Hey, right here. My name is John Durley. I'm the current chair of the family planning board. And uh tonight is June 9th 26. Oh, and the meeting's over. Um, before we begin, I'd like to remind
everyone that this is a public meeting and is being conducted in accordance with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. Please take a moment to silence your mobile devices or electronics to avoid interruptions. Anyone wishing to speak should come to the podium, wait to be
recognized by the chair, and state their name for the record before making remarks. We encourage respectful and constructive dialogue and during public comment periods. Thank you. We'll now proceed the first item on the agenda which is public comment. If
anyone wishes to speak about something is not on the agenda this evening. Please come to the podium. State your name. >> Um hello. My name is Ralph Wilkey. I'm here with Joanne Cook. Uh we live in
Cape Cod Estates and um the developer is going to be soon asking for the release of their bond and we have some major objections to that. A lot of you're going to um Joanne's going to give you
our objections. Um but uh so there's six minor points. Um but the biggest one is uh the septic system has failed multiple times pretty catastrophically. And um we've hired an engineering firm
to um uh try to uh solve or or see if it meets all the uh design. Uh thank you. >> If it's going to work because it hasn't always been working. So, we're just here to um object to any bond rel any further
bond release of Cape Cod Estates. Um and we know that that meeting will be in the future and we'll attend. So, we're just putting on record. Is that about right? >> Anything else? >> No. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you much. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else?
>> Okay. All right. Then the uh second item on our agenda is our reorganization. Um we do this once a year after elections. So they would like to um make a motion. >> We'd like to nominate you to continue as
chairman job. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Anyone? Anyone else? >> Don't we have to have a vote first? I think he's already exceeded the uh two terms. >> No. >> No, he hasn't. He's only done one term. No, we would have to if he had exceeded the two term.
>> I'm sorry, I thought it was two terms. >> Feels like two, doesn't it? >> Yeah, it says >> lifetime sentence, huh? >> So, it's been moved and seconded. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> I'd like to nominate Patoot as vice chair. >> We're we're working on chairman right
now. We haven't voted yet. >> One at a time. >> Excuse me. >> Is there any other nominations for chair? >> No. >> And all in favor? >> Can we have a discussion? >> Oh, yeah, sure. Of course, >> I thought we had some discussion. >> Yes. >> Um
I just hope that I thought you went way overboard and trying to make the uh utilities out at the Cape Club underground spending millions of dollars and put too many uh conditions on it. I know where your heart was, but I thought
you overstepped and shouldn't do it again. But I'm ready to vote for you. I just wanted to point that out. I thought that was pretty aggressive. >> Okay. Just need to point it out. I thought this is my only time to bring it up. I thought I'd I'd do it. >> You can bring it up anytime.
>> Well, not really. Not really. We don't We don't really criticize each other too often. It's just a an opportunity and I'm all set. I think you're a good chairman. I thought you did a good job on just about everything, but I thought you overstepped your bounds on that one. >> All right. Thank you. Any other
comments, Eric? Okay. >> All in favor? >> I I unanimous. Thank you. >> Uh, next item on our agenda is >> I'm sorry, >> vice chairman. >> I'd like to nominate Pat Foot as vice
chair. >> And I'd like to nominate Jim, vice chair. >> All right. Okay. >> Is there a second for either one of these? Do we need a second? >> No, you do. Yeah. >> Yeah. Second for Pat. >> Second for Jim. We can vote it out.
Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So, uh, all in favor for Pat. >> I'm going to vote for myself. >> Do I Do I have to vote? I feel like Okay, >> you better. >> You could abstain. Okay. Could I abstain? Because I feel like I I don't
know like the dynamics of the board well enough to like make it really >> That's probably the truth because you've only been here for one one meeting, >> right? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's fine. >> So, you can abstain. Okay. I abstain it. Okay. All right. >> So, then I'll vote for Pat.
So four. So four. >> So be four against two. >> Yes. So >> thank you. >> All right. And then we vote for >> Did we vote for clerk? >> Oh, yeah. >> I I vote to keep I would move to uh keep Tom as as clerk. He does a good job. >> I'll second that.
>> Yeah. >> Any other nominations for clerk? All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. >> Thank you. reorganized that. >> All right. Next thing on our agenda then
is uh the minutes of uh May 12th, 2026. >> Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the May 12th, 2026 minutes as presented. >> Second, >> any discussion? >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> um just so everyone's aware, the June
2nd minutes are on the agenda, but we're not going to vote those because they haven't been received yet. >> Oh, okay. So we just devoted on the May uh 12th. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
Uh then uh next item on our agenda is an approval not required. Applicant is Brian irrigation plan of Bland to combine two lots into one lot located at 709 and 737 Gford
Street. >> Okay. So, here's the plan. I don't know if all of you have had a chance to look at it, um, but it meets all the requirements of ANR, so I uh recommend endorsement.
>> Eric, we turned off too many lights. >> Too many. All right. Have to have the light above her above us. One more. Thank you. >> Perfect. >> Okay. I move that the board endorse this plan as presented to us without regard
to zoning or buildability. >> I'll second. >> Any discussion? >> Jim. >> Nope. All in favor? >> I. >> Unanimous. Thank you. Uh tonight we have two applicants each with special permit site plan review
applications before the planning board. For the convenience of the applicants and to facilitate a more efficient or review process, I would like to consider each applicant's applications together. Is there a motion to take the items the
agenda items out of order so that we can hear the applicants uh applications? Second. >> So move. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay, thank you. Unanimous. Just going to do this. So, our next item
then is um applicant Kevin Clower on behalf of uh 28 Fountain Heights Road LLC special permit to allow application to allow parking within a front yard within 5 ft of a property line at 28
Heights Road and also site plan review application for the renovation and redevelopment of the existing Red Horse in property at 28 family Heights Road. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing structures, construction of two new buildings, and a swimming pool and
parking lot parking layout for the property. For the applicant, uh good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh for the record, Kevin Clower. I'm at Clower Law Firm here in Felmouth, and I'm before you tonight, uh continuing the hearings for 28 Falmouth Heights Road LLC, which
is the owner of uh the subject property, uh which is the location of the Red Horse Inn. I'm joined tonight by Will Pagglia and Scott Melli uh engineers with Longfellow Design as well as Devin Graham um and Jeannie Fay with the Wateride Group and Mark Begoian, the owner. Uh we are before the board this
evening as a continued hearing of the site plan review uh for the proposed expansion of the hotel and also the special permit to effectively codify the existing parking uh within 5 ft of property line. Uh we have been before this board. We continue the last meeting
in order to respond to some of the outstanding engineering referrals which we've done in our most recent submission. Uh I'd like to present just a brief recap of where we are, what we're asking for, what we've changed and then uh open it to the board. So presently the Red Horse in has 26 rooms
located in three separate buildings. Um building A has 16, building B has 10. Um and then there's seven parking spaces located on Jericho Path as well as a gravel parking lot. um sort of uh tucked away behind building A and between
building A and B. The applicants are proposing an expansion of the existing hotel use which will remove the existing maintenance building and add new building C which is located in the southeastern corner of the lot. Uh that building has been revised at our last
hearing to reduce it from 14 proposed rooms down to eight. So there's been no change to that uh the proposed uh building there. Uh there's also a proposed check-in building and pool. Um this would result in a total of 34 proposed rooms on the site with an
improved parking layout. The bylaw requirements of the bylaw uh stipulate that you have to have 1.1 space per room with 34 proposed rooms. There's 38 spaces required. There were 38 spaces proposed on the plan including two
accessible uh uh spaces. So some recent changes to the plan. We included the addition of structural ballards between the parking and the check-in facility as requested uh by Mr. Zin. Um we provided some additional landscaping along the roadway including
four American elms along the frontage and flowering shrubs along the walkway. We've added some landscaping screening around the dumpster as well as a pedestrian pathway which is ADA compliant connecting the walkway in front of the building to the sidewalk.
