Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0095 CHASE STREET IN I r i { } Homeless Not Hopeless Inc. 1 119 Baxter Road r Hyannis MA 02601 We Offer A Hand Up Not A Handout 508-776-7325 rmurphl@comcast.net I � e m s. • ' m Q _ tr Lr) Certifled Mail Fee I- $ p —0 Extra Services&Fees(check bar,add fee as appropriate :� 11 � ❑(R�etum Receipt(hardcoPY) $ "�'• O ❑rletum Receipt(electronic) $ r' �laostmark G•t Q ❑Cert ied Mail Restricted Delivery $ �j HBfB ti O ❑Adult Signature Required $ ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ O Postage p $ r-3 Total Postage and Fees f�- Sent To {, ----------- yy - Y -L- ------------------------ Street and Apt.NNoo.br P Box No. City,Sjat6,ZIP-4 ` /`� Certified Mail service provides the following benefits: ■A receipt(this portion of the Certified Mail label). for an electronic return receipt,see a retail ■A unique identifier for your mailpiece. associate for assistance.To receive a duplicate ■Electronic verification of delivery or attempted return receipt for no additional fee,present this delivery. USPSO-postmarked Certified Mail receipt to the ■A record of delivery(including the recipient's retail associate, signature)that is retained by the Postal Service' Restricted delivery service,which provides ' for a specified period. delivery to the addressee specified by name,or to the addressee's authorized agent. Important Reminders: • -Adult signature service,which requites the •You may purchase Certified Mail service with signee to be at least 21 years of age(not First-Class Mail®,First-Class Package Services, available at retail). or Priority Mail®service. Adult signature restricted delivery service,which ■Certified Mail service is notavailable for requires the signee to be at least 21 years of age international mail. and provides delivery to the addressee specified ■Insurance coverage is'notavailable for purchase by name,or to the addressee's authorized agent, with Certified Mail service.However,the purchase (not available at retail). of Certified Mail service does not change the ■To ensure that your Certified Mail receipt is insurance coverage automatically included with accepted as legal proof of mailing,it should bear a certain Priority Mail Items. USPS postmark.if you would like a postmark on •For an additional fee,and with a proper this Certified Mail receipt,please present your endorsement on the mailpiece,you may request Certified Mail item at a Post Office'"for c_ the following services; postmarking.If you don't need a postmark on this -Return receipt service,which provides a record Certified Mail receipt,detach the barcoded portion of delivery(including the recipient's signature). of this label,affix it to the mailpiece,apply You can request a hardcopy return receipt of an appropriate postage,and deposit the mailpiece.r- electronic version.For a hardcopy return receipt, complete PS Form 3811,Domestic Return Receipt,attach PS Form 3811 to your mailpiece; IMPORTANT.Save this receipt for your records. PS Forth 3800,April 2015(Reverse)PSN 7530-02-000.9047 "' ` Town of Barnstable Building Department Services Brian Florence, CBO �. Building Commissioner BARNSTABLE 200 Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601 1539`2014„ www.town.barnstable.ma.us 51751 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 MEMO To: Attorney David Ho n From: Brian Florence Date: November 3, 201 Re: October 27t" Email Regarding 95 Chase Street Occupancy I met with Mr. Julius and Ms. Wentzel on October 25, 2017 to discuss my.response to their request for enforcement of a building permit. At that time I provided them with a surveyor's report that they had requested but I did not give them a certificate of occupancy as we did not issue one. Neither Mr. Julius nor Ms. Wentzel brought the subject up and quite frankly I didn't think about it. Had the matter been discussed I would have explained the following: After an exhaustive review of the zoning ordinance, 780 CMR the Massachusetts State Building Code 8th edition, Chapter(s) 1, 3, and 51, as well as the 2009 IBC Commentary. I have determined that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is a function specific to the building code and is intended to certify that a building and its use are in compliance with the building code [emphasis added] —(c. 1 sect. 111.2). There is no requirement in the zoning ordinance for a certificate of occupancy. There are only provisions prohibiting the issuance of one where one is required by the building code, and only if it would violate the zoning ordinance. In accordance with 780 CMR a certificates of occupancy is required prior to the occupancy of a new building or in the case of a change of use. The building at 95 Chase Street has historically been a single-family dwelling. In my review of the facts pertaining to the property, including the previous Site Plan Review, I had to determine if the occupation of the building by HNH constituted a change in use under the building code. If so, that would have necessitated a building permit and subsequently a certificate'of occupancy. 780 CMR Chapter 3 Section 310 R-3 refers congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer persons to 780 CMR Chapter 51 which is the One and Two-family Dwelling Code. In other words, for building code purposes, the structure remains a single-family dwelling and thus there is no change of use. As such there is no requirement for a building permit or a certificate of occupancy. I understand from reading the interim commissioners comments during the HNH site plan review, that there was a condition requiring a certificate of occupancy. That could only have been based upon a change of use in accordance with the building code. Since there was no change of use the requirement for a certificate of occupancy at Site Plan Review was an overreach. Not all congregate living facilities or non-profit groups enjoy the exceptions in the building code or the exemptions in zoning that this particular case does. Therefore regulatory oversight of proposed new facilities is necessary. I have determined that for zoning purposes, an allowed use that is being converted to an exempt use must be heard by Site Plan Review and I would further find that Site Plan Review is a necessity to assist the building official in determining whether or not the zoning exemptions and the building code exceptions apply. I have determined therefore that Site Plan Review remains a requirement for all congregate living facilities. I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. USPS TRACKING# ' "`'t First-Class Mail Postage&fees Paid USPS Permit No.G-10 9590 9402 A 6123 0983 09 111111111 UnQd States •Sender:Please print your name,address,and ZIP+4®in this box;, Postal Service TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING DIVISION i 200 MAIN ST HYANNIS, MA 02601 i ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. a Sig ature ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Agent so that we can return the card to you. ❑Addressee,._ 1 Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, Recelv (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed So; D.Is delivery address different from item 1? 13 Yes ��YYY1,�Q . if YES,enter delivery address below: Q Rio 3. ice 13 do*Mall III�III�II�I IDIIIIIIIIII II�IIII�IIIIIIIIII) ❑dultSignatureeRestdcted:Deiivery ORegissteredMailR Restricted 9590 9402 1934 6123 0983 09 ta'Certrtied Mall® livery ❑Certified Mail Restricted Delivery J�Return Receipt for 0 Collect on Delivery IOferchandise 2._Article Number (Transfer from service label) 10 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery O Signature ConfirmationTm -'-sured Mail 0 Signature Confirmation 7017 1000 0000 6759 6733 sured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery , ver$500) ,� I PS Form 3811,July 201.5'P5N 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return-Receipt'A Town of Barnstable Building Department Services °FTME rO�ti Brian Florence, CBO - °� Building CommissionerAAA • sAFwsrABLE, • 200 Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601 BARNSTABLE 9 MASS. $ w�'`""-.s.'aa nnes•mirzwu�•xe'Uaas u 039. ♦0 www.town.barnstable.ma.us 1639.201q ��� Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 October 23, 2017 Attorney Dennis Murphy Hill Law 43 Thorndike St. Cambridge MA 02141 Re: Appeal of Building Permit and Request for Zoning Enforcementr95;Cl ase St.;). Hyannis, MA Dear Attorney Murphy, I am in receipt of your September 8, 2017 correspondence as described above. In your letter you make a request to appeal the issuance of a building permit(#B-17-2336) issued ° on August 10, 2017. You also request that I make several zoning determinations regarding the use of the subject property and begin a zoning enforcement action. Request for Enforcement regarding the Issuance of Building Permit You did not provide a building code citation with your request, to appeal the issuance of the building permit, or offer any specific reasons as to why you believe that the issuance was in error; I can only assume that you intend that I revoke the building permit in accordance with 780 CMR Chapter 51 Section R105.6 [not amended by MA] entitled: Suspension or revocation which reads: The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit... wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. The building permit that you reference is for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system and a fire alarm panel, it is not a Change of Use permit. Your letter predominately references the use of the building and does not provide arguments as to how the sprinkler system or alarm panel is in violation of the building code. The structure is currently a single-family dwelling. 780 CMR Chapter 51 Section 313.2 does not require the installation of an automatic sprinkler system for single-family dwellings. Notwithstanding the fact that systems are not required under section 313.2, a property owner is not prohibited from providing levels of protection beyond what are required by the building code. In order to do so they simply need a building permit and are Page 1 �r required to install such systems in accordance with the same standards for required- systems. Further,the installation of an automatic sprinkler system in a single family home does not violate any provisions of the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance. Your request for building code enforcement with regard to the issuance of the above- reference building permit is denied. Request for Zonin,Enforcement and Determination(s) A. Failure to Timely Appeal the Building Commissioner's Site Plan Review Determination. As noted in your letter, on April 20, 2017, Jeff Lauzon,acting as the Interim Building Commissioner's designee, conducted a site plan review regarding HNH's request, as stated in its Site Plan Review application: "' [T]o establish a group residence for no more than eight (8) men or women plus a resident manager as allowed as of right under the so-called Massachusetts"Dover Amendment'. See copy of ZBA Decision Appeal No. 2012-052 Homeless Not Hopeless for 22 Main Street, Hyannis, for the same charitable and education use, copy of Decision filed herewith."' At the request of the Building Commissioner, HNH submitted additional information about the educational use. Issues relating to wastewater and trash disposal were also discussed. According to a series of e-mails contained in the Building Commissioner's file,your client, Laura Wentzel, attended the April 201h Site Plan Review meeting. At the conclusion of the Site Plan discussion, Mr. Lauzon indicated that the use was approved subject to compliance with the conditions contained in the 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals decision. On April 2l't, 2017, Ms. Wetzel sent an e-mail to a number of individuals, including Mr. Julius and Ms. Duluc reporting that HNH had received site plan approval. By letter dated April 21, 2017, Site Plan Review Coordinator, Ellen Swiniarski,provided HNH with the Building Commissioner's written approval of the HNH's proposal to "[T]o establish a group residence for no more than eight (8)men or women plus a resident manager as allowed as of right under the so-called Massachusetts `Dover Amendment"'. It is my understanding that on May 17, 2017, Laura Wentzel and Paul Arnold met with the Town Attorney and Town Manager to discuss their concerns about the proposed use of 95 Chase Street. It is my further understanding that during the course of the conversation,the Town Attorney advised Ms. Wentzel and Mr. Arnold that they should be aware that there was a 30 day appeal period from the Building Commissioner's April 201h site plan approval decision. On May 26, 2017, John Julius, Laura Wentzel and Susan Dubec filed with the Town Clerk a"Notice of Appeal" of the Building Commissioner's Site Plan Review decision regarding 95 Chase Street Appeal No. 2017-05. On August 3, 2017, the Applicants requested that their appeal be withdrawn. Based upon the Applicants' request, on August 9, 2017, the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously voted to grant a withdrawal of Appeal No. 2017- 051. Page 2 Fr A Unlike other Massachusetts communities, Barnstable's Site Plan Review approval is an administrative decision of the Building Commissioner who may solicit advice from other town departments. §240-105D. Site plan review approval is required for the establishment of any new use. §240-100B. "Site plans shall be reviewed for consistency with zoning and other applicable standards and...the Building Commissioner or his designee, shall notify the applicant of any approval, conditional approval or disapproval, stating reasons." §240- 105E. The Zoning Board of Appeals has the power to hear timely appeals "...by any person aggrieved by any order or decision of the Building Commissioner, or other administrative official in violation of any provision of Chapter 40A of the General Laws or of this chapter." §240-125B(1)(a). As you are aware, G.L. c. 40A §15 requires that a person aggrieved by the decision of an administrative official must file his/her appeal within thirty (30) days of the decision. Your clients clearly had constructive notice of the Building Commissioner's decision that the group residence proposed by HNH at 95 Chase Street was a nonprofit educational use protected under the Dover Amendment. As the Courts have recently held, an individual with constructive notice of a decision of an administrative official must file an appeal within 30 days of the decision. Connors v. Annino, 460 Mass. 790, 795 (2011); Gallivan v. Wellesley Zoning Board of Appeals, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 850 (2008), In these cases,the Courts have held that a request for an enforcement action under G.L. c. 40A s. 7 cannot be used to circumvent the failure to make a timely appeal from the decision of an administrative official. Your clients' failure to timely appeal the Building Commissioner's decision regarding HNH's use of the premises at 95 Chase Street when they had received constructive notice makes their request for an enforcement action untimely. Zoning Determinations Your clients' failure to timely appeal the Building Commissioner's Site Plan Review decision, after having constructive notice of same,procedurally does not require me to address the substantive enforcement request that you have made. Your request for zoning enforcement is hereby denied. Further if you believe that you are aggrieved by this determination and denial regarding the issuance of the building permit for the automatic sprinkler system, you may file a Notice of Appeal (specifying the grounds thereof) with the State Building Code Appeals Board within(45) days of the receipt of this notice of denial in accordance with MGL c. 143 § 100 and/or proceed with an appeal in accordance with: M.G.L. 40A §§ 8 & 15. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the preceding determinations. Regards, Brian Flor nce Building Commissioner Page 3 �i Homeless Not Hopeless Inca 310 Ocean St.Hyannis MA 02601 508-357-9334 Educational Curriculum (revised 5/2012) 0-,,r Aim:Although HnHhouses men and women with the primary goal of teaching them to live independently. Rationale: HnH is not a Program as much as it is a family where all members help one another.A good gardener can teach gardening, a cook can teach others to prepare and cook meals, a computer whiz can teach computer skills. It is in this supportive role that family members find their sense of self worth.House Managers do not need to do all the educational work.They do have to ensure that needs are identified and that the person in need is matched with someone who has that particular skill.In many cases documentation will be all that falls to a House Manger. Prerequisite Skills:The following communication is taught to all members of the HnH family through regular,structured topic specific conversations either in a group or one on one. The classroom in many cases is the kitchen table where the community meets to discuss the days progress and difficulties. These sessions embody five basic elements; 1. Be present(physical,mentally and emotionally) 2. One person speaks at a time. K 3. .Pay attention to whomever is speaking 4. Respect the speaker and his/her subject 5. Be open to learning from one another Instructional Plan: House Managers Role.House managers meet with each new resident to determine his/her needs. The house manager will evaluate the new resident to the best of his/her ability and fill out an Education Tracking form;This form is not meant to limit the subjects to be reviewed and taught but is a"Get Start"point.As each person coming into HnH is unique,each set of Educational subjects will be different:Some will require all subjects listed while others may require only a minimal number Others will need subjects that are not listed at this time. Our social worker can offer training guidelines for those not covered herein.The house manager will then assign housekeeping and cooking duties, Housekeeping. -The resident is to be shown the location of supplies and taught how to accomplish the task.If done well,persons are to be congratulated if poorly,they are to be taught again. Simple tasks such as cleaning a bathroom or washing windows must be taught.Do not presume that any m particular task is understood until you see it done. It is a lot easier to teach well the first time than to embarrass an individual for poor performance. I i Cooking-Each resident, according to ability,will be taught to prepare meals. Included,but not limited,is assembly of ingredients,cooking temperatures,recipes, etc. Health precautions are to be stressed,especially when poultry is being prepared. Lawn and Garden-chores will be assigned with the person being shown where the tools are stored,how to operate the lawn mower safely,how to cut grass and how and where to dispose of grass clipping,etc. i Hygiene --Each resident will be taught how to keep his/her own area clean with all personal- i property stored away neatly. For some this will be a simple one time check, for others it will be a weekly or daily training session. If required personal hygiene is to be politely addressed. Constantly duty clothes and/or body odor issues are unacceptable. Some will need to be trained on frequency of showers and how to wash and dry clothes. Social Skills--One of the subjects to be taught weekly and more often if necessary is respect for others property in their personal area,in the refrigerator or lying around the house. "Finders— Keepers,Losers Weepers"is not a slogan accepted at HnH. Respecting other residents' need for quiet while sleeping or sharing the TV are skills to be taught as the individual situation calls for. Each meal time is an opportunity to teach the basic skills of table setting, sharing food with others and helping to clean up even if it is someone else's job. Communications are to be taught and encouraged during community meal times. This is a lead- by-example issue as many of our residents come from families where family meals were not shared and if they were,conversation was not a part of the process. Of all that we teach this is probably one of the most important. Business Training—House Managers will teach residents to allocate their income. Lesson-1. Money per day until next check. Lesson 2. A few dollars each month put into savings adds up. Lesson 3. Having an extra few dollars in pocket doesn't mean it isn't committed for a future bill. Lesson 4. Check Book reconciliation. Value of entering information in check book accurately Monthly statement.Enter outstanding checks, deposits and ATM withdrawals. Statement and Check book balancing% Check each entry in check book against those in the statement.Make ! ; corrections. I 1 Filling Out Forms—For many men and women filling out basic forms is confusing and something to be avoided;yet in order to function independently they must learn to overcome the challenge. Forms are one line at a time even if there are 50 or 100 lines on a particular form. A. Assign a time to sit down with the individual. B. Fill in the information that can be filled in Social Security#,DOB,Etc., C. Make a list of information that is not known D. Make a list of what has to be done to get the missing information, E. Set a time to follow up on obtaining the missing information. F. Have the resident fill in the information, sign,date and mail or deliver. Some men/women may have great difficulty with this training.If the problem is reading then contact our Social Worker to make arrangements for a tutor or assign someone in the Community to work with them. Computer Skills- Lesson 1.Power on and Log In(user has notebook and records each step) Lesson 2. Word processing and how to save document. Lesson 3.How to access the Internet and do a basic search. Lesson 4.How to write an E-Mail and send to a friend. Lesson 5.How to retrieve E-Mails and read them and delete them. Lesson 5. How to access and search Comm. of Mass Jobs database. Lesson 6.How to search the Internet for AA and NA meetings. Literacy-Literacy is an essential component of the skills necessary for navigating the complex waters of the modern technical world. The term literacy encompasses more than rudimentary reading ability.It involves the ability to read,interpret and understand simple everyday tasks, including,but not limited to:filling out a job application;following a cooking recipe;reading and understanding nutritional labels when food shopping;reading and following a directional. map;understanding safety directions on cleaning products; enjoying a book,magazine or newspaper. Because many people are embarrassed to admit to reading limitations,house managers and assistants must learn to recognize the unspoken indications for this.Does the person avoid or make excuses for not completing applications or other forms?Does that person always cook without referencing a recipe?House managers should become sensitive to signs of reading difficulties.Ask the client to read to you dosage instructions for his/her own medications;write a list of task/chore assignments with a brief description of each,then ask the client to read his/her own tasks to you. When a person is suspected of being functionally illiterate,it is necessary to approach the subject of remediation.with compassion and sensitivity, so as to not further embarrass the client.There are community resources available to advocate for,and to assist the person in the process of learning to read with meaning.Included in these are: i The Cape Cod Literacy Council—Dorothy Barga 508-771-0211 Council;Cape Cod Organization for the Rights of the Disabled(CORD): 508-775-8300 Cape Cod Community College 508-362-2131 --Dr. Mishkin O'Neil Center X4337 --Advising Center X4318 --Doug Terry X4509 Each of these people will help to outline a specific program for the individual that can be administered by the house manager or their designee or will provide a tutor for on site help. Personal Needs and Addiction Many of the men and women who come to HnH have neglected their health because of addiction. Sobriety is the key to good physical and mental health as each go hand in hand. We teach Sobriety by: • being good models of sobriety. • encouraging others to get involved in a 12 step program. • offering to take them to a meeting. • studying the Big Book in groups or privately. • helping with a good fourth step guide. • sharing a"Thought for Today"at meals. o pointing out the many resources available on the internet such as Hazelden available at http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/thought.view Meal times provide a perfect setting to discuss AA/NA activities and to witness to their positive effect on sobriety. It's a simple process. Some education is taught sitting at a desk and 'other lessons are caught by association,much like catching a cold. The same goes for health. Each resident should be encouraged to obtain a Primary Care Doctor of their choice or at the Duffy Health Center. Again meal times are a perfect opportunity for a discussion of the benefits of taking care of ones health issues.As with sobriety in many cases it is fear of the unknown.that keeps us from visiting our Doctor.Our open discussion of our fears and how we faced them.is a positive way to teach good health care. i i r , Homeless Not Hopeless --Education Trucking Montle Year House Community Member Name Activity Date Notes Housekeeping --&,ee /Vacuum floors -- Windows -- Clean Bathroom --Food shopping list --Prepare Evening Meal --Mow Grass --Rake Grass/Leaves Hygiene --PersonalAppearancelShowers Etc. --Personal Livin Area Neatness Social Skills -- Treating Others With Respect -- Res ect or Others Pro perf -- Community Dining -- Negotiating TV Channel Preference Business Training =-Allocating Income -=Savings --Check Book Reconciliation . Fill Out Forms --Food Stamps --EADAC --SSDI -- Application for Health Insurance --Applicationfor Medical Attention --Job Applications Computer --Basic Operation --Internet -E-Mail --Job Search --AANA Meeting Schedules Literacy Required? YIN Pro ram on next a e Personal Needs and Addiction Afeelin s ? Study Big Book 7'Step Guide Sponsor Primary Care Doctor Date: Oct. 4, 2018 To: Building File RE: Work without Permit/Windows Address: 95 Chase St, Hyannis Originator: Laura Wentzel cape33@verizon.net Complaint: Work without permits/installing windows. Enforcement Process Steps 13 1. Initiate local investigation: RA 2. Document/enter into system Yes 13 3. Contact 13 4. Property Owner Homeless Not Helpless, Inc 5. Seek access to subject property 6. Seek administrative warrant (if necessary) NA 7. Notify state authorities of findings NA 13 8. Document conclusion CLOSED 13 9. Referred Bldg/Bob Property—307-134 Property is developed with a 2 story dwelling(1915)containing 4 bedrooms and 1 Yz baths on 0.2 acres located in the RB zoning district. 10/04/2018 Email inquiry received concerning work without a permit. Confirmed that there is no permit pending or issued. Dispatched Bob immediately. \ C Town of BarnstableBuilding Po'st'aThis Card So That rt�is;Uisible Fromthe.Street,•A p„ ,roved Plans Must;be ITetatned on�lob and tfiis Card 17,7 be Kept „ anxxxrwes c Y Pp e , M'"� Posted�Until Final.,lns ection�Has6een�Made \� �'�� � � � � � � � �� @ S ix � s Where a Certificate of Occu anc is Re •aired,such Bu�ldrng;shall Not be Occupied until a;Final Inspection hasbeen made 3-` Permit Permit NO. B-18-3309 Applicant Name: PAUL J MAZZOLA Approvals Date Issued: 10/05/2018 Current Use: Structure Permit Type: Building-Siding/Windows/Roof/Doors Expiration Date: 04/05/2019 Foundation: Location: 95 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS Map/Lot 307 134 Zoning District: RB Sheathing: Owner on Record: HOMELESS NOT HOPELESS,INC. fi F Contracto rName '°,PAULJ MAZZOLA Framing: 1 € a' Address: 119 BAXTER RD Contractor License CSF�A 057934 2 HYANNIS, MA 02601 stProJect Cost: $ 10,000.00 Chimney: Description: Siding,Window Replacement, Door replacement;::, 00, 0 Permit Fee: $370.00 Insulation: 3 Y �. Fee Paid $370.00 Project Review Req: Date 10/5/2018 Final: Plumbing/Gas Rough Plumbing: . � ,.Building Official s Final Plumbing: This permit shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authorised by this permit is commenced within six months a terissuance. Rough Gas: All work authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved applcat n a ond the approved construction documents=for which this permit has been granted. All construction,alterations and changes of use of any building and structures shall bg in compliance with the local zoning by raws and codes. Final Gas: This permit shall be displayed in a location clearly visible from access street orfroad and shall be maintained open for public inspekion for the entire duration of the work until the completion of the same. ; = Electrical The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicable signatures by the Building and Fire Officials are prow dedon Permit. Service: Minimum of Five Call Inspections Required for All Construction Work: k ` 1.Foundation or Footing Rough: 2.Sheathing Inspection 3.All Fireplaces must be inspected at the throat level before firest flue lining is installed Final: 4.Wiring&Plumbing Inspections to be completed prior to Frame Inspection 5.Prior to Covering Structural Members(Frame Inspection) Low Voltage Rough: 6.Insulation 7.Final Inspection before Occupancy Low Voltage Final: Where applicable,separate permits are required for Electrical,Plumbing,and Mechanical Installations. Health Work shall not proceed until the Inspector has approved the various stages of construction. Final: "Persons contracting with unregistered contractors do not have access to the guaranty fund" (as set forth in MGL c.142A). Fire Department Building plans are to be available on site Final: All Permit Cards are the property of the APPLICANT-ISSUED RECIPIENT .............. It* Application num er A ............. ... Fee ..... ............................................................. ws KAM Building Inspectors Initials...... . .. .. ................. OCT 05 2018 FRIN O� MRNSIABLF Date Issued...................... ..... ........ ......................... Map/Parcel.J0...J.-.,..g.q.............................. TOWN OF BARNSTABLE EXPEDITED PERMIT APPLICATION: ROOF/SIDING/WINDOWS/DOORS/TENTS/STOVES/WEATHERIZATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Address of Project: :5r&xr- NUMBER STREET VILLAGE Owner's Name: l!51 LV., A4vAAP Phone Number -09 - 776-7=r Email Address: Cell Phone Number Project cost $ 000 Check one Residential V/ Commercial OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION As owner of the above property I hereby authorize to make applicati In a building permit in aFordance with 780 CMR Owner Signature: Date: /OAZ/A TYPE WF WORK Siding dWindows (no header change)# F-1 Insulation/Weatherization Doors (no header change) # Commercial Doors require an inspector's review XRoof(not applying more than I layer of shingles) Construction Debris will be going to 7�'pc„ w T.R",FcJL 5+A--17of---, CONTRACTOR'S INFORMATION Contractor's name Zyc Home Improvement Contractors Registration(if applicable) # (attach copy) Constructiofi Supervisor's License# 0-5107*4 —OS77:1 (attach copy) EmalI of Contractor 60")66 ta 6005r,W­Phone number ALL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE STRUCTURES OVER 75 YEARS OLD OR IF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU MUST OBTAIN HISTORIC APPROVAL BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED. APPLICATION NUMBER ............................................................ *For Tents Only* Date Tent(s) will be erected Removed on number of tents total Does the tent have sides? Yes No (If yes please attach floor plan with exits marked) Dimensions of each Tent X X X Additional tent dimensions can be attached on a separate piece of paper. Purpose of Event Check one: this event is a: for profit non-profit event Check one: Food served Yes No Flame Spread Sheet of each tent must be attached. Provide a site plan with the location(s) of each tent Fuel source being used LP tank 20 lbs. or> Yes No , if yes, a gas permit is required. Natural Gas Yes No , if yes, a gas permit is required. If food is being served at your event please obtain a Health Department approval between the hours of 8:00am-9:30 am or 3:30 pm-4:30pm. Commercial events may require Fire Department approval. • S *WOOD/COAL/PELLET STOVES Manufacturer# Model/I.D. Fuel Type Testing Lab Offsets from combustibles: front back left-side : right side HOMEOWNER'S LICENSE EXEMPTION Homeowner's Name: Telephone Number Cell or Work number I understand my responsibiliti the rules and regulations for Licensed Construction Supervisor in accord a with 780 C the Massachusetts State Building Code. I understand the construction ' spection procedur , specific inspections and documentation required by 780 CMR and th own of Barnsta Signature2 Date �D�4/e AIF APP CANT'S SIGNATURE Signatur Date`-/��� ' All perm applications are subject to d building official's approval prior to issuance. r9 >% ' The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents - Office of Investigations 600 Washington Street Boston,MA 02111 www.mass.gov/dia Workers' Compensation Insurance Affidavit: Builders/Contractors/Electricians/Plumbers Applicant Information n Please Print LeLyibly Name(Business/Organization/Individual): �ij� ,�i/�GY�jJ � 'L Address: R ` 449 City/State/Zip:m .�,�IE.JAll) R� ��Phone#: V8 A,rr yo an employer?Check the appropriate box: Type of project(required): 1.�1'I am a employer with A _ 4. ❑ I am a general contractor and I employees(full and/or part-time).* have hired the sub-contractors 6. ❑New construction 2.❑ I am a sole proprietor or partner- listed on the attached sheet. 7. ❑Remodeling ship and have no employees These sub-contractors have g• ❑Demolition working for me in any capacity, employees and have workers 9. ❑Building addition [No workers' comp.insurance comp.insurance. required.] 5. ❑ We are a corporation and its. 10.0 Electrical repairs or additions 3.❑ I am a homeowner doing all work officers have exercised their 11.❑Plumbing repairs or additions myself. [No workers' comp. right of exemption per MGL 12.❑Roof repairs insurance required.]t c. 152,§1(4),and we have no employees. [No workers' 13.❑Other comp.insurance required.] *Any applicant that checks box#1 must also fill out the section below showing their workers'compensation policy information. t Homeowners who submit this affidavit indicating they are doing all work and then hire outside contractors must submit a new affidavit indicating such. #Contractors that check this box must attached an additional sheet showing the name of the sub-contractors and state whether or not those entities have employees. If the sub-contractors have employees,they must provide their workers'comp.policy number.. 1 am an employer that is providing workers'compensation insurance for my employees. Below is the policy and job site information. Insurance Company Name: '95ACY (SC�<,'4k Policy#or Self-ins.Lic.#: �AKOL*) p1'S 74 Expiration Date 41 Job Site Address: 45 ChA4C S City/State/Zip: Ge,4sij Attach a copy of the workers' compensation policy declaration page(showing the policy number and expiration date). Failure to secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL c. 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a fine up to$1,500.00 and/or one- ent,as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDER and a fine of up to$250.00 a day a the violator. B advised that a copy of this statement may be forwarded to the Office of Investigations of the for insurance c rage verification. I do hereby ce under the pa' and penalties of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct. Si ature: Date: Phone# Jvg -!4,1 _9 Official use only. Do not write in this area,to be completed by city or town official City or Town: Permit/License# Issuing Authority(circle one): 1.Board of Health 2.Building Department 3.City/Town Clerk 4.Electrical Inspector 5.Plumbing Inspector 6.Other Contact Person: Phone#: e� Information and Instructions Massachusetts General Laws chapter 152 requires all employers to provide workers' compensation for their employees. ' Pursuant to this statute,an employee is defined as"...every person in the service of.another under any contract of hire, express or implied,oral or written." An employer is defined as"an individual,partnership,association,corporation or other legal entity,or any two or more of the foregoing engaged in a joint enterprise,and including the legal representatives of a deceased employer,or the partnership,association or other legal entity,employingemployees. However the receiver or trmstee of an individual, arts g P P owner of a dwelling house having not more than three apartments and who resides therein,or the occupant of the dwelling house of another who employs persons to do maintenance,'construction'or repair work on such dwelling house or on the grounds or building appurtenant thereto shall not because of such employment be deemed to be an employer." MGL chapter. 152 §25C(6)also.states that"every state or local licensing agency shall withhold the issuance or renewal of a license or permit to operate a business or to construct buildings in the commonwealth for any applicant who has not produced acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance coverage required." Additionally,MGL chapter 152, §25C(7)states"Neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall enter into any contract for the performance of public work until acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this chapter have been presented to the contracting authority." Applicants Please fill out the workers' compensation affidavit completely,by checking the boxes that apply to your situation and,if necessary,supply sub-contractors)name(s),address(es)and phone number(s)along with their certificate(s)of insurance. Limited Liability Companies(LLC)or Limited Liability Partnerships(LLP)with no employees other than the members or partners,are not required to carry workers' compensation insurance. If an LLC or LLP does have employees, a policy is required. Be advised that this affidavit may be submitted to the Department of Industrial Accidents for confirmation of insurance coverage. Also be sure to sign and date the affidavit. The affidavit should be—f ed to-the'city or-town-that-the°application=for-the=permit=or-license=is=being=re-quested;not=the-Department of Industrial Accidents: Should you have any-questions-regarding-the-law or-if you-are-requiredto-obtain-a-workers' -- -- compensation policy,please call the Department at the number listed below. Self-h=ed companies should enter their self-insurance license number on the appropriate line. City or Town Officials Please be sure that the affidavit is complete and printed legibly. The Department has provided a space at the bottom of the affidavit for you to fill out in the event the Office of Investigations has to contact you regarding the applicant. Please be sure'to fill in the•.permitllicense number which will be used as a reference number. In addition,an applicant that must submit multiple permit/license applications in any given year,need only submit one affidavit indicating current poli6y7informati6n(ifiiecessary)and under"Job Site Address"the applicant should write,"all locations in (city or town)."A copy of the affidavit that has been officially stamped or marked by the city or town may be provided to the applicant as proof that a valid affidavit is on file for future permits or licenses. A new affidavit must be filled out each year.Where a home owner or citizen is obtaining a license or permit not related to any business or commercial venture (i.e. a dog license or permit to bum leaves etc.)said person is NOT required to complete this affidavit. The Office of Investigations would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a call. The Department's address,telephone and fax number- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department-of Industrial Accidents Office of Investigations 600 Washington.Street Boston,MA 02111 Tel.#617-727-4900 ext 406 or 1-877-MASSAFE Fax#61.7-727-7749 Revised 4-24-07 vvww.mass.govCdia A ® DAIS / 1f) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 10/04/04/20182018 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND,EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES hELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT. If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies)must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WANED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT Kathy Silvia The Fair Insurance Agency Inc. PHONE (508)775-3131 (508)790.1677 A/C No Et I: AIC,No 619 Main Street ADDRESS: kathy@thefairagency.coni Suite 1 INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC if Centerville MA 02632 INSURER A: Essex Insurance CO INSURED -INSURERS: Star Insurance Company 18023 The Waquoit Group LLC,DBA:GCI Builders DBA Paul Mazzola INSURER C: PO BOX 509 INSURER D: INSURER E: Marston Mills MA 02648 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: CL1810401820 . REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE.INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE - .POLICY EFF PO CY EXP LTR INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER M/DD MM/DD LIMA COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 DAMAGE TO RENTED CLAIMS-MADE F OCCUR PREMISES Ea occurrence $ 500,000 MED EXP(Any one person) $ 10,000 A 2DA9189 05/28/2018 05/28/2019 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERALAGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 POLICY❑JET LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 OTHER. Individual Risk Mod Prem $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ Ea accident ANY.AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident 8 UMBRELLA LL48 OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ DED I I RETENTION$ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION PER OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY YIN STATUTE ER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/-XEC' E.L EACH ACCIDENT $ SOO,000 B OFFICER/MEMBEREXCLUDED? NIA WC0002374 05/28/2018 05/28/2019 (Mandatory In NH) E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ 500,000 If yes,describe under 500,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS I VEHICLES(ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN HOMELESS NOT HELPLESS ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 95 CHASE ST AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HYANNIS MA 02601 Tu,Qonz ©1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2016103) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Commonwealth of P1las sac husetts ®j Division of Professional Licensure d Board of Building Regulations and Standards Construction,S�u lei isbi,.1 & 2 Family CSFA-057934 >' E-kpires: 06/19/2019 PAUL J MAZZOLA PO BOX 509 . MARSTONS MILLS MA 02648 ` Commissioner -•Jx" tG'O?9-L�7LLY1lGG1CClLL116 1�/��CIJr�GCitfLrG+�l�,.;�, - Ofice of Consumer Affairs 'tias►ness.i2c utatior me FIOME IMPROVEt ENT aAP.Tf:ACTrJR r' Registration i52253 TYpe:, Expiration; 8/11/2018 Private Corporation GCt BUILDERS INC / PAUL MAZZOLA aX wr 644 RIVER ROAD MARSTONS MILLS,MA 026A6-'- Undersecretary Construction Supervisor 1&2 Family Failure to possess a current edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code is cause for revocation of this license. . For information about this license Call(617)727-3200 or visit www.mass.gov/dpl ar�en""se c►r iiow stra6on valid for individual use only+ la'forehe ezpiiat�oq:=date:. If found return to: Olice of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation 10 Park Plaza-Suite 5170 Boston,MA 02116 of valid w-#Wdut signature tel,.(508)3624541 9.39 main street rt 6a fax(508)$62-9880 yarmouth port mass 02675 down cape engineering, nC land court civil.engineers`&land surveyors Daniel A.ojala,PE.,P.L.S. surveys Arne:H:Ojala,RE,,P:LrS: Daniel E..Qonsaives E.I.T,,.$.E:: October 24, 201�7 Craig).Ferran,ELT.,S.E. structural design Brian Florence,CBQ site planning Town of Barnstable;Building Commissioner 200 Main Street Hyannis,MA 02601 sewage system; designs. inspections Dear Mr. Florence: This memo is to inform your office that the site work at#95 Chase Street'in:Hyannis,has been permits inspected. Pursuant to Zoning section;240-105 G I hereby certify that the above referenced site was constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Site Plan:. Please note the parking indicated on the site plan off Chase Street,was constructed:`in gravel with access from Chase Street,the dimensions are approximately 19' wide x 45' in length.overall,constructed approximately seven feet offtho building. Please note I would recommend adding sand and/or peastot e to the 1,5"washed stone surface to firm u.p.the parking surface,it is currently adequate in. thickness but is rutting:frotn wheel traffic in places;.the addition of finer grain materials will help lock . the larger stone in place: The parking off'.Harvard Street is the existing paved driveway,which appears adequate. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call ne. Very truly yours, d St3 OF d{A� iw.LA Daniel A. a O` la PE,PLS ! clvlL r� J_ NP 46502'. Down Cape Engineering, Inc. ,��� JN L CC: Atty. Peter Freeman at tel.(508)362-4541 939 main street rt 6a fax(508)362-9880 yarmouth port mass 02675 down cape engineering, inc land court civil engineers&land surveyors Daniel A.Ojala,P.E.,P.L.S. surveys Arne H.Ojala,P.E.,P.L.S. October 24, 2017 Daniel E.Gonsalves,E.I.T.,S.E. structural design Craig J.Ferrari,E.LT.,S.E. Brian Florence, CBO site planning Town of Barnstable Building Commissioner 200 Main Street Hyannis,MA 02601 sewage system designs inspections Dear Mr. Florence: This memo is to inform your office that the site work at#95 Chase Street in Hyannis has been permits inspected. .Pursuant to Zoning section 240-105 G I hereby certify that the above referenced site was constructed in substantial compliance with the approved Site Plan. Please note the packing indicated on the site plan off Chase Street was constructed in gravel with access , from Chase Street,the dimensions are approximately 19' wide x 45' in length overall,constructed approximately seven feet off the building. Please note I would recommend adding sand and/or peastone to the 1.5"washed stone surface to firm up the parking surface, it is currently,adequate in thickness but is rutting from wheel traffic in places,the addition of finer grain materials will help lock the larger stone in place. ` 'File parking off Harvard Street is the existing paved driveway, which appears adequate. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Very trulyours ;...... Y ?-J I ! Daniel. A. Ojala, PE, PLS t U I,�, ) � 1 Down Cape Engineering, Inc. CC:'Atty. Peter Freeman t "' i Town r of Barnstable 200 Main Street, Hyannis MA 02601 508-862-4038 Application for Building Permit Application No: TB-17-2336 Date Recieved: 7/25/2017 Job Location: 95 CHASE STREET,HYANNIS Permit For: Building-Smoke Detector- Fire Alarm Dection System ' ►��' SP�t�J�iL� �� L� D Contractor's Name: ACOC-7 N:IR� NA410qJ State Lic. No: 0041�-al Address: Q _�X bq 1 pia (,t ��d6b r Applicant Phone: ►��t� —M0 �L]. % (Hcmo)Owner's Name: I EMMITT,ROBERT�W✓&PATRICIA[L.�-G Phone: l [" (Home).Q-w ler's Address: 119 BAXTER ROAD, HYANNIS,MA 02601 Work;Description: Fire Sprinkler System BUILDING DEPT. SEP 18 2017 Total Value Of Work To Be Performed: $0.00 TOWS!OF BARNSTA€3Lf= Structure Size: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Width Depth Total Area I hereby swear and attest that I will require proof of workers'compensation insurance for every contractor,subcontractor,or other worker before he/she engages in work on the above property in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Act(Chapter 568). I understand that pursuant to 31-275 C.G.S.,officers of a corporation and partners in a partnership may elect to be excluded from.coverage by filing a waiver with the appropriate District Office;and that a sole proprietor of a business is not required to have coverage unless he files his intent to accept coverage. I hereby certify that I am the owner of the property which is the subject of this application or the authorized agent of the property owner and have been authorized.to make this application: I'understand that when a permit is issued,it is a permit to proceed and grants no right to violate the Massachusetts State Building Code or any other code,ordinance or statute,regardless of what might be shown or omitted on the submitted plans and specifications. All information contained within is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. All permits approved are subject to inspections performed by a representative of this office. Requests for inspections must be made at least 24 hours in advance. Signed: Mass Fire Protection Systems 7/25/2017 Applicant Date Telephone No. Estimated Construction Costs/Permit Fees Total Project Cost : $0.00 Date Paid Amount Paid i Check#or CC# Pay Type Total Permit Fee: $35.00 7/25/2017 $35.00� € 9893 y { Check Total Permit Fee Paid: $35.00 I 1 1W)%jWS FIRE DEPART1VIENT i :95 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION HYANNIS,MASS.02601 HAROLD S.BRUNELLE,CHFEF FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Lt. John Como Capt. William Rex,Jr. Inspector Inspector PERMIT APPLICATION FOR FIRE SPRINKLER WORK 7)1q2017 n5oo I�Et� �TE 4) BUILDING NAME OF COMPANY DEPT. PoX �A'S SEP 18 2017 BUSINESS`ADDRESS W W{ ' �?E4\jbfA& �-I;3% ©z&e) TOWN OF CITY,TOWN, STATE,ZIP CODE MASS. SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR'S:LICENSE NUMBER: Expiratiori; (JOURNEYMAN'S LICENSE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO OBTAIN A PERMIT ADDRESS OF BUILDINC- 3EDINSTALLATION BUILDING NAME: 40aE1 4,C, STATE CLEARLY THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS TO BE GRANTED: jd�&UA-pkj e I- 0,_Y2A_,,d)L,::k_ FE O ,06'P1ERWASS. STATE BUILDING CODE AND 527 CMR 1.00 COPY CERTIFICATE STATING THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS INSURED TO CONDUCT INSTALLATION, SEi4VIdNQ_,AND R�, PAIR.OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYST MS. ° PERSON GRANTING PER IT- TITLE PERMIT EXPIRES- DATE OP PERMIT&PERMIT NUMBER r ,Fire Dept Stamp here: Pd:$35 Cash(] Check . # Rev.02/17 Tel: 508-775-1300 Fax: 50&778-6448 Emergencies: 911 Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping PROCEDURE Upon completion of work,inspection and tests shall be made by the contractor's representative and witnessed by an owner's representative.All defects shall be corrected and system left in service before contractor's personnel finally leave the job. A certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authorities,owners,and contractor. It is understood the owner's representative's signature in no way prejudices any claim against contractor for faulty material,poor workmanship,or failure to comply with approving authority's requirements or local ordinances. Property name Nyi— 0�-o Property address WA i Accepted by approving authorities(names) Al E £ Address � � Plans {V{�l Installation conforms to accepted plans Yes No Equipment used is approved . Yes ❑ No If no,explain deviations I Has person in charge of fire equipment been instructed as Yes ❑ No to location of control valves and care and maintenance of this new equipment? If no,explain Instructions _ Have copies of the following been left on the premises? IX Yes ❑ No 1. System components instructions X Yes ❑ No 2. Care and maintenance instructions Yes ❑ No 3. NFPA 25 Yes I❑ No Location of Supplies buildings system q (� E, C�t�SE Year of Orifice Temperature Make Model manufacture size Quantity rating Sprinklers o L L Lq S. I 'ZOO i sso cam£ e G �G I �'►ry� 2.+9 lop Pipe and I Type of pipe __--� ���f3� w"N i7 t� Wop.. fittings Type of fittings �f� p ��_� Maximum time to operate Alarm Alarm device through test connection valve or flow Type Make Model I Minutes i Seconds indicator Dry valve Q.0.D. Make Model Serial no. Make Model Serial no. I Dry pipe Time to trip Time water Alarm operating through test Water Air Trip point I reached operated test connectionl 2 pressure pressure air pressure test outlet1,2 properly Minutes Seconds psi psi psi Minutes Seconds Yes No Without i Q.O.D. I With Q.O.D. If no,explain t Measured from time inspector's test connection is opened 2 NFPA 13 only requires the 60-second limitation in specific sections leprinted with permission from NFPA 13,Installation of Sprinkler Systems,Copyright©2002,National Fire Protection Association,Quincy,MA 02269.This reprinted material not the complete and official postion of the National Fire Protection Association,on the referenced subject which is represented only by the standard in its entirety. ,merican Fire Sprinkler Association AFSA Form #AF063 696 Skillman Street,Suite 300,Dallas,Texas 75243 Operation Pneumatic ❑I Electric J Hydraulics I Piping supervised L! Yes ❑ No I Detecting media supervised ❑ Yes ❑ No { Does valve operate from the manual trip,remote,or both Yes `I No control stations? Deluge and Is there an accessible facility in each circuit it no,explain valves p forfes5ng? valves I_J Yes �' No I Does each circuit operate ! Does each circuit operate Maximum time to Make I Model supervision loss alarm? valve release? operate release Yes 1 No Yes No I Minutes Seconds I I 1 Location I Make and' Setting I Static pressure Residual pressure I Flow rate Pressure I and floor model (flowing) reducing I (psi) Outlet valve test Inlet(p (psi) I Inlet(psi) Outlet(psi) Flow(gpm) f � Hydrostatic:Hydrostatic tests shall be made at not fess than 200 psi(13.6 bar)for 2 hours or 50 psi(3.4 bar) above static pressure in excess of 150 psi(10.2 bar)for 2 hours. Differential dry-pipe valve clappers.shall be left Test open during the test to prevent damage.All aboveground piping leakage shall be stopped. - description i Pneumatic: Establish 40 psi(2.7 bar)air pressure and measure drop,which shall not exceed 1 Ya psi(0.1 bar) in 24 hours.Test pressure tanks at normal water level and air pressure and measure air pressure drop,which shall not exceed 1 1k psi(0.1 bar)in 24 hours. i All piping hydrostatically tested at ebo psi(—bar)for ?—_hours It no,state reason Dry piping pneumatically tested ❑ Yes I❑ No Iff Equipment operates properly Yes El No G7 ' I Do"you cerf ly as the sprinkler contractor that additives and corrosive chemicals,1 sodium silicate or derivatives of sodium silicate,brine,or other corrosive chemfrais were not used for testing systems or stopping leaks? ,'K Yes ❑ No 1 Drain I Reading of gauge located near water Residual pressure with valve in test p Tests test !supply test connection:c:ls0_psi(.___bar) connection open wide: 0 psi —.bar) Underground mains and lead-in connections to system risers flushed before connection made to sprinkler piping j Verified by copy of the Contractors Material and Test a Yes ❑ No j Other Explain Certificate for Underground Piping. I Flushed by installer of underground sprinkler piping El Yes ❑ No If powder-driven fasteners are used in concrete, ❑ Yes ❑ No j If no,explain has representative sample testing been satisfactorily completed? Blank testing Number used Locations Number removed gaskets Welding piping ❑ Yes ❑ No It yes... Do you certify as the sprinkler contractor that welding procedures comply L Yes No with the requirements of at least AWS B2.1? . Welding Do you certify that the welding was performed by welders qualified in ❑ Yes ❑ No compliance with the requirements of at least AWS B2.1? I Do you certify that the welding was carried out in compliance with a I_) Yes ❑ No documented quality control procedure to ensure thatall discs are retrieved,that ' openings in piping are smooth,that slag and other welding residue are removed,and that the internal diameters of piping are not penetrated? Cutouts i Do you certify that you have a control feature to ensure that ❑ Yes ❑ No (discs) all cutouts(discs)are retrieved? Hydraulic Nameplate provided If no,explain data nameplate IP55'Yes ❑ No i Date left in service with all control valves open Remarks Name of sprinkler,contractor S Tests witnessed by Signatures For o ner(sig ) Title Date 17 For ter ont ctor Tit Data - E Additional explanations and otes R AC EAR �Y\)&� Ran V)lu- �t Reqoif_iafl Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7113117 18:18 HYDRAULIC DESIGN INFORMATION SHEET Job Name: 95 Chase Street Location: Hyannis, MA Drawing Date: Remote Area Number: 1 Contractor: Mass Fire Protection, Telephone: 508-790-4696 256C Great Western Road South Dennis, MA Designer: ARD Calculated By: SprinkCAD www.sprinkcad.com 451 N. Cannon Ave. Lansdale, PA 19446 Construction: wood Occupancy: living space Reviewing Authorities:FPE/Fire Dept. SYSTEM DESIGN Code:NFPA 13D Hazard:RES System Type:WET Area of Sprinkler Oper. sq ftl Sprinkler or Nozzle Density (gpm/sq ft) RES I Make: RELIABL Area per Sprinkler 256. 0 sq ftl Model: FIRES Hose Allowance Inside 0 gpm I K-Factor: 4 . 40 Hose Allowance Outside 0 gpm I Temperature Rating: 155 CALCULATION SUMMARY 2 Flowing Outlets gpm Required: 32.4 psi Required: 65. 6 @ Source WATER SUPPLY Water Flow Test I Pump Data I Date of Test 7-5-17 I Rated Capacity 0 gpm I Static Pressure 80.0 psi l Rated Pressure 0. 0 psi I Residual Pres 65. 0 psi I Elevation 0 I At a Flow of 1060 .gpm I Make: I Elevation 0" I Model : I Location: Source of Information: SYSTEM VOLUME 12 Gallons Notes: Scott D. Henderson �HOF 2017.07. 14 � HENDERSON p FIAEPRO1fC110N � No.485Fi3 O g�GlS 13:31 :33 '00'04- 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 HYDRAULIC CALCULATION DETAILS HYDRAULIC FLOW LOSS QTY DESCRIPTION LENGTH C ID gpm psi TOTALS Hydr Ref W Required at Hyd Area 1 32 59.1 psi Elevation Change 3' 0" 1 .3 1 11-4" Grvd Back Flow Valve Ames 200 CHART LOSS 32 4 . 5 2 2" Thrd 90 Ell DI 10 ' 120 2 . 067 32 0 . 1 1 Pipe 2" Lx20 Copper 45 ' 150 1 . 985 32 0 . 4 1 2" Fingd Gate Valve Kennedy Gate l ' 120 2 .067 32 0. 0 1 2" Thrd Tee DI 10' 120 2 . 067 32 0. 1 Hydr Ref Rl Required at Source 32 65. 6 psi Water Source 80. 0 psi static, 65. 0 psi residual @ 1060 gpm 32 gpm 80.0 psi SAFETY PRESSURE 14.4 psi Ava ilable Pressure of 80.0 psi Exceeds Required Pressure of 65. 6 psi This is a safety margin of 14.4 psi or 18 % of Supply Maximum Water Velocity is 12 .2 fps 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 Page 3 FITTING NAME TABLE ABBREV. NAME C Coupling E 90' Standard Elbow F 45' Elbow S Straight Flow Thru Tee T 90' Flow Thru Tee V Valve LEGEND HYD REF Hydraulic reference. Refer to accompanying flow diagram. _ K FACTOR Flow factor for open head or path where Flow (gpm) = K x -\/P Qa Flow added or subtracted Qt Total flow DIA Actual internal diameter of pipe C Hazen Williams pipe roughness factor Pf/ft Friction loss per foot of pipe PIPE Length of pipe FTNG' S Number of fittings . See table above. TOTAL Total length (PIPE + FTNG'S) Pt Total pressure (psi) at fitting Pe Pressure due to change in elevation where Pe = 0 . 433 x change in elevation Pf Friction loss (psi) to fitting where Pf = 1 x 4 .52 x (Q/C) ^1 . 85 / ID^4 . 87 Pv Velocity pressure (psi) where Pv = 0. 001123 x Q^2/ID^4 Pn Normal pressure (psi) , where Pn = Pt - Pv NOTES: - Pressures are balanced to 0 . 01 psi. Pressures are listed to 0. 1 psi. Addition may vary by 0 . 1 psi due to accumulation of round off. - Calculations conform to NFPA 13. - Velocity Pressures are not considered in these Calculations 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 Page 4 NODE ELEVATION SPRINKLER PRESSURE ACTUAL MINIMUM ACTUAL NUMBER K-FACTOR FLOW FLOW DENSITY (FT) (GPM/ (PSI^;,�) ) (PSI) (GPM) (GPM) (GPM/SQ.FT) 10 -1 .00 45. 7 Al -1 . 00 54 . 4 A2 -1 . 00 56. 4 Sl 15. 50 4 . 40 13. 9 16. 4 16.0 0 .06 S2 15. 50 4 . 40 13.3 16. 0 16. 0 0 . 06 W -5. 00 59. 1 Max velocity of 12 . 16 occurs in the pipe from A2 TO Al 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 Tyco Fire Products Page 5 HYD. Qa DIA. FITTING PIPE Pt Pt REF "C" TYPES FTNG'S Pe Pv ******* NOTES ******* POINT Qt Pf/ft TOTAL Pf Pn PATH 1 FROM HYDRAULIC REFERENCE S2 TO W (PRIMARY PATH) 16. 05 1 . 101 2E 5.21 13. 3 13. 3 K = 4 . 40 S2 C=150 7 . 65 0.0 0. 0 16. 05 0. 045 12 . 86 0. 6 13 .3 Vel = 5. 46 16. 39 1 . 101 9E 75.29 13. 9 13. 9 K = 4 . 40 S1 C=150 4T 72 . 68 7 . 1 0. 0 32. 44 0. 166 147 . 97 24 . 6 13 . 9 Vel = 11 . 04 1 . 049 2E 13 .34 45.7 45.7 10 C=120 2T 14 . 00 0. 0 0. 0 32 . 44 0. 318 27 . 34 8 . 7 45. 7 Vel = 12 . 16 1 . 049 lE 4 . 32 54 . 4 54 . 4 Al C=120 2 . 00 0 . 0 0 . 0 32 . 44 0. 318 6. 32 2 . 0 54 . 4 Vel = 12 . 16 1 . 380 1E 8 . 08 56. 4 56. 4 A2 C=120 3. 00 1 .7 0 . 0 32 . 44 0. 084 11 . 08 0 . 9 56. 4 Vel = 7 . 03 W 32 . 44 59. 1 K = 4 .22 UNITS - DIAMETER (INCH) LENGTH (FOOT) FLOW (GPM) PRESSURE (PSI) 95 Chase Ave Static Pres: 80.0 psi Pressure: 65.6 psi In: 0 gpm Hyannis, MA Resid. Pres: 65.0 psi Sys Flow: 32 gpm Out: 0 gpm Flow: 1060 gpm Sys+Hose: 32 gpm ' Remote Area: 1 Date: 7-5-17 Safety Pres: 14.4 psi Loc: Hd Elv Pres: 10.2 psi 140 120 100 - 8010 Supply 60 40 20 10.2 psi 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 50 r DEPARTMENT OF ENYIROi`( MENTAL PROTECTION BAi KFLOW PREVENTIONSUPPLY DES DATA SHEET l Owners Name O-mELEE O cJ. Address rJ Zb 2 jT Facility A. Name o�Y1 E No'� o E S5 B address c � 6oi C. Contact Person IG D. TelephoneNumber O E. New or Existing Facility? F. General description of business or activities carried out at this facility—_ I? Device Data A. Manufacturer `�.. Model Number 9' �XLTZ B R-PBP------� v� Double Check Valves you - � C Size i 4 D. Hot or Cold Unit E Location of Device L F By- Pass Arrangement (Y/l)? _ G. From what type of,contamination is the water supply protected H. How many other backflow devices are located in the building �! I. Type of gate valves L Gate Valves for fire lines must be UL or FL approved. Please Complete Reverse Side of this Form I 1� Device Maintenance and Testing Schedules Describe the maintenance and testing schedule of the above device(s) (Please refer to 310 CNIIR 22.22) E Cross Connection Plan Submittal Requirements A. Plumbing Plan: 1. Completed title block (name of facility, address, date, preparer, scale etc Schematic or blueprint of plumbing system(at least 8 /2 x 11 ), usin acceptable symbols and nomenclature, detailing: g a• Clearances in device installations b. Location of upstream and downstream shut off valves C. Make, model, size, and alignment of device d. Location of potable water lines e. System, source, or equipment fed downstream of devices, complete with information on the secondary system(operatin; pressure, chemical treatment, etc.) When installations of devices involve large or complex plumbing system formal prints must be submitted with a Professional Engineers stamp, subject to the discretion of the reviewing authority. Submitted by: of Date: b f�� -7 Telephone 4�^e. agent Signature. Date: 2j �t t r .. t.. 1 Town of Barnstable S r .3.:: ,ar..,r .'.s..x ., 5 .. z-, 'str„»r .an:.., . . M_.... �,.: ..s.,.z ..:m \ .. a+7 s- ,.... nt• a., � r<„C� ., ..,. �t''t'... �u '�"..: :.. ... ,. .x. �, ..=s . ._�.,.. a..F....�:,t try �' �+-..... , !��`c.,,.-,�, ;��'� «� �.'�-fib ,�.. *:" .. .: ost�T�l^, s •7 �t' ti =�1!'stble:El'oi'nthe�5t�e�t,-.'.: .. .roved Plans Mustbe:Re#airt�d `�i ,ab.and this�arc� st ba Ke t -. l Bt I M119 ad tt' r -.MAC,." �. .�•a a .� y/ `I P n#il: .nal-•Ins ection#I.as-=Been Made. .� ,r; 3 -�."-:.: " R :: ,." ere.a>re,"�f'�-a# =ofi•D c f~I" ��sfRe u�>re. m�ur �;B.uiltli. shallNot.be ceu -untli a�Fiaal>ins ect�on,fias been me 3 �1 n�.�f•... . _ Permit No: B-17-2336 Applicant Name: Mass Fire Protection Systems , Approvals Date issued: 08/10/2017 Current Use. Structure Permit Type: Building-Smoke Detector -Fire Alarm Dection Expiration Date`. 02/10/2018 -- ._ Foundation• System Map/Lot 307 134 Zoning District: RB Sheathing: Location: 95 CHASE STREET, HYANNISt #s Contractor Name: Framing: 1 Owner on Record: EMMITT,ROBERT W&PATRICIA Leontractor L cens 2 �� Address: 119 BAXTER ROAD x Est Project Cost: $0.00 Chimney: HYANNIS,MA 02601 r �Permit Fee: $35.00 Description: Fire Sprinkler System _ � Insulation: P P Y Fee Paid $35.00 F Qate 8/10/2017 Final Project Review Req: Fire Sprinkler System - �, rl -- Plumbing/Gas Rough Plumbing: . -.... �e � Building Official Final Plumbing: This permit shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authonzed=by this permit is commenced within six months after;issuance. All work authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved appli ation ar`d the approved construction documents•for�which thus permit has been granted. Rough Gas: All construction,alterations and changes of use of any building and structures shall be in with the local zoA— 11 taws and codes. Final Gas: This permit shall be displayed in a location clearly visible from access street&r4oad!and shall be maintained open for public tnspetaion for the entire duration of the work until the completion of the same. � t. Electrical The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicable sign tur s by the Bu Idmg and Fire Officials are prouitled on this permit. Service: Minimum of Five Call Inspections Required for All Construction Work a y _. 1.Founi'iation or FootingRough:. . ...., - _2.Sheathing inspection � »-�-" ,-�: »•w••� " 3.All Fireplaces must be inspected at the throat level before firest flue lining is installed Final: 4.Wiring&Plumbing Inspections to be completed prior to frame Inspection 5.Prior to Covering Structural Members(Frame inspection) _ Low Voltage Rough: 6.Insulation 7.Final Inspection before Occupancy Low Voltage Final: Where applicable,separate permits are required for Electrical,Plumbing,and Mechanical Installations., Health.._ . Work-shall not proceed d until the Inspector has approved the various"stages'of construction Final: , f ".Persons contracting:with,unregistered contractors do,nothave access to the guaranty fund'!Jasssetforth m MGL c 142A). i,. w---.-.. fire Department ,:..._._.._ _...". Building plans are to be available on site Final: AlIl Permit.Cards are the property of the APPLICANT-ISSUED-RECIPIENT- f TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PEf I'APPLICATION b� I IL) TOWN OF BARNSTABLE Map Parcel Application # Health Division 25 P.m r: o 5 Date Issued sho 17 Conservation Division Application Fee Planning Dept. V � � m . 0 G Permit Fee J_j� Date Definitive Plan Approved by Planning Board Historic - OKH _ Preservation/ Hyannis Project Street Address C4A!F gM Village �ln1l Owner �� _�tQ4-d)ELE�Ec:-)� Address M)Ai&J15 Telephone SOR Permit Request Tim GvE_5��_ 11A ,�_4(ALL Is t Square feet: 1 st floor: existing go I proposed 2nd floor: existing $ proposed Total new Zoning District Flood Plain Groundwater Overlay Project Valuation Construction Type Lot Size e 2 Aeg)�S Grandfathered: ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family X Two Family ❑ Multi-Family(# units) Age of Existing Structure 5 Historic House: ❑Yes UkNo On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes OKNo Basement Type: kull ❑ Crawl ❑Walkout ❑Other Basement Finished Area (sq.ft.) Basement Unfinished Area (sq.ft) Number of Baths: Full: existing 2 new Half: existing new Number of Bedrooms: __!