The Special Town Meeting was Tuesday (April 8) evening. Because the warrant was short, the blanket vote was not used and we went through them one at a time.
Article 1, "Petition - Amend Zoning Bylaw West Falmouth Market (J. Parrish)": Some articles sneak up on you, and this was one of those, taking the better part of an hour.
Basically, this is a single lot which is in two different zones; Residential B and Business 3. The owner wanted to rezone the Residential section to Business. Seems simple, right?
Well, as a manager of mine once said, nothing is ever as easy as it seems.
At first, the article seemed reasonable and the owner of the West Falmouth Market (the petitioner) made a good case in favor of it. The first person to speak against it, a neighbor, rambled on about much that was of little relevance to the article.
Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Planning Board said something. I don't expect government bodies to be unified in every decision; while I served on the conservation commission we had our share of split votes. However, a coherent statement would be useful.
Indeed, in situations where a board is divided, our appellate courts (such as the Supreme Court) offer a reasonable option - to give both a majority and minority decision.
In this case, there was none of that. First we learn that the Planning Board voted to support this; we then learn that it was a 2-1 vote. Then we heard from Precinct 2 representative Richard Latimer, the acting chair when the vote had been taken; he had abstained from voting, but was opposed to this. Then we learned that several others had abstained, which begged the question, "How many people abstained and why?"
The more the Planning Board said, the more the issues became confused. I had been favorable to the article, but my head was spinning at the end.
In such confused cases, I vote "No," and I did here too. It is better to deny something that can come back than to approve something that can't be undone. Technically, it passed 98-89, but it required a 2/3rds majority, so it failed.
Article 2, "Petition - Amend Zoning Bylaw Chapter 39, Section 10 (J. Callahan)": There's a lot of history behind this article. CLSV has tried to rezone a 31-acre parcel on Route 151 (near the Route 28 intersection) from Agricultural AA to Business many times.
A few years back, they asked to put a shopping plaza on that parcel, with some affordable housing and a hockey rink and pool. I was initially in favor of that rezoning, but the article was brought to town meeting before they had resolved all of the issues. For example, they promised a signed agreement with the town, but it wasn't done.
This particular article isn't about rezoning (the next one is), but rather creating a new business zone, Business 4. The problem is that this zoning would create a Senior Care Retirement Community (SCRC); rather, it would create another SCRC.
Falmouth already has SCRC zoning, but the Planning Board is currently trying to revise that because it hasn't been used. This was - at least for me - the death knell for this article. Falmouth's regulations are confusing enough; to have two SCRC's on the books is a can of worms no one should have to deal with. And why a business would want to make them more confusing is beyond me.
I voted "No"; it (unanimously) failed.
That said; CLSV is going about this the wrong way. Aside from these attempts to change the zoning, they're working on doing a 40B at this site. Whether they're serious about the 40B or not, it is perceived as a threat because of the way it has been presented, and former Zoning Board of Appeals member Matt McNamara clearly stated what many people where thinking: Don't threaten us.
Moreover, if they are serious about the 40B, why go through the expense of trying to create new zoning, rezone the parcel and develop a plan for a SCRC?
Granted, the Planning Board needs to put more effort into getting the revisions to the SCRC done (and the failure of the Atria rezoning - something I favored - lies on their shoulders), but the message we got from CLSV here was as confusing and contradictory as the Planning Board's message on Article 1.
[an aside]
During the campaign last year, I stated that we (Falmouth) need to do a better job of making the rules "clear, consistent and fair", and in general, it's fair to say that Falmouth is not very business friendly. Indeed, it seems to favor those businesses with deep pockets (i.e. WalMart), which have the resources to jump through the hoops (sometimes of burning fire) that are placed in their way.
Smaller businesses, like the West Falmouth Market, too often have their hands tied and they can do little about it.
Someone recently observed that the Board of Selectmen is dysfunctional; that they cannot seem to work as one to accomplish things. After this town meeting, I think it's fair to say that the Planning Board is guilty of this too.
[end aside]
Article 3, "Petition - Rezone Nathan Ellis Highway (J. Callahan)": Absent the Business 4 zoning, this article was irrelevant. A motion of "indefinite postponement" was put on the floor.
I voted "Aye"; it passed (that means the article failed).
Article 4, "Amend Town's Classification Plan - Department of Public Works": This would've added a Business Systems Manager to the DPW, a recommendation of the reorganization study. The selectmen chose not to support it at this time, so a motion of indefinite postponement was put on the floor.
I voted "Aye"; it passed (that means the article failed).
Article 5, "Unpaid Bills": This was $7,006.92 in bills from the last fiscal year that weren't paid before it had ended.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 6, "Fund - American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee Local 1636 (AFSCME) Contract": This article funds the first of the three-year cost of living increases (2 percent) under the AFSCME contract.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 7, "Fund - Citizen Survey": This would've funded a survey of how Falmouth's citizens perceive the town's services. But there is no money, so indefinite postponement was recommended.
I voted "Aye"; it passed (that means the article failed).
Article 8, "Fund - Wastewater Treatment Facility Expenses": This was to tie up lose ends at the West Falmouth sewer plant, but it did so by taking $31,800 from the school department. Precinct 9 representative Greg Pinto asked why, when the school is facing budget cuts, we were taking money from it.
The answer - a poor one at that - was that these funds were from vacant positions.
Vacant or not, I still don't see the logic. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I voted "Aye" because it needed to be done; it passed.
Article 9, "Fund - Unemployment Benefits": This funds unemployment benefits for former town and school department employees. Every employer (public or private) has to pay these.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 10, "Fund - Veteran's Ordinary Benefits": This funds the town's share of veteran's benefits; the state funds 75 percent of these.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 11, "Fund - Property Valuation Expenses": This funds assessment projects that the Assessing Department is working on.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
Article 12, "Community Preservation Fund - School Administration Building": Last spring, town meeting voted to appropriate some of the community preservation funds to replace the roof on the School Administration Building (it's an historic structure). This article simply allows us to include the replacement of the HVAC into the scope of work.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
I'll be honest - this one got by me.
It didn't occur to me until afterwards that there was some money left over after doing the roof. That should've gone back into the kitty and reconsidered for other purposes. Instead, they expanded the scope of work to use up what was left.
This is not the way to do things. Unfortunately, it happens all too often.
Article 13, "Petition - Town of Barnstable "In From The Streets" Program":
I've previously posted my thoughts about this article.
Article 14, "Lease Cranberry Bogs": The town can lease property for up to ten years; beyond that requires special permission from the state. This lease is for 20 years, hence the article.
After a rather long, contentious battle over the future of the Coonamessett River cranberry bogs, we have a grower who wishes to farm the bogs organically and, as part of the deal, will install a modern irrigation system. The town won't get anything for the first ten years of the deal (to compensate for the investment the grower is going to make); while I would have liked to see us get something after five years, sometimes we have to make compromises.
I voted "Aye"; it passed unanimously.
Article 15, "Funding Article": This is the housekeeping article, giving permission to carry out the spending approved in this warrant.
I voted "Aye"; it passed.
And so ended the Spring Special Town Meeting. This was at about 9pm, so we went into the break and returned thereafter to the warrant for the Spring Town Meeting. Only two articles were reviewed - Aricle 26 for the DPW, and Article 27 for the FFRD. I've previously posted about these.
My votes for the last of the Spring Town Meeting articles - those cast on Wednesday, April 9 - will be coming soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment