Whatever Became of “What’s There?”

While the Town Planner was taking his non-scientific polls/surveys in April, 2010, for his supposed input on the sizes of cottage footprints to be allowed by right in the new SRC zone, he was engaged by the Board of Directors of the Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association in a discussion of cottage footprints and other matters. Below is the Town Planner’s posting on his own blog.

Knowing what you now do know about the questionable methodology of his polls/surveys, pay close attention to the Town Planner’s application of his so-called results. Specifically, note how he proclaims: “Looking at preliminary feedback from the polls I put up for Thursday’s discussion, these seem to be the limits that get the strongest support.  Over 60% support the 900 sf limit.  While about half support the 1,200 sf limit, when you try to look at a percentage that is close to that needed to pass Town Meeting, you find about 2/3rds support at the 1,000 sf  and greater cut-off.  Ultimate the living space discussion will be important on Thursday.”

Such comments are crucial to understanding the truly limited public discussion there was of this important issue.

You will probably need to read and review this section several times in order to keep the discussion clear in your mind. Just know that the Town Planner is trying to make the case for a dramatic increase in the size of so-called “cottages” in the zone that is being created. Remember that the Town Planner had said in November of 2009: “ . . . one of the things that’s going to be real tough to try to wrestle with and uh is going to be trying to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.”

As you shall see once again below, the Town Planner had reported in March of 2010 a breakdown of the footprints that were in existence: “The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf.” Yet, now the Town Planner is proposing something dramatically greater in size than “the largest cottage” (singular).

Why this change in thinking from “a level of conformity based upon what’s there?”

I do not know.

Still, you might find some interest in this self-proclaimed “fantastic profile”  (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/translucent/mbd_20160405/#/8) written in 2016 by the developer of one of the properties within the Seasonal Resort Community zone. If he is to be believed, then perhaps this article provides some insight into the timing of Town Planner’s change of mind.

Meanwhile, this is the Town Planner’s post from June, 2010.

Cottage Colony Discussion – Responses   

I received the information below from the Chase’s Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association.  As a follow-up to the previous post I will try to answer the questions.  As you will see, much of my responses illustrate the state of development and transition we may be going through with this proposal.

On behalf of the Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association Board of Directors

Overarching Question

Is it the intent of the Town to delete in its entirety the current zoning provisions and replace with the new zoning proposal (when completed)?

This question is central to the entire discussion and we need to address in the near term.  As originally envisioned, the idea was to keep the underlying zoning (Resort Residential) and create an overlay specifically covering these uses.  After a number of discussions with cottage and landowners, and reviewing the comments from last fall, I am now thinking that a new zoning district might be the best route. Such a zoning district would allow by-right, as long as certain conditions were met, Cottage Colonies, Recreational Vehicle Parks and the uses exempt from Zoning under MGL Chapter 40A Section 3.

DENSITY AND SITE PROVISIONS

Lot Area

The minimum lot area for a Seasonal Cottage or Recreational Vehicle Facility shall consist of a lot or lots, when combined, that comprise a minimum of five (5) acres of land. Adjacent parcels, even when separated by a road, may be considered as combined for the purposes of this zoning provision.

It appears that you are combining two distinct proposals Seasonal Cottages & Recreation Vehicles.  Is it the intention of the Town to allow replacement of all the cottages with Recreation Vehicles and vice versa?  We propose that Cottage Colonies and Recreation vehicles be distinct Zoning districts.

I understand your comment, there are a few reasons for a single zoning district.  First, Camper’s Haven and Grindell’s RV Parks both contain a mix of cottages and recreational vehicles.  As such, a single use RV or Cottage zoning would not be a good fit for either of these properties.  Secondly, we need to be concerned with spot zoning.  Generally creating zoning specifically crafted to one property is frowned upon, even if that particular use has been on the property for many years.  We may still have a problem with how the by-law applies to Grindell’s as it is isolated and only about 7 acres of land.  However, given its use is similar in nature to the larger areas that are targeted I feel comfortable that we can pass the sniff test with the current proposal.  My intent is to provide a proposal that supports the land uses that are present on these properties.  However, you are correct that the zoning could allow for the changes you are identifying.


Lot Coverage

Provisions Specific to Seasonal Cottage Complexes

B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor’s data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let’s mull this over.)

We support a 900 sq ft footprint standard and a 1000 sq ft FA standard.  If a lesser footprint is adopted then some of the existing cottage colonies would remain non-conforming.

Looking at preliminary feedback from the polls I put up for Thursday’s discussion, these seem to be the limits that get the strongest support.  Over 60% support the 900 sf limit.  While about half support the 1,200 sf limit, when you try to look at a percentage that is close to that needed to pass Town Meeting, you find about 2/3rds support at the 1,000 sf  and greater cut-off.  Ultimate the living space discussion will be important on Thursday.

