Hello. Welcome to the zoning board of appeals. Please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by FCTV. If there's any private party recording the hearing, please step up to the podium to request permission. I'll introduce the board and the staff. On my
far right is Mark Finan. To my closest right is Scott Peterson. I'm Suzanne Murphy, chair. To my left is Tony Patuchi. And then we have Nick Ay. Norine Stockman is 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 and reviewing and voting on applications. All decisions are made through the public hearing process. Our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project
prior to closing the hearing process and reaching a decision. Number one, to begin each hearing, the clerk will read the public announcement for the hearing and read pertinent information from the file. Two, the applicant or the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation,
but time may be extended by a vote of the board. Three, the board will then question the applicant. Four, then the public will be invited to comment. Comments will be limited to two minutes and be strictly strictly related to the proposal. All members of the public wishing to speak should come should wait
to be recognized by the chair and then come to the podium. State your name and address for the record and speak into the mic. will not amplify your your voice and record audio for FCTV viewers. And before we um do the first hearing, if anyone wants to make a public comment
on anything that's not on our agenda, you're welcome to come up. Anybody? All right. So, we'll start off on our agenda. I'm just going to get one out of the way because it's a a request for a continuation. It's case 08325.
I think the last name is Vochi, 391 Courier Road in East Felmouth. And I will need a motion. >> Motion to uh they wanted a a request for continuation. I'll make a motion to continue. Do we have a
>> March 26? >> Motion to continue to March 26. 20 26. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor? I oppose? None. going to be light out by >> what's the date?
>> March 26. Yeah. And so the first hearing is um 07125 Fashion Food LLC which is a continuation. Um added to the file we have information from the planning board and then one
letter uh against and tonight we'd really like to get through the traffic if we could. So, if the traffic person is here, >> is that you? >> I didn't know it was you. >> I apologize, Madam Chair. For the
record, my name is Jeffrey Durk. I'm the managing partner with Vanesscent Associates. Um, and as I said walking up to the podium, we were retained by the town to undertake a review of the uh material submitted by the applicant in support of the project. Um in particular, obviously we reviewed the transportation analysis that was
provided. Uh we also reviewed the site plans. Um our comments as they pertain to the site plans uh deal with um the traffic aspect. So it's really looking at access, circulation, and parking as they relate to um the site plan that's before you. So we issued a letter dated
December 29th um that identifies each of uh the items we reviewed as well as our comments pertaining uh to those items. I know that materials have been trickling in in response to our letter, so we'll have a chance to review that uh prior to your
next hearing. Um so I'll start with our comments as they relate to the transportation analysis that was undertaken by the applicant. So the applicants analysis, our transportation impact evaluation was dated September 11th, 2025. Um that's what forms the
basis of our review. as the board's peerreview consultant, the first thing that we look at with respect to their analysis is is it in compliance with uh state standards as well as um industry standards. So state standards are Massachusetts Department of Transportation requirements and then of
course because we're on the Cape, we also look at Cape Cod Commission standards and really as it relates to Cape Cod Commission standards. Um it's making sure that they considered summer month conditions. Um if we were on the mainland, not on the Cape, we'd be looking at average month conditions and not not necessarily peak summer month
conditions. So we take a look at it to make sure that they've uh characterized what the impact of the project may be uh during those summer month conditions. So as it relates to kind of that first test in our review which is compliance with industry standards, it's a comprehensive transportation assessment. So we took no
exception with the methodology, the data collection, uh any adjustments to the data that's been collected and then the analysis that goes along with it. So our our focus is then given that the methodology is correct is characterizing the impacts and I think as it relates to this project is looking at its
relationship to the existing transportation infrastructure and as you look through our comments a lot of that really deals with kind of the existing conditions that are going on in the area and the project's context in relation to those and how it may or may not exacerbate those conditions. Um, so just
focusing on our major comments and two of them are really minor but they get to kind of the crux of some of the items uh relative to mitigation that we've asked the applicant to consider. Um the study as I said it was done in September but as you look at some of the descriptions of uh sidewalks, bike lanes, things like
that. It was based on some previous um work that was done. So it needed to be updated. That's important because as we're looking at safety and thinking about, you know, a restaurant at this location, there's going to be an increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity as well as motor vehicle traffic. So, making sure that we have a
good understanding of what is out there today, how it relates to the project site, both with respect to peds, bikes, but also public transportation services um is important. So, we've asked them to just update all of that information because that will give us some context. We reviewed all of that so we understand
it but we want to make sure that as a part of your record the applicant's been responsive to that rather than us providing that information to you. Um, as I said, in terms of looking at the context of the project, I think what what is significant as it relates to the project is uh there is some motor
vehicle crash history in this area and I know that the town and the state have undertaken some improvements um specifically at the a couple of intersections close to the project site which would be the Worcester Court Springs Bar Road intersection right in front of the project site. High crash
location. Um the town has undertaken some improvements. There was actually a road safety audit done that included that intersection. So, as it relates to that intersection, especially because it's right near the project site. What we've asked the applicant to do is take a review of that road safety audit to
understand um as the town and the state went and conducted this audit. They identified safety related improvements uh enhancements to the intersection. So, we've asked them to inventory of that list of items that was identified what has been done and what hasn't been done.
The items that have not been done are things that we've suggested should be considered as a part of this project. Can they assist the town in implementing those improvements and again that's a location where we did have some pedestrian crashes or pedestrian related uh crashes as well. Not significant, but
the fact that there's potentially going to be an increase in people crossing Worcester Court to get to the project site makes it important that we have a safe intersection as it relates to being able to get there by walking or biking to the project site. So, we've asked them to undertake a review of that road
safety audit. The same thing with respect to the Route 28 Springs Road Dillingham Avenue intersection. Um, both of those intersections are important. As we look at the Worcester Court intersection, 80% of the traffic that go that's related to this project is going to go through that intersection. So,
we're going to have an increase in level of activity. So, we need to make sure it's safe. As we look over at Route 28, that intersection is going to have about 35% of the traffic. So, again, that was a high crash location. uh some improvements have been done. Same thing, road safety audit was performed there.
So, we want to understand what has not been done that potentially needs to be done as we think about that increase in vehicular traffic um at that intersection. Going through kind of our recommendations as it relates to the project, safety were those two items that we've asked them to look at and
discuss with us and with the board uh what can be done in terms of enhancing safety at the intersection. We did ask for some review of mobility at the intersection of Wister Court and Springs Bar Road. The C I know that the rectangular or I'm sorry, a flashing beacon has been
installed. Thinking about the crossings of the intersection, what we've asked is that a review of the ADA compliance. Um, again, as we're having the project and wanting to encourage pedestrian trips at the intersection, we want to make sure that um, it does meet the compliance um,
items for the Americans with Disability Act. Um, that also does go to our comment on the site plan. Um, and I know that there's some sensitivity with respect to the landscaping that's right on the corner of the intersection, but I think as you're looking at the site plan, there's a sidewalk from within the
site that kind of directs you around that, but it doesn't get you to the crosswalk. Um, and what we've asked is that that be reviewed because of the crash history at the intersection. We do not want to direct pedestrians to be crossing outside of the crosswalk. So, we would rather have them or direct them
up to the intersection where the crosswalk actually exists and then have them cross there rather than, you know, short of that or south of where that crossing exists. We've also suggested that because of the crash history that consideration be given to um enhanced signing, so pedestrian crossing warning
signs at advance of that crossing across Worcester Court. And then as an added enhancement, we've suggested consideration of installing a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, which is the flashing lights when you push the push button um at the intersection. So again, those are things we've asked the applicant to go back and take a look at.
U we've also suggested that as it relates to employee related trips, um the bus does go by the project site. Again, walking, biking, there's been some investment in terms of making improvements in the area. We want to make sure that there's opportunities for the employees of the project to travel
to the site uh by use of an alternative mode of transportation. So if they don't need to drive a car and park within the site, they can use the bus, it's available, they can walk, they can bike. So making sure they're aware of it and that management is encouraging uh those types of uh transportation modes to the
project site. So with respect to our transportation analysis, that's that's our comments that we've asked the applicant to look at. uh in looking at the impact of the project and the applicant may have uh presented this to you. The project
itself given the nature of the use which is a fast food restaurant draws a lot of its traffic from the existing traffic stream. So I think they probably told you that about half the trips are expected to be derived from new trip I'm sorry existing traffic on Worcester Carl
Court um and adjacent roadways. So, it's not really uh from the standpoint of creating new trips to the area. They're expecting it somewhere between 60 and 70 new trips during each of the peak hours of the day. We've verified those uh calculations. We do agree with those. Um
what's important as well is if they presented to you the total trips, those are new trips, 60 to 70. But as it relates to the driveways, it's 100% new trips. So, as you think about vehicles entering or exiting the driveways at the driveways, there'll be somewhere between
120 and 150 trips going in and out of those driveways. Those two-way traffic, so roughly half in, half out. But that's the traffic at the driveways themselves. And so, that's important as we're thinking about the increase in turning movements on Worcester Court or coming out on Springs Bar Road where they have
the exit driveway itself. So, not a large increase in in terms of net new traffic to the area, but as it relates to turning movements at the driveways, that's what the increase is. The driveways will experience a turning movement increase of somewhere between 120 and 150 vehicles at the driveways.
So, I just want to to provide that just just in terms of context. That's important as I think the applicant as we go through our next set of comments which really deal with a site plan because of that level of activity that's happening at the driveways. Obviously, it's got to be
processed within the site itself. Um the oneway circulation they have that's in a counterclockwise direction is the most efficient way to manage that level of activity. A lot of those trips are going to be going to the drive-thru. Providing that bypass lane also allows for internal circulation to take place. So
it's able to process this volume of traffic within the project site. And then as we look offsite again because we have somewhere between 60 to 70 additional new trips if we disperse that to each of the roadways it's not showing in terms of analysis that there's significant changes in terms of added
delays or queuing at intersections. So I think the queuing was probably somewhere at max dur in an August or July August condition was somewhere between six to seven additional vehicles on any of the approaches um at the Worester Court Springs Bar Road intersection. When you get away from that intersection, the
concentrated traffic is much less because it's dispersed to the various roads in the area. So I think that's important as we're looking at the site plan. Um it's laid out well to accommodate um these traffic projections that they have in terms of flow within the project site. Um, I can answer questions relative to
the traffic analysis or I can move right into the site plan and um answer all the questions at the end. Whatever the chair would like. >> I have a question. Go >> ahead, Tony. >> Um, what do you consider as summer peak traffic volume times for this site for
this town given it's a vacation time? >> In terms of month of the year, >> what months? Yeah. So part of what this board has to consider uh for standards of approval denial um traffic study uh it has to be based
on summer peak traffic volume times. When was this uh traffic study done and when are the summer peak traffic volume days, months, weeks? So the traffic counts were done in August and they were
done in August 2024. The peak traffic volumes generally are there will be after July 4th. So it's generally later in July and in early August. So it's a July August time period and I think that's generally consistent has been consistent historically. So the data has
been collected in August. They and that's what they used as a part of their analysis. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Go ahead. um their proposal at the exit
to uh require all traffic to turn right except for the delivery trucks um which I totally question. But um relative to that, who's going to put these signs up?
