Planning Board to order. Today is July 7th. It is 6:30 p.m. and we are meeting at Falma Town Hall. My name is John Dulie. I am the current chair of the planning board. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone this is a public meeting and is being conducted in
accordance with Massachusetts open meeting law. Please take a moment to silence any mobile devices or electronics to avoid interruptions. Anyone wishing to speak should come to the podium, wait to be recognized by the chair, and state their name for the
record before making remarks. We encourage respectful and constructive dialogue during public comment periods. Thank you. We'll now proceed with the first item on the agenda, which is public comment. If anyone wishes to speak about something that is not on the
agenda, please come to the podium and state your name. Okay, seeing no one, we'll go to our um minutes of June 23rd, 2026. >> Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the June
23rd, 2026 minutes as presented and as corrected. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. All in favor? I >> I left to find the police department. >> The first item on our agenda, the second
item on our agenda is the public hearing to discuss design guidelines for the mixed residential and commercial overlay district, also known as Mr. Cod. Mr. Z, can you please read the public hearing notice into the records?
This one. All right. Public notice for this project was published on July 7th, 2026. And where's the others? >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I want to correct
that. Public notice for this project was published on June 19th, 2026 and June 26, 2026. And where are the number of uh of >> we don't notify?
>> We don't. Okay. >> It's just just an ad in the paper. >> And they were notified by regular mail. >> All right. Thank you. So, uh the board uh we're going to discuss the guidelines and after that we'll open discussion up
to the public. So, who would like to start with their opinions of the guidelines? >> We should start with Eric and work down >> Mr. Cod the Mr. kind overlay district. >> Eric, um I think to begin with I guess is like
um when we refer to like the T ticket large scale plazas, is that just really referential to the existing character or is that informing the future design guidelines? >> I'm trying to hear the first part of your question.
>> When we look at like t ticket large scale plazas for the character of um areas designed Are we are we saying that that's going to be the guideline that we're going to follow in the future or is that just an identification of the current um
pre-existing conditions? the our new guidelines would be if there's a renovation there or uh a new property owner or um tear down and rebuild and we have these guidelines in place to uh
>> No, but what he's saying when I read that it said they're supposed to be flat roof giant buildings and I don't think that's what we're planning to do in David Straits. I think this a very appropriate question. He's saying if we're going to redesign those places, we're not going to redesign them the way they are because we want to change them. I isn't that what you're saying?
>> I Yeah, I guess what I'm asking is some clarification like when we identify those areas, is that just a identification of the pre-existing? >> I believe that's the way I read >> or is that like Okay. Okay. >> I believe >> simply pre-existing conditions. >> Yeah, that's the way I understand. >> I misunderstood your question. >> Good question though.
>> Yeah. uh in light of uh our discussions about uh form-based code and all that, I think this is the next best thing for what we want to do. If we uh are going to be redeveloping these areas, I think we
should have some say in in what goes on because it could very easily become a big box store and I would like to see that. >> All right. Thank you. >> I thought it was an excellent job, but I wanted input along Eric's line. I think we should looking they kind of touched
on this but there's two really important things I think we should have instead of a setback line a build two line and if you look into formbbased code it's kind of how you control the buildings you build so you can set you got to put building here building there so you can
stagger them I think the two or three most important things that we could abstract from foreign base code is the build two line the festrrations the frustrations of more windows and doors and the changes in roof pitches it kind of touches on it, but I'd like to see it call them out a little bit more and
especially in the area that Eric mentioned. That's not a really big change if if they worked that a little bit. They they they're like circling around it a little bit when you read this, but I didn't really see them call it out. And I think I when I've gone back and revisited
formbbased code, the two most important factors of the stuff we presented before were basically the build two line instead of the setback line. So you make them build closer to the street and you make them stagger it. I don't know if you've ever seen if you build a building
it's a weight solid line but if you stagger the buildings it makes it so much more appealing. And if also if the the roof lines changes the pitch and the setback changes the roof pitch and then you do the windows and doors
that's that's the guts of what we need. >> It's the village concept. >> Yes, that is the guts and this almost says that but not quite. >> And I think I think it goes beyond Oh, sorry. Is already if I interject >> aren't we taking turns? >> Yeah. >> Oh, go ahead. Jump in. Finish that.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. What I wanted to say is I think it goes beyond just the aesthetic as well as like um I think that that fenestration and stuff it it helps slow traffic. It makes people behave differently in their cars. Um from some studies I'd seen like in general people drive more slowly when
there's more variety. Um >> and remember we talked about inviting the p the pedestrians into the site and making the front of the yard pedestrian friendly. And I didn't see I I mean I read it I didn't see quite enough of that. We have it when you look at our
business redevelopment zone and they talked about it there and we have a little bit of it on Main Street but they kind of I didn't see it clearly called out on the rest of Davis Straits and if we're going to really do that right I think that's we need to talk about that. >> Thank you Pat.
>> Well then I'm going to somewhat reply to Jim. Should that be under the purpose and goals which is what it >> needs to be somewhere. I just want to see >> well because it says the purpose and goals and like most of this whole document is somewhat generic.
It's kind of pointing a generalized way and we said we wanted something to help anybody who wanted to build in Falmouth to have an easier time instead of feeling that we're arbitrary so much. >> But we don't want developers to come in and say you wanted to have flat roofs
and big projects like the old like historically it is just as Eric pointed out. That's not what we're looking for. At least that's what that's why I think maybe under purpose and and goals is we put in the village concept with variegated setbacks in a subdivision in
a building and variegated roof lines to to if we can describe it as to be more of the village concept more inviting and village concept I don't know >> well compatible with the other buildings that are already there as well
>> yes that >> you don't mean stop and job though, do you? >> No. No. >> No. No. Not not compatible in that way. >> That's the point. >> Yeah. I mean, uh, when we've had architects speak to us, uh, they talk about making it compatible in in that
respect, >> right? >> Yeah. Okay. That that I was just responding to what Jim had brought up and Eric had brought up too. Um, when I was reading this, I had asked Jed because there are sort of like typos or
a little piece of a sentence missing. They can make those changes. Larger changes would have to go back to the commission and I don't know where the drop dead go to the commission line is. So, I brought that up because I saw a few and because of the day I had I couldn't
copy those pages. Um, the other thing that I had brought up the last time and Jed didn't quite understand what I was saying, so I thought maybe I ought to reiterate it that as part of this whole document, we should have the Mr. Cod
bylaw because it refers to the various parts of the bylaw and it gives chapter and verse and then you've got to go to another document and say, "Okay, here's the Mr. Cod bylaw." If it were as an appendix or whatever you want to call
it, in this document then it would be right there for people to see to have easy access to and also for us instead of juggling two documents. So I still stick with that recommendation. >> Mhm.
>> And because that whole area is covered by the Mr. Car overlay district. >> Yeah. You mean the large scale? >> Yes, that it is in the overlay district. >> I think it's interesting we're all going in the same direction. This is our best shot at formbbased code right here and I
think we need to take more uh advantage of it. I think Pat's observation is really good. At what point does it go back to them to be fixed? My overall uh take on this is this is a really good start, but it didn't quite get there. And I'd like to point out some very particular things about it. Um, in the
beginning it is saying that there are either three or four and you get to count them character areas and they'll have design principles for them and it says three in some places, four in others. That's very confusing. They have identified four so they should continue
with four but it's not consistent throughout. And the place where they lose it is they lose it to lose the distinction between the plaza area in East Felmouth and the neighborhood area. And the two are very very distinctly different. Their characters are
different. What we would want them to be probably remains different and that's not clear at all in what we're looking at. I think that needs to be rethought and separated so that it's clearer. In thinking about it, when I think about those the job that they did on the
historic area is good, although it would be good to encourage people to add a second story where they can. There are opportunities there for residential use in the second stories. but they're not doing it in the part where it's coming from. It's the second area that they do
and it's shown uh let's see it's being called East Main Street and I agree 100% with Jim and I gathered from other people's nods we all agree we would like to see a build to line that if we start using some of the formbbased code language we're more apt to connect to
the developers and the people that we want to have really make use of this document. So yeah, a build two line is going to be important. And the build two line in that first step down from main main street, the build two line is a sidewalk. The main east street, it's a
little setback. It ought to be clear. We're just stepping back a little. You get to the plaza, you're stepping back a lot, but you've allowed too many curb cuts. One of the things about formbbased management restricting the curb cuts. We're letting everybody drive into
practically every building down there. And maybe we should try to restrict that so we could get a more clear build to line in that area. And maybe you remember, I don't know how long ago it was, Jim, you were talking, I think at a
board meeting about the land right behind in that plaza area between um where the uh the new um uh health clinic thing is and going up to the stop lightss. That whole area right actually behind your office, John, has a little
street going there. That's a perfect area to put taller buildings right there. And we need to talk about the massing and height of the buildings that would be allowed in that plaza area and make a point of that because we wanted that to be the high density residential
area, don't we? >> Yeah, that's we've talked about it. And yet it doesn't say wh plaza area, high density residential may be taller. And it allows you in this document, if you're reading it carefully, you can go up to 50 feet at a certain point, but it
ought to be called out. This is the high density area that we we're looking for. We still want a build to line. We want fewer curb cuts. We want you to be careful about the massing. There's all of that. And then when you get to the uh tucket t neighborhood area, you'd pick a
more flexible build to line, but not as far back as they're saying. And you would have fewer times where you could separate out the buildings. You want greater density, but you want a residential character to those buildings. They can be commercial, but
they can still be residential and they we're hoping that they will be. So, I think the things that we were really our high hopes aren't written into this. This is more, you know, maintain the character, don't mess it up, whereas we wanted to be Yeah. on our
first historic area, that's probably where we are. But on the rest of it, we'd really like it to step it up and we're not communicating that clearly enough. And then I had some picky edits that we can talk about later.
Like I um a lot of a lot of great ideas and comments. So the only thing that's left is transportation was missing from this presentation. um by making it more walkable. I feel like this excludes like the seniors who cannot walk or park to get to uh
anywhere close to this area. So maybe we consider yearround uh shuttle buses from a central location, maybe uh the mall or maybe um uh Felmouth Plaza. And to go back to Jim's comment, yeah, build to a
line. I agree because let's not forget last this this year the complications we've had with snow removal uh from this year's blizzard. So we have to think about that as well. >> All right. Thank you. >> Turn one thing I forgot. We really need to address changing the parking details
too. >> I I strongly feel you see it now. It doesn't look like we have parking but the Fourth of July isn't all year long. Okay. And all winter long we have thousands of people in this town and we don't need to have so we we suffer a little a couple weeks
in the summer. It's like building a church for Easter Sunday. It can't do it that way. We got to cut back on the parking. We've lost a couple good projects because we require too much parking and we should allow alternate ways to do it. Electric cars, buses,
anything else, but some way to get the move the people in and out. But to shut down really good projects because they're two or three parking spaces short is really a sin, >> right? >> Is that and to build on that, the other thing that we've talked about and really hoped for, and it's true, maybe it's a town expense, but it could be the
expense of people who wish to develop, hiding the wires. One of the reasons the historic district looks so good, is you're not looking at telephone poles and wires. It looks like a third, you know, world country here with all the wires and poles going down from um
Barnes all the way up to the administration building. So, any encouragement we can give to both helping with the parking and hiding those ugly wires, that would be really great. >> That was a huge project done between the town, the civic association, and the
property owners. I sat on the boards and we did that. That was a really, really big expense. But what a change. >> Huge. I remember it was tough to get the last business. >> What a change it makes. I have a picture of 189 Main Street with a painting
before the wires were taken down and it looks like a ghetto. Messy buildings, wires all over the place. Now it's like beautiful. It's just unbelievable. >> Night and day. >> Wrong word choice. >> Sorry about that. >> Could I also just say I think they did a
good job on the landscaping. I had expected to jump all over that. I was really surprised I couldn't. I think they did a really nice job. >> Yeah, they did. >> That's great. >> Yeah. So, that part's good. And there's a lot of it that that's good and useful. The other thing is I think whoever built
that great little office building there in the in the Ticket neighborhood thing. It's a little design office. It is adorable. >> Yep. >> It has at least three photographs in here. It's like they ran out of adorable. they you know they need to work on that a bit.
>> Yeah. We when we walked the site the whole corridor with the commission you know they were asking you know for examples of really nice buildings and in the ticket area was um challenging with the exception of that one building.
>> Truth there's a little bit of a shortage >> in my opinion. >> Which building was that? >> Photographers. Yeah. >> Uh it's right next to um >> yes. Oh that little teeny. Oh, that's gorgeous. >> Yeah, it's really nice. >> It's about this one. >> I know it's tiny, but it's >> Yeah, but it's good
>> and everything about it is good. The landscaping, the design of the the structure, >> even how it fits in right there. The other part that's good in Ticket that they didn't call out that is part of the existing character. It's the only part of town where you can really look through the uh the street lineup of
buildings and see to the big meadow behind that really should continue to have been uh open to catch the water when it eventually gets there. And it's really nice where the park is where you can see through it. You can sort of see through it behind the the car wash building and a couple of the others
allowing that on that side of the road is really good. Mhm. >> So for the uh audience and the audience at home, we're talking about this guideline booklet that the Cape Cod Commission presented to us. 48 pages.
And it has um guidelines for um the buildings and for uh parking and for landscaping. And I just want to uh we had some really nice ideas this evening discussion, but I want to remind everyone that this is
not just for Main Street and Ticket. This is for Woy. It's for East Falmouth. It's for West Falmouth, North Falmouth. That's what we're talking about, Mr. Cod. >> Correct. But it doesn't say that, John. >> Well, I know that these are just
guidelines for commercial overlay district, >> but Mr. God doesn't go down that far because of the amendment that Joe made. It ends where the sewer ends, >> but it should say about that in the book. >> We're talking about bringing back Mr. Coding,
right? Okay. >> And it would go to every one of these vill >> agrees. The ultimate Mr. Cod thing. >> So, it should include that in this. It should be part of the map. It should be indicated. >> Well, I think first we have to get town meeting to approve um Mr. Cod in the
other districts. Well, they've approved Mr. Cod in the amendment, but you cannot do it until you get a sewer. >> Yeah, but that's those parts. >> That's not hard to say in English as part of this. >> Okay. >> Well, isn't that also
>> and I I think I forgot to mention Woodsole that is also a village >> under applicability and use that statement could come in there that wherever the Mr. Cod district is currently or in the future, >> right? just adding in the future
>> they find a way to do it >> but these design guidelines could be used in all the villages >> they they can be but when when we start getting off in the on the part about uh form based code >> I think it it makes it more difficult
>> because every village has its own character >> right >> and um so anyway it's just my my thought >> I have a quick question who did they have a consultant that wrote this work or did they do it in-house They being the Cape Commission,
>> uh, they they wrote it themselves >> with their own team. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Well, they did a good job. >> So, for the for the good of the audience at home and for, you know, the board and and the attendees here, this is the document that the chair um just
provided. It's approximately 48 pages. Um, and I'm just going to scroll right to the table of contents. So it it divides up the the guidelines into easy to digest uh pieces, but it talks about, you know, essentially what
the design of the mixed residential and commercial overlay district would look like in the future. And so for everybody at home, the Mr. Cod district currently is this green area
that's shown on the map. So essentially it it extends from just outside here uh at St. Barnabas all the way up uh to the Sandwich Road intersection with uh Ticket Highway,
>> but it was proposed to be all B2 zoning. >> Correct. >> And there was an amendment at town meeting that limited it to only areas covered by the sewer, which cut half of it out. >> Correct. Yep. And if anyone's interested and wants to find it uh on the town's website, so I
can just show you real quick. If you go to boards and committees, click on planning board and then down on the bottom left, the planning board public hearing items, and there's the link right there. Brings you right to the to the document itself.
