The Yarmouth Taxpayer

Why Massachusetts Needs Scott Brown In the US Senate.

THE ISSUES:

Economy:

Scott Brown believes that lower taxes can encourage Economic Growth. Raising taxes stifles growth, weakens the economy and puts more people out of work.  He believes in an economy that works best when individuals have more of their income to spend, and businesses have money to invest and add jobs. You just have to remember what the Democrats have done to us, the Taxpayers in this state. He has been a fiscal watchdog in the state legislature fighting bigger government, higher taxes and wasteful spending. He voted AGAINST raising the Sales Tax ands raising any other Tax in the State Senate.

Health Care:

He supports that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but he is opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. This Health Care bill will harm Retired Veterans in their Tricare Coverage.

Second Amendment: 

Scott Brown supports the Second Amendment and believes that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms as a basic constitutional liberty. He supports safe and responsible gun ownership.

Education:  

Scott Brown is for improving the quality of our public schools. Accountability and high standards are paramount.  He supports choice through charter schools, as well as the MCAS exams as a graduation requirement.  He has worked to ensure that all children have access to a quality education. He is a strong advocate for the METCO program, which provides lower income students with broader educational opportunities.
 He was a Teacher at  Wakefield High School in Wakefield Mass.

Immigration:

Scott Brown  recognizes that our strength as a nation is built on the immigrant experience in America. He welcomes legal immigration to this country. However, be believes we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration. He opposes amnesty, and he believes we ought to strengthen our border enforcement and institute an employment verification system with penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants.

Martha Coakley:

She will be just another rubber stamp in Washington. She supports the present Health Care Bill in which 52% of the voters in the country oppose, as of January 4th. She supports raising our taxes.
 
Martha Coakley:

She says she will be hard on Wall Street. We all know that the Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006 and they were told about the problems on Fannie Mae and Fanny Mac, and Wall Street. The Democrats did nothing.

 On January 19th, 2010   Send Another Shot Heard Around the World.

Vote for Scott Brown. http://www.brownforussenate.com/



 
 

Yarmouth Leads Cape On Tax Rate-So Far

This past week the Town of Yarmouth sent out the Tax Bills for the first half year of fiscal 07 .  Taxpayers have seen their tax bills increase once again, some significantly, and as of now we have the THE HIGHEST TAX RATE  ON THE CAPE. We're Number 1.  A look at the Cape Towns who have their Tax Rates approved for 07  This could change as some towns have yet to have their Tax Rate set for 07.

 Town Tax Break Down:

 1. YARMOUTH   Residential Tax Rate  5.89 Approved on  10/5/2006

2. HARWICH   Residential Tax Rate 5.58  Approved 09/29/2006

3. BREWSTER   Residential Tax Rate 5.47  10/13/2006

4. FALMOUTH  Residential Tax Rate 5.25  Approved 09/29/2006

5. EASTHAM   Residential Tax  Rate 4.61  Approved 09/8/2006

6. WELLFLEET  Residential Tax Rate 4.5 4 Approved 10/12/2006

7. ORLEANS  Residential  Tax Rate 4.27  Approved 10/13/2006

8. DENNIS   Residential Tax Rate 4.2 4 Approved 09/12/2006

9. CHATHAM  Residential Tax Rate 3.49  Approved 10/10/2006

All the above Towns tax Commercial, Industrial and Personal Property at the same tax as the Residential Tax

New  Disable Veteran (Chap. 59 ) Tax Exemption.

The increase in the Disable Veteran Tax Exemption was signed by the Governor in August and the House and Senate approved the funding in September. The bill was signed by the Governor two weeks ago with the affected date of 1 July. This is the start f or Fiscal Year 07.

Yarmouth Tax Bills:

Yarmouth  Disable Veterans or Widows of Disable Veterans who got their tax bill should be getting a Exemption  Certificate.  The new exemptions are not in the original tax bills.  The new Exemption Certificate  will have the new tax exemption that took effect July 1st. Veterans who receive this Certificate should take this to the Town Collector's Office at Town  Hall to have your tax bill corrected.

How Will The Taxpayers Respond?

How will the Taxpayers respond too this increase? Will the taxpayer remember this increase and attend Town Meeting ?Will the Taxpayer let the Selectmen know that are upset with the Town's increase  in spending? How will the Taxpayer respond?

Barnstable Airport?s Dream or Cape Cod And Yarmouth's Nightmare?

Recently the FAA released its report for the future in New England. You can see the report at http://www.nerasp.com/documentation.htm
The report covers the Regional Airports in New England. Bangor International Airport
Boston Logan International Airport, Bradley International Airport, Burlington International Airport, L. G. Hansom Field, Manchester Boston Regional Airport
Portland International Jetport, Portsmouth International Airport, T. F. Green Airport
Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport, Worcester Regional Airport. The report doesn’t cover Barnstable Airport.

Barnstable Airport Hidden Agenda?

In a recent article by the Boston Globe the Airport Manager, Quincy “Doc” Mosby said, “ its 5,400-foot runway can handle 40- and 50-seat regional jets and even 737s, and he’d be willing to consider more jet service there.” This statement clearly shows the hidden agenda the Airport has and it will be Yarmouth and Cape Cod’s nightmare. The Cape Cod Commission on the present review of the new terminal should look this statement.

An Emerging Market for Jet Service from Cape Cod?

  The Boston Globe  article said, “The FAA study also cites an emerging market for jet service from Cape Cod to major domestic markets” but steers clear of the question of whether Cape Cod officials should embrace it. As year-round population and business grow on the Cape, nearly 2 million people annually will want to fly from there to destinations beyond New England and New York, FAA planner Ralph Nicosia-Rusin said. 2 million people annually? The ENF filed with MEPA only looks at an increase by 2015 an increase to 4000,00- passengers for the new terminal and this has been lowered.

FAA Finial Report on Emerging Markets.

By 2020, the Cape Cod market will have grown to almost two million passengers flying to destinations beyond New England and the NYC area. This reflects the Cape’s evolution from primarily a seasonal vacation/retirement community to a more balanced year-round economy. Because the closest airport for long trips is Logan, most of these passengers will be driving along the congested Route 3 corridor or traveling west to Providence. The primary airport serving Cape Cod is Barnstable Municipal Airport with intra-regional service to the islands, Boston, and the NYC area. Its longest runway is 5,425 feet, and its expansion is constrained by major arterial roads, substantial development, and natural resources .  It has never been evaluated for providing services beyond the Boston and New York City markets. This is different from what is said in the Boston Globe article.d

Argument for an Airport at Otis.nstsources. 

The FAA report addresses the possibility of having another Regional Airport at Fort Devens. Why not have it at Otis? The base is not constrained by major arterial roads, substantial development, and natural resources.  It has 10,000-foot runways not 5,400-foot runways. The runways have the required overruns in case a plane skids off a runway. Barnstable Airport doesn’t have this on all their runways. The base has major road access and a access road already exists to the main part of the base to avoid high vehicle traffic having an impact on the neighborhoods. The FAA needs to study having a regional Airport at Otis. The study would cover noise and it’s impact, which could have less of an impact on the neighborhoods compared to Hyannis

Economic Impact.

Having a regional Airport at Otis would create jobs for  Cape Cod and Southeastern Mass, something that is needed. Look at what has happened at Fort Devens and the impact it has on the surrounding communities. Maybe the F15’s could even stay because having a civilian Airport with the Military would cut the cost of operating the base. This is the main reason the BRAC Commission has considered closing the base in the first place .

Bottom Line.
The Barnstable Airport’s dream is definitely Yarmouth’s nightmare and shared with all of Cape Cod.

Why is Congressman Delahunt Afraid to Debate?

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled" - Michael Crichton

Congressman Delahunt has not agreed to debate his opponents in the upcoming election. Why is the Congressman hiding? 

Is the Congressman afraid his opponents will challenge is voting record in Washington. What about his relationship with Venezuela President Hugo Chavez? He has been working overtime in damage control on his comments, that Chavez speech at the UN was silly. Mr. Delahunt should Debate his Opponents.    

Legislation that could be debated on  Mr.Delahunt’s Voting Record

Earmarking Reform Resolution: The House passed this internal rule change requiring Members to identify the special projects they insert into tax, appropriations and authorizing legislation. Delahunt - NO

Better Health Information Systems Act: This $40 million House bill is intended to accelerate the process of computerizing people’s health records. Delahunt – NO

Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act: The House approved this bill that would extend estate tax relief and raise the minimum wage. Delahunt – NO

Marriage Protection Amendment: The House fell short of the two-thirds vote needed to amend the constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Delahunt – NO

  Pledge Protection Act:    This House bill would prevent federal courts from ruling on cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance.  Delahunt - NO

US- Oman Free Trade Agreement: The House gave final approval to this free trade pact with the Middle East nation of Oman. Delahunt -NO

Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act:  This House bill would give states more control over oil and natural gas exploration in coastal waters and reduce limits on offshore drilling.  Delahunt - NO

Media Leak Resolution: The House passed this resolution condemning media outlets that print classified information about programs and techniques used by the government to track terrorist activity. Delahunt – NO
Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act: This House bill would permanently exempt estates worth less than $5 million per spouse from estate taxes.  Delahunt – NO

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act:  The House passed this bill approving $94.5 billion in emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for hurricane relief. Delahunt - NO

Declaring That The United States Will Prevail in The Global War on Terror:  The House approved this non-binding resolution declaring support for U.S. efforts in the war on terror and rejecting a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Delahunt - NO

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act: The House gave final approval to this bill that will raise the fines that can be levied against broadcasters who violate decency rules. Delahunt - NO

Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006: This House bill would allow telephone companies to offer video services. Delahunt NO

American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act:  This House bill would open a strip of coastal land in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Delahunt - NO

  Making the PATRIOT Act Permanent. To extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism. Delahunt -NO

Community Protection Act of 2006 : To restore the Secretary of Homeland Security’s authority to detain dangerous aliens, to ensure the removal of deportable criminal aliens, and combat alien gang crime. Delahunt – NO

Providing for Consideration of the Bill (H.R. 3893) To Expedite the Construction of New Refining Capacity in the United States, to Provide Reliable and Affordable Energy for the American People, and for Other Purposes. Delahunt - Not Voting

Hurricane Katrina Emergency Relief  Flexibility Act:  Delahunt – Not Voting

 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations  Fy 2006: Delahunt – Not Voting

To Amend Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 to Provide Rural Housing Assistance to Families Affected by Hurricane Katrina:  Delahunt – Not Voting

 One last item that could and should be debated, the moving of the F15s to Westfield and the loss of 500 plus jobs to the district.