>> So um the applicant would need to do that, but they would need permission from the town since they're in the town right away. They obviously can put a sign within their site that says that, but it's not enforceable unless it's well, it's enforceable if you include it as a condition of the project. But to be really enforceable, it has to be in the
public right of way and accepted by the town. If that being the case, then the police department can enforce it. Um, absent that, it's really something that you'd put a condition on it somewhere. We need to observe it observe that happening and then call for enforcement. But if the signs in the public right
away and the police department are out there, they can enforce it. we have to assume that the uh police department or the traffic committee are going to uh accept this. Wouldn't it be prudent for us to find
out beforehand >> if the applicant's main representation because I did not see that in the materials that I reviewed? I don't know if that's new or if it's an or if it's >> what they've proposed in the beginning, but I'm doubtful uh that any of it's going to
work to be completely honest with you. >> Um >> so my concern >> I mean if you're if you're pulling out of the place uh and where your destination is left >> correct >> you're going to turn left. I don't care what anybody says. 50% of the people are
going to turn left. What's their alternative? go all the way up Mara Vista, cut through Walmart and down and around and over the speed bumps. Yeah, they might do that twice and then they won't do it anymore. >> So I >> especially when they're following trucks
breaking the rules, >> right? I so I would be I would need to review if that's what the applicant proposed because to your point what I would more see is that if you if you can't come out and make a left-hand turn if if you've got a significant over half
the traffic that wants to go in that direction let's say if you're telling them that if they come out that exit they can't go that way then what it does is it means that the Worcester Court driveway is going to have more traffic than what was estimated in the traffic study and if that traffic increases
going north to make a left the impact analysis. It's going to be a larger impact. >> That was my next point. Thank you. >> And so that has not been evaluated and factored into their analysis. We identified the fact that as you look at that exit only out on the Springs Bar
Road that as you look at their analysis and especially during the summertime, that queue goes past the driveway. So, you know, I I understand why they might be proposing it, but it forces some changes in terms of internal circulation um and more use of that bypass lane. So,
the because of the one-way circulation within the site, which I said is it's efficient as long as you can make the movements at the driveway and go in either direction, it's efficient. If you now all of a sudden concentrate the traffic down at the other area, you're adding more traffic going in the bypass
lane that's going to come out directly next to the vehicles exit from the drive-thru that then need to come out to us to court. So, I I have not seen that analysis, but I'd be a little bit concerned. >> Yeah, the non-lawbreakers are going to do that. How many are there? That's the question,
>> right? And I think also it just gets back to if you're talking summertime traffic and people that are not maybe necessarily familiar with the area but they want to get back to 28. It's not going to be intuitive to them that if they're at that point that they need to go around the block. I despite what you
know ways or other directional devices may tell them it's not going to be intuitive. They're going to if they came from 28 again with this idea of it being a lot of pass trips. If it's a pass by trip that means I want to go back to where I started from and I need to be able to get back there. And if I can't because you force me to direction, it's
a new trip. It's not a pass by trip. So that's not been factored into the analysis. >> It's kind of a gray area. We're going to need a lot more detail, >> right? But but back, you know, to the extent that that's something that, you know, is desirable to the board. The sign, there has to be a sign in the
public rightway in order for it to be enforceable. They can put a sign in the site, but you need a sign out opposite the driveway that tells you what you can and can't do and then it's enforceable by the police department >> if they accept it as such. >> If if Right.
>> Thank you. >> May I May I have another Sorry, Scott. Go ahead. >> Uh just could you speak to um the applicant is proposing at its own expense to install a flashing stop signs on Spring Bars Road and then the digital radar speed signs. Could you speak to
the effectiveness of those as far as the folks on the road and how they adhere to these things or not adhere to them from an industry? >> Right. So, so I haven't seen the proposal for the flash I've seen the proposal for the warning signs that was provided to me. I don't know if the
flashing signs are something new that came in as a part of the, you know, recent information. I can tell you at least in terms of the radar speed feedback signs, you generally will get somewhere between a 3 to 5 mph reduction from the 85th percentile speed. Um, so
if people generally if people are going really fast, much faster than the speed limit, and what you're trying to do is get them closer to the speed limit, at higher speeds, you can generally get a 3 to 5 mph reduction in speed. If people aren't going that fast, they're not really that effective because they're already going slow enough. That's
generally what you'd be talking about for speed reduction. So it is a proven counter measure to achieve that level of speed reduction. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The the flashing if they're just talking about now stop signs with the enhanced borders
>> effective at at night. I mean that's really what it is. So, I think that's why as we ask the applicant to go back and look at the road safety audit, if what you're seeing is a large number of crashes related to, you know, not obeying the stop sign and that it's happening under low light conditions,
that's a counter measure that works. If you're having crashes during the peak hours, during the daytime, it they're not going to be as effective if that's the type of crashes that are happening. So, that's why we've asked them to go back and look at it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. The my question was asked and
just answered. Thank you very much. >> Sure. And I'll follow up to the extent that that's in any of the new materials. I'll provide feedback. Um and hopefully the turn restriction is a part of those because I have not seen that >> on the RSA. It was 2017, right? >> There were two of them that were done.
The 2017 >> 21, >> right? And one was the 2017. I think the 2017 was the Spring Bars intersection, >> right? And you were kind of wanted the applicant to go find a copy of that. >> It's do like a check off. >> It's available online. Anyone can go and
get it from Mass Do's website. But exactly that's exactly what I had asked them to do. Look at the counter measures that were identified and then look and see what has been done, what hasn't been done. So that also provides a list to the board of here's everything that was identified, here's what's been done. It's kind of that checklist. And then to
the extent that there are things that aren't done that potentially could be done as a part of the project, that's we've that's what we wanted them to look at and say. >> No, it's good. And it's good for the transportation committee too to have that. That's the larger one that was done by Barnesville County. >> Um there was one done one was done by
the Yeah, I think one was done by the commission and the other one might have been privately done. >> I think the 21 one was done privately. I think >> yeah, one of the uh county one I read for Sam Road and I was quite amazed how many of the high
traffic high accident intersections were in Felmouth. >> One of them being uh Jones Road and 28. >> Yeah. and then a couple of them on the way up to East Falmouth, but uh I was surprised the number in the top 20 that were from Felmouth, >> right?
>> The other question I had is that red light that's up kind of blinking. What do you think about that? Does it seem too high? >> Yeah, >> it does to me. I don't know. >> Generally, >> I'm just a driver. >> So, generally, you want to have it so
that it that it um is in the sighteline of the driver. So, you generally want it to be oriented similar to like a traffic signal. Um, and so, you know, over the center of the road is good if it's late at night or something like that, but it may not be in your sight line. And
that's that's the issue that that's why your signal indications are generally like 14 feet up or something like that because as you're driving, generally you'll get that in your peripheral view as well coming into the intersection. Um so you know effective late at night but again it should be really looking at
what you know when are the crashes happening and is this an effective device to deal with what what's happening at the intersection and the road safety audit will help with kind of understanding that >> doing that itself yeah you all set Nick you good so we'll let you continue
>> sure thank you so now focusing on the um the elements of the site plan as I said overall with respect to the site plan itself um it's laid out very well um the dimensions as it relates to parking spaces, uh widths of drive aisles, um and things like that within the site are
what we'd expect to see for kind of a a fast food kind of high volume, high turnover type of use that's in there because again, one way traffic circulation, you can process large number of vehicles um in in a you know, confined amount of space. So, we think the site plan as it relates to
circulation lays out well. So, there's a few things that we asked the applicant to provide, some of which may have been uh in the application materials. They just weren't in the site plan set that was provided to us. So, of course, we need to make sure that a fire truck in circulation circulate within the site. Um, and then I think importantly as well
is the uh delivery truck. Um, so whatever the largest size truck is that would be coming to the site, it's typically a tractor trailer. Uh, so we want to see that circulation. Uh, making sure that we understand that it can maneuver within the site without going through parking spaces. I think is probably the more important thing. And
then as the vehicle is staged on the site uh to offload product into the store, we want to make sure it's out of the way and it's not obstructing the flow within the site because you can have the best circulation pattern in the world and then the delivery truck shows up and blocks that and then we have an issue within the site or the delivery
trucks there, it's blocking circulation and then the fire truck needs to get in and it causes an issue. So, we want to see how those vehicles maneuver within the site, but also where the delivery vehicle is going to be staged to make sure that that clear path is still provided for the fire truck. Um, as I said, this might have been provided as a
part of the initial um materials, but the site plans that we had did not include that. So, we want to we want to see that that um all works. And then the same thing as it relates to where trash is going to be within the site. uh making sure that the trash truck can get to where the dumpster is um and then
maneuver as well in the site itself. Um what I would just say on it because sometimes and I haven't seen the applicant's response yet uh just because a firetruck can maneuver in the site, it doesn't mean those other vehicles can u because the firetruck turns very tightly. They're specifically designed
to maneuver in tight areas. So when you look at the tighter the turning radius, unlike our cars, we can only turn the wheels so much. they can actually turn those wheels much more to pivot those axles so that they can maneuver in tight spaces. So just because a firet truck can get in there doesn't mean a tractor trailer can or that a single unit truck
or trash truck can. So that's why we ask that all of those turning analyses be provided. Also because they're going to different places. The fire truck just needs to get around the building to make sure that it can fight a fire or respond to an emergency. But those other vehicles have to get to specific areas
and complete specific maneuvers. So, we want to make sure those vehicles can get in, circulate, and get to where they need to within the site. So, we've asked that that be provided. >> One thing that did bother me about the dumpster areas is a c crosswalk like attached right to the dumpster area. I
didn't know how safe that is. >> So, the intent of that is for the employees to get to the dumpster. So, um so that's why it's there. There's a lot of times you'll see they don't provide the crosswalk and it's often asked, well, how do the employees get to the dumpster? So, it should be striped and >> it it can be um and that's really what
it's doing is just saying this is how the employees get to where the dumpster is. So, it's not really for um the patrons. It's really just for the employees. Um focusing on the drive-thru area, as I said, they have a bypass lane, which is um important for the site circulation
within the site. Um, as the drive-through lane comes out into where the two-way area is heading toward Worcester Court, um, we've asked that they provide, you know, stop line, do not enter signs and stop signs at that location. We want that traffic stopping
because we want, if you're entering the site, we want you to be able to enter. We don't want you stopped out onto Worcester Court. So, we want to control that movement so that entering movements and exiting movements can all happen at that location and they're kind of at a higher level to people exiting the drive-thru. So that's why we've asked
that the signs and markings be put there. The other reason for that is that it's one way and so by having a stop line and two stop signs with do not enter signs on the backside, anyone coming in knows I can't go up that way. It's very apparent from the signs and the pavement markings. So we've asked
that that be added to the site plan. Um site distances at the driveways. Um so the applicant did provide a sight distance plan for the driveways. Uh we've asked that they make some adjustments to the plan and I know um as saw in one of the when I briefly looked
at the responses I believe what was uh stated was that these are what's required by the town in terms of the dimensions um which I understand um don't have an issue with that. The difference between what the town requires and what um the standard is is
is less than it's probably a few inches. So it's not going to make a significant difference as it relates to the sightelines that are provided. Uh but we think that we just want to make sure that because they're referencing the standards which are based on federal highway guidelines, the measurement should also be based on federal highway
guidelines and it's not going to make a significant difference um in terms of what you see on the plan here. We do agree that the sight lines should be sufficient uh based on the measured speed of traffic on the roadway. Uh but we did ask that is there updating the plan that's here. There are specific
