Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 1115�\A TOWN OF YARfIOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: ft 1 419V Hearing Date:'3ay 2S, 1972 Petitioner: JUK 1 41972 Petition No.:1115 DAVENPORT REALTY TRUST 20 North Main Street South Yarmouth, '4assachusetts "The DECISION petitioner requested a variance and/or approval and/or special permit from the Board of Appeals to allow the construction and leasing of forty (40) apartments off .Astor Way, South Yarmouth, Massachusetts, and grant a variance for Davenport Building Co. to design said buildings and site improvements. Property is shown on the Assessors Maps at Sheet 78 as Parcel E4. Members of Board of Appeals present: HAROLD i,. HAYES, JR. MORRIS I. JOHNSON DAVID OMAN ROBERT W. SHER"TAN WILLIAM F. BUTLER ITI 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 that public notice -of such hear- ing having been given by publication in the Cape Cod Standard Times on. 5-8-72 and 5-18-72, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. Spurr, Building Inspector Air. Whalen - no objection to project, just traffic Air. John Davenport - Palmer Davenport The following appeared in opposition: By Letter: Dr. J. S. Mosch rir. and A4rs . Anton W. Reim Planning Board, Arthur S. Bent, Jr., Vice Chairman Reason for Decision: Petition No. 1115 This is a petition by Davenport Realty Trust pursuant to Section 4B of the zoning by -late to allow construction and leasing of 40 apart- ment units on a 7.51 acre parcel of land located off Astor Way in South Yarmouth. In addition, petitioner requests a variance from the provi- sions of Section 0 (6) to allow Davenport Realty Trust to design the buildings. Palmer Davenport appeared on behalf of petitioner and pre- sented the petition with the aid of site and building plans previously filed with the Board. The Board first considers the request for a variance to allow the petitioner to design the buildings. The Planning Board has filed an ob- jection to the variance on the ground that the plans submitted to the Board are not prepared by a registered architect, landscape architect, land surveyor or engineer, in violation of Section 4B (6) as amended by Article 0 of the 1972 annual town meeting warrant. Article 0, amending Section 4B (6) has not yet been approved by the Attorney General; conse- quently, the amendment contained therein is not yet effective and the Board must apply subsection 6 without consideration of the amendment. See General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 32. General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11 is inapplicable to a zoning amendment which changes the method or nature of submitting plans to the Board. The Planning Board has further referred us to General Laws Chapter 143, Section M; however, that statute is not applicable to the Board of Appeals as this Board is not charged with the enforcement of by-laws re- lating to the cons ruction, reconstruction, enlargement or alteration of buildings or structures. See Zoning By -Law, Section VIII. The jurisdic- tion of the Board in this matter is Chapter 40A, not Chapter 143; therefore, the Board does not decide the variance requests; rather, It finds that the amendment to subsection (6) is not yet effective, The Board next considers the request for a special permit to allow construction of the apartments. The town engineer has file({ a report of his investigation of the site. The Board heard no evidence that would con- tradict the Town engineer's report and, therefore, finds tha-: the peti- tioner complies with the empirical standards set forth in seiation 4B, sub- sections (1) , (2) , (3)p (4) , (5) , (7) (a) , (7) (b) , (7) (d) , and (7) (e) . The Board examined the plans filed and heard evidence =:hat the pro- ject would be designed in a Cape Cod type architectural manna:r, similar to the design of most of the existing houses in the area. Tbore was evi- dence that the residential character of the neighborhood woull be main- tained through utilization of wooded areas and paths. This p•.,oject will apparently be similar to the Lily Pond Development and which '.he Board is familiar; then®fore, the Board finds that the project would pv9serve neighborhood amenities and maintain the existing character of �­.he neigh- borhood, and meets the requirements of Section 4B (7) (f). The Board heard evidence that the petitioner owns approy.nately 115 building lots in the immediate area of the project. Primary avaess rrom Regional Avenue, a major arterial street, is by Raymond Avenue, a 4n ftet town way. Raymond Avenue is presently utilized as access to the.�e 115 lots and the Board notes that there is additional land available in the area for subdivision purposes for which Raymond Avenue would serve as access in the future. The Board heard evidence that the petitioner could build approximately 20 single family dwellings on the site in question. The complaints voiced by persons attending the hearing were directed, not 11 I diract1y to the proposed apnxtmant project, but to the Wavit2ble cuA- gestion and increase in traffic along Raymond Avenue caused by develop- ment -of this area for single family dwellings. it •is the Board's opinion that the intent of Section 4B (7) (clis to provide the Board with zuthority to deny a special permit for Kart- ments wheTe the zoard finds mat increased congestion and traffic would r from the development af such apartments. Hart, however, the Board finds that the number of poisons inhabiting the site will be approxi- nataly the same wh6ther apartments or single family homes are even2ually constructed. Moreover, the Board finds the cougestion clused by can- s1raction vehicles will be substantially less if apartments are developed, Therefore, the Board finds that the petitioner I.-oMcf)He3 -with thC QtOat Section U (7) Cc). And -the Hoazd authorizes special permit gor tho cun. t, strunion of 40 apaituants in accordance with the plans heretofore filed, mexheTs of Roard voting: FUROLD L. 11RAYESt JR. MORRIS Z JOHNSON DAVID OMAN ROBERT W. SHERMAN WILLIAM F, BUTLER !IT I voted in favor Voted in QVOT Voted in A= Voted in favor Voted in favor Thereiore, the Petition Or appToval is'GRANTEP ARd we authorize a Varlaare to allow construction of 40 apaxwen zy w&-_ Wsy j,3x South yalmouth in accordance w0b plans filed with the Board,, is pormit issled 22 days from date of filing dozislan -;10b.T-W:,: Murk. ROBERT Q SHERMAN CLERK P7O-ICE1,1P