C. Seasonal Cottages may be 1 ½ stories tall with the upper story area consisting of usable loft area not exceeding one-half of the floor area of the first story.

We do not understand the need for the blue text because of item D noted below.

The idea of the one-half the floor space below is geared towards controlling the look of the cottages.  If we said 1,000 sf of living space, someone could do a 500 sf first floor and a similarly sized second floor, leading to a two-story look.  The half the floor area limit lends itself better to the second story being kept  within the limits of a pitched roof, a 500 sf foot print would be limited to only 250 sf in the upper area.

D. Seasonal Cottages may be no taller than 17 feet tall above the higher of existing grade or base flood elevation.

E. Any seasonal cottage that exceeds 600 square feet shall meet the density requirements for a dwelling unit located in the same district. (900 sf?) ( Not sure what this means ? Are we saying that no new cottage may exceed 600 sq ft, or that no existing cottage may be enlarged to exceed 600 sq ft ? If an existing cottage already exceeds 600 sq ft, can the complex still be eligible for a special permit ? )

If you changed cottage to unit, you would include the single family homes you referred to above.  We would suggest 1000 sq ft standard for FA

I will go through by-law and the general housing sizes in the Assessor’s information to see if this clears it all up.  My goal is to make this as comprehensive as possible.  It is also possible that the larger units (there may be a few in Curtis Pines) that challenge the 900 foot limits, could simply remain non-conforming without affecting the remainder of the property.  This would be the ideal situation.

K. All Seasonal Cottage Complexes may be open for normal occupation between starting May 1st and ending October 31st. Seasonal Cottage Complexes may provide for short term use, up to ten days in any thirty day period, during the remainder of the year .

From an economic development point of view, why does the Town seek to remove us from supporting business in the off-season?  We do not believe zoning should determine usage period.  That being said, we do not oppose the language — if there is to be a limit within zoning.

Presently the town General By-law restricts cottage use to no more than 90 days of occupation in any 6 month time period.  This has been on the books since 1937.  It is not the best yardstick to measure a seasonal use.  The goal of the proposal is to increase the availability of the cottages in the off-season, while also ensuring that they do not become winter rental housing which then turns into year-round housing units.  The goal is to maintain this as the seasonal community it is and not turn it into 400 or more new year round homes with all the associated costs.  I did notice that I used April 15th in the RV portion of the zoning, so will be suggesting we use a similar start date for full occupation in this section.  The ten day limit  in any 30 days in the off-season provides access for school vacation periods but helps to maintain the overall seasonal use of the properties.

L. Construction of new seasonal cottages or other buildings or additions to seasonal or housekeeping cottages, buildings or other structures must comply with the requirements of this section.

Again, what is the practical meaning of this section?

Some of the properties have significant amounts of undeveloped land.  By making these conforming uses, we open up the possibility that they could expand and add units.  The section is intended to ensure that such additions comply with this by-law.  In the end, if the wording is not necessary, it can be removed.

This entry was posted in Cottage Colonies, Dennisport, Zoning and tagged Cottage Colonies, Dennisport, Zoning on June 15, 2010.

There’s An Old Saying

During the period in 2010 when the Town Planner was drafting the maximum footprint size for cottages that would be allowed by-right within the proposed Seasonal Resort Community zone, he posted [with my emphasis added in bold] this comment to a reader on his blog:

“I deal with zoning and the long term vision. A vision for an area is tied to the town’s plan and local zoning. I was talking about a vision based, in part, upon zoning that has been in place for 37 years. Only the land owners can decide when they will change the use of the land upon which your cottage sits. The town decides the level of regulatory control the changes will be subjected to. Presently hotels are by-right uses, meaning the least amount of review. Cottages are not allowed under present zoning, meaning to make even the smallest modification to a cottage has the highest level of review. Our discussion was one of, if the area were to transition, what should it look like, and what level of review should be required.”
[https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/cottage-colony-and-rv-park-poll/]

Of importance here is the Town Planner’s reiteration of his desire for some sort of “long term vision,” as well as the need for more control over the use of the land. All the while, the Town Planner is re-drafting his proposed by-right footprints from his initial suggestion of 400 sf (based upon what was in existence at the time) toward the eventual allowed by-right maximum of 900 sf. As a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, he has an ethical “Responsibility to the Public” that should demonstrate:

• “Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
• “Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
• “Timely, clear and accurate information
• “Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”

In other words, if the Town Planner is proposing any increase in the existing footprints, then he has an ethical obligation to demonstrate just what that increase in a land owner’s by-right allowance might produce in the future.

With that in mind, then, let’s review the online survey he conducted on the matter of footprint size. Keep in mind that the participants in this survey (known in the parlance as the “survey universe”) are only those who were aware that a survey was being taken.

