Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0153 FREEZER ROAD t~ct � o-F - f e I . Town of Barnstable Op1HE T Regulatory Services o� Thomas F. Geiler,Director BARNSTABLE, : Building Division y MASS. 1639• ��� Thomas Perry,Building Commissioner �prfo � 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 April 22, 2011 To Whom It May Concern: . I have received the plans for a proposed new residence located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable. The plans are dated 4-1-2010, drawn by David H.Sigel, 313 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02115 and have a notation, Scheme 10. The house depicted on these plans is a two story house and is under the allowed height restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance. Sincerely, Thomas Perry Building Commissioner Town of Barnstable �tHE r Regulatory Services ti SZ, Thomas F.Geiler,Director I 3 MSTABLE, : Building Division �6MASS. 1619. `0� Thomas Perry,Building Commissioner SECS s 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 February 23, 2011 John W. Kenney Attorney at Law 12 Center Place 1550 Falmouth Road Centerville, MA 02632 Dear Mr. Kenney, This letter is in response to your letter dated February 8, 2011, regarding 153 Freezer Road in Barnstable. I wish to draw your attention to the middle paragraph of page 3. This paragraph speaks on an assessment performed by Coastal Engineering on both the residential building and the cannery building. As a result of this report, "The inspection of the property led Stuborn to conclude that the property was no longer safe to be used as a residential rental property. As noted above, Stuborn ceased leasing the property in September 2006. Further, Stuborn concluded that the property was in such a deteriorated condition that it would not be cost effective to renovate it". This constitutes abandonment which is the position this office has held for a number of years with regards to this property. Abandonment is, according to Webster's complete dictionary, "to desert; forsake utterly; give up all claim to". This means it was immediate; there is no three year stay or delay. Therefore, the abandonment of the residential use of this property occurred in September 2006. Since this is abandoned there is no Special Permit provision to re-establish this residential use. In order to re-establish the residential use, a variance is necessary. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas Perry, CBO Building Commissioner JOHN W. KENNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW 12 CENTER PLACE 1550 FALMOUTH ROAD CENTERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02632 TELEPHONE 771-9300 FAX NO. 775-6029 AREA CODE 508 e-mail:John@jwkesq.com February 8, 2011 Thomas Perry Building Commissioner Town of Barnstable 200 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA Dear Mr. Perry: -" Please be advised that this office represents Stuart Bornstein, General Partner of the Stuborn Limited Partnership. Stuborn Limited Partnership (hereafter_ "Stuborn") owns the property located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, = Massachusetts. I am writing to request that you confirm that the preexisting non, conforming residential use on said property has been preserved. Further, I ask �w that you confirm that if a Special Permit is obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 240-94 B of the Town of Barnstable Zoning Ordinance, a building permit for the construction of a residential dwelling may be issued. The following is the background concerning the zoning history and use of the property. ZONING HISTORY Zoning was first enacted in the Town of Barnstable in 1929. Essentially, the entire town was zoned for residential use only except for existing businesses. All new businesses required a permit from the Selectmen. In 1950, the Town of Barnstable adopted zoning for Barnstable Village (Article 67 adopted 3-6-1950). The zoning adopted in 1950 zoned most of Barnstable Village Residence A, except for that area along Main Street and surrounding Barnstable Harbor. By default those areas along Main Street and Barnstable Harbor could be used for any other use. r John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 2 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA In 1956, the zoning district for Freezer Road was changed to B-Business District (Article 42 adopted 3-6-1956). A review of this Article indicates that B-Business District allowed residential uses. The zoning for this area was changed again in 1965 (Article 2 adopted 9-3-1965). The area was re-zoned to BMB — Barnstable Marine Business District. It was this change that made residential use of the property a non-conforming use. The Zoning District was amended again in 1969 (Article 99 adopted 3-6-1969). This is the current zoning status of the Freezer Road property. The BMB — Barnstable Marine Business District does not allow residential use. PRESERVATION OF PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL USE The residential use of the house located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts can be traced back to the 1930's according to the Massachusetts Historical Commission report attached hereto as Exhibit "17. According to said report, the main portion of the house was moved on to the property in 1932. The structure was converted to a residence and was occupied by the Bassett Family. A two-story addition was made to the north side of the house in 1938. A garage was added at the same time according to said report. Finally, in 1975, another two-story section of four (4) rooms was added on the north side as separate living quarters. The field card from the Barnstable Assessor's records from the year 1934 also lends evidence to show that a residential structure was on the property in the 1930's. See Assessor's field card from 1934 attached hereto as Exhibit "2". As noted in the historical summary provided by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the residential structure located on locus was occupied by the Bassett Family in approximately 1938 (See Exhibit "1"). Members of the Bassett family continued to occupy the property into the 1990's. Stuborn acquired title to the property on February 1, 1999. (See copy of Deed to Stuborn Limited Partnership attached hereto as Exhibit "3"). The Bassetts continued to lease the property from Stuborn for approximately two years. Thereafter, Stuborn used the property for various tenants. When the property was acquired John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 3 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA by Stuborn there was significant deferred maintenance. As time went on, Stuborn's rental of the property went from year-round rentals to summer seasonal rentals. The property was poorly insulated and drafty. The heating system was old and not well maintained. Eventually, Stuborn used the residence as workforce housing for various employees of companies owned by Stuborn's General Partner, Stuart Bornstein. Leasing of the property for residential purposes continued through September of 2006. See Affidavits of Marcy Dugas, Joseph Dugas, and a letter from Rick Shechtman attached hereto as Exhibit's "419, "5" and "6". In April of 2006, Stuborn hired Coastal Engineering Co., Inc. to do an assessment of the structural condition of both the residential structure and the cannery building located on its property (see DRAFT copy of the report attached hereto as Exhibit. "7"). The inspection of the property led Stuborn to conclude that the property was no longer safe to be used as a residential rental property. As noted above, Stuborn ceased lasing the property in September, 2006. Further, Stuborn concluded that the property was in such a deteriorated condition that it would not be cost effective to renovate it. The structure had a severe problem with water seeping into the basement which may be a result of a change in the water table from the time the building was originally situated in its present location. The roof was failing. Doors and windows were rotting. The foundation was cracked and bowing. Stuborn's position that the house was no longer safe to be used as a residential structure and that it was in such a deteriorated condition that it could not effectively be renovated are supported by two reports which can be found in your file. The first report is from Peter G. Brown, Architect. The report is stamped as received by your office on February 13, 2008. Mr. Brown concluded that "all the additions should be demolished. If a viable use can be found for the original house, it is probable that it could be successfully restored." (A copy of Mr. Brown's report is attached hereto as Exhibit "8"). The second report is an e- mail to you from Bob Burgmann, Town Engineer, dated February 12, 2008. Mr. Burgmann had visited the site and concluded with respect to the house that "the damage to the building is beyond what would be economical to repair. I John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 4 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA recommend that the building be demolished." (A copy of Mr. Burgmann's e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit "9"). Stuborn decided to proceed with removing the existing residential dwelling and constructing a new residential dwelling on the property. On or about January 2, 2008, Stuart Bornstein, the General Partner of Stuborn, met,with you. Mr. Bornstein made inquiry to you about the possibility of obtaining a building permit to construct a new residential building on the Freezer Road property. You . informed Mr. Bornstein that no permit could be issued until Mr. Bornstein obtained approval from both the Town of Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee and the Town of,Barnstable Conservation Commission. You further informed Mr. Bronstein that after obtaining those approvals he would then have to obtain the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In December 2007, Stuborn applied to the Town of Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee for approval to demolish the residence located on the Freezer Road property along with the cannery building. Prior to submitting the application,to demolish the residence and the cannery, Stuborn had submitted other applications to the Town of Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee (hereinafter"Barnstable OKH"). In 1997, when Stuborn first gained control of the property (the property was ultimately purchased in 1999), there were three (3) buildings on the premises: (i) an approximately 25,000 square foot, two and one half story warehouse/industrial freezer building (the "Freezer"); (ii) an 8,000 square foot warehouse which . included a second-story over part of the footprint (the "Cannery"); and (iii) a 4,900 square foot two-story residence with partial basement (the "Bassett Residence"). In 1997, Stuborn applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Freezer and the Cannery. This application was withdrawn after the Barnstable OKH informed the applicant that it intended to deny the application. In June 1998, the Barnstable OKH again denied an application to demolish the Freezer and the Cannery. In September 1998, the Building Commissioner for the Town of Barnstable condemned the Freezer and it was torn down by Stuborn in the following months. At the same time, an application was filed with the Barnstable OKH to demolish the Cannery, which was denied. John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 5 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA The denial of the demolishing of the Cannery was appealed to the Old King's Highway Historic District Regional Commission. The matter was remanded to the Barnstable OKH and was again denied for a demolition permit in April of 1999. An appeal to the Regional Commission in District Court followed resulting in a remand to the Barnstable OKH. Stuborn re-applied to the Barnstable OKH to demolish the Cannery and the residence. The application was denied in January 2005. The decision was upheld by the Regional Commission and appealed to the District Court. That proceeding was then remanded for further review by the Barnstable OKH. In December 2007, Stuborn made the application referenced hereinabove to demolish the Bassett Residence and the Cannery based upon the remand. The Barnstable OKH approved demolition of a portion of the Bassett Residence, but denied the application to demolish the Cannery. In June 2008, the Regional Commission overturned the denial of the demolition permit of the Cannery. In February 2010, Stuborn submitted a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a single-family residence and detached guest house to the Barnstable OKH. The initial hearing was held on February 24, 2010. The hearing was continued until March 10, 2010.., After the hearing on March 10, 2010, the matter was again continued until April 14, 2010. At the April 14, 2010 hearing, the Barnstable OKH voted to deny the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a residential building. On May 6, 2010, Stuborn appealed the decision of the Barnstable OKH to the Regional Historic District Commission. Finally, on September 14, 2010, the Regional Commission voted to override the denial be the Barnstable OKH and voted in favor of issuing the Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of the residential structure on the Freezer Road property. The decision was issued on October 13, 2010. The time for an appeal of decision expired on November 3, 2010, with no appeal having been filed. John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 6 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA Simultaneously with his going through the process of obtaining the Certificates of Appropriateness from the Old King's Highway Historic District Commission, Mr. Bornstein made application to the Barnstable Conservation Commission and obtained approval for construction of his residence on the Freezer Road property in the spring of 2010. Stuborn is now ready to make application to the Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit to allow for the construction of a residence on the Freezer Road property. It is our position that the lapse provision of the Town of Barnstable Zoning Ordinance (Section 240-97) was tolled, at the latest, upon the filing by Stuborn of the application with the Barnstable OKH for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the Bassett Residence in December 2007. The lapse provision remained tolled and did not begin to run until the decision issued by the Regional Old King's Highway Commission became final on November 3, 2010. The applicant has three (3) years from said date within which to reestablish the preexisting non-conforming residential use of the property. Application to the Zoning Board would again toll the lapse provision. When Stuborn did its assessment of the Bassett property in 2006, it concluded that the property was no longer safe for residential use. Stuborn further concluded, based upon its assessment of the property, that due to the deteriorated condition of the property it was cost prohibitive to renovate the residence. Further, due to problems with water seeping into the basement of the existing structure, Stuborn determined it would be best to build a new residential structure in a new location on the property. Mr. Bornstein then met with you to inquire about obtaining a building permit to construct a new residence. Mr. Bornstein was informed that he would be required to go to the Old King's Highway Regional District Committee, the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain approval from each committee before he could obtain a building permit. Stuborn immediately commenced upon the course of action required to obtain the permits to allow for the construction of the residence on the Freezer Road property. The deteriorated condition of the John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 7 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA building and the requirement that Stuborn obtain permits from the Barnstable OKH and the Conservation Commission constitute "real practical impediments" which interfered with Stuborn's ability to use the property for residential purposes. (See Belfer v. Building Comm.'r of Boston, 363 Mass. 439 (1973). A copy of said case is attached hereto as Exhibit "10" for your review. As stated in the Belfer case (363 Mass. 439, 442), it was not actually necessary for Stuborn to have applied for the building permit to construct the new residence and to have been denied the building permit. You had unequivocally stated to Stuborn that you could not grant a building permit until approvals were obtained from the Old King's Highway Committee, the Conservation Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bornstein was also informed by both Arthur Trazyck and you that before he could even file for relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals he would need to first obtain the approval of the town's Old King's Highway Committee and Conservation Commission. The Court concluded in the Belfer case (363 Mass. 439, 444) that "relief from time limitations given to cases such as Woods v. Newton, 351 Mass. 98, supra, where a legal impediment exists to the use of a benefit, should also be given where an appeal from the granting of a variance creates equally real practical impediments to the use of the benefit." A copy of Woods v. Newton is also attached hereto for your review as Exhibit "11". The permitting process required of Stuborn to obtain a building permit to allow it to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence at 153 Freezer Road is a "real practical impediment" which prohibited the use of the property for residential purposes. The permitting process constitutes a "legal impediment" denying Stuborn of the ability to benefit from using the property for pre-existing nonconforming residential purposes. As a result, based upon the findings in the Belfer and Woods cases cited above, the lapsing provisions of the Barnstable Zoning Ordinance should be deemed as tolled by the December, 2007 filing with the Town of Barnstable's Old King's Highway Committee and the continuous pursuit by Stuborn of the various approvals Mr. Bornstein was informed was a pre- requisite for any filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. John W. Kenney Attorney At Law Thomas Perry, Building Commission Town of Barnstable February 8, 2011 Page 8 Re: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA Finally, we are asking you to confirm that the appropriate application to the Zoning Board of Appeals would be for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 240- 94(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would replace the existing Bassett Residence which contained six (6) to seven (7) bedrooms with a new six (6) bedroom house on the lot. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter, please contact me directly. Very truly yours, Oohn W. Kenney, cq JWK/mmc Enclosures cc: Stuart Bornstein EXHIBIT , ;o E21.1 $ - BU I LD z rrc REA Fox�T �0 I 29S { : LASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COEVISSION ' to BOYLSTON STREET-, BOSTON, MA 02116 4t F RY- �1 t ,lwn Barnstable: (harbor) dress ].SS Freezer Road, Barnstable - Q ¢ storic Name t'assett House t ' _ pri cafe;rosidence� k. e: Present btr. -ind Mrs. L'altoiir Y Fish house Original DESCRIPTIOW: to rate 1800 Local and Oral —� 'SKETCH MAP Source f-tistory Show property's location in rel -tio'n Style Colonial Revival to nearest cross streets ao.�-- geographical features nI icate Architect unknown h , all buildings be ntoried - �� Ibor Property and n est intersection. Exterior wall fabric wood shingle _,,,-- 'Indicate north. Outbuildings Attached garage Major alterations (with dates) 1 Z story addition - 1938 V 2 story .addition - 1975 Q Moved_ ye Date 1932 Approx. acreage Recorded by �D., Hazel Meyer Setting surrounded by grater. on Organization Barns ble Historical Comm. s sides, on Barnstable Harbor Date Jantuirv, 1.98 ti _+ not.o (Staple a3ditional sheets here) ia i .CH1TF.CTLIRAL SIaIFIC.-lNCE (Describe important architectural features and evaluate in terms of other buildings within the cormlTunity.) The 1uL.se is located at the end of Freezer Road and faces south. The exterior is unpainted woodshingle. The structure that was moved is a 2-story rectangle and contains a liiirg room, a dining room, a bedroom and a bath. An ell was added tow,.,rd the north , that ccritaias a kitchen, breakfast .room and small entryway. In 1938 the Bassetts adder E. family room and bedrooms, again on the north. The last addition was a self- contrired apartment of 4 rooms on 2 floors overlooking the harbor. Two fireplaces and the tocrs and woodwork throughout came from an Abercrombie and Fitch house in Weymouth that ,vas being taken down. The main part of the house is occupied by a son, Wayne B ass ttt and his family While Mr. and Mrs. Balfour Bassett use the apartment as their F SI'ORICAL SIGNIFI&\TCE (Explain the role owners played in local or state continued) history and how the building relates to the development of the community.S Ca.pt, in Ensign Jerauld (d. 1919) built this building as a fish house in the late 1800s , as ra glace for unloading and temporary storage for fish beforo shipping to market. It was gout where the Marina is now. In 1932 Marcus Urann, owner of United Cape Cod Cra,n- berr,\ Co. had the 2 story building moved across the inlet to the point between Maras ;>in Creek and Rendezvous Creek. The. structure was converted to a residence for Mr. z -id Mrs. Brooks, daughter and son-in-law of Mr. Urann. Mr. and Mrs. Balfour Bassett, movec into the. house in 1938 at which time a 2 story addition was made to the north side. A ga.7 .tge .was added at the same time. In 1975, another 2 story section of 4 rooms was addec on the north side as a separate living accomodation. ARCHI !'ECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE continued summe residence. B BI,IOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES (name of publication, author, date and publisher) Mr. a A Mrs. Balfour Bassett, Freezer. Road, Barnstable Mr. a d Mrs. Wayne Bassett, Freezer Road, Barnstable Regis ry of Deeds, Barnstable County Regis ry of Probate - Barnstable County THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE THE BEST IMAGES FROM POOR QUALITY ORIGINALS) IM ^ L DATA .c"-.`«' - ., � � tr:�.-wqA�{z,� .Ss�-� -I ��a �.z�r..i-•-� �, A� ks�+r-�+.k.�" - . J M ti ' '._ ', _ -•---.— a .fir � ~ - + ) —y•i_Y 4 y: _- :f � . 1 fff�'.0 --1c.-3�.5j� ��. 'Y �F � • �� F� �j�� �N/ .i � .i i••1��'f �.. 1 _ �f_ n yFy::i �'� �5}��_yti,�r. `Lw A<'-.c r y f�x J y.- 1 _ sbr yitn• a• ,., y �: G„'�/tom/.- ! .._ f -L . � X 3 l�� YJ' �tra,a- T '} f•A afY,.w`f �r � , S •.R'- `..n g ii � ,� r rTj s S �,q wx Yt lMc - 3.^.� � �5� o xa�•.... ¢ v aa.,�. ��' r t '1 v' .c a' ,y r 1 tN. _ � ' �.� ">1 J ' _ - �.�y; �W � •rr[t-w'��Fes',"�i ��S"' .4, 1 i if �: '::,::r . - • T 'M�r tip. F ,�_i?-y _ 'dam' •,, .,a _ - ' - ti, :f €•�•'�t`}. F � t} &.ems ✓ — �. 3�, � - "ia. .c y„ ✓ � f�a,c.. ,�,y'� � 0. c�°s SjslZ .. ' ids. �,�t/#,�s�-�jA � r Ai'*=• ,s�' Ni+�s `4 e- - �..2�r 4'' • yam y y � A>�r,��a��:s'...m'• z,x r7#; .�,n.,-_x ,ra 'r v� .m r.� � �,. I of •y'���Y'1"".."�s�',�3t ra.'. - - a. 'u - I � � 'r��j ' -�� �i`�,e.�,. - - hd" � C t� �f` $ �..�r.� i� k -..,i�#� M-si trh>• �,y .Y"� - :�F+ >..Yr`.J l'�+.1 _ ,j .P f ,� r v.:•-.Si'f �. ykT 9 d �m9`°' r24�+"►��`y" .. .r 'rt .w' - ;` s :; ++;-.;r.a / f<e s�.• t� tom- tV � � {�.Ht t '�+ee�a ! � _ s � 7n 3 y J•`f •+� ..� �' fi�3 A Y �il 'F �. �./l f�1 �'7. gwi t + x red• �1ay .Ng.} ,2.�.i ! xr IMP .i� I I� /� l�lY .. y'',yi.'^' �iil,.,�.•r„'1'- T..,s. � c a >y �/' �L (.; •:. �. ��' pia ". �,� '•-6 jYp +.. �°� - a� z � Y�_, rf�ti �,�t, t ;;.. y S /�-if n= / 1 s. "v.}-�,�{,�;i 4'_ .i�{gr• M fY� ( � �+�,� yJ,�¢�h3�Y �V - � Wiz^ ' '..� ►eems>.�,'' / / : :. � :'Q� �-1 �`d�'� ' ,: _ _.sJs'�;� � � �;3��<�Jj��"W�t /Tr �" r '�� s,e t e ` ':�^�, •+ l,se�?y�j,.�a irns WY' Vj�`J>` /..�I`i/�'u _ ' :4�. Z*w5= a>• ..i> o.� �, 5 f?` y... # Vr EXHIBITS" BK 12037 P 02S7 9179 7 s u 02-02--1999 12 12223 � q QUITCLAIM DEED CANAL MARINE INC., a Massachusetts Corporation with offices at 194 Mitchell Way, Hyannis,Massachusetts grants to STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,a Massachusetts Limited r� c Partnership with offices at 297 North Street,Hyannis,Massachusetts,for consideration of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND($850,000.00)DOLLARS,with quitclaim covenants all right,title and interest in and to the land, with the buildings thereon, in Barnstable, Barnstable County, 3 Massachusetts,all as shown on plan of land entitled"PLAN OF LAND IN BARNSTABLE UNITED q CAPE COD CRANBERRY CO. M.T. Shaw- Halifax-R.L.S. 16 May 1967, Scale: V -40 Ft." I together with all appurtenant rights. Said plan was recorded in Plan Book 220, Page 85,Barnstable County Registry of Deeds.. as more particularly described in Exhibit A. For title,reference is made to deed from UNITED CAPE COD CRANBERRY CO., also known as UNITED CAPE COD CRANBERRY COMPANY,dated May 22,1968 and recorded with Barnstable Registry of Deeds at Book 1402 Page 224. This conveyance does not constitute a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of Canal Marine Inc. Executed as a sealed instrument this 1 day of f7ebrdar . 1999. CANAL MARINE INC. \ S'p : By Heather-J. Ba tt,Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Barnstable,ss. a l l 1 g j Then personally appeared the above-named Heather J. Bassett and acknowledged the foregoing to be her free act and that of Canal Marine Inc.,before me 0 aak G.m� co Notary Public P «c' �.�c►A4twSt1� w o My Commission Expires:qpa,` J4 zouv U ' z _ 0!E BIC 12G��' PG2SP �Q�r EXHIBIT A The land with the buildings thereon situated in Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, more particularly described as followar PARCEL 1 SOUTHERLY by Freezer Road and land now or formerly of t Barnstable Marine Servicer NORTHWESTERLY by Rendezvous Creaks j• EASTERLY by other land of Canal Marine,lnc., five hundred-thirty 15301 feet,more or less, The above described parcel is conveyed subject to a right of wa 40 feet in width over the southeasterly corner of sa cs as thereinafter mentioned plan, to and from Freezer Road and j other land of the said Canal Marine,Inc, PARCEL 2 , WN-T—ERL-7 by Parcel 1 above set fortht + NORTHERLY, NORTHEASTERLY and ' EASTERLY by Marsapin Crsskr ( SOUTHERLY *by land of Barnstable Marine Service. (MLL The above described parcel is conveyed togethor o with a ri t of 40 feet in width over the southeasterly corner sa arcs o ana m the gran ed premises and Freezer Road. ' The above described parcels are, shown in part on a plan entitled f �. "Plan of Land in Barnstable United Cape Cod Cronabsrry Co. Inc. M.T.Shaw - Halifax - A.L.S: 16 May 1967 Scales 1• . 40'," which Said plan is duly filed with Barnstable County Registry of Deeds y } in Plan Book 220, Page 65, v ca co .e nw Ca rux bn N N e-LLU Q J Y W X a 4 a i w4 BWABLE REGISTRY OF DEEDS EXHIBIT� ' x r� AFFIDAVIT 1, Marcy Dugas, being first duly sworn on oath depose and say that: 1. lam a resident of Barnstable Village; 2. 1 am the daughter of Joseph Dugas 3. idly father lives in Barnstable Village and maintains an office on Barnstable Harbor; 4. For many years, my father has taken wars around Barnstable Harbor as part of his personal exercise regimen. 5. Over the yews, I have joined my father on his walls around the harbor; 6. During our walks together, my Bather and I pass and re-pass by the property located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts; 7: 1,joy/ii�n��++ed my father on his wars many times during the summer and fall of 2V06; 8. During these walks in summer and fall of 2606, 1 observed several men living in the property located at 158 Freezer Road, Barnstable, 'Massachusetts; 9: It is my recollection that these men occupied the properly at 153 Freezer. Road, 'Barnstable, Massachusetts until approximately the end of September 2066, EXECUTED sander the pains and penalties of perjury this 29t'day of January, 2010. Misr Dugan �� � EXHIBITS .............. AFFIDAVIT I, Joseph Dugas, being first duly sworn on oath depose and say that- 1. 1 am a resident of.Barnstable Village having an address of 30 Sunset Lane and have lived there since 19 77 lease 2. 1 own property on Barnstable Harbor having an address of 275 Millway 3. 1 have maintained an office in KW property located at 275 Millway since 1975 ; 4. 1 can see the property owned by Stuborn L.P. located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts from my office; 5. 1 take regular walks around Barnstable Harbor as part of my personal exercise regimen; 6. During my walks, I pass and re-pass by the property located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts; 7. During the summer and fall of 2006, 1 observed the property located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts from both my office and during my regular walks around the harbor; 8. 1 observed several men living in the property located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts during the summer of 2006 into the fall of 2006; 9. It is my recollection that these men occupied the property at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts until approximately the end of September EXECUTED under the pains and penalties of perjury this 29th day of January, 2010. � n cam , r liosep Dugas n l 02/01/201O 20:40 FAX 509 36.'2 9DtT1 Vif LIN GROVER BARNI Q001/061 EXHIBIT-. Rick She htman 210 told Jail lane Barnstable,MA 02630 February 1,2010 Stuart Bornstein 297 North Street Hyannis,MA D2601 Stuart, .lust wanted to drop you a quick ante and respond to the volcemail that you left me last week, As you knew l moved from 139 Freezer Road in Barnstable Village in November of 2006 but raving been your next door neighbor there for many years my recollection is that you had summer rentals In your property next door right up until that last summer that!lined there. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions., Best, Nhechtman EXHIBIT 0128l204'6 07:27 ;FAsQ;$ 255 6"r.00 COASTAL EtiGI rET2TiVG D FT RA :! Apiil2.5. 200 l'rojeci No C':16G�4.Ob Mr.Edwin E Taipale,Esq. HoHy Managetnent&Supply+Corporation 297 North Strut Hyan*MA 046I Re: Stntcturac Investigation 153 Freezer Read x MA Dear Atty:`I aipacet Pi2rsugpt to:your request anti:mbsequert authorizadony pem mel.from Coastal Engiuoering company, Inc.00,aducted.aft invests tion of twd separate`buildings loQted at 153 preen R,oOd.One building is a two story residexxtial duel x,anti +ether a pill supported comme ro al fisheries build 7lte purpose of this ION is on Is:to evacuate and�ocumez�i the e� mg A, ctuzal coridition dtlte buildings.Aceordi ly,the fgilow ng is a;pre_linnjnary report on our findings,observations;and c4zixnierts LWTs of INVESTIGATION Due to the indeterminable ram of the existing:wbstructior;rt WAS not possil le to assess every condition related to the mtogrrty offt 0U mg structure, I"lus tt is,based,an our obset�vatwns - — ---- -- qualzficat�z�s an ictfort�ton prgc�detl to us during the investa,�atign and is uxtendecl to pzovxde thy; client�t a g�eial idea of the structural cvndito»,s gltiserved ouxi;ng.the inspection,As such,the report lz zted.to tite general obse atio and:fy rxcal conditions observed ci ting tihe szte;Xtispeet arL B(TIIINr I RE910E4Tl STRUCTURE Observations The existing buildlgg is:a;twbr story,,wood framed residential structure cc►nsais#iag of main house rvixh an attached garage and sevetal rarritsimg 0*I ens o„us including an attached twp-sW14 apartment added tQ t4 -of the building,According to local historkal records,the original msidence was:constructed In: the:bte 1$ Oyswilt$ut sege ent additions txAO inthe We:19107s and agaia in 197$.The general D4/26I20Q'8: 07 2:8 FAX 508 255 ..6700 Co STAS. F�RGIN'EMIN6 0fl0 architectural style is Colonial Revival,,although the additiozas and alterations mWe to the budding did not follow airy partxctili ox style it does not a r.tlW much ftught was given to the additions an d altetatrons made to the build with respect to either its cozitructiort style or lsrsfiorical context, 14�10clr�xrat oris mt de over fife dears tea the doors;Window,aztd terror treatbJ a tt are:zfidist guishat l AN a'hodge�ad go:collectiott of different atec sand workrnanslup:. ;A good example�s flze attached garage,which is-a one story,#at,rubber membroe ro f tW pinches back towards the meat house. Iu general,the averait condition oftItc lxtilding is poar:and m an advanced state oftlsrepair M$ny of the Windows:and days am boken and have been board up, The t ldiug hass beo- vandalized c urreutly prttts a public siifety and nuisance: The fellowittig ig a surtainary'of general:conditio s observed: General:E_x_=ior + !lie exterzar v;4 is clam w>xh cedar slimes with pith trim +► Much of'the exterior siding and'truxi hoards are:weathered;end passed their useful,life • Roof carves and overhang pxc3*tions are inconsistent in style siid prollle • No ventilatioiz vvas observed is any rifthe soffit overhangs,ro T ridge;or cave conditions. Wood fitters eta ratted;downspouts and lcaderS are.missi#i ■ Extenor'wind ow andt door triju J�deteriorated,windowsills are rotted thmi*h at;several locaticins: Most Oft! exterior doors and'wuid4ws are broken acid boarded UP * Casement v�in the back section of the bung do not correlate with.the double huog windows installed in the older'front section of the burlcl>n$ + No sign f caarit or recta ... .a chitecttrral fegtutes observed outside the k tutdn g �► Later vide work bas cainpramised any list`rnguishtiig architectural featire of the older residential bniilding pounilations&Stcu�iural Fxainua The exterior fOuIAAinn,eonststs is of different types of coxnstruction,delaeiading tint the n Af the constnuctipn. +_ Thee older front part of the building sets on top of a newer`cast in phacc,cozzcrete,evide3itly built when the building was moved,to its present location + On the day of mspection the basement was:filled with about two fr et ofwater, • A stairwell through a bulkh door;locatted tieulhe side.boor,vestibule accesses the space . lieneatlz'tbe btiiltiii�. :l:isl�u�ru,�rrlt�narDR4F't:ram 04.20/2008 07 28 F 5os. 2 s 8706; COASTAL ENGIIIEER.I'G a 604 e (z,.Vpection of the first;flour fiauuing and hale ern is imutecl due try the flooded o0ition on the der of iuspectYan. • ,pacer ibe other pets ofthe btiildl g is iizii led access wzih less fl=twentyrfour inobos Df Space between the ground and the floor frawi g members in some of the areas, {?thet parts+o-f the building,iriclitditg a middle transitian section a;ad the garage is a slab on grade With A shallow fowKiationr o Supports;for the existing floor timbers are either cedar posfs bearaig direly on the grotiztd of uitfo ecl rriasonry p'ier°st • JFloor framing ittembers in the oewi�r se.ctian appeared intact with no substantial defects mated i any of fluor joists that were insp-fe& The foundation shows sor ovidence ofsettlmeawith some d eterioration.of the silts The fluor toasts W floor hers are in rel2ilrvely food condittos,with tlae excepttou of the m{iitise and teEPU joints;thst are spit of eheked itt sores of the vli floorTf� members awed; • The exterior faction wail sill are bowed: • The depth of the toun tion was not determined: +► Exiimizxation of a rred°framing ztteimbers corrobot-ates the histonci3t construction record. Roof n--- • ro fing is cedar at%d is very poor ctsnditon,well past its useful life,span.. o gectioos of the roofing are OWhg,b a the front but dizig • There is e"derive ofWater daz�ge.frnm the leakingroofthroughout the buiIditng,, --- -:- - -=The,etcterir�r cteys.at�detet rorst - - --- -- --- -- Thete is;eviden a of moisture lttat on and flashing,fl4shing,f lute at the roof plane izxtersect on • Tberrr evidence of water z eta#i jn at the hmmey masonry joints as indicated by the efflorescence:and staining;on the e of the c ey- Interior Constrtscfiori • The building interior:is,severely vandalized and in an advanced state of disrepaiz • Dist'tgu sbable arclti cture featrues inside d the t uil, ing arez non-ems tent and. limited at bests the omaihs ofsvme abler interior hors and somE;decorative woodwork elements of the fireplace in the Trout rooms. FWis on both levels,a plus sound,although both the first and second floors are uneveia and bit: of level. 04/26/2U08 07 2;6 FAX 50;$ 255 6700 COAST L ENG'i ' RING 00 0 + Settlement cracks wire observed in the plaster walls and ceilings ou hout the building, particularly at' btulding corners'and.around tla�0 door amd vyi,�aw openi s. Trttemr doors are r sing,diwagod or,Wpe.rabic, Interior wall des are severely dapniaged ftbm water inhifttiiah and v laliszn A noticeable sagging was observed in.many oft.be rooms witli'c=.ked Blaster and deflected floor • A°snial scuitic opening to the att><c o f the older bu is txzg r sieated solid sewn 4x6 t. MI.rafters were installed without a continuous�rzige burn or capar ties:- • The anterior studs in the front section are full dimension ro*sawn ti>�nber1. studs�uvith,l x horWatal applied planlc sheathing>nd seVerail areas wl ere the walls are exposed reveaf.I iewear virrtage ,nnoderrtduncrs>�vx►stock luinrtier,which corroboraSes ehc historical record of constructicirr « The small portico in the rout of the: uildang;is�x d inenSXQzr stock lumb'ex construction and 1A, bead board sheathing: s Co�eiats overall the existing structure is>n Very prior condition and uninlxab>itable in its present state.The integrity ofthte ex[stn stic ttrre`:s seriously cc�zuproiised by the extoasivc a and deteriorationnotedt'tluriugh the build rag:Although parts of the exYstiag buildiztg may be salvageable,most of the e�structure has been;damaged or is dararttteii beyond theaint.that'there i5 zrot much that cauild'be done,given the extent of repairs and Wgradcs:0*will be required to weet GWrattt code It t txl C1 3: l zurthexitnore,neither the 193g nor the,1975,vmtap tamit ons reveal any partiGulariy, interesting or-srg ficant-airchitectural featxt7re zdentifced-ht the- stor cat-record as worth n - --- Interestutgly the oldest#ont +art ofthe:bnrldmg,bits timber fraarm g that has remained,for the most part,Pauly intact,although even ibis area wrsuld requite extensive work to restore oar rehabilitate to quio t code standards. Observation tithe building interior provided sufficient evidence of damage and:deterioration:of the structure throughout the b>ulding.'Mony ofth a inierior plaster w+ is were cracked as a result of tl2e foundation settlement and'detertoratedb or ti ers,as described in this report.: Became the existing buildiiag is in such h ►or condition and in an advanced state of disrepa ry extensive work would be reiluired to stab'alize the building,To stabilize the building,would require: « Underpiaiiing the earastug budding: 0. Construetzng new four datiort above ground'VV and flood elevation + Reinforcing the existing floor framing,including floor joist timbers and posts. ,A tSrrrro�rrrtffcpvrr1.1�4h7'ilnr OA128/200.6 07 '29 FAX sob' 2s5 6700: COASTAI, 'GiNEfiRI G 006 ReAkaniting rlle:exte&r walls as required:. Installing new a Eterwr; ieatfim gird wio Replacing the dammed windows. Rennfoteing the existing roof framing. Re-roofg • U`pg ding interior x.W exterior building sysCems includ trg - Energy conservation issues; Egress coneerw Electrical and mechanical systems; - Vertlattt�sn Terluierne�ts In view ofthe 006,rt our pro fessawnat opinio is jal an. *.anced state of disrepair and should bedem<rti�hecl:This is perfi6jarity true of the,1.938 and 1975 addltians oftl►e a 'iiW,structure,which are.dammed be and the� y po int o f r+ea so n alile::rep atr. oldest part of the: . budding,winch seems to be ofmiosi interest tof�*:Wstoricalcommpsionq is also in poor condition,and lilzew�ss slibitld Ex dcmolisl;ed,altl�ougli this is'nvtrich>$ive withcu`t further e:aiaation of the coniceated Inttltltx�g fzam�ng. Sho,�d tho sheathing sostrw be found stabt the bu f cling is:mare:likely` to be:satvagealyle than it#tie slxeatlsfng and wall framing is found deteliO rated to the goix t where revival and replacement is required. From a ptacdcal po int afview;even if the structural franung!were salvageable there would iota e xiauclz of the-existing building left.By,the tmae alt the damaged exterior components{siding;sheathing, rool g,doors,wuidow,etc.)were stripped away,a iltltat would re6Wn would be remnants of the building fframe,which would end up being concealed by new constru cuo As discussed on site,we P. eve there are three options farheddbzg: 1. Prepare a historic survey"report to lcleitfy grid docuu�ent historical record and Sgniftearit' atrchheetu ral:natures of the bu ming pzxc�r ter demolhian 2. ]3e�fish the building and replicate the ideintified sigrufcant arch itecturat#enures related t4 ttte CoIemal form;sue,shape,acid scale of the a usttng building. 