� existing —new Total Room Count (not including baths): existing new First Floor Room Count Heat Type and Fuel: a-Gas ❑ Oil ❑ Electric ❑ Other Central Air: ❑Yes ❑.Pdo Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: ❑Yes Colo Detached garage: existing ❑ new size_Pool: ❑ existing ❑ new size — Barn: ❑ existing ❑ new size_ Attached garage: ❑existing ❑ new size _Shed: ❑ existing ❑ new size — Other: Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization ❑ Appeal # Recorded ❑ Commercial ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, site plan review# Current Use Proposed Use APPLICANT INFORMATION (BUILDER OR HOMEOWNER) Name S Telephone Number 606 790 � Address I O Rox 1q 5 License # 00 Home Improvement Contractor# Email E. Worker's Compensation # ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO SIGNATURE DATE 7 )2t; JPn 17 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY APPLICATION # DATE ISSUED MAP/ PARCEL NO. ADDRESS VILLAGE (OWNER DATE OF INSPECTION: FOUNDATION FRAME INSULATION �l-OPIFIREPLACE ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL PLUMBING: ROUGH FINAL { GAS: ROUGH FINAL FINAL BUILDING 7 ue DATE CLOSED OUT i ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. 2'Irs Comurorrivreakh of 1Massadi=etts .� Depart7raerrt ctf rudlrrstria!Acdderrdg f), ce ofrmwsirgafiam. 600 Washington Street _Y Boston,MA 02HI nwn.?rr asmgrrvIdia Workers' Cumpensafien Insurance Affidavit:EmbdersiContta cturs/ElectricianslPhumbers Applicant Inftarmaffan Please P`rintle��bl �Na= RIA 7CRiR aT7Ta�7 �, ��'• Ada,: Q® c 6aF; city/stat.� �t� Phoao-t',1-- 5 q� Are you an employer?Checkthe appropriate box: 4. I am a general contractor and I Type of project{requireqc I am a employes u�rth a ❑ • • employees(full andFOf part-time),* Dave Iliredthe sub—contractors - ❑New construction 2.❑ I am a sale proprietor orpartner listed oathe attached sheet 7- ❑Remodeling slip and have no employees. These sub-contractors have g_ ❑Demolition working forme in•an-y capacity emTloyees artdhave wodcers' [N0odon&'Comp.insurance Comp.msurarr 9. El BIIIIdtIIgaddrtlOTP 54 required] 5- ❑ We are a corporation and its M❑Electrical repairs or additions 3.❑ I ama homeowner doing all work of cM have-exErdsed their 1 L❑Plumbing repairs or adr&tions mysdf [No work:ers'camp- right of exemption per MGL 13. Roofr�� fsictrramce required]Y c.152, §1(4h and we ha�venD ❑ employees.[No workers' 131:1 Other comp itsurance required-) #Anyapptic thatcherla box iTItffi;talsafllloatthesecdon below khncdngthe¢wojieWcaanpeumd uparmyinforma¢oa. M.m2emmerswho submit dais z ffidaeii iaffratimg they aim doing allwcal sad then.him outs:Ae contractors aaast submit anewaffidaeit indintiz smch. fCan>RMEs thst cbea iMs box must attmr as oddidanal sheet showing tha imns of Ilse su]t-ccn=cto s sad state whether or not those eadties hare ewlopees.Ifthesib-coatmriarshire emplayLe,theymastpivtdde their nrorkeW comp.policy number_ I ant an empkyw that isprniding workers'compensrdian irmtraR-cefor my mrphzpees $etoov is ffig policy curd jab site inf ornzatiom Ince Company Name: Poliicy';�'L or Self-iris.Lic.;�: RxpirdfmaDate: Job Site Address: CitylStateZ2tp: Attach a copy of-the workers'compensationpolicy declaration page(showing the policy number and expiration date). Failure to secum coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL c- 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a fine up to$I,50a BOO aniVar one-yearimprisonment,as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDERand afine of up to$250.00 a day against the violator. Be advised that a copy of this statement maybe forwarded to the OfRce of Itavestigations of the DIA.for insurance coverage v-erificatian. I do 11 ere-by real �riat&r tTte pair pert aflrerfitr tliattlte infbrmati niprm�d abm iq bars td carre l Sit�tature: 11afMA4j A Date: J.r Phone;k S`V tiff rciaL t£}: Do itot avrke in dds urea,to be wntpleteJ by city orton�r official City or Town- PernxitUcense# Issuing A.nfhority(circle one): 11 L Board of Ilialtli 3.Building Department 3.Ciydrowa Clerk 4.Electrical Inspector 5.Phttmbmg Inspector b.Other Contact Person: Phone#: faformation a,n d llstructions ' Geneaal.Latvs 1$Z requires all empoy I =to prowl de wnrkeas'compensation far their employees. MassachusetL-s par=zot-D this Vie,an mpIayee is defined as."evmy person in the service of another under any coatzad ofhira, express or i mpliecL oral or win.-" An.wrTkye3 is dr froed as`°aa in&6-I lat partnership,association,corpa On or other legal entlf}T,or any tv or mare of the foregoing=4&aged in aloint ,and including the legal re:pesmtatives of a deceased employer,or the receiver or tros•t=of an individnA partnership,association or other legal entity,employing employers. However the owner of a.dw6 ng house havmgnot more than three aparimeats and-who resides therein,or the occapant ofthe - dwellmg house of another who employs persons to do maintmance,consfrnction or repair v .on such dwelling house or on the grounds or bm- mg appurtenant$hereto shall not because of sash employment be deemed t o be an employer." MI GL cbaptor 152,§25C(6)also states that"every sfatm or local licensing agency shall withhold file issuance or renewal of a license or permit to operate a business or to construct buildings is the commonwealth for any applicant who has notproduced acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance coverage required_" Additionally,MGL chapter 152,§25C(7)states"Neither the con aawealth nor try ofi:ts political subdivisions shall enter into any contract fortheperformance ofpubli w�c ozk�acceptable evidence of compliancewith the insar=6% regtm�nie�of this cbaptnr have been presenInd to the contracting'arzfhoiiLY-" Applicants Phase fill ord the-wo ers'compensation affidavit completely,by checking$e boxes-at apply to your sitnaiion and,if nmess sub-contracts s nam s , address es and one numb s along with their certfficate(s)of ' P�' �) L ( ) �) s with no Io ees other than.the ;T,s,,,�ce. LimitedLiabr7ity Companies(LLC)or LimitedF.iabpZityP��hip .(LLP) �P Y merhbers or pa f ners,are not regimed to parry wormers' compensation iiistn'ance If an T T C'ar LLP does have employs,a policy is re FiMd. B e advised that this affidayit may be smbmf��d to the Depa-rtment of lndusirial ee Accidents for confirmation of insurance coverage_ Also be sure to sign and dafu#he affidavit The affidavit should be rettzmed to the city or tDwnthat the application for the permit or license is being regaestr not the Department of ; opal Accidents aould you have any qae sdons regard'mg the law or ifyou are required to obtain a work=' compensationpolicy,please call the Department atthenumberlistEdbelow. Self-insua companies shouldentertheir self-min ce liceiose number an the appropriate lime. .City or Town Officials Pleas e:be stye that the affidavit is cadet D and printed legibly. The Department has provided a space at.the bottom of the affidavit for you ti)fill out in the event the Office of Investigations has to cortart You regarding the apphra nt Pleas e b e surc to fll in the peimitllicense number which will be;used as a referemce nimmber. In addition,an applicant en ear need o submit one affidav>t mdicafmg can-mat that must sabrait multiple permitlIicense applications in any giv y nl3' p olicy-h l rnation Cif necessary)and un "Job Site A cT�ress"$e applicant shoLIcl w='--"all.loca±ions ia (�Y�: tnvam)_'A copy of-the affidavit that has been officially stmped or marked by the city or tovm may be provide.•d to the applicant as proofthat a valid affidavit is on file for fainre.pemits or licenses- A new affidavit must be filled Olt.eia.ch year.Where a home owner or citizen is obtaining a lioense or pmmit not related tb any business or commercial vPTnfi'TT' (in. a dog license or permit to burn leaves a .)said person is NOT zeq=ed to complete this affidavit The Office of Invesiigdions would like to hank you in advance for your cooperation and should you have any gaestians, please do not hesit-ate to give us a call The Department's address,telephone and fax number_ Tha C-a-MMMwealth of Massacl�vs�tls ' Offica of In tio.= 6DQ vlQn t �. �r�an,�E111 ` e,-L 41f 617' -49QO I=t 406 Or 1-4�77-MA�' , Fay 5 617-`2'-7M Revised4-24 07 DIME Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services KASS. ' * Richard V.Scali,Director Fc 39. Building Division. Paul Roma,Building Commissioner 20.0 Main Street,Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 Property Owner Must Complete and Sign This Section If Using A Builder y eiCkAA16 WR-A8y ST I, sR JWM -Q�- 010T ��Io��I ASS IBC'. ,as Owner of the subject property hereby authorize to act on my behalf, in all matters relative to work authorized by this building permit application for: EE. 8E7 pp�, (Address of Job) **Pool fences and alarms are the responsibility of the applicant. Pools are not to be filled'or utilized before fence is installed and all final inspections are performed and accepted. 76 A FMOALe) U10 Signature of Owner Ue of Applicant C� Print Name Print Name 1 Date QTORM&OWNERPERMISSIONPOOLS f 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 y , HYDRAULIC DESIGN INFORMATION SHEET Job Name: 95 Chase Street T " I; OF BARNSTABLE Location: Hyannis, MA Drawing Date: R,emot'W Taeappumbe- 1 Contractor: Mass Fire Protection Telephone: 508-790-4696 256C Great Western Road South Dennis, MA _ Designer: , ARD Calculated By:SprinkCAD www. sprinkcad.com 451 N. Cannon Ave. Lansdale, PA 19446 Construction: wood Occupancy:living space Reviewing Authorities: FPE/Fire Dept. SYSTEM DESIGN Code:NFPA 13D Hazard:RES System Type:WET Area of Sprinkler Oper. sq ftj Sprinkler or Nozzle Density (gpm/sq ft) RES I Make: RELIABL Area per Sprinkler 256. 0 sq ftj Model: FIRES Hose Allowance Inside 0 gpm I K-Factor: 4 . 40 Hose Allowance Outside 0 gpm I Temperature Rating: 155 CALCULATION SUMMARY 2 Flowing Outlets gpm Required: 32.4 psi Required: 65. 6 @ Source WATER SUPPLY Water Flow Test Pump Data Date of Test 7-5-17 Rated Capacity 0 gpm Static Pressure 80 . 0 psi I Rated Pressure 0. 0 psi Residual Pres 65. 0 psi Elevation 0 At a Flow of 1060 gpm .� Make: Elevation 0" Model: Location: Source of Information: SYSTEM VOLUME 12 Gallons Notes: Scott D. Henderson ���O t a' scorro. ti� 2017.07. 14 0 HEgo.ND4W o FIRE PROW"O y FGIs 13:31 :33 •• t �, '00'04- 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 HYDRAULIC CALCULATION DETAILS HYDRAULIC FLOW LOSS QTY DESCRIPTION LENGTH C ID gpm psi TOTALS Hydr Ref W Required at Hyd Area 1 32 59.1 psi Elevation Change 3 ' 0" 1 . 3 1 1�," Grvd Back Flow Valve Ames 200 CHART LOSS 32 4 . 5 2 2" Thrd 90 Ell DI 10 ' 120 2 .067 32 0. 1 1 Pipe 2" Lx20 Copper 45' 150 1 . 985 32 0 . 4 1 2" Fingd Gate Valve Kennedy Gate 1 ' 120 2 . 067 32 0 . 0 1 2" Thrd Tee DI 10 ' 120 2 . 067 32 0. 1 Hydr Ref Rl Required at Source 32 65. 6 psi Water Source 80 . 0 psi static, 65. 0 psi residual @ 1060 gpm 32 gpm 80.0 psi SAFETY PRESSURE 14.4 psi Available Pressure of 80.0 psi Exceeds Required Pressure of 65. 6 psi This is a safety margin of 14.4 psi or 18 % of Supply Maximum Water Velocity is 12 .2 fps C 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 3 Page 3 FITTING NAME TABLE ABBREV. NAME C Coupling E 90 ' Standard Elbow F 45' Elbow S Straight Flow Thru Tee T 90 ' Flow Thru Tee V Valve LEGEND HYD REF Hydraulic reference. Refer to accompanying flow diagram. _ K FACTOR Flow factor for open head or path where Flow (gpm) = K x -\/P Qa Flow added or subtracted Qt Total flow DIA. Actual internal diameter of pipe C Hazen Williams pipe roughness factor Pf/ft Friction loss per foot of pipe PIPE Length of pipe FTNG' S Number of fittings. See table above. TOTAL Total length (PIPE + FTNG' S) Pt Total pressure (psi) at fitting Pe Pressure due to change in elevation where Pe = 0. 433 x change in elevation Pf Friction loss (psi) to fitting where Pf = 1 x 4 . 52 x (Q/C) ^1 . 85 / ID^4 . 87 Pv Velocity pressure (psi) where Pv = 0. 001123 x Q^2/ID^4 Pn Normal pressure (psi) , where Pn = Pt - Pv NOTES: - Pressures are balanced to 0 . 01 psi. Pressures are listed to 0. 1 psi . Addition may vary by 0 . 1 psi due to accumulation of round off. - Calculations conform to NFPA 13. - Velocity Pressures are not considered in these Calculations 95 Chase Ave Drawing pate: 7/13/17 18:18 Page 4 NODE ELEVATION SPRINKLER PRESSURE ACTUAL MINIMUM ACTUAL NUMBER K-FACTOR FLOW FLOW DENSITY (FT) (GPM/ (PSI-1,�) ) (PSI) (GPM) (GPM) (GPM/SQ.FT) 10 -1 . 00 45. 7 Al -1 . 00 54 . 4 A2 -1 . 00 56. 4 Sl 15. 50 4 . 40 13. 9 16. 4 16. 0 0. 06 S2 15. 50 4 . 40 13. 3 16. 0 16. 0 0 . 06 W -5. 00 59. 1 Max velocity of 12 . 16 occurs in the pipe from A2 TO Al 95 Chase Ave Drawing Date: 7/13/17 18:18 Tyco Fire Products Page 5 HYD. Qa DIA. FITTING PIPE Pt Pt REF "C" TYPES FTNG' S Pe Pv ******* NOTES ******* POINT Qt Pf/ft TOTAL Pf Pn PATH 1 FROM HYDRAULIC REFERENCE S2 TO W (PRIMARY PATH) 16. 05 1 . 101 2E 5.21 13. 3 13. 3 K = 4 . 40 S2 C=150 7 . 65 0 . 0 0. 0 16. 05 0. 045 12 . 86 0. 6 13. 3 Vel = 5. 46 16. 39 1 . 101 9E 75.29 13. 9 13. 9 K = 4 . 40 Sl C=150 4T 72 . 68 7 . 1 0 . 0 32 . 44 0. 166 147 . 97 24 . 6 13. 9 Vel = 11 . 04 1 . 049 2E 13 .34 45. 7 45 . 7 10 C=120 2T 14 . 00 0. 0 0 . 0 32 . 44 0.318 27 . 34 8 .7 45.7 Vel = 12 . 16 1 .049 1E 4 . 32 54 . 4 54 . 4 Al C=120 2 . 00 0. 0 0. 0 32 . 44 0 . 318 6.32 2 . 0 54 . 4 Vel = 12 . 16 1 . 380 lE 8 . 08 56. 4 56. 4 A2 C=120 3. 00 1 .7 0. 0 32 . 44 0. 084 11 . 08 0 . 9 56. 4 Vel = 7 . 03 W 32 . 44 59. 1 K = 4 .22 UNITS - DIAMETER (INCH) LENGTH (FOOT) FLOW (GPM) PRESSURE (PSI) 95 Chase Ave Static Pres: 80.0 psi Pressure: 65.6 psi In: 0 gpm Hyannis, MA Resid. Pres: 65.0 psi Sys Flow: 32 gpm Out: 0 gpm Flow: 1060 gpm Sys+Hose: 32 gpm Remote Area: 1 Date: 7-5-17 Safety Pres: 14.4 psi Loc: Hd Elv Pres: 10.2 psi 140 120 100 8 Supply 60 40 20 10.2 psi 100 150 200 250 300 350. 400 450 50 _JC /Vll� �., —Commonwealth of Massachusetts , t - ._,.,; 'Department of Public-Safety. y' License: SC=004421 Sprinkler Cont�actor TERENCE A OSHEA PO BOX 695. - } WEST BARNSTABLE1 A 03668 Expiration: Corrmmissioner 08/28I2017' SUILDIN DEFT AUG 10 2017 1-OWN OF BARNS ABLE (9, .3�mployer MASS FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS INC Sprinkler Contractor '. z` DPS Licensing information visit: WWW.MASS.GOVIDPS p• /19/03 03;57PM HPFAX Page 3 AC�® nI Cat i PIM /' ..'°�� DATE C&MIDDIVYYYI �,,� CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITViNSURANCE 7r25r2017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHT'S UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POUCIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A..-CONTRACT-BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER IMPORTANT: N the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the'po y(ies)must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WANED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may.regtdre an endowment. A staternent on this eertifieate does not confer rights to the c*rtlficate holder in lieu of ouch endorsemeWsl. PRODUCER CONTACT McSweeney&Ricci Insurance Agency,Inc. ----...... ...__.._.__ Fwx_..----._..............__ 420 Washington Street E�Max Fwtl-781-848-8600 781-843-8807 Braintree MA 02185 mdreception a@rncsweene ricci.com IM Aff-b No C0V6RAM Niue& _ weumm A:Travelers 18674 n�UREp MASSF-1 INSURER a ......._._....... _.._.__..........._........___.._..._...._.__....._. _.._ Mass Fire Protection Systems INSURER C PO Box 695 West BamstaWe MA 02668 OLUNWR E: P18I1RErt P COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:1926975231 REVISION NUMSM THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTRR TYPE OF INSURANCE ow W POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF �Y E1Y T W Leg _COMMERCIAL GENERAL LMBIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE S CLAIMS-MADE �OCCUR PREMI SES MA ETO ocoo n e $ MED EW am pmm S PERSONAL&ADv INJURY S GENT AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER GENERAL AGGREGATEPROv $ POLICY❑'.CT LOC I PRODUCTS-COMPIOP AGG S OTHER - $ AUTOMomI.E LIABILITY o acci ED a ANY AUTO BODILYIMIURY{Pet pww) S AUTOS OWNEDALL SCt1EDULEO ...... _......--....._.-.. --......._—_..-. A�TQ$ BODILY INJURY(Per mrule ne) S HIRED AUTOS AUTOS N ED . por amident) _ . S Itrig"tIELLA LIAR OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE S EXCEL LIAR • CtACMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ OEO RETENTION $ A iWORKERECOMPENSATION UBIB282WO 12H2Pl01& 12M21Mi7 AND EMPLOYERW LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECUTNE ; I-[-EACH ACCIDENT $500,000 DFRCERAEMEIER EXCLUDED? N I A plfaodrta�r in UN) E.L.OISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE s5OD.000 Nyee rlbe.urda DESC deRIPTION OF OPERATIONS blow- i E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $500.000 t I I MCRIPTION OF OPERATIONI I LOCATIONS I V0#CM IACOID 101.Aeamola Room sd+edlk.m"be attvOwd It more is mwkbo CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BUORE Town of Yarmouth TIME 004RATION DATE Tl83tEOF, NOTICE YrILL BE OELIVERED IN 1146 Route 28 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PRow81ONS. S Yarmouth MA 02664 AumORsav wslve a laaaanla ArnRn r:nRPARATInN AU rinMa score-tt /19/03 03;57PM HPFAX Page 2 owsrABIE CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE , P"PI -, 07/20/2017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON 1HE•CEitTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT--BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. r 11 F,_"- �:�.- IMPORTANT:If the certificate hotder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(les)must be endorsed.If SUBRO"-TION IS WAIVED,suNeet to the terms and conditions of the Policy,certain polio may require an endorsement.A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the aerfilfcats holder in Eeu of Such andorsernarN(s). PRODUCER NAwaA-.� Joe Lynch PHONE 89 210 8222 FAX The Lynco Group )tta..tr :.... .. _.. ..itVc.Not: e I r o com P O Box 4336 : 1eoY�s�anee_...,.,,_..,P� ..._..._..—.._.._ S AFFORI MG COVERAGE NAIC 0 Peabody 01961 MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY INSURED p1S>MER e: ---__ ...... Mass Fire Protection Systems,Inc. INSURER C: _........ P O Box 695 INSURED D I NSIIRgR E West Barnstable 02668 INSURER F: — COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES-LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIM3. LTa TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY HUMeER XMIxyffm Poucr FSF r LIMITS X COMMERCIAL GENIMALLWWffY EACHOCCURIM4CE a 1.000,000 CLAIM&MADE OCCUR pREHgSE3 tEa pug rimer ,.,�,_ S 100.000 MED EXP Oil ane Craw) . E NA A 3AA115156 (lB/1312016 08/13/2017 PERSONAL A ADvINJuRY 5 1,000,000 GENT_AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $.2-000,000 . PRo PRODUCTS s 2,000,000 X voucv PCT LOc E i OTHER: AUTOMOBILEUABEM C�OM Lqg5jdeM.__ E BODILY IMAMY(P-Person) i ANY AUTO F ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY K)URY(PW aeddent) S AUTOS AUTOS O� WNED PROPERTY DAMAGE 3 P ecd�r't IiREOAUTOS AUTOS - -- ' E nYBRELLA UAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE E HEXCESS I" q A*tS µDOE AGGREGATE OED RETE.TM S VKWJMS COMPENSATION STA ER _ ._..._..._.....—_.....---- AND EMPLOYERS'LtA81UftY Y/N ANYPROPMETORIPARTNFfMXECUTIVE �N l A E,L EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICEwM ►IB EER EXCLuaeD7 E.L otSEASE-EA EMPLOYEEE yes ..__.........._ _._.._. DESCRIPTION OPERATIONS blow EL DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT 5 I DE$CRIPTRNi OF OPERATION$I LOCATIONS I VEWCLES(ACORD 191,Add19WW It"m s SdttdulL may bs ssrodmd if more ipLq b y*qu sd) CERTIFICATE BOLDER CANCELLATION Commorntlealtlt of Massachusetts SHOULD ANY of THE ABOVE DEscONED POLICIES BE CANCELLED�E Department of of M Safety THE ATM DATE THEREOF. NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE VITTH THE POLICY PROkAMONS. AUTNORIZED REPREEGRATATIVE a 1gRR.2n+a ArORn CARPARATTON,All rinhtx rpnmv*d. I Mass. Corporations, external master page Page 1 of 2 c Corporations Division Business Entity Summary ID Number: 043082385Request certificate New search Summary for: MASS FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, INC. The exact name of the Domestic Profit Corporation: MASS FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, . INC. Entity type: Domestic Profit Corporation . Identification Number: 043082385 Old ID Number: 000330490 Date of Organization in Massachusetts: Date of Revival: 06-18-2008 04-06-1990 Date of Dissolution: 05-31-2007 Last date certain: Current Fiscal Month/Day: 12/31 Previous Fiscal Month/Day: 03/31 The location of the Principal Office: Address: 3606 MAIN STREET City or town, State, Zip code, BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA Country: The name and address of the Registered Agent: Name: TERENCE O'SHEA Address: 25 COSYHOME TERRACE City or town, State, Zip code, W. YARMOUTH, MA 02673 USA Country: The Officers and Directors of the Corporation: Title Individual Name Address PRESIDENT TERENCE O'SHEA 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA SECRETARY LAURIE O'SHEA 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA PRESIDENT TERENCE O'SHEA 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA TREASURER LAURIE O'SHEA 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA CLERK LAURIE O'SHEA 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA DIRECTORS TERENCE O'SHEA http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=0430823 85&... 8/10/2017 Mass. Corporations, external master page Page 2 of 2 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA DIRECTOR LAURIE O'SHEA 3606 MAIN STREET BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 USA Business entity stock is publicly traded: ❑ The total number of shares and the par value, if any, of each class of stock which this business entity is authorized to issue: Total Authorized Total issued and Class of Stock Par value per share outstanding No.of shares Total par No.of shares value CNP $ 0.00 200,000 $ 0.00 2,000 ❑ ❑Confidential ❑Merger ❑ Consent Data Allowed Manufacturing View filings for this business entity: ALL FILINGS Administrative Dissolution ' Annual Report Application For Revival Articles of Amendment View filings Comments or notes associated with this business entity: A New search http://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?FEIN=043082385&... 8/10/2017 A i . ;t T t...'i_.1 V.E. _ tt'.,2,3 HILL LAW BY HAND and EMAIL(brian.florence@town.bamstable.ma.us) September 8,2017 Brian Florence,Barnstable Building Commissioner 200 Main Street Hyannis,MA 02601 Re: Appeal of Building Permit and Request for Zoning Enforcement 95 Chase St Hyannis MA Dear Mr. Florence: This firm has been retained by the abutters (whose names and addresses are copied below)to the Homeless Not Helpless("HNH") shelter proposed for 95 Chase Street,Hyannis, Massachusetts to appeal the building permit(No. B-17-2336)issued on August 10, 2017, and to request zoning enforcement under G.L. c. 40A, ss. 8& 15, and sections 240-123(A)and 240- 125(B)(1)(a)of the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance(`BZO") Backparound The shelter proposed for 95 Chase Street would be the fifth(5t')such HNH shelter located in Hyannis in the past five years, all in residential districts within two miles of each other. The influx of HNH shelters to Hyannis started in 2012 when your predecessor denied a building permit to renovate a single family house on Main Street because the primary use of the property was not predominantly educational. On HNH's appeal to the Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals("ZBA"),the ZBA reversed the Building Commissioner and ordered the building permit to be issued. A copy of the ZBA's Decision in Appeal No. 2012-052 ("2012 Decision"), dated October 15, 2012, is enclosed. You may recall the 2012 Decision as you were on the ZBA at the time. You raised concerns about the Building Commissioner's denial of the permit,according to the Decision, as he never made a specific determination and failed to cite the BZO. Instead, "[t]he Building Commissioner determined that a factual analysis of whether or not the proposed use is predominately educational would be most appropriately conducted by a multiple-member board in the context of a public hearing."(2012 Decision, at p. 1)During the public hearing, HNH's attorney emphasized the Building Commissioner's position: he "felt is would be beneficial for the facts of the case to be decided at a public hearing after a fact-based analysis."(Id. at 2)No attorney appeared on behalf of the Town or the neighborhood. The ZBA reversed the denial,in part, "due to the Building Commissioner's lack of a specific determination as well as lack of citations to the Town of Barnstable's ZoningSO ding ce. (Id. at 3) To Sep 08? A/0 01I ��F Zoning Ordinance Now, five years later and with the benefit of counsel,we are seeking a specific determination that the proposed use of the subject property violates the BZO, and is not exempt under the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40A, s. 3. Even where applicable,the Dover Amendment is not a blanket exemption to all zoning, so the starting point should be a zoning review of the property and its proposed use. The subject property is a four bedroom house with one and half bathrooms and 1964 square feet of living area located in the Residence B District("RB"), where detached, single- family residential dwellings are the principal permitted use. (BZO 240-11(A)(1))The renting of rooms for up to three nonfamily members is allowed by right in the RB as an accessory use, which can be increased by special permit to allow up to six lodgers. (Id. 240-11(B)(1)&(c)(1)) Under the BZO,the use of a dwelling must comply with the rules of the district in which it is located: Conformance to use regulations. No building shall be erected or altered and no building or premises shall be used for any purpose except in conformity with all of the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located. (BZO 240-7(A)) Some information about HNH from the 2012 Decision remains pertinent today to evaluating the proposed use of the subject property: • "their mission is to assist the homeless . . . through the provision of short term housing" • "many residents have part- or full-time jobs" • "residents typically stay[] for 6 to 9 months."(2012 Decision, at pp. 1, 3) Based on this information,the first determination we ask you to make is that HNH's proposed use of the subject property is not a principal use allowed in the RB district. Similarly, for the Main Street site in 2012 "a lodging house [wa]s not a permitted use in the district."(2012 Decision, at p. 1) Here,the RB district could allow up to 3 nonfamily lodgers by right, and up to 6 by special permit, assuming such use would otherwise conform to the BZO. Based on the Site Plan review dated April 21, 2017(a copy of which is enclosed),HNH's intended occupancy is for "eight(8)men or women plus one(1)resident manager."(4/21/17 Site Plant Review#024-17, at p. 1)That is not an allowed use at 95 Chase Street under zoning. We therefore ask you to determine, in accordance with the BZO use regulations for the RB district cited above, that HNH's occupancy be limited to no more than six(6)residents, and subject to the conditions of a special permit. Dover Amendment The Dover Amendment forbids local zoning from prohibiting the use of structures for educational purposes on land owned by a nonprofit educational corporation,but allows reasonable dimensional and parking regulations: No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however,that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. G.L. c. 40, s. 3 The BZO codifies Dover's reasonable regulation principle by requiring a"modification permit," similar to a special permit,but requiring only a simply majority rather than two-thirds vote of the ZBA for approval: The following uses and structures are permitted in all zoning districts . . .: The use of land or structures exempt from the use provisions of this chapter pursuant to MGL Ch. 40A, § 3, and any other statute. (a)Where such exempt uses are subject to reasonable regulation of bulk, density and parking regulations by MGL Ch. 40A, § 3,reasonable regulation shall be deemed to be: the bulk regulations of the zoning district . . . (b)Where the proposed use does not comply with Subsection A(3)(a)above,the Zoning Board of Appeals shall by a modification permit,modify the bulk regulations of the zoning district and/or the parking requirements of Article VI, Off-Street Parking Regulations, where such regulation would substantially diminish or detract from the usefulness of a proposed development, or impair the character of the development so as to affect its intended use, provided that the modification of the bulk regulations and/or parking requirements will not create a public safety hazard along the adjacent roadways and will not create a nuisance to other, surrounding properties such that it will impair the use of these properties. (c)A modification permit shall be subject to the same procedural requirements as a special permit, except that approval of the modification permit shall require a majority of the members of the Board. (BZO 240-8(A)(3)) Accordingly,because the density of the proposed use(9 unrelated occupants for a four- bedroom house)does not comply with the regulations of the RB district,we ask you to determine that a modification permit is required from the ZBA in accordance with BZO 240-8(A)(3). The Dover Amendment represents a specific exception to the general power of municipalities to adopt and enforce zoning regulations and by-laws. "The whole of the Dover Amendment . . . seeks to strike a balance between preventing local discrimination against an educational use, . . . and honoring legitimate municipal concerns that typically find expression in local zoning laws" Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753 , 757(1993). As a practical matter,the protection afforded by the Dover Amendment should be construed so as to minimize the risk that it will improperly be extended to situations like this that it was never intended to cover. We do not question HNH's altruistic intent based on its stated mission. But however beneficent that may be,providing temporary housing for homeless individual is not an educational use under the Dover Amendment. Not a single case in Massachusetts have ever held otherwise. To the contrary,the Supreme Judicial Court has made it clear that in order to qualify for a zoning exemption under Dover,the use must be educationally significant, and must also be the primary or dominant purpose: "We have also, however, recognized two commonsense and interrelated limits on the statute's application. The first is that the Dover Amendment protects only those uses of land and those structures that have as their bona fide goal something that can reasonably be described as "educationally significant." The second is that the educationally significant goal must be the "primary or dominant" purpose for which the land or structures will be used." Regis College v. Weston,462 Mass at 285 (2012)(emphasis added). In the Regis College case, the SJC reaffirmed that in order to claim the protection of the Dover Amendment's "educational purposes clause, a landowner must demonstrate that its use of land will have as its"primary purpose" a goal that can reasonably be described as"educationally significant."Id. at 291. Based on the information from the 2012 Decision and the 2017 Site Plan Review, we ask you to make the following determinations: 1. HNH's proposed use of the subject property is not a principal use allowed in the RB district; 2. HNH's occupancy must be limited to no more than six(6)residents, and subject to the conditions of a special permit; 3. the Dover Amendment does not exempt the proposed use from zoning; and 4. even if Dover applies, a modification permit is required from the ZBA. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you, or with Town Counsel. Very truly yours, /s/ Dennis A. Murphy Encl. Cc: Laura Wentzel, 7 Harvard St., Hyannis, MA 02601 John Julius, 140 Chase St.,Hyannis,MA 02601 Susan Dubuc, 52 Harvard St., Hyannis,MA 02601 Town of Barnstable Building • s Post This Card So That it is Visible From the Street-Approved Plans Must be Retained on Job and this Card.Must be Kept Posted Until Final Inspection Has Been Made. irn11 eaa+� Where a Certificate of Occupancy is Required,such Building shall Not be Occupied until a Final Inspection has been made. Permit Permit No. B-17-2336 Applicant Name: Mass Fire Protection Systems Approvals Date Issued: 08/10/2017 Current Use: Structure Permit Type: Building-Smoke Detector-Fire Alarm Dection Expiration Date: 02/10/2018 Foundation: System Map/Lot: 307-134 Zoning District: RB Sheathing: Location: 95 CHASE STREET,HYANNIS .� _._.r._.�.......�......__4,�_ Contractor Name: Framing: 1 Owner on Record: EMMITT,ROBERT W&PATRICIA L Contractor License 2 Address: 119 BAXTER ROAD Est Project Cost: $0.00 HYANNIS,MA 02601 Chimney: Permit.Fe�: $35.00 Description: Fire Sprinkler System Insulation: Fee Paid., $35.00 Project Review Req: Fire Sprinkler System Date: f 8/10/2017 Final: F fR ` Plumbing/Gas Rough Plumbing: Building Official Final Plumbing: This permit shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the worVauthorized by this permit is commenced within six months after issuance. All work authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved application and the approved construction documents for which�this permit has been granted. Rough Gas: All construction,alterations and changes of use of any building and structures shall be in compliance with the local zoning by-laws,and codes. Final Gas: This permit shall be displayed in a location clearly visible from access street or road�and shall be maintained open for public inspection for the entire duration of the work until the completion of the same. Electrical The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicable signatures by the Building and Fire_Officials are provided on this permit. Service: Minimum of Five Call Inspections Required for All Construction Work: 1.Foundation or Footing Rough: 2.Sheathing Inspection g 3.All Fireplaces must be inspected at the throat level before firest flue lining is installed Final: 4.Wiring&Plumbing Inspections to be completed prior to Frame Inspection 5.Prior to Covering Structural Members(Frame Inspection) Low Voltage Rough: 6. Insulation 7.Final Inspection before Occupancy Low Voltage Final: Where applicable,separate permits are required for Electrical,Plumbing,and Mechanical Installations. Health Work shall not proceed until the Inspector has approved the various stages of construction. Final: "Persons contracting with unregistered contractors do not have access to the guaranty fund" (as set forth in MGL c.142A). Fire Department Building plans are to be available on site Final: All Permit Cards are the property of the APPLICANT-ISSUED RECIPIENT Go�_: 1 Y2046r039 11-13-2012 11 :32 j e:ARNSTA( = LA14D COURT REGISTRY KUM Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals '"2 qCl 15 P Decision and Notice Appeal No.2012-052-Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. Appeal of the Building Commissioner Seeking building permit to allow homeless support services per MGL 40A§3 Summary: Overruled Decision of Building Commissioner Petitioner. Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc. (prospective property owners) 310 Ocean St, Hyannis, MA Property Address: 22 Main Street,Hyannis Assessor's Map/Parcel: 342/028 Property Owner. Edward Ready and Francis Ready 4130 General Pershing St, New Orleans,LA 70125 Zoning: MS Medical Services,WP Wellhead Protection Hearing Date: October 10,2012 Relief Requested and Background In Appeal 2012-052, Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc(hereinafter"Homeless not Hopeless", 'HnH") appealed the Building Commissioner's denial of a building permit to renovate the premises at 22 Main Street, Hyannis. The Appellant proposed to create 12 bedrooms to be occupied by no more than 14 residents, plus a live-in resident manager, all of whom are formerly homeless persons who will be taught to live independently. HnH applied for a building permit for renovations to the property, claiming that the use was exempt from local zoning regulations by M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3, which protects the use of property for educational purposes by non-profit educational corporations. The Building Commissioner, in a letter dated September 4, 2012, denied HnH's building permit application. In that letter the Building Commissioner questions whether the °primary use of the property is educational". The Building Commissioner determined that a factual analysis of whether or not the proposed use is predominately educational would be most appropriately conducted by a multiple-member board in the context of a public hearing. In response, Homeless Not Hopeless filed this appeal. The subject property is located at 22 Main Street, Hyannis, MA as shown on Assessor's Map 342 as parcel 028. Homeless Not Hopeless submitted for the record a signed copy of a purchase and sale agreement and a letter from the property owner authorizing application to the ZBA. The subject property is a former single-family residence with 4,416 sq.ft of living area, built in 1924. On-site parking is located to the side and rear of the structure. The property is adjacent to the 'East End Village' condominium complex to the west and a multi-family residential property to the �. east. It is zoned MS Medical Services; a lodging house is not a permitted use in the district. Homeless Not Hopeless is a Massachusetts Chapter 180 non-profit corporation. According to their articles of incorporation,their mission is to assist the homeless in attaining a °sustainable, satisfactory lifestyle"through the provision of short-term housing and°access to the most modem technology and methods possible for pursing employment, networking, obtaining housing, and gaining access...to resources specific to client needs". li Town of Barnstable-Zoning Boara of Appeals-Decision and Notice Appeal No.2012-052—Homeless Not Hopeless Inc.-Appeal of an Administrative Official M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3(Para.2), commonly referred to as the"Dover Amend that'no zoning ordinance or bylaw[shall)prohibit, m�n�°+Mates for religious purposes or for educational u regulate or restrict the use . land or structures Purposes on land owned or leased by...[religious and governmental entities]and a nonprofit educational corporation." The statute subjects such uses to reasonable bulk and dimensional regulations. The definition of"educational purposes" has been established by a substantial body of case law since the adoption of the Dover Amendment in 1950. The Court has recognized that not all educational activities may be 'tinrithin traditional areas of academic instruction'or taught by certified instructors and that the activities may serve"nontraditional communities of leamers."The Courts have also clarified that the applicability of the statue is limited to uses where the"primary or dominant purpose°is education. The Building Commissioner's September 4, 2012 letter cited Regis College v. Town of Weston, which concluded that the Dover Amendment°should be construed so as to minimize the risk that[zoning] protection will improperly be extended to projects that do not in fad have as their primary and genuine purpose a goal that reasonably could be described as educationally significant.° Procedural& Hearing Summary This appeal was filed at the Town Clerk's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 10, 2012. The appeal was filed within 30 days of the Building Commissioner's determination as required by MGL Ch. 40A. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notice sent to all abutters in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The hearing was opened October 10, 2012, at which time the Board voted to overrule the Building Commissioner and allow Homeless Not Hopeless to locate at 22 Main St pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A Section 3. Board Members deciding this appeal were Board Chair Lau Larson, Alex M. Rodolakis, Brian Florence and George T. Zevitas. ra F. Shufelt, Craig G. Attorney Peter Freeman represented the Appellant before the Board. Homeless Not Hopeless co- founder Bill Bishop was also present, along with members of the organization's board. Attorney Freeman emphasized that the Building Commissioner did not deny the permit on the basis that the proposed use was not educational, but felt it would be beneficial for the facts of the case to be decided at a public hearing after a fact-based analysis. Attorney Freeman reviewed the case law surrounding the Dover Amendment, including the SJC's decision in Regis College v. Weston. He discussed the broad and comprehensive view of education that the Courts had established. He talked about the educational mission of Homeless not Hopeless to reintroduce formerly homeless men and women into society and give them the skills to live independently. Attorney Freeman emphasized the success rate of the program and their good standing in the community and in the neighborhoods where their three other facilities are located. It was clarified that the organization is funded through private sources and member fees. Board member Brian Florence raised concerns about the denial made by the Building Commissioner. The Appellant and staff agreed that there was not an issue of standing and, although not presented in the application, the appeal was filed in response to the determination being arbitrary and capricious. HnH President Bill Bishop spoke about the mission of the organization and the clientele they serve. Dick Murphy, HnH board member and Treasurer spoke about the need for progressive educational programs like the one HnH provides and gave an overview of the fiscal benefits of homelessness prevention. Jeffery Howell, a ninth grade teacher, spoke about the centrality of the program's educational mission. Steve Brown spoke about the value of education in non-traditional settings and the physiology of learning. Retired Judge Joseph Reardon spoke about the organizabon's aim to educate the whole person and the need for physical, mental and spiritual well-being. He provided his observations as a judge and contrasted the failures of the penal system with the successes of HnH's program. 2 r Town of Barnstable- i Zoning Boaxu of Appeals-Decision and Notice Appeal No.2012-052—Homeless Not Hopeless Inc-Appeal of an Administrative Official The Board clarified that the house managers were present 24 hours a day and that many resident§ have part-or full-time jobs. Attorney Freeman explained the structure of the program, including task lists and communal dinners. He explained that residents typically stayed for 6 to 9 months. The Board discussed the number of.residents proposed for the house at 22 Main. Lawrence Brown, Anetta Olsen, Richard Barry, Bob(a house manager), Kathy(a house manager), Town Councilor Jan Barton, Caroline(a resident of St Claire's), Ken Mallory, Bill Simmons, Raymond (a resident), Jill Scalise, Peter White, Hillary Green, Diane Casey-Lee, Joan Duganger, and Alan Bird spoke in favor. Chris Turner, Patrick Jelwick, and Khalid al-Dokhi spoke with concerns. Attorney Freeman spoke about the value of the location to HnH. Questions about the zoning implications of future changes to the organization's mission and'distinctions between group homes and educational facilities were discussed. The Board again asked about the number of residents in the house and about the need for Site Plan Review. Findings After consideration of the evidence presented and testimony given by the Appellant and the public, the Board made the following findings of fact in Appeal No. 2012-052: 1. Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc is appealing the Building Commissioner's denial of a building permit to renovate the premises at 22 Main Street, Hyannis. The Appellant is proposing to create 12 bedrooms to be occupied by no more than 14 residents, plus a live-in resident manager, all of whom are formerly homeless persons who will be taught to live independently. 2. The Appellant seeks a permit on the basis that the proposed use is exempt from zoning requirements under M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3 (the°Dover Amendment") because the use is for primarily educational purposes. 3. The subject property is located at 22 Main Street, Hyannis, MA as shown on Assessor's Map 342 as parcel 028. It is in a Medical Services(MS) zoning district. 4. Homeless Not Hopeless is a Massachusetts Chapter 180 non-profit corporation organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes. 5. Homeless Not Hopeless' proposed use of the property can reasonably be described as having an educational purpose. 6. The educationally significant goal of Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. is the primary or dominant purposes for which the premises at 22 Main Street will be used. The vote to accept the findings was: Aye: Laura F. Shufelt, Craig G. Larson,Alex M. Rodolakis, Brian Florence, George T. Zevitas Nay: None Motion At the hearing on October 10, 2012, a motion was duly made and seconded to reverse the determination of the Building Commissioner and allow Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc to locate at 22 Main Street, Hyannis pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A Section 3"Dover Amendment", subject to issuance of building permits. In addition,the motion is due to the Building Commissioner's lack of a specific determination as well as lack of citations to the Town of Barnstable's Zoning Ordinance. The vote on the motion was as follows: Aye: Laura F. Shufelt, Craig G. Larson, Alex M. Rodolakis, Brian Florence, George T. Zevitas Nay: None 3 Town of Barnstable-Zoning Boaf d of Appeals-Derision and Notice. Apt No.2012-052—Homeless Not Hopeless Inc.-Appeal of an Administrative Official Ordered In Appeal No. 2012-052 the Board revetsed the decision of the Building Commissioner and voted to allow Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. to locate a new facility at 22 Main Street, Hyannis pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A Section 3°Dover Amendment°, subject to issuance of m building permits. Appeals of this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, within twenty(20) days after the date of the filing of this decision, a copy of which must be filed in the office of the Barnstable Town Clerk. Laura F. Shufelt, Chair Date Signed I, Linda Hutchenrider, Clerk of the Town of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereb certify that twenty (20) days have elapsed since the ZoningAppeals Board of A y that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk filed this decision and - it TTff1► �� OF *"*,•,�'. da�Of ,�' �► .•• •under the pains and penalsU1 Signed and sealed this y . ,...:.:: < ill''•: li Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk t3ARNSTAS�E CO—" N TM A REGISTRY OF DEEDS TRUE COPY,gT-rEST JOHN F.MEApE REGISTER BARNSTABLE REGISTRY OF DEEDS 4 Town of Barnstable Q Regulatory Services BARNSTABI,E Richard V.Scali,DirectorSIAM 1 . Building Division Paul Roma Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town.barnstabie.maxs April 21,2017 Mr.Richard J.Murphy St. Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc. c/o Attorney Peter Freeman Freeman Law Group 86 Willow Street Yarmouth Port,MA 02675 RE: Site Plan Review#024-17 Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. 95 Chase Street,Hyannis Map 307,Parcel 134 Proposal: Establish a non-profit educational group residence for no more than eight(8)men or,women plus one(1)resident manager as allowed as of right under the so-called Massachusetts"Dover.Amendment". Dear Mr.Murphy: Please be advised that at the formal site plan.review meeting held April.20,2017,the above proposal received approval subject to the following: o Approval is based upon the following plans and information submitted by the applicant and must be complied with: a marked up plot plan of 95 Chase Street,Hyannis depicting the location of 4 onsite parking spaces;floor plan sketches"95 Chase St.,Hyannis"depicting a total bedroom count of(5)bedrooms;Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. Educational Curriculum(revised 5/2012)and Residential Educational Program Agreement; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Articles of Organization for Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. as a non-profit corporation organized exclusively for charitable,religious and educational purposes. o The building is required to be fire safety sprinkler protected and alarmed. Consultation will be required with Chief Dean Melanson,Hyannis FD,for proper location of the FDC. o Hans Keijser of Hyannis Water Department has recommended the replacement of thel" domestic service at the same time the new fire service line is installed due to its age. ® Per the Health Department,trash must be.stored securely and out of view of the public. o An increase in wastewater flow requires.a wastewater filing with WPCD to confirm and track sewer adequacy. o Applicant must obtain all other applicable permits,licenses and approvals required.. Upon completion of all work,a registered engineer or land surveyor shall submit a letter of certification,made upon knowledge and belief in accordance with professional standards that all work has been done in substantial compliance with the approved site plan(Zoning Section 240- 105 (G). This document shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the final certificate,of occupancy. A copy of the approval will be retained on file in the Building Department. Sincerely, Ellen M. Swiniarski Site Plan Review Coordinator CC: Paul Roma,Building Commissioner Chief Dean Melanson,Hyannis FD Tom McKean,Director,Health Dept. Amanda Ruggiero,Assistant Town Engineer DPW I w t •aa«ar�r Town of �Q o R9ar0 of Appeajs Date itoci� For cre use only:,. - To�trrt�tertG's t3ffiee: Hearing.oate C3ecrsion I71t�F - - ,.The undersigrred.A eiiant bemby Odes an.ap eai;ta the Zpning:8aard of Appeals onder Ni t 'C#aap�r 44A,S coons 8 �&:: 5 the yeas its i c 4c to Appel(ant's Name;' fin/ ,.Phone:. 4peliant.'s.Address: 7 S . A Address of Property tbafi.'FS th ::subtect.Qlf:t .i :app€ic2t�.att: 'vS CV 1 Assessor's:hula .i'arcelIetber: . Iq Zoning District GrggpOwat r..;7verj y vista icy:: Propeny Owner:: .. �f:r3iflereo frorrF_Appeflaq.t Athrress of Ow�ier:: If ota{derenc#roM:Appeddaiit srs;es a.regc;Lsf �r:: j&f En memcpt Action' Ap al:of.Ad inistratiVe-Official's C ecisiczri.- �c�itin °�° Na.B�I7-2 Cretera :Powets:-.Plea Specify: ►I ich Se nn(s) elf the a nang Ordinanc e and/or: ��atch:cif�ppea�s? � I� .y ;Chapter apyppYangtctha Zqn ing i �'h�.; tef�ar�t.�St�e.p�rsorsrYta#c�n�:ti?�:a{?gea#-. t f P Applkation f€ir lf;er Povve ..Ni$e 2 E�Caita r of Aptieal & �estript'rtiti of# quest E ..Attach Additional Sheet.if NecessW is`t ie pra#ierty scih ect tti an existing. artan e or pecia Pe`rtrett xlstong:t er�el.of Developerttf,the'Piopetty-Nt�triber n 13ttildis� s:. Present we(s)::. 4V O(weI (M i xrstiat �rciss Flocar Ares 3 0 -1 Sc :ft.. i�ropased Neini.Grc ss l'1a8r Area:... sct.ft< is this propiisal sukiject toftte lurisdtcttbi� oftlie C tisety fion�orrimiss ait -•--� - Yes[.� N€� :ls this:proposal.stibjec�t to approval lay the �ba�d cif Flealtl Yes No : Is:the:butldiii:g a:deli riate hm..s_..la drrtaIik Yes{ ] yea. i-1 aitrr#d€rig.perrnit bee .Issued}.......: . • Yes[ No[ #a4.a..ltrtldirtg perti�itbeera.rlsrd�- _,:„ .... . . ......... Yes[ Eci(rid I The fallowi4g iiif6ihiatori :as appttcabfe,"boiild bi�,siib, rhit€i�d ittt� p pli hv c tefi o :fing; th br0. Three ( )copses of the.ep wasignaturesacipanid by all Supporting documentation relited:ta.tbe-appeat 6 Three t3)co pies a#a cited rr�. ¢ p 5ttrvey f iat plan}ah ohe:l )Mdue6d-tdo M i12 x I V1 of 1 "x 3 7".)shov�rirlg th-AiienstotBs 6f the...andi.:atl.wetlands,--wafer bodies,-surroundiing roadways:and the.#coca 10"t of the k i4ingMtPtbveiraenttis O cdae land;- Three(3)copies:Ofz site improvement plash and one 44,bdu ed copy t8 1E2"x I.I;, ctr !'I x 1 1j, The appl6cartt i tay.stil tit atiy addifiorhal.:st- ifirtg.dcicetrna is tci assist tlt Beasd an rrraf�x rig'its determination. 5+gna ure.. . We � 2ol peiiant'si2�presrrtatrvr's.Srg��aturc __. .f 7 I�PIrPt.lclrtle. Pore:_. �' 4�-7 .1 3 IL((Pak Nip- -0 e-tread Address 7 All eai espandei�ce orr ails ap i#iit ti6h will be pracex5eck through the.Representative ruined aE that address aM pt ,lie h0ib "r provided. Except foP At#€erercxvsx i#tt- Ra eseritafive.d#ffers fr ii:the ApReliarit�-.letter A-tli�ri in :ttie_ RePres�ittatsa :tQ act o ¢ha#Qf the Appeftarit:shat#be requ'irel: F f Town of Barnstable oFIKE r Building Department Services Brian Florence, CBO Building Commissioner BAMSTABLE BARNSfASLE, MASS 200 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 9. g^ � A i63 `0 > 16)9-101C tf9. p www.town.barnstable.maxs 575 1 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 September 12 2017 p � 93 Chase Street Hyannis Enclosures 1. 6/26/17 — Request For Enforcement (RFE) to Commissioner Paul Roma 2. 9/5/17 — RFE email to B. Florence :'3_ 916/17 — Email exchange —John Julius & B. Florence + 4. . Supplement to John Julius email to B. Florence 5;_�'917/17 — Email request to. meet B..Florence from Laura Wentzel - 6.. 9/8/17 - B. Florence response to Laura Wentzel email request 7.,.9/8/17,— RFE to B. Florence by Attorney Dennis A. Murphy 8. ..8/10/17 — Building permit and permit application for sprinkler and alarm systems NOTICE to BUILDING INSPECTOR / ENFORCEMENT OFFICER June 26, 2017 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE REQUEST THE IMMEDIATE NOTIF- ICATION,OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT OF ANY KIND FOR THE PREMISES AT 95 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS, MA. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS A PENDING LEGAL MATTER AND THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO NOW INVOLVED IN A MATTER BEING BROUGHT THE PLANNING BOARD BY WAY OF A PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE CONTACT LAURA WENTZEL at: 617 549-5555 OR JOHN JULIUS at: 508 237-2700 or email to cape330verizon.net or: jjulius0todayrealestate.com AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THIS MATTER MAY LIKELY INVOLVE A LAWSUIT AND YOU,AS THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ARE MERELY BEING ASKED A SIMPLE REQUEST TO INFORM EITHER OF US IMMEDIATELY UPON ANY ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OF ANY KIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER. JOHN JULIUS: 508 237-2700, 140 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS, MA. 02601 LAURA WENTZEL 617 549-5555 7 HARVARD STREET, HYANNIS, MA. 02601 Florence, Brian From: John Julius <jjulius@todayrealestate.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 11:25 AM N' To: Florence, Brian Cc: awniking@comcast.net• Laura Wentzel Subject: RE: 95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless), owner of record Brian, . We have yet more issues brewing on the 95 Chase Street home owned by HnH. Their site plan approval wa's quite specific on parking and from what it now appears,they are exceeding the scope of conditions allotted to them by the conditional approval. If we are not mistaken,the Barnstable code allows for 1.2 parking spaces per bedroom (Section 240, paragraph 58).This is a four bedroom home a driveway and this home already has a TWO car garage plus another four spaces in that driveway alone,totaling six. From what we can see,they appear to have intentions of installing a second driveway in from Chase Street very CLOSE to the lot line of the owner's property at 85 Chase Street.As you are likely unaware,that owner LOST the sale of her home several months back after having it under contract for about close to$340k, Since those potential buyers opted not to purchase DUE to the DISCLOSURE OF THE GROUP HOME,she has now since REDUCED her asking price down to$315,000.To me as a real estate professional hav_inyisold.in.excess of some 6,000 homes,this is CRYSTAL CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE that this ruthless HnH organization has I-J ,,, i�c(PONTINUES,to cause irreparable HARM to all of our home values. '. plore that you,as the enforcement officer of Barnstable,place an IMMEDIATE CEASE and DESIST order on that space to. he right of the home at 95 Chase Street for the purpose of a driveway, if in fact this is their intention,which it appears that this is.The code should be enforced to the letter the law and furthermore,from what we see,they are also in possible violation of the lot linee allowance 6?6 driveway.They have already cause far too much damage for the owner of 85,Chase Street, Niki King,who is included in this email chain. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter and Laura and I will be in contact with you shortly as our attorney intends.:ta'file a court motion on HnH within the next 72 hours. Thanks again, JohniJullu,s "hum :,,, ............................................................. ............................................ ..................................... i .John Julius ':::Today Real Estate 1533 Falmouth Rd. XX rh,i , Centerville, MA 02632 !Local'Phone: 508-568-8132 i:LisT;avirc; l; , iToll Free: 800- 6-2448 96 .www.todayrealestate.com i Click here for my vCard �.i..; .............................................................................. ....... . ................. F.lo:rence, Brian From: John Julius <jjulius@todayrealestate.com> Wednesday, September 6, 2017 3:11 PM To: Florence, Brian Cc ' awniking@comcast.net; Laura Wentzel Subject: : RE: 95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless), owner of record Attachments: Site Plan Approval.pdf . ; Thank you Mr. Florence.The Site Plan Review#is #024-17, issued on April 21,2017. it reads RE: Site Plan Review#024-17 K Homeless.Not Hopeless, Inc. 95 Chase St, Hyannis Map 307, Parcel 134 �u *clpsive in their approval-it"4 onsite parking spaces",which are already in place on the premises.Attached for-your review is the rovaL The have.no business adding more aces which the are not authorized to do. Y 9 P Y . . I_will.get backao you on the citation when I am able,thanks again John'Julius .:............................................................................... :John Julius :Today Real Estate i 1533 Falmouth Rd. Centerville MA 02632 0- Local Phone: 508-568-8132 :Toll II Free: 800-966-2448 — o www.todayrealestate.com Click here for my vCard :...................................................................................................................................................................................... From "Florence, Brian" <Brian.Florence(�)town.barnstable.ma.us> Sent:;V1lednesday, September 06, 2017 2:46 PM To,: iiulius(btoda rrealestate.com Subject: RE: 95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless), owner of record ThMk'`.y 'ia for your email. Thank you also for citing Section 240, para. 58 of the ordinance, I'll be happy to lookinta't-his forgo` ' fn``order to expedite your request kindly provide the following details in support of your request: Site plan approval number. the ordinance citation for the driveway/lot line proximity matter. I will get to your request either way but for future reference if you provide specifics (citations.etc....} I can get to'.your issyes quicker. Re�a�ds, Brian'Fl,orence, Building Commissioner Building Department I Town of Barnstable 200 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 508=862.=40'38 Bxiari:fl'orence@town.barnstable.ma.us 1 Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services BARNSTABLE � f f679,]ON j rasa Richard V.Seall,Director Building Division Paul Roma' Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us S April 21,2017 7 M #-` Mr.Richard J.Murphy St. Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc. � �; c/o Attorney Peter Freeman Freeman Law Group 86 Willow Street Yarmouth Port,MA 02675 =RE: Site Plan Review#024-17 Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc. 95 Chase Street,Hyannis Map 307,Parcel 134 Proposal: Establish a non-profit educational group residence for no more than eight(8)men or Women plus one(1)resident manager as allowed as of right under the so-called Massachusetts"Dover.Amendment". Dear Mr. Murphy: I Please be advised that at the formal site plan review meeting held April 20,2017;the above proposal received approval subject to the following: • Approval is based upon the following plans and information submitted by the applicant and j must be complied with: a marked up plot plan of 95 Chase Street,Hyannis depicting the location of 4 onsite parking spaces;floor plan sketches"95 Chase St.,Hyannis"depicting a f total bedroom count of(5)bedrooms;Homeless Not Hopeless;Inc. Educational Curriculum(revised 5/2012)and Residential Educational Program Agreement; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Articles of Organization for Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. as a non-profit corporation organized exclusively for charitable,religious and educational purposes. ® The building is required to be fire safety sprinkler protected and alarmed. Consultation will be required with.Chief Dean Melanson,Hyannis FD,for proper location of the FDC. • Hans Keijser of Hyannis Water Department has recommended the replacement of thel' domestic service at the same time the new fire service line is installed due to its age. s' Per the Health Department,trash must be stored securely and out of view of the public.. I o An increase in wastewater flow requires a wastewater filing with WPCD to confirm and track sewer adequacy, • Applicant must obtain all other applicable permits,licenses and approvals required. Upon completion of all work,a registered engineer or land surveyor shall submit a letter of certification,made upon knowledge and belief in accordance with professional standards that all work has been done in substantial compliance with the approved site plan(Zoning Section 240- 105 (G). This document shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the final certificate of .occupancy. A copy of the approval will be retained on file in the Building Department. Sincerely, Ellen M. Swiniarski Site Plan Review Coordinator CC; Paul Roma;Building Commissioner Chief Dean Melanson,Hyannis FD Tom McKean,Director,Health Dept. Amanda Ruggiero,Assistant Town EngineerDPW 3 I f III • i r E Florence, Brian From: cape33@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 6:21 PM To: jjulius@todayrealestate.com; Florence, Brian Subject: Request for a meeting 9/8 regarding 95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless). Mr Florence, John and I would like to see you tomorrow for 15-20 minutes if you have time after 11:30. We'd like to discuss our intent to file an appeal of the building permit(#17-2336 issued on Aug. 10)and request for zoning enforcement. The use of a residential property (95 Chase Street) in a residential district as a homeless shelter is not allowed under zoning, the Dover Amendment does not exempt this use because its not primarily for an educational purpose. The HnH facilities are not licensed by the state Dept. of Mental Health or Dept. of.Social Services, which is the hallmark of a"group home"typically exempt from zoning under Dover. We'd like to discuss this with you prior to our Atty filing the appeal. Please let us know if you are available. Thank you, Laura 3 v q" Original Message----- r �_ � ._V From': John Julius <jjulius@todayrealestate.com> ' To Florence, Brian <Brian.Florence@town.barnstable.ma.us> Cc:'awniking <awniking@comcast.net>; Laura Wentzel <cape33@verizon.net> Sent:Wed, Sep 6, 2017 3:12 pm Subject: RE: 95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless), owner of record Thank you Mr. Florence.The Site Plan Review#is #024-17, issued on April 21,2017. it reads RE: Site Plan Review#024-17 Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc.95 Chase St, Hyannis Map 307, Parcel 134 Inclusive in their approval is"4 onsite parking spaces",which are already in place on the premises.Attached for your review is the site plan:approval.-They have no business adding more spaces which they are not authorized to do. I will get,back,to you on the citation when I am able,thanks again John;Julius, . . , ........................................_...................................................................................................................................... . U; IJohnJulius (Today Real Estate 1533 Falmouth Rd. X 'Centerville, MA 02632 i Local Phone: 508-568-8132 Toll Free: 800-966 2448 www.todayrealestate.com Click here for my vCard From': "Florence, Brian" <Brian.Florence(&town.barnstable.ma.us> Sent-Wednesday, September 06, 2017 2:46 PM To: iiulius@todayrealestate.com Subject: RE:95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless), owner of record Mr:Ju0us,. .. 1 Florence; Brian From:,:. Florence, Brian :Sent:. Friday, September 8, 2017 8:56 AM To' cape33@verizon.net';jjulius@todayrealestate.com Subject:_' . RE: Request for a meeting 9/8 regarding 95 Chase Street issue (Owned by homeless not Hopeless). Good,Morning Laura, For future reference please call the office to schedule an apt...I am sure to mess up my schedule using email. Staff have access to my calendar and will be happy to accommodate you. With respect to today, I am booked at 11:30 and most of the day. My earliest available appointment is 4:OOPM. I would be happy to meet with you then, let me know if that will work. ::: . . Even prior to having the discussion I would suggest that the.best thing for you and John to do is to go ahead and file the request for zoning enforcement through your attorney. The reason I suggest that course of action is that the sooner that you file your request the sooner you have access the appellate process should the zoning determination not go as you would prefer. I am not pre-determining an outcome to our discussion, l am only making the suggestion because I b'ay-9-bg�qpJR,th.is business for a long time and know the timing problems you will encounter if you delay....) also know from o`ur"fast meeting that you have expressed some urgency to your cause. B.e.,prepared to discuss the specifics of your request...for example: r f q it is important that you separate the building code and zoning issues...the two have mutually exclusive appe< � s; possesses. 2. If your intent is to appeal a building permit... is your building code appeal timely? The code only allows a 30 � ` window to make an appeal. In the event of an untimely appeal I would be required to deny the request. Yo�.� s: ,;; ; would.then have an opportunity to make an appeal to the State's Building Code Appeals Board about the —= ' timeliness of the appeal, not the merits of the case. 3: ..If you are making a zoning request... Again, is your appeal timely? Have you made other requests for zoning:. enforcement to other building commissioners? Again,for zoning the deadline to make an appeal is 30:days from the issuance of the building permit that allowed the use. If you have missed that window or been denied,:,:' enforcement by another zoning enforcement officer I will be compelled to deny your request. You may or may not have missed your window to make an appeal to the ZBA which means the only avenue then is an appeal to :Superior Court. Again,that appeal would be about the timeliness of the appeal, not the merits of the case I:am showing the building official/Town's cards to you in.advance so that you can be prepared for the discussion arid so that you know my limitations as well as yours. Your best bet is to have your attorney file the requests as soon:as'. possible :,::a month or two ago would have not been too soon. - (.hope that helps...feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, B.ria,Floarence, Building Commissioner Build ing;Department I Town of Barnstable 200.M a i n.Street. Hyannis;.MA"02601 5.08-8624.038 Brian.florence@town.barnstable.ma.us . 