Okay. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting has been taped being taped by FCTV. If there's any private party wishing to record the hearing, step up to the podium to request permission. I will introduce the
short staff tonight. On my far right is Mark Finan. To his left is Scott Peterson. Then we have Frank Duffy, the clerk. I'm Suzanne Murphy, chair. To my left is Noren Stockman, the zoning administrator. And Ashley Dlo, office assistant. The zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state
zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws and in reviewing and voting on applications. All decisions are made through the public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project prior to closing the hearing
process and reaching a decision. Number one, to begin each hearing, the clerk will read the public announcement for the hearing and read pertinent information from the file. Two, the applicant or the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation, but time may be extended by vote of the board. Three,
the board will then question the applicant. Four, the public will then be invited to comment. Comment should be limited to two minutes and be strictly related to the proposal. All members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium. State your name and
address for the record and speak to the microphone. and it will not amplify your voice and record audio for the FCTV viewers. And before we take up the first hearing, we have a minute where if anyone wants to do a public comment on anything that's not on our agenda,
you're welcome to come up. Welcome, Mr. Design. >> Good evening, Tommy Z, Captain Bonenberger. Good evening, Madam Chair and board members. Since this is not a public hearing tonight, I hope you consider my request.
Myself and some interested parties would like the opportunity to provide input on this second round of proposed changes to Felmouth Sutherly's comprehensive permit on file with the town. It's >> on our agenda. >> It's on the agenda. >> It's on our agenda. >> You'll have to ask for that when it comes up.
>> Can we talk? >> No. No, >> I I'm not talking about substantial changes in some >> No, you you can't address anything that's on the agenda, but when it comes up, you're free to address it in any fashion you like. >> You're just in the you know, you get the right idea, but you're in the wrong slot,
>> time slot. >> Okay. All right. Very good. >> Anybody else want public comment? Then we'll move on. Our first um hearing is a continuation 07825 123 Crystal Spring
and Kevin as you can Attorney Clower as you can see we have a fourman board >> that is all up to you. Well, um, why don't we move forward and see how it goes and if we need to request a
continuation to the next hearing, we can, at which point one of the other two members could potentially read in through the Mullen role. >> You got it. So, we received new plans. Now, I just got to figure out which ones are the new ones.
Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Kevin Clower. Um, I this is a continuation, but just as a reminder, I'm here before you representing Tim and Kalin Dennison, the owners of 123 Crystal Springs Avenue, and I'm joined tonight by Ken Costa, who's the builder on this. I'd like to
offer a brief recap uh from the last hearing. So, the Dennis are seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling on this property. The uh Crystal 123 Crystal Springs is uh on a lot of about 10,450 ft. There presently a three-bedroom
single family dwelling with a footprint of 1,80 ft and it's non-conforming to front yard setback being 23.6 ft where 25 is required but otherwise conforms to setback and lock coverage requirements. So they're proposing a new three-bedroom dwelling which eliminates the only
existing nonconformity. The front yard setback would be improved from 23.6 to 25.2 too and it otherwise exceeds all all other setback requirements. The lock coverage by structure would be increased by 2 to 22 23.3% which is allowable by special permit and
the lock coverage by structures paving and parking would be 33.7% well below the 40% allowed. Since our last meeting, uh the interior floor plans have been revised to address comments and concerns of the board, specifically around some of the rooms.
To be more precise, um in the basement, the full bath was reduced to a half bath and the unfinished storage room was eliminated. On the first floor, uh the study in the living room, which the study was this area here, uh the
separation between them has been uh removed as well. So, no longer separated by a wall. The entirety of the first floor is now an open layout. The second floor uh there was a an area dedicated as an office that has been uh the separation
of that from the master bedroom has been removed as well as the door from the hallway uh to eliminate the appearance of that as a separate usable room. Um the storage room in the hallway was also reduced significantly to just be a linen
closet rather than a full room there. And on the top floor, the uh it it was specifically noted that this is an open railing to the floor below, eliminating any expectation of privacy. So, while it was the case before, it's hopefully now more clear that what is being proposed
is only three bedrooms, the master and the two on the second floor. In addition, shortly after our last hearing, we did receive a follow-up from Amy Lol and Scott Mcan. Miss LOL was in agreement that a condition in a special permit noting a three-bedroom limitation would be appropriate and acceptable and
would address any concerns she would have. The applicants have also taken this time to reach out to some of the neighbors to discuss the proposal in more depth. Uh specifically, they did try to reach out to the neighbor who was here last time. They spoke to him after the hearing and have reached out again as well as some of the other directed
Butters across the street. Under the applicant proposal, there's no new non-conformities created. The only existing non-conformity is limited. There's no impact of views and vistas from public public ways and it is consistent with the neighborhood. We believe that the proposal meets the
requirements of 240 12.1E. The site's adequate and suitable for the proposed use. It remains a single family dwelling the same as at present. There's no increase in the number of bedrooms, so there's no change to wastewater. There's no impact on traffic flow or safety. This proposal improves appearance and functionality of the property and won't
adversely impact using vistas from public waves. and there are already adequate utilities servicing the property. The Dennison's proposal represents a significant improvement over the existing condition, especially in light of what the applicants intend to use it for. The existing non-conformity is eliminated and there's
no new dimensional non-conformities. There's no adverse effects that overb overbalance the benefits that have been outlined. In short, there's nothing about the proposal that is substantially more detrimental than what currently exists. The applicants have really done their best to address the concerns that were voiced by the board. uh I think
they've done so in a in a meaningful way. I believe this further meets the requirements of 240 10.2A, 240 11.3A4 and 240 12.1E. Um I believe that you can and should grant the special permit and I would be happy to address any questions that the
board may have at this time. >> Thanks. You want to start off, Mark? >> Sure. um you understand we have to operate under certain constraints and and this neighborhood is even more constrained
>> and um I u it's still a very nice house and you've addressed as as well as we can expect I guess um our concern. So uh take it away Scott. >> I appreciate the applicant uh making
those changes. Attorney CL uh how about the tree warden issue? Was that all? >> So, we we did reach out to the free warden. Um, I mean, there there's going to be construction going on, but anything that's been removed would be replanted. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> I spoke with Jeremiah Pearson before the prior hearing and he wasn't overly
concerned with it, but said, you know, we'll have to make sure we mitigate for that and which we're happy to do. So, we don't want to do it now before we >> do any construction, but we gladly do so afterwards. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, is my recollection that the trees were on the public right away and that's
what caused the issue? Yeah, there it it's the road's not very well defined there and certainly nor is the the public rightway in any area. You know, there was no there was certainly no will intent there. It was just a matter of that's where the driveway was going to be, so they took it down, but they didn't
follow the appropriate procedure, but we'll do so as part of the construction process. >> So, there's been no uh changes to the uh lot coverage issues, but was there any change to the building height? >> No. So it's still at 26.4 ft is the
height or not. >> Uh 342 >> 34T 2 in >> 342. So it was currently 26. That's 34. All right. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Will you go? I didn't have my plan out
for the basement changes. >> So I'll show you I'll actually show you the uh the prior plan. That might be helpful. >> So this is what was the original layout for the basement here. So, they had a separate utility room. They got a full bath, the unfinished storage. And what they did
um was they reduced that. There's just the unfinished utility room. They eliminated the unfinished storage space and they just changed that to a half bath to eliminate any appearance of it being a separate, usable, livable bedroom. And parking, there's enough for two cars
in that. >> There's a two-car garage. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And then there's the full driveway as well. So, theoretically, you'd have four or even five parking spaces. >> That's all I have. >> Anybody have any other questions up here? >> Anybody from the public want to speak on
this? >> You want to go? >> Let's roll the dice. >> You shoot those dice. Motion to close, madam chair. >> Second. >> We have a motion to close. >> To discuss, I think
>> discuss with testimony, I guess. >> And a second. Motion in a second. Mark and Scott. >> Any further discussion? >> No. >> I think the improvements were great myself. >> Answer our questions. >> All set? >> Yeah.