34 If the alder 10 Cei tcu°y p.Ort on ofthe building is dete a to be Iustar tally signifiicaat,_alloty clerrlv'Ilt ou of the non-significant grid Iater V xrtage secto bdsa i , m only the oldest part.of the caapiex that are destzai to'be saved< 4. Relocates the I9. cent try port ott oftlie existing building to a suitable alternate site. Ai45lrirctecrallteForrUR,4�:t€Qr ` D4/26/2006 97:29 FAX 508 255 6700: COASTAL FSI�7GINEEFIIVG.: f100'7` BUI�I�Il�G The second building is what is referietl to:as it cannery.It's essentially a p41e building with creosote trA&.piles spaftd approxiniately evay.;niiie feet on center.:The building is;a single story:stj� apprgx�m ely 1641' x 5'vvtth simall lo#t m tfie front of the hWldu he strucfu�e;consists of vows ofpiles at nine-Soot cenfers wzth double 2xT 0'girders at every pile location spiced at approxunately I S''on center in the orthogonal direct t ri The t6of i5 8 shall yvv pitched,with tamer plank decking sparatutg`hetwee�i the tnxt►er girders.Exterior oval are sheathed with plarnking ard:; , sub Pit $ysten L T.he fluor of the building is conct a slab an admen V*of undetermiiaked tlucl�tess There is a front pprtiat of the buddiz whuh is the two-story sectwn` &h`h. IoR aor,tl may` have been;more four administrative piurpQ.sea.Tlie overall cvnd#io cI f the cannery buxldutg,is very: poor. Them is an extensive AO OW of doge tQ the roof framing,exterior building enveltrpe acid structural support s«+;rstem. exferxir w ill cla�ddmg is compromise,W a;nnmber of the coo to polies are c#etaorate�l or irottetl. Many of the piles are out of plumb nand deteriorated beyond repair; Tie ext ra. .. ding,doors and Windows: are all broken,damaged 6r missing.Sheathing is_damage. atxl eyed azz exterior budding eu elope ns severely comprorniised,tincln , g the 9vah ad doors and planks she ung. The buflding has long past its use#'uI life and poses.a serious publk grkty threat in it present state.It is our pmfessidW opinion that this t. ..,rng isnot salvagea6 ataci should be:condemned.if there is,aMr x terest in saving,*record of this st cture,the building shv ld tie pl otograpiie ;masurod and drawn for historical record keeping purposes.The building should other,, i5e bo immediately demolished. Please c oatact us ifyou have any questions cot eery ink this repott, ery tn:ly yours, COASTAL ENGINEERING CO.'INC. 1,00 A,bologna, PR ]Al3(dlli Enclosure .4::4StvucdualRe�w+�AARAx'X;rldc _ �� EXHIBIT P I HIM. '` ,LSTY AW Mr;Thomas Perry,>B.Rd", Commissioner To Office Budding ! ZOQ Main Street 7c Hyannis MA 01601 G-.. Cai! IVIr.Pe ry., Following are the results of my visit yesterday to the property at 153 Fie ergo in Barnstable Village.h4 tendance bes;de yourseif'were�John LaBoeuf, uildiin ? r inspector;John Bologna,structural engineer;Deputy Chief Christopher lson, Barnstable Fire bepa 'fine nt;Panl Revere,attorney; and lYiichael Roberts;the:owner's representative.There are currently two structures ort.,site; a — residence,and:the:old canning factory.This report Heals with these Mo structures separately: Residence: 7Che residence'was probably constructed in the mid to late 190'century.:There have been at least three additions to the original house.Theo ginal Douse evidently had soiree historic architectural sigui trance:It has,however been altered over the years so that the origwal features which were of value,such as fenestration,siding and trim have been serioutsly adulterated.There has also been cons +derable modification of the interior that has been detrimental to the historic character of.the house: There remain a few details o,value,such as the fireplace surround in the west living room,and a few pieces of exterior trim:A review, of the exterior of the oriiival house,indleates that the structural condition is fairly good..Ali the lines of the house such as the eaves,ridges and carriers APPear to be straight and plumb;with:uo evidence,of settlement The additions to the house have been constructed in a way that fs incampatibie to the historic character of the original Mouse.They,as well as the.original house have ---- -- - -deterrarated badly due-t n -- —--. - - -_-- - -- - - --- _._._ In regard to the future of this building,it is my sense�s tkat all tine additions should be demolished.If a viable use can be found for the original house;it is probable that: it:could be successfully restored Canning Factory: , As it part of the review of tl is,building'it was noticed that one of the structural posts Was stamped"NORWAY 1936).It is reasonable to assure e'that Vtis dates the time of coinstructian The building has a post and beam structure consisting of a series of round cedar posts.supporting watid carryiug'beains:'The roof deck is;4"planks spanning from beam:to=b'eam.:The posts,are buried° it d''I. the c; ncrete slabs and grade.beams,and probably act as friction piles to support the structure above. I The strnetio€res`in deplorable condition The appears to be'consderable`rotn fhe cedar support posts.The wood roof deck is rotted h many places,with large areas open to g e sky.The siding shows rot throughout: In my opftuun,this bui ding has gone beyond the point where.a successful restoration-Is I feel this building should.:be demolished. Mr., Perry,'my report is the result of a single A tto the site.I did not make a detailed,mt:depth analysis of these s.actares.My conclusions are based on visual observatiods of the structures,and the ezperieni b gained over a long career dealiiug' with the deftn and canstit tion of wood framed hnildiugs A considerable part of that experience has been dealing with:existing structures,both renovations and; restorations. as on that experience,,.!believe joy conclusions are valid: Yours .TIP Peter Q Brown,Arehitect' t;nxr1Z ROUY SAY 1,ase4n.mtty@veriton neE> To 12everellligaol com itbjeC �}( 't tt 153 Fireeze Road,frn5tati4e Elate:Vl/ed,13 t et 2M 3 48 pm �Origmat.Message 77 rr gym;Perry,Tomrrtailtp Tom Perin al#�wi bFamsabte:i .�us gent«Wednesday,t=ebrtlary 13,2t)€t8 3 `pM^ to:astein�hall�i . ...� @veszon net au be flN: tttr ofFreemr`Road,Bamstabe T A is fr'om the Town ingineer �-Q*A Me e ro m 1,gam,: tent" Tte6d3Y.WMmYr22.2M 21 M p• i T6m kit sec 0M Road,.Mnstable. 1i'tom; err Rbi uary 12P 2008:1 respected the p 1.53 Freezer Read rn Earnstabfe{l�9ap 301 Paroel 006). !'here ire buildrrigs air ttta Property,One is a fom m cannery building and tfie second rs a-2+ residence.'The a8 tdent al building has not been oar y � 3+ Occupied for several ears.It has'been hdavi vandalized and be to of xt'nsive UVrndow damage rs nrarni y�0-he elemnts There is substantial iriteno damage to walls and door s uell;as Plumbing and electrical systems 1t wwc>uk appear that the damage ?the.b..ttilclrng is teyond virhat.would, e =canomical to try and repair._I recx►rrrrnend drat file building be dentol`islied: re � ... p second build pn the lot is the old Wblid War If vintage cannery bu dMg This 04"nq has not been used 3r>ever.w years and is corn ptetely open#ci the elements on the north end.Thepa rs substantial damage to..the )or.;of the bu7dsrrg arx!obvious deterioration of the S42e taK The nfeertor of the buildl' is btken up.irtfa mrjtftfple Mils with unsafe to rtonnexistent access way b�the tenets.Se+cfions c►f the fauitdin are'su tted(cret�ted)wrood posts It would a 9 �Pp by PArth"af posts are held rn place poly by the farads Riot they are ' uct�orting The biniding has:defenorated t ttie point that I recommend that it be derno[ished pt>Borgmann: f btsertA.Buign-ere p E. tan m Engineer 'lp://webmO-aol cornf34032/a€.Yen.-uOqOA)kintM, sage aspx 21131200$ ;;Casemaker-MA- Case Law- Search- Result Page 1 of 4 • << "M XHIBIT� s � p 363 Mass. 439 = � Belfer v. Building Comm r of Boston ARTHUR B. BELFER&others vs. BUILDING COMMISSIONER OF BOSTON. [Cite as Belfer v. Building Comm'r of Boston, 363 Mass. 439] Suffolk. March 8, 1973.---April 4, 1973. Present: TAURO,C.J., REARDON,QUIRICO, HENNESSEY,&KAPLAN,JJ. Zoning,Variance. Equity Jurisdiction, Declaratory relief. Where a plaintiff sought declaratory relief to determine whether the building commissioner of Boston ought to be compelled, after his announced intention to refuse,to issue a building permit should the variances granted the plaintiff by the board of appeal withstand a court challenge,there was an actual controversy as required by G. L. c. 231A, § 1. [441--442] Where an appeal from a decision of a board of appeal granting a zoning variance was not collusively made for the purpose of extending the life of the variance,the period of limitations regarding the use of the variance was tolled during the pendency of the appeal. [442--445] BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on.September 28, 1972. The suit was reserved and reported by Hennessey,J. The case was submitted on a brief. Peter Van, Robert F. Sylvia &Frederick F. Schauer for the plaintiffs. 440 HENNESSEY,J.This is a bill for declaratory relief pursuant to G. L. c. 231A brought in the county court. A single justice of this court reserved and reported.the matter without decision to the full court.The plaintiffs are the general partners of Devon§hire Associates,a Massachusetts limited partnership.BV&rection of the single justice, Paul R. Devin, Domenic DeLuca and Fidelity Management& Research Company, plaintiffs in a separate but related action pending in the Superior Court, were ordered to file appearances as interveners. We summarize the facts as agreed by the parties. On March 10, 1970,the plaintiffs acquired title to certain premises located at 228--256 Washington Street, Boston (the locus). Prior to this, on March 21, 1969, Carol Management Company(Carol)filed an application for a building permit relative to the locus,with the knowledge and approval of the plaintiffs'predecessor in title to the locus. The application requested permission to erect a thirty-three story building. On March 24, 1969,the defendant denied the application for a building permit on the grounds that the building which Carol proposed to erect violated the provisions of the Boston Zoning Code for a business district in respect to floor area ratio, parapet setback, and off-street loading facilities. Carol filed an appeal with the board of appeal of the city of Boston seeking variances from.those sections of the zoning code which the proposed building would violate. On September 22, 1970,the board of appeal granted the variances and filed its decision in the office of the defendant on September 29, 1970.Various persons claiming to be aggrieved by the granting of the variances filed an appeal under St. 1956, c. 665, § 11, in.the Superior Court sitting in Suffolk County.This zoning appeal remains pending in the Superior Court.The appellants in the zoning appeal are the interveners in the instant case.These interveners and the plaintiffs in the instant suit entered into a contract which provides for the dismissal of the zoning appeal upon the happening of certain contingencies. 441 hops://demo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 Xasemaker- MA- Case Law- Search-Result Page 2 of 4 On September 22, 1972,the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant asking whether he would issue a building permit consistent with the variances granted if the application for the permit was made concurrently with the dismissal of the zoning appeal, but subsequent to September 28, 1972.The defendant replied on September 26, 1972,that he would not issue a building permit consistent with the variances granted,on the ground that the variances granted by the board of appeal would lapse and become null and void subsequent to September 28, 1972, pursuant to§ 7-1 of the Boston Zoning Code.(fni) Section 7-1 of the Boston Zoning Code was enacted pursuant to St. 1956,c. 665,which in its main features corresponds to G. L. c. 40A but applies to the city of Boston only. Section 7-1,as set out in the margin,(fn2) provides in substance that variances from zoning regulations granted by the board of appeal expire if not used within two years of the date the variance is filed in the office of the building commissioner. Since the decision granting the variances in the instant case was filed on September 29, 1970,the defendant would not issue a building permit after September 28, 1972. Consequently,the plaintiffs brought this bill for declaratory relief,asking that the court declare that the filing of the appeal in the Superior Court from the granting of the variances by the board acted to stay the two year time limitation of§ 7-1 of the Boston Zoning Code. 1.That there is an actual controversy, as required by G. L. c. 231A, § 1, is clear.The plaintiffs claim they 442 have a right to a building permit despite the lapse of two years.The defendant denies this and has expressed his intention not to grant a permit subsequent to the two year limitation._It is not necessary actually to apply for and be denied a-permit, as long as the granting authority had unequivocally stated that he will refuse to grant a permit. See School Comm. of Cambridge v. Superintendent of Schs of Cambridge, 320 Mass. 516, 518; New Bedford v. New Bedford, Woods H%, Martha's Vineyard&Nantucket S.S.Authy.329 Mass. 243, 247. It is true that declaratory relief in this case will not terminate the dispute over the validity of the variances, but it will terminate the uncertainty of whether a building permit will issue.if the variances are adjudged valid in the suit involving them. Under his present position,the defendant will not issue a permit even if the variances are held to be valid.See Travelers Ins Co.v. Graye, 358 Mass. 238, 240. 2. As to the merits,the plaintiffs argue that since the zoning variances, as a practical matter, could not be used during the pendency of the appeal from the granting of the variances,the appeal tolled the running of the two year period during which the variances had to be used.Though the plaintiffs have brought no Massachusetts case in point to our attention,they cite Tantimonaco v. Zoning Bd. of Review ofJohnston, 102 R. I. 594, 599--600,as supportive of their position. In that case,the court held that where the validity of a building permit was the subject of litigation,the local zoning ordinance providing for the expiration of a permit if not acted upon within six months was stayed during the litigation.The court relied on the common sense practical consideration that the holder of a permit under attack would be-more-reluctant to incur obligations in using the permit than he otherwise would be. ---The plaintiffs also argue that, by analogy,the case of Woodsv. Newton, 351 Mass. 98, 103--104,supports their contention: In that case,a building permit had expired;the board of aldermen gave no further extension and an 443 injunction preventing construction on the locus was in effect during litigation. We held that the board could extend the permit since it was not unreasonable to allow an extension without a further public hearing and since the delay caused by litigation and an injunction should not prejudice parties who, as it turned out, had valid permits. This result, however, turned on the interpretation of an ordinance expressly granting the city of Newton the right to extend the period of time for exercising rights under a building permit, and hence,while helpful, is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. Moreover, in the Woods case,the holder of the permit was legally unable to use it because of the outstanding injunction. In the instant case, although the appeal from the decision granting variances created practical obstacles to their use, in that construction could proceed only at a legal risk caused by the appeal,the plaintiffs were entitled as of right to a building permit consistent with the variances for a period of two years. The plaintiffs also analogize the instant case to cases from other jurisdictions relating to the tolling of a statute of limitations pending an appeal.The rule the plaintiffs ask us to adopt is that stated in Dillon v. Board of Pension Commrs of Los Angeles, 18 Cal. 2d 427,431. In that case,where an administrative remedy prevented the commencement of a civil action for a pension,the court said: "[T]he running of the statute of limitations is suspended during any period in https:Hdemo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 O Casemaker-MA.- Case Law- Search-Result Page 3 of 4 which the plaintiff is legally prevented from taking action to protect his rights" (emphasis added). We need not decide whether this is the rule in the Commonwealth,since even if it were, it does not help the plaintiffs. As in the Woods case, supra,this rule applies when the plaintiff is legally prevented from acting. No such legal disability attended the circumstances in the instant case. Two other considerations can be argued in opposition to the plaintiffs' position.The first argument arises out of St. 1956,c. 665, § 11,which provides that parties who appeal to the Superior Court in Suffolk County from deci- 444 sions of the board of appeal must file a surety bond,approved by the court,to indemnify and save harmless the person or persons in whose favor the decision was rendered from all damages and costs which he or they may sustain in case the decision of the board is affirmed.See Begleyv. Board ofAppeal of Boston, 349 Mass. 458, 460.; McNeelyv. Board of Appeal ofBoston, 358 Mass. 94, 106. Thus it is urged that a person who refrains from using a permit because of an appeal may recover secured damages including the value of an expired variance.The argument is not convincing. Such damages in many instances would provide a poor substitute for the right of a person to build under a variance,without the risks inherent in a pending appeal.We have in mind here, also,that there are limits to the amount of the bond which the judge may properly order. See Damaskosv. Board of Appeal of Boston, 359 Mass. 55,63--64. Broderickv. Board of Appeal of Boston, 361.Mass. 472,474,475. It can also be argued that, if an appeal tolls the expiration date of a variance,a collusive and nonadversary appeal can be used to toll the time limitation of a variance, perhaps to allow the owner more time to speculate on the value of the property interest which is the subject of the variance. We are not faced with that issue in this case, because there is no suggestion that the Superior Court appeal here is not bona fide. Nor do we suggest that the time limitation would necessarily be tolled during the pendency of a collusive and nonadversary appeal. We observe also that the board of appeal,as a defendant in the Superior Court,can press for an early trial and disposition of any appeal which appears to be collusive. In sum,we are not persuaded that the argument concerning the possibility of collusive appeals is controlling here. We conclude that the relief from time limitations given in cases such as Woodsv. Newton. 1 Mass. 98, supra, where a legal imnPdiment exists to the Use of a benetit,should also be given where an appeal from the granting of the variance creates equally.real practical impediments to t e use of a benefit. Otherwise a variance whic was 445 lawfully awarded can be frustrated by the delay inherent in an appeal. Unless an appeal tolls the time period, many variances would be meaningless. We hold that, in the instant case where there is no contention or showing that the appeal was collusively made for the purpose of extending the life of the variance,the period of limitations regarding the use of a variance set forth in § 7-1 of the Boston Zoning Code is tolled during the appeal from the decision of the board granting the variance under St. 1956, c:665, § 11. 3.The case is remanded to the county court for the entry of a decree consistent with this opinion. So ordered, Footnotes: 1 Although it is not crucial to the issues of this case,we observe that the defendant apparently was in error by one day,even as to the position he asserted. 2 "Section 7-1. Authorization for Variance.As provided for in Section 9 of Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1956,as now in force or hereafter amended, and subject to the provisions of Sections 7--2, 7--3 and 7--4,the Board of Appeal may, in a specific case after public notice and hearing,grant a variance from the terms of this code; provided, however,that such grant shall lapse and become null and void unless such variance is used within two years after the record of said Board's https://demoaawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 Casemaker-MA - Case Law- Search- Result Page 4 of 4 proceedings pertaining thereto is filed in the office of the Building Commissioner pursuant to Section 8 of said Chapter 665." MA Mass. o hgps://demo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 .a : a�semaker-MA- Case Law- Search-Result Page 1 of 4 x EXHIB351 IT w � x Mass. 98 see � � OR Woods v. Newton =y BASIL K.WOODS&others vs. CITY OF NEWTON &others. ---_,_ _,... [Cite as Woods v. Newton, 351 Mass. 98] Middlesex. May 5, 1966.---June 8, 1966. Present: WILKINS,C.J.,SPALDING,WHITTEMORE, KIRK, &REARDON,JJ. Zoning,Amendment of by-law or ordinance, Special permit. A rezoning ordinance,adopted by the board of aldermen of a city after a committee of the board and the planning board had held a joint hearing on the proposed rezoning, was not invalid under G. L. c. 40A, § 6, by reason of such joint hearing where it appeared that a notice of the two hearings at the same time and place was so published as to comply with the statutory requirements respecting each hearing,and.that the two bodies sat separately at the joint hearing and kept separate minutes and after the hearing separated for their deliberations. [100--102] Where an essential scheme of the zoning ordinance of a city was to maintain a relation between the area of lots and the bulk of buildings thereon and at the same time to provide flexibility to adapt buildings to particu- 99 - lar sites and for particular uses,.a provision of the ordinance that no building or structure should exceed forty feet in height"unless otherwise provided by the board of aldermen in accordance with" procedures respecting exceptions was proper under G. L. c. 40A, § 4,and the board validly granted a special permit for the erection on a lot of a motel to a height in excess of forty feet. [102--103] A provision of a section of a revised zoning ordinance of a city,that the board of aldermen might extend the time for exercising rights under any special permit granted by it"under this section,whether or not such ...time ... [had] expired,"without further public hearing, related to a procedural matter and authorized the board to extend the time, after the expiration thereof, for exercise of rights under a special permit granted under the corresponding section of the former ordinance,which provided a similar power to extend a time but did not expressly make the power applicable after the expiration of the time. [103--104] Where it appeared that immediately after the board of aldermen of a city granted a special permit under its zoning ordinance for construction of a motel the construction was enjoined in a suit in equity in which the validity of the special permit was in issue,and that long after expiration of the time limited for exercise of rights under the special permit it was adjudged that the special permit had been validly granted,the final decree in the suit properly ordered the building inspector to issue a building permit for construction of the motel. [104] BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on December 17, 1963. The suit was heard by Tomase/%J. Lawrence H.Adler(Fred B. Wilcon with him)for the plaintiffs. Gael Mahony(Richard W. Renehan&Joseph D. Steinfield with him)for Marriott Motor Hotels of Newton,Inc. &others; Matt B.Jones, City Solicitor,for the City of Newton &another, also with him. WHITTEMORE,J.These are appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendants from a declaratory decree of the Superior Court of December 10, 1965.The decree, in paragraphs 1 and 2 respectively, declared the validity of the rezoning by the Newton board of aldermen, on November 4, 1963,of nine and three-quarters acres of land in Norumbega Park(the locus) from Residence C to Business AA, and of the exception granted by the board on November 18, 1963, subject to nine conditions, and to site plan approval,to permit the construction of a motel on the locus.The decree also(par. 3) https://demo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010. Casemaker-MA - Case Law- Search- Result Page 2 of 4 ordered the public building commissioner to issue 100 to the defendant Marriott Motor Hotels of Newton,Inc. (Marriott)a permit to construct the motel "subject to the conditions and permissive exceptions and site plan approval and the height restriction of 40 feet unless otherwise varied by proper proceedings and authorities"; (par. 4)granted Marriott the right to seek a variance for a height increase;and (par. 5)dismissed the bill of complaint in other respects. Our opinion sustaining demurrers in this case, but with leave to amend,is reported at 349 Mass. 373.The points now at issue,and related facts,are stated below in the course of the opinion. 1.The plaintiffs contend that the rezoning ordinance was invalid because the planning board and the committee of the board of aldermen held a joint hearing. We disagree. General Laws c.40A, § 6, provides in part: "No zoning ordinance or by-law originally establishing the boundaries of the districts or the regulations and restrictions to be enforced therein, and no such ordinance or by-law changing the same as aforesaid,shall be adopted until after the planning board ... has held a public hearing thereon,first causing notice of the time and place of such hearing and of the subject matter,sufficient for identification,to be published in ... [a manner prescribed],and has submitted a final report with recommendations to the city council or town meeting,or until twenty days shall have elapsed after such hearing without the submission of such report..... In a city no such ordinance as proposed to be originally established or changed as aforesaid shall be adopted until after the city council or a committee designated or appointed for the purpose by it has held a public hearing thereon,at which all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Notice of the time and place of such hearing before the city council or committee thereof and of the subject matter,sufficient for identification, shall be published in ... [a manner prescribed]. After such notice, hearings and report,or lapse of time without report, a city council or town meeting may adopt, reject, or amend and adopt any such proposed ordinance or by-law." 101 A notice of two hearings at the same time and place was so published as to comply with the statutory requirements as to time and means of publication and statement of the subject matter of the hearings.(fni)On August 12 the members of the committee sat in their customary seats in the aldermen's chamber.The members of the planning board sat at a separate table. An alderman presided and invited members of the planning board to question the speakers.All persons who desired to do so were permitted to speak.The committee and the planning board kept separate minutes and after the hearing the committee and the planning board separated for their deliberations. The statute makes plain that the purpose of the planning board hearing is to enable it to be informed of the proposal - -- and-of-citizens'views-thereon and to report its recommendations-if it-wishes to do so.Inasmuch as the ordinance can be--- enacted in the absence of any report from the planning board,there is no force in the contention that the statute intends that the hearing before the enacting body or its committee be held in the light of a report from the planning board.The statute contemplates that the enacting body will act in the light of a report from the planning board, if any such is submitted (Cairesv. Building Commr, of Hingham, 323 Mass. 589, 595),as well as of its knowledge of citizens'views and other pertinent information obtained at the public hearing held by it or its committee. Nothing in this statutory scheme is disserved by the joint hearing, nothing in the statute bars it, and public convenience and advantage may result. We see nothing in the suggestion that the language, After such notice, hearings [emphasis supplied] and report, or lapse of time without report,a city council ... may... [act]" shows a legislative intent that the board and the committee meet separately. For all purposes of the statute,there was a planning board hearing 102 and a committee hearing. On this point,this is the opinion of the majority of the court. 2. The board of aldermen on December 16, 1963, modified its permission for a motel to allow it to be built to a height of fifty-eight feet.The final decree in effect rules this action invalid and remits Marriott to an application for a variance. In this aspect the decree was in error. The statute (G. L. c. 40A, §4) provides in part: "A zoning ordinance or by-law may provide that exceptions may be allowed to.the regulations and restrictions contained therein,which shall be applicable to all of the.districts of a particular https://demo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 Casemaker-MA - Case Law- Search-Result Page 3 of 4 class and of a character set forth in such ordinance or by-law. Such exceptions shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance or by-law and may be subject to general or specific rules therein contained.The board of appeals established under section fourteen of such city or town,or the city council of such city or the selectmen of such town, as such ordinance or by-law may provide, may, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, grant to an applicant a special permit to make use of his land or to erect and maintain buildings or other structures thereon in accordance with such an exception."The ordinance (§ 25-8 [c] [8]) provided: "No building or structure shall exceed forty feet in height unless otherwise provided by the board of aldermen in accordance with the procedure provided in section 25--26."Section 25--26 provides appropriate procedures for applying for and granting exceptions. Other provisions of§ 25-8 of the ordinance require that in a Business AA district the ground floor cannot exceed in area one fourth of the area of the lot and that the"ratio of the gross floor area of all buildings on one lot to the total area of the lot shall not exceed one." Hence the total floor area of the buildings,whatever the height, cannot exceed the area of the lot. Thus there is an appropriate limitation in respect of the power to extend the height of a building,whereby the essential scheme of the ordinance for a relation between area and bulk is maintained and at the same time flexibility to adapt 103 buildings to particular sites and for particular uses is secured.The ordinance was a proper exercise of power under c. 40A, §4,and the permission could not have been given as a variance. Russellv. Zoning Bd, ofAppeals of Brookline, 349 Mass. 532, 536--537. See Rathkopf,The Law of Zoning and Planning (3d ed.) c. 54.There is nothing to the contrary in Wrona v. Board ofAppeals of Pittsfield, 338 Mass. 87, 89--90, or Tambonev. Board of Appeal of Stoneham, 348 Mass. 359, 363--364. The record does not suggest that the discretion of the board was improperly exercised. 3. The board of aldermen on December 16, 1963,extended to November 20, 1964,the order of November 18, 1963, giving permission for a motel.There has been no further extension. An injunction preventing construction on the locus has been in force since December 17, 1963. In 1963 the ordinance (§ 23.20 [b]) provided: "The rights under any permission ... shall be exercised within such period of time as may be specified by the board of aldermen ... or if no period is ... specified,within six months, or such permission shall be null and void.The board of aldermen may extend the period of time for exercising rights under any . permission granted by it as herein provided without the necessity of a further public hearing thereon unless such board or its committee on claims and rules shall vote to require such a public hearing."At the present time the provision (§ 25- -26 [b]) is substantially the same except that the right to extend a permit after expiration of the existing period is made express: "The board of aldermen may extend the period of time for exercising rights under any permission granted under this section,whether or not such period of time shall have expired,without the necessity of a further public hearing thereon unless the board or its committee on claims and rules shall vote to require such a public hearing." The defendants rightly construe the final decree as ruling that the board may now extend the permit for a motel. We construe the new section (25--26 [b])to apply to per- 104 mits under the former section.The amendment clarified a procedural step. For this matter of procedure a permit granted under§ 23.20 (b) is to be construed as a permit"granted under this section"within the meaning of§§ 25--26(b) notwithstanding the adoption of a new ordinance.We are not concerned with a case where because of lapse of time it would be unreasonable to allow.extension without a further public hearing.The delay through litigation and an injunction should not prejudice parties who,as it now turns out, had a right to proceed immediately under legal permits. 4. It was not error to decree that the public building commissioner, upon application by Marriott, issue a building permit.The parties were,in agreement that,when the bill was filed, Marriott intended to seek and the public building commissioner, notwithstanding the request of the plaintiffs that he not do so, intended to grant a building permit for the construction of a motel on the locus"in accordance with the permissive use and site plan approval granted on November 18, 1963, as amended by the orders on December 16, 1963."The primary point at issue in the controversy now resolved is whether Marriott is entitled to that permit..The requirement of the decree that the permit be subject to "conditions and "site plan approval"obviously refers to the action of the board of aldermen in imposing nine conditions and to the requirement of the ordinance for site plan approval.As noted in point 3 of this opinion,the permit for an exception must https:Hdemo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case_Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 Casemaker-MA - Case Law Search-Result Page 4 of 4 be made current. 5. No basis for a reversal is shown in the rulings on the evidence to which the plaintiffs briefly refer. 6.The final decree is modified by striking therefrom paragraphs 4 and 5 and the last clause of paragraph 3 reading, and the height restriction of 40 feet unless otherwise.varied by proper proceedings and authorities," and substituting in place thereof the words, "and the permissive exception to construct the motel to a height of fifty-eight feet,"and as modified is affirmed. So ordered. Footnotes: 1 Over the signature of the city clerk it gave notice of a hearing before the committee on claims and rules of the board of aldermen on Monday,August 12, 1963,at 7:45 P.M. at the City Hall. Below the clerk's signature, and in the name of the city engineer and clerk of the planning board, appeared the following: "Notice is hereby given by the Planning Board that it will hold public hearing on the above petitions as described in the foregoing notice at the same time and place." MA Mass. s f hops://demo.lawriter.net/states/MA/books/Case Law/result?number=l 2/9/2010 oFt1K*E rqy, ti Town of Barnstable - Historic Preservation Division • r Old King's Highway Historic District Committee BARNSTABM v� MAM 200 Main Street,Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 (508) 862-4787 Fax (508) 862-4725 0 Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk GI, -; 367 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601 t�, Stuart A. Bornstein President, Holly Management and Supply Inc, Mgr of Stuborn LLC 297 North Street Hyannis,.MA 02601 VThomas-Perry, Building Commissioner 200 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: Decision Statement for Reasons for Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness Stuborn, LLC, 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Map 301, Parcel 006 Remand from the Old Kings Highway Regional Commission Construct New Single Family Home Background In a decision dated June 28, 2010, the Regional Commission annulled the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness by the District Committee and remanded the decision back to the local District Committee. July 2, 2010, in an email communication, Stuart A. Bornstein requested to be on agenda of the Old Kings Highway meeting of July 28, 20 10., Notice of the hearing was published in the Barnstable Patriot. All abutters were notified of the date, time and place of the public hearing. 