being served by the infrastructure suitable. Um
and it it also it helps address the lack of missing middle um housing in the town. So Fmouth has one of the lowest percentages of multif family housing amongst our neighbors. Um and that helps drive general issues with housing
attainability. Um and the house scale nature of it helps to prevent disruptions to the local neighborhood. So it still would follow current um setback requirements and general scale and bulk. Um and
additionally um it has the benefit of matching kind of like what exists. If you look at the historic district, there's a lot of areas that were multif family historically. Um, and you can see that even along the town green. So that
that's kind of to give an image of what it could look like. Um, and also this helps combat the issue of mansionization which was identified in multiple consulting reports to the town starting back in 2014 with the RTJ RJ no RGK uh,
consultants report which identified you can see it especially when you walk along that road. A lot of people buy a small attainable house. They build pretty much the largest house that can be allotted with the current bylaw and then it's one person who may or may not actually live there, often a seasonal resident. Um, so this would help to kind
of address that if you have people who are building spec houses as opposed to building a large house that may not even serve a full-time resident. You could serve multiple residents. Um, now I understand that petition article maybe not the best process. Um, so I
understand if you guys want to postpone this and stuff, but I think the group of us that submitted it just wants to kind of bring this up for debate. I think it's in line with kind of the work that you guys have been doing in general. Um, and trying to kind of just keep up with the the idea of how can we preserve our
resources while also meeting the needs for housing. Um, yeah, and I think the great idea is that this could um, you know, you could have multigenerational housing here for a town that a lot of people are aging in place and stuff. If somebody wanted to convert their house to have additional units, they could
have um you know grandchildren on the floor below with um renters um uh in a certain part of the building. Um yeah, >> not working. >> Not working. Okay, that's fine. I I fine. You're doing fine.
>> See, thank you. >> Well, we'll ask you a few questions if you don't mind. >> Yeah. Yeah. Bob, >> I I think this is a discussion worth having and I I think you're right in assuming that this isn't the proper avenue to go down. Uh being a veteran of
numerous uh bylaws uh for the town of Falmouth and we go through a rigorous process of uh public meetings and drafts after drafts and consultants and all that. But I I really do think this is something that uh should be on should be an agenda item that we actually do have
public uh hearings about uh to discuss it and uh maybe craft a bylaw that could kind of dovetail with some of the things that we've already done. >> Thank you, Jim. >> I'm not clear what exactly what he's talking about here. I don't think he
has. >> You're you want to re This is residential C and you want to reszone it to business multif family. What what are you what is it? >> Yeah. So it's still all residential. Um but it allows for multif family housing that is house scale. So as opposed to
having people put in an apartment building or something. >> So you're you're creating another zoning district that doesn't exist. I mean this is residential C single family. They also allow an accessory unit by right. >> Yeah. So I that's a question I honestly personally had while we were writing
this that I think it kind of does tow the line between a um zoning district and a modification of bylaw. The the the important point of it being that we want it to be in relation to existing um existing business and infrastructure as
opposed to just like creating a new district that could be applied any kind of random place. Um, so that that was like the rationale. >> You keep using the term business and this is residentially zoned. What do you mean you want to turn into a business district? >> No, no, it's within one quarter mile of
the business redevelopment district. >> Walking distance. >> So, it's within walking distance of where there are businesses. So, but it still is strictly residential. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> No, don't leave. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry.
>> Five more. Well, not only that, but there may be people there who want this course comment, too. >> Um, >> I think you're on the right track, >> and I don't have anything to add to it now because I'd be wasting our time to do that, I think, when it needs more
work. Thank you, >> Paul. No comment. >> It's worth exploring, and I agree with Bob. Let's get it on the agenda. Yeah, one of the things we've had some discussions about um zoning duplexes in I don't know about a a five unit uh u
complex on a lot and if you're going to proceed with anything like this you should consider size of the lot uh etc etc and I think staff could even have some conversations with you that might help you um get a little bit further along with a
good with a good concept. >> Great. >> Yeah. Would anyone in the audience uh want to participate in this? Any questions, any comments? >> Okay. Well, thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> I just want to point one, you know, this Fmouth G tool that we have here, it's
open to the public. Everyone can use it. >> Yeah. You know, I actually >> You could draw on it and you could put your lines in and you could do it all and make a presentation. We could see it. >> You could do it at home. >> I I have a presentation, but it wasn't working on the US. Yeah. Yeah. I really do apologize about it. I I did email it
to you. I don't know if it would be possible to pull it up. >> I mean, I I don't know if it's a waste of people's time, but >> All right. >> It's helpful. >> I also >> It would be good to just since since I think you guys are going to vote to postpone it and stuff, I could just send it to you and we could talk about it
conceptually. >> Okay. >> As opposed to like in regard to the specific article. >> Yeah. >> Keep thinking. >> Happy to meet with you and and discuss uh future zoning amendments anytime. >> Yeah. And I'll get other people into the conversation because not just about me. >> Yeah.
>> Great. Makes sense. >> All right. Thank you. Good. So, our next article is our next hearing is uh article 14. The uh propose article 14. Tom,
you read the solar. I read >> article 14 >> to see if the town will vote to amend the official zoning map of the town of Felmouth to remove the following parcels from the largescale groundmounted solar
overlay district. Number one, assessor's parcel 10 030001 163 known as 41 Theater Drive and containing approximately 45.06
acres. Number two, assesses parcel 104007035 known as Zero Boxberry Hill Road and containing approximately 41.49 acres. Number three assesses parcel 1701028039
known as 48 Theater Drive containing approximately 48.65.65 acres and number four assesses parcel 1701 028A 015 known as 59 Theater Drive and
containing approximately 3.39 acres. Number five, portion of a private way known as the drive which lies to the north and northwest of the westerly property line of assessor's parcel 1701028134
which is 20 Theater Drive including without limitation the culdeac and all parking areas within the bounds of Theater Drive described here in number six assessor's parcel 1030. 30001A161
known as 290 Boxberry Hill Road and containing approximately 1.56 acres. Number seven, assesses parcel 1030001 162 known as 0 Boxberry Hill Road and
containing approximately 1.08 08 acres and 8 assesses parcel 10 03001 160 known as 0 Boxberry Hill Road and containing approximately
0.68 acres or do or take any other action on this matter on behalf of Friends of Cape Cod Country Club. >> Do I continue reading? >> No, that's it. >> That's it. Okay.
Thank you for the applicant. >> Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman and the members of the board. My name is Richard Hamilton. I'd like to request to leave a copy of my, uh, testimony with you if I could approach the, um, >> certainly >> table.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My comments uh for the town of Felmouth
Planning Board come from the Friends of Cape Cod Country Club. Um the town of Felmouth is certainly a very well-managed community that has always valued input from its citizens. Uh the planning board studies and makes recommendations on the long-term growth
of Felmouth um while reviewing site plans, special permits under zoning bylaws and subdivisions under the subcontrol law for the benefit of the present and future generations. We are concerned that the destruction of
an open space asset would cost that would cost an estimated $20 million to replace with a 97year history. uh to be converted into a mega solar industrialized project that the Felmouth
committee will community will have to live with for the next 20 to as long as 60 years uh per the proposed lease. Many of us support alternative energy sources and in fact uh have solar on our
homes. Uh the friends are not against solar p power per se. If in fact the town of Felmouth community desires a large solar farm rather than allowing this green recreational space and natural habitat to become a largecale
groundmounted solar overlay district. Wouldn't it make sense to erect solar panels and multiple parking lots of the steamship authority similar to what was built on the parking lots of the Bonstable Fairgrounds along Route 151 or perhaps
under large utility lines or using more traditional sites such as landfills. Of great concern to the friends is the major issue of solar panel disposal at the end of the lease. In 20 to as long as 60 years when the solar panels become
decommissioned, Felmouth will be faced with a challenge of solar panel disposal. Felmouth will be faced with the challenge of um the disposing of these panels. The panels contain 75% glass,
10% aluminum, 10% polymers, and silicon metals of 5%. Plus, some panels qualify as hazardous waste due to heavy metals of lead and cadmium. For example, Las Vegas was an early adapter of using solar panels for their
energy needs. Currently, they are facing an expensive dilemma. A solar farms transition offline and solar company investors have been shielded from the disposal and contamination costs via bankruptcy.
The majority of the world's solar panels are currently made in China. In summary, this is an okay project, but at the wrong location. Don't destroy an open space asset build
to build a mega solar farm. The friends of Cape Cod Country Club would ask the planning board to recommend to the town meeting members and to the select board to resend the solar overlay zoning that was voted by the town meeting during the
COVID pandemic of 2021. It was a time of great limiting of conversation, discussion and certainly people in this country are under a lot of stress at that time. We are asking the planning board to consider recommending the town meeting
members pause to review all of the additional information being provided and not rush into a project that will make this area of Falmouth the solar farm capital of Cape Cod and retreating on open space values.