>> Go for it, Scott. Motion to approve with conditions. >> Second that. >> We have a motion and a second. Is that >> uh so do findings? >> Yep. >> Properties at 123 Crystal Spring Avenue
in um Silver Beach, New Silver Beach area of North Balmouth. Tim Timothy Dennis Trustee. They It's an RC zoning district. They've applied for a special permit under section 241.2A. Section 2401.3A4
of the foundment zoning bylaw to raise and reconstruct a single family dwelling exceeding 20% lot coverage by structure properties in the Wild Harbor coastal pond overlay district uh in an X flood zone. The existing structure is a single family dwelling with three bedrooms of
10,080 ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling with three bedrooms at 2438 ft. There are no previous decisions of the board of appeals on record. Prop the lot is 10,450 ft in a zoning district which currently
requires 40,000 square feet. The street frontage is 110 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100. The street is Crystal Spring Avenue is a public right of way at this location. According to the town engineer, the existing lot
coverage by structures 10.3%. They will be increased by this project to 23.3% and they will need the special permit to exceed the 20% allowed by bylaw. We're allowed to go up to 25% with the special permit. The uh neighborhood average is 20.61%
according to the worksheet submitted. Block coverage by structure parking and paving is 13.6% will be increased to 33.7%. The limit is 40. So they're okay. The existing nonconformity is the frontage at 23.6 six feet from the
street. Uh the zoning bylaw requires 25 and we've been informed that that nonconformity will be eliminated and that the new construction will be set back at least 25 ft from the street. The height u will be 34.2 ft which is within
the 35 foot limit of the zoning bylaw. The engineering department submitted a recom uh suggesting a driveway permit may be necessary and that uh we look into the tree removal from the public right of way. Mr. Clower has explained how that's
going to work that he's contacted the tree warden uh and will work with the tree warden on that issue. The engineering also advises us to uh in make appropriate conditions for uh storm water runoff and erosion and soil
control. property is on a sewer. Conservation has no comment. The water department recommends a 1 inch PE service for the new property with the meter in the house. There are no letters in support or in opposition of the project and there was no public comment.
Um, with respect to section 240.2A 2A of the Felman zoning bylaw. Non-conforming structures may be altered, extended, changed, or uh uh by special permit from the zoning board of appeals on the condition that there is no increase in non-conforming nature of the property.
In this particular situation, the nonconformity will be eliminated. Uh we also make the finding that the uh proposed structure will u not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing one. Under section 2401.3A4,
the zoning bylaw in an RC district uh may permit uh lot coverage by structure in excess of 20% up to 25% uh upon a finding which we make that the size and height of the proposed structure is relates to the neighborhood
average. There's no evidence of uh adverse shadow effect on adjacent property. There's no evidence of of uh that views and visitors from public ways will be impaired and there's no uh evidence of nitrogen impairment of coastal embainments because they're on
the sewer. For the general purposes of a of a special permit, we find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. It is suitable for the proposed use. There's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh there's no impact or adverse effect on the neighborhood visual visual character. There's
adequate sewage disposal because it's on the sewer. There's adequate utilities and there'll be no negative impact on the supply of affordable housing >> and conditions. We'll do those now. >> Sure. >> Um threebedroom.
>> Um should we have him meet with with Jeremiah with the treewood? Uh, you can just you can just condition that he complies with >> complies with whatever requirements of the board. >> Okay. >> Um, should we have an asbuilt because of
the height? >> It's creeping right up. >> 34 >> 34 to the top of the railing though. >> I did in the last hearing offer agree that we would be willing to do that if the board. >> Thank you for agreeing. >> Yes.
>> Very agreeable tonight. Well, so far >> her plans. >> Her plans. Do we need a driveway permit? >> Uh, was somebody asked to comply with >> engineering? She said they I think they said may. >> Yeah. >> But that's what they usually say.
>> Okay. >> Uh, prayer plans, hours of operation, 7 to 7, Monday through Friday, 8 through 8 to 4 on Saturdays. No holidays. Um, construction materials shall be located on the lot
dark sky compliant lighting. >> No, >> no, >> no. >> No, >> no. >> Okay. None of those. Should I just be quiet? >> Nice try. >> Do that. >> Nice try. >> Um,
>> okay. >> Norin, do you have anything? >> Uh, no further structures absent prior permit. That's the one I was just about to say, but then I didn't add. No further structures. Uh, anything else? >> Anything else you can think of? It's good. We're good.
>> Yep. >> All right, let's vote on it. >> Sure. >> Um, all those in favor? >> I oppose? None. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Next we take up new hearing 0862521
Johnson Street. >> Okay. This is um public hearing 86 of the year 2025 because that's the date of filing. Um the property is located at 21 Johnson Street in Falmouth. The owners are Brian
and Kathleen Dalton. They've applied to the Falma zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to sections 240.2A 2A and 240 11.3A4 of the Falma zoning bylaw to construct additions to the existing non-conforming dwelling and
exceed lock coverage by structure at 20%. Uh the property is located in an RSC zoning district. The existing structure is a single family dwelling with four bedrooms and a shed. Uh the footprint is
currently 1571 square ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling, four bedrooms, the shed, and the footprint will be 2,153 square ft. There are no previous decisions of the board of appeals on file. The lot is 8,625
square ft and a zoning district which currently requires 40,000 square ft. Front street frontage is 85 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100. This is a public right of way according to the engineering department. The existing lot coverage by structure
is 18.2%. It would be increased by the proposed structure to 25%. The limit is 20, but we are allowed by special permit to allow lot coverage by structure up to 25%. The neighborhood average according to the worksheet submitted is 17.18%.
Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 25.3%. It will be increased to 30.2% within the 40% limit of the zoning bylaw. This is a non-conforming structure in that the north um setback is 9.8 ft where 10 ft is required. The
other setbacks are conforming. Um engineering has recommended that we uh condition storm water runoff and soil erosion uh control. The board of health has advised us that the house is on the
sewer. Conservation has no comment. The water department uh requests an increase in the water service to 1HPE with the meter in the house. Wastewater department is okay. Building department has no comment. There are no letters in
support or in opposition in the file. >> Good evening again. Thank you. Uh for the record, Kevin Clower, and I am before you representing Bryant and Kathleen Dalton, the owners of 21 Johnson Street. They're seeking permission to alter the existing non-conforming dwelling. This is not a raise and rebuild. which is an addition
to the existing. 21 Johnson Street is located in the northern flat portion of Helmouth Heights. It's a dense residential neighborhood. Uh this lot, as Mr. Duffy noted, is 8,625 ft. It is in the RC zoning district and
it is surprisingly not in a flood zone. Presently, there's a 4-bedroom, 1 and a half story uh single family dwelling with a footprint of 1571 ft. the non it is non-conforming only to the sideyard setback to the north being 9.8 where 10 is required but otherwise
conforms to setback and lock coverage requirements. The applicants have owned this property for the last 12 years but they're looking to make uh more use of the property on a regular basis and they found they require additional space. So as such they're proposing an addition to the existing dwelling.
The proposal does not create any new dimensional non-conformities. The only existing non-conformity is unaffected. uh it exceeds all other setback requirements. The front yard will remain unchanged at 25.5 ft. Sideyard setback to the south is uh unchanged at uh I
have 22'9 in. The rear yard set back is will be 23'6 in the lock coverage by structure will increase. It increases to 24.96% which is allowable by special permit. And the lock coverage by structures paving and parking would be 30.2 2,
which is well below the 40% that is allowed relative to the lot governed by structure. We fully expect and understand that the board would like certification and certainly accept that as a condition if this is so granted. The proposed height here is u just about 27' 4 in.
Due to the existing nonconformity in the proposed lock average by structure, this requires a special permit pursuant to 240.2A and 240 11.384. Under 240.2A 2A pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed by special permit provided they're not
substantially more detrimental than what exists. The board is asked to consider the standards of 242.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities impairs views and vistas and reasonably conformance to the neighborhood. In this case, there's no new non-conformities created. The only
existing non-conformities is unaffected doesn't affect the views and vistas and it is consistent with with the neighborhood as we'll elaborate pursuant to 241.384 lock coverage by structure above 20% may be allowed by special permit. You're asked in that case to consider the size
and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood the effects of shadow impacts on views and vistas from public ways and the effect of nitrogen on coastal abments. In this case, there's no impact of views and vistas from public ways. And as to the size and height uh size and fit with the neighborhood, we submitted a lot comparison worksheet looking at the prop
nearby properties. While it's larger than some of the homes in terms of gross floor area, it's certainly in line in terms of the footprint. It's similar in size to a number of homes that have been permitted by this board in the Fmouth Heights areas right by here and constructed um just in the last few years. There's no change in the
effective nitrogen. served by the Little Pond sewer district which allows for up to four bedrooms by right and there's no change to the proposed number of bedrooms which is and will remain four. Beyond that uh this meets with the requirements at 242.1E. It's an adequate and suitable use for
the the site is adequate and suitable for the proposed use. It is and will remain a single family dwelling. There's no increase in the number of bedrooms. So there's no change to wastewater. There's no impact on traffic flow and safety. It's the same uses as present. for the proposal won't uh proposal will improve the appearance and functionality
and won't adversely impact views invested in public ways and there are adequate utilities already servicing the property. So this is uh this proposal is a significant improvement over the existing conditions of the property for the applicants. Um there's no change to the only existing non-conformity and
there's no new dimensional non-conformities. There's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits. Believe this meets all the requirements of 2410.2A 2A, 241.384, and 242.1E. Um, beyond that, I'll be happy to
address any questions you may have, but otherwise hope that you would grant a special permit receiving. >> Sure. Um, >> not much. I mean, you you really got a pretty sharp pencil here. You push the envelope right to the
max. uh if uh I mean uh potentially if you count sophets you could be over. So uh whatever uh you said you'd agree to an as other than
that uh you know it's an upgrade that makes sense. Um so that's all I have for you tonight sir. Again short and sweet. I'm short anyway. >> Not for everyone.
>> I agree with Mr. Finan's comments. So, I have no further questions. Thank you, >> Mr. CL. I just want to confirm here uh the height of this structure is is not being changed. >> So, the height is increasing. It is
going to be 27t 4 and 1732 inches. >> 20 what? 20 27 ft 4 and then 17 over 32 is what it says on the plan which is not a fraction I've ever seen before. >> So we round >> never will again.
>> So yeah, we'll call it uh just 274 and 1/2 >> 27 and 1/2 >> 27 4 and 4 and 1/2 >> 27 ft 4 in 4 and 1/2 in >> rounded up to five. >> Yeah, he's like the whole 4100s from my max. >> I had to triple check that fraction.
Some people they they do height by 27 by feet and inches and others do it by feet and tents. >> Yeah. >> So architects usually use the feet and inches. Engineers use the feet and tents >> on on the site plan. >> I didn't know the difference. Okay. >> How about attorneys? >> Yeah. What do you >> was better for?
>> They do what they're told. >> Whichever one sounds better. >> Everyone pays more. >> Yeah. Really? >> All right. I pass. Um Kevin, did you add the granite stairs and the ramp for the
shed into the >> uh the granite stair would count as lock coverage by structures paving and parking? >> So, >> and the ramp to the shed? >> Uh yes, that was included. >> Okay, >> that's all I have. >> I would have left that out if I were you.
>> I wouldn't want to lie to you, Mark. He >> doesn't want to be sneaky. >> It's not concrete yet, if you pardon the poor pun. You guys all set up yet? >> Yeah. >> Anybody from the public want to comment on this project?
>> Good. >> So, just as a correction, um the site plan itself lists a lot coverage by structure of 25%. >> Yeah, if you actually do the math, 2153 divided by 8 8,625, it comes out to
24.96. I wish they had put that, but they put 25.0. They round it up. >> Okay. Just want to make sure that we're >> he has built >> inconsistent >> on the same same. >> I I I I looked at the numbers and I I I just when I do the law comparison
worksheets, it calculates and I was like, "Oh, that's marginally." I mean, >> it's the same exact square footage. It's just, you know, if you round up, >> you don't do that by 30 seconds. >> Motion to close. Oh, >> no. Yeah. Yeah.
Motion to close and a second. >> Do you want the word testimony or not? >> Did you ask for neighbors? >> I asked the public. >> All right, so we're good. Correct. I did. >> Okay. >> Any further discussion?
