The proposed new location for Blanchard's Liquors is apparently the hottest topic in town, not including "the recall". Yet, according to recall organizers, the ZBA decision on Blanchard's and the ZBA falling-out that ensued is one of their main reasons for "the recall".
I have heard opinions on both sides of the table from friends, family, and commenters on this issue. Reasoning crosses political lines and seems to create very polarizing opinions. So, I cover the topic yet again here on this blog.
For a myriad of reasons - high rent, Cape Cod Mall trying to force them out of their leased building, expansion aspirations, etc... - Blanchard's Liquors decided to move (or try to) from their current location next to the Cape Cod Mall into a new location. The problem arises from their chosen location.
They chose the old Knights of Columbus building located on Route 28 in Centerville at the intersection of Strawberry Hill Road and Rt. 28. This property is a couple parcels closer to Hyannis than the new CVS that was just built a couple years ago right on the intersection. The CVS parcel, the proposed Blanchard's site and the parcels in between all have part of or most of their property subject to "HB" zoning.
According to Chapter 240, Section 25 of the Barnstable Town Code there are basically three types of building allowed in "HB" zones (to summarize):
1. "Office, but not including medical office" - ALWAYS PERMITTED.
2. "Bank, but not consisting in whole or in part of drive-in bank or drive-up automatic teller" - ALWAYS PERMITTED.
3. "Any use permitted in the B District not permitted in Subsection A herein, subject to the following: Such uses do not substantially adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community" - SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PERMIT FROM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
Last time I checked, a liquor store isn't an office or bank, so the owners of the proposed Blanchard's Liquors were applying under the third possible use. The third use is basically any business use, PROVIDED it does not "substantially adversely affect... the community".
The ZBA had every right to refuse this building. They did not HAVE to approve anything. They MAY have set precedents with prior decisions (I don't know if they did or not), but this project required their special approval.
There have been a lot of studies about the concerns of Barnstable citizens, and one of their highest concerns is traffic. There are a lot of dangerous intersections (Lumbert's Mill Road & Rt. 28, Rts. 28 & 149, Yarmouth Road/Willow Street and Rt. 28, etc...), awful rotaries (Airport Rotary), and plain dangerous stretches on Rts. 28 & 132.
The intersection located nearby the proposed Blanchard's is bad enough as it is. Thankfully, there is little traffic on the Rt. 28 entrance of CVS, as most customers prefer to use the light, via CVS's entrance on Strawberry Hill Road. However, that intersection is now out of date, with no left-hand turn signals and what appears to be either timed lights or poorly calibrated smart-lights.
The impact of CVS on Rt. 28 has increased traffic at the light, but has not resulted in people regularly cutting across multiple lanes of traffic on Rt. 28 to get to CVS. Blanchard's would do exactly that.
Sure, they said they'd put in curb cuts designed to discourage left-hand turns, but that doesn't work at Christmas Tree Shop Plaza or McDonald's on Rt. 132. Actually, if you think about it, those curb cuts are actually MORE dangerous, because you don't expect nuts to be taking turns in or out of there. Plus, frustrated drivers, trying to get to the Mid-Cape's largest liquor store might decide not to turn there, so they'll have to find somewhere else to pull a quick U-turn, whether it's side roads in the area, the Middle School, CVS, the Greek Orthodox Church, etc... all options for reversing direction are bad.
So, between additional traffic flowing through the already bogged light, cars making discouraged (and dangerous) left-hand turns in & out of the store, and scores of people searching for somewhere to turn around, the traffic concerns alone pose serious traffic increases and safety threats.
A good comparison is the people taking left-hand turns in and out of Parker's Liquors on Rt. 132... Take the number of cars making those turns and multiply them by 10 (or maybe more)... That should give you a good indication of how many cars would be going in and out of the store...
The ZBA had the RESPONSIBILITY to turn down the proposal if it would "substantially adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community".
I say that it would increase traffic, affecting my "convenience"
It would increase the risk of accidents, affecting my "safety"
It would add a store expecting high volumes of traffic in an already high traffic area with ZERO road improvements, affecting my "comfort"
I would also say that the combination of these elements substantially affects the community.
The ZBA rejected their RESPONSIBILITY to the people of this town to turn this project down.
Some people have said that the vocal opposition to the ZBA's decision on this project and the end-around to get the Cape Cod Commission to look at this project are all reasons to recall the Town Councilor from Precinct 6. They say it constitutes an "abuse of power".
They say that these actions led directly to the ZBA's mass resignation... yet, even the ZBA member who voted against the project left in the resignation. Meaning that their issues were not the direct result of this project, but more deeply embedded. Most likely, it stems from a lack of communication.
Lack of communication is EXTREMELY common in the "real world". It really does happen. People don't play phone tag for fun. It looks like that was a bigger issue.