Please stop and think about the sc scope and location of this unsightly mega project before we make a huge mistake. I'd like you to take a look at the third page of my handout. I just made a couple of notations to bring to your attention
of some social media sites. One happens to be a petition website. Um, when I prepared this testimony yesterday, uh, at 2 PM, we had about 3,151 people signing the petition against this
solar project. Um, if you check the social media site right now, there's an additional 100 people who have signed that petition. This is growing in great momentum. We've also cited other social media sites for Falmouth. we would find
some very helpful and some um interesting comments in terms of the volume of people that are really upset about this proposal. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request very much.
The friends of Cape Cod Country Club uh see if we can ask a few questions if we have any. >> Paul, >> yeah, I just had a question. certainly entitled to submit a petition for an article, a town meeting, but I'm curious
is the organization Friends of Cape of Cape Country Club. Is that a formal organization or is it an ad hoc group? >> It's an ad hoc group. >> It It's interesting. Um, Mr. Drier, um,
earlier this year, you know, a lot of people >> I'm not arguing the point. I'm just curious who they were. >> They're interesting people. A lot of people are talking about this and I sort of made it a personal message mission to ask everyone and everyone for their thoughts, their input, their concerns,
their support and it's been an eye openening experience and we're trying to con convey we feel that this major decision that's going to impact Felmouth for so many years um with your guidance of really good planning for the town of
Felmouth to really if you'd consider supporting our request to withdraw the solar overlay vote from town meeting to the town meeting members for their ultimate vote. We'd really appreciate your support on this. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Tom. Any questions? >> No. No. It's pretty cut and dry. >> Yeah. >> Jim, is he asking to take away the whole solarway thing or just certain pieces of it? >> Asking to reszone the property. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, the property is zoned residential. Excuse me. >> The article, >> would you share what what is on there right now? >> Yeah. Well, so the article intends to remove certain parcels from the overlay
district. So, it's not changing the zoning. It's just removing those parcels from the overlay. >> And what's the underlay underlying zoning >> in that district I or in that area? It's agricultural single A I believe. >> Yeah. But we can verify.
>> We don't have a plan of this these parcels. We're just just numbers is all we got. >> Correct. [Music] >> Can we see it on the map? >> Yeah. Show it. You could just click on the all the lots real quick and we could
see it. >> Yeah, we could do it. So it is this one. This one. Okay. Believe that is everything. And I'll turn on sorry the satellite so that
folks can see what that looks like. But generally speaking those are the parcels that are being >> still leaving part of the golf club there. Is that supposed to be in a tube? >> Yes. I believe this is an an additional one. I apologize.
>> Okay. >> Um and so let me turn on the overlay district to give you a sense of what that looks like. So currently the overlay district encompasses not only that site but also other sites in town. >> Thank you. >> Now I understand.
>> What is the current zoning then of these parcels? Is it solar >> or is it agricultural or is it >> I think you're just trying to get me to go past that camera. >> Yeah. It's it's >> that's the question. >> Yeah. Were they recogning
we'll see it >> single light a and then there's some business three district right uh where the uh culde-sac is >> is it an overlay district for solar? >> Yes. >> Yes. So once again it would not the
article itself does not propose to change the base zoning at all. That would remain in place. What it does propose to do is essentially remove these parcels as shown on the screen just these that I'm circling from the overlay district which is
so this size in town. So there are three independent areas in town where the solar overlay district applies to. It's over here in the center and over on this area. >> And what is what's the one to the left Jed that you pointed out? Right.
>> So yeah. So this is the tech park and this is Thomas Landers uh site. There's um blacksmith shop that runs southerntherly and two uh solar fields already permitted >> and the landfill. Is that >> And the landfill landfill? >> The cap landfill. Yeah.
>> Jed, the last time we reszoneed this, are these parcels shown in a plan when we did the resoning last time so they could simply use that same plan? We all town meeting could see what they're talking about. Um, I would imagine there was, but I haven't confirmed that yet. I
do, um, know that for the town meeting warrant book, there is a map showing this site within the appendix. >> So, in the book, there'll be a >> I don't see how we could vote on it without having on a map. >> Good. What would the uh underlying
zoning allow? >> Good question. So, agricultural single A. >> Yeah. real big >> so that way everyone at home can see what it would allow. >> Can you stand up the podium and take the questions? >> I'm sorry.
>> There's a variety of different uh uses within the single a district. Um and they're shown up on the screen here. So it would be all in the center. >> Mhm. So things such as uh single family homes
um as you can see the community services um items, municipal uses, some accessory uses again all in this center column, special permit uses. So, a lot of accessory uses, but then
items like, as an example, an airport, landing strip, a boat storage facility, commercial accommodations, etc., etc. >> So, again, it wouldn't change any of that base zoning. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> Yep.
>> I just wanted to bring that up so people know. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> And I I have a question uh for the applicant. Uh, have you reached out to any uh conservation groups that uh because
I assume you either want to keep it as a golf course or conservation land because if uh you look at whenever I look at a a project, I look at what other uses something could be used for. And I kind
of always lean towards the lesser of two evils. And if this property was purchased by a developer and you think of the number of housing units that could go on there that could be Saxon uh size uh units, you know, 300 uh unit uh
buildings, things like that. So, uh that's how I look at uh when I voted on this and the fact that okay, this isn't what I would really like to see there. I would like to see it left as as a golf course myself. But when I looked at what
it possibly could have become, uh, you know, 130, 250 houses on that property, I I didn't want to see that either. So, I I'm just wondering if you have reached out to any type of organization that could purchase this property either as a
golf course or as conservation land. >> Um, thank you for the question, Mr. Larry. Um, several members of the Friends of Fmouth Country Club are on the 300 committee and many others are financial supporters of of the committee. So, I can't speak for them,
but I know there's there's direct involvement and conversation. Um, again, just really in summary, we'd ask the planning board to consider recommending for town meeting warrant um to simply pause. Um, we'd like more thorough
conversation with the community. This is a 20 to 60year investment that you're going to be recommending to the town. It it warrants, I think, a thorough discussion. Um, and there, you know, as I said, we're pro- solar, but not on
that site. It it sounds to me like what you're asking this board to do is to approve the zoning article so town media can make uh a decision. They've already made a decision in the past. >> Yes. Yes, Mr. Julie. That's correct. We we'd ask if if you would vote as to
support this article, we'd we'd much appreciate your support >> to support this article so that Tom meeting could make a vote on it. >> That's correct. Okay. >> Thank you for summarizing that. >> So, uh we'll just go right through the art. I know there's probably uh uh
someone in opposition to this article that let them speak later on, but anyone in support of this article would just come up and >> get their name and uh make a statement, please. >> Uh Robert Young, in full disclosure, I'm a member of the golf advisory committee and I'm also a town meeting member, but
I'm speaking here as a uh citizen of the town to support Rick's article. Dear Planning Board, we voted at a special town meeting in June of 2021, and I do have a copy of that overlay district map you were talking about,
to extend the town's solar overlay district to include property comprised of a Cape Cod Country Club. Prior zoning did not permit construction of a solar farm on that property. I believe we were in a fervor when we made that decision. Similar to the vote we took with the
windmills near town disposal facility, a new electric power source that was for the greater good. However, we found out that it was in the mistake putting those windmills too close to the neighborhood, not in the right place. Now, with those same thoughts in mind, we are creating
new electric energy for the greater good. We're excited by proposing a solar farm to be built on Cape Cod Country Club. And that was at the co time in 2021. and we had our meeting that night at the high school. However, the place like the
placement of the windmills, putting a solar farm on a beautiful piece of property in a neighborhood adjacent to town open space and Kunamesa pond is again the wrong place. Solar farms are better placed on land that is previously disturbed, such as
brownfields, sand pits, parking lots, rooftops, and other such areas. Destroying an historic 100-year-old successfully operating golf course with mature forests is the wrong place. Planning members, planning board members should also take into consideration that
this would be the fifth largest solar array placed in East Felmouth. Currently, we have the town Felma Town of Felma disposal area. And I don't know if you've been up there to see how big that is. You should take a ride up there. It's massive. And that's 11,000 panels. That would be one quarter the
size of the array that they're proposing. They want 44,000 panels on that solar array at the golf club. We also have Kenyons Market, Felmouth Ice Arena, Cape Cod Fairgrounds, 69 acres, and the Steamship Authority parking lot has been approved for 1.9 at that
location. And these are all good spots for a solar farm. The current solar proposal will be the largest in the state with 44,000 panels. And this is something that really gets me surrounded by a 7 foot high chain link fence. Appropriate appropriate planning for
these residents of East Selma should not be another should not have another industrial solar array. These facts should be strongly considered by the board. I ask you to support Rick Hamilton and remove the solar solar overlay zoning district that includes
Cape Cod Country Club by recommending article 14 when it goes to town meeting. That's my testimony and I'd like to give this to the chair. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> My name is Rosemary Gilgun. time. From
1977 to 1985, John F. Gilgun Jr. and his partner owned Cape Cod Country Club. That was my dad. Cape Cod Country Club was named at my dinner table by my mother. So to say this is very sentimental to me is an understatement.
