MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
June 9, 2010
The Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals held Public Hearings on Wednesday, June 9, 2010, at the Mashpee Town Hall. Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, William Blaisdell and Associate Members Peter Hinden and Ronald S. Bonvie were present. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens was present. At the request of the Board, Town counsel Attorney Jena Caruso was also in attendance. Mr. John M. Dorsey was not present due to health problems.
Mr. Nelson opened the hearings at 7:00 p.m.
NEW HEARINGS
Catherine Penfornis Dupre: Requests a Variance from Section 174-31 of the Zoning By-laws for permission to vary the front setback requirements to allow for addition of a porch to property located in an R-3 zoning district at 23 Porthole Drive (Map 76 Parcel 20) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, William Blaisdell and Associate Member Peter Hinden.
Mr. Michael Dedecko represented the Petitioner and stated that plans call for the addition of a covered porch to the home on the subject property. The Board reviewed the newly revised, more detailed plan which the Petitioner had been notified by the Board Secretary on the recommendation of the Board Chairman to submit for review.
No comments were received from abutters.
Mr. Reiffarth moved to grant a Variance of 11.3 feet from the front setback requirements. Mr. Blaisdell seconded the motion. All were in favor. This is conditioned upon compliance with John Z. Demarest Jr., P.L.S. plan entitled “SITE PLAN Locus: 23 Porthole Drive, Mashpee, MA Ref: Plan Book 227 Page 89 Plan Prepared for: Catherine Dupre Scale: 1” = 30’ Date: 06/08/2010 Assessor’s Map: 76 Parcel: 20”.
Affordable Housing Association of New England: Requests a Finding of Fact under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws to allow for a year-round motel with nine of nineteen units to be used for occupants staying for intervals greater than thirty days on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 66-72 Main Street (Map 47 Parcel 59) Mashpee, MA.
Sitting: Board Members Robert G. Nelson, Jonathan Furbush, James Reiffarth, William Blaisdell and Associate Member Ronald S. Bonvie.
Mr. Nelson stated that this Petition may be prolonged and involved and recommended that Attorney Mills should be given the opportunity to address the Board without interruption. At the conclusion of his presentation, each of the Board members would have a chance to pose questions to Attorney Mills. The Board would then entertain comments from the audience in favor of the proposal. Anyone opposed to the proposal would also have a chance to voice their opinion.
Attorney Robert F. Mills represented the Petitioner. Managing Partner Peter A. White was also in attendance along with several of the motel residents. Attorney Mills clarified that the motel property address is 66 – 72 Main Street and should not be confused with 78 Main Street, which was part of the motel but is now privately owned by someone else.
Attorney Mills said that Mr. White has owned the motel property for approximately three years. Mr. White has a pending litigation against the ZBA concerning the use of the motel. The proposal seeks to have nine of the nineteen units at the motel to be used for stays in excess of 30 days. Attorney Mills said that the Petitioner is not looking for permission to use these units as full-time, year-round apartments. Attorney Mills said that the nine units would consist of the following: three two-bedroom apartments (#2, #3, #4), three efficiency units (#9, #10, #15), and rooms #30, #31, #32. These specifically designated units would facilitate monitoring of them by the Town departments. Records of check-in and check-out would be available for inspection.
Attorney Mills said that the residents are not there because they want to be there, but are there because of the lack of suitable affordable housing. He said that there are presently three families that have resided at the motel for extended periods of time and that these guests have a vested interest in the motel. The residents help Mr. White by performing office duties. One of the residents performs other tasks such as painting and mowing the lawn. Attorney Mills said that one gentleman who is employed at New Seabury as a waiter resides at the motel from 90 to 180 days every year.
Attorney Mills referred to the correspondence from abutters opposed to the Petition. He said that the motel residents were very offended by the content of those letters. Attorney Mills alleged that the complaints relate to 78 Main Street, which is no longer part of the motel, and is now owned by Nivaas Corporation of Sharon, Massachusetts. He also claimed that the pit bulls referred to in those letters reside at 78 Main Street. Attorney Mills said that a few cats and two dogs currently reside at the motel. He asserted that there have never been complaints about those animals.
The four youngsters currently residing at the motel - two in first grade, one child in junior high school and one high school student – attend the Mashpee school system. Mr. White told Attorney Mills that none of the motel children play basketball in one of the neighbor’s yards. Attorney Mills alleged that the people living at 78 Main Street are trespassing on the neighbors’ properties.