Yarmouth Property Values Rise- So Will Taxes.

The Town of Yarmouth has completed  the revaluation of all properties .  The revaluation is based on statistics gathered as of past January 1st. Yarmouth Property Owners/ Taxpayers can review their data at  www.yarmouth.ma.us and may be viewed on Channel 18. The official public review period for the revaluation starts Monday and ends Friday. The first of two annual tax bills is scheduled to be sent out in October.

Property Value Increase.
This year is the 3-year revaluation  of all the properties. According to the Town the increase will be 7 percent, down from last year due to slowing home sales. Last year the town did a interim revaluation of all properties with a 10 percent increase.

17 Percent Increase and Your Taxes.
The total increase in assessments of the taxpayer’s property over the last two years was a whopping 17 percent.  The tax rate has also reflected this in an increase in our property taxes. The normal rule is when the town re-values the property, the tax rate goes down. In this case where the property values are going up so much it has off set any benefit  of a  lowering  tax rate.

Town Meeting Vote- A Tax Increase.
This past April the voters voted to increase the Town Budget by 2.11 percent. This will result in a tax increase. The tax rate was 5.95 per thousand dollars of property assessed. The new uncertified tax rate is 6.21 per thousand dollars.

Special Town Meeting- Override, Another Tax Increase?
This coming Tuesday September 12th, the Town of Yarmouth will hold a Special Town Meeting. In Article  8  is a Override Question. Now if this question is approved at Town Meeting it then goes to a Ballot Question. If Town voters approve this override it will  another 7 cents to the uncertified tax rate of 6.21, for a total tax rate of 6.28. per thousand dollars of assessed value.

Bottom Line-  Taxes Will Increase.
Normally, as I stated earlier the tax rate goes down, as will probably happen in this case. The tax rate most likely will not go down below the 5.95 per thousand dollars of assessed value. The new tax rate will be some where between  5.95 to 6.21 or 6.28 and with the 7 percent increase in property values the end result will be a Tax Increase.

Yarmouth?s Special Town Meeting

On September 13, 2006 there will be a Special Town Meeting to be held at the Mattacheese Middle School. There will be 26 Articles the Taxpayers will vote on including  Salary and Wage increases for Town Employees in Article 4. A  Prop 2 1/2 Override in Article 8.  A Wind Facilities Zoning Bylaw in Article 14. An Home Rule Petition to the a Massachusetts Legislature in Article 26.

Tax Rate.
The Tax Rate before last Aprils Annual Town Meeting was 5.95. The Tax Rate  after Town Meeting, and presently not certified, is 6.21. The Tax Rate could go up to 6.28 with a Town Meeting Vote and a Vote on September 19th  in regards to the override.

Real Estate Appraisal.
Last Year the Town did a interim Real Estate Property Appraisal. The town is presently doing the 3 year property appraisal, as required by law, with some eye raising results. So far this blogger has seen increases  running from 8 % to as much as 15%. The cause for these increases is based in the price of homes sold in 2005 and individual situations..

How Will  Real Estate Effect The Tax Rate?
This question will be hard to answer. It will depend on how the Voters vote at Town Meeting and on Sept 19th in regards to the Override so the town can figure what the actually tax rate will be..Generally the tax rate goes down. But will it? Property Values are still climbing , therefore could this offset any benefits from the Tax Rate being lowered. Last year the rate did go down, but the net result was an increase in taxes because of property values going up. It seems it will repeat again this year, only time will tell. The Taxpayer/Voters will decide this.

The Warrant.

ARTICLE 1: To see if the Town will vote to raise or transfer from available funds and
appropriate a sum of money to pay bills of prior years as provided by Chapter 44, Section
64 of the Massachusetts General Laws and to act upon any other bills that may properly
come before this meeting.

ARTICLE 2: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate from available
funds the sum of $25,000 to be added to line item 5-105 of the FY ’07 Town budget,
Veterans Benefits.

ARTICLE 3: To see if the Town will vote to raise or transfer from available funds in the Water Division and appropriate the sum of $90,000 for the use of the Water Division for the purpose set forth in the Acts of 1928, Chapter 146, or under Mass General Laws, Chapter 41, Section 69B, and to fund this sum transfer and appropriate the sum of $90,000 from the Water Reserve Account.   

ARTICLE 4: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of money to pay salary and wage increases for Town employees for FY ’07.