It's a historic golf course that will turn 100 years old in 2028. In 1924, Hull and EMTT designed the golf course. They had 150 golf courses worldwide and
they were um very recognized golf architects. It's a public course. It's a draw for our town. People come down to relax and play golf. There is not a lot of public golf courses left around. It
was misrepresented that this was a losing money proposition. It was presented that way to to the town of Felmouth as well as the Cape Cod Commission. The National Golf Foundation data sheets say 4.4 million more golfers
are playing today than in 2020. Offer the property to sale as a golf course. Maybe the town of Felmouth wants to buy another golf course. golf course. We could lease the golf course. Hyenas has two public courses
that they offer a membership to as well. There's nothing wrong with having a second golf course in town. Um, another one of the golf courses that was involved in this group, Green Meadow, was a 36 hole golf course that
was destroyed for $120 million property um million dollar deal to target. Um, we the people of Felmouth that have to go by that every day and look at what a degregation of this property is going to look like. We get absolutely nothing out
of this. My electric bill is not going to change, but we're going to be left with a stripped piece of worthless property. There's only one person that's making out in this deal. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Good. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and the board. My name is David Craig. I'm a private citizen. I've lived in Felmouth for 35 years. I want to speak about the environmental negative environmental impact uh by losing the golf course. So,
here's a couple of statistics to to have in mind. First about it's about the trees. The trees are carbon sinks. There are approximately 4,000 trees on that 18 hole golf course. What do trees do through photosynthesis? They take
sunlight and water and they convert CO2 in the air. That's what's driving this whole electric vehicle and emissions uh push is to eliminate CO2 which is what we breathe which impacts our health. Trees are nature's carbon sync. They
take carbon dioxide from the air, convert it, and put it in the ground as a tree and roots where it sits for centuries until the bulldozers from the developer come and strip virtually all the trees off that land to put up the solar arrays. I'm shocked to hear it's
44,000. So here's the numbers. There's about 4,000 trees, round numbers, on that 18 acre golf course. Each tree sequesters 48 pounds of carbon. You
could pick up like a 50 lb bushel of carbon in your hand. Times 4,000, that's about 200,000 pounds of carbon that don't uh exist in the air anymore because they're sequestered via the trees. So the question I have is that
what will the developer do to mitigate for this town, not his pocketbook, but this town, the loss of 200,000 pounds of carbon sink, which we have, by developing it into a solar farm. That's a question I'd like the planning board
to consider in supporting this petition to have the town pause and think about all the issues. This is just one of the loss of that beautiful green space on the east side of town. Any questions you would have of me?
>> Any questions? >> Okay. I thank you for your consideration >> and I I I don't want I want to make it very clear that uh what we're here for this evening is not to uh reszone this property or not to change it from a golf
course to a solar farm or to a hotel or to a housing development. We're here to either support the application >> right from the uh >> I think the speakers are trying to present the facts that you might consider it and saying let's look at this. Let's pause. We're only going to
vote to support vote to support or not support to a town meeting. >> Correct. And the town will decide, not you. The town will decide, but we ask for your support in putting it in front of the town. >> Okay. Appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to uh take any up until about 9:00 and then we're going to have to
hear from I'm sure that uh there's a opposition here because we're going to be here forever if we don't. I'm sure everyone has pretty much the same thing to say but in a little different way. So, >> um I'll try to be quick. Um my name's
Robera Mock. I live off of um Twin Brooks and Hyannis. And this I was devastated as I started researching this. Um I even Anyway, I'm trying to be quick. Um
I I work in finance, so I know about LLC's and about Carlilele. And I wanted to find out who who is doing this, who's hiding because it's not a lot of transparency in the applicant. Um, one
layer upon layer of um, LLC's. What I I did late night search was find that um, one of the LLC's they they spun off an an LLC from Australia called P Palisades. I looked that up with the SEC
and I don't know if it's the same, but um and then the other one I think was from Toronto. Um any rate, two two LLC's, money managers that have nothing to do with solar farms. They just are after getting the money that they will make for transmission lines which make
our our electricity bills go higher. So I felt I that that's important to for us to know. I don't know. I think the the problem is that I don't know if the Cape Cod Commission has done their due diligence and it's falling in upon you. Um and it's creating a lot of problems.
Um plus I mean I uh I'm going to jump here. Um it's historical event happened in 1960 here with Arnold Palmer. Uh I mean that was he flew in to Felmouth to and
got a birdie at the at the uh volcano 14th hole. That's a big deal. And we're coming upon a 100 years. Let's let's slow this down. I think that I came I've spent a lot of um sleepless nights feeling sick about this. I actually
talked with the chairman of the tribes of the Wampaog because it really upset me that our history and Thanksgiving coming that our that there was no respect for the fact that there that okay they had an agenda. I mean what do
you call it? They had an a 14 but there was no presence of a Wampenog tribe in Kunames. That doesn't make any sense at all. That's not good planning. That's not being a good steward of the land. We just recently lost Jane Goodall and I
don't know if anyone's had a chance to see her on Netflix, but every each one of what we do, I mean, she did a a she presented a movie after that she wanted to release after
her death to tell us that everything that we do makes a difference. It's the choices that we make make a difference. And it's I was so moved by that. I I I highly recommend everyone on the planning board watch that before
this gets decimated because it's it's it's it's it's criminal. It's criminal. And I mean you we don't want to go on the side of history that you know what we messed up and there's nothing we can do about it. >> That's sad.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, my name is Katherine Christensen. I live at 32 Partridge Lane. And I just wanted to say that um my family represents five generations of golfers at the Cape Cod Country Club. My grandfather played there when he used to
stay in Means. Um we're very supportive of all of this, but I just wanted you to be aware of in East Windsor, Connecticut. I read something um in Boston.com today where they had what happened is they built a very similar thing to this. They approved it and built it and it this is near a
residential area that's going to impact property values. There was a vi there was a fire a serious fire exploding transformers resulted in fire there at this particular solar array. There's a highpitched buzz or rigging noise
produced by the facility's power inverters during bright sunny days. So that's just one of many consequences. So, let's not rush to get this done to take advantage of the tax credits because that's what this big corporation is all about. And think about this.
5,000 truckloads of this beautiful earth is going to be removed. Where is it going? Who's getting all the money for this? So, there again, we're living in an era and here it is. Short-term corporate gains for long-term negative
consequences for Falmouth with many unknowns for future generations to face. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Judy Atkinson. I own a home at the corner of Ashumit and Voxbury.
I'm very concerned about this project because my property value is going to plummet if that goes through. I don't know who would want to buy a home on a what a a beautiful piece of property that it is right now and then
to turn it into a solar farm. So, what's going to happen to the property values? Who's going to help me when that goes down? Who gets the electricity when it's generated? Is it going to stay in Felmouth? Are they going to sell it to Felmouth? Are they going to take That's
one question I have. Another question is, I never saw a purchase and sale agreement from Freel to anybody in the public. I have a lot of friends. I've played a Cape Cod Country Country Club, but I've never seen a price tag put on
it for people to even to get together and buy it. It's just not the way we should be going. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Hi. Um, thank you for entertaining this this article. Um, I think you need to
entertain in a serious way. >> Your name? >> There's never been name for the record. >> Carrie Murphy, I'm sorry. Precinct 7. Thanks, Jim, for that. There's never been when you talk about a purchase and sale, there is a purchase of sale on this property, I believe. Um, no one can see it. It's not a public document. I
think there's certain triggers in there that he has to satisfy before it goes away. And one of them was the Cape Cod Commission, um, which our representative voted against. In terms of selling it, he's never put a price on it. There's been some some articles in a paper that said that he approached the 300
committee about that. I asked the 300 committee about that this afternoon. Uh, he never did. He hasn't put a price on this parcel. Um, if he did, people in the golf industry would know it. chairman of the golf advisory committee. I just got done interviewing uh three
firms including Trun Golf, which is the largest golf management purchase company in in the country. Um Keer Golf, which is out of Chicago, uh and another company from Nantucket. And the iconic name of Cape Cod Country Club, would
draw interest. He needs to put a price on it. And what we're asking you to do is to like they say, slow it down, pause it, let let's have a bigger discussion about how big that parcel is. When this passed, I don't think people knew the enormity of the damage that were is
going to be done out there. I really don't. I lived in Hatcheville. I was your neighbor. >> Um so this is very very close to me. There's almost a visceral reaction I have about it. Um, look, you know, I sat on this board as a member of the board of Slackman in this room and I follow
politics and I follow this process pretty well. I never knew this was happening because he wasn't even telling his own employees that it was happening. He's kept it secret from them. He's he's fired an employee who stood up at the time meeting in 19 2021. He he fired
them for getting up and speaking against it. He's got employees who he still to this day is not telling them what is going on. >> I think that's data conversion out of our purview here. We're talking about zoning. So, >> we're talking about zoning. >> An article. We're not >> the zoning. The zone the very zoning you did it would be nice if it was reversed.
