[music] [snorts] >> Everyone, I'm calling [clears throat] tonight's meeting of the Falmouth Planning Board to order. Today is June 23rd, 2026. It is 6:30 p.m. And we're meeting at Falmouth Town Hall. My name is John Druley. I'm the current chair of
the Planning Board. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that this is a public meeting and is being conducted in accordance with Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. >> [clears throat] >> 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 [clears throat] anyone wishes to speak about something that's not on our agenda this evening, please come to the podium and state your name. Seeing no one, I will go to the first item on our agenda, which is second
item, which is minutes, June 2nd, 2026 and June 9th, 2026. >> Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the June 2nd, 2026 and June 9th, 2026 minutes as presented. >> Second. >> Any comments? All in favor?
>> Aye. >> Aye. Unanimous. Next [clears throat] on our agenda is uh approval not required. Applicant is Joshua Bernstein. Plan of land to develop develop one lot into three lots located at 282 Quisset
Avenue. For the applicant? >> Uh good evening. I'm Bob Arman Tarmat, attorney. I represent the applicant, again, Josh Bernstein as trustee of uh 282 Quisset Avenue Nominee Trust. Last um October, the board planning
board voted A&R endorsement for a very similar plan dividing the four acres that the Bernsteins own on Quisset Avenue into three lots. Um and this plan is uh simply a revision of
of that plan, which had not yet been recorded. The previous plan had a line that pretty much went straight from here to the street. We've adjusted this both to um make a good building site in this area
for the middle lot and also to have a better site for a potential house on lot three, although it's very likely there never will be a house there. Um and so this lot uh this plan shows three
conforming lots with adequate area and frontage um such that it ought to be endorsed approval not required. >> All right, thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? >> Not for me.
>> Okay, can I get a motion then? >> I have I have a kind of a question, which is um how how in the town do we regulate like installation of riprap and like um coastal erosion I assume it goes to the conservation commission. >> Conservation, yeah. They deal with all
of those. >> Where in the bylaw though is it specified? Is there a state >> It's wetlands regulations. So they have their own wetland regulations that they go by that that all of it has to conform to. >> Okay, yeah. Yeah, cuz I was just at a science meeting like for work where they
were talking about the the horseshoe crab population and the kind of the biggest threat is actually like installation of riprap and sort of like hardening of the shoreline. And just like looking at these plans, I was wondering if maybe we can in the future talk about
yeah, how we allow that sort of thing. >> Well, here's just uh >> [clears throat] >> uh three conforming lots that they're they're asking. >> Sorry if it's not germane, but I just when I would look at when I looked at the plans in advance, it was just making me think like it doesn't look like this lot would require it, but maybe like that third
lot, I could see somebody wanting to harden it. We don't know, yeah. But that's just my thought. >> Uh again, that'd be under conservation's purview. >> Yeah. >> So, I'll give a motion to >> Motion for Doris without regard to eligibility. >> Thank you. I'll second.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh tonight we have uh two applications for 28 Falmouth Heights Road on the agenda, a special permit and a site plan review application.
The applicant has requested a continuance for both applications to July 7th, 2026. Is there a motion to continue both applications? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Until what?
>> 7th. All in favor? >> [clears throat] >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you. Unanimous. And uh the applicant has also requested an extension of the decision deadline for the site plan review application to July 29th, 2026.
Is there a motion to extend that deadline? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you. Unanimous. Eric, can you turn the lights back on again, please? And now we'll proceed to 348 and 350 Old
Meeting House Road. >> So, before we get into it, um so at the last meeting that 350 and 348 Old Meeting House Road was on the agenda, it was um continued, both applications were continued to tonight.
In error, the special permit was left off of the agenda. Um so we need to uh vote to continue that to a date certain, which would be um probably the next meeting, July 7th. Um because I I'm assuming
when you hear this site plan review, there's not going to be any issues and and you'll be fine for draft motions for both. But, um So, if you could just take a a vote a motion to continue the special permit to July 7th. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. Unanimous. All right. Yes, sir. For the record. >> Good evening. For the record, Raul Lisanti from Cape and Islands Engineer. Um we're the engineers and land surveyors for the applicant. Um And as
you'll um are familiar with this project, this project was presented um a month ago. Um there were some items that were left behind. There was a couple of items that were left behind um to be addressed for this
continued hearing for the site plan review. Um And additional information was submitted um to supplement the filing from the attorney. Um Kevin Clauer could not be here today with us. Um the same The same is true for the
Is that me? >> That's you. >> [clears throat] >> Um the same was true with the at the applicant who couldn't could not be here today. Um But, um for the site plan review, um the changes and the additional supplemental documents that were um furnished was
truly to address a couple of um questions that were raised mainly from um the engineering staff report and also from the health department. Um a simple one is that the health department and both engineering um commented about the the septic design.
Um there's a revision on the site plan. Now, the septic system incorporates uh a technology for enhanced nitrogen reduction. Um So, that's one of the changes. Um then the other main question that um was addressed with the supplemental
filing is how much of this project is altering the land Um because the engineering staff comments mentioned that if it exceeds the one acre it requires the stormwater permit application. So the alterations are as follows.
There's a portion of this area that's being altered. It's going from a gravel surface to paved surface. There's a portion of of this area that is being altered that is going from um grass and an area that they currently
hold um potted plants and it's going from that use to a building. Um there's a portion over here that is currently used for piles of um material. In this case it's I believe mulch or wood chips. Um it's being converted now
to gravel parking. And then there's an area here that is currently used like a portion of a tree farm that's being converted to gravel. Um all of that alteration adds up to 39 35,000 square feet so it's below the one acre
threshold for the stormwater permit. Um there were some other miscellaneous questions that were raised during that first hearing and the submittal from um the attorney addressed some of those questions. There was a question what's going to be stored um
in the in the garage building. Um the answer is in that letter. Um there was a question of what type of equipment is being parked for the contractor's yard and the letter addresses the list of um equipment vehicles that are being stored.