notes that we want added to the site plan and this really goes to the site triangles are great to demonstrate that the site distances are provided but I think as you're looking at signs and landscaping as a part of the project. The important thing about this is that those site triangles that are shown that
nothing is placed in those areas that restrict sight lines. Um so um we've asked that they you know keep the plan, make some slight adjustments but then add a specific note that talks about you know signs, landscape and and other features within the site triangular areas um shall be designed, installed
and maintained so as not to exceed 2 feet in height. Um the driver's eye height is assumed to be three and a half ft. If you're sitting in your car, you're assumed that your eyes are roughly three and a half feet above the pavement surface. So we establish that no objects should be placed in the
hatched area they've shown that are more than two feet in height. So that gives us a foot for snow is really what we're looking at. So if snow or anything else is out there um it gives us a foot of buffer that you could still see um in that case in case you planted a shrub or put a sign in there. Um this is an area
that's not going to be plowed. It's not going to be sanded or salted. So that it to the extent that we have winter again where we're getting large amounts of snow, we want to make sure that there's some free board in there in terms of being able to accumulate um snow in the area. So that specific note deals with
that. Um it's also important because to the extent that the board approves the plan, we want this as an exhibit because if the zoning enforcement officer has to go out there because there's an issue with respect to sight lanes, the plan is very apparent. You can take this out to the field and say, "Okay, well, here's
the site triangle and that's in here and this is what the note says, so it needs to be modified." So, it makes it easier to do enforcement as well. Um, we did ask that the applicant review the width of Worcester Court. The driveway, as we've looked at it, is
wide. Typically, it would be somewhere around 24 feet if we just have entering and exiting traffic for use that's generating this level of of of activity. Um, we do understand that we need to see that turning analysis because the turning an analysis may be telling us or
demonstrating why the driveway needs to be this wide. The reason for the comment in terms of narrowing the width is again we have a high crash intersection. And so if we have a wider driveway, then what that is doing is it's increasing the conflict area in front of the driveway because
it's it's a wide driveway. So vehicles can use that full width of the driveway. Um, so we want to make sure it's not any wider than it needs to be because we want to control where the conflict points are happening um, out on Worcester Court. Um, it's also important
because obviously a wider driveway means it takes longer for a pedestrian to cross that driveway. So the pedestrian is exposed to traffic for a longer distance or a longer period of time. So we've asked them to review it and consider reducing the width of the driveway. Um, the vehicle turning analysis may inform us as to why the
driveway is as wide as it is, but we may be able to work with the applicant to come up with some design features for the driveway to narrow it as much as possible, but we've asked for them to look at that. Um, I already talked about that sidewalk connection. Um, we've asked the applicant to look at that, as
I said, to try to direct pedestrians up toward the intersection. Um, and then our last comment deals with the new driveway that's coming out on the Spring Bars Road. Um I I think as the board has looked at that driveway um it is steep um as it relates to coming into the site
or going out of the site uh typically again thinking back to like the conditions we've had the past few nights um we get icing we get snow and what we'd like to have um is a leveling area at the end of the driveway. So generally we like the ability for the vehicle to
come down and then be able to control itself before it gets out to the roadway. So, we generally like to see an area that's doesn't exceed 2%. Um, and generally within at least a vehicle length of the um of the street because again it gives some control as to if if
you're sliding or whatever and you're coming down the driveway, you've got a level area to try to recover before you get to where that stop line is. So, we've we've asked them to look at the slope of that driveway and see if there's the ability to be able to create a leveling area before they come out to Springs Bar Road. that doesn't appear
that it's achievable. >> We we've asked them to look at it. They could also look at doing different transitions. So, there's a way you can break up the grade of the driveway to have it be a gradual slope down. Um so, again, we've asked them to look at it, but you know, part of what we're doing
is as the review is to say this is this is what the you should be providing. It doesn't mean that it has to be provided and that there isn't a median ground there, but to the extent that they can provide it, this is what's desirable. >> Doesn't it uh interfere with the uh
design relative to the building further up the driveway if you were to graduate it the way you described? >> That's something they need to look at because they can also come back and talk about the way they're going to maintain that driveway. So, it may be something Yeah, it may be something that they come back and say, "This is the best. this is
what we can achieve. DPW says they don't have an issue with it. We're going to have a, you know, a maintenance plan. >> That's I think engineering and I don't know I didn't get it. Some of this stuff only again came in recently, but I I I can't be sure, but I thought
engineering still had a an issue with the transition and the the drain that they proposed. >> So, yeah. So, the onus really back on them. we've kind of given you what the standards are and then it's sort of like for them to go back and try to figure out what's the engineering solution to
this and if there's not an engineering solution to it is there an alternative and sometimes what you'll see is you know we can't achieve this grade and so here's our maintenance plan you know here's >> also uh I mean when you're talking about um um instances where there's going to
be ice on the road you're also talking about people on the sidewalk I mean it's not just slip slipping and sliding into the road isn't the only issue here. It's it's pedestrian safety, >> right? And you know, as we're looking at this and that driveway, >> when the snow's banked up,
>> it's even going to be more of an issue. >> Yeah, this is a new this is a new um creation of a driveway. So, this driveway, the worester driveway exists onto the property. This is brand new and being added. And like you're saying, there's topography issues that are
dictating kind of the design of it as it relates to setting the building. It's got to be a level pad for the building and then everything kind of builds from that once you've got the building set out. So, and they need to they need to, you know, connect up to the streets. So, they've wanting to add a driveway that comes out to that street given the grade
in the site. And so, that's creating some challenges. And so we're asking them to, you know, look at those challenges and see if there's an engineering solution to develop, you know, feasible or maintenance activities or things like that that um they can put forth if they can't achieve a leveling area.
>> What if they can't find an alternative or achieve that? I mean, that's quite a that's a tremendously high grade there. What if they can't? Do we say >> see how they can >> do we do I know do do we do we say well we can't have that
>> egress area if they can't have that egress area then is there an alternative do we have to have two egress areas we have to widen the other egress area we have to understand where we go with this if they don't come up with a solution >> so I think they need to look at it and they've got to come back and they need
to exhaust that and then come back with a solution and present it to us because you know back to you know there's There's a point where as you're saying, you know, could you drop the whole site and level it? Well, that's cost prohibitive. Is there some median ground here where you can make up the grades within the site? I don't know. The site
engineer needs to look at it. What we're trying to what we're trying to say to them is that, you know, the driveway is designed creates this issue and you know, engineering and public works may have brought up some issues as well. So, we're asking them to go back and see is there a solution to this? If they come back and say there's no solution, then
we'll need to provide an opinion to you as to how we think the site would function with whatever the option alternative is. But we have >> We'll hear back from you when they come. >> You absolutely will. >> This isn't the last we're going to be seeing you. >> Yeah, right. >> Because there's 80 bedrooms next door.
>> I think that's the number anyway. >> 40 units. Yeah. >> Um so that that's it in terms of our comments. As I said, I know things have been trickling in. So, we're going to go through the applicant's responses to our comments um and then we'll report back to you as to how they've worked to
address what we've uh presented to them. >> Did you feel the queueing line was okay? >> Yes, there's there's sufficient queuing to do that. I think that is we look at the one-way circulation and the fact that they have a bypass, you know, they've got plenty of room to be able to stack within the project site. You know,
to the extent that there's an extended queuing, it only it blocks some of the spaces that would be in front of the building. We don't that would be an extreme situation if it got back that far. But I think importantly as we're looking at it, it would never get back to a point where there would have to be a complete catastrophe within the site for it to get to the point where it
interferes with the public way. And I think that's the important thing. But even to the extent that that happened, the other thing is kind of firetrucking because I think that's the most important because that catastrophe probably means there needs to be a response and because of the way the oneway circulation and everything works, that response can still happen and I
think that's important. Now, the ordering is going to be done at the box that's just um north of center on the back side of the building, right? >> Correct. >> So, I mean, that only leaves you start stacking up there. That's only
four cars before you start blocking the parking spaces. And >> I think it says eight total construction. >> Yeah, I think that's from the other side window. >> That's from the pickup window. >> You got to order before you can pick up. Anyway, >> any other questions up here?
>> That's a good good report. >> Thank you. >> Looking forward to the responses. >> One quick question for Mr. Durk. Would you consider that it would be practical as a condition to limit hours for delivery or trash pickup given that the
size of those vehicles could be impeded by parked vehicles? >> Yes, I I think it's I think it's important to do that. And the reason that I suggest that is that the in interaction between those type of vehicles and customers in there, you don't want to have that interaction. So,
it's either off peak hours or when the restaurants closed. Deliveries, I think, are if there's a tractor trailer in there offloading um product in there. I think that they I even think from the operator's perspective, they don't want to have that happen during peak time periods, but I I typically it's it's a
condition. >> Thank you. You guys are all set up here. >> Does anyone from the public want to ask the the expert in traffic a question? >> Come on up and ask. >> I know there's Sorry.
>> Thank you. It's It's interesting for me to hear all this. I'm not This is not my space. It's um fascinating to learn this entire >> scenario. >> Just need your name. >> Name and address. >> Thank you for the reminder. Ben Garvin, 10 109 Wester Court. Uh, I wonder based on what you um generated your report on,
it's my understanding there's a request for a variance based on how far the paving goes in the parking lot, whether it be 5T from the line or 5T plus I think the plan is to pave up to 2 feet to the line. Is it done based on the assumption that
the variance is there or is it done before the variance? I'm sorry. So I I mean I defer to the applicant on it, but I think the plan that they're shown is what they're requesting approval for. So therefore, I would assume it includes their the variance being granted
>> kind of the car before the right. All right. Thank you. Thanks. >> Thanks. Anybody else? Come on up. >> Linda Clark, Felmouth Housing Corporation. I am a direct abuter of the property at 41 Spring Bars Road. We have
40 affordable units. Um my question is have you considered the exit coming out of 41 spring bars road entrance and exit? Have you have you looked at the impact
or crashes or potential safety issues? So I did look at the relationship between the the the spacing between the driveways um and the spacing between between the driveways is is such that there shouldn't be an interaction directly between vehicles entering or
exiting the driveways that there's distance between them enough so that vehicles can people can see each other essentially is our important thing. Um I I think I would be more concerned or would have a heightened level of um sensitivity if there's a restriction
that requires the vehicles exiting that driveway to turn right. So if that's something that's being proposed then I would need to look at that because of the fact that it's going to send more traffic in the direction that direction than what they've estimated in the traffic study. Um, so we would need to
then consider it and then I would look at it as it relates to the inter interaction with that driveway. >> Well, that is what the proposal is. >> So, so I need to hopefully the applicant is going to put that in writing, but I'm going to because I've heard that tonight that will be a part of if it's not in
the materials I have, then that's going to be the question. They're going to have to submit revised materials. >> You told us the first time, so I don't understand why it wasn't. >> Doesn't matter. question. >> Um I not actually a question. I guess it's
a comment. So I visit the property frequently, three to four, five times a week, pulling out of 41 spring bars road. Um, I look right, I look left, I look right, and then I attempt to go and
somebody's coming through the intersection very fast in order to get through the intersection so they don't get hit. So, all of a sudden, there's a car that's that's going to hit me. Well, that exit
for Wendy's is even further up. So, they're going to have a great deal of difficulty. It's the same kind of scenario, right? Um, and as far as crashes are concerned, I don't know. We did some research internally in my
office. So, 51 accidents occurred there and this is reported accidents in the last nine years at the intersection. I >> think that's pretty substantial. >> It's a hyper. >> Yes. Um, >> a lot of them don't get reported either. >> That's correct. That's reported. You're
right, Mark. So, I'm I'm really concerned about 32 We have 32 vehicles that come and go from our complex. We have a bus stop right there um with 21 school age children within the complex.