Attorney Mills asked the Board to determine a finding as to whether or not the proposed use is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current use. Attorney Mills said that, in his opinion, the proposed use would be less detrimental and provides more consistency. There would be less daily traffic and uncertainty about who the guests would be on a day-to-day basis. He said that the guests are family people, hard working members of the community who do not pose a threat to the community. Attorney Mills said that the motel is pre-existing, non-conforming. The motel was built in 1970. Route 130 was changed from a commercial zone to a residential zone in 1971.
Attorney Mills said that the significant housing crisis exists throughout the Commonwealth. He talked to Thomas Perry, Barnstable Building Commissioner and Eladio Gore, Falmouth Building Commissioner about the situation. They both informed Attorney Mills that there are several motels in Falmouth and Hyannis that house people for periods longer than 30 days. Attorney Mills referred to a report from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Transitional Assistance Program which details that people are housed in motels for extended periods of time for emergency housing at taxpayers’ expense.
Attorney Mills said that he represented New Seabury Corporation who was interested in buying the motel eight years ago with a proposal to use it for seasonal employees. The Board denied that Petition.
Mr. Nelson asked Attorney Caruso about the plan that had been submitted by the Petitioner. He said that he did not feel that the Board could make a determination based on the poorly-prepared plan. Mr. Nelson said that the Board needs a property plan showing the location of the units. Attorney Mills said that the Petitioner did not want to waste thousands of dollars on an engineered plan and then have the Board deny his Petition. He said that the Board could waive the plan requirement. Mr. Nelson said that he wants clarification of property lines showing the exact boundaries for the motel residents. Attorney Caruso commented that if the Board decided not to waive the plan requirement, the Board should be very specific and narrow down what it wants detailed on the plan, such as concerns with boundary
lines, definition of neighboring homes. Mr. Furbush said he wants to see parking spaces on the plan. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens submitted a plan of the subject property from the Building Department file.
Mr. Bonvie asked for clarification of the current use. Attorney Mills said that motels are supposed to be used for ‘primarily transient’ occupants not to exceed 30 days. Mr. Bonvie said that the current guests of the motel have established occupancy, have entered their children in the school system, which means they are residing at the motel for more than 30 days. Attorney Mills said that “primarily, they are transient and are there for less than 30 days.”
Mr. White brought records showing the motel records of the guests, who are “primarily transient in nature”.
Mr. Furbush commented on the 29 parking spaces for the 19-unit motel. Building Commissioner Stevens said that there is no issue with the parking provisions.
Attorney Mills said that a new septic system was installed five years ago, which has more than enough capacity to deal with the motel even it was fully occupied 365 days a year.
Mr. Nelson said that no comments were received from the Fire Department. He said that he tried to drive his own vehicle onto the property. Mr. Nelson said that emergency vehicles would have a great deal of difficulty accessing the narrow drive.
Mr. Bonvie questioned the distance of the dumpster to the edge of the building. Mr. White guessed it to be about 25 or 30 feet. Mr. Nelson said that State Law demands 50 feet. Mr. White said he could have the dumpster moved further away from the building.
Mr. Nelson asked for comments from the audience in favor of the proposal. Ms. Catherine Brown of John Pond Estates said that Mashpee “should be grateful that Mr. White is willing to take homeless people into his motel.” She said he runs a “clean motel and it’s a good place for homeless people to be. We have homeless people. Are we just going to ignore them? It’s something we should be very glad is happening.”
Ms. Gail Nelix of #20 Route 130 said that she has been a nurse in the community for 37 years. Her main concern is health and human services of the community. She expressed concern that people would be homeless if the Board doesn’t grant the Petition.
Mr. Walter Abbott of 7 Windsor Point in Stratford Ponds said that he walks the Route 130 walkway and was unaware there were any dogs because he has never seen any dogs at the motel. He said that he has never had or seen any problems with any residents of the motel. Mr. Abbott mentioned that he is a member of the Mashpee Affordable Housing Committee, but was not speaking for the Committee. Mr. Abbott referred to the Barnstable County Home Consortium which deals with affordable housing on the entire Cape. He said that the Consortium’s number one priority on its five-year plan is affordable rentals. Mr. Abbott said that there are many different ways or models to address the affordable housing issue. He said that what Mr. White provides is a different model that may be difficult for some to
understand; but that, in his opinion, it is worth a try. Mr. Abbott said that, in his opinion, the proposal would not cause harm to the neighborhood. He suggested that if any problems do arise, then the Board could have the Petitioner resolve them.
