HomeMy WebLinkAboutRebuttal from Attorney Brennan & Winn Development Company
Robert L. Brennan, Jr., Esq.
O : 978 -965 -5885 | M : 617-233 -4897
rbrennan @smolakvaughan.com
{00316591;v2}
120 Water Street, Suite 406, North Andover, MA 01845
WWW.SMOLAKVAUGHAN.COM
June 16, 2026
Jacob Dewey, Chairman
Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Re: 307 Main Street, Hyannis – Response to Appeal of Building Permit
Dear Chairman Dewey and Honorable Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Winn Development Company, LP (“Winn” or the “Applicant”), by and through its
attorneys, respectfully submits for distribution to the Zoning Board of Appeals, ("Board")
this response to the Appeal of the Building Permit ("Appeal") issued for the redevelopment
of 307 Main Street in Hyannis (the “Project”) filed by Main Street Times LLC and its
managers, Aaron B. Bornstein and Ethan S. Bornstein (the “Appellant”).
First, the appeal is not meritorious because the Appellant has not satisfied its burden
to "sufficiently allege and plausibly demonstrate" standing as "persons aggrieved" as
required by G.L. c. 40A, §17; Section 11 of Ch. 150 of the Acts of 2024. Thus, as
provided further below, the Appellant lacks standing to bring its appeal and such appeal
should be dismissed in the first instance.
Second, and in the event the Board finds that the Appellant has standing to consider the
merits of the appeal, the Board should deny the Appellant's claims because Barnstable
Building Commissioner Brian Florence properly and reasonably interpreted and applied
the Town of Barnstable Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance") in issuing the Building Permit
for the Project. The Appellant’s claims are premised upon an incorrect reading of the
Downtown Main Street (“DMS”) zoning provisions, including the applicability
requirements of Section 240-24.1.5.E.1 and the Surface Parking Design Standards
referenced in the Appeal.
Finally, the Appellant’s claim challenging the use of “compact” parking spaces also
ignores the reasoned determination issued by Commissioner Florence to the Barnstable
Planning Board on January 12, 2024, finding that Winn’s use of compact spaces at the
Project was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance – a determination that the Appellant
avails itself of and benefits from in connection with its Dockside Condominium project at
110 & 115 School Street, Hyannis.
As demonstrated further below, the Project complies with the applicable zoning
requirements and Appellant's challenges to Commissioner Florence's proper
interpretation of the Ordinance in connection with the Project are without merit and are
not a basis to annul the Building Permit. The Building Permit was lawfully issued, and
the appeal should be dismissed and/or denied.
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 2 of 11
{00316591;v2}
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. STANDING
“Standing is the gateway through which one must pass en route to an inquiry on the merits
[of an appeal]." Central Street, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hudson, 69 Mass. App.
Ct. 487, 493 (2007). Chapter 40A, §§ 8 and 15, allow “any person aggrieved by reason of
…. [a] decision of the inspector of buildings" to appeal the matter to the municipality’s
“permit granting authority” (here, the Board). The test for a private individual’s standing
under §§ 8 and 15 to file such an appeal is identical to that under c. 40A, § 17, which
governs when private individuals may seek judicial review of a local zoning board’s
decision. See 81 Spooner Rd., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692,
700 n. 12 (2012). Such individuals must be “person[s] aggrieved” by the disputed decision.
G.L. c. 40A, § 17. Aggrievement requires “evidence of an injury particular to the plaintiff,
as opposed to the neighborhood in general.” Murchison v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
Sherborn, 485 Mass. 209, 214 (2020) (discussing standing under § 17). To afford a plaintiff
standing under §§ 8 and 15, the injured interest must be one the statute or bylaw “under
which [the] plaintiff claims aggrievement intends to protect.” Standerwick v. Zoning Bd.
of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 27-28 (2006) (discussing standing under G. L. c.
40B, § 21). A §§ 8 and 15 plaintiff also must provide “credible” evidence of harm to the
claimed protected interest. Butler v. City of Waltham, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 441 (2005)
(discussing standing under c. 40A, § 17).
In addition to the foregoing well-established requirements, the legislature recently
amended Section 17 to eliminate a presumption of standing for abutters and certain abutters
to abutters, and to require all plaintiffs to "sufficiently allege and ... plausibly demonstrate
that measurable injury, which is special and different to such plaintiff, to a private legal
interest that will likely flow from the decision through credible evidence." Section 11 of
Ch. 150 of the Acts of 2024; JD. Raymond Transport, Inc. v. Farm Avenue Two Lots, LLC,
22 MISC 00681, 2024 WL 4346532, *7 (Land Ct. Sept. 30, 2024).
B. MERITS
Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, §§ 7 and 8, the interpretation and
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance is committed in the first instance to the Building
Commissioner. Therefore, in considering the Appellant’s petition, it is entirely appropriate
for this Board to recognize: (1) Commissioner Florence's familiarity with both the Zoning
Ordinance and the Massachusetts Building Code; (2) his experience applying it
consistently; (3) his technical understanding of construction and dimensional standards;
and (4) his coordination with planning staff code officials – including through Formal Site
Plan Review – particularly where the Ordinance provisions involve technical planning,
design, building code and dimensional standards within a specialized zoning district.
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 3 of 11
{00316591;v2}
The burden rests with the Appellant to demonstrate that the Building Commissioner erred
in issuing the permit. The Appellant has failed to meet that burden.
II. THE PROJECT AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Project consists of the redevelopment of an already -developed infill parcel that was
operated most recently as a retail and commercial banking headquarters for TD Bank,
located within the Downtown Main Street (“DMS”) Zoning District at 307 Main Street in
the Village of Hyannis.
The site has historically contained a single multi-story commercial building and paved
surface parking infrastructure. The Project redevelops and modernizes the site consistent
with the design objectives of the DMS District, including:
• the creation of multi-family mixed-income housing;
• pedestrian-oriented streetscape improvements;
• both surface parking and structured parking;
• articulated building massing; and
• and activated frontage conditions.
Significantly, the Project demolishes the existing building and modifies the existing surface
parking lot by decreasing the number of surface parking spaces from 74 surface parking
spaces under existing conditions (see Exhibit A attached hereto) to 54 surface parking
spaces shown on Exhibit B. The Project does so by incorporating integrated podium
construction and 68 structured parking spaces on portions of the site below where the
existing building is currently located and below the new residential structure. See Exhibit
B.
As discussed further below, these existing site conditions and the structured nature of the
parking configuration to be located below the new residential building are central to the
applicability analysis under Section 240-24.1.5.E.1.
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 4 of 11
{00316591;v2}
III. ARGUMENT
A. APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE OR
PLAUSIBLY DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WILL SUFFER ANY
MEASURABLE UNIQUE HARMS FROM THE PROJECT AND
LACKS STANDING TO BRING ITS APPEAL
It is well-settled that an appellant must have standing as a "person aggrieved" in order
for a zoning board of appeals to review a building inspectors' decision. Massachusetts
courts have long held that a person is "aggrieved" if he suffers infringement of his
private legal rights or private property interests. See Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of
Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. 20, 33 (2006). The allegedly injured rights must be of
the type that are within the purview of the zoning laws' protections. Standerwick, 447
Mass. at 28-32. In addition, to qualify as an "aggrieved" party, a plaintiff must show
"by direct facts and not by speculative personal opinion - that his injury is special and
different from the concerns of the rest of the community." Id. at 33.
Here, the appeal fails to allege aggrievement at all, much less does the Appellant
sufficiently or plausibly support any inchoate claim of aggrievement with credible
evidence, nor does it allege - much less demonstrate - any measurable injury to
Appellant's interests from the Building Commissioner’s issuance of the building
permit for the Project.
On page 2 of the appeal, Appellant provides its alleged aggrievement as follows:
(1) MST is aggrieved by the issuance of the building permit in that it
owns and operates an apartment building on the 319-331 Main Street
which has access to its own parking through a 25 foot way shared with
307 MSF; (2) New parking in the proposal requires vehicles to back into
this 25 foot way to exit; and (3) Further, the proposal has 158
bedrooms/sleeping quarters, but only 120 parking spaces of which 23
spaces are handicap or electric vehicle spaces and, as such, are
unavailable to all tenants of the proposed building. As such, MST
expects that individuals will use parking spaces on the 319-331 Main
Street property impacting the availability of parking for MST's tenants.
