Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 passed on the blanket vote, meaning that town meeting agrees with the recommendation in the warrant booklet.
Article 1 was to hear and accept reports. This time around, we had three reports from 1) the Historical Commission about Falmouth's designation as a Preserve America community, 2) the High School Building Committee about progress on the high school renovation and, 3) the Finance Committee about the financial outlook. I voted "aye" to accept the reports; the article passed.
Article 2 was last year's unpaid bills. The last minute addition of $48 for Falmouth Printing gave us a total of $25,797.87. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 6 would have added the definition of a boarder to our bylaws; there currently isn't any definition. During the precinct meetings there was some speculation that this article was about a home-based business in the Maravista neighborhood, but this was just a definition. By right, a homeowner can take in as many as four boarders. For any number over that, a permit is needed, but there is nothing in our bylaws which define a boarder.
Falmouth resident Craig Martin spoke against the article, raising questions about the consistency of our bylaws with respect to boarders. His concerns seemed more related to the existing bylaws than this definition, but it was apparently enough to convince town meeting to vote against the article. I voted "aye" but on a standing count of 84-114, it failed.
Article 10 generated a lot of discussion at some precinct meetings, which continued during town meeting.
Prior to 1959 it was possible to have two dwellings - two homes - on one piece of land. In 1959, the town voted to prohibit this, but existing properties were grandfathered. That is, until recently, when a land court decision declared Section 240-66D of our bylaws (which grandfathered these properties) null and void.
Article 10 would have made these properties prexisting, nonconforming, which is exactly what they are. However, in spite of an excellent presentation by ZBA Chair Matt McNamara, most town meeting representatives, myself included, were not satisfied with the lack of information. Many questions and concerns were raised, but there were few clear answers - if any - from the very town employees who should have had those answers.
Part of problem was the absence of specific language (currently in 240-66D) which expressly prohibits the conversion of seasonal units into year-round units. Precinct 2 representative Richard Latimer proposed a number changes - including the reintroduction of this particular language - via an amendment, but it was too complex to follow. I voted "no" on the amendment; it failed.
Given that the land court decision may have made between 100 and 200 properties illegal, we will undoubtedly be revisiting this decision in the spring. On a count of 90-110, this article failed. I voted "no".
An addendum...on Tuesday night, Precinct 2 representative Jim Fox asked for reconsideration of this article, noting that we did not get all of the answers. I voted "aye" for the reconsideration; we needed those answers. Unfortunately, reconsideration failed.
Article 12 was yet another proposal to rezone the 31+ acre CLSV parcel on Route 151. In prior years, town meeting had seen articles which attempted to rezone the entire parcel, or create a senior care retirement district bylaw - when we already had one. This year, CLSV received the blessing of the Planning Board by asking to rezone only seven acres, and providing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which detailed an agreement with Salmon Health and Retirement, an operator of senior care centers.
Given that this dealt with Route 151, concerns were raised about traffic. It's a reasonable concern, but we must put this into context. The current zoning would allow for approximately 15 homes. If this facility generates no more traffic than 15 homes, traffic is a mute point. As my wife pointed out during the debate, during the past two years, my father has lived in two such facilities. It's only anecdotal evidence, but my own experience is that these kinds of facilities generate little traffic. Residents rarely have cars and the support staff required is either minimal, or comes and goes on regular shifts. My opinion? Traffic won't be an issue, and if it is, a stoplight could be required as a condition of the permit.
Another objection was the loss of agriculturally zoned land. However, Precinct 8 representative Jude Wilbur spoke in favor of this plan, noting that when he was a member of the Planning Board, they tried - and failed - to get the town to create agricultural-only zoning. Just because land is zoned for agriculture, doesn't mean that it can or will be used for agriculture.
Much of the rest of the debate centered around the need for this kind of facility, and (again) from experience I believe it is needed. However, I wanted some assurance that we were going to get a senior care retirement facility and not a restaurant. I asked why CLSV had not gone further in the permitting process before asking for the rezoning. Was the rezoning really necessary; could they not get a special permit? Our town planner answered that a special permit wasn't possible; it had to be zoned for this.
Some folks might have thought my choice of words offensive - I said that I was concerned about the sincerity of the request to rezone the parcel - and in hindsight I probably could have phrased it differenetly. I do apologize if anyone was offended, but I'm just looking out for my constituents.
I would like to have seen the MOU myself, but was willing to accept the word of the Planning Board. I voted "aye"; it passed, 163-37.
Article 15 was to lease the old North Falmouth Fire Station for a period of ten years or more. Since 1979 this building has been leased and maintained by the North Falmouth Village Association. One town meeting representative questioned why the town was in the real estate business and suggested that we should be selling the building instead of leasing it.
While I agree with the logic, this was not the time to develop such a policy. The selectmen should ask the town manager to do a thorough inventory of town properties and review what can be sold. Not only could this raise revenue, it would return these properties to the tax rolls (assuming they are not purchased by a non-profit) and eliminate any cost of maintaining them.
I voted "aye"; it passed.