Mr. Richard Negron lives at the motel and has a daughter who enjoys attending the Quashnet School. He said that Mr. White has been kind enough to take him in and provide him with a home. Mr. Negron said that he is in the construction industry and that type of work has been very sporadic. He said that the motel is quiet and no one has problems with anybody else there. Mr. Negron said the motel residents get along and help each other.
Mr. Furbush read into the record the following email in opposition to the proposal:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Karen Cowan I reside at 56 Main Street Mashpee Mass. I am unable to physically attend this hearing due to a family medical issue. I would like to voice my strong opposition as a direct abutter to the request of Mr. Peter White, owner of the Plaza Del Sol's motels request to operate this motel year round and to separate out nine units for year round rental to families. ~I am asking that the town deny this request based on the following.~
~~ My family has owned property on route 130 in Mashpee for over forty years. I have owned 56 Main Street for twenty years. I had welcomed the fact that there was a wonderful family, short term seasonal motel next door when I purchased my property. The property was well maintained and the former owner and original builder of the property did follow protocols for intended use as a seasonal motel and it was only opened from April first through October 15th every year it was well run and usually full of vacationing families. However, the motel changed hands several years ago and since that time the current owner has been operating the motel against the current protocols year round attempting to establish a precedent for year round use. It should be noted that Mr. White is currently appealing a "cease and desist" order
that was issue ~over a year ago by the town of Mashpee. His current request should not overshadow the fact that he has already been found in violation of misuse of this property. He has continuously been renting units year round in violation of the motel use protocols.
~~ ~Mr. White has blatantly defied the protocols for use of this property since purchasing it. Mr. White is not operating it as a motel with a maximum stay per unit and individual for thirty days. Several tenants that have lived in~these two bedroom motel ~units for over a year without switching units every thirty days as is required under the current use protocols. He has been operating it year round as an apartment complex in defiance of the law. He has advertised in the local newspaper to solicit rentals during the winter months. This property is not zoned for use as a multi unit apartment dwelling.
~~ ~Mr. White would have you believe that he is supplying affordable housing for people who cannot afford it, that has been his mantra. ~I learned at prior hearing on this matter ~that his business of record is called " New England affordable housing initiative". The reality is that this is a for profit business venture and Mr. White's moniker is intended to mislead the public of his true intent. We as residents of the town should be ashamed of ourselves if we allow this motel to become Mashpee's answer to an affordable housing dilemma.
~~~~ ~A motel environment is not conducive to raising families. The units are small and cramped as they were not intended for long term use. There are no recreational facilities. Small children are forced to play in the active parking lots. Would you be willing to attach a stigma to your child who attends school that they live in a motel? ~There are many dogs on the premises and in the units often times these animals are allowed to roam freely without leashes in the lot. In addition, Mr. White allows seasonal workers to rent~these units (which is well within his right) but often times as many as five ~or more adults occupy a unit . Again another blatant violation of use. ~ ~~
~~ If Mr. White~is allowed to create a loophole with his current request for year round use and more specifically the use of nine units for year round rental (this constitutes half of the motels occupancy). He will inevitably return to ask you to convert the remaining ten units to rental because the need is so great for "affordable housing" and he is such a good fellow for wanting to help the downtrodden while of course helping himself.
~~ ~If ~my voice is not heard this evening and this request passes I on the other hand will have to continue tolerating the cursing and noise made by his renters in the parking ~lots, the aroma of marijuana floating through my yard on occasion, the barking of dogs and the ~cars ~coming in and out during the night. ~There has been an increase in police activity at the motel that was never present before. My family and I have had to tolerate incidents of vandalism to our property by long term motel dwellers. My home was paint balled and my bulkhead spray painted. We have had to endure many motel residents trespassing on our property using my basketball court and on occasion I have pulled into my driveway at night to find motel residents drinking in my gazebo. ~These nuances may not diminish your quality of life but they certainly
negatively affect mine.
Mr. White~has requested this hearing as a resident of the town who wanted to be heard. He has relocated from his home state of New Hampshire as it was in his best interest to establish residency in order to pursue his goal of creating~a rental unit apartment complex. ~I to would like to be afforded the same opportunity to be heard. I hope that you will hear my plea and understand my plight.