The Appellant's first claim of harm is that it is aggrieved simply because it owns and
operates an apartment building which abuts the property which has access to its own
parking lot. The Appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of aggrievement by merely
being an abutter and must allege facts that establish that the Project will result in a definite
violation of a private right, property interest, or legal interest that is different from the
concerns of the general community. Marashlian v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
Newburyport, 421 Mass. 719, 721-722 (1996); Nickerson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
Raynham, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 680 (2002). The burden of proving standing is on the
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 5 of 11
{00316591;v2}
Appellant who must demonstrate that they qualify as aggrieved persons and the Applicant
need not present their own evidence and may instead rely on Appellant's lack of evidence
to rebut a claimed basis for standing. See Standerwick, 447 Mass. at 33 & 35. Thus, being
an abutter to the property no longer provides the Appellant a presumption of standing.
The Appellant's second and third claims of harm simply provide that because the Project
provides for new parking which will require vehicles to back into [a] 25 foot way to
exit and because the project has 122 parking spaces (where only 120 parking spaces
are required for the project) it "expects" individuals from the new residential project
will use the Appellant's parking area impacting the availability of parking for its
tenants. As stated above, The Appellant must “establish – by direct facts and not by
speculative personal opinion – that its injury is special and different from the concerns of
the rest of the community.” Id. (quoting Standerwick, 447 Mass. 20, 33 (2006), emphasis
added.
In order to be a basis for standing, the Appellant must offer evidence that parking that fully
complies with the number of requisite parking spaces prescribed under the Zoning
Ordinance for the Project will materially, uniquely, and adversely impact the
Appellant. See, e.g., Kenner v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 459 Mass. 115, 125
(2011) (plaintiffs’ speculation that traffic changes to a neighborhood would make it
impossible for two vehicles to pass on a two-way road did not constitute a basis for
standing); Titanium Grp., LLC vs. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brockton, No. 348898 (HMG),
2009 WL 117989 at *8 (Mass. Land Ct., Jan, 16, 2009) (holding that “not all traffic-based
objections to a special permit or variance will furnish a plaintiff with standing” and finding
that the plaintiffs’ traffic-based claim of aggrievement is too speculative because they
failed to provide evidence sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that their property
will be obstructed by increased traffic). Here, the Appellant has fully failed to assert any
plausible claim of a definite violation of any of the Appellant's interests or otherwise
provide any evidence to support such a claim and, thus, cannot also maintain standing upon
the basis of its second or third concerns.
Speculation alone is not standing. The Appellant’s unique brand of speculation as to
household composition . . . on top of speculation as to the number of vehicles owned by a
household . . . on top of speculation as to the model and size of such vehicles . . . on top of
speculation as to fit of those vehicles within the approved parking spaces provided . . . on
top of speculation as to if and where tenants might seek alternative parking options, is even
further removed from the reality of what is required under Massachusetts law to seek
redress before this Board.
A further justification for dismissal of this action is the legal insufficiency of Appellant's
alleged status as “persons aggrieved” – as the Appellant appears to have been motivated to
bring the instant action to prevent business competition. In the Appeal, the Appellant
informs that it owns an apartment building abutting the Project. What the Appellant fails
to acknowledge in the Appeal is the fact that the income-restricted and market rate rental
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 6 of 11
{00316591;v2}
units to be constructed pursuant to the Building Permit that the Appellant is appealing pose
direct and significant market competition to the Appellant. Under case law it is clear that
a party is not aggrieved for purposes of an G.L. c. 40A, § 17 appeal merely by an increase
in business competition. Circle Lounge & Grille v. Bd. of Appeal of Bos., 324 Mass. 427,
429–30 (1949); see also Green v. Bd. of Appeals of Provincetown, 404 Mass. 571, 572 n.4
(1989) (“A business competitor does not have standing as an aggrieved party.”). Simply
because the Appellant is a competing residential developer in Hyannis does not grant him
standing to bring its appeal.
Therefore, without any evidence to support such claims, the Appellant simply alleges that
it expects the vehicle parking on Winn's property will cause problems that will purportedly
adversely affect it. Such allegations are not sufficient. Thus, Appellant's failure to
sufficiently and plausibly allege standing is fatal to their ability to maintain this action.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the Appellant adequately alleged cognizable
harms – which it does not – such allegations are further refuted by the extensive formal site
plan review and building permit application process that Winn went through in connection
with the Project.
Therefore, based on the above, dismissal of this matter is warranted.
B. THE APPELLANT MISREADS THE APPLICABILITY OF
SECTION 240-24.1.5.E.1 SURFACE POARKING LOT DESIGN
STANDARDS
The central defect in the Appeal is that the Appellant misreads the clear and express
provisions of 24-24.1.5.E – entitled “Surface Parking Lot Design Standards” –
automatically apply to the Project without first establishing that the threshold applicability
requirements of Section 240-24.1.5.E.1 have been satisfied. They have not.
Section 240-24.1.5.E.1 expressly states:
This section is applicable to the construction of any new surface parking lot and the
expansion or modification of an existing surface parking lot containing 21 or
more parking spaces that increases the number of parking spaces by five or
more. (Emphasis added).
This threshold inquiry determines when the Surface Parking Lot Design Standards of
Section 240-24.1.5.E. are triggered. The Project modifies an existing surface parking lot
containing 21 or more parking spaces (see Exhibit A) but does not increase the number of
parking spaces, rather it decreases the number of parking spaces by 20 parking spaces (see
Exhibit B). Therefore, the Building Commissioner correctly determined that because the
Project does not increase surface parking by five or more spaces, none of the design
standards set forth in Section 240-24.1.5.E.1 cited by the Appellant are applicable to
the Project – this includes the requirement that “[a] landscaped buffer at least 10 feet wide
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 7 of 11
{00316591;v2}
must be provided between any building and any parking lot with 10 or more parking spaces
. . .”
A clear reading of Section 240-24.1.5.E.1 demonstrates the limitation of this section of the
Zoning Ordinance to “Surface Parking” is significant, logical, and consistent with the
Massachusetts Building Code as addressed below. A distinction between surface and
structured parking cannot be glossed over as the Appellant attempts, or simply misreads,
nor can the threshold inquiry as to increase in surface parking be ignored to apply the
substantive design standards to structured spaces and/or surface parking spaces where the
requisite increase does not exist. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the
Zoning Ordinance – which Commissioner Florence correctly interpreted and applied.
C. PARKING LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT PODIUM
STRUCTURE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SURFACE PARKING”
FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 240-24.1.5.E.1
Commissioner Florence’s interpretation and application of the Zoning Ordinance is
supported by his reasonable determination that the 68 parking spaces located beneath the
Project’s podium structure do not constitute “surface parking” – to which the design
standards of 240-24.1.E are strictly limited – and therefore are not counted at any property
within the DMS District in assessing whether the number of surface parking spaces
increases by five or more. Indeed, such an interpretation and distinction is directed by the
2021 International Building Code – which is incorporated in the 10th Edition of the
Massachusetts State Building Code (780 CMR) that took effect on July 1, 2025 – and
distinguishes structured podium parking from surface parking for distinct treatment under
the Building Code.
As explained in the correspondence to Commissioner Florence dated April 2, 2026, from
Richard P. Crowley, former Chair of the Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and
Standards and former Chair of the Massachusetts Building Code Appeals Board, (a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C) the Project utilizes “podium construction”
specifically recognized under Section 510.2 of the 2021 International Building Code.
Under this construction methodology:
• the parking area functions as part of a structured podium system;
• the residential building exists above a horizontal assembly structure;
• and the parking is integrated within the building configuration rather than existing
as a separate surface parking field adjacent to a building.
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 8 of 11
{00316591;v2}
As Mr. Crowley explains:
. . . from a zoning perspective, the intent of Section 240-24.1.5.E.3(d) is to provide
visual and spatial separation between buildings and adjacent surface parking
areas. That condition does not exist here where the parking is not a separate
surface parking lot adjacent to the building, rather the building is integrated within
and adjacent to a structured podium configuration which is considered a horizontal
assembly structure and not a building . . . (Exhibit C, page 1)
This distinction is both significant and logical because the purpose of Section 240-
24.1.5.E.3(d) is to provide visual and spatial buffering between buildings and conventional
surface parking lots. That condition does not exist here.
Accordingly, based on both the Massachusetts State Building Code and the Zoning
Ordinance, Commissioner Florence reasonably concluded that parking integrated within
the podium structure should not be treated as “surface parking” for purposes of
calculating the applicability thresholds of Section 240-24.1.5.E.1.
