Draft M-020823 February 8, 2023Page 1 of 7 1
Zoning Board of Appeals
MINUTES
Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:00 PM
To all persons interested in or affected by the actions of the Zoning Board of Appeals, you are hereby notified, pursuant to Section
11 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and all amendments thereto, that a public hearing
on the following appeals will be held on Wednesday, February 8, 2023, at the time indicated.
Call to Order
Chair Jake Dewey calls the meeting to order at 7:03 PM with an introduction of Board Members.
Also in attendance: Anna Brigham – Principal Planner, Charlie McLaughlin – Assistant Town Attorney, and Genna Ziino – Administrative Assistant
Notice of Recording
Please note that this meeting is recorded and broadcast on Channel 18 an d in accordance with MGL Chapter 30A §20. I must inquire
whether anyone is taping this meeting and to please make their presence known.
Time Extension Request
7:00 PM Appeal No. 2021-066 Manzi
Request by Attorney Jennifer E. Carey, on behalf of Manzi Cotuit Trust and Slow Marsh One Nominee Trust, for a six (6) month
extension of time in which to exercise Appeal No. 2021-066 granted for a Variance. The Variance was granted in order to allow an
adjustment to lot lines between two lots and is currently scheduled to lapse on February 14, 2023. The subject property is located at
1446 and 1462 Main Street, Cotuit, MA as shown on Assessor’s Map 017 as Parcels 013 and 021. It is located in the Residence F (RF)
Zoning District.
Sitting on this is Chair Dewey, Paul Pinard, Herb Bodensiek, Aaron Webb, and Mark Hansen.
Attorney Jennifer Carey is representing the applicant. She informs the Board that nothing about this app eal has changed. Land Court
has just not approved it yet. Herb Bodensiek moves to grant the extension to August 14, 2023. Paul Pinard seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Mark Hansen, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard
Nay: None
Variance No. 2021-066 Manzi received a six-month extension to August 14, 2023.
Minutes
January 25, 2023 and July 27, 2022. Mark Hansen makes a motion to approve both sets of minutes. Aaron Webb seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Mark Hansen, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard, Denise Johnson
Nay: None
Old Business
7:01 PM Appeal No. 2022-021 Vuilleumier
Louis Vuilleumier has filed an appeal of an Administrative Official’s Decision in accordance with Section 240-88 Appeals. The Building
Commissioner issued a Notice of Zoning Violation and Order to Cease & Desist on March 3, 2022 which stated that the total num ber
Member Present Absent
Dewey, Jacob X
Bodensiek, Herbert X
Pinard, Paul X
Hansen, Mark X
Walantis, Todd X
Johnson, Denise X
Webb, Aaron X
Page 2 of 7 2
of dwelling units are four: three units in the main dwelling and one in the detached barn /workshop are a zoning violation under
Chapter 240-11 A. (1) in the RF-2 Residence F-2 Zoning District. The subject property is located at 4380 Main Street, Barnstable, MA
as shown on Assessors Map 351 as Parcel 042. It is located in the Residence F-2 (RF-2) Zoning District. Continued from December 7,
2022. Members assigned were Dewey, Bodensiek, Hansen, Pinard, Webb.
Attorney Chuck Sabbat is representing the applicant. Since the last meeting, he and his client met with the Building Commissioner to
try and find an alternate pathway to establish legal use of Mr. Vuilleumier’s units. They now want to file an application for a special
permit for an ADU. They are asking for another continuance for two months to get that together. Chair Dewey makes a motion to
continue this to April 12, 2023. Paul Pinard seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Mark Hansen, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard
Nay: None
Appeal No. 2022-021 Vuilleumier is continued to April 12, 2023.
