HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-20 Decision 4844-20 Buckwood Dr
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: March 11, 2020
PETITION NO. #4844
HEARING DATE: February 27, 2020
PETITIONER: Brenda Whitehead/Kelley
PROPERTY: 20 Buckwood Drive, South Yarmouth, MA
Map & Lot#: 0088.200; Zoning District: R-40
Book/Page: 17730/305
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Steven DeYoung, Chairman, Sean Igoe, Thomas
Nickinello and Doug Campbell.
It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the Petitioner
and all those owners of property deemed 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 Petitioner is Brenda Whitehead/Kelley of 20 Buckwood Dr., South Yarmouth, MA, property
located in an R-40 Zoning District. The Petitioner has a family relationship with a sitting Board
member, Tim Kelley and, appropriately, Mr. Kelley recused himself and left the hearing room
during Board consideration of the Petition.
The Petition was for a Variance from By- Law §203.5 to allow for the construction of a
swimming pool on a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. If allowed, the pool would be 10’ from the
abutter’s side- line. Exhibits received were two letters both dated 2/27/2020 one from Gunner
Hagen and one from Chris Read, who supported the relief sought, a photo showing road flooding
from several decades ago and a plot plan of 23 Nightingale Street. No one spoke in support of
the Petition. Several people spoke in opposition. The opposition was mostly due to anticipated
noise and light the pool would generate and concerns over the pool causing an increase in the
already high water table or possible flooding should the pool containment fail. Emails received
both in favor and opposed to the relief were read into the record.
As pointed out by Board members, noise and light were controlled by the raising of complain t if
either condition violated Town ordinances. The Board also felt that the water table would not be
effected by the construction of the pool and there was little possibility of pool enclosure failure.
The Board expressed awareness of the neighborhood and the small lots it contains. It also noted
that a pool was an allowed use and the only reason for the needed relief is that the pool will be
only 10’ from the sideline to the northwest. The Board did feel that the fencing enclosure should
be a six foot stockade as opposed to the proposed chain link style. After much discussion, the
Board made findings that the Petitioner had met the criteria for the grant of a Variance in that, 1.
Literal enforcement of the by-laws would result in a financial and other burden to the Petitioner
as there was no other area on the lot for the proposed pool and others in the neighborhood had
been granted similar relief; 2. The long, narrow shape of the lot was the need for relief; and 3.
The relief could be granted without detriment to the public good or derogation from the purpose
and intent of the by-laws.
Accordingly, Motion was made by Mr. Igoe, seconded by Mr. Nickinello to grant the Variance
on the sole condition that the fence enclosure be a six foot stockade type. On this Motion, the
Board voted unanimously in favor.
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, a Variance shall lapse if
the rights authorized herein are not excised within 12 months. (See MGL c40A §10)
_________________________________________
Steven DeYoung, Chairman