HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-19-2025 - Lt from David Sorenson in Opposition to Amendment to Barnstable Code Sec. 240-45
David E. Sorensen, Esq. David@DavidSorensenLaw.com
230 Cotuit Rd. Ste. 3 | Marstons Mills, MA 02648 508.237.1993
September 19, 2025
Mr. James Kupfer
Planning Board Staff Director
Town of Barnstable
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
RE: Proposed Amendment to Barnstable Code § 240-45: Off-Street Storage of Trailers
Planning Board Item No. 2026-012 (Introduced 08/21/2025)
VIA EMAIL ONLY TO: James.Kupfer@town.barnstable.ma.us
Dear Mr. Kupfer:
The following is a comment in opposition to the above-referenced proposal which is scheduled
to be heard by the Barnstable Planning Board at its September 22, 2025 meeting. Please share it
with the members of the Planning Board, the Town Council, and Town Manager Mark Ells.
The stated rationale of this proposal is, in part, “the desire to limit commercial activity in
residential neighborhoods.” The rationale refers to limiting “the parking of certain types of
commercial vehicles, i.e., those which detract from the residential character and appearance of
the neighborhood, to a maximum of two at a residential property….”
However, the proposed ordinance as written is wildly beyond the scope of this stated rationale.
As such, it has created a social media firestorm among boat owners which I hope will prompt a
revision or rescission of this proposal.
The clear language of this ordinance (at §240-45(C)(c)(i)) would prohibit trailers of any kind—
not only commercial trailers—that are 20 feet long or longer from being parked or stored
anywhere on any residential lot. Meanwhile, the proposal allows two (three with a special
permit) commercial vehicles, one trailer of less than 20 feet (whether commercial or not), one
unregistered vehicle in a structure or behind a fence, and an unlimited number of mobile homes
in the rear half of a lot.
The effect of this ordinance, if passed as written, would be that I can no longer keep my 25’
recreational powerboat on its trailer in my driveway, but my neighbor could keep 2-3 dump
trucks (see 540 CMR § 2.05(3)), a skid steer trailer, and an old Camaro on cinder blocks with a
metal shack around it in the front yard, along with as many of Cousin Eddie’s RVs as his
backyard can fit. In the practice of law, this is what we call “an absurd result.”
Contrary to its stated purpose of limiting commercial activity in residential neighborhoods, this
ordinance would enable the same while turning hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Barnstable boat
owners into outlaws. If passed, most of us would be forced to defy this unjust ordinance and the
town would have an enforcement nightmare on its hands. Boat owners have nowhere else to
keep their boats, especially considering regulators’ posture toward the development of additional
slips and moorings.
That said, there is clearly nothing about a boat on a trailer that detracts from the “character and
appearance of residential neighborhoods,” especially here on Cape Cod. The ordinance as
written would, of course, adversely affect many other reasonable practices besides boat
ownership, including the ownership of snowmobiles, utility trailers, and campers, and should be
amended accordingly or withdrawn completely. Frankly, I am stunned that anyone who purports
to represent Cape Codders would think this measure is a good or acceptable idea.
I also take great exception to the surreptitious manner in which the Town rolls out proposals like
this that could have a massive effect on residents’ lives. We have to scour the bureaucratic
depths of the Town website to find this information while Town social media seems reserved for
feelgood stories. The Town should share notices of proposals of this magnitude far more widely
and timely. The public notice requirements in state law constitute a bare minimum standard.
The Town of Barnstable can, and should, do better.
Finally, there is a scrivener’s error in the proposed ordinance. Under § 240-45(B) “Definitions,”
“Commercial Vehicle” erroneously has two subpart designations—(d) and (e)—disrupting the
order of the next definitions, which should be designated as (e) and (f), not (f) and (g).
Best regards,
David E. Sorensen