Okay, everybody, welcome to the zoning board of appeals. bills. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. If there's any private party recording this hearing, step up to the podium to request permission.
I will introduce the board and staff. On my far right is Mark Finan. To his left is Scott Peterson. To my closest right is Frank Duffy, our clerk. My name is Suzanne Murphy. I'm chair. To my left is James Morris, vice chair. Tony Patucci,
an associate. Nick Haney, another associate. And then we have Noren Stockman, our zoning administrator, and Ashley Dlo, the office assistant. The zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws 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. prior to the closing of the hearing 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 representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation, but time may be extended by a 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, speak into the mic. It will not amplify your voice and record audio for the FCTV viewers. And if there's anyone that wants to make a public comment on anything that's not on our agenda, you're welcome to come up if anybody
wants to. It's not anything we respond to, but you're allowed to tell us something if you want. If no one wins, we'll start off. Our first hearing tonight is 08425 Boken Bro Residences.
At the January 15, 2026 zoning board of appeals opening for the hearing on the proposed 40B development at Zero Broken Bow. The ZBA announced that the town has qualified for safe safe harbor due to compliance with the housing production
plan and exceeding the minimum 10% subsidized housing inventory. Zero broken bow appealed the ZBA's determination to the executive off office of housing and community development by a letter dated February 25th, 2026. The EOCc, the Executive
Office of Housing, issued a denial decision determining that the town did not qualify for the asserted safe harbor and provided an option for further appeal. Given the madam chairman through you uh given the decision
uh rendered I'm going to make a motion to appeal the February 25th 2026 executive office of housing and living communities decision regarding zero broken bow pursuant to 760 CMR 56038 and have it sent to the housing appeals committee >> second.
>> We have a motion and a second. Was that you Mark? >> Yes. >> By Mark. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor? I >> oppose? None. The hearing shall be stayed pending the outcome of this appeal to HIC. Any resumption of hearing
shall be properly noticed on the ZBA agenda. Interested parties are invited to subscribe to the ZBA agendas through Civic Plus. Civic Plus can be assessed by selecting the zoning board of appeals web page. At the very top of the page, select create a website account, manage
notification subscriptions, and save form progress and more. So that's what we have for broken bow. We're all set on that. So our next hearing is 0001269 Ginwald Street in Felmouth.
>> So 9 Ginwall. Hope that's pronounced right. Ginwall or Ginwall. Um >> all depends on how many gins you had. >> Well, I went down and visited the site and it's the first time I've been on that street. I didn't even know it existed until told yesterday.
>> Tucked away like a lot of neighborhoods. >> But the uh Okay, so the owner of the properties, James and Kathy O'Neal. The zoning district is RC. They've applied for a special permit under section 240.2A of the Falma zoning bylaw to remove the garage and construct an
addition to the single family dwelling. There's no overlay district applicable. There's no flood zone applicable. Um the existing con existing is a single family uh threebedroom 1580 ft. The proposal is for a single family dwelling three
bedrooms 1585 square ft. No previous decisions of the board of appeals found on the record. The lot is 7,422 ft in the zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square ft. So that's non-conforming. The
street frontage is 67.25 25 ft in a zoning district which currently requires 100 ft. So that's non-conforming. Ginwall or Ginwall Street is a private ride of way. Uh the lot coverage by structure exists at 21.33%
uh which exceeds the 20% limit of the zoning bylaw. It will be just incrementally increased to 21.4%. Uh the lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 28.4%. uh it will be increased to 28.5% but the
limit's 40 so that conforms the setbacks there are two non-conforming setbacks the eastilly setback is 8.6 where 10 is required the north which is a street is 8.5 where 20 25 ft is required um the uh
the height of the proposed building will be 16 ft. We have comments from engineering. Uh they've asked that we apply the storm water regulations and that storm water be contained on the site. Erosion and sediment control should be enforced during construction. The board of health has uh no comment
because the same number of bedrooms. Um that's their comment. Conservation has no comment. Water says the they've requested that the water service be upgraded to 1 in PE. Planning board says no comment. Uh we have no letters of either an opposition or support found in
the file. And we also have a comment that the deck will be removed. >> Good evening. I'm Jeff Brightite and representation of James and Kathy O'Neal residing at 91 Portside Circle in East Falmouth. Um
you can see on the plot plan here um this very much so non-conforming garage building um for removal. Um the applicants request a special permit to
add on to the home in an attached feature that would bring that section of the building within the bylaw regulation and requirement for setback. Um, also the location of the storm drain. Um, I'm
curious to know from um from the board if you would require that for the entire home or just the addition. Um, which is located proposed right there. Um and
yes, as you mentioned, removal of deck um the drainage uh wastewater would connect to the existing drain line inside the home. Therefore, no interference with the
septic system that currently exists. Does the board have any thoughts or comments or questions about requirements in addition to what the application puts forth?
>> May I May I ask? >> You do. Go ahead. >> I think you just asked the question about the dry well. Does it apply to the entire house or just the addition? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. just this one member. It would apply to
the entire project. I mean, you're constructing. It would apply. I don't know what the rest of the board would vote, but it would apply. That's what the town wants. >> All right. So, just to update the board, what the town has selected is that uh
what needs to be so the existing storm water goes where it goes. And so the town engineering department has asked that any additional lock coverage be what's directed into the drywall. So they don't require that
somebody now manage the entire house. I mean that's ideal, but what they direct is that the drywall be for any new lot coverage. >> I know. Why make Why do anything ideal? Why do anything ideal? >> Well, then you would have to require everyone to do it. No, it just you do
it. That's just me. I mean, what's right is right. The the town's trying to keep storm water from infiltrating into areas it shouldn't. And this is the opportunity to make sure that happens on one more property in town here. >> Sure. >> That's that's just me. I understand. I
I'm not even voting on this one. Okay. >> Gotcha. >> So, >> fair enough. >> Anybody else have any comments on it? >> On that? No. I mean, I think he's grandfathered as far as the storm water's concerned, but as far as the the project. Um, I mean, it's it's a great
little spot and it's uh needed, almost begging for it and it is an improvement. Other than that, I I have nothing. I'm 100% in favor of this. >> Confirm his dimensions. Your um the garage is 8.6 ft from the lot line, but
it's going to be removed. >> Actually, it's it's closer than that, actually. 2 ft. >> It's about 4T. >> Four feet. All right. But the the east is according to the plans and the >> the setback to the east will be 11.8 ft. Is that how much you >> correct? The in the proposed. Yes.
>> In the proposed. Okay. Fine. So you're eliminating that nonconformity. >> Correct. >> Okay. But the nonconformity on the street side which is 8.5 is remaining the same. >> Correct. Allowed to do. You're allowed to keep existing non-conformity. >> Correct. Yes. >> Not increasing that nonconformity. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Scott, do you have anything? >> No, I don't have any questions. Thank you. I I don't either, Jim. >> Uh, other than what Mr. Duffy has just asked, are there any additional nonconformities that are being eliminated or reduced that we did you didn't cover? I just want to make sure the record is clear. >> Uh, to no. uh other than being over the
original 20% which leads to the special permit application uh it was that that setback on the west side and um my I would ask um or assume a ruling on
the location of the shed um being where it's currently located that's been informed you know in previous decisions. So, uh, I want I would want to be clear about it on what
your position is on that. >> Yeah. So, um, by my notes, the shed is 10.5 ft by 13. And given that size of the shed, a new shed now installed would require to be
10 ft from the side and rear lot line. That being said, the shed was installed prior to the change in the bylaw requiring that 10-ft setback. So I currently have it listed as being 3 ft approximately from the east and
approximately seven from the south. So technically the board has allowed those sheds to remain. >> One other question for you, Madam Chair. Uh Frank, what was the lot is like.110 of 1% was what the
>> lot coverage by structure parking and paving increases from 284 to five >> and 40 is allowed. So they're well >> the minimus. Thank you. Yeah. >> No other questions. Thank you, Madam Chairman. >> Tony, >> I have no questions. >> Mick, we're all set.
>> You have anything, further? >> Uh no, ma'am. I do not. >> Anybody from the public want to speak on this project? Any further? >> Nope. >> Mark. >> Motion to close. Second.
>> We have a motion to close and a second. Uh, any further discussion? >> No. >> No. >> All those in favor of closing. >> I oppose. None. >> Motion to approve the conditions. >> Second. >> Have a motion to approve in a second.
Scott. >> Okay. For findings, properties at nine Ginwall Street. um by Kathy and James O'Neal. The zoning district is RC. They've applied for a special permit under section 2410.2A of the FA zoning bylaw to remove the garage
and construct an addition to the single family dwelling. No flood zone applicables, no overlay districts applicable. The uh building will be increased in size from 1580 ft to 1585 square feet. Um the lot size remains the
same. The frontage remains the same as I previously reported. Um the lot coverage by structure um is 21.33% and will be increased to 21.40%. We are allowed to by special permit allow up to
25%. So we're this is within our limits. The neighborhood average according to the calculation submitted is 20.4. So this is close to that. Block coverage by structure will be very limited increased only onetenth to 1% from 28.4 to 28.5%
the zoning bylaw allows up to 40%. As far as nonconformities go the easterly nonconformity currently about 4T will be increased to 11.8 ft thus eliminating that nonconformity. The nonconformity on the street side,
which is the north side of the property, is currently 8.5 feet and that will remain at 8.5 feet. There's no increase in that nonconformity. The height of the building noted on the plans will be 16 ft uh which is within the limits of the
zoning bylaw. I read the uh comments from the departments into the record earlier. Um, and uh, as I said, there's no letters in opposition or in support. And at the public hearing, there is no testimony
either in support or opposition to the project, the proposal. Under section 24.10.2A 2A of the FMA zoning bylaw. The zoning by Court of Appeals is permitted to allow alterations, reconstruction, extensions, or structural changes to single family dwellings that do not
increase any non-conforming nature of the structure. Uh upon a finding that there is no increase in non-conforming nature of the structure and it will be not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. And we so fine um
the uh conditions for special permit under section 240 12. E1 um that the proposed use will not have any adverse effect that overbalances beneficial effects uh in the neighborhood that will be it will be in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning bylaw. We have must consider and we so find that the site is adequate for the proposed use. The site is suitable for the proposed use. There's no no negative or negative impact on traffic flow and safety. There's no impact on neighborhood visual character, views, and vistas. There's
adequate sewage disposal. Um there's adequate utilities and this proposal will not affect the supply of affordable housing. Comp sheet was submitted uh concerning lot coverage. And I would just add that the proposal brings the property into
greater harmony with the zoning bylaw with the elimination or reduction of nonformities as to setback and the issuance of a special permit. >> All right. Conditions >> for plans. Um
>> engineering comments. >> All comments from Toms. >> Tom boards. Uh construction hours 7 to 7 Monday through Friday, 8 through 4 on Saturdays, no construction on Sundays or town holidays. Um construction vehicles shall be located
within the lot. Um anything else we does can't >> uh No additional structures. >> No additional structures. >> Do we want to condition about the shed or just >> Yeah, we probably should. What's that
>> a condition >> condition regarding the shed >> that it's >> we can just um explain this pre-existing non-conforming. >> Okay. All right. >> And then um yeah engineering head contractor responsible for soil erosion and sediment control. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> All right. That's it. >> So we have a motion and a second. All set everybody. All those in favor? >> Opposed? None. Keep it >> all set. Good luck. >> Thank you very much.
this trash pile. >> All right. Next at bat we have 43 Ocean View Avenue North. So 43 Ocean View Avenue in North Thoth is owned by Joan S. Doyle Trustee. The
zoning district is RC. We've applied for a special permit under section 240.2A 2A of the Felma zoning bylaw to remove a deck and construct uh an addition to a single family dwelling. The property is in the Wild Harbor Coastal Pond overlay district.
There's no applicable flood zone. Um there's a note in the file single family dwelling uh three bedrooms. Uh they applied for a single family dwelling with four bedrooms, but we'll have to discuss that. There's no previous decision of the zoning board of
appeals. Uh so noted the lot is 5,399 square ft in a zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 40,000 square ft. So it's non-conforming. Street frontage is 50 ft in a zoning district which currently requires a minimum of 100 ft. So that's
non-conforming. Ocean View Avenue is a public ride ofway at this location. The current lock coverage by structure is 35.25% which exceeds the limit of 20%. However, with the work, it will be decreased slightly to 30.74%.
The average lot coverage by structure in the neighborhood appears to be 22.08% according to a worksheet that was submitted. Lot coverage by structure parking and paving is 36.82 ft. It'd be reduced to 32.30%
um percentage rather than feet, excuse me. The limit is 40%. As far as nonconformities, we have two. the street frontage uh excuse me the setback from the street is 7.2 two feet. That's non-conforming. And the north um is 1.3,
which is non-conforming. 10 feet being required there, 25 on the street. The proposed height of the building is 28T 10 in, which is conforms to the zoning bylaw. We have referrals from various departments. The engineering department has noted that the owner must restore
the street parking area to current standards. Uh also the usual comments about storm water being retained on the property and erosion and sediment control. The board of health uh and also the wastewater superintendent has noted that the property is on the uh new
silver beach sewer, but the fourth bedroom may not be permitted by the regulations affecting the North Bama sewer district. Conservation Commission, we don't have anything. Did they submit anything on that? >> No. >> No, they did not. No, >> the uh water superintendent has uh
requested that the um service be in be improved to 1 in PE and the meter be located in the house. Building department has no comment. Fire department has no comment. Planning board has no comment. We have seven letters in support on file and no
letters in opposition. U we also have a note that the shed is to be removed >> and they were supposed to go before conservation though, correct? uh conservation asked for some specific information. Um to my knowledge they have not submitted that.
>> Okay. >> So with condition if we approve that they have to comply with consultation. >> Yeah. And engineering. >> Yes. And engineering. >> Um are you here for this? >> Come on up. My name is Joan Doyle and I live at 23
Ocean View Avenue in North Almond. Um, I just wanted to address something right off the bat. Uh, the house since I've been in that house since 1956. We didn't own it. We rented it every summer for four uh for five weeks. Um, and it was
always a four-bedroom home long before the sewerage came in. It's always been a four-bedroom home. Um, I don't know where the three-bedroom comes into it now because I've never I've never changed the external structure of the
house. Um, so I that's a question I have as to >> how it flipped from three to four. >> So, do you know was there a former bedroom on the first floor? No, never. >> They were all upstairs. >> All four bedrooms were upstairs.
>> Okay. So, so it's currently currently has four prior to this construction. >> No, what I did do when I retired and moved here full-time, I took two small
bedrooms in the back of the house and um made it into a master suite and put in a half bath. >> Okay. >> So, now it is a three. And when the sewage came in, it was a four bedroomedroom house. So that shouldn't affect it at all. Um because this
addition that I'm putting on is because of my age um is a first floor bedroom. So, I'm not positive how the town would view this, but typically when you take two smaller bedrooms and you combine them to
one, you're effectively eliminating a bedroom. So, then you you technically reduced a four bedroomedroom house to a threebedroom house. >> So, likely the assessor's records would now reflect that you had three bedrooms.
So then going back to four, which you assert before, I guess I'm not sure how that would happen. I don't know whether you'd have to go back and look at the records about when you made that change. >> I never made that change. I just I had a
contractor put in a new beam up in the attic. >> Yeah. >> In order for me to to expand that bedroom. They were both small bedrooms to begin with. Um, and I don't I I don't know how
it even got to the town that it would became a master. >> Did you get a permit for that work? >> I do not know. Um, the contractor who did it has passed away. He was a a local
fellow from New Silver Beach. Um, I don't know, but probably if if that's where it if that's where the information came from, he must have >> because typically when there's typically when there's new construction, >> you would gain a building permit and
then the building department goes out and does an inspection. >> Yes. >> So, their records would say, "Oh, well, you have two small bedrooms that you've merged to one." >> So, now your count for your bedrooms becomes three. And then that information goes to the assessors because anytime
people do work on their homes, their assessed value could go up. >> Okay? >> So there's communication within the town department. So what may have happened is that when you merge those two bedrooms,
you inadvertently reduced your count from four to three. three and that was done after the sewage was put in at New Silver Beach. That was several years after the sewage would put in. So would
that still affect it? >> So I'll have to look into it. It may become something that you'll have to ask for >> which may be through the select board because they I believe typic typically are the group that would grant for
example a variance to exceed the number of bedrooms. But you may have an argument here where you explain what happened. Mhm. But in the meanwhile, until that's resolved, you would have to case an opening in a
bedroom existing in order to not exceed the number that you're allowed because the sewer service area that you're on allows a maximum of three. That being said, if you had four, you do have an argument to say that that's what you
still are at the same net. >> Okay. All right. Didn't they take an inventory when they connected this house to the sewer? I'm sure there must have been other houses in North Thelmouth in that area of North Thelmouth that had four bedrooms and
were >> absolutely >> grandfathered in as such and it would have to be in writing. several of several of my neighbors in in in the existing homes that have been there since the 30s and 40s. Many of them
>> um mine was built in 1901, but they there are many of them that that are four bedrooms. Um that hooked up everything on Ocean View A got hooked up to the sewer. >> But you also confuse the issue by going in and reducing the number of your
bedrooms from four to three without a permit. Um, >> well, I don't know. You don't know. Doesn't know if we don't know that yet. >> I don't know that. >> Well, that's easy enough to find out, >> right? Right. >> I mean, we're kind of looking at a continuation here. >> We have a lot of reliable documents.