So again, if anyone missed that, they can go back to the tape. You can watch the video again. Uh but that will open up the document. And if you have any questions or uh any comments, you can see the planning office or come to the public hearing, which is the point of tonight's discussion is to not only have
the board discuss it, but also take public comment. >> Yes, Eric. Um if if the town meeting had the interest around sewering, I know there's other areas beyond Mr. Cod in this general area that are on sewer. Would it be would there be the potential
to extend Mr. Cod to a larger area um beyond like the specific B2 district to include some of these residential areas that are served by sewer? >> Well, if it's a residential district, we can't do the commercial.
>> Keep in mind, Mr. Carter is an overlay district that keeps the underlying zoning in place. It just addresses the commercial uses and we do it on B2 zoning for that purpose. So you're saying do it on residential A or residential B or
residential some other district in instead of just B2. That's what you're saying. >> Yeah. So I guess that would require a change to the underlying zoning. >> Big change. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. I I'm not sure exactly how to
express this because what we have here is a beautiful general document that they've put together with a lot of examples and it's more generalized. What we've been talking about tonight is more specific requirements that we'd like to
see. So where does that cut off line or the balance line, how do we differentiate that in a document like this that well we'd like to see these specific things but we don't want it to be like a bylaw that suddenly we have to change the whole
document because we've become too specific in it. And I'm throwing this out. I don't know the answer. Uh Jed, if we if we u uh continue this hearing tonight on this on this item, can we uh give you suggestions in
writing and >> Yes. >> and we could uh address those at the next time we discuss this? >> Yes. Yes. And to answer Pat's question, if I may, um it will depend on the specific edit. So what essentially what we'll do is we'll gather everything that we've heard and then we will give it
back to the commission and say you know are these things that you can help craft or edit for us you know and are there some things that we could do it on on ourselves. Um and then are there specific elements that the board has suggested that you know you might want
to weigh in on in terms of that might be a better comment for something else or yes we can fit that into this section. So essentially we just take it back to the commission and and get there >> and in in the in the in the very end when it gets all put together and the
board approved that these are just going to be guidelines. It's not um >> not standards guidelines >> standard. It's a guideline that we hope every applicant will um abide by. >> Correct. >> Just so everyone understands that.
>> Yes, Charlotte. Um, I agree with Pat that it is general, but it generally missed a major point. So, even though it's general, it should have said that this is more or less maintenance for the historic district, but we're seeking change and improvement in the other
areas very strongly and that doesn't come through in this >> right >> at all. So, the changing many of the general statements in this is really in order. >> The other thing is what kind of timeline are we looking at here? I mean, I I would suggest that you do
sooner the sooner than later. Um because you do we're aware of several projects that are circling the runway, if you will, in the Mr. Cod district. So, the sooner that you can publicize these guidelines for future develop development projects, the better. Um,
but I would suggest, you know, you keep the hearing open, offer the public another opportunity, review it another time, and then get us all of your comments so that we can try to incorporate them and and send them to the commission. >> So, not just not just um items that we
want to present, but the general public could also send in a letter or note and >> absolutely. Y >> and that could be considered by the V board also. >> Correct. They could send a letter directly to the Felmouth Planning Board or they can send an email to the planning office which is just planning
ma.gov. >> Okay, John. >> Yes. Well, one thing I would suggest like everybody on the board and also public to look at is New Bedford just adopted a form-based code for districts that's very focused on taking kind of ugly
car-based buildings and encouraging people to redevelop them to match the character of actually like higher density historic parts of the town. Um, and I think that that's like a really cool guiding principle that I think a lot of us are like behind. So, the way in which they go about doing it I think
is worth looking at. Um, and that could be something to kind of inspire the next step um, for Felmouth as well. Obviously a very different community, but I think they do a good job of like referencing, you know, historic structures that allow mixed use and high density and stuff in
an aesthetic way. Um, and trying to kind of reverse the big parking lot with a little box at the back um, model of development. >> Eric, do you know if that's code or guidelines? >> That's actually a form-based code, but I think that it's still >> code means you have to do it. Yep. So,
they have a set of predetermined structures that you can kind of like do by right. >> Um, and then if you want something else, you would have to get like special permit. >> So, it's different than this obviously, but I think it's a it's it's definitely a good document to look at. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, does anyone in
the audience uh have any questions or comments? If they do, please come to the podium. I would just comment having done a lot of for the record Kevin Clower um precinct 6 um having done a lot of zoning and permitting work in this town
I would just echo Mr. Fox's comment that I think that we are broadly speaking wildly overparked. I think our parking requirements are um very high, especially when compared to some other towns that I've done some work in. Uh for instance, uh just
restaurants are a perfect example. One one parking spot for every two seats is where typically most other towns you see one for every four seats. It it throttles development. and it throttles. Um it it it it creates you know um it's a counter counterproductive requirement
a lot of times. Obviously yes there are times like current um but it is um that is the outlier um as opposed to you know 10 months out of the year we we don't have this issue um and I think that just broadly speaking we have a very high
parking requirement. So I think anything we do to revisit that and look at that I think is a positive development. >> Well thank you. How if you try to get a parking spot here tonight, you might have different opinions. >> But I wonder here at 8 a.m. So, >> but I wonder how many people are parked over at Lawrence School and if we have a
shuttle over at Lawrence and people were directed to go over there. >> That's a good point. >> I'd like to uh get a motion to continue this hearing to a future move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I unanimous. Thank you. >> So, for the record, let's continue to a
date certain. So, it would be July 28th. >> Yeah. >> Does that work for everyone? >> Sure. >> Great. >> Great. >> And that would be for the public to to get comments into you in writing ahead of time. >> Yes, sir. >> But we could add more comments, too. >> Yeah, of course. Yes. I want everyone home. Give them a chance.
>> Understand that. >> Oh, and a a question or point of clarification like when with the public uh comment on this, how are we soliciting? >> Is that it's like by letter mail to those within the district or >> Yeah. Wait. It's a posting in the newspaper.
>> Just posting in the newspaper. >> Yeah. >> Today we posted this. This is what we got. >> Yep. Okay. >> It was posted two consecutive weeks in the newspaper um two weeks prior to this meeting. >> Do we have the newspaper here tonight?
>> Yes. >> It would be great to see an article about it. Okay. Um Melinda, do you want me to do u the decision next? >> 350 old meeting house. So um >> you can um read the agenda. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Aren't these all repeats? So, next on the agenda is applicant Kevin Clower on behalf of Outer Land Holdings LLC special permit to modify and expand the existing contractor's yard with garage, workshop, storage sheds, material
storage, and office located at 348 and 350 Old Meeting House Road. And uh for the applicant, uh good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Kevin Clower. Um, since our last hearing, uh,
representing Outerland Holdings LLC, since the last hearing, there's been some minor changes to the plan in response to comments of the board. I believe there was the addition of the Ballards. There was originally the removal of the gravel, but that's been reinstated at the request of conservation whose um stated that their
preference is that the gravel area in the rear remain. Um, so I believe other than there were some additional ballards um and uh some slight changes to the parking to move the uh handicap spaces a little bit closer to the actual entrance. Other than that, I I believe
we've responded to all the questions and comments of the board and engineering department. Um happy to address any questions that you may have. Otherwise, happy to hear whatever decision you may have. Um >> I think we have a a decision. >> Yep. So, um, >> do
>> you have any any discussion first? >> So, just to clarify, we're talking about the special permit and the site plan review at the same time. >> Um, we do have draft motions for both. If there's no public comment, we have to close the special permit hearing
>> and then you can go ahead and discuss and then um read the motions. >> Okay. Is there any public discussion? None. Okay. Okay, we'll close the hearing. >> Make it a vote.
>> Move to close the hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I unanimous. Tom, can you read the decision, please? >> There's two of them. >> This one. >> Yep. Motion that the planning board vote to
approve the application of Outerland Holdings LLC for a special permit under section 240-6.1B of the zoning bylaw to allow for the expansion of an existing contractor's
yard with accessory office space at 348 and 350 Old Meeting House Road with the following findings and conditions. Findings. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing contractor's yard located at 350 Old Meeting House Road on
site and into 348 Carriage Shop Road and to construct a new 4,000 square ft office building, which will be ancillary to the contractor's yard use. The applicant intends to combine 348 and 350 Old Meeting House Road through an
approval not required ANR application. The proposed site plan shows 28 paved parking spaces which exceeds the reg required 27 spaces required as well as a 22 space gravel lot area for overflow
parking and a 28 space gravel lot area for equipment trucks and trailers. Findings specific to 240-6.1B of the zoning bylaw. The planning board finds that number one, the 7.37 acre
property is greater than the minimum three acres required in an AGA zoning district. Number two, the front yard setback is 315 ft, which is greater than the minimum 50 foot distance required in
an AGA zoning district. Number three, the property is not within the water resource protection overlay district. Number four, the applicant is also in the process of acquiring the residence at 356
Old Meeting House Road. This will keep the contractor's yard in compliance with 240-6.1B of the zoning bylaw. Next page, >> can you tell us what that section he just read compliant? What are they? They're they're buying this lot to
comply with what is that requirement? >> Contractor's yard. >> I know, but they're buying a piece of lot is a single family home. They're buying so that I want to make that point. That's the point I'm trying to make. Yes, >> they couldn't do this because it's a single family home. It's too close. So, they're buying a single family home. Bring it into the site and make it
happen. I think that's an important thing to say when we're approving these things. I think that just glossed over it. I just want to be clear that that's what we're doing. >> Okay. Number five, the activities including traffic between the subject properties
and old meeting house road will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and the construction width and grades of adjacent streets are sufficient for safe travel to the site by the vehicles to be stored. Number six, the type and number
of vehicles and materials proposed to be stored on the site are appropriate. Number seven, the hours of operation for the contractor's yard will be 6:00 am to 6 pm Monday through Saturday. Number
eight, no fabrication is proposed on the site. And number nine, the office space is accessory to the contractor's yard. Findings specific to 240-12.1 of the zoning bylaw. The planning board finds the application to be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of this chapter. The board considers the site adequate and suitable in terms of size for the proposed use. The impact on traffic flow and the safety and neighborhood visual character will be mitigated as per the findings and
conditions herein. the method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage, utilities and other public services to be adequate and that the application will not have an effect on the supply of affordable housing in
the town. Conditions number one, the plan shall be constructed as approved. Any changes shall be reviewed by the planning board to determine if a modification of this decision is necessary. Number two, the list of equipment, vehicles, and materials
storage to be allowed on site shall be as represented on the inventory list that was submitted with the special permit application and attached here too. Number three, the hours of operation for the contractor's yard
shall be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and there shall be no fabrication allowed on the property. Number four, pursuant to section 240-12.1L of the zoning bylaw, the special permit shall lapse three years from the date it
is granted if a substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause shown or in the case of a permit for construction if the construction has not begun by that date except for good
cause shown. >> Second. Yeah. Any u discussion? Yes. >> I had a question about a piece of the bylaw. So it it mentioned that no fabrication will take place in the site. How is that defined? >> Is that like >> only defines
>> is it is it such that it's like not a factory or like is it saying that like you can't fabricate like you can't put together seems like that might be necessary for working on or whatnot? >> I don't know that fabrication is defined in the bylaw.
So we would um consult you know Webster's dictionary as as uh instructed in the bylaw but yeah generally the understanding would be to assemble to essentially uh change the shape of material to create something new.
That's the way I look at fabrication. >> Yeah. Makes me curious about like why it's a requirement. But anyway we can keep going. >> Any other comments or questions? >> Okay. Uh, got a motion in a second. All in favor?
>> I I unanimous. Thank you. >> Uh, next we have um >> applicant Kevin Clower on behalf of 28 Falmouth Heights Road. >> Johnny has to read the other decision. >> The other decision. >> The site plan review. >> There's two. There are two in there.
>> Oh, >> I'm kidding. for >> we did the special per now we do the site plan review >> site plan review >> I don't have that document >> should be here somewhere >> probably hidden all my other paperwork
here want to move forward with it you John >> Tom's going to read it >> motion that the planning board >> Tom read it a lot easier >> okay >> motion that the planning board votes to approve the site plan review application of Outerland Holdings LLC for a
contractor's yard with accessory office space at 348 and 350 Old Meeting House Road under section 240-12.2 of the zoning bylaw with the following findings and conditions. Findings. The applicant is proposing to expand the
existing contractor's yard located at 350 Old Meeting House Road on site and into 348 Caris Shop Road and to construct a new 4,000 ft office building which will be ancillary to the contractor's yard use. The applicant
intends to combine 348 and 350 Old Meeting House Road through an approval not required ANR application. The fire department has no concerns with the proposed plan. The proposed site plan shows 28 paved parking spaces exceeding
the minimum requirement of 27 spaces. It also includes a 22 space gravel lot area for overflow parking and a 28 space gravel lot area for equipment, trucks, and trailers. The board would like
ballage shown on of the site plan for all paved parking spaces around the proposed office building as long as they are I'm sorry as long as they do not interfere with ADA compliance with
spacing between each ball no greater than 54 in center to center. The applicant requested a waiver from the requirements of section 240-12.2D to D five to submit traffic information and the planning board granted this waiver.
Next page. The applicant requested waiverss from the requirements of section 240-14.3B to submit a landscape plan and section 240-12.D1 to provide a lighting plan. The board granted both waiverss. Public comments
were made at the public hearing. The board finds that the applicant has adequately addressed the concerns raised. The town of Falmouth departments have reviewed and commented on the above mentioned application and the planning board finds that the applicant has
adequately addressed the comments. The board finds that the information provided by the applicant conforms to all the requirements of section 240-12.2 two of the zoning bylaw conditions. Number one, the plan shall be
constructed as approved. Any changes shall be reviewed by the planning board to determine if a modification of this decision is necessary. Number two, any connections or alterations to public utilities would require permission from
the appropriate town department. Number three, construction of this project shall follow the town's soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions document which can be found on the
engineering division divisions page of the town's website. Next page number four, the project shall meet all applicable standards set forth in the building code as determined by the building commissioner.