7:02 PM Appeal No. 2022-054 Vilsaint
Kevin Y. Vilsaint and Corrie L. Vilsaint have applied for a Special Permit pursuant to 240-47.1.B. (4) Family Apartments. The
Applicants are seeking to demolish an existing 1,384 square foot accessory structure and construct a new 1,384 square foot
detached family apartment. The subject property is addressed as 358 Flint Street, Marstons Mills, MA as shown on Assessor’s Map
101 as Parcel 121. It is located in the Residential F (RF) Zoning District. Continued from January 11, 2023.
The Board received a letter request to withdraw without prejudice. Chair Dewey makes a motion to accept the withdrawal without
prejudice. Herb Bodensiek seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Mark Hansen, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard, Denise Johnson
Nay: None
Special Permit No. 2022-054 Vilsaint is withdrawn without prejudice.
New Business
7:03 PM Appeal No. 2022-055 Ciluzzi
John E. Ciluzzi, Trustee of Woods Beech Leaf Island Trust, has filed an appeal of an Administrative Official’s Decision in ac cordance
with M.G.L 40A §15 and Barnstable Zoning Ordinance Sections 240-88, 240-90 and 240-91 Appeals. The Petitioner seeks to overturn
the Building Permit Denial Letter of the Building Commissioner dated November 4, 2022. In the Building Permit Denial Letter, the
Building Commissioner stated the Petitioner did not demonstrate conformance with the Zoning Ordinance §240 -11 and that the lot
does not have the required land area and that the application lacked evidence that would show that it benefits from the singl e-lot
exemption under M.G.L. 40A §6. The subject property is located at 149 Beech Leaf Island Road, Centerville, MA as shown on
Assessors Map 187 as Parcel 063-005. It is located in the Residence D-1 (RD-1) Zoning District.
Sitting on this is Chair Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard, and Denise Johnson. Mark Hansen disclosed that the
petitioner’s mother is his neighbor, so recused himself.
Attorney Jeff Johnson is representing the applicant. He tells the Board that his client was before the Board in 2017 trying to make
this lot buildable, which ultimately was denied. They appealed to Land Court, and that is still pending. As part of that process, the
judge asked the applicant to come back to the Building Commissioner with their new theory of buildability. They submitted their
new materials to Commissioner Florence, who was not satisfied. Attorney Johnson is now addressing those concerns. Regarding the
gaps Commissioner Florence is concerned about, they are from trusts from the 80’s and 90’s that were used for checkerboarding the
lots in question. The records from the trusts are lost. The subdivision was originally developed by the Silvia brothers (Silvia & Silvia),
who checkerboarded the lots between two corporations. They then gave a deed in lieu to some limited partnerships controlled by
Cape Cod Bank and Trust, who sold the lots to Brian Dacey, as trustee of three different trusts. Commissioner Florence was looking
for whether the Silvia brothers were linked to any of those trusts. Attorney Johnson submitted an affidavit from Brian Dacey stating
that he does not know who the beneficiaries of the trusts in question were, but he knows he was careful to separate the lots and the
Silvia brothers were not the beneficiaries.
Attorney Johnson argues that all the lots have maintained checkerboarding except one small period of time between 1994 and 1995,
when Marjorie Woods owned both 520 South Main Street and lot 7 on the Land Court plan. But he suggests that the language of the
Page 3 of 7 3
bylaw says the lots wouldn’t merge during that time: the final clause of section A of 240-91 says, “was separately owned at the time
of every zoning change which made it nonconforming.” He is arguing that only the day of the zoning change is significant. There
were two zoning changes pertinent: the last day of February 1985 and November of 2000. The properties were not commonly held
on either of those dates.
He believes the lots could be separately buildable under 4 ideas: single lot exception; common lot exception; that adding a piece of
property to 520 South Main Street would have destroyed the vesting; and that this lot has commonly planned protection. He
presents the Board with a flow chart1 of who owned what and when, to support his argument that suggests that commonality of
ownership matters only on the date of a zoning change.
Chair Dewey brings it back to the Board for questions. Paul Pinard requests the town attorney’s opinion on the legal arguments.
