Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-21 Decision 4913 -33 Summer Street52ISEPI--iP*- 2:58 REICk FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: PETITION NO: HEARING DATE: PETITIONER: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION September 13, 2021 4913 September 9, 2021 Irina S. Weatherly McPhee PROPERTY: 33 Summer Street, Yarmouth Port, MA Map 113, Parcel 23 Zoning District: R-40 Title: Book 33221, Page 277 MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Steven DeYoung, Sean Igoe, Richard Martin, Tom Baron and Jay Fraprie Notice of the hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the Petitioner and all those owners of 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 a Special Permit per § 104.3.2(2) to lift and reposition pre-existing, nonconforming structure, including additions and extended living space. In the alternative, the applicant seeks a Variance from §203.5 to permit the construction of a barn in a front yard setback. The Property is located in the R-40 Zoning District and is currently improved with a 1 '/2 story single family home built in approximately 1850. The property also has a deck, patio and a shed located in the rear of the property. In its history, the property was improved with 3 porches and a large barn connected to the house in the rear. The lot contains 14,831 square feet and 73 feet of frontage on Summer Street. The property also abuts a private way, Tranquil Trail, by approximately 74 feet. However, the Applicant has no right to use that way for access. The existing structure complies with the front, rear and left side setback requirements of the existing zoning bylaw, but does encroach into the right side setback, and sits 8.9 feet from that boundary. The house is approximately 22.5 feet in height and lot coverage is at 13.2%. The existing foundation is decaying and must be replaced to preserve the house. The proposal is to lift the antique house, construct a new foundation, and to position the existing house back down on the new foundation. Then, an addition to the property will be constructed to the rear portion of the house, along with a new deck and porch, swimming pool and a 12 x 20 barn. The structure will still sit approximately 9 feet from the right side boundary, but will continue to comply with all other bulk requirements of the bylaw. The abutting property to the northeast has a driveway located on that side of the property and would provide additional buffer to that portion of the property, which will not have outdoor space. The height of the proposed structure will increase by approximately 15 inches, to 23.8 feet, and lot coverage will increase to 24.8%, which meet the bulk requirements of the zoning bylaw. Petitioner requires a Special Permit because the property is being lifted by 15 inches onto a new and necessary foundation, triggering the requirements of Yarmouth Zoning Bylaw Section 104.3.2 (2). The revival of this antique home, in this historic part of town, in the same general location, albeit further from the northeast abutter than the existing structure, will in no way be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. The work being done on this property will benefit the neighborhood. The proposal was previously approved by the Old. Kings Highway Historic District Committee, at which time abutters were provided an opportunity to comment about aesthetics and the setting of the project. Several abutters, and other nearby residents, voiced concerns that the extension of this house would not be in keeping with the charm of the neighborhood, would interfere with the tranquility of the area, would cause shadowing and interference with sunlight, and set a bad precedent for encroachments. However, the Board was unanimously unable to find such detriment based on the plans for this project. Rather, the Board found that the improvements would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than is the existing non -conforming structure. In fact, the Applicant proposes to decrease the existing encroachment into the right side setback. In addition, the careful proposal demonstrates that no undue nuisance, hazard or congestion will be created and that there will be no substantial harm to the established or future character of the neighborhood or town. In fact, the Applicant explained that the barn, although not needing any zoning relief, was planned to harken back to the prior existence of such a structure on this lot. Finally, the exhaustive efforts of the Petitioner were noted by the Board, in that the original antique home was being preserved, generally, in the same location on the lot as the existing location of the home. The Board found that the Applicant had clearly met all of the requirements of Zoning Bylaw Section 104.3.2(2) and that she was eligible for the issuance of a Special Permit. Accordingly, a motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Baron, to issue a Special Permit as requested, with the condition that the front parking area denoted on the filed plans be eliminated and not constructed. The members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The Applicant moved and was allowed to withdraw the request for relief in the form of a Variance, as it was the consensus of the Board that no such relief was needed. The members voted unanimously in favor of the motion. No permit shall issue until 20 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, the Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See bylaw § 103.2.5, MGL c40A §9) zq-=, e&..- Steven DeYoung, Chairman CERTIFICATION OF TOWN CLERK I, Mary A. Maslowski, Town Clerk, Town of Yarmouth, do hereby certify that 20 days have elapsed since the filing with me of the above Board of Appeals Decision # 4913 that no notice of appeal of said decision has been filed with me, or, if such appeal has been filed it has been dismissed or denied. All appeals have been exhausted. Mary A. Maslowski