##VIDEO ID:kwp2o4NFDYo## [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] okay welcome to the zoning board of appeals please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by fctv um I'll introduce the board and staff on my far right is Mark fineran a voting member to his left is Scott Peterson a voting member to my right is Frank Duffy the clerk on the chair Suzanne Murphy to my left is James Moss the vice chair to his left is Tony bruchi an associate and we have Nick Haney another associate on the end staff is Norine Stockman our know zoning administrator and Ashley Dello office assistant if there's any private party recording this please step up to the podium and request permission um let's see the zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws in reviewing and voting on this application 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 in 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 next the public will be invited to comment comment should be limited to 2 minutes and be strictly related to The Proposal all members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium you state your name and address for the record please speak into the microphone it will amplify your voice and record audio for the fctv viewers and then we have a part right before we start where if anyone wants to make a public comment you you can come up to the podium anything that's not related on our agenda tonight anybody want to come up no hands so we're good so we'll start off we have three 40 BS tonight um we'll start off with broken bow case 100-4 good evening good evening Nick Nick marioni representing the applicant when we were here last time there was uh [Applause] some say displeasure expressed at the uh I think I should just site plan most specifically in this area where we had an 8un Studio building so we've requested we're requesting a change of the project from a residential rental project to a home ownership project of 12 units instead of 16 and that's what you're looking at here we have uh eight three-bedroom and four two bedroom units in six duplexes the this I'll come back to this this is we'll also show the buffering plan but the other issues that came up were uh sewage we've got confirmation from the sewer department this project will be sewed I believe you all got a letter on that that that stated that uh Broken Bow should be available to connect to the Sewer I believe in 27 so we're going to change the design in our seage to allow for what they're proposing for that Street then the drainage was a major issue so what we've done redesigned our drainage first I'm going to show you [Applause] a this is a 19 72 plan that's on record that shows that there were two catch basins in the street that went was supposed to go to a leeching field in this area they never did apparently we haven't found the catch Bas yet but we've been told by people in the area that they are there so I believe they're probably leech and catch basins that have filled up we're either going to replace them or open them up connect them to open them up connect them to a manhole bring the manhole onto our site and connect it into our drainage plan which all ends up out here and then eventually into the state land where it's going now in addition there was concerns from a bus up on Homestead that had taken quite a bit water off a homestead flows through their property onto our property and they were concerned that we were going to change the grade and flow it back to them we're not doing that we've got a couple of sisters in here we're picking up that drainage and tying that into CU it's com coming on to the site now it's going to continue to come on the site and we're just going to manage it into our catch Basin there was some pictures that have been submitted about the uh pavement at the beginning of the street we at 28 we're going to repair that and there's also a drainage issue down there that we can correct while we're dealing with that just it was supposed to flow off into the state land at the beginning of Broken Bow and somehow that get silted up and blocked up and it puddles there so we're going to open that up as well we we have a revised building elevation so we've added different types of siding window boxes this is I know it looks like brick but it's a cedar impression siding and this planting plan coincides with the landscape buffering plan we're going to be submitting so I think I think that we've addressed all the areas where you were concerned last time and hope you like it a little better this time we'll take some questions okay I'm going to just make a quick statement the town of Falmouth has reached Safe Harbor which we stated at the opening of this application this means the town has met the statutory requirements of the state there is no record of any appeal in this case filed by the applicant as such the board may deny the comprehensive permit under 760 CMR 56.0 31 ABC having followed the requirements under 760 CMR 56.0 38 so I'd like to ask my board members if anyone has any any any motions or any information or any [Music] questions or anything I'll start down this end uh I have a question it's not so much to do with the uh project itself but did I read that the uh sewer was going to be charged off as uh one sewer SEIU or whatever they sewer equivalent unit per 40,000 square ft so this place even though now proposed it has uh 12 units it's only going to get charged for basically one and a half sewer equivalent units uh who came up with that math if that's in fact the case because everybody on mayor Vista was 7200 square foot Lots had to pay the full betterment and um I think that that uh math needs to be Revisited for sure um and uh as far as uh the project itself going to go a long way to get my going to have to go a long way to get my vote Scott uh could you just walk us through your thought process from changing from a rental project to a home ownership project why the change so well we had to take out the the8 unit building that dropped it down to 12 rental units the numbers didn't really work we couldn't make the minimum of 12% that Mass housing likes to see for a for profit on the project and also was mentioned here there was more of a desire for Workforce housing than rental projects so we thought we were meeting both of those requirements meeting the uh Financial requirements and the what we thought was the board's requirement have requirement requests or desire to have more of a Workforce housing than rental housing yeah I again I guess my thoughts to I I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the pro with this project itself but I'd like to hear from other board members too I mean I appreciate the changes uh that was in directionally correct but uh preferred to hear from some of the other board members in too Frank do you have anything yet well uh I kind of would have preferred rental because I think that's what the town has a greater need for but I'm not necessarily opposed to home ownership on a good project um but just to follow up on Mark's question I think I would like to see us uh asked the the zoning administrator to see if he can get an answer to Mark's question um it's something that's kind of important CH so i' review the letter of January 8th from brokenbow residences asking for the change uh I'm not very happy that this is now going from rental to home ownership uh for the benefit of the audience if they didn't know uh when a 40b comes in when it's rental units all units get counted towards the subsidized housing inventory when it's homeowner unit Home Ownership it's only the actual affordable units so we were going from proposed addition of 16 units to the subsidized housing inventory in this town now to four excuse me to three uh so that's a that's a big problem for me um this is not a lip it doesn't address any of the issues that are raised in the town's I should say the lip uh policy that the select board adopted which I think is a it's very instructive and I think it's very IT addresses the majority personally of is isues that I have when I want to see future 40 BS now that we have discretion to say no or to condition things um there's lack of amenities on the The Proposal um I appreciate the reduction in units I think that was appropriate I'm glad to see that septic is going to be sewers coming in in 2027 that addresses a significant issue uh for me personally uh but given the lack of amenities given the fact that this is a budding you know very close to 28 there needs to be some open space there's nothing that is very close by that I think people could easily access so if it's not on premises so to speak or on the lot uh it's it's an issue so I I I can't give support in this current what's currently before the board there's also and as always and I'm sure Mr Petr is going to issue the architectural issues of this project Tony I uh I won't take up uh too much of the board's time time this because Mr moris I think articulated all of my thoughts I think you already know how I feel about the architectural style of this project you've heard me many times in other projects about I think about that and uh I don't think I'm truly in favor of this particular project at this point but I do agree completely I do agree with Mr Morris and I'll just pass that on Nick I agree with the board where I don't see much benefit to the town that are or housing shortage for low you know low income housing more benefit to the developer and not addressing some of the the real needs of the the town one other point the missing middles there's no there's nothing addressing the missing middle here there's no units for 100% Ami you're just giving the minimum required 25% uh if there was an increase that would be something signific ific that I think that the board can hang its hat on but you're just giving us the minimum that's required anybody else down this end no no anybody want to make a motion may I may I respond to some of this certainly uh first of I think there is open space over here this this entire leeching field area is going to be abandoned and that's that is open space secondly I think that there just a such a negative attitude towards this project I think at this point we may choose to just withdraw the application rather than have you deny it so I think that's that's the position we're going to take at this time we'll go back we'll we'll respect your comments here tonight we'll go back to the select board uh we'll talk to them about a lip very opposed to going through dealing with dhcd been very very bad experiences with them I'd much rather stay with Mass housing the lip sends us to dhcd I'm going to ask the selectman and the planning committee if they'll make a recommendation that will be a favorable recommendation or we won't come back of course and that they'll let us go through Mass housing who's much more responsive much easier to work with and there much less on their plate not that they're bad people they just have so much on their plate at ehl or whatever they call themselves now Mass housing's focused so be clear Madam chairman there's an approvable project here it's just thought for me in the current configuration yeah so we'd like to I don't know if you we should withdraw or you want to continue us further till we go back and meet that requirement of going through the selectman you tell me Madam chairman through you if I may any denial is not is without prejudice it's not like a standard where they're precluded for two years so but I would we can do it might be withdrawal is without prejudice that too as well yes okay all right yeah I think that's your best route what about fur a further continuance or a withdrawal withdraw withraw withdrawal okay so we need a motion or a request from the applicant or request from the applicant request to withdraw the application at this time with the right to come back with it after we've done a few other Madam chairman at the request of the applicant I'll make a motion to allow it to withdraw without prejudice second we have a motion in a second all those in favor I thank you thank you ni thank you sir all right next we have 17 Walker and we have a request for continuance till January 23rd correct yeah on that date move to continue to January 23 if the time meets our schedule we have a motion do we have a second we have a motion in a second second y 23rd right yes 23rd yep uh any discussion any discussion on this then all those in favor I opposed none all right we're moving on now to West F at the states the Zoning administ for minutes uh chair Madam chairman uh the recording secretary ask for clarification who made the motion in second Frank thetion oh Frank made the motion in Scott second correct right thank you m didn't see we're too fast down this yeah Speedy all right so we have um West fouth the states we have a draft decision in front of us um guess we can start reading it um we'll take turns like we did last time like a town meeting and do holes if that's okay with everybody and everyone's read up till findings we're not going to read the entire decision because it's pretty long the beginning of the of the document is all paperwork that's sent to us and various emails and and then we go to finding see might just want to ask if anyone noticed any correction on procedural history did anyone notice any questions on the procedural history does anyone have any questions on the procedural history I communicated a correction that's been made on the book and page of the title yeah that was underlined y I think that was the only one in in that right yeah so I think we can move to findings yep is everybody on the right page We Are We There are we on page seven Jim's going to start reading we'll try to split this up findings number one according to the last published subsidized housing inventory Shi issued by the executive office of Housing and livable communities eohc dated January 1 2024 prior to the submission of this application the town of fouth had an 8.13% affordable housing the town currently has an approved housing production plan however as of the date of filing did not currently satisfy any of the statutory or regulatory exemption thresholds outlined in Mass General Law chapter 40b and 780 CMR 56.00 two the applicant has met the requirements to file for a comprehensive permit the applicant has one control of the land by recorded D dated December 15 2023 two the project has been issued a project eligibility letter from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency dated March 20th 2024 and three the applicant proposes to create a limited dividend organization reference 320 2024 Mass housing letter number three the subject site is located at 19 North Falmouth Highway North Falmouth Massachusetts known as the premises and is cited in the single residence B zoning District the wildlife foraging area 2 in the search and rescue overload districts there is 113 ft of Street fundage on North Falmouth Highway a state RightWay complying with the minimum 100t requirement for the zoning District premises comprised of 180 6,244 ft 4.27 acres and a district