HomeMy WebLinkAbout1284 MAIN STREET - TRANSCAPE /FN
I
1
I
�L,s.'r cy:: ti ..�, r - .Wit. r .�< - - Ate+ti+ �:..,.. �, ,,,r ✓. .,e z: _ _
I
Of $A'��'s,, CAPE COD COMMISSION
00 hen 3225 MAIN STREET
P.O.BOX 226
BARNSTABLE,MA 02630 D
CH�154 (508)362-3828 0' FAX(508)362-3136 r �$
E-mail:frontdesk@capecodcommission.org
MEMORANDUM BqR :. 2045 f 4
. NSTAe�E PCgN/V�NG
TO: Town Planners and CCC Liaisons DIRECTOR
FROM: Martha Hevenor, Plannerh1144
RE: Earth Removal/Gravel Mining Operations study
DATE: July 27, 2005
Cape Cod Commission staff is working on a study of earth removal/sand and gravel mining
operations on Cape Cod. With funding provided by a grant from the Island Foundation of
Marion, the study will both explore the land use conflicts and regulatory issues associated with
mining activities in Cape communities and provide recommendations to address the impacts.
The report will include a Cape-wide inventory of sand and gravel mining sites and an evaluation
of existing by-laws/regulations pertaining to these activities. Please see attached a
survey/questionnaire to help us collect information about your community. We would greatly
appreciate it if you could fill out the form and return it to us by August 15. C
Thanks for your help. Please feel free to email your responses as well (to
mhevenor@capecodcommission ore).,
I
I
Earth Removal/Sand & Gravel Mining Operations Survey
Please return by August 15
(or email responses to mhevenorna capecodcommission orgy.
1. Are there earth removal/sand and gravel mining operations in your town?
2. If so, please identify site location(s). If you have additional information regarding size,type
of uses/activities on-site,and ownership, please provide below.
Type'of
Location O eration/Use s Propertv Owner Size/Acreage (approx.)
3. Please describe any use-conflicts associated with earth removal operations in your town that
you are aware of.
4.. Does your town's Zoning By-Law or General By-Law address earth removal uses?Do the
regulations address environmental and community character issues associated with earth
removal operations?
5. Do existing operations have grandfathering protection from changes in the town's by-laws?
Thank you for providing this information.We will be contacting you for further information in
the future.
Contact person: Town:
Broadrick, Tom
From: jmcdonough57@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:08 PM
To: isd
Cc: Weil, Ruth; harold tobey; Smith, Robert; tom rugo; royden richardson; Town Council Mailbox;
j.gegory milne; Klimm, John;janet joakim; henry farnham; Town Council Mailbox; Town
Council Mailbox; Zoning Board Mailbox; ann canedy; gary brown; Broadrick, Tom;janice
barton; Town Council Mailbox
DSC09134.jpg(211 DSC09135_1.jpg
KB) (205 KB)
(PLEASE FORWARD TEXT OF THIS LETTER TO ALL
ADDRESSEES AND
ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS AND DEPARTMENTS)
July 30, 2005
The Town of Barnstable
367 Main Street
Hyannis, Ma. 02601
To the attention of:
John C. Klimm,
Paul J. Niedzwiecki,
Ann B. Canedy,
Tom Rugo,
James F. Munafo Jr. ,
Royden C. Richardson,
James H. Crocker,
Janet Joakim,
Richard G. Barry,
Harold E. Tobey,
Gary R. Brown,
Janice L. Barton,
Leah C Curtis,
Henry C. Farnham,
J. Gregory Milne,
Robert D. Smith,
Ruth Weil,
T. David Houghton,
Daniel Creedon III,
Thomas Geilor,
Thomas Perry,
Thomas A. McKean
Tom Broardrick,
John Finnegan,
et al. ,
please note attached photos of pit on Wakeby Road at 3 :00 PM this afternoon Saturday, July
30, 2005. . .This is what we hear in this neighborhood during weekends. . .This is the far end
of the property where Judge Nickerson prohibited this kind of activity many years
ago. . .this outrageous behavior is a mockery of the duties of the offices you are elected
or appointed to fulfill and the laws you must enforce and the rights you are supposed to
defend. . .please act in a fashion commensurate with seriousness of this blatant and
1 '
I
egregious behaviour
Respectfully submitted
James P McDonough
ill Mockingbird Lane
Marstons mills Ma. 02648
(508) 428-7557
P.S. Thank you so much Mr. Farnham, your timely response and encouraging words are
certainly encouraging and most appreciated as well as refreshing.
2
Broadrick, Tom
From: jmcdonough57@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:12 PM
To: Smith, Robert;j.gegory milne; Broadrick, Tom
Subject: FW: "mad as helll...and not going to take it anymore"
"mad as
helll...and not goi...
---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
From: jmcdonough57@comcast.net
To: isd@town.barnstable.ma.us
Cc: Ruth.Weil@town.barnstable.ma.us (Ruth Weil) , htexprez65@yahoo.com (harold tobey) ,
smith.bobert@town.barnstable.ma.us (robert smith) , tomrugo@comcast.net (tom rugo) ,
royden@capecod.net (royden richardson) , council@town.barnstable.ma.us (james jr munafo) ,
harborhideaway@capecdomail.com (j .gegory milne) , john.klimm@town.barnstable.ma.us (john
klimm) , janetjoakim@aol.com (janet joakim) , cobra8@comcast.net (henry farnham) ,
council@town.barnstable.ma.us (leah curtis) , council@town.barnstable.ma.us (james jr
crocker) , tobzba@town.barnstable.ma.us (daniel III creedon) , acanedy@comcast.net (ann
canedy) , bass@cape.com (gary brown) , tom.broardrick@town.barnstable.ma.us (tom
broardrick) , jbartonletters@comcast.net (janice barton) , council@town.barnstable.ma.us
(richard barry)
Subject: "mad as helll. . .and not going to take it anymore"
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 03 :24 :14 +0000
(PLEASE FORWARD TEXT OF THIS LETTER TO ALL ADDRESSEES AND
ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS AND DEPARTMENTS)
July 24, 2005
The Town of Barnstable
367 Main Street
Hyannis, Ma. 02601
To the attention of:
John C. Klimm,
Paul J. Niedzwiecki,
Ann B. Canedy,
Tom Rugo,
James F. Munafo Jr. ,
Royden C. Richardson,
James H. Crocker,
Janet Joakim,
Richard G. Barry,
Harold E. Tobey,
Gary R. Brown,
Janice L. Barton,
Leah C Curtis,
Henry C. Farnham,
J. Gregory Milne,
Robert D. Smith,
1 i
Ruth Weil,
T. David Houghton,
Daniel Creedon III,
Thomas Geilor,
Thomas Perry,
Thomas A. McKean
Tom Broardrick,
John Finnegan,
et al. ,
Those past efforts by the Town of Barnstable and its legal staff to put
an end to the illegal commercial operations at the Gifford Bros. Sand & Gravel
,property on Wakeby Road in Marstons Mills have been greatly appreciated but as
yet have been largely fruitless.
Even though law abiding citizens in this neighborhood have expended
considerable assets of time, money and personal effort in following the tedious
paths required by town and state statutes to remedy the damages caused to us,
this situation continues unabated.
Despite years of due process and seemingly favorable decisions by the
Superior Court of the County of Barnstable as well as the Appeals Court of the
Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts, the surrounding
neighborhoods are still being deprived of their quiet enjoyment by this
attractive nuisance.
What started with residential complaints in 1996 and a cease and desist
order
from the Building Inspector of the Town of Barnstable in 1997, has continued
with the involvement of private and public attorneys, local regulatory boards,
state
agencies, police investigations, newspaper reports, aerial photographs, daily
activity logs, affidavits, court appearances, meetings with town officials,
phone conversations, correspondence, and untold other activities, appeared to
have been rewarded with a conclusive court decision, which can not be further
appealed, stating that these commercial activities in this residential zone are
not now and never were legal.
The nonexistent grand fathered rights which buoyed frivolous defenses
to litigation and the specter of the need for the hazardous waste cleanup of
preexisting abuses are no longer lurking in the shadows. Years of legal
procedure have uncovered the truth and shed light on the deceit, the
prevarication and the campaign of misinformation that allowed, the perpetuation
of this abomination.
That decision notwithstanding, this community has suffered loss of
property value, personal harassment and intimidation and threat, the constant
noise of huge commercial machines, the incessant peal of back-up warning
signals, clouds of dust and billowing exhaust smoke and diesel fumes, the
maddening drone of material processing equipment, mountainous piles of various
illegally imported and refined indigenous products, the cannon report of
ark-truck tailgates slamming, the health risk and eyesore of an illegal and
unregulated junkyard, automobile tire piles breeding insects which carry the
agents of disease and vermin which attract predators known to harbor sarcoptic
mange and rabies, the presence of waste substances and construction and
demolition materials which are banned from disposal, the attendant problems of
heavy commercial traffic traversing residential developments in an area that
would be otherwise untravelled, the blight of many acres that were deforested
contrary to the legally agreed to restrictions of a special permit, a vast area
dug to illegal and dangerous angles of repose which endanger the public and
imperil abutting septic systems and were left barren and denuded of vegetation
and which remain unrestored to this day as required by statute, and the
annoyance of dirt bikes and ATVs that frequent this unnatural terrain that has
been wrongfully created as well as groups of youthful individuals who find this
area a haven from noise regulations and the enforcement of under age drinking
laws.
Some of these can occur from dawn to dusk and into the wee hours of
morning, and others are a constant ominous presence.
At the State of the Town address on April 14, 2005, our Town Manager, John
C Klimm said:
2
"Second, we are proposing a new and comprehensive initiative that will
include all three of the major components of zoning enforcement; more
inspections, better prosecution and a review of our zoning to better meet our
needs. Thanks to Councilors Curtis, Joakim, Barton, Canedy and Munafo who have
made this a priority. We have heard, all too often, that when residents have
forwarded zoning enforcement complaints to us that they have not been satisfied
with our response. We hear you and we offer a comprehensive response to get the
job done."
Is there any zoning enforcement issue pending in the town that predates
the travesty that resides at 810 Wakeby Road in Marstons Mills? Is there a
better way to make Mr. Klimm' s words ring true than to attend to this matter
immediately? If not now. . .then when? It has been nine years!
As this missive is written, what would normally be the glory of a long
awaited first summertime pastoral weekend is being shattered by the din of a
mechanized cacophony reminiscent of an urban renewal project. The rustic
elements of the typical Cape Cod serenity which has drawn so many people to this
area has been brutalized by a scofflaw attitude which has arrogantly thumbed its
nose at the by-laws of the Town Of Barnstable as well as the proprieties of
decent people in respectable neighborhoods for almost a decade.
How long will this be allowed to continue? How much more can be done by
reasonable and trusting taxpayers when all regulatory avenues have been
exhausted? How do patient people who have been compliant with and attendant to
all the requests of their local government react to the impotence of their
elected and appointed representatives to enforce their rights? How can
commercial greed and avarice be allowed to interfere with the natural
environment and the simple pleasures of home and family?
How long can this governance sit idly by when loyal and law abiding
constituents languish in the daily assault of an ill willed individual who
profits from such bureaucratic apathy?
Is there no shame in town government when it allows such a situation to
continue so long, knowing full well the seriousness of the problem? Is there no
sense
of urgency when experienced and competent regulatory boards have identified and
documented the damage and dangers as clear and present? Is there no sense of
justice when diligent legal professionals have attempted to right this wrong and
successfully proved their case only to have enforcement denied? Is there no
sense of outrage when extensive town resources are expended over so many years
and all that remains is the will to finish what has been started and stop the
degradation of lives within its jurisdiction?
Please consider the time and effort invested in this undertaking, and do
the right thing by bringing this miscarriage of justice to an abrupt conclusion.
Another summer lost to this indecency is intolerable. Any further delay to
remedy this situation is a solid message to those suffering that the Town of
Barnstable does not care about the responsibilities incumbent upon it, and an
even louder message to other would be perpetrators that crime does pay
handsomely here in this township. This situation is a blatant statement that
the zoning by-laws of the Town of Barnstable are meaningless and that regardless
of ultimate court decisions to the contrary, people are free to make whatever
illegal use of their property that may suit their whim, regardless of its effect
on the community. Justice delayed is justice denied. The delay is a
continually lucrative reward which fuels the ability of this wrongdoing to
persevere. The Town of Barnstable has been abused for too many years.
Your attention to these matters is anticipated and would be gratefully
welcomed after so many long years of patience and restraint.
Respectfully
Submitted,
James P.
McDonough
3
ill Mockingbird
Lane
Marstons Mills
Ma. 02648
(508) 428-7557
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS
4
, r
F
Y
VAN
' — �;,,5�y iw,yn -t
w�
F
„t
r
! •his?