To the best of my knowledge and intuition, the way this project was handled was not the reason the ZBA decided to resign (though it may have been the straw that just about broke the camel's back).
However, the issues regarding this building are real. They are concerning. Concerning enough, that the Cape Cod Commission, decided to accept the Town Manager John Klimm's request for the Commission to review the project. They were real enough to get Councilors Barry, Chirigotis, Joakim & Rugo to write a letter formally asking the ZBA reject the permit, and real enough to get Joakim & Rugo, along with Klimm, to appear before the board. There are legitimate concerns about this project. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but they certainly shouldn't be ignored.
Perhaps, if Blanchard's had not decided to build such a large store (9,801 sq ft, just 199 below mandatory Cape Cod Commission review), traffic concerns would not be so large. Their current store is only 4410 sq ft, so this is a 222% increase in space. Maybe they can't advertise as a "discount" liquor store, but their size alone would indicate that they should have lower prices. I would assume that they expect enough traffic to support the 222% size increase, perhaps 222% more than their current location?
Regardless, the ZBA had a clear cut choice on this project, and chose to support the business. Usually, I am all for business expansion & growth. The fact is that we discourage it far too often. Normally, I would applaud a case like this where "conservationists" lose to the common businessman. However, in this case, there are no "conservationists", merely citizens with concerns, and their concerns were completely ignored. That's my problem.
-
32 comments:
What a great summary of the issue. You ought to send it to the Patriot.
It all sounds great except no one ever defers to the traffic studies done by both the applicant and the town(peer review). These people are engineers whose job it is to study and understand the effects projects will have on traffic. You will not ever see or hear these defenders of Janet Joakim mention that fact that both traffic studies came to the same conclusion. The Blanchards project would have a minor effect at peak times, but that is not what you people want to hear so you put your hands over both ears and go LA LA LA LA LA..........
Please!
a 9800 sq ft package store will not effect traffic?
Not much more than the Cape Cod Package store expansion.
The ZBA said specifically why they quit. You might want to check out their speech again. It was very powerful, and no amount of slippery Joakim rationalization, conversation, or communication would have changed the fact that the integrity of the board was being compromised.
That letter to the ZBA on council stationery was a real bad move for Joakim, and when it surfaces will put the final nail in her political coffin.
The COG blogger from Brighton who runs the Cape Cod COG Living Blog, checked in to cut-and-paste a slightly edited comment from TJ's Barnstable Beat blog.
It is attributed to former ZBA alternate member John Norman, but it cannot be proven that Mr. Norman actually wrote it. If he did not write it, he can contact me via email with proof of identity to have this comment removed from this blog. In the meantime, I will post Bugsy's comment and the actual comment from TJ's blog.
EDITED:
[This comment has been edited to reflect the true comment left on the Barnstable Beat blog.]
[NOTE: This comment is only the opinion of the particular commenter(s) and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the author of this blog.]
Bugsy said...
Here's POST FROM THE HORSES MOUTH:
"TJ, Leah Curtis came to a ZBA meeting 5 minutes before it was to start, and while I was standing there having a conversation with Shiela, asked if she could speak to Shiela in private. She never said hi or acknowledged me standing 2 feet from her. After a few minutes Shiela returned and said that Leah offered her the Regular Member position that was open. Shiela declined but said she strongly recommended that I be nominated. Leah just stared at her with no response. The fix was in, and it had nothing to do with not filing out an application for the position. Leah, had been told that I was not to get the nomination no matter what the ZBA Chairperson wanted. It was based solely on my Blanchards vote nothing more. Up untill that vote Leah had nothing but nice things to say to me after the vote, nothing, it took her three weeks to respond to an email asking her what was going on with the nomination. I would love to have a public debate with any one who would like to go over the facts of the Blanchards two year application process and think that we did anything other than what was best for the whole Town Of Barnstable Not just Centerville. Remember this also moves a business away from a very congested Hyannis rotary. I did not serve on the Centerville ZBA I served on the Town of Barnstable ZBA.
August 17, 2008 8:04 PM"
August 17, 2008 9:29 PM
To respond to the comment supposedly from Mr. Norman:
*It looks like Leah Curtis is taking the majority of your blame for the "fix" (as you call it), and it is telling that you did not mention Janet Joakim.
*You mentioned that this project "moves a business away from a very congested Hyannis rotary". I would submit otherwise. If Luke's Super Liquors (in the old Aubuchon Hardware building located JUST off the Airport Rotary) was moving to this site, then that might be moving business away from the overdeveloped Airport Rotary area. However, the current Blanchard's Liquors is a good distance away from that rotary, and I doubt that much of their traffic comes from people circling the Airport Rotary on the way there or on the way home.
*I have not reviewed the traffic reports created for this project, but from what I have read, they were based on conservative models.