Um with that um I'll try to answer any questions or we can try to go specific to some of those answers. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um start it down here Tom. Do you have any questions or >> Um Yeah, so the [clears throat] septic
design has been revised to add nitrogen reducing technology. So is that a D night system or is it different technology for the title five? >> It's a D night. >> Okay, it's a D night. That's what I thought. Okay. And the other issue or just thing I want to talk about is the proposed area is
4,000 square feet and I'm looking at the the building here. And so, is that going to be is it office space for employees or is it going to be some sort of store there where the public is walking [clears throat and snorts] in to shop? Only because I'm looking at the parking
spaces, it's a building. You may need some bollards in front. >> [clears throat] >> So, it it is office space what's being proposed here. Um I'm not sure how the operation works. Um but I
knowing how the operation is in Mashpee, um there are some customers that are welcome inside the office spaces and they can look at um whatever planning they do for for the landscaping purposes. Um but I don't know the specific like
uses that they intend. >> If I could just interfere for one moment. They had a floor plan at the last meeting and it's mostly office space um with some meeting rooms. There's no like area for retail or I don't even think there was a
showroom. I think it was just mostly um office going on. >> And they had pictures that you could look at. They're probably still there. >> Yeah, they're probably I can get them up. >> Okay, thanks. >> Yeah, probably. >> Thank you. >> So, anytime just for the public, anytime
anyone's interested in looking at any of the applications that are currently before the planning board, you can go to the town's website, boards and committee, click on planning board, then on the left-hand side there's an online permitting uh section
and you can come into the public view and essentially what that shows you is anything that anyone's filed with the planning board and other departments. So you can check out building departments, our building permits, health permits, etc. So I'm just going to click on planning historic.
And then you go to the site address and type in 348. And then on the far right side is a paper clip. Click on that. These are all of the documents that were submitted with the application. And then so for this one we'll just make sure we don't have an updated
architectural drawings. It's just the one that was originally. So it would be this one, architectural floor plans. And then, you know, for the good of the audience we'll rotate them. And then there you have it. >> Thank you. >> All yours. >> Couple of conference
room so there's room for meeting with clients. >> So So there's 12 spots where cars drive into and they hit the gas, they're going to go right through that building. Is there anything protecting from the parking lot to the building?
Any sort of cement, I can't remember what they call that. Um >> The curb stops. >> Curb stop, yeah. >> So the there is a sidewalk which is 60 with a 6-in reveal. Um so that's what what's currently breaking up the space for
parking for car parking and the building. Um >> [sighs] >> except for the area for the handicap. We need the handicap to be flushed with the the pavement. So that section is is just flushed.
>> All right. I might circle back. I'm I'm good for now. >> Okay, thank you. >> I'm all set. >> All right, John. Bob. >> Uh there was some discussion about screening on the other side of the road with a driveway comes in.
Has that gone any further because I'd like to see that. >> So, nothing on the plan has changed in terms of screening. >> Mhm. >> However, the the applicant did met with the neighbor who made a comment at the first hearing. >> Yeah.
>> Now, I don't have anything in writing. This is just what I've been informed and I don't think this is something that the board would put as a condition because what they agreed is that the applicant will do some screening on the neighbor's property. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Um, in terms of varieties. >> Right.
>> Um, but because it's a different parcel, >> Yeah, we we have we have no jurisdiction over somebody else's property, but, you know, in in the lieu of trying to be neighborly, that's what we thought uh, we'd have >> so that's the information I have from the applicant.
>> Because uh, as you know, everything is complaint driven in this town, so if it's a cost complaint that they're getting lights shining into their house, uh, somebody else may make you do something about it.
>> Have you had a chance to drive by at all? >> I would >> It's it's pretty well um, >> Yeah, I know. I but in but in the winter time, you know, >> Right. No, I understand. I'm just saying like I think they're they've been in talks cuz I talked to Kevin Clower as well and he said that they were talking
with the the neighbor, so they'll definitely be doing something. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Did we get a landscape plan? No, you they asked for a waiver. >> So, yeah, the at the first hearing, Kevin Clower asked for a waiver. We do have a a landscape
layout around the building and around the proposed paved parking for the building um, with some native species. Um, what the applicant is looking to do is what currently is a tree farm at 348 Old
Meeting house road. That's going to remain as this. So, those small trees will eventually mature and they will be quite [clears throat] the buffer for anything out towards the street unless they amend this permit and do something else.
>> Thank you. >> I'll set up. >> Yeah. >> Eric. >> No questions. >> I have I have one more. >> Tom. So, people [clears throat] sitting there at desks and you know, if public was going in there
in and out and there was a product being sold, I could see having bollards, but I still think we should protect those people there. So, how about a curb stop in those parking spots? >> Would it be on top of the sidewalk? >> Um >> In front in front of the >> Didn't you say it was a 6-in curb there?
>> So, so a 6-in a >> 6-in 6-in sidewalk, right? >> Sidewalk's >> So, so the sidewalk with a curb. So, so there's a 6-in >> just it's going to go over a 6-in sidewalk, yeah. >> Now, a wheel curb stop for a parking is the same 6-in. >> Yeah.
>> So, what it does do, if you do a wheel stop, the wheel stop is placed about 2 ft before the actual curb of the sidewalk. If if it's a condition, I don't think this is something that's going to stop the applicant from doing it and
what it does, it There's a like a double buffer. >> It's called a wheel stop? >> Yeah. >> The wheel stop is what you see typically on gravel driveways where you can't really demarcate the parking spaces and you have the wheel stops. But it's >> product planning is also safety, right?
I think those people are sitting at those desks deserve, you know, deserve that. So, maybe we could do some sort of double buffer. >> [clears throat] >> Is that what you were suggesting? Did I misunderstand that? >> That's right. I mean >> Well, tire stop. Yeah.