Because those structured podium parking spaces are not counted as surface parking spaces,
the Project does not exceed the threshold necessary to trigger the landscaping provisions
cited by the Appellant. Therefore:
• the ten-foot landscape buffer provisions relied upon by the Appellant does not
apply;
• the claimed buffer deficiencies fail as a matter of law; and
• the Building Permit was properly issued.
D. COMMISSIONER FLORENCE PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT
COMPACT PARKING SPACES ARE PERMITTED IN THE DMS
DISTRICT
The Appellant additionally asserts that certain parking spaces do not comply with
dimensional requirements applicable elsewhere within the Zoning Ordinance. That claim
ignores Commissioner Florence’s prior January 12, 2024, formal written zoning decision
regarding this Project and the Downtown Main Street (“DMS”) District parking provisions
(attached hereto as Exhibit D) – which was issued after consultation and with the
agreement of the Town Attorney’s office – stating:
I determined as the duly appointed zoning enforcement officer and Site Plan Review
Chairman of the Town of Barnstable that the use of compact spaces in the
Downtown Hyannis Zoning District is permitted and is consistent with the zoning
ordinance. (Exhibit D, page 2)
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 9 of 11
{00316591;v2}
In that determination, Commissioner Florence concluded that:
• the parking standards contained within Section 240-24.1.5.C constitute controlling
and more specific parking provisions applicable within the DMS District;
• the DMS parking provisions do not impose dimensional parking space
requirements; and
• dimensional standards from more general parking provisions elsewhere in the
ordinance may not be imported into the DMS District regulations.
Commissioner Florence further concluded:
Because the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District regulations beginning in §240-24-
1-1 of the Zoning Ordinance do not contain provisions regarding parking spaces
dimensions, I as the chairman of Site Plan Review and the zoning enforcement
officer, not a policy maker, am not permitted to add dimensional requirements to
the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District provisions of the ordinance. (Exhibit D,
page 2)
This determination was read into the record of the Planning Board on February 12, 2024,
as grounds on which the Planning Board accepted Winn’s withdrawal of a request for the
Board’s approval of its parking plan – as the use of compact parking spaces are permitted
within the DMS District were found to be fully compliant with the Zoning Ordinance.
The Appellant has identified no basis upon which the Board should disturb Commissioner
Florence’s January 12, 2024, zoning determination regarding the use of compact parking
spaces in the DMS District. Indeed, Appellant Aaron B. Bornstein has availed himself of
the allowance for the use of compact parking spaces in connection with the Dockside
Condominium project under construction at 110 & 115 School Street in Hyannis.
The Dockside project underwent formal Site Plan Review on March 21, 2024, following
Commissioner Florence’s January 12, 2024 zoning determination regarding the use of
compact parking spaces at 307 Main Street and Winn Development submitted through
counsel a letter dated March 21, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit E, which included a copy
of Commissioner Florence’s January 12, 2024 determination) in support of Mr. Bornstein’s
use of compact parking spaces to satisfy the parking requirements for the Dockside project.
Having availed himself of compact parking spaces in obtaining Site Plan Review approval
and building permits for the Dockside condominiums now under construction, this Board
should not entertain Mr. Bornstein’s contrary position now challenging the Build
Commissioner’s very same determination regarding Winn Development's use of compact
parking spaces at a property to which Bornstein is an abutter.
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 10 of 11
{00316591;v2}
E. THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE DMS BUILDING FORM
REQUIREMENTS
The Appellant further alleges that the Project violates the DMS “Building Width”
limitation of 180 feet.
That claim is based upon another incorrect interpretation of the DMS design standards by
the Appellant. As explained by the Project architect, Icon Architecture, in correspondence
to Commissioner Florence dated March 31, 2026, (attached hereto as Exhibit F), the
“Building Width” standard contained within Table 3 of Section 240-24.1.6 is a building-
form and massing regulation intended to prevent monotonous uninterrupted façade
conditions. The Project fully complies with that requirement through substantial façade
articulation, roof-plane variation, projections, recesses, and segmented massing elements.
The zoning table itself places “Building Width” within the “Building Form” category,
confirming that the provision regulates perceived building form and continuous façade
massing rather than aggregate linear building length. As further explained in
correspondence dated March 31, 2026, from Icon Architecture to Commissioner Florence:
The intent [of Section 240-24.1.6] is that the building is not a monotonous form for
the entire length of the facade; and the building is required to break up the massing
in order to achieve that. (Exhibit F, page 1)
Further, ICON’s March 31st correspondence includes Table 3 of Section 240-24.1.6 and
points out that the illustration within Table 3 labels building form width with the letter “E”
and shows that a change of roof plane constitutes a distinct building form segment for the
purpose of measuring width. (Exhibit F, page 1-2)
The Project’s architectural elevations show multiple distinct changes in building form and
roof plane that interrupt and segment the building massing. See Exhibit G attached hereto.
Therefore, properly applying the requirement of Table 3 of Section 240-24.1.6, the
maximum continuous building form width is approximately 171'-3", which is compliant
with the 180-foot standard.
For the foregoing reasons, Commissioner Florence’s interpretation of the DMS Building
Form provisions was correct, entirely consistent with Section 240-24.1.6, and his issuance
of the Building Permit was reasonable and should not be overturned by this Board.
S MOLAK & V AUGHAN LLP
Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals
June 16, 2026
Page 11 of 11
{00316591;v2}
F. THE REMAINING CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT LACK MERIT
The remaining claims asserted by the Appellant are derivative of the erroneous assumption
that the Project is subject to the surface parking design standards cited in the Appeal. These
are identified as items B. and C. in Appellant's appeal and each cite 240-24.15C.3(b) [sic]
and claim the absence landscape buffers adjacent to Old Colony Way and an “unnamed 25
foot way” between 307 Main Street and 319-331 Main Street.
Because the applicability thresholds of Section 240-24.1.5.E.1 were not triggered, the
design standards of 240-24.1.5.E do not apply and therefore those claims necessarily fail.
Moreover, the Project underwent extensive design review and refinement to ensure
consistency with the DMS District’s urban design objectives and dimensional standards.
The Appellant has failed to establish any legal basis for reversal of the Building
Commissioner’s determination.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Building Commissioner properly interpreted and applied the
Town of Barnstable Zoning Ordinance in issuing the building permit for 307 Main Street.
The Appeal should therefore be dismissed due to the Appellant's lack of standing and/or
denied and the building permit affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
WINN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LP
By its attorney,
Robert L. Brennan, Jr.
SMOLAK & VAUGHAN LLP
Enclosures
cc: Paul Revere, III, Esq. (counsel for Appellant)
EXHIBIT A
SCALE: 1" = 40'
344700P020A-005
HARBORVIEW Existing Parking Exhibit
06/09/26
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
SCALE: 1" = 40'
344700P020A-004
HARBORVIEW Proposed Parking Exhibit
06/09/26
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
RICHARD P. CROWLEY
Professional Building, Accessibility, Fire and Safety Code Consultant and
Construction Subject Matter Expert 7431 Woolston Road, E. Bloomfield, NY. 14469 Cell: 617-947-8339 - Richardpcrowley@aol.com
{00313425;v1}
April 2, 2026
VIA EMAIL Brian.Florence@barnstable.gov
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Brian Florence
Barnstable Building Commissioner
Town of Barnstable200 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Re: 307 Main St, Barnstable, MA. 02630
Dear Commissioner Florence:
I am writing on behalf of Winn Development Company, LP (“Winn”) in connection with the
site plan, buildings and parking lot documentation that has been submitted in connection
with Winn’s building permit application for 307 Main Street, Hyannis. Specifically, I have
been asked to opine as to the applicability of Section 240-24.1.5 Subsection E.3(d) of
Article 3 of the Barnstable Zoning Code which states in relevant part:.
[a] landscape buffer at least 10 feet wide must be provided between any building
and any parking lot with 10 or more parking spaces excluding building entrances.
(See Note 1)
Based on the plain text of the Barnstable Zoning Code, the 10th Edition of the
Massachusetts State Building Code, 2021 International Building Code, and my experience
documented in my curriculum vitae, attached hereto as Exhibit A, my informed opinion is
that the Section 240-24.1.5 Subsection. E.3(d) does not apply to the proposed orientation
between building and parking lot at 307 Main Street for the reasons more fully described
below.