>> You better dig up some pictures, too. >> This is the only suggest we >> Everybody in their brother wants to do this from the north on that area. >> Yeah, we'll run by it. >> Just ask for permission. >> Norine Frank, >> we have several unanswered questions here. We have the conservation
commission still to be hear from and now we have two referrals from wastewater and the board of health both saying three bedrooms is the maximum. Mrs. Doyle has or Miss Doyle has given us a history suggesting there may be four because we have to wait for the uh
conservation commission. I think we just is afford some time to go to wastewater and board of health and work out this issue of the number of bedrooms that are permitted because I would be feel very uncomfortable approving four where we have referrals from two boards saying no three
>> and the assessor's uh card would uh have a little bearing on this as well I think >> was the assessor's card in the folder >> no wasn't >> yeah I mean certainly the board can't automatically grant a a reversion into
four bedrooms. What I think I was contemplating was that she may be able to bring her facts to possibly the select board. I think grants variances for um >> flow neutral bylaw,
>> right? So, so she may have a good case there where she says, "Hey, I had four and I reduced it to three and you know otherwise >> you can still tell from the floor up
where the wall was." >> Oh, absolutely. You can see it in the lead board of the >> take pics and >> yeah you can see where >> a check when you paid the guy and uh yeah I I think we have a continuation here and with the amount of information
we don't have >> okay >> 91 I hire a lawyer >> I don't think she needs to >> I don't think she needs to I think if you work and noring will help >> get the board of health will give us something defin definitive in writing we can rely on that but right now we just
have there say no three is all you can have. So, >> so it's the board of health >> and the wastewater department >> and the wastewater department >> in Hong Kong >> and proof you can come up with any which way because I don't as one board I don't
I don't want to open the floodgates >> for requests like this because everybody up there wants another bedroom and the limited three >> please.
So your other option here would be to case an opening to one of the bedrooms on the second floor. Should you do that, removal of the door removes privacy. It's no longer a bedroom. >> Okay? >> Which would then allow you to create a
bedroom on the first floor. And then that would be also another way that you could go back afterward and ask for permission >> if you wanted to move with that construction sooner. >> Okay. All right. Um
>> we have a date from continuation or >> motion to continue to whatever date you say >> she's looking. Yeah, I guess um maybe April 30th just to allow um the owner some time to get that sorted out. I know
there was and you perhaps saw the comment from conservation. They were just looking for an additional detail on your site plan so that they knew I think it was a flood plan or something on the plaque plan itself.
>> Yes. So, they were trying to determine um whether you would fall under their jurisdiction or not. And it's something that that your surveyor can add to the plan, >> which conservation will then be able to look at your plan and know if you need
to see them or not. >> I wonder if they saw it before we were requested to do a topography and add that to the plot plan. And that clearly shows
um where the flood zone is, where the where the uh the coastal bank is, the non-eroding coastal bank. Okay. And all of that. >> Okay. So, >> so if you provide that to them, they'll be able to tell pretty quickly. >> And that's conservation,
>> correct? >> Okay. Yep. They may not have been provided with this latest block >> new. >> I'll second the motion to continue. >> Yeah. >> And you feel it would be April 30th. >> Yes.
>> And then also while you're at it, it's just while you have your shopping list, uh the the water department had recommended that you upgrade. You have apparently a 3/4 in copper service.
uh they now have moved to a 1- in PE. So if you don't want to upgrade, you should still go by the water department and have a conversation with them and they did I did see that in the uh in the listing here. Good.
>> Um and I did talk to the contractor about that, but I will go by the water department and uh >> and uh speak to them about it. And uh that's it. And also on it, the shed will
be removed. Uh my shed was a back when the house was built was a a carriage house basically. Um and it's just been there forever. Um okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> I'll be back.
>> Does anybody from the public want to comment? We are continuing till April >> 30th. >> 30th. >> Anybody apparently have many neighbors that are in support of you. We received many many many love letters. Yep. >> Yes. And many of those calls and emails
homes that are all my my abutters. Most of my abutters of four bedroom homes >> that have been there. >> It'll work out. It will >> as long as mine. >> So, we have a motion. Who is the motion? >> Me. >> Mark and a second. Jim.
>> Um all the Everybody all set to vote? Yes. >> All those in favor continuing to April 30th. >> I opposed. None. >> All right. Moving on. Thank you. >> Uh moving on, we have 06525 Habitat.
Move along here. Where is Habitat? Here you are. >> Yes. >> Good evening. Good evening. I'm Warren Brody here for the applicant, Habitat for Humanity of Cape Cod, Inc. with me tonight is the Habitat team, if you
will. Uh Noren Brown, who's our director of land acquisition and permitting, Dan Allen, who's our director of construction, Joe Henderson of Horesley Whitten is the engineer for the project, and Kurt Raber of Catalyst Architecture,
the architect for the project. Um, a little bit of history. Um, there was a letter from Beiel and Thomas the peer reviewer on December 2nd, 2025 resulted in a response made by
Horesley Whitten on January 23rd. The parties got together on February 11th and the result is Beals and Thomas latest letter of March 5th, 2026 which I'm hoping we can review tonight and
maybe we're getting perilously close to a conclusion of these hearings. But before doing that, I have a little bit of a presentation. Where does this go? >> I thought you can find that document. >> That's not it.
There we go. Ah, there we go. That is a habitat project called Paul Hushway, which is in Brewster. It was the old wild animal farm site if
you recall that from years gone by. And it is a I believe it was a 16 unit subdivision uh fully loaded with solar all single family homes. And I'm showing it to you to point out that there aren't any
sidewalks there. And they're basically two two areas of the development. and neither of them have sidewalks. And the point is, you don't need a sidewalk to get from one house to another. You're
in a subdivision, a dead-end subdivision with not a lot of traffic and not going very fast, and there's no real need for the safety that sidewalks might provide. >> Does this subdivision have lights?
>> That's a good question. I'm not sure. I would assume so, but I'm not entirely sure. >> It looks like I see one on one of them. You know, a lamp post. >> Our our model generally is we have a uh a post light at the end of the driveway that's wired to be on all night from
dust till dawn. And it's just part of the of each individual's responsibility. And let's see. Trying to find the other the other uh photograph that I had which
is of Willlet Way here in Falmouth 10 unit subdivision developed about three years ago. Uh, it also has no sidewalks. Again, the point the point is not what you did before and not requiring sidewalks. The point is that we don't
need them. They really don't serve any real purpose. And the cost is not not inconsiderable. Our estimate was somewhere around $25,000 to provide sidewalks for this subdivision. And we're already at a point where if you look at our proforma,
if you were a developer, you say, "This thing's underwater. there's no way it can be done. And what we're seeing is a need for several hundred,000 per unit of subsidy either from the town or from our donors. So to add another $25,000 to that seems unnecessary
given the really lack of functionality of the sidewalks. >> Well, you're pretty much guaranteed subsidies from the town. >> We are and we have some both in terms of acquisition and construction. This I'm sorry. I found you get 100 grand a unit too, right?
>> Excuse me. >> That's going to get 100 grand a unit too. >> Yes. For construction, I believe that's right. >> Yeah. This there's Will it Way all 10 units similar to the present design that we're
proposing. Uh just a big culde-sac with an island in the middle. Uh that island can be used for for recreation. Ours um has the the septic system uh or components of the septic system in the middle, but again,
no sidewalks and it works works fine as far as I know. >> And that's the same road width as you're proposing tonight. >> Uh I believe so. The road width that we're proposing here is 22 feet. So, was that 20 that I think they're all
It's usually 20 feet with a one foot burm on either side that gives you the 22 feet. >> I believe that's exactly the same. >> Thank you. >> It's certainly in the records. So, you want to >> do at the end? All right. Um, that all
being said, I think we're at a point where we need to discuss the last bills and Thomas letter >> and there's a whole lot of things that Thomas' comment is or the response is this comment has been addressed by the
applicant that applies to a good deal of the issues here, but there are still some outstanding ones and we can either point them out or you can take the lead on that as you prefer. >> Why don't we just do the ones that have
questions? Is that okay with everybody? >> Yeah. >> So, the first one is see if I can not mess this up. >> Nine, right? That's the sidewalk. You've already >> sidewalks.
>> Acknowledge that. Yep. >> Yes. >> Anybody have any questions on the sidewalk? um not on the sidewalk per se, but uh last when we discussed the parking,
I contended that uh the way this is set up and especially to be able to keep the turning radius for the safety vehicles, uh I considered that there's going to be parking on the lawn. Um, and and I went
looking online and uh I know they were adverse to it, but there's some of this plastic geo grid which effectively holds the uh the earth in place. You put it down before you put the last four inches of uh lom.
It's extremely cheap. Um I got one right here in front of me. I mean, and part of the car can park on the road, but for instance, you can get a 4 foot by 27 sheet of this stuff, 50 bucks. I mean,
you're talking about uh for $100, you could have parking for two cars on the grass and it would The stuff holds 1,800 pounds a square foot. I you know we've required it in other places and I mean
you know$1 to $200 a unit to keep the grass looking decent I don't think is a uh is a a big ask a big ask especially when you're not going to have sidewalks there
which of course a car would park half on the sidewalk half in the road but I mean if you got people parking in the road you're going to have issues and and you just can't deny that. So I think that uh and I always forget what they call they call this geog grid or whatever but there's there's different and I mean you
can spend three times that much but something that's going to guarantee that there's not a big muddy plot in front of all these houses in the springtime because you guys do nice stuff. I mean I I just don't think it's a big ass$1 to $200 a unit. >> I know it doesn't sound like one but let
me just ask you whether you saw the most recent parking sketch. >> Yeah. And I I I found I I I found that to be extremely tight. And um people are coming in and out and moving. You know how real life works. >> I mean, the guy who's parked in front is
is going to park on the lawn or the guy who's pulling behind the, you know, I mean, it's it's just the way it works. And I mean, these people are going to have children and their children are going to grow up to be teenagers and they're going to have visitors. And I mean, $1 to $200 a unit. I'm I just
don't think it's it's too much to ask to keep the place looking nice, which I mean, hey, let's face it, and everybody here will admit it. I mean, you guys bring forward the best projects, but um I think you know, one to $200 a unit to keep them looking that way isn't a big
ask. >> Again, doesn't sound like much. I agree with you. Um but just the document that uh the sketch that we provided shows of the 14 houses, seven of them can accommodate three cars in the driveway. >> The other the other seven can
accommodate two. >> So is there really uh a threat of parking off the the uh designated areas? I don't know. >> I contend absolutely. What about if he only did it to the the
four bedroomedroom or the three bedrooms and not all of them? >> That would help. >> I mean, even if you only went 4T off the sidewalk, you're talking about 50 bucks. >> I mean, I could see how the fourbedroom
would definitely need more parking. No question. I'd be a little more inclined to hold people's feet to the fire on this issue if there were market rate units being sold, but this is 100% affordable. >> So, >> was there a
recommendation that there be a gravel strip along the side of the driveway to increase parking in the event that there are more people there? How does that work? >> Joe Henderson Horesley Whitten. Do you want me to share those plans and just show you? Yeah, that be helpful. Yeah.
I know. I saw them. I can't find mine right now. >> A plane. It looks like there's six cards. >> That doesn't look like the one I looked at. Where's the one that I >> probably have in this somewhere? >> I don't know. >> Tag though. I know.
>> Oh, yeah. >> You couldn't get out. >> Nobody's going to park like that. >> And then there the front car is not getting out. And >> you have it. So for convenient somebody in and out is >> just I'll explain what we did >> if that's helpful. So we we did two different plans. We did a plan here that
shows um the mixture of like a pickup and a small SUV parked in each part in each driveway. They're off the the road, not necessarily out of the right of way, but this is supposed to just show a an
occasional happening when you have more than two cars in your at your house. So, um, so most driveways can fit at least, you know, two. There's a few that can fit three. And what we also included on there is a, you can kind of see it just
very um, lightly. That red line is a is an offset off the edge of the curb. So, that's showing six feet, which is the average width of a vehicle. Six 5.8 ft I think it is. But um the idea was just to show that along with the the turning
radius of the truck to show yes the truck can circulate the the subdivision roads. Uh for the most part there's actually this this intersection if there were cars parked on both sides of the road. Yes, it would be um there'd be an issue there. But for the most part, a
fire vehicle could circulate and skip by a vehicle parked off the side of the road on an occasional basis. So that was the purpose of that figure. Um the other figure was just like you had mentioned. We looked at if you put an 18-in gravel
um you know strip off the edge of the driveway just like some somewhat impervious um that would allow in you know rare occasions or whenever you have visitors the the cars could park side by side and that was where we were showing I think
four full-size pickups and then um up to like six cars if you're trying to >> jam people in there just in a like when you a party. I mean, that was the idea. It wasn't supposed to be for, you know, everyday use. It was just on the
occasion there were additional vehicles that you had to park. So, that that was the purpose of those two figures. >> Madam Chair, >> yeah, go ahead, Tony. >> I mean, I grew up in a u town, >> the pencil
>> where the house was built >> in the early 1900s, had driveways just like this. It was just the way it was in 1905, straight line like this. And I agree, Mr. Federan, no way is this real life. We always, none of us wanted to
say, "You need to move your car so I can get the other car out." And we parked in the street. Um, and it worked for us, but it does because we had beautifully wide streets in the town that were in bas. It doesn't work here. This whole
plan does not work with regard to parking. It doesn't make any sense. This is not real life. So I agree with Mr. Piner that there has to be some kind something set up where they can park on the side or on the lawn where you're not destroying the lawn because
this subdivision through the years if you don't do this is never going to be kept up. It's going to be trashed. It's going to be absolutely trashed 10 years from now. It just can't be done. This is not real life. is the suggestion to add the geog grid reinforcement along the edge of the like four feet off the edge
of the >> pund you you know how it works. >> Yeah. No, I I think you can get some products >> for $100 you can get 8 foot by 27 ft. So anybody that comes in can just park on the lawn beyond the driveway. At least it's not going to tear it up >> and that that would be on one side of the road on strips in the springtime.
It's just inevitable. It happens. People running in, running out. They're not going to do that. And I mean honestly this drawing here with a f I mean that's if the pencil family comes to visit you. I mean cuz nobody's opening a door and you know I mean >> what I have to do is I have to go in I
have to move my daughter's car have to do all the things but yeah I get it's hard to represent real life on a CAD plan. So that was our >> that's all we're trying to do. I mean it's you know I mean literally $100 extra. I mean, you you you you pin the
stuff down and then they rake the lom over it and you plant the grass like normal. >> Is it something one side of the road you would propose? >> Yeah, one side of the road I would say just past the driveway as you come in. I mean, said this comes in 27 foot lengths that gives you more than enough.
>> So, you just put it to fit one vehicle or around the entire >> 27 ft gives you enough on and off. I mean, it protects double drive a good portion of it for $100 >> the whole thing around. >> Well, Madam Chair, >> yeah, go ahead, Tony. You know, the thing is I've even heard him once say it
would make this uneconomical, and I don't think it will be. Um, and it only makes sense to be on one side, not the other side, especially if you're not having sidewalks. You know, you don't want cars coming back and forth, people walking in the middle of the street.