{ b N` 1
az
� z
r
s-
CO-
o
k F
�r � r
i
Broadrick, Tom
From: jmcdonough57@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:19 PM
To: isd
Cc: Weil, Ruth; harold tobey; Smith, Robert; tom rugo; royden richardson; Town Council Mailbox;
j.gegory milne; Klimm, John;janet joakim; henry farnham; Town Council Mailbox; Town
Council Mailbox; Zoning Board Mailbox; ann canedy; gary brown; Broadrick, Tom;janice
barton; Town Council Mailbox
I InICI
DSC09134.jpg(211 DSC09135_1.jpg
KB) (205 KB)
{PLEASE FORWARD TEXT OF THIS LETTER TO ALL
ADDRESSEES AND
ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS AND DEPARTMENTS}
July 24, 2005
The Town of Barnstable
367 Main Street
Hyannis, Ma. 02601
To the attention of:
John C. Klimm,
Paul J. Niedzwiecki,
Ann B. Canedy,
Tom Rugo,
James F. Munafo Jr. ,
Royden C. Richardson,
James H. Crocker, _
Janet Joakim,
Richard G. Barry,
Harold E. Tobey,
Gary R. Brown,
Janice L. Barton,
Leah C Curtis,
Henry C. Farnham,
J. Gregory Milne,
Robert D. Smith,
Ruth Weil,
T. David Houghton,
Daniel Creedon III,
Thomas Geilor,
Thomas Perry,
Thomas A. McKean
Tom Broardrick,
John Finnegan,
et al. ,
Please review attached photos.
This is what our neighborhoods hear on our otherwise peaceful weekends. These pictures
were taken today, Saturday, July 30, 2005 in the furthest depth of the sand pit on Wakeby
Road where Judge Nickerson declared this type of outrageous activity to be unlawful many
years ago. This blatant behaviour is an affront to and a mockery of the duties of the
1
r
offices to which you were elected or appointed and sworn to uphold as well as the laws
which you are required to enforce and the rights of your constituents which you are
expected to protect. Please react in a fashion which is commensurate with the severity of
this egregous conduct.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. McDonough
111 Mockingbird lane
Marstons Ma. 02648
(508) 428-7557
P.S. Thank you Mr. Farnham for your timely response. Your kind words are very much
appreciated, and certainly welcome as well as refreshing.
2
Town of Barnstable
Planning Division
Memorandum
Date: January 30,2001.
To: Ro rt Smith,Town Attorney
Weil,A sistant Town Attorney
Art traczyk, rincipal Planner
File letters-2002- -smith-0130.doc
Subject: As build stamp plans submitted to Site Plan Review today January 30,2002 for
Transcape, 1284 Main St., Osterville (R118-008)
As discussed today,Douglas Bill brought to my attention the fact that engineer seals appeared to
have been pasted on plans submitted by A.M. Wilson and Associates for the above referenced site.
The plans were requested to satisfy questions of,the gross floor area of the development. The
information was to determine if the project triggered a Development of Regional Impact and Cape
Cod Commission review. Engineer stamp as-built drawings were requested along with a table of
floor area.
Upon my review with Doug and Robin Giangregorio,we concurred that the seals were indeed
pasted into the sheets and doctored to appear as having been affixed to an original.
A call was placed to the Marine Architect,Bernard John Young,whose seal was used. He did
confirm that he worked on the proposed site plan for the project several months ago but stated that
he had not done any as-built plans nor the table of uses and square footage contained on the plans
last revised January 12, 2002. IIe stated that a registered land survey and not an architect would best
complete such as-built plans. His work is that of design and layout.
We discussed the drawings submitted to site plan review from the initial submittal in 2000 to present.
He confirmed that the approved site plan review drawing showing a total area of development at
7,600+/- sq.ft. were the last drawings he approved and certified.
IIe stated that he did not stamp any drawings for that project during the last several mouths.
Looking at his logbook,he stated that he had been in Ms.Wilson's Office on January 17 and January
25,2002 with reference to other projects and that this project had not been discussed, nor did he
stamp any drawings.
Mr.Young stated that he would stop in tomorrow morning,January 31,prior to 8:30AM to inspect
the drawings. Site Plan Review of these drawings is to occur at 9:00 AM.
After my phone call with Mr.Young I phoned you as to the events and as requested I am forwarding
this memorandum to you.
C: Douglas Bill
Robin Giangregorio
DiMatteo Peter
From: Giangregorio, Robin
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 2:20 PM
To: DiMatteo Peter
Subject: RE; Transcape
Arlene Wilson returned my telephone call today. Together we reviewed the list I faxed earlier (and again today). She
complained that that providing stamped building sections are not necessary as structural plans are on file (submitted with
the building permit) bearing ad architect's stamp. I interrupted Arlene to inform her that I was simply forwarding a request
on behalf of the panel members. I reminded her that I am not in a position to argue the point. Regarding the points
identified in my original fax, the employee information was submitted earlier and is maintained in the file, all other
information was specifically requested to be included on a new, professionally stamped plan. MS. Wilson indicated that a
plan would be ready tomorrow afternoon.
1
Silvia $c Silvia Associates, Inc.
February 19, 2002
Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main Street
Barnstable, MA 02630
RE: DRI Exemption Request
Transcape,Inc.
1284 Main St., Osterville
Dear Staffperson:
Attached please find revised application forms and additional filing fees in the amount of$40.84,for the
above captioned project,together with an additional copy of the building area calculation sheet provided
by the developer. The revision increases the project gross floor area from 10,696.25 s.f.,the final number
on the calculation sheet,to 11,593.25 s.£,the number shown as "subtotal" on that sheet, plus 8 s.f. from
an addition error in the Building B number.
The smaller figure cited in the original request,deletes the attic spaces in the garage and main office.
Your definitions require this space to be included. Consequently,the revision adds the space back into
the total.
In order to facilitate your review, we are also providing with this letter as-built architectural plans in full
size and photo-reduced sets.
We apologize for any confusion of scheduling problems this may have caused. Please don't hesitate to
call if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincere ,
Floy . Silvia
Attachments: Revised Forms
I Fee
Copies: Barnstable Town Clerk
Barnstable Building Commissioner
Barnstable Site Plan Review
Barnstable Board of Health
619 Main Street,Centerville,Massachusetts 02632 (508)775-1442 Fax 771-7626
r
CAPE COD COMMISSION
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT EXEMPTION APPLICATION
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
An APPLICATION pursuant to section 12(k) of the Cape Cod Commission Act, chapter 716 of
the Acts of 1989 (Act), as amended, for a DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI)
EXEMPTION from Commission review of a proposed development which literally qualifies as
a DRI but the location, character and environmental effects of the development will prevent its
having any significant impacts on the values and purposes protected by the Act outside the
municipality in which the development is to be located.
U7ISED 2/19/02
General Information:
1. Applicant Name
Addrem Sin ervl e,
•
Telephone Number ( 08 1 775-T442
2. Project Name Trans cape, Inc.
Project Location 1 R Main 4fi
MA
3. Brief Description of project including but not limited to: gross floor area, lots, units,
acres, zoning of site and specific uses. .
Maintenance and completion of construction of 3 commercial buildings -- an .
nffirP h;iilding with attached shnn and garaaa enara a small fraast-andina
z �—z
nffi e-o l And a Least-andi na 7g ha�e$r�� tntal 14 n 1_1..y600--s—f.
4. Will this project be reviewed under the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act(MEPA),M.G.L. c. 30 secs. 61-62H7 If yes, provide status.
5. Provide a clear and concise statement of the reasons the project which literally
qualifies as a DRI under Section 12(c) of the Act should nonetheless be exempted from
Commission review. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
As described in the attached project analysis, although gross area of the
site ui gs is over s. ere are no regio impac s rom
the projec see tta ent
6. Owners of Record. Provide the following information for all involved parcels (attach additional
sheets if necessary):
Owners Land Court Lot& Registry of Deeds.
N cate of 7 # Plan Boo #
Map Lot 8 Transcape, Inc Bk. 12836,Page 0
1/97
r
I -
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL D"ACT EXEMPTION APPLICATION
Attach the following additional materials:
1. Two copies of all documents and analysis supporting the request for a DRI Exemption
showing that the location, character and environmental effects of the development will
prevent its having any significant impacts on the values and purposes protected by the Act
outside the municipality in which the development is to be located and which the Applicant
otherwise deems relevant to the Commission's decision.
2. Two copies of the application(s) for any development permit(s) filed with Municipal
Agency(ies) together with two copies of: (1) documents supporting such application which the
Applicant or Municipal Agency deems relevant to the Commission's DRI Exemption Decision;
and (2) documentary evidence that such application was in fact filed, including the date of
filing.
3. Enclose a filing fee of $200 plus fifty percent (50%) of the cost of a full DRI review in the
form of a money order or certified check made payable to the Barnstable County Treasurer.
4. Certification that a copy of this application has been filed concurrently with the town
clerk, the inspector of buildings, and the municipal agency(ies) before which a permit
application is pending, in the town in which the proposed development is to be located.
5. Two (2) copies of the Development Plans (sheet size 24"x 36") drawn at a scale of 1"=40' plus
one copy of the development plan(s) reduced to fit on an 11" x 17" sheet. If the plan requires
more than one sheet, a cover sheet at the scale of 1"-200' showing the entire property shall be
provided.
6. Two copies of an 8 1/2" x II" section U.S.G.S. quadrangle map of the area, containing
sufficient information for the-Commission to locate the site of the proposed development.
7. Certification that the subject property is legally and/or-equitably owned by the Applicant
or his or her designee.
8. A certified list of abutters Ito the proposed development, in the.correct form, which has been
prepared by the Applicant and certified by the tax assessor of the municipality or
municipalities in which the DRI or a portion thereof is located, including owners of land
directly opposite on any public or private street or way and owners of land located within 300
feet of any boundary of the proposed DRI. (If there are more than 50 abutters, please provide
three (3) sets of a certified list on self-adhesive labels, in addition to the certified list.)
9. A fully completed DRI Application Form (attached).
I hereby certify that the answers contained in and informa on attached to this application
form are true and accurate to the best of my kn Plaity of the law.
Transcape, Inc.
Applicant/Applicant's Representative afore
or Authorized Municipal Representative
Name (Please Print) Date f Si ature
The Commission will review your application and notify you by mail of your public hearing on
this application upon a determination that this application is complete. You may also call the
Commission Staff for the status of a pending application. Please direct any questions to the
Cape Cod Commission (508) 362-3828. Complete and return this application by hand-delivery
or certified mail to: Clerk, Cape Cod Commission, 3225 Main Street,Barnstable, MA 02630.
1/97
i
I-
UAYt UUU UUMMIS5IUN
3225 MAIN STREET
P.O. BOX 226
BARNSTABLE, MA 02630
93
(508)362-3828.3,q CHU5 FAX (508) 362-3136
1 E-mail: frontdeskOcapecodcommission.org
I DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT APPLICATION FORM 9/7/00
Instructions:
1 Applicants should contact the Commission's regulatory staff to set up a pre-application
1 meeting. This scoping session provides an important opportunity for you to ask questions
about the process and to reduce the chance of problems or delays. At the pre-application
meeting the staff will review yourapplication with you and discuss relevant issues. You should
bring any plans, studies or information an the property and/or proposal to this meeting.
Important Notes:
1 Applications are reviewed for their consistency with the Act. the Regional-Policy Plan, local
} regulations and local comprehensive plans once certified by the Cape Cod Commission.
Applications need to document the project's consistency with the Regional Policy Plan's
J Minimum Performance Standards. Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate the project's
benefits to the community and the region by meeting or exceeding the Regional Policy Plan's
Minimum Performance Standards and Other Development Review Policies. Copies of the
Regional Policy Plan are available at the Commission's office.
JProviding a complete application including the required information and fees, will allow the
Commission to act in a timely manner. This includes a certified list of abutters, in the correct
form (see attached). Applicants may attach additional pages to this application if necessary. If
j there are more than 50 abutters, in addition to the certified list,please provide three sets of the
certified list on self-adhesive labels. Please note: Town assessors offices, may take ug to i0
_aMto certi aa abu.tters list If you have any questions,or require assistance in completing
this application form. please contact a member of the regulatory staff at the Cape Cad
Commission office at'(508) 362-3828.
Section A. General.Information
l.Project Name: Transcape, Inc.
'2.Project Location (including Town): 1284 Main St. , Osterville
3. Brief Description of the Praiev (incWirLWot?,l 3s �C1tge bbi dt s• t deveiopment; Maintenance comp eti 0 omm
! under _11,600 s.f.' as described in the attached DRI Exe_nmtion Reauest.
i
a Total area of the project site: 0.92 acres.
b. Estumaied cost of construction:
4a.Applicant Name: Transcape, Inc.
Address: 619 Main Street, Centerville
Phone Number. L5081775-1442
4b. Ca-Applicant rlame(s):
Address(es):
Phone Number(s):
(Note: for wireless communication towers, a licensed carrier should be either an applicant or
cc-applicant)
i
5. Contact Person: Atty. Philip Boudreau
(If different. from licant
Address: N Nort� St. , Hyannis
Phone Number. ( 1 -
6. Billable Entity. (same as applicant)
J
(If different from applicant)Address:
Phone Number: ( 1
7. Owners of Record Provide the following information for all involved parcels (attach
J additional sheets if necessary):
J Owners Lot 8t Land Court or Reg. of Deeds
Map/Parcel Name Plan Certificate of Title # Book/Page #
119/8 Transcape Inc —.Bk. 12836 Page 40
,J 8. There mare not (circle one) court claims, pending/ completed, involving this property ra a (If
P P
yes, please attach relevant information).