Specifically, from a zoning perspective, the intent of Section 240-24.1.5.E.3(d) is to provide
visual and spatial separation between buildings and adjacent surface parking areas. That
condition does not exist here where the parking is not a separate surface parking lot
adjacent to the building, rather the building is integrated within and adjacent to a structured
podium configuration which is considered a horizontal assembly structure and not a
building for the reasons described below. (See Elevations Plan and Site Plan respectively
attached hereto as Exhibit B). Requiring a 10-foot landscaped buffer in this condition would
not advance the purpose of the ordinance and would result in an impractical and
unintended application of the design standard.
Moreover, to support this interpretation, and from a State Building Code perspective, the
proposed construction of the improvements for 307 Main Street is that of “Podium
Construction” specifically addressed in 2021 IBC Section 510.2 – Horizontal Building
Separation Allowance. This provision expressly directs that horizontal assembly structures
and buildings “shall be considered as separate and distinct . . . for the purpose of
EXHIBIT C
RICHARD P. CROWLEY
Professional Building, Accessibility, Fire and Safety Code Consultant and
Construction Subject Matter Expert 7431 Woolston Road, E. Bloomfield, NY. 14469 Cell: 617-947-8339 - Richardpcrowley@aol.com
{00313425;v1}
determining area limitations, continuity of firewalls, installation of number of stories and
type of construction” under seven conditions – all of which are met here. [See Notes 2-4].
Consistent with Section 510.2, and in the absence of any express definitions or
interpretative directions within the Barnstable Zoning Code to the contrary, the Podium
Construction at 307 Main Street should be treated as a distinct horizontal assembly
structure (the columns and parking lot) and building (the residential area located above the
columns) that exist on separate horizontal planes “for purposes of determining area
limitations” including the planted landscape buffer provisions of Section 240-24.1.5
Subsection E.3(d).
While the zoning provision might apply to buildings with parking lots where the building and
surface parking lots are horizontal, or at the same elevation, that is not the case presented
by the podium construction proposed for this section of the property at 307 Main Street and
for these reasons, the buffer requirement set forth in Section 240-24.1.5 Subsection E3(d)
of Article 3 of the Barnstable Zoning Code is not applicable to the 307 Main Street project.
In this case you have a building (on the second floor) without a parking lot, and a parking
lot without a building because it’s a horizontal assembly structure. You have two separate
structures. (See Note: 5)
Other projects of podium construction include a residential section and a commercial
horizontal assembly below, consisting of a series of columns. Some projects involve a
combination of residential commercial and parking. What matters is the podium. If the
horizontal assembly structure meets all 7 criteria you are a podium and you have a
separate building and a separate structure.
The columns that pass through the parking lot are there to carry the loads required by
section 1604.4 of the building code (See Note: 6). As such, those columns are there to
service the podium and are exempt according to the Barnstable Zoning Code. The columns
are very similar to the utilities that have to pass through the space below the podium and
into the ground. They transfer the loads from the podium into the ground to service the
podium. As such, the structural columns supporting the podium do not create the type of
horizontal adjacency between a building and a parking lot that the zoning code is intended
to regulate.
Additionally, and in further support, Section 510.3 of the building code describes "open
parking garage shall be classified as separate and distinct building for the purposes of
determining the type of construction where the following conditions are met." This sentence
states that the "open parking garage" is a building for a limited purpose to meet the seven
criteria outline above and in Section 510.2. of the building code. In that sentence the words
"open parking garage" are in italics which means that it is defined. 2021 IBC Chapter 2
Definitions defines "open parking garage" as;
Open parking garage. A structure or portion of a structure with the
openings as described in Section 406.5.2 on two or more sides that is
RICHARD P. CROWLEY
Professional Building, Accessibility, Fire and Safety Code Consultant and
Construction Subject Matter Expert 7431 Woolston Road, E. Bloomfield, NY. 14469 Cell: 617-947-8339 - Richardpcrowley@aol.com
{00313425;v1}
Note: 3. 2021 IBC Section, Definitions - Structure; "That which is built or constructed."
Note: 4: 510.2 Horizontal building separation allowance. A building shall be considered as
separate and distinct buildings for the purpose of determining area limitations, continuity of
fire walls, limitation of number of stories and type of construction where the following
conditions are met:
1. The buildings are separated with a horizontal assembly having a fire-resistance rating of
not less than 3 hours. Where vertical offsets are provided as pa11 of a horizontal
assembly, the vertical offset and the struc-ture supporting the vertical offset shall have a
fire resistance rating of not less than 3 hours.
2. The building below, including the horizontal assem-bly, is of Type IA construction.
3. Shaft, stairway, ramp and escalator enclosures through the horizontal assembly shall
have not less than a 2-hour fire-resistance rating with opening protectives in accordance
with Section 716.
Exception: Where the enclosure walls below the horizontal assembly have not less than
a 3-hour fire-resistance rating with opening protectives in accordance with Section 716,
the enclosure walls extending above the horizontal assembly shall be permitted to have
a 1-hour fire-resistance rating, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. The building above the horizontal assembly is not required to be
of Type 1 construction.
2. The enclosure connects fewer than four stories.
3. The enclosure opening protectives above the horizontal assembly
have a fire protection rating of not less than 1 hour.
4. Interior exit stairways located within the Type 1A building are permitted to be of
combustible materials where the following requirements are met:
4.1. The building above the Type IA building is of Type Ill, IV, or V construction.
4.2. The stairway located in the Type IA building is enclosed by 3-hour fire-
resistance-rated construction with opening protec-tives in accordance with
Section 716.
5. The building or buildings above the horizontal assembly shall be permitted to have
multiple Group A occupancy uses, each with an occupant load of less 300, or Group B,
M, R or S occupancies.
6. The building below the horizontal assembly shall be protected throughout by an
approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, and shall be
permitted to be any occu-pancy allowed by this code except Group H.
RICHARD P. CROWLEY
Professional Building, Accessibility, Fire and Safety Code Consultant and
Construction Subject Matter Expert 7431 Woolston Road, E. Bloomfield, NY. 14469 Cell: 617-947-8339 - Richardpcrowley@aol.com
{00313425;v1}
7. The maximum building height in feet (mm) shall not exceed the limits set forth in Section
504.3 for the building having the smaller allowable height as measured from the grade
plane.
Note: 5 - In the building code a building is a structure, but not all structures are buildings,
i.e., a parking lot is a structure.
Note: 6 - 2021 IBC Section 1604.4 Analysis - 3rd paragraph any system or method of
construction to be used shall be based on rational analysis in accordance with well-
established principles of mechanics. Such analysis shall result in a system that provides a
complete load path capable of transferring loads from there point of origin to the load
resisting elements” which is the earth.
EXHIBIT A
RICHARD P. CROWLEY
Professional Building, Accessibility, Fire and Safety Code Consultant and
Construction Subject Matter Expert 7431 Woolston Road, E. Bloomfield, NY. 14469 Cell: 617-947-8339 - Richardpcrowley@aol.com
#15580856v1
EDUCATION:
Northeastern University, Boston, Ma. Bachelor of Science, Business Administration/Accounting
Penn State University, University Park, PA, 2011->15, College of Education – Workforce Education and
Development Program
REGISTRATION:
Comm. of Mass. Constr. Supervisors License #CS-028732
City of Boston ABC License # B30402
City of Cambridge Class 4 License # 6
Massachusetts MCPPO Certification
EPA / Mass Certified RRP Renovator – Instructor
Best Practices Certified - Instructor
USGBC / LEED Green Building Awareness certification
AFFILIATIONS:
Mass BBRS - Former Member- Massachusetts State Board of Building Regulations and Standards
Ad-Hoc Faculty – Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, Ma.
Town of Littleton – Former Member-Permanent Municipal Building Committee - Past Chairman,
Town of Littleton – Former member-School Building Committee – Past Chairman
Town of Littleton – Former Member-Planning Board - Past Chairman (Elected Official)
Town of Littleton – Former Member-Medical Reserve Corps
Carpenters Union Local 40
Carpenters Training Center - Instructor
EXPERIENCE
Code Consultant
Building, Accessibility, Mechanical, Fire Code, & Safety Consultant 2010- present
Expert Witness, Diagnostic Investigation, Forensic Estimating
BBRS- Past Chair, Massachusetts State Board of Building Regulations and Standards
Former Board Member
Appointed by the past two Governors of Massachusetts to the BBRS 2010 – 2022
Chair of the body that regulates the Construction Industry. The BBRS manages the State Building Code and
Energy Conservation Code. I Also serve as one of the States’ voting representatives to the International Code
Counsel (ICC). This is the authority that writes the Building Code for all 50 states and over 50 countries
across the globe. Additionally, I served as Chairman of the State Building Code Appeals Board (BCAB)
Town of Andover, Ma.