requiring a minimum 40,000 square ft the lot is conforming four the Westerly portion of the premises is cited in the west fou historical district and in an in inventoried area five the Topography of the premises ranges from a low of 42 feet toward the west to 120 ft toward the East the Westerly third of the premises is relatively level with a relatively sharp slope up towards the east meeting a Southbound layout for 28 the easterly 2/3 of the premises is largely wooded and is intended to be clear-cut for the development the premisis was referred to as Rocky Marine number six immediate AB Butters comprise single family dwellings including some historical dwellings Salt Pond area bird sanctuaries a nonprofit preserving open space Wildlife habit owns a large parcel on the Westerly side of North palas Highway across from the premisis seven the premisus is currently improved by a single family dwelling Circa 19 25 plus a detached garage eight the town of fouth Massachusetts housing production plan hppp report dated March 2024 identifies the goal to add 80 new Shi eligible affording housing units in a given calendar year nine the proposed proposal originally requested the grant of a comprehensive permit for the construction of 24 single family dwellings comprising three bedrooms each with the proposed density was 5.62 units per acre The Proposal was amended to be reduced to 16 excuse me to 20 single family homes with a density of 4.68 units per acre five of the dwelling units will be reserved as affordable for purchases earning 80% of less of the area median income as calculated by HUD Housing and Urban Development for barnable County 10 two separate three-bedroom Home Designs are proposed the Sloop and the Schooner the Schooner is proposed to be two stories with an open front porch and designed to be 27 ft 10 in in height for plan submitted with the application dated 22324 the dwelling is proposed to be 45 ft 6 in in width by approximately 35 ft deep plus an additional rear bulkhead there's an attached single car garage the first floor contains the master bedroom there are two bedrooms on the second floor Plus Storage and a sitting area the Schooner plans show a basement with a rear bulkhead lot seven is proposed to be a partial slab on grade due to setback from the subsurface infiltration system Lots 5 6 7 9 10 12 14 18 and 19 are planned to accommodate this design two of the affordable units are proposed to be the Schooner design the Sloop is also proposed to be two stories with an open front porch and designed to be 29 ft 9 in in height per the plan submitted with the application dated 22324 the dwelling is designed to be 36 ft in width plus a bulkhead by 54 ft in length a single car garage is attached and a first floor master bedroom is planned the second second floor contains two bedrooms plus a sitting area a side bulkhead is planned plus a basement Lots 1 2 3 4 8 11 13 15 16 and 17 are proposed to be the Sloop design including three of the affordable units lot 20 is not designated as a particular building design the existing dwelling is proposed to be moved to this lot and expanded no plans or Dimensions were provided 11 two parking spaces are provided on each lot plus three visitor spaces towards the easterly area and three visitor parking spaces are provided towards the Westerly area of the premises resulting in 46 total parking spaces no accessible parking spaces appear to be designated 12 lot lot sizes for dwellings range from 4,444 Ft lot 20 to 11378 ft Lot 12 number 13 the Lots two at the East and one at the West are designated for common septic area or drainage these Lots do not contain a design is non-buildable the Northwest lot comprising 10,495 ft is proposed for common septic area guest parking and the mail station the Southwest lot contains 9,450 ft of area and is proposed for drainage the easterly lot comprises 13,180 ft of area designated to be a common septic area number 14 Lot wits range from 47 ft lot 20 to 79 ft lot 14 15 units are proposed osed to be cited a minimum of 15 ft from the the project driveway a minimum of 7 ft from side lot lines and a minimum of 10 ft from a rear lot line per the 12724 plan sheet three of eight number 16 retaining walls are proposed between Lots 5 6 7 8 16 17 18 and 19 to be 3T above the proposed adjacent grade the width of the walls were not dimensioned but will impact the access width of the side yards retaining walls are also proposed on lot 14 at 9 ft 15 8 ft and lot 13 at 7 ft such walls will be subject to review by The Building Commissioner the retaining walls on lot 14 and 15 are proposed to be cited stepped into the rear of the lot limiting access to the southerly portion of the Lots number 17 board members rais concern about the final side yard with on Lots between dwelling and retaining wall to the ability to access the rear of dwellings particularly in the event that a repair or upgrade was required for a septic system cited in the rear yard representative for the applicant provided testimony to indicate that a crane could be utilized to lift the structure over an existing dwelling according to the proposed lot table on sheet 3 of8 uh revision dated 121724 the lot width for the narrowest lot proposed for Schooner design lot 9 is 58 ft subtracting the width of the Schooner design results in approximately 6.25 ft F feet for the sidey yard not including the width of a retaining wall similarly the three lots with the most narrow width for the Sloop design Lots three 15 and 17 all at 49 ft of width would have less than the proposed 7t sidey yard given the width of the dwelling plus the additional width of the bulkhead which appeared not to be included 18 lot coverage by structures range from 12% on Lot 12 to 35% lot 20 the as of right limit for the bylaw is 20% the 12 1724 plan notes specifically excluded any future additional structure or change such as the shed or deck in lot coverage any such change would increase the lot coverage reported for the lot above the reported lot coverage number 19 lot coverage by structures parking Paving ranges from 20% lot 14 to 45% lot 11 the as ofri right limit for the bylaw is 40% the plan notes specifically excluded any additional structure or patio not shown in the plan and not clud in the drainage calculations Homeowner Association documents should ident identify this limitation noting additional impervious area May negatively impact PL storm water management and drainage 20 the development shall be accessed by a private driveway maintained by the homeowners association which shall remain private and shall not qualify to be accepted by the town as a way due to the lack of compliance with Town Road standards the proposed exterior lighting is at doorways which shall be dark sky compliant and not shed illumination off site lighting needs to be added to the final site plan to illuminate the sidewalk site lighting to be maintained by the homeowners association 21 the affordable units have been identified as Lot 1 4 10 15 and 19 subject to final approval by the state no no no I'm fine 22 the water superintendent provided a referral requiring the water man and a hydrant at the end of the development as shown on plans including a final ASB built plan the applicant shall provide an easement for the water main extension in a form approved by the town the tap and sleeve assemblies will be inspected by the town including pressure testing chlorination and sampling 23 Town engineering provided a detailed referral comprising seven pages including a request for a peer engineer to conduct a detailed review of the material submitted to include sewage water fire protection parking and access grading and drainage and subdivision plan sheets 24 the 12724 plan sheet 4 of8 reports 31,6 126 Cubit yards of cut 16,990 cubic yards of fill with a net cut of 14,632 cubic yards 25 drainage easements are proposed on Lots 7 and 16 no roof drains are shown on those lots 26 the affordable housing committee provided a referral noting the need for affordable units and inquiring about addition units being affordable beyond the 25% minimum the committee suggested installation of innovative alternative IIA aseptic systems to be installed now to reduce nitrogen rather than waiting until it is request required to lessen the financial burden of a future upgrade particularly for affordable owners the committee also noted that plans lacked sheds which is an amenity sought by homeowners 27 the fou historical commission recommended demolition of the existing dwelling rather than renovating the commission recommended that the designed for lot 20 instead be a Sloop design and that all of the sighting be white cedar shingles to weather on all elevations as opposed to clabber or board and batten lastly the commission encouraged that the area over the proposed leeching field be planted with natural wild flowers 28 the Board of Health agent email noted that the premises is not in a nitrogen sensitive area Coastal Pond overlay District zone 2 or Water Resource Protection District the agent reported that the original 72 bedrooms subsequently reduced the 60 bedrooms is below the threshold for a groundwater discharge permit and would be under Title 5 regulations with the authority being the Board of Health the agent identified that a fully formed septic design was not provided so there was no final comment on health permitting the design as shown noting further engineering and soil evaluations outstanding the town is currently engaged in Watershed planning and permitting with the D 29 Falmouth fire rescue Department noted the number and location of hydrants was adequate as was the travel path for fire apparatus the hydrant will need to be installed and flow tested before vertical construction is started 30 assessing noted that the subdivision plan will require addresses to be assigned by the engineering department and that the plan be recorded at the registry of deeds 31 the planning referral expressly concerned about density and a lack of play Space a preference was expressed for all units to share the septic system and the system be denitrifying IIA it was noted that the elevation of the driveway was a challenge to collect storm water and that it appeared that the grade would overwhelm the drainage system planning noted that the length of the roadway exceeds the subdivision allowance it was identified that the development is not in close proximity to retail or commercial businesses and that there was a concern about noise approximate to Route 28 planning suggested electric car charging be available 32 the housing coordinator noted that the development on North fouth Highway contains no sidewalks bike Lanes or a fixed bus route 3 three a representative for the developer who installs septic systems reported that if the installed septic systems were required to be upgraded to IIA or repair SL repace that the tank could be lifted over the dwelling by crane given the lack of sidey space rear yard septic systems are proposed for Lots 5 6 7 12 16 and 18 34 shared soil absorption systems are proposed at the Westerly area of the premises as well as within the cisac an additional area at the Easter ly area of the premises 35 mailbox placement is planned to be on the Northerly side at the entrance of the development approximate to some parking spaces no bus shelter was shown on the plan no specific play area was identified on the 127 24 plans 36 Dex Dimension 10 ft x 10 ft are shown on the rear of lots 5 6 7 12 14 18 and 19 the 12724 plan contains a notation that patio's deck sheds Endor GRE porches may be added to each lot it is not known if these additional structures were added into the lot coverage by structure or lot coverage or by Structure Parking Paving percentages provided and whether those additions would exceed requested waivers the decks are not shown on the architectural plan submitted optional real patios and front Landings are shown on the landscape plan but not included on the 12724 site plan 37 the town provides trash and recycle pickup and snow removal for res residents on private roads the town will not remove snow from the sidewalk due to the narrow width proposed 38 Lots 11 12 and 13 require uh 38 Lots 11 12 and 13 require an access easement for the shared driveway entrance on lot 11 39 The Proposal does not comply with certain zoning bylaw Provisions as Prov provided in chapter 40b the applicant has requested waivers from specific Provisions identified as exceptions dated November 15th 2024 prepared by Atlantic design Engineers Each of which the zoning board of appeals must separately vote on 40 zoning board of appeals engaged a peer engineer to review the engineering submissions the peer engineer appeared before the board and expressed concern about the road layout noting that there was no construction tolerance provided he noted that while it worked on paper in practicality it was nearly impossible to get everything perfect extending beyond the layout could result in the roadway being on a residential lot the peer expressed that the grade of the road was at the maximum slope and that if it was even slightly off it would be non-compliant he stated that it was not best practice and as an example suggested that the plan should Target an 8% slope where then it might result in a 9% grade he reported that it was typical to design to provide a tolerance exceeding 10% grade would require the roadway being redone reducing the slope would require removal of more material the peer reported a qual quantity of material to be removed estimating 700 roundtrip truck loads over 2E period the pier noted that the applicant was willing to retrofit for future IA systems however the small Lots lack sufficient maneuvering sidey space making a retrofit difficult after construction the pier reported that a meeting would be required regarding clearing trees and the existing roadway layout the peer address snow storage plan at the easterly area of the premises noting that melting snow would melt and flow down the roadway of the project the level of groundwater was not identified the peer reported that the development would have to be ADA Compliant and that full final details once produced would require review the pero pined that many development concerns including approximately half of the waivers would be eliminated or reduced if the development proposal was reduced 41 the abutters to the proposal Express the following concerns density reduction sought out of character with a historical identity of the neighborhood traffic including home deliveries storm water and drainage given the topography rocky soil and small Lots clear cutting forested area affecting the balance of Nature and affordable housing noise and proximity to a Butters tree waiver location of entrance and impact of car headlights increase in affordable units beyond the minimum septic system density denitrification system sought to maintain water quality reduce nitrogen to sensitive Downstream resources impaired water bodies imposition on shared lot lines negative impacts to a Butters so we should go back and address the holds seems okay 16 first one is 16 right