9.List the Local. State or Federal Agencies from which permit or other actions have been,
bzsought(not including MEPA):
TR5K'ng Inspections Building Permits Date
Bt File #
Board ot lleaIth
10. This project will/will not/may (circle one) require the filing of an Environmental
Notification Form under the Massachusetts Environment Policy Act(MEPA). For information
call the Executive Office 'of Environmental Affairs at (617)727-5830. Please attach relevant
MEPA documents.
J I hereby certify that all .information provided in .this application form and required
attachments is true and accurate.to the best of my knowledge. I agree to notify.the Cape Cad
Commission of any substantial changes in the information provided in this application. in
writing. as soon as is practicable.I understand failure to provide the required information and
fees may result in a procedural denial of my.project
JSignature at i%pplicant or Legal Representative Date
Signa d. C -Ap licant or Legal Representative Date
a.
S gna Owner(If different from applicant) Date
ir
1 A. M. son Associates, Inc. 3261 Main St. , Barnstable, MA ( 508) 375-0327
J Name and Address of Preparers) (If different from applicant) Phone l
j
-22002 01:40PM FROP1 A,rl. W I LSON ASSOC. TO 50e 7 1,,, P.02
• � j
I S`9
' (;WD)
1,r T
i r r URRk
SUE AS1W 79
_ C-B
236.60' ; (F.vD)
' C� 1K81-29'30�E -- i
'l1Na
1Ase- f
Zzzl
se LOT 8-1
FAfX
------------
�j. '_____�------------AWmitT Puy LOT 8-9
• �; � �;; poi ol•
'CI sp ... n-n41
i i:llhifT5�1-2.....:::::::;,`:z:::::::::; ;i 1 1rp
..w.r.,...,..,., ft;W
i BUILDING ARBAS- 6.95 t SF
qo
ASPHALT ARBApr 12,406Ct SF
I LOT 56-1 RSTAIIWO WALL AREA@106C*•SF
11.0T `-� ?IJTAL IMPERVIOUS iARBA= .19,472t S.F. OF LOt
MUCK r"W1 i
j CRUSBM XEU ARM 3,398 S.Ft SF
dt 4N OF LOT•
it
LOQD ZONE = =_. IMPERVTO US AREA D,6 ERMINA Y70N RES ZpNE-
TO Ff4OOSTER'ULLE SCALE'-I"-40' PL.REF55515. ELE`.V NIA
YANKEE SURVEY C0*-'yLTANTS
I RTJFY THAT THE ABOVE
P.0. BOX 265 j
ARL'AS ARE •CALCVZATED AS �� FT�rr� >,, 40 H juDIM.T.q.v Ra4D.:
9 SHQ`j;s MARSTONS MILLS, MAdSS :"48
=L.- .428-0055.
�
:FAX 420-5553 j. _
PALL A ERl?'HEW . DAB 12118 01 I1vva�a :
TGTHL P.
M
1
I�
� � a
an pp
AsiO Gm.uu �T WVmI!MQ a,A
'�' a<mWL�r Om W[6 eonim,Tn.
w¢muen,m.
��r 4gg �ga
a �
5 E
Ik� Aa
A
i Hoot emer mee , �Z 52 O E
NCO e
A6
FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION z
I I
I ' I
I
vrw-v w.w I �6
1
I e
��
Qi1K 1e,YlT IGOI „� - zdie8@1a111l01
YOYim P•Q M RT•I�rOI ' ''nn
Vl
Ze,nn
O V/
N
4 Q
------------------------------
-----' — -- -------- w g
all
<.m.�v w.a•o ® a
o =
®® t } Q Z Q
w>a♦T momm au .. IL In V
. I I
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION g
I I
W
1 i
I I �
. z
------------- ------------------ d
I,
1 e
i
II
sH/¢%s vs ---------- --------- -- -- -- - ----
1
I I 1
_4 ''T
_..... ..... i \. I - I
O 1.
I k'
I I .B..SE 'T
�6�Sa
M6 f�1 I rl. I 1 gp ag tq
aalo sl I 1 1 I t1�:ill
sl •X 1 I I v]�b �I
FI E SPAC �• � i I Y I I Z a
L J 1 • i z c a
a/lo .tWO � I I t
lit
I I I
I I ' 1 LM 2 A
G
agar 9�@
I
fg S�
A �b
_ lo•%o x t rwR®r C roll.ww.
TO 100•POUR® QLC.PTG. ay.10a
IL z
ly, FOUNDATION PLAN Q mrr
vG•'r o O — G
BLDG. 2 FLOOR PLAN 'm` ¢°' '+3• `>
wwooc)HGbnT1:0.7-l- «
LL O u to a
. Poo —
rimc sou,c �- - :e eum'°":'m oa�ri`' Q �a► L
c���yyLD• 8y.ss _ :�cca tc-..- ... , l7 Z Z Q
u
� O
Ixr 'e i..•J _ iA'f�i�t=��%1 FLOOR LOADSd o
L'll; �^'4b I last • � '°e..,,•,� I
>� r`lU. 3iJl� t• ` WALL A-A
_ 'Pc*veE uuloow t• '7� ne Q" \ .uw�.au vw�'ui��"".men�ia'uc'.,m"ow ='
�� � o.eTuc oo•m•r•o^e o..ee,.,c..m W CV
scut our � 1 \ � %araom�un rw..%r aeay.xnm
1
t e
• a t �
---- ------
= —,
I' I
I I . ta.oO11D�n.w'°'nw,ewa r.e•
�..e�.�.,�.ewes otai m..�.e�a.�.o:rr• d
.at...a a.�.•Rt,m..�„�
I I
I _ _TH
I I C
aae rmowm weavnw � r6'g
I
_ weuwc OR
R$a
BATH ZL]6�EgyyR�1II!
s a-n �aeruc m io t
I Ttlx TJ01
lot.,i?lzcw
RmR.IpeT• �Q
' --- E
v.-s omwarw Ir--- g
I
4
FULL a 'anac"�m—IL--- q •p�/
EYIENT
1 El
rE»wet.Hues w.n. - . . ' • zas,t�8��x�sa!!��
51 BUILDING SECTION t7 O
BLDG, 2 ROOF FRAMING PLANLL
Q �,
�•5Z o „>
ROOF LOAD £r+•A•T�• 'F@.� .a O N
t en
Tv oeoeea w ry nx.�re• �'� of
nor.eaeolea IeVe rar e«eem Ts• /\e\k� `^e,S,l/� O Z
z
nwtex reor oeewwe.n eera••m m ,a'! ���- �� p Q �
VAF;Nt!Sd p U W y
Fi1LSY.li J W J
i VIECHI"-.�is (a di a
No.
e
ssf
\- ✓t 1:... two rnrmerean ew.atw,c tue Hi <
vortw avmn+,rn. prp 8gg
al p
vi
LU
maw ac em'wa
I''�j aAFC OP�Im�M.
BYIIfIA WOl R ��/O� c,/
TIM
66i
1€
® fi9Q all,
le
e F qq
� wen swat e.lnn-.rve � �Z V •8 �i
I I C.7
--------------------------------y FRONT ELEVATION zoa
1 p
I Q
------------- I Gp
•-------------- I (�
----------------- q6y Qp4
mluvorr aw aau�nos ��1q�Jjfee'eJill yl�!
m awx scow,M.
. aa..d...ea
Z N
O �
m
--- w g�
w J
yyI` pJ[
- -- -- - W
I
REAR ELEVATION
' � b
4+�L�'�
ao
_ I n Ti1 Q
•a � LEA
.w.rr•m. Tau�mrt a m+u loo< b'• ffi ±S
VM.1M:TTII\M. .
• II
R1
�L
w '
- surtm.w..• 8
6
uewc w wwoa,m. � F
i 1
V U
I ZAQ
I
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
1
I i
q
a
U
O N
Q Q
J g�
U
I Z V
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
I I I v�•re W
I I 1
• I
I g �
i
I g �
-------=--- is Q
51
A7
Po" E O
b I•
2A vs
jig
CAPY —. mICFIE
OFFICEL4E. _ I i� prryp3I 3yp {E{
2/6
_ - -
Sim
BATH •',ii' 13 W vw] $
/4 G1 fTa yga j>t
'cn�.'�''EU+9 pppppp�
O
'(GROUP B E) ZAP' pp
G
9 TO �
• BAY #1 BAY u2 01-111,
I�
pQn
GARAGE ;, = __. i WAITING/OF
_ gg
a �4
a
/ �DAN .II FILE y j4�ppaajjqq��°!g�C
18i1E��7/QI
' q. � i iie•��rwaN ax' O,
R e• A7 Z Q
I6 oR.DooR s= — M.Dave a ! g
va - I. , 9 / o
_ (L 2 _J 3
995 V
A7 a N m
Dane J C Q J
J_
LL V\ >
a)-Au
FLOOR PLAN E_O BE GALL �1J95 WIOR°TNR44E
EXCEPTION OF BATHROOM (n
V4.I'-D• DOOR5 TO BE 6 PANEL. ,(
e � �
' ._..�iZECE55 L'IGHIS
V2•e Y 12•AM. Y-o'O.C.ACORNERS
MOM CORNERS a P.T.2 X e all ON DILL SEALER ,
---_ l-l-e-
• I A-A I g TALL
6•x r-r POURED CONC.PDN,wALL - 11. - .
.KDnX,CVOVe�e ♦•iQY..PT6.TO I I ___ i J 6' --
o-•c I rowoARC_ A TYP.
1•IALL -----D-D_ 1 -.• ewe E ; q
w '
L
- .
A A
wit Ye 54'.D :..: I �Y A• 1'Y V4 o 1
i
1 I HALL p_p l , eY X M ED
I I 1
ANCMOR
r. Hama
g miq
I '
I 1 I I 1• v I I
A I I N
I A_A g
1 UP X.WY-W POURED FUL E
COPK. WAu I 1 - — .( I W Cn
I I 1 I 8 Ix74- 2 i 'yam'z pa@3
•..
I 1 6'CRC.6LA6 PLR. 6+ K44We ON CMIRD
I 1 •MIDI-OUR OVER CL ACOE1P.SANDVI 1 I I ZGC
I 1 I I 1
1 I I 1Fyg p
I I I ML
G.Y
I I 1 I I CC
IL DROP TOP OF NA LL 1 I I M=rR.e an,er4 I 6�C
I PONT
G'1 DOORS
---- ---
AT T/ -- ------- -� I I r-----------
--
I 1 DROP W11L1 poW I I 1 , , i 1 i fBEgE$ 666
1 ID WALL A- I 1 I 1
S4
6
-------- i 1c a iC
- - -
YP x IN-O•POURED P------------ -------------1-4
CO.C.rm.1VAI1
I WALL r-r 53 I TD m•x 1a Pam®�.PTc. V
Z
N
� Q
0.
21
uNe w PDL PLIL•cev�-�Q -- ..... -°°•ti• l O -_J
N
u
a a
e�uo g� Q D L
• -- l- _-..-m.b• ._ a ae.ReroN�wloalala:. Q tl!
DO
0
`1'/ L!:•� WALL F-F WALL B-B
LL
mot' j �hils 6raU!`.
— at,c-HA4NICAL i✓'�` �w +w wALL c-c r'P'.�� «<
by nrrjr ® •-e vr ---e•-e yr -.-_-n<yr
r t WALL G-G WALL D-D I c
!>r S 1 F C'\'• v5�/ ---..—°*� WALL A-A
FOUNDATION WALL LEGEND FOUNDATION STAIR DETAIL s
s�C%NA� E �` V4•-r-o• vn•-r-o•
WALL E-E Q
Z2 r-�S3 2�o-L
0
, I
• tE6IN
.�.•�w
ZG4
0102
e
gg� p�p�yy��;'�sptp
M{�4{8�lFA�iRI
euiwr eo wni rwn em> a(L U)
nua eeu+. Q
t�n-SZ Q 2 J
u_ dN
,`4 a FLOOR FRAMING PLAN � c Q A
NOTM J J
'� �{r`.'.'.. ' •C;�� DESIGN FLDOR LOADS �
r5'r0ty to
22t� o .
oZ � Q
1
' U.M]rM'N rNll-N rM4L
HAT
PIT t 1 IOA2 PITCH
Bille
-
1
oil
�o
' 2 J I 806
Ile
-- m
Ip°9�e !g!g
1oA2 PITCH 10/12 PITCH
Jill
4121
I I I g4
$a e
T — is:ai6i�ylfi4 �
I I I
I I I
I I I
I T wnm Daum, Q
/1 N
'^���0�y. ems, 10/12 10/17 a Q
.manes wm�m.m eaaa m°uum mum
eo re.wen.siu rues '
mom O.C. Z g m
Poo-s z J
Q V Q
IL 0
LL o Q 3
i>2•;:LaC:
1.n
' '31:�:� '- ev oac.m e r.r ram.n.�a+s• .
e.� t ' v. 30�90 E ..rem.,.�.,,.•
Rr mr.o.wa a:n rer ww.un ra.,,.• u
I S 1��� .y4/ r'�w.eee�irnr�Oicr"wa°w°�°rM6ex�e'er mom.�i.'
