08/23/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mashpee Zoning Minutes—August 23, 2000 2 Board of Appeals Attorney Mills conducted an investigation at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds and found nothing of record against these subject properties regarding any Variances or Special Permits granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 1. At the on-site visit on August 21, 2000,Attorney Mills submitted a plan from the Building Department that reveals the layout of the entire facility,the parking area and septic and leaching systems. There is sufficient parking for the subject properties. The ml'' Board of Health has designated the facility as a 20-unit motel with an occupancy of 65. �� The proposal calls for use of the facility on a seasonal basis with a maximum occupancy lui,lig„,' of 65. The office building would be used to house a manager and the manager's family. „ The Board reviewed the paperwork provided by Dr. Soliz documenting the phases of y, construction made on the subject properties. ' t'C� Ilpl(Idl� h" ADD ll IP.7�I Ms. Cowan, a direct abutter, expressed opposition to the proposal and claimed that t m,oa l'I putting 65 people, either seasonally or on a year-round basis,would be detrimental to her lifestyle and her living conditions. She said that the proposal would create extra traffic, noise, use of the bike path and other amenities that she uses. Ms. Cowan said that she is concerned about future expansion of the facility by the new owners and that the proposal would affect the value of her property. She said that when"people work hard,they play hard" and that she has a problem with the proposal being"right next to me". Ms. Cowan complained that she did not receive notice of the Public Hearings and had to find out about the meeting from the newspaper. The Board confirmed that she was included on " the abutter's list. 9r ' Mr. Regan stated that if the Board decided to grant the change in the Special Permit,the Board would be able to condition use of the facility. '!k Ms. Marlene Perry said that she represented the property owners of 53 Main Street and 61 Main Street and concurred with Ms. Cowan's remarks. Ms. Perry stated that changing the use of the motel would change the "whole flavor of the neighborhood" and objected to having children living on the properties. She said that many of those staying at the motel were repeat customers throughthe years and expressed concern with having a new VIII,• .,. .,�.,�,,,� clientele. Ms. Perry questioned if a store or other type of facility would be constructed to accommodate the occupants of the motel. iBi"' ' F II'q!'�Ilt9fll� Ms. Elizabeth Oakley, a direct abutter at 71 Main Street, also expressed the same concerns. She said that the young employees would be making noise and"partying" at the motel. Ms. Oakley said that not all of the occupants would be the "type of character" �uiF , y that she would want around her children. She claimed that at least"one out of those 65 kids is going to do something wrong. They're going to drink,they're going to do drugs. ,�,,,,il They could steal..." f Attorney Mills objected and said that those statements were out of order. Ms. Cowan said that she did not"want to live near a project". � It; n^wul ,�i II ii` 4: ..��li�, l i 4