Uh we've also just made some more clerical uh error uh errors, clerical additions to the plans. Uh the addition of some construction details as requested by staff. Uh having reviewed the staff report again and the most recent engineering referral, I believe
that we provided all the requested information the board needs in order to render a decision. To the extent that there are any um lagging engineering comments or questions, we believe believe those could be an appropriate condition for the applicant to satisfy with engineering prior to the issuance
of a building permit um or have been left to the discretion of the planning board or others as the engineering department saw fit. So this proposal is in line with the existing use and the surrounding area. We believe the project meets all the criteria for site plan review approval as well as for the
special permit that's been requested. As I've noted at previous hearings, we will also need to go to the zoning board. So, this is not um this is not the end of the road for this project. We there are still some additional levels of oversight that'll be imply um implemented here. Um but again, I believe we've met all the criteria
necessary for this board's consideration for the site review and the special permit. And I along with our team would be glad to address any questions that you or anyone in the public may have. >> Thank you. Um any questions? We'll start with Tom.
um or comments. >> Well, thank you for taking care of those structural ballards. Thank you. Um just want to kind of talk about the dumpster >> situation. Where was the dumpster um located? Uh is that the original location? Um where was it prior?
>> I don't think there is a dumpster on the site presently and and there really needs to be one. >> Yeah. And was that reduced to for Q? was so that after consultation with the fire department, they've suggested we reduce that to a smaller size dumpster which the applicant is agreeable to.
>> Okay. Um I believe that referral came over from Captain Gavin earlier this week. >> Captain. Okay. Thank you. Um in the yellow map here, I was looking at it. I just put in my notes four places in the parking lot where two cars might have problems passing each other on page
10. um >> of the is that an engineering referral? >> Yeah. I just I was just wondering what about removing that um just as an idea that triangle island um is called
a um >> landscape. >> The landscape island. Yeah. Are reducing that? >> So would that help? Um, not really because if you look where my cursor is right here, that is the end of the
parking stall for the closest parking space. >> Y >> um parking space is 9 ft wide by 18 ft deep. So whether or not we remove that island, that's still going to be the space, the parking space. >> Okay. >> So the um the island is meant to protect
this car and this car from anything. Some shielding there. um and and delineate the traffic flow. So what even if we remove the island, the the space is still the space, >> right? >> Um
I think that's that's it for me. >> I understand, you know, the the the typical um width between uh for two-way traffic is is 24 ft. Um but you know, I think it's also worth mentioning that this is an area where someone's coming
in, someone's going to be coming in slowly. No one's pulling in here at 35 miles an hour past, you know, past the building into the parking lot. So, there's plenty of opportunity for someone to see who's in front of them and and what's coming up coming from either direction, >> right? Yep. Thank you. Actually, I want
to one more thing. So, just one more comment uh about the engineering referral like the entrance to the driveway slopes downward to the street. This means the surface water will flow uh I think drain off onto uh off the property. And uh I just I just hope that
gets figured out. You know, surface water will flow. And >> can you just uh direct me to where that comment is, Mr. Z? >> Because I think we some a lot of the revised plans we submitted specifically address those those issues. >> Was it okay? Maybe I missed it. >> No, it's still open.
>> It's still open. >> Um it says that the revised plans, it's the last comment on the last page. It says the driveway appears to be widened on these revised plans. The expansion would include would be included in the
street opening permit for the proposed sidewalk. We would not approve the current plans because the driveway pitches into the street. >> So, as noted here, the existing paved entrance to the driveways remaining. So, but we'll again we can work through any of those outstanding comments with
engineering. Um, what we're using is the existing driveway that's there. if any anything we're going to do there is an improvement to what's currently there and we'll be adding significant drainage um mitigation in order to address all the all the drainage on site.
>> Great. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Uh good evening. Um yeah, it looks as if uh you have addressed most of the things that were concerned when you were here before and assuming that uh you can actually condition um addressing all the outstanding engineering issues that
would be sort of a new condition. How would the wording for that go? >> No, I think we've I think we've seen that in a number of con uh decisions this board's issued. Um I can think of a few situations where there's been a handful of loose engineering comments that still need to be addressed and
basically said um you know applicant will work with engineering to satisfy you know any any expressed concerns over plans. I mean we can >> in some period what is >> well prior p prior to the issuance of a building permit um we're not going to be able to get a building permit if if because I mean engineering anything that
gets approved here is not a is not a blanket sign off um when we go for a building department building permit it gets referred to various departments within the town including engineering uh we're going to have to go to engineering on for a number of aspects of this so engineering is not going to sign off unless we've addressed their concerns
>> so my recommendation um would be not to condition it and to have the plans um corrected and and engineered >> and resubmitted. >> Yes. Um only because in my opinion um again this is mine um I think the plans
are going to be revised. >> Well, it sounds like they have to be revised in order to address these comments. >> So, we won't have the correct plans in the decision and then it will have to be administratively approved. It's just easier >> defer to that. That's just >> and then it's fine by me.
>> I have some thoughts, but I'll wait till >> Yeah. >> we get through the rest of the comments because depending on how the rest of it goes, my thoughts may or may not be relevant. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I've not looked through the uh the more extensive plans here. >> We've only got one set of them, it looks
like, or can't open very well here. >> Yeah. But no, what I'm talking about isn't in here. um the in the built-in >> ballards, >> how is that structurally shown in the plans? So, it's not just like, okay,
2x4s or whatever and and it actually calls them out that they're going to be in there because on a normal plan, we have ballard shown. >> Mhm. So, we did not revise the um architectural plans basically because we're trying to save on printing a
significant amount of paper for the architectural plans. We've noted um that there's to be structural bids inside the wall framing and again that that's an appropriate condition of any decision that would then be implemented through the building department building permit process. Um if the board feels strongly
that they want some of those plans revised for the architecturals um for the elevations and floor plans which is just going to include basically the same notation because you know we're not showing they're not they're not structural drawings that we're submitting at this point. Mhm. >> Um, so it's still just going to be a
floor plan or an elevation with a notation saying structural ballards inside of wall framing. Um, but basically the wall framing will be sufficient enough to accommodate the structural ballard within that frame. >> My commentary is just simply based upon
builders are used to building and unless you call it out in some notable way, I'd be a little bit concerned that oh oh we didn't see that. Mhm. Well, no, that will be on the on the final building plans, the structural building plans that gets gets submitted, but we're not
submitting to either planning or zoning structural plans at this point. It's just elevations and floor plans. So, we are noting it. We're including it as notation on the plans. Um, and and again, that would be an appropriate condition for this board and the zoning board to include.
>> I just think it's an aesthetic way of solving a problem. I like that. I had never heard of it before. Um, and I do see the new comments from engineering and I do think those have to be worked out. And how they're worked out, I don't
know. But I can't tell you that the driveway is a little bit wider, which will lend to the program of drainage into the street and all that. I that's not my area of expertise, >> but I think that all has to be worked out to the satisfaction of engineering
before this is finally approved. Thank you, Jim. >> Well, I was just concerned we're talking about structural drawings of a building where it's outside our scope. They said they're going to address it with the building department. That's up to him to do it. I don't think it's our game to say what you put in the wall, how you
build the wall where we should be focused on the site and not on the building. >> I agree with you, Jim, but it did >> I just want to make that comment so we don't start doing this all the time. >> And and it came up because we normally see ballards as a safety factor, >> right? And >> so I felt very confident in bringing
that up again. >> You okay? That's for that's for the bu building uh commissioner to to do when they get their building permit, not us. >> All set. >> I'm all set. Yeah. >> Jim, >> all set. That's >> no comments, no questions.
>> Yeah. Bob, >> uh right now along Umouth Heights Road, the landscaping is is is uh pretty nice. You know, there's a lot of vegetation there. Is that all going to get wiped out and redone or? >> Um, we're going to we're going to augment what's there. Um,
>> basically what we're doing shouldn't affect the existing landscaping other than the addition of the walkway. Um, that said, we're going to take the landscaping that's there and make it better. >> Okay. Thanks. That's it for me. >> Eric,
what's that? >> Um, >> yes. >> Is it possible? It'd be good to see they have to have the plans before it can go forward anyway. Can't that be administratively done so that they don't have to come back here? >> I'd recommend against that.
