Heat. Heat. We had to escalate that to the zoning board. At that point, the building commissioner did respond through two letters to the ZBA where he declared that he had made no such determination
and that he was not intending to do so. As a result of that, our group decided to come before the board tonight to express our frustration as well as to ask you to consider based
on these events scheduling a vote to see if you could encourage the building commissioner to make a determination as to whether or not the use of that property is a byright use. And absent of that, would
you consider denying the application outright? In a separate but related manner matter, I' I'd like to make the board aware that on July 3rd of this year, a property became available uh 64 Tech Drive. It's
2 and a half acres. It's zoned light industrial and it's about 1,500 ft from Mr. Lucini's current operations. I think any objective person would say that that's a much safer and more appropriate place for Mr. Bassini to expand his
operations. So I just want to get that on record to the folks here today. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Cynthia Bourge. I was also present at the meeting on March 17th and heard all that was said during that meeting, including the
repeated statements that the building commissioner had in fact made a determination of the use the specifically that the parking was auxiliary to the um >> office building >> and that there was no further discussion
to be had about it. >> We now know that that didn't happen. We have that unequivocally in a letter from the building commissioner >> special >> and I'm going to submit to you that in the absence of a clear determination by the building commissioner that the proposed use is allowed as a matter of
right it makes no sense for the planning board to proceed and right now we are scheduled for August 25th. There's a hearing here. It's been suggested to us by the um building commissioner that you all make your decision without that
information, without that determination. And then if we want a determination, we'd have to ask him afterwards through our legal counsel. I am submitting that the planning board probably lacks the authority to proceed without the underlying requirement of a
determination about this parking and the zoning involved. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Patrick Bennett. I live directly behind this proposed project. And Mr. Dulie, I'm going to ask you, I don't know if I'm
allowed to do this or not. I would like to invite all the members of the board to come over to my house and see exactly how close it is to this proposed project. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask him that or not. >> You can ask that. >> Okay. Um, if anybody would like to,
again, I'm gonna open up my house. It'll just be me and my wife, so we won't be ganging up on you. If you'd like, I have my phone number, my cell phone number. If you'd like that, I'll give it to you. Um, all I ask is that you text me to let
me know that you're going to be coming by. And if we could do it sometime in the evening from say 5:00 on, I'd appreciate that. I don't know if anybody's interest arrested for it or not. >> You can leave your number with uh Linda if you'd like. >> Anybody? But uh
>> well, we're not going to we're not going to discuss it this evening. >> Thank you. >> You can just give it >> They'll distribute it to us. >> It has to come through them. >> Okay. I know the property really well.
Hello, my name is Kate Jwitt. I live near the elementary school in North Falmouth. Just a hop, skip, and a jump from this proposal proposed area. And um I just thought while we were doing all this talking and trying to
figure out what was going on, I thought, what do the rest of Felmouth think of this? And to this date, I have over 620 signed a petition that they thought it was not a good idea. These are people
from all around town, from Woodsole to Wquite, from Meganet to Manat, and they're all like, "Yeah, I know it has to happen, but there that's not a good spot. It's right between two neighborhoods
and the neighbors are very concerned that between the the noise starting up at what 5:30 in the morning, the lights, um the spillage from buses, you know that sometimes your truck leaks. Well,
think of how many buses are going to be leaking and soiling that soil. um the air pollution. They have to start up those buses and they have to keep them going long enough. They have to have all the bells and whistles checked every
time before they can drive off. And while the buses are running, all running at the same time running, the um driver has to get in there and check everything. has to get out, walk around,
and inspect the entire bus. You can't put kids on a school bus unless you know it's going to actually run and run correctly. So, I would really like you to uh understand that people across the town are saying that this is not a good
place for it and that um it is in going to be disturbing a lot of people's homes. >> Thank you. thing. Have you presented that uh petition to the staff yet? >> Not at this time. And I didn't bring it with me this time. I last time I was in
this building, I had it. Um >> you get a chance. >> I can do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? >> All right. Well, thank you very much. We'll um go to our first item on the agenda, which is approval not required.
John, I got Thomas Bunker. I'm sorry. >> I just I just was hoping that maybe you could make a comment letting people know that they're here for 28th Heights Road or 538 North Felmouth Highway that it's been they're both being continued. >> Can you make that? >> Yep.
>> We have an announcement. If anyone in the audience is here for 28 Felmouth Heights Road or 538 North Felmouth Highway, those applications have been requested to be continued. So, they won't be heard tonight. So, you can you'll be wasting your time if you stay,
but they've been requested to continue till August 11th. >> That's it. >> Told you on the minutes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Approve not required. Is that first? >> Nope. Minutes. >> Um >> minutes.
Mr. Chairman, >> motion to approve the July 7th, 2026 minutes as presented. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. Unanimous. >> Now we'll go to approval not required. Thomas Bunker PLS on behalf of Julia
Julia Taylor Julia Taylor plan of land to change two lot lines um and one parcel located at 76 Frasier Road 0 Blacksmith shop road and zero blacksmith shop road map number 24 15
003 C 007 D 241 5 003 C 007B 415003C 0007A and for the applicant. >> Thank you. My name is Tom Bunker,
registered land surveyor with BSS design. We prepared this plan. Uh this plan was the uh this property was sub subject of a plan back earlier in the year when we created basically these same two lots in an unbuildable parcel.
Uh a landscape architect and architect have been working on it. uh for another structure, a pool and an ADU on lot 7E. And so this plan is just to adjust the lot line so that what they're
proposing will fit. >> All right. Um any questions, comments? >> You move make a motion, please. >> Okay. I move that the planning board endorse the excuse me approval not
required plan as presented to us without regard to zoning or buildability. >> Second. All >> in favor? >> I thank you. Unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Bunker. Uh second we have applicant Jonathan
Paloney on behalf of Frederick Viel or Vale plan of land to change lot lines for common existing topography and structures located at 31 and 43 Sorell Circle. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Uh my name is Jonathan Paloney. I'm an attorney with Sen Associates and I'm here on behalf of Frederick Veil. Um my client has had uh numerous conversations with his neighbor. They've agreed on a land swap
which is shown on this plan. Um I think they're just there was some topography issues with the lots. There's been kind of an understanding that the lot lines were where they are not. And so the plan is intended to kind of correct that. You can see a shed that's shown on there
which will now be located on my client's property. It's a like kind exchange, so there's no change in lot area. Um there's a slight increase in lot frontage on my client's lot. We believe it meets all the requirements of the bylaw. We ask for your approval. >> Thank you. Any uh questions or comments?
>> No. >> I get a motion then, please. I move that the planning board endorse the plan as presented to us without any regard to zoning or abil or >> second moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. Thank you very much. You
>> uh tonight we have three applicants each with special permit >> site plan review application. >> We just have to do the decision first. >> Which decision >> for Adeline's way? >> The definitive wall. Yes.
>> Oh man. >> Okay. >> I got to keep you in line, right? >> Somebody does. Okay. Tom. >> Draft 72826. Motion that the planning board votes to approve the application of Brian Wall Esquire on behalf of the
property owner David Fillo pursuant to the provisions of MGI. >> I recuse myself. I have to leave the line. >> That's I thought. Yeah. >> There's a reason why I should listen to this. Okay, >> I go. >> Proceed, Tom. Thank you.
>> Yep. Pursuant to the provisions of MGL chapter 41 section 81W for the recision of the definitive subdivision plan and special permit that established the subdivision known as Adelene's Way map
number 2806003 0000 001 002 003 004 005 and 006. Subject to the following findings and
conditions. Findings. The subject property consists of a vacant land located off of old Barnes & Road and is located within the agricultural aa zoning district, the coastal pond, green pond overlay district, and within the
wildlife corridor overlay district migration area one. The plan residential development PRD approved by the planning board in 1998 authorized a six lot subdivision, an
open space parcel, and the construction of a new roadway known as Adeline's Way. Neither the roadway nor the subdivision improvements were ever constructed. All of the approved subdivision lots remain undeveloped with the exception of
lot one which contained an existing single family dwelling prior to the 1998 planned residential development PRD approval. The property has since been acquired by David Pachillo who does not intend to
proceed with development of the approved subdivision and instead plans to pursue an alternative use of the property. The applicant has submitted a plan of land depicting the falling the property
following the proposed recision. The plan consolidates the previously approved subdivision into a single parcel, thereby eliminating the subdivision layout and the proposed roadway. Because the approved
subdivision was never constructed constructed and the roadway was never accepted or established. Recision of the definitive subdivision plan and associated special permit is appropriate and consistent with MGL
chapter 41 section 81W. Number one, any revisions to this approved plan shall require review and approval by the planning board. I'm sorry. Number two, the applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works Engineering Division with a copy
of the recorded precision plan so that Adeline's Way may be removed from the town's road inventory, official street list, and applicable mass DOT records. Number three, no further subdivision shall occur except in accordance with
MGL, chapter 41, section 81K and 81 GG through approval of either an approval not required, which is an ANR plan or a definitive subdivision plan by the Felmouth Planning Board as applicable.
>> Okay, it has been moved and I need a second. >> I have a question. You >> usually second it and then we have a question. >> Okay, any questions? Those properties that are developed there, were they pre-existing the subdivision plan? >> Are they built after the subdivision
plan? >> There's no built there. That's not the plan. >> That's not it. That that's just the next agenda item. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> So, I heard something about something being built. Has anything been built on the site? >> There was a house there, one house at the beginning
>> before the plan. So, it's pre-existing. That was my question. Doesn't matter to us at this time, >> right? I have questions about uses on the site, but they have nothing to do with this hearing tonight. Okay, just I'm all set. >> Thanks, Jim. >> I just need that clarified. >> Any other comments, questions?
>> No. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please. >> I >> All opposed? And obviously he's abstaining. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. It's been approved.
>> Okay. Now we need John. You get John? continue. >> So, John, now you can continue with the >> I put you down as abstained. It's more like recused, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> From this. Okay. >> Yes. Recused. It's not
>> It's definitely recused. >> Okay. Uh tonight we have three applicants, each with special permit and site plan review applications before the planning board. For the convenience of the applicants and to facilitate a more
efficient and orderly review process, I would like to consider each applicant's applications together. Is there a motion to take the agenda items out of order so that the applications for each applicant may be heard consecutively? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Yes. Thank you. Unanimous. >> So we have public hearing. Um Kevin Clower second on behalf of 28 Thalmouth Heights Road LLC.
Special permit application to allow parking within a front yard and 5 ft of a property line at 28 Thalmouth Heights Road and >> they requested a continuance. >> That's the both. >> They've requested a continuence for both.
>> Yes. >> So we need to vote on the >> I'm going to read this. Uh hi J Melinda. Per our recent discussion, please accept this email as our formal request for the following. Number one, to continue both the hearings for both the site plan
review and special permit to August 11th and number two, extend the deadline for the site plan review hearing until August 28th. >> I need to rewrite. >> Yeah. I got a motion. So, I'll accept their request and ask
that the planning board also accept it. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I unanimous. >> Thank you. All right. Um, next we have Kevin Clower second. On behalf of Anthony Amaru, special permit
application, fill out parking within a front yard at 538 North Highway. >> They've also requested a continuence. >> Okay. >> So, >> any discussion? >> No, it's got to read a motion.
>> I move that the planning board accept. >> Sorry. Yep. >> Hello, Jud and Melinda. Per our recent discussion, please accept this email as our formal request for the following. Number one, to continue both the hearings for both the site plan review
and special permit to August 11th. And number two, extend the deadline for the site plan review hearing until August 28th. >> Okay. So, I move that the planning board accept the uh uh applicant's request for
an extension. >> Second. All in favor? >> I I thank you. >> Uh, next on our agenda is uh applicant Church of the Messiah special permit
application under section 240-5 1A2 of the family zoning bylaw for relief from dimensional regulations as applied to exempt uses regarding a proposed groundmounted solar array at 534 Woods Hole Road.
and the same uh application site plan review application to construct ground mounted solar. >> I'm a member of the congregation so I'm going to recuse myself. >> Okay. >> Can I have a question for
>> Okay. Is there u are these this parcel subject to the benefits of uh the do amendment because they're a religious organization and an application with the zoning? >> The property is it's my opinion that the
property is yes but not the application. So the application itself is not a do amendment um application if you will. So the do amendment as you know protects religious institutions and educational
institutions but the religious component here is uh not germanine to the solar project so >> you're actually making that judgment on your own. >> It's my opinion. >> Your opinion? >> Y if you'd like we can get a we can ask
the building commissioner. >> I don't know. I've just heard the lawyers say that uh these usually don't have to they can do nonprofits, religious organizations and educational look at Woodsole all the things and I've done represented clients they don't have
to pay attention to zoning they just get to do it >> well yeah specifically typically with an educational use if the application or the project that they're proposing is educational in its uh intent then >> but it also extend to the religious not
just educational Yes, of course. >> You can pretty much put a church anywhere you want. >> You can, but we're not talking about a church here. We're talking about solar panels. So, that in my opinion is why the do amendment >> Well, we're talking about a power system for a building, >> like a heating system for a building.
