Planning board wrestles with 'Mr. Cott' overlay: by‑right housing goals vs. controlling commercial uses

The Falmouth Planning Board spent a large portion of the meeting debating proposed changes to the town—s overlay zoning (referred to in the transcript as the "Mr. Cott" or "Mr. Codd" bylaw), focusing on whether the overlay should simply allow the uses that are permitted in the underlying business districts, specify allowable nonresidential uses in detail, or permit special‑permit uses only through the planning board.

Town planning staff and counsel advised that listing allowed uses gives clarity to applicants but can be time‑consuming; allowing all underlying uses by right risks enabling certain uses many board members consider inappropriate in a mixed‑use residential overlay, while preserving special permits shifts review back to the planning board but may reintroduce the appeals and delays the board had hoped to avoid.

Attorney Peter Freeman, representing the owner of Falmouth Plaza, urged clarity for projects that need certainty for financing. "If you have an articulated detailed list of uses and then prohibited uses, we do need for this project to make clear that on the ground floor parking is allowed," Freeman said. He told the board that some dimensional changes (height, setbacks) will be critical for redevelopment projects to be viable.

Board members debated whether split‑zone lots should count the entire lot area when calculating allowable density for a Mr. Cott application and whether the planning board should be explicitly named as the special‑permit granting authority for underlying special permit uses. Staff agreed to prepare a short inventory of split‑zone lots and draft options on whether to make a map amendment or adjust bylaw language so the framework is clearer.

Why it matters: The overlay is intended to encourage multifamily and affordable housing on sewered business corridors. But board members warned that without targeted prohibitions or special‑permit controls, the overlay could permit uses (for example, certain motor vehicle/service uses or fast‑food drivethroughs) that are inconsistent with a walkable, mixed‑use intent.

Next steps: Staff will return with an inventory of split‑zone lots, a refined list of recommended allowed and prohibited uses (or language to incorporate special permits), and legal analysis of whether the planning board can and should be designated the special‑permit authority in every case. The board scheduled an extra discussion meeting on Oct. 1 to review consultant recommendations and written comments ahead of a hearing closure and vote.