HomeMy WebLinkAboutViolation Notice TOWN OF'VARMOUTH
1146 Route 28, South, armouth, MA 02664
508-398-2231 ext. 26► Fax 508-398-0836
Office of the Build�i ommissioner
VIOLATION NOTICE
Captain Gladcliff LLC
2 Lynxholm CT
Hyannis, MA 02601 December 18, 2019
RE: 817 Route 28-bedroom unit
To Whom It May Concern,
It has come to the attention of the Building Department that a bedroom unit was created without the benefit of a required permit.
This is a violation of Section R105.1 of the Massachusetts State Building code.
R105.1 Required. It shall be unlawful to construct, reconstruct, alter, repair, remove or demolish a building or structure;
or to change the use or occupancy of a building or structure; or to install or alter any equipment for which provision is
made or the installation of which is regulated by this code without first filing a written application with the building
official and obtaining the required permit.
Failure to comply with the MA State Building code 780CMR is subject to fines and penalties as prescribed in MGL CH 143
section 91. Each day constitutes a new violation.
The creation of an additional unit also violates The Town of Yarmouth Planning Board Decision#106,dated February 5,2009.
This decision limited the number and size of the units.
You are hereby ordered to abate and or correct said violations or seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals as allowed
by MGL Ch 40a§7 & §15. You also have the right to appeal this decision with the Zoning Board of Appeals within 30
days of this letter. You are required to respond to this letter within 7 days.
Failure to comply with the provisions of the zoning bylaw may result in penalties as prescribed.
101.3 Penalties.Any person violating any of the provisions of this bylaw shall be fined not more than three hundred dollars
($300)for each offense. Each day that such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
Question regarding this matter may be directed to this department.
Very Truly,
.-‘cr^.-5 i 55'k,i(x)t - Sh°%"*"Rc- c"Mw 4
Tim Sears CBO
Local Inspector p�3
Town of Yarmouth
• 31-dia f.. ! ifeetZ
f
.yq
s� ~ C TOWN OF YARMOUTH
p . .7 - 4 PLANNING BOARD
Ao ,+MIA „ + ,-', DECISION
v 51...<
. M "1:2 -‘'',,,>61 )
FILED WITH TOW CLERK: February 5, 2009 .0
PETITION: 106 •' .
: r9 _O1
f
HEARING DATE: January 7, 2009, (continued to Jan. 21, 2009, Feb. 4, 2004. N :C
o•
PETITIONER: Michael A. Healy, DBA Kim Holdings, Inc.
PROPERTY: 8I 17 Route 28, South Yarmouth (a.k.a. Cap'n Gladcliffe)
bssessor's Map 33, Lot 71. Zoning District B2& Hotel Motel Overlay
District 1 (HMOD1)
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Tracy Post, Curtis Sears, Brad Goodwin,
Steven DeYoung, Thomas Roche and Erik Tolley.
Notice of the hearin Ig having been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and to
all those owners of property, as required by law, and notice of the hearing to the public
having been given b posting said notice with the Town Clerk and by publishing in The
Register newspape the hearing was opened and held on the dates stated above.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
__. The petitioner seeks to convert an existing Zoning Bylaw section 202.5 Use Code A7 motel
with 26 units to a Code Al2 multi-family dwelling with 24 units, under the provisions of
Zoning Bylaw sectio 404, the Motel Bylaw. The subject locus consists of 1.27 acres and
is presently the site�f 4 buildings, all of which will be retained. The buildings,utilized in the
conversion are identified as the east building, the west building and the front building. The
fourth building, a former office, is located just to the north of the west building and is to be •
• used for maintenance and storage only and shall not be used for habitable space. The
. •buildings have been:used for at least 10 years exclusively for long-term, non-transient
housing, but the property has retained a motel license without lapse. All units presently
have legal kitchens. Under the proposed plan, all units would be rented.
PLANS SUBMITTED: !