>> No. >> I think I'm all set. Do findings. >> We're going to vote on the motion to close first. >> Okay. Scott, that's you. >> Oh, you're doing it. Oh, I thought we have to vote. All those in favor of closing, I oppose. None. Sorry, I messed
up. >> Now it's motion to approve with conditions. >> Fine. And here are the facts. >> We have a motion and I'll second. We have a motion in a second. >> Go ahead, Frank. >> The findings. The property is at 21 Johnson Street in the Felmouth Heights section of Felmouth. Brian and Kathleen
Dalton are the reported owners. It's an RC zoning district. They've applied for a special permit under section 240.2A 2A and 241.3A4 to in addition to a non-conforming dwelling exceeding lot coverage or exceeding 20% lock coverage by
structure. Uh it's in the Little Pond coastal pond overlay district. There's no flood zone. The existing dwelling is a single family dwelling, four bedrooms with a shed, 1571 ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling, fourbedroom with a shed, 2,153
square ft. No previous decisions of the zoning board of appeals are on record. The lot size is 8,625 square feet in a zoning district which currently requires 40,000 square ft. Street frontage is 85 ft in a zoning
district which currently requires 100. Johnson Street is a public right of way at this location. The existing lot coverage by structure is 18.2% will be increased to 25%. We have authority to is to by special permit to allow lot
coverage by structure in exceed in excess of 20% up to 25%. The average lot coverage by structure according to the worksheet is 17.18%. The lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 25.3%.
It will be increased to 30.2%. The limit is 40%. So they're within the limits of the zoning bylaw. The nonconformity is the north sideline which is 9.8 ft where uh 10 is required that will remain but
there will be no new nonconformities. The height of the building is 27 ft 4 and 1/2 in give or take a 32nd. Um the engineering department has uh asked us to consider storm water runoff and the soil erosion control. The
board of health advises us they're on the sewer. Conservation has no comment. Water wants 1 in PE pipe uh or service meter in the house. Wastewater is okay. Building department has no comment. We have no letters in support. No letters
in opposition. No public comment with respect to the zoning bylaw under section 240.2A. Non-conforming structures may be altered, extended, or changed by special permits and zoning board of appeals provided there is no increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure.
In this particular case, it remains the same. So there's no increase, we make the finding that the proposed structure will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing one. Under section 241.3A4 in an RC district, uh lot coverage by
structure is 20%. We have authority to increase it to a maximum of 25% upon a finding that the size and height of the proposed structure relates to the neighborhood averages and we so determined. There's no evidence of shadows adverse shadow effect on
adjacent property. There's no evidence that views and vistas from public ways will be impaired and there's no uh evidence of impact nitrogen impact on coastal invancements as the property is on the sewer. As far as the general principles of a special permit, we find
that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. No evidence of adverse effects on traffic flow and safety. Um there's no evidence of uh adverse effect on neighborhood visual character.
There's adequate sewage disposal being on the sewer. There's adequate utilities and no evidence of negative impact on the supply of affordable housing. All right. And a comp sheet in the findings. There was one in there.
>> 17.18%. >> Yeah. >> Um conditions as built, >> please. No. >> Per plans, all boards, construction hours.
Um, no further structures, right? Because it's at 25. >> Yeah. >> No further structures. Anything else? >> No. >> Anything else? Norine? >> Easy one. >> Uh, nope. I think that's it.
I think we're all set. >> All those in favor? >> I oppose? None. >> Thank you very much. >> Great. Thanks. >> I appreciate all your time tonight. >> All right, moving on. We have minutes January 29th. Uh
>> tabled >> tabled. And then we have request for an insubstantial change 09 09323 Felmouth Southerntherly. >> Good evening. Uh David Calhoun for Palmet Sutherly.
I'm joined by Philaro, civil engineer. Um, as the board knows, you wrote a very detailed decision um with a lot of conditions we have to follow. And uh one of the conditions um
condition 31 uh requires when we get to the building department, even before we get to the building department, that there's a time when the drawings we're supposed to submit u and you're going to peer review that what was approved is substantially in compliance with what
we're actually brought to the building department. So, uh we we have some time and so we've been working on the plans. Uh last time we were before you, we were able to reduce the size of the buildings. Uh we continue to work on that and that's part of the request
tonight. Uh that the buildings have gotten slightly smaller. Uh the units have gotten slightly smaller. Uh they're both under the uh state's requirements for a change less than 10%. Uh the state
also has a position that whenever you're making something smaller uh you're typically making it less impactful so it stays under the insubstantial change. Um in addition to reduction in the size of the buildings uh during the hearing
process the board had asked us to pursue solar uh and make sure our building was at least solar ready. uh we worked on that and it is now come to the conclusion that um we will be uh
pursuing a solar panel system on our roof. In order to do that, we decided to change the roof from a flat roof to a pitched roof. Uh in making that change, uh it would require a change in our height. Um the height that was approved
by the board was 53 feet. uh to do a pitched roof. Uh the highest point on that pitched roof, the highest point on our buildings at all will be 54 feet uh 3 and 12 in. Uh again, under the 10% change, but it was also something that
the architects and the marketing team felt was more in keeping with a Cape Cod look, a pitched roof versus a contemporary flat roof. Uh in addition to that, uh we looked at some of our storm water work. Uh we did get our
storm water system submitted and approved through your independent storm water approval process which Phil can speak to. Uh but uh we were looking at it and we reached the conclusion that some of our subgrade structures would function better if they were surface
regular retention type basins. Uh so Phil made uh some recommendations to change those. still the same performance criteria uh but they are a little bit less maintenance uh and in the long run uh they function better uh because you
don't have a plastic structure underground uh so if you have any civil technical questions Phil's here I'm here um but I think we gave you a pretty good package of information uh and we hope that you'll make the decision that's insubstantial and we're
continue on and our goal of this process is we don't want to get to building permit drawings and get to the building department and all of a sudden he raises his hand and he says, "Guys, that doesn't match with what the EPA wanted."
So, we're trying to be very proactive and keep this moving. >> Thank you, Phil. Will you show us the stuff that's going to come above ground, >> please? I would like to see it anyway.
>> Yeah. Phil gets that set up if you don't mind. Um, these are the conditions just so you don't have to look it up the protections that you already put in place. >> Thanks.
>> We tried to put a little bit 682. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Uh thank you. For the record, Phil Corduro from Allen and Major Associates. Uh good to see the board again. Um David went through the changes. Uh with more
specificity, the board may recall our central driveway off of Sandwich Road. On either side of it, we had underground drainage structures located generally here where the cursor is moving on both sides. the road drained into catch basins and then went underground. What
we're asking on the determination is removal of those underground drainage structures for more of a natural basin feel. So this will be a shallow depth uh ponding area 2T in depth. Um the board may recall the soils out here are very
very highly permeable. So water infiltrates through here very very quickly. Uh so we don't need a whole lot of depth to make sure we're meeting the 100-year storm water standard that's written in our permit and required. Uh so we're asking for that change along the side of the driveway. And then there
was another area of storm water chambers uh located just northerly of where our wastewater leeching field is to be located generally here where the cursor is. Um, we're going to eliminate those and pipe everything together and slightly enlarge the storm water basin
that's on the property. And we're enlarging it to the west. So towards the easement into the woodline, nothing further encroaching to our neighbors to the south of us. And all of those will meet all of the storm water standards of both the town and the state. um and the
review that would be required through CEI, through the engineering department, we'd expect them to weigh in on on certifying those changes as we move through that process. And I will I'll remind the board, I think David may have just handed them out. In our permit, we
do have two conditions, specifically number 40 and number 65. and paraphrasing 40, it says final storm water plans to be reviewed by the town's engineering firm to ensure the design meets 100-year storm event and condition 65 prior to application for building
permit. Uh the applicant shall file with the FA Falmouth Engineering Department for a storm water permit registration with final review uh conducted by DPW and CI the engine your engineering consultant. I'll mention that condition
65, we have already actually done that with CI. Um, we have the storm water registration. We've completed that. We now would need to go back to them pending the decision here tonight to have that permit amended to reflect these changes.