This is not carnival time. This is real life, and it could become dangerous with kids. Park on one side. uh whether it's $100, $150, who knows? But it's still going to have to be maintained. So, you have to buy the right materials. Um I know what the
right materials are. I'm not going to tell you what I think. It's not my job to do that. But if you don't do that, what Mr. Fener is suggesting in whatever format, I can guarantee you 10 years ago, this is going to look all trashed. There's just no You're an engineer. You
know what happens to soil. You know what happens. >> Yeah, fair enough. I'm just I just wanted to make sure I understood if you were saying the entire perimeter around the outside or just for an x amount of distance. >> Take your plan and draw it right. >> That's all. So if you I think that's reasonable to do and I if that's what the board >> just pass the driveway like I said it
comes or or before depending on how the driveway, you know, I mean they're going to get used to it. They're going to know. I mean, and and another consideration is is if if if you do get into the habit of parking in the street, that means the pedestrians because there no sidewalks are going to be further in
the street and that's going to increase the chances that there might be an incident and I mean safety is is is an issue at least I take seriously here. I mean there's there's going to be children, you know. I mean, yeah, I'd >> have to adult, you know, you you roll the dice. However,
>> confirm with Habitat, but I think as a condition that that be added to the plan, I don't see that. >> I'd like, Madam Chair. >> Yeah. >> Something like this. You have a condo association with for these. Is there a condo association? >> Homeowners association. >> Well, it needs to be in those bylaws. Uh
something of where you park, how you park, uh how you maintain it. I mean, it's wonderful to provide affordable housing, and I'm all for it, but what I'm not for is something that gets trashed. I look around town here and see some of these places that were approved
many, many years ago. It It's a blight on the community because they're not properly maintained. This is a beautiful, beautiful piece of land, beautiful subdivision, relatively well-designed homes. I don't want to see that happen to this
place and neither do you or the community uh that's around it. So, uh let's let's start off on the right foot and make sure that the homeowners association takes care of it. The homeowners association has enough money uh being collected every month to
maintain these properties and everybody can be proud in the end. Pride of place, I like to say every single time. So, let's continue to have a pride of place. Sounds good. I I was going to also just give an overview of the project if that
makes sense. Just go go through. Go >> for it. >> Unless you want me to do anything else. Okay. >> I'm just going to back up a little. So, I just thought I'd give a just a high level overview of the project since we haven't done this few weeks, but um just
by walking through the site plan and the site, as everyone knows, it's a 55 acre parcel. We're using seven and a half acres of it for that was set aside for affordable housing. The remainder is going to be um uh set aside as
conservation land. Um we have a um I just wanted to show this plan just to uh kind of represent where the site is taking place. The development we are um you know the red line represents our limit of work. So you can see the
existing driveway, the home, the barn, and the garage are all kind of within this area. So we're taking advantage of the area that's already been developed at the site. Um our site layout, we've looked at this
a lot. It's we've used a cluster type open space um model. So we've been able to uh preserve that green area. That's three 3.1 acres of land. Um around the perimeter, we have a 45- ft buffer on
the eastern side on the Cameron roadside and then a 30foot open space buffer around the rest of the um road. We're providing a trail connection uh to the town's planned trails uh that's within the conservation land. We've talked
about the wall. We're proposing to uh preserve one half the eastern portion of the existing wall and rebuild the western portion. We've made some changes to the plan uh since we started and I talk about those in a minute. Um as far
as our drainage system, our grading was designed to to mimic the existing topo as much as possible. Um and we've got our storm water management system in place using uh gsi type um practices like infiltration. We have a bio
retention uh and we have um some there's two natural depressions we're utilizing uh for the larger storm events. Um, and we've complied with all the Massachusetts stormwater regulations as
far as water quality and groundwater. And um, we've managed the 100red-year storm event at the site. The, um, oh, I'll continue, I guess, with wastewater and water. So, our water system, we're extending the water man
that is currently dead end at outside of Cameron Drive. We have to extend it 350 ft beyond our site to the midpoint of our property. That's the rules, the town's rules. So, we're doing that as part of the project along with the 8 in water man. That's going to be
>> May I ask a question? Sure. Chair. >> Mhm. Go for it, John. >> So, you have to extend it that I read and um to the midsection of the property going up u Benjamin Nye. How many more feet to Wild Harbor? Uh it's probably a good eight or 900
probably. I would say it's a significant amount to go. >> And in your discussions with the water department, Matt Lannon, uh did he review with you the cost to that is the town's desire and best for the community if that water was looped all the way to West Harbor, Wild Harbor
Road. >> I understood there was some consideration that they wanted to connect it. when we talked we he advised that we would do a hydrant flow test on the the water system we're connecting to to make sure we had adequate head you know pressures uh for our system and
that's what we did and it was acceptable to him so that's I believe that's why he was >> so so he says ideally the right thing to do is to loop the water to wild harbor ideally I know we don't like to do things that are ideally appropriate but and I know
there is expense and he suggested it's $350 a linear foot. I suppose that's if the government does it. You folks could find probably a cheaper way of doing it. Um but it's $420,000.
You know, these 40Bs, they ask a lot of every community and it's the right thing to get these things, but you do ask a lot and you folks Habitat is absolutely nonprofits, wonderful group and you're the ones that should be doing this. So, I'm not going to take that away. Have
you had any conversations with donors, uh, if you talked about grants or anything like that where while you're doing this construction and you're bringing it up to midpoint of your property and you only have another 800 ft to go where you can work with the community in some fashion to get this
done now and do the right thing. I mean, this goes beyond doing the right thing for a few people that need affordable homes. It's about the whole community. The whole community needs this to be looped. And so, have you done had any conversations with
donors or or looked at grants where >> we can do this? >> So, I believe Norine has passed along some information where some potential teaming with the town on grants to do the water main work. >> I'm unaware of those. So, >> so that we I think we passed that's something that usually the town would
have to be the lead in some sort of mass works grant or some form of grant like that. So, that's we would I'm sure Habitat would be more than willing to participate in something like that. >> How would you participate in something like that? >> So, that would be something the town
again would have to lead the charge on, I believe. And then habitat tied to the affordable housing makes it more um I believe that they see it more >> grant worthy. >> Yeah, exactly. That's the word I'm looking for. >> Norin's done some research. >> Yeah, that's right. I mean, Norin has
done some research. I don't know if you want to >> and it also has to be considered paving the road in the same time. So, it it gets a little complicated. So, we were looking at the housing works infrastructure grant which provides
funding through the state um get this here for um water updating water lines, some road work um and the infrastructure when it pertains to incre um the increase of housing within the town. There's different levels of this grant, but this
is the one that would apply to affordable housing. It's in place for all of the um the the other housing programs too which don't apply to this like the MBTA housing but bas basically it has to be applied for by the municipality. It's available to municipalities but we would be able to support the town in providing I think
these are very complex grants but we could provide a lot of the documents um and a lot of the information the the funding stuff but the grant itself I believe has to come. We working with another um developer on another project and I believe the we worked with POA on another project and I believe POA
actually did most of the grant work but they had to use the portal that the town would sign in on. So it was a partnership there as well. >> This is all money that's coming through the affordable housing bill that passed in 2023 >> and they I I'm quite sure that the town
just got one of those grants somewhere off 151 or on one >> for almost a million dollars. Oh, >> there's a lot of money there. >> Yeah, it it's >> the next round of grants opens um the application's due June 1st. Um it's a but in
>> Would you be in a position to initiate that or work with the town to get that started? >> Yes. >> What kind of commitment would you make to this? Could you make a commitment to this board to getting that done so that if
this board were to approve this? Yes, >> zoning administrator is doing this to me. >> So, so you can't tie your approval to her making this grant happen. You can ask her to provide information to the town, but if the town is unwilling to
apply for the grant, it goes nowhere and Habitat can't be punished for that. But to your point, we could condition that they would support the grant on an annual basis for a term of five years or seven years to help potentially get this
>> or any efforts to upgrade the water line. Simply as simple as that. >> Yeah. So, they're Habitat is offering to share the information they've gathered to the town for the town to apply for this grant, but the town has to be the applicant,
>> right? So all we can do is you know they're saying that they're willing to share. So it really falls to the town. >> The town if they apply for these grants because I have spoken to people they would require and need their help and they would ask for it.
>> Correct. >> You know so um and and you're not going to turn them down. >> Yeah. Not at all >> by any >> No, we would. Yeah, we could support the the >> and I know that paving wild uh paving uh Benjamin Nye and looping that water line is on the town's wish list
>> and it has been for some time. >> Madam Chair, may I just interject on this thing? I've been sitting on this board for three years. Feels more like a 100 years. Um especially with 40 B's. Um, what I do know after three years is
that a lot of things just are said that's going to happen and then they kind of disappear. Part of it is the government's fault because there's no sometimes there's no follow through. >> Yeah. I I can't say those things. >> I know. >> And some of it is the applicant's uh
fault uh because it gets hidden and it just evaporates. >> I'm a voting member on this one. Yeah. >> All right. And I have real problems with this waterline and I understand the limitations. Our zoning administrator
really gets upset with me uh on these things, but that's okay. My job is to make sure that I'm here for you folks in the community. I would like to see at some point in time some way of getting into the conditions that much of what Mr.
Peterson said that there would be a commitment so that it's there black and white that you would work with the community to provide um the housing war housing works infrastructure grant whatever you needed to do on that. >> Yes,
>> something of that nature. >> And of course you know that if this board approves this 40B that we would do a draft decision in which we could work all of that out. Yes, I >> I would say we are willing to agree to a condition that we will take whatever
efforts are necessary to pursue >> Yeah. >> obtaining a grant for the waterline extension. >> Yes. >> I I think between the two norines they could work out the verbiage. >> Madam Chair, I want if I'm going to vote on this, I want it in black and white so
that it's very clear how government tends to just things evaporate. they get lost in the ether of government. And I just want to make sure it's somewhere that if if I'm no longer on this board and I'm a citizen of this town, I can go say, "Look, this is what you got to do." >> We're committed. And in fact, we have
two of my team and I are meeting um they have office hours through the grants develop the grant committee next week on March on March 18th. So, we've already set up some office hours to learn more about the grant that's coming down the road. It's my understanding the application's due on June. They make
their decision in November and the funding is available next spring and I think that you have to start the project within a year that I could be off on that but that's where the town is involved in making the plans for that but yes we're committed. So one last thing, Madam Chair,
>> what I'm asking for I have no experience in and to me, you know, it seems straightforward. The hard part is getting government to do something. >> Right. >> Right. And I understand that and you can't be at fault held at fault for the
government not doing something for whatever their reasons may be. But what I am asking for, and I'm asking you because you're more experienced in these things, am I asking for something that's reasonable or unreasonable? >> It's reasonable. We've already submitted
our request to work with the town on this. So, yes. >> Did I say anything wrong, Madam Chair? I mean, >> you know, it's young. >> No, I I think >> I'm having a seizure. You know, you got >> I I think it's reasonable to ask Habitat
to participate. I think what's important is whether the town's going to make a commitment to pursue this and if the town opts not to, Habitat cannot be held responsible. >> That's correct. >> Habitat has is saying that they're going
to bring the water man effectively halfway from Cameron to uh their point in Benjamin Nye. The water super has said that he wants the main looped. They're offering that there's a grant available. So, it needs to be the town
who's willing to pursue that grant. >> I cannot imagine, Madam Chair, I cannot imagine the town not wanting to do the right thing. Can you imagine that? I can't either. All right. Thank you.
>> Anybody else on the looping? And we'll just continue with the waiverss. >> Like I say, we're trying to protect the butter that that has some issues with this. So, the more we can do to help the butters uh to have a clean drinking water is a good goal. >> Thank you.
>> All right. So, we we'll move on to the waiverss list. >> Yeah. Could I just finish Mike? I just had a few. Sorry. I forgot you were doing >> No, that's right. I got we got off track there with the water, but I thought I would just point out the wastewater system and that we're using an advanced
treatment system, right? The Nitra system. Lombardi Associates is is designing that system down to five milligrams per liter. Um we need to do this because we're in a nitrogen sensitive area. And um just as a note,
the the nitrogen reduction that is um being achieved here by taking what could have been a 50, you know, acres of housing at the zoning um you know, minimum zoning and doing it as a this
small development is actually um improving the water quality in the Fiddler's Cove um estuary. So I just wanted to point that out. um for as far as our wastewater. >> Could you point out where the systems would be located? >> Sure. So, here's the I'm going to look
on the screen because it's hard for me to see on here, but so the treatment system is here along this uh edge of the roadway. There's u series of tanks and a small building to house the the control
panels and the uh other blower equipment. And then there's the leeching field is right next to it. So, it's in the center island of that grass area. >> Thank you. >> Um, and I guess the last thing I wanted to just point out, um, is that we've we
have made some updates to the plans obviously since we started. We, um, added the mill kiosk pulloff up at the entrance. We we changed the driveway alignment so that we could save the entirety of the wall. We um we also
added the pole lighting to provide some lighting for each of the homes and throughout the road the um subdivision. Um, and then we also have been working with, you know, as you know, Beiels and Thomas, and I believe we're kind of at a
point where all the items have either been addressed, they've been um, you know, deferred to the board for final judgment or been suggested that if the board were to approve that they could be done um, included as a condition. So, >> thank you.
>> So, that's it. That's all I had and then I'll, I guess, open it up to anyone else. Morning. Did you want to show your pictures of the homes? >> Yeah. >> Screen is here. We go. I just brought some pictures of the homes because we've been looking at
paper for a while. So, this is a mix of some of the homes that we have built over time. This is our three-bedroom Cape. Um, this is up in our Brewster neighborhood. Uh, three-bedroom ranch. This floor plan
we're not building here. Just another option that we have. This is our two-bedroom ranch up in Orleans. Threebedroom in Truro. Are we doing is there one does one of the sites Joe have room for walk out? Is that >> We do have walkouts. >> So I think one of our sites on what >> have
>> on the other side like 12 area? Yeah. On the back side. So this could be one of the walk out. And then we have our fourbedroom colonial. We have one fourbedroom >> um onebedroom cape. There's no onebs at this particular property. And this is the picture that Warren had
earlier. And I saw a couple of family shots. Some of the >> we talking about all this, but this is the reason we do what we do. Really look happy. >> It's all about the families. >> There's some kids on bikes. We hadn't finished the final grade or the landscape. >> I can see there's no lampost, I don't think.
>> Yeah. >> This is the face. This is the second phase. Um Yeah. I'm surprised that I'm Yeah. Um and this is our last family in Dennis. This is our Blitz Build family. Um, every two years the builders and remodelers um, home builders remodelers
association of Cape Cod comes in and builds a home in a week. So once the walls go up, it takes about a week. They all come in. It's like crazy going on. Um, in 2026 the build the and this is like a donation from the from the
builders and remodelers association. And for September of 2026, they've selected one house at the Gford Street property. So Fmouth will have the next um Blitz build. >> Oh, that's awesome. >> That'll be exciting. Yeah. >> So, there's just some pictures of the houses because we keep talking about them, but we haven't really seen them.
>> No, it's great to see. >> And this is a So, this is the second phase. I'm not sure we had finished the f the the phase two for Brewster, but some of these kids live on the first phase, the six homes, and the other ones will live here, and they just happened to show up one day when our team was building, and someone snapped a picture.
So, >> will this be phased similar? Don't keep showing you that muddy front yard. >> Yeah. No, it's not. This isn't finished. Yeah, it's not. I mean, yeah, we're trying to grow grass. It's just not done yet. Um, this this will be phased in six units and then eight units or eight and six. We're doing eight first and then
six. Yeah. >> Nice looking public. >> Well, we're going to go over the waiverss first. Okay. >> Yep. I have a couple of questions. >> You have questions? Sure. Go ahead, Frank. on the fields and Thomas uh letter. I have a question about a couple
of paragraph uh well did you finally resolve all issues with sight distances at the intersection with Matt with Benjamin I wrote >> going to defer to you site distance issues >> is that a number on mobiles >> yeah I think we talked about that last
hearing we've we did resolve that the um walls were far enough back to not be an issue as far as sight distance goes >> okay yeah and there was one other um I think it was paragraph number 29 which didn't quite understand about drainage outlets and a head wall rather than a
boulder. I I don't understand what that's about. Maybe you can just educate. >> Sure. Yeah, we just had shown uh a boulder. So the the drainage pipe when it discharges to that that depression um it it comes out into just surrounded by boulders and Bills and Thomas was just
suggesting we use a pre-cast structure there which we're fine with. We'll switch that out. That's it's just for scouring around the pipe. >> Yeah, they said because it was potential erosion. >> Yeah, it just is a better um >> erosion problem at the drainage outlet,
>> but it was just we were more just the there's some other smaller discharges and I think we're fine leaving those as they were. It's just the larger discharge from the main storm water system that would um have that head wall. >> Thank you.