>> So I have a thought that that could address this unless you had additional comments, Mr. Dulie. >> Are you asking about the ballards? >> No, I'm asking about the process. >> Okay. >> For moving on beyond the planning board to move the project forward. We know it has to address the engineering things
that are here. They're all in red. They have copies of it. I don't doubt that they're going to do it, but there's going to be oversight by the building department and the planning department. It can be administratively done. >> It's not my recommendation, but it's it's up to your decision.
>> So, we have to come back regardless because it seems as though the board is generally in in favor of this. Um, but we'd need to come back for a decision hearing anyways. What I'd suggest is perhaps the board could ask staff to
prepare a positive motion and in that meantime we can use that opportunity to address the comments with engineering prior to coming back and voting the positive motion. >> What he said >> that' be a favor. >> So you can keep the this the special permit hearing open
>> um so that if at the next meeting when they have the revised plans they can present them. you can close the hearing then and we can have a a draft decision. Um all set >> revised plans and engineering >> as long as yeah as long as engineering
is okay and the referral comes back you know >> better relatively clean >> right um that's up to your your decision. That's um definitely a way to to uh make it go quicker. >> Do you think do you think we could get a comment from the building commissioner
about the ballards? I've never seen him inside of a structure either and I just like to see if he would okay that and then we can not make it an issue. >> Um we can put it in the decision also as a finding and probably a condition that
the building commissioner has to sign off on the structural plans and make sure that >> but just in case he doesn't agree then they have to put him outside. Okay. I can ask Gary about the process if like how he would prefer it, but it it ultimately will be his his looking at
the plans and making sure that that they're the way they're supposed to be. >> Okay, good. >> I just have a letter from an engineer from two. So, I'm I'm all set if the board is all set. But my suggestion, my request to
you would be um we're happy to work to address those remaining comments, four or five issues with engineering. Um, but I think in in the hope of uh expedience here, uh, perhaps the board could direct staff to draft a positive
motion pending satisfaction of those issues, which we would then review prior to the reading and review of the motion at the next hearing. >> I I think we could support that unless anyone has an objection to it. >> So, do we need a motion to continue the hearing? And >> yes, to the continue the special permit
>> to whatever date they think that they can get the revised plans in and engineering can have a chance to review the plans as well >> because right now it has been extended to the 30th of June. >> Now we're the next one. Yeah. Right. So that's fine. Then our next meeting is the 28th. Oh, I'm sorry.
>> I just want to comment. We normally don't vote and approve the same night, but I think they've moved such along that this is the perfect time for the exception to our practice so that we if we need to do this again, we can do it. >> So, typically >> we're almost there. No need to haul them
up, spend all the money. >> So, typically you wouldn't do it the first night. Um like open a hearing and close it the first night and decide. So, but because it's been enough, >> we've had enough bites at this apple with that. >> Um Melinda, what are we looking at for hearing dates? Okay. So, we have
Let me make I want to make sure I'm correct this time because last last >> It's tough to be in charge. >> Last week I was messed up. Um Okay. So, we're meeting on June 23rd. >> Okay. >> We're meeting on July 7th and July 28th.
>> So, um I'm not available on the 23rd, but would you be comfortable landing the plane? Uh the engineering team can be here. Uh we we expect we will have plans by next Tuesday. >> Okay. Mind you, um just because they come in one week prior doesn't mean that
engineering will necessarily have it reviewed by then. >> Yep. Understood. But then that would give us the opportunity to be back on the 9th without much further delay. >> Yep. So the sooner the better with the plans obviously, but you do have till Tuesday. >> Okay. And I won't I won't be present the 23rd, but Scott Scott Massilian will
will uh be handling the presentation. If you're not going to get them ready, then let's just do it the 7th. >> Well, we expect to have them. I understand that. >> Yeah. So, so I'd like to keep it the 23rd um to keep moving this forward. And uh if for some reason there's any delay, we'll request that continuation as
quickly as possible. >> Right now, Melinda, the requested extension is the 20th of June. So, the 30th of J. So, yeah, they can request another. >> So, first we do have to deal with that, but you can just request another >> I'll submit I'll submit a request until July 14th or something. Okay. So, right
now you can request it and then submit it in writing, but they can vote tonight on the July whatever 14th. >> We've we've um we've submitted a request through June 30th presently. Um just to give some some window here. Um I'm just looking at my calendar now, so
bear with me. >> So, you want June 23rd? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. So, then they're fine with the continu the decision deadline now. Do >> you want us to push that out now any further? Okay. >> We can wait till the next meeting. >> Okay. if need be.
>> Okay. Do I have a motion? >> So, we it's been moved that we continue to the uh 23rd for the >> the special permit is continued to the 23rd. >> Yeah. >> So, we need a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. Thank you very much. We'll
see you on the 23rd or some of us will. We'll be here. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh, one more thing. You need to vote the deadline extension decision deadline
extension to the 30th because he requested it, but you guys actually have to officially >> Okay. So, I move that we accept the request to extend the deadline to June 30th. >> Second. All in favor? I I unanimous. >> Thank you very much, guys. We appreciate it.
>> Getting there. Tom, can you read the next hearing for us, please? Got to find my paper. >> You have your red your red paper, John, >> with the words >> right here. Yes.
>> I can just read this. >> Okay. Next matter on tonight's agenda is a special permit application for 709 737 Gford Street. The applicant also has a site plan review application for the same property before the board this
evening. In the interest of efficiency and because of the applications are related, we will open the public hearing and review both applications concurrently. Read the agenda item for both special site plan. That's document I don't have in front of me right now.
have the two publishing dates also. >> Okay. Um public notice for this project was uh published on May 22nd, 2026 and May 29th, 2026. And 14 of Butters were notified by
regular mail. And then there was another uh public notice for this project also published again on May 22nd, 2026 and 14 of Butters were notified by regular mail. >> Thank you for the applicant.
>> Good evening. My name is Kieran Healey. I'm a land surveyor with the BSC group representing the owners of the property and the proponent. Um we're here for site plan review and a special permit as you're combining them tonight which is great. Uh the site is located in farm to
the south and east of the intersections of Brick Killllin Road and Gford Street. Um the site is comprised of two parcels 709 Gford Street is a self storage and boat RV storage facility and has a total of seven buildings. This parcel also has
several utility poles, catch basins, light pole and chain link fencing. The second parcel 737 Gford Street is being used primarily as a board and RV storage facility. Both parcels contain a 200 foot wide utility easement for the Cape and
Vineyard Electric Company. Sorry, I'm a little bit Yeah, there we go. So there's Cap and Vineyard has an an ement that runs down this whole northeasterly side. Um the electric company contains several
overhead electric power lines. 737 also contains an antenna transformer, a gate house and a paved driveway providing access from G Street. The sidewalk that we're proposing um the existing boat RV and self storage facilities are all to remain. Next Grid
is proposing to pave the existing driveway into the site, install three solar canopies, three equipment pads for electrical equipment necessary for the operation of the proposed solar array and for placement of a battery storage system. Um
that right there's the existing conditions. So here is our proposed access road into the site right now. It exists in this location today. We're just improving it with pavement. Um this p is existing this sorry this area right
here is existing pavement which we are removing from the site. Um and this parcel of land up here is owned by the town of Yam sorry town of Fam even though entirely within the property it is owned and there was an easement that
so comes off this in this direction right here service in this town. As I mentioned, the existing site will be improved by milling and overlaying the existing pavement. There are no existing storm water controls on 737. We performed the storm water analysis
and have designed the subsurface infiltration system consisting of 36 culttech storm water chambers to manage storm water runup and including the 100redyear storm. Um we have that's these areas right this area right
here and then after the 100redyear storm if such an event were to happen there is an overflow into this area right here um these are the three canopies that we're proposing one two and three and these are all the existing self storage
buildings and the existing antenna is in this area right Yeah. Um, as I mentioned, we're we're moving 23,568 square ft on that um site, this area up in here.
