Although last week’s “Planners postpone vote on Falmouth project” attempted to report proceedings of the May 5 Falmouth Planning Board meeting, several important points were missed. Notably, to an objective listener, it was virtually clear that final acceptance of the West Falmouth Development, LLC was a foregone conclusion.
The Planning Board stated its intention to move to final acceptance despite opposing case study considerations raised by citizens through a letter from an experienced land use attorney. The board’s planned “rubber stamp” awaits only additional documentation from town staff.
The board considered only the feeble argument supplied by Sebago Technics on behalf of the developer and casually dismissed or ignored citizens’ counsel’s solid arguments, one of which is the danger of another road intersecting Mountain Road on a curve and pitch within a few hundred feet of the Gray Road (Route 100) intersection. Longtime residents of Mountain Road attested to the perils caused by speeding drivers unable to stop at the intersection’s light at the bottom of the hill. Although the developer admitted he could not provide a 350-foot sight line for traffic coming down the hill, as required by town ordinance, town staff several times vacillated on the actual distance required. Then the board endorsed a faulty notion that the developer can simply remove trees on residents’ yards to satisfy their proposed shorter sight line and get their project underway.
Does ordinance and case law govern development in Falmouth or is it all about relationships, which can muddy legal waters?
Lee Hanchett
Falmouth
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
