Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cycle Avenue parking permit draws divided testimony over easement and lot history
Summary
An applicant asked the planning board for a special permit to allow parking within 5 feet of a lot line at 0 Cycle Avenue; business owners supported continued parking while other neighbors and tenants alleged the easement was improperly created and cited land-court stipulations. The board requested corrected plans and kept the hearing open to Aug. 11.
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dina Brown, attorney for Falmouth 8 15 Main Street LLC, told the Planning Board that parking on Cycle Avenue has occurred for decades and that her client seeks a special permit to allow spaces within five feet of the lot line. Brown described a reciprocal easement agreement that she said historically allowed access and parking for adjacent businesses, called for correcting a submitted plan's typographical errors and asked the board to treat the use as a preexisting, nonconforming condition if necessary.
Business owners and neighbors offered mixed testimony. Michael Colbert, owner of Hogs and Dogs, said the parking has worked for years and urged approval to keep his business viable. Representatives from Slice of Italy and other adjacent businesses alleged that prior owners (one identified as Eli Veil) improperly created easement rights and that land-court stipulations complicate the legal picture. Board members asked for a corrected plan showing gate location and a revised, accurate parking count; the applicant agreed to supply a letter correcting the proposal. The board voted to keep the public hearing open and continue to Aug. 11 and asked the applicant for revised plans and any supporting documents before the next meeting.
Why it matters: The matter mixes long-standing local parking practices, private easement disputes and formal special-permit review. The board emphasized it will not resolve land-court claims but expects corrected documentation to inform its decision on the narrow question of whether to allow parking within five feet of the lot line.