And um we're not proposing any additional lighting. Um the boat and RV storage will continue to exist, but will be placed under the canopies. Um we saw one of the comments from the F department that they were requesting a
minimum of um 12 feet underneath the canopy for their access vehicle. We're proposing 18 ft so they'll have plenty of access underneath that building or those canopies to get around and get through. Um and as mentioned earlier, we're looking
for a special permit. Uh we have proposing 20.5% coverage where we're allowed 20% coverage. It just works out the way the canopies are lined up in this type of construction. Um, other than that, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
>> I'd like to request we go to the GIS and show an aerial of the existing site. Sure. >> Can we do that? >> Yep. It's this um and this property right here. But the fake the boat storage and the canopies are mainly going on this section.
Wish I could zoom in. Is that good or do you want me to zoom out? >> No, I think it's I think I understand it. So, all those trees are pretty much remaining and we're talking about building these over what is generally a dirt parking lot with boat storage. >> Yeah, that is that is correct. Yes, this general area right here.
>> And there's still a buffer of trees blocking the view from the street there. Those are going to remain. >> This is all going to remain. >> I actually had a boat stored here one time. I know it well. I just wanted to make sure. The fence we're talking for the votes is the fence that's going to remain going extended but along as far
as the setback from the street that fence is going to remain >> and there's no proposed in the upper areas. >> You said something about a town easement or I I didn't quite follow what you were talking about when you said that. Is
that that pathway? No, this this square right here is owned by the town of Falmouth, >> but it's it's entirely encompassed inside this parcel. >> I find that unusual. I didn't understand. >> So, there's an easement across the >> I'm not sure. I looked for graves
because that's the most likely thing, but I didn't see any graves. So, >> um >> we were staying away from it, so we didn't pursue it any further. >> There's a few of those lots sprinkled around Falmouth. >> Yeah.
>> So, They just pop up sometimes. >> Do you have any questions, comments? >> Uh, no. I I mean, I can understand why they they want to do it. I mean, it's it's a good use uh for producing some uh solar energy and, you know, covers the boats,
helps uh with that as well. Sites already disturbed, so I don't I don't have a problem with it. Eric, I personally think this is an awesome project. I was very happy to see it. Um, I guess a question I have is does the do the roofs already have solar
as well? Is there any thought of adding roof mounted solar to the existing structures in addition to this project? >> I'm sure they've looked at it. I can speak to it, but just my experience sometimes the these structures are basically container boxes. They're flimsy, right?
>> They're not built to take the weight of these. >> Okay. So, I I can't speak to it exactly, but that's something that I've, you know, um seen happen in the past where the building wasn't structurally sound to take. >> Okay. Yeah. I guess I was wondering if you were if a reason might be like because of that 20% coverage or
something might have limited. >> No, the um >> additional area of solar for like >> those those buildings have counted within the 20% coverage, right? Because earlier tonight, we combined the lots. >> So, they would count as part of the coverage. So it would it would if we added solar to those roofs, it wouldn't add anything to the coverage because we
already have those roofs down there. >> All set. >> So you're combining those two lots that we've already done that >> we did the first thing we did. Okay. >> Basically removing this line, >> right? That line's gone. That that makes Eric's observation very clear. Yep.
>> And I'll I'll check with my client to see that uh how to confirm that they've looked into it. >> Yeah. I mean in my mind if the transmission and stuff will be you know built it makes sense to >> if possible add more. Yeah >> we'll work our way down here. Pat
>> I was looking at the fire department concerns that they would not approve of this at this point in time. They have multitudes of questions and I'd like to see those questions cleared up before we move ahead with that. Um, they
mention log storage, full length log storage, but I also see pole storage. Are those utility poles that are being stored there? >> Um, the I'm not sure if the polls of what exactly the poles are found that
>> neither am I, but the fire department tagged that as an element of concern for them. >> Um, >> have you seen the referral from the fire department? >> I have seen it. It just came in in the last few days. So, we're walking through it. >> Okay. Because there is a lot of stuff on there. They said they could not approve the site.
>> Yeah. It came in last Friday. So, we haven't had a chance to respond to. >> They also referenced storage trailers there. Are those the long rectangular things where the boat storage is supposed to be? What are those?
>> Those are those are trailers. And we'll I think the best thing to do is that we'll have a discussion with the fire department about those. um and discuss with the owner of the property about those as well. >> Yeah. What kind of trailers are they? What are they used for? >> What does what's stored inside them? I'm afraid I don't know.
>> Okay, that's a big question. >> I'd just like to interject before it gets too far. Just so you're aware, they have a special permit from the zoning board of appeals from the 1980s to have boat storage on the property. It only is boat storage. There is not RV storage
allowed. There is only boat storage for Felmouth marine businesses and not individual boat owners is what the special permit says. There's also woodmilling and log storing on the property that's an enforcement issue that is not allowed right now and they
have no special permit for. So there's some issues with the the activities going on on the property that needs to be cleared up before you can issue your special permit. And >> and there are a lot of questions. is in other words brought up by this >> and now that we have this list and we
will go through them and and discuss with both planning and >> and the uh father >> I'd love to see solar I'm not against that I just think we need to clear these questions up >> I have a question oh sorry >> are you going all the way down
>> I have a question first sorry go ahead Jim >> Melinda's confused me now about what's going on here Those buildings right there. What's the name of the company brand name of those buildings? The storage facilities to the
south. Immediately to the south, >> I think it's called Sun Storage. >> Sun Storage was the last time I was there. >> I stored a boat individually on this site for several years. So, it's complete conflict of what the special >> Yeah. >> That's confusing me.
>> Yep. So, we didn't know that either until we just read the special permits. Um. >> Right. So we we as staff still have to go through all of the because this just came up too as well when we got the referral. So we have to go through >> you're you're on it. I was just conf
>> you just conf Well, you're right. I just had a contrary experience there. >> Thank you, Charlotte. >> Same thing. I'm wondering why this is here. It's clearly not ready. >> Well, they all this, but then there are also the open issues. Um there's missing
parking access, circulation, lighting, traffic minute. They're missing things here. There's just a lot to be done. So >> So they're here so they can present it and see what the issues are and so they get a chance to respond and go back and revise the plans accordingly.
Um there are Yeah. So there are other issues, >> lot of issues. >> Right. I think it would be a record of them already. >> I think it would be wise to give them guidance so specifically to what kind of um revisions you'd like to see.
>> I would like to see every one of the issues addressed. I'm sure you would too. I would also add my thought about solar. I think that's wonderful. Um you know correctly uh secured, mounted and so forth. So it's all to be determined but it's just not ready.
