[The following letter was sent to the Scarborough Town Council, town manager and members of the Pine Point Study Committee from the Pine Point Residents Association]

Editor:

 We formally request a public hearing or other forum in the coming  months so members of the community can comment on the plan.  There is a great  deal of interest.  In the meantime we need clarification on the plan itself  and the new landscape plan developed by Terry DeWan that was also presented  to the council.

 As to Town Engineer Wendel’s sketch plan for the road, we request  that this visual be labeled so the various elements of the design are clear.   

When this sketch is shown to residents we immediately receive questions  about what the markings mean.  For example, the plan now includes what appears to be 10-foot travel lanes down Depot Street. Our clear understanding  was there were to be no markings or curbing down Depot Street. Furthermore, we cannot determine from the plan where sidewalks are compared to   painted lines or “Cape Cod curbing.”  The “change in the profile” of the road  remains a mystery. It is difficult to explain to others what this plan calls for without appropriate detail.

 After the DeWan landscaping plan for the town property was  presented to the council, we obtained a copy of it the next day because it was not shown to the public during the presentation. In all candor, we were very  surprised to learn it was commissioned. We immediately noted that the town-owned  parcel, which our association believes must be fully accessible to the  public, will be essentially inaccessible.  The plan presented and accepted by  the council shows sea rose bushes fully barricading the parcel’s only access right-of-way, and calls for completely planting the area with dune  grass, which will give the appearance that this parcel is an extension of the frontal dune system.  If this land evolves as proposed the DEP would certainly intervene should the town later choose to remove and  replace dune grass with other material. So the belief that this precious land  will be available for “the future” must be questioned.  

Mr. Wiggin, in his  role as developer of the Beachwalk, indicated that his subdivision   plantings also block the right-of-way to the town property and stated during the  committee meetings that “you can’t access it.”

 The cover letter from Mr. DeWan’s firm indicates that this plan “discourages” use of the property, which was absolutely not the   intention of the committee and certainly not the desire of the Pine Point Residents Association. We don’t believe the council wants that either. We  acknowledge it is the intention of the Beachwalk Association to discourage its   use, but the Beachwalk developer benefited from relief afforded by Section  VII of the Zoning Ordinance when it conveyed this parcel and knew this  land could be used by the municipality for recreational purposes.

We must ask why, after more than 20 hours of meetings, a landscape architect was retained to produce a detailed plan for the town land after the committee ended its work.  It was the town council, which charged the committee with the task of making recommendations for this land. 

Chairman Wood and other members of the council made it clear when the committee was  authorized last spring that the council wanted to ensure this land was clearly  identified so a situation such as the Black Point Park controversy would not be  repeated.

The DeWan plan would clearly prevent public access and enjoyment and potentially create the unintended consequence of creating a sensitive habitat where none exists now. It has been stated the soil conditions require this planting scheme, but only 50 feet away are the Beachwalk subdivision lots which have manicured lawns and spectacular   landscaping. If it is truly DeWan’s intention to complement the Beachwalk theme, then filling this parcel with dune grass and barricading access to it  does not meet that criteria.

 Mr. Wiggin, representing the Beachwalk Association owners during the committee process, strenuously objected to the use of this parcel.  

When the committee disagreed, he threatened legal action based on a still- undisclosed legal agreement negotiated after the town defaulted on its obligation to secure a performance guarantee for the infrastructure at  Beachwalk. The town erred in this, but the investors at the Beachwalk clearly did not exercise their own due diligence to ensure funds for their private   road were secure before they each spent an average $600,000 for unbuildable lots.

This has no relevance, in our view, to what becomes of the town  parcel which was conveyed to benefit the developer as much as the town.  We have requested the legal agreement Mr. Wiggin threatened to enforce be made public so it could be determined how it impacts the use of this   parcel. If indeed it does, then the council should have been informed before  charging the committee with a task it could not possibly perform.

Thank you for taking the time to read our explanation and  concerns.  We look forward to the council’s reply and our request for a public forum.

Pine Point Residents Association Representatives Harold Hutchinson, Judy Shirk, Elaine Richer, Jack Callahan, John  Thurlow, Sue Perrino and Judy Mushial