>> So, the wheel stop is the one that gets put on the pavement and gets tacked in with some spikes. Um and that's what stops the wheel. >> Okay. >> There's still going to be a 6-in curb for the sidewalk.
>> Yeah. So, I'd like to see that. It's just my suggestion. Or we can put a bollards. >> We have a list of waivers here. >> How how far is the parking lot from the building? >> Um 50. >> 50. Tom, if you think it should be bollards,
say it should be bollards. >> All right. Let's go with bollards. I'll Yeah, I mean I don't want to be like everybody that comes in, but I mean at the end of the day, I mean if that's the direction we're going to and there's a lot of data on bollards. I I would rather I'd like to see bollards. >> I don't have a problem with that either.
>> All right. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> We have a list of waivers requested. >> I have a question like has has that been like a common accident in town? >> I can send you some data on it all throughout the United States, yeah.
>> It's been happening pretty frequently. I did a total repair on a on a restaurant last year. Lady pulled up in front of it and stepped on the gas instead of on the brake, went right through the front door. If anyone would have been standing there, they would have been crushed.
I mean it happens more than you would think. So. >> Yeah. >> How do you feel about the bollards? >> I don't have a feeling about the bollards. >> Okay. I like the idea. >> Okay. >> How about you, Bob? >> Um yeah, I'd go with it.
>> It's a big project and >> Yeah. >> All right. So, uh you want to make that a motion, Tom, as a >> Yeah, so the um so to stay consistent >> condition is automatic condition. >> To stay consistent with what I
asked of other applicants coming in, spacing between the bollards no um no greater than 54 in center to center. And this spacing even works with angle parking. >> So, one for each parking space other than the handicap.
>> in. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's what I I've had other >> Okay. >> requests from other applicants. >> All right. >> And Tom, just for the record, do you want that just at the front of the building cuz there is parking on the side of the building as well? >> side as well, yeah. There's just four spaces on the side and it looks like
eight spaces to the front. 1 2 3 4 >> Give or take, yeah. >> Eight and then you have that um that other space, nine, so um like that no parking, that's what consider as space as well. But 54 in
starting from uh basically um from corner to corner. >> You mean the hatched area? >> So long as it does not interfere with the requirements for clearance by the ADA accessibility code. >> want to show you what I'm referring to.
This is one. Right there. >> Yeah, the hatched area. >> The hatched area. >> Yeah, so if you were to put a bollard right in front of that hatched area, you would interfere with ADA. >> just leave that leave that separate in 54 in. >> So, for any parking spaces that is
facing the building either on the side or in the front. >> 54 in center to center. Until you get to that part. Maybe start at that um that area in the middle and go 54 out that way, you know,
either side. All right? That would make sense. >> Yep. >> All right. Just start from the middle and go that way. >> All right, so I just have a motion to add that. >> Okay. >> All right, I need a vote on it, right? No, okay.
>> Well, we can just discuss it then. >> We just discuss it then. Do we need to discuss it any more? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you. >> You Do you want the So, that will have to be put on the plans, um but I don't want to hold up, you know,
anything else, so um he like what we if you want, we can draft a motion for the next meeting um and they can just put those on the plan. It doesn't have to necessarily be a revised plan. >> Okay. >> We can work it out with him.
>> And we'll we'll finish the hearing then. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Are you all set, sir? I know we're going to go to the audience. >> I think the gentleman at the back. >> I know that. >> Okay. >> So, I have the gentleman standing at the podium.
Are you all set? >> Yep. >> All right, thank you. And any comments from the audience? Come to the podium Come to the podium, state your name for the record, please. This is for the for our audience at home. >> Yep. Dan Walsh, uh Precinct 3 for all
that matters, but question for you for Cape Royale Land's engineering. Is the Is the west side of the back of the property currently staked? Cuz it's conservation land behind the property. >> Address your questions to us, please. >> Okay. >> Then we'll ask the applicant. >> Ah, okay. So, I want to know if the west side of
the property is staked currently. >> Staked in what manner? >> Is there literally stakes out there that mark the >> Like boundary stakes? >> Yep. Cuz it's conservation land behind that property. >> Okay. >> And I monitor that land, and it looks like it's encroached on.
So, I just want to know if it's staked so I can go out and look at it. >> All right. You want to >> Are you referring to like gravel section? >> No, if you look at the back so you get the tree processing thing in back of this property, right? And I'm just trying to figure out if at that buffer, which is
at the back of the old Andrews farm is actually staked at the moment. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Yes, sir. >> You're good. >> So the back property line, there's two bounds that delineate that property line.
Um there is an area that I believe one of the board members just noted that shows gravel. Um so that is technically an encroachment beyond the property line. Um so that activity
um happened. Um can't be sure when it happened or how it happened. Um but the intent for this application and this permit is that all of these um activities remain within the property.
>> Okay. Any chance you're going to clean up the gravel while you're uh doing your site work there? >> Um I believe that could be a condition of this permit um that any prior alterations beyond the
property line um be removed from off-site properties. >> Just be Just be It doesn't look like it's much, but it'd be nice to >> Yeah, I have no idea how much sand it is, but but I know it's there. >> Okay.
Good. >> [clears throat and cough] >> All right, thank you. >> Yeah, that should That should be a condition probably. I know that for conservation land um like adverse possession does not apply, so yeah. So it would remain [clears throat] It doesn't matter what they've been doing or for how long, it still would be conservation land, but we probably
should have them remove >> It's the new owner, so we'll make that request. >> Okay. >> And I think if I may, Mr. Chair, um I think it would certainly help if you would ask the applicant to stake at least that back property line
so that there can be um compliance reporting in the future. >> In the future. >> Because without knowing exactly where the property line is, we just don't know how much gravel there would need to be. >> Stake with stakes or with some balance stones? >> I think stakes for now and then we can
uh confirm them in the field. >> Okay. >> I think that would be fine. >> Good suggestion. >> The plans do show a concrete bound. >> Are you all set, sir? >> Yes. >> Anyone else from the audience would like to come to the podium? >> Uh my name's Mark Hughes.