>> Also the engineering referral just came in today. So, I don't even know if you've gotten a copy of it, the engineering referral that came in today. >> Uh, Brian got a nut copy and he just when I was talking on the way here, he had mentioned he got a copy of it, but I haven't actually seen it. So, >> okay. I have a copy. You can have this
copy right here. I don't we don't expect you to be able to to review and respond to it tonight. >> Thank you. >> So, I mean, the thing is we obviously cannot look for approval tonight, but the only way we can find out some of these issues is by applying. So we can
go through the motions and go to the different departments and find out what their issues are. We're not trying to jump the gun by any means here. So okay, don't take don't take what we're doing like in that manner. But now we have direction somewhat in we need to talk to the fire department. We need to get that resolved. We not need to talk to the
engineering department get that resolved and obviously we got to reook at the original special permits to approved for the site and get those get the attorney to get those resolved. So there are some steps no question. But the biggest thing is for us is that, you know, the board seems reasonably happy with solar. You
know, that gives us an opportunity to go forward and get these things resolved. So, we're not wasting money. >> So, >> thank you. You're all set, Charlotte. >> I am. >> Yeah. My risks are the same. I mean, my our issues were the same, the um concerns identified by the staff, but
also um is there anything our bylaw on distance from power lines? because I mean there's some power lines out there and I know there's always the risk of a fire, right? So just do we have anything in our >> So I believe that's up to the fire department and they did make a comment
that um there has to be at least 11 ft 10 in from the power lines to the top of the canopy. So it would probably be wise to request a detail sheet of the distance in in that case on on the site
just to make sure that it meets those requirements. Thank you. Okay, >> I'm good. Thank you. Did you have another question? >> Yeah, I would just like to know where that requirement that it couldn't be individual boat users. >> It's in the special permit. >> But we can we look at the notes why they put that. There had to be a reason. That seems highly
>> I mean I can try to find the >> may not be able to but it just it just brings up a question. It would be nice to know why they did it. >> Yeah, I I >> so we don't make a mistake in case they saw something we didn't. >> May they requested it. It may have been a request >> that they wanted it that way. Yeah, I
think I was on the board when they when we voted that, but I'm not I don't remember for sure. >> Or one one thing I can see is like trying to incentivize >> maybe trying to incentivize marine industrial uses in town as opposed to >> Yeah, but it also takes individual boat owners and puts them in a worse
position, too. It's a two-sided story. >> All those individual boat owners are now going to get tickets. >> Yeah. Now that we know that they were in there, you know, they got >> No, these guys were gas. >> Well, I learned something tonight about apply it gets >> gas in boats in storage
>> because it's always recommended >> because this only happening. No, >> go ahead. >> It is an interesting thing about the gasoline storage and boats in that >> as a former boat owner. >> Um, I was always told to keep the tank full over the winter time so you don't
get condensation in the tank. Yeah. Now, I'm not experienced and I'm no longer a board owner. So, but that's what I was told when I did own a board. >> I have one more thing I want to do here before we go any further. Tom, uh I'm going to ask you to read into the record the uh referral from the fire
department, mainly for the audience that we have at home. >> Okay. Referral from the fire department. Good afternoon. And after a site visit this morning to this property, the fire department is against this project at this time.
The property 709-737 Gford Street has been in operation for self- storage and the storage of boats only adjacent to the buildings for some time now. There are multiple issues with on-site storage that have been that have
not been addressed due to the unknown storage of wood chips, milling operations, fulllength log storage, lack of access and water to the site. During the site visit, over 15 trailers and
seen in addition to boats. Mass fire code states there needs to be permits pulled for combustible storage with proper access for apparatus and fire operations with water access. As for the canopy photovoltaics,
we would need apparatus access with turnaround ability for the aerial apparatus and good ground to hold heavy apparatus. The proposed canopy needs to be 11 ft 10 in from surface to overhead at the
overhead lowest point. We have concerns with the drainage system and whether or not it will be separate and enclosed to prevent spread of hazardous materials into the water system if there is a fire with the system. We also request that propane tanks need
to be permitted and stored away from vehicles if permitted to be there. We also request that fuel be pumped out of each boat or vehicle before enduring storage on site if permits and zoning allows. There are violations of 527 CMR
1.00 and MGL chapter 148 at the property. As of now, we'd like to gather more information during a site visit. We're open and willing to work with the group and the owner to come up with an overall
plan for the entire property. Please let us know when we can be of us assistance. Thank you. Ryan Gavin, Captain Felmouth Fire. >> All right. Any final questions or comments? I guess um Melinda, you
mentioned that you know this particular review of like this proposal needs to wait on those concerns being addressed obviously like It sounds like there's like a enforcement issue on one hand. I feel like in my eyes like the permitting of this particular project though is
almost a separate um issue. I mean it's obviously related, but yeah, I just would I'd hate for like those things to be like a impediment to like the special permit for for the exceedence of the solar. I guess that's my my thought in general because I kind of feel like some
of these other uses and stuff are obviously we need to make sure it's safe and everything but I don't see really how they should I don't think that like we should make the solar contingent on that. Those just need to be addressed anyway is what I'm trying to say. >> Yeah, you can see how the applicant comes back with the revised plans and
and if you're comfortable with what they do the enforcement order will be separate obviously. Yes. But just like in this case, which was I think we had one last week that was kind of the same. What you're looking at unfortunately is one use, but it has an effect with the
other use on the property that I know that that's the enforcement and it is separate. But because of the safety aspect, especially with the the storage of the if there's any fuel or any anything that that that's why it kind of becomes an issue. But we can see how it progresses, you know, to the next uh
revision and and then decide, you know, from there. Um I did have a question if you don't mind me asking the applicant about Eversource. Have you reached out to Eversource at all? Um, with the overhead lines, do they know what's
going on with the canopies underneath their lines? >> Well, the canopies and underneath the lines, they're very close to the lines, but they're not not underneath. Um, >> I believe that an application has been started because we need to transfer the power from here into their system. So, I
don't know if the conversation is specifically had about their WS and our canopy, but um I can just confirm with my client that that is something that >> I was just curious because I know they might have some site plan issues as well, like eventually if if we approve
this first and they have some uh revisions, they want it further away or I don't I don't know what they would want, but it might have to come back for >> That's a good point. We should get it all straightened out at one time. Could could I just make a comment uh to Eric really on your question? Um there
there's no way a town can staff up to be monitoring every piece of property all the time. >> Of course. Of course. >> So that you really have to deal with issues as they come to light and they come to light at the point a next move is going to be made by an owner or a developer or something. For example, take all of the septic systems rules.
You know, you can't go ahead and do something new unless you comply with the zoning. So, it's sort of used as as as a catch to do that monitoring and catch you up. These enforcement issues have been ignored for a long time since 1980
and now they're being caught. So, now is the time to hook the two together in order to go forward so that they'll be in compliance going forward. I'm not saying it was done intentionally. It happened that way. But don't expect to not see other examples of this because
it's the way enforcement operates. Yeah, I guess my my comment Oh, go ahead. >> No, yeah, my my my comment is just that like um All makes sense. Yeah, 100%. I think that uh just like when I was campaigning, talking to people and stuff, like things I heard very
frequently was like projects like this is like exactly what people want to see. Um you know, people who were worried about the country club, people who supported putting solar on the country club, everybody was like, why don't we have more on like parking lots and storage areas? Um, and then another thing I heard from people was like, um,
we need more like kind of spaces for contractors to do work and stuff. So like the log storage, they need to go and get the special permit and stuff, but I think like that's consistent with like what people are are talking about and stuff. Um, and I heard a lot of people like looking at how we can enable, you know, the maritime economy
and stuff in the town. So boat storage also like an important um thing. So I think it's like a cool project and I'd love to see them come in under budget so that it can happen again. you know, these sort of things. But 100% agree with what you're saying about Yeah, this is a good a good time to catch things.
Yeah, I look forward to it. Thanks. >> Pat, >> the fire department concern about hazardous waste storage or hazardous waste spills really does apply here when they're saying we want all the gasoline
pumped out of the boats, >> um, oil, whatever that might be. And in the past, many years ago, we haven't done this recently because we haven't had it, but I think it was a contractor's yard at one point and a couple of others, that there was an
under drainment system so that where it was parked, it was contained concrete with drains that and that was sealed so that anything hazardous could be pumped out. And I don't know how that would be
accomplished with this kind of thing, >> but >> it's almost impossible to accomplish that on the outside. We do it all the time on the inside where you've got a contained roof so they're not getting rain water. But every time it rains, you're going to be putting water into that containment system. Exactly. >> It's just not going to function.
>> So maybe every time a boat is checked in, you've got to pull it inside, pump everything out in there where you have a containment system before it is allowed to park. I I think that's would be extremely difficult to accomplish
pumping gas out of the boat and taking all the oil out of a boat every winter. Um >> well, we have a referral here from the fire department. >> I say we we will go back and we will deal with the fire department on that very specific issue. >> Be more difficult if our water supply is polluted too, so we can't use it.
