Laserfiche WebLink
Mashpee Zoning Minutes—August 9, 2000 3 <br /> Board of Appeals ' <br /> Mr. Borgeson said that, in his opinion,the proposal calls for a drastic change in use from <br /> a transient motel use to a dormitory use. Mr. Brem agreed and stated that several beds d <br /> could be set up in a dormitory room. <br /> Attorney Mills stated that the Petitioner would agree to limit the number of beds that are ,tt. <br /> currently set up in the rooms. The Petitioner does not plan to intensify the current use. t , <br /> w yip <br /> Mr.Vetter said that there are approximately 100 beds in the motel and that the proposal <br /> does not call for use of all 100 beds at any one time. He also stated that a shuttle buses"il ` <br /> would transport many of the employees staying at the subject properties to work. <br /> Mr. Borgeson questioned if the building that is currently in violation of Town Zoning �It ,N <br /> By-laws would be changed into a motel. Attorney Mills said that the building would be ' <br /> used as a single-family rental. tt <br /> Attorney Mills reminded the Board that the motel has been in existence for over 50 years. <br /> Ms. Elizenberry read the memo from Town Planner F. Thomas Fudala. He expressed <br /> concern with the detrimental impact that noise may have on the neighbors with the <br /> change in use. <br /> Mr. Greg Peters, abutter at 84 Main Street, addressed the Board. He questioned if the. <br /> request is for a modification or for a zoning change for the three pieces of property listed <br /> in the Public Hearing Notice. He objected to the fact that the 66, 72 and 78 Main Street, 010I0ii': <br /> owned by Soliz Realty Trust, are being referred to as "the property." Mr. Peters said that �� " r" <br /> it consists of three different pieces of property. He said that he has never had a problem <br /> with the way that the motel has been run in the past; but he did express concern with <br /> potential traffic problems caused by employees staying on the subject properties. He <br /> questioned if the septic system could handle the extra use and whether or not it would <br /> affect his water quality. Mr. Peters asked how many units are permitted to the "hotel <br /> proper,not including the white house". t;.� <br /> Attorney Mills reminded Mr. Peters that the motel is a pre-existing, non-conforming usee �,,,; <br /> and did not require a permit when it was built and that what currently exists on the <br /> subject properties is allowed as a matter of right. « , „F <br /> Mr. Peters then referred to a Special Permit for an addition approved by the Board , <br /> around 1982. He said that the owner had made two additions to the motel. Mr.Peters " <br /> told the Board that he wants it to stop "saying that this is all one piece of property,when t„ <br /> it isn't" and that, in his opinion,the Board would have to approve a Zoning change in <br /> order to grant the Petition. <br /> Attorney Mills assured Mr. Peters that the Petitioner is not suggesting that the subject <br /> properties are one piece of property and that the Petitioner does not want them to be I� <br /> combined into one piece of property. <br /> ,"IC <br /> n <br /> i Jp� <br />