1 i Public Hearing July 28, 2010 July 28, 2010, the Old Kings Highway held a public hearing on the remanded application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the single family house at 153 Freezer Road, referenced above. The Chairman noted that this is a new hearing on the application. At the hearing, Stuart Bornstein was present and was represented by Attorney Paul Revere and Architect David Sigl. The Chairman read the findings of Regional Commission into the record, as follows: The Town Committee was erroneous in not being more specific in its rejection of the proposed building. The Town Committee and Applicant need to work together to develop a satisfactory size, height and mass configuration for the proposed dwelling and attached guesthouse Attorney Revere showed Exhibit 1. that superimposed the proposed building on to existing commercial buildings in the area. The footprint of the proposed Bornstein property fit into the footprint of three of the four adjacent Barnstable Marine Service buildings. Attorney Revere compared the size of the building to surrounding commercial properties. Attorney Revere stated that the proposed building is not particularly large, and he compared it to adjacent commercial properties and to a large residence at 56 Rendezvous Lane. Architect Sigl described the revisions to the plan in detail. He stated that the roof pitch of the main building has been lowered and the height reduced 1 foot 5 inches to 40 feet 1 inch. Plans indicate that height is measured from elevation 18 feet, which is the floor elevation of the garage. Dormers were lowered and re-configured, and the eaves were lowered. The guesthouse was substantially reduced in height from other plan.reiterations. The number of windows was reduced from 109 t o 104. Sections of the building were shortened, especially the guesthouse and connector. The impact of the plan revisions is to reduce the square footage of the house by 520 SQ FT. On the plans, the net area of the building (or Living Area) is listed as 9,902 square feet. With the addition of the first floor garage, Architect Sigl agreed with Committee members that the square footage of the three story building is 14,102 SQ FT, (not . including the covered porches). Committee members reviewed the plans with Architect Sigl. The length of the roof was reviewed. The 68 foot long main roof exceeds the 50 foot Guidelines of the Bulletin. Section B6 recommends breaking up by setbacks or roof line alternatives. The architect stated that he has added a cupola to the roof and re-configured the dormers. Committee member George Jessop AIA emeritus stated that the height of the building is about 12 feet above the tallest commercial building measured by the Town Surveyor, and 15 feet above the shorter building (measured by the Surveyor,; memo submitted and referenced above). He said that the 10-foot high stone foundation is visually excessive but if the building were to be set to grade without the garage underneath, he believed it would be totally acceptable. A three foot stone foundation for the perimeter foundation could then enclose a patio area. A separate garage structure would be acceptable to him. Some members indicated that the guesthouse should be a separate building. The Chairman then opened the meeting to public comment; public comment was received for and against the development. Town Councilor Ann Canedy entered information into the record from the Assessors records, comparing the size of the proposed building with the size of other properties. She expressed concern that the proponents are repeatedly comparing the Living Area square footage of the proposed building with the Gross Square footage of other buildings. She submitted information on the square footage of the following residential properties: (Exhibit 2) F - 56 Rendezvous Lane Living Area, 8,075 SQ FT. 3 (Exhibit 4) 139 Freezer Road, (immediate residential neighbor); Living Area: 972 square feet, Gross square footage: 1,180. r (Exhibit 5) 126 Freezer Road, (nearby residence, two story salt box): 1.,320 square feet living area and 1,552 square feet gross area(Exhibit 5). (Exhibit 7) 88 Mill Lane in Yarmouth (discussed at the Regional Commission meeting as being on the shoreline, very large and highly visible): listed with the Town of Yarmouth Assessor's records as 7,551 square feet of Living Area on 18.95 acres. In reviewing commercial buildings in the area, shown on a GIS map of the harbor, Ms Canedy stated that the Act states that settings should be taken into account. When comparisons are made by the applicant to the commercial structures at Barnstable Marine Service, Millway Marina, the Blair Building and Mattakeese Wharf, comparisons are being made of a residential structure to a commercial building in a commercial setting. It is a different setting. The largest buildings at Barnstable Marine Service cannot be seen from Freezer Road, from the Harbor or from the site of the proposed building, which is higher than the commercial Marine Service buildings. She submitted the following exhibits of commercial buildings information from the town Assessors: (Exhibit 11) , 253 Mill Way Living Area 2,600 SQ FT, Gross 2,600 SQ FT (Millway Marina) ti (Exhibit 10 273 Mill Way): Living Area 4,760, SQ FT, Gross 6,517 SQ FT. (Mattakeese Wharf Restaurant) (Exhibit 9) 277 Mill Way Living Area 6,304 SQ FT, Gross 7,976 SQ FT .. 4 Exhibit 13 126 Freezer Road Living Area 8,080 SQ FT Gross, same (Barnstable Marine Service(built 1970)): Exhibit 12 (4 combined buildings) Living Area 17,320 SQ FT, Gross, same (Barnstable Marine Service, built beginning 1930): The proposed building is larger than all buildings in the area except for the combined four buildings at Barnstable Marine Service. Stuart Bornstein, the developer, stated that the Building Code and Zoning Laws allows them to mound up the lot and build a wall around it "whether you like it". He said this is what he had to do for Conservation. He stated that height should not be an issue. "This is what is allowed, by right, according to the town Building Code". Chair Anderson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak, and hearing none, closed the Public Comment. She said that to give Mr. Bornstein direction she would poll the Committee members so that he knows where Committee Members stand on this project. Chair Anderson stated that the high rock wall around the building and exposed foundation is not an acceptable design feature. It is incongruous. She would like to see the garage pulled out which would lower the height of the building; separating the guesthouse would decrease the mass and scale of the building. Member Bearse agreed that the house design is appropriate but her concern is for the overall height of the house compared to the buildings around it. The rock wall or stone foundation, if lowered significantly, would result in an approvable design. Member George Jessop AIA emeritus, reviewed the design at length. ..... the one element that is incongruous is the garage base. The idea of the perimeter patios, the incorporation of the stone piers with the column bases and the stone exposed to grade to no more that 30 inches sets this house on a substantial perimeter similar to most waterfront house. It has a classic style at that point and the only thing that takes away from this house is the large stone base. " ..... "If it sat on grade .... it would be a little more than 30 feet high and would be comparable to the tallest of the three _ . . . 5 storage buildings adjacent to this property. " .. "A garage structure that contains 7 vehicles would be a very large structure, but it is not the number of structures on the lot, but the height. Seventeen (17)feet is the minimum for flood resistance and I believe that is what the garage was designed to. The guest house could then be set at a similar grade to the main house and would be much more usable as it relates to the main house as the two first floors would be on the same elevation. " ..... "The house itself I very much like and previous discussions with the Architect have been well received and I hope these deliberations could result in changes being made. " Member Nilsson agreed with other members, especially member George Jessop. AIA Emeritus. She stated that the height and stone foundation are not appropriate. Chair Anderson again asked if Attorney Revere wished to continue the Application to give him an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Bornstein. Mr. Bornstein stated that he did not want a Continuance. Chair Anderson confirmed with Attorney Revere that he did not want an opportunity to discuss this with his client and Mr. Revere said Mr. Bornstein would like to discuss it with the Committee. Mr. Bornstein said that he could change the material of the wall, but he needs the height. He said that Conservation told them very specifically what they could use. There is no room for the garage except underneath the house. It is not 7 cars, it is 3 cars. He cannot change the way the building is sitting. Chair Anderson said that her understanding from the Conservation Commission, is that they require that building not be in the 50 foot buffer zone. Mr. Bornstein added if you look at where they have the property; it has been locked in, registered, signed off and recorded. He needs the garage under the building. r Member Bearse asked the applicants if they would like to continue so that they can do another configuration. Mr. Bornstein asked if they were to agree tonight to substitute something other than fieldstone that the Committee would be more favorable, but keep the same physical structure they have now. 6 Chair Anderson noted that it is not the material; it is the height that is part of the issue. Mr. Bornstein stated that he is building to the town building code and it is allowed. Chair Anderson stated that the Building Code applies to the whole town, this Committee has jurisdiction over the Old King's Highway and they can say it is not appropriate for the stone wall to be so high. She understands that the Town may allow this in other areas, but it is no guarantee that you have the right to do this in the Old King's Highway. Mr. Bornstein stated that the Old King's Highway may not be happy with it, but this is what is allowed in the Building Code. A specification sheet had not been submitted. With the applicant's concurrence, the prior"Spec" sheet was accepted, except that the Azek materials were not accepted as appropriate as previously discussed. The Chairman again asked the applicants if they wished to continue; Attorney Revere said they would not, and they would like the Committee to vote upon the application. Old Kings Highway Decision Throughout the hearing, the members provided information on their concerns for the mass, scale and height of the proposed building, and provided direction to the applicant for an acceptable plan. Evidence was submitted that the building is higher than surrounding buildings, even the harbor commercial buildings, it is larger than any other residence in the area, and the stone foundation is an incongruous feature, 10 feet on some elevations, on land that was already mounded above the flood plan. The Chairman stated that she listened to the direction of the Regional Commission for the local Committee to provide the developer with guidance on what would be acceptable with regard to height, size and massing. She would like to see the applicant return with a plan that incorporates these changes where the garage is a separate building, the guesthouse as a separate building and by removing the guest wing this would eliminate the connector wing ` and that would lower the square footage. These changes would lower the height of the building, reduce the mass and size of the building and would get this project accomplished. 7 Members commented that the revisions to the building design have improved the overall building design and one member commented that it was a classically beautiful building. All members however, commented that the 10-foot high concrete wall covered with a stone facing was unacceptable, it heightens the building in an unacceptable manner, and one member stated that there is no other building like it in the Old Kings Highway Historic District. Member George Jessop, AIA Emeritus stated that the house is well designed and has benefited from prior reviews. The one element that is incongruous is the garage base which takes away form this house. If the house sat at grade it would be a little more than 30 feet high and would be comparable to the tallest of the three storage buildings adjacent to this property." Flood elevations could be achieved by a 30" stone wall perimeter. The applicant however, repeatedly refused to make any changes to the plans he submitted July 16, before the hearing and would not make any changes based on the Committees findings and direction. Based on a review of the plans, the area and the evidence submitted: A Motion was duly made by Carrie Bearse, seconded by Elizabeth Nilsson to Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 153 Freezer Road for Stuborn LLC as Submitted: VOTE: AYE: None NAY, Patricia Anderson, Chairman, George Jessop, Elizabeth Nilsson and Carrie Bearse v The motion failed to carry by a vote of 0-4 THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS DENIED UNANIMOUSLY Sincerely Patricia Anderson,Chairman date: ,August,2010 6 ME I ° > Town of Barnstable - Historic Preservation Division ' Old King's Highway Historic District Committee seal MBLE, v�A 1UM, 200 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 rFo +° (508) 862-4665 Fax (508) 862-4725 April 26, 2010 Linda Hutchenrider, Town Clerk 367 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601 - t Stuborn, Stuart Bornstein, President `- Holly Mgt and Supply Inc. 297 North St, Hyannis, MA 02646 Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner r Fa 200 Main St Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: Decision Statement for Reasons for Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness tn '�- 3 ra abel Ma 301 Applicant: Parce1006EUC ° Fee od ', nst t�Consfruct Naming �F mily,Home�{ '`.-, y . A duly noticed public hearing was held upon the above referenced application February 24, 2010. At the hearing, the applicant was represented by Stuart Bornstein, Attorney Paul Revere, David Sigl, Architect, and Kieran Healy, Surveyor, BSC Group, The applicant stated he wished to submit revised plans at the hearing: a revised site plan dated 2/23/2010 and revised elevations dated 2/22/2010. The Chairman informed him that revised plans needed to be submitted at least one week prior to the meeting so that the Committee and the public could review the new plans. The Committee could not act on the revised plans at this meeting. The applicants then described their application. Plans indicate that the site consists of four acres of upland surrounded by the water on the west, north and east. Most of the area is below the A Flood Zone elevation of 17 FT (above MLW). The house contains 10,641 square feet (SQFT) of floor area in two floors, including an attached guesthouse. The building area square footage provided by the architect does not include the area of the first floor, seven-car garage, (which is above grade for an additional, approximate 4,000 SQFT). An existing wharf shown on the site plan is to be reduced in size for boats in a future filing. Committee members and the public expressed their concern for the size and mass of the building, and its elevation above grade. It was noted that the swimming pool and fencing was not part of the application. The hearing was extended to March 10, 2010 with a continuation form signed by the applicant to March 31, 2010. 1 Continuation of the public hearing, March 10, 2010: At the hearing, the applicant was represented by Stuart Bornstein, Attorney Paul Revere, David Sigl, Architect and Kieran Healy, Surveyor, BSC Group The applicant's attorney compared the size of the proposed residence to other buildings in the area such as Sturgis Library, Bacon Farm condominium, and marina buildings. Members noted that the applicant was comparing a residence to a condominium complex, commercial and public buildings. It was noted most of the residential structures in the area are 4,000 SQFT or less, and that the "basement" (garage) of the proposed building is above grade and should be considered the first floor. The garage was not included in the applicant's presentation of the total gross square footage. Houses along Rendezvous Lane have an average floor area of 3,090 SF. Along Freezer Road, the main access road to the site, the average size of houses is 1,384 SQFT. (living area, Assessors data). Along the waterfront there are some large houses; one of the largest of which contains 5,141 SQFT of living area, not including the garage. Some of the overall design elements of the building were found to have merit, but scale, mass and elevation was the greatest concern. The site is very exposed and the building would be visible from considerable distance, given an elevation of 59.6 FT above MLW on a site that is 14-15 FT above MLW. Members again expressed concern for the height and massing of the structure, and for the mounding and elevation above grade. Members requested that they lower the house, reduce its mass and revise the site plan. The hearing was continued to March 24, 2010, which according to Attorney Revere, would be after a hearing by the Conservation Commission. Continuation of the public hearing March 24, 2010: The applicant was again represented by Stuart Bornstein, Attorney Paul Revere and David Sigl, Architect. Revised plans dated March 17, 2010 had been received by the Offices at 200 Main, March 17, 2010. It was noted that these plans were conceptual only, that they were devoid of measurements and could not be voted upon by the Committee, but they could be discussed. Mr. Sigl, architect for the applicant stated that they had relocated the house 50 FT south on the sight, thus decreasing the height of the stone retaining wall on the east elevation, but increasing the height of the wall on other elevations. The area around the house on top of the retaining wall was decreased. The height of the guest wing was reduced and wings integrated into the massing of the main house. The height of the building was reduced to 56.5 FT. The dimensions of the buildings are the same, except for a narrowing of the width of the connector to the guesthouse, a 225 SQFT reduction in area. The buildings have been reduced in size from 10,647 SQFT to 10,422 SQFT (not including the first floor garage) Committee members commented that although there had been improvements in the building design, the building is still a very large structure in comparison with other structures on Freezer Road and that the house will be very prominent. Considerable.input from the public was received, objecting to the mounding of the site, the height of the building and its size and scale. Attorney Revere compared the building 2 to the scale of the marina buildings in the area. A member of the public said that the 9 proposed building should be compared to the existing 'antique' building on the site, and to the modest houses along Freezer Road, and not marinas. Others compared the height of this structure to the Sandy Neck Lighthouse. Committee Members stated that the building might be appropriate in design, but it is too tall and massive. The applicant was informed that the Committee needed a full set of horizontally and vertically dimensioned plans, and that they needed to know the height of the perimeter wall above grade, and information on the pool location. The Committee's application form requires fully dimensioned plans. The hearing was continued to April 14, 2010. An extension was signed by the applicant to April 30, 2010. Continuation of the public hearing April 14, 2010: The applicant was represented by Stuart Bornstein, Attorney Paul Revere, David Sigl, Architect. The Acting Chairman stated that the hearing was continued from March 24, 2010, since the plans submitted for the prior meeting were without dimensions. The applicant's representative stated that the Site Plan (i.e. not architectural plans) was approved by the Conservation Commission. Architect Sigi stated that the stone (retaining)wall ranges in height from 6-7.5 FT. The plans reviewed April 14, were dimensioned. Members observed that the building plans have not changed. The public spoke in opposition to and for the proposed building, and the applicant. The final plans show the following: A 4.3 acre area of upland surrounded by water on three sides; much of the site is in the A Flood zone and below elevation 17 FT. The Site Plan indicates that a licensed former wharf location on Maraspin Creek is to be reduced in size, to be designed for finger docks, for a later filing. Marine related buildings have been removed. In a separate filing decision, the modern portion of the existing residence on the site is to be removed, retaining the small historic portion. The site is filled around and immediately adjacent to the building site. On the east side this mounding rises 6 FT over a distance of 20 FT. The stone retaining wall that is exposed above the mounding is at its highest on the west side at 8 FT high. The stone building foundation adds another 2-2/5 FT. The seven-car garage is on filled land with the floor at elevation 18 FT above MLW, which has the effect of adding an additional story to this building. The floor area of the garage adds another 5,000 SF, (approximately), to the 10,422 SQFT . area of the residence. A covered porch also adds to the overall mass of the building. 3 r The building contains 109 windows and 12 doors to the exterior. The overall effect is a building, which together with mounding and retaining walls, is approximately 56.6 FT above MLW, with the natural grade of the land being approximately 14 -15 FT above MLW. PP Y Old Kings Highway Committee decision: In conclusion, members stated that while materials and style of the building were appropriate, the massing and scale is inappropriate, and that reductions made on the plan, such as the reduction in height of the guest wing, were not sufficient to reduce the overall impact of this building. Few changes were made to reduce the scale of the building. Homes along Freezer Road, the entry road to the site, are tiny in comparison. Only small changes were made in the plans and there was little reduction in the overall living area of the building, from 10,647 SQFT to 10,422 SQFT, not including the area of the first floor, seven-car garage. One member viewed the site from Rendezvous Lane and stated that the proposed building would be very prominent and would look incongruous from this area. It is a very tall building because of the size and mass of the building, including a first floor garage, and because of elevation of the building by mounding of the site, plus an exposed retaining wall that is nearly one story high in some areas. Based on the concerns expressed by Committee members at the public hearing, which was opened February 24, 2010 and continued to March 10, March 24, and April 14, 2010, the Committee members voted to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, plans dated as follows: Proposed Site Plan, 153 Freezer Road, BSC Group, last revised March 23, 2010. Architectural Plans: New Residence Scheme 9A Freezer Ro ad,oad, Barnstable MA, DSH, David Sigl, 313 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, 02115, last revised 4/1/2010. In favor: George Jessop, AIA Opposed: Elizabeth Nilsson, Carrie Bearse Abstentions: Patricia Anderson, (absent for two hearing dates), Dorothy Stahley, Alternate member). The motion failed to carry: THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WAS DENIED Sincerely A v_&c- Carrie Bearse, Clerk 4 T_own_of-Bar_nstable oFVE Teti Regulatory Services Thomas F.Geiler;Director iARNSTABLE. # Building Division Y MASS. 1639. Thomas Perry,Building Commissioner ATF p �s 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 April 6, 2010 Mr. Stuart Bornstein 153 Freezer Road Barnstable, MA 02630 Dear Mr. Bornstein, This letter is in regards to property owned by you at the above captioned address. It has been brought to this department's attention and upon visual inspection on April 5th that this property is unsecured and open to the weather. Please secure this property at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Thomas Perry, CBO Building.Commissione P�oF1HE, ti Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services y * BA MASS, ` Thomas F. Geilere Director � MASS, � - �prF163u99.�" Building Division Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,'MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-403 8 Fax: 508-790-623 0 6/1/10 To Whom It May Concern, I have received the plans for a proposed new residence located at 153 Freezer Road Barnstable. The plans are dated 4-1-2010, drawn by David H. Sigel, 313 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02115 and have a notation, Scheme 9A. The house depicted on these plans is a two story house and is under the allowed height restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance. Sincerely, J homas Perry Building Commissioner 508-862-4030 I 7TP `� r i`, t �'r'E Iv t '-•'?t il�"� •/ 3 a off: - Jp LE ►i - i 2069 J�s�! P� 04 `09 JUN 26 P 3 :45 Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals Application for Other Powers Date Received For office use only: Town Clerk's Office: Appeal# Hearing Date Decision Due (Q; The undersigned hereby applies to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the reasons indicated: Applicant Name: S Jr%) �0 O'r r j G - Phone: 5S0 80-7 7 S- 9 3/6 Applicant Address: X9 7 0V e rA. , I-1V 4 N Ni S, 17A Property Location: /3 /'C�C,'t�C/ D4d�," A'�NS TC to�C /�7 oa 6 30 Property Owner: 5-�,�,no r�J . G., l..C. ,Phone: SO 77 S3/6 Address of Owner: '�97 {yp . .� O' Assessor's Map/Parcel Number: 3G!/-60(.= Zoning District: Groundwater Overlay District: This is a request for: [ ] Enforcement Action i {;4 Appeal of Administrative Official's Decision !, [ ] Other General Powers-Please SDecifyA,: j i Which Section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance and/or MGL Chapter 40A are you appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals? � I Nature of Appeal&Description of Request: 5-r-e- Co l )ia. i i i Attach Additional Sheet if Necessary 1� 1 i 4 Application for Other Powers-Page 2 Existing Level of Development of the Property-Number of Buildings: 0 Me-��SItXY.w�Cd-ul uvt:co� Present Use(s): �C-5l4&ym: 1 C-U\ 1 `J0C,* SAp I Sr.Q Gross Floor Area: '4 Cj/g sq.ft. Is the property located in a designated Historic District?..................................................... Yes WNo [ ] Ifyes [WOld King's Highway Regional Historic District Date Approved(if applicable) !V [ ]-Hyannis Main Street Waterfront Historic District Date Approved(if applicable) Is the building a designated Historic Landmark?..................................................................Yes [ ] No[A Have you applied for a building permit?................................................................................Yes[ ] No Have you been refused a building permit?...........................................................................Yes [ ] No K The following information,as applicable,should be submitted with the application at the time of filing. Failure to do so may result in a denial of your request. • Three(3)copies of the completed application form,each with original signatures. • Three(3)copies of a certified property survey(plot plan)and one(1)reduced copy(8 1/2"x 11"or 11"x 17")showing the dimensions of the land,all wetlands,water bodies,surrounding roadways and the location of the existing improvements on the land. • Three(3)copies of a proposed site improvement,plan and one(1)reduced copy(8 1/2"x 11"or 11"x 17"). • The applicant may submit any additional supporting documents to assist the Board in making its determination. 2 Signature: � D ate: G 2� dS Applicant's 1or1 Representative's Signature Representative's 25 I V o 'Sol3 J�o Phone: Address: ` V n^Z J - O oZ Cc0-1- Fax No.: SO4s'77 Fs-7/2 s i LAW OFFICES OF PAUL REVERE, III 297 North Street, Suite 336 Hyannis, Massachusetts 02632 (508) 778-7126 To: Zoning Board of Appeals Fr: Paul Revere,III Re: 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable,Massachusetts Da: June 26,2009 Introduction i In April,2009,Stewart Bornstein on behalf of Stuborn,L.L.C.,'had discussions with Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner of the Town of Barnstable in which Mr. Perry expressed concern that he didn't believe that he could issue a building permit for a residential structure at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable, Massachusetts (the "Property"). After consultation, I wrote a letter to Mr. Perry respectfully disagreeing which Mr.Bornstein delivered to Mr.Perry.(Copy attached as Exhibit One). The letter did not request a determination by Mr. Perry, but rather simply stated my opinion as to why a building permit could be issued for a residence on the Property. I i Response of Building Department i Notwithstanding that neither the letter nor Mr.Bornstein made a request for a written response from the Building Department or Mr. Perry, Mr. Perry sent a letter, dated May 28, 2009, stating that: (i) the Property could not be used for residential purposes; (ii) the letter was a "decision"; and (iii)the"decision"may be"appeal[ed]"to the"Zoning Board of Appeals."(Copy attached as Exhibit Two). To avoid the letter of the Building Commission becoming binding upon Stuborn and potentially precluding Stuborn L.L.C., from arguing that it can obtain a building permit for a residential structure, Stuborn L.L.C.,has filed this appeal. Basis For Appeal i 1. The Building Commissioner had no authority to issue a decision that the Property could not be used for a single family residence as Stuborn L.L.C., never requested a decision nor applied for a building permit. i 'The property was purchased by Stubom, L.L.P. (Book 12037,Page 257) in 1989. On December 23, 2008, Stuborn L.L.P.,became Stuborn L.L.C.,,pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 185, Sec. 1 (j 1/2),which caused ownership of the property to vest in Stubom, L.L.C.,by operation of law. I, 2. If the Zoning Board of Appeals concludes that the decision was properly issued, then the decision is incorrect and should be reversed. Conclusion If the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to hear this matter, Stuborn reserves the right to submit additional information and argument to the board. Paul Revere,III i I j i 1 { 1 i ii 1{ ji i i 'I i EMBBIT ONE i i 1 j 3 1 i i i I 3 { i i 9� 9 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL REVERE, III 297 North Street, Suite 336 Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 (508) 778-7126 May 14, 2009 Thomas Perry Building Commissioner Building Department Town of Barnstable 200 Main Street Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 RE: 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable 02630 Dear Mr. Perry: I spoke to Stuart Bornstein recently regarding his property at 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable Village ("Freezer Point Property"). I understand that the Building Department has expressed some concern that it cannot issue a building permit to construct a new residence on the property for the reason that a residential use is not allowed in a Marine Business District and that any pre-existing residential use has been lost. As you might expect,I agree that,without a variance,a new residential use cannot be established in a Marine Business District,but disagree that pre-existing residential use has some how been lost. The reason for this disagreement are two fold. First,the residential structure continues to exist on the property and, therefore,the property remains in residential use. Second,the Town has effectively prohibited Mr. Bornstein from making use of the property since the residence was last occupied on a full time basis and,thus,any requirement that the residence needs to be occupied has been stayed by the Town's actions. Pre-existing Residential Use As you know, both the Zoning Act and the Town of Barnstable Zoning Ordinance allow the continuance of a pre-existing non-conforming uses and structures. M.G.L. ch. 40A, Sec. 6, and Barnstable Code Sec. 240-97. The Freezer Point Property has been improved with a residential structure since at least the 1930s.See Assessor's Information attached. This structure is has eleven rooms,six bedrooms,and three full baths.Id. The Assessor's records show that residential structure is over 4900 square feet in size and has estimated replacement cost of over $650,000. Id. The existence of this residential structure on the Freezer Point Property demonstrates unequivocally that the property is in residential use. The Assessor's Office has recognized this use and designates the property as being in state land use code 0101 which is a one family residential use.' Thus, the 'The residential building does contain apartment units. 1 existing use of the Freezer Point Property is residential and another residence can be built upon it without obtaining a variance. In this regard, the Building Department should consider the ramifications of concluding that a residential property that is unoccupied loses its non-conforming status. In particular,the Barnstable Code provides that: Any lawful preexisting nonconforming use or building or structure or use of land which has been abandoned or not used for three years shall not thereafter be reestablished. This section shall not apply in cases of damage or destruction governed by Section 240-95. Thus, the zoning ordinance provides that a preexisting nonconforming structure which is not used loses it protection from zoning requirements. Using the interpretation that a residential structure that is unoccupied is not in residential use, any single family residence which fails to meet current sideyard setbacks or is located on an undersized lot will be required to be torn down if it is abandoned for any period of time or not used as a residence. Numerous examples of such abandonment or non-use exist and the Town's interpretation would require numerous residential structures to be torn down due to sideyard or lot size deficiencies. For example, if such a property is abandoned by its owner due to a foreclosure,it would need to be torn down as the residential use would have been abandoned subjecting the property to current zoning. Alternatively,if three years elapses when an elderly person moves to a nursing home or an estate is before probate court for three years without use, the Town's interpretation would cause such houses to be torn down as they no longer can comply with zoning. In summary,the Freezer Point Property is in residential use because it has a residential structure located on it. The existence of the structure makes for the use. Under these circumstances, Mr. Bornstein can either rebuild the house or can build a new house subject to the need to obtain certain Conservation Commission approvals. Permitting Actions of the Town Since Mr. Bornstein put the Freezer Point Property under agreement and purchased the property in 1999,the Town has continuously obstructed and prevented Mr. Bornstein from obtaining permits to use it. The following sets forth a list of permitting proceedings and appeals which the Town has undertaken to prevent use of the property. A. Old King's Highway i Beginning in 1998, Mr. Bornstein has been stymied from using the Freezer Point Property for any use do to the Barnstable Old King's Highways repeated denials of permits to demolish the existing buildings on the property as follows: Oct. 1997 to 2003 - Multiple requests were made to the Barnstable Old King's Highway 2 Committee to demolish the Can, building and the residential structure. These resulted in a District Court proceeding which found that the decision reversing the Old King's Highway Regional Commission and remanding for further proceedings. Nov., 2004 through Jan., 2008 - Reapplication based upon remand of District Court. Proceedings resulted in a District Court case which was remanded for further review. Jan., 2008 through June; 2008 - Proceedings before Barnstable and Regional Old King's Highway resulting in regional board authorizing the demolition of the Cannery Building and partial demolition of the residential structure. In summary,Mr.Bornstein was effectively prohibited from redeveloping the site and/or constructing a residential structure for over ten years by the decisions of Old King's Highway. B. Conservation Commission In 1997,Mr.Bornstein applied for a delineation of wetlands resources at the property. The resulting appeals and litigation prevented any development of the Freezer Point Property as fo110ws: 1998 - Bornstein requests determination of resource areas and Conservation Commission determines that property has "rivers" on each side making it impossible for Bornstein to build anywhere except on existing footprints which were buildings that could not be demolished according to Old King's Highway. DEP's Southeast Regional Office reverses the Conservation Commission's decision and Conservation Commission appeals to DEP Headquarters. 1998-Sept.,2003-Full adjudicatory proceeding before DEP Headquarters which concludes that property does not have"rivers"adjacent to it. Conservation Commission appeals to Superior Court and DEP decision is upheld. C. Land Use From 1997 to the present, the Town has denied or caused Bornstein to withdraw every permit application which he has filed. These have resulted in two proceedings before the Housing Appeals Committee and numerous other disputes. D. Lease Following approval to demolish the buildings on the Freezer Point Property,the Town entered into a lease for six months to allow it time to make an offer to purchase the property. The Town and Mr. Bornstein were unable to come to agreement on a purchase price. 