Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident Donna Gregory urges review after oversized garage built at 142 Main Road
Summary
Donna Gregory told the Westport Island Select Board she was told a planned three-car garage became a five-car, high‑pitched building that looks commercial; board members said the property’s size and current rules complicate enforcement and recommended planning-board follow-up.
Donna Gregory, who said she lives at 142 Main Road, told the Westport Island Select Board on May 19 that a neighbor’s newly built structure began as what she understood would be a three‑car garage but became a five‑car, unusually tall building that she said looks commercial and may be used to store or rent boats.
"I was told it was going to be a threecar garage, then it turned into a fivecar garage. It doesn't even have a regular pitch. It's huge," Gregory said, adding she feared the owner "has intentions to run a business out of there" and had been told the owner rents boats and keeps large boats in the building.
Board members and planning‑board representatives responded that the town’s regulatory framework limits what can be enforced after construction. According to comments during the meeting, the parcel is recorded as about 3.13 acres in town tax records. One board member noted that parcels of that size can allow some commercial activity but that a commercial use would normally require a planning‑board site review.
"If people of this island want to protect it and maintain the rural character, well, they have to take the legal steps to make that happen," a member who spoke from the planning‑board perspective said, adding that without local ordinances the town cannot prevent non‑residential structures that meet building‑permit requirements.
Officials said enforcement options are limited if a structure was built under an issued permit and the use is represented as residential. They outlined that converting a residential building to a commercial use would typically require coming before the planning board for site‑plan review and that misrepresentation of intended use could be a violation that would need enforcement action by the select board if the planning board denies review or finds a breach.
At the end of the discussion a board member said the matter would be placed on an upcoming agenda so planning and building staff can review permits and determine whether further action or an enforcement referral is warranted.
The board did not make a formal enforcement decision at the meeting; members advised monitoring the situation and following up with the planning board and the town’s building official for any needed compliance review.
Next steps: the board asked staff to place the neighbor's building and permit review on a future agenda for follow‑up by the planning board and select board.