>> Anybody else have any from Bills and Thomas or should I just go through the ones that were questioned? Is that all right if I do it that way? >> Your your peer from Beiel and Thomas is here tonight as well. So if you want >> Yeah. >> questions answer just so that you got those.
>> I don't know if anyone has any questions. We have 10 which is the lamp which is the street light and we decided to use the lamp post that you talked about. So that was 10. I'm just going to go through the ones that were questionable. >> Sure. Uh 14 was
um um monu monuments. >> Yes, particularly monuments in the roadways, the the point of curvature and the point of >> you are going to complete that one. >> Um Joe, >> that's number 14.
Yeah, that was where we I think the suggestion was that we should put bounds there and we were just hoping that we could do something like a a stone like a rebar or something instead. Um but I think the the point was that the
regulations require a bound. So um we might have to add a waiver I think to to make that happen. >> May I ask a question? >> Yeah, go ahead, Tony. When you talk about bounds, particularly points of curvature, which you have a
lot of here, um, and having built a lot of those myself, you don't want to lose those things in the future. And the bounds are the only things that really work. And they have concrete bounds, granite bounds, god knows what else they may
have these days. Um I'm not sure why other than cost which I understand why would this board grant a waiver for something that's very very important on a road especially points of curvature. >> So the we would put bounds at the
property lines right so people know where their property line is but the property line on the frontage doesn't necessarily match the points of curvatures and tangencies. So that was the point that the points >> I don't understand. I don't what what do you mean?
>> Um let me see if I can share put my plan back up. >> I won't I won't belabor this. That's great question. >> It is >> it is >> maybe we can learn See if I can zoom in on this.
Trying to zoom in to see the thing. It just might need a second. It's interesting. Try that again. seem to like what I did. So it's I won't I'll try not to zoom in, but if you look you can kind of see like see where my cursor is. >> Yeah.
>> So if this is a say for example a point of tangency and there's the property line. See how they don't the point of tangency and curvatures don't necessarily match where the actual property boundaries would be. So that's what we'd be proposing is to put them at
the boundaries but not necessarily the actual point of tangency or curvatures. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. You can ask. We want you to understand. >> I want to understand. Um, I'm not sure how that
is going to work if you don't if somebody in the future doesn't know where those points of curvature are, but it's a private road. I'm I'm trying to find a way to make this work. >> What if we did a rebar? >> Something something less intrusive like rebar.
>> If you used a rebar, they could find it with >> GPS and a metal detector. So, it would never be lost. It just wouldn't be something you could trip over. >> But the large big bounds would be at the property corner. >> Mean the 4 in bounds bounds. >> Yeah.
>> Um >> they're not they're not they're large, but >> they're bigger than a rebar. >> Most of the cost is in the engineer taking the time to with surveyors and all that. Anyway, so all right. Look, I I'm not going to belabor it. Um if the board does wants to wave it, they can
wave it. And if they don't rebar is fine. >> It really isn't fine. Rebar is not fine. Um rebar is easily moved. It's easily lost even with a metal detector. Stone bounds are the only right way to do it. But if the board in its wisdom believes it's it should be waved, we should wave
it. >> So the request is to wave it only as to the points of tangency and points of curvature, not for the property line boundaries. Yes. >> That's right. All right. I mean, couldn't they make a notation, Tony, that it's x amount of feet east or west
or north or south of a >> Well, when corner bound >> if we wave it and they put in those metal bounds, that's all going to be on an asbuilt plant. >> Theoretically, that works and theoretically we could go along with that.
>> So, a surveyor would likely go out and stake out or have the the data, right, electronically. He'd be able to go to all those points anyway and find them. One last question. When you use a metal bound, there are galvanized pipes. Is that what you're going to use? Or are
you going to use a number five steel rod that rusts away after a while? >> That's that's um So, we could we could figure out what would work the best. I think it was just using something other than a concrete bound is the way I saw it. What I'd want the board to know is
that one lasts very long time and another one disappears like a number five rerod or something of that nature. So that's something that the board should understand. >> It would likely be a survey for survey purposes, not like a just a piece of
rebar that would be used for construction here. That's all. >> Great. All right. So let's continue with the waiverss. We did that one. That was 14. Uh 18. Um
code requires sunrise of in center lines of inter intersecting streets be a minimum of 300 ft. You guys are 200. Um I have no problem with that wave of myself. >> Does anybody else?
>> No. No. >> All right. 19. Um, that's the vertical curves. Once again, I have no problem with it. I don't know if anyone else does up here or if anyone wants to talk to the peer
reviewers here too about any of these. >> I have no problem. >> I didn't I did I didn't realize that. I would love to have heard what he had to say on these metal bounds. >> There you go. >> Come on up, Dan. >> All right. Uh again Dan Gagy Beals and
Thomas and I'll get the peer review on this project. Um on the bounds situation I do agree that uh concrete or uh granite bounds typically last longer. Um when surveyors go out the bounds at the PC and PT
points cured tanger that's what they're looking for to lay out the get their alignment on the roadway. Um, when it comes to cost factors, it's considerably more to install a bound. You have to have a piece of equipment out there typically to
excavate to to install it as opposed to a piece of pipe or rebar where they can just drive it in by hand into the ground. And it gives them the ability to kind of adjust it as they go in. Um, do when it comes to longevity, I mean, the 5/8 inch piece of number
five rebar, 58 inch piece of rebar that sticks around for quite a while. Um, you could ask that they go with a bigger piece of rebar. They could go with, you know, a number eight piece of rebar, which is a one inch diameter. And that that would stick around for probably 100 years
>> to a depth of >> um typical st uh survey depth is about 3 feet on those so that they're not impacted by frost. >> Yep, >> that sounds like a plan. >> Yeah, sounds good. >> Yeah.
>> All right, then on. Let's see. We're working through a few of these and we came to the um the vertical site distance requirement. Um >> so this part of an analysis they was not included in their um initial design. Um
it has to do with particularly when you're going over a vertical curve and when you're coming up if you can see over it the distance to a vehicle coming at you. Um the town has some requirements on how long that curve is supposed to be. That's addressed in uh I
believe actually the next comment. And when you hit that minimum length, that vertical cur that uh site distance that I just mentioned is less of an issue. So if they're able to extend that vertical curve I mentioned, um the site distance
will kind of uh will meet that requirement for the town. >> Carol, are you good with that? I think we had discussed doing that. So we plan to make 100 foot. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's in regards to the the
the crest curves. The serve the sorry sag curves is not an issue. Okay. Great. Thanks. All right. So I'm up to 23 um pies easements
residential lots. The water main easement is not shown on the subdivision plan. What? Oh, easements for the drainage utilities on residential lots. You want them on the plan. >> So,
um, this here is the site plan, the piece of plan that gets recorded, the subdivision plan. That's where I'm I'm hoping that they can show the easements. Now, there's individual drainage easements that have to run through the lots that needs to be shown. Also with the um the water man, they indicated that they're going to have an easement
over the entire roadway. I'd like that to be uh notated on the um subdivision plan that is recorded. >> Okay. >> Will these easements all run in favor of the homeowners association then? >> So the drainage will be to the homeowners association. The water um
that'll go to the town. >> Town, right? Okay. Thank you. >> And then we did 29. That was your question. 29 which has been answered. That's the dry set boulder. >> Yep. >> Okay. So 32 drainage piping
the drainage easement for the piping on lots one and two. That's the easement too. Probably that's the same thing. Okay. Um 34. Vehicle parking on the roadway may impact emergency vehicle access. We
request that the applicant document emergency vehicles will have adequate access and provide fire truck sweep path. >> Yeah, usually we do have that. >> Yeah. So, part of what the applicant provided was they show that swept path.
Now, the swept path does show that on the interior part of the island here that the the emergency vehicles will need to be right up against that curb line. So, I would recommend that there's um no parking signage around the island there. Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> And 36. >> So, sorry to interrupt, but was so Mark, was your intent that the geo grid go essentially following the path of >> before or after each driveway? following
essentially the curve of the driveway, >> the the main driveway, >> like following the roadway so that people can park. >> Yeah. I mean, and have it butt right to the driveway so they can incorporate it whether it be the before or after.
>> I think you should draw it. So, how far to the property line or from or a certain distance? >> Oh, it comes 27 ft. I mean, that's ample enough to get a car in, >> right? >> You know, an extra car in and out. It's not that difficult. It's >> draw it on your sheet. Draw it on mine.
I would draw them so that we're all >> Is there any supportable data to >> I think I understand what you know how to lay it out. >> I know what you want. Yeah. Exactly. I mean, it's better that he draws it than me. I left my crayons at home. >> There you go. >> With the pencil family. Yeah, that's
right. >> All right. >> And um where are we? Stonewall. Relocation of the existing stone wall. What >> number you on? 36. 6. >> This is something we fought for was these pillars. >> Yeah. And we want to thank you. >> Yes.
>> For that. And so does the whole neighborhood of the whole town cuz it's it's >> But we want our stone walls. >> Yeah. It's beautiful. So, I'll I'll go over what um Dan was talking about here. I can get this.
>> And I mean, talk about a sense of place, you know, driving through that to get home every night or three. >> Looks nice. >> It looks nice. get on. I think I can do it from here. >> So, the the question I think Dan's
comment was related to this side of the wall. There's uh the grade starts to drop off if you can see my cursor. >> Yeah. >> As you get about halfway down the wall. So what we would propose is instead of to do that we would have to fill in this
entire area. So this what we would propose is uh to shorten the the new wall on this side to just match to the grade before it drops off into this. I can't find the grading plan or else I would show you there. See if
>> it's about 4T >> if Yeah. So the wall is currently um it would be 20 feet from the start of the wall to where it would end. So it would be a 20 foot section of wall that would be replaced. >> That mean the
>> I don't I don't understand. Madam >> Ch. >> We're talking about the right side of the uh roadway. Is that the wall side we're talking about? >> We're talking about the the west side. >> I don't have my compass out.
>> Wild Harbor Road. Left hand side plan left >> left hand side of the plan. >> Yep. >> And what do you want to do with that? >> So where So how is the wall shown here now? So it would end at about that bound. See the this marker here. >> The wall would end there.
>> Show me where >> if you can see my cursor right here. >> So it would come line >> going down towards Benjamin I >> by those shrubs. >> Oh, I see. >> Yeah, that's all. It would just be shorter than what's shown on our plan. So you'd have to revise the plans to show that.
>> Yes, would do that as part of Yep. >> It's easy. >> Good. And then we have the natural resource mass wildlife or just condition. >> We have to do correct. Yeah, >> just a condition.
>> Um and we're up to 43. We're into water. 43 is um we just have to um show the extent of thea the concrete encasing. That's just a minor change to the plan.
>> Okay. >> Anything else on here? Anybody has do I have any other ones? >> No. >> We're in pretty good shape, huh? And then 57 um >> 57 >> is related to adding some statements
related to um elicit discharge. >> Um that's straightforward. The I think the rest of them one of them's related to the construction general permit number 65. >> Right. >> So that would be we have to do that as part of construction. Um
and then the rest of them I think are just specific to erosion control. Some notes related to erosion control. >> Yeah, I believe that takes care of the rest of the comments. >> Can I ask a question?
>> Yeah, go ahead. How? because I am a little confused with regard to what Attorney Kirk brings up in his March 6 letter
as it regards um uh the economic impact statement uh and the case law Gregory Reynolds versus EB of Stone Mass of 2015. What am I uh I'd like to I would like if
it's okay, Madam Chair, can we give you comment on that? >> Yeah, definitely. >> So, he's written that letter dated March 6th. He uh is included some case law Gregory Reynolds versus EB of Storm Mass 2015
as it regards um complying with section 30514 via waiver request. >> All right. May I uh distribute a copy of that case in a little more legible format? >> Yeah. >> You would take one and pass it down
>> slightly. This is printed by Weslaw. I think it's an official document. Uh this is the case of Gregory Reynolds versus the Zoning Board of Appeals of Stowe. It's a 2015 case. And what I will say about the case basically is it's not this case.
>> Absolutely not. >> They're not the same. They are distinguishable. And if you would turn to I think it's about four pages in I've highlighted some language there which I will read and you you'll see how
these cases are different because the judge in this case made different findings. He says with regard to the proposed waste disposal system on the other hand the plaintiff does more than simply point at the fact that the proposed development violates the bylaw.
He has presented evidence to support the judge's finding that as designed and approved, it is more likely than not that the project will cause excessive nitrogen levels at the plaintiff's neighbors well. That's an express
finding that was made in that case. And it goes on, the judge's finding that the system would contaminate the groundwater such that unacceptable levels of nitrogen would reach in a butter's well demonstrates that compliance with the state standards,
which Sea Hick contends are applicable and the judge found to be applicable, are insufficient to protect the groundwater from being contaminated by the proposed project. Those are facts in that case that are
not present here. What we have demonstrated is this well is 300 ft from where the effluent of our system starts 200 feet from where it passes to the
south of Mr. Lintner's property. there is no evidence that it is more likely than not that his well is going to be affected and then we have the issue which is also raised in this case about whether there
are alternative means of water supply and I hopefully we're working in the right direction on that issue but it's not dispositive. >> May I comment on that? >> At the moment there are we're Yes, I agree. We're hoping that everybody's
going to work together on this, but as our zoning administrator pointed out, our government may not cooperate. We don't know that yet. So, we currently don't have any alternative means uh to supply water in case there is uh
contamination. And I recognize that D says you got to be 100 feet or more. I get all of that. And not that I ever agree with D in most cases, but um I don't think he has an alternative
water supply at this point. He may in the future, which makes it even more important that you folks push as hard as you can to work with the town through these grants because he has no alternative and
there's no guarantee of an alternative. So >> I I hear you and we're certainly willing to agree to that as a condition that we do pursue that or help the town pursue it. Certainly we will do that. >> Yeah. I don't want to see somebody uh
if possible, who knows what people will do these days, file an appeal that's going to hold this project up for the next two years trying to get through superior court just because of this. if they could prove these things to be true, which is on their in their
responsibility to do if I'm correct to show that there are facts that could contaminate their will. Am I correct? >> Yeah. The burden of proof would certainly be there and it was met in this case, but it's not being met in our case. >> Gotcha. I understand that we have no
study presented to this board showing that there is a problem right now. It's just a speculative problem. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes, exactly. It's more than that >> that the state standards are for title five which is 19 millig and this system
is going to be below 10 potentially five. So um it's just >> much safer and much less likely >> and and and and those standards are also set for baby drinking water. I mean it's
>> it's highly unlikely that I almost choose impossible. >> Unfortunately, neither one of us will be the judge of that end. So, we'll see. >> Thank you. You're certainly welcome. >> Thank you. >> Anything anybody else up up here has or
any questions? >> Um, me to look at my questions. >> I do have one question while Mr. Petruchi is looking. Uh, do you plan a sign or some such at the intersection
with Benjamin Nye? >> We generally put up a sign to acknowledge our supporters. No, I mean like permanent, not during construction, but some type of >> The reason why I'm asking is because I noticed that you're provoke pro
providing lighting at the male kiosk, but I was interested in something at Benjamin Nye so that people can actually if there's some illumination to see where to turn. >> Yeah, it's a good idea. >> You know, I can check with the town as
well. I'm not certain whether they would install a light or whether they would anticipate that you would. I'm not sure. >> I mean, it's technically it's a private road. Um, does it require a stop? I think it's a good idea to have a sign in. >> I mean, they have requested a stop sign,
I think, for people leaving, but I'm thinking having that illumination so that you know where to turn is helpful. >> It's a good idea. >> I think it's a good idea. Yes. question. It might be for Joe >> on that little pulloff area by the
mailbox. What's going to be the ground? Are you going to use those pavers that Mark was talking about? Those might work well there. >> Why not? >> I think we show it as uh asphalt right now. >> It's part of the regular pavement asphalt. >> I just didn't know if it would affect
the wetlands. And if you use that pvious stuff that Mark was talking about, it might work best also. >> Yeah. I mean, we just uh it'll just be continuous with the >> we've accounted for it in our drainage calculations. >> All right. Anybody else have any f uh
further questions up here before we go to the public? >> What they say? >> Anybody from the public want to come on up? Just name your need your name and address, please. My name is Fred Keller. I'm at 44
Benjamin Ny Lane right next to the driveway. And I just had a question. Um I'm sure it's on here somewhere, but I don't see it. Is how's the power going to be run into this development? >> Joe, do you want to answer that one?
the ground. >> Where does the power come? >> So, we're proposing from the I guess down here towards Cameron Drive. Believe there's a utility pole >> would have to be run from >> Yeah.