So you have vehicles exiting, you have our tenants exiting, entering, and then you have cars coming at high rates of speed. I think it's a scenario for a disaster is what I think.
It's my opinion and as I said, I was on site five years ago during construction every day, sometimes twice a day, and that's all you can do is hear this. I don't know how many almost crashes happened there, but you'd hear the tires
screeching and then you're just like, I hope it doesn't happen. >> It's kind of an interesting dynamic. The cars coming from Kappy's down Spring Bars Road. Mhm. >> Um, you know, and then there's one on Spring Baz Road. They kind of face off
to one another and they decide who's going to go and then it's like dragsters off the line. >> It is. >> And then it accelerates down the hill. So, what you're saying is completely true. And I'm also worried about the sidewalk there. >> The sidewalk. >> Yeah. >> My experience is when I do visit the
property, I am located my corporate office on 704 Main Street. So, this is what I do. I go down Fmouth Heights Road. I go down Elma Road. I go down Worester Court. >> And I know I just I can take a right
because if I come down Davis Straits and hit the intersection, Spring Bars Road, I I don't want to go through that intersection. I just don't. It's dangerous and a large impact of vehicles is going to
be more dangerous. And I just these the cars come so fast down West Court and when they're trying to get across spring uh Worester Court, they gun it. So because you got cars
coming like this on Worester Court and they're coming really fast down Spring Bars Road. I've almost gotten hit. I can't even tell you how many times, dozens in the last five years. >> I I think it's pretty dangerous. Madam Chair, I have a question about that. May I ask?
>> Oh, good. Not me. >> Um, the town has been reticent through the years uh to put in speed calming pumps. >> One of the reason one of the re No, I know, but it's done. And there are a lot
of new ones out there, too. My question is, uh, the only way that I'm aware, not obviously I'm not an expert, is that they town or they pay to put in speed calming bumps or whatever they're currently called both on both roads so
that cars have no choice. The town gets upset or concerned that ambulances, fire trucks can't they'll they'll bounce over these things. And I understand that. Is that a uh potential alternative to calming down speeding on those two
roads? >> So the the issue as it relates to putting vertical features in the roadway itself is that when it's they can be designed properly so that those conditions with slowing down vehicles or or thing or such um can be
mitigated so that it doesn't do that. They're used in a lot of places with that because of the volume of traffic on these roadways. It's typically not recommended that those devices be used because it starts, we're trying to slow the traffic down, but it starts to
create a couple of issues that are. The first is because we've had this, I've actually had to do a study where uh we've had to have them removed. And what ends up happening is it creates so much noise as these vehicles are going over them that especially in residential
areas, it's 24 hours a day as vehicles, especially trucks are going over these um that it creates noise. And so the generally for that reason because of the volume of traffic when you have a lot of volume of traffic you don't put them in because it it's it does slow it down but it also slows it down to the extent that
it affects operations and safety. So even Mass DOT doesn't typically recommend that on these kind of roadways um that that you put them in. >> So the only solution would be a a stoplight. It doesn't necessarily have to be a stoplight, but you could look at doing you can bump the curb lines out to
narrow up some of the approaches, but still maintain the um ability of vehicles to be able to turn at the intersection. You can do certain things to make the roadway appear to be narrower than it actually is. So you don't let me ask that. All right. So on that point, the town has uh made an
effort in places where we have these issues where they paint white lines versus putting physical curbing and things like that. Nobody pays attention to it. They won't pay attention to that there either. So would the potential recommendation when with regard to what you were just talking about narrowing it
down be a physical narrowing area versus a painted because no one pays attention to the paint >> that gener so as I look at the intersection itself because of the crashes that are happening because of the speed that's happening and because we have crosswalks that are there generally those are one of the things you do because by bumping out the curb
lines you achieve both narrowing as it appears to the motorist going through the intersection but also for the pedestrian it puts them in a more prominent location so you can see them, but also the distance, crossing distance is much shorter. So, we achieve a couple of things as it relates to safety. It
also puts the ability to put those signs right in front of your face because now we push the curb lines out a little bit. So, you typically would look at doing something like that. And again, speed reduction is generally about putting things narrowing the road rather than putting vertical features based on again
the volume. What I'm I think what I'm hearing is that the most practical solution the speed side of this speed issues is narrowing those areas as you just described in a physical manner versus a painted something painted on the road. >> That would that would at least deal with the vehicles speeding up from stop signs
and such at the intersection there would slow that down. And if you've got an approach that doesn't have a stop sign on it, then it's not going to be as effective. >> Oh, you would do all of that though. >> You would do all of it. You'd include the radar speed signs they have. So you try to create a series of things that you know as I said if you get three to
five miles an hour by the speed reduct the speed radar speed feedback signs then you put the curb line bumpouts and that achieves let's say a couple miles an hour all of a sudden we're talking you know five plus mph reduction in speed from each of these measures. So there's a series of things that can be
done to you know chip away at that speed. Would you be making that recommendation or are we are we waiting for them to make >> I want So what I'm waiting on is for them to review the road safety audit and come back with their recommendations. If the if what comes back is not something
that I think is addresses what the need is and um you know I don't want to create a situation where it's also disproportionate to the impact of the project but it needs to be a safe intersection. So I'm going to balance those. Let me just stop you. Disproportionate to
the magnitude of the project that that the only thing that we care about is road safety. >> Yeah. I So I I guess it's not a good way to say it. What I would suggest is there are things that definitely would be warranted and justified as a part of the project. Now, if we were to suggest something like, you know, full
complete signalization in the intersection, I may identify that that's something that could be done. you know, if that's a half million dollar or whatever ticket item, then I may look at it and say, "Well, you should physically build these improvements because they can be done immediately and have a significant benefit." And then this is
what you should do to toward achieving kind of a longer term improvement there. But I need to wait to see what the applicant comes back >> in the end. Why should we care what it costs? >> Right? Just a hypothetical question. that's not going to enter into my calculus in terms of the recommendation and I'm going to present it to you and I
so when I go through it and see what they present that's how I'm going to look at it but it's not when we're talking about safety and this gets to your point it's not about how much it costs like what is what needs to be done to fix the intersection >> deciding who pays for what is you know >> it's a different
>> something it's a different matter but we can certainly make sure that there's identified measures to deal with these issues deal with what's happening for the speeding towards your driveway way and deal with what's happening at the intersection because they're so close together and related to each other. They can all it should be able to all be taken care of with the same level of
improvement. >> Thank you. >> Was uh that traffic study done prior to Aldi's opening. >> Actually, I think Aldi's was one of the projects that they it might have been because I think they added traffic from
Aldi's into their traffic counts. Yes, it was. So the traffic counts were done prior to that because as they did their traffic counts in August of 24 in order yeah in order to have it be equivalent to 2025 they adjusted the volumes upward and then they added traffic from uh two
projects. One one of them was Aldi's. >> Is that actual numbers or something they took out of a book? >> It was what was in the traffic study for that project. >> So it's not actual >> not. So it's not actual. >> It's not actual. >> Yeah. I'm theoretical. Yeah. Well,
>> can I ask another safety question? Her project, I think she said 21 21 school kids now. They're going to come up spring bars. I know my kids would take the first driveway because that's what kids do. They go the fastest route to get to the food. And I find that pretty
dangerous with big trucks coming out of there. And I I don't know if you looked at the safety part of that. So this >> walking people >> across the driveway >> on that spring bars exit. >> So what we've said is that the driveway again we want to see this grade flat
because of the fact that the the driveway is there. Now the crossing of that driveway I think similar to the Worcester Court driveway we generally would like to see because it's a new driveway if they can is the sidewalk should be flush across the driveway rather than you have to ramp down and up. So the so what that does is it
emphasizes the pedestrians rather than the vehicles there. What's important as it relates to the if if pedestrians are going to go in that way then um you know looking at a pedestrian connection I think the only concern I would have if pedestrians go in that way and if they're going to go in that way it
should be factored into the design but as you look at the site plan they need to cross the drive-through window and the queuing lane to get in there if they use that. Um, so I think if if that's something that's going to be, you know, an entrance that's going to be used by pedestrians, then we'd need to think
about the design that would get to something where vertical traffic calming as it relates to internal to the site is appropriate. So then if that's something that's desirable and wants to be brought into the site plan, we probably would recommend something that's going to emphasize that crossing date across the
drive-thru because we don't want cars sitting on top of where the crosswalk would be to get there. I mean, this is kind of calling for them to go down to the intersection >> for the kids, which is even worse, right? >> Pretty much >> shortest distance between two points, >> they're going to go that they're going to go that driveway
>> cutting across somebody's lawn. >> And so, if that's something that needs to be put in the plan that goes back to the grade because it needs to be an ADA compliant sidewalk and if the grade of the drive the sidewalk well, they they could come up with a different kind of sidewalk, but generally it's adjacent to the driveway. So the slope in if it's
adjacent to the driveway the driveway slope is controlling the sidewalk rate. >> Where exactly is this drain going to be located >> that I don't know site engine I haven't I mean I actually I don't >> going to be in the sidewalk itself.
>> I don't know that it >> well they're proposing >> um it looks like it's if again looking at it there trench drain is uh in the property so it's before >> before the sidewalk. So it's it's catching the drainage before >> I'd be concerned walking across that
with my high heels. >> So we we can ask a part of our followup. We can ask the applicant to look at that because it is related to the driveway grade as well. It's another dynamic that would look at you know that grade because they would need to do some kind of a switchback type of ramp to get up.
>> Linda, are you all set? >> I have two more. >> Go ahead. Um, I didn't have a lot of time to prepare for this because I was under the assumption this hearing was going to be continued because the planning was continued. >> It is. >> We're not going to vote tonight,
>> right? Um, RTA, are we positive the RTA goes down Spring Bars Road? >> Don't know. >> I've never seen that bus on that road. They go down the Falmouth Mall. >> Oh, yeah. They don't go down in the mall. >> I've never seen them go down that road. >> We've That's one of the things we've
asked them to >> Okay. I'm just saying we I heard you speak of the >> RTA. Correct. >> They don't go down that road. They don't >> One of the things that the applicant has to >> the applicant has to one of the standards is that uh they identify
transportation alternatives >> and not just identify it, but this that's part of the standard under 13.1 section 13.1. Um it's paragraph 3 of 13.1E. So they have to get into what u it's
called transportation alternatives. So they have to explain that to us and we're going to go well I'm going to try and go >> all right. I was just a little confused about the conversation. I thought it was they had stated the RTA does go down spring bar. >> Yeah. But that's what they're going to have to tell us is going to happen.
