3/23/2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Executive Session

Home Browse Search

i.. ASHPB ZONING BOARD OF ASS } • EXECUTIVE SESSION WNUT S MARCH 23, 2011 laves with specific definitions of a motel, while there is nothing in the Mashpee Zoning By-law that distinctively defines a motel. i In the absence of a specific By-law, authorities must resort to using the Building Code definition and case law. Attorney Costello said that ease lave considers motels as way stations along the way for traveling motorists and are to be used for short-term occupancy. There is no clear judicial definition of a motel as opposed to a lodging house. Mashpee used the definition of a motel as found in the Building Code 6`h Edition, which designates motels as an R-2 use group*for 'primarily arily transient occupancy of periods-less than 30 days. The 2008.State Building Code upheld the Building Commissioner's original Cease and Desist order. Mr. Blaisdell questioned the definition of` r man0y". Attorney Costello said there are several ways to loop at that term and just leads to a debate on semantics. Attorney Costello stated that the Building Code 7`h and 8'h Editions have been amended to include two separate use classifications of a motel: 1 transient and . non-transient. This code no longer supports the Board's position. Mr. Bonvie suggested that the Board should present an artier for a new By-law at Town i meeting. Attorney Costello said that it would not affect the outcome of this case. He said that the lack of specification and definition in the Town By-laws reale it'difficult for the Board to maintain its decision. He said that the court would question the Board on how it would distinguish between a motel that existed in 2008 and one that exists now. Mr. Furbush brought up the public safety concerns and right-of-way issues. Attorney . Costello said that it is in the best interests of the Board and the Town to resolve those issues with the Petitioner, rather than leave it in the hands of the court to determine. The Board' discussed the conditions suggested by Attorney Costello. Attorney Costello said that reaching a compromise would eliminate the need for a trial and the Board/Town } Counsel having to revisit this repeatedly. He said .that having a set of rules and regulations governing the subject property would enable the Town tb legally enforce future violations. (See attached: Conditions and response from Attorney Mills). Mr. Blaisdell said that he has ser*ous reservations concerning the fire safety issues and access. Mr. Reiffarth agreed and said that Units #30, #31 and #32 in the back of the building should not be used for long-term occupancy. This would reduce the number of . long-terra units to six, not nine. lir. Bonvie said that he is also worried about the Petitioner not being agreeable to limiting the number of occupants in a unit. Attorney . i Costello said that the Petitioner has agreed to a fire emergency vehicle access plan that must be approved by the Fire Chief. Attorney Costello said that Chief Baler indicated that he feels an acceptable plan can be worked out. . Attorney Costello said that he will be working with Attorney hills to come to ars agreement with Mr. white. Attorney Costello said that Mr. white does not quite understand that he doesn't.have a "right" to operate the motel any way he wants. Attorney Costello will update the Board by April 13'h on the outcome of his conversations with Attorney Mills. If the Board agrees to the conditions, the court will be notified that a settlement has been achieved. The court will then issue an order giving i i