>> Okay, we're going to we're going to take one more round here and then >> I'm all set. >> Motion. You all set, Pat? You all set? I'm all set, >> Jim. >> It sounds like I just The part of the site is a contractor's yard. >> Its use is a contractor's yard and
that's what they've been Has it ever been permitted for that? >> No, that's that's part of the issue. >> So that they actually need a new if they want to continue with that use, they need a new application. >> They would need to modify their application with the zoning board of appeals.
>> But don't we um >> approve contractor approve contractor Z? I don't know if would >> I don't know if that would be considered a contract. I don't I'd have to look into >> It sounds like it is to me. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it does. >> I just became aware of it through the the conversation and I said, "Well,
we're not talking about a contractor's yard here. We're talking about boat storage. >> It's in a water resource protection district." So, >> so it may not be allowed allowable use. >> Yes. >> That's That's right. They have to address >> that's what's bringing up the whole thing. >> They have to address the fire department's referral. Yeah. >> But also the use is what I'm saying.
It's not just a They have not said this is a contractor's yard. There's but it is. >> I think there'll be an I think the building department will look into it and take the appropriate action that's that's needed >> because they weren't paying attention to the rules of the special permit before.
So they this is just another rule that they haven't been paying attention to as far as >> it's 50 years 56 years ago and things just happened bit by bit. They just caught now. >> Yeah. >> All right. Let's keep going. >> Keep going. I I was just a little surprised that with uh the issue with
gasoline and all that that there isn't a fire suppression system under the canopies >> if they're going to be storing boats there and you know like uh a chemical suppression system. So >> not washing fuel into the ground. >> Yeah.
>> Oh yeah, there they are. Eric final. >> Okay. Can I just comment too that it's the site plan review before you, but you're also looking at the special permit for the lot coverage um for relief from that lot coverage um requirement,
>> which I believe it's only 0.5%. >> It is. Yes. >> So, um that's that's not a big ask. >> It's not a big ask. I just >> That's a lot in this case. That's a lot. >> Sir, are you is this applicant a new owner of this property?
>> No. So um our client Next Grid leases the property and the current operation of the boat storage will probably be operated by the current donor. Um we don't get generally get involved with that. We just um permit the solar canopies and get them constructed and
then the um the ground level work keeps going as it normally does. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So, I need a motion to continue the special permit application and site plan review application for 709 and 737 Gford Street 2.
What date would you like to have, sir? >> Uh, I'd love to say the next meeting, but I'm concerned with the fire department and the time that will be involved in getting that resolved. >> Want to do it like three or four weeks from now? You have got you have a lot to resolve here with the fire department.
to resolve. >> Um if we could the meeting after next >> that's July 7th. >> Yeah. July 7th. >> July 7th. >> July 7th would be good. >> So we require um any information to be submitted one week prior to the meeting.
>> Um and if you could uh individually respond to each of the referrals and the staff report to the questions, it would just be a lot cleaner and easier if you could directly respond. We will do that. >> So the motion.
>> So John's motion is moved. >> Need a second. >> Second. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. So July 7th. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. >> Thank you. >> I just a question at a later date. Can we also have a
on-site visit? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, we don't have to do that now, but that might be something we actually want to look at >> because I just noticed this wood operation. I drive this kids to the high school back and forth. This is a relatively new
>> thing there. I just >> Do you want to go individually or do you want to go a group? >> How do What's the best way to do it? If you're going to go with more than if you're going to go with three of you or more, you have to we have to post a a meeting um and and do it as a group.
>> I think we should do it on our own. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm okay. >> Everybody should visit the site. Yeah. >> Is there is there an easy They've raised access is an issue there. Is there an easy way to see it all? When you drive by, which I do, it's a very common route. What you see are these very tidy looking storage containers.
>> You didn't I certainly didn't envision that there's this whole clandestine operation going on here. So if we were to go individually um would we even have access to what we think we should look at? >> I don't know if you would. And there's also the danger consideration. You know
it is an active site. There are boats in and out. There are trucks in and out. So I would be concerned with you going individually. >> It seemed would be better that we should go actively in a group. >> They should make an official one. So what I can do is I can reach out to your company and you can help facilitate
a date that would work for everyone to go out >> but sometime between the next meeting and the following meeting to go out. >> Y >> right. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you again. >> You're welcome. Thank you.
>> Okay. We now proceed to the 402 North family highway application by reading the agenda item to anybody. It doesn't keep an eye on them. I know. >> We have to read. We don't have to read the agenda item, do we? >> Excuse me. >> Have to read it. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry.
>> Um, read the agenda item for 42 North Final Highway, please. >> Oh. Oh, this right here. That >> public meeting applicant William Lucini site plan review application for a 44
space parking lot designed to accommodate 17 school buses and 27 cars located at 402 North Felmouth Highway. Applicant has requested a continuence to August 25th, 2026.
Should I read the files unless No, >> I believe there's another note in our >> Let's vote this one first. >> To October 31st. >> No, let's vote this first. >> Yep. >> Oh, >> okay. We're going to vote the the continuation to August 21st. 5th.
>> Okay. >> I had a motion. >> I move that the board accept the applicant's request for continuence of this matter to August 25th, 2026. >> Thank you. Any discussion? >> I was wondering second. All in favor question. >> Oh, I had a question. Yeah, like since
it's on the agenda right now, maybe you guys could fill me in on some context of it. I think I'd heard about it before, but >> yeah. >> Uh, we can't talk about it without the applicant being. Okay. No problem. >> But I would be happy to fill you in in the office. Um, also I don't believe that you'll be able to participate in
this one either. >> Oh, yeah. >> But I would suggest you actually uh >> I can scream and kick my >> watch it on FCTV. It was quite interesting. It'll be illuminating for you. Yeah, I had some people tell me about it and Miss Harris also told me about it. >> I can I can tell you the date. It's way
back. So, it was like in March. >> Okay. >> We had a full house. >> Yeah. >> And there have been developments. >> The group >> uh hired an artist to design signs for them. >> Oh, really? >> And they posted signs up and down Route 28 and Old Main Street and the streets
in between. The building commissioner's office or the building commissioner himself, one or the other, took down the signs. So, they have a new reason to have a hair across themselves. >> Oh, yes. Yes. >> All right. Um, >> do you want me to move this further
application for extension? >> Yes. >> Okay. The applicant has requested that we further extend the decision deadline on until October 31st, >> Halloween. So, I would move that we accept the
applicant's request to further extend this deadline decision deadline until October 31st, 2026. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. >> Thank you. All right. Now, we're going to go to
planning board discussion. Fall 2026 town meeting planning board zoning article amendments. We're going to have discussions on these. >> So, Jed was supposed to be here tonight to give you a kind of updated list of
what we were going to be talking about, but he is not here. Um, I can give you a brief update of what the articles will be, but that is basically it. At the next meeting, he will have them all uh printed out for you and ready to discuss
before we um have our public hearings. just do that. >> It's a short list. It's uh to add and clean up definitions. Um article 10, which is the non-conforming um article of the bylaw. There's three spots that need a little bit of tweaking, cleaning
up. Um we would like to remove this section uh for coastal pond overlay district. Since the uh D has come out with their regulations and and health department has come out with their regulations, we don't really uh have any
true involvement so much anymore. >> And then just cleaning up some general errors that we found along the way um just in in um looking at the zoning bylaw ourselves. So that's it for now. There are many more to come for next
meetings and and so on but um he will present them next meeting to you for discussion. >> John I have a question. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> It it may be for another town meeting. One of the things that uh I wanted to discuss is u
as a group is expanding uh the overlay district for Mr. Cod into other areas. Is this appropriate to do this now or do we are we going to wait for the next town meeting? And for instance, I would like to talk about we had uh Mr. Cod, one person got up and uh put an
amendment that has to be on the sewer system. I think m I think we should change that. I think we should at least have a discussion on that. I also think we should expand Mr. to uh possibly uh other business and uh
other business use not just B2 but maybe B3 and also some industrial uses as an overlay district. Is it inappropriate to do this now or saying it's going to be for the next town meeting for next >> I just want to understand the time I feel strongly about it but I'll just shut up until the next meeting
>> and the reason is is because town meeting I believe is in October this >> I'm all set I just I just wanted to hear that comment >> all right thank you >> what at what time would we be allowed to start discussing like um zoning articles
for a future town meeting like could we start discussing the ones for the spring meeting before the fall meeting has happened. >> Uh technically probably wouldn't be a good idea. So what we're going to do is when future agenda items comes up, we make a list and then eventually it gets
on an agenda when we talk to John the chair and we put it on an agenda for a discussion item and then we talk about the the logistics of it for when it can possibly go to town meeting. Um because there are a lot of items on the list to go to town meeting, a lot of things that