Number five, the applicant shall see the engineering division for address assignment for the new building prior to applying for a building permit. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall post the address for this building per section 99-1 of the
town code. Number six, the applicant shall obtain an approved driveway permit and post any required bond with the engineering division before the start of construction. The applicant shall complete the work approved by the engineering division in
the driveway permit. And number seven, pursuant to section 240-12.2 two of the zoning bylaw. This site plan review decision shall lapse three years from the date it is granted if substantial use thereof has not sooner
commenced except for good cause. The determination of good cause shall be made by the planning board. >> Second. >> I have a question. I think something's missing. I I see we're waving a lighting plan, but I thought we're going to have a condition where we comply with dark sky
lighting, and I didn't hear that in the conditions. >> You can add it. >> You want to add it? >> Yeah. >> Well, I I brought it up the night of the meeting, and I I'm all set with wavering it, >> but I don't want to give up on dark sky. I mean, the light shines on the ground, not in the air. It's pretty simple.
>> So, just make the motion. >> Okay. Yeah. I >> I thought I made it when we did the last time. I make the motion we add dark sky comply. >> I'll second. Any discussion? >> Yes, >> I' I'd like not so much a discussion, but a comment. I think um Jim brought a
good thing to the attention of uh the board and to the public that this really is uh uh combining two lots in order to have the whole thing be acceptable as a contractor's yard. And it would not really be acceptable in the character of that neighborhood except that the site
plan that we're approving shows that the residential character of the street is maintained. All the contractor's yard items are nearly 300 on the plan that we're approving are nearly 300 feet back from the road. So what we're approving
isn't changing the character of the neighborhood, I believe. So yes, it's true what you said, Jim, and it's good to point it out, but it's also good to point out that we were mindful of the change, >> but we have to vote now on >> the amendment. >> All right. All in favor of the
amendment? I >> I >> unanimous. Thank you. >> And now I'll move that we uh vote to uh pass the draft with this amendment. >> Motion is read with this amendment. >> Any comments, discussion?
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I unanimous. Thank you. >> All right. Next on our agenda is uh applicant Kevin Mlower behalf of 28 common heights road special
print application to allow parking within front yard and within 5 ft of a property line at 28 common heights. He also has a site plan review for this Kevin. >> Uh good evening Mr. Chair. for the record, Kevin Clower. Um, we submitted
some revisions to the plan specifically to storm water management um about a week ago, but I spoke with um Miss Tandera today and she confirmed that engineering has not yet had an opportunity to comment. So, we would likely need an extend or continuation of
this hearing in order to provide them an opportunity to do so. Um, we believe we've met all their requirements. Um I think at one of our last hearings prior to some of these changes we talked about uh potentially drafting a positive motion to accompany the following
hearing, but we have since we have addressed those uh uh those comments pending their confirmation. Um I I would suggest that might be a good way to move this forward. >> Do you have a a date? >> Um I think the next hearing date is the
28th. So we'd like to go with that if it's possible. All right. Thank you. So, a motion to continue to the 28th. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Uh, is is it possible to have a positive motion drafted for that potentially?
>> So, they've already been drafted because we were told last meeting to do that as long as engineering. Um, but I'm just waiting for engineering to make sure that. So, they're >> so we can review the engineering. >> Any discussion? >> Second.
>> Second. Okay. All in favor? >> I I >> and miss. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> don't go away. >> Next, uh applicant Kevin Mccclaw on behalf of Anthony Amaru special permit application to allow parking within the
front yard at 538 North Highway and also um site plan review application to construct five that same location or maybe >> Yeah. >> Yes. five duplex town houses with associated
parking located at 538 Northwood Highway. >> Great. Um, since the last meeting, we have retained a traffic consultant and are working on some modifications to both the uh site plans and architectural plans. We expect to have our um traffic
consultant report back hopefully next week. Um, regardless, we're not ready to proceed tonight. Um, and would like an opportunity to continue so that we can submit that traffic report as well as the revised plans to the board in advance of the next hearing. Um, I would
suggest we could try to do the 28th. That works for the board. >> That good. >> Okay. Can I get a a mo a motion to continue both hearings? move to continue on um both together we
can do it I assume since we're handling them second on behalf of Anthony Amaru a special permit application to allow parking in with the front yard in 538 North Balmouth Highway >> and also the site plan review >> thank you second
>> second any discussion >> all in favor I I unanimous thank you >> thank you all so much have a great night you also Uh next we have u applicant uh Brian Gation special application for
relief from dimensional regulations as applied to exempt uses regarding a proposed solar vual carport at 709 and 737 Ger Street. And also I'd like to take this in conjunction site plan
review application to construct a solar balport system over the existing boat and RV storage area at 709 and 737 Gford Street. And for the applicant, >> uh, they're not here, but they requested a continuence to August.
>> Asking for a continuence. Do you have a date? >> August 11th. >> August 11th. Okay. Uh, can I get a motion to continue both hearings on August 11th? >> Continued. Motion to continue both the special permit and the site plan
application for Brian Bgian to August 11th. >> Second. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> I. Thank you. Unanimous. Uh, next on our agenda is an item. Um,
I'm going to recuse myself from this hearing and I'll let uh Pat, can you take over for this, please? >> Sure. Thank you. >> Okay. The applicant for this hearing is Brian Wall Esquire. Definitive plan application to resend
the previously approved definitive subdivision plan under uh GL C41 section 81W for the roadway known as Adeline's Way and lots created there.
>> Pat, the public hearing notice. >> Oh, public hearing notice. Sorry. >> Public notice for this project was published on June 19th, 2026 and June 26, 2026, and 29 abutters were notified by regular mail.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the board. Uh, for the record, my name is Brian Wall. I'm an attorney. I have an office in Sandwich and I'm representing the applicant tonight, Dave Fchillo, who is here in the audience. Also with me is Mike Purcelli from Falmouth Engineering in
case you have any questions regarding what we're asking you to do tonight. Um, Mr. Fchillo is the owner of a parcel of land known as Zero Adelines Way, which is a parcel of land off Old Barnstable Road. Um, the property was approved as a
planned residential subdivision in 1999. um also with a special permit, otherwise con commonly known as a cluster subdivision. The subdivision was never constructed and Mr. Fochillo bought the property about a year ago and he would like to
not proceed with the construction and do something different with the property. So, what we're asking the board to do is to resend the subdivision approval from 1999 and return the land just to essentially a large rectangle so that he can kind of decide on what he's going to
do going forward. And that would be under chapter 41 section 81W. And that's really it. It's not that complicated compared to what you just went through. >> Yeah. >> I have a technical question. >> Go ahead, Jim. Um my understanding if a subdivision
wasn't built within three or four years that it lost its approval and we really don't know this. This should be reverting back to the zoning. That's exactly was applied to the properties that I was dealing with on Kendall Lane many times and we had to come in and every 3 years ask for it and ask for it and now I thought it should it should
already be gone is my understanding. I would like our planner to tell us whether that's true or not. >> Yeah. So, in a subdivision, they have I believe it's 8 years to execute. >> What was the date here? 90 something. >> Yeah. '90s. Um, and that allows for
zoning protection, meaning they can take advantage of the subdivision as was created under the zoning rules at the time. If the zoning rules never changed within that 8-year period, obviously that's, you know, a moot point. But this formal process is essentially wiping the
record, if you will, clean of the cluster subdivision at replacing it with the plan that you see up on the board. Jim, to your um your particular statement, you're correct. Every 3 years, you need to essentially continue
to uh build of that subdivision if you have obtained a special permit. Otherwise, it lapses. So, you need to show good cause in this circumstances. Yes, technically that three-year window expired and therefore good cause wasn't
shown. This is essentially just wiping the record clean. So, setting a new dinner table, if you will, >> but why >> I think it's already done is my point. It is technically technically already done, but this replaces it. Yeah, this
replaces it at the registry so that everyone who looks at that property now sees that it is no longer a cluster sub. >> Well, you you made us come back every 3 years and kind of get it approved again to keep it alive because we tried to
keep it alive for like 15 years. >> Yeah. Right. Because you were continuing to do construction. >> No, we hadn't started yet. We're just trying to keep the subdivision. If you were trying to keep it Yes. If you were trying to keep it alive. >> We never started. Anyways, I was just I would want to be clear that I understood the law. >> Yeah.
>> I'd also like to make a comment on this too because that particular property had DP digging around trying to find things. It's the back part of it is a dirty site and I think the cleaner we can keep the
title on this. >> I'm not opposing for my own. Anybody has questions going into the future? That's just my feeling is that the cleaner the title is on it, the better. >> No pun intended.
>> No, no pun intended. You caught me. >> Thank you. Can I can I respond very quickly to two of Not really a response. It's just more of a commentary. I agree with what the town planner said, Mr. Fox, about why we're doing this. It's to clear the slate. This was both a
definitive plan and a special permit. And we believe that special permit expired long ago. But if you go to the registry today, kind of on a very nuts andbolts level, and you look up the property, it still looks like a subdivision even though it's probably legally lapsed. And so we're trying to
clean up the record so that we can start fresh. And Mr. Fchillo is aware of that contamination on the property. He did due diligence uh before he purchased it and plans to address that. Mhm. >> Could I just push this a minute longer? I would think the thing that you're
looking up um over there in the records office is dated. >> So that the date alone would tell you that this is outdated. You don't need a further action >> to as long as the document's dated. >> So when you resend a subdivision, you
have to bring it back to a certain uh plan. So that's what they had to do. They have to file a new plan showing that it's just what what it is now. announced one lot. >> I think it goes back to the plan of record before the subdivision. I disagree with that. That's what my
experience is. >> Again, I I think you're just you're just saying it in different ways up too much. >> It really is simply to just clean the slate to do it. >> But we're saying the slate was cleaned by the elapsed time. >> Special permit was but not the definitive. So it was two applications
when it came before us. So yes, technically the special permit was lapsed, but you have to clean up the definitive plan part of it. If you don't agree, that's fine. >> No, this does it. Let's do it. I'm sorry. We're wasting time. Excuse me. >> And again, it's kind of a nuts andbolts thing. I'm not a conveyance or a title
attorney. Um, I dabble with it, but I don't do that kind of work. But they're the most conservative lawyers. If they see any problem, >> they don't want to advise a bank to lend on it or anything like that. So, by operation of law, it probably has lapsed. But to clean it up and for
practical purposes, we want to do this Thank you. >> You're very welcome. >> Any other questions or comments on this? Okay, then I would need a motion. >> Pat, you need the public if the public >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is anybody here from the
public who wishes to speak on this? My bad. >> I do have something to say. You have to go up to the microphone there. >> And please state your name and >> I have to say a few things. >> Okay. State your name please and where you're from.
>> My name is Deanna Burke and I am in a butter at 350 Ostable Road and um I'm here because I have some concerns about this property that is next door to me.
Uh it's not only the noise, but uh there's cement being dropped in the along the property. And I'm just wondering, um is this going to be a commercial site or is this an
agricultural area that I'm living in? Because there's cement, there's noise, there's commercial trucks. Just same. So, that was my concern. >> Thank you. >> What are they going to do with the land?
>> I have no clue. We can >> I'd like to know. I really would because right now there's cement being poured over there. There are commercial trucks. There's a lot of noise and a lot of banging. And I am a little nervous about being
here because I never speak in front of a group. But I just had to make my concerns known. We're friendly people. Thank you for making your concerns. >> We advise her to see the building commissioner. >> Well, yeah, they would have had to have had a permit from the building commissioner, but does anybody have any
answer to her? >> Well, I think everybody in the room probably knows Mr. Fchillo owns a concrete business, so he might be using it as kind of just parking or something, but there's no proposal right now. Part of this process is to clear the land and then figure out what he wants to do with
it. So, and I do agree with Miss Harris that anything has to be in compliance with zoning. >> Can I answer the lady's question? >> Sure. Yeah, Dave, go ahead. >> Please, please come up to the microphone. >> Thank you. >> Legitimate question.
>> Thank you. >> So, this winter, >> you have to state your >> David Fo. >> Thank you. Uh this winter we had a very severe winter and what happened to us was at my facility on Thomas Landers Road where we
normally dispose of concrete. We have a lot of leftover concrete that we put into molds etc etc. We had so much snow that I had nowhere else to put the concrete. So that's why you don't you won't see the concrete trucks anymore there. probably saw it there for about
maybe a month and it was a few trucks that when we had concrete at the end of the day and we had nowhere else to put it I put it on the ground there and I plan on going and jackhammering out the concrete bringing it back to my facility and crushing it. So that's what
happened. Um we just it we actually on my property uh it took us almost a month to clear the snow. We had a snow pile. >> It does snow >> that was 200 yards long, 50 feet wide, and 40 feet high. I could show you
pictures. You It was crazy. We had so much snow and we had nowhere to put it. So, we even hauled the snow off site. Uh, luckily my buddy Sam Laruso let me haul some of the snow over there to get rid of the snow. And so, as I said, we have a lot of concrete that comes in
every day. We put into molds, we put into screeds, but we had nowhere else to put the concrete. So, I said, I'll go over, dump it here, and when I get some time, I'll go over and break it up. And that's exactly what's going to happen. As far as the property goes, I don't know exactly what I'm going to do right now. Um,
right now, I'm just trying to get it properly on, you know, with what we're doing here. Um, I do have title insurance because it is legal. So, um, and I do own the property. So, that's basically it. And being perfectly honest with you, I don't know what I'm doing
with it. Um, I have a billion ideas. >> You have trees on it now in Dur. >> Yeah. Trying to get it cleaned up. It was I can tell you it was it was if you saw it was quite a mess when we took it over and we have been, >> you know, and you do see us screening
loom because we had this crazy amount of the prior person that owned it and it wasn't Melvin. Uh this was another guy. I don't want to mention his name, but he left quite a mess. And um so that's what we what we've been doing is cleaning it up.
>> So you've been very forthcoming. I I appreciate that. I >> But that's what happened with the concrete and you you won't see I might bring a mixer over there to pour some pads being perfectly honest with you, but that's exactly what happened to us this winter. So >> yeah. >> Could I just ask Mr. Fill a question or
whoever would have the answer? >> I just I just don't happen to know what the process would be for that. Do you need a permit of some kind from the town to be putting stuff there? >> I know that the the land was two parcels that's going into one, but it was it was
um that part of it was uh agricultural where I where that is is agricultural. >> And does that allow you to dump concrete and and >> I don't know to be perfectly honest with you. I I would if if I may um just for the right I would advise you to just you know visit the building commissioner
>> talk about what you want to do there and he's very accommodating and he'll >> and I've tal and I've talked to Gary a number of times about stuff that I that I'm planning on doing but like I said I just been extremely busy and I'm not trying to pass the buck that woman has a legitimate question I want to give her a legitimate answer of what happened that
concrete would not have been there had we had not such a severe winter >> thank you thank Just in the future before you put any more concrete on the lot, talk with Gary because you might need >> some further permitting.