��!<',.`ti,,,�'�:`i• / rar...orermam a.,.r eumem
S � �
��'a+3•�;�ora � Q
Z2 'F'�3 Z.ao2
Town of Barnstable
�oFt�
a� Regulatory Services
BMW9rABM ; Thomas F.Geiler,Director
xiAss.
VI MASS,
.•� Building Division
A1Ep�(A
Peter F.DiMatteo. Building Commissioner
200 Main Street,Hyannis,MA 02601
Office: 508-8624038 Fax: 508-790-6230
TO: Robert Smith,Town Attorney
Ruth Weil,Asst.Town Attorney
FROM: Peter F.DiMatteo,Building Commissioner
.DATE: February 7,2002
SUBJECT: TRANSCAPE,INC.,1284 MAIN ST.,OSTERVILLE(119-008)
Since the first hearing at Site Plan Review in late November,the committee has been questioning the size of the
subject project for the purpose of determining compliance to Town Zoning Ordinances and Cape Cod Commission
rules and regulations. Repeatedly,Ms.Arlene Wilson or the representative/consultant for the applicant,was asked
for drawings indicating the true size and square footage and cross sections of the buildings in order to verify building
sizes.
Over the course of two months,numerous meetings,multiple submissions,multiple requests for drawings stamped
and signed by a registered architect or engineer,Ms.Wilson finally submitted some drawings that were stamped.
Staff brought to my attention that many of the stamps appeared to have been transferred from other plans(as in cut
and paste)and were not affixed to original drawings prepared by engineer Bernard John Young.
As I drove in to the office I phoned,in order,to ask the engineer some specific questions. I asked Mr.Young if he
had stamped and/or signed the plans Ms.Wilson submitted. He stated that he had not. I asked if he had supervised
the preparation of the plans. He said"No".
After arriving at the office,Mr. Young reiterated the above answers and stated his role in the preliminary.aspects of
the project,not the current modifications. Stating that he wished'to consult with an attorney regarding his options,
we stated.that we were not blaming him of any wrongdoing.
One half hour later at Site Plan Review,as chairman,I opened the meeting and.asked Ms.Wilson the following
questions:
1.)Were the calculations based on the Cape Cod Commission's definition of gross square footage?
2.)Who prepared these drawings?
3.)Were these drawings prepared by you under the supervision of,an engineer?
4.)Did the engineer verify these drawings and calculations?
oFt�r�
Town of Barnstable
Regulatory Services
swFwsrnsLE Thomas F.Geiler,Director
MASS.
1639• ,0� Building Division
rFOMp�a Peter F.DiMatteo. Building Commissioner
200 Main Street,Hyannis,MA 02601
Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230
TO: Robert Smith,Town Attorney
Ruth Weil,Asst.Town Attorney
FROM: Peter F. DiMatteo,Building Commissioner
DATE: February 7,2002
SUBJECT: TRANSCAPE,INC., 1284 MAIN ST.,OSTERVILLE(119-008)
Since the first hearing at Site Plan Review in late November,the committee has been questioning the size of the
subject project for the purpose of determining compliance to Town Zoning Ordinances and Cape Cod Commission
rules and regulations. Repeatedly,Ms.Arlene Wilson or the representative/consultant for the applicant,was asked
for drawings indicating the true size and square footage and cross sections of the buildings in order to verify building
sizes.
Over the course of two months,numerous meetings,multiple submissions,multiple requests for drawings stamped
and signed by a registered architect or engineer,Ms.Wilson finally submitted some drawings that were stamped.
Staff brought to my attention that many of the stamps appeared to have been transferred from other plans(as in cut
and paste)and were not affixed to original drawings prepared by engineer Bernard John Young.
As I drove in to the office,I phoned in order to ask the engineer some specific questions. I asked Mr.Young if he
had stamped and/or signed the plans Ms. Wilson submitted. He stated no. I asked if he had supervised the
preparation of the plans. He said"No".
After arriving at the office,Mr. Young reiterated the above answers and stated his role in the preliminary aspects of
the project,not the current modifications. Stating that he wished to consult with an attorney regarding his options,
we stated that we were not blaming him of any wrongdoing.
One half hour later at Site Plan Review, as chairman,I opened the meeting and asked Ms. Wilson the following
questions:
1.)Were the calculations based on the Cape Cod Commission's definition of gross square footage?
2.)Who prepared these drawings?
3.)Were these drawings prepared by you under the supervision of an engineer?
4.)Did the engineer verify these drawings and calculations?
Town of Barnstable
ti
Planning Division
r r
r r .
` BMWSTABLE, 200 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601
MASSv� 1 . � Tel: (508)862-4687 Fax: (508)862-4725
AtFp��A
Memo.
To: Robert Smith,Town Attorney
Ruth Weil,Assistant Town Attorney
From: Douglas Bill,Associate Planner,4'/I
CC: Robin Giangregorio, Pete(DiMatteo,Art Traczyk
Date: 2/5/2002
Re: Trans-Cape, Inc., 1284 Main Street„Osterville, MA(119/008)
On Wednesday January 30, 2002, in my capacity as the planning representative to the Site Plan
Review committee, I received a Site Plan distributed by Ms. Robin Giangregorio. The plan dated
01/12/2002 was delivered in response to the committee's request at the previous meeting(01/31/2002).
The information was to include accurate area calculations on the plan and that they be certified by a
registered engineer.
Upon review of the plans submitted by Ms. Arlene Wilson of A.M.. Wilson Associates, Inc., it was
determined that the Engineer's stamp and signature appeared to be cut and pasted on the plan
submitted. Due to Jackie Etsten, my immediate supervisor, being on vacation, I showed the plan to Art
Traczyk,the principal planner.
A conference with Art, Robin and myself ensued whereby it was determined that the stamps and
signatures had indeed been cut and pasted to these plans and they did not appear to be original
certifications. As a result, Art called Bernard John Young, the Professional Engineer with expertise in
marine architecture, and whose stamp and signature was affixed to the plan. There was discussion
with Mr. Young, but Robin and I only heard Art's conversation. The call to Mr.Young was to determine
whether he had stamped and signed this set of plans as his work or work completed under his .
supervision and on the date noted on the plan. Preliminary information from Mr. Young as relayed
through Art indicated he had not done the work. He was asked if he would review the plan and that we
were to hear the plan at 9:00 am the next day. He indicated that he would attempt to come before the
meeting to look at the plan.
On the following day, Mr. Young appeared at 200 Main Street and attended a meeting with Art, Robin
and myself prior to Site Plan Review. Mr. Young indicated that he does not certify"as built' drawings
and that a site verification is usually completed by a land surveyor. He also indicated that he did not
affix his stamp or signature to these plans dated 01/12/2002. When he affixes his stamp to plans he
usually places the stamp in.an open area or in a box for that purpose on .the plan. He had no
knowledge of.the area calculations noted on the.plan. The Building Commissioner, at this point, was
also conversing with the.engineer via cell phone. On several occasions, Mr.Young stated emphatically
to the Building Commissioner that he had not stamped or signed the plans. He indicated that he did do
initial design work on the proposed site plan for Trans-Cape, Inc. At this point the Building
Commissioner arrived at the meeting room. Mr.Young indicated that it appeared to be a very poor"cut
and paste" of the stamp/signature. He also suggested that the stamp could have been from an old or
dead file that was not being advanced. Mr.Young was then asked if he would appear at the Site Plan
1 of 2
i
I
meeting, but he declined and stated that he might wish to see his attorney first. He remained at 200
Main Street to watch the Site Plan Review meeting on television while we went to the meeting lbcated in
the main town hall at 367 Main Street. `
The Building Commissioner began the meeting by asking.Ms. Wilson a series of questions relative to
the plans, areas and certifications identified on the plans.
Noting the substantial undeclared area identified at the previous meeting of December 13, 2001,. 1
questioned.Ms. Wilson about the area calculations presented on the plan. I indicated that I had arrived
at different figures than those she noted on the plan. My calculations indicated the project was over
10,000 sq. ft., which would necessitate a mandatory referral to the Cape Cod Commission. I indicated
that information was still missing regarding certain spaces, i.e. attic spaces. I also asked if the
calculations were based on the Cape Cod Commission's definition of Gross Floor area.
2of2
Town of Barnstable
Planning Division
Memorandum
Date: Febuary 05, 2001
To: Robert Smith, Town Attorney
R th Well,Assistant Town Attorney.
Art Tracz k, Principal Planner
File letters-2002-M-smith-0205.doc
Subject: Follow-up from January 30, 2001 Memorandum on Transcape, 1284 Main St.,
Osterville (R118-008),
On January 31, 2002, at approximately 8:00 AM, Mr. Bernard John Young stopped in at the
offices of 200 Main Street. I arrived at the meeting were Douglas Bill and Robin Giangregorio
were discussing the situation of the copied seal with Mr. Young. Mr. Young confirmed it was
indeed a copied seal pasted onto the drawings. He stated that he did not affix his seal to the
drawings nor authorized it to be affixed to them. He reaffirmed that he had no knowledge of
this set of drawings nor did he participate in their creation beyond.the initial plans proposing a
development of some 7,800+/-sq.ft. We discussed were the seal may have come from and he
suggested that drawings from a previous project that did not move forward may be the source
of the seal.
The Building Commissioner, Peter DiMatteo, phoned Robin midway into the meeting and
asked several question of Mr. Young. Mr. Young reiterated that he did not affix the seal to the
drawings and did not know who did.
I assured Mr. Young that our intensions were to prevent any professional seal from be misused
and suggested that the concerns of the Town and his interests were mutual. He also made
reference to his need to discuss this with an attorney. I informed him that the Town
Attorney, Robert Smith is aware of the situation. It appeared that Mr. Young knows Mr.
Smith. The subject of Ms. Wilson's previous actions with regards to a Conservation Order of
Conditions arose but we did not go into the subject in any detail. I suggested that he might
want to discuss this issue of misuse of his seal with Mr. Smith directly.
The sequence of plans presented was discussed and together we reviewed the drawings that
were presented to verify what he did for Ms. Wilson. He affirmed that the earlier approved
drawings, prior to the start of construction, were his certified set. The last drawings submitted
with a cover sheet last revised 1/12/02 are not his. He stated that he did not assemble the table
of square footages and that this set of drawings as representative of"as-is drawings"' are not
1 "as-is drawings"refers•to a set of drawings that accurately shows what was built and were it is on the ground. It
would be done with an in the field instrument survey noting setbacks,distance between structures,floor elevations and
exterior dimensions of the buildings as well as gross floor areas.
r
what he would do as it is best completed by a land surveyor. His expertise as a Marine
Architect is in the design work prior to construction.
At some point during the meeting, Mr. DiMatteo entered the room. He asked Mr. Young if
he would be willing to sign an affidavit that he did not affix the seal to the drawings. Mr.
Young responded that he would prefer to seek legal advice before committing to that. We all
discussed the upcoming Site Plan Review session in terms of how to approach it. It was agreed
upon that we would go forward without identifying to Ms. Wilson what we know. Mr.
Young did not want to be a part of that meeting.
I invited Mr. Young to stay in the lunchroom and watch the meeting on the television. To
my knowledge he did (as communicated back to me by others). Others apparently also
watched the session and noted that Mr. Young was upset by some of the statements made by
Ms. Wilson claming that he had supervised and certified the figures.
I sat in on the first part of the Site Plan meeting of that day, catching only the first two
questions asked of Ms. Wilson by the Building Commissioner. I left the room when Assistant
Town Attorney, Ruth Well called me on my cell phone. I brought Ms. Well up-to date on
what occurred in the morning meeting with Mr. Young. I returned for the very last part of
the site plan review session with Ms. Wilson. .
c:Douglas Bill
Robin Giangregorio
Peter DiMatteo
I
i
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
Site Plan Review Meeting of April 13, 2000
2nd Floor Hearing Room
Barnstable Town Hall
367 Main Street, Hyannis
Present: Ralph Crossen,Building Commissioner, Doug Bill, Associate
Planner,Thomas McKean, Director of Health, FPO Martin MaNNeely,
Steve Pisch,Engineer, Robin Giangregorio, SPR Coordinator. Also in
attendance were Pete Sullivan, Arlene Wilson, Attorney Peter Freeman,
Attorney Pat Butler, Greg Bowen, Vern Coleman,Ed Fuller, Roger
Sciliano, Toma Stamenkovic, John Fellino
This meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM and adjourned at 11:50 AM.
SPR 052-2000 Trans-Cape,Inc.,Main Street, Osterville, R119-008 & 055
Arlene Wilson appeared before the panel seeking approval to construct two buildings on
this site with a maximum of 5 tenants in various combinations of office and garage space.
No vehicle maintenance is proposed to occur on site.
FPO McNeely advised the applicant to provide a 30' radius in,order to accommodate
emergency apparatus. The applicant indicated agreement. It was also requested that the
tenants be identified and tracked in order to be cognizant of any potentially hazardous
materials that may be used or otherwise stored on this site by a future tenant. Ms. Wilson
responded that the applicant, Silvia& Silvia intends to maintain an office on site and
would therefore be available to monitor the daily activities.
Planning asked the applicant to explain the proposed grading and retaining walls. Ms.
Wilson indicated that a structural engineer form an outside firm will design the wall
should it be necessary. They have, she stated, recently received permission to regrade a
portion of an abutting parcel which significantly impact the applicant's property.* This
work will "take the curse off' the project, she declared. Although this site is divided into
two lots, it is being developed as one and any future conveyance shall occur as a single
unit.
