HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe Objections to Urology Clinic in YportAttention! This email originates outside of the organization. Do not open attachments or click links unless you are sure this email is from a known sender and you know the content is
safe. Call the sender to verify if unsure. Otherwise delete this email.
________________________________
Hi Celina, I am sick at the moment and most likely cannot attend the meeting in person tomorrow. I wanted to make sure that these comments from October get reviewed at the meeting.
I am concerned about the lighting program and calvins generated all night long. With the bright white lights on the building now--they shine right into my home. The lighting that will
be left on inside and outside all night long is a no go for me.
Thank you!
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:01 PM nancy berry <berry42067@gmail.com<mailto:berry42067@gmail.com>> wrote:
1). PERSONAL BACKGROUND
* I have been an historic home and property owner in Yarmouthport Village for the past 17 years, since 2004.
* I am an abutter to said property in application.
* I have numerous friends and family who come to visit/stay at my home in Yarmouthport Village because of the quaint historical footprint..
* My professional background is providing national and regional readership as Editor and Writer for all things traditional and historic homes and buildings both in the city or country,
in the mountains or by the oceans.
2). GENERAL CONCERNS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN PREVIOUS MEETING
** Any and all materials, windows, doors, appliances, lighting fixtures must all be constructed of all-natural materials
(Previous owner, Bank of America, was required to maintain same semblance during their previous renovations).
** Any and all lighting should be: no more than 15' above ground, hard-capped (vs. open or glass), shine down, NON LED in an effort to remove collective light pollution across Yarmouthport,
Yarmouth, and Cape Cod in general.
** Installation of proposed ramp/access on west side of structure should be moved to east side of structure to coincide with previous tenant's (bank) drive-thru teller location, and
not disturb/disrupt non-existing openings/access on west side of structure. THIS WAS TO BE CHANGED PER THE HISTORIC COMMISSION'S REQUEST IT HAS NOT. LOOK BACK AT THE TAPE OF THE MEETING.
3). DEAL BREAKERS
OLD KING"S HIGHWAY DESIGNATED A NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY THIS YEAR
*** Commercial Projects of this scale (Cape Cod Urology Clinic) disrupt the traditional historical value of the neighborhood, Village, and Town.
*** This disruption is connected to the entire "Old King's Highway" corridor located along the entire northern side of Route 6.
*** This installation in question is requesting operation DIRECTLY ON THE OLD KING'S HIWAY (Route 6A).
*** I cannot comprehend why the Town of Yarmouth would ever consider allowing a Urology clinic to operate in the immediate Yarmouthport Village neighborhood
*** Too much size, too much noise, too many lights, too many cars, ambulatory operations throughout the day
*** IT DOES NOT FIT!!
4). MAJOR DISCONNECTS
All successive commentary below are reflective of Town of Yarmouth's Zoning Bylaws (copy dated 10/29/19) as it pertains to the Town of Yarmouth's Planning Board and subsequent Board
of Appeals.
Comment #1
Paragraph 100 (Page 1) states "The purpose of this bylaw is to promote the HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE INHABITANTS by dividing the town into districts and REGULATING
THE USE and construction of buildings and premises therein."
- Under no circumstances does applicant's proposed business (urology clinic operations and ambulatory services) "promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the inhabitants"...
- Equally, it is incumbent upon Town of Yarmouth as responsible party for "regulating the use" of said buildings and premises therein, and SHOULD NOT ALLOW for clinic business and associated
ambulatory services to operate in the immediate Yarmouthport Village located on Old King's Hiway.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal.
Comment #2
Paragraph 102.2.2. (Pages 1 to 2) requires Board of Appeals to find support of ALL requirements "1 and 2 and 3."
Requirement 2 states "but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located."
- Zoning district is classified as "mixed-use", which includes residential -- whereby this applicant's proposed business (urology hospital with 24/7 operations and ambulatory services)
will cause GREAT NEGATIVE AFFECT to the surrounding residences and smaller historic businesses of Yarmouthport Village.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal by default.