3 Conclusion The Freezer Point Property is in residential use and has been so since the 1930s. It is a preexisting nonconforming use.Mr.Bornstein can either rebuild the house or can build a new house subject to the need to obtain certain Conservation Commission approvals. Furthermore, the Town has prevented him from using the property for residential uses due to its denial of permits and appeals since 1997. Very truly yours, ls� Paul Revere,III cc: Stuart Bornstein i i I 4 i EXMBIT TWO F 71 1 f q71 1 yJy 9 7 J i 1 3 i I i v I i i i I 1 I I j i f Town of Barnstable �t►+E Ta,, Regulatory Services o„ Thomas F.Geiler,Director ; snsxsrnsLe, Building Division 039.Y A�O� Thomas Perry,Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 i Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 i I May 28, 2009 Law Offices of Paul Revere, III 297 North Street, Suite 336 Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 I RE: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable Dear Attorney Revere, This letter is in response to your correspondence of May 14, 2009 regarding 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable. The area that this property is located is presently in a MB-B (Marine Business — B) zoning district. As such, we both agree that a new residential use in this district would require a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to establish this use. We both agree that there presently is on the subject property a building which has been used as a.residential structure. However; because this structure has not been used,for greater than three years, this use has been abandoned. 240-97 is very specific in its language. "Any lawful pre-existing non-conforming use or building or structure or use of land Which has been abandoned or not used for three years, shall not thereafter be re-established". This requires two criteria for a pre-existing use to be continued or re-established. i. i _ I 1. The.pre-existing Use needs to have been legally established. While all single residence can be readily established, was the multi-family legally established? I 2. Non-use of a pre-existing structure for a period of three years would constitute abandonment. 1 This residential property has not been used since at least 2005. There is abandonment of this use. To use the comparison of a_pre-existing non-. conforming structure which is not used for a period of time needing to be removed because the lot is undersized only is just not true. Section 240-92 allows ways to expand non-conforming residences and.240-91 has provisions for lot protection: Section 240-93.has provisions for non-conforming buildings not i r - i � I used as single or two family dwellings. This property because of the abandonment of the pre-existing use not being used for a period of at least three years constitutes abandonment under the town's zoning ordinances which is j even more generous than Section 40A, section 6 which has a two year abandonment. Should you wish to appeal my decision, you may do so with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sincerely, Thomas Perry, CBO Building Commissioner cc: Stuart Bornstein I i R - - T 1 Town of Barnstable OF114E r Regulatory Services Thomas F. Geiler,Director BARNSTABLE, Building Division v� 039. ��� Thomas Perry,Building Commissioner. ,erFp'��A 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 i May 28, 2009 Law Offices of Paul Revere, III 297 North Street, Suite 336 Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 RE: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable Dear Attorney Revere, This letter is in response to your correspondence of May 14, 2009 regarding 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable. The area that this property is located is presently in a MB-B (Marine Business — B) zoning district. As such, we both agree that a new residential use in this district would require a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to establish this use. We both agree that there presently is on the subject property a building which has been used as a residential structure. However; because this structure has not been used for greater than three years, this use has been abandoned. 240-97 is very specific in its language. "Any lawful pre-existing non-conforming use or building or structure or use of land which has been abandoned or not used for three years, shall not thereafter be re-established". This requires two criteria for a pre-existing use to be continued or re-established. 1. The pre-existing use needs to have been legally established. While all single residence can be readily established, was the multi-family legally established? 2. Non-use of a pre-existing structure for a period of three years would constitute abandonment. This residential property has not been used since at least 2005. There is abandonment of this use. To use the comparison of a pre-existing non- conforming structure which is not used for a period of time needing to be removed because the lot is undersized only is just not true. Section 240-92 allows ways to expand non-conforming residences and 240-91 has provisions for lot protection. Section 240-93 has provisions for non-conforming buildings not used as single or two family dwellings. This property because of the abandonment of the pre-existing use not being used for a period of at least three years constitutes abandonment under the town's zoning ordinances which is even more generous than Section 40A, section 6 which has a two year abandonment. Should you wish to appeal my decision, you may do so with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sincerely, Thomas Perry, CBO Building Commissioner cc: Stuart Bornstein f LAW OFFICES OF PAUL REVERE, " ,T I I� 297 North Street, Suite 336 Hyannis, Massachusetts n 02601 5, !? (508) 778-7126"'" May 14, 2009:-..—__,..,.._.__.-- � �`f�i0 Thomas Perry Building Commissioner Building Department Town of Barnstable 200 Main Street Hyannis,Massachusetts 02601 RE: 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable 02630 Dear Mr. Perry: I spoke to Stuart Bornstein recently regarding his property at 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable Village ("Freezer Point Property"). I understand that the Building Department has expressed some concern that it cannot issue a building permit to construct a new residence on the property for the reason that a residential use is not allowed in a Marine Business District and that any pre-existing residential use has been lost. As you might expect,I agree that,without a variance,a new residential use cannot be established in a Marine Business District,but disagree that pre-existing residential use has some how been lost. The reason for this disagreement are two fold. First,the residential structure continues to exist on the property and, therefore,the property remains in residential use. Second, the Town has effectively prohibited Mr. Bornstein from making use of the property since the residence was last occupied on a full time basis and,thus,any requirement that the residence needs to be occupied has been stayed by the Town's actions. Pre-existing Residential Use As you know, both the Zoning Act and the Town of Barnstable Zoning Ordinance allow the continuance of a pre-existing non-conforming uses and structures. M.G.L. ch. .40A, Sec. 6, and Barnstable Code Sec. 240-97. The Freezer Point Property has been improved with a residential structure since at least the 1930s.See Assessor's Information attached. This structure is has eleven rooms,six bedrooms,and three full baths.Id. The Assessor's records show that residential structure is over 4900 square feet in size and has estimated replacement cost of over $650,000. Id. The existence of this residential structure on the Freezer Point Property demonstrates unequivocally that the property is in residential use. The Assessor's Office has recognized this use and designates the property as being in state land use code 0101 which is a one family residential use.' Thus, the 'The residential building does contain apartment units. 1 existing use of the Freezer Point Property is residential and another residence can be built upon it without obtaining a variance. In this regard, the Building Department should consider the ramifications of concluding that a residential property that is unoccupied loses its non-conforming status. In particular,the Barnstable Code provides that: Any lawful preexisting nonconforming use or building or structure or use of land which has been abandoned or not used for three years shall not thereafter be reestablished. This section shall not apply in cases of damage or destruction governed by Section 240-95. Thus,the zoning ordinance provides that a preexisting nonconforming structure which is not used loses it protection from zoning requirements. Using the interpretation that a residential structure that is unoccupied is not in residential use, any single family residence which fails to meet current sideyard setbacks or is located on an undersized lot will be required to be torn down if it is abandoned for any period of time or not used as a residence. Numerous examples Jea abandonment or non-use exist and the Town's interpretation would require numerous re structures to be torn down due to sideyard or lot size deficiencies. For example, if such a is abandoned by its owner due to a foreclosure,it would need to be torn down as the reside would have been abandoned subjecting the property to current zoning. Alternatively,if thr elapses when an elderly person moves to a nursing home or an estate is before probate court years without use,the Town's interpretation would cause such houses to be to down as longer can comply with zoning. In summary, the Freezer Point Property is in residential use because it has a resri1dential structure located on it. The existence of the structure makes for the use. Under these circumstances, Mr. Bornstein can either rebuild the house or can build a new house subject to the need to obtain certain Conservation Commission approvals. Permitting Actions of the Town Since Mr.Bornstein put the Freezer Point Property under agreement and purchased the property in 1999,the Town has continuously obstructed and prevented Mr. Bornstein from obtaining permits to use it. The following sets forth a list of permitting proceedings and appeals which the Town has undertaken to prevent use of the property. A. Old King's Highway Beginning in 1998,Mr. Bornstein has been stymied from using the Freezer Point Property for any use do to the Barnstable Old King's Highways repeated denials of permits to demolish the existing buildings on the property as follows: Oct. 1997 to 2003 - Multiple requests were made to the Barnstable Old King's Highway 2 Committee to demolish the Cannery building and the residential structure. These resulted in a District Court proceeding which found that the decision reversing the Old King's Highway Regional Commission and remanding for further proceedings. Nov., 2004 through Jan., 2008 - Reapplication based upon remand of District Court. Proceedings resulted in a District Court case which was remanded for further review. Jan., 2008 through June, 2008 - Proceedings before Barnstable and Regional Old King's Highway resulting in regional board authorizing the demolition of the Cannery Building and partial demolition of the residential structure. In summary,Mr.Bornstein was effectively prohibited from redeveloping the site and/or constructing a residential structure for over ten years by the decisions of Old King's Highway. B. Conservation Commission In 1997,Mr.Bornstein applied for a delineation of wetlands resources at the property. The resulting appeals and litigation prevented any development of the Freezer Point Property as fo110ws: 1998 -Bornstein requests determination of resource areas and Conservation Commission determines that property has "rivers" on each side making it impossible for Bornstein to build anywhere except on existing footprints which were buildings that could not be demolished according to Old King's Highway. DEP's Southeast Regional Office reverses the Conservation Commission's decision and Conservation Commission appeals to DEP Headquarters. 1998-Sept.,2003-Full adjudicatory proceeding before DEP Headquarters which concludes that property does not have"rivers"adjacent to it. Conservation Commission appeals to Superior Court and DEP decision is upheld. C. Land Use From 1997 to the present, the. Town has denied or caused Bornstein to withdraw every permit application which he has filed. These have resulted in two proceedings before the Housing Appeals Committee and numerous other disputes. D. Lease Following approval to demolish the buildings on the Freezer Point Property,the Town entered into a lease for six months to allow it time to make an offer to purchase the property. The Town and Mr. Bornstein were unable to come to agreement on a purchase price. 3 Conclusion The Freezer Point Property is in residential use:and has been so since the 1930s. It is a preexisting nonconforming use.Mr.Bornstein can either rebuild the house or can build a new house subject to the need to obtain certain Conservation Commission approvals. Furthermore, the Town has prevented him from using the property for residential uses due to its denial of permits and appeals since 1997. Very truly yQuzs�. Paul Revere,III cc: Stuart Bornstein i 4 namstatae Assessing Jeamn KesuIIs STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 153 FREEZER ROAD Appraised Value Assessed Value Map/Parcel/Parcel Extension Building Value: $576,600 $576,600 301 /006/ Extra Features: $0 $0 Outbuildings: $42,000 $42,000 Mailing Address Land Value: $1,911,800 $1,911,800 STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Totals $2,530,400 $2,530,400 297 NORTH ST HYANNIS,MA.02601 . Community Preservation Act Tax $504.25 Barnstable FD-All Classes $2.37 $6.90 C.O.M.M.-All Classes $1.08 Barnstable FD Tax(Commercial) $1,979.03 Cotult FD-All Classes $1.43 $6.12 Barnstable FD Tax(Residential) $4,018.02 Hyannis-Residential $1.78 Town Tax(Commercial) $5,110.40 Hyannis-Commercial $2.77 Town Tax(Residential) $11,698.04 W Barnstable-All Classes $2.11 Community Preservation Act 3%of Town Tax Totaii $23,309.74 Building value $576,600 Interior Floors Coner Finished% Style Warehouse-Wd Frm Interior Walls Minimum Please use the navigation below the sketch to browse sketches. Model Commercial Heat Fuel None .i http://www.toWn.bamatable.maul/assessing/2009/displaypaTcelO9map.wp?mappa 301006(1 of 2)4/30/2009 5:36:44 PM bamstable Assessing Search Results Grade Average Heat Type None IA% 45 Stories 2 AC Type None Exterior Walls Wood Shingle Bedrooms 00 Roof Structure Gable/Hip Bathrooms 0 Full l c 11 Roof Cover Asph/F Gls/Cmp living area 7310 Replacement Cost $274162 Year Built 1950 �J Depreciation 80 Total Rooms CIS u A5 ai+ -- CODE 0101 e I for print version that displays all sketches at once Lot Size(Acres) 7 Appralsed Value $1,911,800 AsBuilt Card NIA Assessed Value $1,911,ao0 im `' r ,� ... t a.ax: ,F,� ; :e.:�Y'rf �it Owner: Sale Date Book/Page: Sale Price: STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Feb 2 1999 12:OOAM 12037/257 $850,000 CANAL MARINE INC 1402/224 $0 ,< :Eli t. u4 '�R Code Description Units=ft Appraised Value Assessed Value BLK Bulkheading 300 $42,000 $42,000 BAS First Floor,Living Area FST Utility Area(Finished Interior) UAT Attic Area(Unfinished) BMT Basement Area(Unfinished) FTS Third Story Living Area(Finished) UHS Half Story(Unfinished) CAN Canopy FUS Second Story Living Area(Finished) UST Utility Area(Unfinished) FAT Attic Area(Finished) GAR Garage UTO Three Quarters Story(Unfinished) FCP Carport GRN Greenhouse UUA Unfinished Utility Attic FEP Enclosed Porch PTO Patio UUS Full Upper 2nd Story(Unfinished) FHS Half Story(Finished) SFB Semi Finished Living Area WDK Wood Deck FOP Open or Screened in Porch TQS Three Quarters Story(Finished) ti hnp://www.town.bamatable.ma.usvassessing/2009/dispiaypame109map.wp?mappe 301006(2 of 2)4/30/2009 5:36:44 PM Town of Barnstable 1A"; 45 Style Warehouse-Wd Frm Interior Floors Concr Finished Model Commercial Interior Walls Minimum Grade Average Heat Fuel None I? 11 Stories 2 Heat Type None Exterior Walls Wood Shingle AC Type None Roof Structure Gable/Hip Bedrooms 00 Roof Cover Asph/F GIs/Cmp Bathrooms 0 Full Replacement Cost $274162 living area 7310 Depreciation 80YearBuilt 1950 .� Total Rooms r3S AF.1 'AS X' — IWDK FGR LIS :5 AS Style Colonial Interior FloorsCarpet 40 Model Residential Interior Walls Drywall Grade Custom Heat Fuel Gas Stories 2 Stories Heat Type Hot Air 2; Exterior Walls Wood Shingle AC Type None pK AS 6S-11 Roof Structure Gable/Hip Bedrooms 6 � Bedrooms Roof Cover Wood Shingle Bathrooms 3 Full Replacement Cost $652241 Irving area 4918 ',J Depreciation 20Year Built 1930 0 Total Rooms 11 Rooms EP t.t http://www.town.bamstable.ma.us/assessing 009/print06.asp?mappar-3010065/14/2009 1:16:27 PM TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Mapes arcel4 ``Application # ' C Health Division S 17 0'1 "Date Issued Conservation Division `Application Fee Planning;Dept., Permit Fee Date Definitive',Plan Approved by Planning Board Historic =:OKH Preservation/Hyannis Project Street Address Villagei .ys7L�, Owner S�,Acle.V Zm 01eD �,�� Address 7 /VoleTh S J Telephone `Sad - 22:2 1r� I/ Permit Request 4e " Square feet: 1 st floor: existing�`3�proposed 2nd floor: existing proposed Total new z Zoning District Flood Plain r Groundwater Overlay Project Valuation 066 Construction Type 00`D Lot;Size ' Grandfathered: ❑Yes ❑ No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family �0 Two Family ❑ Multi-Family (# units) Age of Existing Structure Historic House. O Yes ❑ No On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes ❑ No Basement Type:...,U Full ❑ Crawl ❑Walkout ❑ Other Basement Finished Area (sq.ft.) Basement Unfinished Area (sq.ft) Number of Baths: Full: existing 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: ❑ Gas ❑ Oil ❑ Electric ❑ Other Central Air: ❑Yes ❑ No Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: ❑Yes '❑ No Detached garage: ❑ existing 0 new size_Pool: ❑ existing ❑ new size _ Barn: ❑ exis ing ❑ new size_ c�a _ Attached garage: ❑ existing ❑ new size _Shed: ❑ existing ❑ new size _ Other: wH Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization ❑ Appeal # Recorded ❑ < —C _ N Commercial s ❑ No If yes, site plan review # Current Use �� -�G'�v / Proposed Use a APPLICANT INFORMATION (BUILDER OR HOMEOWNER) Name Telephone Number 6V_VE-9�a Address �1�� Gj,��i5/ �/ License # C'.S C Z Home Improvement Contractor# Worker's Compensation # ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO SIGNATURE DATE J' S' Ly C -P X FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY APPLICATION# DATE ISSUED MAP/PARCEL N0. 's 'C ADDRESS VILLAGE t OWNER DATE OF INSPECTION: FOUNDATION FRAME INSULATION FIREPLACE ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL PLUMBING: ROUGH FINAL GAS: ROUGH FINAL FINAL BUILDING ; DATE CLOSED OUT ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. r r i t Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services Thomas F.Geiler,Director , q� sd39• ��� Building Division �fDPAP� Tomperrh Building Comzmssiouer 200 Main Street, $yaanis,MA 02601 www•town barustable•ma.us Fax: 508 790-6230 offiCe: 508-862-4038 Property Owner Must Complete and Sign TM --s Section If Using ABuilder by Stuart Bornstein ,as Owner of the subject prOPerty ' h Michael J. Roberts. to•actonmybehalf•, 'hereby authonze: . all fitters relative to work authorized bytivs building permit application for, in s (Address of Job) 4/16/2009 Sigu Oe— Date Stuart Bornstei print I�Tatne • Message J Page 1 of 1 Roma, Paul From: Perry, Tom Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:59 AM To: Roma, Paul Subject: FW: Updates, Cannery and 68 Dale Avenue Paul please take note of the Hyannis port one.The cannery I'll handle.Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Etsten, Jackie Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:53 AM To: Daley, Patty Cc: Watson, Marjorie; Buntich, JoAnne; Perry, Tom Subject: Updates, Cannery and 68 Dale Avenue Patty, please be informed of the following decisions: The OKH decision denying the demolition of the Cannery at Freezer Road was over turned by the Regional OKH. A written decision has not yet been issued, we will let you know when it has been filed. 68 Dale Avenue, Hyannisport. Major changes to this National Register building have been found by BHC to be a significant alteration to its historic, architrectural character. There are significant changes to the building facade, and overall the building is being increased in size by more than double. Sarah Korjeff is aware of the proposed changes. This should be a mandatory DRI. UNless otherwise instructed I will prepare the paperwork today. A demolition delay is in effect. 6/12/2008 u-> LD KING'S HIGHWAY REGIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT :- COMMISSION 1_ P.O.Box 140,Barnstable,Massachusetts 02630-0140 cv > Tel: 508-775-1766 FAX 508-775-9248 '08 JUN 23 All :56 Stuborn L.P.,Appellant/Applicant Vs. Decision #2008-3-(Final) C Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Committee for the Town of Barnstable c ' -Z N) On Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 7:45 P.M., the Commission held a hearing at the ire Sta ion Community Room, 340 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts, on Appel 2008-�g filed by Stubon, L.P., seeking reversal of a decision by the Barnstable Histori Distrielo Committee denying a Certificate for Demolition or Removal for the "Cannery Buildigg" 10 located at 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable,Massachusetts. Present were Patricia McArdle, Sandwich; Peter Lomenzo, Dennis; Richard E. Gagenwarth, Yarmouth; Roy W. Robinson,;Jr.,Brewster; Patricia Anderson, Barnstable; James R. Wilson, Commission Administrator; Stuart Bornstein, Applicant/Appellant4; and Paul Revere, III, Appellant/Applicant's Attorney. Absent was Paul Leach, Orleans. The Town Committee's decision was filed with the Town Clerk on February 20, 2008. The appeal was entered with the Commission on March 3, 2008, within the 10-day appeal period. The Commission remanded the matter to the Barnstable Committee on April 1, 2008 for further review and to make specific written findings. (See Decision#2008-3 filed with the Town Clerk on April 3, 2008) The Barnstable Town Committee re-opened the public hearing on April 23, 2008, heard additional testimony and made a series of specific written findings. The written decision with an addendum was filed with the Town Clerk and Regional Commission on May 6, 2008. In accordance with the remand order, the matter was scheduled for review at the June 3, 2008 regular monthly Commission meeting. Review of Town Committee's Written Findings: At the commencement of the public hearing, it was announced that the Town Committee's written findings with their addendum had been distributed to all the Commissioners for review in advance of the hearing. 1 tY ' Appellant/Applicant's Presentation: Paul Revere, III addressed the Commission on behalf of Stuborn, L.P. and highlighted many of the items set forth in the written appeal petition. He described the Cannery Building as a serious safety hazard and beyond repair. He showed pictures of the building and pointed out many of its structural defects. He dramatically demonstrated the rotten and weakened condition of the pine support posts. He suggested that the building had been designed for short-term use during the Second World War. He expressed the opinion that it would soon fall down on its own. He described the building as being very limited in its potential for re-use. He mentioned the risk of fire and other problems that inhibit the buildings future use. Town Committee's Presentation: Patricia Anderson described the findings made by the Town Committee in denying the application. She stated that the condition of the property was self-imposed by the owner's neglect and failure to properly maintain the building. She claimed that the building had an important history and that it's demolition would be detrimental to a public interest under the Act. She expressed the opinion that proper fencing and the restoration of the building could address all the public safety concerns. She denied that the Town Committee had been arbitrary and/or erroneous in it's action on the application and encouraged the Commissioners to sustain the Town Committee's denial of the application for the demolition of the Cannery Building. Public Comments: Jeffrey A. DeCiccio stated that the Cannery Building was a hazard and that the location at the entrance to Barnstable Harbor needed to be cleaned up. He supported the Owner's application and stated that it was time to allow the demolition of the building. Ann Canedy stated that she supported the Town Committee's denial of the application and pointed out the building's history and its historical value to the Town. Stuart Bornstein stated that "public safety"was the main reason for reversing the Town Committee's denial. Joseph Dugas stated that he was in full support of the applicant's request to demolish the Cannery Building. 2 i Discussion: Mr. Lomenzo stated that he did not agree with the Town Committee's determination that the Cannery Building had great historical value. He indicated that in his opinion the Town Committee was erroneous in its judgment that the building is historically significant. He indicated that he favored annulling the Town Committee's denial and issuing the Certificate for Demolition or Removal. Mr. Gagenwarth agreed with Mr. Lomenzo. He stated that the building had been in poor condition for many years. He indicated that in his opinion, the Town Committee was in error when it held the Owner's neglect against the applicant. He expressed the opinion that the Cannery Building ought to have been torn down in 1975. Mrs. McArdle indicated that public safety supports the demolition of the building and that the public interest would be better served by allowing the applicant to demolish the building. Mr. Robinson stated that he agreed with the statements of the other Commissioners. The Commission findings: The Commission finds as follows: That it was an error when the Town Committee determined that the Cannery Building- had great historical'value. That a public safety interest supports the demolition of the Cannery Building. That the determination by the Town Committee should be annulled and the application for a Certificate for Demolition or Removal of the Cannery Building should be approved. Determination: As to Appeal #2008 -3, the decision of the Barnstable Town Committee denying the application is annulled and the determination is reversed. The Commission hereby approves the application and issues the Certificate for Demolition or Removal. (4-0-1) Any person aggrieved by this decision has a right to appeal to the District Court Department, Barnstable Division,within 20 days of the filing of this decision with the Barnstable Town Clerk. June 23 2008 liooyz—�obinson, r., erson � 3 oFt ro,,, Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services MRN9 MASS. E'�` Thomas F. Geiler,Director Eo;A. Building Division Thomas Perry, CBO Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 May 15, 2008 Mr. Stuart Bornstein 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable Dear Mr. Bornstein: This letter is in regards to the so called Cannery building which your firm owns at Freezer Point in Barnstable village. This Department is ordering you under section 121 of 780 CMR to secure this building. This must be undertaken within 14 calendar days.. Respectful y Thomas Perry,CBO Building Commissioner MAP +� CF THE Tp� ti Town of Barnstable - Historic Preservation Division RAsTAsLE * Old King's Highway Historic District Committee v� b�: `0g 200 Main Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 '°rEo Ma+" (508) 862-4787 Fax (508) 862-4725 Linda Hutchenrider,Town Clerk 367 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601 Stuborn L.P. 297 North Street (�D Hyannis MA 02601 RE: Decision Statement for Reasons for Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition of Cannery Building Applicant: Stuborn L.P.,property located at453 Freezer_Road,- arnstable;-Map-301, Parcel 006 Site: 4.11 acres of upland(also estimated at 3.68 acres)plus 2.89 acres wetland BACKGROUND OF PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO REMAND FROM OLD KING'S HIGHWAY REGIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION Prior to the remand from the Old King's Highway Regional Commission to the Old King's Highway Barnstable Local Historic District, Stuborn L.P. had applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the Cannery building at the above referenced location, in an application submitted December 26, 2007. A separate application was made to demolish the residence on the property on the same date. A duly noticed public hearing on this application was opened January 23, 2008 and continued to February 13, 2008 in order to obtain an evaluation from the Building Commissioner of the condition of the structures on the property. The Chairman stated that they are looking to see if the building is salvageable because certain elements might have gone past its lifetime usability. At the public hearing, Attorney Revere and engineer John Bologna represented the applicant and Attorney Revere submitted a brief. Revere stated that the Cannery Building does not meet the criteria for the look of the early days of Cape Cod; he discussed the history of the Cannery Building and submitted pictures of the area. He stated that it was constructed in the 1940's for canning fish. He explained that people say that it reminds them of the fishing heritage of the area and the issue is whether it is a historic structure as used under the act. Attorney Revere stated that the Cannery is located in a Marine Business (Zoning)District which allows the following uses: commercial marina including the sale,rental and storage of boats, retail sale of marine fishing and boating supplies,retail sale of bail, fish and shellfish, commercial fishing and commercial fish canning, whale watch,restaurant or windmills (as Accessory uses by 1 Special Permit). He stated that the property cannot be used for these uses and that the applicant has tried to board up the building and that the buildings are a fire hazard. John Bologna for the applicant stated that the building is in a dilapidated state and beyond repair. He discussed the building code and the structure of the building. He stated that the base of the pole structure, the roof, and beams were all rotted. Mr. Bologna stated that there is nothing that can be salvaged. The Chairman questioned how long Mr. Bornstein owned the properties and Attorney Revere responded, "almost 10 years". She questioned how much money he had put into the buildings. Attorney Revere responded"next to nothing". Nilsson questioned what the applicant wanted to do with the buildings when he bought them in 1999,because they were in good condition at that time. Attorney Revere stated he did not know what his client's plans were when he bought the property. He stated that the 40 B plans were not allowed. Attorney Revere discussed whether there was a substantial detriment to the public welfare. He stated that there are reports stating that the building is dangerous and a fire hazard. He discussed if there is substantial derogation from the intent and purposes of the Act. Freezer Road resident Pam Cryer stated that she walks in the area daily, that the house on the property was lovely,but the property has been neglected for years and has not been boarded up. 14 Chairman Anderson stated that in 30 years in Historic Preservation, in her opinion this is one of the most incredible examples of demolition by neglect. Commission member Nilsson feels that these buildings should not be allowed to be demolished until they know what is going to be at the site. Commission member Stahley stated that this is demolition by neglect, and a self-imposed hardship. Based upon the testimony given at the public hearing,review by members of a brief submitted by Attorney Paul Revere,reports by town officials a motion was duly made by Bearse and was seconded Stahley that the Old Kings Highway Historic District Committee Approve the Certificate of Demolition for Stuborn L.P. at 153 Freezer Road for Cannery Building. So moved. AYE: Jessop and Bearse NAY: Anderson, Stahley and Nilsson ABSTAINED: None Chair Anderson stated on the hardship issue because of the uniqueness of the property it would be a significant detriment to the public welfare to lose it. The Board voted on the IOC hardship determination on the Cannery Building. Motion was duly made by Jessop and seconded by Stahley that the Old King's Highway approve for the request for hardship (10 C determination) for Stuborn L. P at 153 Freezer Point. So moved. AYE: Jessop and Bearse NAY: Anderson, Stahley and Nilsson ABSTAINED: None 2 APPEAL TO OLD KINGS HIGHWAY REGIONAL COMMISSION The applicant appealed the decision of the Old Kings Highway Historic District Committee to the Regional Old Kings Highway Historic Commission. At their duly noticed meeting of April 1, 2008, the Commission remanded the matter back to the local Committee to re-open the hearing for the purpose of taking any new facts and comments,to address all substantive factual issues, and to change or modify its original decision based on these findings. RE-OPENING OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE CANNERY BUILDING In accordance with the remand of the Regional Commission, a duly noticed public hearing was re-opened April 23, 2008. At that hearing, the Committee took additional testimony from the applicant Attorney Paul Revere, acting on behalf of Stuborn L.P. At that hearing, documents referenced herein that were not previously submitted, are listed as an addendum: Additional testimony was given at the re-opened public hearing April 23, 2008. A copy of the draft decision was given to Paul Revere. Attorney Revere stated that he did not have much to add to his previous testimony. He disagreed with the date of construction of the Cannery. He had a 1937 photograph of the area and the Cannery was not evident at that time. The Committee agreed that the date of construction was probably in the early 1940's, and that the building was constructed to can mackerel for the war effort. The decision has been revised accordingly. Attorney Revere stated that the Cannery was used for a period of time for boat storage. Mr. Bornstein stated that the building is a disaster,it cannot be insured, it is a public safety hazard and is going to fall down. He said that it cannot be secured or insured. Committee member Stahley stated that he has followed this case for many years and this is a case of neglect. The Committee does not rule on public safety; that is in the purview of the Building Commissioner. Based on testimony submitted at the public hearings on January 23, 2009 continued to February 13, 2008, and an additional hearing April 23, 2008, according to the remand by the Regional Commission, a brief submitted by Attorney Paul Revere,review of the history of the site and the building,past applications in the files and documents listed above,the following findings were made and the Committee reviewed a draft decision,reading much of it into the record: 1. Ownership The Committee finds that Stuborn L.P has had an interest in the property since January 4, 1997, by virtue of a Purchase and Sales Agreement with Canal Marine. The applicant purchased the property, February 2, 1999. 3 FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE OLD KINGS HIGHWAY ACT 2. CERTIFICATE FOR DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL(Section 10,paragraph b) a.) Architectural and historic interest of the Cannery building The Committee finds that Section 10 of the Act outlines the powers, functions,and duties of the Committee and the Committee's approval is specifically required for the demolition of any building or structure of architectural or historic interest. The Committee finds that the historic and architectural interest of the Cannery Building must be viewed in context of the history of Barnstable Harbor. In Section 1-Purpose, of the Old Kings Highway Act it is stated that the purpose of the Act is to preserve and maintain buildings settings and places, compatible with the "historic, cultural, literary and aesthetic tradition of Barnstable County, as it existed in the early days of Cape Cod, and through the promotion of its herita (Emphasis added) Heritage is then defined in Section 3 Definitions, as follows "Heritage"—value in the cultural life of the past, because of their importance to the community life of Cape Cod, which have come down through the generations to make up our way of life. This has been achieved by means of old buildings, industa, furniture, utensils, old happenings and expressions. They have made the unique salty flavor of Cape Cod that will never be forgotten but will be preserved for future generations, as a means of insuring the integration of those qualities into a contemporary way of living (Emphasis added) Industry is specifically mentioned in part of Section 3, Definition,Heritage. Insuring the integration of these qualities into a contemporary way of living includes the adaptive re-use of existing, historic structures. History of the property: The Committee finds that according to the Intensive Archeological Study, the site of the Cannery building was part of a larger parcel dating back to 1640. This area has a long history of development for marine related activities with the development of shipyards and wharfs, fish freezing and cranberry business. The Barnstable Historical Commission's Area survey for the Harbor makes similar findings. It indicates that development of this area dates back to the 1700's to the current time and that maritime industries began in this area, on the shores of the creeks, including grist mills, ship building, and fishing. The Cannery building represents a continuum of these marine related uses. The building was probably constructed in the early 1940's, as agreed upon by Attorney Revere and the Committee. During World War II, fish was processed and canned in the factory by women and children, for the men fighting overseas. This industry also provided an income to families with men over seas. It is a unique part of the history of the fishing industry in Barnstable Harbor and New England, and provides a window into the life of residents during World War 11. Fish canneries once existed along the west and east coasts of the U.S. Historic "Cannery Row"is the waterfront street in Monterey, California immortalized by American writer John Stembeck. It is now the site of numerous upscale shops and restaurants located in the now-defunct cannery 4 factories. Several canneries existed along the eastern seaboard from Maine to Florida during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most have been replaced by large processing plants. Extensive research has determined that the Freezer Point Cannery is the only cannery left in New England that resembles its original form and is in its original location. Because of its uniqueness and importance in Barnstable's Village, Town and County development, we believe the building will qualify for listing in the State &National Registers of Historic Places. Architectural interest: The Committee finds that the sixty-seven year old,pole supported structure is part of the marine industry's architecture, and that its distinctive outline on the edge of Barnstable Harbor can be seen from the boat basin, surrounding roads and from the open waters of the Harbor. It is a reminder of the area's history of fishing. This building could be used for other, marine-related uses in demand today, and allow a continuum of the area's history, character and heritage. Based on the findings made herein, a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition,(Section 10b)was as follows: Yes: George Jessop No: Patricia Anderson,Elizabeth Nilsson,Robert Stahley Absent: Carrie Bearse 3. Section 10(c) of the Act Determination of Hardship/Variance The Committee made the following findings: (a) Unique hardship affecting the building,but not affecting the District generally. There are no hardships affecting this property that would not apply to any other historically and architecturally significant buildings in the District, if they were maintained in a similar manner-vacant since 1997, with failure to maintain,repair or board up -in anticipation of demolition for a totally different use. On the other hand, the Committee finds that there are historical and physical characteristics of the site that indicate that the marine related building is an appropriate building for the area; it is part of the historic,marine landscape of industries that developed around Barnstable Harbor,beginning in the 1640's. As for physical characteristics of the area,the entire site at 153 Freezer Road is located in the 100-year flood plain, and subject to flooding. The design of the building has permitted it to survive for approximately 67 years,by virtue of the large open design, with a system of pole supports and a slab floor. 