My only thought on that is a selfish one. I'll have wires running across the front of my property. And similar to the water situation, there's three-phase power on Wild Harbor Road. And I wondered if there was any
consideration given to bringing it in from there. >> So I I think we would run underground. >> Yeah. Run it underground. So that question. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Anybody else want to come up and take a
stab? Jeff Lner 72 Benjamin Ny Lane. I would add Mr. Vinderin that I am not passing anything out today. You commented on that before, but I got something out to you on the 6th >> and um I hope that that was helpful. I
appreciate Mr. Petruchi's comments about this. There's been a lot of debate on this. You guys work are working really hard to move this project forward. And I I'm looking at what we're trying
what I'm trying to solve here. And I think I can actually make this thing work. What do I press? I don't see it on the Use the mouse. that comes out. >> So, which one are you looking for?
>> Just the one >> the one that's that's yours or their mount? >> No, the one that I I had. >> You put it up here on the >> Yep. >> There it is. Okay. Okay. So this is really the crux of the
issue. >> Thanks Ashley. >> And we've heard some discussion today about uh the impact of nitrogen esteemed council. I'm you know I I apologize that my council is not here today. Uh he would be more effective
than I am about discussing some of the spec specifics of that case. What's talked about in that case is nitrogen, but there's other facets of that case that that relate to this and it has to do with the impact of
downstream users, which I think I may or may not be. You know, I we have stated in the materials that came out to you, I'm not looking to hold up this project. I'm concerned about my water and
I think that we're talking about a 4,000galon per day here. And the real issue is does it flow this way or does it flow that way? Now, there's a way to find out which way the groundwater actually flows
and that is to do well testing. I've talked about that before. This is not an expensive particularly ask. We have requested, as it says in the writing that you all got, we have requested uh to Habitat politely that they engage a
$7,000 plus or minus dollar test which will determine which way the water flows. And I know Mr. Fineran, you've you've said we know which way it goes. There is no certainty because there have
been no recent measurements in this area that determine the actual water flow. And if we do the testing, we'll know if it goes a little bit to the right. We're talking vagaries 5 degrees, 10
degrees, it's not a lot. If it goes to the right, it impacts me. Now, we've heard about um one of the things we've heard about is the the fact that we're talking about a Nitra system. You're a big fan of that. Uh I paid
attention. I've done some research on that since the last meeting. Nitrx does a fabulous job at nitrogen. It's supposed to. What it doesn't do is deal with metals and salts. It's not designed to remove most other inorganic chemicals
like heavy metals, arsenic, etc. All of those are components of what the state looks at municipal water supply quality. So the question is unless you're dealing or treating those inorganic chemicals,
would that stream there qualify as municipal drinking water? I think the answer is probably not. We don't know. You know, I'm not opposed to the nitrix system. Uh but the issue of whether it's
100 feet or 200 feet is not relevant when it comes to the inorganic chemicals. So my question and it's it's posed in the writing is that there either be an
environmental study or at least a test. Have you tested your well yet? >> I do test it >> and it's clean. >> It's clean. >> The in reviewing this materials that Mr.
Kirk submitted, um, and I think Mr. Brody kind of concurred with that. It appears that it's your responsibility to provide us with information that there will be a problem, not just conjecture that there's going to be a problem and you
haven't done it. You've been putting the trying to put the onus of doing this testing either on the applicant or on this board. And the way I read that case, it's your problem to it's your requirement to provide us with the
information, not us to go out and seek it. If there was an environmental study that is usually required as a part of this approval process, it should address that. And I would not be responsible for the environmental study. It's far
cheaper, I believe, for the applicant to do the testing. And if we do the testing then we'll know the direction of the flow. >> Okay. >> The requirements that I understand and it's in his letter for environmental testing they will the ini individual or
collective sewage disposal systems endanger in the foreseeable future wells for portable water of dwellings either within or without the proposed subdivision. That's very clear as I read it. I I I
could be wrong. Well, I I'm looking at it where it says the abuter, which is you, presents evidence to support the finding that it is more likely than not that the development would cause excessive nitrogen levels at the wells of the abutters. >> I think you're referring to the case.
I'm referring to >> I know, but there's a difference. I I understand that. >> Yeah. >> But they're asking for a waiver of doing the environmental impact study. And um you know unless we have some information that suggests that one is absolutely
necessary, we have the authority to wave it, but that's up to the board to decide. Okay. >> Or far cheaper than that study is doing the test. >> It's also a possibility. I I you know I'm I'm a pretty simple guy on
this. It's I look at this and I don't know what my alternative is. I've asked people to go out and uh since the last meeting because I think there was some comment that the water department might be really interested in making connection. I cannot state this but I don't and I I
can't ask you if you can have the water department here at a subsequent meeting saying this is a high priority but what I've heard I I can't validate this. What I've heard is the water department has other priorities and making this connection is not their
priority. I would be thrilled if someone said that it was. >> I think that's an understatement. I I know for a fact that it's it's on their wish list. So to uh that and pave the road. So to say that they
don't have any intention of doing it is it's would be incorrect. And we've had correspondence from the uh water department and and I know you've spoken with him as well >> as I know you've spoken with the health agent and I mean he told you basically
the same thing that I've told you and I also asked around people that I knew you uh do they know of any instance where these groundwater flow maps were proven to be wrong and no one could cite a fun
to me and and then we well we have we have state law to fall back on and and it's 100 ft with a title five and I mean you're talking about something that's going to put a quarter of what a title five is in there. I mean
>> go back to what Frank said it really is your your your burden. >> Um can I go ahead? >> You know I I truly empathize Mr. Lner
because any one of us who are not in control of the environment that which makes these things happen in this case it's government. Mr. Federan I agree with him that the
town is showing interest in doing this because it's the right thing to do $420,000. I think that we've tried to advance that interest by having the applicant work if we do approve this and put it in the conditions work with
the town for that grant which I think advances that possibility even more because the town will do more about getting there faster than being whipsawed around by a finance committee or or a or a select board or somebody
else that needs money someplace else. The issue is to try and now is to try and focus the town using a grant potential into doing this sooner rather than later or not at all because they need it someplace else. And that's what we
really need to focus is to get that waterline in if we can. And I think if we can get into our if we approve this into the decision that they will work, they've agreed to do that. I'm not sure of the language. which I don't want to get our zoning administrator upset, but
that will focus the town to do it if there's more money to go towards it versus coming out of the treasury in town. I think the town will eventually do it. It's a matter of when so that you have access to water and you don't have to worry about your well system other
than to water the lawn someday. You know, I'm just saying I I don't know what else we can do at this point in time. with Yeah, I've listened to the comments that you've made in a number of areas. So,
you've spent a lot of time worrying about the wall and that's probably going to cost 30 $40,000 to move. Uh you just took 20,000 off that they didn't have to do sidewalks. I'm suggesting that a $7,000
study that tells us which way the groundwater flows makes me not worry. If it goes that way, I'm fine. I'm fine. It's not a lot of money. It's a very
simple ask. The alternative is to really push on doing an environmental study, which costs a lot more. This is this is not much money. Anybody else have any comments up here? >> It's not within our power
>> as I see it. >> How do you see it, Norin? It's >> Well, I think the problem that you have here is that the state and the town's board of health has and engineering has repeated the same information where they say
This is the distance that we require somebody be from a well. And so if every time somebody comes along and they say, "Well, I'm only, you know, 10 ft more or 20t more." You know, at what point in time are you going to apply these
standards? And I think, you know, your department professionals have told you that it's not required, that it's not within the state law. And 40B is a state permit that you issue locally. So you are to apply the state standards and the
state has provided those to you. >> So even if it was flowing directly >> at its correct not over >> correct >> you'd be going right into it still only 100 ft away. >> Doesn't change.
and you've had prior 40bs where they have put in standard title fives explaining to you that an IIA system was too expensive. Here you have a developer who's telling you they're going to put in an IIA system. So they're going to give you the
top of the line what you can get for nitrogen removal. >> I would assert there's not much more you can do. >> Marina, I'm not worried about nitrogen. I I acknowledge that. not the least bit worried about that. It's an excellent
system if it's maintained well. I'm worried about the inorganic chemicals. I'm worried about everything else. And there is there is factual data that says these chemicals travel and they're not acceptable for municipal water
systems. So why should I, as a private citizen with a well be treated differently? I think what the state law is saying is you're beyond the scope of this applicant's responsibility and that while everybody understands
your concern, it's not a town mandate and where you're beyond that. We're asking for someone to essentially do testing that a private developer would never have to do because
there's no mandate for it. and also speculating that these things are going to be introduced >> into the water in the first place. >> I don't know too many people that are out there baking with arsenic. >> I'd be happy to share with you the the
lengthy list of chemicals that's in there. Sir, >> you know what would happen if we gave this to you? The whole town would be coming back and we'd be >> would be inundated with these things. I mean, you know, the state sets the standards.
We don't. Great. >> The the better has the right to be concerned. >> I understand. >> Absolutely. The right to be concerned. And and but it is what can we do one way or the other. Um
I I I'd have to think about it a little bit more. I really have to think about please because we're talking a $7,000 test. That's it. That's not a big ask. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else want to come up to the
podium? >> Mr. Foreman, you wrote us a wonderful letter. Would you like to >> take to the podium? >> All right. Um, can I give you this as well? >> Sure. >> This is basically what I sent to you. >> Thank you. >> Um,
>> yeah. So, my name is Ken Foreman. Uh, I live at Ciphisset Road, 108 Sipissit Road, and I'm here to advocate in favor of you guys closing this hearing and moving forward with the decision. Um
I I speak on as I said on behalf of the 300 committee which of course uh purchased made the agreement to purchase the 56 acres of which se uh seven of those acres have been set aside for uh
affordable housing development. And I would just like to acknowledge that we couldn't have made that purchase without the support of habitat. And we felt you know often uh conser land conservation organizations
uh are criticized because we are taking open space and preventing development uh of much needed housing and there certainly is a housing crisis uh not just here in Felmouth but everywhere in the country today. So
that's a reasonable concern. So, we felt um this was a a great uh synergy. We could get some muchneeded affordable housing and the contribution of funds to help us acquire the parcel uh enabled us
also to conserve 48 of those acres. Um, in looking at what Habitat proposed, I you know, and let me add that, as many of you know, I served on the zoning board of appeals for more than a decade, uh, several years as chair.
I saw lots of 40bs and it was a, as I'm sure you're beginning to appreciate, a painful experience uh because we did not have safe harbor and we were forced to allow all kinds of
projects that were overly dense that uh where during development they cleared lot line to lot line, no buffers, no attention to uh proper wastewater treatment. uh and for that uh they would set aside
25% of the homes as affordable. Uh the example that I gave you was one of the more egregious ones in my opinion. Uh it was uh about five acres on which they put 28 units cheek to jowlel. those
units um market rates I believe sold for average price of between $800,000 and $900,000 a piece 20 so 21 units at that price and then uh seven units uh went for $243,000.
Clearly those developers made out very well. uh the uh and that was just typical of what we would experience. So I certainly hope
you prevail in your efforts to preserve safe harbor status uh for Falmouth and I think this project is the type of project that will help you get there. It's 100% affordable. It's providing the kind of single family homes that
families can really enjoy. Uh the density here is two units per uh acre. The density on Kendall's uh lane is 5.6 units per acre just for contrast. Uh
so uh you know they've they've as as you all know uh they've increased the buffer to accommodate uh the the desires of the neighbors. Uh I believe they're over 40t from the you know limit of work over 40t from the lot
line uh to the nearest homes. Um, so I believe this board should be very supportive of this project and certainly there are always concerns by the abutters and I think Habitat's made a
strong effort to address those concerns and the latest uh thing that uh that has been brought up this concern about waterline is certainly a legitimate concern on the part of the abuter.
With 14 more homes in the area, there is certainly a stronger argument for looping that water line. And with the support of Habitat, uh certainly a state grant to support both
improved water quality, but also improved water quality for affordable homes becomes a much more competitive grant. So I think that's another reason why this project merits support and uh I think it's this is what your third hearing is
that correct third third meeting for this project. >> Uh track I I hope that you feel you've gathered enough information. When I'm listening, what I
hear is that Habitat is willing to meet your uh demands with respect to dropping some of their waiverss requests and to work with you to resolve this project. And I think you probably have enough information that you could close the
hearing, write up your decision, and and and they would comply. and you're not going to have an appeal from them uh to hack, which is what we always feared as a board. And when whenever that happened, we lost. So
uh that's my that's what I would have to say in favor of this project. >> Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come to the podium? >> Anybody else have any further questions up here? >> No. >> No.
You all set? >> I would make a motion that we close. >> We close. Are you all set to close? >> Yeah, >> I believe we are. >> We're all set up here, right? >> Yeah. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close.
Any further discussion? All those in favor of closing? >> I >> opposed. None. >> All right. That was you, >> right? No, no, it's you this one, right? Sorry, I should have pointed that out ahead of time. >> So, we'll close. Um,
we'll do a draft. Have you picked a date for this one? >> Uh, we would be looking at reviewing a draft on April 16. So, you'll prepare a draft for us for the sixth. You said sixth. >> Uh, 16.
>> 16. Okay. >> Okay. So, you'll do a draft and we'll come in on the 16th and go through it. >> Yes. All right. >> You need a motion for that? >> Yes. Again, >> I make a motion we authorize the zoning administrator to prepare an affirmative
draft for our review on April 16th. >> Second that. >> We have a motion and a second. >> I'll set everybody on that. >> All those in favor? >> I round in the third. >> Thank you all for your time tonight.
>> Yeah. >> So, you guys are the rest of the Okay. You want to take a brief, >> Madam Chair? Madam Chair, brief recess. >> Okay, >> we're going to take a two-minute recess. zoning board of appeals. Next up, we
have 071 Fashion Food LLC. It's a continuation. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for that. You've saved the best for last. um especially because a couple of you are alternatives, I just wanted to thank you for being here. We can't do this
without you and uh obviously in a case like this, you play an awfully important role. Um for your record, I'm Bob Amed. I represent Fashion Foods LLC. The same representatives you've uh seen
before are here. Usama Elari and Terry Um, Smiley and um Josh and Raul Raul Lazardi Rivera from Capen Islands Engineering is here to answer
any questions you have about the site plan issues. I'd like to review the materials we filed before the snowed out hearing. There was a lot of information and I hope you were able to carefully consider it.
You received the planning board site plan review and special permit decisions. The planning board unanimously found that all issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of the town engineer, including drainage
and grading issues. They found that proposed lighting and landscaping met town requirements, that there was no issue with the applicant's traffic report, and that the proposed use will not adversely affect traffic flow or safety. The planning board considered the same
special permit criteria that you will and unanimously found the site adequate in size and suitable for the proposed use. They found that there'll be no adverse effect on views and vistas and so on. I noted in my correspondence that the
traffic expert engaged by the ZBA at the applicant's expense of over $11,000 agreed that the applicant's report was properly prepared, that the site distances from the curb
cuts were sufficient for safe operation, that impacts with to traffic operations would be minor. The peer reviewer went on to suggest a number of intersection and traffic calming improvements, all of which the applicant has agreed
to. The improvements, and I won't list them all unless you wish me to. We've given you a list of them. I have a list to show you later. They're predicted by the traffic experts to enhance pedestrian and motorist
safety. The peer reviewer, Jeffrey Durk, that is the ZBA's expert, told the board on January 8th that, and I quote, there's not a large increase in new traffic, that the site is laid out very
well, that the site is able to process the circulation. We addressed the auto body shop of Butter's concern about parking near his building. The planning board is requiring Wendy's to install Ballards
every 54 in 4 and 1/2 ft on center along that building. We've addressed concerns about car headlights and blown trash by agreeing to install stockade fencing along the east property line.