well let me find it and see what I was thinking retaining one yes I question retaining walls shall be subject to review by The Building Commissioner does he review them or approve them so both uh I believe that any retaining walls over 4T in height may require engineering so he would require those specific details prior I think we should use the stronger word review to me means just take a look at approv means you have to comply with the requirements so right review and approve yeah be subject to review and approval by The Building Commissioner is that okay with everybody M everybody's on board y do we vote move by unanimous consent got it um before you get to 21 I think um I had a note next to 20 and what was missing on that section was that there are four pole lights that are proposed to be spaced through the development so I would just recommend adding that line like street lights yes yes okay so everybody got that one right okay and then the 21 you're all set with 20 yes so 21 is Mark yeah um the the discussion of the uh retrofit uh and the inability for the uh units at the top of the hill to be uh uh retrofitted and the uh concern for the affordable units um and you know we we this was a protracted hearing but uh upon leaving I uh was considering that and um these 40 BS are supposed to be designed with equality in mind um where nobody perceives you're not supposed to be able to tell the affordable unit from the regular units um obviously here the the best units are going to be at the top of the hill with perhaps even a potential for an ocean view and I think not designating one of those u i as well call them Premier spots for affordable housing um bothers me um I mean it's uh you know I mean we've learned along the way from our lessons like I don't know if any remember Kini bre in Chicago but basically um building uh affordable housing uh all all together has has proven sometimes to be a u a bad idea and u i i i just have a problem with uh um not having an affordable unit part of those Lots at the top of the hill I think that's a condition now finding yeah we can move that to conditions put that in condition then it becomes how that going to work well this is a finding it says the affordable units have been identified they to do with the identification and that's a finding but we have we impose the conditions do we want to amend the language to say the affordable units are proposed as lot one 14 10 15 and 19 we can deal with it later so we'll take out identified and put in proposed okay okay and then what do we have next 37 is the next one I have yeah what one 37 me too yeah it's you again we talk about a uh it's we refer to a private Road I think we're discussing a driveway isn't that how I think that should just be omitted well but also uh the way I saw they're not even going to provide trash because it's a driveway or snow removal right so that thing shouldn't be there at all yeah I I did miss this but what I was going to suggest was that it could instead uh read the town and then it sort does not does right snow for residents on private driveway yeah and that further the town does not remove snow from the internal sidewalk and that way okay leave it as perhaps amended you have to re everything didn't the town she's just changing it to the town does not yeah but you don't have to renumber it by ch right by oh you don't have to re it got it okay and what about the private the road to driveway is that changing uh yeah so the word Road would be struck and put in Drive yeah we changed it to driveway did it not say that the town was not going to plow the road y m so there was some confusion through the process uh regarding the town's role and there was concern expressed by Town engineering about the narrow width of the roadway and part of their concern involved the town vehicle trying to access the driveway at the same time as a res resident potentially being on the same driveway and given the width of town Vehicles there was a concern that there may not be room for both vehicles at the same time so I think the town looked at the fact that the proposal was not complying with the minimum width requirements that the town sought so uh they opted to view it as a private driveway because the other part of their problem is they say when they're doing recycle pickup if somebody's parked in that roadway the town vehicle cannot access the um recycled material because it can't has to get right up next to the containers and that furthermore if they have to plow and there's someone parked in that way that vehicle gets plowed in so the the option on their part was that we instead cons consider this to be a private driveway but I I I didn't read this till late last night actually early this morning uh so I I could be wrong but did it not say that the town was not going to pick up trash or plow so why is this even in here well the town originally proposed that if it was a private road that they would plow and they would do trash pickup however their stand changed when they looked at the width of the road and they made the determination that they would not be able to comply so there there was a change in their original referral and their final determination so why does this not say the town will not remove snow from the sidewalk or Road yep we can certainly word it that way okay I would I would say from the driveway yeah can't use driveway driveway right offering a friendly Amendment yeah everybody's all set on that one then Frank is 4 40 well I have the same issue there we've got the word Road and roadway throughout this paragraph it should be driveway wherever it appears in in 40 itself okay right I I think the problem there was that when uh in the second uh second line we're talking about the road um they did Express concern about the road layout so there's some fluctuation in verbiage here where they were looking at it originally as a road so we just call it a way then yeah yeah I guess layout Road layout SL driveway layout rot or driveway layout yeah yeah we could just say driveway layout I think that's it right is that it for finding the finding keep going I know if you want to do that I keep keep reading yeah decision let him do it yeah true now therefore be it resolved that the zoning board of appeals here referred to as the board being of the opinion a foreset an acting under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 40b sections 20 to 23 and 760 CMR 56.00 following a motion made by and seconded by voted blank to blank to Grant or deny a comprehensive permit with conditions for the construction of 20 home ownership three-bedroom dwellings five of which shall be affordable and perpet to households whose income is not more than 80% of area median income as determined by the Housing and Urban Development eohc at 19 North fouth Highway North fouth Massachusetts assessors map 15 Section 3 parcel 5 lot 0000 uh known as the premises this comprehensive permit shall be subject to the following conditions uh and then based on input from the board option b uh the development shall be reduced by either four or eight units given the comments from peer engineer about no room for error and to increase open space amenities allow for access to all septic systems and without requiring a crane and provide for sufficient space for IIA systems oh hold on that oh I figured yeah well I think we have to there's no hold we just talk about it now we just talk about it yeah like to start my my question on that is simply goes around why is it either four or eight why is it four or up to eight is it is there specific for four or eight and not five or six or cuz the 25% math well I understand why that can't have a half an affordable unit well well you could it just reduce it to the lowest denominator well it actually rounds up but so it wouldn't be necessary for them to reduce by say four if you sought a reduction but what would happen is they would have to give an additional affordable unit so if they reduced by three they're still required to give one affordable unit per four so does option b at this point is this where we would actually State what that condition that it is for through you madam chair the board has the power to approve the number of units or reduce the number of units or so so it's it's a board decision whether or not they want to go at 20 they want to to 16 to 12 so four you know entirely up to the board through you madam chair to our zoning administrator reading further on to this is there a section that we're going to hit where it says the number of units so the number of units that were placed within this draft are consistent with the original application of 20 right so if you make a change here the rest of the decision would have to be amended to match be one less affordable unit am I correct is that something we're going to be able to do tonight or is this something well yeah you have limited time so I think you really have to make a determination about what you're voting on tonight um so is this going to be a board discussion is to 4 or 8 right now yeah or as is or as is or as is yeah I mean I'm am I still on yes I going to recommend at least four to bring it in compliance with what a unit ratio would be just down the street from this yeah I mean that's about a uh well I have the numbers but it would match the unit ratio if we reduced it by four uh to what was down the street of 213 and Norine maybe you could explain what it does for the waivers right so you know the pier did explain that there were a number of waivers and that they felt that if there was a reduction and therefore um those following circumstances there would be fewer waivers required so for example where this is now identified as a private driveway the waivers that are typed in here all the waivers that the developer asked for so there will be amendments to the waivers or you can vote them based on the fact that they would be no longer asking for a waiver per se for a road because it's now a private driveway um but yeah so again the draft reflects the number of units that the applicant requested so if you amend the number that you're granting you know you would then say you know based on this reduction the plans would have to be revised Etc also would uh have a positive effect on the road width it would uh bring the sidewalks into compliance it would make the units provided they were done properly it would make the uh units on the top of the hill accessible uh in the event of IIA systems I mean as the peer engineer said effectively it would probably half these waiver requests and um make a less dense project my my opinion was that these things if you ever driven down the road to Wild Harbor Estates it works very well with those duplexes um and um I think it's quite tasteful and the same same thing could have been done here well you have a uh at at down the street at 23 North F Highway you have unit to acre ratio of 3433 and here at North Falmouth 19 North Falmouth Highway we it's currently at a ratio with 20 units of 4684 if you appli the same unit to acre ratio of 3.43 3 that actually brings it to 15 so round it back up to 16 and make it uh uh parity with very comparable very comparable it seems to make sense I I believe that we are not allowed to say which Lots would be removed that's something the applicant would have to determine about with a revised plan yep but they would most potentially be all shuffled oh yeah which lot but I mean then then square footage gets moved yeah it would reshuffle the deck so to speak well it it would make sense to to look at I mean we can't say which ones they are but now quick look at it that I did was there there are certain lots that should be removed and we can't tell them what to do that would provide about uh 67 lineal feet and then if you put that back someplace else again we can't tell them what to do uh you could spread the Lots out and you'd get more uh space between the house and the side Lots especially in those lots where you have those uh retaining Wells and you know those retaining Wells can back and make it even more difficult they also eliminate the need for a shared driveway for the unit up at the top so to speak the thing for me is with this it eliminates the crane people can actually get to their backyard I think it addresses in addition Madam chairman I think a lot of the concerns that the board had not just what the peer has raised but as to density and several other issues so yeah Frank you have any opinion on this well I made a comment I think at the very first hearing that I thought they were jamming some of these units in the project I still feel that way so change my mind on that are you advocating for eight no no I'm not advocating for eight um I think it's a good idea myself Scott do you have anything I support the uh the reduction of four units absolutely Nick support the reduction should we vote on option b I think we should well no we vote I think I've think I can read what I think it would now be unless somebody needs to work Smith it a little more yeah and then we can go ahead and get do conditions so now therefore be it resolved that the zoning board of appeals here in referred to as the board being of the opinion of foreset and acting under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 40b sections 20 to 23 and 760 CMR 50 6.00 following a motion made by blank and seconded by blank voted blank to blank to Grant the comprehensive permit with conditions for the construction of 16 home ownership three-bedroom dwellings four of which shall be affordable in perpetuity to households whose income is not more than 80% of the area median incom as determined by Hud and eohc at 19 North Falmouth Highway North Falmouth Massachusetts assessors map 15 Section 3 parcel 005 lot 0 the premises that this comprehensive permit shall be subject to the following conditions I'll second that change no we don't I was just reading we don't vote on it now I'll see I can still second okay so now we move to conditions do we have the change recorded uh conditions General G1 you want to keep going I'm good I'll let you know when I'm not Y where this comprehensive permit is made specifically under G Mass General Law chapter 40b section 20 sections 20 to 23 allowing the override of local zoning density there shall be no as of right changes made to the subject property any changes requested shall be properly submitted to the zoning board of appeals as provided for under Mass General Law chapter 40b and 760 CMR 56 now do we need to amend these because there will be a change maybe I would suggest Madam chair that we amend as we go okay do we need to vote these right now right now I mean you can you can vote per or you can vote as a whole I think it's just identifying that you're specifically voting whole vote the whole thing except the holds okay okay all right the construction shall be substantially as shown on the plan submitted to and reviewed by the board as follow with the exception of further conditions requiring amended or Det plans change yeah recommend here is that you would have to say that the construction shall be substantially shown