Project Manager
BANCROFT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Andover, Ma. 2015 50M
Overseeing this K->5 elementary. Report directly to the Town Manager. Worked closely with the Acting
Facilities Director, School Building Committee, Architect, OPM, CM, MSBA and Town Counsel. I was
instrumental in drafting the RFQ’s, the SOQ template, RFP’s, the CM & OPM Contracts, Subcontracts
and their SOQ templates. My duties also included matters concerning litigation, investigation, Freedom of
Information requests, protests, Mass & local Historical Commissions, Cons Com, DEP, & NPDES permits,
Etc. Additionally, I served on one of the Pre-Qualification sub-committees.
Agostini Construction Co, Inc. & Bacon Construction Co, Inc.
Executive Project Manager
SLADE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Fall River, Ma. 2008 26M
COLLICOT & CUNNINGHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, Milton, Ma. 2006 29M
LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL, Lincoln, RI 2005 23M.
All public sector schools, Ch. 149 hard bid with filed subcontractors. All projects on time & on budget.
RICHARD P. CROWLEY
Professional Building, Accessibility, Fire and Safety Code Consultant and
Construction Subject Matter Expert 7431 Woolston Road, E. Bloomfield, NY. 14469 Cell: 617-947-8339 - Richardpcrowley@aol.com
#15580856v1
R, W, Granger & Sons, Inc.
Senior Project Manager
OLD ROCHESTER REGIONAL JR. & SR. HIGH SCHOOLS, Mattapoisett, Ma. 2003 41M
ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL, New Bedford, Ma. 2000 27M
All public sector schools, Ch. 149 hard bid environment, filed subcontractors, all projects on time, on
budget, with no litigation. During this time period the Construction environment was strife with contractor
subcontractor hostilities. I entered this arena with the private sector mentality of team building, working
together and it worked. In 2003 there were 21 schools under construction, trying to open. Only three
finished on time, only one finished under budget – Roosevelt. I also participated in arbitration, and helped
the bonding company with the closure of R.W.Granger when Granger ceased operations in 2005.
Paul Maggorie Builders Corp.
Senior Project Manager
PARKER CHOMERICS - HI-TECH MFG FACILITIES, Woburn, Ma. & Hudson, NH. 1999 3.5M
BIDS AND BUDGETS FOR OFFICES & WAREHOUSE FACILITIES, Woburn, Ma. 1999 9.5M
Work involved office space, clean rooms, and modern manufacturing build-outs
J. Calnan & Associates, Inc.
Senior Project Manager
MULBERRY CHILD CARE - GROUND UP, DAY CARE FACILITY, Westwood, Ma. 1998 1.1M
8 UNIT RES. APT. BLDG. RENOV. - MODERN CONTINENTAL,. Cambridge, Ma. 1998 1.3M
LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO. - TWO FLOORS HI-RISE, FIT-UP, Danvers, Ma. 1998 .4M
SCHAFER CORP. - HI-TECH R&D, TENANT FIT-UP, Chelmsford, Ma. 1998 .4M
PRI AUTOMATION.- HI-TECH MFG FACILITY w/ CLASS #1 CLEAN ROOM, Lowell, 1997 2.3M
Misc. day care centers, office space, biotech labs, clean rooms, and modern manufacturing build-outs.
Suffolk Construction Co. Inc. – Special Projects Division
Senior Project Manager
BACK BAY HILTON - 26 STORY ADDITION, Boston, Ma. 1998 3.9M
Everything with Suffolk involved fast tracking of projects, working with challenging owners, and managing
difficult subs, suppliers, budgets, and schedules. This project was especially challenging because it was
located within a busy part of Boston with essentially no site to operate from.
Richard White & Sons, Inc.
Project Manager
All private sector negotiated work for schools like: BRIMMER AND MAY SCHOOL, Chestnut Hill, Ma.
WELLESLEY COLLEGE, Wellesley, Ma, BAYBANK, INC. Cambridge, Ma., HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
Cambridge, Ma., BOSTON COLLEGE, Chestnut Hill, Ma. and tenant FIT -UPS in hi-rise buildings in
Boston & eastern Ma. These were all high demand, high quality, and high-performance owners.
REFERENCES UPON REQUEST
EXHIBIT B
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
2
A-301
LEVEL 245'-0"
257
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
3468
EBBE
EBBE
EBBE07
0717
1711'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"17
17
06
17
06
07
07
33'-6"07
08
17
17
17
1717
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
PVC
TRIM
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
DOWNSPOUT AND
BOOT
5.85.9
0707
O/D
SPOUT
A-204
4
SIM
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
E
FGHJKMNO
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
5
A-301
3
A-405
L
FOUNDATION29'-6"
08
07
06
04
07EBBEBEBEBBEB B
EBB
EBB
B
B
E
E
B
BE
E B
B
B
B
E
E
B
B
E
E
E
E
B
B
B
B
E
E
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
04
03
1717
03
17171717
03
1717
03
1717
03
17 17
03
17 17
03
17 17
03
17 17
B E
07 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"E E
S2-R
17
17
17
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
JULIET RAILINGS, TYP
PVC TRIM FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
33'-6"
17
17
17
17
17 UPVC WINDOW WITH TRIM
17
EX3 EX3EX3EX3
1
A-303
3
A-3035
A-303
5
A-302
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
BOOT
FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING
DOWNSPOUT
F.1
A-720
2
L2
E
E
O/D
SPOUTO/D
SPOUT
5
A-711
FND - AMENITY
26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
4
A-301
LEVEL 245'-0"
7911 14 15 16
2
A-402
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
8
FOUNDATION
29'-6"
BEEB E B E B E B
BEEBB E B E B E B
BEEBB E B E B E B
B
08
07
07
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
04 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"07
34'-0"34'-0"34'-0"T-101 100A
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
PVC TRIM
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
JULIET RAILINGS, TYP UPVC WINDOW WITH TRIM
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
17
17
B
EX1 EX1BLBL
BOLLARD WITH LIGHT
EX3
CR
4
A-302
DOWNSPOUT
AND
BOOT DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
16.5 16.8
17
14
14
CORNERGUARDS
GARAGE OPENING
22'-4 3/4"
08
8'-2"COW'S TOUNGUE
OVERFLOW DRAIN
L1 2'-0 3/4"15'-0"15'-0"15'-0"17'-0"13'-2 1/2"
KNOX
08
07
ADO
7
A-301
WALL
HYDRANT
1
3
5
4
7
862
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
2
A-403
LEVEL 245'-0"
B
E
FG H J K M N
1
A-301
O
GARAGE
34'-0 1/4"
5
A-301
3
A-405
1
A-403
AC
D
L
FOUNDATION29'-6"
1404
04
01
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
07
?