>> I I I wouldourage >> I'm just I don't know if I agree with you, but I don't know enough about it. I just I thought I'd bring it up and maybe we could get some advice on it because it doesn't quite mesh with what I've done in the past. We're happy to consult with >> I don't really know. I don't I'm just asking.
>> We're happy to consult with town council and the building commissioner if you'd like us to. >> I think that's a good idea, but we should we should >> we may approve it anyway and keep it going. So, yeah. >> Sorry. >> There's no harm in discussing it. >> No, there is no harm. >> We're going to we're going to hear the applicant anyway. >> No, there's no harm. I was asking a question.
>> Sure. >> Understand? >> Any other questions or comments before we go forward? Um u the just the public hearing notices have to be read. >> Okay. Public notice for this project was published on July 10th 2026 and July
17th 2026 and 21 abutters were notified by regular mail. >> Thank you for the applicant to the podium please. >> Good evening. My name is Peter Feltman Mahan. I'm the priest of Church of the Messiah in Woods Hole and um we are
looking I'm here with our Sexton Tom Kerry and we are looking to do a second phase in this solar project. Our original church building was outfitted with a solar array earlier this year. Um we are very pleased with the results of
that and we would like to go into the second phase which is install arrays that would install arrays that would allow for the complete coverage for our electrical
needs as a campus. our campus. We are the only yearround um church in the village of Woods Hole and we're the oldest church of Episcopal Church on Cape Cod. Our property extends from Woods Hole Road along Church Street from
the house property shown now over the rail across the rail trail on the other side to where our original church, the stone church, and our parking lot reside. And so the addition of these arrays will provide electrical
we believe the electricity needed for the entire campus and allow us to redivert some of our funds formerly for electric to our outreach ministries within Woods Hole. >> All right. Thank you. Is that is that your presentation or
>> No. Um Tom Kerry is here as well if that's okay. >> Okay. the initiative by the um >> please introduce yourself to this. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Name is Tom Kerry. employed by the church of the Messiah and Woods
Hole and the initiative by the church elders was to find a resource to supply all the electricity needed for the church itself for the parish community center and the rectory. Uh the design
criteria required um 40kw of panels. Currently a third of the project's done on the PCC building. If you travel on Church Street, you'll see there's 24 collectors on the roof of that building
and it's facilitating as much energy as we need for that building at this time. The balance of the energy required for the year and for a rectory and the church would require two arrays shown in red here on the plan
checkered in the two plants here. The two arrays are 14 ft by 36 feet and they're both the same size and they consist of >> appreciate if you speak into the microphone. This is for the audience at home.
>> Thank you. >> Consist of 24 panels each which would be the other twothirds of the endeavor that combined they will provide enough electricity to cover all the needs for the church going forward forever. It will also save the church somewhere in
the neighborhood of 14 to $16,000 annually, which gives a payback in less than five years for all the investment we're putting into it. The area that we're proposing to put the array is at the top of the retaining
wall that was built in the 1800s by the railroad company that put the railroad through Felmouth into Woods Hole and to the um Steamship Authority property
which is now the Shining Sea bike trail. That bike trail is located at the bottom of the map. right over the bridge. So the visual of this array will only be seen from essentially the bridge. If you're driving over the bridge, you can see
down in the hole that it exists. However, the topography is very aggressive. The retaining wall is 8 feet 9 ft high and it's another 25% grade from the retaining wall to the little square
building labeled garage. So that these solar collectors will be sitting on a 24% grade typically that of a house roof on the ground. Um we submitted the plans. I
have one review from the Belmas Fire Department regarding the proposal and that review we provide was that they were concerned about the vegetation under these ground mount units which is a very valid concern
because invasive plants take have taken over the entire area. And when I say invasive weeds were gone in March, they're chest high in July and we can't have that. So, we've prepared a landscape and planning plan that was
submitted to your planning board. I have copies if you would like. Um, the area is is very it's like a jungle, if you will. So, we have to curb
that and get it comfortable. the panels will only sit about 3 feet off the ground sloping up. The other issue that was brought to our attention was there's a code that they're concerned about a 10-ft
axis around the panel. Now, you put the panels on the roof and there's no 10 10ft axis when you have it up in the air, but apparently when it's on the ground, somebody thought that was a good idea. At one point, we can't get you 10 10 feet. It's six feet from the
building. That's the only hurdle that I've had difficulty in overcoming. Uh that would be this spot right here in that corner. 10 ft over here. This is the complete driveway. This is all lawn or landscape.
This is the building that it's being built next to. Corner in question. This corner right there. essentially four ft short of being exactly what it has to be by some
code that was brought up. >> Is there any questions about the application? >> We'll do questions when you finish with your presentation. >> Um I don't think I have anything else to share unless I would like to thank your staff for helping out. This is the first ride on the bus for me. So
>> All right. Good. Thank you. What are you doing? also brought photographs for you in the event that anybody is unfamiliar with the site. >> Uh you can leave those with the staff if you'd like. >> Okay, perfect. >> I'll leave the additional landscape.
>> Okay. >> Thanks, guys. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. How much should you remain at the podium in case we have some questions? Please. Thank you. Um staff, you had a lot of comments. Are
you satisfied with what has been presented? We had some questions here. >> Um you should ask the questions and then we are waiting. So the fire department has received the planting plan. Um I don't know if you met with them about it
at all. I've contacted both the chief and the the uh fellow that wrote it. I haven't received any response back from either of them. >> So, we just got it like yesterday or two days ago. So, yesterday. Yeah. So, um when they'll respond, um with comments
according to the the planting plan that was submitted, but we just haven't received those. >> The fire department. >> Yep. But um you should ask some Yeah, I would I would um recommend you asking some of these questions um that are probably um just good to have on record. >> From the staff or from the fire
department? >> From the staff. >> Okay. >> Have you seen the questions from the staff? >> No. >> No. Okay. We'll just go right down the list. It's not too many. Uh will any trees of
vegetation be removed? Will any mature trees be removed? What is the extent of clearing of vegetation? >> There are three or four trees that will be removed that are currently very large and very old and they are right in the
center between right there is the giant tree you'll see in the picture. >> Okay, >> it's enormous. >> Which is considered an invasive species itself. >> All right. >> Some kind of Japanese tree that grows like 5 ft a day a year. And then there's
a couple more here along this side. And there's one that's already fallen down from the winter storm. >> Okay. >> That's the area primarily that we're looking at. >> All right. >> This this area doesn't need any trees cuz the bike ways right here. So it's
perfectly clear for maybe 70 ft, 100 ft. >> Okay. And then uh you have a plan to manage the ve vegetation beneath the panels. Yes. >> Yes. That's the second page of this that I provided. I think I dropped off six pa
six copies and I brought another six with me. And it outlines the removal of the existing invasive vegetation and the placing of new vegetation, ground cover, and then the maintenance that vegetation for the first couple years. It's
designed not to grow any more than like 20 in high so it won't in invade the um collectors themselves. It won't have vines that grow up over them. The the property below ours this is the town
property is not been maintained. It never gets cut and it has a lot of invasive stuff that's growing up the wall. So this time of year, you look at it, you're like, you can see like this much of an eight foot wall because it's so aggressive. It would be nice if we could clean that up.
>> Okay. Um, says there's a mortared stone wall along a southern property line. How will the array be accessed for repairs given the limited setback? >> Well, you can walk along. We'll have two feet of area just to walk along. So, you can walk there and get access to it.
>> Okay. And the the wall is actually part of it is the dividing line. Part of it is sitting as the property line. And I think some of it sits at the base of the town property where our property and
the town property meet. It's if you look at the map, it's very hard to tell one from the other, but it's along that wall. And then and also we had to push this down because I couldn't place it in this area because
the water man that services Wood's hole goes across our property in this corner of the property. So we had to shift everything down to keep from getting close to the water man. >> Okay.
Uh and then um is emergency or maintenance access adequate? I believe it is because you can drive a fire truck right up here. I mean, this is where the bus drives everybody to the parking lot at the Steamship Authority. >> Yes. This from for maintenance. And
>> well, for maintenance, you can just walk up. This is a this is a driveway right here. So, >> you're four feet away. You're from me to you away from the panel. So, you could walk along the panels here at any time. >> Right. Thank you. >> Yes. Um, and you'll be responsible for the long-term maintenance or do you have
a contract with the with the solar panel people or >> We will own the solar panels. >> Okay. So, you do the maintenance yourself. >> We'll take care. Yeah. 100% responsible for it. >> Okay. And how much grading or sight disturbances proposed? very minimal because we're going to use helilac piles
which is like the big drill bit has a big base on it and they drill them in and they'll do a pattern of them and then set the rack on top of that and set the uh solar collectors on it. >> So the the largest challenge is going to be get rid of the old weeds, get it, you
know, like clean it up, put some material down so it's flat to work on and then just drive the drive them in there. And will you you be doing that yourselves or? >> No, we have hired um solar rising which is got a great deal of experience in it. They did the first phase of the project.
They did all the math on the project and they were conservative with the output that they had projected. We were very happy with the yield on the first third of the project and we expect that we'll be very happy with the second.
>> Okay. Um couple more questions. uh the expected life of the system that you're going to put down. >> The the panels that we're using are the best panels available in the United States today. They're made here in the United States. They're designed in Canada. They have the highest yield for
it size and it's been tested and guaranteed for the first 20 years with an expectation it could last 30 and still produce 85% of the yield that you're getting in the first 20. And presuming you get to the 30-year
period, will it be abandoned or will will you redo new panels on top? >> Well, you can go take them right off and replace them. I mean, they're all modular panels that are like in in round figures are 3x5. >> Okay.
>> The the two the two arrays are no larger than a mobile home, 14t by 35 ft. So, they're not we're not talking about a large >> Okay. advice here. >> And is there any any exterior lighting proposed? >> No, no lighting whatsoever.
>> All right. Good. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> So, we're not finished. >> Okay. I'll stay right here. >> Got a question. >> Yes. I had a question just kind of in terms of like how the decision and and what how it shaped your decision. I see you guys have like a few parking lots
and stuff. Like was the decision to do a groundmounted array versus like over a parking lot somehow regulatory or was it primarily cost or aesthetic? >> So we visited all of those different ideas and we had them on the buildings. We had them in different locations. And
this location right here is due south. See the arrow at the top? It's the perfect location. If you were standing on the bridge looking at it, it just faces south and there's no trees for 100 ft. There's other locations like putting them on the parking lot at the top of
the property. Trees are very tall. There's houses next to it and you'd have to build a canopy like uh canyons and mount them up there. Didn't make a whole lot of sense. The building, the stone building is 1888 with a slate roof on
it. Trying to install panels on a slate roof is a terrible, terrible idea. So it it may face south and it may hit clearance, but longevity wise it probably poses more problems to the property than actually what it would
return an investment. So we also looked at putting them on the back side of 534 Witzole Road and putting enough there wouldn't make sense. We couldn't get enough to provide us with the yield to
make the project worthwhile. So, it was a it was a multiple choice thing. We tried five different ways and ended up with this as the best and it's still a struggle to get it, but it poses the best investment in return for what we're trying to accomplish. It also allows us
to be a better neighbor. Um the house if if we were to cover the parking lot is very close to existing properties that are um very notable in the community by not putting in their immediate view a bunch of solar arrays. There is a benefit there.
>> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Eric Jim. >> Just my previous question. And I I would hope that we get an opinion from town council because we're making a decision here that could establish a precedent on how we deal with this before. So the
issue I brought up will establish a president. >> What? >> But we we'll we'll certainly consult with town council. >> A practice maybe a precedent. Okay. I would like to understand if that is if I interp if I'm interpreting that correctly or not.
>> Not a problem. I we looked at the the do issue at one time because there was a question whether or not we had to be here and I don't believe because it's energy is not religion it may I mean depending on how you interpret it we'll
look forward to their guidance >> Pat I'm concerned about the horrible growth the woody English ivy the porcelain berry because
I've gotten something that is a combination of the glyphosate and the tririccopier for an ivy removal or English ivy is actually what I got it for and that stuff the instructions on there say
hopefully you'll get rid of it in three years continuing to apply it every year and I don't know whether that's once or twice a year because I haven't started yet it was the wrong time of year when I the substance. So what I'm wondering is
because of the stubbornness of these ives whether you would consider using instead of the plant the replanting which seems to be rather imminent after you sprayed it one year and hauled roots out and everything whether you would consider using
a cedar mulch for a few years to see what actually comes back. We are happy to follow the recommendations from the professionals who are consulting this for this because we understand how invasive these species are. >> That's why I see they're professional, but they're also recommending that it be replanted. I'm saying, "Whoops. I don't
know. >> I don't know. I'm just bringing that up." >> I've also read a lot about because I've been involved with solar for a long time. The recommendation I hear is you bring in goats and they just chew it all out every year. >> That's the other thing. >> We actually tried that. We tried that. >> It didn't work. one of the local goat
businesses was no longer available for that project. >> Okay. I around the country or under under solar panels in particular they are finding that that's a very easy way to do it. >> I just very open to that idea. >> Okay. Just not be a bad source if it doesn't go well.