Chair Dewey opens for public comment. Attorney David Reid is representing five abutters: Mr. and Mrs. Cirillo; Mr. and Mrs.
Gerlovin; Dr. and Mrs. Rigobon; RADM and Mrs. Robinson; and Mr. and Mrs. Delaney. Attorney Reid doesn’t believe initial
grandfathering provisions would have offered protection in this instance because of the subsequent common ownership by the
Woods family. The provision Attorney Johnson is relying on does not mean protection of grandfathered lots cannot be lost if one
chooses to acquire adjoining land and one or both parcels is nonconforming. When Marjorie Woods owned both lots, they would
have been merged. Regarding the argument for single lot protection: the trusts involved in the checkerboarding scheme (Silvia and
Silvia Associates Incorporated and Beech Leaf Island Incorporated) were identical and both owned by the Silvia brothers. It would
not be exempt from the zoning change in 2000 either, because at that time the Woods family owned both properties. The argument
for multi-lot protection involves the same concern that the Silvia brothers owned both trusts and therefor e did not successfully
checkerboard. Regarding the protection from a subdivision freeze, Attorney Reid believes the lots were under common control. If
the information on the trusts is unavailable, the applicant cannot prove they were not commonly controlled. Attorney Reid
additionally believes a notice of appeal must specify the grounds for appeal in the notice. This was not done by Attorney Johnson. He
provided no new information until almost two months after the deadline for notice had passed. Secondly, in 2015 the Woods
children who owned the lots applied for a variance to unmerge the lots (they ultimately withdrew). They acknowledged it had
merged and asked for relief. The lots merged in 1994 when Marjorie Woods became the sole owner of both properties.
Chris Lothrop of 520 South Main St. addresses the Board. He purchased his property in January of 2021. Prior to purchase, he was
informed of the ongoing legal issues. He spoke to the owners of 149 Beech Leaf Island Road and said he would be willing to buy the
unbuildable lot, but was told it was under contract. He doesn’t want to see the property developed. He and his attorney, Attorney
Finegold out of New Bedford, made an offer to buy the existing contract or property, but it didn’t happen. He is frustrated by the
repeating process of applying and appealing the buildability of the lot.
Building Commissioner Brian Florence says this is a simple case of missing documents. He never reached the technical merits that
Attorneys Johnson and Reid are discussing, because his review of the corporate structures caused him to seek the schedule of
beneficiaries to establish control. The only way he can establish whether the lots have merged it to identify who controlled them.
Instead of a schedule of beneficiaries, Attorney Johnson provided the affidavit that discusses who Mr. Dacey believes were the
beneficiaries, but there is no definitive proof. The Commissioner is instructed that he “shall withhold a permit…if [a building or
structure] would be in violation of zoning ordinance.” Without the ability to follow the chain of ownership, he cannot say definitively
who was in control. At that point, there is nothing more he can do.
Paul Pinard asks if the Commissioner believes Attorney Reid’s argument about the missed time limit for the appeal grounds would
apply. The Commissioner says that is not for him to determine. Aaron Webb asks if there is no documentation to support finding an
answer, what can be done? The Commissioner says that is where the ZBA comes in. Aaron Webb feels unsure about whether it’s fair
to restrict the buildability of the lot, because now nothing can be done with it. Chair Dewey says Mr. Ciluzzi knew it wasn’t a
buildable lot before he purchased it, when his 2017 appeal was denied by the ZBA. Furthermore, the owner can apply to the ZBA for
a variance to build on the lot.
Assistant Town Attorney Charlie McLaughlin explains that this came back to the ZBA because the plaintiff said the theory of the case
had changed given further evaluation of theories that the lot was not merged. A decision was made by Land Court that it was best to
remand back to the Commissioner/town to avoid the applicant having to start from scratch. So it went back before the
Commissioner, was denied, and is now before the ZBA. From his perspective, in a nominee trust the control is with the beneficiaries.
The key mechanisms in this case are nominee trusts, and there is no information to identify who was in control of those trusts.
1 Link to flow chart:
https://itlaserfiche.town.barnstable.ma.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=874198&dbid=0&repo=TownOfBarnstable
Page 4 of 7 4
Paul Pinard asks again about whether Attorney Johnson’s appeal application was appropriate. Attorney McLaughlin says that will be
up to Land Court to decide—this case was on remand so he isn’t sure if the rules are the same for submitting a new theory versus an
entirely new application. Denise Johnson asks why this wasn’t resolved if the smaller property was sold recently. Attorney
McLaughlin can’t comment as he wasn’t involved in those transactions, but says people acquire unbuildable lots for various reasons .
The Board discusses some hypothetical situations of ownership and buildability, which Attorney McLaughlin deems irrelevant
because procedurally, establishing control needs to be the first step. Herb Bodensiek is against overturning.
Paul Pinard asks if there was common ownership, would the lots have merged. Attorney Johnson says no, the acre lot was vested
and adding to it destroys that vesting. He is arguing that the lots were successfully checkerboarded, and that Mr. Dacey’s affidavit is
sufficient proof that there was no common control. Paul Pinard disagrees.
Attorney Reid rebuts that a lot being vested doesn’t mean it can’t be merged. A lot won’t lose vested status by changing its square
footage or by reducing its nonconformity. Mr. Dacey’s affidavit doesn’t change the fact that there was subsequent common
ownership by Marjorie Woods, which results in the merger.
Admiral Harold Robinson of 155 Beech Leaf Island Road addresses the Board to say that the one Board member who voted to grant
the 2017 appeal had been concerned that the Woods daughters were reliant on the sale of the lot for their inheritance. At this point,
they’ve gotten their inheritance so he wants the Board to know that that issue is gone.
Chair Dewey says there were two letters submitted by Attorney Reid in opposition. Chair Dewey makes a motion to close public
comment. Paul Pinard seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard, Denise Johnson
Nay: None
The Board deliberates. Herb Bodensiek, Paul Pinard, and Denise Johnson are opposed. Aaron Webb is unsure. The Board discusses
whether the applicant could come before the ZBA with a request for a variance to build on the lot.
Chair Dewey makes a motion to uphold the Building Commissioner’s decision. Herb Bodensiek seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Paul Pinard, Denise Johnson
Nay: Aaron Webb
In Appeal No. 2022-055 Ciluzzi, the Building Commissioner’s decision is upheld.
7:04 PM Appeal No. 2023-001 Centerville Gardens II, LLC
Centerville Gardens II, LLC has petitioned for a Variance pursuant to Section 240-125 B. (1)(c) and (e) Variances; 240-107 Wireless
Requirements; Article IX Site Plan Review; and MGL Ch. 40A. The Petitioner seeks to construct a 110 foot above -ground level (AGL)
monopole-style tower with the capacity for at least four wireless communication services providers, together with related
amplifiers, cables, fiber, and other associated antenna equipment, to replace the existing tower at 1047 Falmouth Road where 30
feet is the maximum height. The subject properties are located at 36 Wequaquet Lane, Centerville, and 1060 Falmouth Road,
Hyannis, as shown on Assessor’s Map 250 as Parcels 023 -T00 and 023-H00, respectively. The parcels are located in the Residence D -
1 (RD-1) and Highway Business (HB) Zoning Districts, respectively.
Attorney Ed Pare, who is representing the applicant, requests that Chair Dewey read both Centerville Gardens appeals into the
record so he can present for both at the same time. The Chairman reads 2023-002 into the record:
7:05 PM Appeal No. 2023-002 Centerville Gardens II, LLC
Centerville Gardens II, LLC has applied for a modification of Special Permit 2012 -007 Condition No. 5, pursuant to Section 240-125 C.
and MGL Ch. 40A. The Applicant seeks to allow commercial activity and associated site improvements within the portion of the site
located within the RD-1 Zoning District. The subject properties are located at 36 Wequaquet Lane, Centerville, and 1060 Falmouth
Road, Hyannis, as shown on Assessor’s Map 250 as Parcels 023 -T00 and 023-H00, respectively. The parcels are located in the
Residence D-1 (RD-1) and Highway Business (HB) Zoning Districts, respectively.
Sitting on this is Chair Dewey, Paul Pinard, Herb Bodensiek, Aaron Webb, and Mark Hansen.
Page 5 of 7 5
Attorney Pare says he was before this Board in 1999 to zone the existing tower at 1047 Falmouth Road. That lease has run its
maximum term. Crown Castle, Inc. owns the tower and the infrastructure around the tower, and they lease space on the tower out.
Now they need to find a new location for the tower. They’ve gone through the Cape Cod Commission and gotten approval. He
explains that the lot at 1060 Falmouth Road is complicated because it’s in two villages and zoning districts, and has two addresses.
The special permit for that property had a condition that any updates would be on the Falmouth Road side, and there would be no
more buildout of the lot. There are no existing options for the tower. The lot was of interest because it’s already developed and has
parking right up to the residential portion. They are proposing a gravel access drive to the tower, with some vegetative screening
and an 8-foot high wooden fence.
He believes this is not commercial use, it’s infrastructure for public use. He walks the Board through the site plans. He explain s that
they shifted the tower to maintain a 110-foot fall zone from residential property lines. The site was previously developed with a
dwelling, so it’s predisturbed area. The tower will support the equipment of at least 4 carriers. They will implement acoustics
through a sound barrier in the fence. They identified how far properties are from the tower and the closest is 176 feet. It’s 319 ft.
from the face of the monopole to Route 28. Scott Adams, Civil Engineer with Advance Engineering is with Attorney Pare.
Chair Dewey clarifies whether the applicant is asking for a use variance. Attorney Pare says they are only asking for a height variance
because Barnstable allows the use of antennas. They discuss whether building in a fall zone is allowed. Attorney Pare ensures that
it’s allowed. Chair Dewey asks if all ground-mounted equipment is outside of the fall zone. Attorney Pare confirms.
They provided a noise study (humming noise is generated by backup generators). He directs the Board to Exhibit 8 of his submitted
packet, which reviews a crane test they conducted in December 2021. Chair Dewey asks about color. Attorney Pare says it’s
galvanized, and it will weather a bit. If they painted it, it would require maintenance. Mark Hansen asks if there were abutters with
concerns at the Commission’s hearings. Attorney Pare says yes, there were three or four and their concerns were addressed. There
were concerns about visibility; health impact (they are fully compliant and are at only 19% of the maximum allowance); and real
estate value, so they did a study (Exhibit 14 of submitted packet). Herb Bodensiek asks about fence height restriction. Attorney Pare
didn’t see any restrictions in the ordinance. Herb Bodensiek asks how cell reception will be for people close to the tower. Attorney
Pare says the short answer is they will have reception, but he has brought an expert who will explain more on that later.
Attorney Pare walks the Board through Exhibit 5 of his packet. It is a map of ATT’s current limited cell service coverage in the area
without a spot on the existing tower, and a depiction of the coverage if the tower is approved. It illustrates the need for the tower.
Sohail Usmani, who works for C Squared, further explains Exhibit 5. Once the current site is decommissioned, the new tower will
mimic that old one. To answer Herb’s earlier question, you may get less reception under the tower, but you would still get a signal.
George Valentine, a licensed real estate appraiser walks the Board through the real estate study. The purpose was to determine if
there would be a negative impact on surrounding property values. The methodology is to compare sales of properties close to
existing towers to properties sold without the presence of a tower. The most significant evidence locally was a condo sale in
Falmouth (Highfield). There was a 174-ft. tower put in 400 ft. from a condo. The sale price near the tower was actually slightly higher
than comparable condos. He never saw any evidence that there is diminution of value when towers are nearby.