>> Oh, thank you. >> Just just to pause it. And I think I think you really need to seriously entertain this from a zoning standpoint. >> Um if somebody talks about housing and you want to change the zoning, you know, let it come to that. But right now, you need to pause this project and give the
people in this community time to uh to have a more more, you know, holistic discussion about it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you again. This board this board does not have the authority to reszone this property. That's not what this is about. This hearing is to
see if we'll re recommend or not recommend an article from a petitioner which has been presented this evening >> and we're urging that you do that >> please. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for listening. So, I take one
one more and then if the um Okay, we're all set. Thank you. Would you like to say anything or are you all set, Mr. Terry? >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Julie, for the opportunity. Uh again, for the record,
my name is Matt Terry. I'm with the law firm Obama and Clower in Felmouth. I uh for the last seven years have been representing uh the uh um applicant for um the current permitting process Pure Sky Energy uh who's been in discussions
with and has a purchase and sale agreement with the current owner of the Cape God Country Club uh uh intimately involved over the last seven years in the entire permitting process which includes uh very thorough public discussions um predating the 2021
one appearance at the planning board in the spring where uh the board voted unanimously to recommend uh placing this property in the solar overlay district. When that zoning article then went to town meeting, it passed by over 80% of
the vote. Uh twothirds required and it was well over uh 80% of the town meeting members voted to uh to place this property into the solar overlay district. A few things that I wanted to hit up at the top. The first is uh to uh
recommend that the board um recommend indefinite postponement of the article uh at town meeting that the board of selectman meeting was being held this evening contemporaneously with this meeting. They had this article in front of them as well. The town manager in his
report to the board of selectmen recommended indefinite postponement and and I would urge the planning board to recommend the same uh for town meeting in November. uh the uh uh there have been a lot of uh misinformation this
evening stated as fact and I wanted to quickly run through some of I think the more important um especially for those who are relatively new to the project notwithstanding the amount of public discussion and debate that's gone on uh
the um there was an article in this uh last Friday's found enterprise that had a number of interviews the current owner was interviewed and he did reiterate something that he's said publicly and privately on on
numerous occasions which is that uh this course has not been making money for quite some time. So he decided starting in 2019 to look for purchases of the property. He w has not been approached
at any point in uh the process of trying to sell it by anyone who wants to keep it as a golf course. The two categories of potential buyers have been developers of housing and developers of solar. So to Mr. Lir's point earlier, uh I think
part of the reason why this solar project enjoyed so much support when it first came into public light uh four or five years ago was because the uh residents of Falmouth could make an affirmative decision about what these
145 acres were going to be. uh and to undo that and risk uh having this property sold to a developer uh could result in something very similar to what Falmouth is experiencing on Main
Street with Liberty Green. that there were several less intensive projects proposed for that site that were uh opposed, rejected, and now there's a very dense uh 40B development that that
folks are a lot less pleased with. Uh really the highest and best use with respect to the market has been housing and solar. Uh it will uh not remain as a golf course. There are just no buyers out there who want to keep it as a golf
course. The town has gone on record at board of selectman meetings as saying that the town has no interest in acquiring a second golf course. That the first golf course that they currently own is uh is a handful and uh they have
neither the money nor the inclination to acquire and and operate a second public golf course. There also from a pricing standpoint are are not private conservation uh entities that uh can purchase this
golf course. Uh we've certainly reached out to a number of different conservation agencies as we've had discussions around this project and none of them have expressed interest in purchasing the course. A few uh just quick things. The lease would be 40
years and a maximum, not 60. At uh there is no risk that the town would be stuck with removing the panels as part of the uh uh arrangements and legal agreements that are entered into upfront. There's a decommissioning agreement where the applicant would
submit a bond that would be good for the lifetime of the array. that bond in the off chance that the owner operator of the solar array was no longer around would fund the removal cost of the array. So the town wouldn't be uh faced
with a challenge of disposal. It would all be taken care of through the bond arrangement which again is all done up front and will be brought before the planning board as part of the site plan review. No panels used on this project will be contained or considered hazardous material. Uh there are going
to be as currently proposed about 50 acres of permanently conserved open space. Uh and the balance of the acreage out of 145 um will be uh reserved for general municipal use after the array has been
removed at the end of the lease. 137 acres are going to be donated to the town as part of the structure that Pure Sky Energy has negotiated with the town and entered into a non-binding with the board of selectmen. So the town
of Falmouth gets 137 acres for zero dollars. It gets ground lease rent for somewhere between 25 and 40 years. It gets tax revenue in the form of payment in le of taxes. and folks who are income
qualifying will see reduced uh electrical bills. Uh we have significant support from neighbors of Butters members of the larger Kunamesa Pond community. One of our earliest and
biggest supporters is the Kunamesa Pond Association. Uh the Lockstead Association, which is a local homeowners uh association, has been a huge supporter at both as a board and individual members have written letters of support to the town and to the Cape
Cod Commission. Uh the project also has the support of the energy committee, the board of selectmen, the Falmouth Chamber of Commerce and many other uh individual abutters. The reason why we have so much support from so many folks who live so
close to this property is because to Mr. Lir's point, they know that out of all of the options that are available for this 145 acres, this is the least intensive uh use that can be made of it. Uh and that it is the healthiest choice
for Kunamesid and Round Pond. As part of an agreement between Pure Sky and the Kunamesa Pond Association, Pure Sky has agreed to uh uh pay for a $410,000 10-year water quality study of Kunamesa
Pond. The current golf course operation, as you can imagine, is fairly intensive from an environmental standpoint. It's heavily managed. It's heavily manicured. Uh there are pesticides and fertilizers used. the uh um golf uh course
conversion into the a solar array drops the nitrogen numbers from well above uh acceptable usage to almost background which is part of the reason why the Cape Cod Commission voted 14 to1 to approve it. They recognized the environmental
benefits. Uh a couple just closing points. Out of the 145 acres, 10 acres will be cleared uh of current trees. That includes the number of acres that are essentially functionally cleared where it's standalone trees that are
part of the golf course in between fairways. The understory is managed. So out of that large amount of acreage really uh a very small number of acreage will be cleared. Uh we are going to
replant uh a multiple of of that acreage with new trees in addition to the 47 acres that are permanently conserved right off the bat when donated to the town and the additional um conserved acreage functionally conserved acreage
around Round Pond. Uh there we're have also committed to providing a trail network that connects Kunameset Pond and Round Pond to the existing uh conservation areas that already ring the Cape Cod Country Club so that it can be
a public amenity from day one. Um uh so in conclusion, oh and just one final point, there are no truck truckloads of dirt or and nothing will be leaving the site. nothing will be brought to the site as part of uh reconstituting this property as a solar
array. Uh there'll be earth moving. It will all be contained on site. So uh nothing coming or nothing leaving uh the property. Uh so in conclusion uh I would recommend to the board uh to recommend to town meeting indefinite postponement
of this article. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. All right. One one more person then uh the board's going to make the disc discussion here and your name please. Hi, I'm Nick Lowel uh precinct 8. I live at 27 Adam Manet
Road and I uh came to encourage you to um recommend indefinite postponement for this article. I um live at the southern end of the pond. I am very concerned about the water quality in the pond. I'm concerned about the uh runoff from the
existing golf course. I'm very concerned about the potential for a um large residential development. That's potent, you know, potential for that. Um that's why as town meeting member, four years ago, I voted in favor of the ground
solar array. I note that the planning board voted in favor of the the zoning change and the town meeting voted very strongly in favor of the overlay and I don't see what has changed four years later that makes that a uh bad decision.
