You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
I’m not opposed to protecting people who have lawful<br />
accessory second dwellings, cottages on their property, garage<br />
apartments, or whatever. What we’re opposed to is streamlining a<br />
procedure to turn these into condominiums and go on. I think that Mr.<br />
Latimer, who’s been passionate on the Planning Board about afford-ability<br />
and condominiumization is right. But there probably aren’t going to be 200<br />
condominiums in <strong>Falmouth</strong> tomorrow, but I bet you within a couple <strong>of</strong> years<br />
there’s 50 or 60 <strong>of</strong> these turned over.<br />
If I could have the next slide, please. Article 9 gives principal<br />
use status to the pre-1959 properties arguably having more than one<br />
dwelling, provides for condominiumization by right. Mr. McNamara is right<br />
that ownership is not something that’s subject to zoning. So, if you’ve got<br />
two principal dwellings, you can condominiumize the property by right.<br />
And that’s why it’s a condominiumization bylaw.<br />
If I could have the next slide, please. There’s some myths<br />
associated with Article 9. The first and major one is that any such<br />
properties are illegal under the Land Court decision. The 200 properties<br />
impacted, well, if you got a Building permit, if you got a zoning permit,<br />
you’re not impacted by the Land Court decision. It requires a case by case<br />
analysis. Mr. McNamara was correct on that. But not all <strong>of</strong> these 200<br />
properties are illegal, and I would say the majority <strong>of</strong> them are probably<br />
legal because <strong>of</strong> a building permit, whether properly or even erroneously<br />
Tinkham Reporting<br />
(508) 759-9162<br />
1-<br />
47
Change language