1 z HILL LAw . BY HAND and EMAIL.(brian.florence@a town.barnstable.ma.us) September 8,2017 Brian Florence, Barnstable Building Commissioner 200 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Appeal of Building Permit and Request for Zoning Enforcement, 95 Chase St.,Hyannis MA. . Dear Mr. Florence: This firm has been retained by the abutters (whose names and addresses are copied below)to the Homeless Not Helpless("HNH") shelter proposed for 95 Chase Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts to appeal the building permit(No. B-17-2336, copy enclosed) issued on August 10, 2017, and to request zoning enforcement under G.L. c. 40A, ss. 8& 15, and sections 240- .123(A) and 240-125(B)(1)(a) of the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance(`BZO"). Background, The shelter proposed for 95 Chase Street would be the fifth(5th) such HNH shelter located in Hyannis in the past five years, all in residential districts within two miles of each other. The influx of HNH shelters to Hyannis started in 2012 when your predecessor denied a W building permit to renovate a single family house on Main Street because the primary use of the. L k = property was,not predominantly educational. On HNH'S appeal to the Barnstable Zoning Board �� of:Appeals..("ZBA"),the ZBA reversed the Building Commissioner and ordered the building permit to be issued. A copy of the ZBA's Decision in Appeal No. 2012-052 ("2012 Decision"), dated October 15,2012, is enclosed. You may recall the 2012 Decision as you were on the ZBA at the time. You raised concerns about the Building Commissioner's denial of the permit, according to the Decision, as he never made a specific determination and failed to cite the BZO. Instead, "[t]he Building Commissioner determined that a factual analysis of whether or not the proposed use is predominately,educational would be most appropriately conducted by a multiple-member board in;the context of a public hearing." (2012 Decision, at p. 1)During the public hearing,HNH's, 4ttorney:emphasized the Building Commissioner's position: he"felt is.would be beneficial for the;facts o.f:the case to be decided at a public hearing after a fact-based analysis." (Id. at 2)No attorney appeared on behalf of the Town or the neighborhood. The ZBA reversed the denial, in part, "due to the Building Commissioner's lack of a specific determination as well as lack of citations to the Town of Barnstable's Zoning Ordinance. (Id. at 3) Zoning Ordinance Now,five years later and with the benefit of counsel,we are seeking a specific determination that the proposed use of the subject property violates the BZO, and is not exempt under the Dover Amendment, G.L. c. 40A, s. 3.Even where applicable,the Dover Amendment is not a blanket exemption to all zoning, so the starting point should be a zoning review of the property and its proposed use. The subject property is a four bedroom house with one and half bathrooms and 1964 sduare feet of living area located in the Residence B District("RB"),where detached, single-. ., family.residential dwellings are the principal permitted use. (BZO 240-11(A)(1))The renting of. rooms for.up:to three nonfamily members is allowed by right in the RB as an accessory use, vyhich can be increased by special permit to allow up to six lodgers. (Id. 240-11(B)(1)&(c)(1)) Ubder.the BZO,the use of a dwelling must comply with the rules of the district in which it is located Conformance to use regulations.No building shall be erected or altered and no building or premises shall be used for any purpose except in conformity with all of the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located. (BZO 240-7(A)) Some information about HNH from the 2012 Decision remains pertinent today to evaluating.the proposed use of the subject property: • "their mission is to assist the homeless . . .through the provision of short term housing.'; ."many residents have part- or full-time jobs" "residents typically stay[] for 6 to 9 months." (2012 Decision, at pp. 1, 3) Based.on.this information,the first determination we ask you to make is that HNH's proposed use of the subject property is not a principal use allowed in the RB district. Similarly, for the Main Street site in 2012"a lodging house [wa]s not a permitted use in the district." (2012 Decision, atp. 1) Here;the RB district could allow up to 3 nonfamily lodgers by right, and up to 6 by special permit;.assuming such use would otherwise conform to the BZO. Based on the Site Plan . review datedApril 21,2017 (a copy of which is enclosed), HNH's intended occupancy is for "eight.(8)men or women plus one (1) resident manager." (4/21/17 Site Plant Review#024-17, at p. 1)That is not an allowed use at 95 Chase Street under zoning. We therefore ask you to determine, in accordance with the BZO use regulations for the RB district cited above,that HNH's occupancy be limited to no more than six(6) residents, and subject to the conditions of a special permit. Dover Amendment The Dover Amendment forbids local zoning from prohibiting the use of structures for educational purposes on land owned by a nonprofit educational corporation, but allows reasonable dimensional and parking regulations: No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation;provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks,open space, parking and building coverage requirements. G.L. c. 40, s. 3 The BZO codifies Dover's reasonable regulation principle by requiring a"modification permit," similar to a special permit, but requiring only a simply majority rather than two-thirds vote of the ZBA for approval: The following uses and structures are permitted in all zoning districts . . .: The use of land or structures exempt from the use provisions of this chapter pursuant to MGL Ch. 40A, §3, and any other statute. (a) Where such exempt uses are subject to reasonable regulation of bulk, density and parking regulations by MGL Ch. 40A, § 3, reasonable regulation shall be deemed to be: the bulk regulations of the zoning district . . . (b)Where the proposed use does not comply with Subsection A(3)(a) above, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall by a modification.permit, modify the bulk regulations of the zoning.district and/or the parking requirements of Article VI, Off-Street Parking Regulations,where such regulation would substantially diminish or detract from the usefulness of a proposed development, or impair the character of the development so as to affect its intended use, provided that the modification of the bulk.regulations and/or parking requirements will not create a.public safety hazard along the adjacent roadways.. and will not create a nuisance to other, surrounding properties such that it will impair the use of these properties. (c) A modification permit shall be subject to the same procedural requirements as a special permit, except that approval of the modification pen-nit shall require a majority of the members of the Board. (BZO 2404(A)(3)) Accordingly, because the density of the proposed use (9 unrelated occupants for a four- bedroom house) does not comply with the regulations of the RB district,we ask you to determine that a modification permit is required from the ZBA in accordance with.BZO 240-8(A)(3). The Dover Amendment represents a specific exception to the general power of municipalities to adopt and enforce zoning regulations and by-laws. "The whole of the Dover Amendment . . . seeks to strike a balance between preventing local discrimination against an educational use, . . . and honoring legitimate municipal concerns that typically find expression in local zoning laws" Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 41.5 Mass. 751, 757 (1993). As a practical matter,the protection afforded by the Dover Amendment should be construed so,as to minimize the risk that it will improperly be extended to situations like this that it was never intended to cover. We do not question HNH's altruistic intent based on its stated mission.But however beneficent that may be,providing temporary housing for homeless individual is not an educational use under the Dover Amendment.Not a single case in Massachusetts have ever held otherwise. To the contrary, the Supreme Judicial Court has made it clear that in order to qualify for a zoning exemption under Dover, the use must be educationally significant, and must also be the primary or dominant purpose: "We have also, however;recognized two commonsense and interrelated limits on the statute's application. The first is that the Dover Amendment protects only those uses of land and those structures that have as their bona fide goal something i,'that can reasonably be described as "educationally significant." The second is that the educationally significant goal must be the "primary or dominant" purpose for which the land or structures will be used." Regis College v. Weston, 462 Mass at 285 (2012) (emphasis added). In the Regis College case, the SJC reaffirmed that in order to claim the protection of the Dover Amendment's "educational purposes" clause, a landowner must demonstrate that its,use of land will have as its"primary purpose" a goal that can reasonably be described as"educationally significant."Id. at 291. Based on the information from the 2012 Decision and the.2017 Site Plan Review,we ask you to make the following determinations: 1. HNH's proposed use of the subject property is not a principal use allowed in the RB district; 2. . HNH's occupancy must be limited to no more than six(6)residents, and subject to the conditions of a special permit; 3, the Dover Amendment does not exempt the proposed use from zoning; and 4. even if Dover applies, a modification permit is required from the ZBA. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you, or with Town Counsel. Very truly yours, Dennis A..Murphy , Encl. Cc: Laura Wentzel, 7 Harvard St., Hyannis,MA 0260.1 . John Julius, 140 Chase St;, Hyannis,MA 02601 Susan Dubuc, 52 Harvard St.,Hyannis, MA 02601 4 tl�htn3. �a f.. TOE A�a�a1' -ation for Q.14r pc� Da e doe€vac# �cxX:o i .r se t2r�ty Hearing 1: ate `M'e undersigned Ap eHar h-1( bfif"e1) ara appeal tci:fih .�c nFrFg 8e� rd f A afs tri er.r 1, •C#aapt r 40A;Sect con $:$c'l. f the rears rrs ffd 6t d fa 4 4 7 v5G✓1 u vC 1 g3el#iffi3r-5 i*Iai7Fe- W� 1 -.7. r�`lr0�te:: Ap e�.�Ant's.Addre5:' J,. �. ( <S-f. r d 'i Adc r s of Property fat i$.th .s rb�rt.raf.t s:a pl catlan; rf . Assessor's.N4ar�11' argil l�l rn e :: ��n oning.0-aria- . Grc��F�d�vat�r C:)verlay�'istra�#:; 5 PrE?Pert}� Owner; ifgiftorglyt.frarrr_Appe larit Address o O ynerT 1f 9ri� r r ftp Appell � t. fgrocrnoiit Ac i n r ,j �` d . A .heaVof Adrraira stra W ► '� a?-S D(1CIsFa :--bvl�G�rtn +1 I: 4`�o 01 r O1ter41.#?awe* .Please 5mcifs: : 1 li Sit tir�nEs}a� the c�rrlrr `(7rdrrtan dq�dlr�r L Chapter 40A are: q.p app fjpg to t� If 7h A r t3arst.1sthe epo rriak�n h . puit,, A1ir:�rretx�i`€���te�Pd�vers�:F`a�e 2 } 4 t r r i�f ppeai.& scr'p ton im egi� Attach Additional.Sheet:if l�Jc�c€ss�r} s t tp st trjec tcp an eXis Og Variance r r S aerial Pert±trt . �lca �`es • -;Ostlnglevel D'evlo Pta°r& � : e Propgrt urn er Of.But rigs:._�� �'re5etit'Use�sl; i� l�1�1C� Cf� Exrsgii Gresstarar Area �`� �{ q:ft: raprasecl 1ewross'Eiotr�4rea .� q. •tt:" is C e prop ty d 1rff:4&Si natiM. His ond 6rst Y: � Rio s t ris prcapdsa$ s�rkiject€tif to iurl, icflot� flhe ons�rtratrt n C66i 'ttssion .,....... Yes � � N Js rl�is:proposal sub*led to atirwOVai by the a.od.el cif�fealth s J 0 N the ba-Mirr a de-stgtiated �-jtstor.c l ddrrtark? ,;. . _.,.. .:.... .....:. Yes Nd has ttilditi' ,errrtt been:Issued ... ...: ....:..:. ....:::. Yesl *�c [ 1 Ha4.a kitrtidihg rt t t ert refused?-,:,:.,: ,. .,;. ...,, Yes n 7f e`ft�flc�ev€rig irlfcirr attrarr as ap r fx[e,.sl1cr41 be:subITH E d�nrrtlt tlte.a pl cation at ttx dirt c tt;itz ree (3) capers cif t .:~ta pl t d a�p)Ca'Kin for"li eac t`Wit o►tgrna4 sigizatures�cec�r�r�a��tc=t��iy a1t su- pporting do' curnent iarr lre:[ai -,d to the appeal 7riieP i3) eS caf a c�rttfred:}r periy survey(01 t plan}.: tad.�tre 4 l r dc�c d scal y-(8 1l ""x "or I vi x t 7`}skzc vein the ctarrtensrons of Vie.landi-al"Weilands.,.water€�t dips stsrround`sn .roadways rite t� a#i i cx.tf �.isting firbp�verret7ts.t ii rt e Land, I l}ree t3;}tc�rait s>cf a siEe i ri verrrepf fan and'on-0)r d r cagy{8 l "` .E 1"car 't 1".x 17 - a th:e aaiariy strlrrlrt adv ad.ditofia9 stppt3rtlat;.tac�me #s try assist.tti �arri'``srt rn'Akirsg ifis, deter'rti rnatr�r�, Dat :. . Ap ellan.',s a�Rgpre-terttatrvr.',.Signatare x t'ritt �Nanl? IM A' Adze : C C:MaA Add-e Allccrfresprsr�tl n e tita.t Its ap iacatton will.be pi djj bugh.the.Rorewntauve riai reti at that acfcfress az c!p�icsrie tti►r.ber prove Ekt6pt for,4t{vrneys if the Rofm'mtat►ve&#&r €rimilhe Ago,l4t%:'4:letter authn&in :the. prc%s ntat ve't .a x vrt behalf;cif tnL Epp€llant shatl bC r irert k eih9y.. To n ` : og�a g Boa a - &��e� s 'Appik.aa .fa € ha- Pcrs. Date Rece v : far Q#3�� use grriy Tawa Cfer.�'sa3�#car q tea�tng: te t3�cisac?n€due Tire undersigned e►larat h r by€rtes.aF� appeal t : bran€ng 8 rci cif pppea apter Ai3A,Sections 8 &:1 the real ens i-ndicated SSG u uG S. J, r -F Appel iaWs.Na.e' : .Fcne< /nl:laslT:`5 Adtrss 7ne ai r�.SviFs�ltfo ( e , Accress.cif .roprty thi $the sblec[of.t .is:appf�c #o�n Assessor's.t�Vff'f l N'mbet: L Z—ning.vistfFct -�� Gr(?gndwatP,.r.QvPr4ay Qiwi - Property Owner: ��d�ff�rer�t..frot�t.l�pp��iant': "5 o€Owhe t{ rffer`o*fibin.A pes# i.t §"rhos is a"pest for �nf'c��cer�►c�rFt As�lcrF3 I , .:, gyp: eal of Adminjstrat�u€� f{� al's QecFsroia. I�vI�Wn E l C#ftr Gsrl: 4we :�.Pl SP�Rcilr. W e Secfinr�(s}:c� the zt tying O d n nce ar clicn tv L.Cl apter 40A. rr:you, r pe :1 eZarft g. { Bbard.of Appeals The im#+��tt:ts the. erson makingFhe:z p a., A licaf on fair&fit i�e P€iwi ers-:P.4ge Ni re:of Appea{ lescrptiii:flf Bequest: —�_ ttach additional SheL cf l�tcc�sJ�ry &s rtiercesy sb'tec t to. f kisting Vararice`iir sera P €t?ftt ,..: .t�lsa Exisi3n ieuel.of Qevolo eat of:tb Property-Nufn Or of Btrilding _ Presett S~lsefs; � — — xtst9r Grass f"fbr�r:Area . �Y: : ..sq,ft:. �'�upo�ecf{��av Grass fl00 �4rea : sc� ft.: yeso . } n. Icuoc E bsvis this prtpcsa s i ec tr fne fnaai Ccirnmbss#ori ..,... des #s t#iis.proposal stab e ,,,try apprc�va} fay:th6 8oarcf.of`Neafth :: .. Yes NIO I �. Is.-the buiidtrig�i desigilatecf Hisba is Yes Nd. Ni[ Has a.ItfIdi.n rmitbiee refu:sad7 Yes. l No The€ia[fi�;.NltT trtFt)tMation as 1pp I to'5 ou'ld e st3Ui-ti C��'th-t�P.applfCr7�lC?€7 0. Tl;tee t37 copies cf th . omA€et d app#icatit�ri#r r i�, eaefi`With.6- gitiat signatures aec iiipai�ied b 1 5uportiaig.docztrrrematicrr}rebated:t0 tfiie a�-Poak T; lee spies c)f a i e1tfi .d.WO.IOrty survey W t p1..0:a:icf Ore {f�r�duc�cf edp�+.� Idle:x 1 i"cis_ 11" x ' hc; n i e �ise nesWigth,- we d;affIIands...Waf6f bod es,.su-rro*jnding.roadways n . the [t ts.c7iw tfte Jarid Three (3)copies of she hrip tovemenf.-Oan and one(T).reduced ccip (41 112, x 11� or I I"x 171 + Tfi.e afipffcant rild�yt 3iahniit ar v # Chi tOi ::St3 3 (ang its deterr�i:i.riatEai�, �igntare:: ..: Data.. Appel►anKs nr ftom.ionprNi 3..5lgn it,re? . PritlL.i�f3rilE. f�l �i:Ac{drf�ss fi#�<carCesnari rice o�ftiis ap Sicateon.vEJi t�e'fira�easet#throe h:;LI�e Rc pr ntative names at t#'afi address anti p!One . nutr♦s►er.prowa Ed Exec i fogt\#Lame It tkz Romesentative:8ififer.5 fii5tiff Ap#ref#ant,,a defter auLlaarizii tFte. Stied}re sip t�r :rc►act vn f �htiff;cit one pia¢31ant ha#i:be gt�rfei: Florence, Brian From: Dennis Murphy <dgusmurphy@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 1:08 PM To: Florence, Brian Cc: Dan Hill;jjulius@todayrealestate.com;cape33@verizon.net Subject: Re: 95 Chase St., Hyannis MA Attachments: Ltr. Barnstable Bldg. Comm'r. re HnH.pdf;ATT1677459.htm; Barnstable Zoning Appeal pdfi ATT1677460.htm Good afternoon Mr. Florence, Attached is the request for zoning enforcement and an appeal of the building permit for this property,which John and Laura will file stamp and hand deliver this afternoon. We appreciate your advice about the process and concerns about timing. For that reason, I have included an appeal of the August 10, 2017 building permit in our Application. But we think it would be more efficient if the ZBA appeal did not go forward until you make a determination on our request for zoning enforcement. If you determine that a further special or modification permit is required, that may moot the building permit appeal. If not, then it would probably make sense for the ZBA to hear any appeal from your decision(whether by my clients or HNI)together with the building permit appea as the issues are the same. I would appreciate your guidance on the process, and would welcome the chance to discuss the,substance of our appeal with you. Thanks, Dennis Dennis Murphy ` Hil-Flaw 4SIR6hidike St. . Cambridge MA 02141 781-588-7881 .. .dwp jF' t'�q.lyrl: 'Own' a i.F'� �of�B nst rablYe ; 0 l n I. t:.,,.., ::.a .,..�..., t. � _ », s4 � �. � .:.r w. - =its •; t•,E: _"`�:., e q a r, r f) . .. ,F.. � _.,. w•`•'`„rf '...r .:�.7' +.R. �c..,. t7: ',...�:y.n.. T"....;.....,ti.x.� ..�,: .7' fi. N M5 sl 7 �n- -:5. .r ', J? . . �. . �h� �Ca►'.d;S �+� :s?.�.is. ef.E >�n t e>< t� �4 roved,.P_la � >� �-.: r.,� � � ,� _. •4,.. s t.n < fn - x ,;.- . e f s k a. it -% ss•,, _T�•¢d2 r b" a.+ �7 � � �'�'t -?'e�'sr1� 'i t _;..,: MAsa: :,p � :; G .,'.: , . ,r ��- Fe� x , ���,{_� � s����u" _ i u�Lti (• I o3tedtil til> nal.lns ebtion Has.Bee ade�.z: �. � f� .,•: v ..� .:v - Y .,ff . /. . Q' ,...rz •, :,;�1' ., -a•. h.1"::.. ::' .. W,. r.,>:.<, .,.f�` �.E--.,c� �^ .` x�'���:�'z .;;...`,r- #'tom. ,E.. ..ty-,.�.•'�i.5�. -.Ott. �..i. x=. >,Axi5. sa3s'3'° �'-n�15'..;;3' '<. k•rY: .v.. .�. -..., r ,.. ,ti - r.t: .4:_ ,�:.:..`. ?a.st`rk.. i.. :_ a' :a.,>•:I ' `r1 .c:. �¥ >'t sue-, �.. �. n .,,...�z" ;: :, s-•-;, 1N,heresaertifia �c�fipcc and. �st)ie ui>se' u 1t+:B,rildii� sha.IFiN:otsbe C7ccu ie �u 1 h r:. T Permm111� hlFs . Permit No' B-17-2336 Applicant S s,Name: Mass Fire Protection te'ms _ _ Approvals. . Date Issued:' 08/10/2017 Current Use` Structure Permit Type: Building-Smoke Detector=Fire Alarm Dection Expiration Date: 02/10/2018, - ' Foundation: System - Map/Lot 307 134 Zoning District: RB Sheathing Location: 95 CHASE STREET,HYANNIS Contractor Name Framing: 1 Owner on Record: EMMITT, ROBERT W& PATRICIA L Contractor License 2 Address: 119 BAXTER ROADEst;Project Cost: $0.00 Chimney: HYANNIS, MA 02601 Permit Fee: $35.00 Insulation: Description: Fire Sprinkler System 4 Fee Paid' $35.00 Project Review Req: Fire Sprinkler System Date 8/10/2017 Final: k > Y "y Plumbing/Gas Rough Plumbing:.. Building Official Final Plumbing: This permit shall be deemed abandoned and invalid unless the work authorized by this permit is commenced within six months after ssuance. All work authorized by this permit shall conform to the approved applicatiori'andthe approved construction documeh fo.JwiWch this permit has been granted. Rough Gas: All construction,alterations and changes of use of any building and structures shall b incompliance with the local zoning by laws and codes. Final Gas: This permit shall be displayed in a location clearly visible from access streetor road and shall be maintained open for public mspecttoi for the entire duration of the work until the completion of the same. inn h ¢ Electrical The Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all applicable sign RR by the Building and Fire Officials are provided on this permit. Minimum of Five Call Inspections Required for All Construction Work: z s " fix" Service: 1.Foundation or Footing 2.Sheathing Inspection f`r Rough: 3.All Fireplaces must be inspected at the throat level before firest flue lining is installed Final 4.Wiring&Plumbing Inspections to be completed prior to Frame Inspection 5.Priorto Covering Structural Members(Frame Inspection) Low Voltage Rough: 6.Insulation 7.Final Inspection before Occupancy Low Voltage Final: Where applicable,separate permits are required for Electrical,Plumbing,and Mechanical Installations.. Health... Work shall not proceed until the Inspector has approved the various stages'of construction.,. ...... . . . Final: .... .:._ "_Pers.ons:contracting'With•unregistered.con:tractors:do.not'.hdve access to the_guaranty-fund"-(as-setforthAn MGL c.142A). _ _--- rt t -- _._....... ' Fire-Depa men _ Building plans are to be available on site _.All Permlt.Car6 are the property of the APPLICANT-ISSUED RECIPIENT Final: NOTICE to BUILDING INSPECTOR / ENFORCEMENT OFFICER June 26, 2017 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE REQUEST THE IMMEDIATE NOTIF- ICATION OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT OF ANY KIND FOR THE PREMISES S S AT 95 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS, MA. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS A PENDING LEGAL MATTER AND THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO NOW INVOLVED IN A MATTER BEING BROUGHT THE PLANNING BOARD BY WAY OF A PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE CONTACT LAURA WENTZEL at: 617 549-5555 OR JOHN JULIUS at: 508 237-2700 or email to cape330verizon.net or: jjulius@todayrealestate.com AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THIS MATTER MAY LIKELY INVOLVE A LAWSUIT AND YOU,AS THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ARE MERELY BEING ASKED A SIMPLE REQUEST TO INFORM EITHER OF US IMMEDIATELY UPON ANY ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OF ANY KIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER. JOHN JULIUS: 508 237-2700, 140 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS, MA. 02601 LAURA WENTZEL 617 549-5555 7 HARVARD STREET, HYANNIS., MA. 02601 Shea, Sally From: Bill Rex <wrex@hyannisfire.org> Sent: Thursday,August 03, 2017 IS6 PM To: Shea, Sally; Franey, Patrick; Lauzon,Jeffrey Cc: Melanson, Dean; Kelly Foley Subject: 95 Chase Street Hyannis Fire has reviewed the sprinkler plans for 95 Chase Street.We are good with the building permit being issued. Captain Bill Rex Hyannis Fire Department 95 High School Road Ext. Hyannis, MA 02601 508-775-1300 1 Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services MOMI—BARNS A I,E 26321,2014 • ST Richard V. Scali,Director Building Division Paul Roma Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us April 21, 2017 Mr. Richard J. Murphy St. Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. c/o Attorney Peter Freeman Freeman Law Group 86 Willow Street Yarmouth Port,MA 02675 RE: Site Plan Review#024-17 Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. 95 Chase Street,:Hyannis Map 307,Parcel 134 Proposal: Establish a non-profit educational group residence for no more than eight(8)men or women plus one(1)resident manager as allowed as of right under the so-called Massachusetts"Dover Amendment". Dear Mr. Murphy: Please be advised that at the formal site plan review meeting held April 20, 2017,the above proposal received approval subject to the following: • Approval is based upon the following plans and information submitted by the applicant and must be complied with: a marked up plot plan of 95 Chase Street,Hyannis depicting the location of 4 onsite parking spaces; floor plan sketches "95 Chase St., Hyannis"depicting a total bedroom count of(5)bedrooms; Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. Educational Curriculum(revised 5/2012) and Residential Educational Program Agreement; . Commonwealth of Massachusetts Articles of Organization for Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. as a non-profit corporation organized exclusively for charitable, religious and educational purposes. - I • The building is required to be fire safety sprinkler protected and alarmed. Consultation will be required with Chief Dean Melanson, Hyannis FD, for proper location of the FDC. • Hans Keijser of Hyannis Water Department has recommended the replacement of the I" domestic service at the same time the new fire service line is installed due to its age. • Per the Health Department,trash must be stored securely and out of view of the public. • An increase in wastewater flow requires a wastewater filing with WPCD to confirm and track sewer adequacy. • Applicant must obtain all other applicable permits, licenses and approvals required. Upon completion of all work, a registered engineer or land surveyor shall submit a letter of certification,made upon knowledge and belief in accordance with professional standards that all work has been done in substantial compliance with the approved site plan(Zoning Section 240- 105 (G). This document shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. A copy of the approval will be retained on file in the Building Department. Sincerely, Ellen M. Swiniarski Site Plan Review Coordinator CC: Paul Roma,Building Commissioner Chief Dean Melanson,Hyannis FD Tom McKean,Director,Health Dept. Amanda Ruggiero,Assistant Town Engineer DPW ry _A THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE THE BEST IMAGES FROM POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS) I M ^C&L DATA `•• •• ® El;snnlIIpE aLl} 1° '1 a+10 K {JF IF S d@jX OLI ai t 6 [" @j s eats 9 e w` OLIO@ Barnstable Zoning town of Barnstable and HNH to allow them(HNH)to go in Board deems H+ and skip around and not have . case moot upon to go through zoning. They withdrawal of appeal completely skipped serving notice to anybody.They go 6ao•alggsuaEq;sam-ZZZ By Bronwen Howells Walsh into the town of Barnstable... o;sll a;aldwoo a aoj•sal;inl;op pua suol;Eul;sap bwalsh@barnstablepatriot.com and get a`rubber stamp'from g gy,a6E;uwn Eln alBngs aaaj•a6ElilA algp;suave the Site Plan Review Com- oa 6uolE sanuanIE w d£o; w E 01 woa;aoeid Hyannis residents opposed y PP mittee.There was no public 61?111A alge;sui2e;saM lenuue y;ZZ ayl:6j•6ny '4 to a Homeless Not Hopeless hearing whatsoever." r. planto operate a group home in The nonprofit operates four ISOA a6V111A 'I their neighborhood withdrew g group homes in Hyannis.The their case from the Barnsta- NX asflr Chase Street home would ble Zoning Board of Appeals replace one the organiza- 1„,.:; Wednesday,but they remain tion currently rents on Ocean ' '' °'f ° •• • • • • vehemently opposed to the Street.Residents of Homeless It idea,saying they plan to sue Not.Hopeless are required to the town of Barnstable. work do chores and a rent, PY Zoning Board Chairman Alex g and are drug tested weekly. Rodolakis said Chase Street Chase Street residents deliv- residents John Julius,Laura ered copious public testimony Wentzel and Susan Dubec opposing the proposed group emailed the Barnstable Plan- home at the May 18 Barnsta- is;ed a etsuae9 a 1. I 110Z'IT;sn6nb`6epiaj ZV Y IQ 4 ning and Development Office, ble Town Council meeting,as `l'Iilrii notifyingthe town aboutwith- well as aCommittee to Assess' drawing their appeal.An April Homelessness in Hyannis 21 Site Plan Review Committee hearing on April 24. decision sanctioned a four- In 1975,the Massachusetts bedroom group home for seven - - ,;. Legislature adopted the so- the women at 95 Chase St. called Dover Amendment, r use, "Once I heard it was going which authorizes certain"use to be withdrawn it goes off ccer g exemptions" from zoning. my radar,"said Rodolakis Yes= last For example, towns cannot s to terday.The matter was first impose use restrictions based Ilage up on the board's agenda.In on aproperty owner's religious I,he .on in five minutes,the board voted affiliation or disability.Non- ie ly unanimously to approve the profit educational entities like withdrawal,Rodolakis denied Homeless Not Hopeless main- id a Julius' subsequent request tain they,too,are within the to address the board, and broad context of the amend- A10 the board moved onto other ment.Julius disagrees. "The = matters. town was asleep at the wheel," — "I think that was very dis- he said. "Their attorney y respectful on the part of the deceived the zoning board and chairman,"Julius said later."I rubber-stamped thenextthree' was going to explain the nature or four group homes"after the .e of the withdrawal.Maybe they first HNH group home was ' think we're going away:We're legally approved in 2012.He h'going to be headed into court contends Homeless Not Hope- K very soon." less is"not using these group to run Julius, a Centerville real- homes for education." for for 36 years, said he and "We'regoingtoaskthePlan- his neighbors have secured a p chair- g Wing Boardto help us endorse a _ a nittee Cambridge law firm to rep- new zoning change to prohibit E n .tural resent them, and they plan group homes from going to to attend Monday's Planning any residential neighborhood - lture, --- Joint Board meeting. in the entire town of Barnsta - �,Arts "We're not going to pay the ble," Julius said "Hope�f yi °. , ment. town of Barnstable for filing we don't have to drawsj = - an appeal when we're not t w Rep. PP into some kind of a law m se and the ones who did anything he said."We want HNIxt� r�s :erace wrong," Julius said. "There away andfindanotherlocan u` was a conspiracy between the for their group home." 01 Buy a green dot item at full price, and get a second ®f equal ®r lesser FOR A GREAT k value for 1! ON. - R MANY FANS, )ACHES, PLAYERS 4 NOTICE to BUILDING INSPECTOR / ENFORCEMENT OFFICER June 26, 2017 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE REQUEST THE IMMEDIATE NOTIF- ICATION OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT OF ANY KIND FOR THE PREMISES AT 95 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS, MA. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS A PENDING LEGAL MATTER AND THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO NOW INVOLVED IN A MATTER BEING BROUGHT THE PLANNING BOARD BY WAY OF A PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE CONTACT LAURA WENTZEL at: 617 549-5555 OR JOHN JULIUS at: 508 237-2700 or email to cape330verizon.net or: jjulius(@todayi:ealestate.com AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THIS MATTER MAY LIKELY INVOLVE A LAWSUIT AND YOU,AS THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ARE MERELY BEING ASKED A SIMPLE REQUEST TO INFORM EITHER OF US IMMEDIATELY UPON ANY ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT OF ANY KIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER. JOHN JULIUS: 508, 237-2700, 140 CHASE STREET, HYANNIS, MA. 02601 LAURA WENTZEL 617 549-5555 7 HARVARD STREET, HYANNIS, MA. 02601 urn v l JUN 26 2017 7-0 , - F=�^+�iSr.":resa,--,a -afe over Bo'n to n rp-roposing to , "My own.opuuon is-that s • is the egmvalent of allow project's proposed waiver of =3ild nine buildings on two too dense," Lang said. ing a 300 percent increase in a state mandate to provide foundations on School Street "Height doesn't bother me as density. below South Street.As part of much as saturation for the lot. "I think that's asking too .Bornst affordable housing. ' a regulatory agreement with Right now,I cannot say I am muchofthetown,"Ferro said. that the had affordable the town,and he is asking the comfortable." "We really do want a commu- that the affordable housing town to waive zoning restric- "I like the idea of the proj- nity there.We as aboard never requirement be altogether tions on height,density and ect," said board member got a chance to look at other waived. affordable housing require- Stephen Hellman. "I have pictures" or architectural In a letter from housing ments for the luxury condo a real concern about the drawings.: committee Lang and ahe plan- project. Donald project. affordable housing.These are. Bornstein is basically saying ni nde to Lang and the plan- The architect's render- significant changes." "take it or leave it,"said plan- ning board, Lynde wrote, ings depict condominiums Shoestring Properties origi- ning board member Stephen The Housing Committee with prices starting between nally requested 27 waivers for Helman. '.He's saying,if he SEE DOCKSIDE, Al2 $495,000 and $550,000, the project,which is located in doesn't get these waivers,he 5 GhG . HOMELESSNESS HOUSING esl ent ® Uect n to group 4 •T e. 3 0 0 .0 Z z i Barnstable Town who are currently living in a 1. Council ets an earful housethe nonprofit organza- g tion rents on Ocean street in Hyannis. 4 x By Bronwen Howells Walsh y Nicola Kin re resentin bwalshC�harnstablepatriot.com g+ p g her father's estate at 85 Chase plan by the nonprofit St., said she and her.sisters Homeless Not Hopeless to lost a$350,000 sale of their Homeless Not Hopeless board member Dick LeJava,left,and board house last week because the buy a home at 95 Chase St.in president Jeff Howell,right,with Ksenia,one of the residents in the organi• Hyannis drew a full hour of prospective buyers "imme- zation's Elise House in Hyannis.[PHOTO BY DEBI BOUCHER STETSON] public commentary-'much diately withdrew their offer" of it vehement - at the May upon learning of the,-group A s��s-�- 18 Barnstable Town Coun- home plans. "We are going place t u s a �+ ®��� to have an issue selling our cil meeting.The councilors Kin said. John came to the meeting prepared property," g Homeless Not The-house is one of four run to discuss the town's FY 2018 Marchant, of 126 Oakneck by the nonprofit organization operating budget.Instead,a Road, said"Hyannis seems Hopeless participant Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc.It hearing room full of people to have become the dumping making strides is this house,a rental,that the greeted them, and the $183 ground for the Cape." "This organization plans to replace million budget draft had to is not an issue of not caring By Debi Boucher Stetson with a house it is in the process wait until later on the night's for people who are home- dstetson@barnstablepatriotcom of purchasing at 95 Chase St., agenda. less -they deserve all our not far from Ocean Street. "We do not feel that .help,"Marchant said. "This Twenty-six-year-old Ksenia Ksenia knows that neigh Homeless Not Hopeless . is simply an issue of over- works two jobs and just Com- bors in the Chase Street is accountable.to our vil- saturation in one village.It's pleted the spring semester at neighborhood do not want a lage, said Laura Cronin,an not right,and it's not fair." Cape Cod Community College. Homeless Not Hopeless house executive board member of It s a terrible thing,fear, said HNH co-founder Alan .She is also a house manager at in their midst. the Greater Hyannis Civic the home she shares with six "It's very hurtful,"she said Association. I Burt of Centerville,because other women on Ocean Street . of the remarks she has read in "Hyannis has done its fear often is"based in a foun- in Hyannis. news accounts."All they can share"to support social ser- dation of prejudice. His think of are all the worst things, vices on Cape Cod, Cronin comment attractedmurmuis just because we've been home- said."It's time for others to from the audience. less. ...The pre-judgment is stepup.'+ "The USA was founded really hurtful. It's them not The four-bedroom home upon the poor,the sick and the would house seven women SEE CHASE, All SEE RESTART, Al2 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE I 1 GJl'l1l.11V11JTV1111V11 CJJC111.1Q1 LLLLIG, 1�G1)JG1 tl'LL1G; WOri that fight,over- happening before their eyes, water supply wells being closed' outdoortwater use_would:'end�s atthe , Iwoi ng fierce resistance from and preparing for the what "in the busiest part of the year "when the condition requiring anybody in the corm utur.^,l.andrkemical- maybe ahead.One project -the summer-we don't have the State of Water Supply Con- join our Hyannis W, tsts,.who tried to dismiss on their list:enlarging the enough water in our wells;we servation no longer exists." and take the lead on tl in as a quack.Truth be culverts under roadways have to buy water'[from Yar- Barnstable Town Council . level.Ineedmorepeol nosquitoes were big . so they handle the larger mouth],and that's expensive," voted earlier this year to a ro- engaged." Y PP ,, ..: .: !rs,too.Here in George- storms scientists predict. Santos said."We're encourag- priate$6.5 million to purchase, "These'people fr mosquitoes rule. Georgetown is a small ing conservation so we don'thave design and construct a carbon right," said,five=ye also been coming town with a big stake in the tobuy as much-andto keep our treatment_system at the Maher nis resident and`asp`i .on enough to wit- state of the climate.But the water rates down:" g g we]1fieldonOldYartnouthRoad. activist Paul�GarciaY fie warming of the stakes are high for all of us, Tolimit non-essential outdoor The system will be used to treat of ahe s `umimt;"SilE tic Ocean.Swimming and coping with climate water use,including automatic T G' � g P° g g three wells foundto contain �Iis ]'St aziexcelle zas always been more change is ataller order than lawn sprinklers,thewaterboard PFOS andPFOA Themoneywi3l , estabhshg ordeal than a relief; saving the bald eagle.To has called for an odd/even-day a)sobeusedto conductpilottest- roots network1 1Ao"ed ave to get numb before which the practical Mainer outdoorwatering schedule.Out- ingfor treatment of 14-dioxane, residents an have fun.But m might say:So stop arguing door watering is permitted onl ' 3 ' y g y p g � g g P Y asolventusedintliemanufacture �TestingforPeasec al icy plunge has gotten and get to work. from 5 p.m.to 5 a.m. and fillip g of Michelle Dalton.ur! r as the water has swimmin ools is rolubited. g P P beenfoundinthewells."Thebig- stable residents to ac n warmer.The Gulf of —Rick Holmes can be The water board said a gestthingyou can give US is your cleanwater by co°niiE e has gotten 5.5 degrees reached at rick@rickholmes. 4.,`�;4 mnheit warmer just over net.You can follow his st to years.Its waters journey at www.rickholmes. gating up faster than net.Like him on Facebook at percent of the earth's Holmes 6 Co,on follow him f From Page Al is. on Twitter @HolmesAndco oppressed,"Burt said. "HNH r { efficient.McIsaac concurred has a very good reputation. UNTY BEAT ' They're good people.They're 3. and also said that the registry age A2 had also changed full-time Well-behaved.Liberty and tice for all." jus positions to part-time where Susan Debuc,whose home = ce that number comes shifts were only used during 4�k $ outs told the board,"we the busiest hours or times of is directly across from the pro- r = spective group home on Chase ook at it and say this is the year. Street, said she's "scared to oing to work for us and The rest of the county is death." `" ' that we'd probably ask catching up to the innova- r "I'msonervous.I'm soscared. o suspend the action." tions of the registry,Yunits s _ - Will I get anyinformation about mmissioner Flynn said said.Technology is being = nce had been involved in employed in departments the history of these people going rly retirement incentive to track what services are into the homes?"Debuc asked. - Steven Patalano,president of _' t and had been surprised needed and which are in little _ irn what the actual costs demand.In the latter case,as The Yachtsman condominiums neye id that program would people retire those services surgeon Ocean Street and grew up in _ - surgeonwho said he grew up in can be consolidated among Hyannis,testified in opposition he key to any.early fewer people. to the proposed home. iment incentive pro- "That's the goal of this "All the wonderful prog- is that you don't fill thing,"Yunits said."Not - = - ositions,"McIsaac just to reduce payroll,but to re . "That at the end of the fund out what are the most being undermined by recent made in our village is unchecked proliferation of - ~ ,ou have permanently efficient services we can pro- social services in Hyannis," red your workforce. vide the towns at a cost that The Chase Street house the nonprofit organization Homeless No use to roll out an is affordable and sustainable { Patalano said on behalf of The `STETSON] retirement incentive long term." Yachtsman's 125"tax-paying, ram,without limit- During Wednesday's high-end property owners.Our homeless individuals that decide see the Hyannis I kr severely limiting—the update to the board of com- once-quiet neighborhood has to camp in the reeds adjacent to deteriorating and become unsafe." Kalmus Beach. in large art due to ber or percentage of missioners,Yunits said thatP ions that you would the count is also lookingFor instance,Patalano said, "Our residents are now afraid of homeless,drug a i to be filled,makes the at the cost of emulating the ' the new playground at Vet- to walk the beach at night,"he convicts and alcoholi ram not worth having. registry's approach of using erans Park"should be a place said."The value of our property [to]and concentrate ;oal is to.reduce the part-time employees.Part where children can run bare- is dropping at an alarming rate. nis,"Flavin said."I force in this manner, timers do not qualify for foot in the sand while playing. This has got to stop. We are right tohave apeace: :ad of laying off people." benefits,which can add 3o to Unfortunately,we now have to vehemently opposed to further They[the homeles: ad of ay n g Ronald 4o percent to h employee's "Worry about them stepping on encroachment into Hyannis of earned the right to a] y Jr.said he understood cost,he said. needles,broken glass from dis- additional social services of any to Hyannis." the county Registry Once all the figures are in, carded alcoholbottles and asking type." Alan Eric Felthan !eds had managed to the time will come to make mommy or daddy about spent Yachtsmanboardmember and town resident and doms that litter the area." essfully reduce its staff decisions."It will provoke a con resident JoyceFlavin,who retired man of the Bamstab] L 50 to 28,in part by significant debate among us In addition, Patalano said, here with her husband in 2013, Development Comn ementing technology all in the coming months," . Yachtsman residents "also echoed Patalano's concerns. attracting tourism an made employees more Yunits predicted. have to deal with the influx of "I am really disappointed to the homeless are inc- ..asstvan,."�.`..,...�:rAi��.':t.�'L*.. � e`,e-.'. `�`�*, '^"nib' a"Y 4 '�s,a`•�*"°' Y�4k N� u TOWN OF BARNSTABLE VISION f May 26, 2017 NOTICE OF APPEAL for Site Plan Review Board#024-17 for 95 Chase Street, Hyannis Application dated April 21, 2017 We the petitioners hereby appeal the decision dated April 21, 2017 from the Town of Barnstable Site Plan Review Board for the following reasons listed below: In 2012 the organization Homeless not Hopeless, Inc. appeared before the town's zoning board for a public hearing in which the Town of Barnstable Building Commissioner denied a permit for a renovation of the property at 22 Main Street, Hyannis. The fact is that the building commissioner had reason and just cause to deny their plea for a permit which was what triggered a public hearing before the town's zoning board in the first place. In 2017 the same organization merely received a rubber stamp approval from the town's Site Plan Review Committee in which the public was not only denied the right to any hearing but the record also shows that the general public including the neighbors including all abutters were never notified of a possible change in the use of the premises and were never notified in writing of any such hearing on any matter pertaining to the property at 95 Chase Street, Hyannis, MA.The organization merely received a rubber stamp approval from the town's site plan review board and at no time did the building commissioner have the opportunity to review the permit for a renovation similar to the 2012 process. There was also no notice to the neighbors and abutters at any time prior to or during the applicant's application for a permit nor was the public allowed any right to any hearing of any kind at any time. It is therefore apparent that the abutters and all the neighbors within the Chase Street neighborhood were discriminated against because the Town of Barnstable Site Plan Review Committee treated us differently than the neighbors and abutters in the 2012 decision in which indeed there was a public hearing before the Barnstable Zoning Board. The Town of Barnstable has an obligation to be fair to all residents and parties and to treat all parties the same in any matter in which town boards or committees are involved, especially when legal rulings of any kind shall occur. It is crystal clear that in the case of the application process from the organization Homeless not Hopeless, Inc. in the matter of the property at 95 Chase Street, the residents and abutters of the Chase Street neighborhood were discriminated against and treated differently under the law as compared to the application process in 2012 when the organization filed its application for the 22 Main Street property.We therefore seek to petition the court to reverse the decision of the Town of Barnstable Site Plan Review Committee and shall ask for its decision to be overturned on the grounds of discrimination. It is for this reason that we challenge and appeal the decision of the site plan review board so as to allow the court to make a ruling on the matter of the discrimination allegation. Since we only became aware of this decision within the past several days and we only received a copy of the decision letter on May 24, 2017, we shall hereby ask the court for its grace on the time for appeal since we were only just ecently informed of Xhe decision and therefore the appeal time should not have expired. igne is — �?day of May, 2017 okn J.J 1,v 5"),s �n M, ���C I' Chase treet Resident& Petitioner 5'2 Harvard Street Abutter&Petitioner Q vU� zk�00, gel I II MAY 261017 OWN v My Name is Laura Wentwl,I live at 7 Harvard Street in Hyannis Ma and have been a Pesident of Hyannis for 19 years.It was recently brought to my attention last week that the corporation Homeless not Hopeless is in the process of buying 95 Chase Street to use as a GrouplEducational home meless individuals and 1 Resident manager.This property at 95 Chase Street is 4 ho mown from me. 1,along vath 26 concerned neighbors,have an extreme opposition against this type of group home going into our neighborhood.I'd like to list the concerns and ask for response and discussion from you all. 1. Does an organization such as this need town approval to operate this type of Business/Group home in a Residential neighborhood? 2. How do we as residents in this neighborhood find out where in the buying process this sales is at as well as what additional approvals they need in order to close on this house.....Such as zoning approvaVBoard of Health?It's my understanding that 9 Individuals(unrelated)will be living in a three bedroom home-does that comply with current zoning laws? 3. Why is a Business allowed to purchase property and operate as a corporation in a residential neighborhood? 4. Why were we as residents that surround 95 Chase Street properly noted of the intent of use for this property? 5. Are there laws in place to protect us from individuals that may pose a threat to our safety and wellbeing should they move into this property?We as a group have been exposed to high levels of anxiety and stress being imposed on us with this pending sale-especially -for our children and elderly residents. 6. Are there any laws preventing this type of group home from operating within a block of a ' School and Have the parents of the children attending St Francis been notified? 7. Do we have the right as neighbors to be educated on the background of the proposed individuals that will be living in this home should the sale go through? Other concerns we as a collective group of 26 and growing-would like to voice: 1. The devaluation of our property-especially for those who rent as a source of income for their families. 2. Tax exempt status of this organization-how does the"tax exempt"status of this organization effect our tax rate-do we pay more to cover them?We need a limit on the amount of nonprofit organizations in our village-how do start that process? 3. Why are all this organizations group homes within a 2 mile radius of our neighborhood?Is there a process to introduce a bylaw to limit these types of homes within a 10-15 mile radius of each other? 4 � 1 CJ i t My Name is Laura Wentzell live at 7 Harvard Street in Hyannis Ma and have been a resident of Hyannis for 19 years.It was recently brought to my attention last week that the corporation Homeless not Hopeless is in the process of buying 95 Chase Street to use as a GrouplEducadonal home omeless individuals and 1 Resident manager.This property at 95 Chase Street is 4 h mown from me. I,along vn"th 26 concerned neighbors,have an extreme opposition against this type of group home going into our neighborhood I'd like to list the concerns and ask for response and discussion from you all. 1. Does an organization such as this need town approval to operate this type of Business/Group home in a Residential neighborhood? 2. How do we as residents in this neighborhood find out where in the buying process this sales is at as well as what additional approvals they need in order to close on this house.....Such as-zoning approval/Board of Health?It's my understanding that 9 Individuals(unrelated)will be living in a three bedroom home-does that comply with current zoning lays? 3. Why is a Business allowed to purchase property and operate as a corporation in a residential neighborhood? 4. Why were we as residents that surround 95 Chase Street properly notified of the intent of use for this property? 5. Are there laws in place to protect us from individuals that may pose a threat to our safety and wellbeing should they move into this property?We as a group have been exposed to high levels of anxiety and stress being imposed on us with this pending sale-especially -for our children and elderly residents. 6. Are there any laws preventing this type of group home from operating within a block of a School and have the parents of the children attending St Francis been notified? 7. Do we have the right as neighbors to be educated on the background of the proposed individuals that will be living in this home should the sale go through? Other concerns we as a collective group of 26 and growing-would like to voice: 1. The devaluation of our property-especially for those who rent as a source of income for their families. 2. Tax exempt status of this organization-hoar does the"tax exempt"status of this organization effect our tax rate-do we pay more to cover them?We need a limit on the amount of nonprofit organizations in our village-how do start that process? 3. Why are all this organizations group homes within a 2 mile radius of our neighborhood?Is there a process to introduce a bylaw to limit these types of homes within a 1045 mile radius of each other? I I J Section 3 Page 1 of 6 Part I ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT Title VII CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS Chapter ZONING }40A Section 3 SUBJECTS WHICH ZONING MAY NOT REGULATE; EXEMPTIONS; PUBLIC HEARINGS; TEMPORARY MANUFACTURED HOME RESIDENCES Section 3. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the use of materials, or methods of construction of structures regulated by the state building code, nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, unreasonably regulate, or require a special permit for the use.of land for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, nor prohibit, unreasonably regulate or require a special permit for the use, expansion, reconstruction or construction of structures thereon for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, including those facilities for the sale of produce, wine and dairy products, provided that either during the months of June, July, August and September of each year or during the harvest https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T`tleVII/Chapter4Oa/Section3 5/4/2017 Section 3 Page 2 of 6 season of the primary crop raised on land of the owner or lessee, 25 per cent of such.products for sale, based on either gross sales dollars or volume, have been produced by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility is located, or at least 25 per cent of such products for sale, based on either gross annual sales or annual volume, have been produced by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility is located and at least an additional 50 per cent of such products for sale, based upon either gross annual sales or annual volume, have been produced in Massachusetts on land other than that on which the facility is located, used for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, whether by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility is located or by another, except that all such activities may be limited to parcels of 5 acres or more or to parcels 2 acres or more if the sale of products produced from the agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture use on the parcel annually generates at least $1,000 per acre based on gross sales dollars in area not zoned for agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture. For such purposes, land divided by a public or private way or a waterway shall be construed as 1 parcel. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall exempt land or structures from flood plain or wetlands regulations established pursuant to the General Laws. For the purposes of this section, the term "agriculture" shall be as defined in section 1 A of chapter 128, and the term horticulture shall include the growing https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter4Oa/Section3 5/4/2017 I Section 3 Page 3 of 6 and keeping of nursery stock and the sale thereof. Said nursery stock shall be considered to be produced by the owner or lessee of the land if it is nourished, maintained and managed while on the premises. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. .Lands or structures used, or to be used by a public service corporation may be exempted in particular respects from the operation of a-zoning ordinance or by-law if, upon petition of the corporation, the department of telecommunications and cable or the department of public utilities shall, after notice given pursuant to section eleven and public hearing in the town or city, determine the exemptions required and find that the present or proposed use of the land or structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public; provided however, that if lands or structures used or to be used by a public service corporation are located in more than one municipality such lands or structures may be exempted in https:Hmalegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter4Oa/Section3 5/4/2017 Section 3 Page 4 of 6 particular respects from the operation of any zoning ordinance or by-law if, upon petition of the corporation, the department of telecommunications and cable or the department of public utilities shall after notice to all affected communities and public hearing in one of said municipalities, determine the exemptions required and find that the present or proposed use of the land or structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. For the purpose of this section, the petition of a public service corporation relating to siting of a communications or cable television facility shall be filed with the department of telecommunications and cable. All other petitions _shall be filed with the department of public utilities. No zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit, or require a special permit for, the use of land or structures, or the expansion of existing structures, for the primary, accessory or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the.bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes,. lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. As used in this paragraph, the term "child care facility" shall mean a child care center or a school-aged child care program, as defined in section IA of chapter 15D. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, local land use and health and safety laws; regulations, practices, ordinances, by-laws and decisions of a city or town shall not https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII%Chapter4Oa/Section3 5/4/2017 Section 3 Page 5 of 6 discriminate .against a disabled person. Imposition of health and safety laws or land-use requirements on congregate living arrangements among non-related persons with disabilities that are not imposed on families and groups of similar size or other unrelated persons shall constitute discrimination. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to every city or town, including, but not limited to the city of Boston and the city of Cambridge. Family child care home and large family child care home, as defined in section lA of chapter 15D, shall be an allowable use unless a city or town prohibits or specifically regulates such use in its zoning ordinances or by-laws. No provision of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall be valid which sets apart districts by any boundary line which may be changed without adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance or by- law. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit the owner and occupier of a residence which has been destroyed by fire or other natural holocaust from placing, a manufactured home on the site of such residence and residing in such home for a period not to exceed twelve months while the residence is beingrebuilt An . Y such manufactured home shall be subject to the provisions of the state sanitary code. No dimensional lot requirement of a zoning ordinance or by-law, including but not limited to, set back, front yard, side yard, rear yard and open space shall apply to handicapped access ramps on https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T`itleVII/Ch.apter4Oa/Section3 5/4/2017 Section 3 Page 6 of 6 private property used solely for the purpose of facilitating ingress or egress of a physically handicapped person, as defined in section thirteen A of chapter twenty-two. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit the construction or use of an antenna structure by a federally licensed amateur radio operator. Zoning ordinances and by-laws may reasonably regulate the location and height of such antenna structures for the purposes of health, safety, or aesthetics; provided, however, that such ordinances and by-laws reasonably allow for sufficient height of such antenna structures so as to effectively accommodate amateur radio communications by federally licensed amateur radio operators and constitute the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the legitimate purposes of the city or town enacting_ such ordinance or by-law. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter4Oa/Section3 5/4/2017 GrouR Homes and Zoning Under the Fair Housing Act Michael Mirra Index: • Introduction • Background l • Prominent provisions of the Fair Housing Act generally • FHA's aRnlication to grouN homes • Notes Introduction April 23, 1998 Michael Mirra o COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Suite 430 625 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 572-4343 FAX(253) 572-4348 michael.mirraftolumbialegal.org This outline is only a cursory review of the topics it covers. It cannot substitute for legal advice. Persons with a particular legal problem may wish to consult an attorney. Attorneys should supplement this outline with their own legal research. This outline reviews what the Fair Housing Act(FHA) has to say about governmental regulation or restriction of group homes, both their siting and operation. In general, the FHA provides group homes,their residents and developers with Important protection.This protection results from the application to group homes of basic and longstanding principles of FHA adjudi-cation. For that reason, this outline will begin_by reviewing those basics. I. SOME BACKGROUND Much of the nation's housing segregation resulted from overt policies and practices of the public and private entities that controlled or influenced the housing market, e.g. realtors, housing lenders, federally assisted housing programs, local and state laws governing residential use or public enforcement of private restrictive covenants.These institutionalized efforts created or fortified a pervasive white racism in the housing market against African-Americans and other persons identified by race, ethnicity or religion Al By 1968,the nation's housing was thoroughly segregated • S by race. In this century, the effort to promote fair housing began in the courts. The Supreme Court began using the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection to restrict racial discrimination by local governments. In 1917, it issued its first ruling against racial zoning ordinances.0 In 1948, the Court prohibited judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants governing the use of land. Soon afterward, the Federal Housing Administration and the Veteran's Administration stopped insuring mortgages on property encumbered with racially restrictive covenants. Racial zoning and covenants continued in place, however, until the passage of effective affirmative legislation. State and federal anti-discrimination laws generally followed a pattern. First, the laws outlawed discrimination in public accommodations and publicly financed activities. Employment laws then followed. Laws then outlawed discrimination in public housing.The last laws to be enacted restricted discrimination in the private housing market. By 1968, about half the states, including Washington, had some form of fair housing law. In 1968, Congress enacted Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968--the Fair Housing Act.The turbulent events of the time spurred its passage.The urban riots of 1967 and the subsequent Kerner Commission report caused some to attribute many social afflictions to residential segregation.0 On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King,Jr. was assassinated.The Fair Housing Act became law on April 11, 1968. In many respects, however,the 1968 Fair Housing Law has not been a success. As a source of legal enforcement it fell far short of its counterpart laws governing public accommodations or employment.The number of private and public prosecutions was comparably few. More importantly, its effect on patterns of residential use disappointed its proponents. Discriminatory barriers became more sophisticated if less overt. Most communities remained segregated for reasons that appeared directly related to discriminatory conduct.0 One of the Act's shortcomings was its lack of effective enforcement. Efforts soon began in Congress to strengthen it. After nearly twenty years of debate, the Congress passed the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.Among its major provisions: • it greatly strengthened the administrative enforcement of the Act, making its remedies available to people without lawyers; • it eliminated the$ 1,000 cap on punitive damages available in private lawsuits; • it provided for civil penalties and damages in lawsuits brought by the United States. Despite these enhancements, the racial segregation America's housing markets continues.0 The 1988 amendments also added handicap and"familial status"to the list of protected characteristics under the Fair Housing Act(FHA).These additions are meant to protect disabled persons and households with minor children from pervasive discriminatory practices that excluded them from large segments of the residential housing markets. Disabled persons have traditionally faced widespread public and private discrimination based on erroneous and destructive stereotypes. The Act was"a clear pronouncement of a national commitment to end the unnecessary exclusion of persons with handicaps from the American mainstream."Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3rd 325, 333 n. 14(3d Cir.) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 711, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 18, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2179). At the same time, Congress recognized that large portions of the private rental market excluded households with minor children.These practices, combined with increasingly unaffordable housing prices, have contributed to a housing emergency for large segments of the American public for whom affordable, decent or secure housing remains unavailable. II. PROMINENT PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT GENERALLY A. Protected Characteristics The FHA outlaws or restricts housing discrimination because of: • race; • color; • religion; • sex; • "familial status;"Lu • national origin; 0 handicap. f B.The Act's Scope is Broad With few exceptions,the FHA governs nearly every type of housing, including mobile homes, shelters, vacant land intended for housing, and group homes u This is clear from its definition of "dwelling:" Dwelling' means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof. 42 USC §3602(b). (The exceptions are narrow and refer to owner-occupied apartment complexes of 4 or less units, religious organizations, and private clubs.See 42 USC § 3603.) The FHA also governs nearly every aspect of a housing transaction, including financing, brokering, appraising, and marketing. Italso applies to land-use and zoning practices of government.The FHA applies to a broad range of discriminatory behavior, including: (1)refusing to sell, rent, negotiate for"or otherwise make unavailable.or deny"a dwelling; (2)discriminating in the"term,conditions, or privileges of a sale or rental"of a dwelling or in the"provision of services or facilities in connection therewith"; (3) making or publishing any discriminatory statement in regard to a sale or rental; (4) misrepresenting the availability of_a dwelling; (5)inducing a person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations about the presence of members of a protected class In the neighborhood; (6)discriminating in the access to real estate services; (7)discrimination in the residential real estate related transactions and in the terms or conditions of such transactions, including the making of loans for the purchase of a dwelling, the making of loans secured by residential units and the "selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property." 42 U.S.C. §3604.There are limits, however, to the scope of the FHA's coverage.0 The FHA protects not only racial minorities or other protected classes of people. It gives a cause of action to any person or entity who is harmed by an act of illegal discrimination. 10 Zoning laws that unlawfully discriminate against handicapped persons seeking group home living, for example, would give rise to claims not only by the prospective residents who are handicapped but also by the developers or financiers of the group home. C.The Definition of Disability is Broad The definition of"handicap"is very broad: (h) 'Handicap' means, with respect to a person-- (1)a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (2)a record of having such an impairment, or r (3)being regarded as having such an Impairment, but such term does not include current,illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in section 802 of Title 21. 42 USC§3602.This definition includes mental illness, developmental disabilities, physical Impairments, persons who test positive for HIV, persons who have AIDS, wet or dry alcoholics and persons recovering from addiction to an illegal drug as long as they are not currently using illegal drugs. 