>> It's imperative to us to control the ivy. I I'm 100% clear on the ramifications of not being proactive in resolving that matter. And I agree with you. It's a it's a struggle to say the least >> horrible. And that's why I'm saying and
they may be professionals and this may be what they do and it may work. >> We use their their ideas and tweak it along and get it to where we're going to get what we need. >> I'd hate to have it tweaked. Oh, we've got to respray and kill everything we just planted. >> Do that.
>> Thank you, Charlotte. >> No questions. I'd like to commend you on the clarity and thoroughess of your presentation. Thank you very much. You're very kind, >> Tom. >> No questions. >> Okay. Um definitely have to get your uh um approval from the fire department
here. >> You have to get your approval from the fire department here. >> 100% clear of >> if they're not going to respond to you, go knock on their door. >> Well, I banged on the window at the fire. I went to see the chief on the door and said, "I need to talk to
you." All right. Email them. They'll email you back. So, I'm just I I I don't believe that that's going to be we'll come to terms with it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any questions uh from the public or comments from the public? Please come to the podium. M state your
name. >> Nat Trumble 11 Church Street. Um, I'm a a neighbor and know this u landscape well for more than a half a century. The question I had I
my neighbors and I discussed this. We didn't fully understand why you weren't going with the roof for part of the project which might eliminate the need to go so deeply to the east with that panel. It looks I mean it seems as southern as the panels as southern
facing as the panels but is it less expensive or that that was my >> didn't question >> you couldn't get the heel >> you have you have to step to the podium please if you're going to respond >> I was thinking >> to the podium >> part roof part panel or maybe there's some economy
>> well first of all the building's very old so the amount of panels that would facilitate on the roof is limited so the quantity of panels that to sit on the roof versus what we needed to meet the yield or the total demand of the campus
was not available. It was not going to make enough. For example, you have two arrays with 24 panels in each. I believe the roof could only hold 24 period. And the roof being old and the building being fragile, putting that much load on
it would be maybe a struggle. I mean there and and it was a struggle to get the because of the direction of the roof and the dormer on top is very flat. You're not going to get the same
yield out of the panels. So when looking at what you would generate and the and the garage roof is a hip roof. So it's just a triangle on four sides. So you can only use one quarter of it and you only can get four. Okay. So we did a a number of different
scenarios using the building and we were unable to get what we needed and then we created other problems by using that. That was the reasoning behind it. My other question concerns the
Fmouth Historical Commission and um have you are you presenting to them as well or >> we have already >> Okay. Well, >> because I'm sorry I got >> Yeah, I think I'm back again. >> You are in the district.
We applied for historic approval because the panels don't sit in the front of the building and they don't sit on the buildings. The historic group didn't really have an issue with the fact that we're setting them below grade. I mean, these panels are actually going to be
somewhere about 8 to nine feet below the basement of the house. So, they're way down. Like the top of the panel, you will see at about the driveway elevation. You know the driveway that goes into the block garage, the top of the panel will
be three feet above that driveway. So if you were standing on the driveway, the panel would be here and the rest of it goes downhill to the top of that wall. So it's I mean when when you visually see it, you can't see it from anywhere but on the bridge or from your driveway,
you know, when you look across from the bridge, >> you can see it from the bridge. That's the picture I just gave him from the bridge. Sounds like you you've appeared and they've approved. >> I I'd like to speak in favor of this project. I um admire the Woodwell
Centers panels that one sees on Woods Hole Road uh driving north and envision this as being similar and uh we'll be seeing this daily, but I do look forward to it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else?
Oh, okay. Um, can I get a motion to you? Any other questions from the board? Comments? Okay. Is there a motion to continue the special permit application and site plan review application for 534 Woodshole Road to
>> Yeah. When? Um, I mean, you could do our next meeting is August 11th or then we have another one on August 25th. Um, I would assume that we'd hear back by the next meeting. >> Okay. >> From the fire department. >> From the fire department. Yeah.
>> So, I will move that the planning board continue this application to August 11th. >> Can you just specify that both applications? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Both the special permit and site plan review. >> Thank you. I need to get a second.
>> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous or did you abstain? >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we'll see you we'll see you August 11th. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Excuse me. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay, next matter on our agenda is um >> Z Recycle Avenue special permit application. You want to read? >> Y >> public notice for this project was published on July 10th, 2026 and July
17th, 2026 and 21 of Butters were notified by regular mail. >> Thank you. For the applicant, please. >> Good evening, members of the board. Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Dina Brown. I'm with the law firm of Bletzer and Bletzer. Um, we're
applying here basically for permission to park within five feet of the lot line for both the spots at the bottom portion that you can see of Cycle Lab and there are five parking spaces going up to the top of the street on the east side which
are but Eastern bank. Parking has been going on there for decades as far as I know. Um, and cars are constantly parking. um parking there. My clients bought the property um
and first they bought my client is Felmouth 815 Main Street LLC. They um originally bought 781-783 Main Street, which is um the lot on the
left there. and that that at the time had um that owner also owned lot 41 which is Zero Cycle A and Zero Cycle A was actually subdivided
um in 2011 and made its own independent lot. Um and my client also owns the building on the other side which is Eastern Bank. Um and they use those five parking spaces there for Eastern Bank to
park. Um the lot is uh 1999 acres. Um and that cycle avenue its sole use is for the park. Um there is a reciprocal easement agreement that was signed with the owners of 781
783 which is where Hogs and Dogs is and Eastman and Boarding Goods and Tackle and 797 um the prior owner of 797 um also signed the reciprocal easement agreement as well as my client. And what
that did was it allowed um our clients to go across the easement area. You can see that there. Um and then be able to pull into the parking spaces. And it really makes it much easier and less
traffic um and less problems for that for these three buildings to coexist. Um at some point somebody filed a complaint saying we weren't parking within 5t of the lot line. My client's position is that it's pre-existing non-conforming
use. However, it we were advised and I spoke with town council several times and also the building commissioner who just suggested that we apply for a special permit rather than go to zoning and then if we don't win appeal on pre-existing non-conforming. So, we are
reserving our rights with regard to that, but we're nonetheless here asking that we could park within 5t um of the property line. There are a total of 19 spaces. As I said previously, the five
on the right are for Eastern Bank and spaces 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are also for Eastern Bank. And then spaces 11 through 19 can be used by hogs and dogs and also Eastman's. The original reciprocal
easement agreement also included some parking for the owners of 797. In that reciprocal easement agreement, the owners of 797 had obligations to maintain the parking lot. Um, and along the way that became an issue and so
797's rights to park there were terminated. So now the parking is just between these other buildings. Um, there won't be any impact on uh the neighborhood. People have been parking there for years. As I've already said,
the property is suitable for its proposed use. Um, it's adequate in terms of size. Um, and it really will ease the congestion. And I can, you know, I don't know whether you're aware of it, but several months ago, the owner of 797
actually installed um fence posts with the intent of putting a fence up there across the easement. We were actually in litigation over that um in the landport and those posts have since been removed. But while those posts were up there, the
traffic was even worse. Um people basically come in and park to buy their groceries or their tackle and then they leave. So it's an in and out. Same thing for the food at the various establishments. The only parking spaces
that are really used on the full-time basis are the parking spaces for Eastern Bank. I know that Mr. Paluti, who's the owner of 797, had submitted a letter to the board basically um suggesting that
parking was not an option on this lot. Again, it's as I say, it's been going on for years. he cites to a decision um that a stipulation actually that was filed years and years ago. And that was
actually a stipulation between the owners um of our lots and the owners of the below lots which I believe is the um island >> island queen >> island queen. They own the property in
the back. Um, also, um, so that stipulation was just so if they needed access, they could come through the gate and exit through Cycle A up to Main Street. It wasn't for for them parking. It wasn't for them traveling across the
bottom areas of Cycle A. There's plenty of parking and there's plenty of movement um on the cycle portion to the right there. It starts at about a little over 16 um feet and then it widens to 25 feet. The other issue is that the
property behind Glad here, there's actually a very large drop. So there's no way um there seems to be no use that Island Queen would even want to be coming up there for anything other than an emergency egress.
Um there is a gate opening for that. Um Mr. Paluti has also suggested in his letter um he makes some reference to the word merger. Um I don't believe it's accurate to suggest that that was a merger of the
lots. He pointed to a plan from 2011 to saying it shows that the lots merged. In fact, that was a subdivision plan that shows that cycle was separated from other lots. He also points to um the tax
record which says 2014 lot number this and lot number that merged. Again, what that is not an does not apply to a merger of the lots. What it applied to was a merger of the assessing parcel
numbers because there was one portion of cycle that had not been created and then the other portion. And so when they did the subdivision, those two original um parcel IDs had to change. So there's a
different parcel ID. It's not that the lots merged. >> All right. Thank you very much. And for the record, we do have a letter here from Mr. Paluti. >> Yes. >> Um anyone else from the audience want to speak on this matter? I believe the owner the people from hogs
and dogs and Eastman >> they're w they're welcomed >> actually we should probably have spoken first but that's okay first I've got some questions you want to talk about eastman >> good evening owner of dogs and hogs so
we've been there for now almost 14 years we haven't had any issues up until prior 2021 with parking So, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't go through. I remember at
being at home and watching Mr. Pollut's request for a special permit and he tried to say that uh we were trying to put him out of business. Well, actually, it's vice versa. Okay. So, we're just asking for a little help to keep this going and keep the
parking going. We're not here to create any problems or issues. um just to keep our business up and running for our customers to be able to park there. So, that's pretty much all I have to say about that part of it. Um we don't want
to have any disgrace with our neighbors or anything of that sort. We tried to talk this thing out and it's been to no avail. So unfortunately it's come to uh this decision between the courts and us and
then with this special permit would help out a lot to keep everything sane. So that's all I have to say for that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Hi, I'm Piti of Slice of Italy. I did try to work with people. I went to talk
to him to try to get away from the owner of the building, Eli Jamal, that owned both properties. He created a false easement. He never got he never got special permit for parking. When he created the deed, he uh Johnny Hatum
that I bought the property from lost $200,000 because of Eli. He committed real estate fraud. I'll say it right out. But he did. He never got the bylaws of the town says you have to get special permits to park in the back. He never
did. And you guys saw it all that way. I I don't want to get sidetrack a minute. >> I don't know what to say after you've said that. I'm Donna Brennan. I'm employee of Slice of Italy. Um when we purchased the property,
>> we had the right to use Cycle Avenue for nine spaces. Eli terminated our rights to use it. He said because we packed a pod there. >> He said that we quit there and they >> we moved that within three days and he still filed the release easement. That's what the problem has been is they've
denied us the use that was supposed to be shared parking. They've denied us use. Furthermore, they never had a special permit zone and was never approved to put the easement. They created the spaces without approval of the town. They just made a plan, submitted it to
the land court, and it's recorded. Land court stipulation says that we have the right to use that for our lifetime. That runs with our property, the only property that was listed to run with that property. We're the only a button property that cannot use
Cycle Avenue >> and Cycle Avenue is blocked with grass. They got a fence. They they can open the gate, but they have no road. Eli, whoever they did, they got a permit to that's that never got approved. That bank, there was originally 50 parking
spaces on that bank. Someone changed it and they never got approved by the board. So, they put parking on the easement. That whole thing is a mess. It's it's a scam. And I don't know how it got through the town. I really don't. And for hogs and dogs, they got f more
tables on the other side of the building right now. You guys put assist in the seats in the park in the back. They only have five parking spaces in the front. They've got 14 about 14 seats inside. Outside they have uh more seats outside. Picnic tables. Then there's a table up
front that's not even covered. You made me block my tables with cement blocks. They have no blocks. >> We we want to take your testimony, but we're only here this evening. >> Okay. >> To allow these parking spaces within 5 ft. That's the only thing before us
unfortunately. >> But the land court stipulations, there was a merger of Cycle Avenue with lot 41. That was the purpose of the land court stipulation. And it said it shall be used as all of the roadways within the town of
Felmouth. So we can't nobody can travel on that. And the reason that was so they could reach the back of their building at 781. They needed a way to get in there for that man to sell that building years ago. >> Yep. So the purpose of Cycle Avenue is a parking lot. You can't make a street a
parking lot that I know of. >> All right. So >> became a parking lot. >> So is that information that that they should present to you, Jed? >> That that information she was just talking about. Do you need to >> I believe that was all included in the letter that they provided. >> Okay.
>> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Wait, wait one second. Anyone else? >> Okay, then we're going to go to this to the board and ask questions.
>> Uh, just to clarify, um, um, I apologize. Don't know your name. >> Donna. >> Donna, thank you. Um, when she talks about cycle and lot 41 merging, cycle is lot 41. That's the new number it was
given when cycle was created. Um, the other issues that they're discussing about the easement and all of those problems, that's the subject of the land court case and I appreciate that you focusing back on what we're here for is just parking within 5T of the lot line.
