All of you at Curtis Pine Grove have some tough decisions. Things change when new property owners come into play. What is happening at Curtis Pines illustrates what could happen at each of the camps on Old Wharf Road. I have had many discussions with neighbors of yours in Curtis Pines, unfortunately, I do not have any answers. I have hoped, and remain hopeful, that the cottage owners in Curtis Pines could come to a resolution with the owner over acquiring an interest in the property. Ownership by the cottage owners is the only long term solution. I think the cottage and RV owners on the other properties have been awakened by your plight, and are trying to position themselves to be more pro-active in controlling their future. The stories I have heard from Curtis Pines are sad, best of luck.

Dan

No one is discussing taking anything. The CCT has clearly chosen to use quite inflammatory wording in how it has decided to cover this story with headlines like “Time for the Wrecking Ball” etc. Please read the discussions that have been posted on this and the Economic Blog. Also review the presentation I made yesterday to over 90 cottage and RV owners. In 1937 the town of Dennis established its first land use regulation, it was for Tourist Camps which included tent, cabin and RV sites. In 1965 the town banned RV parks south of Route 28 and determined existing RV parks could not expand. About the same time they banned tent campgrounds. In 1973 the town zoning banned cottage colonies, leaving the existing ones as pre-existing non-conforming. AT THAT TIME, the town zoned the area for hotels by-right. A lot has occurred since 1973. Two of the properties have changed hands (Campers Haven and Curtis Pines), one has come close (Grindell’s). Two new owners are now carrying hefty mortgages for properties that in the past had no such overhead. There are state waste water issues that two properties are starting to have to face (Grindell’s and Campers Haven). These state requirements will increase operating costs.

The town is trying to be prepared if something were to occur out there. The proposal is to change the zoning to GIVE THE TOWN MORE CONTROL over what might happen. If a hotel were proposed on one of these parcels today the town would have little say in what could occur as we would be required to approve it if it complied with zoning. The proposal is to move most of the by-right uses to Special Permit uses. Cottages and RVs had not come up, in large part because the town had taken steps on these uses years ago, and no one has ever questioned the position that they should no longer be allowed in town.

As to why the town would discuss what could happen on land it does not own, that is the whole process of zoning. To look at where the community is, and where it could be. I try to tell anyone looking at land in town to not envision is at it is today, but as how it is zoned. That empty parcel or large parcel with a small house on it, will not necessarily always be that way.

Will a hotel be sustainable? These four parcels contain about 47 acres of land. That amount of land could allow for a hotel that meets the needs of modern travelers far better than most of the existing hotel sites – indoor pool for off-season use, exercise rooms, wedding facilities, meeting rooms, etc. With the little zoning control that exists presently, the existing use is far more at risk of displacement than if we were to have proceeded with the changes we were considering. After yesterday’s meeting, we will start to discuss campgrounds as another allowed use in the district. Even that will not guarantee your land owners will always want to use the land as it is being used. As I have told many in your neighborhood, your only real control of your destiny in that area is if you can acquire an ownership interest in the land.