04
04
04
08 08
B
B.1
E
E.1
B
B.1
E
E.1
B
B.1
E
E
E
B
B
B
B
B
E
E
E
E
B
B
B
B
B
E
E
E E
E
E B
B
B
E
E
E
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B E
E
E
35'-0"11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"4'-0"BBBBEE B
08
17
04
0404
10
S2-1
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
THIN
BRICK
17
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
10
10
10
10
10
10
V-R01
17
17
04
17171717171717171717
1010
EX3EX3EX3EX3EX3
2
A-303
1
A-303
3
A-303
5
A-303
JULIET RAILINGS, TYP
5
A-302
KNOX3'-6"DS BOOT
DS
GUTTER DSGUTTER
DS DSDS
DOWNSPOUT AND BOOTDOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DS
F.1
C.1C.2
11'-1"11'-1"CLR7'-4"22'-0"
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOTCOW'S TOUNGUE
OVERFLOW DRAIN
COW'S TOUNGUE
OVERFLOW DRAINCORNER GUARD
B.7
E
E
E
08
17171717
08
04 17041'-0"WALL
HYDRANT
35'-0"35'-6"
A-204
3
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
2
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
13
FOUNDATION29'-6"
0411'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"04
17
10
01
B
B
BA
A
A
33'-6"
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
THIN
BRICK
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
PVC TRIM
FAUX
CAST
STONE
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
FIBER
CEMENT
PANEL
4
A-303
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
08
08
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
E
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
EA
EA
EA
FOUNDATION29'-6"
B
B
B
04
08
S1-1C
04
17
17
08
07
07
MT-101A
PVC TRIM
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
THIN BRICK
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
UPVC WINDOW WITH TRIM
EX2 EX2
C-101
33'-6"
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
8
FOUNDATION29'-6"
07
08
3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"6 1/4"10'-8"10'-8"11'-6"33'-6"04
17 17
17
17
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
2
GARAGE
34'-0 1/4"
FOUNDATION29'-6"
07
14
14
14
17
17
08
04
1'-0"3'-0 1/4"6"10'-11 3/4"10'-8"10'-8"11'-6"FIBER CEMENT PANEL
(WHITE)
FAUX CAST STONE - OPENING
HEADERS & SILLS
FIBER CEMENT
7" SHINGLE SIDING (TAN)
PVC SHUTTER
EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
7" SHINGLE SIDING (DK GREY)
FIBER CEMENT
7" LAP SIDING (BLUE)
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
(GREY) NOT IN USE
THIN BRICK (TAN)
FIBER CEMENT
7" LAP SIDING (WHITE)
1
2
3
4
12
8
7
5
10
6
COVERBOARD AT
GRADE11FIBER CEMENT
7" LAP SIDING (TAN)
GLASS13
ALUM. RAILING SYSTEM14
DECORATIVE PVC TRIM16
PVC TRIM/CORNICE
(WHITE)17
ALUMINUM CHANNEL
LETTERING SIGNAGE15
METAL COPING TRIM18
SIMULATED STANDING SEAM
(DK GREY)9
ELEVATION LEGEND
GAS METER
THROUGH WALL ROOF SCUPPER
KNOX BOX
1' X 1' LOUVER
DOUBLE EXHAUST VENT, PTD
SINGLE EXHAUST VENT, PTD
CONCENTRIC EXHAUST VENT, PTD
EXTERIOR LIGHT
FIRE ALARM STROBE SPEAKER
SECURITY CAMERA
VIDEO INTERCOM ARCHITECT
CONSULTANT
STAMP
KEY PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET TITLE
1/30/2025 4:54:33 PMA-202
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
HARBOR VUE
223024
307 MAIN STREET
WINN DEVELOPMENT
CM
GF
3/32" = 1'-0"4SOUTH ELEVATION 01
3/32" = 1'-0"5 EAST ELEVATION 02
3/32" = 1'-0"7SOUTH ELEVATION 02
3/32" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION 2-INSET
3/32" = 1'-0"8 SOUTH EAST ELEVATION 1-INSET
3/32" = 1'-0"6 EAST ELEVATION 7-INSET
3/32" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION 1 -INSET
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
2 2024-03-14 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
3 2024-05-02 70% CDs
4 2024-07-25 90% CDs
5 2025-01-30 CONFORMED SET
PREPARED BY:BEALS AND THOMAS, INC.144 Turnpike Road, Suite 210Southborough, Massachusetts 01772-2104T 508.366.0560 | www.bealsandthomas.comARCHITECTCONSULTANTSTAMPKEY PLANPROJECT NUMBER:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE223024NO.DATEDESCRIPTION12024-01-18SCHEMATIC DESIGN22024-03-14DESIGN DEVELOPMENT32024-07-2590% CD42025-01-30100% CDHARBOR VUE307 MAIN STREETWINN DEVELOPMENTSCALE: 1" = 20'C-3.1LAYOUT ANDMATERIALS PLAN344700P016F-002
EXHIBIT D
Office (508) 862-4038 Fax (508) 790-6230
1
www.town.barnstable.ma.us
Town of Barnstable
Inspectional Services Department
Brian Florence, Director/Building Commissioner
January 12, 2024
Town of Barnstable Planning Board
Chairman Robichaud
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Re: Zoning Determination for 307 Main Street
Mr. Chairman,
As you know I have been asked by the Planning Board through you to provide a zoning determination concerning
compact parking spaces proposed for 307 Main Street, Hyannis, a project for which the Board has received a
Special Permit application.
The proposal for the subject property was heard at Site Plan Review (SPR) on: 8/15/2023 and 10/24/2023
informally. A formal review of the application was conducted on: 11/16/2023. Having heard objections to the
dimensions of parking spaces by a member of the public at the formal review (without citations), I decided to take
the matter under advisement to allow time for me to review the parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance further,
before determining whether or not the application was approvable under Article IX, the Site Plan Review provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Shortly thereafter the petitioner’s attorney requested that I as the Building Commissioner and Chairman of SPR,
find the proposed project to be approvable in accordance with specific parking provisions of 240-24.1.5(C) again,
without citations. Notably, these provisions do not contain dimensional requirements, thus the applicant’s attorney
argued that his client should be allowed to use compact-sized parking spaces for the project. I requested that he
provide me with a legal opinion to that effect which he did, this time including citations. I have included a copy of
that opinion here for your review.
In order to complete my review for consistency with zoning under Article IX, I requested an opinion from the Town
Attorney’s office as to whether or not I had authority under the ordinance to find compact parking spaces
approvable in light of the neighbor’s objections, the opinion of the applicant’s attorney and the ordinance. After
consultation with the Town Attorney’s Office, as well as my review of the Zoning Ordinance, I determined that the
proposal was consistent with Zoning and therefore the matter was deemed by me to be approvable for Site Plan
Review purposes. My affirming determination was made for the following reasons:
1. Section 240-24.1.5. provides Standards for All [Downtown Hyannis Zoning] Districts, and subsection C of
that section contains Parking Standards that are specific to each use which are to be applied in the
Downtown Hyannis Zoning District.
2. The parking table in Section 240-24.1.5. C. is the parking regulation specific to the Downtown Hyannis
Zoning District. Because that section is the more specific regulation to the district the general requirements
found in Article IV Off-Street Parking (cited below) are therefore in conflict with this section which means
that the provisions of 240-24.1.5. C. prevails.
EXHIBIT D
www.town.barnstable.ma.us
a. Reference: §240-24.3 - General Provisions: Where the provisions of §§ 240-24.1.1 through 240-
24.1.13 conflict with those found elsewhere in the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of
this section shall apply.
b. Further, the more general parking standards in Section 240-55 & 56 respectively provides:
i. Section 240-55 Conflicting Provisions Any specific provision in any other section of this
chapter relating to parking shall prevail over the provisions of this section.
ii. Section 240-56 - Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements – provides for the minimum
parking requirements for the uses stated therein.
3. Because the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District regulations beginning in §240-24-1-1 of the Zoning
Ordinance do not contain provisions regarding parking spaces dimensions, I as the chairman of Site Plan
Review and the zoning enforcement officer, not a policy maker, am not permitted to add dimensional
requirements to the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District provisions of the ordinance. (see also below)
The applicant’s' attorney made the argument in favor of compact spaces in his opinion and the Town
Attorney’s Office agreed with his statement that, “if that if a statute or ordinance is silent on something one
cannot interpret language into the ordinance”. Citing Iodice v. Newton: where, if a statute or bylaw or
ordinance was intended to contain certain language it would be in there and if it is not, it cannot be
interpreted that the drafters meant to include such language.
a. However, the Ordinance here does in fact contain language about which set of parking regulations
to use for each district, so that is not open to interpretation. What is not contained in the relevant
sections of the Ordinance is parking dimensions, so it cannot be read as intending to include
parking dimensions.
4. The Building Commissioner acting as the Chairman for SPR has discretionary authority to issue Site Plan
Approval authorizing the approval of a plan containing compact parking spaces within the Downtown
Hyannis Zoning District. If the Chair were to use his discretionary authority to deny such parking spaces,
the denial, in order to be sustainable would need a valid basis that cannot not be due to dimension (other
than an improper size, e.g. smaller than standard compact spaces).
5. The applicant's attorney further argues that where there is inconsistency, the Building Commissioner must
use his discretionary authority to apply the more specific provisions.
a. I agree that the more specific provisions should be applied, but I do not even think there remains
any inconsistency given the language in the Ordinance that resolves inconsistencies. As stated
above, the Ordinance provides in 2 places (240-55 and 240-24.1.3. A.1.) that the more specific
provisions apply where there is any inconsistency.
Therefore, I determined as the duly appointed zoning enforcement officer and Site Plan Review Chairman of the
Town of Barnstable that the use of compact spaces in the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District is permitted and is
consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Regards,
Brian Florence
Building Commissioner/Chairman
EXHIBIT E
Robert L. Brennan, Jr ., Esq.