9 sheets Entitled: "EEdsting& Proposed Conditions Plan; Existing& Proposed Lighting&
Landscape Plan; Existing & Proposed Conditions Plan; Existing & Proposed West Building
Front Elevation; Existing& Proposed West Building Rear Elevation; Existing & Proposed
Front Building;West'Building Side Elevation; Existing& Proposed First Floor West -
Building'. The 9 plans are further entitled "#817 Main Street In So. Yarmouth,
Massachusetts Prepared For Mr. Michael A. Healy, 72 Old Main Street, South Yarmouth,
MA 02664'. Plans 1I through 3 and plan 7 are dated November 21, 2008, revised January
12, 2009. Plans 4 through 6 and plans 8 and 9 are dated November 21, 2008 and revised
/
Planning Board Decisi n,Petition#106,February 5,2009 Page 2 of 4
December 11, 2008 and January 12,2009. The plans were prepared by Edward A. Stone,
PLS, of H. B. Design, 118 Traders Lane,West Yarmouth, MA 02673.
DISCUSSION:
Correspondence received from Ms Ann Marie Uher and Josephine Occhipinti, residential
abutters to the easterly side of the Locus,was read. In their letter to the Planning Board,
the abutters expressed their concerns about the potential impact of the redevelopment.•
Form letters in support of the project from John J. Hynes, Daniel J. Reida, David Demeu,
Catherine A Pina, Roseanna Nikolaidis, Marie Caron, John B. Murphy, Anne P. Manning
and Karen Shea were noted.
•
Attorney Paul Tardil, representing the petitioner, presented his dient's requests for Special
Permits from the Planning Board under Zoning Bylaw section 404.1.3, which'makes the
Planning Board the ppecial Permit Granting Authority to address the petitioner's requests
for relief from the provisions of sections 103.3.3.1, 104.3, 203.5 and the provisions of
section 404.1.12. Site Plan Review comment sheet dated December 2, 2008 was
reviewed and discussed.
Relief from section 03.3.3.1 was requested to allow deviation from strict adherence to the
Yarmouth Architect ral and Site Design Standards (Standards). A Design Review
comment sheet dated November 24, 2008 and marked"follow-up 12/1',was reviewed in
detail. The petitioner requested relief from the Standards'7:12 roof pitch requirement for
the east and west building in order for the existing roofs to remain and relief from the pitch
requirement for the 5:12 porch roof proposed for the front building. The petitioner also
requested the use oo vinyl siding on all three buildings and the use of PVC deck rail
materials on the front of the west building.
Relief under the provisions of section 104.3.2, paragraph 3 is sought for the expansion of a
pre-existing, non-conforming structure to accommodate the construction of new landings
and staircases at the rear of the west building. The proposed landings and staircases
would act to serve as new second means of egress from second floor units. The Planning
Board reviewed a January 7, 2009 memorandum from Building Commissioner James
Brandolini, in which he pointed out that the requested relief for the west building would
provide for a better second means of egress for second floor units. Relief from this section
is also sought to provide for the alteration of the front of the 2 story west building and for
the expansion of the I1 story east building façade to increase unit floor area within the
existing building footprint.
In conjunction with the requested relief from section 104.3.2, relief from the 25 foot sideline
setback requirement II Bylaw section 203.5 is also sought for a less than adequate
sideline setback at the rear of the existing west building. An existing setback of 14 feet
would be further reduced to 11 feet with the construction of the proposed egress staircases
and landings.
The petitioner seeks relief from 404.1.12.1 to allow site density greater than 16 units per
acre. The proposed project density is 18.9 units per acre. Relief is also sought from the
Planning Board Decisi n.Petition#106,February 5,2009 Page 3 of 4
unit size requirements of section 404.1.12.2. As the project was presented,!the 25%
maximum of units in the 250 to 400 square foot category is met with the 2 units proposed.
In the 400 to 600 square foot category, the 25% maximum(6 units)is exceeded with the
12 units proposed. tin the 600 to 750 square foot category, the 25% minimum (6 units)
would not be met with the 5 units proposed. In the 750 and greater square foot category,
the 25% minimum (6 units)would not be met with the 5 units proposed.
The petitioner seekt relief from the provisions of section 404.1.12.1 insofar as compliance
with the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
Local Initiative Plan'(LIP) affordable unit size requirements is concerned. The petitioner
proposes to provide 6 affordable units, of which only 3 of the units would meet LIP unit size
requirements.
