Falmouth Planning Board Selectmen s Meeting Room February 13, 2018 Regular Meeting - 6:30 pm MINUTES Present: Jim Fox, Chairman, Pat Kerfoot, Vice Chairman, Paul Dreyer, Clerk/Secretary, Robert Leary, John Druley, Charlotte Harris, Pamela Harting-Barrat Chairman Jim Fox called the meeting to order at 6:31 PM. MINUTES: February 6, 2018 MOTION by P.Dreyer/P.Kerfoot to approve the minutes of February 6, 2018 as corrected. PUBLIC COMMENT None. REQUEST FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF COVENANT: Crane Subdivision 39 Juniper Point Rd. J.Fox recused himself. MOTION by R.Leary/C.Harris that the Planning Board vote to release a covenant dated July 29, 2014, recorded at the Barnstable Registry of Deeds at Book 28341 Page 31 for lot 1A shown on plan entitled: Approval No Required Plan prepared by Holmes and McGrath, Inc., dated April 14, 2016, approve May 10, 2016, being a portion of lot 2 as depicted on a definitive plan of land entitled: Definitive Subdivision Plan prepared for Charles M. & Thomas S. Crane in Woods Hole Falmouth, MA prepared by Holmes and McGrath, Inc., approved on August 14, 2014 and recorded at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds at Plan Book 654 Page 94. Voted 6-0-1 APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS: received between January 24, 2018 and February 13, 2018 Applicant: James Ware et al Plan of Land merge two lots into one lot MOTION by P.Kerfoot/R.Leary that the Planning Board vote to endorse the below referenced plan "Approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required". The plan does not depict a subdivision by definition. This endorsement is without regard to zoning or buildability and should not be construed as an approval that the lots shown are entitled to a building permit. Applicant, James Ware et. al. for the plan entitled: Plan of Land Prepared For James Ware et al Gansett Road Quissett, Falmouth, Massachusetts Being a Merger of Lot 6 As Shown on LC Plan 6125 H And Lot 81 As Shown On LC Plan 6125 W, prepared by BSS Design, dated January 31, 2018, scale 1 = 40. Applicant: James Ware et al Plan of Land to divide one lot into 4 lots MOTION by P.Kerfoot/R.Leary that the Planning Board vote to endorse the below referenced plan "Approval under the Subdivision Control Law not required". The plan does not depict a subdivision by definition. This 1 P a g e
endorsement is without regard to zoning or buildability and should not be construed as an approval that the lots shown are entitled to a building permit. Applicant, James Ware et. al. for the plan entitled: Plan of Land Prepared For James Ware et al Gansett Road Quissett, Falmouth, Massachusetts Being a Subdivision of Lot 81 A, prepared by BSS Design, dated February 1, 2018, scale 1 = 40. J.Druley - Is parcel A part of this? Or is 81B just part of an ANR plan? Engineer Thomas Bunker - This plan takes the one lot created by the merger. All the parcels are labeled not a building lot. We are carving out four parcels that are not buildable and leaving the remainder 81B. C.Harris - What purpose is served by this change? B.Ament - The key here is the plan does not show a subdivision. J.Druley - My concern is there is a home here and there is a shared driveway. This is not a subdivision nor a road. The guidelines that I ve seen says it is not truly an ANR. That is my concern. J.Fox - I got a different story. As it s drawn we could endorse it. No buildable lots are being approved here. Voted 4-3-0 PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Applicant: Thomas & Marysia Messer Site Plan Review to construct a new separate structure accessory apartment at 190 Goeletta Drive R.Leary recused himself. Thomas Messer - We have applied to the Water Department for service. Denitrification represents an extensive expenditure on our part and the Board of Health says we do not need a denitrification system. Marysia Messer submitted a letter from Health Agent David Carignan. C.Harris - Have you read the accessory bylaw where you need to retain the appearance of a single family dwelling? M.Messer - This is an accessory apartment for my husband and myself. Our daughter and son-in-law are living with us because they cannot buy a house. The design we are looking at for us to age in place needs to be one floor. We would love to have something that looks like a barn. We sought a design that would be functional for us. J.Fox - The apartment needs to be accessory to the structure. This is clearly a second home. You have two primary structures here. You need a 40,000 square foot lot to have four bedrooms. M.Messer - The house has four bedrooms. J.Fox - Yours looks like it should be structures on two lots. C.Harris - This is two very separate buildings trying to be accessories. It appears to be completely not a single family home. That would be a contiguous building, an accessory apartment within the same building. T.Messer - The siding is undetermined. We could make it match the house. M.Messer Five out of seven of our abutters are in support. Another had concerns about parking. It is in the woods and no one will see it. C.Harris - The woods does not change the fact that this would set a precedent to the town. It s placement is separate and it doesn t fit the accessory bylaw. J.Fox - We send this to the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the structure. We are commenting on the design. 2 P a g e