In mid-June of 2010 (not long after he posted that above comment about “long term vision”), he offered the following two surveys.
[https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/quick-cottage-survey/]

“The maximum footprint for a cottage in the Seasonal Resort Zoning District should be:

• 900 sf
• 800 sf
• 700 sf
• 600 sf
• 500 sf
• 400 sf ”

As the screenshot here shows, the Town Planner received 65 responses. And those 65 responses are from what “survey universe?”

Based upon his draft posted on 5 April 2010, the Town Planner reported that there were some 485 cottages existing  within the proposed district. Had his 65 responses come solely from a survey universe of those cottage owners, then one might extrapolate that 65 responses out of 485 cottage owners equals only 13.4% of all the cottage owners. Would that be deemed “meaningful participation” in the view of the AICP? I do not know. So, what can be made of the fact that we do not have any sense whatsoever of the universe of this survey? In other words, 65 respondents out of how many? But let’s not spoil the Town Planner’s illusion.

The Town Planner reports that 60% (39 votes) favor a maximum footprint of 900 sf.

From there, the support drops dramatically.

Only 12.31% (8 of his respondents) favor 800 sf; 9.23% (6 respondents) favor 700 sf, and another 9.23% (6 more) support 600 sf. Three respondents (4.62%) favor 500 sf, but another three respondents (which somehow total 5%) would like to hold the maximum footprint at 400 sf.

Now, try to keep this methodology in mind when the Town Planner mentions surveys in his ensuing presentations, for he is one to boast time and time again of the surveys he took in this matter.

The second area of his survey was:

“The maximum living space (ground floor and loft area) for a cottage in the Seasonal Resort Zoning District should be:

• 1,200 sf
• 1,100 sf
• 1,000 sf
• 900 sf
• 800 sf
• 700 sf
• 600 sf
• 500 sf
• 400 sf ”

In this survey, the Town Planner’s survey universe had swelled to 74 respondents.

Of these respondents, some 35 (47.3%) favored 1,200 sf, and that was the fan favorite. The screenshot indicates the living area with the next strongest support came from the 14 respondents (18.92%) who favored 1,100 sf.

Despite the shortcomings of this methodology, a week later the Town Planner created some primitive pie charts which purported to show that his original footprint proposal of 400 sf did not reflect the will of . . . those 65 or 74 persons who responded to his survey.

“As the charts illustrate,” proclaimed the Town Planner, “while there remains some concern about overdeveloping the area, there is also a clear desire to see some improvement in the size of the cottages within the Old Wharf Road area we are currently analyzing.”

Are these surveys and conclusions a presentation of “timely, clear and accurate information?”

Before you come to any conclusion, ask yourself this: “Is the Town Planner satisfied with these results?”

Moreover, what happens when the Town Planner’s surveys do not meet with his favor? Consider his words just two months later, when he hoped to survey his progress on the proposed Seasonal Resort Community zone.
[https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/seasonal-resort-community-poll/]

“I have shut the poll down,” he wrote.  “Unfortunately it appears people found a way to avoid the ‘blocking cookie’ which was intended to keep individual computers from casting more than one vote.  One off-cape IP address voted 106 times in 40 minutes – between 6:20 and 7 Sunday morning.  Overall four IP addresses cast about 80% of the votes, many in rapid fire spurts.

“In setting up the poll I had set it up to use a ‘cookie’ which would block multiple votes from one computer but would allow two people in one household to vote on separate computers.  I did not imagine that I would have needed the next level of security, blocking multiple votes by IP addresses.

“I can accept that some who have been at these meetings may feel that more discussions are needed and some want to push it to town meeting.  And, I can understand that some who have not attended any meetings might feel one way or the other.  It is unfortunate that people did not want to see a real judgment of where we are in the process.

“I watched the poll with great interest.  Over the first several hours the poll was available, the vote – with no IP addresses showing multiple hits – showed a two to one margin in favor of moving it to town meeting.   It was interesting, at this point, that about 1/3 of you felt we needed more discussion.  A judgment that, while we were close, and could start discussions with relevant town boards, there was still a continuing need discuss the finer points of the proposal.

“It is too bad people were afraid ‘their side’ might lose.  As an unscientific poll, the poll only identifies generalities.  It gives an idea of where we are.  What this poll tells me is that this issue is very fractious.  It makes me wonder if it is worth the effort, both the time already committed, and what it will take to see this through.”

So, did the Town Planner bother to monitor his footprint survey when the results rejected his initial 400 sf size in favor of some “clear desire” to allow a maximum footprint of 900 sf? Did he bother to investigate where that support of those 39 “votes” might have come from? (The use of that word “votes” has a kinda, sorta binding connotation, don’t you think?) How excited he must have been that possibly 65 people on this planet took the time to participate in this meaningful way.