>> How much bigger is that one at the bottom? >> Uh, it it numeric numerically about 10%. 10%. So, what we did is we widened it. I apologize. Maybe I should have prepared an overlay showing what was approved versus what I'm suggesting here. We've
taken the top line of the the basin that was at elevation 44. It remains at elevation 44. We've enlarged it about 6 ft westerly. So, we've basically pulled this line of the basin 6 ft westerly uh towards the power line easement towards
Sandwich Road from where it was when this board last saw those plants. >> But the height won't change. >> The height does not change. the height and depth are not changing. Uh we're simply enlarging it to add more volume into it. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And now the other end where they're going to be open pits, is that going to
be fenced? >> Uh they are not fenced. Um we discussed that during the the main permitting hearing for this is because these basins are going to remain open. We don't anticipate them holding storm water for more than a few hours based on the calculations um that were reviewed that
we really want them to integrate into the environment. they'll receive natural growth. We want them to sort of disappear. Um, fencing that doesn't always allow that because now you're putting a visual barrier around them. So, it was raised uh we elected not to fence them at this time. You know, if
conditions were to change, if we felt there was an issue, uh, you know, we can certainly consider it. Um, part of that discussion was, well, these basins are going to hold water. Is that not a hazard for the community? You know, and we recognize that they will hold water for a very short timeline and the
property management will be responsible for making sure that the residents here are aware that these are ponding basins for children and quite frankly adults to not go in them when they have water present. >> Now, when the bus drops the kids off, how you going to keep the kids out of them?
>> So, uh so the the bus stop, as a reminder, is located here at the entrance to Sandwich Road. Um they will remain predominantly dry. Now they'll total depth is 2 feet in that when these basins are at 100% capacity for a
100year storm the water depth will only be 12 in in there. Now I know that's still a depth where you know tragedy can happen in very very shallow waters. Uh but these will be a maximum of 1 ft. The particular basin here that's located
approximate to the shelter is on the back side of the bike the bike path the 10 foot wide multimmoal bike path that we're constructing. So we will have a visual separation a visual barrier. So it's not a fence um but there will be a crossing of the the bike path to get to
these basins and we we envision that would be the visual deterrent to keep people out of them. >> That's only one of them. on the other side. I just worry about kids. I know my kids would jump right in. >> We Nope. Completely understandable to ask for that. Um, so on the other side,
we we don't have any sidewalks along that side of the driveway. So, we're not inviting pedestrians to activate that side of the roadway so we can keep folks away from that. >> I wonder if we could tree the area. >> If you did though, it would be harder to see if there was someone in any kind of
distress. So that would probably be a negative to the whole >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean f functionally having these open they're much more maintainable. They're much more visible. We confirm that they're working. If there's a problem it's fixed immediately. While the underground structures that I put in
all the time do work. They can be maintained. Failures are harder to fix. These are much easier to fix and resolve. >> So are you going to clean that like a sump occasionally? >> They would get cleaned. They would get inspected annually. So the the operation and maintenance plan that's on record already because we already have storm
water basins written into the permit. These would just become part of that. It's annual compliance, cutting the grass, cleaning them out, pulling the sediment out of there, making sure there's no erosion. All of those things will get uh done annually and documented. Yes, sir. >> And the trash only gets cleaned out once
a year. >> Well, so the the trash is reviewed monthly or as needed, quite frankly. Um the storm water standards uh don't really speak to trash removal on a recurring basis that it has to happen quarterly, monthly, annually. Um there's
a bit of a learning curve in that we see how the trash accumulates and quite frankly the ownership just has to clean them. We you you state that you don't want accumulated trash in there. It has to when it's visible, it needs to be removed. Uh regardless of whether it's
on a monthly, weekly basis, it just has to be removed. That's all I have. Anybody else? Sorry, I hoged. >> I mean, the engineers take a look at it. They're the subject area experts. Just could you give me one more? How's the basin built out? Is is there a rip wrap
stone at the bottom or is this just soil? The whole thing is soil from as it loops around. >> It It is just soil. Okay. As it loops around. So the so the idea of the soil is so that way it can be grasped and it can just ingratiate into its natural
environment. rock is very harsh, you know, visually. Um, so we made the the design decision not to rip wrap the bottom of the basin. By having very long shallow basins, the water really spreads itself out thin, infiltrates very quickly into the ground. That's the design intent and goal and we welcome
the review from CI. We understand that they'll provide the technical expertise for the board and the town. >> Thank you. And with a twoft depth and you're only anticipating one foot in the 100redyear storm. I mean technically they're overbuilt.
So what we're required to do is provide 1 foot of freeboard. It's emergency capacity. So if for some reason the entirety of the bottom of the basin were to get clogged. There's one foot of extra storage that is to alert us to alert operations that something is not
working if the basin routinely fills to that level. So it they are overd designed by by purpose. Yeah. >> The um the Mr. Calhoun said that the original storm water uh design was received then necessary approvals and
you're going to go through that process again. Now, yes sir. >> What do you get from or who do you get approvals from? >> The engineering department, sir. >> Engineering department. >> So, the the engineering department for Falmouth issues the storm water management permit which is um a
registration that there are storm water systems on site and establishes the obligations for the owners under operation and maintenance. And is a copy of that uh permit submitted to the building department before the building permit is issued for the project? >> Um I don't know uh for sure, but
>> the building comm the building commissioner is going to look at before he issues final permit. >> What I what I would expect as tradition is when the building inspector is is um requested to issue a building permit. The laundry list of departments need to sign off on it. The engineering department would be one of them. So
while he while the building may not actually receive the permit, I think engineering would have the opportunity to flag they don't have the permit and that would stop the building permit process. >> So there's a sign off procedure then. Thank you sir. All right. Okay. >> Would you like this? >> No, I I think that I I remember from
long time ago that's the procedure. I just couldn't remember how it's done. But you've clarified it. Thank you. >> Scott, you well said. >> Uh just for Miss Skell. Go ahead. Uh, thank you. Could you give us a little update on when you're looking to
potentially permit and any update you could give us for on the sidewalk? >> Um, question. >> The sidewalk will be um we'll work on in conjunction with the rest of the site work. Um, right now we're just waiting for our groundwater discharge permit. Uh
obviously uh that's a key element before you go full boore. Uh I would envision we'll be at the building department within uh 6 months or less from when that groundwater discharge permit came comes out. Uh it was
>> can't make that six weeks. >> Excuse me. >> Can't make that six weeks. >> I wish we could. I wish we could. Um u the uh groundwater discharge >> I'll be your friend >> was was uh issued I believe it was the
end of October the 1st of November. Uh you then it then appears in the environmental monitor for a 30-day comment period but the 30 days doesn't start till the environmental monitor schedule. Uh so that didn't appear until I believe it was nine November 15th or
the week of um and that comment period closed on Christmas Day. Uh so we anticipate uh the permit would be in final form and re released within somewhere between 30 and 90 days of uh of that happening. So uh once that comes
in um you know go go as quick as we can. Uh but uh so far everything very very positive. We're continuing uh to look at every piece of it. Uh we were able to come up with more space because now we're digging into the design. We're
determining we don't need spaces for chases. We don't need spaces for storage that we put in but we don't need. Uh so yeah, we're we're very very positive on it. And uh surprisingly uh we are getting a lot of calls from people that
want to uh rent and are asking the question when will it be ready. Uh so our hope is you know the sooner we can get it ready it's in our best interest. So we're going to go as fast as we can and we've already uh heard from uh the
DPW about the sidewalk. Uh you know obviously they want to make sure we're not trying to do a sidewalk in the middle of the summer. Uh but they want the sidewalk as soon as we can. So >> thank you for the update. >> Yep. Just uh you got here um
just for my own edification. You got them 2511 by 69. What was the previous uh what were the previous dimensions before this >> on the building? >> Yeah. >> Um We changed a couple
June. >> Yeah. >> 68. >> Yeah. But they also uh >> Yeah. >> found I just kind of want to >> It's quirky, but I >> He just wanted to test his math skills. Well, no, because they he said uh
>> I'd have to I'd have to hold plans in check, but >> Right. So, actually, it's what my question was is um it it's not as much as it appears because you found more space interior by reducing chases and and whatnot. So,
>> we have reduced the size of >> so it's kind of as much an efficiency. >> Um >> but the building the gross building square footage has come down substantially. >> All right. And like I said, it just sometimes I like numbers. That's all good.
