Letters: Pine Point residents unhappy with planning process (Printed Dec. 18, 2009)
To the editor:
Scarborough Residents need to be aware that the town officials are willing to give away most of historic Depot Street for “free” for the sole benefit of one property owner’s personal gain.
The town values this gift at $340,000 when adjoining waterfront lots at the Beach Walk sold for more than $800,000. Plus the town will be spending your tax dollars for their ridiculous road reconstruction which entails a concrete boardwalk to the beach, circular pavilion with arbor, benches, bike rack, cedar picket fencing, foot-washing area, shrubs and a two car drop-off.
The town plans to narrow the road to put in esplanades which will make it difficult for vehicles to travel down Pine Point Road to King Street, which could cause traffic jams. For 14 years I lived across the street from Depot Street I saw people walk to Depot Street and go “directly” to the beach path. All this expense when the town has a $1.12 million dollar shortfall for education.
It is public knowledge that the adjoining development has a sewer problem caused by whoever put their sewer in. Now we understand the town will be paying to fix the problem. Does anyone see anything wrong here?
Arlene Hurd
Old Orchard Beach
To the editor:
I watched in amazement as the planning board approved the parking lot plan for the Lighthouse Motel last Monday night. I was convinced that these hard-working volunteers who put in so much time for our town would do the right thing and delay any action until many legal and procedural questions were answered. I read the 30 pages of research and questions a group of citizens compiled and could not understand why many of the issues were not addressed by the board.
Most of the members, for example, agreed with the people that the plan to surround this oceanfront area with four-foot picket fencing was a bad idea and preferred open, split rail fences. But rather than impose that as a condition of approval, they allowed the Lighthouse to match whatever fence the Town chose to put up next door. The town plan calls for picket fencing.
What I really don’t understand is why several members of the board said they preferred to wait until the town finished its plan, but not one of them offered a motion to table the approval.
And why did the chairman refuse to allow the 20 or so people in the audience the chance to speak, especially since the Lighthouse plans changed from the last meeting?
I respect the work of those who give their time, and I have no problem with a decision they make I don’t agree with. It’s the process that is wrong, and that reminds me of the process the town manager and a majority of the town council used when it agreed to this ridiculous land swap last summer. Something is truly wrong with the way government works in Scarborough. That ought to have been obvious by the results of the last election.
Dianne McLellan
Scarborough
To the editor:
I am writing about the Planning Board’s decision to approve the Lighthouse “condotel’s” site plan for their expanded parking lot on Depot Street. The planning board granted unanimous approval Monday night despite members’ expressed concerns about many issues, not the least of which is the very tentative town manager’s plan to develop the small parcel it traded for a beach access area.
What is remarkable about this decision is that the board could have easily tabled approval until all questions were answered and they could review the town plan. Several members stated how they would have preferred to wait. But like the town council last summer, they rushed to judgment without all the facts.
For example, this project requires DEP approval. The Planning Board requires evidence of such approval before granting its own. It did not. Furthermore, this is a commercial operation located in a residential zone. When the town council gave the motel owners an additional one-eighth acre of public land for their parking lot they expanded the commercial operation by doubling the parking lot. The board, therefore, illegally approved an expansion of a non-conforming use which they do not have the authority to do.
The Zoning Ordinance states: “a non-conforming use of land… may be enlarged, extended, expanded… upon approval by the Board of Appeals pursuant to the procedures of Section V, C of this Ordinance. You can read the full text on the town’s website.
By allowing the expanded parking lot and permitting stalls down Depot Street they allow the “condotel” to obliterate public views, something our Comprehensive Plan and DEP regulations prohibit. The board could have reduced the number of parking spaces by a few and required parking in front of the building, not down the middle of the street.
Sue Perrino
Scarborough
To the editor:
The Pine Point story continues.
The next chapter was written Monday night at the planning board meeting when they unanimously approved the Lighthouse site plan for expansion of its parking lot in the residential zone. This vote paves the way for the town to deed our road to the owners. We get their little parking strip in return.
Many people held out hope the board would do the right thing and really look into this. But they said they could only look at the parking lot plan. Since when does the planning board consider development proposals without regard to abutting properties and nearby infrastructure? There are four significant developments happening in that tiny corner of our town and each impacts the other. The Beachwalk subdivision – still underway, the town’s road reconstruction, the town manager’s beach access plan, and the Lighthouse project – all interrelated.
I was one of several citizens who did an enormous amount of research for the board to consider and hand delivered a 25-page packet of information. Our research group did this because we were convinced the board was not getting all of the information they needed to make a sound decision. The chairman stated how grateful he was for the information and said it would be included in their deliberation. Yet one member said he didn’t even look at it because the town planner said it did not go through the town staff first.
The very same packet was e-mailed to the planner, his assistant, the town engineer and town manager prior to it being hand delivered to board members. Why didn’t they receive it? The explanation might be found in this portion of an e-mail I received from the town manager: “Please excuse my lack of response to your email…we have been modifying our computer security and filter systems lately and I suspect your email (and presumably others) was not allowed through and therefore not received. My apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Judy Shirk
Scarborough
Scarborough Residents need to be aware that the town officials are willing to give away most of historic Depot Street for “free” for the sole benefit of one property owner’s personal gain.