From what the Town Planner writes later, this much is clear. There was a faction of cottage owners who supported some sort of zoning other than what was being proposed in the SRC. This same faction favored larger footprints for their own cottages. Would it be unreasonable to believe that the Town Planner accepted the support of these people when it came to the matter of cottage footprints, but then rejected their participation when it meant even further discussion of the proposed zoning? I do not know. I’m just asking the question.

With that in mind, let me recall the words of a somewhat obscure statistician named Carroll D. Wright, who on June 25th of 1889 gave the opening remarks at a Convention of Commissioners of Bureaus of Statistics of Labor.

To those folks, Mr. Wright noted: “The old saying is that ‘figures will not lie,’ but a new saying is ‘liars will figure.’ It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish. We can only do this by being absolutely fair ourselves.”

Over Time, Lies May Desensitize Brain to Dishonesty

 

Scientists speculate that amygdala activity could represent the internal conflict between wanting to see oneself as honest and being tempted to act in self-interest by lying. This would fit with the scientists’ observation that people appeared to lie more readily in tasks where it benefited both themselves and their partner - possibly because it was easier to justify a lie that served the common good.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/24/from-porkies-to-whoppers-over-time-lies-may-desensitise-brain-to-dishonesty

Footprints

Nearly three weeks have elapsed since the 2 October 2016 posting of the Town Planner’s initial draft (5 April 2010) of what would become Section 12: Seasonal Resort Community of the Dennis Zoning Bylaw.

As the Town Planner notes, many of the terms in that draft have been taken from the zoning of the town of Wells, Maine.  http://ecode360.com/7611416

For example, the Wells, Maine, Chapter 145: Land Use, their Article II: Word Usage includes §145-10 Definitions.

There you will find that the definition in Wells of a SEASONAL COTTAGE is:
   

 A one-story building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.

The Wells definition of a HOUSEKEEPING COTTAGE is:

    A one-story building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking rented to transient guests for a period usually not exceeding 28 days. Such a unit shall not be occupied between January 10 and April 1. [Added 4-12-2003]

The Dennis Town Planner’s definition of a SEASONAL COTTAGE is:

A building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.  

Since that 2 October 2016 posting, I have been reviewing with care those significant aspects of the Seasonal Resort Community bylaw which change dramatically from the Town Planner’s initial draft into the precise wording adopted by the Special Town Meeting of November, 2010, and which were subsequently approved by the Attorney General. These aspects include the definition of the term “seasonal,” as well as the size of the existing cottages on the properties within the proposed zone.

The next few posts will concentrate first upon the size of those cottages and how the Town Planner attempted to explain that change. Correlating the Town Planner’s written words with his often rambling, sometimes incoherent pubic presentations is a real challenge; however, it is essential to demonstrating how often his words simply do not coincide with his deeds. As the fellows of the AICP would note, this is “ethical quicksand.”

Once we have managed to navigate that size aspect, the concept of “seasonal” will be the next focus, as the Town Planner is now in the process of his second attempt to expand the season.

In both instances, we shall continue to ask: What did the Town Planner know? and When did the Town Planner know it?

In regard to the size of the cottages in this proposed district, the Town Planner’s initial draft indeed is in line with what was then present on the properties to be included in the zone. At this point, he is lending credibility to his statement of 19 November 2009 “to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.” To that end, the Town Planner provides these figures:

B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor's data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let's mull this over.)

Based upon this information, the Town Planner reports that there are some 485 cottages on these properties. Of these, 187/485 (38.5%) are under 400 sf; another 234/485 (48%) are between 400 and 600 sf; and 64/485 (13%) are above 600 sf. The Town Planner states that there is one cottage which is 882 sf.

From these numbers, the Town Planner first proposes that the allowed footprint in the unique zone should be 400 sf, but then he suggests 600 sf. The public can only wonder about the breakdown of footprints for that 48% of cottages within the 400 sf - 600 sf category.

And though the Town Planner has stated that the LARGEST cottage in existence is 882 sf, we are yet to understand with any clarity just how that initial proposal of 400 sf became the 900 sf footprint that a property owner would be allowed by right. You will see that he uses the words “discussions” and “meetings,” but these words do not necessarily mean public discussions and meetings.

Though the Town Planner would go on to state on 20 August 2010 that, “I don’t think anyone here is looking to (pause) tear down all the cottages that are there and replace them with story-and-a-half y’know nine hundred-square-foot footprint-type structures, . . .” he should have known that a property owner would be able to do just that under the bylaw which he was proposing.