ARTICLE 5: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to (i) acquire by purchase or eminent domain the following described parcels of land and easements; (ii) to convey the following described parcels of land and easements:
a) Acquire by purchase or eminent domain a parcel of property off Commonwealth Avenue shown as Lot 2 on a Plan Titled “Subdivision Plan of Land for the Town of Yarmouth, July 12, 2006, Scale: 1”=40’, Town of Yarmouth Engineering Division” and to fund such acquisition, transfer and appropriate a sum of money from available funds.
b) Sell a parcel of land at the intersection of Whites Path and Commonwealth Avenue shown as Lot 3 on a Plan Titled “Subdivision Plan of Land for the Town of Yarmouth, July 12, 2006, Scale: 1” = 40’, Town of Yarmouth Engineering Division.”
c) Acquire by purchase or eminent domain a drainage easement on Huntington Avenue shown on a Plan Titled “Subdivision Plan of Land for the Town of Yarmouth, July 12, 2006, Scale: 1” = 40’, Town of Yarmouth Engineering Division” and to fund such acquisition transfer and appropriate a sum of money from available funds.

ARTICLE 6: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to
submit the following home rule petition to the Massachusetts Legislature:
An Act Authorizing the Town of Yarmouth to Send Certain Information to the Voters of
the Town.
Section 1. Notwithstanding section 22A of Chapter 55 of the General Laws, Section 21C
of Chapter 59 of the General Laws or any other general or special law to the contrary, the
Board of Selectmen of the Town of Yarmouth shall, at least 10 days before any election
at which a binding or non-binding question shall be submitted solely to the voters of said
town cause to be printed and sent to each residence of 1 or more voters whose name
appears on the latest active voting list for said town and make available at each polling
place (1) the full text of the question; (2) a fair and concise summary of the questions,
including a one sentence statement describing the effect of a yes or no vote, prepared by
the town counsel of said town; and (3) arguments for and against such question as
provided in Section 2.
Section 2. The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Yarmouth shall cause to be printed
and sent, in the manner provided in Section 1, arguments for and against each question
submitted solely to the voters of said town pursuant to any General Law, including but
not limited to, Section 21C of Chapter 59 of the General Laws. No argument shall
contain more than 250 words. Said Board of Selectmen, or, at its request the town
counsel shall seek such written arguments from the principal proponents and opponents
of each such question. Said Board of Selectmen shall designate a date by which written
arguments must be received, in a written notice to the principal proponents or opponents.
Said notice must be issued at least 14 days before the date by which the written
arguments must be received.
For the purposes of this act, the principal proponents and opponents of any such question
shall be those persons determined by said Board of Selectmen to be best able to present
the arguments for and against such question. The principal proponents or opponents of
such question may include a town officer or committee, and the principal proponents may
include the first 10 signers or a majority of the first 10 signers of any petition initiating
the placement of such question on the ballot. In determining the principal proponents and
opponents of such a question, said Board of Selectmen shall contact each ballot question
committee, if any, as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 5 of the General Laws, organized
specifically to influence the outcome of the vote on each question. If no argument is
received by said Board of Selectmen within the time allowed by this act, said town
counsel shall prepare such argument.
All arguments filed with or prepared by the Board of Selectmen under this act, and the
summary prepared under Section 1, shall be open to public inspection at the office of the
town clerk of said town.
Section 3. The official ballot shall include the summary and statements describing the
effect of a yes or no vote, as provided in clause (2) of Section 1.
Section 4. This act shall also apply where the question presented involves a regional
district of which the Town of Yarmouth is a member or involves a joint undertaking by
said Town of Yarmouth and 1 or more cities or towns.
Section 5. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

ARTICLE 7: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate from available funds the sum of $2,300 to purchase computer software to schedule and bill police and fire special details.

ARTICLE 8: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the following sums for the listed purposes, or to be added to the FY ’07 operating budget line items. Such sums shall be subject to an override of Propositions 2 ½.
CODE DEPARTMENT AMOUNT
A.CS-15 One Additional Computer $53,787
Position For Info Technology
Division
B.PS-1 Police Wages $404,000
Five Additional Positions ________
Total $457,787

ARTICLE 9: To see if the Town will vote to accept the amendment to the agreement
establishing the Dennis Yarmouth Regional School District proposed by the Dennis
Yarmouth Regional School District Committee to modify the cost and income allocation
formula, Section 4.

ARTICLE 10: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money for design, engineering, architectural fees, construction and equipping of a new fire station #3 facility in the Town of Yarmouth to supplement the appropriation made under article 18 of the 2006 Annual Town Meeting and to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the Board of Selectmen is authorized to borrow such sum under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 44, Section 7 (3) or any other enabling authority and that the Board of Selectmen is authorized to take any other action necessary to carry out this project.

Article 11: To see if the Town will vote to revise the Zoning Map by rezoning a lot off Bellevue Avenue in South Yarmouth, shown as Lot 57 on Assessor’s Map 61, from B1 Business to R40 Residential.

ARTICLE 12: To see if the Town will vote to revise the Zoning Map by rezoning a lot
off Route 28 in West Yarmouth, shown as Lot 223 on Assessor’s Map 30, from partly B2
Commercial and partly R25 Residential to all B2 Commercial.

ARTICLE 13: To see if the Town will vote to delete the definition of Transient in Zoning Bylaw Section 500 and add the following new definition:
TRANSIENT- for purposes of the limitations of Motel or Hotel use, Transient occupancy
shall be limited to the temporary and short term occupancy, ordinarily and customarily
associated with motel and hotel use. Transient occupants must have, and be able to
demonstrate that they maintain, a principal place of residence elsewhere. Transient
occupancy shall generally refer to continuous occupancy of not more than thirty (30)
days, and an aggregate of not more than ninety (90) days within any six (6) month period.
Use of a guest unit as a residence, or dwelling unit, shall not be considered transient.

