HomeMy WebLinkAbout4937 175 Route 28 Memorandum in Support of Petition} Town of Yarmouth
} Zoning Board of Appeals
In re Evangelia K. Zambelis and Christos ) Case #
Kounadis, Trustees of Tasty Tidbits Realty Trust )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
FOR VARIANCES
Now comes the Petitioner, Evangelia K. Zambelis and Christos Kounadis, Trustee of Tasty Tidbits
Realty Trust, (hereinafter, "Petitioner") and submits this memorandum in support of its petition
for a relief pursuant to Yarmouth Zoning Bylaws.
Facts:
Petitioner is the owner of property located at 175 Route 28, West Yarmouth having purchased the
property in May of 2008. Since its construction in 1979, the existing building has been utilized as
various restaurants such as the Lobster Hut, Clancy's and now DiParma Italian Table operated by
Petitioner's related corporation Calamari, Inc. The lot is located within the B-2 zoning district and
has a total of 46,872 square feet with 42,321 square feet of upland lot area and approximately
6,637 square feet of the lot is unusable as wetlands. The existing restaurant as permitted has 177
seats and 57 parking spaces.
In an effort to create a safer and more functional parking plan, modifications were made that do
not conform to the relief previously granted the Petitioner and its predecessors. In particular,
additional separation was added between the building and parking spaces in the front buffer
creating a wider walkway from the main parking area on the westerly side of the building to the
front entrance of the restaurant. This modification resulted in a front buffer of five (5) feet from
the permitted twenty (20) feet. Petitioner attempted to mitigate the front buffer encroachment by
planting a vegetative buffer on the northerly side of the parking area to screen the cars from the
street. A number of years ago, approximately ten (10) spaces were added in the rear of the building
that do not conform to the relief previously granted. These spaces are currently used primarily by
the restaurant's staff. The pavement in the rear buffer is approved and its location has not changed.
Petitioner is seeking the hereinafter mentioned variances to alter the existing parking and to
mitigate the non -conformities. It is important to note that the old Commonwealth of Massachusetts
taking for Route 28 resulted in a loss of between ten (10) to 20 feet of frontage which was never
utilized by the state thereby providing more buffer between the existing road and the parking area.
II. Prior Relief:
a. Petition No. 2942 (October 22, 1992)
The prior owner was granted relief to construct a walking bridge in the buffer adjacent to the
Cove Resort property. The Board also granted relief to add six new parking spaces in the rear
buffer; no in -lot trees in the parking area; and retain the dumpster within the rear buffer. This
decision was reconsidered by the Board on January 14, 1993, where they also granted relief
related to the width, radius, and access of the driveway from Rt. 28 and retaining two (2)
parking spaces in the front buffer east of the entrance.
b. Petition No. 3103 (May 26, 1994)
Relief was granted allowing the construction of an open air deck and handicap access which
would have required the creation of eight (8) additional parking spaces. The Board permitted
the construction of the deck without the necessity of creating the additional parking. As a
condition, the Board required a 447 square foot green area to be planted with grass, trees, and
evergreen shrubbery in the northwest corner of the parking lot which was not completed.
c. Petition No. 3147 (October 27, 1994 and November 17, 1994)
A clarification/modification to Petition 3103 or relief to construct a wood frame over the newly
constructed deck was requested. The Board granted this relief that the Petitioner may construct
a permanent wood -framed roof with conditions that the deck is only to be used during the
fe1l101)0 NWi4r -1910a
111. Requested Relief:
The Petitioner would like to retain seven (7) parallel parking spaces in the front of the property
behind the buffer. Bylaw 301.4.4 and 301.4.9 set forth requirements for no less than 20 ft wide
buffer from a street or way and a ten (10) ft wide buffer from any other property line. The
property was previously allowed parallel parking spaces in the approximate 20 ft buffer. Over
the years to accommodate the changed behavior of patrons driving separately, the buffer was
reduced to five (5) ft to allow for more parking spaces. To mitigate the nonconformity and
accommodate the seven (7) parallel parking spaces, the Petitioner is proposing a buffer of 15.1
ft on the easterly side and ten (10) ft on the opposite corner and to remove a previously allowed
space within the buffer at the entrance. The pavement area will be removed and replaced with
attractive, well -kept trees and shrubbery. This property has the additional benefit green space
in the front of the property because of a taking from the development of Route 28. Moreover,
the petitioner proposes a five (5) ft wide pedestrian painted walkway in the front of the
building. These changes will allow for a 12 ft + five (5) foot drive aisle width causing a safer
walkway for patrons. The combination of the increased pedestrian walkway with the shrubs to
be planted and the existing green space will provide a safer experience for patrons and allow
adequate space for emergency vehicles while giving the appearance of an adequate buffer and
mitigate the buffer bylaws.