Of further interest is the Town Planner’s 8 March 2012 representation of those very same cottages to his Economic Development Committee. His slideshow can be viewed here:

https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/review-of-proposed-may-2012-petition-to-restrict-the-size-of-cottages-in-cottage-colonies/

You might want to take note of slide #10.

How is it that the largest cottage in existence in 2010 was 882 sf, but the Town Planner would claim in 2012 that there were cottages of 1,290 sf and 1,640 sf?

That’s a damn good question, don’t you think?

Meanwhile, the next posts will review how the Town Planner presents that change from his initial proposal of 400 sf to that of 900 sf. Who and/or what changed his mind?

Responsibility to the Public

From the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP):

“1. Responsibility to the Public

• Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
• Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
• Timely, clear and accurate information
•  Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”

Always Keep Asking

What did the Town Planner know?

And when did the Town Planner know it?

What does the Town Planner now know?

And when will the Town Planner tell us?


From the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP):

“1. Responsibility to the Public

• Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
• Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
• Timely, clear and accurate information
•  Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”

“You Might Be Able to Get A Loft”

On 20 August 2010, the Dennis Town Planner held a public meeting of interested Dennisport cottage owners to review the latest draft of his proposed Seasonal Resort Community By-law. This is a partial (but literal) transcript and excerpt [55:43-57:11] from the archived Town video of that meeting.

“I don’t think anyone here is looking to (pause) tear down all the cottages that are there and replace them with story-and-a-half y’know nine hundred-square-foot footprint-type structures, but (pause) there are some areas that y’know the structures are way off away from the water and it may not be a bad idea to allow y’know some of the larger families perhaps to be able to do something with those uh parts of the site and then there are the other areas that you get up on the water side of uh Chase’s Ocean Grove where (in my walks through there) uh I’ve walked through there a lot last winter uh to be honest I really see that you could sit down at the kitchen table in one cottage and drink a cup of coffee on the kitchen table in the cottage next door. It probably a lot of you can’t do anything to take advantage of this zoning anyway uh but uh you might be able to get a loft uh in the upper area where you could sleep a couple of kids or something, but that y’know you’ve got some height restraints in some areas you’ve got some areas that uh perhaps an old cottage that’s way in the back might be able to be reinvested in and then uh they can split a larger portion of the wastewater bills, or something to that effect.”

Town Planner’s First Draft of the “Unique Zoning District”

5 April 2010
https://app.box.com/s/qxopdkvn6sdt1l9cefw3i42ga3cvydvn

Seasonal Cottage and Recreational Vehicle Overlay District SCRVOD

2.1.2 Zoning Map
The boundaries of the districts are defined and bounded on the map entitled “Town of Dennis Zoning Map”, dated December 18, 2008  on file with the Town Clerk. That map and all explanatory matter thereon are hereby made a part of this By-law, together with any amendments adopted by vote of the Town Meeting.

Seasonal Cottage and Recreational Vehicle Overlay District

General Provisions

All provisions of the underlying zoning shall remain in effect except as they are here-in modified to provide for the permitting of Seasonal Cottages and Recreational Vehicles facilities

Definitions

SEASONAL COTTAGE A building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.

Provisions Specific to Seasonal and Housekeeping Cottage Complexes

A. Seasonal Cottage complexes and modifications to existing Seasonal Cottage complexes shall be subject to Special Permit and Site Plan approval by the Dennis Planning Board.

B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below.

C. Seasonal Cottages may be 1½ stories tall with the upper story area consisting of usable loft area.

D. Seasonal Cottages may be no taller than 17 feet tall above the higher of finished grade of base flood elevation.

E. Any seasonal cottage that exceeds 600 square feet shall meet the density requirements for a dwelling unit located in the same district.

F. A porch or deck not exceeding 160 square feet may be attached to each seasonal cottage and shall not be included in the floor area of the cottage unless the porch is heated and/or insulated.

G. Kitchen facilities are permitted in seasonal cottage complexes.

H. All seasonal cottages shall be connected to the public water system and shall have a wastewater system approved by the Dennis Board of Health.

I. Seasonal complex facility office. All seasonal cottage complexes permitted after _, regardless of the number of units, shall maintain an office on the licensed premises or within 150 feet of the facility’s site boundaries.

J. Any nonconforming seasonal cottage complex that seeks Special Permit approval shall conform to the requirements of this section pertaining to Provisions Specific to Seasonal Cottage Complexes.

K. All seasonal cottages in a seasonal cottage complex shall be closed and the water service to the units turned off between November 1 and April 30 of the following year.

L. Construction of new seasonal cottages or other buildings or additions to seasonal or housekeeping cottages, buildings or other structures must comply with the requirements of this section.”