Upon questioning by Mr. Bill, Ms. Wilson revealed that the north east area shall utilize
slab on grade with a block or concrete wall. This shall be impermeable. Regarding the
capture of run off and top soil in the drain basin,Ms. Wilson explained that a filter fabric
1
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
shall be installed allowing the soil to be scooped out in the event that severe weather
condition dictate the need.
It was also noted that substantial clearing and grading are proposed. Ms. Wilson
adamantly exclaimed that although they "just make it, they do make it," a direct reference
to the mandated ratio of 30% of the site remaining in a natural state. Discussion also
included the landscaping proposal which commented on shade trees, grasses and mulch.
Engineering reiterated the concern issued by the Fire Department, requiring a 30' radius
in the entrance. At this time , the applicant was also advised to install granite edging (just
on town side of property). Steve Pisch recommended that the parking lot should be
bermed in order to protect the edge of the pavement.
Subsequently parking dimensions were discussed. The applicant has proposed 18' stalls
with a 2' overhang. This would normally be acceptable but the overhang interferes with
the walkway. Ms. Wilson agreed to move the walk over by two feet in order to achieve
compliance.
Mr. Pisch requested that the applicant submit additional detail relative to the drainage
system including a cross section. Ms. Wilson was advised to provide detail on the catch
basins, leeching pit and trench.
Following this discussion,Engineering commented on the existence of a sluice from
Main Street to this property. Specifically, Mr. Pisch noted the absence of an easement on
record.
Ms. Wilson was asked to explain the inclusion of a French drain (north building). She
advised the panel that this is an extra preventative measure. After additional
conversation, Ms. Wilson was required to provide the following information on a revised
plan: roof liters, more detail on grading and pavement. It was noted for the record that
the final plan should be stamped by the proper authority.
Health questioned the applicant regarding the labeling of warehouse space on this plan.
Is this labeling with the intent to deceive the panel and circumvent the 330 rule? Flow
generated by typical warehouse space is calculated at a much less stringent rate, therefore
the panel would have no valid reason to deny the proposal as submitted. Ms. Wilson
reiterated that the proposed uses are expected to be for tradesmen who perform their
services off site. The warehouse calculation is reasonable due to the lack of staffing and
service at this location. Some additional discussion ensued and Mr. McKean and Ms.
Wilson explored the possibility of incorporating restrictive language into a binding
agreement or recording it as a condition on the deed. Subsequent questioning by the
Commissioner revealed that the 330 regulation is satisfied for this proposal only if the
calculations are based on the lower use classification of storage & warehouse space.
I
2
i
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
The Commissioner requested that detail be submitted on the proposed structure of a
retention wall should it ultimately be deemed necessary. In addition, the Commissioner
questioned the applicant regarding the provision of rear doors to the garage bays. None
are proposed. What types of vehicles will be stored here? the Commissioner inquired.
Typical tradesmen trucks, Ms. Wilson replied. No back hoes or excavation equipment?
the Commissioner asked. No, Ms. Wilson replied. At this time, she offered to have
Silvia& Silvia prohibit this type of equipment on site. Are there any floor drains? the
Commissioner wanted to know. None, she replied.
The Building Commissioner charged the applicant with working out the elimination of
run off with Engineering. Steve Pisch suggested that the town may do some
improvements and perhaps the easement issue could be rectified to the mutual satisfaction
of both parties. Ms. Wilson indicated that she be believed something could be worked
out.
Mr. Crossen noted that the proposed location of the septic is beneath the driveway. He
also expressed concern over feasibility of the garage doors as proposed. The applicant
acknowledged the concern and promised to review.
Steve Pisch interjected that that the dimension for the Main Street entrance is noted to be
22'. He advised Ms. Wilson that the town standard mandates a width of 24'.
Conclusion: Continued. The applicant shall meet with Engineering regarding the
easement issue as well as drainage &run off prior to returning to SPR.
*Note: On 412412000 Abutter David Fraser contacted the SPR Coordinator to advise that
no agreement has been reached regarding the off site grading. Discussion is in abeyance
pending his review of a revised plan. He will confirm in writing or in person with the
SPR Coordinator at such time an agreement is reached.
SPR 47-2000 Albert Soule, 651 Main Street, West Barnstable (R156-057)
Attorney Peter Freeman, representing Mr. & Mrs. Albert Soule, appeared before the
panel seeking to establish a five guest room Bed and Breakfast. Currently, this site
includes nine parking spaces, a horseshoe drive and a small studio shed. Attorney
Freeman also indicated that the applicants are about to apply to the Old King's Highway
for the approval of the proposal by that authority.
Planning commented that the proposed non-conforming use appears to be 3 guest rooms
provided by special permit. Mr. Bill indicated that the applicant appears to meet the
landscaping requirement but asked that a plan be submitted for review.
At this time he also requested that the location of the catch basins be designated.
Discussion ensued regarding a variance for the separation of septic and well areas.
3
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
It was determined that the close proximity.of the flood zone does not effect this project.
Tom McKean commented that although the septic work is within 100' of the wetlands,
the work is limited to replacing sand with clean sand.
The Commissioner sought clarification on the number of bedrooms. The response
indicated that there are 5 proposed guest rooms and two bedrooms for use by the
owner/applicant. The petitioner seeks to amend the special permit to include two more
bedrooms for a total of 5 guest rooms (whereas it currently reads three).
Subsequently, the driveway was discussed. It was revealed that a paved overhang
annexed to a portion of the horseshoe shaped driveway is gravel and is proposed to
remain as such. The applicant was advised to delineate the parking stalls with landscape
timbers or some other acceptable method.
Health inquired about the method of refuse disposal and was informed that the applicant
utilizes the storage shed for this purpose. Discussion regarding the calculation rate of the
septic system ensued. The Commissioner reminded Mr. McKean that this issue falls
solely under the jurisdiction of the Board of Health. Mr. McKean continued, inquiring
about storage tanks. There is one oil tank, inside the basement on a brick.floor but the
applicant disclosed that their intention is to ultimately convert the heating system to gas
heat.
The Commissioner asked about signage. They will utilize the existing sign post and
obtain approval with all proper authorities including OKH. At this time, the
Commissioner,also advised the applicant to•provide a plan with delineated parking.
Conclusion: Continued pending a revised plan. This application shall ultimately be
referred to the ZBA for amendment to a special permit.
SPR 52-2000 Sandab Communication/WQRC,737 W. Main St.,Hy (249-159)
Attorney Pat Butler appeared before the committee seeking approval to replace a pre-
existing, non-conforming 70' tower situated on a concrete base. Routine maintenance
indicated that one guide wire had broken. Attorney Butler argued that the replacement of
the unit is recommended due to the age of the structure and is allowed under 4-8.2. In
addition, the panel was advised that this radio station is the sole responsible agent for
emergency broadcasting in this area.
I
Planning sought confirmation that this is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure of
approximately 25 years. Documentation was requested. The applicant was asked if there
were any sub leases on this tower. The reply indicated that the only uses are relative to
this station. The Commissioner advised the applicant that additional uses would need to
4
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
appear before Site Plan Review for approval. An analysis of relevant documentation will
determine the exact extent of the uses allowed.
The Building Commissioner asked about any necessary equipment at the base of the unit.
The reply indicated that no equipment is located at the base. The Commissioner inquired
if this area fenced and on what type of surface. It was ievealed that there is a chain link
fence surrounding a paved pad. There are bollards at each corner.
Conclusion: Continued. The applicant shall provide documentation of pre-existing,
non-conforming status. Additional uses must appear before SPR. A revised plan
designating the fence, pad, bollards and opening shall be submitted for review.
SPR 053-2000 Festival Mall, 1070 Route 132,Hyannis (295-019-XO1 & X02)
Attorney Pat Butler appeared before the panel seeking approval to demolish a section of
an existing building on this site and reconstruct, attaching to the cornerstone building.
Considerable landscaping improvements and a reduction of parking are proposed.
Planning inquired about the nature and scope of the work and whether or not it may
trigger the new landscaping requirement. The Building Commissioner explained that the
reduction of parking does not effect the landscaping requirement only the addition of
spaces would trigger compliance with this ordinance.
Health commented that the outside refuse was not designated on this plan. Mr. Fuller
indicated that the dumpster may be installed by the loading the dock. It will be screened
from view and located at least 10' from the property line. The applicant shall confer with
the fire department prior to locating in order to maintain the proper parameters.
Engineering offered no commentary.
The Building Commissioner focused on the pervious ratio and the new green space
proposed by the applicant. With the reduction of parking and the addition of planters and
a grassy triangular patch of land, the new anchor hopes to achieve an improvement in the
ratio of pervious space and the aesthetic appearance. The intention is to move away from
the severe uninviting appearance of the store front as currently designed.
Upon questioning, the applicant informed the panel that this proposal improves the site
and to the best of their knowledge, there is no special permit or variance in effect. The
site is tied into the town sewer.
The new tenant shall be HOME GOODS, a retail furnishings and design store.
The run off from the new roof surface shall be directed into a supplementary catch basin.
Engineering was satisfied with this explanation.
5
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
Conclusion: Approved with the following condition:
The applicant shall designate the location of the dumpster on a plan. The dumpster shall
be 10'from the property line, on an impervious surface and screened from view.
Informal- Festival Mall
At this time the applicant asked the panel to entertain an informal request. In a related
matter, the applicant sought advice regarding additional signage on the new Hadaway
entrance, flags and general parking lot improvements.
Planning commented on lighting provisions and island improvements. Mr. Bill suggested
redesigning the interior parking area.
Engineering advised that the 4 way stop by B1ockBuster Video and the exit path to the
light on Route 132 should be redesigned, also.
Conclusion: The applicant shall devise a proposal for review at a future date.
SPR 50-2000 Siciliano, 53 Maple Ave., Hyannis (307-086)
Mr. Roger Siciliano appeared before Site Plan seeking to legitimize as a Bed &Bath for 6
lodgers. The.second floor is proposed to have 3 bedrooms and a private bath. All work
shall be interior only. This site is connected to town sewer.
Planning commented that this conditional use requires a special permit. Mr. Bill asked
the applicant to submit a parking diagram and landscaping plan. He advised Mr.
Siciliano that the ZBA would required professional renderings.
Health commented that a certified letter was sent in 1998,to the applicant ordering the
removal of an underground'storage tank. Mr. McKean questioned the applicant regarding
the status of this mandate. Mr. Siciliano responded that he is attempting to secure a
home improvement loan in order to comply. He indicated that he has had financial
i difficulties. Mr. McKean reminded the applicant that failure to comply may result in a
court complaint. This will be a priority, Mr. Siciliano promised.
Regarding trash disposal, the applicant advised that 5 barrels are provided at the rear of
the garage and are not visible to the neighbors.
6
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
The Building Commissioner advised the applicant to return with a stamped plan
indicating the parking and the underground tank.
Conclusion: Continued pending revisions. Application-to be referred to the ZBA.
SPR 51-2000 Oyster Harbors Club Assoc., 170 Grand Island Dr., (053-012-001)
Mr. Scott Crosby petitioned the panel for approval to construct an unfinished storage shed
for the purpose of storing deck furniture. This site consists of 9 1/2 acres, has a Title 5
septic system, and a dumpster screened from view.
The Fire Department required the applicant to extend the sprinkler system into the
proposed shed area.
Planning, Engineering and Health offered no comment at this time.
The Building Commissioner questioned the applicant regarding the stairway. It appeared
to be a full stairway down into the basement. The Commissioner expressed concern
regarding the structural plan. At this time, it was determined that this site was previously
granted a special permit for a patio.
Conclusion: Continued pending revised plan. This application shall be referred to ZBA.
SPR 49-2000 Dan McAdams, 14 Main St.,Hyannis (342-029)
Dan McAdams appeared before the panel seeking approval to move the Captain Allen
Brown house from 21 Main Street to Mr. McAdam's site at 14 Main. This building is
proposed to be used as a bunk house for extended family members and visitors.
Eventually, the property shall be renovated and sold as a bed &breakfast establishment.
This is a long term plan (at least 5 years away).
Planning asked the applicant to review the buildings on site by use.
• Building A Single family
• Building B Three family
• Building C Conference center and office
• Building D Bunk house
i
There will ultimately be approximately 40 people on this site.
Planning advised Mr. McAdams to show all required parking and set backs. He also
advised the applicant to consult with Engineering in order to address drainage issues.
7
I
SPR Meeting Notes
04/13/2000
Engineering advised the panel that the Captain Allen Brown house is incorporated in an
earlier approval issued to the Cape Cod Cardiovascular. In fact, Mr. Pisch noted, this
appeared to be a major selling point of the project.
As a result of questioning by Tom McKean, the panel was informed that this building is
intended to be connected to the town sewer system. Mr. McAdams reiterated his desire to
restore this building for possible resale as a bed and breakfast business as a long range
plan.
Conclusion: Continued pending the following:
A revised detailed plan to be submitted by the applicant.(Applicant submitted GIS map
for review as a precursor.)
Site plan approval of the removal of the Capt. Allen Brown from the Cape Cod
Cardiovascular site located across the street(previously approved under SPR 070-99)*.
