Enforcement Is Necessary To Rectify Lighthouse Lane Problem - Editorial
Debate surrounding the use of a home on Lighthouse Lane for events and functions, including weddings, seems to have been revived. When news of the latest Zoning Board of Appeals vote to deny the homeowner’s appeal of a cease-and-desist order came across our desk, we had very little background on the issue (it all started well before this editor’s tenure). Naturally, we headed straight for the archives to do some digging.
We read through a series of articles on the issue spanning more than a decade, and what we gleaned from that can be summarized succinctly: this has been a glaring waste of everyone’s time.
The property owner has displayed what seems to be a blatant disregard for anyone’s rules, regulations or orders over the last several years because she has continued to rent out the space for events despite multiple cease-and-desist orders, appeal rejections and a Barnstable Superior Court injunction. The ZBA said she couldn’t do it, the Land Court said she couldn’t do it, even Barnstable Superior Court said she couldn’t do it—yet here we are again, because a wedding was held in November 2024.
When officers responded to the complaint of a wedding being held in violation of the ZBA and Superior Court’s orders, they were reportedly told by the groom that yes, the home had been rented to host the wedding that had taken place earlier and yes, the homeowner was aware.
The homeowner, however, reportedly told police over the phone that while she knew the property was being rented, she was not aware that a wedding was being held.
Those things don’t line up.
The home is marketed as having a maximum occupancy of eight people. The homeowner’s attorney said that there were 30 people in attendance at the November 2024 wedding.
Those things don’t line up either.
If 22 extra guests really can show up without the homeowner’s knowledge, that’s not a good thing—it is, at best, wildly irresponsible management given the history.
The homeowner’s attorney told the ZBA last week that it appears his client’s property had been singled out because “other properties that are being rented are holding weddings” and have not received cease-and-desist letters, and he referenced “spot zoning,” which is a violation of state law that the ZBA cautioned against in its 2016 order.
Is it really fair to argue “spot zoning,” though? Or does it just appear that way because of one property owner’s continuous violations, leaving enforcement as the only viable option?
As for where things stand right now—the ZBA voted unanimously last week to deny the homeowner’s appeal, meaning the cease-and-desist order is still in place. We think this is completely justified, given the homeowner’s penchant for apparently doing whatever she wants, despite the disruption of the neighborhood.
Also, as of this writing on Thursday morning, a visit to the homeowner’s website (wingsnecklighthouse.org) displays a banner along the top that reads: “Last Minute Cancellation May 17-24 offered at 25% off.” With the town’s recent renewed focus on this property, we can’t help but wonder if it was a wedding or some other event, cancelled at the last minute in an attempt to comply with the building inspector’s order and avoid any further trouble. If that is the case, we hope it can at least be the first in a series of steps in the right direction.