The first revision, a document also dated April 5, 2010 with a number of mark-ups that came from the document being posted onto a Wiki page left this section [K] as is (Wikispaces has closed down the non-educational portions of their site):

DEFINITIONS

Definitions are the backbone of any Zoning By-law. Strong definitions provide use with the ability to be sure that we are all discussing the same set of land uses. The following are definitions I have come up with, relying heavily on recent zoning for cottage and RV campgrounds in Wells ME and several locations in Massachusetts, to address the specific land uses and structures within these target areas. I encourage you to review these, suggest changes, and suggest additional terms that we may need to define as part of this by-law.

 SEASONAL COTTAGE: A one-story building, possibly including a loft area, containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.

A. Seasonal Cottage complexes and modifications to existing Seasonal Cottage complexes shall be subject to Special Permit and Site Plan approval by the Dennis Planning Board.

B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor's data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let's mull this over.)

C. Seasonal Cottages may be 1½ stories tall with the upper story area consisting of usable loft area.

D. Seasonal Cottages may be no taller than 17 feet tall above the higher of existing finished grade or base flood elevation.

E. Any seasonal cottage that exceeds 600 square feet shall meet the density requirements for a dwelling unit located in the same district. (900 sf?)

F. A porch or deck not exceeding 160 square feet may be attached to each seasonal cottage and shall not be included in the floor area of the cottage unless the porch is heated and/or insulated.

G. Kitchen facilities are permitted in seasonal cottage complexes.

H. All seasonal cottages shall be connected to the public water system and shall have a wastewater system approved by the Dennis Board of Health.

I. Seasonal complex facility office. All seasonal cottage complexes permitted after _, regardless of the number of units, shall maintain an office on the licensed premises or within 150 feet of the facility’s site boundaries.

The End of This World (As We Knew It)

12.0 SEASONAL RESORT COMMUNITY (SRC)

12.1 PURPOSES AND INTENT.

To provide sites for seasonal cottage and recreational vehicle oriented resorts with special attention to
preserving and enhancing the existing land uses, vegetation, visual landscape, and amenities for future generations, thereby retaining the historic “way of life” and character of the area while considering the needs of neighboring properties.

Some Things You Might Like To Know

At the 2016 conference of the Massachusetts Association of Planning Directors, the Dennis Town Planner moderated a session on Thursday, 19 May 2016, entitled “Seasonal Resort Zoning: Taking a Concept From the Past and Creating a New Future.” He was joined by two other speakers, Robert L Brennan Jr. (Brennan Law and Heritage Sands Inc.) and Douglas Kallfelz, AIA (Principal, Union Studios Architects). The slideshow of their presentation can be viewed online at: http://massplanningdirectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1B-Seasonal-Resort-Zoning-Heritage-Sands-Cottage-Community-Dennisport.pdf

Later that same day, three fellows from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) presented a session entitled “Ethics and Communication,” which the MAPD program describes as one which “will review the AICP Code of Ethics as it relates to communications” and “will explore how the code of ethics relates to effective communication.” The slideshow of that presentation can be viewed online at: http://massplanningdirectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2016-05-06-Ethics-of-Communications-Final-as-of-5.16.16.pdf   

Worth noting in the “Ethics and Communication” session is Slide #6 entitled “Ethical Quicksand” and highlighting the importance of a planner’s “Framing Issues (honesty, clarity, completeness).”

Slide #12 about the AICP reads:

                              “Aspirational Principle 1 - Our Overall Responsibility to the Public

              Our primary obligation is to serve the public interest and we, therefore, owe our allegiance
              to our conscientiously attained concept of the public interest that is formulated
              through continuous and open debate.”

And Slide #13 concerns the AICP members’:

                                               “1. Responsibility to the Public

                                a) Always conscious of the rights of others
                                b) Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
                                c) Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
                                d) Timely, clear and accurate information
                                e) Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”

The Take: 19 November 2009

Let me highlight some of the points that I think the Town Planner made on 19 November 2009. I suggest that you keep these points in mind as his Narrative emerges and changes over the course of the seven years since then.

• “Control over future land use. I think this is the big thing that this [Economic Development] committee was looking at.”

•  “If there is a transition, what would we like it to look like wouldn’t be . . .  a high-density housing development that puts a wall of single-family homes on the south side of  . . . Old Wharf Road.”

• “They could cluster and put all those housing units on one side of the street and totally wall off the water if someone decided that was the only economical way to use the property.”

• “Things happen and . . . we’d like to have more control over what happens in this area if something were to happen. And actually that control may actually scare some people away who don’t want to have to live to the Town design standards.”

• “We’re looking at the existing land uses, the lawfully pre-existing structures are grand-fathered. So, cottage colonies, the RV parks will remain as long as the property owners allow the use to remain.”