If anything, it seems like uh it's even more needed now. We know we need the solar and we know that the pond which recently had a cyano bacteria um bloom you know is is suffering and I think this is the right step forward. And then
just I'd like to say that we are not that we can't save the Cape Cod Country Club by either adding or removing this overlay. That decision is up to the owner and the new owner if there will be one. They have to decide who they wants to what he wants to do
with it. if he wanted to sell it to the 300 committee or give it to them, he could do that. He appears not to want to do that. So, we have to be thinking about what's best for the town. What's best for the town, I think, is to give an option as a solar option and leave
that on the table. Um, last thing I'll say is that um, you know, at the town meeting, there's some discussion here that it was rushed or that we didn't have time to really debate this back in 2021, but it was a long debate. Uh I did not time it but I
did look at the minutes. There are many pages of minutes from the discussion of this article and the articles around it. This was well thought out. I don't see that um bringing this back with a positive recommendation is going to change the result. Um and uh I think we
should hold the course that was planted plotted uh you know four years ago. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Any other comments from the board members? No. Okay. So, I'll make a couple of comments. Uh, having sat on this hearing
with the Cape Cod Commission and it was voted u by the commission 14 to1 to support the the solar array here. Uh, the dissenting vote was myself and I think that listening to the the audience that we have here this evening that um
they're a little bit surprised to see what this is actually going to look like. I don't think people are opposed to solar, but when you start to see the visual here, and as Mr. Terry said, there's not going to be any soil leaving the site, but there's going to be approximately 5,000 truckloads of soil
moved around the site to level it off so you can put the solar panels. They're going to be 16 ft high and there's going to be three miles of fencing, 7 foot fencing. So, it's going to maybe the vision of more of like an industrial
site than um a golf course or um uh homeowners living there has has stirred some opposition to this. And I think I've received multiple um calls and a couple of letters. So, and that's been
the crux of it for the people that are seem to be in support of this article. And I would like to ask I don't know if Mr. will discuss or not, but I've asked before. When you look at all the um area in yellow, it's going to become the solar.
There's one parcel not going to be solar. There's a fourth hole, a golf hole, >> and and um it's being purchased by by your your uh the company that you represent, but no one wants to talk about what's going to happen to that
parcel. There's not going to be any solar there. And uh you have mentioned that um when we look at Main Street, we have 104 apartments in a small area. And I think some people are concerned that maybe that's what u uh you guys are
going to do with it at some point in time. Similar, not the same, similar. And and if it's going to be housing, and you know, some people are concerned about it being housing, that's the threat. It doesn't mean it would be housing, but that is the threat that if it's not solar, it's going to be
housing. uh can't possibly be a golf course anymore, but uh I mean theoretically, but uh if it's going to be housing, then the town should have that parcel also and decide what type of housing they
would like to have on if any. Habitat for Humanity, found the housing trust, uh something really nice and attractive and that that helps our citizens that we're trying to talk all the time about trying to help our citizens stay here uh and be able to afford to live here. So
that's all I have to say on it. Now, do we need to vote on this site, Jed? Do we take this under advisement? What do we do here? >> Um so you have to close the hearing first. Okay. um take it under adisement, but I would suggest that you debate it this
evening uh because the warrant goes to the printer in two days. So, we would like to have and we need to have a recommendation and an explanation for this um to go to the printer. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to close the hearing then?
>> Well, I'd actually like to talk about it. >> Well, we can talk about it after we close the hearing first. >> Do >> you're just closing it for public? >> Okay, fine. Yes, I agree. So I move that we close the hearing. Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I
unanimous. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. Well, I have a real concern about the uh amount of housing the development here and I I would before we and I actually I I am going to vote in fa I'm in favor of delaying this and
giving the time to think about it because but one of the things we need to think about is what Bob brought up. I I'd like to have somebody say how many potential ANR lots are sitting there on the frontage of these streets that could be developed. Houses that could just go
and get a permit for and build houses right away. I think we should all know that and I've never heard anyone discuss it, but I and I'm the 7 foot chain leak fence. Uh I think we should give them this needs more time and have more talk
about. So, I am in favor of uh delaying it, giving the group more time to talk about it more. I'm really concerned about this. >> Giving this board more time to talk about it. >> Well, >> but I don't think we have much time to talk about it. >> No, no. They're asking for, you know, the town our recommendation town meeting, right?
>> I'm in favor of going along with what they're recommending. A pause is what I'm trying to say. It's hard when we're voting. Are we voting yes or no? >> Well, we're we're only going to vote to either support or not support. Go to town meeting. town meeting will make the decision. We're not making a decision
whether it's going to be this or that or anything else. >> They're just asking us to give town meeting an opportunity to >> to uh discuss this and have a vote on it again. But maybe maybe now with a little bit more information than they had four or five years ago. >> I'm saying I'm in agreement with that.
>> Okay. Well, >> I always worry about uh making sausage on uh town meeting uh floor. Uh, but I've tended to always allow a petitioner's article to go forward so
that the town meeting does have a chance to to debate it. So, uh, I I I would hate to see this uh turn into a a solar farm. That was uh but like I said before, I was looking at the lesser of
two evils and I was looking at uh what the plan was as far as uh how much disturbance there was going to be and and things like that. Uh the ponds were concerned because I have people that uh do live down there and they were in
favor of of this uh solar farm. Uh so it's I'm I'm willing to give uh town meeting the opportunity to debate it. All right. Thank you. >> Either way, whether you making a positive recommendation or not.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're we're we're making a discussion now. >> Yeah. >> It it is worth noting that um no matter what your recommendation is, >> if you do recommend indefinite postponement, a member of town meeting
can make a positive motion on the floor >> and it's back up for debate. But >> um >> but we at least get to express what we feel, >> right? So you're in putting an indefinite postponement doesn't necessarily um not allow town meeting to debate it. >> But voting is a supported doesn't mean
it gets supported at town meeting either. >> That's correct as well. >> Okay. Okay. >> I am in favor of indefinite postponement. We had multiple hearings in front of this board about this whole thing. I can't you remember how many hearings
we had as to whether it should go solar or not. Where was everybody when we were debating this? Why weren't we hearing from these people while we were talking about it? And I'm not asking you to answer. I'm asking this as a rhetorical question.
>> Why are we just hearing about this now? >> So, I really am for indefinite postponement on this article. And as has been pointed out, if town meeting feels that they want to set that aside, they can vote to set it aside.
But I feel kind of miffed when we spend so much time talking about it and voting it and hearing all the pros and cons and then this happens at the last minute. That bothers me. >> All right. Thank you, Paul.
Well, I'm very much in favor of alternate energy sources, both solar and wind turbines. Um, however, I think there's some really serious issues with this particular site. I mean, this is a wonderful site, former golf course, >> current golf course.
>> These people have been here for three hours waiting to talk about this. Uh, so they're clearly very interested in this. My feeling is I think we should let it go forward but we should recommend indefinite postponement because a lot of issues that need to be discussed but let town meeting make that
>> can we do both? >> Yeah. >> I don't think we can. >> So essentially putting indefinite postponement does allow it to move forward to the warrant. >> You go to a warrant but you recommend indefinite postponement. There's nothing wrong with that.
Hi >> Tom. >> I support the article. >> Okay. So, do we need to take a vote on this? How do how do we how do we structure it? >> Well, you So, I would suggest that you make a motion on the draft
recommendation. Um, and then you're going to have to help me craft an explanation because >> if if we support it, >> if you support it. So, what's before you this evening is a draft explanation for an indefinite postponement
um recommendation. So, Well, how about if I move indefinite postponement? We take a vote on that and if it's voted down, then >> you'd have to make a motion for the opposite and vote that. >> So, that means it's not supported, right?
>> An indefinite postponement means that you >> supporting or you are not supporting the art the article as presented. >> Okay. But again to clarify and for everyone listening, it does not preclude it from being on the warrant and it does not
preclude a member of town meeting providing a positive motion and bringing it back to debate. >> Okay. >> On town meeting floor >> or right now somebody has to make a positive recommendation. >> Correct. >> And we take a vote on that one way or the other. >> So you want to make a motion? >> I' I'd recommend indefinite
postponement. >> Okay. Can I get a second? Vote that. >> I'll second it for the vote. >> Okay. All right. All right. Everybody in favor uh support of indefinite postponement say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Two. Opposed. >> I >> four. >> So I would suggest that you make a motion to um the opposite. Make a motion for supporting the article. make that vote
and then we can put that. >> Okay. >> I move we support the article. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I opposed. >> Opposed? I >> Who's opposed? >> So four to two.
>> Okay. [Applause] >> Yeah, understand it may not it doesn't carry any weight. this right. This this is Tommy. It's going to be Tommy's decision. Either way, it's going to be their decision. [Music]
>> Thanks for being patient out there. >> We'll let let the folks >> you do have another article. >> Just say thank you very much. >> You're quite welcome. Oh, good to see you. >> I think I am. I got to see a doctor.
>> Got to get a release on Thursday. [Music] >> Are we in a German here? >> Yeah. Yeah. No, we should adjourn. Just adjourn us. Just temporarily. >> We shouldn't have this going on. >> We have a >> two minute adjourment. Will we clear the
room, please? We got to get back to work. >> Want to have >> Good point. >> discussion going on. >> She came up and was addressing us at >> I know that. Yeah. >> No, Pat's right though. I I I That was my question, too. Where have these
people been for the past three years? >> It looked like Bob, >> but still. >> I just thought it'd be Yeah. Well, that's how I look at it. That's how I look at it. >> Either way, it doesn't matter. I mean, he's going to deal with it. >> That was a a wasted.
