My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/09/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
TownOfMashpee
>
Town Clerk
>
Minutes
>
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
06/09/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2022 11:59:45 AM
Creation date
1/28/2022 11:54:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mashpee Zoning <br />Board of Appeals <br />Minutes <br />June 9, 2010 <br />Mr. Nelson statcd that this Petition may be prolonged and involved and recommended <br />that Attorney Mills should be given the opportunity to address the Board without <br />• interruption. At the conclusion of his presentation, each of the Board members would <br />have a chance to pose questions to Attorney Mills. The Board would then entertain <br />comments from the audience in favor of the proposal. Anyone opposed to the proposal <br />would also have a chance to voice their opinion. <br />Attorney Robert F. Mills represented the Petitioner. Managing Partner Peter A. White <br />was also in attendance along with several of the motel residents. Attorney Mills clarified <br />that the motel property address is 66 — 72 Main Street and should not be confused with 78 <br />Main Street, which was part of the motel but is now privately owned by someone else. <br />Attorney Mills said that Mr. White has owned the motel property for approximately three <br />years. Mr. White has a pending litigation against the ZBA concerning the use of the <br />motel. The proposal seeks to have nine of the nineteen units at the motel to be used for <br />stays in excess of 30 days. Attorney Mills said that the Petitioner is not looking for <br />permission to use these units as full-time, year-round apartments. Attorney Mills said <br />that the nine units would consist of the following: three two-bedroom apartments (#2, #3, <br />#4), three efficiency units (#9, #10, #15), and rooms #30, #31, #32. These specifically <br />designated units would facilitate monitoring of them by the Town departments. Records <br />of check-in and check-out would be available for inspection. <br />Attorney Mills said that the residents are not there because they want to be there, but are <br />there because of the lack of suitable affordable housing. He said that there are presently <br />• three families that have resided at the motel for extended periods of time and that these <br />guests have a vested interest in the motel. The residents help Mr. White by performing <br />office duties. One of the residents performs other tasks such as painting and mowing the <br />lawn. Attorney Mills said that one gentleman who is employed at New Seabury as a <br />waiter resides at the motel from 90 to 180 days every year. <br />Attorney Mills referred to the correspondence from abutters opposed to the Petition. He <br />said that the motel residents were very offended by the content of those letters. Attorney <br />Mills alleged that the complaints relate to 78 Main Street, which is no longer part of the <br />motel, and is now owned by Nivaas Corporation of Sharon, Massachusetts. He also <br />claimed that the pit bulls referred to in those letters reside at 78 Main Street. Attorney <br />Mills said that a few cats and two dogs currently reside at the motel. He asserted that <br />there have never been complaints about those animals. <br />The four youngsters currently residing at the motel - two in first grade, one child in junior <br />high school and one high school student — attend the Mashpee school system. Mr. White <br />told Attorney Mills that none of the motel children play basketball in one of the <br />neighbor's yards. Attorney Mills alleged that the people living at 78 Main Street are <br />trespassing on the neighbors' properties. <br />Attorney Mills asked the Board to determine a finding as to whether or not the proposed <br />use is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. Attorney <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.