HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 Apr 06 - Board of Appeals Decision - Petition #3595 " TOWN OF YARMOUTH ���
�� ' -a..
o� YAR�� BOARD OF APPEALS
� ' ..
01 '_ ` _C� DECISION � [s � IC (1 M C� D
' APR 0 6 2000
�\MATTHCn LS[,!�� � . .
P '
�xOArorarto'" .
��'-.
HEALTN DFPT.
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: April 6, 2000 �,� : - - � ,�
PETITION NO: #3595 � �
' t��''^" ' .
HEARING DATE: March 23, 2000
PETITIONER: John & Melissa O'Rourke dba Agape Bed & Breakfast
PROPERTY: 168 Route 6A Yarmouthport
Map: 122, Parcel: 39 (109/N4) Zoning District: R40
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David Reid, Chairman, James Robertson, John
Richards, Roger Tuttle, Joseph Sarnosky, Sean Igoe, alternate.
It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner
and all those owners of property deerned by the Board to be affected thereby, and to the public by
posting notice of the hearing and published in The Register, the hearing was opened and held on
the date stated above.
The petitioners are the owners, occupants and proprietors of the "Bed & Breakfast" business
operated at this property (see decision#3377, 1997). They now propose to construct an addition
to the rear of the building, intended principally to house the separate living quarters of the
petitioners family. The property is located in the R40 zone, but contains .812 acres of land, and is
therefore non-conforming. In addition, the use, A6, requires a Special Permit (§202.5). The
petitioner therefore seek a Special Pernut, under §104.3.2, to expand the structure, a modification
of the prior decision (#3377), and a Special Permit for a 3 caz garage for the residence, §202.5
(Q3, footnote 5).
The petitioner represents that the proposed addition would contain three (3) additional bedrooms,
a home office, a 3 car garage, and miscellaneous living area for the family's use. The new
construction would more than double the foot-print of the house.
The existing Bed & Breakfast business operates year round, but most of its business is in the fair
weather months. During the summer, they hire a full time, live in housekeeper to help with the
operation of the business. The Bed & Breakfast currently involves one two (2) bedroom guest
suite, and two one bedroom guest rooms. As shown on the petitioners plan, the second floor of
the main house, following the renovations proposed, would conta.in two more guest bedrooms,
plus two existing bedrooms which are currently used for the live-in summer help, and one of the
petitioners children's rooms. It would therefore have five (5) guest rooms, one of which is really
two bedrooms within one suite. The total house would contain 10 (or 11) bedrooms, plus the
home office and 3 car garage.
-1-
s
�
The petitioners represent that the principal reason for this proposed expansion are (1) to separate
the family living quarters from the guest quarters, (2) to expand the family's living quarters, (3) to
expand the business of the Bed& Breakfast.
The majority of the Board fi�s that the proposed addition and e�ansion aze not consistent with
the intent and purpose of the bylaw, nor consistent with the earlier relief granted. T�e bylaw,
especially §500, in the definition of a "Bed & Brea�lcf�sY', expressly states that the building will
retain its character, inside and out, of the original single family home. The petitioners, by
contrast, propose to separate their family from the guest area, rather than integrate the guest
rooms into the family atmosphere and dwelling. The byIaw, and the relief previously granted for
the use at this site, were predicated upon the fact tha.t large old homes, like this one, are often not
practical for single family use, at this time. Allowing them to incorporate a modest Bed &
Breakfast business operation, while preserving the owner occupied single family use, can help
provide a mechanism for the preservation of such older homes.
It is not logical, or consistent with these purposes, to first allow the use (and accompanying
variances) in order to permit a modern utilization and preservation of the larger old homes, and
then purpose to double the size of the home in order to allow the family, for all practical
purposes, to move out of the original home where the guest rooms will be expanded. The
business use is already so intensive that a full time live in employee is required in season, and the
site required Variances to accommodate the original usage. Doubling the size of the building, and
increasing the effective guest area to (or beyond) the maximum allowed usa.ge is not considered
by the Boazd to be appropriate at this site under these conditions. To do so would dramatically
change the character of the dwelling, creating a structure which would, in all likelihood, never be
capable of reverting to a single family home.
For purposes of bringing the petition to a vote, a motion was made by Mr. Sarnosky, seconded by
Mr. Robertson, to grant the petition, as requested, including a Special Permit for the 3 car gazage,
an extension of the non-conforming structure, a modification of decision#3377, and an e�ension
of the Bed & Breakfast use to allow up to S guest rooms, as proposed.
Mr. Tuttle voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Sarnosky, Mr. Richards and Mr.
Reid voted against the motion. No further positive motion have been proposed, it� petition is
determined to have be�n denied.
No permit shall issue unti120 days from the filing of this decision with the Town Clerk. Appeals
from this decision shall be made pursuant to MGL c40A §17 and must be filed within 20 days
after the filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk.
�-�/�—����---__
David S. Reid, Clerk
-2-