Laserfiche WebLink
the creation of units. Ms. Russell recommended simplicity to encourage the development of a variety <br /> of rental units. Mr. Phelan agreed, noting that it was a matter of supply and demand. <br /> Mr. Lehrer noted that Section K was a new addition, following a joint meeting with other regulatory <br /> boards. Sections K, L, M were added to address existing illegal rental units and a general bylaw to be <br /> developed that would require rental certificates and the Board of Health taking inventory of the rental <br /> unit. Non-compliance would make the property owner liable to fines. An amnesty clause would <br /> address illegal accessory apartments allowing them to demonstrate their ability to meet the design <br /> criteria of the bylaw in order to acquire an occupancy permit. Mr. Balzarini inquired who would be <br /> enforcing the bylaw and Mr. Lehrer responded that it was intended that the Building Commissioner <br /> and the Board of Health, or its designee, would enforce that which fell within their jurisdiction, <br /> depending upon the bylaw. It was confirmed that there were currently 63 accessory apartments since <br /> the Bylaw's passing in 2003. Mr. Hansen suggested that data should be used to ensure compliance to <br /> the Bylaw and that homeowners should be advised they would be monitored for non-compliance. <br /> There was a suggestion to add"All means to ensure compliance with this Bylaw should be employed." <br /> Mr. Lehrer suggested that the Rental Property Bylaw could address the matter, but was best placed in <br /> the General Bylaws. <br /> Referencing Section I,Mr. Rowley inquired about the distinction between an accessory apartment and <br /> offering boarding for lodging as a commercial entity. It was determined that the first sentence of I <br /> would be deleted, removing"An accessory apartment shall not be used for boarding and lodging, or <br /> other commercial use." <br /> Seeing no additional comments from Board members or staff, the Chair opened to Public Comment. <br /> Terry Ronhock, Sunset Circle, stated her opinion that the addition of an accessory apartment should be <br /> allowed by right, and should not be dependent on approval from neighbors. Ms. Ronhock also agreed <br /> with allowing one month rentals as there could be short term workers seeking housing in the area, and <br /> it provided protections to the homeowner by allowing month to month leases. In addition, renters may <br /> also be looking for flexibility. Ms. Ronhock emphasized the need in Mashpee for residents of all ages. <br /> Katie Martin,Falmouth resident, expressed her gratitude for the Board's consideration of the Bylaw <br /> changes. As a realtor in Mashpee,Ms. Martin stated that many had reached out to her seeking rental <br /> units in Town. <br /> Larry Marsh, Polaris Drive, expressed his concern that the ADU Bylaw was an assault on the single <br /> family home as well as concern about who would be allowed to rent, without restrictions. Mr. Marsh <br /> inquired whether the Board would consider limitations as to the number of units that could be built <br /> within a year, as it was essentially the building of a second home on one parcel of land, without any <br /> right for other homeowners to appeal. Mr. Marsh noted that other towns had placed a limit of <br /> approximately 10 units per year. The Chair noted that Mashpee had averaged less than 5 units per <br /> year. <br /> Ms. Russell stated her preference that ADU/Accessory Apartments be allowed by right, making it <br /> easier for the homeowner to assist with the growing housing crisis here on the Cape. Ms. Alden noted <br /> 3 <br />