ARTICLE 14: To see if the Town will vote to create a new Wind Facilities Zoning Bylaw by making the following changes to the Zoning Bylaw:
1. Revise Zoning Bylaw section 202.5, Use Regulation Table, by adding a new Use F9, Wind Facilities, allowable in all zoning districts by Special Permit from the Board of Appeals, as follows:
201.5 Use Regulation Table Res. RS-40 B1 B2 B3 MU APD AED MOD
F9 Wind Facilities BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA
2. Add the following new definitions to Zoning Bylaw section 500 Definitions:
FLICKER EFFECT – Flicker is the apparent shadow flicker of the moving turbine blade
shadow when a wind turbine is between the viewer and the sun. This effect is most
pronounced in early morning or late afternoon or during early winter with the sun is at its
most southerly track. Flicker intensity shall be established based upon a review of the
anticipated days per year of probable flicker effect on the identified impact area and
existing use of the site. Flicker impact becomes unreasonable where: 1. it impacts the
daily routine of neighbors, and; 2. it impacts the quality of life of affected parties.
Affected parties shall be designated as those parties who live, work, or may otherwise
come into contact with the flicker zone during periods of flicker conditions during routine
activity.
WIND FACILITY – All equipment, machinery, and structures utilized in connection
with commercial and non-commercial wind-generated energy production and generation,
including related transmission, distribution, collection, storage or supply systems whether
underground, on the surface of the ground, or overhead, and other equipment or
byproducts in connection therewith, and the sale of the energy produced thereby,
including but not limited to wind turbine (rotor, electrical generator, and tower),
anemometers (wind measuring equipment), transformers, substation, power lines, control
and maintenance facilities, and access and service roads.
WIND FACILITY, COMMERCIAL – Those wind facilities which expect, and confirm
by annual measurements, that on average, they will annually consume less than fifty
percent (50%) of their total actual electrical output on the generation site or immediately
adjacent to it.
WIND TURBINE – Equipment used in wind-generated energy production. Wind
turbines capture the kinetic energy of the wind and convert it into electricity. Primary
components are the rotor (blade assembly), electrical generator, and tower. Wind
turbines are to be mounted on tubular towers, but not lattice towers, so that avian perches
are avoided to the furthest extent possible.
3. Add a new Wind Facilities section 413, or appropriate number, to the Zoning Bylaw,
with the following text:
413 WIND FACILITIES
413.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Bylaw is to facilitate the development and operation of commercial and non-commercial energy generating wind turbines while minimizing any adverse impacts of wind turbines on the character of neighborhoods, property values, scenic, historic, and environmental resources of the town; and to protect the health and safety of its inhabitants, while allowing wind energy technologies to be utilized.
413.2 Applicability. Any application to erect a structure that utilizes energy from the wind to generate electricity shall comply with the requirements of this bylaw.
413.3 Requirements. Wind facilities shall conform to the following requirements:
413.3.1 Minimum lot area. Wind facilities shall only be located on a parcel of land that contains at least 10 acres.
413.3.2 Setbacks from adjacent parcels. A minimum setback of each wind turbine from all property lines and from any other wind turbine shall be not less than the overall height of the turbine or three hundred (300) feet, whichever is greater.
413.3.3 Hub height. The height of any wind turbine, as measured from average natural grade at the base of the tower to the horizontal centerline of the hub around which the blades rotate, shall not be more than two hundred fifty (250) feet, and the blade clearance from the ground immediately below each wind turbine shall be at least thirty (30) feet. A waiver from this provision may be granted only if the Zoning Board of Appeals makes a finding that additional height is necessary for adequate operation of the wind facility and will otherwise fulfill the intent and purpose of this bylaw
413.3.4 Overall height calculation. For purposes of calculating the overall height of a wind turbine, the height shall be calculated as the vertical distance from average natural grade at the base of the tower to the uppermost extension of any blade or the maximum height reached by any part of the wind turbine.
413.4 Noise and Flicker effects. Wind Turbines shall not, during normal operating conditions, be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or the town by generating excessive or unreasonable noise or visual flicker. Except during short-term service events such as high windstorms or utility outages, noise from a wind turbine shall not exceed ambient noise levels by more than 10 decibels (10 dB), as measured from the nearest property line. The petitioner/property owner shall provide a statement listing the expected ambient noise measurement before tower construction, as well as the anticipated noise levels after installation, and the difference (if any). A similar data statement shall be provided by the owner based on actual measurements made after turbine completion and within 90 days of construction of the turbine, and from time to time thereafter as may be required by the Special Permit or upon request of the Building Commissioner.  Such noise measurement statements shall be certified and signed by an acoustical engineer certifying that all noise measurements are accurate. A certified copy of each noise measurement statement shall be provided to the Town’s Building Commissioner and/or others, as designated in the Special Permit.
A report identifying the visual flicker zone shall be provided as part of the proposed
project during the application phase of the project. The plan shall identify the area of
flicker shadow effect caused by the interaction of the turbine structure and the angle of
the sun during winter conditions when the angle of incidence is most pronounced to
indicate potential areas of impact.
413.5 As-built Plans. Within 60 days of completion of initial construction and/or any additional construction or reconstruction, the Facility owner shall furnish to the Building Commissioner two (2) complete sets of plans, drawn to scale and stamped by a Professional Land Surveyor, depicting the location of all towers and appurtenant facilities on the site
413.6 Inspection. At least every 24 months, all Wind Facilities shall be inspected by a person who is regularly involved in maintenance, inspection, operation, and/or erection of such wind towers. The property owner or operator shall provide a copy of each such inspection record to the Town’s Building Commissioner.  If, upon inspection, the Wind Facilities are deemed to constitute a danger to persons or property, then upon notice being provided to the owner, the owner shall have not more than 60 days to bring such facility into compliance in order to continue with its operation.
413.7 Removal due to abandonment or discontinuance of use. The property owner shall
remove any wind facility which has been determined by the Building Commissioner to
have been abandoned or its use discontinued If removal is required, all wind turbines
and appurtenant structures shall be removed and the wind facility site shall be revegetated.
Waste material from the site shall be properly disposed of in accordance with
Town and State disposal regulations. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall require, as part
of the Special Permitting process, that an escrow account or removal bond be established
and appropriate deposits or payments made to ensure adequate funds are available for
removal.