on a revised plan to be submitted right MH yes so yeah um I guess the question is how do you refer to the the plans that are captured there are the plans that were submitted you mean on the G1 uh two I guess you would just say the following plans are what was originally submitted so you're you're Rec recommending that those are the ones that are to be revised mhm right okay shall I continue with the second bullet point yeah the Sloop elevations sheet one of8 the Sloop first2 floor plans sheet 2 of eight the Sloop Foundation plan sheet 3 of three plans are dated February 24th 2024 the Schooner elevation sheet one of8 the Schooner 1/ second floor plans framing sheet 8 the Schooner Foundation slf framing sheet 3 of8 the Schooner cross-section sheet 4 of eight the Schooner cross-section sheet 5 of8 the Schooner EVD sheet 6 of 8 the Schooner Shear wall elevations sheet 7 of 8 the Schooner nailing schedule sheet 8 of 8 uh all plans are dated February 23rd 2024 prepared for West Falmouth Estates North Falmouth Highway Route 28 West Falmouth Mass as shown by JB designs PO Box 293 West barnable Mass plans are not stamped or signed landscape submission plans sheet L 1.0 dated January 3rd 2024 with a final revision date November 21 2024 typical building planting plan sheet l1.1 dated January 3rd 2024 excuse me the final revision date of October 9 2024 prepared for West Falmouth Estates LLC west fouth mass as drawn by hawk Design Incorporated Sagamore Mass plans are not stamped and signed the October 9th 2024 landscape plan in correctly listed house designs as conquered and Welsley lighting specifications and design specialist plan is not dated board date received stamp of November 22nd 2024 prepared for fouth Estates prepared by travel bliski if I got that wrong I apologize no address provided G3 the applicant stated that there would be no blasting during construction should there be such a change the applicant shall comply with any applicable Town requirements building fire engineering related to blast protocol including a pre-blast survey and notice to a Butters I'm holding pleas G4 all storm water from the premises shall be directed to recharge on the premises the storm water system shall be operated and maintained privately for the approved operation and maintenance on andm plan and perpetuity all required reports inspections and checklists shall be submitted for the onm plan in perpetuity to town Town engineering all requirements shall be contained within the HOA documents any change in responsibility of the storm water management system shall be reported to town engineering compliance with the town storm water management rules and regulations shall be peer-reviewed that that um should be added that there'll be um attached as a appendix a is that correct Ashley did you give give us those this this afternoon and there to be attached okay everyone's got that mhm okay uh G5 the private driveway shall remain forever private trash Recycling and snow plowing shall be private referenced in the homeowner documents details on maintenance of the driveway shall be included in the homeowner documents the homeowner shall be responsible for snow removal from the project sidewalk and individual driveways G6 parking or storage of any unregistered vehicles or boats on the premises is strictly prohibited this shall be included in the homeowner documents G7 the applicant shall provide handicapped parking as may be required by The Building Commissioner G8 any deviation no matter how minor from plans submitted and approved shall be submitted to the zoning Board of approve appeals for approval prior to implementation of said change the zoning administrator may make a determination as to whether the changes are minor in nature and can be approved administratively or whether they will require a public hearing for an amendment changes made prior to an approval shall be subject to a full hearing and are at risk that the zoning board of appeals may deny the request subjecting any unimproved construction to be ordered undone G9 this comprehensive permit shall be a master permit which shall subsume all local permits and approvals normally issued by local boards other than as specifically enumerated in a condition the Board of Health and Conservation Commission are excluded from this provision the applicant shall be required to comply with any Board of Health or Conservation Commission requirements at the application for a building permit G10 this permit shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certification of the town clerk that 20 days has elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the town clerk with no appeal being filed is recorded in the barnville County registry of deeds or that an appeal has been filed within such time any person exercising rights under a duly appealed comprehensive permit does so at risk that a court May reverse the permit and that any construction performed under the permit may be ordered undone G11 this permit shall elapse three years from the date on which the decision is filed in the town clerk's office if a substantial use of the comprehensive permit has not sooner commenced except for good cause as determined by the zoning board of appeals g12 this comprehensive permit shall not be transferred without Express written approval of the zoning board of appeals in accordance with 760 CMR 56 G13 each condition in this decision shall run with the land and shall in accordance with its terms be applicable to and binding on the applicant the applicant successors and assigns G14 the maximum height of the dwelling shall not exceed 30 ft g15 construction hour shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday Saturday hours shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 400 p.m. no Sunday or town observe holiday hours absent an emergency all Construction vehicle show remain strictly on the subject property and not park on a budding streets construction vehicles are prohibited from idling on or near the premises outside of construction hours during construction effort shall be undertaken to minimize impacts on a Butters including securing dumpsters stabilizing soil to guard against erosion from a rain event and ensuring that public roadways are kept clean non-compliance shall be subject to enforcement the applicant the applicant shall meet with the DPW design to determine the route for vehicles's removing material the applicant shall comply with DPW requirements which may also include roadway sweeping specified hours or other determined mandates I'm holding only because I want dust control also all just hold 15 g15 yeah g16 the development shall be limited to a maximum of like 20 16 single family dwellings with a Max maximum three bedrooms each total development maximum 48 bed 48 yeah 48 bedrooms four of the dwelling shall remain affordable in perpetuity to eligible purchasers whose annual income shall not exceed 80% of the area median income as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development the four affordable dwellings shall be eligible for inclusion in the town subsidized housing inventory Shi maintained by the office of Housing and livable communities eohc any increase in the number of bedrooms is a violation of the zoning bylaw and this comprehensive permit the applicant shall work with the housing coordinator provide information related to the inclusion of the dwellings on the town's Shi 17 the dwelling units shall include a first floor bedroom and a bathroom with a minimum 32-in doorway width the developer shall make units handicapped accessible on request of the buyer G18 there shall be no further division or subdivision of the premises or the creation of additional housing units or any other structures without further approval of the zoning board of appeals in the form of an amendment to this decision g19 to the extent permitted by law preference for the sale of 70% should this now [Music] be fractional two two two of four in this case of affordable dwellings which it's not good matter um shall be given to home buyers that are found with residents employees of the Town employed within the town or who have children attending town schools the applicant shall work with the housing coordinator to communicate with the state and shall provide the required Lottery information for the affordable units and wait a minute um uh three out of four would be 75% it's a hell of a lot closer than the 50% you're offering I would say that you would I I don't think you can go over though I think 70% is the max that the state allows but even then you have to petition the state to allow that and they don't have to Grant it but it's a value to request it because part of the effort of Falmouth putting its land into use as affordable housing should be to help Falmouth residents as well so should we try for it well I don't think you can exceed 70 that's why I think not positive may I can I just propose that it be read to the extent permitted by law preference for the sale of affordable dwellings shall be given to home buyers that are found with residents just just to the extent maim by law that's fine because there'll be somebody out there working that for sure Kim or whoever I would hope period after fouth residence to the extent permitted by law preference for the sale of affordable dwelling shall be given to home buyers that are found with residents employees of the Town employed within the town town or who have children attending town schools that's fine you want to change your frame you it's okay like this I just want to make sure I understand what are you saying I'm just we're just eliminating the percentage because it's it's not keeping 70% it's not three of five it's and now now we're not at five or at four but just saying to the extent I think the intention is pretty clear we want unless you want to say up to 70% but yeah it's same thing yeah it's fine board decision I made I think it's pretty clear we want local preference yes anything else any other changes no uh G20 the four affordable yearr round not seasonal family ownership dwelling shall be included in the subsidized housing inventory shall be subject to a regulatory agreement Fair marketing and income guidelines the affordable units shall not be rented or sublet and shall be included in the homeowner's documents certification of compliance with affordable housing regulation be submitted after the sale to the zoning board of appeals zba and fouth housing coordinator this certification shall include documentation that each affordable ownership unit is occupied by a qualified owner as their primary residents home ownership association fees shall be adjusted to be reduced for the affordable units the affordable units shall retain equal voting rights in any homeowners association the affordable units shall remain affordable in perpetuity with a use rest restriction recorded in the Barnsville County registry of deeds a copy to the zoning board of appeals and the housing coordinator and shall survive sale foreclosure or bankruptcy any resale of afford any affordable unit they be properly managed by an affordable housing specialist and reported in advance to the zoning board of appeals and the town housing coordinator and shall include the fact that any future owner is subject to all terms and conditions listed hereon as provided in the homeowner documents option b IIA septic systems shall be installed for all the affordable units to avoid a substantial unanticipated and then there should be some other word there betterment expense or [Applause] expense you want to discuss this [Music] chairman yeah let's Tony want to start off let me just read it aloud again IIA septic system shall be installed for all the affordable units to avoid substantial un unanticipated expense for those [Applause] units or to unanticipated upgrading expenses at a future date really that's what you're talking about yeah future date at a future date that's one of the other issues that future expense would uh be more concise one of the other issues that comes up with I systems is the first 3 to four years of servicing and we've already experienced where um an escro account can be set up for those anywhere from 1 to four years for the uh operation and Management Service systems I don't know if the board would be interested in putting that in as well or just leaving it at this say it again Tony so the first first year to four years are expensive with regard to operation and management of these systems and it the thought I have is that some of that should be escrowed for the first either year to the fourth year vers the second year so that for those folks in the affordable units they don't incur the expenses for operation and management at least in the beginning after that it's theirs so would that be something that would be added to the homeowner association documents that would provide for this to be set up is are the well that I guess it depends if the uh septic systems are part of the uh Thea well they're going to have to be in the instance of the shared systems it's going to get very confusing it's going to get very confusing you're right this should just be funded by the uh homeowners association because that's what's going to happen in the future because you got shared systems and it that's not our well I guess it is ours to manage well I suppose you could have it put in the ho the U the condo docks that they have to collect x amount of money every month with the condo fees that would pay for the operation management of either one to four years or one year or two year the first two years of the affordable unit uh systems we don't have to do anything at all although they may want to have something in general anyway because you know at some point in time those units may require repair replace upgrade whatever else it is so they may have to have some type of septic fund for the common area ones for for all right so maybe they just need to include something for all the units here well if you did an escrow account and then it did get to the point where they were all done we could just refund the escro account back and you know go to their agreed Homeowner Association it's kind of difficult I don't want to make it overly complex because I don't know with the sh with the potential Shuffle of where affordable units will be again we don't know where that'll come down to now it goes from 5 to 4 I'm not sure how to do this uh I would I wish I could be clear on exactly how to do this this also the state does have final say on where the affordable units are so maybe it has to do with the affordable units where there is private seting that wouldn't be fair because they're all the same designs that would certainly simplify things what about the HOA be respons responsible for the upkeep and maintenance for IIA systems for the first two years that's a that simplifies that's probably as simple as we're going to get yeah yeah you that's if we vote for the IIA go for the but we got right I'm a little hesitant to do the Ia now that we have room that that was going to be that question I've got is do we I mean