*Would you like to share any specifics on the basis of your decision? Please feel free to share your opinions in this forum or via email - dedicatedprecinct3voter@yahoo.com
It must be tough living in a constant state of denial.
Why can't you just admit to yourself hat we'd all be better off with a reasonable and mature leader for the Town. Maybe then, we could get down to the business of addressing the TRUE issues facing the 3rd Precinct (if you really live there.)
Arf. Arf.
Janet Joakim has already been specifically named as one of the individuals who pressured and then retaliated against the board.
Being that she holds the highest elected position in town of those named, she should take the hit for the walk out.
I find it odd that Joakim never accepts responsibility for any wrongdoing whatsoever - ever.
She obviously engaged in a ridiculous cat fight with the wrong person, and put her confidence in a like minded person with vindictive motives... Not too smart.
Janet Joakim was NINE YEARS OLD when Gail Nightengale joined the ZBA. Joakim's attempt to tell that board what to do was just plain stupid. Now we have no ZBA, and the short list of new appointments is a sorry replacement for what we lost.
Our town suffered a major loss over the ZBA walkout, and Joakim needs to take responsibility for her role in the matter. The more she denies it, the worse she appears to the voters. Blaming the citizens who are non public persons for her recall further indicates her cluelessness.
It is really sad that it takes so much effort to get Joakim and her ilk to communicate to the voters. Anything she tries now is just too little, too late. She really ought to just resign and run again, instead of digging her political grave with her idiotic responses.
To Bugsy:
It must be tough, weighing in on issues facing Barnstable from your home in Brighton. Unlike you, I DO actually live here.
Why can't you just admit that the comment that you thought was an ace in the hole for you turned out to be another dud. Your favorite comment never mentioned Joakim as the problem, laying the issue down at the feet of Councilor Curtis and (as I said in this post) a clear lack of communication.
To 8:30 AM Anonymous:
Mr. Norman's supposed comment does not mention Joakim as the problem. PERIOD. Maybe others have, but Norman did not, and that is telling.
Town Councilor DOES not hold the highest elected position in town. She is one of 13 Town Councilors who share the highest elected position in town. She just happens to be the Councilor that her fellow Councilors thinks is best suited to lead their meetings.
I do not pretend that she is perfect, but in the face of the mind-numbing attacks she has been receiving lately, I will defend her against those.
The fact that Gail Nightingale served for 35 YEARS on the ZBA is EXACTLY the reason that it was time for her to go anyway. I have nothing but respect for the job she did on the ZBA, and I love experienced individuals serving on town boards, but for anyone to serve for that long is indicative of a Town Council & Appointments Committee not doing their jobs. No one should be serving in any single governmental position for that long. It was time for anyone else in town to step up to the plate.
Losing all the members of the ZBA in their mass resignation was a great disappointment, but many of those who resigned weren't going to be on the board much longer, anyway.
To suggest that someone "resign and run again" is absurd. She won her last election by a sizable margin, and should not have to "resign and run again" to please you. She has every right to her elected office, and if you want to try to remove her from office, that's your prerogative.
Joakim has the option to resign and run again. If she chooses to run a recall election and loses, she will never hold public office again.
Resigning and running again would be the smart thing to do politically, but Joakim isn't all that bright. Hope she goes down hissing and clawing.
Since when is 72 votes a sizable margin?
Janet Joakim won the 2005 election against Joe Pino 478-402 (or 54%-46%). An amazing 35% of Precinct 6 showed up at the polls. The next three closest precincts came in at 29%, 28% and 25%.
In order for Pino to have won the election by a SINGLE VOTE, 77 additional voters would have had to show up at the polls and ALL vote for Pino. In other words, the already sky high turnout in Precinct 6 would have had to reach 38% for Pino to win in a an absolutely best case scenario.
Precinct 6 clearly made their choice in 2005. Winning by 72 votes when only 880 are cast for the two candidates is an 8% margin of victory. That's sizable in my books.
Oh, can you name 3, let alone 1, candidates who have resigned because of a recall and then run again in the race to appoint their successor?
Let me get this right, Truthi.
I own property in Barnstable. I pay taxes in Barnstable. And, I am registered to vote in Barnstable. Yet, you think because I travel to Boston 2-3 days a week that I am not allowed to speak.
Check CCL. You are wrong, again.
It really must be tough being so closed minded. Did you learn that at BHS or are you naturally a stubborn, closed minded person?
Blanchard's was simply an awful decision. Mr. Norman only displays how incredibly out of touch he is with our issues and concerns. He might be a nice guy, but I am glad he is gone!
let me get this right. residents get the residential exemption which you are not receiving. So you don't vote here. You vote in Brighton. It really must be tough to be a mutt with no home.
Bugsy:
Again, on both your comments here and your latest post on your Cape Cod COG Living blog, you not only stretch the truth, but you blatantly lie.