>> Okay. Um the next thing I have a question on. So, as far as I can see on the site plan, the exit and entrance on the Wister Court side, is that or is that not directly across from the Cappy's Aldi
Falmouth Plaza? >> Very close, but not exact. >> Yeah, it it does it does line up. It's offset a little bit, but it does slightly line up with the driveway across the street. But then I think that other driveway might be a little bit south of there, but it's it's sort of
like not much, right? >> Thanks. Anybody else have any questions? You okay? Everybody's good up here? >> Yeah, good draft. >> Amen. >> Thank you. >> Oh, he's got time out. We have one more. Sorry.
>> Then we'll let the attorney respond. more just a comment on the uh intersection. Uh Clement and I'm a director Butter 179 West Court. >> Sounds good on paper and in theory of narrowing that intersection to try to
slow traffic down not possible. The amount of commercial vehicles going through that intersection all different directions um along with obviously with general public driving through. There's no possible way you can narrow that up any
because any time three times a day 18 wheelers taking a right taking a left going over the curb it's too narrow as it is. So in theory that's not going to work. I mean it sounds like it's going to work but it's definitely not.
>> A lot of the accidents are cars coming up spring bars road cars turning down on Exactly. and they they contacted the side of the vehicle. >> These 18 wheelers will come up Spring Bars Road to take a right to go into the back of Kappies. They're constantly I mean they're driving not just on the curb a little bit. They're they're on
the curb by >> and the stop lines are behind the crosswalk and people stop at the stop line and then they go up into the crosswalk which really puts them in the road. It's a it's a car delivery vehicles coming out of O'Hara Motors
which is diagonal from this property. They'll pull out and they'll go to take a right to on to uh Worcester Court to go out to the stop and shop lights. They're constantly driving on the front lawn and over the curb at the bank. So narrowing that intersection is definitely not going to work to be
honest with you. Um the other question I had is the number of parking spots you're proposing. What is that based on? >> How many >> for the fit? Um, >> I think it's 39.
>> They're meeting at two. >> If I recall at the last hearing was there was one spot per seat in the restaurant. >> That's correct. What about the extra parking for employees? How many employees are going to be there at any time?
>> That's all kind of for the applicant. We can ask the applicant all those questions. >> Okay. >> I have some of those myself. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. Come on up, journey. >> Uh, thanks. Uh, for your record, I'm Bob
Amed, uh, attorney in Falmouth and, um, represent the applicant. Um, our role is Arty Rivera from Cape Islands Engineering is here as well as Randy Hart, EDHP, who wrote the applicant's traffic report. I think it'd
be helpful if I just uh pull up if I can figure out how to do it quickly. I won't. Um the plan. So, I want to just provide some information that's helpful to the discussion that we've just had and it has to do with
some changes in the plan which are reflected on the plan that was filed in preparation for this hearing um the end of last month. So the original traffic report did not
uh show sorry the additional plans did not provide for right turn only and so when Randy Hart did his work his uh plans don't show right turn only his uh
analysis out of the exit only and we changed that to propose exit only in response to the engineering department's concern about visibility, about sight distance for lefthand turns
out of that driveway looking towards Worcester Court. We did that because it was something we were willing to do even though we didn't agree with that that was a problem. And we'd also prefer to have a two-way exit because it's it's a
better site by doing so. Um well the engineering department oh and by the way we also did it in part because the uh credit union across the street sort of latched on that concern and uh said the engineering department
thinks there isn't enough site visibility is you know we don't want to create a problem. Well, the engineering department no longer believes that's a problem because there's they were calculating speeds going through that intersection without
taking into account that there's a stop signs there and that there are cars turning into it. So, the latest engineering reports do not identify that as a problem. They are comfortable with the sight distance and so is um um Mr.
Durk. So we So our plan that was submitted um last month, the plan that's now before you does not restrict the traffic to right turns only.
It only the only restriction is that um the delivery vehicles and the trash truck those are required to turn left. We don't want those >> trucks turning right towards the
residential um areas in Marav Vista. >> So that's a real important issue. There was quite a bit of discussion about that and so um Mr. Durk's further analysis will no doubt take that into account.
The uh applicant has submitted the um turning movement diagrams uh for the largest delivery truck WB62 I think it is as well as box trucks as
well as the fire engines and um those are all filed. They're included also in the response to Mr. Durk's comments to his review uh that we've just completed. Mr. Durk's
report was received by us late on December 29. There was a holiday in between. There's actually a lot of requests that were were made. Uh we really appreciate the work he's done. I thought his presentation tonight was terrific. Um
and we have prepared responses. I gave a copy of it to Norine. uh late this afternoon and we and I know that uh Mr. Durk has received a copy of it. Those include the uh truck movement uh diagram. So,
>> did that include the trash truck one too? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Um let me just make sure about that because there are three different things. >> That was the one he was questioning too. >> We have the fire truck. We have >> box truck, delivery truck. Yeah, truck
is is the biggest. >> Yeah. >> Um, ask >> get an expert on that. >> Yeah, let's do it. >> The talk >> for the record, Rowdy. Sorry from Cape Engineering, the the engineer for the applicant. So, yes, we have those three movement. The single unit 40 will be the
the vehicle turning movements that represent the the some delivery trucks, but also the dumpster the dumpster truck. >> Dumpster truck. Okay. Thank you. Also, the plan does show, of course, the required uh 14 foot wide, 45 foot long
parking space that's just for uh uh delivery trucks. And actually, the way the site is designed, it could be considerably longer than that. Um because there no parking next to it u heading towards the curb cut onto Spring
Bars Road. Um the width of the curb cuts was raised as an issue. The existing curb cut on Worcester Court um is the same width or a little wider than what we're proposing there of course, but there's no activity going on on on the
property. But the width of that is required because of the delivery trucks turning into the site from Worcester Court. And the width of the exit driveway um on Spring Bars Road is required for
the left turn of of the delivery trucks. Um the plans have also been revised um since you saw them previously with respect to the slope of the exit um curb
cut and I think it's fair to say uh that the engineering report and you received the latest engineering department's report only yesterday in the afternoon um there is only one issue that they have with the plan that remains um and
they are now satisfied with the with that curb cut except for the drainage issue of the proposed French drain that uh Capen Islands has recommended be used to
um receive runoff from a area that I think is about 330 square feet. Is that about right? um that's the only area that isn't already uh has drainage going into, but the
slopes make it very difficult to control that little bit of water in that little area. Um and Capen Islands feels that the best solution of that is a French drain specifically for that very small
area. Um and um the operations and maintenance plan that we have uh provided uh would provide for annual inspection of that cleaning of it as necessary and we think it it works. >> Well, we don't know what the solution
is. Go ahead. >> Before we go on that, I watched you talk about this at the planning board. This uh lateral drain that goes across and no one seems to like engineering. This is all within the property, not in the public way. So >> that's correct.
>> So why why is it why would there be an issue putting that in? Seems to be that everybody doesn't like this. >> Well, the engineering department doesn't like it, >> but it's not on the public way. >> They don't think it's going to collect properly. >> So the issue is they don't believe it's going to collect enough
>> apparently. So we don't know what the solution would be for that. Um >> you extend it left and right. >> Sorry, I don't understand that. In anyway, I'm not the >> extending the drain. If they think that the water is going to go beyond it,
making it larger left and right, wouldn't that be >> well, what a potential >> probably Raul should explain it. But in any case, >> let me just finish. I was going to say I'm sorry. I I apologize for interrupt because I this is an issue with the planning board. I think if it's an issue
with our town engineer, I I'm going to listen to what our town professionals say about this >> because I'm not a professional in this area. >> Will your engineer respond to that at some point in time? The concerns about that? See, it's on the public property
and I don't know why there's a real problem with that. >> Well, we we have responded to it. >> Well, I know, but I want them to just say all of this and to do something about it. That's all I'm asking. >> Well, the town planner has uh uh just
this morning uh asked to to try to set up a meeting um with uh Raul and myself with the town engineers for next week just to talk about this. How do we deal with that issue? And perhaps there are
other issues we can talk about at that time um as well. As I said, I think that um the responses that we've made to the engineering department's concerns have
satisfied the engineering department. Um, and this is the one only item that they're describing as open. And it we've asked, well, is the solution that you think it's such a small area that we
don't need to um provide a way to catch the drainage coming off of it. If that's what they say, well, that's okay with us, but we need to come up with a with a solution. We're dealing with a piece of
property that between the level part of it and the street at that corner is a drop of four feet. Um, and it creates a lot of issues including how do you create a handicap accessible sidewalk that people are going to use as opposed
to one that's going back and forth and how do you have a driveway out that um isn't too steep and how do you deal with the drainage and so on. and we're dealing with a lot that presently has no drainage control and is creating or has
created a problem. So, we think what we're doing is a great great improvement and we're down to talking about how to deal with 330 square ft of uh area that we're having a difficulty figuring out
how to have the driveway go at the right pitch and have the water go to the right place. So, we're trying to come up with a solution to that. Could you speak to I see that there was a recommendation to have sidewalks extended across the frontage of the commercial property.
>> Well, the response to that has been that that there is a sidewalk on the other side of the street. There is no sidewalk except that short distance from the intersection on the east side of the street. And we don't think that
extending the driveway to a point where it doesn't serve anything and encourages people to walk along it and then it ends and there's a lot of driveways because they're commercial properties along the um east side of Worester Court having
people cross the across the street there. We don't want that. We want people to cross at the intersection. And so we don't think that extending the sidewalk is a good idea. We want to have um the sidewalk that leads to the
restaurant uh from Worester Court meet the um the existing sidewalk. And I guess there's some question about should it be closer to the intersection, although I think it's pretty close now, but
>> that's just in the report. >> But that that's the response. We don't we don't >> we don't really want to do that. As far as the number of spaces, uh the plan does show 39 spaces. 36 are
required at one per seat. The requirement of one parking space per seat takes into account the fact that every seat isn't taken by a driver and there's plenty of space for the employees. But I think it's interesting
that in um Mr. Durk's uh responses his his review he notes that there's adequate parking and that the Institute of Traffic Engineers estimates that the number of parking
spaces required for a restaurant like this is between 21 and 29. We have 39 because that we need 36 to meet the town's requirements. Um,
we don't think there's any um shortage of parking. There's probably an excess of of uh of parking. >> Well, >> how many employees do you think you're going to have? >> Eight at a eight at a time.
>> And there is there any kind of ride sharing? I did see that in the report that they're encouraging either ride sharing or bicycles or >> one of Mr. Durk's suggestions, his recommendations is that there be a traffic management program
um which I think is a logical appropriate idea for any business to assure people who don't come by car that if they have an emergency and they need to get somewhere there'll be a you know a
car for them that type of thing. um incentives for using public transportation, all that kind of thing. We can put that together. >> I I like that you had addressed some of the open items from our last meeting and extending the fence and your od
mitigation and things like that. So, >> well, appreciative of that stuff. >> Um we have done um a number of changes. I I really wanted to start by just providing information that I thought was relevant to the discussion about traffic
and I think I've I've I've done that. I of course have some other other comments although one overall comment that I think is related to first what uh Mr. Petruchi said uh it doesn't matter what
it costs. Um well I >> actually he said it's not our concern. >> It doesn't matter what it costs. It's not this is not this board's concerned.