• “I do hope that Salt Air [Village] will authorize [Atty Reid] to continue to represent them as we work on this. Also, I am hoping that we can get a few people from uh Chase’s Ocean Grove, Camper’s Haven, and Curtis Pines.”

• “If we develop a bylaw for this part of town we’re probably going to need to give you guys your own land use category to fit into.”

• “To come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.”

• “We can probably find something that will allow some reinvestment by the cottage owners.”

• “So, long term for you, but also long term vision in case . . . the economy changes and there’s just no way that these things exist any more.”

• “There’s some questions there that probably are going to need strong input from the cottage colonies.”

The Narrative: Your Own Land Use Category

On 19 November 2009, the Dennis Town Planner convened a meeting of his Economic Development Committee to hear input from owners of cottages and RVs along Old Wharf Road in Dennisport. This is a partial (but literal) transcript and excerpt [1:06:11 - 1:08:35] from the archived Town video of that meeting.

“Before you [Atty David S. Reid] walk away from the microphone, I uh uh uh I do hope that Salt Air [Village] will authorize you to continue to represent them as we work on this. Also, I am hoping that we can get a few people from uh Chase’s Ocean Grove, Camper’s Haven, and uh Curtis Pines.

“One of the things that uh I think is going to be a real challenge is in trying to come up with a regulation that perhaps does incorporate -- and I’m using the term “campground” simply because . . . We’re going to have other properties that are ‘cottage colonies’ in other parts of town, and if we develop a bylaw for this part of town we’re probably going to need to give you guys your own land use category to fit into. Uh, so, I’m, right now my working term is “campground” and but one of the things that’s going to be real tough to try to wrestle with and uh is going to be trying to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there -- and so that someone like Attorney Reid hopefully will be able to help us and obviously Salt Air the structures are a little more spaced than they are at uh Chase’s Ocean Grove, but that’s going to have to be one of the things we’re going to have to wrestle with is they have some structures that are two feet apart and you could step from one deck to another at Chase’s Ocean Grove and y’know we want to give it some level of conformity so that uh y’know as I like to say ‘People have to ask permission to sneeze when you’re non-conforming,’ and we’d like to be able to get us to a point where you might be able to do something or most of you might be able to do something with your cottages without even necessarily having to go to the Town. Uh that y’know so uh Somewhere in there we can probably find something that will allow some reinvestment by the cottage owners, as well as get us to a point that also y’know ensures that uh there’s a long term out there as well, just in case. So, long term for you, but also long term vision in case uh y’know the economy changes and there’s just no way that these things exist any more.

“So, I do hope you’ll stay involved, because uh there’s some questions there that probably are going to need strong input from the cottage colonies.”

The Narrative Begins: 19 November 2009

On 19 November 2009, the Dennis Town Planner convened a meeting of his Economic Development Committee to hear input from owners of cottages and RVs along Old Wharf Road in Dennisport. This is a partial (but literal) transcript and excerpt [30:55-33:33] from the archived Town video of that meeting.

“Control over future land use.

“I think this is the big thing that this committee was looking at. Ah, right now, as I’ve said several times, hotels are a ‘Yes’ in this zoning district. And, ah, that means that the Town cannot say ‘No’ if it complies with the z- minimum requirements of zoning we don’t have a lotta control, say, ‘Gee, what you’re showing just isn’t the right fit for the Town of Dennis.’ 

“So y’know trying to put out a vision like a hotel that might be on one side of the street and maybe a waterfront conference facility that might be on the other side of the street and y’know open sandy beaches ah is an idea saying y’know y’know thirty years fifty years from now ah if there is a transition, what would you we like it to look like ahhh wouldn’t be as I’ve seen in some ah recent reports out of Hingham and other places ah a high-density housing development that puts a wall of single-family homes on the south side of Old Bass River- oh uh Old Wharf Road and uh then that’s possible, because zoning allows fourteen housing units on Chase’s Ocean Grove. Ah, so they could cluster and put all those housing units on one side of the street and totally wall off the water if someone decided that was the only economical way to use the property.

“Another option is, this is a Hingham project, forty-six housing units on the waterfront is a 40B. Ah, there are homes selling for 1.6 million alongside homes selling for 170,000. Ah, and, y’know things happen and we’re just like we’d like to have more control over what happens in this area if something were to happen. And actually that control may actually scare some people away who don’t want to have to live to the Town design standards.

“So, that’s why we’ve called for fewer by-right uses in this district and placing many of the current by-right uses under special permit authority. Ah, we’re looking at the existing land uses, the lawfully pre-existing structures are grandfathered. So, cottage colonies, the RV parks will remain as long as the property owners allow the use to remain. And that’s why I keep saying, if you guys become your property owners y’know you’re going to allow yourself to remain. Ah, structures that are constructed or expanded without proper permits and zoning relief do place a lawfully pre-existing status in jeopardy. So, ah, what I’m saying is, ‘Don’t do anything without proper permits, because then y’know someone could come in and order your building removed because you’ve surrendered your grandfather rights if you don’t do things the right way.”