>> No, no, I understand that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Uh, start with the board. Tom, any questions? >> No. Charlotte, >> I wonder if Slice of Italy is disadvantaged by the the request for the
special permit for the five feet. It doesn't sound as if they are, but maybe I've misunderstood. It's gotten confused with this other issue. >> Well, I I'll ask staff, but I think the only thing that in front of us is to allow parking within 5T.
>> Is it's not to determine who can drive where or anything of that nature. I know it's a difficult situation, but that we just have to focus on what's in front of us >> and it doesn't disadvantage either party. It's just to continue an ongoing situation. >> You want to make that statement?
>> I think we're only here to >> about Well, keeping the special permit continues what's been going on. >> Okay. I've got a comment and a question. The question is where is the gate? It's not
on the map that we have in front of us. >> The gate is right here. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> To the right. The large >> to this property. >> Okay. Well, now so you've got the larger piece there and then you've got the smaller piece. The gate is
>> the gate is across the smaller piece that's not numbered. >> Uh the gate is right here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for that. But in what you um the application for a special permit,
I'm royally confused because in the second line it says 15 and in PNS 16 parking spaces. >> That was a typographical error and I apologize. Um >> but it's also 14 parking spaces.
>> Correct. When the reciprocal easement agreement was prepared, there were 16 spaces in the back. When we submitted it um to Mr. Corno, he contacted me and said the the plan did not have the five
spaces on the right and he wanted to know all of the dimensions. When we went back to the engineer, he could only came up with that many spaces. So now it is and and I apologize for that. But I just we got the plan
back. I didn't modify but it is um a total of 19 spaces alto together 14 in the rear now and five. >> Okay. Then my request would be that the map be corrected as to where the gate is. So that that's the gate is labeled
there because you refer to that gate and that your submitt be corrected to 14 parking spaces. So that this all becomes part of a file that we can look back on and if it's not correct, >> somebody's going to be scratching their
heads in the future. >> So I'd like to request >> amend that here. >> Not really. No, it's got to be corrected by the applicant, I believe, so that it's properly done, isn't it? >> So just to clarify, are you looking for
a note to be added to the plan that identifies the gate? >> Yes. Okay. And then to >> I think all of the parking spaces are at uh correctly numbered >> numbered to 19. >> They're numbered to 19. But in the
application and people will look back on the application for the special permit. >> On this page right here, it says 15 and in PN 16. Neither of which is correct. >> Sure. So perhaps what we could do is get a letter from the applicant's attorney
indicating the correct number of spaces. there. >> However, it can be done just so it's in the file properly. >> Very good. >> I'd be happy to submit a letter. >> Okay. >> And and advocate to the plan. >> Can we make if we can make that a condition if this were to be allowed, could we make it a condition?
>> Before you speak again, we're going to go through the board first and I'll come back to the audience. Not not right now. We're going to go through our questions >> first or comments. Thank you. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Tom. >> Can you point out for the public the five uh spots in question, please? the
five spots on the right. There's five up there. One, two, three, four, five. Um there is a lease with Eastern Bank for 10 spaces. Those five and these five. And there are signs on those that say parking for Eastern Bank. And over here
it says parking for either for Hogs and Dogs or East. >> And it'll be open parking for two stores. >> Yes. >> Those nine spaces they have. Yeah, they have um an exclusive use of those now. >> All right. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Are you all set, Pat? >> I am set. >> Okay, Jim. >> It's pretty common in this area to park next to the property line. If you go up and down the main street, it's everywhere. So, >> and it's been going on here for a long time. >> That's it. >> All right, J. Um
>> I haven't got anything to say. >> Thank you, Eric. I mean, I've never had trouble parking in this area. Um, the fence that was there made it challen like I think made it hazardous um for people driving through the lot because you can kind of get like stuck. Um, but
I don't know. No comment on >> if I could just add one more thing. Mr. Paluti himself filed for a special permit to park within five feet of his own lot line and that was granted in 22.2. >> Thank you. Well, I guess while we're on
the Oh, hey there. While we're on the subject of just parking in general, like I wouldn't like this to make us guide us towards having more parking in town in general. Um, so like we've been discussing, I think we need to look at our parking minimums and stuff. And um,
yeah, I don't know about all the context of this particular land court dispute, but just in general, we I don't think we should be like vying to ensure more parking um, in general. Well, again, I just want to thank you. I just want to remind the board that any land court
dispute is not what's in front of us this evening. This is a special permit for to allow parking within 5 ft of the property line at zero cycle avenue 19 spaces. Okay. So, any any uh other comments from
the audience or questions? The town's real estate p bill indicates a merger of the of block 41 with cycle avenue. If you look at the real estate bill, it states merger of those two lots. So, they were merged. Lot 41, the whole
thing is Cycle Avenue. It's not two separate parcels. And also, the gate to the island queen is not accessible. If you come down and look at it, they they have staircase there. You'd have to drive over the stairs. You can't get into it anymore. You cannot drive a a
fire engine could not get down there >> and it's supposed to be a fire lane there. You cannot access that. >> If you come down and look at it, you will see. >> Okay. Thank you. And if you have anything that you want to submit to the staff, you could do that. Any paperwork. >> Okay. So, we can take pictures and
things and show that to the >> and give it to the staff. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> We'll do so. >> All right. So, we continue this to >> um >> Can we request a positive motion for the next meeting? Good.
>> Do you want to keep the hearing open? >> Yeah. Why don't we keep >> We need to keep it open. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So, there are corrections. >> Yeah. This is a lot to digest. >> Okay. me. Anyways, >> so do you have another comment or >> Well, I have photos of
>> Well, >> no, I can submit those. >> Could submit those, please. >> So, we're going to uh continue this to leave it open, right? I need a motion. >> Yep. You need a a motion to continue it to a date certain and then a motion to
draft a positive. >> Both motions. >> Okay. So, I would move then that we keep this open until August 11th, >> the special permit here. >> I'll second. >> Let's ask Let's ask the applicant if they can have the uh revised plan to us
by then. >> Oh, yeah. >> I will contact the engineer tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Right. Okay. August 11th. >> August 11th. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> And then >> Well, we've got a vote on this. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I thought you just did. We have a first and a second. We haven't voted. >> Yeah. >> All in favor? >> I I unanimous. >> See August 11th. >> Wait. Wait. >> I'd like to move. Are you >> I'm sorry. >> Are you going to move it? >> That we request a positive motion for the next meeting. >> Yeah.
>> To approve the special permit. >> All right. >> Second. >> Everybody hear that? Positive motion for the 11th. Okay. All in favor? I >> I unanimous. Thank you. to see you on the 11th then.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. So now Okay, actually here. Thank you. >> So these been continued too. >> I'm sorry. >> These been continued too. The uh 28 with
heights and >> so so that they're all same. >> Good. >> You're on to the next agenda item. Next agenda item >> and that would be >> public hearing >> um discussion for town meeting articles.
>> Yes. So we've got you've got two public hearings. Um if if the board would indulge me, I would suggest that we um take them out of order. We have one public hearing for the u design guidelines for the M mixed residential and commercial overlay district
>> and then the potential zoning articles. I suggest that we take the zoning articles out of order if that's okay with the board. >> I move that we take that the board take the zoning articles out of order. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Unanimous. Thank you.
>> And I believe uh the clerk has a public hearing notice to read into the record. >> A public hearing notice in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 48 section 5 and section 1.1D. The Felman zoning bylaw. The Felmouth
Planning Board shall conduct a public hearing to discuss the following zoning articles proposed for the warrant at the annual town meeting to be held on October 26, 2026. This was published on July 10th,
2026 and July 17th, 2026. Zoning articles. Article one to see if the town will vote to amend chapter 240 zoning of the code of Felmouth in the following manner for the purposes of correcting
technical errors and omissions. Article two to see if the town will vote to amend the code of Felmouth chapter 240 zoning article 6 use tables 240-6.6B 6B
residence district's use table by adding a semi- detached and two family dwellings allowed by special permit. Article three to see if the town will vote to amend the code of Felmouth chapter 240 zoning article 10
non-conforming structures uses and lots by striking out certain portions in adding certain text and article four to see if the town will vote to amend code of Felmouth chapter 240 zoning article 7
overlay districts mixed residential and commercial overlay District 240-7.5B establishment delineation by striking out certain portions and adding certain text. >> Published. >> He already said it. Yeah.
>> Okay, great. Perfect. >> Jed, I have a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> There are a couple that we may be able to recommend to the warrant tonight. Do you want us to do that or do you >> If you're ready to recommend them to the warrant, that would be lovely. >> Okay.
Okay. So, I have four very brief presentations simply just going through the article language. So, I'm going to go through them relatively quickly and answer any questions that you might have so that you can open it up for public comment.
So, um the first article as Mr. Zin mentioned that is um to make technical corrections uh at numerous sections of the zoning bylaw. And so as you can see up on the screen um the first section is 241.0
through 24014.0. That is the essentially the entire zoning bylaw. The references as noted on the screen would be changed from board of selectman to select board and natural resources department to marine and
environmental services. Again technical uh correction. Uh then in section uh 247.8B2 uh it's the procedure section uh of the um wildlife overlay wildlife quarter overlay district. Um there is
highlighted in yellow uh simply a correction to the reference. The current language as shown in the striketh through says 7 9.7H. The correct reference is 9.8 9.8H3. Third item is 249.8C1,
the permitted uses and structures. Uh it makes reference, as you can see up on the screen, to an old way we were, um referring to definitions. If you remember, approximately two years ago, uh right after the recottification
effort, we grouped definitions into categories. It became very confusing. We then, you know, went back to the original uh formatting which was simply alphabetical listing. This is just one of those relic uh references that we need to delete. So, it's shown up on the
screen and highlighted in yellow and crossed out residential dwelling housing related terms. It's simply the category that was left behind that we just caught. Number four, 240 10.6B4. Uh this is the non-conforming section.
Uh again as shown on the screen highlighted in yellow the current reference is 246 240-6B uh and the correct reference actually is 10.6B. So something very minor and simple to
correct. And then the last item uh is again the um dimensional regulations section of the zoning bylaw. two uh sections as shown on the screen and highlighted. Uh they're essentially the same correction
that needs to be made. The current reference is 240 10.3B F 3B3F and the correct reference is 240 10.4B3F. So again, very minor um but corrections
that need to go to town meeting. I'm going to zip over to article two. This is allowing duplexes or semi- detached and two family dwellings uh by special permit in the residential
zoning districts. So that would be um as shown on the screen our double A, our single A, RB, and RC. Those zoning districts do currently do not allow uh semi- detached or two family dwellings.
Article three is the non-conforming section. So this relates to non-conforming structures, uses and lots. Uh the first so there are three individual amendments. Uh in this article, the
first is in 240.3A. Uh it's a list of items that conform with, as you can see, Mass General law chapter 4A section 7. Um, we propose to delete this section where it says, and I
quote, a a non-conforming use of a structure may be changed by another non-conforming use to, I'm sorry, to another non-conforming use by special permit provided the permit granting authority finds the new use is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the existing use. That is not an allowable um item by special permit. That's a use variance. So, you're changing from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. That's a use variance, not a special permit. That therefore, we're suggesting
that that be deleted. Similar type of um allowance that's currently in the zoning bylaw is section 240. A deals with essentially changing the lot's shape and size. Uh, I won't read it verbatim because you
can see it on the screen, but essentially what we're proposing to delete is the language that allows the zoning board of appeals to do this by special permit. Again, not an allowable special permit um application. That would be a variance again. So the first
and second amendments within this article correct um incorrect references to allowing special permits when a variance is required. Then uh the third amendment in this section is essentially as we talked
about before this is bringing in the exact language from the affordable homes act and that's all shown in bold. So, anything that we're deleting, we're uh showing as a strike through. Any bold text is new text to be added. And again, this is direct quote from the Affordable
Homes Act. It's state law. It's already in place. We're simply just bringing it into the miscellaneous provisions of um article 10. And then last but not least, article four is the expansion of the mixed
residential and commercial overlay district. Uh we've talked about this um many times. So there are two parts of this um article. The first is shown up on the screen. Uh essentially what you would be doing is if you're expanding
the Mr. district to include all of the um underlying zoning districts, the business one, business 2, and business redevelopment, you would be striking the language that says at certain eligible locations uh because you're allowing it to uh overlay all of those B1, B2, and
BR districts. And then importantly, the second part of that amendment would strike the language which is found right after that section which essentially makes reference to the Mr. Todd or the mixed residential and commercial overlay
district map which is necessary because in your previous statement you have certain eligible locations. So for those of you who were at town meeting uh the mixed residential and commercial overlay district was reduced because of the ser service area
on town meeting floor. Therefore a map was required because the overlay only uh was contained to that certain section even though there were other business one business 2 and business redevelopment sites throughout town. So,
if you're going to allow for it to be on all of those districts, there's no need for a map and there's no need for this language here. Those are the four zoning articles. I also brought along
a map. We've seen this before, but for the good of the folks at home, for article 4. This map essentially shows uh the areas for which you are proposing to allow the
mixed residential and commercial overlay district to overlay. So these red areas essentially show where you have existing B1, B2, and BR zoning in town. One note
is that your existing Mr. Cod district is essentially, if you can see my cursor, I'm just going to move it along the Mr. COD district is essentially in this area. So that's already existing. This amendment would allow for everything else shown in red to be part
of and eligible for a MRO application. And then of course I've got all of the associated maps um attached to it, but I won't go through each one of those unless there's questions uh from the board or from the public. >> Okay,
>> that's all I have. Tim have a >> I need you to go back about four pages. I didn't want to interrupt you. You were talking about uh what I'm concerned I I think you were talking about how in zoning that if the lots uh had different
ownerships over time that they effectively merged and you if you went through the letter of buildability you could prove a lot was buildable because it pre-existing. Are you saying we don't have to do that anymore? No, I I think you're referring to to
this section here. Um, so essentially what this does, perhaps it's not this one, but it's the lot shape and size. >> That was the build of the lot. It was a little bit next little bit further. >> Oh, a little bit further. >> Yeah, this is it right here.
>> Yeah. >> So, this >> the common ownership. It used to be if the if you had common ownership, the lots would merge and it wasn't buildable. Are you saying now that doesn't matter here? >> Correct. So, state law changes question. Okay. So, this whole letter of
buildability worksheet that we have in the building department is thrown out by by this >> not necessarily thrown >> this portion of it. >> It's not necessarily thrown out, but the rules that we apply as staff have changed. So, the the the applicant or
the property owner who is looking to determine whether or not a lot is buildable would still have to go through that exercise. But this law allows for different treatment of those lots that are commonly owned and next to each other. >> Before if they were if they were
commonly owned the Z you you couldn't uh you could you can own one but if you own two you lost the other one. >> Yeah. >> People used to do checkerboarding. >> Correct. >> And is this eliminating that? >> Yes it is. >> That's what I thought was kind of
confusing. I thought I read it there said oh my god. I mean I that's I think it's good. I'm just I'm just trying to understand what what >> with our criteria that there >> I was just gonna say. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I probably helped uh 20 people over the years with
that big and it may not be necessary in some cases because of this language. >> Right. >> That's what I thought I read there. I didn't realize it was doing it but it is. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. >> Technical question. One item just to dovetail on that is is it it does allow
for more flexibility, but it also constrains a future property owner to a a house that doesn't exceed 1,850 ft. Again, this is the state's initiative or effort to create buildable
lots throughout the Commonwealth and create single family homes. >> I just did one last year. It was 1,700 square feet. >> So, it would it wouldn't had to go through the hearing. It would have been by right. Thank you. >> Yeah. What's the impact of this on um
our existing zoning that has like minimum lot sizes? >> Well, it's not necessarily um I mean it essentially opens up lots that are smaller that were previously not buildable. It allows those lots to be
built upon provided that they meet all of the criteria listed in this language. Meaning, so a lot that now has 10,000 square ft uh which didn't meet the minimum lot size before can now potentially be built upon provided that
they uh conform to the rest of the language here. I won't go into the details of that because it's a little bit deep, but essentially they'd have to prove when the lot was built. Did it conform to zoning at the time? If it has a certain amount of square footage, it's
now considered buildable, but only for an 1850 foot home. >> But so if somebody were to subdivide a larger lot into 10,000 foot lots, would they be able to build according to this? >> Not in my just for pre-existing.
>> This is a pre-existing situation. What I'd like to bring up as an example, I think this is what's happening is Marav Vista was originally created with a ton of 4,800 square foot lots. They're scattered all over through the proof.
They were approved made non-buildable because they had common ownership of the lot next door. And then we had a buy lot says had to be at least 7,000 square feet. So all those 4,000 lots scattered in that huge, there's not that many, but we have them in other towns. That all
goes by the board when this passes. >> Again, they have to meet the 10,000 foot minimum. >> So, >> it has to be a 10,000 Y, but there's a 7,000 foot minimum that we that we >> now there is. >> So, is that going away too?
>> No, this is just another layer in a very already complicated nonconforming uh structures if they have at least 10,000 square feet. So my concern was we have all these lots that are under 7,000 square ft. That's they're still going to be no
good. >> Yeah, they would be handled in a different way. >> That clears it up for me quite a bit. Thank you. >> Right. >> Complicated. >> Yeah, it is. >> All right, Tom. >> Yeah. Hi, Jet. Article two. Um, just for clarity, what is the definition of uh
semi- detached >> and multif family? I was going to ask that question too. That's a good one. So I think the best way to answer that question is to show you in our zoning bylaw. It's one of the items that uh we will work to try and address moving forward
for the definition because you know we had the similar question about that. Let me just quickly get there. I think you can tell by now that I don't have it memorized. So, as you can see on the screen, it's the first thing. It's a two It's two one
family dwellings built together at the same time and separated by a fireproof division with no openings. That is your definition of a semi- detached dwelling. And then two family is further down and I'm I'm guessing you know the definition
there, but it's a detached dwelling designed for two families. So essentially, if I'm reading this correctly, it's essentially two two units but up against each other sharing a common wall that's semi- detached. And then a two family structure could be
vertically separated, could be horizontally separated, could be some combination there, too, but it's it's a structure designed for two families. >> One footprint. >> One footprint. Correct. A and how it's been determined in the past is there's
at least one wall where there's living space on both sides. >> Either side. Yeah. >> Either side to different units. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> And so a lot of times you see upstairs attic over a garage >> with a garage underneath. I built a
couple of them and that was that >> that was the termination. So that's always been >> a lot of Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And that's been the rule for a long time. >> And for the record, so what you're looking at here is the residents district's use table. And so you'll see
why the article is phrased the way it is because semi- detached and two family dwellings is already an itemized use in that table. So essentially under this article, what we would be doing is changing the ends
>> to SP- P currently as drafted in the article. So that would be a special permit with the planning board. >> Okay, Charlotte, >> this might be another terminology question. What is where do duplexes fit into this language?
>> It's just a common term for a two family dwelling. >> So it would semi- detach and two family dwellings and duplexes are all the same. >> Yes. >> So were this to pass, this would take us into accord with what the state is asking?
Um, no, not technically. Um, this, so that's sort of a loaded question. So the the state, my understanding is that the state is moving forward with legislation that
would allow duplexes by right in all res in all zoning districts that allow single family homes. >> That is still pending its way through the legislature. Uh so to answer your question directly, that hasn't technically passed yet. But this if
passed the way it would or is presented, it would not be essentially consistent because your article says that you would allow it by special permit. And that law, if passed, would allow it by right, right? >> So it's not quite consistent. And this
article that you have is restricted to just the residents districts, not the agricultural districts which also allow single family homes by right. >> So that's the only difference is the by right issue and not agricultural. >> Correct. And where it's located.
>> Okay. So in effect we're we're kind of jumping the gun a little bit. If we were to do this, I think that the for purposes of a public hearing, it would be better to clarify that so that people who come to a a public hearing would be aware of the
entire context of it and have a chance to discuss it. So I to me bringing this forward now is premature. >> Noted. I I couldn't tell you whether or not that legislation's actually going to pass or not, too. So I mean, or really
>> no there's there's no knowing that there's no knowing that but it it's possible that we might want to do this I think that the the letter that uh Laura Moahan sent >> really added a lot of um insight to the whole conversation >> that were we to do this it really should
be with some standards and not open-ended so that it wouldn't go as a kind of a naked by right or not by right or special permit her point as as I understood it I could be wrong is that if you do it by special permit, you're adding an extra layer of expense to the
homeowners. One, so she was arguing, please don't make it by special permit, but do have standards so that people know what you're trying to do. And she seemed to be arguing that there are several ways to do semi- detached, two family, multif family, however you want,
duplexes, however you want to call it. And the ones that she feels that would be most helpful to the town would be allowing existing buildings to be retrofitted in effect >> to be adapted for multi for two family
use which would be one kind of an aesthetic in a in a neighborhood. And another would be if you're building a new one to have some standards for that of what that might look like so that it would fit better into existing
neighborhoods. Particularly were we to decide that yes, we want to have semi- detached, two family, duplexes, whatever you want to call them, in all the residential districts that we would still be able to be having
some uh say ahead of time that would be guidance to people about the aesthetics of it and the way it might change their neighborhood. My whole concern around allowing duplexes in every neighborhood, two things. I don't see how we would target
any one neighborhood and say only they or not those can have them. That really is unjust actually across the town or how we could say yes go ahead and do whatever you want. We should have some standards. The way this would be going
forward is without that guidance. If we could slow it down so that we could have a longer conversation uh around the things that uh Miss Moyahan brought up, it would be a good thing. It would be helpful.
>> The other part is there really there there are three kind of overriding competing concerns in adding this kind of density. There are the density issues. How dense do we want things to be? And I think most of us who would like the town
to remain inclusive want more density so that we could hopefully make that affordable. And there's no provision in that to do that. There is the whole issue of maintaining the character of our neighborhoods, which this board has always attempted to do and we haven't
quite brought it up yet, but the the town water department has very forcefully brought to our attention. There's the capacity issue of how much capacity do we have to add density and additional septic issues and water use
issues. And his argument in his letter is we have practically no leeway there. So going backwards, applying it to what we're being asked to put forward to a public hearing, this is too incomplete um to go forward. It it leaves out all
of these really big questions that would be big changes in town and it kind of disguises them in this simple language. >> All right, Jim, you got >> Yeah, I just have a question. Uh what's the difference between uh a special
permanent buy right with conditions? >> Um well, >> the whole reason why you buy right is you just apply for a building permit to get it >> permit, right? But when with conditions, it sounds like it's a special permit. >> Well, I can tell you that a special permit is a discretionary permit issued
by a special permit granting authority being the planning board or the zoning board of appeals. >> A building permit is issued by the building commissioner. >> Who applies the conditions? That's my question. >> With the building permit, >> yes, >> the building commission >> is proposing that we do this.
We put conditions on these by right uses. And I have a hard time understanding the difference between that and a special permit. >> Well, uh, as I mean I guess in both situations, a special permit of building permit could be denied, but in a specific situation, a special permit
granting authority could deny a special permit because it is discretionary and there are decision criteria for issuing that. >> My question when it's by right, we're talking about moving some of these things into a byite issue, >> right? >> And Charlotte and other people suggested, well, we should put conditions on it. No, some put
conditions on some. >> Okay. Some >> and distinguish among them. They're not all the same. >> Some you might say by right would be good. That would be a better thing. And some you would say no, that needs conditions in order to protect these other values.
>> I I think condition sounds like a special permit. That's what I've >> I guess you could call them similar, but they're definitely not the same. >> Okay. So, we're kind of moving forward here like I would say almost out of order. >> Just a language thing. I was having a hard time understanding >> out of order here. So, what I want to
do, we have a couple of uh people in the audience that uh have been invited here. Scott, would you uh health agent? Because we're talking about multif family and duplexes and I wanted to have the board hear about
>> he's got a longer ride. I don't know if you want to >> about the health the health >> health agent. I just want to I can I'm going to be brief. >> Um I'll tell you where we are with uh wastewater and go from there. So as you decide whether you want to increase
density in non sewer areas. I'll give you a few things to think about. Just give me one sec. So there's all the nitrogen sensitive areas highlighted in a yellowish color >> which is the vast majority of town. So
right now the regula as as the wastewater plans are being developed. What is required now is all new construction and but by using the definition in title five which means new homes vacant lot being built increases in flow an existing home with an added
bedroom or raise and rebuilds regardless of the number of bedrooms. So they're all putting in denitrification units now. Okay. Um and so that regulation is existing as the wastewater plans develop and um Amy LOL comes to us and says
we're going to do you know IAS here and we're going to do sewer here. Um the board of health is going to add extra triggers right so if you have an area in town we know you're not sewing you know you need x number of IAS why would you not have other triggers in the
future such as sales or such as replacements and so forth. We're not at that point yet. So, as it stands, um, plans are being in development. It's only for new construction. Um, looking at your map, Jay, can you call that map up? That cool map you had. Is it in this
one here? >> Oh, right here. So, when you're in a non- sewer area, such as, let's say, these lots I'm circling here. Um, ditrification isn't quite the same as sewering. Generally speaking, it's a 2:1. For every two homes you put an NIA on is
about the same as one sewer. Think about our wastewater treatment plant runs at 3 milligrams per liter, 5 milligrams at the worst. We have one IIA system right now that's readily available in Fmouth with it's a 10 milligram per liter or less, which is more than double what a wastewater treatment plant we get. So
when D looks at these maps later on and what we've done is sewing being let's say a one an IIA you'll need two of them. I think one of the things about IAS is they're they're individual. There is variation. How are they maintained?
How are they operated? And quite frankly, aren't going to take as much stuff out, including nitrogen, as a wastewater treatment plant will. So, never think that they're equivalent. Say, I think what we're starting to hear is, well, I'll just throw an IIA in. It'll be fine. Well, there an IIA is much better than an a septic system.