we're we're cut we're reducing the number units it's addressing a lot of the things do we when then we're going to have to uh um address the fact that the affordable units uh somebody's going to have to pay for them at some point in time so that would have to be an escrow I mean the other part too is that these regulations are ongoing with changes with the Board of Health and and this development as well as any other infal is going to be subject to whatever the rules and regulations are with the Board of Health at the time of a building permit being pulled so if you don't provide for an IA which is entirely possible they may still be subject to that as of the date that they may pull a building permit if that's what the Board of Health requires at that time could we condition again if the board has appetite to do this not to require an IA but put a condition that if the Board of Health requires an IA then that the HOA is going to have to uh pay for the maintenance or the testing and upkeep for the first two years who's going to pay for the system isn't this getting kind of out of our league a little bit because the the um the Board of Health is very concerned about the impact of a of a decision that they make to require people to put in IA systems they know it's going to cost a lot of money they're talking about how to soften the impact on homeowners uh I think this is something they're going to work out and probably they're going to spend weeks and months trying to do it rather than 15 minutes here yeah but but but we're we're obligated to uh to protect the affordable units and I mean we're only obligated to provide them and um we're providing affordable units once they're provided it's their responsib ability to handle it well think if that's the case the homeowner the the homeowners that that we put into this unit is going to get well that's you know Law's imperfect I guess in that respect how about a disclosure I have to disagree with that I think that it's It's Our obligation what about a disclosure to a potential buyer an affordable unit buyer that septic regulations are in flux and that there might be putting them on notice that there could be if they buy it a sub stantial cost down the road they say that can't hurt that's that's going to be no insurance when when when and if it happens cuz you know I mean they probably can afford to barely buy this thing as it is that that'll be enough to to I I'm just hoping that the board of health is going to them I'm hoping that as the Board of Health rolls out these regulations changing or requiring IIA systems it because it's going happen I think townwide eventually that they're going to be giving affordable units or affordable housing projects a little bit more leeway to they have to there's no alternative to that in the form of either either variances or or other things given the reduction in units I'm I was hard charging on the IIA issue with the affordable units but I'm softening right now I think I have to agree with Mr Morris that um at this point it's it's becoming too complex we have a board of health that evidently is very close to making some decisions as to when these go in where they go in um and I hate to see these folks that buy these units these these affordable units get caught with this three years down the road or whatever they have to change over because it's going to be very expensive for them and they probably cannot afford it and then we're taking the chance that the state and all the town or somebody is going to help support uh the cost the price to put that in when the developer knowing that this is coming down or believing suspecting that this is coming down the road can put this in now at I don't know what the what it's going to cost the developer I know what they cost but my concern is that for someone who's bought an affordable unit I don't care you I know they're buying it very inexpensively compared to the market rate units but it's still a matter they're in affordable units because of their financial situation and the another I don't know it could be $30,000 on top of it most people who are not in affordable units are going to have to go and finance that or take it out of a an IRA account uh or or bank account that these folks may not have so I am very concerned I don't want to complicate this uh because it can get complicated because of where our Board of Health is now I I I'm concerned about it I'm willing to back off if the rest of the board does not agree that we should uh uh I think option option b is here and for us to eliminated I mean we've discussed before you know escrow accounts or whatever and now we our proposal is to leave the people that own these affordable units to high and dry the event in the event of I don't I think that's um I think but if you're protecting the affordable units it's a lot less expensive to put it in during new construction that's the only thing so to kind of to Mark's point the levy is going to be far more substantial if you don't do it during the new construction period Well I'm not a voting member so I you do also have the um HOA fees reduced for the affordable units so presumptively possibly if the septic is overseen by the homeowners association in some Equitable way those affordable units would be covered but maybe at a lower rate but yeah you still have the problem about construction I I I wouldn't have a concern if if the town had come to a conclusion as to how they were going to do this and we knew it was going to happen this Still Remains a problem for affordable units and the expense that might come their way maybe three years down the road um I I I I think we need to continue to uh put this in for the affordable units that the uh those affordable units have they have their IIA systems installed now and let it stand at that and let it stand at that exactly absolutely so would it be through you madam chairman yeah I septic system shall be installed for all the affordable units period like that boy that was easy okay 21 you still you still I owe you my life the homeowner documents and rules and regulations of the master shall provide that only market rate units may be rented for a minimum one-year period if rental is allowed with no seasonal or short-term rentals affordable units must remain owner occupied G22 drainage structure shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and all roof areas shall be connected to the drainage structures homeowner shall be appraised of all said EXC me appraised of set installation maintenance and preservation of drainage structur shall be the responsibility of and included as a common element and the homeowner association documents conditions Prior to site disturbance S1 the applicant shall create a limited dividend organization copy to zoning board of appeals and comply with all applicable Mass housing requirements S2 the endorsed plan shall be recorded at the registry of deeds addresses shall be as assigned by Town engineering S3 the town is specifically not wavering fees not waving fees associate IED with construction including but not limited to the water line water tapping sleeve and valve water meters services and connections and Engineering such as any bond for the street opening permits driveway permits and building department fees the plan involves the installation of one town specified fire hydrant plan shall be submitted according to specifications of the water superintendent each unit shall have a dedicated Water Service the applicant has stated that this is a private driveway as such the driveway and water M shall be privately owned and Main maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowners any required utility easement shall be in the form and manner as prescribed by the town plans shall show the location of septic components and water service plans shall State all standards policies construction practices or rules and regulations of the fouth water department shall be adhered to throughout the duration of the project um I have just one insertion there where we say each unit shall have a dedicated Water Service I would add and meter yeah where is that and meter uh one two four five six line in the center so plan shall be submitted accordance to the specifications of the water superintendent each unit shall have a dedicated water service end meter S4 prior to starting work under compreh under the comprehensive permit the applicant the general contractor and any necessary subcontractors and the designated inspection engineer shall hold a preconstruction meeting with the Building Commissioner representative of the Department of Public Works engineering division zoning administrator water superintendent Board of Health agent Falmouth fire and Falmouth police to review soil erosion and sediment controls inspection requirements and procedures review of conditions construction traffic traffic management General project schedule building permit submission requirements Street opening permit requirements NPD CES Construction general permit requirements work hours and any other pertinent information the 53g account and contract for the services of the designated inspection engineer must be in place prior to the above meeting S5 the applicant shall meet with the found with Police Department to determine when if police details would be required all police details required by the fouth police department or per the applicant's own choice shall be paid for by the applicant I have a question on four do we have to address um the State Highway in that oh good catch cuz it's a it's a state highway it is yeah um should be in there yeah we can certainly add that in there um I know we did reference it elsewh somewhere else I think it should be in that paragraph also so um um you want to just insert State Highway Representatives somewhere maybe after DB or M do somewhere after uh yeah somewhere appropriate maybe we'll just insert um permit doot permit requirements instead of Street opening it just should be in there somewhere No it should be yeah peras do permit requirements yeah sorry to interrupt so you did follow six resuming on S6 construction shall be in accordance with all requirements of Town engineering including the town's 2019 soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions which document is a fix here in is appendix a all uncontaminated storm water runoff shall be directed to recharge within the premises no increase in storm water runoff off run off off off from the premis that's a little awkward off from the premises is allowed that's a little typo the off doesn't I think the second one is not necessary strike the second off not required to Now read increase in storm water runoff from the premises is allowed engineering sign off is required prior to site disturbance and the issuance of any building permit uh for this project inspections referenced in the soil erosion sediment control standard conditions or others as directed by Town engineering shall be performed by the designated inspection engineer erosion and sediment controls shall be installed inspected and maintained in good condition at all times failure to maintain adequate erosion and sediment control on site shall be grounds for stopping all construction activities onsite until the issue is addressed S7 engineering noted that work within the state's Road layout may require permitting with the state the applicant shall comply with all state requirements S8 the applicant shall file for a storm water permit with the town prior to the issuance of any building permit S9 at the applicant's expense an inspectional engineer will be designated for the project from the firms that have been prev vetted by the town the inspectional engineer shall be responsible to review the EPA Construction general permit compliance and town storm water regulations and will perform or oversee inspection related Services required with reports submitted to the zoning board of appeals and town engineering the applicant shall establish a 53g account through the zoning board of appeals for the inspectional engineer the inspection engineer will be specifically responsible for ensuring adherence to the requirements of the Town soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions inspection and approval of driveway subgrade gravel base binder course and Curbing and finish course the applicant should provide an as-built survey with the binder when the binder is down to demonstrate that the driveway Falls entirely within the layout if any portion of the driveway is found to be located outside the recorded layout the driveway will be removed and reconstructed within the layout in these areas at no point shall the contractor construct on driveway surface that was not inspected and approved by the engineer inspection engineer DPW will oversee RightWay work only I've got a question about that what does that mean yeah and yeah it's a state highway I would strike that because that will be under state do we feel we need to have the inspector more often than the normal project because there's no wiggle room at all in this I would leave that up to the inspector I think if you know we typically there's no wiggle room right we typically ruction Lots build so okay but don't we want uh an as built on the road something on the driveway yeah we're going to get one we're going to get the profiles yeah and all the uh edge of road all the center of road I think we're going to get that later on right there the applicant shall provide an as built survey when the binder is down to demonstrate the driveway Falls entirely within the layout uh continuing on the the inspection engineer May confer with Town engineering and will be specifically responsible to review the as built plans co8 for compliance with the approved plans S10 prior to site disturbance the applicant shall be provided a copy of the approved Town storm water permit to the board application and fees to town engineering the applicant shall provide a copy of the EPA Construction general permit to engineering in the board the installed the Roan and siment control shall be inspected and approved by the town or the inspectional engineer S11 the applicant shall provide to the police building department engineering and Zoning Board of Appeals the name phone number and email address of a project contact individual for the duration of the the construction process to ensure that any questions or concerns including those of a Butters and residents are timely managed S12 mature trees particularly those approximate to lot line shall be maintained to the extent possible trees straddling the property line shall be assumed to be jointly owned and cannot be damaged or removed without the prior written approval of both parties the limit of work line shall be installed and inspected prior to site disturbance and may include adjusting the limit of work to protect root systems of trees onto the premises I have a question go ahead Tony it says inspected the limit of work so the limit of work line shall be installed inspected is that inspected by the inspector that's so that just runs to that all right I let's draw