Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4846 Attorney Singer ZBA Summary of Reasoning (822 Route 28 et al SY) 1 Law Office of Singer & Singer, LLC 26 Upper County Road P. O. Box 67 Dennisport, Massachusetts 02639 Andrew L. Singer Tel: (508) 398-2221 Marian S. Rose Fax: (508) 398-1568 _____ www.singer-law.com Myer R. Singer Of Counsel Yarmouth Board of Appeals Petition # 4846 SUMMARY OF REASONING Wise Living Development, LLC, Christopher D. Wise, Manager [“Applicant”] proposes to redevelop the adjacent properties located at 822 Route 28, 834 Route 28, and 30 Frank Baker Road in South Yarmouth [collectively “Property”], into a mixed-use project consisting of senior housing, medical offices, and commercial and office use [“Proposal”]. The Proposal includes a: 1) Wise Living Retirement Community for senior housing with 120 units (104 studios and 16 one-bedroom units), common resident dining facility, and outdoor swimming pool; 2) leased medical complex (maximum of two doctors and related support staff) plus an exercise/rehabilitation facility and wading pool; and 3) continuation of existing uses in an existing commercial building. The Property, which is located in the B2 and VCOD2 Zoning Districts, among others, is shown as Assessor’s Map 33, Parcel 70.1 and Assessor’s Map 41, Parcels 12 and 11.1. The redevelopment includes merging all three lots into one lot with no change to the retail and commercial uses in the commercial building at 834 Route 28. The proposed residential use is allowed by Planning Board Special Permit and the O1 medical use is allowed by right on the Property. The Yarmouth Planning Board granted the Use Special Permit with conditions at its meeting on May 20, 2020. Developments and redevelopments in the VCOD2 Zoning District must, with few exceptions, comply with the design standards set forth in Section 414.8 of the Yarmouth Zoning By-Law [“Zoning By-Law”]. To vary these design standards requires a variance from the Board of Appeals. While the Proposal as permitted by the Planning Board complies with all 2 dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-Law, there are certain aspects of the detailed architectural design standards in the VCOD Overlay Zoning District that are impractical and/or not architecturally desirable to make with this Property because it is a redevelopment and re-use of an existing developed hotel and restaurant property and facilities, and not the razing and reconstruction of existing structures. The Applicant is thus requesting variance relief as discussed below to allow these changes to the architectural design standards. Each of the design standards covered by the requested relief has been reviewed and discussed with the Planning Board during its VCOD Site Plan Review and Use Special Permit reviews with the understanding that the Applicant would seek relief for these design items from the Board of Appeals. The Yarmouth Planning Board voted unanimously on May 6, 2020, to support the relief the Applicant is seeking from the Board of Appeals. Based on the above, in accordance with Section 102.2.2 of the Zoning By-Law and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10, the Applicant requests a variance from the following provisions of Section 414.8 – VCOD Design Standards of the Zoning By-Law as necessary to approve the submitted design as shown on Site Plan Sheet S-2B and elevation plans and as further described in detail herein: 1. Not construct additional building modulation styles and frequency on the south, east, and west sides of the re-developed 822 Route 28 building beyond those shown on the submitted plans (open gable end porches/patios and porticos)(Sections 414.8.3, 414.8.5, and 414.8.6); 2. Not construct additional building modulation styles on the west side and eliminate building modulation on the east side of the re-used 834 Route 28 building beyond those shown on the submitted plans (adding dormers, open porch, and cupola on west side of building)(Sections 414.8.3, 414.8.5, and 414.8.6); 3. Retain the second, existing freestanding sign for the 834 Route 28 building in addition to maintaining a freestanding sign for the redeveloped 822 Route 28 building (in 3 approximately the same location as existing) on the combined Property (Section 414.8.11); 4. In lieu of constructing a new sidewalk adjacent to the existing sidewalk, provide an eight- foot easement to the Town for future construction or relocation of the existing sidewalk on Route 28 if such relocation is ever desired (Section 414.8.1.4); and 5. Replace three (3) in-lot trees with three (3) in-lot shrubs and relocate one (1) in-lot island with tree to exceed spacing requirements in the parking lot of 822 Route 28 due to the proximity to the existing subsurface septic areas to be re-used in connection with the redevelopment (Section 414.8.9.4). The Board of Appeals is authorized to grant variances where the Board finds that a literal enforcement of the Zoning By-Law would involve substantial financial or practical hardship to the Petitioner, that the hardship is owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures, but not affecting generally the zoning district, and desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law. The Applicant respectfully submits that the variance criteria are met in the Proposal and that due to the existing developed nature of the existing buildings and site infrastructure to be re-used, a literal enforcement of all of the Section 414.8 Design Standards will result not only in a substantial financial and practical hardship to the Applicant and Property Owner, but also a substantial practical hardship to the neighborhood and Town, and further that the relief requested may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law, for the following reasons: 1. The aesthetics of both buildings, particularly the 822 Route 28 building, will be significantly upgraded and enhanced, and the proposed design with the building modulations as shown (which require the relief being requested) has been reviewed and 4 supported by the Planning Board: A. The large 822 Route 28 building will be upgraded with a new porte cochere at the main entrance; several new, small roofs at entrances; and conversion of the predominantly flat roof to a pitched roof with cupolas, gables, parapets, and dormers, all to break up massing and improve visual interest. Otherwise, this building will be re-used in the same footprint. Roof-top solar panels will be provided along the east and west wings of the building away from Route 28 and will not be visible from any street; and B. The 834 Route 28 building will be enhanced on the west side with a new open bump out, dormers, and cupola, while the east side is proposed to remain the same and is mostly screened by the fence along the easterly property line; 2. The Proposal is a mixed-use redevelopment encouraged by Section 414.3.3 of the Zoning By-Law that will re-use and upgrade existing buildings and site infrastructure and create pedestrian and vehicular access between properties; 3. Existing, mature screening along the front, sides, and rear of the Property will be retained where possible, and an extensive new front landscape buffer is being provided in place of existing parking in this area as shown on the Landscape Plan. The number of required in- lot trees behind this perimeter screening is proposed to be reduced by three (changed to shrubs) and one tree relocated so that the existing septic system components can continue to be used. The goal of the VCOD Design Standards for breaking up parking lot design will be met; 4. Curb cuts will remain the same, the interconnection will be added, pre-existing nonconforming parking design will be eliminated, conforming parking will be provided, public safety vehicle access will be maintained, and trip generation will be reduced with the elimination of the public restaurant and transient hotel use; 5 5. There is an existing sidewalk along Route 28 in front of the Property. By offering the Town an easement for future use if the existing sidewalk is ever relocated or upgraded in lieu of constructing a new sidewalk now adjacent to the existing sidewalk, site aesthetics will be improved; 6. Maintaining two signs as existing at the existing curb cuts will appropriately identify the businessses to remain at the Property (822 Route 28 changing from hotel and restaurant to senior living and 834 Route 28 remaining as existing with three rental spaces – hair salon, retail, and office) and enhance safety for residents, customers, and visitors; 7. The existing buildings will remain conforming with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-Law (setbacks and height), and building coverage and site coverage on the Property will remain conforming; 8. Exterior building lighting will be upgraded with dark-sky compliant, traditional New England period fixtures. New pole lights in the existing parking lot will also be dark-sky compliant, traditional New England period fixtures. There is one light pole on Route 28 in the State Highway Layout that provides light at the front of the Property; and 9. The proposal will not cause or contribute to any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion in the neighborhood, zoning district or Town, and there will be no substantial harm to the character of the neighborhood or Town. The proposal will provide needed services and residential opportunities in the Town. For all of the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals make findings that the proposal satisfies the criteria of Section 102.2.2 of the Zoning By-Law and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10, and grant a Variance allowing the redevelopment to be completed as shown on the submitted plans.