O : 978.965.5885 | C : 617.233.4897
rbrennan @smolakvaughan.com
{00286289;v1}Main Office: 21 High Street, Suite 310 • North Andover, MA 01845
Cape Cod Office: 255 Main Street, Suite A • Hyannis, MA 02601
WWW.SMOLAKVAUGHAN.COM
March 21, 2024
VIA E-MAIL
Brian Florence
Building Commissioner
Town of Barnstable
200 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Re: Support and Submission of Prior Zoning Determination - 110 & 115 School Street,
Hyannis, SPR-23-92 (the “Project”)
Dear Mr. Florence:
I am writing on behalf of my client, WinnDevelopment, to express support for the use of
“compact” parking spaces (spaces measuring less than 9 feet by 20 feet) in meeting the applicable
parking requirements for the proposed Project. In support thereof, I have attached the Zoning
Determination issued by your office dated January 12, 2024 regarding a similar issue in
connection with 307 Main Street. The January 12th Zoning Determination provides both direct
and precedential support for the use of compact parking spaces in Hyannis, and Winn requests
that approval of “compact” parking spaces be affirmatively noted in the applicant’s Site Plan
Approval letter for the Project
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/
Robert L. Brennan, Jr.
Enc.
cc: Maggie Flynn
James Kupfer
EXHIBIT E
Office (508) 862-4038 Fax (508) 790-6230
1
www.town.barnstable.ma.us
Town of Barnstable
Inspectional Services Department
Brian Florence, Director/Building Commissioner
January 12, 2024
Town of Barnstable Planning Board
Chairman Robichaud
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Re: Zoning Determination for 307 Main Street
Mr. Chairman,
As you know I have been asked by the Planning Board through you to provide a zoning determination concerning
compact parking spaces proposed for 307 Main Street, Hyannis, a project for which the Board has received a
Special Permit application.
The proposal for the subject property was heard at Site Plan Review (SPR) on: 8/15/2023 and 10/24/2023
informally. A formal review of the application was conducted on: 11/16/2023. Having heard objections to the
dimensions of parking spaces by a member of the public at the formal review (without citations), I decided to take
the matter under advisement to allow time for me to review the parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance further,
before determining whether or not the application was approvable under Article IX, the Site Plan Review provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Shortly thereafter the petitioner’s attorney requested that I as the Building Commissioner and Chairman of SPR,
find the proposed project to be approvable in accordance with specific parking provisions of 240-24.1.5(C) again,
without citations. Notably, these provisions do not contain dimensional requirements, thus the applicant’s attorney
argued that his client should be allowed to use compact-sized parking spaces for the project. I requested that he
provide me with a legal opinion to that effect which he did, this time including citations. I have included a copy of
that opinion here for your review.
In order to complete my review for consistency with zoning under Article IX, I requested an opinion from the Town
Attorney’s office as to whether or not I had authority under the ordinance to find compact parking spaces
approvable in light of the neighbor’s objections, the opinion of the applicant’s attorney and the ordinance. After
consultation with the Town Attorney’s Office, as well as my review of the Zoning Ordinance, I determined that the
proposal was consistent with Zoning and therefore the matter was deemed by me to be approvable for Site Plan
Review purposes. My affirming determination was made for the following reasons:
1. Section 240-24.1.5. provides Standards for All [Downtown Hyannis Zoning] Districts, and subsection C of
that section contains Parking Standards that are specific to each use which are to be applied in the
Downtown Hyannis Zoning District.
2. The parking table in Section 240-24.1.5. C. is the parking regulation specific to the Downtown Hyannis
Zoning District. Because that section is the more specific regulation to the district the general requirements
found in Article IV Off-Street Parking (cited below) are therefore in conflict with this section which means
that the provisions of 240-24.1.5. C. prevails.
www.town.barnstable.ma.us
a. Reference: §240-24.3 - General Provisions: Where the provisions of §§ 240-24.1.1 through 240-
24.1.13 conflict with those found elsewhere in the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of
this section shall apply.
b. Further, the more general parking standards in Section 240-55 & 56 respectively provides:
i. Section 240-55 Conflicting Provisions Any specific provision in any other section of this
chapter relating to parking shall prevail over the provisions of this section.
ii. Section 240-56 - Schedule of Off-Street Parking Requirements – provides for the minimum
parking requirements for the uses stated therein.
3. Because the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District regulations beginning in §240-24-1-1 of the Zoning
Ordinance do not contain provisions regarding parking spaces dimensions, I as the chairman of Site Plan
Review and the zoning enforcement officer, not a policy maker, am not permitted to add dimensional
requirements to the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District provisions of the ordinance. (see also below)
The applicant’s' attorney made the argument in favor of compact spaces in his opinion and the Town
Attorney’s Office agreed with his statement that, “if that if a statute or ordinance is silent on something one
cannot interpret language into the ordinance”. Citing Iodice v. Newton: where, if a statute or bylaw or
ordinance was intended to contain certain language it would be in there and if it is not, it cannot be
interpreted that the drafters meant to include such language.
a. However, the Ordinance here does in fact contain language about which set of parking regulations
to use for each district, so that is not open to interpretation. What is not contained in the relevant
sections of the Ordinance is parking dimensions, so it cannot be read as intending to include
parking dimensions.
4. The Building Commissioner acting as the Chairman for SPR has discretionary authority to issue Site Plan
Approval authorizing the approval of a plan containing compact parking spaces within the Downtown
Hyannis Zoning District. If the Chair were to use his discretionary authority to deny such parking spaces,
the denial, in order to be sustainable would need a valid basis that cannot not be due to dimension (other
than an improper size, e.g. smaller than standard compact spaces).
5. The applicant's attorney further argues that where there is inconsistency, the Building Commissioner must
use his discretionary authority to apply the more specific provisions.
a. I agree that the more specific provisions should be applied, but I do not even think there remains
any inconsistency given the language in the Ordinance that resolves inconsistencies. As stated
above, the Ordinance provides in 2 places (240-55 and 240-24.1.3. A.1.) that the more specific
provisions apply where there is any inconsistency.
Therefore, I determined as the duly appointed zoning enforcement officer and Site Plan Review Chairman of the
Town of Barnstable that the use of compact spaces in the Downtown Hyannis Zoning District is permitted and is
consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Regards,
Brian Florence
Building Commissioner/Chairman
EXHIBIT F
DATE: March 31, 2026
RE: Harborview, Hyannis Project Narrative
M E M O R A N D U M
To Whom it May Concern:
The Harborview project is located within the Downtown Main Street Zoning
District (DMS). As such, the design is required to meet the standards set forth
under Section 240-24.1.6.
In November of 2023 the Site Plan Review for Harborview Hyannis was filed. At
this time the design was still in the preliminary stages and design development
commenced upon approval. The submitted drawings were in conformance with
the DMS Zoning section.
Throughout design and upon completion of the construction documents, the
team has reviewed the design against the Project Narrative and DMS zoning
requirements to confirm that all requirements have been satisfied.
In regards to the mention of the 180 foot building width provision: the zoning
language does not define "Building Width" using the same terms; instead, that is
addressed through the Facade Build Out & Primary Frontage. What is labeled as
"Building Width" on the zoning table refers to the Building Form. The intent is
that the building is not a monotonous form for the entire length of the facade;
and the building is required to break up the massing in order to achieve that. See
Table 3 below – letter “E” represents the building form width, and shows that the
change of roof plane constitutes a change.
Based on this definition, referring to the current design, the maximum "Width"
that could be considered a continuous form is 171'-3". Please see the elevations,
attached to this memo, that provide the dimensions.