Attorney Pare says the demand for wireless services has never been higher. This tower is driven by consumer demand. The rear
portion near the homes is well treed. His client has duly eliminated all other site options—this is the best they can do.
Chair Dewey brings it back to the Board for questions. Aaron Webb asks what’s wrong with the current location. Attorney Pare says
there were discussions between Crown Castle and the property owner but they did not reach an agreement. That tower is older and
his client is looking to add two more carriers so will need ground space for those too. Chair Dewey asks if the tower will be emitting
5g. Attorney Pare says 5g is a standard, a speed/reliability. This tower fully complies with the FCC. It’s possible it will emit 5g. Chair
Dewey asks for the useful life of the monopole. Paul Peckins, a representative from Crown Castle answers that ideally, it’s a 100-year
design for 4 carriers. Chair Dewey asks who’s in charge of dismantling. Mr. Peckins answers in this instance, it’s Crown Castle.
Chair Dewey opens for public comment. Mary Ellen Goodwin of 10 Hazelwood Road in South Dennis was the previous owner of 38
Wequaquet Lane. She is sad about the situation, and asks the Board to consider that this is Cape Cod and people move here for a
reason. She is frustrated by the process she has to go through to attend meetings and defend her case. She says she was never
notified of the Strawberry Hill Medical Center being built, which she says had seriously impacted her property. She also discusses her
frustration regarding abutter notices. The abutter notice was mistakenly addressed to her rather than the new property owner, and
so was forwarded to her new address. When she received it, she emailed the Planni ng & Development department, and then it took
2-3 more days before Mr. Harrigan was notified. She had to send an email the day after her first email to ask for confirmation. She
feels it’s not the end of the world if people don’t have cell reception. She reports she didn’t get good service at the property, and is
an ATT customer. She is upset that the crane test was done on December 17, which she feels was purpose ly done near the holiday
Page 6 of 7 6
so people would be paying less attention. She passes photo s of the crane from the house’s living room to the Board.2 She says no
one ever came on her property to take photos. It was never made clear to her why negotiations for the current property failed. She
reports that Paul Cooper, who lives at 46 Wequaquet Lane, is conce rned that his pacemaker will be affected by the tower’s
radiation. She says the new owner, Richard Harrigan, did not have enough time to get legal representation. She says the special
permit for this property has a condition of no further development. She begs to differ that this infrastructure is not commercial use.
She also says an email she sent with her crane photos never made it to the Cape Cod Commission in time for the meeting, and she is
skeptical that that was a coincidence. When she emailed again, her photos did appear. She doesn’t believe the real estate study is
accurate, and she was a real estate agent and heard from people/read online that there is at least a 20 -30% drop in home values
near towers. She feels the area is falling apart and asks the Board to deny the request because of the height.
Richard Harrigan is the current owner of 38 Wequatquet Lane. Last year he bought his home; he knew nothing about this tower. His
first notification of this meeting was Friday, February 3 at 4:30 p.m. He expresses frustration that he was not included in the town’s
abutter list. He says he was also not notified by the Cape Cod Commission. He thinks the proposed tower is too tall. It is 35 yards
from his front deck. He is upset that no photos from his property were shown in the applicant’s presentation. He bought this
property to watch the sunrise and sunset. He shows the Board a map of his property and the subject property.3 He is concerned that
the Commission waived a portion of the fall zone, and that the tower is taller than the fall zone and so would fall in his property . He
requests a continuance to prepare and get legal representation. He says he would never have bought this property if there was a
110-foot cell tower 35 yards away, and believes he will have to sell the property at a loss.
Attorney Pare responds that his team has been nothing but transparent. He is not opposed to a continuance to allow Mr. Harrigan
time to prepare. He says the abutter notice is unfortunate and is through no fault of t heir own, and still met all legal requirements.