5 Based on the findings made herein, a motion to find unique hardship under Section 10c of the Act was follows: Aye: None Nay: Patricia Anderson,Elizabeth Nilsson,Robert Stahley, George Jessop Absent: Carrie Bearse (b) Substantial hardship: i The Committee finds that: i. While the applicant states he is unable to use the property for the uses permitted in the Marine Business District, the records of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review reveals that the applicant has never attempted to use the property at 153 Freezer Road for the uses that the town regulates through the Zoning Ordinance. Since 1997, Stubom has made repeated applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to Site Plan Review to develop the site for more dense uses,many of which are not permitted by the Marine Business Zoning District that has been in effect for many years. Furthermore, town policies have been to maintain this area in the Marine Business District to protect the limited area in the town devoted to such uses, furthermore, the characteristics of this site make it unsuited to many of the uses proposed. (Local Comprehensive Plan, Section 1 Land Use,Barnstable Village). The upland area of the site is approximately 4.11 acres, and is located in the 100-year flood plain, subject to flooding during major storms. As evidenced in the Intensive Archeological Study, this land is filled, much of it on salt marshes; and ii. The applicant is an experienced developer and had to have known what was permitted in the Marine Zoning District when he acquired an interest in the land; and iii. Any hardship experienced by the applicant is of the applicants own making, and does not constitute hardship within the jurisdiction of the Old Kings Highway Act. List of applications for development permits submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review. August 25, 1997 Application submitted for a Zoning Special Permit to demolish the warehouse and boat storage building, and to build 22 condominium units in five structures. The existing two-unit residential structure was to remain for a total of 24 units on 3.68 acres of upland. Ownership: Canal Marine, applicant Stuborn Limited Partnership Action: Application withdrawn. August 25, 1997 Application submitted for a Use Variance to demolish the warehouse and boat storage building, and to build 22 condominium units in five structures. The existing two-unit residential structure was to remain for a total of 24 units on 7 acres (3.68 acres upland) 6 Ownership: Canal Marine, applicant Stuborn Limited Partnership Action: Application WITHDRAWN April 30, 1998 Stuborn LP Application for 32 condominiums, Comprehensive Permit, Ch 40B Ownership: Assignment to nominee, Stuart Bornstein as a BUYER of 3.68 acres (the upland)from Sybil Bassett, Canal Marine Inc. Subsequent authorization submitted to the Zoning Board Appeals from Sybil Bassett authorizing Stuart Bornstein to seek variances, special permits, licenses, and Ch 40B approvals. Action: DENIED for lack of standing and failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Ch. 40B. Issue of standing appealed to State Housing Appeals Committee, remanded back to Board for consideration of merits. 1999 Comprehensive Permit Ch.40B application for 32 condominiums. Appeal by Stuborn L.P. of Zoning Board of Appeals decision to State Housing Appeals Board, 2002,DENIED by the State Housing Appeals Board. 11105102 Site Plan Review Application, Stuborn LP applied for a whale watch and harbor tours, commuter boats, gift shop, commissary, rest rooms etc. May 7,2003 Site Plan Review Application, Stuborn LP applied for a temporary, 164 foot wind tower and permanent wind turbine towers for electrical generation. September 24,2003;Site Plan application, Stuborn LP for restoration of the Cannery and conversion of the residence to office space, and construction of a 42,050 sq ft, three story office building for an unidentified marine research use and associated dock;public assembly (educational)use; wind turbine generators and 127 parking spaces. Subject to the Cape Cod Commission as a Development of Regional Impact. Based on the findings made herein, a motion to find substantial hardship to the applicant Section 10(c),was voted as follows: Aye: None Nay: Patricia Anderson,Elizabeth Nilsson,Robert Stahley, George Jessop Absent: Carrie Bearse (C) It would not be detrimental to the public welfare or interest to grant the Certificate for Demolition or removal: The Committee finds that based upon the fact that the Cannery building is the only extant cannery building in New England and that the Old King's Highway Local Historic District finds that the building has historic and architectural value that it is detrimental to 7 the public interest to derogate from the purpose of the Old Kings Highway Act,the intent of which is to prevent the demolition of historically and architecturally significant properties. (d) It would not substantially derogate from the intent and purposes of the Act to grant the Certificate for Demolition or Removal: The Committee finds that demolition of a structure that is part of the marine history of Barnstable Harbor is detrimental to the intent and purposes of the Act that seeks to preserve and protect the history and cultural traditions of the early days of Cape Cod, and this includes the marine related industries that were the very first industries in the area, beginning in 1640. These industries contributed to the wealth of Barnstable Village and helped established it as the County seat of government. 4. Condition of the property: actions of the applicant: The Committee finds as follows: (a) Since 1997, the applicant has maintained all of the buildings on the property as vacant, including the residence; and (b) The applicant has failed to maintain and repair the property, and in the words of his attorney Revere,has put"next to nothing in the buildings, since taking ownership. Building Division files indicate that since 1997, only$4,000 has been spent, and that was for boarding up the buildings on the site; and (c) The applicant has failed to secure the Cannery from the elements and from vandalism, despite being instructed to do so by town agencies, including the Fire Department in letters dated 3/28/06, 9/26/06, and 2/12/08. A site visit in 2008 again revealed lack of maintenance and repair, and failure to board up the premises; and (d) The condition of the property is the result of willful neglect by the applicant since taking ownership in 1999. 5. Public Safety issues The Committee finds that: 1. Any public safety issue that may exist, is the result of the failure of the applicant to use the property for the uses that are permitted, for maintaining it as vacant since 1997, and for his failure to board up and protect the property as repeatedly ordered by the Fire Department and Building Commissioner; and 2. The poor condition of the property is due to the applicant's willful neglect and is a self- imposed hardship. 8 RESPONSE TO OTHER ALLEGATIONS BY ATTORNEY REVERE: 6. Allegation by Attorney Revere that the building cannot be renovated. Application History(Stuborn Appeal to Regional Commission paragraph 2). "Cannery building could not be renovated for uses allowed in the Zoning District" Response: The Committee finds that based on the applicant's assertion that the property is derelict and cannot be renovated, in an application to Site Plan review dated September 24, 2003, and signed by the applicant, the applicant sought to restore both the residence and the Cannery for office uses(not permitted by Zoning),thus indicating that the Cannery could be restored in 2003. The application states: "Office: 8,800 convert existing structures". Furthermore, the applicant states that the building cannot be renovated,i.e.repaired, leaving open the question as to whether it can be restored, a higher standard as defined by the National Register of Historic Places. 7. Allegation by Attorney Revere that "The Barnstable Fire District submitted a report that the building constituted afire hazard." Appeal History paragraph 4. Response: The Committee finds that this report dated 2/12/08 states that the properties are once again abandoned and not secured. The problems the Fire Officer sees are "neglect of building repairs and security of this property". With regards to the Cannery building, the problems he sees are with a building filled with old machines and old timber with netting/cannery supplies throughout,making it filled with potential fire hazards. The letter goes on to state that "this Fire Prevention officer has noted these issues and sent letters to the owner to correct said issues." The Committee finds that any fire hazard is being created by the applicants continuing refusal since taking ownership in 1999, to maintain,repair, or secure the property, and his failure to remove materials that may be a fire hazard. 8. Allegation by Attorney Revere that ........... The Act was passed to preserve Old King's Highway/Route 6A as a scenic highway area that stretches across several towns from Cape Cod Canal to Orleans. The Act was intended to prevent the strip-style development that pervades in portions of the south side of Cape Cod... "(Basis for Appeal paragraph 1.B.1.) Response: The Committee finds that this allegation does not have any basis in the Old Kings Highway Act, which specifically encompasses the protection of "buildings, settings and places within the boundaries of the regional district". Statements limiting preservation efforts to the Route 6A corridor are not evident any where in the Act and furthermore, the Act applied to many areas that were not even developed, at the time it was enacted. See also Section 2 a. above. 9. Allegation by Attorney Revere in Section La. (Page 6)that the building barely exceeds 50 years in age. Appeal to Regional Commission 9 The Cannery building is an inexpensively constructed mid-20th century industrial structure constructed to can fish during the Second World War. Basis for Appeal, Section I.B. i. Fifth paragraph and the same section, 3rd paragraph from the end.) Response: The Committee and Attorney Paul Revere find that the Cannery was most likely constructed in the early 1940's, which makes it approximately 67 years old. The building was certainly used during World War II for the canning of fish for the troops overseas; many of the employees were women and children. 10. Allegation by Attorney Revere that based on an archeological study "Intensive Locational Archeological Survey at Freezer Point, Barnstable, Massachusetts, dated March, 2001, by Timeline, Inc, there were no historic resources on the property." (Appeal Section 1. B. i. Third, paragraph from the end of section i. Response: The Committee finds that the Intensive Locational Archeological Survey'was just that-an intensive archeological study-not an historical or architectural survey. The study was limited to an analysis of deposits recovered from 20 test pits and the study did not consider the historical, architectural merits of the existing buildings on the property. 11. Allegation by Attorney Revere that the Act is limited to preserving structures that are of historical importance because they represent the "early days of Cape Cod. " (Appeal to Regional Commission, Paragraph B.i.) Response: The Committee finds that in several places in Attorneys Revere's brief, statements are made that the Old Kings Highway Regional Historic District Act is limited to the preservation of buildings "as it existed in the early days of Cape Cod". The Purpose of the Act(First Section) is much broader in scope than the preceding phrase that is taken out of the broader context. See also Section 2(a) above. The Old King's Highway Local Historic District Committee having received and read the decision, and having read substantial portions of the decision into the record, adopted all of the findings contained herein, and voted to include a revision to the date of construction of the Cannery building as agreed upon with Attorney Revere. Aye: Patricia Anderson,Elizabeth Nilsson,Robert Stahley, George Jessop Nay: None Absent: Carrie Bearse Sincerely date: 2008 Patricia Anderson, Chairman 10 Addendum Documents listed below were not previously submitted and are listed as an addendum. MGL Ch,470, as amended, Old Kings Highway Regional Historic Act(not included). Local Comprehensive Plan, Section 1 Land Use,Barnstable Village Plan, Section 5, Barnstable Harbor. Letters dated 3/28/06, 9/26/06, and 02/12/08 from Chris Olsen, Deputy Fire Chief, Barnstable Fire Department regarding communications to the owner to secure the property. Building Department application for$4,000 to board up the building dated 6/21/07. Form A Area Survey,Massachusetts Historical Commission, Area BVH, 1985. Barnstable Historical Commission files. Application for Site Plan Review received September 25, 2003 A list of applications for development permits submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review. (Also listed within the decision) 11 List of applications for development permits submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Site Plan Review. August 25,1997 Application submitted for a Zoning Special Permit to demolish the warehouse and boat storage building, and to build 22 condominium units in five structures. The existing two-unit residential structure was to remain for a total of 24 units on 3.68 acres of upland. Ownership: Canal Marine, applicant Stuborn Limited Partnership Action: Application withdrawn. August 25, 1997 Application submitted for a Use Variance to demolish the warehouse and boat storage building,and to build 22 condominium units in five structures. The existing two-unit residential structure was to remain for a total of 24 units on 7 acres (3.68 acres upland) Ownership: Canal Marine, applicant Stuborn Limited Partnership Action: Application WITHDRAWN April 30, 1998 Stuborn LP Application for 32 condominiums, Comprehensive Permit, Ch 40B Ownership: Assignment to nominee, Stuart Bornstein as a BUYER of 3.68 acres (the upland)from Sybil Bassett, .Canal Marine Inc. Subsequent authorization submitted to the Zoning Board Appeals from Sybil Bassett authorizing Stuart Bornstein to seek variances, special permits, licenses, and Ch 40B approvals. Action: DENIED for lack of standing and failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Ch. 40B. Issue of standing appealed to State Housing Appeals Committee, remanded back to Board for consideration of merits. 1999 Comprehensive Permit Ch.40B application for 32 condominiums. Appeal by Stuborn L.P. of Zoning Board of Appeals decision to State Housing Appeals Board, 2002,DENIED by the State Housing Appeals Board. 11105102 Site Plan Review Application, Stuborn LP applied for a whale watch and harbor tours, commuter boats, gift shop, commissary, rest rooms etc. May 7,2003 Site Plan Review Application, Stuborn LP applied for a temporary, 164 foot wind tower and permanent wind turbine towers for electrical generation. September 24,2003;Site Plan application, Stuborn LP for restoration of the Cannery and conversion of the residence to office space, and construction of a 42,050 sq ft, three story office building for an unidentified marine research use and associated dock,public assembly (educational) use; wind turbine generators and 127 parking spaces. Subject to the Cape Cod Commission as a Development of Regional Impact. 12 . . tto c _ ,, y.. -1tI .k ,r - .3 K Y y -4 . M1 * • Y j t� i '� t t ! 4 r.'.R r-c .1! . - I I - 1� , ') , .': - , �' ,,-- '.,,,� . "I-.. .I.- I ..�,,1�", , � I 1,-�, I I-1-.�' , ,I,-�;_,� , '.ll"e��I � �.-��-,1 I�..I.,-�,-"1.1,..,,I II,-.�.I�1-I....,�,.,�,II"..�1I�.1�."-..,I;.,,L�II1-II-,,,IIII.�,,�1.,..,.Ii":,,1$,l..I...I,�1I�:1�.�.-,.�-',.,�:",�-�,�I1 I...'l,-,�1.1����,-'.I�,,.��I�,"I-�,�II.-1-,,���.I.,,-1,�.1'-,,�,I":I.'I 1-"�1,,�l,��,�Y,.�,."I-I;-1�.-w"II�,,..I:.,,��,I..��1. 7 • y - f r �Y It Ji < r - µS t ,, a' ;, 1 s R ;"�-,,.��I,"'..,.14 a n �0 5 :r 'f r ,..,. r. •i k hK r e 9' W r a t. J ,,. .. k,x r - i �. ' e . 5 t f .. R 1 _ 3 y M a 1 i i i sy r :. " ` t" R 1-.Fe ii uary:2008 � r "''Mr Thomas Perry,Buddmg`Commissioner 4 j ` Town Office BuRd' ' �'j is h r S� x '4 1 4... A 1 1 4 `� J w ° r p�"� - ,� "d '200 Mam Sfreef s t ,u Hyannis MA 02601 ' w 'n ., R r .. i .a t y p - `�, r Mr:.Perry a j° n, ` " ..ollowin 'are the°'results of m visit: esterda to the' ro f e r t 53 Freezer Road Y Y . Y P PY� __ , iir-Barnstabl_ez Vil aI_g In attendance;beside yourself were Jobn La oeuf,liuildn r .- inspector,John Bologna;structural'engineer`, Deputy�Chief;Chi is" pher on�,� Barnstable Fire Department; Paul Revere,attorney,.and',Michael'; i '1 F, -. =. ' r '-,f Roberts,theowner's representative.There are'currently two stru res on site, a�. {$' �; residence,`and the`old'camm�g factory This report deals with these two=structures '. 5 r # separately ,1 A f i 4 1 , i h 4 a!' kN ! ' '�j p r.. T C F r ,1 1 ,� 4"q J 3 � '�, ,, y, _R z , r r i tJ Residence.. a f k f ;t ,. �i 'be residence was.probably'construicted in the mid to Gate 19`�century There.`have R been.at leastlthree additions to the:origmal house The;original house evidently had",` `, v ,., - some historic arcbiteetural significance,It has,b'owe*er been altered over the years f - ;. � r '" I. _. r '`so that the original features wlalen were 0111 aiue su�clt as fenestratao�,siding aAd � ' < ` trim'have,been"serwusly adulterated There has also been"eonsiderableemodification' r' of the interior.that 11'as"been detriirm�ntai to the,historic chairacterof the house: ' f , There remaiioa a' e�detasls o va10c-,such"as the l eplace sy round the west:Lvmg' room;and a`few pieces'of exterior trim= A review of the exterior of the oniginal ,� 5,: , house indicates that the structural condition is,fairiy`good "All the"Imes"-of the house ,. , - uch as the eaves;ridges and corners appear,to>be straight and plumb,with no' `' . t" s ` evidence of settlement :., f ti ' ' ". ", r = The additions to the house have been constracted'rn a way that is inc omuatible to ,the l�istoc cliaa-acter othe o. 4al house.Whey,as welt a�:tbe oal'tiouse have b �. F 1� ' ' deteriorated,~bad due . F' x `ly f to neglect. ; a 1 4 -F .t J rf'. 4 947Main;`Street Yarmouthport MA 02675'- } ` �. Teleph'one/FAX: 508 362 3456 E-mail` bropet@venzori;nef, - �,t G '',O G' O` 1' C O;_r3 O G � `B a - �^ , S 1 'r .z r, r e:-.' K ; F w -_.-_. _ , 'sue ., .. ,� , J,. -,1 1,�1-,6 -4, Mk . "1�,-,,, -'� l 'I," I, , � IlW t " i 1 I, � I , A, W.�.. j �.I r,,i� � - f 4 ,, v " - 1 ; ,f I s" I� -' .1 I- ,. .,4 '�I.-.1,�I,, �. 7 w " iL ,i , �e , , I ' -1 i �� 'A � "t, ( 1 ➢ ti ," , ,, , �, ,", t �; " � ��­� - ,W_ " y,- ; 4 , , " i � 0 , ­ 1, ,. , 4- h - ,�." , } ,, ' i C ,i , 1 " 9 1 r 1 " a, ) i -­ �_-,", � , , � r,l­,­.r.- �I1L ,J C--t, f��,"4 1 - ,)�� . ,rye .. ,t ? 1;_ , ,+ - 6 tl'I1-I .,,�I ,_ , I I --.. _ _ ** .� ­ -_ " l ­ �-,,e,,­� " ,- -y l� ,. ." , �*­ f , ,. I r V i, , t , ,,� _ , _ _ 1 I�� I " � , ," i _ A'�.�i �, t i ­l ," f ?IiA� , j ,,, 4 �" i ? _1 � , I, ,� " , f ( � I i 4 , J,tI, - ,, Z ,." 1, � ., � 3 I'F "� . �� � 1 ' ,"" ,�-,, fw, ' n ' '.- r -t �-� � � - W. � ,_ , jI W ,, � l" . � ,I_f 1, L ! Jl 1 _ � L ,tIX l�, r � j" i 1_ � i,,,, , v i � ,- � i Y X. " ,.� ^-. Y I C f,� 1 �_! e;., ,":K, �� ' p., I, 6 V 4 91.)�r {I ),I "',,3S ,.,-r, `, ­.-'i I:.­ , �, ,- , , � �­ ",.�:� � ­ ­ :�. -- , a_- '.. , I' ­ �-­ �- , , .1 �-" !l, , �-. ­ ��, : -�1 ,,, °" 4 t�., n ­egi &W A e U turt bf,th k . I ,.g_my thit"a thi additions;shoul ' L, { " " demolished.bi" "tlf'i-vi le se'.` - ,, &for , louse;,it-b. t6bAbl�7ihAt' I ,."a j ­ " ­ , $ ,�could biWe6 s �restored 4 '� " gf I , 3 ,, x,,, ­" ,I,",I , � � % ,�� ` IWr c, ,(., 1 �.r­­1 ) " ti _; r ­ -'t k f �1 �o i, l , � .s" �' VI 'l� �" < j " � ­ 2,• , t •,Cahfiifi Factory: l , I , , 1 I 3 A,§ p4 f he'review,0 It is,bifldmg�it�was,nott W-thit-bbel4f1thi4tMetu , - , - � � ' � ) 'lj"� !, -, j ­ , was,stamped-�NORWAY,4936 .�l ;b itag6 a l6-t6 assume that aI6.1 . . ' ' ,eon�tiictDi.TheIbuflditg has,apost5and,b 4i "structure coiis n ii"6ra"se � , . 1, V%) �,-ro4A d_ci cedar posts suppor g-Woo -,carry-mg,begftsIiT c roof d&k s 47�pla3ki ,1, ,- -_ - * -�- � �1- _.. -", ' , ? , "panihj:fr6m 6 ifi to-beam:-The,postsare slabs -4 , � - -,� ­ k,l­ 1 , , , � I grade'b�imi7'and,probgbl act as- ct6fiIp es_* support the"structure i ,f ' , , ", , w, ­ l 7\ � V1l � � _ i C ,) �,­�, � A,; , , " . , x, ," $The structure iiin,in deplorable.Me condition Tiereappeikg'to-be't)iside considerable ii� I -cedar s ppo po4s . he wood of1dOck t k6fte an places,*with v_ , { o0e .totheA-,..The'MW ihg.shows rotthroughout. A 0 i � ­ ; A_.�, � , � I " ;I� , ., 1 "1. . ,, " � �, � " , " , � ; , , I; ­,�' ?�-•� _� ­,I- ; , _ , ' - * , I 4,.­ ,, J­" ,a -- � 1� , - ,. , , - , - , , , ..' , �I : I,,. *4.,` I,� 1Z,6 my `o---p'.m,,,,,i�o,q-��,,-,this h, ,Wbuilding b 11­-d':,Ift.;� "_b1�,1 a, s...-,g"­o_ e.�4 b-".n-Y�.R 1the ".post -where . .vr.-e.1�g,,s_ I.��i�;e",'. -% ,,I-�-".,.. ' V � restoration IS 06M � 1 -I - dmgshould,b6 de olbbid ,' 1 ' I� . , ­ I , _ ; _ , 1 - - � I ' , , , 5 � ­; 0 ,, " , )� 1 f , 1 ,"A !� " , -t _ ,, , � / " I " , �11 I 7 -Mr.Ter my-repo - Ithe-resultI _� single Visit lbr the'site'I i&,hot;make. I ;1 , :,")� "'.�1 � I , I , �, _. ; ­ r tvW,,�­i` detailed, -- e ,I ­ (4 ', .OOW_ , C.6, _ .doA�t are:based-On.VIsug ",t ,,, J,- �. {'`) I ,_bic I� s , .esthictures,an "the'tipOti�nte,gihie4 overa, ong career eajing^ , k-r4+, I4 ,I � with the-desi ,ii&io, t uctiotc9f*OO .644 -b ffldings A congidlr bI p4 0f, V, ., t. x0d tie s " a } *dI i1eA, ba e ain * 0 s - g sucturps,-W e6oia d ` ­ 'f , ,resiorai6ii.,gai6d:ba jiii�expen.ence,,lfiaeVe m*�cond usions`arvy valid ,"k, '� i i;' ` , ,�- " A , ­ A , 1 , � � .f k"- ,* _ 4 ', , , f , �Iz , � I-� ,( ", j � 1� I� " 4 4 � O i " ,,j v l ',f_I� " , i , r 0 I � "YoursUrs y , ­�, , " ' __" � , ' �:,f' -" a, �, l­1 ;C v . ,�, � , P - I _v � e, S z , k ­ i,_ ,�t ,0 f; -4 4 �' , y ';, _� -'i " ! ., I 1t _ 1",i 4 - ,4 1 k i, >,z , a 1 y Z, " "K� , ; , %;l "� I, -, ,, J � , ; , � � , � , ,,,� " i'� t" t. x_. 5 5 r I ; d � � � I f b T T O, , , ` "W � �, ",k - I _ y?" 15 11 z 1 /,< C .. .l ) ,N ,Tdef G.BroWn;Architect , ? r 1 , s, ! , I', -,t I s �e �,,; , ,, - ,,, Ii , JI 1 t '_, , ,,, •fi ; it ; `fl rYt f t, � l i, ( 4� 3 1 V � ' , , ;,� , v ,, b ,,�1�I 4" - ' , " � !,� , - 9; 1I � I I ,: 1" l ,t� � 1, ,q � � " I - , " -, f�-t iN e 11 P, "1 , r � t t < [ , k Y­ V Z,, � , I j s �, " "� , � �, fjj � �I A "" ti ) " ,K 4 � P ,, -o ?4 f � " � .• t , V ,' —j , " " � � � 1, Y,,� I � '�' ­? " qt �� � f, t? " . , " f I 4 f.�� ' 4, 1,( � � L- � ?, ­ ( .; A , � ,I, S� t ,�_ ,, t .', e , ", , y 1 , �� ,l * T, " "" '," rf 'K x ,, , " � , i" �x-, ,: j " _<-j- * " " ) ,I , ,, ° � � ;- Y. ( " , 4 : , � , - ,' ; , ,x� A 'w, tI- , ," P , , " , , ,Y, I � �, �, ,' � - �l � C ,1�` T � �k O . ) ) i, �7 TT}; � l "I�_, , ,� - 1� ��� � i,I,f� , I ,f ­ ­ ' i, --, '.I. �). i 5 j ,.� 4 � �� 1I � ? -� pro: ,�, �., '­I,- l--I --� ,-C , l �,­M ,, y, l �" r, N t - � u� _ y" � ff r . 7 ,) � 41, 1 " t , , _}I, 1, � ­; ,1 � ,T *; f' , J�1, , Iy, , " l - Perry, Tom From: Burgmann, Bob Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:31 PM To: Perry, Tom Subject: Inspection of 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable Hi Tom, On February 12, 2008 1 inspected the property at 153 Freezer Road in Barnstable (Map 301 Parcel 006). There are two buildings on the property. One is a former cannery building and the second is a 2+ story residence. The residential building has not been occupied for several years. It has been heavily vandalized and because of extensive window damage is mainly open to the elements. There is substantial interior damage to walls and door as well as plumbing and electrical systems. It would appear that the damage to the building is beyond what would be economical to try and repair. I recommend that the building be demolished. The second building on the lot is the old World War II vintage cannery building. This building has not been used for several years and is completely open to the elements on the north end. There is substantial damage to the roof of the building and obvious deterioration of the sidewalls. The interior of the building is broken up into multiple levels with unsafe to nonexistent access way between the levels. Sections of the building are supported by treated (creosoted)wood posts. It would appear that posts are held in place only by the loads that they are supporting. The building has deteriorated to the point that I recommend that it be demolished. Bob Burgmann Robert A. Burgmann, P. E. Town Engineer 1 02/12/08 To: Tom Perry, Building Commissioner From: Christopher J. Olsen, Deputy Chief Subject: 153 Freezer Point Tom, As we met at 153 Freezer Point Road, I notice that the house to be once again abandoned and not secured. This property in the past has been having problems with security issues possibly vagrants getting into the property and lighting small fires in the fire places. As I entered the residents through the sliding glass door all of the glass had been broken inward and outward from possible acts of vandalism. As we walked throughout the resident I noticed most windows if not all of the glass was broken, some of the windows were secured with some plywood but not all. As we walked to the second floor of this building walls have been breeched and doors have been removed and thrown about on the floor. The issues that I see of being a problem are the neglect of building repairs and security of this property. The fact that nobody resides in this home and the ability of easy access to this property brings to light a potential life and fire hazards. The graffiti on the walls and the burnt ambers in the fire place makes this fire office on alert. This makes us believe that people are gaining access to this property, which gives us a potential life safety and fire hazard possibilities. As we walked out of this building toward the "cannery" some issues arise as the residence. Abandoned building with possible potential life and fire hazards. This building seemed not to have vagrants occupying property but old machinery and old timber with netting/"cannery supplies throughout, making it filled with potential fire hazards. On a few occasions this fire prevention office has noted these issues and sent letters to owner to correct said issues. It is the owners' responsibility to have these properties safe and secured. These issues need to be resolved has soon as possible. Sincerely, Christopher J. Olsen, Deputy Chief Date: 1/23/2008 Time: 1:26 PM To: Revere, Paul B 9,15087787121 Paget 002 t:'?rd; 508.775.1620 V Ash, Dowling ",".-O'Neil x 508.778.1137 INSURANCE AGENCY _-1rx 508.778.12i8 973 Iyannough Rood,PA.Box 1990 Hyannis,MA 02601 doins.com January 17u,,2008 Stuborn Limited Partnership 297 Forth St. Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: 153 Freezer Road,9Bamstable7, M-A==nr Stuborn L.P.: As you know, we have tried unsuccessfully to place hazard insurance coveiaue for the "cannery"building located at !-geezer Road. The dilapidated wood frame construction and the lack of a sprinkler system have made it impossible for any insurer to even consider coverage for this property. Even with significant structural improvements and loss prevention measures such as it sprinkler system, it is uncertain as to whether insurance coverage would be available. In particular,obtaining insurance for properties located on the waterfront has become increasingly difficult on Cape Cod. Additionally,recent loss history, including most notably the Crosby Yacht Yard fire, has made it difficult to obtain coverage for wooden buildings where potential occupancies include boat storage, marina retail,or other marina related operations. Until you are to begin significant renovations and loss prevention changes have been made,we will be unable to place hazard insurance coverage for the"cannery"building. Si 1�ui Robert W. Miller,CiC, AM Principal L ` TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Map 301 _ Parcel 006 Permit# � - Health Division Date Issued Conservation Division Application Fe Tax Collector Permit Fee Treasurer 01 Planning Dept.. 0 �) Date Definitive Plan Ap roved y Planning Board bf Historic-OKH Preservation/Hyannis Project Street Address _�5�.3 Freezer Road Village Barnstable Owner Stuborn Limited Partnership Address 297 North Street , Hyannis Telephone ( 508 ) 775-9316 Permit Request to repair windows and doors Square feet: 1st floor: existing proposed 2nd floor: existing proposed Total new —0— Zoning District MB—B Flood Plain Groundwater Overlay AP Project Valuation D Construction Type Lot Size Grandfathered: Cl Yes ❑No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family X Two Family ❑ Multi-Family(#units) Age of Existing Structure Historic House: ❑Yes ❑No On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes ❑No Basement Type: ❑ Full ❑Crawl ❑Walkout ❑Other Basement Finished Area(sq.ft.) Basement Unfinished Area(sq.ft) Number of Baths: Full: existing new Half:existing net Number of Bedrooms: existing new = -- Total Room Count(not including baths): existing new First Floor Room`l unt , Heat Type and.Fuel: ❑Gas ❑Oil ❑Electric ❑Other c � Tt Central Air: ❑Yes ❑No Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: O Yes Cl No 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 BUILDER INFORMATION Name�' /!�L' G� o B�P �` Telephone Number ' Address /dl6'-- hoZHI License# Ci°'L4&2 A19 ��- Home Improvement Contractor# Worker's Compensation# ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO ALL,e® sue SIG NAT DATE /„- Yam' -67 ' rr FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PERMIT NO. DATE ISSUED MAP/PARCEL NO. ADDRESS VILLAGE OWNER DATE OF INSPECTION: FOUNDATION FRAME INSULATION FIREPLACE ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL PLUMBING: ROUGH FINAL GAS: ROUGH FINAL FINAL BUILDING t DATE CLOSED OUT ;, ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. ' L • 1 Town.of Barnstable o4TME T°�ti . • .. o� RegWatory Services r g Thomas F. reiler,Director' Building Bivisiou 90o sdH�9• A�� QED i TomPerry, Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 www.town Barnstable;mama Fax: 508-790-6230 Office: 508-862-4038 Property over Must Complete and Sign TMS Se cti on If Using ABuilder by Stuart Bornstein ,as Owner of the subject property MicPrael J. Rob.er.ts. t6-actonmybehalf; 'hereby authori ze:' in a]1 authorized bytys building Permit application for. iriatters relative to work Freezer ,Rd. , Barnstable MA 6/12/07 Date gignatur of Stuart Bornstein. prat flame IHE TOWN OF BARNSTA. BLEBuilding Application Ref: 200703684 e * EAMSTABI.E. * Issue Date: 06/ 1/07 2 Permit 9 MASS. 1639• ♦0 Applicant: ROBERTS,MICHAEL '0rF0 MAC A Permit Number: B 20071454 Proposed Use: MIXED USE SINGLE FAM&COMM Expiration Date: Location 153 FREEZER ROAD Zoning District MB=BPermit Type: ROOF/SIDING/WINDOW COMMERCIAL Map Parcel 301006 Permit Fee$ 150.00 Contractor ROBERTS,MICHAEL Village BARNSTABLE App Fee$ License Num Est Construction Cost$ 4,000 Remarks APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND TO REPAIR WINDOWS AND DOORS THIS CARD MUST BE KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS REQUIRED,SUCH Owner on Record: STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A FINAL Address: 297 NORTH ST INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. HYANNIS, MA 02601 Application Entered by: PC Building Permit Issued By: THIS PERMIT.CONVEYS:NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET,ALLY. SIDEWALK,QR A PART T OF;EITHER TEMPORARIL .' R PERMANENTLY: ENCROACHEMENTS ON P.UBLICPROPERTY NOT SPECCA IFILLY.PERMITTED UNDER TH UILDIN,' ODE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE NRISDICTION STREET.OR ALLY GRADES.AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF.PUBLIC;:SEWERS=MAY 6BTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT;RELEASE THE APPLICANT FR M THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE,SUBDIViSION RESTRICTIONS. MINIMUM OF FOUR CALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONTSTRUCTION WORK: 1.FOUNDATION OR FOOTINGS. 2.ALL FIREPLACES MUST BE INSPECTED AT THE THROAT LEVEL BEFORE FIRST FLUE LINING IS INSTALLED. 3.WIRING&PLUMBING INSPECTIONS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FRAME INSPECTION. 4.PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS(READY TO LATH). 5.INSULATION. 6.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. WHERE APPLICABLE,SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL INSTALLATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION WORK IS NOT.STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AS NOTED ABOVE. PERSONS CONTRACTING WITH UNREGISTERED CONTRACTORS DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO GUARANTY FUND(as set forth in MGL c.142A). BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3. 1 Heating Inspection Approvals Engineering Dept Fire Dept 2 Board of Health r BARNSTABLE FIRE DEPARTMENT 3249 Main Street—P.O.Box 94 Barnstable,Massachusetts 02630 •4;rA �fi�� 508-362-3312 FAX: 508-362-8444 Robert M. Crosby Christopher J. Olsen FIRE CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF To: Holly Management Company From: Deputy Chief Christopher Olsen Date: 09-18-06 Subject:-153 Freezer Road_- Dear Mr. Bornstein, While on inspection of your property 153 Freezer Road, it appears that your property at 153 Freezer Road is being vandalized, once again. I want to notify you of the concerns that the Barnstable Fire Department has on this property. This property that is being vandalized which the Barnstable Police Department has been called on causes a concern for the Barnstable Fire Department in regards to public safety as well as a potential fire hazard. Mr. Bornstein, you need to properly secure your property at 153 Freezer Road to prevent unauthorized entry. If there are any questions you may have please do not hesitate to bring them to our attention. SinLeey, Deputy Chief Christopher Olsen cc: Town of Barnstable Building Commissar,Tom Perry F, BARNSTABLE FIRE DEPARTMENT 3249 Main Street—P.O.Box 94 Barnstable,Massachusetts 02630 508-362-3312 FAX: 508 362 8444 Robert M. Crosby Christopher J. Olsen FIRE CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF To: Holly Management Company From: Deputy Chief Christopher Olsen Date: 03-20-2006 Subject: 153 Freezer Road Dear Mr. Bornstein, I received a phone call by one of your abutters in the area of your property 153 Freezer Road. It appears that your property at 153 Freezer Road is being vandalized. I want to notify you of the concerns that the Barnstable Fire Department has on this property. This property that is being vandalized which the Barnstable Police Department has been called on causes a concern for the Barnstable Fire Department in regards to public safety as well as a potential fire hazard. Mr. Bornstein, you need to properly secure your property at 153 Freezer Road to prevent unauthorized entry. If there are any questions you may have please do not hesitate to bring them to our attention. Sincerel y, _ 4 Deputy Chief Christopher Olsen cc :Town of Barnstable Building Commissar,Tom Perry tom,f c _- C-i M r -;•03/01/2005 13:52 5087756526 HOLLY MNGT PAGE 01/02 DOLLY MANAGEMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATION 297 North street Hyannis,Massachusetts 02601 1 S 3 (508)775-9316 FAX(508)775-6526 }� March 3, 2005 Tom Perry Building commissioner of Barnstable Re: Jreezer Road Dear Mr.Perry: Enciosed please find the lettcr regarding the sprinkler. system for the above referenced. property. I believe this is the last piece of information you need to complete the site review for Freezer Road. If there are more documents needed,please let as know. We believe this is the last piece you weed. T11 ank You. �t If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Stuart Bornstein Enclosure(s) L - ' TOWN CLERK BARNSTABLE, MASS. 20 APR 19 AN 11: 31 Mr. Stuart A. Bornstein Stuborn Limited Partnership 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: Stubom Limited Partnership, 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable,MA, Map 301,Parcel 006. Decision Statement of Reasons for Denial. Dear Mr. Bornstein; At the April 13, 2005 meeting of the Old King's Highway Barnstable Committee(OKH), an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by Stuborn Limited Partnership was on the agenda under continued business. p + Neither the applicant nor his agent were in attendance to present and discuss the 0� proposed project. + An extension of time granted by the applicant was due to expire on April 14, 2005. Therefore the OKH unanimously voted to deny,the above referenced project. Date Patricia J.An erson, Chair Old King's Highway Barnstable Committee ,a BARNSTABLE FIRE DEPARTMENT i 'bJ,;.- 3249 MainStreet—P.O.Box 94 Barnstable,Massachusetts 02630 508-362-3312 FAX: 508-362-8444 n� Robert M. Crosby Christopher J. Olsen FIRE CHIEF DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF rcrosby@barnstablefire.org colsen@barnstablefire.org 0 a To: Stuart Bornstein From: Christopher J. Olsen, Deputy Chief Subject: Freezer Point Project Date: 03-03-05 Mr. Stuart Bornstein, This letter is in regards to the.proposed Freezer Point Project. I spoke with your engineer a Mr. David Wood albx out adequate water supply for a proposed sprinkler system for the units. 