11 The need to live in a group home, by itself, may denote a disability to the extent it results from an inability to live Independently.(12 Note:The definition of"disability"under Washington's Law Against Discrimination may be somewhat broader than the definition under the FHA. 13 D. Protections for Handicapped Persons and Children are Equivalent to Those Provided Against Racial Discrimination. The terms"handicap"and"familial status"appear in the FHA alongside those of"race"and the other protected characteristics.Thus, the law treats discrimination on the basis of"handicap"and"familial status"as it treats racial discrimination. [F]amilies with children [and handicapped persons] must be provided the same protections as other[protected] classes of persons."24 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Subch. A. App. I at 931 (1995). E.Violations and'Requirements of the FHA Violations of the FHA include not only acts of intentional discrimination but other acts or policies that have a discriminatory effect even without any intent to discriminate. 1. Intentional Discrimination A person or entity violates the FHA when it denies or conditions or impairs a housing opportunity intentionally because of race, color, religion,sex,familial status, national origin or handicap. Intentional discrimination can violate the law even if the defendant also had other legal reasons for his or her conduct. In relation to discrimination on the basis of handicap,the Act is intended to repudiate the use of stereotypes and requires that persons with handicaps be considered as individuals. 14 2. Unintended but Disparate Discriminatory Effects The FHA also outlaws or restricts practices that have an unintended but disproportionate effect on that is important defendant must show a le p protected persons. In these cases,the d legitimate reason 9 enough to justify the practice despite its disproportionate effect. Courts have allowed such claims because of a practical view of fair housing enforcement: Effect, and not motivation, is the touchstone, in part because clever men may.easily conceal their motivations, but more Importantly, because ...'[w]hatever our law was once,...we now firmly recognize that the arbitrary quality of thoughtless-ness can be as disastrous and unfair to private rights and the public interest as a perversity of a willful scheme. United States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri,508 F.2d 1179(8th Cir 1974):Id. at 1185(8th Cir. 1974), cert. den.422 U.S. 1042(1975).The legislative history of the 1988.Amendments strongly endorses this analysis as applied to handicapped persons. Some common examples of practices or policies found to violate the FHA because of their unintended but disproportionate exclusion of protected persons include: exclusion of families with children found to constitute racial discrimination; exclusion of subsidized housing found to constitute race discrimination; occupancy maximums and siting restrictions on group homes found to constitute familial status discrimination. 16 3. Denial of Reasonable Accommodation of Handicaps In addition to prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of handicap,the FHA goes further and limits the application of neutral rules that have no discriminatory intent or effect.The FHA requires owners to make"reasonable accommodation"in such rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal oppor-tunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(8).The FHA imposes an"affirmative duty upon landlords reasonably to accommodate the needs of handicapped persons."U.S. v. California.Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3rd 1413, 1416(9th Cir. 1994), appeal after remand 107 F.3rd 1374 (9th Cir. 1997).This duty receives a "'generous construction' in order to carry out a 'policy that Congress considered to be of the highest priority.'The generous spirit with which we are to interpret the FHA guides our[reasonable accommodation]analysis here." 29 F.3rd at 14`16. See Also, Shapiro v. Cadman Towers,Inc., 51 F.3rd 328, 335(2d. Cir. 1995). In general, a requested accommodation is reasonable and therefore required, if(1)it is necessary for the handicapped persons'equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and (ii) it does not impose undue administrative or financial burdens or require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the housing program.E.g., U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3rd 1413, 1416(9th Cir. 1994),appeal after remand 107 F.3rd 1374(9th Cir. 1997);Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096(3rd Cir. 1996). As a reasonable accommodation for handicapped persons, courts have required waivers in leases, contracts, rules, ordinances, restrictive covenants,zoning codes and otherwise reasonable rules.of many types when necessary to accommodate a disability. Examples of lease rules that courts have waived include: first come, first serve rule for assignment of parking spaces;(173 rule against pets; 18 rule against threatening behavior; 19 lease provision for charges and penalties. o In requiring a waiver of rules,the FHA can also oblige a landlord to spend or forego money. Reasonable accommodation concerning group homes can include the waiver of otherwise applicable zoning restrictions. 22 The FHA also requires owners to permit,at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modification may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises. A landlord may,where it is reasonable to do so,condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 42 USC§3604(f)(3)(A). (The FHA also requires that most multi-family buildings that are first occupied after March 15, 1991 meet certain adaptability and accessibility requirements. State law has imposed similar requirements for several years already.) 4. The "Dangerousness"Exception The FHA makes an exception for the protections offered to"handicapped"persons to account for dangerous persons: Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to.the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. .42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(9). Dangerous persons or persons with criminal histories are not, by virtue of that history, protected from discrimination.This remains the case even if they are handi-capped. However, the criteria and process by which people are screened or excluded for dangerousness cannot itself by discriminatory. Several concepts are likely to govern a court's review of such procedures. First,the FHA requires that the"direct threat" restrictions be based on individual assessments. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1503 (loth Cir. 1995).0 Generalized conclusions about groups based upon their handicap are not permissible. See Also 54 FR 3245 (January 23, 1989). Second, a process to screen out dangerous people cannot be applied only to handicapped people. See House Report at 30; 53 FR 45001(November 7, 1988) Third, a criteria or process that excludes'people because of a dangerous history may be amenable to waiver as a reasonable accommodation to a person's disability. A reasonable accommodation,for example, may include treatment or controls that provide adequate assurance that threatening behavior will not recur. 24 F. Enforcement Victims of FHA violations have several enforcement options: 1. Private Litigation A victim can sue in state or federal court. 42 U.S.C. §3613.The court can order the defendant to stop the illegal activity and to take affirmative measures to insure against repeated violations.The court can also require the defendant to pay money to compensate the victim for harm, including psychological and emotional injury.The court will also normally order the defendant to pay the attorney's fees of the prevailing victim.The court can also punish the defendant by requiring further payment of punitive damages.The FHA imposes a two year statute of limitations for filing such a lawsuit. 2. Administrative Enforcement A victim can file an administrative complaint with an enforcement agency responsible for the jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. §3612. He or she must file within one year of the alleged violation. Under the Act, HUD can delegate this enforcement authority to a local agency whose laws are"substantially equivalent"to the FHA. In that case,the local enforcement agency contracts with HUD to handle complaints. Presently, HUD has contracts with four jurisdictions in Washington State: King County; Seattle;Tacoma; Washington State.As a result, HUD refers most administrative complaints arising from within Washington State either to the Washington State Human Rights Commission or to the fair housing enforcement agencies for King County,,Seattle or Tacoma. An agency, if it finds a violation, can order the defendant to stop the illegal activity. It can order the defendant to pay the victim's attorney's fees. In order"to vindicate the public interest,"the agency can also impose a civil penalty of up to$50,000 depending on the number of the defendant's prior violations. 3. United States as Plaintiff The United States Government can also sue to remedy violations of the Act that result from a "pattern or practice"of illegal activity or from conduct that otherwise"raises an issue of general public importance."42 U.S.C. §3614.The court may impose penalties of up to$ 100, 000. G.Courts Will Interpret the FHA Expansively The court will give the FHA a generous and expansive construction"in order to carry out a 'policy that Congress considered to be of the highest priority."' U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3d 1413(9th Cir. 1994)(referring to the FHA, quoting from Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 409 U.S. 205, 212, 93 S.Ct. 364, 368, 34 L.Ed.2d 415(1972). 25 ro III FHA'S APPLICATION TO GROUP HOMES A.The FHA Governs Local Zoning Regulation Courts have long applied the FHA to local zoning codes. It governs not only behavior specified in the law but actions, like zoning,that"otherwise make unavailable or deny"a dwelling. §§42 U.S.C. §3604(a),(f)(1).The FHA has been"construed to reach 'every practice which has the effect of making housing more difficult to obtain on prohibited grounds."'United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1291, n. 9. (S.D.N.Y. 1985),affd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987),cent. denied, 486 U.S. 1055(1988).Additional sections of the FHA particularly govern local laws. 27 The 1988 amendments adding"handicap" protections targeted zoning laws especially: These new subsections[protecting handicapped persons] would also apply to state or local land use and health and safety laws, regulations, practices or decisions which discriminate against individuals with handicaps. House Report at 24 M Note: Other laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap also apply to zoning codes. E.g. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794(a)(Section 504 applies to zoning codes of cities that receive federal money;)LM American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132(The ADA applies to"public entities,"defined to include cities. §42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A))l3111 B.The FHA Protects Group Homes Courts have further applied the FHA to protect group homes. Group homes fit the FHA's definition of dwelling. §42 U.S.C. §3602.The FHA's protection for group homes became particularly clear with the 1988 amendments for handicapped persons: This provision[protecting handicap persons] is intended to prohibit special restrictive covenants or other terms of conditions, or denials of services because of an Individual's handicap and which have the effect of excluding, for example,congregate living arrangements for persons with handicaps. . . . While state and local governments have authority to protect safety and health, and to regulate use of land,that authority has sometimes been used to restrict the ability of individuals with handicaps to live in communities.This has been accomplished by such means as the enactment or imposition of health, safety or land-use requirements on congregate living arrangements among non-related persons with disabilities. . . . House Report at 23-24. (emphasis added.) Group homes are.,generally covered because their residents are handicapped. In one case,the court also applied the FAA to group homes for children under the Act's"familial status"provision Un C. Some Particular Issues Arising from Municipal Regulation of Group Homes 1. Occupancy Maximums: Municipalities have commonly restricted the number of residents allowed in group homes.These restrictions appear in various forms. Some apply particularly to group home, raising questions of direct and intentional discrimination. Other restrictions apply to all households of unrelated persons, raising questions 4-their discriminatory effeeltthat results because handicapped people, more than others, require group home living. The FHA expressly allows"any reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling."42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1). However, this exemption applies only if the maximums apply to everyone in a dwelling, generally for the purpose of avoiding overcrowding. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995)(generally applicable occupancy limits like the Uniform Housing Code designed to prevent overcrowding fall within exemption from FHA).The FHA does not exempt limits "designed to preserve the family character of a neighbor-hood,fastening on the composition of households rather than on the total number of occupants living quarters can contain,do not."Id. at 1782. S uch limits that purport to define"families"have been found to discriminate against residents of group homes. Some courts have struck down these limits relying either on their discriminatory intent or discriminatory effect. 33 Other courts have reviewed requests to waive neutral occupancy maximums as a reasonable accommodation for the disability of residents of group homes. 3a 2. Size and Bulk Limitations In general,the FHA does not require a city to waive nondiscriminatory limitations on the size or bulk of buildings or their nonresidential use. E.g. Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3rd 300(9th Cir. 1997)(City could reject proposal for a large complex for disabled adults, including non-housing services, in a single family residence.) 3. Dispersal Requirements With some notable exceptions, courts have generally struck down requirements that group homes maintain minimum distances from other group homes. E.g., The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997)(striking down 1,000 foot dispersal requirement for group homes); Horizon House Developmental Services, Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton, 804 F.Supp. 683, 693, afrd 995 F.2d 217(3rd. Cir. 1993) (same); But see, Familystyle of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 923 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1991)(The court permitted application of a dispersal requirement to prevent cluster of 21 group homes within one and one-half block area.) 4. Notice and Permit.Requirement Courts have also struck down requirements that group homes register with municipal authorities or notify their neighbors. E.g. Stewart B. McKinney v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197 (D.Conn. 1992) (neighbor notification); Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285(D. Md. 1993)(hearing and notification requirement); Larkin v. State of Michigan, 89 F.3d 285(6th Cir. 1996) (notification of neighbors requirements); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997)(requirement for city permit and community hearing process). Some courts, however, have allowed procedural requirements by which group home developers can be made to seek waivers of exclusionary rules as a reasonable accommodation to the disability of their prospective residents. E.g., Elderhaven, Inc. v. City of Lubbock, 98 F.3rd 175(5th Cir. 1996). Most courts have ruled that a city cannot justify a discriminatory rule merely by providing a process by which a group home may seek its waiver. Reasonable accommodation procedures are applicable only to consider a waiver of a nondiscriminatory rule. 35 5. Requirement for Permanent Residency Courts have also rejected requirements that residents of group homes remain as occupants for minimum periods of time.The court in The court in North Shore-Chicago Rehab. v. Village of Skokie, 827 F.Supp. 497(N.D. III. 1993)struck down a requirement that group home residents be permanent. Similarly, the court in Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp.450 (D.N.J. 1992)barred enforcement of a requirement that all households of unrelated persons meet a standard of"permanency and stability."; Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 819 F.Supp. 1179, 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)(barred town's eviction of the group home "due to the size or transient nature of plaintiffs'group living arrangement"); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997)(court voided exclusion of group homes for children who stayed less than 30 days.) 6. Benign Intentions Do Not Excuse Adverse.Discriminatory Regulation Municipalities commonly justify adverse discriminatory regulation of group homes by claiming a benign motive to assist or protect the residents from harm. Several points are pertinent to such discussions. First, plaintiffs in a FHA claim do not have to prove malice or animus to show a violation: Specifically with regard to housing discrimination, a plaintiff need not prove the malice or discriminatory animus of a defendant to make out a care of intentional discrimination where the defendant expressly treats someone protected by the FHAA in a different manner than others. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1500(loth Cir. 1995). 36 Second, good intentions do not cure discrimination.(371 Third, discriminatory intentions are illegal even if the city also had non-discriminatory intentions. 38 7. Some Possible Grounds for Different Treatment of Handicapped Persons Some courts, upon finding Intentional discrimination, then consider possible reasons that could justify the discrimination. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1502-1504(10th Cir. 1995); Marbrunak, Inc v. City of Stow, 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1992).The courts stated that the FHA may not prohibit overt discrimination beneficial to handicapped persons or to fair housing goals in the same way that racial categories designed to insure integra-tion are sometimes permissible. Id. at 1504 -1505. In Alliance for the Mentally III v. City of Naperville, 923 F.Supp. 3057, 1073(N.D.'III 1996), the court stated that any intentionally discriminatory rule must fulfill the "FHAA, which mandates that any such(facially discriminatory]requirements correspond to the 'unique and specific needs and abilities of(the] handicapped persons' affected."Any differential treatment must be based on a scrutiny of individual needs. The.Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491, 1499 (W.D. Wash. 1977). Even under these decisions, the possible justifications for overt discrimination are very narrow and provoke great judicial skepticism. "We should be chary about accepting the justification that a particular restriction upon the handicapped really advances their housing opportunities rather than discriminates against them in housing. Restrictions that are based upon unsupported stereotypes or upon prejudice and fear stemming from ignorance or generalizations,for example, would not pass muster. Bangerter, 46 F.3rd at 1504. Under the standard analysis and in the normal case, there is no reason that can justify overt intentional and adverse discrimination. Instead, discrimination must benefit the disabled residents and must be tailored to their needs. One court, however, has expanded the grounds for permissible discrimination to include discrimination reasonably necessary to serve a city's legitimate interests. Family-Style of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1991). In that case, the court permitted a city to prevent the addition of more group homes to a one and one-half block area that already had 21 such homes.The court ruled that dispersal benefited handicapped persons and FHA goals of integration.The courts use of a rational basis standard to review the city's overtly discrimina-tory ordinance is anomalous among the reported decisions. It has been rejected by courts in other Circuits.E.g., Larkin v. State of Michigan, 89 F.3d 285(6th Cir. 1996); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491, 1498.(W.D. Wash. 1997). _............. NOTES 1. See, Robert G. Schwerpm, Housing Discrimination; Law and Litigation, pages 2-1-2-9. (1994). 2. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60(1917). 3 Shelley v Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 4. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder's 1 (1968)(The Report concluded that America was"moving toward two societies,one black, one white--separate and unequal.") 5. In 1979,for example, HUD's survey of 40 metropolitan areas concluded that an African-American will encounter discriminatory barriers 49 percent of the time in the purchase market and 72%of the time in the rental market..See, R. Wienk, C. Reid,J. Simonson&F.Eggers,Measuring Racial Discrimination in American:Housing Markets: The Housing Market Practices Survey(U.S. Department of Housing and.Urban Development 1979).This report found discrimination most pervasive cities in the North Central and Western states. In 1989, HUD commissioned another study. It reported"no solid basis for concluding that the = incidence of unfavorable treatment experienced by black homeseekers had either risen or declined since the late 1970s."M.Turner, R. Struyk&J.Yinger, Housing Discrimination Study:Synthesis vii (U.S.v Department of Housing and Urban Development 1991). 6. See MASSEY&DENTON,AMERICAN APARTHEID: SEGREGATION AND THE MAKING OF THE UNDERCLASS(1993). 7. "Familial Status means one or more individuals(who has not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with--(1)a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals; or(2)the designee of such parent or other person having such custody, with the written permission of such parent or other person."42 U.S.C. § 3602(k).The FHA expressly exempts "housing for older persons from its familial status provision. If a housing complex qualified for this exemption it may discriminate against children.This exemption, which Congress recently enlarged, is defined to Include either housing that is occupied solely by persons 62 years of age or older or housing intended for persons over 55 years and in which over 80?/o of the units are occupied by at least one person 55 years or age or older. S. E.g. Hernandez v. EverFresh Co. , 923 F.Supp. 1305(D. Or. 1996)(farm labor camps); Woods v. Foster, 884 F.Supp. 1169(N.D. III. 1995)(homeless shelter); United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877, 881 (3rd Cir.),cert. den. 501 U.S. 1205(1991)(defining FHA"residence"as a "temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from the place of temporary sojourn or transient visit.); Turning Point, Inc. v. City of Caldwell, 74 F.3rd 941 (9th Cir. 1996)(emergency homeless shelters.); Baxter v. City of Belleville, III., 720 F.Supp. 720(S.D. III. 1989)(hospice for short-term and long-term occupancy by sufferers of AIDS); United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877(3d Cir.1990)(summer. bungalows); Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096(3rd Cir. 1996)(nursing homes). HUD's definition of"dwelling unit"for purposes of the"handicap"discrimination provision Includes congregate facilities, as well as"dormitory rooms and sleeping accommodations in shelters intended for occupancy as a residence for homeless persons."24 CFR 100.201. See Also Section IIIB below. 9 E.g. Michigan Protection &Advocacy Service v Babin 18 F.3rd 337 Mh Cir. 1994) (neighbors are not liable for financing the purchase of a home to prevent its use by group home operator.) QE.g. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 477(9th Cir. 1988)(nonprofit housing providers and homeowners have a claim against persons who prevented them from concluding a deal with black seekers.); Crumble v. Blumthal, 549 F.2d 462(7th Cir. 1977)(white brokers have a.claim if they lose a commission because of discrimination against their minority clients);Havens Realty Corp. v. - Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214(1982)("Congress intended standing . . to extend to the full limits of Art. III and . . . the courts accordingly lack the authority to create prudential barriers to standing in suits brought under the [FHA].")Standing extends to organizations whose advocacy purposes are frustrated by defendant's actions.Id. Standing extends to people who were not discriminated against. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205, 208- 212, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415(1972)(white persons can challenge discrimination against racial minorities). 11.The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of disability under the American with Disabilities Act(ADA)includes a person who is HIV-positive but who is otherwise without symptoms of illness. Bragdon v.Abbott, 118 S.Ct. 2196(1998).The definition of disability under the ADA is the same as the definition of handicap under the FHA. 12. E.g., United States v. City of Audubon, 797 F.Supp. 353, 358-359(D.N.]. 1991)(recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who could walk, hear, speak, learn work, etc are handicapped by their need for group care)("We do not think that the list of major life activities set forth in the regulation was meant to be all-inclusive. Even if it were,the residents would still satisfy the definition because their inability to live independently constitutes a substantial limitation on their ability to 'care for themselves"'.)The court in U.S. v. Massachusetts Indus. Finance Agency, 910 F. Supp. 21, 26(D. Mass 1996)expressed a similar view about residents in a home for emotionally disturbed children. ("Indeed, given [the home's] purpose, mere placement in one of its residential schools is strong evidence of an inability to function In a regular environment.") 13. Unlike the FHA, Washington's Law does not require that the disability be an"impairment which substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities."Instead, it refers to the "presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained guide dog or service dog by a disabled person. RCW 49.60.030(1).The Washington State Human Rights Commission, in a recent definition, stated that it"includes, but is not limited to an abnormal condition that(a) is medically cognizable or diagnosable; (b)exists as a record or history; or(c) is perceived to exist, whether or not it exists in fact."WAC 162-38-050.The Commission declined to adopt the federal definition explaining that to do so would be a "substantial narrowing"of state law. WSR 96-13-045 (Part 3). 14. Generalized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusions. H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, 100th Cong., 2d. Sess. at 18, reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. &Admin. News. at 2173. (emphasis added.)(hereafter cited as House Report). J In assessing information,the landlord may not infer that a recent history of a physical or mental illness or disability,or treatment for such illnesses or disabilities, constitutes proof that an applicant will be unable to fulfill her or her tenancy obligations.1d. at 30. 15.The legislative history of the 1988.amendments to the FHA strongly endorses the application of the effect's test: The Committee intends that the prohibition against discrimination against those with handicaps apply to zoning decisions and practices.The Act is intended to prohibit the application of special requirements through land use regulations, restrictive covenants and conditional or special use permits that have the effect oflimiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community . . . Another method of making housing unavailable to people with disabilities has been the application of enforcement of otherwise neutral rules and regulations on health, safety and land-use In a manner which discriminates against people with disabilities. Such discrimination often results from false or over-protective assumptions about the needs of handicapped people, as well as unfounded fears about the problems that their tenancies may pose.These and similar practices would be prohibited.. House Report at 24(emphasis added.) 16.E.g,Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467,484(9th Cir. 1988)(action had"twice the adverse impact on minorities as it had on whites because two-thirds of the group eligible for blocked low-income housing project were minorities.)In Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 938(2d Cir.)affd per curiam, 488 U.S. 15(1988)the affected low-income housing project was 28 percent minorities and 11 per cent white.The court called this a "substantial adverse impact." The court overruled the trial court's reliance on absolute numbers which showed that a greater number of whites would be affected.See also, Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village ofArling-ton Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290(7th Cir. 1977), cert denied,434 U.S. 1025 (1978)("a greater number of black people than white people in the Chicago metropolitan area satisfy the income requirements for the[housing that the defendant city refused to allow]."Southend Neighborhood Imp. v. County of St. Clair, 743 F.2d 1207, 1209 (7th Cir. 1984) (disparity was "significant"); In Betsey v. Turtle Creek Associates, 736 F.2d 989, 988(4th Cir.)the court reviewed a landlord's policy that excluded children from one building on the premises.The court found that the policy's effect was"substantially greater"on racial minorities since 54.3%of their households in the building had children while 14.1%of white households had children. Reversing the trial court, the Court found a disparate impact despite the fact that racial minorities would continue to comprise a larger percentage of the building than they do of the community and despite the fact that the policy would have an insignificant impact on racial minorities in the community.); Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Inc. v.Ayres, 855 F.Supp. 315, 316(C.D. Calif. 1994)("The court holds that a showing of discriminatory intent is not necessary for plaintiffs to state a prima facie case of housing discrimination based on familial status."The court struck down a neutral occupancy maximum because of its effect on families with children); Martin v. Constance, 843 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D. Mo. 1994)(finding restrictive covenants limiting use to a private residence to constitute intentional discrimination and to impose a discriminatory effect on handicapped persons);Stewart B. McKinney Found, Inc. v. Town Plan&Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1216-19 (D. Conn. 1992)(The plaintiff"need prove no more than that the conduct of the defendant[s] actually or predictably results in . . . discrimination; in other words,that it has a discriminatory effect.The plaintiff need make no showing whatsoever that the action resulting in . . . discrimination in housing was. . . motivated [by a desire to discriminate against the handi-capped];.North Shore-Chicago Rehab. v. Village of Skokie, 827 F.Supp. 497(N.D.III. 1993) (ordinance requiring group home to be occupied on a permanent basis and to be licensed had an unlawful discriminatory effect). 17, Shapiro, 51 F.3rd at 333-336. 18. HUD v. Dutra, Fair Housing-Fair Lending Rptr. 125,124(HUD ALI 1996). 19 Roe v Sugar Mill Associates 820 F Supp 636 639-640 (D.N.H. 1993)(The landlord could not evict a mentally ill tenant based on threatening behavior until "after defendants have made reasonable efforts to accommodate his handicap . . r'>Glhe Act reauires defendants to demonstrate that no reasonable accommodation' will eliminate or acceptably minimize the risk he poses to other residents at rthe aoartment'l, before they may lawfully evict him." Accord; Roe v Boulder Housing Authority, 909 F Supp 814 (D.Col. 1996). 20. Samuelson v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co. Inc., 947 F.Supp. 756,.759-62(D. Del. 1996). 21. "We find the effort to distinguish accommodations that have a financial cost from other accommodations unconvincing. Besides the fact that§ 3604's reasonable accommodations requirement contains no exemption for financial costs to the landlord,the history of the FHAA clearly establishes that Congress anticipated that landlords would have to shoulder certain costs involved, so long as they are not unduly burdensome." U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co.; 29 F.3rd at 1416(9th Cir. 1994)In this case, this Court reversed a trial court dismissal of a reasonable accommodation request that a landlord waive a parking fee for a home health care aide. After remand, the Court affirmed the trial court's subsequent finding that the waiver was not necessary in the particular facts of the case. 107 F.3rd 1374(9th Cir. 1997). 22. Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestorwn Township, F. Supp. , 1998 WL 129956(D.N.J. 1998). 23. "As the FHAA's legislative history declares, the FHAA 'repudiates the use of stereotypes and Ignorance, and mandates that persons with handicaps be considered as individuals."Generalized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusions."'Bangerter,46 F.3rd at 1503 (quoting from House Report at 18.) 24. House Report,supra, at 29; 53 Fed. Reg. 45002(November 7, 1989); E.g., Roe v. Sugar River Mills Associate, 820 F.Supp. 636, 640(D.N.H. 1993)(The court would not permit the eviction of a tenant convicted of disorderly conduct arising from threats to neighbors unless the landlord can "demonstrate that no 'reasonable accommodation' will eliminate or acceptably minimize the risk he poses to other residents.") 25. See also, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995); United States v. Gilbert, 813 F.2d 1523, 1526- 1527(9th Cir.)cert. denied, 484 U.S. 860(1987)(The court ruled that the FHA's dwelling rights covered the actions of an child adoption agency. The Fair Housing Act is intended 'to provide within constitutional limitations,for fair housing throughout the United States.'The Supreme Court has observed that this expansive approach is carried throughout the Act, and that the Act as a whole is 'broad and inclusive' and should be given 'generous construction."') 26. E.g, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995) (occupancy maximums contained in land-use code are subject to the FHA); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 558 F.2d 1283(7th Cir. 1977), cert. den. 434 U.S. 1025(1978)(striking down zoning restriction on low-income housing because of discriminatory effect on African-Americans); U.S. v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3rd 832(9th Cir. 1994),cert. den. 116 S.Ct. 65(1995)(striking down city rent control ordinance requirement of lower rents upon landlord's admission of children); Smith&Lee Assocs. Inc. v. Taylor, 13 F.3rd 920, 930(6th Cir. 1993); Oxford House,Inc. v. Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450(D.N.J. 1992); United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1188(8th Cir. 1974)cert denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2656, 45 L.Ed. 2d 694(1975); Marbrunak,Inc. v..City of Stow, Ohio, 974 F.2d 43 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Village of Marshall, Wis., 787 F.Supp. 872, 878(W.D. Wis. 1991); Potomac Group Home v. Montgomery County, MD, 823 F.Supp. 1285(D.Md. 1993)(striking down ordinance that required public notice and hearing for group homes and excluded"exceptional persons"who cannot exit without assistance). 27. Section 3615 expressly invalidates"any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under[the FHA]."42 U.S.C. §3615. Since the ordinances threatened violators with civil and criminal consequences, they also violate 42 U.S.C. §3617 outlawing coercion and threats: It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title. 42 U.S.C. §3617.This section applies to zoning ordinances. E.g., U.S. v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3rd 832(9th Cir. 1994); Stewart B. McKinney Foundation v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n. 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1221 (D. Conn. 1992)(zoning requirement of neighborhood notification found to constitute handicap discrimination). 28. Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1294(D.Md. 1993) ("Recognizing the purpose and breadth of provisions of the [FHA], courts have consistently Invalidated a wide range of municipal licensing,zoning and other regulatory practices affecting persons with disabilities.")(striking down a zoning requirement that a group home notify its neighbors and that excludes non-ambulatory residents)(cites omitted.) 26. Section 504 applies to any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance". §§29 U.S.C. §794(a). "Program or activity"is defined to include cities like Bellevue. §§29 U.S.C. §794. Courts have applied Section 504 to strike down zoning code provisions found to discriminate on the basis of handicap. E.g Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, Pa„ 811 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1987)cert den. 484 U.S. 849(1987)(affirming preliminary injunction granted against city refusal to grant zoning permits for alcoholic treatment centers.)The 9th Circuit emphasized the scope of Section 504 in Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559(9th Cir. 1988)by noting that it applies to"any program or activity receiving financial assistance.")(emphasis original). In that case, the court applied Section 504 to prison administration. 30. "Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity,or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."§42 U.S.C. § 12132(emphasis added).The implementing regulations apply to "all services, programs, and activities provided or made available by public entities." §§28 C.F.R. §35.102(a). The preamble to the implementing regulations stated expressly that Title II of the ADA"applies to anything a public entity does. [It] is not limited to"Executive agencies, but includes activities of the legislative and judicial branches of State and local governments." 28 C.F.R. Part 35-Appendix A, page 449(July 26; 1991). E.g.,Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3rd 37(2d. Cir. 1997); Oak Ridge Care Center, Inc. v. Racine County, Wisconsin, 896 F.Supp. 867, 872 (E.D.Wis. 1995)(court refused to dismiss ADA claims arising from county's denial of a zoning permit to a residence for drug and alcohol addicts). But see United States v. City of Charlotte, 904 F.Supp. 482,484(W.D.N.C. 1995)(zoning practices are not a "program or activity"under the ADA.) 31. City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995)(Oxford House for recovering drug addicts); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997)(court struck down a city ordinance that discriminated against children in group homes);. Potomac Group Home v. Montgomery County, MD, 823 F.Supp. 1285(D.Md. 1993)(group home for disabled persons); United States v. Hughes Memorial Home, 396 F:Supp. 544, 548-549(W.D. Va. 1975)(FHA's prohibition on race discrimination applied to a children's group home).See Also,ADA: Oak Ridge Care Center,Inc. v. Racine County, Wisconsin, 896 F.Supp. 867(E.D.Wis. 1995); Section 504: Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, Pa„ 811 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1987); Samaritan Inns v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3rd 1227(D.C. Cir. 1997)(damage award against City and its officials for their interference with the siting of a group home for persons recovering from drug or alcohol addiction.) 32. The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997). 33. Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford, 808 F.Supp. 121 (N.D.N.Y. 1992)(voiding an occupancy maximum of 6 unrelated persons); Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329(D.N.J. 1991)(same); Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 819 F.Supp. 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)(same); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997). 34. E.g., Bryant Woods Inc,Inc. v. Howard County, 124 F.3rd 597(4th Cir. 1997)(requested increase of occupancy of a group home from 8 to 15 was not a reasonable accommodation that the county was required to grant.); Elderhaven,Inc. v. City of Lubbock, 98 F.3rd 175 (5th Cir. 1996)(city, which granted a waiver of its occupancy maximum to allow 10 residents, was not required to allow 12); Smith&Lee Associates,Inc. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1996)(court ordered requested increase of occupancy maximum from 6 to 9 persons.) 33. "Here,defendant's suggestion that making the process of applying for a [Certificate of Occupancy]more onerous for plaintiffs than it is for the majority of applicants, somehow constitutes 'reasonable accommodation', stands the concept on its head. It is analogous to arguing that a rule requiring only handicapped people to pay a special fee before entering a building constitutes a reasonable accommodation." Oxford House,Inc. v. Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450, 462, n. 25(D.N.J. 1992). "Courts have consistently held that discriminatory procedural requirements are themselves violative of the FHAA. Potomac Group Homes Corp. v. Montgomery County, Md., 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1297(D. Md. 1993). See also Stewart B. McKinney v. Tpwn Plan and Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1218-20 (D.Conn. 1992)(special permit requirement for group home was itself discriminatory); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 149.1, 1500(W.D. Wash. 1997). 36.The intent of which the court speaks is the legal concept of intent, to be distinguished from motive. [citations omitted]To prevail on its claim of discriminatory treatment, therefore,the plaintiff is not required to show the defendants were motivated by some purposeful, malicious desire to discriminate against HIV-infected persons. Nor must it prove the defendants were motivated solely, primarily, or even predominantly by the HIV-infected status of the Foundation's future tenants. Stewart B. McKinney v. 'Town Plan and Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1211 (D.Conn 1992).The court in City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council considered the City's alleged violations of the FHA noting that"[t]here are no allegations that Edmonds acted out of any animus against the occupants of Oxford House because of their handicap." 18 F.3rd 802, 803(9th Cir.), affirmed sub. nom City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776,131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995). See also, Village of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1530-31 (7th Cir. 1990)(treating potential customers differently because of their race Is unlawful even if the defendant does so for non-racist reasons.); Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1295(D.Md. 1993)('To prove discriminatory intent, a plaintiff need only show that the handicap of the potential residents[of a group home] . . . was In some part the basis for the policy being challenged."); Alliance for the Mentally III v. City of Naperville, 923 F.Supp. 1057, 1069(N.D. III. 1996)(facial discrimination against handicapped persons resulting from codes designed to protect them from hazards). 37. E.g., Williams v. Mathews Company, 499 F.2d 819, 827, (8th Cir.)cert denied 419 US 1021 (1974)(subjective good intentions do not overcome intentional discrimination.); Potomac Group Homes. Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1295(D.Md. 1993) ("An ostensibly benign justification for a challenged rule or regulation is Irrelevant under a disparate treatment analysis.Thus, a plaintiff need not prove that a defendant was motivated by malice or prejudice in order to prevail on a claim of intentional discrimination.")(Citations omitted.)The Supreme Court has made the same point in employment discrimination cases when it struck down an employer's exclusion of women of child bearing age from jobs that posed possible fetal risk to lead: [T]he absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy Into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. Whether[a] a practice Involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why [defendant] discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination. Automobile Workers v.Johnson Controls,Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199(1991). 38.The courts recognize that mixed motives or Intentions are common, especially with legislative decisions.They nevertheless hold them responsible for discriminatory intent. United States v. City of Parma, Ohio, 494 F.Supp. 1049, 1054(N.D.Ohio 1980),aff. as modified, 661 F.2d 562(6th Cir.) cert. denied 456 US 926(city's political decision"inevitably involve the consideration and balancing of numerous competing interests.").The FHA prohibits actions taken"because of a handicap."42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(1). It is enough if"handicap"was one of several'reasons. E.g., Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford, 808 F.Supp. 120, 134, n. 5 (N.D.N.Y.,1992)("The plaintiffs evidence of discriminatory intent, however, must demonstrate only that the HIV-Infected status of the plaintiffs future [residents]was one factor, not the sole factor. . . .", quoting from Stewart B. McKinney Found., Inc. v. Town Plan&Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. at 1210-1211(D.Conn. 1992). ,Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmin... Page 1 of 4 OMBA s ........ .W. .0 v5 n2 Previous Story Next Story Section Review City of Worcester v. Bonaventura: Affirming the Police Power of Municipalities to Define "Family" in Zoning Matters By Donald V. Rider, Jr. Donald V. Rider, Jr. is an assistant city solicitor and the head of the civil litigation unit for the city of Worcester. He served as appellate counsel representing Worcester in the Bonaventura case. Nearly 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court in Village of Belle Terre y. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), upheld against constitutional challenge a municipality's ability to limit the number of unrelated persons living together in residential zoning districts by defining the word "family"to include only persons related by blood, marriage or adoption.This ability is derived from the police power. It is a power, so the Supreme Court declared, not confined to elimination of threats to the health or safety of the public, but instead expansive enough to provide for the blessings of quiet neighborhoods unburdened by overcrowding caused by unrelated persons living together in lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternities and the like. Thus, in Belle Terre, the Supreme Court examined a municipal zoning ordinance that limited a"family"to no more than two persons living together as a single housekeeping unit who were not related by blood, marriage or adoption, and held that that ordinance constitutionally prohibited the living together of six university students who were not related by blood, marriage or adoption. The nearly three decades since the Belle Terre decision have seen state courts diverge on the constitutionality of zoning ordinances that seek to restrict the benefits of single-family zoning districts to persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. Hall v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Edgartown, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 249, 256 n.8 (1990). Specifically, the legal/biological concept of"family" upheld in Belle Terre has been competing with a functional concept of"family,"defined as unrelated persons who function together as a single housekeeping unit that reflects a certain level of stability, normality and permanence. These competing concepts of"family"once again found a litigational arena in the recent case of City of Worcester v. Bonaventura, 56 Mass:App. Ct. 166(2002). Bonaventura is a case that at once affirms the police power of municipalities to use the legal/biological concept in defining "family" in zoning matters, even as it illustrates some of the difficulties inherent in navigating the shoals of constitutional waters. Facts Bonaventura arose out of six complaints filed by the city of Worcester in the Housing Court for the county of Worcester. In those complaints, Worcester sought to permanently enjoin six condominium owners from operating their respective units as lodging houses without a special permit, as required in the general residential zone in which each owner's property was located. Each owner had received cease-and-desist orders issued by Worcester's zoning ordinance enforcement officers, who had determined that the owners were operating their units in violation of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. The orders had required the owners, within seven days after receipt of the orders, to cease and desist from operating their respective units as lodging houses and to obtain a special permit from Worcester's zoning board of appeals, as http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/V5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affniiiin... Page 2 of 4 well as approval from Worcester's planning board plus building and occupancy permits. The six owners declined to obey the cease-and-desist orders, giving rise to the injunctive complaints filed by Worcester. Specifically, each condominium unit was being rented to four unrelated students attending the nearby College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. Each unit contained two or three bedrooms. The students in each unit were signatories to a lease for that'unit, were jointly and severally liable for the rent of that unit, were responsible for their own heat and utilities in that unit, and possessed a key to their unit, of which they had full use inasmuch as the interior doors were not locked. Worcester's zoning ordinance defines a"lodging house"as: A dwelling or that part of a dwelling where sleeping accommodations are let, with or without kitchen facilities, to four(4)or more persons not within.the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include rooming houses, boarding houses and tourist homes, but shall not include hotels, motels, inns, sorority, fraternity and cooperative residences, dormitories, or convalescent homes, nursing homes, rest homes, or group residences licensed or regulated by agencies of the Commonwealth. Thus, Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance does not contain the word "family." Decisions Housing Court -The Housing Court examined the above-quoted definition of"lodging house"contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance, and declared it to be unconstitutionally vague. In particular, the Housing Court declared that Worcester, in proceeding with the enforcement actions against the six condominium unit owners, had too narrowly construed the word"family"so as to exclude a group of four or more persons not within the second degree of kinship.The Housing Court opined that Worcester's reliance on biological relationship was at odds with the composition of a single housekeeping unit and engendered the possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In arriving at this opinion, the Housing Court decided that the students were tenants, not lodgers, because the . students had the right to full possession of their respective units; and that the living arrangements in those units approximated the living arrangements of traditional families, such that the students in each unit formed a single housekeeping unit entitled to the same treatment as traditional families under Worcester's zoning ordinance. Appeals Court The Appeals Court vacated the Housing Court's declaration that the above-quoted definition of"lodging house" contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The Appeals Court first determined that the distinction between lodger and tenant, while not without precedent in Massachusetts law, was not 1 �- dispositive in this case in view of a statutory provision, G.L. c. 186, 97, which permits a lodger to obtain a possessory interest as a tenant at will as long as that lodger resides in the same place for three consecutive months. The Appeals Court next determined that Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was precise, inasmuch as that ordinance used words such as"dwelling,"which were elsewhere defined in the zoning ordinance. In particular,whereas the Housing Court had ruled that Worcester had too narrowly construed the word "family," the Appeals Court determined that the zoning ordinance elsewhere defined "family" as one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit"and living together as a single housekeeping unit, not including a group of more than three(3) persons who are not within second degree of kinship."Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house" zoning ordinance did not, in fact, itself contain the word "family,"the Appeals Court ruled that Worcester had clearly defined a "lodging house""as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family." Lastly, the Appeals Court determined that Worcester's definition of"family"was not an impermissible exercise of the police power. Citing Belle Terre, the Appeals Court stated that a municipality's police power may permissibly extend beyond the curing of urban blight to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the Appeals Court's view, the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to the legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 4:1 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmin... Page 2 of 4 E i well as approval from Worcester's planning board plus building and occupancy permits. The six owners declined to obey the cease-and-desist orders, giving rise to the injunctive complaints filed by Worcester. Specifically, each condominium unit was being rented to four unrelated students attending the nearby College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. Each unit contained two or three bedrooms. The students in each unit were signatories to a lease for that unit,were jointly and severally liable for the rent of that unit,were responsible for their own heat and utilities in that unit, and possessed a key to their unit, of which they had full use inasmuch as the interior doors were not locked. Worcester's zoning ordinance defines a"lodging house" as: A dwelling or that part of a dwelling where sleeping accommodations are let, with or without kitchen facilities, to four(4)or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include rooming houses, boarding houses and tourist homes, but shall not include hotels, motels, inns, sorority, . fraternity and cooperative residences, dormitories, or convalescent homes, nursing homes, rest homes, or group residences licensed or regulated by agencies of the Commonwealth. Thus, Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance does not contain the word "family." Decisions Housing Court The Housing Court examined the above-quoted definition of"lodging house"contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance, and declared it to be unconstitutionally vague. In particular, the Housing Court declared that Worcester, in proceeding with the enforcement actions against the six condominium unit owners, had too narrowly construed the word"family"so as to exclude a group of four or more persons not within the second degree of kinship.The Housing Court opined that Worcester's reliance on biological relationship was at odds with the composition of a single housekeeping unit and engendered the possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In arriving at this opinion, the Housing Court decided that the students were tenants, not lodgers, because the students had the right to full possession of their respective units; and that the living arrangements in those units approximated the living arrangements of traditional families, such that the students in each unit formed a single housekeeping unit entitled to the same treatment as traditional families under Worcester's zoning ordinance. Appeals Court The Appeals Court vacated the Housing Court's declaration that the above-quoted definition of"lodging house" contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The Appeals Court first determined that the distinction between lodger and tenant, while not without precedent in Massachusetts law, was not dispositive in this case in view of a statutory provision, G.L. c. 186, f3 17,which permits a lodger to obtain a possessory interest as a tenant at will as long as that lodger resides in the same place for three consecutive months. The Appeals Court next determined that Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was precise, inasmuch as that ordinance used words such as"dwelling,"which were elsewhere defined in the zoning ordinance. In particular,whereas the Housing.Court had ruled that Worcester had too narrowly construed the word"family," the Appeals Court determined that the zoning ordinance elsewhere defined"family" as one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit"and living together as a single housekeeping unit, not including a group of more than three (3) persons who are not within second degree of kinship."Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house" zoning ordinance did not, in fact, itself contain the word "family,"the Appeals*Court ruled that Worcester had clearly defined a"lodging house""as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family." Lastly, the Appeals Court determined that Worcester's definition of"family"was not an impermissible exercise of the police power. Citing Belle Terre, the Appeals Court stated that a municipality's police power may permissibly extend beyond the curing of urban blight to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the Appeals Courts view, the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation.of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to the legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmin... Page 3 of 4 Lessons from Bonaventura Several lessons of value to the land-use practitioner emerge from the Appeals Court's decision in Bonaventura, particularly as involving challenges to municipal zoning ordinances on constitutional grounds. First, the Appeals Court observed in a footnote that the Attorney General must be notified of challenges to the constitutionality of municipal ordinances, which typically occur in the context of declaratory judgment. G.L. c. 231A, 118; Gamache v, Acushnet, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 215, 223 (1982). This notification requirement becomes only the more necessary when one notices the close similarity of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance to the commonwealth's statute governing lodging houses, G.L. c. 140, B 22. Section 22 defines a lodging house as"a house where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions ... ."A determination, such as had been made by the Housing Court, that Worcester's ordinance is unconstitutionally vague would be tantamount to a like determination as to 1122. Next, the Appeals Court stressed the strong presumption of constitutional validity to which a municipality's zoning ordinance is entitled. Given that strong presumption of constitutionality, the Appeals Court continued, courts should be wary of declaring a municipality's zoning ordinance void for vagueness. Indeed, as the Appeals Court stated, a municipality's zoning ordinance must be enforced, unless there is a showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ordinance conflicts with the Constitution or the enabling statute, Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975. The importation into zoning law of the criminal law's burden of proof only underscores the difficulty of establishing a zoning ordinances unconstitutionality. Further, the Bonaventura decision illustrates the need to interpret zoning ordinance terms in the context of the zoning ordinance as a whole. Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance did not contain the word "family,"which the Housing Court found unconstitutionally vague, the Appeals Court noted that Worcester's zoning ordinance did elsewhere define the term"family"as well as the term"dwelling."Those terms were to be interpreted in conjunction with the"lodging house"zoning ordinance, yielding, in the Appeals Court's analysis, a clear definition of a"lodging house"as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family. It was that analysis by the Appeals Court that led it to conclude that nothing on the appellate record suggested Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was open to various interpretations and, hence,was unconstitutionally vague. Bonaventura serves, then, as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of vagueness.An ordinance is adequate to survive a vagueness challenge if, as in Bonaventura, it definitively describes the conduct that is proscribed; conversely, an ordinance is vague, and violates the due process right to fair notice of the proscribed conduct, only where persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Indeed, while the Bonaventura decision contains no mention of the language in the deeds for each of the condominium units at issue, those deeds, which had conveyed the units to the defendant owners, contained express language that each unit was intended for residential purposes only by one family or by not more than three unrelated persons. That deed language is, in effect, the language of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. The defendant owners were thus put on notice, at least as early as their respective dates of purchase, that their units were not to be used for more than three unrelated persons, i.e.,were not to be used for lodging houses as defined by Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. Worcester's attempt to enforce that ordinance in Bonaventura was an attempt to proscribe the very conduct that the defendant owners themselves, via their unit deeds, had already been put on prior notice to avoid. Accordingly, prior to mounting a vagueness challenge to a zoning ordinance, a careful examination of a client's deed, lease agreement or like document may well be warranted. But Bonaventura also serves as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of arbitrariness. When the Appeals Court, citing Belle Terre, determined that Worcester's definition of"family" .was a permissible exercise of the police power extending to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods, it also determined that the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to this legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. In effect, then, the Appeals Court was determining that Worcester's ordinance was not arbitrary. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights dictates that legislation must bear a real and substantial relation to the http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association! <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Armin... Page 3 of 4 i Lessons from Bonaventura Several lessons of value to the land-use practitioner emerge from the Appeals Court's decision in Bonaventura, particularly as involving challenges to municipal zoning ordinances on constitutional grounds. First, the Appeals Court observed in a footnote that the Attorney General must be notified of challenges to the constitutionality of municipal ordinances,which typically occur in the context of declaratory judgment. G.L. c. 231A, f3 8; Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass.App. Ct. 215, 223 (1982). This notification requirement becomes only the more necessary when one notices the close similarity of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance to the commonwealth's statute governing lodging houses, G.L. c. 140, R 22. Section 22 defines a lodging house as"a house where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions ... ."A determination, such as had been made by the Housing Court, that Worcester's ordinance is unconstitutionally vague would be tantamount to a like determination as to 1122. Next, the Appeals Court stressed the strong presumption of constitutional validity to which a municipality's zoning ordinance is entitled. Given that strong presumption of constitutionality, the Appeals Court continued, courts should be wary of declaring a municipality's zoning ordinance void for vagueness. Indeed, as the Appeals Court stated, a municipality's zoning ordinance must be enforced, unless there is a showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ordinance conflicts with the Constitution or the enabling statute, Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975. The importation into zoning law of the criminal law's burden of proof only underscores the difficulty of establishing a zoning ordinance's unconstitutionality. Further, the Bonaventura decision illustrates the need to interpret zoning ordinance terms in the context of the zoning ordinance as a whole. Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house"'zoning ordinance did not contain the word "family,"which the Housing Court found unconstitutionally vague, the Appeals Court noted that Worcester's zoning ordinance did elsewhere define the term"family"as well as the term"dwelling."Those terms were to be interpreted in conjunction with the"lodging house"zoning ordinance,yielding, in the Appeals Court's analysis, a clear definition of a"lodging house"as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family. It was that analysis by the Appeals Court that led it to conclude that nothing on the appellate record suggested Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was open to various interpretations and, hence,was unconstitutionally vague. Bonaventura serves, then, as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of vagueness. An ordinance is adequate to survive a vagueness challenge if, as in Bonaventura, it.definitively describes the conduct that is proscribed; conversely, an ordinance is vague, and violates the due process right to fair notice of the proscribed conduct, only where persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Indeed, while the Bonaventura decision contains no mention of the language in the deeds for each of the condominium units at issue, those deeds, which had conveyed the units to the defendant owners, contained express language that each unit was intended for residential purposes only by one family or by not more than three unrelated persons. That deed language is, in effect, the language of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. The defendant owners were thus put on notice, at least as early as their respective dates of purchase, that their units were not to be used for more than three unrelated persons, i.e.,were not to be used for lodging houses as defined by Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance.Worcester's attempt to enforce that ordinance in Bonaventura was an attempt to proscribe the very conduct that the defendant owners themselves, via their unit deeds,had already been put on prior notice to avoid. Accordingly, prior to mounting a vagueness challenge to a zoning ordinance, a careful examination of a client's deed, lease agreement or like document may well be warranted. But Bonaventura also serves as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of arbitrariness. When the Appeals Court, citing Belle Terre, determined that Worcester's definition of"family" was a permissible exercise of the police power extending to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods, it also determined that the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to this legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. In effect, then, the Appeals Court was determining that Worcester's ordinance was not arbitrary. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights dictates that legislation must bear a real and substantial relation to the F http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/V5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmin... Page 4 of 4 health, safety, morals or welfare of the public. In the judgment of the Appeals Court, Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance met that constitutional dictate. Conclusion Ordinances employing the legal/biological concept of"family"such as was upheld in Belle Terre presume that occupancy of a single-family residence by a critical mass of persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption is antithetical to the public's health, safety or welfare. The thesis of such ordinances is that they preserve the character of single-family residential areas by reducing parking and traffic problems, by limiting population density and by lessening noise and disturbance. The burden of such ordinances is whether they constitute a means reasonably related to the ends sought. It may be, for example, that, in any given case, the legal/biological definition of"family" disserves the public's health, safety or welfare because, in that given case, the legal/biological family might generate as much parking and traffic problems, and as much noise and disturbance, as is generated by a functional family, defined as unrelated persons who function together as a single housekeeping unit that reflects a certain level of stability, normality and permanence. This tension between the legal/biological concept of"family" and the functional concept of"family" has marked If i the Supreme Court's decision in Belle Terre upheld a municipality's olice ower to the nearly 30 years since p pp P define"family" using the former concept. The Appeals Court's decision in Bonaventura provides affirmation that the legal/biological concept of"family"endures under Massachusetts jurisprudence. ©2017 Massachusetts Bar Association www.massbar.or ublications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/ci -of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 htt .// tY P �P 2 y/z%7 INFORMAL APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW SP# - ate LOCATION Business Name: N/A Subdivision Plan Assessor's Map# 307 Parcel# 134 ANR Plan Plan Bk: 12/Pg: 57 Property Address: 95 Chase Street Site Plan Hyannis, MA 02601 OWNER OF PROPERTY APPLICANT Name: Robert and Patricia Emmitt Name: Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. Address: 95 Chase Street Address: 119 Baxter Road Hyannis MA 02601 Hyannis, MA 02601 Telephone: Telephone: Fax Fax: ARCHITECT/DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR/ENGINEER AGENT/ATTORNEY Name: N/A Name: Peter L. Freeman/Freeman Law Group Address: Address: 86 Willow Street Yarmouth Port, MA 02675 Telephone: Telephone: 508-362-4700 Fax: Fax: pfreeman@freemanlawgroup.com STORAGE TANKS(HAZ MAT/FUEL OR WASTE OIL) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION Existing None Proposed None District RB Overlay(s) NONE Number Number Lot Area 9,000 Sq. Ft. Ac. Size Size Fire District Hyannis Above Ground Above Ground . Underground Underground Setbacks ft. Contents Contents Front: Side: Rear: Number of Buildings Existing 2 Proposed 2 UTILITIES Demolition None Sewer ❑X Public ❑ Private Size gal Water Q Public ❑ Private TOTAL FLOOR AREA BY USE Electric 0 Aerial ❑ Underground Existing Proposed Gas 0 Natural ❑ Propane (sq. ft. (sq. ft. Grease Trap ❑ Size gal Basement Sewage Daily Flow * 9 beds .gpd Residential 1,964 s.f* same *GP or WP areas restrict wastewater discharge to 330 gallons per Restaurant acre per day into on-site system. Retail Office PARKING SPACES CURB CUTS Medical Office Required n/a Existing 1 Commercial(specify) Provided 4 Proposed 1* Wholesale(specify) On-Site All To Close Institutional (specify) Off.-Site Totals Industrial(specify) Handicapped *proposed gravel drive off of Chast All Other Uses On Site Street for two parking spaces Estimated Project Cost: Fee: Gross Floor Area $ 40,000.00 $ 250.00 *living area based on-Assessor's Record SNFORM-P1.DOC-06/18/2004 Old King's Highway Regional Historic District File# Approved? ❑Yes ®No Hyannis Main Street Waterfront Historic District File# Approved?❑ Yes ®No Listed in National and/or State Register of Historic Places? ❑Yes ®No Previous Site Plan.Review File# Approved? ❑Yes ®No Previous Zoning Board of Appeals File# Approved? ❑Yes No Is the site.located in a Flood Area(Section 3-5.1) ❑Yes No In Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑ Yes ®No Is the Project within 100' of Wetland Resource Area? ❑ Yes ®No Site sketch—informal presentation ® Yes ❑No Site Plan prepared,wet stamped and signed by a Registered PE and/or PLS. ❑Yes ®No Parking and Traffic Circulation Plan ❑ Yes M No Landscape Plan and Lighting Plan ❑Yes ®No Drainage Plan with calculations and Utility Plan ❑Yes ®No Building Plans,(all floor plans, elevations and cross sections) ❑Yes No Note that all signage must be approved by Code Enforcement Officer at the Buildintz Department Lot area in sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft **from Assessor's record Total Building(s)footprint 1,152 appx ** sq* ft. Maximum Lot Coverage as %of Lot Existing % GROUND WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS: OVERLAY DISTRICT(S): N/A Lot Coverage (%) Required Proposed Site Clearing (%) Required Proposed PRINCIPAL BUILDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS) ® Yes ❑No Number of floors 2 Height: ft. Number of floors Height: ft. Garage and Shed FLOOR AREA: FAR: FLOOR AREA: FAR: Basement sq. ft. Basement sq.ft. First sq. ft. First 400 sq. ft. Second sq. ft. Second sq. ft. Attic sq. ft. Attic - sq.ft Other(Specify) 1,964 living area** sq. ft. Other(Specify) sq. ft. Please provide a brief narrative description of your proposed project: To establish a group residence for no more than eight(8) men or women plus a resident manager as allowed as of right under the so-called Massachusetts"Dover Amendment." See copy of ZBA Decision Appeal No. 2012-052 Homeless Not Hopeless for 22 Main Street, Hyannis for the same charitable and educational use, copy of Decision filed herewith. I assert that I have completed(or caused to be completed)this page and the Site Plan Review Application and that to the best of knowledge,t e information submitted here is true. I , Date. Richard J. Murphy Sr. Printed Name of Applicant SP-FORM-P2.DOC-06/18/2004 95 Chase St. Work to he performed Install Fire Sprinkler System Install Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Detector units Install Central.Station alarm System Repair ceilings Paint and paper as required Repair 2"d floor shower i &Mftqmm9Y an EMONFW Uaw Ow" GrAff SCAM 097 10-1-96 air ime Tom OF a ffmd own . to i9�FZ�9 unty Rgg. Diu r 0 PACC 442 klo 2 P'f,*,+ 57 T Al PRE' Its 12' 11 ` GAS' 6 f € 9' wow DEW —SM�RA-roff T W� � .eq P$� 'i f Legend • m - - «, ,. 11 Parcels ""Town Boundary 3071:40 Railroad Tracks ' 307128 � �,• ''•� a � #5 #20 bJ Buildings l _ •� Painted Lines Parking Lots ' e�,• €31'38 •�+,, Paved ,�� •..r,..t.,�''}+ 1 5VNr .,._;Unpaved Driveways 0 Paved Unpaved 3Q7129 (#ft85 Roads #15 + +wr t „�, 0 Bridges +� A. 13 Paved Roads 0 Unpaved Roads Streams A, #3 Marsh 17 Water Bodies Barriers 1 .`: •. ' s` /' t ..r'' -Fences ✓ ti t / s 'A Guardrails Retaining Walls { 5+.. -..mow ,,, Stone Walls 30727:1 t, ' ;. Paths t€2.1 �. 307 134 Sidewalks/Walkways 0Improved k s � d � Unimproved } 307u3 `u Swimming Pools ®Above Ground Swimming Pools y In Ground Swimming Pools r �� ,• ( �' Exterior Structures {� 17 Boardwalks Lj .y+ '.1 �+ ® Decks Patios .. ... S ` ,rot 132 � ES Docks viers tx + #l~il•1 +,.} { G LS` �` z '+,• y#4 ®Stairwa s a 3 3. Tanks Fuel Tanks `� �+.�• ... �• .v w •� � ��."" "�• +� [3 Water Tanks Jetties .l . � Js,,,. —Sports '+ "� k ' Lines 1 Recreation Facilities Y r^ }, ' �. ti, 307167k ❑Sports Areas i r + '� t 1 I Golf Areas t r � ,r s •- #'107 13 Wooded Areas c 60,1 307149 307131001-ltr , w #5 �,,1�-' :N 391307-169 ' �^ 4, Map printed on: 4/4/2017 This map is for illustration purposes only.It is not Parcel lines shown on this map are only graphic Town of Barnstable GIS Unit adequate for legal boundary determination or representations of Assessor's tax parcels.They are Feet regulatory interpretation.This map does not represent not true property boundaries and do not represent 367 Main Street,Hyannis,MA o26oi 0 42 83 an on-the-ground survey.It may be generalized,may not accurate relationships to physical objects on the map 508-862-4624 reflect current conditions,and may contain such as building locations. Approx.Scale: 1 inch= 42 feet cartographic errors or omissions. gis@town.barnstable.ma.us Homeless Not Hopeless Inc. 119 Baxter Road, Hyannis Proposed Purchase of 95 Chase St. to replace rental at 310 Ocean St. Bedroom 1 2 Residents Bedroom 2 1 e House Manager Bedroom 3 . 2 Residents Bedroom 4 2 Residents Bedroom 5 2 Residents Total 8 Residents, 1 House Manager Sink [Refrig, A Pantry Cook Top 4. 91 !2' Y Dining Room Kitchen 13' v i ,Bedroom#�1 14 1`26 Sq Ft r t_ r a a { Y Bath II Closet 31' 6" 12' 3" n � I Living Room :Bedroom #2 9' 101, { 21° 104 Sq Ft z: 34' 95 Chase St. , Hyannis First Floor Scale 1 inch = 6 feet i i <-------------------------------------------------------34-------------—------------------------—--------------> 13 > Closet Closet r r h 1 I 12'4" 3 I\j t ± 1 160 Sq Ft Bathroom l s y � k Shwr 26' 12'4" z 13 > Closet w x169 Sq Ft z s' BetlroTom#4 12' 3' f 4t } Y Y Bathroom _fff 95 Chase St. , Hyannis end Floor � i Scale 1 inch = 6 feet i i i Doc s 1 a 206 s O89 11--13--2012 11 s 32 Pot 22 K I,,in Street, llyannfs BARNSTAB LE LAND COURT REGISTRY YLBL �•. IQsp Town of Barnstable _ Zoning Board of Appeals '12 �Cj 1S P .28 Decision and Notice Appeal No.2012-052—Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc. Appeal of the Building Commissloner Seeking building permit to allow homeless support services per MGL 40A§3 Summary: Overruled Decision of Building Commissioner Petitioner: Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc.(prospective property owners) 310 Ocean St,Hyannis,MA Property Address: 22 Main Street,Hyannis Assessor's Map/parcel: 342'0ZS Property Owner: Edward Ready and Francis Ready 4130 General Pershing St,New Orleans,LA 70125 Zoning: MS Medical Services,WP Wellhead Protection Hearing Date: October 10,2012 Relief Requested and Background In Appeal 2012-052,Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc(hereinafter"Homeless not.Hopeless°,"HnH") appealed the Building Commissioner's denial of a building permit to renovate the premises at 22 Main Street, Hyannis. The Appellant proposed to create 12 bedrooms to be occupied by no more than 14 residents, plus a live-in resident manager, all of whom are formerly homeless persons who will be taught to live independently. HnH applied for a building permit for renovations to the property, claiming that the use was exempt from local zoning regulations by M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3,which protects the use of property for educational purposes by non-profit educational corporations. The Building Commissioner, in a letter dated September 4, 2012,denied HnH's building permit application. In that letter the Building Commissioner questions whether the "primary use of the property is educational". The Building Commissioner determined that a factual analysis of whether or not the proposed use Is predominately educational would be most appropriately conducted by a multiple-member board in the context of a public hearing. In response, Homeless Not Hopeless filed this appeal. The subject property is located at 22 Main Street, Hyannis, MA as shown on Assessor's Map 342 t� as parcel 028. Homeless Not Hopetess.submitted for the record a signed copy of a purchase and sale agreement and a letter from the property owner authorizing application to the ZBA. The subject property is a former single-family residence with 4,416 sq.ft of living area, built in 1924. On-site parking is located to the side and rear of the structure, The property Is adjacent to the 'Bast End Village'condominium complex to the west and a multi-family residential property to the .. east. It is zoned MS Medical Services; a lodging house Is not a permitted use in the district Homeless Not Hopeless is a Massachusetts Chapter 180 non-profit corporation. According to their articles of incorporation,their mission is to assist the homeless in attaining a"sustainable, satisfactory lifestyle"through the provision of short-term housing and"access to the most modem technology and methods possible for pursing employment, networking,obtaining housing, and gaining access...to resources specific to client needs". i I M)WA of Barnstable-Zoning Board of Appeals-Decision and Notice Appeal No.2012.052—Homeless NotHopetess Inc.-Appeal of an Administrative Official M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3(Para.2),commonly referred to as the"Dover Amendment",states that"no zoning ordinance or bylaw fshalij prohibit,regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by...[religious and governmental entities]and a nonprofit educational corporation." The statute subjects such uses to reasonable bulk and dimensional regulations. The definition of"educational purposes°has been established by a substantial body of case law since the adoption of the Dover Amendment in 1950. The Court has recognized that not all educational activities may be"within traditional areas of academic Instruction"or taught by certified Instructors and that the activities may serve"nontraditional communities of learners."The Courts have also clarified that the applicability of the statue Is limited to uses where the"primary or dominant purpose"is education. The Building Commissioner's September 4, 2012 letter cited Regis College v. Town of Weston,which concluded that the Dover Amendment"should be construed so as to minimize the risk that[zoning]protection will Improperly be extended to projects that do not In fact have as their primary and genuine purpose a goal that reasonably could be described as educationally significant." Procedural& Hearing Summary This appeal was filed at the Town Cleric's Office and at the Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 10, 2012. The appeal was filed within 30 days of the Building Commissioner's determination as required by MGL Ch. 40A. A public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals was duly advertised and notice sent to all abutters In accordance with MGL Chapter 40A. The hearing was opened October 10, 2012, at which time the Board voted to overrule the Building Commissioner and allow Homeless Not Hopeless to locate at 22 Main St pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A Section 3. Board Members deciding this appeal were Board Chair Laura F. Shufelt, Craig G. Larson,Alex M. Rodolakis, Brian Florence and George T.Zevitas. Attorney Peter Freeman represented the Appellant before the Board. Homeless Not Hopeless co- E founder Bill Bishop was also present, along with members of the organization's board. Attorney Freeman emphasized that the Building Commissioner did not deny the permit on the basis that the proposed use was not educational, but felt it would be beneficlal for the facts of the case to be decided at a public hearing after a fact-based analysis. Attorney Freeman reviewed the case law surrounding the Dover Amendment, Including the SJC's decision in Regis College v. Weston, He discussed the broad and comprehensive view of education that the Courts had established. He talked about the educational mission of Homeless not Hopeless to reintroduce formerly homeless men and women Into society and give them the skills to live independently. Attorney Freeman emphasized the success rate of the program and their good standing In the community and in the neighborhoods where their three other facilities are located. It was clarified that the organization is funded through private sources and member fees. Board member Brian Florence raised concerns about the denial made by the Building Commissioner. The Appellant and staff agreed that there was not an issue of standing and, although not presented in the application, the appeal was filed in response to the determination being arbitrary and capricious. HnH President Bill Bishop spoke about the mission of the organization and the clientele they serve. Dick Murphy, HnH bard member and Treasurer spoke about the need for progressive educational , F programs like the one HnH provides and gave an overview of the fiscal benefits of homelessness prevention. Jeffery Howell, a ninth grade teacher, spoke about the centrality of the program's educational mission. Steve Brown spoke about the value of education in nontraditional settings and .the physiology of learning. Retired Judge Joseph Reardon spoke about the organization's aim to educate the whole person and the need for physical, mental and spiritual well-being. He provided his observations as a judge and contrasted the failures of the penal system with the successes of HnH's program. 2 1 i i Town of Barnstable-Zoning board of Appeals-Decision and Notice I Appeal No.2012.052—Homeless Not Hopeless Inc.-Appeal of an Administrative Official The Board clarified that the house managers were present 24 hours a day and that many residents have part-or full-time jobs. Attorney Freeman explained the structure of the program, including task lists and communal dinners. He explained that residents typically stayed for 6 to 9 months. The Board discussed the number of residents proposed for the house at 22 Main. j Lawrence Brown,Anetta Olsen, Richard Barry, Bob(a house manager), Kathy(a house manager), I Town Councilor Jan Barton, Caroline(a resident of St. Clalre's), Ken Mallory, Bill Simmons, Raymond (a resident),Jill Scalise, Peter White, Hillary Green, Diane Casey-Lee, Joan Duganger, and Alan Bird spoke in favor, Chris Turner, Patrick Jeiwlck, and Khalid a[-Dokhl spoke with concerns. l Attorney Freeman spoke about the value of the location to HnH. Questions about the zoning Implications of future changes to the organization's mission and distinctions between group homes and educational facilities were discussed. The Board again asked about the number of residents In the house and about the need for Site Plan Review. Findings After consideration of the evidence presented and testimony given by the Appellant and the public, the Board made the following findings of fact in Appeal No. 2012-052: 1. Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc Is appealing the Building Commissioner's denial of a building permit to renovate the premises at 22 Main Street, Hyannis. The Appellant Is proposing to create 12 bedrooms to be occupied by no more than 14 residents, plus a live-in resident manager, all of whom are formerly homeless persons who will be taught to live Independently, 2. The Appellant seeks a permit on the basis that the proposed use is exempt from zoning requirements under M.G.L.Chapter 40A Section 3(the"Dover Amendment'}because the use Is for primarily educational purposes. 3. The subject property is located at 22 Main Street, Hyannis, MA as shown on Assessor's Map 342 as parcel 028, it is in a Medical Services(MS)zoning district. 4. Homeless Not Hopeless Is a Massachusetts Chapter 180 non-profit corporation organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational,and scientific purposes. S. Homeless Not Hopeless' proposed use of the property can reasonably be described as having an educational purpose. 6. The educationally significant goal of Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc.Is the primary or dominant purposes for which the premises at 22 Main Street will be used. The vote to accept the findings was: ; Aye: Laura F. Shufelt, Craig G. Larson,Alex M. Rodolakis, Brian Florence, George T. Zevltas Nay: None Motion At the hearing on October 10,2012, a motion was duly made and seconded to reverse the determination of the Building Commissioner and allow Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc to locate at 22 Main Street, Hyannis pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A Section 3"Dover Amendment',subject to Issuance of building permits. In addition,the motion is due to the Building Commissioner's lack of a specific determination as well as lack of citations to the Town of f Barnstable's.Zoning Ordinance. The vote on the motion was as follows: Aye: Laura F. Shufelt,Craig G. Larson,Alex M. Rodolakis, Brian Florence, George T.Zevitas l Nay: None � t 3 ' i i i , Town of Barnstable-Zoning Board of Appeals.Decision and Notice Appeal No.2012-052—Homeless Not Hopeless lnc.-Appeal of an AdmWstrative Offidal Ordered in Appeal No.2012-052 the Board revetsed the decision of the Building Commissioner and voted to allow Homeless Not Hopeless,Inc.to locate a new facility at 22 Main Street, Hyannis pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A Section$"Dover Amendment',subject to Issuance of building permits. Appeals of this decision,if any, shall be made pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17,within twenty (20) days after the date of the filing of this decision, a copy of which must be filed in the office of the Barnstable Town Clerk. Laura F. Shufeit, Chair Date Signed I, Linda Hutchenrider, Clerk of the Town of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, hereby certify that twenty (20)days have elapsed since the Zoning Board of Appeals filed this decision and that no appeal of the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk. Signed and sealed this day of l i under the pains and penal es, ',e ury N '•.�, % Y •�-= ' 1< •d: Linda Hutchenrider,Town Clerk �- •'�~�� �N t- BARNSTABLE REGISTRY OF DEEDS a My Name is Laura Wentzel,I live at 7 Harvard Street in Hyannis Ma and have been a resident of Hyannis for 19 years.It was recently brought to my attention last week that the corporation Homeless not Hopeless is in the process of buying 95 Chase Street to use as a Group/Educadonal home orneless individuals and 1 Resident manager.This property at 95 Chase Street is 4 houselPwn from me. 1,along wgh 26 concerned neighbors,have an extreme opposition against this type of group home going into our neighborhood.I'd like to list the concerns and ask for response and discussion from you all. 1. Does an organization such as this need town approval to operate this type of Buslness/Group home in a Residential neighborhood? 2. How do we as,residents in this neighborhood find out where in the buying process this sales is at as well as what additional approvals they need in order to close on this house.....Such as zoning approval/Board of Health?It's my understanding that 9 Individuals(unrelated)will be living in a three bedroom hone-does that comply with current zoning laws? 3. Why is a Business allowed to purchase property and operate as a corporation in a residential neighborhood? 4. Why were we as residents that surround 95 Chase Street properly notified of the intent of use for this property? 5. Are there laws in place to protect us from individuals that may pose a threat to our safety and wellbeing should they move into this property?We as a group have been exposed to high levels of anxiety and stress being imposed on us with this pending sale-especially -for our children and elderly residents. 6. Are there any laws preventing this type of group hone from operating within a block of a School and Have the parents of the children attending St Francis been notified? 7. Do we have the right as neighbors to be educated on the background of the proposed individuals that will be living in this home should the sale go through? Other concerns we as a collective group of 26 and growingwould like to voice: 1. The devaluation of our property-especially for those who rent as a source of income for their families. 2. Tax exempt status of this organization-how does the"tax exempt"status of this organization effect our tax rate-do we pay more to cover them?We need a limit on the amount of nonprofit organizations in our village-how do start that process? 3. Why are all this organizations group homes within a 2 mile radius of our neighborhood?Is there a process to introduce a bylaw to limit these types of homes within a 10-15 mile radius of each other? I - Town of Barnstable, MA Pagel of l -_-- Town of Barnstable,MA Thursday,May 4,2017 Chapter 59. Comprehensive Occupancy § 59-3• Maximum number of occupants. The maximum number of occupants in a residential dwelling shall be determined by the number of bedrooms contained therein. A maximum number of two occupants is permitted for each of the first two bedrooms; for each additional :, . .bedroom a maximum number of one occupant is permitted. It shall be a violation of this chapter for any person in excess of that provided herein to occupy any residential dwelling.D] [i] Editor's Note: Former Subsection B, regarding the maximum number of motor vehicles permitted, which immediately followed, was repealed 7-77-2013 by Order No. 20 73-033. hqp://ecode360.com/printBA2043?guid=6557016 5/4/201-7 Dover Amendment- Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 1 Dover Amendment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Dover Amendment is the common name for Massachusetts General Law(MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 3. This law exempts agricultural,religious, and educational corporations from certain zoning restrictions. It allows a structure that provides certain services to ignore local zoning laws and build the facility it needs to provide those services. The Dover Amendment allows many developers to build facilities that are substantially larger than zoning laws would ordinarily allow or which would be considered inappropriate,by some, for the neighborhood. Considered by many to be overly broad,the exemption granted by the Dover Amendment has been narrowed somewhat by recent court decisions. While a corporation must merely be nonprofit and legally able to engage in educational activities to be considered a "nonprofit educational corporation," the actual use of a particular facility must have education as the "primary or dominant purpose" to qualify for Dover protection. See Whitinsville Retirement Society, Inc. v. Northbridge, 394 Mass. 757, 760 (1985). Exemptions It is unclear if the city of Boston is:exempt from the Dover Amendment. The Boston Globe has referred to an exemption for the city on occasion. The city of Cambridge passed an exemption in 1981 removing Harvard University from Dover protection, because Harvard was Cambridge's largest land owner. Notes External links ■ The Dover Amendment online (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/40a-3.htm) Retrieved from https:Hen.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dover Amendment&oldid=545688168" ` Categories: Massachusetts statutes Zoning This page was last modified on 20 March 2013, at 14:00. ■ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia®is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover—Amendment 9/2/2016 General Laws: CHAPTER 40A,.Section 3 Page 1 of 3 •, Home Glossary FAQs THE 1H9 rN GENEItAl;COLriZT OF site sea7h THE COMMONWEALTH OF.MASSACHUSETTS ,Options GO Massachusetts Laws 6111s State Budget People Committees Reports Educate&Engage Events MyLegislature Home Bills&Laws Laws General Laws PART I TITLE VII CHAPTER 40A" Section 3 Massachusetts Laws General Laws - Print Page Massachusetts Constitution PART I ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT General Laws --- .. NEXT Sesslon Laws ' TITLE VII CITIES,TOWNS AND DISTRICTS . .Rules' PR£V NEXT CHAPTER 40A ZONING I ' PREY NEXT Section 3 Subjects which zoning may not regulate; exemptions;public hearings; temporary manufactured home residences - PREV NEXT i Section 3. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the use of materials,or methods of construction of structures regulated by the state building code, nor shall any such- ordinance or.by-law prohibit, unreasonably regulate,or require a special permit for the use of land for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture,aquaculture;silviculture,horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, nor prohibit, unreasonably regulate or require a special permit for the use,expansion, reconstruction or construction of structures thereon for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture,.aquaculture,silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, including those facilities for the sale of produce, wine and dairy products, provided that either during the months of June,July, August and September of each year or during the harvest season of the primary crop raised on land of the owner or lessee, 25 per cent of such products for sale,based on either gross sales dollars or volume, have been produced by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility Is located,or at least 25 per cent of such products for sale, based on either gross annual sales or annual volume; have,been produced by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility is located and at least an additional 50 per cent of such products for sale,based upon either gross annual sales or annual volume, have been produced in Massachusetts on land other than that on which the facility is located, used for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture,aquaculture,silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture,whether by the owner or lessee of the land on which the facility is located or by another,except that all such activities may be limited to parcels of 5 acres or more or to parcels 2 acres or more if the sale of products produced from the agriculture, aquaculture,silviculture, horticulture,floriculture or viticulture use on the parcel annually generates at least$1,000 per acre based on gross sales dollars in area not zoned for agriculture, aquaculture,silviculture, horticulture,floriculture or viticulture. For such purposes, 9 land divided by a public or private way or a waterway shall be construed as 1 parcel. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall exempt land or structures from flood plain or wetlands regulations established pursuant to the General Laws. For the purposes of this section,the term "agriculture"shall be as defined in section SA of chapter 128,and the term horticulture shall include the growing and keeping of nursery stock and the sale thereof.Said nursery https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/ChaDtQr4OA/Section3 9/2/2016 J i General Laws: CHAPTER 40A, Section 3 Page 2 of 3 stock shall be considered to be produced by the owner or lessee of the land if It Is nourished, maintained and managed while on the premises. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the Interior area of a single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of Its agencies,subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination,or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided,however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes,lot area,setbacks,open space, parking and building coverage requirements. Lands or structures used,or to be used by a public service corporation may be exempted in particular respects from the operation of a zoning ordinance or by-law if, upon petition of the corporation,the department of telecommunications and cable or the department of public utilities shall,after notice given pursuant to section eleven and public hearing in the town or city,determine the exemptions required and find that the present or proposed use of the land or structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public; provided however,that If lands or structures used or to be used by a public service corporation are located in more than one municipality such lands or structures may be exempted in particular respects from the operation of any zoning ordinance or by-law If, upon petition of the corporation,the department of telecommunications and cable or the department of public utilities shall after notice to all affected communities and public hearing in one of said municipalities, determine the exemptions required and find that the present or proposed use of the land or structure is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. For the purpose of this section,the petition of a public service corporation relating to siting of a communications or cable television facility shall be filed with the department of telecommunications and cable.All other petitions shall be filed with the department of public utilities. No zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit,or require a special permit for, the use of land or structures,or the expansion of existing structures,for the primary, accessory or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility; provided, however,that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area,setbacks,open space, parking and building coverage requirements.As used in this paragraph,the term "child care facility"shall mean a child care center or a school-aged child care program,as defined in section lA of chapter 15D. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, local land use and health and safetylaws regulations, i g ,practices;ordinances,by-laws and decisions of a city or town shall not discriminate against a disabled person. Imposition of health and safety laws or land-use requirements on congregate living arrangements among non-related persons with disabilities that are not imposed on families and groups of similar size or other unrelated persons shall constitute discrimination.The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to every city or town, Including, but not limited to the city of Boston and the city of Cambridge.. Family child care home and large family child care home,as defined In section 1A of chapter 15D, shall be an allowable use unless a city or town prohibits or specifically regulates such use in its zoning ordinances or by-laws. https:Hmalegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter4OA/Section3 9/2/2016 General Laws: CHAPTER 40A, Section 3 Page 3 of 3 No provision of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall be valid which sets apart districts by any boundary line which may be changed without adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance or by-law. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit the owner and occupier of a residence which has been destroyed by fire or other natural holocaust from placing a manufactured home on the site of such residence and residing In such home for a period not to exceed twelve months while the residence is being rebuilt.Any such manufactured home shall be subject to the provisions of the state sanitary code. No dimensional lot requirement of a zoning ordinance or by-law, Including but not limited to, set back,front yard, side yard, rear yard and open space shall apply to handicapped access ramps on private property used solely for the purpose of facilitating Ingress or egress of a physically handicapped person,as defined in section thirteen A of chapter twenty-two. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the Installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health,safety or welfare. No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit the construction or use of an antenna structure by a federally licensed amateur radio operator.Zoning ordinances and by-laws may reasonably regulate the location and height of such antenna structures for the purposes of health,safety,or aesthetics; provided, however,that such ordinances and by-laws reasonably allow for sufficient height of such antenna structures so as to effectively accommodate r amateur radio communications by federally licensed amateur radio operators and constitute the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the legitimate purposes of the city or town enacting such ordinance or by-law. Show/Hide Site Map Mass.gov I Site Mao I Site Policy I Contact Us Copyright©2016 The General Court,All Rights Reserved x https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Partl/TitleVII/Chapter4OA/Section3 9/2/2016 Town of Barnstable Geographic Information System April 11, 2017 307128 ,r 07138 _ 307.135 � 307129 t n. ..may �zq of �qbr + r . a f &� ✓�t }t 307139 p 1 V A t 07270 er"I< •ray' r" It v N. 1 r: s1• "h. 307133 Li►' J « s� t .s - >• ` IL x y J #60 r P - 1/ yk r 307148 44, - T� v F . N • 679 k, it 1n7 ^ -; #57 -a« sw 3 131001 FP. 3071 ss :..` DISCLAIMERS:This map is for planning purposes only. It is not adequate for legal Map:307 Parcel:134 - - boundary determination or regulatory interpretation. Enlargements beyond a scale of Owner:EMMITT,ROBERT W&PATRICIA L Total Assessed Value:$289700 Selected Parcel 1"=100'-may not meet established map accuracy standards. The parcel lines on this map l are only graphic representations of Assessor's tax parcels. They are not true property Co-Owner: Acreage:0.20000000 acres Abutters - Wt boundaries and do not represent accurate relationships to physical features on the map Location:95 CHASE STREET ] such as building locations. Buffer ,' Aerial Photos Taken April 19,2008 k FREEMAN LAW GROUP LLC Attorneys at Law Peter L.Freeman Kevin T.Smith,Of Counsel Renie Hamman,Paralegal,CP,ACP pfreeman@freemanlawgroup.com ksmith@freemanlawgroup.com rhamman@freemanlawgroup.com Tel.(508)362-4700 Mobile(781)854-2430 Tel.(508)362-4700 (978)369-0634 Tel.(508)362-4700 Mobile(978)549-3399 April 4, 2017 Ellen M. Swiniarski Site Plan Review Coordinator 200 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. 95 Chase Street,Hyannis,MA Dear Ms. Swinarski: Please find for filing for informal Site Plan Review of the above-reference project six (6) S.. F copies of. • Site Plan Review Application(informal); • Plot Plan dated January 1, 1998 with proposed four parking spaces drawn; 3 ; • GIS Property map; _ = 1 • Bedroom count of five(5)bedrooms; 3- • Floor plan sketches; • Copy of ZBA Decision for 22 Main Street, Hyannis (2012) as an example of educational use of Homeless Not Hopeless. g rn It is our understanding that this project will be reviewed by Staff at informal Site Plan Review to be held on April 11,2017. Sincerely, Renie Hamman,Paralegal cc: Homeless Not Hopeless, Inc. 86 Willow Street ■ Yarmouthport,MA 02675 ■ Phone(508)362-4700 e Fax(508)362-4701 Group Homes and Zoning Under the Fair Housing Act Michael Mirra Index: • Introduction • Backciiround a Prominent provisions of the Fair Housing Act generally • FHA's application to group homes • Notes Introduction April 23, 1998 Michael Mirra o COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES Suite 430 625 Commerce Street Tacoma,WA 98402 (253) 572-4343 FAX(253)572-4348 michael.mirra@)columbialegal.org This outline is only a cursory review of the topics it covers. It cannot substitute for legal advice. Persons with a particular legal problem may wish to consult an attorney.Attorneys should supplement this outline with their own legal research. This outline reviews what the Fair-Housing Act(FHA)has to say about governmental regulation or restriction of group homes, both their siting and operation. In general, the FHA provides group homes,their residents and developers with important protection.This protection results from the application to group homes of basic and longstanding principles of FHA adjudi-cation. For that reason,this outline will begin.by reviewing those basics. I. SOME BACKGROUND ' Much of the nation's housing segregation resulted from overt policies and practices of the public and private entities that controlled or influenced the housing market, e.g. realtors, housing lenders, federally assisted housing programs, local and state laws governing residential use or public enforcement of private restrictive covenants.These institutionalized efforts created or fortified a pervasive white racism in the housing market against African-Americans and other persons, identified by race,ethnicity or religion Al By 1968,the nation's housing was thoroughly segregated by race. In this century, the effort to promote fair housing began in the courts. The Supreme Court began using the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection to restrict racial discrimination by local governments. In 1917, it issued its first ruling against racial zoning ordinances.0 In 1948, the Court prohibited judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants governing the use of land.0 Soon afterward,the Federal Housing Administration and the Veteran's Administration stopped insuring mortgages on property encumbered with racially restrictive covenants. Racial zoning and covenants continued in place,/however, until the passage of effective affirmative legislation. State and federal anti-discrimination laws generally followed a pattern. First, the laws outlawed discrimination in public accommodations and publicly financed activities. Employment laws then followed. Laws then outlawed discrimination in public housing.The last laws to be enacted restricted discrimination in the private housing market. By 1968, about half the states, Including Washington, had some form of fair housing law. In 1968, Congress enacted Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968--the Fair Housing Act.The turbulent events of the time spurred its passage.The urban riots of 1967 and the subsequent Kerner Commission report caused some to attribute many social afflictions to residential segregation u On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King,Jr.was assassinated.The Fair Housing Act became law on April 11, 1968. In many respects, however,the 1968 Fair Housing Law has not been a success. As a source of legal enforcement it fell far short of its counterpart.laws governing public accommodations or employment.The number of private and public prosecutions was comparably few. More importantly, its effect on patterns of residential use disappointed its proponents. Discriminatory barriers became more sophisticated if less overt. Most communities remained segregated for reasons that appeared directly related to discriminatory conduct u One of the Act's shortcomings was its lack of effective enforcement. Efforts soon began in Congress to strengthen it.After nearly twenty years of debate, the Congress passed the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.Among its major provisions: • it greatly strengthened the administrative enforcement of the Act, making its remedies available to people without lawyers; • it eliminated the$ 1,000 cap on punitive damages available in private lawsuits; • it provided for civil penalties and damages in lawsuits brought by the United States. Despite these enhancements, the racial segregation America's housing markets continues L61 The 1988 amendments also added handicap and"familial status"to the list of protected characteristics under the Fair Housing Act(FHA).These additions are meant to protect disabled persons and households with minor children from pervasive discriminatory practices that excluded them from large segments of the residential housing markets. Disabled persons have traditionally faced widespread public and private discrimination based on erroneous and destructive stereotypes. The Act was"a clear pronouncement of a national commitment to end the unnecessary exclusion of persons with handicaps from the American mainstream."Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3rd 325, 333 n. 14(3d Cir.) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 711, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 18,reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2173, 2179). At the same time, Congress recognized that large portions of the private rental market excluded households with minor children.These practices, combined with increasingly unaffordable housing prices, have contributed to a housing emergency for large segments of the American public for whom affordable, decent or secure housing remains unavailable. } : . II. PROMINENT PROVISIONS OF Tt1E FAIR HOUSING ACT GENERALLY A. Protected Characteristics The FHA outlaws or restricts housing discrimination because of: • race; • color; • religion; • sex; • "familial status;"u • national origin; • handicap. B.The Act's Scope is Broad With few exceptions, the FHA governs nearly every type of housing, including mobile homes, shelters,vacant land intended for housing, and group homes.L�l This is clear from its definition of "dwelling:" 'Dwelling'means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof. 42 USC §3602(b). (The exceptions are narrow and refer to owner-occupied apartment complexes of 4 or less units, religious organizations, and private clubs.See 42 USC§3603.) The FHA also governs nearly every aspect of a housing transaction, including financing, brokering, appraising, and marketing. It also applies to land-use and zoning practices of government.The FHA applies to a broad range of discriminatory behavior, including: (1)refusing to sell, rent, negotiate for"or otherwise make unavailable or deny"a dwelling; (2)discriminating in the"term, conditions, or privileges of a sale or rental"of a dwelling or in the"provision of services or facilities in connection therewith"; (3) making or publishing any discriminatory statement in regard to a sale or rental; (4)misrepresenting the availability of.a dwelling; (5)inducing a person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations about the presence of members of a protected class in the neighborhood; (6)discriminating in the access to real estate services; (7)discrimination in the residential real estate related transactions and in the terms or conditions of such transactions, including the making of loans for the purchase of a dwelling, the making of loans secured by residential units and the"selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property." 42 U.S.C. §3604.There are limits, however, to the scope of the FHA's coverage.0 The FHA protects not only racial minorities or other protected classes of people. It gives a cause of action to any person or entity who is harmed by an act of illegal discrimination. 10 Zoning laws that unlawfully discriminate against handicapped persons seeking group home living,for example, would give rise to claims not only by the prospective residents who are handicapped but also by the developers or financiers of the group home. C.The Definition of Disability is Broad The definition of"handicap"is very broad: (h) 'Handicap' means, with respect to a person-- (1)a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (2)a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment, but such term does not include current, illegal use or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in section 802 of Title 21. 42 USC§ 3602.This definition includes mental illness, developmental disabilities, physical impairments, persons who test positive for HIV, persons who have AIDS, wet or dry alcoholics and persons recovering from addiction to an illegal drug as long as they are not currently using illegal drugs. 'L The need to live In a group home, by itself, may denote a disability to the extent it results from an inability to live independently. 12 Note: The definition of"disability"under Washington's Law Against Discrimination may be somewhat broader than the definition under the FHA. i3 D. Protections for Handicapped Persons and Children are Equivalent to Those Provided Against Racial Discrimination. I The terms"handicap"and"familial status"appear in the FHA alongside those of"race"and the other protected characteristics.Thus,the law treats discrimination on the basis of"handicap"and"familial status"as it treats racial discrimination. "[F]amilies with children [and handicapped persons] must be provided the same protections as other[protected] classes of persons." 24 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Subch. A. App. I at 931 (1995). E.Violations and Requirements of the FHA Violations of the FHA include not only acts of intentional discrimination but other acts or policies that have a discriminatory effect even without any intent to discriminate. 1. Intentional Discrimination A person or entity violates the FHA when it denies or conditions or impairs a housing opportunity intentionally because of race, color, religion,sex,familial status, national origin or handicap. Intentional discrimination can violate the law even if the defendant also had other legal reasons for his or her conduct. In relation to discrimination on the basis of handicap,the Act is intended to repudiate the use'of stereotypes and requires that persons with handicaps be considered as individuals. 14 2. Unintended but Disparate Discriminatory Effects The FHA also outlaws or restricts practices that have an unintended but disproportionate effect on protected persons. In these cases,the defendant must show a legitimate reason that is important enough to justify the practice despite its disproportionate effect. Courts have allowed such claims because of a practical view of fair housing enforcement: Effect, and not motivation, is the touchstone, In part because clever men may easily conceal their motivations, but more importantly, because ...'[w]hatever our law was once,...we now firmly recognize that the arbitrary quality of thoughtless-ness can be as disastrous and unfair to private rights and the public interest as a perversity of a willful scheme. United States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri,508 F.2d 1179(8th Or 1974):Id. at 1185(8th Cir. 1974), cent.den.422 U.S. 1042(1975).The legislative history of the 1988 Amendments strongly endorses this analysis as applied to handicapped persons. Some common examples of practices or policies found to violate the FHA because of their unintended but disproportionate exclusion of protected persons include: exclusion of families with children found to constitute racial discrimination; exclusion of subsidized housing found to constitute race discrimination; occupancy maximums and siting restrictions on group homes found to constitute familial status discrimination. 3. Denial of Reasonable Accommodation of Handicaps In addition to prohibiting discriminatory practices on the basis of handicap,the FHA goes further and limits the application of neutral rules that have no discriminatory intent or effect.The FHA requires owners to make"reasonable accommodation"in such rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal oppor-tunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(B).The FHA imposes an"affirmative duty upon landlords reasonably to accommodate the needs of handicapped persons."U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3rd 1413, 1416(9th Cir. 1994), appeal after remand 107 F.3rd 1374 (9th Cir. 1997).This duty receives a generous construction'in order to'carry out a 'policy that Congress considered to be of the highest priority.'The generous spirit with which we are to interpret the FHA guides our[reasonable accommodation]analysis here." 29 F.3rd at 1416.See Also, Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3rd 328, 335(2d. Cir. 1995). In general,'a requested accommodation is reasonable and therefore required, if(i)it is necessary for the handicapped persons'equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and(11)it does not impose undue administrative or financial burdens or require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the housing program. E.g., U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3rd 1413, 1416(9th Cir. 1994),appeal after remand 107 F.3rd 1374(9th Cir. 1997); Hovsons,Inc. V. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096(3rd Cir. 1996). As a reasonable accommodation for handicapped persons, courts have required waivers in leases, contracts, rules, ordinances, restrictive covenants, zoning codes and otherwise reasonable rules of many types when necessary to accommodate a disability. Examples of lease rules that courts have waived include: first come, first serve rule for assignment of parking spaces; 17 rule against pets; 18 rule against threatening behavior; 19 lease provision for charges and penalties.(2 In requiring a waiver of rules,the FHA can also oblige a landlord to spend or forego money.(—) Reasonable accommodation concerning group homes can include the waiver of otherwise applicable zoning restrictions. 22 The FHA also requires owners to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modification may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.A landlord may,where it is reasonable to do so,condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 42 USC§ 3604(f)(3)(A). (The FHA also requires that most multi-family buildings that are first occupied after March 15, 1991 meet certain adaptability and accessibility requirements. State law has imposed similar requirements for several years already.) 4. The "Dangerousness"Exception The FHA makes an exception for the protections offered to"handicapped" persons to account for dangerous persons: Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(9). Dangerous persons or persons with criminal histories are not, by virtue of that history, protected from discrimination.This remains the case even if they are hand!-capped. However, the criteria and process by which people are screened or excluded for dangerousness cannot itself by discriminatory. Several concepts are likely to govern a court's review of such procedures. First,the FHA requires that the"direct threat" restrictions be based on individual assessments. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1503 (10th Cir. 1995). 23 Generalized conclusions about groups based upon their handicap are not permissible. See Also 54 FR 3245 (January 23, 1989). Second, a process to screen out dangerous people cannot be applied only to handicapped people. See House Report at 30; 53 FR 45001(November 7, 1988) Third, a criteria or process that excludes people because of a dangerous history may be amenable to waiver as a reasonable accommodation to a person's disability.A reasonable accommodation,for example, may include treatment or controls that provide adequate assurance that threatening behavior will not recur. 24 F. Enforcement Victims of FHA violations have several enforcement options: 1. Private Litigation A victim can sue in state or federal court. 42 U.S.C. §3613.The court can order the defendant to stop the illegal activity and to take affirmative measures to insure against repeated violations.The court can also require the defendant to pay money to compensate the victim for harm, including psychological and emotional injury.The court will also normally order the defendant to pay the attorney's fees of the prevailing victim.The court can also punish the defendant by requiring further payment of punitive damages.The FHA imposes a two year statute of limitations for filing such a lawsuit. 2. Administrative Enforcement A victim can file an administrative complaint with an enforcement agency responsible for the jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. §3612. He or she must file within one year of the alleged violation. Under the Act, HUD can delegate this enforcement authority to a local agency whose laws are"substantially equivalent"to the FHA. In that case,the local enforcement agency contracts with HUD to handle complaints. Presently, HUD has contracts with four jurisdictions in Washington State: King County; Seattle;Tacoma; Washington State.As a result, HUD refers most administrative complaints arising from within Washington State either to the Washington State Human Rights Commission or to the fair housing enforcement agencies for King County,Seattle or Tacoma. An agency, if it finds a violation,can order the defendant to stop the illegal activity. It can order the defendant to pay the victim's attorney's fees. In order"to vindicate the public interest,"the agency can also impose a civil penalty of up to $50,000 depending on the number of the defendant's prior violations. 3. United States as Plaintiff The United States Government can also sue to remedy violations of the Act that result from a "pattern or practice"of illegal activity or from conduct that otherwise"raises an issue of general public importance."42 U.S.C. § 3614.The court may Impose penalties of up to $ 100, 000. G. Courts Will Interpret the FHA Expansively The court will give the FHA a generous and expansive construction"in order to carry out a 'policy that Congress considered to be of the highest priority."'U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3d 1413(9th Cir. 1994)(referring to the FHA, quoting from Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 409 U.S. 205, 212, 93 S.Ct. 364, 368, 34 L.Ed.2d 415(1972), z5 III FHA'S APPLICATION TO GROUP HOMES A.The FHA Governs Local Zoning Regulation Courts have long applied the FHA to local zoning codes. M It governs not only behavior specified in the law but actions, like zoning, that otherwise make unavailable or deny"a dwelling. §§42 U.S.C. §3604(a),(0(1).The FHA has been"construed to reach 'every practice which has the effect of making housing more difficult to obtain on prohibited grounds."' United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 624 F.Supp. 1276, 1291, n. 9. (S.D.N.Y. 1985),aff'd, 837 F.2d 1181 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055(1988).Additional sections of the FHA particularly govern local laws. 27 The 1988 amendments adding"handicap" protections targeted zoning laws especially: These new subsections[protecting handicapped persons] would also apply to state or local land use and health and safety laws, regulations, practices or decisions which discriminate against individuals with handicaps. House Report at 24 2J1 Note: Other laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of handicap also apply to zoning codes. E.g. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794(a)(Section 504 applies to zoning codes of cities that receive federal money;)L221 American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132(The ADA applies to"public entities,"defined to include cities. §42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A))141 B.The FHA Protects Group Homes Courts have further applied the FHA to protect group homes. 31 Group homes fit the FHA's definition of dwelling. §42 U.S.C.§ 3602.The FHA's protection for group homes became particularly clear with the 1988 amendments for handicapped persons: This provision[protecting handicap persons] is intended to prohibit special restrictive covenants or other terms of conditions, or denials of services because of an individual's handicap and which have the effect of excluding, for example, congregate living arrangements for persons with handicaps. . . . While state and local governments have authority to protect safety and health, and to regulate use of land,that authority has sometimes been used to restrict the ability of individuals with handicaps to live in communities.This has been accomplished by such means as the enactment or imposition of health, safety or land-use requirements on congregate living arrangements among non-related persons with disabilities. . . . House Report at 23-24. (emphasis added.) Group homes are..generally covered because their residents are handicapped. In one case,the court also applied the FICA to group homes for children under the Act's"familial status"provision: LM C.Some Particular Issues Arising from Municipal Regulation of Group Homes 1. Occupancy Maximums: Municipalities hava commonly restricted the number of residents allowed in group homes.These . restrictions appear in various forms. Some apply particularly to group homes, raising questions of direct and intentional discrimination. Other restrictions apply to all households of unrelated persons, raising questions oi`-their discriminatory effectthat results because handicapped people, more than others, require gi-cup home living. The FHA expressly allows"any reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling."42 U.S.C. § 3607(b)(1). However, this exemption applies only if the maximums apply to everyone in a dwelling, generally for the purpose of avoiding overcrowding. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House,Inc., U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801(1995)(generally applicable occupancy limits like the Uniform Housing Code designed to prevent overcrowding fall within exemption from FHA).The FHA does not exempt limits "designed to preserve the family character of a neighbor-hood,fastening on the composition of households rather than on the total number of occupants living quarters can contain, do not."Id. at 1782. Such limits that purport to define"families" have been found to discriminate against residents of group homes. Some courts have struck down these limits relying either on their discriminatory intent or discriminatory effect.0 Other courts have reviewed requests to waive neutral occupancy maximums as a reasonable accommodation for the disability of residents of group homes. 34 2. Size and Bulk Limitations In general, the FHA does not require a city to waive nondiscriminatory limitations on the size or bulk of buildings or their nonresidential use. E.g. Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3rd 300(9th Cir. 1997)(City could reject proposal for a large complex for disabled adults, including non-housing services, in a single family residence.) 3. Dispersal Requirements With some notable exceptions, courts have generally struck down requirements that group homes maintain minimum distances from other group homes. E.g., The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997)(striking down 1,000 foot dispersal requirement for group homes); Horizon House Developmental Services,Inc. v. Township of Upper Southampton, 804 F.Supp. 683, 693,affd 995 F.2d 217(3rd. Cir. 1993) (same);But see, Familystyle of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 923 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1991)(The court permitted application of a dispersal requirement to prevent cluster of 21 group homes within one and one-half block area.) 4. Notice and Permit.Requirement Courts have also struck down requirements that group homes register with municipal authorities or notify their neighbors.E.g. Stewart.B. McKinney v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197 (D.Conn. 1992) (neighbor notification); Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285(D. Md. 1993)(hearing and notification requirement); Larkin v. State of Michigan, 89 F.3d 285(6th Cir. 1996)(notification of neighbors requirements); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D.Wash. 1997)(requirement for city permit and community hearing process). Some courts, however, have allowed procedural requirements by which group home developers can be made to seek waivers of exclusionary rules as a reasonable accommodation to the disability of their prospective residents. E.g., Elderhaven,Inc. v. City of Lubbock, 98 F.3rd 175(5th Cir. 1996). Most courts have ruled that a city cannot justify a discriminatory rule merely by providing a process by which a group home may seek its waiver. Reasonable accommodation procedures are applicable only to consider a waiver of a nondiscriminatory rule AM . 5. Requirement for Permanent Residency Courts have also rejected requirements that residents of group homes remain as occupants for minimum periods of time.The court in The court In North Shore-Chicago Rehab. v. Village of Skokie, 827 F.Supp.497(N.D. III. 1993)struck down a requirement that group home residents be "permanent."Similarly,the court in Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp.450 (D.N.J. 1992)barred enforcement of a requirement that all households of unrelated persons meet a standard of"permanency and stability."; Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 819 F.Supp. 1179, 1183 (E.D..N.Y. 1993)(barred town's eviction of the group home "due to the size or transient nature of plaintiffs'group living arrangement"); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D.Wash. 1997)(court voided exclusion of group homes for children who stayed less than 30 days.) 6. Benign Intentions Do Not Excuse Adverse_Discriminatory Regulation Municipalities commonly justify adverse discriminatory regulation of group homes by claiming a benign motive to assist or protect the residents from harm. Several points are pertinent to such discussions. First, plaintiffs in a FHA claim do not have to prove malice or animus to show a violation: Specifically with regard to housing discrimination, a plaintiff need not prove the malice or discriminatory animus of a defendant to make out a care of intentional discrimination where the defendant expressly treats someone protected by the FHAA in a different manner than others. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1500(10th Cir. 1995). 36 Second, good intentions do not cure discrimination. 37 Third, discriminatory intentions are illegal even if the city also had non-discriminatory intentions. 