My apologies for the fact that this is a little tardy. Here they are - my 2008 Fall Town Meeting votes.
Articles 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 40 passed on the blanket vote. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, "blanket vote" means that town meeting agrees with the recommendation in the warrant booklet. I won't review these articles because the controversial issues - the ones worth discussing - are the ones that get held and voted individually.
Article 1 was to accept the nominations for the finance committee. There were three reports, from the Falmouth High School Building Committee, the Cable Advisory Committee and the Finance Committee.
The high school was pretty much routine stuff until Precinct 3 representative Chester Krajewski asked a question about showers. Committee Chairman Don Johnson acknowledged that there are showers for the high school renovation which are stored in the Lawrence School (sources tell me they are in the wood shop). For some reason, these showers will never be used, but we apparently paid for them.
It creates still more questions about the high school renovation project.
I voted "aye" (i.e., yes) to accept the reports; the article passed on a voice vote.
Article 2 was to adopt new presentation guidelines so we wouldn't be squinting to see the fine print. This was a no-brainer; I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 3 was for $3,341.22 for unpaid bills from a prior fiscal year. Some might object to this, but it happens. For example, my employer reimburses me for certain expenses related to my job, but occasionally my reports get submitted after the deadlines. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 4 changed Article III of the zoning bylaw definitions to ensure that someone operating a home-based business actually lives in the home. Another no-brainer; I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 5 generated a little bit of controversy. Part of the wording of this change to the zoning bylaw included two lines...
"The Building Commissioner may limit the time frame of said permit to specific times of the day or seasons or may issue a temporary permit subject to renewal."
...and...
"...or further restrict the activities subject to the permit as may be in the best interests of the neighborhood or town."
Precinct 1 representative Jay Kingwill raised concerns about the power provided in these lines. As an example, he suggested that someone with a home-based media company might be shut down - that their First Amendment rights could be infringed if someone disagreed with what they wrote - simply because the Building Commissioner thought it was "in the best interests of the town."
I agreed, and voted for Mr. Kingwill's amendment that would've stricken the language. Unfortunately, it failed.
Dan Shearer, a Precinct 5 representative, offered another amendment that would have prohibited the levying of any fees for home-based businesses. For me this was another no-brainer; I voted "aye" and it passed.
However, on a standing vote of 111 to 110, the article itself failed (it required 2/3rds to pass). I can't speak for anyone else, but I voted no because I shared Mr. Kingwill's concerns. We need to very strictly define what government can do. Give government an inch, and it will take a mile.
Article 6 was a change to the Senior Care Retirement District (Zoning Bylaw Article XIII.1, Section 240-65.1), which allows for the creation of Senior Care Retirement Communities (SCRC) - i.e., independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing facilities.
Discussion about this article largely revolved around the required open space. Topics included what qualified as open space (non-buildable land is excluded), and where it could be located (anywhere).
Mr. Shearer offered an amendment that would have required all of the open space to be in one location (as opposed to having an acre here and an acre there). I wasn't convinced that this was a good idea, as there may be small, desirable parcels we want to acquire, like the Haddad parcel which extended Menahaunt Beach. I voted "no"; the amendment failed.
Precinct 8 representative Ed Schmitt raised some concerns about the potential of the businesses allowed in a SCRC. Because the zoning could be anywhere, it would create some business zoning in locations where there currently is none. He proposed an amendment that would have restricted the use of such businesses to the residents of the SCRC only. The problem with such a restriction is that no business could survive if you limited its clientèle, and Precinct 1 representative Peter Clark observed that one wouldn't be able to have dinner with an elderly relative under this scenario.
Town meeting agreed that the restriction was too restrictive, and I voted "no" with the vast majority. The amendment failed.
There were a few other questions, but no serious objections. The article passed on a voice vote. I voted "aye."
Article 10 would have made a change to the zoning bylaw (Section 240-108.H.(4)) about curb cuts for drive-thru's. It would have allowed businesses like banks and pharmacies - but not fast food restaurants - within 300 feet of each other. Personally, I was OK with this change, since banks and pharmacies don't draw the kind of drive-thru traffic that fast food restaurants do.
Unfortunately, this article fell into the same trap as some prior zoning articles by being linked to a specific project.
That project is the redevelopment of the northeast corner of Palmer Avenue and Jones Road - the Cape Cod Bagel building at the hospital lights. The owners wanted the change to the zoning for a drive-thru pharmacy. Unfortunately, any development at this intersection gets microscopic scrutiny and any suggestion of any potential of any additional traffic sends folks into a frenzy.
There was an amendment offered that would have restricted the drive-thru lane to three vehicles, but neither I nor the majority of town meeting was convinced that it could be effectively enforced. I voted "no"; it failed on a voice vote.
Had this article been presented on its own and discussed on its merits, I think it would've passed. Unfortunately, it was associated with a specific location that is notorious for bad traffic, and that killed it.
I voted "aye", but on a counted vote of 90 to 124, it failed to pass.
Article 11 would have rezoned three parcels around Falmouth Harbor from Marine to Business 3 zoning. None of these parcels are on the water, so it doesn't make much sense to restrict them to Marine use only. However, this change would represent spot zoning, and the Planning Board is currently discussing the potential of a "Harborside District" to address these and other parcels.
I voted "no"; it failed to pass on a voice vote.
Articles 12 and 13 were petition articles by different people, held and moved by different town meeting representatives. However, they are similar in that they are changes to the zoning bylaw that would have made it easier to permit pre-existing, non-conforming apartments, or even to create new ones.
While there's no doubt that we could use the affordable housing that these articles would create, the unintended consequences are unknown. The Planning Board noted that no one knows how many dwellings would be covered by these changes.
I voted "no" on both articles; both failed on voice votes.
That was it for Monday night. Wednesday began with Article 16...
No comments:
Post a Comment