>> Everybody all set up here? >> You good? >> Yes. >> Marine, you good public? Anybody from the public want to speak on this project? Come on up. Before I speak, I'd like to have you hear
something. >> I beg you pardon. Here it is. my background. It's a great horned owl. I'm wondering where he's going to go when you rip up the neighborhood. Um, the other thing I'm concerned about is >> where are you? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Kathleen Crowley Brag, 63
Deepwood Drive. Deepwood Drive's two lanes, but it's not now because of the snow. So, one lane in, you have to wait, pull over. DPW does a wonderful job removing the snow, but there's no place to put the snow. So, my concern in
question is kind of common sense. You have all these big trucks that are going to be coming in with materials and goods that need to be delivered to the work site coming down Sandwich Road. I don't know when they're coming. You don't know when they're coming. What are you going to do? Am I going to pay for the traffic
detail for the cops to direct traffic so these trucks can get in and get out because people are going to be need to come down Sandwich Road. Buses are going to need to be coming down Sandwich Road. We know buses don't come down Sandwich Road during school vacation week when we do traffic studies. But we do know that
they come down Sandwich Road and I'm not really sure where the children are going to be waiting for the bus. Stop by Tanglewood and Sandwich Road, the corner of it. You will see at least eight cars in the morning with children and parents watching them. So when all this heavy
equipment comes down Sandwich Road, how's it going to get in? How's it going to get out? Are they going to go through Parker Mill Road and open that up? Are they going to go through Tanglewood? I don't know. It's a question I'm really concerned about because it takes me
quite some time to get out of Deepwood to get onto Sandwich Road. And now with all the construction, and I had did say this before, all the construction that they're doing from Bricktown Road corner to Sandwich Road all the way up to school administration building. It takes
forever to get up through that road in front of R.J's variety, in front of Paul's all that. So now we're putting in a brand new police department on Brick Hill Road. We're going to be potentially putting in two new developments up where the horse farm is on Sandwich Road.
We're going to be putting in this Easterly. I have another name for it. And I'm not really sure what's considered affordable. I do know somebody that's moving into the facil the the facility. I say the facility, the housing complex right up the street, the huge one.
They were given an affordable rate, threebedroom, $2500. The market rate there for a three-bedroom is $4,000. Please tell me what is the affordable rate going to be for this when you push
out Mr. Great Horn Screech Owl to build this monroity? How much is it going to cost? What's really affordable? Well, >> the uh unfortunate thing about the demographics in this town is uh there's um people
moving in that that are driving the AMI up. I believe the affordable rate for a one-bedroom is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1740 or 50. So there it's it's expensive here no matter what and getting higher
>> and uh like it's all um uh linked to the um area median income. >> Mhm. >> And u unfortunately there's some >> but for those that need to get to work pay pay their mortgage that already live
in this neighborhood. How late am I going to be to get to work in the morning? >> How how how much traffic is it going to be? How late are kids going to be getting to school? Has anyone really thought about that? The amount of stops and pickups along Sandwich Road, has anyone contacted the director of
transportation for Felmouth Public Schools? That I do ask you. I can tell you bus 27 alone, that bus is packed with kids. I mean, I think a lot of things like, yeah, we say we need affordable housing. That's great. But when we get down to
the fine minute details, please consider those. Consider the bus traffic. Consider the safety of children who are standing on Sandwich Road with these big trucks coming in with heavy equipment. Consider trucks coming in and out, in and out, in and out. You mean to tell me it's going to take what, a
little truck to build 300 units to build all this? this it's gotten out of hand. I understand that we have to stay and we ha have to be, you know, uh, safe harbor or all these other terminology. We have 40b and
all these other things. I understand all that and I'm not against affordable housing. This would be great if this was up in the Independence Park or something like Mashby Commons is doing, but to do this behind houses that are two-bedroom ranches, to have a building the size of
Felmouth Hospital behind your house, what expectation of privacy people deserve to have when they're in their outdoor shower after they come home from the beach and you have this looking down on you. 54 feet. 54
ft behind people's homes. It is egregious. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Supposed to be limited to the three subjects. >> Tommy Z, Captain Bonenber about 30 seconds here. Good evening, Madam Chair
and board members. Um, I want an opportunity to provide input on the second round of proposed changes to Felmet Sutherley's comprehensive permit. I'm respectfully requesting this board schedule a public hearing so that our
attorney Dennis Murphy from Hill Law can deliver our comments to you and provide concise input about these changes to the comprehensive permit. Thank you for considering this request. >> Thank you. Anybody else? What up,
Richard? >> Well, do you want to >> mean it it was properly noticed, so I mean Richard Johnson, one Amvetsz Avenue. I'm just curious about um the storm water changes along the entry road and how
that will affect the proposed landscape planting of street trees. Will the street trees now be in the bottom of those basins or are they up on the shoulder of it? >> It's a good question. Maybe someone could address it. Thank you, Richard.