>> We start with a situation that we have a intersection which is a problem intersection. It's on a list of high crash intersections. >> There you go. 51 accidents reported.
Presumably any I mean any accident is a problem but a significant accidents highly likely to be reported over a lot of years but it turns out that's five to six a year is what that
comes out to. And the police department has uh told uh Mr. heart that in the first 10 months of this year after the signal was installed, the beak flashing beacon, there's been only been one
reported accident. We don't know what last couple months have been more. And we can propose a bunch of improvements, flashing stop signs, radar signs, other things that Mr. Durk may suggest.
um as part of this project and make it safer. But the thing is we have a vacant acre lot on a corner in the business 2 district in the Mr.
Cod zoning district which encourages commercial development without any limit along with 20 units per acre of housing. if you wanted to go in that direction. And some of the concerns that you have that are very
legitimate concerns will apply to any development on the lot, including developments that don't require a special permit and that are by right development, such as Mr. COD development
such as a convenience store, a retail store which creates 40% more traffic than uh the fast food restaurant. And that would be for a store about the same size as the
proposed restaurant. But you can have which is 6%. It's actually 5.8% 8% because although you don't have the plant, we're going to eliminate we're thinking of eliminating the cover on the patio. So the lot
coverage is 5.8%. 40% is what's allowed and there's the site is big enough for enough parking easily for a 20% lot coverage, which would be that convenience store,
but another 5,000 square feet of some kind of space. Plus, if you went under Mr. Cod by right, 20 units, I think it's 20 exactly 20, maybe it's
21 um units on second and third floor of a building. And those projects would be by right and wouldn't have a special permit. and the same kind of conditions wouldn't be
imposed couldn't be imposed. It isn't appropriate. It isn't fair to assume there will be no development of this property. Now, the owner hasn't developed it for
decades and decades, but I think she's she's going to. Um, and so it it can't necessarily be the the job of this developer
to do everything that's necessary to avoid problems with that intersection. They have to do their fair share. They have to do what's reasonable in connection with this with this project. And Mr. Durk's conclusion in his report, and
I'm not making it up because I have have a page of excerpts from his statements that I'm giving you. He says the intersections will operate safely. It isn't reasonable to think there won't
be a curb cut 200 feet away from the intersection on this corner lot. The town has a bylaw. It says you can't have an intersection within 20 feet. You can't have a driveway within 20t of
another of an intersection. We're 200 feet from the intersection. We're 60 feet away from the driveway for the adjacent apartments. Enough distance that Mr. Durk says he
doesn't see that that that as a problem. The fact that cars are maybe speeding after stopping at the intersection down Spring Bars Road isn't because of Wendy's. There isn't a Wendy's now.
We're talking about cars turning right. seeing the intersection. I just we're not creating these problems that exist. >> But you're adding to them. You're escalating. >> But you might. >> Yes,
>> you're adding to them. >> But any development is going to add to them and we're proposing some significant improvements which will make things safer. So that's I think what you have to think
about. Um and I certainly hope that she can >> I ask a question speaking >> under 24031E uh paragraph one uh it asks in one of the you know it's the standards we
either going to deny or approve this on um it asks the question how does the project not degrade levels of service so you talk about what exists today you know is creating the problem and that Wendy's is adding to that problem is not
currently creating the problem, but it would degrade the level of service. That's the term that the bylaw says. >> Well, actually, I don't believe that that's I don't think we've degraded any of the turning movements that have been studied. That right? I don't think
there's any degrading of them. There will be what? >> Which one? >> Just a few movements. the overall intersection levels of service remain the same but there's a few movements it's wester bars for instance there is
one movement that does change >> stand corrected on that and we can look take another uh look at that but again >> that's all I ask >> yeah that's all I ask >> the conclusion of
the expert engaged by the ZBA um is that there will be some increase in traffic but not a significant amount
and keeping this property undeveloped, you know, isn't isn't the that's not the solution because it can't it can't be the solution. I think the take the takeaway that I have is the
applicant can get very focused on the traffic at that intersection and I think that hopefully you can come back and propose some modifications that can help us to better understand and limit the exposure to pedestrians and and and
other cars that >> I your general statement I tend to agree with from you know from your highlighted aspects here but the fundamentals are traffic seems relatively minor. All of these components of it, that's great.
That's good. But you've heard it from the whole panel. I think that the the folks that have come up and spoke, there's a problem at that intersection. So, the more you can spend your time on helping to diffuse those issues at that
that would help us to or myself potentially to say yes to the project. >> Yeah, >> I'm kind of indifferent to the what if drill. what might happen there, but you're very close. So, keep your focus on that intersection and how to address it.
>> If the five of you feel the way that you do, I'm very pleased because we will work to try to gain >> um your support. I think that the ability um for us to talk to Mr. Durk
through our expert and come up with uh the best set of improvements uh that we can afford. I'm don't know if we can do them all. Um I think we have a great opportunity to try to try to do it right
and >> that's what we want a safe project. >> Yeah. >> And pursuant to that >> you guys all set up here with with the applicant? >> No. >> Does anybody from the public want to question the applicant? Oh, you do have one. I'm sorry. Excuse me.
>> No, I I I I just don't understand why you don't want to extend that sidewalk down to the Worcester Court uh entrance. It it it it ends uh and you know, people are going to be walking on that sidewalk and continue. I mean, that doesn't make any sense to me.
>> Well, it brings people to a point where the sidewalk ends and they've been encouraged to cross the street, not at the safer. >> What if they're going to your to Wendy's? That doesn't make any sense. Oh, there's a there's a walkway from >> if you're coming up here and you're going around the corner, the sidewalk
stops right there, doesn't it? >> Correct. Where our sidewalk to the store begins. >> Oh, you are going to put I I should >> Sure. You probably are looking at an existing conditions plan as opposed to >> Oh, I I thought you just said you weren't going to. Okay. And um before uh
I just had one question for Linda, come up here. Okay. All right. There it is. All right. Um, is there a because we have this issue with the water coming down the proposed driveway. Is there an an issue
with puddling in front of your um driveway to that place or anywhere between there and this proposed driveway as it exists? Now >> we have a storm drain at the edge on our
property of the driveway. >> And does it handle >> that was to mitigate storm water from >> and does it? >> It does. Um, but any more water? I don't know. It's a good question and that's been one of my concerns.
>> Yeah, that's one of the town's concerns >> because through the process of construction we had I think I gave the board some pictures. It looks like um a waterfall under construction, the storm water from that parcel was coming over onto
um our parcel. Oh, so you dealt with >> I've already spent construction a minimum of $17,000 during construction mitigating storm water from that parcel. >> I'm probably I don't want to do that anymore. I if if this project is
approved, um I am not in a position to manage anybody else's storm water, especially theirs again. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. I do have some other things if you'd
like me to sit down and come back to the podium. Um, >> you can ask a few questions of the applicant. Is that what you mean? >> Okay. Um, Attorney Armit is focused on having the parcel developed. I don't think anybody's opposed to a oneacre lot being developed.
It's I the use is not appropriate for that location. I nobody is opposed to it. Um, fast food restaurants are in B1. Correct. There's a reason for
that. B2 is with special permit. So, we do have 40 families. We're talking a loudspeaker. A convenience store is not going to have a loudspeaker, I don't think. Um you're talking massive amounts
of trash which dumpster is ab budding um the FA housing corporation property. We're also managing the trash from that site now. It's coming through the fence. Um and we
clean it up daily. I have an on-site maintenance person. I believe the trash trucks are going to be a nuisance to the residents. They're allowed. When are they going to show up? They're going to show up probably before they open, which is early in the
morning, right? Um and then when the trash trucks do this, we know where the trash goes. And that wind over there is pretty heavy. So, I do have concerns with that. I have concerns about the delivery trucks that are going to come after
hours. As we talk about, you don't want these big vehicles in the parking lot during hours of operation. Uh we're going to have noise. We're going to have refrigeration. We're going to have trucks. It's going to be noisy for the residents
of Little Palm Place. I don't think there's any doubt in my mind. Um odor air pollution, litter, waste, storm water runoff. We just discussed
that. As I said, I think it is um it's not a suitable location for a fast food restaurant. One other thing, and I think I missed this, how many vehicles were determined we're going to come in and out of the site daily?
>> Between 12 in traffic. >> Well, I mean, we we've already, like we talked about, it's a pretty dangerous intersection now. So, is that we're looking to do to compound a bad situation? That's a lot of cars. Um, the light has helped somewhat, but I
really don't even want to admit this. I go up and down that road so many times, I've never noticed the light because I'm too busy paying attention that I don't want to get hit. So, I don't >> I didn't know there was one there either. And then I watched the planning board and I'm like, "Oh my god." So then I went and looked. I did. I I That's why
I asked if it was too high because I I missed it, too. >> It was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago. I go, "There is >> because I think it's so busy in that area. You're just attention. Right. There you go. Stay alive." >> May I May I just say something? Sure.
>> Part of the section the what's called specific performance standards. This board has to consider to approve or disapprove this. Um right in the beginning if you want to read it in 13.1 it says no use shall be permitted which would be offensive because of injurious
or obnoxious noise vibration smoke gas fumes odors so forth and so on. One of the questions as of time when they come back I'll be asking how are they not doing that by putting this restaurant there particularly where the trash bins are what time the trash truck will pick
them up because I know in some parts of town the town is allowed 4:00 in the morning pick them up you have folks living there you've got kids living there that's school kids that's not appropriate so I will ask at some point in time for them to show why this is not creating a nuisance because that's part
of the standards that we have to consider here So that won't go unanswered. >> Great. I you know what I the residents of Little Pond would greatly appreciate that. Um and myself as the president and
property manager of the complex. It it will it will have a huge impact both maintenance concerns and most most importantly the tenants I worry about. I mean we're we don't develop and leave town like most affordable housing. We
don't do that. We're here. We watch out for our properties. We watch out for um about notices that come down our way. We look out for even though we're not I I consider my ah how would I feel if I lived there? That's how I look at it.
>> So you're correct in saying it is going to be a problem. And I don't know what kind of fans in this day and age they have to prevent odor of fried food, French fries. I don't know. That's not my expertise, but I would not believe for one minute we're not going
to have odors from the fans. They have to be pretty big fan system and the drive-thru, the noise. >> And then when you got these idling cars and you got the headlights and then they got the music going as they're idling,
sitting there waiting place their order. I I don't see it for this location. um as the resident property manager of Little Palm Place or as a resident.
Um I am in precinct 2. I live off of Falmouth Heights Road and I travel that roadster court a lot of times on a personal matter as well. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead if you want to address anything.
>> Thank you again. I have uh prepared um a dense a five-page letter that I've given to um Norin. Perhaps she's passed out copies to you
that addresses lighting, addresses noise, odors, trash, and then sections on drainage and traffic. >> So, we have that. Yeah, >> you have that. And so tonight, >> while you just got it, we just got it.