An aside...At this point the moderator made an editorial comment about the need for board and committee members to be present at precinct meetings and prepared to answer questions. Apparently some felt that board and committee members were inadequately prepared to address the issues raised. Having been at several precinct meetings myself, I concur with this observation. We need to do a better job.
For that matter, the selectmen need to implement a policy prohibiting boards and committees from meeting one or two weeks before town meeting. This would ensure that board and committee members are available to attend the precinct meetings.
Articles 16 though 19 dealt with the town's new wind turbine. Before these articles, any revenue the town received (such as renewable energy credits) would go directly into the general fund. That created the potential for these funds to be used for something other than the debt, operations and/or maintenance of the turbine.
Article 16 created a stabilization account to hold these funds until we need them. Article 17 put the bulk of the money we've received to date ($953,623.00) into this fund, leaving $57,000 in the general fund to pay this year's debt. Article 18 asked the legislature to allow us to create a special account for the turbine revenues; once approved, this will replace the stabilization fund, which is just a temporary measure. Finally, Article 19 authorized the $57,000 payment from the general fund to the debt.
I voted "aye" on all; all passed.
Article 21 was this year's capital budget. As the town's reserves dwindle, more effort is being put towards funding capital expenses (tangible projects which have a useful life of 5 years or more and a cost of $25,000 or more) via overrides. For example, last year the town approved the purchase of new fire trucks as a capital exclusion (in this case, a 10-year tax override).
Town meeting saw a presentation from our town manager in which he proposed annual overrides to fund various projects. Planned for the spring is a $1.15 million capital exclusion to fund water quality, coastal drainage, facilities maintenance, coastal structures, public safety and communication and technology projects.
One such project is the replacement of police cruisers, a $110,021 expense which was cut from this budget. Police Chief Riello noted that they are downsizing the administrative fleet (i.e., smaller cars) to help reduce the operations expense, but the cruisers will need to be replaced as they accumulate 100,000 miles a year.
Also removed from this budget was $7,000 for monitoring the Bourne's Pond inlet. This was a condition the conservation commission had placed on the Menhaunant Beach nourishment project. It begs the question; Is the town exempt from adhering to these conditions? It's possible that this will be funded in the spring, but I'm looking into this.
This year's capital budget was pretty slim, just $191,227. I voted "aye"; it passed.
Article 22 would have approved $2.9 million for bulkhead repairs and a 50 percent expansion of the town marina. It was originally planned to use a 15-year bond to fund this construction, to be paid off using the additional revenue from the expanded marina. However, it was learned that state law limits bonds on marina projects to 10 years, which made this financially impossible.
The recommendation was now indefinite postponement, so "yes" meant "no". I voted "aye"; the article was indefinitely postponed.
Article 23 is an regular article which moves money from the general fund to the school department. These funds are reimbursements from the federal government for Medicaid-related expenses in the schools.
Some folks noted that the reimbursements (something around $250,000) were greater than the amount being moved (just $50,000); they questioned whether this was legal, whether the town was denying the schools mandated money. However, several indivdiuals, including members of the school board, noted that there was nothing illegal here. As I understood it, although this was a separate, specific article, the school department was still getting more than the reimbursed amount via the annual budget.
Some folks wanted to offer amendments to add to the $50,000, but with virtually no money left in the general fund, these didn't get off the ground.
I voted "aye"; the article passed.
Article 31 generated more discussion than some expected. A bylaw which would ban smoking on our beaches, some folks raised concerns about making this legal activity illegal, and thereby treating smokers like second-class citizens.
Few folks know that I enjoy a pipe from time to time. Growing up, my dad smoked a pipe regularly, and I'd always enjoyed the smell of pipe tobacco. There have been occasions when I've found myself lamenting the lack of a place to smoke, but I accept that what I might enjoy, others might not. For example, my wife can't tolerate the smoke, so I've never smoked in our house or cars. Like light or sound, smoke is difficult to contain. In crowded situations - such as a beach in the summer - we have to be respectful of others. Unfortunately, not every smoker is.
The other half of this equation are the cigarette butts. These are not biodegradable, and as one town meeting representative noted, some folks don't think twice about turning our beaches into ash trays.
Smoking is not illegal, so banning it seems oppressive, but when we cannot practice common courtesy and common sense, what else can we do? Suggestions included smoking sections (difficult to manage, given the wind) and identifying specific beaches were smoking would be allowed. This isn't a bad idea, given that some of our beaches are underutilitzed.
I voted "aye"; on a standing count of 128 to 60, it passed.
Article 32 reduced the membership of the Historical Commission from 7 to 5. Although some concerns were raised about concentrating authority in fewer appointed individuals, the hard, cold reality is that there simply are not enough volunteers for the job.
Between 1979 and 2002, the commission operated with five members. This number was raised to seven in 2002, but since 2006 the commission has been effectively a 5-member board. This creates a quorum problem, since you must have a majority to do business. Right now there are just four members of this 7-member board, so if somebody misses a meeting, there can be no meeting.
I voted "aye"; on a standing count of 125-60, it passed.
A few folks remarked to me that those 60 people who opposed the reduction in membership should stop by town hall and take out applications.
Article 33 was the housekeeping article. In total, town meeting voted to spend $3,298,149.87. I voted "aye"; it passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment