Planning Board Hearing Over Easement Raises More Questions Than Answers
Falmouth Planning Board’s continued discussion of a proposed subdivision at 187 Central Avenue Tuesday night, September 21, once again left the abutting family with more questions and concerns than answers.
Following a public hearing that was held on September 14, attorney Robert Ament told the board that a sidewalk had been added to the subdivision plans, along with a rendering of the easement afforded to the Johnson family after the land court’s decision on the matter in 2011. Engineer Mark Dibb, of Cape and Islands Engineering, referenced the same exhibits used in the land court’s decision to render the easement on the plans. The easement reflected in the current plans is the exact same rendering that was in the previously approved plans reviewed by the planning board in 2006, Mr. Ament said.
The Johnson family, who neighbor the proposed subdivision to the south, are still wary of their right of access, despite having the easement reflected on the plans as previously requested.
“There’s no guarantee that I can go up that sidewalk, go beyond those poles, and go where I want to go,” said June Johnson-Pina, cousin of Joseph Santos, the developer of the property. “I don’t walk [the easement path] anymore, I can’t walk that far. But my grandchildren do, and I assume [my great-grandchildren] will. When my [siblings’] children come from the city, they are so proud that they can walk to the water. They don’t see this in the city… My family is biracial. They’re going to see [everything] from very dark people to very light people in the family. I’ve dealt with prejudice. So all of the sudden, you’re going to be seeing all these people of color coming, and then it’s going to be a big problem.”
Ms. Johnson-Pina had raised these same concerns at the previous meeting, saying that she was worried that incoming residents of this subdivision would not take kindly to her grandchildren, who are young people of color, walking through their property.
Another issue with the easement that persisted from the previous meeting was the Johnsons’ assertion that the easement was more of a road than a footpath. Mr. Johnson’s nephew Stefan Pina went before the board and asked if there would be a problem with the family driving their trucks down to the water “like they always had.”
“Yes, that is a problem,” chairwoman Charlotte Harris said. “This is not a street, this is a footpath for which there is an easement for it. There’s not an easement for driving trucks.”
Mr. Ament again went before the board to clarify that the easement is not from Central Avenue down to Bourne’s Pond, but from the abutter’s property, meaning there is no street access.
“Yes, it’s wide enough that you could drive a pickup truck or something for a while,” he said. “But I’ve walked the path. It narrows, there is no evidence of recent vehicular traffic. Mr. Santos told me that it’s been years and years and years since somebody had a truck down there. Now, somebody may disagree, but it’s not for the planning board to decide.”
Mr. Pina also raised the concern that the proposed road, Betts Way, falls about 60 feet short of the required 300-foot distance from the neighboring road off of Central Avenue, Soares Lane. He said that in the past two months, there have been two major car accidents there and argued that that specific stretch of road was too dangerous, even before the addition of Betts Way.
“There’s not enough space,” Mr. Pina said. “The straightest road in the whole town of Falmouth is Central Avenue. It’s a dangerous part of the road, and every summer we have accidents.”
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pina both said that as long as there was a streetlight at the entrance to Betts Way from Central Avenue—as is reflected in the new plan—then they would be willing to overlook the dangerousness of the proposed road’s short distance to Soares Way.
Board member Patricia Kerfoot raised the point of marking the easement path somehow, in order to preserve it for future generations and avoid confusion if and when the properties change hands from the current owners. Town Planner Thomas Bott concurred and offered a plan of his own.
“My idea for noting both the easement in the plans and in the decision but also on the ground by essentially setting two granite posts, like the posts you see for mailboxes,” Mr. Bott said. “So when you get to the end of the sidewalk, there are two posts that are set, and I had suggested that they say something like ‘Johnson Path,’ for anybody who walks down to the end of the sidewalk, anybody who owns that piece of property—because the current owners know exactly what’s going on, but the future owners may not.”
Mr. Bott said that he had already gotten a quote from the project, and it would cost $1,200 to manufacture the granite posts. He explained that his only goal in the suggestion was to preserve the path from becoming part of somebody’s lawn and to avoid the kind of confusion that has plagued the past two planning board hearings on this topic.
Mr. Ament and board member James Fox were stark in their opposition to the suggestion.
“It’s not a lot of money for sure,” Mr. Ament said. “But it’s also not right. There’s no authority for it.”
“I’m just concerned that we’re getting involved in private property rights, not planning,” Mr. Fox said. “This has been adjudicated, it’s been settled, it’s documented, it’s there. I’ve never gotten this deep into easements before for private property. I just wonder why we’re going in this deep.”
Even Joseph Johnson, another abutter and cousin of the developer, called the talk of marking the path “a frivolous waste of time.”
Mr. Johnson raised additional issues he had with the subdivision, which included each of the waivers they had requested for things like streetlights, insufficient distance to the neighboring Soares Lane that exits onto Central Avenue, slightly higher than required grading of the road, and Mr. Johnson’s own concerns regarding excess stormwater. Most of these issues were explained and resolved before the end of the hearing, but to allow time for review, the board voted to continue this matter until October 12.