And I just wanted to update the situation with the screening. Uh a week ago Monday a young man came to our door and I thought he was a golfer that was lost looking for directions to Falmouth Country Club. But he introduced himself as Kevin
Slavin, CEO of Outerland. So, we had a great meeting. He proposed the uh screening which would be evergreens. And then uh at the end of the meeting we went out to the area
and we went over all the vegetation that would have to be removed to plant the uh evergreens. And he actually said that Joe from J&B was going to donate the evergreens. So, as far as we're concerned
you know, that's the goal. >> Oh, that's wonderful. >> And Uh the only thing I forgot to ask him was when he was going to do it, but I'll call him and do that. But, for the record, I just want to make that clear. >> Well, thank you for the update. >> Okay. Thank you. Excuse me.
>> Does the applicant's representative have [clears throat] any more to say? We're good. >> I do know we going to be asking for a continuance to um the next hearing to have the conclusion, hopefully the conclusion for this two permits. >> Yes.
We will. Yes, we will. Any other discussion? >> No. >> No. Uh is there a motion to ask staff to draft a positive motion for the site plan review application? >> Are we going to get a list of the special permits they're asking for, what
they what they're not intending to do? There's one. Are there more? >> Oh, the waivers. >> They already requested those at the last meeting. >> I don't remember that. >> Okay, so they they requested a waiver from the landscaping, a lighting plan, and a traffic study.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, you got a motion? >> What was the motion? >> Motion to ask staff to draft a positive motion >> Yeah, I'll second that. >> for site plan review application. >> So moved and seconded. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Aye.
>> Unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> That will be next meeting. >> Next meeting. [clears throat] >> The 7th, okay. >> And just for the record, everyone's okay with those waivers, and we that can be >> Yeah, yeah. >> Yes. >> Just needed a reminder of what we're waiving. I couldn't remember.
And then we got it back with you. >> Okay. Next on agenda is uh planning board discussion for fall 2026 Town Meeting. Planning Board Zoning Article Amendments. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll take that one.
Um included in everyone's packet tonight is a one-page handout um which summarizes the three zoning articles that we're proposing um that you consider for the fall town meeting, which again, as a reminder, is
in October of this year, not November. It'll be on October 26th. Uh the first article is dealing with all of our technical corrections that we've gone through in the past. Um Examples of those items include, as you
can see on that one-pager, um any any area in the zoning bylaw where we reference the Board of Selectmen, we would change that to the Select Board. Uh Natural Resources Department is now the Marine and Environmental Services. Um
We also look to change the name of the residential districts in town. Along the way, I think uh post-recodification, we started calling them single residence districts. Um and so it's a little We've got conflicting language in the zoning
bylaw. So there's just minor things that we want to clean up. There's also incorrect references. As we've added new sections in the past, you know, everything sort of shifts down, but some of the references within the bylaw don't get updated. So this is part of that
technical correction um bylaw or article that would correct those things. Um And then Article 2 is uh allowing duplexes by right in all of our agricultural and residential districts.
Again, that would be Ag AA, Ag Single A, B, Residential AA, Residential B, and Residential C. duplexes are currently allowed by right in the General Residence District. So, obviously we don't have to do that. Um
And then, Article 3 is correcting a couple of items in the non-conforming the new non-conforming section of the bylaw. Uh there are two spots where uh the language currently allows the Zoning Board of Appeals to do things with a
special permit which would um technically be incorrect. It would be allowed by variance. And so, that information needs to be corrected immediately. Um and then, we need to add the new language from the Affordable Homes Act which allows for um
uh uh smaller lots than 10,000 square feet uh are now eligible for um or at least have obtained building buildable status. Um and so, that first not seasonal communities uh 10,000 square feet, but the Affordable Homes Act which happened before, we need
to update the bylaw to reflect basically state law. So, those are the three articles that we propose to bring forward as staff. Uh we wanted to have five, but you know, time just ran away from us. Uh it's nature of the beast sometimes in the
office. So, um we've got two other articles that we're considering for April. Those include updating some definitions um because there are uh regulatory review processes that rely heavily on these definitions that we just simply don't
have. So, we want to update the bylaw for that. And then, we're looking into the Coastal Pond Overlay District as we've talked about before as a group and the necessity to have it in the zoning bylaw anymore. And it's in In my opinion, it's possible that we could remove it from the bylaw, but uh I want
to talk to other, you know, regulatory boards and make sure that there's consensus and support for that before we bring it forward. So, that is the update on the >> [clears throat] >> bylaw amendments. And I'll take any questions. >> Okay. Charlotte. >> Um Article 2, duplexes.
>> Yes. >> Um that's quite a change. >> It is. >> It is quite a change. That is not a small thing at all. And why would we be doing that? >> Two reasons. Um one to increase the housing stock diversity, right? To allow
for, you know, broaden the ability for people to uh have different uh options within those residential districts. And two, most importantly, because it was one of the strategies that was outlined in our housing production plan. Um because the vast majority of the town
is single-family homes. And apparently, it's been brought forward to town meeting in the past. Um unsuccessfully. >> Yeah. >> Uh but the idea would be to essentially allow for more diversity. >> And what what restrictions would be on this? Would this require site plan
review? >> No, ma'am. No. Two-family dwellings would be a residential use and it would not require site plan review. By right. Building permit. >> I would not support that. >> Okay. And this is part of that conversation,
right? So, you want to try to have that conversation before you open the public hearings. Um and then listen to the public and see what they say. And if the public is coming at you and saying, "Absolutely not. We don't support that." Maybe you pull it from you know, from the >> That was my question. When when are we going to have the public uh hearing?