*Note: A letter was sent to Dr. Lawrence McAuliffe on 4/21/2000 informing him that the
proposed relocation of the Capt. Allen Brown house requires additional site plan
approval. He was advised that both projects are being held in abeyance pending the
resolution of this issue.
SPR Informal 04-2000 Pain D'Avignon, 192 Airport Road, Hyannis (312-044)
John Fellino, representing the bakery Pain D'Avignon appeared before the panel in order
to discuss a proposed addition to the bakery. A brief history of the site was given
including the facts that the building is owned by Davenport and was built in 1972 for Bay
State Piping. In 1994, the bakery began operation at this site. Currently, they seek to
construct a small addition for the purposes of storing baked goods. No equipment is
proposed to be installed.
Doug Bill excused himself from the panel's review process commenting that a potential
conflict of interest due to his previous involvement with the original project.
Engineering commented that this addition may effect the parking calculation, grading and
drainage. He suggested that the applicant provide a plan noting the existing and proposed
contours, limit of pavement, retention of run-off on site and drainage calculations.
Health advised the applicant to designate the dumpster location noting the screening
device and the location of the in-ground grease trap.
Conclusion: The applicant shall submit a professional rendering for review.
8
•r
SPR Meeting Notes
04/27/2000
Site Plan Review Meeting of April 27, 2000
2nd Floor Hearing Room
Barnstable Town Hall
367 Main Street,Hyannis
Present: Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner, Art Traczyk, Principal
Planner, Thomas McKean, Director of Health, Steve Pisch, Engineer, FPO
Martin MacNeely,Robin Giangregorio, SPR Coordinator. Also in
attendance were Peter Sullivan, Attorney Peter Freeman, Albert Soule,
Dan Ojala, Arlene Wilson
This meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM and adjourned at 11:00 AM.
SPR 042-99 Dunhill Development, 804 Main St., Osterville (117-082 & 176)
Peter Sullivan appeared before the panel seeking approval for modifications made to a
previously approved plan. The revisions include a alteration in the footprint of the
building and sliding the building location to the rear of the lot.
Health requested a comparison of total square footage as noted on both plans. The plan
presented on this date involves the demolition of the existing gas station and
reconstruction for use as a country store and filling station. There is a slight increase in
square footage. The parking provisions were slightly altered and re-arrowed. The
applicant noted that the septic system is.located outside the zone of contribution.
The Fire Department sought clarification concerning the fire lanes.
Planning inquired about an apparent extension to the pump station. Mr. Sullivan was
unable to explain this but promised to advise at a later date.
Planning noted that parking spaces numbered 52, 53 & 54 infringe upon their public right
of way.
Engineering commented that a parking area previously paved is proposed to be graveled
now. Mr. Pisch inquired about the method of delineation of parking stalls on gravel. It
was noted that the paved portion shall be delineated.
The applicant was asked about the provision of granite curbing who responded that
granite would be used. Mr. Pisch also requested an explanation on the expansion of the
pumping station.
1
SPR Meeting Notes
04/27/2000
At this time,Engineering advised the applicant that the scope of the project had changed.
This plan no longer incorporates pre-existing conditions. The entire site is now subject
to intense scrutiny and additional requirements.
Mr. Pisch advised that the parking stalls in the front are too tight. He recommended
adjusting the pump area and pulling in those three parking spaces. Discussion ensued
regarding the feasibility of various solutions, none of which appeared to be totally
satisfactory. Mr. Pisch remarked that if the pumps remained unchanged, the plan.would
have to be accepted as is.
The Building Commissioner asked the applicant if those three parking stalls were'
necessary. Mr. Sullivan remarked that "parking drives every site".
Steve Pisch requested that the revisions reflect rounded corners on the entrance and the
grading behind the wall. It was agreed that striping and signage indicating public status
shall be provided.
The Fire Department interjected that the dumspter must be located 10' from the building.
Planning received confirmation that oil storage would no longer occur on this site.
Conclusion: Continued. The applicant was advised by the Building Commissioner to
confer with the Engineering Department regarding improvements to the site. A revised
plan incorporating such improvements shall be submitted at a later date for review.
SPR 48-2000 Trans-Cape,Main Street, Osterville, (11119-008 & 055)
This application was first presented on 4/13/2000. Arlene Wilson reviewed the revisions
pointing out that these modifications result from conferring with the Engineering
Department: The circulation width.was increased to 24', added a second spillway,
moved the side walk over so as to not infringe upon parking overhang, addressed garage
door concern issued previously, now is more manageable, and provided drywell for roof
drainage.
Tom McKean advised that his concern regarding the flow calculation formula had been
satisfactorily addressed.
The Planning and Fire Department had no comments at this time.
Conservation remarked on the proximity of the wetlands across the street and remanded
the applicant to provide verification that all work would be outside the 100' arc. Arlene
Wilson responded that although the work is close to the line, it is actually at the 103' or
104' mark.
2
SPR Meeting Notes
04/27/2000
Engineering questioned the applicant regarding the slope. After some brief discussion,
the applicant informed the panel that the slope was proposed to be planted with an
erosion control mix of wild flowers and grasses indigenous to New England. This is
noted on the plan as "Meadow Mix" and is purported to germinate in ten days.
After some questioning regarding roof liters and the intention to tie them into the
drainage system, the applicant was advised that the final building design has not yet been
completed. It was agreed that this would be addressed as a condition of approval.
Health Department inquired about the uses in the garage reiterating his concern that.an
environmentally insensitive use may be installed in one or more units exposing the site to
hazardous materials and spills. Ms. Wilson reminded that panel that the applicant is well
aware of this concern and intends to remain on site. They shall monitor the tenants and
limit types of businesses on site in order to maintain the integrity of the property.
The Building Commissioner asked about the first parking space, and expressed concern
about backing out from this space. The Commissioner consulted with Steve Pisch for an
opinion on whether or not the area is too small and if it would work. Steve.Pisch
responded that he didn't think either side works well.
Discussion ensued regarding the site grading and the available options. It was determined
that the first option was a wing wall for the parking. Designed with footings at natural
grade and an interior slab, this structure can stand alone or act to hold back fill.
The alternative option is grading. The applicant seeks to reach an agreement with the
abutter.
Planning inquired about the provision of a basement. The applicant responded that that
the Southwest office building will have a small basement. This is dead storage space.
All other locations are slab construction only.
Conclusion: Approved with the following conditions:
All roof run off to be retained on site.
Applicant shall submit grading easement for approval by Town Attorney.
No hazardous materials or uses shall be stored or conducted on this site.
3
SPR Meeting Notes
04/27/2000
SPR 60-2000 Quarterdeck Lounge, 247 Iyannough Rd., Hyannis (R328-206)
Errol Thompson appeared before the panel seeking approval to secure a patio with
fencing. The purpose of this request is to accommodate smoking patrons. He propose no
seating or service,just a drink rail in order that customers may enjoy their beverages
while they smoke outside. This proposal is a direct result of the new no smoking
ordinance.
Health Department recommended approving this proposal but advised that the stockade
fencing would be considered a wall. Walls are disallowed by the Board of Health. After
some discussion, the applicant offered to remove every other slat to allow for ventilation.
This shall appease the Board of Health.
Planning, Conservation and Engineering offered no comments.
The Building Commissioner inquired about the provision of curb stops placed in front of
the fence. The applicant indicated that curb stops are already in place. The fence will
join the building on two sides. Tom McKean interjected that the applicant may desire to
provide a canopy for inclement weather. -This is acceptable to the Board of Health, he
stated.
Conclusion: Approved with the following conditions:
The applicant shall remove every other slat from the fence.
The applicant shall obtain approval from the Licensing authority for the consumption of
alcohol on the outdoor patio.
SPR 47-2000 Albert Soule, 651 Mains St., W.Barnstable (R156-057)
Attorney Peter Freeman addressed the panel on behalf of Albert Soule. This application
was originally heard on 4/13/2000. On this date, the applicant seeks approval of a revised
plan. Attorney Freeman claimed that comments received at the previous hearing have
been addressed including the provision of a stamped set of plans, the indication of the
parking dimensions and the relocation of the leeching field.
Conservation commented that the new septic shall require Conservation review. The
work is well within the 100' arc. A site visit was useless as the wetlands were not
flagged as required. Discussion ensued and Mr. Gatewood questioned the applicant
regarding the grading beyond the wetlands. Conservation expressed a desire to save the
36"Maple tree. He also sought clarification on the potential effect of the gra&altering
on the septic system. Attorney Freeman informed the panel that the engineer retained by
i
4
SPR Meeting Notes
04/27/2000
the applicant, Mr. Mason, was expected to appear but is obviously not present to respond.
(Mr. Mason did not attend either hearing). Mr. Gatewood reiterated that the line needs to
be defined and verified.
Health indicated they have no concerns (so long as the plans identifying the wetlands are
correct).
Planning indicated that a special permit is recorded allowing 3 guest rooms and a
subsequent modification was granted allowing for a gift shop use and expansion. The
history also includes a use variance.
I
Upon questioning, the applicant explained that the studio shall be reserved for family use.
There are no lav facilities only bedroom furnishings. The third level of the house is attic
storage and is proposed to remain as such.
Rob Gatewood sought confirmation that the studio is not tied into the septic system.
The Building Commissioner interjected that a variance may be required just for the
studio. The applicant assured the panel that this room is reserved for family members and
personal friends as there are no sanitary facilities.
Engineering informed the panel that one catch basin is actually on town property.
Discussion surrounded the destination of the leeching (which is believed to be directed
across the street). At this time, the panel also spoke of easement requirements but did not
mandate additional investigation or work.
Engineering advised a"right-in only" on Route 6A and an "exit-only" on Maple Street.
Proper signage should be provided to direct patrons.
Conclusion: Approved with the following conditions:
Plan shall be reviewed and approved by Conservation.
Proper traffic signage shall be provided.
Catch basins shall be reviewed and approved by Engineering.
This application referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
SPR 39-2000 Cotuit Post Office, School Street, Cotuit, (11035-014)
Dan Ojala presented a brief proposal on behalf of the US Post Office (proposed long term
tenant) and the Cotuit Federated Church, property owner. This application had been
continued from 3/23/2000 and remanded for a revised plan. On this date, Mr. Ojala
identified the improvements in green space, the elimination of two parking stalls and the
relocation of one parking space to the rear of the site.
5
SPR Meeting Notes
04/27/2000
Health advised that all prior issues appeared to be addressed.
Planning also advised that the their issues appear to have been addressed.
Conservation requested that silt fencing be included during construction in addition to the
other protective measures typically used and indicated by the applicant.
Engineering advised adding directional signage (painted arrows for one-way).
The Building Commissioner sought confirmation that the federal government asserted
jurisdiction regarding this project. The applicant indicated that this was true and a brief
history was offered. The panel was informed that there was a public hearing in 1998
regarding this matter. In addition, the applicant advised that there were consultations
with Town Councilor members including, Richard Clark about this project.
Documentation substantiating federal assertion was required by the Building
Commissioner.
Subsequent discussion included curbing, handicap ramp, existing crosswalk, and a
handicap curb cut.
Conservation inquired as to the location of the temporary office during construction. The
applicant responded that they intend to install three trailers to use on a yet to be
determined site. Currently, they are discussing space in Cotuit by the former Friends
Market. The applicant was advised that this proposal would also be subject to Site Plan
Review.
Conclusion: Approved with the following conditions:
Appropriate signage shall be provided indicating one way (inside the two way entrance).
The applicant shall provide appropriate documentation confirming their assertion of
federal jurisdiction.
6
i
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
Site Plan Review Meeting of November 16, 2000
2nd Floor Hearing Room
Barnstable Town Hall
367 Main Street,Hyannis
Present: Robin Giangregorio, SPR Coordinator, Presiding,El Uleshoffer, Building
Commissioner,Doug Bill, Assistant Planner, Thomas McKean, Director
of Health, Dr. Dale Saad, Coastal Health Resources, Steve Pisch, Project
Engineer. Also in attendance Dan Sullivan,Engineer, Jamie McGrath,
Luiz Medeiros, Arlene Wilson, Cassidy Rowland, Kevin Boyar
This meeting was called to order at 9:05 AM and adjourned at 11:55 AM
SPR 163-00 Pine Harbor Wood,326 Yarmouth Rd., Hy R344-018 & 019
Dan Sullivan, representing Jamie McGrath owner of Pine Harbor Wood Products,.
appeared before the panel seeking approval for the construction of a new 2,976 square
foot retail facility. The site has frontage on both Yarmouth Road and Old Yarmouth
Road. It is an existing commercial site. The applicant is currently located in the adjacent
parcel.
The new building shall have a front porch. The existing gravel drive shall be one way.
This area shall be expanded to accommodate parking. Fourteen (14) seventy degree stalls,
nineteen (19') feet wide shall be provided. In addition, one handicap parking stall and.
ramp are proposed as well as paved aprons on both streets. Typical traffic control signs
are anticipated as well a dumpster with appropriate screening.
The septic is on the north side. A free standing sign and landscaping (between the
parking area and the building) are also proposed.
Health inquired about proposed office space. The applicant indicated that one full time
and two part time employees shall be one site. 576 square feet is dedicated office space.