~It would be egregious for you to allow this motel to operate year ~round as an apartment rental property .This is an attempt to over ride the zoning laws for the use of this property without a feasibility study to assess the impacts of such a high concentration of people in a small area . If this is passed you will in essence have~allowed at minimum a nine unit low income apartment complex to replace a seasonal use motel. This will in effect obliterate any current capacity caps for occupancy at this motel and change the use of it from a seasonal motel to a multi unit apartment complex. This will continue to negatively impact property values in this area, increase the use of town resources and jeopardize the quality of life for current residents. The property was built and intended to be used as a seasonal motel.
I urge you to vote NO on this request. I thank you for listening to my request.~
Thank you for time.
Sincerely,
Karen L. Cowan
~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Blaisdell read into the record the following email opposed to the proposal:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:58 AM
To: Cynthia Bartos
Subject: Hearing Related to "Affordable Housing Association of New England"
Dear Members of the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeals:
~
This letter is in regards to the~Affordable Housing Association of New England:~ Request for~a Finding of Fact under Section 174-17 of the Zoning By-laws to allow for a year-round motel with nine of nineteen units to be used for occupants staying for intervals greater than thirty days on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 66-72 Main Street (Map 47 Parcel 59) Mashpee, Ma.
~
I am a 73 year old 31 year Mashpee resident who lives at 101 Main Street.~ I am an almost daily user of the bike path and have observed the activities at~La Plaza Del Sol motel~for the 31 years that~I have lived on Main Street.~ Up until the most recent two changes of ownership I have noted a definite decline and indifference to being a good neighbor by the last two owners.
~
Unfortunately I am not able to attend the June 9th Public Hearing as I will be out of state on a pre planned and pre paid for airline fare visit with my son's family but~ I instead am writing to object strongly~to both of ~the proposed allowances (1)~for a year-round motel~ and (2) with nine of the nineteen units to be used for occupants staying for intervals greater than thirty days on property located in an R-5 zoning district at 66-72 Main Street (Map 47 Parcel 59) Mashpee.~
~~
The following are some of the reasons that I strongly object to these changes.~ Out of respect for the Committee's time, I shall attempt to keep my objections as brief as possible.
~
1.~ Other than the parking lots, there is no designated safe~areas~for children to play. ~I personally~have seen~children living in the premises~playing in the only open areas, the parking lots.~ This is~the perfect recipe for an accident waiting to happen. Cars rounding the corner cannot readily stop in time if a toddler decides to dash in front of them.~
~
2.~ The motel is not an apartment building which is what the owners are~aiming for under the guise of a "year round motel" with units to be used for greater than thirty days.~~~Obviously their goal is to run an apartment building~by disguising it as a motel.~ ~It~was never designed for year~round living especially for~families.~~If they so desire to own an apartment building, they should buy or build one.~ Opening the motel year round is not going to bring desirable~tourists or visitors to Mashpee.
~
3.~~The significant traffic hazard to residents especially the children~as cars enter and leave the motel parking~lots.
~
4.~ The visual intrusion.~~
~
5.~ The allowance of pets (especially pit bulls) that I have noted~as I walk the bike path.~ One incident that I personally experienced while on a walk on the bike path was a gentleman~living in~the furthest~unit (the one where you have to walk up the stairs to access the unit) on the bike path with two unleashed dogs, one of which was a pit bull, allowing his dogs to relieve themselves on the path.~ He did not stop to clean up after them.~ The worst of this was I was very afraid to continue on my walk to where they were because one of the dogs had his gaze fixed on me.~ Thankfully I was~able to~step out of sight until they re-entered the unit.~ I witness four dogs living in that unit.~ I counted them with the same man and a woman one day.~
~
6. In addition, on two different occasions~I personally~witnessed a pit bull from a different unit who got loose and ran down the bike path with the owner and his entourage~in pursuit.~ Fortunately he and his~buddies did manage to regain control of the loose animal before the dog encountered any pedestrians on the path.~ This is a real danger to people who use the walk for the recreational purpose that it was~intended for.~ I have become very hesitate about passing by without a walking stick or a large rock or some other form of protection from the dogs that are allowed to reside their.
~
7.~ The audio intrusion in the form of cursing from the tenants and their visitors as they converse in the parking lot.
~
8.~ Lastly and more importantly, why do the Mashpee police sit watch over the premises as intensely as they do?~ There has to be a reason.
~
I object to the proposal due to the nature and residential location of the motel with its significant effects.~ I believe that by allowing the motel to hide an apartment building under a motel licensing should not be allowed.~ I believe that my quality of life and that of many of the neighbors~will be adversely affected.~ Please do not allow this motel to become a disguised~apartment building.