>> Well, >> Do we know that the whole board supports this? >> Sure. Right. >> It would be good to know that. >> The potential public hearing date for this article would be uh July 28th. >> Okay. >> Um just to clarify as well, these spots where
um duplexes are currently allowed in the zoning by-law are by right as already as well. >> Yes, but aren't they in the >> I believe they're in the business zone, right? >> In the business zone, one, two, three only. So, right now, they're very tightly contained. >> Mhm. And this is going from very tightly
contained to being uncontained, actually, across 80% of the town, more than 80% actually. And I wonder at such a sweeping change with so little preparation from the board, so little discussion, so little anything, actually. And I
can't imagine it's actually going to pass town meeting without considerable discussion. >> Hence the public hearing. Hence tonight. So, please discuss. >> Well, what is the sense of the board, John? Would you like to ask?
>> I was going to ask you. >> Oh. >> I was going to ask one at a time. >> Okay. >> And you're first. >> Well, now you know what I think. I think if we have site plan review, we have some control over the character of the
neighborhood that these could happen in. I picture a duplex being plunked down in my neighborhood, and I think, "Wow, I would like an opportunity to see what that might look like." And I should imagine that most people in town would want that same opportunity
for their neighborhoods. >> Okay. >> So, it wouldn't take much. Single residence things, okay? They're they go by right because they're so restricted. We have setbacks, we have all kinds of things that regulate and
control them. Duplexes, we don't. And we don't have much experience at them. >> So, we have nothing really to fall back on on what would happen. >> All right. Thanks, Charlotte. Bob? >> Uh no, this is something that that I think we should have done a long time
ago. You have one and two-acre zone lots. It's a waste of land, and people complain about cutting down trees and trying to encroach on conservation land, things like that. I think it would be self-regulated. >> [clears throat] >> We have no control over a single
resident home that goes in now. There's some pretty butt-ugly houses that are going up everywhere. Uh and we have no control over that. And uh and people think of duplexes as a side-by-side, not necessarily, you know? I mean, they can be well done. I'm sure somebody who's going to build something
that uh uh they may live in, and that might be a a a conversation as whether uh one of the units has to be owner-occupied. Uh or is this going to be something that uh some corporation uh is going to start developing uh lots or buying houses and
tearing down uh the existing Allison building a duplex. Those are things I think that we should discuss when uh the time comes. >> The time is now. >> Well, I'm not No, not with the public. >> just tonight. >> Yeah. No, I want to hear what the public has to say. >> Yeah, and we're missing a a gentleman
tonight, too. >> Yeah, two two people. >> Two. Yes, that's right. >> Yeah. >> Now, Tom. >> Torn. Um I just think if we did it needs to be conditioned uh in a way >> [sighs and gasps] >> This is sounding like a
maintain the character of the town, right? Um but I'd like to listen more and get more information before I comment any further. >> Okay. Good. >> Thank you, Eric. >> [clears throat] >> Well, I I would like to see us moving in the direction of a form-based code. So,
like I feel like this um focus on the particular use, like the number of families, say, within a structure um on some level I don't have a problem with, but I do feel like particularly in the agricultural district we're kind of just treating the agricultural district
as like an extension of residential districts. >> Mhm. >> So, I I think in in the residential districts, this makes a lot of sense. Um and in fact, I think maybe we should be we should be thinking more about a form-based code where like if maybe someone needs to wants to have three families in a structure, we should
be that should be all right as well. Um but I think in the agricultural district it's not really appropriate cuz I think we're going to increase the land value um by permitting like more units, you know, per acre essentially. Um
yeah, so particularly in the agricultural district, I think that is not really like um fitting. Although I know that there's a lot of areas of town that are essentially residential neighborhoods that are classified as agricultural district. But I think as opposed to making the agricultural district more permissive, perhaps we should
I I think we should making the agricultural district more restrictive and promoting agriculture while potentially reclassifying some lots that are currently agricultural district that are treated like residential districts. Um so yeah, I don't really support it for
the agricultural district. That'd be my big my big problem with it. However, I do think we should be looking at a form-based code in the next couple years, in which case maybe if people want to have multiple families in a structure that is fitting to the character of the area,
then that could be appropriate. Um >> When when you use the word form-based code for residential purposes, do you mean um have predetermined plans that people could choose from? >> Yeah, we could have plans that >> Like the Cape Cod Commission is working
on? >> Right. >> So, form-based code is is more of a commercial use than than a residential use. The the term is. >> Yeah, yeah, but I don't believe that it's it doesn't always have to be restricted to that. >> But you you would like to see plans that
are already predetermined? And maybe >> Yeah, like New Bedford, um they're working on a form-based code that includes their residential areas as well, which kind of pushes people towards traditional forms. >> Is that for single-family or multi-family?
>> Those are for multi-family residences, but I mean that's just the nature of that area, but like um yeah, that >> That was part of the uh accessory apartment bylaw that they had to fit the character of the neighborhood. So. >> But this is wide open. What's being
proposed is what we're being asked to react to. Do we as a planning board want to propose to town meeting this wide open unrestricted agricultural residential and certainly form-based code has been
discussed long ago on this board and often but it's a long haul. It's very hard to get it across. It's hard to explain to people. Shouldn't be but it is. Are you suggesting Eric we should not propose this until we have form-based code?
And it includes residential buildings. >> Again I think form-based code is commercial pre-determined structures for residential is >> I agree with you. That's what it is so far. >> totally different but I don't really want to use the form term form-based code for duplexes.
>> I just wondered in Eric's mind if he was saying until we have that he wouldn't consider this. >> Okay. I mean I I think I could consider this for the residential districts. >> All all [clears throat] of the residential districts even the double A? >> No, he's just talking about residential
districts not agricultural districts. >> We have a yeah we have a double A res. >> So >> Yeah. So Jed in in the um in the residence district use it's basically two acres only. Is that am I correct?
>> Uh the residence double A is 80,000 square feet. Everything else is approximately 40,000 square feet 45,000 square feet. >> And and the same with the um agricultural district 40,000 square feet? >> Correct. >> on that because according to the Cape
Cod Commission's data that we're all just looking at mostly what we have is 49% small lots and houses. So, it would include that. So, this is going to be lots with a unrestricted size of the lot. It won't be 1 acre lots because most of them aren't 1 acre or 2 acres.