The rear portion shall be retail, displays of outdoor wood products and furniture.
The applicant was requested to recalculate the designated flow. The site is .9 acre.
Subsequently, Mr. McKean asked about the usage and storage of toxic materials. The
applicant replied that no finishing or painting of products occurs on site. "We have
pressure treated products". The applicant informed the panel that a small can of wood
glue may be available on site for repairs.
Planning inquired about the office space. Eventually, it was clarified that the office area
is for administrative purposes for the retail operation; the display and retail area is
1
J
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
separate. It was determined.that the original calculations (as presented on the plan) are
accurate.
Mr. Bill questioned the applicant regarding lighting. The applicant advised that there is
an existing Com-Electric light that serves them well; no major lighting or spotlights are
anticipated at this time.
Landscaping was discussed next. The applicant indicated that they attempt to blend with
the layout of products leaving as many trees as possible for a natural look. The applicant
also reminded the panel that grass is difficult to maintain with the display of large
products. Mr. Bill asked the applicant what types of products are offered and displayed.
It was reported that swing sets, and sheds are typical of the products on display.
Lampposts will also be available. The applicant was asked about the number of sheds to
be displayed at one time. "We have five (5) or six (6) there now; likely to be no more
than six (6).
Mr. Bill subsequently asked the applicant to review the pervious/impervious ration. "How
much land area is pervious?" he asked. "Well short of 50%" the applicant responded.
Mr. Bill asked about on site drainage. After some brief discussion the applicant declared
that paved aprons are provided in order to contain gravel. "Was there a test pit?"Mr. Bill
asked. "Yes." "No ponding?" Mr. Bill inquired. "No." the applicant responded.
Engineering discussed the.drainage suggesting that applicant provide roof liters for
recharge or create a swale. He also noted that the run-off from the display sheds has not
been addressed. Subsequently, Mr. Pisch advised the applicant to install a berm along the
roadway, curb stops or railroad ties for the delineation of parking on gravel.
Deliveries were noted to occur once every two months from April through September.
Products are manufactured per order. No raw materials are stored on site.
The Building Commissioner explored the separation of office and retail space, noting a
proposed cathedral loft. This may be used for storage (as the facility is a one story
building).
The Commissioner advised the applicant that the handicapped parking stall is designated
on a gravel surface. The corresponding pathway must be stamp Crete or brick, he
directed.
Continuing, the Commissioner addressed outside storage. "These are structures (referring
to the sheds but excluding wagons and like items). "The sheds are subject to the relative
set backs," he advised. Focusing on the wood products, the Commissioner asked about
the disposal of wood by-products or"cut-offs". The applicant reiterated that this use is
"straight retail, no manufacturing is done on this site".
2
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
Conclusion: Approved with the following conditions:
The applicant shall provide roof liters piped to an underground leeching system.
All run off shall be retained on site(including display structures).
The applicant shall delineate parking stalls with curb stops or railroad ties.
Product displays shall not infringe.upon the 20'setback.
The handicap path shall consist of a firm surface (i.e. stamp Crete or brick).
SPR 166-00 Back Yard Buffet, 572 Main Street,Hy R308-278
Luiz Medeiros appeared before the panel seeking approval to install an indoor barbeque,
addition seating and new handicapped accessible lays. Currently, there are 26 seats, Mr.
Medeiros stated. (The floor plan submitted by the applicant and noted as "existing"
reflects 12 tables, 30 seats) The proposed plan reflects a seating capacity of 44.
Health advised the applicant to confirm that the actual number of seats corresponds to the
permit application. Dr. Saad inquired about outside seating. The applicant responded
that there is no service outside. The panel was advised that a variance was granted in
June 1999 for outside seating.
Dr. Saad advised the applicant to confer with the Health Department concerning the
grease trap and restroom facilities. (BOH regulations require four restrooms after 49
seats). The installation of a new grease trap was also discussed but not resolved. Dr.
Saad advised the applicant to confer with her during office hours regarding this matter.
Planning noted that"...based on the requirements for parking, we want to see the
(available) parking on site and where the off-site parking is." Mr. Bill advised the
applicant that the owner should have a site plan".
At this time, John Sweeney approached the podium and announced that he is the husband
of Margaret Sweeney, owner of the property. He reminded the panel "...this is Main St.
and several businesses have no parking". Planning inquired about on site parking
provisions. Mr. Sweeney explained that there is some on site parking. There are two
buildings on site and they both use Main Street addresses. "Several businesses have no
parking"Mr. Sweeney stated. "All we are suggesting", Mr. Bill explained, "is that you
identify a.number" (referring to the number of available on-site parking stalls).
Discussion ensued over the use of off site parking within 300' in the same zone and the
applicant's right to seek zoning relief. Finally, Planning advised the applicant of the right
to file for zoning relief.
The Building Commissioner, in response to a complaint by the both the applicant and Mr.
Sweeney, advised that this request is typical of all applicants. "If you present a proposal
that generates more parking, you must demonstrate that you have more parking. We need
to determine whether or not this (proposal) is feasible and refer you for the proper relief."
3
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
The Commissioner declared that the site has been altered without prior SPR approval. It
is not striped and there is no notation claiming that all run-off is retained on site as is
required, he noted.
"Right now you may or may not have adequate parking. This is an increase of 12 seats.
The owner should show all the parking provisions. You have a right to procure a private
agreement but you need to produce a copy".
Summarizing, the Commissioner succinctly declared that the real issue is whether or not
adequate parking is available for the expansion of this business.
Status: Continued pending receipt of engineered plan.
SPR 048-00 Trans Cape,Main Street, Osterville R119-008 & part of 055
Arlene Wilson appeared before the panel seeking to amend a site plan approved on April
22, 2000. A small increase in the square footage of office space and an equal reduction
proposed for the garage/bay facility. As a result of this proposed amendment the flow
calculations have changed
The brick walk pavers are set in sand. The 30% natural state requirement has been
maintained. The lights focus down and inward. There is no spillage on to the street.
Health inquired about tenants. The applicant anticipated that contractors would garage
their vehicles in their corresponding bays and maintain a small area for a desk and phone.
Most office work will be done early in the morning or upon return to the site at the end of
the day. No floor drains are proposed.
The Fire Department discussed the square footage of the southerly building. It was noted
that an attic stairway is depicted. The applicant was asked if this would result in the
utilization of additional space. The panel was informed that the stairs are intended for
maintenance of the heating and ventilation systems located in the attic space.
Planning noted that the sidewalk pavers would amend the pervious ratio. It was requested
that the new calculation be provided on a plan. Mr. Bill also expressed concern regarding
a "crown" on the driveway that may create a ponding effect. Ms. Wilson responded, "
This is not a crown...(the intention) is to swale it". Mr. Bill deferred to Engineering's
expertise regarding the water sheeting and the crown.
Subsequent conversation focused on the retaining wall. Mr. Bill voiced apprehension
about the aesthetic appearance of the proposed wall and its sheer size. The applicant
advised that attempts to grade off site were unsuccessful. Ms. Wilson shall submit
appropriate plans and structural analysis (done by another firm). Mr. Bill inquired about,
4
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
maintenance along the property line. The panel was informed that woody vine (i.e.
Boston Ivy)requires no maintenance. The vines will climb virtually anything including
rough surfaces and will fill in quickly.
The applicant was asked about the two lots shown on the plan as separate entities. After
some discussion addressing possible reasons, Ms. Wilson advised that the lots are under
an A&R plan. "The Assessors shall note it as a single plan when it becomes of record",
she explained.
Engineering asked if any other type wall had been evaluated Keystone and terrace walls
were mentioned as examples. Ms. Wilson replied that there was not enough room. She
explained that the proposed wall is similar to one the owner had installed at 812 Main
Street in Osterville (Dunhill Development). "The top of the wall will be graded", she
continued. Guardrails were suggested due to the steep slope of the 10' wall.
The Building Commissioner commented that there numerous sheets to each area of
review (i.e. landscaping, drainage, etc.). The original plan is voided. The review is
focused on the new plan.
Regarding the retaining wall, the Commissioner exclaimed that 16' is a very high wall
(referring to the front yard area). He also discussed that this wall could be defined as an
actual structure by the strictest interpretation and therefore subject to all corresponding
setbacks. It was noted that Barnstable never necessitated relief for retaining walls. It was
also noted that the Dunhill wall is located to the rear of the property not the front as is
proposed for this site. Mr. Uleshoffer declared that he is unwilling to change the
interpretation of this by-law citing historic practice.
Continuing, the applicant was asked about the "little back-out" areas; were they by design
or requirement he asked. This was to satisfy concern previously issued by Steve Pisch.
Conclusion: Approved with the following conditions:
The walkway shall consist of brick pavers.
The applicant shall re-plot the property to reflect a single lot.
A guardrail shall be installed along the southerly parking lot.
Provisions shall be made to channel the run-off along the top of the retaining wall.
All run-off shall be retained on site.
The retaining wall is subject to the confirmation of historic interpretation regarding its
status as a structure. If deemed to be a structure, the retaining wall would be subject to all
setbacks and infringement would require appropriate relief. The applicant shall obtain
zoning relief for the retaining wall if deemed applicable.
5
i
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
SPR 165-00 Four Points Embroidery,701 Main St.,Hyannis (R308-151)
Cassidy Rowland appeared before the panel seeking approval to construct a second floor
addition for office use and to enclose an existing porch for storage. Approval of this
proposal will result in an*expansion of the retail area.
Health inquired about the purpose of the second floor. "Is this just for employees?"
"Yes", the applicant responded. "Is the entire facility for uniforms and embroidery
business?" "Yes". "Any dumpster?" Health inquired. "The trash receptacle is located
inside"Ms. Rowland responded. Dr. Saad subsequently advised the applicant about the
current screening requirements.
Planning expressed curiosity regarding the use of the second floor in order to determine
proper parking calculations. The applicant informed the panel that the office is for her
own use dedicated to her uniform and embroidery business and the storage of
corresponding records. She has one part-time accountant that comes in once a month to
do her bookkeeping.
Planning performed a quick review of the parking calculations and commented, "...In any
case you are increasing your parking requirements". Ms. Rowland responded that she
was not sure how to generate more parking on Main Street and there is not a municipal
lot available. Planning inquired about her ability to lease space. Ms. Rowland
questioned this discussion. "You are proposing to expand" Mr. Bill declared. "Yes, for
storage"Ms. Rowland replied. "In any case"Mr. Bill explained, "You are increasing
your parking requirement. Under the by-law you are required to provide a certain amount
of parking per use". Some discussion ensued regarding a suggestion by Planning for the
applicant to lease a parking area. Mr. Bill continued inquiring about deliveries. Ms.
Rowland responded that trucks utilize Potter Ave.
On-site drainage was addressed. It was noted that there are two drywells on site and a
berm-along Potter Ave. Ultimately, Mr. Bill deferred to Engineering concerning the
drainage issues.
Mr. Bill inquired about the historic status of this building. The applicant was advised to
confer with Pat Anderson of Historic Preservation.
Engineering advised the applicant to submit an engineered site plan in order to properly
assess the drainage issues. More specific information is required, he noted.
"We can't approve this plan," the Building Commissioner advised. "You need to comply
with Engineering's requirements. The parking is also critical," he reiterated. "You have
7 parking stalls for what's existing; a second floor would require 3 more."
Conclusion: Continued pending receipt of a professional plan.
6
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
SPR 164-00 Hyannis Hangar Inc.,Barnstable Municipal Airport
Kevin Boyar appeared before the panel seeking approval for the construction of a T
hangar. The applicant advised the panel that Acting Airport Director, Frank Sanchez
enthusiastically supported this endeavor. This is a garage for airplanes, the applicant
noted.
Health inquired about the installation of floor drains in the proposed facility. None are
proposed; in fact no washing or mechanical work is intended. This facility shall be for
storage purposes only.
It was noted that a half bath is proposed. When asked about hooking up to public utilities
(instead of private septic and well water) the applicant advised that it is just not practical.
The applicant was advised that no calculations have been submitted and was subsequently
reminded that this proposal is subject to the 330 regulation. It should be noted on a plan.
When asked about a dumpster the applicant responded negatively.
Planning advised that it was difficult to identify the proposed site. Mr. Boyer helped to
clarify the location on a map.
"Is there a parking area"? The applicant responded that no additional parking is sought.
The municipal lot is available. Mr. Bill continued. Seven Cessnas at 150,gals, that's a
thousand gallons of fuel inside this structure. Discussion ensued regarding spill
containment and the like facilities. It was determined that the fueling stations are located
in another less sensitive area of airport property.
Engineering advised that the storm water run-off should be recharged to an underground
leeching facility. Regarding paving, grading should be shown. Open swales are desired
to catch the run-off and drainage calculations and a more detailed plan should be
provided.
Planning interrupted to ask if the applicant intended to connect to Hangar 2. The
response was negative.
Building advised that the Fire Department called to express concern regarding the size of
the building and the sprinkler requirement. Municipal exemption was discussed. It was
noted that this facility is just under 10,000 square feet. "There are engineered ways to
mitigate this like fire walls", the Commissioner advised. "This project is not exempt
from environmental or state law", the Commissioner declared. The panel was advised
that the applicant shall own the structure only. The land shall be leased from the airport.