>> We just got it yesterday. >> Yesterday. >> Well, I gave hard copies with colored photographs to Narin to hand out. >> We haven't had a chance to look at it. >> Of course not. >> Required seven days. Five, I think we agreed on. >> Yes. Thank you. Um,
and I put that together in part because I knew you didn't want to hear me go through it all. >> Yeah. No, we'll read it. Yeah. >> Please read it carefully. Yep. No problem. >> The speculation that
the restaurant won't take care of its trash, the speculation that the state-of-the-art filters won't work for housing that's 200 ft away from the vent. the speculation that we can't control
the noise from the order box when we can and would agree to a condition that it can't be heard off the site. There's just lots of speculation going on here that isn't based on fact.
>> Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody else Did you want to come up and ask any questions of the applicant? >> No. Everybody's all set. You want to come up? Good save. >> Excuse me. Hi, Selena Given 109 Wester
Court. Um, one comment to the board and to your last statement. Um, I think there is a lot to say that there is simulation involved in a lot of everyone's reports, but reality is a lot different than simulation. And so to
speak about what is and what the fans can do and what the trash won't do and what all these things, but reality is a lot different than simulation. And I think that is a lot to be considered. And I feel like there's a
lot of sugar coating going on because these people, as lovely as you are, don't live in this neighborhood or down the street or pass through. And again, to Linda, I'm sorry,
Linda's point, there are neighbors very close by. And whether they are considered by the law abutters, they are still neighbors and they're very close by. and the things that affect them are real. Whether
they're renters or owners, it is real to them. And to be commercially minded as this group is, again, it's simulation, not reality. And so I just would like for everyone to
be considerate of that. >> Say something to that. >> Yes, of course. Um I have not read because we just got tonight and I agree with you. It can't be a simulation. It can't be sugarcoated. When we get into those areas if it's not already
addressed in this letter because I haven't read it. U be rest assured I will ask that how do you keep the kiosk from trespassing onto other properties? How do you keep the uh smell the odors
from cooking? Why is it the state of art? Is there an expert that provided that information or is it just something the manufacturer? We will ask those. I want you to be rest assured. Great. >> I will do my best to ask those questions. >> Thank you. Um I was um on 28 the other
day coming down um from you know heading towards Worcester Court and there was a truck pulling out of the the Falmouth shopping center. right the mall. I don't know what you call it where the HomeGoods and the Walmart is.
It had a difficult time pulling out and it had to pull into the post office drive like driveway grass to get out and that is a rather large driveway. So to think that there's going to be a semi
semitr rather pulling out of um Spring Bar's road onto you know out of the parking lot onto that road without driving onto other people's property is hard to believe given how nar I mean
already it's just a two-lane road. >> Yeah. So, I just I I think it's a hard spot to justify a fast food restaurant. There are locations, it's already been said in other conversations
in this forum that they have redone other established buildings into their Wendy's. So, are there not already established buildings in Falmouth that they could redo rather than building a
fresh at that lot? It feels like they're trying to put a lot into like five pounds of bolts into a 2 lb bag. Um, and I don't know if without their variances
such as parking lot size or how far they can abut the next property that they would be able to have the ability to have the space for a fire truck or a ambulance or a garbage truck
or a semitr with their deliveries at whatever hour of the say that those are necessary. Anyway, >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? We're going to continue this anyway. Do we have a date?
>> Nor January 29th. >> 29th. >> Yes. >> Do we need a motion? Yeah, I need a motion. >> What was the day? I apologize. >> 29th. >> January 29th. >> January. Okay. >> Is that okay?
29th is okay. >> Okay with us. We just want to be sure you're all able to come. >> Yep. >> Motion to continue to January 29th. >> We have a motion and a second. Everyone's all set. All those in favor?
I oppose? None. >> Great. Thank you all for coming out. Great report. >> That was a really good report. >> Yeah. All right, let's see what I got here.
>> That goes home. >> There's always a lot to unpack. >> It's a tough one. I really am. I'm struggling. >> Me? >> It's you or me? >> That's me. Get out of there. stole it from the bank. >> Yeah, the girl saw me put the floor in
my pocket. She goes, "That's okay." I was like, "All right." All right. Our next hearing is uh 51 Thomas Lane. >> We have an application 085-25 James J. Smith and Llama
Surland's 51 Thomas Lane McMass apply to the zoning board of appeals for special permit pursuant to sections 240 102A and 240 11384 the code of Fmouth to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming two family dwelling increasing lot
coverage by structure and I have it's in an RC district uh flood zone AE12 AE13 Uh Thomas Lane is a private road. Lot size is 11,253.
Um building heights to the max at 35. Um sideyards to the max also. I'm pretty sure uh the existing uh with just structure is 19.8 and with structure paving is 34.9.
Proposed is 24.4 for structure and 39.6 six for everything. Um, we have conservation. Um, the plans need to be just a little tweaked. Water needs
an upgrade. No letters. And that's about all I have. I'll let you do it tonight, Kevin. Attorney CL, excuse me. >> Kevin's fine. I've been called a lot worse probably today. Uh, for the record, my name is Kevin Clower. I'm an attorney here in Falmouth and I'm before
you this evening representing Jim Smith and LMA Surlands. Uh the owners of 51 Thomas Lane. Mr. Smith is here with us this evening. Uh and I'm also joined by Greg Cerunian of ResCom Architecture who is the uh architect for this particular project. Uh Jim and LMA are seeking
permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming dwelling on this property. So 51 Thomas Lane is located effectively just across from Surf Drive Beach. The Thomas Lane is at the corner of Surf Drive and Shore Road. It's a relatively dense, largely seasonal
neighborhood. This particular lot is 11,253 ft, which is pretty typical for that area. Uh it's a residential CZ zoning district. It is in the AE12 flood zone and it is on municipal sewer. So, presently there's a duplex consisting of
two two-bedroom dwellings, attached dwellings, which are four bedrooms total in the building. There's two detached sheds and the total existing footprint is 22 2230 ft uh 19.8% lot coverage. The existing dwelling is a non-conforming to
front yard setback. It's 18.4 ft where 25 is required. Uh but otherwise conforms to setback and lot coverage requirements. Um it is also pre-existing non-conforming in that is it is a duplex in a residential C zoning district. The
RC district uh only allows for single family residences. However, this is a legally pre-existing structure because until 1964, this area was zoned as a general residence district which allows for duplexes by right. This property, this duplex was built in 1958.
Um and in 1964 at the annual town meeting, this area was reszoned to residential C. A copy of that town meeting vote uh making that change was included with the application package. As such, the duplex is legally uh pre-existing, non-conforming, and is a
protected use. So, the applicants have owned this property since 2010, been in their family since 1991, but they're looking to make this their full-time residence. The house needs significant repairs both cosmetically and structurally, and given the scope of the desired renovation, the condition of
the premises, and its location in the flood zone, they're effectively required to raise and rebuild in compliance with the flood zone requirements. So, they're proposing to raise and rebuild the structure. The applicant's proposal will improve the front yard setback from 14.8 ft to 26, which
eliminates the only dimensional non-conformity. Uh, the proposal will meet and exceed all other sideyard and rear yard setbacks. The lot coverage by structure will increase from 19.8% to 24.4, which may be allowed by special permit. And
the proposal maintains the home as a duplex. uh doesn't increase the bedrooms which remain at four which is what's allowed on municipal sewer in this area. Proposed ridge height for this would be 34 ft 8 in. Uh we are aware of the building department referral requesting a height certification and we'd be more
than agreeable to that as a condition if the board sees fit to approve this. Due to the existing nonconformities uh this requires a special permit pursuant to section 240 10.2A. Under that provision, pre-existing non-conforming structures may be changed
by special permit, provided they're not substantially more detrimental than what exists. The board has asked to consider the standards of 240 12.1E and whether or not the alteration creates any new dimensional non-conformities and pairs views and vistas relative to the public ways and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood. In this case, there's no
new non-conformities created. The only existing dimensional nonconformity is eliminated. Uh the front yard setback, as I noted, will be improved to greater than 25%. There is no effect of views and vistas on public ways. Thomas Lane is a private way. Um and it is consistent with the neighborhood as
we'll elaborate on. It does also maintain the use as a duplex. So there's no change to the legally non-conforming use. Under 240 11.3A4 lot coverage by by structure above 20% may be allowed by special permit. And again, the board's
asked to consider the size and height of the structure in relation to the neighborhood of shadow impacts on views and vistas to the public ways and effect of nitrogen on coastal bayments. In this case, there's no impact to the views and vistas from public ways. Again, Thomas Way Thomas Lane being private. Though
the building is larger, it is an area with with many similar structures, many of which have come into compliance with the flood flood zone requirements. Some of them have been in uh velocity zones and are up on peers such as the property at the corner of surf and shore and uh a number of the by water court properties
and there's no effect of nitrogen on coastal bayments. It's connected to municipal sewer. We're maintaining the same number of bedrooms as at present. As to the size and fit with the neighborhood, we submitted a lot comparison worksheet looking at properties within a 300 foot radius. As proposed, this is only slightly above
the average footprint. And while larger than many in the homes in the area in terms of gross floor area, it's not out of character, especially when considering that this is a duplex and coming into compliance with those zone standards. It's very similar to a number of homes that have been permitted and constructed within the last few years in this area. The applicant's proposal
represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions. The existing dimensional non-conformity will be eliminated. No new dimensional non-conformities. The site is adequate and suitable for the proposal. It's used in the same manner as at present as a residential duplex. The waste water is
more than managed here. As noted, it's on sewer and there's no increase in the bedrooms. There's no impact in traffic flow and safety. Remains the same intensity of use as a duplex with two two-bedroom units. And there's no impact on views and vistas or public ways. Again, be being a private air lane. Uh
the property is serviced by adequate utilities as well. So, in short, there's no adverse effects that overbalance the benefits that have been outlined. There's nothing about this proposal that's substantial and more detrimental than what it is. And it meets the requirements of 240.2A, 241.3A4,
and 242.1E. For these reasons, I would ask that the board grant the special permit, and I would of course be glad to address any questions that the board may have at this time. >> You want to start off, Mark? >> Scott's already ready.
>> He's bouncing. He's ready. >> He's always ready. >> Scotty does his homework. Um like we've uh I've stated before, I mean uh
this area town is uh already lost, so to speak, if you want to look at it in that respect. Um, and you did max this right out to the absolute >> inch.
>> Yeah. 8 foot 6 in uh ceiling heights to get you all the way up. Um, that chimney chase that's considered an architectural detail. >> Yeah, chimneys aren't included in the height calculations.
>> Yeah, I know. >> Um, I I do want to note because that's the second time that's come up. there there was actually a 33 foot setback on on the lefth hand side um which I guess would be the southerntherly side. So, you know, I think it's been noted that we're maxing it out to all the setbacks
and that's not entirely true. Uh it's being moved pretty considerably to the uh to the north here. Um so there there'll be a pretty substantial setback on that side as well. >> Yeah. I was just hypewise. Of course, everybody wants to uh
and uh it's all yours. >> Thank you. Do you mind pulling up either the front elevation or rear elevation? I to Mark's point, it's it's it's big and
bulky. Um, we'll need the asbuilt on the foundation and on the height. >> I I would fully expect that there'd be a height certification and an asbuilt um as to as to lot coverage. >> So, no issue with either of those as a requirement.
