Brent's Town Meeting votes - Monday, April 5

My apologies...I am a little tardy with this post.

One of the reasons why this wasn't done sooner is because there is so much to cover. With that in mind, I'm going to break it down into bite-sized pieces.

As in the past, we'll cover only those articles which involved any discussion. Those articles which passed on a voice vote - in this case, 3-7, 19, 20, 22 and 24 - won't be discussed. I voted "aye" for these; all passed.

ARTICLE 1 was to elect Town Officers, i.e., members of the Finance Committee. Nominated by the Moderator, I voted "aye" and the vote to appoint them was unanimous.

ARTICLE 2 was to hear reports from Committees and Town Officers. We heard several reports from several committees, including the newly formed Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan Review Committee and the High School Building Committee. The former had just been created, so there wasn't much to report, and with the high school project under control, there wasn't much for the latter to report. I voted "aye" to accept the reports; the article passed unanimously.

ARTICLE 8 was to vote to authorize continued use of the following Revolving Funds previously established by Town Meeting votes:
a.Code of Falmouth Revolving Fund;
b.Falmouth Recreation Department Revolving Fund;
c.Emerald House Revolving Fund;
d.Shellfish Propagation Revolving Fund;
e.Falmouth Historical Commission Revolving Fund;
This one also passed without discussion, requiring only some changes to the language (exchanging the word "may" for the word "shall" in several lines). Again, I voted "aye" and it passed unanimously.

ARTICLE 9 was another crack at what had been Article 10 during the fall town meeting. At issue are a number of properties in Falmouth which have multiple dwellings on one lot. They are "pre-existing, non-conforming" and until last year any such dwellings which had been inhabited since 1959 were legal. However, because of a recent lawsuit, a court ruled that such dwellings were illegal - period. More than 200 such properties in Falmouth became illegal overnight, with a whole host of other issues with mortgages, titles, taxes and such.

The Zoning Board of Appeals had asked town meeting to correct this last fall, but that article failed in part because of too many unanswered questions. This time around, the ZBA had the support of the Planning Board, and specific language that should have addressed any concerns.

It did not, however, satifsy Ed DeWitt, the individual who had filed the suit in question. He again raised a number of concerns and suggested also that this article wasn't necessary, as homeowners were protected as long as they had documentation in the form of occupancy or building permits.

That resonated with me, so I stood up and spoke - in favor of the article.

Not long ago, I had asked for a copy of a town contract. This contract was several inches thick and less than a decade old, yet we managed to find only one copy. That copy was locked in a cabinet that was itself hidden in a corner of town hall and for which no key could be found. If it was this hard to find something so recent, I argued, how would a homeowner hope to find a one-page occupany permit that was 50 years old?

I voted "aye", and the article passed easily.

Afterwards I learned that there had been a fire in town hall many years ago, and many of the old records - occupancy permits, building permits, and the like - were destroyed. It was a good thing that the article passed.

ARTICLE 10 and 11 were attempts rezone a Residential B parcel at 28 Nathan Ellis Highway (Route 151) to either a B-2 or B-3 Business District (respectively). The owner has tried to get this zoning change through town meeting three times now. He has failed every time.

I feel for the current owner, but he made some fatal errors:

1) You should never buy a property without knowing the history of the area. You need to know why the land is zoned that way and what objections the town might have to changing the zoning.

2) You should never develop and market a property as commercial when it is not zoned as such. This was rather presumptuous, and it has upset many people who feel as though you are openly defying Falmouth.

3) You should never threaten to come back over and over again until you get your way. If this isn't the definition of childish behavior, I don't know what is.

I voted "no" on these two articles; they failed.

ARTICLE 12 was to amend the Classification Plan for the Human Services Department, combining two part-time positions into one full time. When the Board of Selectmen was discussing our recommendation for this article, I had asked about the cost of combining two part-time positions into one. Specifically, full-time employees are eligible for insurance and benefits, whereas part-timers are not. However, it so happens that - in Falmouth, at least - working for 20 hours qualifies as full-time and you get health insurance. So, there was no overall change in the cost.

I voted "aye"; it passed on a voice vote.

Stay tuned for the rest of my town meeting votes...