~
Thank you for your time.
~
Sincerely,
Mrs. Anna Lewis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Reiffarth read into the record the following email in opposition to the proposal:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 3:00 PM
To: Cynthia Bartos
Subject: Affordable Housing Association of New England
Am an abutter of the property at 66-72 Main Street (Map 47 Parcel 59) and would like to voice my opposition to allowing occupants to stay for intervals greater than thirty days at this property.
~
This is a residential neighborhood and even though the Motel is probably grandfathered in, to now start to allow permanent residence in 9 of the 19 Units is not consistent with the area. Will the permanent residences grow to 18? The residents who live in the area have a vested interest in taking care of their property. I find it hard to believe that those residing in these 9 Units would put forth any effort to maintain the current quality of life in the neighborhood.
~
Morton Brond
19 Windsor Point
Mashpee
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nelson asked Attorney Mills and Mr. White to inspect the plan and made reference to the retaining wall. Mr. Nelson said that people from the motel are accessing private property to enter and depart the subject property. He said that he would be unable to approve the Petition with the current traffic flow. Mr. White said that he has never had a problem with traffic flow. He also said that he has an agreement with a neighbor for the right to access his property. Attorney Mills said that he will find out who owns the abutting property and will provide the Board with secure permission. Mr. Nelson said that he wants a plan showing grant of an easement.
Mr. Bonvie questioned why the lot was numbered the way it was and whether or not the lots were owned contiguously. Attorney Mills said that the lots were never owned in common ownership.
Mr. Nelson opened the discussion to the audience for comments from anyone in opposition to the proposal.
Ms. Janice Mills of Ryan’s Way said that when she arrived in Mashpee, the motel was very upscale and accommodated very famous people from New York City during the summer. She said that these guests frequented the restaurant that she was involved with. Ms. Mills said that she was also very involved with the Cape Cod Baseball League and that parents of players would stay at the Plaza del Sol motel. She said that she finds the “combination of being a motel and low income housing really aren’t compatible.” Ms. Mills said that the “whole dynamic of the area has changed with the use of the motel” and that she was troubled by the motel being changed to year-round use with units that are not equipped for year-round use. She questioned the adequacy of kitchen facilities that are
provided. Ms. Mills mentioned that she is on the School Committee and that she worries about the children being brought up there. She said that there is no playground and expressed concern with child safety at the pool area. Ms. Mills said that she has heard stories of children who do not live in the area being dropped off and getting on the school bus, which puts an even greater burden on Town resources. She said that she realizes that affordable housing is a real problem. Ms. Mills suggested that Mr. White’s talents would be better used by being on the Affordable Housing Committee instead of a profit-making organization.
Mr. Dick Thomas addressed the Board. He is the owner of 84 Main Street which he purchased in November 2009. Mr. Thomas said that he is a single father who brought up his children on the cape. He said that “being a single male on Cape Cod, unless I was a beaten female, I couldn’t get housing back when I had my kids”. Mr. Thomas said that he understands the dilemma of homeless people because he has been in the same situation himself. He said that his home has been vandalized and burglarized since he moved to Main Street. Mr. Thomas said that he had to assist a drunken woman caught in the briars in his yard and redirect her back to the motel where her friends were staying. He said that he worked very hard his whole life and now his children are grown. Mr. Thomas objected to
the fact that there are “people meeting their friends out in front of my home, like three, four, five times a day. Same person, in front of my home. I don’t want that going on in front of my house. I’ve got grandchildren.” He said that he has nothing against affordable housing and that the Town of Mashpee needs to address the problem, but the motel is not the place for affordable housing. Mr. Thomas said that the purpose of a motel is for people to come, stay for a while to visit and then leave. He said that he would not have purchased the property at 84 Main if he had known that people were residing at the motel for more than 30 days at a time, and he said that he feels like he’s stuck with the situation. Mr. Thomas said he has asked people not to meet their friends in front of his home, and that some have listened, but most have not listened to him. He said that he lived less than a mile down the road
on Sunset Strip and never locked his home, his truck or his tools for the six years he lived there. Now he said that he makes sure that his sheds and garage are padlocked, and all his doors and windows are locked when he leaves his house.