9 The January 3, 2005 letter to this office stated`,that there, s `adequate°available water for sprinkler system installations in the proposed residential unfit 5based3gn`NFPA 13`D or NFPA 13R ��� lw OE .... 3 We are unable, review the information as we do not have the,-complete starnpeda, ' p v engineered¢plans for the proposedproject atth�s timeAfterbyour completionof the final plans for erm�i tang of t ie Freezetng,tDo,nt Pro�ect,�The.��Bo hsteir y Com any i¢s requir'ed to gc' FkT d"s`� `"A'i.�k-'�'dK'' -fG"4 . submit them.lo,_us for final revie�vand a r®oval , r r n � a EM Sincere ly Ch6stop er J. sen, Deputy Chief TOWN CLERK Mr. Stuart A. Bornstein ANST , L , MASS , Stuborn Limited Partnership 2M5 JAN 25 297 North Street ' Hyannis,Ma 02601 RE: Stuborn Limited Partnership, 153 Freezer Road,Barnstable,MA, Map 301,Parcel 006.Decision Statement of Reasons for Denial. Dear Mr.Bornstein; At the January 12,2005 meeting of the Old King's Highway Barnstable Committee (OKH),the Committee reviewed the applicant's request for a Certificate of Demolition to include the"Cannery Building" and the residential building formerly,the"Bassett House". After hearing from the applicant,his attorney, and several members of the public,the majority of the OKH voted to deny the request for a Certificate of Demolition. Both buildings are considered historic resources. The majority of the(OKH),expressed the opinion that the"Cannery Building" is unique and represents the established fishing industry that played so large a part in the development of the Village of Barnstable,the Town of Barnstable and the County of Barnstable. Further,the condition of the building, while not currently suitable for human habitation, may be suitable for marine use as a storage facility without undue expense. The main portion of the residential building, (the primary residence of the Bassett Family from 1938 until it was purchased by Mr. Bornstein),was originally the Fish House of Captain Ensign Jerauld(D. 1919). Built during the late 1800's, it was the first documented fish house adjacent to Barnstable Harbor. Given the importance of these buildings and this site in the physical and cultural heritage of the community,the importance and uniqueness of their harbor setting,the Committee could not approve the request for a Certificate of Demolition without significantly violating the purpose of the Act establishing the OKHRHD. 11%itff L�,-- Date Patricia J.An rson, Chair Old King's Highway Barnstable Committee 12/28/2004 2e:45 5087756526 HOLLY MNGT PAGE 01/04 TROLLY MANAGEMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATION 297 NcTta Strect fNyi7tt!!id',dlays aihurea;02601 (508)775.9316 FAX(508)7754526 FACS.rMI1.E TRANSMISSION C0VFR SHFVT DATE: December 30,3004 TO: ToTa'.Perry, Building Inspector FROM, Stuart.Bornstein RE: Freezer Point, 004-2204 R301-006 Dear luspector Perry: This is in response to your fax received today; hopefully,the following�vil.l answer a lot of your questions, 1. Last week we brought in elevation plans along with revised site plans. If you do not have them,please let us know and we will bring you another set, 2. Drainage and Calculations are already on the current site plan. IF they are not clear, we will sit down with you and point them out, They are on the second page of the site plan. I The proposed Lighting and landscape plans are being presently drawn up and will be available for the site plan review. As a point of interest, all of the lights are going to be the onion-type lighting,not to exceed three feet in height. 'The parking lot will. probably go to six feet. 4. The site plan shows the roads and fuming radii, and they are all hard packed. This was reviewed by the Barnstable Fire Department. We are enclosing Deputy Chief Olsen's letter, We believe he was more than satisfied that he could take his 68-foot long truck through the area. 5, Site plan does show public and private parking, 6. Site plan shows the flood zones. 7. We presently have a meeting with,Historical on January 12, 2005 to resolve the issues of the old cannery building; we believe they will be resolved. 12/28/2004 20:45 5087756526 HOLLY MNGT PAGE 02/04 December 30, 2004 Page 2 S. The Commuzaity Building has been eliminated; also, the second floor dwelling. The plan is lb units proposed. 9. I am enclosing a Ietter we received from the fire Department. We will be going with sprinklers and apparently, there is more than adequate water if we do sprinklers. if any of these issues zernain open, we will be happy to sit down with you and review them and,hopefully,resolve them. Kindly, Stuart.A. omstein SAB JR LL, 12i28/2004 20:45 5087756526 HOLLY MNGT PAGE 03/04 Dec 2 2004 4:514 BARNSTABLE ' ire dept B A�tuv 1�OLE r�11R.E DEPARTMENT N° 4 9 8 I P. 2 �W4 3249 Main Street—P,O,Box 94 r o Barnstable,Xaasachtrsetts 02630 '+�r v► 503-362-331,2 Robert M,Crosby FAX: $08-362-8444 rcros SIRE HlEF Christopher J.Olsen byQbGrhStabfeftr2.org DEPUTY FIRE CHIEp oolaan@barrystabler,re.ws December 28,2004 Stuart Bomsteitz Holly Management& Suppiy Corporation 297 North Street Hyannis,MA 02601 P-E:Hydrant Flow Test Freezer Road, Barnstable X6, 0,2035 Dear Mr. Bornstein: S "Are received a certified Are protection staznpcd lett z, \ Barnstable Fire District completed A ':` xegerds + eFember 3�0 : 1„4 ,, l 1.•lid it R�, �.. A �,...T,�."1 lA .i�'rt� Y•Y. ,•.r:u ;fy'�/ ..,,'. .I�r,aAt•'tytMi�"' .•'y��. ,Yl,1fA„rgr;.,�" •.1,1 ..r, '}.YArt^fin !•�,,` ..�,! As th�r teplyoh� y ,lh c���4'Y G 1 r ," :eI4 �' is 660 f 'u la>rbW thiis 10.` '' a. `., t sitedpTo, � 1 ;7ii'stei i; , btu M gives an VG;. Consider a tj' l�ertszystc �p� l ' 1 �;. 1s� ,1_y:1WeYd„�.0 of the existivag ei tr/.I.Y}(8ll WfaGCiZ•� "•'IAFYkMuewe.rl�b�y�.`u��` � .'. �1 1 s��r•' �,.,�, , ,. � Bornstein,if you are considet'ixg'a sgri Ier system tbixs'�'' "'' certified sprinkler system plan far each buildih3 with would certified aleu�at ot�u oyder need see if the 660 GPM would be sufEcielit for the sprinkler system and use that-the Fire Department requires. If you are considerjug a twelve(12,))water mtsdn replacement,you should contact the Barnstable Fire District Water Department, If You need auy help in this n)attexy please feel free to contact me at anytime at the Barnstable Fire Department(508-362-3312). Sine ely, Christopher J., Olsen,Deputy Chief 12/28/2004 20:45 5087756526 HOLLY MNGT PAGE 04/04 Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Engineering 14 Mulberry Street, P.O. Box 605 Hydraulics Specialists Fairhaven, MA 02719 Code Consultants Tel: (508) 991.2466 Fax:(508) 999-6832 December 23, 2004 E-Mail:FIREWOOD@RCN.COM Stuart Bornstein Holly Management & Supply Corporation 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Hydrant Flow Test Freezer Road, Barnstable, MA Dear Sir, A hydrant flow test was conducted at the north end of Freezer Road in i Barnstable on Friday , December 17, 2004 at 9:45 AM. The test wa s conducted on the 6" unlined cast iron main which runs the length of Freezer Road. This main is fed by an unlined 8" water main in Millway Road. All mains are approximately 75 years old. Two hydrants are located on Freezer road, the first (Hydrant 'A') approximately 1000 nor th of the Millway Road intersection, the second (Hydrant 'B') approximately 700' further north at the end of the road. During this test, pressures were read on hydrant 'A' and the flow conducted at hydrant 'B'. The effective point of this test is hydrant 'A'. Flow was conducted using 2-1 3/4" calibrated test nozzles with flow coefficients of 1 .0. The following results were recorded: Static Pressure - 75 psi Residual Pressure - 34 psi Flow Pitot Pressure - 2@13 psi Total Flow - 660 gprn The water supply available at the north end of the 6" main in Freezer Road has been approximated using the known 700' pipe length and an appropriate pipe roughness coefficient for the age of the pipe. This approximate available supply is as follows: Static Pressure - 75 psi Residual Pressure - 16 psi Flow - 660 gpm Sincerely Ate✓ r~\` f 01,PP! 71,7I^N o David F. Wood, P.E. 1 cc; Jon Erickson, Sarnsta'bfie''Fire District Water Dept. �F1HE Tpk; Town of Barnstable M M Regulatory Services M i * BAMSTABLE. MAss Thomas F. Geiler, Director ATF1639. A10� Building Division Thomas Perry, CBO, Building Commissioner 200Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601 www.town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 TO: Zoning Board of Appeals FROM:. Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner DATE: November 17, 2004 RE: Freezer Point—Proposed Multi Family Project Site Plan Review This memo is in regards to the proposed multi-family project at Freezer Point in Barnstable Village. This project has had the benefit of three meetings with the site plan review committee. As of the last meeting this project, in my opinion, is approximately 80% through the process. I have attached a letter from the Barnstable Fire Department with their concerns. The existing buildings on the site have not received the benefit of certificates of demolition from Old Kings Highway. The site plan review committee is concerned with how many buildings are on the site. The plans we have received at the formal hearings show 18 units plus a community building. The plan I received on November 16, 2004 shows 18 units without a community building. Much of my concern is not so much with the site plan, because the Bornstein companies understands that further site plan meetings will be necessary and all the physical issues will be addressed , but how much resources are being expended for a project that requires major zoning relief in the form of either a use variance or a zoning change. F THE Town of Barnstable &► , AB . * Engineering Division y MASS. 039. 367 Main Street, Hyannis MA 02601 %N-ww.enginecring@town.barnstable.ma.us Office: 508-862-4088 Robert A. Burgmann, P.E. Fax: 508-862-4711 Town Engineer To: Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner From: Robert A. Burgmann, P.E., Town Enginee �g Date: November 15, 2004 Re: Stuborn Limited Partnership Multi-Family Dwelling Proposal 153 Freezer Road, Barnstable I have reviewed a revised drainage sketch and calculations for the above-referenced project, dated November 10, 2004. 1 find those revisions to have satisfied the questions that I had regarding the previous drainage plan. The plan now shows that drainage will be retained on site. Nov , 15 2004 2 53PM BARNSTABLE fire dept No 4232 P , 2 s?) BAKiN N I,bLE r'iRE DEPARTMENT M" 3249 Main Street—P.O.Box 94 e 1�>i19 13arztstn.ble,Massachusetts 02630 508-362-331.2 FAX- 508-362-8444 Robert M.Crosby Christopher J.Olsen FIRE CHEF DEPUTY CHIEF To:The Bornstein Companies From;Deputy Chief Christopher J. Olsen Subject:Freezer Point Date:November 15,2004 To whom it may concern, The Bornstein Companies had a meeting in this office on November 12,2004. Mr.Bornstein and Robert Perry were present from The Bornstein Companies. Chief Robert M.Crosby and Deputy Chief Christopher J .Olsen were present for Barnstable Fire Department. The subject matter was to discuss concerns that the Barnstable Fire Department had about the Freezer point Project_The concerns are as Follows: 1. Significant fire flow testing and calculations and other analysis will be required by the applicant. 2. Building site layout.in regards to fire department access to all sides of the building will need to be addressed. 3. Turning radii of all fire department vehicles in order to guarantee appropriate access to all buildings and site. 4. Alarms need to be commercial grade,permits for fire alarms systems are obtained from this department prior to installation. f, 5. Possible ground harden material to be able to gain access to building waits. 6. To adhere to NFP,A. 1141 Fire protection in planned building groups. Mr. Bornstein,and company were advised on the possible concerns mentioned above.Mr_]Bornstein and company stated to us that the concerns will be dealt with and the appropriate action will be taken for the needed water supply for Freezer point in accordance with NFPA 1141. The Freezer Point Project has the approval From this office to move forward the next process contingent on completing the above mentioned concerns. Res ctivel ubmi Deputy Chief Christopher J.Olsen Town of Barnstable Planning Division Memorandum4 Thomas A.Broadrick,Director Oa Planning,Zoning&Hutonc Preservation Date: November 11, 2004 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Thomas A. Broadrick, Director Art Traczyk,Principal Planner File-M-1 11104-stuborn use variance.doc o Reference: Appeal 2004-129—Stuborn Limited Partnership -Use Variances to Section 3-3.4 1 pp p � ) Principal Permitted Uses & Section 2-3.1 Conformance to Use Regulations In the above reference appeal, the applicant is seeking a use variance to permit multi-family housing in a Marine Business District. The appeal was opened on September 22, 2004, at which time the Board expressed concern for the limited information and the lack of an approved site plan as well as the lack of other necessary approvals. The applicantexpressed his desire to secure the use variance prior to plan development and other approvals. The applicant did appear before Site Plan Review Committee and the Old Kings Highway Historic District Commission,however only incomplete plans were submitted and no plans approved. No application has been made to the Conservation Commission for an Order of Conditions. No Chapter 91 application has been made to the Planning Board with respect to the proposed marina docks. No demolition request was made to the Old Kings Highway Commission with respect to the existing structures on the property. And no application has been made with respect to dredging of the channel and proposed sea wall. The Board should recall that in1998,they denied a Comprehensive Permit application for 32 multi-family units on the subject parcel. That denial was based heavily upon the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals to protect the marine zoned property. That denial was upheld by the Housing Appeals Committee based upon the validity of the Comprehensive Plan and the limited area available for marina business uses in Barnstable. Today,the Board is being asked to grant through a Use Variance application 18 to 20 multi-family units on the subject parcel without an approved plan from site plan review and without the benefit of other Boards and Commissions reviews and approvals. The Board has always maintained high standards when exercising its authority. The proposal before you falls short of those standards and basic requirements. The Board is being placed in a very precarious position with this application. The issues being presented to the Zoning Board are land use policy issues not variance issues. In essence the Zoning Board of Appeals is being asked to rezone some 4 to 7 acres of the Marine Business Zoning District based only upon a vague and vacillating concept. The authority to rezone rests squarely with Town Council and the Planning Board. In this case, staff can only recommend that the Board dispose of this appeal and instruct the applicant to seek, through the proper channels of the Planning Board and Town Council, a rezoning of the site. HOLLY MANAGEMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATION 297 North Street Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 (508) 775-9316 FAX(508)775-6526 August 19, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Daniel M. Creedon III, Esq., Chairman c/o Town of Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals 200 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Dear Attorney Creedon: C6 �I This 1s a preliminary plan of Freezer Road: e have spent many hours; a great deal of time; we have had guidance from some of the Town people; and a lot of guidance from the people in Barnstable. We are meeting also on August 23 d.,and I am sure, by that date, you will hear about the meeting with the Civic Association. I What we propose to do is put 18 units, one per 10,000 feet' and in return for this, we plan to develop a park to be granted to the Town of approximately 12,000/13,000 feet on the dock side, site of the former ice house (the best part of the site!). There will also be an authentically accurate 20—25 foot lighthouse that will have a strobe light, facing out to the ocean, to be built by a company that re-builds lighthouses. We will pay to construct and run it, and it will guide anyone coming into Barnstable Harbor at night as a navigation aide. We will look to a focus group to help us with this. Alt Also, at Holly Hill Apartments in Centerville, we will sell 14 units, a mix of one and two bedrooms to the Barnstable Housing Authority. As part of this proposal, a total of 14 units will be sold below market rate to the Barnstable Housing Authority at the going rate that affordable houses are sold to the Town, approximately$100,000.00 to $125,000. This is an exciting package. It will be called "Fishermen's Village", and we think the Town will realize in excess of $300,000.00 per year in tax revenue. Traditionally, the people who live in our condos do not have school-age children. Plus, we are very excited about all of the items we can give the Town with this project. August 19, 2004 Page 2 After receiving ZBA guidance, we will go back to the Conservation Commission and Site Review with all architect's and engineer's finished plans for a final review by all other departments. Kindly, f S uart TBCornstein SAB:jk Attachment cc: Art Traczyk ✓Tom Perry . ��`.,.t��3.. 9�'.� *p� �Ay��'�P�� a.��,..;9 � *�.. t�^ Y�?'S..,.'4 "�" .' .,;=t + � .� a"-,s.z ��.'� "' ,��.y '*� ,�t�%i�"'„'�n.+��dm .».�� � .a*'`�•�p �._'. .-.��,,,�.,..�a-�`4 �- ...-�... .fir'. + �:. - a ,+. `✓a � '1=- ���`t � ra� '4�' '�' �,. �". Td 'wwk,` - t rxAp '�'..-: `� `•«�`.� .�r:x t�# ^.� #> �'�' �''.,e�{"� _ �" k`iy'`-- _ , %Kw. t.s' .r "r ti:�. '� vas:•S •c¢* .' `349 r. °'iP r$`: ,,,5. - � _E ♦ �. 55, '� ..S 't�} �".� a L �- S t�' �.W � S. N a$ �.',�ti sTz..�": B'-� .'.''.:p ($ '. - � K., - -�F''s, `�a t � ` �..V t :. ."y�.�� a+ 4^s*.. � ���,.,��,�.7� x, ��,. �.` ^�,s -.r, �w �-`"�"��i•- .��,..' S�' �,s� .,tr: k �i".s.. ✓ �,�x a t T £ F 'u� ffi 4a C;, n hs` , 4 .h 'f�r.i `' y .3•'w`ytt� .a, , rcM `' ,yw^w✓.!rY,'�"' g r ' , nerd . X aim- vAZ s Wil Z_ v. c M1- e i; T' e r - �x '� �+ �'a _. i Lf�I���. - r ee i a ram' � 1: �Ic■ ���� �I { ,`•;eii �`--,�! ; �u1ti, ]f. iu� tflfl Z. say aAM t��i ♦ — .al J■ , — - tfl� t>■ I`�C AT M""f, �.. �, :. . . . , � ��<�...h�TT��1 1 ,t■�y. � BB -pp= II —�RU3I l �' Jl ; �.•'� 1 1 1 f#I,I,I .I '�.� ��►,�A� ®RT pt IN C.l�i�� ��� •W,� ' ,I/ ram"'`-�� i" �� �� +� � 1 oa� �"� � 1 'y� '�Cv�.��..' -Ir I �( ' '�,_+ _ to � � .� �� ,��.�? ( �.� � � �• zR{jy I -1 I i�: � �r_i $ ��� 1'.. t� ie � y��:,+lp�,'. ✓a ' �:r n Vs ..'j a•. Our � t)t HOLLY MANAGEMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATION EDWIN E. TAIPALE,Attorney Phone: ( 508 ) 775-4200 297 North Street Fax: ( 775-8789 Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 email: eet@capecod.net June 4, 2004 Dorr.Fox Cape Cod Commission 3225 Main Street P.O. Box 226 Barnstable, MA 02630 / Re: Stuborn Limited Partnership—Freezer Road Barnstable, MA 4TR04003 Dear Dom As we,discussed, thi-s proj-ect;�'contrary to,the position of my client, Stuborn Limited Partnership, was referred to the Cape Cod Commission by the Barnstable Building Commissioner, and noticed for a public hearing without any input by my client, and without the filing of any application, plans or relevant documents with the Commission by my client. Notwithstanding the position of my client that this project is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Cape Cod.Commission, it has determined to withdraw its application for site plan review by the Town of Barnstable, and, consequently, it hereby withdraws this project for consideration by the Commission. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very trul yours, CrP Edwin E. Taipal Q Cc. Toni Perry,-Barnstable Building Commissioner OF BAR .`vs� CAPE COD COMMISSION v - 3225 MAIN STREET P.O. BOX 226 BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 isA CHUs�C (508)362-3828 FAX(508)362 3136 E-mail:frontdesk@capecodcommission.org HEARING NOTICE CAPE COD COMMISSION A hearing officer for the Cape Cod Commission will close a pro-forma hearing for procedural purposes on Monday, June 14, 2004 at 10 a.m. at the Cape Cod Commission, 3225 Main Street, Barnstable, MA. The following Development of Regional Impact (DRI) has been referred to the Cape Cod Commission under Section 3 of the DRI Enabling Regulations. This notice is being published as required by Section 5 of the Cape Cod Commission Act. Project Name: Stubom Limited Partnership Project Applicant: Stuborn Limited Partnership Project Location: 153 Freezer Road; located to the west of Barnstable Harbor and Mill Way, Barnstable, MA i Project Description: Proposed construction of two buildings and rehabilitation of another containing an estimated 45,880-sq. ft. on a 26,860-sq. ft: footprint, and construction of two 313' wind turbines. NOTE: The purpose of this hearing will be to close a DRI hearing for procedural purposes. No presentations will be made, no testimony will be taken and no substantive action will be taken regarding this project at this hearing. At a future date the hearing process will resume. Subsequent notice will be provided. The application,plans and relevant documents may be viewed at the Cape Cod Commission office at 3225 Main Street,Barnstable, MA 02630 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to schedule an appointment. For further information please contact the Commission office at(508)362-3828. Ca y °F BAR�vs CAPE COD COMMISSION m 3225 MAIN STREET � P.O. BOX226 BARNSTABLE, MA 02630 9rsA vStiS (508)362-3828 CH FAX(508)362-3136 E-mail:frontdesk®capecodcommission.org FAX and CERTIFIED MAIL January 27, 2004 Mr. Stuart Bornstein Stuborn Limited Partnership 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 `\ RE: Stuborn Limited Partnership Project#TR04003 Dear Mr. Bornstein: The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Barnstable Building Commissioner has referred the proposed Stuborn Limited Partnership project to the Cape Cod Commission (Commission) as a Development of Regional Impact(DRI) under the Cape Cod Commission Act (Act), Chapter 716 of the Acts of 1989, as amended. The referral from the Town was received on January 23, 2004. Under the Act, the Commission is required to schedule a public hearing within sixty (60) days of the date the Commission received the referral We,will contact you.to schedule,a,substantive public hearing to be held in the Town of Barnstable when we have'rece'ived your completed application. In the event a DRI application is riot submitted;the,public.hearing:will:be opened by a hearing officer at the Cape Cod ;Commission. s M.. .. .. Enclosed-,is a DRI application for your information. As project proponent, you are required to file an application with the Commission for this project. Please contact me so that we may arrange a pre- application meeting to discuss your project, the application requirements, and any questions you may have relative to the review'process. An updated certified abutters list is required as part of the DRI application. Please note that the Cape Cod Commission Act defines abutters as "owners of land located within three hundred feet of any boundary of the proposed development." Please also note that a copy of the DRI application must be filed with the Barnstable Town Clerk, Barnstable Planning Board and Barnstable Building Commissioner. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tana Watt Regulatory Planner M .. Enclosures-.-; ,.-, cc. (Certi-fied; w/referral form) Thomas Broadrick, Barnstable Town Planner/DRI Liaison . T (Certified;,w/referral,form);-Linda,Hutchenrider,-Barnstable,Town.Clerk Ow/referral form,), Robert.Gatewood, Conservation.Director . I (Regular mail, no ericl.) David Ansel, Cape'C.od Commission Representative' ' z Regular mail, no e'ncl.)"John C.'Klimm, Town Manager (Regular mail, no encl.) Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner Z�J I Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Referral Form Please attach a copy of the original development permit application or site plan review, subdivision, or other application showing the date on which it was received by the Municipal Agency. Receipt of this information via the U.S. Mail or delivered in person to the Cape Cod Commission constitutes a referral for purposes of Chapter 716 of the Acts of 1989,as amended. Referred by: Town and Agency: Barnstable, from the Building Commissioner through the Town Manager Official Building Commissioner through the Town Manager ✓ Mandatory referral Discretionary Referral Limited Discretionary referral (please see back of this form) Project Name Stuborn Limited PartnershipR (`, E I V E D Project Proponent Name Stuborn Limited Partnership Address 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 JAN 2 3 N04 Tel: (508) 775-9316 Fax: (508) 775-6526 Cape Cod COmmissf011 Brief description of the project including, where applicable, gross floor area, lots, units, acres, and specific uses: The applicant proposes to construct two buildings and rehabilitate another containing an estimated 45,880 sq. ft. on a 26,860 sq. ft. footprint. The Site Plan application(received 12/24/2003) was prepared by Stuborn Limited Partnership while the Site plan (12/23/2003)was prepared for Suffield Management and the Architectural plans (11/03/2003) were prepared for the Bornstein Companies. The proposed uses on the property include 1) marine research offices and docking facility for five (5) potential vessels sixty feet in length and 2)two-wind turbine electric energy generators, with an overall height of 313f feet(turbine height of 210 feet and a blade length of 100 feet). The commercial structures are located within a"MB-B"business zoning district in the village of Barnstable. Preliminary plans and specifications indicate the project to greater than 10,000 sq. ft., thus creating a mandatory referral under Cape Cod Commission guidelines The project is proposed in three separate buildings (Building#1: 14,370 sq ft • Building 42. 27,680 sq ft • and Building#3: 3,830 sq. ft.) on a 178,950 sq. ft. parcel. The project is also located within the FEMA flood zones. Project location: The project locus is addressed at 153 Freezer Road located to the west of Barnstable Harbor and Mill Way. . List of municipal agency(ies)before which a municipal development permit is pending: Ana lication for a Site Review was requested and reviewed resulting in this referral. John C. Klimm, Thomas Perry, Town Manager Building Commissioner Forward to: Date: 01/22/2004 Y Development of Regional Impact(DRI) Referral Form Please attach a copy of the original development permit application or site plan review, subdivision, or other application showing the date on which it was received by the Municipal Agency. Receipt of this information via the U.S. Mail or delivered in person to the Cape Cod Commission constitutes a referral for purposes of Chapter 716 of the Acts of 1989, as amended. Referred by: Town and Agency: Barnstable from the Building Commissioner through the Town Manager Official Building Commissioner through the Town Manager ✓ Mandatory referral Discretionary Referral Limited Discretionary referral (please see back of this form) Project Name Stuborn Limited Partnership Project Proponent Name Stubom Limited Partnership Address 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Tel: (508) 775-9316 Fax: (508) 775-6526 Brief description of the project including, where applicable, gross floor area, lots, units, acres, and specific uses: The applicant proposes to construct two buildings and rehabilitate another containing an estimated 45,880 sq. ft. on a 26,860 sq. ft. footprint. The Site Plan application(received 12/24/2003)was prepared by Stuborn Limited Partnership, while the Site plan (12/23/2003) was prepared for Suffield Management and the Architectural plans (11/03/2003)were prepared for the Bornstein Companies. The proposed uses on the properly include 1)marine research offices and docking facility for five (5)potential vessels, sixty feet in length and 2)two-wind turbine electric energy generators with an overall height of 313f feet(turbine height of 210 feet and a blade length of 100 feet). The commercial structures are located within a"MB-B"business zoning district in the village of Barnstable. Prelimingg plans and specifications indicate the project to greater than 10,000 sq ft thus creating a mandatory referral under Cape Cod Commission guidelines. The project is proposed in three separate buildings (Building#1: 14,370 sq. ft., Building#2: 27,680 sq. ft.; and Building#3: 3,830 sq. ft.) on a 178,950 sq. ft. parcel. The project is also located within the FEMA flood zones. Project location: The project locus is addressed at 153 Freezer Road located to the west of Barnstable Harbor and Mill is addressed at 153 Freezer Road located to the west of Barnstable Harbor and Mill Way. List of municipal agency(ies)before which a municipal development permit is pending: An application for a SiteY40 Review was requested and reviewed resulting in this referral. John C. Klimm, Thomas Perry, Town Manager Building Commissioner Forward to: Date: 01/22/2004 a, APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW I Is] LOCATON: Business Name: Stuborn Limited Partnership Subdivision Plan Assessor's Map# 300 &301 Parcel#006 ANR Plan Property Address.:-153 Freezer Rd. Barnstable,MA 02630 Site Plan OWNER OF PROPERTY Applicant Name: Stubom Limited Partnership Name: Stubom L.P. Address: 297 North Street Address: 297 North Street Hyannis,MA 02601 Hyannis, 02601 Telephone: (508) 775-9316 Telephone: (508) 77 - � Fax: (508)775-6526 Fax: (508)77 - TE PLAN ARCHITECT/DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR/ENGINEER AGENT/ATTORNE a R Name: Cape Cod Engineering, Inc. Edwin E. Taipale,Esq. 4 2004 Address: 50 Leland Road, Brewster,MA 02631 Address: 297 North St Robert M. Perry, P.E. Hyannis, MA 02601 Telephone: (508) 896-4861 Telephone: (508)7 VIEW Fax (781)438-5940 Fax: (508)775-8789 STORAGE TANKS (HAZ MAT/FUEL OR WASTE OIL) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION District MB-B Overlay (s) AP Existing 0 Proposed 0 Lot Area 178,950 Sq.Ft. 4.11+/- Ac. Number Number Fire District Barnstable Size Size Setbacks (ft.) Above Ground Above Ground Front Side Rear Underground Underground Contents Contents UTILITIES TOTAL FLOOR AREA BY USE Sewer—[X] Public [ ] Private Size gal Existing(s.f.) Proposed(s.f.) Water- [X] Public [] Private Basement Electric—[ ]Aerial [X] Underground Residential Gas - [X] Natural [I Propane Restaurant Grease Trap— [ ] Size gal Retail Sewage Daily Flow * gal Office 3,830s.f. 42,050_s.f. Medical Office PARKING SPACES CURB CUTS Commercial (specify) Required Existing X Wholesale (specify) Provided 127 Proposed Institutional (specify) On-Site 127 To Close Industrial (specify) Off-Site Totals All Other Uses On Site Handicapped code Gross Floor Area 45.880 *GP or WP areas restrict wastewater discharge to 330 E C E I V gallons per acre per day into on-site system. n k L 2 4 2003 *GP or WP areas restrict wastewater discharge to 330 gallons per ac tlB uLp M. Old Kings Highway Regional Historic District:. Yes Approved? Yes/No Listed in National and/or State Register of Historic Places: No Perimeter setbacks: Front Side Rear: %Lot Coverage: 15% Number of Floors:. see plans Floor Area: First: Second: Other(Specify): Parking Requirements: Required: 127 Provided: 127 Handicapped Spaces: 4 Are there Accessory Buildings? Accessory structures -two wind turbines Accessory Building Floor Area: two bases—40' X 40' Please provide a brief narrative description of your proposed project., We propose to build a marine related research office facility with related docking facility and two (2)wind turbine electric energy generators as an accessory use. 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 my knowledge, the information submitted here is true. STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: 12/23/03 Signature Stuart Bornstein Date Q:SiteP1an:SPRPG3-02/20/2002 yW 'ape;sweg PB-QN tazaGJ:.£S'1 1aal 999 gmba-Lpv! L:--BWIWS diysJau:Ped pa:Pwil wogr4S:uogdeo floWzzfL:Owu 1M ..9 VO,86 o0t0 N .,V'Z-i ,v A-vo :uo4ewl =N Lrofol '0.8 PIP I I I I I IAJ cn WE ffr > i , �. �c r I } CD a LZy - 5 • 7 t _ ZED .MITI 1. °� # 26fev+'"i+. •a�' ``Y`�has e a 4 c ! *,*'w., , 4T. 4 w � rhxfi k Ei. A m � �r 3� ��:2t rp �y z s`7`+r.� rYs a1 �'� tea- ;�� g'^: ��wy� i'� ;�,.,N syd� 7,ti r• j's -�'s�;t,.� Z L.10110 ., '0 2 o L .. 11610 i. Z Community ff"ind, LLC Pursues Distributed Wind Energry for Southeastern Massachusetts ,;... Community Nk'ind personnel are f t�,y�ti sponsoring visits to the Fenner, New York wind farm for local politicians and land LI owners to sec first hand the impact of wind turbines on the local community. Community Wind is arranging tours of the largest windfarm east of the Mississippi. ��........... XIl W♦ V , .++,r i,, 1�' •� Ja;1�{{,,"C�t�R.�71^r "n�'1,f- a r w,tI fir ! � QLs- yy } wal ]{ y �. I 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 cco gag o a Me armer s e as no scea a singe bira ourty toe turDines in over two an a half years in spite of the fact that the area is on a busy migratory route. 1 Atlantic A,.enue,South Yarmouth, MA 02664 (50R)3 98-1 7 011 r w. •k I , 1. it r. r e 41 AL. ow- IV Of ... i jr nil 00 o 4A • ' i � " ai� �f " " .. ,fit, • , fia parcel lines are tations DATASOURCES: P pr a boundaries. an �, W.Sewdo Cympany. h 19JA a e resent actual r Ash! O5 Octs "a Qa Iation.'Plaalmsgi p t albtscale of 1"=TpO'. P e:\billd\Stuborn.dgn 1/22/2004 10:17:41 AM oFTME r Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services BA STABM 9 MASS. g Thomas F.Geiler,Director �ptFD MA'S A`0 Building Division Tom Perry. Building Commissioner 200 Main Street,Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Fax: 508-790-6230 May 16, 2003 Mr. Stuart Bornstein Stuborn Limited Partnership 297 North Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: SPR 038-03 Stuborn Corp, 153 Freezer Rd, Barnstable, (R301-006) Proposal: Installation of a temporary wind monitoring tower not to exceed 164' Dear Mr. Bornstein: Please be advised that the aforementioned proposal was approved at the site plan review meeting on May 15, 2003 and was referred to the Board of Appeals. It was determined that this project requires the following two forms of zoning relief. Section 3-3.4 (4) (A) Special Permit—Conditional Use Section 3-3.4 (4) (5) - Bulk Regulations—Height Variance You should be prepared to identify the principal use on the.subject parcel in order to obtain the special permit as noted during the site plan review meeting. erely, Ro in C. Giangregorio Zoning& Site Plan Review Coordinator 7/30/02 Cannery Bldg �1 f ARM- j l � P A ti r' f. 'e'^'��{ f�i.—+....st e�---•. F�Fa � 1._.«.fi ,.r.,.-.+ ,�.,,�.�,.:--s,..,�,,^r�r.. ;�,, i � i, w jJj lit r a _ M i NNNN RRRR ! F F L x } JG e + x c 43r- Jr i • r E, mow. ,,.,,.:�y.�r - i ,�+r,_ �^ �., _:J �"s�'.�.�k*`t"+5;. �� l• * `r � f1 $. t h 14 V j(j r •' 1 Ii� _ M i 6 .. Ir p��g 'i�+ r i°w ��.1;,� �. � } �,i � !• � r '3, 1 _ � ,,�,, r' ���»�^1k�,y N No t 1 t✓ i � 1 ! � s 1 +� a �i t}T � i f�`f'1�j}, .»j`t ��, $: �.�''= s' O'.�� _ " '4 Ip � �'y' •e .,' i �; `if, � ��� �j �' 1 11„t rfi�y � t '�~.. i,.:' �.����'},'111� ��,'lTbi.' .t I r.. � '•'�!� q+ �. Nit i � yp '�'_!�-�•—...,....- r ..._ �Y`��j, y.�h;,Getlyd`'" � 'K" .�*Y"�M.y 'y� ,._\I„�;'� �,t� .L..k.wr' �e4 1 f ��^L ..i?n'. tic �' yn�l9gl� m G r a � ,.».r.. e - :; `r•,;�,�,.Hsu +- .. a!r p,�t S.. t lS't a",�-4r`' ,y;� , tv �y r ,.. i � x �'�xcxM I,t*�'�l*t. ! y, .gyp. ���• r .a-+fk. _ � tea: Y ^�'"'.,, a" - _n• ' t! ,r.•, ' � � �. t i . . . . . . . . . v� < > '4w «w ��^� \{ \ \�. . . \ � \\ \ :? � � . \�< »� ¥ � .d w© ©°.��� �r THE DEMPSEY GROUP INC 500 543 0209 r'. 01 r THE DEMPSEY GROUP, INC. 8 Beaumonts Pond Drive Foxboro, MA 02035 J 1 EL. (508) 543-5499 _S EKE RAI ENGINEERING CONSULTING ;�CIVIL ENGINEERING •�INVESTICArI ON: _REPORTS July 15,2002 Mr. Edwin Taipale,Esquire Holly Management do Supply Corp. 297 North Street Hyannis,MA 02601 Re: 153 Freezer Point Road-Banlstahlc,A1A Structural Evaluation TDG#IE02275 Dear Mr.Taipale, At your request,i inspected the former cannery building located at 153 Freezer Point Road in Batnslable,MA on July 01,2002, The ptupose for that inspection wtrs to evaluate the condition of the building str.-acture. A stuutuary of my observations follows. Buildltw Descrllition ° bie building is a single story,timber framed,pole style structure measuring approxirnately 160 feet by 45 feet with a 25 foot by 40 foot loft at the tiont. It is clad with ?: inch thick boards attached to the exterior pole columns and has garage doors at either end with very few windows for natural light. The floor consists ofa concrete slab of undetermined thiclnhess. 7lrere is no interior futi,h or insulation As reported to this otiicc,the building has been vacant for at least ten and possibly as many as twenty years. Roof The roof stnieture is framed of double 2x10 rafters at 9 feet on center that span 15 fmt betwcen wood posts at a 1,l2 pitch. A 2 inch thick tongue and grouve wood roof deck spans the 9 foot distance between the doubled joists. In accordance with relevant provisions of the Massachusetts State Building Code,6"edition,the roof should htf capable of supporting its own dead load of approximately 7 potutds per square foot and a snmv load of 25 psf for a total of 32 psf. Ibis roof..as built,can be rated at a capacity of nc,more than 19 psf meaning that it has only 59 percent of the minimum Code mandated strength. Even though the structure has su.<tauned all loads to«,hhicli it has been subjected to date,the roof should tutdergo significant reinforcement to make it safe for us,s before the building is reoccupied. In addition.,sections of roof plank have suffered water damage and require rephiecinent.,as does the rooting. Sideivall The'h inch thick plank sidewall is attached du•ectly to the emerior building column;and exlends to, or below,the exterior grade. It was observed as havilrg many sections Kith water dannage primarily at the base. With little or no effort a screwdriver was easily pushed through the boards. These sections should be replaced in their entuc;ty. Columns The 8 inch diameter,wood columns are spaced at 9 feet on center from front to baci,with two interior rows and twu exterior rows 15 feet apart. Some of the columris are out of plumb,leaning several inches,pos:ihly as a result of hurricane force ivinds having racked the structure historically. ?