38 Z Some Possible Grounds for Different Treatment of Handicapped Persons Some courts, upon finding intentional discrimination,then consider possible reasons that could justify the discrimination. Bangerter v. Orem City Corp., 46 F.3rd 1491, 1502-1504 (10th Cir. 1995); Marbrunak, Inc v. City of Stow, 974 F.2d 43(6th Cir. 1992).The courts stated that the FHA may not prohibit overt discrimination beneficial to handicapped persons or to fair housing goals in the same way that racial categories designed to insure Integra-tion are sometimes permissible. Id. at 1504 -1505. In Alliance for the Mentally Ill v. City of Naperville, 923 F.Supp. 1057, 1073 (N.D.'III 1996), the court stated that any intentionally discriminatory rule must fulfill the"FHAA, which mandates that any such[facially discriminatory] requirements correspond to the 'unique and specific needs and abilities of[the] handicapped persons'affected."Any differential treatment must be based on a scrutiny of individual needs. The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491, 1499 (W.D. Wash. 1977). Even under these decisions,the possible justifications for overt discrimination are very narrow and provoke great judicial skepticism. "We should be chary about accepting the justification that a particular restriction upon the handicapped really advances their housing opportunities rather than discriminates against them in housing. Restrictions that are based upon unsupported stereotypes or upon prejudice and fear stemming from ignorance or generalizations, for example, would not pass muster. Bangerter, 46 F.3rd at 1504. Under the standard analysis and in the normal case, there is no reason that can justify overt intentional and adverse discrimination. Instead, discrimination must benefit the disabled residents and must be tailored to their needs. One court, however, has expanded the grounds for permissible discrimination to Include discrimination reasonably necessary to serve a city's legitimate interests. Family-Style of St. Paul, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 923 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1991). In that case,the court permitted a city to prevent the addition of more group homes to a one and one-half block area that already had 21 such homes.The court ruled that dispersal benefited handicapped persons and FHA goals of integration.The court's use of a"rational basis"standard to review the city's overtly discrimina-tory ordinance is anomalous among the reported decisions. It has been rejected by courts in other Circuits. E.g., Larkin v. State of Michigan, 89 F.3d 285(6th Cir. 1996); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491, 1498(W.D.Wash. 1997). NOTES 1. See, Robert G. Schwerrlm, Housing Discrimination: Law and Litigation, pages 2-1-2-9. (1994). 2. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60(1917). 3 Shelley y Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 4. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory.Commission on Civil Disorders 1(1968)(The Report concluded that America was"moving toward two societies,one black, one white--separate and unequal.") S. In 1979,for example, HUD's survey of 40 metropolitan areas concluded that an African-American will encounter discriminatory barriers 49 percent of the time in the purchase market and 72%of the time in the rental market. See, R. Wienk,C. Reid,J. Simonson&F.Eggers,Measuring Racial Discrimination in American,Housing Markets: The Housing Market Practices Survey(U.S. Department of Housing and.Urban Development 1979).This report found discrimination most pervasive cities in the North Central and Western states. In 1989, HUD commissioned another study.It reported"no solid basis for concluding that the incidence of unfavorable treatment experienced by black•homeseekers had either risen or declined since the late 1970s."M.Turner, R. Struyk&J.Yinger, Housing Discrimination Study: Synthesis vii (U.S.v Department of Housing and Urban Development 1991). 6. See MASSEY&DENTON,AMERICAN APARTHEID: SEGREGATION AND THE MAICNG OF THE UNDERCLASS(1993). 7. "Familial Status means one or more individuals(who has not attained the age of 18 years)being domiciled with--(1)a parent or another person having legal custody of such individual or individuals; or(2)the designee of such parent or other person having such custody, with the written permission of such parent or other person."42 U.S.C. § 3602(k).The FHA expressly exempts "housing for older persons"from its"familial status" provision. If a housing complex qualified for this exemption it may discriminate against children.This exemption,which Congress recently enlarged, is defined to include either housing that is occupied solely by persons 62 years of age or older or housing intended for persons over 55 years and in which over 80%of the units are occupied by at least one person 55 years or age or older. 8. E.g. Hernandez v. EverFresh Co. , 923 F.Supp. 1305(D. Or. 1996)(farm labor camps); Woods v. Foster, 884 F.Supp. 1169(N.D. II1. 1995)(homeless shelter); United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877, 881(3rd Cir.),cert. den. 501 U.S. 1205(1991)(defining FHA"residence"as a "temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode or habitation to which one intends to return as distinguished from the place of temporary sojourn or transient visit.); Turning Point, Inc. v. City of Caldwell,74 F.3rd 941 (9th Cir. 1996)(emergency homeless shelters.); Baxter v. City of Belleville, III., 720 F.Supp. 720(S.D. III. 1989)(hospice for short-term and long-term occupancy by sufferers of AIDS); United States v. Columbus Country Club, 915 F.2d 877(3d Cir.1990)(summer bungalows); Hovsons,Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096(3rd Cir. 1996)(nursing homes). HUD's definition of"dwelling unit"for purposes of the"handicap"discrimination provision includes congregate facilities, as well as"dormitory rooms and sleeping accommodations in shelters intended for occupancy as a residence for homeless persons."24 CFR 100.201. See Also Section IIIB below. 9 E 4 Michigan Protection &Advocacy Service v Babin 18 F.3rd 337 (6th Cir. 19941 (neighbors are not liable for financing the Purchase of a home to prevent its use by group home operator.) 10. E.g. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 477(9th Cir. 1988)(nonprofit housing providers and homeowners have a claim against persons who prevented them from concluding a deal with black seekers.); Crumble v. Blumthal, 549 F.2d 462(7th Cir. 1977)(white brokers have a claim if they lose a commission because of discrimination against their minority clients);Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,455 U.S. 363, 372, 102 S.Ct..1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214(1982)("Congress intended standing . . .to extend to the full limits of Art. III and . . .the courts accordingly lack the authority to create prudential barriers to standing in suits brought under the [FHA].")Standing extends to organizations whose advocacy purposes are frustrated by defendant's actions.Id. Standing extends to people who were not discriminated against. Trafcante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205, 208- 212, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415(1972)(white persons can challenge discrimination against racial minorities). 11.The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of disability under the American with Disabilities Act(ADA)includes a person who is HIV-positive but who is otherwise without symptoms of illness.Bragdon v.Abbott, 118 S.Ct. 2196(1998).The definition of disability under the ADA is the same as the definition of handicap under the FHA. 13. E.g., United States v. City of Audubon, 797 F.Supp. 353, 358-359(D.N.). 1991)(recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who could walk, hear, speak, learn work, etc are handicapped by their need for group care)("We do not think that the list of major life activities set forth in the regulation was meant to be all-inclusive. Even if it were, the residents would still satisfy the definition because their inability to live Independently constitutes a substantial limitation on their ability to 'care for themselves'".)The court in U.S. v. Massachusetts Indus. Finance Agency, 910 F. Supp. 21, 26(D. Mass 1996)expressed a similar view about residents in a home for emotionally disturbed children. ("Indeed, given[the home's] purpose, mere placement in one of its residential schools is strong evidence of an inability to function In a regular environment.") 13. Unlike the FHA, Washington's Law does not require that the disability be an"impairment which substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities."Instead, it refers to the "presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained guide dog or service dog by a disabled person."RCW 49.60.030(1).The Washington State Human Rights Commission, in a recent definition, stated that it"includes, but Is not limited to an abnormal condition that(a)is medically cognizable or diagnosable; (b)exists as a record or history; or(c) is perceived to exist, whether or not it exists in fact."WAC 162-38-050.The Commission declined to adopt the federal definition explaining that to do so would be a "substantial narrowing"of state law. WSR 96-13-045 (Part 3). 14. Generalized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusions. H.R. Rep. No. 100-711, 300th Cong., 2d. Sess. at 18, reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. &Admin. News. at 2173. (emphasis added.)(hereafter cited as House Report). In assessing information, the landlord may not infer that a recent history of a physical or mental illness or disability, or treatment for such illnesses or disabilities, constitutes proof that an applicant will be unable to fulfill her or her tenancy obligations.ld, at 30.. 1S.The legislative history of the 1988.amendments to the FHA strongly endorses the application of the effect's test: The Committee intends that the prohibition against discrimination against those with handicaps apply to zoning decisions and practices.The Act is intended to prohibit the application of special requirements through land use regulations, restrictive covenants and conditional or special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community . . . Another method of making housing unavailable to people with disabilities has been the application of enforcement of otherwise neutral rules and regulations on health, safety and land-use in a manner which discriminates against people with disabilities. Such discrimination often results from false or over-protective assumptions about the needs of handicapped people, as well as unfounded fears about the problems that their tenancies may pose.These and similar practices would be prohibited. House Report at 24(emphasis added.) 16. E.g, Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 484(9th Cir. 1988)(action had"twice the adverse impact on minorities as it had on whites" because two-thirds of the group eligible for blocked low-income housing project were minorities.)In Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 938(2d Cir.)affd per curiam, 488 U.S. 15(1988)the affected low-income housing project was 28 percent minorities and 11 per cent white.The court called this a "substantial adverse impact." The court overruled the trial court's reliance on absolute numbers which showed that a greater number of whites would be affected.See also, Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village ofArling-ton Heights, 558 F.2d 1283, 1290(7th Cir. 1977), cert denied,434 U.S. 1025 (1978)("a greater number of black people than white people in the Chicago metropolitan area satisfy the income requirements for the[housing that the defendant city refused to allow]."Southend Neighborhood Imp. v. County of St. Clair, 743 F.2d 1207, 1209 (7th Cir. 1984)(disparity was "significant"); In Betsey v. Turtle Creek Associates, 736 F.2d 989, 988(4th Cir.)the court reviewed a landlord's policy that excluded children from one building on the premises.The court found that the policy's effect was"substantially greater"on racial minorities since 54.3%of their households in the building had children while 14.1%of white households had children. Reversing the trial court, the Court found a disparate impact despite the fact that racial minorities would continue to comprise a larger percentage of the building than they do of the community and despite the fact that the policy would have an insignificant impact on racial minorities in the community.); Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Inc. v.Ayres, 855 F.Supp. 315, 316(C.D. Calif. 1994)("The court holds that a showing of discriminatory intent is not necessary for plaintiffs to state*a prima facie case of housing discrimination based on familial status."The court struck down a neutral occupancy maximum because of its effect on families with children);Martin v. Constance, 843 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D. Mo. 1994)(finding restrictive covenants limiting use to a private residence to constitute intentional discrimination and to impose a discriminatory effect on handicapped persons);Stewart B. McKinney Found, Inc. v. Town Plan&Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1216-19(D. Conn. 1992)(The plaintiff"need prove no more than that the conduct of the defendant[s] actually or predictably results in . . . discrimination; in other words, that it has a discriminatory effect.The plaintiff need make no showing whatsoever that the action resulting in . . . discrimination in housing was. . . motivated [by a desire to discriminate against the hand!-capped];North Shore-Chicago Rehab. v. Village of Skokie, 827 F.Supp. 497(N.D.III. 1993) (ordinance requiring group home to be occupied on a permanent basis and to be licensed had an unlawful discriminatory effect). 17. Shapiro, 51 F.3rd at 333-336. 18. HUD v. Dutra, Fair Housing-Fair Lending Rptr. ¶25,124(HUD AL] 1996). 19 Roe v Sugar Mill Associates 820 F Supp 636 639-640 (D.N.H. 1993)(The landlord could not evict a mentally ill tenant based on threatemna behavior until "after defendants have made reasonable efforts to accommodate his handicap . . _ rTlhe Act reauires defendants to demonstrate that no reasonable accommodation' will eliminate or acceptably minimize the risk he poses to other residents at rthe apartmentl before they may lawfully evict him."Accord; Roe V. Boulder Housin Authority, 909 F Surip. 814 (D.Col. 1996). 20. Samuelson v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co. Inc., 947 F.Supp. 756, 759-62(D. Del. 1996). 21. "We find the effort to distinguish accommodations that have a financial cost from other f accommodations unconvincing. Besides the fact that§ 3604's reasonable accommodations requirement contains no exemption for financial costs to the landlord,the history of the FHAA clearly establishes that Congress anticipated that landlords would have to shoulder certain costs involved, so long as they are not unduly burdensome." U.S. v. California Mobile Home Park Management Co., 29 F.3rd at 1416(9th Cir. 1994)In this case, this Court reversed a trial court dismissal of a reasonable accommodation request that a landlord waive a parking fee for a home health care aide.After remand,the Court affirmed the trial court's subsequent finding that the waiver was not necessary in the particular facts of the case. 107 F.3rd 1374(9th Cir. 1997). 22. Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestorwn Township, F. Supp. , 1998 WL 129956(D.N.J. 1998). 23. "As the FHAA's legislative history declares, the FHAA'repudiates the use of stereotypes and ignorance,and mandates that persons with handicaps be considered as individuals."Generalized perceptions about disabilities and unfounded speculations about threats to safety are specifically rejected as grounds to justify exclusions."'Bangerter,46 F.3rd at 1503 (quoting from House Report at 18.) 24. House Report,supra, at 29; 53 Fed. Reg.45002(November 7, 1989); E.g., Roe v. Sugar River Mills Associate, 820 F.Supp. 636, 640(D.N.H. 1993)(The court would not permit the eviction of a tenant convicted of disorderly conduct arising from threats to neighbors unless the landlord can "demonstrate that no 'reasonable accommodation'will eliminate or acceptably minimize the risk he poses to other residents.") 25. See also, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995); United States v. Gilbert, 813 F.2d 1523, 1526- 1527(9th Cir.)cert. denied,484 U.S. 860 (1987)(The court ruled that the FHA's dwelling rights covered the actions of an child adoption agency. The Fair Housing Act is intended 'to provide within constitutional limitations,for fair housing throughout the United States.'The Supreme Court has observed that this expansive approach is carried throughout the Act, and that the Act as a whole is 'broad and inclusive'and should be given 'generous construction."') 26. E.g, City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995) (occupancy maximums contained in land-use code are subject to the FHA); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 558 F.2d 1283(7th Cir. 1977),cert. den. 434 U.S. 1025(1978)(striking down zoning restriction on low-income housing because of discriminatory effect on African-Americans); U.S. v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3rd 832(9th Cir. 1994), cert. den. 116 S.Ct. 65(1995)(striking down city rent control ordinance requirement of lower rents upon landlord's admission of children);Smith&Lee Assocs. Inc. v. Taylor, 13 F.3rd 920, 930(6th Cir. 1993); Oxford House,Inc. v. Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp.450(D.N.J. 1992); United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1188(8th Cir. 1974)cert denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2656, 45 L.Ed. 2d 694(1975); Marbrunak,Inc. v..City of Stow, Ohio, 974 F.2d 43(6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Village of Marshall, Wis., 787 F.Supp. 872, 878(W.D. Wis. 1991); Potomac Group Home v. Montgomery County, MD, 823.F.Supp. 1285(D.Md. 1993)(striking down ordinance that required public notice and hearing for group homes and excluded"exceptional persons"who cannot exit without assistance). 27. Section 3615 expressly invalidates"any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under[the FHA]."42 U.S.C. §3615. Since the ordinances threatened violators with civil and criminal consequences,they also violate 42 U.S.C. §3617 outlawing coercion and threats: It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate,threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or , enjoyment of, any'right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title. 42 U.S.C. §3617.This section applies to zoning ordinances. E.g., U.S. v. City of Hayward, 36 F.3rd 832(9th Cir. 1994); Stewart B. McKinney Foundation v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n. 790 F.Supp. > 1197, 1221(D. Conn. 1992)(zoning requirement of neighborhood notification found to constitute handicap discrimination). 28. Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County,Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1294(D.Md. 1993) ("Recognizing the purpose and breadth of provisions of the [FHA],courts have consistently invalidated a wide range of municipal licensing,zoning and other regulatory practices affecting persons with disabilities.")(striking down a zoning requirement that a group home notify its neighbors and that excludes non-ambulatory residents)(cites omitted.) 26. Section 504 applies to"any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance". §§ 29 U.S.C. §794(a). "Program or activity"is defined to include cities like Bellevue. §§29 U.S.C. § 794. f Courts have applied-Section 504 to strike down zoning code provisions found to discriminate on the basis of handicap.E.g Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, Pa„ 811 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1987)cent den. 484 U.S. 849(1987)(affirming preliminary injunction granted against city refusal to grant zoning permits for alcoholic treatment centers.)The 9th Circuit emphasized the scope of Section 504 in Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559(9th Cir. 1988)by noting that it applies to"any program or activity receiving financial assistance.")(emphasis original). In that case,the court applied Section 504 to prison administration. - 30. "Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." §42 U.S.C. § 12132(emphasis added).The implementing regulations apply to "all services, programs, and activities provided or made available by public entities."§§28 C.F.R. §35.102(a). The preamble to the implementing regulations stated expressly that Title II of the ADA"applies to anything a public entity does. [It] is not limited to"Executive agencies, but includes activities of the legislative and judicial branches of State and local governments." 28 C.F.R. Part 35-Appendix A, page 449(July 26-, 1991). E.g.,Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3rd 37(2d. Cir. 1997); Oak Ridge Care Center, Inc. v. Racine County, Wisconsin, 896 F.Supp. 867, 872 (E.D.Wis. 1995)(court refused to dismiss ADA claims arising from county's denial of a zoning permit to a residence for drug and alcohol addicts): But see United States v. City of Charlotte, 904 F.Supp. 482,484(W.D.N.C. 1995)(zoning practices are not a"program or activity" under the ADA.) 31. City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776,'131 L.Ed.2d 801(1995)(Oxford House for recovering drug addicts); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491(W.D. Wash. 1997)(court struck down a city ordinance that discriminated against children In group homes);.Potomac Group Home v. Montgomery County, MD, 823 F.Supp. 1285(D.Md. 1993)(group home for disabled persons); United States v. Hughes Memorial Home, 396 F:Supp. 544, 548-549(W.D. Va. 1975)(FHA's prohibition on race discrimination applied to a children's group home).See Also,ADA: Oak Ridge Care Center, Inc. v. Racine County, Wisconsin, 896 F.Supp. 867(E.D.Wis. 1995); Section 504: Sullivan v. City of Pittsburgh, Pa„ 811 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1987); Samaritan Inns v. District of Columbia, 114 F.3rd 1227(D.C. Cir. 1997)(damage award against City and its officials for their interference with the siting of a group home for persons recovering from drug or alcohol addiction.) 32. The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D.Wash. 1997). 33. Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford, 808 F.Supp. 121 (N.D.N.Y. 1992)(voiding an occupancy maximum of 6 unrelated persons); Oxford House-Evergreen v. City of Plainfield, 769 F.Supp. 1329(D.N.J. 1991)(same); Oxford House,Inc. v. Town of Babylon,819 F.Supp. 1179 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)(same); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue, 950 F.Supp. 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1997). 34. E.g., Bryant Woods Inc,Inc. v. Howard County, 124 F.3rd 597(4th Cir. 1997)(requested increase of occupancy of a group home from 8 to 15 was not a reasonable accommodation that the county was required to grant.); Elderhaven,lnc. v. City of Lubbock, 98 F.3rd 175(5th Cir. 1996)(city, which granted a waiver of its occupancy maximum to allow 10 residents, was not required to allow 12); Smith&Lee Associates,Inc. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1996)(court ordered requested increase of occupancy maximum from 6 to 9 persons.) 33. "Here, defendant's suggestion that making the process of applying for a [Certificate of Occupancy]more onerous for plaintiffs than it is for the majority of applicants', somehow constitutes 'reasonable accommodation',stands the concept on its head. It is analogous to arguing that a rule requiring only handicapped people to pay a special fee before entering a building constitutes a reasonable accommodation." Oxford House,lnc. v. Cherry Hill, 799 F.Supp. 450,462, n. 25(D.N.J. 1992). "Courts have consistently held that discriminatory procedural requirements are themselves violative of the FHAA."Potomac Group Homes Corp. v. Montgomery County, Md., 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1297(D. Md. 1993).See also Stewart B. McKinney v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1218-20 (D.Conn. 1992)(special permit requirement for group home was itself discriminatory); The Children's Alliance et al v. City of Bellevue,950 F.Supp. 149.1, 1500(W.D. Wash. 1997). 36.The intent of.which the court speaks is the legal concept of intent,to be distinguished from motive. [citations omitted]To prevail on its claim of discriminatory treatment, therefore,the plaintiff is not required to show the defendants were motivated by some purposeful, malicious desire to discriminate against HIV-infected persons. Nor must it prove the defendants were motivated solely, primarily, or even predominantly by the HIV-infected status of the Foundation's future tenants. Stewart B. McKinney v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. 1197, 1211 (D.Conn 1992).The court in City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council considered the City's alleged violations of the FHA noting that"[t]here are no allegations that Edmonds acted out of any animus against the occupants of Oxford House because of their handicap." 18 F.3rd 802, 803 (9th Cir.), affirmed sub. nom City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776, 131 L.Ed.2d 801 (1995). See also, Village of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1530-31(7th Cir. 1990)(treating potential customers differently because of their race is unlawful even if the defendant does so for non-racist reasons.);Potomac Group Home Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1295(D.Md. 1993)('To prove discriminatory intent, a plaintiff need only show that the handicap of the potential residents[of a group home] . . . was in some part the basis for the policy being challenged."); Alliance for the Mentally III v. City of Naperville, 923 F.Supp. 1057, 1069(N.D. III. 1996)(facial discrimination against handicapped persons resulting from codes designed to protect them from hazards). 37. E.g., Williams v. Mathews Company, 499 F.2d 819, 827, (8th Cir.)cert denied 419 US 1021 (1974) (subjective good intentions do not overcome intentional discrimination.); Potomac Group Homes. Corp. v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 823 F.Supp. 1285, 1295(D.Md. 1993) ("An ostensibly benign justification for a challenged rule or regulation is irrelevant under a disparate treatment analysis. Thus, a plaintiff need not prove that a defendant was motivated by malice or prejudice in order to prevail on a claim of Intentional discrimination.")(Citations omitted.)The Supreme Court has made the same point in employment discrimination cases when it struck down an employer's exclusion of women of child bearing age from jobs that posed possible fetal risk to lead: [T]he absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy f into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect.Whether[a] a practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why [defendant] discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination. Automobile Workers v.Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199 (1991). 38.The courts recognize that mixed motives or intentions are common, especially with legislative decisions.They nevertheless hold them responsible for discriminatory intent. United States v. City of Parma, Ohio, 494 F.Supp. 1049, 1054(N.D.Ohio 1980),aff. as modified, 661 F.2d 562(6th Cir.) cert. denied 456 US 926(city's political decision"inevitably involve the consideration and balancing of numerous competing interests.").The FHA prohibits actions taken"because of a handicap."42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(1).It is enough if"handicap"was one of several reasons. E.g., Support Ministries v. Village of Waterford, 808 F.Supp. 120, 134, n. 5 (N.D.N.Y. 1992)("The plaintiffs evidence of discriminatory Intent, however, must demonstrate only that the HIV-infected status of the plaintiffs future [residents]was one factor, not the sole factor. . . .", quoting from Stewart B. McKinney Found.,Inc. v. Town Plan&Zoning Com'n, 790 F.Supp. at 1210-1211(D.Conn. 1992). Nta,ssachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmin... Page 1 of 4 v5 n2 Previous Story Next Story Section Review City of Worcester v. Bonaventura: Affirming the Police Power of Municipalities to Define "Family" in Zoning Matters By Donald V. Rider, Jr. Donald V. Rider, Jr. is an assistant city solicitor and the head of the civil litigation unit for the city of Worcester. He served as appellate counsel representing Worcester in the Bonaventura case. Nearly 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974), upheld against constitutional challenge'a municipality's ability to limit the number of unrelated persons living together in residential zoning districts by defining the word"family"to include only persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. This ability is derived from the police power. It is a power, so the Supreme Court declared, not confined to elimination of threats to the health or safety of the public, but instead expansive enough to provide for the blessings of quiet neighborhoods unburdened by overcrowding caused by unrelated persons living together in lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternities and the like. Thus, in Belle Terre, the Supreme Court examined a municipal zoning ordinance that limited a"family"to no more than two persons living together as a single housekeeping unit who were not related by blood, marriage or adoption, and held that that ordinance constitutionally prohibited the living together of six university students who were not related by blood, marriage or adoption. The nearly three decades since,the Belle Terre decision have seen state courts diverge on the constitutionality of zoning ordinances that seek to restrict the benefits of single-family zoning districts to persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. Hall v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Edgartown, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 249, 256 n.8 (1990). Specifically, the legal/biological concept of"family" upheld in Belle Terre has been competing with a functional concept of"family,"defined as unrelated persons who function together as a single housekeeping unit that reflects a certain level of stability, normality and permanence. These competing concepts of"family"once again found a litigational arena in the recent case of City of Worcester v. Bonaventura, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 166(2002). Bonaventura is a case that at once affirms the police power of municipalities to use the legal/biological concept in defining "family" in zoning matters, even as it illustrates some of the difficulties inherent in navigating the shoals of constitutional waters. Facts Bonaventura arose out of six complaints filed by the city of Worcester in the Housing Court for the county of Worcester. In those complaints, Worcester sought to permanently enjoin six condominium owners from operating their respective units as lodging houses without a special permit, as required in the general residential zone in which each owner's property was located. Each owner had received cease-and-desist orders issued by Worcester's zoning ordinance enforcement officers, who had determined that the owners were operating their units in violation of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. The orders had required the owners, within seven days after receipt of the orders, to cease and desist from operating their respective units as lodging houses and.to obtain a special permit from Worcester's zoning board of appeals, as http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-Worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em> Affirmin... Page 2 of 4 well as approval from Worcester's planning board plus building and occupancy permits. The six owners declined to obey the cease-and-desist orders, giving rise to the injunctive complaints filed by Worcester. Specifically, each condominium unit was being rented to four unrelated students attending the nearby College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. Each unit contained two or three bedrooms. The students in each unit were signatories to a lease for that unit,were jointly and severally liable for the rent of that unit, were responsible for their own heat and utilities in that unit, and possessed a key to their unit, of which they had full use inasmuch as the interior doors were not locked. Worcester's zoning ordinance defines a"lodging house" as: A dwelling or that part of a dwelling where sleeping accommodations are let, with or without kitchen facilities, to four(4)or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and.shall include rooming houses, boarding houses and tourist homes, but shall not include hotels, motels, inns, sorority, fraternity and cooperative residences, dormitories, or convalescent homes, nursing homes, rest homes, or group residences licensed or regulated by agencies of the Commonwealth. Thus, Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance does not contain the word"family." Decisions Housing Court The Housing Court examined the above-quoted definition of"lodging house" contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance, and declared it to be unconstitutionally vague. In particular, the Housing Court declared that Worcester, in proceeding with the enforcement actions against the.six condominium unit owners, had too narrowly construed the word"family" so as to exclude a group of four or more persons not within the second degree of kinship. The Housing Court opined that Worcester's reliance on biological relationship was at odds with the composition of a single housekeeping unit and engendered the possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In arriving at this opinion, the Housing Court decided that the students were tenants, not lodgers, because the students had the right to full possession of their respective units; and that the living arrangements in those units approximated the living arrangements of traditional families, such that the students in each unit formed a single housekeeping unit entitled to the same treatment as traditional families under Worcester's zoning ordinance. Appeals Court The Appeals Court vacated the Housing Court's declaration that the above-quoted definition of"lodging house" contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The Appeals Court first determined that the distinction between lodger and tenant,while not without precedent in Massachusetts law, was not dispositive in this case in view of a statutory provision, G.L. c. 186, R 17, which permits a lodger to obtain a possessory interest as a tenant at will as long as that lodger resides in the same place for three consecutive months. The Appeals Court next determined that Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was precise, inasmuch as that ordinance used words such as"dwelling,"which were elsewhere defined in the zoning ordinance. In particular, whereas the Housing Court had ruled that Worcester had too narrowly construed the word "family," the Appeals Court determined that the zoning ordinance elsewhere defined "family" as one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit"and living together as a single housekeeping unit, not including a group of more than three(3) persons who are not within second degree of kinship."Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house" zoning ordinance did not, in fact, itself contain the word "family,"the Appeals Court ruled that Worcester had clearly defined a"lodging house""as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family." Lastly, the Appeals Court determined that Worcester's definition of"family"was not an impermissible exercise of the police power. Citing Belle Terre, the Appeals Court stated that a municipality's police power may permissibly extend beyond the curing of urban blight to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the Appeals Court's view, the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to the legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em> Affirmin... Page 2 of 4 r well as approval from Worcester's planning board plus building and occupancy permits. The six owners declined to obey the cease-and-desist orders, giving rise to the injunctive complaints filed by Worcester. Specifically, each condominium unit was being rented to four unrelated students attending the nearby College of the Holy Cross in Worcester. Each unit contained two or three bedrooms. The students in each unit were signatories to a lease for that unit,were jointly and severally liable for the rent of that unit, were responsible for their own heat and utilities in that unit, and possessed a key to their unit, of which they had full use inasmuch as the interior doors were not locked. Worcester's zoning ordinance defines a"lodging house"as: A dwelling or that part of a dwelling where sleeping accommodations are let, with or without kitchen facilities, to four(4)or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include rooming houses, boarding houses and tourist homes, but shall not include hotels, motels, inns, sorority, fraternity and cooperative residences, dormitories, or convalescent homes, nursing homes, rest homes, or group residences licensed or regulated by agencies of the Commonwealth. Thus, Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance does not contain the word"family." Decisions Housing Court The Housing Court.examined the above-quoted definition of"lodging house"contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance, and declared it to be unconstitutionally vague. In particular, the Housing Court declared that Worcester, in proceeding with the enforcement actions against the six condominium unit owners, had too narrowly construed the word"family"so as to exclude a group of four or more persons not within the second degree of kinship. The Housing Court opined that Worcester's reliance on biological relationship was at odds with the composition of a single housekeeping unit and engendered the possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. In arriving at this opinion, the Housing Court decided that the students were tenants, not lodgers, because the students had the right to full possession of their respective units; and that the living arrangements in those units approximated the living arrangements of traditional families, such that the students in each unit formed a single housekeeping unit entitled to the same treatment as traditional families under Worcester's zoning ordinance. Appeals Court The Appeals Court vacated the Housing Court's declaration that the above-quoted definition of"lodging house" contained in Worcester's zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The Appeals Court first determined that the distinction between lodger and tenant,while not without precedent in Massachusetts law, was not dispositive in this case in view of a statutory provision, G.L. c. 186, R 17, which permits a lodger to obtain a possessory interest as a tenant at will as long as that lodger resides in the same place for three consecutive months. The Appeals Court next determined that Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was precise, inasmuch as that ordinance used words such as"dwelling,"which were elsewhere defined in the zoning ordinance. In particular, whereas the Housing Court had ruled that Worcester had too narrowly construed the word "family," the Appeals Court determined that the zoning ordinance elsewhere defined"family"as one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit"and living together as a single housekeeping unit, not including a group of more than three(3) persons who are not within second degree of kinship."Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house" zoning ordinance did not, in fact, itself contain the word "family,"the Appeals Court ruled that Worcester had clearly defined a"lodging house""as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family." Lastly, the Appeals Court determined that Worcester's definition of"family"was not an impermissible exercise of the police power. Citing Belle Terre, the Appeals Court stated that a municipality's police power may permissibly extend beyond the curing of urban blight to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the Appeals Court's view, the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to the legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 M., ssachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmiri... Page 3 of 4 Lessons from Bonaventura Several lessons of value to the land-use practitioner emerge from the Appeals Court's decision in Bonaventura, particularly as involving challenges to municipal zoning ordinances on constitutional grounds. First, the Appeals Court observed in a footnote that the Attorney General must be notified of challenges to the constitutionality of municipal ordinances,which typically occur in the context of declaratory judgment. G.L. c. 231A, 9 8; Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass.App. Ct. 215, 223 (1982). This notification requirement becomes only the more necessary when one notices the close similarity of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance to the commonwealth's statute governing lodging houses, G.L. c. 140, R 22. Section 22 defines a lodging house as"a house where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions ... ."A determination, such as had been made.by the Housing Court, that Worcester's ordinance is unconstitutionally vague would be tantamount to a like determination as to 1122. Next, the Appeals Court stressed the strong presumption of constitutional validity to which a municipality's zoning ordinance is entitled. Given that strong presumption of constitutionality, the Appeals Court continued, courts should be wary of declaring a municipality's zoning ordinance void for vagueness. Indeed, as the . Appeals Court stated, a municipality's zoning ordinance must be enforced, unless there is a showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ordinance conflicts with the Constitution or the enabling statute, Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975. The importation into zoning law of the criminal law's burden of proof only underscores the difficulty of establishing a zoning ordinance's unconstitutionality. Further, the Bonaventura decision illustrates the need to interpret zoning ordinance terms in the context of the zoning ordinance as a whole. Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance did not contain the word"family,"which the Housing Court found unconstitutionally vague, the Appeals Court noted that Worcester's zoning ordinance did elsewhere define the term"family"as well as the term"dwelling."Those terms were to be interpreted in conjunction with the"lodging house"zoning ordinance, yielding, in the Appeals Courts analysis, a clear definition of a"lodging house"as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family. It was that analysis by the Appeals Court that led it to conclude that nothing on the appellate record suggested Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was open to various interpretations and, hence, was unconstitutionally vague. Bonaventura serves, then, as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of vagueness. An ordinance is adequate to survive a vagueness challenge if, as in Bonaventura, it definitively describes the conduct that is proscribed; conversely, an ordinance is vague, and violates the due process right to fair notice of the proscribed conduct, only where persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Indeed,while the Bonaventura decision contains no mention of the language in the deeds for each of the condominium units at issue, those deeds, which had conveyed the units to the defendant owners, contained express language that each unit was intended for residential purposes only by one family or by not more than three unrelated persons..That deed language is, in effect, the language of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. The defendant owners were thus put on notice, at least as early as their respective dates of purchase, that theirunits were not to be used for more than three unrelated persons, i.e., were not to be used for lodging houses as defined by Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. Worcester's attempt to enforce that ordinance in Bonaventura was.an attempt to proscribe the very conduct that the defendant owners themselves, via their unit deeds, had already been put on prior notice to avoid. Accordingly, prior to mounting a vagueness challenge to a zoning ordinance, a careful examination of a client's deed, lease agreement or like document may well be warranted. But Bonaventura also serves as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of arbitrariness. When the Appeals Court, citing Belle Terre, determined that Worcester's definition of"family" was a permissible exercise of the police power extending to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods, it also determined that the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to this legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. In effect, then, the Appeals Court was determining that Worcester's ordinance was not arbitrary. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights dictates that legislation must bear a real and substantial relation to the http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 r - Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em> Affirmin... Page 3 of 4 Lessons from Bonaventura Several lessons of value to the land-use practitioner emerge from the Appeals Court's decision in Bonaventura, particularly as involving challenges to municipal zoning ordinances on constitutional grounds. First, the Appeals Court observed in a footnote that the Attorney General must be notified of challenges to the constitutionality of municipal ordinances,which typically occur in the context of declaratory judgment. G.L. c. 231A, R 8; Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass.App. Ct. 215, 223 (1982). This notification requirement becomes only the more necessary when one notices the close similarity of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance to the commonwealth's statute governing lodging houses, G.L. c. 140, 1122. Section 22 defines a lodging house as"a house where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions ... ."A determination, such as had been made by the Housing Court, that Worcester's ordinance is unconstitutionally vague would be tantamount to a like determination as to 131 22. Next, the Appeals Court stressed the strong presumption of constitutional validity to which a municipality's zoning ordinance is entitled. Given that strong presumption of constitutionality, the Appeals Court continued, courts should be wary of declaring a municipality's zoning ordinance void for vagueness. Indeed, as the Appeals Court stated, a municipality's zoning ordinance must be enforced, unless there is a showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the ordinance conflicts with the Constitution or the enabling statute, Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975. The importation into zoning law of the criminal law's burden of proof only underscores the difficulty of establishing a zoning.ordinance's unconstitutionality. Further, the Bonaventura decision illustrates the need to interpret zoning ordinance terms in the context of the zoning ordinance as a whole. Thus, although Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance did not contain the word"family,"which the Housing Court found unconstitutionally vague, the Appeals Court noted that Worcester's zoning ordinance did elsewhere define the term"family"as well as the term"dwelling."Those terms were to be interpreted in conjunction with the"lodging house"zoning ordinance, yielding, in the Appeals Court's analysis, a clear definition of a"lodging house"as a dwelling unit that is rented to four or more persons not constituting a family. It was that analysis by the Appeals Court that led it to conclude that nothing on the appellate record suggested Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance was open to various interpretations and, hence, was unconstitutionally vague. Bonaventura serves, then, as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of vagueness. An ordinance is adequate to survive a vagueness challenge if, as in Bonaventura, it definitively describes the conduct that is proscribed; conversely, an ordinance is vague, and violates the due process right to fair notice of the proscribed conduct, only where persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Indeed, while the Bonaventura decision contains no mention of the language in the deeds for each of the condominium units at issue, those deeds, which had conveyed the units to the defendant owners, contained express language that each unit was intended for residential purposes only by one family or by not more than three unrelated persons. That deed language is;in effect, the language of Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. The defendant owners were thus put on notice, at least as early as their respective dates of purchase, that their units were not to.be used for more than three unrelated persons, i.e., were not to be used for lodging houses as defined by Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance. Worcester's attempt to enforce that ordinance in Bonaventura was an attempt to proscribe the very conduct that the defendant owners themselves, via their unit deeds, had already been put on prior notice to avoid. Accordingly, prior to mounting a vagueness challenge to a zoning ordinance, a careful examination of a client's deed, lease agreement or like document may well be warranted. But Bonaventura also serves as an illustration of a due process challenge to an ordinance based on the ground of arbitrariness. When the Appeals Court, citing Belle Terre, determined that Worcester's definition of"family" was a permissible exercise of the police power extending to the preserving of the quiet character of neighborhoods, it also determined that the"lodging house"zoning ordinance's limitation of the number of unrelated people living together was rationally related to this legislative purpose of preservation of quiet neighborhoods. In effect, then, the Appeals Court was determining that Worcester's ordinance was not arbitrary. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights dictates that legislation must bear a real and substantial relation to the l http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : <em>City of Worcester v. Bonaventura:</em>Affirmin... Page 4 of 4 health, safety, morals or welfare of the public. In the judgment of the Appeals Court, Worcester's"lodging house"zoning ordinance met that constitutional dictate. Conclusion Ordinances employing the legal/biological concept of"family" such as was upheld in Belle Terre presume that occupancy of a single-family residence by a critical mass of persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption is antithetical to the public's health, safety or welfare. The thesis of such ordinances is that they preserve the character of single-family residential areas by reducing parking and traffic problems, by limiting population density and by lessening noise and disturbance. The burden of such ordinances is whether they constitute a means reasonably related to the ends sought. It may be, for example, that, in any given case, the legal/biological definition of"family"disserves the public's health, safety or welfare because, in that given case, the legal/biological family might generate as much parking and traffic problems, and as much noise and disturbance, as is generated by a functional family, defined as unrelated persons who function together as a single housekeeping unit that reflects a certain level of stability, normality and permanence. This tension between the legal/biological concept of"family"and the functional concept of"family" has marked the nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Belle Terre upheld a municipality's police power to define"family" using the former concept. The Appeals Court's decision in Bonaventura provides affirmation that the legal/biological concept of"family"endures under Massachusetts jurisprudence. 02017 Massachusetts Bar Association I i http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2003/v5-n2/city-of-worcester-v-bona... 5/11/2017 I Roma, Paul From:.. Ells, Mark Sent:,:,. Tuesday,April 25, 2017 7:57 AM Weil, Ruth; Roma, Paul;Jenkins, Elizabeth Cc : Milne, Mark; MacDonald, Paul; Clyburn,Andy Subject:` Questions from residents on 95 Chase Street Attachments: 95ChaseStreet2017.pdf Please find attached questions from residents regarding the above referenced property. Please review for further discussion and response. 1 My Name is Laura Wentzel,I live at 7 Harvard Street in Hyannis Ma and have been a Pesident of Hyannis for 19 years.It was recently brought to my attention last week that the corporation Homeless not Hopeless is in the process of buying 95 Chase Street to use as a GroupJEducational home faloomeless individuals and 1 Resident manager.This property at 95 Chase Street is 4 ho -'own from me. I,along vilh 26 concerned neighbors,have an extreme opposition against this type of group home going into our neighborhood.I'd like to list the concerns and ask for response and discussion from you all. 1. Does an organization such as this need town approval to operate this type of Business/Group home in a Residential neighborhood? 2. How do we as residents in this neighborhood find out where in the buying process this sales is at as well as what additional approvals they need in order to close on this house.....Such as zoning approval/Board of Health?It's my understanding that 9 Individuals(unrelated)will be living in a three bedroom home-does that comply with current zoning laws? 3. Why is a Business allowed to purchase property and operate as a corporation in a residential neighborhood? 4. Why were we as residents that surround 95 Chase Street properly notified of the intent of use for this property? 5. Are there laws in place to protect us from individuals that may pose a threat to our safety and wellbeing should they move into this property?We as a group have been exposed to high levels of anxiety and stress being imposed on us with this pending sale-especially 'for our children and elderly residents. 6_ Are there any laws preventing this type of group home from operating within a block of a School and have the parents of the children attending St Francis been notified? 7. Do we have the right as neighbors to be educated on the background of the proposed individuals that will be living in this home should the sale go through? Other concerns we as a collective group of 26 and growing-would like to voice: 1. The devaluation of our -especially for those who rent as a source of income for property their families. 2. Tax exempt status of this organization-how does the `tax exemprl status of this organization effect our tax rate-do we pay more to cover them?We need a limit on the amount of nonprofit organizations in our village-how do start that process? 3. Why are all this organizations group homes within a 2 mile radius of our neighborhood?is there a process to introduce a bylaw to limit these types of homes within a 10-15 mile radius of each other? f Massachusetts Bar Association : Zoning: The Dover Amendment Page 1 of 4 -g,Z �x v87 0 Previous Story Next Story Massachusetts Law Review Zoning: The.Dover Amendment Martin v. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints In,Martin v. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints1 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court again weighed in on the scope and applicability of the Dover Amendment, which exempts religious uses and structures from certain local zoning restrictions.2 While this decision in itself may not be surprising or groundbreaking, the decision rearticulated with vigor the judiciary's role in religious matters, and rekindled the long-standing debate in Massachusetts over whether the Dover , Amendment is an accommodation to the First Amendment's right of free exercise of religion or a breach of its establishment.clause. Facts In 1996, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proposed to build a 94,000-square-foot temple, having, a roof height of 58 feet, and six spires and towers on top of temple, ranging in height from 24 feet to 98 feet.3 The proposed temple, which was to be constructed on a 9-acre parcel of land in Belmont, fully complied with the.town of Belmont zoning bylaw(the"bylaw") except with regard to the height of the proposed spires. Under the bylaw, the church had the right by special permit to construct spires on top of the temple with a height of only 11 feet, 2 inches.4 The church applied to the town of Belmont Zoning Board of Appeals (the"board")for a determination that(i)the height requirements contained in the bylaw did not apply to the spires pursuant to the. Dover Amendment, and, in the alternative, (ii) to obtain a special permit, as permitted under the bylaw, for the. construction of the spires.5 While the church's application was pending before the board, but before the board issued its decision, the church submitted a revised proposal, reducing the area of the temple to 68,000 square feet, with a roof height of 56 feet and containing only one 83-foot-high steeple on top of the roof.6 After numerous public hearings, the board decided in 1997 that the proposed spire was reasonable"as a Dover'type regulation of height," and, therefore, exempt from the relevant height regulations.?The board at the.. same time also granted.the church a special permit, based on the board's determination that the spire's benefitsto the town outweighed any adverse effects on the town.8 Four neighbors of the proposed temple challenged the board's decision by appeal to the Superior Court. While the-church contested the standing of the neighbors to bring their appeal, both the Superior Court, and Ultimately the Supreme Judicial Court, determined that at least one of the plaintiff-neighbors had standing because of the extreme"visual impact" of the proposed steeple, a concern which the bylaw required be taken into consideration by the board.9 In a lengthy and sometimes shockingly blunt decision, the Superior Court stated that the Dover Amendment did not apply to the construction of the proposed spire because it was not a"necessary element of the Mormon W'2 ion" and did not aid in the Mormon's system of faith because (i)the presence or height of the temple spire not a matter of religious principle or doctrine; (ii) religious activities would not take place in the spire; and (iii)the church members' ability to practice their religion did not depend on the height or presence of the spire.10 The Superior Court further found that even if the Dover Amendment was applicable, the church had http!//www.massbar.org/publications/massachusetts-law-review/2003/v87-n3/zoning-the-d... 4/25/2017 1: r `Massachusetts Bar Association : Zoning: The Dover Amendment Page 2'of 4 failed to meet its burden to show that the height restriction was unreasonable as applied to the proposed steeple.11 Discussion On appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court(SJC), the court found significant flaws in the Superior Court's determination as to the applicability of the Dover Amendment in general, as well as.its application of the Dover-_ Amendment to the specific facts presented. The Dover Amendment states, in relevant part, No.zoning ordinance or By-law shall . . . prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes . . provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space,:.,;.;;:;;;, parking and.building coverage requirements.12 The SJC began its dissection of the Superior Court's decision by reiterating its opinion in Trustees of Tufts,- :College v. Medfordl3 that the Dover Amendment applies to religious use of land or structures as a whole,and not to religious use of an element or part of a structure.14 The Court found that"[t]o view each element, each, section of a 'structure,'as requiring an independent'religious' use leads to impossible results: Is a church- kitchen or a church parking lot a 'religious' use ?"15 The religious use of the proposed spire, therefore, should `not be viewed separately from the proposed use of the temple, even though the temple, save for the proposed steeple, had been fully constructed by the time of the Superior Court's decision.16 Second, the SJC noted that the Superior Court erred in determining that the structure did not serve a "necessary element of the Mormon religion,"17 because the Superior Court could not, according to the SJC, enquire beyond whether the structure served a religious purpose, necessary or otherwise.18 The court's determination that temples"are places where Mormons conduct their sacred ceremonies"was the correct and only inquiry that should have been made by the Superior Court.19 To do otherwise, according to the SJC, would impede upon the church's First Amendment protections.20 Next the SJC rejected the Superior Court's determination that the bylaw's height requirements were not unreasonable with regard to the proposed use and concluded that the Superior Court erred in considering only hether the height restriction prevented or diminished the temple's religious Usefulness."21 The SJC stated thata requirement could be deemed unreasonable if it(i)detracted from the usefulness of a structure; (ii) imposed excessive costs; or(iii) impaired the character of the proposed structure.22 Focusing on whetherthe height restriction impaired the character of the structure, the SJC stated that the trial judge was required to take intoaconsideration the"special characteristics"of the use and confirmed that aesthetics and architectural beauty, attributes mistakenly dismissed as irrelevant by the Superior Court, are appropriate factors to be considered in determining whether restrictions would impair the character of the proposed exempt use.23 The Dover.Amendment, according to the SJC, prohibits the application of a zoning requirement that would "'distu'b th`e:sense of a building's continuity'and ruin its'architectural integrity."'24 The SJC further stated that while`',` religious doctrine and symbolism may be relevant in determining the special character of a use, it is not the central test, and it is not appropriate for the judiciary to determine what is or is not religious doctrine.25 The SJC,found ample evidence within the record, which was uncontroverted at the trial, that the temple was constructed on a prototypical architectural design used throughout the country by the church. The design used by the church, in addition to other attributes, includes one or more steeples incorporating the church's.regard'. for the"ascendancy of space"for religious ceremonies performed in temples.26 Based on these facts, the SJC found that the steeple was clearly "integral to the specific character of the contemplated use."27 The SJC concluded its discussion by agreeing with the local zoning board that the application of the bylaw'sx height restriction to the proposed steeple served no municipal concern, and that the exemption sought by the ch'urch was reasonable in light of the significance of the steeple itself and in conjunction with the temple as a w,koie.28 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 As important as what the SJC decided in Martin, is what it did not decide. Specifically, because the SJC found i.m vor of the church and ruled that the Dover Amendment precluded the application of the height regulation_, it h�,p //www.massbar.org/publications/massachusetts-law-review/2003/v87-0/zoning-the-d... 4/25/2017 Massachusetts Bar Association : Zoning: The Dover Amendment Page'3 of 4 '-`deferred consideration of the church's contention that the height restriction as applied to the steeple violated ' the uncharted waters of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).29' RLUIPA, which was enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court's decisions declaring unconstitutional the Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA), prohibits government from imposing or implementing "a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a',person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."30 To avoid questions 'regarding Congress' authority to pass laws such as RLUIPA, a problem that contributed to the quick demise of RFRA, Congress limited the scope of RLUIPA to situations where the substantial burden "(A) . . . is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; (B) . . . affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian Tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or(C) . . . in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a' government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make; individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved."31 RLUIPA also expressly prohibits the implementation of any land use regulation that(i) "treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non-religious assembly or institution;" (ii)"discriminates :,,against any.assembly or institution on the basis-of religion or religious denomination;" (iii)"totally excludes; religious assemblies from a jurisdiction;"or(iv)"unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction."32 Although the federal courts have not yet either embraced or given last rites to RLUIPA, its potential to wreak havoc with zoning and land use regulations is clear and has the potential to quickly overshadow the conventional Dover Amendment debate in Massachusetts. Land-use laws, especially historic-preservation:' laws,which appear to fall within the jurisdiction of RLUIPA, are not often found by the courts to serve a compelling governmental interest. .41 Peter A. Spellios 1%:434 Mass. 141 (2001). back 2,,Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A§ 3 (second paragraph) (2003). back 3:Martin v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Belmont, No. 97-2596, Slip op. at 8 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Feb. 22, Z;gDO).. back 4-..:See id. at 9. back 5, See id. at 7-8. back '6 Id at 8. back 7,Nartin v. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 434 Mass. 144, 144 (2001). back 6;86e' id. The board relied on § 7.4.2 of the Town of Belmont Zoning bylaw in making this determination. Id.,at 1'46:9. back 9:J at 146. back 10. Martin v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Belmont, No. 97-2596, slip op. at 29 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Feb 22' 2000). back = ex; .- 11: Id. (citing Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753, 757 (1993)). back 12 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, §3, para. 2. back ht`//www.massbar.org/publications/massachusetts-law-review/2003/v87-n3/zoning-the-d... 4/25/2,017 Massachusetts Bar Association : Zoning: The Dover Amendment Page 4'of 4 .13,415 Mass. 755, 755 (1993) (holding that a parking garage was for educational use because it was located.in "core area"of the campus). back ,1:4:.:See Martin, 434 Mass. at 149. back U 15 Id. at 150. back 16. Id. at 149 n.18 Only the proposed steeple was pending before the board and the Superior Court. Id. at 149. back 17, Id. back .1 Id. (citing to Employment Div., Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 US 872, 887 .(1990) ("we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.")). back 19. Martin, 434 Mass. at 150. back 21. Id. at 151. back 22-. Id. (citing Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753, 759-60(1993)). back 23. Id. (citing Tufts, at 758-59, and Campbell v. City of Lynn, 415 Mass. 772, 778 (1993)). back 24: Id. at 152 (citing Petrucci v. Board of Appeals of Westwood, 45 Mass. App.,Ct. 818, 826-27 (1998)). back 25, Id. at 152-53. back 26;ld. at 152. back 27 Id. back 28.:,Id..at 153. back 29. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(2003). back 30. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1). See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (declaring RFRA unconstitutional), back 31. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(2) (emphasis added). See Boerne, 521 U.S. at 532 (holding RFRA was improper under§5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the jurisdictional basis on which ,. Congress passed RFRA, because it was"so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object.that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior. It appears, instead, to attempt a substantive change in constitutional protections."). back 32. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b). back ©2017 Massachusetts Bar Association http://www.massbar.org/publications/massachusetts-law-review/2003/v87-n3/zoning-the-d... 4/25/2017 Dover Amendment- Wikipedia Page 1 of 1 Dover Amendment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Dover Amendment is the common name for Massachusetts General Law(MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 3. This law exempts agricultural, religious, and educational corporations from certain zoning restrictions. It allows a structure that provides certain services to ignore local zoning laws and build the facility it needs to provide those services. The Dover Amendment allows many developers to build facilities that are substantially larger than zoning laws would ordinarily allow or which would be considered inappropriate, by some, for the neighborhood. Considered by many to be overly broad, the exemption granted by the Dover Amendment has been narrowed somewhat by recent court decisions. While a corporation must merely be nonprofit and legally able to engage in educational activities to be considered a "nonprofit educational corporation," the actual use of a particular facility must have education as the "primary or dominant purpose" to qualify for Dover protection. See Whitinsville Retirement Society, Inc. v. Northbridge, 394 Mass. 757, 760 (1985.) Exemptions It is unclear if the city of Boston is exempt from the Dover Amendment. The Boston Globe has referred to an exemption for the city on occasion. The city of Cambridge passed an exemption in 1981 removing Harvard University from Dover protection, because Harvard was Cambridge's largest land owner. Notes EXternal links The Dover Amendment online (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/40a-3.htm) Retrieved from "https:Hen.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dover Amendment&oldid=545688168"- Categories: Massachusetts statutes Zoning This page.was last modified on 20 March 2013, at 14:00. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms.< may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. http§iHen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover—Amendment 4/25/26'17 USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION S 7'0 C-- / SECTION 310 310.2 Definitions.The following words and terms shall,for the RESIDENTIAL GROUP R purposes of this section and as used elsewhere in this code, 310.1 Residential Group R. Residential Group R includes, have the meanings shown herein. among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion BOARDING HOUSE.A building arranged or used for lodg- thereof,for sleeping purposes when not classified as an Institu- ing for compensation,with or without meals,and not occupied tional Group I or when not regulated by the International Resi- as a single-family unit. dential Code in accordance with Section 101.2, Residential CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES.A building or part occupancies shall include the following: thereof that contains sleeping units where residents share bath- R-1 Residential occupancies containing sleeping units where room and/or kitchen facilities. the occupants are primarily transient in nature,including: DORMITORY. A space in a building where group sleeping Boarding houses(transient) accommodations are provided in one room, or in a series of Hotels(transient) closely associated rooms,for persons not members of the same Motels(transient) family group,under joint occupancy and single management, Congregate living facilities (transient) with LA or fewer as in college dormitories or fraternity houses. occupants are permitted to comply with the construction PERSONAL CARE SERVICE.The care of residents who do requirements for Group R-3. not require chronic or convalescent medical,or nursing care. R-2Residemtial occupancies containing sleeping units or more Personal care involves responsibility for the safety of the resi- than two dwelling units where the occupants are primarily per- dent while inside the building. manent in nature,including: RESIDENTIAL CARE/ASSISTED LIVING FACILI- TIES.A building or part thereof housing persons,on a 24-hour Apartment houses basis,who because of age,mental disability or other reasons, Boarding houses(nontransient) / live in a supervised residential environment which provides Convents _ personal care services.The occupants are capable of respond- Dormitories �� a ing io an emergency situation without physical assistance from S Fraternities and sororities staff.This classification shall include,but not be limited to,the Hotels(nontransient) following:residential board and care facilities,assisted living Live/work units facilities,halfway houses,group homes,congregate care facili- Monasteries CAD 0 ties,social rehabilitation facilities,alcohol and drug abuse cen- Motels(nontransient) ters and convalescent facilities. Vacation timeshar cUontimeshar e properities`,A S�c q `J- TRANSIENT.Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit Congregate laving facilities with 16 or fewer occupants are for not more than 30 days. permitted to comply with the construction requirements for Group R-3. R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primar- SECTION 311 �ily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1,R-2, STORAGE GROUP S R-4 or 1,including: S`C C G O 311.1 Storage Group S.Storage Group S occupancy includes, Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units. among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion Adult care facilities that provide accommodations for five thereof,for storage that is not classified as a hazardous occu- or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours. panty. Child care facilities that provide accommodations for five or 311.2 Moderate-hazard storage, Group S-1. Buildings fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours. occupied for storage uses that are not classified as Group S-2, Congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer persons. including,but not limited to,storage of the following: Adult care and child care facilities that are within a sin- Aerosols,Levels 2 and 3 gle-family home are permitted to comply with the Interna- Aircraft hangar(storage and repair) tional Residential Code. Bags:cloth,burlap and paper R-4 Residential occupancies shall include buildings arranged Bamboos and rattan for occupancy as residential care/assisted living facilities Baskets including more than five but not more than 16 occupants, Belting:canvas and leather excluding staff. Books and paper in rolls or packs Boots and shoes Group R-4 occupancies shall meet the requirements for con- Buttons,including cloth covered,pearl or bone - struction as defined for Group R-3, except as otherwise pro- Cardboard and cardboard boxes vided for in this code or shall comply with the International Clothing,woolen wearing apparel Residential Code provided the building is protected by an auto- Cordage 1 matic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section Dry boat storage(indoor) ' 903.2.7. Furniture � bU54�_f 5 C 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE® 35 r%. 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 3.00: continued _ 308.3.1 Revise this definition as follows: CHILD CARE FACILITIES. Facilities that provide care on a 24-hour basis to more than five children,two years nine months of age or less. 3085.2 Replace as follows: 308.5.2 Child Care Facility. A facility that provides supervision and personal care on less than a 24-hour basis for more than five children two years nine months of age or less shall be classified as Group I-4. . Exceptions: 1. A child day care facility that provides care for more than five but no more than 100 children two years nine months of age or less,where the rooms in which the children are cared for are located on a level of exit discharge serving such rooms and each of these child care rooms has an exit door directly to the exterior,shall be classified as Group E. 2. See use group R-2 or R-3 for a day care with six to ten children. Also see M.G.L.c. 15D. ` 310.1 R-2 Add to the list of occupancies: Summer Camps for Children(see section 426) 310.1 R-2 Add these two paragraphs: Child care facilities which comply with M.G.L.c. 15D,and that provide accommodations for ten or fewer children of any age for less than 24 hours are permitted in dwelling units of an i R-2 building. R-2 occupancies include facilities regulated by the Department of Mental Health that are in conformance with the occupant safety requirements of 115 CMR 7.00: Standards for All Services and Supports. 310.2 R-3 Replace as follows: R-3 Residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as Group R-1,R-2,R-4 or I,including: Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units. Adult care facilities that provide accommodations for five or fewer persons of any age for less than 24 hours. Child care facilities,which comply with M.G.L.c.15D,which provide accommodations for ten or fewer children of any age for less than 24 hours,in a dwelling unit of a one or two dwelling unit building. Such dwelling units for child care facilities are permitted to comply with the 780 CMR One-.and Two-Family Dwellings. Congregate living facilities with 16 or fewer persons. Adult care and child care facilities and residences within a one family dwelling or units of a two family dwelling are permitted to comply-with the 780 CMR One-and Two-Family Dwellings. Townhouses(three or more attached dwelling units)more than three stories in height.Height and area and fire protection requirements for townhouses shall be restricted to those for R-2 uses. (Note: Townhouses three stories or less are also classified as R-3 but shall comply with the 780 CMR One-and Two-family Dwellings.) r Residences with five or fewer occupants that are operated or licensed by the Massachusetts ,.. ., Department of Developmental Services shall comply with the 780 CMR One-and Two-family ` Dwellings. R-3 occupancies include facilities regulated by the Department of Mental Health that are in conformance with the occupant safety requirements of H 5 CMR 7.00: Standards for All Services and Supports. 1:. 310.2 Add or revise definitions as follows: 8/6/10 780 CMR-Eighth Edition-30 780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 3.00: continued BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used as a "lodging house" as defined in M.G.L.c. 140, §22. CONGREGATE LIVLG FACILITIES. A building or part thereof that contains sleeping units where residents'share bathroom and/or kitchen facilities. Such facilities may include exempted facilities noted in M.G.L.c. 140,§22. RESIDENTIAL CARE/ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES.Addthis last sentence and Note: Assisted living-facilities shall conform with this code and M.G.L.c.19D as administered by the Executive Office of Elder Affairs. For building code purposes portions of assisted living residences which are used for any use.other than R Use shall be classified,designed and constructed in accordance for their intended use. Note. This occupancy includes such facilities regulated by the Department of Mental Health that are in conformance with the occupant safety requirements of 115 CMR 7.00: Standards for All Services and Supports. SUMMER CAMPS FOR eHILDREN. Premises with residential facilities operated solely between April and October for recreational and other purposes. For requirements see section 426. 312.2 Add subsection: '312.2 Agricultural Buildings. Agricultural buildings shall be exempt from the provisions otherwise applicable to use Group U buildings,but shall be governed by the provisions set forth in Appendix C. 8/6/10 780 CMR-Eighth Edition-31 Roma, Paul Frorri: : Ells, Mark Sent Tuesday,April 25, 2017 6:43 AM To: Weil, Ruth; Roma, Paul;Jenkins, Elizabeth Cc: Milne, Mark;Andy Clyburn Subject: Fwd: 95 Chase Street - Pending sale for HnH Sent from my Verizon.,Samsung Galaxy smartpllone - ------ Original message -------- From: Jen Cullum<j.enlcullum@yahoo.com> Date: 4/25/17 6:09 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Susan Dubuc <swharwich@aol.com>, cape33@verizon.net Cc: ekul@comcast.net, ireneaylmer@yahoo.com, trishconti@live.com, kmmanning43@yahoo.com, sandb4r6@verizon.net,janet@capecodcutie.com,jcccod@verizon.net,noni11048@aol.com, onr'rarchant44 mail.com;bobb3712 mail.com dstewart cccd or richards toda realestate com`" J @g @g � @ p• g, P • @ Y frusttat@aol.com,petecrosscape@gmail.com, kjatwe1122@gmail.com, billoncapecod@verizon.net, await@comcast.net, awniking@comcast.net, k.awalt@yahoo.com, aelms@comcast.net, suecomer@comcast.net,jjulius@todayrealestate.com, RDePaula@todayrealestate.com, ltftmc@hotmail.com, capedeb20@comcast.net, gino8203@gmail.com,paulo@kandykorner.com, nick@ricciolawoffice.com, GeraldMalloy@aol.com, Mark Ells<mark.ells@town.barnstable.ma.us>, "James H. Crocker Jr." <wiannore@verizon.net> Subject: Re: 95 Chase Street- Pending sale for HnH I just wanted to say thank you to all those who took the time to come to the Homelessness Committee Meeting yesterday. Your message was loud and clear-and I promise to follow up on the questions posed to the Mark Ells, our Town Manager. Some of them are legal in nature, and will,likely be passed on to our Town Attorney in order to give you the best and most accurate answer. In my experience-the attorney for HNH is accurate: because of the nature of their program, they trump all zoning. And Y.ES- I understand how exasperating that is. In the time that I have been a town councilor, I have seen Hyannis finally grow into a role of protecting itself and directing its future, after years and years of letting its future be determined by the business plans of others. It is a long and arduous process,;because we are challenging a concept that has been accepted as reality: that Hyannis is the last stop on the bus for services, when in fact it should be A stop on the bus, not the only one. My hope is that you will all remain determined to speak your minds about the wholesaling of our community. The pyramid is upside down. Other towns needs to.share our:,burden with regard to the social responsibility we all share: caring for those less fortunate. I_.wouid`:like to schedule a meeting through Deb Krau at the GHCA with the town manager as I know there are many concerns left unheard..I will check his availability and get right back. PLEASE REMEMBER THERE IS A TOWN COUNCIL MEETING THIS THURSDAY AT 7 PM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF�THE TOWN HALL. I URGE YOU TO COME AND SHARE YOUR CONCERNS. Jen Cullum 1 Un Monday, April 24, 2017 5:43 AM, Susan Dubuc <swharwich@aol.com>wrote: Hello, NIy flame is Susan Dubuc. I am the property owner of 52 Harvard St. My home is situated adjacent to 95 Chase St abutting the garage and driveway. A live'with my two children, 9th and I Oth grade, who are students at the technical schoolin Harwich. l:had Owned.a home in Harwich and after a painful split from their father, I made a choice to sell and move to be close:to.work so I could regroup, save invest and move on. I purchased this home in 2013. I had considered renting but advised to invest...money in the bank when you own.a home...and my mortgage was considerably less=than.any rental. I could find with two kids and a dog. This neighborhood was familiar to me. Having schools and retired individuals with a neighborhood watch in place I felt it was reasonable to invest in this home. When I purchased this home it was temporary. I knew if 1 could cut comers , clear my debts and make my credit_score the best ever..I could sell and go back to Il:arwich to where my children plan to make their future. I have;worked.so hard to make this happen. I feel like someone came up behind.me and hit me with a sledgehammer. I am depending on the sale of my home to accomplish my goal which.:[was hoping to market in 2018. Who out here believes I will be able to do that now? 8 men with uncertain circumstances.... N w :a worry...the safety of my children are of extreme concern. I work at the hospital...have for 31 years. ]'he job I have has an on.call.requirement . Being available at all hours of the night...can you imagine the. feeling of be watched as I go or when I return....my children home alone...my dog will.bark with the noise of so many"people next store who will certainly be outdoors and want to be social...I get that-but for my situation this is.nerve racking. You know frill well the boundaries are lifted the moment you say hello or my dog wags his tail 4 Neighbors...8 men ...with uncertain circumstances. I am scared... My nights are sleepless...this is just to close for comfort. Being on.high alert will create an imaginable stress. l feel.my children and job may suffer for it. I am trying to look for anything remotely positive to relate to this situation. .but I just don't see one. Walking back and forth.to my car....walking my dog... mowing my lawn...I know that 8 men with uncertain circumstances will be watching.... Sent from my Pad On Apr 23, 2017, at 12:07 PM, cape33Ca)_verizon.net wrote: That's a great point to add to the list Ed -thank you! .Irene-one other point is to find out if and when HnH needs to have town approval for this type of purchase to be final. Technically they are a business/Corporation going into a Residential neighborhood. Here is the corporate listing — only one director from Hyannis!! Other info is available on the states corporations website. We may want to contact the directors to express our concern, not sure if we should wait until we secure an attorney for that- any thoughts? I wonder why the Directors/Officers do not look in their own communitiesNillages for 2 these homes to go??? Today they have 1 house on Main St, 1 on Dumont St, 2 on Ocean buf we is being let go and one on Baxter(corporate office and home)- ALL located in Hyannis'(2 mile radius of our neighborhood). HOMELESS NOT HOPELESS, INC. Entity type: Nonprofit Corporation Identification Number: 260604808 Old ID Number: Date of Organization in Massachusetts: 10- 01-2007 Last date certain: -Current Fiscal Month/Day: 09/30 Previous Fiscal Month/Day: 09/30 The location of the Principal Office in Massachusetts: Address: 119 BAXTER ROAD City or town, State, Zip code, HYANNIS, MA 02601 USA Country: The name and address of the Resident Agent: Name: Address: City or town, State, Zip,code, Country: The Officers and Directors of the Corporation: e PRESIDENT JEFFREY HOWELL 144 ROUND COVE ROAD CHATHAM, 10-15- MA 026.33 USA 2018.. . TREASURER RICHARD MURPHY 30 ARBOR WAY HYANNIS, MA 02601 10-15- . USA 2018 CLERK RACHEL CAREY-HARPER 10 DOCTOR LORDS ROAD DENNIS, 10-15- MA 02638 USA 2018 DIRECTOR RACHEL CAREY-HARPER 10 DOCTOR LORDS ROAD DENNIS, 10-15 MA 02638 USA 2018 3 DIRECTOR PETER L. FREEMAN 233 OAKMONT ROAD CUMMAQUID, 04-17 MA 02637 USA 2017 DIRECTOR LAURIE SEXTON 916E UNIT D, ROUTE 28 HARWICH, 01-15- MA 02601 USA 2018 DIRECTOR RICHARD LEJAVA 154 KNOTTY PINE LANE 01-15- CENTERVILLE, MA 02632 USA 2018: .DIRECTOR JONATHAN ANHQUIST 16 CARDINAL ROAD SANDWICH, MA 01-21- 02563 USA 2019 DIRECTOR RICHARD MURPHY 30 ARBOR WAY HYANNIS, MA 02601 10-15- '. USA 2018 , DIRECTOR JEFFREY HOWELL 144 ROUND COVE ROAD CHATHAM, 10=15_ MA 02633 USA 2018 DIRECTOR JOSEPH REARDON 132 PLEASNT PINES AVENUE CENTERVILLE, MA 02632 USA `Other info is available on the states corporations website. We may want to contact the directors to ,express our concern, not sure if we should wait until we secure an attorney for that? Today they have 1 house on Main St, 1 on Dumont St, 2 on Ocean but one is being let go and one on Baxter :.(corporate office and home)-ALL located in Hyannis (2 mile radius of our neighborhood). Laura -----Original Message----- From: Ed Kulha <ekulCc),comcast.net> To: cape33 <cape33Ca)_verizon.net>; ireneaylmer<ireneaylmer aC)yahoo.com>; trishconti <trishcontiCa)live.com>; kmmanning43 <kmmanning43CcDVahoo.com>; sandbar6 <sandbar6 a verizon.net>;janet<janet a.capecodcutie.com>;jcccod <jcccod(a�verizon.net>; noni11048'. <noni11048CcDaol.com>;jonmarchant44 <jonmarchant44Pg mail.com>; bobb3712 <bobb3712Cc)_gmail.com>; dstewart <dstewart(a_cccdp.orq>; prichards <prichards(cDtodayrealestate.corni> frustrat<frustrat .aol.com>; council <council town.barnstable.ma.us>; tctinsley p °{ <tctinsley(d_)hotmail.com>; petecrosscape <petecrosscapeCa)_g mail.com>; kjatwe1122 <k0atwell22 gmail.com>; billoncapecod <billoncapecod-Averizon.net>; awalt<awalt aC)comcast.net>; swharwich <swharwich(a)aol.com>; awniking <awniking 0)-comcast.net>;k.awalt<k.awaltCcDyahoo.com>; aelms <aelms(a)-comcast.net>; suecomer<suecomerCa)_comcast.net>;jjulius <jjulius cr.todayrealestate.com>; RDePaula <RDePaula(a.todayrealestate.com>; Itftmc <ltftmc(a)hotmail.com>; capedeb20 <capedeb20Qcomcast.net>;jenlcullum <jenlcullum(a_yahoo.com>; gino8203 <gino8203Ca wail.com>; Paulo <pauloa_kandykorner.com>; nick<nick(a)_ricciolawoffice.com> Sent: Sun, Apr 23, 2017 11:40 am Subject: RE: 95 Chase Street- Pending sale for HnH An additional concern; Such "facilities" often have no bounds for hours of operation; even rental ; properties stress stern warnings in their leases about respect for neighbors especiallyfulktime� residents regarding limits of parking, #of cars and 10PM quiet time. From: cape33 _verizon.net [mailto:cape33a_verizon.netl Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 10:20 AM To: ireneayimer(a)yahoo.com; trishconti&live.com; km man ning43Sa)yahoo.com; sandbar6a-verizon.net; ianetacapecodcutie.com; icccoda-verizon.net; noni11048(a)aol.com. jonmarchant44Ca).g mail.com; bobb3712a-g mail.com; dstewart _cccdp.orq; prichardsCa_todayrealestate.com; frustrat(.@_aol.com; council(a)town.barnstable.ma.us; tctinsley(a)hotmaii.com; petecrosscape(aD-gmail.com; kjatwell22Ca)_gmail.com; billoncapecod a.verizon.net; awalt(a)com cast.net; swharwich(cDaol.com; awn iking .comcast.net k.awalt nahoo.com; ekul(a)com cast.net; aelms(a)com cast.net; suecom er(d-)com cast.net, 4 iiuliusCaD-todayrealestate.com: RDePaula(o-)-todayrealestate.com; Itftmc .hotmail.com; capedeb20Cd_)com cast.net; ienlcullum(a)-yahoo.com; gino8203Cc_g mail.com; paulo(_)kandykorner.com; nick(d-)ricciolawoffice.com Subject: Re: 95 Chase Street - Pending sale for Hn1H Irene, Thank you for informing us of your meeting with Dick Murphy of Homeless not Hopeless.) for one will be very interested in the outcome and information you get from the meeting. If anyone has specific concerns that they'd like Irene to mention at her meeting please reply all so Irene can raise the points tomorrow. My Concerns: What are the backgrounds of the individuals moving in? Why were we as a neighborhood not made aware of the intent for this property. Neighbors are concerned for their well-being especial elderly resident and Children that live around the intended property. There is serious concern for their safety and health. The devaluing of our property-especially those that rent for the summer months and are directly across form this property. How do you think potential renters that come to the cape for a week will review their homes after they post their review on VRBO or other sites?These residents purchased these properties because they are in a nice neighborhood -a group home across the street could effect all of our financial well being. Over crowding a single family home with 9 people-this is a 3 bedroom house. HnH -will not pay taxes-thus shifting the tax burden for those who do. This is a major problem'in our .village now and keeps getting bigger. Why do they not look to other villages as future sites for these homes?We do not accept the excuse of town sewer and location to public transportation.....many villages offer those requirements. This property is One block from a school - how would those parents feel if they knew this. We will inform them if we are forced to. Where will 8 cars park or visitors of those resident park?That is a corner house with stop signs, parked, cars on the road would cause a danger to traffic. What stress would 9 individuals living in one house pose to our sewer system? There are already 3 HnH properties within a 2 miles radius of our neighborhood - please tell him he needs. to reconsider 95 Chase Street as we are not for the use of this property as a group home in our neighborhood. Those are my main concerns- I'll ask others to also add to this list. Irene, we are also in the process of seeking legal representation to fight this- I know your views are different and please understand we all respect individuals point of view. I thank you again for you effort in reaching out this group. Laura -=---Original Message----- From: Irene Aylmer<ireneaylmer(a)yahoo.com> To: cape33 <cape33 aO.verizon.net>; trishconti <trishconti(o)-live.com>; kmmanning43 <kmmanning43(ayahoo.com>; sandbar6 <sandbar6(a-verizon.net>;janet <ianet()capecodcutie.com>; jcccod <jcccod(D_verizon.net>; noni11048 <noni11048(a�aol.com>;jonmarchant44 <jonmarchant44(a)-g mail.com>; bobb3712 <bobb3712(a-),g mail.com>; dstewart<dstewart(d_)cccdp.org>; prichards <prichards(a�todayrealestate.com>; frustrat<frustrat ,aol.com>; council <council _town.barnstable.ma.us>; tctinsley <tctinsley(c)hotmail.com>; petecrosscape <petecrosscape(a)_gmail.com>; kjatwe1122 <k*atwe1122Ca gmail.com>; billoncapecod <billoncapecod(a)_verizon.net>; awalt<awalt(a)comcast.net>; swharwich <swharwich(a)_aol.com>; awniking <awni king(c)-comcast.net>; k.awalt<k.awalt(a-)_yahoo.com>; ekul <ekul(a)comcast.net>; aelms <aelms(a-)-comcast.net>; suecomer<suecomer(c-)comcast.net>;Julius <iouliusa-todayrealestate.com>; RDePaula <RDePaula(cD-todayrealestate.com>; Itftmc<ItftmcQ_hotmail.com>; capedeb20 <capedeb20(a)comcast.net>;jenlcullum <ien611um(a)_yahoo.com>; gino8203 <gino8203(a-)gmail.com>; 5 Paulo <paulo(cDkandykorner.com> Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 9:36 pm Subject: Re: 95 Chase Street- Pending sale for HnH I will be going to the Homelessness Council meeting and will be talking with Dick Murphy of HNH on Monday. I will certainly tell Dick of our neighborhood's viewpoints. I have received phone calls from neighbors who are sensitive to the needs of the homeless, want to do the right thing, and also, like most of us, feel that Hyannis is getting all the responsibility for"being our neighbors' keepers." I do like John's suggestions of no more than one group home per village or square mile. The regulations about number of people/ non relatives in a rental but not in a group home is something we could use. I would also suggest that we push the public transportation issue (which people on MASS Health get cheaper rates) as well as noting that the organizations put money aside for septic systems instead of using the excuse of town sewers in Hyannis. It has also been suggested that the group homes/nonprofits pay a fire district tax like the rest of us. I obviously agree with Kathleen and Paul on keeping our comments civil and respectful to everyone involved. Irene Aylmer From: "cape33(cDverizon.net" <cape330)verizon.net> To: trishcontia_live.com; kmmanning43(c)_yahoo.com; sand bar6(a-)verizon.net; ianetCa)capecodcutie.com; icccod(a-)-verizon.net; noni11048aaol.com; jonmarchant44Ca-gmail.com; bobb3712fl mail.com; dstewart -cccdp.org; prichards(o-)todayrealestate.com; frustrat(a)-aol.com; councila-town.barnstable.ma.us; tctinsleyahotmail.com; petecrosscape(cD-gmail.com; ,k6atwe1122(WgmaiI.com; billoncapecod(a)verizon.net; awaltCa).comcast.net; swharwich(cDaol.com; awn iking(a)_comcast.net; k.awalt(o),yahoo.com; ekulacomcast.net; aelms(cDcomcast.net; suecomercD,comcast.net; cape33()verizon.net; ireneaylmer(c,)yahoo.com; RDePaula(a)todayrealestate.com; ltftmc(d-)hotmail.com; capedeb20(cD.comcast.net; jenicullum(c� 03yahoo.com; gino82 Qgmail.com; paulo(D- ndykorner.com Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:12 PM Subject: 95 Chase Street- Pending sale for HnH Hi Everyone, There are a few meetings you should all be aware of and try to attend if possible. Both of these meeting allow public comments and would be a good place to voice your concerns about what is happening in our ,neighborhood and the village of Hyannis. Monday April 24th -Town Homelessness.Committee 6:OOpm at Town Hall 2nd Floor in the Selectman's conference room. Thursday April 27th -Town Council Meeting 7:OOpm -at Town Hall in the Town Council meeting haring room. `I'm getting several calls asking to sign the petition - please email me directly so we can set up a time to get your signature added. If you are asked or know of people who want to sign the petition please refer them to me via email. Thank you, Laura -----Original Message----- .From: Jen Cullum <jenlcullum(c�yahoo.com> .To: Kathleen Manning <kmmanning43a_yahoo.com> Cc: Irene Aylmer<ireneaylmer(@yahoo.com>; cape33 <cape33(c),verizon.net>; RDePaula <RDePaula(a)-todayrealestate.com>; Itftmc<Itftmc(a)-hotmail.com>; Deb Krau <capedeb20(d)-comcast.net>; jjulius <iiulius -todayrealestate.com>; trishconti <trishcontiCCD-live.com>; sandbar6 <sandbar6 ZDverizon.net>;janet<ianeta-capecodcutie.com>;jcccod <icccod(cDverizon.net>; noni11048 <noni11048aaol.com>;jonmarchant44 <ionmarchant44(aD-g mail.com>; bobb3712 .<bobb3712 C@g mail.com>; dstewart <dstewart(_cccdp.org>; prichards <prichardsatodayrealestate.com>; Debra Dagwan <frustrat(c)aol.com>; Paul Hebert<council(c)town.barnstable.ma.us>; James Tinsley <tctinsleyahotmail.com>; Peter Cross <petecrosscape(cD-gmail.com>; Fred LaSelva 6 <flaselval(@gmail.com>; KRisty Atwell <kjatwel122(0),g mail.com> Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Today's Meetting Right on, Kathleen!! Thank you, Jen Cullum On Apr 22, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Kathleen Manning <kmmanning43(a_)yahoo.com>wrote: Thank you Jen for your informative email and for all the hard work you and Deb Krau have done on the homeless issue. It seems to me that we have a short term as well as along term problem. The short term problem for our neighborhood is to persuade HNH not to setup another homeless shelter in this area, whether that means petitions, legal action or something else. The other much more difficult issue is to get the town of Barnstable, let alone the whole Cape to share the responsibility as we go forward. the problem of homelessnss. Regarding this neighborhood that we all care about, I think we need to be assertive and strong in standing up for ourselves and our neighborhood but not come off as irrational, bigoted people. I do not think the latter is going to win us any victories or get others to listen to us. We need to be respectful of each other and HNH without allowing them to run over us and our concerns. Kathy Manning and Paul Arnold Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad On Saturday, April 22, 2017, 11:25 AM, Jen Cullum <jenlcullum(a.yahoo.com> wrote: Hi there: thought I might weigh in.... I have been working on the homeless issue with Deb Krau through a subcommittee of the Town Council for over a year now. Our first object was to get people out of the woods behind Irene and Peter and Michelle's house. I think we all agree that we were successful in that, although it will always be a challenge to hold the line. We have been examining the problem from many angles. We have asked many agencies and groups to present to us over the time we have been in existence. Homeless not Hopeless came and discussed their model with us. They remain the most successful of these groups. They receive zero federal or state dollars to run their homes. They have rules and on site house managers. They have the lowest recidivism rate that I have seen yet. I have no problem with the program or the people running it, or their God-given message for that matter. have a problem, however, with the abject wholesaling of Hyannis. Every single HNH house is in our precinct. All those houses come off the tax rolls. We asked Dick Murphy if he would consider another village or town-and he made it clear to us his plan was to expand within Hyannis. Zero thought has been given to-other parts of our community or other towns. We are losing valuable neighborhoods to efforts such as this. I think it's time for Hyannis to make clear that these efforts need to be expanded throughout our community, across our towns and county. The bottom line is that Hyannis has become the convenient default for all services. We are the easy out. ,7 There are a few common threads that make Hyannis the target for group homes and support services such as this. First: Group homes need to be on town sewer. Second: group homes need to be big enough to fit a business model. Third: proximity to services such as Duffy Fourth: transportation. In our Committee to Assess Homelessness, we have examined all of these theories and basically debunked each one. For instance, there are sewers across the cape, at exit 9, in Barnstable Village, in Chatham, in Orleans. Large homes could be build there to support a business model. Regarding proximity to services-.virtually all towns have clinics that can help manage care. Tom Cahir told us about the RTA and what services they can and will provide with regard to transportation to help ease the burden on Hyannis. The one thing we can't combat is the the price of land in Hyannis. Until we gentrify, we will be facing this problem. Cheap land, on sewer, close to everything = the perfect spot for group homes. But now comes the hard part: Changing perception. The rest of Cape Cod needs to get the message that we expect help in managing this shared burden. Right now we have 100% of the problem and 0% participation from other town. That equation needs to change. We need to work together to show the greater cape community that they need to help us bear the burden of the homeless and those in need of services. In closing, Hyannis will always do its part. We will always do more than our fair share. It is in our nature. I would NEVER walk away from the shared responsibility that we have in caring for the poor and infirm, no matter how they ended up there. I would NEVER walk away from feeding the food insecure, or the responsibility of getting services to the needy. That said, I feel that we are in a unique position to educate HNH about - our village's burden and ask them to look elsewhere. Jeri Cullum On Friday, April 21, 2017 3:32 PM, Irene Aylmer <ireneaylmerCcD-yahoo.com> wrote: Frankly, I am upset over this situation for a couple of reasons-the first is the issue of all group homes being placed in Hyannis in single family residences; the second is because I'm afraid it will turn neighbor against neighbor.We have been a pretty understanding neighborhood. We agree to disagree on many issues, but we have looked out for each other and the neighborhood as a whole. I know we all care about Hyannis. I worry that we may turn against those who disagree with us in regards to signing the petition, etc. I feel that Homeless Not Hopeless is a well run organization and have donated to them many times." I have spoken out many times about the homeless issue in Hyannis especially off Old Colony and in the area near Pope John Paul. I feel that HnH is a positive way of dealing with the problem. If you get a chance, read the application in the Homeless not Hopeless website. It is very strict and I know it is enforced. I also think of the big sign at the top of Chase Street- Neighbors helping Neighbors. Who are our neighbors? Right now, there are a bunch of people who I do not know. There are also people who change every week because they rent the many rentals that are in our neighborhood. Do we tell them they cannot come here? I did call the realtor and he told me the sale of a group home in a single family residence is subject to town approval. He did say he got many other calls about the house. I asked him if he ever 8 gets calls for group home in other villages and he said no. I also called HnH and asked for Dick Murphy who is the treasurer to call me so that we can talk. I do not want to go to war with an organization that I support. I plan on living in what I consider my beloved castle for"The Duration." just hope this issue does not tear our little kingdom apart. Irene _.._...._....................................-_..--.._.............._.._....._...................._...._...................................._................._—.-............................................................_................................ From: "cape33(a-verizon.net" <cape33averizon.net> To: RDePaula(a)_todayrealestate.com; Itftmc(a)-hotmail.com Cc: jjulius(a)todayrealestate.com; ienlcullumtc'�i yahoo.com; trishconti(c)live.com; kmmanning43(a)-yahoo.com; sand bar6()verizon.net; Janet capecodcutie.com; ecccod(W, erizon.net; noni11048 anaol.com; jonmarchant44 Wwail.com; bobb3712(a)-g mail.com; dstewartP-cccdp.org; ireneaylmer(@yahoo.com; prichards(cD-todayrealestate.com Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Today's Meetting Hi Remi, attended -they got approval from the site planning review board. They still have additional steps but at this point we do not know what stage they are in of the complete process for closing. I spoke to John Julius this morning and we have a petition and a letter that we need to get out to the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. I plan to canvas the neighborhood with the letter and petition this weekend to make people aware this is happening without consent of the residents it will effect. Anyone willing to help please let me know and I'll get you the petition and letter. Laura Wentzel -----Original Message----- From: Remilson DePaula <RDePaulaa-todayrealestate.com> To: Itftmc <Itftmc(a-hotmail.com>; cape33 <cape33(o)verizon.net> Cc:jjulius <jjulius todayrealestate.com>;jenlcullum <ienlcullum(awahoo.com>; trishconti <trishconti(@Iive.com>; kmmanning43 <kmmanning43(a)-yahoo.com>; sandbar6 <sandbar6 o)verizon.net>;janet<lanetta7.capecodcutie.com>;jcccod <Icccod(cDverizon.net>; noni11048 <noni11048 -aol.com>; jonmarchant44 <wonmarchant44(a g mail.com>; bobb3712 <bobb3712(a)g mail.com>; dstewart <dstewart(@cccdp.orq>; ireneaylmer <ireneaylmer(@yahoo.com>; prichards <prichards(a.)todayrealestate.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 21, 2017 11:50 am Subject: Today's Meetting If anyone knows the outcome of the 9 AM meeting at the Town Hall, please let us know. I just added Bob to the group, who is also affected and concerned about this preposterous idea. .... ............... ........................................................... ;Remi DePaula :Today Real Estate 11533 Falmouth Rd. :Centerville,MA 02632 :Local Phone:(508)568-8139 :Toll Free:800-966-2448 :www.todayrealestate.com 1. � � �. :Click here for my vCard 9 From: cape33()verizon.net Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:19 AM To: Itftmc(aD-hotmail.com Cc: iiuliuse-todayrealestate.com, jenlcullumCc�yahoo.com, trishconti(a)live.com, kmmanning43e-vahoo.com, sand bar6(a)_verizon.net, janet(d-)capecodcutie.com, icccodCa verizon.net, noni11048Ca)-aol.com, ionmarchant44().gmail.com, rdepaula(a)todayrealestate.com, bobb3712(a)gmail.com, dstewart(a)cccdp.org, ireneaylmerCaDyahoo.com, prichards(a)-todayrealestate.com Subject: Re: FYI from Pat Richards Laura, I'm working as well but will certainly try to attend today if possible. I highly suggest anyone else in the neighborhood that can attend do so! We have to get more information to be better educated on our concerns. -----Original Message----- From: Laura Cronin <Itftmc .hotmail.com> To: cape33 <cape33(a)verizon.net> Cc:jjulius <*iulius(cD-todayrealestate.com>;jenlcullum <jenlcullum(a)-yahoo.com>; trishconti <trishconti(cD-live.com>; kmmanning43 <kmmanning43e-yahoo.com>; sandbar6 <sandbar6e-verizon.net>;janet<ianet(a)capecodcutie.com>;jcccod <jcccod aC,verizon.net>; noni11048 <noni11048()-aol.com>; jonmarchant44 <ionmarchant44(a)g mail.com>; rdepaula <rdepaula(a)todayrealestate.com>; bobb3712 <bobb3712(cD-g mail.com>; dstewart <dstewart(a)cccdp.orq>; ireneaylmer <ireneaylmer(a)yahoo.com>; prichards <prichards(c)-todayrealestate.com> Sent: Wed, Apr 19, 2017 8:19 pm Subject: Re: FYI from Pat Richards Site Ian review is not public input but public can sit in on it and listen. P P P Community presence is what will help. Bill has reached out to Fred Laselvs on Gosnold who was successful blocking the Norris St property they tried to acquire. He will be talking with him tomorrow;. I think anyone who can attend tomorrow at 9; would be Good to hear what the facts are. Unfortunately I have to work all day. Laura Sent from my iPhone On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:22 PM, <cape33(a-)verizon.net> <cape33(a)verizon.net>wrote: Do you know if this site plan review is open to the public and if it's a forum to voice concern? -----Original Message----- From: John Julius <iiulius(o)todayrealestate.com> To: Jen Cullum <jenlcullum(a)yahoo.com>; Patricia Conti <trishconti(a.live.com>; Kathleen Manning <kmmanning43(a)-yahoo.com>; Peter Cross <sand bar6 elverizon.net>; Janet Lagergren <ianet(a)capecodcutie.com>; JudiCardiges 10 <jcccod(a)verizon.net>; Laura Cronin <Itftmc()hotmail.com>; Laura Wentzel <cape33(a)verizon.net>; Nora Morris <noni11048(c)-aol.com>; Jon Marchant <ionmarchant44 a gmail.com>; Remilson DePaula <rdepaula(a),todayrealestate.com>; Rob Bastille <bobb3712a-gmail.com>; Debbie Stewart <dstewart cccdp.orq>; ireneaylmer <ireneaylmer(@,yahoo.com>; prichards <Prichard s(d-)todayrealestate.com> Sent: Wed, Apr 19, 2017 2:55 pm Subject: Re: FYI from Pat Richards I was also told that the home at 95 Chase Street is the one they intend to use as the group home:We will need to have someone confirm this but I was told that this is supposedly going to Site plan Review I believe tomorrow at town hall, i have no further details. If anyone hears anything please let everyone know what you hear,thanks .............................................._...................................................... .................................. :John Julius 10 10 :Today Real Estate A �r :1533 Falmouth Rd. :Centerville,MA 02632 :Local Phone:508-568-8132 l� :Toll Free:800-966-2448 :www.todavrealestate.corn REA�' :Click here for my vCard From: cape330)-verizon.net Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 2:48 PM To: "Jen Cullum" <ienlcullum(a�yahoo.com>, "Patricia Conti" <trishconti(a).live.com>, "Kathleen Manning" <kmmanning43(dyahoo.com>, "Peter Cross" <sandbar6(a-verizon.net>, "Janet Lagergren" <janet capecodcutie.com>, "JudiCardiges" <jcccod(aD-verizon.net>, "Laura Cronin" <Itftmc(�hotmai1.com>, "Laura Wentzel" <cape33 verizon.net>, "Nora Morris" <noni11048(cDaol.com>, "Jon Marchant" <4onmarchant44 -gmail.com>, "Remilson DePaula" <rdepaula(a-)-todayrealestate.com>, "Rob Bastille" <bobb3712a,gmail.com>, "Debbie Stewart" <dstewarta-cccdp.orq>, ireneaylmer(aDyahoo.com, prichards(a)-todayrealestate.com Subject: Re: FYI from Pat Richards All, I find this news extremely disturbing!!The fact that this"might" happen in our neighborhood without any warning or notification to people who deal with this issue everyday makes me very unnerved. I recently had an incident where a homeless, known drug dealer to the BPD,was plugging his phone into my electrical outlet on my deck. I filed a police report and had him picked up for questioning because I was able to access his phone and get his name.This individual had the nerve to come to my door looking for his phone!! I called the police and he was picked up immediately. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm sick and tied of the Homeless/Drug epidemic being dumped in my neighborhood...enough is enough! 11 Jen-what can we do as a neighborhood to stop this element from moving into our backyard??? Laura Wentzel From: Irene Aylmer<ireneaylmer(cD-yahoo.com> Date:Tuesday,April 18,2017 Subject: Fw: FYI from Pat Richards To:Jen Cullum<jenlcullum(a-)-yahoo.com>, Patricia Conti <trishconti(a)-live.com>, Kathleen Manning <kmmanning43(a)yahoo.com>, Peter Cross <sandbar6(a-)verizon.net>,Janet Lagergren <janet(cDcapecodcutie.com>,JudiCardiges <Icccod aC)verizon.net>, Laura Cronin <Itftmc .hotmail.com>, Laura Wentzel<cape33 _verizon.net>, Nora Morris <noni11048(cDaol.com>,Jon Marchant <jonmarchant44Ac)gmail.com>, Remilson DePaula <r_depaulaCatodayreal estate.com>, Rob Bastille <bobb37120gmail.com>, Debbie Stewart <d s tewa rt(cD cccd P.o rg> John Julius just told me he heard this from a reliable source from the civic association and Pat sent me the email. I have always liked Homeless Not Helpless, but I have to agree with others when they ask when the group homes are going to be in other villages: I also remember reading this winter that there was talk of people who had been released from prison using the H N H home on Ocean St.and some people objecting. Frankly, I don't know where I stand on any of this, but I do find it frustrating that it is always Hyannis. -----Forwarded Message----- From: Pat Richards<prichards(cDtodayrealestate.com> To: "kmmanning43(awahoo.com" <kmmanning43(a)yahoo.com> Cc:Trish Conti<trishconti(a)live.com>; "ireneavimer(a-)-yahoo.com"<ireneavlmer@vahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday,April 18,2017 2:26 PM Subject: FYI from Pat Richards Hi..John just told me that Bob Emit's home was sold to the Hyannis Hopeless not Homeless organization. John believes homeless individuals will live on premise with a supervisor. Had anyone else heard this?Curious... .......................................................................................................................................... :Pat Richards :Today Real Estate :1533 Falmouth Rd. 12 ........................................................................................................................................ :Centerville,MA 02632 :Local Phone: (508)568-8134 :Toll Free: 800-966-2448 ::www.todayrealestate.com :Click here for my vCard ........................................................................................................................................ 13 WupUp Print Page 1 of 3 . Owner Information-Map/Block/Lot: 307/134/-Use Code: 1010 \Al , Owner ((� Owner Name EMMITT, ROBERT W& D41, PATRICIA L Co-Owner Name Property Address Owner Mail Address 95 CHASE STREET 95 CHASE ST Map/Block/LotHYANNIS,MA. 02601 J 307/ 134/ . Assessed Values 2011 -Map/Block/Lot: 307/134/-Use Code: 1010 2011 Appraised Value 2011 Assessed Value Past Comparisons Building $ 183,800 $ 183,800 Year Total Assessed Value: Value Extra $ 3,300 $ 3,300 2010 -$ 322,800 Features: « Outbuildings: $ 9,200 $ 9,200 2009 - $ 355,400 Land Value: $ 123,800 $ 123,800 2008 -$ 365,000 2007 - $ 364,300 2011 Totals $320,100 $320,100 2006 -$ 337,300 Residential Exemption Received=$90,000 . Tax Information 2011 -Map/Block/Lot: 307/134/-Use Code: 1010 Fire District Rates Town Residential Taxes Barn FD -All Classes $2.31 $8.05 Hyannis FD Tax (Residential) $ 653 C.O.M.M-All Classes $1.33 Town Commercial Community Preservation Act $ 55.57 Cotuit FD-All Classes $1.68 Tax Hyannis -Residential $2.04 $ Hyannis -Commercial $3.24 $7.28 Town Tax(Residential) 1;8$2.31 W Barnstable- $2.65 $ Residential 2,560.88 W Barnstable- $2.34 Commercial . Sales History-Map/Block/Lot: 307/ 134/_Use Code: 1010 • History: Owner: Sale Date Book/Page: Sale Price: EMMITT, ROBERT W&PATRICIA L Oct 1 1998 12:OOAM 11739/099 $ 130,000 CROCKETT, ROBERT E&PATRICIA A 1360/442 $0 http://www.town.bamstable.ma.us/Assessing/print.asp?searchparcel=307134 11/21/2011 i oop Up Print Page 2 of 3 . Sketches-Map/Block/Lot: 307/134/-Use Code: 1010 g AsBuilt Card N/A . Constructions Details-Map/Block/Lot: 307/ 134/-Use Code: 1010 Building Details Land Building value $ 183,800 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms USE CODE 101( Total Improvements Value $229,704 Bathrooms 1 Full+ lH Lot Size(Acres) 0.2 Model Residential Total Rooms 7 Rooms Appraised Value $ 12] Style Colonial Heat Fuel Oil Assessed Value $ 12 Grade Average Plus Heat Type Steam Year Built 1915 AC Type None Effective depreciation 20 Interior Floors Carpet Stories 2 Stories Interior Walls Plastered Living Area sq/ft 1,064 Exterior Walls Wood Shingle Gross Area sq/ft 3;384 Roof Structure Gable/Hip Roof Cover Asph/F GIs/Cmp Outbuildings & Extra Features-Map/Block/Lot: 307/ 134/-Use Code: 1010 Code Description Units/SQ ft Appraised Value Assessed Value . FPL2 Fireplace 1.5 stories 1 $ 3,300 $ 3,300 FGR2 Garage-Avg 360 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 SHED Shed 108 $ 1,700 $ 1,700 . Sketch Legend http://www.town.bamstable.ma.us/Assessing/print.asp?searchparcel=307134 11/21/2011 r Loop Up Print Page 3 of 3 Property Sketch Legend AOF Office, (Average) FTS Third Story Living Area SFB Base, Semi-Finished (Finished) BAS First Floor, Living Area FUS Second Story Living Area TQS Three Quarters Story (Finished) (Finished) BMT Basement Area GAR Garage UAT Attic Area (Unfinished) (Unfinished) CLP Loading Platform GRN Greenhouse UHS Half Story (Unfinished; CAN Canopy MZ1 Mezzanine,Unfinished UST Utility Area (Unfinishec FAT Attic Area (Finished) MZ2 Mezzanine, Semi-finished UTQ Three Quarters Story (Unfinished) FBM Finished Basement MZ3 Mezzanine, finished UUA Unfinished Utility Attic FCP Carport PAT Patio Outbuilding Listed uuS Full Upper 2nd Story (Unfinished) FEP Enclosed Porch PTO Patio WDK Wood.Deck FHS Half Story (Finished) REF Reference Only VVKO Wood Deck Outbuilding Listed . FOP Open or Screened in SDA Store Display Area Porch http://www.town.bamstable.ma.us/Assessing/print.asp?searchparcel=307134 11/21/2011 06J iHF Town of Barnstable (� �F fps V 4 Regulatory Services Thomas F.Geiler'Director xiv snsrna�, 9� b �e� Building Division AlFD 39. A Tom Perry,Building Commissioner V- 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-4038 0� Fax: 508-790-623( PERMIT# 026 0 O FEE: $ SHED REGISTRATION 120 square feet or less c� Chase �— #11,1#01's Location of shed(address) Village S0 6 77 Property owner's name Telephone number _J�"'" Z 307 !3 Size of Shed Map/Parcel# 4�61-� 5-2 G --6(O 11(4 S ignature Date Hyannis Main Street Waterfront Historic District? Old King's Highway Historic District Commission jurisdiction? Conservation Commission(signature is required) Sign off hours for Conservation 8:00-9:30&3:30-4:30 PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMISSIONS,THERE MAY BE A REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATION FEE. PLEASE SEE THE APPROPRIATE COMMISSION FOR DETAILS. THIS FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PLOT PLAN Q-forms-shedreg REV:042506 i R Ir AF MA- vwi.w.v.vv f :o•..00ror.•..•. � r � t J I• i J J i I I 44eurt/ozk I siaasmAM .o�a6�9• ` TOWN OF BARNSTABLE PETITION FOR VARIANCE UNDER THE ZONING BYLAW SPECIAL PEMMIT To the Board of Appeals, Hyannis,Mass. Date ___eh a rY_L._,. 19 The undersigned petitions the Board of Appeals to, vary; in the manner and for the reasons hereinafter set forth, the application of the provisions of the r.oning by-law to the following described premises. Applicant 92r.cligI-e .r t� _ _ (Full Name) s5 � (Winter Address) Owner:_.___ .DEL 11xL COr r^4c ti_,7� ✓ JETi� S crr �� (Full Name) 77`` (Witter Address) Tenant (if any): (Full Name) (Winter Address) 1. Location of Premises (Name of Street) (What section of Town) 2. Dimensions of lot 0 Fes. 1�99h (Frontage) (Depth) (Square Feet) .1. Zoning district,in which premises are located _ 4. How long has owner had title to the above premises? 5. Row many buildings are now on the lot? H. Give size of existin buildings Proposed buiI s 7. State present use of premises A. State proposed use of premises_ _._._._._. 11 ..*—£sitiEY����_he hiai t 9. Give extent of proposed construction or alterations: 1.0. Number of living units for which building is to be arranged�_��_one•_.,_•__ „____ _„__�_ 1.1. Have you submitted plans for above to the Building Inspector � a 12. Has he refused a permit? __ 13. What section of zoning by-law do;you ask to be varied f 14. State reasons for variance or.special permit: _.�'I'� 4E 1�TPYL nc»mi-nninr• to hull d_ 1 Respectfully submitted (Signature) 5,a.L4n�._ Petition received by (Address) Ct�'`� ��'1�z�D: AAQ, Hearing date set for 19j.— + Filing fee of$15.00 required with this petition. This form may also be used for Appeals. (Over) Please type or print only. The following are the names and mailing addresses of the abutting owners of property and the name and address of the owner across the street, according to the records in the Assessor's'Office at the date of this application: Kenyon Carr, 57 Harvard St. , Hya_nris, Mass Sarah Burns, 60 Harvard St, Hyannis, Mass Mrs William Murray, 85 Chase St,, Hyannis, Mass Mr. Manuel Centio, 15 Dartmouth Ste, Hyahr_is, Mess Verified by Assessor's Office Assessor There must be submitted with the within application at the,time of filing,,a plan of the land;in duplicate, (or two prints) showing: 1. The dimensions of the land. 2. The location of existing buildings on the land. 3. The exact location of the improvements sought to be placed on the land. Applications filed without such plans will be returned without action by the Board of Appeals. aasasT 7 MAsa by i639' �0 YAY p• TOWN OF BARNSTABLE PETITION FOR VARIANCESPECIAL PERMIT UNDER THE ZONING BY-LAW To the Board of Appeals, Hyannis,Mass. Dateebriz8r� .V $:� 19 60 The undersigned petitions the Board of Appeals to,vary, in the manner and for the reasons hereinafter set forth,the application of the provisions.of the zoning by-law to the following described premises. li ne Corr �n Chase St.�- :_ �� (Full Name) (Winter Address) Owner: ui ne Corri^an ___._ 95 Chase St., _ (Full Name) (Winter Address) Tenant (if any): (Fu, U Name) - --(Winter Address) 1. Location of Premises _ Ys1�C� •fir.�•--- -----•-•--•--rer*�Sectioil P (Name of street) (What section of Town)- 2. Dimensions of lot -1U. Ft-nE! a - --_— — (Frontage) (Depth) �(Square Feet) 3. Zoning district in which premises are located_....­•-•B_A.__•-•-- ----- ____- _ 4. How.long has owner had title to the above premises? _.__.19A5 _--------=------ ----� 5. How many buildings are now on the lot4._�__ �'E. -•— ------- ------ 6. Give size of existir: buildings ••-•••- •-----•--- -- '`' Proposed buildings 7. State present use.of premises___.1d-16.S. State proposed use of premises Sma11 _-- 9. Give extent of proposed construction or.alterations:----.._._-�� - - ••- ---• -• 10. Number of living units for which building is to be arranged _� �1]0tw__• --•-_ 11. Have you submitted plans for above to the Building Inspector? 12. Has 6e refused a permit?Tom.. �,••,,,_�„�•_.•,,._ ` � _.�_..�_____._..- 11 What section of zoning by-law do you ask to be varied? ve r� .�la_a s i on t 14.^State reasons for variance or special permit: ___..TR -� - •- - -- o build -........... Respectfully submitted, (� (Signature) t- Vetition received by `1l (Address) Hearing date set for ___._-___— 19�.-- Filing fee of$15.00 required with this petition. • This form may also be used for Appeals. (Over) Please type or print only. The following are the names and mailing addresses of the abutting owners of property and the name and address of the owner across the street, according to the records in the Assessor's Office at the date of this application: A. and Faith F. Carr Ken-yo iC sir/ 57 Harvard St. , Hyannis, Tisss Saran 3urns, 60 Harvard St., Hya-uiis, Mass Everetta P. � ��?vrray11, 85 Chase hhSt. , Hyannis,. YLss Mr, Manuel ven�anQd' Ebang�ine Cettezot" Hyannis, Mass Stella L. MacMullen & Harold F. Atwood,c/o Havard L.MacMullen,9 James St.Yarmouth Nova Paul K. Willard & Priscilla M. Willard, 3h Harvard St,, Hyann s,Mass. Scotia Verified by Assessor's Office Assessor There must he submitted with the within application at the time of filing a plan of the land;in duplicate, (or two prints) showing: V 1. The dimensions of the land. 2. The location of existing buildings on the land. V 3. The exact location of the improvements sought to be placed on the land. Applications filed without such plans will be returned without action by the Board of Appeals. TOWN OF BARNSTABLE ®� BOARD OF APPEALS aaas�I ° NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING oo z59a`��' aac UNDER ZONING BY-LAWS Appeal No. _. _ February 17 _ _ _, 196 6. VKerVon A. Faith F Carr, a Frances Burns, ,Evereti:a P. Murray, Pffanael & Eva.rgel re Csnteic, *ella L. KI-cMullen & Harold F. Atwood. ',aul X. & Priscilla l% Willard Being all persons deemed interested or affeetad by the Board of Appeals, under Sec..15 of Chap. 40A of General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and all amendments thereto, you are hereby notified that /FAULM COPaIGAN has appealed to the Board of Appeals from a decision of the I Building Inspector And petitions for WW1jWW permission to vary t4e zoning by-law to permit construction of a single family dwelling on a Ict; with 50 foot frontage arsl 6,000 sq.. ft, area; premises. located on Harvard Streets Hyannis. in a. Residence A areao A public hearing will be given on this petition, in ....__._._.:.._ _ �down Office Bui?dir—m�_.... on ._____ March lo, 1966 at _...._.._ ... ..._3:0(} P..Re_ You are invited to be present. By order of the Board of Appeals, Roland T. Pihl Acting (16 proofs please) . __..__... _..__ _ M._, Chairman. R. Rai:ph HDrns February 21 and 28 G`t,arles McGrath «__ I ♦5" p THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 4� t Y1 TOWN OF BARNSTABI E BOARD OF APPEALS Y L L. Hardh 22 ....................13 66 NOTICE OF VARIANCE Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit (General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 18 as amended) Notice is hereby given that a Conditional or Limited Variance or Special Permit has been granted To................ Pauline Cogan......_... -- .---•--. Owner or Petitioner Address..............5-Crane Streq_t.......................................................... City or Town.............. anna .......................................... ..............Ms._H!imrd__ et,, •'-•-•-----•----------- identify Land Affected by the Town of Barnstable. Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use of premises on... Harvard ........... ..................... t et s ..........' .. Street City.. ._ or Town the record title standing in the name of aulrse 3trtaetie ----- whose address is gs--Chase Street Iinzais .... a«..seiaustts.----_:.. Street City or Town State by a deed duly recorded in the. ... MS blo.............County Registry of Deeds in Book ­679...... . Page...j26 ...... ....................................................Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No.................. ................Book ..........-__Page...... The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No...19 6'8:, ._-. in the office of the Town Clerk-of the Town of Barnstable. Signed this............day of......... .. rca................ ]96 Board of Appeals: Acting ......•---•---- .......... .......•----- ..:.......Chairman Board of Appeals ............................ ---------------Clerk Board of,Appeals ................................................19........ at..............o'clock and................................minutes --..M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of............................... Book.................... .... Page........................ ATTEST .........................................I...............•.............. Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded by Petitioner TOWN OF BARNSTABLE Board of Appeals Petitioner Appeal No. ......_... �..�._.._»w._»»..».,....».... 19 66 » „_ FACTS and DECISION Petitioner filed petition on -fir- 19 66 ari�nce- for remises at .»......_..»... »._._. Street, in the village w P � �. r� .......»_..«....»....., r adjoining premises of- •, « h.•-•�i"®•w �" , ',-Fr anb s o f ' .a>, ........ ...., Burnsg#�ryhVereata 1�'® ���e���.�r.� i;a� �(y�gp5 /yn�gpr�_�j� ��?�=nc(j�`��jue �s� 'Stele L® McKullcaaas �:it'..58�..2+-•V"�'�.«...��.g..»..yys'�y'C��VS':.t�M1t^.�.... �•ttd•�..:..y�.D.....�19j�....11h••#LW�Q.Y}:'�Pv3tEA... .®...:.�VV��C1.1e0ffNSb..{Y.. »$«.w 9ry �!.� ^}. nV•^�+n. .j.. YJ: .�� rIA � �w..y4 �p..wy(�3J�Y•'r.»..�i�p.».Cy_..».�pVT$T»_ ,.. for the purpose of ....__....... .�,: ^,��•�w •�,�„ �- ems- .r Locus is presently zoned in Notice of this hearing was given by mail, postage prepaid, to all persons deemed. affected and by publishing in Cape Cod Standard Times, a daily newspaper published in Town of Barnstable a copy of which is attached to the record of these proceedings filed with Town Clerk. A public hearing by the Board of Appeals of the Town of Barnstable was held at the Town g, Y 'x1. P.M. .. t3.».. 66, Office Building I3 annis Mass. at _»__..-» -» 19 upon said petition under zoning bylaws. Present at the hearing were the following members: :�`r T Mairman i TOWN OF BARNSTABLE Board of Appeals Petitioner 66 Appeal No. .»»__.... .., __ »». _ : ._ M . ._M_ 19 FACTS and. DECISION Petitioner _.............. . .filed petition on 19 „ .;. . _ ....._ Street, in the village�reduestmr a �-ariance-p�for premises at � •.. . of J ;• a , adjoining premises of..� � .. .. _`'� $ - '" ` re�`�iA�§: s6.��w�"'��� �f..i �"+� -x'•`�+'��'" �'�;.�+�.� .�� r;�. �ro�s°�i`!��'"'$w�.:S.� 3�� �-'�� `'R��:',�.�.y� F,s-�;+?4+4^ �i ;� for the. purpose of µ9.1 . "r .... _ r .:..... . '1 k. .. �*_. Locus is presently zoned in ...7...::._A:.:.----- .............. . .... _.: :. _....._..:..:............ Notice of this hearing was given by mail, postage prepaid, to all persons. deemed affected and by publishing in Cape Cod Standard Times, a daily newspaper published in Town of Barnstable a copy of which is attached to the record of these proceedings filed with Town Clerk. A public hearing by the Board of Appeals of the Town of Barnstable was held at the Town Office Building, Hyannis, Mass., at ..: ..., ...__�_ : P.M. upon said petition under zoning by-laws. Present at the hearing were the following members: �3.. 4it'a, :i Chairman r. , -..fax i. ,a t ,., 'tp 6t r ""' !" a �r4tf`r, ,'. a° '.il► i� `TT�.SaJ�J�'. L4 5 PY" u° r ri '- }^� �, F a �� ? '�� � 19 B7li7L02%TGENG To ' x T .y ..- k`� .* �` !t � ,� •, "�" ` r'°e u��-, � .:YO�'Y1�T°�PL..�. T�R. . EffLmioS'IC S.BB.sS�BE+' ���' �� x�T a.. �, �.� `„•'���� $y.,.r s^.+� �t� :.Vic+^ ,,� R a �N �r �'' � � '�''"`� � i �� i��"'• � ��� � a� �' =rk�,� s3 � �, s "� �,,s#--.ow:.® Y it m c 30 !F' a✓w 1924 ! rs t AJR_MILL xw`y+y1RY e.RC68i1C3 'fir #� 4.�' k r a' v F x r�i �� _ n• �'�� r�n�€•��ire E' 1j 411 u 0 °. - } u `"at i ao 'v'3 zo Pb " 'S �a{ j a - a ` a€ "A ! R a oerh44 ep s `o a aI+son i t ,rat,,?Ye i s-,DARTMOUTH Y 6 r.� 7 ALtCt _BTIEiSOtRT s yz as K t ' r' �''e rYALEi SE6� ET ''= �+ . r �E w, z 34 61 wiRr P.wurr r e q r,'+ r _ * a»d o zaoA seat ( dry ty Il A n y 0 + r Kul 40 a .11 f . 39 --_�7—� i 4, b se ,i73 aa�ditl�r�'}A s � t r as p � P 4e Y , � ;n to � n a 3' i to , .#`~ - C- _ 44 € .S L, RESERVED- PARCEL 1 r1SN J 2�d8 �O NMo jown of Barnstable *Permit# "18d Expires 6 months from issue date 900Z 6 0 Nnr Regulatory Services Fee �S'S Oo . sd f omas F.Geiler,Director �3C� SS3 Building Division Tom Perry,CBO, Building Commissioner 6 200 Main Street,Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 EXPRESS PERMIT APPLICATION - RESIDENTIAL ONLY Not Yalid without Red X-Press Imprint [ap/parcel Number 30 7 //3 roperty Address 9 S' C Gta s-e 51' A a l- ow/ Residential Value of Work 2�0 `� Minimum fee of$25.00 for work under S6000.00 er 1wner's Name&Address 0 6 C v 4 EW W.t tf 's c6 e S�- Alaone5 /JA 1026D 1 !ontractor's Name W mQ b u vl0 y Telephone Number [ome Improvement Contractor License#(if applicable) / i !onstruction Supervisor's License#(if applicable) N ]Workman's Compensation Insurance Check one: I am a sole proprietor N-I am the Homeowner - I have Worker's Compensation Insurance asurance Company Name Vorkman's Comp.Policy# .opy of Insurance Compliance Certificate must be on file. 'ermit Request(check box) %,Re-roof(stripping old shingles) All construction debris will be taken to T-e4siS d" ❑Re-roof(not stripping. Going over existing layers of roof) M Re-side Replacement Windows. U-Value (maximum.44) *Where required: Issuance of this permit does not exempt compliance with other town department regulations,i.e.Historic,Conservation,etc. ***Note: Property Owner must sign Property Owner Letter of Permission. a r ment Contractors License is required. 3IGNATURE: Z:Forms:expmtrg kevise071405 The Commonwealth ofMassachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Office of Investigations ' a 600 Washington Street Boston, MA 02111 www.massgov/dia Workers'-Compensation Insurance.Affidavit: Builders/Contractors/Electricians/Plumbers Apylican Information Please Print Legibly Dame(Business/organization/Individual): ko,6(1k Address: S C Goa S-e. City/State/Zip: Vye ye n t s A- D 2 O l Phone M 5`0$ 7 Z 7-12�o 2 Are you an employer? Check the•appropriate bog: Type of project(required); 1,❑ I am a employer with 4. ❑ I am a general contractor and I 6. ❑New construction employees(fall and/or part-time).* have hired the sub-contractors 2.❑ I am a sole proprietor or partner- listed on the attached sheet t' ' �• Remodeling ship and have no employees These sub-contractors have f3: ❑ Demolition working for me in any capacity. workers' comp.insurance. . 9. ❑ Binding addition [No workers' Comp.insurance 5. ❑ We are a corporation and its required,] officers have exercised their 10.❑ Electrical repairs or additions 39I am a homeowner doipg all work right of exemption per MGL I1.❑ Plumbing repairs ar additions myself.[No workers' comp-, e. 152, §1(4),and we have no 12>J �Roof rep airs J insurance required.] t , employees. (No workers' 1 Other 5 Ce us n comp,insurance required.] . *Amy applicant that checks box#f l-must also 0 out the section below showing their workers'ooropensatlon policyinformatiow t Homeowners wbo submit this affidavit indicating they are doing all work andthen hire outside contractors must submit anew a5davit ia&utizrg such tC"ontractors W check tins boa must attacbed an additional sheet showing the name of the sub-contractors and f3eir workers'couT.policy hfaxznstlom- I am an employer that Is providing workers'compensation insurance for my employees. Below Is thepolicy andjob site Information. Insurance Comp my Name: Policy#.or Self-ins..Lic.#: Bxpiration Date: Job Site Address: City/5tate/Zip: Attach a copy of the workers' compensation policy declaratton page(showing the policy number and expiration date). Failure to secure-coverage.as required undei Section 25A of MGL c. 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a fine up to$1,500.00 and/or one-year imprisoummr as well as civil penalties in the form oi'a STOP WORK ORDER and a fine of up to$250.00 a day kgainst the violator. Be advised that a copy of this statement may be forwarded to the Office of Investigations of the DIA for insurance coverage verification. 1 do herehy certify un the pa and penalties of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct;. Shature: Date: 5` —0 Phone#: S^D 8' 1 7 r / Official use only. Do not write in this area,to be completed by city or town gfficiaL City or Town: Permit/License# Issuing Authority (circle one): 1.Board of health 2.Building Department 3.City/Town Clerk a.Electrical inspector 5.Plvmbiva iaspe&tor 6. Other Contact Person: Phone#: sr.