>> No, I I I don't have any other comments. >> Thank you. Is it considered four stories? >> No. Um I I actually met with the building commissioner on this uh because I think his initial referral >> people standing on the fourth floor. >> That's um that's a roof deck. There's a small roof deck up on on the se on the
ceiling uh roof here. You see it from the the rear here. Um so the first floor is not habitable um because it's flood zone compliant. So by code it cannot be habitable. Um, and I think that the building commissioner
retracted that portion of his um, referral. So, no, I don't believe that this would count as three. >> You had to go for the 8 foot six, huh? >> I mean, you know, even if it was 7 foot6, we're not talking about a substantial difference here because, you know, the first floor you have the garage space, so you need to be able to
pull the car in. And even if you went to 76, which I think is the requirement for new construction, >> I mean, even 8 feet. I mean, it just like I said, it just >> Yeah, >> I don't think there'd be an appreciable
difference with a 34T 8 in versus 33' 5 in. If we had to 34t even 6 and six is 12 last time I checked. >> He's an attorney, not a mathematician. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If I was better at mathematician, If I
was better at math, I'd be a doctor. >> Struggles doing the homework. Even >> when I help my kids with math homework, I'm like, I don't know what this is. >> What are the uh the entranceway stairs going to look like? >> Um I'm not sure I like in in inside the
first floor >> to get into the house. I'm walking over. I'm going to knock on the door. >> So So this is this is ground level. >> Yeah, >> this is ground level. So there's no um >> there's going to be nothing. No, it's it's it's flush. And you'll see there's you see the
garage here and there's a small porch here. So, if you step up to the porch. Um but uh there's there's >> the sheds are going away and they're just going to use the back of the garage cuz the garage really won't >> Well, right now there's no garages. There are no garages on the houses that
exist today. So that that'll you know those storage will be in >> Yeah. >> And no comp sheet for one sheet. >> Yeah. There is I didn't see it when I went through the file. There wasn't as >> this was average, you think? >> Well, in term in terms of >> get around the corner in terms of in
terms of footprint, it was only marginally higher than the average gross floor area was higher. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I saw houses that were like this size, but they had like a a yard, like a really odd. >> Yeah. Well, >> I didn't see this. Oh, okay.
>> Down on the water. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. All right. Do you have any questions before? Just to follow up on the the uh because it's 24.4%. >> Um for you not to have an entry stand
means that the first floor is a slab on grade. >> Well, yeah, it has to be because it's flood zone compliant. You can't have >> So, it has to be a slab on you're right. There's no step. >> Yeah. You can't have a basement in a flood flood and and to be in order to be flood zone compliant, you can't have a basement. That was now
I I did read Mr. Street's comment about we need to decide if this is three stories or not. And then there was a revised referral that came in which removed that >> and I have a copy of it if you like. >> Yeah. No, I absolutely believe it. >> Yep.
>> And that as long as it's he does not think it's a three-story building, it's under 35 ft. >> No, it's not. Immediately >> it's it's 34 feet in. >> It is under 35 ft. >> The answer is it's under as built
>> but I have no >> I thought I saw 35 somewhere here. >> No, it's 348 I think. >> Right. >> Sometimes it shows it from the at the elevation. Mr. Fer, >> it does say on the plan 35. >> Yeah, I saw 35 on the plan. >> I think it's on the last page on the right.
>> Yeah, >> I did see it, too. Yeah, I 35 from it. >> But doesn't that go across to the uh >> I think it that's just noting what the max is. >> It looks like it goes across to the peak though.
>> So if you look here, it says maximum ridge height 35 ft and then it shows the actual ridge height at 34 ft 8 in. >> Eight. Oh, that's that's 4 in. How come that uh all those lines go straight across with my ruler?
>> Four inches disappeared. somewhere. >> I think it's just noting that the maximum is 35 ft. Mr. F. >> Yeah, you got 35 there. You got this line across which goes to this peak and it appears to be the same.
>> So again, the height, the actual measurement is 348. This is just noting that the maximum rich height is 35 ft from average grade. >> Yeah, but the line goes to the as I'm saying >> the line >> goes above. >> It does not. >> It goes to the ridge on the in the middle. goes to the ridge
>> right from there where it says 35, right? I mean, >> so that's just that's just a notation that the maximum is 35. The actual measurement is 34 ft 8 in. >> It says 35 ft from grade. I got a level line all the way across to that peak. Um
>> so so if you if you if you look here this the the measurement is this 34 ft in >> this is this is a notation just saying that the maximum ridge height from grade >> that's 35 ft up there >> this is this is 34T Gregor this is 34T
grade oh >> he's up the scale >> so that's >> we're going to get it certified anyway >> yeah so just to be clear what we're proposing is a to 34 ft 8 in. >> We'll get it certified. Be good.
>> Anybody else have any other questions before we go to the public? You are you >> good? >> Do I look good? >> No. >> Are you all set down here? Anybody from the public want to comment? Richard, what about the landscaping?
>> I didn't see anything. >> Well, you could ask. >> It's on the roof. >> It'll be well landscaped. We'll we'll put we'll put Richard as an answer. >> Mark, you're up.
>> We all are. We Is everybody okay? >> Yeah, ma'am. Okay, we're going to the uh motion to close this uh testimony. Second.
>> Everybody all set? You're all set. Applicants all set. You're good. Norine, you have anything for us? We're all set. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close testimony. All those in favor? >> I.
>> Any further discussion? >> Wow. You don't want to hear it. >> We got a lot of conditions. So, make your list. >> Motion to approve of conditions. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor?
I oppose? None. >> All right. I have to do findings. This is going to be scary. I haven't done this in a long time. >> Oh boy. >> It's like riding a bike, >> huh? >> It's like riding a bike.
>> All right, we're in NRC. Um, we're in AE12, AE13. Um, we're doing 240, 1028, 240, 1134. It's a private road. Um, lot size is 11253.
Did I hear you say 203? >> 253. >> I thought it said 253. >> Y >> um it's 34t 8 in. Although my notes say 35 because I read the plan. Um existing is 19.8 for
structure over 34.9 for everything. Um proposed is 24.4 over 39.6. >> Um >> sheds to be removed. sheds to be removed. Nothing to be Well, that's on conditions
for nothing else. What other conditions do I have? Um, it eliminates the non-conforming setback from up front. Um, anything else you can think of for uh findings, Dorine? >> Uh, 125 ft of frontage.
>> 125 ft of um frontage. That was a comp sheet that Tony gave me. Not the applicant gave it. >> You may want to make a finding that um that it is legally pre-existing non-conforming. >> Oh yeah. From that town meeting vote.
Yeah. Include that date that he gave for >> 1964. >> Any other findings you can think of? >> Can you think of any any other ones? >> Uh the comments from the town departments. Oh yeah. Well, that's under conditions,
no >> findings. Put them in findings. >> Conditions. >> Okay. >> Make a note. See it from outer space >> for plans. All that. >> All right. Conditions. >> Do I designate it a threetory under findings?
>> Because I can. >> All right. All right. Um uh findings certifi certified height. Certified as built on the found >> certified as built >> uh height at framing >> height at framing >> on the condition. Okay.
>> Um no other structures all boards per plans >> got coverage certified coverage >> by structure. You got that? >> Yeah. Yeah. um conservation plans must be.
>> So I um what what you're looking at is actually a mildly updated plan just showing the three trees and I'll be submitting a copy of this to Norine. This was just finished today after consultation with conservation. >> Okay. So we'll accept the conservation change when that comes into conditions.
Um anything else you can think of? >> Construction hours. You got that? >> Oh yeah. Hours. Hours of op. Yeah. This will be a tough one. We'll probably need police for this one. >> I I suspect we may not because there is that 30ft set back on the southern side and and a pretty, you know, 26ft set back on the front. So So once the house
is demoed, I I I suspect we may not, but of course if we if it is needed, we will. >> All construction equipment and vehicles on site. >> Yeah. On site hours of op 7 to 7, you know, all those. >> Um do we
>> do we need anything for the demolition on the condition? >> No. Oh, except uh you will have to comply with wastewater regarding the sewer. So, they didn't submit anything, but typically you have to apply with uh
wastewater before you do demo so that if there's any sewer components that need to be protected that that takes place. >> They typically cap they typically want the line cap before demo and you know we'll that's all >> comply with waste water. >> Okay. >> All right. I think that's it, right?
That's >> assessor review. >> Assessor review condition >> address >> landscape to be submitted. >> Is there a requirement for landscaping plan? >> Yeah.
>> No, it was for me. I want to see three trees. >> Yeah. >> Oh, well that's we we'll submit the revised plan. Yes. Showing the three trees. Okay. I typically landscape plan is like a more detailed like full-on landscape plan which the two story units
>> I think I think we're all set. >> You good? Nor are you? >> All right. All those in favor I none. >> We're good. >> Wonderful. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time this evening. Glad we could be a little quicker. >> All right. Thanks for giving me that
com. I even looked. Feel like I just been robbed. >> What? >> I feel like I've just been robbed. >> Oh, come on now. >> Minutes. >> All right, minutes. >> We are um we can vote those next meeting.
>> Table and vote. Board discussion. >> See none. >> Seeing none. Board updates. >> We talk about Kevin's lucky shirt again. >> That's a lucky one. It's a different one than last night. >> Similar Christmas. They're all They're all pretty similar
>> Christmas gifts. >> Um, zoning administrator updates. >> So, uh, zoning board of appeals is anticipating going live on Perodize as of Monday, January 12th. Uh, that will
mean that applicants can apply online. Um, we will still be requesting paper copies for board members for review. So, we expect that there will be some starts for this, but
>> we're hoping that as we move forward, it will be smooth sailing. >> Good luck. >> But we but we will still get paper copies. >> You will still get Yes. >> Yeah. There's no way we're going to work on permits. >> No. At some point in time, I'm sure the
town will move toward board members working totally, you know, electronically. So perhaps they >> going to happen with this kid. >> Uh, you know, >> he's blind in one eye, can't see out of the other. >> No. Well, that would be nice. Um, but, you know, give you some electronics to
use so that you can look at the plans while you're sitting there. >> I can't read them now on computer. Never mind. >> I need one of those big >> to blow them up. Yeah, >> Sunny. At some point in time, paper will start to go away.
>> Well, when I'm gone, that'll be a good time. >> Right. >> Future agenda items. >> No. >> And then our next public hearing. What do I mention executive hearing? I'm going to. We have an executive hearing
at 5:30 next Thursday and our public hearing. >> Executive session session. Yeah. >> Executive session at 5:30. And then the public hearing is at six o'clock on January 15th. That'll be on our next meeting.
>> Now, uh there was a ton of stuff that uh went with that >> with what >> that that uh George sent. >> Yeah. >> And uh like I said, I I can't read well on the computer. I need to get a big >> You'll print all that stuff for us.
>> Yeah. I was amazed when I erased it how much uh it took like 10% of my memory. >> Well, yeah. >> No, no, that's gone. >> We could have called it. >> So, just understand that there were two exhibits that were attached to the
document that was prepared. It's not going to be that. >> One of the exhibits was the entire housing production plan. >> So, we will not be printing those. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. That that explains that >> 153 pages. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So, anybody that wants paper
copies, let us know. Ashley will put those together for you. >> Want paper copy? >> Have to worry about that because I know Scott read it all. >> At least the first 149 pages. >> We're going to uh >> Oh, that's him.
>> Oh, motion to adjourn, Madam Chair. And uh >> we have a second from Scott. All those in favor? I