my question so we can insert um shall be installed and inspected at after inspected by the inspectional engineer okay s13 the applicant shall confirm the proposed mailbox location with the US Postal Service does anyone think we need lighting at this mailbox location so the applicant has provided or proposed four pole lights one of which would be proximate to the entrance s 14 the applicant shall provide architectural plans to the board for review and approval for lot 20 I've got a question since this may be changing lots and so on do we what are you suggesting the uh I guess in order to not get too off track here um maybe what we'll do is identify that lot 20 is the lot that they're currently identifying as lot 20 which is where they are designating that they plan to move the existing home so uh yeah maybe what we want to do is identify that it's the lot that the home will be moved to I mean yeah cuz right now lot lot if necessary yeah it might not change it might not change so if necessary we have nothing right now though unlock 20 nothing right now you have I think um just a potential footprint home but we don't know I think that's where they're proposing to move the existing home to but it also indicated that that existing home would be expanded we don't know what type of expansion is planned and let's refer to it as the existing home rather than why don't we say for the existing LW 20 and if it changes we can track that I I like Frank suggest home Frank is right okay so existing yeah architectural plans for review an approval for the existing home existing home yep and its proposed location that's even better perfect good uh ready to go on y S15 the applicant shall provide a bus shelter for the development proximate to the Westerly end of the sidewalk and shall provide a play area for the development plans shall be provided to the zoning board of appeals for review and approval I was thinking that this bus shelter could go over near the mailbox maybe because that's near the end of the road and there's parking so if people were dropping their kids off there's a place to sit while you wait when isn't that approximate to the westle end of the sidewalk anyhow that's close yeah but I was also thinking one of those parking spaces could be the charger the car charger you could charge while you're waiting for your kid to get on the bus there you go yeah you have enough electricity to get the Dunkin Donuts well where would you you put it by the mailbox no you put the charger at the end of the pocket spot I don't know if you can designate where they're going to put the charging stations I'm just requ one somewhere okay that those guest spaces are for guests of the residents and that if somebody were to have car car charging it would be part of their house so in other words if you live there you can charge your electric vehicle at your home if you are a guest you park in a guest parking space so as opposed to like an apartment development where everybody has a guest spot here you have particular parking on the lot for the people that live there so I wouldn't necessarily desate that they would have to so we just leave it alone leave it alone yep got it well also missing a board voted spot there oh yes okay prior to building permit B1 the applicant is required to provide one a regulatory agreement and Declaration of restrictive covenants for ownership project two an affordable housing deed writer specifying that affordable units shall remain affordable in perpetuity three a DE ation of trust for the homeowners association and four homeowner documents including Master deed and rules and regulations these Collective documents shall be provided to the zoning board of appeals for review for consistency with this decision by Town Council prior to the issuance of any building permit and subsequent recording recorded at the barille County registry of deeds a recorded copy shall be filed with a zoning board of appeals and the town's housing coordinator the applicant shall establish a limited dividend organization Limited in its profits under Mass General Law chapter 40b and any excess profits shall be paid by the applicant and distributed as required by the subsidizing agency in accordance with applicable law regulations and guidelines the applicant shall provide confirmation of the establishment of the limited dividend organization to the zoning board of appeals B2 the fire hygien shall be installed as approved by the fire department and compli with Falmouth fire department regulations B3 the developer shall comply with all water superintendent requirements including the installation of specified water main and a hydrant for the development un shown on the site plan the applicant shall provide an easement for the water main extension in the form approved by the town the tap and sleeve assembly shall be inspected including water excuse me including pressure testing chlorinated and sampling the developer shall provide an as built to the water superintendent upon completion costs related to the easement and provision of water service and metering shall be borne by the developer B4 prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall conduct a hydrant flow test to determine available flow and pressure to fight a fire and provide the results to the water superintendent and fire chief the procedure for flushing disinfecting and pressure testing of the water man shall be approved by the town's water superintendent B5 a certified plan with site details for the whole development plus a certified plot plan for each individual lot stamped by a licensed surveyor shall be provided to the zoning board of appeals engineering and inspection engineer for review and approval prior to the start work and submission of an application for a building permit at a minimum the plan shall show The Following lot Dimensions driveway limits of Paving parking stall locations and dimensions limits of sidewalk building locations Dimension building Footprints matching the architectural plan Dimensions closest distance to nearest property line from each building locations of drainage structures including limits of infiltration areas retaining wall details hydrant location storm water pipe locations and invert elevations draining structure rim and invert elevations depth width and length of stone infiltration beds including roof infiltration areas septic information fencing sight lighting and limits of work which shall also be demarcated in the field this plan Shall Serve as the base for an as-built plan the project of completion plan shall also include the designation that drainage inter setic areas shall not be built on the applicant shall have a bus shelter added to the plan proximate to the project sidewalk the applicant shall provide a designated excuse me shall provide and designate a safe play area the development I have one addition there um the Landscaping plans indicated that they may be uh decks or patios so I would just add in this list here that um a location of a shed uh deck and patio that they may choose to install or not be added to the plan that's to to the final as built PL not to the preliminary well okay so the problem is is that the final asilt will show what you put in but I think we want it included in the preliminary plan because the preliminary plan is what the building permit is based upon and so if you intend to build a deck or a patio um they would expect to have that on the plan as part of what they approve for the building but will we know you know and the the issue with sheds is that the state has determined that sheds are an insubstantial change but given the size of these lots and the size of a potential shed they could overwhelm the lot so I don't know if you want to pre-specify a a particular Size Shed but I think given the number of these developments we've had in the past and the individual homeowners come back in afterward and they're all asking to put sheds in so I think it's just almost easier to designate in advance that you can have a shed of a particular size so the town already has that regulation who would we be to change it what's that there are 200 sare ft yeah town are you going to no it's a 200 square who are we to change what the town's shed regulations are well they if they can have one can't they have the same shed everybody else can have well so yes but you have a particular problem here where I mean where these lots are at today these size Lots I don't know that they'd be able to fit a 200 ft shed on that lot and it's also not included within the drainage and lot coverage calculations about the so if you put in you know they have a base plan and now the more impervious area you add to that is also going to change the impervious lot coverage yeah and they're asking you later on to wave those coverages and so if those items are not added into the plan it's not going to be covered by the waiver how about if we require them to have gutters and dry Wells then it becomes a nonissue just like the houses are required well so she's also talking about patio too right so you can still have uh you know gutters and dry Wells but you still do not want 100% of the lot covered by impervious surface so are you just the patios would have to be impervious or or yeah yeah that's all well there's none shown on the plan right now so I'm just going to if I if I may Madam chairman you're essentially just asking that the plan say possible location of future shed or future patio that calculated corre so that we now so that we know the draining is still sufficient right okay well that's all right if it's yeah what or not effect would be better because it leaves it open to do as long as it's an impervious patio and then they put dry Wells and gutters I think that addresses the issue that people going to have a we're just making sure that we're not going to are right a flood so you have the verbiage yeah okay I I'm sorry I I understand the impervious aspect of the patio some of these Lots you're not going to be fitting anything on it and what do we so what I want to try and understand since I have to vot on this one is what are we allowing them to do what are we allow saying they can't do with we get let's start with patios and then I want to go back to to sheds again because some of these Lots you can't you going to fit a dogghouse some of these Lots so what are we saying they can do with regard to patio that they can build it anywhere they want as long as it's impervious they can make it as large as they want as long as it's impervious or are we restricting size or what are we doing is it just as simple as if you want to build one it has to be impervious each one of these Lots is a different size I know they're very unusual it's an unusual lot with unusual Dimensions retaining walls so I could be they can build an unusual Dimension shed I mean it should be up to them although when you did another development there were some lots that were of a smaller size and the developer presented a standard shed for the development so that I think they wanted to maintain some consistency where you know that for that particular development and you may not necessarily want to do that do you want to kick this to the homeowners association Democratic let the people who live there decide how big the shed can be how big patio should be except that you have no control cover and and what's going to happen with drainage and storm water I mean so going back to the patio we we simply conditioned it that all patios however they are determined shall be impervious in other words you're not to put a size on well can the applicant come back and just ask for an substantial change if they want to put a patio on I mean this this is the thing that seems to be oh of course then it can be a case by case basis I don't want to make more work for us down the road but I guess the question is you know just pick if you have a circumstance we you have an affordable homeowner and they say I want to add a patio that's we'll say it's perious so now you're going to ask them to go get an engineer to upgrade the information on their lot to show what they impervious lot coverages now because that will affect it as will a shed so my shed wouldn't affect it if it had uh gutters downspouts and drywells it's still as a as a patio wouldn't affect the the groundwater as long as it was um a perious surface right right but the shed will count toward your total lock coverage and and if you I don't know pick a number so you have 70% lock coverage by Structure Parking Paving and you put a shed in you're going to increase that I thought all W I've lost track of what you're doing I I have um this is a section about a plan which says nothing about sheds decks or patios we ask I want I know you want to add them but where do you want to add them and what do you want to say because this this this conversation is going kind of crazy it should be Standalone oh sheds and patios can affect the groundwater and a negative fashion or whatever then they could determine how they want to do it I mean we already have requirements for sheds 3 ft from the boundary and maximum of 200 square fet if they can't fit it they can't have it why are we complicating it any so I think this list was intended just to indicate to the surveyor that we need all this particular information and data on a plan so we can sign off on a building permit uh We've found in the past that we get plans that are insufficiently detailed and then we have to ask people to go back and add those details in so we're now trying to get in front of that and tell people in advance what we're looking for them to add on to the plan what about a guy who wants to put a patio down three years down the road I think that I think Jim's suggestion of just a proposed location is that what you said yeah just I'm not concerned about sheds the patio issue I think might just to say that they should indicate where a proposed deck or patio could be that's about all we can do and then what happens with that proposed engineer well if they if it's if it's actually built it's the the lot calculations it's already on it's already there it's it's included if it's not well great there's less use of the land okay it's a building commission problem really not our that's exactly what Happ let's go with the gims then propos do you have the verbage Marine okay location of possible future sh patios to be I would strike the word I'd strike the shed we have I I agree with Mark there's enough regulations I think that addresses that issue okay so location of possible future deck patio to be uh drawn on the plan yeah show on the plan and reflect lot coverage that's good the typ will just wait just to game this one step out if if the lot coverage if if let's say the condition is 45 not to exceed 45% and suddenly they come back it's 46% I think that could be approved as a ins substantial change and we can ask the zoning administrator to do it for us um we ready to go on yeah I think we're at six right six the applicant shall provide the zoning board of appeals with a final approval letter from Mass housing prior to occupancy