April 5 - Town of Falmouth

and accessory uses. This no longer became an accessory use, it became
a principal use, and that allowed – and Mr. McNamara is absolutely right –
that allowed the developer of that property to condominiumize it by right.
Let me give you a little bit of history of what happened, there.
Property went on the market, it was a nice bungalow with a garage;
$440,000, okay. They got into a bidding war and a developer ended up
prevailing, paid $525,000 for it, fixed it up, and he marketed the one, the
old bungalow at $550,000 and the garage at $450,000. So, a nice million
dollars for the house that was originally on the market for $440,000. So
when someone says that this is – do you want that garage next door to you
to be a condominium complex, this is the way to go, is to vote for this
tonight.
More than one principal dwelling on a lot has been illegal in
Falmouth since the advent of zoning. I’m going to talk a little bit more
about accessory uses later on. But that’s what ended up with the Zoning
Board of Appeals not making any of those findings that Mr. McNamara
said, and the 1959 change simply made what was clearly implicit in the
bylaw explicit. And even the bylaw itself says that. That wasn’t something
the judge came up with. If you read the 1959 bylaw, the note from the
Planning Board says, “This was always the law. It was always implicit in
the bylaw. We’re simply making it explicit now.” Because something is
implicit in law doesn’t make it different than explicit, it just makes it clearer
Tinkham Reporting
(508) 759-9162
1-
45