Family Conflicts Take Center Stage At Planning Board Meeting
A public hearing for a definitive plan for a four-lot subdivision at 187 Central Avenue grew chaotic, thrusting one family’s personal matters into the spotlight at this week’s Falmouth Planning Board meeting.
The application, submitted by Joseph and Maria Santos, proposes to demolish a single-family dwelling on the property and subsequently divide it into four lots with a cul-de-sac. Engineer Mark Dibb of Cape and Islands Engineering and attorney Robert Ament spoke on behalf of the project at Tuesday’s meeting. Mr. Ament, who said he was just asked to assist on the project a few days prior to the meeting, took to the podium to clarify the history of the property, a contentious issue that drew a small crowd of the Santoses’ relatives to the meeting.
The contention with the proposed subdivision is not the subdivision itself, but an easement that crosses the property from Central Avenue and ends at Bournes Pond. Mr. Ament told the board that another project—a four-lot subdivision, nearly identical to the one before them—had been proposed and approved for the site on June 21, 2006. Mr. Ament told the board that he reviewed the 2006 plans and made note that the easement, as the family said, went across the property and ended at Bournes Pond. The easement, however, is not currently reflected on the plans under review by the board.
“There is some interesting history to the property,” Mr. Ament said. “Mr. Dibb wasn’t aware of this either, but we should be aware of it, it’s important information.…[The 2006 plans] show a road that extends past the Johnson property that’s to the southeast and then has a cul-de-sac and it was approved by the planning board. The abutters appealed the decision to the land court in 2007, when that decision was issued. The land court’s decision didn’t come down until 2011, so that gives you an idea of how slow the process can be.”
Mr. Ament said that while the land court upheld the planning board’s approval of the subdivision, the abutters were granted a prescriptive easement from Central Avenue to Bournes Pond under Massachusetts general law, as the use of the land had been continuous for more than 20 years.
“If you look at the plans, there is a path that is apparent along the north side of the property and that’s where the court said the easement would be,” Mr. Ament said. “So that needs to be added to the plan and that’s something we would do before the next hearing on this case and just try to make sure that the abutters who have that easement [are] satisfied with the way it’s shown on the plan.”
However, after acknowledging the existence of the easement, Mr. Ament noted how Massachusetts law has changed over the years and landowners now have the right to relocate easements on their property, as long as it still provides adequate access to the destination.
This concept later tied into the discussion of waivers the applicant is requesting, specifically the waiver of a sidewalk. The argument for this waiver was that, because the proposed road is a 22-foot-wide cul-de-sac, pedestrian access would be sufficient even without the addition of a sidewalk. Combined, the lack of a sidewalk and confusion regarding the location of the easement prompted the family members present to demand answers regarding the secured location of the easement they were promised.
“We’ve been there for a hundred years,” said Joseph Johnson, cousin of the applicant. “This has been contentious for 25 [or] 30 years. We went to court, as my sister June [Johnson] said, and one of the compromises we made was…that we would have access, but now the plan has changed. They’re going to tear down the house now, which will give them access right through where the old house was, to the back, to the cul-de-sac, but now they’ve eliminated the sidewalks. It’s going to be just a road, and then we’ll have to walk down that road.
“The people who are coming in and investing in these beautiful properties and building their houses, they’re not going to be receptive to young kids, minority kids, walking across their property interfering with their vistas, if you will. They’re going to be very selfish [regarding] access to it, and we’re very concerned about that. We wanted to be in that plan that we were grandfathered [into]. We spent a lot of money trying to continue our access going forward and now here we are again, a new plan. And I don’t even know that people understand the history of the whole situation.”
Board member James Fox responded to Mr. Johnson’s concerns about having to use the road as an easement and suggested that putting in a sidewalk would help secure the family’s right to use the street as their easement.
“I think if we put a sidewalk in and give you an easement to the pond, that’s what you have to have,” Mr. Fox said. “Your easement is already there, the court already decided you have an easement. We don’t change easements, that’s a done deal. We don’t get to change that. I like sidewalks and I think there should be a sidewalk on the north side. If you had a sidewalk and an easement showing your way to the water, we could stop arguing about this and get exactly what everyone wants.”
Mr. Johnson and two of his siblings—Bruce Johnson and June Johnson-Pina—attended the meeting to speak, but things went awry. As Bruce Johnson continued his brother’s relaying of the family history and legal battles, the atmosphere in the room grew tense.
“I have some concerns after listening to the lawyer and the developer,” Bruce Johnson said. “We went to court for the easement and Mr. Fox, I have to tell you: a sidewalk is not going to do it for us to access the property that we’ve had a 12-foot road to [before]. Why can’t we drive our pickup down there, do our clamming and quahogging in our little boat? A sidewalk isn’t going to do that, and I have to say, there’s a little bias when you say that. We’re not going to allow that [after] all these years the family has owned this [land].”
Chairwoman Charlotte Harris was adamant that in order to make an informed decision, the board needs to review the documents exhibited in the land court decision that would help determine dimensions.
“We really need to wait until we see on paper what the easement is,” she said. “I see your point, but I don’t think we need to go into your family problems.”
“I understand that,” Bruce Johnson replied. “But when the lawyer says that now the property owners are going to be able to adjust where he wants the easement to be, I think it’s unlawful because we went to court. It’s clear, it goes straight along the north side of the cul-de-sac right to the water.”
Bruce Johnson went so far as to suggest that board member John Druley excuse himself from voting on the project, saying that the fact that Mr. Druley is the developer of the property where he and his wife currently live, Mr. Druley has a conflict of interest.
By the end of the hearing for the Santos application, nearly all procedural formalities had been abandoned and attendees were speaking out from their seats, rather than approaching the podium as requested. An ultimate decision was made to continue the discussion of the project until the planning board’s next meeting on September 28 to allow time for Mr. Ament to gather the documents from the original 2007 land court decision regarding the easement.
Ms. Johnson-Pina said it is not her family’s wish to derail their cousins’ plans for the land their great-grandfather once owned, and their biggest concern is maintaining the access to Bournes Pond that they have enjoyed for generations.
“I have no problem with the subdivision,” she said. “But I don’t want to lose my right to go to the water, and I did not see it on his plan. I’m sorry, but when people buy these houses and this road is going to their house, they’re not going to allow my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren to tramp through their property.…I don’t want to deal with that. I’m up in age, I want to enjoy my land. I want to be able to do what I’ve always been able to do.”