>> Yeah. >> So, why not? >> Yeah. >> Well, you you've seen you've seen the landfill, right? >> Maybe four times that amount. >> That's what it's going to be. >> Listen, I mean, I haven't seen it, so I don't know. >> If we can find a way to stop this become
a guy, he can do what he wants. >> Well, we'll see what happens. >> That's what I want to figure out. >> But John's right. If the if the town were to buy it, that would be a different story. >> Where >> we could then decide on what kind >> maybe a group will go.
>> Well, that's what I was hoping. That's why >> on the market. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> He made a deal with these guys, >> which is all right. That's This is America. >> I go home now. >> Okay. We all set. >> Okay. >> No. >> Yeah. You're good.
>> Diet cooks for everyone first something. >> Diet cooks for everyone. >> No. Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. We're back in session again. Thank you so much. >> Open it. >> So, what do we need to >> Oh, we need to >> Yes. You have the other article.
>> Article 19, right? >> No, 14. You voted 19 first. Don't ask. >> I'll make a motion to uh move for indefinite postponement. >> Second. >> What is this? >> On on article 19. >> No, 14.
>> 14 rather. Yeah. No, it's >> No, no. 19. >> It's right. Article 19. >> Article 19 is the five. >> We voted on 19, didn't we? >> No, we voted on 14. >> Oh, we did. >> Yeah. >> 14 is the solar. 19 is the five. Okay. >> Is it what? >> Five dwelling units.
>> You got that one twisted around, didn't we? >> Then vote. >> So, we got a motion. We >> have a motion, a second for >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I have a motion. The motion is to vote for indefinite po postponement on article 19.
>> The five houses per >> five houses per >> that an I. Paul. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I fine. >> Okay. Unanimous. >> And for the record, um, are you okay with the draft explanation as written on article 19? >> I was.
>> Okay. >> It's cold. >> I got a question, Chad. Did that young man come to see you at all about how to make this presentation? >> What happened? >> So, we talked about We did have a meeting. >> Can I just >> We can't close the door. Just ask.
>> We got to tell them to leave. >> We got to keep going here. >> All right. So, we're going to do a planning board discussion. >> Uh, not quite yet. >> Great. >> Yep. Not yet. So, um >> Okay. I just want to make sure that going back to article 14. So there was a
a vote to support the article as presented. >> Yes. >> Um very quickly, what would you like the explanation to say? So again, this explanation as currently drafted anticipated an indefinite postponement recommendation. So it wouldn't make
sense to in my opinion include it with the support of the article. However, it is relevant information as it relates to the impact or the potential impact of supporting the article. But again, I
think it's worth you folks reading and just giving me a sense of it. >> Question. >> Sure. Go ahead, Jim. >> I I thought I heard something different the last time and I I I could be wrong because I'm going back to during CO, right? I thought that it was a 20-year lease and it was going to the town after
that and now I hear it's a 40-year lease. So, I They're negotiating. >> No, but that to me but that's a big change. >> They could opt it was a 20-year lease. They could opt to renew it for another 20 years. >> I wasn't sure of that. >> Yeah. >> So, I might have missed that the last time.
>> Eventually, it ends up with the town ownership. >> And the town does not have to remove any of the panels. Nothing like that. It was really a superb benefit for the town. >> But it's a 40-year deal. Yeah. >> Not a 20. >> Well, yeah. I mean, I get >> I was confused the last time. I thought
it was a 20. I thought it was told I thought I heard them say in 20 years this is going to be given to the town. >> I must if I must have been wrong. I thought I heard that. >> So um obviously you'll be hearing more about this application if towards the
November time frame. Um that's something that we want to talk about with you in terms of scheduling, but we'll do that under um next meetings, I guess, or future agenda items uh because we the applicant is
looking for um to schedule a public meeting for the site plan review. So, we'll get into the details um in a little bit, but just getting back to the explanation language. >> Yeah. So, what I suggest you do here, the first part I think is fine. It may
be spot zoning. The next sentence says if there if it's removed, it would render the overlay district radically undersized. And I'd stop right there. I don't think we need to get into recommending a a legal action there. Just end it. It'll
be undersized and delete the rest of it. >> Okay. I don't think we're up to the legal aspects of it. >> Why does it have to say unlikely to pass muster with the attorney general's office?
>> Um well, because of there's two reasons. one, there's recent case law um that um has, you know, recently been decided um related to the amount of solar that a um
municipality is able to zone for these types of um developments. And our understanding is that we're undersized. And so if we don't have the appropriate zoning in place, it could jeopardize um
where future solar arrays could be placed uh based on the fact that we don't have it currently zoned for enough sites in town. >> It's not like a safe harbor for zone for solar you're talking about. >> It's a loose analogy, but it's somewhat similar to that.
>> Yeah. Why do we have to put that language in this decision? >> Well, we definitely don't have to. So this is this is your explanation. >> I don't like that language. >> Okay. So that's that's why I'm saying I I need your help to craft what you would like to say to town meeting in your
explanation. Uh and you don't have to give me the exact words, but it sounds like you would like the um petitioner or you felt like it was important for a town meeting to have the ability to debate this. >> Yes. >> Okay. Ability debate.
>> And I would put that after the first sentence. Okay. Um, did you want to say anything about the previous approval in June of 21 and you know this sort of um current
situation? Did you want to make reference to any of that at all? >> You could I I would put that it was changed by town meeting vote in June of 2021. What it was changed to. >> Okay. Who the hell was chairman in June of 21?
>> It might have been me. I'm just >> I was just making a joke. That was That was >> That was I was just making a joke. I thought it could have been me. >> It could have been Charlotte. >> I was just joking. I don't >> sure the joke landed. >> So essentially what you want to say is you want the you wanted town meeting to
have the opportunity to debate this. >> Yes. >> Openly. >> Yeah. Um, and maybe we just keep it at that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, let's see about that. >> It would be better keep it at that. >> Simple. >> Yeah, >> I can do that. I can do that.
>> Let AI do it. >> It's another version of I. >> Now, can we go to the Zo Sandwich Road? >> Yes. >> Oh, jeez. That's a big package. So, um, excuse me. I have three items to
>> show you on the show you on the screen. Sorry. >> We have the um application uh we have the site plan and we have the architectural renderings. So uh this
application as you know is a comprehensive permit um with the zoning board of appeals. It is for the development of 50 um units 50 residential units on zero Sandwich Road. So, I'm going to give you a sense of
where that is to begin. So, it's right next to the I'm sure you can see it up on the screen. It's right next to the old Smithfield Farm uh horse farm. Uh right next to 809 Sandwich Road, which was a previous comprehensive
permit that you folks reviewed uh not long ago. So, that site is uh where my cursor is on the screen. This is zero sandwich road. So it's a 14 acre plus or minus uh site which they are proposing
50 residential units which will be >> the developer on this. >> The developer on this is well Sandwich Road Housing LLC. Uh the gentleman who appeared before the
uh ZBA is named William and they are represented by Matt Terry. >> I am recusing myself. >> Okay. So as you can see up on the screen this is the proposed layout of the 50 uh units.
So essentially shaped as um one might consider that to be somewhat of a culde-sac uh long road in uh and sort of this loop um which houses uh a number of units within two sections essentially.
So you've got a landscaped area um here and another landscaped area here where they propose to put the underground soil absorption system for the denitrification system. This is essentially what the layout of the site looks like. The units
themselves are shown on the screen. These are the >> How large is a partial? How large is how large? >> Just over or just under 15 acres? >> 15 acres. Okay. >> Um and again 50 units all of them will
be age restricted to every uh to anyone 55 or over. what 20% of them will be affordable uh because they are home ownership units. And on page 60 of the application, which
I'll show up on the screen for you, are the um the uh asking price or the sales price and the square footage breakdown. So, you can see here. >> So, it's 20% instead of 25% of the home owners. >> Correct. Correct.
>> Does that change? Nope. Nope. Not that I'm aware of. >> They probably did. >> So, as you can see, there are proposing uh 10 affordable units and they're a mix of number of bedrooms as shown. Square
footages range in the 1,800 ft² area. Sales prices are shown up on the screen. So, anywhere between 119,000 to 130,000. Uh the market rate units uh as you can see there's a lot more of those uh and
square footages are approximately the same. In fact, all of the units within the development are roughly the same and the market rate sales price uh are dramatically higher. Uh and like I said, these are the typical elevations or at least the front
elevations of the proposed units. The idea is to um cluster them close together. Uh some of them will have as you can see the side garage. Um in fact all of them as shown up on the screen will have that but the the architectural
style sort of varies throughout the site. >> This is the same group in the same place that we just looked at the 36 >> right next door. This is right next door. >> It it's next to it. So >> different group. Different group. >> Different group.
>> Holy directly next. >> And it's 55 and over. >> 55 and over. >> God, >> I don't see how they can do that. >> Where do they come out? I understand which road is in relationship to the other one, J. >> Here, I'll show you. >> Question. >> And is it a driveway or is it a road
they're putting on? I can't tell by the >> This is a driveway. Driveway. Yep. >> You know, why are we attracting older people that require all these services and how is it I couldn't advertise for a roommate being 55 and not be sued,
>> right? >> And yet they can build a whole development. >> Well, one of the couple has to be 55 or older. >> Yeah. Still, >> I I I don't know how they get away with it. It's discrimination. I mean, it's
it's out and out discrimination. >> Technically allowed >> technically. I mean, >> so here's the property itself. Um entrance off of Sandwich Road is located approximately in the center. 809 Sandwich Road. They are proposing to
utilize the driveway uh that's currently there. >> What's the distance between the two? Uh >> what road is that? >> Uh this is Sandwich Road across >> north of Sandwich Road coming >> here road. >> That's Hatchville. >> And those are different developers. >> Yes,
>> different developers. Yep. >> Wow. Wow. >> So approximate distance between the driveways is 220 ft >> approximate. >> And this was all part of the Smithfield bomb. >> Correct. Well, there's another little
road there too, Jed, that they were referring to >> that was closer. It was like 130 ft, I think. >> The one right across the road. You can see it going back >> onto this property. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Now go forward. No,
no, no. The other way. Okay. Go straight across. And you can see that other little lane going back. Keep going. Keep going. See? Keep going. >> Yep. Okay. Straight across. You can see it kind of coming through the trees or
something. No. No. Straight across. >> Yep. >> Go down a little bit. Titch. >> Yeah. See? Oh, you missed it again. You have to look further in. >> So, you're saying another access point to this property.
>> That's what No, not to the property. >> It's opposite. We're looking at opposite. >> Road's opposite. >> Got it. Road's opposite. All right. I I thought you were referring to access >> and they were saying I think that's like 120 feet >> from what they're proposing their entrance. >> Right. So Dosta Circle.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That one. >> Yeah. So this is particularly close to this as is the Hasheville road. >> So I mean obviously they are asking for a waiver. >> So in your subdivision rags you have to be 300 ft um away from any intersecting
street. There's no way they can accomplish this with Hatchville and Dosta. So, they're seeking a waiver from that. >> They're also claiming that we're not in um >> safe harbor. >> Safe harbor. >> Right. >> Correct. >> So, there's a couple of things that you
want to pay close attention to in my opinion. First and foremost, as we've as we've covered with other um proposals, is the list of waiverss that they are requesting. So on page,
okay, it's the very end of the application. So I'll pull up pull it up on the screen for everyone. So here's the beginning of their waiver request. So essentially um you know they're first and foremost they're uh
asking for a waiver to allow for the development to happen because the base zoning doesn't allow for it. Um they are asking for the waiver of the dimensional requirements because that's only allowing one dweller per single lot. Um they are importantly asking for a waiver
from the requirement to obtain a special permit for a common driveway. So, this would be in fact a driveway, not a street. Um, so in my opinion, um, when you don't develop a street, you are essentially not held to the subdivision
standards. >> Yeah. Um, and so therefore, I I can see that they put in the the waiver requirement down uh below that they would ask for a waiver from the subdivision requirements, but again, if you're not developing a street or subdividing the property, which they are not doing, then those would not come
into play. Um, but again, that's just my opinion. Um, they are asking for a waiver from site plan review because again, a comprehensive permit takes that into account. And then of course they're asking for um a waiver of a particular component of
the landscaping plan which um requires that they show all existing trees that are greater than 4 in in caliber. And as I said the remainder of the waivers are related to design standards
of streets. So they're looking for um a waiver from the minimum width requirement of 22. So, they're proposing a 20ft driveway. Um, and then some offset center line information, which again, in my opinion, would not be applicable because they're not
developing a street, but likely just for belt suspenders. They threw in some of those waiverss. So, um, the point of tonight's, um, agenda item
is to hear your comments. We then put together a referral, um, that articulates your thoughts and we submit it to the zoning board of appeals for the record. >> Okay. >> I'm happy to start off because I have the benefit of picking this up and bringing it home with me and I really
looked at. >> Okay. First of all, way too much. Have any of you taken a tape measure and decided what 15t looked like? These buildings, some of them are 15 feet apart. I did that. Some of them are 19
feet apart. Come on. >> I mean, this is California and my kids have a concrete wall between so they have some privacy, but you can still hear everything from your neighbor. Oh, and some of that 15 ft will be H patio.
This is ludicrous. The density of that. The other thing is too, no, I wouldn't be in favor of giving them a waiver on the the street width because that's what this is. It's not a driveway. And if you're getting 55 year
and older people in there, you got to give them a little bit more room to drive. I'm being sort of silly there, but no, >> that's a good point. >> Come on. >> Yeah, >> you're you're you're calling it a driveway. You're only going to make it
20 ft wide. And oh, by the way, we're going to allow parking along the side of the street, too. >> Yeah, >> I picked that up from their description of it. All right, that's for starters. Um
I don't know where the heck they're going to expect to get a million bucks for four of these units. in something that's like this. I don't think so. The affordable units only one has three bedrooms. The rest have two bedrooms out
of what they're offering. >> And you're supposed to be sort of indistinguishable. Come on. >> So, you make them all threebedroom? >> Why not? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, am I hearing more three-bedroom units? Is that what you're saying? >> I think so. affordable only only one all three bedrooms.
>> I don't care if you want to put it as all that's fine with me. >> All the all the affordable units should be three bedrooms. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um what else are they looking for here? Um
what they're trying to do is smush the some of these units together so they can get more units in. That's why you've got multifamily. Some of them are single and then you got the multif family. And I don't know how many of the
affordables are actually in the multif family. I think all of them are >> but I don't know >> what's inside that circle. Seven units >> inside the circle >> or rectangle >> right in here. Uh >> one, two, >> seven. Yes. >> Seven.
>> And one of the units is smooshed. >> Yeah, they should eliminate those. That should all be up. So eliminate the seven seven units in the middle. >> Yes. It should all be available for walking your dog or let your grandchildren come and play or
>> Okay. >> Recreation of some sort. >> The whole thing because you've got your septic treatments in both of those areas. And oh, by the way, they can't park any kind of construction equipment over it while they're >> constructing because it'll compact it
too much. So then they're going to be able to to have proper leeching fields there, I suspect. And I'm not an engineer, so I don't >> That's where the sept is going anyway. But >> yeah, here and here. >> Okay. >> I think the whole area should be uh >> And they're going to have force green
space. >> Yeah. And then they're going to have force manes all along here to get it to be treated. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Force mane. Let's see. Where's the pump to force that? I don't see anything here. I see a house there.
>> Might be in the basement. >> I don't know. >> I don't know. So, each one of them has its own pump. >> It could be. I I don't know. I can't construct. So, I can't >> I know, but I can't. There's the plants are too small to >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm trying to get to it. So if there's a So they've got a sewer line, but it doesn't appear that they show a pump. >> I don't think they show a pump at all. They just show force main.
>> Yeah, I'm not seeing it. >> You don't see a pump house anywhere? >> Uh-uh. >> No. >> Okay. And uh Jed John I think said you want all seven of those units removed from where that green space is. >> Correct. Yeah. These these >> I didn't know that you understood that
because I I thought only the two smooshed together ones. Now, I don't mind uh houses sharing one wall, but that with only 15 ft in between or 19 ft
in between, how many affordable units they have here, Jed? They close 10 >> 10 affordable units. So, >> if they eliminate the seven in the middle, I don't want to reduce the amount of affordable units. Still stay at seven. >> Oh, you're being tough on them.
>> I don't know if it'll get approved or not. >> I know. keep the 10 affordable units. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> But you see how Oh, they had three >> they had one threebedroom >> and nine two-bedroom units for affordable.
>> They should all be threebedroom. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> What do you think of the square footage and the architectural style of the units? Well, when you're asking that amount of money, that's not a lot of square footage. >> Nope.
>> And that becomes their problem. >> They're very small. >> It's not our problem. It's their problem. Yeah. >> But I I >> like the design, but >> Yeah. The farmhouse sort of look. >> You like the design? >> I like the design. >> Okay. >> It's a congenial farmhouse look. >> Yeah. >> The porches invite visiting with
neighbors. >> Okay. >> How about the square footage? I mean, >> way too small for that amount of money. Well, we can't we can't do that. >> But they got to make their own decisions on that. >> Yeah. >> Square footage though, 1,800. That's not that big a home.
>> Well, I ask because, you know, it's one of those things that, you know, we talked about before about the starter home bylaw and you know that cap at 1,800 ft. >> 1800 is fine. >> Yeah. >> You like >> that's fine, but then you equate it to the prices they're asking. 900,000. >> I don't care what they're asking. That's
their I mean, they got >> if they can't get it, that's their problem. People 55 and over are looking for starter homes. >> They have $4 million here. Not >> additional $4 million for for sight work. >> Late plum. >> If you're looking for a starter home at 55.