Most of them are much smaller than that. So, this would be on a lot of any size, unrestricted, you can now have a duplex. >> The question I'm asking him is in our guideline agricultural district use is
40,000 square feet for a residential property. >> For agricultural A and agricultural B districts, yes. >> Okay. >> Agricultural double A, which is up in this area. Right? So, you have um a lighter green area up in here. Sorry.
And in over here, this is your 80,000 square foot area. This sort of darker shade of green where I'm hovering over, that is your 40 to 45,000 square foot area. >> Whoops. Sorry. I'm not talking about 10,000 square foot lots here. >> No. Not in ag. >> In
>> Generally, your 10,000 square foot lots are in your fingers. The the finger sections, Akapastket, Maravista, Seco Shores, those types. >> but the way this is written here shown to us this evening is basically 40,000 and 80,000 square foot lots. >> Yes, sir.
>> It doesn't exclude the ones that you just pointed out on the finger peninsulas. >> Correct. It does not. >> It doesn't exclude any residential district. >> Minimum lot size, there's a difference between a minimum lot size and the actual lot sizes that are generally in
those districts. Right? So, it's important to, you know, parse those two things out. It would be anywhere you allow single-family dwellings currently, basically. You would allow for a two-family dwelling as well. >> So, it's fair to characterize it as wide
open, unrestricted, residential, agricultural, whatever. >> Well, anybody could put a ADU on any property, too. >> Yes, we did that also. But this is now saying duplexes. >> Correct. Yep.
>> Right. Of any character, of any size, whatever. >> Well, the primary [laughter] home in a in a duplex is essentially a in an ADU is essentially creating a duplex use for the site. >> Yeah. >> It seems tremendously irresponsible to
to have such a wide-open thing. We go from very tightly restricted to wide-open, not knowing what would happen next, and it'd be very difficult to undo. I really doubt it would pass town meeting, but if it did, it would be an enormous change. >> So, similar to Eric, do you have
districts in town that you would be okay with that happening in? The two-family dwellings, specifically. >> It would depend on I think to me the control that would be put on it would you'd have to have do something about setbacks and so forth, about lot size, about parking, about the what you're
going to do about the septic for this whole thing, cuz that's, you know, in greater density everywhere, more pee into the water. So, there's that, but mostly site plan review. What what are the implications for this on those things, plus on the character of all the neighborhoods. I just think that's our
responsibility. >> Of course. >> is saying, "No, we think we'll be irresponsible." >> Well, so so again, back to the question. Are there certain districts in town that you would be okay with two-family dwellings being allowed by right? Is residence B or residence C?
Um are there certain areas in town where you'd be okay with that? And keep in mind those same setbacks, all the dimensional requirements that you just went through, are the would be the same for a single-family dwelling. >> Okay. Could I answer your question? I wouldn't be all right with that. I'd
still want it to have a site plan review. I don't see why we would be less respectful of the owners of those properties than we would be of the owners of larger properties. It um um >> Noted. >> and less concerned about their property
values. >> Okay. >> We might My concern is primarily around like how we're planning for our infrastructure and stuff. Like if we're to do this, you're you're theoretically kind of like doubling the number of potential residents. I
know it's not going to happen that way, but I think that Like I I I mean like what I feel is that we need to make some areas close to downtown even more permissive than duplexes. We should have like more
options for multi-family housing. Um but kind of a blanket um modification to the all these districts, I don't I don't know if it really is like the best >> Too much, too soon? >> Well, no, no. It's not even about the number of residences. It's just about
like where they would potentially be located. Um cuz it just would make it very hard to like plan, you know, transportation or like sewering or whatnot. And so it might happen that you just get a bunch of um a bunch of duplexes go up in an area
that like we're never going to feasibly be able to sewer >> [clears throat] >> or never be able to like have a bus stop or whatnot. And then we're just kind of like I think continuing down sort of like path dependency. Um >> Keep in mind that anytime, and again,
this is outside of your jurisdiction. It's the Board of Health jurisdiction. Currently, anytime that you're adding any sort of new flow to a property, you're required to do a denitrification system. So, hear you. Just keep that in mind that wastewater would be handled by
another board. Uh setbacks and all of your dimensional requirements would be the same as a single-family dwelling. Essentially, what you're doing is just allowing more opportunity, more housing opportunity, which as you know, being in a housing crisis is what the
town is really looking for. Um and again, it's a housing It's a strategy within the housing production plan. I completely understand what you're saying, and I think that perhaps the conversation is steering towards maybe we take a smaller bite instead of
a really large one, and maybe there's focus on certain zoning districts that you would feel more comfortable with allowing that duplex by right. Using your words, uncontrolled. Um and we start there, and you begin to be
more comfortable with the option. Just allowing folks the option of a two-family dwelling. To Eric's point, I don't think people are going to tear down their single-family homes and immediately construct all of these duplexes throughout town because their lots restrict the ability to do that.
They may not have the ability to have a parking for two-family dwellings. >> Sorry. >> There may be a cost implication with the denitrification system, etc. So, it's all it's doing is just allowing a different option. >> Richard. >> [laughter]
>> I deserve that. >> Through the chair. >> John. >> Yes. >> Got to make money. >> I'd like to see us withdraw this as written and not go forward with anything that deals with this kind of with duplexes until we've thought it through better.
>> Okay. What would you like What would you like us to give you to help think this through? >> Erase it from here. And it would be just Article 1 and 3 renumbered. Two is gone. Not ready for prime time. >> What I was getting at is there Is there
data that we can give to you to help consider it for the fall town meeting? Is there a way we can edit it uh to make it more palatable? >> I I I like it for a first round of of conversation exactly the way it is.