Ms. Catherine Brown asked the Board if there are plans for building affordable housing in Mashpee. Mr. Furbush reminded Ms. Brown that this was the Zoning Board, not Affordable Housing. She asked: “Who does that?” Mr. Furbush repeated that it is under the jurisdiction of the Affordable Housing Committee. She repeated what she said earlier about the Town being grateful to Mr. White. Mr. Walter Abbott said he is on the Affordable Housing Committee and asked for permission to address Ms. Brown’s question. He said the lack of land makes the issue a real problem. He said that there are several sources of affordable housing: Mashpee Commons, the Wampanoag council, and Habitat for Humanity homes. The Town has also been offered a duplex, which the Town only needs to have moved to
a vacant parcel of land.
Mrs. Thomas of 84 Main Street said that she agrees with the letters that were read into the record. She is also concerned with the increase in traffic and crime element that already exists. Mr. Thomas said that there are some nice people living at the motel, but unfortunately, that is not the place to house families for extended periods of time.
Mr. Furbush said that the only thing the Board is considering is whether the Petition is more detrimental to the neighborhood that what currently exists.
Mr. Peter White asked for permission to address the Board. He also alleged that the complaints are about 78 Main Street and not about his motel. Mr. White said that he was not able to afford the purchase of 78 Main Street and inferred that a lot of the problems could have been solved had he been able to do so. He said that the motel has very strict rules and is a very quiet place, where quiet time is from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. Mr. White pointed at 78 Main Street with the teenagers and their friends and pit bulls. He said that he would contact the owner of 78 Main Street if any of the neighbors have problems. Mr. White said that there have been no major problems in the three years he has been owner of the motel. He brought up the case of one of his guests that was stabbed in Hyannis and came back to
the motel to dial 911.
Mr. White claimed that the former “investors from India that owned the property for five years” let the property get run down. He said that he has spent a great deal of money improving the property.
Mr. White said that he is not trying to run an apartment complex, but is providing transitional (temporary) housing for people who are going from a near-homeless situation (and sometimes in the winter – a homeless situation) into long-term affordable housing. He asserted that there is no other facility that provides transitional housing for Mashpee residents who want to remain in Town. Mr. White said that people are being told that they have to go to Falmouth or Hyannis for transitional housing. Mr. White said that this affordable housing crisis is going on around the state and that his motel serves as a stepping-stone for families that have nowhere to go. He said that his intention is not to be an apartment building or permanent housing for anyone. Mr. White said the ‘compromise’ is for
nine of the nineteen units to be designated for ‘extended staying guests’. He said that he believes that ‘extended staying guests’ are legal under State law. Mr. White admitted that more than nine units are occupied during the winter with people who need housing. He claimed that “during the course of the year, over 90% of our guests are transitional, transient in nature.” Therefore, under State law, he declared that his motel is operating under a “primarily transient nature definition”. He said that that his motel is a very nice community and the residents help each other. Mr. White said that the motel is providing “a stable environment with the neighborhood”.
Mr. Mark Hopeman, who lives in his truck at camps during the summer and gets different winter rentals, is currently residing at Nickerson State Park. He said that he lived at the motel three years ago and helped with the improvements that Mr. White made to the property. Mr. Hopeman admitted that “bad elements do come through” the motel, but that Mr. White deals with any problems that arise and does not hesitate to make individuals leave the motel. Mr. Hopeman said he was living there when pit bulls were living in one of the units and Mr. White made the owners leave the motel. Mr. Hopeman said the motel is, for the most part, a quiet and supportive community.
Mr. Nelson speculated that if the Board were to grant the nine units, he would gamble that in less than two years Mr. White would be back before the Board looking for the other ten units to be designated as transitional housing. Mr. White said that this was not his intention and that he operates his business under a motel license. He said that he believes in the summer, spring and fall most of the motel units are used for tourism. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. White if he would be willing to put that in writing, to which Mr. White said he would. Mr. Nelson reiterated that “at no time more than nine units would be occupied” by people staying for longer than 30 days. Attorney Mills suggested that the Board could make that a condition in its Decision.
Mr. Furbush asked for Mr. White’s ‘definition of transitional housing’. Mr. White said that there is a State definition, but in his opinion it means “basically people who are transitioning from one place to another”. Mr. Furbush asked if that means 60 days, ten years, forty years. Mr. White said that would depend on the situation and that some low- to-moderate income people are on a two-year waiting list for Section 8 apartments. He stated that some of the transitional people staying at the motel stay a week or two before finding a longer-term situation and other people move off-cape or out of state. Mr. White said that at check-in, he requires motel residents to be employed. He said that there are exceptions to that requirement because he works with the American Red Cross
in Hyannis and the Wampanoag tribe with emergency housing situations. Mr. White reiterated that this is meant to be “transitional, not meant to be permanent.”