Certainly better than 1963 nick, you know, uh, vintage septic system, but not quite the same as sewer. All right, sewer is much much higher level. And so as you think about this, I just wanted, you know, keep in the back of your mind that, you know, if you take some of these lots here and you you put a um
let's say a 100 units, okay, 100 bedrooms, 50 bedrooms, um that's going to go into the math equation. It's not going to be the same as sewing. And then there's going to be additional needs because this is one big giant math test. As we as I run these, Jed and I run the meetings monthly. each waterershed and
then there's subwaterersheds inside the waterersheds there's a certain number of nitro amount of nitrogen that you need to take out and then you whatever you sewer you take that off and then when you IIA you have you basically need a two two for every house tie-in if you
add then that needs to be factored in the math equation so if you were at example five uh 5,000 kilograms in a watershed of nitrogen per year and you put in something large you might be 5,200 in that wershed well that 200 100 kilograms per year has to be factored in
and additional IAS or diff additional sewing will have to be in that watershed to compensate for any future development. Okay. So IAS doesn't mitigate it to zero. It just lessens the pain, reduces the nitrogen beyond what a a normal septic system would. It doesn't
inherently make it zero. And I think some of the people some people are starting to think, well, I'll put an I8 and I've done everything. Um the best IAS are right now between five and 10. there's only one and it's not even general use approved yet which kind of scares me but that's that's another
another topic is that one the one unit is under proision is uh provisional. Uh there's another one that's being used a little bit more down but isn't really sold around here. And so, you know, it's it's it's a lot to ask of a particular technology and over time we don't know
it's long long term. And so I I I can't sit here and tell you that all these IAS are going to be running at five in perpetuity or running at three certainly not um and so you know the board of health wrote the regon 10 and the plans are being done on 10 milligrams per
liter which right now is one unit perhaps. Well, there's two one readily available right now. And so, um, that's I just wanted to say when you think about as you're developing and as you think about going outside with Mr. Cod, because I'm assuming Mr. Cod increases
the densities a lot on a particular lot, um, is there's going to be a price to pay for that in that wershed and the nitrogen loading is still higher than it would be if it's sewered. >> So, uh, you said the town's mandated
certain, uh, IA to use now. Well, they didn't rate a certain brand. They they said 10 milligrams per liter. Now, all the SE Now, you've been a developer and you've put in your fair share of denitrifications and if you've been in the business, they have a they have an approval of 19 milligrams per liter, not
10. 10 is the new gold standard for denitrification. There's two units that are hitting 10. Um, one is the nitrex, which is a combination of two different technologies. which I've seen a couple go in and the
other brand is Nitro, which is what pretty much every single one in the last year has been uh coming to the board of health for approval. >> Is the board of health mandating one of these two? >> No, they're mandating by by what its performance is. And because those two are the only two getting 10, there is no
other ones in the hopper, right? Until the technologies get to the point where we have five, six, seven or eight to choose from. I wish to be that kind of number where they we you can just get one that gets under 10. So they're using a milligrams per liter because that's what the plans are being done on.
>> And are you getting any um any uh issues with developers or builders because these are not state approved yet? Well, there is some extra paperwork and there's some there's a the D wants a
financial mechanism for for in case these systems don't work out which makes extra insurance or extra things on the developer. So, yes. Um but that's essentially what I mean I'm trying to think of the last subdivision
um would be the the Josiah path has one. Um all the the large sail away lane all the ones I think those were ZBA. They may not have been yours, but that come to mind. They're all Nitro systems because they're made locally. >> Um, and you know, they're readily available. And so the engineers have
sort of switched to that one brand. I'm hoping there'll be others, but D is not listening. Nobody in the room's from D, right? Are not very easy to deal with. There's a technology in Japan called the Fuji Clean, and they're not really interested in dealing with this with mass D to sell a few thousand of
them. They're just not because because the hoops that you need to go through. So, I think D needs to rethink what they're doing and be a little bit more open about new technology because I certainly do not want to go into this thing putting in by, you know, hundreds per year of these um and only having one
brand. But it doesn't matter what the brand is. I think we're getting a little off topic. The the go the reality is is Amy LOL can do a heck of a better job than any local denitrification unit on a particular property. >> You mind if >> there's just no doubt there's just no comparison. You mind taking any other questions the board might have?
>> Yeah, I think Eric had a question. >> Yeah. In addition to nitrogen, what are other things that wastewater can remove, wastewater treatment plant can remove that like even a denitrifying system is not going to >> well phosphorus um and there are no
approved phosphorus technology. Um they probably do a better job at reducing BOD and TSS which is the floaties and the organic matter in there. Um though some of the deniturification units are pretty good at taking BOD and lowering TSS. One of the benefits sort of the way I
look at it too is is right now we're worried about nitrogen. We don't know what we're worried about in 30 years. Let's say there's a PAS removal device that you could put on sewage treatment plants. Well, you're certainly not going to go back to X number of homeowners who just spent their $40,000 to put in plus
$2,000. Well, maybe a little less than 40, but somewhere between 35 and 40 and $2,000 a year to maintain and tell them you also have to put this next doohickey on there, which removes this. That's not going to work. You only go to that well once. So, I would prefer things to be more on the sewer side, but there's also problems with, you know, with with with
capacity and things of that nature and and so forth. So, we're not going to be able to sew the whole town. It's just not going to work at the cost of what sewering is. So, the denitrifications, though good, are our only thing to fall back on, aren't quite as good. So I think if it's the best we can do, some
towns are just going to be going with that 100%. In North Falmouth, it's really we're not planning most likely going to plan sewering there. Um it'll be mostly Dina, although those wersheds are in better shape than Great Pond or Woy Bay. Um I think sewering is um better and I think but if you're going
to I mean my personal opinion is having a lot of development with increases in future development with use utilizing IAS. I just don't they're good. I just don't want you to think it's an equivalent to sewing. I think that's the one takeway takeaway I would like you to have. >> John,
>> I can't wait. I'm going to go down the line here. Bobby, you have any questions? >> Uh, no. I I just the uh the letter from uh uh the water superintendent, uh Matt. Um >> we're going to I'm going to let him speak.
>> I I'll wait. I'll wait. Yeah, >> just a a question like for instance the big thing on Sandwich Road, what level of uh nitrogen was that getting down to? >> Well, so once you're over 10,000 gallons, you no longer deal with the locals. You deal with D. >> I think D uh negotiated somewhere between three and five because that's a
sewage treatment plant, not a septic system. >> Once you're over 10,000 gallons, you're in a sewage treatment plant. For example, Serest sewage treatment plant. Okay? If you'd go below that, if you go below 10,000, you would not be a sewage treatment plant. Then my board the board of health would be looking for something that got
>> so if these things >> the bigger the system the better you can get down. You're re you're going to have somebody monitoring it more. You can get a groundwater discharge permit system over 10,000 or a septic system over five 6,000 when you get a larger system like that into the definitely into the single
digits because you're going to have a essentially you're going to be having a much more complicated process than throwing in a single unit. So you could get into the five and five, three to five, three to eight range on a larger septic or or treatment plant. It's just
a homeowner variability. We already have 300 in. There's a lot of variability. Homeowners could turn them off. They could not pay the bill to the operator and the operator has not. So, for example, a lot of these tend to produce more sludge because it's when that the
when they clean up the B the BOD and the TSS that that floaties need to go somewhere and they sink to the bottom. So, you some of these systems need to be pumped a little more frequently. And when you're relying on homeowners, you're going to essentially have a lot more variability than you're going to have sewage treatment plant operators.
And that's part of the problem. So, we're going to have to put them in. We're going to have to put them, I would say, well over a thousand of those in addition to sewering. Um, I'm just saying in development areas I you you just don't want I would my advice to you is just to think it's not quite the
same. It's like okay, we've solved that problem. We're going to throw in a denitrification unit. It's not the same as a sewage treat. >> But I think what we're trying to do is create housing. >> Correct. Well, and and there's been a real roadblock of, you know, nitrogen and housing and and hoping there would
be >> so environment they they pull they're pulling away from each other. The more housing you have, the more waste water you're going to generate, the more you've got to clean up and the more you've got a problem. That problem doesn't go away because that just makes sense, right? That's just the problem the way the way it is. >> Yeah. >> So,
>> Scott, how many bedrooms does it take to get to the 10,000 mark? >> 90. >> 90. Okay. Thank you, Pat. >> What I'm hearing you say, I believe, Scott, is when we're looking at Mr. Cod, it would be advantageous if we really
didn't add more. You have to I'm not I'm I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other. I'm just saying you have to factor it in. So if if it if that wershed I whether it's Green Pond or whatever wershed it's in >> if if the number goes up by 2% we have
to factor a 2% increase in wastewater flow which then changes the dynamics of what was required in each particular watershed. You do have a bit of buildout. It's not my area of expertise. I'm not doing the planning but you do have to factor substantial increases.
The board tries to mitigate that now by saying throw an IIA if you're adding a bedroom. So at least we're not going out in the weeds over the next 15 years and we have an extra thousand bedrooms or 250 bedrooms in a particular watershed. Um so we're putting the IAS on because we don't have sewer there. Does that answer your question?
>> Well, kind of. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Okay. Let's say Kenyan's Corner isn't in this. But let's say it would be maybe a good thing to put a Mr. Cod right there. >> Sure. um because it's not particularly
charming or anything like that. It's already what it is. >> If we did something like that there, would it a large IIA system or would you then require a mini compact sewage treatment plant? >> Well, it depends on what their gallons
per day is and what their flow is. So, there's no questioning it's if if the design flow by the developer is 10,000 or more, I have nothing to do with it goes to the state. Okay, that's >> anything less, it goes to the board of health. >> Okay. >> And the closer you are to the wershed, the more impact you have on it. That
property, particular one you mentioned, would be close to the watershed. Therefore, it would be more impacted by any future development. It's just something I would caution you to think about is is that, you know, sewer, treat it, ship it out to sea is what our goal
is, right? I would imagine they'll at some point in time as we work our way to you know sea coast and sea pit with a sewer long after I'm retired um you know it I won't be here then and you know maybe I'll be on the planning board. I'm just kidding. Is that is that you know
sewer would probably with with our hopes be available at some point to people on Main Street. I mean East Fmouth Highway, but we're not at that point. >> Sewer and dump out to the ocean. We're depleting our water supply too particularly in times of drought. What do you mean as far as reducing to not having septic? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It was 0.1. That was uh the last uh study that was done. It was going to be a negligible impact uh at a 3 million gallon per day. >> So, not much. >> 0.1 is the number. I have just had a zoom with uh with Amy and that was the
number. >> So, it was an insignificant amount, but that is factored in with the design because you would obviously not you're not you're not taking your waste water and putting it back into groundwater, >> right? or not. >> Yeah. >> So, I know I've been following this in the enterprise which has done some
complex reporting there. >> Um I'm still concerned. >> Bob, did you have a question? >> Yeah. Uh so all this density is close to the bays and estuaries and all that. If
we switch gears and uh push density further inland, would that have any effect or >> so? Very interesting. A Amy Amy's just brilliant. I if you ever have a chance to talk to Amy, Jed and I were on it today. I was just blown away with the with 50 people from the state and the feds and she just killed it. Anyway, so
if Amy, if you're listening, every every pretty much every water body, every every place in town goes through either a freshwater or a saltwater embainment. It goes through a pond or a salt water. So there's really no escaping it. Yes. though if you are up off a Boxberry Hill Road or or or or or Cloverfield, you
know, you're farther there is mitigation through the soil and and attenuation in the soil. So, yes. Yes, it would be. But, you know, if you're up that high, you're probably feeding into the Kunameset pond, a crooked pond, and then you get the crooked pond. Well, there is no That's the reason why we're looking for an alpha pipe in my opinion is
there's no easy place to dump it. >> Yeah. Yeah. And the only place that we don't have nitrogen sensitive is boulders and nasties and the marine. So >> Charlotte >> Scott, um would it be fair to to summarize because you've given us a
great deal of information that from a health standpoint here in town, increasing density in this way by extending Mr. cod out to the villages is not the but you're cautioning us against it because there's an impact to how much the soil can handle and how much an IIA
system the technology is not quite up to cleaning it that the town's decision to say on the sewers was a good decision >> I wouldn't try to sway you just saying it needs to be factored in and just don't think of an IIA or a sewage treatment plant is quite a sewage
localized sewage treatment plant on site doing quite the work that a what our sewer would do. I'm not going to sway you not to do it because I understand the need for housing. I've got a 21 and a 23 year old. I understand. So, >> we are in addition to trying to do housing, we are trying to protect our
soil. We're trying to protect the aquifer. We are doing more than urging more housing. There are more responsibilities than that. There are other values that have a high salience here in this town. And as I hear what you're saying, you're cautioning us that
IIA technology is not up to doing as good a job as sewing. And it might be better to wait for the sewering or never increase the density that greatly in those areas. >> Yeah. I And I don't know what the future of the IIA technologies are, >> right? None of us does.
>> You know, I'd love to see I'd love to see a $5,000 one that gets 2 milligrams per liter, but they're not here anywhere. But even so, you could not then mandate a homeowner to buy the most expensive or the newest or the best or to maintain it adequately. You would
have individual sewer systems by house. >> No way to monitor it really. >> Well, they're developing a responsible management entity to try to oversee it. it, you know, instead of so that has all that stuff's being worked on and how the how fair the select board just determined, you know, to get a committee
going about how is it fair to distribute because there'll be some people that don't need denitrification. There some people who pay for the sewer and some people will be essentially burying a RAV 4 in their yard by cost. That's essentially what that cost the cost of a car buried in your yard plus $2,000 a
year which is the maintenance on the car. So, you know, um, and unfortunately my nickname at the office now is Dreamc Crusher. Um, >> because I believe Mr. Cod allows 21 units per acre. That's quite an increase in anything that's allowed there now.
>> Yeah. So, I mean, you just have to factor it in. >> I just wait. Don't don't go to turn, Jim. >> I know, but there's important I think there's a solution. I heard you. If if we were had Mr. COD and we get to where they have the individual systems at 10,000 gallons and we get down to the
level. So there is a way to get greater density if Mr. Cod if we put in individual sewer plants. >> Iffy. That's very iffy. >> Well, he just that wouldn't be the town putting in a sewage treatment plant. That would be the private developer. >> Private developer. But that's I'm just I'm the one that proposed this and I was
just wanted to put Right now we have 40 bees going up all over the place and they have a way to do it. Can they do it? But, uh, we can't do it by right. I was trying to find a way that we could do it by right. So, if we were doing them big enough where we had the 90
bedrooms, which is that's only, uh, 45 unit twobedroom units, that's not that big. >> So, you would get you you would get a sewage treatment plant >> and you would >> the numbers work. >> They I wouldn't regulate it. So, you would have to sort of give a number that would be similar to the treatment plant
that you were getting. Um, and that's what 375 Sandwich Road, I think, is where the three number came from, is try to get it close to what the treatment plant's running. Still extra waste water. It's still three, but it's not zero, but it's a, you know, >> whatever. Depends on what each lot happens to have on it. Now,
>> let's add another element to this conversation, though, because all you're doing is adding an extra expense when you add this very fancy big IA system. You were talking about affordable housing. This isn't about affordable housing as soon as you start making those additions. So you're now talking
about 21 units per acre that probably in all likelihood only 25% might be judged to be affordable but would not be really affordable and the others will be market rate and you have not achieved your goal but you have really harmed the environment of the town.
>> So imagine if everyone that already owns a home in the town of Felmouth was mandated to put a denitrification system in. Probably wouldn't have to put any sewers in. >> No, >> that isn't what I heard. the suit the dat you'd need to do a lot of both. You need to do a lot of both.
>> All the 30,000 homes that already exist. If they had to put deitrification. >> Okay. So, so, so let me just >> I'm the point I'm trying to make is there's a lot of us already own homes and already have our security and we don't have to spend any money and we can put all the poo in the water that we want and no one can say anything to us
about it. >> We're trying to find a way to have more housing. >> Understand? >> In a reasonable fashion. This is just more >> I'm not arguing against it. All I'm saying is just when you think about housing in this town >> understood. What I'm saying is you just need to think about it and it'll need to be factored in and just wanted to let
you know that >> and that's that's why we invited you here to see >> right is that septic is not denitrification. But I totally understand what you said, you know. >> So Tom, any questions or comments? >> Um
when uh when can we sew up Sandwich Road? Um just just that question >> because the outfall pipe can handle a sewer line right on Sandwich Road. >> They're designing for 3 million gallons per day. That is not the entire town. >> Okay.
>> The cost of sewing once you start getting f this is really a me question. >> Yeah. >> Our goal is to sewer south of 28 as a primary. >> Okay. Um whether things change over time, it's possible. >> All right. Thank you.
>> And Eric. Eric, >> yeah, I feel like the debate has centered on the expansion of Mr. Cod, but I think that um and if we are to expand density, doing it along that route 28 corridor, I think is like the best way to do it because
there is the potential to eventually put in sewer. Um, I think this this letter and this debate makes me very concerned and it might be moot because of what the state decides, but like if we were to suddenly allow um additional density kind of throughout the town, you're
going to get, you know, like there's a potential for up to 18,000 units or whatever. And we have no ability to sewer the whole town as we discussed. Um and that's going to contribute as much or more um to use of water and
um stress on nitrification and stuff than something like a 20 unit or 40 unit development that might even have its own. Um, so I guess yeah, what I this this whole letter and stuff made me very concerned um about the concept of expanding kind of across the whole town
because like we've heard there's no way we're ever going to sewer every house in the town and how are we going to plan? We like we just can't plan around transportation infrastructure, wastewater um or water and and if you're building duplexes and stuff, people have lawns and gardens and they'll be watering
those things. Um whereas I I like the Mr. COD in so far as I actually think it's if we're true approach to this problem and we want to create more housing, it's probably the most efficient from a resource perspective and it seems like would maybe leave us the option to like sewer and deal with
other contaminants beyond nitrification. Like you said, PAS I think microplastics will be a growing concern um in the future and sewering technology is rapidly advancing in terms of like removing those other sorts of contaminants. there's no way that we
will ever get like thousands of duplexes and stuff across the town to like accommodate those um issues. So, I get very Yeah, this letter concerned me a lot, I would say. But I don't think that it makes me want to throw the Mr. Cod expansion out the door necessarily
because I think it is one of the better approaches. Um >> All right. Thank you. The letter you're talking about is probably from the water department. >> Both both this and the water department. Both both things. >> All right, Scott. Thank you so much. Just one quick thing. When you the the previous one with the small lots, keep in mind that septic still would have to
fit. >> And in the purple, you you're limited to one bedroom per 10,000 square feet of lot space. >> So, it won't work for everybody just >> because I think last time they're not going to say that title five title five will still take precedence over any of
that. >> Those are wellhead areas, right? >> Yep. The wellhead areas. So, the person's the toughest spot is over here. >> Yeah. >> North side of Jenkins. There's a lot of small lots that are 656. They're still limited to the one kills if we put it there.
>> I don't make the rules, just enforce them. >> Scott, thank you very much. >> Before our next Matthew L. >> One second, please. >> Before we go any further, we need to adjust the temperature in this room. >> Oh, really?
>> Heat it up. >> Before one of us can't talk anymore. >> Jack it off. I left my jacket. I left my winter coat and had it rain. >> Thank you so much. >> Yes, sir. >> Matthew Landon, Felmouth, Water Department, Water Superintendent.
>> Um, so I just wanted to express to you guys um in a letter just to get it out there that, you know, the town's expanding significantly um in the current developments that are already in place that we're planning for in the near future. for instance, 375 sandwich.
We've already accommodated for those developments, but if this moves forward, um we potentially might be exceeding our our withdrawal permits and that would mean that D is coming after me and we can only provide so much water
based on our permit. Um you know, we do have an additional source from JBCC which is, you know, extra water at peak demand, but I just want you guys to be clear like you bring the water down. so low and if it doesn't recharge, Long
Pond is 60% of our entire community. >> Um USGS that came in last year and did a study of our current aquifer at Long Pond in 2020 to 2025 uh you know they took the um vertical datim of the um
total volume of the of Long Pond and uh in 2020 when COVID hit everybody came down here and they're here for a year or two. Well, in those two years was the the least amount of volume in Long Pond because it was year round residents. It
wasn't seasonal fluctuations and allowed us the recharge in the winter. We weren't getting the snow wasn't or if it was raining, it was just raining too hard and it's not it it's not uh going to benefit the the water system. Um,
my suggestion would be to hold off on this until I can potentially change our irrigation policies because right now that's really what's killing us in the summer. Um, people are not being responsive to um turning their
irrigation off when we're in a level two significant drought for from May till the current state. Um people are saying why don't we um enforce this? Well I have 17 staff members, six making the
water and 11 uh fixing the water system. Uh when the restrictions come into place in May I have the last two months of my operating budget to pay for overtime. And when do people put on the irrigation? between 4 and 9:00 am. So
from 4 to 7, I'm paying significantly more for someone to go around and police to turn off their irrigation and then they don't do anything. So our only option is to turn someone's water off and then you go to turn their water off
and they have a disabled person living in their home. They have uh senior citizens over 65 by CMR 22. You can't do that. So there's all sorts of stuff that is unforeseen that we have to deal with on our side and you know there's a lot
on the table for us to um keep producing all this water for more builds. Um so that's where we stand. I don't know if anyone has any specific questions. I didn't want to get um too in depth with numbers per se because I didn't want to
confuse anybody but they're um >> Do you have time for a few questions? >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay, we're going to start this end this time. Tom, do you have any questions? >> No. >> Comments. >> Charlotte, >> I was really persuaded by what you wrote. Thank you very much for writing
to us. Um I I can't imagine that we would go against your recommendation. >> Thank you. >> You put up Mr. Cod and run out of water. >> Um I think Mr. Cod as it is now is fine, but extending it to the villages already. we've carved out a couple of
villages that wouldn't be touched is is probably a really bad idea and we would have to is a bad idea and would have to think about this business in relation to expanding um density throughout the town and every residential zone. It's just a very huge concern.
You know, if you uh if you're having guests to your house and you're going to they're all going to stay overnight, you count your beds. If you don't have enough beds, you're not going to do it. I mean there are limits on what you can do with the place where we live and this
water is a real limit >> and we need to respect it. >> Thank you Pat. >> I've got um questions and comments I think. Sure. >> Okay. Do you measure salinity in Long Pond? >> Can't answer that. >> You can't do that?
>> No, I I can't answer that. I'd have to get back to you. >> Oh. Oh. Oh. The reason I'm asking is because Long Pond water level is dropping down >> and at some point seawater is going to start impinging on our water supply on Long Pond. I a couple of years ago my
husband tried to find the answer to that and no one would give it to him if it was being monitored. So, >> uh I'd have to get back to the um the planning board on that answer. I don't have that in front of me. I would appreciate that knowledge, Matt. Um because that adds to your problems and
it adds to our problems with what do we do with adding more residences that you don't have the water to supply >> and we are in drought now. >> Correct. And I don't know that it's going to change when you hear with the weather
national weather service predicting all these heat domes all over the place and getting horrible. And so that's one side of the equation or maybe it's two sides of the same part of it. But we're also dealing with a state that is killing us
saying you will do it even if you can't dispose of the sewage, even if you can't provide the water. They haven't done it yet. >> And how do you deal with the state and get them to work with reality?
>> Well, just so everyone in this room knows, right now, um, in the fall, we're going to go into a conceptual design to put the Ishuma well back online. uh that would give us an additional
source um for year round um water for the for the the community. However, this is not like a two to three year turnaround to do all this. This is like a 10-year turnaround. We have to conceptually design to see how much water we can actually withdraw from this
location. If that's the actual location, what the contaminants are at that location, then we have to go forward and proceed to submit all this to D. D then has to reddraft our entire like all of our documentations and our permitting. So it it's not going to happen
overnight, but that's where we stand. It's, you know, >> and we can't take more out of the aquifer of the four towns that have that coalition there. >> Correct. >> So we're stuck. >> And the only alternative would be just
like a wastewater treatment plant. you build a 40 unit condo area and they'd have to tap their own well and get their own private water treatment group and they can hire their own they'll be completely separate. That's the only alternative. >> Hadn't thought of that.
>> They're >> but they're not completely separate. It's the same aquifer. Yeah, >> same aquifer, but they're they'd have to get all their permitting and everything done completely by themselves. We have nothing to do with it. completely private, >> which means it's just it's unregulated >> where it's regulated.
>> Well, they'd be regulated as a private water company, >> right? >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Yeah. >> Years ago when we were doing a long-term comprehensive plan, Pat and I with Bob were working on it. We were kind of told that there are there is a lot of water
in the ground in North Fmouth and there and if we had ways to get at it. I I understand my little long pond is central to downtown. There's a lot of use right around it, but there's a ton of land out there and there's ground water there. Is is there chances of of expanding the uses there and getting the
water that we need for people out of those areas and not just demanding it out of Long Pond? >> Uh potentially, yes. But there I mean that's a a very long >> Well, we were told the big the problem with it was is getting water is we
didn't have the discharge permits for it too. I mean this was a long time ago. But >> isn't there a great big aquifer up there with lots of water? >> I mean the Cape Cod lens has it supplies water for the entire Cape. Um how much it can actually supply peak demand on
the 4th of July in the road race is all dependent of the weather. how many people come down here for that one weekend. For instance, this past Fourth of July was on a Saturday. It was 95 degrees out and everyone was using water. >> We couldn't even get our elevated storage tanks to refill overnight
in time because people are using so much water. >> So, >> that's with the existing well system >> with our existing Yes. with our with Long Pond and our additional sources are crooked. So, um, you know, all of the all this stuff has to be designed and
paid for and permitted. There's a a lot that goes into that. So, just to say, yeah, we could probably tap a weld anywhere you want, but we'd have to tie that all in and go through A through Z to get >> Well, when you build housing for people, you got to give them water. I mean, you
can't either they two go together. >> Correct. But that's what I said. I recommend >> So, you don't build housing. >> Correct. >> That's what you're saying. Yes, >> Bob. >> Yeah, thank you for this uh letter. Uh I
speak to a lot of people about uh housing on the Cape and one of the what surprises me is a lot of people bring up water. >> Uh and you you look around, you see the waste that goes on and you drive around, you see these uh houses with big huge
lawns. They they think it's like an English manor or something. And I'm just wondering if there are other ways that we could do that's not going to solve the problem, but uh maybe through some regulations through the uh building commissioner or some other bylaws with
that uh limit the amount of uh irrigation of land on a on a piece of property uh leaving uh a lot of the property uh naturally vegetated or uh using uh zero escaping uh uh plantings and things like that. Uh I know in my
organization uh we try and use uh natural droughtresistant plants and things like that. We uh narrow the scope of land that uh they can have lawns on. There are also other uh lawn types of uh
uh materials like uh some clovers and things like that that nitrogen fixing and don't require a lot of water. Is is there any way uh I I don't know how we can go about doing that where we can kind of restrict the amount of water people could use for that.
>> Uh >> so and that's in the that's what I'm tasked with right now basically is how to deter people from using the potable water >> on their lawns. >> Yeah. >> So ultimately Yeah. If people want to
pay5 to $7,000 and tap their own well, I'd rather have them do that right now than use their potable drinking water on their lawn because that water's made and more expensive to consume than it is to just put back on the lawns. >> Yeah. Um, additionally, the ZBA and the
planning board, we all work together and you know, we're putting conditions in there that they have to have um, uh, plantings that are, uh, drought tolerant, for instance. >> Um, but >> besides that, I mean, right now we're
just I have to change the policies on how to u prevent people from irrigating that are on public water. >> Yeah. I mean, Vermont has a a law that's I think it's uh I forget what the the first uh term is, but it's Vermont
something 250 and any development has to uh provide information on how it affects the environment. And I wonder if uh that isn't something that we could look at uh for the town of Falmouth where okay uh water is an issue, sewer is an issue, uh
you got to prove that uh you're not going to have a negative impact on it. uh and I don't know how we go about doing that. And what's been said too is this with the state coming down on us, you know, we have to produce this and we have and no regard to the fact that we're on this very fragile uh ecosystem
here. Uh I I don't know. I mean, do we, you know, blow up the bridges and prevent people from coming here? Uh I don't know. It's uh I just don't it seems to be an untenable situation, but we've got to deal with
it. >> Thank you, Eric. >> Yeah, thank you for this letter. Um, honestly, number one thing I heard people talk about when I was running was like water quality and um water supply. Like everybody I talked to, even if they
were concerned about other issues, they would bring that up pretty much. And um it's just like a hard physical constraint that we're running up against. I mean like a as um Patricia was mentioning like as sea level rise occurs, we're going to have you know um more seawater pressing in on the
aquifer. Um it's just like not not a good situation. And like I think that people in Beacon Hill need to recognize that we are not like in a topography dominated system >> um where you can just you know build a longer aqueduct or whatever from a lake or whatever. Um, I mean, I guess we
could get to a point where we're like Key West or something where they have like a pipeline of water. Um, but I don't think we even would ever have the density sufficient to cover the cost of doing an infrastructure project like that. Um, yeah, it's just >> I've had people ask me about whether
Fmouth is considering desalination plants. >> That's that's how concerned some people are. >> Yeah. And I think that when we're planning now, I think we need to think about something like what Vermont does
with environmental impact. I think we need to be thinking about as as the state is increasingly removing our ability to regulate use, maybe we should be looking at form and how that can inform >> environmental impacts. Um, and I think yeah, like the just having like lots of
distributed development not planned around an infrastructure is like the worst thing we could be doing. I think that again Mr. Cod's expansion I think is more suitable because like those are not going to be um units that have lawns um and stuff like that that is so
challenging to enforce. Um but yeah, I think we need to be I think we need to be talking to the state about this and I think we need to be thinking very carefully about what the infrastructure will look like to accommodate things. And I think like we're trying to address
a poorly devised economic system that leads to all these problems and externalities. Um, and like this is a hard like physical constraint. Like >> we're not just kind of like I think the issues of affordability and stuff like these can be, >> you know, we need to be looking at how
we can inform tax policy and all the different legal frameworks that govern housing and stuff. >> Right. >> And here we're running into >> I don't hold them up all night here. >> Okay. I'm sorry. But I just saying like this is like this is like incredibly important and I think people are very concerned about it. >> Yeah. And and people are I mean there
are residents that are conservative. You know we we created a three- tiered uh water price rate so that people would be deterred from using water compared to the old system. Um before you paid a flat fee and then or you paid a fee and
then you paid um per unit of water. Now we're paying for if you only use 10 units of water it's at this rate but that's the cheapest. If you use the next 20 well it's a little bit higher but anything after that you're paying almost $6 per unit. So when people come back
with all these abatements now because they had a leak on the irrigation line they get a onetime abatement if they qualify after that. Sorry it's it's up to you to pay that bill. Um just another thing to think about too is you know right now uh our annual
statistical report that I run uh every year that's required for D last year were about 58 gallons per person per day. So you say one acre of land with 20 units and you have 20 bedrooms. So you I
don't know if you want to call that two or three people per person, but you're looking at just over 1.3 million gall 1.3 million gallons per person per year. Just take that in consideration.
per per acre per year. Is it? >> So, if you have one acre of land and it's going to be allowed to have 20 units and you have two bedrooms per unit, each person in that home is going to use approximately 20 or 60 gallons
per day per year per year. So, 60 times 365 per person. >> Just mandate that people take a bath only on Saturday. Thank Thank you very much. It's been very >> We can't move here. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Wow. >> I'm going to ask if anybody in the audience wants to make any statements have any any questions at this point. Yes, sir.
Tony Patrrui, 243 Old Main Road, North Falmouth. I came here to listen tonight, not to speak. But it's hard not to hear that we have a problem that we already all knew about water,
>> septic systems, nitrogen, phosphorus. We hear about it all the time. and for you to begin to create additional housing at this point in time without coordinating between water board of health and uh the sewer department
is premature. Uh we are not we haven't reached our SHI of 10% in this town. So we have 140B after another coming into town. We have a lot of new housing that will be approved soon likely. Well, there's
likely approved soon because that's the way 40bs are. And I think it's pre premature to continue to try and I know some people want to just check off the box about adding housing. This is the wrong time. We have to protect this community and it's very very very
difficult to do that with the amount of 40bs coming in this town, never mind adding artificially duplexes to single family districts. So, I'm urging you to maybe try to do a better job of coordinating with water, sewer in the
board of health. We've got to protect our waterways, and I'm going to hope that this does not continue forward until we can satisfy. We need to satisfy. It's going to take a lot of years to do that. Well, thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else?
>> Yes, sir. >> Stan Ingram. Um, I just wanted this, uh, originally came because I thought you were going to talk about duplexes on agricultural land and I wanted to just put my two cents in as a person who's
been involved in agriculture here in Felmouth for quite a while. I thought that was a bad idea. Um, we certainly have lost a lot of agricultural land and people ask me, well, how much? And I I
don't have those figures. I think as a planning board and as a member and me being a member of the agricultural commission, I think as a town, it's time for us to decide how much agricultural
land in Felmouth we want to save instead of, you know, sort of start at that point. We want 5% 10% of the remaining agricultural land we want to hold on to. Then after that we can discuss whether
it makes sense to open a land to duplexes. Um, I enjoyed that letter in the enterprise also. And then listening to some of the comments from Scott and uh, tonight maybe an idea is to when a a
house of over 2,000 square feet comes available south of 28 that the town buys that and makes it into a duplex. And then it's already sewered, so you don't have to worry about adding more
strain onto a septic uh or the groundwater. Anyways, I think uh duplexes on agricultural land is a bad idea at this time. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Just a just a comment. Um one of the things that we've been trying to do with Mr. card and all these other uh things is because we wanted to have more control over how affordable housing was was uh built and balanced because we do get hammered with 40bs. Uh and again
40bs are it's 25% affordable 75% market rate. So uh with us trying to get ahead of that uh that's I just want to uh make sure that people understand that this is what we're trying to do. We're trying to get ahead of it so that we don't have
stuff shoved down our throat by the state. Thank you. I'm I'm a little stunned at this point. We had a long meeting so far. Um so we were going to discuss um Mr. Cot were going to discuss duplexes.
>> Uh I think we should do this at another meeting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. This this getting too late a lot here. >> Yeah. >> And we listen to everyone from the audience that wanted to speak. So >> did we listen to everyone? >> There's only one other person that hasn't spoken. >> We got the Enterprise over here.
>> It's just one person we haven't heard from. >> Well, I I I invited Scott here this evening. I wanted to We need to talk about u Yeah, >> thank you. >> You know, the flow and Yeah. >> Thank you. And unexpectedly received a letter from the water department. Yeah. Yeah, >> which is very informative and to have
him come and speak also and and answer our questions. So, um I think that we've had enough for this evening. >> Yeah. >> If you guys are all set then we'll go to the committee meeting committee reports. >> You have any other comments I should do?
>> There's still the Mr. Cod uh design guidelines that is on the agenda for tonight that needs to be discussed. >> Could I talk about that for a minute? >> Just just for a minute. Before you move on though, you should continue the public hearing on the zoning articles
>> to the 11th. Just bear in mind that that is the next, you know, planning board meeting. We need to get um recommend or we need to get final articles to the town manager's office by that Friday in order for them to be on the warrant for
their meeting on the 17th. So just keep that in mind, but continue the public hearing to the 11th. That's my recommendation. >> Okay. I move that we continue the public hearing on the planning board zoning articles till the August 11th. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I I >> real fast thing about the design things. Um uh Pat and I but mostly I had made an appointment with Jed to come talk about the design things. No argument just a few with what is at the contents of it. But the presentation of it really needs
um to be sharpened up because there's too many words and the points are being lost in all those words and they have allowed me to maybe reddraft it. So maybe we ought to put that off until we have a new draft to look at which would make it easier to talk about.
>> Okay. Design guidelines. >> The design guidelines. Remember we looked at them. They had all the pictures. >> Yes. >> And they're just the design guidelines for the uh Mr. Cod area. Mhm. >> Charlotte very kindly allowed that she would allow the monkey to be placed on
her back to do that. >> There's a way to put it, but just to let you know. So, they're not quite ready to talk about anyway. >> Do you know when you would like to continue? >> I can make it by the 11th. >> So, your 11th meeting is super long now. >> Um, just to be
>> Doesn't have to be, but if you need it then, I could do it then. >> Do you want to do it on the 25th? Is that okay or >> No issue with that? Yeah. >> Is the August 25th okay with everyone? Just to give a little reprieve for the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> I might not be here. That's my 84th
birthday. >> Really? >> What? On the 25th. >> I'm sorry. >> What are you going to discuss? >> Uh the design guidelines for the Mr. Cod. >> Okay. >> Fine. Sure. >> So, do we need to you need to um
continue the public hearing? make a vote, a motion and a vote. >> Okay. So, I move that we continue the public hearing on the design guidelines for Mr. Cod until August 25th. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I I >> Okay. So, committee reports, >> um, recreation. Yes. So, Liz Klein from the select board, she's the new recreation committee liaison for us. Over this past weekend, she toured the
recck building with myself and Julie, the rec director, and we addressed some of our build uh building needs with her. And um I know John, you asked about a pickle ball update. Um the rec committee has a meeting on August 12th and pickle ball will be on
the agenda for those that want to speak either at you know public comment or when we uh chat about pickle ball. >> Great. Thank you. And Tom, do you have any uh report on the CPC? >> No, we didn't have uh a meeting since our last planning board meeting.
>> Okay. Thank you. So, next meeting would be on uh August 11th. Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Hold on. Hold on. Future agenda items. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, future agenda items. >> I've asked twice to be able to make a
presentation on using u drone supervision of site plans and how much I think it'd be helpful and we can make the applicants pay for it. I would give examples tonight that have come up that could have easily been handled if we had a 10-second or 20 second video. There's
been subdivisions that we are talking about where they're talking about people pouring concrete and doing things if we required u a simple we we have them draw these plants but they don't show what's going on the ground. There's technology right now that's readily available and I would
like I've asked John twice to be able to make a presentation and I can't break through you all the other stuff we do. >> We just forgot for this one. I'm sorry. We'll we'll put it on the next >> No, I I will wait till after town meeting because I think >> after town meeting >> I I just But I don't want to let it go because I really think if you gave me a
chance, I could prove to you that I'm right, >> but if you don't let me do it. >> Why don't we put on >> Why don't we put you on for the 25th? >> I I want you tell me when. >> We just did. >> 8:25. We'll put it on that agenda. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I 10 minutes. I can actually What I can use for an example is the one I did. I did a review of the Gford Street pairing because I thought we were going to do a site plan review and it's amazing what you can see and it it could be easy easy to means to make the applicant.
>> Well, we're going to put you on first >> at night. >> Okay. So, you get a motion to adjourn. I did. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.