>> Right. >> And we should have another go around. We have a couple members that weren't here this evening and I think we should have a full board discussion on it. >> But not all >> What could be like What could be discussing it right now? But I would like to
have more than one evening to discuss this with this board. And and I personally feel that if we don't create the housing it's going to get created for us anyway. Look at the 40Bs where the the town has to deal with. Look at the apartments right here on Main Street. There's 104
106 [clears throat] apartments on what? An acre? And I mean, if we if we don't plan for it, we're going to get what we what we get, period. So, um we've had a lot of discussions in support of having discussion about
duplexes. So, to take it off the table after one evening is not really what I would like to have happen. Uh maybe in the end it isn't supported by the board, but I would rather have um more discussion with everyone here. >> I don't believe we'd be taking it off
the table. We're just saying we're not going to send this to town meeting this way. >> Well, no. >> Well, go ahead, Eric. >> Like What are some of the options before us? Like one one idea that I would have is like could we create a multi-family district [clears throat]
and apply that over over a suitable section of the town? Um and and that could even be I don't know, like seems like we could do some sort of a a gradient of like you know, within a certain section you can allow up to four units. Then a further out
>> Essentially. >> We're talking about expanding, Mr. Cod. >> Yep. >> Is the way to do it. And right now it's limited, but it could be expanded. It's an overlay district. So, what it accomplish, we could leave the underlying zoning in place and just have the possibility to do it.
>> Or if it's right here, too. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The duplexes. >> But that's one of the things I'm very interested in in talking about Mr. Mr. Cod because it's I think it helps us we need housing, but we also need a workforce housing and
apartments almost more than we need single-family homes or duplexes. I mean, the reason why we worked so hard on Mr. Cod and to get it is to bring apartments into the and where our public transportation is. If you start making duplexes
all over town uh you know, we do have a duplex situation in general residential allows for duplexes. But that's always it's tied right to the village centers, you know what I mean? It it's it's right near the traffic. It was thought out for that purpose. >> Right.
>> Uh that's just I think we should look at both, basically. We should look at everything. >> Yeah. >> But I want to just point out that Mr. Cod, I think we've done a lot of work on it. And I think we could adjust it and make it work in more areas. >> Yeah, and I think that the that
transportation planning piece in addition to the the water quality just that's what makes me concerned about just kind of a blanket application. >> And Mr. Cod's 20 units per acre. >> Up to. >> Up to. 20 units per acre. >> Yep. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, cuz I just feel like what what we see in a lot of like places in the Cape is like because we're a seasonal community, we always have to be thinking about that. Like just it's not necessarily going to result result in workforce housing. I don't know. Cuz cuz there's not necessarily like it's not tied to a supply and demand
based on the local prevailing wage or anything. >> Right. >> So we'll keep it as is to hear from the public. >> Mhm. >> No, to discuss further on the board job site. >> no, the next time >> So just keep in mind that we have to advertise, I think that by the 10th.
>> By the 8th. Well, yeah, it has to be sent to the paper by the 8th. So we have the >> So we've got another meeting. That's good. >> So we have another meeting on the 7th, right? >> Yes. >> All right, so let's let's put on the agenda for the 7th. >> That sounds great. >> As is. >> Well, maybe he could make some suggestions to improve it. It would be a
better discussion. >> I believe that it's good the way it is. >> Yeah, I do too. That way we can if we're going to amend it, we'll amend it all at one time. But we should have Pat here possibly and >> Yeah, right. >> Jim just walked in the door and >> And don't forget you can still advertise
>> [laughter] >> You can still advertise it as a potential article for your public hearing and let's pretend that you know a lot of folks come in and they say absolutely not. You don't have to send it to town meeting because you've advertised it for your public hearing. You can always pull it and you can say,
all right, bad idea. >> Or we might have a room full of people say about time. >> It could be that too. >> And you know, I don't want I don't want to keep going on about this. We'll save it for the next time. >> Sure. Any other questions on the other two?
So you have non-conforming structures, uses and lots. There's a couple of clauses that we need to um eradicate or delete uh essentially because they're allowing the ZBA to do something that they're not allowed to do legally. Um and we're adding in affordable homes
act language. >> It's actually a state law. >> Can I just ask a question about the way you've structured this so far? >> Sure. >> [clears throat] >> I would think that the two that are kind of minor you know, just improving definitions, a little bit of uh tidying up with the
non-conforming and then there's one that actually is a very radical change, but it's kind of sandwiched in between those two. What was the thinking on that? >> Uh there wasn't one. It was just just a handout for tonight. >> Uh >> Yeah. >> It has a sneaky look.
>> I hope nobody would notice. >> You'd be surprised how unsneaky I really am. >> [laughter] >> Well, we're learning. Hands are always at 10 and 2, Charlotte. >> [laughter] >> Or 9 and 3, depends on when you learned. >> All right, let's go next to our committee reports and
our recreation committee, Tom. Where's our Where's our pickleball courts? That's [laughter] what I keep getting asked all the time. Where are our pickleball courts? >> I'll I'll come in next our next meeting to discuss pickleball. But, I just a couple things to point
out. So, Woods Hole community, they're happy with the approved final designs for Taff playground. CPC we're giving them $650,000. Um an issue with the rec building I just want to talk about. We're experiencing roof leaks from all the rain and snow. It's
dripping on that new gym floor. Roof work is in the town's capital plan for fiscal year 2034, which will make the roof 46 years old. We're trying to have the roof project moved up on the capital plan. Um CPC,
we unanimously voted $2.6 million to Falmouth Housing Corp and the affirmative and affirmative investments for the acquisition of the property at 545 Main Street. Um two other things I want to talk about
is the rec committee's. I'd like to thank Scott Gelfi for serving 9 years on the rec committee and also the past year on CPC. He'll be missed and Tom Manchester will be the uh taking his spot um on CPC of the recreation committee
representative. That's it. >> All right, thank you very much. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Uh do we have a planning department report? >> There's um well, we're looking to uh the state and the and the Cape Cod
Commission for our model bylaws for the seasonal communities um zoning. Uh as you know, one of them is tiny homes, the other is undersized lots. Those are the primary items that we're working on currently. I'm personally working on
a handful of um RFPs for work that we're doing from the CPC CPC awards. Um so, that's keeping me plenty busy. Um and then of course, we're always updating the zoning bylaw. So, we're working on um on the background, what we're trying
to do is work on some transfer development rights potential edits. I'm looking at the Mr. Cod expansion and seeing how that would work. We're just not ready for October, so we would be pushing that into April because I'm just not ready for those types of edits at
this point. Unless you've got uh language that you want to propose to me and we can work together to try to make it work, but it's it's tight. It's a tight time, right? So. >> And didn't we ask for work on parking? >> Yes. Yes. >> How's it doing?