Mr. Bonvie asked if Mr. White receives federal or state funding. Mr. White says that he does not receive federal or state or town funding. He said that he has received some emergency assistance from Christ the King Church and the Wampanoag tribe and other private, non-profit organizations. Mr. Bonvie asked if the guests stay on a weekly or monthly basis. Mr. White said that all of his guests are on a weekly basis, except for one disabled single man who pays $500 a month and has been doing so for years.
Mr. Furbush questioned how the Board would be guaranteed that Mr. White would comply if the Board granted the Petition with definite limits on duration of motel stays, such as 60 or 90 days. Mr. White objected to any limitation on duration of guest stays because that would put him in the position of removing a family from an apartment in the middle of the winter. Mr. Furbush asked if a ten-year limit would be acceptable. Mr. White said that would be satisfactory. Attorney Mills said that anywhere between 120 days and ten years would be fine. Mr. White said that when he purchased the motel there was a woman with three children who had already been living at the motel for two years who finally got housing 1 ½ years after Mr. White purchased the motel. He said that he didn’t start this program.
Mr. Furbush pressed Mr. White for an answer. He said that the Board denied Mr. White’s petition in 2008; now he is “back in, and rather than asking for the entire pie, you’re asking for half the pie.” Mr. Furbush expressed doubt that Mr. White would abide by any conditions that the Board places in view of the fact that Mr. White has ignored those conditions in the past. Mr. White argued that he didn’t ignore the Board’s past rulings, but that he appealed the “Cease and Desist’ order to Superior Court because, in his opinion, the Board’s decision was not consistent with State law. He said that he will “always follow the law. Anything I agree to, I will always follow, but I’m not going to agree to a short time frame that’s going to put me
in a position of throwing people out in the middle of the winter”. Mr. White claims that the State law has no time limit on hotel stays. Mr. Furbush said that “it really doesn’t matter what we vote, is that what you’re saying?” Attorney Mills asked if he could clarify that point and said that Mr. White did not disobey anything. He said that the ‘Cease and Desist’ order exists because “there is disagreement as to what ‘primarily transient’ means”, which is the subject of an Appeal to Barnstable Superior Court. Attorney Mills said that whatever is decided in court will have reverberations throughout the Commonwealth as to what ‘primarily transient’ means. Attorney Mills said he was hopeful that the Appeal did not have to go through the process of Superior Court.
Mr. Furbush asked if the Appeal would be dropped if the Board grants the Petition. Mr. Nelson said that the Appeal would be null and void if the Board grants the Petition. Mr. White said that he will pursue the Appeal if the Board denies the Petition. He claimed that the Judge will determine that his operation is “primarily transient in nature”. Mr. White warned that the Judge will also look at the ZBA’s Denial of the Petition and claimed that it will “end up doubling the homeless population on Cape Cod.” He said that “it’ll end up putting most of these motels out of business because they can’t operate in the winter”. Mr. White cautioned the Board that the Judge will decide on “what creates the most public harm”. Mr. Furbush said
that this is the third time that this Petition has come before the Board, once with New Seabury and twice with Mr. White.
Mr. Nelson said that Mr. White is suing the Zoning Board of Appeals for backing the opinion of the Building Inspector. Mr. White said that he disagrees with the Building Inspector’s interpretation of the State law. He claimed that Town Counsel has looked at this ‘compromise’ and feels that it is within State Law. Attorney Mills said that the ‘compromise’ is within the authority of this Board to approve. Mr. Bonvie questioned if the Board granted the Petition to allow nine units to be used for transitional housing and if Mr. White came back in a year or two asking for the additional 10 units and the Board denied him, Mr. White could go ahead and litigate for the additional ten units. Mr. Bonvie expressed his doubts that anything that would be put in writing by the Board would
prevent Mr. White from suing the Board for denying him. Mr. White said that he operates under a motel license and that would prevent him from asking for the entire 19 units to be used for over 30 days, which would change the use of the motel. Mr. Bonvie asked if Mr. White thought that the Court would only allow the nine units. Attorney Mills said that it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to speculate on what the Court would do. Mr. White restated that “over 90% of our guests are primarily transient in nature.”