++v i.. awa N va v a+. �+a.a�.� +-+.+ ✓va ..z�+ra....+a v � r Massachusetts General Laws chapter 152 requires all employers to provide wbrkers' compensation for their eiWloyees. pursuant to this statute, an employee is defined as"...every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, a express or implied,.aial or written An employer is defined as-"an individual,partnership,association, corporation or other legal entity, or any two or more of the foregoing engaged in a joint enterprise, and including the legal representatives of a deceased employer, or the . receiver or trustee of an individual,partnership, association or other legal entity,employing employees. However•the owner of a dwelling house having not more than three apartinents and who resides therein, or the occupant of the dwelling house of another who employs persons.to do maintenance, construction or repair work on such dwelling house or on the grounds or building appurtenant thereto shall not because of such employmentbe deemed to be an employer." MGL chapter 152, §25C(6)also states that"every state or local licensing agency shall withhold the issuance or renewal of a license or permit to operate a business or to construct buildings-in the commonwealth for any applicant who has not prod'aced acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance coverage required." Additionally,MGL chapter 152, §25C(7)states`Neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall enter into any contract for the performance ofpublic work until acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this chapter have been presented to the contracting authority." Applicants Please fill out the workers' compensation affidavit completely,by checking the boxes that apply to your situation and,if necessary,supply sub-contractor(s)name(s),address(es)and phone number(s)along with their certificate(s)of insurance. Limited Liability Companies(LLQ orLimmited LiabikPartaers4s(LLP)with no employees other than the members or partners, are not required to carry workers' compensation insurance. If an LLC or LLP does have employees,a policy is required. Be advised that this affidavit may be submitted to the Department of Industrial Accidents fnr confamation of fimira,ce coverage. Also be sure.to sign.and date the affidavit. The-affidavit should be returned to the city or town that the application for the permit or license is being requested,-not the•Depariment of' . Industrial Accidents: Should you have any questions regarding the law or if you are required to obtain a workers' compensationpolicy,please call the Department at the number listedbelow. .Self-insured can3p'arles•diamdd ewer their self-inswance license number on-the appropriate line. City or Town Ofricials . Please be sure that the affidavit is complete and printed legibly: The Department has provided a space at the bottom. of the affidavit for you to fill out in the event the Office of Investigations has to contact you regarding the applicant. Please be sure to fill in the permit/license number which will be used as a reference number. In addition;an applicant that mist submit multiple permittEcense applications in any given year,need only submit one affidavit indicating current policy information(if necessary)and.under"Job.Site Address"the applicant should write"all locations in__- _ (city or town),"A copy of the affidavit that has been officially stamped or marked by the city or town maybe provided to the applicant as proof that•a valid affidavit is on file for future permits or licenses. Anew affidavit must be filled out each ' year.Where a}bme owner or citizen is obtaining a license or permit notrelated to any business or commercial venture (ix, a dog Iicenie or permit to burn leaves etc.)said person is NOT required to complete this affidavit The Office of Investigations would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give us a call. The Department's address,telephone and fax number: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Office of Investigations 600 Washington Street Boston, MA 02111 Tel..—#617-727-4900 etit 406 or 1-877-MASSAFE ' Fax#617-727-7749 Revised 5-26-05 v_1hV.ma.ss.gov/d1m . o / /. TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION r Map�3� 7� Parcel � Permit# Health Division �� f2'1�QZ Z�P�� moo''") Date Issued II l 0 :;i�_ Conservation Division a S r / a7/0>_ Application Fee9 ��`` Tax Collector �0 Permit Fee �L�v Treasurer �' -`!O� APPLICANTMMOBTAINARM CONNECTION PERMIT FROM THE Planning Dept. - ENGINEERING DIVISION PRIOR TO CONSTR ON. Date Definitive Plan Approved by Planning Board Historic-OKH Preservation/Hyannis , Project Street Address S C h a S r? e J '�V e e Village �\/�S Owner R o - r.c�- W a�U cst�'Y r`t r L wi voAddress AU026®/ Telephone -(15 01) 77 S f 2 41 Permit Request Gvt C l©s-e l o"chi t,J o t& kta L) X "n,vo( IrDO,n. 4 e e t v� ac(/t L Q. w.¢., w 4 U yt ►"w s v `d r)G S //e ` �•�vz� - Square feet: 1 st floor: existing proposed 31 2nd floor: existing S proposed Total new 3 Zoning District— Flood Plain Groundwater Overlay Project Valuation �\� y Construction Type !I 'k Lot Size . root, ��Granclfathered: 0 v ❑Yes ❑No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family Two Family ❑ Multi-Family(#units) Age of Existing Structure '*7 S :/r- Historic House: ❑Yes XN0 On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes ❑No Basement Type: AFull ❑Crawl ❑Walkout ❑Other Basement Finished Area(sq.ft.) 0 Basement Unfinished Area(sq.ft) S—B� Number of Baths: Full: existing new Half: existing new b - Number of Bedrooms: existing_^ new C) Total Room Count(not including baths): existing new First Floor Room Count Heat Type and Fuel: ❑Gas Oil ❑ Electric ❑Other Central Air: ❑Yes No Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: O Yes No Detached garage:,existing ❑new size 22x22Pool:❑existing ❑new size Barn:❑existing ❑riew size: Attached garage:❑existing ❑new size Shed:❑existing ❑new size Other: Ca > Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization ❑ Appeal# Recorded❑ ' Commercial ❑Yes ❑No If yes,site plan review# ^, Current Use Proposed Use BUILDER INFORMATION --77,j' Name Q0 ��fiv- y�tn,�; �� Telephone Number U -12 6 2. Address 1/l C.42_ License# La ML3 MA C) Z 6 d 1 Home Improvement Contractor# Worker's Compensation# ALL CONSTRUC ION DEBRISrSUL.TING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO 7 uY'h -� �T - SIGNATURE 'R DATE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PERMIT NO. r DAW-ISSUED ; r r� MAP/PARCEL NO t 1� ADDRESS' - f : VILLAGE OWNERLl - x•y DATE OF INSPECTION: -a FOUNDATION FRAMEz4zd3 INSULATION f_ FIREPLACE ' ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL PLUMBING: ROUGH FINAL GAS: ROUGH FINAL' FINAL BUILDING DATE.CLOSED OUT ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. r� The Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- _� ' - — Department of Industrial Accidents • _. #me&atINFOSMMORMONs . 600 Washington Street . -_-c�I Boston,Mass. 02111 -- Workers' Coai ens on Insurance Affidavit i rr,�, 0. name: V - 4 � k, I V . location• e J 6"�-r 5 J = A �4 Q Z G 0 t hone# - 0 �'!9P-12(O ?-i I am a omeowner performing all work myself. I am a sole r Actor and have no one workiz in ca aclty %%%%%%%%//O/%% %%%%%%/%%%/%%��%%%%%%%%��%%%/%%%%%/%%/%%%O/%/%%%%� 0�%%%%//////%%%%%%%/%/%%%%%%/�%�%%%%%%/�%%��/%%%%%%�%/ ❑ I am an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job. . COIItIIaIIY'IIBmm ..:-.-.I. :. ::>: 9. egg:.;:::. ..:.:.:.:.. ,:.:..,::.;:.::::. D Otte .....:.:;.i:::;.;::.:.::.i:.::.::..:::::::.....::::..:..:....::::.:::.........:::..:.. ...:.: .. .:::.:.:..::.:::",-.':.:::.:':: ::...:.;.:..:;.. :....:;;.;;::...:>.;:: QtY' oli.''`' <:<>' .": z ;;is :3:»:'::< »3:i';>3:i: :;: ?3i';>: ?:><<?:::<;'t,'s`?:;<'`"' ?' ..::.::.:::. :Y"6 ant-6 o.,...:::;::.:'....:.:.. :' ❑ I am a sole proprietor, general contractor,or homeowner(circle one)and have hired the contractors listed below who have . the following workers' compensation polices:. name >>':.::::<':::; O.....i-.. ....x:::-.,,...:-Ni.`".....:.-.:.'... .::.::::::. ::.;:.;:.;.::. cite .....:.........:::::::::.:.................................:::::::::::.:::::::... :................................. ........ ....................................,. 1. ............................:.................................................... :.......::::::::..:::.:. .i':.':i:::'i'::::::i':Fi::i:::i;:i!i::::::i::::::::::::::::i:::Y::::i%:::::i::•'.::::::::::::i:::::::::i:::: i:::::i:::::.:.'::;:;:ii:::::::•'::::::i:::::isisvii:::'.Y::::isi:i:i.::::::::Ji:<::::::;::::. ::::'::f::ii::::::v:::{::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:i::::::::: ::;:::::::::::;::>::i?i::::::i::: Y:::::::i:i!::j�::i:j:::Y::::i:v: <:.::.>:,:>:.: ;:.:;:;.;:.;:.;:.;:;.>::>:::;:::: ::::::::::;;: i'::;:::::::;::;;:•<::;:r::;::;:::;::;:<:::::i::::: ::::::i::::::i::::::i:: :i::::::::::::::i::ii<::>:i:::Dh1fII. •::Y:.:::{. ♦' j;i. ^:tii r:::i:4:::::i::::', :•./••:::::•.:w::::n.: t:i:S}i:Y:•}. :::C::'r::'S ii::::Li?:::i::`:i:::i?<:;: is i:.::iiry::::::'v:it:isw w::i::ii+i:::_:::j.i::::'v:%i>.::;:j;::;::i i::i s2:ii:is::rjvY:i;:i':':::i.:{i:;: :j;i:;isi'rii:: i;:j;: ::::Y+:::::::::^:::":...i'i? ...................... % ............................ w::::::::::::::::::::..:............... .........................:....:.:..............................:.... ......::.�::....................:...:.�. .:.rv..:.:}.,... .:.......... .. ..................�::n.. .. .....r........................... ..................................... :..�::v::. ...... ................ Ol, '.::#.:?:::::::f::?i:::;:;isjv.:%?::'.:::::::::<t:;:i:::::<::::Y:::iv::::::% �:.:.........:...........:i;:::-..o #tistiiaIIc Ii. .......... :::: r.:s. dtITeSSS :::... .:... •.:::. 8 ....:::.i;:.;i:.;;;:.i:.;:.;;::::.....;:.::.:....................... ............. .... fioII .......................... .::.. ........ :::._.::.::::: :.i:.::.:::':::........ ;:.:.:::.::.;;:.:::.:;Y: ::::::.:.:.....: :.:.:.. :.:::...... ....... ..:.-.:- .............................................................:::::::::i:::n..,,., nsnra e� N• j/ Mkre to secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a fine nP to$1,500.00 and/or one years'imprisonment as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDER and a line of$100.00 a day against me. I understand Und a copy of this statement may be fo ed to th ffice of Investigations of the DIAL for coverage verification I do hereby certify th ains penalties of perjury that the information provided above is(aw.and coned Signature Date. J— 2(3 -C) Z. _. _ Print name � . Phone# a V & 7 7 2 2 C9 Z �C..t, kz6,�- )A I Ems, CoMday do not write in this area:to be completed by city or town official . .permit/license# " OBunding Department . OLicensing Board mediate response is required ❑Selectmen's Office . (]Health Department phone#; _ ❑Other__ _ (evind 9195 PJA) Information and Instructions Massachusetts General Laws chapter 152 section 25 requires all employers to provide workers' compensation for their employees. As quoted from the"law",an employee is defined as every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written. An employer is defined as an individual,partnership;association, corporation or other legal entity, or any two or more of the foregoing engaged in a joint enterprise, and including the legal representatives of a deceased employer, or the receiver or trustee of an individual,,partnership, association or other legal entity, employing employees. However the owner of a dwelling house having not more than three apartments and who resides therein, or the occupant of the dwelling house of another who employs persons to do maintenance, construction or repair work on such dwelling house or on the grounds or building appurtenant thereto shall not because of such employment be deemed to be an employer. MGL chapter 152 section 25 also states that every state or local licensing agency shall withhold the issuance or renewal of a license or permit to operate a business or to construct buildings in the commonwealth for.any applicant who has not produced acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance coverage required. Additionally,neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall enter into any contract for the performance of public work until acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this chapter have been presented to the contracting authority. Applicants Please fill in the workers' compensation affidavit completely,by checking the box that applies to your situation and supplying company names,address and phone numbers along with a certificate of insurance as all affidavits may be submitted to the Department of Industrial Accidents for confirmation of insurance coverage. Also be sure to sign and date the affidavit. The affidavit should be returned to the city or town that the application for the permit or license is being requested, not the Department of Industrial Accidents. Should you have any questions regarding the`9aw"or if you are required to obtain a workers' compensation policy,please call the Department at the number listed below. City or Towns Please be sure that the affidavit is complete and printed legibly. The Department has provided a space at the bottom of the affidavit for you to fill out in the event the Office of Investigations has to contact you regarding the applicant. Please be sure to fill in the permit/license number which will be used as a reference number. The affidavits maybe rebumed to the Department by mail or FAX unless other arrangements have been made. - The Office of Investigations would like to thank you in advance for you cooperation and should you have any questions. please do not hesitate to give us a call: r ONES The Department's address,telephone and fax number: The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents Office of Investigations 600 Washington Street Boston,Ma. 02111 fax#: (617) 727-7749 phone#: (617) 727-4900 ext. 406, 409 or 375 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERNIIT FEES . APPLICATION FEE New Buildings,Additions $50.00 Alterations/Renovations 525.00 oLS a Building Permit Amendment S25.00 FEE VALUE WORK,SHEET NEW LIVING SPACE _square feet x S96/sq.foot= 3 O 7 x.0031=_ o 1 plus from below(if applicable) ALTERATIONS/RENOVATIONS OF EXISTING SPACE square feet x S64/sq.foot= x.0031= plus from below(if applicable) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE>12.0 sq.1� >120 sf-500 sf S 35.00 ' >500 sf-750 sf 50.00 ' >150 sf- 1000 sf 75.00 >1000 sf-1500 sf .100.00 >1500 sf-Same as new building permit: square feet x S96/sq.foot= x.0031= STAND ALONE PERMITS Open Porch x$30.00= (number) Deck x$30.00= (number) . Fireplace/Chimney x$25.00= (number) Inground Swimming Pool .$60.00 Above Ground Swimming Pool $25.00 Relocation/Moving $150.00 (plus above if applicable) Permit Fee Pmjcost °FZHE�°� Town of Barnstable ti Regulatory Services M f BA STABLE, ' Thomas F.Geiler,Director Mass. Building Division �plfD MA'S A g Tom Perry,Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 Permit no. Date AFFIDAVIT HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR LAW SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT APPLICATION MGL c. 142A requires that the"reconstruction,alterations,renovation,repair,modernization,conversion, improvement,removal,demolition,or construction of an addition to any pre-existing owner-occupied building containing at least one but not more than four dwelling units or to structures which are adjacent to such residence or building be done by registered contractors,with certain exceptions,along with other requirements. G4, � J lk 6W SAO!��IL Estimated Cost Type of Work: Address of Work: C� e,,s e Owner's Name: Date of Application: I hereby certify that: Registration is not required for the following reason(s): OWork excluded by law ❑Job Under$1,000 ❑Building not owner-occupied Rwner pulling own permit Notice is hereby given that: OWNERS PULLING THEIR OWN PERMIT OR DEALING WITH UNREGISTERED CONTRACTORS FOR APPLICABLE HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE ARBITRATION PROGRAM OR GUARANTY FUND UNDER MGL c. 142A. SIGNED UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY I hereby apply for a permit as the agent of the owner: Date ntractor ame Registration No. Date Owner's Name Q:forms:homeaffidav 33 �--- 9 i Existing footprint 14 Numbers inside of the dark 26 outline are approximate measurements in feet (rounded to the nearest '/ foot) Numbers outside of the lighter lines are measurements in inches 49 (rounded to the nearest inch) 12 1/2 ----i 104 5 1/2 73 Platform is 39"X 42" 60 with 36"X 111/2"stair treads on an 8" rise. f . Elevation Plan of Mudroom from the Back The mudroom will utilize the existing porch deck and be enclosed using 2"X 4" construction, The walls will i consist of studs on 16" centers, with a single shoe and ' double top-plate. Headers will be completely filled with nominal 2" dimensional lumber. The space will be i unheated and uninsulated. The inside walls will be , finished in a suitable wood paneling (3f8" tonge and groove pine). , will be extended along the existing lane and lines i The door is Roof !E g g p i the existing by the use of 2 X 6 rafters. A hip rafter will run from i "storm door'$ the existing corner of the house to both corners of the separated mud room. where the new is married to the old, cripples will be cut .and used to fill in. i from entry door and The existing foundation is a pair of 10 inch "sona-tubes" i installed into supporting a pressure treated 2" X 10" girder that runs i the back wall perpendicular to 2"X 8" pressure treated floor joists. m the i mudroom. The 42" by 39" "landing area" platform (site built with , The nominal Pressure treated 2"X 8" outside of the back door will i size of the be attached b way of a ledger to the existingporch door is 36" X deck and supported at the other end by use f a 2"X 6" — 80 pressure treated footer resting on the existing "brick on sand" patio. Two additional stair treads will be i supported by stringers setting on the patio. rr,.il'r' i'ry:rr iryria4r4,s QvFrjY^ L'rCLYY� .yY y EL k I Elevation Plan of Mudroom ;from the Side. Windows will be aluminum "triple track" style storm windows aligned to match existing windows and similarly trimmed out. The size is 40"X 57". The siding will reuse shingles Existing window I WX57" { removed in preparation for the I I remodel. Like corner boards and i trim types will be used. The sides of the "crawl space will F i be enclosed with pressure I i treated lattice panels. i — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — :;',t�i;.«,;.x",GY%:Y�.QY'.>>Y:;TY.i,�i,y.'.QY..."..>,..',AiY>.;'.CY'.'.,Y'.CY';CY%:kY'.QY.�Y,,y;'. F.nr,.i'.�✓,�;R 4Y..yMr;:..'�.i:Y" .'YRY�'•�Y: <.7°: '.E>.C✓.Qr�!>'� '.QYk '�Ei� x,�Y� ".K;".Y '.�Y�— �5_r�;', - - _ — — — — �.T Elevation Plan of Mudroom 'from the Front. There are no windows or door in this elevation. Entire existing roof over the mud room and kitchen extension will be striped and re-roofed using achitectural shingles matching those on the main second story roof. gL::;::'af.'aY.'aY:'gY.•r:'.:°`fY. ..'..Y.'gL::^'.•.�.''a::::i:'a ' ,;?:;:,:' 'rh.,w',a;:a,r,.,q,ra.,gY;',; pY�gY`,q✓ 'gY.'.gY:+gY�'g;.'aY.:a;.'•s,;:'sY. ' Y r�. ,�:rC;',4✓rG:r'r',v',}i,'r,AL r'`:�•QY'r�r rQ"r r�Y,�. :gY'.a A; L :;,q;.hY',k✓,H✓.g:,ei r.;,✓,.Y .?r9., .r ra,rY �g::'gY.gY.'.gY.;Y;;i.'g:•::;''_5i. :;:gY .'.:"'g::�,:.��.g Elevation Plan of doghouse" �I The doghouse will utilize the existing bulkhead foundation and be enclosed using 2"X 4" construction, The walls will consist of studs on 16" centers, with a single shoe and double top- I plate. Headers will be completely filled with \ I nominal 2" dimensional lumber. The space will i r I be unheated and uninsulated. The inside walls I I I will be finished in a suitable wood paneling (3/8" ..... I— — — — — — — — — tonge and groove pine). A shed roof will be formed using 2"X 6" rafters. Roofingwill be achitectural shingles matching g . �.. r... .w. I I those o the main second story roof. I I I Existing foundation is concrete block (1 course above grade at bulkhead and 3 courses above I grade on average). I I Window is existing aluminum "triple track" style storm window centered in wall and aligned with door installed in the back, and similarly trimmed out. The size is 31"X 38". I I The siding will reuse shingles removed in preparation for the remodel. Like corner boards and trim types will be used. I The door is a "storm door" installed into the back wall of the doghouse. The nominal size of the — — r — — — door is 36" X 80" I I covered b l I� The existing window that is cover y the � r I — —II structure will be removed. The void will be filled — — — — — _ — — — — — — L — — — — — — — — — with a studs and insulation and the inside finished Back view Side view with sheetrock. The outside will be finished with 3/4" plywood. a p,... ,��, r� s W3 •r", h�N' Pam'�l y�'�n 4 ;. > K- .� � a a rn Wt1e s � r• `� F o-�''�. �'a� P p�y�Nd W ##� � .� Y3' ''`r �.�'"� .,"��, ,.c�'� ?�y �' �� ��' "� ��..�•��,�„1.1 r�411 fW��.,�h �ti ad F'W.tF. �l .���, �� "`�`��"" ;v F f rK riF � 4 ^�'� �•{�����n bf'* �� t ..%tA F Y{ �v ° � 35 •'� y y;� � .�i�. F'pyMf'�' � ��. � i �' q vriwy'`c ` 3 � � x .4> ��. n ¢ £ aP _��k > v i t�•. «. '4. ,>~ F x n � x r r. ? zi �f s7ythM�c-t``r €`'��'3t"' "-•:roe $rp.`a°F: f, '�^, E .: t. Nv�'s^'�.4a�� t •L0 �� t t' ,�a )>'j d. e3 -v s`t v 'h •'{ yY a' ..,,.�,. RM 6r„v,.�..j ' I k r"+N r.4z"` 1 ' � y ��'�� I�� �' �' . cp p ��1'+'���FrPa�.�a�,� Cs�•,. �I���5�.0� � a. gi .......... A ANEW NEW !jog. g; [9P�l R O lw�M ge' T: V NE I......... FBI -iii P m i N MINE Mi.- INK: - ! - -x p vHi z -0.0" "—U,�*m*-J� NOR ail j:'. j'L'j'. 'a r +i �, �,�," "' ak+'�•:t r "nC;x,fi z• ar �..;• ��<,� "<•, 4• .r ��r p .. r� s x �.�:, ...� 3 �,. '•:r 5•w .,*A„ r'SI ,�rr :.•, ei Via•. .,� �;g��an r r, a 5, +>,`,y„> �v ��`���''c�r�..0 r �,•' �' iy��"� 1� c,�.�if��. KNa ��� <a::3• .:3` ,b. :yr�• ;* ��uXf'SvRa�.. 9s, .,k� `'�+-S�� �:�t�, ';•$ �,. w..•�h` `f .t:�,5..s. .{{ sa�,y ,� �:7.,�•�•��a�.yr�'�;• '>':a• Y�c•<, ••kyk• 4�;r .Ln; '�r��p^r' �6"�. � �: t sF��f � !�s ?' �?'T' �9.�`' r d`,�§'''� w..k�r !11 �•�''r'i�"j�a r r•.: ��f'r + w:`� � f �^^'. ^`,��"y"NF"'��'•rGM�' G�}, ����7i',rrx�'�t�s,ar � ti �� ' .a',`r:�' '� ''�E ,a t"'�''�tV'�' ti�:� ;e�,F�,,!+t.• ,:;r �',»r„r r`��1���� � r :.,'. tc �R�,+ ,"s r egrt�yrtl$�, 's s`'�<% f S.a'�'�iy,,•'u��:.•�"v.. .fi, r,'�Ftg•.,, .�UFa ��?7,..: .F--B�if..Fh•+`k .I+�'• �,r�. ' ,`.. .� �'��'��..,"><`` ,�t'•n �i, k >�S �� >�' _ she' �, ,< b�r� i .7<•la : �, r�,� r>+�•.� �•zwL ��'�rY�•F�"�'+"��"'�'� ��'�z��' .rl�'r ;�M ���' ��' 'j V ,•L�.'�' '^ tI` �s��'.,1✓ F�"t�•r�>4`��� :z>� r ;. '-�' t,if`'�7- r �d � � t. r +• �.�.: `'•��'�Y I � <:. .s.rf`�,�..n 51,�F'a„,�b. 'a`:.: Y ' a:l_� ,�' ,. ;,�y. � c.:r �.kn� 'n��n>d: : � may, •t ,� ��,x I� ��'x'' ty�r°� s• ��, �e:z�w� ... v .,gz,•t'. z.: t'�.:' .r a 'r s-f ,, a. p:<x; s:F." •.:doh y,.• i .� I k,. s Free ..�... ! 3 adtt ,T r'�.r �, ;,,. i` ''g. ,y ses.. >:?���S,r ,�, •�, tta.�. ;r,� r r'�' '` �>P;�">7' �+i�{�'3,'�' $w .'�;•�., 13 y,, ,rx. tg � 1' za,„. .,n'; -�° a .F �'• -$' .<.. F�"� '�N�"J"' r .+i ...y?. +�;'k ^.v;J+,"A 3?u;^ >K '�, ..'� �..s.. ', x S,, d:• ,,gg--e. :sy,<� 1 � � ,:,,?�, s:rx , r Dt•r .�. �;�� '2: �� ,� A.,, � :9 .'1"2'. �'�'��, 'fit W.;�,,a •_ i k of r ..'. ,,� .x ;Y':. r.L�!'. ,,yyr .n•.x. h t ,'f N *r<4 x. Jx� .:r. ?� r5r �.�„&'t- F.. s Jl1�kq f•�' ,� ':h.,cps ,, ,y>. .: t•.'e. .:.M- T, .,1-✓.: ,: G ti ..�... '$,c.. t: •£'' ,Y,. :•.yF F ,�71'I »7 }• "`erl' is%"F i k. tr4 ,� -0: sc.:eya ,. `• fir. :.' 9 h�` ��.' �li� 3a..."• „{jNET! �� ".e �,1 .•F 1 - ) ash,.:rn-r�' �' �:�.� I''•"C.S":�:" x:a es iv'"" s� �; ,x r +a,L• aL".„n.J' ! xy`� . �'0 ist .;weds. to ,. .. r ;°- >•rr +: 9 V`'v w. �7 ^' 'M.:, r.+r. '° � •ix•. €f>?•� 1�"r]' 's"'r p , ,*c y ,:,.�',.� � �I�•'Fy:•�•`'`,^r<3'> ,::.�" �-;', _'�.r.:,:- �', ,,�;F�f' - •+",`•`r'g'rF�r�a;5-.�.,�".c� ��:�»� ,�'�, jK 'zh.� { ���h�'� 3a"1.,i+�3�f i � �` �4'` '",,�s a �� � 3Ur•°`.:,:— �'�',�< :;: ia'�`t•.ro g ��, i .s�' �,. �, �h•f: ��,��S t�„t �,.r ,.;�: a 'y, , m Sp •r, .T $ �,+e£ :fin,:i"'l� _.--.^ :, aY�'n'"ry. �.9,9 �: 'rr� ,',,:5��'�c�",����•,a.e .:'� ..��sb7r�,.-v�. ; :i fvtti,�l'Irl� lIJ, a x.s�.l -'�,� '� ':"'r �.�.�.5' �s ai'a t•�' 'z&.-� ����s�e �,�"� r}"r�' t�jf � ! i��.� �n.y3 �';:;'� , ' .a + 1l+ . ,�,n.� a {.., 1s"Q,.ae :;•�t',�' .r�x C: `"�S:'r,x 9�,g�'�jr S; '"` a '�±r,�,'»•" ,�'� _yp f�'s r f. b � � •�i�r q�<<.. f v'S`,r.,.' ,f: _ sb:a'. ;,FF3: y;=.�'s,'rY, .,.afi �,•fv.,;`C, :' 7�, ." '" a f, :i::,F a 1 k�. �hCS'';.Y xf"-. ' 5: °'rz�),"di;a3..rA.r.."",: .. 3 ,r, F 'as1icr"" ''C'rY #"x..@o•rw«: %>f. r '� ,y, t{k� y 1rv, ,3 �. .,.a. {„� : f.. i.,J ys,- Y, .,R?" Cm ..,..�,- .z as. ,:P ,3,.{ n f 1 `:�C 'R .•",3"f,' rL+�.:F�';,Y, d ,,t�, ,yr, :'.' F'Y`��.....b`:+•! 'c:i• 7 � .<. ,F.e^e.::.,... � >~..:..'-, %- .L.rx,2?:'•' �!:. } fS .,Sf .�.• <,Y'.. .'��'",s";:' S,� r L fi"-C� t3: 5:' ,.> •�t'.'tq �/ .'b .�f.... ,y�, 'p, i.f<t: Ix '•it -.e56'n,. t ..wF in.lia' �1 { Sf.r':4s tfk ,-.: , .�! -, c.' _.<: : .•r N; .h: "+Y.•.> "' C� ^ L'i »3.'' I .']'.x a 1 A J ? 1. ,`�. MI•• � l�o 'r '-1 T F � n,+,Y- 7fl TP %( f•'ix'�'.>�J �.t .`,�. '3 . �L..d••' ,3 .�_... Cap ar�:..ax Mri ..r`,:'1 C_ " �>. Fes.:. ��;.:, •.�rTZ�>•M,,.rh - Lac:-r. � n2, � w�rv���"kt,. ? '�'�. '.r �F::� h .F?� r�.n,�" { y,.rar;g•r : -; i :'f.. p !. -�r �� ,. � J...: a Y ifi�a�.'vv'i Sk J9`' „ s u• .v> �: �•`� Zn„. £r r a<,t F;.,iN:h�}i��?°"v-""•. 's„'� Ejw. i.,F,a i,.a. 'N t. �m L f •(: ...4. Y". :... �' ':,."• r:_j r,..;� -� > .. , ,:i..., ,�:°y,tx' J ✓'$�`.rx 5'.`'�`s`R. °" { N F�r ,:,:e f'"- �.'c„-r':,s,:... �F u7!" A�i TES•' y >s-,4 a ,:- Ah'` aY ,�, ,:4°`f;.n.x, ' I °� }y sfi>:. .pst.s„..N,.. �.� �>�.�,�. E���,i� E ��,.,;�:R ..„: � .�' .�; ... x a �' ,.-.. r x;� � �;: �"�s .�. ''�: ,1'P I � ,� ..s- ,,•�mwes".�x'rs-e k, .��,li,r�,,+ b tom.^-R`w.:..k�Y•'�'�k{ ..�.': ?. �:> ,x�,'z*� :�� *:' �<',:�� i' >. p „�1�,.�'CI )��>ff��9S�+`3"'+'nl a�nm; ,,, '�' hr�. ,�.�„�. fi k, r ....{M v tn:.. Nr�.� � 1. � L::s•.t',� �. s!�. 2f<�.. fry�' F7� � :3•�4n,.,.�: _ rs � rr'n5 �� i,ta. .r�,� I .41 , �.r d :i._Y9 3. 4„'�•.:. h, n ..,�;ap'7 :-, at. ly �, .:+.. �e�-' _ ,°'•if r'1 AA•,'R"A: ,:. `' ,,.r '",� :.,�t c"C -:'.: 1 p,., �: :., � p, ,. .,, x ., :: ,.���" C, �4s�J' > r1•� a `x >R +T.. �2e .a, �'.:d Fora! r .x:{...: q:. - ;:;::, '>? - y n .• _ '.wY •s�•`.: r �, n :-:.`tF3aR>.,• { a., o'.:.. :: d •.! �,,,; Y �°�ar,�.�b:.::Yp,. a.z, n+>. ,��,1,�. ':a,> a'a"•�°' r�' '�xisb. I !�'.a: "k« "•,.:,' �' A.r '� fi �P" z' ::1. z � _ _'✓.u { W14. .,rc. ..OWN .v....... .. �° T.. �i. :, .Y {Y ,i .I E s.;'1�?�, �.. +}<s •'Ie+C.,',�inr C 7k:R`F r .•t• ,. gs r,=< ., >.v>rc.„, "� •, ,, ... .{ .+ ,.. �.�+wY� A ..:�>Y „4.':..4� <.P �"• e.._e+ .., ,. ::,.R P• +s'.. v? ;1 ,..� fi�r"�,^� ...!!2 ,_ r:.. .. .,..,.. ,., s.,.+ - -. ,_ s ;m e: _•....-uF .e.<... ..:..-....;..:a -,J t.-,;•x'y., x. `f, •.. P ct r ..' Tr a..:, ` k�"s°':� ...:.. ,. :�.'.•:s, ,, e.a .. ...,.<.,.., .,n ,> r: r� v' a �.s; ,>•E r7 ...;�., �,. , :-.:. ::f.. ,.--. ,�..4rs -? .: �. >. .. ;,•le,.,..`-rTM 'I „7 .. l::x•.z•,.fc <,..,.x,> ,...a.�*1.,: .:1,. <r'v.:.. �:t`.,yr S �.i ,�, u� '� kJ >vr! n..,..kL .,k.•<„ k bu` W.e:. ..Y1' ,i ,.. n: �. :{y S•,1 .. x,•> ,:. :.. �,.r e:..�: .,.�: T. �..p�,µ:.. 9�, n�: i}<. 1. M �, ?:, .. d .. .tl' ,,..,.-.., ,.,. .:,,. ..1.✓ �:'.. .. ......,.:...„JP.:�, ✓:{..,... .. ar'& _ � , ..r. Y � w .� .,..1.... ..J r }.... .. f M ,5•. ..,:. .. :;.. .IF., ,r..�._�i.� �... :.. ,,,,w.•�r. .< S .. 'y....�,. ,_- .,. ....>E, '.?R,; .,v.... •r�, .�^..,. , ,:... a.,., ,:> _. >,`:u.-;�.._a..... �:. ...] ah{.t' ,',. c.- °7`.'r, +�.,:,..:, � .py� �'�..: �+.' �' .>. ,:G'dfi�'�`ve 9- °?� 'w„` .v� €;7` ,y x,o.= .:.... ,,1. o, ,.... ,".F,- ,,. •Jv :. s s -:x; +SF w: .L t -_..1>!P'!.•.. ,.. ; a .,'<, y i:- 1 'A.r'' ..:fF •a .x4,...,. ,..: .s w, ,.. .. ,'... .. ..�.•: '., Y ,hr,,. >, ...-.. ,..a* N ..,e ...?. ` ><,.. :t„ ..I. .k .] �;�`t..•s � �. t �' is•. .,...v. ... ,: s z;.:. _ 1�' T' v'. - Y.,.. b. a�". �,'°r'. i+,�:s r ?,. t 1. d',E 'i..... ,f:7+, ,• .� .',. "rl ,.. .. ..M T,3.u[,u` ix.,. 1•u,Ji.. tiMIN T'x ,,,.,... ..„ ,. '.f �,' i' .{,, , ..:?�.._.:,.: •;d,. ..rov, ,. � eC { ;.,f,^f_ ::1.. '. ..4. _t�"ti, .ai ,....a _t� `fit• ...� ,.....I.: .5-• '.L h... v... .. , 9 .f.. :.:."wir,,.f4'..:'.. .. ::. .'r= �._i ,>c. ,..,. -:, i,.: .,. .. r. i . : : _. �>. . 1-a�p%$"• {' :.f_ 'c,f .a:.. ...av;.s .F'„ot, , `.e�`t.;.xx. .,<_...uan..... ....� Y^a 1� ... ..... ,.::..,:.... � rr atw .:. C .r.S�.. >, �.,.�FYu ..,.f.. : .., .. .. . 'il",,..34.j. .i.)"v4�'�ANI. •h .N'> "qY `f,.1 .4 N't. ^�.�.� ..,.p��r� h...f '..x .,. i:, t'va,..c .A: C.:.. ... 'th :n, ..,�5i. a.•., u�!,x,,.. }_ d.:' "S '•S,a.:... .k. yy{{•• ..:, a r �''�``�. �.. s.,.. , •�c x,,� 1 �_> i'k+. .. ..._ P U!y�. .. a:. <t i•S.. J.,3 .i_, *F' > >. , 1.:, ...r ..�.,...z �".�.. ,.. .ac b .. ,,; 1.� .., �.. W �', n-., •..:a.,y.�. ', .. .. �- r 4 ,l 1� ;{ r ,x», r ,�h cc.1�,.:f..� +?ry ',..aY.,�,�'.. .s�r ,',• 9° . : . _.a - -z'i'; a+•a v ri". .,-".< ..::.''..... 'RJ'. u.. ..>._.,-, :., •,:: ";R;x ,>da.r'E aC'� .: •. ;'c .�1 "#>.n... ...n » 9',''34„ •,.r .:. .1� .Z¢ i1. c`^ x. .::a �.,k�, .,,o ., ..5 ....:3� ya .,. ql_ ...n a �:.:1:. -.:.:: }d, u. m :•���?...<.e' ✓t' .,.u"),v l .xa e �R}', ,.::✓.:: {,:-..: .52 1. .S..': .,,,a, n:t3•..::.. ,.. .. ...... � ie ;.2..y.,`•..,a-..,,. ,. ...:.1' W�,.� }Q .. . .... r....r'C :su \ p F.p. 1'•' .'7^,`v,:. �;:r'$ -,� �f >�.. .,�',.�. �' } f '�N 4 i. a9y a� :. ;�:j:..•''. ��r`�P )...��...,",���r •�4,"�,..,i 1 a 3 � �; �:>S tis >:� o`s '>9L1 �;. d �. �,�},;�_'or �-,�»a �{a c�;e,t•� i 3 � �:' l:� t.:;�S c f h �. � .s �,' k,: t ?a fis"rl..; s. i�•,•e�,� r}r a'�Y .'"' z�� ��� 'y x,{%" ,1 � >r �+ e'yr ! `w'' I � �'" �'� .��•,.``'�'Y°p °�tx a�. " ',"h'la"•:G�`J',�t'✓` rim 3 C � >�' �' S � x' The Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services Thomas F. Geiler, Director Building Division Tom Perry, Building Commissioner 200 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 HOMEOWNER LICENSE EXEMPTION Please Print DATE__a L O 2' JOB LOCATION: % l AA( e 9-;L- number- street village p "HOMEOWNER": S'O name home phone# work phone# CURRENT MAMING ADDRESS: C city/town state zip code The current exemption for"homeowners"was extended to include owner-occupied dwellings of six units or less and to allow homeowners to engage an individual for hire who does not possess a license,provided that the owner acts as supervisor. DEFINITION OF HOMEOWNER Person(s)who owns a parcel of land on which he/she resides or intends to reside, on which there is, or is intended to be, a one or two-family dwelling, attached or detached structures accessory to such use and/or farm structures. A person who constructs more than one home in a two-year period shall not be considered a homeowner. Such"homeowner"shall submit to the Building Official on a form acceptable to the Building Official,that he/she shall be responsible for all such work performed under the building permit. (Section 109.1.1) The undersigned"homeowner"assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other applicable codes,bylaws,rules and regulations. The undersigns " omeowner"certifies that he/she understands the Town of Barnstable Building Departmen .' um inspection procedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said proced s an re S. Si re of Homeowner Approval of Building Official Note: Three-family dwellings containing 35,000 cubic feet or larger will be required to comply with the State Building Code Section 127.0 Construction Control. HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION The Code states that: "Any homeowner performing work for which a building permit is required shall be exempt from the provisions of this section(Section 109.1.1-Licensing of construction Supervisors);provided that if the homeowner engages a person(s)for hire to do such work,that such Homeowner shall act as supervisor." Many homeowners who use this exemption are unaware that they are assuming the responsibilities of a supervisor(see Appendix Q,Rules&Regulations for Licensing Construction Supervisors,Section 2.15) This lack of awareness often results in serious problems,particularly when the homeowner hires unlicensed persons. In this case,our Board cannot proceed against the unlicensed personas it would with a licensed Supervisor. The homeowner acting as Supervisor is ultimately responsible. To ensure that the homeowner is fully aware of his/her responsibilities,many communities require,as part of the permit application,that the homeowner certify that he/she understands the responsibilities of a Supervisor. On the last page of this issue is a form currently used by several towns. You may care t amend and adopt such a form/certification for use in your community. O:FORMS:EXEMPTN 11/02/08 01:58 PAX 401 331 2991 CALENDA & IACOI, LTD. I9O01 riio SMPIWW wand it to be and far�pP RET Alf �r jo F&W Sr (n» a�-o at 31 A� Ad"(of?)�m DAM10-1-98 SCAM t'� fin' I a&" bid V& draglj Is hm otod q*rovfta*m shown and cwftveoad to the zW" bykm of bu,town of _ HAMR W I I m Wm a6u+�W and it not located bi a flood A� h=GW Yaps � a D PIM Refs-Mm A 4 Bamstable County Reg of Deeds mm t3so / PACE 442 PL BX 12 /PL. 57ppm (E LOLa 90.00' ►� aWdE W LQT M Po TIOAr p oar � z r . H"- of tot U Li 9a oo' s� 8 r j�7 Awrea VHW r� � L p ;0pv - a TOWN.OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION . Map U�] Parcel 3 •' Permit# - 5� 2 Ai&SC®NNEC�1oT CBrAIlV Date Issued Jt Health Division �1-3-26 C� ' ` 01 R1NG D RMIT F A C,_ Conservation Division G 3 oNs U�,10N 1vLS1oN pro$TO Fee r Stax Collector"= A 11 Aa I i Treasurer' ap, x F� Ian ing ept. ->r w D of ni` e I A ved Plan oar r w , on - r se on y Project Street Address 9 5 C ha-se .J i-d a U Village `T (/C"Y IM 1,S r `Owner R016f £ pal7/'l[.I EPmml lT� Address • Y. C4gfSe /Ol✓,t! •Telephone -S06- 775' 12 G Z e, d Permit Request .. A d o n•b I �` 54a R hWew Ir-P D Wa l 1 �A fweev r � C�l� Pei Q / -P b ae// O A aasll fiWove /iit dew 40 Ah W1 <idP fl0VSP, Square feet: 1st-floor:existing i000 proposed IOZ-U 2nd floor: existing proposed Total new Z0 Estimated Project Cost 5 000 a . Zoning District Flood Plain Groundwater Overlay Construction Type y Lot Size. 9000 so _ Grandfathered: ❑Yes ❑No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family Two.Family ❑ Multi-Family(#units) Age of Existing Structure Historic House: ❑Yes -KNo• j On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes ,4No Basement Type: ❑Full ❑Crawl ❑Walkout V Other FJ I I usn� m4l« luas.e rQ UJ(- JXA- soh woo; 040, Basement Finished Area .ft. r (s q, ) `�'� Basement Unfinished Area(sq.ft) � S� 'Number of Baths: Full: existing new y Half: existing j new 6 Number of Bedrooms: existing new Total Room Count(not including baths): existing new First Floor Room Count- Heat Type and Fuel: $(Gas ❑Oil ❑Electric ❑Other Central•Air: ❑Yes *No Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: ❑Yes O(No Detached garage: existing ❑new size Pool:❑existing ❑new size - Barn:❑existing ❑new size Attached garage:❑'existing'- ❑new size Shed:❑existing ❑newsize Other: Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization ❑ Appeal# Recorded❑ Commercial ❑Yes ❑No If yes, site plan review# Current Use Proposed Use BUILDER INFORMATION Name Telephone Number Address License# Home Improvement Contractor# ' Worker's Compensation# ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO SIGNATUR DATE 3'"9 ' FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY {PERMIT NO. _ �Lf ,�� vt, . � � • DATE ISSUED MAP/PARCEL NO. ADDRESS =�_ .! VILLAGE A ' OWNER A.' DATE OF INSPECTION: FOONDATIONr -FRAME INSULATION``' -Vc fi/ FIREPLACE ELECTRICAL: -ROUGH FINAL 'y' PLUMBING: ROUGH FINALE GAS: = ROUGH FINAL FINAL BUILDING` DATE CLOSED OUT ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. . �. . .The Town of Barnstable Department of Huth Safety and Enviraz=entaI Services : Binding Division 367 Main Sltc;Hyannis MA=0I C = Offaa: 308.790.6ZZ7 '� Hus7diag Ccraraiss:=. Far 509-7n-WO For offl=use oniy Permit na Dare AFMAVTT HOME IlVIPROVEMENT'CONTRACTOR LAW ySMLEMENTTO PERMTrAFMCATION MGL a I47.A nq wres that the �eeoattructlon, ,us, mnomim mpair, moderni=ZiCn. conversion. Improvement, removal. demotion, or construcdon of as addition to any pre-airing containing at lest are but not more than tour dweiffng emits or to owner occnpied builftg Cant;actorz, with structures w►Wcb are adjacent to such residemr or buifdfag be done by registered ee::sia czccptioa&afoag with other requirements . otwork: Amoco o 4 4aL Cost S`'o�v Type — Address ofwork: C 1c�1�tf1>3 �:� Owner's Name Date of Permit Applfeation: I hereby certify that: ttgg str:Won is not required for the following rensontsj: Work mciuded by law Job tinder-A'I,0PL Buiidiag not owner-occupied Owner p dMq own permit Notice is hereby givIn that: OWNERS pULLUYG TBM OwN PERMIT OR DEALIIYG WLl'Ii QNREGIStERED can TRAGTO RS FOR APPLIGIBR GZAh OR GUA � GUARANTY FWD UMER MGL I4ZA ACCESS TO TM ARBITRATIO SiG.-M =ER 1WALTIFS OF PERJURY [hereby uffiy fora permit as the agent of the owner. Date C =ctor Name Begin No. --_-_- The Commonwealth of Massachusetts _�; Department of Industrial Accidents H � Office of/llYest%osogfls Y L� = �'� 600 Washington Street Boston,Mass. 02111 Workers' Compensation Insurance Affidavit name: D location: C)S, C 44-V 1 J� c itv hone# I am a 116meowner performing all work myself. ❑ I am a sole ro rietor and have no one working in any capacity ZZZZ ZZ ❑ I am an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job. company name: address city phone#: insurance co. R61icv# /////%/%ice% ❑ I am a sole proprietor, general contractor, or homeowner(circle one)and have hired the contractors listed below who have the following workers' compensation polices: .........__... company name address city: phone#: insurance ca. oltcv# campanv name. _... . address: city phone#i F. insurance co. Policy# . Failure to secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a tine up to S1,500.00 and/or one years'imprisonment as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDER and a tine of$100.00 a day against me. I understand that a copy of this statement may be forwarded to the Omce of Investigations of the DIA for coverage verification. 1 do hereby cerd un r the pains d penalties of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct Signature ,L Date # z`9 r _ Print name 'Ro 6,er//- /.- f°f1�Z1 PT Phone# L30,52 / 7S -/Z to official use only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town official city or town: permit/license# ❑Building Department ❑Licensing Board ❑check if immediate response is required ❑Selectmen's Office ❑Health Department contact person: phone#; ❑Other ::... ... .. :::: ...... ......:.......::...: (revised 9/95 PJA) ' Information and Instructions Massachusetts General Laws chapter 152 section 25 requires all employers to provide workers' compensation for their employees. As quoted from the "law", an employee is defined as every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written. An employer is defined as an individual, partnership, association, corporation or other legal entity, or any two or more of the foregoing engaged in a joint enterprise, and including the legal representatives of a deceased employer, or the receiver or trustee of an individual,partnership, association or other legal entity, employing employees. However the owner of a dwelling house having not more than three apartments and who resides therein, or the occupant of the dwelling house of another who employs persons to do maintenance , construction or repair work on such dwelling house or on the grounds or building appurtenant thereto shall not because of such employment be deemed to be an employer. MGL chapter 152 section 25 also states that every state or local licensing agency shall withhold the issuance or renewal of a license or permit to operate a business or to construct buildings in the commonwealth for any applicant who has not produced acceptable evidence of compliance with the.insurance coverage required. Additionally,neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall enter into any contract for the performance of public work until acceptable evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this chapter have been presented to the contracting authority. Applicants Please fill in the workers' compensation affidavit completely, by checking the box that applies to your situation and supplying company names, address and phone numbers along with a certificate of insurance as all affidavits may be submitted to the Department of Industrial Accidents for confirmation of insurance coverage. Also be sure to sign and date the affidavit. The affidavit should be returned to the city or town that the application for the permit or license is being requested, not the Department of Industrial Accidents. Should you have any questions regarding the"law"or if you are required to obtain a workers' compensation policy, please call the Department at the number listed below. City or Towns Please be sure that the affidavit is complete and printed legibly. The Department has provided a space at the bottom of the affidavit for you to fill out in the event the Office of Investigations has to contact you regarding the applicant. Please be sure to fill in the permit/license number which will be used as a reference number. The affidavits may be returned to the Department by mail or FAX unless other arrangements have been made. The Office of Investigations would like to thank you in advance for you cooperation and should you have any questions. please do not hesitate to give us a call. The Department's address,telephone and fax number: The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents office of Imtesduatlons 600 Washington Street Boston;Ma. 02111 fax#: (617) 727-7749 phone#: (617) 727-4900 eat. 406, 409 or 375 1$O CMR Appnwk Table JS=b(continued) Prescriptive Packages for One and Two-Fau*Residential Buildings Bated with Foasit Fueis MAXIMUM MINIMUM Glazing Glazing Ceiling Wall Floor Hasment Slab Heating/Cooling Am'M U-veiue= R-value' R value' R value Walt Peseta Equips Efficiency' Page R value` R value' $701 to 6500 Hating Degree Days Q 12% 0.40 38 13 19 10 6 Normal R 12% 0.52 30 19 19 10 6 Normal S 12% 0.50 38 13 19 10 6 83 AFUE T 15% 036 38 13 23 WA WA Normal U ISYS 0.46 38 19 19 10 6 Normal V 15% 0.44 38 13 25 WA WA 83 AFUE W IS% 0.52 30 19 19 IO 6 IS AFUE X 18% 0.32 38 13 25 WA WA Normal Y 19% 0.42 38 19 25 WA WA Normal Z 18•/. 0.42 38 13 19 10 6 90 AFUE AA 18'/6 0.50 30 19 19 10 6 90 AFUE 1. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL EXTERIOR WALLS: 3. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL GLAZING: 3 i'L 4. %GLAZING AREA(#3 DIVIDED BY 92): 5. SELECT PACKAGE(Q—AA-see chart above): NOTE: OTHER MORE INVOLVED METHODS OF DETERMINING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ARE AVAILABLE. ASK US FOR THIS INFORMATION. BUILDING INSPECTOR APPROVAL: YES: NO: q-forms-080303a A 780 CMR Appendix J Footnotes to Table J5.2.1b: Glazing area is the ratio of the area of the glazing assemblies (including sliding-glass doors, skylights, and basement windows if located in walls that enclose conditioned space,but excluding opaque doors)to the gross wall area,expressed as a percentage. Up to 1%of the total glazing area may be excluded from the U-value requirement. For example,3 ft2 of decorative glass may be excluded from a building design with 300 ft2 of glazing area. 2 After January 1, 1999, glazing U-values must be tested and documented by the manufacturer in accordance with the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) test procedure, or taken from Table J1.5.3a. U-values are for whole units: center-of-glass U-values cannot be used. ' The ceiling R-values do not assume a raised or oversized truss construction. If the insulation achieves the full insulation thickness over the exterior walls without compression, R-30 insulation may be substituted for R-38 insulation and R-38 insulation may be substituted for R49 insulation. Ceiling R-values represent the sum of cavity insulation plus insulating sheathing (if used). For ventilated ceilings, insulating sheathing must be placed between the conditioned space and the ventilated portion of the roof. 'Wall R-values represent the sum of the wall cavity insulation plus insulating sheathing (if used). Do not include exterior siding, structural sheathing, and interior drywall. For example, an R49 requirement could be met EITHER by R-19 cavity insulation OR R-13 cavity insulation plus R-6 insulating sheathing. Wall requirements apply to constructions,but do not apply to metal-frame construction. (concrete,masonry,to wall co p y -frame or mass c P wood ( m5' g) 'The floor requirements apply to floors over unconditior ed spaces(such as unconditioned crawlspaces,basements, or garages).Floors over outside air must meet the ceiling requirements. `The entire opaque portion of any individual basement wall with an average depth less than 50%below grade must meet the same R q as -value requirement above-grade walls. Windows and sliding glass doors of conditioned 1`� basements must be included with the other glazing. Basement doors must meet the door U-value requirement described in Note b. 'The R-value requirements are for unheated slabs.Add an additional R-2 for heated slabs. ' If the building utilizes electric resistance heating use compliance approach 3,4, or 5. If you plan to install more than one piece of heating equipment or more than one piece of cooling equipment, the equipment with the lowest efficiency must meet or exceed the efficiency required by the selected package. 'For Heating Degree Day requirements of the closest city or town see Table J5.2.1a NOTES: a)Glazing areas and U-values are maximum acceptable levels. Insulation R-values are minimum acceptable levels. R-value requirements are for insulation only and do not include structural components. b)Opaque doors in the building envelope must have a U-value no greater than 0.35. Door U-values must be tested and documented by the manufacturer in accordance with the NFRC test procedure or taken from the door U-value in Table J1.5.3b. If a door contains glass and an aggregate U-value rating for that door is not available, include the glass area of the door with your windows and use the opaque door U-value to determine compliance of the door. One door may be excluded from this requirement(i.e.,may have a U-value greater than 0.35). c)If a ceiling,wall, floor,basement wall,slab-edge,or crawl space wall component includes two or more areas with different insulation levels, the component complies if the area-weighted average R-value is greater than or equal to the R-value requirement for that component. Glazing or door components comply if the area-weighted average U- value of all windows or doors is less than or equal to the U-value requirement(0.35 for doors). 43 The Town of Barnstable OF SHE o� Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services Building Division BAMSTABLE HAM 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 t63q. �ArED MA'I� Office: 508-8624038 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner HOMEOWNER LICENSE EXEMPTION �1/ Please Print DATE: I/g-2—7�y�Uy [J JOB LOCATION: S C�7 45-2 s f /T 1/Qgq JS number / ' ` street village "HOMEOWNER": /\(7JLf�d� IlV h�vo1# 1-05�- 77S-fZ 6 2 name home phone# work phone# CURRENT MAILING ADDRESS: 9S C US Q 7�, f f0� (/�i/ Ali- h!� city/town state. zip code The current exemption for"homeowners"was extended to include owner-occupied dwellings of six units or less and to allow homeowners to engage an individual for hire who does not possess a license,provided that the owner acts as supervisor. DEFINITION OF HOMEOWNER Person(s)who owns a parcel of land on which he/she resides or intends to reside,on which there is,or is intended to be,a one or two-family dwelling,attached or detached structures accessory to such use and/or farm structures. A person who constructs more than one home in a two-year period shall not be considered a homeowner. Such "homeowner"shall submit to the Building Official on a form acceptable to the Building Official,that he/she shall be responsible for all such work performed under the building permit. (Section 109.1.1) The undersigned"homeowner"assumes responsibility for compliance with the State Building Code and other applicable codes,bylaws,rules and regulations. The undersigned"homeowner"certifies that he/she understands the Town of Barnstable Building Department minimum inspection procedures and requirements and that he/she will comply with said procedures and require n . Signature of Homeowner Approval of Building Official PP g Note: Three-family dwellings containing 35,000 cubic feet or larger will be required to comply with the State Building Code Section 127.0 Construction Control. HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION The Code states that: "Any homeowner performing work for which a building permit is required shall be exempt from the provisions of this section(Section 109.1.1-Licensing of construction Supervisors);provided that if the homeowner engages a person(s)for hire to do such work,that such Homeowner shall act as supervisor." Many homeowners who use this exemption are unaware that they are assuming the responsibilities of a supervisor(see Appendix Q, Rules&Regulations for Licensing Construction Supervisors,Section 2.15) This lack of awareness often results in serious problems, particularly when the homeowner hires unlicensed persons. In this case,our Board cannot proceed against the unlicensed person as it would with a licensed Supervisor. The homeowner acting as Supervisor is ultimately responsible. To ensure that the homeowner is fully aware of his/her responsibilities,many communities require,as part of the permit application, that the homeowner certify that he/she understands the responsibilities of a Supervisor. On the last page of this issue is a form currently used by several towns. You may care to amend and adopt such a form/certification for use in your community. Q:FORM&EXEMPT 11/02/98 ' 01:88 FAX 401 331 2991 CALENDA & IACOI, LTD. 19001 8 . ASSOCUITS MORMGE INVE'C17ON P1.AA� 1Ak pj�" we not dono am an ki& n mt �r FAQ and b to bo umd Ibr nrortgw [a» a -o�aa l�i� -o DA1 f0—f-98 SCAL& f'= aa� .. ..... . .... I of" drat fhb drz 6lg la muted atrpromill 'ao Aoca and cwfwmcO to UM ZW&g bj*m of me TOM of dWn mnsbueW and is not kwfid sr a Ooad Alah AWWW Bona Y I a Dcd 40 Phn Reftrahm 11 A a Barnstable County Reg of Deeds 900K 1380 / PACE 442 PL BK. 12 /PL. 57 Mal 90.00, CARAWE � PORFIOAr HALF: DF LOT 23 90.00RFRT a @IsT6,M4 A-FE ST �o Soy�vE ' � "�' .`A+14!'iis�ecMWs^�iie'•vs`SRo�s ri ��' - �a,`� X. smA�ue.�i?k�ratvl�ax.�'L,�;�:4s.2�un , bra. x�:,a�c: ai��� �.5�a�-r��'•�. tx �, s g�4,31�is��'Trif W3 w1ka W317t �Ch��Agin '�4g Slyt two • �. �d `aMi - _ +sz#.�E .+�'(r`.'e��'"'r���D. �°'t l t;} JX9 _. .. 'yq `$Sia1�1.i11[? t1Y'll�Y�ti4r. �A 'Nom 4 &? rita L 3 pp�y����t3 sL* ;w "Grnal 6? m�tiszws r4hS 5�3 "i �iQ4SG1 �, °6av]'S:� � `�m4'� ?Y°fj�,� �"��, 9� G�°: �,Y,$�(L»•:9,5'FP. 'F.�§fY -h:S "ie,"�7,� �?�yB�.Es'af;lYc'+�'Y� au"� 4s' � c , v � � ce�r ,.,,�.,®. .r twn.r.�-.,.�•....au�4 :�...w�-<s,n:arw..r.�+&•�a .., �� ��� � .r'r:l �4'a.� ..�""9 t"Sa \ 1Q1� ii $ � "�wb����na°eseavE�gs.`a3anav�euas v ravz�cr�te+cc+r+��esw�.�.z>�• a; ,veil f 54 6i: 4, 1j�y *m M}9em.1i$„s4.�>•• riR�t9ia'ASi3 ti:e > gYBF.5.i4i FG4 ^i§�f-°:Mi'Gi7a-�3.L9in'�.„ve±°k.,'P.3L"NA','ID;tftf`krt�laD'Q' KkF:,YCn:,w'd'�1A`WS4YA�t!{FyVf .f: "''•'Pid. ff"+'� ILI $ h'�..a-�!:tlh�5^��5amrrso;?irk»viicek5.a:�§rF+7ata7..�::yaprs�e�JC�:S;sit+4'swW'x;4%t0.7T'R'xra,+ta�+'F t;w.4fF�� iae+�'±ci, �ae1SN .".'dNtf�Y,4'�',.n'A,it"t}f�w�4::s'�:rcr.;y�`s?�;€nacscoff! '.'a'k'd,�Sii»Attitgra5�1'!il(4F.Ad.I�F•`ii<a�:art .y .: Structural "Foot print" for House at 95 Chasse St. (Bold section is to be modified by adding crosshatched area, installing double 2X1 o"header and removing wall from between kitchen and "mudroom") Chase Street side Existing mudroom is a single story ell with a hip roof. The expansion will contiue the attributes of the"Hip"(i.e., the same pitch and rafter configutation) The outside walls will continue the 2X4 studs on 16"centers with 3/4" _ plywood sheathing(to conform to existing sheathing thickness). The floor will continue the 2X8 joists a' on 16"centers with 3/4"plywood sub- W flooring and finished flooring to the a existing kitchen floor. It will be CD supported by continuing the existing N foundation on the mudroom to the a existing foundation of the bulkhead (p stairs. The header will be lag bolted into the second floor rim joist and supported by 2X4 jack studs that are nested into the wall. I will be re-using the two existing double hung windows. Kitchen There is an existing deck on the back of the mudroom that will be removed and the kithchen door will be moved to the side of the building. MudroomOU Existing Kitchen Layout a--31 `°c a Broom Closet ° 1 ° [ � 9844 16 V2 " V2 Bath �' • Front Hall 1 72Y2" Basement Stairs 27"--P 121" Butler's Pant ry 61 " O O ©MMC3=1 Bulkhead 55 1/2 " (Outside Basement Existing"Mudroom!! Stairs) 87 " 56" Existing Deck(to be removed) Structural "Foot print" for House at 95 Chase St. (Bold section is to be modified by adding crosshatched area, installing double 2X10"header and removing wall from between kitchen and "mudroom") Chase Street side Existing mudroom is a single story ell with a hip roof. The expansion will contiue the attributes of the"Hip"(i.e., the same pitch and rafter configutation) The outside walls will continue the 2X4 studs on 16"centers with 3/4" _ plywood sheathing(to conform to existing sheathing thickness). The floor will continue the 2X8 joists a on 16"centers with 3/4"plywood sub- CD flooring and finished flooring to the �p existing kitchen floor. It will be M supported by continuing the existing foundation on the mudroom to the N existing foundation of the bulkhead stairs. The header will be lag bolted into the second floor rim joist and supported by 2X4 jack studs that are nested into the wall. I will be re-using the two existing double hung windows. K i tct� n There is an existing deck on the back of the mudroom that will be removed and the kithchen door will be moved to the side of the building. Mudroom Existing Kitchen Layout o--31 "—b Broom Closet Q 0<3 98 u a O s�T 16%2 " '/2 Bath � Front Hall 1 72'h" Basement Stairs 27"- 121 Butler's Pantry 61 " Oo 00 V : 1 7.— I - 0 1 -7 Bulkhead 55'/2 " (Outside Basement Existing"Mudroom" Stairs) Existing Deck(to be removed) r'. t New Kitchen Layout 31 - Broom Closet 1] A ELI 98<. 16'/s " 'h Bath 1 From Hall 72'/x" Basement Stairs w 27 Butler's Pantry 176'/s " 610 " . 0 L J - 00000 I 1 not Bulkhead (Outside Basement Stairs) CID 143 ^ GCG7tMCC/ 1 11 1 1 New Kitchen Layout • o--31 0 Broom Closet 0 e� 98�. 16'h " '/z Bath Front Hall 72'/z" ice\ Basement Stairs 27'--> LL Butler's Pantry 176'/s " 61 � O 0 0 C3OGCO/ I Bulkhead (Outside Basement Stairs) 00 143 oocoo I I I p a 'FLOW NY I NOTE e PACKFLOW MT-VENTOR IS i 0 FROM WALL 17 OKI Ac G 1 1 �,tGo l E� /ir 5P�C.KFI_oW PREYENToR -- : IS .. FIRE SERYI CE ��; o I I FLOOR LEVEL MRSS FIRE PROTE CT1ON S` STEM5 INC. P o . E>ox 69S 11-Y I)f,A,co M R, oz-UB SCALE: APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: T. 0.S DATE: , O ' REVISED DRAWING NUMBER a ' �RC�KFL©UJ iRE�]EnYIoR INS�A�.�A ItDN � dF e 4 f � � z z f WL I I I I I f BASEMENT ACCESS STAIR BEAM } ........., OPEN TO ABOVE RESIDENTIAL UPRIGHT SPRINKLERS SHALL 71-611 - T-7" D�1 I ? BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURE LISTING ! ` F DRY SIDEWALL I € r-, I 111 RISER DN o UP c .. E ° E - / zo «............... ...:.......... ... ,,., ........, ,.,.., 1 ............. ............ 1 CD I--2' 11 � / ''7 F L. '2 i� _ MUD 2 :_ _ . ........................ .... . _. ........ ........ .............................. t Q # ROOM : :... .. ....... . ......... ....,.. ......... ..._..... ......... .......,........-.......,..,.,,., .. . ..,,.... ...... .......... ................... iv 2-8 �6 1 4 z ; 7 ll 2 1 Ooo, 5 4 171 I 5 _ W-8. 1"RISER UP IIor> 1n0-6 go 10-0 5-0 I------6'-1 CL. �r 13 11 6 t 04 PANTRY --I ; 1 5 o to N a s y r-i o ' 0'-6 T-11" 7-11 'SIDEWALL 0-11 3-1 0 2-1 KITCHEN € ,..,,. ...., # UP--- ............. ti 5-0 BEDROOM f 5 -4" [ � € DN [+T6 ` --�--I-QN BATHEli DINING S 41 Q.FT._ • A ,i {.: 4 ;i € _ k +7 0 # f 1 .I r HALL i 7'-6" cV : k HALL ED # f 6-51/2 CHUIhNEY. , - /2 6-6-3 1 4-3 7-6 y ._ a l SUN ROOM I.,. I 1 1 1 1 1 t M._,.. ,,.: v :.....,w. _. .:«.... __:.:., _. ..,N.. , _ BATH ; 6 2: 0-6 z 9 0 ,�t=ffiz 4-5�: •• �-3 ;01-11 �. ,.,,, .................._,,.,,,._ :��• •: € 1 F-0 16 SQ FT � •I , n ' - 1 RISER UP € � . BEAM I f ; k . 3 k ( [+7 o p # I w 1 w - c 7-0 : f l- w i 7'6 N k N 1 RISER D i F. zo co - # : i 3 N: N: 7-6 �. Al 3 k f 2 n ; - ; .51 7-11 4 s 3-8 9-6 -2 6-11 1� I € 1 CL. 1 I s..., :. . ..:.- BEDROOM 0-8 _ g BEDROOM I - - - -- - - - -- ( -LIVING ROOM ----- - I , 8 I SEE VALVE DETAIL 4 ' 14 € AZ r I w STUDY W € I # I BATH T € 1 " 4--i # _ I I K� t N CL. 25 SQ.FT. 3 ` �-2 • s cf . I 111 RISER DN r T6"1 FRONT ENTRANCE _ �, ... __: _mw= �''�-2"FIRE SERVICE(BY OTHERS) .. ,,,.-....... .............:................_ „ .... 1"RISER UP � C � f BASEMENT' FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN 2nd FLOOR FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN SCALE 1/4"=V-0" 1st FLOOR FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN _ SCALE 1/4"=V-0" 00 SCALE 1/4"=V-0" I Q' I f 2 I f 4 I, f I O N Nr cb N j Qa M � w M —SPARE HEAD CABINET -I-� � SYSTEM CPVC PIPE STRAP HANGER APPLICATION -+-� s� c0 1 1/4w VICTAULIC RISER MANIFOLD o o / RESTRAINER APPUCATION / FLOW SWITCH, PRESSURE HYDRAULIC REMOTE AREA #1 n SITE PLAN WATER FLOW TEST 4 GAUGE, TEST AND DRAIN VALVE GENERAL NOTES I--�-I NOT TO SCALE DATE: 7-5-17 A.H.J. LOCAL FIRE DEPT./F.P.E. 0 DESIGN STD. N.F.P.A. 13D (2013 EDITION) / o +� i~ € € STATIC: 80 `PSI 1. PROJECT IS AN EXISTING 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH CPVC PIPE o cd CD 1 1/4° BUTTERBALL PIPE TYPES CPVC PIPE HEX HEAD SELF N RESIDUAL: 65 PSI VALVES PVC BASEMENT.TYPICAL WOOD CONSTRUCTION.2700 TOTAL SQUARE TAPPING SCREW HEX HEAD SELF •r—i �' Q p h "...................... r FLOW: 1060 GPM •• MAINS C FEET(BOTH FLOORS&BASEMENT).- TAPPING SCREW W/ TAMPER SWITCHES �+ W T' `r.` ';' BRANCHES CPVC 2. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT .�., .....+ BY: MASS FIRE PROTECTION K= 4.40 BUILDING.WET SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED. T U -. TEST & DRAIN �/ SPRINKLER ORIFLCE rn o 3. SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D r , VALVE AREA LOCATION 2nd FLOOR LAVING DOUBLE FASTENER ►CQ tJ (2013)"INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN ONE&TWO FAMILY SINGLE FASTENER € 95CHASEAVE. OF FLOWING SPRINKLERS 2 DWELLINGS". TWO RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS FLOWING MINIMUM CPVC PIPE STRAP %,.•,,`' `` -===— I # CPVC PIPE STRAPco FFE:25 ® ®A. 0.05 256 0.05 DENSITY OVER COVERAGE AREA. �—I DENSITY G P M.�SQ.FT 4. OWNER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEAT THROUGHOUT TO AVOID PIPES f....,..a,; ; : ,,F �'` ,{ TE-AREA TWO SPRINKLERS SQ.FT. FREEZING. MAINTAIN TEMPERATURE ABOVE 40°F. REMO � 3.1 5. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D ...,__, ...,... DEMAND AT SOURCE CONNECTION 1 STANDARD. 3/4° DRAIN 2" DEDICATED 32 G.P.M. 6. ALL SPRINKLER PIPING SHALL BE EXPOSED BLAZEMASTER CPVC NEW DEDICATED FIRE SERVICE WATER SERVICE FLOW (BY OTHERS) (PIPET PRESSURE 65.6 P.S.I. JOINED BY COMPATIBLE CPVC FITTINGS.CPVC PIPE SHALL BE EXTERIOR) 1 1/4" AMES INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER LISTING. EXCEPTION: BASEMENT I ODEL 20006—FP OUTSIDE HOSE STREAM (INCLUDED) 0 G.P.M. PIPING SHALL BE BLACK STEEL PIPE THREADED OR GROOVED. WOOD BEAM DOUBLE CHECK VALVE 7. INSTALLING SIDEWALL SPRINKLERS THROUGHOUT MAIN LIVING _..,.�,._ .., ......:...... .. ..� .,., . ..•: AVAILABLE PRESSURE OF 80.0 EXCEEDS THE' _ SPACE. BASEMENT AND PANTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH UPRIGHT _ N REQUIRED PRESSURE OF 65.6 psi. THIS IS A N CHASE STREET SAFETY MARGIN OF 14.4 psi OR 18% OF THE SUPPLY SPRINKLERS. - - 8. SPRINKLERS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED IN BATHROOMS WHICH DO NOT EXISTING STREET MAIN NEW TAP Valve Detail EXCEED 55 SQUARE FEET. SIDEWINDER 9. SPRINKLERS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED IN CLOSETS WHICH DO NOT EXCEED 24 SQUARE FEET AND HAVE A LEAST DIMENSION WHICH DOES `. NOT TO SCALE „ f NOT EXCEED 3 FEET. 3/8 ALL THREAD ROD 6" 6 10. SPRINKLERS ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ATTICS AND CONCEALED SPACES ' 5-- — — �— — — — — — 75' — 385' T NOT INTENDED FOR LIVING, STORAGE,AND CONTAIN NO FUEL FIRED � WITH NFPA 13D. SWIVEL RING HANGER N ...... _, :. ......... .-.._..-: .......... ,......... M:_,.,,.. :.,....... ..................:.._,,.,, EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCEf 11. SPRINKLERS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT COVERED UNHEATED I PROJECTIONS OF THE BUILDING AT ENTRANCES/EXITS. f 12. ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING FOR ALARM DEVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY GAUGE HYDRANT FLOW HYDRANT SPRINKLER SYMBOLS OTHERS. U� u ELEV:22' SYM CNT NAME FINISH TEMP K-FAC NPT MFG. MODEL# ESCU IDEN# HANGER DETAIL RES.UPRIGHT BRASS 155 4.90 1/2" VIKING FREEDOM VK467 �~ d 17 RES.SIDEWALL WHITE 155 4.40 1/2" RELIABLE FIRES WHITE R3531 • I NOT TO SCALE DRY SIDEWALL WHITE 155 4.40 1" RELIABLE F3RES44 WHITE RA5231 28 TOTAL SPRINKLERS 'U11-L li ,;��" i v MAX RESIDENTIAL HEAD SPACING:16'x16' LO E 18 21 I W i V1 FPE STAMP 0 o r Scott D. aZM Henderson Q o a- 2017 07.14 co 13:31 :55 0 c i z Z f 0'04- -°- � � � i i f i i [ f i I t1i r I i I BASEMENT ACCESS STAIR BEAM f I ......... .... t , ......... ' OPEN TO ABOVE DN RESIDENTIAL UPRIGHT SPRINKLERS SHALL I BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURE LISTING T-6" T 7" f ? E:. DRY SIDEWALL UP A 1 RISERUP i� RISER DN o 1"R »:..... ...... .: -11 m 72"] o n 1"RISER DN 2+ _. .... I~ MUD h 1 6'9" q ........... ........................... ................... ............. ......................................... .......... ........... r Y D o ROOM .... 1",............... . .......... ... .,,... ... ,...,, ;O o N 2-8 ��1-41 1 7-1112 1-00,� 5-4 1 T1"] 4-2 i 1 1 0-6 N I 10-0 5-0 _ 1"RISER UP h �g CL. iv 6-1 . L CL PANTRY 1 5 CID 1 n _ T-1 T' 1 1 , 0'6' 7 DRY SIDEWALL .0 2- 1 f KITCHEN -11" UP 1 1 O ......... o � o 5-0 5-7 . .:.,..1 , ; 5-1. o ° 1 BEDROOM o,a 1 4 I E 5 DN ---�D BATH a s ..... i DINING 0 41 SQ.FT. ' r. M u7 .... ...._ 7 n .. f SPRINKLER BELOW STAIR 1 - N 5-0 7 HALL - 7'-6" -6 HALL ' { io CHIMNEY„ 6-5 1/2 1:.__; UP T-91/2"� 4-3 t�€, M,. M OIn �, ..... ...:. 1 E _ r _ - tt8rx _ BATH 6 2 x 0-6 x 9 11 4-5+x 4-3 1 11 - I 1-0 CL 16 SQ.FT. 1 �`O �h �1"RISER UP '; F € 8 5-6 I� ,.- BEAM �+7'0 ul �i 1"RISER DN iv i O � N Al in 7'-11" CFT6"] `n 3-1 2-2 LO 1 1 1 1 1 1 T-11" S1 e[ 32 3-8 9-6 -2 6-11 1-5 5-3 CL 1 ,,,,,,,.. ........ .. ....... LIVING ROOM BEDROOM �g BEDROOM r , SEE VALVE DETAIL a A2 114 O _,.. STUDY W BATH 4-1 . .a 3-2 °r CL 25 SQ.FT. ..9........... a�{ I 1 RISER DN M »: FRONT ENTRANCE �_ 2 FIRE SERVICE BY OTHERS » ....... .. ... ...... 1"RISER UP ........... ....... ...._.... ........ BASEMENT FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN SCALE 1/4"=V-0'� 1st FLOOR FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN 2nd FLOOR FIRE SPRINKLER PLAN SCALE 1/4"=V-0" SCALE 1/4"=V-0" F i i r 4 4 j I i i i ( N d• Y O � N I. U ob 1b i f 2w O r -----,PARE HEAD CABINET p k 1„ Ti 0 �oCID SYSTEM O CPVC PIPE STRAP HANGER APPLICATION 0 CD �+ - - 1 1/4" VICTAULIC RISER MANIFOLD o / RESTRAINER APPLICATION 4; SITE PLAN ' WATER FLOW TEST GAUGEOTEST AND DRAINURE VALVE HYDRAULIC REMOTE AREA #1 GENERAL NOTES ° �L, a �i NOT TO SCALE DATE: 7-5-17 A,H. J• LOCAL FIRE DEPT./F.P.E. O DESIGN STD. N.F.P.A. 13D (2013 EDITION) / 0 1 / Q� STATIC: 80 PSI 1. PROJECT IS AN EXISTING 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH RESIDUAL: 65 PSI /S" BUTTERBALL CONSTRUCTION. 2 TOT SQUARE CPVC PIPE PVC PIPE Q 1 1 PIPE TYPES BASEMENT.TYPICAL WOOD 700 AL S E HEX HEAD SELF C O FLOW: 1060 GPM •• W% MAINS cPvc FEET(BOTH FLOORS&BASEMENT). TAPPING SCREW HEX HEAD SELF •1—I p F,. BY: MASS FIRE PROTECTION TAMPER SWITCHES BRANCHES 2. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT TAPPING SCREW CPVC — W` TEST & DRAIN t SPRINKLER ORIFICE K— 4.40 BUILDING. WET SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED. =T=O 3. SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D VALVE 2nd FLOOR LIVING DOUBLE FASTENER 95 CHASE AVE. AREA LOCATION (2013) INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN ONE&TWO FAMILY SINGLE FASTENER U� CQ I --- — o o OF FLOWING SPRINKLERS 2 DWELLINGS". TWO RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLERS FLOWING MINIMUM CPVC PIPE STRAP Q+ ..•° FFE:25' ® ® # CPVC PIPE STRAPcd DENSITY 0.05 G.P.M.�SQ.FT 256 0.05 DENSITY OVER COVERAGE AREA. J. REMOTE AREA TWO SPRINKLERS SQ.FT. 4. OWNER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEAT THROUGHOUT TO AVOID PIPES f FREEZING. MAINTAIN TEMPERATURE ABOVE 40"F. 5. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D DEMAND AT SOURCE CONNECTION STANDARD. NEW DEDICATED FIRE SERVICE 3/4" DRAIN �2" DEDICATED FLOW 32 G.P.M. 6. ALL SPRINKLER PIPING SHALL BE EXPOSED BLAZEMASTER CPVC PIPE T0� WATER SERVICE (BY OTHERS) PRESSURE 65.6 P.S.I. JOINED BY COMPATIBLE CPVC FITTINGS. CPVC PIPE SHALL BE EXTERIOR) 1 1/4" AMES INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER LISTING. EXCEPTION: BASEMENT ODEL 2000E-FP OUTSIDE HOSE STREAM (INCLUDED) 0 G.P.M. PIPING SHALL BE BLACK STEEL PIPE THREADED OR GROOVED. WOOD BEAM DOUBLE CHECK VALVE 7. INSTALLING SIDEWALL SPRINKLERS THROUGHOUT MAIN LIVING I w: ... . .:.. :. m...,.:. ..:.: ............. :::. . AVAILABLE PRESSURE OF 80.0 psi EXCEEDS THE O- N REQUIRED PRESSURE OF 65.6 psi. THIS IS A SPACE. BASEMENT AND PANTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH UPRIGHT CHASE STREET SAFETY MARGIN OF 14.4 psi OR 18% OF THE SUPPLY SPRINKLERS. 8. SPRINKLERS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED IN BATHROOMS WHICH NOT EXISTING STREET MAIN NEW TAP Valve Ve Detail a I I EXCEED 55 SQUARE FEET. ���SAMMY SIDEWINDER 9. SPRINKLERS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED IN CLOSETS WHICH DO NOT — NOT TO SCALE EXCEED 24 SQUARE FEET AND HAVE A LEAST DIMENSION WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED 3 FEET. �3/8" ALL THREAD ROD — — - — — — — 6" — — — — — — — — — 6 4— — —�— — 10. SPRINKLERS ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ATTICS AND CONCEALED SPACES 75' 385 NOT INTENDED FOR LIVING, STORAGE,AND CONTAIN NO FUEL FIRED L.:. ...... EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D. �--SWIVEL RING HANGER j 11. SPRINKLERS ARE NOT REQUIRED AT COVERED UNHEATED PROJECTIONS OF THE BUILDING AT ENTRANCES/EXITS. 12. ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING FOR ALARM DEVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY I GAUGE HYDRANT FLOW HYDRANT -/ SPRINKLER SYMBOLS OTHERS. I ELEV:22' SYM CNT NAME FINISH TEMP K-FAC NPT MFG. MODEL# ESCU IDEN# !' 9 RES.UPRIGHT BRASS 155 4.90 1/2" VIKING FREEDOM VK467 HANGER DETAIL d 17 RES.SIDEWALL WHITE 155 4.40 1/2" RELIABLE F1RES WHITE R3531 NOT TO SCALE iy cd 2 DRY SIDEWALL WHITE 155 4.40 1" RELIABLE F3RES44 WHITE RA5231 'J� 28 TOTAL SPRINKLERS x MAX RESIDENTIAL HEAD SPACING:16'x16' LO c f Q • o P4 a w FPE STAMP L Scott D. Q L W z "� Henderson a cC C W 2017 07.14 w /� 13:31 :55 4) c z ' 0'04- Z I