The town values this gift at $340,000 when adjoining waterfront lots at the Beach Walk sold for more than $800,000. Plus the town will be spending your tax dollars for their ridiculous road reconstruction which entails a concrete boardwalk to the beach, circular pavilion with arbor, benches, bike rack, cedar picket fencing, foot-washing area, shrubs and a two car drop-off.
The town plans to narrow the road to put in esplanades which will make it difficult for vehicles to travel down Pine Point Road to King Street, which could cause traffic jams. For 14 years I lived across the street from Depot Street I saw people walk to Depot Street and go “directly” to the beach path. All this expense when the town has a $1.12 million dollar shortfall for education.
It is public knowledge that the adjoining development has a sewer problem caused by whoever put their sewer in. Now we understand the town will be paying to fix the problem. Does anyone see anything wrong here?
Arlene Hurd
Old Orchard Beach
To the editor:
I watched in amazement as the planning board approved the parking lot plan for the Lighthouse Motel last Monday night. I was convinced that these hard-working volunteers who put in so much time for our town would do the right thing and delay any action until many legal and procedural questions were answered. I read the 30 pages of research and questions a group of citizens compiled and could not understand why many of the issues were not addressed by the board.
Most of the members, for example, agreed with the people that the plan to surround this oceanfront area with four-foot picket fencing was a bad idea and preferred open, split rail fences. But rather than impose that as a condition of approval, they allowed the Lighthouse to match whatever fence the Town chose to put up next door. The town plan calls for picket fencing.
What I really don’t understand is why several members of the board said they preferred to wait until the town finished its plan, but not one of them offered a motion to table the approval.
And why did the chairman refuse to allow the 20 or so people in the audience the chance to speak, especially since the Lighthouse plans changed from the last meeting?
I respect the work of those who give their time, and I have no problem with a decision they make I don’t agree with. It’s the process that is wrong, and that reminds me of the process the town manager and a majority of the town council used when it agreed to this ridiculous land swap last summer. Something is truly wrong with the way government works in Scarborough. That ought to have been obvious by the results of the last election.
Dianne McLellan
Scarborough
To the editor:
I am writing about the Planning Board’s decision to approve the Lighthouse “condotel’s” site plan for their expanded parking lot on Depot Street. The planning board granted unanimous approval Monday night despite members’ expressed concerns about many issues, not the least of which is the very tentative town manager’s plan to develop the small parcel it traded for a beach access area.
What is remarkable about this decision is that the board could have easily tabled approval until all questions were answered and they could review the town plan. Several members stated how they would have preferred to wait. But like the town council last summer, they rushed to judgment without all the facts.
For example, this project requires DEP approval. The Planning Board requires evidence of such approval before granting its own. It did not. Furthermore, this is a commercial operation located in a residential zone. When the town council gave the motel owners an additional one-eighth acre of public land for their parking lot they expanded the commercial operation by doubling the parking lot. The board, therefore, illegally approved an expansion of a non-conforming use which they do not have the authority to do.
The Zoning Ordinance states: “a non-conforming use of land… may be enlarged, extended, expanded… upon approval by the Board of Appeals pursuant to the procedures of Section V, C of this Ordinance. You can read the full text on the town’s website.
By allowing the expanded parking lot and permitting stalls down Depot Street they allow the “condotel” to obliterate public views, something our Comprehensive Plan and DEP regulations prohibit. The board could have reduced the number of parking spaces by a few and required parking in front of the building, not down the middle of the street.
Sue Perrino
Scarborough
To the editor:
The Pine Point story continues.
The next chapter was written Monday night at the planning board meeting when they unanimously approved the Lighthouse site plan for expansion of its parking lot in the residential zone. This vote paves the way for the town to deed our road to the owners. We get their little parking strip in return.
Many people held out hope the board would do the right thing and really look into this. But they said they could only look at the parking lot plan. Since when does the planning board consider development proposals without regard to abutting properties and nearby infrastructure? There are four significant developments happening in that tiny corner of our town and each impacts the other. The Beachwalk subdivision – still underway, the town’s road reconstruction, the town manager’s beach access plan, and the Lighthouse project – all interrelated.
I was one of several citizens who did an enormous amount of research for the board to consider and hand delivered a 25-page packet of information. Our research group did this because we were convinced the board was not getting all of the information they needed to make a sound decision. The chairman stated how grateful he was for the information and said it would be included in their deliberation. Yet one member said he didn’t even look at it because the town planner said it did not go through the town staff first.
The very same packet was e-mailed to the planner, his assistant, the town engineer and town manager prior to it being hand delivered to board members. Why didn’t they receive it? The explanation might be found in this portion of an e-mail I received from the town manager: “Please excuse my lack of response to your email…we have been modifying our computer security and filter systems lately and I suspect your email (and presumably others) was not allowed through and therefore not received. My apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Judy Shirk
Scarborough
Comments