>> I That is third in in order. So, first and foremost is seasonal communities and making sure that we understand exactly what we need to do there because we're on a timeline. Second is the TDR and Mr. Cod, and then parking is third. >> Okay, but seasonal communities is like 2 years, whereas parking problem is old.
>> It's fair. It's fair. And then, you know, I talked to a different member and they say, "Well, parking is not as important, so we're going to move that around." So, >> we were all when you were unable to attend, we were all talking about parking as something we definitely want to discuss like as soon as possible for
a town meeting. >> There could be a quick adjustment to Mr. Cod. As you remember, uh Joe Netto put the uh exclusion for things that on on the sewer and wiped out uh all of the areas where we could where Mr. Cod would have applied with that
that one. And I think I've talked with him about it. He probably doesn't feel so strongly about it anymore. And I also would like to hear from the engineers and scientists about this D night systems that we're getting right now. And is that really a concern anymore? Or is that that been solved? And if that's
the case, that's a really [clears throat] quick that's a one or two word change and it opens up a lot more area. >> Mhm. >> So that's something we might be able to do it quickly for town meeting cuz I think you just have to scratch his uh amendment that he filed at the town meeting floor.
>> Yep. Yep. So quick and zoning changes are typically not things that go together in the same sentence. But I hear what you're saying. >> on that thing for years. And he just Talk about quick, he amended on the town meeting floor. >> I mean, that's that's a fair
>> just the opposite of I'm just saying unamended. >> Yeah. >> Go to what we studied and planned on. That's not a quick change. That's taking away his uh >> If the board is supportive of that, I mean, I can draft a zoning article
pretty quickly for that type of change if you'd like me to bring that forward for the next meeting and you can you know, discuss it as a group with the remainder of these other ones, too, if you're interested. >> Very interested, yes. >> Very interested, I'm hearing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Cuz when we're talking about Mr. Cod and and housing, Mr. Cod is in a large area. >> All right. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'd like to seek from you just some information. >> Yes. >> Um I asked Melinda did send around the
regional housing plan from the Cape Cod Commission. And I hope everybody gets a chance to really look at it. It's filled with information. It's very, very good. And interestingly enough, they are talking, of course, about family, multi-family structures, and recommend uh that they can be coupled with design
guidelines. >> Multi-family. So that's >> Multi-family zoning, multi-family. Duplex is more than one, that's multi. >> Three or more. Multi-family is three units or more. >> Nevertheless. >> Well, but it it's not the same thing.
Just to be clear. And your site plan review um bylaw specifically says one and two-family dwellings are not eligible for site plan review. >> So that would have to be changed in order to do something about >> to make those types of changes. >> My question actually is about um do we actually have a problem with permitting
time for single-family and multi-family things? What is the permitting time? How long does it take? They come an applicant comes to your office first or no, they go to the building commissioner first. >> anything with residential >> Right.
>> uh building. >> We're mostly commercial. >> And if it's by right, they don't even go to zoning. They just apply for a building permit. It's all done right there. >> So this business about permitting time, is it real? Why don't you just go there? >> What business are you talking about?
>> You mean in the report? >> Yeah, in the report. >> Yeah. >> We need to work on permitting time and I thought we got a new permitting system. We've been working on it. Why is that still there? And if in fact it's only about housing, why would it be there? Because that doesn't come to us. >> Well, keep in mind that's a regional
housing strategy. So it's not just Falmouth. They They um did a uh housing analysis for the entire Cape. So there could be other communities that have issues with permitting time. >> Well, we [clears throat] do not. >> I'm not hearing that. The only permitting
time issues that I'm hearing about are typically comprehensive permits. But that's a complicated uh development proposal that needs to take time because >> 40Bs? >> Yep. Essentially 40Bs, yep. Yep.
>> Okay. >> And special permits can go out >> Sometimes. >> more than a year if you go through the different appeals at every level. If you do it and appeal and still an appeal, so a special permit could be more than a year. >> Could be. Yep. >> Okay, I just didn't know. >> That's That's the one I think that
they're talking about the SP can be really delayed. >> I think a typical special permit right now it takes about 3 to 5 months. >> But that's without an appeal. If you throw an appeal in there and you're you're at a year. >> the regular single family dwelling that's coming before zoning for some
relief. >> All right, thank you for the planning report and we have some good items on our agenda for the next time. Um any other future agenda items? >> The only thing I could say is once we hear about the seasonal communities and
we get that information, of course we'll pass it on to the board and we'll have a conversation about it. >> Okay, good. All right, next meeting is July 7th and after that July 28th. >> Okay. >> 2026. >> One thing to like
raise to the board is I know that um some folks like Jack Richardson and those are working on a >> Hey, hey, wait a second, please. >> Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> They're working on a petitioner's article which would be a restriction on data centers in town. So that would be an amendment to the zoning bylaw.
So that's like something they're working on as a petitioner's article. >> Who Who is they? >> Like Jack Richardson and I know Moro can >> Can you He says it's the two of you together. >> Yeah, I'm involved with it as well, yeah. But um yeah, just to like make the board aware of it. >> All right, thank you.
I can motion to adjourn. >> I move to adjourn. >> Second. All in favor. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Thank you. >> Unanimous. >> Mhm.