>> Um, I can address it. Uh, it will not affect it. The street trees will be installed as they were on the original plans. No plantings in the bottom of the basin. >> So, landscape plan doesn't change at all. >> Does not change. ex except for the fact that the trees will probably be fed in a
better fashion with this as opposed to the old because there'll be water in there that will get to the roots of the trees. >> Uh it would be great to say yes to that but but unlikely given how permeable the soil is. The trees will be on the
shoulder of the road. These basins will be down the two feet from it. So the roots, if they're really going down, they may be able to grab some of that water, but I think they might be a little bit above it, unfortunately. As much as I'd like to agree with that notion, >> generally the roots chase the water. >> Yeah, it could it could chase it, but
the the problem out here is the soil doesn't hold the water for very long, so it'll it'll do the best it can. Um but but the landscaping will not change at all. Okay, >> anybody else? if I can.
Hello, Marjgerie Parmentor, 36 Meredith Drive. I'm going to butter. I wanted to point out to the board that from studying the original roof height that I believe is part of the original
plan B, it was a flat roof with a parapet which is like a little skiy fence fence skirting and that was actually I believe 50 feet.
The 53 feet comes in because of the poke up of the elevator shaft. Period. So now we're going to 54 feet 3 and 1/2 in if you look at the actual numbers on the
plan. So that's a delta of 4t 3 and 1/2 in. And I would like to remind the board of the agony that the butters went through months ago with the balloon study and all the concern about the line of sight
from the back of their homes. And I I just think that this is an outrage to let this get through. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? Come on up. Hi, Wendy Bistler, president of Kunameset River Trust. Um, I have a
general question. Um, how often do these plans that come in before you get changed over time like this? It seems like these little changes may not be substantial on their own, but the nibbling away together they can add up
to something that's substantial. So, >> go for it if you want. >> Um, >> it's almost every case. >> Well, the the problem, not the problem, but when they on the 40B, they do not have to submit final plans at the time the comprehensive permits approved. Their preliminary plan. >> Okay. So what's happening is that they
are now putting together the final plans and of course there are always changes. >> All right. >> So and there's no limit on the number of times they can come back. If they want to come back once or twice that's okay. Five or six times we have to hear them every time they come back. >> Okay. That was my other question. >> And the limiting factor is 10%.
>> Yes. >> And they haven't. >> So even though it's the footprint's getting smaller that's it's only if it increases >> say it's almost in every 40b we do pretty much. Yeah. >> Really? >> A lot of them at least 80%.
>> We have the hard and fast is the 10%. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And you know I I think these people's questions should be answered. So um and as far as Miss Parameter's um concern about the height I mean uh 4T into 50
something is under 10%. So again it's it's it falls within the guidelines or >> but there's a human factor here. >> You have to come up. I'm sorry. But >> yeah. Okay. >> The state's not human. >> It's going to be pitched with solar
panels from what I'm >> potentially. Potentially. >> What do you mean potentially? >> I didn't hear that there was a power purchase agreement with the solar that look I thought the term you used. You're still looking into it.
>> Anyhow, thank you. >> So, it's not >> Thank you. >> It's not done. >> It's in our best interest to get the solar. That's why we chip pitched the roofs. Uh we haven't got a power purchase agreement. Uh but we're running numbers based on just the power stain on
site. It looks like it would really be a positive impact on our utility use. So that's where we're going. Uh but we haven't gone back. >> So you're going to share because the tenants pay for their own utilities. >> Correct. >> There's going to be some >> portion of this where you share back
with the tenant and >> their utility costs are going to be lower. It'll make the project more desirable, >> but it also doesn't mean he might not come back for more if he hasn't got a contract yet. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean, he can
>> by right they can >> cover the roof as much as he want as far as I'm concerned. >> Anyone else from the public? >> Can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> Try to stick to what we're doing tonight if you would. Thank you.
>> Mhm. So my question is this. If they cover the roof with solar panels, is the Fmouth Fire Department able to handle knocking that down to if there was ever a fire in the building, do they have the apparatus and the equipment? I know we have a brand new fire station on Hatchville Road that's quite lovely actually. They did a nice job designing
it, but do they have the apparatus? Do they have the equipment? From my understanding, if you put solar panels on someone's roof, it makes it much more difficult for firefighters, men and women, to get into the dwelling, the house, the the the structure. I'm not an engineer, but I'm just wondering, does
Fmouth have the apparatus to handle the fire of those solar panels on that roof? >> I know we have a ladder truck on order, don't we? >> And I think >> Can I clarify? >> Certainly, the young lady. Um the difference between a apartment building
and a single family home, your single family home is not typically sprinkled. Whereas an apartment building is fully sprinkled. So uh you know the ability of the fire department, it's much easier for them to deal with a sprinkler building than a single family home. You
had a difficult time in your neighborhood where you had a fire, that home was not sprinkled. If that home was sprinkled, they probably the fire department would have never shown up. Uh, and many people are making the move to sprinkler of their individual homes because it's become more and more cost
effective. >> I think she was asking if the solar panels go off. Those will not be sprinkled. >> They're on the exterior. They're on the roof on the exterior, >> but they can. >> I don't believe they'd create any additional problems.
>> And they got a switch. They can shut the just >> now. Those are those are only going to be on the uh front the south facing roofs anyway. So if they ever potentially had to vent, they would have the whole backside to to do if so, which
would be unlikely if it's flinker sprinkled anyway, but it's not. So they're not constricting that um any in any fashion. All right. >> Anybody else? >> Uh motion. Yeah.
>> Um I'll make a motion that we make a finding that the proposed changes are insubstantial. But first change is the reduction in the a slight reduction in the size of each unit. The other one is the um increasing the roof from a flat
roof to a pitched roof with a total height of 54t 3 and 1/2 in. And the third request is uh changing the storm water management system from an underground approved system to a natural basin twoft depth approved system to be
approved by the town engineer. >> Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion in the second. Do we want any can we condition? >> We want a condition to have a hearing >> since >> you have to have a hearing. So with an
insubstantial change, if you approve the change, the change goes in. >> Okay. >> Um but I guess the question I would have for you is obviously you want confirmation >> from storm water. That's that's worried about
in the bigger picture. Also, as we've discussed earlier, they cannot pull a building permit without engineering sign off. and they can't get engineering sign off. >> Okay. >> If engineering disapproves their storm water. >> Okay. >> All right. So,
>> so I think we're good. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> oppose. None. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. All right. We're on number three. Board discussion.
Can all wish we were Jim. That's it. Board updates. No board updates. We want our two sikies to get better zoning administrative updates. >> Good job.