EXHIBIT F
Regards,
Matt Marotta
COO + Managing Principal
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY
30'-6"
4
A-301
4
A-404
2
A-301
LEVEL 245'-0"
25791114151617192123
2
A-402
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
1
35'-0"F
EB
FFB.3
E
EBE
D
D
C
CD
D
BB
E
F.2F.2F.2F.2F.2F.2
BB.1B.1 EEB
BBBBBB E B E
B B
E.3FF 35'-0"
BB
3
A-404
2
A-404
5
A-403
1
A-404
4
A-403
3
A-403
C D C D C
C D C DEB C E.1
E
B.1
B
A A
E
E.1
BBBB
A-201
4
A-201
6
E.3 E.3B.3 E.3B.3
3468101213182022
FOUNDATION29'-6"
33'-6"
33'-0 1/4"31'-0"30'-0"29'-3 1/8"
34'-1 1/2"
01
07
08
1012
16
07
07
01
08
121212
03
17
04
17
16
06
08
16 16
04
16
01
01
04
04
04
04
0101
E.2 B.2 E.2
12 12 12 12 12 12
10 10
10
10 10
1010
16
17
1703
03
0303
17
3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"6 1/4"10'-8"10'-8"11'-6"04
04
17
14 14 14
17
17
17
101010
04
17
17
17
17 17
07 07
10
10
PVC TRIM
FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
THIN BRICK
FIBER CEMENT
PANEL
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
FAUX
CAST STONE
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
PVC SHUTTER
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
08
17
EX1EX1
CR
EX1EX1
1
A-302
2
A-302
3
A-302
4
A-302
4
A-3036
A-303
SPANDREL GLASS
A-714
17'-6"6'-9"7'-4"11'-4"DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT AND
BOOT DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
33'-8 3/4"
5.85.916.516.818.519.5
ASPHALT
SHINGLE
ROOFING 1'-11 3/4"OVERFLOW
DRAIN SPOUT
0404 08 08
0808
0707
04
0404
7
A-301
O/D
SPOUTO/D
SPOUT
O/D SPOUT
BEYOND
WALL
HYDRANT
WALL
HYDRANT
BEYOND
A-204
3
A-204
2A-204
3
7
307 MAIN STREET
HANGING
SIGNAGE
ADO
7
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 3
55'-8"
LEVEL 4
66'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 2
45'-0"
4
A-402
GG5
A-402
B.1
F.2 F.2
B.1
B
B B
B.4 B.4 B
A-201
3 A-201
5
DD CCEEFFHHJJKKLL
29'-0"
10
17
04
08
07
08
13
07010112
GG
H H
03
17
17
17
170310
10
10
10 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"14'-6"4'-0"14
07
0817
10
17
01
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
THIN BRICK
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
PVC TRIM
ALUMINUM
RAILINGS, TYP
FAUX
CAST
STONE
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
PVC
SHUTTER
EX1EX1
FLAG
POLE
A-721
1
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
A-204
3
SEE ELEC. DRAWINGS FOR
CLOCK CONTROL INFORMATION
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 3
55'-8"
LEVEL 4
66'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
3
A-301
LEVEL 2
45'-0"
272526293032333424
2
A-405
BB.1B.1
B.1B.1B.1
B.1
BBBB
F.1
F.1HHHH
BEEEB
EEEB
E
E
B
B
H.1
B.1E.1
E
B
H.1H.1H.1H.1
E.1B.1
E
B
BB
3
A-402
BBB
1
A-402
26'-0"27'-0"29'-0"29'-0"
F.1
B.1
B
1
A-405
10
1110
03
0707
1616
07
01
1010
07
04
03
04
04
17
17
10
1010
10
1010
01
01
04
07
1616
07
1017
10
10
1010
10
10 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"14'-6"4'-0"04
17
00
0707
03
17
17
17
17
1703
17
17
17
17
17
17
1717
17
ASPHALT
SHINGLE
ROOFING
THIN BRICK
FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
THIN BRICK
FAUX CAST
STONE
PVC TRIM
171717
FAUX
CAST
STONEEX1EX118
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOTDOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
3128
CORNER GUARDS
O/D
SPOUT
WALL
HYDRANT
SIGNAGE -
PROVIDE
BLOCKING
A-721
5
A-204
1
A-204
2
A-204
4
SIM
L5
7
7
GAS METER -
SEE PLMB
7
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"
GGAABBDDCCEEFF HH JJ KK LL
FOUNDATION29'-6"
01
08
03 0101
06
08
08
07
06
10
10 10
10
B B B
B B B B
B.1B.1
B.1 B.1
10 10
04
B B B 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"17
17 10
17
04
PVC TRIMFIBER
CEMENT
LAP SIDING
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
ASPHALT
SHINGLE
ROOFING
THIN BRICK
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
FAUX
CAST STONE
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
32'-0"
28'-7 7/8"30'-9"
26'-6"
32'-4 7/8"
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
COW'S TONGUE
OVERFLOW DRAIN
1717
17
07
WALL
HYDRANT
EXPOSED INSULATED
CONCRETE PANEL
A-204
4
L6BEHIND
COLUMN
FND - AMENITY
26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
3
A-301
LEVEL 245'-0"
2526 24
2
A-405
GARAGE34'-0 1/4"33'-6"33'-0"
FOUNDATION
29'-6"
04
06
07 07
EB
B
B
EB
B
E
08
07
06 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"6 1/4"3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"B
17 17
?
17
17
17
17
17
MT-101A
PVC TRIM
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
ASPHALT
SHINGLE ROOFING
FIBER CEMENT
SHINGLE SIDING
UPVC WINDOW WITH TRIM, TYP
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
04
C-101
EX2EX2
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
08
04 1717
17
1 4
2
8
7
5
36
FND - AMENITY26'-6"
LEVEL 3
55'-8"
LEVEL 4
66'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 2
45'-0"
3334
01
04
1003
17
?
B
B.1
F.2 11'-6"10'-8"10'-8"14'-6"4'-0"14
10
PVC TRIM
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
ASPHALT SHINGLE
ROOFING
THIN BRICK
FIBER CEMENT
LAP SIDING
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM
30'-0"
DOWNSPOUT
AND BOOT
H
G
17
03
17
14
17
17
ALUMINUM RAILINGS, TYP
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
PVC TRIM
UPVC WINDOW
WITH TRIM G
H
14
17
03
17
17
17
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
(WHITE)
FAUX CAST STONE - OPENING
HEADERS & SILLS
FIBER CEMENT
7" SHINGLE SIDING (TAN)
PVC SHUTTER
EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
7" SHINGLE SIDING (DK GREY)
FIBER CEMENT
7" LAP SIDING (BLUE)
FIBER CEMENT PANEL
(GREY) NOT IN USE
THIN BRICK (TAN)
FIBER CEMENT
7" LAP SIDING (WHITE)
1
2
3
4
12
8
7
5
10
6
COVERBOARD AT
GRADE11FIBER CEMENT
7" LAP SIDING (TAN)
GLASS13
ALUM. RAILING SYSTEM14
DECORATIVE PVC TRIM16
PVC TRIM/CORNICE
(WHITE)17
ALUMINUM CHANNEL
LETTERING SIGNAGE15
METAL COPING TRIM18
SIMULATED STANDING SEAM
(DK GREY)9
ARCHITECT
CONSULTANT
STAMP
KEY PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
SHEET TITLE
2/6/2026 9:56:25 AMA-201
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
HARBORVIEW
223024
307 MAIN STREET
WINN DEVELOPMENT
CM
GF
3/32" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"4 NORTH EAST ELEVATION FRONT
3/32" = 1'-0"2EAST ELEVATION 01
3/32" = 1'-0"8 SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"7SOUTH EAST ELEVATION 02
3/32" = 1'-0"6 NORTH ELEV. INSET
3/32" = 1'-0"3 ANGLED BAY LEFT
3/32" = 1'-0"5 ANGLED BAY RIGHT
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
2 2024-03-14 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
3 2024-05-02 70% CDs
4 2024-07-25 90% CDs
5 2025-01-30 CONFORMED SET
6 2025-11-24 ADDENDUM 1
7 2026-01-30 ADDENDUM #2
171'-0"
44'-3"
127'-1"
110'-1 1/4"
146'-11 1/2"
35'-7 1/4"
EXHIBIT G
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 133'-6"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
E = BUILDING FORM
44'-1 3/4"
E = BUILDING FORM
126'-10"
E = BUILDING FORM
23'-3 3/4"
E = BUILDING FORM
109'-9"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
E = BUILDING FORM
59'-9 1/8"
E = BUILDING FORM
86'-0 1/8"
E = BUILDING FORM
35'-4 1/2"
FND - AMENITY
26'-6"
LEVEL 355'-8"
LEVEL 466'-4"
ROOF77'-10"
AMENITY30'-6"
LEVEL 245'-0"
E = BUILDING FORM
41'-2 3/4"
1" = 30'-0"
HARBORVIEW MAIN ST & OLD COLONY RD ELEVATIONS
6/2/26
1" = 30'-0"1MAIN STREET ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"2OLD COLONY ROAD ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"3 MAIN ST/OLD COLONY INTERSECTION
EXHIBIT G
HARBORVIEW BUILDING FORM BREAKDOWN
6/2/26
HARBORVIEW PARKING LAYOUT - STRUCTURED & SURFACE
6/2/26
HARBORVIEW PARKING LAYOUT - STRUCTURED & SURFACE
6/2/26