we need to fix. Um, so not that we don't want new um ideas or new things coming up. It's just that um we we'll have a list and we can give it to you and then you guys can decide what is the next one you'd like to talk about. >> Just just a reminder, I said it last
time, parking, we have talked often, we need to change the parking, we're over parked, we need to fix it, >> something major. This is beyond tweaks. We go tweak tweak and we don't get to the things that would really make a change. So that is a major overhaul and that's going to take a lot. I think
that's going to take some probably public outreach as well to to decide. >> We're capable of that. >> Yes. But I it's that >> but next town meeting is the answer. >> I don't even know if that would be for for spring. I I that is a huge >> let's make an effort. >> I would Yeah. I would like to push for
it to be spring. Yeah. And I and that's why I asked my question of like how early because like if we want to do public outreach and stuff like personally I'd love to see if we can start soon. And even if it has to because because the problem is like as soon as town meeting happens like you have to have stuff ready for like the next
>> No, you definitely have to be ready for the next town meeting. >> Yeah. Like with parking in particular since it seems like I think most people on the board that I've talked to and a lot of people in the public, >> it'd be great if we could start talking about that and engaging on it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Good. Um I just have one more question. We're going to have to not the new state laws changing us. We're going to have to have an awful lot of hearings about the zoning. Are we going to be doing that? Is that pushed off for two town
meetings? >> Are you talking about seasonal communities? >> Yeah. >> So, they haven't come out. I believe the state has not come out with >> Cape Cod Commission. We're waiting on >> Thank you. The Cape Cod Commission hasn't come out with their regulations yet. So, we have two years from when town hall adopts. >> Well, that's what I was asking. It might
be a whole year before we even get in it. Get into it. >> Once town meeting adopts it. We have two years to >> because at by that point we have tons of oper we have hearing after hearing after hearing so everything should be able to come out >> so we can keep our powder dry until we get further down the road. Just wanted
to understand that >> one other one other item. Um, now that I've been uh re-elected for one more season, I really want to get on our our ready for town meeting for the spring.
And we have to uh have u a bylaw ready, I think, for duplexes. And u we we need to have more housing in this community. And uh we hear at every meeting we hear everywhere we go we need more housing.
So I think that's something we should really discuss and see if we can put a plan together for town meeting for the spring. Uh next on our agenda is design guidelines public hearing for July from the Cape Cod Commission. >> So the recently the Cape Cod Commission
came before you and presented the design guidelines uh for the Mr. area and we now need to just have a public hearing so the public can come and um respond and as well as you give your comments as
well. So we are shooting for uh July 7th to put that on but we do need to um publicize >> Tuesday. >> It is a Tuesday. Yes. So that's your regular meeting. Um, well, it's your not regular meeting,
but since I made a mistake last last week, it's now your regular meeting in July. Um, but uh and I would need to advertise for that next week in the paper. So, if you guys are okay with July 7th having that on and your
comments ready by then, then we'll put it on that agenda. >> Everybody else set up for that. got a question from this because >> you frequently do not get much public input even if you put it in the newspaper.
>> I wonder how we can make more people aware in the community to get this in. >> Can you write up like a little blurb and submit it to the enterprise what's happening so it's not just >> I can talk to Jed about that. We do have
public outreach through um Facebook and like the police have their p Facebook page. We have there's anything Falmouth. There's fabulous Falmouth. We can uh ask people to to circulate it on their social media. >> If we're lucky, we could have a reporter here from the Found with Enterprise.
>> Yeah, maybe the Film with Enterprise. >> I put that in the next edition. >> Right. But that's why I'm bringing it up so that we get more publicity out there so we might get more of the citizens in here to give us input >> and also how to find it so that they
know what they're even commenting on. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, >> one thing we did, um, like on that point, the um, in Hanover, we went and got a running list of all the list serves in town, um, like the email lists of like churches, community groups,
homeowners associations, like just streets that people happen to have a list serve. Um, and then like when there was something relevant, we would contact the owner of that listerve if they wanted to like blast things out. So, I'm not sure if that's been done before, but seem to work pretty well
with getting people to show up. >> We've gotten good turnout on things when it is in any way controversial or when it's perceived as being controversial. If it looks as if things are just puttering along at a normal pace for a normal thing, then you don't expect to get a lot of feedback.
>> Well, it's controversial. If we were to say that the planning board has adopted guidelines for design that everybody has to follow, I think we'd really get a hearing on that. People would say who do they think they are and maybe turn out and these are design guidelines and we expect them to
be followed in some way. We would be the implementers of that. It depends on how you present it. Eric brought up a good point where we he's talking about changing our social media outreach to going after these list
serves which we would we be doing emails to them or >> so what we would do there is we would contact the person in charge of the list serve. So if it's a congregation maybe the minister or whatever um or if it's like a community group whoever happened to open it and you give them the
information and give them the option to publish >> let them decide. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We we don't do that now. >> We have not done that in the past. >> Do we have a staff person for that? >> No. >> No, I didn't think so. Would it be adding to people's spam? >> No. I I will talk to Jed about the
correct way to go about doing that and we'll let you know, but we will do what we can. >> I think that's a great idea. >> Okay. Next, uh, committee reports, recreation, >> community recreation and community
preservation committee where, like everybody else, we're reorganizing this week and the town has posted the positions. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, planning board, planning department report one for growth application. >> Before we do that, it wasn't a committee
of this uh, of this board, but it was a housing summit that was held here in this room this morning. You were there. Um, uh, Doug Brown from the select board was there. Laura Moyahan was the main presenter along with Kasparian from the Chamber of
Commerce. And you're right, housing is a tremendous issue in town. So, you'd expect there'd be an outpouring of people. I would guess there were fewer than 20. How do you think? >> For sure. >> Yes. So, it's not really It's a hot issue with the activists more than a hot issue overall. I think people are
feeling relatively hopeless. But when Laura Moyahan was asked point blank, well, what does your organization um espouse? What is it that they want to see? She had what sounded like a really positive idea that's been discussed here before, but problems were found with it
to allow enable in some way existing one family houses to be converted into two family houses. >> John just brought that up. >> He did >> and so I'm just underscoring that. And when this was brought up before, Jim, I think it was you who said, "Yeah, but um
you would have to allow for um additional bathrooms, kitchens that most two family >> only bedrooms. We don't this building code doesn't you can put as many bathrooms or kitchens you want in a building right now. What they regulate is bedrooms. >> But if we were going to allow this, we
would have to allow for the changes necessary to make it possible more than a rare building to do it, >> right? >> But it seemed really worth discussing. So getting it on an agenda would be good. >> Yep. >> I think that falls under what John was saying about uh duplexes. So I
>> I think my plan at some point is to have a subcommittee put together so we can put something together for duplexes. That's really what I want to try to accomplish. And I think it's one thing that would be great to inject into the um the guidelines that you guys are were
discussing. Um I think that could be a first step towards this sort of like more form based um regulation to like >> yeah permit those other uses. >> Go ahead Bob. >> Uh I wasn't able to make that uh thing this morning because I was at a meeting
in Yamoth but I I had reached out to uh Kim Fish earlier uh and she responded with an email and what I was asking her about was Liberty Green and this is her response. I reached out to the company that is handling the monitoring with that very question. They said they can't
find a qualified person for the lottery. Either they don't financially qualify or they have too much debt or they haven't completed the applications. She said she followed up with them to no avail. She has gone down the wait list as well. There is only one affordable unit rented
as of now. Although not my lane, I did inquire about the market rate units. She said the company is having trouble renting them because the rent is so high. That's Liberty Green. >> That's Liberty Green. >> Yeah. Oh, one other thing came up this morning that I think maybe those who
weren't there would want to know. Jill Newbower was there um which is good. And Jill um was talking up having a a design review committee revived >> um so that there would be uh some way to
you know get some homogeneity, get some control over the design. So was discussed about the design guidelines coming out and that in fact design according to the state is the purview of the planning board so that we can definitely do that if we want to. If we don't do it we should look forward to
being superseded by some new sort of group made up of experts. >> Okay. So onetop growth application for local comprehensive plan. So Jed has submitted the uh grant application to uh the
state, the one stop for growth grant application um for funding for the local comprehensive plan update. Um we should probably find out if we receive the grant um in October or November,
sometime in the fall. And if we do, then we can start the process of the updating the LCP. >> Considering we're required to do this, can the town say, "Well, we didn't get a grant money, so we're not going to do it." >> That's a good question. >> Yes.