Requirement 3 states "Desirable relief may be granted without either: substantial detriment to the public good..."
- Approval of said urology clinic and associated ambulatory operations in the immediate Yarmouthport Village WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal by default.
Comment #3
Paragraph 103.2.2 Criteria (Page 3). Special permits shall not be granted unless the applicant 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 addition, individual sections of the Zoning Bylaw contain supplemental special permit
criteria for specific uses and types of development.
- (QUOTE) "SPECIAL PERMITS SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS THE APPLICANT 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." (UNQUOTE)
- Has this applicant demonstrated -- in any way, shape, or form -- that:
a. there will be no undue nuisance from ambulances accessing his business
b. there will be no hazard(s) from operating a hospital facility ?
c. there will be no hazard impact to surface or ground waters surrounding a hospital that disposes of medical waste and effluent
d. there will be no substantial harm to the ESTABLISHED OR FUTURE CHARACTER of the neighborhood (in this case the Yarmouthport Village) or town
Conclusion: The answers to these and other questions about impact of facility and operations is an unequivocal NO
The fact of the matter is that there is no possible way to even remotely demonstrate any such compliance
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal by major default.
Comment #4
Paragraph 103.3.1 Objectives (Pages 3 to 4). The design of projects requiring submission of a site plan, pursuant to this section, shall comply with the following:
1. Internal circulation and egress from the site are such that traffic safety is protected and access via minor streets servicing single-family homes is minimized.
- Proposed property's main direct access and parking lot plot plan shows egress/access directly border and abut entrance and egress for TWO co-joining residential streets (N. Sandyside
Ln. and Gingerbread Ln.).
- In addition, proposed property's main egress/access entryway is CO-JOINED with their abutting commercial business, Cape Cod Cooperative Bank (or CCCB), located directly to the west
of applicant's proposed business.
* It has been observed at numerous times throughout the day/week/month/years of high volume traffic for CCCB utilizing the shared parking areas of both commercial structures AND applicant's
exit/egress driveway onto Old King's Highway (Route 6A). This "wild west" traffic congestion seriously impacts safety for all those entering/accessing/exiting said properties IN ADDITION
TO ALL RESIDENTS entering/exiting the two residential roads (previously named above).
* This concern compounds even further when the Board takes into account that eastbound roadside parking for the immediate Yarmouthport Village begins JUST 5 FEET EAST of N. Sandyside
Ln. To add additional commercial traffic (including 24/7 ambulatory services) to this location is TOO MUCH TRAFFIC DENSITY AND CONGESTION, that will result in even MORE ACCIDENTS occurring
at this location than already documented (including the death of one driver who impacting directly in front of new applicant's property in 2014).
Conclusion: there will be SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT to already substantially congested traffic patterns directly impacting local resident streets that co-join and/or abut applicant's
property and proposed egress/access/exit redesign.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal.
Comment #5
Paragraph 103.3.1 Objectives (Page 4). The design of projects requiring submission of a site plan, pursuant to this section, shall comply with the following:
2. Reasonable use is made of building location, grading and vegetation to reduce visibility of parking areas from public ways.
- Proposed site-plan elevations of applicant's main structure includes the addition of massive walkway, handicapped ramp, railings, steps, automatic sliding-doors, and significant cover
structure to the west side of the main building. All of these details DO NOT PRE-EXIST, and thus will become DIRECTLY visible to multiple abutters (including the CCCB, with direct sight-line
by bank customers in close quarters), not to mention inclusion of all ambulatory and handicap foot traffic at ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT -- thus requiring even more additional lighting!?!
Conclusion: this proposed installation ADDS to the visibility of operations from public ways, versus REDUCING visibility from public ways -- and therefore disqualifies proposed design/operation.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal.