ARTICLE 15: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of $30,000 from the Transfer Station Reserve Account for replacement and/or repair of overhead doors at the Yarmouth/Barnstable Solid Waste Transfer Station.

ARTICLE 16: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of $25,000 from the Community Preservation Budgeted Reserve to acquire by purchase, eminent domain, or otherwise, for recreational purposes, a parcel of land as shown on Assessor’s Map 83 as Lot 3, consisting of approximately 2.48 acres and recorded with the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds in Book 10964, Page 116.

ARTICLE 17: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of $30,000 from the Community Preservation Community Housing Reserve for the purpose of funding a feasibility study to determine the suitability of town-owned land for community housing.

ARTICLE 18: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of
$150,000 from the Community Preservation Community Housing Reserve to assist
developers who raze or replace Route 28 hotels or motels and convert those properties
into residential or mixed-use community housing units.

ARTICLE 19: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of $80,000 from the Community Preservation Budgeted Reserve for the purpose of conducting a feasibility and needs assessment for a possible future Yarmouth Community Center, as well as obtaining associated architectural design services.

ARTICLE 20: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of
$250,000 from the Community Preservation Budgeted Reserve for the purpose of land
acquisition and development of six (6) affordable homes on Brush Hill Road in
Yarmouth Port, MA.

ARTICLE 21: To see if the Town will vote to transfer and appropriate the sum of $161,500 from the Community Preservation Budgeted Reserve for the historic preservation and rehabilitation of the Yarmouth New Church, 266 Route 6A, Yarmouth Port, MA.

ARTICLE 22: To see if the Town will vote to add the following new paragraph 5 to Zoning Bylaw Section 104.3.5:
5. Upon endorsement by the Planning Board, non-conforming lots and/or nonconforming
structures created by the division of a tract of land on which two or more
buildings were standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in Yarmouth
(Feb. 14, 1950), as outlined in M.G.L. Ch. 41, Sect. 81-L, shall require a Special Permit
from the Board of Appeals for any non-conformance.

ARTICLE 23: To see if the Town will vote to allow the conversion of property to a condominium form of ownership by right by deleting Zoning Bylaw section 104.4 Condominium Conversion, in its entirety.

ARTICLE 24: To see if the Town will vote to allow the re-establishment of residential uses deemed abandoned or discontinued for more than two years by Special Permit by adding the following new sentence to section 104.3.1:
Residential uses determined by the Building Commissioner to have been abandoned or
discontinued for more than two (2) years may be re-established by Special Permit from
the Zoning Board of Appeals.

ARTICLE 25: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to sell 0.4 acre
parcel off Willow Street, West Yarmouth shown as parcel 4 on Assessors Map 93.

ARTICLE 26: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to submit a Home Rule Petition to the a Massachusetts Legislature to require that the Town of Yarmouth have a voting member on the Barnstable Municipal Airport Commission.

Yarmouth must have a voting member on Airport Commission

Yarmouth Needs A Voting Member on Airport Commission.
The recent editorial by the Cape Cod Times published Saturday, August 12, 2006  just about says it all. The time has come to place a voting member on the Airport Commission. This writer, being a former Representative for the Town of Yarmouth, along with Mr. Bo Lawrence another former Representative for the Town to the Airport Commission can testify first hand the need to have a voting member.

Airport Commission
The Airport Commission needs to open it’s meetings more and have frank discussions on issues at the airport. These discussions also need to allow more public input and interaction at the meetings. Presently the public is allowed to speak, for 3 minutes.  Then the commission will respond after the public speaks and no interaction is allowed. The Town of Yarmouth has a lot of issues with regards to the Airport.