permit 01 the address for the development will be assigned by engineering after the recorded subdivision is submitted to the board and assessing is provided the parcel identification for all the Lots addresses shall be properly posted in compliance with Section 991 a fixing of legible numbers required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy 02 the final Lottery agent loty plan and marketing plan shall be submitted to the zoning board of appeals and the housing coordinator prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy 03 Landscaping shall be installed as presented in accordance with the landscape plan with all plant materials maintained in good health any invas any invasive vegetation shall be removed any material substantially diseased or dead shall be removed and replaced with similar size plants within 2 years of the final certificate of occupancy by the developer the Landscaping shall not impede on site distance at North fouth Highway all Landscaping including the play area shall be maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners association or successors fencing may be required as part of any retaining wall to ensure the safety of children based on the height as reviewed by The Building Commissioner 0 3.5 a permanent monumentation shall be placed at lot Corners to delineate boundaries as approved by Town engineering or peer inspectional engineer question go ahead Tony I have one too says permanent monuments there are all kinds of permanent monuments do we care if it's Granite concrete pipe or otherwise that's why it says monumentation I defer pick I would defer to the engine I think we're deferring it to town engineering as far as what they're requiring I see plenty of Deeds with metal spike in ground versus concrete bound or that's what I was going to ask Matt uh the peer peer review um suggests spikes for the driveways that were shared I don't know if anyone remembers that well there there may be some changes there so I guess the question is so we don't make that a condition you can't put a concrete bound really in the middle of a driveway no no okay well well you you can't just I say we leave this to the engineers leave it to the engineers got it 04 the final certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until all required site work including Landscaping drainage or other improvements are completed and the site as built has been approved the developer shall request the inspectional engineer to issue an email to the zoning board of appeals confirming completion and compliance with all requirements under their oversight the developer May request the zba consider a bond for the value of incomplete work to ensure that the work is complete in accordance with the plans 05 any damage to the North Falmouth Highway during the construction process shall be repaired to State Standards at the expense of the applicant six prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy the applicant shall enter into a monitoring agreement to be reviewed by Town Council all costs associated with the monitoring shall be born by the applicant until the sale of the last affordable unit and thereafter by the sellers of the affordable units a copy of all financial information by the monitoring agent shall be provided to the zoning board of appeals and the housing coordinator after the initial round of sales 07 the four affordable units shall be Des or I have to think about this one yeah um shall just leave it shall be designated and shown on a plan well right it's subject to State final State approval it is right so if we just make them designate which ones they want just leave off numbers right no I think you could potentially say evenly distributed throughout the development or something so that there's an emphasis that they be properly spaced okay so the four affordable units shall be evenly distributed throughout the development as shown on the recorded on the record plan addresses shall be properly posted and assigned by engineering prior to a final certificate of occupancy uh one affordable unit must be completed for three market rate units a certificate of occupancy for the final market rate unit may not be issued until all affordable units have been completed and granted a certificate of occupancy all dwellings shall have the same exterior appearance and construction quality and be in conformance with approved plans 08 a certified as built shall be provided to the zba engineering and the inspectional engineer for review for conformance to the approved plans prior to the final certificate of occupancy being issued to slot the plan shall be on an overlay of the plan described in condition number B5 any deviation from the approved plan shall be clearly shown in red line over the base plan which should be faded back for clarity the as built shall be certified by both a licensed surveyor and registered engineer that work was performed in conformance with the approved plans and all permits the designated inspectional engineer shall review and approve this plan and con that this plan includes the required information and certifications no certificate of occupancy shall be issued issued until the as built plan is approved by the board we approve as built plan I'm sorry what do we approve as built plans I recall doing it uh so no it doesn't typically typically go to the board it typically comes to my office okay may ask then in accordance with normal procedure they I ask question yeah go ahead T what is the reason on Nill plan says as buil shall be certified by both a licensed surveyor and register why is it both and not or I think the engineer is more concerned about the location of things and the engineer is concerned about the construction materials and it's both so this is something we normally do yes so yeah they they each have separate licenses that cover so did you get the end of that no C certification of occupancy shall be issued until the asilt plan is approved per normal zba procedure right good 09 ready yeah the applicant shall provide an ADA Compliant sidewalk along the interior driveway the sidewalk shall have tactile strips with the driveway intersects with North fouth Highway the project driveway shall have a vertical curbing on the side with the sidewalk 010 the landscape architect shall review compliance with the approved landscape plan and shall issue a letter to the board certifying that the landscape was installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final unit 11 dark sky compliant lighting shall be provided at dwelling doorways in addition to the development lights distributed along the driveway per revised plans spotlights are prohibited this shall be included in the homeowner's documents 02 the interior sidewalk shall be installed per plans and maintained in perpetuity by the homeowners association final certificate of occupancy shall not issue until the project sidewalk is completed or a bond issued to ensure completion waivers W1 any waiver not specifically granted herein is denied W2 waiver from section deserving any significant open space on the property would restrict the number of lots and affordable units W3 waiver from section 240- 111.2 B minimum lot Dimensions waiver requested for minimum lot area to allow minimum of 3500 Square ft wave the minimum lot width to allow a minimum of 15 ft wave the minimum Frontage to allow a minimum Frontage of 15 ft wave the minimum lot with requirements to allow Lots as narrow as 15 ft in any Dimension waiver requested a strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units hold that it's going to be I am I objected a 15 ft I don't think they should be less than 30 ft it would be necessary with there is the option right right below so we'll holding that one do you want to do you want to I I think that I've always felt that this is just they Jam too much stuff in this and I think there should four or less units it should particularly concerned about the frontage on particularly on the circle 15 ft for a frontage is just ridiculous it should be at least 30 so you want option I just want to make the statement it can be more comp it gets more complicated than that depending on how we configure it does but I think they should there should be some guidelines guel for them to figure out how to do it but I think it should be even greater than 30 it should be no less than 60 61 I I've come up with 69 in certain Lots but we can't tell them what to do but 30 is much too small 15 is much too small 15 is way too small I mean if you're taking dep again the other ones have to figure this out if you're taking four Lots out the ones I took out and again it was just for me to take a look at this to understand this what I come down with is that you really your minimum lot Frontage is almost 61 ft um so 30 ft doesn't do anything 50 definitely doesn't do anything 30 ft doesn't do anything you really I I know it's very difficult if you didn't do this analysis of each lot why I came to the 60.97 5 ft but I'm telling you right now 30 ft is too small about 45 uh it really again this let me just say this if you if you if you it depends on what Lots they take out uh we're we're restricting them to 60 units on a piece of land they can move this around any any way they want am I correct yes any way they want and to say that a lot is Frontage is 30 I don't think that's helping anyone's concerns that we've had from the very from day one here 30 foot Frontage is nothing and every one of these Lots uh you could easily go to to 60 ft um but again I know that's difficult if you didn't take the plans and do the analysis of certain lots that you might take off because we don't know what it's going to be they're going to do more than take the Lots off they're going they can they have the ability to shift as well well the whole idea is they will shift North it'll shift South everything will shift North theoretically it will I don't know what they'll do but I think all I'm saying to you is that 30 ft is much too small uh and it should be something something greater than that and you have to do an analysis of it but I I think you got to go more than 30 ft well if you came up with the potential of 60 45 shouldn't be much of a limiting factor for him and it's certainly Fair palatable than 15 I would go with the 45 I like I like marks too yeah I'd go with the 45 because I know what they can do with it go to 50 they've got a lot of leeway at 45 I'm not too concerned about the Lots along the straight part of the street no it's the it's the ones at the top of the top of the hill at the at the roundabout that that's just they just jamm too much stuff up there that's because it's the top of the hill too so I guess the question is so they have asked you to vote for the waiver as is so I I assume you're now going to vote these in separately but I guess what you would be doing is potentially considering uh denying it and then instructing them what you are willing to Grant it for a waiver oh do you think we should be doing these individually well I think when you get to well to waivers well we can start right this is only the third one we can start over and vote them now if you want I mean you know I guess whatever tweaking you may do I don't care let's vote that one now all right so start again V so W3 yes so you would like all the 15s that they requested to be changed to 45 yep is everyone in agreement with that I would go y so is there any reason why we wouldn't just go back to one and start voting these individually CU we're obviously with the um but we can do them in a lump at the end we just did that one we made that 45 we'll just keep going and then we'll do them as a group right is that okay well I guess the question is you're going to be approving some waivers and potentially denying others so I don't think you're going to be able to like findings you can vote them as a group because you've amended the language that you want I see what you're saying but I think with the waivers it's going to be uh an approval a denial or you know denial with limit whatever it is start you got to go back so let's start at W1 and do it yeah cuz I mean the P engineers said that we can eliminate half of these waivers if we eliminate four or eight so I mean we're going to be able to I think we can carve these up and adjust them and vote them as we go would make the most sense so your suggestion is we just either vote them up or down as written at this point I I would uh yeah or you can certainly I guess if you're if you're not approving you can deny and then you can specify what you would Grant maybe we just did we can't amend and vote well so they they've requested specific waivers and they've told you I want this waiver that says this so if you're telling them no I'm not going to grant you that waiver I don't know that you can re reite rewrite what they've asked for but I think what you can do is deny if you don't agree with the wording as they've proposed you can deny and then you can say maybe as an addendum however we would Grant a minimum of X yeah well we have to do something because we don't want them leaving here with no guidance no I think it's a value to you know you need to vote Yes or No based on exactly what they asked and then you can comment all right deny but but par parenthetically we would approve 45 okay all right so start three is done yeah we could start at the beginning yeah let's let's do them all okay W1 any waiver not spe specifically granted here in is denied M chairman I'll I'll second all in favor okay two waiver from section 27.8 Wildlife Corridor overlay District waiver requested as preserving any significant open space on the property would restrict the number of lots and affordable units move approval second all those in favor I oppose none uh W3 waiver from section 240 11.2 B minimum lot Dimensions waiver requested from minimum lot area to allow minimum 3500 Square ft wave the minimum uh lot width to allow a minimum of 15 ft wave the minimum Frontage to allow minimum Frontage of 15 ft wave the minimum lot width requirement to allow Lots as narrow as 15 ft in any Dimension waiver requested a strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units M chairman with um parenthetical note of 45 ft second all those in favor and do you want to leave the minimum lot size or well the 45 ft's going to Wi increase it right the math is going to make it larger anyway so it's going to eliminate that I mean if they make it wider in the front yeah I mean it's going to make the lot wider it it can't do anything but so I don't even think we really have to touch it well we're talking the problem is we're talking lot Frontage not lot width and there are two in the zoning bylaw you have in this Zone a minimum 125 ft lot Frontage and a minimum lot width of 100 ft through the lot with the house basically where the house is going to be built so but the widths aren't going to change because they're not going to be putting a house behind it or anything so that 35 with the with the frontage increase that 3500 number has to increase theoretically it would I mean there's no way that it