And through correspondence from Kabosa Disposal, we've clearly addressed concerns about the proposed dumpsters and trash pickups. And I note that there are not one but two sets of dumpsters at Little Pond Place, and each of them are
much closer, about 40 ft from their residential buildings compared to uh the location for the proposed Wendy's dumpsters. Kavosa explained why trash collection for the fast food restaurant will not
have adverse impacts. He pointed out that there aren't glass bottles, for instance, at restaurants that make a lot of noise. Um, he said that a restaurant like this doesn't have fresh fish, which is a real problem for restaurants and
fish stores creating odors. He doesn't think, and he's the most experienced person in town, I'm sure, that there'll be any problem with the trash pickup. We've confirmed by testing at another Wendy's location that the order speaker
will not be heard at the property line distance, and we've offered a condition requiring that. We submitted the Felmouth Health Agents memo saying there is no record of complaints about odors from McDonald's or Burger King in
Felmouth. And I note that the new Wendy's by Fashion Foods in Hyannis has now been open for about a month. They have installed this captive air filtration system that we're proposing to install. And there is, according to
my client, no odor whatsoever outside the building. Um, in Hyannis, we submitted a letter from the Barnstable Director of Public Health, who has regulated the applicants Hyannis
restaurant for 40 years. and he says that the Wendy's there has consistently received high marks in unannounced inspections that director Mr. McKeen of Barnstable wrote that Wendy's will add value in
Felmouth. He's one of a number of uh recommendations, his is one of a number of recommendations we've submitted attesting to the character of the applicant company and their contributions to the communities they serve. Last week, we submitted a supplemental
memo from Randy Hart, our traffic expert. He summarized the traffic issues, reiterating the numerous safety enhancements agreed to, and he compared the traffic to be generated by the proposed Wendy's to several byight uses,
each a redevelopment of the existing paved lot that would not require any special permit. The alternative byite developments would generate at least three times the amount of traffic that would be generated by
this Wendy's in the summer weekday mornings and Saturday peak hours and at least 30% more traffic in the weekday evening uh peak hours. Again, we're talking the peak conditions in the summer.
I submitted case law to you. One decision of our Supreme Judicial Court, another a decision of the appeals court holding that absent credible evidence, it would be improper for a zoning board of appeals to disregard testimony from
traffic experts. And here we have the applicant's traffic expert and the peerre traffic expert that you've hired in the 2012 WBurn case. I submitted. The applicant proposed a convenience store and a self-s served gas station at a
difficult intersection. The applicant's traffic consultant said that with proposed mitigation from the project, the accident rate at the intersection would be lowered. We think the same is true in this case. A peer review
peer reviewer hired by the town in that case agreed with the applicant's expert and the appeals court upheld the land court judgment that it was improper for the special permit granting authority to make a decision directly at odds with
the experts. In the case that reached the SJC concerning a proposed office building, a large building in an area where there were already traffic problems, the applicant presented a traffic study that said the proposed building would not
adversely affect traffic. The Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application based on concern about traffic, substituting its judgment for the expert. The court noted that other development had been allowed that generated even more traffic and on that
basis reversed the ZBA decision. That's relevant to our case because our zoning bylaw allows various redevelopment of the property by right that would substantially gen generate substantially more traffic.
Now, to repeat, the plans for the proposed Wendy's have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the town engineer and by the town's professional planners. The planning board unanimously issued favorable site plan review with
conditions and its own special permit decision making the requisite findings and determinations. They did so unanimously. The traffic expert engaged by the ZBA agreed with the applicant's expert that traffic impacts will be minor and the
applicant agrees to make the many improvements recommended to make the intersection safer. Passion Foods has a very long more than 40 years in Hyannis, very long, very
respectable, very successful record of operating its Wendy's restaurants on Cape Cod. They respectfully request that you give them the opportunity to establish their restaurant in Felmouth. They're committed to satisfying every condition
they've agreed to and to being of value to our community. Now, to grant the special permit, the ZBA needs to determine that the use will not have adverse effects that overbalance its beneficial effects on
the neighborhood or the town. In view of the particular characteristics of the site, the determination must be made based on credible evidence presented to the board. The zoning bylaw directs the board to consider 11 decision criteria
and I've listed them somewhere. >> Would you also state the section of the bylaw too? >> I'm sorry. >> Would you just state? This is going to be a question I'm going to have to. would you state the section of the bylaw you're you're referring to such as 13.1.
>> It's such a new bylaw now. Um I have the zoning bylaw and I can do that but let me just list these and then I'll get to that. Thanks. And so these are the criteria that are listed
in the zoning bylaw. the size of the site. We have almost an acre, 41,000 square feet that exceeds the required lot size in the B2 district. Our lot coverage is
less than 70% that's allowed by right. Our building lot coverage is 5.8%. 40% is allowed by right. There's adequate parking and safe and sufficient uh safe and efficient site design,
including the drive-thru in the queue, and that's been found by the traffic experts. The site's already cleared. It's virtually entirely paved. B2 zone allows the proposed use, and the
corner lot allows for the efficient dispersal of traffic with only minor impacts. It's a better site than Route 28. And the parking in the driveways are over 90 ft away from the nearest residence, the apartments at the um
Little Pond Place built in a light industrial zone under 40 ft. Some increase of traffic will occur like any use, but only minor impacts on traffic operations and improvements to
safety will be substantial. Impact on neighborhood character, views, and vistas. Well, the existing pave lot is not attractive. It's detrimental. The proposed building is very small. We changed the design to give it a gable look, more Cape Cod look. The
architecture is consistent with nearby commercial properties. And this is commercial. There's a auto body shop. um with a lot going on right next door. uh a car dealership near the property,
cappies across the street, the back of the Felmouth Plaza going down Worcester Court, other commercial properties including the very large FW web property which actually though greatly larger is designed somewhat similar to
our building in terms of the uh drainage has been a problem in the past. There is no drainage control on this property that is mostly paved and we will be taking care treating on site 100% of the
drainage off of the impervious surfaces. All the town utilities are available and the intersections improvements are going to all be made at the applicant's expense which benefits the public. And we have agreed that they all need to be made. They all need to be completed
according to the town standards after dealing with the engineering department and the traffic advisory committee. They all have to be done prior to occupancy of of of Wendy's. There'll be no direct impact on the supply of affordable housing, but the
development will increase the tax base. It will create jobs and the restaurant will offer convenient, moderately priced meals, including healthy options. The zoning board of appeals is required to consider the site plan review decision of the planning board. And
you've received a copy. It's a favorable site plan um review. We've also received their special permit as I said and you're supposed to consider compliance with the bylaw. In its site plan review and special permit decision, the board found that the plans satisfy
site design, storm water management, transportation and traffic management, parking and landscaping regulations. The applicant addressed all comments from Butters, the planning board found, and town officials. The board should not improperly deny a
use that's contemplated by the zoning bylaw is allowed by special permit. A development may well have an adverse impact in some respect. But if the adverse impacts do not outweigh the benefits, the special
permit should be allowed. Surely surely the board acknowledges that the owner has a right to have her property developed and that it will be developed for some use which will create
some amount of traffic and some by right uses it will be considerably more traffic. The only impact from the proposed Wendy's that can be considered adverse under the zoning given the B2 zoning and
the neighborhood is some increase in traffic. The experts tell us that will have a minor impact which is less than various other uses allowed by right and without a special permit being
required for such other uses. Many the improvements that are being proposed and have been agreed to might not happen. New traffic trips will occur with any development of that lot.
But the minor adverse impact which is what the experts say is the case from that traffic will be more than offset by benefits. So let me discuss those. So, yes, there'll be additional traffic
like any development, but we're going to make numerous improvements to intersection safety, all paid for by the applicant. And I do have a list to show you, but again, we filed it already.
We're going to control all the storm water runoff and the current paved lot has no drainage control. We're going to landscape the property and have an attractive building and maintain it in an attractive fashion.
And it's going to replace an unattractive paved lot. There's been complaints from the butter Linda Clark for Little Pond Place about trash blowing across the property onto
the apartment property. Um, well, Wendy's didn't cause that, but we're going to stop it because we're going to put up fencing. And that fencing is also for the purpose and primarily for the purpose of blocking headlights. So we proposed along the
easterly property line a 7 foot tall stockate fence. The investment in the in the property will add to the tax base and create jobs. Wendy's will offer residents of the area including those at Little Pon Place and others in walking distance
businesses visitors affordable meals with healthy options. And it's been suggested that the development of the property and lighting the site at night may also help to create a safer intersection. I wanted to mention that just this
afternoon, Linda Clark submitted to the um board of appeals a correspondence. What she submitted was a letter she sent to the planning board on January 20. Why she waited until today to submit it, I
don't know. But that letter included various information which is not correct. Some information which by federal law taken from state indices is not to be used for permitting purposes. And I noted that
>> from a what? taken from a state. What? >> Let me go. >> I I just be explicit. I want >> Yeah, I wasn't I wasn't real clear about that. >> No. >> Um, Linda cited statistics uh about more
accidents than what the Falmouth police in writing told us had occurred in the last year uh from a a database of the um state department of transportation. I think it's dot
right on the site she took it from. It says the information should not be relied on. It's subject to change and may not be accurate and that federal law prohibits its use in federal or state proceedings.
She's aware of that because we made her aware of it. on January uh February 3, I responded to her letter of January 2 to the uh planning board and I'm going to give you a copy of that letter. We were
hoping you'd close the hearing and vote on this case tonight, but she submitted something this afternoon and I want you to know what our response to that was because we submitted a sub uh lengthy response to her letter to the planning board. I don't don't think just like her
letter was was submitted to the zoning board of appeals. So I have eight copies of this letter and >> thanks one more. You've received a number of letters
from people, some of whom live nearby, some of whom live many miles away, but are against fast food. It seems some of what they're telling you is not correct. One lady received said the site
is smaller than the McDonald's or Burger King in Felmouth. In fact, the property 41,000 square feet is just about the same size as the Burger King property, which is a little less than
45,000 square ft. But that property also shares parking with the town tire, town fair tire next door. And the McDonald's property is in fact bigger. It's 1 and 3/4 acre about but if
you look at the map less much less than an acre about half the property is actually used for the restaurant. The other is an area of wooded uh property that extends in a to a narrow um strip
abing that uh ticket school. So are you suggesting that in further applications we don't consider wooded areas as part of the you know >> you can't have it both ways. >> Well I think here we have a property that's entirely paid. We're not taking
down any but a single tree I believe. Right. And the issue was whether the size whether the property was too tight for the proposed use. So, I think that the suggestion that this lot is too small, which is contrary to the experts
opinion that it's a well-laidout plan is just wrong, and I wanted you to be aware of it. You should make your decisions based on credible expert evidence, not that somebody tells you. If somebody tells you, well, the queueing isn't sufficient.
When your own expert says it is, besides the design makes it if it isn't, there's a whole lot more space. You don't have to be worried. You don't have a reason, a credible reason to be worried that the traffic in
a queue for the drive-thru is going to back up onto the street. And we have situations where that occurs and it's a problem. But if you make a decision for this project based on
concerns that don't apply here, you have the concern, but we've addressed them. The site addresses them. The site design addresses them. And you may have perceptions about the proposed use, but the proposed use is an
allowed use by special permit in the in the district. And you may have seen cars backed onto a street. There may be, and there are fast food restaurants that aren't nicely maintained, there are fast food restaurants on
smaller lots. In fact, I believe this is property is the largest lot. Is that not right? Out the seven >> of the of all of the Wendy's restaurants that they have in on Cape Cod. So, I just
urge you to uh make your decision based on what I think is a a terrific plan that we work awfully hard to satisfy. Um the planning board, the town engineer, the traffic expert, and so on. And by
the way, that letter from Linda just submitted today attached and referred to the town engineers report and the uh traffic consultants memorandum which were dated back in early January and
have been way surpassed. And the issues that are raised in there have all been addressed and you have subsequent filings from the um planning board, the town engineer and from your own traffic expert that uh address um address all
the concerns. We're happy to answer your questions. >> Who wants to start off? Do you want to start skull or >> I mean what are we supposed to absorb this now or later or what? I mean >> well I think it's unfair that it was
submitted this afternoon and we obviously have need to submit it too. >> Okay. >> If you think you have enough information to make a decision, >> it's up to you. I'm This one bothers me. I mean, it has
right along. And um >> Can we do anything about it? >> I I don't think so. You know what pushes me the other way is when I consider my reservations now and then I look to
the future with Mr. COD with four and fivetory buildings in the plaza where I've been told that the Roses just sold their property and that's in the Mr. Cod district. Um, at some point and this is stuff that's already done. Um,
I I I I just see the whole area as overburdened and this just adding to it. Um, sorry. And I like Wendy's, don't get me wrong. When I go to Hyannis, I go there. If I pull off the road anywhere,
I'd 10 times rather go to a Wendy's than um anywhere else in the fast food realm. But I just find this to be too much for this spot. >> But your suggestion seems to be against any development of this of this lot
except what do you want? in your in your um you know, your engineer um noted that u a uh convenience mart would be my right here. If it was up to me and my vote, I
wouldn't want a convenience mart there either. I just think this >> Yeah, but you're not basing your >> There comes a certain point when things are filled and I think we've exceeded that point. And I I just
and I don't I don't see with with all the upcoming growth, I don't see this situation getting any better. And that's what put me over. I I >> I live in the in the area. I drive by it
every day. I contemplate this >> almost daily since this application came in front of us. >> I think the only legal the only legal response to that problem would be for the town to take the property and turn it into a into a park.
>> So, I mean that the town could do that. I guess I don't think the town is going to do that. Otherwise, that property is going to be developed and this is a appropriate use that we've really worked hard to minimize the impacts. Yes,
there'll be more traffic. Yes, there'll be somewhat more delay in going through the intersection from Spring Bars Road. That's part of any development that's going to occur. And but the intersection is going to be
safer. the speed radar signs on um Worcester Court your expert said would reduce the speed by 3 to 5 miles. That's a significant reduction in terms of of creating safety. Um
the response to the application cannot be there's too much development in Felmouth and we won't allow this property to be developed. That just isn't lawful. No, actually wasn't my response.
My response is is it's just not it's too much in my mind. And then when I consider what's coming, it's more than too much. I I put lots of thought into this and I
mean I just I don't see it as the right thing. Sorry. I just don't >> uh fundamentally it's been traffic
traffic and public health and safety and um I understand Mark's comments, but for me I'm okay with the project moving forward. I I do think that the applicant has stepped up and mitigated the vast majority of the concerns of not only
this board but other boards. Um it it's hard. the the the town isn't going to be what it used to be. It is going to grow and uh again, as long as the applicant continues to step forward and understand that public health and safety at that
corner is paramount, then I'm okay with the project as proposed. >> I have a couple questions. Has the soil ever been tested under the TA? Um, well, it was done before the early in
the ownership >> of the property. Sure. >> Does a 21E exist? 21E. Does it exist? >> Sharon Mueller, I'm the owner of one Worooster Court. When my husband and I
bought it, uh, there seemed to be past history of a dry cleaner and some pollution there. And so that was mitigated, cleaned up. >> There was a 21E. >> What? >> A 21E.
