No easy answers

There are those Monday's - and this was one - when I walk away from the meeting thinking that there are no easy answers. On the one hand, one never wants to be a stick-in-the-mud by saying "no". On the other hand, trying to please everyone by saying "yes" all the time is no better.

Consistency is another thing. It would be really easy to say "yes" here, and "no" there, so that people think you are being fair, but firm. I've seen that sort of willy-nilly voting. Eventually, people figure out that the only consistent thing about you is that you are inconsistent. That's usually when you end up losing an election.

Tonight it seemed as though there were several of these difficult situations. We had the business sign variances, and then the new sidewalk on the north side of Katherine Lee Bates Road, adjacent to the Mullen-Hall Elementary School and across from the library.

As to the former, I have, on several occasions, shared my philosophy about business signs. Variances are, in my opinion, too subjective; too open to interpretation. Personally, I think we could avoid most variances by tweaking the sign code so that it maintains the character of Falmouth AND is business-friendly. It is unacceptable to force a business to rely on the good graces of the Board to get a variance, or - in the reverse - to hope that the Board respects the town code and the character of the town by granting variances sparingly, if at all.*

Regarding the latter, there are many, varied issues here. There are obviously concerns about how the plan was put together, but there was a public meeting, publicly noticed, and reported in the paper. The town's financial situation has changed - drastically - over the past six months, but this particular project is not particularly large or expensive, and the money is earmarked for projects such as this. There is the desire to preserve the trees, but most of the trees to be removed (five of eight) are either dying or are considered invasive in Massachusetts.

And then there is the issue of publc safety. There are obvious dangers in this area, but have we created a complex solution to a simple problem? It would be really easy to just elminate some parking, but doing so would exacerbate the summertime parking issue.

Like I said, there are no easy answers.


*For those who are interested, Chapter 183, Article III, Section 183-20, paragraph A, of the town code states, "In those rare and particular instances where the strict application of this chapter would be impractical, impossible or create undue hardship, a majority of the Board of Selectmen may permit variances from this chapter. Such variances shall only be permitted when it is determined that the architecture of the building(s), the location of the building(s) with reference to a street or the nature of the use being made of the building(s), is such that a variance would be in the public interest. In granting such variance, the Board of Selectmen shall specify the size and location of the sign(s) and impose such other terms and restrictions as deemed to be in the public interest."