>> Yeah, no problem. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You wanted to say >> Y. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We have to move on with the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. >> I don't have anything further. >> All right, then I need a motion
>> to what? >> Close >> to res to Oh, we have to close the h hearing to close the hearing first. >> I move we close the hearing on whatever this on Fitillo's application. >> Yeah, >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> Okay, now we need to vote >> the recision. >> Yeah. the definitive plan application to resend a previously approved definitive subdivision plan under GLC 41 section 81W for the roadway known as Adeline's
Way and the lots created there. >> So >> I move that >> you just need to to um request us to draft a positive motion for next week. >> We can't just do it right now. >> No, >> because we have to read it into the record. >> Yes, >> but we can't resend it and then you
bring the motion to us. No, the whole motion is to rescend it and it at once. >> Okay, that's what happens when I get instructions to begin with. Thank you. All right, so we need to ask our
planning staff to draft a positive motion to resend Adeline's way >> and it can be um on July 28th. >> Okay. Can I have a motion?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? >> I I >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your time tonight. >> No. That's what happens when I don't get all my instructions.
>> Okay. >> Thank you for taking over. I appreciate that. >> Of course. >> Okay. We all set? >> Yeah. >> All right. Next is planning board discussions. Fall 2026 town meeting.
planning board article, zoning articles. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will take it from there. So, up on the screen hopefully is the the material that is in your packet for
this evening. Um, you may recognize uh the layout. This is very similar to what I gave you at the last meeting. uh it are basically describes the potential articles that you uh may seek to bring
to town meeting in the fall. Uh so I will just go through them very quickly and the reason that um the packet is so large is because of the last article that you asked for would be to expand the Mr. Cod district. So, we touched
upon it a little bit earlier this evening, but we'll get into the to the meat of what that looks like uh in just a second. So, article one, as we talked about at the last meeting, that is um technical corrections. So, scrier's errors uh changing references uh to
things such as you can see up on the screen, you know, where we say board of selectman, we're going to change that to select board, etc. Uh there are areas in the zoning bylaw when we start making changes to the numbering that those references don't catch up. So we have to
correct those um in multiple areas. So you can essentially see what we're planning on doing in that section. Article two um is the duplex conversation that we talked about at the last meeting. Again, the proposal would
be to allow duplexes in all of your single family residence districts. I'm going to go through each one of the articles first and then we can go back if you'd like and we can handle questions and comments. Um, what I showed you here is uh a
request from the board uh essentially outlining how other Cape Towns handle duplexes uh within their residential districts. Uh so there's a lot of information here, but essentially it's it's a mix of special permits and allowing them by right. Uh there are a
couple of communities who simply don't allow duplexes at all. Um and so they're sort of outliers, but for the mass vast majority, it's essentially a tie. Some >> Can you mention what they are? Those two couple that don't allow them at all. >> Don't allow Let's see. Uh so Brewster,
as you can see, two family dwellings are not listed as an allowed use. And I think it was Uh you're testing my memory. >> Barnes, >> Barnesible. Barsible lists them, but they're not allowed in the residential districts. They allow them in the commercial districts.
>> So Barnesville is huge. That's all the villages. That's a giant impact. They don't allow them anywhere. So we will not be having this in Austinville, Kuitton's Mills. >> Again, in their residential zoning, >> the residential zoning we are probably going to be doing in Falmouth
>> potentially. Potentially. I >> I think that's >> based on the conversation we had last week. >> Clear what we're talking about here. I don't think everyone understands this article. >> Okay. Well, let me get through everything and then we'll go back. So, the other item that I added for you in
this um in this item is the initiative that the Cape Cod Commission recently um took on was creating essentially a catalog of dwellings, dwelling types. Um and so they tried to create um floor
plans and building plans that municipalities could potentially allow um a developer or a property owner to utilize with the building department as a quicker way of making their way through the permitting process. Um and
so I've itemized those here. uh you'll see them in the uh attachments of your packet, but essentially they've created a a number of potential duplex structures that essentially in my opinion look like single family homes.
You it's really tough to dis to discern other than the two doors of course allowing access. So I added that >> article three um same edits as as described at the last meeting. Uh, so I won't go into that too much unless
there's questions. Uh, and then article four. >> Wait a second. I want to go back. You said potential duplex, but this also uses semi- detached, which looks quite different. >> Yep. >> So we we kind of glossed over that that's included. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Right. Because that's a big first part.
I said, "Oh, we won't even notice, but it also says semi- detached, which I will believe be discernably different." >> Yeah. >> In my my opinion. >> Yep. >> I'm not against it, but I just want the language to be clear. >> Sure. to people at home because no one's here. I guess we're talking to the television.
>> Yep. And to the video. Um so then article four is expanding the Mr. Cod district. So this one's the big convers I expect this one to be the big conversation item uh tonight. So um the idea would be to go essentially back to
2021 where you proposed the U Mr. Cod district in all areas of town as John was mentioning earlier. um any B1, B2 or BR districts. Um and so what I've done here is I've given you uh so we'll get
through these these duplex. So these are the duplex plans that I was referring to. So these are just examples and again I'll go back to these but I want to get to the Mr. Cod area. So this is hopefully everyone can see that uh
this is the original town meeting map uh that you brought forward before the amendment on the floor. And so what I've done is um shown on the screen all the areas that would be added with this article language. So essentially what you would be doing is instead of
referring to the Mr. COD district as a map. You would essentially just say any B1, B2 or BR district. The MR cod overlays that and you're allowed to do whatever you're allowed to do in the MRC district. So, and attached to that are
um two items, the nitrogen sensitive um map uh that shows which B2, B1, and BR districts which are in nitrogen sensitive areas and which are not. and then uh each one of those uh districts
themselves zoomed in so that you get a better idea as to where each area is. So keep in mind so each one of these maps is item you know it's articulated as art area number one. So you can go back to the main map and down here is area
number one. So we have 21 potential new areas that could be added to the MRC district. So that is essentially the summary of your packet. Happy to answer any questions that you might have about these articles. >> John,
can you just go over for the public um Jud uh just briefly B1, B2, and BR zoning? Just a quick explanation. >> Sure. I think that's probably best done on the GIS map.
So essentially your business one, business two districts. Your business two district is your most um lenient business district in town. So it allows the most amount of uses. And you can see up on the screen anything
that I'm going to hover over the biggest B2 district. anything that's in this sort of uh light reddish uh color uh that allows any number of commercial activities. Um I can't list them off the top of my
head, but it's the most lenient. Your B1 district is essentially your downtown area. So, we'll show you those are areas um just outside here and along Main Street. um not as lenient as the B2 district, but um importantly with
the B1 district, you do have a full parking waiver. So any development within that district does not have to provide parking whatsoever. And then your BR district, which was I think adopted in 2004, somewhere around there,
that was your first attempt at mixed use. Um, and so that's primarily um on the eastern side of uh the Main Street corridor. And then there's a pocket um down in Woods Hole. I'll just zoom out a little bit.
There's a pocket in Woods Hole right down in in this area. But as you can see, when you zoom out of on the zoning map, I'm just going to try to do this carefully because it moves quickly. You've got pockets of uh B2 districts
throughout town. So there's uh pockets up here up in the Sandwich Road and 151 area and then primarily it's along your 28 corridor and down into um Main Street and Depot F. So that's essentially the
description of your B1, B2, and BR. >> Something doesn't look right to me. the general residential districts that color y >> you're showing the aapescuit lower end acapesc all that same color.
>> It's it's very hard to discern. So that that's RB. >> Okay. That's what that's I suggest that was extremely confusing. >> Yeah. You see how how close the GR and the RB is. >> Yeah. All right. >> Yeah. >> I I thought I was really missing something.
>> Yeah. I think you should try to do something about that color. >> Tweak those colors a bit. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, >> I was I was going to say, why aren't we doing in GR? It's everywhere. >> Right. >> That would have been a huge change. >> So, judge, should we take these articles
one at a time? >> I would suggest that. Yeah. >> Okay. Let's start with article one uh technical corrections. Uh they they look u reasonable. >> Mhm. And again, those are just technical
errors that exist in the bylaw. Um, one item of note here on the second bullet, um, with the recottification effort, we changed the way we describe the residential districts as single residence districts. And so, it created a lot of confusion for folks who were
normally I mean, just look at the at the zoning map. We refer to our our residential B and residential A districts. Well, in the zoning bylaw, it says S- RA and so people get confused with where's the S- RA on the map and
it's it's just a simple error that we want to correct. And instead of calling it single residence districts, we just say residence A, right? So, it's a it's a minor change. >> All right. Thank you. Any discussion on on these on that article? >> No.
>> No. My only concern would be and I don't think it's been a concern before when you say altogether there are 11 articles that will 11 items that will be in this article. Has that ever caused any confusion with town meeting? >> So the in the time that I've been in
town, we've only done it one other time and it was it went through fine. And again, a lot of it's like for example uh in this section of the bylaw, it says refer to section 10.2A and really it's supposed to say 10.2b. 2B and so we're just changing a letter
or a number that but if anybody raised an objection to any one of these things would that put the kibash on the whole article or can a vote be taken to remove that from the article? >> I suspect amendment could be on the floor that would remove that particular item. >> Okay.
>> I plan to put together a presentation obviously that goes through each one of those if if anyone holds it and wants clarification. I need I'm sorry. I I was so confused with the color thing. I actually forgot this. We're breaking these into Could
you restate the thing we're voting on right now? >> Well, you're not voting on anything. You're just discussing whether or not you want to bring these articles fine >> to a public hearing >> because Oh, we're bringing them all. >> That's the idea. >> Okay. Then I do have a comment on them all.
>> Okay. >> But we're going to discuss >> Let's start with number one. We're on number one right now. >> Okay. Hey, could I have >> That's why I asked the question which one we're talking about. I was trying to do it at an appropriate time. I thought I just You're doing them all at once, so that's why I was doing it. >> I'll wait till we do them all tonight,
but not all at the same time. >> So, we're on article one right now. >> Technical correction. Yes, Charlotte. >> On article one only, no problem with it. It's a very sensible thing to do, but if it turns out to be the only one that's going, I would say it's not enough to
bother with. We just tack it on to whatever the next one is. I couldn't agree more. >> Any other comments? >> No. >> Okay, >> makes sense. >> Okay, >> does make sense. Okay, article two.
>> So, again, this is um uh an outcome of the housing production plan initiative. Uh it's been talked about before. Um the idea here is to you know go with the maximum impact and to potentially allow for duplexes in each one of your uh
single family residence districts. So and I should say residence districts. Um the only area in town your residential districts that duplexes are allowed by right is your general residence. the remainder of these uh zoning uh areas as
seen up on the screen. The essentially you would allow them either by right or by special permit if you choose but essentially right now we're suggesting by right. >> John one one second please. Uh so Jed, if um if we went forward with this,
could we attach the um design guidelines that the Cape Cod Commission for as part of this or >> not as currently written? No. >> Okay. Okay. Do you think it would be a good idea to add that to it or No.
Well, you couldn't add it necessarily to the to the guidelines that you have tonight because those are specific for the mixed residential and commercial overlay district which wouldn't apply here. So >> we showed you had some duplexes. >> Yeah, but they were from Mr. Cod. Right. Okay. >> Right. So those design got Yeah, those
design >> for single family residences in North Falmouth. >> Well, >> everywhere. I'm just saying >> they're all all single I was just I'm going to make a point in a minute. But I was just using language to emphasize what I'm talking >> you answered my question. Thank you. Go ahead. >> On article two are have we moved to
article two now? Um, on article two, I had requested, as you know, I spoke against it vehemently, and I had requested that we find out what the other Cape Towns are doing along these lines, so we would know because I'm concerned that we would uh be aligning
ourselves, particularly on the upper Cape, to do something that would mark us out as being different from the other communities, not preserving our Cape Cod character carefully. And as I look at this and counting up who is doing what among the 15 communities on the Cape, we
see that there are three of those communities, Barnstable, Brewster, and Wellfleet that say no, they're just not going to have duplexes in any residential area. We see another three that say by special permit only, which means they're going to have to turn up
and argue their case and and present pictures and make you known what they're doing there. So, we now have six. And then we have three more where it's limited where they've limited it to only one particular type of residential area or placed a limit on it. They don't want
it everywhere. So that leaves that's nine of them. That leaves six. Fewer than half of the 15 are saying yes to duplexes everywhere. So we really will be out of step with other communities immediately near us and the communities
we probably would most like to resemble. So I would say um as you know I hope we don't go forward with this anyway. It's not a good idea. And then I want to ask uh a question. This new information is restricted just to residential areas
whereas the proposal for Felmouth is that it be all agricultural areas because we allow single family houses there and all residential areas. Do they have no agricultural areas in any of the other 14 towns? It's
generally just I mean and we just to be clear we consider the agricultural zoning districts to also be residence districts >> because you're allowing a single family home in that district. >> The nine that are saying either no or very limited that covers everything. So
it would put us really out of step and I'd like to note also the ones that we're in step with. So because I think that matters are these I don't know how familiar everybody is with the aesthetics of these different towns but we would be in step with Dennis East
Haritch uh Truro >> Bourne >> and Yarmath >> wasn't born one of those two >> born allows by right in one district and not allowed in the other. >> Right. So you need to to think about
that. Is this are these the towns we want to be most nearly like and they are all in the outer cape. They're not really here. I think just think it puts us out of line with the other communities and it's a danger to our property values. >> All right. Thank you, Jim.
>> Well, I feel that in order to deal with the housing issues, we have to discuss this. But I was really hoping that we'd have meetings and discussions and neighbors to talk about it and have full discussions. And now we're not even gonna have a local discussion. We're taking it right to town meeting. I was
hoping, >> but this is the this is the precon conversation before your public hearings. >> So, we are still going to have public hearings on that cuz if we're taking this to town meeting, we're going to blow up town meeting. I wanted I wanted to have a hearing time where we listen to people and hopefully I would have
thought they'd been here tonight, but they'll have a chance to come. I hope the paper brings it up that this is a radical change could change the look of our town drastically and we should have people come and talk and see if they want to. >> We're trying to decide if the board wants to bring it to the public. I can see the planning department wants to.
>> What I'm I'm trying to say for for the for the pressure that we have on housing. I think as the planning board we have to at least bring it up to discussion for our town people to talk about. >> Do we want to make it everywhere? >> I just I just hoping this wasn't the only discussion. And now I know I'm out
at this. >> I'm too soon. I'll wait till the next meeting. >> Thank you. >> Pardon me. >> And just to clarify, the planning department didn't bring this forward. >> Who did? >> Well, like I said, it's it was an it was an outcome of the housing production plan. It's been a >> notice this birth from that.
>> I'm sorry. >> Where was this coming from? >> The the house the housing production plan the public leapt off the page. I would say the planning department took it from there and brought it here. >> Well, that's our role. >> Well, we're here now. That's >> Bob.
>> Yeah. Uh I think that it should be restricted to certain zones >> uh and possibly a special permit. Uh I think to just uh keep going the way we're going is is not uh the way to go. Uh I've always looked at uh people who
have uh had a duplex and the word duplex we we've tried to avoid that with the accessory apartment bylaw. We went with the 40% because everybody was going to, you know, uh, go nuts over the, uh, 50%. All the duplex is is 50%. Uh, it's like
having an ADU that's in equal square footage of, uh, the primary residence. And >> well, the state already does that, >> right? And that's and that's what we're looking at right now. Anybody in any of these zoning districts could throw a 900 square foot ADU,
>> threebedroom ADU >> on the property. now >> attached or unattached. >> Attached. Yeah. >> No architectural review. >> So, we're looking at duplexes that can go up anywhere. And I would like to have a little bit of control over it. And I think somebody that wants to buy a a
house or build a house, how many homeowners got their start with a two family or a three family house? And I think it's a way of getting younger people into the market. Uh it's a lot easier to get a mortgage with a a
property that is income generating. Uh and as far as uh the footprint, it's not going to be any different than somebody with an existing uh property and adding an ADU. And uh I just think that we we need need to look at this very
carefully. I I don't think to throw out the whole thing without the discussion. Uh and uh by right versus special permit needs to be discussed. Uh I think the design uh part of it could be something that uh part of the special permit
process like we did with the accessory uh apartment bylaw where the ADU had to resemble uh the character of the neighborhood. it had to resemble the uh house itself that it was uh going on the property with. So, I think we do have
some control with it. And if if it's a special permit, the neighbors have some say in it. I don't think that if uh we do any of this, we're going to see this ballooning of two family homes on on a piece of property. And it always comes
down to the septic anyways. whatever uh the septic system or the uh land mass that it's sitting on can handle, that's what's going to determine how many bedrooms and how many square feet. So, I I think it's an important discussion to have and uh I don't want to just throw
this out without any discussion. >> I I just there's two things I want to comment. We we're forgetting they're also saying semi- detach was a totally looking thing. And just so you know, I know for a fact on a 12,000 uh square foot lot, you can build three units, two
bedrooms each, it fits fine. I built several of them because we used to allow them under our zoning. I went around town and found all the lots that we we could where we could do it. It was in B2 and it said you could come two to three. I built a ton of them. So you can have a 12,000 foot lot with three units on it,
all two bedrooms. Yeah. >> That's not simply a duplex. Okay. And if you can put two families on a twoacre lot as opposed to one family, I think that's a better use of land. >> I do too. >> All right, Eric, >> if you have any comments or if you want
>> I do. I do. Yeah. I think that um if you look at like what the Cape Cod Commission and others are recommending, right, is that we should be expanding um the opportunity for duplexes and residential districts. I think that having in the agricultural district will increase, you know, the land value and
push people further to do non-aggricultural uses of the land. Um, and I, yeah, I don't like the fact that it includes the agricultural districts. I think that there's only a few towns on the Cape that have agricultural districts. Um, and so we should try and continue that. Um, but I
do think that, yeah, also just generally for like transportation planning and stuff, I think that we're going to be increasing, you know, the number of people per area. Um, and I think it would make more sense to approach this in a more targeted way around like
specific um, and and in general I feel like it's not necessarily moving in the right direction in terms of like what we're talking about as a board a lot is trying to establish a form-based code and here we are kind of like mildly expanding the potential uses on a lot.
But yeah, I don't I I think it should be more like spatially explicit. Um and not just like all districts that you can build a single family home. >> Well, all the districts you can build a house right now. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm saying it shouldn't be all districts that you can
>> and you can do it with an ADU. >> Yep. >> So, that's uh that's out of our purview at this point. And part of the reason the the thought be behind duplexes is that as Bob has mentioned many times is
it allows a young younger family to own a home and have someone else next door helping to pay the mortgages. So a lot of a lot of the duplexes are really for younger the the design is for younger people to get a start. Okay. I'm in no
way like I'm sorry. >> We'll get back to you, >> Tom. >> I I you know, I'm just aligned with what Bob said, you know, just uh we don't want the wild west. We just need balance, you know, just in agreement with all comments.
>> Pat, I'm completely in agreement with Bob. I I >> well stated >> don't like to put an additional requirement of a special permit, but I think we have to. Mhm. >> We'll be meeting every week. >> We don't have We don't have
>> It's going to be a ZBA special perimeter planning port. Let's get to the ZBA. >> That was a joke. >> Yeah. >> Daggers. >> No, I think it has to be a special permit. Um I think it can't be in every district.
We have what Erica is saying. We don't want to get rid of any of the agricultural land we have left. But in agricultural you can build a house anywhere and that's what's happened. So we have precious little agricultural land left. A huge concern I have is okay
if you allow this in any residential district what size lot are you putting it on? Is it served by sewer? Is it septic system? Do you have the reserve for the septic system that you would need need for a failure on either
of them? Um, there are way too many questions that would have to be answered to give it by right and as you've said, >> you can put an ADU on it already. I >> I want to bring up something we've done in the past that we that was a big
regret and it took us a long time to move it along. We started allowing um I think it's six units per acre or six or eight with the special permit in our industrial zone properties >> and we started building condos all
around town and we built up all the condos and then all the industrial people came and said we have no more land for contractor's yards where all the contractors we drove the contractors out of town because we we this sounds very similar to with the doing the
agricultural side and open it up and driving. I just wanted to point that out. We've made this mistake in the past. >> I I think like to to chime in like I'm definitely not opposed to the concept of duplexes. Like I think it's fantastic, right? And ADUs is a good step forward, but you know, if we're to do this in all
districts, you're going like because there's almost unlimited demand for housing because people want to get second homes and third homes and whatnot. You know, like you're not going to you're going to just increase the land value for that particular use. And like he's saying, like if you have an industrial land use that was allowed and
then you allow condos because of the nature of the market, it seems you're going to get condos. You're not going to get and we need to have places that, you know, contractors can set things up or people can make food. And I think that like it's just because of the the way that the market functions, we're like
going to just end up with as much housing as possible. And it's not necessarily going to be affordable either. Um I I don't think that we can make the claim that this isn't a simple like supply and demand issue. like if you just make more housing, it's by no means going to be necessarily affordable. I think we really need to look at how we can enable affordable
housing, but we can look at, you know, um, uh, inclusive zoning and other measures like that that that like guarantee that you're going to get something that's actually affordable to people. >> I got one more. I just have to I feel strongly with what say just take a look at the recommended marketing prices that
the 40Bs are doing on their market rate units that are already building in town and say, is that affordable? We gave him the extra density. The towns let him doing it and they're saying going to cost $900,000. Is that some of the costs I've seen? So that just hammers the nail on what he just said. That's what we're
talking about. >> So if do I hear that you would potentially be okay bringing this article forward to a public hearing if you eliminated all the agricultural districts? >> No, no, no. We're still we're still discussing. It has to be I'm just I'm
saying this primarily to get the people out there to understand what we're going to be talking about. I want to listen to what they want >> and then bring forward what they want and not just what we think right here. I just I think we have to have really serious hearings with the people in that live in this town. I'm just surprised
they're not here on this. >> Well, again, keep in mind this is just a planning board discussion. When we get to a public hearing, that will be advertised in the paper twice so that we will spread the word about a potential zoning article. That way, people will know and then be likely to come to the
meeting to discuss it >> in a zoning change. Do you have to notify the abuters? So, there are rules related to that, but um >> which means would we be sending everybody in town a notification on
this? The only thing you're going to get is what we publish in the paper. >> It would just be the publisher. >> That's the point I was trying to make right there. >> You only notify a Butters when it's 10 properties of total or less. If it's over 10 properties that are in this whole change, then only an ad goes in
the paper with the >> Okay, so this already falls into that rule. Thanks for clearing that up. Unless I've misunderstood him, I'd like to speak against what Jyn just proposed, that we bring this article, as it appears now, to the public. I think the public voted for a planning board to be
able to discard bad ideas, to whittle down bad ideas until they're better ideas, to have some effect on it. That if we are planning to bring something to town meeting, it should be something that a majority of us can stand behind and say we agree to it. As it is now, it
doesn't sound like it. We're definitely going to have to either say no to all of it or modify it pretty severely. We would not be bringing this to a public hearing because we do not have a majority agreeing with it as it is. >> Oh, this is our this is our this is our
first evening of discussion. Second, well, last one wasn't much of a discussion. Uh before we have another uh discussion about this, what I would appreciate if it's possible for staff to um let us know how many parcels of
agricultural land we have in the town of Fmouth vacant that is five acres or more agricultural only. >> What will that information do for us, John? Well, there's a lot of concern that uh the agricultural lands going to
get far not going to get farmed, it's going to become houses. I don't think we have much farmland in this town as we just have some agricultural land. >> I think it's very important to make it clear too that agriculture is a protected use. So that means it can it can exist anywhere in town. Anywhere
someone wants to have a farm, they can >> right to farm is a state law. >> Correct. It's a protected use. So when you say agricultural zoning district, I think it's very important that you be careful about what type of uses are actually allowed in that agricultural district. >> It just means the amount of land. John's
talking about the volume because how much of our land in town is zoned agricultural compared to residential? That's the point. >> Yeah. It I mean look, you can see on the zoning map that so everything in green essentially your your inner portion of the town is your agricultural districts,
right? And so those those districts allow very similar uses to your >> lighter color too, right? It's >> y right there. A, B, and C. >> But all those all that parcel in green is not vacant. >> Correct. >> No. >> Correct. >> And and and keep in mind allowing a
duplex doesn't mean that you can only build the duplex on a vacant lot. Anybody could transform their lot into something different if it's allowed within your bylaw. This change just essentially allows another potential use. Currently, you've got a number of
uses that you allowed in the residential district. People are just choosing not to utilize those currently. >> Yeah. >> All this does is just add another option. >> So, I'd like to make a few comments and then we go back to individual members again.
>> U first of all, um I think that the fact that some towns have duplexes allowed and some don't really matter to the town of Fmouth. We have a housing crisis in this community and part I feel part of our our
responsibility is to do whatever we can do to assist in that. And I'm going to um read off some facts and figures here that I have from the Cape Cod Commission just to give us an idea of of where we're at. Uh in in 2024,
the average sale price of a home in Fmouth, median sale price was $792,250. In 2025, that increased to $849,900. So that's an increase of almost $60,000
in in one year. The median household income for Felmouth 2024 is $93,000. To purchase a house uh an an a medium price house. Now, you have to have a family income of $250,000 or more.
And in in the town of Felman, that's a very small number of people. And like I said, the median income is $93,000. And I think we have to find a way to allow housing
that families can have a chance to start off with. If duplexes is the answer or part of the answer, I think that we really need to consider um bringing it to town meeting. If town meeting says no, they say no. But I think that as as a planning board, our
responsibility is to plan for the future. And as I said to Jed, u we had a couple of meetings about this. I said to him that, you know, what the the the what the planning board does today for new ideas, new plans, new new
regulations, it may not really have a huge impact for 10, 15, 20 years. Some of these some of these uh ideas that we have the town meeting has to approve and becomes a bylaw. Some of them will have an impact immediately and some may take a long
time to take effect. But we have to look to the future. And um right now 60 61% of our population in the town of Felmouth is over the age of 45.
And and we lost uh in in the last u five years we lost 17% of our school age children. Uh I mean they're not in school anymore. They're not here anymore. So uh and and this part about people concerned about the size of a duplex.
What's it going to look like in my neighborhood? Drive around some of the neighborhoods and look at the houses, the little ranches that are being torn down on a 10,000 foot lot and it has, you know, a 4,000 5,000 foot house built
single family home built on it that two people are going to live in. Yeah. >> To wealthy people. >> Yeah. >> So, I think as a as a planning board, it's our responsibility to find a way to help solve this problem because guess what, and I've said this to other towns,
you know, we had u two local comprehensive plans that we approved at the Cape Cod Commission about two weeks ago. One was for the town of Orleans and both these LCPs were 200 pages long. We had um Orleans and their affordable
housing uh rate now the SHI is 11%. I I kind of challenge them about that. They got a little indignant about it but they said that they are certified 11%. Haritch 4.9%. And they didn't
at first they didn't seem to really mind being at 4.9%. and until I had a discussion, public discussion that what's happening in the town of Felmouth. We used to be at 4 and a half%. Now we're 9 and a half% or somewhere in that
range. And we're not at 9 and a half% because we changed the bylaws. We're at 9 and a half% because the state has a bylaw that got passed in 1969 that is now being used in our community. We got 104 apartments on an acre of land
over here. We have senior housing across from the the senior um center. 48 units on what? An acre, half acre, whatever that was. Not I'm not saying these are bad projects. We have three to 900 apartments being proposed on Sandwich
Road on 25 acres. I mean, we are at 9 and a half% not because we chose to be at 9 and a half%. Because the state made a bylaw that's being used in our community. And if we don't if we don't do the right thing, it's going to be
something's going to be done to us whether we like it or not. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. So, as a board, we're going to I think we should have one more discussion about this and before we go to the public, >> John, there are other reasons why we are there and they are not. You can't get there without subsidizing a lot of that.
This town has chosen to subsidize a lot of that. We've recently picked a new way. We're going to give them land. We're accepting proposals on it. We've used a great deal of the community uh preservation money uh for this purpose. We have made it possible here and many
communities these other communities have made it much less possible. So it's not only because of the state. It's been active choices made by Falmouth to get us here and I'm proud of it. I think that's great. But I think the point that Eric made that Jim tried to reinforce
that I now would like to reinforce again is building more housing doesn't create more affordable housing. Our experience here in Felmouth over the last decade is more housing equals more market rate housing, more extremely unaffordable
housing along the West Falmouth Highway, which I drive often enough to be more aware of it and drive up the little side roads, look to see what they're up to. They're putting in condo communities that are, you know, nice. It'd be great to live in and so forth. Nothing wrong with them. You think, but you know, they're kind of small. They get no
outdoors. It's kind of open to the neighbors. It's not what you call really luxurious living, but they're close to a million dollars each. This isn't affordable. Building more, as Eric said, as Jim said, as I'm saying, as everyone sitting here knows as a fact, more does
not mean affordable. It just means more. That's all it means. And we have now blown the opportunity at some later date to use it for a better purpose if we wanted to. So, part of your reasoning, I I sympathize with it. It'd be great to
have more affordable housing, but I don't see this proposal as any way to get there. Not a route. >> So, I was on CPC for a few years, CPC, and u and and I uh saw the amount of
money, you know, approximately $3 million a year that committee had to uh dis discharge. When I first got on the committee, that uh approximately $3 million a year, 1.8 8 million was being spent every year on on land.
>> Yes. >> For preservation that was started in approximately 2003 2004. >> So um >> it's mandated, isn't it? >> For the CPC. >> It was at it was at the time, but not enough money while I was on enough money
got set aside to to cover the bond that was used to buy a lot of open space. So now we had extra money that wasn't going to be set aside for for open space and we started to use it for affordable housing. But as you said, a lot of money
is being spent on affordable housing, but every one of those affordable housing projects is being done under a 40B. It's not because the town of Falmouth said we can have six units per acre, 10 units per acre, 20 units per t acre. the town is helping to fund it,
but all of it is being done under a 40B bylaw. >> And therefore, we should >> because there's no other way to do the zoning. >> But you can't get from that fact to this proposal. There's not a way to get from what you're saying to say we ought to allow duplexes in all of these places.
One doesn't follow another. >> Well, that's why we have a difference of opinion. >> We do. You're right. >> I have a question. Isn't there a push from the state for smaller lots coming at us, too? >> Uh-huh. >> We need to pay attention to that
>> again. Again, who decided that the family planning board? >> I said, isn't there >> or somebody in Beacon Hill? >> I said from the state is what I said. I thought that was pretty clear. >> No, I know that. Well, I'm saying I want the public to understand, Jim. >> Okay. >> I know we understand. >> I was clear. I'm trying to make a point
here this evening that we need to plan for the future and I feel that this is part of the plan. Now whether it goes in every zone, whether it goes uh as a special as a uh site plan review, I think the or doesn't go at all. That's something we need to to determine. But
if we don't, I just feel we have to do something to make it give a younger family an opportunity to buy a home and maybe own the unit next door to help pay for their home, which is what Bob said was when he was a young man was
going on in a lot of places and still goes on in a lot of places. So the biggest problem here is the cost of land right now. I mean, and that's not going to get less expensive, but >> and is the alternative to just throw our hands up and say, "Okay, there's all this land. Rich people are going to buy
it. They're going to build big houses. They're going to buy existing houses, tear those down, and build another big house." So, it still doesn't do anything about the housing problem uh on the Cape. So, or especially in Falmouth. So I I I'm I I'd like to look at all
different uh avenues to try and solve this because there isn't one way of solving it. My my preferred method would be any 40B development should be a nonprofit that it should not be a for-profit uh uh builder that does it because they have to make a profit. you
know, in building costs and land costs are expensive and you can't expect somebody to build something with and have 25% of it be affordable and not make a profit. It's just the cost of what it is. I mean, it's it's it's not
possible to have to build an affordable 40b development and make it affordable. It it they're just not affordable. >> Well, that's what the nonprofits have been working, right? Housing court, family housing trust, >> right? So that to me that's the one of
the major uh things that should happen is that 40B developments hopefully could be mostly with the nonprofit uh organizations that we have on the Cape because uh for-profit uh 40Bs
aren't affordable >> are for profofit. >> Yeah, they're for profofit and they're not affordable. >> I have a quick comment. I don't disagree with Bob or John. And I agree wholeheartedly. I just have a lot of experience in the marketplace. I just want you to know I remember growing up
or when houses in Seco Shores sold for $60,000. And I one time went to uh the Falmouth Housing Corporation and said, "Here's a hundred listings in Seco Shores. They're all on $100,000. Why don't you buy those and make them into" And they didn't want to do it because
they they wanted to have big projects. They didn't want to have all the little management. Right now, people are tearing down those houses and they're selling houses for $2.5 million in Seco Shores. Three, four houses from the water. You can't see the water on on
little teeny lots that sold for nothing. >> Just think if they can make them to two families, how fast it would accelerate that process. I'm not against this. I just understand the impact of it and I want to have the town talk about it. I'm trying to bring these examples for discussion. I am not taking a position
against this at all. I'm just trying to deal with the reality of it. >> Okay. So, we've had a pretty good discussion so far. >> Could I just say one more thing? >> Okay. Now, I want to ask the board if they want to have another discussion about this one more time before we go to the public or if this will be it for uh
our discussion. Go ahead. >> I'd like us to agree as a board before we take anything to the public. >> Okay. >> That that's my preference. Okay. Okay. >> And I would like to say something that I think that we maybe could agree to as a board. Okay. At least I would agree to and then see what you think of it is we
would remove the agricultural districts from this layout up here. So not in agriculture. Just leave those alone. >> So all agriculturals all three. >> Yes. All without regard >> A in it. It's no longer
>> and for all residential districts. So they're all treated alike because I wouldn't want to be in the position of picking one over another as a better place for duplexes to say all residential open for duplexes by special permit only. That's my proposal.
>> Okay. Go ahead Jim. You were going to say something. Well, I I I think that's a little widespread if you look at where some of the agricultural some of the potent we really have treated agriculture as residential and if you look at the Aapescet uh peninsula and some of the the upper parts of those
peninsulas are agriculturally zone but they're all single family. >> So it's like >> so we have to work with the zoning we have. >> So my my question would be why >> I think it should be more a line than a concern about including agricultural zone. I think this is too wide open.
Absolutely too wide open for the town meeting to vote for. So it's dead in the water. We want to do something. This is going nowhere. How can we limit it in a way that is more acceptable at least to the board and we're not going to be able to now first we have to change what's an
agricultural zone and make all those little tinkers. We're not going to be able to do that. So one way to limit it pretty quickly and understandably not in agricultural zones that as you can see mostly on the aquifer so we can explain it and all residential zones because we
don't want to say we're not going to put duplexes out by the shore where the rich people are. We don't want to say that. We don't want to say we're going to stick them only in East Fmouth. We don't want to say that. >> Everybody lives in Felmouth is a rich person now. >> Well on paper but you have to go somewhere. So >> to sell out to get
>> Yeah. My neighborhood. We laughed about it. all millionaires. So, but so I would not pick any favored residential district and zero in on them. But I think we should really limit this so that we don't start as a wide openen
thing. We go we're making a step forward. This is the step forward the planning board can propose. What do you think about it? >> All right. Thank you, Pat. >> I wouldn't even begin to want to take this to town meeting until we as a board can agree on something.
Um, and it's way too wide open. But I also think we have to as a board take a more holistic approach towards it. The state decrees, but are they providing more fresh water for us? No. Are they
providing more sewage treatment to us? No. And they say you can't get it. And this is what I mean by that. if we bring more population in and I'm please understand these 40bs are a big laugh.
They are not affordable. That's something that has to be taken care of and I believe our select board is starting to work towards getting that changed in the legislature. Lots of luck and I do wish them. I'm not saying it's snidly. I w do wish that this could be
changed legislatively, but I think we really as a board have to take a holistic look at this. Where can this possibly be done? Can it be done? Why couldn't we have a little community
of tiny houses all prefabed? >> Let's stick with duplexes for 10 minutes. >> No, but this is a kind of a concept like a duplex. You could >> on 40,000 square foot lots. We have to change the lot size first, Pat, to do that.
>> We do. But I My point is until we can be comfortable as a board with what we're proposing that it is actually realistic to be done from a sewage treatment stand point, a water standpoint.
I don't see how we could go to town meeting and stand up and propose it. >> I think we're all saying the same thing. We need we need to flesh this out >> and have some real concrete >> uh notions about it uh so that we can discuss those concrete items and uh and
take it from there. >> Um I mean >> yeah one point >> go ahead I >> Oh you were done. Okay. Like I think one thing to just think about is like as we want to expand multif family in town and
like you know push kind of like the um what's accepted and everything. I feel like if we if we bring this forward I feel like it might kind of shut people down to some ideas that would actually be super productive. >> Um because I think people would have kind of a knee-jerk reaction even if
it's not catastrophic or anything by any means. I just think that um you know you can see how like Mr. Cod took so long to get through in like already the business district and then at the last minute people amended it to limit it. you can
see how like even something like that was so, you know, seemingly controversial. And I just wonder if like beyond just like the merit of the particular uh article if also like kind of public sentiment wise this could be counterproductive
um in trying to accomplish the goal. Jed, would it be possible um for next time we discuss this give us an idea of how many vacant lots would be available uh in areas other than agriculture?
>> Well, we can certainly do that >> just to give us an idea of is there 100 lots or there's 40 lots or there 700 lots. >> Sure. Yeah. So people have some idea uh if we went along with Charlotte's idea of not having an agricultural
how many theoretically how many duplexes could be built maxed out on those vacant lots and I know that somebody could tear a house down and build a duplex. I understand all that but >> or you could just add a wing on your house. >> Yeah. I mean, so you get into some really murky water when you start going
down that path, but I mean, we can absolutely give you a sense for how many vacant lots are in each zoning district. >> People's imaginations go a little crazy. They say, "Oh, we have dup we'll have thousands of duplexes in the town of >> Yeah. >> And >> so, so just to be frank, it, you know,
you've you've got, you know, a time window here, right? So tomorrow, if you're ready for publicizing these public hearings, which we're hoping you are, regardless of how many articles you're bringing forward, we need to send an art, we need to send a u public hearing notice to the paper so that it
can be publicized on Friday, >> right? So it would be noticed on Friday. There would be a twoe period in between and then you would hold your public hearing, your open your public hearing on the 28th. So if you what I'm what I'm sensing here is that the duplex is one
maybe you just delay maybe you just put it aside and you have that conversation over a longer period of time and you can potentially come to some consensus because it sounds like Charlotte's at the beginning of potentially something but it's hard to tell whether or not folks are in in alignment with it yet.
So you know maybe you just delay it till till April. No harm >> I don't want to delay it. >> I don't want to delay it >> November. April, >> I I I would be willing to go along with her idea of of zones other than agricultural and and a special permit.
>> Okay. And uh I'd just like to point out >> oversight plan review or something whatever the >> Well, we can write up what you need for the special permit and the planning board is the permitting agent, I would assume. >> Yeah, that would be that would be the next step is to determine who's going to issue the special permit, ZBA or the
planning board. >> Planning board. And you also need to consider what is already by right in all these uh agricultural districts. Uh cemetery, child care uh center, group daycare, library, museum, passenger
state, religious uh fire station, uh I mean there there are all kinds of byright issues or uses for uh the the agricultural zones anyway. So uh you know there's a lot there. So I I think we >> I agree, but we I think we're going to
have to compromise in order to get something to go forward here. >> Yeah. >> I I don't want to leave the agriculture out myself, but >> Yeah. >> But you're willing I would like I would like to get this to move forward. We need we need >> we need a way to find uh housing that
people can afford to buy and live in this town. And we need to we need to at least make an attempt to do that. That's how I feel about it. >> Yeah. And and you know, you know, we talk about, you know, we have this U board of health now says we're going to have to
put denitrification in new new structures, new residential structures. But, you know, we have many, many, many homes that are threebedroom, fourbedroom septic system designed for threebedroom, fourbedroom, and there's two people living there. >> I live in one of those. >> Yes. I mean, that's the average the
average household size of is 2.2 people. >> Yeah. So we have a lot of >> I do also >> 4,000 5,000 foot homes for two people living in. >> Yeah. And and John, you touched on it a little bit. So as everyone's aware now with any increase in flow, if you're in
a nitrogen sensitive area, any increase in in septic flow, wastewater flow I should say, the board of health is requiring a denitrifying septic system. So >> an expensive denitrifying, >> right? So it it's a it's a way to mitigate the impacts to to the you know the groundwater
>> and then you know just like any other law a duplex is going to be constrained by the setbacks the lock coverage the parking requirements etc. So it it it is a compromise to start at least the conversation with the public
>> in two weeks about potentially doing special permits in the residential districts and removing their agriculture. >> What would you recommend? Special permit or site plan review? >> So well it would be by right or Yeah. So with site plan review, it would not be an eligible um review for that because
your your site plan review bylaw currently says everything except single family and two family structures. >> Okay. >> Again site plan review. >> We did special permit for detached ADU. >> Yeah. So >> and the state kicked it out. >> Yeah. >> I would warn you against going with a
special permit for a duplex only because I don't >> He won't approve it. >> I Yeah. The the >> And how did these people get away with it? Well, >> got a list right here. >> Likely past uh zoning articles. I I couldn't tell you for certain, but what we are seeing from the state clearly is
an initiative to create more housing. Adus are now allowed by right. They're allowing undersized lots um that are no longer under common ownership to be built with smaller housing. So, I'm just providing you professional. >> There's no need There's no need for us to try to second guess the state. If
that's what they do, fine. But we should go ahead and propose what we feel we could justify in some way if it ever went forward. And if they turn it down, fine. That was their problem, not ours. We don't need to self censor beforehand just because we're afraid of what the state will do.
>> Okay. Noted. >> So, we'll put that as part of our next discussion. Well, we have to decide now, >> yeah, I would recommend you decide tonight so that we can start, you know, have the public hearings. But again, if you're not ready, just defer it.
>> Could I make it as a motion? >> Yes. >> I move that we go forward for public hearings on a proposal that is includes only residential zones, but all of them. And they're all by
special permit. And the planning board is the permitting authority for duplexes. >> All right. Can I get a second? I'll second. >> Yeah. >> All right. Discussion.
>> So, this is intentionally leaving out agricultural, >> right? >> What's the purpose of now? >> Yeah, we're leaving out agricultural. >> Can we add that later or >> No, no, we're not saying that now. What we're saying, >> that's the point I'm trying to make. You want to exclude agricultural, right? >> That needs to be specifically stated so
we don't come up with some agriculture at another time, >> right? >> Because it' make you whole. You never know what you're going to do in the future, but for this proposal going to town meeting, >> I'm having a hard time figuring out what this is going to be. I don't disagree with anybody, but I just think it's >> it's so hard to talk about what I don't
even understand it that that well. >> So basically, Charlotte's saying AG AA and AGB come off that table. >> Yep. And everything in R double A, single A, B, and C changes from a Y to
um >> SP >> SP would likely be SP for planning board. >> And to be clear, that includes essentially all of your outer limits of town, right? So everything in West
Falmouth down to Woods Hole and then across the fingers uh in the south, anything that's not green, >> it's all the residential districts alike. >> It's not just Well, there is a there's a is that a purple or green? I mean, there's I'm a little bit worried. There's agricultural on the on the
finger peninsulas, too. >> Yes. Green. >> There's one right here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, anything that's not green, purple, or red. >> Okay. Purple is the I was looking. You didn't say purple. That's now I agree.
>> Public use. >> Well, there's a lot of it. >> It's all the peachy ones. >> So, is aren't there parts of Woods Hole that are agricultural? >> No. >> No. Uh, >> golf course.
>> How about how about further up uh by the bike path? >> Maybe. I mean, you've got a little where where does wood hole start and end, right? depends >> like Hatchville. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, your furthest uh
agricultural is up in here, but it's it's conservation protected. >> Okay. And the neighborhoods around that aren't uh >> correct. Agricultural, >> right? Those are all residential a >> So, the the double A residential are the ones down there on Penzance Point and so forth.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> And they're included. >> They would be included. >> They would be included. >> Yes. Those mansions could turn into duplexes. Too cool. >> After we tear them down and rebuild them. >> Well, then you can get more. >> And you could have somebody tearing down
the a little cape and putting up a duplex. >> Yep. >> All of co shores. >> Again, it's got to fit on the lot. It's got to maintain the lot coverage. It's got all It's got to fit within the >> You know what? I think it would help. I know it's going to be hard, but I
believe it. I could actually endeavor to do it if you need help designing what size lot you can put two three bedroomedroom duplexes on the septic system. So you get a six-bedroom system on a on a lot. I I think you're going to
find it's going to be around a 20,000t lot. It's going to fit including the DN system. >> Yeah, we don't want we don't want to make these we can do a two-bedroom duplex then. >> Oh, I was just doing to understand the magnitude. Yeah, but Jim, why what are you going to do with that information?