>> I don't know. >> Maybe you could inquire. >> Yep. >> What are what are the stipulations of that grant? Like, would it be possible for you to send us the RFP um associated with it and stuff? Um, so that hasn't come yet because we have to get the money first. Um, so the RFP hasn't been
generated. Uh, just the grant proposal has been submitted. >> Oh, yeah. I meant like the request from the granting body. >> Okay. >> The RFP from them like what the stipulations were in the application. >> Yeah, I can ask Jed about that. He probably has that. >> Kim,
>> so we're talking about redoing the local comprehensive plan. My understanding is we are going to outsource this to a professional group. Last time we did 40, 50 meetings every Wednesday for four years. >> Yes. So >> that requires a huge amount of volunteer time.
>> And so and we got it done. But I think this time we're planning on outsourcing it and having them present this board as a whole and their input from the boat as a whole. Not >> Jim, my notes went back nine years. >> I know because it kept forming and then dissolving because you couldn't get
people to >> continue. It was about three or four years. I slugged it out with you. >> Oh. Oh, that was when Marlene >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> was working with us. >> That was done in-house. We don't have the staff or the time. >> It also takes another year or two. >> Will it will it include any member of
this board as kind of not >> determined? >> Not a consultant but a >> participant. >> It's a responsibility of this board. How could it not? >> Well, you know, >> and I believe the EDIC wants to participate in it as well. >> I'll take names from volunteers after
the meeting. >> What? No, I've always said that I'd be willing to do the comprehensive plan. >> Sure. I'd love to do it again, >> but I don't want to write it again. >> Come on. >> Yeah. No, Eric said it. >> AI. AI will write it for you. >> You're right. >> Three of us. Only three of us can do it.
>> Yeah. All right. Good. Uh, can we have a seasonal communities update? >> That was going to be for Jed to update you guys. Um, I don't believe there's really much of an update and I think that's what he was going to tell you. Um, >> could he please include what the other
communities have done. I know Sandwich turned it down and I wonder what Mashpie did if anything. >> Okay. >> Okay. I have a question on that >> because we haven't gotten any example of
any bylaws or anything like that for the seasonal communities. >> That's what kept our community doing. >> Yeah, I know. But from the time of town meeting, the clock starts ticking for two years. >> And that ticking is continuing.
>> And if when it's >> we might have to miss it. >> Oh, you're bad, Charlotte. Because if we don't get enough time between when we get these example bylaws that >> the state would see fit to put into
place, >> right, >> and we've got eight months left or whatever it is. >> We all know how long it takes to change a bylaw. >> You got it. >> Goes into it. So, >> so my concern is >> yeah, >> it's dead in the water before it even starts for file. And what I'd like to
see uh when we look at that is, you know, do we have to take uh because I I just worry about the state mandating certain things and I want to see how much we can control what we could do without having to get the state involved. >> I too
>> and I I'm very much for local control. >> Well, they mandate things and they don't look at what it takes to make it happen. >> Right. and and it the state one size fits all and it just doesn't work. So, >> all right. Uh future agenda items
>> I have the spring town meeting articles that you all listed off and um and also form-based code which is what you uh mentioned. So, other than that, if you have anything else, >> I have I have one and and this is kind
of a big one. Uh I really object to uh senior housing being stipulated in certain zones as the only housing you can put in certain zones. To me that's redlinining. It's discrimination. And uh in the local comprehensive plan we said
housing for everyone. >> And uh when you have uh a section a district in town that says the only housing you can put in there is for seniors. To me that's that's wrong. And I'd like to see that eliminated. >> Do we have that? Where do we do that? >> Yeah, it's in go through. I I had it.
>> It's just in one. >> What district are you referring to? >> B3, I think. Uh >> I thought you meant the senior >> I thought it was just the one by 151. Yeah, I think it's only one lot of land up by 151. And remember they were going to put in workforce housing. >> Well, that's zone senior housing, right?
>> Right. >> Yeah. >> Other than that, I Yeah, >> there was another place, but it >> Yeah. No, I I I had it uh >> the Nashville someplace, I think. Yeah, there are places where uh when I was looking through this where uh senior
housing was the only thing that was allowed and uh and that's what I mean. It's it's a it's kind of a big job to go through and and pick that out just to see >> Yeah. >> because I have seen it, you know, >> Bob, I think there was an area in Hatchville.
>> Yeah. Yeah. In Valley Me and No, it was more >> Well, it was part of that. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> big property, >> but it didn't happen. >> It didn't happen. >> No, I know it didn't happen, but >> But is the zoning still there? I don't know. >> The zoning still there. >> Well, or is it part of a bigger thing
that allows senior housing to >> I'll have to find it? >> I don't remember. >> Zoning. >> Yeah. Well, >> if you can find it, just let me know so we can look at it. >> Any other future agenda items? >> No. So, I think we're going to have to
work on Mr. Cod and other districts. uh some duplex zoning and find a way to transfer uh development rights for unbuildable lots to another unbuildable lot to make one of those two lots buildable.
Uh I I mentioned this this morning at the meeting that was held here. I read an article the weekend about uh city of Austin, Texas, >> and how they were losing their population and slow growth, no growth, and um
and they had a lot of concerns. So, they took a lot of surveys and they they changed their zoning uh for duplexes from um 5600 square feet for the lot
to,800 square feet. and they had a huge pickup in in the building for the for the developers and now they're back on track with some growth. So, think about an 18,800 foot lot with a duplex on it at Austin. >> Here we're wait, 1800 square foot lot.
>> Yes. For >> we have a 7,000 square foot lot minimum, >> right? >> For pre-existing lots right now, >> you have to have sewage treatment to do something like that. Well, I'm not saying that that that
isn't a concern, but >> but uh we have to have housing. We can't just keep talking about and then say, "Well, we can't do it because this, we can't do >> There's always a reason why we can't do it." I think we should look for reason to do it. >> We have to find a way to have more people be able to live here that can afford to live here. There's an article
I think at was it Dallas again in Texas the tiny houses for veterans that were unhoused and they were building a whole community of these tiny houses. I think 450 square foot houses that showed a graphic of it. >> Well, keep in mind tiny tiny houses. We
got to do tiny lots first >> because you could build a tiny house on an acre lot right now. >> Oh, it's not that. It was like a little community that they were >> part of the question there is who is they? Who is they? It was the community. >> Okay. Well, we have to do it as a community. We have to figure something
out here. We are the planning board. So, take that as a final comment when you go home tonight. And uh next meeting is June 23rd and July 7th. >> I movement. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?