P.Dreyer - I concur that this is not what the bylaw intends. This is clearly two distinct structures. There are also drainage issues. I do not think it meets the intent of the bylaw. P.Harting-Barrat - That lot size is not a lot that could accommodate two separate dwelling. M.Messer - We are trying to do everything we can to provide housing for our children. P.Harting-Barrat - Couldn t you just add that on to the existing house? Then you could accomplish it. M.Messer - Rod Palmer said we would have to put in a special firewall. He said this is a better solution. J.Fox - It is for the building code because you are building two different structures, yes it is less complicated. A firewall is a common practice. This has no connection. You could try a little cottage that would match. P.Kerfoot - If there is a garage that is converted to living space; remove the carport; make the basement into a garage. Now you are adding a second floor apartment, which would work. I am concerned with the carport. Shingle it and paint the trim to match the main house. I would really like to see this happen for you. It is easy enough to match the windows on the main house. I think that would make this fly. T.Messer - The plan that you have is not the final plan. There will be a gravel driveway. MOTION by P.Kerfoot/P.Harting-Barrat to close the hearing and take under advisement. Voted 6-0-1 Applicant: Teaticket Car Wash LLC Site Plan Review to construct a carwash located at 187 Teaticket Hwy, adding over 1,000 sf of gross floor area J.Fox recused himself. Attorney Kevin Klauer - This property is located in East Falmouth on Route 28 on a lot containing 24,200 square feet in the B2 zoning district. There is a 1,900 square foot building presently, was most recently Tina s Ice Cream. The building is nonconforming to side-yard setbacks and lot coverage by structures, paving and parking at 73.6 per cent. The applicant is seeking to raze the structure and replace it with conforming structure for a car wash. The building is just over 3,200 square feet which is 13.2 per cent lot coverage. The lot coverage by structures, paving and parking is reduced to 72.3 per cent. Due to the addition of more than 1,000 square feet we are in front of you for Site Plan Review. This location makes sense for this project and is a substantial improvement over the existing lot. We are looking to use the existing curb cut making no modifications. There are two payment stations in the queue area about 150 feet from the road. The property is in poor condition and will be substantially improved. This does require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the hearing is scheduled March 1st. P.Dreyer - Is there any recycling of the water at this facility? K.Klauer - Yes, there is substantial recapture of the site. Designer Matt Traffie, Arlen Company - We typically reclaim 60 per cent of the water. Between 52 and 58 gallons per car and we reclaim around 32 gallons of that. K.Klauer - It is located on Town sewer and is part of the Little Pond Sewer District. The reclamation is on site prior to reaching the sewer. The building will conform to setbacks. R.Leary - The building will be in a new location? K.Klauer - That is correct, it will be conforming and meet setbacks. C.Harris - it is a good looking building proposed. Do you have a response to the comments on the Engineering referral? And signage? 3 P a g e
K.Klauer - A landscape plan was submitted. Down lighting is proposed on the building. There is a small sign proposed and is still in the conceptual phase. I don t believe there will be anything on the building, no. There will be a sign located in this front corner, subject to sign review. P.Dreyer - The large drawings are fine. The smaller drawings seem to be upside down and are not consistent with your larger drawings. For example, there is no north arrow on the architectural plan for orientation. M.Borcelli - The orientation of the architectural plan is 180 degrees to these plans. It is consistent; you would just have to flip that drawing The concept is still an entrance to the property, you approach the pay station and the vehicles enter in the rear. R.Leary - On the north side - that s just for people going to use the vacuums? K.Klauer - Yes. There are parking spots and a handicapped parking spot. You could come around the back side or you could access it from here. You can turn left or go through the pay station without having to pay. P.Dreyer Do you have solar panels on the south facing roof. K.Klauer - That is correct. J.Druley - How many vacuuming stations there will be? Employee parking? K.Klauer - Eight. There are five spots for regular parking. J.Druley - There is no self-washing available? K.Klauer - Correct. P.Harting-Barrat - Will there be detailing as well? M.Traffie - No. You just wash and go. K.Klauer - Sandwich Car Wash on Route 130 has a similar setup with a separate vacuuming station. P.Dreyer - This site has been a problem for food businesses in the past and this would be a big improvement. K.Klauer - There will be an attendant during all open hours. J.Druley - How many vehicles can you stack? K.Klauer - There are two stacking lanes. Engineer Mike Borcelli - From the pay stations is about 180 feet. A standard parking space is 18 feet. Given some clearance you could put 10 and 10 for a total of 20 on average in the queue. P.Dreyer - The entrance and exit look complicated with three lanes. Also, the car wash in East Falmouth has at times backed onto Route 28. Please