In your August 18, 2008 7:22 AM comment, you assailed my credibility suggesting I don't actually live in the 3rd Precinct, which is aboslutely wrong.
I rebutted your comment, because of the absolute hypocrisy of the fact that you made the comments from your Brighton home.
You accused me of not living in the 3rd Precinct from your Brighton home. Now, if that isn't both ironic and hypocritical, then nothing is.
I am not assailing your ability to comment, because if I was, I could simply delete all your comments.
You go ahead and have fun with the false posts on your blog.
The TRUTH is that your comment WAS reposted on this site with the ACTUAL comment by John Norman. Instead of allowing you to post an EDITED version of Mr. Norman’s comment, I replaced the vulgar abbreviation you substituted for TJ's name with the CORRECT version of Mr. Norman's comment from Barnstable Beat, along with your comment on that comment. You can find the honest version posted on this page at August 17, 2008 9:55 PM, right below your deleted comment.
I "assailed" nothing that you said, while I did debate the content of Mr. Norman's comment with him both here and with the same comment posted on Barnstable Beat.
You love that comment like it contains some state secret that dooms any non-COGer. The TRUTH is that the comment isn't condemning of Joakim at all. That comment doesn’t support your COG agenda at all. As a matter of fact, it actually places the blame FAR away from Janet Joakim.
Maybe you should accept the TRUTH, but I guess that we all know that you would rather just make it up, copy it or edit it.
Oh, Janet. Get a life. You hide behind this veil of truth and lie out of both sides of your mouth.
If you truly cared about our neighborhood, you'd help me fix Hyannis Water.
In case you haven't figured it out, that's how this whole mess started.
The BARLACO land theft ignited the opposition to a nameless, faceless Town Hall intent on robbing the good citizens of Hyannis.
From the most recent issue of the Barnstable Patriot.
Zoning board should have heeded will of the people
In response to former ZBA member and Barnstable Village resident James Hatfield’s letter last week, I offer the following observations.
First of all, the personal attacks and mean-spirited conclusions regarding our Councilors and staff by Mr. Hatfield only serve to demean and diminish the many hours of hard work and volunteerism given by the entire ZBA over the years.
Such political attack and spin is expected more from a political operative like Karl Rove than a dedicated local volunteer like Mr. Hatfield.
I am active in the Centerville Civic Association and have discussed my personal opposition to the Route 28 Blanchard’s proposal with Centerville-based Councilors several times. I could not, and cannot, believe that the Zoning Board would be so insensitive to the will of a vast majority of our citizens (who say traffic is their number one concern detracting from Barnstable) to approve such a plan.
I read that the School Committee, Town’s Economic Development Committee, Town planners and engineers, Town Manager, Town Councilors, the direct abutter, parents whose children go to a nearby school and churchgoers next door all opposed the application. So how and why did it gain approval? Did the ZBA vote of approval reflect the will of the vast majority of residents or cater to one connected business with their team of engineering consultants and attorney?
I believe that this letter reflects the arrogance of a regulatory board gone awry.
I should thank former long time member Ronald Jansson for his thoughtful and forceful statement of opposition to this project. His lengthy experience on the Board will be missed. It is unfortunate that the newer members on the board disregarded both the will of the people and the learned experience of a long-serving member like Mr. Jansson.
I not only hope, but expect, our elected Town Councilors to represent our interests by voicing the concerns of their constituency anytime a controversial proposal comes before a board. I guess the independence that Mr. Hatfield advocates in his letter means that he believes our regulatory Boards answer to no one, not even the citizens of Barnstable.
If anyone deserves an immediate apology it is we, the citizens of Barnstable, who have been harmed by an inherently bad decision by Mr. Hatfield and the former zoning board. I also want to thank our Councilors and staff for taking the high road and not engaging in the politics of personal attack.
Royden C. Richardson
Centerville
I cannot beleive that you have allowed the last comment. Please post the IP address so that legal action can begin.
My apologies about the comment remaining up as long as it did. It has been removed, and the commenter has been dealt with.
However, I do not like to post IP addresses for vigilantie justice. Instead, I have stored the responsible IP address for future reference.
Why not post the address. If someone wants to libel someone, let them take responsiblity. Please make sure you keep it because I am sure legal action is forthcoming.
Legal action is coming sooner then some people think. Keep your eye on the court report in the Cape Cod Times.
Leave the door unlocked will ultimately mean a cogger will come in and mess on the floor.
Whatever the comment was that was on here for too long we know where it came from.
There they go again, leave the door unlocked and a cogger will come in and mess on the floor.
Clean it up before someone tracks it through the rest of the house!
Comments about "sealed court records" will remain off-limits on this blog. Because the records are sealed there is no way to confirm or deny the accusations, therefore they are "cheap shots" and banned from this blog.
Dude -
There is nothing sealed about those records - this stuff is public information.
Post a Comment