07/14/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 14, 2010 Mr. White repeated that: "The guests are primarily transient in nature and we're just trying to compromise with the Town so that in the winter you'll know that we only have 9 of the 19 units occupied by extended -stay guests." Mr. Furbush asked if Mr. White meant room nights when he refers to `transient in nature'. Mr. White said that he is referring to people, not room nights, and that he plans to continue to operate as a motel. He reiterated that he is trying to "compromise with the Town to reduce the number of people staying over 30 days in the winter" and that 90% of his guests are "transient in nature". Mr. Nelson asked how many occupants reside at the motel 365 days a year. Mr. White said that five units are occupied by people who have been there for over a year and eight of the nineteen units are occupied by people who have been there for over 30 days. Mr. Stevens said that the Petition does constitute a change of use in the building code and is essentially a request for a mixed use of R-1 and R-2. He said that R-2 addresses long-term stays and R-1 addresses short-term stays. Mr. White disagreed and insisted that the state law allows for "long-term'guests in motels and hotels" and that this is "not a change of use at all — it's a compromise." Mr. Furbush asked Attorney Caruso to comment. Attorney Caruso said that it is a "matter of nuances" rather than a legal question. She said that the Petitioner is of the opinion that he is "already entitled to have what he is asking for and he is just looking for validation from the Board." Attorney Caruso said that the Petitioner has applied for extension of a non -conforming • use. She said that the Board's position is that the Petitioner is not entitled to this use and therefore needs a Finding by the Board. Attorney Caruso said that: "From our perspective because this Application has been submitted to us, we're treating it as a change of use. What they're saying is that this Application is sort of a moot point in the sense that they believe they're entitled to do this already, but they're looking for validation from you through this Application." Mr. Nelson said that he has always believed in backing the Building Inspector. Mr. Nelson said that it's obvious that the Fire Department has issues with the proposal. Mr. Nelson said that he agrees with Chief Baker who wants a legal easement, a recordable plan, allowing access across 78 Main Street. Mr. Nelson said that the Petitioner has used abutting property belonging to "OWNERS UNKNOWN" to access the subject property. Attorney Mills said that the vacant abutting lot has existed for 50 years. Mr. Nelson suggested that the Petitioner could attempt to take that abutting lot by adverse possession and eliminate the access problem. Attorney Mills said that one alternative is to: "Bring an action and do a summons by publication to the heirs in the newspaper." Mr. White said that the site plan was approved 27 years ago by the Planning Board and questioned why the Zoning Board of Appeals would seek to have him change that plan. Mr. Nelson reminded Mr. White that he is using property that he does not own. Attorney Mills said that the Planning Board approved the plan, as is, without adequate fire truck access between the • office and the motel.