Discussion ensued regarding the construction. The facility shall be a metal-frame
structure like a typical garage. The three principles shall occupy a bay each and rent out
the remaining four.
7
i
SPR Notes of 11/16/00
"This is not designed to be a terminal?" the Commissioner asked. "No" the applicant
responded. Terminal use would trigger additional parking concerns.
Eventually, the Commissioner remanded this application for additional information.
Conclusion: Continued pending receipt of a detailed plan (drainage detail)..
i
8
SPR Notes of 12/13/01
Site Plan Review Meeting of December 13, 2001
2nd Floor Hearing Room
Barnstable Town Hall
367 Main Street, Hyannis
Present: Peter DiMatteo, Building Commissioner, Doug Bill, Assistant Planner,
Tom McKean, Health Inspector, Bob Burgmann,Town Engineer, Harold Siegal,
Barnstable Fire, Martin McNeely, COM Fire and Robin Giangregorio, SPR Coordinator.
Also in attendance: Arlene Wilson
This meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM and adjourned at 11:50 AM
SPR 093-01 Transcape, 1284 Main St., Ost (R118-008)
Arlene Wilson appeared before the panel seeking approval to amend a previously
approved site plan. MS Wilson indicated that no alteration to the site occurred. The
owner has relocated the kitchen to the basement and added a bathroom in one building
triggering concern by the Building Division staff members. The on site parking remains
sufficient, Ms. Wilson claimed.
Regarding the undeclared attic space, Ms. Wilson informed the panel that 815 sf ft of
unfinished attic space would be considered habitable. At this time she relayed the
owner's intention to leave this area unfinished but in the event that Mr. Silvia desired to
utilize this area the project would still remain under the Cape Cod Commission threshold.
Health inquired about the impact of this additional area on the overall septic calculations.
The applicant responded that there is no impact. When asked about rubbish disposal, Ms.
Wilson replied that the provision remains unchanged from the original approval and
complies with the BOH regulation.
FPO Martin McNeely inquired about the attic area asking if this space was proposed for
storage. Ms. Wilson denied this. FPO McNeely advised the applicant of concern
regarding sprinkler provisions. Systems are required at 7,500 sf. It was apparent that this
building was very close to exceeding the limit.
Doug Bill, Planning, noted the basement to be'a substantial undeclared area and
commented that it could potentially be utilized as additional office space. Ms. Wilson
replied that this was dead storage. Mr. Bill further commented that overhead lights make
for ready conversion into office space. In response, Ms. Wilson noted that the area would
not meet code. "This area is very similar to (the) State Street building in Osterville.
There is no intention to finish it off," she claimed. Mr. Bill remarked, "I am looking at
I electrical outlets all over. If it's storage... that's a lot of outlets".
1
SPR Notes of 12/13/01
Subsequent discussion included a reference to previous indications of slab on grade
construction. Mr. Bill reviewed the units and corresponding square footage as presented.
At this.time Mr. Bill requested that the applicant provide a breakdown of the basement
and attic space, revise the plan to reflect all areas reporting the total square footage,
identify lot coverage and number of employees including clerical and accounting staff,
provide a new parking calculation base on all criteria, building sections and finally submit
the final revisions bearing the stamp of a professional engineer.
Mr. McKean interjected to inform the applicant of the restriction of employee numbers
resulting from the water overlay district and septic flow governed by the 330 regulation.
Engineering offered no comments.
The Building Commissioner advised Ms. Wilson "The number don't add up. I am
confused. In order to give you every opportunity to address this I will continue this
meeting."
Conclusion: Continued.
I
l
2
Giangregorio; Robin
From: Giangregorio, Robin
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:53 PM
To: DiMatteo Peter; Bill, Doug
Subject: RE: Transcape meeting 12/13/01
The following information was requested at the 12/13/01 meeting:
Amended square footage including potentially added areas
Lot coverage
Number of employees on site including clerical and accounting staff
Provide break down of basement&attic space
New parking calculations based on all areas
Also requested:
Building section
Plans should reflect PE stamp
1
f
AA.Wilson Associates Inc.
TO: Doug Bill
FROM: Arlene M. Wilson, PWS
RE: . Transcape, Inc.
DATE: 2/01/02
Attached please find revised calculations for Transca e
numbers. p , Inc. This is how we have arrived at the
For Building A (Units 1 and 2):
• The building footprint
. .which is s comes from the Certified Plot Plan
from and signed and is h the Certified
it Prepared by Yankee Survey
±4526 s.f.. We have checked this a ding Department files.
the outside walls includin against the construction drawings using a surveyed area is
number is±4522 s f which Sall o then are not principal walls Le. the outside of
umber showing ( the vestibule). That
g on the Building Pelt.
• From the surveyor's are
measured as 83 sI each, we have for a total f 166es f the 2 stair
wells which the builder has
set as 5'x18'and the other as S otal O The building Plans I have'show one stair
which would total ±162.5 s.f.
• We Have also subtracted the area of the vestibule,
Principal exterior wall and is strict] 63 s.f.
as this space is not enclosed by a
Y an architectural projection.
• For the basement, the s
an
±2170 s.f. Pe inside the principal exterior face of the wall measures at
As I explained on the phone, this excludes walled offs a
under the vestibule and the foundation, itself.
spaces such as the area
For Building B (Unit 3)
• . The surveyed'foo tprint at grade is±1216 s.f.
` Again, we have subtracted the s
tairwell, measured by the builder at 83 s.f.
P.O. Box 486
3261 Main Street
Barnstable, MA 02630
508 375 0327
FAX 375 0329
• The basement area has been measured excluding the foundation wall, for which
be no floor area, there can
For Building C (Unit 4)
• The surveyed footprint at grade is±1216 s.f.
• This building is constructed on a slab with footings.
There is no basement.
The owners have agreed to forego the attic space and the builder will add cross
otherwise ref the space to exclude it from usability within bracing or
Commission definitions. the terms of the Cape Cod
It is my understanding that the CCC definition speaks to the "floor area".
included within the
Principal outside faces of exterior walls....", and "
••• all stories or areas that have floor surfaces
with clear standing head room . . ."
space enclosed by the principal exterior onwalls but not the 6sequently, our 1e width oftio s included the floor
Commission apparently assumes that those walls are built over e buildingdeck .The
have a "floor"to:be counted as enclosed space. For belowbasements,
s k and therefore
as there is no floor under the foundation and no possible way to utilize
�ne s'�s o not the case,
foundation. The floor runs to the inside face of the foundation and were there of the solid
there is for Unit 1 in Building A, it would start at this point. Thus, for the base
o be a wall, as
measured the total, enclosed "floor surfaces". basement, we have
The difference in area noted on the attached table, then, and those provided on our 1/12/02
revised plans are the width of the exterior wood frame walls
space. and the deletion of the
usable attic
As to the discrepancies between your figures and ours, they appear
the stairway discrepancies, vestibule areas and foundation widths. Addit onall easily assigned to
mentioned, office space which intrudes into-the Unit 2 space. Y, there is, as I
The lot coverage numbers were derived using the surveyed foot
to those calculations to be required. Print areas. I believe no changes
Attachments
cc: Atty. Phil Boudreau
Floyd Silvia
2002AW01/csp
j
Joe
A.M. WILSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
3261 Main Street P.O. Box 486 SHEET NO. OF
Barnstable, MA 02630-0486 CALCULATED By----, DATE
(508) 375-0327 Fax (508) 375-0329
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
......
i ! ? ..... ..... ...... ..... ...
........ .......
....
:................. L !)/
. .+ ..-L............................_(_;..._.�......:........Q..................lrz /T j / f
. L._.............._5....,............_:... Z
.:............................... .... ........
..... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... .....
.......................................:.........._. 2cz.<r..�tc . —
. ..�......._............` gip..!_. � !
....:................. ........
..... ..�(/T......I.......
....... Sz.... .Sr..
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
— .....
T
...........�5°4c:l3...T.�e_.9 c=
............................:......... ....S`�............... ........... .......> ........i.............:.2....1{1. ..4. 5... mil/ (o
.............
:.._.._...................S.4t. .............Y��5....�......... ...... L ..... .. ...
_...... ..... .....
.
:
r
r......:.............>.............
.....:....
.._........................... _
;..
.......................... fl: ... ...... G._ as�....... tt�o...
: �:
........
..........
............:
. :.
..........................................:......_................._.................TD......_ ....... r� ;
.............o..........._.... ......
........... .. .ern •!
_.. ....
.... ............ .........�'
...... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ......
'....
......
..............:................. ............._.............>............. V ;
_d
...... ..... ...... ...... .....
_ .....
s :........................._.................._Try c t
.............
...:.... ....:...
.........................................:...........................:.............:.............:..... .....
..... .............. :...
- ...... ..... ......
......................
........... a
l: ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ......
...... ..... ... .... ......
Goo 6c
....... ..................... ..... .....
....... 'LO TP` !
.....
: .......................;.Sce.3T�C i u7 :
77
:.........................:. >...r._.................._.......!2>.............�..c.............;...................
t
8'
...........a.............
................................ ... �
arc.�-
:.... ....t........................_..............
.. .....
..................................................._.... ...... ......
QT�4C u ���T...................:......!.......... ...........;...........................<31.. ..........'Lam.
i ! ..... ..... ......
....
....... _ a ..............._...._._.........
....... .... ...:......... ......... ..
..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ......
........... v u�..... ..............................................:
. ...:................................ ......... ...:.... ....>.... ....
..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ......
. ....:....
:............._ _G...: ..c.....c....rC/..�..
9d F20 r1p
..... -
...... .... ..... ....
.....
zt�
...... ......
....:.....
......
...... ......
.............
............. .............._....... .................>.............:..........� !
:..... .....................:.............:.............
: . ..... ......
........................_............'. arm
.__.......................................
.....
.......
....................:............. -
.......................<...........................;........................................:.............. ... p... ....[.... ...
...e.............e......
. . . . . . .
T
: .
y
e
�....!........, c .T.......'.. c4.. /..............._......................
...................... ....
i
k
The SPR Coordinator assumed the role of Chair Page 1 of 2
DiMatteo Peter
From: Giangregorio, Robin
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:39 AM
To: Bill, Doug; DiMatteo Peter
Subject: SN011213.DOC
Site Plan Review Meeting of December 13, 2001
2nd Floor Hearing Room
Barnstable Town Hall
367 Main Street, Hyannis
Present: Peter DiMatteo, Building Commissioner, Doug Bill, Assistant Planner, Tom
McKean, Health Inspector, Bob Burgmann, Town Engineer, Harold Siegal, Barnstable Fire, Martin
McNeely, COM Fire and Robin Giangregorio, SPR Coordinator. Also in attendance: Arlene Wilson
This meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM and adjourned at 11:50 AM
SPR 093-01 Transcape, 1284 Main St., Ost (R118-008)
Arlene Wilson appeared before the panel seeking approval to amend a previously approved site plan.
MS Wilson indicated that no alteration to the site occurred. The owner has relocated the kitchen to the
basement and added a bathroom in one building triggering concern by the Building Division staff
members. The on site parking remains sufficient, Ms. Wilson claimed.
Regarding the undeclared attic space, Ms. Wilson informed the panel that 815 sf ft of unfinished attic
space would be considered habitable. At this time she relayed the owner's intention to leave this area
unfinished but in the event that Mr. Silvia desired to utilize this area the project would still remain under
the Cape Cod Commission threshold.
Health inquired about the impact of this additional area on the overall septic calculations. The applicant
responded that there is no impact. When asked about rubbish disposal, Ms. Wilson replied that the
provision remains unchanged from the original approval and complies with the BOH regulation.
FPO Martin McNeely inquired about the attic area asking if this space was proposed for storage. Ms.
Wilson denied this. FPO McNeely advised the applicant of concern regarding sprinkler provisions.
Systems are required at 7,500 sf. It was apparent that this building was very close to exceeding the
limit.
Doug Bill, Planning, noted the basement to be a substantial undeclared area and commented that it could
potentially be utilized as additional office space.. Ms. Wilson replied that this was dead storage. Mr. Bill
further commented that overhead lights make for ready conversion into office space. In response, Ms.
Wilson noted that the area would not meet code. "This area is very similar to (the) State Street building
in Osterville. There is no intention to finish it off," she claimed. Mr. Bill remarked, "I.am looking at
electrical outlets all over. If it's storage... that's a lot of outlets".
Subsequent discussion included a reference to previous indications of slab on grade construction. Mr.
Bill reviewed the units and corresponding square footage as presented.
At this time Mr. Bill requested that the applicant provide a breakdown of the basement and attic space,
revise the plan to reflect all areas reporting the total square footage, identify lot coverage and number of
1/30/2002
The SPR Coordinator assumed the role of Chair Page 2 of 2
employees including clerical and accounting staff, provide a new parking calculation base on all criteria,
building sections and finally submit the final revisions bearing the stamp of a professional engineer.
I
Mr. McKean interjected to inform the applicant of the restriction of employee numbers resulting from
the water overlay district and septic flow governed by the 330 regulation.
Engineering offered no comments.
The Building Commissioner advised Ms. Wilson "The number don't add up. I am confused. In order to
give you every opportunity to address this I will continue this meeting."
Conclusion: Continued.
I
1/30/2002