Some of the Issues
Here are three issues that have a direct effect or could possibly effect the Town of Yarmouth:

1. Ground Water Pollution and Water Quality.
   Presently there is a plume on the Airport that the airport is trying to clean up. There is also new information that there is two water wells, six in total in the town, on the Airport that have elevated levels of manganese. A report was completed for the Town of Barnstable by SCA Associates. The consultant is recommending a 5 million dollar plant be built to extract the elevated levels out of the water. The big question is, where is the elevated levels of manganese coming from? What is the source?  The CCC sub committee is reopening this issue at the Aug 24th meeting . This has never been discussed openly at any Airport Commission meetings.
2. Storm Water Runoff System and the Ponds.
   The Storm Water Runoff System is over 60 years old. The system has water infiltration, as was recently discussed at the Cape Cod Commission sub committee meeting on the Airport DRI. This clearly shows that the piping within the system is cracked and pollutants are leaching into the ground unabated. The Storm Water Runoff System runs into two ponds at the Airport, Lewis and Upper Gates Ponds that are contaminated. The Airport wants these contaminates left in place instead of being cleaned up. The Town of Yarmouth is on record that this is unacceptable and the Ponds have to be cleaned up. There was a formal letter sent to the CCC on July 26, 2006 in regards to this matter. The Airport is a Zone II contribution area to the Town of Yarmouth water wells on Higgins-Crowell Road. The Town also has a Water Protection Over-lay District that extends into the Airport just north of the ponds.
3. Noise Abatement and Aviation Easements.
   In August 1999 the Chairman of the Barnstable Airport Commission told the Airport Consultant to tell the FAA to go ahead and make changes to the approaches to the airport. A sub-committee had only recommended a temporary change be made to study the effects of noise in Yarmouth and Barnstable. The noise study was never completed. The full Airport Commission never voted on this. Why? Recently the Town of Yarmouth was denied to place a Wind Turbine behind the Mattacheese Middle School. The FAA is enforcing the airspace over this area and most of the Town. This is an Aviation Easement, a land taking on Public and private property. This also has never been discussed at any of the Airport Commission meetings.

Barnstable Town Council.
The present proposal by  Barnstable Town Councilor James Munafo Jr to have the present Representative for the Town of Yarmouth to be removed as a member of the Airport Commission and just be considered a liaison with no voting privileges is a major step backwards. The line of communications will suffer severely, what little there is. What recourse will the Town of Yarmouth take if the lines of communication are removed?  Litigation?  This will be costly to the taxpayers of both towns. The first hearing on this step backwards will be heard on this coming Thursday August 17th.at the Barnstable Town Hall. I urge the Taxpayers from both towns to attend this meeting and speak out against this proposed move by Mr. Munafo. The Town of Yarmouth needs a Voting Member to the Airport Commission. 

 Next Subject. The Special Town Meeting on Sept 13th and the Prop 2 1/2 Override.

Yarmouth-- A Call for Tax Relief

The Yarmouth Voters have spoken about raising their real estate taxes with the defeat of the Prop 2 ½ override. The measure lost by 260 votes, a small margin. Only 21 percent of the towns registered voters voted, but the message is the same. No more permanent tax increases.

Real-Estate Tax Exemption.

Under   MASSACHUSETTS Law Chapter 59 a municipality can grant a resident tax exemption of a dollar amount that cannot exceed 20 percent of the average assessed value of all residential class properties. The exemption reduces, by the adopted percentage, the taxable valuation of each residential parcel that is a taxpayer’s principal residence. Granting the exemption raises the residential tax rate and shifts the residential tax burden from moderately valued homes to apartments, summer homes and higher valued homes. A residential exemption is one way resort areas (e.g., Cape Cod and the Berkshires) can provide some tax relief for permanent residents.

Qualifications.

To qualify for a Residential Tax Exemption on his or her domicile under Ch. 59 §5 or §5C, an individual must, among other things have been an owner of that domicile on the qualification date for the fiscal year to which the tax relates. For exemptions under Section 5, the qualification date is July first of that year. For exemptions under Section 5C, that date is the
preceding January first

Who has a Residential Tax Exemption?

Now could be the time for the Town of Yarmouth Board of Selectmen to consider lowering the tax burden on the permanent residents who live here. Presently there are 13 Cities and Towns who have adopted some form of Residential Tax Exemption for permanent residents. Nantucket, West Tinsbury, Boston, and Cambridge just to name a few. Recently the Town of Barnstable adopted the Split Tax.

Repeal Present Law.

The present law on summer homes where the furnishings are tax should be repealed and replaced with the Real Estate Tax Exemption.

Percentage.
The Town can adopt the amount it wants to exempt: 10 % or the maximum of 20%. There would have to be public hearings on this issue and it would have to be voted on at Town meeting.

Town User Fees.

The Town of Yarmouth Board of Selectmen, over the past year, has been raising the user fees on just about everything. This has to come to an end. The Taxpayers in Yarmouth are a having tough time paying for taxes and raising the user fees is just adding to the burden. The Town needs to adopt the policy of doing more with less. Delegation of authority is one way to do this. Accountability is another.

Yarmouth Override- Yes or No.

This coming Tuesday, May 2, 2006 the Voters will vote on the Override.

The Ballot Questions.

