Truro DPW Questions
To the editor:
Something called the “DPW Study Group” has been circulating a proposal for an “alternative” to Truro’s proposed DPW facility. It is described as “a comprehensive design for a new DPW to be located at Town Hall Hill, the current DPW site.” But it ignores four years of research and debate conducted in open meetings.
According to the group’s website, its members are Anthony Garrett, Jim Armstrong, Mark Dickinson, and Kevin Kuechler. This group was not elected or appointed and is not subject to the Open Meeting Law. That raises questions of transparency, is confusing to the public, and is disruptive to the process of open government.
Emails have been going around town claiming that the group’s proposal will save $15 million in site and construction costs.
On Aug. 25, the Truro Finance Committee held a meeting to discuss the competing proposals. I encourage everyone to watch that meeting and read the material available on the town website to better understand the issues facing the community. Anthony Garrett, who is an architect, was present and participated in a candid and respectful discussion.
The need for a new DPW facility is clear. There have been many meetings on the scope of this project, and adjustments have been made. The decision on the site will undoubtably have negative implications for some people. A location must be chosen that is in the best interest of the community.
There are questions that need to be answered without engaging in personal attacks before the special town meeting in October. What is clear is that the alternative proposed by the “study group” does not represent a $15-million saving over the current proposal. I hope that we can all work together and move forward with a solution that serves the town for decades to come.
Robert Panessiti
North Truro
The KKK and Other Forms of Hate
To the editor:
Elias Schisgall’s article “Archives Reveal Clues to Provincetown’s Ku Klux Klan Chapter” [Aug. 24, page A8] is a timely reminder of a manifestation of hate exhibited on the Cape in the 1920s. The article focused on the Klan’s anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant activities but called to mind the Cape’s history of other forms of hate, including anti-Jewish, anti-Black, and anti-gay sentiments and actions.
Jennifer Madden, director of collections and exhibits for Heritage Museums and Gardens in Sandwich, mounted the exhibit “Creating Cape Cod” last year. It involved collaborations with historical societies, museums, archives, and private collectors to tell stories of hate and discrimination here. In the exhibit catalog Madden wrote, “As the Cape’s tourism industry began accelerating in the 1920s, so did the racism and anti-Semitism that was present all across America at the time.”
Minority travelers to the Cape experienced discrimination “both subtle and remarkably overt.” Between the 1920s and 1950s, Madden wrote, the wording of hotel ads might include “restricted clientele” or “select clientele.” That meant Jews, racial minorities, gays, and certain ethnic groups were excluded.
Real estate ownership was another area of racial and religious restrictions. A survey of Cape Cod real estate conducted by Heritage Museums for the exhibit found advertising from 1926 with language suggesting the real estate company “reserves the right to approve of prospective purchasers of houses and lots.” It was not until 1968 that the federal government prohibited discrimination in private housing.
I was once told that the reason Jewish people didn’t own real estate on Cape Cod was because Jews “don’t like sand.” Most of us Jewish property owners on the Cape are first-generation because of the difficulties encountered by past generations in purchasing property here. Turns out sand was never the problem.
Roz Diamond
Eastham
Mulching the Chicks
To the editor:
Benjamin Siegel’s excellent article on vegetation removal in the Duck Harbor basin [“Salt Hay Rebounds at Duck Harbor,” Aug. 17, page A9] previews several aspects of the Herring River Restoration Project.
The primary difference between the two endeavors is that the freshwater vegetation at Duck Harbor was killed unintentionally by salt water overwashing the dunes during winter storms, while the Herring River floodplain will be intentionally flooded by means of tide gates in the new Chequessett Neck Road bridge.
Animals as well as plants will be affected. The transformation has begun at Duck Harbor, where seawater flooded the nesting sites of mammals, rodents, and amphibians. Slow-moving animals that did not perish by drowning were perhaps crushed by the treads of the heavy equipment used for clearing.
The Herring River project has a mandated turtle protection plan, but it covers only construction sites and imposes no restrictions on the clearing of vegetation. Eastern box turtles and diamondback terrapins will be vulnerable to both drowning and crushing.
Nesting birds, including those classified as endangered or threatened, enjoy no written plan for protection at either site. The company responsible for vegetation clearing at Duck Harbor uses the slogan “We Eat Trees for Lunch.” Unfortunately, they are not picky eaters but devour nesting birds along with the tree branches they shred. Even if the adult birds took flight, their chicks, eggs, and nests could not have escaped the full-tree mulching.
Everyone should understand that the cost of the Herring River Restoration Project involves more than money. Disruption (and some destruction) of wildlife is an unintended but certain consequence.
Ronald A. Gabel
Yarmouth Port
House Sizes and Loopholes
To the editor:
Your Aug. 24 article “Planning Board Again Rejects Change in House-Size Limit” [page A5] is misleading in describing the special permit provision of the bylaw as a “loophole.”
A loophole is an inadvertent mistake. The house-size bylaw language allowing the ZBA to grant up to an additional 1,000 square feet was intentional. It serves two purposes: to provide flexibility if the need for additional space is warranted and the project is in scale with the neighboring houses, and to limit the ZBA from granting any more than 1,000 additional square feet.
Truro’s bylaw was modeled on similar bylaws in Wellfleet and Chilmark. Our language was approved by town meeting voters twice, first in 2017 for the Seashore District and then again in 2019 as a town-wide limit.
A ZBA member is quoted asking, “When do you stop, and where do you draw the line?” The answer is our bylaw’s language allowing only up to 1,000 additional square feet if the request is “not detrimental to the neighborhood” considering “the size of neighboring buildings and the surroundings in which the additional gross floor area is proposed.”
Eight special permit requests in six years is hardly a worrisome number. It should be noted that the square footage limits in the article are for the 2019 town-wide bylaw, not the 2017 Seashore District bylaw.
While further limiting house size may be supported by many, the unintended consequences of amending the bylaw could do just the opposite, creating a large loophole where none now exists and opening the flood gates for even larger houses by eliminating the current limit. The bylaws are working, preventing the 10,000-square-foot megamansions trending elsewhere from happening in Truro.
Chuck Steinman
North Truro
The Essence of the ZBA
To the editor:
I served on the Truro Zoning Board of Appeals for nearly a decade, much of that time as chairman, during the 1990s. During my tenure, I learned much about zoning, neighbors’ personality traits, and varying local attitudes. The most significant thing that I learned, however, is what the ZBA is truly about.
The zoning bylaw is not cast in stone, and it is not all black and white. It does not cover all situations. It is meant to be referred to and applied appropriately, with common sense, sometimes adjusted or even set aside. The most important component of zoning decisions must be common sense.
During my chairmanship, Joan Holt, a wise and opinionated woman I do not always agree with but whom I respect nonetheless, referred to the Truro ZBA as “The Candy Store.” I took it as a compliment.
The essence of the ZBA is to assist those who are affected by the gray areas of the bylaw, those who require relief that in many instances is deserved. The ZBA is not an enforcement agency. It exists because of situations where there may be reason for review and appropriate adjustment. The title, board of appeals, says everything about its mission. I get the sense that some current members of Truro’s ZBA may not understand their true role.
I learned to avoid preconceived opinions and to hear all sides before arriving at a decision. I can’t count the times my mind was changed after having heard everyone’s arguments. There may be a genuinely sound reason for someone needing a larger house; just listen. Large homes are not necessarily unattractive and can blend well with neighboring smaller ones, so keep an open mind.
Chuck Leigh
Provincetown and Truro