>> Uh, that I that was before my time. No idea what went on. But before we would buy the property, it had to be cleaned. When we bought it, we put in monitoring wells. Those wells were tested then. They were
clear. They were tested um right before Flurkey had it and then tested when he left. The land is clean. If the board were to place a condition on its uh grant of a special permit that
we have a 21e study done prior to construction, we would do that. I think it's something that anybody about to spend $2 million on uh investing in a property ought to do. And um >> I'm a little surprised it's not part of
the agreement. >> Excuse me. >> I'm a little surprised it wasn't done the beginning. >> Yeah. given the history of this land. >> Um I not sure that the having been told by Sharon that it was already dealt with and the property not having been used
for all these years other than what it's been used for parking. Um that's a to decide to do it when you have your permits and know you can go ahead whatever. Anyway, it hasn't been done but we'll do that if that's of a
concern. Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you. >> No, go ahead. >> 21E is done on commercial properties because of their history, generally speaking, to determine if there is a pollution that needs to be mitigated. We
all know that, any of us that buy commercial property that's been used that way. uh sometimes that mitigation depending on what's in the groundwater makes it difficult and expensive to mitigate whether you cap it so it makes it
impermeable or you remove the soils. So I am a little surprised to hear that 21E was not done on this. Uh so if this board were to approve it and with a condition that 21E be done the question then remains well
and I think I have the answer what so what happens then then of course if you find a contaminant you have to report it to the state D and D is going to direct you to do something that might make it uneconomical which is why I'm a little surprised that it wasn't done at this point in time
simply because monitoring wells exist monitoring wells are put in because something's wrong and something's going to show up someplace and no one tested those monitoring wells uh at this time. I I I'm sorry, but it just surprises me to
hear this right now, but I I apologize, Madam Chair. You were asking questions. It >> it doesn't seem like a decision. >> And where they located in the proper spots? I'm surprised the planning board >> they're located. They're located where an engineer tells them they should be located based on a previous finding of
X, >> but we don't know that that's the case. >> The owner of the property is con confident that she and her husband addressed the issues early in their ownership. If the board feels that it wants to make a condition that uh we get
a uh fresh 21E report, put it in your decision. And the planning board never mentioned soils to you in a dry cleaning >> where a dry cleaner exists >> and the car wash. >> Yeah. >> I'm just surprised. >> We have
we have no credible evidence that there's a that there's a 21e problem on the property >> and we'll and if you want we'll make sure there isn't. >> People don't throw in monitoring wells for nothing. >> On the contrary, if there was an issue
and and Mrs. Mueller has said this to to me earlier. They put in those to make sure there never was a problem that they could check and what she's telling you is there isn't a problem be ahead.
>> And I'm not questioning anybody and what they're saying. But when one states that there's not a problem, it's because somebody took a monitoring well, had an qualified individual test that monitoring well to determine that nothing was in the groundwater.
All I'm saying is I didn't hear anybody say that was done. >> You've raised the issue. We've >> I'm just surprised I'm s I'm surprised the planning board didn't bring this up. >> Yeah. >> Nor the town engineer, by the way. What? I'm surprised the town in general didn't
bring it up. I don't mean to be critical of anybody in g in general. I'm surprised. >> Thank you. My other point um is that your traffic report was before all these opened >> as stated in the most recent
correspondence from um our expert uh filed just a little over a week ago and previously stated and addressed in the original report. It says that all these traffic was taken into account. That is the perspective. >> That's what I was going to say. You
added a percentage in for all these. >> Yes. And it was and the the traffic counts were all done in August. >> Yeah. Which was great. We appreciate the August. Definitely. But I just knew I think Aldi's was the end of October if I'm correct or maybe beginning of November.
>> It it came online a few months later. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then um I just have such a hard time with this intersection. And I know you're going to improve it and it's going to be wonderful now, but it's um you got 20 apartments coming across the street. You are
>> and um >> hundreds coming in the plaza. >> I know. >> And then >> that's all I have. >> Well, Wendy's didn't cause these problems. >> No, they didn't. >> And we're going to make it a safer intersection. >> Yeah. Our decision is for today and it's
also for five and 10 years from now. >> Well, the traffic study does include actually a 5-year projection for the traffic numbers. >> It included the Staples, the the shopping plaza. >> Nobody knows what's going there yet. go
there. >> Um, I believe that was mentioned as one of the projects that the uh town planner reported to the traffic consultant, but I'm can't I don't want to be sure about that. Certainly, if
there are proposed apartments at the mall, those have those weren't taken into account. >> That's I didn't think so. Yeah, that's all I have. Do you have any >> Madam Ch through you? May I ask Administrator qu a couple questions?
uh in the town zoning bylaw. Do we have a definition of what adverse effect is? >> I don't believe so. >> No, we don't. >> Um so on that in the second question I'm going to come back. >> Could you repeat that? I didn't hear that. Do we have there are certain
things as you know better than me you've been doing this a lot longer than me that a ZBA has a lot of leeway in and that is judgment especially where there is not a definition or a bylaw is opaque you have to use one's judgment in order
to come to a conclusion my question to our zoning administrative and I already look it up has the town defined what adverse effect is it has not I verified that with our zoning administrator. So we must even though we
have all of these reports we must use all of that in our judgment to determine what an adverse effect is which is what I I'm going to do. I the rest of the board have to decide what they're going to do. The second thing I have to ask our zoning administrator is
what are the performance requirements that apply to this site um that this board must determine have been met and that would be section would that be section 13 >> 12.1E >> 12 what is where does section 13 come in
performance specific performance standards I know it's I that's why I'm struggling with I thought it came under 13 myself. >> I don't and I apologize for putting you on the spot. I I I just have been struggling with it. While our zoning
administrator considers that, I just want to keep moving on. I am using um 2413 performance requirements and there and so if I'm using that and
if they apply here for the zoning board of appeals to consider and must consider if they're part of our zoning bylaw, my question to you would be have you met every aspect of those performance
requirements under 2413? 13.1 and on. >> Well, that's a loaded question, isn't it? >> No. Oh, I I it is not a loaded question. I It absolutely I couldn't I don't have I don't have the ability to load a question like that. >> Let me say let me say that the planning
board specifically found that we did. That's in their decision. >> But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking the applicant, you're representing them, have you met all the performance requirements in
article 13? It appears, no, I'm not going to even answer I'm not going to answer your question. >> What do you think? >> I have um I have some reservations, some concerns. It's more important. What do you think?
>> At the end of the day, it's what the board thinks. The planning board felt that we did. The only the only area where I think there's a question. And I'll and I'll and I'll I'll say it because I think we could address it if you felt we needed to. But I'd also
point out that you're required to consider these things. consider and your decision needs to be based at the end of the day on that analysis of whether any detriment exceeds the benefits. But the
one item that I think you could say, well, you really haven't shown us how you've collected solar energy um and reduced u energy that way. you know, do we need to add do we need to
add uh solar panels, which some people wouldn't think would be attractive, on top of some of our parking. That is the only area that I think that >> So that you would ask us to wave that. >> Okay.
It's a small project and I think that um >> No, you answered that very quickly. I said you would ask us to wave it, but that's not what the bylaw says. The bylaw says these are the performance standards which this board
must consider. All right. And adhere to can we as a board can we as a board ignore any one of these standards? >> We do it all the time. I think the planning board, which these same
standards applied to, answered that question, unanimously granting a special permit and site plan review. >> And I don't mean >> and and I don't mean to argue with you, but you keep referring to the planning board. They're the planning board. This is the zoning board of appeals.
>> We have to consider what they did. Absolutely. But they they don't direct what we do or how we think or how we should think. So I would Mr. suggest you don't tell us that just because the planning board did it that we should do it.
That's we have bylaws that we have to adhere to. I I I agree with Mr. uh Peterson. I don't have a lot of problems. Our problems are about safety.
Uh you are going to increase the traffic and increased traffic increases safety concerns. because I have to use my judgment by reading the reports. I'm not 100% sure
that what those improvements are going to be will eliminate the safety concerns. That's the problem. The public safety, that's my problem. >> All right. Well, first of all, none of us
can guarantee that the safety problem will be eliminated by making all the improvements that we're proposing. None of us can give a guarantee that there won't be
future accidents. The installation of the flashing beacon appears to have already made a reduction, but it's inadequate sampling. It's only one year of of of study, but we're going to do a lot more than that in terms of safety.
If your concern is with the um board satisfying every every single issue and it boils down because that's the
only one I think is a is of concern. >> So, all right. So, let me just read this to you and you have it right there. It says specifically, "No use shall be permitted," which would be offensive
because of injurious or obnoxious noise. I'm not talking about noise, vibration, smoke, gas, fumes, odors, dust, or other objectionable features or be hazardous to the community due to a potential fire, explosion, or other causes. No per permit shall be granted for any use
which would prove to be injurious to the safety or welfare of the neighborhood where it is proposed to look. It says no it's not it's not a matter of interpretation says it shall not be done. Well, let me point out that whether we have
some amount and it doesn't say how much any amount of solar power or whether we use a a groundwater um to for heating which that can be done if we do any of those things. It doesn't
say how much has to be done. It just says we have to improve the collection of solar energy and improve when we have a situation where there's now I'm not sure whether this applies the word improve makes that
apply or not but let's assume for discussion that it does. Um that has nothing to do with safety >> I agree >> or welfare of the neighborhood does it? No, I >> it's not destructive of property values. >> I've pulled them both together. I agree
with you. I pulled them both together and and I shouldn't have done that. One subject is not the same as the other. >> Okay. So, I think that that that one one item um out of uh 10, I believe it is, maybe it's nine, um
is the only one I think there's a question about. Thank you. >> And if you're prepared, if you're prepared, the board is prepared to approve this project and you want us to show that we're going to do something towards solar energy.
Tell us that one of the nice things about dealing with site plan review and the planning board is it's really a discussion. It's really a discussion. It isn't a public it isn't a hearing per se and it's not an decision that's appealable
until you go get a building permit and so we work together and I like this discussion very much if what it leads to is saying what do you want in order to approve this project if that if we get
to it and you say you know I could approve this but I'm supposed to make sure it satisfies every single one of these items Even though that's that that's a pretty hard, you
know, high level um to satisfy. Let me know if that's it. We'll make it work. Okay. I understand that part what you're saying. I'm I'm only one person on the board. If the board determines that solar energy should be added to comply with this section, then it'll say
so. It'll vote that way. My real concern is the safety aspects of the intersection because of the increased traffic. This board could say, "Well, you know what? No, we're going to deny it." No, we
don't have any safety issues because the town's already made improvements and now we don't have any safety uh issues. And the safety issues go away. You could appeal that. >> No, >> I'm not. >> They don't go away. there. We've acknowledged, didn't I,
that traffic is an issue. There's no question it's a difficult intersection. It's on the It's on a state list of for the area um high accident rate, although again, not in 2025.
>> Actually, it should be plural. It should be intersections, not just that intersection. Each entrance and exit to that place. Um, you just can't show me where this
doesn't exacerbate the situation in the neighborhood. Now you are substituting your judgment for two professionals who say that these are and the town engineer as well as the professional planners of the town who say that the design of
these inter of these curb cuts meets the required sight distances to operate safely and you're suggesting there shouldn't be any curb cuts from this property. Well, this property is going to be developed and there will be curb cuts.
So we would we would do within reason we have to see what we could do to satisfy that concern or if there are others but tell us what it is that um we need to do to win your vote. We
cannot avoid the adverse impact and adverse impact for more traffic. The that's not the standard. The standard is whether the benefits of the project and the most important one of
course is the improvements that'll be made to the intersection which we can't guarantee. They don't eliminate the safety issue, but we've really tried to address it and done everything that your expert has asked us to do uh with regard
to to to that um intersection. >> You all set, Tony? >> I am. Thank you. >> Do you have anything? >> Um I'm new on the board, so I understand. You know, >> go to a buddas if you want. You can
always chime in later if you want. Um like uh I grew up in BMA. I don't love the idea of a Wendy's, but as a board member now and how I have to base my decision, um that shouldn't come into play on my
decision. Um I used to be an engineer, so I lean heavily on these peer reviews from both sides. I don't know how to study traffic. Um I believe that this will be developed
as everything will be you know and um I think the traffic studies and what the applicants agreed to do will be far better than any byite use of this property. Um that's just my opinion
on this and uh that's how I see. So that's all I got. Good. >> All right. Shall I go to the public? You guys ready for that up here? >> Yep. >> Anybody from the public want to come up? >> No.
Great. What shall we do? Any any further questions or I have none. No. Again, I I think that the uh site as it's proposed and what it's
already its ability to uh be developed as is it is what it is. It's the fundamental right of the developer and the owner to do it. Um I I obviously a little bit different than Mark on this, but it's
traffic is traffic. I think that the applicant did as much as they could. Traffic's always been my biggest concern here is public health and safety and they've checked the boxes. Um I really that that was the critical path for me
uh quite honestly in making my decision. >> Do go ahead. >> Do we um I'm not sure if we should have discussion on this now or close first, but I want the applicant to have an opportunity to hear this while
they can. It's all right with you. >> Yeah, go for it. >> If we were to close this with some of these open items and concerns that they wouldn't be able to respond to. Should we consider doing what we do with
40Bs and that is to close and write draft decisions. A draft decision in this matter >> have to draft approval. >> But have to draft approval. But that that in itself
well that that's what I'm my my this is this is a little more complex than someone trying to add an addition onto their house. We have to admit that. All right. Yeah. Uh and we want to get it right. Um I want to make sure that the that these things can be enforced the
way they need to be enforced. So that is madam chair that is my concern that we get the if we do close this which basically either we deny or we approve. If we approve
then we come back with a draft decision to make sure that everything that needs to be in that decision is done. Is that approp I is that appropriate? >> All right. So what I would say to you is if you want a draft, there will not be a
draft produced in favor and in opposition. So a draft would be the board's general intent that they are either in support or not, right? Um
but you don't produce a draft and then sort of like retroactively vote. It's you're you're more >> so >> you're essentially determining >> like Frank just asked for an an affirmative draft. >> So we would have an affirmative
draft if we did u then what happens as often happens with these affirmative drafts we do in 40bs is we go through each one of the conditions and the board says and they vote
and there could be a no vote on that. It could be a year's vote. Um, I just make I just want to make sure the applicant has the opportunity to hear and say everything that needs to be said uh on this situation. I I just want to
I'm concerned about it. I have I am concerned about safety issues. Uh, I want to make sure that if this board approves this, if it does, that everything that's necessary for safety purposes, traffic safety purposes are included in
that decision and very carefully considered. So I guess what I would say to you is you know we have had an unusual circumstance here where this is a small property but we had not only the applicants um very professional traffic
review but then we had our peer traffic review as well. So you had two highly regarded traffic professionals both evaluating the exact same property. >> And I would venture to say that you
couldn't get better advice than you have from those professionals. That's what they do all day every day. And so, you know, if your intent is that you propose a draft affirmative decision where you capture all the
elements that are proposed by the tra the peer traffic engineers to be instituted and you have the applicant offering to do a 21e. I mean, as I glanced through this uh
section 24013, most of these issues, I mean, I didn't read every word verbatim at this point in time, but these are all issues that we have discussed and that have been brought up. Um, you know, and clearly we
have, like I say, you've had a traffic professional tell you what they think needs to happen here. Um, you know, there's obviously potential development in proximate
areas, but you have no idea would that happen months from now, years from now, never. You know, those are all they're possibilities, but there's nothing solid yet, right? So, you can't always plan
for any eventuality. But I could I'm already hearing one board member is not necessarily in favor of that of this uh development. Um I'm not sure I have no clue how that board member will vote.
Um if I and I'm not ready and I don't know if I am going to vote in favor of this thing at this point in time. But in any event, uh I my question was about a draft. Um and um and I and I agree with
you that tra the traffic study experts have provided their opinions. Absolutely agree with that. And that's the way we would have to draft it, I imagine. Uh and we could add in the 21E. We could add in solar energy. I mean,
that's what it says we're supposed to do. Um, all right. I'm satisfi I I'm I'm just rambling on here. I I'm satisfied. I have trouble with the mitigation and
the traffic and the safety. I I struggle. I struggle with I'm coming out of Cappies. I take the right. I have to sit there because now there's a line waiting to go into Wendy's, which was not mentioned by any of the two people. And you can't see if cars are coming
from Napa. I I just struggle. I know there's not going to be death, so that's good. Only be cars smacking. >> I don't think there's going to be death. I don't >> There's going to be pedestrians. >> That that could happen. I I struggle
with this. I struggle big time with this. the safety. >> I don't understand the concern about not seeing cars when the experts have clearly stated that we meet the uh visibility requirements, the sight distance requirements. They
>> from the intersection they did >> no from the driveways. So the entrance they think if you're sitting at Cappies and you look and this car is sitting there queuing up waiting to take the left that's safe.