%Zany of the posts an.,severely damaged at the base THE DEMPSEY GROUP INC 508 543 0289 P. 02 tf 07/15/02 Mr.Edwin Taipale,Esq. StTU011ral Evaluation 153 Freezer Point Roed Ramstable,MA 2 at.which point those along the interior make contact with the slab and along the Csterior contact with crushed stone. The damage is attributable to water wicking up into the posts since there is neither an interior r or exterior foundation and the posts art,butted directly in the ground. in some instances,less than 25 percent of the anginal column remains. These members should be replaced in their entirety or the damaged section cc.tt out with a new pressure treated post hiserted in its place and spliced to the remainotg solid post segment. Slab The eoneretc floor slab is ofundetenuiticd thickness,but in relatively good condition despite its age. (t appecirs to slope from one side to the other either intentionally or as a resuli of settlement. Foundatlions .,As mentioned previously,there is no foundation. The building columns are set directly in the ground. ;Recommendations eln my professional opinion,the building has outlived its useful life and would require a signific&nt altwunt of capitol rand physical Iabor to bring it into compliance with the Nlassachusetts State Buildutp Code and thereby;:rlz for ioccupartcy. In its present condition it is an eyesore,a potential fire hazard,a habitat for creatures and of little value. to its owners. The potential for this site is unlimited and as such,the property,Ninth or withotll the buridrrtg,should be utilind more purposefitlly than it has been for the last seventJ years. Should you have any questions regarding this letter,please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfitlly, THE DEMPSEY GROUP;INC. Richard J.Dem se , P.F. . President r `fiNO /Y RICHARD J a DEMPSEY a No. 291.7-1 scrotJAL a, a �FT1iE . . �: The Town of Barnstable BA"SrABM 63 q.- Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services 1 � Building Division Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner MEMORANDUM TO: John Klimm, Town Manager FROM: Ralph M. Crossen, Building Commissioner DATE: February 3, 2000 SUBJECT: <153 FREEZER RD.—,BARNSTABLE The attached are significant documents that synthesize the history of the razing of the Freezer Rd. building. 1. August 6, 1997 -A large section of the building collapsed into the harbor. After discussions with our department,Dan Horn secured some of the debris and kept it for my investigation(See Attachment A). We wanted to be sure it was an accident. 2. An on site inspection was done by myself and one of my inspectors, with the permission of Mrs. Bassett, at the end of August 1998. Pictures were taken and discussions with Mrs. Bassett followed. We told her it was unsafe and had to come down. Her only concern was the cost and whether or not Mr. Bornstein would pay for the removal. (He had it under P & S then). (See Attachment B) 3. On September 2, 1998 I found the building unsafe and ordered it down. All with an, interest were copied, as seen in Attachment C. 4. On September 10, 1998 another section of the building collapsed into the harbor. Debris floated out into the navigable channel until it could be secured. (See Attachment D) g000203a r John Klimm, Town Manager February 3, 2000 Page 2 5. A building permit was issued about September 10, 1998 to take the building down. The chairman of Old Kings Highway signed off on the permit on September 3, 1998. (See Attachment E)The Old Kings Highway Act provides for this kind of situation, as the enclosure shows in Attachment F. 6. It wasn't until November of 1998, almost 8 weeks later, that the building came down. During that time Old Kings Highway never rescinded their sign off and every town official, from the manager to the Historic Department, followed the case and didn't offer any comments. 7. On January 29, 1999, after the 45 day raze, a letter was sent to the manager with a synopsis. He used this to write to the two people in Barnstable Village who were quite loudly against me on this;Mr. Dugas and his daughter,Ms. Santos. (See Attachment G) 8. In summary it should be kept in perspective that of the two complainers,both have had zoning violation issues on their own right with my office and the one with Mr. Dugas is still in court. The real issue here is not the old building-even historic had no jurisdiction. The issue, as seen by Dugas and Santos, is helping Bornstein, somehow, on his affordable housing application. They seem to believe that,with the building out of the way it will be easier for him. This, of course, gives no credit to ZBA as they are the deciding officials on that application. The rest of their loudness is against me personally. RMC/aw g000203a i I i I I I I I I I i � 6» I l ,29' Ze.r I%.9• BC 0• I I `r Alk I 1 J 1 i I I �L- f I t i I i I � I I I CONSULTANT s y s CoZ NEW RESIDENCE D3 m Lw e�wwdco�6. I m m i I i Scheme 10I CD — � om��� Uf C M �! FREEZER ROAD De�° hh -- 3,3 CaDa,d H.S,g Awnu6 m I Bwton, MA 02815 II g BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS K: i b ti <o MI 711612010 12.40.43 PM o 127' ll* 43-11* Planting Bed ot (A) K EHHT Vol to; 0.1 i I i � n � � i i oa 24-G' 26-10, 76 w 37 0-q > En CA(n U)0(D M-nm m-n m tn VA UA cn fn(n Cn Cnu) CONSULTANT 0 NEW RESIDENCE &dAltiV Nag-, M Lw ilwiaf-d C..—d.l Scheme 10 3M 00 El M FREEZER ROAD Davd K S,g z 313 C M Avenue 0 M BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS (n 71151201012:42.04PM p s s€-s� a•r �T C u 4 A.••w ®® - 1 BALconv .i �.�.- N i - LMNG IhOOEI`v.' \:I W LLI �.• �.- 0 "" BELOW W _ Z Q V 37 ;i::•: O W 0v¢i ' v W LLf LU tz!j 77 Qm W W Q COP 6KZ � Z Q m A••P na Daft Window Schedule Type Hough Opening Glazing' Mack Width Height Type ManulacUw Model Material Thickness Type Comments Coum 20 3'-0' 7-0' Double Hung whh Trim Marvin 4 21 7-6' 4'-0' Casement with Trim Marvin 6 22 3'-0' 2'-6' AwYdng with Trim Marvin 4 -- 34 7-0' 6'•0' Casement with Trim Mahn 4 37 3'-0' 4'-0' Double Hung with Trim Marvin 7 45 3-0' 6'-0' Double Hung with Trim Mahn 34 NEW RESIDENCE 48 7-0' 7-0' Fixed with Trim Mahn 4 Scheme 10 54 7-0' 6'-0' Fbced with Trim _Marvin 2 55 7-0' S'-0' Double Hung with Trim Marvin 130 65 V_0' 3'-0' Amhlop with Trin.0002 Mahn 1 95 7.64 V•0' Double Hung with Tdm Marvin 2 96 7-0' 3'-0' Double Hung with Trim Mahn 1 11u V-8' 2'-6' Window CasementOV e UOV1.8 2 mk%Kolbe6 Kolb sh,9et_Kot* Mil,«D,,kCo.. Second Floor Irm P*.,-.b. 111 7-2 1/7 3'-11 W mdan Casem md-0va4Sa Kolbe&Kolbe 11OV1.8 1 p„ 7.1p,2010 Ur shSet Kobe -Milw ork Co..Irm lu.,n y SMPN g 112 IT-11 7.2 iR'Window Caserrent•OvaFSa Ko S be 6 Kolba WV7.8 1 a.wdhry DHS she[_Kolbe Millwork Co., .. lnr- Ma 12B 7.6' 4'-0' Double Hung with Trim Marvin 1 A1 .3 F 1 Secorhd Floor /04 1I8'.1'-0' S ' 1IB•>•1'-0' v 111-_ -� / f ! Y ! Y ! mmmmm f.. f ..I��IIIIIIIII�II ..�III T t 3 \\ r a . • - T - - `. .......lam:'....................J.:•:'•. ...... ........ - 14A!!11LI1!M1f!!V J I '� r x gaga �•' ,$ ��`°`�� "`�ka'a.��..��7".� '9rt- *-�' X r��r rT�C?P{��.���,k��K��.., .. eu u■m?i:i::: 9 s:::.rr.:.. vti a mi as arC^:::: ''v:r+,::,y'c _ ry�'� r' .� It e�e�e�'. �� I ■ ' .�� III ml ■�■� ■�■� ,: t••=tea%=ems• tea•= '��r=�aM■r'=� .. :-: - P�"�'�'��•��ulllllll Illlllm lulllllll Illllllhi�'' '��'��"��'�" ! ■•■'.■ ■..■.■r.'r:. - ����_�_IIIIIIIIII Illlllilll IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII --�— ��•••••••• gaga'•'••'-'_�`" _��r_■_r .iIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII = l�=���= tq�';��'—��'�==�'�=������ �` „i+ihz ;:.:�r��'.:fii:'.:•?: ............,.............::. ..,..:........... :� :^:..•;:;/It OI'/111111:111 .•.ir ;r:: ?i;. o:(� !:111 oil III;111:111 ::'•..'...:'.:.•:.'::. "` .� .S'i ps'. . IIII t s •gaga gall• OI 111 ■1■tl/ / /11 111"ii�ili!ul ■.■..■ r 111 III Itl 111 111 III I :.•"':: I . . ..'•f II'1lllldl'I11;'n'll 11 IIII I■ a •i,t„Il,em •'I,I,I"I .l■�(■I■!�1 I t , gaga FEW IIII MMM r •. .■\' •ems—_�_ • _�� ��. _'__._..� gym•_=.= ■■ "■. �r. �� �t� .�� IIIIIII ■�.-. � 0 u mill r h rh 11141111/ ll) /1/ r` llt 111IIII IIIIIII : IIIIIII Ill Ill III � Ilt Ol IIII IIIIIII ��� +� ILLI- ul,In�IIIIi'!IIPIIIII��Iln IIII. i N. ■.■ga.■ �� 111 111 Ill , a v r �s m i i7 t 10 Ul 111 III III aw eras a■....■iumrardaav; avvllll�� 11 a m•a: �� l i r r l l l I lll�(llll(lll s'r .pp����t�.l.; II j111�11 Illllr tl�l,�� ',i _ /1l(111111�111 Iulu II ■ ■ ■ IIII Ifl I;II , lulu .•:11 IIII _ ■I�I�II it ��������...1����� ,ulun=ices=Eg-i -=� ai���'�����r - • • .� •� _�� .—�—ten �— ���_ ��• ��_ ■. 1 • ORONALQIGGEUM y _ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ ___ _ _ ___ _ __ _ ¢ REE TO Of Plate C e 3 m b a nd R.O. h 01 z 6 ——_ Rrst Fbor _ Guest House F� �_0._ I. I III, Basement e o I=1 1 CI 1=1 1 M 1 West 3 W W U = w CC O¢ o (D can LU s N� W J Z LL Z Q m No. Ion 0" NEW RESIDENCE Scheme 10 Elevations oo»¢nnbw 0- 7-15-2010 t>—W SMPIV cn.rradey DHS A2.2 \ 1L i IPEVCTAEMY ROUGH STOW 1 1 r I I/ REVISIONS LOCUS INFORMATION �/ �_ — ""�° / / ` \`, \ (. \ � I, .y f � $4�'°''^�-E NO. DATE.. DESC.. CURRENT OWNER: STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIPLOCUS ' TITLE REFERENCE: BOOK 12037.PAGE 257 / PLAN - .' '1 '� ��/. ' , \r 1_ ✓ I i I �.. f 1 ' - REFERENCE. BOOK 220 PAGE 85 REFER r ` �/ I I ( ASSESSORS MAP: 301 / 'll .., 5 4 } III 7 PARCEL' 6 ' 2 I I I I I ' I I I I I ZONING DISTRICT: MB-8' // / / / SETBACKS: FRONT 10• RSIDE W EAR 30' ,/ / y/ SALT.MARSH i t I I t I.I I I I '\ / �® GA MAIN ST 6A OVERLAY DISTRICT: NOT IN A ZONE II /. 11 /f/� r FEMA FLOOD / / /•• _ — / \ — — — I I `I ► i - t 1,1\j`l\1 1 I I I 1 ' 1 rr 1'J LOCUS MAP 1 CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY _ 5 / / / NOT TO SCALE PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION ZONE DISTRICT: .PANE•A-5,&B DATED 7/2/92AND/ ?^ •\ / I I I I 11 11 _ I .I I I 1'� �l1" I J t f ,�, DIMENSIONS D T THE SETBACKST TORN THE _ PANEL y250001 0001 D L. % �.ESN•212/ 1 it ' / I / STRUCTURE AS DETERMINED . BY WALK-OVER STRUCTURE '< )l j � � J \l i MINIMUM LOT SIZEi 7.500 SF. / / \ I 1 \ I r l yy J I - - INSTRUMENT SURVEY AND AS SHOWN ON EXISTING LOT SIZE 4.0 ACRES � / ,/ / \"J\\ ~i. 1 \ `ir /A I I I I I 1 f J/ NDTHE INFORMATION DEPICTED THIS PLAN ARE CORRECT. 1MTRL04 OCTOBE Y HYD HERON IS A RESULT PERFORMED AN . / BETWEEN O SURVEY AND 17 A DGRA VEM ER 27Y 007. ' ESAY �1.. \ .200 NA-83,AND HE ERR `I/ .BVNYi HVVII06 `I I 1' 2.THE IIORIZDNTAL DATLM IS NAD-B3,AND THE VERTICAL /�1 / / 11VV8109� ZWE AT THE V4 O:L=20 MLA) \ L. I } I III\ T 1 DATUM IS ILA / •/ /�/�{ ZONE AS/EL,=17—)ILA) � -� / .� ^ ; • I I ry� / I n ^b� BLISH POINT COMFORT STATION ELEV,1839 ILLW AS SHOWN ON THE TOWN OF BARNSTABLE DREDGING PLAN DATED OCTOBER U,SO ' L p/ ' r�J I I I I I \ 1 - 1 I I / I I I/ 1 - y 2086 \�_C 4.THE DATUM RELATIONSHIP IS AS FOLLOWS. T BVVY103 MLV ELEV.- %'k1GVD 1929 / I I � = A WETLANDS DFIINIA7ED BY NORMAN HAYES DVS \ R I ; I L ; I ! Mtv=B,MHV=9.5,.ML=IL9 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR DATE TC BVW.1Q2 ••, W„/ d I I�� PLAN CBS OF /E \GAZEBD BWWYlO16I I / 1. 'P�A`j T ,r i IJ .► r. \'.§ .\ \ i I t \\ 1\ 1i• LAND BVVY1(iooJ I 1 . \ I I I I I I \ \ \\�\ \ . \ 1 ; I 1' \ \ Z�Y FREEZER ROAD IN \\ BARNSTABLE \\ MASSACHUSETTS � • � vIi `�� � ��./ �, J j � / � ,•� S\ .\ 1 1 \ a_\ (' I I \ \\ �~\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ %'� \: (BARNSTABLE COUNTY) EXISTING 7 �/ / .11✓'� \b \ \\\. a \ \ \ \ \ CONDITIONS SALT H C�\ \. \ �.1 \\ \J. �\ �s� \ \\\ FREEZER POINT 40 / /' /�(9%a �; JANUARY 15, 2008 /' /r jl/ r / J /\\ \ SH,LLFXSH\H \� �� \. ` VOAREFHOI� ✓• —.\•\ I .\:.• .� \ ;. \�. 1 , , .1 \ ,\ b \ ; \ \ ', _ , I 1/1BV,�IY317 BUILDING / I SLAB=14.4 FOR- CONC.BLOCK PREPARED STRUCTURE Mr. STUART BORNSTEIN. \\ \,�� \C4� \ \ \ \ \ \ �.\ THE BORNSTEIN COMPANIES \,\� s C \ \ \ \ j \ 1 I 1 I 297 NORTH STREET X -} ( 1 )/ \ \ \ \ \ \ j 1 HYANNIS. MA 02601 DEDK ��., WELL l WELL /pJ�VR()20 2 STORY / / GROUP V®D FRAMEDBUILDING / \ - IaF .\\\ \ I 1� - / \ �. CONCRETE SLAB I I \ \ \ \\ /7 wRlzl 349 Main Street,Rt.28,Unit D W.Yarmouth Massachusetts slnzo I // DECK ; / - .. 02673 i a / 36•ELN `� I, r TVBORN LIMITED PAR R P \ o / ,1.- --- \ \ \ \` 5087788919 1 N/F / \ `l III T)IE \ / -___` �1 \ ` \.3\\\ \\\ \� \ .. ©2007 Tne BSC GouD.ISESSIRS MAP ric. � PARCR 6/301 \ \ N, \ I,11 1�• \ I, '\ \ ` 4A ACRE/ BITUMINOUS OMVEWAY /) \\ I (�..J 1 �.\ \ b \ 1 ,\ \'1 \ SCALE 1P- 30, . �\ .\ k o J.75 7s Is ®SNH _ '�IDTLpjp 1 1_--� NTD� / �\ ®MON'L h ! \ \ \ \ PRQI. MGR.: C. FIELD C DH`, - CB/DN - / y{j / I / 11 I I I \ \ STOCKADE ® szsY ND D ^M7D16'E 77JYY / iND I x X7`--X \ �T' 1 /I• I I I I,\\\ ~ ,_ \ \ \ \•\l \.\ FIELD: D. GAZZOLO/N. MERCIER \' MY���111EEES w WALTON ',, .r �� / AW U/OK FENCE '�,* / // II I I f� _\ \ \ ` \ CALC./DESIGN. K. HEALY ASSARCEL 1MAP 300 //� �/ l/ /. / / I N/F /� .. / ✓.--� //-- 6•PVC PWES I I \ \ 1� \I DRAWN: P.HAGIST /, .,� BENCH MARK.�. ��ASASESSORMARIII P SEERRVICE � �j� .� WWE7YVIMRF .. y =\ \ \ \ � . CHECK: C. FIELD ../ ,( ESNI1200 \ 1 /•C TOP DF HYDRANT FLANGE ••/ . H[LY_T ADJACENT TO THE LETTER y� .. / \. n IN OPEN ELEV.=19J2 MLW PARCEL 21 /'� FILE: 9295-EXC.DWC // j I' - ��• /' uP• /Pj/ �/ °\ \ \ I DWG. NO: 5865-01 JOB. NO: 4-9295.00 SHEET 1 OF. 1 - + /�3 - - _ . 1 .. { A _ - — - - __ , _� -- — - - - - _ - � _-_ - _ � _._. _ .e. - - ._ ,. - n 0 I r a. � , .. � - .. f #• • ` i t • _ � - ' `. ' �' GENERAL SPECIFICATIONFOR SITE WORK 1. ROOT REMOVAL-Ros)6�r all trees visibly affecting the proposed parking 4 surface shall be grubbed and removed in all excavation areas and under all areas slated for paving., DISPOSAL OFSTUMPS-All trees,cuttings, trash,itumps and root systems be disposed of off site.None of the organic material shall remain beneath or within areas for proposed p'avement. Such disposal shall be the responsibility or 6-a X)S S - .5-_-C-c(,//-Z J�V6_ G_fo- C X-.z the Contractor. 3. REMOVAL OF ROAD SURFACE SOIL.-Bituminous road surfaces not removal shall be fully swept clean and a full tack coat applied to the reqmring existin; remaining bituminous pavement prior to any overlay Z5 paving. 4. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT EXCAVATION, DEBRIS AND CONCRETE A,4 A— DISPOSAL-Contractor shall be responsible for cutting,excavation and proper 20' t 2 -3 disposal of the existing bituminous pavement and existing site debris,concrete foundation components and timber. J5. SITE GRADING AND COMPACTING-All rill areas shall be compaded in 6 �,4 inch lifts to 95% dry density. Of critical importance are drainage excavation Z' 'r 0 D -1,0 2-,IV locations and where roundation comoonenets have been removed and are /0 IC C7,0 h proposed. Subsurface soil investigation shall accompany foundition design work for the proposed site rAcilities.Compaction te,sting and or standard penetration 6'r Y tests 'Will be required to determine effectiveness of the compaction effort. T 6. SUBBASE PLACEMENT An 8 inch,mmimum compacted thickness of 3/4 -7- Z 1;1.,9 % 5 t.J.12 eld)SC _S /Ikl 7 L /14 dense graded processed stone shall be placed on all areas designated for proposed bituminous pavement. 'ProcAsed stone shall meet the Mass highway specification 10,,9 C 71-5—:0 ;1-A//—&-�v Z- 7-X10,f Z- 1?17-e11,%-j,1A1 -M2.01.7 or equal.' Alternatefy,�suitablei r base or process,ed gravel of a minimurn may be-acceptable with material Compacted thickness or 10 inches C 1'::C'/.Z 4-T V_'S IQ '5S subject to inspection by Cape Cod Engineering,Inc. and by approval of Z_ Barnstable Engineering Dept..' -c E 0,E 7 Al 0 SC,.7 Z 7. BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT- All paivement work shall conrorm _0 I%wll rcfel-4 L L �3,r AZEIJ�-)OvZO 7-0 /9 0,rD7W 0,C _?0­ to the Stindar'd Mass:11ighway Dept. Specifications for Highways and Bridges eZA;?4 4 e-,Fo wl' --z�-,-7 A/ 5_774t�!v C 7-VV-,4 4 -S'O/Z --I.Zl— 77/0 -latest edition,typically the standard specification M3.11.03.Provide a minimum -2 inch rolled,compacted thic"ess or class 1-1 binder with a I inch minimum I- A A/Z A-//v 6- ,Z 0 7- ro I led compacted thickness top course. All paving work shall be in accordance with standard practice: no paving shall be performed on saturated subbase, 0 7 where frost is present In the ground,or when the air temperature is below 40 degrees F. Pavement course dimensions thsill be in accordance with the cross section shown on the approved plans(attached). Lateral pavement dimensions shall be in accordance with the site plan. General procedures for subgrade, base and pavement preparation shall forl ' the specifications contained in notes 5,6 e ow and 7 hereim ,�, 8. BITUMINOUS CONCRETE BEPUMS-Type 1-1 bituminous concrete berms shall be placed Along all avement edges and shall be a minimum of 10 inchei in p width and a minimum of 3 inches in height above the top course pavement -face at the berm line. 9. HANDWORK FOR PAVEMENT APPLitATION, FOR DRAINAGE INLETS, BERM EDGE AND BUILDING ACCESS WALMVAYS. The berm edge shall be a uniform edge.Thecontr2ctor shall be responsible 0,4 i,�/17 for shoulder soil replacement,compacting and seeding at the ber7n edge. Specific landscape restoration in the green areas shall be in accordance with a ro C tvla S IE landscape plan prepared by others. Such 12ndsc2ping shall be the responsibility or the:qwner. Gutter line rormation to Insure gutter now to the proposed drainage inlets P R,5eq X 7- .1"00/,,c/C 0 PISeq C. shall be a priority responsibility of the contractor,subject to final grade E �AZ-A7 1c'0 ee�C 4�1-4 7-f 0^IS Inspection and upon binder application.' Walkway transitions shall-6t uniformly formed and coordinated with laiidscape layout. .......... SOIL TEST LOGS' 10.PRO�OSED DRAINAGE CATCH BASINS INSTALLA' TON WITH CAST -roo GAL. % -6posed drainage inlet facilities shall be' 0 0 no 0 ,ca r__1 CZ] 0 'HOLF IRON FRAMESAND GRATES. Pi q %.JE3 DEEP OBSERVATION #1 installed,con6cted to drainage disposal facilities,excavations and trenches cz; L 1 or-3 o ri r-D c im r:i C:1 1:3 0 U EJ M rm r_1 M (= 1:J Test Date: Dec. 10,2003 ''backfillo" 2.5 % I . i P- : *V M000 C100C E= C:T 0 El 000 13 C3 M0 C= ED .4�d'sufficiently compacted prior to placement or subbase material or m horizon texture color mottlin other pavement. See proposed drainage syste scbernitic. elevation depth(in. c, � -** , .- 0 C1 0[3 o n Cl 0 C:1 M [Z] r-2 M cam M C:) 11.PROPOSED DRAINAGE LEACHING FACYOTIES-Proposed drainage 9.5-6.0 0-42- — r alled as described In note 10 above with c L,r4 Ac'7- 36 6.0-3.5 42-72 Ct clay/peat exca;Ottion requiremerift as follows: See drainage system schimatic. 4.0 -0-5 72-108 C 2 f/in 9*nd disp-6sal structures shall be inst 12.DRAINAGE STATION EXCAVATION-Each drainage station shau be"over- r// �-4 Q r x excavated on'the ptrimetei a minimum of 5 ft. from the edge or the proposed Parent material:GL Lakebed deposit,old marsh stone field. The excavatiods4all extend to a depth sufficient to fully remove the - //0, Depth to Groundwater.perched at 42 in.depth;static level at 102 In.Fl. 1.0 U_ //V.1 Ax 2,S, en01V,0,r'oAk W-0.4.L S _IV 2 /0 0 Percolation rate evaluated st 2 NIPI intheC26yer. fill,clay and peat deposit as shown in the record sod test logs on this sheet. The -7�0 77�cl/%,, tt 48 ' 7 excavations shall be filled with,clesn sand And compacted In 6 inch lifts to the -4 7-101V Al I PR46 Cq 57 7- 411v 77Y 7-t,) 9,-- 2 0 elevation 0,r the top or the dralina ge structure as indicated on the drainage WSP -0 AZ 5:oirc-A V,9 7-10 IV <Y0 v A 7-S S 7;;9 7-/0" ;0&42 ez 7,0 SZ _64��Ie,,q7lalV Vc1,o7,6 W/Z schematic. Structural earth rill shall be placed above this layer for replacement S r-�9 7-/0 -V subgrade,with sub base placement following. 13.The Contractor shall be responsible for protection of existing utilities rrom 7-1"PI CA L 2,2,14911VI;6-4F 5-L�- 7-1 6�^/ 4 damage or interruption'of service during excavation or filling work. If piping, 0 .40vo conduit or other utilities not shown on the drawings are encountered,they shall be protected from damage,and the Owner's Representative notified before DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE 2 Test Date: Dec. 10,2N3 proceeding with the work- 14.DisposslOf Materials-Excavated material not acceptable for backfilling shall be elevation depth(in.) horizon texture Coto mottling other removed from the Owner's property. Excavated material acceptable for backfilling or rifling shall be stockpiled on site as directed by Owner's 9.11-6.9 0-346 rill sand Represent2tiVe. 6.3-4.8 C I C1XY1 Pt2t 15.T*IICELLANEOUS- 4.11 +03) 60-114 Cl f I in sand Landscape features,shrubs,etc.designated for preservation shall be protected to the degree possible by the contr�actor without deviating from the Parent material: CL Lakebed deposit,old marsh Depth to Groundwater- perched at 36 in.depth; sta tic lc-%el at 106 in.Ff. 1.0 specific details of the specifications contained herein. Percolation rate evaluAted at 2NIPI in the C 2 layer. a Borrow-If excavated material is not suitable or adequate for required backfilling or filling,additional material shall be provided by the Contractor as necessary to complete the work. T fr rik IC controls for the protection of the general public and working personnel such as safety signs,cones,barricades',markings,warning light 57A0,5 WA J­k- devicei,etc.shall be in accordance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic vices shall be the responsibility or the Control Devices,latest edition. Such de contractor. Survey staking for any purpose shall be as determined by the contractor and shall be the rtspbrisibility of the contractor. Silt fences as may be required by local Conservation authorities shall be as ified by said authorities and shall be the re"nsibility of the contractor. spec A11'relevant permitting for the proposed work shall be the responsibility of H P the owner. -3 0, -30 n and Clean-up-All trash and debris resulting from the excavatio construction work shall be taken from the site and disposed of in accordance r P_-,Q 7-10^.0 7-V 13 c-ce,/v s 7-/?L-1 c r�-.0 with standard procedures. Freezer Rd.at the juncture with the property will 7-1^lr— p�w.-9,Qocr' 7­1 c, 16.Fill Material Classification , 61 L / 0 77�> -4�Ae-,"c5l V 16 .0 J L a. General-All clean sand rill material shall be free of frost,frozen I -lit it %I Zkk=%� J 4_ material,trash,organic matter,sifty rusts and debris; and shall be left In good condition and swept free of earth and/or other debri& be subject to acceptance by the Owner's Representative. VA Z 4-> 12 b. Compacted Structural Fill-,Material to be used for compacted fill under pavements and walks shall be selected granular following limits: 23' 41J-,Zr material,well graded within the nt Finrr by Wtight Perggi_ 0 slat SizC 0-.R 0,-0 -4-V6, -,R 1%4 0,�Q 7-5 7 N 3 in, 100 r No.4 , 30-95 No.40 5_50 ......... No.206 0-8 1 ill shall be placed in layers not exceeding six inches in loose Compacted r 9 "V6�V'o thickness with each layer being compacted to 95%of the maximum dry TAILS, CROSS SECTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557. DE ill ill to elevation one foot OW7--4-yo-C c. Pipe and Utility Trench Backfi -backfi above top of pipe and conduit shall be selected sandy material 20 30 .4 C; 5,0 60 0 70 rV121V A4,0,­L--*S OF FOR PARKING, BUILDING AND WIIARF 0 7 �90 with no aggregate larger than size. - S, 4 -09 ROBE W4 7�rA C/Q1 O/Y 7 cC7 P,/e d: Common Fill-for rill areas not otherwise specified, material I 7-Y,,0/eA1_ /2 RENOVATIONS shall consist of clean inorganic mineral soil from excavation or SCAI,E - AS NOTED borrow,acceptable to the Owner's Representative,and sh211 be i ('0V �rc,9,4,� IL 5880 placed in layers not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness and 1.53 FREEZEIZ. ROAD com acted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density in BAIINSTABLE, NIA p accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557. 1 4 CA PE COD ENGINE ERING, INC. 50 I,ELAND RD. BREWSTER, INIA 02631 '64 D-tv 508-896-4861 A 'J' f` 1 .4 l ,2.f' U 1195 �!\1 f ' V i` • '1 �,� NOTES d•" P{ e � 4 �4af� �/ D -A 1. ELEVATIONS REFER TO NGVD .k 1929 2. ZONING DISTRICT— MB-B; AQUIFER PROTECTION IA, OVERLAY C --•-...__�-` � \ 3. PLAN REFER a c X ENCE: PB 2209 PAGE 85; 4. SITE LIES WITHIN THE COASTAL FLOOD ZONE `A5' W/ ; BFE = 12 C 5. MUNICIPAL SEW ER ACCESS EXISTS AT THE SITE, 6. MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE EXISTS AT THE SITE. \ - 7. PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT IS PRELIMINARY BASED UPON THE CONSISTENT'WITH DIRECTIVES AND IS NOT NECESSARILY CABLE TOWN OF BARNSTABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING SITE DEVELOPMENT. DEFINITIVE GRADING 41 �E� • o ;" ` DRAINAGE, UTILITY LAVOUT9 LANDSCAPE DETAILS, WALKWAYS, AND OTI-ER 91TR DEVELOPMENT.DETAILS ` PPOP-, \ o�. / - __....-� -_ _. ._ u� 4) ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.8. THE SITE IS SUBJECT TO MGL CHAPT. 131 AND TOWN OF BARNSTABLE W/ •�, ETLAND BV-LAW REGULATIONS. / \ 000, /0 �,o ', 3� ;s ., 0.09 Y` � b ) /0 I OE �-'/v i r- /3 )v/ T ' DECK SA T c Z \ i 7-6 P of z s 2' \ O A —v— t P �o.9srq PRELIMINARY '. " � ,3,a - -- TOPOGRAPHIC SKETCH PLAN OF LAND _ AT �.� '`----- 153 FREEZER ROAD G r2 o vE• . / 6 BARNSTABLE, MA — SHOWING _ _ _��- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS -s" r -- - - - APRIL 8, 2004 SCALE-AS NOTED PREPARED FOR STUART BORNSTEIN S/q L 7- M A/' s Al BY ' O ?O 60 CAPE COD ENGINEERING, INC. i = o • ROBERT M. PERRY, P.E. 50 LELAND ROAD BREWSTER, MA 02631 TEL 508-8964861 --------------- ------------- /V GENERAL NOTES -4 act, rb, I ELEVATIONS REFER TO NGVD 1929 E 85;AND A"SITE PLAN e-4-. 2. PLAN REFERENCE:PLAN BOOK 220,PAG OF LAND IN BARNSTABLE,MASS AS PREPARED FOR STUART BORNSTEIN BY SCHOFIELD BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND,INC. FORMERLY OF ORLEANS,MASS,DATED TULY 1.1999,JOB N 0-9225- 3. FLOOD ZONE DATA FROM F.E.M.-k F.LP-?,L COM- MUNITY-PANEL# 2500010001 D FOR BARNSTABLE MA AS REVISED 7rIA2. NCEPT REVIEW 4. THIS PLAN IS PREPARED FOR SITE PLAN CO, -E SITE DEVELOPMENT $ PURPOSES AND PERTAINS TO REQUISn DETAILS. WHARF RENOVATION, SEAWALL&DREDGING WORK DESIGN;BUILDING FOUNDATION DESIGN,SEWER MAIN DESIGN, ELECTRIC UTILITY DESIGN SHALL BE COMPLETED AND REVIEWED By APPLICABLE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.' ASTAL 5. THE PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE WITHIN A CO FLOOD PLAMN AND WITHIN THE 100 Fr.BUFFER ZONE TO SOURCE AREAS. REFER TO ANY COASTAL WETTAND RE RESULTING ORDER OF CONDITIONS ISSUED BY THE BARNSTABLE SSUED.' CONSERVATION COMMISSION ONCE I TION S SHALL BE IN 6. BUILDING CONSTRUC NAND SITE UTILnTE ACCORDANCE WIT11 FLOOD PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF THE 1�z MASS.STATE BUILDING CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE vv CODES. LLING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 16 7. PROPOSED DWE 66 AT ELEV.-13. FOUNDATION DESIGN SHALL INCORPORATE EQUALIZATION PORTS FOR ALL ENCLOSED SPACE BELOW THE 6 BFE. 8. SPECIFIC SITE GRADING OUTSIDE OF PARKING AND WALK AREAS NOT OTHERWISE SHOWN SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON A 'D LANDSCAPING PLAN PREPARED BY OTHERS. i6 SITE GRADING AN )JO CERTIFICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO 9. THE PLAN MAKES, t CONSISTENCY WITH ANY LOCAL,STATE OR FEDERAL /%y jo 2.s-.0 TIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED USE,SITE LAYOUT C,,l lv 6 _T 7'19 r/r,^4 REGULA DEVELOPMENT X) F p s- 7- z AND DESIGN. THE PROPOSED USE AND SITE RE Ts CONCEPT HAS BEIN DEVELOPED BY SUFFIELD NIANAGEMEN 14 INC. 7- ,e-x�-44eac_ I t p 614 vj 6 13 "'1& p p op PL.,/-7 4 L EMERGENCY ACCESS SURFACING NOTE 46-.4D C-,C 7-0 I I- V,— fz 7'0/z THE GROUND S EEN EACH BUILDING CLUSTER SHALL URFACE BETW .19 s-L,�P_v 7' RECEIVE A 10 INCH COMPACTED THICKNESS OF SUBBASE MATERIAL 7W .1c CA IC4 0 L) 0 4- p ri KI tj CONSISTING OF PROCESSED ROAD GRAVEL MEETING THEMASS i MPACTED 0 pp V_ HIGHWAY SPECIFICATION M1.01.03 OR 9 INCH CO. ED PROCESSED STONE MEETING MASS THICKNESS OF DENSE-GRAD O.S SPECIFICATION M2.01.7. A MAXIMUM OF 4 INCHES COMPACTED LEGEND 4- VER THIS \/e, & THICKNESS OF LOAM FOR SEEDING MAY BE PLACED 0 0 /Ij v $: SUBBASE,SEE ADDITIONAL SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS ON SHEET 2. EXISTING EUV.CONTOUR pe / 1 5 �tq EXISTING SPOT ELEV 0-1 F I ry? JV. PROPOSED SPOT ELEV. P4(e�ll logo V� PROPOSED FLEV.CONTOUR PARKING SPACE W/NUMBER SEWERPIPE'P 4*Vl 1-11 SITE AND PROJECT DATA' SEWER MANHOLE SITE SITE ADDRESS: 153 FREEZER ROAD DRAINAGE INLET GRATE I. I \ BARNSTABLE,MA Sp appV CAST IRON MANHOLE COVER 14..r'w OWNER/APPLICANT: S4Wf4ft:b*MANAGEMENT 297 NORTH STREET DRAINAGE STATION z r .1 '0 b��HP>4jf ,- - Xckr HYANNIS,MA 02601 .01 LA)CUS;ASSESSORS'MAP 301,PARCEL 006 Hp HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE LOT AREA: 179,950 SQ.Fr.TO MHW(4.11 AC.INCLUDES WETIAND AREA) EDGE OF-WETLAND UPLAND AREA-130,790 SQ.FT. 3 %A ZONING DISTRICT-MB-B,AQUIFER OVERLAY-AP -)C----W WORK LMKIT -12 FLOOD ZONE:A 5 W/BASE FLOOD ELEVATION W­ WATER MAIN/SERVICE Pell, AVAILABLE SERVICES:MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE,MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE 19 (SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL IS NOT PROPOSED) Itp X UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UT111TIES PROJECT 0�, m . I I CIENTERLINE ? v 7- PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE p HYO. ejcve SITE COVERAGE ASA PORTION OFTHE'UPLAND AREA' . EXISTING TOTAL SITE COVERAGE-33% EDGE OF PAVEMENT m 7r 7, I J�i I I tip. m PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: '23,260 S.F. 130,790 S.F.X 100-18% TRASH RECEPTICAL 11VV, z 7,/ a PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE: 24��o S.F.PARKING AND DRIVE AREA OF BIT.PAVEMENT; —X-X— FENCE LINZ 24't550 S.F.1130,790 S.F.X 100- 19 6/0 GREEN AM(INTERIOR) 10 G TOTAL SITE COVERAGE: 23,260 S.F.+24,550 S.FJ 130,790 S.F.X too-36.0% _y 000 V 0010 f3 ......................................... PROPOSED PARKING SPACES-36(SEE CALCULATION BASIS BELOW) V 0'X 20' PARKING SPACES EXCEED MINIMUM DIMENSION) 6 INTERIOR PARKING GREEN AREA- 1,130 S.F. 24,550 S.F 5% c C ..... r IQ's PARKING CALCULATION: tK pi 1.5 SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT(D.U.)X 18=27; /0 PLUS I VISITOR SPACE PER 10 D.U.X 18 D.U. 1.8 (2) 7--0 TOTAL REQUIRED 29 60A 0 0 7-3 b 3 6 Vlvl 7 TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 36 (W/3 IIANDICAP ACCESSIBLE) V -z* PARKING AREA DRAINAGE DESIGN PER 25 YEAR STORM. SEESTIEETTWO & 76 %*Y-S FOR SOIL TESTS AND DETAILS. Icr 5� v TREE CALCULATION: (NOTE:SITE LIES BELOW THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN lit) u L11V1 7- 11 'r�jp�K RESTRIC-HING MANY IVARIETIES. RECOMMEND COASTAL ITARDY VARIETIES EG.CEDAR, D BLACK PINE,ETC.); 14 v ,AZ_l p REQUIRED: I TREE PER 20 PARKING SPACES X 36 SPACES-2 TREES;TREES FAR IN EXCESS eD tj > 6 OF THIS NUMBER WILL BE PROVIDED.(SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN WHEN AVAILABLE.) epo P�L 10, 0 pA 0 p ox FD N0 & Q1 Ar,09 rc,,q 5 IV- 0 -0 /v - zo* , IR 411-117- 7 13 41 It N., r__DlriC� 2-2: N 7 - -1 V.,V/7- 7 Vl\ Vt 7-'ly"T C7 C,�,a.Al V c-, 7- 131(2 m 1015C AC_ \V SITE PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED sw Id 7- goo" 7 14 7-1 L_1E -v- -v- v C Of-r 71�9 4 77/IV c-.r 4o RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS,AND WATE V '7' v RFRONT SITE ....................... IMPROVEMENTS .................................. AT ----------------- ........................... R ),P 0C, Al \,V �o. 153 FREEZER ROAD ^7 77E C &IR 0 VF NOTE .............................. ..........., v�OF BARNSTABLE, MA THE SITE IS SPECIFICALLY NOT WITHIN THE SANDY ROBE ASSESSORS' MAP 301, PARCEL 006 C.PER MASS. M. NECK BARRIER BEACH SYSTEM A.C.E. 7 7EIR PREPARED FOR ESIGNATION:SECTION I-BOUNDARY EOEA A.C.E.C.D civi DESCRIPTION 35 0 STUBORN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 297 NORTH STREET9 HYANNIS, MA 02601 THE NEARBY BOUNDARY OF THE ACEC AS DESCRIBED INCLUDES PORTIONS OF RENDEVOUS SEPTEMBER 19, 2004 SCALE - 1111 =30' CREEK TO THE WEST OF LOCUS AND THE WATERS PREPARED BY H OF LOCUS. OF BARNSTABLE HARBOR TO THE NORT CAPE COD ENGINEERING, INC. 30 60 - / .1 30, REVISED NOVEMBER FLEMATE ASSEMBLY BUILDING, ROBERT M. PERRY, PE IMPROVE PARKING RADIL kERGENCY ACCESS SURFACE NOTE. D �5r 0 u s 10,10 50 LELAND ROAD REVISED : OCTOkR 25,2004 -BUILDING LAYOUT, BREWSTER, MA 02631 SITE DATA TEL- 508-996-4861 6 :•° .:��_,}t 4tt.•3 i:..'... c•... i. t i.. s.t.:t.... f......:• ..• 1... ..ti`�s'•::si.,.,i t°,i�i1•i ;.i... t..t i• �artt5tab[e Patriot t SEPTEMBER20,2002 PAGE 12 :- 'J;i•N�'��•�11• Zbe �:�,.•t t� ; .tt•t �• ;-=sue s UEITI ' , t First Place, General Excellence--New England Press Association, 2001. Transportation Center -� 1 1 to be, dedicated Monday _ 455as, A building for the .......... ... . ....... + , folks. I find it ironic today knowing , , + • , . • • • + + • + + + � + • + that my neighbors are using it now Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday long haul and I probably will soon." Showers Possible Showers Possible Showers Possible Showers Possible Showers Possible Partly Cloudy Showers Possible Another product of Warren's youth 75 73/61 72/60 71/59 73/56 72/55 74/56 was a proposal for a multimodal trans- 172nd Year No. 12 Barnstable •• Centerville Cotuit • Hyannis + INDEPENDENT&LOCALLY OWNED SINCE 1830 + Marstons Mills Osterville West Barnstable September 20, 2002 75 Cents By Edward F. Maroney portation center on the 17.7-acre Penn . 1 • , — , 1 1 • table i)a trio t What a long,strained trip it's been. Central property in downtown Hyan- nis.Monday,the Dennis-Yarmouth ins. He wrote a grant, funded by the Day Hi Lo Precin* A cold front passing through our region will bring mostly cloudy Inside 1 1' High School Band will play, a bus Urban Mass Transit Administration, Tuesday 81 66 0.00" skies with a chance of showers today. This weather pattern will per- How far can dust storms travel? 1 On the catwalk -parade will roll along Main Street and to hire a consultant to study the con- Wednesday 77 59 0.07" sist into the early portion of next week. Skies should become partly Stote chi'lls speakers will celebrate the dedication cept. The report was positive. Thursday 67 46 0.00 cloudy by midweek due to a small area of high pressure. Then,most- "It (�{ "It was a multimodal facility to Answer: They have been known to OP-ED of the Hyannis Transportation Center, Y Friday 77 43 0.00" ly cloudy skies with a chance of scattered showers are forecast to return on t -----� -- y p travel across entire oceans. , accommodate rail passenger service conceived nearly a quarter of a cen- Saturday 76 60 0.00" Thursday. Skies should become overcast with heavier rain showers again on An introduction t0 coming'in from off-Cape," Warren 20 tury ago. Sunday 76 68 0.07" Friday. The rain will taper off by Saturday. High pressure should take control NOVember'S ballot gUeS- � ..�_.:` �. d said for airport parking and air inter- FreezerPol" nt One of the reasons it didn't go Monday 72 64 0.51" of our weather Sunday allowing partly cloudy skies to develop. ® t10nS ........................P.5 forward in the earl days was that, modal transport service from the site aeeea�weathe�com y y •Precipitation includes snow converted to rainfall t=.m.•....m.gw...e.rt�rwa.r 13AR right about that time,Proposition 2 1/ a link to the Steamship Authority on the harbor, and the home of the , , ______._ r NSTABLE Cfl�1SERVATION • 2 was passed," Joe Potzka, adminis 1 1 • ' • . 1 1 I ' • trator of the Cape Cod Regional Tran- Cape Cod Regional Transit of co n o rojed sit Authority, said Wednesday as his ity." Sunrise Coming u with the plan was one of —Da d y 6:2giu5 a.rism. 6:42 set 6:48 ris Moonset 14 a Sept. 20, 1967 - Hurricane Beulah Barnstable Harbor the furniture was being moved into his g p P m. moved into south Texas and its torren- Dad( High Low High Low r 1 before leaving the Big- Saturday 6:26 a.m. 6:40 p.m. 7:09 p.m. 6:15 a.m. tial rains turned.the rich agricultural 9/20 11:38 am 5:43 am 11:50 pm 5:53 pm bus nessg t Warren's s last acts be o g Y - y ~ Cites town s progress on new office in the center. "There was y P P g p p section s= g g - d it authority. The.next steps would be Sunda 6:27 a.m. 6:39 m. 7:30 m. 7:14 a.m. areas of south Texas into a large lake. 9/21 12:14 m 6:20 am None 6:33 m • <« "" ' bomb to he all this bonding, an wasn't exempt." taken by others. Monday 6:28 a.m. 6:37 p.m. 7:52 p.m. 8:14 a.m. Hurricane Beulah also spawned a 9/22 12:28 am 6:55 am 12:48 pm 7:12 pm ____ ______�� affordable housing P "Much of what Bob wrote got blown Tuesday 6:29 a.m. 6:35 p.m. 8:14 p.m. 9:13 a.m. record 115 tornadoes. 9/23 1:05 am 7:31 am 1:22 pm 7:50 pm x & r a ff g Then the Plymouth and Brockton - Wednesday 6:30 a.m. 6:33 p.m. 8:39 p.m. 10:14 a.m. 9/24 1:43 am 8:06 am 1:57 pm 8:29 pm • ,x y bus company wanted to build and own up,"said Mark Forest,regional repre :09 m t' B David Still II sentative of U.S. Re Bill Delahunt: Thursday 6:31 a.m. 6:31 p.m. 9:09 p.m. 11:16 a.m. 9/25 2:21 am 8:43 am 2:33 pm 9 p " s :, l ii y a new facility on the state-owned prop- P t,,t fa„ 4r -- Twenty years ago, he served on the Sept. 21, 1988 - Thunderstorms pro- 9/26 3:01 am 9:22 am 3:12 pm 9:51 pm 1 i�i I erty,but the commonwealth can lease P p �� '�� q � I P Hyannis Port ' ' EDWARD F.MIARONEY PHOTO The decision is in for Stuart Bornstein's ginned to a private company no longer than CCRTA advisory board in his role as M <Y Full Last New s First duced high winds and locally heavy Y project P P Y g l �� CATWALK- an- With a verycondominium ro ect on Freezer Point, and the an- Provincetown's assistant town man- ''° 9/21 9/29 10/6 10113 Da Hi h Low High Low five years. q rain in the southwestern United States. � —g— � saver is no. 9/20 12:01 am 5:44 am 12:30 m 5:54 m i I, �i �� i � The solution came when the transit ager. One thunderstorm in west Texas pro- P P ; � '" h feline Stride, a critter The Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee I authority took over the site."We could Some members of the board contra- duced wind gusts to 86 mph at Dell 9/21 12.42 am 6:21 am 1:06 pm 6.34 pm - upheld the town's denial of a comprehensive permit g Y ued to push for the center,Forest said, All forecasts, data and graphics 9/22 1:20 am 6:56 am 1:40 m 7:13 m navigates a COtlll t lease longer than five ears," Potzka p City, destroying an airport hangar. One p p Echoes of famed family in a 3 2 decision on Wednesday. provided b Accessweather.com, Inc. y said, "and the local share was taken but it was so far off, rt was like p c y aircraft in the hangar was flipped over 9/23 1.57 am 7.32 am 2.14 pm 7 51 pm restaurant haunt new �• `i ji' I � boardwalk. The proposal called for a 32-unit condominium talking about manned space flight to O 2002. All rights reserved. 