FINDINGS:
The Board has reviewed the proposed plans with respect to the general criteria set forth in
Bylaw section 103.2.2 and finds that no undue nuisance, hazard, or congestion will be
created by the granting of the requested Special Permits and there will be no harm to the
established or future character of the neighborhood or town. In addition, the Board finds
that the project meets the goals and purposes of the HMOD1, as outlined in Bylaw section
404.1.1.
Much discussion was heard regarding the significance of the Board's approach to this first
request for relief pursuant to Bylaw Section 404, especially regarding the precedence of
permitting a variatioc from the Bylaw as requested by the Petitioner. However, the Board
is comfortable with the relief given by this Decision for the fact that the property has
operated as a 26 unit long term rental business for at least 10 years, all with legal kitchens,
and most units with eparate bedrooms and living rooms, prior to any requirement to
combine living space for purposes of meeting room size requirements. The Board is
currently unaware of any similar property to which Section 404 of the Zoning Bylaw would
apply. In addition, the Petitioner's assent to the addition of a seventh affordable unit, where
only 6 are required, istablishes an attractive baseline for future petitioners, even those
with properties which are unlike the property at hand. Finally, the Board also
acknowledges that all cases are decided on their own specific facts, and granting the relief
outlined in this Decision does not assure future applicants of similar outcomes
For these reasons and on a motion made by Tracy Post and Seconded by Brad Goodwin
the Board voted unai imously to grant the applicant relief with conditions, as follows:
RELIEF GRANTED ROM SECTION 103.3.3.1 AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
The requested relief rom section 103.3.3.1 for strict adherence to the Yarmouth
Architectural and Site Design Standards is granted with the conditions that: 1
1. The sign located on the front of the north building facing Route 28 will be removed
so that only one sign remains on the property, which shall be the freestanding sign
on Route 28.
{
.
Planning Board Decision,Petition#106,February 5,2009 Page 4 of 4
2. As the site p an indicates, the applicant will remove the westerly Route 28 curb cut
and remove the 2 parking spaces currently utilizing that curb cut. The main
entrance, as,shown on the plan,will be the sole access from Route 28 for this
project. 1
3. The facade color schemes for the 1 story east building will be broken up in sections
and colors varied with muted tone textured vinyl siding, as approved by the Design
Review Corn ittee. i
4. The colors u ed for all window shutters and exterior doors on the property must be
approved by the Design Review Committee. !
5. The existing past and west building roofs of less than the required 7:12 pitch may
remain, as proposed and shown on the plans. The proposed 5:12 pitch for front
building's poach roof will be allowed. !
RELIEF GRANTED FROM SECTIONS 104.3 AND 203.5:
1. Relief for the reduction of the existing 14 foot side setback to 11 feet at the westerly
property line s granted to accommodate the proposed egress landings and
staircases at1 he rear of the west building. Relief is also granted for the expansion
of the pre-existing, non-conforming east and west buildings, as proposed and as
shown on the plans.
i
RELIEF GRANTED FROM SECTION 404.1.12 AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL:
Relief is granted from Section 404.1.12.1 for a 24 unit project with a density of 18.9 units
per acre and from t �e unit size requirements outlined in section 404.1.12.2, with the
following conditions:
1. 7 units (#7, , 11, 14, 19, 23 and 32) shall be provided as affordable units, rather
than the 6 units proposed. 2 of the units are to be 250 to 400 square feet in floor
area, 2 of the units are to be 600 to 750 square feet in floor area, and 2 of the units
are 750 or more square feet in floor area. The seventh unit shall be in'the 400 to
600 square foot floor area category.
2. All 7 affordable units must be approved by DHCD as Local Action Unite and count
towards the town's affordable housing inventory. An affordable restriction for each
of the 7 units'will be recorded at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds ensuring
affordability it perpetuity, per LIP guidelines. 1
1
i
No permit shall be issued until 20 days after the date of filing this decision with the Town
Clerk of Yarmouth. Appeals from this decision shall be made pursuant to M.G.L., ch. 40A,
§17 and must be filed within 20 days after filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk.
4 .-/._-%/.---A- -
Curtis Sears, Vice-Chairman
Yarmouth Planning Board