>> The Patriots >> want to make best efforts on Sunday >> through that. And future agenda items. >> I have something. >> Go ahead. Um, the more I think about it, uh, the more
I'm completely uncomfortable with, uh, what we did last week. Basically, it amounts to approving a commercial, uh, operation in a, uh, residential
district. Um I I'm I'm not comfortable with the um and then I I I didn't speak up enough when I did. I I picked up on it initially, but the um uh garages that went with uh the last
item we had last week, um the town pays $2.4 million from the affordable housing fund. And for us to be subsidizing somebody's operation, I think it needs to be on the agenda um for us to discuss. I think this is going
to explode and everybody's going to be doing it. I I think it's wrong. I think that we should reach out and um pose the question to the um affordable housing committee and anybody else who'd listen, you know, Felmouth Housing
Trust, Felmouth Housing Corp. um Kim whether they really are comfortable with um town's affordable housing funds subsidizing somebody's um workshop for one of a better uh term. I
think that uh maybe that the town would be interested in having a policy that we disallow this. Um we've there's no other 40B in town that has that. We know from having the Adams brothers here doing
their uh contractors uh bays that uh if if we allowed them to build a hundred of them, they could rent them all. There's just as much a shortage of affordable or or commercial space. I I just the the whole idea of that doesn't sit well with
me and I I think we should reach out and get opinions and um address this issue because I can guarantee you that uh every 40B coming down the road is going to be wanting the same thing. Um and I think it's an abuse of the um lot
coverage that we give them. I think it's just completely wrong and uh I I want it put on the agenda for discussion and I think in the interim maybe if we reached out to as I say um the other affordable
housing affiliates in town to get their opinion um like I said there's very limited affordable housing money in this town and we shouldn't be subsidizing anybody's contractor bay and I mean let's face it that's a commercial entity
we just we just allowed in a residential um neighborhood. The uh extra traffic um there's a million reasons why it shouldn't be done and I think we should address this before it gets out of hand. >> All right.
>> So, I think it might be helpful for the board to have perhaps the housing coordinator come and discuss how they review the funding that they provide to developers. I mean, for your general knowledge,
in order to receive a comprehensive permit, the developer has to be providing 25% minimum affordable housing. So, it's my understanding that the affordable housing committee is not subsidizing or
not recommending subsidy for whatever the developer has to provide per the state regulations. >> Well, it's it's all it all filters in and and I mean there's there's there's I just think it's wrong. And then it it's
we're basically permitting a commercial entity. We're permitting more traffic in a place that has children. Uh I just think the whole thing should be addressed and I think we should reach out and get opinions from more than just that every because it's nowhere, right?
>> That's this is the first and and I think it should be the last. >> Right. So I think essentially I think the additional funding that is requested is mo in most times um an additional buy down. So for example, if the developer has to provide 25% affordable housing
and they are say willing to provide more or tiered housing, that's when the affordable housing committee would recommend that the town would make a contribution. So >> whatever he got that money >> and and it it's all part of one project
and besides it's a commercial entity basically that we and he told us right in the beginning his intention was to store his equipment from all their other projects and that intention isn't gone. Um we we gave him what three a threecar garage. Come on give me a break. And he
told me it was to store screens and and and smoke alarms. >> Right. But we don't whatever. I'm just talking this needs to be on the agenda and we need to get other opinions other than our own because I think this is completely wrong. >> Yeah, we we should not discuss a
specific location or address. >> Whatever. I want this on the agenda and and I think >> we can come in. I think it's a good idea to have her come in. we can >> and I think the other part too is that when you look at these LIP applications and you know part of maybe the larger
conversation would be you know what exactly is the town giving money for and how do we make sure it's utilized properly without Yeah. So >> I think it's good to have her come in. >> Yeah. And there's um >> and then there's there's there's more than one ways to come at this thing. um
you know and uh uh I mean is it possible that um the uh building commissioner won't even give him the permit because he deems it a commercial >> you know I mean this needs to be on the agenda >> talking about a specific
>> I'm talking about it >> I think that question are legitimate questions to be asked I'm just wondering is this the right forum because what can we do about it if if if there's a commercial if it's a commercial component to a residential project, then what we can do is say no.
But as to what any other agency of the town does, the selectman or the housing coordinator or the building department or the planning board or whatever, they're on their own. They can do whatever they want. >> Well, they're on notice that we're going to have it on the agenda. They can come and weigh in. But I think that that that
we're not an island. And I just think this is I'm sorry and I I like I had all my have all my faith in you. It's no not a criticism of what you guys did, but I just the more I think about it, the more I know that it's wrong. And I don't want
to see every 40B project having, you know, Joe's lawnmower repair and snowplow storage. >> If we bring her in and discuss the financials, I think it's a can't hurt. >> Yeah. And uh >> you know, who who does that affordable
housing fund? Well, she's only part of it. Is it the CPC? uh >> or is it the board the board of selectmen, right? >> They're the people that grant that money. >> The select board is the final vote for >> but they're presented with >> Yeah, >> but they get it from the CPC, right?
>> I thought it. >> So, if if nothing else, when this does get put on the agenda, they would be nice to notice any and all who might even potentially be interested in weighing in on this. >> She could talk to Jed about it and >> not only Jed, I mean like the affordable
housing committee. I mean, other 40B projects, I mean, every I'm sure there's other people that want to weigh in on this because I don't think I'm alone in this feeling. >> No, >> just understand that, you know, this is not uh, you know, this board has like
very specific parameters as far as control goes. And I think having a quote public forum where people come in and discuss I I don't think this is the appropriate location for that. I think it does make
sense for this board to have specific information about well though here's the other part too is that the financial end of things is technically not something that this board can touch. That's the responsibility. we already touched it
>> of the subsidizing agency and there's a very narrow band where the board is able to ask anything about financials and that is specifically if you have some particular condition that
you're issuing and the developer says that's uneconomic then you can talk finances but other than that this board is strictly not allowed >> well that that's only one >> to get partial my my problem with this. It's
commercial. It's too much traffic for for a residential neighborhood that's going to have kids. There's a million reasons in my mind why we shouldn't have done this. And I wouldn't be surprised if uh maybe the town wants to make a policy against this because it's it's it was
wrong. >> Right. But I think you know again this board does not have any authority to comment. have the authority to give it, >> but we should have the authority to never give it again because I I think it was a mistake >> and I mean it needs to be on the agenda
for discussion although we've discussed it plenty here but I'm I'm not going to give up on this. would talk to Kim and it needs to be addressed. >> I guess you know again what I'll say is you know people can talk about like Kim Kim can come and tell you how uh they evaluate
the financials and and what they give money for. But this board has no authority to impact that determination in any way. if they decide to give a developer money or not, that is not any
part of the sport's role. >> I and I I understand your >> commercial entity that that that we now I mean that's only a small part of my argument, but I I still think I'm correct and and like I said, let's get some uh put this on the agenda, please.
and then um um make them aware and and let's I I think a little input because I'm just obviously I think that was wrong and I think we opened up a can of worms. >> Well, we did that before we put it we authorized a cafe in a residential
building down the street >> but they applied for it. >> Yeah, >> but he authorized it. >> But they applied for it. This was not applied for. This was thrown in like >> Yeah, thrown in. And two wrongs don't make a right. Anyway, and every every case is its own case on its own merits.
>> Commercial with 40B was that one downtown with the um >> we've made mistakes before and not repeated them. >> Yeah, >> I won't repeat them now because whatever. I'm I'm serious about this obviously. >> No, Nory will do. >> That's easy.
>> You'll take care of us. >> Put mark efforts. >> Yes. >> Anybody have anything else? >> Uh no. >> No. All right, Mark. Lay it on us. >> Motion to adjurnn, madam chair, after all that wind I expired.
>> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Our next meeting will be on February 26 at 6 p.m. All those in favor of adjourning I for two weeks. Weeks.