Question #1.
Shall the Town of Yarmouth be allowed to assess an additional $819,166 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes  of adding additional staff, certain expenses and increasing capital expenditures for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2006?

CS-1 Library Wages $36,969

 CS-3 Natural Resources Wages $40,331

 CS-7 Senior Services Wages $15,666

 CS-15 Info Technology Wages $62,071

PW-6 Engineering Expense $12,500

G-26 Capital Budget $200,000

 PS-1 Police Wages $368,629

Route 28 Improvements, implementation, tourism promotion $ 83,000

TOTAL - $819,166

Tax Implication.
Approval of Ballot Question #1 would increase property taxes of approximately 2.2% or an estimated 13 cents on the FY2006 tax rate

Question #2.
Shall the Town of Yarmouth be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition 2 ½ so-called the amounts required to pay for the bonds to be issued in order to finance the design, engineering, architectural fees, construction, and equipping of a new Fire Station #3 facility in the Town?

Tax Implication.
Approval of Ballot Question #2 will increase taxes created by this debt exclusion is equal to the amount of the annual borrowing costs for this Fire Station. The annual borrowing cost is estimated at $466,000 for the first year of a 15-year bond at 5%. This would result in an estimated tax increase of 1.2% or an estimated 7 cents on the FY2006 tax rate.

Question #3.
Shall the Town of Yarmouth be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition 2 ½ so-called the amounts required to pay for the bonds to be issued by the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District for the replacement of generators at the Mattacheese Middle and M.E. Small Elementary Schools, the reconstruction of the concrete landing and stairs at the M.E. Small Elementary School, and the removal of asbestos at the L.C. MacArthur Elementary School?

Tax Implication.
The annual borrowing cost for these projects is estimated at $54,017 for the first year of a 15-year bond at 5%. This would result in an estimated tax increase of 0.1% or an estimated 1-cent

Town Meeting Vote.
The voters at Town Meeting approved the new town budget for fiscal year 07. The 2.11 increase will raise the tax rate from $5.93 to $6.20

Question Raised.
In article #1 the Yarmouth Police Department wants to add 5 full time offers, three officers within the department will be promoted to Sergeant. The reasoning on this is it will add additional patrol coverage within the town. The Police Department recently had a
Management and Staff study with a grant from Barnstable County. This study was not fully completed before Town Meeting for reasons be on the control of the Yarmouth Police Department. The executive summary of the report calls for hiring a total of 7 new hires, 5 police officers ,which is in the override. One new detective and one dispatcher, which is not in the override. The question being raised here is why did the Board of Selectmen put this request on the Town Meeting Warrant, if the report was not completed? The Voters/Taxpayers should have the full report, with the  explanation and justification for adding new police officers. This report would then give a complete picture for this request so the Voters/Taxpayers could decide on how they would vote, either for or against this ballot question.

The Bottom Line.

The bottom line is if all the articles are passed the tax rate will rise to $6.41 per thousand dollars of assessed property value. The Voters/Taxpayers will have their say on May 2nd to either raise their taxes or not to raise their taxes.  The Yarmouth Voters/Taxpayers need to get out and vote, this is what Democracy is all about.

Yarmouth Town Meeting- Another Poor Turnout.

This year’s turnout at Town Meeting was disappointing at best.  There were many Articles  that had a direct effect on the pocket book. Why the low turnout? Here are a few possibilities.

No public Input?

The Yarmouth Board of Selectmen held a series of meetings on the Town Meeting Warrant. These meetings discussed why the different  town departments need extra personnel or funding. Yet there was no input from the public.  The meetings were conducted in what is called a Workshop Meeting.

Workshop Meetings.

When the Yarmouth Board of Selectmen conducts Workshop Meetings it raises the question, is the meeting  really a Public Meeting? During one of the meetings pertaining to two petition articles Selectmen Jim Saben raised the question of having public input from citizens attending the meeting.  Chairman of the Board Jerry Sullivan spoke up saying the meeting was to hear from the sponsors of the articles and the public can ask questions at Town Meeting. Mr. Sullivan’s actions denied the public to ask questions at the Selectmen’s Meeting. Why? Doesn’t the Public have a right to ask questions on the Town Meeting Articles before Town Meeting? Doesn’t the public have a right to ask questions on any other matter of subject that is held in a Workshop Meeting?

Town Meeting Warrant.

The Town Meeting Warrant was vague on a lot of the Articles at best. Example. The Override listed wages but it did not mention the hiring of extra personnel. When the Article was introduced it was then explained to those attending. Why not spell it out in the Warrant.  When the general government article came up there was this long list of funds being transferred. This probably was the most confusing article on the whole warrant. Why does the Town or the Board of Selectmen wait to the last minute to do this?

Why The Voter Apathy?

What causes the voters in the Town of Yarmouth not to attend Town Meeting?  There are 17,000 plus voters registered here.  Could it be the voter does not know enough about what the Articles are really about? Could holding Town Meeting on a weeknight be the cause? There are many working families with school age children here is Yarmouth. Would it be better to hold Town Meeting on a Weekend? Would it be better to hold Town Meeting in May? Many registered voters go to Florida for the winter and do not return until the middle or the end of April.   Town Meeting is what Democracy is all about and it shameful that voters do not attend.