explain. M.Borcelli - On entering, it allows for 10 cars per lane; so 20 cars. We don t expect that ever to happen. There will be painted lines and directional arrows. P.Kerfoot - Can there be a Vacuum Only sign directing to that area? K.Klauer - I don t think there would be any issue with that. That is something they typically do. M.Traffie - We normally do put information signs on the lot and it is not an issue. It could be attached on the building and on the island on the other side. Bill Ferzoco owner of Driftwood Plaza - You have a beautiful building. I think it is too much building for the parcel. I am concerned about the traffic. Do the vacuums count as parking spots? I just think it is too much for one curb cut. You ve got traffic going both ways and a double stack with no exit. Based on that I have to oppose this. P.Kerfoot - Do you see two curb cuts as a solution? 4 P a g e
B.Ferzoco - There is no place to put two curb cuts. K.Klauer - We are proposing 13.6 per cent lot coverage, significantly less than what is allowed in the B2 district. There is a total of 12 parking spaces. 20 cars queuing is the maximum capacity. It has been over designed to minimize any impact on the surrounding area. M.Borcelli - There is a process to wash the car that takes some time, then a car exits. The cars aren t stacking as they re trying to exit. The expectation is more like 5 or 6 cars in the queue at one time. K.Klauer - Car washes are a matter of convenience, not a destination. P.Kerfoot - I am concerned whether you have an oil/gas filtration system. M.Traffie - Normally the sewer department requires a grease trap. In the reclaim system we have 6 chambers that the water goes through. 60 per cent of that is recycled in. It s actually pretty clean water we are turning back to the town. Our soaps are high phosphorous and actually helps the sewer department. There is a chamber where the gas and oil is caught. That gets pumped and hauled away as environmental waste. J.Druley - I don t know what you could build here and not have a lot of traffic. I don t know how to get around that. P.Dreyer - How many employees do you anticipate during opertions? M.Traffie - Typically there are two. K.Klauer - There is not much call for people to go into the building. We believe the three spots are sufficient. P.Dreyer - I don t see an area for a bike rack. I think that you should consider that for the employees. B.Ferzoco - Will you be selling accessories? M.Traffie - Not to my knowledge. No, no cleaning products or fresheners will be sold. The hearing was closed and taken under advisement. Applicant: Scott Bowker Site Plan Review to construct an accessory apartment within the single family dwelling located at 9 Deolinda Place MOTION by P.Kerfoot/P.Dreyer to accept the request to withdraw without prejudice. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION: Recommendations of Zoning Articles for the Spring 2018 Annual Town Meeting Article: To see if the town will vote to amend Chapter 240 - Zoning of the Code of Falmouth by adding the following to Article VIII Agricultural Districts: 240-38.O In Agricultural A and Agricultural AA Districts only - Ground-mounted solar photovoltaic array. Or do or take any other action on this matter. On request of the Planning Board. R.Leary - I would like to IP this. I think we should have some hearings on this rather than hashing it out on Town Meeting floor. P.Kerfoot - I concur with Bob. If we allow this, we may not like the results. I would like to see IP also on this. I would say it encompasses too much of the town without any public input. MOTION by R.Leary/P.Kerfoot to recommend indefinite postponement for the Warrant. 5 P a g e
Article: To see if the town will vote to amend Article VI General Residence Districts of Chapter 240 - Zoning - of the Code of Falmouth by adding the following: 240-28.H (5) Accessory Apartments Purpose The intent of the Accessory Apartment bylaw is to: Broaden the range of housing choice in Falmouth by increasing the number of small dwelling units available for rent; Encourage greater diversity of population with particular attention to young adult citizens and to allow for Aging in Place for our senior citizens; Promote more economic and energy efficient use of the town s housing supply. All this while maintaining the appearance and character of the town s single family neighborhoods. (1) Definitions Accessory Apartment. Sections 240-3 A, 240-66. D and 240-70.D not-with-standing, an additional dwelling unit, subordinate in size and accessory to the principle dwelling unit on the lot, located in either the principle dwelling or an accessory structure on the lot. An accessory apartment is constructed so as to maintain the appearance and essential character of a single family dwelling or accessory structure thereto located on the lot. (3) Requirements a) Only one accessory apartment shall be allowed per lot. b) Either the principal dwelling or accessory apartment must be owner-occupied for a period of seven months in every calendar year, or owned by a nonprofit organization or government authority whose purpose is to provide affordable housing. c) Either the principal dwelling or accessory apartment may be rented, but not both during the five months the owner occupant may be absent. Rental periods shall be no less than six (6) months and weekly/monthly rentals (summer rentals so called) are expressly prohibited. Neither the principal dwelling nor accessory