Heritage Defined

What better place is there to begin this look at Dennis town government in the 21st Century than to go right to the World Wide Web? http://www.town.dennis.ma.us/Pages/index

And that’s where we find this description of how someone at Town Hall presents the Town:

“Dennis, named an All American Town in 1978, combines its traditional New England heritage with modern day conveniences.”
 
Did someone say, “traditional  New  England heritage?” 

I love that phrase, and I couldn’t ask for a better place to start. After all, this payroll someone hasn’t introduced the world to Dennis by invoking some of its traditional Town heritage. Surely, Dennis must be proud of Sleepy John Sears, who invented a better way of producing salt from saltwater, or of Asa Shiverick and his sons, whose sailing ships had plied the waters of the world. 

But is that the foundation upon which the Town wants to build its reputation in this world? 

Apparently not.  

Some payroll someone decided that the Town of Dennis should dress itself in something more than just its local heritage and wrap itself in the mantle of all New England: the Town Meeting form of government.

Stepping away from http://www.town.dennis.ma.us/Pages/index for the moment, you can get a little more insight into the Dennis self-image by seeing how the Commonwealth of Massachusetts looks upon this “traditional New England heritage” called “Town Meeting.”

“In use for over 300 years and still today,” says the Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Francis Galvin, “[Town Meeting] has proven to be a valuable means for many Massachusetts taxpayers to voice their opinions and directly effect change in their communities. Here in this ancient American assembly, you can make your voice heard as you and your neighbors decide the course of the government closest to you.” 

Wow. Though I’m not so sure that 300 years qualifies anything as being “ancient,” there can be no doubt that Town Meeting is our Massachusetts heritage; thus, it is the Town’s New England heritage.

Let me take a moment here to invoke some extreme heaviosity and quote a line or two from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America, which the French historian wrote in two volumes after traveling this nation in the mid-19th Century.

“[L]ocal assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty.”

This, I might further suggest is our “traditional New England heritage.”

He goes on to note in his history that, “The townships have the right to make by-laws, and to enforce them by fines which are fixed by law.”

As Secretary of State Galvin further explains, Town Meeting is the one place where registered voters are entitled to exercise control over three areas: (1) the salaries for the elected officials; (2) the appropriation of money to run the town; and (3) the enactment of the Town’s local statutes, which are called By-laws. And whenever Town Meeting adopts a By-law which regulates the use of land, buildings and/or structures in order to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the Town’s present and future inhabitants, this is a called a Zoning By-Law. 

Make no mistake about it: Town Meeting is our “traditional New England heritage.”

If you take a closer, more local look at things, you’ll see that very concept reiterated in the Zoning By-laws enacted by Dennis Town Meeting and stated this way [with my bold emphasis]:

SECTION 1 - ADMINISTRATION & INTERPRETATION

1.1 TITLE
This By-Law shall be known as the Dennis Zoning By-Law. 

1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this By-Law is to promote the health, safety, convenience, amenity, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Dennis, through encouraging the most appropriate use of the land as authorized by Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975, with objectives as follows: 

To lessen congestion in the ways; to conserve health; to secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to recognize the need for housing for persons of all income levels; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, water supply, drainage, schools, parks, open space, and other public requirements; to conserve the value of land and buildings, including the conservation of natural resources and the prevention of blight and pollution of the environment; to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the town, including consideration of the master plan, and to preserve and increase amenities by the promulgation of regulations to fulfill said objectives. 

1.3 ADMINISTRATION
  1.3.1 Enforcement     
  The Building Commissioner shall administer and enforce the provisions of this By-Law. No permit shall be issued for construction or for the change of use of any land or premises unless the required submitted plans and specifications indicate that buildings, structures, premises and their use will conform in all respects to the provisions of this By-Law.

For the purposes of this blog, let me now point out two things. 

First, there is absolutely nothing (N-O-T-H-I-N-G) in Section 1.2 Purpose of the Dennis Zoning By-law which even implies, let alone states, that zoning land use is an instrument for developing or promoting the Dennis economy. 

Second, the Dennis Building Commissioner does not accept the notion that the Building Commissioner is authorized only to ENFORCE and is not authorized to INTERPRET the specific words of a By-law as adopted by the voters of Town Meeting.
 
This blog is dedicated to every member of Dennis Town Meeting who believes that a vote cast (either for or against an article) actually means something and to every permit applicant in Dennis who has been required by the Town Planner or the Building Commissioner to seek some sort of remedy before the Zoning Board of Appeals.