couldn't though well I mean it's beyond theoretical a lot of things I can do it's in practice it would it it really since we cannot tell them which lots to change and how to change them we have trying to figure out what we figured out is that 45 is the minimum what they do at that 45 and how they configure the lot going back in the form that it goes however it goes back it's going to be you it'll be surprising well it'll be interesting to see what happens so I guess what I would also present is that um if they do make these reductions there are going to be changes necessarily to the plan to the engineering to the drainage to everything so maybe what you want to do is also uh state that you want that amended plan to be presented to you so that you have a final chance to look at it your peer has a chance to look at it and say yes it's corrected circumstances Etc can we do that Norine though we're issuing I don't think we can do that we're issuing a decision tonight that is ultimately the state and the building inspector is going to we can require a plan be submitted we can require I don't know if we can just pull out the plan look at it and and appreciate that if you go up to 45 Frontage I mean it's it's it's going to increase I there's no way it couldn't no can I suggest that you're going to have a problem moving forward to W5 yes on setbacks this whole thing because now you're going to have to deal with because they're asking from may I go that far yes because now they're asking for suback of 5 ft we've all had an issue with how they going to get access the backyard get past the house so on the one hand we're saying well your your Frontage has to be no less than 45 we can't tell them where to do that so now we're going to end up having to say your minimum setback has to be X it can't be five because we already know that well theoretically is a problem getting back there so now we're going to have to start uh uh saying which how far the setback is going to be well if they take four units out and they spread it that five number goes way too but the difference so we just deny it and then they have to I can make these Lots do almost anything so can they I'm talking about them when I say I I'm not going to do anything but I think you have to get into the just a thought denying the minimum uh to allow a minimum setback of 5T and maybe just go all the way back to the uh minimum of 10 ft yeah well that's what's going to happen anyway if we deny it but it's not going to happen no if we vote when we get W5 that's exactly what's not going to happen well it could happen well if we if we deny the five what do you think he's going to come back with six I mean he's going to have no you're you're going to say you're going to say 10 you're going to revert to what the Z by law says 10 well if we deny the five it goes back to the book anyway believe me if you do an analysis I we can't tell do it they've got the room to do it yeah depends all what they do so if we deny the five then they're back to the 10 I mean and they don't have any need for it I mean they're taking four units out that's that's 20% of the density I mean there's just no reason for them to have any 5 foot I think it's cover if I may I think it's covered it's a 45 I don't think it's the best thing but I think 45 can work because then they're going to have to do something with it I think the 3500 Square fet I don't know if they're going to do with that but they can and we just wait to get the W5 and deal with the setbacks there because they're asking for a waiver yeah we so we just we get there that's where the issu is going to be okay all right so four right W4 waiver from section 24 111.3 a maximum lot coverage waiver requested for structures to allow maximum coverage of 50% for lot coverage by structures waiver also requested for lot coverage by structures parking Paving to be a maximum of 75% waiver requested a strict compliance with dimensional requirements with restri R the number of lots and affordable units under the structures parking Paving do we add the patios and the decks on that no it's their request for a waiver we don't change so we deny and then I don't understand what you're talking about this one I think we can approve because we're asking the patios be okay included I think the last it was it was an issue about drainage making sure that the drainage calculations were still going to run into trouble with setback yeah this one doesn't cover setbacks it's going to affect it maybe anyway I don't want all right so let's just go with that one Grant everyone's okay with four motion to Grant a second as all those in favor none okay five waiver from 240 11.4 a setback requirements waiver requested to allow the minimum setback of 15 ft from the street waiver requested to allow minimum setback of 5 ft for side uh and rear lot lines waiver requested a strict compliance with the dimensional requirements would restrict the number of lots and affordable units motion to deny parenthetically except 10 second that's just for the setback Set uh setback sideline sine sideline yes to deny to the to deny and do 10 still allow the 15 in the front right yeah the board would they can they can do that yeah without any problem and there was a motion did I second deny with this parenthetical that we would accept a 10- foot sideline Setra second everyone's okay with that yes all those in favor I I oppose none W6 waiver from article 6 design standard section 30524 6 waiver from the street Center Line offsets of no less than 300 ft to allow the proposed Center Line to be offset approximately 180 ft from Burk Lane waiver requested as the property is only 100 ft from the Burk Lane North fouth Highway intersection has only 113 ft of Frontage cannot comply with a 300t minimum the sub subdivision driveway is located at the farthest offset possible from Burk Lane motion to a grant second all those in favor I oppose none W7 waiver from section 30524 b1a width of layout 44 ft waiver request to allow minimum Road layout of 26 ft waiver requested due to the narrow layout of the existing parcel strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units driveway motion to Grant and would note that it's a driveway did you change road to driveway uh it will be changed all right so here's the the issue is that their the language of their waiver they talk about a minimum Road layout so maybe what you're doing is if you're accepting their layout what you would do is approve and specify that it's a driveway you're going to change second that all right motion to Grant with the parenthetical that it's a driveway not a road second all those in favor I oppose none W8 waiver from section 30524 b1b pavement width waiver requested to allow pavement width of 20 ft waiver requested due to the narrow layout of the existing parcel strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units motion to Grant second all those in favor I I oppose none W9 waiver from section 30524 b1d reverse curve tangent 100 ft tangent proposed to be 63.4 ft waiver requested due to the narrow layout of the existing parcel strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units motion to Grant second all those in favor I oppose none W10 waiver from section 30524 B5 Street line intersection radius of 25 ft Street line intersection radius proposed to be 20 ft at the southern radius with North fouth Highway waiver requested due to the narrow layout of the existing parcel strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units Grant second all those in favor I None waiver from section 30524 B8 Street layout with with of driveway layout yes 60 ft when a budding property not owned by the uh subdivider full waiver requests to do the narrow layout of the existing parcel due to the narrow layout of the existing parcel strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units motion to deny with the parenthetical that the town engineer points out that this is not applicable second those in of denying I W12 waiver requested from section 30524 D2 dead end streets no longer than 500 ft full waiver requested minimum dead M Street length of 664 ft is required to provide access to all Lots at the rear of the development strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units we motion to Grant second all those in favor well can can I offer an amendment go for should should it say dead on driveway or oh yeah well or do we deny this and say that it's it's not a it's it's a driveway it's not a dead end Street yeah well then if it's a driveway then it's yeah I not applicable right that's why I ask all right so are you motion to deny it's not applicable right same that's second all those in favor of denying I I okay 13 waiver requested from section 30524 D3 outside Street line turnaround radius of 60 ft waiver requested for radius of 55 ft waiver requested due to the narrow layout of the existing parcel strict compliance would restrict the number of lots and affordable units motion to Grant wait a minute we driveway isn't it the same reason right but you could yeah I guess what you could do still is you could Grant the layout that they've proposed and just with the caveat that it's really not applicable because it's not a street so does this engineering note apply to all these well that has to the last three and it only applies it seems to be written for the one as it's underlined I think we should leave it at 50 55 because the the fire department noted that they were okay with that yeah yes all right so do you want to then um look at an approval and then I identify that it's a driveway yeah right so do you want to revote that motion to Grant with the uh parenthetical that it's a drive it's a driveway turnaround radius second me all those not applicable does we put that as well no cuz the fire department appr wanted they they said they would approve it so I think we should have something in there about that you okay with it yeah but I I yeah yeah that's fine okay all those in fav w14 waiver from section 30526 Open Spaces waiver requested in entirety preserving any significant open space would restrict the number of lots and affordable units okay Grant second all those in favor I I oppose none W5 waiver from section 30527 protection of natural features waiver requested an entirety preserving natural features would restrict the number of lots and affordable units Grant second all those in favor I I oppose none w16 waiver from section 30530 sidewalks grass plots and Street uh trees per standard crosssection schedule A and B we e e e e e e e e e e e e e amended by the board in I vote to approve all the approve or deny the waivers as specified uh by the board in its discussion tonight second all those in uh approving that's the H one to or deny to or deny I and I we'll have James restate the decision now therefore be it resolved that the zoning board of appeals here in referred to as the board being of the opinion afores said acting under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 40b sections 20 to 23 and 760 CMR 56.00 to is there a motion to I make the motion to approve following a motion made by member Duffy and seconded by voted as bullet to either Grant or Deni so is that a motion to approve yes discussion any further discussion no think we're good we unanimous sorry unanimous I I I I so I'll read it back then thou therefore be it resolved that the zoning board of appeals here and referred to the board being of the opinion of foreset enacting under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 40b section 20 to 23 and 760 CMR 56.00 following a motion made by Mr Duffy and seconded by chairman Murphy voted 5 to Zer to Grant a comprehensive permit with conditions for the construction of 16 home home ownership three-bedroom dwellings four of which shall be be affordable in perpetuity to households whose income is not more than 80% of the area median income income as determined by Hud and EO hlc at 19 North Falmouth Highway North Falmouth Massachusetts assessors map 15 Section 3 parcel 5 lot 0000 the premises the comprehensive permit shall be subject to the conditions adopted by the board give this man some loes nice job all right moving along minutes I'm sure you've had a lot of time we are we are tabling but soon to be caught up not to worry my apologies zoning administrator updates we'll do that next week too okay for discussion next week next week nice job uh good job tonight just just as one um issue we do have the S sidewalk for 85 brick Kil um oh yeah and we I think sent out some proposed dates on uh Saturdays so if the board members want to um reconsider free right that uh will work could you resend that you don't mind walk walk site walk at 85 per Kil for Saturday this this a no no no a future date you would select and when is that meeting the 6th so we should maybe the last week January maybe I don't know where's my phone hopefully it'll be January thaw by then maybe not likely so the 25th maybe is anybody think they're available who or February 1 February 1 let's put it off till next month why don't why don't we all check and and email Norine maybe all right send some dates out and respond Boston that day starting at noon so the 25th's bad to you 25th 25th I'm no I'm no 18 I'm no 18 as well so I don't know we can just throw but we can't go past when do you want it doesn't matter Mak something work you could go by yourself it's can he do that if he's not available on the dates I mean the other POS possibility would be that the developer could you know consider a second date if there are you know enough members perhaps that we need to split it or something yeah I mean you know the other possibility is there's always the possibility for a snowstorm where you could schedule something and then find out it's not going to work yeah fil it for you here me so you're going to send an email yes yeah okay Tony can fly his drone yeah there you go that would be way more fun that would be way more fun that'll be your future requirements there you go bring your Drone footage uh that was under discussion right board updates so you had a meeting with the select to discuss affordable housing was a great opportunity it was so everybody wants to go home after we left okay future agenda items I I do want to go home but I would like it a night when we're not dealing with perhaps at 40b to discuss some of the points that were brought up at the selectman's meeting um as well as from practitioners uh regarding efficiency of the 40b process so I wonder if that might be more of a Saturday type of conversation only because right now your agendas continue to be why don't we add it to the next Saturday yeah the next Saturday one Saturday in October what year of 26 we finally it was reference I could be stking about my proposal but true it's it's worth worth talking about absolutely no it is you got to give us the next we allow you got to give us next meeting give us the next meeting and knock us out so it doesn't matter the next meeting is the right so on January 16 hey motion to adjourn I will second Bruin z z second period all those in favor joury gav us that's it [Music]