The Petitioner is seeking relief to continue the use of 17 angular parking spaces within the rear
ten (10) foot buffer of the property. Relief is needed from Bylaws 301.4.4 and 301.4.9 that
requires a ten (10) foot wide buffer along the boundary of the lot. Prior relief was granted to
allow for six (6) parallel parking spaces to exist without leaving virtually any buffer. In the
past few years, parking has become increasingly difficult as patrons are no longer carpooling
to the restaurant. Groups of three (3) will show up with three (3) different cars. This lack of
carpooling has been exacerbated by Covid-19 and the need to social distance. The occupancy
is unchanged yet there are more cars. The Petitioner is proposing to continue the use of the 17
angular spaces within the buffer. On either end of the row, trees will be planted. Prior relief
cited that 25 ft to 30 ft of the adjacent property, the Cove, is all buffer area and gives the
appearance of an adequate buffer. This would remain true with the allowance of the angular
spaces and accommodate the increase of cars in the lot.
To accommodate the 17 spaces in the rear buffer, the spaces are nine (9) feet by eighteen (18)
feet. Petitioner is requesting relief from Bylaw 301.2 that sets forth parking spots to be not less
than ten (10) by 20 feet per vehicle for an angular space. Ten (10) feet by eighteen (18) feet
angular parking spaces may be substituted in cases where at least two and one half (2.5) feet
of overhang space and wheel bumper stops or adequate curbs are provided. The reduced size
of the spaces also allows for a safer traffic flow within the parking lot and provides better
access for emergency vehicles.
The petitioner is requesting to forego the planting of trees within the parking lot at this time in
accordance with Bylaw 301.4.6. The Petitioner proposing to add vegetation in the corners of
the lot and in the front buffer; however, the addition of vegetation areas within the parking lot
would only further reduce the available space for parking.
The Petitioner is proposing to reduce the current site coverage from 83.1% (35,170 SY). to
80.1% (33,900 S.F). Bylaw 203.5(L) provides that the developed footprint of impervious
surfaces shall not exceed 70% of the total square footage of any lot. Because the topography
of the lot has caused approximately 14% of the lot to be unusable, prior relief granted to the
site allowed for 78.6% (33,296 SY) site coverage. Further relief is necessary to maintain a safe
traffic pattern for the rest of the lot due to patrons driving separately. The Petitioner proposes
to mitigate the nonconformities of the Bylaw by removing a parking space on the Northeasterly
side next to the curb cut for which prior relief had been granted. Petitioner will add vegetation
in this area. These proposed changes should mitigate the nonconformities to the Bylaw while
providing a safer traffic flow for patrons.
1V. Proposed Findings For A Variance
The Petitioner seeks a variance relief pursuant to Sections 301.4.4, 301.4.9, 301.4.6, 301.4.2 and
203.5(L). of the Bylaws which requires certain buffers for parking lots, size of parking spaces,
trees within the parking lot, and lot coverage. Section 102.2.2 grants the Yarmouth Zoning Board
the right to grant variances so long as the Board of Appeals finds all of the following:
1. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Bylaw would involve a substantial hardship,
financial or otherwise, to the petitioner or applicant;
2. The hardship is owing to circumstances related 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 which it is located; and
3. Desirable relief may be granted without either; substantial detriment to the public good; or
nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of this bylaw.
V. Argument:
Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Bylaw would involve a substantial hardship to
the Petitioner because the Petitioner is not able to fully use the property for the purposes
allowed by municipal zoning due to the topography and shape of the property. Without
relief from the Board, having the required number of parking spaces for the number of seats
would be impossible. The current occupancy of the restaurant is 177 seats with 24
additional seasonal seating on the open deck area. Bylaw 301.4.5 requires one (1) parking
space for every three (3) seats. Predecessors have been granted relief to allow for 57
parking spaces and relief from constructing an additional eight (8) parking spaces that were
required after the open-air deck was added on. If the Bylaws were to be literally enforced,
the Petitioner would need to remove a substantial portion of the parking spaces, change the
entrance of the driveway and curb cuts and further reduce the requisite number of spaces
by the planting of in- lot trees. Relief from the Board has been absolutely necessary in order
to avoid substantial hardships to the Petitioner and their predecessors.
The need for relief from the respective Bylaws is caused by the severe drop in elevation in
the Northwesterly corner of the lot to a coastal bank. This feature of the lot prevents the
Petitioner from making use of this approximately 6,637 S.F. area of the lot which represents
approximately 14% of the property. Moreover, the lot is also rounded in the front and abuts
Route 28. A portion of the front of the lot was taken by the Commonwealth during the
development of Route 28. The elevation on the Northwesterly side of the lot and the
rounded nature of the front of the lot abutting the state highway have severely limited
parking flow and the space in which a driveway can be placed in conformity to the bylaws.
The proposed changes to the parking lot are not altering or intensifying the use of this site.
The proposed changes are an attempt at combating the changed behaviors of patrons of the
restaurant. Over the past decade and even more so in the past two years, patrons are
carpooling less and less to the restaurant causing a group to take more vehicles than
previously. The number of seats in the restaurant is not being altered, therefore the use is
not being intensified. The Petitioner is working to make the parking lot safer for all patrons.
VI. Conclusion
The petitions respectfully request that the Variances be granted as relief to Sections 301.4.4,
301.4.9, 301.4.6, 301.4.2 and 203.5(L). of the Bylaws.
Respectfully submitted:
Amt'"Ilalkk
Kristen E. Walsh, Esquire
Pizzuti & Mazzeo, LLC
336 South Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
(508) 771-1911 Telephone
(508) 790-0800 facsimile
kristen(Wpizzutimazzeo.com email
DATED: December 30, 2021