>> Look all I can tell you is that the >> traffic engineer saying that that the inter that the driveways are designed to be safe. >> Okay. All right. >> And operate safely and the town engineers and professional planners
thought so as well. I mean, it's their opinion matters a whole lot more than mine. >> None of them even thought to ask about a 21E, so I don't know either. You know, some people miss stuff. >> I want to be able to sleep at night. >> All you can
>> I drive up there all the time. >> Um >> I try not to >> I am interested in in Mr. Petruchi's uh thoughts. Um I think the board has options. You know, in some towns the boards direct the applicant to draft a decision and and submit it for the
boards. It makes it easier, I think, for the um for the administrator or the board. >> You're going to draft our decision. >> I said it does happen >> that in some towns that's what's expected. >> It does. >> Well, we have we have a we have very
high quality zoning. >> I'm not I'm not suggesting that. I'm not suggesting we should >> It does happen though. It's legit. >> I'm not suggesting we should do that in this case. I'm just saying that there are various ways to handle >> to get from where you are now to uh to a
closure. You can close >> on Main Street. You can close you could close the hearing tonight and and take a vote on directing uh the administrator to write a decision
uh in favor or not. You can you can close the hearing and do that. I believe you can make that direction without closing the hearing. It would help to focus the issues and you'll still be able to talk about the decision and
you'd give us the opportunity then to also have input if we needed to. Maybe between now and then we'd be able to suggest some solar pan or maybe the client is actually already planning to
do a groundwater pump. But I don't >> bingo. We can we are in the position that we could we could address that. >> Come on up. >> Sahari. I am uh one of the partners for fashion food. Uh 36 years in Cape Cod
operating Wendy's restaurants from Orleans to Hyannes. Yarmouth. We opened I built Yarmouth Mashbby and the second one Hyenas. We opened five weeks ago. >> Was it your wife that wrote something in here? >> Is that >> what's your last name?
>> Elsa Harawi. E L S E. >> It was something I think it was a woman that wrote something in Hyann. Something about Hyannis. >> Yeah. So we traffic or something. >> We've been operating a lot of Wendy's. We just opened a Wendy's and West Main Street in Hyannis across the street from
the high school. uh right across the street and it's been no issues whatsoever. Uh this is week five. Kids walk in the crosswalk, come to this to Wendy's by the lunch after school and they, you know, God willing, we don't
have any issues. So, we've been, you know, we've been operating uh had any accidents, you know, around our restaurants. We are in Orleans uh for 40, you know, 40 years there and we
have a great track record for what we do. We do a great job. We took care of our customers, care of our neighborhood, care of our property and we just opened in Mashbby as well, you know, three years ago in 2022 and we continue to do the same here, you
know. So, we tried to be in Felmus for almost 10 years now. We tried three times and uh this is a you know we've done everything we could to you know to make sure whatever the planning board your board traffic peer reviews
everything we try to do everything to make it work and we are interested to be in town we'd love that's a great town and we'd love to be here so uh whatever we need to do to get this through uh you know we whatever money we spend we can live with whatever with the decision
you're going to make at the end. So, >> may I ask a question? >> Uh, what would you suggest, or maybe your attorney wants to do this, but what would you suggest is the best way for those who have safety concerns for traffic?
How would we overcome that? Because we're really stuck. Well, I am. I can't speak for this. I'm a little stuck little little on the safety issue because I I just went down to that intersection again and I'm no traffic expert as my colleague over here talked
about and I am u that was tough. That was really tough. >> Well, first of all, the >> Sorry, because I want to I I want to get past this if we can. I really do because this is what's really hanging me up. >> The solar we can deal with the 21E we can deal with.
How do we overcome or how no how do I overcome my concerns about traffic study? Your attorney has said well you've got and our zoning administrator has pointed out well you've got experts who said it's really yeah it's going to be increased traffic but
>> these are the things that are going to help overcome that. It's not a perfect solution but it's the start of a solution for me. It's well there's a lot of other things going to go on on that uh in that area and
what happens if somebody is seriously injured because I voted to approve this. I want to know how to overcome this. >> You want to respond? >> I can respond. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> No, you can't do after me. So, you know, we would never stop any accident in the world. You know, there's a lot of accident. My daughter lives in Dubai. There's missiles flying over her head tonight, last night, and she's still there. And I said, "You need to leave."
And she said, "No, I live here. I work here." She was born here in Cape Cod Hospital. She works in Dubai. She's the regional manager for Airbnb for Africa and the Middle East. And she said, "This is my job. This is where I going to be." So, how do I stop this from happening? I
didn't know it's going to happen. You don't know that it's going to be accident going to happen. You had a fire here in Felmos. I was driving and major fire like 12 fire trucks. How do you ever stop a fire from happening? I don't know. So it's uh do we have accident
every day in the street in 28? Sure. Do you have accident here uh in films? Sure. Every night, every day you see Mike actually were coming to the hearing what, five times, six times, you know, three times the road was closed because of accidents. You cannot
stop him. >> No. And I appreciate that, but I >> So I think Sorry. I just say, as I said, you know, I am we have a lot of, you know, restaurants in Cape Cod. We are Cape Cod. It's like actually I'm transplanted. I came from Egypt but uh a
few years back 36 years ago, 37 years ago. But you know, we lived here. My kids went to school here. They played out in the beach. They went to a bicycles, you know, every day and they lived their life. You know, they grow up now 36 years old, 37 years old. So I
just, you know, the intersection improved a lot. You know, before nobody done anything to improve it. So, we're going to put sidewalks. We're going to put crosswalks. We're going to put flashing beacon. We're going to put stop sign with a LED.
We're going to put the uh what's it raider speed raiders, you know, to stop the slow down when the people, you know, everybody slow down when you see the thing flashing you too fast. >> You know, we're putting additional lighting. This parking area is so dark
and so dim that probably that's just create accidents at night. So if I can if >> let me just let me let me just say this m attorney
>> just I think what I just heard >> and is in all these reports is are definitely improvements. Are they enough? That's my concern. Are the improvements to the traffic enough? You're supposed to say to me, well
that's what your experts agree with. If you were to if we were to deny this and you were to appeal it, what would you use to appeal? In other words, that's the part that we have to overcome is what your argument would be in an
appeal to overcome a denial. I mean, how would you overcome the denial? >> And that solves the this solution to our concern. It's usually not a good strategy
before the board of appeals to talk about about appealing. >> That's not what we want to do. >> Yeah. >> I've presented you case law to indicate what the courts will do.
Generally, generally a court will acknowledge the discretion that the local board has. And the court typically,
I I suspect much more often, will deny an appeal than approve an appeal, then overturn a decision. The cases I've submitted are examples where the court said there wasn't any credible evidence
that um was different from what the the experts said. Yes, there'll be more traffic and it will back up a queue longer, but that's not where the accident's likely to
happen. accidents happen at the intersection and there and they probably it will be a safer intersection. I hate the idea that you would feel bad if
somebody got hurt in an accident who had been leaving Wendy's. I wouldn't expect you to feel bad if you didn't approve this and instead some other use was put in there and that an
accident occurred. It in fact is likely to happen at some point. So the argument is that you madam chair if I can argument is that by approving this and installing
the improvements to that intersection is better than not approving this and just having the same intersection. >> That's that that's that's true. That's what I think and that's what the experts >> I I have to consider all of this in my decision >> assuming that this land is never going
to be used forever. >> Well, that's not going to happen. But I'm just saying >> is going to be used somehow. >> I'm trying to get to I'm trying to get to the place I need to get. Somebody else can do whatever they want to do. >> And we want to help you to get there. >> No, no. Of all your locations,
this would be your first non-main street location. Well, that's is not Main Street is behind Garmouth is actually station avenue in the back alleys and old townhouse road
is not a station avenue itself. There's a basel high school down the street there is straight right across from you know high school. So I I just u we try as best as we can. We mitigate it as much as we can
and I really appreciate the your consideration. Thank you. >> Can I just add to the what I was expressing earlier about your concern about being responsible for
an accident should it occur. And a lot of people share that responsibility, don't they? Our traffic expert, your traffic expert, the town engineer, the planning board, the professional planners. You're doing the best you can and make and would be
making a decision um based on evidence that we've u uh presented. We cannot eliminate all risk that that exists. That's someone what Usam was saying about where his daughter
lives. Um but the evidence is that we're going to improve the intersection. We're going to reduce the speed on Worcester Court and um I I think we >> I I already have my answer. I I I
already understand and have my answer. Thank you. May your efforts. >> Shall we close? >> Yeah. I don't have any additional >> set to close. >> All set to close. >> All right. >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> We have a motion to close in a second.
>> Any discussion? >> Further discussion. We're all voting. All those in favor of closing. >> I oppose. None. >> Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to uh have a draft proposal
and be affirmative. And uh I guess I'll have to wait for a second. You will >> second. >> We have a second. We have a motion for the draft in the affirmative. >> Correct. >> And a second. All those in favor of the
draft for the affirmative. >> I I >> All those against. >> Who's against? two >> 32 >> for a draft >> for a draft. Affirmative.
>> So that's shot down. >> All right. So now you have me confused. >> Yes. >> All right. So you asked for a draft decision. >> That was the motion >> for a positive draft decision with with two opposed. >> Yes. >> So now you have to have another motion.
>> So we have an issue. >> Yes. other than we could technically Yeah, that's not going to work because you don't want to have a positive decision that you vote down because then when a court were to look at it, they're
going to say you need to state your opposition. Mhm. >> So now you have to have a motion to approve or deny >> I believe >> without an affirmative draft. >> Can you >> and I don't think there's much that that
needs the draft anyway. >> I mean I guess here's here's the like big picture problem is that if you are opposed >> anything that I can draw up as wonderful as I might be is still going to be a no. Right? So, and at the end of the day, I
will have put in this effort to have it be a positive decision where you're saying no. So, it would have to be effectively rewritten. >> So, we should just do a motion to approve or deny. >> Yeah.
>> I think you can shape this thing with a affirmative draft. I mean not completely but I think you can shape this thing. I >> mean we do that for long and and extremely confusing
applications. I mean this is as confusing as it gets as yes or no. >> Can we have this discussion m can we have this discussion? >> Yes. >> I mean I don't see what's confusing about this. This is right now we're talking about safety >> right.
>> All right. There are mitigating there are mitigating uh u see a moment here they're proposing to put improvements into that intersection which we have professionals who as our
zoning administrators pointed out who have who stand behind that. I'm not sure that I can even though I've developed a lot of property can say well I that I can't believe in these people.
I'm not a traffic expert and another member here has also said that. >> I mean we've seen other cases where um we can't reference them but it said we we we listen to the science on it or what the experts say right there.
>> They based my decision off of that and certain the board. I'm basically I'm not a traffic expert. So I'm just going to go let this >> you're not voting for yourself and I don't like what >> and I don't like our elected official. I don't like this town urbanizing Falmouth. I mean if I wanted to live in an urban environment I would have stayed
up in Boston in Winchester and I don't like it but that's not how I have to base my vote is how this town is becoming urbanized. Uh and it is it's unfortunate the way this town is going >> but that's not how we affect our how we
can vote on this thing. I think we can shape this thing with an affirmative draft using uh what our experts have given us to make sure that these things happen. I can't judge if I I I can't say if they
do something else, whatever that something else is, that's going to make it better. >> Well, if it was solely dependent on the experts, there' be no need for us to even sit here. Um, no. We depend on those experts to
help us form our to form our judgment >> to to to to shape our own decision. >> No, to shape how we come to the >> puzzle that we put together in our own >> um I mean we should just have a simple vote. I mean this >> if we have a simple vote then they're gone for two years.
>> They're gone for two years. I'd rather see them withdraw and come back. >> Well, you you shouldn't be manipulating the process and that faction. Just let it play out. I'm sorry. I'm not manipulating anything any more than you're manipulating something.
>> But right now, the board is looking at three to two. And I I agree with Norine. And unless two people are going to change themselves, then >> it's a no and they're gone for >> two years. >> Two years >> other than if there's a substantial
change. It's it's not a two-year preclusion. >> If there's a change to the plan. So if there's a substantial change they come back with they can come back. >> Yes. >> Do we know what this definition of substantial is? >> There's a process and the answer to that
is no. >> Basically what happens for that particular process is you have to go to the planning board and the planning board makes the finding that there's a substantial change and if they do so
then they're eligible to >> go through the hearing with the zoning board. Don't don't take this personally. >> But but what I would say to you is I think if you know within yourself that regardless of how this is wrapped or packaged or written that you're still a
hard and fast no >> that's me. >> This is the time for the rubber to hit the road. >> Yeah. But you got to back it up. You got to be able to back up the no. And so, you know, I could spend days writing a beautiful decision, but if you still feel that it's a no,
>> there's no purpose in my doing that, right? >> Otherwise, we hear like, >> but you got to back up the no. You got to have the basis to which to say no. >> So, I think if the vote is >> safety, you know, I mean, it's it's everybody's no is their own no. I mean,
we're we're beginning to look like we're >> I'm not even going to say >> Well, tell me what you what I shouldn't be taking personally that you're going to start with. You >> I was going to say that you're beginning to act like an agent for the applicant. Don't take it personally, but I mean, it's I mean, we're down to the point where we vote. >> Then let's vote.
>> Then let's vote. All right. Let's just vote. >> I'll I'll call. >> I'm I mean, just honestly, when when do we ever parse things like this before? I mean, >> this is a difficult case. Uh, it's a very difficult case. >> I understand it. I Nobody I been
thinking about this since every time I drive by there, I think about this. I mean, and just I'm sorry it might be too simple to you, but in my mind, this place belongs on Main Street. >> I mean, and that's that's how I feel. I think we're encroaching on on on the
residential neighborhood as it is. I think it's overburdened. Um, and then there's more to come. This Mr. COD is just the I mean look at that one month those two monstrosities down there that's what they got planned for Main Street but we're not we are not a
policymaking board we simply have bylaws in which to make >> there's nothing we but I mean you have to consider the everything I mean >> well let's just vote I'll make a motion again I'll make a motion to approve is
there a second >> a motion to approve >> the application that's before us this evening. >> There's a I second that. >> We have a motion and a second. >> Time for a vote. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> And all those opposed?
>> No. >> All right. Let's >> All right. So now where that's a denial, you need to produce findings. >> Yeah. >> To back up your denial.
So for the presumptively the two individuals who are opposed you have to produce findings so that the decision reflects >> the denial. >> Okay. >> The second. >> The second.
>> Okay. I do not feel that the fancy lights around the stop signs, the crosswalks, any seven items or whatever they were exact amount I'm not positive of. >> Traffic mitigation >> traffic mitigation procedures that they are using
>> are going to amount to any increase in safety. >> I've driven >> balanced with the >> this application at that location. I mean it's it's pretty much that simple in my mind. I just I think it's too much
on an already overburdened area. >> Sorry. >> People disagree with me, but time sit there at those lights and >> I I just can't do it. >> Anything else? It's
>> all it is for me is the safety. >> Simple safety. >> Yeah. >> Oh, no. I I don't know why he bothered me, but you know, that's gone by the wayside. I'm still shocked no one asked about that. >> Me, too. >> And the applicant uh the owner said
right up front we were dry cleaning >> and no one ever asked. >> I have to correct that. >> No, closed. >> Yeah. So, we're good. >> All right. >> Anything else
>> about anything else in the document? >> No, I just I mean, general safety, I just >> I don't With the improvements, I don't think it improves at all. >> I think it exacerbates an already >> tenative >> Thank you. >> situation. Let's move on. Minutes are we
doing >> February 26. It was very brief. very brief. >> Nothing happened. >> Motion to approve the minutes of February 26th. >> I'll second. Everyone's read them. We're all set on that. Yes. >> All those in favor?
>> I none. Board discussion. >> Jim is eating. He's happy. >> Um, >> not if he's watching this. >> Um, any other discussion? >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, board updates.
>> Don't think so. We have next Thursday off. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Um, zoning administrator updates. >> I think you've had enough of me for tonight. >> You did though. I appreciate it. Been >> here long enough. >> Actually, you totally helped. I had
questions for you and you you did great answering for me. >> Future agenda items. Second. >> Yeah. >> All right. Mark motion to adjurnn. Madam chair. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Our next meeting is March
26 at 6.6th. >> 26th. >> At 6. Did I say it right? >> Yes. Well, so I am going to