Mr. Reiffarth asked exactly how many units are currently occupied with guests staying longer than 30 days. Mr. White said he thinks the number is eleven. Mr. Reiffarth said that he did not feel that any unit with only a microwave and a small refrigerator is suitable for a family staying for longer than 30 days. Mr. White said that only single people stay in those rooms – “like a rooming house situation, with a single adult staying in those rooms.” He said that “you can make a lot of food using that microwave and it’s just for single adults or seasonal workers.” Mr. White said that the all of the families are living in apartment units. Mr. White said that the efficiencies have a refrigerator, sink and stove unit.
Mr. Nelson said that he was told that Mr. White has rented to seasonal workers and has had as many as four or five adults in one room. Mr. White said that he has never had five adults in one room. He said that he has a seasonal worker who has been employed at New Seabury for the last ten years. This individual stays in the motel from April through November every year.
Mr. Bonvie questioned where the name Affordable Housing Association of New England originated. Mr. White said it is the name of his partnership. His partner has land in New Hampshire where they intend to build handicap housing in the future. He said that he is doing business as La Plaza del Sol in Mashpee. Mr. Nelson asked how many people are employed by the Affordable Housing Association. Mr. White said that there are a few part-time employees. He said that he works 70-80 hours a week. Mr. White said that this is his sole facility and that he resides as a resident/manager at the motel.
Mr. Nelson said that there would be definite restrictions on the number of people occupying each unit, should the Board decide to grant the Petition. He asked if Mr. White would have any objection to restricting the age of people in some of the smaller units. Mr. White said that he would be fine with that and that he does not place families in single units.
Mr. Nelson brought up the issue of the plan and asked for the Petitioner to submit a more detailed plan, including the parking plan. He also said that he wanted the Fire Department to inspect the driveway and assess the problem of emergency vehicle access. Mr. Bonvie asked what sort of plans that Site and Design Review requires and use that as a model for what the ZBA should require in the Petitioner’s plan. Mr. Nelson said that the Fire Department would have problems with emergency apparatus accessing the back. He said that the Board of Health would review the plan. The DPW would only be concerned with a curb cut. The Town Planner would have his own set of requirements. Mr. Nelson expressed his frustration that the Town Planner is so inundated with work and is still obligated to double as
a Town Engineer. He said that the Town should have a Town Engineer, or at the very least, a Town Surveyor. Mr. Bonvie recapped what the plan should detail in addition to boundary and lot lines, parking and emergency vehicle access.
In answer to Mr. Nelson’s query, Attorney Caruso said that the Board could close the meeting and ask for submission of the revised detailed plan without hearing any further testimony. She said that the Board could opt to continue the Petition until a later date to discuss the plan and to solicit further comments. Mr. Nelson said the plan is for the Board’s benefit and not for the general public. Attorney Caruso said that the Board could close the hearing and deliberate after receiving the revised plan.
Mr. Nelson asked for any further comments. Building Commissioner Richard Stevens said that every dealing that he has had with Mr. White has been “upfront and he runs a very nice operation.” He said that the Board of Health has no issues. Mr. Stevens said that Mr. White takes care of any problems that arise right away. He said that Mr. White is providing a good service for residents of the Town. Mr. Stevens said that he does have an issue with the building code in that it has changed from an R-1 to an R-2 use group, which is a change of use for the Board to determine.
Mr. Nelson criticized the fact that the Board didn’t have the plan that was in the Building Department file earlier in the proceedings. Mr. Stevens said that it was in the file all along. Mr. Nelson countered that “Mr. Mills should have brought a plan in.” He also said that maybe the Application should not have been accepted with the plan that was submitted. Once a Petition is filed with the Town Clerk, the office of the Zoning Board of Appeals is duty-bound to process it according to Massachusetts General Laws.
Mr. Bonvie stated that the plan should also clear up the issue with motel residents driving over abutters’ property. Mr. Nelson said that the plan should show the easements in two different locations. Mr. Bonvie asked if the Hearing could be closed. Attorney Caruso said that the Board can close the hearings and not solicit any more comments, as long as they deliberate on the testimony that has been presented so far. along with the revised plans. Mr. Nelson said that the Board is looking for “three plans, but that will not stop us from closing the hearing.” Mr. Nelson said that he “will make it a point of getting in touch with the fire department” regarding access to the motel driveway.
At 8:31 p.m. the Board closed the hearing to public comment and continued the Petition to July 14, 2010.
OTHER BUSINESS
Accept May 26, 2010 Minutes
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board moved to accept the Minutes of May 26, 2010.
Mr. Reiffarth moved to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Bartos
Administrative Secretary
| 
