HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 Apr 30 - Board of Appeals Decision - Petition #4182 � ��� �`�' TOWN OF YARMOUTH
, � ;
` -��`�C BOARD OF APPEALS
i Cp_.:. �,�_ � - y DECISION
X � ,�,
. � #+��ACNttb
�
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: Apri130,2008
;
" PETITION: #4182
�
; HEARING DATE: Apri124,2008
PETITIONER: Betty J.Stewart dba K�totty Pine Mot�l
i
i PROPERTY: 24 Vineyard Street, South Yarmouth'
i Map and Parcel: 0(125.199; Zoning District: R25
! Book&Page: 2854/298
I
�' MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: David S.Reid,Chairman,Joseph Sarnosky,Diane
� Moudouris,Sean Igoe,Renie Hamman and Douglas Campbell,Alternate.
I
� Notice of the hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the Petitioner and all those owners of
i property as required by law, and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and publishing in The
Register,the hearing opened and held on the date stated above.
The petitioner seeks, in the alternative, the reversal of the decision of the Building Inspector, or a Special
Permit, or a Variance or modi�cation of a previous Variance(#415-1958),in order to be allowed to change
the use of the petitioner's existing premises for 5 units of multi-family housing.
The property is located in the R25 zone, and contains .33 acres. The site is improved with a structure,
currently containing 5 residential units. Each unit is represented to contain one bedroom, a living room,
and a kitchen area,plus bathroom facilities.
The structure was originally permitted in 1958 (#415) for a four (4) unit motel, with an office. The
petitioner, who is not the original owner, but who purchased the property in 1979, represents that, since at
least the time of her ownership,the building has contained 5 units,the fifth being in the centerloffice unit.
The petitioner represents that the kitchen facilities have been present as well through this time. The
petitioner represents that the facility has primarily been operated for longer term, monthly rentals,for many
years. Several tenants have remained in residence for several years at a time. There is no "office' on site.
For a11 practical purposes, the facility has not been operated as a motel, for transient occupancy, for many
yeazs.
The petitioner indicates that she would not be pursing her appeal from the Building Inspector's decision.
The petitioner now seeks a Variance or Special Permit in order to lawfully continue the current use. No
change in use, from the recent operations,is proposed.
Several letters were received and several neighbors spoke in opposition to the requested relief. Most
represented experiencing little or no problems associated with the recent use or tenants, but expressed
concern for the potential for far more intensive use if the relief were granted, as well as from the disparity
between the proposed multi-family houses within the predominately single-family residential
1
�
�
fJ
, �"� neighborhood. Two letters were received in support of the proposal, and one neighbor spoke in favor,
;�� citing the fact that the current tenants and operation have not been detrimental to the neighborhood.
;�
�� The Board finds that the current use is not a "motel", within the scope of the previously granted relief.
There is no on-site manager ar office, and units are not generally rented to transient guests. The Board also
�nds that the recent operation of the facility has not been substantially detrimental to the neighbors,
principally because the cunent and recent occupants have been quiet older gentlemen, and occupancy has
been limited to one person per unit.
? The Board finds that the current structure is functionally obsolete,and not suited for operation as a motel at
� this time. The site has no amenities, nor the ability to offer any services which modern motel guest's
� desire. However, the Board is not convinced that the conversion to a five unit year round multi-family
housing use is necessarily the only alternative for the site, nor that such multi-family use would not, in the
long run, be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Board members expect that any future purchaser or
operator would likely seek to convert the premises to another use, and not continue either the past or
present operation. The Board also recognizes that the Town has been less then diligent in the enforcement
of bylaws, having failed for many yeazs to seek enforcement action against this conversion of use. The
Board therefore finds that there are some special circumstances, relative to the building, which renders the
strict enforcement of the bylaw a substantial hardship on this owner and operation. To abruptly stop the
use would impose substantial economic hardship on the petitioner. The Board finds that some controlled
i relief may be granted, to a11ow the eventual conversion of the site to a lawful or permissible use, without
; causing long term derogation from the intent and purpose of the bylaw.
a
� Therefore, a motion was made by,Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mrs. Hamman, to grant only so much of the
� petition as seeks a Variance, in order to a11ow the continued use of the premises, for S one-bedroom
� apartments, on the following conditions:
i
i 1) Fach�t shall b��i�nitecl to one c�upa�t�t'any time;
2) No businesses sha11 be operated from the units by any occupants;
3) One unit sha11 be occupied by an on-site manager of the premises who shall maintain on premises,
rental and occupancy records of each unit;
4) The Variance shall expire 5 years from the date it becomes effective(at the expiration of the appeal
period from this decision);
5) The Variance sha11 supersede the 1959 relief;
6) The:petitioner shail s�ure and maintain Board of Health pernuts for the rental of each unit;
7) This decision shall be reviewed by the Board of Appeals 2 years from this date, in order to
� determine compliance with this decision, and to review the impact of the use upon the
' neighborhood
� 8) One of the units shall be rented at not more then the equivalent of an affordable rental unit.
�
The Appeal from the Building Inspector's decision shall be deemed withdrawn, without prejudice, at the
petitioners'request. The Special Permit request shall be deemed denied,without prejudice.
The members voted unanimously in favar of the motion,the Variance is therefore granted.
No pernut 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 section 17 and must be filed within 20 days after
filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein, a Variance shall
lapse if the rights authorized herein are not exercised within 12 months. (See MGL c40A §10)
David S. Reid, Chairman
2