9/24 2:35 am 8:07 am 2:49 m 8:30 m i 1, care of by the state donating the land g P g and snapped in two P P y 1'I el project www.accessweafher.com pharmacy site . P 7-8 ro ect on a tour acre site on Freezer Point on Barn Mars." 9/25 3:13 am 8:44 am 3:25 pm 9:10 pm p y p to the project, so the local communi- stable Harbor. The plan was to market the units to ties didn't have to bond." The idea never died,but supporters 9/26 3:53 am 9:23 am 4:04 pm 9:52 pm those 55 and older, with 25 percent of the units re- had to watch to make sure the flame served as affordable. Add federal budget, earmarks se- pt) � �. cured by an activist Congressional didn't go out.Back then,Forest served • • , The decision is also seen as a validation of the with a young selectman from Brewster, delegation, mix in local reviews by ©1, town's efforts to create affordable housing.In decid- town of Barnstable boards,make sure Henri Rauschenbach as well as the „� R x NEwSL "� ing in favor of the town,MHAC found that the project the ingredients add up to about $6 most dedicated proponent of the cen o�lh would have a detrimental effect on Barnstable's ap- ter,the late Orleans selectman Gaston • million and voila-a transit center. Tree 8c Shrub Clearance y 111 �'i'Vr proved local comprehensive and housing plans,both "It's been a long trip to get to this Norgeot.Bob Parody of Bourne,now Itrt • Ornamental p of which were deemed credible and im ortant to the the board's chairman, also served at �: location,but think the final product's RY GARJ),tA� town's planning efforts. that time. ' Kale & Gabba e ,oin to be worth it' Potzka said. J gTown attorne Robert Smith said that.he town was g g Forest said Delahunt made the deci- Y"Transit will have a presence on Cape C • Cool Weather Mums �' a very pleased with the decision and believes that it will sion to speed up funding for the cen- Cod." be important across the commonwealth as communi- ter. & Icicle Pansies BHS girls Soccer has ties attempt to rein in developers using Chapter 40B, LookingBack to Forward "It happened because it was pushed • ' • . . , ,� o r ��- Soil Enhancers good start,On balance the state's affordable housing incentive law,to circum- from the community and the political P 10-11 Thinking '"'' -� -= - . vent zoning. Smith said the importance comes in the leadership within the Congressional • • ' • Winterize Your Pond p• recognition that the town has plans for the harbor and to At 56, Bob Warren presides over delegation," said Forest. address affordable housing that are real and in place. the Atlantic Companies,a trio of busi- But does it arrive too late? 380 West Main St. Hyannis, MA • 508-775-8703 • www.countrygarden.com • Mon.-Sat. 8-5:30 & Sun. 9-4 s nesses that covers civil engineeringY Y9 '11.1cIhC "Let's put it his way,"Forest said. (Atlantic Design Engineers), hazard "I would have loved to see these invi- Continued on page 12 remediation and assessment(Atlantic tations earlier, but it's never too late. Environmental) and cell towers (At- We all still feel hope for the Cape ." ields lantic Communications . From his� ) The Dennis-Yarmouth High School �Sagamore office,he looks back at the Band will play before the dedication 0 Lear fquestions at twentysomething who was the first ceremony begins Monday at 10:30 a.m. Y � " OKeefe, Claussen � � �administrator of the Cape Cod Re- (The bus parade leaves at 10:20 a.m.), I gional Transit Authority. and, after a few speeches, the ribbon ve always had a deep interest in will be cut at 11:15 a.m. Potzka said Barnstable High School... � x <� the B bus program because they were he hopes to have CCRTA buses oper- = " - Patrick winners In grants that I originally wrote,"he said. ating out the center within a week, iicc > 'Pt "I was a kid writing grants for ser- with Plymouth&Brockton following Continued from page 1 In quick order, he was peppered Cot'uit professor pits + State rechartering vote for Sturgisn /�Tvices which primarily benefit older as soon as ossible. with questions on abortion, gay i ` ext �I . eeP u._, ,v,H _. .a ,.. ,.. uw. __u . _ w_..u. 60s values against mod gcareful) and if I don't alread feel ri hts and marria e and the MCAS Tuesday'sY Y g g o primarystrongly, I could go along." tests. ern-day miasma .P.�3_ 17 r morning in Malden. Former board president Rick Porteus is also • However, the Senator emphasized For the students, the MCAS Board Of Education Before that meeting takes place,the Sturgis hopeful for the coming week. He called the Cape town results on State chills Freezer Point.•• that, on some issues,polls and testing was the biggest hot button 11 board of trustees will meet to be in work on a p C On� �c� c 1' g Department of Education and placed his name public opinion would have little or issue of the three. Enjoy expectected to make, strategic plan for the board and school. The Uninvited visitor Un- g P on the list of public speakers to address the statewide races mirror state's no influence. His example was O'Leary told the students he BE A NAVSET planning session,the first for the board,will be BOE Tuesday. Just what he'ss going to say is Continued from page 1 ing if they can demonstrate positive casino gambling, something he supports the MCAS tests, and that cooking. leashes Storm of decision on next f ive years facilitated b board member Fred Tirrell, who growth in the creation of affordable opposes strongly and said public was a position that got him very Y still in development,but it's lild4 be to carte nis Cook with VOLUNTEER thoughts has experience in such matters. view of why the school shoulai be rechartered, By Patriot Staff The zoning board of appeals origi- housing-is something that Barnstable opinion would have no effect in little support in return from the _ ...........P. 18-20 B David Still II Sturgis board president Paul Scares is hope- but not with the current boards of trustees and Call (508� 778 5040 •••••••�••�• y The last time the voters of Barnstable headed to the nally denied the comprehensive permit has sought more recently.A change to changing his mind. students. ful that Saturday's strategic planning session, administration. That was his rrecommendation for the project in December 1999 in a that effect was included as part of an us! �' The rechartering of Sturgis Charter School is the first for the board,will produce a plan that polls fora primary,.the result was a record turnout... decision that Smith characterized as amendment package vetoed b Act- 'i Arts & Emertilllll11011I and not a a good way. p g y expected to go to a vote before the state Board addresses not just current needs,but can guide Continued on pale 9� "brilliant." The findings in the ZBA ing Governor Jane Swift,who thought , , Nauset, Inc, of Education at its regular meeting Tuesday the school into the future. Tuesday's election proved to be a much better case were crafted by then-chairman it went too'far in giving towns the showing that 2001's 3 percent townwide result, and "Serving Individuals with disAbilities on Cape Cod since/968" substantially better at that.Barnstable saw 27 percent Ron Jansson and covered all available ability to avoid Chapter 40B without i I i i ' ' A Public Service of The IBarngtabte Patriot • • • ground in relation to the town's efforts generating much hew housing. , Immigration 11 1of its 32,905 eligible voters cast ballots in this year's to maintain control of its planning. The Patriot received news of the detains 32 Brazilians on Capeprimary, 4,671 taking Democratic ballots and 4,288 Codchoosing Republican.The basics of the decision -allow decision too late forBornstein's attor- b towns to maintain control of their zon- ney to comment. TOWN OF BARNSTABLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ^s: BOSS, [� Beyond the statewide campaigns,the big winner on llOJ S, consulate the federal Immigration and Natu In her three years at the Brazil- within the next couple of weeks. Cape was Michael O'Keefe, who is looking to move NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE Cole Porter on the la - ralization Service said the INS was ian consulate, Loureiro said, "I The spokeswoman said she could from hired hand to elected man in charge at the Cape ` OCTOBER 9,2002 play bill for Comedy Club'S Offer assistance not targeting Brazilians by the ac haven't seen such a large number not say how many of those de- and Islands District Attorney's office. w , ,,,wM,wrwurt To all persons interested in,or affected by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Section 11, 81St Season...Pp. 21-22 tion,which was code-named"Op- of detentions." tamed once had legal status to be "Let me say it's been an interesting and rewarding � T P p eration Cooperation." "This is the largest fugitive o - in the country and how man might experience,"said the First Assistant District Attorney �J of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and all �`i B Edward F.Marone P g g P Y y P y „ v amendments thereto you are hereby notified that: y Y "The Brazilian community is eration that we've done,"the INS be entirely undocumented. at his victory party at the VFW in Hyannis. "What's Ir, 7:15 P.M. Craigville Realty Trust/Barry Appeal 2002-113 Y .. Special 11dex Thirty-two Brazilian citizens veryshakenb all this," Marcia spokeswoman said.The one thin Also involved in"O"Operation impressed everybody across the Cape is the arm f l Craigville Realty Trust has applied fora Spec Y P g P P y y p y o GO conforming Buildings and MGL Chapter 40A, Section 6 to allow for the demolition and were arrested in a pre-dawn Loureiro, deputy counsel in the all the detainees have in common, operation were the Social Seen- were people out there with(O'Keefe) signs." r. ;ii , Books Review.................21reconstruction with expansion ofasingle-familydwellingonanon-conformingundersizedlot. roundup on Cape Cod Tuesday and Boston consulate, "and so are we, she added,is that"they are herein rity Administration, the state De- "Now we face a ver difficult challenge,"O'Keefe bui It 4 The property is shown on Assessor's Map 245, Parcel 007, addressed 148 Inwood Lane, Cape Comment..............4 y �T Y Gre t kite a �e CTA �TS p held for failing to obey final or- in the sense that we are aware of violation of immigration law in partment of Motor Vehicles, the told his supporters and went on to emphasize, "The I :' Hyannis Port, MA in a.Residential D-1 Zoning District. �. Editorial...........................4 ders of deportation. the concern that it raises among some fashion." She said she ex- 7:30 P.M. Lewis/Reilly Appeal 2002-114 '"' Continued on page 9 arour hero INTO ■ � " � William H.Lewis,tll,and Thomas Reilly have applied for a Variance under Section 3-1.4(5) Events Calendar.....19-20 Maria Grenier,spokesperson for the Brazilians." pests that deportation is likely p $ Continued on page 6 m Is ;,. �� Bulk Regulations, Minimum lot frontage. The property Is shown on Assessor's Map 217, „ � y j(� ��� Parcel 024,commonly addressed as 67 Pilots Way,Barnstable,MA in a Residential FZoning Health Report...............15 JEJJ District. c Le gals.............................12 7:30 P.M. Lewis/Reilly Appeal 2002-115 $ / , + r �fj1'. �artl�ta�re �atriuY� William H.Lewis,III,and Thomas Reilly have filed an appeal of the Building Commissioner. Letters..............................5 , 1 c+1•According to the application,theyarerequestingthattheBoardfindthatanaccessroadfrom OLear f gelds challen In Les(,ion allow Pla in ................21 s t Barnstable High School Pilots Waycrossing land of an abutterand overthe Penn Central Railroad provides sufficientyg Y �J j Fall Financial frontage for building purposes. The property to be developed is shown on Assessor's Ma • 9 9 P rP P P Y P p Obifivartes.....................14 . 217 as Parcel 024,commonly addressed as 67 Pilots Way, Barnstable in a Residential F Planning Guide Patriot Puzzle...............23 Zoning District. On Wednesday, O'Leary engaged politicians in the press are part of 7:45 P.M. Industrial Communications/Sprint rint Spectrum Students test Cape P P Real Estate:..............16-17 p in some lively Q&A with acorn- the perception problem. Appeal 2002-116 PP "It's < .> _.< ... ._.:: ,...:>., ,: :.:.. ....< -.>. bined World History Honors Class s remarkable Reh tous Services .......15 Y you et P. / /a S nn PCSY g .v ,... �i� ar�®6Il)nl �a3t>l� In steal Communications&Electronics,Ina and S not S ectrum,L. d b g � � ,.: ,,,::. ,: >:.. f �, ,; _: :: •• .'..'. du P P P Islands Senator a, m an d an AP U.S. History Class at in .,... , ,.. .... .,... . .>... ... ,. _ _ , to public office and .... . ......:�,..� § - _ .:.:, �. .,::- ;, ;;. ,;>.:•:.» .r ,:.. II for a Variance to Section 3 1.4(5)Bulk Regulations,30 foot height restrictions. � Y P you're s.: a .-•. ... ;:;i.., ,. .. ..F; �° ..: _..:.,.,� ;: ;> has applied 9 9 Video Review...............21 � f othi hmono olewirelesstelecommurncatlon Barnstable High School. sudden) person," The applicants propose to construct a 180 o g p g y ; o an e o to ic� seen as a bad . ..._ __ Weaither.........................12 d< � �.>: ;- :: ... *•-�::. 4s .ft.building. ro ert is shown on Assessor's Ma 099, Parcel f � first-term facility 1,36 q g p p y p g / p O'Leary opened with remarks pointed out the state r s' CIl sale October 18 061-001, commonly addressed Bourgeois.Lane, Marstons Mills, MA in a Residential F lamenting the lack of turnout in the senator and former Barnstable s •""; Zoning District. B Mark Mumford previous da 's primary elects 7:45 P.M. Industrial Communications/Sprint Spectrum �Ctjearngta�Cedtrlot y P Y P Y on. County commissioner. Appeal 2002-117 "We do not appreciate the It.took the students about 15 x ' ,-> You certainly have no reason to , :.> L.P.d/b/a Spring PCS institutions we have,Industrial Communications&Electronics,Inc.and Sprint Spectrum, . PP 9 � ;; .. a e,and its minutes to warm to the task of ,.<., ,.... �=° �•� ;: be embarrassed it you didn't realize has applied in accordance with Section 5-3.2(5)for a Use Variance to Section 3-1.4(1) ` ' Y tragic, said the senator. asking questions,but once they got - Princi al Permitted Uses to ermit use of the ro ert forwireless telecommunications and that we are wrapping u America's � � He placed at least a portion of the started,the momentum built quickly. �. P P P P Y i,.•'. PP g P construction of a 180-foot high monopole and 1,361 sq.ft.building. The property is shown t s �a'P Legislators Back to School Week. - b blame for the apparent voter apathy "How much do you allow voter on Assessors Map 099, Parcel 061-001,common) addressed Bourgeois Lane,Marstons t PP P Y y - Y g �>r �9' For someone with the back- �� Mills,MA in a Residential F Zoning District. at the media's doorstep. polls to influence your decision- " � � HYANNIS HANOVER These public hearings will be held at the Barnstable Town Hall,367 Main Street,Hyannis, ground of Cape and Islands State "I haven't seen a movie in 15 making on the job?"asked the first 3 201 Yarmouth Road Route 53, 1/2 mile off Exit 13 MA,Hearing Room,2nd Floor,Wednesday,October 9, 2002. Plans and applications may Senator Rob O'Leary, who has Toll Free: 1-800-649-2221 Tel: 781 829-0810 Y pp y years that doesn't show a politician student to summon the initiative to ( l be reviewed at the Planning Division,Zoning Board of Appeals Office,Town Offices 200 taught history at the Massachusetts Your New Best Friend... • as an idiot,"O'Leary said. raise a hand. Tel: (508) 771-2221 Fax: (781) 829 6735 Main Street, Hyannis,MA. Maritime Academy for many years, The students and the senator "I'm coin to equivocate," MARK MUMFORD PHOTO An p I i a n c e S & Fax: (508) 771-2365 Mon. Tues. &Fri. l 0am-7pm Log on to �, it's a week that provides a good going q BACK:TO SCHOOL SENATOR-Cape and Islands State Daniel M.Creedon,Chairman O shared some common ground in responded O'Leary. "I'lhlisten p Senator Rob Mon. thru Fri. gam-6pm Wed. &Thurs. 10am-9pm www.puebio.gsa.gov, Zoning Board of Appeals �� reason to spend some time in Cape feeling that what they see as O'Leatrywith historydepartment chairman David Bennett's Advanced classrooms. constant negative stories about Continued on page 12 PlacetmentU.S.Histo class atBatnstabl Nome Electronics Sat. gam-5pm, Sun.12-5pm Sat. l 0am-5pm,Sun.12-5pm and c1ick on the FREE The Barnstable Patriot h�jt p Consumer Action Website..=� September 20,and September 27, 2002 y P $ 1y e High School Ori Wednesday. - www.biarnstablepatriot•com . — .. - W ,wry PACE 2 The 36arngtajble Vatrtot The Sarnotaible i9atriot SEPTEMBER 20,2002 SEPTEMBER 20,2002 PAGE 11 " • • • • ` t . � 11 ., I I'll . Pa -as- ou-throw comin to town In limited wa .... . "' .��,� � _� . .1 � � I...­`07� I - � � �,_ M_ � . 11 "I - �.". , �, lllnzl�­ I—- 1� ,�:1114:��,%�. f Y Y g Y ,:: yN - 11 ", __ _ _v� ' each unit of waste discarded rather from within the town's customer same old sticker." I 1�I- ' Transfer station dinner at 7:30.Casino games begin at than paying a fixed fee per house- base on which to make a decision.It The landfill operates as an enter- t t By Patriot Staff hold. It gives residents a financial will also provide something more prise fund, which means all of its10 ,,. _ 9 ,p.m. For tickets, call 508-3b2- users ma et t0 incentive to reduce their waste important: opinions. revenuesu ortcomesfromthefees scare of 2002 0111....Windmills on Their Minds/ P P PP The great barracuda sc e through rec clip com osting and Ells said that artici ants will be it char es.Ells said that it could be Free Clinic fund raiser Windsurfer r knew it ex Battle Lines Drawn Over a Source of b Y g. p b° p p g S t0 ace was over before anyone take art in trial , CAPE C-11 ID source reduction. It is also seen as surveyed on the program upon its that$1 per bag is too much and the The Cape Cod Free Clinic in The Cape Cod Windsurfers As- �� F isted. In late July, the state Depart- Power That Some Say Obstructs a P P program an equitable system of disposal be- completion. unit price should be lower. All of Falmouth will bold it's Second sociation Fall Race Series is now ment of Public Health issued an advi- Gorgeous View. Was this a story (in r cause residents a based on use, At a workshop sponsored onsored b the those decisions will come from in- An important t sory to Massachusetts residents "to the Aug. 28 New York Times) about r pay P P Y Annual Golf Tournament Oct.7 at in full swing. To take part in the which is www.MassWildlife.org. options dealing with the various as management nightmare. Who would not an all-in-one fee. Department of Environmental Pro- formation gathered during the pro- the Ocean Course of New Seabur 'next.race,being held Sept. 29 and There is also another occurrence that ects of managing stri ed bass.There kee an e e on this?The Coast Guard refrain from eating barracuda." Cape Wind's plan fora wind park on B David Still II Assistant DPW Superintendent tection in May,officials from across gram trial. Y g hearing on striped P g a P P Y Apparently information.and concern Nantucket Sound?Nope. The setting y P Y• � Country Club. Individual partici- 29;meet at West Dennis Beach in � �J unfortunately seems to have become are several options that are aimed at is now so busy their enforcement of is Cheri Valle N.Y.,about 10 miles Mark Ells said that there's no free the Cape were told that successful The cost of administering the pi- pation is $200 and a foursome is West Dennis. The next race takes almost an annual fall event,and that is addressing the definition of overfish- commercial fishing in the EEZ has had been raised about ciguatera fish Y Y• Does anyone out there want to be 1 b lunch with this program and partici- pay-as-you-throw programs had the lot program is seen as negligible. $700, which includes greens fees, lace Oct.5 and 6 at Kalmus Beach bass the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries ing The first of the three options is a been drastically reduced. poisoning in Massachusetts and the north of the Baseball Hall of Fame in a guinea pig for trash? g P b P Y pants would be required to purchase benefit of an extended public edu- While a full program would require elf carts, lunch,dinner and a gift in Hyannis followed b a race on Commission hearing to change the conservative approach, the second is If you have an interest in;or con- ' northeast. So the question arises: Cooperstown.The state is backing the More specifically, is there an g g Y Y g g PP y y P Y• y a lower-priced sticker, somewhere cation and awareness campaign.Ells some additional staff, it is felt that acka e. S onsorshi s are also Oct. 12 and 13, also at Kalmus striped bass regulations.The ASMFC less conservative, while the third cerns about,.. the management of Who's eating barracuda, anyway`? 27-unit project planned for a 1,900- one out there who would like to package. Sponsorships B rerr C.Tessein P g in the $40 range, and then pay to believes that getting residents to the Solid Waste Division can handle available.Proceeds from the event Beach. To et race confirmation y y is once again tinkering with the bass would raise the recreational and com- striped bass, you should attend the There are a number of recipes avail- toot-high ridge with a $17 million ' participate in apay-as-you-throw g g g p dispose on a per-bag basis. understand and accept the concept it from within its current ranks. helpprovide health care to unin- information,call 508-778-7105 the I ust love this time of the year.Both management along the Atlantic coast. mercial harvest. The ASMFC also is hearing n able on the Web, but most places of- grant. Opinion in the area is divided, pilot program at the Barnstable resi- P J Y g g b o September 24th. To help The trial will allow the solid waste will be key if the program is fully Beyond the cost of implementa- sured adults in the community.For day of the race. fresh and saltwater angling picks u as I say tinkering because there seems lookking at options for their planning you understand some of what is being fering sportfishing for these toothy with the great-great-grandson of au- dential transfer station? Y' Y g 0P P Y b t, P P b Y b thor James Fenimore Coo er amon division to gain experience in just implemented. tion, however, the town could be information, call 508-540-7075. the fish become more active before to be a feelingamongthe people re- horizon that would be either ever resented go the Web site for the predators advise against eating them P g If a pilot program is approved by ' how customers would use such a "There has to be an educational come ineligible for Municipal Recy- Natural body building the winter sets in.Man of the saltwa- s onsible for the striped P P Y P b for the very reason cited by the DPH. the critics.The story by Glen Collins the town council, the solid waste Blue ROCK golf tourneyY P t ped bass within yeatr or every three years; the later Coastal Conservation Association — system and how best to price it if it program that parallels the pilot pro- cling Incentive Program(MRIP)grant What also may not be well known (it notes that there is"an urgency on the division will be looking for 100 to Blue Rock Golf Course in South Conference ter species are getting ready to migrate the ASMFC that they can manage these option would mean less tinkering. Massachusetts.They have put together moves ahead to full implementa- gram,"Ells said,acknowledging that . assistance through DEP if a pay-as- wasn't to us) is that Massachusetts is part of wind prospectors to get projects 200 users of the transfer station to - The Eighth Annual Cape Cod south and are fueling up for the trip.A fish to a very close tolerance, and on Then there are the numerous options a handy document on understanding lion. there's still another problem facing you-throw program is not started. Yarmouth will host the 3rd An local and On 6Anearm house almost a earl basis. This writer be- for Rhe allocations to the recreational what is in the FMP. It is called An part ofthe fish's northern range....They up and running, because a govern- join a six-month trial "I think we'll eta good indica- the town. "We're still onlyservic- The one perk for participants is nual Cape Cod Women's Golf Natural Bodybuilding Champion- P Y yearly must be playing Can You Top This? merit subsidy —a 1.8-cent-per-kilo- Pay-as-you-throw,or unit-unit-priced g g o P P P ships will be held at Cape Cod is filled with ducks and geese. That lieves it is just the illusion of preci- and commercial harvests, the ocean Angler's Guide to Amendment 6.Yes, P lion from our customers,"Ells said. mb about one third of the residen- that they will get a tree recycling Championship Sept. 30 through p' p over at the Cape Wildlife Center and watt-hour production tax credit that disposal, programs are being pro- "We don't know w Oct. 1. Open to both professional Community College Oct. 5. Pre- must mean the fall hunting season is sion.It seems like ever few years they versus the bay areas;and such.This is they list their stand on the options, o how many bags tial properties." container and free waste disposal P p judging begins at noon when tick- about to gel. under way. Who says are making adjustments, and usually sornewhat complicated and I believe but the guide is a clear and straight- Orcnda Wildlife Land Trust.News of helps make wind-tower operation prof- moted by the Department of Envi- our customers bring in." The remainder of the town's resi- for the rest of the year after the six- and amateur golfers,there will be J g g g P C the groups' Sept. 27 "Back to the itable —expires at the end of 2003." ronmental Protection in an effort to ets may be purchased at the door these waterfowl are not smart?They to increase the harvest. It takes a ma- the language in the FMP to be such forward explanation of Amendment Ells said that it's important to get dential customers contract with pri- month trial is over.If the pilot pro- tour divisions.The.fee for profes- Wild" gala just keeps getting more The Cape Wind project is mentioned, reach the slate's waste reduction for$IO.The5:30p.m.performance know the locations that can't be hunted. jor disaster before they take action that it is difficult for the average per- 6 that is unbiased and concise. You a good cross section of transfer sta- vale haulers. The town council ap- gram is approved by the town coup- sionals is $150; amateurs will be Fresh water anglers look forward to toward a more conservative approach. son to understand it. Additional] can print out our co of the guide if amazing. The guest of honor, Oleg as is a proposal for turbines off goals. Barnstable has investigated is $20 or $25 for both perfor- g PP y, p y copy b b lion users,not just recyclers or high proved a recycling ordinance last cil, the Solid Waste Division will charged $95. Fees include two Cassini, is the man who conspired Montauk on Lon Island that was mances.Advanced tickets,by Sept. another fall event as well.This is when The public hearing on the draft there is the problem of"reading be- you go to www.cca-ma.com and click P g pay-as-you-throw program since generators of household trash,but a year that requires all haulers to of- begin looking for participants from rounds of golf,practice range balls, MassWildlife,conducts their fall stock- Amendment 6 to the Inter with Jacqueline Kennedy to give a "halted after residents claimed that 1999;andacommitteewasa ointed 29, are $20 for both shows. For state Fishery tween the lines" as to the implica- on Amendment 6,which is located on PP little bit of everything. Gate atten- fer recycling services, but there is within the ranks of current users. refreshments, prizes, trophies, sense of style to the First Lady's they would spoil the view.".... Jim b the town council in 2000. ticket information, call 508-385- in-.The exact numbers of trout to be Management Plan (FMP) for Striped lions of each option, if implemented. the left-hand side of the screen.Read _ O'Connell former economic devel- y dants will maintain records of the no obligation on the art of private Those interested are asked to con closing awards ceremony and a wardrobe. But the Kennedy connec The idea is simple:encourage re- g P 9798. The conference is a drug- stocked in state waters is yet to be Bass is scheduled for September 24th Additionally, within in the plan are it,attend the hearing and let ASMFC comings and goings and drop-offs customers to take it. tact Ells (508-862-4090) or Solid buffet luncheon. A portion of the tion doesn't stop there. Senator Ted o mentofficerfortheCa Cape free-for-life organization. Poly- released, as well as the allocation for at the Holiday Inn,Dedham.It will be three options relative to fishing for know how you feel about a very im- P P cycling though economics. It is a of program participants over the six With about 7.200 customers,Ells Waste Supervisor Glenn Santos proceeds benefits the Si lent Spring Kennedy is chairman of the honorary mission, is working for the National _ graph tests are administered prior the various districts.The stocking will held in the Conference Center at 7 striped bass in the Exclusive Economic portant plan that will affect striper system in which residents pay for months,which will provide hard data said that about7,000"will have their (508-420-2258). Institute.For information,call 508 notbe in until watertem temperatures drop m.The Holiday Inn is located at 55 Zone EEZ or keeping it closed.The anglers for generations. benefit committee, and has offered a Park Service in Boston nowadays,but 398-9295.Entry forms are on-line to the competition and use of ste- g P P P Y (EEZ) p b C, b framed print of his serigraph of the his thoughts don't stray far from the roids or diuretics is prohibited. sufficiently to ensure the trout's sur- Ariadne Road,at the junction of I-95/ EEZ is the federal waters from beyond view from the Hyannis Port compound. Cape. His Becoming Cape Cod/Cre- at www.bluerockgolfcourse.com. vival.MassWildlife will post the num- Route 128 and Route IA. a state's three-mile limit,out 200miles. Terry C.Tessein is afreelance outdoor writer Hunter education in There are many more unique items to ating a Seaside Resort will be pub- , • • BUS1neSS Women t0 hers of trout slated for stocking and The hearing's objective is to col- This writer feels that opening up the and photographerfront East Sandwich who Kurker s Doeksda ex an i nOK'dn mgolf for a cause Sandwich the locations shortly on their Web site, lest public comment on a number of EEZ to striper fishing would create a does regular workfor several magazines. be had at the benefit auction, which lished by the University Press of New S o co co begins with a reception at 6 p.m. and England later this month... The Shawme Fish and Game1 The Falmouth Business& Pro- - 1 fessional Women's Organization Club,Route 130 in Sandwich,will ����������������' ����������������� Ownershipbattle tained to ensure the viability of what the commis- and the marina at the bottom.The coastal bank will will hold its third annual golf tour- hold,a free hunter education course FOR THE NEWS THIAT AFFECTS YOU, SUBSCRIBE TO... t/ sion approved. To protect that interest, the com- see limited disturbance from what now exists, al- nament Sept. 29 in Sandwich at Sept.30,Oct.2,4,7,9 and i l from Y 0 U R w 0 R L D continues in court mission will be something of an enforcing author- though the planned building will encroach on the 1:15 p.m. with a shotgun start at 6:30 to 9 p.m. Students must at, r • • ity on the compliance with the order's terms at the bank's buffer area. the Sandwich Hollows Golf Club tend all sessions. Successful YOUR CHA , J NCE TO Ng igbe � �� ���outset, but also in future years. The commission Still at issue for the project is ownership of the, on Round Hill Road in East Sand- completion of the course fulfillsH annis East Scholarshi B David Still II will consult and take advice from theharbormaster's ro ert ,somethin that the conservation commis- the re uirements established by MAKE IT BETTER.Y P P Y g wick. The fee, $t10, includes a q office on such matters. sion chose not to address. Kurker,who owns Hy- golf' c art, greens tees and award Mass General Law to make applii- POST OFFICE BOX 1 208, HYANNIS, MA 02601 • 771-1427 The decision was a long time coming, but last "It just seemed to be essential to go this way," annis Marina, has a signed purchase and sales ' dinner. Proceeds benefit commu- cation for a Class A or B License __ Fund Gol Tournament Week Wayne Kurker got the answer he was hoping Gatewood said in an interview last week. a reement on the ro ert from Stuart Bornstein, to Carr Firearms or a Firearms ❑ $29.00 ONE YEARt ❑ $53.00 TWO YEARS for from the Barnstable Conservation Commission g property Y nity seervice programs.Guests may Y The order also requires that public access to the trustee of Shoestring Limited Partnership, which`-- attend the dinner for$25. For in- Identification Card.For details,call NAME There's still time to get in to the 1st Annual Hyannis East Schol- on his plans to renovate and expand the former docks and waterfront be maintained. owns the marina and an acre of land. Bornstein is _ formaition, call 508-564-5051. 508-792-7434. www.AMERiCORPS.OR6 Dockside Marina on Hyannis Inner Harbor. As for the work, Kurker will move the finger not honoring the P&S,however,indicating that his 1.88t1.942.2677 STREET arship Fund Golf Tournament, which kicks off Saturday morning at g g g j8 a.m.The event features a shotgun start at Twin Brooks Golf Course, Ina 4-2 vote, the commission approved a care piers out 25 feet into the channel area,allowing for understanding of Kurker's plans at the time the TOWN STATE ZIP Sheraton Hyannis. The$75 per player fee includes the round of golf, fully-crafted order of conditions for the project some larger boats and a more efficient configura agreement was reached did not envision the marina drafted by conservation staff. TELEPHONE a"Courtyard Barbeque"and a donation to the Hyannis East Scholar- tion of the docks. He will also make sure that the expansion and accessory bath house/attendants quar- Conservation administrator Rob Gatewood, the a r ���1�����������������ship Fund. existing pumpout on the site,which has never been tern. 107 , primary author of the order of conditions,sand that - , If you are interested, please contact the school (508-790-6485),or operational, will be put into service. Kurker took Bornstein to court in an attempt to the project presented a unique set of circumstances 0 Toila Laura n - The question that hung the and Gordy MacNeill at 508 778 6814. We have room for only q g commission up was enforce the provisions of the agreement,and seeks � Vft and therefore required a unique set of conditions. he w 72 players "1* . that of coastal bank which rises from a paved to compel there execution of the 1 million sale.p P P xe _ $ % 4 , Y « _ w' endure over _:. We tried to set it up so it would . , krkrn lot to the Dockside Restaurant.Thelot for Ana cal of the conservation decision is also, wexplained.' In articular P g PP the long term, Gate wood . particular,, q1eck out our zve it gw .fi ' 1 1,1 r, TAT % b e,04 r F 1 6 r stable atrZot.co the marina was carved out of-a larger lot that once expected. ' BOy G6Y6 Athletes Of the Week the project includes,dredging that must be main- included both the restaurant on the top of the hill J11 _ GREG HILL ,. i �ir a s f R; PAID ADVERTISEMENT PAID ADVERTISEMENT PAID ADVERTISEMENT The senior quarterback led the assault at Durfee < in the Red Raiders' season-opening victory last W1.1.1.1.1.1.r. . " ' / 1 • I ' 1 V Friday evening in Fall River. Hill threw for two Polart* touchdowns and ran for two more in the 27-7 N. `lashing. �­ _:;,�r:rr_ ­,,,:��e �:,� re . � Myth: en�coura ' commercial ig n e r r ��r.I �� .. development will move the � burden V r a W � ����,���'�,, ," I . ��x,��j�:,:]�:rrrr,l ,, ,r,:: ,; ry :a p I , 1, r:r .-Ir 61 11", Y,r r .0 1 �_� ­6­ "'.-I I .� I e-�;� I3 off the back oaf the residential �j �j ,,_�:,r I taxpayer. {/// /�(/ CZ F F 11 1111� Ca eLite Account 'm q� Not all commercial alnd industrial land uses are e ual. Some .� Y ', fiscally benefit a y conllmunity, but some cause fiscal deficits, 311 which actually increases the burden to the taxpayer, causing Qd 0. Cod Cooperative Bank is pleased to introduce its new relationship ;, housing shortages, sustainable wage gaps, and fiscally chal- aocot�l #. `Now the more relationships you have with us, the more benefits �" � r F :; }ou'�i get,frorrl us! 1. "` lenged communities. Educated communities encourage land • 1. :1. 11.1­6 11� z � REBECCA NORTON uses that a for themselves and actually make a positive I maintain''a combined balance with your checking account and pay , gims�s# any ofiher type of account and here are just a few of the benefits Norton scored the only goal in each of two contribution to the community.yC}U3•ii get: Barnstable 1-0 victories. The first game winning e 6. £ goal for the senior came in last Friday's win at home over Taunton and the second one was even l+ree 4hlinle and 66 Telephone BahlCing Does your community know which land uses more dramatic, coming with one second left at i ► '�'' (* a Bill Parhehtr. lnwPlymouth South on Tuesday. ( l 7 S r, Wd Rates ' make cents sic for them. • 6 Act un#s on Auto and'Personal Loans . Presented By • ped#cpted telephone,nuniber and email address:to service all .6 y6:i financial needs Cathy Connolly, Registered Polarity Practitioner And lrriveh,r.MUCH morel ,r r I ,r, . I -,r: ,­:�­- Fear " 'ti©n, slap in, gall or visi# us + nine! 16. FAST RELIEF Ttleres ly On IV . 66.6 1: This Forum is Free and Open to the Public! I I,,,r,�,,,,�,,,,,,,,�r I r.lj� y'rI S W h at M P h I I T uit Posit The "8t elcionship� Y Ys ca herapy & - - We�nesd� ... 11. y Chiropractic Trainin Will Do IrlEver a l"` H a V e. ~ g Invest in Series I Bonds.They re �5 CH/R Fo r Yo u! safe.They're guaranteed to September 25, 20�210 6­1r .16,rl 6­6ty�p 10 stay ahead of inflation for 30 =_V years.And you can get started t ? .:,5 c� Dr. Bruce FernandeS with just$50.visit us at F�0 —�O1%1, www.savingsbonds.gov to find 35 Winter Street, HyannisC0 u n i t 0 Cape Regency Rehabilitation &Nursing Center "N' + y .�� a out more. .Mt',�,11'1.�,ili r. Call Today (508) 790-3863 120 South Main Street, Centerville, MA www.lphysic'ansofcapecod.com/Fernandeschiropractic , ' Bob cft Polarity Energy Balancing is a li tit touch ¢ '£ � ✓ !Jy !JOOP f eer}anc Nr Cris a Safe Plain to Gmw Y �,� ; o. .a•�� x rC� technique that works to bring the life energies www.savingsbonds.gov r o the god into a state o balance.- A ublic service of this newspaper r _�, 3 „ r ' Polarity Thera A y; , f y fy py A �„Q k`'Ut p p pe ' Knfow the Market. Know the Town. / ! i relaxes the luhole person. This enables ��k� •x3. p l s the . . , _ Yarrtuth F©rt fast Rentlis', Wes#8drltstakle t wi Sv d ch Hyannis c .:$. �r restoration of the body, through its own natural Only in l . r,j y M:. � , ert��tf��re �trtot ■ ability and intelligence, to haal itself. ctpClne+ ttn III paces ' o 0 Subscribe Today w W W, g O t C O m m u n t O r 1.,1:1 rr TE� � � Independent&Locally Owned Since 1830 y g www cap�ecocco6r op com (508) 7 1 /� �J Refreshments will be Served. Member FDlty 4 Barnstable Rd.,Hyannis,MA 02601 .508t'771-1427•Fax 508/790-3497 �71 1Z / Smart Planning and Growth Coalition Memtorr,SIF i�N'�ea E-mail:barnpat@cape.com•www.barnstablepatriot.com 426 North Street o Hyannis, MA 02601