Regarding the fall zone, there is no waiver for the residential portion. The Commission waived the fall zone to the commercial
property because it allowed them to keep the tower away from the residential properties to the north. The tower is 110 feet from
Mr. Harrigan’s property line and 178 feet from his dwelling. Regarding the timing of the crane test, it was not nefarious and they had
no control over the scheduling. It was coordinated by the town and the Commission, and was not purposely done near the holiday .
Crown Castle sent notices for the crane test to abutters even though they weren’t required to. They’re only allowed on public ways
so that is why they did not go into private ways for photos. He says this process has been going on for a year and half, following all
regulations, completely out in the open every step of the way.
Chair Dewey says for the record there was an issue with IT and GIS: the certified abutter list didn’t update to the new owner and so
Mr. Harrigan didn’t receive his notice until later. (Administrative note: The abutter notice was sent to the correct address, but under
the previous owner’s name: Mary Ellen Goodwin. The Assessor’s record indicated Richard Harrigan as the owner of record as of
1/1/2023, but the Certified Abutters List, which was run on 1/3/2023, mistakenly listed Ms. Goodwin. The abutter notices were sent
15 days prior to the hearing date thereby complying with M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 11. The legal ad was published in the
Barnstable Patriot on January 20, 2023 and January 27, 2023. Town staff collaborated with GIS/Assessing to follow all proper
protocols and ensure the mistake was corrected and will be prevented going forward.)
Herb Bodensiek asks how accurate the location of the crane is. Mr. Adams says the balloon is where the tower will be. The top of the
crane is where the top of tower will be. They have done 11 revisions working with the Commission, and have shifted as far away
from the residential properties as possible. Regarding the fall zone, as a practical matter towers don’t fail at the base—they’re
specifically designed to crumple so it would never fall into Mr. Harrigan’s yard.
Chair Dewey moves to continue both appeals to March 8, 2023 at 7 p.m. Aaron Webb seconds. Public comment remains open.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Mark Hansen, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard
Nay: None
Appeals No. 2023-001 and 2023-002 Centerville Gardens, Inc. are continued to March 8, 2023 at 7:00 p.m.
7:06 PM Appeal No. 2023-003 Hilary M. Stone, Trustee of the Malpass Trust
Hilary M. Stone, Trustee of the Malpass Trust, has applied for a Special Permit pursuant to Section 240 -44 A. Accessory Uses
Permitted with a Special Permit. The Applicant seeks to construct an accessory structure (boat barn/garage/greenhouse) on a lot
2 Link to Mary Ellen Goodwin’s photos:
https://itlaserfiche.town.barnstable.ma.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=874200&dbid=0&repo=TownOfBarnstable
3 Link to Richard Harrigan’s map:
https://itlaserfiche.town.barnstable.ma.us/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=874201&dbid=0&repo=TownOfBarnstable
Page 7 of 7 7
immediately opposite and across the road from the lot on which the principal use it serves is located, with both lots being h eld in
identical ownership. The subject property is located at 94 Indian Trial, Barnstable, MA as shown on Assessors Map 336 as parcel 015.
It is located in the Residence F-1 (RF-1) Zoning District.
The Board received a request from Attorney Michael Schulz to continue this to February 22, 2023. Chair Dewey makes a motion to
continue this to February 22, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. Mark Hansen seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Mark Hansen, Aaron Webb, Paul Pinard, Denise Johnson
Nay: None
Appeal No. 2023-003 Stone is continued to February 22, 2023.
Correspondence
None
Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair
Upcoming Hearings
February 22, 2023, March 8, 2023, March 22, 2023 (All via Zoom)
Adjournment
Chair Dewey makes a motion to adjourn. Paul Pinard seconds.
Vote:
Aye: Jake Dewey, Herb Bodensiek, Paul Pinard, Denise Johnson, Aaron Webb
Nay: None
Respectfully submitted,
Genna Ziino, Administrative Assistant
Further detail may be obtained by viewing the video via Channel 18 on demand at http://www.town.barnstable.ma.us