08/23/2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes

Home Browse Search

it Mashpee Zoning Minutes—August 23, 2000 4 Board of Appeals Mr. Regan informed those in attendance that the Board is very interested in their V�p concerns and that the neighbors "would have more clout"in voicing their opinions when and if the Board placed findings and conditions upon the Petitioner. Mr. Morgan Peters, a resident at 201 Main Street, stated that he also represented his brother's property at 131 Main Street. He said that the use of the word"dormitory automatically conotates a transient living"place. Mr. Peters said that "dormitory"refers to a"living space for college students" and that it is "also a black term for a flophouse". He objected to a dormitory being moved into a residential community where people have !��' �M maintained their homes. Mr. Peters said that Mashpee is "a segregated Town,that is bothi, economically and ethnically segregated" and that New Seabury is attempting to move its Ai "transient living situation into this side of the segregated Town that Mashpee has turned �� w,. into" and would destroy the residential community. Mr. Peters also said that he would be : a� "one of the people moving to shut it down"if it starts to destroy the community. I , Mr. Greene agreed with Mr. Peters' remarks and questioned what kind of conditions that the Board would be able to impose on the proposal. I Mr. Regan referred to the Falmouth Hotel and the conditions imposed on it by the Town. Some of the conditions included an occupancy limit, cooking restrictions, supervision, proper conduct and lighting and parking rules. He submitted his findings for the public to review. ,,.,• '�q��tl.. 'I Ms. Perry said that the Falmouth Hotel is not in a residential area and that comparing it to this proposal is not relevant. "Or .U. Dr. Soliz stated that he has lived in Mashpee for many years and that he understands the "'"'' neighbors' concerns and would never condone a situation that would be detrimental to F the Town. He said that the proposal would not devalue any neighboring property and that New Seabury Properties is in a position to enhance the neighborhood with improvements. Dr. Soliz said that there is nothing wrong with"young people,particularly when they're monitored" and urged the neighbors to reconsider the proposal. Dr. Soliz stated that the motel has had 90% occupancy all summer with New Seabury employees and asked if they have caused any disturbance. Those in the audience admitted that there has been no disturbance from the motel so far. �I Several neighbors argued with Dr. Soliz and Mr. Regan reminded them several times to address the Board and not to debate with each other. EE: � 4:, Ms. Lewis said that once the properties change hands, that Dr. and Mrs. Soliz would no longer have any"say over what will happen with that property" even if he remains at 78 �,,,,� I! Main Street. 'F Attorney Mills said that Mr. Vetter, General Manager of New Seabury,proposes to house professional employees on the properties. He said that Mr. Vetter is known nationally in the "hospitality business and that he does not bring in drug dealers". Attorney Mills said 1111, ,lil'btllli�, pYY i 1M¢.