apartment shall be used as commercial accommodations at any time. d) The accessory apartment shall have no more than two bedrooms and a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area, or forty (40) percent of the floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less. e) The total number of bedrooms on the lot shall not exceed four (4) when the lot contains less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. f) Whether allowed as a matter of right or by special permit, accessory apartments located on lots subject to the provisions of the Water Resource Protection or Coastal Pond Overlay Districts [1] the total number of bedrooms shall not exceed one (1) per ten thousand (10,000) square feet of lot area, unless both the principal dwelling and accessory apartment are connected to the municipal sewer system or to an on-site septic system with enhanced nitrogen removal approved by the Board of Health. (4) Design Standards Accessory apartments, whether a part of new construction, reconstruction, alteration or change to a single family residence or accessory structure (attached) thereto, shall maintain the following standards: a) The architectural effect, as the result of the accessory apartment being constructed within the principal dwelling, shall be that of a single family residence compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. b) The architectural effect, as the result of the accessory apartment being constructed within an accessory structure, shall be that of a garage or barn customarily incidental to a single family residence compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. c) Parking for the accessory apartment shall be provided in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (5) Procedures 6 P a g e
a) Accessory Apartment constructed within a single family dwelling. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an accessory apartment constructed within a single family dwelling a Site Plan Review (Design Review), pursuant to Article XXXIX (39) of the Zoning Bylaw, shall be conducted by the Planning Board, taking into account the design standards, requirements and purposes of this accessory apartment bylaw. The application for site plan review shall include the information contained in Section 240-195 C, unless waived by the Planning Board. b) Accessory Apartment constructed within or as a detached accessory structure (not attached to a single family dwelling): In addition to the site plan review requirements above, an accessory apartment built within or as an accessory structure, not attached to a single family dwelling, a special permit from the Board of Appeals shall be required. In addition to the design standards, requirements and purposes of this accessory apartment bylaw, the Board of Appeals shall take into account the standards found in section 240-216 A- I of this bylaw. (6) Enforcement a) Upon a written determination by the Building commissioner that the property owner has failed to comply with these provisions the property owner shall bring the accessory apartment into compliance within ninety (90) days of such notice. Failing compliance the property shall be restored to single family dwelling status within ninety (90) days of said failure determination, in a manner that complies with all requirements of the State Building Code and any other local regulations or bylaws. (7) Monitoring a) An affidavit shall be submitted annually to the building commissioner, signed by the property owner, attesting that the principal dwelling or accessory apartment has been owner-occupied for a period of seven months and not otherwise rented as set forth in section 3 (b) above. The Building Commissioner may allow a property owner to be absent during this seven month period for cause, such as military assignment, work or health related issues, academic sabbatical or similar circumstance. Or do or take any other action on this matter. On request of the Planning Board. J.Fox - All we are doing is inserting the accessory apartment bylaw in GR Districts. My understanding is this is just an oversight. MOTION by P.Kerfoot/R.Leary to recommend this article as printed to the Warrant. Article: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw by deleting Section 240-142 (as amended in 1983) and substitute the following updated Section 240-142 regulating cooking and housekeeping amenities in commercial accommodations guest units: 240-142 Cooking and housekeeping facilities. Commercial accommodations units may contain amenities for private cooking and housekeeping only as the Board of Appeals allows, by special permit, upon the Board s determination that the allowed amenities are customary to guest units and will not change the nature of the use as commercial accommodations. On petition of Kevin P. Klauer, II. MOTION by P.Kerfoot/R.Leary to recommend this article as printed to the Warrant. J.Druley - Does the language need to be a little more definitive? P.Kerfoot - I agree with you. I would like to see more definitive language. We can agree with it, but it would need to be changed when we recommend it. C.Harris - This is by special permit, not changing the language allows flexibility with the times and to not come back every time they want to plug something in. P.Kerfoot - Do you have a model for this language? 7 P a g e