Comment #6
Paragraph 202.1 Application (Page 16). No building or structure shall be erected and no premises shall be used, except as set forth in the Use Regulations Schedule, or in other sections
of this bylaw. If a use is not specifically allowed, by right or special permit, it shall be considered to be not allowed unless an appeal is taken under section 102.2.3 and it is shown
beyond a reasonable doubt to be of similar nature and at least no more noxious nor detrimental to the welfare of the neighborhood than a specifically allowed use.
- Therefore, based on the directive outlined above in Para 202.1, the proposed "urology hospital", operating 24/7, can ONLY BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS IF IT CAN BE "SHOWN BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE OF SIMILAR NATURE AND AT LEAST NO MORE NOXIOUS NOR DETRIMENTAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN A SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED USE."
- The following are specifically allowed uses: agricultural crops and livestock, publishing, garden supplies, general merchandise, food stores, farmer's market, apparel, home furnishings,
real estate and insurance brokers, photo studio, barber shop, accounting and/or legal office, and education office.
Conclusion: it would seem to me, as a sound and reasonable person, that a massive Urology clinic with ambulances coming in and out operating in the village -- with Cape-wide ambulatory
service of sick or dying patients -- DOES NOT qualify to be of similar nature to anything on the list of allowed use, and is much more noxious and detrimental to the welfare of the
neighborhood inside the Village of Yarmouthport.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal.
Comment #7
From the Table of Dimensional Requirements (203.5) on Page 28, specifically Item "P)." on Page 29...
"...5% Maximum impervious lot surface coverage, or 2500 square feet of any lot, whichever is greater, unless artificial recharge for excess runoff is provided, as noted in 310 CMR 22.21
(2)(b)8. In no case will the maximum building coverage exceed 35% of the total lot area nor total impervious lot coverage exceed 70% of the total lot area when an approved artificial
recharge system for stormwater runoff has been provided."
- With a fairly large pre-existing building and outbuilding footprint, and the addition of almost 20 parking spaces, and the expansion of egress/exit opening along Route 6A, has there
been an accurate assessment of whether total impervious lot coverage has exceeded 70% of the total lot area? Cannot tell if plans provide for "an approved artificial recharge system
for stormwater runoff" ?? (Was unable to load Town's microfiche file of applicant's plot plan).
Conclusion: if no recharge system for stormwater runoff has been engineered, and the total impervious lot coverage (both structures footprints plus total pavement coverage) exceeds 70%,
then applicant's appeal CANNOT be approved.
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal, even if it's close.
Comment #8
Section 301.4 Design Criteria (Page 32).
- Paragraph 301.4.1 ... No parking lot shall be illuminated in such a way that it causes glare for motorists, pedestrians or neighboring premises.
Conclusion: One can only assume that with an expanded parking lot with the installation of additional 20' light poles, new access entries to rear and side, and ambulatory services accessing
the facility -- there will be MASSIVE illumination and glare for neighboring premises!?!
* Recommend to DECLINE applicant's appeal.
CONCLUSION
- It is an interesting business plan, but ill-conceived from the start for all the wrong reasons.
- Additionally, the Town of Yarmouth needs to stop allowing interested parties from buying a structure, then appealing for a special permit, and being granted a permit because they may
incur a significant financial hardship. That's putting the cart before the horse -- placing the burden on the Town and the local residents to disprove applicant's request, rather than
applicant proving validity of their application based on known/established bylaws of the zoned district. As is, the process continues to be a vicious cycle ...
- Per this specific application, it is no surprise that the Special Permit should be declined for this type of use (urology hospital) in this type of area - regardless of zoning's erroneous
"mixed-use" (passed in the early 1960s to accommodate small neighborhood boutique businesses). Maybe a flea market, or antiques center, or artists' compact would be much better suited
for the location, given the immediate location to Yarmouthport Village and surrounding residents!? Not to mention drawing year-round Cape Codders and visiting tourists to Yarmouthport
Village for the right reasons
- In conclusion, this particular special permit to this particular business in this particular location be declined.
Light pollution, traffic, noise. No thank you.
I have a few more points but am running out of time
Sincerely,
Nancy Berry