Because those would be included in what we're just proposing. >> Because there's because they're very they're going to be million-dollar homes. I'm just saying they're not going to be affordable. I Okay, forget it. >> We already made that point. That's true. No matter where they put them, >> I think it's really important to
distinct agree, you know, differentiate between the housing and affordable housing. That I I couldn't agree more. It's a challenge, but we're that's not what we're describing here. I mean, one one question I I have is like um as we're trying to reach the 10% shi
threshold, could this create a problem because our total number of units would increase and then so like we could see that percentage fall despite putting considerable public effort into producing. >> Well, that's the problem with 4B. >> It always fluctuates, >> right? Yeah. Like I wish we could I mean
it's hard because the state like I wish we could do other sorts of inclusionary zoning to incentivize >> affordability in like everything but 40b kind of makes that mood I guess but >> in a way this is self-limiting. We were
afraid with the ADUs oh my god they're going to be everywhere. No they're not because they're not cheap. >> Yeah right >> duplexes aren't cheap. No >> you bring up all the things that are allowed on agricultural land. How many libraries have sprouted up? I mean, you got to really think, you know, reality here.
>> Yeah. >> So, I think we're in pretty good shape. >> So, it Well, you had a second and a discussion. I don't know that there was a vote. Did I miss it? Vote. >> We're done with discussion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I
>> against >> I'm not I haven't made my mind up yet. >> In favor? >> They're voting. Jip, >> I know. I don't how do I >> take it? >> I guess you abstain. >> Abstain. >> How does the vote guidance? I couldn't. >> I think it was more in favor, but I
thought Charlotte raised her hand twice, so I'm not sure. Maybe >> he always does that. >> Wait, wait, wait, wait. >> Did you vote against your own motion? >> Jeez, I hope not. >> And for there was a confusion about what they were voting for. >> Okay. >> So, there were four in favor. >> There's four in favor.
>> Favor of what? >> Tom, were you in favor? Five. five >> of of moving forward with the uh >> one against >> with the limited proposal, right? >> The change >> 51. >> And to be clear, that limited proposal is special permit by the planning board in all of the residential districts.
Nothing in the agricultural districts. >> Yeah, >> correct. >> But did it also include taking it to town meeting in November? No, it's just one public hearing. Well, then >> just to advertise the hearing. put me in favor then >> cuz we can have the public in here and we can discuss it and then we can
>> and we can drop it down, you know. >> Exactly. You could say no. >> Yeah, we can just say no. >> No, I thought that was part of it though that we were holding a hearing to take it to town. >> No, no. I'm going to vote. I want to have the hearing is really I wanted to have the hearing here. I was afraid we're >> I'm all set then with to have the
hearing. >> We assumed you voted yes. >> I vote Okay, I've voted yes. Sorry. >> Unanimous. >> Okay, >> it should be unanimous. I just >> Thank you. Thank Thank you, Charlotte, for your uh >> Can I just bring up one point? >> Thank you for saying that, John. I can't. Okay. Well, it would it would
help your go. >> Um, so it's already allowed in general residence, and I know general residence is a small area in town, but not everyone is going to general residence and putting up duplexes. So, it like I like I said, I'm not saying that
everyone will or won't >> use the duplex bylaw. I'm just saying you do already have it as by right in general residence >> and um I don't see >> if your last name is Fox you do >> right >> okay >> let's move on
>> article three are there any questions on article three >> I forget what it is >> still >> so there are two sections of um the non-conforming bylaw which currently allow for the zoning board of appeals to
do something by a special permit when it is clear that a variance would be required. So that right off the bat needs to be corrected immediately in my professional opinion. So those two sections are part of this um article. Um and then the
third piece of the article is essentially just incorporating the new language from the affordable homes act which says adjacent lots that are under common ownership are no longer considered common ownership. uh as long as they met the zoning requirements uh
when they were formed. Uh have 10,000 square feet of minimum lot size, have 75 uh feet of frontage, and um are restricted to building an 18,800 square ft single family home on the lot. So
essentially, all we're doing is taking that language from state law and incorporating it into the bylaw. So, in my opinion, this is a very straightforward and easy article because we cannot allow the zoning board of appeals to do something that isn't
allowed by state law. And then three, we're adding in new language that state law says we should or have to. >> That's article three. >> That is article three. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I I think we should support that. >> Yeah. >> I support that.
>> Run that by me again one more time. Are you pulling my chain or >> No, I really want you to run. >> So, um there >> you can't see it there. That's why >> so it's not written up there. It's this just gives you a very very succinct summary. >> Um because I'm trying to use less words.
Um >> there are two sections in the current article 10, which is your non-conforming structures, uses, and lots. There's two sections that allow the zoning board of appeals to um change certain aspects of a lot by a special permit. That is not
allowed. Actually, one of them is a lot change and another is allowing another non-conforming use by special permit. Those two things are not allowed by special permit. Those are allowed by variance. So, we've currently in our bylaw. So, >> what do you mean by another non-conforming use other than residential?
>> No. So, it says if a non-conforming use um if an applicant wants to change a non-conforming current non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, they can do that by a special permit. That's a variance. That's a use variance. >> So, if you had an existing three-unit
building, >> sure, that's non-conforming. >> That's non-conforming, but it meets >> the the level for approval, which is tough for non-conforming that the years in existence and all that work, they can no longer do that. >> So, there so let's an let's say a
property owner has a threebedroom or a three-unit apartment building on and it's a nonconforming use. It's not allowed by zone. >> It's in a single family zone. Three units in a single family zone. Yes. >> And they want to change to say auto automobile repair shop, which is also
not an allowed use. It's a non-conforming use. >> That says we can do it by special permit. That's totally >> I'm all set. I agree. I I just happened to have done several times take a piece of land that had three houses on it and got that got it
which was a non-conforming use and built three um condos on it. >> Okay. And it's it's all residential over that and that's a special permit. The neighborhood approves it. I wasn't making them into auto shops, >> right? >> I agree. >> Yeah. That's that's a use variance.
That's absolutely amazing. >> No use variance is the key. >> Yeah. >> Just the existing use. >> Well, you're not changing it. I'm sorry. These are very technical things and I I just need to understand it. >> Yeah. I remember I remember a few months ago there was I think it was like John
Turner Way or something. It was like a a house that was actually three apartments and a and a garage that was an apartment and there was like a bunch of debate because that was like a non-conforming use and they were trying to get a special permit. How would that how would that um be interact with this? >> Yeah. Well, I mean it's it's hard to
say, but the the details of that if they were trying to legitimize a use that was there already, that's a different conversation. >> Okay. So, that's unrelated to this, >> right? If you're changing that use to something that's also >> non-conforming to another non-conforming I that's really
>> you cannot jump from one thing to another via special permit. That's a that's a use variance. >> So it's it's a I >> which are not allowed even in the state right >> some some some communities allow them but generally speaking use variances are
not allowed because again you set out rules in your zoning bylaw that says in this district you're allowed to do XYZ. if you're not allowed to do XYZ and if you so choose you want to do you know A B and C. No, the the rules are pretty clear on what you can and can't do.
>> If you want to do something that's not allowed >> trying to get away from like having rule of man as opposed to rule of rules or something. >> Okay. Okay. Now I understand. >> And the same applies with non-conforming lots. You cannot change the shape of a current non-conforming lot make it more
non-conforming by a special permit. That's that is not allowed. So that current language is in there. >> Our related to the affordable homes act. >> No, those are just two sections in the non-conforming section that need to be corrected. >> Then the third section is the affordable
homes act which brings in new language about >> common ownership and smaller lots basically without getting too into the weeds. >> Okay, >> everybody understand it? Mhm. >> So, if you vote to bring it forward to the public hearing, we'll have that
article language for you. We'll explain it in more detail. >> Yeah. >> So, can I get a motion, please? >> I move that we bring it forward to public hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, all in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. Thank you. >> Okay. Article four. This is the big one.
>> So, as I mentioned, this article essentially seeks to remove the language in your bylaw that says Mr. COD is restricted to, and I showed it before, so I'm just going to show it one more time. It's restricted to this area as shown in
green. And we'll turn off the satellite because everything is green. So that's your Mr. Cod district currently. And this article says, okay, let's go back to 2021 when you proposed the Mr.
Cod district to in include everything shown here in red on this map. So that would include areas up in North Falmouth along 151 and again generally
along the route 28 corridor until you get to the current Mr. COD area which is generally right in this >> and they're all currently zoned B2. >> Yes, there's a combination of B2 >> and BR >> and BR. Yeah. >> Generally your B1 is just >> BR is just in between downtown between
Okay, I got it. >> Anybody else need? >> Yeah. >> Open a window. >> It's going to make it colder. >> Um we need to breathe. Um it's hot and stuffy. >> Okay.
>> Going to sleep. So, what you need to be aware of is that there are essentially two categories of additional lots that are going to be added here. There's those that are not within the MRC area and then there's lots that are within
the MROT area. They just don't happen to be on the existing sewer system. Okay. So, let me just zoom in and show you what I mean by that. So, it's a little fuzzy and I've got the individual maps. They are numbered 18,
19, 20, and 21 in your packets. These are uh lots that technically are within the general area of Mr. Cod. So essentially, they're right outside. They just didn't happen to have a sewer connection. And so therefore, the amendment at town meeting in 2021
essentially excluded them. Even though they were in the geographic area, they didn't have that sewer system connection and therefore they were not eligible. So those four are a different category than something like
the areas down in Woods Hole which as you can see on the screen are nowhere near the existing MR cod district and they're also not on the sewer. So there's two different categories that you just need to be aware of. So I can walk through the individual maps if you
want. Seeing no resistance >> John I have a question. >> Yes. Go ahead. Um the guidelines that we're considering are not really ready for this expansion because there are different characters
for these. There'd be new character areas and if we were to go forward with this to the public hearing now thinking it might go in the fall, we're undermining our own guidelines. I wonder if we should do this. Not that
it's not worth doing, but is this the timing that we want visav the guidelines? I I disagree. We had voted for this all ready to do it and we took it to town meeting and Joe Nettle put the exclusion there on the sewer. We had already agreed to do it by the by the
things that I think we had already decided we're going to do these areas. They're all previously approved by this board and the only reason is is Joe Nettle got up and put the exemption that it had to be on the sewer >> and it missed by >> I understand that. I was there for that. But do you are you I'm sure you know
that the guidelines that we're considering don't include these additional areas. >> That's a good point. It's a good point. >> New areas. >> No, because those aren't within the Mr. Cod district, >> but they but we're changing. They will be when we make it Mr. C.
>> But the guidelines don't include them yet. Jim, you have a copy of the guidelines. It has four character areas, right? >> None of them are the ones that we're considering for an expansion. Well, we didn't have that problem the last time we approved Mr. Cod for all these areas. So, I think you're stepping backwards
here, but that's what you're going to do. That's okay. >> So, let me let me just um provide a little bit of extra detail. And you know, we've talked about it before, but the again that board of health regulation that that says any new flow in your nitrogen sensitive areas, your denitrifying septic system, one thing to
keep in mind, now this is the existing zoning with the overlay with the uh nitrogen sensitive areas overlaid on top. As you can see, the vast majority of the red is essentially within the NSAs. Um, so the areas that we talked
about up in North Falmouth on 151, etc. along 28 for the for the most part. The one areas, actually there's two. There's downtown. So, this Highfield Hall area and part of Depot Avenue and potentially some of
those areas that I was talking about earlier and then the areas down in Woods Hole. Those are not areas where if someone, let's just pretend Mr. Cod gets expanded to all those areas. Those areas would not be subject to having to put in
a denitrification system if they increase the flow. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> those are on the shore. >> Nope. Because they're not within the nitrogen sensitive areas, which >> shown on the map are these hatched lines. Okay. So, there's an area. Oyster
ponds an area. So, the little teardropsport. There's some big areas that are not in it. >> The vast majority of town, if if I zoom out here, the vast majority of town >> is covered by a nitrogen sensitive area. But this pocket right in here, okay, if
you follow my cursor, and this area and a lot of what's whole are not in nitrogen sensitive areas and therefore would not be required to do a denitrification system with increase. >> There's a reason why they're not in that in that area. >> There is there is
>> don't affect the estuaries. >> Right. >> Right. I'm just saying part of the selling point, if you will, of expanding the Mr. Cod district is Yes. There was concern back in 2021 about wastewater generation and the impact on coastal
ponds. Now fast forward to 2026, you have this new rule that says anytime you're increasing that flow, you've got to mitigate it with these detentrification systems. So therefore, it may be air quotes safe to bring an expansion of the Mr. Cod district forward because you're mitigating that
wastewater concern. >> Okay? >> But not everywhere. So I just want to be transparent and not sneaky. Charlotte >> talking about denitrification not everywhere. >> Correct. >> Right. >> But then Mr. Cod would be in the same
places we proposed it before. >> Cor what you're saying. >> That's business districts. Business 123. >> Uh B1, B2, and BR. >> BR >> not B3. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. doesn't seem different in any way
except one particular way. You can't have any what is it high energy things. There's only one way that B3 is different from the other business things. When you look at our charts, >> we're not talking about B3. >> Yeah, B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B's an animal that we'll we'll
take on another time. It's >> not part of this conversation. >> All right. So, here's our first area. Again, we're going to go from, if you're picturing the town, we're going to go from Woods Hole up and around and do sort of a uh a big circle. All right. So, here's your first area. This is down
in in Woods Hole on Water Street and um part of School Street, I think. Second area. I'm just going to whip through these pretty quickly so that we can get through them. This is the uh the dome area. This is the lighthouse station project for uh Longfellow.
That's a BR district. Area number three is um just off of Palmer A and it's the section of Depot A. Highfield Hall is area number four. Area five. This is getting up into the
North Falmouth area. >> 28A. >> Yes, 28A. Side street here is Minot. Actually, that's just off of Palmer, so not too far up. Area number six.
This is so this is the Palmer and Teroon Jones Road intersection. So, this is Cape Cod Bagel and the gas station, etc. Area 7. Now, now we're into into the North Falmouth area. >> Where is it? This is Winslow Road. So,
this is I believe this is the cheese shop. >> That's a good example. Everyone knows where that is now. Yep. >> How big an of an area is that? >> Uh this whole zoning district. I don't know off hand. >> You can measure it real quick.
>> Well, it wouldn't be to scale, but >> Okay. >> Yeah. Not on this map anyway. >> Okay. This Okay, I see. You've already mapped. >> It would take some time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Silver Lounge. >> It would be It would rental. Yep. >> It goes by parcel anyway. >> Sort of. These So,
these zoning districts not always have go by parcel lines. Some of them are they create split zone lots, which I won't get into my feelings on that. >> It's like it's like four acres. >> Okay. >> I just was looking at the GS.
>> So, this is um Nathan Ellis County and uh 28A. So, this is I forget the name of the restaurant on this corner, but this is Batino's. Yeah, >> this this side I just can't remember. It's uh there's a pizza place, I think. >> Which which one's uh Mr. Cod? The red.
>> It would be this one here. >> Oh, that one. Okay. >> That's B3. >> Okay. >> Area number nine. So, this is out on 151. This is the ball field. I believe that's Hamilton tree. >> Yeah.
This is the corner of Sandwich and uh 151 where the Dunkin Donuts and the gas station is. >> Mhm. >> So now we've made our way down to Woy. This is um Wakoy Highway and I think that's
Mtox. So this is that village area. >> Micus Cafe. Yep. Further to the west, uh, this is Antler Shore Drive is here. I think this
is Bad Martha's. >> Mahoney. >> Mahonies. Yes. Mahoney. Yep. >> Eagle fence. >> Mhm. This is Kenyons >> on Central A.
This is a big area. This is area number 14. So this is Davisville. So the CVS is here and then it goes all the way up to I think that's the Spalmouth Library right there. So it goes quite a distance.
>> Area 15. This is Aapescet. Chinese restaurant I believe is right on the corner. Area 16. So this is Okay. So this is I think right down the Felmouth Lumber.
>> Yeah. >> Yep. Felmouth lumber on this side I think. >> Again all along 28. All right. So now we get into sort of some interesting areas. Right. So this is the Dunkin Donuts
property and the adjacent residential zone. These two areas again were at the very tip of the Mr. Cod area but were excluded because they did not have a sewer service connection. Okay, so it's another one of those examples. So I highlighted those and you'll see in the
in the future maps anything that um is highlighted like this, it's in a B2 district but it's not within Mr. God. >> That's the Sandwich Road area. >> Correct. Here's another example. So, this is the safe light
uh right here at Gford and Main Street. And these properties behind that area um are adjacent to the MR Cod and within the MRO area, but didn't have sewer service connections. So, they would be eligible for this expansion as well.
Another example of split zone lots. These two lots right on Main Street um were not didn't have sewer service connections and therefore they'd be eligible for the expansion almost to the end. Um additional lots that didn't have sewer. So this is I
believe it's Shore Street. Yep. So this is the furniture place and then there's some lots here that would be eligible as well as this lot because again remember the Mr. COD district. And the way the bylaw currently says is anytime you have any part of the the lot that's zoned B1,
B2, or BR, the entire lot is eligible for not only calculating your density, but also utilizing the density. Important important distinction. And area 21, which is just west
uh just at the far end of the Mr. Cod district, which is I can't remember exactly. This is the uh West Main. So, it's right at it's right at the V. >> I think the post office is further to the east. But anyway, it's
another example of one of those lots that would now be eligible. So, th those are all the areas. >> So, what this means they're business owned lots, but instead of getting a special permit for eight units per acre, they could do 20 units per acre. Six
units per acre. >> Six or eight. I think with the special six by right, eight by special permit. They could do a by right 20 units if if uh what percentage is affordable. Is it 20% affordable or 10? >> 25
>> 20 if 25% is affordable. So we're really doubling more than doubling the density in those. I was just trying to make the point of what what we're doing to them. So I'm just going to zoom back to the overall map >> and they're all in our village centers. >> No, that's the thing. So it's throughout
town so you can see. >> But some of the v like little village centers like quite northbound in if they were B2 they were in business centers >> generally speaking. Yes. Those are where they they exist. I mean you know so you've got a couple of examples that are
they're just in my opinion the weird weird outliers. So for example the the B2 district on Nathan Ellis Highway. There's no village center there. It's just for some reason that area is zone B2. My guess is because of a pre-existing um commercial entity up in
that area. >> Movie theater. >> Okay. Um so, you know, you've got these sort of outliers, but you know, in the intersections, those would make sense. Those would traditionally be your your um center areas.
So, a lot to unpack there. I'm going to stop talking and allow you to Area nine is just particularly weird especially because all of it except for the one Hamilton tree thing is construction right that's zoned is >> right and I don't know that that's an
area where you'd want to encourage >> building >> and I think that that area was removed when you first went to town meeting in 21 although I can't remember specifically there were a couple >> I think it was too >> yeah like Highfield Hall I think there was an agreement that that was going to
be removed >> right Um, so >> although I would think people that want to get on a highway real quick and commute 151, I mean I know people that bought property on highways because of that. They they right off an exit ramp,
you know. >> True. >> But we we always talked about the village centennis and staying away from the outer limits. >> Yeah. >> Give them a chance to be cleaned up and get some apartments there. >> Yeah. So the the clean, let me let me
just um All right, let me explain. So the the easiest way in my opinion to make this zoning amendment um at least for staff to write the zoning amendment is to essentially remove the reference to the MR cod map and just say anywhere
there's a B1, B2, or BR district, you now have a Mr. COD overlay. Right? Clean and simple. But I can see that that probably won't work in this scenario because area 9 is an example of where you wouldn't want that to happen. So you're going to have to likely if you
want to expand Mr. Cod, you're going to have to do it as a map amendment. So >> right, >> it's it really is just a different way of um articulating that zoning article. So just to be clear,
>> and this is B1, B2, not B3, >> correct? Can you point out uh nine again? >> Yeah. Do you want to go to the map or this one? >> Could you just expand that? >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> What's across street? Is there What's
>> this one here? >> This is Sandwich Road. >> Oh, no. I see area 9 is the bigger I I see area 10 is an intersection of two major roads. >> Yes. >> This is area 9 looks like just a strip along Nathan Ellis Highway. >> Right. throat is cross in the middle of
the >> There's a baseball field out there. Is that what you're >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's where the Nickelodeon used to be. >> Nickelodeon was there. So, there was kind of a >> It's now a tree arborist place. >> Yeah. But >> Hamilton Hamilton >> out in that area. It was the only business area that was there. The Nickelodeon. That's all there there was
>> apparently. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It was out in the boonies. >> I wasn't here. >> That was the boonies back then. >> I wouldn't I think we should do all of them. But if somebody wanted to exclude that, I wouldn't argue the point either. >> I think we should. Do you remember why we didn't include B3?
>> I thought it's because you didn't want it. No, you weren't even on the board. I was kidding, Shel. Cuz you live in the B. I was a Sorry. That was unfair of me. >> You just want to blame me for whatever. >> No. No. Okay. >> Forgive me. >> I think I think we should not exclude
any of them. >> But you're saying we're not doing B3, though. >> Right. Right. But I don't >> not include any of these of these areas. And Charlotte's question is >> I think that's the next one we do, Charlotte. >> Oh, why not now? >> Cuz I thought you'd fight it. Don't you
live in a B3 zone? No. >> North Fm. >> So, the question is, I mean, it sounds like you're you're in agreement. You would want to include the Highfield Hall area. >> Yeah. >> Knowing full well that likely something in the future is not going to happen,
but at least you're including that. >> Yeah. Well, there's a huge sports center up there and they could get rebuilt. >> You got the there's a lot of commercial property up there. >> Is that in it? >> The rink. I mean the >> Is it in it? Let's see.
>> Sports center in that included. >> I know Highfield is, but >> is the sports centers in it as well? >> I think it is because that's the sports center here, right? >> Yep. >> Okay, good. All right. Do >> you want to make a motion yet? >> I can't I can't keep that. Yeah. >> Oh, I move this. that we take uh all of
them. >> You make a motion. >> I I move that all we expand Mr. Cod to all the B2 and BR and B1 areas.
>> Second. >> Any discussion? >> I didn't hear what the rationale for doing this is or why we're doing it now. I I I've I'll I'll speak on it because I actually ran on this. I stated that and
because I think it was a mistake to put this on the first time and but Joe Neto got up and because he's a really powerful town meeting member, he got us to change the whole thing. But I've talked to Joe and he may not consider to be it so strongly anymore. I believe
that it's business-owned property mostly in our city citizen towns in our little villages and now that they could be mitigated with better sewer systems. His objection should we go away and that's why we just take his objection and vote it like it wasn't there and that's basically what we're doing. >> I think it gives us a chance to rebuild
these areas into you know nicer structures. There's a lot of really tired buildings in these areas and and create some affordable housing. Yeah. Some rentals. There's some areas in East Falmouth that are are dying to be made really nice apartment buildings.
>> North Felmouth has >> they're just dying. And it's because >> because I believe if we could have a discussion that Joe Netto would say he made a mistake with >> this amendment I tape >> I've talked to him about it. >> Well,
let's we've said him his name enough. >> No, but he he Okay, I shouldn't ex make it. I do want to be clear before we move on from that topic because I think it's really important. We do plan to meet with the wastewater superintendent and the water superintendent tomorrow to make sure >> that you know we've got capacity that
this is >> mitigation doesn't work. We can't do it >> right. So we will bring that back to you. Um but that's our that's our meeting with them tomorrow. >> I was assuming the mitigation worked. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean mitigating the the wastewater flow. Yes. But I mean obviously having drinking water is a
major contributing factor to whether or not this can be supported, right? And so we just want to make sure that we're not, you know, head down >> absolutely >> full speed ahead without >> Well, it's not like it's going to happen overnight either. This is a long-term >> Yeah. >> So what I was talking about earlier, it could be a 20-year process for some of
these properties to get redone. >> Sure. >> Or more. I'll just say I do think that area 9 would be a bizarre spot because that lot you could have up to like 60 units or whatever and there's like the airfield and then like it's also like a
hunting area. People go hunting there. >> I don't know if like an apartment building there would actually >> but you can have apartments there now. >> You can have six or eight apartments but six or eight versus like 30 is like >> 20. We're going per acre. I'm saying >> well it's three acres so it could be 60.
>> Yeah. The zoning right now is six by right, eight by special permit. So they already can have an eight on on an acre lot. So it's already there. We're just increasing the density to a use that's already there. We're not creating a new use in a crazy area. It's already been
there for how many years? >> And it puts the editrification if they do expand. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Eric's point is there's a difference there. You don't want to have like a big apartment building, >> right? >> But you already take a risk to the people there. I honestly think the zoning >> you can already can is my point. How many acres did you say it is?
>> It's 2.9. >> So that's that's a >> 24 unit apartment building. >> It's surrounded by about >> Yeah. Well, I'm saying like maybe that's not the best zoning >> like the zoning that is there right now. Doesn't >> it's surrounded by about 40 acres of of open space. >> Yeah.
>> And if you take notice I think Eric maybe your point is that the underlying zoning probably should be changed is what I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah. Like it's fine that it's a contract. >> Try that. That's really hard to do. >> I know that's very difficult. Oh, it's very difficult, but I I hear your point. >> Behind the uh the water treatment plant
now. >> All right. So, we got a motion. Can I get a second? >> Uh second. >> Any other discussion? >> I I think your point is correct. As we start looking at these areas
individually, I think we need to start getting this together. But there may be some that just don't fly for safety reasons or whatever. And then we'd have to say that we exclude these particular. >> And when I would say to that, if you
really want to stop affordable housing, you can find an excuse to do just about anything before a reason not to do it. >> Well, I could, but I wouldn't want to get shot by a haunted car. >> Well, no. I mean, I'm serious. You drive along 28. You can hunt just across the street from the high school, >> right? And you can be driving
>> Oh, God. I didn't know that. I mean, >> and you can be dried on 151 and get shot by the same people. >> John, I'm not going to support this. And the reason I'm not is there's a big difference between allowing 24 new septic deals up there and 60. And that's
the difference in what we're talking about. If we exclude that funny little thing that is now Hamilton tree, it's a more acceptable kind of thing to do. We have spent years as a planning board protecting the aquifer >> and now we're saying, "Hey, hey, do that anymore.
>> Hey, hey, we're going to have nitrates less than 10 10 parts per million." >> You're the one who explained to us that those dites don't actually work. Are you prepared to eat those words? >> These are new systems. This is new new and improved system work. >> They don't work fresh water.
>> I made this proposal based on the the mitigations changing with the the technology. I agree with you. you if the technology isn't there, we shouldn't do it. But I would like to hear from our uh board of health. >> Well, then let's not act on this until we hear. >> No, we've already heard from them. They
are they've already been approved by by the board of health. >> Again, do don't forget you're just bringing this to a public hearing. >> Yeah, that's I think we should have a hearing on it. You vote against it at the hearing. So, >> I've got a motion and a second.
>> All in favor? I I oppose. Almost unanimous. One one opposed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. >> That's it. >> Next, we have committee reports. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Recreation committee. >> We have a meeting tomorrow. >> Yeah. I like that report. >> Yeah. >> Uh CPC report. >> Nothing from the last time. >> Millions of dollars for affordable housing. >> Right.
>> I like that report, too. postponding. >> Okay. Future agenda items. Anybody? >> One one more thing. Um there's one more report, committee report that Paul um put in in it's in your packets for the water quality um management committee report. So you
can take a look at that and if anybody in the public is curious, it will be attached to the minutes once it's once they're published. >> There's a water quality committee >> management committee. Paul used to always >> It goes to Paul still with
>> he you he keeps he's keeping you updated. >> We ask that he >> It's in the packet. >> I didn't see that. >> So it needs to be read. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> It's too many pages. >> But if it's going to be read, he needs to come here and read it. >> No.
>> I have a subject I'd like to bring up and it's just >> as a future agenda item. >> Future agenda item. Yes. And I and I could show two examples of it that I think would space time. I think that we uh should have any time
we're doing a a site plan review. I think that now with the technology with uh aerial and drones that it should have an aerial survey showing the picture from all the property lines into the site. It's very easy to do and it's not very expensive. We have we require all kinds of engineering, but I think it
would make it really clear to the people at home and everybody they could see it. And I'll be glad to show some examples that I did for the last we were going to have a site visit out on Gford Street. I went out and flew it in preparation to do it for the meeting and now we're now we're not having it. It's really
concise. It's not a lot of work and it's a few hundred. I'm not I'm not changing that. I'm going to do it, but I would show you what it looks like. And I think if you saw how clearly you could see everything on the site from 100 ft around and flying the border as opposed to all of us going there and everybody
in town meeting wondering or town with the technology we have, it's just an advancement that we should take into consideration. So, I just want to have a discussion. I'll make a little presentation and then you can vote it up or down at that time. >> Uh Jay, could you find out if there's any money in the budget to hire an
aerial photographer? I I >> No, we can we can No, we can make the applicant pay for it just just like we do everything else. >> Make it a requirement. They they pay the engineer. We don't do the engineering. >> Correct. >> We'll we'll have we'll put that as a future agenda item then.
>> I think >> any other future agenda items, Eric? >> I don't know if it's premature, but I feel like it would be good to talk about trying to expand general residence because I feel like that kind of meets some of what we're talking about. It allows up to three units, one of which is affordable. Maybe it should be four units. Maybe it should be a larger area
of town. I think there's a lot of areas that are like walking distance from these, you know, Mr. Cod districts that would be very suitable for >> some sort of moderate multif family housing. >> Um, and I feel like that's like we were talking about it as like an old thing, but I think it's still relevant.
>> Should be brought up. >> Got that? >> Got it. >> J. All right. Thank you. Anything else for future agenda item? All right. Then the next meeting scheduled is July 28th and August 11th. >> Okay. Move to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I