K.Klauer - No. The existing language allows accommodations pre 1983. This would allow for post 1983. A modern hotel doesn t not have a microwave or small fridge. Keeping it under special permit provisions allows the town to keep control. This is intended for commercial accommodations, not boarding houses. Article: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw, Section 240-67.C. (Lots for commercial accommodations) by inserting and Business Redevelopment in Section 240-67.C.(2), after Business 2, so that Section 240-67.C.(2) will begin Business 2 and Business Redevelopment: allowed. Said section will otherwise remain the same. On petition of Kevin P. Klauer, II. R.Leary - I wonder what impact it will have on business redevelopment. J.Fox - The biggest one I know is the setback in the front and the lot coverage is greatly reduced. We encourage shared parking. MOTION by P.Kerfoot/R.Leary to recommend this article as printed to the Warrant. Article: To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning Bylaw, Section 240-37.E. and substituting the following updated Section 240-37.E. to allow splitting of wood for firewood as a permitted accessory use in the Agricultural Zoning Districts: 240-37.E. Portable woodworking mill and/or log-splitter. On petition of Kevin P. Klauer, II. P.Harting-Barrat - My concerns are the proximity to any residential property; the noise of tree splitting. J.Fox - A portable wood mill is already a use. They can do that. P.Harting-Barrat - The particulates created from the splitting of the wood. It is highly carcinogenic. It is highly toxic. If we could do something to keep it a distance from a residence or a buffer. C.Harris - I thought this hinged on the difference between logs and lumber. J.Fox - I recall the distance from a residence being identified. K.Klauer - Essentially this started because the Building Commissioner issued a determination of a wood cutting mill without permanent installation. It only referred to construction lumber, the planing of wood is how he determined that. We are proposing to clarify that question to add log splitting to the bylaw. It being analogous to the planing of wood. You have a variety of log splitters that produce different noise. I don t believe there is a substantial difference in noise in my experience. R.Leary - It s the motor that makes the noise. K.Klauer - The intent of the bylaw is to preserve agricultural uses. I am not familiar with ripping off bark for firewood. Accessory uses are limited by percentage within the bylaw. P.Harting-Barrat - I think there should be a distance restriction from a residence. I don t want to see people breathing this in. R.Leary - There are also carcinogens in watermelon. There is no study that I have found that puts woodworkers at any increase of cancer risk than among the general population. P.Dreyer - My concern is that by adding a log splitter, there is no limit to the size of this operation. There is no limit on how big the log splitter can be or the amount of work that can be done. P.Kerfoot - There was a wood mill on Carlson Lane many years ago. The Town required that the walls be insulated and the exhaust be filtered. This was Industrialy zoned property. You think of portable woodworking as small. A log splitter is a lot different than swinging an ax overhead. I would like to see this IP d until we give further 8 P a g e
thought to that part of the bylaw. We could define the operational hours. Maybe we can do it by special permit, these are accessory uses. That I would be happy with. Our Building Commissioner has rendered an opinion on this, and I do not feel good about going against that. P.Harting-Barrat - The splitting from the commercial splitters; that wood being picked up and dropped is horrendous. K.Klauer - Even by-right uses are subject to the nuisance bylaw. P.Kerfoot - How do you define nuisance? R.Leary - For a landscaper, that is a different thing. I hate to see wood just mulched up and trashed. P.Kerfoot - We have the option to say by special permit and hours defined. P.Harting-Barrat - And setback from residence. P.Kerfoot - I d rather IP it. MOTION by P.Kerfoot/P.Harting-Barrat to recommend indefinite postponement for the Warrant. Article: To see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 240-Zoning Article XIV Dimensional Regulations Section 240-70 Maximum Building Height to read as follows: The maximum height for principal structures is 2½ stories not to exceed 35 feet and for accessory structures (delete is 1½ stories), not to exceed (delete 18 feet) (insert 22 feet) as measured from the base of the structure to the highest point. On petition of Patricia P. Johnson and others. P.Kerfoot - There is argument as to where you start measuring. Do we want to cross that out or leave it as is? J.Fox - They take four elevations and they take the average of that. Do we want to tell the Building Inspector how to measure it? J.Fox - I think it should just say the height of the building and let the Building Inspector figure it out. MOTION by P.Kerfoot/R.Leary that we recommend this article to the Warrant as recommended with the last part of the sentence removed. GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE: February 7, 2018 thru February 13, 2018 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: J.Fox - Davis Straits discussion needs to be on every future agenda. NEXT MEETING: February 27, 2018 MOTION by R.Leary to adjourn at 19:40 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Paul Dreyer, Clerk/Secretary Sheri Theroux, Recording Secretary 9 P a g e