>> Now, my understanding is that the floor plans show that all of the units have a bedroom on the first floor and a bedroom on the on the second floor. >> That's what they said. >> So, it's a a type of a age in place. But they do have some three-bedroom units.
>> They do. >> So, >> so, >> you know, I haven't had an opportunity to look at the threebedroom to see what that layout looks like. >> We're just asking for the affordable ones to be threebedroom. Yeah. >> Mhm. So, yeah, looks like in a three-bedroom layout, the two bedrooms would be upstairs. >> Yeah.
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Access. Concerns about access. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. It should be within three 300 ft rule. >> Okay. >> And it's not >> Yeah. No, there isn't one waiver that I'd be willing to give.
>> No, that's a that's a dangerous area there. >> We mentioned it on the other place. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I just want to go back to the waiverss cuz >> especially all seniors pulling out there. >> Oh, yeah. >> I don't recall them noting the 300 foot. >> I don't think they did.
>> Oh, yeah. They did. Yep. >> Yeah, they they missed. >> Oh, down there. Okay. Waiver from that. >> So, not in favor of that waiver. Yeah, I'm I'm not in favor of any of them. >> I'm not in favor of 55 and over either. >> Okay.
>> How about the rest of the board? >> So, why? >> Yeah. >> Is that a board comment? Not in favor of 55. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> What we're trying to do is develop community living, >> right? >> Okay. >> A mix of ages.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That's That's actually discriminatory. >> It is. I It's It blows my mind that it's allowed. >> Yeah. >> I mean I mean if these were going to be reasonably priced houses for people that need to move here because they provide a
service to the town. I mean that'd be a different story. But >> but 900,000 is not reasonably priced. >> No. No. But so I just want to I want to walk through the waiverss and just make sure that I'm clear. Yeah. >> So the the first waiver um that you know
essentially asks to allow for multiple units the six well they say 60 they're proposing 50. Are you okay with that? And not necessarily the quantity of the number of units but the waiver to allow
for more than just multif family in that in that district. >> I'm not in favor. >> I'm sorry. It's not even allowed multif family >> to allow multif family within that district. >> I'm not in support of that. You do not support that. >> Well, the multif family is the squishing of them to of two units together, >> right?
>> No, it really calls for 10 or 12 houses. That's what it calls for. >> Mhm. >> So, waiver one is a no. >> And even then, the road would be over 500 ft long. They'd have a hard time. >> Yeah. >> One way in, one way out. >> Yeah. >> I'm assuming our uh waiver number two,
which is the >> Yep. >> Not more than one >> dwelling. No on that. >> That's a no. >> Uh use table the common driveway allow them to wave that special permit. >> No. >> No. It should be a road.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you'd be looking for a road. >> Yes. >> Road standards. >> Yeah. 22 ft drainage. >> Okay. >> Don't get to wave us off. Okay.
And then the landscape sounds like a no as well. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And to be specific, they're just looking at identifying all the existing trees that are >> Yeah. >> larger than 4 in. >> Well, they're saying essentially if we're going to just denude the whole lot so we can do this, then why should we
even bother wasting time identifying >> Yeah. >> the 4 inch caliber. >> Okay. >> Because that's what they're planning on doing. >> All right. So, let me phrase this in a different way. Are there are there any waiverss that you're in favor of? >> No. >> Okay. Very good.
>> No. >> Are you guys? >> No. Yes or no? >> Yeah. I think >> I think it's way too dense. >> It's way looking at it and it looks like there's a force man at the beginning, >> right?
>> And then it splits it about 25 units go to one year in one system. It's out of line. >> 25 to another. >> Yeah, way out of line. >> It's really, really tight. I think the access of Sandwich Road is a problem. >> And I think the parking is a problem cuz
looks like there's only one vehicle >> and there's no other way to park anything anywhere. >> Well, there's a garage and then there's the driveway to go to the garage. So, you're giving two parking spots per unit. And oh, you can park along the street, too. >> Is there anything else, Jed? >> That's in the verbiage.
>> I'm not seeing anything. I mean, so to Pat's point, and it's worth pointing out, there is a garage, there's a driveway, and then there are what appear to be parking spaces in these little bumpout areas. >> They go to 22 ft of pavement, it might make it a little easier for them.
>> Yeah, but 20 ft of pavement. No, >> 20 20 is not acceptable. >> So, in terms of the number of parking spaces, do we feel like there should be more or have they adequately provided enough parking for each unit? So essentially, you'd have two two spaces.
One in the garage, one in the driveway. >> What What's your overflow for? >> Way too dense. >> Visitors. >> Yeah. I I think if they have overflow, they're fine. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But I think you'll find a lot of the residents parking there because they're locked into their garage,
>> right? But at 22 feet, you can park and drive around them. >> Okay. So, you wouldn't need the the bumpouts is what you're saying. >> Yeah, you could just drive right around them. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Don't you have to go home >> at some point? >> Yeah. I haven't had supper. >> They got a They got a big air filter out there. So it makes it impossible to hear what's going on in the meeting. >> Used to be able to stand outside the
door can hear now grinds out everything. >> All right. Next thing on the agenda is the planning report. >> Um department report. >> Things are relatively the same. The one item I do want to um bring you up to speed on is it's a bit of bad news. So
um you know how we applied for the grant to update our local comprehensive plan? >> We were denied. >> We did not receive funding for that. So um >> who does that apply to? >> One stop for growth. So that is as you know the state's sort of catchall for
all the state grant opportunities. So you enter in and they give you a bucket of different areas that you can apply to. So unfortunately we were denied. Um so I'm going to start looking at other opportunities potentially. Um I will
talk to the commission. I will um try to research other grant opportunities that were that we missed and um ultimately if we're not successful in those two avenues, we can either come to town meeting as a capital request or we can
apply to the onetop for grant or for growth program again next year. But that we recently received that notification. I think it was last week that we were denied. So bad news for sure.
But other than that, I don't have much to report other than, you know, what we've been working on for the last couple of months. >> Okay. Thank you. Any committee reports? >> No. >> Well, I have one for the Cape Cod Commission on Thursday at 3:00. We're
going to meet in person and vote on the uh new and improved regional policy plan that they've been working on for about a year. >> Great. So that's all I know. Announcements, >> any birthdays? Any
>> I have a question for Jed. Did you get a an email from me requesting uh the definition of uh safe harbor? >> I remember an email about safe harbor >> because I I have a real serious concern that we're not in it. and you as well as
many other people keep saying we're in safe harbor and I don't think we are but I'm not an expert on it. I have a feeling we're not but we I think we need to clarify that. >> Who could he talk to to find out? >> Well, so it's important to understand
that um an applicant has challenged the ZBA on their um their stance that that we are in safe harbor. So I can't talk about any of that. That's an active uh litigation with the town. So, >> but isn't there a definition of what
safe harbor is? That's all that's all I'm asking. >> Okay. I can send you the definition from the from the guidelines >> and and there's also a list of uh h developed properties that put us into safe harbor. >> Correct. Yes. >> And you can provide me with that. >> Yes. Yep.
>> And I can answer my own question. any uh future agenda items. >> So um one of the items I wanted to talk to you about was the um applicant for the Cape Cod Country Club solar um
array. They um recently reached out to ask if the board would be available on the November 25th um meeting date so that they could be placed on that agenda. Originally, we were going to put them on the 4th of November, but they would prefer to be on
the 25th. And so, I wanted to make sure that everyone's going to be available for that meeting. We did previously talk about um generally folks would be available, but I wanted to confirm before we place them on the agenda. >> What is that? Two days before Thanksgiving. >> Two days. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> And what what does this site plan? >> We weren't going to meet on the Veterans Day. >> Okay. >> Holiday week. So, we moved that meeting date, but the 25th seemed to be okay for everybody. >> So, site plan review, >> correct? Site plan review.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> You guys good with that? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> And ladies, yes. >> Great. >> You call me guy. >> No. No. No. No. No. No. >> Okay. >> Okay. I may not be available on the 4th >> on November 4th. Okay. >> I have a procedure that day, but if I
make it, I'll come. >> I'll take a closer look at the agenda because if we can close business out on the 28th, we may not need the November 4th meeting. So, um, we might be okay, but
it depends on the number of applicants that are before us. As right now, things are a bit crazy in my head. So I I've got to look at that more carefully to make sure. So I'll be in touch. >> All right. Any general correspondence? >> None received. >> Okay.
Next meeting is potentially November 4th, 2025. >> October 28th. >> October 28th. >> October 28. November mistake. >> Come on. He already corrected me. >> I know. >> Okay. October 28. >> The rest of the agenda was perfect except for that one.
>> Move adjournment. Second. All >> in favor? >> I >> I [Music]